Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/23/91SPREA-23-9) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, July 23, 1991, at the hour of 7:,35 P.M. CLOSED SESSION - the closed session was held at 6: P.M. regard- ing personnel matters; employee meet and confer; and, matters of potential litigation: pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b). The closed session was recessed at 7: P.M. to the regular scheduled public meeting. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - 4-A ROLL CALL Present: Creighton, Essertier, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Midstokke Absent: None PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING 444z, PROCLAMATION - International Surf Festival Week July 28 through August 4, 1991. Mayor Midstokke announced that the Daily Breeze International Surf Festival was celebrating its 29th year as a beach community celebration, and, presented a proclamation to Mary Rooney, Direc- tor of Community Resources, proclaiming the week of July 28 through August 4, 1991, as "International Surf Festival Week". PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Members of the Public wishing to address the City Council on any items within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. (Exception: Comments on public hearing items must be heard during the public hearings.) Please limit comments to one minute. Citizens also may speak: 1) during Consent Calendar consideration or Public Hearings, 2) with the Mayor's consent, during discussion of items appearing under Municipal Matters, and 3) before the close of the meeting during "Citizen Comments". Coming forward to address the Council at this time were: City Council Minutes 07-23-91 Page 1 3, Howard Longacre - 1221 Seventh Place, Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street, ©June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue, /.72 Dave Reimer - 802 Monterey Blvd., Jerry Compton - 832 Seventh Street, 0Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Blvd., gt C) Parker Herriott - 224 'Twenty-fourth Street, y 07K Jim Lissner - 2715 El Oeste Drive, Jim Rosenberger-- 1121 Bayview Drive, Tom Morley - 516 Loma Drive, ® Richard Sullivan - 824 Third Street, 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following more routine matters will be acted upon by one vote to approve with the majority consent of the City Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless good cause is shown by a member prior to the roll call vote. * Councilmember requests to remove items from the Consent Calendar. (Items removed will be considered under Agenda Item 3.) * Public comments on the Consent Calendar. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR Action: To approve the Consent Calendar recommendations (a) through (r), with the exception of the following items which were pulled for discussion in item 3 but are listed in order for clarity: (c) Mayor Midstokke. Motion Sheldon, second Essertier. So ordered. No one came forward to address the Council on Consent Calendar items not pulled by the Council. (a) Recommendation to approve minutes of regular meeting of the City Council held on July 9, 1991. Action: To approve the minutes of July 9, 1991 as******** Motion , second . So ordered. City Council Minutes 07-23-91 Page 2 (b) Recommendation to ratify Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive, and approve cancellation of certain warrants as recommended by the City Treasurer. Action: To ratify the demands and warrants as presented. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) (e) (f) Action: To receive and file the tentative future agenda items. Recommendation to receive and file the June, 1991 finan- cial reports: 1) Revenue and expenditure report; 2) City Treasurer's report. Action: To receive and file the June, 1991, financial reports. Recommendation to ;adopt `resolution' approving Final Map #22062 for a four -unit condominium project located at 1634 Prospect Avenue. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 16, 1991. 55170 'N Action: To adopt Resolutiono. 91-54fr 4, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #22062 FOR A FOUR -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1634 PROSPECT AVENUE, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA." Recommendation to ra'dopt resolution approving Final Map #19594 for a three -unit condominium project located at 521 - 11th Street. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 15, 1991. 55/71 Action: To adopt Resolution `No.= 91-&46 _; entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP City Council Minutes 07-23-91 Page 3 (g) (h) (i) #19594 FOR A THREE -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 521 ELEVENTH STREET, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA." Recommendation to approve extension for thirty days the temporary appointment of one General Services Officer and the Deputy City Clerk. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated July 16, 1991. Action: To approve the extension for thirty days of the temporary appointment of one General Services Officer and the Deputy City Clerk. Recommendation to receive and file informational report regarding funding of the Police K-9 program. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated July 15, 1991. Action: To receive and file the informational report regarding funding of the Police K-9 program, including the report of an additional donation of $2,000 from Sandpipers to cover the expense of the narcotic dog training. Recommendation to receive and file report regarding up- grades to the fire flow system. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated July 15, 1991. Action: To receive and file the report regarding up- grades to the fire flow system, including the report on the progress of meeting the three adopted goals of: 1) every existing hydrant in the City should have four inch (4") outlets: of the 66 substandard hydrants identified; 41 have been replaced; 10 are on order and will be replaced by the end of August, 1991; and, 15 remain to be done; 2) every hydrant in the City should have a flow of 1500 gallons per minute: the Water Company has com- pleted the connecting loop projects in the northern part of the City and has installed a total of 9,652 feet of new six inch (6"), or larger, iron water mains for approximately 80% of the hydrants; and, 3) new hydrants should be installed throughout the City in order to obtain spacing of approximately three hundred feet (300') between hydrants: 26 new hydrants have been installed and the Water Company City Council Minutes 07-23-91 Page 4 • is continuing to replace a minimum of five (5) hy- drants per year and installing new hydrants as necessary when they replace water mains. (j) Recommendation to authorize Mayor to sign extension of< tleasel of the City Yard with Macpherson Oil Company. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated July 18, 1991. 6 2 07)Q� \ - - „/�- Action: To approve the staff recommendation to au- thorize the Mayor to sign the extension of the lease of the City Yard with Macpherson Oil Company to extend the drilling term for three months, to October 15, 1991. / (k) Recommendation to receive tel settlement potential randum from Public Works June 20, 1991. J Action: To receive and file the report on the potential contingency procedure of the settlement monitoring pro- gram for the proposed Strand Hotel that includes (sum- mary only) : 1) following a survey which exceeds the total or dif- ferential settlement tolerances (0.25"), the sol- dier piles and monuments in question should be resurveyed within the same week; 2) if confirmed, and excavation has not yet begun, then dewatering drawdown shall be halted but dewatering should continue at a steady state; if excavation has occurred, and the survey shows evidence of soldier piles deflecting inward, then soldier piles should be stiffened by either welding additional steel plates to the soldier pile, or providing additional rakers; if there is no evidence of shoring pile deflection, but there is evidence of soil caving or subsidence around and between soldier piles, then sheet piles shall be driven in the area to halt any additional caving; adequate materials should be stored on site to respond rapidly to these contingencies; additional rakers and steel plates (25% contingency), and welding equipment should be readily available; sheet piles or steel plates should be available to �,. a and file report on Strand Ho - contingency procedure. Memo - Director Anthony Antich dated 3) City Council Minutes 07-23-91 Page 5 I "'-tALI,;) 4t5 V`' p I (m) (n) support the whole surface of the shoring with at least 10% of these materials able to be transported to the site within four hours, and the remainder within 48 hours; and, 6) these contingencies will not be required two weeks after dewatering has achieved a steady state draw- down, and the excavation has been completed. Recommendation to `adopt resolution to amend the Cer- tified Land Use Plan and to accept officially the Coast- al Commission's modification to the City's original request. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 16, 1991. Action: To appro s41e staff recommendation to adopt Resolution No. -91S.45 , entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REGARDING THE "BILTMORE SITE" TO CONCUR WITH THE COASTAL COMMISSION MODIFICATION TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE COASTAL COMMISSION CERTIFIED LAND USE PLAN IN REGARDS TO THE USE OF THE BILTMORE SITE.", and to officially accept the Coastal Commission's modification to the City's origins request. em czp- Reco a dation o approve installation of twelve elec- tronic meters in the downtown area for a ninety day tri- al period. Memorandum from Acting General Services Di- rector Henry L. Staten dated July 15, 1991. Action: To approve staff recommendation to approve the installation of twelve (12) electronic meters in the downtown area for a ninety (90) day trial period on a no "out-of-pocket" cost to the City for use and maintenance. Recommendation to award bid to B & M Equipment for purchase of two twin post surface mounted lifts for City garage, and re -appropriate $10,207.37 from Equipment Maintenance Division, Acct. #5402, in FY 90-91 to FY 91- 92. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony An- tich dated July 16, 1991. CityCouncil Minutes 07-23-91 Page 6 0 e)f (p) Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) re -appropriate $10207.37 from Equipment Maintenance Division, account number 5402, in Fiscal Year 1990- 91 to Fiscal Year 1991-92; and, 2) award a bid to B & M Equipment for the purchase of two twin post surface mounted lifts at a cost not to exceed $10207.37. Recommendation to increase the amount of ,professional services agreement with BSI Consultants for contract administration and inspection services, project CIP 88- 406, to a not to exceed cost of $92,750. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 15, 1991. Action: approve the staff recommendation to: 1) increase the amount of the professional services agreement with BSI Consultants for contract ad- ministration and inspection services, project CIP 88-406, to a not to exceed cost of $92,750; and, 2) authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary within budget limitations. Recommendation to accept sanitary sewer easement deed at 20th Street and Power Street. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 16, 1991. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to accept the offered sewer easement; accept a certified check in the amount of $20,000 to' cover the property owner's share of the sewer main relocation costs; and direct staff to record the sanitary .sewer easement deed for property approximately at Twentieth Street and Power Street. >d2/e (q) Recommendation to award bid for 1'aridscape —maintenance contract for the period from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1994 and approve in concept use of school sites for public open space in exchange for maintenance. Memoran- dum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 18, 1991./�% ) City Council Minutes 07-23-91 Page 7 6 Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with Land- scape West, Inc. for the provision of Park land- scape maintenance for the period ending June 30, 1994, at a cost of: FY 91-92 = $92,226; FY 92-93 = $92,226; and FY '93-94 = $$98,316 for a total of $282,768; 2) authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with Cal- ifornia Landscape Maintenance for the provision of Median landscape maintenance for the period ending June 30, 1994, at a cost of: FY 91-92 = $45,600; FY 92-93 = $47,878.80; and FY 93-94 = $50,274.84 for a total of $143,753.64; 3) give conceptual approval to paying for the main- tenance of the Valley School site and that the staff be directed to return to City Council with an agreement; and, 4) authorize staff to issue a notice to proceed and issue addenda within budget limitations. V" (r) Recommendation on Park Pacific Shopping Center street improvements. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 16, 1991. W13'---2-----1 Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: / 1) establish a "KEEP CLEAR" zone for westbound traffic in the area of Aviation driveway; ,/' 2) pursue the signalization of the Pacific Coast High- way/Park Pacific driveway signal; t v✓G�� 3) the following and set the matter �� for a public hearing: a) establish separate left turn lane for eastbound Aviation at Park Pacific driveway; b) place candlestick markers on lane line separat- �e. ing number 1 and 2 lanes eastbound Aviation in 61 l- 3 a ) �' vicinity of that driveway; and, y- c) prohibit curb parking on the north side of �� 43;.----. ';' Aviation between Ocean and Aviation driveway, �- , resulting in a loss of approximately eight (8) parking spaces. 4/ cipp 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES - None City Council Minutes 07-23-91 Page 8 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. 0�;\111 �r���;�'� *iv public comments on items removed from the Consent ��4.0417,64"' Calendar. '►► �1tm R' ,`r 1'ir �, ���0 t�� 4 . WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS. .fir; (a) Letter from Richard Sullivan, 824 Third Street, dated July 11, 1991, regarding the positive police response downtown over the Fourth of July weekend. (b) )6P/ Letter from Julius R. Reviczky, Chairman of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission, dated July 13, 1991. requesting reconsideration of development of Edith Rodaway Park. Ve PUBLIC HEARINGS Z Y � 11 Y7-` 5. VEHICLE PARKING ON UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY INCLUDING THE PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS. Memorandum from Public Works Director'Anthony Antich dated July 15, 1991. Supplemen- tal letters from Chuck and Gloria Walker, 2040 Strand, dated July 14, 16, and 17, 1991; from Alfred W. Salido, 2212 Ronda Vista Drive, Los Angeles, dated July 15, 1991; from Roy M. and Lois M. Knox, 99 Hermosa Avenue, dated July 16, 1991; from Bob 0. and Gladys Blaine, 17 Fifth Street, dated July 12, 1991; from Jeanne M. En- glish, 30 Thirteenth Street #E, dated June 24, 1991; and from Donna English, 2240 Strand, dated July 15, 1991. Director Antich presented the staff report and responded9 to Council questions. The public hearing was opened at 8: - P.M. coming forward to address the Council on this item were: S f} City.,Counail Minutes 07-23-91 Page 9 ,;) 7 40- )'s. -r -3) ).5-7 ( r eyit of 9 7i7 • `27 0 6-, (i(?° ))9 c 3 The public hearing was closed at P.M. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) consider the Planning Commission's recommendations for Beach Drive of: a) allow the open space on the walk streets to be used by the Strand corner lots for private use; b) establish that a maximum distance of 30' from Beach Drive shall be allowed for parking; c) establish that 1/3 of the public right of way is to be landscaped; d) require that a permanent barrier is to be in- stalled between the landscaping and the parking; e) require that direct access shall be only from Beach Drive; f) establish that parking is for automobile use only; g) require fence height within the public right of way to be limited to 36" maximum height; h) establish that no parking is to be allowed on the east side of Beach Drive; i) establish that private use is to be accom- plished through either a vacation or a revoca- ble encroachment permit; and, 2) refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for the purpose of studying other streets and developing a consistent and uniform recommendation for all City streets. Motion , second The motion carried with dissenting. City Council Minutes 07-23-91 Page 10 6. ADOPTION' OF—RESOLUTION ADJUSTING THE PARKS AND RECRE- ATION IN -LIEU FEE TO $5,198.00. Memorandum from Build- ing and Safety Director William Grove dated July 3, 1991. Director Grove presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. The public hearing was opened at P.M. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: The public hearing was closed at P.M. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to adopt Resolution'No: :91=5473, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE AMOUNT OF THE IN -LIEU PARKS AND RECRE- ATION FEE AT $5,198 PER DWELLING PURSUANT TO SECTION 29.5-13 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE.", thereby establishing the formula of: 1) 5 acres per thousand population = 217.8 square feet per person; 2) 217.8 square feet X 1.989 persons (census figures) X $12.00 per square South School purchase) = $5,198.45 . Motion , second The motion dissenting. per dwelling foot (cost of carried with City Council Minutes 07-23-91 Page 11 • 7. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION, CONFIRMING THE FY 91-92 STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT ASSESSMENT AND LEVYING ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 1991. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 11, 1991. Director Antich presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. The public hearing was opened at P.M. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: The public hearing was closed at P.M. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) adopt'Res'olutiori No. 91-547Y, Entitled, "A RESOLU- TION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING MAP OF SAID DISTRICT, ASSESSMENTS AND LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 1991."; and 2) adopt the Fiscal Year 1991-92 estimated revenue for secured collections in th street lighting district in an amount not to exceed $180,000. Motion , second . The motion carried with dissenting. 8. 'INTRODUCTION'OF ORDINANCE CONFIRMING THE FY 91-92 CROSS- ING GUARD MAINTENANCE DISTRICT AND ORDERS CROSSING GUARD MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1991; AND ADOPT FY 91-92 ESTIMATED REVENUE FOR SECURED COLLECTIONS IN CROSSING GUARD DISTRICT NOT TO EXCEED $54,000. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 11, 1991. City Council Minutes 07-23-91 Page 12 Director Antich presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. The public hearing was opened at P.M. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: The public hearing was closed at P.M. Action: To Vintroduce 'Ordnance'No.- 91-105;► which: 1) confirms the report of the Director of Public Works dated June 24, 1991, prepared pursuant to Resolu- tion No. 91-5440 of said Council; 2) orders certain Crossing Guard Maintenance Services to be furnished and maintained for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1991; and, to adopt the Fiscal Year 991-92 estimated revenue for secured collections in the Crossing Guard District in the amount of not to exceed $54,000. Motion , second The motion carried with dissenting. Final Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 91-1054, entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATED JUNE 24, 1991, PREPARED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 91-5440 AND APPROVED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 91-5456 OF SAID COUNCIL, THE MAP AND ASSESSMENT CONTAINED IN SAID RE- PORT; ORDERING CERTAIN CROSSING GUARD MAINTENANCE SER- VICES TO BE FURNISHED AND MAINTAINED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1991." Motion , second AYES: ail NOES: 9. APPEAL OF PUBLIC WORKS ENCROACHMENT PERMIT CONDITION AT 2541 HERMOSA AVENUE. Memorandum from Public Works Di- rector Anthony Antich dated July 8, 1991. City Council Minutes 07-23-91 Page 13 • This item was continued to the meeting of August 13, 1991 at the request of the applicant. HEARINGS 10. POSSIBLE FEE AND TAX INCREASES: A. AMENDMENT TO TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY rORDINANCE; INCREASING RATE FROM 8% TO 10%. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated July 16, 1991. Director Copeland presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. )92e ))) The hearing was opened at P.M. Coming forward to address theouncil an this item were: AJI-_<-r itC-0-• .ems e" ---1-,g-,' n .-.14 6/.) A `.ems The hearing was closed at P.M. Action: To ntroduce^`Ordinancd-No. -91-1057, amending Chapter 30 "Taxation", of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to increase the transient occupancy tax from 8% to 10%. Motion second The motion carried with dissenting. Final Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 91-105 , entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 30, 'TAXATION', AR- TICLE III, SECTION 30.13. TAX IMPOSED, REGULATING TRAN- SIENT OCCUPANCY TAXATION." Motion second /4. AYES: aJ_ NOES: City Council Minutes 07-23-91 Page 14 B. AN ORDINANCE TO IMPOSE A BUSINESS LICENSE TAX FOR COMMERCIAL LANDLORDS. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated July 16, 1991. Director Grove presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. The hearing was opened at P.M. Coming forward to address the Council an this item were • _ ),---), ,,,--,,,<2_,---,-----::-{",...___, pr i," ,,L.„ ,L___, ---r ...... ..,___,--„,r , /,_..,... The hearing was closed at P.M. 6--)--eA-A---C14-41 De" -"-A- ,k,_,J,.),/.4,0,. -....... 7// Action: To introduce Or`dinanc`e No. 91-1054, imposing a business license tax for commercial landlords. Motion , second . The motion carried with dissenting. Final Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 91-105 , entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 17 (LICENSE AND PER- MITS) TO ADD 'COMMERCIAL PROPERTY RENTAL' AS IT RELATES TO BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES." Motion `E , second _ . AYES: G -r -t' (E- --) S: /91 -2 C. INCREASING THE RATE FOR ALL DAY PARKING IN CITY OWNED PARKING LOT "F", LOCATED AT CORNER OF BEACH DRIVE AND 15TH STREET, with resolution _for— adop- vtion. Memorandum from Acting Director of General Services Henry L. Staten dated July 10, 1991. Acting Director Staten presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. 4 1)�� v City Council Minutes 07-23-91 Page 15 7 • 4 The hearing was opened at •P.M. Coming forward to address the Council an this item were: The hearing was closed at P.M. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to repeal Resolution No. 83-4611 and adopt tRes`olut'ion-No: 91=5415, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING RESOLUTION NUM- BER 83-4611, AND INCREASING THE RATE FOR ALL DAY PARKING AT THE CITY OWNED PARKING LOT 'F', LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF BEACH DRIVE AND 15TH STREET." Motion , second . The motion carried with dissenting. D. RECOMMENDATION FOR SALES TAX RECOVERY FOR FIESTA DE LAS ARTES IN LIEU OF SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT. Memo- randum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated July 18, 1991. Actinelleattrn presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. The hearing was opened at • the Council an this item were: P.M. Coming forward to address The hearing was closed at P.M. City Council Minutes 07-23-91 Page 16 • Action: To approve the staff recommendation to direct staff, with assistance from the City Treasurer, to work with the Chamber of Commerce on implementation of a pro- cess which encourages point of sale tax reporting by Fiesta participants in lieu of considering a permit fee. Motion , second The motion carried with dissenting. /O'30-/n:V MUNICIPAL MATTERS 11. -> SELECTION OF HEALTH INSURANCE BROKER. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated July 16, 1991. Director Blackwood presented the staff report and sponded to Council questions. Propose Action: To ti6/9 Motion , second Proposed Action: Motion , second To o- 6, re - %`fid Action: To approve the staff recommendation to approve Maniaci Insurance Services, Inc. as the City's Broker of Record for placement of the City's various Health In- surance plans for a thee year period. Motion second The motion carried with dissenting 12. APPROVE FINAL WORDING OF FIVE BALLOT MEASURES AND REVIEW FIVE RESOLUTIONS NECESSARY FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 5, 1991. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated July 15, 1991. City Council Minutes 07-23-91 Page 17 • fi4w,,y,1,AALo- 7Y- rp'-;;›-Y14), City Clerk Doerfling presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. Action: To approve the final wording of the ballot mea- sures as follows; 1) RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELEC- TION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1991, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICES AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES AND FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS OF A PETITION INI- TIATIVE MEASURE RELATING TO OPEN SPACE ON THE BILT- MORE SITE; COUNCIL PROPOSED MEASURES RELATING TO RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL RECREATION ON THE BILT- MORE SITE AND OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION, AND RELATING TO HEIGHT LIMITS IN THE C-2 AND C-3 ZONES AND SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS NO. 7 AND NO. 8; AND ADVISORY MEASURES REGARDING HOUSING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND REGARDING RESIDENTIAL ZONING HEIGHT LIMITS. ti/7/6 ORDINANCE NO. 91- A PETITION INITIATIVE ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CREATING AND DESIG- NATING THE "BILTMORE SITE" AS OPEN SPACE O -S-2, TO ENSURE ITS PRESERVATION AND USE AS A PUBLIC PARK. ORDINANCE NO. 91 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HER- MOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN, CERTIFIED COASTAL LAND USE PLAN, AND ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT TO ALLOW 70% RESIDENTIAL AND 30% COMMERCIAL RECREATION FOR THE BILTMORE SITE, CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COASTAL COMMISSION, AND ENSURING THAT FUNDS GENERATED FROM THE SALE OF THE .82 ACRE SITE SHALL BE USED FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A MINIMUM OF FOUR ACRES OF OTHER EXISTING OPEN SPACE, PRINCIPALLY WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE. City Council Minutes 07-23-91 Page 18 • C) ORDINANCE NO. 91 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HER- MOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO LIMIT MAXIMUM HEIGHT IN THE C-2 AND C-3 ZONES AND SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS NO. 7 AND NO. 8. 2) RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO CON- SOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF SAID CITY TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1991, WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND GENERAL DISTRICT ELECTIONS TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 23302 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AND THE SUBMITTAL OF CERTAIN MEASURES TO THE ELECTORATE. 3) RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILLING WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING CITY MEASURES AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO REPARE IMPARTIAL ANALYSES. 4) RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILL- ING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURES SUBMIT- TED AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 1991. (OPTIONAL) 5 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DUCT OF A SPECIAL RUNOFF OFFICES IN THE EVENT OF A COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PROVIDING FOR THE CON - ELECTION FOR ELECTIVE TIE VOTE AT THE GENERAL City Council Minutes 07-23-91 Page 19 • MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD NOVEMBER 5, 1991. (OPTIONAL) Motion , second . So ordered. Action: To approve the placement on the ballot as: 1) REZONING THE BILTMORE SITE AS OPEN SPACE/PUBLIC PARK Shall the Petition Initiative Ordinance which designates the Biltmore Site as Open Space O -S-2 for the preservation and use as a public park be adopted? YES 2) REZONING BILTMORE SITE Shall the Ordir�nce rezon in Biltmore Site719/Zesidential, 3) 0/4 &/,y,) NO A RF.4s/is/\7'ii9 '- C -0/4/n C/ A 1- fourvacres\) NO YES the acre Commercial''"-) of open space be adopted? AMENDMENT OF ZONING ORDINANCE -PA- HEIGHT Shall the _ O,.rdi_nnce limiting maximum feet in c' -2_ z one, and 35 feet in S :-zzA.--STs,—T-a-* 8--No-8 be adopted? LIMIT MAXIMUM height to 30 C-3 zone -and YES NO 4) ADVISORY VOTE ONLY: MENT STANDARDS RESTRICTING HOUSING DEVELOP - Should the City of Hermosa Beach consider more restrictive housing development standards za ,54 "D -tom YES NO t City Council Minutes 07-23-91 • 2f/)2///d () 5) ADVISORY VOTE ONLY: LOWERING RESIDENTIAL ZONING HEIGHT LIMITS Q Should the City of Hermosa Beach review the residential zoning height limits for the purpose of /1/ lowering them? YES NO 13. Motion , second . So ordered. Action: To 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) **** Motion , second . So ordered. Action: To continue the matter to Thursday, July 25, 1991, for adoption (of above), in compliance with the State Elections Code. Motion , second So ordered. RECOMMENDATION TO SUPPORT EXPEDITING GREEN LINE SOUTH EXTENSION AND STUDYING REGIONAL SOUTH BAY BUS TRANSIT. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated June 27, 1991. (Continued from July 9, 1991 meeting.) Director Schubach presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. City Council Minutes 07-23-91 Page 21 Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) approve expansion of the Dial -A -Ride service into possibly Manhattan, El Segundo, and Lawndale as a means to reduce cost and improve service, i.e. a regional Dial -A -Ride service; and, 2) support the Green Line extension since the funds are already available and the South Bay region deserves its fair share. Motion , second . So ordered, noting the objection of 14. SOUTH SCHOOL ACQUISITION.—AGREEMENT. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated June 20, 1991. (Continued from June 25 and July 9, 1991 meetings.) City Manager Northcraft presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to approve and authorize the Mayor to sign the acquisition agree- ment for the purchase of South School from the Hermosa Beach City School District, and authorize the Mayor or City Manager to sign all documents consistent with its provisions that are necessary to finalize this purchase. Motion , second . So ordered, noting the objections of 15. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER City Manager Northcraft reported: City Council Minutes 07-23-91 Page 22 16. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) (b) Request for special meeting July 25, 1991. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft and City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated July 19, 1991. Action: To call a special meeting for 6:00 P.M., Thursday, July 25, 1991, to be held in the City Council Chambers, for the purpose of adopting resolutions neces- sary for the Novembr 5, 1991 election. Motion., second, . So ordered. Report and recommendation on City Prosecutor position. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated July 16, 1991. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) cancel the Agreement for Services with David G. Coffey; 2) appoint Janet Bogigian as the City Prosecutor ef- fective September 1, 1991; 3) approve the attached Agreement for Services; 4) authorize the Mayor to sign the Agreement (items 2, 3, and 4 contingent upon interview of Ms. Bogigian and approval by Councilmember Wiemans and/or other Councilmembers designated by the Mayor); 5) authorize staff to take necessary actions to assure that prosecutorial services are provided by a qualifird individual during the interim period; and, 6) appropriate $25,000 to the City Prosecutor budget for Fiscal Year 1991-92. Motion , second . So ordered. Action: To approve the City Manager's recommendation to approve the staff recomendations No. 1 and No. 5 only; and to table the remaining recommendations until: 1) Council designated representative Al Wiemans has interviewed applicants; 2) consideration of less expensive proposers is accom- plished; and, 3) option to reduce total hours in the retainer is City Council Minutes 07-23-91 Page 23 • explored. Motion , second Mayor Midstokke announced . So ordered. 17. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) Consideration of bike path on Hermosa Avenue, requested 7/ by Councilmember Essertier. (Continued from 7/9/91 mtg.) ( , �� Y-- — iC,a1-( ‘J4' _ _.,____ „,--(-,-... ? v- -, (b) Elimination of use of the Greenbelt for Public projects, requested by Councilmember Essertier. E 3' 7 /sly71/ dhl-4 Works Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to discuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a future agenda; or 3) resolution of matter by Coun- cil action tonight. CITIZEN COMMENTS 0 Citizens wishing to address the Council on items within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. Please limit comments to three minutes. Coming forward to address the Council at this time were: City Council Minutes 07-23-91 Page 24 • ADJOURNMENT Howard Longacre - 1221 Seventh Place, Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street, June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue, Dave Reimer - 802 Monterey Blvd., Jerry Compton - 832 Seventh Street, Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Blvd., Parker Herriott - 224 Twenty-fourth Street, Jim Lissner - 2715 El Oeste Drive, Jim Rosenberger - 1121 Bayview Drive, Tom Morley - 516 Loma Drive, Richard Sullivan - 824 Third Street, The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned on Wednesday, July 24, 1991 at the hour of 12: A.M. to a Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday, August 13, 1991, at the hour of 7:30 P.M.. -7= oP'O NOTE: THERE WILL BE A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL ON THURSDAY, JULY 25, 1991 AT Er:uO P.M. FOR FINAL ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS NECESSARY FOR NOVEMBER 5, 1991 ELECTION. Deputy City Clerk City Council Minutes 07-23-91 Page 25 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. Meetings are televised live on Multivision Cable Channel 3 and replayed the next day (Wesdnesday) at noon. Agendas for meetings are shown on Channel 3 the weekend before the meetings. Opportunities for Public Comments Citizens may provide input to their elected Councilmembers in writing or oral- ly. Letters on agenda matters should be sent or delivered to the City Clerk's or City Manager's Office. If sent one week in advance, they will be included in the Council's agenda packet with the item. If received after packet com- pilation, they will be distributed prior to the Council meeting. Oral communications with Councilmembers may be accomplished on an individual basis in person or by telephone, or at the Council meeting. Please see the notice under "Public Participation" for opportunities to speak before the Council. It is the policy of the City Council that no discussion of new items will be- gin 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: City offices are open 7 A.M. to 6 P.M., Mon. - Thurs.; Closed Fridays. There is no smoking allowed in the Council Chambers. (over) THE HERMOSA BEACH FORM OF GOVERNMENT Hermosa Beach has the Council -Manager form of government, with a City Manager appointed 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 considered 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 agendas for meetings of the Hermosa Beach City Council. Consent Items ... A compilation of all routine matters to be acted upon by one' vote; approval requires a majority affirmative vote. Any Councilmember may remove an item from this listing, thereby causing that matter to be considered under the category Consent Calendar items Removed For Separate Discussion. Public Hearings ... Public Hearings are held on certain matters as required by law or by direction of Council. The Hearings afford the public the opportuni- ty 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. 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 5 days later Council may adopt, reject or hold over the ordinance to a subsequent meeting. Most or- dinances 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 Noon the Tuesday preceding the Regular City Council meeting and request they be placed on the Council agenda. Municipal Matters ... Non-public Hearing items predicted to warrant discussion by the City Council are placed here. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Manager ... The City Manager coordi- nates departmental reports and brings items to the attention of, or for action by the City Council. Verbal reports may be given by the City Manager regarding items not on the agenda, usually having arisen since the agenda was prepared on the preceding Wednesday. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Council ... Members of the City Council may place items on the agenda for consideration by the full Council. Other Matters - City Council ... These are matters that come to the attention of a Council member after publication of the Agenda. Y/-- S Y-moL60 ',Preconceived notions are the locks on the door to wisdom." -Merry Browne AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 23, 1991 - Council Chambers, City Hall Closed Session - 6:00 p.m. Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. MAYOR Kathleen Midstokke MAYOR PRO TEM Robert Essertier COUNCILMEMBERS Roger Creighton Charles Sheldon Albert Wiemans CITY CLERK Elaine Doerfling CITY TREASURER Gary L. Brutsch CITY MANAGER Kevin B. Northcraft CITY ATTORNEY Charles S. Vose All Council meetings are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. The Council receives a packet with detailed information and recommendations on nearly every agenda item. Complete agenda packets are available for public inspection in the Police Depart- ment, Public Library, the Office of the City Clerk, and the Cham- ber of Commerce. During the meeting a packet also is available in the Council foyer. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING. PROCLAMATION: International Surfr'Festival Week July 28 through August 4, 1991. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Members of the Public wishing to address. the City_Council on any items within the Council's jurisdiction may do so -at this time. (Exception: Comments on public hearing items must be heard during the public hearings.) Please limit comments to one minute. Citizens also may speak: 1) during Consent Calendar consideration or Public Hearings, 2) with the Mayor's consent, during discussion of items appearing under Municipal Matters, and 3) before the close of the meeting during "Citizen Comments". 1 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following more routine matters will be acted upon by one vote to approve with the majority consent of the City Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless good cause is shown by a member prior to the roll call vote. * Councilmember requests to remove items from the Consent Calendar. (Items removed will be considered under Agenda Item 3.) * Public comments on the Consent Calendar. (a) Recommendation to approve minutes of regular meeting of the City Council held on July 9, 1991. (b) Recommendation to ratify Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive, and approve cancellation of certain warrants as recommended by the City Treasurer. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) Recommendation to receive and file the June, 1991 finan- cial reports: 1) Revenue and expenditure report; 2) City Treasurer's report. (e) Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #22062 for a four -unit condominium project located at 1634 Prospect Avenue. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 16, 1991. (f) Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #19594 for a three -unit condominium project located at 521 - 11th Street. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 15, 1991. (g) Recommendation to approve extension for thirty days the temporary appointment of one General Services Officer and the Deputy City Clerk. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated July 16, 1991. (h) Recommendation to receive and file informational report regarding funding of the Police K-9 program. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated July 15, 1991. (i) Recommendation to receive and file report regarding up- grades to the fire flow system. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated July 15, 1991. (j) Recommendation to authorize Mayor to sign extension of► lease of the City Yard with Macpherson Oil Company. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated July 18, 1991. (k) (1) (m) (n) (o) Recommendation to receive and file report on Strand Ho- tel settlement potential contingency procedure. Memo- randum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated June 20, 1991. Recommendation to adopt resolution to amend the Cer- tified Land Use Plan and to accept officially the Coast- al Commission's modification to the City's original request. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 16, 1991. Recommendation to approve installation of twelve elec- tronic meters in the downtown area for a ninety day tri- al period. Memorandum from Acting General Services Di- rector Henry L. Staten dated July 15, 1991. Recommendation to award bid to B & M Equipment for purchase of two twin post surface mounted lifts for City garage, and reappropriate $10,207.37 from Equipment Maintenance Division, Acct. #5402, in FY 90-91 to FY 91- 92. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony An- tich dated July 16, 1991. Recommendation to increase the amount of professional services agreement with BSI Consultants for contract administration and inspection services, project CIP 88- 406, to a not to exceed cost of $92,750. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 15, 1991. (p) Recommendation to accept sanitary sewer easement deed at 20th Street and Power Street. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 16, 1991. (q) Recommendation to award bid for landscape maintenance contract for the period from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1994 and approve in concept use of school sites for public open space in exchange for maintenance. Memoran- dum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 18, 1991. (( ) Recommendation on Park Pacific Shopping Center street improvements. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 16, 1991. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. * Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS. (a) Letter from Richard Sullivan, 824 Third Street, dated July 11, 1991, regarding the positive police response downtown over the Fourth of July weekend. (b) Letter from Julius R. Reviczky, Chairman of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission, dated July 13, 1991 requesting reconsideration of development of Edith Rodaway Park. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. 5. VEHICLE PARKING ON UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY INCLUDING THE PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 15, 1991. 6. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ADJUSTING THE PARKS AND RECRE- ATION IN -LIEU FEE TO $5,198.00. Memorandum from Build- ing and Safety Director William Grove,dated July 3, 1991. 7. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION;CONFIRMING THE FY 91-92 STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT ASSESSMENT AND LEVYING ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 1991. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 11, 1991. 8. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE CONFIRMING THE FY 91-92 CROSS- ING GUARD MAINTENANCE DISTRICT AND ORDERS CROSSING GUARD MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1991; AND ADOPT FY 91-92 ESTIMATED REVENUE FOR SECURED COLLECTIONS IN CROSSING GUARD DISTRICT NOT TO EXCEED $54,000. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 11, 1991. 9. APPEAL OF PUBLIC WORKS ENCROACHMENT PERMIT CONDITION AT 2541 HERMOSA AVENUE. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 8, 1991. (THIS ITEM IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE AUGUST 13, 1991 MEETING AT REQUEST OF APPELLANT.) HEARINGS 10. POSSIBLE FEE AND TAX INCREASES. A. AMENDMENT TO TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY ORDINANCE INCREASING RATE FROM 8% TO 10%. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated July 16, 1991. B. AN ORDINANCEtTO IMPOSE A BUSINESS LICENSE TAX FOR COMMERCIAL LANDLORDS. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dat- ed July 16, 1991. C. INCREASING THE RATE FOR ALL DAY PARKING IN CITY OWNED PARKING LOT "F", LOCATED AT CORNER OF BEACH DRIVE AND 15TH STREET, with,resolutionn for adoption. Memorandum from Acting Director of General Services Henry L. Staten dated July - 4 - 10, 1991. D. RECOMMENDATION FOR SALES TAX RECOVERY FOR FIES- TA DE LAS ARTES IN LIEU OF SPECIAL EVENT PER- MIT. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated July 18, 1991. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 11. SELECTION OF HEALTH INSURANCE BROKER. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated July 16, 1991. 12. APPROVE FINAL WORDING OF FIVE BALLOT MEASURES AND REVIEW FIVE RESOLUTIONS NECESSARY FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 5, 1991. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated July 15, 1991. 13. RECOMMENDATION TO SUPPORT EXPEDITING GREEN LINE SOUTH EXTENSION AND STUDYING REGIONAL SOUTH BAY BUS TRANSIT. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated June 27, 1991. (Continued from July 9, 1991 meeting.) 14. SOUTH SCHOOL ACQUISITION AGREEMENT. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated June 20, 1991. (Continued from June 25 and July 9, 1991 meetings.) 15. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER 16. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Request for special meeting July 25, 1991. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft and City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated July 19, 1991. (b) Report and recommendation on City Prosecutor position. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated July 16, 1991. 17. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) Consideration of bike path on Hermosa Avenue, requested by Councilmember Essertier. (Continued from 7/9/91 mtg.) (b) Elimination of use of the Greenbelt for Public Works projects, requested by Councilmember Essertier. Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to discuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a future agenda; or 3) resolution of matter by Coun- cil action tonight. 5 CITIZEN COMMENTS Citizens wishing to address the Council on items within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. Please limit comments to three minutes. ADJOURNMENT TO 6 P.M., JULY 25, 1991 FOR FINAL ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS NECESSARY FOR NOVEMBER 5, 1991 ELECTION. ACTION SHEET ACTION SHEET REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 23, 1991 - Council Chambers, City Hall Closed Session - 6:00 p.m. Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: ALL PRESENT PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING. PROCLAMATION: International Surf Festival Week July 28 through August 4, 1991. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PARKER HERRIOTT - LTR. FROM DEPT. OF BEACHES AND HARBORS RE. HAZARDS ON BEACH (???) 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: (a) Recommendation to approve minutes of regular meeting of the City Council held on July 9, 1991. Recommendation to ratify Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive, and approve cancellation of certain warrants as recommended by the City Treasurer. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future U1 y% Agenda Items. (d)Recommendation to receive and file the June, 1991 finan- �� iF-5 cial reports: 1) Revenue and expenditure report; 2) City Treasurer's report. (e) Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #22062 for a four -unit condominium project located at 1634 Prospect Avenue. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 16, 1991. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 91-5470. (f) Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map rlV #19594 for a three -unit condominium project located at 521 - llth Street. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 15, 1991. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 91-5471. (g) Recommendation to approve extension for thirty days the temporary appointment of one General Services Officer and the Deputy City Clerk. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated July 16, 1991. (h) Recommendation to receive and file informational report IJ regarding funding of the Police K-9 program. Memorandum J from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated July 15, 1991. (i) Recommendation to receive and file report regarding up - 5 grades to the fire flow system. Memorandum from Public / Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated July 15, 1991. (j) Recommendation to authorize Mayor to sign extension of CM lease of the City Yard with Macpherson Oil Company. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated July 18, 1991. PULLED BY KM - FINAL AGREEMENT SHOULD BE TO C.C. IN SEPTEMBER. MOTION RE/AW TO APPROVE EXTENSION TO LEASE. OK 4-1 (KM -NO) (k) Recommendation to receive and file report on Strand Ho - (0) tel settlement potential contingency procedure. Memo- randum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated June 20, 1991. PULLED BY AW - MOTION RC/CS TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE ftk' REPORT WITH DIRECTION TO STAFF TO REVIEW READINGS OF ELEVATIONS AND REASONS FOR VARIATIONS IN THE THREE READINGS OF THE POINTS. OK 4-1 (AW -NO) (1) Recommendation to adopt resolution to amend the Cer- PP') tified Land Use Plan and to accept officially the Coast- al Commission's modification to the City's original request. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 16, 1991. PULLED BY AW (AT REQUEST OF PARKER HERRIOT 9 -- LTR. FROM HERRIOTT DATED 7/23 DISTRIBUTED TO C.C., CA, AND CM. MOTION RE/KM TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND ADOPT RESOLUTION 91-5472. OK 4-1 (AW -NO) Recommendation to approve installation of twelve elec- tronic meters in the downtown area for a ninety day tri- al period. Memorandum from Acting General Services Di- rector Henry L. Staten dated July 15, 1991. Recommendation to award bid to B & M Equipment for purchase of two twin post surface mounted lifts for City garage, and reappropriate $10,207.37 from Equipment Maintenance Division, Acct. #5402, in FY 90-91 to FY 91- 2 (o) Pi) 92. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony An- tich dated July 16, 1991. Recommendation to increase the amount of professional services agreement with BSI Consultants for contract administration and inspection services, project CIP 88- 406, to a not to exceed cost of $92,750. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 15, 1991. PULLED BY RC - MOTION RC/CS TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. SO ORDERED. (P) Recommendation to accept sanitary sewer easement deed at 20th Street and Power Street. Memorandum from Public r Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 16, 1991. PULLED BY KM - MOTION CS/RC TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. OK 4-1 (KM -NO) (q) Recommendation to award bid for landscape maintenance contract for the period from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1994 and approve in concept use of school sites for public open space in exchange for maintenance. Memoran- dum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 18, 1991. PULLED BY RE - MOTION RE/KM TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS NO. 1, 2, & 4, BUT NOT NO. 3. SO ORDERED. MOTION CS/RC TO AGENDIZE DISCUSSION OF CITY MAINTAINING SCHOOL PROPERTY IN EXCHANGE FOR ALLOWING USE OF SCHOOL PROPERTY FOR RECREATION WHEN AVAILABLE, WITH REPORT ON DISCUSSIONS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE. OK 4-1 (RE -NO). (r) Recommendation on Park Pacific Shopping Center street improvements. Memorandum from Public Works Director r Anthony Antich dated July 16, 1991. PULLED BY AW - MOTION RC/KM TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 TO ESTABLISH KEEP CLEAR ZONE. OK 4-1 (AW -NO) MOTION CS/RE TO SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING RECOMMENDATIONS NOS. 2 AND 3, AND DELETE THE WORDS "APPROVE IN CONCEPT THE FOLLOWING" FROM NO. 3. OK 5-0. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. * Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS. 3 (a) CS/RC TO (b) z/Pl. Letter from Richard Sullivan, 824 Third Street, dated July 11, 1991, regarding the positive police response downtown over the Fourth of July weekend. RECEIVE AND FILE. SO ORDERED. Letter from Julius R. Reviczky, Chairman of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission, dated July 13, 1991 requesting reconsideration of development of Edith Rodaway Park. MOTION RE/RC TO BRING BACK AS AN AGENDA ITEM AT THE NEXT MEETING FOR RECONSIDERATION. SO ORDERED. CS REQUESTED THAT COUNCIL BE GIVEN MORE AND GREATER DETAIL WHEN ITEM COMES BACK ON HOW $50,000 WAS DERIVED. SO ORDERED. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. 5. VEHICLE PARKING ON UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY INCLUDING THE PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 15, 1991. MOTION RC/KM TO SEND BACK TO STAFF TO LOOK AT THE ISSUE OF PRIVATE PARKING ON PUBLICLY CONTROLLED PROPERTY CITY WIDE. ALSO ADDRESS WHETHER REQUIRES ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AND TAKE A MORE IN DEPTH LOOK AT HOW MANY PROPERTIES AFFECTED, HOW MANY CARS ARE USING SAID PARKING, AND ALSO THE ISSUE OF SETTING UP A CITIZENS COMMITTEE. STRAW VOTE: OK 4-1 RE. WILL BE READVERTISED. CITY ATTORNEY WILL REQUEST OPINION FROM FPPC ON THE ISSUE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; ESTIMATES WILL TAKE AT LEAST 30 DAYS FOR FPPC TO ISSUE OPINION ON CONFLICTS 4:q INTEREST.'5'1 is L1Se :p�'1/I�on-S�ie /7 a✓4y or e9S�i�"'� � o/ q//�ii;9 �� telor/)i CoinCi/ w,7/ 4,1-5141 ei''s to 4hov4/so wvetrn4 cle9%eq f, Volt/Pe 6., ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ADJUSTING THE PARKS AND RECRE- ATION IN -LIEU FEE TO $5,198.00. Memorandum from Build- ing and Safety Director William Grove dated July 3, 1991. MOTION CS/RE TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND ADOPT RESOLUTION 91-5473. SO ORDERED. 7p./ ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE FY 91-92 STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT ASSESSMENT AND LEVYING ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 1991. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 11, 1991. MOTION RE/CS TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND ADOPT RESOLUTION 91-5474. SO ORDERED. 8. PIA) INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE CONFIRMING THE FY 91-92 CROSS- ING GUARD MAINTENANCE DISTRICT AND ORDERS CROSSING GUARD MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1991; AND ADOPT FY 91-92 ESTIMATED REVENUE FOR SECURED COLLECTIONS IN CROSSING GUARD DISTRICT NOT TO EXCEED $54,000. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 11, 1991. MOTION RE/KM TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND INTRODUCE OR- DINANCE NO. 91-1056 AND ADOPT FY 91-92 ESTIMATED REVENUE FOR SECURED COLLECTIONS. SO ORDERED. 9. APPEAL OF PUBLIC WORKS ENCROACHMENT PERMIT CONDITION AT 2541 HERMOSA AVENUE. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 8, 1991. (THIS ITEM IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE AUGUST 13, 1991 MEETING AT REQUEST OF APPELLANT.) CONTINUED TO 8/13. HAS BEEN READVERTISED. HEARINGS 10. POSSIBLE FEE AND TAX INCREASES. A. AMENDMENT TO TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY ORDINANCE INCREASING RATE FROM 8% TO 10%. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated July 16, 1991. MOTION KM/RC TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND INTRODUCE OR- DINANCE NO. 91-1057. SO ORDERED. OK 5-0. tog B. AN ORDINANCE TO IMPOSE A BUSINESS LICENSE TAX FOR COMMERCIAL LANDLORDS. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dat- ed July 16, 1991. COUNCILMEMBER SHELDON LEFT THE DAIS DUE TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST AS HE IS A COMMERCIAL LANDLORD. MOTION RE/AW TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND INTRODUCE OR- DINANCE NO. 91-1058 WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: DELETE THE"1 - 5,000 SQ. FT." CATEGORY AND LOWER EACH OF THE REMAINING SQUARE FOOT CATEGORIES BY $100 PER DESIGNATION; ALSO ADD TO LINE 14 ON PAGE 1 "ANY PERSON OWNING A PROPERTY WHICH IS AVAILABLE FOR LEASE OR RENT..." OK 3-1 (RC). GS C. INCREASING THE RATE FOR ALL DAY PARKING IN CITY OWNED PARKING LOT "F", LOCATED AT CORNER OF BEACH DRIVE AND 15TH STREET, with resolution for adoption. Memorandum from Acting Director of General Services Henry L. Staten dated July 10, 1991. COUNCILMEMBER SHELDON LEFT THE DAIS DUE TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST AS HE IS WITHIN 300 FT. OF AFFECTED PROPERTY. MOTION RE/KM TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 91-5475. OK 4-0. f7AJ D. RECOMMENDATION FOR SALES TAX RECOVERY FOR FIES- TA DE LAS ARTES IN LIEU OF SPECIAL EVENT PER- MIT. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated July 18, 1991. MOTION CS/RC TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. OK 3-2 (KM/RC) MUNICIPAL MATTERS SELECTION OF HEALTH INSURANCE BROKER. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated July 16, 1991. MOTION RE/AW TO ADOPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE MANIACI INSURANCE SERVICES AS THE CITY'S BROKER OF RECORD FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD. OK 4-1 (RC) APPROVE FINAL WORDING OF FIVE BALLOT MEASURES AND REVIEW FIVE RESOLUTIONS NECESSARY FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 5, 1991. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated July 15, 1991. MOTION RE/RC TO APPROVE REWORDING OF BILTMORE SITE MEASURE TO READ: "REZONING BILTMORE SITE AS RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL. SHALL THE ORDINANCE REZONING THE .82 ACRE BILTMORE SITE 70% RESIDENTIAL AND 30% COMMERCIAL FOR THE PURCHASE AND IMPROVEMENT OF FOUR TO TEN ACRES FOR PARK PURPOSES BE ADOPTED?" OK 4-1 (AW -NO)) MOTION RE/KM TO REWORD COMMERCIAL HEIGHT MEASURE TO READ AS FOLLOWS: "AMENDMENT W ZONING ORDINANCE LOWERING COMMERCIAL HEIGHT. SHALL THE ORDINANCE LIMITING MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO 30 FEET IN C-2 ZONE, AND 35 FEET IN C-3 ZONE BE ADOPTED?" OK 4-1 (CS) MOTION AW/CS TO REWORD THE ADVISORY MEASURE: "RESTRICTING HOUSING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. SHOULD THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CONSIDER MORE RESTRICTIVE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AFFECTING BULK, SUCH AS HEIGHT, SETBACKS, OPEN SPACE, AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS?" SO ORDERED. MOTION CS/RC TO ELIMINATE THE ADVISORY VOTE ON LOWERING RESIDENTIAL HEIGHT LIMITS. SO ORDERED. ? 1/267/tee f4;-ffqii k, o,K as Ls, CONTINUE TO JULY 25 AT 7 P.M. FOR PURPOSES OF ADOPTING THE RESOLUTIONS WITHIN THE TIME FRAME OF STATE ELECTIONS CODE. RE - WILL WRITE BALLOT ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF BILTMORE SITE COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL MEASURE. CS - WILL WRITE ARGUMENT AGAINST COMMERCIAL HEIGHT LIMIT. RC - WILL WRITE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF COMMERCIAL HEIGHT LIMIT. AW - WILL WRITE ARGUMENT AGAINST RESTRICTING HOUSING STANDARDS. RE - WILL WRITE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF RESTRICTING HOUSING STANDARDS. 13. PL RECOMMENDATION TO SUPPORT EXPEDITING GREEN LINE SOUTH EXTENSION AND STUDYING REGIONAL SOUTH BAY BUS TRANSIT. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated June 27, 1991. (Continued from July 9, 1991 meeting.) - 6 - CONTINUE TO 8/13/91 MEETING. 14. SOUTH SCHOOL ACQUISITION AGREEMENT. Memorandum from f') City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated June 20, 1991. (Continued from June 25 and July 9, 1991 meetings.) CONTINUE TO 8/13/91 MEETING. 15. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER DRAFT OF SHERIFF'S STUDY HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED AS YET. WILL DIS- TRIBUTE TO COUNCIL AND EMPLOYEES AS SOON AS IT ARRIVES, THEREFORE WILL NOT REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL. SPOKE OF COURT REQUIREMENT ON SIGNS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF BICYCLE SPEEDING ON STRAND. ANNOUNCED VACATION COMMENCING FRIDAY, JULY 26. WILL RETURN AU- GUST 12. 16. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Request for special meeting July 25, 1991. Memorandum L/L from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft and City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated July 19, 1991. MAYOR ANNOUNCED COUNCIL IS ADDING TO THURSDAY'S SPECIAL MEETING A CLOSED SESSION FOR MEET AND CONFER. (b) Report and recommendation on City Prosecutor position. C5 Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated July 16, 1991. MOTION RC/CS APPROVE RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 CANCELLING AGREEMENT WITH DAVID COFFEY, AND RECOMMENDATION NO. 5 TO HAVE QUALIFIED INTERIM INDIVIDUAL; REOPEN NEGOTIATIONS FOR PERMANENT PROSECUTOR AND COME BACK AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE WITH RECOMMENDATION. SO ORDERED. 17. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) Consideration of bike path on Hermosa Avenue, requested by Councilmember Essertier. (Continued from 7/9/91 mtg.) WOULD LIKE FEASIBILITY STUDY TO REDUCE TRAFFIC TO ONE LANE EACH WAY ON HERMOSA AVENUE AND MAKING EXTRA LANE A BIKE LANE, INSTALL- ING PLANTERS, DIAGONAL PARKING. NO INTEREST ON COUNCIL. (b) Elimination of use of the Greenbelt for Public Works projects, requested by Councilmember Essertier. RE ASKED COUNCIL TO ELIMINATE USE OF GREENBELT FOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS OR ANYTHING DEGRADING GREENBELT. MOTION RE/AW TO ELIMINATE STORAGE ON GREENBELT WITH PROVISION 7 THAT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS CURRENTLY UNDERWAY AND USING THE GREENBELT MAY CONTINUE UNTIL DONE. OK 3-2 (KM/CS) Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to discuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a future agenda; or 3) resolution of matter by Coun- cil action tonight. CITIZEN COMMENTS Citizens wishing to address the Council on items within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. Please limit comments to three minutes. ADJOURNMENT TO P.M., JULY 25, 1991 FOR FINAL ADOPTION F RESOLUTIONS NECESSARY FOR NOVEMBER 5, 1991 ELECTION.���� �o�s("�'Q/ ADJOURNMENT AT 12:45 A.M. IN MEMORY OF VIOLETTE ISGREEN. 1 ci Aleeici CO/ C'/, 7- 23 -9/ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, July 09, 1991, at the hour of 7:50 P.M. CLOSED SESSION - the closed session was held at 6:36 P.M. regard- ing matters of litigation: pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) - Jurun vs. City of Hermosa Beach, request for settle- ment authority; and employee meet and confer. The closed session was recessed at 7:42 P.M. to the regular scheduled public meeting. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Ed Lee, Assistant City Attorney ROLL CALL Present: Creighton, Essertier, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Midstokke Absent: None PRESENTATION: Plaque of Appreciation to Charles Swartz for service on the Board of Appeals. Mayor Midstokke presented a plaque of appreciation, and expressed the City's gratitude for his years of volunteer service, to Charles Swartz. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Coming forward to address the Council at this time were: Tom Morley - 516 Loma Drive, concerned that the minutes did not express his statements on item 6 of the June 25, 1991, meeting; and submitted document; Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Blvd., concerned with use of Beach Drive and the Strand by the Strand Hotel during construction, questioned payments by hotel and by Loreto Plaza for use of City land; June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue, would like to address the Council on item 13(c);- Richard Sullivan - 824 Third Street, requested that the minutes show the address, including the city, for anyone speaking before the Council (Mayor Midstokke explained that could only be included if it were given by the speaker as it was not required by law); and, Brian McInerney - of Freetime Distributing, re- quested that a public hearing be scheduled on the use of four wheeled cycles on the Strand. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR Action: To approve the Consent Calendar recommendations (a) through (j), with the exception of the following item which was pulled for discussion in item 3 but is City Council Minutes 07-09-91 Page 750611 listed in order for clarity: (c) Mayor Midstokke. Motion Sheldon, second Essertier. So ordered. No one came forward to address the Council on Consent Calendar items not pulled by the Council. (a) Recommendation to approve minutes of regular meeting of the City Council held on June 25, 1991. (b) Action: To approve the minutes of June 25, 1991, as presented. Recommendation to ratify Demands and Warrants Nos. 37249 through 37312 inclusive; to note the follow- ing warrants which were voided due to a computer printer malfunction: Nos. 37314 through 37429 inclusive; to ratify demands and warrants Nos. 37430 through 37536 inclusive; and, to note voided warrants Nos. 37251, 37252, 37253, 37254, 37255, 37272, 37273, 37430, 37431, 37432, 37433, 37434, 37435, and 37436. Action: To ratify the demands and warrants as presented. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Mayor Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting, due to concerns about the delay with some items: 1) Strand Hotel settlement potential contingency procedure; and, 2) annual report on fire flow requirements. Also, requested that setting of formal policy for con- tinuances of public hearings, presently listed under unscheduled items, be set for a specific meeting as soon as possible. Councilmember Essertier requested the year be included in the dates of the items. Action: To receive and file the tentative future agenda items as presented. Motion Midstokke, second Essertier. So ordered. Recommendation to receive and file the June, 1991 in- vestment report. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated July 1, 1991. Action: To receive and file the June, 1991 investment report as presented. (e) Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #21814 for a two -unit condominium at 1512 Manhattan City Council Minutes 07-09-91 Page 7507 (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) Avenue. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated June 27, 1991. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 91-5463, entitled, ',A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #21814 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1512 MANHATTAN AVENUE, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA." Recommendation to approve contract for animal shelter services with County of Los Angeles. Memorandum from Acting General Services Director Henry L. Staten dated June 20, 1991. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) approve the contract for Animal Shelter ser- vices with the County of Los Angeles; and, 2) authorize the Mayor to sign, and the City Clerk to attest the agreement. Recommendation to adopt resolution of continuing support for commuter express program. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated June 27, 1991. Action: To approve Resolution No. 91-5464, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES COMMUTER EXPRESS PROGRAM." Recommendation to approve traffic report and revised noise study for Conditional Use Permit at 638-640 Pacific Coast Highway, South Bay Cycles. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated June 27, 1991. Action: to approve the staff recommendation to review and approve the traffic report and the revised noise study. Recommendation to adopt resolution implementing the cre- ation of a No Parking Zone on a portion of Gould Avenue east of El Oeste. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated June 12, 1991. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 91-5465, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, IMPLEMENTING THE CREATION OF A NO PARKING ZONE ON A PORTION OF GOULD AVENUE EAST OF EL OESTE . " Recommendation to adopt resolution correcting a 1979 lien release on 551 - 24th Street. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated July 3, 1991. City Council Minutes 07-09-91 Page 7508 Action: To adopt Resolution No. 91-5466, entitled, ',A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AU- THORIZING THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH TO SIGN A RELEASE OF LIEN ON REAL PROPERTY ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH." At 8:00 P.M., items 2, 3, and 4 were suspended until after the public hearings, starting with item 5, could be heard; but all items are listed in order for clarity. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES - None 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. Item (c) was discussed at this time, but is listed in order for clarity. In addition, item 1(n) from the meeting of June 11, 1991 was heard. (a) (in) Recommendation to receive and file analysis of street cleaning service level. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated May 21, 1991. (Continued from 6/11/91 and 6/25/91 meetings.) This item was removed from the Consent Calendar of the meeting of June 11, 1991, by Councilmember Sheldon, and continued from the meeting of June 25, 1991. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to receive and file the report. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. * Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar are listed under the appropriate item. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS. (a) Letter from Freetime Distributing, Inc., dated June 18, 1991, regarding 4 -wheel pedal vehicles on the Hermosa Strand. Coming forward to address the Council on this item was: Brian McInerney - of Freetime Distributing, Inc., who gave a presentation for the Council. Proposed Action: To consider the matter at a future meeting. Motion Wiemans. The motion died due to the lack of a second. Action: To have the Public Safety Director report if the "buddy bikes" had created any problems in the City. Motion Creighton. So ordered by Mayor Midstokke with the consensus of the Council. City Council Minutes 07-09-91 Page 7509 (b) Letter from June Williams dated June 27, 1991 requesting a City Attorney opinion re. who is liable for "improper expenditures". Coming forward to address the Council on this item was: June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue, spoke to clarify a portion of her letter. (c) Proposed Action: To receive and file. Motion Wiemans. The motion died due to the lack of a second. No action was taken on this item. Letter from David R. Suess dated June 26, 1991, regard- ing left hand turn arrow at Prospect Avenue and Aviation Boulevard. No action was taken on this item. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THREE -UNIT CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION AT .23 BAR- NEY COURT/18-20 MEYER COURT. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated May 6, 1991. (Continued from 5/14/91 meeting.) Supplemental letter from Jim Moss, Dennis Cleland and Steve Harris with the signa- tures of 37 residents attached, dated May 30, 1991. Supplemental letters from Margaret Rowland, 21 - 20th Street; Bonnie R. Colgan, 1921 Manhattan Avenue; and Marianne Caramanis, 1001 First Street, all dated June 1, 1991; and Susan Swanson, 1120 - First Street, dated July 1, 1991. Councilmember Creighton declared a conflict of interest due to owning property within the 300 foot radius area, and left the dais and the room. Director Schubach presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. The public hearing was opened at 8:05 P.M. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Dennis Cleland - 434 Twenty-eighth Street, appellant, spoke in favor of the conversion; Jim Moss - 472 Twenty-fifth Place, Manhattan Beach, appellant, spoke in favor of the conversion; Mike Meyers - 1104 First Street, opposed to the conversion, submitted petition in opposition; Jerry Compton - 832 Seventh Street, representing the appellants, spoke in favor of the conversion; Ruth Brand - 1231 First Street, opposed to the conversion; and, City Council Minutes 07-09-91 Page 7510 • Jerry Burdick - 1146 First Street, opposed to the conversion. The public hearing was closed at 8:29 P.M. Speaking in conclusion was: Dennis Cleland - 434 Twenty-eighth Street, appellant. Allowed to speak with Council concurrence was: Ruby Dixon - 1050 First Street, opposed to the conversion. Action: To deny the appeal, sustain the Planning Com- mission decision, and adopt Resolution No. 91-5467, en- titled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING THE PLANNING COM- MISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20822, FOR A 3 - UNIT CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION PROJECT AT 23 BARNEY COURT, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 24, TRAFTON HEIGHTS TRACT." Motion Essertier, second Wiemans. The motion carried with Sheldon dissenting. Councilmember Creighton returned to the dais. The meeting recessed at 8:45 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:00 P.M. 6. RECONSIDERATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF CON- DITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LIGHTHOUSE, 30 PIER AVENUE. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated May 21, 1991 and supplemental memorandum dated July 1, 1991. (Continued from 5/28/91 meeting.) Supplemental letters from Peter J. Myers, 1537 Espinosa Circle, Palos Verdes; Devin V. Rickey (07-01-91); Dennis Nivans, 321 Monterey Blvd. (07-03-91); Brynne E. Dippell (07-01-91); Richard and Lori Galin (06-30-91); Michael Scott McGraw, 4722 Konya Drive, Torrance (07-03-91); Wayne and Chris- tine Stroud, 2452 Hermosa Avenue (07-01-91); Mike Lyons, 816 Sixth Street (06-29-91); and from Richard Sullivan, 824 Third Street (06-30-91 and 07-02-91). Supplemental letters received on July 9, 1991 from: Michael and Sandy Leaky, 260 - 29th Street; Larry Trout, 77 - 15th Street; Michelle Broneau, Branch Manager of Bank of America for Riviera Village; Betsy and D. Douglas Laurin, 101 Mon- terey Blvd., #9; Bob Eustice, 210 Monterey Blvd., #1; Jay Barnet of the Jay Barnet Band; Pete Wyant of Pedro Blue; Lesa O'Donovan, 1827 Greenfield Avenue, #205, Los Angeles; Brynne E. Dippell; Jackie Lippert, 2519 Nelson, #D, Redondo Beach; Betty Soo and J.T. Keyser; Diane and James Weatherly, 3101 Valley Drive; David Richter, 419 No. Broadway, Redondo Beach; Gary Jong; and Robert T. Ryan. Supplemental list of names received by phone City Council Minutes 07-09-91 Page 7511 call. Supplemental comparison of live entertainment hours, prepared by the Planning Department. Director Schubach presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. The public hearing opened at 9:15 P.M. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Paul Hennessey - owner of the "Lighthouse Cafe", who spoke in favor of unrestricted hours for entertainment at "The Lighthouse"; Also speaking in favor of unrestricted hours of enter- tainment for "The Lighthouse" were: Jack Wood - 200 Pier Avenue, #38, Carol Roberts - regional manager for the "Lighthouse Cafe", presented petitions support- ing the "Lighthouse" with over 500 signatures; Diane Couker - "Lighthouse" employee; Vada Klein - 809 Pacific Coast Hwy.; Billy Manning - 841 Manhattan Avenue, "Lighthouse" employee; James Barrett - musician at the "Lighthouse; Craig Coffin - owner of property at 30 Pier Avenue; Ellwood Williams - Redondo Beach, "Lighthouse" employee; Will Buchanan - 229 Valley Drive; Ed Hart - Maxima Salon, 419; Garrison Frost - 58 Pier Avenue; Jennifer Ames - waitress at the Lighthouse; Jerry Compton - 832 Seventh Street; Xavier Flamenco - "Lighthouse" employee. Speaking in opposition to unrestricted hours of enter- tainment for "The Lighthouse" were: Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Blvd.; June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue; Richard Sullivan - 824 Third Street, presented videotape taken July 4, 1991 of the downtown area; Pete Mangorian - Eleventh Street; Howard Longacre - 1221 Seventh Place; and, Dick Herby - 24 Eleventh Street. The public hearing was closed at 10:38 P.M. Speaking in conclusion was: Paul Hennessey - owner of "the Lighthouse". Steve Wisniewski, Public Safety Director, responded to Council questions. Action: To overturn the decision of the Planning Com- mission on review, and adopt Resolution No. 91-5468, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL City Council Minutes 07-09-91 Page 7512 USE PERMIT, ON RECONSIDERATION, TO AUTHORIZE EXISTING LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AND DANCING IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING BAR AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 30 PIER AVENUE, "THE LIGHTHOUSE'', AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 7, BLOCK 12, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT.“ - Motion Wiemans, second Essertier. The motion carried with Sheldon dissenting. The meeting recessed at 11:00 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 11:13 P.M. 7. REVIEW OF DELINQUENT REFUSE CHARGES FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLACING SAID CHARGES ON THE TAX ROLLS AS A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. Memorandum from Building and Safety Direc- tor William Grove dated June 19, 1991. Director Grove presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. The public hearing was opened at 11:15 P.M. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue, gave a brief. explanation of the history relating to this item; Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Blvd., questioned if BFI should be responsible for collecting the charges; and, Wesley Bush - Chamber of Commerce, questioned if any of the delinquent charges were business accounts. The public hearing was closed at 11:24 P.M. Action: To approve the staff recommendation and adopt Resolution No. 91-5469, entitled, HA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE COUNTY ASSESSOR TO INCLUDE DELINQUENT REFUSE BILLS AS A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT TO BE COLLECTED AT THE SAME TIME AND IN THE SAME MANNER AS COUNTY TAXES." Motion Mayor Midstokke, second Wiemans. So ordered. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 8. APPROVAL OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1991-92 FROM THE GENERAL FUND FOR NON-PROFIT AGENCIES. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated July 1, 1991. Supplemental memorandum from Community Resources dated July 9, 1991. Director Rooney presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Public Safety Director Wisniewski stated that the Juvenile Diversion appropriation was in the Police budget. City Council Minutes 07-09-91 Page 7513 Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Ron Troupe - Stanford Lane, Redondo Beach, rep- resenting "1736 Crisis Center"; Wesley Bush - Chamber of Commerce, suggested that some of the non-profit agencies could raise funds by taking a booth at the "Fiesta de las Artes". Jerry Compton - 832 Seventh Street, spoke in sup- port of "1736 House". Action: To approve the staff recommendation of ap- propriations for Fiscal Year 1991-1992 from the general fund for non-profit agencies, with the following changes (noted with *): 1) South Bay Free Clinic $3,000 * 2) South Bay Juvenile Diversion - Police Budget 3) Coordinating Council $ 500 * 4) Youth Basketball $1,000 5) Youth Baseball $1,000 6) 1736 House Crisis Center $1,000 7) Community Helpline $ 500 8) Project Touch $1,000 0) Beach Cities Symphony $ 25.0 Motion Sheldon, second Essertier. So ordered;_ noting the objections of Creighton and Mayor Midstokke. 9. SELECTION OF RECORDS MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated July 1, 1991. City Clerk Doerfling requested that the item be con- tinued to the meeting of August 13, 1991. Action: To continue the item to the meeting of August 13, 1991, with the understanding that the City Clerk will: 1) work with the City Manager to develop a total plan for the project that includes an accurate assessment of the staff time required; and, 2) meet with all department heads to receive input and a management commitment. Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered. 10. SOUTH SCHOOL ACQUISITION AGREEMENT. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated June 20, 1991. (Continued from June 25, 1991 meeting.) This item was continued to the meeting of July 23, 1991, noting the objections of Creighton and Sheldon. 11. RECOMMENDATION TO SUPPORT EXPEDITING GREEN LINE SOUTH EXTENSION AND STUDYING REGIONAL SOUTH BAY BUS TRANSIT. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated June 27, 1991. City Council Minutes 07-09-91 Page 7514 This item was continued to the meeting of July 23, 1991, noting the objections of Creighton and Sheldon. 12. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER City Manager Northcraft requested a clarification of the motion on item 4(d) of the meeting of June 25, 1991. Councilmember Creighton stated that the prior direction stands: to notice all properties that could be directly affected by a potential ban of parking on parkways; and to hand deliver notices to those properties. As well as Beach Drive, properties affected on Monterey, Prospect, 5th Street, and any others, should be noticed. There was no objection from the Council. City Manager Northcraft reported: 1) the screen check copy of the Sheriff's study would be available Tuesday, July 16, 1991, for internal review in order to correct any errors; 2) any subjects the Council wished to add for dis- cussion with the Chamber of Commerce at the joint meeting, should be submitted by Thursday, July 11, 1991 in order to be included in the packets; and 3) a number of calls had been received from resi- dents regarding the new recycling charges; BFI would be asked to do a special mailing explain- ing the fee, at a minimum, for the residents who have called. 13. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Vacancies - Boards and Commissions. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated July 2, 1991. 1) Board of Parking Place Commissioners, one 3 -year term ending July 27, 1994. Action: To appoint Jack Wood to a three year term end- ing July 27, 1994. Motion Creighton, second Mayor Midstokke. So ordered, noting the objections of Essertier and Wiemans. 2) Civil Service Board, two 4 -year terms ending July 15, 1995. Action: To reappoint Ruth Brand and Barry Warner to four year terms ending July 15, 1995. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. 3) Parks, Recreation & Community Resources Advisory Commission, two 4 -year terms ending June 30, 1995. City Council Minutes 07-09-91 Page 7515 (b) Proposed Action: To reappoint Steven Crecy and to ap- point Richard McCurdy to four year terms ending June 30, 1995. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. The motion was with- drawn in order to vote on each appointment separately. Action: To reappoint Steven Crecy to a four year term ending June 30, 1995. Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered. Proposed Action: To reappoint Merle Fish to a four year term ending June 30, 1995. Motion Wiemans. The motion died due to the lack of a second. Action: To appoint Richard McCurdy to a four year term ending June 30, 1995. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. 4) Planning Commission, two 4 -year terms ending June 30, 1995. Action: To reappoint Robert Marks to a four year term. ending June 30, 1995. Motion Mayor Midstokke, second Essertier. So ordered. Proposed Action: To appoint Rod Merl to a four year term ending June 30, 1995. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. The motion failed due to the objections of Essertier, Wiemans, and Mayor Midstokke. Action: To appoint Michael Stifano to a four year term ending June 30, 1995. Motion Wiemans, second Essertier. So ordered, noting the objection of Sheldon. Planning Commissioner James Peirce's automatic vacancy on Planning Commission. Memorandum from Planning Direc- tor Michael Schubach dated July 1, 1991. Proposed Action: To waive the automatic vacancy. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. The motion failed due to the objections of Essertier, Wiemans, and Mayor Midstokke. Action: To advertise for Planning Commission applicants after the seat becomes vacant following the next Plan- ning Commission meeting of July 16, 1991. Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered. (c) Specific direction on computer study. Memorandum from Councilmember Essertier dated July 2, 1991. City Council Minutes 07-09-91 Page 7516 Coming forward to address the Council on this item was: June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue, expressed concern regarding the direction to the staff submitted by Councilmember Essertier. Action: To concur in the direction drafted and recom- mended by councilmember Essertier. Motion Mayor Midstokke, second Essertier. So ordered. 14. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) Consideration of bike path on Hermosa Avenue. (Request- ed by Councilmember Essertier.) This item was continued to the meeting of July 23, 1991. CITIZEN COMMENTS Coming forward to address the Council at this time were: Richard Sullivan - 824 Third Street, complimented the Police on downtown enforcement over the- fourth he-fourth of July weekend. June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue, expressed concern regarding the recycling bins not being covered and, due to BFI instructions not to tie newspapers, having loose papers litter the area. ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned on Wednesday, July 10, 1991 at the hour of 12:30 A.M. to a Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday, July 23, 1991, at the hour of 7:30 P.M.. NOTE: THERE WILL BE A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ON JULY 18, 1991 AT 7:30 A.M. Deputy CityClerk P Y City Council Minutes 07-09-91 Page 7517 d FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16.28:29 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/11/91 7-23-9,;4 PAGE 0001 6 DATE 07/11/91 PAY VENDOR NAME VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT INV/REF PO N CHK * DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP R A 7. E TROPHIES 02744 001-400-4201-4305 00680 $16.32 00062 37575 MISC CHG/JUNE 91 06/30/91 BUILDING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES *0.00 07/11/91 rww VENDOR TOTAL $16.32 R A--1 COAST RENTALS 00029 303-400-8615-4201 00016 $191.82 MISC CHG/JUNE 91 06/30/91 CIP 89-615 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL $191.82 00061 37576 30.00 07/11/91 R A--1 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 02180 001-400-2101-5402 00070 $1,051.81 131685-0 02422 37377 CHAIRS/DISPATCH 685-0 07/09/91 POLICE /EQUIP—MORE THAN *500 *0.00 07/11/91 i i C *** VENDOR TOTAL *1,001.81 R A.C. ELECTRIC 01034 001-210-0000-2110 04341 $1,600.00 16622 02340 37578 I 1 WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 16622 07/08/91 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 07/11/91 IC *** VENDOR TOTAL *******x*************its►******************ireritiritt►********************* R ADAMSON INDUSTRIES RISC CHG/JUNE 91 *** VENDOR TOTAL 00138 001-400-2101-4309 06/30/91 POLICE $1,600.00 00416 $124.23 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $124.23 00053 37579 $0.00 07/11/91 R ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 00933 001-400-2101-4201 00806 $1,133.20 34869 00048 37580 POLICE RADIO MAINT/JUL 34869 07/01/91 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 07/11/91 R ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 00933 001-400-2201-4201 00228 *283.30 34869 00048 37580 POLICE RADIO MAINT/JUL 34869 07/01/91 FIRE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 07/11/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL R SUZANNE*AGUINAGA $1,416.30 04109 001-300-0000-3819 00379 *123.00 TRUSTY PROGRAM REFUND 20416 06/30/91 /JAIL SERVICES *** VENDOR -TOTAL************************w**iF**************************************** $125.00 20416 02430 $0.00 37381 07/11/91 R 8AMELA*ANDERSON 04107 001-300-0000-3826 02780 $30.00 21879 02822 37582 SUMMER PROGRAM REFUND 21879 06/:30/91 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 07/11/91 1b • r. C •i FINANCE-SFA340 TIME. 16.20 ?9 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/11/91 VND N ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN N AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ N ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL wen********************************************w**********3 ********* * * * • ARATEX/RED STAR INDUSTRIAL UTILITY RAGS/JUNE 91 ARATEX/RED STAR INDUSTRIAL UTILITY RAGS/JUNE 91 ARATEX/RED STAR INDUSTRIAL UTILITY RAGS/JUNE 91 ARATEX/RED STAR INDUSTRIAL UTILITY RAGS/JUNE 91 ARATEX/RED STAR INDUSTRIAL UTILITY RAGS/JUNE 91 00152 001-400-2201-4309 01098 06/30/91 FIRE 00152 001-400-3104-4309 00696 06/30/91 TRAFFIC SAFETY 00152 001-4004204-4309 02026 06/30/91 BLDG MAINT 00152 001-400-4205-4309 00567 06/30/91 EQUIP SERVICE 00152 110-400-3302-4309 00781 06/30/91 PARKING ENF PAGE 0002 DATE 07/11/91 INV/REF PO * CHK N AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $30. 00 $58.40 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $81.30 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $287. 72 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $93.90 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $14. 59 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS VFNDf)R TOTAL******************************************************************** AVIATION LOCK & KEY MISC CHC/JUNE 91 AVIATION LOCK & KEY MISC CHO/JUNE 91 AVIATION LOCK & KEY MISC CHC/JUNE 91 AVIATION LOCK & KEY MISC CHO/JUNE 91 AVIATION LOCK & KEY MISC CHG/JUNE 91 AVIATION LOCK . KEY MISC CHC/JUNE 91 AVIATION LOCK & KEY MISC CHG/JUNE 91 AVIATION LOCK & KEY MISC CNG/JUNE 91 $535. 91 00407 001-400-2101-4201 00804 $45.00 06/30/91 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 00407 001-400-2101-4309 00415 $2.68 06/30/91 POLICE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00407 001-400-3103-4309 01188 $38.45 06/30/91 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00407 001-400-4204-4309 02029 $254.32 06/30/91 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00407 105-400-2601-4309 00717 $38.45 06/30/91 STREET LIGHTING /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00407 110-400-3302-4309 00782 $2.68 06/30/91 PARKING ENF /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00407 160-400-3102-4309 00615 $38.46 06/30/91 SEWER/ST DRAIN /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00407 305-400-8148-4309 00026 $26.75 06/30/91 CIP 89-148 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00017 $0.00 37583 07/11/91 00017 37583 $0.00 07/11/91 00017 37583 $0.00 07/11/91 00017 37583 $0.00 07/11/91 00017 37583 $0.00 07/11/91 00067 37584 $0.00 07/11/91 00067 37584 $0.00 07/11/91 00067 37584 $0.00 07/11/91 00067 37584 $0.00 07/11/91 00067 37584 $0.00 07/11/91 00067 37584 $0.00 07/11/91 00067 37584 $0.00 07/11/91 00067 37584 $0.00 07/11/91 • FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16 28 29 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION *** VENDUR TOTAL *r* R R R R CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/11/91 VND $ ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ N ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION DANC ONE LEASING CORPORATION LEASE PMT/JUNE 91 1-001 BANC ONE LEASING CORPORATION LEASE PMT/JUNE 91 1-001 VENDOR TOTAL • PAGE 0003 • DATE 07/11/91 INV/REF PO * CHK * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $446.79 03422 001-400-2101-6900 00571 $9,230.00 06/30/91 POLICE /LEASE PAYMENTS 03422 170-400-2103-6900 00007 $22,018.99 06/30/91 SPEC INVESTGTNS /LEASE PAYMENTS BEACH CITIES OFFICE SUPPLY MISC CHC/JUNE 91 BEACH CITIES OFFICE SUPPLY MISC: CHG/JUNE 91 $31,248.99 060491-001 00070 37585 $0.00 07/11/91 060491-001 00070 37585 $0.00 07/11/91 02509 001-400-4101-4305 00546 $8.56 06/30/91 PLANNING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 02509 001-400-4205-4309 00568 $25.85 06/30/91 EOUIP SERVICE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL *********aare***************r************ra*ara***ra**************** R BRAUN LINEN SERVICE PRISONER LAUNDRY/JUN 91 00163 001-400-2101-4306 06/30/91 POLICE $34.41 01004 $228.08 /PRISONER MAINTENANCE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R BROOKES ELECTRIC $228.08 00355 001-400-4204-4309 02027 $55.00 TELEPHONE RELAY REPAIR 10729 05/28/91 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** BROOKS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY POLICE BASEMENT REMODEL 3022 04047 305-400-8604-4201 00010 06/18/91 CIP 86-604 $55. 00 00068 37586 $0.00 07/11/91 • • • • 00068 37586 $0.00 07/11/91 00069 37587 $0.00 07/11/91 10729 02528 37588 $55.00 07/11/91 $4,991.00 3022 02502 37589 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *4.991.00 07/11/91 i • *** VLNUUR IU IAL******************************************************************** R DROWNING & FERRIS INDUSTRIES TRASH PICKUP/JUL 91 R BP.OWNING b. FERRIS INDUSTRIES TRASH PICKUP/JUL 91 • $4.991.00 00155 001-400-1208-4201 00776 $578.37 07/01/91 GEN APPROP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 00155 109-400-3301-4201 00052 $516.63 07/01/91 VEH PKG DIST /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT • • • �• 00005 37590 $0.00 07/11/91 • 00005 37590 !r' 50.00 07/11/91 I,,, • F I NANCE--SF AA40 TIME 16 28 29 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0004 FOR 07/11/91 DATE 07/11/91 PAY VENDOR NAME VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT INV/REF PO * CHK * DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDTIR TOTAL■***********************************************************#******* $1.095.00 AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP R BROWNING FERRIS INDUSTRIES 00158 001-400-3103-4201 00341 $2.433.69 910600-0037002 00004 37591 DAMP CHARGES/JUN 91 37002 06/30/91 ST MAINTENANCE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 07/11/91 *** VF_NDUR fOTAL******************************************************************** ** $2.433.69 R FRANCES*BRUCK 04127 001-300•-0000-3826 02777 620.00 SOMMER PROGRAM REFUND 21931 06/26/91 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $20.00 R THF -*BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS 01269 001-400-1203-4316 00203 $332.00 PUBI..ICATIONS/PERSONNEL —5203 07/01/91 PERSONNEL /TRAINING *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $332.00 21931 02812 37592 $0 00 07/11/91 863-5203 01386 37593 $0.00 07/11/91 R CENTINELA SO. BAY VISA 03353 001-400-2101-4312 01725 $144.36 02602 37594 Pf1ST EXEC SEM/WISNIEWSKI 06/27/91 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE . POST $0.00 07/11/91 *** VFNI111R 101A1..***********************************n**********n*****************nn** $144.36 R CHEROKEE CHEMICAL COMPANY 04062 305-400-8170-4309 00010 $41.62 8926 02517 37595 STENCIL--KOTE FOR STREETS 8926 06/20/91 CIF 87-170 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $41.63 07/11/91 *** VFNII(JR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $41.62 R CINTAS CORPORATION 00153 001-400-4202-4187 00175 $497.88 00002 37596 UNIFORM RENT/JUNE 91 06/30/91 PUB WKS ADMIN /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE $0.00 07/11/91 R '111165 C ORPORA f I C)N OC)153 110-400-3302-4187 00299 $42.00 00002 37596 UNIFORM RENT/JUNE 91 06/30/91 PARKING ENF /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE $0.00 07/11/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $539.88 13 COM SYSTEMS. INC 00017 001-400-1121-4304 00407 $15.89 00616 37597 LONG DIST/JUNE 91 06/30/91 CITY CLERK /TELEPHONE $0.00 07/11/91 .1% • r 41* 410 qnI I s I FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16 20:29 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R COM SYSTEMS, INC LONG DIST/JUNE 91 R COM SYSTEMS, INC LONG DIST/JUNE 91 R COM SYSTEMS, INC LONG DIST/JUNE 91 R COM SYSTEMS, INC LONG DIST/JUNE 91 R COM SYSTEMS, INC LONG DIST/JUNE 91 R COM.SYSTEMS, INC LONG DIST/JUNE 91 R COM SYSTEMS, INC LONG DIST/JUNE 91 R COM SYSTEMS, INC LONG DIST/JUNE 91 R COM SYSTEMS, INC LONG DIST/JUNE 91 R COM SYSTEMS, INC LONG DIST/JUNE 91 R COM SYSTEMS, INC LONG DIST/JUNE 91 R COM SYSTEMS, INC LONG DIST/JUNE 91 *** VENDOR TOTAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/11/91 VND M ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN $ AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00017 06/30/91 00017 06/30/91 00017 06/30/91 00017 06/30/91 00017 06/30/91 00017 06/30/91 001-400--1141-4304 00429 CITY TREASURER 001-400-1201-4304 00460 CITY MANAGER 001-400-1202-4304 00472 FINANCE ADMIN 001-400-1203-4304 00476 PERSONNEL 001-400-1206-4304 00358 DATA PROCESSING 001-400-1207-4304 00291 BUS LICENSE 00017 001-400-2101-4304 00841 06/30/91 POLICE 00017 06/30/91 00017 06/30/91 00017 06/30/91 00017 06/30/91 00017 06/30/91 001-400-4101-4304 00476 PLANNING 001-400-4202-4304 00489 PUB WKS ADMIN 001-400-4601-4304 00560 COMM RESOURCES 105-400-2601-4304 00178 STREET LIGHTING 110-400-3302-4304 00474 PARKING ENF $2.09 /TELEPHONE $0. 80 /TELEPHONE $17.99 /TELEPHONE $16.91 /TELEPHONE $34.82 /TELEPHONE $5.75 /TELEPHONE $347.98 /TELEPHONE $26.54 /TELEPHONE $59.90 /TELEPHONE $23.04 /TELEPHONE $13.22 /TELEPHONE $32.63 /TELEPHONE R SHARON*CONNELLY SUMMER PROGRAM REFUND 21950 04126 001-300-0000-3826 02776 06/26/91 PAGE 0005 • DATE 07/11/91_, INV/REF PO * CHK * , P AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $597.56 $50.00 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES *** VENDOR TOTAL************************w******************************************* R L. N. *CURTIS & SON SMOKE EJECTOR/FIRE DEPT 07280 00850 001-400-2201-5402 06/17/91 FIRE *50. 00 00042 3696. 42 /EQUIP -MORE THAN *500 00616 37597 .. $0.00 07/11/91 00616 37597 $0.00 07/11/91 00616 37597 $0.00 07/11/91 00616 37597 $0.00 07/11/91 00616 37597 $0.00 07/11/91 00616 37597 .. $0.00 07/11/91 00616 37597.... $0.00 07/11/91 00616 37597 $0.00 07/11/91 00616 37597 $0.00 07/11/91 00616 37597 $0.00 07/11/91 00616 37597 $0.00 07/11/91 00616 37397 $0.00 07/11/91 • 21950 02813 37598 40.00 07/11/91 H07280 11284 37599 $0.00 07/11/91 v • • • • • 4, 4> V 4) • r 0 O s FINANCE--SFA140 TIME 16 28 CITY OF HERMOSA' BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0006 FOR 07/11/91 DATE 07/11/91. PAY VENDOR NAME VND 0 ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT INV/REF PO $ CHK * DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ 0 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENI)t)R roTAL********************************************* *** ***************** r **r $696 42 R THE*DAILY BREEZE 00642 001-400-1203-4201 00773 0118.58 00619 37600 EMPLOY ADS/JUNE 91 06/30/91 PERSONNEL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 07/11/91 VENDOR TOTAL $118.98 R DANIEL FREEMAN MEMORIAL HOSP. 00047 001-400-1203-4320 00375 $372.00 80000162-0017 01383 37601 CITY MGR ANNUAL. PHYSICAL •-0017 05/31/91 PERSONNEL /PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXAMS $0.00 07/11/91 *rr VENDOR TOTAL ******************************wit************************************ $372.00 R DAPPER TIRE CO. 01390 110-400-3302-4311 00708 0299.10 00620 37602 MfSC CHG/JUNE 91 06/30/91 PARKING ENF /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 07/11/91 **r VENDOR TUFAL******************************************************************** $293.10 R MARIA*DIAS 04124 001-300-0000-3826 02783 $30.00 21878 02821 37603 SUMMER PROGRAM REFUND 21878 06/30/91 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 07/11/91 r** VFNIIOR IOFAL $30. 00 R DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION 00269 001-400-2101-4201 00805 0806.40 369603891 00006 37604 PD COMPUTER MAINT/JUN 91 03891 06/30/91 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 07/11/91 R DIGITAL. EQUIPMENT CORPORATION 00269 001-400-2201-4201 00227 $937.60 369603891. 00006 37604 PD COMPUTER MAINT/JUN 91 03891 06/30/91 FIRE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 07/11/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL 01,344.00 R LLAINE C *DOERFLING 02055 001-400--1121-4309 00177 $90.99 NOTARY EXPENSES/CTY CLRK 06/30/91 CITY CLERK /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES R ELAINE C.*DOERFLING 02055 001-400-1122-4305 00121 $38.40 MILEAGE/REFERENDUM 06/30/91 ELECTIONS /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 09372 37605 $0.00 07/11/91 09372 37605 $0.00 07/11/91 R ELAINE C.*DOERFLINO 020,9 001-400-1122-4316 00018 $44.60 TRAINING MILES/ELECTIONS 06/30/91 ELECTIONS /TRAINING 09372 $O..0 7/ $ 00 07/1111// 91 FINANCF-SFA34O TIME 16 28 29 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION VENDOR 1OTAL R LINDA*DREWRY SUMMER PROGRAM REFUND 21873 *** VENDOR TOTAL *** CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/11/91 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN $ AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ N ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION • PAGE 0007 • DATE 07/11/91 INV/REF PO 0 CHK M AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $173.55 02921 001-300-0000-3826 02779 $44.00 06/30/91 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES R AURORA*DUQAN SUMMER PROGRAM REFUND 18890 VENDOR TOTAL 04125 001-300-0000-3826 02784 06/30/91 $44.00 $32.00 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES R EASTMAN, INC. M1SC CHG OFF SUPP/JUNE91 R EASTMAN, INC. CHAIRMAT/PUB SFTY DIR. 13932 *** VENDOR TOTAL $32. 00 02514 001-400-1208-4303 00929 $544.05 06/30/91 GEN APPROP /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 02514 001-400-2101-4305 06/20/91 POLICE 01551 $112.77 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES R EDDINGS BROTHERS AUTO PARTS DISCOUNT OFFERED R EDDINGS BROTHERS AUTO PARTS DISCOUNT TAKEN R EDDINGS BROTHERS AUTO PARTS MISC CHG/JUNE 91 R EDDINGS BROTHERS AUTO PARTS MISC CHG/JUNE 91 R EDDINGS BROTHERS AUTO PARTS MISC CHG/JUNE 91 R EDDINGS BROTHERS AUTO PARTS MISC CHG/JUNE 91 8 EDDINGS BROTHERS AUTO PARTS RISC CHO/JUNE 91 00165 001-202-0000-2021 00041 06/30/91 $656.82 $32.33 DISCOUNTS OFFERED 00165 001-202-0000-2022 00041 $32.33CR 06/30/91 /DISCOUNTS TAKEN 00165 06/30/91 001-400-2101-4311 01184 POLICE $365.86 /AUTO MAINTENANCE 00165 001-400-3103-4311 00673 $200.58 06/30/91 ST MAINTENANCE /AUTO MAINTENANCE 00165 001-400-3104-4311 00069 $17.03 06/30/91 'TRAFFIC SAFETY /AUTO MAINTENANCE 00165 001-400-3104-4311 00070 $36.59 06/30/91 TRAFFIC SAFETY /AUTO MAINTENANCE 00165 001-400-4201-4311 00249 $52.98 06/30/91 BUILDING /AUTO MAINTENANCE 21873 02819 37606 ' *0.00 07/11/91 18890 02826 37607 $0.00 07/11/91 00625 37608 $0.00 07/11/91 7613932 02438 37608 $112.77 07/11/91 00628 37609 $0.00 07/11/91 00628 37609 'I $0.00 07/11/91 L. 00628 37609 ' $0.00 07/11/91 11 • • • • • • • 1 00628 37609 $0.00 07/11/91 00628 37609 $0.00 07/11/91 00628 37609 $0.00 07/11/91 00628 37609 $0.00 07/11/91 • d a FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16 29 29 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION P EDDINGS BROTHERS AUTO PARTS MISC CHG/JUNE 91 R EDDINGS BROTHERS AUTO PARTS MISC CHG/JUNE 91 R EDDINGS BROTHERS AUTO PARTS MISC CHO/JUNE 91 R EDDINGS BROTHERS AUTO PARTS MISC CHO/JUNE 91 R EDDINGS BROTHERS AUTO PARTS MISC CHG/JUNE 91 R .EDDINGS BROTHERS AUTO PARTS MISC CHG/JUNE 91 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/11/91 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00165 06/30/91 00165 06/30/91 00165 06/30/91 00165 06/30/91 001-400-4205-4309 00569 EQUIP SERVICE 001-400-4205-4310 00200 EQUIP SERVICE 001-400-4205-4311 00232 EQUIP SERVICE 001-400-4601-4311 00117 COMM RESOURCES 00165 001-400-6101-4311 00250 06/30/91 PARKS 00165 06/30/91 110-400-3302-4311 00709 PARKING ENF PAGE 0008 DATE 07/11/91 INV/REF PO * CHK * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 5274.73 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS S75. 38 /MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES $112.44 /AUTO MAINTENANCE $17.34 /AUTO MAINTENANCE $51. 10 /AUTO MAINTENANCE $380. 03 /AUTO MAINTENANCE *** VENT))1R TOTAL ******************************************************************** $1,584.06 R STEVE*FILLMAN SUMMER PROG INSTRUCTOR R S1EVE*FILLMAN SPRING CLASS INSTRUCTOR LL -II R STEVE*FILLMAN SPRING CLASS INSTRUCTOR LL -II 03169 06/30/91 03169 06/30/91 03169 06/30/91 001-400-4601-4201 00899 COMM RESOURCES 001-400-4601-4201 00900 COMM RESOURCES 001-400-4601-4201 00901 COMM RESOURCES *385.00 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $745.50 VOLLEYBALL -II /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $672.00 BCH-VBALL-II /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL****************************************************************n*** $1,802.50 R JEFF*FLYNN 03407 001-210-0000-2110 07/08/91 04342 $1,575.00 WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 9229 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,575.00 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE:PHONE CHG/JUNE 91 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELEPHONE CHG/JUNE 91 00015 001-400-1206-4304 00359 $50.91 06/30/91 DATA PROCESSING /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-2101-4304 06/30/91 POLICE 00842 $241. 81 /TELEPHONE 00628 37609 $0.00 07/11/91 00628 37609 50.00 07/11/91 00628 37609 $0.00 07/11/91 00628 37609 $0.00 07/11/91 00628 37609 $0.00 07/11/91 00628 37609 $0.00 07/11/91 02805 37610 $0.00 07/11/91 02803 37610 $0.00 07/11/91 02801 37610 $0.00 07/11/91 9229 02341 40.00 37611 07/11/91 00631 37612 $0.00 07/11/91 00631 37612 $0.00 07/11/91 • • • • dIP • • • • • • ... .dw«..on.,—J M ,' • 14• FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16.28.29 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0009 • FOR 07/11/91 DATE 07/11/91.__ PAY VENDOR NAME VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT INV/REF PO * DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CHK * • AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-2201-4304 00350 $199.77• TELEPHONE CHG/JUNE 91 00631.376121 ;' 06/30/91 FIRE /TELEPHONE $0.00 07/11/91 1.1 ,1 • *** VENDOR TOTAL $492.49 R GTEL 01340 305-400-8615-4304 00003 $305.67 1751449 01675 37613 COMM CTR ALARM SERV 51449 06/22/91 CIP 89-615 /TELEPHONE $0.00 07/11/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL *** $305.67 R HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO. 00731 001-400-3103-4311 00674 $311.54 STREET SWEEPER PARTS 1394 06/20/91 ST MAINTENANCE /AUTO MAINTENANCE VENDOR TOTAL $311.54 1394 02549 $316.85 37614 07/11/91 R HARBOR CITY ENTERPRISES, INC. 03571 001-400-2101-4311 01183 $217.44 MISC CHG/JUNE 91 06/30/91 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE 00676 37615 !0.00 07/11/91 , *** VENDOR TOTAL*********************************irir***** ►*************************** $217.44 R OORUTHY*HATANO REIMBURSE K-9 VET EXP. *** VENDOR TOTAL 01420 001-400-2101-4309 06/30/91 POLICE 00414 $113.82 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $113.82 HAZELRIGG RISK MGM' SERV, INC. 04108 705-400-1217-4201 00112 $7,358.71 WORK COMP ADMIN/1ST QTR 07/01/91 WORKERS COMP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL $7,358.71 • • 02452 37616 $0.00 07/11/91 • 01384 $0.00 37617 07/11/91 R HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY 00403 001-400-1206-4305 00509 $447.26 10075536 09579 37618 ABC SWITCH/CM'S OFFICE 75536 06/19/91 DATA PROCESSING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $447.26 07/11/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL $447.26 R HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS & ASSOC. 03131 001-400-1202-4201 00267 $1.027.74 SALES TAX SERV/4TH OTR91 1009 06/30/91 1009 0$0 7/ FINANCE ADMIN /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT f0.. 0 00 19 07/11/91 • • .• I tO 'I• 4, l u; FINANCE -SF -A340 TIME 16 2R 29 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/11/91 PAGE 0010 DATE 07/11/91 VND $ ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT INV/REF PO * CHK M DATE INVC PROD * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL*****************************************************a************err R INDEPENDENT CITIES RISK LIAR PREMIUM/FY 91-92 $1,027 74 01484 703-400-1209-4201 00203 $219,957.00 07/01/91 LIABILITY INS /CONTRACT SERVICE_/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** *** R INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC DISCOUNT OFFERED P INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC DISCOUNT TAKEN R INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC MISC CHG/JUNE 91 F� INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC MISC CHG/JUNE 91 R INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC MISC CHG/JUNE 91 VENDOR TOTAL 02458 001-202-0000-2021 00039 06/30/91 02458 001-202-0000-2022 00039 06/30/91 02458 001-400-4204-4309 02028 06/30/91 BLDG MAINT 02458 305-400-8606-4309 00006 06/30/91 CIP 87-606 02458 305-400-8615-4309 00022 06/30/91 CIP 89-615 $219,957.00 $0.95 DISCOUNTS OFFERED $0. 95CR /DISCOUNTS TAKEN $46.56 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $37. 45 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $75.75 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS R PATRICK*JOHNSON 04122 110-300-0000-3302 06/30/91 $159. 76 40676 $28.00 CITATION PAYMENT REFUND 74065 /COURT FINES/PARKING *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R LINDA*JUBILADO SUMMER PROGRAM REFUND 18930 *** VENDOR TOTAL 04123 001-300-0000-3826 06/30/91 *28. 00 02782 $30.00 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES R EDWARD*KAWAHARA SUMMER PROGRAM REFUND 18894 04121 001-300-0000-3826 02781 06/30/91 $30. 00 $20.00 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES *** VENDIIR TOTAL******************************************************************** R KELLY BLUE BOOK RENEW SUBSCRIPTION/LIAB 60570 $20. 00 03029 705-400-1209-4316 00036 $49.00 07/01/91 LIABILITY INS /TRAINING 01381 37620 $0.00 07/11/91 00674 37621 $0.00 07/11/91 00674 37621 $0.00 07/11/91 00674 37621 $0.00 07/11/91 00674 37621 $0.00 07/11/91 00674 37621 $0.00 07/11/91 974065 02702 37622 $0.00 07/11/91 18930 02815 37623 $0.00 07/11/91 18894 02818 37624 $0.00 07/11/91 108360570 01379 37625 $0.00 07/11/91 I I r FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16 20.29 ,I . •I PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/11/91 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN M AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ M ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION R ANNE*LATTNER SUMMER PROGRAM REFUND 21827 *0* VENDOR TOTAL 04119 001-300-0000-3826 02792 06/30/91 R LEARNED LUMBER PROSPECT BLDG REPAIR *** VENDOR TOTAL PAGE 0011 DATE 07/11/91 INV/REF PO * CHK * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *49. 00 $18.00 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES ******** *18.00 00167 305-400-8506-4309 00018 *1.984.69 06/30/91 CIP 86--506 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS R LOMITA BLUEPRINT SERVICE. INC. DISCOUNT OFFERED R LOMITA BLUEPRINT SERVICE. INC. DISCOUNT TAKEN R LOMITA BLUEPRINT SERVICE, INC. MISC CHO/JUNE 91 R LOMITA BLUEPRINT SERVICE, INC. MISC CNG/JUNE 91 R LOMITA BLUEPRINT SERVICE, INC. MISC CHG/JUNE 91 *** VENDOR TOTAL $1,984.69 00077 001-202-0000-2021 00040 *5.25 06/30/91 DISCOUNTS OFFERED 00077 001-202-0000-2022 00040 06/30/91 *5. 25CR /DISCOUNTS TAKEN 00077 001-400-4101-4303 00545 $18.92 06/30/91 PLANNING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 00077 305-400-8176-4309 00001 $97.85 06/30/91 CIP 86-176 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00077 305-400-8511-4201 00004 *140.39 06/30/91 CIP 90-511 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT R CITY OF *LOS ANGELES CTY SHARE/COMM EXP/FY 91 $257.16 04128 145-400-3408-4251 00006 $8,608.00 06/24/91 COMMUTER XPRESS /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R LOS ANGELES TIMES EMPLOY ADS/JUNE 91 R LOS ANGELES TIMES EMPLOYEE ADS/MAY 1991 09814 00213 001-400-1203-4201 00776 06/30/91 PERSONNEL $8.608.00 $507.40 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 21827 02824 37626 $0.00 07/11/91 02539 37627 $2.058.84 07/11/91 00639 37628 $0.00 07/11/91 00639 37628 $0.00 07/11/91 00639 37628 $0.00 07/11/91 • • • • • '• 00639 37628 $0.00 07/11/91 00639 37628 $0.00 07/11/91 01923 37629 $0.00 07/11/91 00640 37630 *0.00 07/11/91 00213 001-400-1203-4201 00777 $2,270.58 22-009814 00540 37630 05/31/91 PERSONNEL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 07/11/91 • • i '• • • • • 1• n 1,1 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16 2F1 29 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/11/91 VND $ ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ k ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION rw* VF.NIN)R TOTAL***********************************************w******************** R LOS CANCIONEROS MASTER CHORALE DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND 6185 *** VENDOR TOTAL 02933 001-210-0000-2110 04340 06/30/91 PAGE 0012 DATE 07/11/91 INV/REF PO k CHK N AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 32, 777 98 $417.50 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE R LOUIS THE TAILOR, INC. MISC CHG/JVNE91 R LOUIS THE TAILOR. INC. MTS(: CHG/JUNE91 *** VENDOR TOTAL $417.50 00079 001-400-2101-4187 00434 $250.00 06/30/91 POLICE /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 00079 06/30/91 110-400-3302-4187 00300 $41.20 PARKING ENF /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE R MARGUETTE LEASE SERVICES, INC. LEASE PMT/JUL 91 1-4/1 R MARQUETTE LEASE SERVICES, INC. LEASE PMT/JUL 91 721-5 IT MARQUETTE LEASE SERVICES, INC. LEASE PMT/JUL 91 1-4/1 R MARQUETTE LEASE SERVICES, INC. LEASE PMT/JUL 91 721-5 02272 001-400-2101-6900 07/01/91 POLICE 02272 001-400-2101-6900 07/01/91 POLICE 02272 001-400-2201-6900 07/01/91 FIRE 02272 001-400-2201-6900 07/01/91 FIRE $291.20 00572 $23,906.32 /LEASE PAYMENTS 00573 $13, 594. 57 /LEASE PAYMENTS 00143 415,939. 55 /LEASE PAYMENTS 00144 $9p064.05 /LEASE PAYMENTS *0* VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R MICHAELS MISC CHG/JUNE 91 03167 06/30/91 001-400-4601-4308 00545 $62,504.49 $389.70 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS *00 VFNI)OR TOTAL_****************************************************w*************** R MICRO PUBLICATION SYSTEMS MISC CHG/JUNE 91 3389.70 02457 001-400-4201-4201 00073 $266. 18 06/30/91 BUILDING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR IOTAL.******************************************************************** $266.18 R NATIONAL EMBLEM POLICE SHOULDER PATCHES 80165 01494 001-400-2101-4187 00433 06/17/91 POLICE $513. 15 /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 6185 00002 *0.00 721-4/1 721-5 721-4/1 37631 07/11/91 00641 37632 $0.00 07/11/91 00641 37632 •0.00 07/11/91 00057 37633 $0.00 07/11/91 00063 37633 $0.00 07/11/91 00057 37633 $0.00 07/11/91 721-5 00063 37633 30.00 07/11/91 00645 37634 $0.00 07/11/91 00546 37635 $0.00 07/11/91 0180165 02409 37636 3520.21 07/11/91 • • • • • • • • • • • c 114 • • 41 J J a 4 -- • • r1 J "I J r, J J " J "I • J J FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16.28 29 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL *** CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/11/91 PAGE 0013 \ DATE 07/11/91 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT INV/REF PO N CHK DATE 1NVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $513. 15 R NEW PACIFIC LUMBER CO. 00606 001-400-3103-4309 01187 $160.50 MISC CHG/JUNE 91 00649 37637 06/30/91 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 07/11/91 VENDOR TOTAL $160.50 REGIN R SUMMER PROGRAMN 04120 001-300-0000-3826 02778 $27.00 21892 02828 37638 • REFUND 21892 06/30/91 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 07/11/91 ; !!!%j *** VENDOR TOTAL $27.00 R PACTEL CELLULAR — LA 03209 , MOBILE PHONE CHGS/JUN 91 06/30/91 170-400-2103-4304 00012 $1,018.56 00650 37639 SPEC INVESTGTNS /TELEPHONE $0.00 07/11/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,018.56 R BARBARA*PIES 04111 001-300-0000-3826 02785 $49.00 SUMMER PROGRAM REFUND 23070 06/30/91 23070 02820 37640 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 07/11/91 ******************************************************** *** VENDOR TOTAL * * * *** R RON*PONCIANO SPRING CLASS INSTRUCTOR VENDOR TOTAL $49.00 02967 001-400-4601-4201 00902 $462.00 02802 37641 06/30/91 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 07/11/91 R RICE & SONS REPAIR ,JAIL CELL DOOR 01686 001-400-2101-4306 6716 06/28/91 POLICE $462.00 01002 $443.44 /PRISONER MAINTENANCE VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $443.44 6716 02406 37642 $443.44 07/11/91 .\ R MIMI*ROBIN 04112 001-300-0000-3826 02786 , SUMMER PROGRAM REFUND 21746 06/30/91 $52.00 21746 02825 37643 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 07/11/91 L.' *0* VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** ******$32.00 , R HELENE*SALM 04114 001-300-0000-3826 02788 SUMMER PROGRAM REFUND 21620 06/30/91 $35.00 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES 21620 02817 37644 $0.00 07/11/91 • s • a • • • • • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-SFA140 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0014 TIME 16.28 29 FOR 07/11/91 DATE 07/11/91 PAY VENDOR NAME VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT INV/REF PO * CHK * 411 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ N ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP ,'� i *0* VENDOR TOTAL $35.00 • i6 R JAN*SCHERB 04110 001-400-4102-4201 00312 3120.00 01926 37645 SEC SERV/5-7-91 06/30/91 PLANNING COMM /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 07/11/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL $120.00 • R MICHAEL*SCHUBACH 00536 001-400-4101-4316 00226 $14.00 01924 37646 JUNE 91 MONTHLY EXPENSE 06/30/91 PLANNING /TRAINING $0.00 07/11/91 • *0* VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $14.00 • R SEDGWICK JAMES OF CALIFORNIA 03429 705-400-1210-4201 00074 $3,668.00 213238 01380 37647 AUTO/PROP/PREMIUM/FY 92 13238 07/01/91 AUTO/PROP/BONDS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 07/11/91 • *** VENDOR TOTAL $3.668.00 • R SINCLAIR PAINT CO. 01399 001-400-4204-4309 02030 $129.49 22-009814 00659 37648 EMPLOYEE ADS/MAY 1991 09814 05/31/91 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0 00 07/11/91 • *** VENDOR IOTAL******************************************************************** $129.49 • R BOBBI*SINDELAR 04116 001-300-0000-3826 02790 $20.00 21843 02827 37649 SUMMER PROGRAM REFUND 21843 06/30/91 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 07/11/91 • *** VENDOR I0 TAI_******************************************************************** $20.00 AP R NANCY*SLANOVER 04113 001-300-0000-3826 02787 $15.00 21741 02814 37650 SUMMER PROGRAM REFUND 21741 06/30/91 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 07/11/91 • *** VI':NDUR IOTAL******************************************************************** 315 00 • U SMART ry FINAL IRIS COMPANY 00114 001-400-2101-4306 01003 $67.09 00660 37651 MISC CHG/JUNE 91 06/30/91 POLICE /PRISONER MAINTENANCE 30.00 07/11/91 • *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $67.09 • R SOUTH BAY FIRE EXTINGUISHER 00113 001-400-2101-4309 00417 $25.68 00661 37652 MISC CHG/JUNE 91 06/30/91 POLICE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 07/11/91 • mow*+* •....._ • • OP FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16 28 29 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION VENDOR TOTAL *** *** CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/11/91 VND M ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN 0 AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ M ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. ST LITE BILLS/APR—MAV 91 VENDOR TOTAL PAGE 0015 • DATE 07/11/91 INV/REF PO M CHK M AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $25.68 00442 105-400--2601-4303 00297 $27,103. 13 05/31/91 STREET LIGHTING /UTILITIES R SPARKLETTS DRINKING WATER CORP WATER COLLER RENT/JUN 91 08664 $27, 103. 13 00012 37653 $0.00 07/11/91 .• 00146 001-400-4601-4305 00964 $16.30 608864 00033 37654 'l 06/30/91 COMM RESOURCES /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 30.00 07/11/91 *r* VENDOR TOTAL******************************+************************************* R SPECIALTY MAINTENANCE CO SWEEP SERV/JUNE 91 2692 R SPECIALTY MAINTENANCE CO SWEEP SERV/JUNE 91 2692 00115 06/30/91 00115 06/30/91 001-400-3103-4201 00342 ST MAINTENANCE 109-400-3301-4201 00051 VEH PKG DIST $16.30 $3,106.00 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *3,837.00 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $6,943.00 R NANCIE*STANTON SUMMER PROGRAM REFUND 21809 *** VENDOR TOTAL 04115 001-300-0000-3826 06/30/91 02789 $85.00 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES R STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 4rH GTR SALES TAX DUE R STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 4TH GTR SALES TAX DUE R STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 4TH OTR SALES TAX DUE R STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 4TH 018 SALES TAX DUE 00707 001-400-2101-4305 01552 06/30/91 POLICE 00707 001-400-2101-4306 01001 06/30/91 POLICE 00707 001-400-2101-4309 00413 06/30/91 POLICE 00707 001-400-2101-5401 00053 06/30/91 POLICE $85.00 $25.00 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $32.00 /PRISONER MAINTENANCE $29.00 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $14.00 /EQUIP -•LESS THAN $500 *** VENDOR TOTAL************************i►**********************************+r******** R STATE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE STATE WARR LIST/AUDIT 91 11 .a:, ,,1 '7 $100.00 00345 001-400-1202-4201 00268 $70.00 07/10/91 FINANCE ADMIN /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT • 2692 00027 37655 $0.00 07/11/91 1' 2692 00027 37659 $0.00 07/11/91 21809 02823 37656 $0.00 07/11/91 02704 37657 $0.00 07/11/91 02704 37657 $0.00 07/11/91 02704 37657 $0.00 07/11/91 02704 37657 $0.00 07/11/91 02703 37658 $0.00 07/11/91 • • w 0 FINANCE-5FA340 TIME 16 2R 29 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/11/91 VND N ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN N AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ 0 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VFNI)rIR TOTAL**********************************************************n***n**..* R LIEN*TRAN SUMMER PROGRAM REFUND 21733 *** VENDOR TOTAL 04117 001-300-0000-3826 06/30/91 PAGE 0016 DATE 07/11/91 INV/REF PO * CHK * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $70.00 02791 $160.00 21733 02816 37659 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 07/11/91 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE DISCOUNT OFFERED R TRIANGLE HARDWARE DISCOUNT TAKEN R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHG/JUNE 91 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHG/JUNE 91 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHG/JUNE 91 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHG/JUNE 91 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHG/JUNE 91 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHG/JUNE 91 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC_ CHG/JUNE 91 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHG/JUNE 91 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHG/JUNE 91 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHG/JUNE 91 00123 001-202-0000-2021 00042 06/30/91 00123 06/30/91 3160. 00 $113. 17 DISCOUNTS OFFERED 001-202-0000-2022 00042 $113. 17CR /DISCOUNTS TAKEN 00123 001-400-3101-4309 00104 06/30/91 MEDIANS $28.70 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00123 001-400-3103-4309 01190 $99.05 06/30/91 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00123 06/30/91 00123 06/30/91 001-400-3104-4309 00697 TRAFFIC SAFETY 001-400-4204-4309 02031 BLDG MAINT $31. 74 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $384.72 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00123 001-400-6101-4309 01092 $51.61 06/30/91 PARKS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00123 105-400-2601-4309 00718 $105. 16 06/30/91 STREET LIGHTING /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00123 160-400-3102-4309 00616 06/:30/91 SEWER/ST DRAIN 00123 06/30/91 305-400-8506-4309 00019 CIP 86-506 00123 305-400-8508-4309 00001 06/:30/91 co, 87--50B 00123 305-400-8606-4309 00007 06/30/91 CIP 87-606 r`R► !i. .iti r',.••••:0, .... $26.88 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $25.29 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $32. 88 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 398.16 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00670 37660 $0.00 07/11/91 00670 37660 $0.00 07/11/91 00670 37660 $0.00 07/11/91 00670 37660 $0.00 07/11/91 00670 37660 $0.00 07/11/91 00670 37660 $0.00 07/11/91 00670 37660 $0.00 07/11/91 00670 37660 30.00 07/11/91 00670 37660 30.00 07/11/91 00670 37660 $0.00 07/11/91 00670 37660 $0.00 07/11/91 00670 37660 $0.00 07/11/91 a, I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH H FINANCE- SFA340 DEMAND LIST TIME 16 2F1 29 FOR 07/11/91 • PAGE 0017 • DATE 07/11/91 :I PAY VENDOR NAME VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT INV/REF PO * CHK N DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP ► ' `_ R TRIANGLE HARDWARE 00123 305-400-8615-4309 00023 $134.29 IA MISC CHG/JUNE 91 06/30/91 CIP 89-615 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 0", .__ *0• VENDOR TOTAL $1,018.48 •"I " _ R VERNON PAVING COMPANY 00019 001-400-3103-4309 01189 $178.84 00672 37661 MSC. CHARGES/JUN 91 06/30/91 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 07/11/91 00670 37660 $0.00 07/11/91 III 0 *ww VENDOR TOTAL $178.84 R VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS CHAIRMAT/WORD PROC SEC 88166 *w* VENDOR TOTAL 01396 001-400-1208-4305 00928 $61.33 06/20/91 GEN APPROP /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $61.33 R J. S.*WARD & COMPANY 02507 705-400-1209-4201 00204 44.412.50 LIABILITY ADMIN/JUL-SEP 07/01/91 LIABILITY INS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *•* VENDOR TOTAL $4.412.50 88166 08049 37662 $60.32 07/11/91 00042 I. 37663 $0.00 07/11/91 ELAINE*WEINER 03368 001-400-4601-4201 00098 $557.90 02806 37664 SPRING CLASS INSTRUCTOR 06/30/91 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 07/11/91 *0* VENDOR TOTAL $557.90 R MERRILL•WRIGHT 04118 001-400-1101-4201 00059 $1,983.00 OIL CONSULTANT/TO 6-14 06/30/91 CITY COUNCIL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT rr• VENDOR TOTAL $1,983.00 R ZUMAR INDUSTRIES 01206 305-400-8512-4201 00028 $206.90 SIGNS/BASKETBALL COURTS 6561 06/20/91 CIP 89-512 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT rwr VENDOR TOTAL •** PAY CODE TOTAL •*r TOTAL WARRANTS Plimmrrimilloomor w*w*****wwwww*w*w*ww**w**www***www*r***www**ww*w*w*w•w*w*ww*****ww $206.90 02110 37665 $0.00 07/11/91 6561 02522 37666 *203.26 07/11/91 Alb • • • I• • • $413,823.62 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE DEMANDS OR CLAIMS COVERt@F- THE WARRANTS LISTED ON PA ES / TO 12INCLUSI9E•'1 $413.823. 62 WARRANT REGISTER FOR _7//1.1/7_ ARE ACCURAi FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE FUR PAYMENT. AND ARE IN•CON!ORII.I TO I BUDGET. talo FINA ClDIRECTOR DAFF /f ' / f Ll -_ FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 13:04:28 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAYROLL/6-16 TO 6-30-91 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAYROLL/7-1 TO 7-15-91 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAYROLL/6-16 TO 6-30-91 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAYROLL/6-16 TO 6-30-91 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAYROLL/6-16 TO 6-30-91 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAYROLL/6-16 TO 6-30-91 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAYROLL/6-16 TO 6-30-91 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAYROLL/6-16 TO 6-30-91 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAYROLL/6-16 TO 6-30-91 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAYROLL/6-16 TO 6-30-91 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAYROLL/6-16 TO 6-30-91 *** VENDOR TOTAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/18/91 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00243 001-202-0000-2030 07/02/91 00243 001-202-0000-2030 07/17/91 00243 105-202-0000-2030 07/02/91 00243 109-202-0000-2030 07/02/91 00243 110-202-0000-2030 07/02/91 00243 145-202-0000-2030 07/02/91 00243 155-202-0000-2030 07/02/91 00243 160-202-0000-2030 07/02/91 00243 170-202-0000-2030 07/02/91 00243 305-202-0000-2030 07/02/91 00243 705-202-0000-2030 07/02/91 00426 $248.435.19 /ACCRUED PAYROLL 00427 $299,958.24 /ACCRUED PAYROLL 00236 $7,861.14 /ACCRUED PAYROLL 00035 $308.30 /ACCRUED PAYROLL 00239 $45,523.41 /ACCRUED PAYROLL 00232 $2,048.08 /ACCRUED PAYROLL 00233 53, 661.03 /ACCRUED PAYROLL 00231 $7.701.36 /ACCRUED PAYROLL 00087 $15,984.37 /ACCRUED PAYROLL 00002 $988.50 /ACCRUED PAYROLL 00195 $8, 110. 14 /ACCRUED PAYROLL H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. RETIREMENT ADVANCE/JUN91 *** VENDOR TOTAL 00026 001-202-0000-2020 07/09/91 PAGE 0001 DATE 07/18/91 INV/REF PO * CHK * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $640,579.76 01137 $72,386.06 /ACCOUNTS PAYABLE *** PAY CODE TOTAL R A & E TROPHIES MISC. CHARGES/JULY 91 10094 $72.386.06 $712.965.82 02744 001-400-4601-4308 00548 $83.46 07/05/91 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS $0. 00 $0. 00 $0. 00 $0. 00 *0. 00 $0. 00 $0. 00 $0. 00 $0. 00 $0. 00 $0. 00 $0. 00 37313 07/18/91 37667 07/18/91 37313 07/18/91 37313 07/18/91 37313 07/18/91 37313 07/18/91 37313 07/18/91 37313 07/18/91 37313 07/18/91 37313 07/18/91 37313 07/18/91 37537 07/18/91 10094 00072 37673 $0.00 07/18/91 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 13:04:28 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL R SUE*BEACHAM SUMMER PROGRAM REFUND 23055 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/18/91 VND K ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROD N ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION PAGE 0002 DATE 07/18/91 INV/REF PO 8 CHK * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $83.46 04134 001-300-0000-3826 02845 490.00 06/30/91 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R BERIAN PRINTING SERVICE, INC. BUSINESS CARDS/SIMPSON 2373 $90.00 02664 001-400-4202-4305 00604 442.80 06/27/91 PUB WKS ADMIN /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R ANITA*BOONE SUMMER PROGRAM REFUND 21907 *42.80 04133 001-300-0000-3826 02846 *25.00 06/30/91 /REC PROCRAM8/CLASSES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMB PETTY CASH/TO 7-15 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMB PETTY CASH/TO 7-15 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMS PETTY CASH/TO 7-15 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMB PETTY CASH/TO 7-15 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMB PETTY CASH/TO 7-15 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMB PETTY CASH/TO 7-15 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMB PETTY CASH/TO 7-15 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMS PETTY CASH/TO 7-15 02016 001-400-2101-4305 07/15/91 POLICE *25.00 01556 $44.64 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 02016 001-400-2101-4309 00423 $25.80 07/15/91 POLICE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 02016 001-400-2101-4310 00321 $13.28 07/15/91 POLICE /MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 02016 001-400-2101-4316 00763 $10.00 07/15/91 POLICE /TRAINING 02016 001-400-4201-4305 00684 410.70 07/15/91 BUILDING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 02016 001-400-4601-4308 00547 $52.54 07/15/91 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS 02016 07/15/91 110-400-3302-4187 00303 $8.99 PARKING ENF /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 02016 110-400-3302-4305 00807 *7.45 07/15/91 PARKINO ENF /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 23055 02830 37674 *0.00 07/18/91 2373 02552 37675 *0.00 07/18/91 21907 02829 37676 $0.00 07/18/91 02346 37677 $0.00 07/18/91 02346 37677 40.00 07/18/91 02346 37677 $0.00 07/18/91 02346 37677 $0.00 07/18/91 02346 37677 $0.00 07/18/91 02346 37677 $0.00 07/18/91 02346 37677 *0.00 07/18/91 02346 37677 *0.00 07/18/91 • W IVO • • • • • • • • • • • • v 4 • • w • FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 13:04:28 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0003 FOR 07/18/91 DATE 07/18/91 PAY VENDOR NAME VND It ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN • AMOUNT INV/REF PO N CHK N DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ 11 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL*******************a**********************.************************** $173.40 R CLEARS SOUTHERN CHAPTER 00456 001-400-2101-4315 00193 $25.00 02458 37678 DUES/V. ELLEDGE 07/12/91 POLICE /MEMBERSHIP $0.00 07/18/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $25. 00 R DANIEL FREEMAN LAX MED. CLINIC 02390 001-400-1203-4320 00377 $645.00 001291-00 01387 37679 EMPLOYMENT EXAMS/JUN 91 91-00 06/30/91 PERSONNEL /PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXAMS $0.00 07/18/91 • *** VENDOR TOTAL J r • N • p • • p $645.00 R DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL CARE & 00154 001-400-2401-4251 00161 $514.45 00014 37680 SHELTER COST/JUNE 91 06/30/91 ANIMAL CONTROL /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT $0.00 07/18/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL $514. 45 R DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION 00049 001-300-0000-3204 02310 $195.30 02223 37681 SEISMIC FEE/APR-JUN 91 06/30/91 /BUILDING PERMITS $0.00 07/18/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL***********************************************************it******** $195.30 R EASTMAN, INC. 02514 001-400-1208-4305 00934 $319.64 00625 • 37682 MISC. CHARGES/JUNE 91 06/30/91 GEN APPROP /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 07/18/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $319.64 R VIRGINIA*FELIX 04136 001-300-0000-3826 02844 $35.00 21691 02832 37683 SUMMER PROGRAM REFUND 21691 06/30/91 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 07/18/91 a** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $35. 00 R GATES MC DONALD 02596 705-400-1217-4182 00184 $4,826.77 01389 37684 REIMB WORK COMP/JUN 91 06/30/91 WORKERS COMP /WORKERS COMP CURRENT YR $0.00 07/18/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $4,826.77 MELVYN*GREEN AND ASSOC., INC. 03112 001-400-4201-4201 00573 $2,090.00 89205-1298-6 02224 37685 SEISMIC PROG SERV/TO MAY 298-6 05/30/91 BUILDING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 07/18/91 • • FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 13:04:28 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO ELGIN SWEEPER PARTS CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/18/91 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00731 001-400-3103-4311 00678 1417 06/25/91 ST MAINTENANCE V PAGE 0004 „r DATE 07/18/91 INV/REF PO * CHK * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *2, 090. 00 $52.84 /AUTO MAINTENANCE *** VENDOR TOTAL ********************►*******************************a►*it*********+r*** R HERMOSA CAR WASH MISC. CHARGES/JUNE 91 R HERMOSA CAR WASH MISC. CHARGES/JUNE 91 R HERMOSA CAR WASH MISC. CHARGES/JUNE 91 R HERMOSA CAR WASH MISC. CHARGES/JUNE 91 R HERMOSA CAR WASH MISC. CHARGES/JUNE R HERMOSA CAR WASH MISC. CHARGES/JUNE 91 00065 001-400-1207-4311 00054 1357 06/30/91 BUS LICENSE /AUTO 00065 001-400-2101-4311 01187 1357 06/30/91 POLICE $52.84 $4.00 MAINTENANCE $140.00 /AUTO MAINTENANCE 00065 001-400-3104-4311 00073 1357 06/30/91 TRAFFIC SAFETY /AUTO 00065 001-400-4201-4311 00251 1357 06/30/91 BUILDING /AUTO 00065 001-400-4202-4311 00179 91 1357 06/30/91 PUB WKS ADMIN /AUTO 00065 110-400-3302-4311 00712 1357 06/30/91 PARKING ENF /AUTO *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R GRISEL*HLAVATY SUMMER PROGRAM REFUND 21913 04129 001-300-0000-3826 06/30/91 $4.00 MAINTENANCE. $20.00 MAINTENANCE $16.00 MAINTENANCE $4. 00 MAINTENANCE $188.00 02850 $160. 00 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R INDEPENDENT CITIES RISK EXCESS WORK COMP/FY 92 $160.00 01484 705-400-1217-4201 00114 $13,297.00 07/11/91 WORKERS COMP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC MISC. CHARGES/JUNE 91 25397 *13, 297. 00 02458 105-400-2601-4309 00722 $186.82 06/30/91 STREET LIGHTING /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 1417 02557 37686 *52.84 07/18/91 1357 00636 37687 $0.00 07/18/91 1357 00636 37687 $0.00 07/18/91 1357 00636 37687 $0.00 07/18/91 1357 00636 37687 $0.00 07/18/91 1357 00636 37687 $0.00 07/18/91 1357 00636 37687 $0.00 07/18/91 21913 02834 37688 $0.00 07/18/91 01390 37689 $0. 00 O7/1B/91 25397 00674 37690 *0.00 07/18/91 w • • v 41* 02) W FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 13:04:28 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/18/91 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R INTERTEC COMPUTER SERVICES COMPUTER PRINTER MAINT *** VENDOR TOTAL PAGE 0005 DATE 07/18/91 INV/REF PO * CHK * • AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP i") $186.132 01740 001-400-1206-4201 00860 $2,550.00 07/01/91 DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT R BETHAN*KING CITATION PAYMENT REFUND 00115 $2,550.00 04132 110-300-0000-3302 40816 $18.00 06/30/91 /COURT FINES/PARKING *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R SGT JOHN*KOEBSELL MILES/STC ANNUAL UPDATE *** VENDOR TOTAL 00629 001-400-2101-4313 06/30/91 POLICE *18.00 00361 $221.00 /TRAVEL EXPENSE, STC R KRAMES COMMUNICATION POSTERS/PERSONNEL • $221.00 04137 705-400-1217-4316 00019 $82.53 07/17/91 WORKERS COMP /TRAINING *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R LAWSON PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED SUPP/C CTR SMOKE ALARM 08291 *** VENDOR TOTAL $82.53 09578 37691 •0.00 07/18/91 2800113 02705 37692 $0.00 07/18/91 02603 37693 $0.00 07/18/91 01391 37694 $0.00 07/18/91 00076 305-400-8615-4201 00018 $160.59 0608291 02548 06/24/91 CIP 89-615 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $168.62 R LEARNED LUMBER MISC. CHARGES/JUN 91 R LEARNED LUMBER MISC. CHARGES/JUN 91 R LEARNED LUMBER MISC. CHARGES/JUN 91 R LEARNED LUMBER MISC. CHARGES/JUN 91 $160. 59 00167 001-400-2401-4305 00188 $17.77 06/30/91 ANIMAL CONTROL /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 00167 001-400-3103-4309 01195 $29.63 06/30/91 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00167 001-400-4101-4305 00550 $3.85 06/30/91 PLANNING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 00167 001-400-4201-4305 00683 $23.98 06/30/91 BUILDING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 37695 07/18/91 00637 37696 $0.00 07/18/91 00637 37696 $0.00 07/18/91 00637 37696 $0.00 07/18/91 00637 37696 $0.00 07/18/91 • FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 13:04:28 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R LEARNED LUMBER MISC. CHARGES/JUN 91 R LEARNED LUMBER MISC. CHARGES/JUN 91 R LEARNED LUMBER ROOF SUPP/PROSPECT BLDG 28742 R LEARNED LUMBER MISC. CHARGES/JUN 91 R LEARNED LUMBER SUPP/POLICE DEPT REMODEL 33242 R LEARNED LUMBER MISC. CHARGES/JUN 91 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/18/91 VND M ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN N AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00167 001-400-4204-4309 02040 06/30/91 BLDG MAINT 00167 001-400-6101-4309 01094 06/30/91 PARKS 00167 305-400-8506-4309 00022 06/24/91 CIP 86-506 00167 305-400-8506-4309 00023 06/30/91 CIP 86-506 00167 305-400-8606-4309 00010 06/30/91 CIP 87-606 00167 305-400-8606-4309 00011 06/30/91 CIP 87-606 PAGE 0006 DATE 07/18/91 INV/REF PO 0 CHK M AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $194.15 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 012.48 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00637 37696 $0.00 07/18/91 00637 37696 $0.00 07/18/91 $304.92 8128742 02556 37696 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 07/18/91 $482.17 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00637 37696 $0.00 07/18/91 $523.74 125276/133242 02515 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $566.54 $85.07 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL **a**a***a*********air********arir*i►*artri ****a*+rare►********ir************* $1,677.76 R LIEBERT, CASSIDY & FRIERSON LEGAL SERV/MAY 91 02175 001-400-1203-4201 00781 06/25/91 PERSONNEL $1,567.50 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,567.50 R DENNIS*LINDSEY SOFTBALL LEAGUE SERVICES 03708 001-400-4601-4201 00910 $4,046.00 06/30/91 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $4,046.00 R LOS ANGELES AIR CONDITIONING EMERG REPAIR/COMM CENTER 12636 02764 001-400-4204-4309 02039 $177.50 06/28/91 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $177.50 R WILLIE*LOVE ANIMAL TRAP REFUND 21714 *** VENDOR TOTAL 04141 001-210-0000-2110 07/11/91 37696 07/18/91 00637 37696 $0.00 07/18/91 01382 37697 $0.00 07/18/91 02833 37698 $0.00 07/18/91 12636 02562 37699 $0.00 07/18/91 04359 $100.00 21714 02343 37700 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE 30.00 07/18/91 R TAMMY*MC COY 04130 001-300-0000-3826 02849 SUMMER PROGRAM REFUND 23102 06/30/91 $100.00 $10.00 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES 23102 02835 37701 $0.00 07/18/91 • • TIME 13:04:28 FINANCE-SFA34O • • • • • • • • • p p PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL R MED IMAGING ASSOC OF 50. BAY EMERG PRISONER SERVICES -4999 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/18/91 VND It ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ 6 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 02327 001-400-2101-4201 06/30/91 POLICE PAGE 0007 DATE 07/18/91 INV/REF PO 6 CHK * ' AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP ' $10.00 !► 00811 $61.00 80224-4999 02463 37702 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 07/18/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL*************************************************+r**************+r*** R KENNETH A.*MEERSAND CITY PROSECUTOR/TO 6-91 *** VENDOR TOTAL *61. 00 04138 001-400-1132-4201 00081 *3,187.50 06/30/91 CTY PROSECUTOR /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT R MARK*MISCIONE SUMMER PROGRAM REFUND 21730 04135 001-300-0000-3826 06/30/91 *3,187.00 02843 $35.00 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R PADGETT-THOMPSON SEMINAR REG/J. CARUSO R PADGETT-THOMPSON SEM REG/VAN KREUNINGEN R PADGETT-THOMPSON SEMINAR REG/M. HARRIS *** VENDOR TOTAL 01658 001-400-2101-4316 07/10/91 POLICE 01658 001-400-2101-4316 07/10/91 POLICE 01658 001-400-2101-4316 07/10/91 POLICE 1135. 00 00760 $125.00 /TRAINING 00761 $125.00 /TRAINING 00762 *125.00 /TRAINING R PHOENIX GROUP HANDHELD PARKING CITES 19-00 *** VENDOR TOTAL *373. 00 02530 110-400-3302-4303 00806 $5,358.00 07/11/91 PARKING ENF /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO MISC. CHARGES/JUNE 91 R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO MISC. CHARGES/JUNE 91 00173 001-400-2101-4306 06/30/91 POLICE 00173 001-400-2201-4303 06/30/91 FIRE *5, 338. 00 01009 *256.68 /PRISONER MAINTENANCE 00478 *32. 41 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 02455 37703 $0.00 07/18/91 21730 02831 37704 $0.00 07/18/91 02604 37705 $0.00 07/18/91 02604 37705 $0.00 07/18/91 02604 37705 $0.00 07/18/91 5419-00 01680 37706 *0.00 07/18/91 00656 37707 $0.00 07/18/91 00656 37707 $0.00 07/18/91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 13:04:28 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO MISC. CHARGES/JUNE 91 *** VENDOR TOTAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/18/91 VND N ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN N AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ M ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00173 001-400-4101-4303 00551 06/30/91 PLANNING PAGE 0008 DATE 07/18/91 INV/REF-, PO 4* CHK N AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *55. 62 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES R RAL COMPANY CALIBRATE FUEL PUMPS *** VENDOR TOTAL $344.71 00656 37707 *0.00 07/18/91 03129 305-400-8601-4201 00013 *150.00 47376 02540 47576 06/11/91 CIP 86-601 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *0.00 R ED*RUZAK & ASSOCIATES TRAFFIC ENGRG SERV/MAY91 91241 *150.00 37708 07/18/91 01578 001-400-3104-4201 00083 *325.00 91241 02534 37709 06/01/91 TRAFFIC SAFETY /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *0.00 07/18/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL************************************************i►******************* * * * R SINCLAIR PAINT CO. MISC. CHARGES/JUNE 91 R SINCLAIR PAINT CO. MISC. CHARGES/JUNE 91 VENDOR TOTAL $325.00 01399 001-400-3103-4309 01196 $34.78 06/30/91 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 01399 305-400-8606-4309 00012 $199.72 06/30/91 CIP 87-606 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS R KATHY*SLIFF SUMMER PROGRAM REFUND 21564 04072 001-300-0000-3826 06/27/91 *234. 50 02847 *95.00 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES *** VENDOR TOTAL*********************************************************+r********** R SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY MISC. CHARGES/JUNE 91 29002 *** VENDOR TOTAL 00114 001-400-2101-4306 06/30/91 POLICE *95. 00 01010 $108.01 /PRISONER MAINTENANCE R SO CAL PUB LABOR REL COUNCIL DUES/R. BLACKWOOD *108. 01 00117 001-400-1203-4315 00058 $250.00 05/27/91 PERSONNEL /MEMBERSHIP. • *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R SOUTH BAY HEATING EMERG REP/COMPUTER ROOM 13648 *250. 00 00659 37710 $0.00 07/18/91 00659 37710 *0.00 07/18/91 21564 02837 *0. 00 529002 00660 *0. 00 01385 *0. 00 37711 07/18/91 37712 07/18/91 37713 07/18/91 02535 001-400-4204-4201 00458 *325.56 13648 02566 37714 06/11/91 BLDG MAINT /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *0.00 07/18/91 .i 0 40 • FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 13:04:28 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL R SOUTH BAY HOSPITAL BLOOD ALCOHOL TESTS/PD *** VENDOR TOTAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/18/91 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN N AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00107 001-400-2101-4201 06/30/91 POLICE PAGE 0009 DATE 07/18/91 INV/REF PO * CHK AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *325. 56 00810 *284.52 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT R SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT CITATION COURT BAIL R SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT CITATION COURT BAIL *284. 52 00400 110-300-0000-3302 40815 $140.00 06/30/91 00400 110-300-0000-3302 07/11/91 /COURT FINES/PARKING 40817 $58.00 /COURT FINES/PARKING *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. ELECTRIC BILLS/JUNE 91 R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. ELECTRIC BILLS/JUNE 91 R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. ELECTRIC BILLS/JUNE 91 R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. ELECTRIC BILLS/JUNE 91 R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. ELECTRIC BILLS/JUNE 91 R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. ELECTRIC BILLS/JUNE 91 R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. ELECTRIC BILLS/JUNE 91 00159 001-400-2101-4303 00046 06/30/91 POLICE 00159 06/30/91 00159 06/30/91 00159 06/30/91 001-400-3101-4303 00154 MEDIANS 001-400-3104-4303 00080 TRAFFIC SAFETY 001-400-4204-4303 00470 BLDG MAINT 00159 001-400-6101-4303 00363 06/30/91 PARKS 00159 06/30/91 105-400-2601-4303 00299 STREET LIGHTING 00159 160-400-3102-4303 00163 06/30/91 SEWER/ST DRAIN $198.00 $24.44 /UTILITIES *37. 45 /UTILITIES *581. 81 /UTILITIES $7,803.35 /UTILITIES $1,257.05 /UTILITIES $156.02 /UTILITIES $34.24 /UTILITIES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. $9,894.36 00442 105-400-2601-4303 00300 *11,358.08 STREET LIGHT HILLS/JUN91 06/30/91 STREET LIGHTING /UTILITIES 02464 37715 *0.00 07/18/91 01679 37716 $0.00 07/18/91 01679 37716 $0.00 07/18/91 00663 37717 $0.00 07/18/91 00663 37717 *0.00 07/18/91 00663 37717 $0.00 07/18/91 00663 37717 $0.00 07/18/91 00663 37717 $0.00 07/18/91 00663 37717 *0.00 07/1B/91 00663 37717 *0.00 07/19/91 00012 $0.00 37718 07/18/91 GD 0 ca fil O • ,. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PACE 0010 TIME 13:04:28 FOR 07/18/91 DATE 07/18/91 41. PAY VENDOR NAME VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT INV/REF PO * CHK * DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP • *** VENDOR TOTAL !11.338.08 R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO. 00170 001-400-4204-4303 00471 $501.93 00664 37719 GAS BILLINGS/JUN 91 06/30/91 BLDG MAINT /UTILITIES $0.00 07/18/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL $501.93 4 R SOUTHERN COUNTIES OIL CO. 03997 001-141-0000-1401 00143 $521.30 147037 37720 DIESEL FUEL/CITY YARD 47037 07/12/91 /GASOLINE INVENTORY 40.00 07/18/91 4 R SOUTHERN COUNTIES OIL CO. 03997 001-141-0000-1401 00144 $2,915.64 147036 02564 37720 UNLEADED GAS/CITY YARD 47036 07/12/91 /GASOLINE INVENTORY $0.00 07/18/91 i *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $15. 00 *** VENDOR TOTAL $3,436.94 R WENDY*SPENCE 04131 001-300-0000-3826 02848 $15.00 21958 02836 37721 SUMMER PROGRAM REFUND 21958 06/30/91 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 07/18/91 R STATE OF CALIFORNIA 00364 001-400-2101-4251 00382 $54.00 895959 00023 37722 FINGERPRINT CHGS/JUN 91 95959 06/30/91 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT $0.00 07/18/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $54. 00 • R STEPHENS, INC. 01029 001-400-2101-4306 01011 $53.71 A71974 02443 37723 PRISONER BATH TOWELS 71974 07/08/91 POLICE /PRISONER MAINTENANCE $0.00 07/18/91 4 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** • r • • p $53.71. R RUTH*SULLIVAN 04140 001-210-0000-2110 04338 $50.00 20247 02345 37724 ANIMAL TRAP REFUND 20247 07/11/91 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 07/18/91 *** VENDOR TOTAL ********* $50.00 R SUSAN*THORNHILL 04139 001-210-0000-2110 04357 $50.00 20612 02344 37725 ANIMAL TRAP REFUND 20612 07/11/91 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 07/18/91 u v w W it Wb W fir d IP 40 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 13:04:28 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/18/91 VND 11 ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN S AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ 1i ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION R WARD - THK REIMB LIAB CLAIMS/JUN 91 R WARD - THK SETTLEMENT/WIDMAN R WARD - THK SETTLEMENT/GOULD R WARD - THK SETTLEMENT/KAUFFMAN R WARD - THK SETTLEMENT EXP/JUNE 91 *** VENDOR TOTAL 03937 703-400-1209-4201 00208 06/30/91 LIABILITY INS 03937 705-400-1209-4324 00186 06/30/91 LIABILITY INS 03937 703-400-1209-4324 00187 06/30/91 LIABILITY INS 03937 703-400-1209-4324 00188 06/30/91 LIABILITY INS 03937 703-400-1209-4324 00189 06/30/91 LIABILITY INS PAGE 0011 DATE 07/18/91 INV/REF PO R CHK R AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $50.00 $28,837.13 01388 37726 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 07/18/91 $1,808.00 /CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS $373. 52 /CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS 01388 37726 $0.00 07/18/91 01388 37726 $0.00 07/18/91 $747.06 01388 37726 /CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS $0.00 07/18/91 $335.50 01388 37726 /CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS $0.00 07/18/91 R ZUMAR INDUSTRIES "NO STOPPING" SIGNS $32,101.21 01206 001-400-3104-4309 00700 $143.38 6762 06/30/91 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL *** PAY CODE TOTAL****************************************************************** *** TOTAL WARRANTS .rv.w5.....+. • $143.38 $102,551.77 $815,517.59 6762 02518 37727 $143.38 07/18/91 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE DEMANDS OR CLAIMS COVERED BY THE WARRANTS LISTED ON PAGES TO -!__ INCLUSIVE, OF THE WARRANT REGISTER FOR 7/( 9/ ARE ACCURATE, FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE FOR f AYGILN1, AND ARE IN CONFORMANCE 10 THE BUD T. BY __ FINANCE DIRECTO DATE -14e ft w w • • a • • • • • 111 July 15,1991 Honorable Mayor and For the Meeting of Members of the City Council July 23, 1991 CANCELLATION ON WARRANTS Please consider the following request for cancellation of the warrants listed below. #036861 - 5/14/91 - Fire Sprinkler Advisory Board of So. Calif. - $100.00 - Account Number 001-400-2201-4316. Officer could not get into class since it was already full. #036893 - 5/14/92 - The Marquis Hotel - $119.90 - Account Number 001-400-0000-4316. The officer elected not to use this check to pay for his hotel. Concur: Kevin Northcrat City Manager Gar B v• tsch City Treasurer // _ ) fL�t�cal impact mpact Viki Copeland Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council July 18, 1991 City Council Meeting of July 23, 1991 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS August 13, 1991 Elimination of time limit parking on Pier between Ardmore & PCH Requirement for 2 residential permits for oversized vehicles Ordinance to establish a procedure for creating preferential parking areas Agreement with Chamber of Commerce for holiday decorations Consideration of allowing markets to operate 24 hours Review of action plan and timetable for goals Letter - restrict overnight parking Formal policy for continuances of public hearings Commission term limits Elimination of non-profit event fee Recommendation on later parking enforcement hours in downtown area Donations (DARE, Learned Lumber) Recognition of outgoing commissioners Adjustment of Park Tax Public Hearings Appeal of Public Works decision on encroachment at 2541 Hermosa Avenue August 27, 1991 - 1 - General Services General Services General Services City Manager Planning Director City Manager Planning Director City Mgr./City Clerk Community Reources Dir. General Services Public Safety Director Building Director Public Works Director 1 C ? Approval of agreements between the City and local non-profit agencies Report on Computer system Records Management Consultant Applications for Planning Commission September 24, 1991 CIP 89-406, Accept sewer project as complete October 22, 1991 RFP for Traffic Engineer December, 1991 Statistical survey - requested at 4/23/91 meeting January, 1992 Appeal of P.C. denial of request to allow a 2nd story office addition providing less than required off- street parking at 415 Pier Ave. Community Resources Dir. Data Processing City Clerk City Clerk Public Works Director Public Works Director Planning Director ***************************************************************** Upcoming Items Not Yet Calendared Caltrans utility maintenance agrmt. Historic Preservation Ordinance (with Land Use Element) Public Works Director Planning Director ***************************************************************** Initiated by Party Date Council 5/8/90 Discuss financial arrangements on oil project Council 5/8/90 Goal 4 City Manager Re. oil project CUP - define "temporary" as relates to height of project Planning Director 5/16/90 Options to computerize per- sonnel as part of payroll function Finance Director - 2 - Council 8/14/90 Review of standard CUP conditions Planning Dir. Council 10/9/90 Map and time schedule for street sweeping. Public Wks. Dir. Ordinance for new Chapter 19 of HBMC entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic" Public Works Dir. City Mgr.12/17/90 Photocopiers Public Safety. Director Council 1/22/91 Research parking cut off in lot at 3rd St. Pub.Wks./Bldg./City Mgr. City Mgr.2/21/91 RFP for computer system General Svcs. Dir. Conceptual approval of Greenbelt steps Public Works Director Council 3/12/91 South School Conceptual design Community Resources Dept. 3/27/91 CIP 89-176 - Call for bids, traffic signal pre-emption Public Works Director City Mgr.3/25/91 Amendment of ordinance regulating real estate signs Building Director Council Bid spec. for office systems (furniture) Finance Director VPD recommendation on sidewalk scrubber General Services Director Award of bid for purchase of computer equipment for Police Dept. Public Safety Director Council 5/14/91 Non -conforming building rights after disaster City Attorney Council 5/14/91 Review parking on ped- estrian sts./review ways to enforce no parking in front yards Public Works Dir. Award of bid - landscape maintenance, including consideration of Valley & Hermosa View School agreements Public Works/Comm. Res. Council 5/28/91 Consider elimination of non-profit event fee Community Resources Council 5/28/91 Commission term limits City Clerk City Mgr.6/5/91 Accept donations from SBHD for D.A.R.E. Public Safety Director Council 6/6/91 Review Bldg/Zoning Code changes to improve liveability Planning Director Greenbelt parking designs Public Works Director Council 6/25/91 Trash enclosure City- wide enforcement - hardship considerations Building Director Council 6/25/91 Agreement on Prospect/ Aviation signs & review of left turn arrow at Prospect & Aviation Public Works Director 4 July 18, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of July 23, 1991 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORTS, JUNE 1991 Attached are preliminary reports for June 1991. Year end ac- counting procedures require many adjusting entries in order to be in conformance with GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Pro- cedures), so final reports are not yet available. Revenue in the General Fund is 98% received for 100% of the year. After year end entries, actual revenue should meet or exceed the 90/91 estimate used in the 91-92 budget revisions. Parking Fund revenue is 97% received. Expenditures in the General Fund are 93% expended for 100% of the fiscal year; Parking Fund is 93.7% expended. Departments have estimated they will be under budget for 90/91 but the final amount will not be available until the year end entries are complete. The financial statements produced in conjunction with the audit serve as the final report to the City Council for fiscal year 1990-91. The City Council will, however, be updated on actual fund balances after all closing entries have been made. Concur: Kevin B. Northam aft City Manager Attachments Viki Copeland Finance Director ld (1) • 1 1_. 1110 • EIM:iNC -FA4O4 T i ME 21 34 F (5 -ID 01-10 DESCRIPTION 001 GENERAL FUND OEPARTMENT o:00 3100 TAXES 3101 3102 3103 3106 3107 3105 3110 3111 2112 3113 3114 3115 _/BUSINESS_LICENSE OBJECT SUBTOTAL CITY OF HERMOSA nEAcH REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND FROM 06/01/41 TO 06/30/91 /CURRENT YEAR SECURED /CURRENT YEAR UNSECURED /PRIOR YEAR COLLECTIONS /SUPPLEMENTAL ROLL 3131313 /TRANSFER TAX /SALES_TAX /CABLE TV FRANCHISE /ELECTRIC FRANCHISE /GAS FRANCHISE /REFUSE FRANCHISE /TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY .7:20 LICENSES 3202 3203 3204 3205 ]2()7 i209 3211 3212 3213 3214 3216 3217 221.3 AND PERMITS /DOG LICENSES /BICYCLE LICENSES /BUILDING PERMITS /ELECTRIC PERMITS /PLUMBING PERMITS /OCCUPANCY PERMITS /CARAGE SALES /BANNER PERMITS /ANIMAL/FOWL PERMITS /ANIMAL REDEMPTION FEE /AMPLIFIED SOUND PERMIT /rEMPORARY SIGN PERMIT /SPRAY BOOTH PERMIT /OPEN FIRE PERMIT /AUTO REPAIR PERMIT /BEACH VOLLEYBALL APP S:1E rarAL FOWEI TUNES /VFFIICLE CODE VIOLATIONS 2003 /COURT FINES/POLICE DEF'T .JECV 51.13 ID FAL ITJNEY & PPOPERTY /INTEREST INCOME /RENTS & CONCESSIONS 21.:3 /PIER REVENUE EST REV _. 3, 050, 008. 00 232, 459. 00 53, 000. 00 80, 000. 00 84, 000. 00 _.1, 750, 000. 00 121, 000. 00 39, 81(2. 00 29, 603. 00 140, 000. 00 248, 326. 00 •_ 435, 000. 00..._ 6, 271, 278. 00 17, 107. 00 300. 00 210, 000. 00 25, 000. 00 21, 000. 00 7, 925. 00 120. 00 1, 660. 00 800. 00 3, 500. 00 1, 700. 00 450. 00 75. 00 430. 00 570. 00 200. 00 290, 337. 00 135, 000. 00 60, 000. 00 19:5, 000. 00 2213, 505. 00 3, 000. 00 10, 700. 00 muriTt ILY REV 0. 00 0. 00 665. 47 14, 194. 22 14, 630. 70 ... 79, 808. 29. 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 10, 375. 65 21, 451. 23 . 77, 825. 19... 218, 950. 77 617. 00 27. 00 6, 060. 30 1,1154. 00 3, 250. 00 1, 120. 00 21. 00 0. 00 150. 00 445. 00 140. 00 90. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 13, 774. :30 29, 177. 131 15, 537. 49 44, 715. 30 115,595.12 501. 56 1, 295. 00 YEAR TO DATE 2, 868, 658. 37 214, 736. 69 17, 583. 00 134, 679. 97 74, 494. 02 L. 670, 000. 38 123, 498. 10 40, 357. 97 27, 775. 61 137, 746. 73 211, 861. 51 480, 317. 01 6, 001, 710. 39 15.765. 25 144. 00 189, 630. 70 27, 184. 00 21, 860. 45 9, 950. 00 225. 00 1, 675. 00 450. 00 4, 229. 00 1, 450. 00 490. 00 0. 00 86. 00 0. 00 0. 00 273, 139. 40 164, 147. 08 71, 457. 15 235, 604. 23 279, 608. 45 3, 395. 05 - 10, 489. BO PAGE 0001 DAtE 07Z17/91 100.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED BALANCE 189, 349. 63 17, 722. 31 35:117. 00 54, 679. 97- 7, 505. 98 79, 999. 62 2.498. 10- 475. 97- 1, 826. 36 2. 253. 27 36, 464. 49 45, 317. 01.- 269, 567. 61 1: 341. 75 156. 00 20, 369. 30 2, 184. 00- 860. 45-- 2.023. 00- 105. oc.-- 15. 00-- 350. 00 729. 00- 27,0. 00 40. 00 - 75 00 344. 00 570. 00 200. 00 17. 697 00 29: 147. 0E- 11, 457. 15-- 40, 604 23- 51,103 15-- 395. 05- 210. 20 93. 92. 3 23. 1 162. 2 136. 6 75. 4 102.0 201. 1 93 3 93 3 85. 3 110 4 =fn 7 43 0 riO, 103. 7 104. 0 137 5 100. 9 56. 2 123 1-1 35. :3 1.0i; O. 0 20 0 03 121 5 11'., 120 C FINANCE-FA404 TINE 21:n9:54 FUND O133 DESCRIPTION 001 G E. F UN D DEP T HT 00(.76 3400 USE OF 3404 3405 3406 3411 3412 MONEY &PROPERTY /calm CTR LEASES /COMM CTR RENTALS /C:OMM CTR THEATRE /OTHER FACILITIES /TENNIS COURTS 3418 /SPECIAL EVENTS 013JECT SUE TOTAL 3700 INTERGOVERNMENTAL /STATE ( =34 3505 3507 3508 3509 :3510 311 3514 OBJECT SUE TOTAL 3200 CURRENT 3503 33305 z3eo6 .08f .2010 3811 7,813 :3017 1F3 25:19 31.; 75 30 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 06/01/91. TO 06/30/91 /IN LIEU OFF HIGHWAY /IN LIEU MOTOR VEHICLE /HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE /MANDATED COSTS /HOMEOWNER PROP TX RELIE /POST /33TC-SVC OFF TRAINING /CIGARETTE TAX EST REV 87, 000. 00 52, 000. 00 20 000. 00 24, 000. 00 12, 000. 00 30, 000. 00 483, 205. 00 333. 00 734, 614. 00 3, 850. 00 3, 502. 00 65, 000. 00 42, 000. 00 8. 500. 00 37, 207. 00 895, 006. 00 SERVICE CHARGES /RESIDENTIAL INSPECTION 0,000.00 /SIGN REVIEW 2,650.00 /ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 8,100.00 /COMDTL USE PERMIT AMEND 5,120.00 /BOARD OF APPEALS 300.00 /ZONE VARIANCE REVIEW 3,130.00 /TENTATIVE MAP REVIEW 2,025.00 /FINAL MAP REVIEW 3,550.00 /ZONE CHANGE G P A 1,650.00 /CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW 19,487.00 /PLAN CHECK FEES 130,000.00 /PLANNING/ZONING APPEAL 2,132.00 /PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES 12,000.00 /SPECIAL CURB MARKING 300.00 /POLICE SERVICES 20,000.00 JUAIL SERVICES 10,200.00 /TRUSTY ADMIN FEE 1,500.00 /FINGERPRINT SERVICE 2,000.00 /SPECIAL EVENT SECURITY 27,000.00_ /VEHICLE INSPECTION FEES 1,600.00 /PUBLIC NOTICE POSTING 80.00 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES _ _MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE 9201., 77 4,1306. 40 2, 954. 50 2, 299. 75 1, 092. 25 3, 242. 76 140, 909. 11 0. 00 58, 31:3. 58 0. 00 0. 00 10, 218. 21 3, 792. :33 0. 00 1, 590. 96 _73, 915. 08 • 040, 00 160. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 920. 00 225. 00 0. 00 .. 918. 00 3. 002. 83 266. 50 371. 00 0. 00 837. 00 1, 125. 00 20. 00 72. 00 0. 00 0. 00 10, 00 800. 00 _34, 620.50 86, 876. 00 48, 270. 15 34, 515. 90 26, 505. 65 11. 147. 95 31, 126. 56 531. 935. 91 327. 32 677, 372. 15 3, 817. 95 4, 799. 00 65, 531. 43 47, 402. 4'3 7. 202. 00 32, 441. '77 838, 974. 07 9, (350. 00 3, 090. 00 6, 560. 00 _ 4, 160. 00 0. 00 1, 2E0. 00 2, 945. 00 2, 650. 00 450. 00 15,489. 75 145, 759, 37 3, 464. 50 10, 403. 77 100. 00 22, 413, 18 11, 930. 00 1, 331. 00 2, 131. 30 25, 346. 00 1, 602. 00 130. 00 79, 431. 9/ PAGE 0002 DATE 07/17/91 100.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED BALANCE 124. 00 3, 729. 85 6. 515 90- 2. 505. 65-- 852. 0/ 6, 073. 44 48, 730. 51- 5. 60 17, 241. 83 32. 05 1, 297. 00- 531. 45-- 5,102. 43-- 1, 298. 00 4, 765. 23 56, 031. 93 1, 350. 00- 440. 00-- 1, 540. 00 960. 00 300. 00 1, (330. 00 920. 00- 900. 00 1, 200. 00 3. 997. 25 15, 759. 37-- 1, 332. 50- 1, 516. 23 200. 00 2, 413. 1E- 1, 730. 00- 165. 00 135. no - 1: 631. 00 2 00 30. 00 3;', 63/ 99. 0 92. 8 12.3. :2 110 4 92. 13 31. 110 0 50. :2 99. 1 137. 0 100 E3 113. 0 04. 7 87. 1 9:3. 123. 1 118. 6 80. '7 01. 2 00 -10 3 117). 4 74 ,, 27 2 79. 4 112 1 1.c.2 112 0 116 100 1 I 4 0 'I I= IN/ NCE--FA404 TINE 2l 6)''1 FUND 013,J DESCRIPTION 001 GENERAL FUND IEE'A!iTMENT 0000 1. • 0 0 i.' C • o 0 or f • i C I L Y OF 1.1E_21•IUUA ,..0 ACi I REVENUE SUNN6RY REPORT 11IY FUND? I'AG1:_ r.)r_)U;i FROM 06/01!91 TO 06!30191 D::TE 0..'17/91 100.0% OF 1•i -AR COMPLETE UNREALIZED . EST REV. MUNTLFLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE 3800 CURRENT. SERVICE -..CHARGES. . . _ 3827 /LIBRARY GROUNDS MAINT 4,788.00 0. 00 4.768.00 0.00 100. 0 3831 /STREET CUT INSPECTION 1(3, 000. 00 710. 00 26, 749. 13 8, 749. 13-- 149. 6 :3324 /ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 17, 600. 00 1, 0_0. 00 10, 117. 70 2.482.30 83. u 3936 /FUI'IIGATION INSPECT FEE 8,000.00 97'5.20 8,879.40 879.40- 110 9 X837 /RETURNED CHECK CHARGE 800. 00 80.00 1,210.00 410.00- 151. 2 2538 __/SALE._OF MAPS/PUBLICATIO _.. _ 800.00 10. 00 335.95 264.03 66. 9 3339 /PHOTOCOPY CHARGES 1,000.00 31. 55 1,227.40 227. 40-- 1.23, 7 3040 /AMBULANCE TRANSPORT 10, 000. 00 099. 00 7,553.00 2:447.00 70 11 :" _ 11 _ /POLICE TOWING 26, 000.00 1,785.00 25. 140. 10 1.359. 90 E3 33556 /GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 ' 0. 0 :3357 /PKG PLAN APPLICATION 1,840.00 0. 00 920. 00 920. 00 30. 0 3853 /TENANT_ -REFUSE BILLING..__.._ ._____. 200.00 10. OU..---.__. __. 120.00 80.00 60 0 3859 /REFUSE LIEN FEE 610. 00 2,425.09- 3,201.54'124 2,091.04- I3 87361 /HAZARDOUS MAT PERMIT 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 0 0 ?062 /ALARM PERMIT FEE .. 2,000.00 300.00 1,930.00 30. UO 97 0 381,3 /FALSE ALARM FEE 2,000.00 100.00 2.300.00 300. 00- 110. 0 22',6 /NONCONFORMING REMODELS 1,980.00 670. 00 2,300.00 30.0n- 3867 0. 00- 118 1 3867 ./PRECISE DEVLMNT PLANS 1,145.00 0.00 . 0.00 1 , 140. 00 0 0 398 /PUBLIC NOTICING/300 FT 15, 900.00 957. 00 4,623.00 11,327 00 26 9 256:9 /2ND PARTY RESPONSE 1,500.00 1,038.70 2,259.90 709 90- 10o -2,571 /PARc.MEDIC RESP!NON--TIISI' 1,500.00 0.00 0.00 1.500. 00 0 3872 /LOCK -OUT (CAR) 600.00 60. 00 120. 00 480 00 3673 /LOCK --OUT (HOUSE) 475.00 0.00 0.00 475. 00 2 0 0 3874 ./FLOODING WATER REMOVAL . 430. 00 0. 00 0. 00 433. 00 ,I) 1) :33/5 !SPRAY BOOTH INSPECTION 1,200.00 0. 00 0. 00 1, 200. 00 r-) c. ^.876 /FIRE PROTECT/SYS EX IF3TO 105.00 0. 00 0. 00 100. 00 0 0 :1377 /SPRINKLER CERT TEST 1134.00 0. 00 0. 00 1E3-1. 00 0 0 (3f�178 /COMML BLDG/APT INSPECT 350. 00 O. 00 0. 00 '330. CO ) 0 ' X0:33 /FINAL/TENT MAP EXTNSION 450. VO •1 ;i O. 00 900. 00 470. 00-- _0'? 0 /LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 515.00 0.00 0.00 515.00 0 0 E9'::) /300'RADIUS NOTCG/APL CC 270. 00 345. U0 1. 240. 00 i 70. UO 43'? :._ 1719 F.CT SUBTOTAL 424, 421. 00 51, 367. 74 461. 740. 14 .moi , 00- 37,:13:74.14- 103 .1900 01111:.R R.F_V;.::NU6 01 /SALE OF REAL/PERS PROP ' ':03 /REFUPJDS/REIML3 PREY YEL 370-3 /CONTRIBUTIONS NON GOVT /GENERAL MISCELLANEOUS /DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION ▪ 55 (1: EE:A:1110 TNANSFERS IN ,.,..i,1F T SUBTOTAL ' 12, 000. 00 23. 723. 00 0, 121. 00 J. 196. 00 40, 000. 00 1, 601, 034. 00 1, 687, 079. 00 TOTALS 10, 246, 826. 00 0. 00 10, 976. 00 1 , 024. 00 0. 00 27, 902. 42 4. 254. 42-- 1. 00 2--1.00 . 65 16, 201. 83 11, 0e0. ((3-- :316 .3 2, 920. 00 10, 356. 60 7, 360. 60- 28.3 1 0. 00 40, 000. 00 0. 0) 10.) J 133. 12 7. 87 1. 601, 034. 00 0. 00 100. 0 137, 030. 02 1. 706, 700. (30 19, 671. 80.-- 10 1 1 680. 662. 82 10, 049, 859. 39 196, 966. 41 78 0 • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • FINANCE-FA404 REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) TIPIE 21:09:54 FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 • • • • • ! 0 I o FUND OPJ DESCRIPTION 001 LIGHTING DISTRICT FUND DEPARTMENT 0000 :q00 OTHER REVENUE FUND TOTAL EST REVMONTHLY REV _ YEAR TO DATE 10, 246, 826. 00 680, 62. 82 10, 049, 859. 59 PAGE 0004 . DATE 07/17/91 100.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED BALANCE 196, V66. .11 90 0 • r • _CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-FA484 REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (D( FUND) Pe,GE 000t, TINE .n:09:54 FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 LATE 07/17/1 100. 0% OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED FUND OBJ DESCRIETION. EST REV . MONTHLY REV . YEAR TO DATE BALANCE • 105 LIGHTIW DISTRICT FUND • it I; • ' ; • 0 • DEPARTHENT 0000 0100 TAXES. 3101 /CURRENT YEAR SECURED 3103 /PRIOR YEAR COLLECTIONS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 ./INTEREST.INCOME OBJECT SUBTOTAL ly..7.ry 0005 TOTALS 179,637.00 5, 000. 00 1134, 637. 00 95, 934. 00 95, 934. 00 280, 571. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 46,741.99 46,711.99 167,601.71 19,803.70 187,407.41 146, 822. 01 146,1322. 01 46, '741. 99 334, 229. 42 FUND TOTAL 280,571.00 46,741.99 334, 229. 42 12, 035. 29 93 3 14, 8073. 70- 1 2, 770. 41 - 101. no, 888. 01-- 133.0 no, 630. 01-- 133 0 33: 6313.42'' 119 1 33, 638. 42-- 119. 1 • • , •, • • . , 0 • • • ' FINANCE—FA464 TIME 21: 09: 54 FUND OFIJ DESCRIPTION 109 VEHICLE PARKING DIST OEPARTNENT 0000 2400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 2101 3407 /PARKING LOT RENTAL /INTEREST INCOME 2409 VEHICLE PRO DIST/LOT S I2413 VEHICLE PRO DIST/VPD LEASE - • OBJECT SUBTOTAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0006 FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/10/91 CATE 07/17/91 100.02 OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED EST REV._ MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE 2 An, 3000 CURRENT SERV ICE CHARGES W 31345 /VPD LOT PERMITS/DAILY 1:18,15 /VPD LOT PERMITS/MONTHLY 3347 VEHICLE PKG DIST/VALIDATION STAMPS 0OBJECT SUB TOTAL DEPT 0000 - TOTALS • ' • FUND TOTAL • .1 0 '1 • 40 • • • 409. 00 14, 966. 00 22, 990. 00 82, 000. 00 120, 365. 00 7, 771. 00 10, 985. 00 22, 000. 00 40, 756. 00 161, 121. 00 161, 121.00 2, 31.9. 00 6, 390. 15 1, 304. 10 15, 002. 02 1, 915. 84 22, 990. 08 a, 183. la 67. 296. 45 14, 227. 12 131, 678. 70 542. 77 9, 151. 67 1, 120. 60 11, 503. 11 1, 196. 57 22, 405. 68 2, 067. 94 43, 065. 46 17, 095. 06 174, 744. 16 17, 095. 06 174, 744. 16 5, 981. 15- 1562 3 36. 02— 100 2 0. 08— 100. 0 5, 296. 45-- 106. 4 11, 313. 70-- 109. 3 1, 360. 67— 117.7 523. 11— 104. 7 405. 63— 101. 6 2, 309. 46-- 105. 6 13,623.16— 108 4 13. 623. 16-- i.004 .4z • • • 0 Si' • O O • • 0 0 E 1 rJANCE-I- A404 TIME 21: 09 54 FUND 0E3 DESCRIPTION 1.10 F' ARK L IC FUND DEPARTMENT 0000 3300 /7-INES.',.FORFEITURES, ._....-._.--- _._- 3302 /COURT FINES/PARKING OBJECT SUBTOTAL :3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 1401 /INTEREST INCOME 3107 .-_./PARKING LOT RENTAL_. 3409 /LOT B 3413 /VPD LEASE OBJET T SUBTOTAL . CITY OF 1-IERMOSA BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0007 it FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 LATE 07/t7/91. 100. 07 OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED it EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE 1, 300, 000. 00 1, 300, 000. 00 108,615.76 1, 232, 003. 02 108, 615. 76 1, 232, 003. 02 20, 170. 00 8, 524. 94 24, 916. 31 7, 200. 00 600. 00 7, 200. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 27, 370. 00 9, 124. 94 32, 116. 31 3800 CURRENT SERVICE_ CHARGES 3342 /PARKING METERS _. _ __ 752, 000. 00 65, 252. 20 ... 742, 161. 56 35.13 /PARKING PERMITS: ANNUAL 191, 000.00 11, 463.00 194, 860. 50 3544 /DAILY PARKING PERMITS 2,000.00 155. 00 1,950.00 1)0 5 /VPD LOT PERMITS/DAILY 0.00 0.00 0.00 546 /VPD LOT PERMITS/MONTHLY 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 3E47 /VALIDATION STAMPS 0.00 0.00 0.00 30-1a .. _ /DRIVEWAY. PERMITS .._. 1,032.00 36.50 464.00 3549 /GUEST PERMITS 752.00 12.1.00 1,002.00 1E3`i0 /CONTRACTOR'S PERMITS 1,720.00 :320.00 2, 840. 00 It; ILII T SU19 TO (AL_ 948, '504. 00 77, 347. 70 ':43, 273. 06 J`i00 OTHER REVENUE 3902 OBJECT SUBTOTAL . /REFUNDS/REIMS PREV YR. 0. 00 .. 0. 00 687. 70 0. 00 0. 00 687. 70 TOTALS _ 2, 275. 074. 00 FUND TOTAL 2, 275, 874. 00 195, 083. 40 2, 200, 005. 09 1.95, OHS. 40 2, 208, 085. 09 67,996.98 94 7 67, 996. 96' 94 7 4, 748. 31- 123.:1 0. 00 100. 0 0. 00 0 0 0.00 0. 0 4, 7,16. 31-- 11 3 9, 838. 44 92 6 3, 860. 50-- 102 0 50. 00 97 2 W O. 00 5 0 0. 00 0 0 0 00 0. 0 5613.00 44 9 250. 00- 133.2 1, 120 00- 1L5 1 5, 225. 91 687.70- 687 70- 67. 701:: 91 67, 780 f1 0. 0 0 • • '! • • 1 • • i • • • o •I C I TY OF HERMOSA L'EAC11 FIN/INCE-FA.404 REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0008 TIME 21: 09: 54 FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 DATE 07/17/91 100. 03 OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE kig 115 STATE GAS TAX FUND r f!'!,F TE•IEI! E 0000 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401_ / INTEREST INCOME 35, 433. 00 19, 217. 50 70, 819. 77 35, 206. 77- 199. 0 3414 /FUNDS EXCHANGE 15:3, 320. 00 1513, 320. 00 158, 320. 00 0. 00 100 0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 193, 733. 00 177, 337. 50 229, 139. 77 35, 1E6 • 77-- 118 :3 3500 I HTERGOVERNMENTAL_ /STATE 3501 /SECTION 2106 ALLOCATION 83, 299. 00 2, 7G0. 46 75, 110. 41 8, 188. 59 90. 1 0 3502 /SECTION 2107 ALLOCATION 174, 268. 00 6, 374. 01 158, 412. 90 13, 095. 10 90. 9 3503 /SECT 2107. 5 ALLOCATION 4, 000. 00 0. 00 4, 000. 00 0. 00 100 0 3512 /SECTION 2105 (PROP 111) 63, 216. 00 6, 899. 02 53, 046. 87 10, 169. 13 83 9 3522 /TDA ARTICLE 3 (51313211 0, 656. 00 O. 00 405, 656. 00 400, GOO. 00-• 7172. 1 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 330, 439. 00 16, 173. 49 696, 226. 18 365, 787. 18- 210 6 3 900 OTHER REVENUE :3905 OPERATING TRANSFERS IN 3, 000. 00 O. 00 5, 000. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 5, 000. 00 0. 00 5, 000. 00 DF:PT 0000 TOTALS 529, 192. 00 193, 710. 99 930, 365. 95 F!!ND TOTAL 32.9, 192. 00 193, 710. 99 930, 363. 99 0. 00 0 00 401, 173. 971- 100.0 100.0 171). 8 401, 173. 93- 172 t I NANG E --FA4P1 TIME 21 09: ;54 FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION I CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0009 FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 DATE 07/17/91 . 100.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE 7. 120 COUNTY GAS TAX FUND DEPARTMENT 0000 16 17 1211 • 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 _JINTEREST_INCOME _1.973_00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 1, 973. 00 0. 00 3600 INTERGOVERNMENTAL/COUNTY 3601 /COUNTY AID TO CITIES 60,579.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 60, 579. 00 0.00 0.00 3900 OTHER REVENUE 3955 /BUDGETED TRANSFERS IN 5,938.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL_ 5,938.00 DEPT 0000 TOTALS 68, 490. 00 .FUND. TOTAL 0. 00 0.00 230. 99 . 1, 230. 99 0.00 0.00 5, 938. 00 5, 938. 00 0. 00 7, 168. 99 68, 490. 00 0. 00 7, 168. 99 742. 01 60, 579. 00 60, 579. 00 0. 00 0. 00 61, 321. 01 61, 321. 01 62.3 62.3 0. 0 0. 0 100. 0 100.0 10. 4 10. 4 1/4;.• WY, • 0 *2 3 4 41115 ..[67 DEPARTMENT 0000 111V 3100 TAXES 3116 ___/PARK_REC_FACILITY_TAX OBJECT SUBTOTAL 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-FA484 REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0010 TIME 21:09:54 FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 DATE 07/17/91 100,0%_OF_YEAR.COMPLETE UNREALIZED FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE 7. 125 PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES FUND 3401 /INTEREST INCOME II 14 OBJECT SUBTOTAL W 7 • • • 7,000. 00_ 0. 00 3, 500. 00 3, 500.00 50. 0 7. 000. 00 0. 00 3, 500. 00 3. 500. 00 50. 0 102,850.00 56,720.74 180,287.96 77,437.96- 175.2 102,850.00 56,720.74 180,287.96 77,437.96- 175.2 3900 OTHER REVENUE 3910 OBJECT SUBTOTAL DEPT 0000 FUND TOTAL /PARK/RECREATION IN LIEU 130,000.00 0.00 111,540.00 18,460.00 85. 8 130, 000. 00 0. 00 111, 540. 00 . 18, 460. 00 85. 8 TOTALS 239,850.00 56,720.74 295,327.96 55, 477. 96- 123. 1. 239, 850. 00 _56, 720. 74 295, 327. 96 !:7.,5, 477. 96- 123.1 ‘40 • • ' ' : • 0 • QI • • CITY OF HERMOOA 10 FIHANCE-rA4U4 REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (DY FURL) I R,_iL: 0011 TIME 21:0?:54 FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 UA1E 100.0% OF YEAR CC.ILIETE UNREALIZED FUND 033 DESCRIPTION EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE 126 OUT kAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY FUND I' A0 c; .0O 3100 TAXES 4 3120 _ /UTILITY USER TAX 663,766.00 74,027.62 672,914.30 9,148.O0- 101 0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 863,766.00 74,027.02 872,914.30 9,148 30- 101 0 ... :!0(:, U:F hONEY & PROPERTY 3401 /INTEREST INCOME 40,077.00 9,073.53 40,544.23 467.23- 101 1 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 40,077.00 9,073.53 40,544.23 467.23- 101.1 4. LEFT 0000 TOTALS 903,843.00 83,101.35 913,450.53 9, 61. 03- 1C-..2. 0 • FUND TOTAL 903, 843. 00 63, 101. 35 913, 438. 53 9, 615. 333- 101. 0 I: I MANCE--FA484 TIME 21:0 -?:54 FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION 127 6 UTILITY USER TAX FUND >>!.:f'M',r;t-.Mf 0000 3100 TAXES 3120 /UTILITY USER TAX OBJECT SUBTOTAL 1!90 USE OF MONEY PROPERTY 3401 /INTEREST INCOME OBJECT SUBTOTAL. DEPT 0000 CITY OF HERMOSA REACH REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0012 FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 DATE 07/17/91 100 0% OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE 1,295, 658.00 1, 295, 658.00 E3, 020. 00 8, 020. 00 TUTAL.S 1, 303, 678. 00 FUND TOTAL 1, 303, 678. 00 111, 041. 73 11.1,041.73 1, 7.74. 43 1, 174. 43 112, 216. 16 112, 218. 16 1, 309, 371. 49 1, 309, 371. 49 3,113 12E3 3,113.3C 1, 312, 484.87 1, 312, 484. 87 13, 713. 49-- 101. 0 13,713.49- 107. 0; 4, 906. '.2 30. 13 4, 906. 62 30 E3 8, 806. 87-- 1110 6 8, 806 07-- 100. 6 W • FINANCE -FA404 40 - TIME 21:09:54 402 134 • 5 • FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE 140 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND DEPARTMENT 0000 .3 I 0 1 7 118 19 • 2L. •" 13 1-4 • • • 3700 INTERGOVERNMENT/FEDERAL 3713 /HOUSING_REHABILITATION 3715 /CDBG ADMINISTRATION OBJECT SUBTOTAL PAGE 0013 DATE 07/17/91 100.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED BALANCE 7. .8.83200__.....__0_ 00 8, 831. 00 1. 00 4, 152. 00 0. 00 12, 9B4. 00 0. 00 3900 OTHER REVENUE 3904 /GENERAL MISCELLANEOUS 4,896.00 - OBJECT SUB_TOTN 4980O_ DEPT 0000 TOTALS 8,288.00 4, 152. 00 12, 983. 00 0,00 100.0 1.00 99.9 i 0. 00 4, 695. 94- 0. 06- 0. 00 8, 287. 06 0. '74 99,9 99.9 FUND TOTA% 8,288 00 0.00 8, 287. 06 0. 94 99. 9 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FlHANCE—FA464 REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0014 TINE .21:00::54 FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 DATE 07/17/91 100.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE ,. 145 I' F1JF' OS I TION ' A FUND DEP ';0! FEM 1 0000 3100 TAXES 3117_ /PROPOSITION A TRANSIT 190,000.00 0.00 3121 SUBREGNI_ INCENTIVE FUNDS 6, 000. 00 O. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 196,000.00 U. 00 3400 U3E OF MONEY 1 PROPERTY 3401 /INTEREST INCOME 24, 502. 00 12, 491.. 48 OBJECT SUBTOTAL _ 24, 502. 00 12, 491. 48 3E300 CURRENT SERVICE CHARGES 32'.:;4 /FARES, DIAL A RIDE 0, 000. 00 0, 00 3(22? /1305 PASSES 6, 000. 00 582. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 14, 500. 00 587.. 00 .DEFT 0000 TOTALS 235, 002. 00 13, 073. 48 FUND TOTAL 235, 002. 00 13, 073. 48 • 197, 927. 00 0. 00 197. 927. 00 39, 288. 45 39, 288. 45 6, 951. 62 6, 568. 00 13, 519. 62 250, 735. 07 250, 730. 07 7, 927: 00-- 104. 1 6, 000. 00 0. 0 1 , 927. 00-- 100 $ 14, 786. 40— 160. 3 14, 786. 45•— 160.3 1 , 548. 38 Cl.? 568. 00— 109 4 9E30. 38 03. 2 15, 733. 07— 10a, [, 15, 733. 07— i0 bt •0 I • • 41 : J, 0i • el J• j 0 • J • C 111!)Iit.:11-1.r'c':,34 1- I r :?.1: FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION CI II' OF HERMOSA NEACH REVENUE 110111 ARY REPORT (6Y FAJODi FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30,” EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE DAIE 07117/.?1 1.0.c...!% 01 YEAR CLIt'IPLEIL BALANCE 150 GRAN I FUND liF:PART:1EW 1 0000 :3500 INTERGOVERNMENTAL/STATE - 3517 _ .. /OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFET 40, 500. 00 0. 00 0. 00 40, 500. 00 0. 0 3518 /REC FAC IL I TIES76-190::6 0. 00 0. 00 2, 067. 44- 2. 06744 0 C) /W I LDL T. FE GRANT 0. 00 0. 00 5, 747. 55 5, 747. 55- 0 0 ..-32 /19-0019 6th /PROSPECT PR 0. 00 0. 00 2, 162. 00 2, 162. 00- 0. 0 3533 /REC FAC ILI T IES / 80-19019 0. 00 0. 00 12, 305. 50 12, 305. 50- 0. 0 35135 /OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SVC 0. 00 0. 00 1, 234. 00 1, 234. GO- 0. 0 OBJECT .SUBTOTAL. 40, 500. 00 0. 00 19, 381. 61 21, 116. 39 47. .j/00 INTERGOVERNNENT/FEDERAL 271.2 /FED EMERG MITI AGENCY OBJECT SUBlOTAL 333) orHER REVENUE 3904 JEC T SUB TOTAL Furw TOTAL /GENERAL MISCELLANEOUS 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 TOTALS 40, 500. 00 0. 00 U. 00 0. 00 0. 00 O. 00 40,1500. 00 0. 00 5, 320. 17-- 5, 320. 17-- 0. 00 0. 00 14, 061. 44 14, 061. 44 5, 320. 17 O. 0 5,1)20. 17 0. 0 0. 00 0. 0 0.0-0 0 0 26,438. 1)6 31 7 26, 4313 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FI1l,INCE-FA404 REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0016 TINE 21.0S:54 FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 DATE 07/17/91 100.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE 155 CROSSING GUARD FUND DFPAr,1KHNT 0000 3100 TAXES 3101 3103 OBJECT SUBTOTAL /CURRENT YEAR SECURED /PRIOR YEAR COLLECTIONS 53, 953. 00 5, 000. 00 58,953.00 57. 94 0. 00 57. 94 3.300 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 /INTEREST INCOME 2,891.00 2,325.07 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 2,091.00 2,325.07 DEFT 0000 TOTALS 61,844.00 2,383.01 FUND TO Itit- 61, 844. 00 2, 383. 01 50, 775. 07 4, 712. 52 515, 487. 09 6, 685. 31 6, 683. 31 62, 172. 90 62, 172. 90 3,177.93 2E17.48 3,465.41 3,794.31- 3,794.31- 94. 1 94 2 94 1 231.2 231. 328.90- 100 5 328. 90- 150. !ri • t:I,', Gr 111-P 1;11%CH >-. 1,‘11 NO:- ':UNN,HY REPORT (B( FUND) PAGE: 0011 • r t. RON 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 1)6(0 07117/.:,1 ILL • 100.0% OF YEAR CUi1PLLTL ! 0 ! • 1ft$ • 'I • • Oft FUNii OPJ DESCRIPTION 160 SEWER FUND 3100 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 31()1 . /INTEREST INCOME OBJECT SUBTOTAL TN1IM:UVERNMENTAL/COUNTY 2602 /BEACH OUTLET MAINTENANC 013 -)ECT SUBTOTAL 3800 CURRENT SERVICE CHARGES 3028 /SEWER CONNECTION FEE 3)139 /SEWER DEMOLITION FEE 8022 /SEWER LATERAL INSTALLTN OBJECT SUBlOTAL 3900 OTHER REVENUE 3902 /REFUNDS/REIMB PREY YR 1841 03) IN iF,JECT SUBTOTAL DEPT OGOO TOTALS. FUND fOIAL UNREAL.] 71-1) EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE 109, 480. 00 109, 400. 00 4, 000. 00 4, 000. 00 9, 000. 00 1, eon. 00 2, 740. 00 12, 740. 00 0. 00 800, 000. 00 800, 000. 00 926, 225. 00 926, 220. 00 33, 024. 94 71],:'24. 94 4, 483. 66 4, 40:3. 6 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 66, 666. 63 66, 646. 63 104, 675. 23 104, 670. 23 148,992.40 148,992.40 8, 2013. 72 8, 208. 72 (3, 330. 07 1, 140. co 3, 015. 00 12, 493. 07 30. 00 000, 000. 00 800, 030, 00 39,012.40- 39,512.40- 4,200.72-• 4,208.72- 661.43 140.00- 270.00- 246.43 30 00- C. 00 30. 00- 969, 737. 69 43, 012. 69-- 969, 737. 69 136.0 136 0 200.2 200.2 113 1111.0 '711.0 0 100 100 0 10-3 6 43, 012. 6'?- 10-1. 6 • CITY OF HERMOSA DEACN FINAMC:i-l'Al&;,1 REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0015 • TIME 21. 09::'A FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 DATE 07/17/91 100.0.4 OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED 40 ; FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE 170 ASSEI SLIZURE/FORFEITURE FUND : 40' Ni-I-ART1H1 0000 • • 40 • ; • , • O -I • O ' 40 ' 0 • 2300 FINES & FORFEITURES 3304 /FORFEITED FUNDS OBJECT SUBTOTAL O100 1.K-iE OF MONEY PROPERTY 3401 /INTEREST INCOME OBJECT SUBTOTAL 3300 OTHER REVENUE 7,01 OBJECT SUBTOTAL DEFT 0000 TOTALS /SALE. OF REAL/PERS P1300 FOND 452, 000. 00 4132. 000. 0C) 13, 15E3. 00 8, 158. 00 9. 000. 00 9. 000. 00 469, 1514. 00 469, 1130. 00 0. 00 455. 266. 40 0. 00 455, 266. 40 2. 1303. 76 13. 91E1. 01 2, 503. 76 13. 918. 51 0. 00 0. (30 0.00 0.00 2, 003. 76 469. 184. 91 2, 76 -163. 184. 91 3,266.40- 100.7 10') 7 5.760. 51- 170.6 5.760.51- 170. 6 9, 000. 00 0.0 9, 000. 00 0. 0 26. 91- 100 0 26. 91- • • ! • • ' • • • • • • • • • i• • • e • • 'C.i.f.. -1 ;'.•1%?. -1 111.11::: 2.1 ()'? FUND (111,1 D0SCR I PT ION 100 1') HE PRI ITEC F ION FOND 'Ak.1 0000 CI i Y IlLRMLII.iA I0,1 REVENUE Ill./1111ARY REPORT i'UND FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/Y1 EST REV mur4THL1 REV YEAR TO DA TE :.1400 UCE OF MONEY ?.! PROPERTY 3401. . / INTEREST INCOME . 21. 598. 00 14, 109.35 OBJECT SUB TOTAL 21, 593. 00 14, 107. 35 011-11-R RFVr'NUE /FIRE FLOW FEE 156, 000. 00 2, 098. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 156, 000. 00 2. 098. 00 OEPT 0001) TOTALS 177, 59E3. 00 16, 207. 35 FUND '10 FAL_ 177, 598. 00 16, 207. 39 41, 405. 67 41, 40:3. 67 147, 123. 07 147, 123. 07 188, 328. 74 188, 328. 74 LAO: 1 Yl..Att C UI IF E Al.. 17 LII 1141. A I IC ET 19. 807. 67- 191.7 19, 307. 67- 191 7 3, 376. 93 74 3 8.876. 73 94 3 10. 930. 74- 10, 730. 74- 106 1 • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH F I MANCE—FA4S4 REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (13Y FUND) PAGE 0020 • TIME 21:09:54 FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 DATE 07/17/91 4 0% OF YEAR COMPLETE • UNREALIZED FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE % *6 31 • 5 305 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND E DEPARTMENT 0000 e my- I • 1 0, • • ".`_ • 3 I 131 • - ---- - - - .. 40 • 1..4 • .:71 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 / INTEREST_ INCOME 0.00 0. 00 _0. 00 0..00 0. 0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 0 3900 OTHER REVENUE 3955 /OPERATING TRANSFERS IN 4, 096, 405. 00 299. 706. 12 4, 096, 405. 00 0. 00 100. 0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4, 096, 405. 00 299, 706. 12 4, 096, 405. 00 0. 00 100. 0 DEPT 0000 TOTALS 4, 096, 405. 00 299, 706. 12 4, 096, 405. 00 0. 00 100. 0 FUND TOTAL 4, 096, 405. 00 299, 706. 12 4, 096, 405. 00 0. 00 100. 0 I 4g. ! 4,4 4 1-INANCE-FAAC4 CilY OF HEliVIOOA liLACH REVENUE SUMMARY REPURT HY FUND) fiNi- 21.09:54 P,,,,i:: (0. -?1 FROM 06/01/91 10 06/30/91 DAlL 07.,17/91 41, 100.0% UF''.AR C011PLLTE FUND OBO DESCRIPTION UNREALIZED EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE % C, (IA 705 INSURANCE FUND DEPARTMENT 0000 4 3900 OTHER REVENUE 3902 . . .. . /REFUNDS/REIMH PREV YRu ' 3955 OPERATING TRANSFERS IN 2,033.00 0.00 57,131.45 55,090.43- 2010.2 /TRANSFER IN--DEPT1,003 INS SVS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0:00 0.0 17;B,)FCT SUBTOTAL ,479.00 272,640.00 1, 003, 480. 00 1. 00- 100 0 W. 1, 005, 512. 00 272, n10. 00 1, 060, 611. 45 :ID, 099. 45- 105. 4 DEPT 0000 TOTALS 1,005,512.00 272,640.00 1, 060, 611. 45 55, 099. 45- 105. 4 FUND TOTAL REPORT TOTALS 00, 512. 00 272, 640. 00 1, 060, 611. 45 23, 029, 977. 00 2, 096, 526. 46 23, 345, 448. 82 55, 099. 45-- 101.1. 1. 315, 471. 02-- 10 1. 73 F I NANCE-FA454 TIME 20:43:18 I 'I• -.FVND DIV OBJT DESCR • 001 GENERAL FUND 0000 DEPT: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EIXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (13Y FUND) FROM 06/01/91_10 06/30/91 _ APPROPRIATION EXPND- . 2110 DEPOSITS/WORK .GUARANTEE__________0. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 0. 00 3900 OTHER REVENUE . 3903 CONTRIBUTIONS NON GOVT 0.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 0. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 0. 00 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 0. 00 1101 CITY COUNCIL..,..DEP T_:__LEG I SLAT IVE 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALAR IES/MISC 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4112 PART..TIME/TEMPORARY______ OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4230 CONTRACT, SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4315 MEMBERSHIP 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 4319 SPECIAL EVENTS 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHCS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 5400 EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE THAN .$500 OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL 1121 CITY CLERV.. 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 PACE DATE 100. 0% OF 0001 07/17/91 YEAR COMPLETE ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 7. 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 .26, 687.00 1. 955. 96 . 26. 495. 19 0. 00 464. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 464. 00 130. 60 1, 656. 16 0. 00 __18. 000. 00 ____ . 1. 500. 00 . ._ __IS, 000. 00 . _ ...- _. . 0. 00 45, 615. 00 3, 586. 56 46, 151. 35 0. 00 • •. 8, 000. 00 8, 000. 00 1, 983. 00 1,983.00 280. 00 18. 38 111000. 00 .. 390. 03 6, 250. 00 0. 00 2. 750. 00 22. 00 500. 00 78. 03 3, 371. 00 571.00 24, 151. 00 1, 079. 44 351. 00 _. 3, 100. 00 3, 451. 00 81, 217. 00 _ . DEPT: . LEGISLATIVE 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC. 7,371.74 7,371.74 0. 00 0. 00 184. 89 - 0. 00 _ _6, 637. 63 0. 00 6, 638. 00 0. 00 2, 177. 00 0. 00 ..347. 61 0. 00 3, 376. 00 0. 00 19, 361. 13 0. 00 0. 00 351.. 21 • 2. 933. 34 _ 2. 935. 34 2. 935. 34 3, 286. 55 9,584.34 9, 652. 00 . 0. 00 76, 170. 77 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 12. 69 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 191. 81 464. 00 1, 192. 18- 0.00 536. 39- 628. 26 628.26 95. 11 4.362.37 30E3. 00- .573. 00 152. 39 5. 00- 4, 789. 87 0. 21.- 164. 66 1.t..4. 45 3. u4e, 2.1 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 356. 9 100. 0 101. 1 92. 1 92. 1 66. 0 60. 3 106. 2 79. 1 69. 5 100 1 00, 1 10(1 94 6 •?:.; FINANCE-FA454 TIME 20:43:48 40121 FUND CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 06/01/91 TO 06(30/91. DIV OBJT DESCR APPROPRIATION 001 GENERAL FUND 1121 CITY CLERK DEPT: LEGISLATIVE 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY OBJECT SUBTOTAL 656. 00 656. 00 42, 114. 00 53, 078. 00 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 20, 330. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL. 20, 330. OC) 4300 MATER I ALS/SUPPL I ES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 625. 00 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 2, 100. 00 4315 MEMBERSHIP 270. 00 4316 TRA WING 1, 033. 00 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 600, 00 4323 PUBLIC NOTICING 9, 700. 00 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CMOS 2, 489. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 16, 817. 00 5400 EGUIPMENT 5401 EGUIPMENT-EES THAN OBJECT SUBTOTAL 800. 00 800. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 91, 023. 00 1122 TIONS DEPT: LEGISLAT I VE 4200 CONTRACT SERV ICES 4201 CONTRACT _SERV I CE /pR IVATE O. 00.... 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT 3, 469. 00 OB JEC T SUB TOTAL 3, 469. 00 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE oPP. SUPPLIES. 4316 TRAINING 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE OB.;FCT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL 100. 00 200. 00 1, 167. 00 600. 00 2, 067. 00 MONTHLY EXP ,, YTD EXPND. 0. 00 0. 00 3, 208. 54 3, 208. 34 0. 00 0. 00 68. 42 194. 46 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 2. 159. 39 408. 00 2. 830. 27.... . . 0. 00 0. 00 6, 038. 81 . Q. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 38. 40 44. 60 0. 00 83. 00 0. 00 0. 00 38, 136. 51 38, 679. 20 128. 98 12(3. 98 564. 25 2, 497. 93 100. 00 196. 00 0. 00 9. 875. 09 2, 487. 00 15, 720. 27 0. 00 0. 00 54, 52E3. 45 0. 00 3, 467. 87 3. 467. 87 0. 00 133. 11 44. 60 0. 00 197, 71 PAGE 0002 - - --• - DATE 07/17/91 100. 07. OF YEAR COMPLETE ENCUMBRANCE MENG BALANCE 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 O. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 25. 00 0.00 0. 00 25. 00 5, 536. OQ 83, OQ . 3, 665. 58 . 25. 00 636. 00 656. 00 3, 977. 49 14, '7199. 80 20, 201. 02 20, 201. 02 60. 75 397. 93- 170. 00 637. 00 600. 00 175. 09- 2. 00 1, 096. 73 600. 00 800. 00 36. 496. 55 0. 00 1. 13 1. 13 100. 00 21. 8? 1, 122. 40 600. 00 1,1344. 29 1.1345. 42 O. 0 0. 0 90 1 7?.13 0 06 9c. :77. 115.9 16 9 G. G 101. 8 99 9 93. 4 0. 0 0. 0 19 9 0. 0 99 V 99. V 0. 0 L9. 0 3 0 0 • • F 'A434 1 IMF 20: 4:3; 48 • • - • • .CITY OF NERMOSA nLAcH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 PAcX_ 000 DATE 07/17i91 100.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE FUND DIV OBJT DESCR APPROPRIATION MONTHLY EXP _ YTD EXPND. ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 7. 001 GENCRi,L FUND 1131 CI f Y ATTORNEY DEPT: LEGISLATIVE 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES_ 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 107,500.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 107,500. 00 4300 MATER I ALS /SUPPL IES /OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 1E35. 00 4305 OFFICE. OPER SUPPLIES .310.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 495. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 107, 995. 00 1132 CITY PROSECUTOR_ _DEPT: LEGISLATIVE 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY, OBJECT SUBTOTAL 25, 440. 00 25, 440. 00 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES_ 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 33, 000. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 33, 000. 00 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 185.00 4396 TRSFR OUT-INS_USER..CHGS__ 984. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 1, 169. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 59, 609. 00 1141 CITY TREASURER DEPT: LEGISLATIVE 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR. SALARIES/MISC 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 28, 449. 00 500. 00 0. 00 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN .902.00 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 14, 979. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 44, 830. 00 1200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL_ 2, 000. 00 2. 000. 00 16, 111. 50 94, 337. 27 0. 00 16, 111. 30 94, 337. 27 0. 00 25. 10 267.134 0. 00 5. 49 . 39. 49 . _ _ 0. 00 30. 59 307. 33 0. 00 16, 142. 09 94, 864. 60 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 5, 200. 00 5, 300. 00 0. 00 43, 095. 50 0. 00 43, 095. 50 0. 00 0. 00 192. 00 984. 00 192. 00 984. 00 192. 00 . 2, 524. 00 174. 72 0. 00 0. 00 1.262. 00 3, 960. 72 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 - O. 00 49, 379. 50 0. 00 23, 641. BO 378. 84 0 00 894. 62 14, 979. 00 39, 894. 26 0. 00 48. 76 0. 00 48. 76 12, 942. 73 12, 942. 73 82. 134- 270. 51 1E37. 67 13, 130. 40 20, 140. 00 20, 140. 00 10, 095. 30- 10, 095. 30- 185. 00 0. 00 1E15. 00 Ei7. 9 (37. 144. 7 12. 7 62. 0 137. 8 20. 8 20. 130 5 130 0. 0 100. 0 84. 1 10, 229. 50 82.8 0. 00 4,1307. 20 113. 1 0. 00 121. 16 73. 7 0. 00 0. 00 0 0 0. 00 7. 30 99. 1 0. 00 0 00 I 00 0 0. 00 4, 9.:5. 74 0. 00 1. `i'../1 0. 00 1.931 24 .; 40 FINANCE-FA454 TIt•ME 20:43:48 ' • 1"i • • • 101' • FUND DIV OBJT DESCR 001 GENERAL FUND 1141 CITY TREASURER CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0004 FROM 06/01/91 TO 06!30/91,,. DATE 07/17/91 100. 03 OF YEAR COMPLETE APPROPRIATION MONTHLY EXP _. YTD EXPND, ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE DEPT: LEG ISLAT IVL_ 4300 MATER IALS/ SUPPL__ IES/_OTHER _ _ _ 4304 TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4315 MEMBERSHIP 4316 TRAINING 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 4.396 TRSFR OUT -INS USERCMGS.__ OBJECT SUBTOTAL 785. 00 1, 470. 00 185. 00 250. 00 500. 00 1, 723. 00 4, 913. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 51,743.00 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 397, 125. 00 1201 CITY MANAGER DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4110 VACATION!SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY OBJECT SUBTOTAL 105, 979. 00 1, 966.00 1, 966. 00 260. 00 110, 170. (10 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERV ICE/PR IVATE_ _,300,_00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 300.00 MATER TAI S/SUPPI_IE i/OTHER 4201 TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE_ OPER SUPPLIES 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES__ 4311 AUTO (1AINTENANCE 1315 MEMBERSHIP 4316 TRAINING 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS OBJECT SUBTOTAL L 10(i E'tU l t' TIENT ;(1 E'l'.!TPHENT-LESS THAN $500 OBJECT SUB -TO IAI_ 615. (10 1, 650. 00 220.00 135. 00 700. 00 3, 500. 00 1, 700. (10 5, 756. 00 14, 276. 00 0. 00 0. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 124, 746. 00 58. 51 103.23 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 249. 00 410. 74 635. 71 1, 404. 17 125. 00 182. 05 0. 00 1, 723. 00 4, 069. 93 4, 371. 46 44, 012. 95 36, 411. 70 13, 745. 96 0. 00 130. 40 0. 00 8, 976. 36 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 322, 621.85 25. 00 105, 789. 61 0. 00 3, 090. 78 260. 16 1.09, 1'113. 55 1 1.00 _. _ . 203.74 11. 00 203. 74 51. 02 36. 18 55. 45_ 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 965. 00 1, 107. 65 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 149. 29 80 9 6 0. 133 95 '1 60. 00 67 5 67. 95 72. 0 500. 00 0. 0 0.00 100.0 843. 07 G2. 0 7, 730. 05 i•O: 0 74, 478. 15 E1. 2 188. 39 1, 966. 00 1, 132. 70-- 0.16- 1, 021. 45 96. 26 96. 26 99.0 0. 0 157.6 100 0 99. 0 67. 9 67. 9 465. 80 0. 00 149. 20 75 7 1, 755, 29 0. 00 105. 29- 106 3 78. 97 0, 00 141. 03 35 B 3. 19 0. 00 131. 91 2. 3 693. 25 0. 00 6. 73 0 0. 00 O. 00 3, '500. 00 0. '3 1, 702). 22 0. 00 5. 22- 10'0. 3 5, 761. 00 0. 00 5. 00- 100 0 10, 462. 72 0. 00 3, 913. 28 73 3 0. 00 30. 65 O. 00 30. 95 9, 995. 01 119, 1345. 86 o. 00 30. En- C' o. oo :30. 85- 0 0 0. 00 4, 900. 14 • 402 0. • 0 t s * s •- : . _ 540Q FGUIPMENT. 5101 EGUIPMENT-LESS THAN $500 796.00 1111V OBJECT SUBTOTAL 796.00 ss. h\NE- TIME 20•13'4P CITY OF HERMOSA HEACH EXPPNDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND/ FROM 08/01/91 TO 06/30/91 FUND DIV OBJT DESCR APPROPRIATION 001 GENERAL FUND - 1202 FINANCE ADMIN DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4100 PERSONAL_SERVICES_________ 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MSC 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY, OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY . .OBJECT_SUBTOTAL 209, 154. 00 3, 600. 00 4, 163. 00 4, 183. 00 1, 500. 00 222, 620. 00 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT...SERVICE/PRIVATE ... 52, 645. 00 013JECT SUBTOTAL 52, 645. 00 _ 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 16, 492. 01 200. 04 0. 00 . 0. 00 0. 00 205, 564. 06 2, 930. 21 0. 00 4, 640. 73 143. 55 16, 692. 05. 213,278. 55 _ 3, 974. 17 43, 499. 79 ...... 3,974.17 43, 499. 79 2, 646. 00 203. 53 1, 903. 43 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 9,700.00 846.76 10,698.62 4315 MEMBERSHIP 4316 TRAINING 3,652.00 90.95 2,446.67 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 800.00 0.00 615.70 4396 TREFR OUT=INS USER_CHGS 9,645.00 _1,726_00 9.646.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 26,693.00 2,867.26 25,574.62 •-• DIVISION TOTAL 1203 PERSONNEL DEPT: 4100 PERSONAL. SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MSC 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH_IN 41.12 PART TIME/TEMPORARY OBJECT SUBTOTAL 302, 754. 00 MGMT/SUPPONT 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT OBJECT SUBTOTAL . 57, 687. 00 360. 00 2, 022. 00 1, 884. 00 61, 953. 00 23, 600. 00 . 2, 075. 00 25, 675. 00 0. 00 322. 40 0. 00 522. 40 23,533.48 4, 873. 58 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 4, 873. 58 5, 609. 10 0. 00 5,609.10 282.875.36 56, 762. 11 0. 00 . 2, 021. 60 127. 16 58, 910. 87 20, 891. 05 445. 00 21, 336. 05 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER _ 4304 TELEPHONE 963.00 118.23 1,012.78 PAGE DATE U00:5 07/17/5'1 100.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 . 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 . 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,589.94 669.79 4,183.00 457.73- 1,356.45 9,341.45 9,145.21 9,145.21 740. 57 998. S2- 12. 00-- 1, 205. 33 1E34. 30 1. 00- 1, 118.38 273.60 273.60 19,070.64 924. 89 360. 00 0. .10 1, 756. 84 3, 042. 13 2,708.95 1, 630. 00 4,338.95 98. 2 81. 3 0. 0 110.9 9. 95. 82.6 82.6 72. 0 110.2 101. 11 66.9 76.9 100. 93. 63. 6 6.5.6 93. 4 96.3 00 6. 7 95. C EN 21 4 133 1 49. 713- 105. 1 FINANCE-FA454 TIME 20:43:48 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0006 FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 _ DATE 07/17/91 100. 01 OF YEAR COMPLETE FUND DIV OL3JT DESCR APPROPRIATION.. _MONTHLY .EXP ..-. YTD EXPND. ___ _ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE ;: 001 GENERAL FUND 1203 PERSONNEL DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER______ 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 7, 000. 00 4315 MEMBERSHIP 650.00 4316 TRAINING 2, 795. 00 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 740.00 4320 MEDICAL EXAMS 11, 500. 00 4327 AGM) INCENTIVES 1, 580. 00 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS 2, 454. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 27, 682. 00 5400 EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 108. 00 10(3. 00 _ 631. 99 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 684.00 85. 00 463. 00 1, 982. 22 6, 951. 97 572. 50 2, 045. 56 632. 17 9, 789. 00 195. 00 2, 454. 00 23, 652. 98 0. 00 105. 62 0. 00 _ . . . . 105. 62 0. 00 0. 00 0. OC) 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 48. 03 99. 3 77. 5o 8B. 0 749. 44 73. 1 107. 83 85. 4 1, 711. 00 85. 1 1, 385. 00 . 0. 00 100 0 4, 029. 02 05 4 0. 00 2. 30 97. 0. 00 2. 38 97. 7 DIVISION ... T' TAI _......-----.----.. __-. _.. 11S, 418. 00 12, 464. 90 104, 005.:2 0. 00 1205 CABLE TV DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL_ CASH IN 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER__._. 4205 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 4315 MEMBERSHIP 4316 TRAINING 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 43?6 IRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISIOI`I TOTAL l: -O._ t.A-IA POOCESSING •(1': G PEROUt IAL. SERV ICES 11; RL CUI.(s4) S.A!-ARIE'.-i/MISC P.8, 964. 00 16, 300. 00 520. 00 520. 00 2, 700. 00 20, 040, 00 5, 000. 00 5, 000. 00 700. 00 1, 000. ()0 400. 00 350. ()C) 500. 00 1. 207. 00 4, 157. 00 1, 387. 36 0. 00 0. 00 145. 25 1, 532. 61 0. 00 0. 00 0. 18 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 219. 00 219. 18 29, 197. 00 1, 751. 79 DEP T,MGMT/SUPPORT ._. 21, 453. 20 0. 00 0. 00 1, 492. 75 . 22, 945. 95 0. 00 0. 00 272. 69 0. 00 60. 00 E15. 00 0. 00 1, 209. 00 1, 626. 69 24, 572. 64 6, 429. 00 82, 461.67 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 300. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 300.00 300. 00 11, 412. 48 90. 1 5, 153. 20- 131. t. 520. 00 0. 0 520. Oo 0. 0 1, 207. 25 55. 2 2, 705. 95-- 114. 5 .:, 000. 00 0. 5, 000. 00 0. 0 427. 31. 1 , 000. 00 0 40. 00 20-5. 00 24 2 500. 00 0 0 2. 00- 100- 1 2, 230. 31 46, 4, 324. 36. ti^ ) 0. 00 6, 1302. 'i3 • • ' • • -;• ' • 0". • • kr - • • I •1,, 0 1-114,,NCE 1111.. 20 42' 40 CITY UF HERMOSA UI '.01 EXPLMBITURE SUMMARY REPOR E (BY 11NO) FROM 0,'-/01/91 10 06/30/91 FUND DIV OBJT DT:SCR APPROPRIATION 001 GENL FUND 1a)6 oo A PROCESIN0 DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES. 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 500. 00 1, 779. 00 2, 095. 00 93, 333. 00 93, 451. 00 93, 451. 00 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 8, 429. 00 638. 67 0. 00 2, 094. 20 85, 194. 54 _ . 2, 968. 44 63, 571. 97 2, 968. 44 63, 511. 97 PAGE 000., DATE 07i17/91 100 01 OF YEAR COMPLETE ENCUMBRANCE UMEI-IC BALANCE 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 138. 67- 1, 779. 00 0. BO 8, 143. 46 29, 879. 03 29, 879. 03 127. 7 0. 0 99. $1.2 68 0 411. 0 4340 MATER I ALS/SUPPL IES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 2.563. 00 541. 88 3, 733. 06 416. 65 1, 502. 51- 161. 6 4305 OFF ICE . CJPER SUPPLIES_____ _10, 934.00 973. 99 6, 957. 12 0. 00 3, 776. 38 63. 6 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 2, 200. 00 80. 74 113. 90 0. 00 2, 036. 10 5. 1. 4315 MEMBERSHIP 830. 00 0. 00 385. 00 0. 00 445. 00 46.'3 4316 TRAINING .. ._ . 167. 00 0. oo 267. 02 0. 00 100. 02- 159. 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 1,350.00 0.00 173.45 0.00 1,176. 55 12 8 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHCS 3,336.00 654.00 3, 338. 00 0.00 2.00- 100.0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 21,3E15000 2,250.61 14,963.35 416.65 6,000.00 71.9 5100 EGUIPMENT 5401 EGUIPMENT-LESS THAN $500 __ _ . .. 0.00 0.00 62,9.44 0.00 639.44- 0.0 5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE THAN $500 95,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 95,000.00 0 0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 95,000.00 0.00 639.44 0.00 94,360.56 0. DIVISION TOTAL 303, 174. 00 11, 643. 05 1.207 BUS LICENSE DEPT: MGMT /SUPPORT 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 1201 CONTRACT SERVICE/00VT _ ObJECT SUDIOTAL MATER IALSISUPPLIES/OTHER _ 1T:LEPHONE 79, 979. 00 1:100. 00 1, 600. 00 1, 600. 00 83, 679. 00 29. 00 160. 00 189. 00 .• 375. 00 6, 696. 97 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 6, 696. 97 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 59. 73 164, 374. 30 416. 85 78, 694. 47 191. 64 0. 00 445. 95 79, 332. 26 19. 78 .. 114. 01 133. 79 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 539. 94 0. 00 133, 3133. en 54. 3 1, 204. .".13 306. 1,S 1, 800. 00 1, 154. 05 4, 346. 74 9. 22 ,15. 99 t;5.21 164. 96 3 33 3 00 94 C 71 2 • S S FINANCE-FA454 TIME 20:43:48 •I 3 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 000S 41 FROM 06/01./9.___Ip_ 06/3Q191_ DATE 071.17/3.1-..__ 100. 0% OF YEAR COMPLETE Iv 40 FUND DIV OBJT DESCR EROPRIATION- MONTHLY_EXP YTD EXEND ENCUMBRANCE____UNENC. BALANCE. __ _ 7._.__. 001 GENERAL FUND 1207 BUS LICENSE DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4300 MATERIALS/SUFELIESLOTTiER 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4,380.00 508.88 4,322.56 0. 0057.44 98. 6 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 286. 00 174. 23 313. 85 O. 00 27. 65- 109. 7 4311. AUTO MAINTENANCE 105.00._.. ,_ ____ O. 00 ._______ ...... 54. 53 ..-_ ._. .. 0. 0050. 47 51. 9 4315 MEMBERSHIP 50. 00 0.00 40. 00 0. 00 10. 00 80. 0 4316 TRAINING 951. 00 20. 00 970. 14 O. 00 19. 14- 102. 0 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 599 OQ 0 QQ 403,4Q 0 00 . 195. 60 _ _ 67. 3 1 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS 5, 309. 00 1, 166. 00 5,313.00 0. 00 4. 00- 100. 0 ! OBJECT SUBTOTAL 12,055. 00 1, 928. 84 11, 957. 42 0. 00 97. 58 99. 1 19 ▪ 20 [23_12 O 23 .1?5 DIVISION TOTAL 95, 923. 00 8, 625. 81 91, 423. 47 0. 00 27 z5 • 29 1208 GEN APPROP DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES A 31 '+� 32 3 4, 499. 53 95. 3 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 21, 964. 00 2, 289. 00 20, 971. 00 0. 00 993. 00 95. 4 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 526. 00 O. 00 0.00 O. 00 526. 00 O. 0 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IM .526 -DO 0 00 0 00 0 00.._.____.____.026...00 .- __ 0.0 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 4, 300. 00 O. 00 4, 300. 36 O. 00 O. 36- 100. 0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 27, 316. 00 2, 289. 00 25, 271. 36 0. 00 2, 044. 64 92.5 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 15, 600. 00 1, 797. 00 16, 491. 57 0. 00 891. 57- 105. 7 I OBJECT SUBTOTAL 101 f3QQ�O 1.797 00 16.491 57 0 00.--__._______ 891..57-_ 105.7 34 • 35 136 37 3 130 40 42 43 4)141 _445 • 47 4v •ice' it 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 268.00 ---_ 27. 01 _ _ -.. _ __. 257.. 20 ... _. _ .__... _ -... 0. 00 . _ 10. 80 95. 9 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 300. 00 3, 493. 56- 45, 366. 64- 0. 00 45, 666. 64 15122 2 4316 TRAINING 200. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 200. 00 0. 0 4396 TRSFR OUT- INS _USER CFtGS 1i 269-Q0_ 213. 0Q. __ .1.269. 00- ___ Q 00 0 00 100. 0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 2, 037. 00 3, 253. 55- 43, 840. 44- 0. 00 45, 877. 44 2152. 2 5400 EQUIPMENT . 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 100.00 162. 14 251..81 0.00 151.81- 251.8 5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE THAN $500 7. 156.00 0.00 0.00 7, 166. 16 30. 16- 100. 4 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 7, 25640_ _ __ _____162 14 251 81 7,156_16 __ __-__ .. _. 161. 97- 102. 5 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS OBJECT SUBTOTAL •. 22. 970. 00 22, 970. 00 Q..00 0. 00 14x.425. 93 14, 425. 93 0. 00 0. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 75, 179. 00 994. 59 12, 600. 23 7, 186. 16 8, 544. 07 8, 544. 07 55, 392. 61 62. 9 62. E3 26. 3 � W. 4 • • I. • • • C1lY OF HERMOSA UL, -,CH F1NNCE• Fd, -i: 4 EXF'1_NDI [ONE SUMMARY REPORT (DY FUND) PAGE 0009 TIME 2) 4.1.4? FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 DATE 0)'/17/.91 100 0% OF YEAR COMPLETE FUND DIV OL'JT DFSCR __- APPROPRIATION . MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. ENCUMBRANCE UNEI1C BALANCE 001 GENERAL FUND 1212 EMP BENEFITS DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4100 PERSONAL _SERVICES 4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 642, 453. 00 56, 836. 67 592,955. 23 0.00 49. 502. '77 92 2 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 642, 458. 00 56, 836. 67 592. 955. '2.3 0. 00 49, 502. 77 92.:= wo DIVISION TOTAL_ 642, 4513. 00 56, 836. 67 592, 955. 23 0. 00 49, 502. 77 92.2 ,u, 1212 RErIRENENT DEPT: MGMT/SUPPONT 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES _ _ __. 4180 RETIREMENT 874, 973. 00 71.. 307.34 778, 971. 34 0. 00 96. 001. 66 89 0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 874, 973. 00 71, 207. 34 778, 971. 34 0. 00 96, 001. 66 B9.0 DIVISION TOTAL_ 374, 973. 00 71, 307. 34 778, 971. 34 0. 00 96, 001. 66 89.C. .,. 1214 F'R9SP EXP DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 43:22 UNCLASSIFIED 439751 ANTICIPATED SAVINGS OBJECT SUBTOTAL . DIVISION . TOTAL _.._ 23, 762. 00 254, 757. 00-- 230, 995. 00- 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 230, 99.5. 00— ... 0. 00 1299 !;UI)' ET TRANSFER DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT UL'•JECT SUBTOTAL L'I'.'11=IO I TOTAL DFPAR'rlr_r'dT TOTAL- 2101 POLICE 151, 474. 00 151, 474. 00 4, 083. 37 4, 083. 37 151, 474. 00 4,0E3.27 2.484, 301.00 2C)1, 241.01 DEPT: POLICE 11 Q r=L:1_U[IAL SSERVICES 41C2 REGULAR SALARIES/MSC 564, 135. 00 1103 REGULAR SALARIES/SAFETY 1.646, 361. 00 4105 SPECIAL DUTY PAY - .. 22, 560. 00 45, 395. 80 156, 892. 1.3 2, 100. 00 0. 00 0. 00 O. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 _ 0. 00 151, 474. 00 151, 474. 00 23, 762. 00 254, 7 5'7. 00.- 230, 995. 00- O 0 O 0 G 0 230,995.00— 0.G 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 151, 474.00 0. 00 2, 323, 097. 95 7, 902. 81 :.i33, 344. 59 1, 542, 602. 02 22, 960. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 100 0 100 , 0. 00 100. 1: 153, 300. 24 30,190. 41 103, 58. 90 400. 00.- F 1 NANCE-FA4!_/4 T IME 7.0: ,13 • ,113 FUND DIV OBJT DESCR 001 GENERAL FUND 2101 FOL10E DEPT: POLICE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/0/91 . APPROPR TAT I ON 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 4107 PREMIUM OVERTIME 4109 COURT TIME 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4112 PART TINE/TEMPORARY 4114 POLICE RESERVES 4117 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 41113 FIELD TRAINING OFFICER 4187 UNIFORMS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 50, 000. 00 100, 630. 00 20, 000. 00 44, 574. 00 44, 949. 00 6, 000. 00 24, 000. 00 9, 065. 00 9, 000. 00 38, 500. 00 2, 579, 774. 00 4200 CONTRAC T SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PR IVATE 110, 437. 00 4251 CONTRACT SERV I CE / GOVT 38, 729. 00 OBJECT SUB TOTAL 149, 166. 00 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4303 UTILITIES 0.00 4304 TELEPHONE 28,090.00 4305 CEPICE SUPPLIES 36, 000. 00 4306 PRISONER MAINTENANCE 10, 160. 00 4307 RADIO MAINTENANCE 4, 500. 00 4309 MA I NTE-:NANCE MATER IALS --•. 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 4312 TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST 4313 TRAVEL EXPENSE, STC 4315 MEMBERSHIP 1316 TRAINING' 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 436 1PflFR OUT -INS USER CMOS S;T.THIAL 0100 LOU1PNEN1 5401 E0UIPMENT-LLSS THAN $000 . 5402 ECM I PMEN I -MORE THAN $500 3(3. )EC SUB (0 (AL. P AYMENTS • 1 LE/ -7,E PAYMENTS 1133 FN, roTAL 19, 250. 00 24, 000. 00 21, 500. 00 8, 500. 00 1, 660. 00 . 14. 000. 00 4, 500. 00 437, 913 00 618. 373 '((3 3, 050. 00 40, 0136. 00 43, 136. 00 134. 626. 00 1.34, 626. 00 MONTHLY EXP. _ YTD EXPND. 1, 551. 92 4, 408. 03 1, 271. 02 1, 094. 43 9, 132. 20 693. 00 408. 00 661. 42 120. :32 3, 210. 63 226, 938. 90 5, 915. 58 547.72 . 6, 463. 30 70.02 3, 417. 58 4, 4711. 58 1.767. 13 406. 50 . . 654. 64 13, 682. 31 3, 061. 09 1, 489. 19 934.131 0. 00 560. 48 0. 00 131, 01:3.00 16:3 ;361. r -.E1 14. 00 0. 00 14. 00 9, 230. 00 9, 230. 00 52, 727. 26 128, 557. 20 11, 381. 63 10, 549. 44 51, 645. 09 2. 877. 00 12, 028. 50 8, 201. 78 4. 188. 17 32, 562. 43 2, 413, 625. 11 62, 915. 93 9. 099. 09 . 72, 015. 02 1, 034. 76 34, 117. 64 33, 612. 12 10, 149. 50 4, 750. 77 5, 775. 62 35, 356. 80 38, 910. 08 28, 505. 59 3, 939. 91 623. 00 14. 809. 94 901. 99 437, 0135. 00 655, 392..72 2, 787. 60 0. 00 2. 787. 60 116. 979. 36 116, 979, 36 PAGE 0010 DATE 07/17/71 100. 03 OF YEAR COMPLETE ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 7. 0.00 0. 00 0, 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0, 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 3, 500. 00 3, 500. 00 0. 00 0. 00 312. 02 0. 00 961. 91 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1, 773. 93 9. 610. 02 0. 00 9. 610. 02 0. 00 0. 00 2, 727. 26- 27, 927. 20- E3, 618. 37 34, 024. 56 6, 696. 09- 3, 123. 00 11, 971. 50 E 63. 22 4, 811. 83 5, 937. 37 166, 148. 39 47, 521. 07 26, 129. 91 73, 650. 913 1, 034. 5, 227. 3, 424. 10. 1, 212. 1, 724. 16, 106. 14, '710. '7, 005. 4, 560. 1. C/37. 1309. 5713. 76- 64- 14- 50 68- 38 80- 08- 09 00 94 01 k.?0 71:0 9, 3,18. 42.- 40, 0136. 00 30, 737. 5E3 17, 646. 64 17. 646. 64 105 4 127. 7 n6 9 23. 6 114. 47 9 50 1 90 4 334. 5 93. 5 56. 9 35. 0 50. 6 0.0 118 0 109.5 99.0 126.9 77.0 183.6 162.1 12.5 46 3 37 5 10:3.7 20 404, 5 0.0 2U. 7 135 13 110. • 40 • 2 405 • 3 F INANCE-FA454 _LIME MF_ 2Q'..43; 48 CITY OF HERMOSA LEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM.06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 FUND DIV _..OBJ_T_DESCR AEP.ROPRIAil ON_ 001 GENERAL FUND 19 40 - 22 • 23 124 25 • 26 2828 29 ao 131 • 32 33 34 5 36 3] • :w 39 40 • 41 42 4.1 MONTHLY EXP .`YTD_ EXPND.._____ DIVISION TOTAL 3, 525, 075. 00 405, 207. B8 -DEEAR_TMENT _InTAI q._525, 075_00 2201 FIRE DEPT: FIRE 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 43,789.00 4103._REGULAE Sc3LARIESLSAFETY 899..580_00 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 99,500.00 4108 FLSA OVERTIME 60, 255. 00 4110_ VACATION/SICK EAY_OEF 18, 032 00 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 18, 032. 00 4119 FITNESS INCENTIVE 4,500.00 41II7__UNIFORMS 8, _040_On OBJECT SUBTOTAL 1, 151, 728. 00 _4200 _CONTRACT SERVICES 3, 260, 799. 81 405,_207 88. 3. 260._799__81_ PAGE 0011 DATE 07/17/91 100.0. OF YEAR COMPLETE __._ENCUMBRANCE _ UNENC BALANCE 14, 884. 75 249, 390. 44 14. 884_75- .. __._. __ 249, 390. 44 3, 694. 50 43, 439. 00 0. 00 7517.2.._7.4 .890., 702_.04 0 00__ 12, 822. 30 128, 834. 42 0. 00 5, 351. 47 59, 502. 26 0. 00 .0. 00--_- - -- .0. 00 0 00 - 29, 002. 74 61, 023. 42 0. 00 0. 00 6, 400. 00 0. 00 428 29 5. 830 88 0 00 126, 472. 04 1, 195, 732. 02 0. 00 92. 9 92. 9 350. 00 99. 2 -_8, 877. 96 _ ._ _.. 99. 0 29, 334. 42- 129. 4 752. 74 98. 7 - 18. 032. 00 .0. 0 42, 991. 42- 338. 4 1, 900. 00- 142. 2 2. 209. 12- .-- -_ - 72. 5- 44, 004. 02- 103. B 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 21, 718. 00 21, 718. 00 978. 45 978. 45 21, 773. 13 21, 773. 13 0. 00 0. 00 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 4305... OFFICE .BEER.SUEELIES 114, 48 49 1 52 53 54 t55 • 56 • 3, 750. 00 504. 21 2, 729. 49 0. 00 3, S00_.00 797 07 3. 800._01_._____-___.___.__._0. 00 4307 RADIO MAINTENANCE 0.00 0.00 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 6, 592. 00 448. 81 4310.-MOTOR_EUEL.S_.AND_LUBFS 1._080 00 361 73 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 1, 000. 00 7. 55 4315 MEMBERSHIP 650. 00 0.00 __4316 TRAINING 2. 500_00. _.-___.365. 00__. 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 2,000.00 0.00 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS 121,621.00 OBJECT__SUBTOTAL 144.993 00 5400 EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT --LESS THAN_7500 5402 EQUIPMENT --MORE THAN $500 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 3, 952._00 8, :301. 00 12, 253. 00 O. 00 5, 406. 65 1, 258. 49 1, 159. 35 790. 00 -- 265. 69 37, 932. 00 121, 543. 00 40..416._37---_138, _924. 90- 442. 98 696. 42 1, 139. 40 3.526.27._ 8,186.99 11, 713.36 386. 30 0. 00 0 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 386, 30 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 82, 541. 00 0. 00 82, 758. 78 82. 541_00_.._-.. _--.---..__-- 0. 00. __________ .82..758. -78-----. DIV IS I ON_110TAI I 413, 233_..00 169.. 006_ 26 1, 450._9.02__19- - 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 -.0. 00 386 30 04 WD% 41.4 VY 1, 020. 51 0. 01-- 386. 30- 1, 185. 35 1, 821. 51 - 159. 35- 140. 00- 527. 78 1, 734. 31 78. 00 5, 681. 80 425. 63 114. 01 539. 64 217. 78- 217. 78- 72. 7 100. 0 0. 0 62. 0 . 40:0 115. 9 121.7 78. L 13. 2 99. 9 96. 0 69. 2 90 6 95 5 100.2 100.2 38, 055. 49- 102. 6 r2 • • F I N.?NCE--FA4:i4 1 TEUF 20 40: 4E3 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPF:NDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (DY FUND) FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/10/91 FUND DIV OBJT DESCR APPROPRIATION 001 GE.LJI:ikr1E_ FOND DEPARTMENT TOTAL_ 1, 413, 233. 00 2401 ANIMAL CONTROL ..._.._.---_DE_PT;.-.. ANIMAL REQULTN 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4117 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 4137 UNIFORMS OBJECT SUBTOTAL. - 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 4231 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT OBJECT SUBTOTAL 96, 342. 00 1, 000. 00 1, 927. 00 1, 927. 00 500. 00 500. 00 102, 196. 00 .1, 900. 00 6, 000. 00 7, 900. 00 MONTHLY. EXP _ YTD EXPND. 169, 006. 26 1, 450, 902. 19 7, 621.34 73. 31 0. 00 0. 53 0. 00 0. 00 7, 695. 19 . 279.50 601. 84 881.34 86, 130. 81 1, 168. 16 0. 00 1, 814. 00 253. 35 131. 32 89, 505. 61 1, 467. 74 5, 710. 28 7, 1713. 02 PAGE 0012 DATE 07/17/91 100.02 OF YEAR COMPLETE ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE is 386.30 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 38, (35 49- 102. ._. 10, 203. 19 168. 16- 1, 927. 00 113. 00 246. 65 368. 68 12, 670. 36 432. 26 289. 72 21. 98 89 4 116.a 0. 0 94. 1 50. 6 26 2 87 , 77 ` 90 9 430.0 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 700.00 60.08 535.92 0.00 164.08 76.t 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES. .__. 1, 9QO. 00 .....0.00 4,062.01_ 0.00 737.99 59.0 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 800.00 24.03 173.89 0.00 6v6.11 v1.7 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LOBES 1,540.00 1,098.79 2,593.83 0.001,053.83- 16C. 4 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE .... 2,500.00 30.21 1, 916. 98 0.00 983.02 4315 MEMBERSHIP 50. OC) 0. 00 35.00 0. 00 15.00 70 C 4316 TRAINING 350. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 350.00 0.0 4317 CONFEL;ENCE EXPENSE____________ 550.00 0.00... .. 121.95 0.00 428.05 1 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS 13, 072. 00 2,476.00 13, 069. 00 0.00 3.00 99. 9 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 21, 362. 00 3, 697. 11 19, 108. 58 0.00 2,253.42 0400 EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 1,000.00 0. 00 :300. 00- 0.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 1,000.00 0. 00 300. 00-- LY00 LEASE:PAYMENTS 090(1 LEASE PAYMENTS - 714.00 0.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 714.00 0.00 DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL 2,C,1 Ci' -'I1_ DEFENSE 1 4:1. PERSONAL SERVICES 41Y3 REGULAR SALARIES/SAFETY • 133, 172. 00 133, 172, 00 DEPT: DISASTER F'REP 'E41. 1,3 441. 53 O. 00 1, :300. 00 1, 300. 00 0. 00 2.12. 17 0. 00 272. 47 12, 273. 63 115, 933. '77 0. 00 12, 273. 63 1 15, 93a 77 24, 026. 00 2, :387. 44 3Q _, 30. ID 17, 238. 23 fi7. U 0. 00 17, 239.23 26, 604. 16 0. 00 1, 778. 16«- 107 1 • • • .11t11- •. '0 4-1• 4,3 ,CEIY OF MLRM1PiA ILACM EXPLNDIIURE SUMMARY REPORT CRY 1-UND] r0.0m 06/01/91 10 06/30/91 PA'1;E U7/17/V1 100.U% OF YEr,s1-3 _FUND DIV OEJT DESCR .APPROPRIATION MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE • 001 CENLRAL FUND 2701 CIVIL DEFENSE DEPT: DISASTER PREP • • 1.1 017 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES. 41.10 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 41:37 UNIFORMS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 497. 00 497. 00 285. 00 26, 105. 00 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 0.00 4251 CONTRAC'T E,ER V I C E/GC1VT 2, 000. 00 0i3JECT SUB ECTAL 2. BOO. 00 . - O. 00 0. 00 14. 58 2, 402. 02 326. 36 0. 00 326. 36 0. 00 159.21 174. 96 26, 938. 33 4, 249. 03 1, 077. 68 6, 126. 71 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 497. 00 0. 0 337. 79 32 0 110. 04 61. 3 833. 33- 103 1 4, 249. 03- 0 0 922 32 47. 0 3, 326. 71-- 21E. O 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4305 OFFICE OPER_SUPPLIES______________3,725_00 0.00 736.57 0.00 2,986.43 19.8 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 600.00 55.67 55.67 0.00 544.33 9 2 4312 TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST 0.00 0.00 1,050.00- 0.00 1,050.00 0 0 4316 TRAINING_ _ • ..__ . _._. 3, 600. 00 O. 00 3, 860. 74 O. 00 260. 71- 107. 2 1296 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CMOS 3,344.00 1,218.00 3,341.00 0.00 3.00 99 9 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 11,269.00 1,273.67 6,945.98 0.00 4,323.02 41 6 5400 EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 542 EQUIPMENT -MORE THAN $500 .... OBJECT SUBTOTAL 1, 000. 00 5, 000. 00 6, 000. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 46, 174. 00 AP. TTENT ro FAL 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 4, 002. 05 40, 011. 02 46, 174. 00 4, 002. 05 3101 MEDIANS DEPT: ST/HWY/ST. DRAIN 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 11,7;6 REGULAR OVERTIME 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN OBJECT SUBTOTAL _ ,i200 (UN1RACT SERVICES 42,:.1 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 4231 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT OBJECT SUBTOTAL 49, 047. 00 300. 00 1, 017. 00 1, 017. 00 52, 181. 00 47, 630. 00 1, 260. 00 48, 890. 00 4, 222. 00 0. 00 0. 00 733. 20 4, 956. 00 6, 405. 18 0. 00 6, 405. 18 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 40, 011. 02 0. 00 50, 220. 69 100. 03 0. 00 2, 398: 60 52, 727. 32 -- 35, 228. 49 0. 00 35, 220. 49 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 352. 00 0. 00 352. 00 1, 000. 00 0 0 5, 000. CO 00 6, 000. 00 0. 0 6, 162. 98 66. 6 6.16.2 94 373. 69-- i 1V1. 97 0 1, 017. 00 0. 0 1, _0131. 60- 235 E 546.32- 101. 0 12, 049. 51 1, 260. 00 0. 0 14, 309. 51 72.7 I 5454 T1ME :50 4:3: 411 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0014 FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 DATE 07/17/91 100.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE FUND DIV OBJT DESCR APPROPRIATION_ 001 GE.W.:RAL FUND 3101 MED (6(45 DEPT: ST/HWY/ST. DRAIN 4300 MATERIALS/SUPpLIES/OTHER___. _ 1303 UTILITIES 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LURES 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 4396 TRSFR OUT --INS USER CHGS OBJECT suBrorAL 5400 EOUTPMENT 'i4O1 EGUIPMENT-LESS THAN C500 5499 NON -CAPITALIZED ASSETS OBJECT SUE TOTAL. 9, 027. (0) 5, 500. 00 660. 00 500. 00 6, 554, 00 22, 241. 00 200. 00 1, 3300. 00 1, '700. 00 DIVISION TO (AL 125, 012. 00 3103 ST MAINTENANCE DEPT: ST/HWY/ST.DRAIN 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 153, 314. 00 4100 REGULAR OVERTIME 500. 00 4130 0ACATIOH/SICK PAY OFF_ _ 3, 104. 00 4111 ACCRUAL CASH (N 3, 104. 00 OBJECT SURTO (AL 160, 022. 00 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES .'1201 CON [((ACT SERV ICE/PR IVATE coo IRAC T SERV ICE/ 0I1VT 3.5 .;ECT 61113 TO (AL 82, 977. 00 1, 200. (./) 84, 177. 00 4300 MATLRIALS/SUPPLIES/UTHER _ . . 430.9 MAINTENANCE MATER I ALS 13, 320. 00 4310 MOTOR FUELS AHD LURES 4, 160. 00 43 1 AUTO MAINTENANCE 13, 500. 00 4316 TRAINING 600. 00 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHOS 61, 849. 00 SMBTOTIH. 93, 449. 00 1:7:01,1PMENT E.CalIPMENT-LES13 THAN $500 4.2 FOUI.PHEAT -MORE THAN $500 0B,.'ECT SAIL .ro TAL ' 200. 00 3, 280. 00 3, 480. 00 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 1, 353. 86 53. 65 5. 88 0. 00 2, 259. 00 3, 672. 39 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 7, 955. 19 2, 925. 32 35. 40 663 85 6, 560. 00 18, 139. 76 16.3.26 0. 00 162. 26 15, 033. 57 106.2137.03 12, 410. 09 153, 000. 11 0.00 131.60 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 2. 737. 28 12, 410. 09 ,155, 068. 99 13. 016. 94 71, 392. 90 0. 00 533. 85 13, 016. '?4 '71, 926. 75 1, 542. 53 13, 541. :30 1, 643 21 5, 279. 44 921. 61 12, 420. 47 0. 00 0. 00 12, 969. 00 61, 053. 00 17, 076. 35 93. 094. 21 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 3, 279. 50 0. 00 3, 279. 50 ENCUMBRANCE UHENC BALANCE 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1, 071. (31 BF. 1 2, 574. 60 53. 1 424. 00 5. :3 143.55- 132 7 6. 00- 100. 0 4, 101. 24 01. 5 27./I 1, 500. 00 1, 537. 74 352. 00 10, 102. 17 Cl 0. 0 0. 00 313. 89 99. 7 0. 00 368. 40 26. 3 0. 00 3, 104. 00 0. C.) 0. 00 306. 72 00. 1 0. 00 4, 153. 01 97 4 0. 00 11, 584. 10 £-.31. 0 0. 00 006. 15 44. 4 0. 00 12, .2700. 2:5 135 zi 0. 00 221. 30- 301 1. 0. 00 1.099.44- 323.3 52. 64 1, 026. 69 0. 00 00 0 0 0. 00 4. 00- 100 52.134 301.93 99. L, 0. 00 21.30. 00 ,2 0. 00 0. !_30 0. 00 200. 50 '3',1 2 Vs, F INANCE-P A454 TIME 720. 43.49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM_06/01/91.__Ta 06/30/91 .. PACE 0015 DATE 07/17/9/ 100. 0% OF YEAR COMPLETE , FUND DI.V.OLiOT AEEROERIATION__ _MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND ENCUMBRANCE _ UNENC BALANCE .. 7.. 001 GENERAL FUND • " 3103 ST MAINTENANCE DEPT: ST/HWY/ST. DRAIN 6900 LEASE_EAYMERTq 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 20, 844. 00 20, 844. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 361, 972. 00 3104 TRAFFIC SAFETY DEPT: ST/HWY/ST. DRAIN 1, 736. 78 20, 841. 36 0. 00 2. 64 99. 9 1, 736. 78 20,641.36 0. 00 2. 64 99. 9 44, 240. 16 345, 010. 81 52. 84 16, 908. 35 95. 3 • '41 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALAR IES/MISC 99, 327. 00 7, 863. 72 92, 661. 53 0. 00 6, 665. 47 93. 2 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 500.00 0.00 169.64 0.00 330. 36 33.9 '4k, 4110 VACATIONLSICK_EAY OFF 2,12Z 00__ 0 00 0 00 0 00. 2. 127.00 .._ .._ _ 0.0 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 2, 127. 00 0. 00 2, 767. 49 0. 00 640. 49- 130, 1 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 104, 081. 00 7,863.72 95, 598. 66 0, 00 8, 402. 34 91. 8 , 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PR IVATE 15, 000. 00 325. 00 7, 050. 00 0. 00 7, 950. 00 47, 0 4251CONTRACT_SERVICELGOVT 8.112-00 0. 00 32 85- 0 00 8, 149. 85 .. - 0. 4 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 23, 117. 00 325. 00 7, 017. 15 0. 00 16, 099. 85 30. 3 ___ 4300 _ MATER_I ALS/SUP PLIESIOTHER________ 4303 UTILITIES 6, 180. 00 618. 06 6, 300. 45 0. 00 120. 45- 101.9 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 40, 000. 00 542. 91 37, 261. 18 4, 331. 64 1, 592. 82- 103. 9 4310 . MOT OR_EUELS_AND LUBES 1. 430_00._.__969.78 2. 374_ 00- 0 00 944.00-.166. 0 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 1, 200. 00 68. 59 554. 10 0. 00 645. 90 46. 1 4315 MEMBERSHIP 200.00 0.00 80.00 0. 00 120. 00 40. 0 4316 TRAINING 300_ 00 O. 00_-------,_.0. 00................0.00 300. 00 0.0 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHCS 12, 932. 00 4, 314. 00 12, 927. 00 0. 00 5. 00 99. 9 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 62, 242. 00 6, 513. 34 59, 496. 73 4, 331. 64 1, 586. 37- 102.5 5400 EQUIPMENT 5401 EGUIPMENT-LESS THAN $500 2, 380. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 2, 300. 00 0. 0 '.5499 NON -CAP ITAL I ZED .ASSETS 0_ 00 0. 00._ ________2. 368.98 0. 00 2, 368. 98- 0. 0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 2, 380. 00 0. 00 2, 368. 98 0. 00 11. 02 99. 5 6900 . LEASE_PAYMENTS 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 10, 096. 00 0. 00 10, 095. 48 0. 00 0. 52 10, 096. 00 0. 00 10, 095. 48 0. 00 0. 52 DIVISION TOTAL 201, 916. 00 14, 702. 06 174, 377. 00 4, 331. 64 23, 007. 36 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 688, 900. 00 73, 975. 79 625, 845. 64 4, 736. 48 58, 317. Be 99. 9 99. 9 88. 6 91. 'WO j FIN 0,k:1T- P,\404 T 1 HE ':'0' 43: 10 FUND DIV OBJT DESC.R . 001 GENERAL.. FUNS) :31302 PARKING ENF CI1Y OF HERMOSA LEACH EXPENDITURE'SUMMARY REPORT (DY FUND) PAGE 0016 FROM 0./01/91 TO 06/30/91 . - DATE 07/17/91 100. 02 OF YEAR COMPLETE __APPROPRIATION.. MONTHLY EXP. . YTD EXPND. DEPT: PKG FACILITIES 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES_..._.___. -- 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME OBJECT SUBTOTAL_ DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL 1101 I'L,44I I0 DEPT: PLANNING 1100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC_ 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRIJAL-. CASH IN 4112 PART TIME/TEMPOERAIRY OBJECT SUBTOTAL 1200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL - 1300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 4315 MEMBERSHIP 4316 TRAINING 4217 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 436 T: -(SFR OUT -INS USER CHCS 0P !ECT SUBTOTAL 5400 EQUIPMENT :3401 EQUIPMENT --LESS THAN $500 !ECT SUBTOTAL .-. 1)1%1 IS I O'1 . TO (�J_ 110:'- FL 400181; COML1 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 173, 781. 00 300. 00 4, 180- 00 4, 183. 0(1 42, 020. 00 224, 477. 00 16, 150. 00 16, 150. ()0 1, 912. 00 14, 430. 00 170. 00 1, 520. 00 875. 00 1, 750. 00 1, 250. 00 10, '710. 00 32, 617. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 13, 701.32 121. `.19 0. 00 0. 00 628. 12 14, 451. 03 152. 00 1.52. 00 182. 08 839. 11 60.04 110. 01 80. 00 70. 00 0. 00 1, 895. 00 3, 253. 134 400. 00 43. 137 400. 00 43. 07 273, 644._ 00 DEPT: PLANNING 11..00 CONTRACT SERVICES 1. 04>11 R(,(' T 1:::0420 ICE/PR IVATE 6, 000. 00 0.00 0. 00 O. 00 0. 00 148. 072. 16 130. 79 44.13 2, 174. 46 27, 462. 51 170, 684. 05 3, 341. 55 3, :341. 55 1, F382. 82 7, 755. 42 146. 70 1, 569. 24 830. 00 754. 97 1, 033. 65 10, 706. 00 24.6743 £70 4£1. 93 40. 93 17, 900. '74 206, 753. 632. 50 4.636. 00 ENCUMI3RANCE UNENC BALANCE Y. 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 24, 008. 04 199. 21 4, 143. 337 2, 013. 24 14, 557. 49 45, 792. 05 12, 1100. 45 12, 808. 45 29. 18 6, 674. 58 23.:10 49. 24 _ 45.00 993 03 216.35 4 00 7, "313. 20 0. 00 351. 07 0. 00 351. 07 0. 00 66, 000. 67 0. 00 1, 364 00 0.0 0. 0 0. O 0.0 03. 6 43 •� 1. 0 79. 6 20. t 53. . HC. .. 103.2 `=4.0 43 1 (32. 6 10 2 12. 411, •*- F 113.-,HcE-FA4:44 1 1 MIT 15 CITY 01 HERMOSA nLAcH EXPLND1TURE SUMMARY REPORT (DV FUND) FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 31 ..._...... FUND DIV OBJT .DESCR APPROPRIATION ... MONTHLY EXP YTD EXF'ND.. • 001 GENER AL FUND • 4200 CONTRACT_ SERVICES OBJECT SU13TOTAL 6, 000. 00 632. 50 •I 4 .3(10 MATFR 16> _S / St./PI-1_1E3/ OTHER 1,, 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4, 500. 00 272. 40 • ' 4316 TRAINING 204.00 0.00 .. 1317 .CONFERENCE EXPENSE .1, 300. 00 0. 00 0I3JECT SUBTOTAL 6, 004. 00 272. 40 4102 PLANNING C0HN DEPT: PLANN INC DIVISION TOTAL 12, 004. 00 904. 90 DEP ARTMENT _TOTAL 285,643. 00 . 13, 005. 64 _. _ 216, 333. 33 0. 00 [-F.-- 4110: .1 1201 BUILDING DEPT: CONST/ENCIN/ENF 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES • 'I 4102 REGULAR SALAR IES/MISC 231, 390. 00 19, 640. 20 213, 425. 55 0. 00 I' .! 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME. 500.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1:7---- _ 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4, 82E3. 00 0. 00 :3, 767. 84 0. 00 • 4111 ACCRUAL. CASH IN 4, 823. 00 0. 00 1, :337.85 0. 00 1112 PAF T. .M1E/TEMPORARY. QBJECT UBTOTAL S 0. 00 241, 546. 00 0. 00 19, 640. 20 041. 32 219, 392. 56 0. 00 0. 00 DATE 01/17/91 100. 0% OF YEAR COMFLE TE ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 4, 636. 00 0. 00 3, 832. :36 33. 44 1. 073. 20 4, 944. 00 9, 1300. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 . 0. 00 0. 00 • . • • • • • 4200 CONTRAC T SERVICES. 4:201 CONTRACT SERV ICE/PR I VATE 42)1 CONTRACT SERVICE/COVT SUB TOTAL.. _ 96, 957. 00 890. 00 97. 347. 00 5, 233. 23 49, 259. 73 0. 00 858. 20 5, 233. 23 50, 117.93 3, 411. 20 0. 00 3, 411. 20 4300 MATER I ALS/SUPPE IES/OTHER 13U4 TELEPHONE . 2, 461. 00 285. 06 2, 360. 63 O. 00 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 6, 325. 00 615. 84 6, 429. 02 21. 34 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUDES 570. 00 466. 27 1, 331. 95 0. 00 1211 AUTO HAINTEHANCE 525. 00 693..02 1, 202. 51 0. 00 1315 MEMOERSH I F 365. 00 0. 00 365. 00 0. 00 4316 TPA IN I NG 3, 000. 00 452. 63 1, 734. 54 190. 00 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4336 TREFR OUT- INS USER CHGS 35, 051. 00 6, 552. 00 35, 053. 00 0. 00 UP -IFC T SOD TOTAL. 43, 005. 00 9, 065. 1.2 48, 406. 65 211. 34 103015100 PMENT 5401 EGUIPMENT-LESS THAN $500 700. 00 5103 VEHICLES' 9, 708. 00 0. 00 0. 00 _ 637. 69 . 9, 707. 64 - 0. 00 0. 00 1, 364. 00 77. 2 667. 64 05. 1 165. 56 1t3. e 226. 80 132. O.0. 00 132. 3 2, 424. 00 79. 69, 314. 67 75. 7 17, 964. 45 500. 00 1.060. 16 3, 490. 15 32- 22, 103. 44 44, 206. 07 31. 110 14, 217. 87 100. 37 364. 6,1 753. 95- e:77. 0. 00 1, 075. 46 0. 00 2. 00-- 107. 01 62. 31 0. 36 c.`71 0. 0 78. 0 O. 0 90 L 96 4 54. 7 03 94. 230 4 100 0 64. 1 0 0 100 0 91 0 • • •11 �' 21 lel FINANCE-FA454 T IME_20_43_48 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE 'SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM., 06!_)1 /91._. T0.06/30/91 UND DIV OBJT DESCR AEE8OP.RIATION MONTHLILEXP YTD.. EXEND 001 GENERAL FUND 5400 EQUIPMENT OBJECT SUBTOTAL 10, 408. 00 0. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 4202 PUB WKS ADMIN 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC •'20 zi 22 • z3 24 25 • :c 117 zu • 130 31 • 32 33 34 • 35 36 37 • 3n 133 4') 41 42 • 4: I45 4,3 • 4] 398, 606. 00 DEPT: CONST/ENGIN/ENF __ 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4187 UNIFORMS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 10. 345. 33 33, 938. 55 328, 342. 47 PAGE 0018 DATE. 07/17/91 ___.... - 100.07 OF YEAR COMPLETE --ENCUMBRANCE UNENC_.BALANCE-_.__ 0. 00 3,622.54 62. 67 66, 640. 99 99. 3 83. 2 183, 877. 00 14. 240, 73 1.72.540 49_ 0 QO 11, 336._51____.__.93. 8 ._.. O. 00 O. 00 26. 62 O. 00 26. 62- O. 0 3, 838. 00 O. 00 63. 40 O. 00 3, 774. 60 1. 6 3, 838. 00 ___..._...__ O. 00 501. 02 __ _. O. 00 3, 336. 98 13. 0 7, 210. 00 1, 116. 98 6, 462. 25 O. 00 747. 75 89. 6 198, 763. 00 15, 357. 71 179, 593. 78 O. 00 19, 169. 22 90. 3 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 2, 000. 00 181.94 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 2, 000 UO 181, 94 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 5c56449Q_ 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 9, 890. 00 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 0.00 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 1, 036. 00 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 2,040.00 4315 MEMBERSHIP 740.00 4316 TRAINING la F300 00 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 800.00 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS 52,766.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 74, 636,00 49 FIs, • 53 54 • • 5400 EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT=LES9._IHAN $500 OBJECT SUBTOTAL _5510 75. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 275, 474. 00 443. 22 443 22 __. 975. 00 _625 8a 5, 801.. 39_ - __ .__ .0. 00 974. 51 9, 776. 87 216. 13 0. 00 241. 08 0.00 709. 36 ___.___ __.___ _.1, 730. 24 .._ ___ .. _._ 0. 00 7. 15 .1. 044. 45 0. 00 0.00 840. 00 0. 00 348. 65 ' 2.. 163. 93. - _ _-. 0. 00 0.00 556. 37 0. 00 8, 363. 00 52, 770. 00 0. 00 I1. 028. 55 _ _._...___74, 924. 33 _ _ ..__ 216. 13 4204 BLDG MAINT DEP_T_L____.9.ONSTIENGIN/ENF 0 00 74 62 0. 00 74. 62 26, 568. 20 255, 035. 95 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 155.762..00_ .13,032.30 _1554.153-16 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 1,600.00 73.32 1,510.86 4110 VACATION/SICKPAY OFF 3,115.00 0.00 0.00 4111 ACCRUAL CA$H _ IN 3/_11.5.._00 __Q 00 2L_748 26 0 00 _._ - O. 00 1, 191. 13 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0 00 581. 78 _5B1..78 _237_ 39- 103. 00- 241. 08- 694. 24- 995. 55 100. 00- 363. 93- 243. 63 4. 00- 504. 46- 0. 38 0. 38 19, 246. 92 608. 84 89. 14 3, 115. 00 .366..74 . 70 9 70. 9 104. 2 101. 0 O. 0 167. 0 51. 1 113. 5 120. 2 69. 5 100.0 100. 6 99. 4 99. 4 93. 0 99. 6 94. 4 0. 0 88. 2 • • FINANCE-PA•10,1 T I ME , ;20 4'3;40» •• • • ik • 0. •H -1 • • • _FUND DIV OBJT DESCR 001 0001-? AL FUND 4204 BLDG MAINT 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 41(17 UNIFORMS OBJECT SUBTOTAL ,11:')' 0! 1 r.PY • • 4,34-4 0,..000.,91 10 00/00071 i FL APPROPRIATION MONTHLY EXP E/'1 -D. E13CU12411CL DEPT: CONST/ENGIN/ENF 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 315. 00 16. 68 200. 16 163, 907. 00 113, 122. 30 159,612.44 0. 00 114. 84 63. 5 0. 00 4, 294. 56 97. 3 011 fa 21, 260. 00 1, 640. 00 17, 966. 02 200. 00 3, 093, 98 85. 4 41i .21, 260. 00 . 1, 640. 00 _ 17, 966. 02 200. 00 3, 093. 98 83. 4 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4'203 UTILITIES 90,000.00 8,240.61 90,956.39 0.00 756.89- 101.0 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 40,000.00 3,927.26 37, 754. 30 907.35 1,336.35 96.6 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 900.00 486.21 1,260.14 0.00 400.14- 160.0 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE ___ _ 600.00 . _251.07 1,860.28 0.00 1,268.26- 311.3 4318 TRAINING 200.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 200.00 0 0 4321 BUILDING SAFETY/SECURITY 7,000.00 50.53 2,623.63 0.00 4,376.37 37.4 13V6 TREFR OUT -INS USER CHOS _ 21,613.00 3,849.00 31,617.00 0.00 6.00- 100 0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 170,213.00 21,812.68 166,102.24 907.35 3,203.41 5q0Ci EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 650. 00 5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE THAN $500 5, 500. 00 UILJECT 5011 TOTAL 6, 150. 00 D IV IS ION . _ TOTAL . 361, 530. 00 4200 EQUIP SERVICE DEPT: CONST/ENGIN/ENF 4100 FEW,,ONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 103,362.00 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 600.00 4110 VACAljON/SICK PAY OFF 2,087.00 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 2,087.00 1.12 PART TIME/TEMPORAY 5.000.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 113,136.00 1300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4?09 416INTENANCE MATERIALS 4,000.00 4711.0 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 1,650.00 '1211 0010 MAINTENANCE 3,150.00 41118 Tli,",181140 200.00 4-06 TREFR OUT-INS.USER CHGS 14,114.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 23,114.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 294. 36 1, 7n7. 25 2, 051. 61 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 36. 574. 98.........345. '732.31 1. 107. 35 7, 942. 48 102, 1389. 05 0. 00 13. 10 0. 00 O. 00 0. 00 542 84 0. 00 0. 00 7,942.48 103,444.99 1, 037. 00 6, 274. 68 268. 37 2, 634. 78 603. 10 2, 332. 56 0. 00 0. 00 4, 031. 00 14, 115. 00 6, 739. 47 25, 457. 02 ,44.4 61.4 1.•1 .•• • 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0, 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 355. 64 3, 742. 75 4,5,733. 39 14, 43. 31. 472. 95 5116. 90 2. 1 2. 0437, 00 0. 1, 544. 16 :21,, 0 5, 000. 00 0 0 9, 691. 01 '/1.4 2, 374. La- 904.76- 106 1317, 44 74 0 200. 00 0 0 1. 00-- 100 0 2, 343. 02- 110 1 • • •I FINANCE-FA454 TIME 20:43:48 z 3 4 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0020 41 FROM 06/01!91 TO 06/0/91 - DATE 07/17/91 __ ._. f 100.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE FUND DIV OBJT DESCR APPROPRIATION r1QNTHLY_EXP YTD EXEND ENCUMBRANCE___UNENC. BALANCE ___.. _'/.._ __.. 001 GENERAL FUND • e [190 • +I +2 4205 EQUIP SERVICE DEPT: CONST/ENGIN/ENF • 14 +5 I6 • +1 • 20 zz J 24 z5 • 26 127 26 5400 EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 0.00 0.00 349.89 0.00 349.69- 0.0 5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE THAN $500 20, 400.00 0.00 788.33 0.00 19. 611.67 3.8 OBJECT SUBTOTAL_ 20, 400.00 0.00 _1.136.22 0.00 19;261.78 5.5 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS 5,016 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 5,016.00 DIVISION TOTAL 161, 666.00 417,96 417. 96 15, 099. 91 5, 015. 52 5, 015. 52 0, 00-.------------._-- _ 0. 48 0. 00 0. 48 135, 055. 75 0. 00 99. 9 _ 99. -- 99. 9 26, 610. 25 83. 5 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 1,197,276 OQ 1120,81_64__ -__.1,_064..166..46_._.___.._._....5.921.02....._.. ...._127, 168.50 .. 69.3 4601 COMM RESOURCES DEPT: COMM PROMOTION 4029 29 130 31 1032 133 34 • 35 36 37 3 40 104' �4z 4.3 11144 • 47 49 0 - Is - 5 • 53 J" 55 56 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 157, 737.00 10, 140.00 153, 786.71 0.00 3.950.29 97.4 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME. 11_000 OQ 0 00_ __885_.82 0 00.-.-_ ._____ 114. 18 88. 5 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 528.00 0.00 527.80 0.00 0.20 99.9 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 5,985.00 0.00 5,984.56 0.00 0.44 99.9 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 74, 500 00 4;081.68 ________71. 660.68 _._ .__ _____ 0.00 2. 639.32 76.1 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 239. 750. 00 14, 221. 68 232, 845. 57 0. 00 6,904.43 97. 1 4200 CONTRACT SERVICER 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 53. 579. 00 3.906.56 50. 725. 32 0. 00 2,853.68 94. 6 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 53. 579. 00 3,906.56 50, 725. 32 0. 00 2,853.68 94. 6 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4302 ADVERTISING 10, 700.00 2.525.00 10, 685.99 0.00 14.01 99.8 4304 TELEPHONE 2$650.00 279._56_ 2.505 27 _ 0.00 144.73 94. 5 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 7,600.00 202.81 7,591.38 0.00 8.62 99.8 4308 PROGRAM MATERIALS 12. 300.00 979.9B 12, 134.72 323.00 157.72- 101.2 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES _ 599.00 _._..-_ _327.67 .__ ___-_ _ 847. 54 .__.__. _. 0.00 248. 54- 141.4 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 651.00 245.78 679.97 0.00 28.97- 104.4 4315 MEMBERSHIP 795. 00 0. 00 1, 005. 00 0. 00 210.00- 126. 4 4316 TRAINING 1.000 00 30 00_ ___ 858.08 0 00 141.92 85.8 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 1,205.00 0.00 1,165.04 0.00 39.96 F6.6 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS 22, 269. 00 3,425.00 22, 268. 00 0. 00 1. 00 99. 9 OBJECT SUBTOTAL_____________________._59..,769,.00 _,_._.... --_8k015.80 ._ .59,740.94______323.00 294.99- 100.4 5400 EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT-LE_SS THAN $500 4.449,0Q Q 00 4..278_.68,____--_-_0_.00._____ -___ . _170. 32 96. 1 4119, isoo • 4041 24 r- 3-, J 4.1 • I NANCE-FA454 TIM :-o- 42. 48 FUND DIV OBJT_DESCR_ 001 GENERAL FUND 4601 COMM RESOURCES CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0021 __FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 DATE 07/17/91 100. 07. OF YEAR COMPLETE APPROPRIATION_ MONTHLY EXP YTD .EXPND..._------------... ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE DEPT: COMM PROMOTION 5400 EQUIPMENT__ 5.102 EGUIPMENT-MORE THAN $500 1, 000. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 5, 449. 00 25900 LEASE PAYMENTS 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS OBJECT _SUBTOTAL___________ DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 4, 278. 68 0. 00 0. 00 1, 000. 00 1. 170. 32 0. 0 78. 5 1, 500. 00 0. 00 1, 498. 18 0. 00 1. 82 99. 8 ______.1, 500. 00 O. 00. 1. 498. 18. 0.00...1.82 _ 99.0 360, 047. 00 26. 144. 04 _ 349, 088. 74 323. 00 10.2533. 26 97. 0 360, 047. 00 26, 144. 04 349, 088. 74 323. 00 6101 PARKS DEPT: PARKS/REC 4100 PERSONAL.. SERV ICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 79, 364. 00 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 500. 00 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY. DEE_ .1, 587 00 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 11587. 00 OBJECT 5.11.3:10TAL... 83, 038. 00 6. 625. 90 78, 521. 76 0. 00 137. 34 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 2. 140. 50 6, 625. 90 80, 799. 60 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 138,189.00 21,124.33 119,333.16 OBJECT SUBTOTAL__ 138, 109.00----.._..21. 124.33____119.333.16. 4200 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER UTILITIES 4304 TELEPHONE '4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 56, 093. 00 350. 00 ,12. 500. 00 5, 190. 06 26. 66 5, 365. 73 4310 MOTOR. FUELS AND LUBES. _770. 00 478. 65 4.311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 3, 500. 00 76.61 4215 MEMBERSHIP 500. 00 0. 00 131.6 TRAINING _ _ . 500. 00 0. 00 1:306 -11-1SFR OUT -INS USER CHCS 17, 3B9. 00 4, 959. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 91, 602. 00 16, 096. 71 1400 EQUIPMENT 0402 EGUIPMENT-MORE THAN $500 213 VEHICLES 5499 NON -CAPITALIZED ASSETS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 621. 00 15, 000. 00 3, 000. 00 18, 621. 00 10, 635. 26 97. 0 0. 00 642. 24 98.9 0. 00 362. 66 27. 4 0.00...1, 387. 00 0. 0 0. 00 553.30- 134. 6 0. 00 2, 238. 40 97. 3 0. 00 18, 853. 84 86. 3 0. 00 __ _ . 18, 855. 84 86. 3 41, 340. 72 0. 00 14,752.28 73. 7 3, 546. 25 0. 00 3, 196. 25- 1013. 2 22, 672. 04 0. 00 10. 172. 04- 181. 3 _1,255.24. 0. 00 485. 24- 163. 0 1, 118. 11 0. 00 2, 381. 89 31. 9 0. 00 0. 00 500. 00 0. 0 6.00 .0.00 494. 00 1.2 17, 389. 00 0. 00 0. 00 100. 0 87, 327. 36 0. 00 4, 274. 64 95. 3 0. 00 620. 22 _ 0. 00 13, 809. 86 --------- 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 14, 430. 08 0. 00 0. 78 99.8 0. 00 1. 190. 14 92. 0 0. 00 3, 000. 00 0. 0 0. 00 4, 190. 92 77. 4 • 111, FINANCE-FA454 TIME 20:43:48 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0022 FROM 06/01/91 TO 06430/91. .DATE 07/17491 100.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE FUND DIV OBJT DESCR APPRQPRIEJAPR_ 11ONTHLY_EXP YTD_EXPND 001 GENERAL FUND • :I 12 13 • " DIVISION TOTAL 331,450.00 DEPARTMENT TOTAL ENCUMBRANCE_____UNENC. BALANCE . 43, 846. 94 301, 890. 20 0. 00 29,559.80 91.0 331,..450,00 43.846 94 ..__301,.890..20_ 0. 00..........29. 559. 80 8146 CIP 89-146 DEPT: STREET/SAFETY 91.0 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 0.00 0.00 0_00 0 00 0 Q0..._---------.0.0 41=5 26 • DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL 8601 CIP 86-601 40. 33 34 4111's 36 37 • 30 35 0. 00 _ O. 00 O. 00. 0. 00 . 0.00 0.00 DEPT: BLDGS & GROUNDS 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0 . 0 0.00 0 . 0 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 DIVISION TOTAL 0.00 0. 00 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0 0.00 0 . 0 0.00 0 . 0 FUND TOTAL 1,10,096...z8_ 10;0704690.98 34,179.36 .757,530.66 _ 93.0 , 171 411 7 . •-1 • 4 • • • ITZMU!',A >.;>.> UHv S. NARY REPOR r (Ily 1- UN>)> PACE T f 4 r.;• LP'JM 0A/C1 91. TO OL /00 / 91 DATE 07 / 17 lOt 100. C.:".". OF YEAR COMI'LETE FUND DIV OBJT DESCR APPROPRIATION MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 105 1.10> TI DISTRICT FUND 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4300 MATER IALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 43'99 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT 22, 000. 00 1, 833. 37 22, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 100. 0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 22, 000. 00 1, 833. 37 22, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 100. 0 DIVISION TOTAL 22, 000. 00 1, 833. 37 22, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 100 0 ,.,. DEPARTMENT TOTAL 22, 000. 00 1, 833. 37 22, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 100. 0 2e:01 511. e•.*.E:T LIGHT I NG DEPT: STREET L101 1 -I I NG 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES .,. 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC. 78,268.00 7,861.14 78,444.96 0.00 1/6.96- 100.2 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 500.00 0.00 68.48 0.00 431.52 13 6 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 1,565.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,565.00 0 0 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 1,565.00 0.00 2,131.10 0.00 566.10- laf...1 '1112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 2,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,000.00 0.0 4100 RETIREMENT 9,015.00 712.56 6,062.14 0.00 2,952.86 69.9 ..... 4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS. 11,454.00 700.20._ . . 8,687.75 0.00 2,766.25 75.8 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 105,167.00 9,273.90 96,194.43 0.00 8,972.57 91 4 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 7,100.00 0.00 2,997.15 0.00 1,102.85 42 2 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT 10,117.00 0.00 100.28 0.00 10,002.72 1.0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL .17,217.00 0.00 3,105.43 0. 00 . 14, 111. 57 10 0 4200 MATER IALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 473'.,3 U 1 I LI T I ES 175, 100. 00 27, 384. 71 150. 231. 03 0. 00 24, ElLil. 97 CO 4;304 TELEPHONE 281. 00 20. 70 109. 33 0. 00 171. 47 ":30 0 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 9, 500. 00 271. 08 4,180. 17 0. 00 7, 019. 03 47 1 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES _ 3, 410. 00 611. 14 2, 500. 51 0. 00 909, 49 70.2 4311 Alil 0 MAINTENANCE 4, 000. 00 105. :36 1, 951. 95 310. 30 1, 737. .75 ;,_-, 5 4316 TRAINING 300. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 300. 00 0. 0 47396 TP.SFR DOT -INS USER CMOS 11, 343. 00 3, 075. 00 11, 8t:O. 00 0. 00 2. 00 10 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 204, 439. 00 32, 267. 99 171, 123. 19 310. 30 33. 005. 51 >33 U 5400 EQUIPMENT . . . 54'i9 NON -CAPITALIZED ASSETS 0. 00 ON,jECT SUBTOTAL 0. 00 DIVISION TOTAL DEP AR. niENT TOTAL 326, 823. 00 326, 823. 00 694.43 694. 13 42,236.32 12, 236. 32 4, 270. 06 4, 270. 06 0. 00 0. 00 274, 693. 61 310. 30 4, 270. fi6- C' 4, 270. 0 51, 019. 09 274, 693. 61 310. 30 71, 019. 09 !7.1 ! • 40 FiN,INCE-F„454 • • • • • • - 0 • • I •1 - T THE '20 . 4.3: '18 -CITY OF HERMI)SA iu-eCH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0024 FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 DATE 07/17/91 100.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE E FUND DIV OBJT DESCR APPROPRIATION 105 VEHICLE PARKING DIST 601 STREET LIGATING DEPT: STREET LIGATING 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER FUND TOTAL 340, 1323. 00 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 44, 069. 69 296,693.61 'b ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 310. 30 51, 1319. 09 135 1 9 1u i..1 12 FINANCE-FA44 _TIME 20 13 48 CITY OF HERMOSA LEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0029 FR(lM 06/01/91 TO 08/30/91 DATE 07/17/91 100.0. OF YEAR COMPLETE FUND CIV OBJT.. DESCR ____ __ __________ --__________ ...APPROPR IATION . 109 VEHICLE PARKING DIST 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT I,3 14 15 MONTHLY _. EXP _ _. YTD EXPND.._ _._._ __.,_._ ENCUMBRANCE _.. UNENC...BALANCE . . %_ ._. 4300.MATER IALS/SUPP_LIESLOTHER 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT 15. 779. 00 1, 314. 88 15, 779. 00 0. 00 0. 00 100. 0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 15, 779. 00 1, 314. 88 15, 779. 00 0. 00 0. 00 100. 0 DIVISION TOTAL 15, 779. 00 1. 314. 88 15. 779. 00 0. 00 0. 00 100. 0 16 n i''c 21 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 15, 779. 00 1.314.138 15, 779. 00 0. 00 0. 00 100. 0 3301 VEH PKG DIST DEPT• PKG..FACILITIES. 22 :3 :4 2:. i-° 121 i 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102._ REGULAR_SALAR IESLMI SC 16._454.00_ 308 30 10.483 05- __ 0.00 __._____._5, 970- 95 - ._ 63. 7 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 329. 00 0.00 O. 00 0. 00 329. 00 O. 0 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 329. 00 O. 00 O. 00 0. 00 329. 00 O. 0 4160_ RET IREMENT 2. 063. 00 38. 66 _ - 1. 157. 82 _ . __ _.._ _ _ 0. 00 . . ..... 905.18 36. 1 4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1,254.00 113.77 1,061.41 0.00 192.39 84.6 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 20, 429. 00 460. 73 12, 702. 28 0. 00 7,726.72 62.1 131 2.2 1333.z 35 36 37 •0 39 w i,41 401 51 .53 54 • 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 47, 000. 00 8, 528. 27 48, 583. 70 0. 00 1, 383. 70- 103. 3 OBJECT. _SUBTOTAL 47, 000_.00_.__.___ _ 8. 528. 27__.__..______48, 583. 70 __._.._._ __ _ __..._ .. 0. 00 .. _... _ . 1, 583. 70- 103. 3 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304. _.TELEPHONE 150- OQ 10 00 120. 00 -_- __ ._._._. 0__00 --- __ _._. __ _ .30. 00 - .- 80. 0 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 5. 300. 00 288. 27 442. 46 0. 00 4, 857. 54 B. 3 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 1, 000. 00 0. 00 214. 01 0. 00 785. 99 21. 4 4396 TRSFR .OUT - INS_. USER ...CHGS_ __ _ 998. 00 .____ ______...._145. 00 _._.______.___ 1, 003. 00 __.._.._.. _____ - 0. 00 .- - 5. 00- 100. 5 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 7, 448. 00 443. 27 1, 779. 47 0. 00 5, 668. 53 23.8 5400 EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE THAN $500 5420 DEPRECIATION -MCH &.EQUIP OBJECT SUBTOTAL .5600 BUILDINGS/IMPROVEMENTS- 5620 DEPRECIATION/BLDGSFAMPRV OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL - DEP ARTMENT OTALDEPARTMENT TOTAL 0. 00 750. 00 265. 00 .__ 1. 015. 00 2, 145. 00 2, 145. 00 78, 037. 00 78, 037. 00 74. 85 0. 00 _ 0. 00 _ .._ 74. 85 74. 85 870. 45 0. 00 945. 30 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 9.507.12 9,507.12 64, 010. 75 64, 010. 75 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 74. 85- 120. 45- 265. 00 69. 70 2, 145. 00 2, 145. 00 14, 026. 25 14, 026. 25 0.0 11.6.0 0. 0 93. 1 0.0 0. 0 82. 0 52.0 • It I • • • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE--FA454 EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0026 TIME P0-13:43 FUND DIV OBJT DESCR 109 PARKING FUND 3301 VEH PKG DIST FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 DATE 07/17/91 100.0:•: OF YEAR COMPLETE APPROPRIATION DEPT: PKG FACILITIES 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER FUND TOTAL 0 0 I MONTHLY EXP ... YTD EXPND. 93, 316. 00 10, 022. 00 ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 7. 79, 7E39. 75 0. 00 14, 026. 25 05. 0 W • •- • • '. I�. •, • is • • • • • • F IFJr'1NCE- 1' A4::i•F TIMI= :20' 4, 113 FUND DIV OBJT DESCR 110 PARKING FUND 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER CITY OF HERMC)0i', L'VACII EXPI.'1D1TURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 APPROPRIATION DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER.._ 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL 3202 PARKING ENF 1, 314, 755. 00 1, 314, 755. 00 1, 314, 755. 00 1, 314, 755. 00 . DEPT: PKG FACILITIES 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIESLIIISC_ 545, 487.00 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 10,000.00 4110 VACATION/ SICK PAY OFF 10, 909.00 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN _ .. . 10, 909.00 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 42,000.00 4117 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 5,500.00 41.30 RETIREMENT 68, 404.00 41137 UNIFORMS 6,567.00 418 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 57, 642. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL.. _ 757, 418.00 4200 CONTRAC r SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT_ SERVICE/PRIVATE_.____. __..6, 000. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 6, 000. 00 430( MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4302 ADVERTISING 4304 TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE OPER _SUPPLIES.____._ 4307 RADIO MAINTENANCE 4309 IIAINTENANCE MATERIALS 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES __ 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 4315 MEMBERSHIP 4316 TRAINING 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 4376 IRSFR OUT—INS USER CHCS JL"_'ECT SUBTOTAL 0. 00 3, 300. 00 35, 000. 00 3, 500. 00 13, 397. 00 6, 600. 00 12, 000. 00 400. (10 1, 700. 00 1, 500. 00 54, 706. 00 132, 303. 00 ':100 EQUIPMENT 5401 EGUIPMENT—LESS THAN $500 _ 2.350. OO .. MONTHLY EXP YTD EXF''ND. 108, 729. 62 1, 314, 755. 00 108, 729. 62 1, :314, 755. 00 108, 729. 62 1, 314, 755. 00 100, 729. 62 1, 314, 755. 00 36. 840. 73 ......_ .._ 446, 002. 28 463. 71 10, 714. 91 448. 00 448. 00 0. 00 10, 041. 57 7, 492. 48 83, 478. 24 278. 49 3, 461. 65 4, 438. 51 52, 371. 40 698. 78 5, 543. 17 4, 585. 87 51, 673. 81 55, 246. 37 663, 735. 03 5, 744. 16. ._. _ . _ 13, 689. 71 5, 744. 1 6 13, 689. 71 0.00 0.00 451. 46 4,316.60 3, 128. 33 44, 461. 37 314. 00 3, 768. 00 1, 299. 86 4, 140. 72 2, 202. 01 7,764.42 1,323.77 12, 876. 50 0. 00 280. 00 55. 70 - 700. 46 0. 00 683. 54 12, 063. 00 54, 696. 00 21, 638. 13 133, 737. 61 - 0. 00 1, 160. 89 P?6E 002/ DATE 07!17/91 100. 07. OF YEAR COMI'LE: rE ENCUMBRANCE UMENC BALANCE 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 ." 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 3, 009. 33 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 3, 009. 33 192. 35 0. 00 100. 0 0. 00 100. 0 0. 00 100. 0 0. 00 100. 0 99, 484. 72 714. 91- 10, 441. 00 867. 43 41, 478. 24- 2, 038. 35 16, 032. 60 1, 023. 83 5, 968. 19 93, 682. 97 7,689.71- 7,689.71- 0. 00 .689.71-- 7,689.71- 0.00 1, 016. 60.- 9, 461. 37- 266. 00- 9, 456. 23 1, 164. 42--- 3, 88,). 133- 120. 00 949.74 816.46 10. 00 4, 443. 94 81. 7 107.1 4. 1 92. 0 198.7 62. 9 76. 5 84. 4 89. 6 137.6 2211. 1 228.1 0. 0 130 E1 127. 0 107.6 30. 4 117 6 132 3 70.0 44 1 '1 9 ,9. . 1 0 9E1E3. 76 U7 v • 41 ft 415 41,a i.] • • '1 •]'1 • P.] r-; - - • -. • • • 1•_•-•; • • • • o . o• • • o F I NANCE-FA454 TIME 20: 43: 48 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0023 FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 DATE 07/17191 100.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE FUND DIV OBJT DESCR. ____ APPROPRIATION MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 110 PARKING FUND 3302 PARKING ENF DEPT: PKG FACILITIES 5100 EQUIPMENT 5403 VEHICLES 31, 403. 00 5420 DEPRECIATION -MCH EQUIP 27, 196. 00 5499 NONTCAP ITAL I ZED ASSETS 10, 000. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 70, 949. 00 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS • • 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS 3, 500. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 3, 500. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 970, 170. 00 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 970, 170. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1, 392. 86 0. 00 9, 947. 68 12, 509. 43 ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 7. 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 192. 35 0. 00 898. 82 0. 00 0. 00 898. 02 0. 00 82, 628. 86 824, 570. 60 82, 628. 86 824, 570. 60 FUND _TOTAL 2. 284, 920. 00 191, 358. 48 139, 325. 60 3,201.68 3,201.68 3,201.60 30, 010. 14 27, 196. 00 52. 32 58, 247. 22 2, 601. 18 2, 601. 18 142, 397. 72 142, 397. 72 142, 397. 72 4. 4 00 99 4 17. 9 25. 6 25. 6 • e e,1 • e - e 0. 0 er • FINANCE--FA4: 4 TIMF- 20-4'4:40 FUND DIV ORJT DESCR 1 1 5 STATE GAS TAX FUND 1295 BUDGET TRANSFER CITY OF HERMOSA rILA(:)) EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY F'UFNID) FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/J0/'?1 PACE 0027 DATE 07/17/91 100.0% or YEAR COMPLETE APPROPRIATION _ MONTHLY. EXP _ YTD EXPND. ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT .4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER._.__.__.____._.__ 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT 1, 280, 969. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 1,280,969.00 DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL FUND TOTAL_ 1, 280, 969. 00 1, 280, 967. 00 _ 1, 280, 969. 00 106, 747. 38 106, 747.38 106, 747. 30 106, 747. 38 106, 747.:38 1, 280, 969. 00 1, 280, 969. 00 1, 280, 969. 00 1, 280, 969. 00 1, 280, 967. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 O. 00 0. 00 100. 0 0. 00 100. 0 0.00 100.0 0. 00 100. 0 0. 00 100. 0 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • FPF,NCE-FA4'34 EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0030 i IIM: ':'.0 43:40 _ FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 DATE 07/17/91 100.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE • • • FUND DIV OI3JT DESCR APPROPRIATION __MONTHLY EXP _..YTD EXPND. . ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE % 120 COUNTY GAS TAX FUND 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER _ -- 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT 95,420.00 2,903.38 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 95,420.00 2,903.30 DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL FUND TOTAL 95, 420. 00 95, 420. 00 95, 420. 00 2,903.38 2,903.38 2.903.38 95, 420. 00 95, 420. 00 95, 420. 00 95, 420. 00 95, 420. 00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 • 41 FINANCE -F''4 TIMF: 20:43:48 41 - FUND DIV OBJT DESCR fIj 41' 41 I 7 • • • • • 0 3, 0 125 PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPH\IBITURC SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0031 FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 DATE 07/17/91 100.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE _APPROPRIATION_ .MONTHLY EXP_ _YTD EXPND. 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT 420,985.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 420, 985. 00 DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL FUND TOTAL 420,985.00 420,985.00 420,985.00 20, 500. 00 20, 500. 00 20, 500. 00 20, 500. 00 20, 500. 00 420, 985. 00 120, 985. 00 420, 985. 00 420, 985. 00 420, 985. 00 ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 7. 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 100. 0 0. 00 100 0 0. 00 100. 0 0. 00 C)0.01 0. 00 100. 0 • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • FIMi,NCE-FA454 EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0032 TIME 20:43:48 FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 DATE 07/17/91 100. 0% OF YEAR COMPLETE OH FJ • ' FUND DIV OBJT DESCR 126 41u r RA I LROAD RIGHT OF WAY FUND APPROPRIATION MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE % Ir 8514 C IP 09-514 DEPT: PARKS 4111' - 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PR IVATE 3, 200. 00 0. 00 553. 44 0.00 2, 646. 56 17. 2 • " OBJECT SUBTOTAL 3, 200. 00 0. 00 553. 44 0. 00 2, 646. 56 17 2 1... 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS • ''‘i 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS 617, 255. 00 0. 00 585, 387. 13 0. 00 31, 867. 87 94 8 Iff- OBJECT SUBTOTAL 617, 255. 00 . . 0. 00 _ 585, 3137. 13 0. 00 31, 067.137 94. 8 1 „ mi., I., DIVISION TOTAL 620, 455. 00 0. 00 585, 940. 57 0. 00 34, 514. 43 '91. 4 • ' 1.! DEPARTMENT TOTAL 620, 455. 00 0. 00 585, 940. 57 0. 00 34, 514. 43 94. 4 L.! FUND TOTAL 620, 455. 00 0. 00 585, 940. 57 0. 00 34, 514. 43 94. 4 •1- I •' I-. ';- •_., 1,,i. 01 • !-I ,, r,. • :,1 • .H • r • • V,' ,'• ! E I NANCE—FA -1:J4 t. !.) I. rut t.E. 1.:.F.VilR1 (1:Y T I HE 20 4Zit 1. / 71 Aftr FUND DIV OBJT DEE-CR APPROPRIATION MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 0: 127 6% UTILITY USER TAX FUND 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT • '' I.!.------- 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT 1,304,342.00 102,861.37 1.304,342.00 IlVi OBJECT SUBTOTAL 1,304,342.00 102,861.87 1,304,342.00 0- DIVISION TOTAL 1,304,342.00 102,861.87 1,304,342.00 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 1,304,342.00 102,861.87 1,304,342.00 0" FUND TOTAL 1,304,342.00 102,361.87 1,304,342.00 •., 0 ! • • OF ENCUMBR,NCE UMEOC BnLe,,NCE 0.00 0.00 100. 0 0. 00 0. 00 100.0 14 0. 00 0. 00 100. 0 0. 00 0. 00 100. 0 0. 00 0. 00 100. 0 k4, 4, ID 41 •I I �c. • „ FINANCE-FA454 TIM: 20143:40 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0034 FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 DATE 07/17/91 100.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE FUND DIV O(3JT DESCR APPROPRIATION ... MONTHLY EXP . YTD EXPND. ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE is 140 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK OR 4701 HOUSING REHAB DEPT: OTHER 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES___,___._., 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 8, 1332. 00 8, 832. 00 "I DIVISION TOTAL 8,832.00 4703 CDDG ADMIN DEPT: OTHER • ,, •�i 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL_ FUND _TOTAL, _ 4. 152. 00 4, 152. 00 4, 152. 00 12, 984. 00 12, 984. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 8. 831. 14 8,831. 14 8,831.14 4, 151. 43 4. 151. 43 4. 151. 43 12, 9132. 57 12,962.57_ 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 86 99. 9 0.136 99 9 0. 86 99. 9 0. 57 99 9 0. 57 99. 9 0. 57 99 V 1. 43 97.:V 1.43 i • • :7'.0• 4:1: le • FUND DIV OB JT DESCR 145 PROPOS I T I ON 'A FUND - 61 TY or HERMOSA flEACH EXINDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (13Y PU111)1 1-1:138 06/01/91 TIJ 06/30/91 APPROPR IATION 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER DEPT: MONT/SUPPORT 4300 MATER IALS /SUPPLIES/ OTHER 4399 OPER AT INC TRANSFERS OUT 10, 938. 00 OBJECT SUB TO TAL 10, 938. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 10. 936. 00 DEP AR TMENT TOTAL 10, 933. 00 .1101 .[(!%1.. R IDE .. DEP T: PUDE IC TRANS I T 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4100 RETIREMENT 4168 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4.201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 1300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4296 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 16. 451. 00 0. 00 2, 063. 00 1, 542.00 20, 056. 00 133, 886. 00 133, 886. 00 50. 00 500. 00 364. 00 914. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 154, 856. 00 3402 CONNUTER BUS DEPT: PUBLIC TRANS IT 4100 PEP2OMAL 2ERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/NISC 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4120 RETIREMENT 4160 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 1101 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 5, 936. 00 0. 00 744. 00 576. 00 7, 256. 00 53, 000. 00 53, 000. 00 _. MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1, 298. 96 0. 00 60. 78 44. 03 1, 403. 77 0. 00 0. 00 4. 16 0. 00 105. 00 109 16 10, 933. 00 10, 933. 00 10, 93E1. 00 10, 933. 00 191. 06 0. 00 650. 57 777. 15 17, 610. 78 97, 727. 51 97, 727. 51 49. 92 69. 96 369. 00 1813.138 1, 512. 93 113, 833. 17 488. 1134 0. 00 20. 72 14. 34 523. 90 5, 8E16. 94 0. 00 217. 61 2613. 09 6, 372. 64 0. 00 213, 130. 49 0. 00 28, 130. 49 . • 'AOL 003i DATE 07:'17/71 100.0% OF YEAH COMPLETE ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 1 '44 0. 00 0. 00 100. 0 0. 00 0. 00 100,0 0. 00 0. 00 100. 0 %,.. 0. 00 0. 00 100.0 0.00 0 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0 00 259. 94 0. 00 1, 112. 43 764. GO 2, 437. 22 36, 1313. 19 36, 158. 49 0. 013 130. 04 3. 00- .125. 12 0. 00 39. 020. 83 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 49. 06 0. 00 526. 39 307. 91 033. 3.6 24, 369. 31 24, 369. 51 98.4 00 31. 5 50. 3 87. 99 1.3 13 101.3 n3 4 74 U 33 !fr.:" 0 • • .r • • ' • • I.I FINANCE -F",454 FUND DIV OBJT DESCR 145 PROPOSITION 'A FUND 3402 COMMUTER BUS .CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0036 FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 DATE 07/17/91 100.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE APPROPRIATION • DEPT: PUBLIC TRANSIT 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHCS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 122. 00 122. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 60, 378. 00 3403 BUS PASS SUP.SDY DEPT: PUBLIC TRANSIT 4100 PERSONAL 'SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 1111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4100 RETIREMENT 4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL_ 1,631.00 0. 00 205. 00 240. 00 2, 076. 00 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT 13,650.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL -13, 650. 00 .200 MATERIAI....S/SUPPLIES/OTHER 43''26 TPS1-R OUT -INS USER CHCS OBJECT SUBTOTAL -- 702.00 702. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 16, 428. 00 r:O-:H'JT =RX[-PFS:4 DEPT: PUBLIC TRAM IT 4 1.00 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MI SC OBJECT SUBTOTAL Cf1LJ(12AC F '=,ER'JICF 5 +251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL FUND TOTAL 1, 375. 00 1, 373. 00 MONTHLY EXP. YTD EXPND. 35. 00 35. 00 123. 00 123. 00 558. 90 34, 626. 13 137. 40 0. 00 16. 71 15. 12 169. 23 1, 326. 00 1, 326. 00 1, 630. 80 0. 00 185. 01 1613. 64 1, 984. 45 13, 886. 00 13, 686. 00 61.00 699.00 61. 00 699. 00 1,556.23 18, 569. 45 122.88 614.40 122.88 614.40 0, 608. 00 8, 6013. 00 8, 60E3. 00 8, 608. 1)0 8, 609. 00 9, 60E3. 00 9, 983. 3)0 8, 730. 88 9, 222. 40 241, 645. 00 12, 358. 94 176, 253. 15 252, 583. 00 12, 358. 94 - 187, 191. 15 ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE is 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 1. 00- 100. 8 1. 00- 100 B 25, 751. 87 57. 3 0.20 99.9 0. 00 0. 0 19. 99 90. 2 71.36 70 2 91. 55 95 5 236.00- 1 O 1 . 7 226.00- 101. 3. 00 3. 00 141. 45-- 760. 60 760.60 0 00 0 00 760.60 60, 391. 05 6:7, 391. 85 :? S 100 El 44 i-, 74. II • C I tY 01 I.:Pki.11;t:tc• • " • F1N,:tNCE EXPENDItURE- SUMMARY REPOP r (BY r tIND) TIME 20 113140 FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 100.o% nr CONPLLTE FUND DIV OI3JT DESCR APPROPRIATION MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. ENCUMBRANCE UNENC, BALANCE 150 GR,' -111 T. FUND I ' 1299 DUDGET TRANSFER DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT • '1 4'300 MATER IALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER_ . _ .. ..... .. __ 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT 125, 894. 00 3, 375. 00 125. 894. 00 0. 00 0. 00 100. o C.)13JECT SUL'TOTAL 125, 894. 00 3. 375. 00 125, 1394. 00 0. 00 0. 00 100. 0 ;-: • '.1. DIVISION 'TOTAL 125, 894. 00 3, 375. 00 125, 894. 00 0. 00 0. 00 100. 0 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 125,1394. 00 3, 375. 00 125,1394. 00 0. 00 0. 00 100. 0 .. 1 i . 650.b C IP 86-5045 DEPT: PARKS L,"... • : 5400 EQUIPMENT 5479 NON -CAP ITALIZED ASSETS .0. 00 0..00 0. 00 ._ _ 0. 00 0. 00 0.1) OBJECT SUBTOTAL 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.0 • I 171 DIVISION TOTAL 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 0 • _ DEFAR rMENT_TOTAL 0_00 O. 00 0. 00 O. 00 0. 00 0. 0 • FUND TOTAL 125,894.00 3,375.00 125,094.00 0. 00 0. 00 100 • • , • ; • ' • • ' 40 • • • I. FINANCE -FA454 TIME 20:43:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 PAGE 0038 DATE 07/17/91 100.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE FUND DIV OBJT DESCR APPROPRIATION . MONTHLY EXP . YTD EXPND. ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE % 155 CROSSING GUARD FUND 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4300 MATERIALSKSUPPLIES/OTHER__ 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT OBJECT SUBTOTAL 0. 00 0. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 0.00 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 0.00 2102 CROSSING GUARD DEPT: POLICE 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC___ 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4113 CROSSING GUARDS 4100 RETIREMENT 4107 UNIFORMS 0, 092. 00 178. 00 178. 00 40, 40:3. 00 1, 115. 00 400. 00 4108 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 816.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 51,987.00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 846. 00 0. 00 0. 00 2, 014. 23 107. 24 0. 00 _ 92. 93 3, 861. 20 11, 317. 22 0. 00 Cl. 00 32, 297. 10 1, 313. 92 25. 00 _ 965. 56 45, 918. 80 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 0 0. 4..) 0. 0 0. 0 2,425.22- 127.2 178. 00 0.0 178.00 00 8, 110. 90 /9.9 198.92- 117. 375. 00 6. 2 149. 56- 110.3 6, 068. >313,3 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 6,000.00 0.00 1,841.07 0.00 4. 150. 93 30 6 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT 525.00 0.00 . 437.65 0.00 67.35 83.3 OBJECT SUBTOTAL .6,525,00 __ .._. ..... 0.00 2,270.72 0.00 4,246.28 34.9 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4396 TRSFR GUT -INS USER CHCS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 3, 373. 00 3, 373. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 61,065.00 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 61,065.00 FUND TOTAL 61,885.00 802.00 802. 00 4, 663. 20 4, 663. 20 4, 663. 20 3, 376. 00 3, 376. 00 51, 573. 52 51, 373. 52 51, 573. 52 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. 00- 100. 0 3. 00- 100. 0 10, 311. 46 10, 311. 10 10, 311. 40 k 4, 4. • - 'r IWAW.,F-FA454 TIM:: :'.0 43: 4(3 wI Lj • • I•• ®`_ • f .. • • • • FUND DIV OBJT DESCR ..._.._. 1,:.0 SEWER FUND 1299 EUUGET TRANSFER 1:11 5 t{.;21'I: Ili. 1;1 L;:1:'1)l HML' SNMN42Y I+.IcF't)0 (. ', f`RCIM 0.!.,/01.'Y1 10 06/:;0/91 APPROPRIATION DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER.___.. 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT OBJECT SUBTOTAL 1, 765, 021. 00 1, 765, 821. 00 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 147, 1.51. 75 147, 151. 75 1, 765, 021. 00 1, 765, 821. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 1, 765, 821. 00 147, 151. 75 1, 765, 821. 00 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 1, 765, 821. 00 3102 SF0F.R!ST DRAIN DEPT: ST/HIJY/ST. DI1AIN 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR.SALARIES/MISC.. 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4100 RETIREMENT 4186 EMPLOYEE 13ENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL. 1200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 NATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4303 UTILITIES 430c? MAINTENANCE MATE=RIALS 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUDES 1311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 4306 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHCS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 00 EQUIPMENT 5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE THAN $500 5403 VEHICLES OBJECT SUBTOTAL ,9 U(.) LEASE PAYMENTS LEASE PAYMENTS OBJECT SUBTOTAL_ DIVISION TOTAL 147, 151. 75 1, 765, 821. 00 ENCUMBRANCE LIJ•!LIo: Ll:L1.0 C 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 100.0 0. 00 100. 0 0.00 100.0 0. 00 100. 0 4111 93, 575..00 _ ._ .. 7,_701. 36 ..___.... _. _ 91, 435. 80 ... 0. 00 2, 139. 20 97. 7 3, 000. 00 0. 00 1, 253. 78 0. 00 1, 746. 22 41. 7 1, 072. 00 0. 00 0. 00 O. 00 1, 872. 00 0. 0 `r 1, 672. 00 0. 00 1, 094. 32 0. 00 777. 68 53. 4 11, 734. 00 965. 19 10, 309. 21 0. 00 1, 424. 79 87. 8 9, 924. 00 736. 90 7, 978. 93 0. 00 1, 945. 07 80. 4 121, 977..00.. ._ ____.9. 403. 45 ._..... _...112, 072. 04 0. 00 9, 904. 96 91.6 2, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 2, 000. 00 0. G 3, 100. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 3, 100. 00 0 0 5, 100. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 5, 100. 00 0. 0 u 515. 00 29. 86 33.4. 77 0. 00 1130. 23 67., 0 4, 9, 967. 00 1, 121. 27 6, 060. 881 0. 00 3, 906. 19 .-.3. 0 880. 00 707. 75 1, 071. 91 0. 00 991. 91- 312 7 6, 400. 00 236. 34 1, 8197. 76 0. 00 4, 532 24 2'7. 1 .30. 052. 00 . .6, 571. 00 . 30, 848. 00 0. 00 4. 00 99. 9 48, 614. 00 8, 666. 22 40, 9133. 25 0. 00 7, 630. 75 34 800. 00 0. 00 613. 82 0. 00 106. 10 76 , 82, 133. 00 411. 47 82, 544. 33 0. 00 411. 33- 100.'5 82, 933. 00 411. 47 83. 150. 15 0. 00 225. 15- 100. 9, 070. 00 9, 070. 00 0. 00 .. 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 267, 694. 00 18, 481. 14 236, 213. 44 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 9, 070. 00 9, 070. 00 31,480.56 0. 0 0. 0 BEI. 2 • 11 FINANCE -F44 TIME 20:42.48 FUND DIV OBJT DESCR 1.60 SEWER FUND DEPARTMENT TOTAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 004.0 FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 DATE 07/17/91 100.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE APPROPRIATION MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 267, 694. 00 13, 481. 14 8406 CIP 88-406 -_DEPT: _SANITARY SEWER 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL. FUND TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 2, 033, 515. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 165, 632. 89 ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 236,213. 44 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0, 00 2, 002, 034. 44 0, 00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31, 480. 56 28.2 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 31, 480. 56 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 98. 4 ;‘t v, _CITY (Jr HERMOSA BEACH FIMANCE-H-A41 EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0041 f it11.7. .i) 4:3: 40 FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 DATE 07/17/91 100. C4 OF YEAR COMPLETE FUND DIV OEJT DESCR _APPROPRIATION . MONTHLY EXP ___.YTD EXFND. ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE % 170 ASET SEIZURE/FORFEITURE FUND 4. 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER DEPT: MGMT/SURPOirT 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 0 OBJECT SUB TO IAL 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 0 , DIVISION TOTAL 0. 00 O. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 0 ... DEPAR TMENT TOTAL 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 0 ,... 1071 !F4'EC INVESTGTNS DEPT: POLICE 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4103 REGULAR SALARIES/SAFETY. 170, 604_ 00. 4105 SPECIAL DUTY PAY 10, 560. 00 4107 PREMIUM OVERTIME 24, 000. 00 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN . 3, 623. 00 1130 R ET I REMEN r 46, 053. 00 4107 UNIFORMS 2, 000. 00 4130 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS,.................._14, 481. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 272, 121. 00 420° CONI-RACr SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 434 TELEPHONE 1310 MOTOR FUELS AND LOBES 4311 AUTO MAINIENANCE 4316 TRAINING 4222 UNCLASSIFIED TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS OBJECT SUBTOTAL :100 EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 5402 EQUIPMENT --MORE THAN $500, _ 5403 VEHICLES HBJECT SUBTOTAL INTERESf 6700 INTEREST OBJECT SUE 10 FAL . 6, 425. 00 6, 425. 00 7, 680. 00 6, 000. 00 0. (10 0. 00 5, 000. 00 21, 774. 00 40,154. 00 5, 030. 00 19, 000. 00 20, 300. 00 44, 330. 00 0. 00 0.00 _ 13, 529. 00 ___ 171, 301. 00 660. 00 10, 340. 00 1, 610. 35 40, 167. 01 0.00 4, 195. 20 4, 172. 02 45, 692. 22 175. 02 2, 741. 98 . 1, 100. 24 10, 753. 20 21, 256. 63 285, 395. 61 157.55 157. 55 2, 061. 26 1, 256. 99 1, 403. 00 0. 00 0. 00 9, 403. 00 14, 124. 25 0. 00 6, 802. 29 3, 321. 54 10, 123. 83 12, 667. 00 12, 667. 00 3, 494. 30 3, 494. 30 2, 061. 26 3. 407. 43 1, 403. 00 245. 10 1. 1150. 00 21, '770.00 30,044.79 0.00 9, 814. 47 3, 321. 54 13, 138.01 12, 667. 00 12. 667. 00 0. 00 697. 00- 100. 4 0. 00 220. 00 97.9 0. 00 16, 147. 01- 167. 3 0. 00 572.20-- 115.? 0. 00 160. 76 97. 6 0. 00 58. 02 77. 9 0. 00 3, 722. 30 74. 2 0. 00 13, 274. 61- 104 8 0. 00 2, 720. 70 34. 0. 00 2, 930. 70 34. 3 0. 00 5, 618. 74 2,. a 0. 00 2, 592 37 t;<-,. 7 0. 00 14403. 00-- 0.0 0. 00 245. 10- 0 0 0. 00 3, 1450. 00 20 0 0. 00 4. 00- 1.00 0 0. 00 10, 40?. 21 74 2 0. 00 5, 049, 33 0.00 5, 049. 33 5, 0;30. 00 0 4. 106. 20 70 k--2 16, 978. 46 16.3 26, 144. 66 41.') 0. 00 12, 667. 00- 0 0 0. 00 12, 667. 00-- 0 0 • • • • • . , . • • • m • • 0, I FINANCE-FA44 TIME 20.43:48 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0042 FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 DATE 07/17/91 100.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE FUND DIV OBJT DESCR APPROPRIATION 170 ASSET SCIZURE/FORFEITURE FUND . . 2103 SPEC I NVESTGINS DEPT: POLICE L'i00 LEASE PAYMENTS 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL FUND TOTAL 0. 00 0. 00 363, 330. 00 363, 330. OC) 363, 330. 00 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 22, 018. 99 22, 018. 99 80, 348. 25 80. 348. 25 80, :348. 25 22, 018. 99 22, 010. 99 366, 756. 70 366, 756. 70 36.6, 776. 70 ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 0. 00 0. 00 5, 049. 33 5, 049. :33 5, 049. 33 22, 010. 99-- 22, 018. 99-- 8, 476. 03- 3, 476. 03- 8, 476. 03-- 0. 0 0. 0 102.3 102.3 102.2 • • I.TY CIE HERMOSA BEAC11 • F INANCE-EA454 EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (I3Y FUND) PAGE 0043 411i TIME 20: 43: :10 FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 DATE 07/17/91 100.07. OF YEAR COMPLETE 02 10 143 167 018 12 13 14 FUND DIV OUNJI_DESCR '_AEPROPRIATION_ .MONTMLY._EXP_ YTD_EXPND. ENCUMI3RANCE UNENC BALANCE 180 FIRE PROTECTION FUND 2202 HYDRANT UPGRADE DEPT: FIRE 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 100, 000. 00 100, 000. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 0. 00 17, 264. 45 0. 00 17, 264. 45 100, 000. 00 0. 00 lc 40" 19 • 121 • DEPP.RTMENT TOTAL FUND.TOTAL 100, 000. 00 0. 00 17,264.43 17,264.45 _100, 000. 00 0. 00 ._ __ 17, 264. 45 0. 00 82, 735. 55 0. 00 82, 735. 55 0. 00 82, 735. 55 0. 00 82, 735. 55 0. 00 82. 735. 55 17. 2 17. 2 17.2 17.2 17.2 • FINANCE -FA454 1-34 2 l0 0 11 112. 13 0 14 TIME 20:43:48 FUND DIV OBJT DESCR 305 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 8137 CIP 85-137 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0044 FROM 06/01/91 JD 06/a0/91_ DATE.07/17/.91 100.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE 1 APPROPRIATION MONTHLY_EXP YTD. UNENC.BALANCE 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES DEPT: STREET/SAFETY 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 566, 420. 00 566, 420. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 566, 420. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 566, 420. 00 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4316 TRAINING 0.00 0.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 0.00 0.00 0. 0 0.0 29. 10 0. 00 29. 10- 0. 0 29. 10 0 00 29.10- 0. 0 DIVISION TOTAL 566,420.00 0. OQ . 29. 10 0. 00 566, 390. 90 0. 0 8141 CIP 89-141 DEPT: STREET/SAFETY 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 129, 750. 00 0. 00 12. 76 129, 750. 00 0, 00 0.00 129, 737. 24 . 129, 737. 24 0. 0 0. 0 DIVISION TOTAL 129,...7_50. 00. 0.00 737. 24 0.0 8142 CIP 89-142 DEPT: STREET/SAFETY 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL. 34, 542. 00 34,542.00 34, 542. 00 0144 CIP 90-144 DEPT: STREET/SAFETY 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 41L2 PART TINE/TEMPORARY OBJECT SUBTOTAL 1, 000. 00 1, 000. 00 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE_____445,000.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 445,000.00 DIVISION O146 CIF' 69-146 ro UAL 446, 000. 00 DEPT: STREET/SAFETY 0. 00 34, 201. 34 0. 34, 201. 34 0.00 34,201.34 . 988. 50 988. 50 988. 50 988. 50 . 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 988. 50 988. 50 CONTRACT SERVICES C(!riTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 7,300.00 0. 00 0. 00 340. 66 0. 00 _ 340. 66 0. 00 340. 66 0. 00 11. 50 0.00 11. ?.J0 O. 00 445, 000. 00 0. 00 445, 000. 00 O. oo 445, 011. 50 0. 00 0. 00 99.0 99.0 90.0 98.0 0.0 0 f'1 0.2 7,300.00 0 0 • 6 FINANCE-FA454 TIME 20:43:48 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM.06L01/91__TO__06/30/91 PAGE 004, DATE 07/17/91 100. 0% OF YEAR COMPLETE FUND DIV OBJT pEscp AER0ER1AI.10N MONTHLY -EXE -----YTD EXEND ENCUMBRANCE . .UNENC BALANCE. 305 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 7 401° • 12 ao ,4 8146 CIP 89-146 DEPT: STREET/SAFETY _4200...CONTRACT SERVICES OBJECT SUBTOTAL 7, 300. 00 0. 00 4300 MATERTALsQFPLIE540THER 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 0. 00 0. 00 7, 300. 00 0. 0 2,700. 00 0. 00 4, 221. 62 0. 00 1, 321. 62- 2, 700. 00 0. 00 4, 221. 62 0. 00 1, 521. 62 - • DIVISION TOTAL 10;000.00 8148 CIP 89-14B DEPT: STREET/SAFETY 4200.CONTRACI_SERVICES 0. 00 4; 221. 62 0. 00 3, 778. 38 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 0I3JEC T_S013T0IA1 10, 000. 00 10, 000. 00 0.00 0 00 _ _ D IV IS ION_ ___:TOTAL ---10#.000- 00 8150 CIP 89--150 DEPT: STREET/SAFETY 2, 480. 00 2, 480. 00 983.40 -983.-40 7, 548. 71 7, 848. 71 2, 001. 44 2..001 44 • 156.3 r 156.3 42.2 %•/,, 0. 00 2, 451. 29 75. 4 0. 00 2, 451. 29 73.4 0. 00 2, 001. 44- 0 00 2, 001. 44- 3, 463. 40 9. 550. 15_.........0.00 _ 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 20,000.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 20, 000. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00.......0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0. 0 - - 449. 85 95.1) 20, 000. 00 20# 000. 00 DIVISION .ICITAL- 20,000 00 0 00 0 00 0.00 .20,000.00 0151 CIP 69-151 DEPT: STREET/SAFETY 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL -_--- 40* 500. 00 0. 00 0. 00 __40,.500. 00 O. 00 0 00 DIVISION__ TOTAL 40,.500.00 (3170 CIF 87-170 DEPT: STREET/SAFETY 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES ,; 201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 337, 219. 00 0. 00 401. 33 0. 00 40. *00. 00 0. 00 -- 40, 500. 00 0.00 0. 0 0, 0 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 40, 500. 00 0. 0 666. 94 336; 150. 73 n. -3 v.+ w • F I NANCE-FA454 TIME 20:43:48 •� • 5 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 PAGE 0046 DATE 07/_.17:91 _ 100. 0% OF YEAR COMPLETE FUND DIV ODJT DESCR APERQeRIATION MONTHLY_EXP__YTIL.EXPND. ENCUMBRANCE UNENC_BALANCE.._._._ 7. 305 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 6170 CIP 87-170 • o io • u 1223 • 14 1,5 16 I • " 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES OBJECT SUBTOTAL DEPT: STREET/SAFETY 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 337, 219. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 3,976.77 3,976.77 401.33 666.94 3, 976. 77 1, 151. 54 3, 976. 77 1, 151. 54 • 29 3,3 31 • 32 134 33 • 35 36 37 • •v • :3 DIVISION TOTAL 337, 219. 00 3, 976. 77 8176 CIP 86-176 DEPT: STREET/SAFETY 4300 MATER IALS /SUPPLJ ES/OTHER 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 0.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 0.00 4, 378. 10 1, 818. 48 97. 85 97. 85 97. 85 0. 00 97. 85 0. 00 336, 150. 73 5, 128. 31- 5, 128. 31- 0. 3 0. 0 0. 0 331, 022. 42 1 . 8 97. 85- 97. 85- 0. 0 0. 0 DIVISION TOTAL 0. 00 97. 85 97. 85 0. 00 97. 85- O. 0 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 1, 594, 431. 00 8. 526. 52 53, 479. 42 1, 818. 48 1, 539, 133. 10 3. 4 8201 CIP 85-201 DEPT: STREET_LIOHTING 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERV ICE/PRIVATE 22,000 00_ 0 00 0 00_ ____..__.0.00 _.__ ___22,000.00 .. . . 0.0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 22, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 22, 000. 00 0. 0 DIVISION TOTAL 22, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 22, 000. 00 0. 0 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 22,_000 00_._____—._ _0..00 0 00 0 00 _.__ _ __ 22. 000. 00 0. 0 8406 CIP 88-406 DEPT: SANITARY SEWER 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 1, 870, 163. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL . .___.__.._ ___. _....__.._1..870, 163. 00 121. 245. 75 425, 375. 05 121, 245. 75__... ___.___.425, 375. 05 DIVISION TOTAL _.. 1. 870, 163. 00 .. _.. _. 121, 245. 75 ._...__..__425, 375. 05._. DEPARTMENT TOTAL 1, 870, 163. 00 121, 245. 75 8506 CIP 26-506 DEPT: PARKS 1;?uo (CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE O. 00 1, 444, 787. 95 22. 7 .0. 00 1, 444, 787. 95 22. 7 ___ 0. 00 1, 444, 787. 95 425, 375. 05 0. 00 24, 800. 00, 0. 00 8, 793. 30 535. 00 22. -7 1, 444, 787. 95 22 . '7 15, 471. 70 37. 6 k • • 40' • • 0 FINANCE -FA454 TIME 20:43:48 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (13Y FUND) PAGE 004/ FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 DATE 07/17191 100.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE . FUND DIV OBJT DESCR_ APPROPRIATION MONTHLY EXP _ •YTD EXPND. . ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE '4 305 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 8506 CIP 86-506 DEPT: PARKS 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES _ OBJECT SUBTOTAL 24,800.00 0.00 8,793.30 535. 00 15, 471. 70 37. 6 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 19,969.00 2,009.98 2,645.92 0. 00 17, 323. 08 13. 2 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 19, 969. 00 2, 009. 98 2, 645. 92 0. 00 17, 323. 08 13. 2 5400 EQUIPMENT 5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE TI -IAN $500 5499 NON -CAPITALIZED ASSETS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 44, 769. 00 850E; CIP 87-508 DEPT:... PARKS. . _ 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 25,000.00_ . OBJECT SUBTOTAL 25, 000. 00 4300 W1TERIALE/SUPPLIES/OTHER_ 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 0. 00 0. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 25, 000. 00 8A.1 CIP -511 DEPT: PARKS 1.,-.!00 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CON TRACT SERVICE/PR IVATE 15, 000. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 15, 000. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 15, 000. 00 851'2 010 %.39-512 DEPT: PARKS C'jNIFACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 0BJECT SUBTOTAL 94, 750. 00 94, 750. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 68- 939. 03 938. 35 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 2, 009. 98 12, 377. 57 535. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 32. BB 32. 88 0. 00 32.88 32. 88 0. 00 32. 88 32. 88 0. 00 160. 11 160. 11 2, 500. 00 160. 11 160.11 2, 500. 00 160. 11 160. 11 2, 500. 00 25, 206. 90 25, 206. 90 81, 237. 27 81, 237. 27 0. 00 0. 00 0. 68 939. 03-- 938. 35- 31, 356. 43 25. 000. 00 25, 000. 00 32. SD- 32.23 - 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 28. 8 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 24, 967. 12 0 1 12, 339. 09 12, (3? 12, :3:39. 89 13, 312, 73 13, 512. 73 25 25. 7 41 FINANGV-FA454 TIME 20:43:40 • FUND DIV OBJT DESCR •I • •i • •I 1.17 17 0 305 CAP 11 AL. IMPROVEMENT FUND 4 DIVISION TOTAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0048 FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 DATE 07/17/91 100. 07. OF YEAR COMPLETE APPROPRIATION MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 94, 750. 00 25,206.90 8513 C IP 89-513 DEPT: PARKS 5500 LAND 5500 LAND 5501 LAND OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 01, 237. 27 0. 00 0. 00 O. 00 250, 216. 98 260, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 260, 000. 00 0. 00 250, 216. 98 260, 000. 00 0. 00 250, 216. 98 8516 CIP 09-516 DEPT: PARKS 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 7,950.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 7,950.00 DIVISION TOTAL 7, 950. 00 . . _ . 8517 CIP 89-517 DEPT: PARKS 4 CONTRACT SERV ICES 4.201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE UBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 NATLRIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4000 11.41EITENANCE MATER I ALS SUB TO IAL • EQUIPMENT 5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE THAN $500 LiliJECT SUBTOTAL 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 7, 954. 27 7, 954. 27 7,954.27 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 13, 512. 73 85. 7 250, 216. 98- 260, 000. 00 9, 783. 02 0. 00 9. 703. 02 O 0 O 0 96.2 96. 2 0. 00 3. 73 99. 0. 00 3. 73 99 9 0.00 3.73 99. 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.0 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.0 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 2on. 73 0. 00 205. 73- 0.0 205. 73 0. 00 2(15. 73- Q. 0 0. 00 0. 00 0. 68 0. 00 0. 60-- 0. 0 0. 00 0. 00 0. 68 0. 00 0. 66- o CY LIVICION TO 0. 00 01.0 C DEFT: PARKS (.0 BAC F CEFIVICES 17.Ervr /Prq Twat: JOLT31) SUBTOTAL ▪ E0;11FMENT E'--2UIFTIENT -MORE THAN $500 0. no 0. 00 0. 00 206. 41 0. 00 206. 41- 1) 0 0. 00 0. 00 15, 902. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 n, 902. 09 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 09- 100 0 4,0 • F I NANCE-FA454 TIME 20:43:48 I •2 I3 FUND DIV OBJT DESCR AP_EROPR_IA1_ IQNMONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. ENCUMBRANCE__-_UNENC..BALANCE ___ _._._ _"/._._._. • 305 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND f6 5400 EQUIPMENT ' OBJECT SUBTOTAL 15, 902. 00 0. 00 15, 902. 09 0. 00 0. 09- 100. 0 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0049 FROM ..06/_.O1/91__TO_06/30/91 DATE 07/17/91 100. 07. OF YEAR COMPLETE • 6 fl [10 DIVISION TOTAL 15, 902. 00 • 1, I'2 DEPARTMENT TOTAI 463,.379._00._-.._... " B601 CIP 86-601 DEPT: BLDGS & GROUNDS 116 16 •n IIe 19 • 2° 21 _IZIVISION TGTAL 4.000 00 65 00 2...162 _20 8604 CIP 86-604 DEPT: BLDGS & GROUNDS u Lb 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 412`' 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 23, 768. 00 4, 991. 00 20, 861. 00 OBJECL.SUI3TOTAL 23,768 00 4.991__00 20.861 00 • 9 0. 00 15, 902. 09 0. 00 0. 09- 100. 0 27..409. 87 _______368, 087. 58._____ _ . 3. 035..00 .._ . .. 92, 256. 42 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT.. SUBTOTAL 4, 000. 00 65. 00 _41 000..00______._._ ___ 65. 00 2, 162. 20 0. 00 2, 162. 20 --_------___-O. 00 O 00 1, 837. 80 -.- 1. 837. 80 80. 0 54. 0 54. O 1, 837.- SO 54. 0 - 0. 00 2, 907. 00 O 00- .___-_ _- 2, 907. 00 67. 7 87.7 DIVISION._ TOTAL 23, 768_00 . 4,.991..00-__.__.___20, 861. 00__._ _.__.._. O. 00 _ __- __. 2, 907. 00 27. 7 32 8606 CIP 87-606 DEPT: BLDGS & GROUNDS 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 5 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 8, 164. 00 914. 71 6, 403. 71 0. 00 1, 760. 29 78. 4 36, OBJECT SUBTOTAL__.- - -- -.-__----------._..__8, 164. 00 914. 71 _ . 6, 403. 71 _ _ 0. 00 1, 760. 29 70. 4 J, • S " 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 9 4309 MAINTENANCE_ MATERIALS 0 00 683._/T------ --683 17 566. 54-..--........ . 1, 249. 71- 0. 0 " OBJECT SUBTOTAL 0. 00 683. 17 683. 17 566. 54 1, 249. 71- 0. 0 414' 41 4.1 DIVISION TOTAL 8, 164. 00 1, 597. 88 7. 086. 88 566. 54 510. 58 93. 7 8608 CIP 89--608.._._____ .._____ DEPT: ___-BLDGS.&_.GROUNDS. .___-_. e .w 52 • -3 • 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERV ICE/PR IVATE_..___._. 21, 000. 00 --. OBJECT SUB TOTAL . 21, 000. 00 DIVISION TOTAL . 0. 00.. - .._..._ .... O. 00 0. 00 0. 00 21, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 21, 000. 00 21, 000. 00 O 0 O 0 21, 000. 00 0 0 FINANCE-FA454 TIME_201.43:48 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM.064Q1/71._T0_06/30/71 PAGE 0050 DATE 07.117/91__ _ 100. OZ OF YEAR COMPLETE I FUND DIV OBJT DESCR APEROPRIAIION MONTHLY_EXP YTD EXPND. ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 7. . , 305 CAP I TAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 8609 CIP 89-609 DEPT: BLOCS & GROUNDS 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL 30, 000. 00 30, 000. 00 30, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 30, 000. 00 30, 000. 00 0. 0 0. 0 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 30, 000. 00 0. 0 8615 CIP 89-615 DEPT: BLDGS & GROUNDS 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 5, 560. 00 314. 11 2, 009. 48 168. 62 3, 381. 90 39. 1 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 5, 560. 00 314. 11 2, 009. 48 168. 62 3, 381. 90 39. 1 4300 MATER IALS/SUPPL IES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE O. 00 305. 67 507. 85 O. 00 507. 85- 0. 0 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 0 QQ 645.23. _1, 355. 31 667. 68 _ _ _ 2, 022. 99- 0. 0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL O. 00 950. 90 1, 863. 16 667. 6B 2, 530. 84- 0. 0 5600 DuILDINGsrimPPoyEMENT$ 5602 IMPRVMTS OTHER THN BLDGS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4, 440. 00 0. 00 4, 438. B1 0. 00 4, 440. 00 0. 00 4, 43E3. 81 0. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 10, 000. 00 8616 CIP 90-616 DEPT: BLDGS & GROUNDS 1, 263. 01 8, 311. 43 1. 19 1. 19 838.30 852.25 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 45, 000. 00 0.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 45, 000. 00 0. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 45, 000. 00 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 141, 932. 00 8701 CIP 89-701 DEPT.; 10THER PROJECTS 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL • DIVISION TOTAL 15, 000. 00 15, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 7, 918. 89 38, 421. 53 0. 00 0. 00 15, 000. 00 0. 00 45, 000. 00 45, 000. 00 0. 00 45, 000. 00 1, 402. 04 102, 107. 63 0. 00 15, 000. 00 0. 00 15, 000. oo 0. 00 0. 00 15, 000. 00 99. 9 99. 9 91. 4 0. 0 0. 0 0,0 28. 0 0. 0 0 0 0.0 w • • 2 4 015 FINANCE—FA454 TIME 20•43:40 • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0031 FROM 06/01/71__T0_06/30/91 _ DATE 07/17/91 100.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE . WO AERROPRIATION MONTHLY_EXP Y.TD_EXPND ENCUMBRANCE_ .UNENC BALANCE. 305 INSURANCE FUND 8701 CIP 89-701 DEPT: OTHER PROJECTS 4100 PERSONAL—SERVICES ,0 •,' • DEPARTMENT TOTAL FUND TOTAL 15, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 4, 106, 905. 00 165, 101. 03 883, 363. 3E3 0.00 6,256.32 ••'' 127 24 31 0'2 1:i1J 34 15, 000. 00 0. 0 3,213,265.10 21.7 sr+ • • IVI • " I'1 1209 LIABILITY INS DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT • •I' I • LI • FINANCE-FA4:54 TIM: 20' 43' L133 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0002 FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 DATE 07/17/91 100. 0% OF YEAR COMPLETE FUND DIV OBJT DE_SCR APPROPRIATION 705 INSURANCE FUND 4 I •I • • 4 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN _ 4180 RETIREMENT 4180 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 1200; CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER _ 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4315 MEMBERSHIP 4316 TRAINING 43,24 CLAIMS/SETTLEF1ENTS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 23, 244. 00 465. 00 465. 00 2, 915. 00 3, 444. 00 30, 533. 00 380, 137. 00 380, 137. GO 300. 00 365.00 275. 00 135, 000. 00 135, 940. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 546, 610. 00 1210 AUTO/PLOP/BONDS DEPT: MGMT/SCIPPORT 42 CONTRACT SERVICES 12.01. CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 'i 3•�C T IA.TcRIAI..S/SUPPLIES/LTTHER :. •1 CL_AIMi/SETTL_EMENTS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 35, 480. 00 35, 480. 00 10, 000. 00 10, 000. 00 fiE'-' 10 E0") TO TAI. 45, 480. (.Q 1:?I0 J::'.1.)'LO;' lEElir SEPT: MCNT/SUF'PLiiiT F•!::R 0NAL SERVICES U'4Ft SPI .OYME:NT BENEFITS '7, 000. 00 7, 000 00 DIVISION TOTAL_ 7, 000, 00 MONTHLY EXP YTD EXPND. 1, B86. 50 21, 674. 13 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1, 010. 80 236. 57 2, 577. 55 216. '74 2, 142. 66 2, 339. 81 27, 405. 14 24, 921. 24 368, 1187. 26 24, 921. 24 368, 207. 26 48. 26 165. 40 0. 00 4413. 00 0. 00 139. 07 1, 270. 80 1 16, 61 0. 14 1,327.06 117,359.61 23, 580. 11 51.3, 052. 01 0. 00 33, 353. 07 0. 00 33, 353. 07 O. 00 5, 024.133 0. 00 5, 1324. 03 0. 00 39, 177. 90 0. 00 162. 00 0. 00 1.62. 00 0. 00 . . . __.... 162. 00 ENCUMBRANCE UNETIC BALANCE 0. 00 1, 569.137 93. 0. 00 465. 00 0. 0 0. 00 545. 20- 217 .3 0. 00 337. 45 83 4 0. 00 1, 301. 34 62. 2 0. 00 3, 127. 86 89. 7 0. 00 11, 0349. 74 O. 00 11, 1349. 74 96. 8 0. 00 134. 60 55. 1 0. 00 BO. 00- 121 9 0. 00 135. 93 50. 5 0. 00 18, 389. 86 (36 3 0. 00 18, 530. 39 86. 3 0. 00 33, 957. 99 92 %:; 0. 00 2, 126. 93 0. 00 2, 126. 93 94 0 0. 00 4, 17'. 17 C:•B. 0. 00 4, 175. 1 `.'13. 0. 00 6: .102. 10 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 6,13:38. 00 6, 638. 00 6,13:113. 00 2 :J ; • • I I 4M 48 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 06/01/91 TO 06/30/91 FUND DIV OLIJT DESCR APPROPRIATION . 705 INSURANCE FUND 1217 WORKERS COMP DEPT: MGMT/SUPPOR1 • I 0 • :1 • 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 1110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 1111 ACCRUAL CASH TN . 4180 RETIREMENT 4132 WORKERS COMP CURRENT YR 29, 6413. 00 593. 00 593. 00 3, 718. 00 376, 000. 00 4I1313 EMPLOYEE 13ENEF ITS 5, 784. 00 OBJECT SUB TOTAL 416, 336. 00 1200 CONMACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4200 NATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 43.)5 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4316 TRAINING OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL 35, 223. 00 1, 077. 00 36, 300. 00 400. 00 1, 220. 00 1, 620. 00 454, 256. 00 EU1CAR.E DEPT: MGMT/SURPORT 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4109 MEDICARE BENEFITS 39,333.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 39,333.00 D 15100 TO1AL DEP AR rmr.riT TO FAL rut IL) i P21' OR F TO FALS _. MONTHLY EXP . YTD EXPND. 2, 673. C)0 29, 340. O. 00 0. 0.00 1,010. 304. 22 3, 316. 5, 760. 06 342, 339. 357.32 3.719. 9, 094. 60 379, 926. 2, 000. 00 0. 00 2, 000. 00 54. 32 0. 00 54. 32 11, vie. 92 3, 550. 64 3, 550. 64 13 00 BO 31 135 11 20 35, 2813. 20 631. 73 35, 919. 93 . 111.36 1,71. 87 983. 23 416, 521, 36 40, BOO. '76 40, 800. 76 39, 333. 00 3, 550. 64 40, 800. '76 1, 092, 677. 00 43, 287. 67 1, 010, 022. 03 1, 092, 679. 00 43, 287. 67 1, 010, 022. 03 25, 461, 911. 00 2, 057, 126. 36 20, 933, 238. 95 PAGE DATE 100.0% OF 0051 07/17/91 YEAR COMVLETE ENCUMBRANCE UNENC. BALANCE 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 O. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 48, 996. 99 307. 87 093. 00 417. 130- 401. 69 33, 460. 15 2, 064. 09 36, 409. 80 98.9 0. 0 170. 4 89. 1 91. 1 64. 2 91. 2 65. 20- 100. 1 445. 27 58. 6 380. 07 98. 9 11. 36- 102 648. 13 46.8 636. 77 60. 6 37, 426. 64 1, 467. 76- 1, 467. '76- 1, 46.7. '76- (32, 656. 9- 82, 4, 479, 87. 06 91 7 103.7 103.7 7 --z3--q% CITY TREASURER'S REPORT - JUNE 1991 FUND NUMBER GENERAL ACCOUNT 6/1/91 BALANCE CASH ADJUSTMENTS WARRANTS ADJUSTMENTS 001 GENERAL $3,319,171.60 105 LIGHTING DISTRICT 109 VEHICLE PARKING DIST. 110 PARKING 115 STATE GAS TAX 120 COUNTY GAS TAX 125 PARK REC.FAC.TAX 126 RAILROAD RT.OF WAY 127 6% UTILITY USERS TAX 140 CDBG 145 PROPOSITION A FUND 150 GRANT FUND 155 CROSSING GUARD DISTRICT 160 SEWER MAINTENANCE 170 POLICE ASSET SEIZURE 180 FIRE PROTECTION FUND 305 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 705 SELF INSURANCE FUND TRUST ACCOUNTS 1,475,543.24 88,989.65 269,113.67 606,654.67 <51,014.00> 1,790,550.25 908,281.57 37,074.28 122,763.74 394,328.96 270,566.72 73,397.33 1,058,309.66 79,038.11 445,401.46 3,076,436.33 306,952.75 $14,271,559.99 $ 445,146.09 - 0- 14,276.06 201,489.73 174,493.49 - 0- -0- 79,384.63 111,041.73 - 0- 582.00 - 0- -0- 4,483.66 - 0- 2,098.00 - 0- - 0- $1,032,995.39 $165,224.06 234.81 14.16 42.83 96.54 - 0- 284.94 - 0- 5.90 - 0- 62.75 -0- 69.62 66,835.04 12.58 70.88 299,706.12 272,640.00 $805,300.23 $ 794,461.64 9,827.68 5,257.26 70,904.99 - 0- - 0- - 0- - 0- -0- - 0- 2,344.44 -0- 4,117.02 10,366.94 25,475.25 -0- 148,094.66 55,343.36 $1,126,193.24 $244,446.87 7,034.61 1,710.68 131,529.13 106,747.38 2,903.38 20,500.00 - 0- 102,861.87 -0- 299.21 3,375.00 909.24 155,395.69 26,242.02 -0- - 0- 6,403.43 $810,358.50 6/30/91 BALANCE 2,89033:25 1,458,915.76 96,311.93 268,212.11 674,497.32 <53,917.38> 1,770,335.19 987,666.20 45,260.04 122,763.74 392,330.06 267,191.72 68,440.69 963,865.73 27,333.42 447,570.34 3,228,047.79 517,845.96 14,173,303.87 BALANCE RECEIVED PAID BALANCE STATEMENT BALANCE PAYROLL $12,298,177.87 INACTIVE DEPOSIT $2,897.16 $628,186.41 $628,863.89 $824,703.90 $539,247.15 INACTIVE DEPOSIT HELD BY FISCAL AGENT RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY $896,366.48 INTEREST RECEIVED TO DATE $2,219.68 GARY BR T , JULY 18, 1991 GENERAL $1,260,853.43 PAYROLL 1,918.32 1,262,771.75 210,129.97 1,052,641.78 INACTIVE DEPOSIT 13,122,881.77 BALANCE 14,175,523.55 OUTSTANDING CHECKS HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL 7- 23-9'� July 16, 1991 Regular Meeting of July 23, 1991 SUBJECT: FINAL MAP #22062 (C.U.P. CON NO. 90-10) LOCATION: 1634 PROSPECT AVENUE APPLICANT(S): MJC PROPERTIES REQUEST: TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP FOR A 4 - UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Final Parcel Map #22062 which is consistent with the approved Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and recommends the City Clerk be directed to endorse the certificate for said map. Background The Planning Commission approved Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #22062 at their July 3, 1990 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 B. Northcraft City Manager T/srfinmap Respectfully submitted, «en `Robertson Associate Planner le 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. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #22062 FOR A FOUR -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1634 PROSPECT AVENUE, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the City Council held a meeting on July 23, 1991 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. 90-52 adop- ted after hearing on July 3, 1990. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve 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 1. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Planning Commission and to the recommendation of the County Engineer, the City Council does hereby grant final approval of Parcel Map #22062 in the City of Hermosa Beach, State of California, being a Subdivision of Lots 1 and 2, Angela Heights Tract, as re- corded in Book 9, Page 149 of Maps in the Office of the Re- corder of Los Angeles County, for a four -unit condominium project on land commonly known as 1634 Prospect Avenue, Her- mosa Beach, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 23rd day of July, 1991. ATTEST: T/rsfinmap PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 2 I j C2407f /eL1 1 9/-5.02/ July 15, 1991 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the Regular Meeting of HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL July 23, 1991 7 SUBJECT: FINAL MAP #19594 (C.U.P. CON NO. 88-16) LOCATION: 521 11TH STREET APPLICANT(S): NEIL GILL REQUEST: TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP FOR A 3 - UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Final Parcel Map #19594 which is consistent 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 #19594 at their July 19, 1988 meeting. On June 19, 1991, Planning Commission granted an extension of the Tentative Parcel Map to July 19, 1991 pursuant to applicant's request. According to the Subdivision Map Act, the applicant must submit the final map application before the expiration date. This map was submitted on July 15, 1991. Analysis The staff has reviewed the Final Map and found it substantially consistent with the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map approved by the Planning Commission and in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act. Michael Schubach Planning Director Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager p/srfinmap Respectfully submitted, /Ken Robertson Associate Planner if 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. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #19594 FOR A THREE -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 521 ELEVENTH STREET, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the City Council held a meeting on July 16, 1991 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. 88-61 adop- ted after hearing on July 19, 1988. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve 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 1. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Planning Commission and to the recommendation of the County Engineer, the City Council does hereby grant final approval of Parcel Map #19594 in the City of Hermosa Beach, State of California, being a Subdivision of Lot 15 of Knutsen Tract, as recorded in Book 20, Page 185 of Maps in the Office of the Recorder of Los Angeles County, for a three -unit condominium project on land commonly known as 521 Eleventh Street, Hermosa Beach, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 23rd day of July, 1991. ATTEST: p/rsfinmap PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 2 3-9/ July 16, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 23, 1991 REQUEST FOR 30 DAY EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT FOR ONE GENERAL SERVICES OFFICER AND THE DEPUTY CITY CLERK Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council extend for thirty (30) days the temporary appointment of one (1) General Services Officer and the Deputy City Clerk. Background: General Services Officer There is currently one remaining vacant General Services Officer position which is being filled on a temporary basis. Filling this position is being held pending completion of a review of department staffing levels. Deputy City Clerk Recruitment for this position concluded on June 17, 1991. Testing was on July 10, 1991. It is anticipated that the Civil Service Board will certify the eligibility list on July 24, 1991. The City Clerk will then proceed with interviews and the hiring process. It is anticipated that an appointment can be made approximately August 15, 1991. Analysis: Section 2-33 of the Hermosa Beach City Code precludes a temporary appointment of an individual to a permanent Civil Service position for more than six -months without approval from the City Council every thirty days. Respectfully submitted, Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager B t, 7-,A July 15, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of July 23, 1991 RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE INFORMATIONAL REPORT REGARDING FUNDING OF THE POLICE K-9 PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council receive and file this report. BACKGROUND: At the regular City Council meeting of March 14, 1989, Council instructed staff to explore the possibility of funding a K-9 program for the Police Department through donations from the public and possible use of narcotic funds to augment the donations. At the regular City Council meeting of May 23, 1989, Council authorized the Police Department to implement a K-9 program. Over the next few months, donations totaling $11,428. were collected for the K-9 program. In October 1989, the K-9, Norbo, was purchased and placed into service. In October 1990, the K-9 handler informed us of health problems that Norbo was experiencing. After numerous medical evaluations and treatments it was determined that Norbo was suffering from several medical problems. It was diagnosed that these problems were severe enough that they would prevent him from continued service in police work. When the K-9 was purchased, a guarantee was provided. This guarantee provided for unconditional replacement of the K-9 should any congenital medical problems occur within 3 years. 1 111 On November 20, 1990, representatives of the department met with the owner of the kennels where Norbo was purchased. At that meeting it was agreed that Norbo would be taken back and replaced at no charge to the City. Further, the new handler would receive the full training at no charge to the City. Norbo and the handler had also been trained on narcotics detection. When the K-9 was cross -trained, we did it knowing that only on rare occasions does a cross -trained dog work well in both areas. As experience showed, Norbo did not work as well in narcotics as desired. During negotiations for replacement of Norbo further agreement was reached concerning the narcotics aspect of the K-9 program. LeMaster Kennels agreed to furnish a narcotics detection K-9 and train the handler for a reduced fee. Staff members handling the transaction reported that the fee would be only $750, the usual cost of a narcotics dog and training is $4,800 (3,000 for dog and 1,800 for handler). Since the City had already paid $1,200 for the narcotic training for Norbo and since LeMaster, who furnishs dogs and training for a majority of the South Bay Police Departments, wanted to maintain a good reputation, the reduced fee was offered. This cost was reported to City Council at the regular meeting of January 8, 1991. Following acquisition of the new narcotics dog and completion of training, the staff members then reported that they had misunderstood what the cost of the narcotics dog was going to be. Instead of $750, it was actually going to be $1,800. ANALYSIS: At the time of the January report regarding the K-9 program, there was $672 remaining in the K-9 donation fund. Other donations in the amount of $600 were received, and this would have been adequate funding to cover the expenses initially reported by staff. 2 Following the discovery that erroneous information had been communicated to the administration and to Council, the members were reprimanded and instructed to seek more donations to cover the cost. I am pleased to report that an additional donation of $2,000 was received from Sandpipers. Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager Noted for Financial Impact: d;-zetitastA Viki Copeland, Finance Director 3 Steve Wisniewski Director of Public Safety July 15, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of July 23, 1991 RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE REPORT REGARDING UPGRADES TO THE FIRE FLOW SYSTEM RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council receive and file this report. BACKGROUND: In 1985, efforts to upgrade the fire flow capabilities of the water system and the Fire Department were initiated when deficiencies in the system were discovered. To improve the capability of the Fire Department to deliver adequate quantities of water in the event of a major fire, Council approved the purchase of Targe diameter (4") fire hose in 1987. In 1988, an ordinance establishing a fire flow fee was adopted in order to provide funds for upgrading the fire flow system at the expense of those developers whose building was placing greater demand on the system. Additionally, a sub -committee of the Council met with California Water Company and established numerous agreements aimed at improving the system. In order to assure that we were headed in the right direction and that nothing was left to chance the City contracted with Phenix Technology to conduct a fire flow study. Following completion of that study the Fire Department, in conjunction with the Water Company, began efforts to achieve the various recommendations set forth in the study and three basic goals were adopted in regards to improvement of the fire flow system of the City. 1 1i Those goals were: • Every existing hydrant in the City should have four inch (4") outlets. • Every hydrant in the City should have a flow of 1500 gallons per minute. • New hydrants should be installed throughout the City in order to obtain spacing of approximately three hundred (300) feet between hydrants. ANALYSIS: Some of the study's recommendations completed to date include adoption of a standard method of calculating fire flows with the California Water Company; adoption of standardized specifications for hydrant installations with the Water Company; coordination of the hydrant numbering system with California Water; and adoption of the most recent Uniform Fire Code. Excellent progress has been made on the three basic goals for installation of new fire hydrants, larger sized water mains, and replacement of substandard fire hydrants throughout the City. To date, the following has been accomplished: * 41 substandard hydrants (without 4" outlets) have been replaced. Replacement of10 more substandard hydrants was ordered in May and should be completed by the end of August. When the project began, there were 66 substandard hydrants identified in the system for replacement. When the 10 on order are completed there will only be 15 more to replace. * 26 new hydrants have been installed in the fire flow system. * The Water Company has completed the connecting loop projects in the northern part of the City and has installed a total of 9,652 feet of new large diameter (6" or larger) water mains (iron). These installations have improved the flow of water greatly. Prior to the water conservation efforts because of the drought, actual flow tests showed that the flows were almost double in some of the areas. Because of the water conservation efforts we are not flowing hydrants. However, based on engineering calculations by the Water Company and previous flow tests of selected hydrants, we feel secure in stating that we believe that approximately 80% of the hydrants in the City now have the fire flow capability of at least 1500 gallons per minute. The Water Company is continuing to replace a minimum of 5 hydrants per year and installing new hydrants when they replace water mains. Builders are still being required to upgrade hydrants as necessary for their projects and the Fire Department is continuing to order replacement of substandard hydrants. Until all of the small diameter water main in the City is replaced there will be a few hydrants that will not have 1500 gallons per minute, but with all of the improvements and the continuing efforts there will be one with adequate flows close by. Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager 3 Steve Wisniewski, Director of Public Safety July 18, 1991 - a.3 -99) Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of July 23, 1991 EXTENSION OF CITY YARD LEASE WITH MACPHERSON OIL COMPANY Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the attached extension of the lease of the City Yard with Macpherson Oil Company to extend the drilling term for three months, to October 15, 1991. Background: The lease with Macpherson Oil Company providing for use of unoc- cupied portions of the City Yard for oil drilling purposes was approved on October 14, 1986, and has been extended five times. The last three times the City Council chose to extend the lease for only three months. This set a high priority for resolution of the current negotiations with the Oil Company. Analysis: A tentative agreement has been reached and announced, but prepa- ration of the legal documents and business point language has been time consuming. A draft agreement now has been reviewed by both parties' rep- resentatives, and meetings are continuing to resolve language questions. As soon as these matters are resolved, the agreement will be presented to the City Council for approval. Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager KBN/ld cc: Macpherson Oil Company Planning Director 1 2 3 WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City Clerk, City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 4 AMENDMENT TO OIL AND GAS LEASE 5 NO. 6 6 This Oil and Gas Lease Amendment No. 6 is entered into this 7 23th day of July, 1991, amending Oil and Gas Lease No. 1, with 8 Macpherson Oil Company entered into on October 14, 1986, and pre - 9 viously amended on December 16, 1986, September 27, 1988, October 9, 1990, January 8, 1991, and April 9, 1991. Section 1 of Exhibit "B" is amended to read as follows: 1. DRILLING TERM The "drill term" is that period of time in which developer shall commence drilling operations. The drill term shall be ex- tended to July 15, 1991. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LESSEE: LESSOR: Macpherson Oil City of Hermosa Beach, CA By: (Signature) (Signature) (Name of Officer) (Name of Officer) (Title) (Title) (Date) (Date) APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK June 20, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 23, 1991 SETTLEMENT MONITORING PROGRAM FOR PROPOSED HERMOSA BEACH HOTEL Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this item. Background: On May 14, 1991, the City Council approved the firm of Carl Chapman & Associates to do the field survey portion of the settlement analysis for the City. The City Council asked for a contingency plan to be prepared by the developer and provided to the City covering the anticipated settlement when it occurs. Analysis: The developer has been asked to prepare that contingency plan and he submitted a report for review. Basically, if excessive settlement occurs (see attached staff guidelines) the developer must stop further excavation and/or dewatering until he has complied with the approved remedial action and methods for restoring the area. The report submitted to the City, dated June 11, 1991, did not have the response actions in sufficient detail to satisfy the City staff. A revised report was submitted to the City, dated June 26, 1991. That report provided more detail; however, it still was not sufficient to satisfy the City staff. Additional information was requested. A third report, provided on July 15, 1991, detailed the response actions in sufficient detail to satisfy City staff that the conditions of the ministerial building permit were met. A copy of this latest report is attached. Attachments Respe tfully s bmi ted, ynn A. Terry Deputy City Engineer pworks/CCITEMSH Co►c r: Ant •ny Antich Public Woks Dir1ector LO Bill Grove Building -nd Safety Director 1<evin B. Northcyaft City Manager 1k CITY GUIDELINES SETTLEMENT MONITORING PROGRAM FOR HERMOSA BEACH HOTEL The City staff is proposing that very close tolerances be established for both differential settlement and overall settlement. No excavation work shall be allowed to begin until a complete and detailed plan of action is approved by the City staff. The plan shall list the response actions to be taken, in detail, as soon as the surveyor states the limits listed below have been exceeded. (A) DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT Differential settlement in any direction between any two adjacent points shall be limited to 0.25 inches. If this limit is exceeded, the excavation work is to be stopped immediately and no further excavation is to be allowed until the City staff is satisfied as to the cause of the settlement and the remedial action taken. (B) OVERALL SETTLEMENT Overall settlement shall not exceed the predicted settlement plot as provided on March 18, 1991, by more then 0.25 inches. If this limit is exceeded, the excavation work is to be stopped immediately and no further excavation is to be allowed until the City staff is satisfied as to the cause of the settlement and the remedial action taken. pworks/HOTELSET CONVERSE _ CONSULTANTS == July 15, 1991 Consulting Engineers and Geologists 3393 East Foothill Boulevard, Suite A Pasadena, California 91107-3112 Telephone (818) 440-0800 Fax (818) 351-1060 Hermosa Beach Investment Company c/o Greenwood Development 11726 San Vicente Boulevard Suite 500 Los Angeles, California 90049 Attention: Mr. David Greenwood Subject: REVISED SETTLEMENT MONITORING PROGRAM Proposed Hermosa Beach Hotel 1302-1340 The Strand Hermosa Beach, California CCW Project No. 89-31-359-02 Gentlemen: In accordance with the request of Mr. David Greenwood of Greenwood Development, we present this letter providing recommended tolerances for total and differential settlement of the settlement monitoring system to be installed around the proposed Hermosa Beach Hotel excavation. We understand, based upon discussions with Mr. Lynn Terry of the City of Hermosa Beach, that a more detailed monitoring program is required than proposed in our June 26, 1991 "Reivsed Settlement Monitoring Program" letter. Our recommendations are based on the numerous dewatering studies performed for this project, referenced at the end of this letter. PROPOSED SETTLEMENT MONITORING We recommend that total and differential settlement action tolerances due to dewatering be limited to roughly the predicted settlements depicted on Figure 1 of our March 18, 1991 "Response to Differential Settlement Issue" report (attached). Based upon the predicted settlement plot, and allowing for some minor variations, we have derived Table 1 titled "Proposed Dewatering Settlement Tolerances (in inches)." This table takes into account not only the variation in total and differential settlements with distance from the excavation, but also takes into account variations in drawdown. When dewatering is initiated and shallow drawdown occurs, We would expect less settlement than when the total drawdown of roughly 30 feet occurs. Printed On Recycled Paper A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of The Converse Professional Group Greenwood Development CCW Project No. 89-31-359-02 July 15, 1991 Page 2 The matrix in Table 1 is intended for use in evaluating differential settlements between monuments spaced ten feet on center perpendicular to the dewatered excavation. We recommend differential settlement action levels between monuments measured parallel to the excavation perimeter be set at 0.3 inch. TABLE 1 PROPOSED DEWATERING SETTLEMENT TOLERANCES (in inches) Perpendicular Distance from Edge of Excavation (feet) 10.' 20 30 50 60 70 5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 10 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 15 0.75 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.25 20 1.00 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.45 0.40 0.30 0.25 25 1.25 1.00 0.90 0.75 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.25 30 1.50 1.25 1.05 0.80 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.25 These tolerances are generally expected to be within the acceptable survey tolerances used for conventional surveys. Survey variations/errors due to temperature and other factors should be considered. For example, assuming that a steel soldier pile beam is approximately 50 feet long, and undergoes a temperature change of roughly 50° Fahrenheit, the steel soldier beam will undergo a change in length of approximately 0.2 inch (milled steel has a coefficient of expansion of 6.5 x 10*6 per degrees Fahrenheit). If these action tolerances are exceeded during the periodic (weekly) surveys, then a resurvey of the monuments in question should be performed immediately (the same week). Should a resurvey indicate that the tolerances have in fact been exceeded, then additional draw down (additional lowering of the groundwater level) should be halted and any additional excavation adjacent to the monuments in questions should be halted. It is important to note we have recommended that draw down be halted, but that dewatering continue at a steady state such that the groundwater level does not rise nor fall. In sands by comparison to clays, we would expect a rapid response of the sands to the drawdown. That is to say that settlements would not be occurring over a long period of time due to a static drawdown level. ® Printed On Recycled Paper Converse Consultants West Greenwood Development CCW Project No. 89-31-359-02 July 15, 1991 Page 3 PROPOSED RESPONSE We recommend the following plan of action be implemented if the above recommended total and differential settlement tolerances are exceeded: • Following a survey which exceeds the total or differential settlement tolerances discussed above, the soldier piles and monuments in question should be resurveyed within the same week. • If a resurvey confirms that the settlement tolerances have been exceeded, then remedial action should be initiated. • If excavation has not yet begun, then dewatering drawdown shall be halted but dewatering should continue at a steady state. • If excavation has occurred, and the survey shows evidence of solider piles deflecting inward toward the excavation, then soldier piles should be stiffened by either welding additional steel plates to the soldier pile, or providing additional rakers. Such stiffening design will be the responsibility of the shoring designer, who should be a registered Civil Engineer in the State of California. • If there is no evidence of shoring pile deflection, but there is evidence of soil caving or subsidence around and between soldier piles, then sheet piles shall be driven in the area to halt any additional caving or flowing of sands. • The contractor shall have adequate materials stored onsite to respond rapidly to these contingencies. Additional rakers, steel plates and welding equipment should be readily available. Contingencies should also be made to rapidly mobilize a sheet pile driving rig and materials. We suggest a 25% contingency in the number of rakers required on-site. That is to say, if 20 rakers are required then, 5 additional rakers should be on-site as a safety contingency. Similarly, stiffening plates should be available for 25% of the soldier piles. Sheet piles or steel plates (for sand support between soldier piles) should be available to support the whole surface area of the shoring, except for the areas covered by secant soldier piles or large diameter soldier piles. At least 10% of these materials should be able to be transported to the site within four hours, with the remainder able to be delivered in 48 hours. These contingencies will not be required two weeks after dewatering has achieved a steady • state drawdown, and the excavation has been completed. ® Printed On Recycled Paper Converse Consultants West Greenwood Development CCW Project No. 89-31-359-02 July 15, 1991 Page 4 CLOSURE This letter was prepared in accordance with the generally accepted professional engineering principals and practice for Los Angeles County at this time. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. Our conclusions are based upon limited data reported by others and the findings of our "Foundation Investigation." We look forward to our continued involvement on this project. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or wish to discuss this document in greater detail. Respectfully submitted, CONVERS CONSULTANTS WEST ,;(ed,07/,‘- Thomas C. Benson, Jr. Senior Engineer GE 2091 TCB:sjc Encl: Figure 1, "Predicted Settlement Plot" References Dist: 4/Addressee 1/Hare, Brewer and Kelley, Inc. Attention: Mr. Ryland Kelley 1 /Latham & Watkins Attention: Mr. Dale Neal 1 /Latham & Watkins Attention: Mr. Robert D. Crockett 3/City of Hermosa Beach Attention: Mr. Lynn A. Terry, PE 1/Shoring Engineers Attention: Mr. Jason E. Weinstein 1/Peck Jones Construction Corporation Attention: Mr. Charles T. Murphy 1 /Hydroquip Attention: Mr. Jerry King ® Printed On Recycled Paper of Q ESSIp N �tD Q,S t. BEN S�,Fr 44 e 1. No. 20 1 1 !,,,Ai • '/ �TEChiti�� w�d Converse Consultants West Approved for pub DISTANCE FROM EXCAVATION (FEET) SETTLEMENT (INCHES) NOT TO SCALE PREDICTED SETTLEMENT PLOT Prcieu No. FT..re No. Converse Consultants West 89-31-359-02 1 • ,r REFERENCES CONVERSE CONSULTANTS WEST (CCW), September 26, 1990, "Foundation Investigation, Proposed Hermosa Beach Hotel, 1302-1340 The Strand, Hermosa Beach, California," for the Hermosa Beach Investment Company, CCW Project No. 89-31-359-01. CONVERSE CONSULTANTS WEST (CCW), October 24, 1990, "Dewatering Settlement Evaluation, Proposed Hermosa Beach Hotel, 1302-1340 The Strand, Hermosa Beach, California," for the Hermosa Beach Investment Company, CCW Project No. 89-31-359-02. CONVERSE CONSULTANTS WEST (CCW), November 6, 1990, "Response to City Review, Proposed Hermosa Beach Hotel, 1302-1340 The Strand, Hermosa Beach, California," for the Hermosa Beach Investment Company, CCW Project No. 89-31-359-02. CONVERSE CONSULTANTS WEST (CCW), November 16, 1990, "Utility Settlement Study, Proposed Hermosa Beach Hotel, 1302-1340 The Strand, Hermosa Beach, California," for the Hermosa Beach Investment Company, CCW Project No. 89-31-359-02. DAMES AND MOORE, November 21, 1990, "Geotechnical Review, Estimated Dewatering Settlements, Proposed Hermosa Beach Hotel, 1302-1340 The Strand, Hermosa Beach, California," for the City of Hermosa Beach. CONVERSE CONSULTANTS WEST, (CCW) March 18, 1991, "Response to Differential Settlement Issue, Proposed Hermosa Beach Hotel, 1302-1340 The Strand, Hermosa Beach, California," for the Hermosa Beach Investment Company, CCW Project No. 89-31-359-02. 89-31-359-02 ® Printed On Recycled Paper Converse Consultants West CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council ,, FROM: Michael Schubach, ,klannIn /_I} -etor / I SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting the Coastal Commission's modification of the City's Proposed Amendment to the Certified Land Use Plan DATE: July 16, 1991 Recommendation Adopt the attached resolution to amend the Certified Land Use Plan and to officially accept the Coastal Commission's modification to the City's original request. Analysis The decision of the Coastal Commission rendered on March 13, 1991, to approve an amendment the Certified Land Use Plan in regards to the Biltmore Site, with modifications, expires by law six months from the date of approval. Since the decision would expire prior to the initiative vote scheduled for November, staff has requested an extension from the Coastal Commission. The Commission's response, however, is that no extensions are allowed. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Coastal Commission's decision be accepted at this time so that if the City sponsored initiative passes, it would be immediately effective and re-application to the Coastal Commission would not be necessary. p/memo4 1e 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 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REGARDING THE "BILTMORE SITE" TO CONCUR WITH THE COASTAL COMMISSION MODIFICATION TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE COASTAL COMMISSION CERTIFIED LAND USE PLAN IN REGARDS TO THE USE OF THE BILTMORE SITE WHEREAS, the City Council held a hearing on July 15, 1991, and previously held a public hearing on June 11, 1991, to receive oral and written testimony on said amendment and made the following findings in regards to the Coastal Commission's modification to the City proposed amendment of the certified Land Use Plan. A. Concurrence with the proposed amendment is necessary to be consistent with the Coastal Commission decision regarding a proposed Land Use Plan amendment; B. The proposed amendment will not result in a significant impact on the environment as it involves a change in the allowed mix of uses on the Biltmore Site which will result in a less than significant impact to the environment; C. Residential use of a portion of the Biltmore Site is consistent with adjacent and surrounding land uses which to the north and east are predominantly multi -family residential uses and commercial use of a portion is consistent with land uses to the south and southeast which are predominantly commercial; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby concur with the Coastal Commission's modifications to the proposed amendments the 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 Certified Land Use Plan designation for the Biltmore Site and to the text as described as follows: SECTION 1. Accept the Coastal Commission's amendment of the text of Coastal Commission Certified Land Use Plan as follows: 1. Amend the designation for the property known as the "Biltmore Site" from Specific Plan Area for a Hotel to Medium Density Mixed Residential/Commercial (Public Open Space Acquisition overlay,) legally described as follows: Lots 1 through 9 inclusive, and lots 19, 20 and 32 Block 15, Hermosa Beach Tract; and including the vacated portion of Beach Drive between 14th and 15th Streets and including the vacated portion of 15th Court extending 60 feet eastward from Beach Drive. 2. Amend the designation for the property commonly known as "Parking Lot C" from Specific Plan Area to General Commercial/Public Beach Parking 3. Amend page 11, the second paragraph, by eliminating the exception to the height limits of the zoning ordinance for the hotel site between Thirteenth and Fifteenth Streets. 4. Insert the following definitions: a. Mixed Residential/Commercial shall provide low rise development with no less than 307 leasable floor area, not including parking, devoted to C-1 commercial, restaurant or beach support recreation use. b. Public Open Space Acquisition Overlay shall provide for the acquisition of public open space primarily within the coastal zone of the City of Hermosa Beach. The overlay shall provide that no sale of the property shall take place until a trust fund has been established for the sole purpose of acquiring and improving such new public open space. The form and content of the trust fund shall specify the following provisions and shall be submitted to the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission for his/her review and approval as to inclusion of the following provisions. Zoning adopted to implement the Public Open Space Acquisition Overlay shall provide that the funds received by the City in the sale of the subject property for residential/commercial mixed uses at least 80% of an amount up to the maximum of $8,000,000 received from the sale of the property shall be used for the acquisition and improvement of new open space property not currently owned by the City of which at least 7070 of said new open space - 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 property shall be located within the Coastal zone. The minimum area to be acquired in the Coastal Zone is 4.0 acres. The ordinance shall also provide that no building permits for construction shall be issued until either1) the new open space property has been acquired, or, 2) the funding necessary to comply with this policy has been dedicated to the purchase of said open space and a binding contract has been signed guaranteeing such a purchase, of no less than 90% of the required new minimum of 4.0 acres of open space property c. Public Beach Parkin shall be parking open to the general public on a first-come first -serve basis. 5. Amend the seventh policy under Item 2 on page 12, by adding the underlined text to read as follows: The Policy: The Biltmore Site is a vital asset of the people of Hermosa Beach which will play a substantial role in maintaining the City as a financially feasible entity The City has concurred that the most beneficial public recreational, economic and environmental use for this coastal site is a combination of residential/beach serving low intensity commercial, and beach public parking. ATTEST: PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1991, by: PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY APPR ' ,�D A TO FORM p/ccrsgpab /43/ 91 PARKER R. HERRIOTT 224 - 24th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213) 379-7196 July 23, 1991 Mayor Kathleen Midstokke and Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: Recommendation to adopt resolution to amend the Certified Land Use Plan and to accept officially the Coastal Commission's modification to the City's original request (Consent Item (1); July 23, 1991 Agenda) Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: I hereby request to pull Consent Item No. 1-(1) Recommendation to adopt resolution to amend the Certified Land Use Plan and to accept officially the Coastal Commission's modification to the City's original request. I object to the Land Use Plan Amendment being adopted in the first place, since at a previous council meeting the City Council refused to have this matter pursued any further apparently until after the November 5, 1991, election. I, and others, objected at that time to the Land Use Plan Amendment being pursued and the reasons that I stated at that time should be incorporated in this letter as arguments for my opposition again. (see attached Exhibit "A") Once again, the City Council --if they approve this land use plan amendment --will be gaining an advantage over the People's Initiative to have the property rezoned a 100% Open Space Park. Regarding the other matter concerning this election, once again the City Council is taking advantage of its position as a legislative body if it votes YES to the Resolution that has been prepared by the Planning Department Director, Michael Schubach, which would implement the proposed amendment to the General Plan and the Zoning Map regarding the Biltmore Site and Public Parking Lot "C". The City Council's action taken on this matter June 11, 1991, was to not go forward with the Land Use Plan Amendment to the General Plan. I don't know why this matter has been pursued at the Coastal Commission staff level at this time, since an election is pending in this matter. As I pointed out in my Writ of Mandate filed September 7, 1989, Case No. C736556, regarding the Biltmore Site, the Biltmore Site should not be sold because of Government Code Section 37351 which states. The City Council's ballot measure is invalid because the measure appears to be calling for the selling of most of the Biltmore Site --if not all of the Biltmore Site --and the selling of the Biltmore Site is prohibited by Government Code Section 37351 since the Biltmore Site is waterfront property. The City Council has not complied with the condition of making a finding by a 4/5 vote that the Biltmore Site is not suitable for public beach or park purposes. Of course, the Biltmore Site is suitable for beach use or park use. Therefore, the measure should not be placed on the November 1991 ballot. Government Code Section 37351 states as follows: "The legislative body encourages, lease, exchange or receives such personal property and real estate situated inside or outside the city limits as is necessary or proper for municipal purposes'. It may control, dispose of, and convey such property for the benefit of the city. Legislative body shall not sell or convey any portion of a waterfront, except to the State for use as a public beach or park, unless by a four-fifths vote of its members the legislative body finds and determines that the waterfront to be sold or conveyed is not suitable for use as a public beach or park." Our former city attorney, James P. Lough, cited this section of the Government Code, 37351, in a letter to the City Council dated March 7, 1985. Mr. Lough stated: "Since the Biltmore Site is on the waterfront, this section would apply...The property cannot be sold unless by a four-fifths vote together with a finding that the property is not suitable for uses as a public beach or park." The City of Hermosa Beach did not make the required findings as required by Government Code Section 37351, and the City Council cannot make such a finding since everybody knows that the site is suitable for a public park. Regarding Section 37351, waterfront property, see People vs. Banning Company, (1914) 138 p. 100. 166C. 630, affirmed 36 S Ct. 338, 240 U.S. 142 60 L. ed. 569. Pam Emerson, Coastal Commission staff, said today, July 23, 1991, at approximately 2:55 p.m. that the Land Use Plan Amendment for the Biltmore Site could be resubmitted after the six-month deadline had elapsed for the City to comply with the Coastal Commission's suggested recommendations or suggested modifications --or words to that effect. But she did say that the matter could be resubmitted and that it would be no big thing or no big deal. I forgot exactly her words. So why doesn't the City just wait and see if the measure passes in the November 5, 1991, election? Are you afraid to have a fair election regarding the Biltmore Site, or do you want to take an advantage in the election, in hopes of having more yes votes for your measure, thereby splitting the vote so nothing passes. Then, of course, you will go ahead and rezone the property 70% residential and 30% commercial as you are attempting to do with your present proposed Land Use Plan Amendment. Remember, the Coastal Commission has only made recommendations to the City and, of course, if the 100% Open Space Park passes for the Biltmore Site the Coastal Commission would be obligated--and I'm sure happy--to follow the wishes of the people in having the Land Use Plan amended to allow for the 100% Open Space Park with grass, trees, and flowers, since it would be visitor-serving and more visitor serving than the City's present measure which allow for 30% commercial and 70% residential. Parker R. Herriott PARKER R. HERRIOTT 224 - 24th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213) 379-7196 June 11, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Mr. Charles Vose, City Attorney 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: Biltmore Site General Plan Amendment Dear Mayor, Members of the City Council, and City Attorney Vose: There shouldn't be anything done with this property until the voters have an opportunity to vote on the 100% Open Space Park Initiative Petition which qualified for the ballot and with approximately 1800 people signing the petition for the adoption of the 100% Open Space Park Initiative Ordinance. To continue on with, apparently, your plan to change the Biltmore Site at this time is just unfair to the voters, for it will be confusing to the voters and all you're trying to do is allow yourselves an advantage in the upcoming November 5, 1991, election. If you go forward with your proposed Land Use Plan Amendment and the voters happen to reject the 100% Open Space Park Initiative, then your rezoning of the land would be the law. If you happen to place on the ballot an initiative like the City Council did last time there was an election regarding the Biltmore Site, then your initiative --if it is not successful with a majority vote --would still allow your plan use amendment ordinance to remain in effect. It's just not fair. The voters would not have the power, if they just happen to defeat your initiative, to take the land use plan amendment off the books. Therefore, if you plan to go forward with this land use plan amendment at this time prior to the November 5, 1991, election, others and myself will be forced once again to circulate a referendum petition whereby if the referendum petition qualifies for the ballot --and if it receives a majority vote from the voters --we will be able to succeed in repealing your land use plan amendment. In case you decide to go forward with a land use plan amendment at this time, I will once again state that I believe an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared regarding the possible future development of the Biltmore Site, as I mentioned during the staff review committee meeting, and at the Planning Commission meeting. I also want to mention, once again, that pursuant to the Government Code, oceanfront property like the Biltmore Site can not be sold Mayor, City Council, & City Attorney page 2 June 11, 1991 unless there can be a four-fifths finding by the City Council that the Biltmore Site is not suitable for a park --and, of course, we know that the City Council can not make that finding especially since in 1989 the City Council even wanted to have the portion where the old Biltmore Hotel used to stand made into a park. The City Manager stated, in his comment section on the Biltmore Site dated April 2, 1991, "The main disadvantage of a council -sponsored ballot measure is the likelihood that neither issue would pass, based on the ten previous ballot measures." My only comment to that is that it would be a good idea if at this time the City Council would refrain from going forward with the land use plan amendment and, in the future, refrain from placing another competing measure on the ballot which would dilute the vote and make it possibly where neither measure would pass. It is time to settle the Biltmore Site issue, and I hope that the City Council does not obstruct the wishes of the initiative petition signers just so certain Council members could have something that they wanted. Sincerely, Parker R. Herriott CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council FROM: Michael Schubach, ,p.-lann!in„ ,I %r --et ,// ' , I. SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting the Coastal Commission's modification of the City's Proposed Amendment to the Certified Land Use Plan DATE: July 16, 1991 Recommendation Adopt the attached resolution to amend the Certified Land Use Plan and to officially accept the Coastal Commission's modification to the City's original request. Analysis The decision of the Coastal Commission rendered on March 13, 1991, to approve an amendment the Certified Land Use Plan in regards to the Biltmore Site, with modifications, expires by law six months from the date of approval. Since the decision would expire prior to the initiative vote scheduled for November, staff has requested an extension from the Coastal Commission. The Commission's response, however, is that no extensions are allowed. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Coastal Commission's decision be accepted at this time so that if the City sponsored initiative passes, it would be immediately effective and re-application to the Coastal Commission would not be necessary. p/memo4 1S 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 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REGARDING THE "BILTMORE SITE" TO CONCUR WITH THE COASTAL COMMISSION MODIFICATION TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE COASTAL COMMISSION CERTIFIED LAND USE 7LAN IN REGARDS TO THE USE OF THE BILTMORE SITE WHEREAS, the City Council held a hearing on July 15, 1991, and previously held a public hearing on June 11, 1991, to receive oral and written testimony on said amendment and made the following findings in regards to the Coastal Commission's modification to the City proposed amendment of the certified Land Use Plan. A. Concurrence with the proposed amendment is necessary to be consistent with the Coastal Commission decision regarding a proposed Land Use Plan amendment; B. The proposed amendment will not result in a significant impact on the environment as it involves a change in the allowed mix of uses on the Biltmore Site which will result in a less than significant impact to the environment; C. Residential use of a portion of the Biltmore Site is consistent with adjacent and surrounding land uses which to the north and east are predominantly multi -family residential uses and commercial use of a portion is consistent with land uses to the south and southeast which are predominantly commercial; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby concur with the Coastal Commission's modifications to the proposed amendments the 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Certified Land Use Plan designation for the Biltmore Site and to the text as described as follows: SECTION 1. Accept the Coastal Commission's amendment of the text of Coastal Commission Certified Land Use Plan as follows: 1. Amend the designation for the property known as the "Biltmore Site" from Specific Plan Area for a Hotel to Medium Density Mixed Residential/Commercial (Public Open Space Acquisition overlay,) legally described as follows: Lots 1 through 9 inclusive, and lots 19, 20 and ;32 Block 15, Hermosa Beach Tract; and including the vacated portion of Beach Drive between 14th and 15th Streets and including the vacated portion of 15th Court extending 60 feet eastward from Beach Drive. 2. Amend the designation for the property commonly known as "Parking Lot C" from Specific Plan Area to General Commercial/Public Beach Parking 3. Amend page 11, the second paragraph, by eliminating the exception to the height limits of the zoning ordinance for the hotel site between Thirteenth and Fifteenth Streets. 4. Insert the following definitions: a. Mixed Residential/Commercial shall provide low rise development with no less than 30% leasable floor area, not including parking, devoted to C-1 commercial, restaurant or beach support recreation use. b. Public Open Space Acquisition Overlay shall provide for the acquisition of public open space primarily within the coastal zone of the City of Hermosa Beach. The overlay shall provide that no sale of the property shall take place until a trust fund has been established for the sole purpose of acquiring and improving such new public open space. The form and content of the trust fund shall specify the following provisions and shall be submitted to the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission for his/her review and approval as to inclusion of the following provisions. Zoning adopted to implement the Public Open Space Acquisition Overlay shall provide that the funds received by the City in the sale of the subject property for residential/commercial mixed uses at least 80% of an amount up to the maximum of $8,000,000 received from the sale of the property shall be used for the acquisition and improvement of new open space property not currently owned by the City of which at least 70% of said new open space 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 property shall be located within the Coastal zone. The minimum area to be acquired in the Coastal Zone is 4.0 acres. The ordinance shall also provide that no building permits for construction shall be issued until either 1) the new open space property has been acquired, or, 2) the funding necessary to comply with this policy has been dedicated to the purchase of said open space and a bindingcontract has been signed guaranteeing such a purchase, of no less than 90% of the required new minimum of 4.0 acres of open space property c. Public Beach Parkin shall be parking open to the general public on a first-come first -serve basis. 5. Amend the seventh policy under Item 2 on page 12, by adding the underlined text to read as follows: The Policy: The Biltmore Site is a vital asset of the people of Hermosa Beach which will play a substantial role in maintaining the City as a financially feasible entity The City has concurred that the most beneficial public recreational, economic and environmental use for this coastal site is a combination of residential/beach serving 'ow w intensity commercial, and beach public parking. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1991, by: PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPRD A TO FORM p/ccrsgpab CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 3 July 15, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 23, 1991 INSTALLATION OF TRIAL ELECTRONIC METERS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA Recommendation: Staff is recommending that council approve the installation of twelve (12) electronic meters in the downtown area for a ninety (90) day trial period. There is no "out-of-pocket" cost associated to the use and or maintenance of the meters. Background: After attending a vendors conference dealing with electronic meters. Staff contacted one of the vendors of the electronic meter, Duncan Meter Industries. Staff decided to contact Duncan because we have had success with this particular brand of meter. Duncan agreed to a ninety (90) day no cost trial period. Analysis: In an effort to stay abreast of new technology and in ongoing endeavors to be as efficient and effective as possible, Staff elected to check into the advantages and disadvantages of the electronic meter. However, as we have a minimal number of complaints associated with our current meters we would budget for the purchase of this type of meter if it's determined that this is the best type of meter for this city. These meters offer several features which could prove to be most beneficial. The Duncan Electronic -Mechanical Mechanism (EMM) features a quartz clock for accurate timing; instant on -street time and rate conversions; external infraed audit, inventory and maintenance reporting. In addition, one of the programmable features includes an overtime display which shows the amount of time elapsed, since the time purchased had expired. The trial period will give Staff the opportunity to test the meters under actual conditions, and track any advantages/disadvantages prior to any decision to purchase. It is anticipated that the use of the audit and inventory features will permit a more accurate detailing of repairs; track inventory costs more effectively; and aid in preventive maintenance. Unfortunately, the use of these meters may cause some confusion - for the users. Although the housing is the same as the other meters in use, the display is clearing different than the open, see-through, arrow display of the regular meters. The confusion however, should be only minimal. Alternatives: 1. Deny the installation and direct staff to return the meters. Respectfully submitted, v/ / enry L. Staten, Acting General Services Director CONCUR: Kevin B. Northcra'ft, City Manager 2 Ye DUNCAN i00K THE BEST OF TWO SYSTEMS TO REVOLUTIONIZE METERED PARKING AND IS RUNNING RINGS AROUND THE COMPEiIfION. IntroducingjEMM:.. anexcitingnewparkingmeters from3thDuncan/innovators: Introducing EMM... an exciting new parking meter from the Duncan innovators. Duncan's Electronic -Mechanical Mechanism (EMM) is a new parking meter that offers the best of electronic and mechanical features. EMM combines the most widely used and accepted coin -handling system in the world with today's latest electronic technology. The EMM features a quartz clock for accurate timing. Other features include instant, on -street time and rate conversions, external infrared audit, inventory and maintenance reporting. Field Adjustable, Easily Adapted Duncan's new EMM features patented field -adjustable coin sensors, providing improved coin discrimination. Even after installation on the street or parking lot, EMM rates, time limits and overtime can be re -programmed in seconds right where it stands. EMM is available either as a completely new mechanism or as a cost-effective upgrade to existing mechanical mechanisms. The EMM is both reliable and rugged in the Duncan tradition. Programmable Features • Accepts three coins and a token • Time limits up to 96 hours • Rate structures • Overtime Simple, trouble-free operation Time is displayed on EMM by a highly visible electronic liquid crystal display (LCD). As coins are inserted, time is added and shown according to time value and type of rate structure. The microprocessor furnishes highly accurate computation to tenths of minutes. All coin - handling parts are time -proven standard Duncan mechanical meter parts. Standard Features • Uses standard 9 -volt batteries available everywhere • Power conserved when handle is in home position • Expired and violation signals flash front and back • Electronic sequencing and timing prevents cheating • Display shows when new battery is needed • Duncan data terminal for auditing, data collection and program changes • Unique flashing LED strobe for use in low light environment • Infrared system which allows audit without opening housing • Fits into all current Duncan housings Three ways to purchase Duncan's new EMM ... as easy as ABC A — As a'completely new system for your parking facility B — Duncan will retrofit your meter and install EMM for you C — EMM in kit form from Duncan for easy do-it-yourself retrofit Contact Duncan today for full details about EMM! DUNCAIN A DOVER) RESOURCES COMPANY Duncan Industries Parking Control Systems P.O. Box 849 340 Industrial Park Road Harrison, Arkansas 72601 1-800-338-6226 (501) 741-5481 • FAX: (501) 741-2868 Patent pending. Printed in U.S.A. July 16, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 23, 1991 AWARD OF BID TO PURCHASE TWO TWIN POST SURFACE MOUNTED LIFTS FOR CITY GARAGE Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Reappropriate $10207.37 from Equipment Maintenance Division, account number 5402, in FY 90-91 to FY 91-92. 2. Award a bid to B & M Equipment for the purchase of two twin post surface mounted lifts at a cost not to exceed $10207.37. Background: The staff prepared specifications for purchase and installation of one and two twin post surface mounted lifts. A notice inviting bids was advertised in the Easy Reader. Five bids were received by the City Clerk on June 20, 1991 at 2:00 pm. The bids were publicly opened and read aloud. A copy of all bid package information is available for review in the City Clerk's office. Analysis: The analysis is divided as follows: 1. The Bidders 2. The Lowest and Most Responsible Bidder 1. The Bidders A list of the bidders costs are shown below: Bidder Cost(1) Cost(2) 1. Steves Auto Supply $4760.09 $ 9520.18 2. B & M Equipment $5103.68 $10207.37 3. Airdraulics $5859.11 $10709.07 4. Hy-Serco, Inc. $5908.12 $11146.36 5. G.E. Jepson Co. $6600.00 $12100.00 - 1 - 2. The Lowest and Most Responsible Bidder The lowest cost and most responsible bidder is B & M Equipment. Even though Steves Auto Supply is the lowest bidder, they are not factory authorized installers. Fiscal Impact FY 90-91 Amount budgeted $16,000 Funds for the hoists were budgeted in FY 90-91 in the amount of $16,000. It is recommended that only the amount needed for the purchase be reappropriated for FY 91-92 and the remainder to return to the General Fund balance. The purchase of two hoists is less than the original budget estimate. No additional funds are required. Alternatives: Another alternative available to city council and considered by staff: 1. Postpone the purchase - this is not recommended because the mechanic shop has no hoists and uses an open pit which has safety concerns. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Conklin Administrative Aide Noted for Fiscal Impact: (4,4 4) Viki Copeland Concur: :?/ Kevin B. Northcraft Finance Director City Manager cc: Bill Grove, Director of Building and Safety pwadmin/abml - 2 - OBJECT ACCOUNT EXPLANATION CODES TITLE 4309 Maintenance Materials 1990-91 Increase in maintenance materials includes $1,500 to reinforce repair and service pit and a parts cleaning service is needed because mechanics are using soap & water which is not an effective cleaner. Hydraulic fluid, oil, kerosene, antifreeze, misc. rag service, parts, tools, solvents soaps grease, welding supplies, safety equipment. 5402 Equip. More Than $500 1990-91 Lower tool box, containers for hazardous waste, brake and drum lathe and portable hoist and a OTC (Otawanna Tool Company) back up monitor for the engine analyzer. $4,400 1991-92 Brake and Drum Lathe Approx. life expectancy of existing lathe and drum is one year. 1991-92 1991-92 1 $4,000 Portable Hoist $16,000 Portable Hoist $16,000 Shop is currently operating without a hoist; using jacks and stands. Building was not built to accommodate a stationary hoist; therefore, Department is requesting two portable hoists. City Goal No. 3: Improve efficiency and effectivness of department. 6900 Lease Payments 1991-91 Engine Analyzer, 4th yr/5 yr lease 1991-92 Engine Analyzer, 5th yr/5 yr lease $5,016 $5,016 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 4102 - No additional positions recommended. Evaluate contracting vs. in-house study, and reflect cost effectiveness of any new staffing. 4309 - Pit is already underground; its time to bury it. Delete $1,500 and reduce due to past expenditures. 5402 - Need one hoist, due to discontinued use of pit. 190 -7 _,.2,3-91 July 15, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 23, 1991 INCREASE IN AMOUNT OF AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS CIP 88-406 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Increase the amount of the professional services agreement with BSI Consultants for contract administration and inspection services, project CIP 88-406, to a not to exceed cost of $92,750. 2. Authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary within budget limitations. Background: On December 11, 1990, the City Council awarded a professional services agreement to BSI Consultants for contract administration and inspection services in an amount not to exceed $62,320. That agreement was based on the proposed construction time of 120 days. The City Council, also, at the meeting on December 11, 1990, awarded the construction contract for a period of 180 days. The construction is going to take longer than the 120 days, therefore, the City will need to have additional funds to cover the additional inspection days that will be required. Analysis: 1. Reasons for the Increase 2. Revised Contract Costs 1. Reasons for the Increase A. Longer Construction Contract Time. The Consultant's estimated costs were based on full time inspection for a 120 calendar day construction project, as requested in the Request for Proposals. However, the construction contract was awarded by the City Council for 180 calendar days, which will result in increased inspection and contract administration costs. B. City Request for Design Review. At the City's request, BSI Consultants spent additional time reviewing the plans and specifications as well as evaluating the alternative of slip lining in lieu of reconstruction. This additional evaluation requested by the City has also increased the agreement costs. - 1 - C. Change Orders due to Changes During Construction. Pending change orders will add additional inspection cost to the construction contract. It is also anticipated that potential future change orders will also add additional inspection cost to the construction contract. 2. Revised Contract Costs A. Original Contract Costs 1. Inspection ($52.00/hr. x 8 hr./day x 90 working days)= $37,440 2. Mileage ($0.36/mile x 3,500 miles) = $ 1,260 3. Contract Administration ($65.00/hr. x 100 hr.) = $ 6,500 4. Soils Analysis Field Testing ($45.00/hr. x 4 hr./day x 60 working days)= $10,800 Laboratory Testing ($110/Test x 6 Density Tests) = $ 660 Total = $56,660 B. Additional Costs to Original Contract (Required by City) 1. Evaluation of slip lining ($52.00/hr. x 80 hr.) 2. Design Review for construction ($52.00/hr. x 35 hr.) Total C. Future Costs = $ 4,160 = $ 1,820 = $ 5,980 1. Estimated Additional Inspection Time (increase due to construction time being increased from 120 calendar days to 180 calendar days) ($52.00/hr. x 8 hr./day x 40 working days) = $16,640 2. Estimated Additional Contract Administration ($65.00/hr. x 20 hr.) = $ 1,300 3. Estimated Additional Inspection Time Due to Change Orders ($52.00/hr. x 8hr./day x 9 working days) = $ 3,744 Total = $21,684 D. Contingency 1. Original Estimated Contingency ($56,660 x 10%) = $ 5,660 2. Estimated Additional Contingency ($5,980 + $21,684) x 10% Total E. Not To Exceed Amount = $ 2,766 = $ 8,426 1. Original Approved Amount ($56,660 + $5,660) = $62,320 2. Estimated Additional Amount ($5,980 + $21,684 + $2,766) Total Alternatives: = $30,430 =$ 92,750 1. Do not increase the dollar amount of the professional services agreement. (Full time inspection of the sewer project would then not be possible for the remainder of the project.) Respectfully submitted, Con d&' ynn A. Terry Deputy City Engineer Noted For Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Director of Finance pworks/ccsrincr n Ant •ny Antich Director of Public Works Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager BSI Consultants, Inc. July 9, 1991 Mr. Lynn Terry, P.E. Deputy City Engineer CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 SUBJECT: Addendum No. 2 to Professional Services Agreement SANITARY SEWER REPAIR CIP 88-406 Dear Mr. Terry: I am submitting this request for additional fees to our agreement referenced above. This additional compensation is to cover the costs of the extended contract period from 120 calendar days to 180 calendar days, contract time extensions under consideration and estimated extensions due to change orders, time spent by our inspector for evaluation of slip -lining substitution and design input to mitigate unforseen inconsistencies between the work plans and actual field conditions. REVISED SCHEDULE OF FEES The following estimated costs have been developed for review and are based on the scope of services, additional work performed at the request of the City, projected time extensions to the contract as a result of change orders and a specified revised contract period of 180 calendar days at a minimum of eight (8) hours per day. ORIGINAL FEE SCHEDULE Submitted in our proposal dated October 29, 1990 in response to the City's Request for Proposal (RFP) dated October 5, 1990. TASK DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED FEES A. Project Inspector • Construction Inspector 90 Working Days - 8 Hours/Day (Assume 720 hours @ $52.00/hour) HBAD2.SV / MR017 $37,440.00 2001 East 1st Street, Santa Ana, CA 92705 • (714) 568-7300 • FAX (714) 836-5906 FAX Mr. Lynn Terry, P.E. City of Hermosa Beach June 9, 1991 Page 2 TASK DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED FEES • Mileage (Assume 3,500 miles @ $.36/mile) $1,260.00 B. Supervision/Administration • Contract Administration (Assume 100 hours @ $65.00/hour) 6500.00 SUBTOTAL - ADMIN. & INSPECTION SERVICES $45,200.00 C. Soils - Materials Testing • Testing Technician 60 Days at minimum 4 hours per day (Assume - 240 hours @ $45.00/hour) • Six (6) Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture (Laboratory Tests) in accordance with ASTM Procedure D1557A ($110/ea) SUBTOTAL - EST. SOILS TESTING FEES ESTIMATED FEES - TOTAL ALL SERVICES $10,800.00 660.00 $11,460.00 $56,660.00 ADDITIONAL FEES TASK DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED FEES A-2. Project Inspector • Construction Inspector $16,640.00 40 Additional Working Days - 8 Hours/Day (Assume 320 hours @ $52.00/hour) • 9 Working Days for $ 3,744.00 Change Order Time Extensions (Assume 72 hours @ $52.00/hour) HBAD2.SV / MR017 Mr. Lynn Terry, P.E. City of Hermosa Beach June 9, 1991 Page 3 * Evaluation of Slip -Line Substitution 80 Hours @ $52.00/hour * Design Review and Input 35 Hours @ $52.00/hour 4,160.00 1,820.00 * These items have been completed per request of the City. B-2. Supervision/Administration • Contract Administration (Assume 20 hours @ $65.00/hour) 1,300.00 TOTAL ADDITIONAL ESTIMATED N.T.E. FEES $27,664.00 TOTAL ORIGINAL ESTIMATED N.T.E. FEES 56,660.00 TOTAL ALL ESTIMATED N.T.E. FEES $ 84,324.00 The total not -to -exceed fees as indicated are based on the estimated work plans and time requirements as determined by the plans and specifications. These fees are invoiced on a time and materials basis, therefore, reductions or increases in work plans and time requirements will result in an adjustment of the total fee as billing will reflect actual hours used for the project. Should additional services be required to accomplish project objectives, services will be invoiced in accordance with the listed unit rates following prior notification and approval by the City of Hermosa Beach. Please let me know if this addendum is acceptable to the City and do not hesitate to call if you would like to discuss this further. Sincerely, BSI Consultants, Inc. VattahCf- Steven M. Velasco Area Manager Construction Services Division HBAD2.SV / MR017 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 16, 1991 Regular Meeting of July 23, 1991 CITY ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER EASEMENT Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council: Accept the offered sewer easement and direct staff to record said document. Background: On May 14, 1991, the City Council agreed to relocate the existing 15" sewer main crossing the property south of Twentieth Street at Power Street. The property owners presented to the City on July 15, 1991, a cashier's check in the amount of $20,000 (see attached copy). This check is to cover the property owner's share of the sewer main relocation costs. Also, the property owners have presented an easement deed to the City for recording that describes and protects the new sewer main location (see attached easement deed). Analysis: The sewer project contractor is approaching the point where they will need to begin construction on the vacant property south of Twentieth Street at Power Street. The new location of the sewer main should be protected by a perpetual easement to the public. The submitted document, once it is recorded, provides that protection. The engineering staff has reviewed the sewer easement legal description and recommends that the City Council accept the easement on behalf of the City of Hermosa Beach. Respectfully submitted, Concur: Lynn A. Terry C/ Antony Antich r Deputy City Engineer Director of Public Works pworks/ccsrsewr - 1 - Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager 1p HAWTHORNE SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION 13001 S. HAWTHORNE BLVD. "AN INSURED SAVINGS INSTITUTION" HAWTHORNE, CALIFORNIA 90250 INVOICE DATE INVOICE NO. DESCRIPTION 50 0006215 GL ACCOUNT NO. AMOUNT 07/11/1991 30500 20TH&FOWER, HERMOSA BEACH 215 CHECK NO. 202011012 2C) TOTALS '01).000.00* ►�71 /fiM\v///A\\\\\`I:,A////��\\\\\\v \\\W7//////frAM \\� RECORDING REQUESTED BY <1.frAND WHEN RECORDED MAIL THIS DEED AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN BELOW, MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: -1NAME STREET ADDRESS CITU, STATE zlv L J Title Order No Escrow No SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT DEED FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is acknowledged, I (WE), IVANO STAMEGNA, JOHN ROCCA, FABIANO CORPORATION, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, AND KAVANAUGH DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION hereby GRANT to the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a municipal corpora— tion of the State of California, a perpetual easement for public sewer and incidental purposes over, under, across and upon the following described real property in the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California: THAT PART OF LOT 39, TRACT NO. 15546, IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 334 PAGE 34 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A STRIP OF LAND, 10 FEET WIDE, LYING 5 FEET EITHER SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE MOST NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 39, 5.00 FEET EASTERLY, MEASURED PERPENDICULAR TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE SOUTHERLY, S12°56'35"E, PARALLEL WITH SAID WESTERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 146.36 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, S77°18'14"E 58.07 FEET TO A POINT WESTERLY 5.00 FEET PERPENDIC— ULAR FROM THE MOST EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT; SAID LAST—MENTIONED POINT TO BE HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT "A"; THENCE SOUTH— ERLY, PARALLEL WITH SAID MOST EASTERLY LINE, S12°56'35"E, A DISTANCE OF 140.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, S20°46'49"W 36.02 ' FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT IN THE MOST SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT, 25.00 FEET WESTERLY FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT. ALSO, A STRIP OF LAND, 10 FEET WIDE, LYING 5 FEET EITHER SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: BEGINNING AT THE ABOVE SAID POINT "A"; THENCE NORTHERLY, PARALLEL WITH SAID MOST EASTERLY LINE, N12°56'35"W 30.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 36, SAID TRACT NO. 15546. This agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto, and their respective heirs, administrators, executors, successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on this 5TH day of JUNE BY: FABIANO CO -ORATION, INC. 19 91 BY: FA CCONE- PRESIDENT KAL NAUGH DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. MARK J. KAVANAUGH- PRESIDENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES On this 5 day of JUNE in the year 19 91, before me. the undersigned. a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared I V A N 0 S T A M E G N A personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person_ whose name to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that _he_ executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. OFFICIAL SEAL ()WIFE MARIE SELF NOTARY PUBLIC • CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY My Comm. Expires Nov. 16. 1992 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES On this 5th day of JUNE in the year 19 91 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in JOHN ROCCA IS subscribed Notary Public in and for said State. and for said State, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person_ whose name to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that _he_ executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. OFFICIAL SEAL DANETTE MARIE SELF NOTARY PUBLIC • CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY My Comm. Expires Nov. 16. 1992 I S subscribed Notary Public in and for said State. If executed by a Corporation the Corporation Form of Acknowledgment must be used. CHICAGO TITLE CHICAGO TITLE CORPORATION CORPORATION a to A U) a in STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SS. On this 5 day of JUNE i 1 91in the year before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared FABIANO CICCONE personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the FART ANO CORPORATION President, and personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be Secretary of the corporation that executed the within Instrument, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within instru- ment pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its hoard of directors. Signature DANETTE MARIE SELF Name (Typed or Printed) Notary Public in and for said County and State F 2467 R 11/82 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES On this 5 day of JUNE, 1981 in the year before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared MARK J. KAVANIIAGH personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the RAVANUAGH DEVELOPMENT President, and S personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be Secretary of the corporation that executed the within Instrument, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within instru- ment pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its hoard of directors. Signature DANETTE MARIE SELF Name (Typed or Printed) Notary Public in and for said County and State F 2467 R.11/82 OFFICIAL, SEAL DANETTE MARIE SELF NOTARY PUB -LIC • CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY My Comm. Exp;res Nov 16, 1992 (This area for official notarial seal) OFFICIAI. SEAL., DANETTE MARIE SELF NOTARY PUBLIC . CAL!FCRN!A LOS ANGELES COUNTY My Comm. Expires Nev. 16. 1992 (This area for official notarial seal) a'lr,77;24.,7;;AVt4-41-'w--d July 18, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 23, 1991 AWARD OF BID FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FOR THE PERIOD FROM JULY 1, 1991 TO JUNE 30, 1994 Recommendation: It is,recommended that the City Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with Landscape West Inc. for the provision of Park landscape maintenance for the period ending June 30, 1994 at a cost of: 3 yr. Parks 91-92 92,226.00 92-93 92,226.00 93-94 98,316.00 $282,768.00 2. Authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with California Landscape Maintenance for the provision of Median landscape maintenance for the period ending June 30, 1994 at a cost of: 3 yr. Medians 91-92 45,600.00 92-93 47,878.80 93-94 50,274.84 $143,753.64 3. Give conceptual approval to paying for the maintenance of the Valley School site and that the staff be directed to return to City Council with an agreement. 4. Authorize staff to issue a notice to proceed and issue addenda within budget limitations. Background: On April 9, 1991 the City Council authorized staff to call for bids for the Landscape Maintenance Contract. California Landscape Maintenance, Inc. has been under contract for the last 6 years for the provision of the landscape maintenance at City parks and medians. The contract will expire on June 30, 1991. California Landscape agreed to work month to month until we awarded a contract. •The parks landscape areas to be covered by the proposed contract are shown on Drawing #1. The median landscape areas to be covered in the proposed contract are shown on Drawing #2. The school landscape areas to be covered in the proposed contract are shown on Drawing #3. The current cost of the contract for both parks and medians maintenance is: 1988 - 1989 1989 - 1990 1990 - 1991 Parks $112,178.05 $130,851.59 $126,529.80 Total: $369,559.44 Medians Total $38,000.00 $41,100.00 $38,528.49 $142,178.05 $171,951.59 $165,058.29 $109,628.49 $479,187.93 The proposed contract is scheduled to run from July 1, 1991 through June 30, 1994, and at the option of the City Council of the City, with the consent of the Contractor the contract may be renewable for a period not to exceed three years. A copy of all bids are available for review in the City Clerk's office. Analysis: The analysis is divided as follows: 1. What Work Activities Would Be Contracted 2. The Bids 3. School Maintenance Cost 4. Fiscal Impact 5. Summary 1. What Work Activities Would Be Contracted a. Turf Care 8. Thatch Removal b. Edging & Trimming 9. Weed Control c. Shrubs 10. Tree Maintenance 4. Fertilization 11. Litter Control 5. Irrigation 12. Annual Plantings 6. Insect/Disease/Pest Control 13. Dead Plant Replacement 7. Soil Aeration 14. Greenwaste Reduction 2 2. The Bids The staff prepared specifications for the Landscape Maintenance Contract and advertised the request for bids in the Easy Reader. Five (5) sealed bids were received by the City Clerk on May 23, 1991. The bids were publicly opened and read aloud. The results of the Landscape Maintenance Contract bids were as follows and include all applicable fees and taxes. 1. Bid package was submitted by Landscape West Construction. The bid was not complete and is disqualified. 2. LANDSCAPE WEST INC. A. 3 yr. Parks 91-92 92,226.00 92-93 92,226.00 93-94 98,316.00 $282,768.00* B. 3 yr. Medians 91-92 61,758.00 92-93 61,758.00 93-94 65,856.00 A+B $189,372.00 = $472,140.00 3. THE CALIFORNIA COMPANY also known as CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE (current contractor) 4. 5. A. 3 91-91 92-93 93-94 yr. Parks 119,340.00 125,303.16 131,570.28 $376,213.44 B. 3 yr. Medians 91-92 45,600.00 92-93 47,878.80 93-94 50,274.84 A+B $143,753.64*= $519,967.08 TOYO LANDSCAPING CO. A. 3 yr. Parks 91-92 116,506.00 92-93 121,748.76 93-94 127,227.48 $365,482.24 A. 3 91-92 92-93 93-94 B. 3 yr. Medians 91-92 62,734.00 92-93 62,557.08 93-94 68,507.16 A+B $196,798.24 = $562,280.48 BENNETT ENTERPRISES INC. yr. Parks 125,160.00 131,418.00 136,674.72 $393,252.72 *Lowest bidder B. 3 yr. Medians 91-92 59,520.00 92-93 62,496.00 93-94 64,995.84 A+B $187,011.84 = $580,264.56 OPTION #1 Low Bidder for (A)Parks/(B)Medians - LANDSCAPE WEST INC. $472,140.00 3 OPTION #2 Low Bidder(s) for Parks 282,768.00 - Medians 143,753.64 - Assigning LANDSCAPE WEST INC. THE CALIFORNIA CO. (CALIF. LANDSCAPE) $426,521.64 separate contractors for Parks Savings - $45,618.36 Most Responsible Bidder OPTION #1 LANDSCAPE WEST only BENEFITS 1. Current contractor for Manhattan Beach 2. No need for City storage 3. Has the best option for green waste reduction 4. Solid recommendations 5. Daily, weekly supervision by City staff more efficient OPTION #2 BENEFITS 1. Low Bidder - Savings $45,618.36 (Parks/Medians) 2. Current contractor for Medians familiar with current operation 3. Parks contractor is local. See benefits Option #1 (except #5) & Medians for A+B NEGATIVE $45,618.36 higher over 3 yr. period 1. 2. 3. NEGATIVE More complex in-house supervision In-house storage still needed for medians Green waste reduction for medians not reduced All bidders have a current and valid contractors license. Staff checked with the State Contractors license board and there have been no disciplinary actions or claims filed against any of the bidders. 2. School Maintenance Cost As a result of a request by the School Superintendent to request guaranteeing public use of school property in exchange for City maintenance, the bid package included figures for the two school sites, Hermosa Valley and Hermosa View. The intent in recommending is that the City consider paying to maintain these sites for residents when school is not in session. Currently, the School District property at the View site is maintained via the lease agreement with the Bilingual School and the District pays $13,400 annually to maintain the landscaped areas at Valley School. If the City were to decide to pay for the maintenance of the Valley School site, it would seem logical to allow the school to contract for these services directly and to have the City appropriate funds to the District to cover these costs. The View site could be maintained by the lessee and provided that it is done to a satisfactory level, would not require any additional funding. The Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission has approved this in concept, upon City Council's conceptual approval, would return a recommended agreement to the District. It is recommended that the award of bid for the School District property be delayed pending negotiations with the School District. Amount budgeted: Parks Medians Total 3. Fiscal Impact FY 91-92 $120,307 $ 37,800 $158,107 School Sites Hermosa Valley Hermosa View Amount over/under budget: FY 92-93 Not yet approved -0- 0 -0- 0 ($158,107 - $137,826) = $20,281 4. Summary It is a recommendation that the amount needed for contract will be: Contractor Landscape West Inc. The California Co. FY 93-94 Not yet approved Parks: Medians: Schools: $282,768.00 $143,753.64 $ -0- This recommendation is consistent with the City Council goals of: 34. Coordinate and promote water conservation both city-wide and City use. 35. Implement steps for reducing and recycling, composting, etc. to implement AB 939. Alternatives: 1. Reject the low bidder. 2. Rebid the project. Attachments: Drawing #1, Drawing #2, Drawing #3 Resp -='fully submitte•, Concur: 11 Antes`' y • ntich Director of Public Works Noted For Fiscal Impact ki Copeland Finance Director pworks/ccitemlm Kevin B. North •' aft City Manager LEGEND EXISTING PARKS 1. Valley Park Z. Clark Stadium 3. Community Center Complex/ Civic Center 4. Edith Rodaway Friendship Park 5. Sea View Park 6. Fort Lots -o -Fun & Prospect School 7. Moondust 8. Greenwood 9. Bi -Centennial Park Kay-Etow Ingleside Park 4th & Prospect 8th & Valley Scout Park Ardmore Park Greenbelt 17 Sandhill Parkette 18. 3rd & Prospect 11 �10Ele�� Qa0C001111110L110:ilC]moo CumCiag DRAW )iN) 6--� fkAP H EXISTING AND- POTENTIAL r. RECREATION LANDS City o f ermosa 1T eacL ES- 9 LEGEND M1. HERMOSA AV (City lmt to 2nd) M2. HERMOSA AV (2nd to 10th) M3. HERMOSA AV (10th to 14th) M4. HERMOSA AV (14th to City Lmt) M5. PIER AV (Strand to Hermosa) M6. PIER AV (Hermosa to Valley M7. STRAND 7 2nd Street M8. STRAND 2 15th Street M9. STRAND 2 16th Street M10. STRAND 2 18th Street M11. STRAND 2 22nd Street 1412. STRAND 2 Longfellow M13. STRAND 2 35th Street M14. 10th 2 PCH M15. 28th 2 Valley • .: . ,;,. c,r....,.......„_. _., 1116. 29th 2 Valley M17. 30th 2 Manhattan 1118. 31st 2 Manhattan M19. AVIATION (B'ndary to PCH) 1120. Strand - 33rd M21. GOULD (Upper) M22. GOULD (Lower) M23. PCH (24th to Gould) M24. Valley Dr/Herondo M25. PCH/Aviation M26. 14th & Man Av (Prkng Lot) M27. Lot C M28. PCH/8th (Barricade) 1129. Artesia (PCH E to Harper) M30. Pier Head M31. Lot A ••Y MEDIANS & PARKING LOTS • 4 '1 i, /1 t, ;/ / - • City 01`�%rrrcosa 1�3eacly • 1 .---- .... -2.1:::::....----V 7.1).... I .:...:".:7a1---. .... .....4 i AI .-. .. ....... ........... . - ......... .. • - • (i Ul CC I Z rc i. ....... .....ri;.< . ••••_ • I .... _ *11. • if ri I 11 ::;.14411 cf cc . [0 W I E2. . ; .....-• L=.4. ,....._ . : ... : ...11.........: . , .. :::, r 1......... .........:1.1-.s..-:ti....i;.,5.::-. I.( —11.1 1 • !'; -- ....... --- "(I) i i I if 11! •....-------" --,fffi i,\ -i ,. ,It_....11..._ . . 1-- ...1 < 4" 1 f...............t...:,?4:72...-ip .....-----::::::::::',>7 . I/II:Lt4 ••• 1 iL I I 111 • ! 11 /i li si i I 1! • 31: u1 I-0' *1 0 00 [Cola 11: 3 Id • - - a ili it 0 X 0 1 . i irlA '.:'' V) I ; is fr L,.. .. ::: .... ..: ..,, ..:K.g.4 ‘4. • i .„„it .4 >4 i 1 i .. JE -5;..... . ii .1i. ... , Ju.1 , , q I IL l: g .• • ..•••• .... ..... ..!..• • -• ..• ."---... --....7 ---hz.;,-- --" ::z. .z - I , : .....7::..:::::::.:::-.. -;;•':-•;...;" ';; -.." i 1 w -J JLJ cc( • XIV •••*;;;;,,;;;;NK 0 ui Z a LU July 16, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 23,1991 PARK PACIFIC SHOPPING CENTER TRAFFIC CIRCULATION CONCERNS Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Establish "KEEP CLEAR" zone for westbound traffic in area of Aviation driveway. 2. Pursue the signalization of the PCH/Park Pacific driveway signal. 3. Approve in concept the following and set the matter for a public hearing. 3a. Establish separate left turn lane for eastbound Aviation at Park Pacific driveway. 3b. Place candlestick markers on lane line separating number 1 and 2 lanes eastbound Aviation in vicinity of that driveway. 3c. Prohibit curb parking on northside of Aviation between Ocean and Aviation driveway, resulting in a loss of approximately eight (8) parking spaces. Background: At the recent June 4, 1991 City Staff Traffic Safety Committee, Mr. Roger Bacon and his attorney presented discussion relative to circulation concerns at the Center's Aviation Boulevard driveway. The concerns reflected a need to restripe Aviation Boulevard eastbound to provide a separate left turn lane into the center. This would mean changing the number 1 eastbound into a separate left turn lane only. Discussion also included the possibility of "Right Turn Only" at the driveway exit and the need to stencil "KEEP CLEAR" on Aviation near that driveway. In addition, Mr. Bacon presented his feelings on the need to reduce Aviation Boulevard signal time at Prospect in order to create gaps in traffic (or less traffic at any one time). This,in his mind, would further allow left turning vehicles from his driveway to easily turn eastbound. - 1 - - 9) 1 r Aviation/Prospect Signal Concerns: With respect to the latter request by Mr. Bacon, the following are in progress: Due to the Aviation/Prospect intersection accident history and intersection geometry, the City in May 1991, undertook a re-evaluation of the overall signal timing. We have conducted manual turning movement counts and we have recent hourly machine traffic counts for all through directions. It is the City Traffic Engineer's intent to maximize the timing for all phases such that improved efficiency of operation and less potential for accident occurs. Toward this end, he is receptive to reducing the Aviation green time to assist the beliefs of Mr. Bacon if it does not produce negative results to the overall efficiency and safety of the intersection. We have recently been informed by the County of Los Angeles that they are in the process of developing signal timing coordination plans for Aviation Boulevard from Imperial Highway to Pacific Coast Highway. This would include the Aviation/Prospect intersection. The City Traffic Engineer will provide our input and recommendations (reflecting Mr. Bacon's concerns), to the County of Los Angeles. It is anticipated that the City of Hermosa Beach input will be provided by late July 1991. Aviation Driveway A discussion of the advantage and disadvantages relative to safety and efficiency of instituting the following three concerns provides insight for selection of reasonable mitigation. 1. - Eastbound, separate left turn into driveway - "KEEP CLEAR" markings - No Left Turn out of driveway Advantages a. The left turns into the shopping center are sheltered from eastbound through traffic. b. The left turners have a clear opening to make their left turn into the center. The driveway is not blocked. c. Right angle accident potential involving left turns out of the center is eliminated. Disadvantages a.;.Left turns out of the center must be made onto Pacific Coast Highway. Then traffic must go through the Pacific Coast Highway/Aviation signal to turn left in order to proceed eastbound. b. Traffic has to circulate within the already congested shopping center. c. Left turns from southbound Pacific Coast Highway to eastbound Aviation have to enter the curb lane and merge with the northbound to eastbound free right turn traffic. This is due to the use of the center lane as a separate left turn lane. Sideswipe accident potential would increase. N N N PACIFIC COAST '. HIGBAAY - 3 - 2. - Eastbound separate left turn into driveway - "KEEP CLEAR', markings All exit turns from driveway allowed Advantages - Same as la, lb Disadvantages - Same as lc 2a. Accident potential for left turns out of center being struck by vehicles coming from Pacific Coast Highway to eastbound Aviation is increased. This is due to limited visibility created by vehicles stopped in the eastbound separate left turn lane. 2b. If vehicles in the westbound travel lane stop to keep the driveway area clear and allow the left turns out of the driveway to proceed, there is a high potential for: 1. A rear end type accident between the stopped westbound vehicle and, 2. The northbound (PCH) to eastbound (Aviation) right turning vehicles. -S\ 1 EI UIx _ cl PACIFIC COAST ' HIGHWAY - 4 - 3. - Eastbound separate left turn into driveway - No "KEEP CLEAR" markings - No Left Turn out of driveway Advantages - Same as la, 1c Disadvantages - Same as la, ib, 1c 3a. Eastbound left turns into the center will be blocked by westbound vehicles that back up from the Pacific Coast Highway signal 3b. Right turns out of center will be blocked by westbound through traffic backup. - 5 - I 4. - Eastbound separate left turn into driveway - No "KEEP CLEAR" markings - All exit turns allowed Advantages - Same as la Disadvantages - Same as 3a, 3b 4a. Left turns out of the center may have visibility limited due to eastbound vehicles stopped in the left turn lane. .1 5. - No eastbound separate left turn into driveway - No ',KEEP CLEAR', markings - All turns allowed Advantages This is existing condition that is subject of review. Its only advantage is that it has been operating in this manner with a minimal accident history. Disadvantages - Same as 3a, 3b 5a. Left turns into the center must stop in the number one through lane in order to make the left turn into the center. Rear end accident potential is increased; sideswipe accident potential increased. - 7 - 6. - No eastbound separate left turn lane into driveway - No ',KEEP CLEAR', markings - No Left Turn out of driveway - Same as lc Advantages Disadvantages - Same as la, ib, 3a, 3b, 5a 7. - No eastbound separate left turn lane into driveway - ""KEEP CLEAR" markings - All turns allowed Advantages - Same as lb Disadvantages - Similar to 2a 1 8. - No eastbound separate left turn lane into driveway - "KEEP CLEAR" markings - No Left Turn out of driveway Advantages - Same as lb 8a. Right turns out of center will have better opportunity to enter westbound flow Disadvantages - Same as la, lb - 10 - Discussion: The various scenarios point out the obvious fact that limited conflicts at the Aviation driveway are best achieved by control, i.e., prohibition of the left turn out of the center. This is not a desirable option from the property owners standpoint since it reduces the ability of his customers to egress the development. Discussions between the property owner and Caltrans have been ongoing with respect to the potential for a traffic signal at the shopping Center's Pacific Coast Highway driveway. The City Traffic Engineer's previous report recommended consideration of a traffic signal at the Pacific Coast Highway driveway for left turns into the Center and right turns out. It did not envision left turns being allowed out of the Center with the signal. Nonetheless, Caltrans, the governing agency over Pacific Coast Highway has been discussing the possibility of including this signal with left turns out of the driveway. If these movements are allowed with signalization then the need for a left turn onto Aviation Boulevard is decreased dramatically. Internal shopping center circulation would allow the users to exit onto Pacific Coast Highway, thence turn left onto eastbound Aviation with the existing signal. The potential signalization of the Pacific Coast Highway driveway is not imminent. Thus, it is necessary to address other treatments for the existing left turn egress from the Aviation driveway. Left Turn Ingress to Aviation Boulevard Driveway: It is feasible to restore the separate left turn pocket for eastbound access into the shopping center driveway from Aviation Boulevard. The pocket was in existence prior to the slurry seal project on Aviation Boulevard which took place approximately one year ago. After the slurry seal it was decided to eliminate the separate turn lane in favor of having a two lane eastbound "release" for the traffic that turned from southbound Pacific Coast Highway to eastbound Aviation Boulevard It was believed at the time that the magnitude of the southbound to eastbound turns was such that a two lane entry to eastbound Aviation would allow more efficient operation and reduce the number of vehicles that had to "store" in the southbound Pacific Coast Highway left turn pocket. This has not proven to be the case. The southbound left turn lane does not clear in each cycle with the present striping situation on Aviation Boulevard. It is our belief that dual left turns for southbound Pacific Coast Highway along with a re -design of the Pacific Coast Highway/Aviation intersection are needed to improve operation. Thus, we do agree with a re -striping of the number are eastbound lane to provide some left turn storage for vehicles wishing to enter the shopping center. This restriping is not without drawbacks as stated in several of the previous scenarios. The vehicle queue in the separate left turn lane will provide a visual obstruction to left turning vehicles that egress from the shopping center. Also the southbound PCH left turns must merge with the northbound to eastbound free right turns. This merge takes place immediately after the turn which is a high accident potential. Left Turn Egress From Aviation Driveway: The subject left turn is a difficult maneuver to make during peak periods due to the heavy westbound traffic flow and the eastbound traffic among around the curve from northbound Pacific Coast Highway. By providing a "KEEP CLEAR" area across the eastbound Aviation lanes, a vehicle should be able to "creep out" to a point where it would only have to merge into the westbound lanes. This is where the major problem with the "KEEP CLEAR" area arises. Vehicles exiting the drive will not be able to see the vehicles traveling eastbound (from northbound Pacific Coast Highway) because of: 1. Vehicles queued in the separate left turn pocket westbound 2. The curve formed by the free right turn from northbound Pacific Coast Highway to eastbound Aviation The potential for accident involving the left turning vehicles would be increased in our opinion with this situation. The left turners would believe they now have the "right of way" due to the "KEEP CLEAR" area and disregard the northbound to eastbound traffic. A mitigation that has merit in order to reduce this accident potential is as follows: - Paint a "KEEP CLEAR" area on the eastbound Aviation Boulevard lanes in the vicinity of the shopping center driveway. - Paint a six inch solid white lane line between the two eastbound Aviation Boulevard lanes from Pacific Coast Highway to a point 100 feet east of the subject driveway. - Paint pavement arrows to inform the left turn egress traffic that they should enter the number one eastbound traffic lane. Place candlestick type cones on the six inch white line to restrict the left turn egress traffic from entering the number two eastbound lane and from having the northbound to eastbound movement merge from the number two lane to the number one lane in the vicinity of the subject driveway or near Aubrey Lane. This configuration should provide a shelter for the left turn if the "KEEP CLEAR" area is observed and the left turners turn onto the number one lane. Traffic that wishes to go from the driveway straight across to the opposite side driveway(s) would be prohibited. - 12 - The negative feature of this proposal lies in the eventual merge or lane changing by the vehicles in the number two lane and•the newly arrived vehicles in the number one lane. The merge or lane change in order to turn into Ocean Avenue would now occur very close to the intersection of Ocean Avenue. There is presently an uncontrolled marked crosswalk across the west leg of Ocean Avenue. If the merging or lane changing occurs close to the crosswalk there is a potential for disregarding the pedestrian because of the concern for adjacent motor vehicle traffic changing lanes. This is a safety concern that must be considered. In order to provide as much sight and maneuvering room as possible with this scenario, it is recommended that curb parking be prohibited in the vicinity of the crosswalk and the lane changing area on the north side of Aviation Boulevard. This will provide an unobstructed view for both the vehicular traffic and the crossing pedestrians. Enforcement of the "BEEP CLEAR" Area: The purpose of the "KEEP CLEAR" is as a warning device and can be ticketed under the vehicle code section 22500(e). Recommendation: Based on the foregoing the following is recommended: - Pursue the potential for signalization of the Pacific Coast Highway driveway with Caltrans. Define the feasibility of same and the type of operation that would be allowed. - To ensure the elimination of potential accident conflict, prohibit the left turn from the shopping center driveway onto Aviation Boulevard. - Restripe the number one eastbound Aviation Boulevard lane from Pacific Coast Highway to the shopping center driveway to provide a separate left turn land into the center - Determine what legal ordinances, resulting, et al are needed to allow the enforcing agency to enforce a "KEEP CLEAR" area. Define the signs, markings, etc necessary to accomplish this - After implementation of the necessary ordinances place "KEEP CLEAR" pavement markings on the eastbound lanes at the subject driveway. Along with this paint, a 6" white stripe between the number one and two lanes on eastbound Aviation Boulevard. Install candlestick type cones on the 6" white stripe; Remove curb parking on the north side of Aviation Boulevard from Ocean Avenue to the subject driveway. - Evaluate the operation for a six month period Respectfully Submitted, Concu NOT AVAILABLE FOR SIGNATURE Ed Ruzak • J1 Ai 'alnv Antich City Traffic Engineer Director of Public Works );4-4'71/37- Kevin B. Northcrdit City Manager pworks/errb RECEIVED JUL 1 CITY NMGR. '---E City oF Hermosa Beach 1315 Ualley Drive Hermosa Beach CA cc 12.5 Com. Honarable Mayor Midstokke and City Councilmembers: July 11, 1991 Over the July Lith holiday weekend I had many occasions to witness Hermosa Beach Police Officers carrying out their patrol duties in the downtown/pierhead area oF our city. As I reported during the citizen comment section oF the past July 9th, City Council meeting, this section oF our city is the most dangerous and potential problem area because of a "high energy state" created by its proximity to the beach, the abundance oF barrooms, the ever present loud music, the young people and youth gangs that periodically congregate in that area known to be..."where the action is". As I have testified in the past, I have been very critical with the absence oF mobile police patrols east oF the "Greenbelt" especially on weekends (Fri/Sat) party nights. On each oF the Four nights, July 3, Li, 5, and 6th I spent a minimum oF one hour per night observing our police officers in action and I believe that this City Council should Feel a great sense oF pride in the technique, restraint and pro- fessionalism exhibited in what appeared to be a very well trained and disciplined city police department. UnFortunately, with the exception oF Patrolman Eckert, I am unable to individually identify any oF the other officers that displayed courage and determination in avoiding unnec- essary confrontations. On one occasion a sympathetic youth taunted a police officer For questioning several members oF a Latino gang regarding illegal Fireworks. I heard one officer Firmly respond by saying that "we're doing it be- cause we care about these kids and want to save their eyes and limbs." From the officers' body language and gestures, I had the Feeling that many problems and confrontations were avoided with this refreshing, caring and Firm attitude In some parts oF this land, taunting a police officer on an extremely busy and stressful holiday night would tend to land you in jail or worse. Obviously I am pleased and have a more appropriate sense oF where and how our hard earned tax dollars are being spent. The Council, along with the citizens, should know that this small and stretched out police dept. is not only on the job but more importantly, the job is being done and done right. Richard J. Sullivan B2 -i 3rd Street Hermosa Beach CA. (213),37L1 -7q10 Locni Papers, Sincerely, \s-11-L-l'u 4 a J CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH INTER -OFFICE MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE DATE: JULY 13, 1991 CITY COUNCIL RE: EDITH RODAWAY PARK FROM: PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES COMMISSION ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** The Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission respectfully requests your consideration in placing the development of the newly acquired parcels at Edith Rodaway Park on a future agenda when it can be heard in front of a full Council. At the June 25, 1991 meeting, Council voted (2-2 vote) not to appropriate $50,000 from the Parks and Recreation Facility Tax Fund to CIP #513 for the purposes of developing the parcels as a passive picnic area to expand the existing park (see attached agenda item).; Due to the Commission's contention that this project warrants immediate attention and due to the fact that a tie vote resulted in the project's dismissal, we request this new opportunity to discuss it. The Commission clearly understands some of the Councilmembers' concerns about the upcoming South School purchase and the necessity to keep funds available for this important purchase. The acquisition of new parkland remains a strong priority of the Commission. However, we feel equally strongly that, where possible, acquisitions should be followed closely by park development. This becomes important from a recreational and aesthetic standpoint and assists in the immediate establishment of safe play areas for the community. The Rodaway parcels remain in a blighted condition and are currently not suited for recreational activities. Delaying the project to accommodate the South School purchase which may have a lengthy escrow attached to it would un- necessarily leave the community waiting for a completed park. Because the projected expense associated with this project is relatively modest, it would seem that the investment would not pose any significant detriment to the South School purchase and that it would enable the City to progress in achieving one of the objectives in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (expand Edith Rodaway Park) in a timely fashion. 4 b 1 The Commission looks forward to your approval of this request and to working with you cooperatively on this and upcoming projects. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Ju us (J.RIY Reviczky C airperson 2 June 13, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the City Council of June 25, 1991 EDITH RODAIr1AY FRIENDSHIP PARK DEVELOPMENT OF NEWLY ACQUIRED PARCELS s. s. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Parks, Recreation and Community.. -. Resources Commission ,.and .staff_..,,that ._Council appropriate.;.$50, 000 from'the Parks and Recreation ,F,acility,xTaxK.Fund. -to.CIP.:.1I513... for.-.the..purposes,r.of_develop.ing`_the_newly-acquired -pa'rcelsat Ed_ith;Rodaway Friendship Park': BACICGROUND The City Closed_escrow.:On five (5) new parcels located adjacent to Edith Rodaway Friendship Park on M °.:: a;rch T3',1991 At',ther YA• November 27, 1990 'Council "meeting, in syan.ticipation hof{ this pu=rchase, -Council ave'conceptual _ ppr v.il to developing ithe•se parcelsr as afpassive —pc.nic"area'-faith .landscaping, grass, modular, picnic,:;facili,ties,and dare:CW:,7 taff to ret irriWLt cosi estimatesfor��.the_Apr.oject.at<the:midyearbudget.;;l?Cv_i_ew_. A thiz;'raidyear'sreview'on "Februar12'1991 the'-.Commission:;,and staff.Tsubmitted a :list` -of capital .improvement projects-"-to:be; i`ncluded_in' .;the CIP-:Budget__fund.j513: Oneof the listed projects was the expansion of Edith Rodaway Friendship Park. At ::that' -time, Council 'denied __the _.request; -but. -encouraged staff ,.to ;return°`with requestsronLaAoroject:by..:project basis. ANALYSIS In their current condition, the additional lots do not provide a good space for recreational uses. The Council -approved concept (and Master Plan suggestion) of developing the lots into a passive picnic area would not only greatly enhance the Park but would also be a compatible use with he surrounding neighborhood. Developing the park in this way would require: installing an irrigation system; planting grass; planting shrubs and trees; purchasing and installing modular picnic pads; providing fencing and gates as necessary and grading and providing steps. Staff is hopeful -that the CCC will be able to assist with this project which would reduce costs and accelerate its -_.completion. The request for funding at this time will serve to expedite the project in order to provide an expanded park for public enjoyment as soon as it is. feasible. 1 Other alternatives available to Council include: 1. Deny funding request 2. Delay funding project 3. Provide a different concept for the development of the lots (other than passive picnic area) 4. Request more information ATTACHMENTS: 1. Expansion of Edith Rodaway Friendship Park (Nov. 27, 1990) 2. Minutes from the Nov. 27, 1990 Council meeting 3. Minutes from Midyear CIP (Feb. 12, 1991) Concur: Anthony Antich, Director Public Works Department Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Director Finance Department 2 Respectfully submitted, Mary t. 's ey, Director Dept, o Community Resources November 1 4 , 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council November 27, 1990 EXPANSION OF EDITH RODAWAY FRIENDSHIP PARK RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission and staff that Council approve the concept of developing the new parcels at Edith Rodaway Friendship Park as a passive picnic area with landscaping, grass and modular picnic facilities and that staff be directed to return with cost estimates for the project at the midyear budget review. BACKGROUND The City will soon be in escrow with the Hermosa Beach School District for the five (5) parcels located adjacent to Edith Rodaway Friendship Park (photos attached). In anticipation of the purchase, the Commission and staff reviewed the issue in order to set the wheels in motion for the eventual addition to the park. ANALYSIS The sketch and suggestions for the Park as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Master Plan are attached for Council review. This sketch served as the basis for the Commission's recommendation to develop the area as a passive picnic area. While the concept as described in the Master Plan suggest the creation of a "tot lot" in the Park, both the Commission and staff advise that due to the location (near Fort Lots o Fun Park which already has a tot lot) and the previous neighborhood input (recommending a Park for adult and teen usage) that this idea not be implemented. r 1 Keeping in mind the adjacent neighbors and the theme of the Park, it is suggested that the new area be developed as a grassy, landscaped picnic area (utilizing the modular type of picnic pads) that would create a buffer between residences and the Park and that would be accessible from other Park facilities. Developing the parcels in this way would require: installing an irrigation system; planting grass; planting shrubs and trees; purchasing and installing modular picnic pads (barbecues would not be recommended); providing fencing and gates as necessary; grading and steps (in view of the sharp drop-off in the center of the parcels). It is anticipated that this project could be completed without the assistance of a landscape architect and that a great deal of the labor involved could be scheduled with the California Conservation Corps (i.e., digging trenches for irrigation). 1 Adding to the Park in this way would contribute to the overall aesthetics of the Park and would provide for use that is compatible with its sensitive location (adjacent to homes). Concur: 'evin B. North,draft Cit, I anager An �•Antich, Di ector Public Works De artment 2 Respectfully Submitted, Mar C ooney, Director Degt. of Community Resources October 18, 1990 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission RECOMMENDATION Regular Meeting of October 24, 1990 EDITH RODAWAY FRIENDSHIP PARK It is recommended by staff that the Commission recommends to Council to develop the new parcels at Edith Rodaway Friendship Park as a passive picnic area with landscaping, grass and modular picnic facilities. BACKGROUND The City will soon be in escrow with'the Hermosa Beach School District for five (5) parcels located adjacent to Edith Rodaway Friendship Park. The Commission is being asked to recommend a potential use for the area. ANALYSIS The sketch and suggestions for the Park as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Master Plan are attached for Commission review.' While this concept suggests the creation of a "tot lot," staff advises that due to the location (near the Forts Lots o Fun Park which already has a tot lot) and the previous neighborhood input (recommending a park for teenage and adult usage), that this idea not be implemented. Keeping in mind the adjacent neighbors and the theme of the Park, it is suggested that the new area be developed as a grassy, landscaped picnic area (utilizing the modular type of picnic pads) that would create a buffer between residences and the Park and that would be accessible from other Park facilities. Developing the parcels in this way would require: installing an irrigation system; planting grass; planting shrubs and trees; purchasing and installing modular picnic pads (barbecues would not be recommended); providing fencing and gates as necessary and grading and steps (in view of the sharp drop-off in the center of the parcels). Developing the Park in this way would contribute to the -aesthetics of the Park and would provide for -use that is "compatible with its sensitive location (adjacent to homes). Respectfully Submitted, Mar; --""1",._ Qy, Director Deet. Community Resources October 18, 1990 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission Regular Meeting of October 24, 1990 EDITH RODAWAY FRIENDSHIP PARK RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by staff that the Commission recommends to Council to develop the new parcels at Edith Rodaway Friendship Park as a passive picnic area with landscaping, grass and modular picnic facilities. BACKGROUND The City will soon be in escrow with.'the Hermosa Beach School District for five (5) parcels located adjacent to Edith Rodaway Friendship Park. The Commission is being asked to recommend a potential use for the area. ANALYSIS The sketch and suggestions for the Park as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Master Plan are attached for Commission review.' While this concept suggests the creation of a "tot lot," staff advises that due to the location (near the Forts Lots o Fun Park which already has a tot lot) and the previous neighborhood input (recommending a park for teenage and adult usage), that this idea not be implemented. Keeping in mind the adjacent neighbors and the theme of the Park, it is suggested that the new area be developed as a grassy, landscaped picnic area (utilizing the modular type of picnic pads) that would create a buffer between residences and the Park and that would be accessible from other Park facilities. Developing the parcels in this way would require: installing an irrigation system; planting grass; planting shrubs and trees; purchasing and installing modular picnic pads (barbecues would not be recommended); providing fencing and gates as necessary and grading and steps (in view of the sharp drop-off in the center of the parcels). Developing the Park in this way would contribute to the -aesthetics of the Park and would provide for -use that is "compatible with its sensitive location (adjacent to homes). Respectfully Submitted, Mar De y, Director Community Resources EDITH RODAWAY FRIENDSHIP PARK OBJECTIVE: to acquire by lease or purchase adjacent lots from the School District and develop them as passive open space/buffer. DEVELOPMENT AND RENOVATION POTENTIAL . Create a visual barrier between park and residences with plantings. . Develop defined entries to park. . Develop connection between existing park and proposed area. . Redesign and augment irrigation system. • Estimate of probable cost: Acquisition Development o" 5-54 $82,000 S7I,000 • LEGEND AUTO ENTRY U U I EXTERIOR BUFFER ••=:,=1= CIRCULATION INTERIOR BUFFER GENTRY STREET • HOLLOWELL AVENUE. PASSIVE PICNIC „rrTOT LOT PASSIVE PICNIC PLAN IX PROPOSED EDITH RODAWAY FRIENDSHIP PARK City o f LTmos a 7eacL 5-55 l E L View from Gentry View from Edith Rodaway Park View from Gentry View from Hollowell (b) (f) • This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by,Coun- cilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting. Action: To approve the Minutes of the Hermosa Beach City Council Meeting of November 13, 1990, as amended by Councilmember Midstokke to read in item 1(m) that her reason for pulling this item was the Chamber's outstand- ing bill from the "Fiesta"; and in item 1(n) that all of her concerns should be listed: 1) high accident rate, 2) ridership down, 3) long response time, 4) cost vs. revenue, and 5) employee problems. There being no objections, this action was so ordered by Mayor Sheldon. �. Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants Nos. 35105 and Nos. 35267 through 35390 inclusive, noting voided warrants Nos. 35272, 35273, 35319, and 35328.. Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. Recommendation to receive and file the October, 1990 Financial Reports: 1) Revenue and Expense Report 2) City Treasurer's Report ,` Recommendation-o-Tappro a the =concept --for expa'nsi:on of ^:77 ',Edith'-Rodaway ':FriendshipPark: "'M•emoran•dum ;from Communi-''%1 .6ty.ay Resources,aDirector- MarRnooey�dted_„Noyember,a14,,„, .J 1990. - 'Action: 7To approve the staff recommendation to approve the concept of developing the new parcels at Edith Rodaway Friendship Park as a passive picnic area with .landscaping, grass and modular picnic facilities and to direct staff to return with cost estimates for the proj- ect at the midyear budget review. Recommendation to approve report regarding downtown sidewalk cleaning and scrubbing after -the 1 year evalua- tion. Memorandum from Public Work Director Anthony Antich dated November 15,.1990. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Coun- cilmembers Midstokke and Wiemans for separate discussion later in the meeting. • Action: 1) 2) To approve the staff recommendation Authorize staff to purchase a steam approximately $2800 from expenditures; Scrub the sidewalks every summer months and once winter months; to: cleaner for prospective other week during the a month during the City Council Minutes 11-27-90 Page 7338 Coming forward to address the Council in opposition to restrict- •- ing parking was: Wes Bush - Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce. Action: To approve the staff recommendation by adopting Resolution No. 91-5434, entitled,"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFOR- NIA, ESTABLISHING A NO PARKING ZONE ON THE WEST SIDE OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, BETWEEN THE NORTH AND SOUTH CITY LIMITS, DURING THE HOURS OF 3:00 P.M. AND 7:00 P.M. ON WEEK.DAYS'ONLY, EXCLUDING HOLIDAYS, SUBJECT TO THE AP- PROVAL OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.", as amended on page 4 to add a fourth goal, "D", that calls for a 10 percent overall reduction of accidents in the southbound lanes of Pacific Coast Highway. Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered, noting the objections of Essertier and'Midstokke. • emora:n`dum� d 6:` t; -TiID-YEAR:BUDGET�REVIEW 1990-91:' _M_bm- mom �from :Finance Director Viki Copeland dated February 4 4991' Director Copeland presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. Directors Rooney and Schubach also responded to Council questions. Action 'o approve the revisions to estimated revenue, appropriations, budget transfers' and'• designations as presented in the "City of Hermosa Beach Budget Summary 1990-1991 Midyear Review", except for $100,000 in Park and Recreation expenditures in the Community Resources Department budget, and $7,000 contingency reserve in the Housing Improvement Program plus $10,000 fdr General Plan Consultants, both items in the Planning Department budget. Both Departments were told that if some part of the money were needed, they could Come to the Council with specific requests. Motion Midstokke, second Wiemans. So ordered. 7. SELECTION OF TASK FORCE FOR HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated January 17, 1991. (Continued from 1/22/91 meeting.) Supplemental list of applicants from the Planning Department, dated February 7, 1991; supplemental letter from Howard Longacre, 1221 Seventh Place, dated February 1, 1991; and, supplemental application from Jack Andren, 521 Gentry, dated February 12, 1991. Action: To continue this item to the meeting of February 26, 1991. Motion Wiemans, second Midstokke. So ordered, noting the objections of Essertier and Mayor Sheldon. City Council Minutes 02-12-91 Page 7385 NAME ADDRESS CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF TUESDAY JULY 23, 1991 ITEM NUMBER ' COMMENTS k-1 f VJrJIrIC Vc*e,, C5 rl.. *kQ__ j SSU e-- , PCIJI-1°0 fn i 5 kcsurc: e\r\lyk. \r\ ckss 'LA-- n.c51), Qa(,1�5 1 S .-��-U n c� .�J c� (,v�(' �<- l ft In LJVL ,r6v Qr_i r--o-Ju i l (1 Orel )-)c) l. i Ls3(X.&e. IF YOU WISH TO EXPRESS AN OPINION ON ITEM 5, "VEHICLE PARKING ON UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY INCLUDING THE PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS", THAT AGREES WITH ONE OF THE STATEMENTS BELOW, PLEASE SIGN YOUR NAME (UNSIGNED PAPERS WILL NOT BE COUNTED) AND CHECK ONE OF THE SPACES. A) B) C) LEAVE THINGS ALONE; DON'T ENFORCE THE LAW VACATE PROPERTY TO ADJACENT OWNERS AND PUT N TAX ROLLS ESTABLISH ENCROACHMENT PROCEDURE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF TUESDAY JULY 23, 1991 NAME�� ADDRESS 35 t7 +N 5+ g ITEM NUMBER c5 COMMENTS Pk./.15e._ d ®.JD 414-* e ,may 14; C--10 /el e cr( jam ' lc it) _J q - --k Q S +-re_07- y/JD t. ro- -:SQ -'ii c ) $ I l s kj t y � v.^ R �t19 ij � 5c. vt AA e -t - IF YOU WISH TO EXPRESS AN OPINIIION ON ITEM 5, "VEHICLE PARKING ON UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY INCLUDING THE PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS", THAT AGREES WITH ONE OF THE STATEMENTS BELOW, PLEASE SIGN YOUR NAME (UNSIGNED PAPERS WILL NOT BE COUNTED) AND CHECK ONE OF THE SPACES. A) LEAVE THINGS ALONE; DON'T ENFORCE THE LAW B) VACATE PROPERTY TO ADJACENT OWNERS AND PUT ON AX ROLLS C) ESTABLISH ENCROACHMENT PROCEDURE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF TUESDAY JULY 23, 1991 NAME 1 C4VAlq ADDRESS Z I 1 i erv►�u -S ITEM NUMBER COMMENTS pt -L.6 -L.6' i , IF YOU WISH TO EXPRESS AN OPINION ON ITEM 5, "VEHICLE PARKING ON UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY INCLUDING THE PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS", THAT AGREES WITH ONE OF THE STATEMENTS BELOW, PLEASE SIGN YOUR NAME (UNSIGNED PAPERS WILL NOT BE COUNTED) AND CHECK ONE OF THE SPACES. LEAVE THINGS ALONE; DON'T ENFORCE THE LAW VACATE PROPERTY TO ADJACENT OWNERS AND PUT ON TAX ROLLS ESTABLISH ENCROACHMENT PROCEDURE NAME ADDRESS ITEM NUMBER COMMENTS CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF TUESDAY JULY 23, 1991 SMfk1 S&',ii'id gay Av-r IF YOU WISH TO EXPRESS AN OPINION ON ITEM 5, "VEHICLE PARKING ON UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY INCLUDING THE PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS", THAT AGREES WITH ONE OF THE STATEMENTS BELOW, PLEASE SIGN YOUR NAME (UNSIGNED PAPERS WILL NOT BE COUNTED), CHECK ONE OF THE SPACES AND RETURN TO CITY CLERK AT THE MEETING. A) LEAVE THINGS ALONE; DON'T ENFORCE THE LAW B) VACATE PROPERTY TO ADJACENT OWNERS AND PUT ON TAX ROLLS C) ESTABLISH ENCROACHMENT PROCEDURE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF TUESDAY JULY 23, 1991 NAME �. ki ► GK 6"12.G3o j'z✓ ADDRESS 2--o-' T -/G: 4'5772-.A /VJ ITEM NUMBER6-4 Vo W(?COMMENTS K � N�,— cstit� IF YOU WISH TO EXPRESS AN OPINION ON ITEM 5, " EHICLE PARKING ON UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY INCLUDING THE PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS", THAT AGREES WITH ONE OF THE STATEMENTS BELOW, PLEASE SIGN YOUR NAME (UNSIGNED PAPERS WILL -NOT BE COUNTED), CHECK ONE OF THE SPACES AND RETURN TO CITY CLERK AT THE MEETING. A) B) C) LEAVE THINGS ALONE; DON'T ENFORCE THE LAW VACATE PROPERTY TO.ADJACENT OWNERS AND PUT ON TAX ROLLS ESTABLISH ENCROACHMENT PROCEDURE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF TUESDAY JULY 23, 1991 NAME G'goIrGr Aos,64-y ADDRESS ,C112 G $ ; ITEM NUMBER COMMENTS J' .,, lapag/AgIt 441 Q ii4401444/ IF YOU WISH TO EXPRESS AN OPINION ON ITEM 5, "VEHICLE PARKING ON UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY INCLUDING THE PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS", THAT AGREES WITH ONE OF THE STATEMENTS BELOW, PLEASE SIGN YOUR NAME (UNSIGNED PAPERS WILL NOT BE COUNTED) AND CHECK ONE OF THE SPACES. A) LEAVE THINGS ALONE; DON'T ENFORCE THE LAW B) VACATE PROPERTY TO ADJACENT OWNERS AND PUT ON TAX ROLLS C) ESTABLISH ENCROACHMENT PROCEDURE NAME ITEM NUMBER CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF TUESDAY JULY 23, 1991 /Igez,wvx ADDRESSiffeicppoxce.4,6(L) COMMENTS -d(ze..) tLa/,47,6a4tzt), IF YOU WISH TO EX/ES76 AN OPINION ON ITEM 5, "VEHICLE PARKING ON UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY INCLUDING THE PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS", THAT AGREES WITH ONE OF THE STATEMENTS BELOW, PLEASE SIGN YOUR NAME (UNSIGNED PAPERS WILL NOT BE COUNTED), CHECK ONE OF THE SPACES AND RETURN TO CITY CLERK AT THE MEETING. A) LEAVE THINGS ALONE; DON'T ENFORCE THE LAW B) VACATE PROPERTY TO ADJACENT OWNERS AND PUT ON TAX ROLLS C) ESTABLISH ENCROACHMENT PROCEDURE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF TUESDAY JULY 23, 1991 oy NAME e)„z L/ /7 ti Eh/iQ ADDRESS /‹.73 h<er os-ct_ ITEM NUMBER COMMENTS 1 e iiieefC/ Cj/J 1217E2 p,o-- A-4 ? e IF YOU WISH TO EXPRESS AN OPINION ON ITEM 5, "VEHICLE PARKING ON UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY INCLUDING THE PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS", THAT AGREES WITH ONE OF THE STATEMENTS BELOW, PLEASE SIGN YOUR NAME (UNSIGNED PAPERS WILL NOT BE COUNTED) AND CHECK ONE OF THE SPACES. A) LEAVE THINGS ALONE; DON'T ENFORCE THE LAW B) VACATE PROPERTY TO ADJACENT OWNERS AND PUT ON TAX ROLLS C) ESTABLISH ENCROACHMENT PROCEDURE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF TUESDAY JULY 23, 1991 NAME Cat e,- r iv )17 Thi I1.J ADDRESS /5-75- ITEM 5/ ITEM NUMBER COMMENTS we i-eec( ev.er y .510,1 c e �L' o t IF YOU WISH TO EXPRESS AN OPINION ON ITEM 5, "VEHICLE PARKING ON UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY INCLUDING THE PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS", THAT AGREES WITH ONE OF THE STATEMENTS BELOW, PLEASE SIGN YOUR NAME (UNSIGNED PAPERS WILL NOT BE COUNTED), CHECK ONE OF THE SPACES AND RETURN TO CITY CLERK AT THE MEETING. A) LEAVE THINGS ALONE; DON'T ENFORCE THE LAW X B) VACATE PROPERTY TO ADJACENT OWNERS AND PUT ON TAX ROLLS C) ESTABLISH ENCROACHMENT PROCEDURE NAME CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL MEETCG OF TUESDAY JULY 23, 1991 d4-7/-et-Aa-fCID ADDRESS ITEM NUMBER COMMENTS IF YOU WISH TO EXPRESS AN OPINION ON ITEM 5, "VEHICLE PARKING ON UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY INCLUDING THE PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS", THAT AGREES WITH ONE OF THE STATEMENTS BELOW, PLEASE SIGN YOUR NAME (UNSIGNED PAPERS WILL NOT BE COUNTED) AND CHECK ONE OF THE SPACES. A) LEAVE THINGS ALONE; DON'T ENFORCE THE LAW B) VACATE PROPERTY TO ADJACENT OWNERS AND PUT ON TAX ROLLS C) STABLISH ENCROACHMENT PROCEDURE MENTION ED HERMOSA BEACH CITY RESIDENTS If you are in favor of asking the City Council to obtain an meriTim • ENIFIRON IMPACT REPORT to study the effect of RESIDENT RESTRICTED PARKING ON CITY RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENTS Please SIGN below... 1 . INS COLUMN FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY SIGNATURE AS REGISTERED ADDRESS AS REGISTERED PRINT YOUR NAME AS REGISTERED CRY IP 2 SIGNATURE AS REGISTERED ADDRESS AS REGISTERED PRINT YOUR NAME AS REGISTERED CRY ZP 3 SIGNATURE AS REGISTERED ADDRESS AS REGISTERED PRINT YOUR NAME AS REGISTERED CRY rif---- 4 SIGNATURE AS REGISTERED ADDRESS AS REGISTERED PRINT YOUR NAME AS REGISTERED CITY Tr 5 SIGNATURE AS REGISTERED ADDRESS AS REGISTERED PrONTVOWNxorAFICOMTLIT2r CRY PLEASE MAIL MAIL OR DELIVER THROUGH MAIL DROP BEFOREJULY 22, 1991 THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AFFECTING THIS ISSUE IS SCHEDULED FOR: TUESDAY, JULY 23, 1991 PLEASE HELP SUPPORT US to obtain a competent analysis of the PARKING problem and possible solutions. See next page. David T. Schumacher Ph.D. Real Estate Consultant 1134 Hermosa Avenue/Hermosa Beach, Callfomla 90254 July 15, 1991 TO: HERMOSA BEACH RESIDENTS Dear Residents: The Hermosa Beach City Council and Planning Commission have recently been holding hearings and are proposing to adopt regulations which will affect the use of CITY RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENTS FOR PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE PARKING. It has been estimated that there are 1,000 parking spaces affected within the Hermosa Beach City area California Coastal Commission zone, mandated by Proposition 20. This could affect an estimated 1,000 parking spaces now in use on City Right of Way Ease- ments, which are located between Valley Drive and the Pacific Ocean. We are circulating a petition amongst the Hermosa Beach residents and voters, asking the City Council to obtain AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. An Environmental Impact Report would address the impact on city residents of Hermosa Beach and how the quality of life would be affected if the Council adopts a proposal to restrict or eliminate automobile parking on CITY RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENTS, located in the Coastal Zone of the City of Hermosa Beach. We are insistent that the City Council study the ENTIRE parking issue and NOT FRAGMENT the area as they are now trying to do. Hermosa Beach residents and voters who are in favor of the City Council proposed action, as well as those opposed to the restrictions, should welcome An Environmental Impact Report as it will explain to all of us how restrictive parking will affect the com- munity and will give an insight as to how the parking problems will be solved. Sincerely, David T. Schumacher P.S. This issue is scheduled to be on the City Council AGENDA on TUESDAY, JULY 23, 1991. PLEASE BE THERE AND VOICE YOUR OPINION on this matter. See next page. TO: FROM: Michael J. Migan Attorney at Law RE: MICHAEL J. MIGAN ATTORNEY AT LAW 2700 NORTH MAIN STREET SUITE 800 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE (714) 667-8081 FAX (714) 547-1464 July 23, 1991 MEMORANDUM The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach The Parking Controversy This office represents Richard and Thelma Greenwald and Darrell Greenwald, owners of the properties located at 840 and 900 The Strand. It is our position that it would be inappropriate for the City Council to take any proposed action at the hearing tonight, for the following reasons: I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: The California Environmental Quality Act requires that an environmental impact report be prepared in any "project," which is defined as any activity directly undertaken by any public agency. An environmental impact report is required by any project that has a potential for resulting in physical damage to the environment, directly or indirectly. The purpose of the environmental impact report is to provide the public agencies and the public in general with detailed information of the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment. Case law has held that environmental impact reports are required for such projects as enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, issuing of zoning variances and conditional use permits, approval of tentative subdivision maps, approval of site development permits, and enactment and adoption of certain ordinances. 1 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 5 It is our contention that the displacement of even the minimal number of cars that will be affected (70 to 80), and most certainly the potential number of cars (200) will have some significant impact on the environment. The owners of these cars would be required to add to the ever-increasing number of cars that would have to look for available parking, which is scarce enough, resulting in additional air pollution and noise on the already overcrowded streets. Additionally, assuming that there will be 80 displaced cars, and that each car needs 20 feet to parallel park, this would require the availability of an additional 1,600 feet, or 1/3 of a mile. Eliminating these parking spaces would be the same as eliminating 1/3 mile of the parking spaces on Hermosa Avenue. It would be difficult to imagine how this would not significantly impact the environment. II. THE CITY MAY BE ESTOPPED FROM ELIMINATING THE PARKING SPACES: Current case law provides that a city may be prevented or estopped from asserting that a parcel is a public street, if certain special and extraordinary circumstances exist. The City Attorney's own case of City of Imperial Beach v. Algert, tends to support our position that the city of Hermosa Beach may be prevented or estopped from asserting that the subject properties are public right of ways. The court in City of Imperial Beach found that there were numerous factors which contributed to its determination that the city did not consider the property in question to be public property. We contend that in our case, there are likewise several significant factors which the court will weigh in determining that this city has never treated the subject properties as public right of ways: 1. The city has allowed the property owners to barricade the properties and prevent the general public from accessing them. 2. The city has never spent any money whatsoever in improving the properties for the benefit of the general public. 3. The city has never spent any money maintaining the properties, which it would otherwise do if it considered them public properties. 4. As far as we have presently ascertained, the property owners have been paying taxes on the properties as though they were their own properties. 5. Until recently, the city has not expressed any desire to consider the properties public properties, nor has it taken any affirmative action along these lines. 2 6. In all communications with the Public Works Department regarding improvement and maintenance of the properties, the Public Works has told the property owners that these are private properties. 7. The city has given various property owners specific instructions on how to deal with certain problems such as public parking on the properties by beachgoers, by advising them to put up "no parking" signs, and by ticketing the violators. This conduct is consistent with the city's belief that these are private properties. 8. The private property owners have incurred expenses necessary for improving the properties, without any interference and usually with the approval of the city of Hermosa Beach. 9. The city has apparently been aware that some property owners have rented some of the parking spaces and kept the proceeds. If the city believed that these were public properties, it would have requested or collected the rental fees. 10. The properties have appeared at all times to prospective purchasers and the public in general that these are private lots. 11. The time period over which all of the foregoing has continued has been at least 60 years, and some say up to 80 years, which is significantly longer than the time involved in the City of Imperial Beach v. Algert case, which was 12 years. III. IMPROPER NOTICE TO THE AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS: The notice of this proceeding indicates that if any of the property owners want to challenge the decision of the City Council in court, they would be limited to the issues raised at the hearing, or those set forth in written communications delivered before or at the hearing. The notice refers to Government Code Section 65009(b)(c), which establishes the foregoing limitations to challenging the City Council's decision. Section 65009 is contained in the Planning and Zoning Law of the Government Code, which starts with Section 65000. Accordingly, it is reasonable to assume from the content of the notice that this City Council is proceeding under the provisions of the Planning and Zoning Law. The notice refers to what the City Council will be doing as a "project." Section 65091 of the Planning and Zoning Law, pertaining to projects, is very specific in what it requires as far as notice to the affected property owners. Section 65091 requires that the notice of the hearing shall be mailed or delivered at least 10 days prior to the hearing to all owners of real property that are the subject of the hearing. This section applies if the affected property owners number 1,000 or less. 3 It would appear from the Planning Commission's June 15, 1991 memorandum to the Mayor and the City Council that they delivered 200 copies of the notice to certain properties. None of the notices were physically handed to any of my clients, nor were they mailed. My clients found one of the notices in front of 900 The Strand, and no notice was received for 840 The Strand. Although the city published the notice in accordance with Subsection 3 of Section 65091, the affected property owners are still entitled to delivery of the notices as provided in the statute, since they apparently number less than 1,000. Furthermore, because of the manner by which the notice was communicated, it is apparent that a number of the property owners, such as absentee owners, never actually received notice of this hearing. IV. AMBIGUITY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE: The notice states that the city will explore its options before enforcing the purported law which bans unauthorized parking in the parkway areas. Section 65094 of the Planning and Zoning Law expressly requires the general description, in text or by diagram, of the location of the real properties that are the subject of the hearing. It cannot be ascertained from the content of the public notice exactly which of the properties are the subject of this hearing. Are we talking only about the properties to the west of Beach Drive, or the properties on both sides of Beach Drive, and if the latter, how far east of Beach Drive? Do the properties include those to the east of Hermosa Avenue? As this Council is probably already aware, there are numerous other public rights of way that are used for parking, and it is not clear if those properties are also the subject of this hearing. V. SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PURPORTED AUTHORIZED PARKING CODE: If this hearing only pertains to the properties to the west of Beach Drive, and perhaps some of the properties immediately to the east of Beach Drive, it would seem that the purported unauthorized parking is being selectively enforced. It is improper for a governing body or police agency to attempt to enforce a law as to a certain group of people, and ignore that law as it applies to other individuals who are likewise breaking the law. It is our present understanding that there are a number of public rights of ways that are being used for parking, and if so, the individual who are parking should also be considered violators of the code which may be the subject of this hearing. 4 Additionally, it seems that only part of Article 5 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is now being enforced. Article 5 pertains to encroachment permits, and it is clear that perhaps a few hundred encroachment permits should have been obtained, but only 1 or 2 permits have actually been obtained pursuant to the terms of Article 5. However, only Section 29-38(2)(d), which is the parking ordinance, is being enforced. The city cannot selectively enforce the parking ordinance only, and ignore the other violators of the code as it pertains to encroachment permits. 5 Honorable Mayor and Members of July 15, 1991 Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 23, 1991 VEHICLE PARKING ON PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS Recommendation: It is recommended by the Planning Commission that for the study area of along Beach Drive, the City Council: 1. Allow the open space on the walk streets to be used by the Strand corner lots for private use. 2. Establish that a maximum distance of 30' from Beach Drive shall be allowed for parking. 3. Establish that 1/3 of the public right of way is to be landscaped. 4. Require that a permanent barrier is to be installed between the landscaping and the parking. 5. Require that direct access shall be only from Beach Drive. 6. Establish that parking is for automobile use only. 7. Require fence height within the public right of way to be limited to 36" maximum height. 8. Establish that no parking is to be allowed on the east side of Beach Drive. 9. Establish that private use is to be accomplished through either a vacation or a revocable encroachment permit. Staff Recommendation: It is recommended by staff that City Council, (1) consider the Planning Commission's recommendations for Beach Drive, and (2) refer back to the Planning Commission for the purpose of studying other streets and developing a consistent and uniform recommendation for all City streets. Background: This item was originally heard at the April 16, 1991, Planning commission meeting and was continued for additional information and for input from the public. At the meeting, staff provided the following information. 5 /0( Lt_ --.?, ,�� 1 7--..-3 -5 1. Background data 2. General Plan Review a. Open Space Element b. Circulation Element 3. Current City Code 4. Number of walk streets involved (26 total) 5. Number of private properties on the walk streets (568 total) 6. Number of locations where parking was occurring (51 total) 7. Items of Concern 8. The City of Manhattan Beach's experience 9. Six Alternatives A copy of the staff report is available in the City Clerk's office for review (17 pages). Also provided in the City Clerk's office for review are the letters received by the City on this item (19 total). In addition, a copy of the Planning Commission minutes for the meeting of April 16, 1991, is included in the information at the City Clerk's office (14 pages). Also available is a copy of the staff report and the Planning Commission minutes for the meeting of July 2, 1991, at the City Clerk's office for review (8 pages). Analysis: At the July 9, 1991 meeting City Council directed staff to notice all properties that could be directly affected by a potential ban of parking on parkways and hand -deliver notices to those properties. As well as Beach Drive, staff should notice properties affected on Monterey, Prospect, Fifth Street, etc. ' . The Public Works Department conducted a visual survey on Monterey, Manhattan, Prospect, Fifth, Third, and Eighth Streets and hand -delivered over 200 notices. The issue of vehicles parking on Beach Drive may be different than on the other noticed streets and it is recommended to study each area individually at the Planning Commission. Resp c tfullye submitte 1 V Antho Antich Director of Public Works fE"pm,/ ii C7 Leroy Staten Acting Director, General Services General Services pworks/CCSRVPWS Michael Schubach Planning Director See attached memo Charles S. Vose City Attorney Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager THOMAS W. STOEVER WILLIAM B. BARR CHARLES 5. VOSE CONNIE: COOKE SANDIFER ROGER W. SPRINGER EDWARD W. LEE HERIBERTO F. DIAZ JAMES DUFF MURPHY JANICE R. MIYAHIRA PAUL I. YOSHINAGA LAW OFFICES OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1000 SUNSET BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90012 (213) 250-3043 MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach TELECOPIER (213) 482-5336 FROM: eqarles S. Vose, City Attorney DATE: July 16, 1991 RE: Walk Streets - Encroachments and Public Right of Ways It is my understanding that on the next City Council meeting agenda, various issues will be discussed concerning the legal rights and obligations of the City and adjacent property owners relating to certain walk streets within the City of Hermosa Beach. Based upon my review of the applicable facts and law concerning this issue, in general, the following three options are available to the City Council concerning this matter: 1. Vacation of those portions of the walk streets which are unnecessary for present or prospective public use (the City may control the use of the vacated area through zoning regulation). 2. Retain the entire walk streets and grant temporary encroachment permits (control of use through terms of the permit). 3. Retain entire walk streets and remove all obstructions and private uses of any portion of the dedicated walk streets as a public nuisance. As part of the original subdivision map for the Hermosa Beach tract, in 1901, the Hermosa Beach Land and Water Company dedicated to the County of Los Angeles certain areas as "public thoroughfares." Upon the incorporation of the City of Hermosa Beach, these dedicated public thoroughfares were transferred to the benefit of the City. Since that date, a number of other walk streets have been dedicated, in general, on similar terms to the City of Hermosa Beach. OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE Memo re Walk Streets - Encroachments and Public Right of Ways July 16, 1991 Page 2. In 1923, an ordinance was adopted by the City Council establishing walk streets for 17 of the previously dedicated public thoroughfares. Since that time, there has been various amendments to the regulation of the walk streets and the applicable controls are set forth in the Municipal Code. It is critical to understand that by ordinance or resolution, the City Council cannot dispense with the original dedication of the areas as "public thoroughfares." The City Council may limit the manner of public use (prohibition of automobiles, horses, etc.). However, as long as the property is within the control of the City, it must be retained as a "public thoroughfare." As a general rule, the unlawful obstruction of a public highway or street is a nuisance and may be abated as such whether or not the obstruction is on the travelled portion so as actually to inhibit public use. The continuance of an obstruction cannot confer on the person maintaining it prescriptive rights, or rights by adverse possession, as against the public. Laura Vincent Company v. The City of Selma (1941) 43 Cal.App. 2d 473. Neither lapse of time nor consent of the abutting property owner has the effect of legalizing the public nuisance arising from an unlawful obstruction. Nerio v. Maestretti (1908) 154 Cal. 580. While the principle of estoppel and pais may, in extraordinary, unique circumstances, be invoked against the public, the basis of estoppel would probably not be found to be present in the current circumstances. See City of Imperial Beach v. Algert (1962) 200 Cal.App. 2d 48. If the City Council determines that those portions of the walk streets not presently being used are "unnecessary for present or prospective public use," then the areas should be vacated to the adjoining property owners. (Streets and Highways Code Section 8324) If the City Council determines that the street should be retained in its entirety for present or prospective public use, then no permanent encroachment can be allowed. Except where the use is temporary or the power has been delegated by the legislature, a municipality has no power to authorize the use of its streets for private purposes. Certain temporary obstruction of part of a street are recognized as lawful on the ground of necessity, both by custom and judicial sanction, when they are incidental to the use for which a street is primarily intended and do not unduly interfere with OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE Memo re Walk Streets - Encroachments and Public Right of Ways July 16, 1991 Page 3. the rights of the public. What is temporary and reasonable use of the streets for such purposes ordinarily is a question of fact to be determined exclusively by the legislative body. If it is determined that the adjacent property owners have, over a period of time, obtained a permanent encroachment on ethical or moral grounds, then the City Council must conclude that those portions of the public thoroughfares are unnecessary for present or prospective public use and, therefore, must vacate the property to the adjacent property owner. If there is to be a retention of the entire portion of the walk streets by the City Council, then any temporary obstruction of any portion of the walk street can only be done through a written encroachment permit issued by the City. Any authorization, whether by permit or constructive consent, to erect or maintain an obstruction in a public thoroughfare or street may be unilaterally revoked by the City and when it is revoked, further maintenance of the obstruction constitutes a public nuisance. It is my understanding that there are in excess of 500 properties that front on to walk streets. In considering a policy to be adopted, the City Council may restrict the type of uses to be allowed under an encroachment permit as well as the amount of landscaping, insurance and other requirements to be imposed. It is my understanding that an adjacent city have established an encroachment permit process which allows only certain types of uses and the payment of an annual fee sufficient to cover the administrative cost of the encroachment permit program. In addition, in order to guarantee that the encroachments are considered temporary in nature, they should be reviewed on a two to five year basis. CSV: ilf 2 don't like to look at our cars. Well, that's too bad. People all over the city, including us, look at cars. Why should they have the exclusive right citywide not to look at cars? Areeveryone else's cars supposed to be displaced just so they can gain a windfall on their property by inflicing misery on the rest of the city? This would not be fair if even one car had to be displaced because of a miniscule smattering of complaints. If they didn't like what they saw, no one forced them to move here. Maybe next week they won't like the music that people play on their radios when they walk by. Maybe they can have that banned too. It takes no creativity or brains to just enforce. Anybody can do that. It takes talent to be somebody who will act with the best interest of the city in mind. It is my belief that anyone who displaces autos into the pool of already inadequate street parking, does not have the best interest of the city in mind. Sincerely, Chuck and Gloria Walker 2040 Strand 372-6587 July 14, 1991 JUL Dear Councilman Essertier: I am writing to you with the request that you relate to this letter in the spirit of your highest consciousness. As someone who has voted for you, I am relying on you to to monitor your feelings and your mind -set, to keep within them your highest standard of ethics, consistent with your status and duty as councilman. These ethics confer an absolute willingness to lay aside prejudice and preconceived opinions. `'1 In this spirit, please consider the following situation: let's say that you had left a horse in my care. Over the years, I built a barn for it, groomed it, watered it, fed it, and used it, with your permission. One day, many years later, you returned. You challenged my right to use the horse. You told me that everyone in the town wanted to use the horse. I showed you that this would be an inappropriate overuse that would be abusive, and kill the horse. You said that there were not enough horses to go around, so in an effort to make everyone equal, you shot the horse. Thus the people who justifiably earned the right to use the horse lost what they had built their reliance on, and the town people gained nothing. A major difference between the analogy of the horse and Strand parking is that the above example describes a sad, simple no-win/no-win ending. The real-life story is much harsher, as it would end with a "Strand no-win/rest of the city punished," finale. In real life, you would force the Strand people who lost their parking to take the street parking from the people who now need and depend on it. We must be on our strictest guard against misinterpreting the parking problem as an elitist vs. proletariat stand-off. We are all in this together. Corner lot parking is not appropriate for public use. The whole intent of the city in building barriers in our tiny, narrow, 20' alley, is to discourage traffic. If corner lot property were available for public parking, you might as well rename our alley, Blood Alley. The competition for parking, and the congestion, would be so ruthless as to be vicious. I don't believe that anyone would want the death or injury of even one single person on his or her conscience, knowing that he or she could have prevented it. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 5 Since corner lot property is hazardous for public use, why not allow us to continue using it? There is abundant justification as to why Strand occupants have earned the right to continue parking where they always have. We have and are maintaining the property for the city. We have been permisssively allowed to do this for 60 years. We have invested considerable money in improvements, with city approval, in the form of permits for building walls, moving fire hydrants, etc. We have continually paid for, and are currently paying for,the use of this area with our consistent upkeep of the property. Since it is not realistic to use for public parking, we are not taking any parking away from anyone. If you are open to justification for keeping our parking, consider that Strand occupants are the only individuals in the city, who literally live without a street! We exist with only a sidewalk to the west, and an alley to the east, neither of which allows parking. The nearest street is two blocks away. When we do reach a street, the streets surround us with metered parking on all sides, enforced 24 hours a day! We do not have the luxury or equality of parking on both sides of a normal neighborhood street, or in driveways. Surely a situation as selective as this calls for a solution to balance this condition. Although our dilemma is unequalled anywhere in the city, I staunchly defend the rights of residents elsewhere in the city to retain their parking status, until such time as the issue is addressed equally, citywide. Planned surveys will disclose hundreds of additional properties, whose parking status may be challenged. Why should they be allowed to enjoy such rights longer than anyone else? How would you feel if the city or an (EIR) Environmental Impact Report ultimately decided that their parking should not be restriced, after you had prematurely denied parking to a large segment of the city, for a protracted period of time? Last Friday, the city distributed approximately 200 flyers to advise selective residents that they may lose their parking. At an extremely conservative estimate of two cars per residence, a minimum of 400 cars would be driven into the streets. This excludes the hundreds of properties which will be added to this pool. Don't you wish that 400 more spaces were available when you are trying to park? Don't you wish there were 10 more? 3 Even the city acknowledges that we have been struggling with a 6000 parking space deficit for years. Additionally, our one -and -a -half square mile city is burdened with guesting over 100,000 visitors. In the face of this brutal reality, the removal of any reasonable parking spaces violates the city's most crushing need. Everybody knows that the single most pressing need of Hermosa Beach is for more street parking. In the heirarchy of needs, no priority, including esthetics, is more critical. Yet you could use this opportunity to correct and improve existing esthetics, without punishing the whole city, and without restrictingparking on the Strand. This could be achieved by mandating a 20' landscaped setback from the Strand,with no RV's or boats allowed on the property. This complies with the existing city code 1158D, which refers to a 20' setback in relation to parking. The code was carefully thought out, and provides a reasonable guideline for a 20' setback. A landscaped 20' setback from the Strand wall would provide a visually pleasing and uniform appearance the entire length of the Strand, and ' would conform to the existing code. There is no point in limiting the number of cars behind the 20' setback because cars behind the first one would not be visible from the Strand. Existing three-foot walls cover the cars from the walk street side. You are in a position to be remembered as a wise,reasonable, and temperate legislator by negotiating the above compromise. I hope that you won't chose to be remembered as the man who shot the horse. Sincerely, (?, Chuck & Glory Walker 2040 Strand Hermosa Beach 372-6587 July 17, 1991 Dear Councilwoman Midstokke: I read a letter that I was writing to a council member to my daughter, and a shadow crossed her face. "What's the matter?" I asked. She said, "Your letters are not going to work because they (council members) don't really understand the urgency of this. You should tell them about grandma." So, on behalf of my daughter, grandma is 78 years old, and stands 4'11" tall. She weighs 90 pounds, and is handicapped with polio. She is still courageous enough to drive, but there is no way that she could survive competing for parking space two streets away. It would be impossible for her to pick her way to the house from a distance of eight blocks, if you force her into the street. With one leg stiff, and six inches shorter than the other, each step is treacherous. Gravity betrays her, and makes every step capricious, in a way that we cannot even imagine. This is a personal example, but she is a person. Your decision will effect every person in real life. The essence of this whole situation boils down to real people, and how your vote will effect their moment to moment lives forever. Aside from our personal experience, if residents are injured or killed as a result of the city having denied them parking, the issue of city liability could arise. Just last week, two police officers shuddered as they recounted how they had to deal with 30 gang members, who were roving the Hermosa Beach Strand. In another instance, a woman who was a nurse, and the mother of two small children, was stabbed to death in broad daylight, right in front of her home, a few houses south of us. If I had a crystal ball, we could go on a journey of "summers future," like Scrooge's odyssey into "Christmas future." We would then experience the full force of your decision of today on each personal life. We would see the city field employees noticing each property on July 12, 1991, and on subsequent days for the hundreds of properties yet to be noticed. We would see a wave that begins on the Strand, and ripples eastward, to impact every resident who already struggles for street parking. Our 100,000 yearly visitors, as well as residents, will find it exponentially more difficult to park and shop in Hermosa Beach, than it is now. They are already straining under a 6000 parking space deficit. This will further discourage patronage of small shop owners. Our mile -and -a -half city cannot absorb the burden of any more cars forced into the street for no good reason. The public SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 2 will never be able to park where we are because our alley is too small to be safe for massive public traffic. As for residents throughout the city, their parking is not hurting anyone. Isolated cases of flagrant parking violations can logically be addressed at the appropriate level of government, with tickets or fines. City residents will love them much more for not taking away their street parking, than they will ever hate them for merely staying where they have always parked. The morale and the sentiment of the city are powerful issues to be reckoned with. Hermosa Beach boasts one of the widest beaches in the world. Our walk streets are so spacious, that there is still plenty of room, even on the most crowded Fourth of July holiday. Adding strips of car -less spaces here and there, at the expense of hurting every person who needs every available parking space on the streets, will in no way provide a magnificent vista. But it will inflict unnecessary punishment on everyone equally, citywide. We must respect and respond to our most important priority: parking space! The cars are not going to go away. If they are displaced from their present spaces, where they are not depriving anyone of parking, they will be pushed into the streets, where they will deprive others. The public works department methodically determined that 200 cars on the Strand side of Beach Drive alone, would be displaced. Add another 400 cars from the 200 notices that were just distributed (estimating very con- servatively two cars per residence) and now the displaced cars number 600. Next, add hundreds or a thousand more that will be noticed in the future, and double that figure, if you permit this to go on. You can see that at least 600 cars will be immediately impacted. This figure does not reflect additional cars, such as visitors or workers, that park at the property. The number that is being bandied about, of only displacing 78 cars, was never the official findings of the public works department. One individual from planning went cruising down the Strand one day on his bike, and attempted to make an informal count in his head. It is absolutely improper and inaccurate to favor this figure over the true figure of 200, which was the result of an extensive study. There is no evidence to refute the findings of 200, which were based on studies conducted at various times. 3 Stuffing cars into the street will intensify traffic density, which will create hazardous conditions for bicycle riders, especially with more cars trying to manuver in and out of parking spaces. The likelihood of all kinds of accidents will increase. More cars moving in and out of parking spaces will also slow traffic. Pipedreams about solving our citywide parking problems by emptying garages, is either wishful thinking, or self- serving wishful thinking as an excuse for the false justification of taking our parking away. Many houses only have a one car garage. Many other garages on Beach Drive, can only accommodate one car because the narrowness and angle of the alley impedes ingress and egress to the garage. Also, most beach garages do not accommodate the larger vehicles of today. I ask the record to show that I am formally requesting an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and a full investigation from the Coastal Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA's authority extends 1000' feet from the coastline. That would include property all'the way up to Monterey. This request is being made in the event that you ban or restrict our parking. I am hoping that this will not be necessary. I am asking you to vote to preserve our parking on behalf of the majority of the people citywide, and in the interests of sanity and justice. Sincerely, Chuck & Gioria' Walker 2040 Strand 372-6587 July 16, 1991 jt!' Dear Councilman Weimans: We We were very pleased when you came into office on the issue of property rights. We felt that you would be able to treasure and protect the singualr uniqueness of our beautiful, little city. Since our city is unlike any other beach town, including our sister city of Manhattan Beach, we ask that you look within our city for solutions, rather than at Manhattan Beach. Attempting to overlay policies adopted by anyone else, is like trying to wear someone else's shoes; they will never fit right or be comfortable. Like lots of sisters, Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach are not alike in many ways. There may be a general family resemblance, but we are very different. Comparing our parking situation with Manhattan Beach is like comparing apples and oranges. Here's why: 1. Beach Drive in Manhattan Beach is 10 feet wider than Beach Drive in Hermosa Beach. This makes Beach Drive in Manhattan Beach more like a street (30') compared to our tiny 20' alley. 2. For the above reason, Manhattan was able to allocate 50 parking spaces on Beach Drive, which is impossible for us here in Hermosa Beach. 3. It was no sacrifice to eliminate parking on corner lot properties in Manhattan Beach because their topography does not lend itself to parking. Their corner lot properties are on hills, whereas ours are flat. 4. Manhattan Beach side yards (corner lot properties) are only 8' wide, compared to our 22 or 25 .feet wide corner lots in Hermosa Beach. Therefore Manhattan Beach could perhaps squeeze one car on an 8' slope. Corner lot properties in Hermosa Beach will never be safe for public use because of the congestion that would be caused in our narrow, 20' alley. This being the case, howgrateful will the rest of the city be to you for throwing us out in the streets to compete with them for parking spaces? Since our corner lots can accommodate so many more vehicles than Manhattan Beach corner lots, you would be proportionately driving more cars into a smaller city by doing that in Hermosa Beach. With the understanding born of your concern for property rights, we are all counting on you, and asking you to be there for us now, when we need you. Sincerely, Chuck & Glo Walker 2040 Strand 372-6587 SUPPLEMENTAL. INFORMATION "1.!,\ Public Works Department City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Sirs: July 15, 1991 JUL 7 1991 This letter is to address the "Parkway Parking" issue of which I have already written a letter to the city authorities, dated April 30, 1991 and to which I received an acknowledgement of that letter from the city dated May 2, 1991. To my surprise my letter was not part of the Public Works study or file as other letters were and I question whether other letters against banning the parking were also not included thus diluting the findings of the staff and possibly slanting the public sentiment. I find the contention of the City that parking in the "Parkway" is against the law to be absurd in view of the fact that many departments in the city, Public Works included, have never once in writing or verbally stated that this parking was illegal over the past 29 years for which I have been a property owner with this issue. The following events have occured with never once having any department of the City tell me parking was illegal in the "Parkway": 1. Parking Enforcement and the Police Department have very effectively responded to my calls to have unauthorized vehicles ticketed and never once have they told me my parking there was illegal. In fact, they have told me to place a sign stating this was private property subject to ticketing and towing of unauthorized vehicles according to H.B.M.C. 19-9. I would think that the Police Department would know the laws concerning parking. 2. I have called Public Works various times to have them remove the sand that accumulates/on this "Parkway" and I have been told point blank, this is private property and they do not clean private property. Thus I have spent vast sums of money cleaning, maintaining and building walls on this area and if this is City property I want to be compensated for these expenditures. 3. In 1988 I asked the Planning Commission for a variance to the 17' setback for garage doors,and at the Public -Hearing the Commission wanted to condition the variance with a ban on parking in this "Parkway". They did not at any time say that parking was illegal and against the law. This is part of the record and in writing: I declined the variance and they said in effect continue to park there. I feel that just these three examples indicate that it is not illegal to park in this "Parkway" and there is a question as SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 5 Re: Parking Ltr to Public Works dtd: July 15, 1991 Page 2 to the City's rights over this area at all.. This "Parkway" is an easement solely to widen the walkstreets and to make them drivestreets. The City has not exercised this right and thus I feel they have lost it and the City does not have the right to unilaterally change the rules of the game after 60 plus years of silence. If banning parking in this "Parkway" is to the greater advantage of the City, a gentler, kinder solution can be found. Perhaps the City could: A, Ban the parking effective when the property changes ownership. B. Ban the parking at the time major remodeling is done. Since we are only talking of a very few properties on the east side of Beach Drive this problem will take care of itself in an orderly manner in a short time and not create chaos for the present property owners or inflict greater chaos on the already chaotic parking situation on Hermosa Ave. and the rest of the sity. In light of the above, I stronkly hope all the Departments of the City will think very carefully about this issue and beware of possible litigation on this matter. Leave the parking the way it is. Sincerely, Alfred W. Salido 2212 Ronda Vista Dr. Los Angeles, CA 90027 July lo, 1y91 Public Works Department In Care of City Hall Hermosa Beach, California J. QUI: i 7 1981 c;ti's MGR. Subject: Hermosa Beach City Council Meeting on Tuesday, July 23, 1991 - Use of city -owned side yards adjacent to Beach Drive We have lived in Hermosa Beach for almost 50 years and in our present home (at 99 Hermosa Avenue) since we built it 39 years ago. We have our side yard bricked, fenced, and landscaped in accordance with City regulations and at considerable expense. After a scrutinizing bicycle ride along Beach Drive, we believe that the recommendations being proposed by the Planning Commission to the Council are unnecessarily drastic. The stated objective to ::eautify Hermosa Beach is very noble but we all must realize that this is a crowded community with a severe parking problem. We think that most of the side yards are nicely paved, fenced and landscaped -- looking g000 regardless of the cars parked in them. Of course, a few of the yards are eyesores along with their associated residences and cars. (Doing something about the latter would really improve the city's image:) We also disagree with the Planning Commission's opposition to parking boats and recreational vehicles. To us they seem a nice part of the "beach lifestyle" in this resort community in which we live and love. To summarize our position, we recommend retaining the "status quo" rather than adopting measures that would compound the already -awful street parking problem and open a real "can of worms" regarding the City's many public right-of-way problems'. Also, in regard to the liability for any accident taking place within the side yard, our insurance agent states that this area would be treated the same as the sidewalk adjacent to Hermosa Avenue. In this event, as we understand, our homeowners insurance would cover this whether the claim was against us or against the City. cc: Hermosa Beach City Council and oy N. Knox Lois M. Knox 99 Hermosa Avenue Hermosa Beach, Calif. Phone - 372-0327 SUPPLEMENTAL. INFORMATION 5 Bob 0. Blaine 17 Fifth St. Hermosa Beach, Calif. 90254 Rei: a..L J JUL 1 - 1991 C; VCR. W -era" rt4A) �, rad a -41144-f- ,-v /a -i -z&, c/ ge7ylet;i7- 1 jeeiA/ Ji.,,t67Zeii ,,,yi --"-- t'eze c`A46"7 la/il We.444-ve, (Ovi, , teer- Iffe 5/a, spa ,Gg/ / f Ai 74,6e, Z%‘a) &zjii (//J/iAl ,e,d,/d _,Ie./ v'e9 lice, iit' t , fi 4 j/2, zPredi '''' "li d'il'a .0& e/1-eet /'e keze caa A/id a -id Aeta-142 ‘77-v (a4,7 fil/( eAe*,t, tifr,/ ati-t2 ,4t/iiidi, "Aie Ix. iiio_ i 1 - a i ,a7kiivtd 7 .c-rea- ib- t.� pi,vi/"77e,i2 i,o-a-eteed „tv&ti-t_, a� AePP, ,aouy /8.)2 , uilG C�cc20,a� cm �w �,Qdi CG4 t/ Ow) SUPPLEMENTAL 5 INFORMATION Bob 0. Blaine 17 Fifth St. Hermosa Beach, Calif. 90254 e/-uviled _ p7e._ 2_ Pazde-i4 a4,td zite pdAdhv /11:32- //47 ,w744e gvi7 ,--e<4} fO,4I7 7 7 -�-u jx..01-1;,' , iota ‘.rj c?f"''j, 'IAA) X;21- /4tzi?.12 144' 1/1A/ di �'�� ii -c044-141° cze2 ,esu „! k 7 �� ,a /044 o�524/7 /�o. /a/ 6ef 61"/ 0,,,44-tv /i , t 4 A , r lw/,/ /`/I _ /IO 7r4v14- Olot) ma' ,o -e ,,iiige rvi/ 1714A j --6-,07/4/11w ,t49X39 _ �.na�-� �� ,4 al .2/col/ a6Z74:°4" 7 6i,e,n/ 211-1 ,x'4`7 June 24, 1991 To: Planning Commissioners City of Hermosa Beach Re: Vehicle Parking on Pedestrian Walk Streets RECE1 Ei) JUL 1 6 1991 CITY MGR. • I live on 13th Street- now, and grew up at- the corner of 23rd and Strand. I read the report dat-ed March 19, 1991, submitted by Lynn Terry, Deput-y City Engineer. I watched the Planning Commission Meetings on April 16 and June 4 about t -his matter. I read the article in t -he Easy Reader. And now I have some comments to make. 1) It seems as though this whole matter was brought about- because of sornecproblerns at 8th Street with someone renting out parking spaces in what they thought was t -heir "front yard", and with some inconsiderate parking/horn-honking/shouting early in the morning and late at night. Now this has escalat-ed to the point where everyone who is parking on t -he public right -cif -way, a practice which has been allowed for many decades, may lase that 'right'. 2) Iters 5 of the March 19 report- (Number of Locations Where Parking is Possible or Occurring) contains some incorrect information. The second paragraph talks about- properties west and east of Beach Drive and then states: "All of these properties have garages an a public access at the rear of t -he property". This is not correct-. At 22nd, 23rd and 24th Streets, at least, there are garages which face the public right-of-way (not Beach Drive). The only access to these garages is via the public right-of-way. 3) The March 19 report makes the assumption that the properties at each of the four corners from Beach Drive (southwest, northwest, northeast,. southeast) is owned by a single owner. This also is not true. At the southwest corner of Beach Drive and 23rd Street there are two separate properties, awned by two different owners. There may be other corners like t -his. Any proposed plan to limit parking west of Beach Drive to only the east -ern one-third of the right-of-way would be grossly unfair to the 'front' property owner, who would not be allowed any parking. 4) Parking is a problem in Hermosa, especially at and near the beach. Further back from t -he beach, there is street parking available for family members, relatives, friends, repairmen. At the beach, we have metered parking where it is often impossible to find an empty space. Taking away the right-of-way parking would create a great hardship, putting many more cars on the already overcrowded streets. Residents will grumble and buy a permit (or several), and hope to find a place to park. (I invite any of you that don't already have to deal wit -h t -his to try to find a parking place at a yellow meter, not once but every day -- SUPPLEMENTAL C� INFORMATION w how close can you get? how many times around the block did it take you?) But what about when the rest of the family comes to visit-? What about friends? Where can we park those extra cars? How often would you go visit someone if you could only park at a meter, and then you still had to walk a block or two? Or repairmen? Da we make them park blocks away and lug their equipment back and forth? Make no mistake, eliminat- ing or severely limiting parking on the right-of-way would create hardships for the property owners and create a greater demand for street parking. 5) Parking on the right--of-way has been allowed for many, many years. My family moved into our house at 23rd and Strand in 1956, 35 years ago. (My mother still lives there.) The family across from us has been there even longer. And we have all been parking on the right-of-way all this time, wit -h no complaints from the city or any problems wit -h public liability. 6) What about other areas in the city where the right-of-way is being used? It seems very unfair to single out the area along Beach Drive for special action. 7) As far as solutions go, I t-hink all sides of this issue would agree that at the very least parking on the right-of-way should not be rented ___r sold to others. And I t-hink that most i; volved would agree to not use the right-of-way as a storage area for unused trailers, boats, or cars. But beyond that, I don't think any further solution that limits parking will satisfy any property owners currently using the public right-of-way. This parking has been allowed for a long time. To take it away now would make t -he limited beach area parking situation worse than it already is. Vacating the right-of-way has the very real disad- vantage of raising property taxes (by increasing t -he size of the proper- ty). Charging for parking, or severely limiting the number of cars allowed to park, is unfair. You are taking away something that has been allowed for decades, without problems. 8) Why not leave things as they are, except for not allowing the parking spaces to be rented and possibly not allowing storage of veh- icles. I think this would satisfy the majority of the people involved. Sincerely, Jeanne M. English 30 - 13th S t , #E Hermosa Beach, CA 90:'54 July 15, 1991 JUL 1 1991 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City of Hermosa Beach Re: Vehicle parking on Pedestrian Walk Streets In 1956, we purchased the property at- 2240 Strand, which is a 1/2 lot located on the southwest corner of 23rd Street facing the Strand. We have used the parking on the right of way since 1956. I am a Senior- Citizen, 71 years old, and it would be a great hardship if the parking is now taken away. My family visitis mean a lot to me, especially on weekends and holidays, when parking on the streets is at a premium. Since I am only on a 1/2 lot, I hope you will allow me the same percentage of parking spaces you may agree on for the larger lots. Thank you. Sincerely, IVIVIVIA2L Donna English 2240 Strand Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 5 July 3, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 23, 1991 ADJUSTMENT TO PARK AND RECREATION IN -LIEU FEE Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution, establishing a Parks and Recreation In -Lieu Fee of $5,198.00. Background: Section 29.5-13 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, enacted pursuant to the authority granted by California Government Code Section 66477, establishes the requirements for parkland dedications and parks and recreation in -lieu fees for subdivision projects. Analysis: The size of the vast majority of Hermosa Beach subdivision projects (condominiums mostly) do not reasonably allow for parkland dedication. Section 29.5-13 allows for the payment of a fee for parks and recreation purposes in -lieu of providing dedicated parkland. The amount of parkland dedication or equivalent in -lieu fee is based on a dedication ratio of five (5) acres per one thousand (1,000) persons. Based on the last U.S. Census information, the average number of persons per dwelling unit in Hermosa, Beach is 1.989. Based on the most recent sale price for open space land (South School site), the value of open space land is twelve dollars ($12.00) per square foot. The formula for follows: 5 Acres per person. determining the in -lieu fee is therefore as thousand population = 217.8 square feet per 217.8 Square feet X 1.989 square foot = $5,198.45. persons per dwelling X $12.00 per The in -lieu parks and recreation fee should be $5,198.00 (rounded off for easier application) per dwelling unit (subdivisions). Currently the in -lieu parks and recreation fee in use is $4,290.00 per dwelling unit based on a previous open space land appraisal of $10.00 per square foot. - 1 - Assuming the current level of condominium development continues, the annual revenue increase will be approximately $27,000.00. This adjustment to the in -lieu fee to reflect current land values is consistent with the City Council stated goal of improving the financial picture of the city. Respectfully submitted, Oje. William Grove, Director Dept. of Building & Safety Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Director carole/ccsrfee CITY MANAGER COMMENT: The $12 per square foot value for open space is a compromise of the most recent appraisals of the South School property (4/89 McDade - $14.57; 10/89 Ryon - $10.05). Since it is the price actually being paid by the City for the latest open space purchase (South School), it is the most accurate and defensible value available. The seldom -used park and recreation tax also is being reviewed to determine how to adjust it legally. 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 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ESTABLISHING THE AMOUNT OF THE IN -LIEU PARKS AND RECREATION FEE AT $5,198 PER DWELLING PURSUANT TO SECTION 29.5-13 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE. WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on July 23, 1991, to receive and consider all evidence related to an increase in the Parks and Recreation In -lieu Fee; and WHEREAS, the City Council has established a procedure pursuant to California Government Code Section 66477 to provide for the payment of a parks and recreation fee in -lieu of providing parkland dedication for subdivision projects; and WHEREAS, said fee is based on the equivalent dedication of 5 acres of open space land per thousand population; and -- WHEREAS, the most recent available sale price for open space zoned land has established the value of said land at $12.00 per square foot. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. That the Parks and Recreation In -Lieu Fee, established pursuant to the provisions of Section 29.5-13 Hermosa Beach Municipal Code shall be $5,198.00 per dwelling unit. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on the day of 1991. PRESIDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY carole/resfee §x29.5-12 SUBDIVISION OF LAND § 29.5-13 Sec. 29:5-12. Fees. (a) Generally `Fees in all cases shall be sufficient to cover the city's costs in processing tentative -arid final maps as established by resolution. 3:1e - (b) (b) Tentative maps. _At"filing fee__of two hundred and twenty-five dollars. -($225.00) shall be^submitted by the applicant to. -cover costs of filing and examination of tentative maps. This fee shall be nonrefundableqOrd. No. N:S: 485, § 1, 4-16-74; Ord. No. N.S. 508, § 2, 8-26-75) Sec. 29.5-13. Parkland, park and recreation dedication and fees. (a) Authority. This section is enacted pursuant to the authority granted by California Government Code Section 66477. The pro- visions of this section shall not apply to any subdivisions ex- empted from dedication requirements by California Government Code Section 66477. (b) Requirements. As a condition of approval of a final tract map or parcel map for a residential subdivision, a subdivider shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, at the option of the city, as determined at the time of approval of the tentative map. Such land dedication, or in -lieu fee or combination thereof, shall be used for parkland, park and recreational purposes. The dedication of five (5) acres per one thousand (1,000) persons, or an in -lieu fee or a combination thereof, shall be imposed as condition of approval. (c) Standards: (1) Persons per household shall be based on the most recent available U.S. Census. (2) If a fee in lieu of dedication is required, the amount of such fee shall be based on the average estimated fair market value of land zoned for open space which would otherwise be required to be dedicate"Fair market value" shall be determined at the time of ling the final map, in accord- ance with one of the following: Supp. No. 9-86 342.43 § 29.5-13 HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE § 29.5-13 a. Fair market value shall be determined by an inde- pendent appraisal of open space zoned property in the city by a qualified real estate appraiser approved by the city; appraisal shall be at the subdivider's expense and may be accepted by the city council if found reasonable. b. The city may accept an appraisal of open space zoned property when the appraisal is less than one (1) year old. c. The city and the subdivider may agree as to the fair market value. (3) Where private open space for parkland, park and recrea- tional purposes, in excess of front setbacks and other open space zoning requirements, is provided in a proposed sub- division, and such space is to be privately owned and main- tained by the future residents of the subdivision, partial credit, not to exceed fifty (50) percent of the parkland re- quirement, may be given for such excess open space against the requirements of land dedication or payment of fees in lieu thereof, if the planning commission or city council finds that it is in the public interest to do so, subject to the following terms and conditions: a. The subdivider shall submit for review and approval by the city a plan for installation of private recreation facilities to be used in common by residents of the subdivision. b. The front setbacks and other open spaces required to be maintained by the zoning ordinance shall not be included in the private recreational facilities. c. The use of the private recreational facilities shall be restricted for parkland, park and recreational purposes by recorded covenant which shall run with the land in favor of the future owners of the property and which cannot be defeated or eliminated without the consent of the city or its successor. (d) Choice of land or fees: (1) The procedure for determining whether the subdivider is to dedicate land, pay a fee, or both, shall be as follows: Supp. No. 9-86 342.44 § 29.5-13 SUBDIVISION OF LAND § 29.5-13 a. At the time of filing a tentative map for approval, the owner of the property shall, as a part of such filing, indicate whether he desires to dedicate property for parkland, park and recreational purposes or whether he desires to pay a fee in lieu thereof. If he desires to dedicate land for such purpose, he shall designate the area thereof on the tentative map as submitted. b. At the time of the tentative map approval, the plan- ning commission or city council, if appealed, shall de- termine, as a part of their approval, whether to re- quire a dedication of land within or adjacent to the subdivision, payment of a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both. c. Where dedication is provided, it shall be accomplished in accordance with the provision of the Subdivision Map Act. Where fees are provided, they shall be depos- ited with the city prior to approval of the final map. (2) Determination by the planning commission or city council as to whether to accept a land dedication or to require payment of a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, shall be determined by consideration of the following: a. Open space and recreational element of the city's gen- eral plan; b. Topography, geology, access and location of land in the subdivision available for dedication; c. Size and shape of the subdivision of land available for dedication. (3) The determination of the planning commission or city coun- cil as to whether land shall be so dedicated, or whether a fee shall be charged, or a combination thereof, shall be final and conclusive; provided, however, that any land pro- posed to be dedicated shall be approved as acceptable by the city. In accordance with California Government Code Section 66477(g), only the payment of fees may be required in connection with subdivisions containing fifty (50) par- cels or less. (e) Limitation on use of land or fees. The land and/or fees received by the city pursuant to this section shall be used only for Supp. No. 9-86 342.45 § 29.5-14 HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE § 29.5-15 the purpose of providing parkland, park and recreational facili- ties to serve the subdivision for which received, and the location of the land and amount of fees shall bear a reasonable relation- ship to the requirements for and use of the parkland, park and recreational facilities by the future residents of the subdivision. Any fees collected under this section shall be committed within five (5) years after the payment of such fees or the issuance of building permits on one-half of the lots created by the subdivi- sion, whichever occurs later. (Ord. No. N.S. 485, § 1, 4-16-74; Ord. No. N.S. 495, § 2, 10-29-74; Ord. No. 86-836, § 1, 5-29-86) Sec. 29.5-14. Sewer facilities, use fees. ti (a) The construction of sewer facilities adequate to carry' the sewage from a proposed subdivision to the nearest trunk line shall be the sole responsibility of the subdivider. (b) The city shall not be required to accept sewage outflow beyond the capacity of existing sewer lines. (c) If in the `opinion of the street superintendent a proposed subdivision will exceed the capacity of existing sewer lines, the subdivider will be required to provide adequate facilities prior to approval of a final map. (d) Sewer use fees may be required in addition to construction of adequate sewer lines. (Ord. No. N.S. 485, § 1, 4-16-74) Sec. 29.5-15. Miscellaneous requirements. (a) Water service. The subdivider shall be responsible for obtaining adequate water service and shall present satisfac- tory assurance prior to'approval of the final map. - (b) Drainage. All surface drainage shall be conducted to an approved storm drain, gutter or absorbed on site. No surface waters shall flow across a sidewalk or street intersection unless specifically approved by the city engineer. - (c) Conveyance of portion of subdivision. Conveyances of any part of a subdivision shall not be made by lot or block • Supp. No. 9-86 /l 342.46 July 11, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 23, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING CONFIRMATION OF FY 91-92 STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT ASSESSMENT Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 91- , a resolution of the City of Hermosa Beach confirming the FY 91-92 street lighting district assessment and levying assessment for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1991. 2. Adopt the FY 91-92 estimated revenue for secured collections in the street lighting district in an amount not to exceed of $180,000. Background: On June 25, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-5461 which set 8:00 pm on July 23, 1991, as the time and date for a public hearing in order to accept public input on Street Lighting District No. 1991-1992. A notice for this public hearing is to be printed in the July 11, 1991, and July 18, 1991, editions of the Easy Reader. SA Associates, the City's Assessment Engineer, will be present at the July 23, 1991, meeting to answer questions about the assessment. Analysis: In keeping with the Council's desire to keep the taxes caused by our special districts as low as possible, the Council directed staff last year to amend the City's policy to reflect that the assessment and interest revenue be somewhat less than the cost of the district operations. Further, that this policy continue at least until the fund balance reduces back to the 1988 level ($1,089,118) Last year the City Council reduced the annual assessment to an amount not to exceed $180,000 for the street lighting district. Staff has used the same limit to assess the street lighting district for FY 1991-92. - 1 - y Adoption of the attached resolution provides approximately 50% of the funds necessary to continue the operation of the City's street lighting system. Last year, for assessment purposes, the frontage of the property was used at $ 0.98 per foot. The proposed assessment on an assessment unit for 1991-92 is $16.84. This unit is based on the actual (or equivalent for vacant and commercial properties) number of dwelling units that are on a property. The revised method of assessment used this year results in a reduction for all single family residential properties. See example below. Year Frontage of Lot Unit Assessment FY 90-91 25' FY 91-92 25' $24.50 $16.84 Alternatives: Another alternative available to City Council is: 1. Let the district lapse; thereby, causing an increased general fund obligation of $180,000. Respectfully Submitted, f orva - L3CAA— Homayoun Behboodi Concur: Lynn Terry Assistant Engineer Depu City Engineer Noted For Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Director of Finance An 'ony Antich Director of Pubic Works Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager Attachments: Estimate of Costs FY 91-92 Resolution No. 91- pworks/slph SA A SSOCIA TES June 24, 1991 Mr. Anthony Antich Director of Public Works City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-0214 Subject: 1991-1992 Street Lighting District and Crossing Guards Maintenance District Dear Tony: Submitted herewith are the Reports for the Street Lighting District and Crossing Guards Maintenance District for Fiscal Year 1991-1992. The following tables present a summary of the assessments for each District: Street Lighting District No. 1991-1992 Total No. Adjusted Total Rate Total of Parcels No. of Units per Unit Amount 6,477 10,683 $16.84 $179,901.72 Crossing Guards Maintenance District No. 1991-1992 Total No. of Parcels 6,477 Adjusted Total No. of Units 10,683 Rate Total per Unit Amount $ 5.05 $ 53,949.15 Total No. of Parcels has been adjusted to reflect multiple units on single ownerships and commercial units. 1130 W. Huntinaton Drive. Suite 12. Arcadia. CA 91007. 818 445-Rfi Sn FAX 2114 ddc-1 dR1 City of Hermosa Beach Maintenance Districts June 24, 1991 Page 2 A copy of the street Lighting District Map and the Crossing Guard Maintenance District map showing the boundaries of the Districts are available in the City Hall. If there are any questions relating to the information contained herein, or any interpretive service where we may be of assistance, we shall be pleased to respond to such requests at your convenience. The assistance and cooperation by the Public Works Department in the preparation of this report has been greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, Shahnawaz Ahmad, P.E. Principal SA:lkt HERMOSA BEACH STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1991-1992 FY 90-91 Actual July 1, 1990, Fund Balance $1,454,628 Estimated FY 90-91 Revenue * - Current year secured assessment - Prior year collections - Interest income 179,637 5,000 95,934 Estimated FY 90-91 Expenditure * - Operational Budget (-) 323,673 - Capital Improvement Budget (-) 22,000 Estimated June 30, 1991, Fund Balance $1,389,526 * Based on FY 90-91 estimate in 1990-1992 preliminary budget FY 91-92 Estimated July 1, 1991 Fund Balance $1,389,526 Estimated FY 91-92 Revenue - Current year secured assessment - Prior year collections - Interest Income Estimated FY 91-92 Expenditure 179,901 5,000 90,785 - Operational Budget (-) 332,349 - Capital Improvement Budget (-) 22,000 Estimated June 30, 1992 Fund Balance $1,310,863 pwadmin/hbcgs 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. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING MAP OF SAID DISTRICT, ASSESSMENTS AND LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 1991. HERMOSA BEACH STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1991-1992 WHEREAS, in the proceedings under the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" (commencing with Section 22500, Streets and Highways Code) the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-5441 ordering the Director of Public Works to prepare and file the report required by said Act for the proposed levy of an annual assessment for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1991, and pursuant thereto such report has been prepared and filed with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted its Resolution No. 91-5460 approving the report as filed pursuant to Resolution No. 91-5441 ordering said report; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted its Resolution of Intention No. 91-5461 declaring its intention to order certain street lighting fixtures and appurtenances to be installed, maintained and electric current to be furnished for lighting of said fixtures for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1991, and appointing a time and place for hearing protests relative thereto; and 1 WHEREAS, the hearing was duly held at the time and place 2 fixed therefor and all interested persons desiring to hear and be 3 heard, either orally or in writing, were afforded the opportunity 4 to hear and be heard on the report of the Director -of Public 5 Works, the Map of said District and Assessments contained therein 6 said report, or in any way relating to the report and the 7 proceedings. 8 9 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, 10 DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 11 SECTION 1. The City Council has considered all oral and 12 written protests made or filed by any interested persons, and - 13 except to the extent of any changes ordered by the City Council, 14 each and all protests are overruled and denied. 15 SECTION 2. The Assessment and Map of said District are 16 hereby confirmed. The adoption of this resolution constitutes 17 the levy of an assessment for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 18 1991, as referred to in the assessment. 19 SECTION 3. The City Clerk is directed to file a certified 20 copy of this Resolution, the Map of said District and Assessments 21 referred to herein with the County Auditor of the County of Los 22 Angeles. Thereupon, the County Auditor shall provide for the 23 collection of assessments at the time and in the manner provided 24 in the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972". 25 SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and 26 adoption of this Resolution; shall cause the same to be entered 27 in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and shall make 28 a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH LEGEND wAUCSTREE 7S , Ii DO OB Off 1 goo _D ITT ler] V. rte= a li ill 'l I II., 1= _ -To D C MAP OF STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1.991-1992 / o s.� "7- 3 - 9/ July 11, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 23, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING HERMOSA BEACH CROSSING GUARDS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1991-1992 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. adopt the attached ordinance which: a. confirms the report of the Director of Public Works dated June 24, 1991, prepared pursuant to Resolution No. 91-5440 of said Council and, b. orders certain Crossing Guard Maintenance Services to be furnished and maintained for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1991. 2. Adopt the FY 91-92 estimated revenue for secured collections in the Crossing Guard District in the amount of not to exceed $54,000. Background: The Crossing Guard Maintenance District was voted on at the Special Municipal Election of November 8, 1983. The measure passed by a 2-1 margin. On April 24, 1990, the City Council directed staff not to charge City administrative costs to the Crossing Guards Maintenance District. All administrative costs of the Crossing Guards Maintenance District are being subsidized from the general fund by $8,479 in FY 90-91 and by $9,109 in FY 91-92. This action was reflected in the FY 90-92 adopted budget. Staff has used the same assessment as last year, in the amount of $54,000, 'for the limit of the assessment in FY 1991-92. As required, the necessary steps have been taken for the preparation of the public hearing set on July 23, 1991, for the adoption of the City's Crossing Guard Maintenance District, as follows: 1. March 12, 1991 - City Council adopted Resolution No. 90-5440 ordering the report for the renewal of the district. 2. June 24, 1991 - The Director of Public Works filed with the City Clerk the report consisting of the assessment district map and the assessments. - 1 - 8 3. June 25, 1991 - The City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-5456, approving the report from the Director of Public Works. 4. June 25, 1991 - The City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-5457, (a resolution of intention) which set the date of the public hearing for July 23, 1991, at 8:00 pm, in order to accept public input on this matter. Analysis: The Government Code provides authority for this assessment. This adoption of the attached ordinance provides the funds necessary to sustain the City's Crossing Guard Maintenance District. Funds to operate and maintain the Crossing Guards are provided via an annual assessment. The proposed assessment on an assessment unit for FY 91-92 is $5.05. This unit is based on the actual (or equivalent for vacant and commercial properties) number of dwelling units that are on a property. Last year, multiple dwelling units on a single ownership of property were not counted. Year FY 90-91 FY 91-92 Number of Units Unit Assessment 6,477 10,683 $8.33 $5.05 Alternatives: Other alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council are: 1. Let the District lapse; thereby, increasing the General Fund obligation by approximately $54,000. Respectfully Submitted, ff .�3e���e• Homayd(in Behboodi Assistant Engineer Noted For Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Director of Finance Concur: Lnn Terry Dep ty City Engineer An •ny Ant Director of is Works ich Pu 1 V evin B. Nort craft City Manager Attachments: Estimate of Costs FY 91-92 Ordinance No. 91- pworks/cgph 2 CITY MANAGER COMMENT: This year's recommendation keeps the assessment underneath the $54,000 set by Council last year. However, this will cause the fund balance to increase. Since it already exceeds one year's estimated expenditures, I recommend the Council set a policy that future years' assessment be set so that the estimated fund balance at year-end does not exceed estimated annual expenses amount. This will assure adequate cash flow and reserve while avoiding build up of a large and unnecessary reserve fund. HERMOSA BEACH CROSSING GUARDS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1991-1992 FY 90-91 Actual July 1, 1990 Fund Balance $ 62,209 Estimated FY 90-91 Revenue* - Current Year Secured Assessment - Other Revenue - Interest Income Estimated FY 90-91 Expenditure * - Operational Budget Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 1991 * Based on FY 90-91 Estimate in FY 90-92 preliminary budget FY 91-92 Estimated Fund Balance July 1, 1991 - Assessment for FY 91-92 - Other Revenue - Interest INcome Estimated FY 91-92 Expenditure - Operational Budget Estimated June 30, 1992, Balance pwadmin/hbcgs 53,953 5,000 2,891 (-) 61,317 $ 62,736 $ 62,736 53,949 ' 5,000 2,205 (-)57,222 $ 66,668 SA ASSOCIATES June 24, 1991 Mr. Anthony Antich Director of Public Works City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-0214 Subject: 1991-1992 Street Lighting District and Crossing Guards Maintenance District Dear Tony: Submitted herewith are the Reports for the Street Lighting District and Crossing Guards Maintenance District for Fiscal Year 1991-1992. The following tables present a summary of the assessments for each District: Street Lighting District No. 1991-1992 Total No. Adjusted Total Rate Total of Parcels No. of Units per Unit Amount 6,477 10,683 $16.84 $179,901.72 Crossing Guards Maintenance District No. 1991-1992 Total No. of Parcels 6,477 Adjusted Total No. of Units 10,683 Rate Total per Unit Amount $ 5.05 $ 53,949.15 Total No. of Parcels has been adjusted to reflect multiple units on single ownerships and commercial units. 1inn W Hllntinninn nrivp Suite. 19 Arrariia rA Q1nn7 AIR AAr+_Ar.n CAV 010 AAC_1AQ1 City of Hermosa Beach Maintenance Districts June 24, 1991 Page 2 A copy of the street Lighting District Map and the Crossing Guard Maintenance District map showing the boundaries of the Districts are available in the City Hall. If there are any questions relating to the information contained herein, or any interpretive service where we may be of assistance, we shall be pleased to respond to such requests at your convenience. The assistance and cooperation by the Public Works Department in the preparation of this report has been greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, Shahnawaz Ahmad, P.E. Principal SA:lkt 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. 91 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATED JUNE 24, 1991, PREPARED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 91-5440 AND APPROVED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 91-5456 OF SAID COUNCIL, THE MAP AND ASSESSMENT CONTAINED IN SAID REPORT; ORDERING CERTAIN CROSSING GUARD MAINTENANCE SERVICES TO BE FURNISHED AND MAINTAINED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1991. HERMOSA BEACH CROSSING GUARD MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO 1991-1992 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, did in Resolution No. 91-5440 of said Council, pursuant to the provisions of the "Crossing Guard Maintenance District Act of 1974" (Chapter 3.5, Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4, Sections 55530 Through 55570, of the Government Code of the State of California), require the Director of Public Works of said City to make and file with the Clerk of the City Council a report in writing, presenting certain matters relating to the proposed Crossing Guard Maintenance District No. 1991-1992, as contemplated under the provisions of said Act; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public works, pursuant to the requirements of said City council as expressed in Resolution No. 91-5440 and did on the 24th day of June, 1991, file in the office of the City Clerk (who is ex -officio Clerk of the City Council) of said City, his report in writing responsive to the requirements of said Resolution No. 91-5440 and as contemplated under the provisions of said Act; and WHEREAS, the said City Council did in Resolution No. 91-5456 approve said report on the 25th day of June, 1991, in conformity with the provisions of said Act; and WHEREAS, said City council did thereafter and on said 25th 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 day of June, 1991, pass its Resolution of Intention No. 91-5457 declaring its intention to order certain Crossing Guard Maintenance Services for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1.991; and WHEREAS, said City Council did on said 25th day of June, 1991, in its Resolution No. 91-5457 fix and designate Tuesday, the-_23rd_day of July, .1991, at -the hour of 8:00 pm .of said day as the time for hearing protests in reference to the proposed maintenance and assessment, at the Council Chamber, in the City Hall, Civic Center, in the City of Hermosa Beach, California; and WHEREAS, at the time and place above stated for hearing protests in reference to the proposed maintenance and assessment, certain written and oral protests and objections were filed and presented, which said protests and objections were fully and regularly heard and considered by said Council; and WHEREAS, said City Council being fully advised does hereby proceed as follows: NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, FIND,DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That said Council does hereby deny all protests and objections and does hereby approve, confirm and adopt the said report of said Director of Public Works dated the 24th day of June 1991, and does hereby approve and confirm the assessment proposed for said proposed maintenance services as set forth and referred to in said report, which said report is now on file in the office of the City Clerk of said City, open to inspection, 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 hereby referred to and made a part thereof; and said City Council doeshereby also confirm and adopt the respective instruments therein contained and designated therein as MAP OF CROSSING GUARD MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1991-1992, and Estimate Assessment, all of which, on file as aforesaid, are hereby incorporated herein and made a part hereof. SECTION 2. That said Council does hereby order the said contemplated maintenance services to be furnished in accordance with the said map and assessment therefore, so adopted and approved, and does hereby order and determine that the fiscal year referred to in said Resolution of Intention No. 91-5457 is herebyfixed and established as the period commencing on the`1st day of July, 1991, and ending on the 30th day of June, 1992, both dates inclusive, as therein set forth; and said Council does hereby levy the said proposed assessment made to cover the costs and expenses of said maintenance services upon the land within the assessment district described in said Resolution of Intention No. 91-5457 and as fixed and determined by said report, dated June 24, 1991, and the proposed assessment, filed therewith, as aforesaid, in the office of the City Clerk of said City, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1991, and ending June 30, 1992, both dates inclusive. SECTION 3. That the City Council hereby orders and directs the City Treasurer to establish a special fund entitled, "Hermosa Beach Crossing Guard Maintenance District No. 1991-1992 Fund"; and who shall place into said Fund all payments of assessments received from the County Tax Collector and payment shall be made out from said special Fund only for the purposes provided for in 1 said Chapter 3.5, Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4, Sections 55530 through 2 55570, -of the Government Code of the State of California. 3 SECTION 4. That the City Clerk of said City is hereby 4 ordered to transmit, or cause to be transmitted, to the County 5 Auditor of Los Angeles County, State of California, as 6 contemplated under the provisions of the "Crossing Guard 7 Maintenance District Act of ..1974", --the Map and Assessment upon 8 which such -levy is -based, and the CountyTaxCollector of said 9 County (who is also the City Tax Collector for said City) is 10 ordered and directed to make collection of all assessments shown 11 required by law of and to be performed by the office, employee, 12 or person so designated. 13 SECTION 5. That prior to the expiration of fifteen days 14 after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this 15 ordinance to be published in the EASY READER, a weekly newspaper 16 of general circulation published and circulated in the City of 17 Hermosa Beach. 18 SECTION 6. That this ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) 19 II days after adoption. 20 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of July, 1991 21 22 PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa 23 Beach, California 24 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 25 -4 26 City Clerk City Attorney 27 pworks/cgord 28 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH LEGEND M WALK STREETS ►l A( af, DO [1161 ,n i Do 'LI 1 i ! 1/ ii/ 1110 nllin finagianDD I i ; i i it f I << III I; C MAP OF CROSSING GUARD MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1.991-92 6-t.( /—/o 57 - X3-,9 / July 16, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 23, 1991 Amendment of Transient Occupancy Ordinance Increasing Rate from 8% to 10% Recommendation. It is recommended that the City Council adopt Ordinance 91 - amending Chapter 30 "Taxation", of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to increase the transient occupancy tax from 8% to 10%. Background In addition to $400,000 in expenditure reductions, five revenue raising ideas were presented to the City Council on June 25, 1991. Four were approved for implementation or further consider- ation; one of those was an increase in the transient occupancy tax (TOT) or "bed tax" on hotels from 8% to 10%. The City Coun- cil directed staff to come back with the proposed increase. The 91-92 budget revisions approved June 25, 1991 assumed the in- crease and included an additional $35,000 in revenue for TOT. Analysis The TOT was changed in April 1986 from 6% to 8%. Attached is the survey of cities which was distributed on June 25, 1991 showing an average rate of 9.85% in the survey cities, with a range of 7% to 12.5%. The impact of the increase to the individual occupying the hotel room is minimal; an 8% tax on a $60.00 room is $4.80; a 10% tax is $6.00, or an additional $1.20 to the individual. The annual impact to the City is more significant. Based on 90/91 revenue, TOT revenue would increase by over $50,000. Avoidance is not likely to occur in response to the increased rate because individuals would probably not switch to hotels in another city just to avoid $1.20. Many hotels quote only the room rate, rather than the roomrate including tax so that the room rate quoted will remain the same even with an increased tax rate. The proposed effective date of the ordinance is October 1, 1991 which is the earliest date at the start of a quarterly reporting period. - 1 - 1 0 a • Notice of the hearing was published in the Easy Reader and let- ters were sent to all current hotel operators and the two developers with proposed hotel projects. Concur: evin B. North aft City Manager Viki Copeland Finance 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. 91 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 30, "TAXATION", ARTICLE III, SECTION 30.13. TAX IMPOSED, REGULATING TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAXATION. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Chapter 30, Article III, Section 30-13. Tax Imposed, of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code be and is hereby amended to read as follows: "For occupancy of any hotel or hospital as de- fined, each transient is subject to and shall pay a tax in the amount of ten percent (10%) of the rent of bill charged by the operator. Said tax constitutes a debt owed by the transient to the City which is extinguished only by payment to the operator of the hotel or hospital at the time the rent or bill is paid. If the rent or bill is paid in installments, a proportionate share of the tax shall be paid with each installment. The unpaid tax shall be due upon the transient's ceasing to occupy space in the hotel or hospital. If for any reason the tax due.is not paid to the operator of the hotel or hospital, the tax administrator may require that such tax shall be paid directly to the tax administrator." SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after the date of its adoption. SECTION 3. Said change in the tax rate, from eight percent (8%) to ten percent (10%), shall be imposed on October 1, 1991. 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 4. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days from the passage thereof, this ordinance shall be published at least once in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation, published, and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1991. PRESIDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL, AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,, CALIFORNIA APPROVEDnAS TO ORM: n di ATTEST: CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK 2 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM DATE: June 18,1991 TO: Viki Copeland, Finance Director FROM: Sharon Owings-, Account Clerk SUBJECT: Transient Occupancy Tax Rate Survey On June 18, 1991 a survey was conducted to find the percentage rate charged by nearby cities on the Transient Occupancy Tax. The results are as follows: City Percentage Rate Verified by Beverly Hills 11% Susan Diamond - Secretary to the Director of Finance Culver City 12% Mark Ambrozich- City Accountant El Segundo 8% Joan Garcia - Finance Services Manager Gardena 7% Jane Koetzner- Senior Account Clerk Hawthorne 8% Tim Brown - Director of Finance Manhattan Beach 8.5% Sherry Moreland - Business Office Manager Redondo Beach 10% Marni Ruhland- Accounting Manager Santa Monica 12% Sandy Prolx Fiscal Assistant III Torrance 9.5% Taylor Dulaney - Administrative Analyst Los Angeles 12.5% Wanda Coleman - Principal Clerk July 16, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 23, 1991 AN ORDINANCE TO IMPOSE A BUSINESS LICENSE TAX FOR COMMERCIAL LANDLORDS. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council waive further reading and introduce the attached ordinance. Background This ordinance was recommended by staff as a measure to increase revenue during the 1991-92 budget revision hearing held on June 25, 1991. A notice of hearing was published in the July 18, 1991 issue of the Easy Reader. Analysis A survey of the South Bay cities, indicates that nine (9) neighboring cities presently charge a business license fee for commercial property owners who lease that property to other business operators. Of those nine, three (3) are licensed based on gross receipts, three (3) are licensed based on the number of units/buildings they have, one (1) is licensed by the parcel, one (1) is licensed by the number of employees that are on site and one (1) is licensed based on the gross floor area of the building(s). The City of Torrance is presently licensing their commercial properties based on the gross floor area of the building(s) at a rate of .05 cents per square foot over 5,000 square feet. It is estimated that there are in excess of 450 parcels that will require the proposed business license. The proposed ordinance is intended to require a business license for those buildings that are not solely operated by the property owner. Any portion of a building in which a business is operated by the property owner will not be subject to this tax. iOh Staff is proposing a rate which would be bracketed based on the size of the building rented. This method appears equitable in that owners of large buildings receive more income from their rental and would therefor pay a larger tax. Bracketing should eliminate most disputes regarding building size. It is estimated that this tax will result in revenue of approximately $55,000.00. Note: For a typical 6,000 square foot building, the license would cost $1,128.00 in Manhattan Beach and $300.00 in Torrance, as opposed to $200.00 in Hermosa Beach. Gbh. (j ary Fehkens Business License Inspector CONCUR: 4 William Grove Director of Building & Safety evin B. Northc City Manager Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Director 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 89 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 17 (LICENSE AND PERMITS) TO ADD "COMMERCIAL PROPERTY RENTAL" AS IT RELATES TO BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section 17-19(b) TAXES be amended to add Classification"A", Group 14 to read as follows: "Any person owning a property which is leased or rented for commercial purposes within the City of Hermosa Beach, shall be subject to a tax based on the gross floor area of the building(s) on said property in accordance with the following schedule: 1 - 5,000 square feet = $100.00 5,001 - 10,000 square feet = $200.00 10,001 - 15,000 square feet = $300.00 15,001 - 20,000 square feet = $400.00 20,001 - 25,000 square feet = $500.00 25,001 - 30,000 square feet = $600.00 30,001 - 35,000 square feet = $700.00 For every increment of 5,000 square feet over 35,000 square feet, and additional 100.00 shall be applied. 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 That portion of a building that houses a business which is operated by the property owner shall be exempt from this tax. Section 2. Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 19-19.3 shall be amended to include Group 14 in the list of fees that are to be annually adjusted to reflect the current cost of living increase. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. Section 4. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City CLerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage an 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 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 of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ATTEST: day of , 1991 PRESIDENT of the City Council, and Mayor of the City of Hermosa Beach, California CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: (KIAL— "!/%0.49' CITY ATTORNEY COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TAX SURVEY MUNICIPALITY TAX RATE Carson Minimum of $87.50 (including up to five employees), and 17.50 per employee over five Hawthorne None Lawndale Lomita Lakewood Manhattan Beach Redondo Beach Santa Monica Flat fee of $114.00 for each building Based on gross receipts, $0 - $16,000 (35.00) 16,000 - 30,000 (45.00), continuing thru to 100,000. anything over 100,000. is .25 per 1,000. over. Four or more suites ($33.00), each additional unit 3.50. $90.40 for first 10,000. gross receipts, and 1.16 for each additional 1,000. --OR-- 0.188 per square foot of building area in excess of 5,000 square feet.* $19.00 for first unit, 7.25 each additional unit. $75.00 for each property. r Culver City Based on gross receipts, $1.00 for each $1,000. gross receipts for all properties combined. Torrance Any building over 5,000 square feet in gross floor area is taxed at a rate of .05 cents per square foot. All increases are based on the Producers Price Index. * This tax is reduced by on third (1/3) of the amount of sales tax credited to the City derived from taxable sales of tenants for the previous calendar year. Ad---,?toe-4 9i— 5Y75 -/ July 10, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 23, 1991 RECOMMENDATION THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE REPEALING OF RESOLUTION NO. 83-4611, AND APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 91 - INCREASING THE RATE FOR ALL DAY PARKING IN THE CITY OWNED PARKING LOT "p", LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF BEACH DRIVE AND 15TH STREET. Recommendation: To repeal resolution number 83-4611 and approve resolution number 91- increasing the rates for all day parking in Lot "F" located at the corner of Beach and 15th Street, from $4.00 to $7.00. Staff is recommending that the City Council approve increasing the rate from $4.00 to $7.00 for all day parking in Lot "F". Background: On June 25, 1991 the '91-'92 budget was presented to Council and within that budget was a request to increase the current rate for parking in Lot "F". The fiscal projected impact is approximately $6,000, and the Council approved further consideration. This lot is City owned and provides parking from 9 A.M. to 2 A.M. for $4.00. This lot is located one half block from the ocean and the last rate increase was in 1983. Analysis: Increasing the rate to $7.00 will still be less than the rate charged elsewhere at parking lots in the City. Lots where the operation and maintenance is under contract, the rate is $12.00 for all day parking. The increase is competitive with the rates charged in neighboring cities. 1. The City of Manhattan Beach has proposed a $5.00 summer and $4.00 winter rate for all day parking in their County owned lot in El Porto. The remainder of their lots near the beach are metered and cost for parking during the same time period, 9am 2am, would total $12.75. 2. The City of Redondo Beach has lots that are metered and they charge $.50 each hour with no maximum. In the lots where they contract out the operation and maintenance, the rate is $13.00 for all day parking. The Planning Department has reviewed the City's Certified Land Use Plan, and find no conflict in adjusting this rate by City Council action. 1 0 c Alternatives: 1. Maintain the current rate of $4.00 for all day parking. 2. Select a rate different than what staff is recommending. Respectfully submitted, enry L Staten Acting Director Gene al Services Department CONCUR: evin B. Northcr4ft, City Manager NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: Viki Copeland, Director Finance Department 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. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING RESOLUTION NUMBER 83-4611, AND INCREASING THE RATE FOR ALL DAY PARKING AT THE CITY OWNED PARKING LOT "F", LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF BEACH DRIVE AND 15TH STREET WHEREAS, it has been determined that the parking rate for all day parking at City owned Parking Lot "F" has not been increased since 1983 and the cost associated with the repair and maintenance has increased; and even though the rate being proposed is not as high as other rates currently being charged elsewhere within the City boundaries, the following amendment may best serve the interest of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That resolution number 83-4611 adopted June 28, 1983 is repealed in its entirety. SECTION 2. That the rate for all day parking at City owned Parking Lot "F" be increased from Four Dollars ($4.00) to Seven Dollars ($7.00) for all day parking, effective immediately. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of July, 1991. President of the City Council, and Mayor of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 KLULUI"LUIN LVO. bi-4b11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING RESOLUTION NUMBER 82-4555, INCREASING THE RATE FOR ALL DAY PARKING AT CITY OWNED PARKING LOT "F", LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF BEACH DRIVE AND FIFTEENTH STREET WHEREAS, it has been determined that the parking rate for all -day parking at City-woned Parking Lot "F" has not been amended to reflect those costs being charged at parking lots elsewhere in the City; and in order to have consistency throughout parking lots within the City boundaries, the following amendment may best serve the interest of the City NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That resolution number'82-4555 adopted 9-14,82 is repealed in its entirety. SECTION 2. That the rate for all -day parking at City - owned Parking Lot "F" be increased from Three Dollars ($3.00) to Four Dollars ($4.00) for all -day parking, effective immed- iately. ATTEST: PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 28 day of June, 1983. �-- Azi (MAYOR PRO -TEMP PRESIDENT ,b f the ity Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: cl CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY Honorable Mayor and Members of June 24, 1983 City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council June 28, 1983 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING RESOLUTION NUMBER 82-4555, INCREASING THE RATE FOR ALL DAY PARKING AT CITY OWNED PARKING LOT "F", LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF BEACH DRIVE AND FIFTEENTH STREET RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that your Honorable body adopt the attached resolution increasing the fee on Lot "F", for all day parking, from $3.00 to $4.00. BACKGROUND: This lot is City owned and currently provides all day parking from 9 A.M. to 2 A.M. for $3.00. The lot is located at the corner of 15th Street and Beach Drive, one half block from the ocean. The last rate increase was in September of 1982. ANAYLSIS: Increasing the fee to $4.00 would be more consistant with the rates being charged at parking lots elsewhere in the City, with all day parking fees charged by our neighboring Cities. Join Noon General Services Director Concur: Gre•or- T. Meyer Ci'y Manager 4L July 18, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of Special Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 23, 1991 CONSIDERATION OF SALES TAX RECOVERY FOR FIESTA DE LAS ARTES RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council direct staff, with assistance from the City Treasurer, to work with the Chamber of Commerce on implementation of a process which encourages point of sale tax reporting by Fiesta participants in lieu of considering a permit fee. BACKGROUND At the brainstorming session of 5/29/91, one of the revenue enhancement ideas was implementation of a business license or gross receipts fee for the Fiestas. At the City Council meeting of 6/25/91, the City Council scheduled a special permit fee for discussion at the joint meeting with the Chamber of Commerce on 7/18/91. Both permit fees and sales tax recovery were discussed. ANALYSIS Sales tax on items sold in the City of Hermosa Beach is supposed to be reported as such by vendors transacting business in the City. According to the City's sales tax auditor and the District Manager of the State Board of Equalization (SBOE, the collection agency for sales tax), it is likely that many vendors, particularly those who move from event to event among many cities, report all sales as transacted from one location. Since the majority of vendors at the Fiesta are not located in Hermosa Beach, the City is probably receiving little sales tax from Fiesta participants. Staff recommends that the Chamber develop a process, with SBOE and City assistance, to encourage vendors voluntarily to identify sales transacted in Hermosa Beach on their quarterly tax return. The District Manager for the SBOE will assist in developing a handout reporting form that can be used when vendors register for the Fiesta. The handout could include a letter from the City requesting the vendor's cooperation, the form to be used and a seller's permit which is required by the SBOE. If the City chooses to pursue this handout, the SBOE District Manager will ensure that those responsible for collection of sales tax for Hermosa Beach are aware of the form so that the tax will be allocated correctly. Developing the process will not require extensive staff time and will encourage voluntary compliance. We can request monitoring by the Board of Equalization, however this approach emphasizes enforcement rather than a cooperative spirit. - 1 - 1 0 d Based on the income received by the Chamber for the 10% commission on participant sales, the annual sales tax to the City would be $8,000. This amount does not allow, however, for any businesses that are currently reporting Fiesta sales in Hermosa Beach since that information is not available. Implementation of this process is consistent with City Council Goal #1, Objective #3, which is to improve the financial picture of the city by increasing sales tax revenue. The process will encourage voluntary compliance by vendors and provide additional revenue to the City without burdening the Chamber or participants with additional fees. Concur: Kevin $. Nort City Manager Respectfully submitted, Mary Rtfoney, Director of Community Resources a(4:041/24a.A.A) Viki Copeland Finance Director 2 7—.02-3 -9/ July 16, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of July 23, 1991 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF HEALTH INSURANCE BROKER Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Approve Maniaci Insurance Services, Inc. as the City's Broker of Record for placement of the City's various Health Insurance plans for a three year period. Alternative Recommendations: 1. Appoint a Council Sub -Committee to interview the two top firms (Maniaci Ins. Services & PGA Insurance Services) who submitted proposals; or 2. Appoint PGA Insurance Services as the City's Broker of Record. Background: At the November 27, 1990 meeting, the City Council directed staff to prepare a comprehensive RFP to be distributed to qualified health insurance brokers. On March 26, 1991, the Council approved a "Request for Proposals" to be distributed. On March 27, 1991, RFP's were forwarded to the following firms: 1. Cobo Insurance Services 2. PGA Insurance Services 3. Western Group Agencies, Inc. 4. J. Bichlmeier Insurance Agency 5. Maniaci Insurance Services, Inc. 6. Heller Associates 7. Gil Grosslight & Co. 8. Cal-Surance Plan Benefits, Inc. 9. Robert French Company 10. William M. Mercer, Inc. In addition to sending the RFP to identified firms, a notice inviting bids was run in the Easy Reader on April 4, 1991. Sealed Proposals were received in the City Clerk's office and publicly opened on May 23, 1991. Of the ten (10) firms which were delivered RFP's, the City received four (4) responses. - 1 - 11 Responding firms were:-. 1. Western Group Agencies, Inc. 2. PGA Insurance Services, Inc. 3. Maniaci Insurance Services, Inc. 4. J. Bichlmeier Insurance Agency On July 11, 1991, interviews were conducted with each of the firms who had presented proposals. The interview committee consisted of the City's Finance Director and Mr. Doug Gates, Personnel Director for the City of Hawthorne. Mr. Gates was selected as none of the firms who responded are associated with Hawthorne and he is knowledgable in the area of employee health insurance benefits. The City's Personnel Director coordinated and participated in the interviews but did not participate in the rating of the firms. Mr. Gates assisted the Personnel Director in reviewing each of the proposals and ranking the proposed coverages presented as alternatives to the City's current coverages. Analysis: Each of the firms proposals were evaluated for responsiveness to the criteria described in the RFP (RFP attached as Exhibit "A") by assigning a point ranking of 0-4 points (total possible points = 60). Following this ranking, the total points were tabulated with the following result: Firm Interview Coverage Total Maniaci Ins. 25 29 54 (3.60 avg) PGA Ins. 27 26 53 (3.53 avg) WGA 21 16 37 (2.47 avg) Bichlmeier Ins. 12 4 16 (1.07 avg) Exhibit "B" indicates the individual rankings of the firms proposals. Criteria used for ranking the "Competitiveness of Premium Structure" included (1) premium structure compared to current plan, and (2) comparability of benefit structure (i.e. co -payments, deductible; coverage limitations, etc.). When rating a firms proposal to "maintain current coverage", consideration was given to whether the firm represented that they had considered other options as opposed to not being able to solicit proposals or not researching the market. Comparability is significant as premium reductions can be obtained with changes in the benefit structure. Since the current benefit levels have been negotiated for by the City's Employee Groups, changes in benefit structure are subject to negotiations with those groups. While minor differences in benefit structure are normally acceptable to the Employee Groups, more major changes such as increases in co -payments have required negotiations prior to implementation. Of the four firms, only PGA Ins. Services, Inc. and Maniaci Ins. Services, Inc. provided a quotation for each of the City's current plans and a benefit comparsion for recommended plans which did not offer an "exact match" of the City's current plans (see exhibit "C"). Even though WGA and Bichlmeier Ins. Agency did not comply with this requirement in the RFP, they were interviewed. The attached Exhibit "D" provides a matrix of each of the firms submitted proposals for the various benefit plans. Changes in benefit structure either identified by the submitting broker, or gleaned from a review of the plan documents when not delineated, are indicated by footnote on each plan matrix. These changes were considered when ranking the individual coverage proposed. Discussion: Once selected, the Broker is responsible for marketing the City's health insurance package and keeping the City apprised of such things as changes in law affecting health benefits and options to current coverage. It is also the Broker's charge to review the insurance coverage contracts to insure that covered members are not "surprised" with some change in benefit structure when there -- is a change in providers. The Broker's services are also called upon during employee negotiations to assist City staff with explaining proposed changes in benefits to the employees. It was the interview committee's finding that both Maniaci Ins. Services and PGA Insurance Services demonstrated that they could well serve the City in the above capacity. Based on the evaluation of the proposals and past service provided by Maniaci Ins. Services, to both the City and employees, the recommendation is to maintain Maniaci Ins. Services, Inc. During the recent past insurance renewal, the City was able to reduce premium costs by negotiating with the employee groups changes to the benefit structure. Exploring "cost effective" alternatives to current coverages is a continuing process. At present, staff is evaluating participation in the medical insurance program offered through the Public Employees Retirement System (P.E.R.S.) and discussing benefit levels with the Union. Once the Broker is selected, meetings with an "insurance committee" consisting of representatives of the employee organizations, will be conducted to discuss proposed changes in insurance providers and policy provisions as presented in the proposals. Copies of submitted proposals are available in the Personnel Office for review. Respectfully submitted, f f(34446)ajet" Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director Concur: ;d*C4. Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager Viki Copeland Finance Director } CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR HEALTH INSURANCE BROKERAGE SERVICES The City of Hermosa Beach is seeking proposals from qualified Health Insurance Brokers for placement of the City's various em- ployee health insurance benefit programs. The City's existing benefit year commences December 1st of each year. Attached is a list of the City's current providers for employee benefits along with the current premium schedule which took effect December 1, 1990 and a breakdown of the number of employees enrolled in each plan. The City has 171 employees eligible for health insurance benefits with an additional ten (10) retired employees currently maintaining benefits. Benefit levels have been established through contract 'negotiations with the City's Recognized Employee Organizations. An outline of the City's current coverages is attached to this request for proposals as well as employee census data and exist- ing benefit booklets. Proposals must contain quotations for each of the coverages indicated and must include options based on the current level of benefit in order to provide a basis for compari- son. If a proposed insurance coverage plan does not provide an exact match with the current coverage level, all differences must be clearly described. All proposals must also include a response to each of the evaluation criteria listed below. Selection Process: Written proposals will be accepted by the City up until 2:00 p.m., May 23, 1991. Proposals MUST be submit- ted (in a sealed envelope clearly marked "Proposal for Health Insurance Brokerage Services") to the office of the City Clerk. ADDRESSED: City Clerk City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive, Room 201 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Three (3) copies of the proposal should be submitted which will be evaluated by a committee designated by .the City. Following an initial review of the proposals submitted, the committee will select those Brokers who appear to best meet the City's needs to be interviewed by a Broker Selection Committee. Evaluation of proposals will include the following criteria: 1. Competitiveness of premium structure for quoted insurance coverages. If possible, a quotation for --5 C zi-f CiT " 14" for rates to be effective both July 1, 1991 and December 1, 1991 should be provided. 2. Knowledge, experience, and demonstrated ability of the firm and its personnel in providing service to a public entity Proposals should include a list of clients with an individual indicated as primary contact. 3. The experience and qualifications of the personnel who will be assigned to the City. Include resumes of individuals to be assigned to the City's account. 4. Ability to provide the City with other services such as notice of changes in the laws impacting on Employee Benefits and providing information and/or assistance in developing self-insurance options and exploring P.E.R.S. medical insurance options. 5. The firms ability to provide service to the City and its employees in the resolution of employee 'complaints regarding provider service; billing/payment errors; and other conflicts which may arise with the provider. 6. The firms ability to conduct a thorough market review toward providing the City with the best available health care options. A listing of carriers approached for placement of the City's benefits should be included in the proposal 7. The firms philosophy regarding "due diligence" in investigating any proposed carrier's financial strength and commitment to providing health insurance benefits. An indication of any proposed insurance company's financial strength should be included in the proposal. 8. Assurance that the firm will provide evidence of professional liability insurance with a minimum limit of $1 million per occurrence, providing coverage for all errors and omissions, which the broker or his agents may make, resulting in a financial loss to the City. 9. The proposed method of compensation for providing brokerage services (i.e. commission, flat fee, hourly fee). Correspondence regarding the RFP: Any requests for additional information which may be required by a prospective Broker to receive a quotation from an insurance company should be submitted in writing. A written response will be provided which will be sent to all other Broker candidates. Information requests should be directed to: Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director 1315 Valley Dr. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Phone: (213) 318-0200 FAX (213) 372-6186 The City of Hermosa Beach reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and to waive any irregularities of information therein. No obligation, either expressed or implied, exists on the part of the City of Hermosa Beach to make an award or to pay any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of pro- posals. Costs incurred are the sole responsibility of the pro- poser. All proposals will become the property of the City of Hermosa Beach. Information within the proposals will become public property subject to the disclosure law. The City of Her- mosa Beach reserves the right to make use of any information or ideas contained in'the proposal. 7 HEALTH INSURANCE BROKER PROPOSALS RATING CRITERIA: A. COMPETITIVENESS OF PREMIUM STRUCTURE Indemnity Medical: PGA Maniaci WGA Bichlmeier HMO Medical: Indemnity Dental: Prepaid Dental: Vision: Psychological: Maniaci PGA WGA Bichlmeier Maniaci WGA PGA Bichlmeier Maniaci WGA PGA Bichlmeier PGA Maniaci WGA Bichlmeier WGA Maniaci PGA Bichlmeier Long Term Disabilty: Life Insurance: PGA Maniaci - 4 points - 3 points - 0 points (no quote) - 0 points (no quote) 4 points - 3 points - 2 points (did not address change in benefit) - 2 points (did not address in benefit) - 4 points - 4 points - 3 points - 0 points (no 4 3 2 1 (no points points points point comparison - 4 points - 4 points - 1 point (req. - 1 point quote) provided) city cont) - 4 points - 4 points - 3 points - 0 point (no quote) WGA - Bichlmeier- PGA Maniaci WGA Bichlmeier- 8 3 points 2 points O points (no quote) O points (no quote) 4 points 4 points 2 points O points (no quote) Em(eir 't 69 B. KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE, AND DEMONSTRATED ABILITY OF FIRM AND PERSONNEL IN PROVIDING SERVICE TO PUBLIC ENTITY: Committee Rating: WGA PGA Maniaci Bichlmeier - 4 points - 3 points - 2 points - 0 points C. EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS OF PERSONNEL TO BE ASSIGNED TO CITY: Committee Rating: PGA Maniaci WGA - Bichlmeier - 4 points 3 points 2 points 1 points D. ABILITY TO PROVIDE CITY WITH ADDITIONAL SERVICES (NOTICE OF CHANGE IN LAWS; ASSISTANCE IN DEVELOPING SELF INSURANCE OPTIONS; EXPLORING PERS MEDICAL OPTION) Committee Rating: PGA Maniaci WGA Bichlmeier - 4 points - 4 points - 4 points - 0 points E. FIRMS ABIITY TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO THE CITY AND EMPLOYEES IN RESOLUTION OF EMPLOYEE COMPLAINTS; BILLING ERRORS; OTHER CONFLICTS WITH PROVIDER Committee Rating: PGA Maniaci Bichlmeier WGA points points points point F. FIRMS ABILITY TO CONDUCT THOROUGH MARKET REVIEW AND A LISTING OF CARRIERS APPROACHED FOR PLACEMENT OF CITY'S BENEFITS Committee Rating: Maniaci PGA WGA Bichlmeier - 4 points - 4 points - 2 points - 1 point G. FIRMS PHILOSOPHY REGARDING "DUE DILIGENCE" IN INVESTIGATING PROPOSED CARRIERS FINANCIAL STRENGTH. Committee Rating: WGA PGA Maniaci Bichlmeier 9 - 4 points - 4 points - 4 points - 4 points H. EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE Committee Rating: WGA PGA - Maniaci Bichlmeier - - 4 points 4 points - 4 points 4 points I. PROPOSED METHOD OF COMPENSATION Committee Rating: WGA - PGA - Maniaci - Bichlmeier - Commission Commission Commission Commission HEALTH INSURANCE BROKER PROPOSALS PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS: A. QUOTATIONS FOR EACH COVERAGE: Responsiveness: WGA - no quote Indemnity Medical - no quote Long Term Disability Bichlmeier - no quote Indemnity Medical - no quote Indemnity Dental - no quote Psychological - no quote Long Term Disability - no quote Life Insurance PGA - Provided Maniaci - Provided B. COMPARISON OF ANY PROPOSED PLAN(S) TO CURRENT (CLEARLY DESCRIBED) Responsiveness: WGA rating/pc - not provided (exception Delta "5" prepaid dental) Bichlmeier - not provided PGA - provided Maniaci - provided Ex'i4I01j u C+ r July 17, 1991 r; v v Dear Councilman Creighton: At the last council meeting we attended, you felt that it was important to notify residents in the city equally that their parking may be taken away from them. We agree with you in this regard. But equality means nothing without fairness. True equality is being fair to everyone in the same classification or group. If you made a ruling for Strand residents, and then allowed exceptions within that group, that would be unequal. The only way you would be truly fair and equal now, is to allow everyone to keep their parking. Otherwise you are giving us equally, a gift of 100 percent of nothing. You know that on the Strand we are living without a street. That condition is certainly not equal anywhere else in the city. Chosing a decision that requires no work or analysis just because it is quick and easy, is not just. It requires no judgment or caring to simply say, "NO!" like an angry parent who projects, "I've already made up my mind --don't confuse me with facts." What needs to be brought out in the open is the feeling I get that you and other council members loathe us who live on the Strand. I feel that you have already made up your mind to take away our parking just so that we don't have it, even if it is bad for the city. I for one am sick of being treated like a criminal for parking on our corner lot. Parking has been allowed there with the city's permission for 60 years. Just to set the record straight, we are parking permissively, and not illegally. I would like to know how we got to be the enemy, and a caricature of some dark symbol or bias. Personal bias is an abuse of authority, and is not ethical. If you want to address the individuals who are looking for special treatment, examine the motives of the malcontents who bought their property knowing very well that well that everyone was parking on their corner lots. There is no ordinance that says it is against the law to park on a side yard. Now they want it to be a paradise, and increase their property value by getting rid of parking on the corner lots. They say they SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION BROKER CURRENT PLAN — BLUE SHIELD PPO $212.05 $465.86 $605.23 HEALTH INSURANCE PROPOSALS Indemnity Medical PROPOSED 1 PROPOSED 2 WGA (1) No Quote PGA Maniaci BLUE SHIELD PPO (2) $206.02 $452.52 $588.00 BLUE SHIELD PPO $212.05 $465.86 $605.23 Bichlmeier/AMS No Quote (Maintain Current) Notes: 1 No recommendation was made 2 Premium reduction assumes "carve -out" of inpatient treatment for chemical dependency - included as separate benefit at $9.35 or $7.80/member. matrix4 BROKER WGA PGA Maniaci CURRENT PLAN _ PACIFICARE $132.75 $264.20 $383.20 Bichlmeier/AMS HEALTH INSURANCE PROPOSALS HMO Medical PROPOSED 1 PROPOSED 2 Health Net $121.41 $242.84 $352.13 "C" (1) MaxiCare (2) $138.64 $275.92 $399.96 Blue Shield HMO (3) $133.79 $278.28 $412.07 Health Net"N" (4) Health Plan America (5) $125.77 $117.60 $251.54 $252.82 $364.13 $352.78 Health Net $121.41 $242.84 $352.13 (1) Notes: (1) Rates do not include "in-patient" substance abuse and reflects $5.00 office visit co -pay (current $3.00) (2) Rates reflect $2.00 office visit co -pay; no inpatient substance abuse. (3) No inpatient substance abuse; provided through separate plan (4) Rates include in-patient substance; $5.00 office visit co -pay (current $3.00) (5) Includes in-patient substance abuse; $5.00 office visit co -pay; Broker notes that plan is associated with Catholic Hospitals (some limitation on procedures allowed) matrix5 BROKER WGA CURRENT PLAN _ GUARDIAN $23.52 $59.84 PGA Maniaci Bichlmeier/AMS HEALTH INSURANCE PROPOSALS Indemnity Dental PROPOSED 1 CDHP (1) $18.59 $38.18 $57.13 Delta $25.28 $56.34 PROPOSED 2 PROPOSED 3 Delta Premier $25.45 $59.97 Western Life (2) Alternative Dental (3) $20.19 $18.64 $53.13 $53.68 No Quote (maintain current) Western Life (2) $21.19 $53.13 Notes; (1) No benefit structure provided; Broker indicates includes orthodontia benefit. (2) Requires 12 month wait for new -hires for major procedures. (3) Includes orthodontia benefit; also PPO with greater benefit matrix6 BROKER Emp. Emp. Emp. WGA (1) PGA Maniaci CURRENT PLAN _ Oral Health Only: $15.56 + 1 : $22.36 + 2 : $28.16 Bichlmeier/AMS (1) HEALTH INSURANCE PROPOSALS PREPAID DENTAL PROPOSED 1 CDHP "390" $10.73 $19.53 $28.33 Delta "5" (2) $13.94 $22.81 $33.05 Denti Care(2) $ 9.60 $14.90 $19.75 Western 550 $ 8.85 $16.60 $21.70 PROPOSED 2 Safeguard "A" $10.85 $19.80 $23.50 Safeguard $10.85 $19.80 $23.50 Western 750 $ 9.90 $17.95 $26.95 "A" PROPOSED 3 Safeguard "B" $ 8.95 $16.50 $21.48 (2) Notes: 1 Comparison of proposed plans with current not provided (exception: WGA - Delta "5") 2 Some variation in benefit structure compared to current matrix2 PROPOSED 4 PROPOSED 5 Delta "6" Delta "5" $23.21 $11.55 $17.18 $18.65 $24.98 $27.15 BROKER WGA CURRENT PLAN _ HEALTH INSURANCE PROPOSALS Vision Plan PROPOSED 1 Medical Eye Services $ 5.35 $10.85 $13.85 CDHP (1) $ 4.00 $ 8.00 $12.00 PGA Maintain Current (2) Maniaci Maintain Current (3) Bichlmeier/AMS VSP (4) k $ 8.98 .9 $15.75 $22.37 Notes: (1) Requires 75% participation IF "employer paid" premium. Requires 50% of dependents if employee contributes to premium. $35.00 deductible for exam. (2) Broker recommendation to maintain unless City contributes more toward premium. (3) Other quotes given but not recommended due to current contribution structure. (4) $10.00 co -pay required matrix? HEALTH INSURANCE PROPOSALS • Psychological BROKER CURRENT PLAN PROPOSED 1 PROPOSED 2 WGA PGA Maniaci Managed Health Network $7.68/employee out-patient $1.16/employee E.A.P. $8.84 Total/employee CPHP (1) $7.35/employee out-patient $1.05/employee E.A.P. $8.40 Total/employee Holman Professional (2) $6.43/employee (E.A.P. included) CPHP American Psychological Management (3) $8.50/employee $8.50/employee (separate breakdown not (separate breakdown not provided) provided) r_ CPHP (1) $7.35/employee out-patient $1.05/employee E.A.P. $8.40 Total/employee Bichlmeier/AMS (*) No Quote (Maintain current) Notes: (1) Slightly higher co -payments required (2) Includes 2 hours training; additional training at $160.00/hr. Current plan provides up to 36 hours training included. (3) $18.80/employee/month for combination of out-patient and in-patient substance abuse (carved out from HMO and Indemnity medical plans) matrix8 BROKER CURRENT PLAN _ HEALTH INSURANCE PROPOSALS Long Term Disability PROPOSED 1 PROPOSED 2 PROPOSED 3 UNUM LDT $1.00/$100 of payroll CANADA LIFE LDT (POLICE) $24.97/EMPLOYEE WGA (1) No Quote PGA America Bankers Life $.81/$100 (2) Maniaci Reliance Standard $.48/$100 (3) Bichlmeier/AMS (1) No Quote (maintain current) Notes: 1 No recommendation was made 2 Not recommended by PGA to change due to recently changing to UNUM. I matrix3 PROPOSED 4 3 Not comparable due to increased waiting period for Teamster Group (30 days vs 90 days). Would require negotiations. Current plan premium guaranteed for 2 years. HEALTH INSURANCE PROPOSALS Life Insurance BROKER CURRENT PLAN PROPOSED 1 PROPOSED 2. UNION CENTRAL $.35/$1000 coverage BLUE SHIELD LIFE $.38/$1000 coverage TRANSAMERICA OCCIDENTAL Individual rated WGA Western Life $.34/$1000 coverage PGA Group America Guarantee Mutual $.23/$1000 coverage $.28/$1000 coverage Maniaci Group America (1) $.23/$1000 coverage Bichlmeier/AMS No quote (maintain current) Notes: (1) Broker notes that "TransAmerica Occidental" was purchased to provide "portability" for Council and Executive Staff. Also indicates possible impact on "underwriting" requirements with Blue Shield if life ins. is separated from medical coverage for Blue Shield enrollees. matrix9 July 15, 1991 City Council Meeting July 23, 1991 Mayor and Members of the City Council APPROVE FINAL WORDING OF BALLOT MEASURES AND REVIEW CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS NECESSARY FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION, NOVEMBER 5, 1991 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council: 1) approve the final wording of the ballot measures; 2) decide its preference for the placement of the measures on the ballot; 3) decide on the filing of written arguments (for or against) by Council with regard to the ballot measures and authorize which Councilmember, if any, will file for each of the measures, with all Councilmembers invited to sign; and 4) continue the matter to Thursday, July 25, 1991, for adoption of the following resolutions, in compliance with the State Elections Code: 1. RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1991, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICES AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES AND FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS OF A PETITION INITIATIVE MEASURE RELATING TO OPEN SPACE ON THE BILTMORE SITE; COUNCIL PROPOSED MEASURES RELATING TO RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL RECREATION ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION, AND RELATING TO HEIGHT LIMITS IN THE C-2 AND C-3 ZONES AND SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS NO. 7 AND NO. 8; AND ADVISORY MEASURES REGARDING HOUSING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND REGARDING RESIDENTIAL ZONING HEIGHT LIMITS. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF SAID CITY TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1991, WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND GENERAL DISTRICT ELECTIONS TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 23302 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AND THE SUBMITTAL OF CERTAIN MEASURES TO THE ELECTORATE. - 1 - 12 3. RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING CITY MEASURES AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE IMPARTIAL ANALYSES. 4. RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURES SUBMITTED AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 1991. (OPTIONAL) 5. RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE CONDUCT OF A SPECIAL RUNOFF ELECTION FOR ELECTIVE OFFICES IN THE EVENT OF A TIE VOTE AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD NOVEMBER 5, 1991. (OPTIONAL) BACKGROUND At the meeting of March 12, 1991, the City Clerk presented to Council the Certificate of Sufficiency for the Initiative Ordinance submitted by petition to designate the Biltmore Site as Open Space O -S-2 for its preservation and use as a public park. Council directed the City Clerk to place the proposed Ordinance without change on the next regular municipal election. That measure is included in the attached documents. At its meeting of June 11, 1991, Council held a public hearing on a proposed General Plan Amendment and Text Amendment to the Specific Plan Area regulations for the Biltmore Site to allow commercial and residential uses, and to include provisions for a public open space acquisition and improvement overlay, to be consistent with Coastal Commission action, with a resolution for adoption and an ordinance for introduction. Council directed staff to prepare the appropriate wording for this issue to be placed on the November 5 ballot as a Council -sponsored initiative, allowing only single family residential use on the site. That measure is included in the attached documents. Also at the meeting of June 11 was a public hearing on various proposed residential/commercial zoning standards ballot measures. Council acted to place the following on the November 5 ballot: 1) C-2 and C-3 zones and S.P.A. No. 7 and No. 8 height limits as one mandatory measure, with a grandfather clause set as November 5, 1991; 2) the question "Should the City of Hermosa Beach consider more restrictive housing development standards related - 2 - to bulk?" as an advisory measure; and 3) the question "Should the City of Hermosa Beach review the residential zoning height limits for the purpose of lowering them?" as an advisory measure. Those measures (two of which are advisory) are included in the attached documents. Councilmember Creighton has suggested that the Council -proposed ordinance for the Biltmore Site specifically cite potential open space areas that may be acquired and improved with funds generated from the sale of the Biltmore property. This suggestion has been discussed by Planning and the City Attorney and they do not recommend at this time including it in the proposed ordinance. However, if it is the desire of Council to include such wording in the ordinance, it is suggested that an appropriate location might be Section 4 of the ordinance with wording such as the following: "Funds received by the City from the sale of the subject property may be used to acquire and improve the following open space areas: - Approx. $2.7 million to buy and improve South School site; - Approx. $1.8 million to buy School District owned portion of Valley Park; - Approx. $1.0 million to buy and improve North School playground; - Approx. $1.5 million to buy and improve the unbought 20% of the railroad right-of-way, and help retire the 4% utility user's tax." The existing Sections 4 through 7 of the City -proposed ordinance would then be appropriately renumbered as Sections 5 through 8. Elaine Doerflin , Cit Elaine Doerflin , Cit Clerk Noted: evin B. Northc aft, 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. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1991, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICES AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES AND FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS OF A PETITION INITIATIVE MEASURE RELATING TO OPEN SPACE ON THE BILTMORE SITE; COUNCIL PROPOSED MEASURES RELATING TO RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL RECREATION ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION, AND RELATING TO HEIGHT LIMITS IN THE C-2 AND C-3 ZONES AND SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS NO. 7 AND NO. 8; AND, ADVISORY MEASURES' REGARDING HOUSING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND REGARDING, CRESIDENTIAL ZONING HEIGHT LIMITS. WHEREAS, under the provisions of the laws relating to general law cities in the State of California, a General Municipal Election shall be held on November 5, 1991 for the election of Municipal Officers; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach also desires to submit to the voters at the General Municipal Election a Petition Initiative Measure relating to Open Space on the Biltmore Site; Council proposed measures relating to Residential and Commercial Recreation on the Biltmore Site and open space acquisition, and relating to height limits in the C-2 and C-3 zones and Specific Plan Areas No. 7 and No. 8; and advisory measures' regarding housing development standards: and, regarding residential zoning height limits. WHEREAS, the City Council of said City is thereupon authorized and directed by statute to submit the proposed measures to the qualified voters; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER 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 pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to General Law Cities within said State, there shall be, and there is hereby called and ordered to be held, in the City of Hermosa Beach, California, on Tuesday, November 5, 1991, a General Municipal Election for the purpose of electing two members of the City Council for the full term of four years; a City Clerk for the full term of four years; and a City Treasurer for the full term of four years; and submitting the following Petition initiative measure regarding Open Space on the Biltmore Site; Council proposed measures regarding Residential and Commercial Recreation on the Biltmore Site and open space acquisition, and regarding height limits in the C-2 and C-3 zones and Specific Plan Areas No. 7 and No. 8; and advisory measures regarding housing development standards, 4$ and regarding residential zoning height limits. SECTION 2. That the City Council, pursuant to its right and authority, does order submitted to the voters at the General Municipal Election the following questions: REZONING THE BILTMORE SITE AS OPEN SPACE/PUBLIC PARR Shall the Petition Initiative Ordinance which designates the Biltmore Site as Open Space O -S-2 for preservation and use as a public park be adopted? YES NO REZONING BILTMORE SITE AND OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION Shall the Ordinance rezoning the one acre (approx.) Biltmore Site Residential5, 'Commercial Recreation, and Open Space Overlay requiring acquisition of four acres minimum of open space be adopted? YES // // NO 2 1 2 3 4 AMENDMENT OF ZONING ORDINANCESTO_LIMIT MAXIMUM HEIGHT Shall the Ordinance limiting maximum height to 30 feet_ inC-2 zone, and 35 feet in C-3 zone WW—S,-.P.A. _No. 7 and No._8 be adopted? YES NO 5 ADVISORY VOTE ONLY: RESTRICTING HOUSING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Should the City of Hermosa Beach consider more restrictive 6 housing development standardscrelated to bulk?, 7 YES NO 8 'ADVISORY VOTE ONLY:— LOWERING -RESIDENTIAL ZONING HEIGHT LIMITS] Should the City of Hermosa Beach review the residential zoning 9 t.height-limits°-for the purpose of lowering them?1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 YES NO SECTION 3. That the proposed ordinances submitted to the voters shall be as follows: // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // 3 1 ORDINANCE NO. 91- 2 A PETITION INITIATIVE ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, 3 CALIFORNIA, CREATING AND DESIGNATING THE "BILTMORE SITE', AS OPEN SPACE 0-8-2, TO ENSURE ITS PRESERVATION AND USE AS A PUBLIC PARK. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 WHEREAS, the citizens of Hermosa Beach find and declare that the City -owned Biltmore Site property shall be saved from commercial and/or residential development, because of existing problems of parking, density, congestion, traffic, and air and noise pollution from traffic in the immediate area, and elsewhere in Southern California. Steps have to be taken to improve our quality of life, our environment, and to help save our earth. Therefore, the Biltmore Site shall be landscaped, preserved, and maintained in perpetuity as a 100% Open Space Oceanfront Strand Public Park with grass, trees, and flowers for present and future generations to enjoy. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 17 SECTION 1. That the City -owned property commonly known as 18 the Biltmore Site (hereinafter referred to as "Biltmore Site") 19 shall be landscaped, preserved, and maintained in perpetuity as a 20 100% Open Space O -S-2, Oceanfront Strand Public Park, with grass, 21 trees, and flowers for present and future generations to enjoy. 22 SECTION 2. That the Municipal Zoning Code of the City of 23 Hermosa Beach (the "Code") is hereby amended to add a new zone 24 designated as O -S-2, Restricted Open Space, as follows: 25 "Intent and Purpose. 26 The O -S-2 Zone is intended to restrict further the use of 27 certain designated open space to assure permanent open space for 28 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 public park purposes. Permitted Uses. A Public Park --with landscaping, beautification, grass, trees, flowers, plants and other uses if specifically authorized as a permitted improvement herein. Permitted Improvements. Improvements in the O -S-2 Zone shall be as follows: (a) Only non -building public improvements relating to landscaping, beautification -- grass, trees, flowers, plants, soil, unobtrusive park lighting, some benches to view the ocean, existing public utilities, one flag pole for our American Flag, and erosion and irrigation improvements to assure permanent open space for park purposes shall be permitted. (b) No buildings, malls, plazas or structures -- temporary or permanent in nature -- shall be built, developed, constructed or erected on the Biltmore Site. (c) Softscape shall include grass, trees, plants, soil, flowers, and shall be artistically designed to cover all of the Biltmore Site. (d) The use and improvements to the park are to ensure a natural, peaceful, serene, passive and safe environment to improve and enhance the quality of life in Hermosa Beach." SECTION 3. Ordinance No. 84-751, as amended, or any other zoning or land use designation which may have been adopted by the City Council after this initiative has been submitted to the City Clerk's Office, is hereby repealed and the Land Use Element of 5 1 the Hermosa Beach General Plan and the official zoning map are 2 modified by reclassifying and rezoning certain property commonly 3 known as the Biltmore Site. 4 SECTION 4. The Biltmore Site is hereby reclassified as O -S-2 5 Open Space Two under the Land Use Element of the General Plan 6 (hereinafter the "General Plan") and rezoned as O -S-2 Open Space 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Two. SECTION 5. For the purposes of this ordinance and the rezoning reclassification of the subject property, the Biltmore Site is defined as follows: (a) The Biltmore Site consists of that certain property identified as Lots #1 through 9, inclusive, Lots 19, 20, and 32 all in Block 15 of the Hermosa Beach Tract in the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 1, pages 25, 26 of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said county, together with all of the vacated portion of Beach Drive and 15th Court adjacent to the above noted lots. SECTION 6. The City shall seek necessary approvals from the California Coastal Commission for the amendments made by this ordinance and take all further actions necessary to implement and enforce the terms and intent of this ordinance. SECTION 7. If any section or sub -section of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unenforceable, such holding 26shall not affect in any respect the validity of the remaining 27 portions of this ordinance or any such part thereof. 28 Il SECTION 8. There shall be no modification, amendment, or 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 repeal of any provision of this ordinance without a vote of the people. SECTION 9. Any ordinance which is adopted concurrently with this ordinance which receives less votes and is in conflict with any provisions herein shall be repealed in its entirety and be of no force and effect. SECTION 10. This ordinance shall take effect in the manner prescribed by law. SECTION 11. This ordinance shall only take effect if it receives a majority vote of the people. SECTION 12. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. SECTION 13. Funding for the improvements, landscaping and maintenance of the Park may come from the following sources: (a) Private donations -- money, trees, flowers, soil, grass, etc. (b) Parks and Recreation monies. (c) Volunteers to help landscape the Biltmore Site by planting grass, flowers and trees, etc. (d) Fundraisers and other sources should they become available. SECTION 14. The Biltmore Site is not to be sold, leased, nor consolidated with other land, or lands, without a vote of the people. 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 ORDINANCE 91 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN, CERTIFIED COASTAL LAND USE PLAN, AND ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT TO ALLOW 70% RESIDENTIAL AND 30% COMMERCIAL RECREATION FOR THE BILTMORE SITE, CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COASTAL COMMISSION, AND ENSURING THAT FUNDS GENERATED FROM THE SALE OF THE .82 ACRE SITE SHALL BE USED FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A MINIMUM OF FOUR ACRES OF OTHER EXISTING OPEN SPACE, PRINCIPALLY WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Land Use amendment is necessary to be consistent with the Coastal Commission decision regarding a proposed Land Use Plan amendment with regard to development of the Biltmore Site; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Land Use amendment and the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment will not result in a significant impact on the environment as it involves a change in the allowed mix of uses on the Biltmore Site which will result in a less than significant impact to the environment; and WHEREAS, a combination of commercial and residential uses on the Biltmore Site is consistent with adjacent and surrounding land uses which to the north and east are predominantly multi -family residential uses, while to the south it is predominately commercial uses; WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance text amendment will allow a density consistent with the Medium Density General Plan designation for the residential portion and an intensity consistent with the Commercial Recreation designation for the commercial portion; and WHEREAS, the provisions of the Specific Plan Area will 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 ensure that the development of the site is consistent with the character of surrounding uses and of an appropriate density given the existing congestion of the area; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Amend the General Plan Land Use Map 7 designation for the property commonly known as the "Biltmore 8 Site" from Medium Density Residential to the following: 9 10 11 12 Commercial Recreation, on the southerly portion of the site legally described as follows: Lots 1, 2, 19, 20 and 32, inclusive, Block 15, Hermosa Beach Tract; and including the vacated portion of Beach Drive extending 60 feet northerly from 14th Street. 13 II Medium Density Residential, on the remaining portion of the site legally described as follows: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Lots 3 through 9, inclusive, Block 15, Hermosa Beach Tract; and including the vacated portion of Beach Drive extending 150 feet southerly from 15th Street and including the vacated portion of 15th Court extending 60 feet eastward from Beach Drive. SECTION 2. Consistent with the Coastal Commission's approval, the text of Coastal Commission Certified Land Use Plan is amended to read as follows: 1. Amend the designation for the property known as the "Biltmore Site" from Specific Plan Area for a Hotel to Medium Density Mixed Residential/Commercial Recreation with Public Open Space Acquisition overlay, legally described as follows: 24 Lots 1 through 9, inclusive, and lots 19, 20 and 32, Block 15, Hermosa Beach Tract; and including the vacated portion of 25 Beach Drive between 14th and 15th Streets and including the vacated portion of 15th Court extending 60 feet eastward from 26 Beach Drive. 27 2. Amend the designation for the property commonly known as "Parking Lot C" from Specific Plan Area to General 28 Commercial/Public Beach Parking. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. Amend page 11, the second paragraph, by eliminating the exception to the height limits of the Zoning Ordinance for the hotel site between Thirteenth and Fifteenth Streets. 4. Insert the following definitions: a. Mixed Residential/Commercial shall provide low rise development with no less than 30% leasable floor area, not including parking, devoted to C-1 commercial, restaurant or beach support recreation use. b. Public Open Space Acquisition Overlay shall provide for the acquisition of public open space primarily within the Coastal Zone of the City of Hermosa Beach. The overlay shall provide that no sale of the property shall take place until a trust fund has been established for the sole purpose of acquiring and improving such new public open space. The form and content of the trust fund shall specify the following provisions and shall be submitted to the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission for his/her review and approval as to inclusion of the following provisions. Zoning adopted to implement the Public Open Space Acquisition Overlay shall provide that the funds received by the City in the sale of the subject property for residential/commercial mixed uses at least 80% of an amount up to the maximum of $8,000,000 received from the sale of the property shall be used for the acquisition and improvement of new open space property of which at least 70% of said new open space property shall be located within the Coastal Zone. The minimum area to be acquired in the Coastal Zone is 4.0 acres. The ordinance shall also provide that no building permits for construction shall be issued until either 1) the new open space property has been dedicated to the purchase of said open space and a binding contract has been signed guaranteeing such a purchase, of no less than 90% of the required new minimum of 4.0 acres of open space property. c. Public Beach Parking shall be parking open to the general public on a first come, first serve basis. 5. Amend the seventh policy under Item 2 on page 12, by adding the underlined text to read as follows: The Policy: The Biltmore Site is a vital asset of the people of Hermosa Beach which will play a substantial role in maintaining the City as a financially feasible entity. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The people concur that the most beneficial public recreational, economic and environmental use for this coastal site is a combination of residential/beach serving low intensity commercial, and beach public parking. SECTION 3. Amend Article 9.6, Chapter 1 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: Article 9.6, Chapter 1, Specific Plan Area No. 1 Section 9.61-1. Authority. This Specific Plan Area is an instrument for implementing the General plan pursuant to Article 8, Chapter 3, of the State of California Planning and Zoning Law (California Government Code Section 65450 et. Seq.) Section 9.61-2 Location and Description. The subject area is located on the east side of the Strand generally between 14th Street and 15th Street, and extending to approximately 190 feet east of the Strand. Section 9.61-3 Purpose. The purpose of the Specific Plan Area is to set forth the development requirements, standards and permitted uses for development of the subject property consistent with the City of Hermosa Beach General Plan and consistent with the Coastal Commission certified Land Use Plan which requires a minimum of thirty (30) percent of the developed floor area to be utilized for commercial purposes. Furthermore, the Specific Plan Area shall set forth the method to ensure that the funds generated from initial sale of the subject property will provide for the acquisition of open space at other locations within the City of Hermosa Beach, principally within the coastal zone. Section 9.61-4 Permitted Residential Uses and Residential Density. A. Residential uses are only permitted on the portion of the site designated Medium Density Residential on the General Plan Map B. Any use permitted in the R-1 Residential Zone to a maximum of seven (7) dwelling units. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 9.61-5 Residential Development Standards A. A minimum of three (3) off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit. B. Lot coverage shall not exceed 50% of the area designated for Medium Density Residential development on the General Plan map. (entire Specific Plan Area) C. A minimum setback of 10 feet shall be provided from the Strand. D. The maximum floor area for any individual dwelling unit shall not exceed 3,000 square feet. The total floor area of the residential uses as compared to the total floor area developed on the entire site shall not exceed seventy (70) percent. E. Development standards shall be as set forth in ARTICLE 5. R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, except pertaining to lot coverage and setbacks as stated in Section 9.61-5(B) and 5(C). F. All other standards shall be as set forth in the City of Hermosa Beach Zoning Ordinance, except pertaining to required parking spaces as stated in Section 9.61-5A. Section 9.61-6 Permitted Commercial Uses A. Commercial uses are only permitted on the portion of the site identified as Commercial/Recreation on the General Plan Map B. Visitor -serving Commercial Uses including, but not limited to, the following: Beach recreation equipment sales and rentals; Visitor or tourist oriented gift shop or retail sales; Snack Bar/Snack Shop; conditional use permit subject to Article 10, Section 10-7; Hotels, Motels Restaurant/Cafe; beer, wine, or general alcohol in conjunction with, conditional use permit required subject of Article 10 C. Any other commercial uses not listed which may be considered visitor -serving shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission Section 9.61-7 Commercial Development Standards 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. The maximum height shall be thirty (30) Feet. Exceptions for height of roof structures shall be in accordance with Article 12, Section 1201, of the zoning ordinance. B. The gross square footage of the commercial floor areas, including any areas for outside dining, and/or recreational use shall be a minimum of 30% of the total floor area of the combination of the commercial and residential uses on the entire site designated Specific Plan Area. C. A Precise Development Plan shall be required for any commercial development in accordance with Article 14, Division 3 (Section 1430 et. seq.) D. All other standards shall be governed by the City of Hermosa Beach Zoning Ordinance, including, but not limited to, Section 8-5, and Article 11.5, Off -Street Parking. Section 9.61-8 Public Open Space Acquisition A. The purpose of this section is to require that funds from the initial sale of the property from the City of Hermosa Beach shall provide for the acquisition of public open space principally within the Coastal Zone of the City of Hermosa Beach as follow: 1. No sale of the property shall take place until a trust fund is established, by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, for the sole purpose of acquiring and improving open space; 2. Eighty percent (80%) of an amount up to the maximum of eight million dollars ($8,000,000) received from the sale of the property shall be used for the acquisition and improvement of open space property not currently owned by the City of Hermosa Beach, of which at least seventy percent (70%) shall be be located within the Coastal Zone; 3. The minimum area to be acquired shall be four (4) acres; 4. No building permits for construction within this Specific Plan Area zone shall be issued until either of the following has occurred: a. A minimum of four (4) acres of open space property has been acquired; or, b. The funding necessary to comply with this section, in terms of acquiring and improving open space, has been dedicated to the purchase of the open space and a binding contract has 13 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 been executed guaranteeing the purchase of no less than 90% of the minimum of four (4) acres of open space property - 5. For the purposes of this section, open space property shall be defined as any property designated Open Space on the City of Hermosa Beach General Plan, and/or designated as Open Space on the zonin map. SECTION 4. If any section or subsection of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such holding shall not affect in any respect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or any part thereof. SECTION 5. There shall be no modifications, amendment or repeal of any provision of this ordinance without a vote of the people. SECTION 6. Any ordinance which is adopted concurrently with this ordinance which receives less votes and is in conflict with any provision herein shall be repealed in its entirety and of no force and effect. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall take effect in the manner prescribed by law. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 91 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO LIMIT MAXIMUM HEIGHT IN THE C-2 AND C-3 ZONES AND SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS NO. 7 AND NO. 8. WHEREAS, the citizens of Hermosa Beach desire to protect the low profile character of Hermosa Beach; and WHEREAS, the citizens desire to protect wherever possible both public and private scenic views; and WHEREAS, the citizens desire to limit the intensity of development within the City; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DO HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Amend Article 8, Commercial Zones, Section 8-5, Standards and Limitations (6) Building Height as follows: "b. In the C-2 zone, no building shall exceed a maximum height of thirty (30) feet. c. In the C-3 zone, no building shall exceed a maximum height of thirty-five (35) feet." SECTION 2. Amend Article 9.6, Specific Plan Areas, Division 7, Specific Plan Area No. 7, Section 9.67-6, Commercial development standards, (b) Standards, as follows: (1) Maximum height: East of P.C.H. West of P.C.H. First Tier Second Tier Maximum/ Maximum/ Minimum Minimum Requirements Requirements 30 feet 30 feet 35 feet 35 feet SECTION 3. Amend Article 9.6, Specific Plan Areas, Division 8, Plan Area No. 8, Section 9.68-6, Commercial development standards, (b) Standards, as follows: 15 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 (1) Maximum height: East of P.C.H. West of P.C.H. First Tier Second Tier Maximum/ Maximum/ Minimum Minimum Requirements Requirements 25 feet 30 feet 35 feet 35 feet SECTION 4. This ordinance shall not apply to any projects that have a completed building permit package on file with the City prior to November 5, 1991. Said package must include a completed building permit application form, completed conceptual plans (plot plan, floor plan, elevation plan and similar plans), and a lot survey. Projects that have submitted a completed building permit package must pursue their application in a diligent manner and must be issued a building permit within six months of the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 5. If any section or subsection of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such holding shall not affect, in any respect, the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or any such part thereof. SECTION 6. There shall be no modification, amendment or repeal of any provisions of this ordinance without a vote of the people. SECTION 7. Any ordinance which is adopted concurrently with this ordinance which receives less votes and is in conflict with any provisions herein, shall be repealed in its entirety and of no force and effect. SECTION 8. This ordinance shall take effect in the manner prescribed by law. 16 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 4. That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to procure and furnish any and all official ballots notices printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election. SECTION 5. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections in said City. SECTION 6. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law. SECTION 7. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF JULY, 1991. PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City AttorneyJ-).;'00' 17 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. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF SAID CITY TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1991, WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND GENERAL DISTRICT ELECTIONS TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 23302 OF THE ELECTION CODE, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AND THE SUBMITTAL OF CERTAIN MEASURES TO THE ELECTORATE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach called a General Municipal Election in said City to be held on November 5, 1991 for the purpose of the election of two members of the City Council, a City Clerk, and a City Treasurer; and for the purpose of submitting to the voters of said City the following measures: Petition Initiative Measure relating to Open Space on the Biltmore Site; Council proposed measures relating to Residential and Commercial Recreation on the Biltmore Site and open space acquisition, and relating to height limits in the C-2 and C-3 zones and Commercial Specific Plan Areas Nos. 7 and 8; ander advisory measures regarding housing development standards, and regarding residential zoning height limits:; and WHEREAS, it is desirable that said General Municipal Election be consolidated with the School District and General District Elections to be held on the same date and that within the City the precincts, polling places and election officers of the two elections be the same; and that the Registrar of the County of Los Angeles canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election; and that said General Municipal Election be held in all respects as if there were only one election; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 1 1 SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of Section 2 23302 of the Election Code, the Board of Supervisors of the 3 County of Los Angeles is hereby requested to consent and agree to 4 the consolidation of a General Municipal Election with the School 5 District and General District Elections on Tuesday, November 5, 6 1991 for the purpose of the election of two members of the City 7 Council, a City Clerk, and a City Treasurer; and submitting to 8 the electors of the City of Hermosa Beach measures to appear on 9 the ballot as follows: 10 11 REZONING THE BILTMORE SITE AS OPEN SPACE/PUBLIC PARK Shall the Petition Initiative Ordinance which designates the 12 Biltmore Site as Open Space O -S-2 for preservation and use as a public park be adopted? 13 YES NO 14 15 REZONING BILTMORE SITE AND OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION, 16 Shall the Ordinance rezoning the one acre (approx.)) Biltmore Site aesidentialy, +Commercial %Recreation, and Open Space Overlay 17 requiring acquisitions of four acres minimum of open space: be adopted? 18 YES NO 19 20 AMENDMENT OF ZONING ORDINANCE TO LIMIT MAXIMUM HEIGHT 21 Shall the Ordinance limiting maximum height to 30 feet in C-2 zone, and 35 feet in C-3 zone and S.P.A. No. 7 and No. 8 be 22 adopted? 23 YES NO 24 25 ADVISORY VOTE ONLY: RESTRICTING HOUSING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Should the City of Hermosa Beach consider more restrictive 26 housing development standards related to bulk? 27 YES NO 28 // 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 (ADVISORY VOTE ONLY: LOWERING RESIDENTIAL ZONING HEIGHT LIMITS. Should the City of _Hermosa Beach review the residential zoning height limits for the purpose of lowering them?, YES NO SECTION 2. That said Registrar is hereby authorized to canvass the returns of said General Municipal Election which it is hereby requested to consolidate with said School District and General District Elections. Said elections shall be held in all respects as if it were only one election, and only one form of ballot shall be used. SECTION 3. That said Board of Supervisors is hereby requested to issue instructions to the Los Angeles County Registrar to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of said consolidated election. SECTION 4. That the City of Hermosa Beach recognizes that additional costs will be incurred by the County by reason of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County for such costs. SECTION 5. That the City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the Registrar of the County of Los Angeles. SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions of said City. // // // // 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 25th DAY OF JULY, 1991. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 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 NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING CITY MEASURES AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE IMPARTIAL ANALYSES. WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Hermosa Beach, California, on November 5, 1991, at which there will be submitted to the voters the following measures: REZONING THE BILTMORE SITE AS OPEN SPACE/PUBLIC PARK Shall the Petition Initiative Ordinance which designates the Biltmore Site as Open Space O -S-2 for preservation and use as a public park be adopted? YES NO REZONING BILTMORE SITE AND OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION Shall the Ordinance rezoning the9ne acre (approx.), Biltmore Site Residential--1)Commercial %Recreation, - and Open Space Overlay, requiring acquisition of four acres Iminimum of open spaceVbe adopted? YES NO AMENDMENT OF ZONING ORDINANCE TO LIMIT MAXIMUM HEIGHT Shall the Ordinance limiting maximum height to 30 feet in C-2 zone, and 35 feet in C-3 zone 'and S.P.A. No. 7 and No. -8 be adopted? YES NO ADVISORY VOTE ONLY: RESTRICTING HOUSING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Should the City of Hermosa Beach consider more restrictive housing development standards gelated to bulk? YES NO ADVISORY VOTE -ONLY: LOWERING_ RESIDENTIAL ZONING HEIGHT LIMITS$ Should the City of Hermosa Beach review the residential zoning height limits for the purpose of lowering them? YES- - NO 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 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council authorizes as follows: REZONING BILTMORE SITE AS OPEN SPACE 0-8-2 FOR PUBLIC PARK Council... REZONING BILTMORE SITE ,FOR+RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION Council... AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE TO LIMIT MAXIMUM HEIGHT IN C-2 AND C-3 ZONES AND S.P.A. NO. 7 AND NO. 8 Council... ADVISORY: CONSIDERATION OF MORE RESTRICTIVE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS •RELATED TO BULK Council... ADVISORY: REVIEW OF RESIDENTIAL ZONING HEIGHT LIMITS FOR PURPOSE OF LOWERING THEM Council... Said members of that body to file written arguments regarding the City measures as specified above in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 5 of the Elections Code of the State of California and to change the argument until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk after which no arguments for or against the City measures may be submitted to the City Clerk. SECTION 2. That the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 operation of the measure. The impartial analysis shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments. SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 25th day of July, 1991. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURES SUBMITTED AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 1991. WHEREAS, Section 4015.5 and 5014.5 of the Elections Code of the State of California authorizes the City Council, by majority vote, to adopt provisions to provide for the filing of rebuttal arguments for City Measures submitted at municipal elections; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to Sections 4015.5 and 5014.5 of the Elections Code of the State of California, when the clerk has selected the arguments for and against the measure which will be printed and distributed to the voters, the clerk shall send copies of the argument in favor of the measure to the authors of the argument against, and copies of the argument against to the authors of the argument in favor. The authors may prepare and submit rebuttal arguments not exceeding 250 words. The rebuttal arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk not more than ten (10) days after the final date for filing direct arguments. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument which it seeks to rebut. SECTION 2. That all previous resolutions providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments for City measures are repealed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 3. That the provisions of Section 1 shall apply only to the election to be held on November 5, 1991, and shall then be repealed. SECTION 4. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 25th day of July, 1991. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: IRogle City Clerk City Attorney 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. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE CONDUCT OF A SPECIAL RUNOFF ELECTION FOR ELECTIVE OFFICES IN THE EVENT OF A TIE VOTE AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD NOVEMBER 5, 1991. WHEREAS, Section 20501(b) of the Elections Code of the State of California authorizes the City Council, by majority vote, to adopt provisions to require the conduct of a Special Runoff Election to resolve a tie vote involving those candidates who received an equal number of votes and the highest number of votes for an elective office. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to Section 20501(b) of the Elections Code of the State of California, if any two or more persons receive an equal and the highest number of votes for an office to be voted for within the City, there shall be held within the City a Special Runoff Election to resolve the tie vote. A Special Runoff Election shall be called and held on a Tuesday not less than 40 nor more than 125 days after the administrative or judicial certification of the election which resulted in a tie vote. SECTION 2. That this resolution shall apply only to the election to be held on November 5, 1991, and shall then be repealed. SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1991. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: t/•itte City Clerk City Attorney 2 MERNA MARSHALL 360 - 33rd Place Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213) 372-1740 July 23, 1991 Mayor Midstokke and Members of the City Council 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: BALLOT MEASURE TITLES RE: BILTMORE SITE Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: After reviewing the proposed ballot measure titles for the People's Initiative and City -sponsored initiative, I have the following comments to make: 1) When comparing the titles, one will notice that they are not consistent with regard to the description of what the ordinance will actually do. 2 People's Initiative: REZONING THE BILTMORE AS OPEN SPACE/PUBLIC PARK City -sponsored Initiative: REZONING BILTMORE SITE AND OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION The People's Initiative clearly states what the property is to be zoned to --Open Space --while the City -sponsored Ordinance is very vague and doesn't state what the zoning is going to be but rather that they plan to rezone the Biltmore Site and acquire open space. This hardly seems consistent, or fair, and one would have to wonder why the words "AS RESIDENTIAL AND RECREATION -COMMERCIAL" were left out of the title of the City -sponsored ordinance. 3) Also, the question of the City -sponsored measure states "the one acre (approx.)...." while the People's Initiative makes no mention of the size of the Biltmore Site. Why is this? Also, why not state .82 acres as is stated in the title of the ordinance. Why all of a sudden is it appropriate to approximate the size of the Biltmore Site? It is hoped that this is a clerical error and that the inconsistency will be rectified before the ballots are printed. Consistency is so important in maintaining the honesty and integrity of an election. Sincerely, Merna Marshall PARKER R. HERRIOTT 224 - 24th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213) 379-7196 July 23, 1991 Mayor Midstokke and Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: Titles regarding The Biltmore Site Election Dear Mayor and Council Members: 7—.23 = y/ The ballot title for the city measure is vague, misleading and confusing because it doesn't identify to what zones the Biltmore Site is to be rezoned. It should state that the property is to be rezoned to residential (70%), and commercial (30%), to include the proper wording in order for people to understand just from the title exactly what the measure will actually accomplish. The following is the proposed wording, at this time, for the November 5, 1991, Mmunicipal Election regarding the two measures for the Biltmore Site: REZONING THE BILTMORE SITE AS OPEN SPACE/PUBLIC PARK Shall the Petition Intitative Ordinance which designates the Biltmore Site as Open Space O -S-2 for preservation and and use as a public park be adopted? YES NO REZONING THE BILTMORE SITE AND OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION Shall the Ordinance rezoning the one acre (approx.) Biltmore Site Residential, Commercial Recreation, and Open Space Overlay requiring acquisition of four acres minimum of open space be adopted? YES NO The ballot title should reflect more closely the wording of the underlined portion of the title of the proposed ordinance by the City for the Biltmore Site, to quote as follows: ORDINANCE 91- ; AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN, CERTIFIED COASTAL LAND USE PLAN, AND ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT TO ALLOW 70% RESIDENTIAL AND 30% COMMERCIAL RECREATION FOR THE BILTMORE SITE, CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COASTAL COMMISSION, AND ENSURING THAT FUNDS GENERATED FROM THE SALE OF THE .82 ACRE SITE SHALL BE USED FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A MINIMUM OF FOUR ACRES OF OTHER EXISTING OPEN SPACE, PRINCIPALLY WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE Mayor and City Council page 2 July 23, 1991 It doesn't seem proper to deal with three subjects at the same time --the rezoning of the Biltmore Site, the sale of the Biltmore Site, and the acquisition of other properties from the sale of the Biltmore Site. Isn't this a violation of some election law where we are dealing with more than one subject or issue? And we are really dealing with two subjects here --the Biltmore Site and Public Parking Lot "C", and there is no mention of Parking Lot "C" in the title. Back in the municipal election on November 7, 1989, Proposition C regarding the People's Initiative Petition, Public Parking Lot "C" was included, as follows: "REZONING BILTMORE SITE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (SPA) OPEN SPACE AND COMMERCIAL Shall Petition Initiative Ordinance No. 89-998, be adopted which. repeals Specific Plan Area (SPA) 84-754 (Hotel) rezones the Biltmore Site Open Space, Parking Lot "C" Commercial, and other private property commercial? Yes No The City's competing measure, Proposition D, reads as follows: "REZONING OF BILTMORE SITE TO OPEN SPACE (59%), COMMERCIAL (25%), AND RESIDENTIAL (16%) Shall Council proposed Ordinance No. 89-1000, be adopted repealing S.P.A. 84-751 (Hotel) and rezoning and specifying uses of the publicly -owned Biltmore Site Area for an Urban Public Plaza, Restricted Commercial and High Density Residential Yes No The results of the election, according to Charles Weissburd, Registrar -Recorder of the County Los Angeles, certified that the following votes were cast Proposition C,: 1,589 YES votes and 1,799 NO votes. Proposition D: 932 YES votes and 2,385 NO votes Who is responsible for the wording of the ballot title and question for both of these measures? I would hope that the City Council, out of decency and fairness, would correct this misleading title for the city measure. The City measure sounds more like the People's initiative than the People's Initiative itself. Mayor and City Council page 3 July 23, 1991 Any wording about. public parking lot "C" is not included in the title nor in the question. A few other things that are not fair with regard to this measure title and question: 1) The mention of North School play yard as being one of the properties to purchase for open space is misleading, since it is a known fact that the school board members have not listed, nor have they any intentions at the present time, to sell this property. 2) It is misleading, also, to claim that 20% of the greenbelt property would be purchased with a portion of the funds from the sale pf the Biltmore Site, since the real heirs of the property have not --as far as I know --been determined by a court of law nor have the heirs that may be the prevailing parties to that portion of the greenbelt expressed any desire --as far as I know --to sell the property to the city. The owners or the heirs are described as being the Santa Fe Railroad or individual parties who are contesting ownership of the land. At this point, it is undecided who owns the property. 3 it is misleading to pretend that the South School site will be purchased with a part of the proceeds when it appears that the city is in the process of purchasing the property already. The City Yard is to be moved, also, on a portion of the South School Yard and, therefore, the entire school site won't be available for open space purposes. Why is the South School yard being torn up at the present time? Does it have anything to do with the proposed oil drilling by. McPherson Oil? I believe that it is very foolish to have the South School yard being a proposed park if the plans for drilling for oil are to become a reality. I don't think it's a good idea for children or adults to be playing near the hydrocarbon fumes that will be generated by the drilling for oil. An environmental impact report should be completed for any such park being so close to active oil wells. I just don't think it is a safe use for a park right next to active oil wells --because of possible fire, explosions, vapors,, etc. Why doesn't the city feel it is necessary to place the question of South School yard on the ballot to see if people want that to be a park? If the people want it to be a park, the land could be purchased with funds generated through the normal funding for parks. To say that one has to sell the Biltmore Site in order to purchase the South School Site is, once again, misleading --since the South School site could be purchased without the sale of the Biltmore Site and at this time probably will be purchased without the sale of the Biltmore Site, since negotiations are going forward for the purchase of the property without prior approval of the sale of the Biltmore Site. Mayor and City Council page 4 July 23, 1991 The City title is lacking with the proper description of the measure. When a title is written with such brevity where there actually is an omission of certain wording that would properly describe the measure, it would only confuse and mislead the voters, which is prohibited by the elections code. This measure looks more like the People's Initiative Measure at first glance, and people will be confused between the two measures and if they don't read the rest of the ballot question, they will vote incorrectly. It is wrong to confuse and mislead the voters and to subvert the voting process and to render our election process by intentional and misleading titles. Once again, certain members of the City Council are attempting to sabotage the people's 100% Open Space Park Initiative, just like certain council members did in the 1989 election regarding the Biltmore Site. The People qualified an open space measure for the Biltmore Site and the City Council placed their own measure on the ballot just to confuse and to dilute the open space vote in Hermosa Beach. The same thing is being attempted today, approximately 2 years later. The way things look at this time, once again we're not going to have a fair election. The City Council has an opportunity to sabotage the election again, and I am sure the City Council is going to attempt to sabotage the People's Initiative again. I am not including Albert Weimans as being one of the saboteurs, since he has always wanted to preserve the rights of the voters in elections. As everyone knows, there are means to provide for the acquisition of new open space without the sale of the Biltmore Site, and to attempt to make people think that the only way to acquire new open space or to improve existing open space park facilities is to sell the Biltmore Site is misleading. There are many and various means to improve our existing parks in Hermosa Beach; namely, the Parks and Recreation Fund, State Grants, As I pointed out in my Writ of Mandate filed September 7, 1989, Case No. C736556, regarding the Biltmore Site, the Biltmore Site should not be sold because of Government Code Section 37351 which states. The City Council's ballot measure is invalid because the measure appears to be calling for the selling of most of the Biltmore Site --if not all of the Biltmore Site --and the selling of the Biltmore Site is prohibited by Government Code Section 37351 since the Biltmore Site is waterfront property. The City Council has not complied with the condition of making a finding by a 4/5 vote that the Biltmore Site is not suitable for public beach or park purposes. Of course, the Biltmore Site is suitable for beach use or park use. Therefore, the measure should not be placed on the November 1991 ballot. Government Code Section 37351 states as follows: "The legislative body encourages, lease, exchange or receives such personal property and real estate situated inside or outside the city limits as is necessary or proper for municipal purposes. It may control, dispose of, and convey such property for the benefit of the city. Mayor and City Council page 5 July 23, 1991 Legislative body shall not sell or convey any portion of a waterfront, except to the State for use as a public beach or park, unless by a four-fifths vote of its members the legislative body finds and determines that the waterfront to be sold or conveyed is not suitable for use as a public beach or park." Our former city attorney, James P. Lough, cited this section of the Government Code, 37351, in a letter to the City Council dated March 7, 1985. Mr. Lough stated: "Since the Biltmore Site is on the waterfront, this section would apply...The property cannot be sold unless by a four- fifths vote together with a finding that the property is not suitable for uses as a public beach or park." The City of Hermosa Beach did not make the required findings as required by Government Code Section 37351, and the City Council cannot make such a finding since everybody knows that the site is suitable for a public park. Regarding Section 37351, waterfront property, see People vs. Banning Company, (1914) 138 p. 100. 166C. 630, affirmed 36 S Ct. 338, 240 U.S. 142 60 L. ed. 569. With both measures being on the ballot in 1989, and with Proposition C, the People's initiative, receiving 1,589 YES votes and Proposition D, the city's measure, receiving 932 YES votes, the city should have considered Proposition C the winner and treated Proposition C as an advisory measure and implemented the will of the people. The reason why we have an election regarding the Biltmore Site, once again, is because in 1989 there was not a fair election because of the misleading ballot title and question. And if the City Council does not change this ballot title, I will be forced to take this matter into the Superior Court and attempt to have what I believe to be the proper corrections made so that the ballot title in question will not be confusing or misleading. Everyone should remember that in 1989 the People's Initiative Petition was circulating and then the City came up with it's Task Force and subsequent city measure to place a "competing" measure on the ballot. Once again, Kathleen Midstokke knew that the people's petition would circulate again and she began her attempt to rezone the Biltmore Site 100% Residential and with Roger Creighton and Robert Essertier going along with her. Midstokke's attempt at rezoning of the Biltmore Site was on its way to be implemented without a vote of the people. The people were not going to be allowed to vote on the future use of the Biltmore Site by the actions of Kathleen Midstokke, Roeser Creighton. and Robert Essertier. Before Kathleen Midstokke's rezoning of the Biltmore Site residential became effective, a Referendum Petition was circulated and the appropriate number of signatures were certified by Charles Weissburd, Registrar -Recorder for Los AngelesCounty, and it qualified for the ballot--butCity Attorney Vose claimed that the petition was invalid because the 4 • n Mayor and City Council page 6 July 23, 1991 petition did not include the re -designation of the General Plan. A subsequent court challenge upheld Vose's position. But the Court never permitted oral arguments nor did the Court rule on the other issues raised in the Writ of Mandate. For instance, the Court did not make a ruling on whether the Biltmore Site was waterfront property or not; nor whether the Biltmore Site could be sold or not. The matter was not appealed by Referendum Proponent, Parker R. Herriott, because a subsequent action by the California Coastal Commission invalidated the City Council's proposed 100% residential rezoning of the Biltmore Site. Regarding the other matter concerning this election, once again the City Council is taking advantage of its positionas a legislative body if it votes YES to the Resolution that has been prepared by the Planning Department Director, Michael Schubach, which would implement the proposed amendment to the General Plan and the Zoning Map regarding the Biltmore Site and Public Parking Lot "C". The City Council's action taken on this matter June 11, 1991, was to not go forward with the Land Use Plan Amendment to the General Plan. I don't know why this matter has been pursued at the Coastal Commission staff level at this time, since an election is pending in this matter. The City only has to resubmit the Land Use Plan Amendment after the 6 -month deadline and that is acceptable, since I talked to Pam Emerson of the Coastal Commission today, July 23, 1991, and she said that it would be no big deal or no big thing to have the City's Land Use Plan Amendment resubmitted after the deadline. Sincerely, Parker R. Herriott July 18, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of July 23, 1991 REQUEST TO CALL SPECIAL MEETING FOR JULY 25, 1991 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council call a special meeting for 6:00 p.m., July 25, 1991, to be held in the City Council Chambers, for the purpose of adopting resolutions necessary for the November 5, 1991 election. Background: Council has previously approved and directed staff to prepare documents necessary to put ballot measures on the November 5 election, and a certified initiative petition also is to be placed on the November election. The City Attorney's review of state law and the information material obtained from Martin & Chapman, the City's advisors on election matters, indicate that the call for election for ballot measures is to take place between 103 and 88 days prior to the election. Analysis: For the November 5, 1991 election, the eligible period for City Council to call an election is between July 25 and August 9, 1991. Since July has five Tuesdays, the Council has no regular meeting scheduled during this time. Accordingly, to avoid any technical weaknesses in our election process, it is appropriate that the Council debate the resolutions necessary for the Novem- ber 5 election at your regular meeting on July 23, take a straw vote, and then formally meet on July 25 to adopt the appropriate resolutions. It is believed this sole agenda item for the meeting on July 25 can be handled expeditiously in a matter of a few minutes. As the case with all Council meetings, the meeting will be tele- vised, and live if MultiVision Cable scheduling allows. Kevin B. Northcr City Manager Elaine Doerfling City Clerk 46 a July 16, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of July 23, 1991 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE CITY PROSECUTOR RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council: 1) Cancel the Agreement for Services with David G.Coffey; 2) Appoint Janet Bogigian as the City Prosecutor effective September 1, 1991; 3) Approve the attached Agreement for Services; 4) Authorize the Mayor to sign the Agreement; (items 2, 3, and 4 contingent upon interview of Ms. Bogigian and approval by Councilmember Weimans and other Councilmembers designated by the Mayor); 5) Authorize staff to take necessary actions to assure that prosecutorial services are provided by a qualified individual during the interim period; and 6) Appropriate $25,000 to the City Prosecutor budget for fiscal year 91/92. BACKGROUND: At the regular City Council meeting of June 12, 1990 the City Manager notified Council of the planned retirement of the current City Prosecutor, John Barry. At the regular City Council meeting of July 10, 1990 Council approved staff recommendation to recruit a part-time City Prosecutor and authorized the Director of Public Safety to seek proposals from qualified individuals to serve as City Prosecutor, delegated the direction of the City Prosecutor to the Director, and approved the scope of services and qualifications for the City Prosecutor. 1 16b Requests for proposals were posted on the City bulletin board on July 18, 1990 and an advertisement for the position was placed in the Daily Journal, a legal newspaper of general circulation to attorneys, to run from July 19 to July 27, 1990. Eight proposals were received by the deadline of August 1, 1990. Staff reviewed all of the proposals to select the qualified candidates. Five of the candidates submitted complete proposals and were scheduled for an interview. Three of the candidates did not submit a complete proposal and were rejected. An interview board, consisting of the Director of Public Safety, the Building and Safety Director, and the Personnel Director interviewed each of the five candidates and rated them on their qualifications and experience as follows: 1) David G. Coffey 2) Janet Bogigian 3) Martin Mayer (a firm) 4) Kenneth Mersand 5) Steven Berman At the regular City Council meeting of August 28, 1990, Council appointed David G. Coffey as the City Prosecutor. ANALYSIS: In early April 1991, Staff began to experience problems with the services provided by Mr. Coffey. He was not coming in for his office hours to meet with Staff and was failing to return calls from Staff and from citizens. Staff met with Mr. Coffey and informed him that his dependability and performance were less than satisfactory and needed immediate improvement. 2 The problems and lack of communication and dependability continued through May. After discussions with the City Attorney, the City Manager and concerned Department Directors, Mr. Coffey was sent a notice that his contract would be cancelled at the end of the 45 day notice period if all services were not being provided in a satisfactory manner, which they are not. In anticipation of a possible disruption in the services for prosecution the Director of Public Safety and Director of Building and Safety met with the person next on the list for City Prosecutor, Ms. Janet Bogigian. The meeting was held to ascertain if Ms. Bogigian was still interested in providing the services of City Prosecutor for the City and to request an updated proposal. Ms. Bogigian informed us that she was still interested in the position and she provided a current proposal for services (attached). Ms. Bogigian's retainer fee for up to 96 hours per month is $6,800 and her hourly rate is $75 per hour for all services in excess of the base 96. This will require an additional appropriation of $25,000 to the City Prosecutor budget since the budget for fiscal year 91/92 was calculated on the previous retainer fee being paid to Mr. Coffey. During the initial proposal process, Mr. Coffey's was the least expensive retainer of all the proposals received, $4,600. The next in line was $6,875 and Ms. Bogigian's original fee was $8,640. Alternative Recommendations: Council may choose to: 1) Direct staff to request new proposals and appoint an interview sub- committee to review and recommend a City Prosecutor; 2) Appoint an interview sub -committee to review and interview the candidates from the previous proposals and recommend a City Prosecutor; 3 3) Elect to allow Mr. Coffey to continue serving as the City Prosecutor on the condition that his dependability and communication improve. If alternatives number 1 or 2 are selected, there will still be a need to authorize staff to take necessary actions to assure that prosecutorial services are provided by a qualified individual during the interim period. Pi toy' Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager I) ' '\--e, William Grove, Director of Building and Safety 4 CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: Rem) ctfully Siibfitted, 7, Steve S. Wisniewski, Director of Public Safety This late arriving item lacks information necessary to approve all the recommendations. I recommend staff recommendation Nos. 1 and 5 be approved, but the remainder be tabled until: 1) Council designated representative Al Wiemans has interviewed applicants, 2) consideration of less expensive proposers is accomplished, and 3) option to reduce total hours in the retainer is explored. A $25,000 increase in annual costs should be avoided if possible. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL OF JANET BOGIGIAN FOR CITY PROSECUTOR OF HERMOSA BEACH For the past eleven years, I have been a prosecutor for the Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney where I have prosecuted--exclusively--infractions and misdemeanors, including violations of the Penal, Vehicle, Municipal, Housing and Building Codes. I have reviewed hundreds of law enforcement reports, filed hundreds of cases, handled hundreds of arraignments, pretrial conferences, negotiations, motions --including dozens of Pitchess and discovery motions --and tried some 25 trials with a 99 percent conviction rate. I am currently the Assistant Supervisor of the Criminal Appellate Section of the City Attorney's Office where I have represented the city in more than 150 appeals, again with a 99 percent affirmation of conviction rate. In addition, I have had extensive experience advising and training personnel in criminal law matters and co-chair the Office's Continuing Legal Education program. Finally, my duties include the compilation of statistical case -tracking reports reflecting the approximately 600 cases per month that are handled by the Appellate Section. Drawing upon my vast experience as a prosecutor of infraction and misdemeanor cases in one of the largest city prosecutorial agencies in the country, I propose to provide a full -range of top quality prosecutorial services to the City of Hermosa Beach from evaluating and filing cases through conducting trials. I would also provide full advisory, training and statistical services. As a Manhattan Beach resident who has resided in Hermosa Beach and who has family members residing there, I am very familiar with the issues facing Hermosa Beach that impact on the criminal justice system. Given this familiarity with the city and my comprehensive experience in the very prosecutorial services sought by the City of Hermosa Beach, I would provide the type of customized, first-rate legal services you no doubt seek. 1. Proposal for City Prosecutor of Hermosa Beach 1. GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS 1974 Bachelor of Science, Summa Cum Laude Majors: Political Science and Journalism Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois 1979 Juris Doctor, Boston University School of Law 1979 Admitted to the California State Bar 1980--1991 Deputy City Attorney, Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney 1980-82 Deputy City Attorney I 1982-84 Deputy City Attorney II 1984-91 Deputy City Attorney III 2. SPECIFIC QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICE A. CASE INVESTIGATION THROUGH TRIALS Investigation, Filing, and Arraignment I have reviewed and filed hundreds of infraction and misdemeanor cases as a Deputy City Attorney with the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office. In addition, I have staffed arraignment courts handling daily calendars in excess 100 cases per day. Pretrial Negotiations In staffing a master calendar court, I engaged daily in successful plea negotiations of dozens of infraction and misdemeanor matters. General Motions For several months, I was assigned to the law and motion section in the City Attorney's Office where I reviewed, researched, wrote responses to and argued dozens of motions including motions to strike prior convictions in driving under the influence cases, demurrers, motions to suppress evidence, motions to dismiss for lack of speedy trial, motions for new trial, and motions for release of and destruction of evidence. 2. Discovery/Pitchess Motions A large part of my job when assigned to the law and motion section of the City Attorney's Office included reviewing discovery requests and obtaining discovery compliance. I have responded to many Pitchess discovery motions and worked with the Los Angeles Police Department and California Highway Patrol in handling the motions. I successfully represented the People as Real Party in Interest, in the case of Miguel Herrera v. Superior Court (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1159, in which the Court of Appeal set forth the procedures to be followed in conducting in camera review of Pitchess materials. Trials, Appeals and Writs I have conducted approximately 25 misdemeanor jury and court trials with only one loss, and I have conducted several traffic infraction trials. I have represented the People from briefing through oral argument in more than 150 appeal and writ matters, and have lost only three appeals. I have handled many different types of cases, including a wide assortment of traffic infractions, driving under the influence, reckless driving, joyriding, petty theft, assault and battery, as well as Municipal, Housing and Building Code violation cases. B. ADVISING, TRAINING, AND STATISTICAL CASE TRACKING Advising, In -Service Training and Legal Updates A large part of my current position as a prosecutor involves routinely consulting with law enforcement officials regarding interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the laws. I also continually keep abreast of new criminal statutes and pertinent case law and, as part of my participation in my Office's Continuing Education Program, prepare memoranda explaining these changes in the law and their impact on law enforcement. For the City of Hermosa Beach, I would propose to provide a comprehensive program of training and legal updates as it has been my experience that practicing this type of "preventative law" results in more efficient and successful prosecutions. 3. Statistical Case -Tracking I propose to implement a thorough, organized case -tracking and statistical system for Hermosa Beach drawing upon the types of procedures I have learned in my current position. I am completely computer literate on the IBM and Apple computers and would use this literacy in doing these administrative tasks. 3. RENUMERATION A. RENUMERATION Monthly retainer: $6800 for 96 hours per month. For legal services rendered in excess of 96 hours per month, payment at an hourly rate of $75.00. B. EXPENSES 1. Reimbursed: The City of Hermosa Beach shall reimburse the prosecutor for reasonable incurred expenses in an amount equal to the out-of-pocket costs such as reproduction, messenger services, filing costs, witness fees, jury fees, court reporter fees, and similar costs relating to criminal prosecution. All expenses will be submitted with appropriate receipts. 2. Not Reimbursed: The prosecutor will bears the costs of secretarial or typist services or normal office operating expenses. 3. Method of Payment Within ten days after the first of each calendar month, the prosecutor will submit a statement to the City, attention: Director of Public Safety, containing a breakdown of services performed during the preceeding month specifying the services performed by dates and number of hours, and itemization of other expenses related thereto. The prosecutor agrees to modify and/or add to billing statement at the City's request to show cumulative totals and improve clarity. 4. 4. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT The agreement for services may be terminated by either party on 90 days written notice to the other. B. MALPRACTICE INSURANCE The prosecutor shall carry malpractice insurance covering errors and omissions in an amount of not less than $300,000. C. WORKER'S COMPENSATION Secretarial services would be provided to me on an independent contractor basis. If employees rather than independent contractors are retained at a future date, I will provide workers' compensation insurance in accordance with State Compensation Laws and a certificate verifying such coverage will be timely filed with the City of Hermosa Beach. 5. AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES WITH Janet Bogigian Attorney at Law THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 28th day of August, 1990, by and between the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, (hereinafter referred to as the "City") and Janet Bogigian, (hereinafter referred to as "Prosecutor"). WHEREAS, the City desires to engage Prosecutor to render legal services, advice, and assistance in connection with City's enforcement activities. NOW ,THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO DO MUTUALLY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. SCOPE OF SERVICE Reporting to and under the general direction of the Director of Public Safety, the City Prosecutor is responsible for the prosecution of violations of the municipal code and misdemeanor and infraction violations of the Penal Code for the City. Prosecutor agrees to render legal services to the City as City Prosecutor pursuant to the terms herein and when and as required by the City Council, the City Manager, or the Director of Public Safety. For the monthly retainer specified herein, Prosecutor will provide up to 96 hours of legal services per month which may include, but shall not be limited to: *Meeting with the various departments and staff entrusted with the enforcement of the various legal codes concerning violations, enforcement, and prosecutions during regular office hours each week; *Review of all misdemeanor, infraction, and municipal code violations; *Filing and/or coordinating filing of all criminal complaints; *Complete all legal procedures for prosecution through the municipal court system making all court appearances in connection with prosecutions including arraignment, pretrial appearances, motions, and trials (jury and court); 1 *Representing the City in traffic court as needed; *Filing answers and assisting the departments with Pitchess and discovery motions, making court appearances and attending in camera hearings as needed; *Assisting with legal filings for asset forfeitures in connection with illegal narcotics activity; *Preparing necessary documents to include motions and orders in conjunction with evidence and seized property releases and destruction, making court appearances as necessary; *Developing and presenting in-service training programs and legal updates to personnel involved in the enforcement of the various codes and laws; *Providing legal support and advice on sensitive investigaions; *Developing and maintaining programs and procedures to effectively track prosecutions and report statistical data on case loads and case dispositions on a monthly basis to the Director of Public Safety; *Being available on an on call basis to respond to crime scene locations and to assist the departments in the preparation and attainment of search warrants, arrest warrants, bail deviations and other legal matters as needed. 2. COMPENSATION For the services specified in this Agreement, the City shall pay Prosecutor a monthly retainer' in the amount of $6,800. For all legal services in excess of 96 hours per month, Prosecutor shall be compensated for services rendered under this Agreement at the hourly rate of $75.00. City shall reimburse Prosecutor for reasonable expenses incurred in an amount equal to actual out-of-pocket costs such as reproduction, messenger services, filing costs, witness fees, jury fees, court reporter fees, and similar costs relating to prosecution of City cases. All expenses shall be submitted with appropriate receipts. Prosecutor shall not be reimbursed for secretarial or typist services or normal office operating expenses. 2 Fees listed herein shall be subject to adjustment during the regular City budget process each year. 3. METHOD OF PAYMENT Within ten (10) days after the first of each calendar month, Prosecutor shall submit a statement to the City, attention : Director of Public Safety, containing a breakdown of services performed during the preceeding month specifying the services performed by dates and number of hours, and itemization of other expenses related thereto. Prosecutor agrees to modify and/or add to billing statement at City's request to show cumulative totals and improve clarity. 4. STATUS OF CITY PROSECUTOR The City Prosecutor is an independent contractor and not an officer, administrator, or employee of the City. The City shall not be liable, responsible, or otherwise answer for any claims for damages or other relief against Prosecutor based on any undertaking not authorized or directed by the City. 5. INSURANCE REQUIRED Malpractice: The City Prosecutor shall carry malpractice insurance covering errors and ommissions in an amount of not less than $300,000. The City Prosecutor shall provide the City with a certificate verifying such coverage or endorsement acceptable to the City. Such policy shall require 30 days notice to the City in writing prior to cancellation, termination, or expiration of any kind. Workers Compensation: In accordance with State Compensation Laws, the City Prosecutor shall carry Worker's Compensation insurance for all persons employed in the performance of services as set forth herein. The City Prosecutor shall provide the City with a certificate verfying such coverage. Such policy shall require 30 days notice to the City in writing prior to cancellation, termination, or expiration of any kind. 3 6. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT Prosecutor shall serve at the pleasure of the City and this Agreement may be terminated by either party on ninety (90) days written notice to the other, the effective date of cancellation being the 90th day of said written notice without further action by either party. Notice shall be deemed to have been given as of the date of personal service, or as of the date of deposit of the same in the custody of the United States Postal Service addressed as follows: CITY: Director of Public Safety City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 PROSECUTOR: 7. SEVERABILITY Janet Bogigian 1731 8th Street Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 If any provision or portion of this agreement is held to be unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable, then the remainder of this agreement or portions thereof shall be deemed severable, shall not be affected, and shall remain in full force and effect. The text herein shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and Prosecutor have executed this Agreement as of the date first hereinabove set forth. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY PROSECUTOR Kathleen Midstokke, Mayor Janet Bogigian Approved as to Form: City Attomey 4 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 15, 1991 City Council Meeting of July 23, 1991 FINANCE DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT, JUNE 1991 - Development of 91-92 Budget revisions continued. Due to the revenue shortfall, basically every line in the budget was reviewed. The recommendations were approved by City Council on June 25, 1991. - A process for selection of professional service providers was developed and approved by City Council on June 25, 1991. - The State Controller's Office reviewed the report submitted on City Street expenditures for the past three years. The review will set the "maintenance of effort" or level of spending required to receive Prop 111 funds. - A new activity "Discounts Taken" appears in the statistical section of this report. The measurement will reflect discounts taken since implementation of weekly warrant processing. The process is working very well so far. STATISTICAL SECTION MONTHNT ITLASTMFYTH I DATED I TOST FY DATE CITATION PAYMENTS 4,163 6,687 50,775 59,931 INVOICES 10 4 140 116 CASH RECEIPTS 2,140 2,134 21,550 19,730 WARRANTS 246 272 3,439 3,438 PURCHASE ORDERS 369 308 4,338 4,174 UUT EXEMPTIONS 669 651 FILED TO DATE PAYROLL FULL TIME 160 165 PART TIME 65 59 DISCOUNTS TAKEN $ 363.93 (INCLUDES MAY -JUNE 91) Noted: :T 1 $ 363.93 Kevin B. Northcraft Viki Copeland City Manager ' Finance Director ft r HERMOSA BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT {MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1991 !June 30, 19911 1 1 I i i . 1 FIRE STATISTICS This Month 1 This Month 1 Year to Date Last Year One Year Ago 1 To Date Total Calls 48, 821_ 3401 4201 i I 1 I (types) False Alarms i 11 9 23 411 Mutual Aid 0 31 3 11 Paramedic assists 1 241 471 174 212; Residence Fire ' 11 2! 20 351 Commercial Fire i 51 51 16 14 Vehicle Fire11 21 13 141 Hazardous Mtls. 1 4 41 20 181 Other 131 101 71 941 1 PARAMEDIC STATISTICS Total Responses 1 781 971 446 5101 (types) i i 1 I No Patient/aid 41 151 31 511 Medical ( 34 351 182 2051 Trauma 1 40 47. 2231 2831 1 Auto Accident 1 13! 161 81 102 Assault t 101 101 46 52 Jail Call 3 2! 23 24. Transports 1 391 451 188 2841 Base Hosp. Con. 1 281 161 155 1371 Trauma Center � 21 11 6 121 W/0 Rescue -11 41 3! STRAND AND BEACH CALLS 1 Medical only 21 61 10 251 Ocean Accident 0 41 0 6 Beach Accident 0 01 0 01 Bike v Bike 0 01 01 O} Bike v Ped ! 0 01 2 0 Fall off Bike 1 1 i2j 2 5 Skater v Skater 1 0 01 0 01 Skater v Ped 001 01 01 Fall off Skates 1 01 6 71 Bike/Skater v Other! 1 01 3 11 Assault 1 0 01 2 0 INSPECTIONS and PREVENTION | | | } ' (primary) i | | i Commercial 701 304611 1091 Assembly 01 O| O| 01 91 Institutions 01 21 O/ Industrial N 4101 5| Apartments 26 19 2131 112 (re—inspections) ' Commercial 37 ' 15 24811601 | Assembly 01 | O| 01 2 Institutions O| 01 21 5 Industrial 0 0/ 01 l| Apartments 3O' 17 ` | 2461 167 / | Fumigations 8 19 51 59 . ''` �0/m/y ' '- | �� �- / „r�, ^�� /'«r / ~ ~` /Ste.= .�/o�,v��^/. Kevin B. Northoreft. City ' anager Director of Public Safety ' | | | | / i | July 16, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 23,1991 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - JUNE 1991 The Public Works Department is divided into three (3) major functions: Administration, Engineering and Maintenance. ADMINISTRATION The administration function coordinates and blends the efforts of all divisions of the Public Works Department in accomplishing the directives of the City Council and City Manager; includes engineering and management of capital improvement projects. Permits Issued: Current This Month FY Last FY Type Month Last FY To Date To Date Sewer Demolition 0 0 56 84 Sewer Lateral 0 1 36 35 Street Excavation 5 10 177 207 Utility Co's only 0 0 716 473 Dumpster/Strand 1 0 30 47 Banner Permits 0 2 32 29 ENGINEERING The Capital Improvement Projects which are currently in progress are: CIP 85-137 FAU, Asphaltic Over- CIP 89-406 Sewer Rehab/Area 4 lay, Valley, Ardmore CIP 89-506 Various Park Imp. & Prospect CIP 91-511 R -R -O -W Parking Lot CIP 89-144 Strand Walk & Walkway CIP 89-516 6th St. & Prospect CIP 89-146 Street Median Up- CIP 89-604 Var. Bldg. Imp. grades CIP 89-606 Police Dept. Remodel CIP 89-150 Misc. Traf. Sig. Imp. CIP 89-615 Community Center Fire CIP 89-170 Slurry Sealing Alarm System MAINTENANCE The maintenance function of the Public Works Department is divided into the following sections: - Parks/Medians - Traffic Safety - Street Maintenance/Sanitation - Building Maintenance - Sewers/Storm Drains - Equipment Service - Street Lighting Parks Division/Medians: Irrigation repairs new planter mix & new plants at 11th Street Spread chips on green belt. Worked on roof and Prospect. City-wide. Put in and Beach Drive. repairs at 6th Street Street Maintenance/Sanitation: Sidewalk repairs City-wide. Street repairs City-wide. Rebuilt bus bench at Longfellow & Manhattan. Strand walk repairs at 2900 Block + 3000 Block. Sewers/Storm Drain Division: Put up and removed flags for flag day June 14, 1991. Continued rodding sewer mains City-wide. Helped Street Division repair Strand walk at 2900 Block + 3000 Block. Street Lighting: Worked on Community Center Fire Alarm System. Worked on Strand signals from Police Dept. to lifeguard station. Put up new street light poles in five different location in the City. Installed air conditioning fence on roof of Police Dept. Relamped street lights City-wide after inspection. Traffic Safety Division: Worked on fire alarm system at Community Center. Put up new street light poles in five locations City-wide. Painted new rooms in basement of Police Dept. Replaced regulatory sign City-wide. Building Maintenance Division: Worked on roof repairs at 6th St. & Prospect. Painted trash enclosure doors at 11th St. and Beach Dr. Painted restroom on fishing Pier(graffiti). Put in new handrails at Community Center. Equipment Service: On-going maintenance of City vehicles and equipment. Graffiti Removal: JULY 1990 AUGUST 1990 SEPTEMBER 1990 OCTOBER 1990 NOVEMBER 1990 DECEMBER 1990 JANUARY 1991 FEBRUARY 1991 MARCH 1991 APRIL 1991 MAY 1991 JUNE 1991 Respc�tfully submitt YTD TOTAL Director of Public Works Ant 'y Antich " mon2/pwadmin 39.75 48.00 30.00 81.50 79.00 41.00 33.75 29.50 35.00 70.75 40.50 21.50 Hours (Revises) Hours Hours Hours (Revised) Hours (Revised) Hours Hours Hours (Revised) Hours (Revised) Hours (Revised) Hours (Revised) Hours 550.25 Hours City-wide ;� Ki1 7 n B. Northcraft City Manager HERMOSA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT ;MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1991 i JUNE I OFFENSES REPORTED This Month 1 This Month 1 Year to Date i Last Year IOne Year Ago To Date Murder 01 01 01 0 Rape 01 11 01 1 R.obbery 11 2! 141 13 Assault 1 141 61 711 48 Burglary 321 231 1691 173 Larceny 1 431 531 3051 275 Motor Vehicle Theft 141 141 861 69 DUI I 361 331 2111 198 All Other Offenses 2961 3021 16801 1967 Disturbance Calls 3311 3701 14491 651 1 PERSONS ARRESTED Adults 1281 1261 6291 684 Juveniles 01 01 2! 1 Criminal Citations 1201 1 101 470 987 Bicycle/Skateboard Cites; 81 51 49 20 TRAFFIC REPORT ACCIDENTS Fatal 01 01 01 0 Injury 111 3! 53 57 Property Damage Only 391 81 1741 106 CITATIONS I I 1 Traffic 5581 4431 16141 3341 Parking 151 231 711 87 , CALLS FOR SERVICE Total Calls I 27771 23261 172671 16409 * * * indicates information unavailable ` 1 1 1 i Noted: Re s -ctfully Su mi ted, 47/=, J ma�y am, Kevin ; . Northcraft, City�tanaper !Steve S. Wisniewski, Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT JUNE ACTIVITY REPORT Parking Cites Issued Vehicles Impounded/Booted Calls Responded To Booting Revenue Dismissals processed Citations Issued Warnings Issued Complaints Responded To Total Number of Animals Picked -Up of which: Returned to Owner Taken to Shelter Injured, taken to Vet Deceased CONCUR: i'/ en y L. Staten, General Services Coordinator PARKING ENFORCEMENT July 16, 1991 City Council Meeting of July 23, 1991 Current This Month Fiscal Year Month Last Year To Date 6,507 11 114 $1,353 Kevin B. Northcraft, City Mananger 421 38 0 148 72 21 32 4 15 8,979 64 169 $4,229 N/A ANIMAL CONTROL 53 2 118 55 20 6 10 19 68,625 418 1,706 $43,379 1,866 403 0 726 639 188 187 56 213 Last Fiscal Year To Date 86,417 486 1,601 $49,937 N/A 902 2 760 672 203 229 43 206 Respectfully submitted, Henry L. Staten, Coordinator by Michele D. Tercero, Administrative Aide COMMENTS: IOD'S, Area 2 attrition, and positive enforcement of the Public Information Program, has reduced the number of citations issued. July 11, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council July 23, 1991 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY RESOURCES JUNE, 1991 ACTIVITY REPORT The Department of Community Resources has been involved in the following activities for the month of June. RECREATION PROGRAMMING • Hermosa priority registration began on June 3rd to the delight of residents wishing to sign up for classes, tournaments and special events offered by the City this summer. Non-resident registration began on June 12th. Over 360 participants have signed up for 41 classes with approximately $13,000 collected in class fees. • The six week Summer Park Program has 150 children enrolled with approximately $11,000 collected in fees and 17 children participating in our first ever Satellite Club (extended care). • Thirty-two (32) Slow Pitch teams were on handl" to sign up on June 6th with all leagues filled on the first day. The league consists of mens and coed teams playing Sunday through Thursday nights at Clark Field. Fees collected totaled over $11,000. ▪ Preparations for the first Hermosa Beach "Splash and Dash" to be held on Sunday, July 7 are under way. The course consists a 1/2 mile swim and a 3 -mile run. This event is sponsored by Fleet Feet Triathlete and the South Bay Wave Swim Club. RECREATION SPECIALIST POSITION • The department held interviews for the vacant position of Recreation Specialist. The expected start date is July 1st. After a lot of consideration we hired Linda Esslinger to fill the post. FILMING . On June 28th Totally Hidden Video filmed at E.T. Surfboards and on June 29th MTV filmed at the beach. The City collected $1,300 in permit fees. SPECIAL EVENTS ▪ June 6 - Ribbon cutting ceremonies were held at the new Clark Basketball Court Complex. The exciting play of the L. A. Stars Wheelchair Basketball Team concluded the evening's festivities to this long awaited opening. ▪ June 8 - California Beach Volleyball Association Men's Masters Tournament. June 18 - Marked the dedication of the "new" City Marquee on the Community Center lawn. The Chamber of Commerce made it possible for the renovation of the marquee with their donation of $7,000. MEETINGS June 18 - Surf Festival wrap-up meeting. The Surf Festival events will start on August 1st. Staff attended an administrators meeting sponsored by the California Parks and Recreation Society. FACILITY RESERVATIONS There are currently 55 facility users. In June the department processed 16 facility reservations. Facility 6/91 User Hours 6/90 User Hours Field 180 187 Theatre 58 79 Clark 182 174 Gym 290 64 Room 4 Leased j' 79 Room 7 10 9 Room 8 112 110 Room 10 93 86 Room 12 112 117 DEPARTMENT REVENUE Current This month FY Last FY Month Last FY To Date To Date $59,046.17 $36,721.32 Revenue Projection: $281,500 Community Resources Department general fund revenue for 100% of the fiscal year is $320,690.60 or 114% of the projected figure. $320,690.60 $282,616.37 Note Mary . R••ney, Director Dept of Community Resources Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager Respectfully sub ar ted, /?/A-/ Marsha Ernst, Comm. Resources Administrative Aide Dept. of Community Resources July 16, 1991 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS of the Regular Meeting of HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL July 23, 1991 PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT JUNE, 1991 Staff Reports Were Prepared for the Following 1. 2 Proposed Ballot Measures 2. 2 Appeals 3. 1 Text Amendment 4. 1 Conditional Use Permit (Commercial) 5. 2 Reconsideration of Conditional Use Permit 6. 1 Conditional Use Permit Review 7. 1 Resolution of Intent 8. 1 Biltmore Site General Plan Amendment/Text 9. 1 24-hour Operation of Markets 10. 1 Water Conservation and Water Quality 11. 1 Policy Statement 12. 1 Beach Front Parking 13. 1 Renewal of the Noticing Contract Service Miscellaneous Activities 7 presentation drawings related to Greenbelt parking and Biltmore Site prepared. The Following Activities Were Undertaken for Transit Projects Conditions Amendment 1. Routine tasks. 2. Attended South Bay Steering Committee meeting. 3. Prepared report regarding extension of Green Line and regional bus service. Meetings and Seminars Attended by the Planning Department Staff 31 meetings The Following Enforcement Activities Were Conducted Initial Inspections Follow Up Inspections Letters Generated Memos Generated C.U.P. Acceptance Forms Received C.U.P. Covenant Forms Generated C.U.P. Covenant Forms Received Citations Issued C.U.P. Violations abated 1 6/91 FY - 20 - 11 - 12 - 5 - 2 - 18 - 1 - 0 - 7 to Date 167 114 253 69 31 24 6 1 61 Budget Update Ending 6/30/91, revenues were 34.9% below budget for 100% of FY 90-91.* Ending 6/30/91, expenditures were 24.5% below budget for 100% of FY 90-91. *Revenues will be 23.14% below budget if "300' radius public noticing", which could not be implemented until 1/1/91, is excluded. Transit Update 1. "WAVE" Dial -A -Ride Ridership: FY Last FY 6/91 6/90 to Date to Date Hermosa Beach Passengers 1,024 845 10,081 10,750 Redondo Beach Passengers 4,462 3,837 47,883 46,481 Satellite Passengers 330 361 4,384 4,141 2. "MAX" Municipal Area Express Ridership: 6/91 FY to Date Beach Route 1 1,401 17,937 Upcoming Agenda Items to City Council 1. Text amendment to require relocation impact reports (RIR) for displacement of mobilehomes. Long Term Projects Underway 1. Recovering permit authority from Coastal Commission. 2. Updating zoning ordinance for compliance with current law, clarification of intent, and procedural correctness. 3. Finalizing process for oil drilling. Michael Schubach Planning Director NOTED: clef r Kevin B. Nocraf t City Manager 2 Respectfully submitted, YuFYin }T3g __ Administrative — i de Honorable Mayor and July 16, 1991 Members of the City Council ACTIVITY REPORT DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY JUNE, 1991 Attached for your information are recap sheets of department ac- tivity for the month of June as well as the quarterly report of buildings completed and demolished between April 1, 1991 and June 30, 1991. Overall permit activity increased in June as the department is- sued 77 permits of which 24 were building permits. One permit was issued for a single family dwelling. Twelve permits were issued for alterations or additions to existing dwellings and nine per- mits were issued for alterations to commercial buildings. Two dwelling units were demolished resulting in a net decrease of one dwelling unit to the housing inventory. The department also processed thirty-five plans for zoning re- view, plan check or revisions. Plan processing "turn around" averaged one week during June. The department conducted 164 in- spections during June not including complaint investigations. Building Department general fund revenue for the fiscal year is $407,526.90 or 100.7% of projected revenue for the fiscal year. Total revenue for all funds is $674,784.51. The Business License division reports that 372 licenses were is- sued during June resulting in revenue of $77,825.19. Business License revenue for the fiscal year represents 1107 of projected revenue for the fiscal year. The department logged 14 new code enforcement complaints during June, of which six were for illegal dwelling units. The depart- ment closed two cases during June and currently has thirty-three illegal dwelling unit cases under investigation. The initial report on recycling participation levels and refuse diversion is attached to this report. The report indicates that the participation level (at least one recyclable item set out) averaged 70.47 in June. This extremely high initial participation level is great news and indicates a vast majority of the resi- dents are enthusiastic about the program. The total volume of recyclable materials collected in June to- talled 316,050 pounds (158.03 tons) and represents a diversion of 23.07`/0 of the residential refuse that would otherwise likely end up in a landfill. Noted: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager Respectftilly Submitted, William Grove Director, Bldg. & Safety CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED Month of JUNE 1991 TYPE OF STRUCTURE DWELLING UNITS PERMITS PROVIDED VALUATION 1. Single Dwellings 1 1 297,000 2. Duplex Dwellings 3. Triplex Dwellings 4. Four Units or More 5. Condominiums 6. Commercial Buildings 7. Industrial Buildings 8. Publicly Owned Buildings 9. Garages - Residential 10. Accessory Buildings 11. Fences and Walls Swimming177--NTETIYHT—T5.51 s 13. Alterations, additions or repairs to dwellings 12 104,289 14. Alterations, additions or repairs to Commercial Bldgs. 9 79,923 15. Alterations, additions or repairs to indus. bldgs. 16. Alterations, additions or repairs to publicly owned bldgs. 17. Alterations, additions, repairs to garages or accessory bldgs. 18. Signs 19. Dwelling units moved 20. Dwelling units demolished 2 -2 21. All other permits not listed TOTAL PERMITS 24 TOTAL VALUATION OF ALL PERMITS: 481,212 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS PERMITTED : 1 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS DEMOLISHED: 2 NET CHANGE: -1 NET DWELLING UNIT CHANGE FY 90/91 -11 CUMULATIVE DWELLING UNIT TOTAL: 9,683 (INCLUDES PERMITS ISSUED) ** Revised figure based on land use study by the Planning Dept. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REVENUE REPORT Month of JUNE 1991 NUMBER OF CURRENT MONTH THIS MONTH FY TO LAST FY PERMITS LAST FY DATE TO DATE Building 23 22 302 331 Plumbing 34 36 287 330 Electric 20 22 206 282 Plan Check 14 14 196 181 Sewer Use 0 3 10 30 Res. Bldg.Reports 21 26 249 287 Comm. Inspections 28 21 309 197 Parks & Recreation 0 3 1 5 In lieu Park & Rec. 0 0 16 30 Board of Appeals 0 0 0 3 Sign Review 2 2 57 44 Fire Flow Fees 3 5 58 86 Legal Determination 0 - 0 Zoning Appeals 0 - 0 TOTALS 145 154 1,691 1,806 FEES Building** 6,060.30 9,451.83 189,225.20 177,289.35 Plumbing 3,250.00 5,216.00 21,852.45 38,005.00 Electric 1,854.00 3,518.00 27,184.00 42,798.50 Plan Check 3,802.83 3,571.40 147,915.25 105,957.98 Sewer Use 0 2,704.20 7,094.54 26,555.19 Res. Bldg. Reports 840.00 1,040.00 9,850.00 10,440.00 Comm. Inspections 1,120.00 500.00 9,900.00 4,950.00 Parks & Recreation 0 10,500.00 3,500.00 17,500.00 In lieu Park & Rec. 0 0 111,540.00 279,411.00 Board of Appeals 0 0 0 255.00 Sign Review 160.00 50.00 1,600.00. 1,100.00 Fire Flow Fees 2,098.00 7,089.50 145,123.07 128,486.17 Legal Determination 0 - 0 Zoning Appeals 0 - 0 TOTALS 19,185.13 43,640.93 674,784.51 832,718.19 VALUATIONS 481,212 906,412 21,588,102 17,820,804 **Includes State Seismic Fee $56.90 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA QUARTERLY REPORT BUILDINGS COMPLETED AND BUILDINGS DEMOLISHED APRIL 1, 1991 THRU JUNE 30, 1991 ADDRESS NO. OF UNITS 1220 24th Street 1 (SFR) 43 10th Street 1 (SFR) 3129 Strand 1 (SFR) 575, 577, 579 11th Street 3 (Condos) 444, 446, 448 11th Street 3 (Condos) 601 1st Street 11 (Condos) 326 10th Street 1 (SFR) 555 4th Street 1 (SFR) 1838 & 1840 Hermosa Ave. 2 (Condos) 939 14th Street 1 (SFR) 3018 Hermosa Ave. 1 (SFR) 1200 Artesia Blvd. (Offices) 1141 10th Street 1 (SFR) 1137 10th Street 1 (SFR) 519 & 521 11th Street 2 (Condos) 347 31st Street 1 (SFR) 345 31st Street 1 (SFR) 629 Gould Terrace 1 (SFR) 1009 4th Street 1 (SFR) DEMOLISHED ADDRESS NO. OF UNITS 2445 Park Avenue 1 (SFR) 125 Pacific Coast Hwy. (Car dealer) 132 1st Street 1 (SFR) 324 Strand 1 (SFR) 1644 Monterey Blvd. (Garage) 850 17th Street 1 (SFR) 1343 & 1345 Bayview Dr. 2 (Duplex) 656 Longfellow Ave. 1 (SFR) 2475 Silverstrand 1 (SFR) 1 DATE COMPLETED 4/11/91 4/30/91 5/8/91 5/22/91 5/28/91 5/28/91 5/30/91 6/10/91 6/12/91 6/13/91 6/19/91 6/20/91 6/21/91 6/21/91 6/25/91 6/26/91 6/26/91 6/26/91 6/26/91 DATE COMPLETED 4/8/91 4/10/91 4/23/91 4/25/91 5/2/91 5/8/91 5/9/91 6/3/91 6/19/91 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH INTER -OFFICE MEMO TO: William Grove, Building & Safety Director FROM: Sherria Lawrence, Business License Clerk RE: Monthly report for June 1991 DATE: July 11, 1991 CURRENT THIS MONTH FY TO MONTH LAST FY DATE LAST FY TO DATE $77,825.19 $100,471.38 $481,292.01 $457,605.83 Business Licenses Renewed New licenses issued during June 1991 Out of City licenses Home Occupation license New business licenses issued New owners of existing business Total 306 38 14 13 1 66 l' 1 1 �1 • ; 1° R 1 14 V. 1 1 1 eAl 61,4160i6VMWZ.5 !V 1 i im MMTMM,17“ !IIIII! I I 1 r 1 , v t �a ; 1 1 1j 1 1t : M M rl ri M rl �I rl �1 r� .•i •�1 1 ir5t x y«tyI ryy ci k Igg O v O a O O 5i5551i;17405 • • • • o • 1 c 111111111555W111 I" IIIIIiiiiiMiilill I WARMRMRM: ,t P31 u .1 4 n rl 1 H ft M Will Ml N N W pf trt.11.1A1.11twitWItNtt'ItANt .1,1, 111WIPIIM d b (11 1 1$1ffi0 MI 48 r F+ N ►Mi rpet t H C N H w kill3QdIJO 'I'3'8 LS:TT Tb, LT Tir July 15, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council July 23, 1991 PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT JUNE ACTIVITY REPORT Concluded recruitment for Deputy City Clerk and Cable Television/Public Information Coordinator. Recruitment for both these positions closed on June 17, 1991. Testing is scheduled for July 10 and July 11, 1991. Conducted two RELAX AWAY YOUR STRESS sessions through Managed Health Network, the City's employee assistance program, for City employees. Labor Relations: Commenced negotiations with the Teamsters Union, Local 911. Risk Management: Liability Claims: Worker's Compensation Claims June claims opened : 03 June claims opened : 5 June claims closed : 4 June claims closed : 1 Total claims open : 39 Total claims open : 81 General Appropriations Secretary: The following summary indicates the amount of time spent on each of the assigned functions: June: 160 hours available Word Processing 65% (104 hrs) Avg. 6.12 hrs/day Mail Processing 11% (17 hrs) Avg 1/hr day Directory/Dept Support 24% (39hrs) Avg. 2.88 hrs/day Word Processing Services by Department: Finance . 35% (36 hrs) Public Works: 30% (32 hrs) City Manager: 12% (12 hrs) Personnel 18% (19 hrs) Planning 3% ( 3 hrs) Building 2% ( 2 hrs) Respectfully Subm' d, RA Robert A. Blackwood, Director Personnel and Risk Management pers/pers 1 Noted: LZ - Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager • e eAkY March 19, 1991 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission April 2, 1991 VEHICLE PARKING ON PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: See attached memos. Background: The City Manager's office has received a number of complaints about parking along the walk streets. The City Manager has also received complaints about vehicles parking in what appears to be "front yards" but is really public right-of-way. On August 14, 1990, the City Council authorized staff and the Planning Commission to review the City's Ordinances and enforcement of parking within the setback area, with the intent to prohibit such parking. Pedestrian walk streets within the City of Hermosa Beach, where vehicle parking is possible in the public right-of-way, for the most part are those east -west streets located west of Hermosa Avenue and east of the Strand. (See Figure 1.) The majority of these public streets are sixty feet in width. However, only the center sixteen feet of the street right-of-way is paved with concrete. The remaining right-of-way width is equally divided with twenty two feet of public right-of-way along each side of the walk street. This is the area where it is currently possible to park up to 200 vehicles and that the Commission will be reviewing. (See Figure 2.) Staff will provide a slide show presentation of the current parking situation. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH LEGEND wALKSTREEIS AREA UNDER STUDY Figure 1 '1 • BEACH STRAND PARKING IN WHAT APPEARS TO BE "SIDEYARD" EXISTING HOUSE EXISTING GARAGE EXISTING HOUSE EXISTING GARAGE n 22' 60' 16' 22' R/W BEACH DRIVE R/W ISTING \RAGE EXISTING HOUSE ISTING 1RAGE EXISTING HOUSE Immonwr EXISTING HOUSE EXISTING GARAGE EXIS` HOU EXI: GAF PARKING IN WHAT APPEARS TO BE "FRONT YARD" A 'k-- R/W • 0 N Y Figure 2 EXISTING HOUSE EXISTING HOUSE L • Analysis: The analysis is divided as follows: 1. General Plan Review 2. Current City Code 3. Number of Walk Streets Involved 4. Number of Private Properties on Walk Streets 5. Number of Locations Where Parking is Possible or Occurring 6. Items of Concern 7. Manhattan Beach's Experience 8. Alternatives 1. General Plan Review Open Space Element Philosophy: The underlying philosophy of the Open Space and Conservation Element is to preserve and enhance the existing green areas, and to increase the total open__ space areas within possible financial ability. Streets comprise nearly one third of the City's area, and considering the small size of private lots and minimal yards, these streets provide much of the "elbow room" within the community. For this reason, these streets should not only be preserved but developed for maximum impact as green areas of landscaped ribbons throughout the City. Stated goals/and policies of the Open Space Element are: 1. Goal: To obtain and preserve open spaces within the City limits of Hermosa Beach, sufficient to provide for anticipated needs of both present and future residents. 2. Goal and policy #19: To obtain, preserve, and enhance green areas, such as street landscape strips, mini -parks and parkways as being necessary to the health and well being of the community. • 3. Goal: To provide room for, and adequate protection of, bikeways, pedestrian routes and trails. .3 • • 4. Goal and policy #22: To provide for the retention and further beautification of streets as open spaces, and to encourage further use of same as pedestrian walkways, malls and plazas. Streets, when closed for whatever reason, should be retained where practical and used for shopping malls, where zoning is appropriate or part of the bicycling and walkway system. 5. Policy #28: Streets. Any street not currently needed for vehicular access may be landscaped and used as bicycle and/or pedestrian ways. Circulation Element The Circulation Element approved by the City Council on August 14, 1990, includes City Policy No. 12 pertaining to Walk Streets. That policy states, "The City shall maintain its system of walk streets which contributes to neighborhood identity and cohesiveness and near the beach provides a safe and attractive access system for pedestrians, which is particularly important for children, handicapped and seniors. These walk street areas shall be landscaped and lighted and also designated as open space". 2. Current City Code City Code Section 19-61(b) states, -"No operator of any vehicle shall stop, stand, park or leave standing such vehicle...within any parkway". A parkway is defined as, "That portion of a street other then a roadway or a sidewalk". Section 29-38(2)(d) of the City Code also states that "Parking or driving on walk streets is strictly prohibited". Copies of the Code Sections are attached as Attachments "A" and "B". 3. Number of Walk Streets Involved There is a total of twenty five walk streets in the city. Of this number, there are six walk streets that can only be used by pedestrians and those walk streets will not enter into this discussion any further. The location of all the walk streets is shown in Figure 1. • • 4. Number of Private Properties on walk streets There is a total of 568 private properties that face or have frontage on the walk streets within the study area. (See Table "A"). The majority of those private properties have fenced off the public right-of-way and use that land as a part of their front yards. However, only a few of these property owners have a City permit to use the public land. Most of the property owners do not have permission from the city or insurance that protects the city from claims that could occur from within the enclosed public right-of-way. PROPERTIES AFFECTED BY EXISTING PARKING ON WALK STREET PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY 1. Number of properties along the Walk Streets, minus the properties that face the Strand. 305 2. Number of properties along the Walk Streets that do not face the Strand and do not use the public right-of-way for parking. (93.8%) 286 3. Number of properties along the Walk Streets that do not face the Strand but use the public right-of-way for parking. (6.2%) 19 4. Number of properties along the Strand • 263 5. Number of properties along the Strand that do not use the public right-of-way for parking. (87.a%) 231 6. Number of properties along the Strand that use the public right-of-way for parking (12.2%)-. 32 Total number of properties along the walk streets and on the Strand. 568 Total number of properties the walk streets and on the that do not park on the public right-of-way. (91.0%) Total number of the walk streets that park on the right-of-way. (9.0%) along Strand 517 properties and on the public along Strand 51 TABLE HA" -9- • 14 i i 5. Number of Locations Where Parking is Possible or Occurring There is a total of sixty nine locations where the parking of vehicles on the public walk street right-of-way is possible. Of that number, eighteen property owners have fenced or blocked off the public right-of-way so that vehicles can not be parked at that location. At the remaining fifty one locations, vehicles are parked on the walk street public right-of-way, resulting in approximately 200 parking spaces. Thirty two of the existing parking locations are on the west side of Beach Drive and appear to be in what would be considered the property side yard. Nineteen of the parking locations are east of Beach Drive and appear to be in what would be considered the front yard. All of these properties have garages on a public access at the rear of the property. That is the only area where vehicles should be allowed access to the property. The concern is where the property owners next to the walk streets are using the public street right-of-way as their private additional parking area. For the location of the subject properties see Table "B" on page 9. 6. Items of Concern 1. Liability is a concern because at locations where parking is occurring there is no private insurance that protects the city. If someone was hurt within the twenty two feet of public street right-of-way, the City could be sued as the owner of the property. 2. Some of the adjacent private property owners have installed gates or chains on Beach Drive along the edge of the street pavement, at the access to the public property, and do not allow the public to use the public right-of-way. 3. Some of the adjacent private property owners have placed signs on the public right-of-way stating that all others who park there will be towed away. However, the land is public right-of-way and only the City can have a vehicle towed away from public right-of-way. 4. The staff has been told that some of the adjacent private property owners rent out parking spaces within the public right-of-way during the summer and even year round. This activity is not approved or acknowledged by the City. The adjacent property owner also keeps the parking income for their private use if this action is taking place. 4 ib - 77 .,,.,E 'Tr --� �, , _. • • 110 5. The use of the public right-of-way, along the walk streets, for parking is presently unclear. Because of the impact due to summer time parking, the city has not enforced the parking code along the walk streets. • 6. The removal of all parking from the existing locations will cause a serious adverse effect on the parking in the beach area. 7. Cars and trailers stored in the public right-of-way adversely affect the aesthetics of the area. 8. Commercial usage by businesses is significant in some areas, especially the Sea Sprite Motel. 7. Manhattan Beach's Experience In 1969, the City of Manhattan Beach formed a Walk Street Study Committee to study and recommend solutions to the encroachments on the walk streets throughout the City. In 1970, the Committee recommended that the City vacate the walkstreet right-of-way and thereby allowing the use of the vacated property to revert to the abutting property owner. Advantages and disadvantages derived from such vacation are: 1. Elimination of encroachment problems 2. Elimination of City liability 3. Uniform use for all walk street residents 4. Saving of Council, Attorney and staff time 5. Assigns responsibility for maintenance 6. Increases tax base and revenue to City 7. Elimination of present hazards and unsightly areas only if parking is removed. 8. May encourage more intense development of presently undeveloped areas without further zoning restrictions. Because of concerns about higher property taxes to the adjacent property owner, as a result of the vacated land, the issue of vacating the public right-of-way was dropped. Instead, the City of Manhattan Beach established an encroachment policy. The Director of Public Works spoke with the tax assessor and was advised that a reassessment of the vacated land would occur should Hermosa Beach pursue vacating the land. 111 110 WALK STREETS (Locations on Public Right-of-way Where Parking is Taking Place) S.W. N.W. S.E. N.E. No. Intersection Corner Corner Corner Corner 1. Lyndon St. & Hermosa Ave. 2. 1st St. & Beach Drive 3. 3rd " n " n 4. 4th it " " n 5. 5th n 6. 6th it It It n 7. 7th II 11 It n 8. 8th " "' 11 n 9. 9th It " " n 10. 1 6th " It " " 11. 17th " " " 11 • 12. 18th " It It " 13. 19th " It It " 14. 20th " it " tt 15. 21th " it " it 16. 23rd " " It II 17. 24th " tt 11 II 18. 25th St. & Hermosa Ave. 19. 26th " 11 n 20. 30th-Pl. " 21. 30th St. & Manhattan Ave. 22. 31st St. " 23. 33rd St. & Palm Ave. 24. Longfellow St. & Hermosa Ave 25 34th Place It u n Parking taking place (51) Parking not taking place (18) Space not available - # (31) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes # # # Yes 18 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes # • Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 7 ' TABLE "B" -9- - - 18 12 0 5 7 8 Yes No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No Yes # # 3 13 9 • • 8. Alternatives The alternatives considered are as follows: 1. Strict enforcement of no parking and not allow any parking on the public walk street right-of-ways. (City Goal # 6 - Review of residential zoning standards) (City Goal # 8 - Increase parking requirements) (City Goal #10 - Enhance sense of community, improve the image of Hermosa Beach) (City Goal #17 - Improve the quality of life) Pro: The majority of property owners that live along the walk streets do not have the use of public right-of-way for their private parking use. Not allowing any parking on the public right-of-way would treat all of the private property owners equally. Con: To not allow any parking on the public right-of-way would increase the number of vehicles that need to be parked on the streets. This action would increase the parking demand on the streets in the beach area by approximately 200 vehicle spaces. 2. Change the City ordinance and allow private parking on the west side of Beach Drive only, with a city permit and parking fee of $0.50 per square foot per month with no conditions. (i.e. no landscaping, no limit on number of spaces, etc.) (City Goal # 1 - Improve the City financial picture) (City Goal # 6 - Review parking requirements) Pro: The City does allow the private use of public street property at four locations in town and the present rate charged for that use is $.50 per square foot per month. Estimated revenue for 2 parking spaces at each location. No. of locations west of Beach Drive = 32 Each space @ 10' x 20' = 200 square feet (32 locations) x (2 spaces @ each location) x (200 S.F.) x ($0.50 per S.F.) = $6,400 per month ($6,400 per month) x (12 months) = $76,800.annual revenue -f3- •110 The monthly fee alternative would be self policing in that only the parking spaces really needed would be installed. No one would be willing to pay every month for a parking space that was not required. Each of the spaces should be permanently marked and the fee charged against the private property for as long as the parking space exists. Con: With only a parking permit and no other requirements, this alternative would allow preferential treatment to those pri- vate owners who own the 32 corner lots 'on the west side of Beach Drive. In addition to the parking permit, an encroach- ment permit should be required which would then require landscaping, insurance and city control over the total public area. The properties on the east side of Beach Drive should not be allowed to park in the public street right-of-way because they would be parking in what is their front yard. 3. Change the city ordinance and allow only public parking with meters west of Beach Drive only. (City Goal # 1 - Improve the City financial picture) (City Goal # 6 - Review parking requirement) Pro: This alternative would increase the City's financial picture by providing additional parking spaces next to the Beach that would be in use most of the time. The City would receive additional parking meter income from these spaces year round. (Est. 32 x 2 x $200 = $12,800 annual revenue) The City would then control the parking which at this time is not enforced. Con: Of all the alternatives, this choice would most likely reduce the quality of life and the aesthetics of the adjacent beach area residences. 4. Not allow any parking and use the twenty two feet of public right-of-way for landscaping and to beautify the beach area. (City Goal #10 - Improve image of Hermosa Beach, better public and private landscaping) (City Goal #17 - Improve the quality of life, City beautification) Pro: This alternative provides the highest quality of life by installing large landscaped areas for the benefit of all the public that lives at or uses the beach area. Also this would improve the image of the community and would have the largest beneficial effect on the aesthetics of the area. Con: This alternative increases the demand for on the street parking and would impact an area that already has a serious parking problem. It appears that this alternative could add approximately 200 additional vehicles to the on -street parking situation. This would have a serious negative parking impact to the Sea Sprite Motel (west of Beach Drive ) and Mickey's liquor store (east of Beach Drive). 5. Vacate the excess public right of way to the private property owners on each side of the street. (City Goal #1 - Improve the City Financial Picture) (City Goal # 6 - Review open space standards) Pro: This alternative releases the City from -the responsibility for these areas. The City would also receive additional taxes from this new private property added to the Community. Con: There would be an added City expenditure to accomplish a vacation (i.e. title search, deed recordation, easement reservation, etc.) A vacation has the potential of increasing the density of the City and may not be the best choice. Without changes to the zoning code, the City could lose all control over the development of these 22 foot wide areas. The open space standards and aesthetics of the area would not be regulated and the image of the community may degenerate and be degraded in the beach area. Someday the City may want or need to use the areas presently in use by the adjacent private property owners. The use of public right-of-way should instead be controlled and regulated by revocable encroachment permits. 6. Change the City ordinance to allow private parking on the pedestrian walk streets west of Beach Drive only, with the requirement that the private use be regulated by a revocable encroachment permit and that parking fees be paid. In addition, parking should be allowed only in the easterly one-third of the right-of-way with no parking allowed near the Strand wall. (City (City (City (City Goal #1 - Improve the City financial picture) Goal #6 - Review parking requirements) Goal #10 - Enhance sense of community, improve the image of Hermosa Beach) Goal #17 - Improve the quality of life, City beautification) .j • L. J5. - • • Pro: This alternative would provide additional revenue, reduced liability and improved aesthetics. Present requirements on encroachment permits include, (1) insurance of $500,000, (2) that the City also be additionally insured, (3) that one-third of the public right-of-way be landscaped and (4) City control. Con: This will result in a loss of parking spaces for the Sea Sprite Motel (west of Beach Drive) and Mickey's liquor store (east of Beach Drive). Summary: a. The opinions among the various department staffs differ on this issue. A single alternative solution is difficult and a compromise alternative appears to be the best solution. b. A zoning ordinance prohibition or encroachment. permit condition for the area west of Beach Drive should not allow parking in the westerly one-third of the public street right-of-way areas. c. Some encroachments are long standing and will create a hardship if removed. All current encroachments should receive active restrictions to discourage massive parking areas, storage of vehicles, driving on walk streets; and encourage landscaping, insurance protection and reduced City liability. All new encroachments should follow current permit processes. d. The vacation option needs to be evaluated, although it appears to not be the best solution. Respec fully Submitt d, Concur: • Lynn A. Terry / Anthony Antich Deputy City Engineer Public Works Director Michael Schubach Planning Director § 19-58 HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE § 19-61 Sec. 19-61. Areas where stopping, standing, etc... prohibited; exceptions.' No operator of any vehicle shall stop, stand, park or leave standing such vehicle in any of the following places, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in com- pliance with the direction of a police officer or other author- ized officer, or traffic sign or signal: (a) Within any divisional island unless authorized and clearly indicated with appropriate signs or markings. • (b) Within any parkway. (c) On either side of any street between the projected property lines of any public walk, public steps, streets or thoroughfare terminating at such street, when such area is indicated by appropriate signs or by red paint upon the curb surface. (d) In any area where the city traffic engineer determines that the parking or stopping of a vehicle would obstruct the flow of storm waters, thereby causing such waters to overflow or be diverted from their natural drainage course so as to endanger or damage property, when such area is indicated by appropriate signs. (e) In any area where the city traffic engineer determines that the parking or stopping of a vehicle would constitute a traffic hazard or would endanger life or property, when such area is indicated by appropriate signs or by red paint upon the curb surface. (f) In any area established by resolution of the council as a no parking area, when such area is indicated by appropriate signs or by red paint upon the curb surface. (g) Upon, along or across any railway track in such manner as to hinder, delay or obstruct the movement of any car traveling upon such track. (h) In any area where the parking or stopping of any vehicle would constitute a traffic hazard or would endanger life or property. Attachment "A" ARTICLE V. ENCROACHMENTS* Sec. 29-31. Definitions. Encroachments are features normally located upon public right- of-way that serves a quasi -private use and are not normally in- tended for public use. A public sidewalk would not be defined as an encroachment as it relates to this chapter, whereas, a deck used primarily by the adjacent property owner would be defined as an encroachment. "Encroachment" means and includes any obstruction, tower, pole, pole line, pipe, wire, cable, conduit, wall, fence, balcony, deck, stand or building, or any structure or object of any kind or character which is placed in, along, under, over or across public right-of-way. Sec. 29-38. Guidelines and conditions for approval. These guidelines shall apply both to continuing and temporary encroachments; there being no permanent encroachments permitted. (1) General.- a. eneral.a. An encroachment permit does not constitute a build- ing permit. b. Encroachments are definitely a privilege granted by the city. There is no right to an encroachment. (2) Pedestrian walk street a. Fences may be permitted provided a thirty -six-inch maximum height is observed. To ensure visibility at corners, a thirty -six-inch maximum height is required within a distance of five (5) feet from the corner. This precludes any landscaping exceeding thirty -six -inches maximum height. b. Retaining walls of masonry, block, brick or concrete may be permitted provided the grade changes, extreme contours or other factors necessitate such structures. However, the height shall be the minimum necessary. for earth retention and shall in no case exceed thirty- six (36) inches maximum. A retaining wall on public right-of-way shall not support any structure on pri- vate property. c. Decks may be permitted provided they do not exceed twelve (12) inches maximum height above the existing natural grade and do not project into the public right- of-way more than half the distance between the prop- erty line and edge of existing or future sidewalk. Deck railings are permitted provided that they are of open wood construction and that deck and railing do not exceed forty-two (42) inches maximum height. d. Parking or driving on walk streets is strictly prohib- ited although exceptions may be granted during con- struction only by the director of public works provided the vehicle(s) do not exceed the weight limit. s Attachment "B" _/9_ • • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM DATE: March 28, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning CCommmissi FROM: City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft,+�P RE: Use of public right-of-way on pedestrian walk streets. ***************************************************************** Recommendation: That the staff be directed to research the pro- cess to vacate unused public right-of-way while protecting City interests through covenants. The private use of unimproved public right-of-way has existed for decades, perhaps back to the City's origins. Our attorneys indi- cate that there is a fair amount of potential liability that could result if no changes were made in our existing practice. Accordingly, any change should satisfy the following criteria: 1) Reduce or eliminate potential liability to the City, 2) Maintain and/or enhance open space in the community per the City's General Plan, 3) Resolve the uncertainty of use rights and responsibilities regarding these properties, and 4) Recognize the historical uses of the properties and the sig- nificance of preserving these uses. Encroachment permits might appear reasonable to handle the park- ing uses along the Strand (though charging for uses that have existed for decades seems unreasonable). However, extending the encroachment concept to uses throughout the City would result in as many as 1,000 encroachment permits being required. This would result in a red tape nightmare. Our attorneys advise that the concept of vacating the land is reasonable to reduce liability.. It also recognizes the histori- cal private uses of these properties. The concern about poten- tial future public uses and increased density can be remedied by the nature of the vacation, and/or zoning changes. For example, the vacation can include covenants that avoid increased bulk and density, preserve utility easements, and require rededication if a future Council chooses. Current zoning then should be clarified to prohibit use of front yards for parking. While vacation may subject the property owners to review of the assessed valuation of their properties, the restrictions on the use of that property should limit that impact. If any minor as- sessment valuation change results, additional taxes based on the ino'ese in value that the vacation causes seem" reasonable. This solution would eliminate the potential liability that cur- rently exists with private uses of public right-of-way along the Strand; on the walk streets, and on existing streets" resuch as Mon- tey and Prospect Avenue and preserve open space. It would do so at minimum inconvenience to the existing users and clarify the ability to use these properties as they historically have been used. - 19- • r • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission FROM: Anthony Antich, Public Works Director Michael Schubach, Planning Director SUBJECT: Vehicle Parking on Pedestrian Walk Streets DATE: Regular Meeting of April 2, 1991 Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1. Select alternative #6 to change the City ordinance allowing private parking on the pedestrian walk streets west of Beach Drive only, with the requirement that the private use be regulated by a revocable encroachment permit and that parking fees be paid. In addition, parking should be allowed in only the easterly one-third of the right-of-way with no parking allowed near the Strand wall. Michael Schubach- — Anthony Antich Planning Director Public Works Director pwadmin/AAll -20- LETTERS RECEIXED PERTAINING TO WALKSTREET PARKING NAME & ADDRESS PARKING LANDSCAPING ALTERNATIVE COMMENTS City of Hermosa Beach No private walls or other encroachments allowed on Lyndon Street. Sharon Myers 21 - 10th Street Debra Grossblah 916 - Beadh Drive Ron Blond 910 1/2 - Strand Cindy, Steve Hunt 910 - Strand Do not allow park- ing. Enforce existing no park- ing rules. City should develop land- scaped open area. #4 for no parking and only landscaped areas. Open space should be preserved and landscaped. II Jon & Janice Knickerbocker Do not allow park- ing. #4 for no parking and only landscaped areas. Support City effort to lower density, preservation of open space and green areas is of the highest priority. Bill Rowe 19 - 6th Street For limited use. 2 spaces on west side of Beach Dr. No spaces on east #6 Has seen as many as 8 cars parked on City property and has observed parking fees charged . Jere Costello 17 - 19th Street For limited use. 2 spaces on west side of Beach Dr. #6 54" height limit. Guest parking only. No R.V. storage allowed. Ed Nash 600 - Strand Existing encroach- ment does not allow parking. He has 6 existing garages and would like to use the east 75% of City property. He has approved 35% landscaping. _ #5 for vacation Have the City give the public right of way to the adjacent property owners. He has an approved encroachment permit with landscaping and insurance provided. NAME & ADDRESS PARKING h, LANDSCAPING ALTERNATIVE COMMENTS Al & Viola James 78 - Strand No limits on east 60 feet of public area. #5 for vacation They state that they are using the public right of way with City permission. Roy & Lois Knox 99 - Hermosa Ave. "Status Quo" "Status Quo " Homeowner's Insurance would cover City. Absentee owners are the Culprits. Jeanne English 30 - 13th St. "Status Quo" "Status Quo Property is only 1/2 of parcel • Private renting of parking and vehicle storage should not be allowed. Jacqueline Marks 702 - Strand No limits #5 for vacation Taxes are higher. Noise level is higher. Litter from beach. Leonor de Salido 26 - Fourth St. No limits Is misinformed that residents are parking on their own property. Mary Zachary 100 - Strand Parks 3 cars side by side West 60' is land - scaped with existing wall. #5 for vacation Chuck & Gloria Walker 2040 - Strand 20' setback from Strand. No other limits. Landscape only west 20' #5 for vacation Has 5 cars and would have to • park 3 cars on the street. Existing garage is not used for parking at this time, only for storage. Evelyn Stoten 16 - 16th Street "Status Quo" She has 8 renters, each with a car. Wants to continue to use "her parking area". Thomas Allen 1602 - Strand "Status Quo" Wants the City to do a title search. He calls the area an easement. NAME & ADDRESS PARKING LANDSCAPING ALTERNATIVE COMMENTS Richard Greenwald 900 - Strand "Status Quo" Landscaped as existing. #5 for vacation Thelma Greenwald 840 - Strand Has 5 spaces on City property for apartments. Has parking building on next block. #5 for vacation Nest to 28 unit apartment building. Darrell Grenwald 32 - Tenth Street #5 for vacation (at 840 and 900 on Strand II Moved fire hydrant for parking. Citations have been written for the last 15 years. Private flyer to affected prop- erties No restrictions. #5 for vacation Vacation would increase property values and the City could not take the property away from us. pworks/walkchrt • CITY OF .HERMOSA BEACH CIVIC CENTER • HERMOSA BEACH • CALIFORNIA 90254 PHONE: 376-9454 September 8, 1965 Mr. Karl E. Raife 145 Lyndon Street Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Dear Mr. Raife: At their regular meeting of September 7th, 1965, the City Council considered your letter and the petition signed by 35 Hermosa Beach residents regarding the building of a wall at the corner of Lyndon Street and the Strand. It was the action of the Council to establish a policy in regard to Lyndon Street of no side -yard encroachments on the public right of way. We are sure that the other citizens in this vicinity who signed the petition will be gratified to hear that the Lyndon Street walkway will not be changed. Very truly yours, BONNIE BRIGHT, City Clerk City of Hermosa Beach BB:bf - THE ARISTOCRAT OF CALIFORNIA BEACHES May 24, 1991 Mayor Chuck Sheldon and Hermosa Beach City Council 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 7,)4•G 14)} RECEIVED JUN 1 0 1991 CITY MGR. OFF'''CE Honorable Mayor Sheldon and Councilpersons, Many of us who have either grown up in Hermosa Beach or have been residents here for many years, greatly appreciate that you have taken the time to review illegal parking and commercial uses along the walk streets. We would like,to congratulate your staff for the preparation of a most comprehensive and well done report examining this issue. It is our opinion that the City should enforce the parking code along the walk streets and that there should be no parking on the City owned walk street properties. We respectfully request that the City enforce rules against any illegal commerial activity. Cars parked on walk street front yards and on the Strand are obviously not as attractive as open space landscaping. As the underlying philosophy of the Open Space Element is to increase the total open space areas, these streets should not only be preserved but developed as attractive landscaped green areas. Hermosa residents deserve t -o have these areas as beautifully landscaped open space. Thank you for your consideration. tbat *o5.,blat_-t Cl I IV &7aCh0�� Rn nozV DUAluS Matt , 1 Ya -rL•a e INA WO 6i-fVgT '1 1 STAANcia9-74,,cfrgovppZez4&t,e1k/ / /c.97/ Cmc ./ • M Members of the Planning Commission Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council 1035 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Gentlemen and Ladies: 2028 The Strand Hermosa Beach, California 90254 June 17, 1991 -JUL V 1g91 RECEIVED JUL 9 1991 PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. This letter is to voice our unequivocal support for the proposal for the city to commence strict enforcement of the city provision banning all vehicle parking on parking pads located on city -owned easements on walk street and Strand properties situated immediately east and west of Beach Drive. To do otherwise at this critical juncture in the evolvement of a better city would" -- be a gross disservice to your constituents and the lowered density goals you appear to espouse. The preservation of designated open space and green areas needs to be of the highest priority in a city whose biggest problems are high density, overcrowding, and too much asphalt and concrete. What is difficult to understand is how the city has permitted these restricted easements to be converted into unsightly parking pads where 4-8 vehicles are "housed" every night because (1) the property owner is charging for parking, (2) the garage is being used for an illegal residence, or (3) the garage is being used exclusively for storage. These parking pads blight the landscape, obstruct the view planes, and, most important add to the congested look of the city. We hope that you will keep the best interests of the city in mind as you make this most important decision and not succumb to pressures from a small group of people who have consistently taken advantage of the lax enforcement by the city of the prescribed use of the easements in question. The forthcoming decision on your part will do much to shape the future of Hermosa Beach as the kind of city where we would all like to live. Let's hope that on an issue as important as this that the perspective of our city leaders is not overridden by special interests. If you "cave in" on this issue, we might as well forget the other city goals related to down -zoning, increased open space, reduced height limits, and improvement of overall city appearance. Members of the Planning Commission Member of the Hermosa Beach City Council June 17, 1991 Page 2 of 2 We personally applaud the progress you have made in this regard and hope that the original intent of the easement designation will be upheld and enforced. Sincerely, �a,r„ R . Jon R. Knickerbocker Janice S. Knickerbocker 19 - Sixth Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 May 14,1991 Planning Commission City of Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 1345 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Planning Commissioners: MAY 2 01991 RECEIVED MAY 21 1991 PUBL'C WORKS DEPT. We would like to commend the Planning Commission and the Hermosa Beach City Council for finally tackling the parking problems along Beach Drive and The Strand. We are in sup- port of Alternative #6, which would prohibit parking east of Beach Drive and restrict the amount of cars allowed to park along the sideyards of Strand properties. As long-time residents, we have never been able to use our front yard for parking since the previous owner fenced the area off. We were told when we purchased the house that we could never remove the fence and use it for parking since it belonged to the city and parking was prohibited in those areas. The Alternative #6 recommended by City Staff would equalize all properties east of Beach Drive in that ALL would be prohibited from parking and, finally, this would be an enforceable code. We have also personally observed over the years, Strand property owners allowing cars to park on the city easement and then charge people monthly fees. Many times there have been as many as eight cars parked in these city -owned sideyards. We feel it is time that Hermosa Beach implement AND enforce parking restrictions in this area. Since not all walk street owners can take advantage of parking in their front yards, why should any? Strand property owners should be accountable, too, to their walk street neighbors, who have to look at cars and the commotion they create for the people east of the Strand. Vehicles, boats, campers, etc. are all eyesores when parked in the front yards and sideyards—and we are certain that property values in Hermosa Beach suffer because this is allowed. Please vote to enfoce parking restrictions along Beach Drive and on the Strand. Sincerely, 1 Rowe (213) 379-2910 cc. C. Ketz, J. Peirce, G. Rue, R. Marks, J. DiMonda, K. Northcraft May 15, 1991 City of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: Strand Walk Street Public Right Of Way Dear Sirs: RECEDED 4lAY,1 5 1991 L'UBCIG?WOR, SEP rT We own the house at 17 19th Street. 'We are at the North East corner of Beach Drive and 19th Street. Use of the Public Right of Way for Parking creats an obnoxious eyesore for us. We do not think it is fair that we have to look up the tail pipe of vehicles parked on public land, when we look out our window toward the ocean. We urge you to restrict parking in the public right of way as follows: 1. Guest Parking only! No regular use of this space on a routine basis by residents. Absolutely no storage! 2. Parking restricted to two automobiles not exceeding 54" in height. No Vans', Pick-ups or Recreation Vehicles. We think that this is a fair compromise that balances the conflicting interests in this public property. Our neighbors. are very considerate about their use of this area at present. Our concern is with future owners. Please include this letter in your agenda. Jer Costello (213) 538-5888 ED NASH 600 THE STRAND HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 (213) 372-8430 May 25, 1991 Christine Ketz, Chairman Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Dear Ms. Ketz: RECEIVED MAY 2 1991 PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. MAY 281991 A rather controversial issue has been raised by the planning staff, apparently in response to complaints raised by residents unhappy with front yard parking in the areas east of Beach Drive at 7th and 8th streets. Unfortunately, the staff response to these complaints has been to target all City -right -of way properties west of Hermosa Avenue, including corner Strand lots, for drastic changes relative to parking and use by property owners ad- jacent to such property. I own a double corner lot at the corner of 6th and Strand on which I built a cus- tom home in 1986. I have an encroachment permit from the City for the side yard, which I landscaped and enclosed. Hermosa Beach is also named as an additional insured on my insurance policy in the amount of $1,000,000. Since I have 6 garages I do not generally use the side yard for parking although my caretaker, guests, or vendors do sometimes park there. Needless to say I am very dismayed at the staff's recommendation to greatly limit side yard parking for corner Strand lots in response to complaints about 7th and 8th Street front yard parking, a different and somewhat isolated issue. I ask you, Ms. Ketz, not to undo a precedent of some 60 years and restrict or eliminate parking on Strand corner lots. Instead, I propose that the city right- of-way be deeded to adjacent lot owners and that parking for corner Strand owners be restricted to the rear 75% of the lot. In the case of an 80 foot lot parking would be restricted to the rear 60 feet. I have no problem with RV's or boats being prohibited in these side yards as they do block views owing to their high profiles and can be unsightly. In summary I ask that you and the other commissioners recommend to the City Council that City right-of-way property be deeded to adjacent property owners and that corner Strand owners be allowed to continue to park in the rear 3/4ths of their side yards without a restriction on the number of cars. Thank you for your consideration in this most important matter. RECEIVED III MAY 2 9 1991 May 28, 1991 Chr.i'st.ine Ketz I?UBLIC WORKS ,DEPJ„ aame's Pe.inee yeo,/ney Rue Rotea.t B. Masks 2o•seph DL (7onda MAY 2 91991 Deal Sits: We have lived on the corner lot at 78 Strand zince Manch, 1934. In that 57 year's with .the c.it.ie's peamizzion we have main- tained .the upkeep o/ .the connen right-ol-way te.tween out lot and 1'st St. 'side walk. In return we have teen penm.itted to u'se that 'section ion our pank.ing. /Koweve L, we have Leen azze"ed h.ighen taxez /or th.i's pn.i.v.ilege o/ owning a conned .tot. It ha's teen an .ideal 'situation ,fon aa..i..i.ing out /am.ily. Out ch.ildnen have Leen aLle to have thein /n.iend's here without the pZ.otiem o/ pank.ing on the 'street's. Out 19 gaandch.ildnen ate now enjoying th.i's .same pn.iv.ilege. We gnate/uLey 'support a vacation option plan /on co'nea lot's on the Strand. We 'support the 20 ,foot 'settack /nom the Strand that we would land'scape and maintain. We aequezt that you do not ne'stn.ict the numten o/ can's that we panic teh.ind that 'settack & Bach Dn. With a 2 can.. pan ..Lng..Aeztn.ict.ion .it would mean that we put 4 oa more (depending on the can 'size) cath on the 'street's to park. On a tu.y time o/ the yeah it is £mpo".sale to /.ind a park- ing place on the 'street's now within walking d.i'stance o/ our home. 7h4I's would .fie a tenni/.ic /2nog.lem with 'small ch.ildnen to lug az well az teach equipment, grocen.ie. & other need's. Pleaze do not de'stnoy our plea'sant living 'situation that we have enjoyed ton more than % century. We have worked very hand .in the city o/ /Lermo.a to make .it a Letter place to live and a pleasant place to v.iz it . Again we w.i'sh to 'say that we 'support the vacation option plan with the 20 Lt 'setback /nom the Strand that we would control 8 maintain. Please do not limit the numten o/ can's that we can panic on the nema.in.ing pont.Lon o, the lot. We tel.ieve th.iz 'solution would te a 2a.in one /on all o/ the teach ,cont connen lots and would te a le" dna'st.ic change ion all. Please con's.ider thiz plan. c4t& 7Jolaname+ 78 strand —28- 1e!moea 264 Ca 90254 eenely, r, 78 St and, /Lenmo'sa Beach. . 90254 May 15, 1991 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Subject: Use of city -owned side yards adjacent to Beach Drive We have lived in Hermosa Beach for almost 50 years and in our present home (at 99 Hermosa Avenue) since we built it 39 years ago. We have our side yard bricked, fenced, and landscaped in accordance with City regulations and at considerable expense. The study by the City Engineer's Office was well done and your objectives to beautify Hermosa Beach are very worthwhile. However, in the approach being taken, we think that you are attacking the wrong enemy. It seems to us that the culprits are not the people who own and live in their homes but, rather, the absentee landlords who care very little about who they rent to or how their property is maintained. We really can't believe that cutting down on the number of cars allowed to park in the city -owned side yards will be much of a benefit. We think that most of the owner -tenants will continue to maintain and improve their yards ana that most of the absentee owners and their renters will do little or nothing in this regard. To summarize our position, we recommend retaining the "status quo" rather than adopting measures that would compound the already -awful street parking problem and open a real "can of worms" regarding the City's many public right - of -way problems. Also, in regard to the liability for any accident taking place within the side yard, our insurance agent states that this area would be treated the same as the sidewalk adjacent to Hermosa Avenue._ In this event, as we understand, our homeowners insurance would cover this whether the claim was against us or against the City. V and . Knox Lois M. Knox 99 Hermosa Avenue Hermosa Beach, Calif. 90254 (213)372-0327 RFCFIVRD mo 199 AFinr, WnR�s D�pr • • June 24, 1991 To: Planning Commissioners City c.f Hermosa Beach Re: Vehicle Parking on Pedestrian Walk Streets JUN 251991 I live on 13th Street now, and grew up at the corner of 23rd and Strand. I read the report dated March 19, 1991, submitted by Lynn Terry, Deput.y City Engineer. I watched the Planning Commission Meetings on April 16 and June 4 ab==ut this matter. I read the article in the Easy Reader. And now 1 have some comments to make. 1 l It seems as though this whole matter was brought about because of some problems at. Sth Street with someone renting out parking spaces iii what they thought was their "front yard", and wit -h some inconsiderate parking/horn-honking/shouting early in the morning and late at night. Now this his escalated t -o t -he point where everyone who is parking on the public right-of-way, a practice which has been allowed for man`{ decades, may lose that 'right'. 2) Item 5 of t -he March 19 report (Nun -fiber of Locations Where Parking is PossibleOccurring) rc':ntains some incorrect information. The second paragraph talks about properties west and east- c'f Beach Drive and then state=: ''.All of these properties have garages on a public access at the rear of the pro=perty". This is not correct. At 22nd, 23rd and 24th St: e-ts, at- least, there are garages which face the public right-of-way :not _each Drive). The c'n1,- access to t -hese garages is via the public right-of-way. 7i) The March 1q report make=- the assuri:ption that the properties at each c'f the four corners from Beach Drive (southwest, northwest, northeast., southeast) is owned by c, single owner. This also is not true. At t -he s•out•hwest corner of Beach Drive and :Street t -here are two separate properties, owned by two different owners. There rrlay be other corners like t -his. Any proposed plan to limit par -zing west c'f Beach Drive to only the eastern one-third of the right-of-way would be 'grossly unfair to the 'front' property owner, who would nc't be al lowed any park ing - 4) Parking is a problem in Hermosa, especially at and near the beach. Further back from the beach, there is street parking available fc'r family members, relatives, friends, repairmen. At the beach, we have metered park ing where it is often impossible to find an empty space. Tak ing away the right-of-way parking wo=uld create a great hardship, putting many more cars on the already overcrowded streets. Residents will grumble and buy a permit (or several), and hope to find a place tc' park:. ( I invite any of you that don't already have to deal with this to try to find a parking place at a yellow meter, not once but every day-- • • how close can you get-? how many times around the block did it take you?) But what about when the rest of the family comes to visit.? What about friends? Where can we park those extra cars? How often would you go visit someone if you could only park at a meter, and then you still had to walk a block or two? Or repairmen? Do we make them park blocks away and lug their equipment back and forth? Make no mistake, eliminat- ing or severely limiting parking on the right-of-way would create hardships for the property owners and create a greater demand for street. parking. 5) Parking on the right-of-way has been allowed for many, many years. My family moved int -o our house at 23rd and Strand in 1956, 35 years ago. (My mother still lives there.) The family across from us has been there even longer. And we have all been parking on the right-of-way all this time, with no complaints from the city or any problems with public liability. 5) What about e=ther areas in the city where the right -of --way is being used? It seems very unfair to single out the area along Beach Drive for special action. 7) As far as solutions go, I think all sides of this issue would agree that at the very least parking on the right-of-way should not be rented or sold to others. And I think t -hat most involved would agree to not. use the right-of-way as a stt=rtgt urea fi=r unused trailers, boats, or cars. But beyond that, I don't- think any further solution that limits parking will satisfy any property owners currently using the public right-of-way. This parking has been allowed for a long time. To take it away now would make the limited beach area parking situation worse than it already is. Vacating the right-of-way has the very real disad- vantage of raising property taxes (by increasing the size of the proper- ty). r- ty). Charging for parking, or severely limiting ting the number of cars al lowed to park, is unfair. You are taking away something that has been allowed for decades, without- problems. j'? Why not leave things as they are, except for not allowing the parking spaces tn be rentededand possibly not allowing storage of veh- icles. r irles. I think this would satisfy the majority of the peop}e.i-volre d. Sincerely, Jeanne M. En=q l i s 30 - 13th St, ##E Hermosa Beach, CA '30:'54 secoNIV- ls"" OviottleQ0b0 JACQUELINE S. MARKS 702 THE STRAND HERMOSA BEACH, CA. 50254 ,*/s_, / 9 9� /Lel bs 44re-.-�( •r • LCA j;/ / 2/.‘.c -/Eyy _/7f, RECEIVED MAY 03 i9yi etz4•72... „1.�11 .. 1 7/ 724} �LZE— 444-422-- 6-1-1-1241--‘47Z - �7- - e.. . Ai -„2-4-; Z " ' I- 1 — 4 r e— ez_A-c_ ZZ - Z1,, -yek9 72 z; / Z I . / 4- j 4' e 1.: 7 —�, .1 14-41 d--, 4-1 4- 4 4-- /1( ' e-.9 _ ei,::_e_i i.zZ4P , ei,..1 0, .J1,62,1--/ o' er-t.-- .4 -e --4._e_... 7 L-- ../;./. e.A.Lf.d.,z_ ,,c24.i_et--1 le -4--- 6--x v v/ -)S'LZ'Z /-1;t;;" .f6e/ .."/QuA, J_ /2 -f -(70,424-z- ,.. /`s�9'Ec W EIVED MAY 475.7991 tan --Ks;DE t. t— I 1)2—'s 7-7e, / d4Zc-4-e- 4076 A," / s‘fre JAI `710 /ize-ey ,4 tea- ta-ou?- AXIL_ 77& af4e-g A oh, ,e/.40i,„_) May 15, 1991 RECEIVED MAY 1 s 1991 EUBLiC.woRKs D Dear Commissioners DiMonda, Ketz, Marks, Peirce, and Rue: We gratefully welcome and support a vacation option for corner lots on The Strand. We support restrictions, which would prohibit boats or recreational vehicles anywhere on the property. We are also volunteering to compromise, regarding the parking situation on corner lots west of Beach Drive, by proposing a 20 foot setback from The Strand. Twenty feet exceeds. average car length by four to six feet. The 20 foot setback conforms to an ordinance, which prohibits parking in the first 20 feet of the setback on one's lot. This would give a uniform look to all properties, since it would match the existing ordinance. In the interest of a fair and practical solution for the parking problems in Hermosa Beach, and the survival of the corner lot property owners, our only request is that you do not limit the number of cars behind the 20 foot setback. Most corner Strand lots are a maximum of 80 feet long. The 20 foot setback would guarantee a mimimum of one fourth of the property for an expansive vista, and would prevent vehicles parked anywhere near The Strand. The enclosed photo of our property shows the large expanse of a 20 foot setback with a landscaped area. With the proposed two car restriction, all visiting friends, relatives, business associates and maintenance and repair people, would be driven into the streets to park, when they could be parking behind the 20 foot setback. In most residential neighborhoods, homeowners have available parking in driveways, and on both sides of the street. With the purchase of the corner lot, we inherited an alley,. unavailable for parking, and metered parking, two streets away. There is no way that we could realistically survive with a two car restriction. We bought this property because we have a big' family. There are five driving members in our family, and everyone has his or her own car. If we were allowed only two parking spaces, we would have to impact the street parking with three cars, up to 24 hours a day. This is not even feasible. Living here involves coming and going throughout the day. That can mean circling the streets for easily half an hour or more at every departure to find parking. Even then, when all the yellow pole parking is taken (which it nearly always is) we would have to put money in meters 24 hours a day. 2 MID The strain of lugging children, mall purchases, groceries, and armloads of textbooks from two streets and several blocks away, would be a terrible hardship. This does not even address inclement weather, such as the raging wind storms we get here, or the danger of picking our way home at night. This is a tremendous price to pay, when a 60 -year precedent has allowed for parking right next to the house. We bought this property for the safety and convenience it offered. Even if we removed everything from our ''` y g garage, we could only park one car. there. Our cars are mostly average size, and even two sub -compacts would be a. tight squeeze. As for the parking on most of the other corner lot residences, cars behind a 20 foot setback are not unsightly. They are covered by at least a three foot wall. It is not necessary to mandate the number of cars allowed to park behind a 20 foot setback because after all, one can't park cars on top of each other. The number of cars would depend on the size of the cars, and on the size of the lot. If residents saw "for rent" signs for parking spaces, we are wondering why they did not report those people immediately. Most of the complaints targeted front yard property in the 7th and 8th Street areas east of Beach Drive. It is not fair to punish all Strand corner property owners because of a few isolated complaints. There was no extensive pattern of complaints on the entire length of The Strand corner lots. The entire community should not be made to suffer for a few acts. To show thatit is not necessary to be so extreme as to limit cars to two spaces in order to placate the few complaining parties, please consider the following: ACTION VACATION OPTION RESTRICTIONS PROHIBITING BOATS & RV PARKING 20 FOOT SETBACK ON STRAND DO NOT RESTRICT NUMBER OF CARS BEHIND 20 FOOT SETBACK RESULT CITY NOT LIABLE, PROPERTY OWNERS RESPONSIBLE CORRECT ABUSES THAT GENERATED COMPLAINTS GIVE THE CITY A PLEASING VISUAL UNIFORMITY PREVENT ADDING TO ALREADY OVER CROWDED STREET PARKING, & ALLOW HOMEOWNERS THE USE OF THE PARKING THAT HAS BEEN ALLOWED ALL THIS TIME. 3 The above solutions are less drastic, so as to be fair, and not unduly punish the majority of the citizenry. We deeply appreciate your taking the time to evaluate these options. Resp tfully, Chuck & Glori`al Walker 2040 The Strand Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 1 Y' 7 fir✓ �e c„t;z„, yo -z, ��. G74. Cdia-a--- ,4a'7 -z -z -"e -a) c2 -)id d&I-fr14fr e;tj 1)Ar ajir- A /.1-1-7r‘ tOe'241/ .1216 -14M 9 tZ'4 %/a'g a6L:da-1 Le tfi-L /1.‘JZ-tf,‘-L;7? ;y Y fr rj • _27_ 4,,,,,721,-4,,-,,, %-v* ?� - 0 -16,4 e. 3 J J. LITIGATION PERSONAL INJURY CRIMINAL DEFENSE i • LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS P. ALLEN III A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 120 FISHERMAN'S WHARF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90277 May 14, 1991 Commissioner Christine Ketz Hermosa Beach City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Re: Parking On Purported "Easement" Dear Commissioner Ketz: (213) 376-0922 (213) 772-8505 RECEIVED MAY .15 1991 EURLIC`WORKS PER. I am the owner of the residence located at 1602 Strand, Hermosa Beach, where I have resided for the past fourteen (14) years. My predecessor resided in said residence for forty-five (45) years. I take great pride in my residence, my neighborhood, and the City of Hermosa Beach. Understandably, I am extremely concerned about the current controversy regarding parking vehicles on the purported City easement. The controversy catches me quite by surprise. I never imagined that there could be any dispute regarding the manner in which the subject property has been used for decades. My initial response was to conduct a search and examination of every document which has bearing on this issue and my property rights. Such an investigation would be time consuming and costly. Upon reflection, however, it seems obvious that the onus of such investigation should not be on me, but rather on the City. My predecessor and I have enjoyed the possession, occupancy, and use of the subject property of decades, without challenge or dispute. I am in favor of maintaining the status quo. If the City intends to disrupt the status quo, I most respectfully request that it produce all surveys, legal documents, documents affecting title to property, and legal authority, upon which it relies.. Although the presentation made at the last Planning Commission meeting was most professional and impressive, it presumed the factual and legal authority that would be necessary to support City action. This is a very complicated situation with a lengthy history, and such authority cannot be presumed. It is not my desire to challenge, threaten, or obstruct. My request is not tactical. I most sincerely and respectfully ask that you "back up" and do the necessary search for all records which affect the property rights involved. J • • Commissioner Ketz May 14, 1991 page 2 No doubt, each and every one of the affected property owners would (perhaps, will) make this same request. It is not reasonable to presume that the "history" is the same for each of the many properties. I respectfully submit that City action cannot be accomplished by one stroke of a very broad brush. Substantial property interests are involved, and each and every of the various properties must be individually considered. It baffles me to see us moving in a direction which so clearly aggravates one of the most sensitive issues in Hermosa Beach: parking. We are obsessed with the issue of adequate parking, and for good reason. Residents, visitors, and potential business patrons compete in their search for a parking space with agony and frustration. They necessarily circle the block like vultures. The local press and political cartoonists focus on this undeniable problem. The Planning Commission and the City Counsel work very hard to reduce the problem and move toward adequate parking. How can we possibly consider pushing scores of vehicles from their historical "off street" parking spaces onto Hermosa Avenue and neighboring streets? Has anyone calculated the number of vehicles which would be displaced, and the environmental impact that would result? Someone has advised me that the number of potentially displaced vehicles would stretch one mile. Surely, such displacement will result in overwhelming hardship to local businesses and every resident for many blocks east of The Strand. There will necessarily be a rippling effect. The socio-economic issues and sentiments which may reasonably bear upon this matter lead in the opposite direction than what I have thus far heard. The persons who will suffer most from a restriction of parking will be our local renters. They are the ones that circle and hover in search for parking on Hermosa Avenue and neighboring streets. Owners enjoy the use of their garages, and owners would enjoy the use of even restricted parking on the purported easement. And, we are not simply talking about Strand and Beach Drive renters, but renters on the walk streets and all the way back to Valley Drive. I would be very pleased if you could visit me at my property to examine my specific situation. Also, I urge you to consider the Strand properties at 18th Street, 19th Street, 20th Street, and similar Strand properties where the owners have accomplished a design and landscaping which appropriately balance aesthetics, efficiency, and accommodation: We have attractively landscaped the "front" one-half to two-thirds of our property (that is, the portion adjacent to The Strand). The "back". one-third of the -39- • • • Commissioner Ketz May 14, 1991 page 3 property has been attractively developed for appropriate parking. On my property, the parking area is bordered by a hedge which is maintained (at my expense) at a height which somewhat "screens" the vehicles from view, but does not constitute an unacceptable obstacle. Such parking areas on the properties to which I refer can accommodate four compact vehicles by tandem parking, without creating any blight whatsoever. If the City would allow two Lincoln Continentals to park in a particular area, why would it object to four Nissans parking in the same space? If we are concerned about parking near the Strand wall, then we should address that concern. But that issue might be satisfactorily resolved without stating the number of cars that can be parked on the back of the property, regardless of the depth of the property or the size of the vehicles. I respectfully suggest that the most attractively landscaped "side yards" on the Strand have been developed at tremendous expense to provide for four compact vehicles. Lastly, I respectfully submit that a very unacceptable situation at a very specific location (8th Street) is provoking the City to take radical action which will wreck havoc for all residents and businesses west of Valley Drive. Surely, there must be a more specific solution to a specific problem. I have confidence in your ability to design and implement an appropriate specific solution. Thank you very much for your careful consideration of this matter. Again, I respectfully reiterate my request for a search and review of the historical documents which affect the subject property. TPA:nan 30: commission.ltr Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES -OF THOMAS P. ALLEN III A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ivy I�CG� Thomas P. Allen III - - • May 14, 1991 To the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission: My wife and I have been in business in the city of Hermosa Beach since 1955. Mq j�� 199 tam.. We always wanted to live by the beautiful beach in Hermosa. Finally several years ago, we were able to purchase the home at 900 The Strand. We are aware that you would like to beautify the front view of Hermosa along The Strand. We are in accord with this. Since we purchased our home, we have continuously maintained and improved the landscaping in the front of our home and the adjacent easement. Because of our large family (including 14 grandchildren plus) and many friends, we have used the balance of the city easement for parking -- rather than forcing them to further impact the street parking. We would like to maintain the status quo usage of the easement as it has been for 60 years. In return, we would be willing to accept a vacation of the easement by the city and be willing to accept the responsibility of additional taxes, and the liability insurance, which we have been paying anyway. This would benefit the city with additional property tax income. In addition, since most of the homes in Hermosa Beach have some street parking area in front of them --and we don't have street parking anywhere near --we should be permitted to continue to use the easement area behind the landscaped area for parking.• As longtime citizens of Hermosa Beach, we thank you for consideration of our desires. Pr. J ,/‘47w., gietee4t1 Mr. & Mrs. Richard M. Greenwald RICHARD M. GREENWALD 900 THE STRAND HERMOSA BEACH, CA 80264 (213) 378-3429 May 15, 1991 To the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach: Attention: When I purchased the 28 unit residential apartment building at 840 The Strand, it was very rundown. It was inhabited by drug sellers and drug users. Police records show that they almost daily received an inordinate number of calls for problems in and around the building. Old junk and broken down cars were parked around the building, some of which hadn't moved in months. I cleaned the building up. I restored the interior and exterior. I rented only to nice people. Today I have a building that is an asset to the Hermosa beachfront. With the easement and my other parking facilities, I have parking arrangements for all 28 tenants so that none have to park on city streets. I purchased a nearby parking building at considerable cost. I park 5 cars in assigned spaces in an organized fashion on the city easement and have parking spaces nearby for the other tenants. If the city wishes to vacate the easement. I will pay property taxes on it and I will keep it insured as I have done in the past years. This seems to be the most equitable solution in that it benefits the the city financially with increased property taxes. It does not penalize property owners that have maintained and improved the easements all these years. I will maintain the easement. I will keep it properly maintained so that it will never be an eyesore. Thank you for your consideration. 4 We4.'4.4&#01.44/11G/ Thelma B. Greenwald 900 The Strand 376-3429 -92- May 15, 1991 Dear Planning Commission; RECEIVED • _MAY 15 1991 EUBt1C' .WORKS DEP]; RE: easements at the residential house at 900 strand and the residential apartments at 840 strand. I would like to say a few words concerning the easements at these two locations. Most importantly I feel that any decision you make concerning the easements at these two locations should apply equally to all the walk street easements throughout Hermosa Beach including the easements up on Manhattan avenue. Whether people are using the easement for their front lawn or for parking or for a spa area or for a gazebo, all easement properties should be dealt with in an equal way. If any charge is to be levied for the use of parking , the same charge should be levied to all persons using easements no matter what the easement is being used for. I do not feel you can discriminate just for the parking use. For years and years we have maintained these two areas for parking; we have carried insurance on these areas and we have policed these areas. It has been said that the city did not endorse the use of these easements for parking use. This is not true. The city advised us what legal terminology to use on" no parking" signs in order to tow away illegal parkers. For the last fifteen years city parking enforcement officers have written hundreds of private parking citations for illegally parked cars on these easements. A City public works employee advised us we could have a fire hydrant moved in order to make the parking more accessible. We obtained the proper city building department and city fire department approval in order to move the fire hydrant and we paid approximately $3900.00 to have it done. If the city was not accepting the use of these two easements, why did they instruct us and help us in moving the fire hydrant in order to have easier parking access? Why has the city been citing illegal parkers on these easements all these years ? Clearly the City has encouracted and accepted the use of these easements as private parking areas for many, many years. If the City would deed the easements over to us, we would be happy to have them added to our property taxes. This would also benefit the City financially. After all these years that we maintained these easements , insured their use, policed their use, this would be the most equitable solution. Respectfully, Darrell Lee Greenwald 32 Tenth St. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 -93- YOUR VOI CAN MAKE THE DIFFERENCE! May 14, 1991 Dear P.roperty Owner: RECE,VEO MAY 15 1991 r, The planning commission will meet on May 21, 1991 to determine the fate of our parking status. The planning commission will be considering all letters from you. However, the letters must be received in the members' review packets no later than tomorrow, Wednesday, May 15, 1991. We urge you to encourage the planning commission to -adopt the vacation option for our properties for the following. reasons:: 1. The property would forever be ours, and we would never have to worry about the city taking it away from us now or at some time in the future. 2. It would increase property values. 3. If the property is not ours, the city can do whatever they want with it. Also, please urge the city not to restrict the number of cars that you can park on your property. The proposed two car restriction would drive all visiting friends, relatives, business associates, as well aw maintinance and repair people, into the streets to park. This would impact city parking, adding to already overcrowded conditions, when visitors could simply be parking adjacent to your house.. If you care to discuss this further, please feel free to call me at 372-6587. Sincerely, G�lbria Walker P.S. The names of the five planning commissioners are: 1. Christine Ketz 2. James Peirce 3. Geoffrey Rue 4. Robert B. Marks 5. Joseph DiMonda The City Manager is Kevin Northcraft. 54Y_ • s The meeting reconvened at 8:05 N.M. P -1O -- VEHICLE PARKING ON PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS_ Chmn. Ketz declared a potential conflict of interest due to living in the study area, and asked Asst. City Attorney Lee to express an opinion. Asst. City Attorney Lee stated that Chmn. Ketz had advised him that she owns property that is directly affected by this decision; under the Political Reform Act and the regulations of the Fair Political Practices Committee there is a presumption of a material affect upon the financial interests of Chmn. Ketz unless the decision that is reached would be the same for the public generally; given the fact that the number of parcels represent less than 10% of the City area, our opinion is there is a material affect and Chmn. Ketz should not participate. At this time, Chmn. Ketz turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Peirce; left the dais; and left the room. V. Churn. Peirce requested a staff report. Director Schubach said that the major presentation would be given by Lynn Terry, Deputy City Engineer, for the Public Works Department, showing the problem the City had with encroachment parking on City owned easements along the east and west side of Beach Drive. He continued by suggesting two possible recommendations from staff: 1) use a conditional vacation method to return the unused City land to the public; or, 2) an encroachment permit process as currently used. The biggest concern for the City, affecting many areas other than the walk streets, was the question of liability. Since it was City property that was being used, the City would be ultimately liable if someone were injured. When an encroachment permit is issued, the City requires insurance. If this method is used for all the parcels of City owned land now being used by adjacent homeowners, there could be over 1,000 encroachment permits, each with an insurance policy, to administer and maintain. Director Schubach suggested that tonight the Commission might wish to narrow the issue to the parking problem on the east and west sides of Beach Drive, and if time permitted, discuss how to implement the vacation or encroachment permit question. He felt that if the Commission wished to look at some of the other areas of the City, the best decision would be to continue the matter and ask for a more thorough analysis. 11 P.C. Minutes 4/16/91 • o• V. Chmn. Peirce asked the Commission if there was concurrence to decide on the land use on Beach Drive tonight, then focus on the implementation if time permitted. Lynn Terry, of the Hermosa Beach Public Works Department, began the presentation with the use of a slide projector and stated the information was being given to assist the Planning Commission to review and determine how best to study the issue. Mr. Terry gave background by saying the City Manager's office has received a number of complaints about parking along the walk streets. The City Manager has also received complaints about vehicles parking in what appears to be "front yards" but is really public right-of-way. On August 14, 1990, the City Council authorized staff and the Planning Commission to review the City's Ordinances and enforcement of parking within the setback area, with the intent to prohibit such parking. Pedestrian walk streets within the City of Hermosa Beach, where vehicle parking is possible in the public right-of-way, for the most part are those east -west streets located west of Hermosa Avenue and east of the Strand. The majority of these public streets are sixty feet in width. However, only the center sixteen feet of the street right-of-way is paved with concrete. The remaining right-of- way width is equally divided with twenty two feet of public right-of-way along each side of the walk street. This is the area where it is currently possible to park up to 200 vehicles and that the Commission will be reviewing. In response to a question from Comm Marks, Mr. Terry said that no cars had City permission to park on the public right-of-way. Starting with the General Plan, Mr. Terry continued with his analysis by explaining the Open Space Element. The underlying philosophy of the Open Space and Conservation Element is to preserve and enhance the existing green areas, and to increase the total open space areas within possible financial ability. Streets comprise nearly one third of the City's area, and considering the small size of private lots and minimal yards, these streets provide much of the "elbow room" within the community. For this reason, these streets should not only be preserved but developed for maximum impact as green areas of landscaped ribbons throughout the City. The stated goals and policies of the Open Space Element are : 1) To obtain and preserve open spaces within the City limits of Hermosa Beach, sufficient to provide for anticipated needs of both present and future residents. 2) To obtain, preserve, and enhance green areas, such as street landscape strips, mini -parks and parkways as being necessary to the health and well being of the community. 12 P.C. Minutes 4/16/91 • • 3) To provide room for, and adequate protection of, bikeways, pedestrian routes and trails. 4) To provide for the retention and further beautification of streets as open spaces, and to encourage further use of same as pedestrian walkways, malls and plazas. Streets, when closed for whatever reason, should be retained where practical and used for shopping malls, where zoning is appropriate or part of the bicycling and walkway system. 5) Any street not currently needed for vehicular access may be landscaped and used as bicycle and/or pedestrian ways. The Circulation Element approved by the City Council on August 14,1990, includes a City Policy that states, 'The City shall maintain its system of walk streets which contributes to neighborhood identity and cohesiveness and near the beach provides a safe and attractive access system for pedestrians, which is particularly important for children, handicapped and seniors. These walk street areas shall be landscaped and lighted and also designated as open space". Mr. Terry read City Code Section 19-61(b), which states, "No operator of any vehicle shall stop, stand, park or leave standing such vehicle...within any parkway". A Parkway is defined as, 'That portion of a street other than a roadway or a sidewalk". Section 29- 38(2)(d) states, "Parking of driving on walk streets is strictly prohibited". Mr. Terry explained that there is a total of twenty five walk streets in the City. Of this number, there are six walk streets that can only be used by pedestrians and those walk streets will not be discussed further. There is a total of 568 private properties that face or have frontage on the walk streets within the study area. Mr. Terry said the majority of those private properties have fenced off the public right-of-way and use that land as a part of their front yards. However, only a few of these property owners have a City permit to use the public land. Most of the property owners do not have permission from the City or insurance that protects the City from claims that could occur from within the enclosed public right -of way. Of the 568 properties along the walk streets and on the Strand, the total number that do not park on the public right-of-way are 517 (or 91°Z), leaving 51 properties (or 9W) that use the public right-of-way for parking. Of the 51 properties, 19 are on the east side of Beach Drive and have vehicles parked in what would be considered the front yard, and 32 are on the west (or Strand) side of Beach Drive and park in what would be E considered their side yard. Mr. Terry detailed the number of locations where parking is possible or occurring by saying there is a total of 69 locations where the parking of vehicles on the public walk street right -of -gray is possible. Of that number, 16 property owners have fenced or blocked off the public right-of-way so that vehicles can not be parked at that location. 13 P.C. 'Mi nutes 4/16/91 • At the remaining 51 locations, vehicles are parked on the walk street public right-of- way, resulting in approximately 200 parking spaces. All of these properties have garages on a public assess at the rear of the property. That is the only area where vehicles should be allowed access to the property. Mr. Terry showed slides of the properties using public street right-of-way for their private additional parking area. The concerns of the City were listed as: 1) Liability is a concern because at locations where parking is occurring there is no private insurance that protects the City. If someone %Nas hurt within the 22 feet of public right-of-way, the City could be sued as the owner of the property. With encroachment permits, a $500,000 policy, naming the City as additional insured is required. 2) Some of the adjacent private property owners have installed gates or chains on Beach Drive along the edge of the street pavement, at the access to the public property, and do not allow the public to use the public right-of-way. 3) Some of the adjacent private property owners have placed signs on the public right-of-way stating that all others who park there will be towed away. However, the land is public right-of-way and only the City can have a vehicle towed away from public right-of-way. 4) The staff has been told that some of the adjacent private property owners rent out parking spaces within the public right-of-way during the summer and even year round. This activity is not approved or acknowledged by the City. The adjacent property owner also keeps the parking income for their private use if this action is taking place. 5) The use of the public right-of-way, along the walk streets, for parking is presently unclear. Because of the impact due to summer time parking, the City has not enforced the parking code along the walk streets. 6) The removal of all parking from the existing locations will cause a serious adverse effect on the parking in the beach area. 7) Cars and trailers stored in the public right-of-way adversely affect the aesthetics of the area. 8) Commercial usage by businesses is significant in some areas, especially the Sea Sprite Motel. fir. Terry explained that Manhattan Beach had a similar problem and formed a Walk Street Study Committee in 1969, who recommended, after a year long study, that the City vacate the walk street right-of-way and thereby allow the use of the vacated property to revert to the abutting property owners. Because of concerns about higher property taxes to the adjacent property owners, as a result of the vacated land, the issue of vacating the land was dropped. Instead, the City of Manhattan Beach established an encroachment policy. 14 P.C. Minutes 4/16/91 • i The Hermosa Beach Director of Public Works spoke with the tax assessor and was advised that a reassessment of the vacated land would occur should Hermosa Beach pursue vacating the land. Mr. Terry then listed possible alternatives, giving pro and con arguments for each: 1) Strict enforcement of no parking and not allow any parking on the public walk street right-of-ways. Pro: The majority of property owners that live along the walk streets do not have the use of public right-of-way for their private parking use. Not allowing any parking on the public right-of-way would treat all of the private property owners equally. Con: To not allow any parking on the public right-of-way would increase the number of vehicles that need to be parked on the streets. This action would in crease the parking demand on the streets in the beach area by approximately 200 vehicle spaces. -2} Change the City Ordinance and allow private parking on the west side of Beach Drive only, with a City permit and parking fee of $0.50 per square foot per month with no conditions. (i.e. no landscaping, no limit on number of spaces, etc.) Pro: The City does allow the private use of public street property at four locations in town and the present rate charged for that use is $0.50 per square foot per month. The estimated revenue to the City would be $6,400 per month. The monthly fee would ensure that only needed parking spaces would be used, as owners would be unwilling to pay for spaces that were not used. Con: With only a parking permit and no other requirements, this alternative would allow preferential treatment to those private owners who own the 32 corner lots on the west side of Beach Drive. In addition to the parking permit, an encroachment permit should be required which would then require landscaping, insurance and City control over the total public area. The properties on the east side of Beach Drive should not be allowed to park in the public street right-of-way because they would be parking in what is their front yard. 3) Change the City Ordinance and allow only public parking with meters west of Beach Drive only. Pro: This alternative would increase the City's financial picture by providing additional parking spaces next to the beach that would be in use most of the time. The City would receive additional parking meter income from these spaces year round, estimated at $12,300 annual income. The City would then control the parking which at this time is not enforced. Con: Of all the alternatives, this choice would most likely reduce the quality of life and the aesthetics of the adjacent beach area residences. 15 P.C. Minutes 4/16/91 • 4) Not allow any parking and use the 22 feet of public right-of-way for landscaping and to beautify the beach area. Pro: This alternative provides the highest quality of life by installing large landscaped areas for the benefit of all the public that lives at or uses the beach area. Also, this would improve the image of the community and would have the largest beneficial effect on the aesthetics of the area. Con: This alternative increases the demand for on the street parking and would impact an area that already has a serious parking problem. It appears that this alternative could add approximately 200 additional vehicles to the on -street parking situation. Thais would have a serious negative parking'impact to the Sea Sprite Motel and Mickey's Liquor Store. 5) Vacate the excess public right-of-way to the private property owners on each side of the street. Pro: This alternative releases the City from the responsibility for those areas. The City would also receive additional taxes from this new private property added to the community. Con: There would be an added City expenditure to accomplish a vacation (i.e. title search, deed recordation, easement reservation, etc.) A vacation has the potential of increasing the density of the City and may not be the best choice. Without changes to the zoning code, the City could lose control over the development of these 22 foot wide areas. The open space standards and aesthetics of the area would not be regulated and the image of the community may degenerate and be degraded in the beach area. Someday the City may want or need to use the areas presently in use by the adjacent private property owners. The use of public right-of-way should instead be controlled and regulated by revocable encroachment permits. 6) Change the City Ordinance to allow private parking on the pedestrian walk streets west of Beach Drive only, with the requirement that the private use be regulated by a revocable encroachment permit and that parking fees be paid. In addition, parking should be allowed only in the easterly one-third of the right-of- way with no parking allowed near the Strand wall. Pro: This alternative ,would provide additional revenue, reduced liability and improved aesthetics. Present requirements on encroachment permits include, (1) insurance of $500,00; (2) that the City also be additionally insured; (3) that one- third of the public right-of-way be landscaped; and, (4) City control. Con: This will result in a loss of parking spaces for the Sea Sprite Motel and Mickey's Liquor Store. In summary, Mr Terry said: 16 —SO— P.C. Minutes 4/16/91 a) The opinions among the various department staffs differ on this issue. A single alternative solution is difficult and a compromise alternative appears to be the best solution. b) A zoning Ordinance prohibition or encroachment permit condition for the area west of Beach Drive should not allow parking in the westerly one-third of the public street right-of-way areas. c) Some encroachments are long standing and will create a hardship if removed. All current encroachments should receive active restrictions to discourage massive parking areas, storage of vehicles, driving on walk streets; and encourage landscaping, insurance protection and reduced City liability. All new encroachments should follow current permit processes. d) The vacation option needs to be evaluated, although it appears to not be the best solution. Mr. Terry concluded his presentation by saying that two memos were included: The first from City Manager Kevin Northcraft suggests vacation of the property, including similar public street right-of-way encroachments on Monterey and Prospect Avenue, and states, "...Our attorneys advise that the concept of vacating the land is reasonable to reduce liability. It also recognizes the historical private uses of these . properties. The concern about potential future public uses and increased density can be remedied by the nature of the vacation, and/or zoning changes. For example, the vacation can include covenants that avoid increased bulk and density, preserve utility easements, and require rededication if a future Council chooses. Current zoning then should be clarified to prohibit use of front yards for parking....". The second from Public Works Director Anthony Antich and Planning Director Michael Schubach recommends, "Select alternative #6 to change the City Ordinance allowing private parking on the pedestrian walk streets west of Beach Drive only, with the requirement that the private use be regulated by a revocable encroachment permit and that parking fees be paid. In addition, parking should be allowed in only the easterly one- third of the right -of -;;gay with no parking allowed near the Strand wall". In response to questions, Mr. Terry responded that there would be approximately 150 parking spaces remaining if alternative #6 where chosen; the length of the Strand lots was an average of 80 feet; and that no tandem parking had been recommended. Comm. Di Monda questioned the figure of one-third of the lot length for parking and said he would prefer a uniform amount, such as the easterly 18 to 20 feet instead. 17 —5/- P.C. Minutes 4/16/91 • The Hearing was opened at 8:47 P.M. by V. Chmn. Peirce. 1 David Schumaker, 1612 Strand, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to state that he has owned five beachfront properties in Hermosa Beach, one of which was at 302 Strand, for the past 25 years and that at no time has he ever been told that the property could not be used for parking. He said that he was a real estate appraiser by profession and felt if the parking were taken away the property would lose 20Z of its market value. He urged the Commission to leave things as they were. Pat Corwin, 31 Eighth Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to complimented the City on the report; stated he was a new resident; that he and his wife had researched the area before they purchased and were pleased by the City Goals that clearly stated the desire for beautification and open space; and, were told that the City did not allow parking on the public wallk street right-of-way. He expressed concern that the City did not enforce its parking laws; felt concern for the safety of the children in the neighborhood due to the "For Rent" sign for parking on the south east corner of Beach Drive, which had four spaces rented out; and felt that any type of vehicle could be parked there if something wasn't done. He asked the City to enforce its own parking laws. Paul Shank,1838 Strand, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to say, as a 13 year resident, he felt this was a very complex issue because each street was different. He questioned the number of complaints that had been received by the City, and questioned if there had actually been a problem of liability rather than a perceived potential, which is always present. He continued to say he felt it was unjust to charge parking fees and that the City should recognize the historical uses of the property , which included parking. He was strongly opposed to the idea of public parking because of the increase in traffic and congestion, and felt that owners could settle problems, such as the parking of recreational vehicles, among themselves. Steve Meadows, former owner of 542 Strand, Hermosa Beach, currently the architect of the project being built on the property, addressed the Commission with regard to new construction, saying he could not speak for what has happened in the past, but the planning process should be considered from here on out. He felt alternative *6 was the best solution except that there should not be a charge for parking; he felt people paid a premium for corner lots and higher property tax, so therefor it was unfair to charge for parking. He did agree that parking should be limited to the eastern one-third of the lot. In response to questions, Mr. Meadows stated when he first had his plans for the property approved one year ago, he had been told the City land should be shown as open area and he could park four cars there; but he did not go ahead with the project then, so his permit ran out; when he went the second time he was told he had to enclose the area and no parking was allowed. He also responded that the title search had clearly shown that it 18 - sz— P.C. Minutes 4/16/91 • • was City property, not part of the property that he was selling, and there was no stipulation that parking was allowed. John McFarland, 25 Eighth Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to say that he was a 50 year resident of Hermosa, and had lived on Eighth Street for 21 years. For many of the early years, the property on the southeast corner of Beach Drive and Eighth Street was owner occupied and well maintained, then it was sold to an out of state investor who tore out the curbs and parked cars on the property, bringing in an extra - rental of $2,000 for the parking on City owned property. He expressed the opinion of Realtors, that his own property values are substantially lower than comparable property in Manhattan Beach, due to the laxity of parking enforcement in Hermosa. He said that owner occupied property was not a problem, but usually rental property was, as it caused noise, congestion and unsightly conditions. He was concerned with the safety problem with rental parking, and felt that the City had been very lucky not to have had a serious accident. He concluded by saying that much of the problem was the lack of garage space due to the storage of boats and household goods in garages. Jim Gierlich, 1900 Strand, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to explain that he was a 50 year resident of Hermosa, and a 20 year property owner at that address. When he purchased the property it was advertised as having off-street parking and he had photos of the house taken in 1933 showing autos parked in the same areas as today. Some years ago, he continued, he needed a permit to move a fire hydrant in order to have better access to the parking area; with the assistance of the water company, he was granted the permit approval by the City, which shows implied permission, or knowledge, by the City to use the land for parking. The reason he chose that location was the safety of the walk street for his young child, and he expressed gratitude for the barricades on Beach Drive that helps provide that safety. He felt that a beneficial solution, for both the City and the affected residents, could be found since there are so few properties involved. Tom Allen, 1602 Strand, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to commend Mr. Terry for the amount of data in the report, and say that he, too, moved a fire hydrant for parking access, at a cost of over $10,000. At that time, he felt that he had the City's blessing and involvement in the project as the City showed him how it could be done. He felt the primary issues now, are beautification and parking, and that there was no con -elation between beauty and the lack of parking on a property. He mentioned examples in the slides that had been shown, that pictured an unsightly property without parking, and a well maintained property with parking. He disagreed with the idea that the City has liability due to owning the property, and claimed that the resident owners who maintain and exercise control of the property are primarily liable, but if the City were to take control of the right-of-ways, then the City would be primarily liable. He questioned the ability of the City to spend thousands of dollars on landscaping the property if they can not afford to fix potholes on Beach Drive. He urged the Commission not to base their decision on isolated instances of parking abuses and stated that he knew of no garages 19 P.C. Minutes 4/16/91 —s3 that were not used for parking as it was a precious commodity. in response to questions, he stated that he had done extensive landscaping and paving and had four parking spaces. Susan McFarland, 25 Eighth Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to thank the Public Works Department for the report, stating that she had become involved with this issue in 1978 when the third curb cut was made in her area for parking; in 1986 she went to the City to supply them with the information on the study and results in Manhattan Beach; tonight was the first time that a public forum had been held, and she wished the City to know that this issue was a concern to the residents and users of the walk streets, which were the gateways to the beach. She said that two weeks ago she had watched a 25 year old tree removed to provide a better parking area for a renter paying $60 per month for the space. And, in her neighborhood there is one Strand property that parks 12 cars on the sides of the lot. Within a 100 foot radius there are five garages not used, two on the Strand and one that is used as a practice room for a band. She felt that the Commission would choose alternative 06, and hoped that there was some means to have owners and renters refrain from parking extra cars in their area. She asked the Commission to set criteria for the space allowed for parking, to set a definite size limit, such as 10 by 20 feet per car; as one-third of the lot was too vague a term and could allow tandem parking on some lots. She also suggested that the areas be used for automobiles only, and not allow storage of RVs, boats, or long term auto storage, and that good landscaping be required, if possible with hedges that shield the areas from view. Ed Nash, 600 Strand, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to agree that the problem of noise and an unsightly car lot is not pleasant and would precipitate complaints, but he wished the Commission to consider the in -compliance, non- problematic on- problematic properties, such as his, where parking is seldom used, landscaping is in, and $1,000,000 in liability insurance is in force. He asked that something be done about the problems, but he would object to paying for parking that was seldom used, and did not agree with the one-third lot limit, he felt that one half would be better.. He asked the Commission to discriminate between the problem cases and those • who were in compliance. Thelma Greenwald, 900 Strand, Hermosa Beach, and co-owner of the Sea Sprite Motel, addressed the Commission to say that six and one half years ago she purchased a 28 unit facility at Ninth Street and the Strand with 17 parking spaces, later she purchased another property simply for parking. She uses four spaces on the right-of-way for parking when her children and grandchildren come to visit and taking that parking now would be a hardship for her. Gail Corwin, 31 Eighth Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and remarked that there had been a lot of talk about money and property values, but when they had purchased their home they had paid a premium to live on a walk street. If they didn't 20 P.C. Minutes 4/16/91 • care about noise, lack of safety for their children, and unsightly cars parked in front yards, they could have bought a home for a lot less money; they were not getting what they paid for. If nothing is done about these conditions when the process is completed., a lot more people might start parking in their front yard, because parking truly is at a premium, and many of her neighbors needed more parking. Jerry Compton, G.W.C., Inc., addressed the Commission and stated that he was en architect in town and had done a lot of projects that adjoin the right-of-way areas, and it needed to be brought out that the walk streets were not the only places in Hermosa Beach with public right-of-ways used for the sole benefit of private property owners. It was his opinion that these areas should not be subsidized by the public, but belong to the people who use them, with property taxes paid on them. Originally the right-of-ways were to be streets, but they were never used for that purpose, so now they have become wide easements, unused by the City to the point where many owners think the land belongs to them. All of Monterey Boulevard has a 20 foot right-of-way on both sides of the street, in some cases the City owns the land up to the building. Whether parking is allowed, large setbacks are required, or one-third of the land is to be planted could be restricted by the zoning code. The problem ;^rith parking on the right-of-way is that it is not private property, it is not a front yard; if it were a front yard there could be laws against parking in a front yard. All ares in town should be turned back to the adjacent property owners. Anthony Drewery, 1540 Strand, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and stated that most of the concerns he was going to address had already been said. But one issue brought up by Jerry Compton needed to be considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council: why single out the area west of Hermosa Avenue when there were so many other areas with public right-of-way parking? He listed: Monterey Boulevard; Palm Drive; Bayview Drive; Circle Drive; Loma Drive; 31st Place; Valley Park; Manhattan Avenue; Ocean Drive and probably others, as streets with right-of-way parking. He also had two questions. First, had the City Attorney reviewed the legality of each recommendation, in particular regarding the vacation of the property, the City Attorney should render an opinion. Second, the City should obtain a title report and a litigation guarantee with regard to every piece of property it intends to affect by any action. V. Chmn. Peirce responded that the Planning Commission intended to look at all the areas in the City and make their recommendations to the City Council. Eric Castleman, 336 Strand, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to say that the City needed beautification, and cars parked anywhere except in a garage where ugly, There should not be parking allowed on the right-of-way, it should be kept and landscaped and turned into true open space. Beautify the city and raise everyone's property values. P.C. Minutes 4/16/91 Howard Longacre, 1221 seventh Place, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to say that he did not have a particular position on this question at this time but he would like to list some observations: 1) liability insurance for an encroachment is an amendment to a policy and usually can be obtained for little or no cost; 2) regarding the barricades on Beach Drive, there should be barricades on all the streets in town; 3) Manhattan Beach property, without parking, is selling at close to three quarters of a million dollars more than comparable property in Hermosa; 4) the City needs to look into the old deeds to the property because he thought that there might be rights granted with the property to the use of the easements; 5) as a civil engineer, he knew that highways, created to fill a need, will be used and create more need; he thought the same was true of parking. Mr. Longacre then asked for a point of order to say that in his view there was a potential conflict of interest on the part of V. Chmn. Peirce, who , he believed, was a business partner of Mayor Sheldon in the ownership of property, and since Mayor Sheldon owned property in the subject area and would have to declare a conflict when it came before the City Council, Mr. Peirce should declare his business relationship with Mayor Sheldon and step down also. George Lanz, 17 Sixteenth Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to comment that he lived on the east side of Beach Drive, and if alternative #6 were the choice of the Commission, he saw no rationale from the report given for the exclusion of the east side, and encouraged the Commission to make no such restrictions. Parking encroachment on public right-of-way appeared to be a City-wide problem, therefor it seemed logical to examine the the problem in total and not fragment it as it was possible that a different recommendation would be found for some other part of the city. Adriana Kusion, 1925 Strand, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to present the concerns of a renter at that address for five gears by stating that when the barricades were down on Beach Drive, it became a highway, During the summer months the teenagers would park in the alleys at 2:00 in the morning, drinking and playing their radios full blast, if public parking were allowed this would happen all year long. She felt taking the barricades down for public parking would increase the chance of an accident and the City's liability. The Hearing was closed at 10:00 P.M. by V. Chmn. Peirce, who wished to point out to the audience that this was a hearing, but not a public hearing. Responding to a question of the ultimate "deep pockets" from Comm. Rue, Asst. City Attorney Lee said that the City had the primary responsibility and liability for any injury on the property. Although the adjacent property owner would be named in a negligence suit, the City would also be named. There was a greater risk to the City by allowing private use of the property without appropriate coverage, because it did not relieve the City of its liability if the owner has made improvements. P.C. Minutes 4/16/91 i • V. Chmn. Peirce asked if the City Council wanted the entire thing or would they accept a piece at a time? Lynn Terry said that he was not sure; because the entire number of properties was so large, staff was trying to break it down into portions that could be handled. V.Chmn. Peirce said that tonight they would just consider the land use for Beach Drive and have the implementation researched in more detail. Asst. City Attorney Lee agreed that would be most appropriate; depending upon the decision regarding the land use., the City Attorney's Office would review the implementation; i.e. if the decision was to allow parking, the options of encroachment or vacation could be brought back in more detail. with the various restrictions possible. In response to Comm. Di Monda's question regarding title search. Asst. City Attorney Lee answered that would depend on the land use decision and the implementation chosen. If you want to vacate the property then the question turns on who owns the underlying fee on the area once it is vacated. If in fact it has been conveyed over by the City, and the City has the underlying fee title to the property, then the decision to vacate would leave the next step to sell the property. If the underlying fee belongs to the adjacent property owner, then vacation would provide automatic reversion back to the property owner. Director Schubach answered the question of the possible tax assessment increase to adjacent property owners in the event of vacation by saying that the amount was not known at this time, but a meeting was in the process with the tax assessor for this area to determine that question. Asst. City Attorney Lee stated that under current law the property in question is public right-of-way, and even though the City had not enforced its rights in the past it had the right to begin enforcement now of the rules within the Municipal Ordinances. In his opinion, there was no estoppel to prevent the City. from beginning enforcement actions to require parking be removed or the public right-of-way be kept open as required under the present City Code. He continued, that in regard to whether or not there was some sort of prescriptive easement or prescriptive right that has accrued to each of these property owners because of the length of time that has passed, that is an issue that our office would have to research. Mr. Lee stated that his preliminary response would be that it would be against public policy to allow some sort of adverse possession to accrue to a private person over public property. In response to a question from Comm. Marks, Asst. City Attorney Lee responded that the City Attorney's Office represented the public in general and the City's interest is in the benefit of the public in general. His office would not provide representation to each individual property owner who may believe he• had a private property right in public 23 P.C. Minutes 4/16/91 • walkways. If there was an issue that the City wanted to know what its position was in regard to that issue, then the direction would come from the Planning commission or the City Council to look into that issue, but it could not come from an individual or a group of individuals. Mr. Lee continued, that he would issue an opinion in confidentiality to the Planning Commission and/or the City Council, advising of the City's legal rights with respect to enforcement on these walkways and only in that context. Comm. Rue commented that he felt that the General Plan was the overriding document for the City. Both Open Space and Parking were very large factors in that plan, a compromise was needed here and alternative *6 seemed a decent compromise, as trying to maintain open space would be onerous on all the people who had the use of the property for many years. Therefor he would support: a two car maximum, side by side, with landscape maintained along the walk street, autos only, no RVs or boats, and maximum height for fences and landscaping. Comm. Di Monde preferred a limit of 13 to 20 feet on parking, landscape regulation stipulating no contiguous hardscape, a delineation to prevent autos from moving forward beyond a certain point, space between street and property, and a request that staff also pursue vacation proceedings. Jerry Compton suggested that parking radius be considered. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Di Monde to continue this item to the meeting of May 21, 1991, at which time staff would provide more detailed information, with the understanding that the focus was on Alternative #6 and the implementation of vacation versus encroachment. It was further understood that staff would provide more details on the following criteria: two car maximum; side by side parking; no tandem parking allowed; access directly from Beach Drive; separation between landscaping and parking area; landscaping along the walk street separating the walk street from parking; no allowance for Recreational Vehicles such as RVs, boats or others; the purpose of parking is for automobiles only; height of fences and landscaping to be addressed; and, depth appropriate with turning radius of the alley. In addition, staff was directed to return with information pertaining to the legal consequence of the possible actions and if there would be major tax consequences to the owners in the event of vacation. AYES: Comms. Rue, Di Monde, V. Chmn. Peirce NOES: Comm. Marks ABSTAIN: Chmn. Ketz ABSENT: None The meeting recessed at 10:22 P.M. The Meeting reconvened at 10:25 P.M. 24 P.C. Minutes 4/16/91 • May 30, 1991 Honorable Chairman and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission July 2, 1991 VEHICLE PARKING ON PEDESTRIAN STREETS Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: Select alternative #6 as presented to the Planning Commission on April 16, 1991. That alternative recommended a change to the existing City ordinance which prohibits ALL parking at this time. The change would allow private parking to be permitted west of Beach Drive on the walk street under a revocable encroachment permit. Background: A detailed report was presented to the Planning Commission on April 16, 1991, with six alternatives (copy attached). Additional information was requested by the Commission and the staff's responses are provided below. Also, a number of letters have been received by the City and are attached to this report. Analysis: General Questions VACATION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY The County Tax Assessor's office was contacted and the City's staff was informed, that if the 22 feet of public property with beach frontage was vacated, it would be assessed at full market value to the receiver. The City Attorney is researching whether or not the property would have to be sold at open public auction. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT REQUIREMENT The use of the encroachment permit would allow the City to retain control over the existing public property both now and in the future. Also, there would not be any tax costs to the adjacent private property owner. However, if the City ever wanted to use the property in the future, the City would still retain the ownership of the property. Detailed Questions PARKING It appears that side by side parking is the recommended positioning and that tandem parking should not be allowed due to open space and aesthetic concerns. Because some of the houses • • have been constructed with more than the minimum side yard setback, it is possible to park three vehicles side by side with half or more of the third vehicle on the private property. The parking should be separated from the walk area by a 36" maximum high block wall. It is therefore recommended that because of varying widths of cars, there not be a limit of two vehicles at this time. The area recommended for parking is the thirty (30) feet adjacent to Beach Drive. ACCESS The access to the parking area shall be limited to direct access from Beach Drive only and no driving on the walk area shall be allowed. LANDSCAPING The encroachment permit requires that a minimum of one third of the public area be landscaped. This criteria should be the minimum area required to be landscaped. The requirement for a landscaped area between the side of the vehicles and the walk street wall does not serve a useful purpose because the area would be too narrow to be visible by the passing public. PARKING AREA SEPARATION The recommendation is that a positive type of separation be required to be constructed of such height that a vehicle could not be driven over or through the constructed separation. Said separation shall be located at the westerly edge of the parking area. RECREATIONAL VEHICLES It is recommended that recreational vehicles such as R.V.s, boats and any other type of vehicle other than an automobile not be allowed within the public area. The R.V.'s can only be controlled through the use of a height restriction. Respectfully submitted, Concur: 5;;;:::: Lynn Terry Deputy City Engineer pworks/pcsrped - 2 - NOT AVAILABLE FOR SIGNATURE Anthony Antich Director of Public Works Do not concur See memorandum Michael Schubach Planning Director • • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael Schubach, PlAn- n" "' ector SUBJECT: Beach Drive parking issue DATE: June 27, 1991 The Planning Commission has been requested to make a recommendation . In a general sense, this matter does relate to the circulation element, but this matter is quite specific and does not have an impact on the circulation element. Nevertheless, the Planning Commission may still provide input. Through the "Team Management" process various departments including the Building Department, General Services Department, as well as the Planning Department were requested to comment, even though the Public Works Department is directly responsible for public right-of-ways. The matter of vacation vs encroachment permits has more of a direct relationship to the General Plan in regard to open space if the vacation process is used city-wide. The General Plan Open Space element identifies the public right-of-ways as important open space areas that need protection. Both vacationing and encroachment permits can accomplish maintaining these areas as open space. Recommendation 1. Continue to recommend as stated at the April 16th meeting; essentially, Alternative #6 with some modification. 2. Recommend that if the vacation process is used for implementation, the zoning ordinance be modified to prohibit intrusion of structures into these areas, and other prohibitions deemed necessary to protect these open space areas city-wide. (Specific prohibitions can be determined if and when necessary). P/beachdr AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Rue, Chmn. None None Peirce SS 91-1 -- TO EXAMINE ELIMINATING CHURCHES AS GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE. Recommended Action: To set for public hearing intent. Ketz A PERMITTED Mr. Schubach stated the purpose is to create a the matter and related the issue history. by adopting resolution Public Hearing was opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:32 p.m. USE FROM THE C-3 the resolution of of intent to study Ms. June Williams, Manhattan Avenue, stated her belief that a public hearing would be a waste of public money. She stated that bars and Pacific Coast Highway cesspools should be eliminated rather than churches. Ms. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, expounded on the'history of churches, stating only atheist would consider approval on this item. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:35 p.m. Chmn. Ketz stressed this item is only to be voted as to set up public hearing, with a staff study. She felt studies initiated by the city council and Planning scheduled which should be addressed prior to this issue. whether it should be the council has many Commission currently Comm. Rue stated the market determines what the use should be. He did not feel C-3 church elimination is a wish move, advising a Receive and File procedure. Comm. Di Monda discussed the lack of taxes and the -many services provided by churches. Receive and file. P-10 -- VEHICLE PARKING ON PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 4.'1991 MEETING) . ---- iI Recommended Action: To set for public hearing by adopting the resolution of intent. Chmn. Ketz stepped down from the Chair due to potential conflict of interest. Comm. Rue accepted the position of Acting Chairman. Actg. Chmn. Rue explained the recommended action was recommendation of Alternative #6 and referred to Planning Director's Memorandum. 4 P.C.Minutes 7/2/91 • Mr. Schubach defined_the contents of his memorandum, stating the matter has direct/indirect relationship to the circulation element in the General Plan. Further, how implementation is accomplished will have impact upon the open space element. They should be protected as open space and Staff recommends continuance of the April 16, 1991 agreement, essentially the Planning Council accept the alternative that allows west -side parking, with no east -side parking on Beach Drive with the modification to allow more than one -car depth parking with barriers established and no parking in the front -yard areas. Mr. Schubach stated additional recommendation is whether implementation is enforcement through vacating of land or encroachment permit process. Ifvacation is decided upon, -additional zoning changes are required. Mr. Schubach then referred to the responsible department, Public Works Dept. Staff, Mr. Lynn Terry, for further input. Mr. Terry felt the Public Works Dept. has been able to respond to previously - asked questions appropriately and offered to answer any further questions. Comm. Marks asked about the 30' determination. Mr. Terry stated this was an alternative recommendation based upon a driveway minimum requirement of 25'. Comm. Marks stated the 30' depth might allow for 3-4 car parking. Comm. Di Monda commented upon the 200 maximum vehicle Public Works Dept. determination vs. his actual car counts of 71, 78 and 63 during the previous Saturday, Sunday and Monday. Mr. Terry agreed the actual car counts were very realistic in a normal situation, stating the purpose is to provide the best alternative possible while providing control on properties. The Planning Commission asked if the Public Works Staff could provide City Council with information pertaining to the number of actually -parked vehicles. Mr. Terry stated if this study is authorized, it can be completed. Comms. Di Monda, Marks and Mr. Terry established the lack of encroachment permits at the present time, along with an explanation as to the allowance of some modifications in the open space areas. Mr. Terry explained the water system within Hermosa Beach is owned by a private utility company, who decides water hydrant locations, administered by the City. Comm. Rue asked the average lot length, to which Mr. Terry responded city lots average 22' width by 80' depth. Public Hearing opened by Acting -Chairman Rue at 8:01 p.m. Mr. David Schumacher, 1612 The Strand, distributed a letter and map from MacPherson Oil Company relating to 302 The strand, which he owns. Mr. Schumacher stated he owns the fee interest in this property of 6,386 sq. -ft., not Hermosa Beach City. He stated the right-of-way easement has been abandoned by the City since it has not been used for public use. Therefore, he contends this easement reverts back to him. He questioned the charging of $.50/sq.ft. ($100 per parking space) for property owners not using the land for profit. 5 P.C.Minutes 7/2/91 • i Mr. Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney, commented he probably agreed that Mr. Schumacher owned the fee interest described on the map, but -the public -right-. of -way area is a property encumbrance which cannot be used as private property. - His_.: mineral rights ..are -unaffected by the .encumbrance. • The issue before the Planning Commission is: -.What is the appropriate use and how is this use accomplished? Mr. Michael. Levitt, 2340 The Strand, has lived in this 5-bdrm. house for three years with his family. The garage houses one small car. Mr. Levitt stated the corner lots are unique with characteristics not matched by other lots and may be treated differently. He 'requested postponement and additional studies be conducted before establishing area and_ parking restrictions. • Ms. June Williams, Manhattan Avenue, stated no further parking is available on Manhattan Avenue. She discussed previous deficit studies and asked about the difference between a dedication and an easement pertaining to the lands currently under discussion. Ms. Williams stated the use of these open land areas have been reflected in property selling prices and are considered in the property tax payments. She urged the Commission to not deny parking access in those open land areas. Mr. Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney, gave an explanation as to the differences between "dedication" and "easement". Mr. Ed Nash, 600 The strand, stated he agreed with most of the points made by Ms. Williams. He felt the dissatisfaction of a few has escalated this matter to its current status, in essence making a mountain out of a molehill. Mr. Nash favors either (1) keeping the status quo with the City able to require an encroachment permit and liability insurance or (2) vacate the land, deeding it to the adjacent property owner with parking and building restrictions. Mr. schubach explained that a portion of the Planning Commission's decision was made at the April 16, 1991 meeting. Actg. Chmn. Rue explained that at that meeting the motion made and approved was to continue this item to the meeting of May 21 (which was not continued due to Public Works Dept. delays), at which time Staff would provide additional information with focus on Alternative #6 and the implementation of vacation vs. encroachment. Staff was to provide details on the following criteria: Two car maximum, no tandem parking, side-by-side parking, access from Beach Drive, separation between landscaping and parking areas, landscaping along walk streets, no allowance for recreational vehicles, appropriate depth of parking areas. Staff was also to supply information relating to the legal consequences in the event of vacation. Actg. Chmn. Rue stated Item #6, proposed by Public Works Dept., was to change the City ordinance to allow private parking on pedestrian walk streets west of Beach Drive only, requiring private use be regulated by revokable encroachment permit and parking fees be paid, no parking allowed near The Strand wall. Mr. Pat Corwin, 31 8th Street, commented this issue is personal to each resident. He stated he was concerned about preserving the beauty of the walk streets. Mr. Corwin questioned the legality of people other than residents parking in these open -space parking and the problems of unenforced laws pertaining to the open -space parking. Ms. Gloria Walker, 2040 The Strand, requested the Commission refrain from voting on the car -parking restriction at this time, pointing out the number of 6 P.C.Minutes 7/2/91 cars accessing the area on a daily -basis.- She questioned the vacation option, stating.this option had not been fully explored, and requested an Environmental Impact Report. Mr: -Alfred Salido, 24th Street, stated he would be adversely impacted by the decision- to limit parking on the east side. In 1988, his attorney, wrote a letter asking definition of ownership on the property in question to which the City Attorney did not respond. When he contacted Public Works Dept. to clean this property, the response was the area was privately owned. He has been instructed to post private "Tow -Away" signs in his area by the parking enforcement agency. Mr. Salido felt the :same liability appliedto the patios as. -well- as. the parking in -these open -space areas, --suggesting that the problem can be solved by banning parking when a title change or major renovation is made: Ms. Susan Mc Farland, 25 8th Street, hopes the Commission will continue considering the problem of implementation of the first half of the decision made several months ago. She stated she believed this area was in the Loma parking district and parking fees should be assessed. She pointed out the similarity of parking problems and needs of both the landlocked and ocean -view properties. Ms. Viola James, 78 The Strand, a 57 -year resident, has previously bricked and walled in the disputed area with the City's permission. She described her parking facilities and her personal difficulty which would be experienced if a change is made in her current situation. Ms. Linda Kaye, 2040 The Strand, remarked ocean -view parking is not the same as interior -city parking. She felt people will not park on the sidewalk; residents park in marked areas only. Public Hearing was closed by Actg. Chmn. Rue at 8:38 p.m. Actg. Chmn. Rue stated the Commission voted to continue this item during the last meeting, giving Staff parameters and criteria to address. Staff has responded with information. Actg. Chmn. felt the information obtained during this meeting should be reviewed by the Commission and a motion defined which will be forwarded to City Council. Comm. Di Monda stated he still feels this area is a walk street which should be landscaped. He is not convinced that Alternative #6 would result in cars being put on the street. comm. Di Monda commented on previous decisions made by the Commission, stating it appeared compromises had been made in the past through zoning and City goals. Comm. Di Monda felt Alternative #6 should be refined to state 25', two cars, side-by-side, no tandem parking, no R.V.s, no boats, provide landscaping, etc. Comm. Marks stated front -yard parking on the east side should be disallowed, the west side should have a certain depth defined but not limiting the amount of cars, campers and boats being totally eliminated, cars illegally parked should be ticketed. Actg. Chmn. Rue said the Planning Commission has previously discussed the problem of cars parking up to The Strand wall for over five years. 7 P.C.Minutes 7/2/91 • • Encroachment permits for the walk street yards are required, currently in force. Actg. Chinn. Rue reviewed the requirements of Alternative #6, also stating that the encroachment fee to allow parking should be the only fee paid, not to include an additional parking fee. A limit needs to be established for the easterly one-third of the right-of-way, 25-30, for an 80, depth property with no limit to the number of parked cars or manner of parking, while promoting landscaping and green -areas separated by permanent barriers. Landscaping will be maintained by property owners. No recreational vehicles or boats will be allowed. Fence heights and landscaping types need to be further discussed. Abtg.- Chinn. Rue asked the Commissioners' thoughts regarding the landscaping requirements, to which Mr. Schubach responded this was a detail to be discussed later dependent upon the actions to be taken. Actg. Chmn. Rue stated his preference for encroachment rather than vacation, since with vacation the City experiences a loss of control. Mr. Schubach stated both methods are feasible in these cases, both having legal consequences which are currently being explored by the City Attorney's office. MOTION by Actg. Chmn. Rue, seconded by Comm. Marks, to recommend the open space of the walk streets used by corner The Strand lots be for private, up to 1/3 of lot to a maximum of 30, parking be allowed, permanent barrier between landscaping and parking, direct access from Beach Drive, parking is for automobile use only, fence height is to be 36", no parking on the east side of Beach Drive, such action shall be accomplished through a vacation or revokable encroachment permit. AYES: Comm. Marks, Actg. Chmn. Rue NOES: Comm. Di Monda ABSTAIN: Chmn. Ketz ABSENT: Peirce Actg. Chinn. Rue vacated and Chinn. Ketz resumed the Chairman position. STAFF ITEMS PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT OF MAY, 1991. churn. Ketz requested a copy be given to the Commission by Staff of the draft Congestion Management Plan. Comm. Di Monda asked if the Commission's definition involvement begins at the updating of the zoning ordinance, to which Mr. schubach responded definitions will begin during the land -use element. Receive and File. MEMORANDUM REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON FOR JULY 9, 1991 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Chmn. Ketz stated two items will be discussed: (1) the Lighthouse Cafe, and (2) the Condominium conversion at 23 Barney Court. 8 P.c.Minutes 7/2/91 SCALE: 1 '= 40' PARCEL MAP N0. IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH , COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA • 22062 F LOS ANGELES BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1 AND 2 , ANGE HEIGHTS TRACT, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 9, PAGE 149 •F MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID CO NTY. FOR CONDOMINIUM ( PURPOSES SUBD/VIDER'S STATEMENT: I HEREBY STATE THAT l AM THE SUBDIVIDER OF THE LANDS INCLUDED WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION SHOWN ON THIS MAP WITHIN THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER LINES, AND l CONSENT TO THE PREPARATION AND FILING OF SAID MAP AND SUBDIVISION. aac53 DENNIS G. CLELAND, (SUBDIVIDER) STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGEL S ON THIS 341 DAY OF %. ,i 1990, BEFORE ME THE UNDERSIGNED, A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID STATE, PERSONALLY APPEARED DENNIS G CI FI AND, PERSONALLY KNOWN TO ME OR PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON WHOSE NAME IS SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE EXECUTED THE SAME. KAREN M. OWENS NOTARY PUBLIC -CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MARCH 15, 1997 1 i rl J` -r -a./ KAREN M. OWENS NOTARY PUBLIC CITY TREASURER'S CERTIFICATE.: I HEREBY CERT/FY THAT ALL SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS LEV/ED UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH TO WHICH THE LAND INCLUDED IN THE WITHIN SUBDIVISION OR ANY PART THEREOF IS SUBJECT AND WHICH MAY BE PAID IN FULL, HAVE BEEN PAID IN FULL. DATE: BY. CITY TREASURER OF -THF CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH. CONDOMINIUM NOTE: THIS SUBDIVISION IS APPROVED AS A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT FOR 4 UNITS, WHEREBY THE OWNERS OF THE UNITS OF AIR SPACE WILL HOLD AN UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE COMMON AREAS WHICH WILL, IN TURN, PROVIDE THE NECESSARY ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENTS FOR THE UNITS. SE'LY LINE OF LOT 3,• jR=533.36' SW'LY LINE OF LOTS 17 & 18, * * o PROSPECT AVENUE 540039'00"E 101.12 S40°39'00'E 0 e 0 i SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEET NGINEER'S STATEMENT.' THIS MAP WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION ND WAS COMPILED FROM RECORD DATA IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND OCAL ORDINANCE AT THE REQUEST OF DENNIS G. CLELAND , N OCTOBER, 1990. l HEREBY STATE THAT THIS PARCEL MAP UBSTANTIALLY CONFORMS TO THE APPROVED OR ONDITIONALLY APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP IF ANY. JAMES C. ORLAND, R.C.E. NO. 22024 EXPIRES: 9-30-93 ECORD DATA NOTE: RECORD DATA IS FROM ANGELA HEIGHTS TRACT, M.B. 9-149 ECORD OWNERS ARE: MICHAEL J. CLELAND AND DENNIS G. CLEL4ND /TY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE.: HIS MAP CONFORMS WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF LOCAL rRDINANCE. PATE.: _OA/ BY. DEPUTY R.C.E.N0. /6P6 EXPIRES 6'36/3 • ECRETARY OF PLANNING CERTIFICATE: HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ANNEXED MAP CONFORMS UBSTANTIALLY TO THE TENTATIVE MAP APPROVED BY THE LANNING COMMISION ON, THE DAY OF 9 SATED: BY: SECRETARY OF PLANNING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH. CITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATE.: I HERBY CERTIFY THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF ERMOSA BEACH BY MOTION ADOPTED AT ITS E DAY OF , 19 E ANNEXED MAP. S OUNTY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE.: IS MAP CONFORMS WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE UBDIVISION MAP ACT COUNTY ENGINEER THE CITY OF SESSION ON , APPROVED TED: BY: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH. DATED: BY: DEPUTY R.C.E.NO. NW'LY LINE OF LOT 5, BLOCK 88, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH, M.B. 3-11-12. END 54'LY. L/.VE OTGOT/. * m 4i tn Ci LS - 157 4`)/ eco EXP/RES LEGEND INDICATES THE BOUNDARY OF THE LAND BEING SUBDIVIDED BY THIS MAP. * REFERS TO ANGELA HEIGHTS TRACT, M.B.9-149 ARCEL MAP NO. 1959.4 IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COUNTY OF LOS, ANGELES STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHEET I OF 2 SHEETS Jut: Id& A eLiE5PI VISIOd Of- LOT. I o 3 -re -is -t -i EGOlar7-1:) 1 k Mme' -,OOk- 20 fz cSe to 7 aF MAt' i til -T Off »- r "r► -I E G621J F1 fY -g calzr7tiz OF sA.IT7 G&LJ IJ"r`r< FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES SJJJ PIYIPER_'S_5IhT M NI I HEREBY STATE THAT 1 AM THE SUBDIVIDER OF THE LANDS INCLUDED WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION SHOWN ON THIS MAP WITHIN THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER LINES, AND I CONSENT TO THE PREPARATION AND FILING OF SAID MAP AND SUBDIVISION. t4f 1L. GILL SUBDIVIDER ,RECORD OWNERS: J .l L OI LL co -h7 f K Ih�JT%LL THIS SUBDIVISION I5 APPROVED AS A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT -FOR .UNITS WHEREBY THE OWNERS OF THE UNITS OF AIR SPACE WILL HOLD AN UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE COMMON AREAS WHICH WILL, IN TURN, PROVIDE NECESSARY ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENTS FOR THE UNITS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 55 ON THIS /4771 DAY of Fc.8.2UARy I` l/ • BEFORE ME eApiECYL A. 1/4flO A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID STATE, PERSONALLY APPEARED i✓zEfl 6n4 - PERSONALLY KNOWN TO ME OR PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON WHOSE NAME I5 SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE EXECUTED THE SAME. NAME OF NOTARY Cf{E.G, a A. YAte-o DATE OF EXPIRATION 9r -70-9S PLACE OF EXEGUT I ON Gos APA,44£GAmis coca/VTY g 1991 ENGINEER'S S770TEMEN7'"', THIS MAP WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION AND WAS. COMPILED FROM RECORD DATA IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND LOCAL ORDINANCE AT THE REQUEST OFE4 -i L—GILL ON /p-21.90 I HEREBY STATE THAT THIS PARCEL. -MAP SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMS TO THE APPROVED OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP, IF ANY. - EDWARD G. SHWEIRI R.G.E. 11284 EXPIRATION: 12-31-92 RECORD DATA WAS TAKEN FROM 141.1 6 i 'r�AL�' M.�. ZO X85• I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL THE JURISDICTION OF THE C LAND INCLUDED IN THE WITH IS SUBJECT, AND WHICH MAY FULL. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS LEVIED UNDER ITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, TO WHICH THE IN SUBDIVISION OR ANY PART THEREOF BE PAID IN FULL', HAVE BEEN PAID IN CITY TREASURER OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DATE GUY ENGINEER'S GERTIFIGAIE THIS MAP CONFORMS WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF LOCAL ORDINANCE. /�Vq f,++' %� -0/57/ 11{31• I:°PS T ila+�: I. �f r I . ii !/ �.�.�. - : /676 ��Cpi 1i01: 6/sV73 COUNTY ENGINIzER'S GERTIFICAIE THIS MAP CONFORMS WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT.. - DATE COUNTY ENGINEER BY DEPUTY : ��PIRATIarJ : I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF' HERMOSA BEACH BY MOTION ADOPTED AT ITS SESSION ON THE DAY OF , 19_ APPROVED THE ANNEXED MAP. DATE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DATE T'fiAcr 1 .41-41.1&;(5-c, 14.12 cat-Ir0P107 r� JP/�p t- (IfaLl Y "ro Tit PIA? Appgovpp "'V' "rl-IS ._AI•!FJ I IVIG 6OMj mIyeEOrI O1-1 9A`/ OI . G=G& iArt' Or- fLAtJrJII.IG* SCALE: i" = ZO' SHEET Z OF Z SHEETS PARCEL MAP N0. 19594 !NI 1 T� OF kl E zreioeA p7rAGkl GOIATY ar ISOs AI•16TELEC, C2TAm D GALL FO g ti Lo, pOR GONII7OMI NI J `M 'PJts �'LY LI r-16- O LOr I' -I At L E'`( Urit; '�A?&eL I" IAP �o. i&'& , PM?, zoz-za. e d s 1 A e poi& e.F • NI 7D 50'OC E '1 0.00' 1 1 T Its N Ni 77' 0'O0' eTacET- LAG 5 -Jo: 1zer ct -ro -r cr, Zo - Ias. Tkl LA P -FO -!:. I>4G 0=0goiVifl 2 1bY Ti-liS m.o.? OF Lr -1 , 15 *- LfLY' I 1146- of Lor I. *-