The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/26/93`73f2'-* 9.5--5590 /0PA "Man's actions are the picture book of his creeds." -Emerson AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 26, 1993 - Council Chambers, City Hall MAYOR Albert Wiemans MAYOR PRO TEM Sam Y. Edgerton COUNCILMEMBERS Robert Benz Robert Essertier Kathleen Midstokke Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. CITY CLERK Elaine Doerfling CITY TREASURER Gary L. Brutsch CITY MANAGER Frederick R. Ferrin 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, Fire Department, Public Library, the Office of the City Clerk, and the Chamber of Commerce. During the meeting a packet also is available in the Council foyer. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: APPOINTMENT OF MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM: A. Designate Mayor for a term ending November 9, 1993 B. Designate Mayor Pro Tempore for a term ending November 9, 1993 C. Intergovernmental agencies requiring appointment of Mayor as delegate. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated January 19, 1993. .. RECESS 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 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 (Wednesday) 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. 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) "7' 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. 1. (e) 3) before the close of the meeting during "Citizen Comments". 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. Recommendation to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the City Council held on January 12, 1993. Recommendation Nos. Recommendation Agenda Items. Recommendation to authorize the City Attorney to draft an agreement with MultiVision that will require MultiVi- sion to provide up to $15,000 to the City for franchise renewal related expenses. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated January 19, 1993. Recommendation from Planning Commission to direct City staff to investigate establishing a landscaping program for Pacific Coast Highway. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated January 19, 1993. to ratify Demands and Warrants through inclusive. to receive and file Tentative Future CONSENT ORDINANCES. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. * Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS. Letter from Celeste Coar, 2004 Loma Drive, dated January 12, 1993 regarding building addresses on Loma Drive, with response from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated January 14, 1993. Letter from B.J. Mitchell, 135 31st Street, dated January 12, 1993 regarding traffic on the Strand. Letter from John McHugh, Janet McHugh, and Parker Her- riott dated January 12, 1993 regarding processing of hotel referendum petition. Correspondence regarding this subject also included. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. NONE MUNICIPAL MATTERS 5. APPROVAL OF LIABILITY CLAIMS LITIGATION DEFENSE ATTORNEY FIRM REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) AND APPOINTMENT OF A CITY COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE TO REVIEW RESPONSES. Memo- randum from Risk Manager Robert Blackwood dated January 11, 1993. 6. REPORT ON DOING PUBLIC NOTICING IN-HOUSE. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated January 20, 1993. 7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER 8. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Memorandum from Planning Commission dated January 19, 1993 requesting involvement in Strand wall replacement. 9. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: 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 A ACTION SHEET ACTION SHEET REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 26, 1993 - Council Chambers, City Hall Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY WILMA BURT ROLL CALL: ALL PRESENT APPOINTMENT OF MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM: A. Designate Mayor for a term ending November 9, 1993 MOTION SE/RB TO APPOINT AW AS MAYOR. RE OPPOSED. B. Designate Mayor Pro Tempore for a term ending November 9, 1993 MOTION KM/RB TO APPOINT SE AS PRO TEM. SE OPPOSED. C. Intergovernmental agencies requiring appointment of Mayor as delegate. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated January 19, 1993. 1) L.A. COUNTY CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE - MOTION KM/RE TO APPOINT MAYOR TO CITY SELECTION COM- MITTEE. SO ORDERED. 2) SOUTH BAY CITIES SANITATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS - MOTION AW/? TO APPOINT MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM AS ALTERNATE. SO ORDERED. 3) INGLEWOOD FIRE TRAINING AUTHORITY - SAME AS SANITATION DISTRICT. RECESS AT 8:10 P.M. RECONVENED AT 8:45 P.M. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION JUNE WILLIAMS - OBJECTED TO ARTICLE IN EASY READER RE. RECALL PROPONENTS HIRING PEOPLE TO COLLECT SIGNATURES. INDICATED THEIR INFO. WAS ERRONEOUS. WILMA BURT - COMMENTED ON WILLIAMS STATEMENTS. JOHN MCHUGH - SAID COUNCILMEMBERS SHOULD RESIGN RATHER THAN WAIT TO BE RECALLED. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: MOTION SE/RB TO APPROVE ITEMS A AND B ON CONSENT CALENDAR. SO ORDERED. (a) Recommendation to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the City Council held on January 12, 1993. 1 Recommendation to ratify Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive. Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. PULLED BY KM - MENTIONED SEVERAL ITEMS SHE DIDN'T SEE ON THE FUTURE AGENDA, I.E., REPORT ON PUBLISHING A TENTATIVE AGENDA IN THE EASY READER THE WEEK BEFORE THE MEETING; A REPORT FROM PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR ON ENFORCEMENT OF NOISE ORDINANCE, AND THE FACT THAT THE BEACH DRIVE PARKING HAD BEEN MOVED UP TO THE FEB. 9 MEETING. MOTION KM/SE TO RECEIVE & FILE. SO ORDERED. (d) Recommendation to authorize the City Attorney to draft an agreement with MultiVision that will require MultiVi- sion to provide up to $15,000 to the City for franchise renewal related expenses. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated January 19, 1993. PULLED BY RE - RE STATED HE IS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THERE BEING A CAP ON FUNDS. KM SAID HER CONCERNS WERE ADDRESSED WHEN C.A. SAID WE WOULD BE DRAFTING A NEW LETTER AND NOT SIGNING THE SUBMITTED LETTER. RE WOULD LIKE A CLAUSE ADDED TO LETTER THAT IF REASONABLE EXPEN- SES EXCEED 15K THE CITY WILL BE REIMBURSED. MOTION KM/RB TO APPROVE STAFF REC. OK 3-2 (AW/RE-NO) (e) Recommendation from Planning Commission to direct City staff to investigate establishing a landscaping program for Pacific Coast Highway. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated January 19, 1993. PULLED BY AW AT REQUEST OF WILMA BURT - WILMA BURT - OBJECTS TO ANY NEW PROGRAMS BEING STARTED UNTIL CUR- RENT PROGRAMS ARE COMPLETED. NOT MANY PLACES TO LANDSCAPE AND ALSO SHOULD NOT BE PURSUED WITHOUT CONSULTING WITH EXISTING BUSI- NESSES ON HIGHWAY. SHIRLEY CASSELL - WHY DON'T YOU REPAVE THE STREETS WHERE PEOPLE LIVE IF YOU HAVE THAT KIND OF EXTRA MONEY. MOTION RE/AW FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION. (KM THINKS SHOULD BE AT- TENDED TO, BUT MAKE IT LOW PRIORITY.) 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. (a) Letter from Celeste Coar, 2004 Loma Drive, dated January 12, 1993 regarding building addresses on Loma Drive, with response from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated January 14, 1993. CELESTE COAR - WOULD LIKE MR. ESSERTIER'S AWNING REMOVED BECAUSE IT IS 85' FROM STREET AND SAYS 2120 PARK AVE. ALSO STREET SIGNS CONFUSING. MONTEREY SIGN IS MORE VISIBLE THAN THE PARK AND LOMA SIGNS. ALSO SHOULD REVERSE FROM TOP TO BOTTOM THE SIGN THAT SAYS 19TH AND LOMA. PARKER HERRIOTT - QUESTIONED NEED FOR ESSERTIER TO HAVE A PARK AVE. ADDRESS WHEN IT USED TO BE ADDRESSED AS LOMA. JERRY COMPTON SUGGESTED PUTTING "REAR" ON BACK UNIT OF TWO UNIT PROPERTIES. MOTION KM/AW - INSTRUCT PW DEPT. TO PROCEED FURTHER WITH ADDING MORE SIGNS IF NEEDED, REVERSING LOCATION OF STREET SIGNS, ALSO NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNER TO KEEP TREE TRIMMED TO AVOID BLOCKING VISIBILTY OF SIGNS. OK 3-2 (RE/RB-NO) (b) Letter from B.J. Mitchell, 135 31st Street, dated January 12, 1993 regarding traffic on the Strand. B.J. MITCHELL SAID SHE HAS REVIEWED ALL DEEDS CLERK'S OFFICE HAD AVAILABLE AND SAID THE INDICATION IS STRAND IS ALLOWED A 22 FT. WIDE PAVEMENT; ASKED COUNCIL TO PLACE A HOLD ON AWARDING BID FOR STRAND IMPROVEMENTS UNTIL A LEGAL REVIE OF ALL DEEDS DONE AND THEN PRESENT COUNCIL WITH RANGE OF OPTIONS OPEN TO THEM. ALSO DIRECT POLICE DEPT. TO TICKET ALL PEOPLE WHO EXCEED 5 MPH AS A TEMPORARY MEASURE.F WILMA BURT SAID SHE HAS COPY OF ORIGINAL DEED ON STRAND INDICAT- ING STRAND IS 16 FT. WIDE. ALSO SIAD STRAND IS NOT A STEREET AND VEHICLE CODE ONLY PERMITS BIKES ON STREETS. ORIGINAL DEED STATES NO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC. PATTI EGERER SPOKE ABOUT THE DANGER OF STRAND TRAFFIC. JERRY COMPTON SAID CONFLICT BETWEEN BIKERS AND PEDESTRIANS IS MAIN REASON RUDAT COMMITTEE SUGGESTED MOVING BICYCLES AWAY FROM PEDESTRIANS. PARKER HERRIOTT - CONCERNED ABOUT SAFETY ON THE STRAND. CITED ACCIDENTS IN THE PAST, ESPECIALLY SOMEONE WHO WAS KILLED ON A BICYCLE. MOTION SE/AW - TO REDUCE THE SPEED FROM 10 MPH TO 5 MPH FOR ANY VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ON STRAND. FAILS 2-3 (KM/RE/RB-NO). MOTION RE/RB TO KEEP THINGS THE SAME UNTIL NEW WALL BUILT AND LOOK AT RUDAT IDEAS THEN. OK 3-2 (AW/SE-NO). MOTION AW/SE TO FORM A FOCUS GROUP TO LOOK AT PROBLEM. FAILS 1-4 (AW -YES, OTHERS -NO) RECESS AT 10:28. RECONVENE AT 10:45. CITY ATTORNEY EXPLAINED TO COUNCIL THEY SHOULD NOT BE TAKING AC- TIONS ON WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS THAT CITIZENS WERE NOT AWARE OF IN ADVANCE. MAY BE VIOLATING THE BROWN ACT. ASKED THEM TO RE- STATE LONG STANDING POLICY OF EITHER REFERRING TO STAFF FOR RE- PORT BACK OR RECEIVING AND FILING THE LETTER (MEANING NO ACTION TO BE TAKEN). CITY MGR. INDICATED THAT FROM NOW ON THE CITY MGR'S OFFICE WOULD PUT A RECOMMENDATION ON EACH WRITTEN COMMUNICATION. (c) Letter from John McHugh, Janet McHugh, and Parker Her- riott dated January 12, 1993 regarding processing of hotel referendum petition. Correspondence regarding this subject also included. ROBERT OTTINGER 719-1/2 FIRST ST. DOES NOT AGREE WITH C.A. OPINION. PARKER HERRIOTT, JANET MCHUGH, JERRY COMPTON ALL ASKED COUNCIL TO INSTRUCT CITY CLERK TO PROCEED WITH HAVING SIGNATURES VERIFIED. JOHN MCHUGH - ARGUED HOW MANY PUBLIC HEARINGS WERE HELD . SHIRLEY CASSELL - FEELS PROPERTY OWNER HAS A RIGHT TO DEVELOP HIS PROPERTY AS HE SEES FIT WITHIN ALLOWABLE USES, BUT SAID ALL THIS TROUBLE COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF COUNCIL HAD CONSIDERED GRANT- ING AN 18 FT. WALL BEHIND HOTEL. JUNE WILLIAMS - DOESN'T FEEL ANYONE IS AGAINST HOTEL IN THAT ZONE. SHE THINKS PROBLEM IS PROJECT APPROVED ABOVE THE ZONING STANDARDS, I.E., APPROVING A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AT 35 FT. MOTION RB/SE TO RECEIVE AND FILE. OK 4-1 (AW -NO) PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. NONE MUNICIPAL MATTERS 5. APPROVAL OF LIABILITY CLAIMS LITIGATION DEFENSE ATTORNEY FIRM REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) AND APPOINTMENT OF A CITY COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE TO REVIEW RESPONSES. Memo- randum from Risk Manager Robert Blackwood dated January 11, 1993. MOTION AW/RB - THAT SE/AW BE THE SUBCOMMITTEE. OK 4-1 (SE) 6. REPORT ON DOING PUBLIC NOTICING IN-HOUSE. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated January 20, 1993. MOTION AW/TO ALLOW C.M. TO MAKE ARRANGEMENT WITH INDEPENDENT CON- TRACTOR AND MOVE TO KEEP THE CONTRACTOR WITH THE BEST TERMS HE CAN NEGOTIATE. SECOND SE. (WHEN RESTATED, THE MOTION SAID C.M. COULD NEGOTIATE WITH ANY CONTRACTOR HE DESIRES.) FAILS 1-4 (AW - YES) SE - DIRECT C.M. TO CONTINUE WITH CURRENT CONTRACTOR BUT NOT UTI- LIZE CITY OWNED MACHINERY, ETC. SECOND AW. RESTATED ? - MOTION SE TO LET STAFF STUDY A PAY INCREASE FOR THIS PARTICULAR CONTRACTOR AND COME BACK FOR APPROVAL OF COUNCIL AND MAKE A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER TO RE -BID OR BRING IN-HOUSE. SECOND AW. FAILS 2-3 (KM/RE/RB NO.) MOTION RE/KM - TO REBID CONTRACT. OK 5-0 7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER C.M. MADE AN ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT DIFFICULTY WITH AUDIO TONIGHT AT BEGINNING OF MEETING, AND THAT FIRST PART OF THE MEETING WOULD BE REPLAYED IMMEDIATELY AT THE END OF THIS MEETING, AND ENTIRE MEET- ING WOULD BE RESHOWN AT NOON TOMORROW. 8. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Memorandum from Planning Commission dated January 19, 1993 requesting involvement in Strand wall replacement. RE - SUGGESTED INVITING PLANNING COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE INTERESTED TO COME TO THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING AND SPEAK AT THAT TIME. SECOND KM. SO ORDERED. 9. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: 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. KM - SPOKE ABOUT WATCHING THE PARKS & REC. COMM. MEETING LAST WEEK AND HOW THEY FELT THEY HAD BEEN INSULTED BY COUNCIL ON ISSUE OF FENCE ON GREENBELT AT 8TH STREET. 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 IN MEMORY OF GRACE RODAWAY. SISTER OF EDITH RODAWAY, AT 12:08 A.M. • _SFN 3: 1••24-11 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on January 26, 1993, at the hour of 7:S% P.M. ,I PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - IJ 0 - ROLL CALL Present: Benz, Edgerton, Midstokke, Wiemans, Mayor Essertier Absent: None APPOINTMENT OF MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEN: A. Designate Mayor for a term ending November 9, 1993 Action: To designate Albert Wiemans as Mayor for a term ending November 9, 1993. Motion U , second . So ordered. D � av <- B. Desi ate Mayor Pro Tempore for a term ending November 9, 1993 Action: To designate Sam Y. Edgerton as Mayor Pro Tempore for a term ending November 9, 1993. Motion m , second to. . So ordered. ) _9 9 xxx C. Intergovernmental agencies requiring appointment of Mayor as delegate. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated January 19, 1993. Action: To appoint Mayor Wiemans as delegate to the Los Angeles County - City Selection Committee. Motion , second may. So ordered. Action: To appoint Mayor Wiemans as delegate and Mayor Pro Tempore Edgerton as alternate to the South Bay Cities Sanitation District Board of City Council Minutes 01-26-93 Page 1 Directors Motion Lt.), second E,04. . So ordered. Action: To appoint Mayor Wiemans as delegate and Mayor Pro Tempore Edgerton as alternate to the In- glewood Fire TrainiAuthority. Motion �( second ) . So ordered. The meeting recessed at k:bP.M. The meeting reconvened at 8: %zP.M. 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: /**--24, A ( Howard Longacre - 1221 Seventh Place, Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street, ) — N C/June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue,A - Jar City Council Minutes 01-26-93 Page 2 • 1. 1. Dave Reimer - 802 Monterey Blvd., Jerry Compton - 1200 Artesia Blvd., 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, Edie Webber - 1210 Eleventh Street, Gene Dreher - 1222 Seventh Place, Joseph Di Monda - 610 Ninth Street, Martin Moreno - 1326 Corona Street, Marc Freeman - 1937 Palm Drive, 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. CONSENT CALENDAR Action: To approve the Consent Calendar recommendations (a) through (e), with the exception of the following items which were removed for discussion in item 3, but are shown in order for clarity: (a) , (b) , (c) , (d) , and (e) Motion , second e • So ordered. Coming forward to address the Council on items not removed from the consent calendar were: City Council Minutes 01-26-93 Page 3 • No one came forward to address the Council on items not removed from the consent calendar. (a) Recommendation to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the City Council held on January 12, 1993. Action: To approve the minutes of the regular meeting of January 12, 1993 as (b) Recommendation to ratify Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive. Action: To ratify the demands and warrants as presented. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. 7/7 ---5/152)7-) 79--=e1,--7r--,Z.-3 \ ----- Act To receive and file the tentative future agenda items as presented. Pl • d) Recommendation to authorize the City Attorney to draft fry an agreement with MultiVision that will require MultiVi- sion to provide up to $15,000 to the City for franchise renewal related expenses. Memorandum from Community 7) Resources Director Mary Rooney dated January 19, 1993. 9 v�This item was removed from the consent calendar by Coun- cilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting. Community Resources Director Rooney presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Proposed Action: To approve the staff recommendation to authorize the City Attorney to draft an agreement with MultiVision Cable TV to require MultiVision to provide y� City Council Minutes 01-26-93 Page 4 • (e) up to $15,000 to the City for Franchise renewal related expenses. Motion , second . The motion carried, noting the dissenting votes of Proposed Action: To direct staff to renegotiate with MultiVision for an agreement that would provide up to $20,000 to the City for Franchise renewal related expen- ses, with the understanding that .. Motion , second . The motion carried, noting the dissenting votes of Action: To Recommendation from Planning Commission to direct City staff to investigate establishing a landscaping program for Pacific Coast Highway. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated January 19, 1993. This item was removed from the consent calendar by Coun- cilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting. Planning Director Schubach presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. 0K.' Action: , To approve the Planning ,_-�Commission recommenda- `% tionto direct staff to investigate the possibility of instituting a landscaping program for Pacific Coast Highway. Motion second Gd dissenting votes of The motion carried, noting the ___ 7 r- A/6- .A r' a div y City Council Minutes 01-26-93 Page • Action: To receive and file. Motion , second . The motion carried, noting the dissenting votes of 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES - None 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. Items 1( ), ( ), and ( ) were discussed at this time, but are shown in order for clarity. * Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar are shown under the appropriate items. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS. (a) Letter from Celeste Coar, 2004 Loma Drive, dated January 12, 1993 regarding building addresses on Loma Drive, with response from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated January 14, 1993. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: CD --et ".. -----Y, ,, ) 4-2 ... Lr v Yom' c:4 -r. D . s -r,/ .i.,t-,i- e --=-14 An ---,6(2- -1 i24_,,te „ax„j„, yi._ -ehriLe-- .,.. j\,,L.A.,..4- /9 .&/._. ;._ ' ' ' ' >#---) C4- -) —"I ";)( ca- ) d"Action: To i4 . L- )^-' 1 ---rte c --J ‘,.___ v ,e5:2-- d- ,....- , a-,..,.., ._ , L__.r t -t-4-- Y113 -4-A--t e ��/ �� 7 Letter from B.J. Mitchell, 135 31st Street, date Alli January 12, 1993 regarding traffic on the Strand. , C% Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: 'y"(' 46-•\ )11;--tex-c--0 ,f -i -- a 7 / ` - °7 ,ji - - ,- - - - - 3 - 7 ee ,o) -TO V O.1___„__. 11 A----' �`� ._.. G ---—�--� .-.�. -.)--110 C) Lica • - r `?A5- X �' .% �- - �� ',- � �j Ge-- L ---S-€5 4- ,1 /4 n ��-�2ph `City C uo n it Minutes 01-26-93 Page 6 �y /4 1.7`. �� — 70 .Z. l , t � Nigfv\a AJA:1-- ) - t - e - ) , y1/4- , J ;-._.J ,,, 6-..-t ,c- ,_, : 2^--c __, (-•-z, •°''.4 -, );-,,, --. Lam' 3A--0� fir'`-� y�0 ,s017=6/ ,2,,r\_4-\) re—e> ,r—frt—' _ U .,y--' f- 7 -.= a..1 i,---) /L --(--,4-q4 --- 4---r —,17o 6 „,,,,, -,--- 0 .- ___‘..finggo. , --. ,,,, )---- ,izer--e----) N -,- , -rv��-,/'�.. )„---7.0 �' -� Oji__,_ ____„,et- „z),__e ,p(7 -a, .-___,,._ , ,,e-e6cD,,,).,,,-- ,---- , ,.,__,,,,,r) ---- --,z--- ---,__,„,,z,,/, ,,--- ‘,.,- ,___z_ „a__> d__. )„.ge--__, „_.. , „-,a___<)) ----z---r ____2 70 „, =gyp J6r24,"� 7/7 e b,,,-zic, F-41/), z' ,Pso ,-7v A 2_, I 0 /7</tA. 2 -) /'' 4 ,,, , e)-- ) y, 2_,_ --e-- y• --g-2-. &9 .--- -;? ' )- i/ A)° '---/ A .-to . x;"-- tO C__ ,.,_ L _ . -.--„-, ,eraaw.7 ,__,-7, ,--e'=7,7 - - - -- - 'r ...„-- „A.-2 , ______ 0 (-;” ,9+ )7„.' Pr- v"-.,2_ v la roti P L_s-vri�-� PL- /L‘‘ita 1) -11P 011f/ • Action: To tet,c/e /44 .02 -- /e ; V-5 e/9 f (...) .v., ::____ t:„_. .....e...„.) ,,--0--- _._.__r=,---) 6------,y- ....3, --,:=, . - - - - - a ) ... -- - • 62, 64.---- C;;:7)/ 4"( %c Gam- ;A:L=v`;'1-;4),., c Le e from John McHugh, Janet McHugh, and Parker Her -1 �, riott dated January 12, 1993 regarding processing of �� hotel referendum petition. Correspondence regarding this subject also included. Supplemental letter and C. information from Parker Herriott, 224 24th Street, dated 74 January 21, 1993. l Coming forwardtoaddress the Council ----on this item wer 7. , g -----„i--- . ,/-��, ��.v �/'----7-7''-7'- �\a �7 mos , 7 i ".� .te � � �„/�-� \ � 1 �� P/IA/ k off . :11 4 .,(,..) . z., .. 7K, ) . ,---,e' d .-7 Action: To receive and file. �� Lam' Motion , second . The motion carried, noting the dissenting votes of 4 .)4. (-(,. J Y----z7i /'/A -41--z"") 2-74'''L.40' t .- /( 1 2 '`'`--- /° 4----') • 9I'1,.- -. o ) - e - - ..) ) 7 6s. -0-7 i) .).--2-"--t c)----'4-------- 65' .-- ifeAy- -Z54' rAA- " ,e'efep )4 Pa-L,ev City Council Minutes 01-26-93 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS - None MUNICIPAL MATTERS 5. APPROVAL OF LIABILITY CLAIMS LITIGATION DEFENSE ATTORNEY FIRM REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) AND APPOINTMENT OF A CITY COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE TO REVIEW RESPONSES. Memo- randum from Risk Manager Robert Blackwood dated January 11, 1993. Risk Manager Blackwood presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. cc_o ,- 7 iof it) Action: To approve the staff recommendation for the Liability Claims Litigation Defense Attorney Firm Request for Proposal (RFP) and to appoint as a Council sub -committee to review and responses. Motion , second . The motion carried, noting the dissenting votes of 6. REPORT ON DOING PUBLIC NOTICING IN-HOUSE. Memorandum from City Manager Frederick R. Ferrin dated January 20, 1993. Supplemental memorandum from City Treasurer Gary Brutsch, dated January 25, 1993. City Manager Ferrin presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. ?,p er' % ; /4 7' A A ' d Gt)fid �- 1 e27 r City Council Minutes 01-26-93 Page 8 Action: To ) 7 - _ �" = 7. MI8C8LLANB ITElS AND RT8 -CITY MANAGER --A 7 . ,o' 9 \ -( . O ,--s MISCELLANE ITEM�✓AND PORTS - CITY MANAGER City Manager Ferrin reported: G , &‘,/fri) yo) 6.__e )-7 ,i7/c—orl',> (3; -- 8. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL */ (a) Memorandum from Planning Commission dated January 19, 1993 requesting involvement in Strand wall replacement. //) 0? -A- r/c-oate 64 tj Action: To �S 9. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to discuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back City Council Minutes 01-26-93 Page 9 • 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. Coming forward to address the Council at this time were: 0/0 Howard Longacre - 1221 Seventh Place, Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street, June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue, Dave Reimer - 802 Monterey Blvd., Jerry Compton - 1200 Artesia Blvd., 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, Edie Webber - 1210 Eleventh Street, Gene Dreher - 1222 Seventh Place, Joseph Di Monda - 610 Ninth Street, Martin Moreno - 1326 Corona Street, Marc Freeman - 1937 Palm Drive, City Council Minutes 01-26-93 Page 10 • ADJOURNMENT - The of Hermosa Beach, 1993, at the hour day, February 09, Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City California, adjourned on Tuesday, January 26, of P.M. to the Regular Meeting of Tues - 1993, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. Deputy City Clerk City Council Minutes 01-26-93 Page 11 January 19, 1993 City Council Meeting January 26, 1993 Mayor and Members of the City Council APPOINTMENT OF MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM AND CITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION - JANUARY 1993 Consistent with the City Council policy of a nine-month rotation of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore, the following appointments should be made: 1. Mayor for a term ending November 9, 1993. 2. Mayor Pro Tempore for a term ending November 9, 1993. Recommendations after appointment of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore, consistent with policy of maintaining permanent representatives whenever possible, are: 1. To appoint the Mayor to the Los Angeles County - City Selection Committee. (Authority in Government Code Section 50270. The committee shall consist of the mayor of each city within the county. Other councilmembers may be designated delegates for meetings the mayor is unable to attend, but requires Council action for each meeting that a delegate other than the mayor is designated.) 2. To appoint the Mayor to the South Bay Cities Sanitation District Board of Directors, and Mayor Pro Tem or other member of Council as alternate director. (Authority in Health and Safety Code Section 4730. The presiding officer of the governing body is automatically on the Board of Directors, and an alternate director is appointed to act as a member of the district board in place of the presiding officer ... during such person's absence, inability, or refusal to act. Therefore, the alternate could attend the meetings in the Mayor's place without requiring Council action each time.) To appoint the Mayor as delegate to the Inglewood Fire Training Authority, and Mayor Pro Tem or other member of Council as alternate. (This meeting immediately follows the Sanitation District meeting.) Enclosed for your information are current committee assignments as of April 28, 1992. The remainder of the assignments may be made at the City Council meeting of February 9, 1993. Following the assignments of delegates and alternates, letters will be sent to the appropriate boards and committees, and the list of newly appointed delegates and alternates will be forwarded to Council. Elaine Doerfling; Cit Clerk Frederick R. Ferrin, City Manager 2 CITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION OF DELEGATES, ALTERNATE APPOINTMENTS AND/OR RE -APPOINTMENT Beach Cities Coalition for Drug Free Youth (3rd Wed. - 8:00 a.m. Delegate Edgerton HB Community Center, Room #12) Beach Cities Committee Delegate Edgerton (Quarter - evenings Delegate Midstokke as called) Commuter Transportation Implementation Plan Steering Committee (MAX) Delegate Benz (1st Mon. [every other month] 5:00 p.m., Torrance City Hall Alternate Essertier - West Annex) Coordinating Council (4th Thurs. - 11:30 lunch Delegate Edgerton Scotty's - H.B.) Independent Cities Association Delegate Midstokke (Quarterly - dinner meeting Next = Santa Barbara - 2/2/92) Alternate Wiemans Independent Cities Lease Finance Authority (Annual - in June, Delegate Midstokke as called) Alternate Copeland RESOLUTION NO. 89-5336 Independent Cities Risk Management Association (2nd Wed. - 10:00 a.m. Delegate Edgerton Huntington Park) Alternate Blackwood RESOLUTION NO. 91-5511 Inglewood Fire Training Authority Commission (same as South Bay Sanitation District) Delegate Essertier (3rd Wed. - 1:30 p.m. Alternate Midstokke Torrance City Hall) League of California Cities - Board of Directors (1st Thurs. - 6:30 p.m. Delegate Edgerton 3500 Ramona Blvd., Monterey Park, "Luminarias" Restaurant Alternate Essertier -[dark in July]) Page 1 Appointments 04-28-92 Los Angeles County/City Selection Committee (must appoint alter- nate separately each time when unable to attend called meeting) Mayor Essertier (as called) Sister City Association, Inc. Delegate Essertier (3rd Thurs., 7 to 7:30 p.m. various locations) Alternate Benz South Bay Cities Association Delegate Essertier (4th Thurs. - dinner meeting 6:30 p.m. - "Ante's" Restau- Alternate Wiemans rant, San Pedro) South Bay Cities Sanitation District (County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles) (Same as Inglewood Fire Training Authority) Delegate Essertier (3rd Wed. - 1:30 p.m. Torrance City Hall) Alternate Midstokke South Bay Corridor Study Steering Committee (with South Bay Cities) Delegate Essertier (4th Thurs. - 6:00 p.m. "Ante's" Restaurant, Alternate Wiemans San Pedro) South Bay Juvenile Diversion Project Delegate Edgerton (Quarterly, as called - 6 p.m. 200 No. P.C.H., Redondo Beach Alternate Benz Comm. Service Bldg. Office) Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Delegate Midstokke (Annual - General Assembly) Alternate Edgerton Southern California Rapid Transit District City Selection Committee Delegate Benz (Annual - June) Alternate Edgerton RESOLUTION NO. 91-5510 West Basin Water Association (Quarterly - dinner meeting - Delegate Midstokke 4th Thurs. - 6:30 p.m. "Charlie Brown's, Redondo Beach [Nov = 3rd Thurs.]) Page 2 Appointments 04-28-92 Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project Delegate Midstokke Alternate Etta Simpson SUB -COMMITTEES Oil Sub -Committee (Temporary) Councilmember Essertier Councilmember Wiemans Data Processing Sub -Committee (Temporary) Councilmember Benz Councilmember Essertier Police Liaison Sub -Committee (Temporary) Councilmember Wiemans Councilmember Benz deputy/reorgapt Page 3 Appointments 04-28-92 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on January 12, 1993, at the hour of '7:35 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Charles McDonald, Director of Public Works ROLL CALL Present: Benz, Midstokke, Wiemans, Mayor Essertier Absent: Edgerton PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Coming forward to address the Council at this time were: Chris Howell - La Playita, commended the Kiwanis for donation of 40 trees, planted on the Green- belt; concerned with individual who has damaged Greenbelt trees with excessive pruning; Jan McHugh - 718 1st Place, requested the referendum on the proposed hotel on Pacific Coast Highway be processed or placed for a public hearing; stated this was being requested in order to exhaust legal remedies; Parker Herriott - 224 Twenty-fourth Street, stated he would like the above item placed on the agenda for a public hearing in order for tes- timony to be given; Proposed Action: To agendize the letters from John and Janet McHugh, Parker Herriott, Mr. Ottinger, and the reply from City Attorney Vose. Motion Midstokke, second Wiemans. The motion failed due to the dissenting votes of Benz and Mayor Essertier, and the absence of Edgerton. Continuing to come forward to address the Council were: Celeste Coer - Loma Drive, submitted a letter directly to the Council regarding" the house numbering on Ldma Drive; and, Cindy (last name indistinct) - 8th Street and Ardmore, wished to speak on item 1(j).- "1. CONSENT CALENDAR Action: To approve the Consent Calendar recommendations (a) through (n), with the exception of the following items which were removed for discussion in item 3, but are shown in order for clarity: (b) Benz, (d) Benz, (j) Benz, and (n) Wiemans. Motion Midstokke, second Benz. So ordered, noting the absence of Edgerton. No one came forward to address the Council on items not removed from the consent calendar. la City Council Minutes 01-12-93 Page 8021 (a) (b) Recommendation to approve the following minutes: 1) Special meeting of the City Council held on Decem- ber 8, 1992; 2) Regular meeting of the City Council held on Decem- ber 15, 1992. Action: To approve the minutes of the special meeting of December 8, 1992 and the regular meeting of December 15, 1992 as presented. Recommendation to ratify Demands and Warrants Nos. 42804 through 42926 inclusive, noting voided war- rants Nos. 42805, 42806, 42825, 42827, 42865, 42866, and 42888. This item was removed from the consent calendar by Coun- cilmember Benz for separate discussion later in the meeting, due to questions regarding traffic engineering and risk management contract service. Action: To ratify the demands and warrants as presented. Motion Benz, second Midstokke. So ordered, noting the absence of Edgerton. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) (e) Action: To receive and file the tentative future agenda items as presented. Recommendation to receive and file the November, 1992 financial reports: 1) Revenue and expenditure report; 2) City Treasurer report. This item was removed from the consent calendar by Coun- cilmember Benz for separate discussion later in the meeting, due to questions regarding overtime pay for public safety employees. Action: To receive and file the November, 1992 finan- cial reports as presented. Motion Benz, second Midstokke. So ordered, noting the absence of Edgerton. Recommendation to receive and file the December, 1992 investment report. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated December 29, 1992. Action: To receive and file the December, 1992 invest- ment report as presented. City Council Minutes 01-12-93 Page 8022 (f) (g) (h) (j) Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Annual Statement of Investment Policy. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated January 4, 1993. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 93-5587, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT AND FILING OF THE ANNUAL STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY FOR THE YEAR 1993.", noting the absence of Edgerton. Recommendation to award contract for outfitting new Police Department patrol vehicles to The Precinct Company. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated December 28, 1992. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to award the contract for outfitting three new police vehicles, at a cost of $3,413.13 per vehicle ($10,239.39 total from the Asset Forfeiture Fund), to "The Precinct Company". Recommendation to approve the five year extension of the Joint Powers Agreement for the South Bay Transportation - Corridor study. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated December 17, 1992. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to approve a five (5) year extension of the 16 city Joint Powers Agreement to accomplish regional transportation improve- ments (generally, using state and federal funding). Recommendation to adopt a resolution establishing the terms and conditions of employment for the Hermosa Beach Management Association for the period July 16, 1992 through July 15, 1993. Memorandum from Personnel Direc- tor Robert Blackwood dated January 4, 1993. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 93-5588, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 89-5289 AND ESTABLISHING SALARY, BENEFITS AND OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES.", noting the absence of Edgerton. Recommendation to approve crossing control in the form of a fence and shrubs to be installed at the Eighth Street crossing of the Greenbelt using CIP 92-506 funds. Memorandum from Public Works Director Charles McDonald dated December 28, 1992. Supplemental letter from Rosamond d'Orlaque Fogg, 610 6th Street, dated January 11, 1993. This item was removed from the consent calendar by Coun- cilmember Benz for separate discussion later in the .meeting. City Council Minutes 01-12-93 Page 8023 Public Works Director McDonald presented the staff re- port and responded to Council questions. Community Resources Director Mary Rooney also responded to Council questions and gave the background of this item. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Cindy (last name indistinct) - 8th Street, objected to barriers placed on the Greenbelt to prevent joggers from crossing in the middle of the street; and, Mary Ann Boyle - 1412 Monterey Blvd., objected to barriers placed on the Greenbelt to prevent joggers from crossing in the middle of the street; suggested the crosswalks be removed from the corners of the intersection and placed in the middle of the street instead. (k) (1) Action: To receive and file this request and direct the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Com- mission to reconsider this problem and present other suggestions that would be more organic and cost little, such as iceplant. Motion Benz, second Midstokke. So ordered, noting the absence of Edgerton. Recommendation to waive parking fees and time limits for meters along Pier Avenue from Manhattan Avenue to the Pier and on Hermosa Avenue between 8th and 16th Streets for Sand and Strand Run on Sunday, February 7, 1993. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated December 30, 1992. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to waive parking fees and time limits (from 6:00 A.M. to 12:00 noon) along Pier Avenue, from Manhattan Avenue to the Pier, and on Hermosa Avenue, from 8th Street to 16th Street, during the annual "Sand and Strand Run", on Saturday, February 7, 1993. Recommendation to designate $1,000 of Proposition C funds for the City's fair share of Environmental impact costs for Metro Green Line Light Rail South Coast Exten- sion, with Resolution for adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated December 17, 1992. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 93-5589, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN ALLOCATION OF $1,000 OF PROPOSITION "C" FUNDS FOR THE CITY'S FAIR SHARE OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE METRO GREEN LINE EXTENSION.", noting the absence of Edgerton. (m) _Recommendation to approve renewal of a lease agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach and Hope Chapel for City Council Minutes 01-12-93 Page 8024 (n) use of Room 13 in the Community Center. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated January 4, 1993. Action: To approve the staff recommendation for a one year lease agreement between the City and Hope Chapel for Room 13 in the Community Center at a monthly rental of $1,082 (1,288 sq.ft. X $.84) for total annual esti- mated revenue of $13,000; and, authorize the Mayor to sign the lease agreement. Recommendation to maintain the Parks and Recreation Tax at $3,500.00 per new dwelling unit and postpone consid- eration of any increase for one year. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated Decem- ber 30, 1992. This item was removed from the consent calendar by Coun- cilmember Wiemans for further discussion later in the meeting. Building and Safety Director Grove presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Action: To approve the staff recommendation and main- tain the Parks and Recreation Facilities Tax at $3,500 per new dwelling unit (other than subdivisions, such as condominium projects, for which the Parks and Recreation In -Lieu Fee of $5,198 per dwelling unit applies); and, postpone consideration of any increase for one year due to the depressed condition of residential construction, with the understanding that both the Parks and Recre- ation Facilities Tax and the Parks and Recreation In - Lieu Fee would be considered at that time. Motion Wiemans, second Mayor Essertier. So ordered, noting the absence of Edgerton. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES (a) ORDINANCE NO. 92-1080 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HER- MOSA BEACH AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT THE CREATION OF SECOND UNITS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 65852.2(c) OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT CODE, AND ADOPTION OF AN EN- VIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. For adoption. Proposed Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 92-1080. Motion Mayor Essertier, second Midstokke. The motion failed due to the dissenting votes of Benz and Wiemans, and the absence of Edgerton. Action: Mayor Essertier directed, with the consensus of the Council, to continue Ordinance No. 92-1080 to the adjourned regular meeting of January 14, 1993. City Council Minutes 01-12-93 Page 8025 (b) ORDINANCE NO. 92-1081 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HER- MOSA BEACH AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE CREATION OF SECOND UNITS PURSUANT TO SECTION 65852.2(a) OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT CODE AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. For adoption. Action: Mayor Essertier directed, with the consensus of the Council, to continue Ordinance No. 92-1081 to the adjourned regular meeting of January 14, 1993. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. Items 1(b), (d), (j), and (n) were heard at this time but are shown in order for clarity. * Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar are shown under the appropriate item. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS. (a) Letter from Cyril Yates, 911 17th Street, dated December 30, 1992 requesting reconsideration of decision to eliminate red zone across the street from his garage. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Cyril Yates - 911 17th Street, submitted informa- tion directly to the Council; requested the curb be repainted red to preclude a parking space at 950 17th Street; and, Debra Barker - 950 17th Street, submitted photo- graphs directly to the Council; requested that the parking space be left in front of her home. (b) Proposed Action: To schedule this item for a public hearing. Motion Wiemans. The motion died due to thea -lack of a second. Proposed Action: To repaint the curb red in front of 950 17th Street, thereby removing the parking space, due to concerns for public safety and historical background. Motion Midstokke, second Mayor Essertier. The motion failed due to the dissenting votes of Benz and Wiemans, and the absence of Edgerton. There was no further ac- tion taken on this item. Letter from Patricia Egerer, 1142 Manhattan Avenue #282, Manhattan Beach, dated January 1, 1993 regarding utilization of the Strand. Coming forward to address the Council on this item was: Patricia Egerer - 1142 Manhattan Avenue #282, M.B., requested that the Council not accept money for City Council Minutes 01-12-93 Page 8026 a bikepath on the Strand, but leave the Strand for pedestrian use only due to safety concerns. Action: To receive and file the letter from Patricia Egerer requesting that the Strand not be designated a "bikeway", but kept for pedestrian traffic. Motion Mayor Essertier, second Benz. So ordered. (c) Letter from Carol Hunt, Executive Director, Chamber of Commerce, dated January 6, 1993 requesting approval to agendize a formal presentation of the R/UDAT Downtown Improvement Action Plan for the January 26, 1993 City Council meeting. Coming forward to address the Council on this item was: Carol Hunt - Chamber of Commerce, spoke regarding her letter. Action: Mayor Essertier directed, with the consensus of the Council, that the Chamber of Commerce presentation of the R/UDAT Downtown Improvement Action Plan be placed on the agenda as a public hearing sometime after January. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL, LIVE ENTERTAINMENT, 24-HOUR OPERATION AND TANDEM PARKING FOR MOTORCYCLES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1100 STRAND (SCOT- TY'S RESTAURANT). Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated January 4, 1993. Supplemental letter from Peter Mangurian, 1100 The Strand, appellant, dated January 11, 1993, requesting a continuance. This item was heard at 8:12 P.M.; the appellant was not present. City Attorney Vose advised the Council not toproceedon this item as it had not been properly posted by the ap- pellant. Mr. Vose recommended that the Council take the item off -calendar; grant a brief continuance; and advise the appellant that if he wished to proceed with the ap- peal he must agree to a new date and properly readver- tise, renotice and post the property. Action: To remove this item from the calendar, grant a ten day continuance, and require that the appellant agree to a new scheduled date for a public hearing and pay all fees for readvertising, renoticing and posting, with staff to do the posting. Motion Mayor Essertier, second Midstokke. So ordered, noting the absence of Edgerton. City Council Minutes 01-12-93 Page 8027 MUNICIPAL MATTERS 6. APPROVAL OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR 957 SEVENTH STREET. Memorandum from Public Works Director Charles McDonald dated December 17, 1992. Public Works Director McDonald presented the staff re- port and responded to Council questions. Proposed Action: To approve the staff recommendation. Motion Mayor Essertier. The motion died due to the lack of a second. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) allow the wall of planter #2 to be 48" high instead of 36"; and, 2) allow three steps to encroach onto public right-of- way, due to the physical nature of the slope and unique circumstances. Motion Mayor Essertier, second Benz. So ordered, noting the absence of Edgerton. 7. STEPS FOR R/UDAT IMPLEMENTATION. Memorandum from Com- munity Resources Director Mary Rooney dated January 4, 1993. Community Resources Director Rooney presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. 1) Assign a City Council representative to attend a workshop meeting on Saturday, January 16, 1993, from 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M., in Room 12 of the Com- munity Center. Action: Mayor Essertier directed, with the consensus of the Council, that he be assigned as Council representa- tive to attend the R/UDAT workshop meeting on Saturday, January 16, 1993. 2) Include a discussion of the adoption of specific R/ UDAT recommendations as part of the Land Use Ele- ment to be presented at the joint City Council/ Planning Commission meeting (date to be determined). Action: Mayor Essertier directed, with the consensus of the Council, that this item be included at the joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission to be held on January 20, 1993. 3) Approve in concept, an architectural competition to be sponsored and organized by the AIA for Municipal Pier design. City Council Minutes 01-12-93 Page 8028 Coming forward to address the Council on this item was: Jerry Compton - 1200 Artesia Blvd., stated that the local chapter of the AIA had approved the spon- sorship of the competition in concept; and, the help that might be needed from the City would be in-kind help from staff only, such as struc- tural engineering and blue prints. Action: To approve in concept an architectural competi- tion to be sponsored and organized by the AIA for the Municipal Pier design. Motion Mayor Essertier, second Benz. So ordered. 8. AMENDMENT TO PUBLIC NOTICING SERVICES CONTRACT. Memo- randum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated January 5, 1993. Planning Director Schubach presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Proposed Action: To approve staff recommendation no. 1: amend the current contract regarding the cost of postage and photocopying and to use the City's Planning Depart- ment office during ;working hours; also, lower the second notice/appeal contract charge to only the cost of the copies and postage. Motion Wiemans. The motion died due to the lack of a second. Proposed Action: To approve staff recommendation no. 3: direct staff to rebid the public noticing contract and give the required 30 days termination notice to the con- tractor, with the understanding that staff reassess the need to have an outside' contractor and to investigate the possibility of the City purchasing monthly updates of the County Assessor's rolls. Motion Midstokke. The motion died due to the lack of a second. Action: To have staff do the noticing in-house; get updates of the County Assessor's rolls; give 30 day notice of termination to the current contractor; and, have staff report on the number and cost of notices sent and staff time that would be involved in doing the work in-house. Motion Benz, second Mayor Essertier. The motion car- ried, noting the dissenting vote of Wiemans and the ab- sence of Edgerton. 9. REQUEST FOR DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL TO REVIEW AND RECOM- MEND A LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR THE GREENBELT PARKING AREA. Memorandum from City Manager Frederick R. Ferrin dated January 5, 1993. City Council Minutes 01-12-93 Page 8029 City Manager Ferrin presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. Action: To direct the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission to consider keeping with the existing theme and topography of the Greenbelt, a path in the middle and inexpensive plantings such as iceplant on either side, and formulate a plan to be recommended to the City Council for implementation, with the understanding that the Council has no interest in any parking plan for the Greenbelt. Motion Midstokke, second Mayor Essertier. So ordered. 10. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER City Attorney Vose said there had been a communication received from MultiVision Cable TV last night that the Council might wish to add to this agenda for discussion; if so, it would require a four member vote (unanimous, due to the absence of Edgerton) as an emergency item, since the need for discussion had arisen after the agen- da had been posted. Proposed Action: To add the item to the agenda on the basis that the need to consider the matter arose after the posting of the agenda. Motion Mayor Essertier. The motion died due to the lack of a second. City Manager Ferrin reported: 1) that room 101 (former Public Works office, now lo- cated on the basement floor) was open for the con- solidated payment of all parking tickets and per- mits, animal licenses, and other related matters; 2) the Hermosa Beach Library would be closed all day on Saturday, January 16, 1993 for automatic cir- culation system updating; and, 3) that someone was trimming public trees on the greenbelt illegally and damaging them; requested the public report this person if seen. 11. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL Mayor Essertier reported the death of surfing great, Dewey Weber, and asked that staff make suggestions of something, not costly, that the City could do to show his contribution to surfing and Hermosa Beach. Councilmember Midstokke requested that tonight's meeting be adjourned. in the memory of Dewey Weber and a condo- lence letter sent to his family. Ms. Midstokke an- nounced that a memorial service would be held for Mr. Weber on Sunday, January 23, 1993, at the hour of 8:00 A.M., at the foot of Avenue Cin Redondo Beach, with a reception at the "Beach Boys Cafe", on Pacific Coast City Council Minutes 01-12-93 Page 8030 Highway in Hermosa Beach, following from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Councilmember Midstokke requested that drug related ac- tivities related to businesses in the City be brought to the attention of the Council. City Manager Ferrin said it would be added to the tentative future agenda items. 12. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL - None CITIZEN COMMENTS Coming forward to address the Council at this time was: Joseph Di Monda - 610 Ninth Street, said that when the Planning Commission had approved the South Bay Cycles move by a 3 to 2 vote, a petition had been presented complaining about motorcycle noise; stated that when he had complained to the Police Department about noise he was told that the Police did not have the training to operate the noise meter or the personnel to do much about noisy motorcycles in the City. Public Safety Director Wisniewski responded that he was not aware of any noise complaints by Mr. Di Monda, stated that noise complaints were handled by the Police Department. Mayor Essertier and Councilmember Midstokke asked for a report on the status of the Noise Ordinance regarding its enforceability, training in use of the noise meter, and number of complaints cited and/or dismissed. Continuing to come forward to address the Council were: Janet McHugh - 718 1st Place, questioned the City Attorney's statements regarding the proposed Referendum of the Pacific Coast Highway hotel; and, Parker Herriott - 224 Twenty-fourth Street, questioned the City Attorney's opinion regard- ing the proposed Referendum of the Pacific Coast Highway hotel; City Attorney Vose stated there were two issues: 1) the subject of the Referendum; and, 2) the Referendum is invalid on its face pursuant to Elections Code Section 4052. Councilmember Midstokke cited the case of Creighton vs. Reviczky as an example. Continuing to come forward to address the Council were: Martin Moreno - 1326 Corona Street, questioned the City expenditure of funds for the private prop- erty ingress at the Park Pacific Center; asked City Council Minutes 01-12-93 Page 8031 that the City allow residents to be deeded the public right-of-way that fronts their property; and, that the question of public right-of-way easements along Prospect be considered with Beach Drive; and, Patricia Egerer - 1142 Manhattan Avenue, #282, M.B., questioned when an appropriate time would be to address the safety issues of mixed use of the Strand. Mayor Essertier suggested that she attend the R/UDAT meeting January 16, 1993. ADJOURNMENT - The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned in the memory of Dewey Weber, noted Hermosa Beach surfer and surfboard shop owner, on Tuesday, January 12, 1993, at the hour of 10:18 P.M. to the Ad- journed Regular Meeting of Thursday, January 14, 1993, at the hour of 7:00 A.M., for the purpose of a joint meeting with the Board of Parking Place Commissioners. CkfaXTVLeLiQJ2447jM_____ Deputy City Clerk City Council Minutes 01-12-93 Page 8032 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •. 4, • FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16.53:50 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION H ROBERT*COCHRAN MEALS/P. 0. 8. T. CLASS CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 01/12/93 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION '05022 001-400-2101-4312 01/06/93 POLICE 11. PAGE 0001 • DATE 01/12/93 INV/REF PO it CHK * • AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 02054 $231. 50 /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST **4 VENDOR TOTAL*****************************************************************#4* H GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFCRS ASSOC CAFR FILING FEE $231. 50 00059 001-400-1202-4201 00346 $375.00 12/29/92 FINANCE ADMIN /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 44* VENDOR TOTAL***4********n*************************************************444444 fi HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAYROLL/12-16 TO 12-31 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAYROLL/12-16 TO 12-31 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAYROLL/12-16 TO 12-31 H HERMOSA BEACH.PAYROLL.A000UNT PAYROLL/12-16 TO 12-31 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAVROLLPI2-16 TO 12-31 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAYROLL/12-16 TO 12-31 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAYROLL/12-16 TO 12-31 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAYROLL/12-16 TO 12-31 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAYROLL/12-16 TO 12-31 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAYROLL/12-16 TO 12-31 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAYROLL./12-16 TO 12-31 00243 001-202-0000-2030 01/04/93 $375. 00 00526 $242,872.44 /ACCRUED PAYROLL 00243 105-202-0000-2030 00298 01/04/93 00243 109-202-0000-2030 01/04/93 00243 110-202-0000-2030 01/04/93 00243 113-202-0000-2030 01/04/93 00243 125-202-0000-2030 01/04/93 00243 145-202-0000-2030 01/04/93 00243 146-202-0000-2030 01/04/93 00243 150-202-0000-2030 01/04/93 00243 155-202-0000-2030 01/04/93 00243 160-202-0000-2030 01/04/93 $7,369.50 /ACCRUED PAYROLL 00097 $1,180.34 /ACCRUED PAYROLL 00302 $40,248.23 /ACCRUED PAYROLL 00153 $4,231. 14 /ACCRUED PAYROLL 00020 $538.47 /ACCRUED PAYROLL 00294 $567.38 /ACCRUED PAYROLL 00017 $2,154.65 /ACCRUED PAYROLL 00020 $728.52 /ACCRUED PAYROLL 00295 $3,964.30 /ACCRUED PAYROLL 00292 $10,145 23 /ACCRUED PAYROLL 05907 $0.00 42929 01/12/93 • • 05652 42927 $0.00 01/12/93 • • 42928 $0.00 01/12/93 • 42928 $0.00 01/12/93 42928 $0.00 01/12/93 • 42928 $0.00 01/12/93 • 42928 $0 00 C)1/12/93 41 42928 $0.00 01/12/93 40 42929 $0.00 C)1/12'93 40 42928 $0.00 01/12/93 • 42928 $0.00 01/12/93 • 42928 $0.00 01/12/93 • 42928 $0.00 01/12/93 • • • 16 • • FINANCE-SFA340 • • • TIME 16: 53. 50 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAYROLL/12-16 TO 12-31 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT PAYROLL/12-16 TO 12-31 **a VENDOR TOTAL ******* CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 01/12/93 VND # ACCdUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROD M ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00243 170-202-0000-2030 01/04/93 00243 705-202-0000-2030 01/04/93 00149 325, 008.28 /ACCRUED PAYROLL 00256 $4,575.26 /ACCRUED PAYROLL *****ir#+tiF**11-u*****iF*******-1.***aitiFiF#iF****iF***41frit**4441 ii --11* **M H SPORTSMEN'S LODGE HOTEL. LODGING/R COCHRAN PAGE 0002 DATE 01/12/93 INV/REF PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $343,583 74 05023 001-400-2101-4312 02055 $675.04 01/06/93 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST *** VENDOR TOTAL 4t4ftl-4F4F41.*# F*4F4F*4r*4fiF4 ***a****a4F414F*4144444444*-1F4F#*#4F4**-1F4t4F41.41.4F4Fi14t#4F**41**4?11F4a4F41 *** FAY CODE TOTAL********************************************************4141******** R A --A BACKFLOW TESTING ? MAINT. BACKFLOW DEVICE TESTING 19138 R A -A BACKFLOW TESTING & MAINT. BACKFLOW DEVICE TESTING 19138 $675.04 $344,865.28 $0.00 $0.00 4292.8 01/12/93 42928 01/12/93 05908 42930 $0 00 01/12/93 04912 001-400-3101-4201 00132 $441.00 19138 05284 42935 12/30/92 MEDIANS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 01/12/93 04912 001-400-6101-4201 00309 $441.00 19138 05284 42935 12/30/92 PARKS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 01/12/93 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R ADAMSON INDUSTRIES $8132.00 00138 001-400-2101-4309 00586 3202.86 MISC CHARGES DEC. 92 0517 12/15/92 POLICE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS a** VENDOR TOTAL***************************************************************4**** R ADVANCE ELEVATOR ELEVATOR MAINT/JAN 93 *** VENDOR TOTAL ** $202.86 0517 00123 42936 *0.00 01/12/93 00003 001-400-4204-4201 00559 $90.00 29954 00003 42937 29954 01/01/93 BLb0 MAINT /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 01/12/93 * * * * * * * * * ir* * * **** ** * * ** * * * * ** * *** *** * **** **** * ** * *** * ** * * * * * * * * * * R ADVANCED ELECTRONICS RADIO MAINT JAN. 93 00935 001-400-2101-4201 65687 12/25/92 POLICE R ADVANCED ELECTRONICS RADIO MAINT JAN. 93 65687 00935 001-400-2201-4201 12/25/92 FIRE $90.00 01182 32, 325.50 65687 00048 42938 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 01/12/93 00357 3195.00 65687 00048 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 42938 01/12/93 L) 0 ,l. •.I • • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0003 • TIME 16:53:50 FOR 01/12/93 DATE 01/12/93 • PAY VENDOR NAME VND $ ACt:OOFIT NUMBER TRN N AMOUNT INV/REF PO * CHK * • DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ M ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP • • R ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 00935 110-400-3302-4307 00072 $239.50 65572 00058 42938 RADIO MAINT. JAN. 93 65572 12/25/92 PARKING ENF /RADIO MAINTENANCE $0.00 01/12/93 • • *** VENDOR TOTAL***************************r**********************+rte**************** $2,760.00 • • R AT !. T 03423 170-400-2103-4304 00076 $1.68 2137009597 00126 42939 MOBILE PHONE LD. DEC. 92 09597 12/08/92 SPEC INVESTGTNS /TELEPHONE $0.00 01/12/93 • • *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $1.68 • • • AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. 04973 150-400-8151-4201 00005 $1,050.00 6755 06022 42940 PROG PMT 2/TRAFFIC PROG 6755 12/02/92 CIP 89-151 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 01/12/93 • • 4** VENDOR TOTAL************a**************************************************4**** $1,050.00 • • R NESTOR*AYSON 05012 001-400-2101-4313 00423 $463.50 05911 42941 MEALS/STC CLASS 01/04/93 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE, STC $0.00 01/12/93 • • *4* VENDOR TOTAL_******************************************************************** $463.50 • • • BANC ONE LEASING 99 02154 001-400-4205-6900 00128 $417.96 63-5500566-01 00030 42.942 LEAST PMT. JAN. 93 66-01 12/29/92 EQUIP SERVICE /LEASE PAYMENTS $0 00 01/12/93 • • *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $417.96 • • • BANK OF AMERICA, NT 7.r. SA 04677 001-400-1141-4201 00144 $250.00 03804 42943 SAFEKEEPING FEE/NOV 92 11/15/92 CITY TREASURER /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 01/12/93 • • *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $250.00 • • R BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA 01308 001-400-1212-4188 02591 $66.10 00055 42544 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 EMP BENEFITS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 01/12/93 • • *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $66. 10 • R BOOTS & BOWS SQUARE DANCE CLUB 03780 001-210-0000-2110 05191 $100.00 49606 05472 42945 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND 49606 01/06/93 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 01/12/93 • li 0 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:53:50 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 01/12/93 PAGE 0004 DATE 01/12/93 • • i VND # ACCO$ T NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # �• DATE INVC PROD # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP I *** VENDOR TOTAL*#***************#********ti#*#*•w*air•a**********#***************** *** BROWNING & FERRIS INDUSTRIES TRASH PICKUP JAN. 93 16006 BROWNING ? FERRIS INDUSTRIES TRASH PICKUP JAN. 93 16006 $100. 00 00155 001-400-1208-4201 00956 $610.13 921200-2416006 00005 01/01/93 GEN APPROP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 00155 01/01/93 109-400-3301-4201 00168 VEH PKG DIST 42946 01/12/93 $360.12 921200-2416006 00005 42946 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT a** VENDOR TOTAL.******************************************************************** GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/12-4 TO 12-30 GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/12-4 TO 12-30 GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/12-4 TO 12-30 GARY*DRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/12--4 TO 12--30 GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/12-4 TO 12-30 GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/12-4 TO 12-30 GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/12-4 TO 12-30 GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/12-4 TO 12-30 GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/12-4 TO 12-30 GARY*ORUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/12-4 TO 12-30 02016 001-400-1121-4305 00229 12/30/92 CITY CLERK $970 25 $43. 27 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 02016 001-400-1122-4305 00166 $29.40 12/30/92 ELECTIONS /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 02016 001-400-1202-4305 00463 $5.52 12/30/92 FINANCE ADMIN /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 02016 001-400-1205-4305 00143 12/30/92 CABLE TV 02016 001-400-1207-4305 00291 12/30/92 BUS LICENSE 02016 12/30/92 001-400-1207-4316 00119 BUS LICENSE $6. 90 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $6. 28 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES /TRAINING $4. 00 02016 001-400-3103-4309 01461 $15.60 12/30/92 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 02016 12/30/92 001-400-4202-4305 00749 PUEI WKS ADMIN 02016 001-400-4601-4308 00792 12/30/92 COMM RESOURCES 02016 001-400-6101-4309 12/30/92 PARKS $67. 57 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $81. 46 /PROGRAM MATERIALS 01363 $32. 48 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL*********************************************************4******#*** R CA PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH PLAN CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 $292. 48 00238 001-400-1212-4188 02592 $864.36 01/01/93 EMP BENEFITS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 01/12./93 03805 42947 $0.00 01/12/93 03885 42947 $0.00 01/12/93 03885 42947 $0.00 01/12/93 03885 42947 $0.00 01/12/93 03885 42947 $0.00 01/12/93 03885 42947 $0.00 01/12/93 03885 42947 $0.00 01/12/93 03885 42947 $0.00 01/12/93 03885 42947 $0.00 01/12/93 03885 42947 $0 00 01/12/93 00041 42948 $0.00 01/12/93 r • • FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:53:50 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION ✓ CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0005 • FOR 01/12/93 DATE 01/12/93 • VND N ACC�OIXVT NUMBER' -TRN N AMOUNT INV/REF PO 0 CHK N i' 4, DATE INVC PROJ 0 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP i. R CA PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH PLAN 00238 105-400-2601-4188 01380 529.40 00041 42948 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 STREET LIGHTING /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 50.00 01/12/93 8 CA PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH PLAN 00238 109-400-3301-4188 00349 52.52 00041 42948 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 VER PKG DIST /EMPIOYEE BENEFITS 50.00 01/12/93 • 40 R CA PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH PLAN 00238 110-400-3302-4188 01654 5120.12 00041 42948 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 PARKING ENF /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 50 00 01/12/93 • • R CA PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH PLAN 00238 115-400-8141-4188 00051 51.26 00041 42948 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 CIP 89-141 /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0 00 01/12/93 1 • R CA PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH PLAN 00238 115-400-8144-4188 00075 $2.10 00041 42948 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 CIP 90-144 /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 40.00 01/12/93 • 40 R CA PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH PLAN 00238 115-400-8178-4188 00075 35.04 00041 42948 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 CIP 90-178 /EMPLOYEE.. BENEFITS 50.00 01/12/93 • 40 R CA PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH PLAN 00238 125-400-8513-4188 00087 51.68 00041 42948 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 CIP 92-513 /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 50.00 01/1.2/93 • 40 R CA PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH PLAN 00238 155-400-2102-4188 00876 31.68 00041 42948 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 CROSSING GUARD /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 4 30.00 01/12/93 • 40 IT CA PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH PLAN 00238 160-400-3102-4188 01362 522.68 00041 42948 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 SEWER/ST DRAIN /EMPI.OYEE BENEFITS 40.00 01/12/93 • 40 R CA PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH PLAN 00238 160-400-8408-4188 00063 31.26 00041 42948 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 CIP 89-408 /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 50.00 01/12/93 • 4111 R CA PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH PLAN 00238 705-400-1209-4188 00661 34.20 00041 42948 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 LIABILITY INS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 40.00 01/12/93 • R CA PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH PLAN 00238 705-400-1217-4188 00736 36.30 00041 42948 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 WORi4ERS COMP /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 50.00 01/12/93 • *** VENDOR TOTAL**n*******.$*#****a*####*******###*#*###****4I*#*##*####*###**##t***a* 41,062.60 IA • 40 8 CANADA LIFE 00046 001-400-1212-4188 02590 5638.55 00008 42949 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 EMP BENEFITS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 01/12/93 • 40 R CANADA LIFE 00046 170-400-2103-4188 00365 396.75 00008 42949 CITU HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 SPEC INVESTGTNS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 30.00 01/12/93 • FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16: 53: 50 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0006 FOR 01/12/93 DATE 01/12/93 PAY VENDOR NAME VND * ACCOt1XiT NUMBER' 'TAN * AMOUNT INV/REF PO Ik CHK M DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 4735.30 R CENTER FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE 02000 001-400-2101-4312 02056 *226.00 05910 42950 TUITION/K. MITCHELL 12/28/92 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 01/12/93 *** VENDOR TOTAL*****4**#***************#******************************************* 4226.00 R CERTIFIED OFFICE EQUIPMENT 00389 001-400-2101-4305 01914 448.65 2866 01212 42951 MISC CHARGES DEC. 92 2866 12/16/92 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 40 00 01/12/93 n** VENDOR TOTAL.******n*********************#####**********#***#**#**************4** 448.65 R CHAMPION CHEVROLET 00014 001-400-2101-4311 01569 458.46 4859 01213 42952 MISC CHARGES DEC. 92 4859 12/23/92 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE 10 00 01/12/93 R CHAMPION CHEVROLET 00014 110-400-3302-4311 00845 4171.90 4859 01213 42952 MISC. CHARGES DEC. 92 4859 12/23/92 PARKING ENF /AUTO MAINTENANCE 40.00 01/12/93 n** VENDOR TOTAL ***************************************************************4***4 4230.36 R CHEVRON USA, INC. 00634 170-400-2103-4310 00092 4544.90 1417284419 01215 42953 WESTNET GAS DEC. 92 84419 12/22/92 SPEC INVESTGTNS /MOTOR FUELS AND LUDES 40.00 01.'12/93 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $544.90 R COAST GLASS COMPANY 00325 001-400-4204-4309 02537 442.21 08142 01216 42954 MISC. CHARGES DEC. 92 08142 12/14/92 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 30.00 01/12/93 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** 142.21 R COLEN r. LEE AS AGENT FOR 04928 705-300-0000-3401. 00064 *16.51CR 05534 42955 LIAR CHKNG ACCT INTEREST 12/31/92 /INTEREST INCOME *0.00 01/12/93 R COLEN & LEE AS AGENT FOR 04928 705-400-1209-4201 00347 45,622.50 05534 42.955 LIAR CLAIMS/DEC 92 12/31/92 LIABILITY INS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *0.00 01/12/9:3 R COLEN & LEE AS AGENT FOR 04928 705-400-1209-4324 00366 47,754.28 05534 42955 LIAR CLAIMS/DEC 92 12/31/92 LIABILITY INS /CLAILIS/SETTLEMENTS 40.00 01/12/93 • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4 • • • F INANCE--SFA340 TIME 16.53 50 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R COLEN !. LEE AS AGENT FOR SETTLEMENT/SANTA CRUZ R COLFN & LEE AS AGENT FOR SE TTL EMENT/PINE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 01/12/93 VND N ACCOL)!LT NUMBER TRN M AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ N ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION • PAGE 0007 • DATE 01/12/93 INV/REF PO $$ CHR * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 04928 705-400-1209-4324 00367 $1.,151 14 12/31/92 LIABILITY INS /CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS 04928 705-400-1209-4324 00368 $9,999.99 12/31/92 LIABILITY INS /CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS 44* VENDOR TOTAL *****4*1/*-44**n**11** *itn**pit*n *it n+t******************4*nett*n$**rr11444* R COLFN AND LEE LIAB ADMIN/JAN 93 *** VENDOR TOTAL ************************4* R COMINS, SCHENKELBERG & WEINER ALLRIGHT PARKING AUDIT -00-6 04715 12/15/92 705-400-1209-4201 00348 LIABILITY INS $24, 51 1 . 40 $1,470.00 /CON1RACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *******************************4***4*44** $1 , 470. 00 05020 109-400-3301-4201 00167 $3,000.00 11-2387-00-6 12/14/92 VEH PKG DIST /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 4** VENDOR TOTAL-************************4*4***************************************** CONNECTING POINT LEASING COMPUTER RENT/DEC 92 36299 CONNECTING POINT LEASING COMPUTER'RENT DEC. 92 36299 CONNECTING POINT LEASING COMPUTER RENT DEC. 92 36299 CONNECTING POINT LEASING COMPUTER RENT DEC. 92 36299 03617 001-400-2101-4201 12/20/92 POLICE $3, 000. 00 01180 $489.57 136299 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVA Th 05534 42955 $0.00 01/12/93 05534 42955 10.00 01/12/93 00042 42956 $0.00 01/12/93 05169 42957 $0 00 01/12/93 00051 30.00 03617 001-400-2201-4201 00356 $159.40 1.362.99 00051 12/20/92 FIRE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 30. 00 42958 01/12/93 42958 01/12/93 03617 001-400-2701-4201 00067 $330.18 136299 00051 42958 12/20/92 CIVIL DEFENSE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 01/12193 03617 170-400-2103-4201 00140 $159.39 1362.99 00051 42958 12/20/92 SPEC INVESTGTNS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 30 00 01/12/93 *** VENDOR TOTAL_******************************************************************** $1,138.54 R LELIA*DA SILVA CITATION PAYMENT REFUND 01152 05013 110-300-0000-3302 49337 $20.00 12/23/92 /COURT FINES/PARKING *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R DIVERSIFIED PHOTO SUPPLY MISC. CHARGES NOV. 92 75487 $20.00 2901152 05152 42959 $0.00 01/12/93 04394 001-400-2101-4305 01913 $73.07 75487 01122 $0.00 11/23/92 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 42960 01/12/93 • • • • • • • • • r • • • • 111 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16: 53:50 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 01/12/93 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER' TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ N ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL####*******************$******#*##**************#**********4w**#u*4 ** R MEGAN M. *DOWLING CITATION PAYMENT REFUND 02810 05014 110-300-0000-3302 49336 12/22/92 PAGE 0008 DATE 01/12/93 INV/REF PO * CHK * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $73 07 $20.00 /COURT FINES/PARKING *** VENDOR TOTAL********************************.**************************a******** R EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY MAINT. CHARGES NOV. 92 R EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY METER USE MO. OCT. 92 02840 001-400-1208-4201 00954 62015 12/06/92 GEN APPROP $20 00 1502810 05149 $0.00 42961 01/12/93 $298. 00 006M62015 0122.5 42962 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0 00 01/12/93 02840 001-400-1208-4201 00955 $234.90 006M62015 01225 42962 62015 12/06/92 GEN APPROP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 01/12/93 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R EASTMAN, INC. MISC. CHARGES DEC. 92 $532.90 02514 001-400-1208-4305 01166 $14.23 18424 12/14/92 OEN APPROP /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $14.23 R EFRAM MOBIL MISC. CHARGES NOV/DEC 92 92016 R EFRAM MOBIL MISC CHARGES NOV/DEC 92 92016 R EFRAM MOBIL MISC. CHARGES NOV/DEC 92 92016 01400 001-400-2101-4310 00389 01/04/93 POLICE 9818424 01224 42963 $0.00 01/12/93 $224.02 292016 01228 42564 /MOTOR FUELS AND LURES $0.00 01/12/93 01400 001-400-2401-4310 00121 $40.64 292016 01228 42964 01/04/93 ANIMAL. CONTROL /MOTOR FUELS AND LURES $0.00 01/12/93 01400 110-400-3302-4310 00184 $52.17 292016 01228 42964 01/04/93 PARKING ENF /MOTOR FUELS AND LURES $0.00 01/12/93 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $316.83 R ELGIN SWEEPER COMPANY LEASE PMT. JAN. 93 02354 001-400-3103-6900 00123 $1,736.78 4482 12/16/92 ST MAINTENANCE /LEASE PAYMENTS a** VENDOR TOTAL.****-**************************************************************** R MICHAEL PATRICK*ELSEY 05015 110-300-0000-3302 49335 CITATION PAYMENT REFUND 03934 12/31/92 $1,736.78 $50.00 /COURT FINES/PARKING 4482 00043 $0 00 2503934 05177 $0.00 42965 01/12/93 42566 01/1.2_/93 r u CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 40 FINANCE—SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0009 0 TIME 16.53 50 FOR 01/12/93 DATE 01/12/93 40 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP • V *** VENDOR TOTAL **4##*******44********####4l* ****************+ter**********ar#*n***** $50.00 • R FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN 04963 001-400-1212-4188 02593 '612,704.81 00056 42967 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 EMP BENEFITS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0 00 01/12/93 • W R FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN 04963 110-400-3302-4188 01655 $558.31 00056 42967 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 PARKING ENF /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0 00 01/12/93 • �. R FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN 04963 125-400-8513-4188 00088 $18.99 00056 42967 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 CIP 92-513 /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0 00 01/12/93 d u R FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN 04963 170-400-2103-4188 00366 $521.55 00056 42967 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 SPEC INVESTGTNS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 01/12/93 4P 41 R FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN 04963 705-400-1217-4188 00737 $94.95 00056 42967 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 WORKERS COMP /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0 00 01/12/93 • VIP *** VENDOR TOTAL *******************************************************#*******4*** $13,898.61 • V R LA FONDA*FRAZIER 05008 001-400-4601-4201 01629 $80.00 49572 06304 42968 ROSE PARADE TRIP REFUND 49572 12/30/92 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVA1' $0 00 01/12/93 40 II *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $80.00 • 40 R JOSEPH*GAINES 02720 001-400-2101-4312 02058 $297.70 05913 42969 P 0.5 T. CLASS MILES 01/05/93 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE., POST $0.00 01/12/93 40 • *** VENDOR TOTAL*###*#########***####*##*#*******#*#****************4##**#********** $297.70 • • R DANIEL*GARCIA 05016 110-300-0000-3302 49334 $50.00 3502694 05178 42970 CITATION PAYMENT REFUND 02694 12/31/92 ' /COURT FINES/PARKING $0.00 01/12/93 # *** VENDOR TOTAL*************************************#****************************** $50.00 • • r R GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFCRS ASSOC 00059 001-400-1202-4316 00438 $14.00 05635 42971 AUDIT RFP DISKETTE 01/08/93 FINANCE ADMIN /TRAINING $0.00 01/12/93 40 • *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $14.00 4 R GROUP AMERICA LIFE INSURANCE 04397 001-400-1212-4188 02597 $606.63 00028 42972 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 EMP BENEFITS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 01/12/93 4 110 a •n� mr.. n‘' 4-.%,..1wwwmpissimmyrf, • ID FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16: 53: 50 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION GROUP AMERICA LIFE INSURANCE CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 GROUP AMERICA LIFE INSURANCE CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 GROUP AMERICA LIFE INSURANCE CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 GROUP AMERICA LIFE INSURANCE CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 GROUP AMERICA LIFE INSURANCE CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 GROUP AMERICA LIFE INSURANCE CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 GROUP AMERICA LIFE INSURANCE CITY HEALTH INS/•.IAN 93 GROUP AMERICA FIFE INSURANCE CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 GROUP AMERICA LIFE INSURANCE CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 GROUP AMERICA LIFE INSURANCE CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 GROUP AMERICA LIFE INSURANCE CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 01/12/93 PAGE 0010 DATE 01/12/93 VND * ACCOUNT NUk8Eli ' TRN * AMOUNT INV/REF PO M CHK M DATE INVC PROJ M ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 04397 105-400-2601-4188 01384 316.10 01/01/93 STREET LIGHTING /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 04397 109-400-3301-4188 00352 $1.38 01/01/93 VEH PKG DIST /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 04397 110-400-3302-4188 01658 $65. 78 01/01/93 PARKING ENF /EMPLOYEE_ BENEFITS 04397 115-400-8144-4188 00078 $1.15 01/01/93 CIP 90-144 /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 04397 115-400-8178-4188 00078 $2.76 01/01/93 CIP 90-178 /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 04397 125-400-8513-4188 00091 $0.92 01/01/93 CIP 92-513 /EMPLOYEE_ BENEFITS 04397 155-400-2102-4188 00879 40 92 01/01/93 CROSSING GUARD /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 04397 160-400-3102-4188 01366 $1.2.42 01/01/93 SEWER/ST DRAIN /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 04397 170-400-2103-4188 00369 $28.75 01/01/93 SPEC INVESTGTNS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 04397 705-400-1209-4188 00664 $2.30 01/01/93 LIABILITY INS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 04397 705-400-1217-4188 00740 $3.45 01/01/93 WORKERS COMP /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS *** VENDOR TOTAL.***********************************n*rata********** **** ************ GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES DEC. 92 GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES DEC. 92 GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES DEC. 92 $742. 56 00015 001-400-1141-4304 00612 $3.63 12/19/92 CITY TREASURER /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-1201-4304 00663 $0.99 12/19/92 CITY MANAGER /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-1202-4304 00666 $6.64 12/19/92 FINANCE ADMIN /TELEPHONE .. �f.'d'dS6R/WR_:::`LL}i4/MCLWNYiYM' 00028 42972 $0.00 01/12/93 00028 42972 $0 00 01/12/93 00078 42972 40 00 01/12/93 00028 42972 30.00 01/12/9:3 00028 42972 30. 00 01/12/03 00028 42972 30.00 01/12/93 42972 40 00- 01/12/93 00028 42972 40 00 01/12/93 00028 42772 40.00 01/12/93 00028 42972 30 00 01/12/93 00028 42972 30 00 01/12/93 01230 42973 30.00 01/12/93 01230 42973 $0.00 01/12/93 01230 42973 40.00 01/12/93 r • 4, diF FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:53:50 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R GTE CALIFORNIA, TELE CHARGES DEC. R GTE CALIFORNIA, TELE CHARGES DEC. R GTE CALIFORNIA, TELE CHARGES DEC. R GTE CALIFORNIA, TELE CHARGES DEC. R GTE CALIFORNIA, TELE CHARGES DEC. R GTE CALIFORNIA, TELE CHARGES DEC. R GTE CALIFORNIA, TELE CHARGES DEC. R GTE CALIFORNIA.. TELE CHARGES DEC. R GTE CALIFORNIA, TELE CHARGES DEC. INCORPORATED 92 INCORPORATED 92 INCORPORATED 92 INCORPORATED 92 INCORPORATED 92 INCORPORATED 92 INCORPORATED 92 INCORPORATED 92 INCORPORATED 92 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 01/12/93 VND * Aed00AT NUMBER TRN 0 AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ $ ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00015 001-400-1203-4304 00676 $1.54 12/19/92 PERSONNEL /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-1206-4304 00594 36.98 12/19/92 DATA PROCESSING /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-1208-4304 00272 12/19/92 GEN APPROP 00015 001-400-2101-4304 12/19/92 POLICE 01164 $0.40 /TELEPHONE $330.47 /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-4101-4304 00669 $2 78 12/19/92 PLANNING /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-4201-4304 00597 $1.56 12/19/92 BUILDING /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-4202-4304 00724 $53.65 12/19/92 PUB WKS ADMIN /TELEPHONE 00015 12/19/92 00015 12/19/92 001-400-4601-4304 00777 $56.10 COMM RESOURCES /TELEPHONE 110-400-3302-4304 00683 PARKING ENF $1.90 /TELEPHONE *** VENDOR TOTAL **a*+t***+t** ►***a*+r*** ************ ** ► ►** ******w*************** *** R GTEL EQUIP. RENTAL DEC. 92 01340 001-400-2101-4304 01251 12/13/92 POLICE w PAGE 0011 �1 DATE 01/12/93 INV/REF PO 0 CHK * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 3466. 64 01163 $51.56 /TELEPHONE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R GUARDIAN DENTAL _ CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 R GUARDIAN _ DEENTAL_,_._ _ _ CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 R GUARDIAN DENTAL CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 St.Y T8 • ;fr 1;' :I% • 02623 001-400-1212-41E38_02587 01/01/93 351. 56 *3,163.95 EMI' BENEFITS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 02623 105j400-2601-4188 01379 09.33 01/01/93 STREET LIGHTING /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 02623 110-400-3302-4188 01653 3111.95 01/01/93 PARKING ENF /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 01230 42973 30.00 01/12/93 01230 42973 $0.00 01/12/93 01230 42973 $0.00 01/12/93 01230 42973 $0.00 01/12/93 01230 42973 $0.00 01/12/93 01230 42973 $0.00 01/12/93 40 01230 42973 30.00 01/12/93 40 01230 42973 $0.00 01/12/93 40 01230 42973 $0.00 01/12/93 80 Z9800001251 01233 42974 $0.00 01/12/93 00001 42975 $0.00 01/12/93 00001 42975 $0.00 01/12/93 00001 42975 30.00 01/12/93 • • • • FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:53:50 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0012 FOR 01/12/93 DATE 01/12/93 VND N tL ACCOUNT 1IUMBEW' `TRW= M AMOUNT INV/REF PO $ CHK N DATE INVC PROJ M ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP R GUARDIAN DENTAL '02623 115-400-8141-4188 00050 $6.70 00001 42975 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 CIP 99-141 /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 01/12/93 R GUARDIAN DENTAL 02623 115-400-8144-4188 00074 $3.35 00001 42975 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 CIP 90-144 /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 C)1/12/93 R GUARDIAN DENTAL 02623 115-400-8178-4188 00074 $13.40 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 CIP 90-178 /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS R GUARDIAN DENTAL 02623 125-400-8513-4188 00086 $3.35 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 CIP 92-513 /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 00001 42975 $0 00 01/12/93 00001 42975 $0 00 01/12/93 R GUARDIAN DENTAL 02623 160-400-3102-4188 01361 $9.33 00001 42975 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 SEWER/ST DRAIN /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 01/12/93 R GUARDIAN DENTAL 02623 160-400-8408-4188 00062 $6.70 00001 42975 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 CIP 89-408 /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 30 00 01/12/93 R GUARDIAN DENTAL 02623 170-400-2103-4188 00364 $26.34 00001 42975 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 SPEC INVESTGTNS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 40.00 01/12/93 R GUARDIAN DENTAL 02623 705-400-1209-4188 00660 $33.52 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 LIABILITY INS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS R GUARDIAN DENTAL_ 02623 705-400-1217-4188 00735 350.28 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 WORKERS COMP /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS *** VENDOR TOTAL *********************ern********************************************* 33, 438. 20 00001 42975 $0.00 01/12/93 00001. 42975 *0 0( 01/12/93 R HEALTHNET 00241 001-400-1212-4188 02595 $18,822.91 00016 42976 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 EMP BENEFITS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS R HEALTHNET 00241 105-400-2601-4188 01382 $857 74 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 STF}EET LIGHTING /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS R HEALTHNET 00241 109-400-3301-4188 00351 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 R HEALTHNET 00241 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 R HEALTHNET CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 00241 01/01/93 $62.89 VEH PKG DIST /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 110-400-3302-4188 01657 $2,121.71 PARKING ENF /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 115-400-8144-4188 00077 $50. 31 CIP 90-144 /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 30 00 01/12/93 00016 42976 40 00 01/12/97 00016 42976 30 00 01/12/93 00016 42976 $0.00 01/12/93 00016 42976 $0.00 01/12/93 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:53:50 • PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION • • • v y • • • 0 4 • • R HEALTHNET CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 R HEALTHNET CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 R HEALTHNET CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 • HEALTHNET CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 • HEALTHNET CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 R HEALTHNET CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 R HEALTHNET CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 • HEALTHNET CITY HEALTH INS%JAN 93 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 01/12/93 VND * ' ACCOUNT NUMBER' TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00241 01/01/93 115-400-8178-4188 00077 *100.61 CIP 90-178 /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 00241 125-400-8513-4188 00090 01/01/93 CIP 92-513 00241 01/01/93 325. 16 /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 155-400-2102-4189 00878 *50.31 CROSSING GUARD /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 00241 160-400-3102-4188 01364 *659.04 01/01/93 SEWER/ST DRAIN /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 00241 160-400-8408-4188 00065 *31.44 01/01/93 CIP 89-408 /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 00241 170-400-2103-4188 00368 *561.76 01/01/93 - SPEC INVESTGTNS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 00241 705-400-1209-4188 00662 *153.92 01/01/93 LIABILITY INS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 00241 705-400-1217-4188 00738 *153.92 01/01/93 WORKERS COMP /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS *** VENDOR TOTAL_ * ************** ►****************w#***►**a*a******n11-************#u#* R CITY OF*HERMOSA BEACH WORK COMP CLAIMS/DEC 92 PAGE 0013 DATE 01/12/93 INV/REF PO * CHK it AMOUNT VNENC DATE EXP 323, 651. 72 04075 705-400-1217-4182 00265 314,951.55 12/31/92 WORKERS COMP /WORKERS COMP CURRENT YR *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R HERMOSA LOCK & ALARM $14,951.55 00279 001-400-2101-4201 01179 348.00 EMERG LOCKSMITH SERV 3266 01/05/93 POLICE *** VENDOR TOTAL.*******n**##***########*n-n***4*#*###*###**#***#*#*****#***n R INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC DISCOUNT OFFERED 0960 R INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC DISCOUNT TAKEN 0960 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT #***#*** *48.00 02458 001-202-0000-2021 00337 36.97 12/15/92 02458 001-202-0000-2022 12/15/92 DISCOUNTS OFFERED 00335 36.97CR /DISCOUNTS TAKEN 00016 42976 *0.00 01/12/93 00016 42976 $0.00 01/12/93 00016 42976 *0 00 01/12/93 00016 42976 *0 00 01/12/93 00016 42976 *0.00 01/12/93 00016 42976 *0.00 01/12/93 00016 42976 30.00 01/12/93 00016 42976 30.00 01/12/93 05532 42977 30 00 01/12/93 3266 06132 $0 00 0960 01237 *0.00 42978 01/12/93 42979 01/12/93 0960 01237 42979 *0.00 01/12/93 VVIRMIPPWRITglirPRIMPKTIrlirrTMIIRPTAMMONNIFIRT • • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 41 FINANCE—SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0014 41 TIME 16:53:50 FOR 01/12/93 DATE 01/12/93 PAY VENDOR NAME VND M ACCOGNT NUMBER 'TRN * AMOUNT INV/REF PO tk CHK M DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP R INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 02458 001-400-4204-4309 02538 $273. 19 0960 01237 42979 MISC. CHARGES DEC. 92 0960 12/15/92 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 40 00 01/12/93 R INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 02458 001-400-4204-4321 00700 $57.37 0960 01237 42979 MISC CHARGES DEC. 92 0960 12/15/92 BLDG MAINT /RUTI.F)TNG SAFETY/SECURIT 40 00 01/12/93 R INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 02458 105-400-2601-4309 00866 $413.69 0960 01237 42979 MISC. CHARGES DEC. 92 0960 12/15/92 STREET LIGHTING /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 (>1/12/93 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************* $744. 25 R AMY S. *LENTZ 05011 001-300-0000-3904 00474 $40.00 REFUND CITE OVERPAYMENT 50300 12/16/92 /GENERAL. MISCELLANEOUS *** VENDOR TOTAL*****************************************************4************** $40.00 R THEbLEVCHENKO TENNIS SHOP TENNIS TOURNEY BALLS 7807 04797 001-400-4601-4308 00791 $127.30 12/23/92 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $127.30 R LOS ANGELES CO. ASSESSOR 02769 001-400-4201-4251 00051 $630.00 PROPERTY`TAX ROLLS/92-93 12/29/92 BUILDING /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT 4** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $630 00 50300 05457 42980 $0.00 01/12/93 7807 05800 $0.00 42981 01/12/93 04270 42982 $630.00 01/12/93 R LOS CANCIONEROS MASTER CHORALE 02933 001-210-0000-2110 05193 $500.00 49750 05469 42983 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND 49750 01/06/93 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE 40.00 01/12/93 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $500.00 R DIANNE*LOUGHIN 03628 001-400-2101-4316 00980 $443.06 06129 42984 ROOKS/TUITION/WINTER 92 01/05/93 POLICE /TRAINING 40.00 011t2/93 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $443.06 R LOUIS THE TAILOR, INC. 00079 001-400-2101-4187 00512 $250.00 MISC. CHARGES DEC. 92 91808 12/02/92 POLICE /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 891808 01242 42985 $0.00 01/12/93 • v 4.01 1 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:53:50 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 01/12/93 V PAGE 0015 J DATE 01/12/93 PAY VENDOR NAME VND N . - AdbO(4T NUMBEW -TRI M AMOUNT 1NV/REF PO * CHK * DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ M ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL***************************'***************************************** R M.J.C. PROPERTIES 01504 001-210-0000-2110 05192 WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 32845 01/06/93 R M.J.C. PROPERTIES 01504 001-210-0000-2110 05194 WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 32846 01/06/93 $250. 00 $1,600.00 /DEPOSITS/WORK. GUARANTEE 32845 05471 42986 $0.00 01/12./93 $1,600.00 32846 05470 42986 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 01/12/93 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $3,200.00 R MANHATTAN CAR WASH 01146 001-400-2101-4311 01568 $62.15 MISC. CHARGES NOV. 92 12/16/92 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE R MANHATTAN CAR WASH 01146 001-400-4101-4311 00180 *3.80 MISC. CHARGES NOV. 92 12/16/92 PLANNING /AUTO MAINTENANCE *** VENDOR TOTAL *65.95 01145 42987 $0.00 C)1/12/93 01145 42987 $0.00 01/12/93 R MARQUETTE LEASE SERVICES, INC. 02272 001-400-2101-6900 00604 *9,336.36 00065 42988 FINAL PMT/DISPATCH EQUIP 01/01/93 POLICE /LEASE PAYMENTS A $0 00 01/12/93 *** VENDOR TOTAL**************************************************4141**************** $9,336.36 R MERRIMAC PETROLEUM, INC. 03080 001-141-0000-1401 00208 $2,075.01 UNLEADED GAS/CITY YARD 20968 12/24/92 /GASOLINE INVENTORY *** VENDOR TOTAL**********************************************.******************4141** $2, 075. 01 920968 06028 42989 40 00 01'12/93 R KIM*MITCHELL 00522 001-400-2101-4312 02057 $24.00 05909 42990 MEALS/P. O. S T. CLASS 12/23/92 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0 00 01/12/93 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $24.00 R BRENDAN*NOIR 04660 001-400-4601-4201 01630 $198.00 05799 42991 THEATRE TECH/DEC 92 12/24/92 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 01/12/93 *** VENDOR TOTAL_ **4*****4141**4 4**l*****************************4141****4141****4141****1441* $198.00 R MUL.TIFORCE SYSTEMS CORP. 01720 001-400-1206-4201 01082. $1,043.00 901123 00074 42992 FUEL SYS MAINT/JAN-MAR93 01123 12/08/92 DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 01.12/93 1:!� ca 0 0 0 0 0 • 71,7- +F !r7,1wy w prprr i-- P1T07-�nl "" r: 47!xnR*l1 NIIF CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0016 TIME 16:53:50 FOR 01/12/93 DATE 01/12/93 PAY VENDOR NAME VND * ACCOLNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT INV/REF PO * CHK * DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ 11 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL*********************************************************#********** $1,043.00 R MYERS STEVENS & COMPANY 00091 001-400-1212-4188 02589 $772.20 00013 42993 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 EMP BENEFITS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0 00 01/12/92 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $772.20 R NATIONAL HOME LIFE 03465 001-400-1212-4188 02588 $80.00 00065 42994 CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 01/01/93 EMP BENEFITS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 01/12/93 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $80.00 R NATIONAL INFORMATION DATA CTR 02205 110-400-3302-4305 00950 $34.90 05180 42995 ZIP CODE DIRECTORY 12/31/92 PARKING ENF /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0 00 01/12/93 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $34.90 R NATIONAL REC &•PARK ASSOC. 00880 001-400-4601-4315 00116 $35.00 06305 42996 ANNUAL DUES/M. ROONEY 12/31/92 COMM RESOURCES /MEMBERSHIP $0.00 01/12/93 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $35.00 R DIANA*NUBINE 05007 001-300-0000-3894 00148 $30.00 06311 42997 FALL CLASS REFUND 01/05/93 /OTHER RECREATION PROGRMS *** VENDOR TOTAL************************************4********************4*4****n*** $30. 00 $0.00 01/12/93 R OLYMPIC AUTO CENTER 00093 170-400-2103-4311 00086 $202.43 8070 01252 42998 MISC. CHARGES DEC. 92 8070 12/15/92 SPL INVESTGTNS /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 01/12/93 *4* VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $202. 43 R PACTEL CELLULAR - LA 03209 170-400-2103-4304 00075 $564.92 MOBILE PHONE CHCS/DEC 92 24162 12/15/92 SPEC INVESTGTNS /TELEPHONE **4 VENDOR TOTAL**********#****************************************************4**** R PAGENET $564.92 1124162 01253 $0.00 42999 01/12/93 02487 001-400-1201-4201 00159 $11.00 A024760 00049 43000 PAGING SERVICE JAN.93 24760 01/01/93 CITY MANAGER /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0 00 01/12/93 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:53:50 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R PAGENET PAGING SERVICE JAN.93 24760 R PAGENET PAGING SERVICE JAN.93 24760 R PAGENET PAGING SERVICE JAN.93 24760 R PAGENET PAGING SERVICE JAN.93 24760 R PAGENET PAGING SERVICE JAN.93 24760 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 01/12/93 • VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER' TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ M ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION '02487 001-400-1203-4201 01002 01/01/93 PERSONNEL 02487 001-400-2101-4201 01/01/93 POLICE PAGE 0017 DATE 01/12/93 INV/REF PO * CHK * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $11.00 A024760 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 01181 $199.00 A024760 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 00049 43000 $0.00 01/12/93 00049 43000 $0.00 01/12/93 02487 001-400-2401-4201 00369 $11.00 A024760 00049 43000 01/01/93 ANIMAL CONTROL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 01/12/93 02487 001-400-4202-4201 00396 $110.00 A024760 00049 43000 01/01/93 PUB WKS ADMIN /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 01/12/93 02487 001-400-4601-4201 01632 01/01/93 $22.00 A024760 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R PHD*PENSKE CORP. LSR 21253 CITATION PMT REFUND $364. 00 05017 110-300-0000-3302 49333 $148.00 12/23/92 /COURT FINES/PARKING *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R PEP BOYS MISC. CHARGES DEC/JAN 93 70470 R PEP BOYS MISC. CHARGES DEC/JAN 93 70470 $148.00 A 00608 001-400-3103-4311 00839 $27.05 12/21/92 ST MAINTENANCE /AUTO MAINTENANCE 00608 105-400-2601-4311 00305 $64.94 12/21/92 STREET LIGHTING /AUTO MAINTENANCE *** VENDOR TOTAL***************************************************************4**** R POSTAGE ON CALL POSTAGE METER RESET 04091 001-400-1208-4305 01165 97214 12/30/92 0E14 APPROP $91.99 00049 43000 $0.00 01/12/93 05153 $0 00 43001 01/12/93 070470 001.56 43002 $0.00 01/12/93 070470 00156 43002 $0.00 01/12/93 $2,008.00 51697214 08077 43003 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 01/12/93 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R POSTMASTER PARKING PERMIT POSTAGE $2, 008. 00 00398 110-400-3302-4305 00949 $1,450.00 PERMIT -460 05179 43004 T-460 12/31/92 PARKING ENF /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 01/12/93 *** VENDOR TOTAL*****************************************************r************** R POSTMASTER BULK MAILING PERMIT FEES IT -52 $ 1 , 450. 00 03820 001-400-4601-4305 01111 $150.00 PERMIT -52 0630:3 43005 12/24/92 COMM RESOURCES /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 01/12/93 • 111 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:53:50 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 01/12/93 VND N ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN M AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL***************************'***********************************u**�t*u R PROF COMMUNICATIONS INSTALLERS MISC. CHARGES DEC. 92 931 02526 001-400-2101-4311 12/21/92 POLICE PAGE 0018 DATE 01/12/93 INV/REF PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNFNC DATE EXP 4150.00 01567 $180.21 /AUTO MAINTENANCE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R BOBBI*PROMISEL FALL CLASS REFUND $180. 21 05010 001-300-0000-3893 00773 $23.00 01/04/93 /CONTR RECREATION CLASSES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R BAKERSFIELD*RAMADA INN LODGING/N. AYSON $23.00 03116 001-400-2101-4313 00422 3693.00 01/04/93 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE, STC *** VENDOR TOTAL****************************************************************ri*** R SAFEGUARD HEALTH PLANS CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 R SAFEGUARD HEALTH PLANS CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 R SAFEGUARD HEALTH PLANS CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 R SAFEGUARD HEALTH PLANS CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 R SAFEGUARD HEALTH PLANS CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 R SAFEGUARD HEALTH PLANS CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 R SAFEGUARD HEALTH PLANS CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 R SAFEGUARD HEALTH PLANS CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 411.1. $693.00 04398 001-400-1212-4188 02594 3895.61. 01/01/93 EMP BENEFITS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 04398 105-400-2601-4188 01381 363.68 01/01/93 STREET LIGHTING /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 04398 109-400-3301-4188 00350 45.79 01/01/93 VEH PK.G DIST /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 04398 110-400-3302-4188 01656 3172.61 01/01/93 PARKING ENF /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 04398 115-400-8141-4188 00052 30.54 01/01/93 CIO 89-141 /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 04398 115-400-8144-4188 00076 32.1.8 01/01/93 CIP 90-144 /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 04398 115-400-8178-4188 00076 $4.34 01/01/93 CIP 90-178 /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 04398 125-400-8513-4188 00089 $2.07 01/01/93 CIP 92-513 /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 931 01257 43006 $0 00 01/12/93 05790 43007 $0.00 01/12/93 05912 43008 $0.00 01/12/93 00019 43009 $0.00 01/12/93 00019 43009 $0.00 01/12/93 00019 43009 $0.00 01/12/93 00019 43009 $0.00 01/12/93 00019 43009 $0.00 01/12/93 00019 43009 $0.00 01/12/93 00019 43009 $0.00 01/12/93 00019 43009 $0 00 01/12/93 • • 41111. FINANCE-SFA34O TIME 16:53:50 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R SAFEGUARD HEALTH PLANS CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 R SAFEGUARD HEALTH PLANS CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 R SAFEGUARD HEALTH PLANS CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 R SAFEGUARD HEALTH PLANS CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 01/12/93 PAGE 0019 DATE 01/12/93 VND M AiCdUNT NUMBER TAN M AMOUNT INV/REF PO if CHK M DATE INVC PROJ N ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP '04398 155-400-2102-4188 00877 $4.70 01/01/93 CROSSING GUARD /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 04398 160-400-3102-4188 01363 $48.61 01/01/93 SEWER/ST DRAIN /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 04398 160-400-8408-4188 00064 30.54 01/01/93 CIP 89-408 /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 04398 170-400-2103-4188 00367 $62.88 01/01/93 *** VENDOR TOTAL ************************** r******* * R SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT TRAINING/WRIGHT/COOK SPEC INVESTGTNS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ************ ******nnor*******n 31.263. 55 00151 170-400-2103-4316 00053 $188.00 11489 01/05/93 SPEC INVESTGTNS /TRAINING *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** F7 SMART ! FINAL IRIS COMPANY MISC CHARGES DEC. 92 0479 R SMART fr FINAL IRIS COMPANY MISC CHARGES DEC. 92 0479 00114 001-400-1101-4305 00459 $188.00 367. 29 12/09/92 CITY COUNCIL /OFFICE. OPER SUPPLIES A 00114 001-400-2101-4306 12/09/92 POLICE 01309 3100.62 /PRISONER MAINTENANCE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R SMOG MISC. R SMOG MISC Ft SMOG MISC. R SMOG MISC. R SMOG MISC. EXPRESS CHARGES DEC. 04987 001-400-2101-4311 01566 92 6633 12/23/92 POLICE EXPRESS CHARGES DEC. 92 6633 EXPRESS CHARGES DEC. 92 6633 EXPRESS CHARGES DEC. EXPRESS CHARGES DEC. 04987 001-400-2201-4311 00459 12/23/92 FIFE 3167. 91 3219. 45 /AUTO MAINTENANCE 319. 95 /AUTO) MAINTENANCE 04987 001-400-3103-4311 00838 $19.95 12/23/92 ST MAINTENANCE /AUTO MAINTENANCE 04987 001-400-4201-4311 00334 $39.90 92 6633 12/23/92 BUILDING /AUTO MAINTENANCE 04987 001-400-4204-4311 00235 319.95 92 6633 12/23/92 BLDG MAINT /AUTO MAINTENANCE • 00019 43009 30.00 01/12/93 00019 43009 *0 00 01/12/93 00019 43009 *0.00 01/12/93 00019 43009 *0 00 01/12/93 11489 06131 $0 00 0479 01262 40 00 0479 01262 30.00 6633 6633 6633 6633 6633 $0.00 30 00 $0.00 40 00 $0.00 43010 01/12/93 43011 01/12/93 4301.1 01/12/93 43012 01/12/93 43012 01/12/93 43012 01/12/93 43012 01/12/93 43012 01/12/93 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 41 FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0020 TIME 16:53:50 FOR 01/12/93 DATE 01/12/93 • PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION VND N ALCd NT NUMBER TRN M AMOUNT INV/REF PO * CHK M DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION R SMOG EXPRESS 04987 110-400-3302-4311 00844 $39.90 MISC. CHARGES DEC. 92 6633 12/23/92 PARKING ENF /AUTO MAINTENANCE R SMOG EXPRESS 04987 160-400-3102-4311 00219 $19.95 MISC. CHARGES DEC. 92 6633 12/23/92 SEWER/ST DRAIN /AUTO MAINTENANCE *** VENDOR TOTAL ####**#*#*###4*#******** *##*#tc* ***n**rjt*#ten### ####*##*a**4-*nn4»u-04 $379. 05 AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 6633 6633 $0.00 $0 00 43012 01/12/93 43012 01/12/93 R SOUTH BAY FIRE EXTINGUISHER 00113 001-400-2201-4309 01419 $31.41 20511 01263 43013 MISC. CHARGES DEC. 92 20511 12/09/92 FIRE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 01/12/93 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $31. 41 R SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT 00118 110-300-0000-3302 49331 $14,374.00 05632 43014 CITATION SURCHARGE/NOV92 12/21/92 /COURT FINES/PARKING $0.00 01/12/93 *** VENDOR TOTAL************************#******************************************* $14,374.00 R SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT 00400 110-300-0000-3302 49338 $801.00 05175 43015 CITATION COURT BAIL 12/29/92 /COURT FINES/PARKING A $0.00 01/12/93 *#* VENDOR TOTAL****#*************************************************************** $801.00 R SOUTH BAY NOTICING AND 03882 001-400-4101-4201 00178 $920.00 MISC. CHARGES DEC. 92 4655 12/24/92 PLANNING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL*******#************************************************************ $920. 00 4655 01264 40.00 43016 01/12/93 R SOUTH BAY WELDERS 00018 001-400-2201-4309 01418 $77.29 06033 01265 43017 MISC. CHARGES DEC. 92 06033 12/01/92 FIRE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0 00 01/12/93 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $77.29 R SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY 04324 001-400-1203-4251 00158 $375.00 ID*016479 05531 43018 AOMD PLAN FILING FEE 16479 12/29/92 PERSONNEL /CONTRACT SERVICE_/GOVT $0.00 01/12/93 *** VENDOR TOTAL ***4******************************************************4***a*#*** $375. 00 R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO. 00170 001-400-4204-4303 00643 $309.63 17261011571923 01267 43019 $0.00 01/12/93 MO. GAS BILLING DEC. 92 71923 12/09/92 BLDG MAINT /UTILITIES • FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:53:50 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 01/12/93 VNO M• AL"Cd1ONT NUNBEIw TRN N PAGE 0021 DATE 01/12/93 AMOUNT INV/REF PO * CHK * DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL***********************************************************u**nano** R THEATRE BY THE SEA TICKETS/SENIOR TRIP $309.63. 05021 001-400-4601-4201 01631 $840.00 12/24/92 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL****+r*n*******************n***********************************$****$ R TODD PIPE & SUPPLY DISCOUNT OFFERED R TODD PIPE & SUPPLY DISCOUNT TAKEN R TODD PIPE & SUPPLY MISC. CHARGES DEC.92 00124 001-202-0000-2021 0538 01/10/93 00124 001-202-0000-2022 0538 01/10/93 00124 001-400-6101-4309 0538 01/10/93 PARKS 3690.00 00336 $0.68 DISCOUNTS OFFERED 00334 $0.68CR /DISCOUNTS TAKEN 01364 $33.34 /MAINTENANCE MATERIAL.S *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R CITY OF*TORRANFE ANNUAL DUES/POLICE DEPT 07452 00841 001-400-2101-4251 12/07/92 POLICE 00472 $33.34 *210.00 /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT *** VENDOR TOTAL****************************************************************n*** R TRANSAMERICA OCCIDENTAL CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 R TRANSAMERICA OCCIDENTAL CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 R TRANSAMERICA OCCIDENTAL CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 R TRANSAMERICA OCCIDENTAL_ CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 R TRANSAMERICA OCCIDENTAL. CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 $210. 00 00240 001-400-1212-4188 02596 3349.93 01/01/93 EMP BENEFITS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 00240 105-400-2601-4188 01383 310.90 01/01/93 STREET LIGHTING /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 00240 160-400-3102-4188 01365 $21.79 01/01/93 SEWER/ST DRAIN /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 00240 705-400-1209-4188 00663 $5.08 01/01/93 LIABILITY INS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 00240 705-400-1217-4188 00739 $5.08 01/01/93 WORKERS COMP /EMPLOYEE_ BENEFITS *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R TRANSPORTATION CHARTER SERV. BUS/COMM RES TRIP 8961 $392.76 06302 43020 $0 00 01/12/93 0538 31273 43021 $0 00 01/12/93 0538 31273 43021 $0.00 01/12/93 0538 31273 43021 $0.00 01/12/93 V 107452 06124 43022 30.00 01/12/93 00029 43023 $0 00 01/12/93 • • 00029 43023 $0.00 01/12/93 I) 00029 43023 $0 00 01/12/93 CO 00029 43023 $0.00 01/12/93 00029 43023 $0.00 01/12/93 05018 145-400-3409-4201 00043 3411.00 8961 06301 43024 12/24/92 REC TRANSPTN /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 01/12/93 • • FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:53:50 • PAY w • R • R • R 4* R • R • R • R • R • R • R • R 4111+ e H R e R 40 S VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 01/12/93 • PAGE DATE 0022 01/12/93 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN M AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK k DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL ***************************4************** ****** ******************** UNUM LONG TERM DISABILITY INS. CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 UNUM LONG TERM DISABILITY INS. CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 UNUM LONG TERM DISABILITY INS. CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 UNUM LONG TERM DISABILITY INS. CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 UNUM LONG TERM DISABILITY INS. CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 UNUM LONG TERM DISABILITY INS. CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 UNUM LONG TERM'DISABILITY INS. CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 UNUM LONG TERM DISABILITY INS. CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 UNUM LONG TERM DISABILITY INS. CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 UNUM LONG TERM DISABILITY INS. CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 UNUM LONG TERM DISABILITY INS. CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 UNUM LONG TERM DISABILITY INS. CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 UNUM LONG TERM DISABILITY INS. CITY HEALTH INS/JAN 93 $411. 00 03790 001-400-1212-4188 02586 $2,185.85 01/01/93 EMP BENEFITS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 03790 105-400-2601-4188 01378 $83.00 01/01/93 STREET LIGHTING /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 03790 109-400-3301-4188 00348 $9.00 01/01/93 VEH PKG DIST /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 03790 110-400-3302-4188 01652 $350.07 01/01/93 PARKING ENF /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 03790 115-400-8141-4188 00049 $4.50 01/01/93 CIP 89-141 /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 03790 115-400-8144-4188 00073 $7.11 01/01/93 CIP 90-144 /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 03790 115-400-8178-4188 00073 $17.21 01/01/93 CIP 90-178 /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 03790 125-400-8513-4188 00085 $4.96 01/01/93 CIP 92-513 /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 03790 155-400-2102-4188 00875 $6.00 01/01/93 CROSSING GUARD /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 03790 160-400-3102-4188 01360 379.78 01/01/93 SEWER/ST DRAIN /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 03790 160-400-8408-4188 00061 $4.50 01/01/93 CIP 89-408 /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 03790 705-400-1209-4188 00659 $18.75 01/01/93 LIABILITY INS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 03790 705-400-1217-4188 00734 524.42 01/01/93 WORKERS COMP /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS *** VENDOR TOTAL****************************************************p*************** CATHERINE M.*WEEKS CITATION PMT REFUND 05015 $2, 795. 15 05019 110-300-0000-3302 49332 $20.00 12/24/92 /COURT FINES/PARKING 00022 43025 $0.00 01/12/93 00022 43025 $0.00 01/12/93 00022 43025 $0.00 01/12/93 00022 43025 $0.00 01/12/93 00022 43025 $0.00 01:12/93 00022 43025 $0.00 01/12/93 00022 43025 $0 00 01/12/93 00022 43025 $0.00 01/12/93 00022 43025 $0.00 01/12/93 00022 43025 $0 00 01/12/93 00022 43025 50 00 01/12/93 00022 43025 $0.00 01/12/93 00022 43025 $0.00 01/12/93 1605015 05150 43026 $0.00 01/12/9:3 r 410 • • • 40, • • • • • • • 410 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-5FA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0023 TIME 16:53:50 FOR 01/12/93 DATE 01/12/93 PAY VENDOR NAME VND M • ACCOSINT NUMBER, TRN M AMOUNT INV/REF PO M CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL************»***********************+tar*****a*it*I ******w+************ $20. 00 R STEVE*WEINKAUF 04617 001-400-4601-4221 00144 $254.80 05768 43027 FALL CLASS INSTRUCTOR 12/03/92 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT REC CLASS/PRGR $0 00 01/12/93 *** VENDOR TOTAL*******************************************************************a $254.80 R KRISTI L.*WILLIAMS 05009 001-300-0000-3893 00772 $50.00 49613 05793 43028 FALL CLASS REFUND 49613 01/04/93 /CONTR RECREATION CLASSES $0.00 01/12/93 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $50. 00 R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 001-400-1208-4201 00953 $345.81 35557958 00007 43029 METER VSE/MAINT NOV.92 57958 12/07/92 GEN APPROP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 01/12/93 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $345.81 *** PAY CODE TOTAL****************************************************************** $150,755.44 *** TOTAL WARRANTS**w*************************************************************** $495,620.72 L HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE D€MANos dR CL Ms COVERED 8.1 THE WARRANTS LISTED ON PAGES_/ T _ INCLUSIVE, OF TI-IE WARRANT RFGISTFR FOR __ /I/y� ARE ACCURATE, FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PAYMENT, AND ARE IN CONFORMANCE TO THE B GET. BY� FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council TENTATIVE FUTURE ietc/1-(2-& January 19, 1993 City Council Meeting of January 26, 1993 AGENDA ITEMS February 9, 1993 Award of StraDd renovation contract New lease rates for space in the Community Center Men's Pro volleyball tournament & Women's Pro volleyball tournament February 23, 1993 Presentation of check from Kiwanis Club to HBCC Foundation (tree lot) Request from Chamber of Commerce re. bi-annual Fiesta de las Artes Kiwanis tree lot at Community Center - 1993 Award downtown maintenance contract Effect of nonconforming ordinance on damaged structures Request for Council guidance and prioritization for the development of the Biltmore site park Mid -Year Budget Review Public Hearings Appeal of Planning Commission denial of amendment to CUP at 1100 Strand (Scotty's) Beach Drive Parking Encroachments March 9, 1993 Lease renewal for Beach Cities Coalition for Drug Free Youth Public Hearing Public Works Director Community Resources Dir. Community Resources Dir. Community Resources Dir. City Manager Community Resources Dir. Public Works Director Planning Director Community Resources Dir. Finance Director Planning Director Council Sub -Committee/ Public Works Director Community Resources Dir. 1 C Text amendment to sign ordinance Planning Director Text amendment to adopt Congestion Management Plan (CMP)/Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance/ Land Use Analysis Program resolution Planning Director March 23, 1993 South School conceptual design April 13, 1993' April 27, 1993 May 11, 1993 Lease renewal for South Bay Free Clinic (Room 7) Lease renewal for Project Touch (Rooms 3 and 11) May 25, 1993 June 8, 1993 Lease renewal for L.A. County Bar Association (Dispute Resolution Service) June 22, 1993 July 13, 1993 August 10, 1993 Lease renewal for Hope Chapel (Rooms 5 and 6A) August 24, 1993 September 14, Lease renewal for Retarded Lease renewal Society Lease renewal 1993 for Association Citizens for Easter Seal for South Bay Community Resources Dir. Community Resources Dir. Community Resources Dir. Community Resources Dir. Community Resources Dir. Community Resources Dir. Community Resources Dir. Center for Counseling Community Resources Dir. September 28. 1993 December , 1993 Lease renewal for Project Touch (Room C) Community Resources Dir. **********************************************************s******** UPCOMING ITEMS' NOT YET CALENDARED Initiated by Party Date Council 1/12/93 Recommendation from Parks & Rec. Comm. for planting plan for Greenbelt. Staff Staff Caltrans utility mainten- ance agreement Ordinance for new Chapter 19 of HBMC entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic" Council 5/8/90 Re. oil project CUP - define "temporary" as it relates to height of project (needs text amendment) Council 6/6/91 Council 5/26/92 Staff Review Bldg/Zoning Code changes to improve liveability Revision of HBMC pro- visions pertaining to construction of public street improvements (public hearing) Comm. Res. Dir. Public Works Dir. Public Works Dir. Planning Dir. Planning Dir. Public Request for approval of the Tenant/Users Liability Insur- ance Program (TULIP) and establishment of an admin- istrative fee for processing TULIP applications Staff Final public hearing for Land Use Element WP/FUTRAGND Works Dir. Personnel Dir. Planning Dir. 1. 1 January 19, 1993 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the City Council of January 26, 1993 FRANCHISE RENEWAL EXPENSES Recommendation It is recommended by the Cable Television Advisory Board and staff that Council authorize the City Attorney to draft an agreement with MultiVision that will require MultiVision to provide up to $15,000 to the City for Franchise renewal related expenses. Background At the December 15, 1992 meeting, Council rejected a proposal submitted by MultiVision that would have provided up to $12,000 to the City for reimburseable renewal related expenses (see Attachment A). Council directed staff instead to request that MultiVision raise the ceiling on expenditures to $20,000 with a $10,000 initial deposit to the City. In response to this request, MultiVision offered the City a $15,000 cap on expenses with the City receiving all of the funds "up front" (see attachment B). Analysis The Cable Television Advisory Board is prepared to proceed with a responsible renewal review process. To do so, they will require the services of the City Attorney and may need professional consultation services for technical aspects of the franchise document. If the City should find itself in a position of requiring funds additional to the $15,000 cap (later in the renewal process), it would be possible to negotiate for these expenses at that time or as a condition of renewal. Additionally, the City could simply inform MultiVision that absent funds, we cannot proceed with the renewal process. With the eminent October, 1993 expiration, Council's approval of the reimbursement agreement will insure that the Board has access to the professional resources necessary to assess the operator's past performance and to determine what Hermosa Beach needs from cable television services in the future. Other alternatives available to Council include: 1) Adopt a resolution, setting a uniform fee for Cable TV Franchise applications: (see Attachment A) Zd 2) Appropriate funds for renewal related expenses (do not accept funds from MultiVision) Fiscal Impact: Revenue: $15,000 to pay for costs as billed to the City. No additional appropriation from the general fund required. Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager 2 Respectfully submitted, Mary oney, Director Com unity Resources Dept. Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Director Finance Dept. ATTACHMENT "A" December 2, 1992 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the City Council December 15, 1992 CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE RENEWAL EXPENSE AGREEMENT Recommendation It is recommended by the Cable Television Advisory Board and staff that Council authorize the City Manager to sign an agreement with MultiVision (City Attorney will have the agreement, Attachment A, available at Tuesday's Council meeting) that will provide up to $12,000 to the City for Franchise renewal expenses. Background At the August 11, 1992 meeting, Council authorized the City Attorney to work with the Cable Television Advisory Board on a number of items related to Franchise renewal. One of the directions by Council to the City Attorney was to negotiate an agreeme.nt.with MultiVision on behalf of the City that would provide for reimbursement to the City for renewal related expenses. At the November -2 Cable Television Advisory Board meeting, staff presented a report to the Board Members (Attachment B) outlining recommendations for an agreement with MultiVision for reimbursement. At that time, the Board selected a subcommittee of Chairperson Tollefsen and Board Member Acosta to review the proposal that had been presented to the Board by MultiVision and to work with the City Attorney and staff to draft an agreement with MultiVision for reimbursement. The subcommittee consulted with the City Attorney and requested that he submit a counter proposal to MultiVision (Attachment C). Analysis The spirit of the new proposal submitted to MultiVision by the City Attorney was to insure that. the City was reimbursed for all direct dosts associated with the renewal without a ceiling clause as was proposed by MultiVision. Don Granger of MultiVision responded to the _City's proposal on November 24 over the telephone. Mr. Granger indicated that MultiVision would not agree to the terms as presented in Attachment C but would raise their initial ceiling offer of $10,000 to $12,000 for reimbursement of renewal expenses. The Cable TV Advisory Board recommended approval of MultiVision's counter proposal at their December 7, 1992 Board meeting. This 11 approval was made in recognition of the fact that it is in the best interests of the City to get into the Franchise renewal process as early as possible to allow the maximum time for the Board to assess the operator's performance and community needs. As the Board has elected to approach renewal with an informal process (and will be benefiting from the Manhattan Beach renewal to be completed in the near future), staff would recommend accepting the offer of $12,000 with the understanding that should additional funds be required that these funds could be negotiated as part of the new Franchise agreement and/or by Council resolution. Clearly, it is difficult for the Board and staff to find a comfort level with renewal expenses without specific knowledge of what the community will want from this process; how smoothly negotiations will proceed; and what may occur at the City Council level. MultiVision has similar concerns in electing to enter into an agreement without a dollar ceiling. By accepting the $12,000 offer, the City would put the wheels in motion for the renewal process which would assist us greatly in being able to gain a better understanding of the level of agreement between the two parties. With this reimbursement agreement and the adopted timeline and procedures for renewal, the Cable Television Advisory Board will be equipped to proceed with their assignment in an efficient and positive manner so that a Cable TV Franchise agreement that is in the best interests of the community can be drafted prior to the scheduled October, 1993 expiration date. Other alternatives available to the Council include: Request that Council adopt a resolution, setting a uniform fee for Cable Franchise applications: As with other City services such as Conditional Use Permits, Film Permits and User Fees, the City would calculate a fee based on staff time and other City costs for Franchise applications. Provisions for direct costs associated with applications (i.e. consultation fees) could be additional to the calculated staff hours. While it would appear that this approach would place the City in a position of control with regards to this issue, it would not only delay the initiation of serious negotiations further but it may also change the tone of negotiations from informal to a more formal one. Recommend that Council appropriate funds for the renewal: From previous Council actions, it would seem that funds in this range would not be available to the Board, however, the Council could elect to pay for all of the expenses. It would be presumed then, that the City would negotiate reimbursement with MultiVision along with other items at the time of renewal. As MultiVision is currently agreeable to the $12,000 figure and with the knowledge that additional requirements (if necessary) can still be addressed in the renewal agreement (or by a subsequent Council resolution), it would be prudent to accept MultiVision's offer in order to expedite the renewal process. Fiscal Impact: Revenue: $12,000 to pay for direct costs as billed to the City no net gain or loss to the City. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Agreement (Attachment A) 2. Staff Report, November 2nd (Attachment B) 3. City Attorney counter proposal (Attachment C) Concur : Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager Respectfully submitted, Mary Com ney ity Resources Director Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Director Finance Dept. MultiVision January 11, 1993 ATTACHMENT "B" Ms.' Mary Rooney Community Resources Director City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center Hermosa Beach CA 90254-3885 RE: Expense Reimbursement/Cable Television Franchise Renewal Dear Mary: This letter is to follow-up your letter of January 4, 1993, and the further telephone conversations requesting that MultiVision raise its ceiling and initial deposit to provide the City of Hermosa Beach with funds representing the City's reasonable out-of-pocket expenses and costs incurred in connection with concluding the Cable Television Franchise Renewal on terms mutually agreeable to the City and MultiVision. To confirm our offer, outlined below is our commitment as we discussed today. As you know, we look forward to working with the City on the franchise renewal process and although we have reserved the formal renewal rights under the Federal Cable Act, we welcome the opportunity to proceed and conclude our renewal application in the current positive, informal manner existing between the City and MultiVision. We further understand that the completion of the renewal may involve review by the City's outside legal counsel and other expenses described below and are willing to reimburse the City for those reasonable expenses associated with the renewal process itself (assuming the renewal is ultimately agreeable), as a special accommodation to the City and in view of its present budgetary constraints. MultiVision agrees to reimburse the City, in an amount not to exceed Fifteen -Thousand Dollars ($15,000) for its actual, reasonable costs and expenses incidental to the renewal of the Cable Television Franchise, to the extent such expenses are for outside legal counsel or consultants, any publication of the renewal ordinance or resolution required by law, and any other actual out- of-pocket costs and disbursements by the City directly for completing the Cable Television Franchise Renewal, as well as any incidental costs or premiums paid by the Franchisee to initiate a performance bond or insurance certificate if required by the City in connection with the renewal. This commitment is offered provided that (i) the scope of reimbursement does not include internal staff time or overhead costs of the City, as they are covered by the existing franchise fees paid to the City by MultiVision as we discussed; (ii) the franchisee does not assume responsibility for City expenses to the extent that they exceed this fifteen -thousand dollar commitment unless negotiated and mutually agreed upon by both the City and MultiVision; (iii) a renewal of the franchise is agreed to by the City and MultiVision. MaItiViSiou Calle TV 304t at M"ualoma Avenue Anaheim. CA 92806 714-632-9222 D13359.11r Mary Rooney Expense Reimbursement January 11, 1993 Page 2 To further substantiate our good faith intentions for the franchise renewal process, and further our cooperative working relationship with the City we agree to advance the total Fifteen - Thousand Dollar ($15,000) deposit to the City upon demand of the City, for the use in connection with the renewal related expenses specified above. Upon the City's grant and our acceptance of the renewed Cable Television Franchise, we understand the City will (i) return to us promptly the unexpended portion, if any, of our $15,000 advance deposit; and (ii) retain as your own the amount of deposit representing actual expenses incurred as specified above, up to the full amount of the $15,000 deposit, provided that the City gives us an itemized listing of the actual expenses incurred, including the party receiving payment, the amount and the general nature of each expense. The foregoing commitment to pay expense reimbursement and to provide the $15,000 advance deposit is made as a special accommodation to the City, although we understand that a City's legal fees and other renewal expenses are not generally chargeable to the franchisee. This further confirms our understanding that this significant financial contribution demonstrates our good faith and MultiVision will be given credit for it and parcel of the overall package of benefits to be negotiated for the City and community, and as an integral of the overall terms and conditions of the Franchise Renewal now in negotiation. To indicate the City's acceptance of the terms and conunitlnents stated above, please return a copy to me with an authorized signature on the City's behalf. We look forward to continuing fruitful discussions with the City's representatives and the Cable Advisory Board, and to a successful Franchise Renewal providing the foundation for ongoing high quality cable television services for the Hermosa Beach Community in the years to come. If I can be of any further assistance regarding this matter, please don't hesitate to call upon me. Sincerely, Reviewed and Accepted, ra4._ City of Hermosa Beach Donald R. Granger Regional Vice Presiden : ean i Title Date cc: Charles Vose, Hermosa Beach City Manager, Hermosa Brach City Council, Hermosa Beach Cable Television Advisory Board, Hermosa Beach Chantal Hargis, Operations Manager MultiVision Cable Television Richard Hainbach, General Counsel MuItiVision Cable Television David Van Valkenburg, President MultiVision Cable Television DO359.j4r 1 M 1 1 r, •"3 10. n� January 19, 1993 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council January 26, 1993 SUBJECT: LANDSCAPING ON PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY LOCATION: PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (STATE ROUTE 1) APPLICANT: PLANNING COMMISSION REQUEST: TO INVESTIGATE THE POSSIBILITY OF INSTITUTING A LANDSCAPING PROGRAM FOR PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Planning Commission Recommendation To recommend that the City Council direct City staff to investigate establishing a landscaping program for Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) in order to improve the visual quality of the City's most heavily used roadway. Background At their regular meeting of January 5, 1993, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a brief report to the City Council on the possibility of landscaping PCH. Analysis Beautification of PCH would enhance the City's image and the marketability of the retail enterprises along this commercial corridor. This program could involve a landscaped center median and/or sidewalk landscaping with tree wells and planter boxes. A PCH landscaping program would be consistent with Policy 3 of the City's Urban Design Element to the General Plan, which seeks to "promote visual continuity through tree planting,_ consistent use of low shrubs and ground cover, and removal of visually disruptive elements on major City streets." The Urban Design Element programs specifically related to this City Policy call for encouraging "the use of planting and other treatment of the space between street and sidewalk other than unrelieved concrete paving" (Program 11) and to "extend street tree planting Citywide, including median strip trees wherever possible, with specific schedules for completing individual streets" (Program 12) . CALTRANS has informed staff that their agency has no objections to a PCH landscaping program. Any landscaping on this State route would require submitting a formal application to CALTRANS that includes working drawings that show the exact locations, dimensions and plant species of all proposed landscaping. The application package has already been mailed to the Planning Department by CALTRANS. • • All funding for both the construction and maintenance of this landscaping program would be the sole responsibility of the City. There is, however, a state grant program administered by CALTRANS, known as the Environmental Enhancement and Assistance Program, that could provide supplemental funds. The grant monies are awarded to qualified environmental projects in November of each year. The Planning Department has already requested an application package from CALTRANS and will provide further information to the City Council on this grant program upon receipt of this package. lchael' Schtibach Pia ning Director Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager p/pcsrpch Crag/Chalfant Aded Planner 1,c.C4r..> �,42-., 2004 Loma Drive 4? -71, y'it"'-t-iD Hermosa Beach 90254 '`'''"' L •- -7;, -'`- e ff January 12, 1993 '41-1 Dear Mayor and Council iembers, This letter is a follow-up to my comments voiced at the last council meeting in December regarding the difficulty in locating Loma addresses between Park Drive and 19th Street. This issue is important in: the event that emergency services need to locate an address on Loma. Undue confusion and possible delay in locating addresses result from the following conditions: A. Addresses are illogical in -;rogression: 17 out of 31 :onterev addresses are 7osted on Lora (back side of ::onterey) . Some (:f these addresses display "::onterey". ridc.resses 211'), 2124, and 215) are duplicates. It cannot be assumed that er. er enc'.r services know that the a.d.dresses on the Last side of the street are Loma, and he 'vest side :.on t orev. C. _.n awning on Loma boldly dis:'la`:s the r'a:ire "s .tri: :)rive" at +. dis'.t'nce of three dou'.;1e-car garage 1e:i the from t'e corner, t .er''?':y co'_lf'.sing sorireone searchi — f': a Lona addres.,i into thin . ".1n I on ...'ork?" i, .ere is no Loma street. si;r. 19th a!:d to reinforce that one is on :-v•' a as he ohsery es Mont" " an: ":ark" -osted en szrae addresses. Please schedule 'LCST LC i_1" for the aL-^nda under :ritten Com- ,r,.u:-.ications. Such conditions mai: exist in ether parts of the city and should also be corrected so tt'at citizens receive iruaedi:::e r2s7onse for medical, fire, or Police service. •_►.a.. ?: ou for your attention to this -:att_=r, .1.16424. Celeste Coar C.C. .:Lii lding Le��t. , lannin: 4a City of2-lermosa l�eacly Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive. Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 January 14, 1993 Ms. Celeste Coai 2004 Loma Drive' Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Re: Building Addresses Dear Ms. Coar: I am in receipt of a copy of your letter dated January 12, 1993 addressed to the Mayor and Councilmembers regarding building addresses on Loma Drive. The concerns expressed in your letter have been shared and discussed with the Public Safety Director and field operation managers from the Police and Fire Departments. They did not indicate that there was an emergency response concern due to the addressing situation you described. The 911 emergency .response system greatly minimizes confusion because the calling party's street address is displayed on a computer terminal at the dispatch office. In addition, whenever possible, the dispatcher keeps the calling party on the line until the emergency response unit arrives to obtain additional information which is then relayed to the responding unit. I inspected the Loma Drive section you identified and would agree that the addresses 2110, 2124 and 2150 Monterey Boulevard are duplicated as 2110, 2124 and 2150 Loma Drive. The confusion is caused by the posting of the Monterey Boulevard addresses on the rear of the properties which are viewable on Loma Drive. In the case of 2110 Monterey Boulevard, they have added the street name '-Monterey" to the address numbers to avoid confusion. The Park Drive address you noted also has added the street name "Park Drive" to the address numbers to avoid confusion. The lot fronts on Park Drive so that street is an appropriate address regardless of where the actual entry to a dwelling unit is situated. Adding the street name to the address numbers seems to be the appropriate way to avoid confusion. I will advise the owners of 2124 and 2150 Monterey Boulevard to either remove the numbers from the rear of the structure viewable from Loma Drive or to add the street name "Monterey" to the address numbers. r I also discussed your comments regarding a mid -block Loma Street sign with the Public Works Director. He indicated that street signs are appropriate at street intersections and where streets change names. He did not feel that a mid -block street sign would improve the situation. In summary, since an emergency response problem is not evident, it appears that the best way to avoid confusion is to add the street name to the address numbers. This may be appropriate for Loma Drive addresses as well. WG/rb cc: Yours truly, William Grove, Director Building and Safety City Council Frederick R. Ferrin, City Manager Steve Wisniewski, Public Safety Director Charles MacDonald, Public Works Director B.J. Mitchell 135 31st St. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 January 12, 1993 City Council'. City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Council, 0e(/.O97 J 6-9-3RECEIVED JAN 1 2 1993 CITY MGR. OFFICE It is hardly necessary to explain to you who have been elected to address the city's problems, that the traffic situation on the Strand is a "lawsuit waiting to happen". Speeding bicycles, speeding skaters, joggers, walkers, small children, and dogs, all trying to enjoy the same small area, is simply not workable. I myself have experienced two narrow misses by speeding bicycles, and I have seen a small child nearly hit by a speeding bicycle. I have ridden my own bicycle on the Strand and have been a nervous wreck trying to swerve around the pedestrians in front of me while at the same time trying to avoid being hit by fast moving bicycles and skaters coming up behind me. Anyone with their eyes open knows this is a potential disaster area, the question is what can be done about it? It seems to me there are at least two. options that should be explored: 1. The most logical answer is to expand the Strand, limiting half the - area to walkers, children and dogs. I have been told by at least one of you that it is illegal to build ANYTHING on the beach; that the legal • restrictions on the beach will not allow a bike path to be built there. However, there may be nothing in the restrictions that prevents the expansion of the existing Strand. If there is, it may be possible to get the legal restrictions changed, either by a vote of the County Commission or by the citizens of Hermosa Beach. Has that been fully explored? It is not logical that a law has been passed which can not be changed under any circumstance by any method. That is not the nature of laws. This should be fully explored by the city's legal staff. 2. If legal research shows that, in fact, such a law has been written (that is, it can not be changed under any circumstance) then I would propose the re-routing of the bike path and restrict the present Strand to joggers, walkers, children and dogs. From the Manhattan Beach border the current bike path follows Hermosa Avenue to 24th Street, where it then cuts over to the Strand (many bikers and skaters do not use that section of the bike path, but use the Strand all the way to the stairs at Manhattan Beach). My proposal would be to continue the bike path along Hermosa Avenue to 22nd Street, then swing over to 4b Beach Drive. Beach Drive would become a one-way street with half for cars and half for bikers and skaters. The existing barriers would have to come down, and considerable street work would have to be done to smooth it out for bikers and skaters. Beach Drive could be used until it joins Hermosa Ave. again. The bike path could be continued along Hermosa Avenue until it joins the existing one again at Herondo. The County has money set aside for bike paths, so I believe the city could get funding for this proposal. The one drawback is that a total of seventeen parking spaces would be lost on Hermosa Ave.: fifteen between 22nd .and 24th, and two at the end of Beach Drive. In order to mitigate the negative effects of the lost parking spaces, I would propose angled parking on some sections of Hermosa Ave. in lieu of parallel parking. I am not an engineer, so I can not set forth all the specific details of either of the two above proposals. However, I have been around enough corners to know that a few people with some imagination can come up with a workable solution to this very serious problem. I am certainly willing to volunteer my time to serve on any committee the Council may wish to establish to consider all possible options. Failure to address this issue on an ongoing basis until a satisfactory solution is found, would be irresponsible at best, and criminal at worst. Please put this on one of your Council agendas for discussion. Sincerely, itchell 372-5676 `1 -ss -8777 wait 6-c7//t1 January 12, 1993 Hermosa Beach Mayor, City Council, City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk; Dear Mayor" Essertier, Council Members, Benz, Edgerton, Midstokke, and Wiemans, City Manager Ferrin, City Attorney, Vose, and City Clerk, Doerfling; We hereby request the Petition against Resolution No. # 92-5583 Passed by the City Council on November 10, 1992 be processed by the City Clerk , as Mr. Robert W. Ottinger, and as we previously requested. This Petition according to California State Elections Code (1990) Chapter 3, Article II Section 4053 and Section 4054 should be processed immediately. If you still do not intend to process said Petition, we demand this matter be placed on the next City Council Agenda. Mr. Vose has not cited a case that would permit the City Clerk to refuse to process said Petition. As we presented to you, and also stated in Mr. Ottinger's letter (dated December 30, 1992) the case of Yost v. Thomas(1984) 36 Cal. 3d 561. The case cited by Mr. Vose Lincoln Property Company No. 41 v. Law (1975) 45 Cal. Abp. 3d 230. is not a case for the City Clerk to deny for filing the referendum. Respectfully, John Mc Hugh Janet Mc Hugh Parker Herriott 1 / 9 97 e /o2 /5-06 alf e ,/- 0 7/Q3. 4261-0-D E WILLIAM B. BARR CHARLES 3. VOSE CONNIE COOKE SANDIFER JAMES DUFF MURPHY ROGER W. SPRINGER EDWARD W. LEE HERIBERTO F. DIAZ JANICE R. MIYAHIRA BETH 5. BERGMAN LAW OFFICES OLIVER, BARR & VOSE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1000 SUNSET BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 (213) 250-3043 January 6, 1993 Robert W. Ottinger, Esq. 719 1/2 First Place, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: Initiative Petition Dear Mr. Ottinger: TELECOPIER (213) ♦82-5336 RECEIVED JAN 0 7 1993 CITY MGR. OFFICE The City Manager of the City of Hermosa Beach has requested that I respond to your December 30, 1992 correspondence with respect to the processing of an invalid referendum petition. While I appreciate the dicta cited in a footnote in the case of Yost v. Thomas (1984) 36 Ca1.3d 561, it appears that the proponents of this referendum are requesting the City to expend tens of thousands of dollars in election costs and subject the City to expensive litigation from the Developer as part of a wasted legal exercise when it is acknowledged that the referendum is invalid since it is not a "legislative" matter. The type of approvals granted by the City Council for this. project are almost identical to those approvals granted in the case of Lincoln Property Company No. 41 v. Law (1975) 45, Cal.App.3d 230. In that case, the court specifically concluded' that the approval of a tentative map and precise plans were outside the scope of the people's power of referendum. This decision is consistent with numerous cases that hold that Conditional Use Permit approval, variance approval, subdivision map approvals and precise plans are "non -legislative" and therefore not proper for the referendum process. This is not to suggest that the proponents do not have a method or proceeding in which to challenge the approval of the City Council. The issuance of a Conditional Use Permit, etc. can be challenged by filing a Writ of Mandate pursuant to Government Code Section 1094.5. The proponents of this referendum have been advised of this option. I find it difficult to believe that in this era of limited public funds, citizens would demand that a City Council process an improper referendum and hold a special election at a cost of OLIVER, BARR & VOSE Robert W. Ottinger, Esq. January 6, 1993 Page 2. tens of thousands of dollars and subject the City to exposure for significant legal expenses in defending a lawsuit that may be filed by the Developer. This is specially true in a situation like this where there exists no legal authority supporting the validity of the proposed referendum. While the dicta in the Yost case is interesting, there are a number of cases which uphold a City's refusal to process a proposed initiative (referenda) which would have required the expenditure of public funds on an election for an improper referendum. You are also advised that recently the City of Hermosa Beach refused to process and set for an election an improper initiative filed by Mr. Parker Herriott and the Superior Court, contrary to the dicta in the Yost case, supported the decision of the City of Hermosa Beach not to process an invalid initiative and denied Mr. Herriott any relief. I have previously advised the City Council that the proposed referendum is invalid and even if it was approved at an election, it would have no effect and the City Council would be without any legal authority to implement the referendum. While I understand that the above comments by this office are not consistent with your desires or legal opinion, I hope that you can appreciate the desire of the City not to expend. significant taxpayer funds to process a clearly invalid referendum petition. Very truly yours, Charles S. Vose of OLIVER, BARR & VOSE CSV:ilf cc: Rick Ferrin, City Manager 13279 Robert W. Ottinger, Esq. 719 1/2 1st Place -- = 'f Hermosa Beach, CA 902 December 30, 1992 City Manager Ferrin City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 • Dear City Manager Ferrin: • I am an attorney and a resident of Hermosa Beach. I am employed as a research attorney or "law clerk" for several Los Angeles County Superior Court Judges. I do not purport to represent the interests of anyone other than myself in this letter. On December 15, 1992, I attended your public meeting and asked the Mayor if he was going to order the City Clerk to accept and process the referendum which was submitted by John and Janet McHugh concerning the proposed hotel project on First Place and PCH. He stated that he was going to order the City Clerk to reject the referendum. When I asked him why, the City Attorney, Charles S. Vose, spoke up and stated that the City Clerk was not going to accept the referendum because the subject matter of the referendum, according to his legal opinion, was not the proper subject of a referendum.1 Recently, the City Clerk's formal decision to reject the referendum, as well as Mr. Vose's legal opinion, were provided in the attached letters. Since I signed the petition and live in the vicinity of the proposed hotel project, I conducted my own legal research into this issue. To my surprise, I quickly discovered a California Supreme Court decision, Yost v. Thomas (1984) 36 Ca1.3d 561, 564 which runs contrary to Mr. Vose's assertions. In footnote 2, the court stated the following: "[T]he issue of whether the city clerk exceeded his authority in deciding not to process the referendum has not been raised before us. However, as we stated in Farley v. Healey (1967) 67 Ca1.2d 325, 327, 'It is not a city clerk's function to determine whether a proposed referendum will be valid if enacted. . .These questions may involve difficult legal issues that only a court can determine. The right to propose referendum measures 1 Mr. Vose stated that the referendum is improper in that it does not address a "legislative" matter. In his opinion, the approval of the hotel was an adjudicatory (non -legislative) act which is outside the scope of the referendum process. According to Yost, this is a decision for the court, not local government officials. cannot properly be impeded by a decision of a ministerial officer, even if supported by the advice of the city attorney, that the subject is not appropriate for submission to the voters."' As you can see by the language in Yost, the City Clerk has exceeded her authority in deciding not to process the McHugh Referendum even though that decision is supported by the advice of the City Attorney. The validity of the McHugh Referendum, like the validity of the referendums at issue in Yost and Farely, involves difficult legal questions which may only be properly decided by a court. The position of Mr. Vose, that you cannot accept and process the McHugh Referendum because it does not address an appropriate subject matter, violates a direct mandate of the California Supreme Court. Accordingly, the City -Clerk should be ordered to accept and process the referendum. If this matter cannot be informally resolved, I would like to request a hearing on this issue and have the matter placed on the agenda of the next scheduled city council meeting. A substantial portion of the citizens of Hermosa Beach have taken an interest in this matter. Clearly, this matter is the result of an oversight. However, if this is not an oversight and it is the intent of the city council to blatantly deprive the citizens of this community of their constitutional rights, they will take the appropriate measures to enforce those rights. Sincerely, Robert Ottinger, Esq. CC: Charles S. Vose Council Members Mayor Essertier December 28, 1992 Janet and John McHugh 718 First Placd. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 City of 4 1 ermosa T eack Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 Re: Petition against City Council Resolution No. 92-5583, pertaining'to 70 -unit hotel Conditional Use Permit and Precise Development Plan, submitted December 9, 1992 Dear Mr. and Mrs. McHugh: This is formal notification that the above -noted petition has been determined to be improper subject matter (non -legislative) for a referendum and, therefore, will not be accepted or processed by the Clerk's office. This decision was reached after consultation with the election consultant and the office of the Secretary of State, and is based on the opinion of the City Attorney (see enclosed memoranda) and my own understanding of "legislative" matters, which are appropriate for the initiative/referendum process. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 4008, any petition not accepted for filing shall be returned to the proponents. In lieu of mailing the 211 sections to you with this letter, and in consideration of your December 17 request that the petition be retained for safe keeping until the matter is resolved, the petition will be retained by the Clerk's office until such time as you are able to personally pick it up. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Elaine Doerfling City Clerk Enclosures 2 WILLIAM B. BARR CHARLES 5. VOSE CONNIE COOKE SANDIFER JAMES DUFF MURPHY ROGER W. SPRINGER EDWARD W. LEE HERIBERTO F. DIAZ JANICE R. MIYAHIRA BETH 5. BERGMAN TO:P1( INE DOERFLING, CITY CLERK TY OF HERMOSA BEACH FROM: DATE: LAW OFFICES OLIVER, BARR & VOSE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1000 SUNSET BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 (213) 250-3043 MEMORANDUM RE: ARLES S. VOSE, CITY ATTORNEY cember 18, 1992 Return of Referendum Petitions TELECOPIER (213) 482-5336 FAX AND MAIL I have previously provided the City of Hermosa Beach with my opinion (November 23, 1992 memorandum) that the referendum against approval of Conditional Use Permit - Precise Development Plan for the Hotel Project is an improper subject matter for the referendum process. The proponents of this improper referendum have filed their petitions with your office and requested that they be checked for signature and presented to the City Council. You are advised that the City does not have authority to process the petitions and, therefore, they should be returned to the proponents. Should you require further information or have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. CSV:mc cc: Frederick R. Ferrin, City Manager 13121 WILLIAM B. BARR CHARLES S. VOSE CONNIE COOKE SANDIFER JAMES (DUFF MURPHY ROGER W. SPRINGER EDWARD W. LEE HERIBERTO F. DIA/ JANICE R. MIYAHIRA BETH 3. BERGMAN LAW OFFICES OLIVER, BARR & VOSE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1000 SUNSET BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90012 (213) 250-3043 MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers y of Hermosa Beach FROM: DATE: November 23, 1992 RE: harles S. Vose, City Attorney Referendum Against Approval of Conditional Use Permit - Precise Development Plan TELECOPIER (213) 4132-5336 I have recently received a copy of a proposed referendum against a resolution passed by the City Council relating to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Precise Development Plan for a hotel with retail, restaurant and hotel piano bar/ cocktail lounge. In reviewing this referendum, it is my opinion that the referendum is improper in that it does not - address "legislative" matters. An initiative or referendum may only be used to effectuate legislative acts: Legislative acts generally are those which declare a public purpose and make provisions for the ways and means of its accomplishment. Administrative acts are those which are necessary to carry out the legislative policies and purposes already declared by the legislative body. Generally speaking, general plan amendments, specific plans and zoning have been determined to be "legislative," while conditional use permits, variances, precise plans and subdivision map approvals have been determined to be "non- legislative" (administrative). Arnel Development Company v. City of Costa Mesa (1980) 28 Cal. 3d 511, Fishman v. City of Palo Alto (1978) 86 Cal.App. 3d 506. The approval of a conditional use permit, tentative tract map or precise plan is adjudicatory (non -legislative) in character and therefore outside the scope of the people's power OLIVER, BARR & VOSE Memo re Referendum November 23, 1992 Page 2. of referendum. Lincoln Property Company No. 41 vs. Law (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 230. Therefore, the referendum against resolution passed by the Hermosa Beach City Council is outside the scope of the referendum process and cannot be considered by the City Council. CSV:ilf 12773 December 15 1992 HERMOSA BEACH MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY CLERK. DEAR MAYOR ROBERT ESSERTIER, COUNCIL MEMBERS, ROBERT BENZ, SAM EDGERTON, KATHLEEN MIDSTOKKE AND ALBERT WIEMANS, CITY MANAGER, RICHARD FERRIN, CITY ATTORNEY, CHARLES VOSE, AND CITY CLERK, ELAINE DOERFLING.' ON DECEMBER 9 1992, WE SUBMITTED FOR FILING WITH THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY CLERKS OFFICE A REFERENDUM PETITION AGAINST THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL SAID RESOLUTION IDENTIFIED AS RESOLUTION NO. 92-5583 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A SEVENTY (70) UNIT HOTEL WITH RETAIL, A RESTAURANT WITH ON -SALE GENERAL ALCBHOL AND A HOTEL PIANO BAR/COCKTAIL LOUNGE WITH ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL," PASSED BY THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 10, 1992. WE REQUEST THAT THE CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE 1990 CHAPTER 3, ARTICLE 21'BE ENFORCED. SAID SECTIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 4053 PETITION FILING AND EXAMINATION OF SIGNATURES. PETITIONS SHALL BE ACCEPTED FOR FILING BY THE CLERK AND THE DETERMINATION OF THE NUMBER OF SIGNATURES THERON SHALL BE MADE BY THE CLERK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 4008. PETITIONS SHALL BE FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF THE CITY DURING NORMAL OFFICE HOURS AS POSTED. SECTION 4054 PETITION FILING AND EXAMINATION OF SIGNATURES. AFTER THE PETITION HAS BEEN FILED, AS HEREIN PROVIDED, THE CLERK SHALL EXAMINE THE PETITION AND CERTIFY THE RESULTS IN THE SAME MANNER AS OUR COUNTY PETITIONS IN SECTIONS 3707 AND 3708 EXCEPT THAT, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, REFERENCES TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SHALL BE TREATED AS REFERENCES TO THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF THE CITY. THIS PETITION SHALL BE PRESERVED BY THE CITY CLERK IN THE SAME MANNER AS OUR COUNTY MEASURES AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 3756. THEREFORE THE CITY CLERK SHOULD PERFORM THE MINISTERIAL ACT OF ACCEPTING THE REFERENDUM PETITION FOR FILING IF SHE HAS NOT ALREADY DONE SO. THE CITY ATTORNEYS OPINION SHOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH THE CITY CLERKS MINISTERIAL DUTIES. WE DISAGREE WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OPINION CONTAINED IN HIS NOVEMBER 23, 1992 MEMORANDUM TO THE HERMOSA BEACH MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, REGARDING THE REFERENDUM. RESPECTFULLY OHN MC HUGH P11144,94i „4„ t40 -^A-11: JANET MC HUGH PARKER HERRIOTT WILLIAM B. BARR CHARLES S. VOSE CONNIE COOKE SANDIFER JAMES DUFF MURPHY ROGER W. SPRINGER EDWARD W. LEE HERIBERTO F. DIAZ JANICE R. MIYAHIRA BETH S. BERGMAN TO: FROM: DATE: RE: LAW OFFICES OLIVER, BARR & VOSE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1000 SUNSET BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 (213) 250-3043 MEMORANDUM TELECOPIER (213) 482-5336 RECEIVED JAN 2 0 1993 CITY MGR. OFFICE Honorable Member of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach Clg( rles S. Vose, City Attorney January 18, 1993 Referendum Petition - Processing and Validity Pursuant to the request of certain citizens, the City Council will be considering correspondence relating to the processing of a referendum against the resolution adopted by the City Council approving a Conditional Use Permit and Precise Development Plan for a seventy (70) unit hotel. Initially, I was requested to respond to the subject matter validity of this proposed referendum petition. My memorandum of November 23, 1992 addresses this matter and I have not been presented with any legal authority which suggests that approval of a Conditional Use Permit and/or precise development plan is subject to the referendum process. More recently, the City has received demands by certain individuals to process this referendum, regardless of its invalid subject matter consequences. It is the position of these individuals that the City Clerk and City Council are required, as a matter of law, to receive, process and set for an election this referendum. In essence, it is suggested that since these functions are ministerial in nature, the City Clerk and City Council have no discretion to exercise regarding this referendum petition, and invalidity of any type cannot interfere with processing the petitions. This argument is inconsistent with applicable case law and Elections Code S 4052. The cases of Bellig v. Voges (1990) 223 C.A. 3d 962; 273 Cal.Rptr. 91 and Creighton v. Reviczky (Hermosa Beach) 1985 171 C.A.3d 1225; 217 Cal.Rptr. 834, clearly establish the right and power of the City Clerk or City SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 4' c OLIVER, BARR & VOSE Memo re Referendum Petition - Processing and Validity January 18, 1993 Page 2. Council to refuse to process a petition which is invalid on its face. Clearly the right of a City Clerk or City Council not to process such an invalid petition is necessary so as to guarantee the integrity of the referendum and initiative process which is so vital to the citizens and avoid a waste of taxpayer funds. Why is this petition invalid "on its face?" Elections Code S 4052 requires that there shall be printed across the top of the referendum petition the following: "Referendum Against an Ordinance Passed by the City Council" (Emphasis added) Since the proposed referendum petition challenges a resolution, it does not comply with the precise mandatory requirements of Elections Code S 4052. It must now be asked whether or not there is "substantial compliance" with this mandatory requirement. There appears to be very limited authority to support the processing of a referendum against an action by the City Council which is other than an ordinance. The courts have approved such an action only where the City Council approval is clearly "legislative" in nature (such as a general plan amendment adopted by resolution). Where the approval challenged is not "legislative" in nature or not an ordinance,. it is difficult to find that the petition is in "substantial compliance" with the mandatory requirement of Elections Code § 4052 which requires that it be an ordinance being challenged. On at least two occasions, I have requested the proponents to provide me with any case law or legal authority which supports the conclusion that the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and related Precise Development Plan constitutes a form of "legislative" act, which would allow some flexibility in waiving the mandatory requirements of Elections Code S 4052. It must be clearly pointed out that there are numerous cases and ample legal authority which establish that approvals of C.U.P.s and precise plans are non -legislative (administrative). Some of these cases have been provided to the proponents. Again, I have not received any contrary legal authority and the petitions, prima facie, do not challenge the adoption of an ordinance. OLIVER, BARR & VOSE Memo re Referendum Petition - Processing and Validity January 18, 1993 Page 3. Furthermore, there exists no case law or statutory authority which requires processing of a referendum petition challenging a resolution which was adopted as a non -legislative act. To accept a contrary view is to suggest that any action of the City Council - whether by resolution, ordinance, or minute action - is subject to a referendum and must be processed by the City (regardless of cost to the City) unless the City Council expends taxpayer funds to obtain a court order setting aside the petition. There is compelling legal authority which states that to allow the referendum process to be invoked to annul or delay executive (or administrative) actions would destroy the efficiency necessary to the successful administration of the business affairs of the City. There are additional due process conflicts with processing this petition and complying with Elections Code S 4055 and whether or not the City Council can legally postpone the effective date of the subject resolution. I am also concerned with the unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer funds to process the petition and hold an election which would result in an invalid act as a matter of law. OPTIONS OF CITY COUNCIL: 1. Receive and file - take no action 2. Direct City Clerk to process petition 3. Appropriate necessary funds and direct City Attorney to file legal action to set-aside petition. • RECOMMENDATION Option No. 1, receive and file and take no action. CSV:ilf cc: Rick Ferrin, City Manager Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk 13459 City of 2-lermosarl3eacly January 20, 1993 Janet and John McHugh 718 First Place Hermosa Beach,'CA 90254 Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 Re: Non-acceptance of petition against City Council Resolution,No. 92-5583 (approving hotel on PCH) Dear Mr. and Mrs. McHugh: There appears to be a need to clarify some issues with regard to my non-acceptance of the subject petition (deemed to be inappropriate for the referendum process). One very important factor (of which you were aware at the time of petition submittal, and which, in fact, is the sole reason for the City Attorney's involvement in this matter) is the nonconformance of said petition (on its face) with the applicable provisions of the California Elections Code. As you know, the Elections Code specifically addresses ordinances as the subject matter for referendum petitions. For example (emphasis added): - Section 4050 refers to the effective date of ordinances (30 days from and after adoption) and cites exceptions. - Section 4050.1 refers to ordinances authorizing the issuance of revenue bonds. Section 4051 requires suspension of the effective date of the ordinance and reconsideration of the ordinance by the legislative body if a petition protesting against the adoption of an ordinance is properly circulated and submitted and contains the required number of signatures. - Section 4052(a) states "Across the top of each page of the referendum petition there shall be printed the following: 'Referendum Against an Ordinance Passed by the City Council.'" Section 4052(b) requires that each section of the petition contain the identifying number or title and text of the ordinance which is the subject of the referendum. Section 4055 requires submittal of the ordinance to the voters if it is not entirely repealed by Council. - Section 4056 requires the filing of the signed petition within 30 days from the date of adoption of the ordinance to which it relates. As was explained at the time of submittal, although I was receiving the petition, I would be relying upon the legal advice of the City Attorney with regard to its acceptance. I believed it was clearly understood (based on our discussions and your own review of the SUPPLEMENTAL INFQRMATinpk► C applicable sections of the Elections Code) that the only reason an opinion from the City Attorney was necessary in this case was because, on its face, the subject petition did not conform to the requirements of the Elections Code and did not contain the exact language specified therein. It is my duty as City Clerk to process all initiative/referendum petitions, in conformance with the laws of the State of California. Had this petition, on its face, been in full conformance with the state election laws (which I am bound to follow), it would have been automatically processed, pursuant to the provisions of the Elections Codeand without the need for a legal opinion from the City Attorney, as has been done in the past with other referendum and initiative petitions. While you may still disagree with my non-acceptance of the petition and/or with the legal advice and opinions of the City Attorney, I hope this letter clears up any confusion or misunderstandings there may have been concerning this matter. Please call me if you have any questions. I have enclosed a copy of a recent City Attorney memorandum (dated January 18), which will be included (along with this letter) in the packet as part of your agenda item for the City Council meeting of January 26, 1993. Sincerely, _,444-41-4E-0c-c)LL-441-4-1 Elaine Doerfling City Clerk • CJS _J p- CJ a FO.2 ry (316) 3-7 9-1 /61 L 6 4sfe,i e0Sci &154-6\---J7 ,a„A a),_„ " 7o (2-c 164a-'( oc„re9„ orl ) t.D at, Ugit7lJ b4-it-eOlt /1),-t( zi„z(-,t7 e..Z7 (/-E2t � SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 4' C 4018 ELECTIONS CODE' § 4018. Proposed ordinance or measure; printing; availability of copies on request Whenever any ordinance or measure is required by this article to be submitted to the voters of a city at any election, the clerk of the legislative body shall cause the ordinance or measure to be printed. A copy of the ordinance or measure shall be made available to y voter upon request. (Amended by Stats.1984, c. 32, § 4; Stats.1986, c. 866, § 8.) § 4020. Elections; time for holding When a special election is to be called under this article, it shall be held not less than • • • 88 nor more than • • • 103 days after the date of the presentation of the proposed ordinance to the legislative body, airshall be held in accordance with the provisions of this code. To avoid holding more than one special election within any six months, the date for holding the special election may be fixed later than • • • 103 days, but at as early a date as practicable after the expiration of six months from the last special election. When it is legally possible to hold a special election under this chapter within six months prior to a regular municipal election, the legislative body may submit the proposed ordinance at the regular election instead of at a special election. (Amended by Stats.1980, c. 710, p. 2128, § 7; Stats.1981, c. 1045, p. 4030, § 6.) Historical and Statutory Notes 180 nt. Substituted in the fast "not less than 94 nor more than 109 days" for "not less secondnce than 4nor more than 89 sentence "109 days" for ' 89 substituted in the days". ARTICLE 2. REFERENDUM § 4050. Effective date of ordinances Law Review Commentaries The proper use of referenda in rezoning. (1977) 29 Stan.LR. 819. Notes of Decisions 4. Measures exempt from referendum levies. Dare v. Laic eport Initiative and referendum processes do not lie with Rptr. 124, 12 C.A.3d 864.City Council (1970) 91 Cal respect to statutes and ordinances providing for tax § 4061. Petition signed by 10 percent of voters If registered a petition protesting f the against the adoption of an ordinance and circulated by any qualified city, w submitted to the clerk of the legislative body of the city in his or her office during normal office hours as posted within 30 days of the adoption of the ordinance, signed by not less than 10 percent of the voters of the city according to the county, derbustofficial report of registration to the Secretary of State, or. in a city with 1,000 or less signed by not less than 25 percent of the voters' or 100 voters of the city whichever lesser,teredvoters, � effective date of the ordinance shall be suspended, and the legislative body shall reconsider the ordinance. (Amended by Stats.1987, c. 993, § 3.) 4052. Petition; declaration (a) Across the top of each page of the referendum petition there shall be printed the following "Referendum Against an Ordinance Passed by the City Council" (b) Each section of the referendum petition shall contain the identifying number or title, and �2 the text of the ordinance or the portion of the ordinance which is the subject of the referendum. The petition sections shall be designed in the. same form as specified in Section 3516. This Each se tion 'shall llbsubstantially e att ' hed thereto the declaration of the person soliciting the tntlly in the same form as set forth in Section 3519, Additions or changes ,except that the - _ by underling deletions by asterisks , • • , 104 EL deci add (An § 1: 19 fora Cap Estc Puri Subs Text 3. 1 Pt ing sion Rev C.A.: 4. 1 Fa circa her I Petitrequi whet Elect Code Creii 834, 5. $ Mt each ordic entir was advii Crei1 834, 8 Fa dual; said there tire( the Hay, ward 2181 Re peal not f S 266 t > ELECTIONS CODE les on request bmitted to the voters of a dinance or measure to be ) any voter upon request. not less than • * ' 88 nor ropoeed ordinance to the is code. To avoid holding .he special election may be fter the expiration of six special election under this five body may submit the § 6.) days" and substituted in the {" for "89 days". City Council (1970) 91 Cal. :Mated by any qualified 7 of the city in his or her of the ordinance, and is aunty clerk's last official less registered voters, is iichever is the lesser, the ody shall reconsider the )e printed the following: *anal" g number or title, and )jest of the referendum:. Section 3516. soheftmg the signatitr+es, • ion 3519; except,thsit the *M1Yls • . • • ELECTIONS CODE § 4052 Note 7 declaration shall declare that the circulator is a voter of the city and shall state his or her residence address at the time of the execution of the declaration. (Amended by Stats.1982, c. 201, p. 675, § 1; Stats.1989. c. 347, § 3; Stats.1992, c. 970 (S.B.1260), § 11.) Historical and Statutory Notes 1982 Amendment. Added provisions regarding the form in which petitions are to be submitted. Caption 6 Estoppel 4 Purpose 3 Substantial compliance 5 . Text of ordinance 7 c.... Purpose Purpose of West's Ann.Cal.Elec.Code § 4052, govern - g municipal referendum petitions, is to reduce confu- n as to contents of such petitions. Creighton v. viczky (App. 2 Dist1985) 217 Cal.Rptr. 834, 171 A.3d 1225. 4. Estoppel Fact that city clerk gave to one of petitioners who circulated municipal referendum petition letter stating her belief that petition comported with Elections Code requirements did not estop city from denying validity of petition on basis of its failure to comply with Code, where clerk orally advised petitioner of her lack of legal expertise and she provided him with copies of applicable Elections Code sections, including West's Ann.Cal.Elec. Code § 4052, governing municipal referendum petitions. Creighton v. Reviczky (App. 2 Dist1985) 217 Cal.Rptr. 834, 171 C.A.3d 1225. Notes of Decisions not strictly comply with requirement of this section that caption "Referendum And Ordinance Passed by the City Council" appear across each page of petition. sub- stance of challenged petition satisfied requirement of this section in that there was no discernable difference between referendum petition "against" ordinance passed by city council and one "protesting" adoption of ordinance, and within context of challenged petition signor would be aware that ordinance was adopted by city council and was not still under consideration by city council. Chase v. Brooks (App. 4 Dist.1986) 232 Cal. Rptr. 65, 187 C.A.3d 657. 5. Substantial compliance Municipal 'referendum petition which across top of each section of petition contained number and title of ordinance in issue was invalid for failure to contain gntice ert of ordinance,or,{�ortior ordinance, which was subject of referendum, even if proponents orally advised prospective signers of ordinance provisions. Creighton v. Reviczky (App. 2 Dist.1985) 217 Cal.Rptr. 834, 171 C.A.3d 1225. 6. Caption Fact that there is no title across top of the referen- dum petition does not preclude application of doctrine of substantial compliance to issue whether petition is thereby defective; rather, court must determine objec- tive of heading required by this section and determine if the actual heading on the petition fulfilled the objective. Hayward Area Planning Ass'n v. Superior Court (Hay- ward 1900, Inc.) (App. 1 Dist1990) 266 Cal.Rptr. 745. 218 CaLApp.3d 53. Referendum petition requesting that city council re- peal resolutiop or submit it to vote of the people was not fatally defective for failing to carry title set forth in this section, where heading of petition contained the same information as the title would have and did so briefly and clearly. Hayward Area Planning Assn v. Superior Court (Hayward 1900, Inc.) (App. 1 Dist1990) 266 CaLRptr. 745, 218 Cal.App.3d 53. Although referendum petition caption "Referendum Petition Protesting Adoption of Ordinance 85-38" did 7. Text of ordinance Requirement that referendum petition contain "text" of challenged ordinance was not satisfied by inclusion of city's published summary of ordinance that had appeared in local newspaper. Billig v. Voges (App. 2 Dist.1990) 273 Cal.Rptr. 91, 223 Cal.App.3d 962. Although this section requiring that referendum peti- tion contain "text" of challenged ordinance was silent regarding any authority bestowed on city clerk' to en- force this section. clerk's authority was not thereby limited to determining only whether referendum period was signed by requisite number of voters; rather, clerk had clear ministerial duty to refuse to process petition which did not comply with procedural requirements. Billig v. Voges (App. 2 Dist1990) 273 Cal.Rptr. 91, 223 Cal.App.3d 962. City clerk's rejection of referendum petition on advice of acting city attorney that petition did not comply with this section requiring that referendum petition contain "text" of challenged ordinance was warranted; this section involves mere procedural requirements for sub- mitting referendum petitions. so the clerk had not im- permissibly made a decision based on validity of peti- tion's etstion's subject matter. Billig v. Voges (App. 2 Dist.1990) 273 Cal. p1`fr: 223 Cal.App.3d 962. Enforcement of this section requiring that referen- dum petition contain "text" of challenged ordinance did not interfere with First Amendment protections, al- though petitioners claimed that refusal to process peti- tion which did not include full text of ordinance infring- ed nfrmged on their right to petition government which .was form of free speech; city clerk merely followed dictates of statute by refusing to process petition, and statute does not regulate content or subject matter of petitions. Billig v. Voges (App. 2 Dist1990) 273 CaLRptr. 91, 223 Cal.App.3d 962. Referendum petitions did not comply with specific provisions of this section in that they faded to include full text of exhibit to zoning ordinance setting forth legal description of property affected by ordinance. Chase v. Brooks (App. 4 Dist.1986) 232 CaLRptr. 65, 187 C.A.3d 657. . Additions Or changes bdiated by underline deletions by asterisks • • * 105 a>� 1- 't a r HAYWARD AREA PLANNING v. SUPERIOR COURT 745 218 t:Yl.App.3d 55 Cite as 266 Ca1.Rptr. 743 (CaLApp. 1 D141. 1990) 2. Municipal Corporations x108.10 218 Cal.App.3d 53 Referendum petition requesting that city council repeal resolution or submit it to vote of the people was not fatally defective for failing to carry title set forth in section of Elections Code, where heading of peti- tion contained the same information as the SUPERIOR COURT of the County of title would have and did so briefly and Alameda, Respondent; clearly. West's Ann.Cal.Elec.Code § 4052. ,HAYWARD AREA PLANNING ASSOCIATION et al., Petitioners, v. HAYWARD 1900, INC., et al., Real Parties in Interest. Judy VONADA, as Clerk of the City of • Hayward et al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the County of Alameda, Respondent; HAYWARD 1900, INC., et al., Real Parties in Interest. Nos. A048925, A048629. Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4. Feb. 22, 1990. On petition for writ of mandamus to the Superior Court of the County of Alame- da, the Court of Appeal, Channell, J., held that referendum petition requesting that city council repeal resolution or submit it to vote of the people was not fatally defective for failing to carry title set forth in section of Elections Code, where heading of peti- tion contained the same information as the title would have and did so briefly and clearly. Writ issued. 1. MunIeipSI; Corporations 48=108.10 • Factthat .there is no title across top of the referendum petition; does not prechide applicstion•of doctrine' -of substantiiil.com- phsnce• to issue whether petition is' thereby defective; -•rather; court most determine-ob- ,jective-of herding required' by statute and determine' if the' actual` heading on; the peti- tion fulfilled- the objective. '' Weitt's Ann. Ca1.Flec.Code . ` 4052: 1. Unkss'otheruiisit indicated, all further states .' h e�• , yep P 5� I. r'. 4 i ,A ;!) $ -< � 4( .r S r.„, a 4 ( j4Zach Cowan, Nancy Black, San Fran- cisco, Alice C. Graff, City Atty., Hayward, for petitioners. Baker & McKenzie, Bruce Jackson, Jona- than Kitchen, Kerry Shapiro, Douglas Potts, San Francisco, Wes Van Winkle, Barry Fadem, Bagatelos & Fadem, San Francisco, for real parties in interest. Frank Goulart, Hayward, amicus curiae in support of petitioners City of Hayward, et al. and Hayward Area Planning Ass'n, et al. JCHANNELL, Associate Justice. We consider in this opinion whether the referendum petition which is the subject of these petitions is fatally defective in failing to carry the title set forth in Elections Code section 4052.' We conclude that, since the heading of the petition contained the same information as the title would have and did so briefly and clearly, the lack of the title did not invalidate the petition. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS On October 10, 1989, the Hayward City Council approved Resolution No. 89-295 C.S. which amended the Hayward General Policies Plan and the Walpert Ridge Specif- ic Area Plan to enable residential and com- mercial development of Walpert Ridge to proceed. Shortly thereafter certain resi- dents and voters (hereafter referred to as Associations) circulated a referendum peti- tion requesting the City Council to repeal Resolution. No. 89-295 C.S. or submit: it to the vote of the people. On November 9, 1989, the petition was submitted to the City Clerk who certifiedthat the petition con tory references are to the Elections Code. •'r it r �'� S•" �i-.,p.,,' soh Y • . .1 • • • t.a ; ,- 4 1 • 4,1 tk ; • r.OV, .fti�1:$ ,..t;. t 414 taJ 746 266 CALIFORNIA REPORTER tained re than the requisite number of valid signatures. On December 5, 1989, the City Council ordered the resolution be submitted to a vote of the people at the regularly scheduled general municipal elec- tion to be held on April 10, 1990. On or about January 17, 1990, Ha 1900, Inc., a prospective developer, (h after referred to as Hayward 1900) petition for writ of mandate in su court naming as respondents Judy Vo in her official capacity as Clerk of the of Hayward, the Hayward City Counci the City of Hayward (hereinafter re to as the City) and naming the Associa as real parties in interest. The pet sought to invalidate the City Clerk's a in certifying the referendum petition the City Council and to strike the re endum from the April 10th ballot. petition was granted at a hearing held February 8, 1990. On February 9, 1990, the Associate and the City filed a notice of appeal an petition for writ of supersedeas. T court denied the petition for supersed on the ground that the order granting m date was automatically stayed pursuant section 1110b of the Code of Civil Proc dure. The denial was without prejudice the filing of a petition to lift the sta j,16On February 14, 1990, both the Assoc tions and the City petitioned this court writ of mandate urging this court to c sider the merits by extraordinary writ rath er than by appeal. Since an appeal coul not be determined prior to the election, th 2. Code of Civil Procedure section 1110b pro vides as follows: "If an appeal be taken from an order or judgment granting a writ of mandat the court granting the writ. or the appeltat court, may direct that the appeal shall not open ate as a stay of execution if it is satisfied upon the showing made by the petitioner that he will suffer irreparable• damage in his "business or profession if the execution is stayed." yward erein- filed a perior nada. City 1 and ref In 1982, the Legislature added provision, tions to Elections Code section 4052 regarding ition the form in which referendum petitions art ction to he submitted.' The sole contention s to presented" by Hayward 1900 is that the fer- referendum petition does not comply WA The the requirement of section 4052 that on "Across the top of each page of the refer endum petition there shall be printed the. ons following: 'Referendum Against an Oedf d a nance Passed by the City Council.' " his The referendum petition in this case does eas not contain this wording across the top.F.. an- Rather it commences with the following1t to language: ,. e- "To the City Council of Hayward: to We, the undersigned, duly registered and, y_ .2 qualified voters of the City of Hayaard ta 'ry California, constituting not less than 10%'-: for of the number of voters within the City on- according to the county clerk's last olfr • d cial report of registration, by this pdi ;fix tion protest the adoption of ResoIuties e No. 89-295 CS. amending the Genera( ft - sections shall be designed in the same form ar e specified in Section 3516. [11 (c) Each seen m shall have attach thereto the de:M adowet e the person soliciting the signatures. This de ration shall be substantially in the sante forma_ ration shall declare that ti kit (oar of the city, and sill state hire or:ber—Inf imee: address at the time of ,the ' of "tie declaration." 4. A declaration of Sherman Levert at4! "v. the opposition filed in the :Interior east SOS" that Mr. Lewis was primarily r tat4t initial drafting of the referendum t lfe included in' the ttmck-up a heading in lie:* guage.of section'4052: " He does not`k w lel►`"' the headingwas omitted or lost. 218 Cal.App,3d M remedy by appeal is inadequate. (Se Brown v. Superior Court (1971)5 Ca1.IO 509, 515, 96 Ca1.Rptr. 584, 487 P.2d 1220Because the decision of the superior coact is stayed pending the appeal, endum will remain on the ballot. inevt'ta* causing confusion in the electorate as 0 the effect of the vote. If the stay were, lifted, the ensuing election would render the appeal moot. DISCUSSION set forth in Section =cep that tabs bei 3. Section 4052 'Provides. in its entirety as fol. lows: ' (a) across the top of each page of the referendum- loeswingr petition There shalt be printed the Passed by the: 'Referendum Against an Ordinance Passed the bry City Council RJ (b) Each section identifying um petition shall contain the tfy ng number or title and text of the ordi- nance.or the portion of the ordinance which is the subject of the referendum. f11.Thc.pctition •4 ' ti •• Baa iKt;'t,YS ��. • - 4Ji ttv i otr K `.- { S: tr 55 HAYWARD AREA PLANNING v. SUPERIOR COURT 218 Ca1.App3d 58 ate as 266 Ca1.Rptr. 745 (Cal.APP• 1 Dial. 1990) 747 gee d Policies Plan and Walpert Ridge Specific [Citations.] Consequently, ' "[s]ubstantial Area Plan in connection with General compliance ... means actual compliance in !4,) Policies Plan Amendment No. 88-17, respect to the substance essential to every in j adopted on October 10, 1989, which is reasonable objective of the statute." ' Cr- attached hereto. We petition that this tation.] In other words, technical defic eni- )ly resolution be repealed by you or be sub- cies in referendum petitions will not invali- to mitted to a vote of the people at a future date the petitions if they substantially com- re election." ply with statutory and constitutional re- er The City and the Associations contend p uirements, for '[a] paramount concern in that the petition substantially complies determining whether a petition is valid de - with the requirement of section 4052. spite an alleged defect is whether the pur- Hayward 1900, on the other hand, contends pose of the technical requirement is frus- tb that there can be no application of the trated by the defective form of the peti- doctrine of substantial compliance in the tion.' [Citations.]" ig absence of any compliance with the title c In Assembly v. Deukmejian (1982) 30 requirement. The trial court agreed that Ca1.3d 638, 180 Cal.Rptr. 297, 639 P.24 939, 'n 1e substantial compliance could only be ap- from which the above principles derive, the h plied if there was a title and only changes referendum petition was defective because in its wording were required; for example, it did not direct signers to provide their it if a "resolution" rather than an ' o di- "residence address." The court looked to r-nance" was the subject of the referendum. the reason for the requirement, i.e., to en- i- i The,court in Chase v. Brooks (1986) 187 registrar to determine if the signer i- i able the Ca1.App.3d 657, 663, 232 Cal.Rptr. 65, artic- was a "qualified register voter." The } ulated the principles which guide a determi- court held that providing the "address as nation of the effect of a failure to comply registered to vote" did not fulfill this objec- with section 4052 as follows: " A lthou h (Id. at [ J g live. pp. 650-651, 180 Cai.Rptr. 297, the language of section 4052 is mandatory, 639 P.2d 939.) The objective of the re- ' employing the term 'shall,' the 'substantial quirement was notjfulfilled and, there - compliance' test controls. [Citations.] For fore, there was not substantial compliance.s 1 r it has long been our judicial policy to (Cf. Ibarra v. City of Carson (1989) 214 apply.* liberal construction to [the] power Cal•App•3d 90, 99, 262 Cal.Rptr. 485; [of initiative and referendum] wherever it Myers v. Patterson (1987) 196 Cal.App.3(1 is challenged in order that the right be not 130, 137-139, 241 Cal.Rptr: 751.) improperly annulled. If doubts can reason- There have been only two cases which. ably be resolved in favor of the use of this have interpreted section 4052 since throe power, .courts *HI preserve it.Ci- • its E amendment in -1982. -In: Creighton o.,Ree, tations p "' [Citation:] - However, _ where-- iczky (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d' 1225, .2I7 Cal. pmt oii,defldienctes threaten-the'proper op- Rptr. 834, the petition did not contain the eratioit:of the election pros , refusal to text of the ordinance. The reviewing court file the -petition has been jticlitialbr upheld. found that "the [C�btaeits: legislative. purpose in en - J Although Statutes ahouhd acting the 1982 amendments to section . be liberally constlrued; to perinit `the exer- 4052 was' to reduce, confusion as to the cite by -the electors .of this most important. contents of referendum ' privilege, the statutes designed to petitions. Ith ish gp protect clear that the" hazard of confusion which the elector from confusing or Misleading the :Legislature sought to reduce- is, the information should be enforced --so as. to confusion in the minds of the electors as to guarantee the - integrity of the process. the true import of the' referendum. petitions 5. The court in Assenibl, v. peuhrnsjian held that- . had been 'accepted bi. I. the defect,- though it would. t"tivididate-'futttret in of r film* t entities .. Petitions, did _ 'charged:witTi-en%ritng,rrie#endutn - notlrcader''the re ereodwn yeti: '`bw also,had riev4er i►r4�u� dons at: iii*, tiniralid tinder;'Vie. unusual rind` 'k ` f u . (As q.n bjec(eDek a ctlagetige , s tr .. �i9da' sltanca ofZliiF eat,s( "" .:< t'Om �' soothe? �{A;��yy}�.Y � DuuJFi►t�rjra� F„ 4 � � �: { � :•r ��"P t+`htumieliee� tbicr yt prof9p:Cal.�`32tarPP- 50-$65 a cit• ',,o 2 } A„t + ,;. .moi. 's�" 639 "P Zi fi. (Ill ,�t' �. } .iy t tj� �� g q �w� ,... .�P M`y�� x• -] 3. ,, , G4' 4,1 v , { i, ,i 1.. '.., 44-1.."•-k, '" t i- Y -1 \by t p:s"� .�. ,.-I.... i- f�._pSh B t j tc, `r,�l '<4 �1y- P� 4J i. k" ! > �r * �7{ }Fy ! ' e. �;. + e4140' i10 t..,.., li,i f tA_ It � r ,4s3rc_ j �: Y L .L%_t4 , l"1 4y ;6. .f J:`.a.l. r �,.�`��` `S`'i' r r 7 ♦i -, I� t* Y� yl .�` :£. (�� } _ r. ) 5,1: `.� � e,'�'.r ,'' 1 w z 1" }rxt ip. -+ r [�L r,..!. sti k �, r1.. V' V SY t .:..;. .r3 '' d e � y a J ay , f }' y.�F'i � <J ti- i Mr-ilf. . d z aTr �; /rfi 1 Zf��s�3I. .;q� l; %`•,; { Tif • ,. 4•11,!-..1( iir.� . .rt i 4 748 266 CALIFORNIA REPORTER 218 Cal.App3d 61 they are asked to sign." (Id. at p. 1231, 217 Cal.Rptr. 834.) In ruling that the peti- tion was invalid, the reviewing court ex- plained: "'A paramount concern in deter- mining whether a petition is valid despite an alleged defect is whether the purpose of the technical requirement is frustrated by the defective form of the petition.' (As- sembly v. Deukmejian, supra, 30 Cal.3d 638, 652 [180 Cal.Rptr. 297, 639 P.2d 939].) Here, the petition utterly failed to apprise prospective signers of the substantive pro- visions of ordinance number 84-751. It follows that the purpose of Elections Code section 4052 was in fact frustrated by the defective form of the petition." 6 (Id. at p. 1233, 217 Cal.Rptr. 834.) In Chase v. Brooks, supra, 187 Cal. App.3d 657, 232 Cal.Rptr. 65, the reviewing court held that a referendum petition was invalid because it did not contain an exhibit to the challenged ordinance. The ordi- nance was a zoning ordinance which mod- ified existing zones and zone boundaries and reclassified property. The missing ex- hibit was necessary to inform the "prospec- tive signers of the precise location of af- fected real property to permit them to in- formatively evaluate whether they should sign the referendum petition challenging the substantive provisions of the ordi- nance." (Id. at p. 664, 232 Cal.Rptr. 65.) [ 1 ) From the above cases, it can be seen that the doctrine of substantial compliance should not be rejected simply because there is no title across the top of the referendum petition, the position that Hayward 1900 urges. In Creighton, there was no ordi- nance text attached to the petition. In Assembly v. Deukmejian, there was no residence address on the petitions. Rather aJrdicourt must determine the objective of the heading required by section 4052 and determine if the actual heading on the peti- tion fulfilled that objective. 6. The petition in Creighton was apparently head- ed as was the instant petition without the legend spread across the top' but commenced as did the instant- petition: (Overton, supra 171. Cal. App:3d• al..1227-1228 217 Cal.Rptr. 834.) The petition was. not challenged 'on the end that th legend,wasas missing:and'the,cadre made no catnmetit; on :the. heading.' [2] The general objective of section 4052 is to "reduce confusion as to the con- tents of referendum petitions." (Creigh- ton v. Reviczky, supra, 171 Cal.App.3d st 1231, 217 Cal.Rptr. 834.) The title require- ment of section 4052 tells the prospective signer briefly that he or she is being asked to sign a petition which is "against" an ordinance already passed by the City Coun- cil. The title reduces the confusion which may result from a lengthy, legalistic de scription of the contents of the petition. The petitioning language . of the refer- endum can also contain this information but may do so in the midst of other 1st guage which disguises the true purpose. particularly from the hurried or unschooled reader, but also from the ordinary reader, In the referendum petition being con' sidered here, the language of the petition, which appears alone above the signatures, actually furnished all the information to the prospective signers that would have been furnished by the statutory title. It stated that the signers "protest the adolr, tion" of the resolution and request that the resolution "be repealed" or "submitted 84, vote of the people." Although the 11 guage of the heading contains other infer mation, it does so in only two sentence The first sentence is somewhat lengthy sad arguably could confuse a reader. Hoe` ever, the second sentence is short and ;+t' straightforward. "We petition that Illi resolution be repealed by you or be salt mitted to a vote of the people at a fauns" election." That sentence is as infortnath's and helpful as the words "Referendw Against an Ordinance Passed by the air Council," particularly since a reader like to be confused by the fust sentence wtxdi not be likely to know the meaning of *. word "referendum." We conclude that !t the instant case the language of the pee•'. tion fulfills theobjective of the titin. quirement of .section 40521 7. Respondent court remarked at the 'hearle 11. the petition below: "The -language of the W ', ing on the petition- circulated deuctibilluta` er. detail: and -in this Coon's 141 more clarity:to'(thej average rendez...wW!Met=_. petition was about and what,= Pad 98 section he con- i Cr,eigh- ,p.3d at require- ;pective g asked ast" an y Coun- n which stic de - petition. refer. rmatite" her late )urpose, ichooled reader. ng coq. Petition,. natures, ation to Id havw title. he ado i; that tit tted to•° the la er info,~ sntences. gthy and How- iort and hat this be stip . a future ormative erendum the City ler lately ce would tg of the e that ;in the pep= title ?earinCiia 1 aye{».` . mac en* ar%ir titanic dia:c e' r•r � DANIELEY v. GOLDMINE SKI ASSOCIATES 749 218 Cal.App.3d 111 Cite .s 266 Cal.Rptr. 749 (Cai.App. 4 DIM. 1990) Hayward 1900, however, contends that prospective signers actually were confused by the absence of the title. Attached to the petition for mandate in superior court was the declaration of Dolores Schley. Ms. Schley states that after initially reviewing the document, she was not aware that it was a referendum petition and was con- fused as to its actual purpose. She was informed by the circulator of the petition that the objective of the petition was mere- ly to inform the City Counsel of a public concern that the project was too large. She is actually in favor of the development project and would not have signed the peti- tion if she had known its purpose. In j determining whether the objective of sec- tion 4052 was frustrated by a defect in the petition, it is appropriate to consider such evidence. (See Creighton v. Reviczky, su- pra, 171 Cal.App.8d at p. 1238, 217 Cal. Rptr. 834.) However, as was pointed out by the opposition below, Ms. Schley may simply be confused about the entire issue since she refers in her declaration to the Council's resolution as "opposing" the project when in fact the resolution ap- proved the project. In any event, it is inherently improbable that the title lan- guage of section 4052 could have clarified the type of confusion Ms. Schley describes. The title language does not deal with the motivation behind the petition but with the subject of the petition. We conclude that this is a situation where " "doubts can reasonably be re- solved in favor of the use of [the] reserve power [of referendum]" "' (Assembly v. Deukmejian, supra, 30 Cal.3d at p. 652, 180 Cal.Rptr. 297, 639 P.2d 939) and, there- , fore, grant the petitions of the City and the Associations.. We have complied with the procedural requirements for issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance. (See Palma v. U.3. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 208 Cal.Rptr. 626, 681 P.2d 898.) In light of the 'need to expedite a declaim in time for accurate ballot informa- tion to reach :the. e&et r*te, this' opinion .is final forthwith. (Cal.Rules of Court, rule 24(d).) Let a writ of mandate issue direct- ing respondent superior court to vacate its order granting Hayward 1900's petition and enter a new order denying that peti- tion. ANDERSON. P.J., and PERLEY, J., concur. 218 Cal.App.3d 111 �1'Vicki L. DANIELEY, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. GOLDMINE SKI ASSOCIATES, Defendant and Respondent. No. E005891. Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2. Feb. 22, 1990. Skier who suffered serious injuries when she collided with tree brought suit against ski area operator alleging negli- gence in failing to remove tree, which was located near edge of ski run. The Superior Court, San Bernardino County, Duane Thomas, Temporary Judge, entered sum- mary judgment in ski operator's favor, and skier appealed. The Court of Appeal, McDaniel, J., held that (1) ski area opera- tor owed no duty to, skier to remove tree, and (2) denying skier continuance to con- duct further discovery was not abuse of discretion. Affirmed.. Woe only'wldt wheshr the detarthe of suborn- • (Pursuant to Cal. Coast.. art. Vl $ 21.) ditc iupliauce con$ be'ap9lied'In:thea mee.; iif_ttltiy%title: 1.20 Lir i R 1. tr:rl�E•sl, z ,,,,„..4, ac ; '°.F t� 4 « kf Aa “•it- . Sit , _ r i Y i ark , ii'F" •rc"'(.� :,, •. ' - 1- •.," • `� � E� .n•.�. �1:4 2• 1 ^,. Irl 4:14-t',;":„y , x i '.. I. V);',# r ig ; 834 ,217 CALIFORNIA REPORTER It is undisputed that the police climbed over the fence and were in appellant's front yard as appellant emerged from his house. Detective Price identified himself as a po- lice officer and told appellant he had a search warrant for his person and the premises. After appellant struggled and was handcuffed, he told the police that his wife was inside, and then preceded the police into the house. As Detective Price entered the house, he identified himself as a police officer in a loud voice. Given that appellant was the person ap- parently in control of the premises and that he refused the request for admittance by struggling with the police, we find that the police substantially complied with the sec- tion 1531 requirements before entering the house. [5, 6] Section 1531 does not require a verbal refusal to admit police into the house. (People v. Gallo, supra, 127 Cal. App.3d at p. 838, 179 Cal.Rptr. 662.) Initi- ating a struggle after the police have iden- tified themselves and stated their mission amounts to a denial of entry under the statute. [7] Section 1531 also does not mandate the police to give notice to every person on the premises; rather, the requirements of section 1531 are satisfied where police give notice to the person apparently in control. (People v. Murphy (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 81, . ., , 88, 116 Cal.Rptr. 889.) In Murphy, the court found substantial compliance with section 1531 under the following circum- stances: the defendant was standing on the J ops front parch to hisjouse when the police arrived;; the police officer approached Mur- phy, urphy, identified himself and stated his pur- pose; the,defendant then entered the house and the police followed without knocking. The circumstances surrounding the po- lice entry in the case at bar are almost identical to those in Murphy except that appellant herein indicated a refusal to ad- mit the officers by beginning to struggle. When the police accompanied appellant into the house, the issue of whether admittance * Pursuant to stipulation, see California Constitu- 171 CalApp3d 1018 was to be granted or denied had been de- cided; no purpose would have been served by requiring the police to knock on the front door. DISPOSITION The judgment of conviction is affirmed. KLEIN, P.J., and DANIELSON, J., con- cur. 171 Cal.App.3d 1225 j_Roger CREIGHTON, et al., Petitioners and Appellants, v. Kathleen REVICZKY, City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach, Respondent and Respondent. Civ. 8008808. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3. Sept. 9, 1985. Petitioners filed for writ of mandate to compel city clerk to file and process munici- pal referendum petition opposing city coun- cil's adoption of zoning ordinance The Superior Court, Los Angeles County, A. Gorenfeld, Temporary Judge,' denied writ, and petitioners appealed. The Court of Appeal, Danielson, J., held that: (1) petition was invalid as violation of Elections Code, and (2) fact that city clerk wrote letter stating belief that petition comported with Elections Code requirements did not estop city from denying validity of petition. Affirmed. 1. Municipal Corporations 4=108.10 Each section of municipal referendum petition must contain entire text of ordi- nance, or portion of ordinance, which is lion, article VI, section 21. 1226 171 Ca subjec Elec.( 2. Mu P § 405 petiti< tents 3. Mi F sougl Cal.E refer mind, endui 4. M 1 acro: taine issue tire nanc. West 5. E,1 petit endt Petit quir valk COM: vise tise appl ing erni 6. } gov afro ven tor3 JIC era V Brt An. )18 de - 'ed he ad. )n - "a ..L=ZS 1e �i- ie t, •f n r h p f 3 3 171 Cal.App3d 1228 subject of referendum. EIec.Code § 4052. 2. Municipal Corporations 48=108.10 Purpose of West's Ann.Cal.Elec.Code § 4052, governing municipal referendum petitions, is to reduce confusion as to con- tents of such petitions. 3. Municipal Corporations €'108.10 Hazard of confusion which legislature sought to reduce by enacting West's Ann. Ca1.Elec.Code § 4052, governing municipal referendum petitions, was confusion in minds of electors as to true import of refer- endum petitions they are asked to sign. 4. Municipal Corporations 4=108.10 Municipal referendum petition which across top of each section of petition con- tained number and title of ordinance in issue was invalid for failure to contain en- tire text of ordinance, or portion of ordi- nance, which was subject of referendum. West's Ann.Cal.Elec.Code § 4052. 5. Estoppel 48=62.4 Fact that city clerk gave to one of petitioners who circulated municipal refer- endum petition letter stating her belief that petition comported with Elections Code re- quirements did not estop city from denying validity of petition on basis of its failure to comply with Code, where clerk orally ad- vised petitioner of her lack of legal exper- tise and she provided him with copies of applicable Elections Code sections, includ- ing West's Ann.Cal.Elec.Code § 4052, gov- erning municipal referendum petitions. 6. Estoppel X62.1 Estoppel may not be applied against government if result would be to nullify strong rule of public policy or to contra- vene directly any constitutional or statu- tory limitations. CREIGHTON v. REVICZKY ate as 217 CaLRptr. 834 (Ca1.App, 2 plat 1985) West's Ann.Cal. DANIELSON, Associate Justice. atm j Kathryn Dunaway, Torrance, for petition- ers and appellants. Weiser, Kane, Hamer &Si Berkman, R. BruceTepper, Jr. and Louie L. Vega, Los Angeles,for respond: 835 Appellants Roger Creighton and others appeal from the judgment denying their petition for writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085) by which they sought to compel respondent Kathleen Reviczky, City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach, to file and process a referendum petition. We affirm the judgment. FACTS On June 26, 1984, the Hermosa Beach City Council adopted Ordinance Number 84-751, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH WHICH ADOPTS A SPECIFIC PLAN TO REGULATE DEVELOPMENT IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA BETWEEN 15TH AND 13TH STREETS AND THE STRAND AND HERMOSA AVENUE AS INDI- CATED ON EXHIBIT 1 MAP AND LE- GALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT 2." The .body of the ordinance set forth a plan for construction of a hotel/convention cen- ter complex in the affected area, including development standards, conditions of project approval, and provisions concerning alteration of public streets and amendment of the Iocal Coastal Plan, as well as enact- ment of a development agreement and ap- propriate Conditional Use permit. On July 24, 1984, appellants presented their petition, requesting the City Council to repeal or submit to the voters Ordinance Number 84-751, to the respondent City Clerk for filing. Across the top of each section of the referendum petition was printed the follow- ing: 1`To The City Council of Hermosa 1==s Beach, California "We, the undersigned, being duly qual- ified and registered voters of the City of Hermosa Beach; California, and consti- tuting not leas than 10% of those who are voters of said City,, hereby protest against passage of: City of Hernia Beach Ordinance Number 84751: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF' HER- MOSA BEACH WHICH ADOPTS A • 3 ' t a 836 217 CALIFORNIA REPORTER 171 CaLApp.3d 122 SPECIFIC PLAN TO REGULATE DE- ! i VELOPMENT IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA BETWEEN 15TH AND 13TH ; 1 STREETS AND { THE STRAND AND HERMOSA AVENUE AS INDICATED ON EXHIBIT 1 MAP AND LEGALLY i DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT 2. x "We request that the City Council re- consider the legislative act and repeal the same or submit the same to the voters at an election called for this as prescribed by law...." 3 c, ; 1, Pursuant to advice from the Hermosa Beach City Attorney, respondent refused to accept the petition for filing on the ground that it did not comport with the require- ments of Elections Code section 4052. The time for filing the petition expired on July 27, 1984. On August 15, 1984, appellants filed a petition in the Los Angeles County Superi- or Court seeking a writ of mandate to command respondent City Clerk to accept their petition for filing and to process ' it according to law. Respondent filed opposi- tion to the petition. In declarations supporting the petition for writ of mandate, persons who collected 4 signatures on the referendum petition stat- ed that they exhibited copies of the ordi- nance and/or explained its provisions to prospective signatories. In opposition, re- spondent City Clerk declared that although • she' did, at the instance of Paul Robinson (who is. one, of the persons who circulated .[1] The core issue presented by this I_ er). pleek over' the: ,prated. refer, appy m each.section of aImuaiei-. en+dtim pOtititsr'On June 19; '1984; prior to Pal referendum_ Petition must4oniain the paaaage ,of the ordinanceandentire text of the. o give him her of the or the portion written letter= stating_ her belief that O2', which is the anbject of the the petition comported- with the.Elections efereuunnw, , We hold that it' ust. cede requirements,.. she ahto. may is. That issue is governed by section;4ilt2 of formed Robinsonthat her opinion' was not , the Elections Code,''which waa•substantial- worth much because she..was` not a lawyer. 1Y re -written in 1982 to provide, hi pert t. ; Respondentstated that -she gave Robinson Part_as follows:.. copies of the pertinent portions of the Elec- "Across the top _ of . each . tions Code; includingpage of the section 4052. In add- referendum -petition there shall be print- r tion, respondentideclared 'that she received, ed the.followin �`tra. .f a � n who bad 'signet, the • " efere Against .an ordination ler• .,, re , .. g ,name. be removed' ',Paned byR t. r' . .- the�C�tq Counc'alb_ r t r r' �xr �i r All a.#. . r $r, v,‘ Gh ttk +hk _.,„-,..1 tY. t 1 ` 'E f i r} ',:t:',14; ' . f. t/lid q' f S, t 5h.. { 4''f• !w • f " F aW%O iiiiii' ++ Ft .. . kk ‘14) .l-:<;r61414 ]� `$q i i LY �� 1;0 1 f r. S &- -..ii 3, ",.. t Zg'" �f v ^ .• i } �+h�:. �'�' 7 er X71 w- c sr ". W - 444t' .4t . F 1. ' \.a `,?i � 1�: j r i,c4 ..f'a � k• r d•Yt .i 4, h r J. �' ",' h L 7` n Li....•s_ t ! b.AFf � , A F. + ff �'�' r• i l•tyti ' ',1" �'i*~','-f4:.* Y* r �sS� ' it; �' } S r f 'R ?+ 'F s..i ' ': ,. therefrom and claiming she had been misin- formed as to its import. According to respondent's declaration, the defect in the petition was called to her attention by the City Attorney on July 13, 1984, whereupon she immediately ad- dressed a letter to its circulators advising them "that a referendum petition must con- 1m twin the entire text of the ordinance, or portion thereof, that is the subject of the petition." The matter was heard on September 11, 1984, and on September 18, 1984, the supe- rior court made its order denying the peti- tion. Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal. CONTENTIONS Appellants contend that the purpose of the requirements set forth in Elections Code section 4052 was not frustrated by the defects in their.petition, which was therefore valid. Respondent contends the petition failed. to meet the statutory requisites for such a petition, and was therefore fatally defec- tive. Respondent also contends that the substantial compliance with the statute. claimed by appellants is not sufficient to lend validity to the petition. DISCUSSION a •. Ta, 228 . 1 171 Cal.App.3d 1231 on, her 13, ad- ing on- 929 or the 11, Pe- 2ti- of of ms by as ed to ec- he tte to lis ci- he on he of al- nt he rt- ce 4 CREIGHTON v. REVICZKY Cite as 217 Ca1.Rptr. 834 (C.LApp. 2 Dist. 1985) "Each section of the referendum petition shall contain the identifying number or title and text of the ordinance or the portion of the ordinance' which is the subject of the referendum." In designing their referendum petition appellants apparently read the third para- graph of section 4052 as meaning that each section of the petition must contain either the identifying number of the ordinance which is the subject of the referendum or, in the alternative, it must contain the title and text of that ordinance. That misinter- pretation of the statute was obviously 1230 shared1y the City Clerk. When appel- lants' representative, Mr. Robinson presented the petition to the City Clerk "... for review and technical correctness ..." the Clerk gave him a letter, addressed "To Whom It May Concern", stating that "It is of my opinion going over it with him [Robinson] that it appears to comply with the requirements of the Calif. Elections Code." As set forth above, the Clerk also told Mr. Robinson at that time, that her opinion was not worth much because she was not a lawyer, and that she then gave Robinson copies of pertinent sections of the Elections Code. These efforts of the City Clerk and the appellants, to comport with the requirements of the law were without fault. A careful analysis of section 4052, how- ever, demonstrates that appellants' inter- pretation is incorrect. When that section is examined in the light of its legislative his- tory, its place in the relevant statutory scheme, its role in implementing important public policy, and judicial decisions inter- preting related statutes, it is clear that it requires municipal referendum petitions to contain the entire text of the ordinance or portion thereof which is the subject of the referendum. [2] The legislative history of section 4052, though meager, makes it clear that one of its purposes is to reduce confusion asto the contents of referendum petitions. The 1982 amendments to section 4052 "... 837 are directed toward providing uniformity in the form of municipal referendum petitions and reducing confusion as to the contents of these petitions." (See: Assembly Office of Research analysis for Assembly Third Reading file, April 29, 1982.) Section 4052 is a part of Division 5 of the Elections Code, governing measures sub- mitted to the. voters. Division 5 includes, inter alia, chapters prescribing procedures for the exercise of the initiative and refer- endum powers in state, county, municipal and district elections. (Cal.Const., art. II, § 11.) Chapter 3 of Division 5, commenc- ing with section 4000, relates to municipal elections. It includes section 4052. Section 3515, relating to state elections, provides: "Any initiative or referendum pe- tition may be presented in sections, but each section shall contain a full and correct copy of the title and text of the proposed measure." Section 3701, relating to county initiative elections, requires by implication that the text of a proposed county ordinance be contained in an initiative petition. That section provides, in part: "Any proposed ordinance may be submitted to the board of supervisors by filing an initiative petition ... signed by not Less than the number of voters specified in this article." And sec- tion 3755, relating to county referendum elections provides, in part:_Che provisions 1931 of this code relating to the form of peti- tions, ... when an ordinance is proposed by initiative petition, govern the procedure on ordinances against which a protest is filed." Section 4001, relating to municipal initia- tives, provides in part: "Any proposed ordi- nance may be submitted to the legislative body of the city by a petition.... The petition may be in separate sections, .... The first page of each section shall contain the title of the petition and the text of the measure." Thus, we note that state and county ini- tiative or referendum petitions must con- t • 838 217 CALIFORNIA REPORTER 171 Ca1.App3d 1231 tain the text of the proposed or protested _Our Supreme Court, in Clark v. Jordan _Ain measure, and that municipal initiative peti- (1936) 7 Ca1.2d 248, 60 P.2d 457, has termed tions must also contain the text of the the initiative and referendum power, re - proposed measure. It is only section 4052, served by our electors in our constitution, relating to municipal referendum petitions, as a "most important privilege." The court which we must construe. there stated: "While we are of the opinion "In construing a statute, courts should that statutes dealing with the initiative ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as should be liberally construed to permit the to effectuate the purpose of the law.... exercise by the electors of this most impor- `Words must be construed in context, and that privilege, we are also of the opinion statutes must be harmonized, both internal- that statutes passed for the purpose of ly and with each other, to the extent poasi- protecting electors from confusing or mis- ble.' [Citation.'' (People v. Mobil Oil leading situations should be enforced." Corp. (1983) 143 Ca1.App.Q 1 261, 270, 192 (Id, a p. 252, 60 P.2d 457.) The court also found that a "short title" printed across Cal Rptr. 155.) "Statutory construction which leads to absurd consequences should the to of each page after the first page of be avoided." (GeJiakys v. State Personnel an initiative petition failed to substantially comply with the requirements of a statute Board (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 844, 860, 188 Cal Rptr. 305.) providing for such a " `short title, in not to exceed twenty words, showing the nature [3] In the case before us we have seen of the petition, and the subject to which it that the legislative relates."(P. 249, 60 P.2d 457.) The court g purpose in enacting the noted that the purpose of the statute was 1982 amendments to section 4052 was to "to give to the elector additional informs - reduce confusion as to the contents of ref- tion other than that afforded by the Consti- erendum petitions. It is clear that the haz- tution as to the nature of the petition which and -of confusion which the Legislature he is asked to the gently No elector can intelli- sought to reduce is the confusion in minds: of the electors as to the frac import gently exercise his rights under the initia- referenda= law without a knowledge _Qf the peti- f the re#erend petitions they are asked tion which he is asked to sign, and any to sign. The designation of the protested gh .: legislatit='� number only; as ippellants legislation which will increase. the facilities :;tbe_rseetioa, 'Weald create of she elector to acquire. such information., ban v.eom olind confusion ion the measure* is.well within the terms of the Constitution The r+equirement'that the petition must con- Wig' the enactment of provision to • tam the text, of_the' protested` regulation, as theilit onte the operationonof this of respondent the Constitution.' (Boyd ` v. . Jo:Ylari: - ,1 _. contends, reduce eonfu_ Mrs' >, to a,.praetieal minmmnm. This would �'( 2d) 468. [3b /1.2d 533] • • •)'� (Clack v. also construe the words of the statute . in Jordan,' supra, 7 Ca1.2d;at pp: 249-250, 60 context, anti would harmonize section 4052 P.2d'457... - with the other statutes which Make up' the In Myers v. Stringha�ii'(1925) '(10251.195 Cal scheme which the, Legislature• has pre. 672, 235 P. 448, the city charter of the City scribed for the exercise of the initiative and of Berkeley provided: " NO, ordinance 'shall '' re-enacted or • � referenduan powers 4; t � ►� � be revised, � �a�ilended by refer-. f '�,' , ,.. i ..- Yeids , i- , b ence Ito its title. only, .but the' ordinance to4r . • f 1ird' uence * berg re'enac o ' th n r l':... tc �, S' t to ,�a a � � �OT' �_ ' e 6p�� i�t1 n 0 4- i4.41 . 1 • tof 8', :fdent�njtaiamber\oftilan section ,. reof`t be,ainenil4 , or tri new- • ''; l � 11ri jataiTdtg•"alon� c'6l sectiofit r aelt)o s' 'lbr`,y • * veto, t�1 f 'mss~ ,`•�a Qf• �, yy ji, F added; r 4 ti. ; i a. j y�r� t '�, c)� ;!�+�)��, ' 't"' liiUifi�ty +y fva V+, �. J to � �" ;�' �}�' •k o1 ,giVl�itr'U714'i`�'�j .Qct; i ided SL ti , .r k C , f ,fr N C KY :.3 i , .. sec%on or,. r �, ° , t 1 '',"'j� �bf�i cam[•'' y •yam �• �s�►r r. 1 � � f� vF 7'. ,E ,... yew tri , • . {f, ,�,#,t, -•t 4 u{ii 19 ,, % e 4 # i" k ntf rf i.. 4,1* f;S aL .�� ' h bjj.'�•�v- +i'4'S Tr �w `R�~ 3'�"1(� �Tcy ' '� '�;��• .•.. 11.0-4k,.,$,,:_:„‘! ,k.. [[ # �l ' e M � f . ' a *.�`` .i-1.'-‘ '-1 r iy,� t } y t .; s T .Afx`, :..co -=...t , + 'A •i +t i •.• � . ,9 �, a�. Y. ' :t -4, -.‘?.:4, i ' ` s _ . v:. 1f,.� J/(y, t} .� w s ti- y `� �!` T r..' ,. td 3.} ;.- �{ '.yT ...� ,. i� �F'—.Y.1. Yui• , ,fi .?� .sr„,,,. a v �Y ^h a£..J'..5, [ +' V phi '-�, { e eC f Y }ei a1. :,7 er y, v..'+'%*. .At+.: 171 at cle do na na se Tl in ci Cf tl p: 1t. f: a 2 E 11!33 ..j 232 171 Cal.App.3d 1233 CREIGHTO Clte as 217 CaiRptr. at p. 675, 235 P. 448.) The Berkeley city clerk refused to examine an initiative peti- tion on the ground that the proposed ordi- nance attempted to amend an existing ordi- nance without setting forth the affected section in full as required by the charter. The court denied the proponents of the initiative a writ of mandate to compel the city council and city clerk to examine and certify the initiative petition, on the ground that it failed to comply with the charter provision, the clear purpose of which was "to compel an ordinance to disclose on its face something of its purpose and effect as a legislative enactment." (Id., at p. 675, 235 P. 448; see also Brosnahan v. Eu (1982) 31 Ca1.3d 1, 12, 181 Cal.Rptr. 100, 641 P.2d 200 (conc. and dis. opn. of Mosk, J.).) N v. REVICZKY 839 834 (CaLApp. 2 Dist. 1985) from the petition, alleging she had been misinformed as to its purpose. [5, 6) There remains a question whether respondent is estopped from denying the validity of the petition by reason of the letter she gave to Robinson. In Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 206, 195 Cal.Rptr. 67, the court stated, at page 215, 195 Cal.Rptr. 67: "No estoppel case we have found has even hint- ed that the doctrine could be used to over- ride legislative requirements for refer- endum petitions where signature gatherers have received erroneous advice about the law." The court went on to distinguish Assembly v. Deukmejian, supra, 30 CaL3d 638, 180 Cal.Rptr. 297, 639 P.2d 939, where the Supreme Court permitted a referendum to take place despite the fact that petitions supporting the referendum asked signers to give their voter registration addresses rather than their residence addresses, bas- ing its decision upon "evidence that the same mistake had infected numerous im- portant statewide initiative measures presented to the voters from 1978 through 1980," and expressly limiting its holding to the "unusual and unique circumstances" of that case. (Board of Supervisors v. Supe- rior Court, supra, 147 Cal.App.3d at p. 215, 195 CaLRptr. 67.) The court in Board of Supervisors found no such unusual and unique circumstances, and none are present here. Respondent's` uncontradicted decla- ration established that she orally advised Robinson of her lack of expertise; more- over, she provided Robinson with copies of the applicable Elections Code sections, in- cluding section 4052. Our role is to insure the correct application of section 4052 and to "prevent an unwarranted extension of the estoppel doctrine to a case where the party asserting the theory had no basis for relying upon the advice given by the public agency." (Id, at p. 216, 195 CaLRptr. 61.) - Estoppel willnot beapplied against the government if the result:'would be to. nutli- • fy a strong rule of public policy or_ to - contravene directly any constitutional 'or statutory limitations. (People Ex. ReL [4] In the case before us, the refer- endum petition failed to provide the electors with the information which they needed in order to exercise intelligently their rights under the referendum law. .E233 lyre find to be without merit the conten- tion of appellants that the purposes of sec- tion 4052 were not frustrated by the de- fects in their petition and that, therefore, the petition was valid. "A paramount concern in determining whether a petition is valid despite an al- leged defect is whether the purpose of the technical requirement is frustrated by the defective form of the petition." (Assembly v. Deukmejian (1982) 30 Ca1.3d 638 652, 180 Cal.Rptr. 297, 639 P.2d 939.) Here, the petition utterly failed to apprise prospec- tive signers of the substantive provisions of Ordinance Number 84-751. It follows that the purpose of Elections Code section 4052 was in fact frustrated by the defective form of the petition. The declarations sub- mitted in support of, and in opposition to, the petition for writ of mandate support this ' conclusion. Despite- the proponents' claimsthat they orally. advised:prospective•. signersof the .ordiioanoe.pr,oviaions, at least one person -sought removal of her name . ,J:;:�f �k�� t": :' 4 i s 4- 223 CsLApp.3d 962 BILLIG v. VOGES Cite as 273 Cal.Rptr. 91 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 1990) ;arily turn on a showing of particular con- testable facts, for which evidentiary proce- dures are best adapted. (People v. Ra- mirez, supra, 25 Ca1.3d at pp. 273, 275. 158 Cal.Rptr. 316, 599 P.2d 622; San Jose Po - ac( Officers Assn. v. City of San Jose. rapra, 199 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1482-1483, :15 Cal.Rptr. 728; Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, supra, 367 U.S. at p. 888, 81 Ct. at p. 1745.) Second, to require the :beriff to conduct an evidentiary hearing to the circumstances of Nichols' arrest Mould impose fiscal and administrative bur- ,iens which would interfere with the effi- rieney of the sheriffs primary responsibili- :iis of fighting crime. (See San Jose Po - 'ice Officers Assn. r. City of San Jose, rpra, 199 Cal.App.3(1 at pp. 1485--1486, :.tri Cal.Rptr. 728.) ;1s to factor (3). Nichols' dignitary inter - 6t in learning of the grounds for the deci- mon and telling his side of the story. the :,trading admits that respondents informed opallante of the grounds for the decision. Nichols has an opportunity to "tell his side .;f the story" in a written application for a now license (Pen.Code, § 12051), which in ely event would' be required upon-expira- t;etn of the old. Considering all the factors, we conclude the due process clause of the California ioetitution did not require the sheriff to id a hearing on revocation of Nichols' ;xense to carry a concealed firearm. Failure to Exercise Discretion (71 Citing Salute v. Pitches4, supra, 61 cal.App.3d 557, 132 Cal.Rptr. 345, appel- lants- contend- respondents -wrongfully "re- fused,to -exercise their discretion:, In -Sa- ;IA itwas°admittedthat the . sheriff- had:a. 'feied.policy- of_ notgranting applications' nia section 12050. • The court held that a ,crit of maiidite woukLhe to compel the sleridf.'to exercise discretion on an individu: si b uii:on civery'application' under: section ma (ltd.. at- pp.:.560-5561,-132-Cal.Rptr. 3133 Appellants' reliance on Salute is. mis- placed: Appellants' theory is that "by not ao comprehensive as to preclude any possibility , of error. The Due Process Clause simply docs Dai tnaridatc that -gall g vernnientai decis jon. 91 making an investigation" and "by not con- ducting an inquiry" or hearing, respon- dents failed and refused to exercise discre- tion. This argument is contradicted by the pleading, which clearly alleges that respon- dentsjt4„ relied upon infortnation from the Los Angeles police concerning Nichols' in- dividual circumstances. Respondents obvi- ously exercised their discretion based on that. information, and as we have discussed, respondents were not required by due pro- cess to conduct a further hearing. Declaratory Relief Finally, a separate cause of action la- beled "Declaratory Relief" requested a dec- laration "that the revocation of plaintiff Robert Nichols' license to carry a concealed weapon is a nullity, or in the alternative, that said revocation he stayed pending a full and fair hearing." This opinion can serve as a declaration (Newby r. Alto Riv- era Apartments (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 288, .304, 131 (.al.Rptr. 547) that Nichols is not entitled to any such relief: The order of dismissal is affirmed. BOREN and TURNER, 'JJ., concur. 223 Cal.App.3d 9o2 :Melanie C. BILLIG, Allen K. Settle et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants. v. Pam VOLES. City Clerk of the City of San Luis Obispo,. Defendant and Respondent. Civ. No. 8044211. • Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six. Aug. 13, 1990. Publication Ordered -Sept. 7, 1990. • Referendum petition challenging re- zoning ordinance was rejected by city -clerk making comply with -standards thatassure per- fect, error -free determinations"' t a h tie J: R• t , f.. . r ! __w{ ¢_ t�.. 3t aAf yvr f . ' 1 - J'1 P' 1' ..i7y 7y, ; t, ,,,... 'ai r a.' ,, c t #'f 2:r qty ,.X,'err, ".'�.ri , 4.r ' r /.1' f.0 > {� ) ,. fJ.'ty ur�1 'Y fit- � . wv .,^� .,b, e.. n4 %, tc�.lf'L�L'1' ` a .. i;,,,.,,,'..t--1;4..'i'at--" '�.n .CG, b; 'r'''' },8., *jr ..,,V.5 r 4r7,1:1-::' r�1`' ':. l 4x�.., • ..*a. ''. " �',i• , `c 4t �, rd<1 t . ;�i.._ r:lam .F ,1 r b; > :er t t .z 11� r- 4,:,41-4 � ; > ¢ t r r`- 9f ti1,: f e 4 F'-" , r rY i `:aF l; a x . �i ,o#�- ,•sat fStt` ` it S, 4�? . c ..A�,ii'A�k1i'".i�'. .,�i: tC Lg• So SrLf!j d� r*x :Y '' yy, ^. - M �wtit3t`3 4 a t • • 1 t, t 92 273 CALIFORNIA REPORTER on ground that petition did not comply with statute requiring that referendum petition include "text" of challenged statute. Peti- tioners sought writ of mandate. The Supe- rior Court, County of San Luis Obispo, No. 66404, Harry E. Woolpert, J., denied the writ, and petitioners appealed. The Court of Appeal, Steven J. Stone, P.J., held that: (1) statutory requirement that referendum petition contain "text" of challenged ordi- nance was not satisfied by inclusion of published summary of ordinance which ap- peared in local newspaper; (2) statute's silence regarding city clerk's enforcement authority did not mean that clerk was limit- ed to determining only whether refer- endum petition was signed by requisite number of voters; and (3) enforcement of statute did not interfere with First Amend- ment protections. Affirmed. 1. Municipal Corporations 4=108.10 Statutory requirement that refer- endum petition contain "text" of chal- lenged ordinance was not satisfied by inclu- sion of city's published summary of ordi- nance that had appeared in local newspa- per. West's Ann.Cal.Elec.Code § 4052. 2. Statutes 4=+181(1) In construing intent of Legislature, court first looks to language of statute itself, and if language is clear and there is no uncertainty as to intent, court looks no further. 3. Municipal Corporations 4x108.10 Technical defects in referendum peti- tions will not invalidate them if they sub- stantially comply with statutory require- ments. 4. Municipal Corporations 4:+108.10 - In determining whether referendum petition is valid despite technical defect, paramount concern is whether defective form of petition frustrates purpose of tech- nical requirement. 5. Municipal Corporations es+108e10 Although statute requiring that refer endure; petition- contain. "text" of chal- leriged:.ordrnance was silent regarding any 223 Cai.App.3d 962 authority bestowed on city clerk to enforce the statute, clerk's authority was not there- by limited to determining only whether ref- erendum period was signed by requisite number of voters; rather, clerk had clear ministerial duty to refuse to process peti- tion which did not comply with statutory procedural requirements. West's Ann.Cal. EIec.Code § 4052. 6. Administrative Law and Procedure X330 Administrative agencies, including public officials in charge of such agencies, are expressly forbidden from declaring statutes unenforceable, unless appellate court has determined that particular stat- ute is unconstitutional. West's Ann.Cal. Const. Art. 3, § 3.5. 7. Municipal Corporations 4:3,108.10 City clerk's rejection of referendum pe- tition on advice of acting city attorney that petition did not comply with statute requir- ing that referendum petition contain "text" of challenged ordinance was warranted; the statute involves mere procedural re- quirements for submitting referendum peti- tions, so the clerk had not impermissibly made a decision based on validity of peti- tion's subject matter. West's Ann.Cal. Elec.Code § 4502. 8. Constitutional Law 4=90.1(1.2) Municipal Corporations 4x108.10 Enforcement of statute requiring that referendum petition contain "text" of chal- lenged ordinance did not interfere with First Amendment protections, although pe-, titioners claimed that refusal to' process petition which did not incl(yde full text of ordinance infringed on their right to peti- tion government which was form of free speech; city clerk merely followed dictates of statute by refusing to process petition, and statute does not regulate content or subject matter of petitions. West's Ann. Cal.Elec.Code § 4052; U.S.C:A. Const. Amend. 1. .1163Michael T. Nolan, for plaintiffs and appellants:_ 223 Ca Lyot Luis C for de STE App Settle denyir. which Clerk enduir counci Facts On City 1135.. rezon (level( in tht corpo! "Co" affect tain findir pellar circul its a(: On • their Sporn. the p CI' Pc. un( the Cit off pre ad( No Folio • City . 22 pi• inclu mart'• in th, right •Exhi'. '-marc. • e :oItyam; t,.��' -s {4 k - �L :.1 Ley •to �� r:.. . �, ! e 'lr;( , c�c u a sit w � F r I. rt, titti° 4444°1 444 `T �, � ,c a,45 tetArs. s . t � - 4 8 .t i9 4 � ti esf s.•s �%t akK yrL. ,� � a z 4 ? • 4. 1 962 "orce lere- • ref- isite 'leer Peti- tory Cal. lure ling ing late tat- pe- hat at- Ix- hat t il•- ed; re• .ply al. BILLIG v. VOGES ate u 273 CaLRptr. 91 (Cal.App. 2 Dbt. 1990) "Section 1 of the Ordinance states: 'That the zoning map shall be amended as shown on Exhibit "B".' Section 3 states: 'The proposed zoning and preliminary plan, PD 1418 is approved subject to the findings and conditions listed in Exhibit "D".' We request that Sections 1 and 3 and the ordinance be entirely repealed by you, or submitted to a vote of the people at a regular or special election." Appellants did not include in their peti- tion section 2 of the ordinance, or Exhibits "C" and "D" which comprise the major portion of the ordinance. On May 4, 1989, respondent wrote appel- lants that she was rejecting the petition for filing on the advise of the acting city attor- ney who had determined it did not comply with Elections Code section 4052. Respon- dent's letter stated: "'Recent case law in- terpreting this statute indicates the full text of the ordinance or portion thereof which is iri issue must be circulated. The referendum petition has serious deficien- cies because the circulators chose to print only two sections of the ordinance, ... and omitting the full text of exhibits.... This material was necessary to provide citizens with crucial information in order to make a fully informed decision asto whether to support the referendum petition. Without this information, the petition does not meet the high standards set by State law to qualify as a valid referendum.' " uAppellants filed their petition for writ of mandate on May 11, 1989. They alleged therein that respondent had no authority to determine the validity of the text of their petition and that her ministerial :duty - was confined, to examining the signatures; af- fixed thereto.. Lyon & Picquet and Roger Picquet, San Luis Obispo, Jeffrey Jorgensen, City Atty., for defendant and respondent. STEVEN J. STONE, Presiding Justice. Appellants Melanie C. Billig, Allen K. Settle and others appeal from the judgment denying their petition for writ of mandate, which sought to compel respondent City Clerk Pam Voges to process their refer- endum petition and submit it to the city council. We affirm. Fbcts On March 21, 1989, the San Luis Obispo City Council adopted Ordinance Number 1135. The ordinance is a comprehensive rezoning measureietapproving mixed use development of certain city owned property in the downtown area. The ordinance in- corporates three exhibits, Exhibits "B," "C," and "D." Exhibit "B" is a map of the affected area. Exhibits "C" and "D" con- tain detailed environmental provisions, findings, and conditions for approval. Ap- pellants, who oppose the entire ordinance, circulated a referendum petition protesting its adoption. On April 19, 1989, appellants submitted their referendum petition (petition) to re- spondent for processing. Across the top of the petition was printed the following: "TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO: Pursuant to Elections Code 4061, we, the undersigned, more than ten percent of the number of registered voters in the City ging to the -County Clerk's last official report of registration hereby pmt this petition protesting your adoption on Mara:21,1989: of.Ordinance• No. 1135?' Folknwing the words, "The full text of the City Attorney's publiahea summary of the. 22 page Ordinance is'as`followsi" appellants f included twill of the city's published sum- mary:of-the ordinance which had'appeared in the local newspaper. Immediately to the t right of the summary was placed a -copy of 1 Bxhibit,"B." Immediately below the sum- Ch mar'y was printed:" • The trial . court denied the writ on the same ground used by respondent in re- using to process appellants' petition, insuf- f tcient compliance with section 4052. The court found, that two decisions interpreting he statute,. Creighton • v . Reviczky (1985) 71 Cal.App.3d 1225,.21'7 Ca1.Rptr.,834 and ase v.Brooks (1986) 187.Cal.App.3d 657, 232 Cal.Rptr. 65, were , eontrolling.' '•, 4.;j;r $iN E 'ti= tit 'eli 1' It' 11 t ,y rig � 4 x.• a rr: y u4 s ,�s . ��tis •� « �; C, ^i ` l� L M.. •- 4 ;`_ • l.Ik. +L '. _ �i uf. �.i � ir_. " i 94 273 CALIFORNIA REPORTER DISCUSSION The sole issue to be determined is wheth- er appellants failed to comply with section 4052 by not printing the entire text of the ordinance, including its exhibits, on their petition. Section 4052 provides in pertinent part: "Across the top of each page of the referendum petition there shall be printed the following: "'Referendum Against an Ordinance Passed by the City Council' • "Each section of the referendum petition shall contain the identifying number or title and text of the ordinance or the portion of the ordinance which is the subject of the referendum." r (Emphasis added.) Section 4052 applies to municipal refer- endums. It is part of division 5 of the Elections Code, which contains provisions setting forth procedures for the exercise of the initiative and referendum powers in state, county, municipal and district elec- tions. The Legislature is constitutionally empowered to adopt such provisions. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 11.) San Luis Obispo is a charter city. Al- though state laws pertaining to the proce- dures for exercising the initiative and ref- erendum powers do not apply to cities with charters (Cal. Const., art. II, § 11, art. XI, § 3, subd. (a)), the city's Charter Section 304 provides: "The provisions of the Elec- tions Code of the State of California, as the same now exists or may hereafter be amended governing the initiative, refer- endum and recall of municipal officers, shall apply to the use thereof in this City insofar as the provisions of the elections code are not in conflict with this Charter." This charter section makes applicable to the city the procedures governing the ini- tiative and refereedunlew powers which are contained, in the Elections Code. (See -Walker v City of Salinas (1976) 56 Cal. Appa3d:711, 714; 128 Cal.Rptr. S32.) The _issue'bef ne'thincourt;...whether;pur• suint; to section 4052'4 municipal ,refer - t. These portions of the statute are designated' as.. subdiirisions (a) aid (b) in an amendinent'effec-. 223 Ca1.App3d 963 endum petition must contain under each section the entire text of the ordinance, or the portion of it being challenged, was de- cided in Creighton v. Reviczky, supra, 171 Cal.App.3d 1225, 217 Cal.Rptr. 834. In Creighton, the appellants' referendum petition contained only the identifying num- ber and title of the ordinance. The appel late court determined that the language of section 4052 clearly requires municipal ref- erendum petitions to contain the entire text of the ordinance or portion thereof which is the subject of the referendum. (P. 1230, 217 Cal.Rptr. 834.) Stating it examined the statute's legislative history, Creighton con- cluded that the purpose of section 4052 is to reduce confusion as to the contents of referendum petitions in the minds of electors. ' (Id., pp. 1230, 1231, 217 Cal.Rptr. 834.) The appellate court found that, by failing to apprise prospective signers of the substantive portions of the challenged ordi- nance, the appellants' petition failed to pro- vide the electors with the Information they needed to intelligently exercise their rights under the referendum law, thereby frus- trating the purpose of section 4052. (Id, pp. 1232-1233, 217 Cal.Rptr. 834.) Creighton's holding was approved in Chase v. Brooks, supra, 187 Ca1.App.3d 657, 232 Cal.Rptr. 65. In that case, the appellant claimed that the referendum peti- tion failed to comply with section 4052 by not including mandatory caption language and the complete text of the challenged ordinance. In determining that the subject petition was fatally defective for not includ- ing the complete text of the ordinance on which the referendum was sought, the ap- pellate court agreed with the reasoning in Creighton on the basis of "the legislative history of section 4052, making it clear it was designed to reduce confusion as to the contents of referendum petitions and to promote thefull enlightenment of prospec- tive signers of .the substantive. provisions of a . challenged' ordinance, ... " (P. 862, 232 CaLRptr. 65:). The appellate oonrt stat ed that; where's petition: does=not:.comply Live January 1. 1990. 223 Ca with t desigr or threat cess, • tion. Apr sis in cause case c omiss public mine : the st protea —10,pe, that r proce plied of ti ordin [11 merit publi. ers a ordin, Gov.4 Pune! there tion : of ti are r refer 2. A t',n *cis P.2 Cln Sta tier prc pia tiw per der thi an: ger" Ink inf eu ab: 18' .lac` pr' ini • „ - r 7 . j';a' t��SP{,t1.44 1,..40S' as , ,•• tfsiVi 4 �r4 t `L e'n ➢[ /14t 01 c 4 171- 5F f 1tR6 +�fR4+�y� j s '4��i4 i,� � x /L„• ttr n 'r IC. ♦yy,, p, sal"`�id. _ ..�i�J �T x ��. vl �.r ' I BILLIG v. VOGES 223 Ca` Appy 967 Cite as 273 Cal.Rptr. 91 (Cai.App. 2 Dist. 1990) with the reasonable objectives of statutes designed to protect electors from confusing or misleading information, its deficiencies threaten the integrity of the election pro- cess, warranting a refusal to file the peti- tion. (P. 663, 232 Cal.Rptr. 65.) Appellants herein contend that the analy- sis in Creighton and Chase is faulty be- cause in construing section 4052 neither case discussed or considered: (1) "the clear a; omission in section 4052 to cloak a local t public officer with any authority to deter- mine if a referendum petition complies with the statute," and (2) the First Amendment protections inherent in a referendum jappetition.2 Appellants further contend that respondent should not have refused to .. r " . process their petition because they com- pliedwith section 4062 by including a copy of the city's published summary of the ordinance. IU Appellants' latter contention has no merit. They erroneously reason that a published summary, which notifies city vot- ers about the city council's approval of an ' ordinance prior to its final adoption (see Gov.Code, 0 36933, subd. (b)), has the same °`" function, as a referendum petition, and therefore the 'summary in the subject peti- tion suffices to inform prospective signers of the challenged ordinance. . Appellants are miring apples with oranges. Unlike a 'referendum, a Summary does not ask sppdiams' additional argument. that &sigh- .tamand e should not be followed since they tray on Clerk v. Jordan (1936) 7 CaL2d.248, 60 P.2d457., is without merit.. Appellants pate that • astir Waited the- rditsd of the Secretary of State to atibmit to thei'electors aproposed.uwia ''ate thnreforC threw* farmer cases' pwittpsit nii•ir tares', asiaiaay Appidlams ex- plain that. an lnftttitive.petition,. if found dsfec- tlYe.= OWL* rootitolttettL,While a referendum. petition is a Fotte_shot try,' which, if improperly Vit -denied. ;is forever' silenced, We fail to see: how 1.Ns fattest, spoilt Osigkroor's aid analysis. Thew cases relied On the .t 1eawa1 principle annsciated in Clark that stat-: , trtcs which are ***bed to give the voter' the Information; necessary -to intelligently exercise • elector tights arc oonstitiuional and enforce- able. (171 CaLApp.3d,1232, 217 Cai-Rptr, 834; 187 Cal:App.3d 663; 232 Ca1.Rpir• 6S.).;, Appel - lames provide no authority tar: their implied t only; to - toiv } It1I "I'h 4 I. • 'tet. k' 7-47 prepontioir that thio pnnciple j relav lttiliativedatd ' rpy Y•. tt •-, w F }J fit, } � r k:3 '. '; �n=.. t Ste- 41: PT47 95 electors to vote against the adoption of a particular ordinance, but is a mere notifica- tion of a prospective law which gives voters the opportunity to inquire further. On the other hand, because a referendum petition asks electors to make a decision about their acceptance or nonacceptance of a proposed ordinance, it requires that voters be fully informed of the substance of the chal- lenged measure so that the petition reflects the actual, informed will of the people. [2) Section 4052 requires that a refer- endum petition contain the "text" of the challenged ordinance. The word "text" is defined as "the original words and form of a written or printed work." (Webster's New Collegiate Dict. (9th ed. 1983), p. 1220.) In construing the intent of the Leg- islature, the court first looks to the lan- guage of the statute itself; if the language is clear and there is no uncertainty as to intent, the court looks no further. (State of California ex rel. Van de Kamp v. Texaco, Inc. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1147, 1182, 252 Cal.Rptr. 221, 762 P.2d 385.) Here, there is no uncertainty over the Legisla- ture's use of the word "text" It is obvious therefrom that the Legislature intended referendum petitions must contain the ex- act wording of the challenged measure. Appellants' summary is a mere several paragraph description or restatement of •the main points of the 22 page ordinance.' 3. The summary appearing in appellants' petition states: "On March 7, 1989, the San Luis City Council voted- 3-1� to intro., duce Ordinance No. 1135 (1989 Series which certifies the Final Environmental 1 ' e port, rezones es a cityovvnedk downtown. ;para}: from t'. 4rif'.to C-C�H-PD, and. approves the preliminary • development' plan fora five -story, mixed-use, commercial project -k viva as Court Street Center. '.(l The ordinance includes envi- ronmental .impact adtiption measures. and sets numerous conditions which must be met as part of the project's development.. Required condi- tions address land use compatibility, traffic and parking, utilities and public services,. visual and esthetic quality, geology, noise, and re- sourcecuhural_ protection. It also.cites public ,benefits.. of the project, including: onsite public parking, - public landscape amenities and. open space, public art gallery, utility, fire protection," and • street improvements; and improved A'coantner- •.cial and ri creational oppdrtgnnies in the dOWn. etCauncl!mini: nte:a�i(nco``ap•', t;Ctr1 • i t t iz 3s ticsr °' +r37.• �w Li+ kv; 96 273 CALIFORNIA REPORTER It does not constitute the text of the ordi- nance because it does not contain the mea- sure's actual words. [3, 41 „Technical difficiencies in refer- endum petitions will not invalidate the peti- tions if they substantially comply with stat- utory requirements. (Assembly v. Deukmejian (1982) 30 Ca1.3d 638, 652, 180 Cal.Rptr. 297, 639 P.2d 939.) In determin- ing whether a petition is valid despite a technical defect, a paramount concern is whether the defective form of the petition frustrates the purpose of the technical re- quirement. (Ibid.) Here, the defective form of appellants' petition violates the purpose of section 4052 because it does not furnish the information the statute re- quires, i.e., the text or language of the challenged law. (See Creighton v. Revicz= ky, supra, 171 Cal.App.3d 1233, 217 Cal. Rptr. 834; Chase v. Brooks, supra, 187 Cal.App.3d 664, 232 Cal.Rptr. 65.) We therefore do not agree with appellants that their petition complies with section 4052. Nor do we agree with appellants that the reasoning of Creighton and Chase is faulty based on the failure of those appellate courts to discuss whether a city clerk has the authority to refuse a petition pursuant to section 4052, and whether enforcement of the statute interferes with First Amend- ment protections. [51 As to point one, appellants argue that section 4052's silence regarding any authority bestowed on a city clerk to en- force the statute means that a city clerk's authority is limited to determining whether or not the referendum petition is signed by the requisite number of voters. (Elec. Code, §§ 4051 [petition signed by 10 per- cent of voters], 4053 [determination of number of signatures], 4054 [examination of signatures].) First of all, to accept appellants' argu- ment is to render the provisions of section 4052 null -and void. If, according to aiipel- tants, a petitionmust be accepted regard- less of"its compliance with -the statute, then the statute is unenforceable.. This- is tentatively scheduled for March 21 1989 su a.. cegula, City Council _ e eeting';to begin at'_ 00 p.m. =itr.the: Cmitti'1; ;o{,-. •1. 223 Cal.App.3d 967 Secondly, a city clerk's duty is limited to the ministerial function of ascertaining whether the procedural requirements for submitting a petition have been met. (Farley v. Healey (1987) 67 Cal.2d 325, 327, 62 Cal.Rptr. 26, 431 P.2d 650 [initiative petition].) Section 4052 involves purely procedural requirements for submitting a referendum petition. Therefore, a city clerk who refuses to accept a petition for noncompliance with the statute is only per- forming a ministerial function involving no exercise of discretion. [61 Thirdly, the absence of any lan- guage in section 4052 giving express au- thority to a city clerk to enforce its terms is unimportant. The very existence of the statute means it is there to be enforced, Administrative agencies, including public officials in charge of such agencies, are expressly forbidden from declaring stat- utes unenforceable, unless an appellate court has determined that a particular stat- ute is unconstitutional. (Cal. Const., art. 1II, § 3.5.) Section 4052 has not been de- clared unconstitutional by an appellate court in this state. Consequently, the of- fices of city clerks throughout the state are mandated by the constitution to implement and enforce the statute's procedural re- quirements. In the instant case, respon- dent had the clear and present ministerial duty to refuse to process appellants' peti- tion because it did not comply with the procedural requirements of section 4052. Appellants' reliance on Farley v. Healey, supra, 67 Ca1.2d 325, 62 Cal.Rptr. 26, 431 P.2d 650, and Yost v. Thomas (1984) 36 Ca1.3d 561, 205 Cal.Rptr. 801, 685 P.2d 1152 is misplaced. They cite these cases as au- thority for the proposition that a city clerk's authority is limited to calculating the number of signatures on a referendum petition. In Farley, the county registrar of voters refused to determine the sufficiency of signatures on an initiative measure which urged an immediate. American with- drawal from Vietnam.. in Yost, 'the city City Halla 990 Palm Street. 1181 Copies of the complete ordinance are available in the City Clerk's- Offtce'....' 223 Cal. clerk re tion on the sub; er.lnt• overrule do not h petition 827, 62 Ca1.3d P.2d 11 [7) 1 relied or ney tha section involver submitt sion wa ty of tl, As Far, the mil-, procedu (67 Cal. 650.) 1 had the lants' p valid or [8] . analysis First A • • .'w •- e �.., .• 4 ,! , !,`- t! 11 riOr 4y f, r i'.,�,, ;A.�y 1 . ?I' fit? `tt.�s. % 9� �y' •�. yb X i', t4't'Y{ +'M _ i - . •v'.i�. �s �Y ��,. � � ' y. .�.. r %06 i WP* .411.1 Pr hes ,;t,' ,• a . icy BILLIG v. VOGES 213 Cal App.3d 970 Clte as 273 Cal.Rptr 91 (Cal -App. 2 Dial. 1990) clerk refused to process a referendum peti- titan on the advice of the city attorney that the subject of the referendum was improp- er. In both of these cases, such action was overruled on the ground that local officials do•not have the authority to reject a voters' ,petition for its subject matter. (67 Ca1.2d 817, 62 Cal.Rptr. 26, 431 P.2d 650; 36 CaLBd 564, fn. 2, 205 Cal.Rptr. 801, 685 .P2d 1112.) Ih the present case, the city clerk iorned on the advice of the acting city attor- pe .°that the petition did not comply with iiietion 4052. However, since the statute im+olves Imere procedural requirements for snbmittmg referendum petitions, no deci- .eion was, made herein regarding the validi- ty`of the subject petition's subject matter. As Farley itself states, local officials have the ministerial duty to ascertain whether procedural requirements have been met. (67 Ca1.2d 327; 62 Cal.Rptr. 26, 431 P.2d 650) In this case, respondent city clerk had the ministerial duty to reject appel- lants' petition which was procedurally in- valid on Its face. 18] Appellants' other point, that an analysis of section 4052 should involve First Amendment considerations, is una- 97 vailing. Apart from appellants'_ ofailure to raise this issue in the trial court, it has no substantive merit. They claim that, by refusing to process their petition, respon- dent clearly infringed on their right to peti- tion the government which is a form of free speech. This argument is illogical in light of appellants' statement that they are not challenging the constitutionality of sec- tion 4052. By refusing to process their petition, respondent was merely following the dictates of the uncontested statute. Moreover, section 4052 does not regulate the content or subject matter of refer- endum petitions. By solely providing a procedure for the exercise of the refer- endum right, it is not a substantive restric- tion invoking First Amendment considera- tions. The judgment is affirmed. GILBERT and ABBE, JJ., concur. • <; , ( 2`f ��R. h 4 ar ta: yyn�4 P•,;; Z1'fF�.+r.�� P�.��• ? �+•; `""An ?ig: +�� 'i'7qi# •'„. ?, •4,4 � ,1 .,.gip • -.* - (, . .f• 41/ Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council January 11, 1993 City Council Meeting of January 26, 1993 APPROVAL OF LIABILITY CLAIMS LITIGATION DEFENSE ATTORNEY FIRM REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) AND APPOINTMENT OF A CITY COUNCIL • SUB -COMMITTEE TO REVIEW RESPONSES Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Approve the attached Request for Proposals (RFP) for Liability Claims Litigation Defense Attorney Firms; and 2. Appoint a sub -committee of the City Council to review submitted proposals and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding firms to be placed on a Litigation Defense Firm list. Background: At the October 13, 1992 City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to request proposals from law firms interested in providing general municipal liability litigation services to the City. Also at that meeting, the Council reaffirmed the current practice of assigning matters concerning such areas of law as zoning, land use and contract to Oliver, Barr & Vose and litigation involving police matters to the firm of Franscell, Strickland, Roberts & Lawrence. Analysis: It is proposed that, once approved, notice of the attached Request for Proposals will be advertised in the Easy Reader forwarded to identified firms which specialize in municipal as well as local law firms which have expressed an interest providing services to the City. and law in Following is a recommended timeline for soliciting proposals: * Jan 27, 1993 * Feb 4, 1993 * Mar 1, 1993 * Mar 2-9, 1993 * Mar 11, * Mar 23, - Send -notice -of- RFP to—identified firms - Notice in Easy Reader - Deadline for Proposals - Reference Checks 1993 - Review committee, consisting of Council sub -committee, City Manager & Risk Manager, reviews proposals, selects firms. 1993 - City Council approves Litigation Defense Firm list. Once the City Council has approved the list of litigation defense firms, that list will be forwarded to the City's Liability Claims Administrator for use when consulting with the City regarding assignment of a particular file. As indicated in the City's Liability Claims Litigation Management Policy, which is incorporated into and attached to the RFP by reference, a specific firm will be selected to represent the City against general municipal liability suits based on the nature and complexity of the case, the experience and ability of the attorney, as well as other relevant factors. Although the City Council has already indicated that cases involving those specialized areas of municipal law as noted above will continue to be handled by either Oliver, Barr & Vose or Franscell, Strickland, Roberts & Lawrence, staff will request that each of these firms respond to the RFP as there may be cases of general municipal liability which the City elects to have handled by one of these firms. The firm of Johnson & Vorwerck, which currently handles general liability cases for the City, will also be requested to respond. Placement of a firm on the City's Litigation Defense Firm list will not "guarantee" any one firm being assigned any Hermosa Beach file, but does allow local and other identified firms to be considered for assignment depending on the nature and complexity of the case and the particular firm's expertise. Alternative Recommendations: 1. Council appoint a sub -committee to review proposals and recommend firms to be interviewed by the Council as a whole. 2. Council appoint a sub -committee to review proposals and interview selected firms following which a recommendation will be forwarded to the Council for action. A schedule for defense firm interviews would be developed once it is known how many firms are recommended to be interviewed should the Council elect this alternative. Respectfully subti ted: /ktflat4a4! Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director Concur: Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager .'r REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR LIABILITY CLAIMS LITIGATION DEFENSE ATTORNEY FIRMS To All Interested Parties: The City of Hermosa Beach is seeking the professional services of qualified attorney firms to serve as City defense counsel for municipal/governmental tort litigation. Written proposals will be accepted by the City up until 2:00 p.m., Monday, March 1, 1993. Sealed proposals must be submitted to: Office of the City Clerk City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Five copies of the proposal are required. The proposals must be clearly marked "LIABILITY CLAIMS LITIGATION DEFENSE PROPOSAL." The City will review written proposals and reserves the right to select those firms which appear to be most qualified to provide general municipal/governmental tort litigation services to the City. Proposals will be evaluated by a committee consisting of a sub -committee of the City Council, the City Manager and the City's Risk Manager. The evaluation committee's recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council and, following their ap- proval, approved firms will be placed on a Litigation Defense Firm List from which the City will select firm(s) to handle the defense of the City in legal actions brought against it concern- ing general municipal/governmental tort liability issues. The City will retain the sole and exclusive right to select a firm(s) from the approved Litigation Defense Firm List -based solely on the criteria expressed in the attached Liability Claims Management Policies and Procedures. Placement on the Litigation Defense Firm List does not guarantee that any firm will receive assignment as defense counsel in any litigated matter nor shall the City be limited to selecting a firm from the Litigation De- fense Firm list for matters which, in the opinion of the City, require -a -level of -legal expertize available from a firm not pre- viously identified by inclusion on the list. City Background: The City of Hermosa Beach was incorporated in 1907 and is a General Law City under the Council/Manager system. It is located in Los Angeles County five (5) miles south of Los Angeles Inter- national Airport. 1 The City has been self-insured for liability claims since 1979. Excess liability insurance coverage, above the City's $100,000 S.I.R., is provided through the Independent Cities Risk Manage- ment Authority (ICRMA). The City employs approximately 166 full time and 60 part time employees with an estimated payroll of $X.X million. The City of Hermosa Beach is a full service City, including Police (40 sworn), Fire (18 sworn), Street maintenance, Equipment Service, City Planning, Building Inspection, Personnel Administration, Risk Management, and Municipal Finance Services. The City con- tracts for refuse pick-up, landscape maintenance and janitorial services. During the preceding five (5) year period, there has been an average of forty (40) claims per year filed against the City with an annual average of seven (7) claims proceeding to litigation. Firms interested in submitting a response to this Request for Proposals should review the attached City of Hermosa Beach Liability Claims Management Policies and Procedures. Minimum Proposals Requirements Submitted proposals shall include responses to the following: 1. The names of all professionals who will be assigned the de- fense of litigated claims and an outline of the general educa- tional background and general experience in the practice of law for each identified attorney who is proposed to handle tort litigation for the City; 2. The names of other professionals (partners, associates, law clerks, paralegals, etc.) who will assist in the defense of tort litigated cases and an outline of the general educational back- ground and general experience in the practice of law for each individual so identified; 3. An outline of experience in providing legal services to municipalities and/or other governmental agencies, including names of agencies and types of services provided; 4. An outline of experience in providing civil litigation legal services involving personal injury/property damage; 5. Are you or your firm currently involved in any litigation with the City of Hermosa Beach? If yes, please provide an explanation. 6. Professional References; 7. A statement acknowledging that the firm has reviewed the at- tached Liability Claims Management Policies and Procedures and agrees to comply with same should they be selected to provide legal services; 8. Hourly rate for providing legal services. 9. Do the hourly rates include all administrative and overhead costs, such as work processing and telephone charges? Indicate work charges which are not included in the above hourly rate(s), inlcuding reimbursable costs. Also indicate in-house charges for costs such as photocopying, fax, etc. 11. What are the billing increments for the hourly rate(s)? Notice: 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 selec- tion -or to pay any costs incurred in the preparation for submis- sion of proposals. Costs incurred are the sole responsibility of the proposer. All proposals will become the property of the City of Hermosa Beach subject to the disclosure law. Interested parties may contact: Mr. Robert A. Blackwood, Director Personnel & Risk Management 1315 Valley Drive, Room 203 Hermosa BEach, CA 90254 (310) 318-0202 Thank you. Albert Wiemans Mayor contract/atty2 ADMINISTRATIVE MEMORANDUM / TO: LIABILITY DEFENSE COUNSEL FUNCTION: LEGAL FROM: Robert A. Blackwood N0. L-3 Risk Manager SUBJECT . LIABILITY CLAIMS LITIGATION MANAGEMENT POLICY The'following sets forth the City's policies and procedures relating to liability claim litigation. I DEFENSE COUNSEL A. Selection. Defense counsel for each case shall be selected by the City after consultation with the Claims Administrator. The assignment shall -be based on the nature and complexity of. the case, the experience and ability of the attorney, as well as other relevant factors. . B. Terms. Prior to appointment as defense counsel for the City, the following shall be provided to the City: 1. A written statement that he/she have reviewed the City's Litigation Management Policy guidelines and will comply with the City's policies and procedures - relating to litigation (including billing procedures. 2. The names of other professionals (partners,. -- associates, law clerks, paralegals, etc.) who will assist in the defense of litigated cases. The hourly rate and functions to be performed by each professional shall also be provided. 3. Within five (5) days of receipt of the file, the attorney shall review the file, provide written verification of receipt, and shall advise: a. If he/she does not have the requisite ability to handle the matter assigned; b. If he/she will not have the time available to properly represent the insureds, including preparation and attendance at all depositions, hearings and trial; - 1 - ISSUED : January 11, 1993 REVISED : c. If the attorney and/or law firm to which he/she belongs have ethical or legal conflicts that would disqualify him/her from representing the City in the pending litigation. II CASE ANALYSIS, STRATEGY AND BUDGET Within thirty (30) days following receipt of a case, defense counsel shall prepare and send to the City and its Claims Administrator all of the following: A. Analysis:. A comprehensive written analysis of the case. This analysis shall provide the initial evaluation of the case, including a brief synopsis of the facts of the case, an analysis of plaintiff's injuries, damages and exposures in the case, arid identification of the strengths and weaknesses of the case. Counsel shall also provide an initial impression of liability and identify the pertinent statutes and/or case law that may affect the outcome of the litigation. B. Investigation. Defense counsel shall identify any additional information or documentation that is needed to — disprove the plaintiff's claims or to establish defenses in the action. Whenever possible, this investigation and information -gathering shall be done bk the City's Claims Administrator or the City. C. Strategy. Defense counsel shall define the strategy to be used in defending each lawsuit, including: 1. The anticipated course of action to be taken (i.e. motion to dismiss, motion for summary judgement, negotiated settlement, trial, etc.) and prospect for success. 2. The facts or elements which must be proved or disproved and the discovery necessary to establish these defenses or proof. 3. The timing of the discovery, filing of motions, - negotiations or other objectives. 4. A description of how the work will be distributed among -those -who will -be -working on the case.• 5. The tactics to be used in defending the case and the advantages to be gained by use of these tactics. D. Budget. Defense counsel will also provide an estimate of the anticipated cost of each significant aspect of the litigation, including: 1. Discovery/Litigation expenses up to trial 2. Outside expert expenses through trail 3. Trial expenses 2 III COMMUNICATION f A. Correspondence and pleadings. Copies of all correspondence and pleadings (when requested) shall be promptly provided by defense counsel to the City and its Claims Administrator and to each of the defendants represented by said counsel (and ICRMA when the case meets excess reporting criteria). Defense counsel will promptly respond to all letters or phone calls and will keep the City and its Claims Administrator (and ICRMA when the case meets excess reporting.criteria) fully advised of the progress in each case. B. Depositions and hearings. Depositions will be scheduled by defense counser to permit the attendance of a representative of the City as well as each of the defendants represented by said counsel (and ICRMA when the case meets excess reporting requirements). Immediately upon receipt, notice of all hearings shall be sent by defense counsel to the City and to each defendant (and ICRMA when the case meets excess reporting requirements) to allow them to attend the hearing. C. Evaluations. Upon request and at such other times as deemed necessary, defense counsel shall provide written or oral evaluations of the litigation. These evaluations shall disclose any weaknesses or strengths that have been discovered, any changes in applicable statutes or case law, any increase or decrease in anticipated costs, and (if possible) the potential liability and settlement value of the case. These evaluations should be as straight -forward and as objective as possible to allow the City and its Claims Administrator to meaningfully analyze the case and to determine the course of action to be taken. IV. SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY Defense counsel shall not settle any lawsuit or make a settlement offer in any amount without prior authorization of the City. V.' LEGAL BILLINGS All bills for legal services and costs shall be submitted at least quarterly. Fees and costs shall be billed at the rates previously agreed upon. All bills shall state with particularity the legal work performed, the hours expended to perform the work and the costs incurred. Attorneys submitting the bills for payment are responsible for the content of the bills and will work with the City and its Claims Administrator to resolve problems or answer questions. 3 Legal fees' will not be paid unless submitted in the following format: Each legal activity will be dated and itemized (multiple daily descriptive explanations of activities with a single time entry is not acceptable). The initials of the attorney who completed the itemized tasks must be included with the entry. The amount of time to complete the task must be broken down into tenths of hours. The rates charged by each attorney working on the case must be summarized with the amount of hours to depict a cost per attorney. VI. TRIAL REPORT At the conclusion of all trials, a brief summary trial report should be directed to the City and its Claims Administrator outlining the trial results. VII. FINAL REPORTS At the conclusion of the case, a short summary report should be directed to the City and its Claims Administrator. Original closing papers and the final billing should be attached. Within ninety (90) days following the termination of each lawsuit, the City will review the file to determine compliance with the City's guidelines and the strategy and budget developed for the case. If appropriate, a meeting - will be arranged to discuss perceived problems and/or ways to improve defense of City claims. Robert A. Blackwood, Director Personnel & Risk Management rab/litman Frederick R. Ferrin CityManager ee- January 20, 1993 Honorable Mayor and Member of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council January 26, 1993 SUBJECT: IN-HOUSE PUBLIC NOTICING INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL PURPOSE: EXAMINE DOING PUBLIC NOTICING IN-HOUSE RATHER THAN UTILIZING THE SERVICES OF A CONTRACTOR Recommendation Direct staff as deemed appropriate. Background At the January 12, 1993 City Council meeting, the City Council examined a contractor's requested amendment to the current contract, and directed staff to assess the feasibility of doing public noticing in-house. Analysis HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE The City at one time required each applicant to do their own noticing and to sign an affidavit swearing they did so. This system was determined a failure since many complaints were received about not receiving a notice. Also the amount of staff time to show an applicant how to use the assessor's property owner roll books was excessive and had to be repeated with each new applicant. Serious accusations against the City were not uncommon. The public's trust in the City's public noticing was very low.. The implication that there was a deliberate attempt not to send some or all the property owners a public notice was made on numerous occasions. Approximately—three-years ago, staff made a formal request that the City change its method of public noticing. The plan was to contract for public noticing and charge the applicant a fixed fee, thereby eliminating any cost to the City. The City Council approved the resolution changing the method of public noticing, and approved contracting for public noticing services. Since an outside contractor took on the task of public noticing, complaints have diminished dramatically. Accurate, comprehensive and timely public noticing is absolutely essential to the public hearing process. It is clear that placing the responsibility on - 1 - the applicant was an abortive attempt to lessen the City's role in the process, yet it is the City's ultimate responsibility. City staff could do the job, but not without significant cost to other projects and planning functions which would suffer potentially disastrous delays or deletions. The best solution was the privatization of this function. IN-HOUSE VS CONTRACTOR The following is an estimate in-house operation including man-hours per month has been Administrative Aide's hourly of all the costs associated with an start-up cost. Also the amount of calculated (costs based upon salary rate): Start -Up Cost Modem installation Direct line installation One-time subscription Monthly Cost/Man-hours $100 Not available at time of printing $200 Needed per Public Notice Man -Hours Data compilation time and cost 6 Field check tenant/business data 1 Folding and labeling (Assume label by computer) 30 min. Photocopying time (Assuming no break -downs) 12 min. Postage and copies (based on average of 230 notices) $50 monthly DataQuick service fee (Based on an average of 6 projects per month) Use of DataQuick services (Based on 30 minutes per project at $0.60 a minute; 1st hour per month free; 6 projects per month) Cost $106.74 $17.79 $8.90 $3.55 $80.50 $8.33 $12.00 Total man-hours per project/cost 7 hr. 42 min. $237.81 2nd Notice Folding, labeling and copy time Postage and copy Total man-hours per project/cost 42 min. $12.45 $80.50 42 min. $92.95 Total Man-hours per Month Average of 6, 1st notices per month Average of 1, 2nd notice per month 46.2 hrs. 42 min. Total man-hours per month 46.9 hrs. From the above data, it can be seen that the actual cost for in-house public noticing is approximately the same, or a little less than contracting the service. However, the number of man-hours is significant. Based on the number of tasks and amount of time needed at this time for the Administrative Aide to carry out her duties, there would be a need to prolong the applicant's time to have a public hearing or hire additional part time help. The following is a listing of the Administrative Aide's current tasks: 1. Planning Commission packets 2. Staff review packets 3. City Council reports for packets 4. Logging applicant submittals 5. Maintaining, organizing and updating files 6. Distributing plans to other departments 7. Providing information to applicants 8. Checking applicant submittals for completion/accuracy 9. Typing staff reports/memos 10. Answering telephone and counter inquiries 11. Tracking employees vacation, absences, etc. 12. Tracking revenue and expenditures to maintain budget parameters, and calculating budget projections 13. Preparing noticing letters and newspaper ads 14. Scheduling and tracking Planning Commission, City Council, and Environmental Review Committee agendas 15. Overseeing and checking public noticing contractor's work 16. Maintaining tickler file 17. Attending computer and other training sessions 18. Attending staff meetings 19. Maintaining and purchasing office supplies 20. Preparing purchase orders 21. Preparing quarterly reports for transportation grants 22. Providing data for auditors 23. Preparing activity reports 24. Preparing payroll Attempting to determine what each of the above tasks requires in terms of time would be at best a "guesstimate" since no effort has been taken to keep track. However, it can be said with absolute certainty that the Administrative Aide seldom has a free moment. It is by far the most "busy-work!!A ob—in the department. The bottom line is that the Planning Department's Administrative Aide position is by far the most demanding Administrative Aide position in City Hall. Two previous Administrative Aides requested transfers to other positions in the City solely because of the work load, i.e. the quantity, complexity, accuracy, and time frame demands that must be met were overwhelming. Further, this situation is not unique to Hermosa Beach. In the past, when either the Planning Commission or City Council requested an item which required public noticing, such as a zone change, literally the entire department has had to get involved. The notion that - 3 - the Administrative Aide could do it all, and still carry on the day to day functions is not realistic. An important factor to remember is that the cost of the contractor is recovered from the applicant. The new proposal by the current contractor is approximately $70 more, and include the use of City Hall facilities. However, the contractor is offering the updated computerized property owners address rolls for all the City's use (see above for monetary value). Also the contractor is reducing the cost of the second notice by $35 (for more details, see attached staff report). For your information, the following items need public noticing: 1. General Plan Amendments (Planning Commission and City Council) 2. Zone Changes (Planning Commission and City Council) 3. Height Limit Exceptions 4. Parking Plans 5. Precise Development Plans 6. Tentative Tract Maps 7. Variances 8. Conditional Use Permits 9. Appeals of items #3-8 above 10. Amendments to #3-8 above CON Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager Respectfully sub 'tted, ichael Schubach ' Planning Director Attachment 1. City Council staff report 1-12-93. p/ccsr300a January 5, 1993 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council January 12, 1993 SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC NOTICING REQUESTED BY CATHY SCHULTE, PUBLIC NOTICING CONTRACTOR REQUEST: 1. TO AMEND THE CURRENT CONTRACT REGARDING THE COST OF POSTAGE AND PHOTOCOPYING AND TO USE THE CITY'S PLANNING DEPARTMENT OFFICE DURING WORKING HOURS. ALSO LOWER THE SECOND NOTICE/APPEAL CONTRACT CHARGE TO ONLY THE COST OF THE COPIES AND POSTAGE. OR 2. TO RAISE THE CONTRACT AMOUNT BY $70 FOR THE FIRST NOTICE, AND ALLOW THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OFFICE TO BE USED DURING WORKING HOURS. ALSO LOWER THE SECOND NOTICE/APPEAL CONTRACT CHARGE TO ONLY THE COST OF THE COPIES AND POSTAGES. Recommendation Staff recommendation in priority order is as follows: 1. Approve request No. 1 above. 2. Approve request No. 2 above. 3. Direct staff to rebid public noticing contract and give the required 30 days termination notice to the contractor. Background The current contractor for public noticing has requested help with continuing to carryout the contract with the City. Analysis The current public noticing contractor is having difficulty staying in business now that the housing market has slowed. The amount of overhead has resulted in the contractor closing her office. Therefore, since she would like to continue to serve as public noticing contractor for the City. She would like to use her computerized upto-date-property owner information, which can be very useful to the City, on the PC computer in the Planning Department. All the City would be able to use it; she pays for this service. Ms. Schulte would like to utilize the photocopying machine and postage stamp machine in City Hall on Fridays to do the public noticing; it is possible to account for the use of paper and postage. The average cost to the City would be $13.80 for the copies, and $66.70 for the postage for a total of $80.50. However, Ms. Schulte does have a permit for first class presort postage which allows her cost to be reduced to $0.248 per stamp, or an average -5-- reduction of $9.66. Other City mailings could also be mailed at the lower cost if it was sent out at the same time. The City could obtain its own permit for presort mail for the discount, if desired. Also, the City can adjust the fee charged to the applicant to compensate for any additional cost. The alternative request to change from $230 for services to $300 would approximate the amount increase that would result in the first request. The third alternative the City has is to rebid this project which will be necessary if neither of the requests are acceptable. Staff believes that Ms. Schulte has done an excellent job for the City, and noticed a marked reduction in the number of complaints about not receiving a notice. Also, the proposed charge of $300 for the initial notice is still the 2nd lowest bid after 3 years. Most likely the person who bidded lower 3 years ago would not bid that low again. Staff did contact the previous bidders and requested estimated bids which are as follows: First Notice Second Notice Current Contractor $230 (City pays postage $80 (Charge for Request #1 and photocopy) stamps & postage only) Srour & Associates $280 $150 SUBTEC $345 $125 TRIAD (At this time no response) Tony Mills (Out of business) A memo from the City Attorney is attached which indicates the City can amend the current contract. CON UR: Qt Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: Viki Copland Finance Director Attachments 1. Attorney's memo 2. Contract 6 Respectfully su»mitted,., ichael Schubach Planning Director p/ccsr300 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY TREASURER RE: PUBLIC NOTICING ITEM (6) DATE: JANUARY 25, 1993 In the past the public's trust in the City's ability to notify residents in a timely and efficient fashion has been low, and for good reason. The City had a long standing track record of failures to notify all residents in an effected area, or not noticing in a timely fashion. These administrative errors not only caused resident dissatisfaction but became costly to the City. I have observed that since the City began to contract out the public noticing function citizen complaints have diminished, and the cost of re -noticing has been reduced. I recommend that the City continue to contract for public noticing. /75/141r2; --d Gary L.IBrutsch City Treasurer SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 6 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council FROM:. The Planning Commission SUBJECT: Involvement in The Strand project DATE: January 19, 1993 We request to be involved in the review of the proposed project to replace and reconstruct The Strand wall. We understand that the final authority for approval rests with the City Council, but given our experience in reviewing private development projects, we believe that the Commission should also be involved in the review of significant public projects such as The Strand wall replacement. NOTED: Michael Schu•ai h Frederick R. Ferrin p/memo3 8a HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS of the HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT DECEMBER 1992 STAFF REPORTS PREPARED January 20, 1993 Regular Meeting of January 26, 1993 MEETINGS / SEMINARS (MEETINGS THIS MONTH THIS MONTH LAST FY FY TO DATE LAST FY TO DATE APPEAL / CITY COUNCIL RECONSIDERATION 0 0 3 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CONDO) - 0 1 1 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (COMMERCIAL) 4 1 14 12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT 2 0 8 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION/REVOCATION 0 0 0 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/ MAP EXTENSION 1 0 6 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 0 0 2 0 FINAL MAP 0 0 0 9 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 0 1 1 1 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 0 0 0 0 NONCONFORMING REMODEL_ 0 1 6 6 PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 0 1 2 3 PARKING PLAN 0 1 2 2 SPECIAL STUDY 0 0 13 3 SUBDIVISION 0 1 10 2 TEXT AMENDMENT 2 0 13 2 TRANSIT 0 1 1 4 VARIANCE 0 1 1 2 ZONE CHANGE 0 0 0 1 MISCELLANEOUS 1 3 24 36 MEETINGS / SEMINARS (MEETINGS 1 25 23 195 177 CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES INITIAL INSPECTIONS 5 16 57 68 FOLLOW UP INSPECTIONS 11 7 76 63 LETTERS GENERATED N / A 17 N / A 123 MEMOS GENERATED N4 A 2 —N to 19-- 9C.U.P. C.U.P. ACCEPTANCE FORMS RECEIVED 4 3 30 16 C.U.P. COVENANT FORMS GENERATED 8 5 39 32 C.U.P. COVENANT FORMS RECEIVED 2 4 21 28 CITATIONS ISSUED 0 0 1 0 C.U.P. VIOLATIONS ABATED 3 10 53 73 COMPLIANCE CHECK 3 N/ A 43 N/ A OTHER DEPARTMENTS REQUESTS OTHER DEPARTMENTS REQUESTS 1 0 1 N/A ( 8 1 N/A WAVE DIAL -A -RIDE RIDERSHIP MUNICIPAL AREA EXPRESS (MAX) RIDERSHIP BEACH ROUTE 1 1106 930 I 8471 1 85 The Following Activities Were Undertaken for Transit Projects 1. Routine tasks. Upcoming Agenda Items to City Council 1. Special study regarding driveway grades 2. Text amendment to adopt Congestion Management Plan/Transportation Demand Management Ordinance / Land Analysis Program resolution. 3. Text amendment for water conservation in landscape ordinance. 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. Continue work on oil drilling project. 4. Updating Land Use Element and other General Plan Elements. Michael . u , ach Planning Director Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager Respectfully submitted, ti-Ying T Administrative Aide THIS MONTH THIS MONTH LAST FY FY TO DATE LAST FY TO DATE HERMOSA BEACH PASSENGERS 793 1051 6527 11602 REDONDO BEACH PASSENGERS 4258 4015 30637 30538 SATELLITE PASSENGERS 407 409 2568 2723 MUNICIPAL AREA EXPRESS (MAX) RIDERSHIP BEACH ROUTE 1 1106 930 I 8471 1 85 The Following Activities Were Undertaken for Transit Projects 1. Routine tasks. Upcoming Agenda Items to City Council 1. Special study regarding driveway grades 2. Text amendment to adopt Congestion Management Plan/Transportation Demand Management Ordinance / Land Analysis Program resolution. 3. Text amendment for water conservation in landscape ordinance. 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. Continue work on oil drilling project. 4. Updating Land Use Element and other General Plan Elements. Michael . u , ach Planning Director Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager Respectfully submitted, ti-Ying T Administrative Aide Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DECEMBER 1992 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 NOTED: Steve S. Wisniewski, Director of Public Safety Frederick R. Ferrin, City Manager PARKING ENFORCEMENT Current Month 2,363 35 67 $7,354 439 24 0 38 28 10 16 (2) (10) This Month Last Year 2,835 28 105 $7,240 344 ANIMAL CONTROL January 20, 1993 City Council Meeting of January 26, 1993 Last Fiscal Year Fiscal Year To Date To Date 29,892 33,284 233 541 $52,737 3,206 180 676 $43,785 3,215 47 157 216 0 116 43 0• 0 334 494 301 302 66 218 (12) (89) Respectfully stybmitte by nr L. Staen, Gen-ral Services Coordinator COMMENTS: Positive enforcement of the Public Information Program, and (1) deleted part-time position, has contributed to the reduced citation count. Dismissals processed, are those citations dis- missed during the month of December, which includes citations issued during other months. January 20, 1993 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council January 26, 1993 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - DECEMBER 1992 The Public Works Department is divided into three (3) major functions: Administration, Engineering and Maintenance. ADMINISTRATION The administration function coordinates and divisions of the Public Works Department in the City Council and City Manager; includes capital improvement projects. Permits Issued: Type Current Month Last FY To Date blends the efforts of all accomplishing the directives of engineering and management of This Month FY Last FY To Date Sewer Demolition Sewer Lateral Street Excavation Utility Co's only Dumpster/Strand Banner Permits 1 0 5 2 1 5 5 3 31 67 99 116 O 0 10 O 1 6 6 3 31 131 17 9 ENGINEERING The Capital Improvement Projects which are currently in progress are: CIP 89-144 Strand Wall & Walkway CIP 90-151 Traf. Eng. Program CIP 91-165 Misc Bikeway Const. CIP 88-201 Light Conversions & New Installations The maintenance function of the following sections: - Parks/Medians CIP 92-506 CIP 89-513 CIP 92-520 MAINTENANCE Public Works - Street Maintenance/Sanitation - Sewers/Storm Drains - Street Lighting Various Park & Rec. Facility Improvements Development of 5 Lots Edith Rodaway Friendship Park Improvements at Clark Field Department is divided into the - Traffic Safety - Building Maintenance - Equipment Service 1 Parks Division/Medians: Irrigation repairs City-wide. Tree trimming City-wide. Plant box repairs in medians on Hermosa Avenue. Street Maintenance/Sanitation: Installed new gate at entrance to Clark Field. Repaired and replaced sand gates on Strand. Blacktop street maintenance City-wide. Helped install new water line on the fishing pier. Sewers/Storm Drain Division: Opened storm drain outlets on Beach. Rodded sewer mains City-wide. Installed new water line on the fishing pier. Street Lighting: 'Hung Christmas decorations City-wide. Installed new lights above the gym at the Community Center. Installed new wiring for new crosswalk signal at Ocean and Aviation. Traffic Safety Division: Hung Christmas decorations City-wide. Installed new warning signal poles at Ocean and Aviation. Installed new light pole at 30th Street and Ardmore. Marked and painted parking stalls in front of Base 3 and Parking Lot 2. Building Maintenance Division: Painted kitchen at the Community Center. Painted Community Center windows. Painted men's and women's restrooms on the fishing pier. Roof repairs at Clark Stadium, City Hall, and the Police Station. Equipment Service: On-going maintenance of City vehicles and equipment. Graffiti Removal: FY 91-92 FY 92-93 JULY 1991 AUGUST 1991 SEPTEMBER 1991 OCTOBER 1991 NOVEMBER 1991 DECEMBER 1991 JANUARY 1992 FEBRUARY 1992 MARCH 1992 APRIL 1992 MAY 1992 JUNE 1992 YTD TOT 59.50 27.00 43.50 37.50 24.00 27.00 19.50 14.50 34.00 12.00 49.00 29.00 Hrs. Hrs.(Revised) Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. 376.50 Hrs. fitted, zv Charles S. Mdlohald Director of Pu lic Works mon2/pwadmin JULY 1992 AUGUST 1992 SEPTEMBER 1992 OCTOBER 1992 NOVEMBER 1992 DECEMBER 1992 YTD TOTAL 33.50 28.50 39.50 11.00 37.00 17.50 Hrs.(Revised) Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. 167.00 Hrs Noted: Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council January 20, 1993 ACTIVITY REPORT DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY DECEMBER, 1992 Attached for your information are recap sheets of department activity for the month of December. Overall permit activity decreased in December as the department issued 40 permits of which 16 were building permits. One permit was issued for a new single family dwelling and two permits were issued for condominium units. Eight permits were issued for alterations or additions to existing dwell- ings and three permits were issued for alterations or additions to commer- cial buildings. There was a net increase of three dwellings to the housing inventory. The department also processed forty-four plans for zoning review, plan check or revisions. Plan processing "turn around" averaged one week during December. The department conducted 120 inspections during December not in- cluding complaint investigations. Building Department general fund revenue for 50% of the fiscal year is $99,875.56 or 28% of projected revenue. Total revenue for all funds is $140,364.59. The Business License division reports that 362 licenses were issued during December resulting in revenue of $48,743.97. Business License revenue to date represents 40.9% of projected revenue for the fiscal year. The department logged 27 new code enforcement complaints during December, of which six were for illegal dwelling units. The department closed five cases in December and currently has eighteen illegal dwelling unit cases under investigation. The November and December report on recycling participation levels and re- fuse diversion is attached to this report. The reports indicate that the participation level (at least one recyclable item set out) averaged 62.1% in November and 64.2% in December. The total volume of recyclable materials collected in November was 177.6 tons and the total volume of recyclable materials collected in December was 218.3 tons. These totals represent a diversion of 23.7% and 26.3% respec- tively of the residential refuse that would otherwise likely end up in a landfill. Noted: Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager Respectfy3,l)ly Submitted, William Grove Director, Bldg. & Safety CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REVENUE REPORT Month of DECEMBER 1992 NUMBER OF PERMITS Building Plumbing Electric Plan Check Sewer Use Res. Bldg. Reports Comm. Inspections Parks & Recreation In lieu Park & Rec. Board of Appeals Sign Review Fire Flow Fees Legal Determination Zoning Appeals CURRENT MONTH 16 14 10 14 1 14 17 0 1 0 5 5 0 0 THIS MONTH LAST FY 22 26 20 10 1 11 16 1 0 0 5 4 0 0 FY TO DATE 128 116 99 95 1 103 112 0 2 0 21 27 0 0 LAST FY TO DATE 166 150 106 114 8 93 119 3 7 0 29 34 1 0 TOTALS 97 116 720 830 FEES Building** Plumbing Electric Plan Check Sewer Use Res. Bldg. Reports Comm. Inspections Parks & Recreation In lieu Park & Rec. Board of Appeals Sign Review Fire Flow Fees Legal Determination Zoning Appeals 8,798.39 718.20 968.10 5,361.83 342.53 609.00 738.25 0 10,396.00 0 379.50 4,195.05 0 0 9,879.50 1,935.35 3,066.65 809.47 342.55 459.25 668.00 3,500.00 0 0 418.75 4,281.67 0 0 44,478.36 7,718.60 8,790.05 27,314.30 342.53 4,415.75 4,711.25 0 20,792.00 0 1,728.50 20,073.25 0 0 71,435.02 11,643.90 10,966.75 46,946.86 6,034.27 3,826.75 4,883.75 10,500.00 46,650.00 0 2,387.50 31,064.25 1,046.00 0 TOTALS 32,506.85 25,361.19 140,364.59 247,385.05 VALUATIONS 77-6,90-9 897,042 3,178,053 6,425,543 **Includes State Seismic Fee $ 82.92 Revenue: Licenses issued: BUSINESS LICENSE MONTHLY REPORT 48,743.97 51,558.97 362 415 210,583.00 251,918.39 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED Month of DECEMBER 1992 TYPE OF STRUCTURE DWELLING UNITS PERMITS PROVIDED VALUATION 1. Single Dwellings 1 1 303,324 2. Duplex Dwellings 3. Triplex Dwellings 4. Four Units or More 5. Condominiums 2 2 367,000 6. Commercial Buildings 7. Industrial Buildings 8. Publicly Owned Buildings 9. Garages - Residential 10. Accessory Buildings 11. Fences and Walls 12. Swimming Pools 13. Alterations, additions or repairs to dwellings 8 59,085 14. Alterations, additions or repairs to Commercial Bldgs. 3 47,500 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 21. All other permits not listed 2 Demo. Medical Center/Hospital TOTAL PERMITS: 16 TOTAL VALUATION OF ALL PERMITS: 776,909 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS PERMITTED : 3 ** TOTAL DWELLING UNITS DEMOLISHED: 0 NET CHANGE: +3 NET DWELLING UNIT CHANGE FY 92/93 +3 CUMULATIVE DWELLING UNIT TOTAL: 9701 (INCLUDES PERMITS ISSUED) ** Revised figure based on land use study by the Planning Dept. CITY OF HERMO'SA BEACH RECYCLENOW REPORT DECEMBER 1992 TRASH YDWST TOTAL ONP COMM DATE RATE ACTUAL MAX % DIV. TONS TONS MIXED GLASS TIN ALUM PET HDPE MIXED WST/TONS 12/01 62.8% 1,022 1,627 24.4% 35.32 11.4 17,400 4.361 393 151 103 253 129 12/02 67.7% 1,013 1,49(�7 24.42 34.97 11.3 16.980 4.403 463 128 162 223 201 12/03 67.22 1.049 1,562 24.72 34.61 11.3 17,310 4.156 435 220 118 253 188 12/07 57.9% 1,055 1,823 24.1% 35.45 11.2 17.620 3•,013 409 170 161 166 151 12/08 63.5% 1,033 1,627 24.2% 35.1 11.2 17.488 3,758 451 191 137 201 162 12/09 68.0% 1,018 1,497 25.3% 34.41 11.6 17.650 4.552 483 174 107 158 146 12/10 64.3% 1,005 1,562 25.0% 34.06 11.3 17,410 3.977 505 195 12.6 289 168 12/14 58.4% 1,065 1,823 28.3% 30.38 12.0 18,250 4,338 493 235 149 309 206 12/15 64.1% 1,043 1,567 28.4% 29.79 11.8 18.040 4,563 411 158 10 265 136 12/16 66.9% 1,001 1,497 27.7% 29.2 11.2 16.910 4.308 453 126 158 218 197 12/17 65.8% 1,028 1,562 28.7% 28.61 11.5 17,870 4,009 420 212 114 " 243 182 12/21 59.2% 1,079 1,823 30.4% 25.88 11.3 17,670 3.884 416 174 164 168 154 12/22 64.6% 1.051 1,627 30.9% 25.63 11.4 17,820 3,873 465 197 141 207 167 12/23 68.2% 1,021 1.497 31.1% 25.12 _11.3 17.100 4,520 480 173 106 156 145 12/24 64.6% 1,009 1,562 31.9% 24.86 11.7 18.030 4,007 509 196 127 291 170 12/28 58.7% 1,070 1,823 23.0% 38.35 11.5 17.500 4,088 464 221 140 293 194 12/29 65.4% 1,064 1.627 23.6% 37.•6 11.6 17.982 4,272 385 148 100 248 127 12/30 68.5% 1.025 1,437 23.9% 36.86 11.6 17.926 4,150 437 121 153 210 189 12/31 67.9% 1,061 1,532 24.8% 36.11 11.9 18.830 3,670 405 205 110 235 175 TOT 64.2% 19,712 30.722 26.3% 612.3 218.3 335,796 78,902 8,477 3,395;.• x,483 4,386 3,187 73.7% 44.3% BREAKDOWN OF 830.6 TONS OF RESIDENTIAL REFUSE: BREAKDOWN OF 1382.3 TONS OF TOTAL CITY REFUSE: BREAKDOWN OF 218.3 TONS 0 BREAKDOWN OF H30_6 '1'( N5 OF 551.7 TOTAL ONP COMM TONS MIXED GLASS TIN ALUM. PET HDPE MIXEI? WASTE/TONS RECYCLABLES: 100% 76.9% 18.1% 1.9% 0.8% 0.6% 1.0% 0.7% RESIDENTIAL REFI12E: 26.12 20.::% 4.7% 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% BREAKDOWN OF 1:182.3 TONS OF CITY REFII;T: AVERAGE WEEKLY VOLUME OF CITY REFUSE: ' AVERAGE WEEKLY VOLUME OF COMMERCIAL REFUSE: AVERAGE WEEKLY VOLUME OF RESIDENTIAL REFUSE: .AVERAGE WEEKLY VOLUME OF RECYCLABLE MATERIAL: 15.3% 12.12 2 . 32 0.32 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 39.9% 291.0 116.1 128.9 46.0 CITY OF HERMOSA BRACE RECY3LENCW l l ltytmist1121f11Tltt lllll ttlt SUMMARY REPORT 1t1{ttlitllttt RESIDENTIAL PARTICIPATION ' WEIGH: OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS ' TRASH COMM CITYWIDE YDWST TOTAL ONP WASTE % MONTH RATE ACTUAL MAX. 5 DIV. TONS TONS MIXED GLASS TIN ALUM. PET HDPE MIXED INS DIVERSION JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY 63.0% 18,577 29,486 23.5% 589.8 181.3 265,220 76,228 8,137 3,312 2,328 4,312 3,055 744.5 12.0% ' 63.6% 16,514 29,095 23.6% 646.2 199.9 288,140 87,528 9.298_ 3,793 2,650 4.927 3,484 617.3 13.7% 62.5% 17,409 27,859 24.0% 559.8 177.1 251,560 80,446 8,711 3,437 2,495 4,358 3,113 644.7 12.8% 62.8% 18,304 29,160 26.0% 550.1 193.3 287,440 77,946 8,393 3,336 2,405 4,100 3,039 624.8 14.1% 63.1% 17,402 27,598 27.1% 524.9 194.7 293,810 74,519 8,194 3,295 2,384 4,184 3,014 551.6 15.3% 62.1% 17,300 27,859 23.7% 570.5 177.6 269,850 66,568 7,330 2,953 2,126 3,758 2,705 582.3 13.4% 64.2% 19,712 30,722 26.3% 612.3 218.3 335,796 78,902 8,477 3,395 2,483 4,386 3,187 551.7 15.8% YTD AVG. 63.0% 18,174 28,826 24.9% 579 192 284,545 77,448 6.383 3,360 5,770 4,289 3,085 617 13.9% ONP/MIXED: JUN JUL AUG REDEMPTION DOLLARS RECEIVED YTD SBP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY, TOTAL TONS 132.6 144.1 125.8 $ PER TON $15 $15 $15 TOTAL $1,989.15 $2,161.05 _$1,886.70 COMMINGLED: TONS 48.7 55.8 51.3 $ PER TON $40' $40 $40 TOTAL $1,947.60 $2,232.00 $2,052.00 143.7 146.9 134.9 167.9 1080.9 $10 $10 $10 $10 N.A. 1,437.20 $1,469.00 $1,349.00 $1,679.00 $11,971.10 49.8 47.6 42.7 50.4 346.29 $40 $40 $40 $40 N.A. 1,984.00 $1,912.00 $1,708.00 $2,016.00 $13,851.60 TOTAL $3,936.75 $4,393.05 $3,938.70 $3,421.20 $3,381.00 $3,057.00 $3,695.00 $25,822.70 HERMOSA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT tMONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1992 I DECEMBER j OFFENSES REPORTED This Month This Month Year to Date Last Year One Year Ago To Date Murder i 0 0 0 0 Rape # 0 0 7 2 Robbery ' 2 1 35 33 Assault 6 4 104 125 Burglary (Total) j 32 29 I 12 4691 208 323 ' Burglaries (Vehicle) - Burglaries (Residential)1 18 212 ' Burglaries (Commercial; 2 49 ' Larceny 40 60 543 682 Motor Vehicle Theft ; 3 8 168 165 DUI 1 74 55 334 395 All Other Offenses 245 2901 3899 3871 Disturbance Calls ( 199 181 3476 3226 '-Not separated prior to 1-92 PERSONS ARRESTED Adults 113 102 1127 1226 Juveniles 4 7 87 81 Criminal Citations 70 75 1124 1005 Bicycle/Skateboard Cites 0 0 40 65 TRAFFIC REPORT ACCIDENTS Fatal 0 0 1 2 Injury 13 8 131 126 Property Damage Only 191 24 384 376 CITATIONS Traffic 355 364 3648 4693 Parking 10 2 185 111 CALLS FOR SERVICE — Total Calls 2060 2037 27255 31001 "' indicates information unavailable 1 Noted: Re full Sub itt , Rick Ferrin, City Manager Steve Wisniewski Director of Public Safety January 20, 1993 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council January 26, 1993 FINANCE DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT, DECEMBER 1993 The firm of R.J. MIRANDA, on behalf of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC), performed the annual audit of the Proposition A funds. The audit went well with no exceptions. - Much planning has gone into the reorganization of General Services. Several functions are transferring to the Finance Department on 1/11/93. These services will be provided in the newly created Cashier location, Room 101 of City Hall. There has been a lot of coordination between the Police, Finance, and Parking Enforcement Departments and much cooperation between the employees in these departments, during the planning stages of this project. - The 91/92 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) was presented to Council on 12/15/92. The report was also mailed to the two certificate program review committees. STATISTICAL SECTION MOONTHNT ITLASTMFYTH DATED I TOST FY DATE CITATION PAYMENTS 2,633 3,957 20,762 22,983 INVOICES 52 13 280 59 CASH RECEIPTS 1,240 1,127 9,641 9,466 WARRANTS 260 141 1,780 2,043 PURCHASE ORDERS 290 160 2,006 2,269 UUT—EXEMPTIONS 707 658 FILED TO DATE PAYROLL FULL TIME 162 162 PART TIME 56 60 DISCOUNTS TAKEN $ 134.82 N/A $1,211.58 N/A Noted: Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager Viki Cop and Finance Director HERMOSA BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT 1 MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1992 1 Dec 31. 19921 1 i 'FIRE STATISTICS { This Month j This Month 1 Year to Date 1 Last Year 1 One Year Ago i To Date 5871 Total Calls 1 70. 271 785! (types) 1 i 1 ; False Alarms 31 41 50 48 Mutual Aid r 1 0 21 13 10 Paramedic assists ' 291 91 3981 309 Residence Fire 91 51 581 + 37! Commercial Fire 51 3 261 ! 30 1 25' Vehicle Fire 1 3 3 231 Hazardous Mtls7 11 54 43 Other 141 8• 1631 1261 t ; 1 ! PARAMEDIC STATISTICS 1 Total Responses 1 721 591 8121 868 ! (types) 1 No Patient/aid 10' 4! 69! 731 Medical 301 27! 336 3591 • Trauma 321 281 411. 4161 I Auto Accident i 141121 135 171 Assault 61 801 841 Jail Call 21 11 47i 471 Transports r 381 311 4141 4101 Base Hosp. Con.211 151 234! 367! Trauma Center 010, 51 i 91 1 1 1 STRAND AND BEACH CALLS ! I Medical only 0; 0 211 151 ,Ocean Accident 01 01 91 71 Beach Accident 01 0! 11 1 Bike v Bike 01 01 _ 1 Q Bike v Ped 1! O! 5: 2! Fall off Bike 31 01 8� 7' Skater v Skater Oj 01 Oi 01 Skater v Fed 01 01 01 7 Fall off Skates 01 01 6! 111 Bike/Skater v Other! Oj OF 4! 5! Assault 01 0161 51 INSPECTIONS and PREVENTION � I (primary) Commercial 491 122 740` 8111 Assembly , 2i 1 31 61 Institutions 0! 34 131 Industrial 01 2 111 91 Apartmentsi 221 66 4411 5711 (re -inspections) i 1 Commercial 521 43 3521 4301 Assembly 01 2 611 61 Institutions •. 01 01 101 4 Industrial01 21 7 41 Apartments i 9, 191 4221420 Fumigations 14f 12 138 1431 1 if I 1 t Noted: Respe tf Ily Submi ed: {1 1 . .d...d....L....A_ 1.31-.4.d.) Frederick Ferrin, City Manager (Steve S. Wismewski. Director of Public Safety 1 January 13, 1993 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City. Council January 26, 1993 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY RESOURCES DECEMBER, 1992 ACTIVITY REPORT The Department of Community Resources has been involved in the following activities for the month of December: RECREATION PROGRAMMING Special Events: December 2: Many residents enjoyed sipping hot cider and eating cookies during the 8th Annual Tree Lighting Ceremony held at Pier and Hermosa Avenues with over 200 children watching for Santa. December 17: The children's holiday cookie bake provided all the necessities for a fun afternoon at the Kiwanis Youth Center with the kids creating holiday treats to take home or eat right on the spot.. Forty children from the Kids Club and community attended. December 19: The fourth annual Sand -Snowman Contest was the highlight of the Hermosa holiday activities. There were 18 entries the biggest turnout ever. The event was sponsored by Penguins Place who provided awards for all catagories. Final touches were given to the Spring Brochure that will be in the mail to all Hermosa residents by January 25th. Resident registration begins on February 9th. New activities will include: horseback riding class, theatre excursions (to LA), Dodger Game (fireworks night) and more! CIVIC THEATRE/FOUNDATION On December 5th the Jane Hardester Singers Holiday Concert "Carols by Candlelight" with 300 in attendance. On December 12th 150 ski enthusiasts came to the Hermosa Civic Theatre to watch Warren Miller's newest film "Steeper and Deeper." The 10th Annual Theatre Gala is scheduled for January 29, 1993 and will feature opening night of the Hermosa Civic Theatre's presentation of "Prelude to a Kiss" in combination with an exciting post theatre party. Tickets are $25. MISCELLANEOUS Veterans Memorial: The committee has selected a conceptual plan. Details of this plan will be included in the City's Recreation Brochure. Once a design has been completed, the committee will seek Council approval and raise funds for the memorial scheduled for ribbon -cutting next Veteran's Day. Facility 12/92 User Hours 12/91 User Hours Field 89 75 Theatre 148 89 Clark 169 186 Gym 163 258 Room 8 108 97 Room 10 74 68 Room 12 96 59 DEPARTMENT REVENUE Current This month FY Last FY Month Last FY To Date To Date $20,881 $20,998 $181,876 $163,160 Revenue Projection: $364,000 Community Resources Department general fund revenue for 50% of the fiscal year is $181,876 or 50% of the projected figure., Community Resources Department general fund expenditure for 50% of the fiscal year is $177,734 or 50% (as of 12-24) of the budget FY 1991-92. Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager Respectfully submitted, Mary Co ,, Director y Resources Dept. The fourth annual Penguin's Sand-Snowman building contest was held last Saturday just north of the Hermosa Beach Pier. With 18 entries this was the biggest turnout in the contest's young history. Judging was done by members of the Hermosa Beach Parks and Recreation Department with awards donated by local merchants. Everyone who entered won an award. Above left, are winners for the 'Most Californian,' they are, from left, Nick Padilla, Ian Nichols and Adrian Nichols. Above right, are the winners for the 'Funniest' category, they are, from left, Alan Compton, Ray Cornpton and Matt Larrabee. (2hotos by Jim Cumuli) , January 5, 1993 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council January 26, 1992 PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT DECEMBER ACTIVITY REPORT Current This Month FY to Last FY to STATISTICAL SECTION: Month Last Year Date to Date Worker Comp Claims: Claims Opened 8 1 34 27 Claims Closed 6 1 34 32 Total Open 55 75 N/A N/A Lost Time (Manhours) Safety 370 300 1,676 2,108 Non -safety 665 276 2,332 2,556 Liability Claims: Claims opened 3 3 10 33 Claims closed 2 7 21 33 Total open 32 36 N/A N/A Employee Involved Vehicle Accidents: Safety Non -safety Employee Turnover: 0 0 3 3 0 0 1 - 3 Safety 0 0 0 1 Non -safety 0 0 1 7 General Appropriations Secretary: The following summary indicates the amount of the assigned functions: DECEMBER: 186 hours available Word Processing 83% (155 hrs) Avg. 8 hrs/day Mail Processing 5% ( 9 hrs) Avg. .5 hr/day Word Processing Services by Finance. : 23% (36 hrs) City Manager:.08% (12 hrs) Planning :.04% ( 6 hrs) Respectfully Submitted, 4,4a2-66,(.4%?0 Department: of time spent on each Directory/Dept Support 12% (22 hrs) Avg. 1.5 hrs/day Public Works Personnel• Community Resources: Noted: 19% 19% 27% (30 (30 (41 Robert A. Blackwood, Director Frederick R. Ferrin Personnel and Risk Management City Manager pers/act hrs) hrs) hrs)