Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07/11/00
,na AGENDA. ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 11, 2000 - 6:00 p.m. MAYOR J. R. Reviczky MAYOR PRO TEM John Bowser COUNCIL MEMBERS Kathy Dunbabin Sam Y. Edgerton Julie Oakes CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CITY CLERK Elaine Doerfling CITY TREASURER John M. Workman CITY MANAGER Stephen R. Burrell CITY ATTORNEY Michael Jenkins, INTERVIEW APPLICANTS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION TO REVIEW APPLICATIONS, PLEASE REFER TO ITEM 7a IN THE JULY 11, 2000 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET. Re: Mailed Agendas, Internet Agenda Postings, Televising, ofA L Council Meetings City Clerk, Please announce and distribute this submittal at the adjourned regular council meeting to be at 6 -PM, July 11, 2000. Please also provide a copy for the public table, and to members of the press, and acknowledge in the official minutes of the adjourned regular meeting. Thank You. From: Howard Longacre Hermosa Beach Resident Mayor, City Councilmembers, City Clerk, City Manager c/o City Manager's office Hermosa Beach City Hall Hermosa Beach, Ca 90254 July 11, 2000 Re: Televising of ALL meetings, video taping and replay of ALL -meetings, mailing of ALL meeting agendas, and posting to the Internet of ALL agendas. Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: With regard to the following, please note that I personally do not utilize cable television service, nor do I receive the mailed council agendas. In the summer of 1989 the council of Jim Rosenberger, Etta Simpson, June Williams, Roger Creighton, and Chuck Sheldon established a very clear council policy that ALL council meetings would be recorded on video tape andplayed on cable TV, with ALL council meetings to be transmitted live if at all possible. This was to insure that all of the supposedly unimportant adjourned regular meetings, which were being held at various strange times, would be available for view by the people and to discourage such scheduling of meetings, which appeared to be scheduled so asto be when people might not be available to view or attend them. During the last 8 years specifically it would appear this important policy has become of a lesser concern to the sitting city councils and through them their appointed city manager. It is a weak and too convenient excuse to say that the cable company could not show a particular meeting live. The bottom line is that the cable company with reasonable notice has a desire to do what is necessary to keep the city government and the people of the community well serviced with respect to televising of the meetings. It is my understanding :early today, that the adjourned regular meeting of June 27, 2000 is not to be televised live at 6 PM Tuesday, July 11, 2000, however that the regular meeting to follow at 7 PM will be. Someone appears to have made the decision two weeks agothat the adjourned regular meeting is not worthy of televising live. Two PAGE 1 OF 3 Longacre to HB Council Adjourned Regular meeting held 6 -Pm 7-11-2000 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Re: Mailed Agendasntemet Agenda Postings, Televising, o LL Council Meetings weeks is more than enough time to notify the cable company of a live meeting. The fact is that this, as are all meetings, is an important city council meeting. Therefore it should be now taped at the minimum as a lead-in to the regular meeting of July` 11, 2000 which then follows same, such that the two meetings can then be replayed contiguously on Wed July 12, 2900 at noon by the cable company. But in fact, there is. no question it should be televised live in the first place. Hopefully the city manager, with a chance to review this letter prior to your receipt of same, will have accomplished at the minimum the video recording of same in front of the recording of the regular meeting to follow. I remind all concerned that our city causes to be added to every entire cable television bill a 5% franchise tax to view cable. A tax that people who view over -the -air or satellite programming do not pay. This is a tax on ALL of the city's television cable viewers including seniors. Even though called a franchise tax, it is not a franchise tax to the cable company basis lines on public property. The residents pay this tax, and the cable company really pays no tax that I am aware of to the city. Further, to make matters worse, the people who utilize cable, except for the minority of Hermosa residents who are over 62, also pay an additional 6% utility tax (formerly 10%), which over -the -air viewers, and satellite viewers also do not pay. These current taxes total 11% for most cable viewers and in many people's view are an abusive unfair taxing of just cable users. It is perhaps no wonder we see so many 18" dishes sticking out off residents balconies. They can use that 11% tax instead toward their service. The one thing cable viewers do get, which- over the air or satellite dish users do not, is the local access transmissions including the city council and other city and school meetings. Its ironic that. they have to pay an extra 11% tax tokeep an eye on government. But they are not always even being given that opportunity it would seem. When the city council takes a seeminglylackadaisical attitude towards insuring that the city manager is fully accountable that every public citycouncil meeting is televised, then the council is showing a perhaps cavalier and arrogant side of itself. It is not for the council to decide what the people who elect them will and will not see of their public meetings. .Either show them all or show none. Also there are additional problems with' public notification beyond the rock bottom legal minimums that of course you could choose. There are a few dozen or so concerned members of the community who receive the council agendas by mail. This is very good. Its too bad every citizen does not have that much of an interest. But those concerned citizens should be receiving ALL agendas of the council, not just some. There seems to be a hit or miss thing of sending out only certain of the agendas of the adjourned and other "minor" meetings. It is my experience that what is said and done in those meetings is often of more consequence than what is said and done in the regular sessions. I request that the council set clear policy to have the elected city clerk insure that the list of people who have requested the council meeting agendas by mail, receive the agendas of ALL council meetings as posted in the window at the front of city hall. PAGE 2 OF 3 Longacre to HB Council Adjourned Regular meeting held 6 -Pm 7-11-2000 • Re; Mailed Agendas, Internet Agenda Postings, Televising, of ALL Council Meetings I also request that the city council immediately seek to put the web -site management on a professional staff level basis. The operation of the web -site should be prompt, timely, and not effected by sickness, disability etc. Currently it has become standard for staff items to not appear with the agenda items until late Monday. This perhaps is not the problem of the current webmaster, but is a problem non the less. It would be appropriate to have a webmaster that has a flex schedule and interest to work on Fridays or as required to insure that the agendaand other Internet matters are fully completed for the weekend Internet display prior to the city meetings. The agenda to the adjourned regular council meeting of June 27, 2000 which is to be at 6 PM July 11, 2000 not only was not mailed to the people who receive the agenda, but was also not posted on the Internet. This meeting notwithstanding anything else is 'an important council meeting. And I do realize it was posted in the window at city hail. But that is the bare legal minimum. Hopefully Hermosa Beach can do better than that minimum. I would urge you to put the matters of insuring that full and prompt postings of ALL agendas and ALL staff items possible, are made to hermosabch.org, the city's website. I request thatin the future there not be any need for a resident to have to ask, "Is the council meeting tomorrow going to be televised?" Every council agenda should simply have an information statement on it which states, 'The city attempts to insure that ALL City Council meetings are televised live on the local cable access channel. In addition, EVERY council meeting is video-taped and -replayed at least once on the local cable channel, with time and date ,of replay indicated at least two days before on the televised cable schedule." I remind all concerned that even the smallest amount of closed government can be the most expensive form of government and is definitely not in the interest of the Hermosa Beach residents you represent. PAGE 3 OF 3 Longacre to HB Council Adjourned Regularmeeting held 6 -Pm 7-11-2000 July 5, 2000 City Council Meeting July 11, 1999 Mayor and Members of the City Council BOARD/COMMISSION EXPIRATION OF TERMS - APPOINT PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANTS Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council appoint/reappoint from among the applicants interviewed earlier this evening to fill the three expired terms ori the Planning commission. Each of the appointments is for a four-year term ending June 30, 2004. Planning Commission: Three terms, which expired June 30, 2000. Nine applicants. All three of the incumbents applied for reappointment, and there are six additional applicants (no applications were received during the deadline extension). Applicants: ( Charlie C. Cheatham Michael D. Keegan le Kersenboom hris Ketz Ron. • s 'izer Steven Sammarcu Carol Schwartz 17 Joel Shapiro '' } Peter C. Tuck 'V All of the above applicants were notified by phone and by mail of the date, time and place of the scheduled interviews. Background: At its meeting of June 27, 2000, the City Council extended theapplication filing deadline to 6 p.m. Wednesday, July 5, and scheduled a meeting prior to the July 11 regular meeting to interview applicants for the above -noted commission. Those interviews were conducted this evening at 6:00 p.m. Appointments are appropriate at this time: JjQ*aiJQ& I�aoma Valdes, Deputy City Clerk 1 - -6°7 10' �-t--t oda • "A bad habit never disappears miraculously; it's an undo -it -yourself project. Abigail Van Buren_ REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 11, 2000 - Council Chambers, City Hall Regular Session - 7:10 p.m. Closed Session - Immediately following Regular Session MAYOR J. R. Reviczky MAYOR PRO TEM John Bowler COUNCIL MEMBERS Kathy Dunbabin Sam Y. Edgerton Julie Oakes CITY CLERK Elaine Doerfling CITY TREASURER John M. Workman CITY MANAGER Stephen R. Burrell CITY ATTORNEY Michael Jenkins 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 Department, Fire Department, Public Library, Office of the City Clerk, and the Chamber of Commerce. During the meeting, a packet is also available in the Council Chambers foyer. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS PRESENTATIONS: PRESENTATION BY CAROL KWAN OF THE WEST BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT CLOSED SESSION REPORT FOR MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2000: NO REPORTABLE ACTIONS. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Although the City Council values your comments, the Brown Act generally prohibits the Council from taking action on any matter not listed on. the posted agenda.. (a) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 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.) Members of the public wishing to request the removal of an item from the Consent Calendar may do so at this time. Please limit comments to three minutes. Citizens also may speak: 1) during discussion of items removed from the Consent Calendar; 2) during Public Hearings; and, 3) with the Mayor's consent, during discussion of items appearing under Municipal Matters; Citizens with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are requested to submit those comments to the City Manager. (b) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Letter from Roger Creighton requesting information on the location of a tree and plaque. Supplemental memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated July 6, 2000. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. 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 a Council member removes an item from the Consent Calendar. Items removed will be considered under Agenda Item 3, with public comment permitted at that time. Recommendation to approve minutes of the regular meeting of the City Council held on June 27, 2000. Recommendation to ratify check register and to approve cancellation of certain checks as recommended by the City Treasurer. Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) Recommendation to receive and file the May 2000 financial reports: 1) Revenue and expenditure report; 2) City Treasurer's report; and, 3) Investment report. Recommendation to accept donations received by the City from the Surfrider Foundation South Bay Chapter for $750.00 to be used for Surf Camp instructors and from Anheuser Busch, Inc. for $10,000 to be used for the Summer Sunset Concerts. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated July 3, 2000. (f) Recommendation to approve Supplemental Agreement No. 1 between the City and Viking Equipment Corp. for CIP No. 99-529, Clark Field Building Demolition, in the amount of $33,239.00; authorize the City Manager and Director of Public Works to execute the supplemental agreement; and, approve the re -appropriation of $119,000 from FY 1999-00 budget to the FY 2000-02 budget. Memorandum from Public Works Director Harold. Williams dated July 3, 2000. (e) (g) Recommendation to authorize the award of design and installation of the Catch Basin Inlet Filters to United Storm Water, Inc. of the City of Industry in the amount of $38,480.85; authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest the contract subject to approval by the City Attorney; and, authorize the Director of Public Works to issue change orders as necessary within the approved budget.. Memorandum from Public Works Director Harold Williams dated July 3, 2000. Recommendation to award the construction contract for CIP No. 95-150, Hermosa Avenue Improvement Project between Pier Avenue and 16tH Street, to Sullen Miller Contractors of Anaheim in the amount of $179,720.00; authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest the contract subject to approval by the City Attorney; and, authorize the Director of Public Works to make minor changes as necessary not to exceed $17,972.00. Memorandum from Public Works Director Harold Williams dated June 27, 2000. Recommendation to approve an additional payment of $50,000 to Quantum Consulting for contract administration and inspection services rendered in association with the construction of the Myrtle Avenue Underground Utility District. Memorandum from Public Works Director Harold Williams dated July 6, 2000. Recommendation to award the construction contract for CIP No. 99-529, Ballfield Backstop Improvements at Clark Field to Dunn Brothers Fence Co., Inc. in the amount of $95,545.00; authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest the contract subject to approval by the City Attorney; and, authorize the Director of Public Works to make minor changes as necessary not to exceed $5,733.00. Memorandum from Public Works Director Harold Williams dated June 29, 2000. Recommendation to approve an additional payment of $16,800 to Quantum Consulting for contract administration and inspection services rendered in association with the construction of the Loma Drive Underground Utility District Memorandum from Public Works Director Harold Williams dated June 22; 2000. Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Memorandum. of Understanding between the City and the Hermosa Beach Police Officers' Association. Memorandum from Personnel Director/Risk Manager Michael Earl dated July 5, 2000. Recommendation to adopt resolution approving the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Hermosa Beach Police Management Association.. Memorandum from Personnel Director/Risk Manager Michael Earl dated July 5, 2000. CONSENT ORDINANCES ORDINANCE NO. 00-1202: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 3.12.150 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXEMPT COMPUTERS AND PERIPHERAL EQUIPMENT FROM THE FORMAL BIDDING PROCESS." For adoption. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated June 28, 2000. ORDINANCE NO.00-1203: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO ESTABLISH A PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION AND AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE" For adoption. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated June 28, 2000. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 7:30 P.M. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION APPROVING SECTION III, ITEM 7: "PDP 00-6 -- PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A SEVENTY-TWO (72) ROOM HOTEL, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1514 - 1550 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND 815 15TH STREET." Memorandum from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated July 5, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: Approve Precise Development Plan subject to conditions MUNICIPAL MATTERS REQUEST FOR THREE-WAY STOP CONTROL AT VALLEY DRIVE AND 18TH STREET. Memorandum from Public Works Director Harold Williams dated July 3, 2000. RECOMMENDATION: Deny request. . GOLDEN AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND 24TH STREET IMPROVEMENTS AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT. Memorandum from Public Works Director Harold Williams dated June 29, 2000. Please note, a supplemental report for this item will be available on Tuesday. RECOMMENDATION: Award the construction contract for Golden to Palp, Inc. dba Excel Paving of Long Beach based upon their lowest responsible bid of $34,900.00; authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest the contract subject to approval by the City Attorney; authorize the Director of Public Works to make minor changes as necessary not to exceed $3,490.00; and, approve the re -appropriation of $61,218 from FY 1999-00 budget to the FY 2000-01 budget. . r= MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO FILL THREE EXPIRED TERMS. Memorandum from City Clerk. Elaine Doerfling dated July 5, 2000. RECOMMENDATION: Appoint/re-appoint from among the applicants interviewed prior to this evening's regular meeting to fill the three expired terms ending June 30, 2004. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Council members 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 Council action tonight. NONE ANNOUNCEMENT IN OPEN SESSION OF ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION AS FOLLOWS: 1. MINUTES: Approval of minutes of Closed Session meeting held on June 27, 2000. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Government Code Section 54957.6 City Negotiator: Stephen Burrell Employee Organizations: Hermosa Beach Firefighters' Association ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION ORAL ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT ti WATER llARVET 2000Q On October 28, 2000, West Basin Municipal • Water District (West Basin) is hosting Water Harvest 2000. West Basin will be joined by its sister agency, Central Basin Municipal Water District, in this fun, educational event which welcomes families from the entire region. This family-oriented event is a fun way for local school children to learn more about water and the environment. Held at the West Basin Water Recycling Facility in El Segundo, the event is modeled after last year's successful Water Harvest Festival. Hundreds of people attended last year's Water Harvest event. Held_in October, last year's event featured contests for kids of all ages. A Halloween Costume Contest and Pumpkin Seed Spitting Contest kept guests amused. The highlight of the event was having guests Guess the Giant Pumpkin's Weight. As with last year, West Basin encourages other public and private agencies to participate by hosting booths or sponsorship commitments. Sponsors of last year's event included United Water Company, Luster Construction Management, Public Storage, Salomon Smith Barney, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and Karo Enterprises. Also, booths were staffed by Park Water Company, Penn Air Group, California American Water Company, ADVANCE, Southern California Water Company, Mono Lake Committee, California Water Service REDLCE, RR 1?. REc3ai Ssyrc 1 L EGUNDO fei HECICIAMI iiK41.11 Company, the Office of Congressman Steve Kuykendall, United Water Company, Water 3 Engineering, and the cities of El Segundo, Lomita, Artesia and Huntington Park. The sponsors and booth participants made it possible for the public to get all sorts of free goodies promoting water education and conservation. Water wise messages were on stickers, magnets, activity books, mugs, T-shirts, and bookmarks that were given out to the public. Due to the popularity of last year's pumpkin patch which featured GIANT -sized pumpkins, this year's event will showcase pumpkins which have been grown with West Basin's very own recycled water. 6 West Basin invites cities, water agencies, community services and environmental organizations to participate by hosting a booth, also provided free of charge by West Basin and Central Basin. The event will be held at the West Basin Water Recycling Facility, located at 1935 Hughes Way in the city of El Segundo. For more information on Water Harvest 2000 or to secure a booth, please call Sandi Linares at (310) 660-6211. ri This year's patch is already sprouting the beginnings of more gargantuan pumpkins! 3 r_L April 29 ..2000 Hermosa Beach City Council Written Communication from Public City Council Agenda c/o City Clerk RE: Follow -Up Tree and Plaque Dear City Council: //o JUN 1 3 2(Jtip .: cnYCLE,2�C CITYQFHEFi r,p "6-7' ^.4 2 On November 11, 1999 I wrote a letter for the City Council Agenda requesting information as to where 1 could go to see the tree and plaque that had been planted as the result of a donation received by the City as recognition to 2 local heroes. The only response 1 got was that the City needed the $1000. to plant the tree and place the, plaque. I talked to 2 _ city officers and was told the Councihnember who said the City needed the money has been told the City got the money years ago. A Strand resident was murdered in her own front yard in a stabbing attack. I believe the 2 heroes stopped the second knife attack preventing another life from being taken. Where is the monument acknowledging: the hero' deeds? Roger Creighton City Council Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City: Council From: Community Resources Director, Mary Rooney Date: 07/06/00 Re: Letter from Roger Creighton RE: Donation for tree planting at South Park This letter and issue has been on the Council. agenda in the past. The items below summarize the actions taken by Council several years ago: 1. An anonymous donation of $1,000 was accepted by the City Council. 2. The anonymous donor requested that the funds be used to plant trees at South Park (South Park was in the pre -construction phase at the time) as a tribute to some members -of a film crew who assisted a woman who was being assaulted. 3. The City's practice at the time with regards to tree plantings was to accept donations for trees that matched with City landscaping plans. Due to maintenance and aesthetic concerns, however, plaques were not approved. The $1,000 donation offset some of the cost of planting trees at the constructed South Park. 5 In addition to this donation, community members planted a tree in memory, of Parks Commissioner, Dani Pierce. Per. City policy, no plaque was placed on that tree either. Page 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the:city of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday; June 27, 1999,. at'the-hour of 7:18 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Hermosa Beach Cub Scout Pack #860 The Hawk Den,. consisting of: Joaquin Scott Ted Gerike ' Ian White Scott Humbarger Mayor Reviczky thanked the Cub Scouts Hermosa Beach pins. ROLL CALL: Present: 'Bowler, Dunbabin; Absent: None and presented them with Edgerton, Oakes, Mayor Reviczky ANNOUNCEMENTS: Councilmember Oakes announcedthat the Hermosa Beach Friends of the Library, would hold their next booksale on, Saturday, July 15, 2000, on Bard Street near Pier Avenue, next to the Fire Station, starting at 9:00 A.M. Councilmember Edgerton spoke on an upcoming trip to Washington, D.C. to meet with the Federal Aviation Administration regarding the overflight problems emanating from Los Angeles Airport.. Mr. Edgerton said that Mayor Reviczky, and he would make the trip for the meeting on Monday, July 17, 2000, and that they would be accompanied by two representatives from Redondo Beach and two from Rancho Palos Verdes. He said that they were cautiously optimistic of the outcome of this meeting, as it was the last opportunity to settle. this matter without commencing more formal legal proceedings. Councilmember Dunbabin announced that informal meetings of the residents of the undergrounding areas with the Edison Company and City staff would be available each Tuesday morning at 9:00 A.M. in the City Council Chambers, with the exception of the Fourth of July that would be held on Wednesday, July 5, 2000, and urged anyone with questions to attend., Mrs Dunbabin also mentioned that the new issue of Sunset Magazine had an article on page 52 about Hermosa Beach. CLOSED SESSION' REPORT FOR MEETING OF JUNE REPORTABLE ACTIONS. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: ORAL COMMUNICATIONS —None (b) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS City Council Minutes 06-27-00 Page 10282 1. Letter from John Hales requesting to speak. Council regarding the Pier Phase III proposed design Coming forward to address the Council on this item was: John Hales - 624 8th Place, spoke to his letter; submitted information to the Council; requested that the Council deal with the 1994 Council decision regarding the Pier Design Award before additional action is taken. Mr. Hales also suggested that the Council might wish to consider acquiring the SS Catalina, now in Ensenada, Mexico, before it is scrapped, in order to tie beside the Pier, restore it and: use the ship as .a tourist attraction as it has cabins, a ballroom and other amenities. ACTION: To receive and file the letter from Mr. Hales. Motion Bowler, second Dunbabin The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Actions•' To approve the consent calendar recommendations (a) through (r) Motion Bowler, seconded Oakes. The motion carried by unanimous vote: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING MINUTES: 1) Minutes of the Regular meeting held on May 23, 2000; 2) Minutes of the Adjourned Regular meeting held on June 1, 2000; and, Minutes of the 'Regular meeting held on June 13, 2000. Action: To approve the minutes of the regular meeting of May 23the Adjourned Regular meeting of June 1, and the regular meeting of June 13, 2000, as presented. (b) RECOMMENDATION TO RATIFY THE CHECK REGISTER AND TO APPROVE CANCELLATION OF CERTAIN CHECKS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY TREASURER. Action: To ratify the check register Nos. 21599 through 21725 as presented, noting voided check Nos 21603, 21620, and 21679, and to, approve the cancellation of check. Nos. 21332 and 21527 as recommended by the City Treasurer (c) RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. Action: To receive and file the tentative: future agenda items as presented: City Council Minutes 06-27-00 Page 10282 (d) RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE MEMORANDUM` -REGARDING THE MAY, '2000_, FINANCIAL REPORTS FROM FINANCE DIRECTOR VIKI COPELAND.DATED JUNE 22, 2000. Action: To receive and file 2000, financial reports. the memorandum on the May, (e) RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT THE WORK BY U -LINER WEST FOR CIP NO. 99-402, PCH SEWER RECONSTRUCTION; AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION; AUTHORIZE STAFF TO RELEASE PAYMENT TO U -LINER WEST; AND, AUTHORIZE CITY CLERK TO RELEASE U -LINER WEST FROM THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND AND THE LABOR AND MATERIALS BOND. Memorandum from Public Works Director Harold Williams dated June 20, 2000. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1. accept the work by.0-Liner West for CIP Project No. 99-409 for Pacific Coast Highway Sewer Rehabilitation between Gould Avenue and 24th Street; authorize 'the Mayor to sign Completion; 3. authorize Staff to release payment (5o retained for 35 days following of Completion)'; and, .authorize the City .Clerk to release U -Liner 'West 'from the Faithful Performance Bond and the Labor and - Materials Bond. the. Notice of to 13 -Liner West filing of .Notice -(f), RECOMMENDATION. TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP #25504 FOR.A 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 122 HERMOSA AVENUE. Memorandum from Community Development Director Sol -Blumenfeld dated June' 19, 2000: .Action: To'approve the staff recommendation to adopt Resolution.No. 00-6075,entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL•PARCEL MAP #25504 FORA TWO. UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 122 HERMOSA AVENUE, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA." RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP #25568 FOR A 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT` --AT 1217 CYPRESS AVENUE. Memorandum from `Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated June 19, 2000. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 00-6076, entitled "A RESOLUTION .OF THE:: CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING. APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #25568 FOR A TWO: UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1217 CYPRESS AVENUE, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA." City Council Minutes 06-27-00 Page 10282 (h) RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP #25635 FOR A 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1041 7TH STREET AND 1040 8TH STREET. Memorandum from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated June 19, 2000. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to adopt Resolution. No. 00-6077, entitled "A RESOLUTION, OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCELL MAP #25635 FOR A TWO UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1041 7TIF STREET AND 1040 8TH STREET, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA." (i) RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE ACTION MINUTES FROM THE PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES ADVISORY 'COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 6, 2000. Action:. To approve the staff recommendation to receive and file the action minutes. from the Parks, Recreation and. Community Resources Advisory Commission meeting of June 6, 2000. (j) RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE UP TO FIVE ONE -DAY PROMOTIONS PER YEAR `ONr.THE PIER PLAZA TO RAISE UP TO $50,000 TO HELP DEFRAY COSTS FOR SELECTED COMMUNITY EVENTS. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated June 19, 2000. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to allow up to five one -day promotions per year on the Pier Plaza to raise up to $50,000 to help defray costs for selected community events. (k) RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF THREE (3) NEW BLACK ,AND WHITE PATROL CARS FOR $74,354.76 AND ONE (1) UNMARKED DETECTIVE. VEHICLE FOR $23,885.36 FROM THE WONDRIES FLEET GROUP OF ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA. Memorandum from Police Chief Val Straser dated June 19, 2000. Action: To approve the staff recommendation; to authorize the purchase of three new black and white patrol cars for a cost of $74,354.76 and one unmarked detective vehicle for a cost of $23,885.36 from the Wondries Fleet Group of Alhambra, California. (1) RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) NEW STAFF CAR ° FOR THE FIRE CHIEF FROM THE WONDRIES FLEET GROUP OF ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA FOR $24,068.00. Memorandum from Fire Chief Russell Tingley dated June 21, 2000. Action:. To authorize the silver frost Wondries Fleet of $24,068.00. approve the staff recommendation .to purchase of one new passenger car sedan, in. color, for the Fire Chief from the Group of` Alhambra, California for a cost City Council Minutes 06-27-00 Page 10282 RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD CONTRACT TO BLODGETT/BAYLOSIS ASSOCIATES (BBA) TO PREPARE THE GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE IN THE AMOUNT OF $23,980 (EXCLUSIVE OF PUBLIC MAILING AND ADVERTISING COSTS FOR HEARINGS) AND DIRECTTHE CITY' MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT FOR SERVICES. Memorandum from Community Development Director, Sol Blumenfeld dated June 21, 2000. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1 Select the firm of Blodgett/Baylosis:- Associates (BBA) to prepare the General Plan Housing Element Update in the amount of $23,980 (exclusive of public mailing and advertising costs for hearings) Award the contract; and, Direct the City. Manager to execute the contract for services. (n)> RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE' THE ACTION' MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF'JUNE 20, 2000. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to receive and;,;. file the action minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of June 20, 2000, as presented. (o) _.RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER #10, PROJECT NO. CIP 97-182 MYRTLE AVENUE UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT, FOR THE GRINDING AND REPAVING' OF PALM DRIVE FROM 24TH STREET TO 26TH STREET AND AUTHORIZE BUDGET TRANSFER. Memorandum from Public Works Director Harold Williams dated June 21, 2000. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) Approve .the contract change order No. 10 for the grinding 'and repaving of Palm Drive from 24th Street to 26th,Street, and 2) Authorize the following budget transfer: • From: CIP 8143',' Monterey Blvd., -_19th Street Hermosa Ave. $21,.263,00 • To: CIP 8182, Myrtle:.Ave. Utility Undergrounding $21,263.00 RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PROFESSIONAL`, AND ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEE GROUP. Memorandum from:. Personnel Director/Risk Manager Michael Earl dated June 19, =2000, Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Professional and Administrative Employee Group; and, 2) adopt. Resolution No. 00-6078, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO ADOPT A MEMORANDUM OF City Council Minutes 06-27-00 Page 10282 UNDERSTANDING WITH THE HERMOSA BEACH PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEES BARGAINING UNIT-." (q) RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE GENERAL AND SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES'. ASSOCIATION, TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911. Memorandum from Personnel Director/Risk Manager. Michael Earl dated June 19, 2000 Action: To approve the staff recommendation to approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the General and Supervisory Employees' Association, Teamsters Local 911; and, adopt Resolution NO. 00-6079, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO ADOPT A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE HERMOSA BEACH ,GENERAL AND SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES' BARGAINING UNIT." RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY AND, THE HERMOSA BEACH MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION. Memorandum from Personnel Director/Risk Manager Michael Earl dated June 21, 2000. Action:. To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Hermosa Beach Management Association; and, adopt Resolution No. 00-6080, entitled, "A RESOLUTION. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO ADOPT A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE HERMOSA BEACH MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION BARGAINING UNIT." 1) CONSENT. ORDINANCES NONE . ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION - None PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 7:30 P.M. ▪ 2000-2001 BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. ADOPTION OF" 2000-2001 BUDGET. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated June. 22, 2000. Supplemental information from the Finance Department. dated 'June .25, 2000. Supplemental five-year Capital Improvement. Program from the Public Works Department received June 27, 2000. Finance Director Copeland presented 'the staff report and responded to Council questions. City Manager Burrell also responded to Council questions. City Council. Minutes .06-27-00 Page 10282 The public hearing opened .at address the Council were: Lewis''Chui General Manager: for Brewski's, Hermosa Beach, questioned the new encroachment fees and the effect on less successful businesses; and,_ Hondo Huston - Brewski's, questioned the new encroachment. fees and ::the frequency of increased fees Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) Receive and file questions and answers from the 1, 2000 Budget Workshop; Approve state estimate revisions to revenue and transfers, and new encroachment fees of $1.00 per square foot; Adopt Resolution No. 00-6081, entitled, ""A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, INCREASING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ENCROACHMENT FEE FOR OUTDOOR DINING." Approve the amendments.. to appropriations; Approve contingency funds for upgrade of the financial management and citation processing systems; Adopt the amended five-year Capital Improvement Program; and, 7) Adopt Resolution No. 00-6082, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001." Motion Edgerton, second Oakes. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. June AMENDMENT TO SECTION' 3.12.090 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXEMPT "COMPUTERS AND PERIPHERAL EQUIPMENT" FROM THE FORMAL BIDDING PROCESS. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney' dated June 19, 2000. Supplemental Ordinance for introduction, received June 25, 2000. Finance Director Copeland presented thestaff report and responded to Council questions. City Manager Burrell also responded to Council questions. Action:, To waive full reading and introduce Ordinance No. 00-1202, entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 3.12.140 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXEMPT COMPUTERS AND PERIPHERAL EQUIPMENT FROM THE FORMAL BIDDING PROCESS." Motion Bowler, second Oakes. The motion carried the dissenting vote of Edgerton. noting City Council Minutes 06-27-00 Page 10282 • c. ADOPTION OF 2000-2001 APPROPRIATION LIMIT. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated June 21, 2000. Finance Director Copeland presented the staff report and. responded to Council questions Action: To approve the staff recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 00-6083, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, -CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001." Motion Bowler, second Edgerton. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Allowed to come forward at this timeto address the Council was: Shan Parvez -. (no address given), sunglasses salesman, complained that he was not allowed to sell his sunglasses or to position his tables in the manner that he would like in the downtown plaza due to complaints by other merchants. City Manager Burrell explained the staff position regarding retail encroachment in the plaza, and said that he would have more information when Mr. Parvez' purported employer returned from a trip. Mr. Burrell also said that he was scheduling a meeting with the downtown retail merchants in the near future to delineate a city policy of:, retail use of the plaza and askedany interested Councilmembers to attend.. The meeting recessed at the hour of 8:30 P.M. The meeting reconvened at the hour of 8:40 P.M. REVIEW DELINQUENT REFUSE BILLS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ORDERING SAID DELINQUENT CHARGES BE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY TAX BILL AS A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSMENT WOULD AFFECT ONLY THOSE PROPERTIES WITH REFUSE BILLS DELINQUENT AS OF APRIL 30, 2000. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated June 13, 2000. City Manager Burrell presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. The telephone number given to request recycling bins or to contact BFI was 1 -888 -PICK BFI. The public hearing opened at 8:45 P.M. As no one cameforward to address the Council, the public hearing closed at 8:45 P.M. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: Adopt Resolution No. 00-6084, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE COUNTY ASSESSOR TO INCLUDE DELINQUENT REFUSE BILLS AS A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT TO BE COLLE4CTED AT THE SAME .TIME AND IN THE SAME MANNER AS COUNTY TAXES." City Council Minutes 06-27-00. Page 10282 `Motion Bowler,.second Dunbabin. The motioncarried- by unanimous vote. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 6. FORMATION OF A PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION. 'Memorandum from City Manager -Stephen Burrell. dated June -.22, 2000. Supplemental Ordinance for introduction -received_June 27, 2000. City Manager Burrell presented-the.staff report and responded to Council questions., Action: To: 1. approve the creationof a Public Works Commission; 2. waive full reading and introduce Ordinance No. 00- 1203, entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO ESTABLISH A PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION AND AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE." direct staff to advertise for applicants at this time in order to appoint the commissioners as soon as possible after the ordinance becomes effective, 30 days from adoption. Motion Dunbabin, second Bowler. The motion carried unanimous vote. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS'AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER REQUEST FROM THE CHAMBER OF -COMMERCE -FOR PLACEMENT OF AN ADVERTISEMENT IN THE 2000 CHAMBER OF - COMMERCE BUSINESS DIRECTORY. Memorandum from ..City Manager Stephen Burrell dated June 21, 2000. City Manager Burrell presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Action: To approve the request of the Chamber of Commerce for placement of an advertisement in the 2000 Business Directory; that will run for approximately two years, by approving an inside full-page four-color advertisement at a cost of $1,900. Motion Bowler, second Oakes. The motion carried by unanimous vote. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS ->CITY COUNCIL VACANCIES - BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS EXPIRATION OF TERMS. Memorandum from Elaine Doerfling dated June 22,2000.. Deputy City Clerk Naoma Valdes presented the staff responded to Council questions. CIVIL SERVICE BOARD: Two terms expiring July 15, City Clerk report and. City Council Minutes 06-27-00, Page 10282 Action:. To approve the staff recommendation to reappoint Michael D'Amico and L. Dwight Taggart, the two incumbent board members and the only applicants, to four- year terms expiring 'July 15, 2004. Motion Bowler, second Mayor Reviczky. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. PLANNING COMMISSION: Three terms expiring June 30, 2000: Action: To approve staff recommendation to: 1) schedule applicant interviews at 6:00 P.M. prior to the July 11, 2000, meeting, with 'appointments to follow at the regular meeting; and, 2) direct staff to extend the application filing period in the interim, with a filing deadline of 6 p.m. Wednesday, July 5, 2000. Motion Oakes, second Bowler. .The motion carried by _unanimous vote. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests items: from, Council members for possible future a. request from Councilmember Edgerton for authority to initiate a lawsuit against the FAA in conjunction with Rancho Palos Verdes and Redondo Beach. Councilmember Edgerton suggested that this item be heard in the closed session. City Attorney Michael. Jenkins recommended that this item be added to the agenda for the closed session as Initiation of Litigation. Action:. To add the request for authority to initiate a lawsuit against the FAA in conjunction with Rancho Palos Verdes and Redondo Beach to the closed session agenda as Potential. City Initiation of Litigation, Government Code_ Section 54956.9(c). Motion Edgerton, second Bowler,. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. ANNOUNCEMENT IN OPEN SESSION OF ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION AS FOLLOWS: MINUTES: Approval of minutes of Closed Session meeting held on June 13, 2000. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL ADVISOR - Potential City Initiation_ of Litigation, Government Code Section 54956.9(c): request for authority to initiate a lawsuit against the FAA in conjunction with Rancho Palos Verdes and Redondo Beach. City Council Minutes 06-27-00; Page 10282 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR Section 54957.6 City Negotiator: - O Stephen Burrell Employee Organizations: • Hermosa Beach Police Officers Association Hermosa Beach Firefighters' Association Teamsters Union, Local 911 Professional and Administrative Employee Hermosa Beach Management Association Hermosa Beach. Police Management Association ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION The regular Meeting of the City Councilof the City of Hermosa Beach adjourned on Tuesday, June 27, 2000, at the hour of 9:02 P.M. to a closed session. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION - The Closed Session convened at the hour of 9:07 P.M. At the hour of 9:52 P.M., the Closed Session adjourned to the Regular Meeting. ORAL ANNOUNCEMENTS: The City Council announced the following action: Action:. To approve the following positions: • Recreation Supervisor; Associate Engineer; • Assistant Engineer Motion Bowler, second Edgerton. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. ADJOURNMENT - The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach adjourned on Tuesday, June 27, 2000, at the hour of 9:53 P.M. to the Adjourned Regular Meeting of July 11, 2000, at the hour of 6:00 P.M. for the purpose of interviewing applicants for. the Planning Commission. NEGOTIATOR - Government Code recommended salary ranges for the City Council Minutes VOUCHRE2 06/22/00, 17:24 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME 21724 06/22/00 000029 A-1 COAST SANITATION, I 21725 06/22/00 010302 SCOTT ANDERSON 21726 06/22/00 009192 ARB, INC. CONSTRUCTORS 21727 06/22/00 006100 ARCUS DATA SECURITY 21728. 06/22/00 008630 AVIS 21729 06/22/00 010296 MARYAM BEKLIK 21730 06/22/00 010293 LAURA BLANK CITY -OF HERMOSA BEACH VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION SANITATION UNITS/PIER HEAD PARKING PERMIT, REFUND ACCOUNT NUMBER 160-3102-4201 110-3843 AI.'PIER PK STRUCL'URE1312000 121-8624-4201 NORTH PIER PARKING STRUCTURE 121-8624-4201. OFF SITE-STORAGE/MAY 2000 CITATION REFUND CITATION REFUND CITATION'REFUND. 21731 06/22/00 008522 BLUE RIDGE MEDICAL INC. MEDICAL SUPPLIES 21732 06/22/00 000480 CA POLICE CHIEFS ASSOC HOTEL DEPOSIT BUSINESS BREAKFAST . MEMBERSHIP DUES/SWARTZ GAS PURCHASES/MAY 2000 MINUTES TRANCRIPTIONS/MAY 2000 300' NOTICING 21733 06/22/00 001037 CALBO = : 21734 06/22/00 000634 CHEVRON USA, 21735 06/22/00 008811 DIANE CLEARY 21736 06/22/00 009614 CONTINENTAL MAPPING SER INC. 21737 06/22/00 007699 DAVE BANG ASSOCIATES, I .PORTABLE BENCHES/SKATE TRACK 21738 06/22/00 010292 CHRIS DEFORD 21739 06/22/00 008040 DELL MARKETING 21740. 06/22/00 008191 DUNCAN INDUSTRIES 21741 06/22/00 010294. ROBERT DUNKLE CITATION REFUND' ,COMPUTER MONITORS DATA TERMINAL CITATION REFUND 06/22/00 000181 EASY READER LEGAL ADS/4/27-6/01/00 21743 06/22/00. 006541 EL CAPITAN THEATRE CO SUMMER CAMP EXCURSION 06/22/00 010297 EXECUTIVE CAR LEASING 21745 06/22/00 001962 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP CITATION REFUND EXPRESS MAIL/JUNE 2000 EXPRESS MAIL/JUNE 2000 EXPRESS MAIL/JUNE 2000 EXPRESS MAIL/JUNE 2000 `21746 06/22/00 010301 RALPH FERDINAND CITATION REFUND 715-1206-4201 110-3302 110-3302 110-3302 ITEM. AMOUNT 1,099.09 29.00 20,215.78 32,019.30 001-2201-4309 001,-2101-4317 001-2101-4317 001-4201-4315 715-2101-4310. 001-4101-4201' 001-4111-4201 001-4202-4309 110-3302 170-2103-5401 110-3302-5402 110-3302 001-1121-4323 001-4601-4308 110-3302 : 001.4201-4305 001-4201-4305 1 001-1203-4201 . 001-2101-4201 110-3302 117.33 17.00. 20.00 30.00 79.50 189.00 30.00 150.00 235.28 250.00 940.00 1,442.75 50.00 495.79 2,014.23 50.00 2,975.51 680.00 20.00 26.26 22.64 36.94. 19.90 PAGE 1 CHECK AMOUNT 1,099.09 29.00 52,235.08 117.33 17.00 20.00 30.00 79.50 219.00 150.00 235.28 250.00 940.00 1,442.75 50.00 495.79 2,014.23 50.00 =2,975.51 680.00 20.00 • 105.74 20.00 20.00 1 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME 21747: 06/22/00 009531 FIRSTLINE,:LLC :21748 '06/22/00 008175 FLEMING & ASSOCIATES 21749 06/22/00 010298 FREDERIC FUZEE 21750 06/22/00 010306 MICK GAGLIA -. 21751 06/22/00 009056. GTE INTERNETWORKING 21752 06/22/00 005356 21753 06/22/00 010310 21754 06/22/00 21755 06/22/00 21756 06/22/00 007859 007136 010299 JOHN HUNTER,& ASSOC. PATTI JAMGOTCHIAN L.A. CO METRO TRANS AUT THE LAKES AT EL SEGUNDO BETH MCCANN 21757 06/22/00 010295 KELLY MURPHY 21758 06/22/00 009296 NATIONWIDE SPORTS PHOTO 21759 06/22/00 010303 JOHN OBANNON 21760 .06/22/00,,008482 PMX MEDICAL SPECIALTY. 21761 06/22/00 009145 POINTE WEST 21762 06/22/00 000097 POSTMASTER 21763 .06/22/00 007936 GREGORY SEVILLA 21764 06/22/00 010305 SPECIALTY DOORS + AUTON 21765 06/22/00 009935 WARD SPOONER 21766 06/22/00 010300 MCCANN TAYLOR CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION MEDICAL GLOVES PURCHASE LIABILITY TRUST ACCOUNT CITATION REFUND CITATION REFUND EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT E-MAIL/WEB PAGE STORAGE/JUNE ADMIN STORM WATER PROGRAM CLASS REFUND/SPRING 2000 BUS PASS SALES/JUNE 2000 SPRING GOLF CLASSES CITATION REFUND CITATION REFUND ROLLER HOCKEY LEAGUE. PICTURES CITATION REFUND MEDICAL SUPPLIES/FIRE DEPT MEDICAL SUPPLIES/FIRE. DEPT MEDICAL SUPPLIES/FIRE DEPT' MEDICAL. SUPPLIES/FIRE DEPT SKATE BOARD CLASSES/SPRING 00 ANNUAL RENTAL FEE/P.O. BOX 695 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT/SUMMER EMERGENCY REPAIR CITATION REFUND CITATION REFUND 21767 06/22/00 004768 UPTIME COMPUTER SERVICE PRINTER MAINT/JUNE 2000 21768 06/22/00 010290 LELAND VAN ANDLER 21769 06/22/00 003353 VISA BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND HOTEL/PALM.SPRINGS/STRASER LEAGUE OF CITIES/REVICZKY. LUNCH MEETING/BURRELL ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-2201-4309 705-1209-4324 110-3302 110-3302 001-2101-4317 715-1206-4201 160-3102-4201 001-2111 145-3403-4251 001-4601-4221 110-3302 110-3302 001-460174308 110-3302 - 001-2201-4309 001-2201-4309 001-2201-4309 001-2201-4309.. 001-4601-4221 001-2101-4201 110-3302-4317 001-2101-4306 110-3302 110-3302 715-1206-4201 .001=3115 ITEM AMOUNT. 102.84 4,092.65 28.00 10.00 140.80 135.90 3,093.00, 384.00 204.00 182.00 10.00 20.00 611.61 50.00 CHECK. AMOUNT. 102.84 4,092.65 38.00 140.80 135.90 3,093.00 384.00 204.00 182.00 10.00 20.00 611.61 50.00 '001-2101-4317 001-1101-4317: 001-1101-4305 471.35 215.10 27.83 42.27 168.00 64.00 518.17 857.48 -20.00 20.00 427.00 90.59 242.53 25.00 69.39 756.55 168.00 64.00 518.17 857.48 20.00 20.00 427.00 90.59 VOUCHRE2 06/22/00 17:24 VOUCHER/ CHECK NUMBER CHECK VENDOR VENDOR DATE NUMBER NAME 21770 06/22/00 21771 06/22/00 000553 OFCR JAMES WHIPKEY 005125 JOHN WORKMAN, PETTY CAS 21772 06/22/00 004268 TRACY YATES. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION LEAGUE OF CITIES/DUNBABIN MANAGEMENT RETREAT/MAY 2000. ORAL BOARD LUNCH/JUNE 2000 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT -PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURS/5/30-6/13 REIMBURS/5/30-6/13 REIMBURS/5/30-6/13 REIMBURS/5/30-6/13 REIMBURS/5/30-6/13 REIMBURS/5/30-6/13 REIMBURS/5/30-6/13 ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-1101-4317 001-1203-4317 001-1203-4201 001-2101-4312. 001-1121-4305 001-4204-4321 001-1101-4305 001-4101-4317 001-4601-4308- 001-1203-4317 00174202-4317' EDUCATION REIMBURS/SUMMER 2000 001-4601-4317 21773 .06/22/00 001206: ZUMAR INDUSTRIES STREET STENCILS, TOTAL. CHECKS ITEM AMOUNT 300.00 3,814.99 43.45 400.94 30.31 71.50 2.12 51.00 18.80 18.17 54.00 420.00 001-3104-5402 2,143.44 PAGE 3 CHECK AMOUNT 4,495.36 400.94 245.90 420.00 2,143.44 VOUCHRE2 06/22/00 17:24 -FUND TITLE 001 GENERAL FUND 110 PARKING FUND 121 PROP A. OPEN SPACE FUND 145 PROPOSITION 'A FUND 160 SEWER FUND 170 ASSET SEIZURE/FORFT 705 INSURANCE FUND 715 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS AMOUNT 17,906.01 2,926.40 52,235.08 204.00 4,192.09 495.79 4,092.65 915.51. FUND TOTAL 82,967.53 VOUCHRE2 06/29/00 17:19 - VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK .VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME 21774 06/29/00 002744 A & E TROPHIES 21775 06/29/00 010308 ACADEMY OF JUSTICE 21776 06/29/00 010291 MARK ADKINS 21777 06/29/00 000935 ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 21778 06/29/00..006827 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT 21779 06/29/00 009517 CHRIS ALVAREZ 21780 06/29/00 005179 AT&T " CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION BRASS NAME PLATE TRAINING EXPENSES/WRIGHT• CITATION REFUND/ADMIN HEARING MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT/JUNE 00 SCHOOL CRSSG GD SERV/99/2000 HOCKEY REFEREE/SPRING 2000 LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-4601-4305 001-2101-4313 110-3302 001-2101-4201 001-2102-4201 001-4601-4201. ITEM AMOUNT 26.25 139.55 100.00 1,323.60 3,018.75 PAGE 1 CHECK AMOUNT 26.25 139.55 100.00 1,323.60 3,018.75 " 60.00 DISTANCE CHRG'S/MAY 2000 DISTANCE CHRG'S/MAY 2000 DISTANCE CHRG'S/JUNE 2000 DISTANCE CHRG'S/MAY 2000 DISTANCE CHRG'S/JUNE 2000 DISTANCE CHRG'S/MAY 2000 DISTANCE CHRG'S/MAY 2000 DISTANCE CHRG'S/JUNE 2000 DISTANCE CHRG'S/JUNE 2000 DISTANCE CHRG'S/MAY 2000 DISTANCE CHRG'S/JUNE 2000 21781 06/29/00 010289 ATKINSON,ANDELSON, LOYA LEGAL FEES/MAY 2000 21782 06/29/00 010321 ANNIE "BARRERA 21783 06/29/00 006409 BLUE DIAMOND MATERIALS 21784 06/29/00 000262 CALIFORNIA MARKING DEVI 21785 06/29/00 005935 CALIFORNIA STREET MAINT- 21786 06/29/00 010312 JEANNE CARR 21787 06/29/00 000014 CHAMPION CHEVROLET 21788 06/29/00 010311 COMMUNITCATION SUPPORT 21789 06/29/00 010317 COOL WORKS 21790 06/29/00 007809 CORPORATE EXPRESS 21791 06/29/00 007700 CPRS 21792 06/29/00 008741 D.F. POLYGRAPH 21793 06/29/00 004689 DATA TICKET, INC. CLASS REFUND ASPHALT PURCHASE/JUNE 2000 DATE STAMP PURCHASE/APRIL-2000 PORTER SERVICE/MAY 2000 1999 ASSESSMENT REBATE AUTO PART PURCHASE/APRIL 2000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES JOB LISTING OFFICE SUPPLIES/JUNE 2000 RETURNED MERCHANDISE MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL/ROONEY POLYGRAPH/ALKADIS . DMV RECORD RETRIEVAL/MAR 2000 DMV RECORD RETRIEVAL/JUNE 2000 001-2101-4304 001-2101-4304 001-2101-4304 001-2101-4304' 715-1206-4304 001-2101-4304. 001-4202-4304 001-2101-4304 001-4601-4304 001-2101-4304 001-4202-4304 705-1209.4201 001-21.11 001-3104-4309 001-4202-4305 109-3301-4201 105-3105 715-2201-4311 16.82 14.34 8.71 14.34 11.41- 18.07 20.79" 17.06 14.77 14.34 12.44 163.09 43.75 58.00 113.58 67.12 720.00 24.61 109.74 3,000.00. 75.00 001-2110 001-1203-4201 001-1208-4305 001-1208-4305: 001-4601-4315 001-2101-4201 110-1204-4201 110-1204-4201 113.58 67.12 720.00 24.61 109.74 3,000.00 75.00 443.39 3.10- 385.00 175:00 38.22 88.27 126.49 440.29 385.00 175.00 VOUCHRE2 06/29/00 17:19 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK 'VENDOR NUMBER DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME 21794" 06/29/00 004738 DENN'ENGINEERS 21795 06/29/00 003567 DMG-MAXIMUS 21796 06/29/00 009112 DMR TEAM 21797 06/29/00 006178 DOMINO COMPUTER CENTER 21798 06/29/00 004948 FASTSIGNS 21799 06/29/00 010313 21800 06/29/00 008931 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR. ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION FIELD SURVEY/PALM DRIVE 98/99 STATE MANDATED COST 97/98 STATE MANDATED COST RESURFACINGMERMOSA AVE. RESURFACING/HERMOSA AVE. RESURFACING/HERMOSA AVE. PENTIUM COMPUTER PURCHASE. RE -WRITABLE CD-ROM &.WARRANTY RE -WRITABLE CD-ROM BANNER/SUNSET CONCERTS PHYLLIS 'FILLET '1999ASSESSMENTREBATE FLEMING &-ASSOCIATES,TR` WORKER COMP CLAIMS/6/1-6/15/00 21801 06/29/00 010298 FREDERIC'FUZEE. ,. 21802 06/29/00 007721 21803 06/29/00 21804 06/29/00 `010272 HARTS AUTO SUPPLY CITATION REFUND HELENA F. GRILL 1999 ASSESSMENT REBATE 000015 GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPO PHONE BILLING/JUNE 2000 AUTO PARTS PURCHASE/MAY 2000 21805 06/29/00 21806 06/29/00 005824 PENNY HENDRICKS RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND 005356 JOHN HUNTER & ASSOC. CITYWIDE, USED OIL RECYCLING. ADMIN STORM WATER, PROGRAM EXCURSION BOOKING FEE EMPLOYMENT SCREENING/MAY 2000 21807 06/29/00 002556 HUNTINGTON HARBOUR 21808 06/29/00 009657 INFOLINK 21809 06/29/00. 002458 INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELE ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES/JUNE 2000 DISCOUNTOFFERED DISCOUNT TAKEN ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES/JUNE 2000 DISCOUNT OFFERED • DISCOUNT TAKEN ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES/JUNE 2000. DISCOUNT OFFERED DISCOUNT TAKEN ELECTRIC SUPPLIES/JUNE 2000 DISCOUNT OFFERED DISCOUNT TAKEN ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES/JUNE 2000 DISCOUNT OFFERED DISCOUNT TAKEN_ ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-4202-4201 001-1202-4201 001-1202-4201 146-8150-4201 150-8139-4201 301-8139-4201 715-1206-5402 715-1206-5401 001-1121-4201 ' 001-4601-4308 105-3105 705-1217-4324 110-3302 105-3105 001-4601-4304 715-2101.4311 001-2111. 150-8302-4201 160-3102-4201.. 001-4601-4201 001-1203-4201 105-2601-4309 001-2021 001-2022 105-2601-4309 001-2021 001-2022 001-4204-4309 001-2021 001-2022, 001-4204-4309 001-2021 001-2022 001-4204-4309 001-2021 001-2022 ITEM AMOUNT 1,650.00 259.00 1,244.00 6,650.00 10,620.00 1,380.00 1,200.51 323.67. 323.67 PAGE 2 CHECK AMOUNT 1,650.00 '.1,503.00 18,650.00 1,847.85• 726:36 726.36 24.61 24.61 19,069.31 19,069.31 10.00'. 10.00 24.61 24.61 78.42 78.42 109.59 109:59 500.00 500.00 3,485.00 2,248.50 10.00 31.80 401.63 7.56 7.56- 201.88 3.80 3.80- 382.50 7.20 7.20- 214.21 4.03 4.03- 207.19 3.09 3.09- 5,733.50 10.00 31.80 1,407.41 VOUCHRE2 06/29/00 17:19 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME 21810 06/29/00 010088 INSPECTION ENGINEERING 21811 06/29/00 007880 JAMESTOWN PRESS 21812 06/29/00 006440 JOBTRAK 21813' 06/29/00 009454 LAUREN MARIKO KIM 21814 06/29/00 008675 NOLAN KIM 21815 06/29/00 000167 LEARNED LUMBER CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER .-. FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION TRAFFIC -SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS BUSINESS CARD PURCHASE RECRUITMENT AD/DAY CAMP ROLLER HOCKER SCOREKEEPER ROLLER HOCKEY REFEREE/JUNE 00 CORK & CEMENT/JUNE 2000 LUMBER PURCHASE/JUNE 2000 . ACCOUNT NUMBER 105-8153-4201 105-8156-4201 105-8153-4201. 105-8156-4201 001-1208-4305 001-1203-4201 001-4601-4201 ITEM AMOUNT 13,573.90. 9,346.05 4,064.80 5,679.51 81.19 175.00 36.00 PAGE 3 CHECK AMOUNT, 32,664.26 81.19 175.00 36.00 72.00 21816 06/29/00 008445 LITTLE CO OF MARY HOSPI EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS/MAY,2000 21817 06/29/00 000077 LOMITA BLUEPRINT SERVIC BLUELINE PAPER 21818 06/29/00 010156 LOS ANGELES'ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER #2 21819 06/29/00 007174 EMMITT L. MANION 21820 06/29/00 009563 BRIAN MARTINICH 21821 06/29/00 008178 DOROTHY MCDONALD 21822 06/29/00 003167 MICHAELS 21823 06/29/00 008975 MOBIL FLEET 1999 ASSESSMENT REBATE. ROLLER HOCKEY REFEREE/JUNE 00 1999 ASSESSMENT REBATE 001-4601-4201 001-1121-4305 001-1121-4305 001-1203-4320 001-4202-4305 121-8621-4201,. 160-8621-4201 105-3105 001-4601-4201 105-3105 56.05 13.54 332.00 120.61 65,967.00 32,365.00 69.59 332.00 120.61 98,332.00 24.61 138.00. 24.61 166.63 21824 06/29/00 008714 JESSIE MOORE 010315 DAVID NOLAN DAY CAMP •.GAS GAS GAS . GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS •21826 -06/29/00 000093 OLYMPIC AUTO CENTER .• CARD CARD CARD CARD CARD CARD CARD CARD CARD CARD CARD CARD CARD 'CARD SUPPLIES/JUNE 2000 'PURCHASES/MAY PURCHASES/MAY PURCHASES/MAY PURCHASES/MAY PURCHASES/MAY PURCHASES/MAY PURCHASES/MAY PURCHASES/MAY PURCHASES/MAY PURCHASES/MAY PURCHASES/MAY PURCHASES/MAY PURCHASES/MAY PURCHASES/MAY 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 1999 ASSESSMENT REBATE. CITATION REFUND/ADMIN HEARING AUTO BODY REPAIRS/JUNE 2000 001-4601-4308 715-2101-4310- :715-220174310 715-4201-4310 715-4202-4310-" 715-3302-4310 715-3104-4310 715-4601-4310 715-2601-4310 715-3102-4310 715-4204-4310. 001-1250 715-1236 715-2201-4310 715-2101-4310 2,530.47 149.48 87.69 327.84 288.52 153.02 32.60 122.32 79.13. 28.11 68.64 131.48 29.77 43.36 105-3105 110-3302 715-2101-4311 24.61 17.00 40.00 4,072.43., 24.61` 17.00 VOUCHRE2 06/29/00 17:19 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION AUTO BODY WORK/JUNE 2000 BODY WORK/FIRE ENGINE/6/2000 21827 06/29/00 010139 PARKING CONCEPTS INC. PARKING MANAGEMENT/MAY 2000. PARKING MANAGEMENT/MAY 2000 21828 06/29/00 010288 PATRICIA BENZ 21829 06/29/00 009855 THE 'PLANNING CENTER 21830 06/29/00 008202. DARRYL POWERS 21831 06/29/00 010319 • EXPENSE REIMBURSMENT ACCOUNT NUMBER 715-2101-4311 715-2201-4311 109-3305-4201 109-3304-4201 001-1101-4319 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COASTAL 150-4104-4201 EXPENSE REEvIDURSEMENT/CLASS PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIRE ACTUARIAL STUDIES/3%:a 55 21832 06/29/00 009852 QUANTUM CONSULTING 21833' 06/29/00 003282 001-2201-4317 001-1203-4201 STREET RECONSTRUCTION/GOLD/24 001-3104-4201 CITY OF REDONDO BEACH TRANSPORTATION/SUMMER CAMPS INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT/SPRING 2000 008871 LYN RILEY, EMS EDUCATIO MANDATED TRAINING PROGRAM RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND 010280 RONALD SHOPPER TRAINING REIMBURSEMENT CLASS REFUND CITATION REFUND/ADMIN HEARING ' 21834 06/29/00 003991 BARRY REED 21835 06/29/00 21836 06/29/00 010320 KAREN SCHAFFER 21837 06/29/00 21838 06/29/00 010119 DARLENE`SINATRA 21839 06/29/00 010316 STEPHEN SMITH 21840 06/29/00 008812 SOUTH BAY REGIONAL PUBL SET UP DETECTIVE VEHICLE STROBES•. INSTALLED/JUNE 2000 ALARM & INSTALLATION 21841 06/29/00 .000018 SOUTH BAY WELDERS WELDING SUPPLIES/MAR & APRIL 21842 06/29/00 010314 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON C SCE MANUALS 21843 06/29/00 '000159 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDI ELECTRIC BILLING/JUNE 2000 21844 06/29/00 010232 SPICERS PAPER,INC. 21845 06/29/00 PAPER PURCHASE/JUNE 2000 DISCOUNT OFFERED DISCOUNT TAKEN 005195 STANDARD CONCRETE PRODU CONCRETE PURCHASE/JUNE 2000 CONCRETE PURCHASE/JUNE 2000 1999: ASSESSMENT REBATE PLUMBING SUPPLIES/JUNE'2000 DISCOUNT OFFERED 21846 06/29/00 008152 CAROL TANNER 21847. 06/29/00 000124 TODD PIPE & SUPPLY 145-3409-4201 001-4601-4221 001-2201-4201 001-2111 001-2101-4317 - 001-2111 110-3302 715-2101-5403 715.2101-5403" 715-2101-5403 715-3102-4309 001-4201-4317 105-2601-4303 001-1208-4305 001-2021 001-2022 001-3104-4309 001-3104-4309 105-3105 ITEM AMOUNT 432.06 540.48 9,467.97 9,731.72 250.61 790.36 513.52 200.00 3,745.00 375.00 1,680.00 1,250.00 250.00 55.60 45.00 330.00 508.02 136.94 203.25 30.50 70.00 32.09 . CHECK AMOUNT 19,199.69 962.63 18.12 18.12- 397.07 253.79 790.36 513.52 200.00 3,745.00, 375.00 1,680.00 1,250.00 250.00 55.60. 45.00. 330.00 848.21 30.50 70.00 32.09 962.63 650.86 160-3102.4309 001-2021 211.87 � 4:31 VOUCHRE2 06/29/00 17:19 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE 21848 06/29/00 VENDOR VENDOR NUMBER NAME, 010322 PATRICIA TOSCANO 21849 06/29/00. 009153 21850 06/29/00 000123 21851 06/29/00 009078 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS ITEM DESCRIPTION_ DISCOUNT TAKEN .CITATION REFUND TOSCO FLEET SERVICES GAS PURCHASE/MAY 2000 GAS PURCHASE/MAY .2000 TRIANGLE HARDWARE. ALLEN WRENCH TRUGREEN LAND CARE REGI LANDSCAPING MAINT LANDSCAPING MAINT 21852 ' 06/29/00 008097 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNI SAFEKEEPING FEES/MAY 2000 21853 06/29/00 010290 LELAND VAN ANDLER 21854 06/29/00 004559 WOLF CAMERA INC 21855 06/29/00 001206 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND FILM DEVELOPMENT/MAY-2000. SIGN MAKING MATERIALS/JUNE ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-2022 110-3302 715-2201-4310 715-1236 110-3302-4309 105-2601-4201 001-4202-4201 001-1141-4305 001-3115 001-2201-4305 001-3104-4309 ITEM AMOUNT 4.31 28.00 531.32 32.97 10.80 10,900.00 1,400.00 208.33 90.59 25.55 345.05 PAGE 5 CHECK AMOUNT 211.87 28.00 564.29. 10.80 12,300.00. 208.33 90.59 25.55 345.05 TOTAL CHECKS - VOUCHRE2 06/29/00 17:19 TITLE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS 001 GENERAL FUND 27,663.37 105 LIGHTG/LANDSCAPG DIST FUND 44,396.74 109 DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT FUND 19,919.69 110 PARKING FUND 622.29 121 PROP A OPEN SPACE FUND 65,967.00 145 PROPOSITION 'A FUND 375.00 146 PROPOSITION 'C FUND 6,650.00 150 GRANTS FUND 14,895.36 160 SEWER FUND 34,825.37 301 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 1,380.00 705 .INSURANCE FUND 19,113.06 715 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 8,214.25 TOTAL 244,022.13 VOUCHRE2 07/05/00 07:30 VOUCHER/ CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE CITY'OF.HERMOSA BEACH VOUCHER/CHECK.REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS. PAGE 1 VENDOR. VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK- NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT 21856 07/05/00 000243 HERMOSA BEACH'PAYROLL A PAYROLL/6-16 TO 6-30-00 001-1103' 377,418.77 PAYROLL/6 16. TO 6-30700 105-1103 9,141:55 PAYROLL/6-16 TO 6-30-00 109-1103 945.36 PAYROLL/6-16 TO 6-30-00 110-1103 38,062.46 PAYROLL/6-16 TO 6730-00 117-1103 1,286:82 PAYROLL/6-16 TO 6-30-00 - 121-1103 1,401.67 PAYROLL/6-16 TO 6-30-00 125-1103 488.64 PAYROLL/6-16 TO 6-30-00 126-1103 488.66 PAYROLL/6-16 TO 6-30-00 140-1103 292:28 PAYROLL/6-16 TO 6-30-00 145-1103 ,1,372.38 PAYROLL/6-16 TO 6-30-00 146 1103 977.33 PAYROLL/6-16 TO 6-30700 15071103 578.05 PAYROLL/6-16 TO 6-30-00 15271103 13.55 PAYROLL/6-16 TO 6-30-00 160-1103 9,918.11 PAYROLL/6-16 TO 630-00 705-1103 2,745.90 PAYROLL/6-16 TO 6-30-00 715-1103 5,672.18 450,803.71 TOTAL CHECKS - 450,803.71 VOUCHRE2 07/05/00 07:30 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER FOR ALL PERIODS FUND TITLE AMOUNT 001 GENERAL FUND 377,418.77 105 LIGHTG/LANDSCAPG DIST FUND 9,141.55 109 DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT FUND 945.36 110 PARKING FUND 38,062.46 117 AB939 FUND 1,286.82 121 PROP A OPEN SPACE FUND 1,401.67 125 PARK/REC'FACILITY TAX FUND 488.64 126 4% UTILITY USERS TAX FUND 488.66 140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 292.28 145 PROPOSITION 'A FUND 1,372.38 146 PROPOSITION 'C FUND 977.33 150 GRANTS FUND 578.05 152 AIR QUALITY MGMT DIST FUND 13.55 160 SEWER FUND 9,918.11 705 INSURANCE FUND 2,745.90 715 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 5,672.18 TOTAL 450,803.71 PAGE 2 VOUCHRE2 07/05/00 07:30 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER. FOR 'ALL PERIODS CLAIMS VOUCHER APPROVAL I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE DEMANDS OR CLAIMS COVERED BY THE CHECKS LISTED ON PAGES TO L . INCLUSIVE, OF THE VOUCHER REGISTER FOR 0/2:2,jOU WORE ACCURATE, FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PAYMENT, AND ARE IN CONFORMANCE TO THE BUDGET. BY FINANCE.DIRECTOR DATE 6 PAGE ;3 June 28, 2000 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council For the Meeting of July 11, 2000 CANCELLATION OF CHECKS Please consider the following request for cancellation of the checks listed below: #21768 06/22/00 - $90.59 LELAND VAB ABDKER. Check was issued to a vendor with an incorrect spelling. Check was never mailed. #21749 — 06/22/00- $ 38.00 FREDERIC FUZEE. Check was issued to the wrong vendor. Check was never mailed. Joh orkman, City Treasurer �,,n` Concur: �i Ste • en R. Burrell, City Manager Noted fo fiscal impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director July 6, 2000 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of July 11, 2000 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Public Hearing: Text amendment regarding nonconforming remodel Section 17.52. Community Development Director Public Hearing: Text amendment regarding lot coverage exception Section 17.04. Community Development Director Recommendation to approve action minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of July 18, 2000 Community Development Director Recommendation to approve action minutes from the Parks, Recreation and Community. Resources Advisory Commission meeting. of July 6, 2000 Monthly Activity Reports - June Community Resources Director All Departments JOINT MEETING WITH PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMISSION NO MEETING JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council July 6, 2000 City Council Meeting of July 11, 2000 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORTS MAY 2000 Attached are the May 2000 Revenue and Expenditure reports. General Fund revenue is 94.3% received for 91.7% of the fiscal year. Parking Fund revenue is 89.9% received: General Fund expenditures are 79.3% expended and Parking Fund expenditures are 88.4% expended for 91.7% of the fiscal year. NOTED:' //1 ,/ St-': en R. Burr -Il, City Manager Respectfully submitted, Viki Cope and Finance Director h:\b95\open\revexp.doc REVPRIN2 06/28/00 06:48:57 001 GENERAL FUND ACCOUNT # 3100. 3101 3102 3103 3106 3107 3108 3109 3110 • 3111 3112 3113 3114 3115 3120 3200 3202 3203' 3204 3205 3206 3207 3209 3211 3212 3213 3214 3215 3216 '3217 3218 3225 DESCRIPTION TAXES. • CURRENT YEAR SECURED CURRENT YEAR UNSECURED _.PRIOR YEAR COLLECTIONS SUPPLEMENTAL ROLL SB813 TRANSFER TAX SALES TAX 1/2 CENT SALES TX EXT • CABLE TV FRANCHISE ELECTRIC FRANCHISE GAS FRANCHISE REFUSE FRANCHISE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY .BUSINESS LICENSE UTILITY USER -TAX TAXES LICENSESAND PERMITS DOG LICENSES BICYCLE LICENSES BUILDING PERMITS ELECTRIC PERMITS PLUMBING PERMITS OCCUPANCY PERMITS GARAGE SALES BANNER PERMITS ANIMAL/FOWL PERMITS ANIMAL REDEMPTION FEE AMPLIFIED SOUND PERMIT TEMPORARY SIGN PERMIT SPRAY BOOTH PERMIT OPEN FIRE PERMIT AUTO REPAIR PERMIT. TAXICAB PERMITS LICENSES AND PERMITS 3300 FINES & FORFEITURES 3301 MUNICIPAL, COURT FINES 3400; 3401 3402 3403 '3404 3405 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY INTEREST INCOME RENTS & CONCESSIONS, PIER REVENUE COMM CTR LEASES COMM CTR RENTALS CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 (091.7% OF BUDGET YEAR) -:ADJUSTED. ESTIMATE' 3,536,023.00 247,593.00 166,074.00 31,626.00 154,000.00 2,311,722.00 137,519.00 190,000.00 46,796.00 38,850.00 170,000.00 653,170.00 600,000.00 1,600,000.00 9,883,373.00 10,201.00 100.00 ' 340,340.00 46,000.00 40,250.00 6,000.00 100.00 6,300.00 200.00 2,600.00 600.00 340.00 125.00 350.00 2,400.00 25,000.00 480,906.00 205,000.00 222,600.00 1,181.00 .00 95,597.00 40,000.00 MAY REVENUE 1999-00 REVENUE 336,652.07 3,499,539.32 .00 244,019.23 31,622.02 131;762.53. 12,218.93 62,090.35 . PAGE BALANCE % COL 36,483.68 3,573.77 34,311.47 30,464.35- 12,226.48 142,104.89 - 11,895.11 192,942.00 1,992,772.90 318,949.10 10,149.27 104,353:47 33,165.53 .00 100,959.37 89,040.63 .00 A5,795.50 1,000.50 .00 39,294.52 ' 444.52- .00 137,154.54 32,845.46 130,709.72 711,929.17 58,759.17- 73,940.48 484,255.95 115,744.05 181,632.90 1,513,890.78 86,109.22 982,093.87 -9,209,922.52 673,450.48 99.0 98.6 79.3 196.3 92.3 86.2 75.9 53.1 97.9 101.1 80.7 109.0 80.7 94.6 93.2 227.50 ' 10,334.00 133.00- 101.3 .00 42.00. 58.00 42.0 15,293.77 347,492.44 7,152.44- 102.1 2,189.00 51,559.00 5,559.00- 112.1 5,447.00 45,621.75 5,371.75- 113.3 1,564.00 7,616.00 1,616.00- 126.9. 3.00 72.00 28.00 72.0 645.00 5,560.00 740.00 88.3 .00 112.25 87.75 56.1 174.00 ' 2,596.00 . - 4.00 99.8 82.00 692.00 92.00- 115.3 .00 . 383.00 43.00- 112.6' .00 85.00 40.00 68.0 .00 96.00 254.00. 27.4 .00 2,630.00 230.00-.109.6 1,675.00 ` • 45,075.00 ' 20,075.00- 180.3 27,300.27 519,966.44 39,060.44- 108.1 14,488.05 170,016.40 34,983.60 82.9 11,607.86 3.52 .00 7,943.69 181,960.94 958.17 .00 88,325.39 5,750.00 39,213.51 40,639.06 222.83 81.1 .00 7,271.61 92.4 786.49 : 98.0 81.7 REVPRIN2 06/28/00 06:48:57 001 GENERAL•FUND CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 (091.7/ OF BUDGET YEAR) ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION 3406 COMM CTR THEATRE 3411 OTHER FACILITIES 3412 TENNIS COURTS 3418 SPECIAL EVENTS 3450 INVESTMENT DISCOUNT 3460 `. UNREALIZED GAIN(LOSS) ON 3475 INVESTMENT PREMIUM USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY. 3500 INTERGOVERNMENTAL/STATE 3504 IN LIEU OFF HIGHWAY 347.00 .00 347.82 .82- 100.2 3505 IN LIEU MOTOR VEHICLE 900,000.00 ` 76,458.83 860,050.72 39,949.28 95.6 3507 HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE ' 9,800.00 2,518.44 7,555.32' 2,244:68 77.1 3508 MANDATED COSTS 26,576.00 1,080.00 22,089.00 4,487.00 83.1 3509 HOMEOWNR PROP TX RELIEF 62,000.00, 22,677.01 55,072.73, 6,927.27 88.8 3510 POST 10,000.00 458.16 9,030.38 969.62 90.3 3511 STC -SVC, OFF TRAINING 5,750.00 .00 862.50 4,887.50 15.0 INTERGOVERNMENTAL/STATE 1,014,473.00 103,192.44 955,008.47 59,464.53 94.1 ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 ESTIMATE REVENUE REVENUE 35,000.00 5,271.50 44,023.50 9,023.50- 125.8 18,000.00 1,499.00 18,000.50 .50- 100.0 10,000.00 884.25 10,387.25 387.25- 103.9 50,000.00 5,397.10 30,740.10 19,259.90 61.5 513.00. 303.78 1,449.68 936.68- 282.6 .00 .00 10.24- 10.24 *** 2,993.00- 335.55-. 3,202.83 209.83 107.0 469,898.00. 38,325.15 411,845.97 58,052.03 87.6 BALANCE" % COL 3800 CURRENT SERVICE CHARGES 3801 RESIDENTIAL INSPECTION 13,500.00 1,288.00 14,876.00 1,376.00- 110.2 3802 SIGN REVIEW 2,275.00 279.00 2,137.00 138.00 93.9 3803 ENVIRONMENTAL -IMPACT 2,010.00 .00 1,029.00 981.00 51.2 3805 CONDTL USE PERMIT AMEND _ 1,850.00 372.00 1,479.00 371.00 79.9 3806 BOARD OF APPEALS 170.00 .00 .00 170.00 0.0 3808 ZONE VARIANCE REVIEW 8,575.00 .00 7,500.00 1,075.00 87.5 3809 TENTATIVE MAP REVIEW .00 .00 1,070.00 1,070.00- *** 3810 FINAL MAP REVIEW 4,590.00 522.00 4,425.00 165.00 96.4 3811 ZONE CHANGE/GEN PLAN AMEND 4,188.00 .00 1,396.00 2,792.00 33.3 3812 CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW 28,112.00 2,092.00 24,463.00 3,649.00 87.0 3813 PLAN. CHECK FEES 272,200.00 8,078.40 233,331.20 38,868.80 85.7. 3814 PLANNING/ZONING APPEAL 368.00 .00 928.00 560.00- 252.2 3815 PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES. 8,000.00 1,692.13 9,905.63 1,905.63- 123.8 3818 POLICE SERVICES' 4,.000.00 180.00 2,541.12 1,458.88 63.5 3819 JAIL SERVICES 15,000.00 2,755.00 21,084.00 6,084.00- 140,6 3821 FINGERPRINT SERVICE 1,152.00 .00 1,152.00 .00 100.0 3823 SPECIAL EVENT SECURITY 35,000.00 2,535.00 24,314.00 10,686.00 69.5 3825 PUBLIC NOTICE POSTING 32.00 .00' 80.00 48.00- 250.0 3827 LIBRARY GROUNDS MAINT 6,900.00 .00 6,601.00 299.00 95.7 3831 STREET CUT INSPECTION 50,000.00 .6,846.00 56,670.10 6,670.10- 113.3' 3833 RECREATION SERVICE. CHARGES 5,500.00 437.34 4,912.87 587.13 89.3 3834 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 57,000.00 2,963.55 55,383.05 1,616.95 97.2 3837 RETURNED CHECK CHARGE 700.00 30.00 410.00 290.00 58.6 3838 SALE OF MAPS/PUBLICATIONS 150.00 6.00129.55 20.45 86.4., 3839 PHOTOCOPY CHARGES 800.00 61.20 616.91 183.09 77.1 3840 AMBULANCE TRANSPORT 100,000'.00 8,087.19 95,284.96 4,715.04 95.3 REVPRIN2 06/28/00 CITY OF.HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 . (091.7% OF BUDGET YEAR) 001 GENERAL FUND ACCOUNT .# 3841 3845 3857 3858 3859 3862 3863 3864 3866 3867 3868 3869 3870, 3878 3881 3882 3883 3884 3886 3888 3890 3893 , 3894 3896 3897' 3898 3899 3900 3901 -3902 3903 3904 3909 3920 3955 3956 POLICE TOWING. FINGERPRINTS/TAXICABS PKG PLAN APPLICATION TENANT REFUSE BILLING REFUSE LIEN FEE ALARM PERMIT FEE FALSE ALARM FEE C.U.P./FENCES/WALLS NONCONFORMING REMODELS PRECISE DEVLMNT PLANS PUBLIC NOTICING/300 FT 2ND PARTY RESPONSE LEGAL DETERMINATION HEARING REINSPECTION FEE ROLLR HOCKEY RINK RENT INS SPEC EVENT SECURITY/FIRE FINAL/TENT MAP EXTNSION LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TEXT AMENDMENT PRIVATE PLANNING COMM APPEALS 300'RADIUS NOTCG/APL CC CONTR RECREATION CLASSES_ OTHER RECREATION PROGRMS MAILING FEE ADMIN FEE, INS CERTIF HEIGHT LIMIT EXCEPTION C.U.P. MINOR AMEND. CURRENT SERVICE CHARGES OTHER REVENUE SALE OF REAL/PERS PROP REFUNDS/REIMB PREV YR CONTRIBUTIONS NON GOVT. GENERAL MISCELLANEOUS LATE FEE BCHD HEALTHY CITIES FUND OPERATING TRANSFERS IN RESDL EQUITY TRSFR IN OTHER REVENUE ADJUSTED ESTIMATE 25,000.00 460.00 3,210.00 150.00 1,573.00 2,000.00 1,000.00 217.00 7,610.00 36,400.00. 27,896.00 100.00 .00 1,000.00. 325.00 500.00 522.00 1,198.00 517.00 1,500.00 2,300.00 240,000.00 40,000.00 7.00 11.00 .00 105.00 1,015,673.00 REVENUE CONTROL GENERAL FUND 1,000.00 1,254.00 1,020,670.00 4,911.00 .00 55,500.00 1,108,944.00 4,939.00 2,197,218.00 MAY REVENUE 1,722.00 .00 .00 11.00 2,176.53 245.00 .00 .00 .00 2,662.00 1,902.00 .00 .00 204.00 15.00 .00 .00 .00 .00. .00 374.00 10,797.70 3,227.50 .00 355.06- .00 .00 61,20.6.48 .00 .00 10,768.00 6.85 .00 31,796.13, 92,174.92 .00 134,745.90 23,732.00 460.00 4,280.00 132.00 27,945.42 1, 792.00 1,389.00 .00 8,569.00 34,358.00 _24,726.00 130.68 1,160.00 811.00 95.00- 193.00 1 522.00 1,198.00 517.00 .00 3,402.00 210,135.68 37,751.15 6.50 1,979.05 372.00 .00 957,185.87 988.20 43,393.51 1,053,868.00 15,586.84 .53 31,796.13 1,020,788.12 4,938.77 2,171,360.10 15,266,541.00 1,361,352.16 14,395,305.77 15,266,541.00 1,361,352.16 14,395,305.77 1,268.00 94.9 .00 100.0 1,070.00- 133.3 18.00 88.0 26,372.42- 999.9+ 208.00 89.6. 389.00- 138.9 217.00 0.0 959.00- 112.6 2,042.00 94.4 3,170.00 88.6 30.68- 130.7 1,160.00- 189.00 81.1 420.00 29.2- 307.00 38.6 .00 100.0 .00 100.0 .00 100.0 1,500.00 ' 0.0 1,102.00-147.9 29,864.32 87.6 2,248.85 94.4 .50 92.9 1,968.05- 999.9+ 372.00- 105.00 0.0. 58,487.13 94.2 ***. 11.80 98.8 42,139.51- 999.9+ 33,198.00- 103.3 10,675.84- 317.4 .53- . *,r* 23,703.87 88,155.88 .23 25,857.90 57.3 92.1 100.0 98.8 871,235.23 ' 94.3 871,235.23, 94.3 REVPRIN2 06/28/00 06:48:57 105 LIGHTG/LANDSCAPG DIST FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED MAY. 1999-00 BALANCE % COL ESTIMATE REVENUE REVENUE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 (091.7% OF BUDGET. YEAR) 3100 TAXES 3101 CURRENT YEAR SECURED 3103 PRIOR YEAR COLLECTIONS 3105 ASSESSMENT REBATES TAXES 444,029.00 47,175.74 430,978.27 13,050.73 97.1. 12,000.00 1,533.26 12,975.36 975.36- 108.1 4,000.00- 861.35- 2,953.20- 1,046.80- 73.8 452,029.00 47,847.65 441,000:43 11,028.57 97.6 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 INTEREST INCOME 3450 INVESTMENT DISCOUNT 3475. INVESTMENT PREMIUM USE OF MONEY .& PROPERTY REVENUE CONTROL 38,175.00 1,317.93 28,006.98 87.00 34:73 209.95 514.00- 38.36- 513.09- 37,748.00 1,314.30 27,703.84 489,777.00 49,161.95 10,168.02 73.4, 122.95- 241.3 .91- 99.8 10,044.16 73.4 468,704.27 21,072.73 95.7 LIGHTG/LANDSCAPE DIST FUND. 21,072.73 95.7 REVPRIN2 06/28/00 06:48:57 109 DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 INTEREST INCOME 3413 PARKING LOT LEASE 3420 OTHER INTEREST INCOME 3430, IN -LIEU PARKING FEES 3450 INVESTMENT DISCOUNT 3475 INVESTMENT PREMIUM USE OF MONEY. & PROPERTY CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE STATUS. REPORT MAY .2000 (091.7/ OF BUDGET YEAR) ADJUSTED ESTIMATE 47,180.00 114,608.00 18,040.00 .00 109.00 634.00- 179,303.00 MAY REVENUE 1999-00. REVENUE. • PAGE BALANCE % COL 1,169.20 28,124.26 19,055.74 59.6 .00 113,341.22 1,266.78 98.9 1,460.48 16,384.19 1,655.81 90.8 .00 :00 .00 30.66 198.82 89.82- 182.4 33.86- 549.52- 84.48- 86.7 2,626.48 157,498.97 21,804.03. 87.8 3800 CURRENT SERVICE CHARGES 3815 PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES 5,000.00 .00 2,000.00 3,000.00 40.0. 3844 LOT A REVENUE 114,425.00 23,000.50 -- 64,783:60 49,641.40: 56.6 3846 NO PIER PKG STRUCTURE REVENUE 259,620.00 43,283.50 133,534.50 126,085.50 51.4 CURRENT SERVICE CHARGES 379,045.00 66,284.00 200,318.10 178,726.90 52:8 3900 3902 OTHER REVENUE . REFUNDS/REIMB/PREV YEARS REVENUE CONTROL DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT FUND 200.00. 100.00 700.00 500.00- 350.0 558,548.00 69,010.48 358,517.07 200,030.93 64.2 558,548.00 69,010.48 358,517.07 .200,030.93 64.2 REVPRIN2 06/28/00 06:48:57 -110 PARKING FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION 3300 3302 FINES & FORFEITURES COURT FINES/PARKING, CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 (091.7% OF BUDGET YEAR), ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 ESTIMATE REVENUE REVENUE 814,240.00 74,574.00 696,661.95 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 INTEREST INCOME 6,747.00 373.36 4,418.86 3450 INVESTMENT DISCOUNT 16.00 9.65 46.89 3475 INVESTMENT PREMIUM 91.00- 10.66- 102.75 - USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 6,672.00 372.35 4,363.00 3800 CURRENT SERVICE CHARGES 3842 PARKING METERS 740,000.00 76,969:70 670,008.17 3843 PARKING PERMITS:ANNUAL 250,000.00 17,468.00 255,570:00 3844 DAILY PARKING PERMITS 700.00 66.00 588:00 3848 DRIVEWAY PERMITS 500.00 38.00 440.00 3849 GUEST PERMITS 1,200.00 187.00 1,393.00 3850 CONTRACTOR'S PERMITS 4,000.00. 792.00 4,719.00 CURRENT SERVICE CHARGES 996,400.00 95,520.70: 932,718.17•' 3900 OTHER REVENUE 3955 BUDGETED TRANSFERS IN REVENUE CONTROL PARKING FUND 1,281.00 1,818,593.00 1,818,593.00 .00 1,281.00 170,467.05 1,635,024.12 170,467.05 1,635,024.12 PAGE BALANCE % COL 117,578:05 85.6 2,328.14 65.5 30.89- 293.1 11.75. 112.9 2,309.00 65.4 69,991.83 90.5 5,570.00- 102.2 112.00 84.0 60.00 88.0 193.00- 116.1 719.00- 118.0 63,681.83 93.6 .00 100.0. 183,568.88 89.9 183,568.88 89.9 • REVPRIN2 06/28/00 06:48:57 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 (091.7/ OF BUDGET YEAR) 115 .STATE GAS TAX FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00. ESTIMATE. REVENUE REVENUE PAGE BALANCE % COL 3400 ; USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 INTEREST 'INCOME 4,770.00 157.24 3,804.78 965.22 79.8 3450 INVESTMENT DISCOUNT 11.00 4.10 28.24 17.24- 256.7 • 3475 INVESTMENT PREMIUM 64.00- 4.53- 70.95- 6.95 '110.9 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 4,717.00 156.81 3,762:07 954.93 79.8 3500 3501 3502 3503 3512 3522 INTERGOVERNMENTAL/STATE SECTION 2106 ALLOCATION SECTION 2107. ALLOCATION SECT 2107.5 ALLOCATION SECTION 2105 (PROP 111) TDA ARTICLE 3/LOCAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL/STATE REVENUE, CONTROL 76,484.00 2,495.25' 57,392.31 19,091.69 143,702.00 6,468.46 122,040.61 21,661.39 4,000.00 .00 , 4,000.00 .00 115,450.00 4,559.35 91,630.10 23,819.90 15,779.00 .00 .00 15,779.00 355,415.00 13,523.06 275,063.02 80,351.98 75.0 84.9 100.0 79.4 0.0 77.4 360,132.00 13,679.87 278,825.09 81,306.91 77.4 STATE GAS TAX FUND 360,132.00 13,679.87 7278,825.09 81,306.91 77.4 REVPRIN2 06/28/00 06:48:57`. 117 AB939 FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE STATUS REPORT .. MAY 2000 (091.7% OF BUDGET YEAR); ADJUSTED ESTIMATE 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 INTEREST INCOME 15,391.00 558.60 11,194.13 4,196.87 .72:7 3450 INVESTMENT DISCOUNT 36.00 14.65 83.58 47.58- 232.2 3475 INVESTMENT PREMIUM 207.00- 16.19- 205.46- 1.54 99.3 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 15,220.00 557.06 11,072:25 4,147.75: 72.7 3800 CURRENT SERVICE CHARGES 3860 AB939 SURCHARGE REVENUE CONTROL, AB939 FUND 61,797.00 77,017.00 77,017.00 .00 46,035.07 557.06 57,107.32 557.06 _57,107.32 15,761.93 74.5 19,909.68 74.1 19,909.68 74.1 REVPRIN2 06/28/00 06:48:57 CITY OF HERMOSA'BEACH, REVENUE STATUS REPORT.. MAY 2000'. -(091.7% OF BUDGET YEAR) 120 COUNTY GAS TAX FUND ACCOUNT# DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 ESTIMATE REVENUE. REVENUE 3400 3401 3450 3475 PAGE BALANCE % COL' USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY INTEREST INCOME 2,633.00 31.85 854.80 1,778.20 32.5 INVESTMENT DISCOUNT 6.00 .84 9.64" 3.64- 160.7 INVESTMENT PREMIUM 35.00- .93- 27.32- 7.68- 78.1 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY ' 2,604.00 31.76 837.12 1,766.88 32..1 REVENUE CONTROL COUNTY GAS TAX FUND 2,604.00 2,604.00 31.76 837.12 1,766.88 32.1 31.76 837.12- 1,766.88 32.1 REVPRIN2, 06/28/00 06:48:57 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE STATUS REPORT. MAY 2000 (091.7% OF BUDGET YEAR) 121 PROP A OPEN SPACE FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION 3600 INTERGOVERNMENTAL/COUNTY 3606 " LA CO PRKS/PIER RENOVATION 3608 MAINTENANCE ALLOCATION 3610 CO. LIFEGUARD AGREEMENT.. 3611 PROP A DISCRETIONARY FUNDS 3615 HERMOSA BEACH BIKE PATH 3616 CDS CLARIFIER UNIT REIMB 3617 CATCH BASIN INSERTS REIMB INTERGOVERNMENTAL/COUNTY 3900 OTHER REVENUE 3902 REFUNDS/REIMB-PREVIOUS YEARS REVENUE CONTROL PROP A OPEN SPACE FUND ADJUSTED MAY. 1999-00 BALANCE % COL ' ESTIMATE REVENUE REVENUE 969,664.00 19,097.00 942,939.00 102,285.00 389,414.00 367,761.00 56,250.00 2,847,410.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 22,250.00 .00 2,869,660.00 .00 2,869,660.00 .00 40,579.00 929,085.00 4.2 .00 19,097.00 0.0 365,909.40 577,029.60 38.8 :00 102,285.00 0.0 .00 389,414.00 0.0 .00 367,761.00 0.0 .00, 56,250.00 0.0 406,488.40 2,440,921.60 14.3 .00 22,250.00 0.0 406,488.40 2,463,171.60. 14.2 406,488.40 2,463,171.60 14.2 REVPRIN2 06/28/00 06:48:57 125 PARK/REC FACILITY TAX FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED MAY ESTIMATE REVENUE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE STATUS. REPORT MAY 2000 (091.7% OF BUDGET YEAR) 3100 TAXES 3116 PARK REC FACILITY TAX 21,000.00 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY- 3401 INTEREST INCOME 3450 . INVESTMENT DISCOUNT 3475 INVESTMENT PREMIUM USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 36,989.00 85.00 497.00- 36,577.00 3900 3910 PARK/RECREATION IN LIEU OTHER REVENUE REVENUE CONTROL PARK/REC FACILITY TAX. FUND .00 1,492.06 39.13 43.22- 1,487.97 35,000.00 28,940.88 211.00 508.64- 28,643.24 14,000.00- 166.7 8,048.12. 78.2 126.00- 248.2 11.64 102.3 7,933.76 78.3 155,160.00 6,896.00 154,692.00 468.00 99.7 212,737.00 8,383.97. 218,335.24 5,598.24- 102.6 212,737.00 8,383.97 218,335.24 5,598.24- 102.6 REVPRIN2 06/28/00 06:48:57 126 4% UTILITY USERS TAX FUND ACCOUNT # 3400 3401 3450 3475 DESCRIPTION USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY INTEREST INCOME INVESTMENT DISCOUNT INVESTMENT PREMIUM USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 (091.7% OF BUDGET, YEAR). ADJUSTED ESTIMATE 32,084.00 74.00 431..00- 31,727.00 MAY REVENUE 822.95. 21.59 23.85- 820.69 REVENUE CONTROL 1999-00 REVENUE 19,068.69 151.98 395.34- 18,825.33. BALANCE % COL 13,015.31 59.4 77.98- 205.4 35.66- 91.7 12,901.67 59.3 18,825.33 12,901.67 59.3 4% UTILITY USERS TAX FUND 18,825.33 12,901.67. REVPRIN2 06/28/00 06:48:57 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 • (091.7% OF BUDGET YEAR) : PAGE 13 127 BUILDING IMPROVEMENT:FUND ACCOUNT # - DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED MAY "1999-00: BALANCE % COL .ESTIMATE REVENUE REVENUE 3400 3401 3450 3475 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY INTEREST INCOME. 9,228.00 313.44 6,692.16 2,535.84 72.5 INVESTMENT DISCOUNT 21.00 8.22 48.84 27.84- 232.6 INVESTMENT PREMIUM 124.00- 9.08- 121.67- 2.33- 98.1 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 9,125.00 312.58 6,619.33 2,505.67 72.5 REVENUE CONTROL 9,125.00 312.58 6,619.33 2,505:67 ' 72.5 BUILDING IMPROVEMENT FUND 9,125.00 312.58 6,619.33 2,505.67 72.5 REVPRIN2 06/28/00 06:48:57 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 (091.7% OF BUDGET YEAR) PAGE 14 137 MYRTLE DIST ADMIN EXP FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED • .MAY- 1999-00 BALANCE / COL ESTIMATE REVENUE REVENUE 3400 3401 3900 • '3925 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY. INTEREST INCOME OTHER REVENUE SPEC ASSESSMENT ADMIN FEES REVENUE` CONTROL MYRTLE DIST ADMIN EXP FUND .00 8.92 79.52 79.52- 4,378.00 4,378.00 4,378.00 .00 4,377.03 8.92 4,456.55 8.92 4,456.55 .97 100.0 78.55- 101.8 78.55- 101.8 REVPRIN2 06/28/00 06:48:57 138 LOMA DIST ADMIN EXP FUND ACCOUNT. # 3400 3401 3900 3925 DESCRIPTION USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY INTEREST. INCOME OTHER REVENUE SPEC ASSESSMENT ADMIN FEES REVENUE CONTROL LOMA DIST ADMIN EXP FUND CITY OF HERMOSA ,BEACH REVENUE STATUS REPORT MAY:2000 (091.7% OF. BUDGET YEAR) ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 ESTIMATE REVENUE REVENUE PAGE 15 BALANCE % COL 0 11.47 100.78 .100.78- *** 5,533.00 .00 5,532.08" 5,533.00 11.47 5,632.86 5,533.00 11.47 5,632..86 .92 100.0 99.86- 101.8 99.86- 101.8 REVPRIN2 06%28/00 06:48:57 140" COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION 3700 3720 INTERGOVERNMENTAL/FEDERAL AMER DISAB ACT REVENUE CONTROL COMMUNITY DEV.'BLOCK GRANT CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 (091.7% OF BUDGET YEAR) PAGE 16 ADJUSTED MAY 1999700 `BALANCE % COL ESTIMATE REVENUE REVENUE 296,856.00 .00 624.00 296,232.00 0.2 296,856.00 .00 624.00 296,232.00 0.2 296,856.00, .00 624.00 296,232.00 0.2 REVPRIN2 06/28/00 06:48:57 145 PROPOSITION 'A FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION 3100 TAXES 3117 PROPOSITION A TRANSIT 3121 SUBREGIONAL INCENTIVES TAXES '3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 INTEREST INCOME 3450 INVESTMENT DISCOUNT 3475 INVESTMENT PREMIUM USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3800 CURRENT SERVICE CHARGES 3854 FARES, DIAL A RIDE 3855 BUS PASSES CURRENT SERVICE CHARGES 3900 OTHER REVENUE 3916 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION .REVENUE CONTROL CITY-OF``HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE STATUS REPORT'. • MAY 2000 (091.7% OF BUDGET.YEAR) ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 ESTIMATE REVENUE REVENUE PAGE 17 BALANCE % COL 220,200.00 14,862.00 ' 188,654.07 31,545.93 85.7 29,000.00 14,048.10 14,048.10 14,951.90 48.4 249,200.00 28,910.10 202,702.17 46,497.83 81.3 PROPOSITION 'A FUND: 4,479.00 88.74 2,193.78 2,285.22 49.0 10.00 2.35 16.71 . 6.71- 167.1 60.00- 2.60- 47.79- 12.21- 79.7 4,429.00 . 88.49 2,162.70 2,266:30 48.8 11,500.00.. 2,382.27 8,365.51 3,134.49 72.7 1,200.00 92.80. 811.20 388.80 67.6 12,700.00 2,475.07 9,176.71 3,523.29 72.3 11,550.00 .00 .00 11,550.00 0.0 277,879.00 31,473.66 214,041.58 277,879.00 31,473.66 214,041.58 63,837.42 77.0 63,837.42 77.0 REVPRIN2 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 06/28/00 06.48.57 REVENUE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 (091.7/ OF BUDGET YEAR) 146 PROPOSITION 'C FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED ESTIMATE PAGE. 18 3100 3118 TAXES ' PROP C LOCAL RETURN FDS 3400 USE OF MONEY. & PROPERTY 3401 INTEREST INCOME 3450 . INVESTMENT DISCOUNT 3475 INVESTMENT PREMIUM USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY REVENUE CONTROL PROPOSITION 'C FUND 'MAY 1999-00 BALANCE % COL REVENUE REVENUE 183,620.00 12,416.47 157,113.51 26,506.49. 85.6 45,723.00 1,752.32 35,200.86 106.00 45.95 256.00 615.00- 50.76- 622.15- 45,214.00 1,747.51 34,834.71 228,834.00 14,163:98 10,522.14 77.0 150.00- 241.5 7.15 ,101.2 10,379.29 77.0 191,948.22 36,885.78 83.9 228,834.00 14,163.98 191,948.22 36,885.78 83.9 REVPRIN2 06/28/00 06:48:57 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 (091:7% OF BUDGET'YEAR) PAGE 19 150 GRANTS FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 BALANCE % COL ESTIMATE REVENUE REVENUE 3500 INTERGOVERNMENTAL/STATE 3545 COASTAL CONSERVANCY GRANT 100,000.00 .00 :00 100,000.00 0.0 3546 COASTAL AUTHORITY GRANT 23,166.00 .00 14,625.23 8;540:77 63.1 3550 CA WASTE OIL RECYCLING GRANT 8,959.00 _00 8,958 50 .50 100.0 INTERGOVERNMENTAL/STATE 132,125.00 .00 23,583.73 108,541.27 17.8 3700 INTERGOVERNMENTAL/FEDERAL 3732 STPL ST IMPROVEMENT REIMB 35,412.00 .00 .00 35,412.00 0.0 3735 FEMA/16TH ST STORM DRAIN IMP 1,287,800.00 .00 .00" 1,287,800.00 0:0 INTERGOVERNMENTAL/FEDERAL 1,323,212.00 .00. .00 1,323,212.00 0.0 3800 CURRENT SERVICE CHARGES 3847 PARKING STRUCTURE EASEMENT 1,100,000.00 .00 1,100,000.00 .00 100.0 3900 OTHER REVENUE 3930 BCHD DOM VIOLENCE ADV GRANT 20,000.00 .00 .00 20,000.00 0.0 REVENUE CONTROL 2,575,337.00 .00 - 1,123,583.73. 1,451,753.27 43.6 GRANTS FUND 2,575,337.00 .00 1,123,583.73 1,451,753.27 43.6 REVPRIN2 06/28/00 06:48:57 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 (091.7% OF BUDGET YEAR); PAGE 20 152 AIR QUALITY MGMT DIST FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED ESTIMATE 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 INTEREST INCOME 3450 INVESTMENTDISCOUNT 3475 INVESTMENT PREMIUM USE OF MONEY .& PROPERTY 3500 INTERGOVERNMENTAL/STATE 3538 AQMD EMISSION CTL AB276 3551 MSRC DISCR MATCHING FUNDS INTERGOVERNMENTAL/STATE° REVENUE CONTROL AIR QUALITY MGMT DIST FUND MAY REVENUE 1999-00 REVENUE BALANCE % COL 302.00 14.96 244.94 57.06 81.1. 1.00 .40 1.84 .84- 184.0 4.00- .44- 4.32- .32 108.0 299.00 14.92 242:46 56.54 81.1 20,405.00 .00 20,405.00 20,704.00. 20,704.00 10,388.94 10,016.06 50.9 10,157.00 10,157.00 *** 20,545.94 140.94- 100.7 14.92 20,788.40 84.40- 100.4 14.92 20,788.40 84.40- 100.4 REVPRIN2 06/28/00 06:48:57. ,CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 (091.7% OF BUDGET YEAR) PAGE 21 153 'SUPP LAW ENF SERV (SLESF) ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 BALANCE %COL_ ESTIMATE REVENUE REVENUE 3100 3135 3400 3401 3450 3475 TAXES C.O.P.S. ALLOCATION USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY INTEREST: INCOME INVESTMENT DISCOUNT INVESTMENT PREMIUM, USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY REVENUE CONTROL SUPP LAW ENF SERV •(SLESF) 43,080.00 .00 43,079.59 .41 100.0 2,929.00 37.32 1,665.50. 1,263.50 56.9 7.00 .99 9.31 2.31- 133.0 39.00- 1.09- 30.82- 8.18- 79.0 2,897.00 37.22 1;643.99 1,253.01 56.7 45,977.00 37.22 A4,723.58 1,253.42 97.3 45,977.00 37.22 44,723.58 1,253.42 97.3 REVPRIN2 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 06/28/00 06:48:57 REVENUE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 (091.7% OF BUDGET YEAR) 155 CROSSING GUARD DIST FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 ESTIMATE REVENUE REVENUE 3400 3460 3475 PAGE 22 BALANCE % COL., USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY UNREALIZED GAIN(LOSS) ON INV .00 .00 10.24 10.24 *** INVESTMENT PREMIUM .00 .00 •.80- .80 *** USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY .00 _00 9.44 9.44- *** REVENUE CONTROL -00 .00 9.44 9.44- *** CROSSING GUARD DIST FUND .00 .00 9.44 9.44- *** REVPRIN2 06/28/00 06:48:57 160 SEWER FUND ACCOUNT # 3400 3401 3450 3475 3600 3602 3800 3828 3829 3832 DESCRIPTION USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY INTEREST INCOME INVESTMENT DISCOUNT INVESTMENT PREMIUM USE OF. MONEY •& PROPERTY INTERGOVERNMENTAL/COUNTY, BEACH OUTLET MAINTENANCE CURRENT SERVICE CHARGES.. SEWER CONNECTION FEE SEWER DEMOLITION FEE SEWER LATERAL INSTALLTN CURRENT SERVICE CHARGES 3900 OTHER REVENUE 3904 GENERAL MISCELLANEOUS 3955 OPERATING TRANSFERS IN OTHER REVENUE` ' CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 - (091.7% OF BUDGET YEAR) PAGE 23 -ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 BALANCE % COL ESTIMATE REVENUE REVENUE 146,898.00 5,335.84 109,545.19 37,352.81 74.6 339.00 140.01 800.91 461.91 236.3 1,975.00- 154.65- 1,963.12- 11.88- 99.4 145,262.00 5,321.20 108,382.98 36,879.02 74.6 5,000.00. 3,575.50 3,575.50 1,424.50 71.5 35,556.00 342.54 52,122.78 16,566.78-146.6 8,000.00 1,044.00 - 10,674.00 2,674.00- 133.4 5,000.00 870.00 5,908.00 908.00- 118.2 48,556.00 2,256.54 68,704.78 20,148.78- 141.5 840.00 .00 840.00 - .00 100.0 700,000.00 58,333.33 641,666.39 58,333.61 91.7 700,840.00 58,333.33 642,506.39 . 58,333.61 91.7 69,486.57 823,169.65 76,488.35 91.5 REVPRIN2 06/28/00 06:48:57 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000. (091.7% OF BUDGET YEAR) 170 ASSET SEIZURE/FORFT FUND ACCOUNT # 3300 3304 3400 3401 3450 3475. DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 ESTIMATE REVENUE REVENUE FINES & FORFEITURES FORFEITED FUNDS USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY INTEREST INCOME INVESTMENT, DISCOUNT INVESTMENT PREMIUM USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY BALANCE % COL 10,000.00 2,893.50 8,579.48 REVENUE: CONTROL ASSET SEIZURE/FORFT.FUND 8,964.00 21.00 120.00- 8,865.00 18,865.00 259.02 6.79 7.50- 258.31 3,151.81 5,991.99 43.33 112.69- 5,922.63 14,502.11 2,972.01 66.8 22.33- 206.3 7.31- 93.9 2,942.37 66.8 18,865.00 3,151.81 14,502.11 4,362.89 76.9 REVPRIN2 06/28/00 06:48:57 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ` REVENUE" STATUS, REPORT MAY 2000 (091.7% OF BUDGET•YEAR) PAGE -25 180 FIRE PROTECTION FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED `MAY 1999-00 BALANCE %COL ESTIMATE REVENUE REVENUE 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 INTEREST INCOME 21,958.00 844:28 16,926.36 5,031.64 77.1 3450 INVESTMENT DISCOUNT 51.00 22.15 124.18 . 73.18- 243.5. 3475 INVESTMENT PREMIUM 295.00- 24.46- 300.75 ' 5.75 101.9 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 21,714.00 841.97 16,749.79 4,964.21 77.1 3900 OTHER REVENUE 3912 ''FIRE FLOW FEE 110,000.00 3,155.50 134,258.50 24,258.50- 122.1 REVENUE CONTROL 131,714.00 3,997.47 151,008.29 19,294.29- 114.6 FIRE PROTECTION FUND 131,714.00 3,997.47 1-51,008.29 19,294.29- 114.6 REVPRIN2 06/28/00 06:48:57 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 (091.7/ OF BUDGET YEAR) PAGE 26 301 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND ACCOUNT # ADJUSTED ESTIMATE MAY 1999-00 REVENUE REVENUE BALANCE % COL 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 INTEREST INCOME 3450 INVESTMENT DISCOUNT 3475 INVESTMENT PREMIUM USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3900 'OTHER REVENUE 3955 OPERATING TRANSFERS 30,680.00 71.00 412.00- 30,339.00 1,675.99 44'.04 48.65- 1,671.38. 33,493.94 2,813.94- 109.2 218.96 147.96- 308.4 506.92- 94.92 123.0 33,205.98 2,866.98- 109.4 492,460.00 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 41,038.33 255,191.39 237,268.61 51.8 42,709.71 288,397.37 234,401.63 55.2 42,709.71 288,397.37 234,401.63 55.2 REVPRIN2 06/28/00 06:48:57 CITY OF HERMOSA' BEACH REVENUE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 (091.7% OF BUDGET YEAR) 305 LWR PIER ASSMNT DIST IMPR FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 ESTIMATE REVENUE REVENUE 3400 3401 3450 3475. USE OF MONEY'& PROPERTY. INTEREST INCOME INVESTMENT DISCOUNT INVESTMENT PREMIUM USE OF MONEY& PROPERTY PAGE 27 BALANCE % COL 4,387.00 118.49 2,741.26 1,645.74 62.5 10.00 3.10 20.57 10.57- 205.7 59.00- 3.43- 54.01 4.99- 91.5 4,338.00 118.16 2,707.82 1,630.18 62.4 REVENUE CONTROL 4,338.00. LWR PIER ASSMNT DIST IMPR FUND 118.16 2,707.82 :1,630:18 62.4 4,338.00 118.16 2,707.82 1,630.18 62.4 REVPRIN2 06/28/00 06:48:57. 307 ACCOUNT # MYRTLE UTIL UNDRGRND IMPR FUND DESCRIPTION 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 INTEREST INCOME 3450 INVESTMENT DISCOUNT . 3475 INVESTMENT PREMIUM USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3900 OTHER REVENUE 3936 CONTRIB FROM PROPERTY OWNERS 3940 CASH PMTS/UTIL UNDERGROUNDING OTHER REVENUE REVENUE CONTROL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 (091.7% OF BUDGET YEAR) ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 ESTIMATE REVENUE. REVENUE BALANCE % COL 55,494.00 1,723.28 47,415.93 8,078.07 - 85.4 128.00 45.40 219.65 91.65- 171.6 746.00- 50:14- .253.98 492.02- 34.0 54,876.00 1,718.54 47,381:60 7,494:40 86.3 1,066,385:00 :00 1,066,385.36 .36- 100.0 449,359.00 .00 449,358.97 .03 100.0 1,515,744..00 .00 1,515,744.33 .33- 100.0 1,570,620.00.., 1,718.54 1,563,125.93 7,494.07 99.5. MYRTLE UTIL UNDRGRND IMPR FUND 1,570,620.00 1',718.54 1,563,125.93 7,494.07 99.5 REVPRIN2 06/28/00 06:48:57 308 LOMA UTIL UNDRGRND IMPROV FUND ACCOUNT # 3400 3401 3450 3475 ' DESCRIPTION USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY INTEREST INCOME INVESTMENT DISCOUNT INVESTMENT PREMIUM USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY CITYOF HERMOSA;BEACH REVENUE STATUS REPORT MAY'. 2000 (091:7% OF' BUDGET YEAR) PAGE 29 ADJUSTED MAY. 1999-00 BALANCE % COL ESTIMATE REVENUE REVENUE 61,074.00 1,703.58 45,225.78 15,848.22 74.1 141.00 44.74 179.75 38.75-.127.5 821.00-' 49.41- 204.33-. 616.67- 24.9 60,394.00 1,698.91 45,201.20 15,192.80 74.8 3900 OTHER REVENUE 3936 CONTRIB FROM PROPERTY OWNERS 1,218,681.00 .00 1,218,681.27 ' .27- 100.0 3940 CASH PMTS/UTIL UNDERGROUNDING 457,257.00 .00 457,257.06 .06- 100.0 3955 OPERATING TRANSFERS IN 8,861.00 .00 ,8,860.86 .14 100.0 OTHER REVENUE 1,684,799.00 .00 1,684,799.19, :19 100.0 REVENUE CONTROL 1,745,193.00 1,698:91 1,730,000.39 15,192.61 99.1 LOMA UTIL UNDRGRND IMPROV FUND 7,745,193.00 1,698.91 1,730,000.39 15,192.61 99.1 REVPRIN2 06/28/00 610 ACCOUNT # 3400 3401 06:48:57 LWR PIER DIST REDEMPTION FUND DESCRIPTION USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY INTEREST INCOME REVENUE CONTROL LWR PIER DIST REDEMPTION:FUND CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 (091.7% OF BUDGET YEAR) -:-PAGE 30 ADJUSTED MAY -1999-00 BALANCE % COL ESTIMATE REVENUE REVENUE 158.00 158.00 158.00 39.28 39.28 39.28 423.13 423.13 423.13 265.13- 267.8 265.13- 267.8. 265.13- 267.8 REVPRIN2 06/28/00 06:48:57. 617 "MYRTLE AVE ASSESSMENT FUND ACCOUNT # 3400 3401 DESCRIPTION, USE OF. MONEY & PROPERTY INTEREST INCOME REVENUE CONTROL MYRTLE AVE ASSESSMENT FUND CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 (091.7% OF BUDGET YEAR) PAGE 31 ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 BALANCE % COL` ESTIMATE REVENUE REVENUE 632.00 235.75 2,442.73 1,810.73- 386.5 632.00 235.75 2,442.73 632.00 235.75 2,442.73 1,810.73- 386.5 1,810.73- 386.5 REVPRIN2 06/28/00 06:48:57 618 LOMA DRIVE ASSESSMENT FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION. '3400 3401 USE OF MONEY'S, PROPERTY INTEREST INCOME REVENUE CONTROL LOMA DRIVE ASSESSMENT FUND CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 (091.7% OF BUDGET YEAR) ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 ESTIMATE REVENUE REVENUE 525.00 179.40 1,758.60 525.00 179.40 1,758.60 525.00 179.40 1,758.60 BALANCE PAGE '32 %COL 1,233.60- 335.0 1,233.60- 335.0 1,233.60- 335'.0, REVPRIN2 06/28/00 06:48:57 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 (091.7% OF BUDGET YEAR) PAGE 33 705 INSURANCE FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 BALANCE % COL ESTIMATE - REVENUE REVENUE 3800 CURRENT SERVICE CHARGES 3880 INSURANCE 'SERVICE CHARGES 1,075,632.00 88,801.00 799,209.00 276,423.00 74.3 3900 OTHER REVENUE 3902 REFUNDS/REIMB PREV YR 3,451.00 .00 3,450.95 .05 100.0 3955 OPERATING TRANSFERS IN 100,000.00 8,333.33 41,666.65 58,333.35 41.7 OTHER REVENUE 103,451.00 8,333.33 45,117.60 58,333.40 43.6 REVENUE CONTROL 1,179,083.00 , 97,134.33 844,326.60 334,756.40 71.6 INSURANCE FUND 1,179,083.00 97,134.33 844,326.60 334,756.40 71.6 REVPRIN2 06/28/00 06:48:57 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 (091.7% OF BUDGET YEAR) 715 EQUIPMENT. REPLACEMENT FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION 3800 CURRENT SERVICE CHARGES 3889 EQUIP REPLACEMENT CHARGES ADJUSTED ESTIMATE MAY 1999-00 REVENUE REVENUE BALANCE % COL 675,243.00 56,271.00 618,981.00 56,262.00 3900 OTHER REVENUE 3901 SALE OF REAL/PERS PROPERTY', 3955 OPERATING TRANSFERS IN 'OTHER ,REVENUE REVENUE CONTROL 16,850.00 13,760.00 22,610:00 5,760.00- 134.2 39,773.00 2,915.96 36,856.56 2,916.44 92.7 56,623.00 16,675.96 •59,466.56 2,843.56- 105.0 731,866.00 72,946.96 678,447.56 53,418.44 92.7 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 731,866.00 72,946.96 678,447.56 53,418.44 92.7 REVPRIN2 06/28/00 06:48:57 GRAND TOTALS DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 'REVENUE STATUS REPORT -MAY 2000 (091.7% OF BUDGET YEAR) ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 ESTIMATE REVENUE REVENUE PAGE 35 BALANCE % COL REVENUE. CONTROL 31,957,410.00 2,012,904.63- 25,550,707.60 6,406,702.40 80.0 GRAND TOTALS 31,957,410.00 2,012,904.63 25,550,707.60 6,406,702.40 80.0 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 001 GENERAL FUND ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH` EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 PAGE ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 ENCUMB. BALANCE % USED APPROP EXPEND EXPEND 1100 LEGISLATIVE 1101 CITY COUNCIL 1101-4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 1101-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 24,288.00 2,024.51 22,269.59 .00 2,018.41 91.7' 1101-4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 522.00 .00 .00 .00 522.00 0.0 1101-4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 39,000.00 3,250.00 36,055.52 .00 2,944.48 92.5. 1101-4180 RETIREMENT 2,898.00 241.56 2,666.93 .00 231..07 92.0 1101-4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 37,598.00 2,387.87 30,117.93 .00 7,480.07 80.1 1101-4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS 1,401.00 116.76 1,288.89 .00 112:11 92.0 PERSONAL SERVICES 105,707.00 8,020.70 92,398.86 .00 13,308.14 87.4 1101-4200 1101-4201 CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 3,800.00 842.50 7,121.25 .00 3,321.25- 187.4 1101-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 1101-4304 TELEPHONE 400.00 9.47 101.93 .00 ' 298.07 25.5 1101-4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 6,000.00. 2,395.09 7,359.76 ` .00 1,359.76- 122.7 :• 1101-4315 MEMBERSHIP 10,300.00 1,000.00 10,157.00 .00 143.00 98.6 1101-4317 CONFERENCE/TRAINING 9,000.00 818.40 6,522.71 .00 2,477_29 72.5 1101-4319 SPECIAL EVENTS 5,865.00 78.70 4,764.88 .00 1,100.12 81.2 1101-4390 COMPUTER REPLACEMENT CHRGS 31,434.00 2,619.00 28,809.00 .00 2,625.00 91.6 1101-4396 INSURANCE USER CHARGES 25,486.00 6,372.00 23,364.00 .00 2,122.00 91.7 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 88,485.00 13,292.66 81,079.28 .00 7,405.72 91.6 CITY COUNCIL 197,992.00 22,155.86 180,599.39 .00 17,392.61 91.2 1121 CITY: CLERK 1121-4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 1121-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 45,288.00 3,774.00 41,514.00. 1121-4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN.. 1,402.00 .00 1,524.12 1121-4112- PART TIME/TEMPORARY 41,568.00 3,402.91 38,307.64 1121-4180:. RETIREMENT 5,089.00 424.02 4,664:22 1121-4188 EMPLOYEE,BENEFITS 6,242.00 497.08 5,505.60 1121-4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS 1,515.00 104.06 1,179.51 PERSONAL SERVICES 101,104.00 8,202.07 92,695.09 1121-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 1121-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 13,350.00 409.99 6,520.89 1121-4251 CONTRACT SERVICES/GOV'T 50,000.00 .00 27,256.92 CONTRACT SERVICES 63,350.00 409.99 33,777.81 1121-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER. 1121-4304 TELEPHONE 690.00 17.59 222.12 1121-4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4,500.00 167.01 4,623.39 1121-4315 MEMBERSHIP 325.00 .00 270.00 1121-4317 ., CONFERENCE/TRAINING 2,700.00 53.00 1,159.90 1121-4323 PUBLIC NOTICING 9,950.00 719.65 6,622.30 3,774:00 91.7 122.12- 108.7 3,260.36 92.2. 424.78,. 91.7 736.40 88.2 335.49 77.9 8,408.91 91.7 5,570.70 22,743.08 28,313.78. 58.3 54.5 55.3 467.88 32.2. 123.39- 102.7 55.00 83.1 1,540.10 43.0 3,327.70 66.6 EXPPRIN2 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 06/29/00 09:08:03 EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 001 GENERAL FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 ENCUMB. BALANCE .% USED, APPROP EXPEND EXPEND 1121-4390 COMPUTER REPLACEMENT CHRGS 5,688.00 1121-4396 INSURANCE USER CHARGES 3,366.00 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 27,219.00 474.00 5,214.00 840.00 3,080.00 2,271.25 21,191.71 .00. .00 .00 474.00 91.7 286.00 91.5 6,027.29 77.9 1121-5400 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 1121-5401 EQUIP -LESS THAN $1,000 1,500.00 .00 .00 .00 1,500.00 0.0 1121-5402 EQUIP -MORE` THAN $1,000 2,556.00 .00 .00 .00 2,556.00 0.0 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 4,056.00 .00 .00 .00 4,056.00 0.0 CITY CLERK 195,729.00 10,883.31 147,664.61 1,258.41 46,805-98 76.1 1131 CITY ATTORNEY 1131-4200 CONTRACT, SERVICES. 1131-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 210,000.00 17,202.29 80,928.37 .00 129,071.63 38.5 1131-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 1131-4304 TELEPHONE 300.00 4.12 58.49 .00 241.51 19.5 1131-4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 100.00 .00 38.31 .00 61.69 38.3 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 400.00 4.12 96.80 .00 303.20 24.2 CITY ATTORNEY 210,400.00 17,206.41 81,025.17" .00 129,374.83 38.5 CITY PROSECUTOR. PERSONAL SERVICES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 2,975.00 2,610-63 00 364.37 87.8 1132 1132-4100 1132-4188 1132-4200 1132-4201 CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 98,840.00 1132-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 1132-4304 TELEPHONE 1132-4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 1132-4315 MEMBERSHIP 1132-4317 CONFERENCE/TRAINING MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER CITY PROSECUTOR 1141 CITY TREASURER 1141-4100 PERSONAL SERVICES . 1141-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 1141-4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 1141-4111 _ ACCRUAL CASH IN 1141-4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 1141-4180 'RETIREMENT 1141-4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1141-4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS PERSONAL SERVICES 1141-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 235.10 7,470.00 72,544.95 .00 26,295.05 73.4 300.00 8.24 87.41 .00 212.59 29.1 520.00 .00 .00 .00 520.00 0.0 100.00 .00 .00 .00 100.00 0.0 400.00 .00 130.00 .00 - 270.00 32.5 1,320.00 8.24 217.41 .00 1,102.59 16.5 103,135.00 7,713.34 75,372.99 .00 27,762.01 73.1 20,437.00 1,703.11 18,732.95 .00 1,704.05 91.7 .00 14.74 14.74 .00 14.74- *** 755.00 .00 .00 .00 755.00 0.0 16,464.00 1,325.50 14,580.50 .00 1,883.50 88.6 2,764.00 226.86 2,495.32 .00 268.68 90.3 7,316.00 614.56 6,640:19 -00 675.81 90.8, 535.00 44.13 483.70 .00 51.30 90.4 48,271.00 3,928.90 42,947.40 .00 5,323.60 89.0 4 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 001 ACCOUNT # 1141-4201 09:08:03 GENERAL FUND DESCRIPTION CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 PAGE ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 ENCUMB. BALANCE % USED `APPROP EXPEND EXPEND 3,500.00 224.60- 3,503.61 • .00 - 3.61- 100.1 1141-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 1141-4304 TELEPHONE 745.00 66.71 621.85 .00 123.15 - 83.5 1141-4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 1,400.00 156.20 1,497.33 .00 97.33- 107.0 1141-4315 MEMBERSHIP 100.00 .00 100.00 .00 .00 100:0 1141-4317 CONFERENCE/TRAINING 1,875.00 .00 381.36 .00 1,493.64 20.3 1141-4390 COMPUTER REPLACEMENT CHRGS 2,994.00 249.00 2,739.00 .00 255.00 91.5 1141-4396 INSURANCE USER CHARGES 1,833.00 459.00 1,683.00 .00 150.00 91.8 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 8,947.00 930.91 7,022.54 .00 1,924.46 78.5 CITY TREASURER 60,718.00 4,635.21 53,473.55 .00 . 7,244.45 88.1 1200' r MANAGEMENT/SUPPORT 1201 CITY MANAGER 120174100 PERSONAL SERVICES 1201-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 148,782.00 12,598.57 135,327.45 1201-4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 10,037.00 1201-4180 . RETIREMENT 10,726.00 856.00 1201-4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 18,260.00 1,463.86 1201-4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS 2,035_00 172.46 PERSONAL SERVICES 189,840.00 15,090.89 .00 .00' 9,172.23 16,168.46 1,861.54 162,529.68 1201-4200' 1201-4201' CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 500.00 .00i 178.68 .00 .00 13,454.55 91.0 .00 10,037.00 0.0 .00 1,553.77 85.5 .00 2,091.54 88.5. .00 173.46 91.5 .00 27,310.32 85.6 1201-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 1201-4304 ---., TELEPHONE. 1201-4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 1201-4315 MEMBERSHIP 1201-4317 'CONFERENCE/TRAINING 1201-4390 COMPUTER REPLACEMENT CHRGS 1201-4396 INSURANCE USER CHARGES MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 1201-5400 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 1201-5401 EQUIP -LESS THAN $1,000 CITY MANAGER 1,000.00 70.04 656.16 1,500.00 22.81 684.83 1,400.00 .00 1,012.00 4,400.00 20.00 4,036.06 28,590.00 2,382.00 26,202.00 6,657.00 1,665.00 6,105.00 43,547.00 4,159.85 38,696.05 500.00 .00 216.49 234,387.00 19,250,74 201,620.90 1202 FINANCE ADMINISTRATION 1202-4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 1202-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 272,667.00 21,908.31 246,750.66 .00 1202-4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 400.00 14.74 223.68 .00. 1202-4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 18,997.00 1,290.96 16,198.51 .00 1202-4180 RETIREMENT 20,156.00 1,618.68 18,236.93 .00 1202=4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 28,144.00 2,254.02 24,906.05 .00 1202-4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS 1,938.00 164.81 1,785.08 .00. PERSONAL SERVICES 342,302.00 27,251.52 308,100.91 ".00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1202-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 321.32 35.7 343.84 65.6 815.17 :'45.7 388.00 72.3 363.94 91.7 2,388.00 -91.6 552.00 . 91.7 4,850.95 88.9 283.51 43.3, 32,766.10 86.0:. 25,916.34 90.5 176.32 55.9 2,798.49 85.3 1,919.07 90.5 3,237.95 88.5 152.92 92.1 34,201.09 90.0 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 001 GENERAL FUND ACCOUNT # - DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 ENCUMB. APPROP EXPEND. EXPEND 1202-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 46,367.00 1,261.81 39,629.66 5,642.87 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 BALANCE % USED 1,094.47 97.6 1202-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 1202-4304 TELEPHONE 2,700.00 183.36 1,687.99 .00 1,012.01 62.5 1202-4305 OFFICE, OPER SUPPLIES 8,325.00 655.70 8,294:98 .00 30:02 99.6 1202-4315 MEMBERSHIP 350.00 .00 325.00 .00 25.00. 92.9 1202-4317 CONFERENCE/TRAINING 5,858.00 2,749.45 4,807-58 .00 s 1,050.42 82.1 1202-4390 COMPUTER REPLACEMENT CHRGS 15,267.00 .1,272.00 13,992.00 .00 1,275.00 91.6 1202-4395 EQUIP REPLACEMENT CHARGES 5,317.00 443.00 4,873.00 .00 444.00 91.6 1202-4396 INSURANCE USER CHARGES 11,316.00 2,829.00 10,373.00 .00 943.00 91.7 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 49,133.00 8,132.51 44,353.55 .00 4,779.45- 90.3 1202-5400 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 1202-5401 EQUIP -LESS THAN $1,000 1202-5402 EQUIP -MORE THAN $1,000 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE FINANCE ADMINISTRATION" 1203 PERSONNEL 1203-4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 1203-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 68,057.00 : 5,125.53 59,800.62 .00 8,256.38 87.9 1203-4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4,184.00 .00 .00 .00 4,184.00 0.0 1203-4180 RETIREMENT 4,940.00 370.80 4,334.97 .00 605.03 87.8 1203-4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 16,619.00 690.58 16,504.59 .00 114.41 99.3 1203-4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS 671.00 77.19 899.42 .00 228.42- 134.0 PERSONAL SERVICES 94,471.00 6,264.10 .81,539.60 .00 12,931.40 86.3 312.00 .00 311.76 5,395.00 .00 .00 5,707.00 .00. 311.76 443,509.00 - 36,645.84 392,395.88 .00 .00 .00 5,642.87 .24 99.9 5,395.00 0.0 5,395.24 5.5 45,470.25 89.7 1203-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 1203-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 31,800.00 8,836.46 36,468.40 .00 4,668.40-'114.7 1203-4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT 1,500.00 .00 .00 .00 1,500.00 0.0 CONTRACT SERVICES 33,300.00 8,836.46 36,468.40 .00 3,168.40- 109.5 1203-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 1203-4304 TELEPHONE 1,260.00 113.37 1,087.25 .00 172.75 86.3 1203-4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4,100.00 327.43 4,631.92 .00 531.92- 113.0 1203-4315 MEMBERSHIP 890.00 .00 757.00. .00 133.00 85.1 1203-4317 CONFERENCE/TRAINING 12,950.00 .00 4,611.89 .00 8,338.11 35.6 1203-4320 MEDICAL EXAMS 19,295.00 645.00 8,478.70 .00 10,816.30 43.9 1203-4390 COMPUTER REPLACEMENT CHRGS 5,388.00 449.00 4,939.00 .00 449.00 91.7. 1203-4396 INSURANCE USER CHARGES 4,191.00 1,047.00 3,839.00 .00 - 352.00 91.6 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 48,074.00 2,581.80 28,344.76 .00 19,729.24 59.0 PERSONNEL 175,845.00 17,682.36 146,352.76 .00: 29,492.24 83.2 1208 GENERAL APPROPRIATION 1208-4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 1208-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 42,821.00 3,568.40 39,252.40 1208-4106 REGULAR OVERTIME .00 .00 20.59 .00 .00. 3,568.60 20.59- 91.7 *** EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 001 GENERAL FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION 1208-4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 1208-4180 RETIREMENT 1208-4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1208-4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS PERSONAL SERVICES 1208-4200, 1208-4201 CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE - CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 . PAGE ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 ENCUMB. BALANCE 'X USED APPROP EXPEND EXPEND :3,099.00' 102.93 4,352.49 .00 1,253.49- 140,4 3,207.00 - 267.26 2,939.86 00 267:14 91.7 2,630.00 210,78 2,331,.25 .00 298.75 88.6 1 621.00 53.23 . 635.39 .00 14.39- 102.3 1 52,378.00 4,202.60 49,531.98 .00' 2,846.02' 94.6 10,177.00 , 5,558.32 15,525.99 .00 5,348.99- 152.6 1208-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 1208-4304 TELEPHONE 315.00 8.24 92.05 .00 222.95 29.2 I 1208-4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 33,665.00- 5,845.25- 41,862.00- .00 8,197.00 124.3 1208-4390 COMPUTER REPLACEMENT CHRGS 3,443.00 287.00 3,157.00 .00 286.00 91.7 1208-4396 INSURANCE USER CHARGES 1,655.00 414.00 1,518.00 .00 137.00 91.7 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 28,252.00 5,136.01- 37,094.95- .00 8,842.95 131.3 GENERAL APPROPRIATION 34,303.00 4,624.91 27,963.02 .00 6,339.98 81.5 1214 PROSPECTIVE EXPENDITURES 1214-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER.- 1214-4322 UNCLASSIFIED 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER OUT •1299-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 1299-4399' BUDGET TRANSFERS OUT 2100 POLICE 2101 POLICE 2101-4100 " PERSONAL SERVICES 2101-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 2,963,543.00 227,068.48 2,602,877.73 .00 360,665.27' 87.8 2101-4105 SPECIAL DUTY PAY 53,345.00 4,427.66 47,682.56 .00 5,662.44 89.4 2101-4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 242,040.00 21,234.86 231,299.32 .00 10,740.68 95.6 2101-4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 310,360.00 27,116.04 320,230.65 .00 9,870.65- 103.2 2101-4112 PART TIME TEMPORARY 14,000.00 620.14 7,343.56 .00 6,656.44 52.5 2101-4117 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 8,200.00 584.08 5,945.93 .00 2,254.07 72.5, 2101-4118 TRAINING OFFICER 9,000.00 132.11 2,731.39 .00 6,268.61 30.3 2101-4180 RETIREMENT 575,265.00 45,500.60 509,499.08 .00 65,765.92 88.6 2101-4187 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 39,288.00 2,148.96 29,512.07 .00 9,775.93 75.1 2101-4188 ' EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 237,453.00 17,131.13 198,268.31 .00 39,184.69 83.5` 2101-4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS 28,647.00 2,242.14 28,114.25 .00 532.75 98.1 PERSONAL SERVICES 4,481,141.00 348,206.20: .3,983,504.85 .00 497,636.15 88.9 2101-4200` CONTRACT SERVICES 2101-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 104,328.00 2101-4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT 5,700.00 CONTRACT SERVICES 110,028.00 2101-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 11,415.80 96,007.10 .00 2,596.00 11,415.80 98,603.10 1`,334.84 .00 1,334.84.' 6,986.06. 93.3 3,104.00 45.5. 10,090.06 90.8 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 001 GENERAL FUND ACCOUNT # 2101-4304 2101-4305 2101-4306 2101-4307 2101-4309. 2101-4312 2101-4313 2101-4315 2101-4317 2101-4395 2101-4396 2101-5400 2101-5402 2102 2102-4200 2102-4201 .2200 2201 2201-4100 2201-4102 2201-4106 2201-4108 2201-4111 2201-4112 2201-4119 2201-4180 2201-4187 2201-4188 2201-4189 . 2201-4200 2201-4201 2201-4251 2201-4300 2201-4304 2201-4305 2201-4309 2201-4315 2201-4317. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 DESCRIPTION TELEPHONE OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES PRISONER MAINTENANCE. RADIO MAINTENANCE. MAINTENANCE MATERIALS TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST TRAVEL EXPENSE, STC MEMBERSHIP CONFERENCE/TRAINING' EQUIP REPLACEMENT' CHARGES INSURANCE USER CHARGES MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE EQUIP -MORE. THAN $1,000 POLICE CROSSING GUARD CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE FIRE FIRE PERSONAL SERVICES • REGULAR SALARIES REGULAR OVERTIME FLSA OVERTIME . ACCRUAL CASH IN. PART TIME/TEMPORARY FITNESS INCENTIVE RETIREMENT UNIFORM ALLOWANCE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS MEDICARE BENEFITS PERSONAL SERVICES .CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT CONTRACT SERVICES MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER TELEPHONE • OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES • MAINTENANCE MATERIALS .MEMBERSHIP CONFERENCE/TRAINING ADJUSTED APPROP 46,725.00 32,385.00 6,300.00 3,500.00 4,600.00 10,000.00 5,750.00 1,260.00 19,510.00 222,848.00 506,383.00 859,261.00 34,500.00 5,484,930.00 55,373.00 1,290,143.00 165,000.00 85,000.00 158,786.00 41,000.00 9,200.00 MAY EXPEND 1999-00 EXPEND 6,724.43 41,287.99 4,322.43 39,058.21 418.10 4,170.64 .00 1,817.18 1,145.95 3,796.73 1,172.60 5,900.26 241.64 1,706.18 .00 386.17 378.54 11,469.40 18,571.00 204,281.00 126,597.00 464,189.00 159,571.69 778,062.76 .00 .00 519,193.69 4,860,170.71 7,549.76 ENCUMB. BALANCE % USED .00 5,437.01 .00 6,673.21- .00 2,129.36 .00 1,682.82 178.59 624.68 .00 4,099.74 .00 4,043.82 .00 873.83 .00 8,040.60 .00 18,567.00 .00 42,194.00 178.59 81,019.65 88.4 120.6 66.2. 51.9 86.4 59.0 29.7 30.6 58.8 91.7 91.7 90.6 .00 34,500.00 0.0. 623,245.86 88.6 1,513.43 44,855.78 10,517.22 96,381.80 1,133,009.71 26,340.44 183,311.64. 11,960.18 90,595.06 4,676.12 88,399.43 3,132.10, 35,903.10 .00 9,350.00 240,269.00 18,489.68 210,989.94 9,120.00 853.42 10,943.43 158,576.00 10,572.10. 120,045.42 15,144.00 1,265.63 15,118.61 2,172,238.00 173,671.47 1,897,666.34 35,626.00 2,460.00 38,086.00 7,900.00 4,836.00 18,000.00 2,350.00 15,200.00 1,863.59 .00 1,863.59 1,035.05 405.32• 1,237.49 50.92 400.95 .00 .00. .00 .00 00 .00 ..00 .00 .00 .00 '.00 33,080.43 ,2,500.00 2,450.00 .00 35,530.43 2,500.00 7,590.18- 4,809.21 15,178.23 1,534.84 8,646.17 .00 .00 •.00 .00 ..00 .00 100.0 157,133.29 18,311.64- 5,595.06- 70,386.57 5,096.90' 150.00- 29,279.06 87.8 111.1 106.6. 55.7 87.6 101.6 87.8 " 1,823.43- 120.0 38,530.58 75.7 25.39 99.8 274,571.66 - 87.4 45.57 99.9 10.00 99.6 55.57 99.9 309.82 26.79 2,821.77 815.16 6,553.83 96.1 99.4 84.3 65.3 56.9 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 001 GENERAL FUND CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH:'. EXPENDITURE:. STATUS REPORT. MAY 2000 ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED MAY APPROP EXPEND 2201-4390 2201-4395. 2201-4396 2201-5400 2201-5401 2201-5402 1999-00 ENCUMB.. EXPEND. PAGE BALANCE % USED COMPUTER REPLACEMENT CHRGS 5,389.00 449.00 . 4,939.00 .00 450.00. 91.6 EQUIP REPLACEMENT CHARGES 73,868.00 6;156.00 67,716.00 .00 6,152.00 91,7 INSURANCE USER CHARGES 163,780.00 40,944.00 150,128.00 .00 13,652.00 91.7 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 291,323.00`-' 50,678.73 260,541.63 .00 30,781.37 89.4 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE EQUIP -LESS THAN $1,000 1;045.00 299.58 880.88 .00 164:12 84.3 EQUIP -MORE THAN $1,000 6,000:00 .00 ' .00 .00 6,000.00. 0.0 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 7,045.00 299.58 880:88 .00 6,164.12 12.5 FIRE 2,508,692.00; 226,513.37 2,194,619.28 2,500.00 311,572.72 87.6 3100 STREETS/HWYS/STRM DRAINS 3104 STREET MAINT/TRAFFIC SAFETY 3104-4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 3104-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 126,008.00 9,187.18 103,225.46 .00 22,782.54 81.9 3104-4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 1,500.00 718.14 2,917.03 .00 1,417.03- 194.5. 3104-4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 3,557.00 804.33. 3,789.63 .00 232.63- 106.5 3104-4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 21,000.00 1,373.50 16,461.50 .00 4,538.50 78.4 3104-4180 RETIREMENT 9,948.00 686.58 7,714.64 .00 2,233.36 77.5 3104-4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 17,449.00 1,319.26 14,569.56 .00 2,879.44 83.5 3104-4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS 1,433.00 130.70 1,346.21 .00 86.79 93.9 PERSONAL SERVICES 180,895.00: 14,219.69 150,024.03 .00 30,870.97 82.9 3104-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 3104-4201 • CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 3104-4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT CONTRACT SERVICES 3104-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 3104-4303 UTILITIES 3104-4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 3104-4395 EQUIP REPLACEMENT CHARGES 3104-4396 INSURANCE USER CHARGES MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 3104-5400 'EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 3104-5401 EQUIP -LESS THAN $1,000 3104-5402 EQUIP -MORE THAN $1,000 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE STREET MAINT/TRAFFIC SAFETY 4100 'PLANNING 4101. PLANNING 4101-4100. PERSONAL SERVICES, 4101-4102: REGULAR SALARIES 4101-4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4101-4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 236,700.00 14,795.00 152,131.66 7,405.00 77,163.34 67.4 560.00 .00 358.20 .00 201.80 64.0 237,260.00 14,795.00 152,489.86 7,405:00' 77,365.14 67.4 8,700.00. 1,326.28 6,692.23 .00 2,007.77 76.9 60,000:00 3,028.47 44,851.29 989.70 14,159.01 76.4 15,231.00 1,269.00 13,959.00 .00 1,272.00 91.6 102,883.00 25,722.00. 94,314.00 .00 8,569.00 91.7 186,814.00 31,345.75 159,816.52' 989.70 26,007.78 86.1' 6,000.00 , .00 1,162.60 .00 4;837.40'_ 19.4 6,000.00 .00 .00 .00 6,000.00 0.0 12,000;00 ' :00 1,162.60 .00 10;837.40 - 9.7 :.616,969.00 60;360.44 463,493.01 8,394.70 145,081.29 76.5. 200,805.00 19,112.58 185,126.05 4,021.00 .00 7,745.69 8,432.00 57.75 6,677.28 .00 15,678.95 92.2 .00 3,724.69- 192.6 .00 1,754.72 79.2 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 001 GENERAL FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED MAY APPROP EXPEND CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 4101-4180 RETIREMENT 18,529.00 2,210.23 16,125.20 .00 2,403.80 87.0 4101-4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 27,225.00 2,899.06 20,596.23 .00 6,628.77 75.7 4101-4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS 2,668.00 325.10 2,595.61 .00 72.39 97.3 PERSONAL SERVICES 261,680.00 24,604.72 238,866.06 .00 22,813.94 91.3 4101-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4101-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 68,436.00 1,875.01 35,012.03 4101-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4101-4304 TELEPHONE. ' 4101-4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4101-4315 MEMBERSHIP 4101-4317 CONFERENCE/TRAINING. . 4101-4390 COMPUTER REPLACEMENT CHRGS 4101-4396 INSURANCE USER CHARGES MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4101-5400 • EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 4101-5401 • EQUIP-LESS_THAN $1,000 985.00 .00 PLANNING. 362,691.00 29,798.79 .00 33,423.97 51.2 2,415.00 74.16 764.24 8,665.00 362.90, 6,814.52 1,000.00 .00 1,124.00 2,960.00 17.00 1,295.90 7,634.00 636.00 6,996.00 8,916.00 2,229.00 8,173.00 31,590.00 3,319.06 25,167.66 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 4200 . CONST/ENG/ENF. 4201- BUILDING ' 4201-4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4201-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 192,092.00 16,231.61 176,645.31 4201-4111: ACCRUAL CASH IN 3,964.00 . ,00 8,419.23' 4201-4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 8,432.00 57.75 6,677.22 4201-4180 RETIREMENT 14,230.00 1,202.64 13,248.86 4201-4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 29,526.00 . 2,156.87, 23,987.70 4201-4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS ' 2,807:00 241.42 2,911.41. PERSONAL SERVICES 251,051.00 19,890.29 231,889.73 334.48 .00 299,380.23 .00 4201-4200 4201-4201- CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 247,040.00 12,388.73 4201-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4201-4304 TELEPHONE 4201-4305 . OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4201-4315 MEMBERSHIP. 4201-4317 CONFERENCE/TRAINING 4201-4390 COMPUTER REPLACEMENT CHRGS 4201-4395 EQUIP REPLACEMENT CHARGES 4201-4396 INSURANCE USER CHARGES MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER BUILDING 4202 4202-4100 P.W. ADMINISTRATION/PARKS PERSONAL SERVICES 4,410.00 5,850.00 1,480.00 3,500.00 12,873.00 9,512.00 9,881.00 47,506.00 545,597.00 259.10 1,032.35. 59.07 136.83 1,073.00 793.00 2,469.00 5,822.35 38,101.37 2,007.39 5,260.55 822.42 1,875.69 11,803.00 8,723.00 9,053.00 39,545.05 400,416.78 1,650.76 31.6 1,850.48 , 78.6 124.00- 112.4 1,664.10 43.8. 638.00 91.6 743.00 91.7 6,422.34 79.7 650.52 34.0 63,310.77 82.5 15,446.69 92.0 4,455.23- 212.4 1,754.78 79.2 981.14 . 93.1 5,538.30 81.2 104.41. 103.7 19,161.27 92.4 6,265.66 111,792.34 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 6,265.66 2,402.61 589.45 657.58 1,624.31 1,070.00 789.00 828.00 7,960.95 138,914.56 45.5 89.9 55:6 53.6 91.7 91.7 91.6 83.2 74.5 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 ;•09:08:03 001 GENERAL FUND ACCOUNT # 4202-4102 4202-4106 4202-4111 4202-4112 4202-4180 . 4202-4187 "4202-4188 4202=4189 DESCRIPTION REGULAR SALARIES REGULAR OVERTIME ACCRUAL CASH IN PART TIME/TEMPORARY RETIREMENT UNIFORM ALLOWANCE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS, MEDICARE BENEFITS PERSONAL SERVICES 4202-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4202-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 174,615.00 25,946.13 146,353.51 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000, ADJUSTED APPROP MAY 1999-00 ENCUMB. - BALANCE % USED EXPEND EXPEND 199,699.00 13,919.24 .165,857.63 .00 33,841.37 83.1 1,500.00 .00 694.31 .00 805.69 46.3 6,141.00 .00 2,065.90 .00 4,075.10 33.6 4,968.00 .00 4,967.27 .00 .73 100.0 15,630.00 1,043.86 12,325.10 .00 3,304.90 78.9 5,600.00 278.43 4,456.14 .00 1,143.86 79.6. 26,164.00 1,448.80 17,585.19 .00 8,578.81 67.2 2,615.00 120.97 1,585.65 .00 1,029.35 60.6 262,317.00 16,811.30 209,537.19 .00 52,779.81 79.9 28,261.49 83.8 4202-4300 _ MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4202-4303 UTILITIES 74,700.00 15,155.99 72,044.95 .00 '2,655.05 96.4 4202-4304 TELEPHONE 9,500.00 1,111.10 10,301.76 .00 801.76- 108.4" 4202-4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 11,500.00 492.02 7,014.14 .00 4,485.86 61.0 4202-4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 20,000.00 8,355.4.2 26,092.04 .00 6,092.04- 130.5 4202-4315 MEMBERSHIP 1,010.00 .00 470.00 .00 540.00 46.5 4202.4317 CONFERENCE/TRAINING 10,900.00 5.00 5,981.52 .00 4,918.48 54.9' 4202-4390 COMPUTER REPLACEMENT CHRGS 16,465.00 1,372.00 15,092.00 .00 1,373.00 91.7 4202-4395 EQULP REPLACEMENT CHARGES 25,137.00 2,095.00 23,045.00 .00 2,092.00 91.7 4202-4396 INSURANCEUSER CHARGES 29,929.00 7,482.00 27,434.00 .00 2,495.00 91.7 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 199,141.00 36,068.53 187,475.41 .00 11,665.59 ,,94.1 4202-5400 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 4202-5401 EQUIP -LESS THAN $1,000 3,300.00 .00 1,196.33 4202-5402 EQUIP -MORE THAN $1,000 25,000.00 .00 .00 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 28,300.00 .00 1,196.33 P.W. ADMINISTRATION/PARKS 664,373.00 78,825.96 544,562.44 .00 4204 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 4204-4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4204-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 88,479.00 6,795.07 4204-4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 2,000.00 68.59 4204-4111. ACCRUAL CASH IN 962.00 .00 4204-4180 RETIREMENT 6,667.00 513.00 4204-4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 12,223.00 797.48 4204-4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS 550.00 41.00 PERSONAL SERVICES 110,881.00 8,215.14 4204-4200 4204-4201 CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE . 90,580.00 7,480.00 4204-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4204-4303 UTILITIES 104,200.00 4204-4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 36,265.00 8,946.35 2,103.67 25,000.00 27,103.67 119,810.56 36.3 0.0 4.2 82.0 74,620.68 .00 13,858.32 84.3 2,830.35 .00 830.35 141.5 539.18 .00 422.82 '56.0 5,643.01 .00 1,023.99 84.6 8,834.18 .00 3,388.82 72.3 457.13 .00 92.87 83.1 92,924.53 .00 17,956.47 83.8 81,186.08 .00 9,393.92 89.6 95,550.45 38,582.46 .00 8,649.55 91.7 .00 2,317.46- 106.4 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 001 GENERAL FUND DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 ENCUMB. BALANCE % USED ACCOUNT # APPROP, EXPEND EXPEND 4204-4321 BUILDING SFTY/SECURITY 3,000.00 171.28 3,074.00 4204-4395 EQUIP REPLACEMENT CHARGES 8,831.00 736.00 8,096.00 4204-4396 INSURANCE USER CHARGES 30,962:00 7,740.00 28,380.00 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 183,258.00 19,953.72 173,682.91.. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 4204-5400 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 1,550.00 1,045.70 1,497.92 4204-5401 EQUIP -LESS THAN $1,000 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 386,269.00 36,694.56 349,291.44 .00 ' 74.00- 102.5 215.00 520.00 : 94.1 .00 2,582.00 91.7 215.00 9,360.09 94.9 4600 COMMUNITY PROMOTION 4601 COMMUNITY RESOURCES 4601-4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4601-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 229,943.00 17,007.60 194,832.76 .00 35,110.24 84.7.. 4 000.00 .00 1,544.21 .00 2,455.79 38.6 4601-4106 REGULAR OVERTIME .00 3;045.56 .00 11,121.44 � 21.5 4601-4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 14,167.00 4601-4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 141,475.00 10,390.02 125,773.38 .00 15,701.62 88.9 4601-4180 RETIREMENT 17,492.00 1,300..49 14,933.66 .00 2,558.34 85.4 4601-4188EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 28,175.00 1,912.25 21,313.35 .00 6,861.65 75.6 . ,Op 417.45 93.7 4601-4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS 6,649.00 499.45 6,231.55 .00 74,417.45 93.7: PERSONAL SERVICES 441,901.00 31,109.81 367,674.47 4601-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES _pp 3,857.66 93.6 60,306.00 9,082.97 56,448.34 .00 31,857.66 91.6 4601-4201 CONTRACT'C SERV/PRIVATELASS/P175,108.00 11,492.25 143,130.97 4601-4221 CONTRACT SER (CESS/PRGR 235,414.00 20,575.22 199,579.31 .00 35,834.69 84.8 CONTRACT SERVICES .00 215.00 52.08 36,762.56 96.6 90.5 4601-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 20,000.00 7,405.52 20,886:18,. .00 886.18-104.4 4601-4302 ADVERTISING pp 644.70 90.4 4601-4304 TELEPHONE` 6,727.00 687.45 6,082.30 :00 2;644.70 90.4 4601-4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 8,000.00 358.15.` 5,544.07 4601-4308 PROGRAM MATERIALS 25,680.00 4,568.55 18,520.02 270.63 6,889.35 73.2 4601-4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 1,303.00 25.89 1,036.36 .00 266.64 79.5 1,100.00 .00 626.53 .00 473.47 57.0 4601-4315 MEMBERSHIP .00' 471.47 57:0 4601-4317 CONFERENCE/TRAINING 5,500.00 338.00 5,078.98 00 1,424.02 91.7 4601-4390 COMPUTER REPLACEMENT CHRGS 16,914.00 1,410.00 15,510.00 .00 711.00 91.7 ,00 1,713.00' 91.7 4601-439EQUIP REPLACEMENT CHARGES 16,934.00 4. 8,587.00 716.00 7,876.00 ,233.00 15,521.00 4601-43966 INSURANCE USER CHARGES MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 110,745.00 19,742`.56 96,681.44 270.63 13,792.93 87.5 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE .ap 2,540.56 .00 1,902.44 57.2 EQUIP -LESS THAN $1,000 4,443.00 .00 5,781.80 .00 4,592.20 55.7 10,374.00 EQUIP -MORE. THAN $1,000 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 14,817.00 _00 8,322.36 .00 6,494.64 56.2 COMMUNITY RESOURCES 802,877.00 71,427.59 672,257.58 270.63 130,348.79 83.8 4601-5400 4601-5401 4601-5402 8100 STREET SAFETY 8160. DWNTWN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN'. 8160-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 001 ACCOUNT # 8160-4201 8600- 8621 8621-4200 8621-4201. 8622 8622-4100 8622-4102 8622-4180 8622-4188 8622-4189 GENERAL FUND DESCRIPTION • CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE BUILDINGS & GROUNDS PIER ARCHITECTURAL UPGRADES CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE ADA COMPLIANCE, CITY HALL, :PERSONAL SERVICES REGULAR SALARIES RETIREMENT EMPLOYEE BENEFITS, FICA PERSONAL SERVICES 8622-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 8622-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE . 323,858.00 .00 .00 ADA COMPLIANCE, CITY HALL 334,988.00' .00 5,618.73 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH._PAGE` -11= EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00. ENCUMB. - BALANCE % USED. APPROP EXPEND EXPEND 57,641.00 .00 • 5,299.81' .00 52,341.19 9.2 220,000.00 9,600.00 750.00 480.00 300.00 11,130.00 .00 .00 192,847.22 27,152.78 87.7 :DO 4,787.10 .00 358.57 .00 403.66 .00 69.40 .00 5,618.73 8630 8630-4200 8630-4201. PIER RENOVATION/PHASE III CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE .00 4,812.90 .00 . 391.43 .00 76.34 .00 230.60 .00 5,511.27 49.9 47.8 84.1 23.1 50.5 .00 323,858.00 0.0 .00 329,369.27 1.7 780,000.00 3,672.50 3,672.50 188,277.50 588;050.00 24.6 EXPENDITURE CONTROL 15,787,141.00 1,320,641.00 12,094,692.99 417,702.64 . 3,274,745.37. 79.3 GENERAL FUND 15,787,141.00 1,320,641.00 12,094,692.99 417,702.64 3,274,745.37 79.3 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 • PAGE 12 105 LIGHTG/LANDSCAPG DIST FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED APPROP MAY 1999-00 ENCUMB. BALANCE % USED EXPEND EXPEND 1200 MANAGEMENT/SUPPORT 1299. BUDGET TRANSFER OUT 1299-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 1299-4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT 2600 LIGHTING/LANDSCAPING 2601 LTNG/LANDSCAPING (MEDIANS). 2601-4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 2601-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 183,215.00 15,511.36 171,632.79 .00 11,582.21 93.7 2601=4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 1,900.00 . 125.00 1,940.43 .00 40:43- 102.1 2601-4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 7,025.00 .00 513.00 .00 6,512.00 7.3 2601-4180 RETIREMENT 13,660.00 1,163.23 12,861.54 .00 798.46 - 94.2 2601-4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 17,706.00 1,756.48 19,322.64 .00 1,616.64- 109,1 2601-4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS 1,829.00 157.91 1,756.89 .00 72.11 96.1 PERSONAL SERVICES 225,335.00 18,713.98 208,027.29.- .00 17,307.71 92.3 18,322.00 1,526.82 16,795.02 -.00 1,526.98 91.7 2601-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 2601-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 18,800.00 .00 10,934.73 .00 7,865.27 58.2 2601-4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT 20,500.00 678.13 16,359.80 .00 4,140.20 79-8' CONTRACT SERVICES 39,300.00 678.13 27,294.53 .00 12,005.47 69.5 2601-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 2601-4303 UTILITIES 118,200.00 20,030.78 112,930.54 .00 5,269.46 95.5 2601-4304 ' TELEPHONE 300.00 .00 256.07 .00 43.93 85.4 2601-4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 21,100.00 1,626.17 21,107-85 .00 7.85-100.0 2601-4395 y EQUIP REPLACEMENT CHARGES 21k730.00 1,811.00 19,921.00 .00 1,809.00 91.7 2601-4396 INSURANCE USER CHARGES 28,373.00 7,092.00 26,004-00 .00 2,369.00 91.7 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER • 189,703.00 30,559.95 180,219.46 .00 9,483.54 95.0 2601-5400 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 2601-5402 EQUIP -MORE THAN $500 8,000.00 LTNG/LANDSCAPING (MEDIANS) 462,338.00 8100'. STREET SAFETY. 8153 TRAFFIC SIGNAL/HERMOSA& 14TH 8153-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 8153-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE • 8156 . TRAFFIC SIGNAL/HERMOSA & 13TH , 8156-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 8156-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 8160 DWNTWN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, 8160-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 8160-4201, CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 8600 8621 8621-4100 BUILDINGS & GROUNDS . PIER ARCHITECTURAL UPGRADES PERSONAL SERVICES .00 8,000.00 0.0 .00 46,796.72 89.9 108,995.00 50,084.62 64,981.60.. 108,951.00 50,084.62 21,811.90 22,201.50 79.6 57,224.20 29,569.30 22,157.50 79.7 49,600.00 .00 49,600.00 .00 .00 100.0 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 105 LIGHTG/LANDSCAPG DIST FUND ACCOUNT # 8621-4102 8621-4180 8621-4188 862174189 8621-4200 8621-4201 . DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA,BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT. MAY 2000 PAGE 13 ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 ENCUMB. BALANCE . % USED APPROP EXPEND' EXPEND REGULAR SALARIES 2,707.00 243.14 2,664.19 .00 42.81 98.4 RETIREMENT 203.00 18.21 202.54 .00 .46 99.8 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 254.00 32.97 204.95 .00 49.05 80..7 FICA 39.00 3.52 39.19 .00 .19- 100.5 PERSONAL SERVICES 3,203.00 297.84 3,110.87 .00 92.13 97.1 CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 96,797.00 .00 .00 84,852.78 11,944.22 > 87.7 PIER ARCHITECTURAL UPGRADES 100,000.00 297.84 3,110.87 84,852.78 12,036.35 88.0 EXPENDITURE CONTROL LIGHTG/LANDSCAPG DIST FUND 848,206.00 151,945.96 607,252.97 136,233.98 104,719.05 87.7 848,206.00 .151,945.96 607,252.97 136,233.98 104,719.05 87.7 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 109 DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION 1200 MANAGEMENT/SUPPORT 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER OUT 1299-4300. MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 1299-4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT 3300 PARKING FACILITIES 3301 DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT 3301-4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 3301-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 3301-4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 3301-4180 RETIREMENT 3301-4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 3301-4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS PERSONAL SERVICES: 3301-4200 .3301-4201 CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 ADJUSTED MAY APPROP EXPEND 1999-00 ENCUMB. BALANCE % USED EXPEND 9,089.00 185.42 8,903.62 .00 185.38 98.0 22,249.00 92.00 1,635.00 2,222.00 340.00 26,538.00 1,867.97 .00 137.28 189.25 27.93 2,222.43 20,423.95 .00 1,500.76 1,953.29 305.56 24,183.56 .00 • .00 .00 .00 .00 .00. 1,825.05 92.00 134.24 268.71 34.44 2,354.44 91.8 0.0 91.8 87.9 89.9 91.1 109,596.00 11,113.01 85,588.60 .00 24,007.40 78.1 • 3301-4300 . MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 3301-4304. TELEPHONE 100.00 .00 .00 .00 100.00 0.0 3301-4319 SPECIAL EVENTS 21,836.00 2,411.50 14,201.66 ..00 7,634.34 65.0 3301-4396 INSURANCE USER CHARGES 1,007.00 252.00 924.00 .00 83.00 91.8 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 22,943.00 2,663.50 15,125.66 • .00 7,817.34 65.9 3301-4900 DEPRECIATION 3301-4901 DEPRECIATION/MACH/EQUIP 245.00 .00 .00 .00 245.00 0.0 DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT 159,322.00 15,998.94 124,897.82 .00 34,424.18 78.4 3304 NORTH PIER PARKING STRUCTURE 3304-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 3304-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 59,435.00 20,853.26 32,363.65 27,071.35 .00 100.0 3304-4300 ". MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 3304-4303 UTILITIES 3304-4304 TELEPHONE MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 3304-5400 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 3304-5401 EQUIP -LESS THAN $1,000 1,000.00 .00 733.51 .00 266.49 73.4 NORTH PIER PARKING STRUCTURE 61,935.00 21,258.71 34,601.33 27,071.35 262.32 99.6. 800.00 216.06 508.24 .00 291.76 63.5 700.00 189.39 995.93 .00 295.93- 142.3 1,500.00 405.45 1,504.17 .00 4.17- 100.3 3305 DOWNTOWN PARKING LOT A 3305-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 3305-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 45,308.00 18,194.42 18,194.42. 27,113.58 .00 100.0 3306 3306-4200 CO. SHARE PKG STRUCTURE REV. CONTRACT SERVICES EXPPRIN2 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 06/29/00 09:08:03 EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 109 DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION 3306-4251 CONTRACT SERVICES/GOV'T 8100 STREET SAFETY 8158 DEVELOPERS REIMB/14TH ST, 8158-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 8158-4201. CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 8160 •.8160-4200 8160-4201 ETC. 'PAGE 15 ADJUSTED • MAY 1999-00 ENCUMB. BALANCE % USED APPROP EXPEND EXPEND 100,093.00 165,000.00 .00 .00 .00 100,093.00 0.0 .00 24,000.00 .00 141,000.00 14.5 DWNTWN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 8600 BUILDINGS & GROUNDS 8624 DWNTWN PKG STRUCTURE/LOT C 8624-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 8624-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 119,617.00 4,450.00. 8,900.00 .00 110,717.00' 7.4 EXPENDITURE CONTROL 348,150.00 34,632.60 910.69 99.7 1,008,514.00 60,087.49 532,103.90 88,817.53 387,592.57 61.6 DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT FUND 1,008,514.00. 60,087.49 532,103.90 88,817.53 387,592.57 61.6 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 110 PARKING FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 ADJUSTED MAY APPROP EXPEND 1999-00 EXPEND ENCUMB. BALANCE % USED 1200 MANAGEMENT/SUPPORT 1204 FINANCE CASHIER 1204-4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 1204-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 192,444.00 15,847.54 - 173,030.43 .00 19,413.57 89.9 '1204-4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 500.00 .00 .00 .00 500.00 0.0 1204-4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 6,143.00 194.79 1,856.99 .00 4,286.01 30.2 1204-4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 *** 1204-4180 RETIREMENT 14,406.00 1,183.06 12,952.42 .00 1,453.58 89.9 1204-4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 19,478.00 1,628.38 17,734.96 .00 1,743.04 91.1 1204-4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS 1,757.00 147,66 1,596.05 .00 160.95 90.8 PERSONAL SERVICES 234,728.00 19,001.43 207,170.85 .00 27,557.15 88.3 1204-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 1204-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 15,267.00 1,257.32 9,878.70 4,000.00 1,388.30 90.9 1204-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 1204-4304 TELEPHONE 2,518.00 148.98 1,324.37 .00 1,193.63 52.6 1204-4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 24,301.00 2,468.25 18,321.67 .00 5,979.33 75.4 1204-4315 MEMBERSHIP 125.00 75.00 125.00 .00 .00 100.0 1204-4317 CONFERENCE/TRAINING 1,328:00 .00 435.48 .00 892.52 32.8 1204-4390 COMPUTER REPLACEMENT CHRGS 19,384.00 1,615.00 17,765.00 .00 1,619.00 91.6 1204-4396 INSURANCE USER CHARGES 6,988.00 1,746.00 6,402.00 .00 586.00 91.6 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 54,644.00 6,053.23 44,373.52 .00 - 10,270.48 81.2 1204-5400 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 1204-5402 EQUIP -MORE THAN $1,000 FINANCE CASHIER 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER OUT 1299-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 1299-4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT 3300 PARKING FACILITIES' 3302 COMMUNITY SERVICES 3302-4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 3302-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 506,540.00 42,989.56 458,709.43 .00 47,830.57 90.6 3302-4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 8,000.00 .00 2,814.63 .00 5,185.37 35.2 3302-4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 29,326.00 .00 12,366.91 .00 16,959.09 42.2 3302-4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 10,600.00 391.00 7,521.06 .00 3,078.94 71.0 3302-4117 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 3,800:00 292.61 3,047.33 .00. 752.67 80.2 3302-4180 RETIREMENT 51,826.00 4,419.63 47,051.47 .00 4,774.53 90.8 3302-4187 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 4,050.00 .277.86 3,680.91 .00 369.09 90.9. 3302-4188EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 49,338.00 4,168.09. 44,071.66. .00 5,266.34 89.3 3302-4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS 6,296.00 290.76 •. 3,101.24 .00 3,194.76 49.3 PERSONAL SERVICES 669,776.00 52,829.51 582,364.64 .00 87,411.36 86.9 2,500.00. .00 .00 .00 2,500.00 0.0 307,139.00 26,311.98 261,423.07 4,000.00 41,715.93 86.4 651,599.00 54,299.92 597,299.12 .00 54,299.88. 91.7 330274200 CONTRACT SERVICES EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 110 PARKING FUND ACCOUNT # 3302-4201 3302-4251 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS'REPORT MAY.2000 - PAGE 17 DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 ENCUMB.' BALANCE c % USED APPROP EXPEND EXPEND CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 9,138.00 590.08 5,313.65 .00 3,824.35 58.1 CONTRACT SERVICES/GOV'T 1,500.00 .00 576.23, .00 923.77 38.4. CONTRACT SERVICES 10,638.00 590.08 5,889.88 .00 4,748.12 55.4 3302-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 3302-4304 TELEPHONE 3,000.00 414.23 2,802.90 .00 197.10 93.4 3302-4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 9,500.00 79.96 6,874.06 00 2,625.94 72.4 3302-4307 RADIO MAINTENANCE 1,600.00 .00 .00 .00 1,600.00 0.0 3302-4309 ,. MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 12,138.00 2,416.49 9,790.79 .00 ' 2,347.21 80.7 3302-4315 MEMBERSHIP 300.00 .00 .00 .00 300.00 0.0 3302-4317 CONFERENCE/TRAINING 6,800.00 :00 4,812.98 .00 1,987.02 70.8 3302-4390 COMPUTER REPLACEMENT CHRGS 3,.143.00 262.00 2,882.00. .00 261.00 91.7 3302-4395 EQUIP REPLACEMENT CHARGES 88,123.00 7,344.00 80,784.00 .00 7,339.00 91.7 3302-4396 INSURANCE USER CHARGES 58,930.00' 14,733.00 54,021.00. .00 4,909.00 91.7 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 183,534.00 25,249.68 161,967.73 .00 21,566.27 88.2 3302-4900 3302-4901 3302-4903 3302-4904 3302-5400 3302-5401 3302-5402 3302-5499 DEPRECIATION DEPRECIATION/MACH/EQUIP 400.00 .00 .00 .00 DEPRECIATION/BLDGS 900.00 .00 .00 .00 DEPRECIATION/IMPROVMNTS 5.00 -00 .00 .00 DEPRECIATION 1,305.00 .00 .00 .00 400.00 0.0 900.00 0.0 5.00 0.0 1,305.00 0.0 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE EQUIP -LESS THAN $500 837.00 .00 .00 .00 837.00 0.0. EQUIP -MORE THAN $500 4,-521.00 .00 3,010.72 ,00 1,510.28 66.6 NON -CAPITALIZED ASSETS 7,575.00 7,575.34 7,575.34 .00 .34- 100.0 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 12,933.00 7,575.34 10,586.06 .00 2,346.94 81.9 COMMUNITY SERVICES 878,186.00 86,244.61 760,808.31 .00 117,377.69 86.6 EXPENDITURE CONTROL PARKING FUND 1,836,924.00 166,856.51 1,619,530.50 4,000.00 213,393.50 88.4 1,836,924.00 166,856.51 1,619,530.50 4,000.00? 213,393.50 88.4 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 115 STATE GAS TAX FUND CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT, MAY 2000 ACCOUNT #. DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED APPROP 1200 MANAGEMENT/SUPPORT 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER OUT 1299-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 1299-4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT 340,988.00 28,415.67 312,572.37 _00 28,415.63 91.7 PAGE 18 MAY EXPEND 1999-00 ENCUMB. BALANCE % USED EXPEND 8100 STREET SAFETY 8144 HERMOSA BEACH'BIKE PATH 8144-4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 8144-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 8144-4180 RETIREMENT 8144-4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS .8144-4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS. PERSONAL SERVICES 1,206.00 372.81 678.71 .00 527.29 56.3 90.00 27.92 55.51 .00 34.49 61.7 113.00 50.56 50.56 .00 62.44 44.7 18.00 5.40 10.75 .00 7.25 59.7 1,427.00 456.69 795.53 .00 631.47 55.7 8144-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 8144-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 15,919.00 HERMOSA BEACH BIKE PATH 17,346.00 456.69. 795.53 .00 16;550.47 - 4.6 .00 .00 .00 15,919.00 0.0 8153 TRAFFIC SIGNAL/HERMOSA & 14TH 8153-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 8153-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 5,304.00 .00 5,304.00 .00 8156 TRAFFIC SIGNAL/HERMOSA & 13TH 8156-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 8156-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 5,304.00 .00 5,304.00 .00 EXPENDITURE CONTROL 368,942.00 28,872.36 323,975.90 .00 STATE GAS TAX FUND 368,942.00. 28,872.36 323,975.90 .00 .00 100.0 .00 100.0 44,966.10 87.8 44,966.10 87.8 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 117 AB939 FUND. ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION 5300 5301 5301-4100 - 5301-4102 5301-4111 5301-4180 5301-4188 5301-4189 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000: ADJUSTED MAY APPROP EXPEND 1999-00 ENCUMB. EXPEND PAGE 19 BALANCE %.USED AB939 SRCE REDCTN/RECYCLE ELEMENT PERSONAL SERVICES REGULAR SALARIES 19,759.00 1,338.02 14,839.51 .00 4,919.49 ACCRUAL CASH IN 922.00_ .00 673.53 .00 248.47 RETIREMENT 1,436.00 96.55 1,083.94 .00 352:06 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 2,076.00 164.70 1,832.70 .00 243.30. FICA 245.00 19.55 230.21 .00 14.79 PERSONAL SERVICES 24,438.00 1,618.82 18,659.89 .00 5,778.11 75.1 73.1 75.5 88.3 94.0 76.4 5301-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 5301-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 30,000.00 .00 .00 :00 30,000.00: 0.0 5301-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER'.:. 5301-4305 OFFICE OPERATING SUPPLIES 1,500.00 .00 ' .00 .00 1,500.00 0.0 ,SRCE REDCTN/RECYCLE ELEMENT 55,938.00 1,618.82 18,659.89 .00 37,278.11 33.4 EXPENDITURE CONTROL ' 55,938.00 1,618.82 18,659.89 .00 37,278.11 33.4 AB939 FUND 55,938.00 1,618.82 18,659.89 .00 37,278.11 33.4 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000. 120 COUNTY GAS TAX FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 ' •ENCUMB. BALANCE % USED APPROP EXPEND EXPEND 8100 STREET SAFETY 8141 STREET REHAB 8141-4100 PERSONAL SERVICES. 8141-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 8141-4180 RETIREMENT 8141-4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 8141-4189' ' FICA PERSONAL SERVICES 8141-4200 8141-4201 502.00 38.00 47.00 7.00 594.00 .00 .00 .00 502.00 0.0 .00 .00 .00 38.00 0.0 .00 .00 .00 47.00 0.0 .00 .00 .00 7.00 0.0 .00 .00 .00 594.00 0.0 CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE STREET REHAB EXPENDITURE -.CONTROL 78,507.00 79,101.00 79,101.00 .00 70,581.76 .00 7,925.24 89.9 .00 70,581.76 .00 8,519.24 .00 70,581.76 :00 8,519.24 .00 70,581.76 .00 8,519.24 89.2 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 121- PROP A OPEN SPACE FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION 1200 MANAGEMENT/SUPPORT. 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER OUT 1299-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 1299-4399 OPERATING TRSFR OUT 8100 STREET SAFETY 8144 HERMOSA BEACH BIKE 8144-4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 8144-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 8144-4180 RETIREMENT 8144-4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 8144-4189 FICA PERSONAL SERVICES CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 ADJUSTED MAY APPROP EXPEND 19,097.00 1999-00 ENCUMB. BALANCE EXPEND 17,505.62 PAGE 21 USED .00 1,591.38 91.7 8144-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 8144-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE HERMOSA BEACH BIKE PATH 7,823.00 551.11 6,476.63. .00 1,346.37 82.8 586.00 41.28 492.00 .00 94.00 84.0 734.00 74.75 473.88 .00 260.12 64.6 113.00 7.99 95.24 .00 17.76 84.3. 9,256.00 675.13; 7,537.75 .00 1,718.25 81.4 380,158.00 389,414.00 .00 20,327.75 10,339.05 349,491.20 8.1 675.13 - 27,865.50 10,339.05 351,209.45 9.8 8300 STORM DRAIN 8305 INSTALL CDS CLARIFIER UNITS 8305-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 8305-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 8306 INSTALL -CATCH BASIN INSERTS 8306-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 8306-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 8600 BUILDINGS & GROUNDS. 8621 PIER ARCHITECTURAL UPGRADES 8621-4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 8621-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 8621-4180 RETIREMENT 8621-4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 8621-4189 FICA PERSONAL SERVICES 8621-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 8621-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE PIER ARCHITECTURAL UPGRADES 8624. DWNTWN PKG STRUCTURE/LOT C 8624-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 8624-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE EXPENDITURE CONTROL PROP A OPEN SPACE FUND 367,761.00 .00 ' .00 .00 367,761.00 56,250.00 .00 - .00 .00 18,108.00 1,356.00 1,698.00 263.00 21,425.00 1,050,524.00 1,071,949.00 942,939.00 226.93 17.00. 30.77 3.29 277.99 1,873.04 .00 164.92 .00 133.04 .00 31.93 .00 2,202.93 .00. 0.0 56,250.00 16,234.96 1,191.08 1,564.96 231.07 19,222.07 10.3 12.2 7.8 12.1 10.3 288,933.00 " 331,389.23 714,091.04 5,043.73 99.5 289,210.99 333,592.16 714,091.04 24,265.80 . 97.7 .00 675,891.06 130,102.95 136,944.99 85.5 2,847,410.00 291,477.54 1,054,854.34 854,533.04 938,022.62 67.1 2,847,410.00 291,477.54 1,054,854.34 854,533.04 938,022.62: 67.1 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 CITY OP HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 125 PARK/REC FACILITY TAX. FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 APPROP EXPEND EXPEND 8500 PARKS 8529 CLARK FIELD IMPROVEMENTS 8529-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES - 8529-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 8530 VARIOUS PARK IMPROVEMENTS 8530-4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 8530-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 8530-4180 RETIREMENT 8530-4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 8530-4189 FICA PERSONAL SERVICES 119,660.00 ENCUMB. BALANCE % USED .00 .00 .00 119,660.00 0.0 5,413.00 .00 1,676.83 .00 3,736.17 31.0 405.00 .00 131.05 .00 273.95 32.4 508.00 .00 148.20 .00 359.80 29.2 79.00 .00 25.37 .00 53.63 32.1 6,405.00 .00 1,981.45 .00 .4,423.55 30.9 8530-4200 CONTRACT. SERVICES 8530-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 263,859.00 .00 8,737.84 VARIOUS PARK IMPROVEMENTS 270,264.00 .00 10,719.29 8600 . BUILDINGS & GROUNDS 8627 COMMUNITY CTR IMPROVEMENTS 8627-4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 8627-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 5,379.00 .00 2,529.70 8627-4180 RETIREMENT 403.00 .00 205.80 8627-4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 505.00 .00 136.73 8627-4189FICA 78.00 .00 40.76 PERSONAL SERVICES 6,365.00 .00 2,912.99 J .00 255,121.16 3.3 .00 259,544.71 4.0.` 8627-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 8627-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 8627-5600 BUILDINGS/IMPROVEMENTS 8627-5602 IMPRVMNTS OTHER THAN BLDGS 17,000.00 .00 16,945.00 COMMUNITY CTR IMPROVEMENTS. 270,264.00 .00 26,696.91 2,849.30 197.20 368.27 37.24 3,452.01 246,899.00 •.00 6,838.92 47.0 51.1`. 27.1 52.3 45.8 240,060.08 2.8 EXPENDITURE CONTROL 660,188.00 PARK/REC FACILITY TAX FUND 660,188.00 .00 .00 .00 37,416.20 .00, . 37,416.20 .00 55.00 99.7 243,567.09 9.9 622,771.80 5.7 622,771.80 5.7 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03, 126 ACCOUNT # 8500 8507 8507-4100 8507-4102- 8507-4180 8507-4188 8507-4189 4% UTILITY USERS TAX FUND DESCRIPTION PARKS VALLEY PARK IMPROVEMENTS PERSONAL SERVICES REGULAR SALARIES' RETIREMENT EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FICA. PERSONAL SERVICES 8507-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 8507-4201 CONTRACT, SERV/PRIVATE VALLEY PARK`IMPROVEMENTS. 8526' 8526-4200' 8526-4201 8529 .8529-4100 78529-4102 8529-4180 8529-4188 8529-4189 8529-4200 8529-4201 COMMUNITY'CTR TENNIS CENTER CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE CLARK FIELD":IMPROVEMENTS 'PERSONAL SERVICES REGULAR SALARIES RETIREMENT EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FICA PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 'CLARK FIELD IMPROVEMENTS EXPENDITURE CONTROL 4% UTILITY USERS TAX CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE,STATUS, REPORT MAY 2000 PAGE 23 ADJUSTED;. MAY 1999-00. ENCUMB,. J3ALANCE % USED APPROP EXPEND EXPEND. 4,188.00 441.00 1,970.23 .00 2,217.77 47.0 314.00 33.03 160.99 .00 153.01 51.3 393.00 15.10 100.70 .00 292,30 25.6 60.00 6.40 31.16 .00 28.84 51.9 4,955.00 495.53 2,263.08 .00 2,691.92 45.7 354,939.00 1,930.81 1,930.81 359,894.00 2,426.34 ' 4,193.89 190,998.00 77,400.19 77,400.19 275,608.00 278,299.92 22.4 22.7 .00 187,660.00 2,572.75 765.25 99.6 5,287.00 .00 264.97 .00 5,022.03 5.0 396.00 .00 19.85 .00 376.15 5.0 496700 .00 .00 .00 496.00 0.0 76.00 .00 3.84 .00 72.16 5.1 6,255.00 .00 288-66. .00 5,966.34 4.6 . 31,085,00 .00 .00 12,450.00 18,635.00 40.1 37,340.00 .00 288.66 12,450.00, 24,601.34 ` 34.1 588,232.00 2,426.34 192,142.55 92,422.94 303,666.51. 48.4 FUND 588,232.00 2,426.34 192,142.55 92;422.94 303,666.51 48.4 EXPPRIN2 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 06/29/00 09:08:03 EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 127 BUILDING IMPROVEMENT FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION PAGE 24 ADJUSTED MAY APPROP EXPEND. 8600 BUILDINGS & GROUNDS 8622 ADA COMPLIANCE, CITY HALL 8622-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 8622-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 134,821.00 134,821.00 EXPENDITURE CONTROL BUILDING IMPROVEMENT FUND 134,821.00 1999-00 ENCUMB. BALANCE % USED EXPEND .00 745.00 .00 134,076.00 0.6 134,076.00. 0.6 134,076.00 0.6. .00 .00 .00 745.00 .00 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 137 MYRTLE DIST ADMIN EXP FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION 1200 MANAGEMENT/SUPPORT 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER OUT 1299-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 1299-4399 OPERATING TRSFR OUT 8100 8182 8182-4200 8182-4201 . STREET SAFETY UTIL UNDRGRND/MYRTLE AVE CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE EXPENDITURE CONTROL MYRTLE DIST ADMIN EXP FUND CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 PAGE 25 ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 ENCUMB. BALANCE % USED APPROP EXPEND EXPEND .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 4,378.00 .00 77.00 .00 4,301.00. 1,.8 4,378.00 . _00 77.00 .00 4,301.00 1.8 4,378.00 .00 77.00 .00 4,301.00 1.8 EXPPRIN2 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 06/29/00 09:08:03 EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 138 LOMA DIST ADMIN EXP FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 ENCUMB. BALANCE % USED EXPEND 1200 MANAGEMENT/SUPPORT 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER OUT 1299-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 1299-4399 OPERATING TRSFR OUT 8100 8183 8183-4200 8183-4201 STREET SAFETY UTIL UNDRGRND/LOMA DR CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE EXPENDITURE CONTROL APPROP EXPEND .00 5,533.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 12.00 .00 5,521.00 0.2 5,533.00 .00 12.00 .00 5,521.00 LOMA DIST ADMIN EXP FUND , 5,533.00 0.2 .00 5,521.00 0.2 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 140 ACCOUNT # CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PAGE 09:08:03 EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED, MAY 1999-00 ENCUMB. BALANCE % USED APPROP EXPEND EXPEND 27 8600 BUILDINGS & GROUNDS 8622 ADA COMPLIANCE, CITY HALL 8622-4100 .. PERSONAL SERVICES 8622-4102 . REGULAR SALARIES 5,100.00 .00 793.44 .00 4,306.56 15.6 8622-4180 RETIREMENT 382.00 .00_ 69.58 .00 312.42 18.2 8622-4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 465.00 .00 52.37 .00 412.63. 11.3 8622-4189. FICA 29.00 .00 .00 .00 29.00 0.0 PERSONAL SERVICES 5,976.00 .00 915.39 .00 5,060.61 15.3 8622-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 8622-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 8622-4300 8622-4317 8623 8623-4200 8623-4201 149,321.00 .00 .00 .00 :149,321.00 0.0 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER TRAINING/CONFERENCE 100.00. .00 39.68 .00 60.32 39.7 ADA COMPLIANCE, CITY HALL 155,397.00 .00 955.07 .00 154,441.93 0.6. 99-00 ALLOCATION CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 141,459.00 .00 .00 .00 141,459.00 0.0 EXPENDITURE CONTROL 296,856.00 .00 955.07 .00 295,900.93 0.3 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 296,856.00 .00 955.07 .00 295,900.93 0.3 .EXPPRIN2 06/29/00. 09:08:03 145 PROPOSITION 'A FUND DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 ACCOUNT # 3400 PUBLIC TRANSIT 3401 DIAL A RIDE 3401-4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 3401-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 37,000.00 3,034.86 33,223.41 .00 3,776.59 89.8 3401-4180 RETIREMENT .00 563.43 .00 .00 .00 *** 3401-4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS • .00 833.97 .00 .00 .00 *** 3401-4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS .00 82.04- .00 .00 .00 *** PERSONAL SERVICES 37,000.00 1,555.42' 33,223.41 .00 3,776.59 89.8 ADJUSTED MAY APPROP EXPEND 1999-00 EXPEND BALANCE % USED • 3401-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 3401-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 3401-4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT CONTRACT SERVICES 3401-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 3401-4304 TELEPHONE 3401-4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER DI'AL.A.RIDE 3403 . BUS PASS SUBSIDY 3403-4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 3403-4102 .REGULAR SALARIES 525.00 .00 3403-4180 RETIREMENT .00 .00 3403-4188. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS .00 .00 3403-4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS . .00 .00 PERSONAL SERVICES 525.00 .00 77,627.00 .00 72,580.31 00 5,046.69 93.5 189,671.00 45,148.49 135,342.70 .00 54,328.30 71.4 267,298.00 45,148.49 207,923.01 .00 59,374.99 77.8 50.00 800.00 850.00 305,148.00 .00 .00 .00 50.00. 0.0 .00 .00 .00. 800.00 0.0 .00 .00 .00 850.00 0.0 46,703.91 241,146.42 .00 64,001.58 79.0 3403-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 3403-4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT BUS PASS SUBSIDY` 3408 COMMUTER XPRESS 3408-4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 3408-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 3408-4180 RETIREMENT 3408-4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 3408-4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS PERSONAL SERVICES 3408-4200 3408-4251 3409 3409-4100. 3,500.00 208.00 .,2,000.00 4,025.00 208.00 2,519.59 14.95 2.61- 6.42- .51- 5.41 .00 1,500.00 57.1 1,505.41 62.6 ..00 1,750.00 .00 1,338.74 .00 411.26 .00 .00 11.58 .00 11.58- .00 .00 9.17 .00 9.17- .00 .00 2.25 .00 2.25- 1,750.00 .00 1,361.74 .00 388.26 CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT COMMUTER XPRESS 10,620.00 12,370.00 .00 10,620.00 0.0 11,008.26 11.0 RECREATION TRANSPORTATION PERSONAL SERVICES EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 145• PROPOSITION 'A FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION 3409-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 3409-4200 3409-4201 CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE RECREATION TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE CONTROL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 PAGE 29 ADJUSTED MAY 1999.-00 ENCUMB. BALANCE % USED APPROP EXPEND EXPEND 1,800.00 .00 657.13 00 1,142.87 36.5 18,116.00 19,916.00 661.17 661.17 14,161.56 14,818.69 .00 . 3,954.44 78.2 .00 5,097.31 74.4 341,459.00 47,573.08 259,846.44 .00 81,612.56 76.1 PROPOSITION 'A FUND' EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 146 PROPOSITION 'C FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION. -4200 CONST/ENG/ENF 4208 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT STUDY 4208-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4208-4201. CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 2,000.00 .00 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 ADJUSTED APPROP MAY 1999-00 ENCUMB. BALANCE % USED EXPEND EXPEND 8100 STREET SAFETY 8150 HERMOSA AVE/PIER TO 16TH 8150-4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 8150-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 10,947.00 1,029.00 5,638.00 .00 5,309.00 51.5 8150-4180 RETIREMENT 820.00 77.07 427.76 .00 392.24 ` 52.2 8150-4188 EMPLOYEE, BENEFITS 1,027.00. 35.21 364.33 .00 662.67 35.5 8150-4189 FICA 159.00 14.92 82.82 .00 76.18 52.1 PERSONAL SERVICES • 12,953.00 1,156.20 6,512.91 .00 6,440.09 50.3 8150-4200 8150-4201 CONTRACT SERVICES •CONTRACT.SERV/PRIVATE HERMOSA AVE/PIER TO 16TH EXPENDITURE CONTROL PROPOSITION 'C FUND. 412,532.00 .00 20,430.20 10,109.80 381,992.00 7.4 425,485.00 1,156.20 ' 26,943.11 10,109.80 `388,432.09 8.7 427,485.00 1,156.20 28,943.11 10,109.80 388,432.09 9..1 427,485.00 1,156.20 28,943.11 10,109.80 388,432.09 9.1 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 150 GRANTS FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION 2100 POLICE 2110 BCHD DOM VIOLENCE ADVOCACY 2110-4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 2110-4102 REGULAR' SALARIES 2110-4106 REGULAR OVERTIME, 2110-4112 PART TIME TEMPORARY 2110-4180 RETIREMENT 2110-4187 UNIFORMS •2110-4188_ EMPLOYEE BENEFITS: 2110-4189 FICA PERSONAL SERVICES 2110-4200 2110-4201 PGM CITY OF`HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS'REPORT MAY 2000 PAGE 31. ADJUSTED ' MAY 1999-00 ENCUMB. BALANCE % USED - APPROP EXPEND EXPEND .00 178.90 268.35 .00 268.35- '*** .00 139.34 232.23 .00 232.23 *** 16,830.00 350.00 1,325.00 .00 15,505.00 7.9 .00 22.43 36.00 .00 36.00- *** .00 1.24 1.86 .00 1.86- *** .00 24.33 73.25 .00 73.25- *** .00 26.78 101.37 .00 101.37- *** 16,830.00 743.02 2,038.06 .00 14,791.94 12.1 CONTRACT SERVICES, CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 1,180.00 2110-4300' MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 2110-4304 TELEPHONE 2110-4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 2110-4317 TRAINING/CONFERENCE MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER BCHD DOM VIOLENCE ADVOCACY PGM 102.00 102.00 :00 1,078.00 78.6 4100 PLANNING 4104 COASTAL PERMIT AUTH GRANT 4104-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4104-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 450.00 215.00 1,325.00 1,990.00 20,000.00: .00 .00 .00 .00 845.02 8100 STREET SAFETY 8139. STPL STREET IMPROVEMENTS 8139-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 8139-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 8300 STORM DRAIN 8302 USED OIL RECYCLING PROGRAM 8302-4200 . CONTRACT SERVICES 8302-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 5,585.68 35,412.00 8304 8304-4100. 8304-4102 8304-4180 8304-4188 8304-4189 16TH ST STORM DRAIN PERSONAL SERVICES REGULAR SALARIES 16,103.00 226.93 8,512.45 .00 7,590.55 52.9 RETIREMENT 1,206.00 17.00 649.61 .00 556.39 53.9 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1,510.00 30.77 566.48 .00 943.52 37.5 FICA 234.00 3.29 125.76 .00 108.24" 53.7 PERSONAL SERVICES 19,053.00 277.99 9,854.30 .00 9,198.70 51.7 8,959.00 IMPROVMNTS .00 .00 .00 :00 .00 . .00 00 .00 .00 .00 2,140.06 .00 10,363.83 450.00 215.00 1,325.00 1,990.00 17,859.94 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.7 12,802.40 .23- 100.0 .00 .00 35,412.00 . 0.0 3,357.50 3,524.50 2,077.00 76.8 CONTRACT SERVICES CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 150 :GRANTS FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00' ENCUMB. BALANCE / USED APPROP EXPEND 8304-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 1,268,747.00 16TH ST STORM DRAIN IMPROVMNTS 1,287,800.00 8600 BUILDINGS & GROUNDS 8621 PIER ARCHITECTURAL UPGRADES 8621-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 8621-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 100,000.00 8624 DWNTWN PKG STRUCTURE/LOT C 8624-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 8624-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE EXPENDITURE CONTROL 1,100,000.00 2,575,337.00 2,575,337.00 EXPEND .00 .00 .00 1,268,747.00 277.99 9,854.30 .00 1,277,945.70 0.8 0.0 .00 .00 87,424.07 12,575.93 87.4 .00 989,742.50. 110,257.50 6,708.69 1,015,458.19 214,008.47 1,345,870.34 47.7 1,015,458.19 214,008.47 1,345,870.34 .00 100.0 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 152 AIR QUALITY MGMT DIST FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION' 1200 MANAGEMENT/SUPPORT 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER OUT 1299-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 1299-4399 OPERATING TRSFR OUT 3700 INTERGOVERNMENTAL/FEDERAL _3701 . EMISSION CONTROL 3701-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 3701-4327 AQMD INCENTIVES EXPENDITURE'CONTROL AIR QUALITY MGMT DIST FUND CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT ` MAY- 2000 ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 ENCUMB. BALANCE APPROP EXPEND. EXPEND 34,992.00 1,500.00 36,492,00 36,492.00 2,915.96 32,075.56 95.00 3,010.96 PAGE. 33 USED 00 2,916.44 91.7 395.00. 32,470.56 3,010.96 32,470.56 .00 1,105.00 26.3 4,021.44 89.0. 4,021..44 89.0 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 153 SUPP LAW ENF SERV (SLESF) ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION 2100 POLICE 2106 C.O.P.S. PROGRAM 2106-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 2106-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE. 2106-5400 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 2106-5401 EQUIP -LESS THAN $1,000 2106-5402 EQUIP -MORE THAN $1,000 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 2106-5600 BUILDINGS/IMPROVEMENTS 2106-5601 BUILDINGS. C.O.P.S. PROGRAM EXPENDITURE CONTROL SUPP LAW ENF SERV (SLESF) ADJUSTED APPROP PAGE . 34 MAY 1999-00 ENCUMB. BALANCE / USED EXPEND EXPEND 3,000.00 .00 3,000.00 .00 .00 100.0:. 1,912.00 1,157.41 3,849.65 .00 1,937.65- 201.3 54,822.00 , 2,927.49 44,945.80 .00 9,876.20 82.0 56,734.00 4,084.90. 48,795.45 .00 7,938.55 '86.0 1,218.00 . .00 .00 .00 1,218.00 0.0 60,952.00 4,084.90 51,795.45 .00 9,156.55 85.0 60,952.00 4,084.90 51,795.45 .00 9,156.55 85.0 85.0 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 CITY OF.HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 PAGE 35 155 CROSSING GUARD DIST. FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 ENCUMB. BALANCE % USED APPROP EXPEND EXPEND 1200 MANAGEMENT/SUPPORT 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER OUT 1299-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER. 1299-4398 RESDL EQUITY TRSFR OUT 9,878.00 .00 4,938.77 .00 4,939.23 50.0 EXPENDITURE CONTROL 9,878.00 .00 4,938.77 .00 4,939.23 50.0 CROSSING GUARD DIST FUND 9,878.00 .00 4,938.77 .00 4,939.23 50.0 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 160 SEWER FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED MAY '. 1999-00 ENCUMB. BALANCE % USED APPROP EXPEND EXPEND 3100 3102 3102-4100 3102-4102 3102-4106 .3102-4111 3102-4180 3102-4188 3102-4189 3102-4200 3102-4201 3102-4251 3102-4300 3102-4303. 3102-4309 3102-4395 3102-4396 STREETS/HWYS/STRM DRAINS SEWERS/STRM DRAINS. PERSONAL SERVICES REGULAR SALARIES REGULAR OVERTIME ACCRUAL CASH IN RETIREMENT EMPLOYEE BENEFITS MEDICARE BENEFITS PERSONAL SERVICES 203,225.00 7,200.00 6,841.00 15,096.00 25,539.00 2,155.00 260,056.00 15,717.26 782.89 .00 1,170.65 1,687.22 110.11 19,468.13 174,346.60 3,165.91 .00 12,986.24 18,277.59 1,224.28.- 210,000.62 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 28,878.40 4,034.09 6,841.00 2,109.76 7,261.41 930.72 50,055.38 85.8 44.0 0.0 86.0 71.6 56.8 80.8 CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 148,620.00 361.18 122,564.17 13,973.23 12,082.60 91.9 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOV'T 3,400.00 .00 .00 .00 3,400.00 0.0 CONTRACT SERVICES, 152,020.00 361.18 122,564.17 13,973.23 15,482.60 89.8 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER UTILITIES 983.00 192.20 969.23 .00 13.77 98.6 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 12,600.00 84.14 7,128.67 .00 5,471.33 56.6 EQUIP REPLACEMENT CHARGES 21,453.00 1,788.00 19,668.00 .00 1,785.00 91.7 INSURANCE USER CHARGES 32,825.00 8,205.00 30,085.00 .00 2,740.00 91.7 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 67,861.00 10,269.34 57,850.90 .00 10,010.10 85.2 3102-5400 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 3102-5402 EQUIP-MORE.THAN $1,000 SEWERS/STRM DRAINS 8100 8150 8150-4200 8150-4201 8160 8160-4200 8160-4201 8300 8305 . 8305-4200 8305-4201 8306 8306-4200 8306-4201 STREET SAFETY HERMOSA AVE/PIER TO 16TH CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE DWNTWN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE STORM DRAIN INSTALL CDS CLARIFIER UNITS CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE INSTALL CATCH BASIN INSERTS CONTRACT SERVICES ' CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 1,600.00 .00 .00 .00 1,600.00 0.0 481,537.00 30,098.65 390,415.69 13,973.23 77,148.08 84.0 30,000.00 .00 30,000.00 . 0.0 152,898.00 .00 .00 .00 152,898.00 •0.0 8400 SANITARY SEWER 8409 MANHOLE REPAIRS 8409-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 160 SEWER*FUND ACCOUNT # 8409-4201 8410 8410-4200 8410-4201 8600 8621 8621-4100 8621-4102 8621-4180 8621-4188 8621-4189 8621-4200 8621-4201 8630 8630-4100 8630-4102 8630-4180 8630-4188 8630-4189 8630-4200 8630-4201 DESCRIPTION CONTRACT. SERV/PRIVATE SEWER REHAB/COMA DISTRICT CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE BUILDINGS & GROUNDS. PIER ARCHITECTURAL UPGRADES PERSONAL SERVICES REGULAR SALARIES RETIREMENT EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FICA PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE PIER ARCHITECTURAL UPGRADES PIER RENOVATION/PHASE PERSONAL SERVICES REGULAR. SALARIES RETIREMENT EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FICA PERSONAL SERVICES CITY OF HERMOSA'BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT' - MAY 2000 \, ADJUSTED APPROP 135,000.00 34,400.00 1,070.00 _89.00 107.00 18.00 1,284.00 50,000.00 51,284.00 MAY EXPEND .00 1999-00 EXPEND PAGE 37 ENCUMB. BALANCE % USED .00 .00 135,000.00 0.0 .00 .00 34,400.00. .00 .00' .00 .00 .00 1,069.11 88.01. 106.54 17.05 1,280.71 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 100.0 .89 .99 .46 .95 3.29. 99.9 98.9 99.6 94.7 99.7 .00 .00 .00 50,000.00 0.0 .00 1,280.71 .00 50,003.29 2.5, CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE PIER RENOVATION/PHASE III EXPENDITURE CONTROL SEWER FUND 4,691.00 343.00 433.00 65.00 5,532.00 178,684.00 184,216.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 :00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00' .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 ..00 .00 ,.00 4,691.00 343.00 433.00 65.00 5,532.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 178,684.00 0.0 .00. 184,216.00 0.0 1,142,672.00 30,098.65 391,696.40 48,373.23 702,602.37 38.5 1,142,672.00 , 30,098.65 391,696.40 48,373.23 702,602.37 38.5 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 CITY' OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 170 ASSET SEIZURE/FORFT FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED MAY APPROP EXPEND 2100 2103 2103-4200 2103-4201 POLICE SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 2103-5400 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 2103-5401 EQUIP -LESS THAN $1000 13,000.00 1,940.00 12,263.66 1,077.09 340.75- 102.6. 2103-5402 EQUIP -MORE THAN $1,000 19,832.00 .00 20,111.06, .00 279.06- 101.4 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 32,832.00 1,940.00 32,374.72 1,077.09 619.81- 101.9 SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS 37,832.00 1,940.00 33,297.22. 1,077.09 3,457.69 90.9 5,000.00 PAGE 38 1999-00 ENCUMB. BALANCE % USED EXPEND .00 922.50 .00 4,077.50 .18.5- 8600 8622 8622-4200 8622-4201 BUILDINGS &GROUNDS ADA COMPLIANCE, CITY HALL • CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE EXPENDITURE CONTROL ASSET SEIZURE/FORFT FUND 53,000.00 90,832.00 90,832.00 .00 .00 1,940.00 33,297.22 1,077.09 1,940.00 33,297.22 1,077.09 56,457.69 37.8 .00 53,000.00 0.0 56,457.69 37.8 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 180 FIRE PROTECTION FUND. ACCOUNT # 1200 1299 1299-4300 1299-4399 DESCRIPTION MANAGEMENT/SUPPORT BUDGET TRANSFER OUT MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT CITY"OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS -REPORT 'MAY 2000 PAGE 39 ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 ` ENCUMB. BALANCE % USED APPROP EXPEND EXPEND 73,868.00 6,155-.67 67,712.37 .00 6,155.63" 91.7 2200 FIRE 2202 FIRE PROTECTION, 2202-5400 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 2202-5401 EQUIP -LESS THAN $1,000 17,316.00 ,.00 16,609.75 .00 .706.25 95.9 2202-5402 EQUIP -MORE THAN $1,000 4,100.00 .00 4,340.83 .00 240.83- 105.9 FIRE PROTECTION 21,416.00 ` .00 20,950.58 .00 465.42 97.8 8600 BUILDINGS & GROUNDS 8610 FIRE STA:UPSTAIRS REMODEL/ADDN 8610-4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 8610-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 8610-4180 RETIREMENT 8610-4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 8610-4189 FICA PERSONAL SERVICES 8610-4200 8610-4201 CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE FIRE STA UPSTAIRS REMODEL/ADDN EXPENDITURE CONTROL . FIRE PROTECTION FUND 10,271:00 .00 3,415.43 .00 .6,855.57 33.3 769.00 .00 271.73 .00 497.27 35.3 963.00 .00 242.88 .00 720.12 25.2 150.00 .00 52.57 .00 97.43 35.0 12,153.00 .00 3,982.61 .00 8,170.39 32.8 287,847.00 300,000.00 .00 .00 .00 . 3,982.61 .00 287,847.00 0.0 .00 296,017.39 1.3 395,284.00 6,155.67 92,645.56 .00 302,638.44 23.4 395,284.00 6,155.67 92,645.56 .00 .302,638:44 23.4 EXP.PRIN2 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 06/29/00 09:08:03 EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 301 CAPITAL. IMPROVEMENT FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ?-' ADJUSTED MAY APPROP EXPEND 1200 MANAGEMENT/SUPPORT 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER OUT 1299-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 1299-4399 OPERATING TRSFR OUT 8,861.00 .00 PAGE 40 1999-00 ENCUMB. BALANCE % USED EXPEND 8100 STREET SAFETY. 8139 STPL STREET IMPROVEMENTS 8139-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 8139-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 8141 STREET REHAB 8141-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 8141-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 8143 _ 'MONTEREY/19TH TO HERMOSA AVE 8143-4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 8143-4102 'REGULAR SALARIES. 8143-4180 'RETIREMENT 8143-4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 8143-4189 FICA PERSONAL SERVICES 8143-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 8143-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 230,929.00 42,222.40 148,406.45 38,422.33 44,100.22 80.9. MONTEREY/19TH TO HERMOSA AVE 234,915.00 42,222.40 152,390.26 38,422.33 44,102.41. 81.2 8,860.86 4,588.00 .00 12,524.00. .00 12,524.00 3,349.00 .00 3,348.88 265.00. .00 264.14 319.00 .00 318.75 53.00. .00 52.04 3,986.00 .00 3,983.81. .00 .00 100.0 .00 .12 100.0 .00 .86 99.7 .00 ` .25 99.9 .00 .96 98.2 :00 2.19 99.9 8150 8150-4200 8150-4201 HERMOSA AVE/PIER TO 16TH CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 8400 SANITARY SEWER 8410 SEWER REHAB/LOMA DISTRICT 8410-4200 •`CONTRACT SERVICES • 8410-4201 CONTRACT'SERV/PRIVATE 40,640.00 .00 _ .00 .00 40,640.00 0.0 EXPENDITURE CONTROL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 43,600.00 345,128.00 345,128.00 42,222.40 173,775.12 ' 82,022.33 89;330.55 74.1 42,222.40 173,775.12 .82,022.33 89,330.55 740 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 305 LWR PIER ASSMNT DIST IMPR ACCOUNT # 8100 8160 8160-4200 8160-4201 DESCRIPTION FUND CITY OF'HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 PAGE 41 ADJUSTED MAY ' 1999-00 ENCUMB. BALANCE / USED APPROP ,EXPEND EXPEND STREET SAFETY DWNTWN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CONTRACT SERVICES, CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE ` 25,944.00 .00 25,522.10 .00 421.90 98.4 EXPENDITURE CONTROL 25,944.00 .00 25,522.10 .00 421.90 98.4 LWR PIER ASSMNT DIST IMPR FUND 25,944.00 .00 - 25,522.10 .00 421.90 98.4" EXPPRIN2 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 06/29/00 09:08:03 EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 307 MYRTLE UTIL UNDRGRND IMPR FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED MAY APPROP EXPEND 8100 STREET SAFETY, 8182' UTIL UNDRGRND/MYRTLE AVE 8182-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 8182-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE EXPENDITURE CONTROL 1,550,988.00 1,550,988.00 MYRTLE UTIL UNDRGRND IMPR FUND 1,550,988.00 1999-00 ENCUMB. BALANCE % USED EXPEND. 92,998.65 737,947.73. 310,794.51 502,245.76 67.6 92,998.65 737,947.73 310,794.51 502,245.76 67.6 92,998.65 737,947.73 310,794.51 502,245.76 67.6 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 308 ACCOUNT # LOMA UTIL UNDRGRND IMPROV FUND DESCRIPTION 8100 STREET SAFETY 8183 UTIL UNDRGRND/LOMA DR 8183-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 818374201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE `1,703,284.00 131,027.87 999,252.47 100,768.86 603,262.67 64.6 931,027.87 999,252.47 100,768,86 603,262.67 64.6 CITY OF, HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 PAGE 43 ADJUSTED MAY 1999700 ENCUMB. BALANCE - / USED APPROP EXPEND EXPEND EXPENDITURE CONTROL 1,703,284.00 LOMA UTIL UNDRGRND IMPROV FUND 1,703,284.00 131,027.87 999,252.47 100;768.86 603,262.67 64.6 EXPPRIN2 CITY OF HERMOSA'BEACH 06/29/00 09:08:03 EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000. 705 INSURANCE FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED MAY APPROP EXPEND -1200 MANAGEMENT/SUPPORT 1209 LIABILITY INSURANCE 1209-4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 1209-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 1209-4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 1209-4180 RETIREMENT 1209-4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS., 1209-4189 FICA PERSONAL. SERVICES 1209-4200 1209-4201 CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 1209-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 1209-4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 500.00 54.06 755.27 .00 255.27- 151.1 1209-4315 MEMBERSHIP 320.00 .00 310.00 .00 10.00 96.9 1209-4317 CONFERENCE/TRAINING 4,070.00 .00 344.10 .00 3,725.90 8.5 1209-4324 CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS 350,000.00 1,610.91 113,584.89 .00 236,415.11 32.5 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 354,890.00 1,664.97 114,994..26 .00 239,895.74 32.4 LIABILITY INSURANCE 436,428.00 7,153.23 165,107.18 .00 271,320.82 37.8 32,101.00 2,562.71 2,087.00 .00' 2,326.00 185.39 4,433.00 321.43 335.00 38.59 41,282.00 3,108.12 PAGE 44 1999-00 ENCUMB. BALANCE, % USED EXPEND 29,900.00 .00 2,201.00`, 93.1 .00 .00 2,087.00 0.0 2,167:21 .00 158.79 93.2 3,529.96 00",: 903.04 79.6 449.67 .00 114.67- 134.2 36,046.84 .00 5,235.16 87.3 40,256.00 2,380.14 14,066.08 .00 26,189.92 34.9 1210 AUTO/PROPERTY/BONDS 1210-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 1210-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 20,305.00 1210-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 1210-4324 CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS 10,000.00 3,242.54 2,637.96 AUTO/PROPERTY/BONDS 30,305.00 3,242.54- 18,117.53 15,479.57._ .00 4,825.43 76.2 1215 UNEMPLOYMENT 1215-4100 . PERSONAL SERVICES' 1215-4186 UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS 1217 WORKERS COMPENSATION 1217-4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 1217-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 32,101.00 2,562.76 29,900.38 .00 2,200.62 93.1 1217-4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 2,004.00 .00 .00 .00 2,004.00 0.0 1217-4180 RETIREMENT 2,326.00 185.41 2,167.75 .00 158.25 93.2. 1217-4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 4,433.00 321.51 3,530.89 .00 902.11 79.7 1217-4189 FICA 335.00 38.59 449.74 .00 114.74- 134.3 PERSONAL SERVICES 41,199.00 3,108.27 ' ' 36,048.76 .00 5,150.24 87.5 10,000.00 230.00 2,231.00 .00 7,362.04 26.4 .00 12,187.47 59.8 .00 7,769.00 ` 22.3 1217-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES." 1217-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 1217-4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT CONTRACT SERVICES 1217-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 39,000.00 2,333.33 35,929.63 5,000.00 .00 2;185.84 44,000.00 2,333.33 38,115.47 .00 3,070.37 92.1, .00 / 2,814.16 43.7 .00 5,884.53 86.6 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 705 ACCOUNT -# 1217-4305 1217-4317 1217-4324, INSURANCE FUND DESCRIPTION "CITYOF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 PAGE 45 ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 ENCUMB. BALANCE / USED APPROP EXPEND EXPEND OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 1,200.00 .00 16.26 .00 1,183.74 1.4 TRAINING/CONFERENCE 2,500.00 ' .00 1,534.10 .00 965.90 .61.4 CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS 500,000.00',24,841.73 517,818.05 .00 .17,818.057 103.6 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 503,700.00 24,841.73 ''519,368.41 .00 15,668.41- 103.1 WORKERS COMPENSATION 588,899.00 30,283.33 593,532.64 .00 4,633.64- 100.8 EXPENDITURE CONTROL. INSURANCE FUND 1,065,632.00 34,424.02 778,988.35 1,065,632.00 34,424.02. 778,988.35 :00 286,643.65 73.1 .00 286,643.65 73.1 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 715 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED MAY APPROP EXPEND CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS. REPORT. MAY 2000 1200 MANAGEMENT/SUPPORT 1202 FINANCE ADMINISTRATION 1202-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 1202-4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 150.00 1202-4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 200.00 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 350.00 1202-4900 DEPRECIATION' 1202-4902 DEPRECIATION/VEHICLES FINANCE. ADMINISTRATION 2,500.00 2,850.00 .00 43.14 .00 106.86 28.8 100.00 104.95 .00 95.05 52.5 100.00 148.09 .00 201.91 42.3 .00 .00 .00 2,500.00 0.0 100.00 148.09. .00 2,701.91 5.2 1206 DATA PROCESSING 1206-4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 1206-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 42,576.00 3,429.00 37,719.00 .00 4,857.00 88.6 1206-4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 127.00 .00 .00 .00 127.00 0.0 1206-4180` RETIREMENT 3,189.00 240:04 " 2,640.44 .00 548.56 82.8 1206-4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 2,443.00 240.24 2,657:91 .00 214.91- 108.8 1206-4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS 617.00 49.72 546.92 .00 70.08 88.6 PERSONAL SERVICES 48,952.00 3,959.00. 43,564.27 .00 5,387.73 89.0 1206-4200. CONTRACT SERVICES -1206-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE 53,889.00 1,450.33 39,593.95 2,475.00 11,820.05 78.1 1206-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 1206-4304 TELEPHONE 6,430.00 698.26 4;115.97 .00 2,314.03 64.0 1206-4305`• OFFICE: OPER SUPPLIES 3,400.00 4.41 3,332.71 .00 67.29 98.0 1206-4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 4,000.00 24.87 3,628.25 .00 371.75 90.7 1206-4315. MEMBERSHIP 120.00 .00 120.00 .00 .00 100.0 1206-4317. CONFERENCE/TRAINING 960.00 392.50 392:50 .00 567.50 40.9 1206-4396 INSURANCE USER CHARGES 1,656.00 414.00 1,518.00 .00 138.00. 91.7 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 16,566.00 1,534.04 13,107.43 .00 3,458.57 79.1 1206-5400 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 1206-5401 EQUIP -LESS THAN $1,000 1206-5402 EQUIP -MORE THAN. $1,000. EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE DATA PROCESSING 6,950.00 2,173.64. 4,412.84 .00 2,537.16 63.5 29,700.00 .00 21,708.88 .00 7,991.12 73.1 36,650.00 2,173.64 26,121.72 .00 10,528.28 71.3 156,057.00 9,117.01 122,387.37 2,475.00 31,194.63 80.0 1208 GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS 1208-4900 DEPRECIATION 1208-4901 DEPRECIATION/MACH/EQUIPMENT 2100 2101 2101-4300 2101-4310 POLICE. POLICE MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 1,189:00 .00 .00 .00 1,189.00 0.0 23,000.00 - 2,201.83 ' 22,802.25 .00 197.75 99.1 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 715 ACCOUNT # 2101-4311 2101-4900 2101-4902 2101-5400: 2101-5403 2200 2201 2201-4300 2201-4310 2201-4311 2201-4900 2201-4901 2201-4902 "2201-5400 2201-5403 2600 2601 '2601-4300 2601-4310 2601.4311 2601-4900. 2601-4902 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 PAGE 47 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 ENCUMB. BALANCE % USED APPROP EXPEND EXPEND AUTO MAINTENANCE 37,000.00 7,747.99 32,161.10 .00 4,838.90 86.9 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER . 60,000.00, 9,949.82 54,963.35 .00 5,036.65 91.6 DEPRECIATION DEPRECIATION/VEHICLES 75,857.00 .00 .00 00 75,857.00 0.0 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE VEHICLES 176,700.00 855.13 169,373.53 POLICE 312,557.00 10,804.95 224,336.88 FIRE FIRE MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER. MOTOR FUELS'AND LUBES AUTO MAINTENANCE MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4,000.00 572.89 6,074.55 6,000:00 1,364.89 10,262.16 10,000.00 1,937.78 16,336.71 .00 7,326.47 95.9 .00 88,220.12 71.8 .00 2,074.55- 151.9 .00 4,262.16- 171.0 .00 6,336.71- 163.4 DEPRECIATION DEPRECIATIO.. - N/MACH/EQUIPMENT 100.00 .00 .00 .00, 100.00 0.0 DEPRECIATION/VEHICLES . 60,581.00 .00 .00 .00 60,581.00 0.0 DEPRECIATION 60,681.00 .00 .00 .00 60,681.00 0.0 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE VEHICLES FIRE 300,000.00 4,604.19 295,443.01 370,681.00 6,541.97 311,779.72 .00 4,556.99 98.5 .00 - 58,901.28 84.1 LIGHTING/LANDSCAPING LIGHTING/LANDSCAPING/MEDIANS MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 1,900.00 .00 1,577.99 .00 322.01 83.1 AUTO MAINTENANCE 2,249.00 398.36 1,092.86 .00 1,156.14 48.6 .: MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4,149.00 398.36 2,670.85 ' .00 1,478.15 64.4 DEPRECIATION DEPRECIATION/VEHICLES 2601-5400 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 2601-5403 VEHICLES LIGHTING/LANDSCAPING/MEDIANS 7,500.00 95,000.00 106,649.00 .00 - .00 .00 398.36 .00 2,670.85 .00 7,500.00 0.0 .00 95,000.00 0.0 .00 103,978.15 2.5 3100, STREETS/HWYS/STRM DRAINS 3102 SEWERS/STORM DRAINS 3102-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER. 3102-4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 3,500.00 .00 297.46 .00 3,202.54 8.5 3102-4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 1,500.00 228.56 1,129.38 .00 370.62 ' 75.3 3102-4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 1,000.00 .00 1,209.95 .00 209.95- 121.0 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 6,000.00 228.56 2,636.79 .00 3,363.21 43.9 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 715 ' EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND - ACCOUNT # 3102-4902 DEPRECIATION/VEHICLES DESCRIPTION 3102-5400. EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 3102-5403 VEHICLES. SEWERS/STORM DRAINS 3104 TRAFFIC SAFETY/ST. MAINT. 3104-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 3104-4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 3104-4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 3104-4900 DEPRECIATION':, 3104-4902 DEPRECIATION/VEHICLES 3104-5400 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 3104-5403 VEHICLES.. TRAFFIC SAFETY/ST. MAINT. 3300 PARKING FACILITIES 3302 COMMUNITY SERVICES ADJUSTED APPROP 7,500.00 95,000.00 108,500.00 2,050.00 2,000.00 4,050.00 6,250.00 81,250.00 91,550.00 MAY EXPEND 1999-00 EXPEND ENCUMB. BALANCE % USED .00 .00 .00 7,500.00 0.0 .00 228.56 305:34 .00 305.34 .00 2,636.79 .00 95,000.00 0.0 .00 105,863.21 2.4 2,204.86 2,295.03 4,499.89 .00 154.86- 107.6 .00 295.03- 114.8 .00 449.89- 111.1 .00 .00 .00 6,250.00 0.0 .00 .00 .00 81,250.00 0.0 305.34 4,499.89. .00 87,050.11 4.9 3302-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 3302-4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 7,500.00 544.13 4,006.70 .00 3,493.30 53.4 3302-4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE- 9,000.00 1,844.30 10,713.61 .00 1,713.61-.119.0 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 16,500.00 2,388.43 14,720.31 .00 1,779.69 89.2 3302-4900 DEPRECIATION 3302-4902 DEPRECIATION/VEHICLES 3302-5400 3302-5403 3302-5499 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE VEHICLES NON -CAPITALIZED ASSETS EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE COMMUNITY SERVICES 3700.- INTERGOVERNMENTAL/FEDERAL 3701 EMISSION CONTROL 3701-5400 . EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 3701-5403 VEHICLES 19,080.00 104,121.00 123,201.00 163,241.00 .00 .00 .00 2,388.43 19,080.15 104,001.32 123,081.47 137,801.78 .00 23,540.00 0.0 .00 .00 .00 .00 .15- 100.0 119.68 99.9 119.53 99.9 25,439.22 84.4 4200 CONST/ENG/ENF 4201 COMMUNITY DEV/BUILDING- 4201-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4201-4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 4201-4311 • AUTO MAINTENANCE MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4201-4900 DEPRECIATION 625.00 80.34 756.54 .00. 1,100.00 109.96 974.11 .00 1,725.00 190.30 1,730.65 .00 1.08 100.0 131.54- 121.0 125.89 88.6 5.65- 100.3 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 715 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND ACCOUNT # 4201-4902 .4201-5400 4201-5403 4202 4202-4300 4202-4310 4202-4311 4202-4900 4202-4902 DESCRIPTION DEPRECIATION/VEHICLES EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE VEHICLES COMMUNITY DEV/BUILDING P.W. ADMINISTRATION/PARKS MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES AUTO MAINTENANCE MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER DEPRECIATION DEPRECIATION/VEHICLES 4202-5400 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 4202-5403 VEHICLES " P.W. ADMINISTRATION/PARKS CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 ADJUSTED MAY, APPROP EXPEND - 2,500.00 .00 40,000.00 44,225.00 ' .00 190.30 PAGE 49 1999-00: EXPEND'- .00 .00 1,730.65 ENCUMB. BALANCE % USED .00 2,500.00 0.0 .00 40,000.00 0.0 .00 42,494.35 3.9 293.64 2,153.03 .00 290.63 2,113.08 .00 584.27 4,266.11 .00 553.03- 134.6 386.92 84.5 166.11-..104.1. 4204 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 4204-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4204-4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 700.00 61.15 567.93 .00 132.07 81.1 4204.4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 700.00 47.60 287.67 .00 412.33 41.1 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 1,400.00 108.75 855.60 .00 544.40 61,1 7,500.00 .00 .00 .00 15,008.00 .00 14,568.92 26,608.00 584.27 18;835.03 .00 439.08 97.1 .00 4204-4900 " DEPRECIATION 4204-4902 DEPRECIATION/VEHICLES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 4206 EQUIPMENT SERVICE - 4206 -4100 PERSONAL.SERVICES • 4206-4102 REGULAR SALARIES 4206-4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 4206-4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4206-4112 PART TIME TEMPORARY 4206-4180 RETIREMENT 4206-4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 4206-4189 FICA PERSONAL' SERVICES 4206-4200 4206-4201 4206-4251 CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE CONTRACT SERVICES/GOV'T CONTRACT SERVICES • 4206-4300 4206-4309 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER MAINTENANCE MATERIALS .00 855.60 900.00 0.0 1,444.40 37.2 79,510.00 6,751.76 73,951.86 .00 5,558.14 93.0 500.00 .00 159.62 .00 340.38 31.9 3,659.00 .00 683.41 .00 2,975.59. 18.7 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 ***. 5,956.00 509.40` 5,592.56 .00 363.44 93.9 7,470.00 594.42 6,595:49 .00 874.51 : 88.3 442.00 38.68 425.89 .00 16.11 96.4 97,537.00 7,894.26 87,408.83 .00 10,128.17 89.6 2,500.00 .00 1,220.40 .00 1,279.60 48.8 1,000.00• 200.00 200.00 .00 800.00 20.0 3,500.00 200.00 1,420.40 .00 2,079:60 40.6 3,000.00 120.45 2,346.36 .00 653.64 78.2 EXPPRIN2 CITY. OF HERMOSA BEACH 06/29/00 . 09:08:03 EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 715 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND PAGE 50 ACCOUNT # DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED MAY • 1999-00 ENCUMB. APPROP EXPEND EXPEND • 4206-4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 4206-4311 • AUTO MAINTENANCE 4206-4396 INSURANCE USER CHARGES MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 1,600.00 .00 860.04 1,100.00 321.70 1,950.03 11,681.00 2,919.00. 10,703.00 17,381.00 3,361.15 15,859.43 .00 .00 .00 .00 BALANCE "% USED 739.96 53.8 850.03- 177.3 978.00 91.6 1,521.57 91.2 4206-4900 `DEPRECIATION 4206-4901 DEPRECIATION/MACH/EQUIPMENT -00 .00 .00 .00 .00 *** EQUIPMENT SERVICE 118,418.00 11,455.41 '. 104,688.66 . .00 13,729.34 88.4 4600 COMMUNITY PROMOTION 4601 COMMUNITY RESOURCES 4601-4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4601-4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 1,200.00 348.12 815.13 .00 384.87 67.9 4601-4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 1,150.00 23.53 1,381.27 .00 231.27- 120.1 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 2,350.00 371.65 2,196.40 .00 153.60 93.5 4601-4900 DEPRECIATION 4601-4902 DEPRECIATION/VEHICLES 1,700.00 .00 .00 .00 1,700.00 0.0 COMMUNITY RESOURCES 4,050.00 371.65 2,196.40 .00 1,853.60 54.2 8600 BUILDINGS & GROUNDS 8622 ADA COMPLIANCE, CITY HALL 8622-4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 8622-4201 CONTRACT SERV/PRIVATE EXPENDITURE CONTROL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 83,000.00. 1,645,458.00 42,595.00 988,149.63 1,645,458.00 42,595.00 988,149.63 2,475.00 83,000.00 0.0 654,833.37 60.2 2,475.00 654,833.37 60.2 EXPPRIN2 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PAGE 51 06/29/00 09.08:03 EXPENDITURE STATUS REPORT MAY 2000 GRAND TOTALS DESCRIPTION ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 'ENCUMB. BALANCE %.USED APPROP EXPEND EXPEND EXPENDITURE CONTROL 35,939,009.00 2,467,922.11 22,167,727.17 2,363,339.42 11,407,942.41 68.3 GRAND TOTALS 35,939,009.00 2,467,922.11 22,167,727.17 2,363,339.42 11,407,942.41 68.3 EXPPRIN2 06/29/00 09:08:03 001 105 109 110 115 117 120 121 125 126 127 • 137 138 140 145 146 150 152 153 155 160 170 180 301 305 307 308 705 715 DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE RECAP REPORT 'MAY 2000 ADJUSTED MAY 1999-00 ENCUMB. BALANCE % USED APPROP EXPEND EXPEND GENERAL FUND 15,787,141.00 1,320,641.00 12,094,692.99 417,702.64 3,274,745.37 79.3 LIGHTG/LANDSCAPG DIST FUND 848,206.00 '151,945.96 607,252.97 136,233.98 104,719.05 87.7 DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT FUND 1,008,514:00 60,087.49 532,103.90 88,817.53 387,592.57`: 61.6 PARKING FUND 1,836,924.00 166,856.51 1,619,530.50 4,000.00 213,393.50 88.4 STATE GAS.TAX FUND 368,942.00 28,872.36 323,975.90 .00 44,966.10 87.8 AB939 FUND 55,938.00 1,618.82 18,659.89 .00 37,278.11 33.4 COUNTY GAS TAX FUND 79,101.00 .00 70,581.76 .00 8,519.24 89.2 PROP A OPEN SPACE FUND 2,847,410.00 291,477.54 1,054,854.34 854,533.04 938,022.62 67.1 PARK/REC FACILITY TAX. FUND 660;188.00 .00 37,416.20 .00 622,771.80 5.7 4/ UTILITY USERS TAX FUND 588,232.00 2,426.34 192,142.55 92,422.94. 303,666.51 48.4 BUILDING IMPROVEMENT FUND 134,821.00 .00 745.00 .00 134,076.00 0.6 MYRTLE DIST ADMIN EXP FUND 4,378.00. .00 77.00 .00 4,30.1.00 1.8. LOMA DIST ADMIN EXP. FUND 5,533.00 .00 12.00 .00 5,521.00 0.2 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 296,856.00 .00 955.07 :00 295,900.93 0.3 PROPOSITION''A FUND 341,459.00 47,573.08 259,846.44 .00 81,612.56 76.1 PROPOSITION 'C FUND 427,485.00 1,156.20 28,943.11 10,109.80- 388,432.09 9.1 GRANTS FUND 2,575,337.00 6,708.69 1,015,458.19 214,008.47 1,345,870.34 47.7 AIR QUALITY MGMT DIST FUND 36,492.00 -3,010.96 32;470.56 .00 4,021.44 89.0 SUPP LAW ENF SERV (SLESF) 60,952.00 4,084.90 51,795.45 • .00 9,156.55 85.0 CROSSING GUARD DIST FUND 9,878.00 .00 4,938.77 .00 4,939.23 50.0 SEWER FUND 1,142,672.00 30,098.65 391,696.40- 48,373.23 702,602.37 38.5 ASSET'SEIZURE/FORFT FUND 90,832.00 1,940.00 33,297.22 1,077.09 56,457.69 37.8 FIRE PROTECTION FUND 395,284.00 6,155.67 92,645.56 .00 302,638.44 23.4 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 345,128.00 42,222.40 173,775.12 82,022.33 89,330.55 74..1 LWR PIER ASSMNT DIST IMPR'FUND 25,944.00 _00 25,522.10, .00 421.90 98.4 MYRTLE UTIL UNDRGRND IMPR FUND 1,550,988.00 92,998.65 737,947:73 310,794.51 502,245.76 67.6 LOMA UTIL UNDRGRND IMPROV FUND 1,703,284.00 131,027.87 999,252.47 100,768.86 603,262.67 64.6 INSURANCE FUND 1,065,632.00 .34,424.02 ' 778,988.35. .00 286,643.65 73.1 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 1,645,458.00: 42,595.00 988,149.63 2,475.00 654,833.37 60.2 GRAND TOTALS 35,939,009.00 2,467,922.11 22,167,727.17 2,363,339.42 11,407,942.41 68.3 TREASURER'S REPORT, FUND GENERAL 5/1/00 NUMBE ACCOUNT BALANCE 001 • 105 109 110 115 117 119 120 121 125 126, .127 137 138 140 145 146 150 152 153 160 170 180 301 305 307 308 610 615 617 618 705 715 900 GENERAL LIGHTING/LANDSCAPING DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT PARKING STATE GAS TAX AB939 COMP ABSENCES COUNTY GAS TAX PROP A OPEN SPACE PARK REC FAC TAX. RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY, BUILDING IMPROVMENT FUND MYRTLE ADMIN EXP FUND LOMA ADMIN EXP FUND COMM DEVELOP. BLOCK GRANT PROPOSITION A FUND PROPOSITION C FUND GRANT FUND AIR QUALITY MGMT DISTRICT SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFOR SVC SEWER MAINTENANCE ASSET SEIZURE FUND FIRE PROTECTION FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND LWR PIER ASSMNT DIST IMPR FUND. MYRTLE UTIL UNDERGRND IMPR LOMA UTIL UNDERGRND IMPROV LOWER 'PIER DISTRICT REDEMP MYRTLE AVE DIST HARDSHIP FUND MYRTLE REDEMPTION FUND LOMA REDEMPTION FUND INSURANCE FUND .. EQUIP. REPLACEMENT FUND INVESTMENT FUND 5/31/00 CHECKS ADJUSTMENT BALANCE $5,424,480.36 $1,291,933.93 $14,272.22 ($828,197.09) ($383,024.18) $5,519,465.24 6091,211.38 $48,709.00 $1,445.29 ($138,045.83) ($13,332.91) $589,986.93 $566,331.47 $68,139.16 $1,275.76 , ($58,994.16) ($871.38) $575,880.85 $132,765.13 $186,449.70 $500.80 ($92525.04) ($90,377.83) ` I' $136,812.76 $69,581.91 $13,523.06 $170.67 ($28,429.53) $54,846.11 $273,556.43 $609.91 ($1,348.36) ($324.26) $272,493.72 $718,745.61. $718,745.61 $15,615.97 $34.78 ($3.02) $15,647.73 ($407,877.83) ($153,636.00) ($1,591.42) ($563,105.25) $725,214.78 $6,896.00 $1,628.38 ($140.41) $733,598.75 $403,005.03 $898.55 ($1,930.81) ($77.86) $401,894.91 $153,070.92 $342.17 ($29.59) ' $153,383.50 $4,370.63. $9.51 ($0.59) $4,379.55. $5,609.39 • $12.22 ($0.75) $5,620.86 ($328.09) ($328.09) $52,702.86 $14,954.80 $2,141.39 ($32,733.23) ($428.16) $36,637.66 $849,454.01 $12,416.47 $1,912.11 ($164.60) $863,617.99 -` $109,000.41 ($7,040.78) ($212.48) $101,747.15 $7,413.48 $16.35 ($69.30) . ($2,927.70) $4,432.83 $20,479.80 $41.05 ($4,084.90) ($3.83) $16,432.12 $2,612,176.55 $5,832.04 $64,159.26 - ($16,355.97) ($13,078.20) $2,652,733.68 $126,043.09 $2,893.50 $728.91 ($2,386.21) ($24.39) $127,254.90 $410,742.05 $3,155.50 $921.48 ($6,235.18) $408,583.85 $841,165.98 $42,871.09 ($42222.40) ($161.38) $841,653.29 $57,832.46 $129.34 ($11.18) $57,950.62 $901,225.81 $20,784.96 ($111,894.15) ($170.92) $809,945.70 $844,844.38 $1,861.54 ($23,822.66) ($19,058.13) : ' $803,825.13 $18,294.04 $1,809.63 $41.73 (2.45) $20,142.95 $91.00 $91.00 $109,313.99 $10,928.96 $250.40 ($14.65) $120,478.70 $73,373.83 $26,798.30 $189.23 ($9.83) $100,351.53 • $2,212,432.46. $3,242.54 $274,736.33 ($36,524.41) ($1,094.32) ' $2,452,792.60 $1,439,161.36 $17,537.49 $59,281.96 ($40,544.78) ($4,704.43) $1,470,731.60 $0.00 $33,775.00 (603.775.00): $0.00 $19,461,100.65 $1,748,995.08 $491,267.39 ($1,592,356.08) . ($600,280.56) $19,508,726.48 TRUST BALANCE BALANCE ACCOUNTS 5/1/00 - DEPOSITS CHARGES 5/31/00 PAYROLL $3,000.00 $728,516.49 < $728,516.49 $3,000.00 BANK BALANCE CABLE TV DEPOSIT $10,000.00 $10,000.00 GENERAL $273,494.40 TRUST ACCTS ' $23,613.07 $19,407,264.74 INACTIVE DEPOSIT $620,507.03 INTEREST RECEIVED TO DATE ORKMAN, CITY TREASURER $297,107.47 OUTSTANDING CHECKS $182,645.73 $114,461.74 INACTIVE DEPOSIL. $19,407,264.74 BALANCE $19,521,726.48 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council June 27, 2000 City Council Meeting of July 11, 2000 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT OF INACTIVE PUBLIC DEPOSITS FOR HERMOSA BEACH Investments in the report meet the requirements of the City of Hermosa Beach's adopted investment policy: Attached is a report of all inactive Public Deposits for the month of MAY 2000. This is the most current available investment information. Respectfully submitted, John 4 Workman Cit T asurer NOTED: NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: Step en R. Burrel City Manager Viki.Co•eland Finance Director INSTITUTION INVESTMENT REPORT - DATE OF DATE OF `. CARRY MARKET FACE TOTAL INVESTMENTS MATURITY VALUE VALUE VALUE INTEREST LAIF 5/1/00 5/31/00 $12,868,155.24 TRSF' $2,100,000.00 TRSF ($600,000.00) ' $14,368,155.24 5.800% CORPORATE NOTES: Merrill Lynch & Co(Medium Term Note) $500,230.77 6/2/98 6/27/00 $506,460.00 $500,295.00 $500,000.00 6.470% Associates Corp North Amer ' $500,125.05 12/11/97 9/15/00 $501;190.00 $499,510.00 $500,000.00 6.260% Citicorp $498,737.12 6/21/99 2/15/01 $497,050.00 $494,115.00 5500,000.00 5:690% U.S. TREASURY BONDS/NOTES: United States Treasury Note, $500,642.18 8/5/99 6/30/01 $501,132.81 $494,765.00 5500,000.00 5.810% United States Treasury Note ' $500,000.00 11/26/99 9/30/01 5500,000.00 $492,580.00 $500,000.00 5:710% U.S. GOVT AGENCY BONDS/NOTES Federal National Mtg Assn $556,023.28 2/23/99 5/2/01 5564,366.00 $546,991.50 $550,000.00 6.420% Federal National Mtg Assn $487,866.03 02/04/00 03/15/02 $485,670.00 $484,455.00 $500,000.00 5.550% U.S. GOVT AGCY -STATE TAX EXEMPT U.S. GOVT AGCY -STATE TAX EXEMPT DISC Federal Home Loan Bank 5499,958.80 3/29/99 3/29/01 $499,900.00 5492,735.00. 5500,000.00 5.270% Federal Home Loan Bank $499,955.05 3/23/00 2/15/02 $499,950.00 $495,235.00: 5500,000.00 6.810% Federal Home Loan Bank $495,571.22 4/26/00 5/1/02 $495,482.50 5494,845.00 $500,000.00 6.820% INVESTMENT TOTAL $19,407,264:74 55,051,201.31 $4,995,526.50 55,050,000.00 5.960%. In compliance with the California Code Section 53646, the Treasurer of the City of Hermosa Beach hereby certifies that sufficient investment liquidity and anticipated revenues are available to meet the City's budgeted expenditure requirements for the next six months Investments in the report meet the requirements of the City of Hermosa Beach's adopted investment policy. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, JOH ( . 0 MAN CI T RER Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council For the City Council Meeting of July 11, 2000 ACCEPTANCE OF DONATIONS Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council accept donations received by the City to be used as follows: Surfrider Foundation So. Bay Chapter - $750.00 - to be used for Surf Camp instructors. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. - $10,000.00 - to be used for the Summer Sunset concerts. Both donations will be appropriated to the 2000-01 fiscal year. Respectfully submitted: Concur: Valerie Mohler Viki Copeland Accounting Supervisor Finance Director 1/t/of Step'! Turrell City Manager c: \donation 2000.doc Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 3, 2000 Regular Meeting of July 11, 2000 PROJECT NO. CIP 99-529 CLARK FIELD IMPROVEMENTS, BUILDING DEMOLITION APPROVE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY AND CONTRACTOR Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Approve the attached Supplemental Agreement No 1 for Project No. CIP 99-529 Clark Field Building Demolition in the amount of $33,239.00; 2 Authorize the City Manager and the Director of Public Works/City Engineer to execute the Supplemental Agreement; and 3. Approve the re -appropriation of $119,000 from FY 1999-00 budget to the FY 2000- 01 budget. Background: On January 25, 2000, Council awarded a construction contract to Viking Equipment Corp: (Contractor) for the demolition of the enclosed storage area (building) located at Clark Field.The award was based on the Contractor's low bid price of $8,300. During the demolition work, it was discovered that what initially appeared to be a retaining wall behind the building wall was, in fact, a row of cement blocks without any structural value. The building's wall had been acting as a retaining wall, holding back the existing slope located behind the building. The Contractor was ordered to stop work until further engineering evaluation of the wall was performed. Staff engaged the services of an engineering firm, Jonathan E. Mahn, P.E., to evaluate the building wall and to provide design and ` recommendations. The engineering report has been completed and provides the following findings and recommendations: The removal of the building has not adversely affected the slope's stability. The engineer did not find any stress cracks or signs of slope failure. 2 The existing building wall should remain in place to provide shoring for a proposed retaining wall and for the protection of the existing slope. 3. A. retaining wall should be constructed in front of the existing wall. Based upon the engineering design provided by the consultant, Staff has obtained a proposal from the Contractor to construct the retaining wall structure for $33,239.00. The proposed work will be completed within 45 days from the date of the notice to proceed. Accordingly, the project can be completedahead of the rainy season. Analysis: Since this project cannot be completed without protecting the slope behind the wall, Staff recommends that the Contractor perform the necessary work under a Supplemental Agreement for the following reasons: The Contractor has performed satisfactorily during the demolition phase of the project and has provided emergency evaluation services and readiness in the event of rainfall, during the decision-making process. 2. In order to obtain bids for the proposed retaining wall work, a period of 90 days will be required. Consequently, the work would get under way at start of the rainy season. 3. The ability of the existing building wall to retain the existing slope for an extended period of time is uncertain. 4. Time is of the essence. The work must be done now to prevent potential damage to private properties. Therefore, Staff is recommending : that City Council authorize Staff to execute a Supplemental Agreement with the Contractor in the amount of $33,239.00. Alternatives: Approve Staff's recommendation If this alternative is chosen, all critical work will be completed ahead of the rainy season. Return to Staff to rebid the proposed work ( If this alternative is chosen; it is unlikely that the critical work will be completed ahead of the rainy season; consequently putting public and private property at risk. Fiscal Impact: Sufficient funds were available in the 1999-00 project budget; however, there was no opportunity to spend all funds appropriated for this project. Therefore, Staff is requesting that the funds ($119,000 in account number 125-8529-4201) be re -appropriated in the FY 2000-01 budget. Attachment: Supplemental Agreement Respectfully submitted, Concur: Harold C. Williams, P.E. /Z7ZJ/-" Stephe i Director of Public Works/City Engineer City Manager Noted for fiscal impact: Viki Copeland Finance Director F:\B95\PWFILES\CCITEMS\99-529 Approve Supplemental Agmt between City & Contractor 7-11-00.doc CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER City of Hermosa Beach Order No.: 3 Project No.: 99-529 Project Title: Clark Field Building Demolition The changes or interpretations described and noted herein are hereby authorized. The signed original of this order is on file at the office of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Show as separate numbered paragraphs: (1) Reason for change; (2) Description of change; (3) Change in contract cost; (4) Extension of contract, if warranted; (5) New contract total including all change orders; SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 1. To construct a retaining wall to replace existing building wall. 2. Construct retaining wall in accordance with design criteria prepared by Bryce D. Richmond, sheets 1-4, dated 6/6/00 and Jonathan Mahn, dated 6/2/00. Sawcut and remove existing concrete slab at area of new wall only. Excludes: waterproofing membrane at back side of retaining wall, survey and engineering. 3. $33,239:00 4. 45 days 5. $45,299.00 Approved: , 1' Approved: , 19 By: Project Engineer,Construction Manager Contractor Director of Public Works/City Engineer Agent City Manager F:\B95\PWFILES\CIP\99-529 Clark Field Demolition\change order #3 supplemental agrmt 7-11-00.doc. Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 3, 2000. Regular Meeting of July 11, 2000 CIF' PROJECT 99-306 INSTALLATION OF CATCH BASIN INLET FILTERS — AWARD OF DESIGN AND INSTALLATION CONTRACT Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Authorize the award of design and installation of the Catch Basin Inlet Filters to United Storm Water, Inc. of the City of Industry, in the amount of $38,480.85; 2. Authorize the .Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest the Contract subject to, approval of the City Attorney; and 3. Authorize the Director of Public Works to issue change orders as necessary within the approved budget. Background:. On June 13, 2000, City Council approved the .plans and specifications and authorized a Cooperative Agreement with the cities of Manhattan Beach and Rancho Palos Verdes for the installation of catch. basin inlet filters. The City of Hermosa Beach, in accordance with public contract requirements, competitively bid the design and installation of the catch basin inlet filters. The City Clerk received two bids by the closing date of June 29, 2000.: The bids were publicly opened and read aloud. The bid results are as follows: Company City of H.B. City of M.B. Bid $ Bid $ United Storm Water, Inc. 21,918.60 11,691.00 Kenny/Manta Ind. Services 30,915.00 16,488.00 City of R.P.V. Bid $ 4,871.25 6,870.00 Total Bid Amount $ 38,480.85 54,273.00 The primary function of the catch basin inlet filters is to prevent trash and debris from entering the storm water drain prior to discharge to the ocean. Analysis: A reference check revealed that United Storm Water, Inc. has an excellent reputation for their performance and work with previous clients. The Department of Public Works, therefore, recommends award of this contract to United Storm Water Inc. in the amount of $38,480.85. The bid proposals are in the Public Works/City Engineer's office for review. The FY 1999-00 budget for Project No. CIP 99-306 consisted of $56,250 from the Prop A (121) Fund and $8,438 from the Sewer (160) Fund. The FY 2000-01 budget includes $45,864 from the Prop A Fund and $10,386, unexpended FY 1999-00 funds from the same account, will be re- appropriated for use in FY 2000-01 as well. The City's obligation to match 15% of the total costs (not to exceed $8,438) will also consist of re appropriated funds from the unexpended Sewer Fund FY 1999-00 budget. 'The total funding for this project (all three cities) is $98,750 from the Prop A Regional Park and Open Space District Grant. Respectfully submitted, Concur: ,6e» - - • HomayontJ�oodi Associate Engineer: Noted For Fiscal. Impact: ,f arold C. Williams, RE. Director of Public Works/City Engineer AV/ Viki Copeland Step01/ R. Burrell Finance Director City Manager F/B95/pwfiles/ccitems/99-306 award design & install Honorable Mayor and Members of The Hermosa Beach City Council PROJECT NO. CIP 95-150 HERMOSA AVENUE BETWEEN PIER AVENUE TO 16TH STREET AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT June 27, 2000 Regular Meeting of July 11, 2000 Recommendation: Itis recommended that the City Council: Award the construction contract for Project No. C1P95-150 Hermosa Avenue Improvement Project, between Pier. Avenue and 16th Street, to Sully -Miller Contractors of Anaheim, California, in the amount of $179,720.00, Authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest the construction contract subject to approval by the City Attorney; and Authorize the Director of Public Works to make minor changes as necessary not to exceed $17,972.00. Background: On April 25, 2000, the City Council authorized advertising for bids. The project was advertised in the Easy Reader, Beach Reporter, and Green Sheet (Construction News Reporter). A total of eight bid packages were picked up. The City Clerk received two bids by the closing date of June 22, 2000. The bids were publicly opened and read aloud. The bid results are as follows: Bidder Name City Total Bid Amount 1. Sully -Miller Contractors Anaheim $179,720.00 2. Excel Paving Company Long Beach $21.4,745.00 The engineer's estimate is $222,000. The apparent low bidder is 19% lower than the engineer's estimate: Staff has reviewed the low bidder documents and has found them to be in order. Sully- Miller Contractors have completed several projects in the past for the City of Hermosa Beach, and they have finished each project as required by the city codes and ordinances. Fiscal Impact: The funds are available for construction in the FY 2000-2001 CIF' budget as shown below: • Prop C Fund $387,643 • Sewer Fund $30,000 The low bid price of $179,720.00 plus 10% contingency of $17,972.00 brings the construction project budget to $197,692.00. Alternatives: Approve staff's recommendation. Reject all bids. Send back to staff for downscope of project. Take no action. Respectfully submitted, Concur: kJ Kenn eth Kim /Harold C. Williams, P.E. Assistant Engineer 'Director of Public Works/City Engineer Noted For Fiscal Impact: Viki. Copeland Director of Finance Stet ' e e . •• -�� Cit ► anager P:\B95\PWFILES\CIP\95-150 Hermosa Ave\award of const. contract.doc DATE: 6-27-00 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH SCALE: NOT TO SCALE Honorable Mayor and Members of .the Hermosa Beach City Council CIP 97-182 MYRTLE AVENUE UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO 97-1 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION/INSPECTION SERVICES - APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve an additional payment of $50,000 to Quantum Consulting for contract administration and inspection services rendered in association with the construction of the Myrtle Avenue Underground Utility District. Background: The contract administration and inspection for this project is more demanding than anticipated. In addition, substructure change order work coupled with the coordination efforts required to assist the property owners with their conversion work has impacted the construction completion date. The original completion date for construction was March 31, 2000; however, change order work has extended the completion time by 27 working days. Staff is working with the construction contractor to establish a new completion date. On March 30, 2000, a reminder notice was mailed to all property owners in the District to begin their conversion work and to have it completed by June 30, 2000. Further, the property owners were advised that timely completion of their work would allow Edison to energize the underground electric system and disconnect the existing overhead services for removal by mid-July. However, by June 13, 2000, as reported by the City Inspector, only about 5% of the property owners had applied for the required no -fee conversion permit and, as a result, the City prepared a second notice, dated June 20, 2000, which notified property owners that the deadline had been extended to July 31, 2000. Moreover, weekly underground service meetings have been scheduled for every Tuesday morning at 9:00 a.m. in order to assist all parties with problems. " Both Edison planners and City Staff provide assistance. To date, all necessary Edison and GTE guidelines for wiring requirements have been provided with strong recommendations to begin the work immediately. The steps have been followed but, as of July 5, 2000, only 1% of the residents have completed their portion of the work. Due to the slow progress of compliance, Staff is exploring other avenues to gain full compliance within the district in order to complete the project no later than the end of November. Edison's representative has clearly stated that they will not begin their work until at least 90% of the property owners in the District have completed their conversion. Non-compliance by any individual property owner will delay completion of the project. Therefore, the approved resolution and the City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code provide that the property owners be given a 30 -day notice to completethe conversion. If this work remains undone once the 30 -day period has lapsed, the City will have the conversio n completed and the cost for it will be added to that owner's next property tax bill. Analysis: Work Completed: 3. 4. 5. All substructure work related to the installations of mainline conduits of Edison, GTE and Cable TV has been completed. The utility conduits of power, telephone and television are fully installed. All required vaults, pull boxes, hand -holes and laterals to residents are in place. Rope pullsare set into the conduits: Installation of flush -mounted grated vents. Work in Progress: 1 Final touch up of A/C paving of the needed areas throughout the project. 2 Cold milling of asphalt overlay of Palm Avenue from the north side of 24th Street to the south side of 26th Street. 3 Residential tie-ins by different electrical contractors. Damage claims clearance by Irish Construction Company. Continuation of work on the punch list (deficiencies). 4. 5. Work Remaining: 1 Resolving easement issues for the locations, indicated on the plans and for the ones pointed out during construction. 2 Remarking of the ends of pipes on the needed spots. 3. Acceptance verification of the contractor work by Edison. 4 Utility pole removals and light pole installations. Clean up and completion of the project. Since it is unlikely that this project will be completed before November 2000, Staff is recommending that Quantum Consulting be retained to manage the project as needed through November 2000. In addition, Quantum Consulting will need to be compensated for the time required to manage the project due to the construction change order work. Fiscal Impact Sufficient funds are available in the project account. Therefore, no additional appropriation is required. Respectfully submitted, arold C. Williams, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Director F:\B95\PWFILES\CCITEMS\97-182 aoorove additional services 7-11-00.doc Honorable Mayor and Members of The Hermosa Beach City Council July 2, 2000 Regular Meeting of July 11, 2000 PROJECT NO. CIP 99-529 CLARK FIELD IMPROVEMENTS - BALLFIELD BACKSTOP IMPROVEMENTS AT CLARK FIELD AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council: Awardthe construction contract for Project No. CIP 99-529.Ballfield Backstop Improvements at Clark Field to Dunn Brothers Fence Co., Inc. in the amount of $95,545.00, Authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest the construction contract subject to approval by the City Attorney; and Authorize the Director of Public Works to make minor changes as necessary not to exceed $5,733.00. Background: On April 27, 2000, the City Council authorized advertising for bids. The project was advertised in the Easy Reader, Beach Reporter, and Green Sheet (Construction News Reporter). A total of seven bid packages were picked up. The City Clerk received one bid by the closing date of June 29, 2000. The bid was publicly opened and read aloud. The bid result is as follows: Bidder Name City Total Bid Amount Dunn Bros. Fence Co., Inc. Baldwin Park ` $95,545.00 The engineer's estimate is $80,000. The apparent sole bidder is 19% higher than the engineer's estimate. Analysis: Staff has reviewed the sole bidder documents and has found them to be in order, and thus. recommend the project be awarded to Dunn Bros. Fence Co. Time is of essence for this project since it has been deemed a primary project by City Council in response to request from the Little League. There is a window of construction time available, the end of August through the end of September, and if the project is not awarded, it would have to be rebid next year, fiscal year 2001-2002. Dunn Bros. Fence Co. has been found to be responsible and reliable. After conducting several background checks, it appears Dunn Bros. Fence Co. has performed satisfactory workmanship on projects that are similar to this one for other public entities: After conducting phone surveys, the staff has found followings to be some of the main reasons why the other six fencing companies chose not to submit their bids. 1) Back logged with current fencing projects 2) Did not attain bid bond in time 3) Since most schools are out, there are many fencing projects at schools 4) Finally, there are a lot of work available in private industry where bid bonds are not required. The funds are available for construction in the FY 2000-2001 CIP budget as shown below:' • Parks & Recreation Fund (125) of $107,100 The sole bid price of $95,545.00 plus a 6% contingency of $5,733.00 brings the construction project budget to $101,278.00. Additionally, the design fee of $5,400.00 will produce the total project cost of $106,678.00. Alternatives: i Approve Staff's recommendation. 2 Reject the bid. Send back to Staff for downscope of the project. 3 Take no action. Respectfully submitted, Concur: eth Kim Harold C. Williams, P.E. Assistant Engineer Director of Public Works/City Engineer Noted For Fiscal Impact: Viki, Copeland Director of Finance Stephen City Manager F:\B95\PWFILES\CCITEMS\99-529 backstop contract award 7-11-00.doc DATE: 7-3-00 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH. SCALE: NOT TO SCALE Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council June 22, 2000 Regular Meeting of July 11, 2000 CIP 97-183 LOMA DRIVE UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 97-2 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION/INSPECTION SERVICES - APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve an additional payment of $16,800 to Quantum Consulting for contract administration and inspection services rendered in association with the construction of the Loma Drive Underground Utility District. Background: The contract administration and . inspection for this project is more demanding than anticipated. In addition, substructure change order work coupled with the coordination efforts required to assist the property owners with • their conversion work has impacted the construction completion date. The original completion date for construction was March 31, 2000; however, change order work has extended the completion time by 27 working days. Staff is working with the construction contractor to establish a new completion date. On March 21, 2000, a reminder notice was mailed to all property owners in the District to begin their conversion work and to have it completed by June 30, 2000. Further, the property owners were advised that timely completion of their workwould allow Edison to, energize the underground electric system and disconnect the existing overhead services for removal by, mid-July. However, the conversion deadline has been extended from June 30, 2000 to July 31, 2000 becauseeach property has its own unique constraints, some are more difficult than others. Examples of these problem areas include the need to cut through areas of brick and concrete, passage through very narrow parkways, different height needs, etc. Several property owners are reluctant to complete their portion of the project causing further delay in the completion of the project. At the current pace of conversion work, it is anticipated that at the earliest, the project will be completed (removal of the overhead service) will be November 2000. Edison's representative has clearly stated that they will not begin their work until at least 90% of the property owners in the District have completed their conversion. Non-compliance by any individual property owner will delay completion of the project. Therefore, the approved resolution and the City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code provide that the property owners be given a 30 -day notice to complete the conversion. If this work remains undone once the 30 -day period has lapsed, the City will have the conversion completed and the cost for it will be added to that owner's nextproperty tax bill. Analysis: Work Completed: All substructure work relatedto the installations of mainline conduits of Edison, GTE and Cable TV has been completed. The utility conduits of power, telephone and television are fully installed. 3. All required vaults, pull boxes, hand -holes and laterals to residents are in place. Rope pulls are set into the conduits. Work in Progress: Final touch up of A/C paving of the needed areas throughout the project. Residential tie-ins by different electrical contractors.. Damage claims clearance by Irish Construction Company. Continuation of work on the punch list (deficiencies). Work Remaining: Resolving easement issues for the locations indicated on the plans and for the ones pointed out during construction. Remarking of the ends of pipes on the needed spots. Acceptance verification of the contractor work by Edison. Clean up and completion of the project. Since it is unlikely that this project will be completed before November 2000, Staff is recommending that Quantum Consulting be retained to manage the project as needed through November 2000. In- addition, Quantum Consulting will need to be compensated for the time required to manage the project due to the construction change order work. Sufficient funds are available in the project account. Therefore, no additional appropriation is required. Respectfully submitted, Concur: Harold C. Williams, P.E. Steph=� R!:urrell Director of Public Works/City Engineer City Manager Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Director F/B95/Pwfiles/Ccitems/97-183 aoorove additional oavment 00-6 0 Z4 City of.7-lermosarl3eacly Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 City of Hermosa Beach MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council City Clerk City Manager Michael Earl, Personnel & Risk Management Dire SUBJECT: Corrections to Agenda Item 1(l) Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Hermosa Beach Police Officers Association Attached are two corrected pages from the Police Officers Association Memorandum of Understanding. These pages should replace those distributed with the agenda materials. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Effective March 1, 1995 upon termination from City employment, sick leave will be paid at the current hourly pay rate, on the following conditions: 25% pay 5 through 9 years of continuous service total full time City service. 50% pay 10 through 19 years of co ttece,vicc-total full time City service. 75% 100% pay 20 + years of continuous ccrvicc total full time City service. ARTICLE 22 —BEREAVEMENT LEAVE r Each employee shall receive a maximum of three shifts per calendar year to be utilized for bereavement leave because of a death in their immediate family. Immediate family shall be defined as in Article 21 C SICK LEAVE. Said time will not be cumulative from one twelve month period to another nor will pay in lieu of unused leave for bereavement be provided. The Chief may grant one (1) additional shift in the event of a death which requires extended travel. ARTICLE 23 — LONGEVITY PAY Effective March 1, 1993, upon commencement of 21 years service as a sworn police officer in Hermosa Beach, employee will receive an additional 5% base salary. :ARTICLE 24 EDUCATIONAL INCENTIVE COMPENSATION & MAINTENANCE OF BENEFITS in recognition of formal professional training, obtained from either an accredited educational institution or through P.O.S.T. sanctioned training, or a combination of both, City agrees to a concept of pay as an adjunct to base monthly salary for achieving various levels of professional proficiency certification as follows: For employees hired before. May 2, 1984: Payable at the rate of 5% above base salary for an Intermediate. P.O.S.T. Certificate or. A.A. Degree; Payable at the rate of 10% above base salary for an Advanced P.O.S.T. Certificate or a B.A. or B.S. degree; Payable at the rate of 5% above base salary for employees who were employed after July 1, 1976 upon commencement of 5 years as a sworn peace officer in Hermosa Beach and who obtain an A.A. degree or P.O.S.T. Intermediate Certificate; Police Officers & Sergeants ARTICLE 28 - PHYSICAL FITNESS TIME The City and the Association agree to a program providing for an on -duty workout period for Officers and Sergeants under the following conditions and as approved by the Chief of Police: The workout shall be of thirty (30) minutes duration, beginning when the employee enters the workout facility. The workout shall take place within the City or within % mile of the City boundary. B. The work out shall be conducted during "Code -7" lunch period. There is not interruption of service to the City. D. Release time to workout is at the discretion of the City. E. Individuals may be barred from this program at City discretion if there is evidence of abuse. ARTICLE 29 — YEARLY SHIFT CHANGES. 'There will be four (4) quarterly shift changes per twelve (12) month period. These quarterly shift changes shall begin on the first Sunday of the first month of each quarter. The quarters shall run as follows: . 1.: June, July, August 2. September, October, November 3. December, January, February 4. March, April, May Although there will be four (4) shift changes in a twelve month period, employees shall bid on a semi-annual basis for two consecutive shifts at a time. For shift bidding purposes, the schedule will be posted on October 1, for the quarters December -February and March -May and on April 1 for the quarters June -August and September -November. The sign-up schedule will remain posted for thirty (30) days from the date of posting for employee shift bidding. Management will then have thirty (30) days to finalize the schedule in advance of the schedule change. Employees are not mandated to rotate between day and night shifts. Bidding for shifts and days off shall be made on a seniority basis. Management will continue to assign new hire employees to shifts only, without regard to days off, through completion of their probation. Police Officers & Sergeants July 5, 2000 Honorable Mayor and Members of The Hermosa Beach City Council City Council Meeting of July 11, 2000 Resolution Approving Memorandum of Understanding Between the City and the Hermosa Beach Police Officers' Association. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Hermosa Beach Police Officers' Association, Background: The City Council directed staff to meet and confer with representatives of this employee group to discuss wages, hours, and working conditions contained in the Memorandum of Understanding that expired on June 30, 2000. On, June 29, 2000, the parties reached a tentative agreement on the terms described below. The members of the employee group met and have approved the tentative agreement. The negotiated major changes include: 1. Term of the agreement is to be July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2003. 2. Salary increases of 2% effective January 1, 2001 5% effective July 1, 2002 3. Amendment to the City's Contract with the Public Employees Retirement System to implement the retirement formula known as "3% © 50". Minorchanges in the areas of sick leave cash out, contributions towards retiree medical insurance supplements, and physical fitness time. The fiscal impact for this group is $152,438 for the 2000-2001. fiscal year. Funding for this has been included. in Prospective Expenditures account of the 2000-2001 Budget. subxnjtted: Sthen'Burrell gement Director City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 00- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO ADOPT A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE HERMOSA BEACH POLICE OFFICERS AND SERGEANTS BARGAINING UNIT.: WHEREAS, employees of the City of Hermosa Beach, California represented by the Hermosa Beach Police Officers and Sergeants Bargaining Unit, have elected to meet and confer with the City of Hermosa Beach on matters concerning wages, hours, and working conditions and; WHEREAS, the above personnel have selected certain individuals to represent them; and. WHEREAS, Employee and Management representatives have jointly negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding which has been ratified by a majority vote of the members of the Hermosa Beach Police Officer and Sergeants Bargaining Unit; and WHEREAS, the Employee and Management representatives have mutually agreed to recommend that the City Council adopt this Memorandum of Understanding. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach resolves to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding to be effective for the period of July 1, 2000 through and including June 30, 2003, and authorizes the City Manager to sign the Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of the City. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution; shall cause the same to be entered among the original resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council of said City in the minutes of the meeting at which time same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF JULY 2000, PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk Page 1 City Attorney BETWEEN CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND POLICE OFFICERS AND POLICE SERGEANTS BARGAINING GROUP MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE HERMOSA BEACH POLICE OFFICERS AND POLICE SERGEANTS BARGAINING GROUP ARTICLE 1,— PARTIES TO THE MEMORANDUM This Memorandum of Understanding, hereinafter referred to as the "MOU" or the "Agreement," has been entered into, pursuant to the laws of the State of California. and the City of Hermosa Beach, California, by and between the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, hereinafter referred to as the "City" or as "Management," and the HERMOSA BEACH POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, hereinafter referred to as the "Association." ARTICLE 2 — RECOGNITION Pursuant to the provisions of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, (Government Code 3500, et seq.), the City agrees to, and does, recognize the Hermosa Beach Police Officers Association : as the exclusive representative of the full-time positions in the classifications of POLICE OFFICER AND POLICE SERGEANT of the City of Hermosa Beach. ARTICLE 3 - SCOPE & IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) constitutes .. the joint recommendation of Management and the Association. It shall not be binding in whole or in part upon the parties unless and until the following conditions have been complied with: The .Association shall notify the City Council in writing that it has formally approved the Memorandum of Understanding in its entirety. The City Council shall approve this Memorandum of Understanding This MOU has been reached following good -faith negotiations, by the authorized Management representative of the City Council and the authorized representative for the Hermosa Beach Police Officers Association. Police Officers &Sergeants ARTICLE 4 — MONTHLY MEETINGS In the interest of fostering and continuing a spirit and atmosphere of harmonious employer-employee relationships, it is agreed that the Association Board of Directors shall meet once a month at a designated time and place with administrative officers of the Department. There shall be no less than two (2) Board members present for each such meeting. It is further agreed that the Association and the City Manager shall meet when requested by the Association to best effect implementation of this document. ARTICLE 5— JOB ACTION The Association and its members agree that during the term of this MOU there shall be no strike: In the event of an unauthorized strike, the City agrees that there will be no liability on the part of the Association provided the Association promptly and publicly disavows such unauthorized action, orders the employees to return to work and attempts to bring about a prompt resumption of normal operations; and provided further, that the Association notifies the City in writing, within 48 hours after the commencement of such strike, what measures it has taken to comply with the provisions of this strike. In the event such strike by the Association has not affected resumption of normal work practices, the City shall have the right to take appropriate disciplinary action. ARTICLE 6 - NON-DISCRIMINATION Both parties to this Agreement agree not to discriminate against any employee or applicant because of age, gender, race, national origin, religion, color, ancestry, marital status, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, medical condition, and/or' Association membership or activity. Additionally, the City expects and requires . all employees to treat one another with dignity and respect. Harassment of fellow employees is a violation of law. No employment decision may be made based upon an employee's submission to or rejection of such conduct. It is the responsibility of any employee, who believes that they are the victim of such harassment, whether sexual, racial, ethnic or religious, to report the conduct to their Division Commander, Chief of Police, Personnel Director or the City Manager in a timely manner. Police Officers & Sergeants ARTICLE 7 - MANAGEMENT RIGHTS . Manage the City. Schedule working hours. . Establish, modify or change work schedules or standards. Institute changes in procedures. Direct the work force, including the right to hire, promote, demote, transfer, suspend, discipline or discharge any employee. Determine the location of any new facilities, buildings, departments, divisions, or subdivisions thereof, and the relocation, sale, leasing or closing of facilities, departments, divisions, or subdivisions thereof. 7., Determine services to be rendered. Determine the layout of buildings and equipment and materials to be used herein. Determine processes, techniques, methods and means of performing work. 10. Determine the size, character and use of inventories. 11. Determine the financial policy including. accounting procedures. 12. Determine the administrative organization of the system. Determine selection, promotion, or transfer of employees. Determine the size and characteristics of the work force. Determine the allocation and assignment of work to employees. Determine policy affecting the selection of new employees. 17. Determine the establishment of quality and. quantity standards and the judgmen of quality and quantity of work required. Determine administration of discipline. Determine control anduse of City property, materials' and equipment Schedule work periods and determine the number and duration of work periods. Police Officers & Sergeants 21. Establish, modify, eliminate or enforce rules and regulations. Place work with outside firms. Determine the kinds and numbers of personnel necessary. Determine the methods and means by which such operations are to be conducted. 25. Require employees, where necessary, to take in-service training courses during working hours. 26. Determine duties to be included in any job classifications. 27. Determine the necessity of overtime and the amount of overtime required. 28. Take any necessary action to carry out the mission of the City in cases of an emergency. The exercise of the foregoing powers, rights authority, duties, and responsibilities by the City, the adoption of policies, rules, regulations and practices in furtherance thereof, and the use of judgment and the discretion in connection therewith, shall be limited only by the specific and express terms of this Memorandum of Understanding, City Personnel Ordinance and Personnel Rules and Regulations, the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights, and other statutory law: Except in emergencies, or where the City is required to make changes in its operations because of the requirements of law,whenever the exercise of management's rights shall impact on employees of the bargaining unit, the City agrees to meet and confer with representatives of the Association, upon request by the Association, regarding the impact of the exercise of such rightsunless the matter of the exercise of such rights is provided for in this Memorandum of Understanding. ARTICLE 8 PROVISIONS OF LAW - INSEPARABILITY It is mutually understood that this MOU is, and shall be, subject to all current and future applicable state, federal and local laws. If any article, part, provision or segment of this MOU is, or shall be, in conflict with or inconsistent with such applicable provisions of federal, state or local law, or is otherwise held to be invalid, or unenforceable by any court .of, competent jurisdiction by final decree, such article, part or provision thereof shall be superseded by such applicable law and the remainder of this MOU shall in no way be affected thereby. Police Officers & Sergeants ARTICLE 9 - FULL UNDERSTANDING, MODIFICATION, WAIVER It is intended that this Agreement sets forth the full and entire understanding of the parties regarding the matters set forth herein, and any other prior or existing understanding or agreements by the parties whether formal or informal, regarding any such matters are hereby superseded or terminated in their entirety. Except as specifically provided herein, it is agreed and understood that each party hereto voluntarily and unqualifiedly waives its right, and agrees that the other shall not be required to negotiate with respect to any subject or matter covered herein during the term of this agreement. Any agreement, alteration, understanding, variation, waiver, or modification of any of the terms or provisions contained herein shall not be binding upon the parties hereto unlessmade and executed in writing by all parties hereto, and if required, approved and implemented by the City Council. The waiver of, any breach, term or condition of this Agreement by either party ,shall not constitute a precedent in the future enforcement of all its terms and provisions. ARTICLE 10 — GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE The Grievance Procedure is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. ARTICLE 11 WORK SCHEDULE The City agrees to the utilization of the 3/36 plan for all officers and sergeants assigned to patrol, motors and K-9. There will be no payback days during the months of approximately December through May. There will be payback days during the months of approximately June through November. The Sergeants and Officers assigned to investigations and administrative positions will work a 4/36 schedule (four nine -hour days/week) during the months of December through May and a 4/40 schedule (four ten-hour days/week) during the months of June through November. The exact change over dates from payback to no payback for patrol, motors and K-9 will be determined by the Patrol Commander based upon the current twenty- one (21) day cycle. In the event of an emergency situation, the. City may cancel, alter or amend the work schedule as necessary, immediately: Police Officers & Sergeants It is mutually agreed that for the reduction in hours expressed in "A" and "B" above, the City, for market salary comparison purposes only, shall increase base salary 5% as a credit. ARTICLE 12 - COMPENSATION - METHODS OF COMPENSATION Methods of Compensation: Compensation shall be determined on an hourly basis. Payments due shall be paid on a bimonthly basis unless otherwise mutually agreed. By mutual consent early payments and other modifications can be made. Base hourly salary shall be considered the rate of pay for a particular classification without consideration of any other form of compensation. Salary Advancements within Base Pay Range: 1. Step Advancement: a. All salary advances shall be based on merit and fitness. All increases shall be recommended by the Department Head and approved by the Personnel Director/City Manager. Merit increases shall be effective at the beginning of the next pay period (1st or 16th of the month). b. Upon the successful and satisfactory completion of twelve (12) months service (exclusive of police recruit status), employees shall be advanced one step within their range and yearly thereafter until the maximum within the range achieved. Promotion a. An employee who is promoted to a position in a class with a higher salary rate shall be entitled to the lowest step in the higher range which exceeds the present rate of pay with the intent of increasing the base salary rate by at least 5%. Compensatory Time: Employees may accrue up to 175 hours of compensatory time and may cash out all or part of such accrued time at any time, subject to the budgetary constraints of the department. Police Officers & Sergeants ARTICLE 13 — BASE SALARY Effective January 1, 2001 the base salary range shall be increased 2% Police Officer and Police Sergeant. POLICE OFFICER 3891 4086 4290 4504 POLICE SERGEANT 4679 4913 5159 5418 Effective July 1, 2002 the base salary range : shall be increased 5% for Police Officer and Police Sergeant. ARTICLE 14 — OVERTIME PRACTICES 7KExemption The City of Hermosa Beach has exercised its ability to take a statutory 7K exemption for sworn police personnel.' The work period for such employees shall be 28 days in length commencing on Sunday, May 22, 1988, at 12:01 A.M. F.L.S.A. Overtime All employees required to perform in excess of the standard work shift, or at times other than their regularly scheduled work shift, shall receive compensation at the rate of time and one-half their regular rate of pay. The regular rate of pay shall include the following components in addition to base salary. 1.Educational incentive 2. Assignment Pay 3. Longevity Pay Police Officers & Sergeants Paid Leave Exclusions In determining an employee's eligibility for overtime compensation in a workday, paid leaves of absence and unpaid leaves of absence shall be excluded from the total hours worked. For this purpose, paid leaves of absencesinclude, but are not limited to the following: 1. Vacation 2. Holiday Leave 3. Sick Leave 4. Compensatory Leave 5. 4850 Time 6. Jury Duty 7. Military Leave Compensatory Time In lieu of receiving cash payment for overtime hours, an employee may elect the option of taking compensatory time off. Compensatory time shall be earned at the time and one-half rate for each hour worked. An employee may accrue up to a maximum of 175 hours (after conversion at time and one-half) compensatory time. Overtime Authorization All overtime requests must have prior written authorization of a supervisor prior to the commencement of such overtime work. Where prior written authorization is not feasible, explicit verbal authorization must be obtained. Where verbal authorization is obtained, written authorization must be obtained as soon thereafter as practicable. Dispatched calls beyond the end of duty time are considered as authorized. An employee's failure to obtain prior written approval, or explicit verbal authorization followed by written ` authorization, will result in the denial of the overtime request. Shift Trades The practice of shift trading shall be voluntary on behalf of each employee involved in the trade. The trade must be due to the employee's desire or need to attend to a personal matter and not due to the department's operations. The employee providing the trade shall not have his/her compensable hours increased as a result of the trade; nor shall the employee receiving the trade have their compensable hours decreased as a result of the trade. Any premium pay or other extra compensation shall continue to accrue only to the person originally entitled to the premium pay or extra compensation. Any hours worked beyond the normal 9 Police Officers & Sergeants workday will be credited to the individual actually doing. work. "Paybacks" of shift trade are the obligation of the two employees involved in the trade. Paybacks are to be completed within one (1) calendar year of the date of the initial shift trade. Any dispute as to the paybacks is to be resolved by the involved employees, and under no circumstances will the department be obligated for any further compensation whatsoever to any of the involved employees. The department is not responsiblein any manner for hours owed to employees by other employees that leave the employment of the City or are assigned other duties. A record of all initial shift trades and "paybacks" shall be maintained by the involved employees on forms provided by the department ("shift trade log.") If one individual fails to appear for the other (regardless of the reason), the person who was scheduled as a result of the shift trade will be listed as absent without leave and may be subject to disciplinary action. Early Relief Policy The practice of early shift release shall be voluntary on behalf of each employee involved in the relief. The employee providing the early relief shall not have his/her compensable hours increased as a result of the early relief, nor shall the employee relieved early have their compensable hours decreased as a result of the early relief. "Paybacks" of early relief hours are the sole obligation of the two employees involved in the early relief. Any dispute is to be resolved by the involved employees, and under no circumstances will the department be obligated for any further compensation whatsoever to any of the involved employees. The department isnot responsible in any manner forhours owed to employees by other employees that leave the employment of the City or are assigned other duties. Training Time 1. Attendance at- training school/facilities (including the academy) which improves the performance of regular tasks and/ or prepares for job advancement are not compensable for hours in excess of the employee's normal work shift. Any time spent in excess of the normal work shift will not be counted as working time and is not compensable in any manner whatsoever. Time spent in studying and other personal pursuits is not compensable hours of work. City Vehicle Use Except as otherwise herein provided, employees who are provided with a City vehicle to travel to and from work shall not be compensated in any manner whatsoever for travel time to and from work. This provision also applies in those situations where the radio must be left on and monitored. 10 Police Officers & Sergeants City Motorcycle Use Employees assigned to motor duty may, with the approval of the Police Chief, use the city assigned motorcycle to travel to and from work. Such travel time will not be compensated in any manner whatsoever (even when the employee is required to leave the radio on and monitor the radio.) Any work the employee performs on the motorcycle while away from the police facility will not be considered hours worked and will not be compensated in any manner whatsoever. Clothes Changing Employees are not authorized to wear their uniforms or any part thereof that is distinguishable as such unless on duty. Each employee is provided with a locker for their personal convenience. Any employee may or may not utilize the locker for storage and changing purposes at their own discretion. Nothing herein prevents an employee from wearing their uniform to and/or from their residence to work as long as the badge and insignia are covered in a non -police issued garment such as a windbreaker. Employees choosing to wear their uniforms covered to and/or from work should not wear their "Sam Browne" belt. Time spent in changing clothes before or after shift, is not considered hours worked and is not compensable in any manner whatsoever. Call Back duty occurs when an employee is ordered to return to duty on a non -regularly scheduled work shift. Call back does not occur when an employee is held over from their prior shift or is working prior to their regularly scheduled shift. An employee called back to duty shall be credited with a minimum of two hours work commencing when the employee reports to work. Any hours worked in excess of two hours shall be credited on an hour -for -hour basis for actual time worked. This provision is to be distinguished from Court pay which is to be used when an employee is called back to court. When an officer is physically called to court, they shall be credited on an hour -for -hour basis for the time actually spent in court. They shall receive a minimum two (2) hours paid at time and a half for a morning appearance with a minimum two (2) hours paidat time and a half for an afternoon appearance. Travel time shall be included for any subpoenaed appearance other than to the Torrance Courthouse. Police Officers &Sergeants An officer who is subpoenaed to testify telephonically shall receive a minimum three (3) hours for a morning time and three (3) hours for an afternoon time. Standby Court Time An employee who while off duty is on court standby status may leave a telephone number where they may be reached while on court standby. Such time is not considered hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The employee will receive straight time pay, up to a maximum of 8.5 hours per day, for standby during the pendency of the case. ARTICLE 15 - INSURANCE COVERAGE City shall provide a life insurance policy for each employee, payable in the amount of $60,000upon such employee's death. MENTAL HEALTH City shall make such a plan available to City employees; the full cost to be paid by the employee. C. VISION City shall make such a plan available to City employees; the full cost to be paid by the employee. MEDICAL City shall provide for Association members a medical insurance plan to include a choice of an indemnity plan with $300.00 deductible or an HMO plan; both plans to include maternity care and prescription benefits. The current medical plan or its equivalent, to remain in force during the term of this MOU. City shall meet and consult should there be a change in providers or plan structure. The City is exploring the ability to offer health insurance through P. E. R.S. The HMO plan shall have no greater than a $10.00 office visit and prescription co -pay during the term of this Agreement. 3. City to pay employee costs and current dependent rate with any future increaseddependent costs to be borne 80% City and 20% employee. • Police Officers & Sergeants DENTAL City shall provide for Association members a dental insurance plan to include a choice of an indemnity plan or a pre -paid plan. City to pay employee cost and current dependent rate with any future increased dependent costs to be borne 80% City and 20% employee. ARTICLE 16 - DEFERRED COMPENSATION City agrees to make available to all employees in the Unit the citywide Deferred Compensation Plan. All participants being then eligible to vote on decisions of the Deferred V Compensation Committee. Members ;of the Association may participate in any of the Deferred Compensation plans provided for City employees. ARTICLE 17 - RETIREMENT A. The City shall maintain the 2% @ 50/PERS contract with "ONE YEAR FINAL COMPENSATION" in effect at the time of this contract. The City will pay the FULL employee's 9% contribution to the P.E.R.S. retirement system credited to the employee's portion. The City shall report to P.E.R.S. the value of the 9% employer paid member contribution (EPMC) pursuant to the authority of Government Code section 20023(c)(4) Effective January 1, 1998 any employee covered by this agreement will be eligible, upon retirement from this City, for a medical supplement. Said supplement shall be in the following amount: For retirement at age fifty (50) with a minimum of twenty (20) years total full-time service with the City, a $-1-01 $200 (or cost of policy whichever is less) per month medical insurance supplement. For a retirement at age fifty-five (55) with a minimum of fifteen (15) years total full-time service continuous scrvicc with the City, a $1-00 $200 (or cost of policy whichever is less) per month medical insurance supplement. Said supplement shall commence with the first month following the employee's retirement in which the employee is responsible for payment of the insurance premium. In order to be eligible for medical supplement payments, an employee must either remain on a medical insurance plan offered by the City or provide proof of coverage on a self -procured medical insurance plan. 13 Police Officers & Sergeants • Any payments madeby the City shall be made directly to a medical insurance provider. In no case will payments be made directly to an individual. Any employee receiving a benefit, under this article agrees to apply for, and enroll in, any Federal and/or State medical insurance plan (e.g. Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) for which they may become eligible. E. The City shall amend its contract with the Public Employees' Retirement System to provide the retirement formula known as 3% @ 50 effective January 1, 2001' ARTICLE 18 - LEAVE OF ABSENCE Management agrees to allow all employees covered by this MOU to take a leave of absence without pay, not to exceed 60 days, in conjunction with, or in addition to, their regular vacation time: This leave will only be allowed every other year. Timing and duration of leave subject to approval of and subject to the needs of the department. Any request for such leave must be delivered to the Chief a minimum of 30 days in advance. This provision shall not reduce any leave entitlement an employee'may have under the Military and Veterans Code. ARTICLE 19 -' VACATION Effective October 1, 1994 the Vacation accrual rates for all employees covered by this agreement shall be as follows: 1. Upon hire, at the rate of 96 hours/year. 2. Commencing with the 7th year, at the rate of 112 hours/year. 3. Commencing with the 8th year, at the rate of 136 hours/year. 4. Commencing with the 15th year, at the rate of 160 hours/year. 5. Commencing with the 16th year, at the rate of 168 hours/year. 6. Commencing with the 17th year, at the rate of 176 hours/year. An employee covered by this Agreement mayaccrue vacation time to a maximum of 270 hours. Cash out of any earned but unused vacation accrual in excess of 270 hours (as of September 30th each year) shall be automatically cashed out as part of the October 20th payroll. Those employees who as- of March 1, 1995 have an accrual balance in excess of 270 hours shall have that amount as their accrual maximum. Lower accruals will become their new maximum until such time as their bank reaches 270 hours. During the term of this Agreement Police Management shall formulate a paid time -off policy. Police Officers &Sergeants A. ARTICLE 20 HOLIDAYS Employees assigned to patrol activities shall receive 9.33 hours per month of "Holiday Comp" for each month so assigned (includes Motors and Community Lead assignments). Each officerassigned to a detective position, including background/training detective, administrative position ` or specialty assignment shall receive the following holidays off with pay: New Years' Day; Martin Luther King Jr's Birthday; Presidents Day; Memorial Day; Independence Day; Labor. Day; Veteran's Day; Thanksgiving Day; and Christmas Day. The week of Thanksgiving, each officer assigned to a detective position, including background/training detective, administrative position or specialty assignment will work thirty (30) hours. An employee covered by this Agreement may accrue Holiday Comp time to a maximum of 112 hours. Cash out of any earned but unused Holiday Comp accrual in excess of 112 hours (as of. September 30th of each year) shall be automatically cashed out as part of the October 20th payroll. ARTICLE 21 SICK LEAVE Effective October 1, 1994,sick leave accrual shall be as follows: Those employees having less than 176 accrued hours, of sick leave shall accrue sick leave at the rate of 6 hours per month until their accrual accumulates to 176 hours at which time their accrual shall be 8 hours per month. A once a year cash -in can be up to 100% of the unused sick leave as long as at least 176 accrued hours remains on. `hand. An employee may accrue a maximum of three, hundred and fifty hours (350); thereafter any excess shall be cashed out. Employees who have more than 350 hours of sick time on the books as of March 1, 1991 shall be frozen at that accumulation; any earned sick time in excess of that amount shall be cashed out. In the case of serious illness of a member of the immediate family, the employee may utilize sick leave. Immediate family for the purpose of this section shall be defined as: father; mother; father-in-law; mother-in-law; brother; sister; spouse; or legal dependent. Employees may predesignate and substitute other members for those members defined as "immediate family." The intent of this provision is not to expand the number of_ persons included in the definition of "immediate family" or to increase paid leave opportunities, but, rather to recognize variation in family structure (e.g. stepmother for mother). Police Officers & Sergeants Effective March 1, 1995 upon termination from City employment, sick leave will be paid at the current hourly pay rate, on the following conditions: 25% pay 5 through 9 years of continuous service total sworn service. 50% pay 10 through 19 years of continuous service total sworn service. 753/4 100% pay 20 + years of continuous service total sworn service. ARTICLE 22- BEREAVEMENT LEAVE Each employee shall receive a maximum of three shifts per calendar year to be utilized for bereavement leave because of a death in their immediate family. Immediate family shall be defined as in Article 21 C - SICK LEAVE Said time will not be cumulative from one twelve month period to another nor will pay in lieu of unused leave for bereavement be provided. The Chief may grant one (1) additional shift in the event of a death which requires extended travel. ARTICLE 23 LONGEVITY PAY Effective March 1, 1993, upon commencement of 21 years service as a sworn police. officer in Hermosa Beach, employee will receive an additional 5% base salary. ARTICLE 24 - EDUCATIONAL INCENTIVE COMPENSATION & MAINTENANCE OF BENEFITS 'In recognition of formal professional training, obtained from either an accredited educational institution or through P.O.S.T. sanctioned training, or a combination of both, City agrees to a concept of pay as an adjunct to base monthly salary for achieving various levels of professional proficiency certification as follows: For employees hired before May 2, 1984: Payable at the rate of 5% above base salary for an Intermediate P.O.S.T. Certificate or A.A. Degree; Payable at the rate of 10% above base salary for an Advanced P.O.S.T. Certificate: or a B.A. or B.S. degree; Payable at the rate of 5% above base salary for employees who were employed after July 1, 1976 upon commencement of 5 years as a sworn peace officer in Hermosa Beach and who obtain an A.A. degree or P.O.S.T. Intermediate Certificate; 16 Police Officers & Sergeants Payable at the rate of 10%above base salary for employees who were employed after July 1, 1976 and commencement of 14 years as a sworn peace officer in Hermosa Beach and who obtain a B.A. or B.S. degree or P.O.S.T. Advanced Certificate. For employees hired after May 2, 1984: Payable at the rate of $150/month . for an A.A. degree or Intermediate P.O.S.T. Certificate; $300/month for a B.A. or B.S._ degree or Advanced P.O.S.T. Certificate, until commencement of their 5th year of service with the City, then revert to schedule 1 above. Until commencement of . the employees 5th year, such compensation shall not exceed $300/month. Employees receiving such compensation are obligated to maintain the educational level required for P.O.S.T. Certification, at the City's expense and at the direction of the Police Department. ARTICLE 25 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE Said allowance for Officers and. Sergeants to be $700/year, payable through the regular payroll schedule. An absence due to sick leave, or leave of absence without pay, exceeding sixty days (60), days shall result in a pro -rata reduction in uniform allowance for the time of the absence. ARTICLE 26 — AMMUNITION REPLACEMENT In addition to the quarterly qualification ammunition, each officer will be allowed to .utilize fifty (50) rounds of ammunition for their primary duty weapon, at City expense, each month at the firing range used by the Department. The City will also pay for the expense of using the range. The ammunition will be used to practice on an approved course of fire so that officers will become more proficient with their service weapons. The City will not compensate officers for the time spent to utilize this ammunition. Officers must use the allotted ammunition each month, it does not accumulate. Police Officers & Sergeants ARTICLE 27 -ASSIGNMENT PAY The City shall pay, 9% of base salary per month to each officer assigned to a detective position, including background/training detective, administrative position or specialty assignment That compensation shall be for the additional time detectives are "on -calf. This sum shall be included in total compensation calculations for retirement purposes. The City agrees to pay the personnel assigned. as Community Lead Officer 7% of base salary per month as special duty pay. That sum shall be included in total compensation calculations for retirement purposes. The City agrees to pay to each officer assigned to field training or acting watch commander duties the sum of three dollars and thirty seven cents ($3.37) per hour as .special duty pay. That sum shall be included in total compensation calculations for retirement purposes. The City agrees to pay each officer assigned to Motorcycle Duty 7% of base salary per month. This sum shall be payable when on duty, during hazardous duty disability leaves, and during absences from work of less than one month. This sum shall be included in total compensation calculations for retirement purposes. It is the intent of these provisions that such assignments will be for career development, and generally will be limited to an assignment of thirty-six (36) months. The right to assign and reassign shall be vested solely with the Chief of :Police. The parties understand and agree that all assignments to extra -pay positions are temporary assignments, and that officers will be rotated into and out of these assignments as part of the department's job enrichment and career development program. In conformity with this understanding, each officer who accepts an assignment shall sign a statement indicating that they understand the temporary nature of the assignment. Nothing herein shall abrogate an employee's appeal rights as set forth in Government Code Section 3304. The City agrees to pay each officer assigned to the Police Service Dog Program as a Police Service Dog handler the sum of two hundred and twenty dollars ($220.00) per month. This amount shall be considered as full compensation for the additional incidental hours required for the animals veterinary care; routine care for the K -9's physical health, welfare and grooming; daily and routine maintenance to the K-9 patrol vehicle and field equipment. This sum shall be included in total compensation calculations for retirement purposes. 18 Police Officers & Sergeants Time spent "on-call" shall not be considered hours worked for FLSA purposes and is not compensated in any manner. Employees assigned full time to the Department's Police Service Dog Program are subject to schedule changes contingent on meeting Police Dog Program priorities and Department needs. Police Officers & Sergeants ARTICLE 28 -PHYSICAL FITNESS TIME The City and the Association agree to a program providing for an on -duty workout period for Officers and Sergeants under the following conditions: A. The workout shall be of thirty (30) minutes duration, beginning when the employee enters the workout facility. The workout shall take place within the City or within IA mile of the City boundary. B. The work out shall be conducted during "Code -7" lunch period. There is not interruption of service to the City. D. Release time to workout is at the discretion of the City. E. Individuals may be barred from this program at City discretion if there is evidence of abuse. ARTICLE 29 — YEARLY SHIFT CHANGES There will be four (4) quarterly shift changes per twelve (12) ,month period. These quarterly shift changes shall begin on the first Sunday of the first month of each quarter. The quarters shall run as follows: . 1. June, July, August 2. September, October, November 3. December, January, February 4. March, April, May Although there will be four (4) shift changes in a twelve month period, employees, shall bid on a semi-annual basis for two consecutive shifts at a time. For shift bidding purposes, the schedule will be posted on October 1, for the quarters December -February and March -May and on April. 1 for the quarters June -August and September -November. The sign-upschedule will remain posted for thirty (30) days from the date of posting for employee shift bidding. Management will then have thirty (30) days to finalize the schedule in advance of the schedule change. Employees are not mandated to rotate between day and night shifts. Bidding for shifts and days off shall be made on a seniority basis. Management will continue to assign new hire employees to shifts only, without regard to days off, through completion of their probation. Police Officers & Sergeants With regard to new hire employees, following the successful completion of their probationary period, and provided they have worked all shifts in the Patrol Bureau exclusive of shifts worked while assigned to the Field Training Program, the employee will be allowed to bid for shift and days off on a seniority basis.: In order to provide scheduling protections to less senior employees, those without sufficient longevity to bid for an alternate shift assignment may request, via the Field Services Division Commander, a shift rotation for one (1) deployment quarter in a twelve (12) month period. It shall be the sole responsibility of.the junior employee wishing such a shift rotation to notify the Field Services Division Commander immediately upon posting of each shift bidding schedule. In the event that a less junior employee qualifies for a shift rotation and, desires to exercise their prerogative to rotate to another shift, the employee with the least seniority in the bidding process who has bid on a shift will be "bumped" to an alternate shift in order to provide a shift opening for the junior employee. The senior employee shall retain the aright to select the deployment quarter in which they will be displaced in the rotation. All other seniority rights shall remain in full force and effect. ARTICLE 30 - EXTRA JOB SIGN-UPS Regular officers of the Hermosa Beach Police Department will be given priority over reserve officers in the assignment of extra jobs. _ No restrictions on the number of regular officers who can sign up for extra jobs shall be imposed. regular ratc of pay. Officers and Sergeants will be compensated for all hours worked on an overtime basis for extra job sign-ups at timeand one-half. To be eligible for an extra job, an ,officer must have completed their probationary period. The officer must have signed up for the job at least five (5) days prior to the'date listed on the job posting. If no regular officer has signed up for the job five (5) days prior to the listed date, the job may be assigned to a reserve officer. Available extra jobs will be posted on the bulletin board at least ten (10) days in advance of the job date. In the matter of foot patrol and beach patrol jobs, a monthly schedule will be posted, when possible, at least five (5) days prior to the first day of the month. A sign-up list for foot patrol and beach patrol extra jobs will be posted at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the job for the following month. Failure to work a job assignment after having been selected to do so will be deemed to be a violation of general orders. For emergency reasons, an officer may provide a replacement for the extra job from one of the other regular officers to cover the assigned job. For the same reasons, and with the permission of the Division Commander, a reserve officer may be used *as a replacement in an emergency situation. Police Officers & Sergeants Nothing herein shall prohibit the City from hiring temporary civilian employees to perform police related duties in the enforcement of Municipal Code provisions relating to bicycles and skateboards. Any additional assignments of temporary civilian employees shall be subject to the meet and confer process. ARTICLE 31 SHIFT COVERAGE If for any reason the Police Department cannot meet .a minimum three-person staffing standard requirement (consisting of Watch Commander and two area cars), the Department shall have the right to fill positions with Certified Level I Reserve Officers. This may be done only when all regular officers have been contacted to determine their availability to cover the shift or a portion of the shift, which will be understaffed. ARTICLE 32 - WATCH COMMANDER SELECTION The Chief of Police shall have the right to establish criteria for selection of officers to be. placed` on the Watch Commander's list. The Chief shall select any number to be placed on the list and may remove officers or add officers to the list at any time. ARTICLE 33 PERFORMANCE REVIEW Upon completion of probation, each employee shall be reviewed annually; said review to be objective, constructive in nature designed to point out area of strengths, weakness and methods for improvement. The review will be completed by the employee's immediate supervisor and will include all co -lateral assignments (i.e. FTO, Rangemaster, Dare Officer, etc.). Contents of the form will be submitted to the Police Officers Association for review and comments. ARTICLE 34 - DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS For the purpose of defining disciplinary actions, the following definitions shall be applicable: Disciplinary actions are defined as: a. Dismissal b. Demotion c. Suspension d. Reductions in pay e. Reprimand (written) Reductions in pay are governed by the "Blue Section" of the Police Manual. Appeals from the disciplinary actions shall only be subject to the "Blue" section of the Police, Manual entitled"Rules and Regulations. 22 Police Officers & Sergeants Prior to the commencement of any internal investigation which is likely to subject the officer to disciplinary action, the officer shall be advised of their rights pursuant to Section 3300, et. seq., of the California Government Code as amended All rights contained therein shall be applicable to the disciplinary actions and shall be used as a minimum guideline only. Any reprimand record or other writing containing negative comments (with the exception of Performance Evaluations) included in the employees personnel package is a written reprimand. Inclusionary periods as currently set forth in the Police Department Rules and Regulations shall remain in effect during this MOU Any officer receiving time off dispensed as a result of disciplinary action can use either accumulated compensatory time or vacation time at their discretion. However, when exceptional circumstances arise and the City feels that it is in the best interest to keep an officer off duty for a limited period of time (not to exceed five (5) working days), the City may exercise this right. For purposes of this section, a "suspension day",imposed as a result of disciplinary action or "workday" referred to in Section 7 is equivalent to eight (8) hours. ARTICLE 35 - LAYOFF Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 2.76.200 as currently enacted, is the governing provision regarding layoff. However, City further agrees that, prior to implementation of any such layoff, discussions shall be held to explore other alternatives, mitigation, etc. It is further agreed that in the event the City should contract with another agency for provision of police services, the Association shall receive six (6) months advance written notice prior to the effective date of any such change. ARTICLE 36 NO SMOKING The parties agree that the City shall amend its class specifications for unit positions to provide that employees who become unit employees after the date this MOU goes into effect shall, as a condition of their continued employment, refrain from smoking tobacco or any other non -tobacco substance at any time on duty. Violation of this condition of employment shall be deemed good cause for dismissal. Police Officers & Sergeants ARTICLE 37 — ASSOCIATION DIRECTORS TIME A maximum of two Board members shall be allowed to attend out of town meetings on City time up to and including a cumulative total of five (5) working days per calendar year provided such out of town meetings are for purposes of Association business. With the permission of the Police Chief additional days may be granted. ARTICLE 38 = DURATION OF CONTRACT This MOU is effective July 1, 2000 and shall remain in full force and effect through June 30, 2003. In witness whereof, the parties -hereto have caused their duly authorized representatives to execute this Memorandum of Understanding this day of 2000. HERMOSA BEACH POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bruce Phillips, President Stephen Burrell, City Manager William Charles Viki Copeland, Finance Director Lance Jaakola Michael Earl, Personnel Director Jamie Ramirez Don Jones 24 Police Officers & Sergeants Honorable Mayor and Members of The Hermosa Beach City Council City. Council Meeting of July 11, 2000 Resolution Approving Memorandum of Understanding Between the City and the Hermosa Beach Police Management Association. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Hermosa Beach Police Management Association. Background: The City Council directed staff to meet and confer with representatives of this employee group to discuss wages, hours, and working conditions contained in the Memorandum of Understanding that expired on June 30, 2000. The parties reached a tentative agreement on June 29, 2000 on the terms described below. The members of the employee group met and have approved the tentative agreement. The negotiated major changes include: Term of the agreement is to be July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2003. Salary increases of: 5% effective January 1, 2001 2% effective July 1, 2001 2% effective July 1, 2002 Amendment to the City's Contract with the Public Employees Retirement System to implement the retirement formula known as "3% @ 50". 4. Increase in contribution to retiree medical insurance. The fiscal impact for this group is_$24,695.for the 2000-2001 fiscal year. Funding for this has been included in Prospective Expenditures account of the 2000-2001 Budget. Respe ichael E=rl fitted_ 6i 1 Stephen Burrell ersonne .& Risk Management Director City Manager 10 12 13 14, 15 16 17 RESOLUTION NO. 00- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO ADOPT A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE HERMOSA BEACH POLICE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES' BARGAINING UNIT. WHEREAS, employees of the City of Hermosa Beach, California represented by the Hermosa Beach Police Management Employees' Bargaining Unit, have elected to meet and confer with the City of Hermosa Beach on matters concerning wages, hours, and working conditions; and, WHEREAS, the above personnel have selected certain individuals to represent them; and WHEREAS, Employee and Management representatives have jointly negotiated 'a Memorandum of Understanding which has been ratified by a majority vote of the members of the Hermosa Beach Police Management Employees' Bargaining Unit; and WHEREAS, the Employee and Management representatives have mutually agreed to recommend that the City Council adopt this Memorandum of Understanding. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach resolves to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding to be effective for the period of July 1, 2000 through and including June 30, 2003, and authorizes the City Manager to sign the Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of the City. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution; shall cause the same to be entered among the original resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council of said City in the minutes of the meeting at which time same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF JULY 2000, PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney Page 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND POLICE MANAGEMENT BARGAINING GROUP MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE POLICE MANAGEMENT BARGAINING GROUP ARTICLE 1 — PARTIES TO THE MEMORANDUM This Memorandum of. Understanding, hereinafter referred to as the "MOU" or the "Agreement," has been entered into, pursuant to the laws of the State of California and the City of Hermosa Beach, California, by and between the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, hereinafter referred to as the "City" or as "Management," and the HERMOSA BEACH POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, hereinafter referred to as the "Association." ARTICLE 2 — RECOGNITION Pursuant to the provisions of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, (Government Code 3500, et seq.), the City agrees to, and does, recognize the Hermosa Beach Police Officers Association as the exclusive representative of the full-time positions in the classifications of Police Captain and Police Lieutenant of the City of Hermosa Beach. ARTICLE 3 - SCOPE & IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING A. This memorandum of understanding constitutes the . joint recommendation of Management and the Association. It shall not be binding in whole or in part upon the parties unless and until the following conditions have been complied with: 1. The association shall notify the City Council in writing that it has formally approved the Memorandum of Understanding in its entirety., The City Council shall approve this Memorandum of Understanding. 3. This MOU has been reached following good -faith negotiations, by the authorized Management representative of the City Council and the authorized representative for the Hermosa Beach Police Officers Association. ARTICLE 4 JOB ACTION The Association and its members agree that during the term of this MOU there shall be no. strike. In the event of an unauthorized strike, the City agrees that there will be no liability on the part of the Association provided the. Association promptly and publicly Police Management disavows such unauthorized action; orders the employees to return to work and attempts to bring about a prompt resumption of normal operations, and provided further, that the Association notifies the City in writing, within 48 hours after the commencement of such strike, what measures it has taken to comply with the provisions of this strike. C. In the event such strike by the Association has not affected resumption of normal work practices, the City shall have the right to take appropriate disciplinary action. • ARTICLE 5 NON-DISCRIMINATION Both parties to this Agreement agree not to discriminate against any employee or applicant because of age, gender, race, national origin, religion, color, ancestry, marital status, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, medical condition, and/or Association membership or activity. Additionally, the City expects and requires all employees to treat one another with dignity and respect. Harassment of fellow employees is a violation of law. No employment decision may be made based upon an employee's submission to or rejection of such conduct. It is the responsibility of any employee, who believes that they are the victim of such harassment, whether sexual, racial, ethnic or religious, to report the conduct to their Division Commander, Chief of Police, Personnel. Director or the City Manager in a timely manner. Manage the City. Schedule working hours. ARTICLE 6 — MANAGEMENT RIGHTS Establish, modify or change work schedules or standards. Institute changes in procedures. Direct the work force, including the right to hire, promote, demote, transfer, suspend, discipline or discharge any employee. Determine the location of any new facilities, building, departments, divisions, or subdivisions thereof, and therelocation, sale, leasing or closing of facilities, departments, divisions, or subdivisions thereof Determine services to be rendered. Determine the layout of buildings and equipment and materials to be used herein. Determine processes, techniques, methods and means of performing work. Police Management 10. Determine the size, character and use of inventories. 11. Determine the financial policy including accounting procedures. 12. Determine the administrative organization of the system. 13. Determine the selection, promotion, or transfer of employees. 14. Determine the size and characteristics of the workforce. 15. 16. Determine the allocation and assignment of work to employees. Determine policy affecting the selection of new employees. 17. Determine the establishment of quality and quantity standards and the judgment of quality and quantity of work required. Determine administration of discipline. 19. Determine control and use of City property, materials and equipment. 20: Schedule work periods and determine the number and duration of work periods. 21. Establish, modify, eliminate or enforce rules and regulations. Place work with outside firms. 23. Determine the kinds and numbers of personnel necessary.' Determine the methods and , means by which such operations are. conducted. Require employees, where necessary, to take in-service training courses during working hours. Determine duties to be included in any job classifications. Determine the necessity of overtime and the amount of overtime required. 28. Take any necessary action to carry out the mission of the City in cases of an emergency. The exercise of the foregoing powers, rights authority,duties and responsibilities by the City, the adoption of policies, rules, regulations and Police Management practices in furtherance thereof, and the use of judgment and the discretion in connection therewith, shall be limited only by the specific and express terms of this Memorandum of Understanding, City Personnel Ordinance and Personnel Rules and Regulations, the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights, and other statutory laws. Except in emergencies, or where the City is required to make changes in its operations because of the requirements of law, whenever the exercise of management's rights shall impact on employees of the bargaining unit, the City agrees to meet and confer with representatives of the Association, upon request by the Association, regarding the impact of the exercise of such rights unless the matter of the exercise of such rights is provided for in this Memorandum of Understanding. ARTICLE 7- PROVISIONS OF LAW — INSEPARABILITY It is mutually understood that this MOU is, and shall be, subject to all current and future applicable state, federal and local laws. If any article, part, provision or segment of this MOU is, or shall be, in conflict with or inconsistent with such applicable provisions of federal, state or local law, or is otherwise held to be invalid, or unenforceableby any court of competent jurisdiction by final decree, such article, part or provision thereof shall be superseded by such applicable law and the remainder of this MOU shall in no • way be affected thereby. ARTICLE 8 — FULL UNDERSTANDING, MODIFICATION, WAIVER A. It is intended that this Agreement sets forth the full and entire understanding of the parties regarding the matters set forth herein, and any other prior to existing understanding or agreements by the parties whether formal or informal, regarding any such matters are hereby superseded or terminated in their entirety. Except as specifically provided herein, it is agreed and understood that each party hereto voluntarily and unqualifiedly waives its right, and agrees that the other shall not be required to negotiate with respect to any subject or matter covered herein during the term of this Agreement: C. Any agreement, alteration, understanding, variation, waiver, or modification of any of the terms or provisions contained herein shall not be binding upon the parties hereto unless made and executed in writing by all parties hereto, and if required, approved and implemented by the City Council. D. The waiver of any breach, term or condition of this Agreement by either party shall not constitute a precedent in the future enforcement of all its terms and provisions. Police Management ARTICLE 9 - GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE The Grievance Procedure is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. ARTICLE 10 - WORK SCHEDULE A. Police Captains shall have the, choice of working a ten (10) hour day, four (4) days per work week; or an eight (8) hour day, five (5) days per work week. B In the event of an emergency situation, the City may. cancel, alter or amend the work schedule as necessary immediately. ARTICLE 11 - COMPENSATION - METHODS OF COMPENSATION Methods of compensation: Compensation shall be determined on an hourly basis. Payments due shall be paid on a bimonthly basis unless otherwise mutually agreed. By mutual consent early payments and other modifications can be made. Base hourly salary shall be considered the rate of pay for a particular classification without consideration of any other form of compensation. Advancements Within Base Pay Range: Step Advancement: All salary advances shall be based on merit and fitness. All increases shall be recommended by the Department Head and approved by the Personnel Officer/City Manager. In the cases of exceptional merit, and upon the recommendation 'of the Department Director, an employee may, with the approval of the City Manager, be advanced a step within the salary range at other than one year intervals. Such advancements shall establish a new anniversary date for future advancements. Merit increases shall be effective at the beginning of the next pay period (1st or 16 of month). Upon the successful and satisfactory completion of twelve (12) months service, employees shall be advanced one step within their range and yearly thereafter until the maximum within the range achieved.. Police Management Promotion An employee who is promoted to a position in a class with a higher salary rate shall be entitled to the lowest step in the higher range which exceeds the present rate of pay with the intent of increasing the base salary rate by at least 5%. ARTICLE 12 — BASE SALARY Effective January 1, 2001 the base salary ranges for the classifications represented by the Association shall be as follows: Police Captain 7,200 7,560 7,939 8,335 Police Lieutenant 6,733 7,070 7,424 7,794 Effective July 1, 2001, and July 1, 2002, the base monthly salaries for represented classifications shall be increased by two percent (2%). ARTICLE 13 — EXEMPT EMPLOYEES The Classifications of Police Captain and Police Lieutenant are designated asexempt under FLSA. ARTICLE. 14 — INSURANCE COVERAGE City shall provide a life insurance policy for each employee, payable in the amount of two times annual salary. MENTAL HEALTH City shall make such a plan available to City employees; the full cost to be paid by the employee. City shall make such a plan available to City employees; the full cost to be paid by the employee. Police Management City shall provide for Association members a medical insurance plan to include a choice of an annuity plan with $250.00 deductible or an HMO plan, both plans to include maternity care and prescription benefits. The current medical plan or its equivalent, to remain in force during the term of this MOU. City shall meet and consult should there be a change in providers. The HMO plan shall have no greater than a $5.00; office visit and prescription co -pay during the term of this Agreement. . City to pay employee costs and current dependent rate with any future increased dependent costs to be borne 80% City and 20% employee. City shall provide for Association members a dental insurance plan to include a choice of an indemnity plan or a pre -paid plan. City to pay employee cost and current dependent rate with any future increased dependent costs to be borne 80% City and 20% employee. ARTICLE 15 — DEFERRED. COMPENSATION City agrees to make available to all employees in . the Unit either of the Citywide. Deferred Compensation Plans. All participants being then eligible to vote on decisions of the Deferred Compensation Committee. ARTICLE 16 - RETIREMENT The City shall maintain the 2% @ 50 PERS contract with "One Year Final Compensation" in effect at the time of this contract. The City shall amend its contract with the Public Employees' Retirement System to provide the retirement formula known as 3% Ca 50 effective January 1, 2001 The City will pay the employee's 9% contribution to the P.E.R.S. retirement system credited to the employee's portion. Effective November 1, 1995, the City shall commence reporting to P.E.R.S. the value of the 9% employer paid member contribution (EPMC) pursuant to the authority of Government Code section 20023(c)(4). Police Management Effective January 1, 1998 any employee covered by this Agreement will be eligible, upon retirement from this City, for a medical supplement. Said supplement shall be in the following amount: For retirement at age fifty (50) with a minimum of twenty (20) years continuous service with the City, a $4-88200 (or cost of policy whichever is less) per month medical insurance supplement. For a retirement at age fifty-five (55) with a minimum of fifteen (15) years continuous service with the City, a $4-08200 (or cost of policy whichever is less) per month medical insurance supplement. • Said supplement shall commence with the first month following the employee's retirement in which the employee is responsible for payment of the insurance premium. In order to be eligible for medical supplement payments, an employee must either remain on a medical insurance plan offered by the City or provide proof of coverage on a self procured medical insurance plan. Any payments made by the City shall be made directly to a medical insurance provider. In no case will payments be made directly to an individual. . Any employee receiving a benefit under this article agrees to apply for, and enroll in, any Federal and/or State medical insurance plan '(e.g. Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) for which they may become eligible. ARTICLE 17 LEAVE OF ABSENCE Management agrees to allow all employees covered by this MOU to take a leave of absence without pay, not to exceed 60 days, in conjunction with, or in addition to, their regular vacation time. This leave will only be allowed every -other year. Timing and duration of leave is subject to approval of the Chief of Police and subject to the needs of the department. This provision shall not reduce any leave entitlement an employee may have under the Military and Veterans Code. ARTICLE 18 - VACATION A. Vacation accrual rates shall be as follows: 1 Upon hire, at the rate of 96 hours/year. 2 Commencing with the 7th year, at the rate of 112 hours/year. 3 Commencing with the 8th year, at the rate of 136 hours/year. 4 Commencingwith the 15th year, at the rate of 160 hours/year. 5 Commencing with the 16th year, at the rate of 168.hours/year. 6 Commencing with the 17th year, at the rate of 176 hours/year. An employee covered by this Agreement may accrue vacation time to a maximum of 270 hours. Cash out of any earned but unused vacation accrual in excess. of 270 hours (as of September 30 of each year) shall be automatically cashed out as part of the October 20th payroll. ARTICLE 19 - HOLIDAYS The following holidays shall be considered as paid: New Year's Day; Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Birthday; Presidents' Day; Memorial Day; Independence Day; Labor Day; Veteran's Day; Thanksgiving Day; Day after Thanksgiving; Christmas Day ARTICLE 20 — SICK LEAVE Sick leave accrual shall be as follows: Those employees having less than 176 accrued hours of sick leave shall accrue sick leave at the rate of 6 hours per month until their accrual accumulates to 176 hours at which tirne their accrual shall be 8 hours per month. A once a year cash -in can be up to 100% of the unused sick leave as long as at least 176 accrued hours remains on hand. An employee may accrue a maximum of three hundred and fifty hours (350); thereafter any excess shall be cashed out. Employees who have more than 350 hours of sick time on the books as of June 1, 1988 shall be frozen at that accumulation; any sick time in excess of that amount shall be cashed out. 10 Police Management Employees shall receive cash out of 100% of unused resignation, retirement, or termination. In the case of serious illness of a member of the immediate family, the employee may utilize sick leave. Immediate family for the purpose of this section shall be defined as: father mother; father-in-law; mother-in-law; brother; sister; spouse; or legal dependent. Employees may predesignate and substitute other members for those members defined as "immediate family". The intent of this provision is not to expand the number of persons included in the definition of "immediate family" nor to increase paid leave opportunities, but rather, to recognize variation in family structure (e.g. stepmother for mother). ARTICLE 21 BEREAVEMENT LEAVE Each employee shall receive a maximum of three shifts per calendar year to be utilized for bereavement leave because *of a death in their immediate family. Immediate family shall be defined as in Article 21 Sick Leave. Said time will not be cumulative from one twelve month period to another nor will pay in lieu of unused leave for bereavement be provided. the Chief of Police may grant one (1) additional shift in the, event of a death which required extended travel. ARTICLE 22 - MANAGEMENT LEAVE Police Captains -shall be allowed eighty (80) hours of additional leave each calendar year in addition to flex time for extraordinary assignments, fixed holidays and bereavement leave. Management leave does not accumulate orcarry over, it must be used each year.: Said Management Leave shall have no monetary value. ARTICLE 23 - EDUCATIONAL REIMBURSEMENT The City agrees that Police Captains who desire to enroll in training and academic courses that may provide the employee with general or specific skills and/or knowledge that contributes to their ability to perform their current position or enhances promotional opportunities, shall have their course fees (up to CSU rate), books, materials, and tuition (CSU rate) paid by the City, in advance, subject to the approval of the City Manager. The employee will reimburse the City for all expenses if the employee fails or does not complete the courses. Said allowance for Police Captains and Police Lieutenants to be $600 per year, payable through the regular payroll. schedule. ARTICLE 24 - UNIFORM ALLOWANCE Police Management ARTICLE 25 AMMUNITION REPLACEMENT In addition to the quarterly qualification ammunition, each officer will be allowed to utilize fifty (50) rounds of ammunition for their primary duty weapon, at City expense, each month at the firing range used by the Department. the. City will also pay for the expense . of using the range. The ammunition will be used to practice on an approved course of fire so that officers will become more proficient with their service weapons. The' City will not compensate officers for the time spent to utilize this ammunition. Officers must use the allotted ammunition each month, it does not accumulate. ARTICLE 26 DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS For the purpose of defining disciplinary actions, the following definitions shall be applicable: Dismissal Demotion Suspension Reductions in pay Reprimand (written) Reductions in pay are governed by the "Blue Section" of the Police Manual. Appeals from the disciplinary actions shall only be subject to the "Blue" section of the Police Manual entitled "Rules and Regulations". Prior to the commencement of any internal investigation which is likely to subject the officer to disciplinary action, the officer shall be advised of their rights pursuant to Section 3300,. et seq., of the California Government code as amended. All rights contained therein shall be applicable to the disciplinary actions and shall be used as a minimum guideline only: Any reprimand record or other writing containing negative comments (with the exception of Performance Evaluations) included in the employees personnel package is a written reprimand. Inclusionary' periods as currently set forth in the Police Department rules and Regulations shall remain in effect during this MOU Any officer receiving time off dispensed as a result -of disciplinary action can use either accumulated compensatory time or vacation time at their discretion. However, when exceptional circumstances arise and the City feels that it is in the best interest to keep an officer off duty for a limited period of time (not to exceed five (5) working days), the City may exercise this right. ARTICLE 27 LAYOFF Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 2-42 as currently enacted, is the governing provision regarding layoff. However, City further agrees that prior to implementation of any such layoff, discussions shall be held to explore other alternatives, mitigation, etc. It is further agreed that in the event the City should contract with another agency for provision of police services, the Association shall receive six (6) months advance notice prior to the effective date of any such change. ARTICLE 28 NO SMOKING The parties agree that the City shall amend its class specifications for unit positions to provide that employees who become unit employees after March 1, 1988 shall, as a condition of their continued employment, refrain from smoking tobacco or any other non -tobacco substance at any time on or off duty. Violation of this condition of employment shall be deemed good cause for dismissal. ARTICLE 29 — ANNUAL PHYSICAL All employees covered by this Agreement shall -be provided with a complete physical examination (participation is voluntary) according to the following. schedule: Every two (2) years up to and including age 38; Annually at age 39 and thereafter. Said physical to be at a location of the City's choice and at the City's expense. The physical exam is to include at least the following: Review of medical history, physical examination; Urinalysis; VDRL; X Rays (Chest PA, Lumbar Spine and Cervical) only if indicated; Blood groupings, CBC, Chem Panel 17; EKG and Treadmill; Lipid Analysis, Pulmonary Function Test; Hearing test; Strength and Flexibility testing. Police Management ARTICLE, 30 DURATION OF CONTRACT This MOU is effective July 1, 2000 and shall remain in full force and effect through June 30, .2003. In witness, whereof, the parties hereto have caused their duly . authorized representatives to execute this Memorandum of Understanding this day of_ 2000. HERMOSA BEACH POLICE MANAGEMENT GROUP. Michael Lavin Captain CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Stephen R. Burrell City Manager Mark Wright Michael A. Earl Police Lieutenant Personnel Director Tom Eckert Viki Copeland Police Lieutenant Finance Director 14 Police Management June 28, 2000 City Council Meeting July 11, 2000 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 00-1202- "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 3.12.150 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXEMPT COMPUTERS AND PERIPHERAL EQUIPMENT FROM THE FORMAL BIDDING PROCESS." Submitted for adoption and waiver of full reading is Ordinance No. 00-1202, relating to the above subject. At the meeting of June 27, 2000, the ordinance was presented to Council for consideration and was introduced by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Noted:. Stephen 4 it) 01. Bowler, Dunbabin, Oakes, Mayor Reviczky Edgerton None None • Alf' r e , City Ma ager 111 0141 f Naoma Valdes, Deputy City Clerk 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 00-1202 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 3.12.140 OF • THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXEMPT COMPUTERS AND PERIPHERAL EQUIPMENT FROM THE FORMAL BIDDING PROCESS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 3.12.140 of Title 3, Chapter 3.12 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal code is amended by adding a new paragraph D to read as follows: D. Computers and peripheral equipment. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. SECTION 3. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly. newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. 1/1 SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of the City, and shall make minutes of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. 10 11 12 13 14 15.. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 11th day of July, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PRESIDENT of the City Council and Mayor of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED. AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY City Council Meeting July 11, 2000 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 00-1203 "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO ESTABLISH A PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION AND AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE." Submitted for adoption and waiver of full reading is Ordinance No. 00-1203, relating to the above subject. At the meeting of June 27, 2000, the ordinance was presented to consideration and was introduced by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Noted: Bowler, Dunbabin, Edgerton, Oakes, Mayor Reviczky None None None Stephen R. BIT- I, Ity. Manag Council Naoma Valdes, Deputy City Clerk for 5 10 12_. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 00-1203 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO ESTABLISH A PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION AND AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Title 2 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is amended by adding a new Chapter 2:80 to read: Chapter 2.80 Public Works Commission Section 2.80.010 Created --Composition. A public works commission is created, which shall consist of five members. shall be qualified electors of the city appointed by the city council: Section 2.80.020 Terms of members --Vacancies. The members of the public works commission shall be appointed for a term of four years. If a vacancy shall occur otherwise than by expiration of term, it shall be filled by appointments by the city council for the unexpired portion of the term. Appointments shall be made pursuant to Government Code Section 54970 et seq. Members serve at the pleasure of the city council and may be removed, without cause, by a majority vote of the city council. Upon an expiration of term, vacancy or resignation, said member of the commission may continue to serve until a successor is appointed and qualified. Where the city council votes to remove a member of the commission, the city council shall determine the effective date of said removal. Two absences from regularly scheduled meetings of any member within one calendar quarter, and/or four absences from regular meetings within one calendar year creates an automatic vacancy. There shall be no distinction between excused or unexcused absences. When an automatic vacancy occurs, the staff liaison shall promptly notify the city council, the commission, The members and the member. The automatic vacancy shall not be effective until council receives notice and fails to waive application of this section. The city council may waive application of the automatic vacancy upon its own motion; otherwise, the vacancy so created shall be filled pursuant to the above sections. Powers and duties. The public works commission shall review and make recommendations to the city council on all capital improvement projects, assist in the development and updating of design guidelines for city public improvements and other matters referred to the commission by the city council. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. SECTION 3. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided bylaw. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of the City, and shall make minutes of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 11th day of July, 2000, by the following vote: PRESIDENT of the City Council and Mayor of the City of Hermosa Beach, California Honorable Mayor and Members. of the Hermosa Beach City Council SUBJECT: PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT OF A.71 ROOM HOTEL HAMPTON INN LOCATION: 1530 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY APPLICANT: DIXIT PATEL —18743 PIONEER BLVD., ARTESIA, CA 90701 Recommendation: To approve the Precise Development Plan subject to the conditions in the attached Resolution. Background: On April 18, 2000 the Planning Commission received testimony and continued the project hearing in order for the applicant to study design issues related to parking, queing and loading. On May 16, '2000 the Planning Commission unanimously approved the project Precise Development Plan subject to the conditions in the attached Resolution. 4y July 5, 2000 Regular Meeting of July 11, 2000 Analysis: The project is a proposed three story, 71 room Hampton Inn hotel with surface and basement level parking for 66 cars. Short term passenger loading for registration and employee parking is also provided. The project includes hotel suites ranging from 337 to 400 square feet and contains a two story central lobby with fireplace and a central laundry. The building occupies approximately 1/2 of the lot and includes stepped setbacksranging from 7' to 21' at the iKmrthwesterly corner of the site: The majority of the building is setback approximately 80' from Pacific Coast Highway. The site is zoned S.P.A. 8 which permits hotel uses. The hotel project requires a Precise Development Plan pursuant to Section 17.38.330. The zone establishes two "tiers" for review. Tier One projects constructed to 25 feet in height, with a floor area ratio of less than 1 times the buildable area of the lot and less than 10,000 square feet arenot subject to discretionary review and only obtain a building permit. Tier Two projects which exceed these limits must obtain approval for a Precise Development Plan. Based upon direction from the Planning Commission, the applicant made the following revisions to the project: Clearly defined entry and exit lanes and new reconfigured parking south of the entry to eliminate back-up conflict with traffic entering the project. Two signed spaces for passenger loading and registration, designated employee parking, red- curbing and new entry signing to prohibit parking. Additional parking space and reduction of one room increasing net parking supply. Tree planting to screen the hotel from residences to the east. Additional 19' building line setback from the westerly property line consistent with residential setbacks along 15th Street. Traffic Study and Environmental Initial Study The developer was required to prepare a traffic study as part of the initial environmental review for the project. The traffic study was prepared by the traffic engineering firm of Katz, Okitzu and Associates. Pursuant to the study, the project is expected to generate minor and less than significant impacts to the area. The proposed project is not significant traffic generator and relative to most other uses which could be located in the zone, it is one of the lowest traffic generators. The traffic study indicates that the project will not adversely impact traffic by decreasing the level of service at any of the seven surveyed intersections at PCH/Pier Avenue, 14th,.15th, 16th and 21st Streets and Artesia/Gould Avenue. On street parking along PCH will be retained with the exception of two spaces (lost with red -curbing along the driveway entry to permit a clear line -of -sight for on -coming traffic). Based upon the less than significant impacts described in the technical studies, a mitigated negative declaration is recommended for the project. Building Height The project is a 35 foot three story building at the lowest southwesterly portion of the lot and decreases in building height to approximately 17' at the northeasterly portion of the site. Regarding the method of measuring the project building height, the City measures building height based upon the corner point elevations of the property. A survey by a licensed civil engineer is prepared to evaluate the building's height. In this case, the irregularly shaped lot was divided into three areas for calculating height shown as A,B and C in the staff report height calculations. Each of these areas has a corresponding corner point and critical point used in calculating the building height. Where a retaining wall separates adjacent property, staff used "bottom of wall" measurements. This method allows a more conservative approach to calculating the height of the project along the property lines consistent with the Zone Code. At the northeasterly corner point elevation (the highest part of the property), the project corner point elevation is contiguous with the properties to the east and north. Overall the project could have increased in height at this portion of the lot by up to 17' based upon zoning requirements, but because the project terraces the hillside and has below grade parking, the project is lower, than the maximum height. A clearer survey indicating property corner points and contour elevations has been supplied by the owner. The developer also providedan indication of the northeasterly roof line elevation which has been photographed at grade and from higher elevations along 15th Street. The northeasterly portion of the project is close to the height of the adjacent veterinarian hospital as can be seen on the attached photos. Approval of the Precise Development Plan The Commission approved the Precise Development Plan based upon overall consistency with Tier Two guidelines for project review under Section 17.38.400 of the Zone Code. (Pleasesee attachment.) The Commission felt that the project met the general guidelines for PDP approval and added special conditions to ensure conformance as discussed below: Limit Lot Coverage - The project is setback up to 80 feet from PCH frontage and does not cover a major portion of the lot. Approximately 50% 0 of the lot is landscaped area or surface parking with a significant portion of the building less than the maximum allowable height. Flat Roofs and Flat Tall Vertical Walls Avoided - The project contains stepped and sloping roofs along PCH frontage where setbacks step from floor to floor and the overall setback ranges from 7' _ to 21'. The project has an L-shaped building footprint and a majority of the project is setback 80' from PCH street frontage. Greater Setbacks for Upper Levels - The project incorporates greater setbacks along PCH frontage progressing from the ground floor to the upper stories creating tiered levels as viewed from the front of the project. At the rear of the property, the project is required to provide an 8' setback at the ground level and 2' of additional setback for floors above and provides a 9' setback at the ground level with 2 additional feet of setback per floor above: Bulk- The project incorporates features to minimize bulk including building tiered setbacks, angled balconies and a building line setback of up to 80 feet from street frontage. The Commission added a special condition to further reduce bulk by setting the building back an additional 19 feet along 15th Street. Avoid Box -Like Structures - The project incorporates angled balconies and tiered building levels to avoid flat unarticulated box —like design. Building Step Backs- The project contains sufficient setbacks and projections to break up bulky appearance and create interesting building massing. Variable Heights. The project contains a roofline varying in height and tiered from floor level to floor level along PCH frontage. Overall, the Commission found that the project is consistent with the requirements of the zone and the General Plan and consistent with the neighborhood in terms of design, scale and use relative to granting a Precise Development Plan. The Commission further noted that the project will not have adverse environmental impacts relative to parking or traffic circulation and that any project developed on the site would have potential impacts upon views to 'some extent for the neighboring properties to the east, however, the proposed project as conditioned would provide the best project with least adverse impacts for the adjacent residential neig +orhood. Ken Ro • ertson, Planning Associate s. Sol :'fumenfe , irector Community D velopment Department Concu JO Step R. urrell, City Manager Attachments: : 1. Proposed City Council Resolution 2. Planning Commission Resolution and Minutes 3. Traffic Study 4. Height Calculation 5. . Site Photos 6. PDP Requirements 7 Correspondence 3 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 RESOLUTION NO. 00- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 71 -ROOM HOTEL ON APPEAL, AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1530 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTHERLY 67.5' OF LOTS 1 AND 2, AND LOT 3, HEFFNER, FIORINI, ALLEN TRACT; AND, THE WESTERLY 145.67' OF A PORTION OF LOT 5, BLOCK 84, 2ND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. An application was filed by Dixit Patel owner in escrow of property at 1530 Pacific Coast Highway seeking approval of a Precise Development Plan to construct a 72 -room hotel: Section 2 The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed de novo public hearing to consider the application for a Precise Development Plan on April 18, and May 16, 2000, and considered substantial testimony and evidence. Based on the testimony and evidence received, The Commission approved the requested Precise Development Plan subject to conditions as set forth in P.C. Resolution No. 00-29. Section 3. An appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission was filed by neighboring property owners Mr.and Mrs. DeGyarfas, Mr. And Mrs. Gilmore and Mr. and Mrs. Gretsky. Section 4. The. City Council conducted a duly noticed de novo public hearing to consider the appeal of the Planning Commission approval of the Precise Development Plan on July 11, 2000. Section 5. Based on evidence received at the _public hearing, and the record of the decision of the Planning Commission, the City Council, makes the following factual findings: L The applicant is proposing to construct a three-story hotel containing 39,000 square feet and 71 rooms. The hotel plans have been revised to comply with the Planning Commission conditions of approval, including reducing the proposed numberr of rooms from 72 to 71. 2. The proposed use is classified as a hotel, pursuant to the definition of the Zoning Ordinance, since the rooms are accessed through a common entrance, and includes a central registration and lobby area. Since a use classified as a hotel is listed as a permitted use in the C- 3 zone, it is permitted in the S.P.A. 8 zone, which incorporates C-3 uses by reference. Proposed ancillary uses include a lobby, office, and breakfast room. The ancillary uses are intended to be exclusively for hotel occupants and employees. 9 10 14 15 16 17 18 19 •20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 - 28 29 3. The site is zoned S.P.A..8 which requires a Precise Development Plan for the construction of the hotel as it exceeds 25 -feet in building height, exceeds 10,000 square feet and exceeds a floor areas to lot area ratio of 1:1. Section 6. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the City Council makes the following findings pertaining to the application for a Precise Development Plan. 1. The project is consistent with applicable general and specific plans, and is in compliance with the use and development requirements of the zoning ordinance. 2. The site is zoned S.P.A. 8, Specific Plan Area -Commercial, and project and proposed use complies with the development standards contained therein. 3. Pursuant to the specific standards of the S.P.A. 8 zone and the underlying C-3 zoning, the project is consistent with the intent and purpose and the general guidelines of the Precise Development Plan review of projects as set forth in Section 17.38.400(1) and consistent with the specific guidelines criteria for exceeding first "tier" standards with "respect to building height, bulk, and landscaping, as set forth in Section 17.38.400(2-4) for the following reasons: a) Limited Lot Coverage: The project is setback up to -80 feet from PCH frontage and does not cover a major portion of the lot and a proportional area of the building is less than the maximum allowable building height. b) Flat Roofs and Flat Tall Vertical Walls Avoided: The project contains stepped and sloping roofs along PCH frontage where floor setbacks step from floor to floor and the overall setback ranges from 7' to 21'. c) Greater Setbacks provided for Upper Levels: The project incorporates greater setbacks along PCH frontage progressing from the ground level to the upper stories creating tiered levels as viewed from the front of the project. d) Bulk: The project incorporates features to minimize bulk including building tiered setbacks, angled balconies and a building line setback of up to 80 feet from street frontage. The bulk is further reduced with the condition of approval to set the building back a 19 feet from 15th Street. e) Box -Like Structures Avoided: The project contains attractive architectural features such as angled balconies and tiered building levels to minimize box -like design. f) Building Step Backs: The project contains sufficient setbacks and projections to break up bulky appearance and create an attractive project. g) Variable Heights. The project contains a roofline varying in height and tiered from floor level to floor level along PCH frontage. 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 '18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 4.. Compliance with the Conditions of Approval will mitigate any negative impact resulting from the issuance of the Precise Development Plan. 5. The City Council concurs with the Planning Commission which concurred with the Staff Environmental Review Committee's recommendation, based on their environmental assessment/initial study, that this project will result in a less than significant impact on the environment, and therefore qualifies for a mitigated Negative Declaration with the following mitigation measures. Right turn only exiting the project site Oil separator to be• provided in the parking lot. Section 7. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby approves the subject Precise Development Plan subject to the following Conditions of Approval: The development and continued use of the property shall be in conformance with submitted plans reviewed by the City Council at their meeting of July 11, 2000, incorporating all revisions as required by the conditions below. Minor modifications to the plan shall be reviewed and may be approved by the Community Development Director. a) The building shall be setback a minimum of nineteen (19) feet from 15`h Street property line. b) The vent for the laundry room shall be relocated a greater distance from the easterly property line. c) The surface materials at the entry to the lobby shall be considered for upgrades, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. d) The parking lot shall provide all the parking as shown on the submitted plans, and include designated spaces for employee parking. Spaces designated for employees shall be clearly marked on the pavement or signed, with the number and location of spaces to be designated for employees to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. The subject lots to be developed shall be merged pursuant to Section 16.20.110, prior to the issuance of building permits. Egress from the main entry driveway shall be right turns only. Appropriate signs prohibiting left turns out of the site shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. Parking shall be prohibited along the east side of P.C.H. for a distance of 40 -feet south from the driveway entrance. Appropriate red curbing or signing shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Department of Public Works. 10 11 12- 13 14 15 16 17. 18 19 20 21 . 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Architectural treatment shall be as shown on building elevations and site and floor plans revised in accordance with the stipulations below. Any modificationshall require approval by the Community Development Director. a) The mansard roof shall be extended to wrap around the east and entire perimeter of the building. b) The mansard roof shall not be extended any higher than shown on the building elevations • Precise building height shall be reviewed at the time of plan check, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The plans shall be corrected to indicate that proposed heights are equal or less than maximum allowable height elevations at the critical points ▪ The project shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Department and the Public Works Departments. The applicant shall obtain approval from the California Department of Transportation for ingress and egress at the proposed driveway location, and any design requirements of CalTrans shall be included on project plans prior to issuance of building permits. Final building plans/construction drawings including site, elevation, floor plan, sections, details, signage, landscaping and irrigation, submitted for building permit issuance shall be reviewed for consistency with the plans approved by the Planning Commission and the conditions of this resolution, and approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of any Building Permit. 10: A minimum of one 24" box tree shall be provided for every 10 -feet of length along the easterly property line, supplemented by shrubs and suitable ground cover to provide a landscaped screen and enhanced elevation as viewed from the residential properties to the east. 11. Tree planting along the easterly property line shall be maintained at a height no higher than the parapet wall along the roof line of the of the hotel building. 12. All exterior lights shall be located and oriented in a manner to insure that neighboring residential property and public right-of-way shall not be adversely effected. 13. An oil separator shall be provided in the parking lot to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 14. The project and operation of the business shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code. 15. The Precise Development Plan shall be recorded, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. 2 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 16. Each of the above Conditions of Approval is separately enforced, and if one of the Conditions of Approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable. 17. Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, it agents, officers, - and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employee to attack, set aside, void or annul this permit approval, which action is brought within the applicable time period of Government Code Section 65907. The City shall promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall no thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. 18. The permittee shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this grant. Although the permittee is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of the action, bufsuch participation shall not relieve the permittee of any obligation under this condition. 19. The subject property shall be developed, maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of this grant and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulation applicable to any development or activity on the subject property. Failure of the permittee to cease any development or activity not in full compliance shallbe a violation of these conditions. Section 8. • This grant shall not be effective for any purposes until the permittee and the owners of the property involved have filed at the office of the Planning Division of the Community Development Department their affidavits stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this grant. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 11th day of July, 2000, by the following vote: PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney Cc/Pdpr1530 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ..17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 00-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 72 -ROOM HOTEL, AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1530 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTHERLY 67.5' OF LOTS 1 AND 2, AND LOT 3, HEFFNER, FIORINI, ALLEN TRACT; AND, THE WESTERLY 145.67' OF A PORTION OF LOT 5, BLOCK 84, 2ND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. An application was filed by Dixit Patel owner in escrow of property at 1530 Pacific Coast Highway seeking approval of a Precise Development Plan to construct a 72 -room hotel. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed de novo public hearing to consider the application for a Precise Development Plan on April 18, and May 16, 2000, at which testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission. Section 3. Based on evidence received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission makes the following factual findings: 1. The applicant is proposing to construct a three-story hotel containing 33,900 square feet and 72 rooms. 2. The proposed use is classified as . a hotel, pursuant to the definition of the Zoning Ordinance, since the rooms are accessed through a common entrance, and includes a central registration and lobby area. Since a use classified as a hotel is listed as a permitted use in the C- 3 zone, it is permitted in the S.P.A. 8 zone, which incorporates C-3 uses by reference. Proposed ancillary uses include a lobby, office, and breakfast room. The ancillary uses are intended to be exclusively for hotel occupants and employees, 3. The site is zoned.S.P.A. 8 which requires a Precise Development Plan for the construction of the hotel as it exceeds 25 -feet in building height, exceeds 10,000 square feet and exceeds a floor areas to lot area ratio of 1:1 Section 4. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the Planning Commission makes the following findings pertaining tothe application for a Precise. Development Plan. 2 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26' 27 1. The project is consistent with applicable general and specific plans, and is; in compliance with the use and development requirements of the zoning ordinance. 2. The site is zoned S.P.A. 8, Specific Plan Area -Commercial, and project and proposed use complies with the development standards contained therein: 3. Pursuant to the specific standards of the S.P.A. 8 zone and the underlying C-3 zoning, the project conforms with the zoning requirements with respect to building height, bulk, and landscaping, and is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Precise Development Plan review of projects that exceed first "tier" standards. 4. Compliance with the Conditions of Approval will mitigate, any negative impact resulting from the issuance of the Precise Development Plan. 5. The Planning Commission concurs with the Staff Environmental Review Committee's recommendation, based on their environmental assessment/initial study, that this project will result in a less than significant impact on the environment, and therefore qualifies for a mitigated Negative Declaration with the following mitigation measures. Right turn only exiting the project site Oil separator to be provided in the parking lot. Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the subject Precise Development Plan subject to the following. Conditions of Approval: 1. The development and continued use of the property shall be in conformance with submitted plans reviewed by the. Planning Commission at their meeting of May 16, 2000, incorporating all revisions required by the conditions below. Minor modifications to the plan shall be reviewed and may be approved by the Community Development Director. a) The building shall be setback a minimum of nineteen (19) feet from 15th Street property line. b) The vent for the laundry room shall berelocated a greater distance from the easterly property linea c) The surface materials at the entry to the lobby shall be considered for upgrades, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. d) The parking lot shall provide all the parking as shown on the submitted plans, and include designated spaces for employee parking. Spaces designated for employees shall be clearly marked on the pavement or signed, with the number and location of spaces to be designated for employess to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. 10 12 13 14 15 16, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • 27 28 29 The subject lots to be developed shall be merged pursuant to Section 16.20.110 prior to the issuance of building permits. ▪ Egress from the main entry driveway shall be right turns only. Appropriate signs prohibiting leftturns out of the site shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. • Parking shall be prohibited along the east side of P.C.H. for a distance of 40 -feet south from the driveway entrance. Appropriate red curbing or signing shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Department of Public Works. . Architectural treatment shall be as shown on building elevations and site and floor plans revised in accordance with the stipulations below. Any modification shall require approval by the Community Development Director. The mansard roof shall be extended to wrap around the east and entire perimeter of the building. The mansard roof shall not be extended any higher than shown on the building elevations. The project shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Department and the Public Works Departments. • The applicant shall obtain approval from the _ California Department of Transportation for ingress and egress at the proposed driveway location, and any design requirements of CalTrans shall be included on project plans prior to issuance of building permits. • Final building plans/construction drawings including site, elevation, floor plan, sections, details, signage, landscaping and irrigation, submitted for building permit issuance shall be reviewed for consistency with the plans approved by the Planning Commission and the conditions of this resolution, and approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of any Building Permit. a.) A minimum of one 24" box tree shall be provided for every 10 -feet of length along the easterly property line, supplemented by shrubs and suitable ground cover to provide a landscaped screen and enhanced elevation as viewed from the residential properties to the east. b.) Tree planting along the easterly property line shall be maintained at a height no higher than the parapet wall along the roof line of the of the hotel building.. �. All exterior lights shall be located and oriented in a manner to insure- that neighboring residential property and public right-of-way shall not be adversely effected. I 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22.. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 10. An oil separator shallbe provided in the parking lot to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 11. The project and operation of the business shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code. 12. The Precise Development Plan shall be recorded, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. 13. Each of the above Conditions of Approval is separately enforced, and if one of the Conditions of Approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable. 14. Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, it agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employee to attack, set aside, void or annul this permit approval, which action is brought within the applicable time period of Government Code Section 65907. The City shall promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall no thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. 15. The permittee shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this grant. Although the permittee is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of the action, but such participation shall not relieve the permittee of any obligation under this condition. 16. The subject property shall be developed, maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of this grant and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulation applicable to any development or activity on the subject property. Failure of the permittee to cease any development or activity not in full compliance shall be a violation of these conditions. Section 6. This grant shall not be effective for any purposes until the permittee and the owners of the property involved have filed- at the office of the Planning Division of the Community Development Department their affidavits stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this grant. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Hoffinan,Ketz,Pizer,Schwartz,Chmn.Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 00-29 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meetiig of May 16, 2000. Sam Perrotti, Chairman Date Pdpr1530 10 2 13 14 15. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29. lumenfeld, Secretary 6. TTEN COMMUNICATIONS Director Blumenfeld indicated that the ap l ica. June 20, 2000 meeting------•—""`�` e• t at Item #15 be continued to the PUBLIC HEARINGS PDP 00-6 = PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A SEVENTY- TWO (72) ROOM HOTEL, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1514 -.1550 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND 81515TH STREET (CONTINUED FROM THE APRIL 18, 2000 MEETING). Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report and indicated that this project was continued in order to provide time for the applicant to study parking, queuing and loading issues. He reviewed the changes made by the applicant including a clearly defined entry and exit lane added to the parking south of the entry, two proposed assigned spaces for passengerloading and registration and -entry signing and red curbing proposed to prohibit parking along the entry area. He also said the landscape area adjacent to the driveway had to be reduced due to the new parking configuration. Further, he said the applicant has added additional space for parking, still maintaining the 30% maximum compact parking ratio. Also, the project architect has submitted a new materials list that is proposed to be used, and there is also a revised landscape plan submitted. He said the building setback at the rear of garage has been increased to 9 feet. He further discussed some of the issues of the residents including increasing the building setback along 15th Street, traffic and delivery, parking, CUP compliance with surrounding uses and building height calculations. He stated that staff is recommending that a condition be added to Item 8A of the Resolution requiring that tree planting along the easterly properly line. be maintained at a height no higher than the roof line of the hotel building parapet. He further stated that staff believes that the project conforms to the requirements ofa PDP as the building contains stepped vertical and horizontal setbacks, changes in roof line, building articulation and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld stated that the "loading" areas would be for short-term parking for registration with the intent preventing parking in the driveway. He also said thereisn't designated employee parking on the site, as the parking standards incorporate employee parking based upon less than 100% occupancy. He pointed out a condition could be added to require employee parking on site. Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. Ashish Patel, project applicant, stated that during the daytime, there would be one general manager along with a desk clerk. He also said there is generally 2-4 maids who start at 9:00. a.m. and leave at 4:00 p.m. who Would be parking on site since during these hours, the parking is available and the hotel is not full. P.C. Minutes 05-16-00 In response to Commissioner Schwartz, Mr. Patel said the materials would be stucco with a sand finish. He said molding has been added around the windows in the front and the easterly wall and the railings would be aluminum. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Huamin Chang, architect for the project, said the top of the mansard is lined up with the parapet wall, not adding any height. He also said the vent for the laundry facilities would vent up to the roof Eric Jacobs, Hilton Hotels Corporation, said that the minimum standards in terms of finishes and caliber for the project would be consistent with the 1,000 hotels built nationwide for Hampton Inn. Pete Tucker, 235 34th Street, disagreed with staff, in that the project does not meet the provisions of the PDP. per Section 17.38,390, Commercial Development Standards of the zoning book. He believed that the project is not compatible with the community and other neighborhood projects. He expressed concern with the flat roofs, the east side setback, the boxy appearance in the back, not having variable heights, impact on ocean views, the need for two driveways, adversity on owner's property rights, the storm drain in the back, parapet height limits, the northeast property line and the accessibility of the dryer vents to the roof. Jennifer Alvarado, 845 15th Street, presented an article in the Los Angeles Times addressing the number of limited services hotels and their lower occupancy rate. She also believed that the projected $23 million in revenue to the City is understated by approximately 41.45% based on the 72 rooms and occupancy rate of 65.3%. She pointed out that Hilton is not the actual builder of these hotels, as they consider it too risky. Neil`Gretsky, 8 16th Street, stated that the project is not in keeping with the purpose or the intent of the PDP in the Specific Plan Area 8. He said the project is not compatible with the surrounding uses or community with regard to the height, scale, bulk or proportion. He also believed that the quality of the project is not high enough and that the traffic study is inadequate and inaccurate. He said the project does not satisfy the criteria to allow second tier standards. He further expressed concern with the view impacts from the east. He said other uses should be addressed. Michael Gilmore, 829 15th Street, pointed out that the traffic study was not done at peak times, and he said the project would exceed 50 trips per peak hour period. He also said the study did not consider the bus stop or school crossing in front of the project. He suggested that the project be responsible to replace the parking that will be removed. He said that the project would pull revenue from the other hotels with increased City costs to handle additional accidents and noise complaints. He noted that the landscaping proposed on the east side would not be sufficient to mitigate the visual and noise impacts, and the air conditioning and laundry vents would be next to the residents in the back. He also expressed concern with the devaluation of surrounding properties, impact on utilities, the support of airport expansion, compliance with second tier stipulations and shoring damage. Victor De Gyarfas, 833 15th Street, presented concerns with height calculation, compliance with the ocean view ordinance, property value depreciation, off street parking, incompatibility with surrounding uses, inadequate distance from existing residential uses, inadequate setbacks, bulkiness P.C. Minutes 05-16-00 of the building and flatness of the roof line and the lack of minimizing environmental impacts in quantitative terms. Carla Mack, General Manager of Hotel Hermosa, expressed concern with employee parking and garage parking: She noted that franchises can be broken and the property then goes downhill. She also said the new hotel would not produce any added revenue. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Ms. Mack indicated that the occupancy rate at Hotel Hermosa averages 70% with the national at 81%.: Rebuttal Mr. Eric Jacobs pointed out that the article from the Los Angeles Times presented was a nationwide article, and he said the South Bay specifically runs occupancy rates of 80% or more. He believed there is a need of additional modern hotels as shown by the occupancy rates in the area. He also pointed out that most of the glut of hotels have been in the midwest, southeast and east coast. Ms. Mack clarified that the figures quoted by Mr. Jacobs are based on hotels that are 300+ rooms that do convention blocking. Joel Folter, Senior Transportation Engineer of Katz, Okitsu & Associates, clarified that the traffic counts were collected on Wednesday, February 2 from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. ` He further clarified that the methodology of the study was coordinated with City staff using L.A. County thresholds of significance, and no impacts were found. Mr. Patel` clarified that there are no air conditioning vents on the east side of the building, and the laundry area could be moved further to the west side or front of the building. He further reviewed elevations of Areas 1, 2 and 3, and he summarized stating that they have presented a well-designed project with setbacks in the front of the building and varied balcony orientation: In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld said that Public Works would review the project if approved and make recommendations for storm drains or drainage issues. Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hoffmancommended the neighbors for their research and input. He pointed out that that a blank wall on the east side may be a better alternative than what could go in at that location. He also said there could be other projects built that would generate more traffic than the proposed project He further said the demand for hotel rooms is growing:. He agreed that the 15t Street building setback needs to be addressed and the laundry facilities should be moved to the front of the building. Vice -Chair Ketz noted that the applicant is restricted to building a commercial use on the property. She also said the blank wall on the east side would buffer noise, and she agreed that the 15 th Street building setback should be in line with the other properties. She commented that this project would be a low traffic generator overall and would be a good use for the property. P.C. Minutes 05-16-00. Commissioner Schwartz commented that the owners of the property have the right to develop it. She still believed that more attention needs to be addressed regarding articulation. She also agreed that the 15th Street building should have more setback to be consistent with the community, and the blank wall on the east side would buffer noise. She also said the loading will be away from the residential with minimal noise impacts. Commissioner Pizer felt the flat structure in the rear is the best solution rather than having balconies disturbing the neighbors. He also felt that the 15th Street building should have a 19 -foot setback to be compatible with the neighborhood, particularly since the building has so much bulk. Chairman Perrotti also agreed that the 15th Street building setback should be 17 feet. He pointed out that Pacific Coast Highway is a transportation corridor, and the traffic may increase as more development occurs. He suggested the City work with Cal Trans to install a pedestrian bridge over Pacific Coast Highway at le Street. He also said that no matter how this property is developed, the parking spaces on Pacific Coast Highway would be lost. He further expressed concern with the employee parking on the residential streets, and he would like tosee some employee designated parking spaces on the site. He pointed out that another use could be built on the property generating more traffic than the proposed hotel. He also said a hotel will generate revenue to the City from the transient occupancy tax. He agreed that articulation could be addressed further. MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE Resolution No. 00- PDP 00-6 — Precise Development Plan to construct a seventy-two (72) room hotel, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 1514 -1550 Pacific Coast Highway and 815 15th Street with the following amendments: 1) A condition be added to Item 8A of the Resolution requiring tree planting along the easterly properly line be maintained at a height no higher than the roof line of the hotel building parapet, 2) The 15th Street building be set back from the property line at 19 feet to be more in keeping with the patterns already established along the street frontage, 3) The venting of the laundry room be relocated so that there is greater distance from the property to the east, 4) The developer consider upgrading some of the materials adjacent to the -entry at the ground level, 5) The mansard roof not go any higher than shown on the elevations, 6) Require designated on site employee parking, and, 7) Require the parking as shown on plans. AYES: Hoffman, Ketz, Schwartz, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti NOES: : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None P.C. Minutes 05-16-00. PUBLIC HEARINGS .7. PDP 00-6 - PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A SEVENTY- TWO (72) ROOM HOTEL, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1514 —1550 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND 815 15TH STREET. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report. He described the project and, indicated that it requires a Precise Development Plan and is located in the S.P.A. 8 zone. He indicated that a traffic study has been prepared which concluded that the project would result in a minor and less than significant impact on the levels of service of nearby intersections, and includes some traffic mitigation measures which include restricting exiting to right turn only and parking prohibited on Pacific Coast Highway for 40 feet south of the entrance. He also indicated that the City has recommended a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project based upon the project's initial study and technical studies. He also indicated that project construction will require shoring adjacent the property line, consistent with construction practice in the area. He said that the project is consistent with the C-3 zone and S.P.A. zone, and hotels are permitted by right in the C-3 zone and by reference in the S.P.A. zone. He stated that the project conforms to all the -other zoning requirements including height, setback, parking and landscaping at the second tier level of the S.P.A. zone. He also reviewed the height calculations and concluded that the project is well-designed containing changes in building elevations, generous setbacks, articulated facades with building offsets along the building face,and ample lobby space with a two-story ceiling height and a fireplace. He also pointed out that the use would generate increased City revenues including increased property tax, sales tax and approximately $200,000 added transient occupancy tax. He pointed out a correction to Condition #3 on page 5 that the reference should be to S.P.A. 8 rather than S.P.A. 7: He also said that the use is appropriate to the zone and staff is recommending approval of the project. In response to;Commissioner Hoffman, Director Blumenfeld stated there is a standard condition which states height will be addressed at building plan check. He further said that the mansard roof would elevate the height at the eastern most edge of the property, but that the project is within the allowable height limit. In response to Commissioner Schwartz, Director Blumenfeld stated there is not a` passenger drop off provided adjacent to the lobby for convenience and to facilitate queuing. He said, however, there is an area immediately abutting the lobby which could be designed to accommodate a drop off Commissioner Schwartz pointed out that since there is potentially a lot of congestion and activity at the entrance to the hotel, she said there is an area that could be used for loading: She expressed. concern with parking immediately abutting which could create congestion and exacerbate queuing onto Pacific Goast Highway. P.C. Minutes 04-18-00 Director Blumenfeld suggested that the owner could be required to manage the circulation and parking through signage or valet service during peak periods. In response to Commissioner Schwartz, Director Blumenfeld stated that the trash would be serviced with a truck entering at the driveway to access the dumpster. He further suggested that other deliveries could be restricted to early morning. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Director Blumenfeld suggested that red curbing and signs would precluded guests from stopping in the driveway and that guests registering pull into a designated loading areas. Commissioner Schwartz expressed concern with traffic making a left turn into the site. Director Blumenfeld suggested that the owner could post a sign on the site indicating turning restrictions. He furthersaid that Cal Trans would prefer not having any medians or restrictions, in the right of way which could restrict the flow of traffic. He suggested that Cal Transcould be contacted to determine if it is possible to add a restriction that would prohibit left turning movements onto the site. In response to Vice -Chair Pizer, Director Blumenfeld said that when the Negative Declaration is issued, Cal Trans is contacted, and that Cal Trans has not pointed out any issues requiring correction. Vice -Chair Pizer opened the public hearing. DixitPatel, owner of the project, presented a rendering and he said the project is a Hilton product which is high quality. He further said that they have complied with all the zoning requirements. He said that there is ample storage provided in the building, avoiding day to day deliveries, and their delivery times would be when the parking lot is more available. He also said there is now two extra parking spots available in the front. He pointed out that the hotel would be approximately 15 feet from the street, allowing the cars to pull in safely into the allocated registration area. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Mr. Patel stated there is another driveway which ends into a landscaped area which could be cut and made into an entrance, allowing now two entrance and exit points. In response to Vice -Chair Pizer, Mr. Patel indicated that the rooms are ready by 12 noon with the checkout time around 11:00 a.m. He anticipated the majority of the customers coming in after 5:00 p.m. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Mr. Patel stated there will be one general manager, one person at the front desk and two to four maids. He further said the breakfast room is for a complimentary breakfast service only and not available for other functions. Paul Barr, owner of the property at 15th Street and Pacific Coast Highway, stated -he looks favorably upon. the development and offered cooperation to facilitate with the parking and access arrangements. P.C. Minutes 04-18-00 Victor De Gyarfas, 83315th` Street, stated he is east of the proposed development and has presented a letter with his concerns. He further expressed concern with the setbacks, smoking on the deck, height issues, impact on ocean views, distances from residential uses, parking, noise, quality of life, decrease in property values in the vicinity and inadequate shoring. Carla Mack, General Manager of Hotel Hermosa, stated that the City does not have the business for this new hotel and the business at the other hotels in the area would be depleted. She said there will be left turn traffic into the site and there is also no guarantee with delivery times. She also expressed concern with increased traffic. James Keller, owner of the property at 809 and 811 15th Street, expressed concern with traffic, delivery impacts and the ocean view lost by the residents behind the proposed hotel. Ann Loritz stated that she has five to ten cars a day that pull into her driveway to turn around and she said the traffic in the area is already congested. Michael Gilmore, 829 15th Street, stated he is immediately east of the project and expressed concern with the decline in property value of his property, the height calculations, the setbacks, view impacts, impacts from the deck, parking, visibilityfor traffic, the school crosswalk in the area and the bus stop in front of the -hotel. Neil Gretsky, owner of property at 832 and 834 15th Place, expressed concern with the height calculation. He also indicated that he was never noticed about the meeting and expressed concern with the procedural issues. He further commented about the setbacks, the steep hill and shoring, traffic and parking concerns, room for the delivery trucks and the procedure of the tier 2 bonus. Ken Fry, 900 15th Street, stated that he did not receive notification. He pointed out that there have been three projects on 15th Street in the last year and a half, and he expressed concern with shoring. He said their view would be lost and commented about parking and traffic concerns. He also said a median strip on Pacific Coast Highway would inconvenience the residents. Jennifer Alvarado, 845 15th Street, stated that the hotel is an inappropriate use in the area. She said that a sign will not prevent traffic turning left up 15th Street. She also expressed concern with delivery trucks and commercial traffic on 15th Street. Don Carich, 840 15th Street, presented photos to the Commission and he commented about parking and height calculation concerns, and he also said he was not noticed for the meeting. He also • suggested having a wall on the east side of the proposed hotel. Ingrid St. Galdefrons, 837 15th Street, agreed with her neighbors' concerns, and she further indicated that she did not receive notice of the meeting. She expressed concern on the height, loss of view, parking, traffic, noise, deliveries, smoking on the deck and the impact from the elevator. Erlene Kearns, 218 6th Street, expressed concern with the continuing planning of the City. She noted that the traffic congestion will be a problem, and she indicated that another hotel is not P.C. Minutes 04-18-00 needed in the City. She pointed out businesses lost in the Cityand concluded that the Planning Department shouldconcentrate on developing small businesses supporting the local community. Lee Grant, 1011 E. 16th Street, agreed with the parking and traffic concerns. He suggested a pedestrian overpass for access and said the City Council agreed and sent it onto staff for further study. Rebuttal Mr. Patel explained that that City has independent consultants looking at the shoring design for safety. He said the traffic study is in conformance with the County of Los Angeles Congestion Management Program approved by the City and the traffic engineer, and it was concluded that there would be less than significant impacts. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Mr. Patel said that the Hilton Hotels require that 75% of the rooms be nonsmoking. He also explained that the deck is a maintenance deck only and not accessible from each guest room, and would be accessible only by the manager through one door and would not be used for smoking. The architect of the project stated that the project has been designed according to the building code, zoning ordinance and all the laws, and that they did not have to apply for a variance. Vice -Chair Pizer closed the public hearing. In response to Commissioner Hoffman, Director Blumenfeld explained the noticing procedures, the height calculations and the setbacks. Commissioner Schwartz questioned if there is a special provision in the tiering required under the PDP provisions. Director Blumenfeld indicated that the provisions under Tier 1 is that if the requirements are met and the building is 25' in height, only a building permit is required, and to build to Tier 2, a Precise Development Plan must be obtained and the requirements for approving a PDP involving aesthetics, neighborhood compatibility and environmental concerns must be addressed. Commissioner Schwartz believed that the hotel should be scaled appropriately in the area, and she noted issues with access, parking and loading that need to be addressed. She further explained that there is no view ordinance in the City. She also said she does not trust the rendering, and believed that the building is unattractive with cheap materials being used. She would like to see significant changes to the parking, and reduction in the rooms and an improvement to the facade. Vice -Chair Pizer concurred there is no view ordinance. He also said the rules must be followed and nothing can be done about the decrease in the property values in the area. He further said that it is not an issue for the Planning Commission concerning the decrease in business to surrounding businesses. He also said there are traffic problems and parking violations throughout the City, and he noted any business brought in would create traffic. He questioned the north east corner point elevation of the property. P.C. Minutes 04-18-00 In response to Vice -Chair Pizer, Director Blumenfeld said that looking at the corner point where the plateau is located, it is the same elevation as the,property to the north and to the east. He said the plateau is not relevant to the height calculation which is taken at the corner point at the property line. He reviewed the method used to calculate building height. He also stated that he will talk to traffic enforcement concerning vehicles turning around in residents' driveways and signage issues. Vice -Chair Pizer stated he would like to see the pedestrian overpass suggestion pushed through and approved, and he said it would be a great asset to the community. MOTION by Commissioner Schwartz, to CONTINUE PDP 00-6 - Precise Development Plan to construct a seventy-two (72) room hotel, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 1514 —1550 Pacific Coast Highway and 815 15th Street to the next regularly scheduled meeting of May 16, 2000, to permit time for the applicant to study issues of parking, queuing and loading and to deal with aesthetic issues relative to materials and detailing. MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice -Chair Pizer, to CONTINUE PDP 00-6 Precise Development Plan to construct a seventy-two (72) room hotel, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 1514 -1550 Pacific Coast Highway and 815 15`h Street to the next regularly scheduled meeting of May 16, 2000, to permit time for the applicant to study issues of parking, queuing and loading, along with a wall or gate being installed on the side of 15th Street to avoid pedestrian right-of-way. AYES: Hoffman, Vice -Chair Pizer NOES: Schwartz ABSENT: Ketz, Chairman Perrotti ABSTAIN: None The Commission took a break at 8:55 p.m. Commissioner Schwartz left the meeting at 8:55 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 9:05 p.m. PARK 00-1 PARKING PLAN FOR A RESTAURANT WITH OUTDOOR S G WITH LESS THAN REQUIRED PARKING AT 1031 HE AVENUE. Staff Recommended Action: To appro ' . e Parking Plan c approval of a valet parking program to provide fees for the outdoor seating area/expanded gro Director Blumenfeld summariz the Parking Plan contin the required spa area/exp o ent upon the submittal and. spaces or the payment of parking in -lieu e staff report. He said that the recomm- :tion is to approve upon the submittal and approval of a valet parking progrdi-• o .rovide or the payment of parking in -lieu fees totaling $60,000 for the outdoor sea ed gross floor area. (5 parking spaces required at $12,000 per space). He also said if a P.C. Minutes 04-18-00 4105-o0, 4 BLK.' 405-'6194 Jgc'oo LOT I P..n 233 N. t •34'!. Z° /15.67 22 24. UP If 4185 0°7 42.63 -00 .� 30 /34 I q rordl I I.glc "are ,,,,x1 .0 a, B(31 i, 7 ,2 2Y �,x-3 O I ," H7 _VI 24 O 23 •- • �b 22 4 ;_ (O I 14,6 O 20 2 BLK: A ° 7 .6 3 . 0 85 7 �I 0'9. a 4 ,40BLK. ••l9 •% . ono. • 4105-o0, 4 BLK.' 405-'6194 Jgc'oo LOT I P..n 233 N. t •34'!. Z° /15.67 22 24. UP If 4185 0°7 42.63 -00 .� 30 /34 29 \ 28 a 27 Si 26 Cog: M(..) 2 24 O 23 •- • �b 22 4 ;_ (O I 14,6 O 20 ,3152 JO /S� J5 O N X36 SO 10.3 3 - n , • �I _ 9 ! ( ADDRESS: 1514-1550 PACIFIC COAST HWY. & 815 15TH ST. BaCI<&POJNO MaIL VkQ2L Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant mitigation . Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ▪ Project Title: PDP 00-6 Construction of a 72 -room hotel on vacant property. ▪ Project Location: 1530 Pacific Coast Highway • Project Sponsors: Dixit Patel ▪ Lead Agency City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ▪ Contact Person: Ken Robertson, Associate Planner (310) 318-0242 • General Plan Designation: Commercial Corridor. ▪ Description of Project: 7. Zoning:S.P.A. 8 Precise Development Plan, pursuant to the requirement of the S.P.A. 8 zone, to construct a 72 room hotel. The project consists of the construction of a 4 level structure (a basement and three stories) containing 331'6!1 square feet and; 72 guest rooms. The basement level consists of parking (66 spaces) and a small lobby and administrative offices. The upper three floors contain the guest rooms. Other amenities include a small exercise room and a roof deck with a jacu77i and sauna. ▪ Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: Commercial uses are located to the north (an animal hospital/clinic) and south (offices and auto repair) and across P.C.H. to the west. The P.C.H. corridor is a highly traveled urban corridor, located in an urban setting, consisting of primarily strip commercial development, which includes several automotive related uses such as sales, repair, and parts sales. Residential uses are located to the east of the project, consisting of a mix of single family homes and two- family (two -on -a -lot) and some multi -family development. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement) CalTrans for any changes to curb cuts on P.C.H. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.. ❑ . ` Land Use and Planning ® Transportation/Circulation ❑ Public Services ❑ Population and Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities and Service Systems ❑ Geological Problems ❑ Energy and Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics ® Water and Water Quality ❑ Hazards ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, that there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on theenvironmental, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Issues and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Be incompatible with existing land use in vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low income or minority community)? D I -a thru e: The project site is deisgnated Commercial Corridor, and zone S.P.A. 8 commercial. The subject use is a permitted use in the zone, consistent with the General Plan designation, and will be a compatible commercial use with other uses along P. C H The proposed hotel use will also be compatible with adjacent residential uses to the east. Sources: City of Hermosa Beach General Plan, City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections?'. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructures? Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? b Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):; Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Iia -c The project would result in the addition of commercial hotel rooms limited to transient occupancy on a site designated for commercial use, resulting in no impact on population and housing. III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? Erosion, changes in topographyor unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill'? g) Subsidence of the land? Expansive soil? I) Unique geologic or physical features? El ® ❑ ® ❑ O El 0 El ® ❑ El El ® ❑ CI El III -a. There are no known fault lines in the City and the locations of past epicenters do not indicate the presence of fault areas in Hermosa Beach:. III -b During thelife of the project it may be subject to a major earthquake, which may cause damage to the proposed residential dwellings and present a hazard to residents. Existing Building regulations such as the UBC address these seismic hazards, and City review of construction plans for compliance with all applicable regulations is considered adequate to reduce risks to less -than -significant. III --c The site has not beensurveyed for susceptibility to seismically induce hazards such as liquefaction. Geotechnicalstudies required as part of the development review process will address these potential hazards. It is expected the such hazards will be adequately addressed through compliance with the UBC and through implementation of the recommendations set forth in required geotechnical studies. III -d There is no potential for either seats or volcanic activity, or a tsunami at the subject site. III -e The project site is in a developed area which is characterized by low topographic relief Landslides and mudflows are thus not considered to be a hazards in the project area. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant mitigation `. Significant . No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 111-f The project will involve grading, excavation, and filling which could result in erosion or unstable soil conditions. Geotechnical studies required as part of the plan review process would address the potential for erosion or unstable soil conditions and would include measures to reduce or eliminate these hazards. III g Subsidence as well as other potential geotechnical hazards will be evaluated and addressed by geotechnical studies required as part of the plan review process. It is expected that any such hazards can be addressed through routine engineering design employed in the area 111-h The potential for encountering expansive soils at the project site is considered to be low, as sandy soils, such as those characterizing the project area, are not considered expansive. III -i The project site contains no unique geologic or physical features. Sources: City or Hermosa Beach General Plan, Seismic Safety Element U.S. Geological Service Map, Redondo Beach Quadrangle 7.5 Minute Series. (Topography) IV. WATER AND WATER QUALITY.. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Changes in the amount of surface water in any, water body? Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? Storm water system discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage delivery or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): • Potentially Significant Potentially, Unless Less Than Significant mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact. No Impact g) A significantly harmful increase in the flow rate or volume of storm water runoff? h) A significantly harmful increase in erosion of the. project site or surrounding areas? i) Storm water discharges that would significantly impair the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g. riparian corridors, wetland, etc.)? j.) Harm to the biological integrity of drainage systems and water bodies? k) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ❑ ❑ El Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? m) Impacts to groundwater, quality? Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El IV -a The subject site is currently undeveloped, and the proposed project will cover a significant portion of the subjectproperty with impervious surfaces, reducing absorption and increasing storm water runoff. This is potentially significant in terms of the quality of water discharged into the ocean unless mitigated by stormwater detention or, by capturing and treating the first flush of rainfall. IV -b -f There are no impacts anticipated to these items IV -g, I, j. The increase in stormwater runoff may be potentially "harmful "and effect the biology of receiving water as the firstf lush pollutants may end up in the Ocean. This is not considered likely, given the relative marginal increase of total stormwater flow, and the fact that it would largely be flushing water from the roof, and only a proportion of the parking area. See IVa mitigation. IV -h No impact anticipated IVk-n There are no known groundwater supplies which might be effected by this project. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or, cause any chance in climate? Create objectionable odors? 0 0 V -a The proposed will result in the generation of mobile source emissions from the increase in traffic expected In total, the overall impact on air quality is expected to be less than significant based on the number of vehicle trips associated with a use of this type (see traffic study), as compared with the potential mobile source emissions associate with other alternative commercial uses:. V -b As noted above, the air quality impacts will be altered only marginally, and thus any changes to existing exposure to existing sensitive receptors (nearby residential areas) will be less than significant. V -c No potential exists to alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate. V -d The project is not expected to result in the generation of objectionable odors. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?, Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact • VI -a The timing, volume, and pattern of vehicle trips will be altered, which may potentially result in impacts on nearby streets and intersections:. These impacts are quantified in the attached "Traffic Impact Analysis" prepared by Katz, Okitsu, and Associates dated February 21, 2000. which projects that the trip generation association with the subject residential proposal will result in the addition of SO trips in the AM peak hour and 56 in the PM peak hour. Pursuant to the analysis, these added trips result in marginal changes in the levels of service of nearby intersections, which is not considered significant. VI -b Changes in traffic patterns by increasing direct access to P.CR may possibly increase safety hazards, as the project is entered and exited directly onto P.C.H. a high speed highly traveled urban corridor. This potential safety hazard can be mitigated, however, by restricting the driveway to right turn in/right turn out movements with signs and pavement markings. VI -c . Emergency access would be available to the site,- but requires emergency vehicles to do a 3 -point turn to exit backout of the condominiums. This will be evaluated for and required to comply with fire safety and emergency access standards as part of the plan review and approval process. VI -d A total of 66 parking spaces are proposed to comply with City parking requirements.. This is based on 72 "hotel" guest rooms. The lobby; "great room and administrative offices are not included in this calculation. VI -e The project would not result in the creation of hazards or barriers to pedestrians or bicycles. As noted above, the increased traffic flows on existing intersections might marginally increase hazards at these locations, this is considered less than significant. VII The proposed project would be designed to comply with any applicable policies supporting alternative transportation: VI -g The proposed project would not effect rail, waterborne, or air traffic. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? • Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees) ? Locally designed natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant mitigation Significant,. Impact Incorporated. Impact Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? No Impact VII -a -e The project site is currently. vacant, but was previously a residential use, and located in an urban setting, and contains negligible vegetation or habitats for any flora or fauna, and the proposed project would not cause any adverse impacts to biological resources. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful an inefficient manner? Results ,in the loss of availability of a known mineral _. resource :that would be of future value to the and the residents of the state? VIII -a The proposed project would be required -to be constructed to comply with energy conservation standards in the State's Uniform Building Code. VIII -b The size of the project and the nature of the residential use would not involve significant or wasteful use of non-renewable resources. Application of the existing regulations are considered adequate to ensure that non-renewable resources would not be used in an inefficient or wasteful manner. VIII -c There have been no significant amount of mineral deposits identified at this site, or in the City of Hermosa Beach. Should there be potential for encountering sub -surface oil deposits, development of the site with residential uses would not preclude or significantly effect future exploitation of these resources if it was desired Source: City of Hermosa Beach General Plan, Conservation Element HAZARDS. Would the proposal. involve: A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 3'2 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): I Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, n grass, or trees? IX -a Construction of the project may involve the use of diesel oil, and pesticides on landscaping. The use of these substances is typical of most construction projects and the risk of accidental explosion or release is considered negligible. IX -b The size and location of the project would not interfere with City-wide emergency response and evacuation plans.. IX -c The historical use of the site for commercial makes it possible that contamination of the soil and/or groundwater has occurred, and could create a health hazard during construction or to guests during the life of the project. A phase I study evaluated the site for such possible conditions, and found no evidence of recognized environmental conditions. (Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Herron Environmental LLC, dated Februrary 7, 2000.) IX -d Occupancy of the proposed hotel adjacent to P. C H may result in limited exposure of people to airborne particulate and/or fumes, or excessive noise, this is not considered significant... IX -e The area is not characterized by existing flammable brush, grass, or trees, and the project would be constructed in compliance with fire safety standards. X NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X a The proposed hotel is expected only to negligibly affect the pattern and volume of existing noise levels. Construction noise will temporarily impact noise levels, typical for a project of this size and scale which is not considered significant due to the construction traffic route away from residential uses. The completion of the structure will create a noise buffer from residences to the east of the project, and potentially will reduce noise from traffic on P.C.H. X -b ' The occupancy of thehotel may potentially expose people to noise generated from existing adjacent commercial land uses, and traffic on P.CH, this is not considered significant given the building setback and the use of appropriate windows along P.C.H. to buffer the noise. Issues. and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant mitigation ' Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? Police protection? c) Schools? Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Other governmental services? XI -a -e The addition of the hotel will marginally change the need all these services. This is considered to be less than significant, as most of these services are already necessary for the operation of the commercial business in the °areae, and • the marginal changes, should be easily accommodated by existing resources and facilities that area already available in this highly urbanized area. These impacts are also partially mitigated by various City required fees imposed on new construction, and the taxes that will be generated from this project, which contribute towards the continued provision of these services. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, substantial alterations to the following utilities: Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities d) Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? ) Local or regional water supplies? XII a g The addition of the hotelts will marginally change the total demand and the pattern of demand of all these utilities and service systems.' This is considered to be less than significant, as these utilities and service systems are already necessary for the operation of the commercial business in the surrounding area, and the Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact marginal changes, such as need for more phone lines, possible increases in sewer use and solid waste generation should be accommodated by existing utility and service systems that are already available in this highly urbanized area. These impacts are also partially mitigated by various City required fees imposed on new construction, and the taxes that will be generated from this project which contribute towards maintenance and upgrading of these systems-. XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? 111 ® ❑ XIII -a -b The proposed development may result in the obstruction or partial obstruction of scenic views from residential areas located to the east. This is not considered significant as the project will be built in compliance with height limit for the S.P.A. zone (35 feet) and no obstruction will occur above the allowed building height envelope:' XIII --c. The residential development would introduce new sources of light in the area and change the pattern of lighting This is not expected to be significant. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? XIV -a -e there are no known cultural resources associate with this project site. XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal::. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially , Unless Significant mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? Affect existing recreational opportunities? Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XV -a The added occupants. would marginally increase demand for parks and other recreational facilities because of the transient nature of the occupants. Based on the size of the project and the number of dwelling units this impact is considered to be less than significant, and is partially mitigated by the incorporation of amenities within the project, and by the required park fees that will be imposed on the development which contribute to maintenance, upkeep, and expansion of the City's park facilities. XV -b The proposed project will not impact any existing recreational opportunities. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of' probable future projects) Does the project have environmental effects which will causesubstantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES. 3 ,- Issues and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Supporting Information Sources: (The following are sources used and referred to in the initial study, and are incorporated herein by reference. All are available for review in the Community Development Department, Planning Division of the City of Hermosa Beach) 1. General Plan for the City of Hermosa Beach (Land Use Element revised 1994) 2 City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code 3 Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Katz, Okitsu and Associates, dated 2/21/00 4. Preliminary project plans submitted by the applicant 5. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Herron Environmental LLC, dated 2/7/2000 XVIII.: MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Right turn only for entrance and exiting (traffic safety) 2. Oil Separator or other method of detaining, capturing, or treating the first flush of storm water runoff that enters the storm drain (water quality) c: cklt1530 3/9/00 1 Traffic Study for the Proposed Hampton Inn and Suites City of Hermosa Beach, California February 21, 2000 3g 3 2000 uom. JEV. DEPT. Prepared For: Dixit Patel 18743 Pioneer Boulevard, Suite 204 Artesia, California 90701 Prepared by: KA Katz, Okitsu & Associates 1055 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 300 Monterey Park, California `. Phone: (323) 260-4703 FAX: (323) 260-4705 Job Number JA0135 7 7 • Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION 1 PROJECT LOCATION 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTIOPI 1 PROJECT STUDY METHODOLOGY 1 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS (YEAR 2000) 5 EXISTING LAND USES 5 EXISTING TRAFFIC CIRCULATION NETWORK 5 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 7 Standards Peak Hour Intersection Level -of -Service 7 7 3. FUTURE "NO BUILD CONDITIONS (YEAR 2002) 10 AMBIENT GROWTH 10 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING + AMBIENT GROWTH CONDITIONS 10 OTHER RELATED PROJECTS 12 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING + AMBIENT GROWTH CONDITIONS + RELATED PROJECTS 12 4. PROJECT TRIPS 16 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 16 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION 16 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION 16 5. WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2002) 18 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL -OF -SERVICE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT GUIDELINES ' 18 6. MITIGATION AND PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS 18 7. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN CONFORMANCE List of Figures 22 23 FIGURE 1- PROJECT LOCATION 2 FIGURE 2 PROJECT SITE PLAN 3 FIGURE 3.- LANE CONFIGURATIONS/INTERSECTION CONTROL 6 FIGURE 4 - EXISTING (YEAR 2000) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 8 FIGURE 5 - NO BUILD (EXISTING + AMBIENT TRAFFIC -YEAR 2002) PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 11 FIGURE 6- RELATED PROJECT TRIPS 13 FIGURE 7 — NO BUILD (WITH RELATED PROJECTS TRAFFIC -YEAR 2002) PEAK 'HOUR VOLUMES 14 FIGURE 8 - PROJECT TRIPS 17 FIGURE 9 - WITH PROJECT (YEAR 2002) PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 21 Katz, Okitsu & Associates Hampton Inn and Suites, Hermosa Beach Traffic Analysis 3R LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE EXISTING (YEAR 2000) CONDITIONS TABLE 2 AVERAGE TRAFFIC GROWTH FACTORS 10 TABLES SUMMARY OF PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE NO BUILD (EXISTING + AMBIENT GROWTH -YEAR 2002) CONDITIONS TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE NO BUILD (EXISTING + AMBIENT GROWTH + RELATED PROJECTS -YEAR 2002) CONDITIONS 15 TABLE 5 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION 16 TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE WITH PROJECT (YEAR 2002) CONDITIONS 18 TABLE 7 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT THRESHOLDS AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 19 TABLE 8 SUMMARY OF PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE FOR THE VARIOUS STUDY SCENARIOS 19 12 Appendices Appendix A - Analysis Methodologies Appendix_B - Existing Traffic Counts Appendix C - Intersection Level -of -Service Worksheets Existing (Year 2000) Conditions Appendix D - Intersection Level -of -Service Worksheets Existing + Ambient Growth (Year 2002) Conditions Appendix E --Intersection Level -of -Service Worksheets Existing + Ambient Growth + Related Projects (Year 2002) Appendix F - Intersection Level -of -Service Worksheets Existing + Ambient Growth + Related Projects + Project Conditions (Year 2002) Katz, Okitsu & Associates Hampton Inn and Suites, Hermosa Beach Traffic fic Analysis 1. Introduction This report documents the assumptions, methodologies and findings of the traffic study for the proposed Hampton Inn and Suites, conducted by Katz, Okitsu & Associates on behalf of Dixit Patel. Project Location. The project site is located on the east side of Pacific Coast Highway between 15th Street and 16`h Street in the City of Hermosa Beach, Los Angeles County (Figure 1 — Project Location).: Project Description The project, a Hampton Inn and Suites Hotel, will consist of a combination of 73 hotel rooms and suites. A project site plan is provided as Figure 2. Sixty-six parking spaces will be provided with access being provided by a single driveway on Pacific Coast Highway. Project Study Methodology This report has been prepared in conformance with the methodologies discussed below. Section 7 of this report summarizes the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) traffic study requirements and conformity guidelines. In the sections that follow, the impacts of project development on study area roadways and intersections are discussed. Four traffic analysis scenarios were evaluated for this project, as shown below: • Existing Conditions (Year 2000) • Existing Conditions + Ambient Traffic (Year 2002) Traffic Growth • Existing Conditions + Ambient Traffic (Year 2002) + Related Projects Traffic • Existing Conditions + Ambient Traffic (Year 2002) + Related Projects Traffic with the proposed Hampton Inn and Suites The TRAFFIX software program was used to perform the analysis for the surface street network for the above conditions. The signalized intersection analyses are based upon intersection capacity utilization (ICU) methodology. The unsignalized intersection analyses are based on the methodologies contained in the 4997 Highway, Capacity Manual. The study intersections were chosen in cooperation with City staff and are listed below: L Pacific Coast Highway/Pier Avenue/14`h Street 2. Pacific Coast Highway/15`h Street 3. Pacific Coast Highway/16`h Place 4- Pacific Coast Highway/21' Street 5. Pacific Coast Highway/Artesia Boulevard/Gould Avenue (CMP Intersection) Katz, Okitsu & Associates Hampton Inn. and Suites, Hermosa Beach Traffic Analysis I Ay CA ,.. Gil N`QRIISAV urav )00 cn o 1000 _yOrJR11�fS�r ► w ow/ too AV Av ' VOORHEES :" . YGFELL.05t :700 3otti I Ir'►x' � RUHLAN II pv Q 4�a.s �+ s g sr �, o NELSON "' twt rriw1311EY St 1 6 0 0 . gm, a� •co YS9�-‘valkwil araszismorgir a ru:Ltc.1Vt7-D Ut HUNTIN F.LD = LN PULLMAN LN 101 o SPRE H05NE U4 h� Q Copyright .1998 Thomas Brothers Maps Last Revised: February 4, 2000 E4.41§' Katz, Okitsu & Associates Traffic Engineers ,md Trainp,•rmnci PLuu:crs Figure 1 Project Location Hampton Suites and but Hermosa Beach, California Traffic Impact Analysis LVL • I • x tt.�..�.._ h • • • • J I ■ ,'N I UI E.41111FA' Katz, Okitsu & Associates Traffic Engineers and Transportation Planners Figure 2 Project Site Plan ti. a a a a xI Hampton Suites and Inn Hermosa Beach, California Traffic Impact Analysis 9-3 Introduction The intersections were analyzed for the Weekday AM and PM peak hours The peak hours were selected to coincide with the periods most likely to show project impacts to adjacent street traffic. The appendices of this report contain background materials for this analysis. These materials include manual traffic counts, Level -of -Service methodologies, and traffic analysis worksheets. i J Katz, 'Okitsu & Associates Hampton Inn and Suites, Hermosa Beach Traffic.Analysis 1 • Existing Conditions (Year 2000) This section documents the existing conditions in the study area, shown previously in Figure 1. The study area was developed based ondiscussions with the City of Hermosa Beach. Figure 3 depicts the study intersection lane configurations and intersection control. Lane configurations vary by time of day as parking is prohibited in the number -three lane in the peak direction during peak hours on Pacific Coast Highway. Parking is prohibited in the number three northbound (curb) lane on Pacific Coast Highway from 6AM to 9AM. Parking is prohibited in the number three southbound (curb) lane on Pacific Coast Highway from 3PM to 7PM. Existing Land Uses There are commercial uses located along Pacific Coast Highway in Hermosa Beach. The land behind the commercial land uses fronting Pacific Coast Highway is high density residential. Existing Traffic Circulation Network Major vehicular access to the project site will be provided by Pacific Coast. Highway (north -south). Katz, Okitsu & Associates Hampton Inn and Suites, Hermosa Beach Traffic Analysis • • Artesia Boulevard Bund NB Left -Turns Prohibited 3PM to 7PM Parking Prohibited NB PCH 6:30AM to 9AM. Parking Prohibited SB PCH 3PMto7PM LEGEND Not To Scale s. Stop Sign Signalized Intersection Last Revised: February 18, 2000 Ei41Ir K, Ok,itsu & so Traatz((ic Engineers and TransyoAsrrarion Ptnrurersciates Figure 3 Roadway Lane Configurations Hampton Inn and Suites Hermosa Beach, California Traffic Impact Analysis Existing Conditions (Year 2000) Analysis of Existing Conditions The analysis of peak hour intersection Level -of -Service. (LOS) is the primary indicator of circulation system performance. For the analysis of the selected study area intersections, the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) procedure was used. Appendix A contains a discussion of the ICU methodology and corresponding Level -of -Service definitions. Level -of -Service for peak hour intersections ranges from LOS A (optimal conditions, little congestion) to LOS F (stop and go traffic, very heavy congestion). For the intersections that are controlled by minor -street stop signs, the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) procedures were used. Appendix A summarizes the HCM level -of -service criteria for unsignalized intersections. Peak Hour Intersection Level -of -Service' Study Hours of Analysis The analysis focuses on the weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions at study area intersections. Traffic counts were performed for the following periods at study intersections: Weekday AM Period - 7AM to 9AM Weekday PM Period - 4PM to 6PM Appendix B contains summaries of the peak hour traffic counts collected and used in the Existing Conditions analysis. Figure 4 shows existing peak hour volumes. Table 1 shows the results of this analysis. Katz, Okitsu &: Associates Hampton Inn and Suites, Hermosa Beach Traffic Analysis Artesia Boulevard LEGEND N Not To Scale Katz, Okitsu & Associates Traffic Engineers and Transportation Planners Figure 4 Existing (2000) AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes Hampton Inn and Suites Hermosa Beach, California Traffic Impact Analysis 1 1 1 1 1 J j 1 J Notes: Existing Conditions (Year 2000) Table 1 Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Performance Existing (Year 2000) Conditions Intersections Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Pacific Coast Highway/Pier Avenue/14`' Street (a) 0.692 B 0.871 D Pacific Coast Highway/15`x' Street (b) 26.2 D 11.8 B Pacific Coast Highway/16`' Street (b) 65.8 F 20.2 C Pacific Coast Highway/21St Street (a) 0.837 D 0.724 C Pacific Coast Hw/Artesia Blvd/Gould Avenue (a) 1.121 F 1.059 F (a) (b) Signalized Intersection. LOS and Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratio shown Unsignalized Intersection. Average delay in seconds per vehicle for the movement with highest delay and LOS specified. Reported LOS based upon average delay, as per HCM. V/C not applicable at unsignalized intersections. There is significant northbound commuter traffic on Pacific Coast Highway during the AM Peak period and significant southbound commuter traffic, on. Pacific Coast Highway during the PM peak period. Commuters living in Redondo Beach, Torrance and Palos Verdes south of the project are use Pacific Coast Highway to commute to and from employment sites located in Manhattan Beach and El Segundo to the north. Asis shown in Table 1, the unsignalized intersections of Pacific Coast. Highway/15`h and 16`h Streets show LOS D and F respectively during the AM peak hour. This level -of -service applies to left -turning traffic from the minor streets and represents the worstcase movement for these intersections. It should be . noted that the Ieft-turn • volumes are very low at these two intersections during these periods. The Pacific Coast Highway/Artesia Boulevard/Gould Avenue intersection operates at LOS F during the AM and PM peak periods, as shown in Table 1. Parking is prohibited during peak hours and the signal operates with a long signal cycle length. Similar conditions can be observed at major signalized intersections to the north through Manhattan Beach, especially during the. PM peak period. All other intersections operate at LOS D or better. Appendix C shows the worksheets used to perform this analysis. Katz, Okitsu & Associates Hampton Inn and Suites, Hermosa Beach Traffic Analysis Future "No Build" Conditions (Year 2002) This section documents the future traffic conditions in the project study area without the project. Future scenarios discussed in this section include analysis of conditions with background "ambient" traffic growth only and with "ambient growth and forecast traffic from identified area related projects. The Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) has defined a series of average traffic growth factors for the County, including the project area. These factors are based on regional modeling efforts and are intended to estimate the general effect of continuing development and other population/ economic factors that would affect traffic in the region. The growth factors are developed for each sub -region in the County. Using traffic volumes for Year;. 1992 as a base, the CMP provides growth factors for use in estimating future traffic through Year 2010. The CMP growth factors indicate an annual growth rate of 0.005 % in this area. Table 2 shows the growth rate 'calculation for the South Bay Area of Los Angeles County. J Table 2 Average Traffic Growth Factors Area 1992 1995 2000 2005 2010 Central 1.00 1.027 1.058 1.080 1.097 Notes: 1.097 - 1<000 = 0.097 (proportion of growth between Year 1992 and Year 2010) 0.097/18 = 0.005 (proportion of growth per year for 18 years = Annual Average Growth Factor) Recently counted volumes were increased by 1% to reflect ambient traffic growth between the Year 2000 and 2002. Analysis Of Existing + Ambient Growth Conditions. To simulate the Existing + Ambient Growth Conditions, the peak hour volumes shown in Figure 4 were increased by a factor. of 1.01 to simulate Year 2002 conditions. This growth rate is equal to 0.5% for two years based on the calculations shown above. Figure 5 summarizes the resulting peak hour volumes and Table 3 shows the results of this analysis: As is shown in Table 3, the unsignalized intersections of Pacific Coast Highway/15`h and le Streets would operate at. LOS D and F respectively during the AM peak hour with the addition of ambient growth related traffic. •This level -of -service applies to left -turning traffic from the minor streets and represents the worst case movement ' for these intersections. The signalized intersection of Pacific Coast Highway/Artesia Boulevard/Gould Avenue intersection would operates at LOS F during the AM and PM peak periods with the addition of ambient growth related traffic. All other intersections operate at LOS D or better. _ Katz, Okitsu & Associates Hampton Inn and Suites, Hermosa Beach Traffic Analysis • • Artesia Boulevard() ,,, Last Revised: February 4, 2000 LEGEND 61/22 AMIPM Peak Hour Volumes Figure 5 No Build (Existing + Ambient Traffic Katz, Okitsu &Associates Year 2002) AM and PM AI Traffic Engineers and Transportation hates Peak Hour Volumes: Hampton Inn and Suites Hermosa Beach, California Traffic Impact Analysis Table 3 Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Performance No Build (Existing + Ambient Growth -Year 2002). Conditions Intersections Weekday AM Weekday PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Pacific Coast Highway/Pier Avenue/14th Street (a) 0.698 B 0.879 D Pacific Coast Highway/15`'' Street (b) 26.7 D 11.9 B Pacific Coast. Highway/16`h Street (b) 69.1 F 20.6 B Pacific Coast Highway/21St Street (a) 0.844 D 0.730 C Pacific Coast Hwy/Artesia Blvd/Gould Avenue (a) 1.132 F 1.067 F a) Signalized Intersection. LOS and Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratio shown b) Unsignalized Intersection. Average delay in seconds per vehicle for the movement with highest delay and LOS specified. Reported LOS based upon average delay, as per HCM. V/C not applicable at unsignalized intersections. Appendix D contains the worksheets used for this analysis. Other Related Projects The City of Hermosa Beach identified three related projects: 1. Holiday Inn Express just south of 2nd Street on Pacific Coast Highway 2. Expansion of Learned Lumber south of 6th Street on Pacific Coast Highway 3. Potential use of a vacant property across from the proposed project site for Health Club. Katz, Okitsu & Associates prepared the traffic study for the Holiday Inn project and used the trip generation and distribution assumptions from that study on the study intersections, for this project. The Learned Lumber facility project is primarily an expansion of site storage and is not expected to have any peak hour traffic impacts. Since the City had not received finalized plans for the proposed health club, we have assumed for study purposes that a 5,000 square foot facility will be developed across the street from the proposed hotel project. The trip generation for the health club is based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 6'h Edition trip generation rates. Using the ITE rates, a health club would generate approximately 15 AM peak hour trips (8 IN and 7 OUT) and 22 PM peak hour trips (13 IN and 9 OUT). The trip generation for the related projects is shown on Figure 6. The forecast traffic volume with the addition of ambient traffic growth and related cumulative project trips is shown on Figure 7. Analysis of Existing + Ambient Growth Conditions + Related Projects The TRAFFIX model was run using traffic volumes shown on Figure 7. The results are shown below in Table 4. Katz, Okitsu & Associates. Hampton Inn and Suites, Hermosa Beach Traffic Analysis Artesia Boulevard 91. aed LEGEND 61/22 AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Last Revised: February 48, 2000 EAlillir Katz, Okitsu & Associates Tra((rc Enginays oral Transportation Planners Figure 6 Related. Project Trips AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes Hampton Inn and Suites Hermosa Beach, California Traffic Impact Analysis S3 Artesia Boulevard u, Last Revised: February 4, 2000 Figure 7 No Build (with Related Projects - �Katz, Okitsu & Associates Year AM and PM Traffic Engineers and Transportation Planners Peak2002) Hour Volumes Hampton Inn and Suites Hermosa Beach, California Traffic Impact Analysis J 1 J • Future "No Build" Conditions (Year 2002) Table 4 Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Performance No Build (Existing + Ambient Growth + Related Projects -Year 2002) Conditions Notes: Intersections Weekday AM Weekday PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Pacific Coast Highway/Pier Avenue/14`h Street (a) 0.703 C 0.883 D Pacific Coast Highway/15`x' Street (b) 27.1 D 12.1 B Pacific Coast Highway/16`h Street (b) 73.0 F 21.4 C Pacific Coast Highway/215` Street (a) 0.849 D 0.734 C Pacific Coast. Hwy/Artesia Blvd/Gould Avenue (a) 1.135 F 1:073 F a) b) Signalized Intersection. LOS and Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratio shown Unsignalized Intersection. Average delay in seconds per vehicle for the movement with highest delay and LOS specified. Reported LOS based upon average delay, as per HCM. V/C not applicable at unsignalized intersections. As is shown in Table 4, the unsignalized intersections of Pacific Coast Highway/15`h and 16`h Streets show LOS D and F respectively during the AM peak hour. This level -of -service applies to left -turning traffic from the minor streets and represents the worst case movement for these intersections. The signalized intersection Pacific Coast Highway/Artesia Boulevard/Gould Avenue intersection operates at LOS F during the AM andPM peak periods, as shown in Table 4. All other intersections operate at LOS D or better. Appendix E contains the worksheets used forthis analysis. Hampton Inn and Suites, Hermosa Beach Traffic Analysis J J LEGEND 61/22 - N Not To Scale AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Last Revised: February 18, 2000 Katz, Okitsu & Associates Traffic Engineers and Transportation Planners Figure 8 Project Trips AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes Hampton Suites and Inn Hermosa Beach, California Traffic Impact Analysis 56 With Project Conditions (Year 2002) The Existing + Project traffic. volumes were derived by adding the project traffic to the existing condition traffic volumes plus ambient traffic growth plus related project trips. Figure 9 illustrates the resulting AM and PM peak hour volumes. Peak Hour Intersection Level -of -Service As discussed previously, peak hour intersection Level -of -Service is the primary indicator of circulation system performance. ' For the analysis of the Existing + Ambient Growth + Related Project + Project Conditions, the County of Los Angeles volume -to -capacity ratio standard of 0.90 or less was used to determine which of the study intersections would be impacted by project traffic. Table 6 summarizes the results of this analysis. Notes: ' a) Signalized Intersection. LOS and Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratio shown- b) hownb) Unsignalized Intersection. Average delay in seconds per vehicle for the movement with highest delay and LOS specified. Reported LOS based upon average delay, as per HCM. V/C not applicable at unsignalized intersections. Table 6 Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Performance With Project (Year 2002) Conditions Intersections Weekday AM Weekday PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Pacific Coast Highway/Pier Avenue/14`' Street (a) 0.706 C 0.886 D Pacific Coast Highway/15`' Street (b) 27.3 D 12.1 B Pacific Coast Highway/16" Street (b) 76.3 F 21.6 C Pacific Coast Highway/21't Street (a) 0.853 D 0.737 C Pacific Coast Hwy/Artesia Blvd/Gould Avenue (a) 1.139 F 1.077 F The intersection of the project driveway on Pacific Coast Highway was also analyzed as an unsignalized for the AM and PM peak hours. During the AM peak, left -turns exiting the driveway would experience significant delay. During the PM peak, southbound left -turn movements would be difficult. Appendix F contains the worksheets used for this analysis. Los Angeles County Significant Impact Guidelines The City of Hermosa Beach recognizes the County of Los Angeles Traffic Impact Guidelines. The = County of Los Angeles Traffic/Access Guidelines for signalized intersections are provided in Table 7 below. The County does not have specific impact guidelines for unsignalized intersections. Katz, Okitsu & Associates Hampton Inn and Suites, Hermosa Beach Traffic Analysis 51 With Project Conditions Table 7 Significant Impact Thresholds at Signalized Intersections Pre -Project Project V/C Increase LOS V/C " C 0.71-0.80 0.04 or more D 0.81-0.90 0.02 or more E/F 0.91 or more 0.01 or more Table 8 below displays a comparison of the study scenarios. Traffic impacts created by the project can be calculated by comparing the column designated "No Build (Ambient + Related Projects)" to the column designated "With Project". Table 8 Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Performance For the Various Study Scenarios UN Notes: a) Signalized Intersection. LOS and Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratio shown b) Unsignalized Intersection. Average delay in seconds per vehicle for the movement with highest delay and LOS specified. Reported LOS based upon average delay, as per HCM..V/C not applicable at unsignalized intersections. As is shown in Table 8, the unsignalized intersections of Pacific Coast Highway/15`h and 16th Streets show LOS. D and F respectively during the AM peak hour. This level -of -service applies to left -turning traffic from the minor streets and represents the worst case movement for these intersections. The signalized intersection Pacific Coast Highway/Artesia Boulevard/Gould Avenue intersection operates at LOS F during the AM and PM peak periods. All other intersections operate at LOS D or better. Katz, .Okitsu & Associates, Hampton Inn and Suites, Hermosa Beach Traffic Analysis Existing Condition No Build (Ambient Growth Only) No Build (Ambient + Related Projects) With Project Conditions Signif icant1 Intersection AM Peak Hour Pacific Coast Hwy/Pier Ave/14`h St. (a) 0.692 B 0.703 C 0.703 C ' 0.706 C zzzz.z 0 0 0 0 0 Pacific Coast Highway/15`h Street (b) 26.2 D 27.1 D 27.1 D 27.3 D Pacific Coast Highway/16`h Street (b) 65.8 F 73.0 F 73,0 F 76.3 F Pacific,;Coast Highway/21st Street (a) 0.837 D 0.849 D 0.849 D 0.853 D Pacific Coast Hwy/Artesia Blvd/Gould Ave. (b) 1.121 F 1.135 F 1.135 F 1.139 F Intersection PM Peak Hour Pacific Coast Hwy/Pier Ave/14`h St. (a) 0.871 D 0.883 D 0.883 D - 0.886 D ,. No Pacific Coast Highway/15th Street (b) 11.8 B 12.1 B 12.18 12.1 B No Pacific Coast Highway/16`'' Street(b) 20.2 C 21.4 C 21.4 C 21.6 C No Pacific Coast Highway/21" Street (a) 0.724 C 0.734 C 0.734 C 0.737 C No Pacific Coast Hwy/Artesia Blvd/Gould Ave. (a) 1.059 F 1.073 F 1.073 F 1.077 F No Notes: a) Signalized Intersection. LOS and Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratio shown b) Unsignalized Intersection. Average delay in seconds per vehicle for the movement with highest delay and LOS specified. Reported LOS based upon average delay, as per HCM..V/C not applicable at unsignalized intersections. As is shown in Table 8, the unsignalized intersections of Pacific Coast Highway/15`h and 16th Streets show LOS. D and F respectively during the AM peak hour. This level -of -service applies to left -turning traffic from the minor streets and represents the worst case movement for these intersections. The signalized intersection Pacific Coast Highway/Artesia Boulevard/Gould Avenue intersection operates at LOS F during the AM and PM peak periods. All other intersections operate at LOS D or better. Katz, .Okitsu & Associates, Hampton Inn and Suites, Hermosa Beach Traffic Analysis J Significant Impacts With Project Conditions (Year 2002) The project does not significantly impact any of the intersections studied. However local circulation issues may arise with the addition of project generated traffic. Measures to mitigate potential local circulation impacts are provided in Section 6. J Katz, Okitsu & Associates ' Hampton Inn and Suites, Hermosa Beach Traffic Analysis Artesia Boulevard LEGEND N Not To Scale 61/22 AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Last Revised: February 19, 2000 Figure 9 With Project (Year 2002) MKatz, Okitsu & Associates AM and PM Traffic Engineers a,tdTransportation Pla,,,,ers Peak Flour Volumes Hampton Inn and Suites Hermosa Beach, California Traffic Impact Analysis Mitigationand Project Recommendations This section provides information regarding the appropriate measures that may be necessary to achieve acceptable traffic operations in the study area with the development of the Hampton Inn and Suites Project. Impacted Intersections The project incrementally degrades AM and PM peak hour levels -of -service. The intersection currently operates at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hour. The intersection is already improved as much as possible within the right-of-way constraints at the location. No additional improvements can be identified. Local Circulation Left -turn movements into and out of the facility will be difficult during peak periods. Left -turn movements are also currently difficult to and from Pacific Coast Highway and 15th and 16th Streets. Since the volumes_generated by the proposed Hampton Inn and Suites are relatively low, no specific turning restrictions are initially recommended. As part of this study effort, City of Hermosa Beach staff asked that Katz, Okitsu & Associates investigate the need for and feasibility of the installation of a northbound deceleration/acceleration lane at the project site. The length of the project frontage and the block spacing between 15th Street and 16`h Street (approximately 300 feet) does not make this a feasible option. Traffic operation at the project driveway will be similar to operations of driveways at other commercial businesses along Pacific Coast Highway within the study area. Katz, Okitsu & Associates Hampton Inn and Suites, Hermosa Beach Traffic Analysis Congestion Management Plan Conformance This section briefly demonstrates the ways in which this traffic study was prepared to be in conformance ' with the procedures mandated by the County of Los Angeles Congestion Management Program (CMP) The CMP requires that traffic studies be prepared to document impacts to all CMP monitoring intersections where the proposed project will add 50 or more peak hour trips:. The nearest CMP intersection if the Pacific Coast Highway/Artesia Boulevard/Gould Avenue intersection located to the north. This project does NOT add -50 -peak hour trips and does not significantly impact the intersection. ' Therefore no further analysis is required . under the CMP guidelines. Katz, Okitsu &Associates Hampton Inn and Suites, Hermosa Beach Traffic Analysis bZ 1530 P.C.H. WITHIN AREA A Elev. Pt. A 104.89 Elev. Pt. B 107.99 Length A -B 42 Length A -AB' 7.5 Elev. AB`. 105.443571 Elev. Pt. C. 105.1 Elev. Pt. D 110 Length C -D 42 Length C -CD' 7.5 EIevCD:• 105.975 Length AB' -CD' 67 Length AB'-CP1; 22.5 Elev. CP1: 105.622036 Height Limit 35 Max. Hgt. @ CP1: 140.622036 AREA B Elev. Pt. A . 96.88 = Elev. Pt. A 96.88 Elev. Pt. B .110 Elev. Pt. B 110 Length A -B 126 Length A -B 126 Length A -AB' 83 Length A -AB' 78 Elev. AB`. 105.52254 Elev. AB': 105.001905 Elev. Pt. C 98 Elev. Pt. C 98 Elev. Pt. D 112.7 Elev. Pt. D 112.7 Length C -D 126 Length C -D 126 Length C -CD' 83 Length C -CD' 78 EIevCD': 107.683333 EIevCD': 107.1 Length AB' -CD' 68 . Length AB' -CD' 68 Length AB'-CP1 8.5 Length AB'-CP1 20 Elev. CP1: 105.792639 Elev. CP1: 105.618992 Height Limit 35 Height Limit 35 Max. Hgt. @ CP1: 140.792639 Max. Hgt. @ CP2: 140.61899 AREA C Elev. Pt. A 98 Elev. Pt. A .98 Elev. Pt. 8 116.72 Elev. Pt. B 116.72 Length A -B 145 Length A -B 145 Length A -AB' 46 Length A -AB' : 12 Elev. AB': . 103.938759 Elev. AB': 99.5492414 Elev. Pt. C 101.98 Elev. Pt. C 101.98 Elev. Pt. D 124.7 Elev. Pt. D 124.7 Length C -D 145 Length C -D 145 Length C -CD' 46 Length C -CD' 12 EIevCD': 109.187724 EIevCD': 103.860276 Length AB' -CD' 128 Length AB' -CD' 128 Length AB'-CP1 53 Length AB'-CP1 69 Elev. CP1:. 106.112158 Elev. CP1: 101.873158 Height Limit 35 Height Limit , 35 Max. Hgt. @ CP1: 141.112158 Max. Hgt. @ CP2: 136.87316 Elev. Pt. A 98 Elev. Pt. B :116.72 Length'A-B 145 Length A -AB' . . 77.5 Elev. AB': 108.005517 Elev. Pt. C 101.98 Elev. Pt. D 124.7 Length C -D - 145 Length C -CD' 77.5 EIevCD': 114.123448 Length AB -CD': 128 Length AB'-CP1 :. 15 Elev. CP1: 108.722462 Height Limit 35 Max. Hgt. @ CP3: 143.722462 View Study (page 1) From eye level at 838 15 ' Place from eye level at first story 833 15 Place Wall behind Coast pet clinic reference on right Corner Point at northeast corner of property Section 17.38.400 Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development plan. A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to set forth the procedures and guidelines for review of precise development plans, which are required when a proposed project exceeds any one of the first tier standards. B. Guidelines for Planning Commission Review. 1. General Guidelines. To allow projects which exceed any of the first tier standards, the overall building and project design should be of a superior quality; be compatible with surrounding properties, and be designed in scale with the community. The planning commission shall consider the following in making this determination: a. The building should be designed with interesting architectural features and materials to. enhance the overall project. A three-dimensional quality should be emphasized by the use of stepping architectural features to avoid massive flat building faces. Special attention should be given to the appearance of the building from the street. b. Landscaping should be utilized throughout the site in a manner which enhances the building and the site, and to mitigate the visual impacts of any flat and/or massive parts of the building. c. The project should be compatible with neighboring projects with respect to height, scale, bulk, proportion. This is not a prescription for similar architectural styles, although in some cases it may be desirable, nor a prescription to match existing buildings, as many existing buildings do not stand scrutiny under these guidelines. d. Architectural renderings and perspectives must be submitted to show the three- dimensional quality of the proposed building(s). 2. Height. To allow projects to exceed the first tier height limits, the building design should incorporate features to minimize and breakup the visual impact and view impacts of the higher structures. on neighboring residential areas and on the streetscape: The planning commission shall consider the following guidelines in making this determination: a. Limit Lot Coverage of Uppermost Level. The area of the portion of the structure which exceeds the first tier height limit should not cover a major portion of the lot area, and said over -height area should be compensated by a proportional area of the building which is at or less thanthe height limit. b. - Flat roofs and flat tall vertical walls should be avoided. Stepped, variable or sloping roofs should be encouraged. The appearance of flat roofs and massive flat vertical walls should be avoided through the use of stepping or tiered architectural features. c. Greater Setbacks for Upper Levels. Progressing from the first floor to the uppermost story of the building setbacks from the rear property line should increase and exceed minimum requirements; and the upper stories shall have tiered setbacks from the lower levels as viewed from the front. 3. Bulk. To allow projects which exceed the maximum floor area/lot area ratio (F.A.R.) the building design should incorporate features to minimize the appearance of bulk, and to compensate for the bulk of a building with attractive architectural features which enhance the building and which reduce the visual impact of large areas of flat vertical walls. The planning commission shall consider the following guidelines in making this determination: a. Avoid Box -Like Structures. Significant and attractive architectural features should be used to break up the bulky appearance of box -like structures. b. Building Step -Backs. Step-ins and step -outs should be used on the front of the building to break up the bulky appearance. This could accompany varying widths of the landscape planter area in the front of the building. c. Variable Heights. The roofline of the building should be designed with variable heights, and roof patterns or materials, to avoid the appearance of a flat building. 4. Landscaping. The objective of the landscaping requirement is to enhance the overall project including the streetscape, to complement the building design, to break up the impact of vast expanses of pavement, to buffer sound and visual impacts on neighboring residential areas, to provide shade for parking areas and to deflect direct sunlight into the interior of buildings. To allow less than the minimum five percent coverage, a landscaping plan mustcompensate for the loss of coverage by providing a superior design through the use of types, quantity and location of plant materials to achieve the objectives described above. C. General Criteria. In considering the precise development plan for any development, the following criteria for granting or conditionally granting said permit shall be considered: 1. Distance from existing residential uses in relation to negative effects; 2. Impact on ocean views from residential areas; 3. The amount of existing or proposed off-street parking in relation to actual need; 4. The combination of uses proposed, as they relate to compatibility; 5. The relationship of the estimated generated traffic volume and the capacity and safety of streets serving the area; 6. The proposed exterior signs and decor, and the compatibility thereof with existing establishments in the area; 7. Building and driveway orientation in relation to sensitive uses, e.g., residences and schools;. 8. Noise, odor, dust and/or vibration that may be generated by the proposed use; 9. Impact of the proposed use to the city's infrastructure, and/or services; 10. Adequacy of mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts in quantitative 11. Other considerations that, in the judgment of the planning commission, are necessary to assure compatibility with the surrounding uses, and the city as a whole. D. Criteria for Denial. 1. The proposed development would substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity or interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in such area, because of excessive dissimilarity or inappropriateness of design in relation to the surrounding vicinity, and there are no known conditions of approval which can be imposed that could resolve such problems. 2. The proposed development would have significantenvironmental adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated, and where the finding of overriding considerations cannot be made. E. Appeal. The decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council by filing a written appeal within ten days of the planning commission's decision. F. Term. An approved plan shall be valid for a one-year period and, should development fail to commence within such time limitation and no extension is granted, shall become null and void. G. Compliance. No person shall violate or fail to comply with any approved plan or any condition or provision thereof, nor shall a building permit be: issued for any building or structure which would violate or fail to comply with an approved plan: H. General Procedures and Submittal Requirements. 1. Application for precise development plan review shall be filed and approval given prior terms; to the issuance of building permits. 2. Applications shall include detailed and fully dimensioned site plans, building plans, floor plans, architectural drawings and elevations including perspective drawings to exhibit the required three- dimensional features, landscape plans and/or any other data found to be reasonably required. 3. Applications shall be submitted to the city planning department and shall be in compliance with the department's specific requirements. 4. Fees for submittals shall be set by policy of the city council. (Prior code Appx. A, § 9.68- 7) July 5, 2000 Hermosa Beach City Council City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 RECEIVED JUL O'6 2000 GOM. DEV. DEPT Re: Appeal of Planning Commission's May 16, 2000 Decision Re 72 Room Hotel at 1514-1550 PCH and 815 15th Street Dear City Council: We hereby submit this document supporting our appeal, filed June 1, 2000, of the May 16, 2000 decision of the Planning Commission approving a precise development plan for a 72 - room hotel at 1514-1550 Pacific Coast Highway and 815 15th Street ("The Project"). The material provided herein incorporates by reference the written and oral comments provided before and at the April 18, 2000 and May 16, 2000 Planning Commission hearings concerning this matter. Videotapes of these two hearings are submitted herewith. This appeal is also supported by the declaration of an expert in the field, Mr. Pete Tucker, who is a former Hermosa Beach Planning Commissioner. Most of the grounds for this appeal stem from the Planning Commission's refusal to enforce the following provision of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code section 17.38.390.B which specifies: "Developments must be in compliance with second tier standards at all times. Many of the second tier standards set forth in section 17.38 were ignored by the Planning Commission. Indeed, at the May 18, 2000 commissioner Hoffinan stated he believed the commission had great discretion concerning second tier projects, implying the Planning Commission could ignore the requirements of the Municipal Code. The Planning Commission had no right to ignore the specific requirements of the Municipal Code, and in so doing, the commission abused its discretion in approving The Project. As residents of Hermosa Beach, we were surprised by Commissioners' statements on several issues. The Commission does not seem to understand that the city's traffic and parking problems are directly related to continued high density building decisions. Approving inappropriate projects will exacerbate traffic and parking problems on both the PCH corridor, and residential side streets. Although we agree in principle that the developers are allowed to build on their land, the law is clear that the developers have no rights, to build on their land unless they meet existing city and state building codes. The Commission seems oblivious to the fact that residents also have rights,' and that the Commission, as well as the Council, is charged to uphold the rights of the residents as clearly defined by existing municipal codes. This is a serious issue, and as a group we are committed to seeing that the project is stopped or significantly changed to be in compliance with Hermosa Beach Municipal Code and to be somewhat more compatible with the neighborhood (as the Municipal Code states that it tog should be). Based on the evidence, we believe that there is no defensible position for The Project to be approved, as it is currently defined. We also believe that it would be the city and not only thedeveloper who should be responsible for claims or damages by individuals or groups if the city knowingly approves a project that is clearly in violation of municipal codes. The detailed grounds for the appeal are given below. The numbered ordinances cited refer to the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. Because the Planning Commission has failed to consider these points, the decision of the Planning Commission should be overturned by the City Council. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS IN SUCH A HURRY TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT THAT THEY NEVER SAW THE "PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN" FOR THE PROJECT THEY APPROVED Applicable Zoning Ordinances: 17.38. 390 Plan Area No. 8 --Commercial development standards. B. Standards. Two sets of standards apply in this specific plan area, first tier and second tier. Compliance with first tier standards allows the project to proceed with a building permit. If a project goes beyond any of the first tier standards the procedure for submittal and approval of a precise development plan shall be followed. Developments must be in compliance with second tier standards at all times. G. Compliance. No person shall violate or fail to comply with any approved plan or any condition or provision thereof, nor shall a building permit be issued for any building or structure which would violate or fail to comply with an approved plan. Discussion: The Project falls within second tier requirements because its height is above 25 feet. Therefore, a precise development plan must be submitted and approved. At the May 16, 2000 Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission imposed several requirements on The Project. Among the requirements imposed are that The Project is required to have 19 foot setbacks on. 15th Street and is required to vent the laundry on the western side of The Project. Requiring 19 foot setbacks on 15th Street will decrease the size of The Project. However, nobody, including the Planning Commission has any idea what effect the increased setbacks will have on the design of The Project Nobody knows if The Project will simply forego at least three rooms, or whether the rooms and exterior of the building will be redesigned so that the rooms are unacceptably small and the exterior will become even more unsightly and bulky than it already. is. Therefore, there has been no submittal of a precise development plan for The Project as approved. It will be impossible for the builder to comply with section 17.38.390.G because the approved plan violates the conditions the planning commission required of the project, i.e., the 19 foot setbacks along the southern border of The Project. Thus, The Project cannot comply with 17.38.390.B. The Planning Commission, in its haste to approvethis unsound project, tried a similar maneuver at the April 18, 2000 meeting, but stopped short of approving The Project. At the April 18, 2000 meeting, Commissioner Hoffman moved for approval of The Project although the Planning Commission realized that the design of the parking and ingress/egress for The Project was very poor. The commission considered approving The Project subject to a revision of the parking and ingress/egress. As Mr. Blumenfeld pointed out however, attempting to approve The Project in such a fashion was impractical and improper. The commission could not approve one precise development plan only to have the builder start work on a different one with different parking and ingress and egress. On May 16, 2000 the Planning Commission apparently forgot or ignored the lesson it had learned four weeks earlier and purported to approve The Project subject to revisions with unknown impacts on the design of The Project. In addition, as discussed in more detail below, The Project does not meet other setback requirements for second tier developments that border residential property. These are not the only provisions that would affect the design. To be compliant, The Project would be forced to reduce size even further resulting in subsequent. redesign and resubmittal. The Project as it has been required to be modified has not been. properly approved. No precise development plan with 19 foot setbacks from 15th Street and a laundry vent to the west of the building has been approved or even designed. Therefore, The Project cannot begin and it, was improper to attempt to approve The Project without seeing a precise development plan for The Project as it is proposed to be built. II. THE PROJECT IS NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE PURPOSE OR THE INTENT OF PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLANS IN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 8 IN THAT THE PROJECT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING USES AND IT IS NOT OF HIGH ENOUGH QUALITY. Applicable Zoning Ordinances: 17.58.010 Purpose and Intent of Precise Development Plans. The purpose and intent of requiring precise development plan review for development projects is to achieve a reasonable level of quality, compatibility, in harmony with the community's social, economic and environmental objectives, and to protect existing and potential developments, and uses on adjacent and surrounding property. 17.38.400 Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development plan. A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to set forth the procedures and guidelines for review of precise development plans, which are required when a proposed project exceeds any one of the first tier standards. B. Guidelines for Planning Commission Review. 1. General Guidelines. To allow projects which exceed any of the first tier standards, the overall building and project design should be of a superior quality, be compatible with surrounding properties, and be designed in scale with the community. The Planning Commission shall consider the following in making this determination: c. The project should be compatible with neighboring projects with respect to height, scale, bulk, and proportion. This is not a prescription for similar architectural styles, although in some cases it may be desirable, nor a prescription to match existing buildings, as many existing buildings do not stand scrutiny under these guidelines. Discussion: The Project is not compatible with neighboring projects and properties with respect to height, scale, bulk, or proportion. The Project has four stories running the length of the lot. The lot is entirely covered except for that portion needed for automobile egress/ingress and short- term parking. It is not in scale with the community. Harmony with the community's social and environmental objectives has never been discussed by the Commission even after such issues were brought up by citizens in the two public meetings. Indeed, one commissioner stated at one of the public meetings that the Commission had no power to consider such matters. The Project harms uses on the adjacent residential properties. The bulk of The Project affects the air flow, light, and views of these properties. A definite loss in property values and economic worth will occur in these residential properties. Even though at least one comrnissioner expressed reservations about the quality of both the design and the materials, the only inputs about these points were the developer's submission of.a nebulous list of materials that might be used and a verbal assurance by a Hampton Inn representative that The Project would be *up to Hampton Inn standards although these were never specifically identified. This does not adequately address the provisions of the zoning ordinance. Applicable Zoning Ordinance: 17.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development plan. " C. General Criteria. In considering the precise development plan for any development, the following criteria for granting or conditionally granting said permit shall be considered: 4. The combination of uses proposed, as they relate to compatibility; Discussion: The. Project will dominate all surrounding uses, such as the VCA Animal Hospital to the north, the Dent Wizard to the south, and the residences to the south and east of The Project: The Project will also increase traffic unacceptably. The Project is not compatible with surrounding uses and Planning Commission has not addressed this zoning ordinance. III. ` THE METHOD OF HEIGHT CALCULATION IS FAULTY. Applicable Zoning Ordinances: 17.38. 390 Plan Area No. 8 --Commercial development standards. B. Standards. Two sets of standards apply in this specific plan area, first tier and second tier. Compliance with first tier standards allows The Project to proceed with a building permit. If a project goes beyond any of the first tier standards the procedure for submittal and approval of a precise development plan shall be followed. Developments must be in complianco with second tier standards at all times. SECOND TIER MAXIMUM HEIGHT 35 FEET 17.04. 040 General definitions. "Building height" means a vertical distance measured from grade, as determined as described herein, to the corresponding uppermost point of the roof, as shown in the examples below: "Grade" at any point on a lot is determined based on existing corner point elevations, taking into consideration significant variations relative to adjacent properties. In cases where there is significant variation in elevations between adjacent properties at corner points, the point of measurement'; shall be established based on the elevation at the nearest public improvement or an alternative point within 3 horizontal feet which, based on supporting evidence, represents existing unaltered grade. In the absence of supporting documentation the corner point elevation shall be established at % the difference between the adjacent elevation and. the elevation on the property in question. The determination of grade shall be made by the Community Development Director, based on all available evidence, and any disputes shall be referred to the Planning Commission. For lots with convex contours (where the ground level arches upward along a property line) the "grade" of a lot may be based on a detailed topographical survey along the property line with spot elevations called out at a minimum of two (2) foot intervals." Discussion: At several of the crucial comer points the grade slopes upward very steeply and unnaturally. Long time residents of Hermosa Beach familiar with The Project's lot know that several years ago The Project's lot did not have these steep upslopes at the comer points.. A cross-sectional look at the slope and shape of the hill suggests that the eastern edge of the property line has been built up as a result of providing flatlots for the uphill properties on that side. Specifically, at the northeast comer of the lot there is a man made structure over 8 feet in height which is completely dissimilar in elevation from the surrounding grade. This structure is shown in photographs 1 - 6 attached hereto. For scale, a person about 5' 11" tall is shown in some of the pictures. Pursuant to the code, in the case of the northeast comer, the elevation point used is too high. There is no supporting evidence that the point used "represents existing unaltered grade." Similarly, the southwest corner of the middle rectangle used to measure height also slopes upward very steeply and unnaturally. Although difficult to make out because a large plant obscures the photograph, this corner point is shown in photographs 7 - 8 attached hereto. The steep upward slope is better shown in photograph 13. There is no evidence that the corner point used represents "existing unaltered grade." The same applies to the southwest corner point of the southern -most rectangle used to measure height. That corner point is shown in photographs 9 - 10 attached hereto. The same also applies to the southeast corner point of the northern -most rectangle. That corner point is shown in photograph 11 as well as in photograph 13. There appears to have been no attempt made to comply with the code provision concerning "Grade" and particularly the provision reading: "In the absence of supporting documentation the corner point elevation shall be established at %2 the difference between the adjacent elevation and the elevation on the property in question." No supporting documentation establishing that the corner points used were the natural grade was adduced. Therefore the corner points used for the middle rectangle were too high and should have been reduced at least 3 to 6 feet, and The Project's maximum height, which is reached in the middle rectangle should also have been reduced at least 3 to 6 feet. The Planning Commission failed to consider this point. IV THE PROJECT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE OCEAN VIEW ORDINANCES. Applicable Zoning Ordinance: 17.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development plan. C. General Criteria. In considering the precise development plan for any development, the following criteria for granting or conditionally granting said permit shall be considered: 2. Impact on ocean views from residential areas Discussion: Nothing has been done to address the impact on ocean views from residential areas to the east of The Project. Indeed, a commissioner stated at the first public meeting that there was no view ordinance. The Project will take away ocean views to numerous properties to the east. In fact, the height of the project is substantially above the height of any of the neighboring properties to the east, even though these properties are situated significantly higher on the hill. Apparently, pictures were taken showing the expected effects on views to the east, but no residents were informed when those pictures would be taken, and the pictures are taken from angles which make them virtually useless. At a minimum, the Project should be made to comply with Tier 1, instead of Tier 2 requirements for height.: Applicable Zoning Ordinance: 17.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development plan. B. Guidelines for Planning Commission Review. 2. Height. To allow projects to exceed the first tier height limits, the building design should incorporate features to minimize and breakup the visual impact and view impacts of the higher structures on neighboring residential areas and on the streetscape. The planning commission shall consider the following guidelines in making this determination: Discussion: This requirement has not been addressed at all. The three propertiesadjacent to The Project on the east will face a solid vertical wall that is higher than each of the three properties. The Planning Commission failed to consider these points. V. THE SETBACKS ARE INADEQUATE Applicable Zoning Ordinances: 17.38.390 Plan Area No. 8 --Commercial development standards. C. Requirements. The followingrequirements apply to all proposed projects: 3. Setback from Residentially Zoned Property. A minimum of eight feet plus two feet for each additional story. 17.04.040 General definitions. "Structure" means anything constructed or erected which requires location on the ground or attached to something having a location on the ground, but not including fences or walls used as fences less than six feet in height. Discussion: The construction of the parking lot constitutes a structure under code section 17.04.040. Because this is a 3 story project (actually 4 total), the set backs must be 12 feet from residentially zoned property to the east. The setback to the east, measured from the parking structure, does not meet the 12 foot setback requirement. Applicable Zoning Ordinances: 17.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development plan. B. Guidelines for Planning Commission Review. 2. Height. To allow projects to exceed the first tier height limits, the building design should incorporate features to minimize and breakup the visual impact and view impacts of the higher structures on neighboring residential areas and on the streetscape. The planning commission shall consider the following guidelines in making this determination: c. Greater Setbacks for Upper Levels. Progressing from the first floor to the uppermost story of the building setbacks from the rear property line should increase and exceed minimum requirements, and the upper stories shall have tiered setbacks from the lower levels as viewed from the front. Discussion: As measured from the rear property line on the east side of the structure, the setbacks do not increase. Therefore, The Project violates this code provision. VI. THE LOT COVERAGE EXCEEDS SECOND TIER STANDARDS Applicable Zoning Ordinances: 17.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development plan.. 2a. Limit. Lot Coverage of Uppermost Level. The area of the portion of the structure which exceeds the first tier height limit should not cover a major portion, of the lot area, and said over -height area should be compensated by a proportional area of the building which is at or less than the height limit. Discussion: This requirement has also been ignored. There is no portion of the building which is not above tier one standards. The building covers the entire lot except that portion given over to egress/ingress and parking. VII. THE PROJECT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ANTI -BULK PROVISIONS. Applicable Zoning Ordinance: 17.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development plan. B. Guidelines for Planning Commission Review. 3 Bulk. To allow projects which exceed the maximum floor area/lot area ratio (F.A.R.) the building design should incorporate features to minimize the appearance of bulk, and to compensate for the bulk of a building with attractive architectural features which enhance the building and which reduce the visual impact of large areas of flat vertical walls. The planning commission shall consider the following guidelines in making this determination: c. Variable Heights. The roofline of the building should be designed with variable heights, and roof patterns or materials, to avoid the appearance of a flat building. Discussion: From the east, the roofline appears largely flat. When viewed from either the front or the. back of the building, the roofline is constant. It is only from the side that any variation occurs, and that is made to accommodate the changing grade of the lot. Therefore, The Project violates this zoning ordinance. Further, The Project definitely exceeds the maximum F.A.R. area. Yet the design of the building is bulky when viewed from any direction. Moreover, the visual impact of the east -facing flat wall is enormous. THE PROJECT DOES NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS PROPERTY VALUE DEPRECIATION Applicable Zoning Ordinance: 17.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development plan. D. Criteria for Denial. 1. The proposed development would substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity or interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in such area, because of excessive dissimilarity or inappropriateness of design in relation to the surrounding vicinity, and there are no known conditions of approval which can be imposed that could resolve such problems. Discussion: The Planning Commission has made no effort to consider the effect The Project will have in the sure depreciation in the value of existing residential properties to the east. Testimony of residents at the April 16, 2000 hearing indicated that property values could decrease by $75,000 per residence. (Some real estate professionals have estimated $100,000 per residence.) No consideration of the potential decrease in property values was taken into account by the Planning Commission. Moreover, there has been no discussion of any compensation mechanism by either the developer or city staff. THE PROJECT HARMS THE WELFARE OF HERMOSA BEACH CITIZENS. Applicable Zoning Ordinances: 17.38.390 Plan Area No. 8 --Commercial development standards. A. Purpose and Intent. The standards and guidelines are designed to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Hermosa Beach and to encourage the development of high quality commercial development along Pacific Coast Highway in respect to its impact on residential projects, environmental impacts, circulation and appearance. B. Standards. Two sets of standards apply in this specific plan area, first tier and second tier. Compliance with first tier standards allows The Project to proceed with a building permit. If a project goes beyond any of the first tier standards the procedure for submittal and approval of a precise development plan shall be followed. Developments must be in compliance with second tier standards at all times: Discussion: This project will not protect the welfare of the citizens. Quality of life will be reduced for Hermosa Beach citizens. There will be negative effects in traffic flow, congestion, availability of bus stop access, and crosswalk usage across PCH. The traffic study that has been performed is inadequate and inaccurate. The times chosen for the study were inappropriate. Assuming a 70% occupancy rate in a 72 room hotel (7 x 72 = 50.4), there will be at least 50 more trips per day during the peak on the morning rush hour on PCH. Unlike other commercial uses, The Project will have maximum traffic impact during peak hours:` Office or shopping hours are between 9:OOAM-6:OOPM. By contrast, hotels/motels are 24 hour traffic, parking, and noise generators. Other commercial uses may have potential benefits to Hermosa Beach residents, but such a hotel (with no amenities beyond rooms) will have no practical use or benefit other than for airport transient traffic. The Project directly supports LAX Airport expansion and increasing noise levels from LAX air traffic. 'OTHER POSSIBLE USES HAVE NEVER BEEN DISCUSSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL Applicable Zoning Ordinances: 17.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development plan C. General Criteria. In considering the precise development plan for any development, the following criteria for granting or conditionally granting said permit shall be considered: 4: The combination of uses proposed, as they relate to compatibility; 9. Impact of the proposed use to the city's infrastructure, and/or services; 11. Other considerations that, in the judgment of the planning commission, are necessary to assure compatibility with the surrounding uses, and the city as a whole. Discussion: There are several hotels in the city with more on the drawing boards. None are of the scale, bulk, or visual impact of The Project. Although Hermosa Beach is an attractive destination for tourists and LAX users, its primary purpose for its residents has been as a small, friendly, unusual beach town in which to live and raise a family. Many of our citizens wish to resist an evolution into a city of monoliths put in by opportunistic developers who will not be here when the effects of their developments are felt. It is, or should be, the responsibility of the Community Development Department and the Planning Division to take seriously the overall direction that residential and commercial construction and development have on the city. At the Planning Commission meeting of April 18, a member of the audience presented a well thought out and very extensive list of possible uses for the property that would be within tier., one standards, be in keeping with the community character, and serve the residents of the city in addition to visitors. Her presentation was basically ignored by the Planning Commissioners. Suchcommunity involvement needs to be sought out by the CDP. For example, book stores (especially in light of the demise of Either/Or), flower shops, and upscale retail shopping would all be better choices in keeping with the community character than the proposed plan. THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID NOT PROPERLY ADDRESS ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT Applicable Zoning Ordinances: 17.58. 010 Purpose and Intent of Precise Development Plans. The purpose and intent of requiring precise development plan review for development projects is to achieve a reasonable level of quality, compatibility, in harmony with the community's social, economic and environmental objectives, and to protect existing and potential developments, and uses on adjacent and surrounding property. - Discussion: One of the points stressed by staff to the Planning Commission, and relied on by the Planning Commission, was that The Project would bring in $200,000 in additional room tax revenue per year. Testimony from resident and accountant Jennifer Alvarado of 845 15th Street addressed this point as specifically demonstrated how this estimate of revenue is vastly overblown, even if new hotels were not being built in the area. New hotels are, however, being built in the, area, and Hermosa Beach does not need more hotels. As the General Manager of Hotel Hermosa pointed out in written and oral testimony, the existing hotels in the area are having a hard enough time keeping rooms occupied and adding more hotel room capacity will only decrease the share of the market each hotel gets. The market of hotel visitors will not increase merely because more hotels are added. When The Project or other hotels in the area"fail, just as the Hermosa Pavillion failed, the City will be left with an eyesore. XII. THE PROJECT DOES NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE AMOUNT OF OFF- STREET PARKING Applicable Zoning Ordinance: 17.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development plan. C. General Criteria. In considering the precise development plan for any development, the following criteria for granting or conditionally granting saidpermit shall be considered: 3. The amount of existing or proposed off-street parking in relation to actual need; Discussion: Existing businesses routinely have their employees park on PCH in front of The Project and The Project proposes to add additional employees and remove that parking. Nothing has been done to account for that lost parking and The Project's proposal apparently has not been approved by CalTrans. Consideration of The Project should be put on hold until and unless CalTrans approves The Project and its effects on parking, traffic, the bus stop, and the school crossing. Both 15th and 16th Street has existing problems with illegal parking, and the lost parking spaces will further impact a bad situation. The commission refuses to understand or accept responsibility for traffic and parking impacts that result from approving inappropriate projects. Uncorroborated and false testimony of a proponent of The Project was that there were only 2 or 3 parking spaces in front of The Project which will be lost. In fact, there are at least 7 or 8 parking spaces in front of The Project. See photograph 12. People who park in those spots now will surely park on the residential streets nearest The Project on 15th Street and 15th Place. The Project has made no effort to address the already crowded parking on 15th Street and 15th Place. Photographs provided at the April 16, 2000 hearing showed that people routinely park illegally on 15th Street and even park on the sidewalks on 15th Street. The Planning Commission ignored this testimony. XIII. THE PROJECT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE GENERAL CRITERIA Applicable Zoning Ordinance: 17.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development plan. C. General Criteria. In considering the precise development plan for any development, the following criteria for granting or conditionally granting said permit shall be considered: 1. Distance from existing residential uses in relation to negative effects; Discussion: No significant effort has been made to address the negative effects on existing residential uses immediately to the south and east of The Project As described fully in our April 13, 2000 and April 18, 2000 letters, as well as the presentations of Mr. Gilmore and Mr. Gretsky, there IR will be numerous negative effects on parking, safety, traffic, noise, and the stability of the nearby property. Specifically, The Project will remove existing off-street parking from Pacific Coast Highway without replacing that parking. The people who now park on PCH will likely park on thealready crowded nearby residential streets on 15th Street, 15th Place, and 16th Street. Further, The Project does not provide enough parking for visitors and guests. The Project will have a negative effect on the safety of residents, especially at the corner of 15th Place and PCH, where there is a school crossing and where there are numerous accidents. PCH alreadyhas very heavy traffic. Airport visitors leaving The Project in the morning can only increase and worsen an already bad traffic situation. Further, it appears that CalTrans has not even approved the additional sidecuts The Project proposes to make into the curb along PCH. Further; the approval of The Project, which could only encourage more visitors coming in from the LAX Airport, is directly at odds with the City Council's position opposing expansion of LAX. The City Council cannot in good faith oppose airport expansion on the one hand and then encourage more visitors from LAX on the other hand. As residents testified at the April 18, 2000 meeting, Hermosa Beach has had a lot of problems with developments digging into the hillside and causing damage to neighboring properties. The Project proposes to build a massive underground structure which will be extremely dangerous to the stability of the hill and the properties to the east. The Project should be required to hold liability insurance to protect the property owners to the east in the event the shoring is inadequate. At the very least, the Project should be forced to provide a bond to protect the city from litigation that could result from damage to adjacent residential properties. XIV. THE PROJECT HAS NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Applicable Zoning Ordinance: 17.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development. plan.. C General Criteria. In considering the precise development plan for any development, the following criteria for granting or conditionally granting said permit shall be considered: 10. Adequacy of mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts in quantitative terms; Discussion:. In the April 18 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission approved the staff recommendation not torequire an EIR for The Project. The staff meeting was public butwas not noticed. Given the wide variety of environmental issues connected with The Project, the public should have had the opportunity to give input to the staff discussion. The stability of the hillside for the properties which are up the hill to the east of The Project cannot be guaranteed, especially in light of the plan to "indent" underground parking closer to the property line than allowed by the setback requirements. On the other side of 15th Street there has already been some downhill motion of properties evidently caused by removal of earth from a construction site. Even though preliminary engineering studies were performed, these problems have occurred. Additionally, nothing has been done to address mitigating environmental impacts concerning traffic. Further, no studies have been submitted concerning the effects on sewer capacity or utility capacity. Additionally, nothing has been done to address what will happen when The Project hoses down its driveway and causes motor oil to run into the ocean. Certainly nothing has been done to address environmental impacts in quantitative terms. In fact, the city staff recommended to the Planning Commission that no Environmental Impact Report be required. The environmental issues of noise, dirt, traffic, and vibration also militate against approval of The Project. XV. THE PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO TOO MANY UNKNOWNS TO ALLOW APPROVAL AT THIS TIME Discussion: As mentioned above, The Project proposes sidecuts into Pacific Coast Highway that must be approved by CalTrans before The Project can go forward. CalTrans has not approved the proposed sidecuts and if CalTrans does not approve the sidecuts, the design of The Project will have to altered radically. Similarly, as discussed by Mr. Pete Tucker at the May 18, 2000 hearing, there is a storm drain at the eastern side of The Project. The City will need an easement for the maintenance of the storm drain. To allow equipment and persons in to maintain the storm drain, the easement may require more room than is currently provided for in the plans for The Project. These unknowns concerning The Project make it impractical and improper to have approved The Project. Accordingly, the planning comission's approval of The Project should be overturned. XVI. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS WERE NOT PROPERLY NOTICED It is required that notice of public meetings on The Project be sent to adjacent residents and to property owners of adjacent properties. When this subject was brought up at the Planning Commission meeting of April18, it was stated that the Department had made an appropriate effort to effect the noticing. Nonetheless, several residents and property owners, including Neil & Teresa Gretsky, were never sent notice about any of the Planning Commission hearings on this matter. It remains unknown how many other residents were never noticed. In summary, the Planning Commission's decision should be overturned. I I Vic r : Bridgette"de Gyarfas 833 15th St. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 zAfe Michael & Theresa Gilmore 829 15t Place Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 it & Teresa Grets70/..dA. 80 16th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Sincerely, Attachments 1. Referenced Photographs 2 Declaration. of Pete Tucker 3. April 13, 2000 Letter opposing The Project 4. May 16, 2000 Letter opposing The Project 5. View Graphs presented at the May 16, 2000 hearing 7. Videotape of the April 18, 2000 Planning Commission hearing 8. Videotape of the May 16, 2000 Planning Commission hearing K • • 9° DECLARATION OF PETE TUCKER I, Pete Tucker, declare as follows: Receiv g JUL 0 6 Zuuu CUM. DEV. DEPT. This declaration is submitted in connection with the appeal of the Planning Commission's May 16, 2000 Decision approving PDP 00-6, 72 Room Hotel at 1514-1550 PCH and 815 15th Street. For at least the following reasons, I believe that decision was. erroneous. I presided as the Chairperson of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission from 1993 to 1999. I have spent over 32 years in the construction field. I am currently employed as a building inspector in Redondo Beach and am ICBO certified. I am highly familiar with the interpretation of zoning ordinances and building codes relating to the construction of buildings. Based on my years of experience, I am an expert in this field. I am not being paid for making this declaration. Hermosa Beach Zoning Ordinance section 17.38.3903. states, in part, that "Developments must be in compliance with second tier standards at all times." For the reasons discussed below, I believe that the proposed development is not in compliance with second tier standards.. Zoning Ordinance section 17.38.390.B provides that properties meeting tier 2 requirements shall have a maximum height of 35 feet. The method of calculating the height for this project is faulty. There is a retaining wall on the northeast corner of the property from which the height calculation was made. It is obvious to anyone who has been out to the site, as I have, that the retaining wall on the northeast corner is extensively built up far beyond the natural grade. Zoning Ordinance section 17.38.400.B.1.c provides: "The project should be compatible with neighboring projects with respect to height, scale, bulk, proportion." The Project is not compatible with neighboring projects and properties with respect to height, scale, bulk, or proportion. The Project has four stories running the length of the lot and is vastly larger than all surrounding uses. It is not in scale with the community and violates this ordinance Zoning Ordinance section 17.38.4003.2 provides: "To allow projects to exceedthe first tier height limits, the building design should incorporate features to minimize and breakup the visual impact and view impacts of the higher structures on neighboring residential areas and on the streetscape." The Project does not comply with this requirement. Although The Project exceed tier one standards for height (25 feet), it does not incorporate features to minimize and breakup the visual impact and view impacts on higher structures in the neighboring residential areas to the east. The properties adjacent to The Project to the east will face a solid vertical wall that may extend higher than some of the properties. Neither did the Planning Commission address whether equipment placed on the root such as air conditioners and other equipment would be required to be below the maximum 35 foot height for tier 2 projects. For these reasons The Project violates this ordinance Zoning Ordinance sections 17.38.400.B.3. and .c provide that the `building design should incorporate features to minimize the appearance of bulk," and "the roofline of the building should be designed with variable heights, and roof patterns or materials, to avoid the appearance of a flat building." The Project fails to comply with these provisions. The building appears very bulky, especially from the east. Further, the roof is largely flat, with very little if any stepping or variation in height. The building appears very box -like, especially from the east, and violates this ordinance. Zoning Ordinance section 17.38.400.C.2 provides that the Planning Commission must consider the Project's "Impact on ocean views from residential areas." The Planning Commission has not considered this factor and has not required or suggested any changes which would mitigate the impact on ocean views from the residences to the east which will be blocked. Zoning Ordinance section 17.38.400.D.1 provides that criteria for denial includes: "The proposed development would substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity or interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in such area, ..." Nobody has disputed that having a large hotel with significant traffic will adversely impact the property values of the neighboring residences. Nevertheless, the Planning Commission incorrectly ignored this criteria for denial. Zoning Ordinance section 17.38.3903 also provides: "If a project goes beyond any of the first tier standards the procedure for submittal and approval of a precise development plan shall be followed" There are a number of unknowns associated with this Project which should have been addressed but were not. First, the City needs to obtain an easement at the back of the property for a storm drain. Nothing has been done with respect to obtaining such an easement. For all these reasons, The Project should not be appy d. Dated Jul '» 2000. L . THE METHOD OF HEIGHT CALCULATION IS FAULTY Applicable Zoning Ordinance: 17.04. 040 General definitions. RECEIVED JUL 0`6 2000 (MM. DEV. DEPT. "Building height" means a vertical distance measured from grade, as determined as described herein, to the corresponding uppermost point of the roof, as shown in the examples below. "Grade" at any point on a lot is determined based on existing corner point elevations, taking into consideration significant variations relative to adjacent properties. In cases where there is significant variation in elevations between adjacent properties at corner points, the point of measurement shall be established based on the elevation at the nearest public improvement or an alternative point within 3 horizontal feet which, based on supporting evidence, represents existing unaltered grade. In the absence of supporting documentation the corner point elevation shall be established. at 1/2 the difference between the adjacent elevation and the elevation on the property in question. As shown in photographs 1 - 11, the corner points slope upwardly in an unnatural fashion. The Project is at least 3 ` feet too high. II. THE PROJECT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE OCEAN VIEW ORDINANCE Applicable Zoning Ordinance: 17.3 8. 400 Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development plan. C. General Criteria. In considering the precise development plan ,for ahy development, the following criteria for granting or conditionally granting said permit shall be considered: 2. Impact on ocean views from residential areas; Analysis: Nothing has been done to address the impact on ocean views from residential areas to the East of The Project. The Project will take away ocean views to numerous properties to the East. At a minimum, the Project should be made to comply with Tier 1, instead of Tier 2 requirements for height. III. THE PROJECT DOES NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS PROPERTY ' VALUE DEPRECIATION Applicable Zoning Ordinance: 17.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development plan. D Criteria for Denial. 1. The proposed development would substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity or interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in such area, because of excessive dissimilarity or inappropriateness of design in relation to the surrounding vicinity, and there are no known conditions of approval which can be imposed that could resolve such problems. Analysis: No effort has been made to consider the effect The Project will have when it surely depreciates the value of existing residential properties to the East. At a minimum, the property owners to the East should have their properties values reassessed downwardly for tax purposes. IV. THE PROJECT DOES NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE AMOUNT OF OFF-STREET PARKING Applicable Zoning Ordinance: 17.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development plan. C. General Criteria. In considering the precise development plan for any development, the following criteria for granting or conditionally granting said permit shall be considered: 3. The amount of existing or proposed off-street parking in relation to actual need; Analysis: People routinely park on PCH in front of the site. of The Project and The Project proposes to remove that parking. Nothing has been done to account for that lost parking and The Project's proposal apparently has not been approved by CalTrans. Consideration of The Project should be put on hold until and unless CalTrans approves The Project and its effects on parking and traffic. V. THE USE PROPOSED IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING USES Applicable Zoning Ordinance 17.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development plan. C. General Criteria. In considering the precise development plan for any development, the following criteria for granting or conditionally granting said permit shall be considered: 4. The combination of uses proposed, as they relate to compatibility; Analysis: The Project will dominate all surrounding uses, such as the VCA Animal Hospital to the North, the Dent Wizard to the South, and the residences to the South. and East of The Project. The Project will also increase traffic unacceptably. The Project is not compatible with surrounding uses and The Project has not addressed this zoning ordinance. VI. THE PROJECT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE GENERAL CRITERIA Applicable Zoning Ordinance: 17.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development plan. C. General Criteria. In considering the precise development plan for any development, the following criteria for granting or conditionally granting said permit shall be considered: 1 Distance from existing residential uses in relation to negative effects; Analysis: No significant effort has been made to address the negative effects on existing residential uses immediately to the South and East of The Project. As described more fully in our April 13, 2000 and April 18, 2000 letters, as well as the presentations of Mr. Gilmore and Mr. Gretsky, there will be numerous negative effects on parking, safety, traffic, noise, and the stability of the nearby property. •. VII. THE SETBACKS ARE INADEQUATE Applicable Zoning Ordinance: 17 38.390 Plan Area No. 8 --Commercial development standards. C. Requirements. The following requirements apply to all proposed projects: 3. Setback from Residentially Zoned Property. A minimum of eight feet plus two feet for each additional story. 17.04.040 General definitions. "Structure" means anything constructed or erected which requires location on the ground or attached to something having a location on the ground, but not including fences or walls used as fences less than six feet in height. The setback, measured from the parking structure, does not meet the 12 foot setback requirement. THE PROJECT DOES NOT PROVIDE GREATER SETBACKS FOR UPPER LEVELS Applicable Zoning Ordinance: 17.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development plan. B. Guidelines for Planning Commission Review. 2. Height. To allow projects to exceed the first tier height limits, the building design should incorporate features to minimize and breakup the visual impact and view impacts of the higher structures on neighboring residential areas and on the streetscape. The planning commission shall consider the following guidelines in making this determination: c. Greater Setbacks for Upper Levels. Progressing from the first floor to the uppermost story of the building setbacks from the rear property line should increase and exceed minimum requirements, and the upper stories shall have tiered setbacks from the lower levels as viewed from the front. Analysis: • As measured from the rear property line on the East side of the structure, the setbacks do not increase. Therefore, The Project violates this code provision. IX. THE PROJECT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ANTI -BULK PROVISIONS Applicable Zoning Ordinance: 17.38. 400 -Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development plan. B. Guidelines for Planning Commission Review. 3. Bulk. To allow projects which exceed the maximum floor area/lot area ratio • (F.A.R.)" the building design should incorporate features to minimize the appearance of bulk, and to compensate for the bulk of a building with attractive architectural features which enhance the building and which reduce the visual impact of large areas of flat vertical walls. The planning commission shall consider the following guidelines in making this determination: c. Variable Heights. The roofline of the building should be designed with variable heights, and roof patterns or materials, to avoid the appearance of a -flat. building. From the East, the roofline appears largely flat. Therefore, The Project violates this zoning ordinance. THE PROJECT HAS NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Applicable Zoning Ordinance: 17.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development plan. C. General Criteria. In considering the precise development plan for any development, the following criteria for granting or conditionally granting said permit shall be considered: 10. Adequacy of mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts in quantitative terms; Analysis: Nothing has been done to address mitigating environmental impacts concerning traffic. Further, no studies have been submitted concerning the effects on sewer capacity or utility capacity. Additionally, nothing has been done to address what will happen when The Project hoses down its driveway and causes motor oil to run into the ocean. Certainly nothing has been done to address environmental impacts in quantitative terms. Mr. Sol Blumenfeld Director Community Development Department Hermosa Beach City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mr. Blumenfeld: MAY ' 0 2000 UOMI. DEV. DEPT: This letter serves to formally address the concerns of the residents of Hermosa Beach regarding the proposed construction of the Seventy -Two Room Hotel at 1514-1550 Pacific Coast Highway and 815 15th Street (hereinafter the "Hotel"). Set Backs Although there Is no setback requirement contained in the zoning regulations, residents along 15th Street have been required to build '19 feet from the property line. (See, for example, 845-849 15th Street Building requirements.) To maintain the "residential feel" of the street and to require uniforn standards on the street, the residents request the Hotel developers be required the sane number- of 19 feet of setback for the proposed new building. Traffic The traffic report submitted by the developer reflects traffic at and around this intersection is rated "F" during peak periods. Adding the additional traffic of business commuters from this Hampton Inn will further impede traffic, yet the developers propose nothing to mitigate an already very undesirable condition. We would request recommendations be made by the developers to improve rather- than impair the situation. For example, the hotel could change' its check-in -and check-out. times to off peak hours. Further, the hotel could provide a turn -in lane for traffic ;entering and leaving the property. While a curb down the center of Pacific Coast -Highway has been' discussed/proposed as a possible solution (blocking a turn into the Hotel driveway, while driving 'south on PCH) it would (1) only . serve aS a nuisance, impeding ingress to 15th Street by 15th Street residents 'and (2) further serve to encourage U-turns at the 15th Street/PCH intersection. May 10, 2000 Page 2 Traffic (continued) In addition, a "no -right turn" sign that was required by the City of Hermosa Beach to be posted at the Discount Tire/Valvoline parking lots when that structure was built (thus preventing turns up and onto 15th street) has been missing for more than a year. We request that this requirement be immediately enforced. Deliveries • Property owners are also concerned with the nuisance caused by noise from delivery trucks and request limits be placed on the time of day the Hotel may receive deliveries. Also, of concern is the parking and flow of traffic by delivery trucks. Residents request theHotel provide suitable parking accormnodation for its delivery trucks. Further we would ask that both 15th Street and 16"' Street be declared non -access streets for trucks as either sparking alternatives or even as "drive-throughs" to and from the hotel (i.e. `from Aviation, thus bypassing the Aviation/PCH intersection). We request that 15th Street and 16t1' Street only allow commercial trucks access only for deliveries to the homeowners. Note: 15th Street is already used as a "convenience"' for other`shopowners (i.e. The Furniture Commission Shop); their delivery truck is frequently seen driving up the hill at 15th Street) Parking Although the proposed hotel meets the bare minimum requirements for zoning based -upon the projected number of employees (i.e. 2), homeowners are doubtful only two employees will be necessary to efficiently run a hotel of ,:this size. We are concerned the hotel will create a greater parking problem on the surrounding residential streets and request this concern be addressed. Present businesses in the 15th Street area .already contribute to intolerable parking circumstances with either business owners (i.e. Dent Wizard) or customer vehicles (i.e. Discount Tires and/or Valvoline) indiscriminately parking vehicles in red zones, in posted no parking areas. or on sidewalks. May 10, 2000 Page 3 Building Height Calculation The residents believe the one measurement used to calculate the height restriction, specifically the mound of dirt in the north east corner, inaccurately reflects the natural flow of the land. We request a point off this corner, in compliance with the code, be used to calculate the height. Aesthetics Residents are concerned with the appearance of the building. Specifically: While the building is under the franchise of Hampton Inn, there are requirements for building maintenance and other standards. However, the residents are concerned with the"firture and request the City require approval to include requirements consistent with those required by Hampton Inn Corporate. Homeowners on .151'. Street and 16th : Street have expressed concern with the appearanceof the ;blank wall (East side of property), which will abut these properties. These residents, as well as those to the East, request that wall be landscaped in such a way so as to minimize the unattractiveness of the wall. In addition, the residents request the height . of the vegetation be limited to that of the building to prevent any additional blocking of ocean views to the West. The design proposed is unattractive, uses inferior materials, and does not contribute .to the aesthetics of the City of Hermosa Beach. The residents propose that the building materials be ,significantly upgraded and that the design be improved (i.e. substituting better railing materials for balconies). May 10, 2000 Page 4 While the area residents have no doubt .a commercial building will rise on these joined plots of land some time in the future, as taxpaying members of the Hermosa Beach community it is our desire that building additions improve rather than detract from our beautiful and unique village by the sea. While we understand the necessity of the business tax base and' its significant contribution to our town, it should never be at the expense of the Tong -teen prosperity of the community or its residents. Respe fully submitted, nneth E. Fry i�' i 900 15th Stre Ed Alvarado 845 15`x' Street Meli t nda A...111) =vl J,.en ifer F • arado J MSN Home Hotra msii Hotmail, fishackl@hotmail.com a3 Search Shopping. ng. Soney Pew' e Chat Inbox Compose Addresses Inbox Folders Options Help From: Neil Gretsky <neg@math.ucr.edu> Save Address - Block Sender To: oakes@mlinet.corn, jbrhbcc@aol.com, fishackl@hotmail.com, samedge@aol.com Save_ Address Subject: no notice on new building request for variance Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 11:57:25 -0800 Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Close Dear Council Members -- I am writing to;you by e-mail because City Hall is closed on'Friday and I have, an issue which is extremely time -sensitive. I own a building .at 832-834 15th Place. I have just heard by, word of mouth this morning that the vacant lotto the west of this building (this lot fronts on PCH) is going to be developed. Moreover, there is,evidentl-y a request for a variance, in (at least) the - height limit. Our building has above -the -highway ocean views. When we bought the building, we knew what the height limit for the adjacent lot was and could determine that, although the view of PCH would be blocked, the ocean views would not be effected in the event that the lot was developed. The issuance of a height -limit variance for a building on PCH seems both unfair and unnecessary. We (and, I am sure, our neighbors) would be against any such variance. Most of the people who live in the City would probably agree. There is also an important procedural issue. I have not been sent any notice whatsoever about any matter pertaining to such development or variance request. Thus, we have just found out this morning about the meeting this coming Thursday. I,believe that it is mandatory for the City to send notices to owners of nearby properties. My requests are: 1. to be notified in a. timely fashion about any, development activity and/or variance requests in lots adjacent to mine; 2. to•get the details of the planned development;, 3. to be informed of the -City's attitude about the granting of such variances;_. 4. to have the meeting concerning these activities postponed until we can gather and analyze the information about this development: Thank you for your attention to this matter. your response. can be reached by /nextprev?disk=216:32.180.67 d1097&login=fishackl&f=56320&curmbox=ACTIVE& tang=3/8/00 1L1 Hotmail_ 'Inhox Page2of2 phone: home 310-372-6502 office 310-206-9665 email: gretsky@econ:ucla;._edu neq@math.ucr.edu Neil Gretsky Reply Reply All Forward Delete Compose Addresses Folders. Get notified when you have new Hotmail or when your friends are on-line. your FREE download of MSN Messenw_r Service! Meet new friends at Other Links Buy Music Download Music Buy Books Free Games Travel Agent More... Options Help Send instant messages. Click.here to get the new MSN Chat. This month on MSN Free tax filing Faster connections Free credit analysis Enter to win a $1,000 shopping spree Tour Whoopi's cool Connecticut retreat! More... © 2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Terms of Service Privacy Statement /nextprev?disk=216.32.180.67 d1097&login=fishackl&f=56320&curmbox=ACTIVE& Lang= 3/8/00 fo Victor & Bridgette de Gyarfas 833 15th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (310) 937-7273 May 16, 2000 Community Development Department Planning Division City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: 72 Room Hotel at 1514-1550 PCH and 815 15th Street Dear Community Development Department Members: We are writing this letter to inform you of our testimony and comments in opposition to the plan to constructa building at the above listed address ("The Project"). We incorporate by reference our written comments previously provided to you on April 13, 2000 and April 18, 2000. We also incorporate by reference the presentations made to you by Michael Gilmore and Neil Gretsky on May 16, 2000. I. THE METHOD OF HEIGHT CALCULATION IS FAULTY Applicable Zoning Ordinance: 17.38. 390 Plan Area No. 8 --Commercial development standards. B. Standards. Two sets of standards apply in this specific plan area, first tier and second tier: Compliance with first tier standards allows the project to proceed with a building permit. If a project goes beyond any of the first tier standards the procedure for submittal and approval of a precise development plan shall be followed. Developments must be in compliance with second tier standards at all times. SECOND TIER MAXIMUM HEIGHT 35 FEET 17.04. 040 General definitions. "Building height" means a vertical distance measured from grade, as determined as described herein, to the corresponding uppermost point of the roof, as shown in the examples below. "Grade" at any point on a lot is determined based on existing corner point elevations, taking"into consideration significant variations relative to adjacent properties. In cases where there is significant variation in elevations between adjacent properties at corner points, the pointof measurement shall be established based on the elevation at the nearest public improvement or an alternative point within 3 horizontal feet which, based on supporting evidence, represents existing unaltered grade. In the absence of supporting documentation the corner point elevation shall be established at %2 the difference between the adjacent elevation and the elevation on the property in question. The determination of grade shall be made by the Community Development Director, based on all available evidence, and any disputes shall be referred to the Planning Commission. For lots with convex contours (where the ground level arches upward along a property line) the. "grade" of a lot may be based on a detailed topographical survey along the property line with spot elevations called out at a minimum of two (2) foot intervals." Analysis: At several of the crucial corner points the grade slopes upward very steeply and unnaturally. Long time residents of Hermosa Beach familiar with The Project's lot know that several years ago The Project's lot did not have these steep upslopes at the corner points. Specifically, at the Northeast corner of the lot there is a man made structure over 6 feet in height which is completely dissimilar in elevation from the surrounding grade. This structure is shown in photographs 1 - 6 attached hereto. For scale, a person about 5' 11" is shown in some of the pictures. Pursuant to the code, in thecase of the Northeast corner, the elevation point used is too high. There is no supporting evidence that the point used "represents existing unaltered grade." Similarly, the Southwest corner of the middle rectangle used to measure height also slopes upward very steeply and unnaturally. Although difficult to make out because a large plant obscures the photograph, this corner point is shown in photographs 7 - 8 attached hereto: There is no evidence that the corner point used represents "existing unaltered grade." The same applies to the Southwest corner point o f the Southern -most rectangle used to measure height. That corner point is shown in photographs 9 - 10 attached hereto. The same also applies to the Southeast corner point of the Northern -most rectangle. That corner point is shown in photograph 11. There appears to have been no attempt made to comply with the code provision concerning "Grade" and particularly the provision reading: "In the absence of supporting documentation the corner point elevation shall be established at % the difference between the adjacent elevation and the elevation on the property in question." At a minimum, compliance with the ordinance would require the measurements of the crucial corner points to have been lowered about 3 feet. II. THE PROJECT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE OCEAN VIEW ORDINANCE Applicable Zoning Ordinance: 17.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development plan. C. General Criteria. In considering the precise development plan for any development, the following criteria for granting or conditionally granting said permit shall be considered: 2. Impact on ocean views from residential areas: Analysis: Nothing has been done to address the impact on ocean views from residential areas to the East of The Project: The Project will take away ocean views to numerous properties to the East: Apparently, pictures were taken showing the expected effects on views to the East, but no residents were,informed when those pictures would be taken, and the pictures are taken from angles which make them virtually useless. At a minimum, the Project should be made to comply with Tier 1, instead of Tier 2 requirements for height. III. THE PROJECT DOES NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS PROPERTY VALUE DEPRECIATION Applicable Zoning Ordinance: 17.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development plan. D. Criteria for Denial. 1: The proposed development would substantially depreciate property, values in the vicinity or interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in such area, because of excessive . . dissimilarity or inappropriateness of design in relation to the surrounding vicinity, and there are no known conditions of approval which can be imposed that could resolve such problems. Analysis: No effort has been made to consider the effect The Project will have when it surely depreciates the value of existing residential properties to the East. At a minimum, the property owners to the East should have their properties values reassessed downwardly for tax purposes. IV. THE PROJECT DOES NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE AMOUNT OF OFF-STREET PARKING Applicable Zoning Ordinance: 17.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development plan. C. General Criteria. In considering the precise development plan for any development, the following criteria for granting or conditionally granting said permit shall be considered: 3: The amount of existing or proposed off-street parking in relation to actual need; Analysis: People routinely park on PCH in front of the site of The Project and The Project proposes to remove that parking. Nothing has been done to account for that lost parking and The Project's proposal apparently has not been approved by CalTrans. Consideration of The Project should be put on hold until and unless CalTrans approves The Project and its effects on parking and traffic. THE USE PROPOSED IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING USES Applicable Zoning Ordinance: 17.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development plan. C. General Criteria. In considering the precise development plan for any development, the following criteria for granting orconditionally granting said permit shall be considered: 4. The combination of uses proposed, as they relate to compatibility; Analysis: The Project will dominate all surrounding uses, such as the VCA Animal Hospital to the North, the Dent Wizard to the South, and the residences to the South and East of The Project: The Project will also increase traffic unacceptably. The Project is not compatible with surrounding uses and The Project has not addressed this zoning ordinance. VI. THE PROJECT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE GENERAL CRITERIA Applicable Zoning. Ordinance: 17.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development plan. C. General Criteria. In considering the precise development plan for anydevelopment, the following criteria for granting or conditionally granting said permit shall be considered: 1. Distance from existing residential uses in relation to negative effects; Analysis: No significant effort has been made to address the negative effects on existing residential uses immediately to the South and East of The Project. As described more fully in our April 13, 2000 and April 18, 2000 letters, as well as the presentations of Mr. Gilmore and Mr. Gretsky, there will be numerous negative effects on parking, safety, traffic, noise, and the stability of the nearby property. Specifically, The Project will remove existing off-street parking from Pacific Coast Highway without replacing that parking: The people who now park on PCH will likely park on the already crowded nearby residential streets on 15th Street, 15th Place, and 16th Street. Further, The Project does not provide enough parking for visitors and guests. The Project will have a deleterious effect on the safety of residents, especially at the corner of 15th Place and PCH, where there is a school crossing and where there are numerous accidents. PCH already has very heavy traffic. Airport visitors leaving The Project in the morning can only increase and worsen an already bad traffic situation: Further, it appears that CalTrans has not even approved the additional sidecuts The Project proposes to make into the curb along PCH: As residents testified at the April 18, 2000 meeting, Hermosa Beach has had a lot of 'problems with developments digging into the hillside and causing damage to neighboring properties. The Project proposes to build a massive underground structure which will be extremely dangerous to the stability of the hill and the properties to the East. The Project should be required to take out insurance to protect the property owners to the East in the event the. shoring is inadequate. VII. THE SETBACKS ARE INADEQUATE Applicable Zoning Ordinance: 17.38.390 Plan Area No. 8 --Commercial development standards. C. Requirements. The following requirements apply to all proposed projects: 3. Setback from Residentially Zoned Property. A minimum of eight feet plus two feet for each additional story. • 17.04.040 General definitions. "Structure" means anything constructed or erected which requires location on the ground or attached to something having a location on the ground, but not including fences or walls used as fences less than six feet in height: Analysis: The, construction of the parking lot constitutes a structure under code section 17.04.040. Because this is a 3 story project, the set backs must be 12 feet from residentially zoned property to the East. The setback, measured from the parking structure, does not meet the 12 foot setback requirement. VIII. THE PROJECT DOES NOT PROVIDE GREATER SETBACKS FOR UPPER LEVELS Applicable Zoning Ordinance: 17.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development plan. B Guidelines for Planning Commission Review. 2: Height. To allow projects to exceed the first tier height limits, the building design should incorporate features_to minimize and breakup the. visual impact and view impacts of the higher structures on neighboring residential areas and on the streetscape. The planning commission shall consider the following guidelines in making this determination: c. Greater Setbacks for Upper Levels. Progressing from the first floor to the uppermost story of the building setbacks from the rear property line should increase and exceedminimum requirements, and the upper stories shall have tiered setbacks from the lower levels as viewed from the front. Analysis: As measured from the rear property line on the East side of the structure, the setbacks do . not increase. Therefore, The Project violates this code provision. IX. THE PROJECT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ANTI -BULK PROVISIONS Applicable Zoning Ordinance: 17.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development plan. B. Guidelines for Planning Commission Review: 3. Bulk. To allow projects which exceed the maximum floor area/lot area ratio (F.A.R.) the building design should incorporate features to minimize theappearance of bulk, and to compensate for the bulk of a building with attractive architectural features which enhance the building and which reduce the visual impact of large areas of flat vertical walls. The planning commission shall consider the following guidelines in making this determination: c. Variable Heights. The roofline of the building should be designed with variable heights, and roof patterns or materials, to avoid the appearance of a flat. building. Analysis: From the East, the roofline appears largely flat. Therefore, The Project violates this zoning ordinance. THE PROJECT HAS NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Applicable Zoning Ordinance: 1738. 400 Plan Area No.. 8 --Precise development plan. C. General Criteria. In considering the precise development plan for any development, the following criteria for granting or conditionally granting said permit shall be considered: '10. Adequacy of mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts in quantitative terms; Analysis: Nothing has been done to address mitigating environmental impacts concerning traffic. Further, no studies have been submitted concerning the effects on sewer capacity or utility capacity. Additionally, nothing has been done to address what will happen when The Project hoses down its driveway and causes motor oil to run into the ocean. Certainly nothing has been done to address environmental impacts in quantitative terms. In summary, The Project should not be approved. Sincerely, Victor & Bridgette de Gyarfas try RECEIVED APR 1 3 2000 CUM. DEV. DEPT Victor & Bridgette de Gyarfas 833 15th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (310) 937-7273 Michael & Theresa Gilmore 829 15th Street • Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 April 13, 2000 f7ECEIVED J U L 0'6 2Dti0 Ml. DEV. DEPT Community Development Department Planning Division City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA Re: 72 Room Hotel at 1514-1550 PCH and 815 15th Street Dear Community. Development Department Members: We are writing this letter to inform you of our testimony and commentsm opposition to the plan ' to construct a building at the above listed address ("The Development"). We would like to have an opportunityto speak at the hearing on April • 18, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. The basis for our opposition to the plan is provided below. I. The Development Extends Too High Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.26.050.E limits commercial buildings to a height of 35 feet m zone C3, and 30 feet in zones C1 and C2. The Development is a commercial building, and despite the deceptive architectural plans, seeks to extend to a height of 45 feetabove ground level. At one place in the plans, the plan .indicates that the street level elevation is 109.95 feet and that The Development seeks to go to a height of 139.95 feet for the roof, and 141.95 feet for the, elevator corridor. The elevation of the site at PCH, however, is not 109.95 feet. It is at most between 96 and 97 feet. The 96 to 97 foot elevation is confirmed on : another blueprint in the file dated 1/27/2000. So, in effect, The Development seeks to extend to a height of about 45 feet, far in excess of the 35 foot limit for commercial buildings in zone C3. - 211/121300.01 041200/1746• The height of The Development is unreasonable and the elevation indications provided on the plans for. The Development, we believe, are highly questionable. Attached hereto is a copy of relevant portions of the plan for 829-833 15th Street. The structures at 829 and 833 15th Street are significantly higher than the site of The Development (the "PCH Lot"), yet the lower level elevation for 829 and 833 15th Street is about 103-104 feet. There appears tobe a significant discrepancy between The Development's plan showing a lower level elevation of 109.95 feet and the 829-833 15th Street plan. Additionally, the plan misleadingly purports to have a height of only 35 feet by measuring from a point approximately 106 feet in elevation to the 141 foot elevation level. Given that the 829-833 15th Street lot is significantly higher than the PCH lot , the measurement on the PCH lot from a height of 106 feet seems to be an attempt to mislead the Planning Commission. If The Development is allowed to build to a height of 139.95 feet or 141.95 feet, it will completely obliterate the views from all three levels of the structures at.829-833 15th Street, as well as the roof -top decks on those structures. The view from some or many of the properties: East of 829-833 15th Street will be blocked as well Similarly, the views from the property at 834 15th Place and the properties behind it will also be blocked. The proposed height of The Development is simply too high. Allowing The Development to be built pursuant to the current plans and specifications will significantly reduce residential property values in the immediate area. The residents will completely lose their views of the ocean and sunset. As a result, the residents will si ffer the economic fall -out of potentially becoming "up -side down" on. their mortgages when it is determined that their property values have plummeted because of The Development completely obstructing what is such a largely sought after commodity in the beach community—the ocean and sunset views. There is no valid basis upon which to grant a variance. No special circumstances apply to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, for which the strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by otherpropertyin the vicinity under identical zoning classifications. See Hermosa Beach Municipal Code section 17.54.010. No variance of any kind should be granted, and the plans should be rejected. 211/121300.01 041200/1746 II. The Development Does Not Provide Enough Off -Street Parking A handwritten_ note in the file, on a memo from Mr. Blumenfeld, indicates that Motels must provide one parking space per room plus two for the manager's office. See Hermosa Beach Municipal Code section 17.44.030.L. The Development has 72 guest rooms, a manager's office, a great room, and an employee lounge. Only 66 parking spaces are provided however. Even if The Development is only required to have one parking space for each of the first 50 units and one parking space per one and one-half units after 50, there are not enough parking spaces. 72 rooms + 1 manager's office + 1 great room + 1 employee lounge 75 units, and requires 67 parking spaces. There is not enough off street parking, and The Development should not be allowed to go forward. Even if The Development did comply with the code, practically speaking, there is simply not enough parking for The Development. The Development makes no provisions for vans, delivery trucks, laundry trucks, and the like. Neither is any provision .made for a special parking area. for people checking into The Development Perhaps most importantly, there is not enough parking for employees of The Development. What seems likely to happen is that vans, trucks, and employees will all be parking along 15th 15th- Place, and in the.parkinglot for the pet store North of 15th Place on PCH. Street, 15th Street is a very narrow, street and parking is allowed on only one side of the street. : Parking is already difficult on 15th Street with employees from D ent Wizard and Discount Tiresarkin on the one side of the street' (the North side) that does allow P g parking.. As it is, people often park on the South side of 15th street, even though parking is prohibited on that side. The parking situation on 15th Street can only get worse if The Development is allowed to go forward. Hampton Inn employees, vans, delivery trucks, and the like will all be parking on 15th Street or 15th Place, or in the parking lots of other businesses in the area. Additionally, during the construction of The Development, numerous construction vehicles and worker vehicles will likely park on 15th Street and 15th Place. When vehicles park on both sides of 15th Street, there is only room enough for vehicles to travel in one direction on 15th Street. If vehicles park on both sides of the street, it will likely lead to accidents. Further, if vehicles park 011 both sides of the street, it makes it virtually impossible to back out of our driveways to get on to 15th Street. This project should not be allowed to go forward. 211/121300.01 041200/1746 The Development Would Likely Have An Extremely Negative Impact On Traffic In The Area The traffic study indicating` that the impact on traffic will be "less than significant" seems to be flawed and should be disregarded. The previous studies appear to have been conducted at the wrong place—on PCH at Artesia and not at peak traffic times. If The Development is catering to business guests, a large number of guests will be exiting The Development between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. going to LAX or to other business locations. Traffic on PCH at that time of the morning is already very heavy. Assuming the Hotel was only 75% occupied, there would be at least 54 cars exiting the parking structure during those hours, in addition to delivery trucks, and employees. PCH does not need nor can it accommodate this additional traffic. Especially when one considers other new traffic that will be clogging up PCH, The Development should not be allowed to go forward. A Hilton Express is already being built at 2nd Street and PCH with approximately 80 rooms. Additionally, a new Health Club and.a Spa are also being developed on the West side of PCH near 15th Place. All of these other sources of additional traffic will make traveling on PCH a nightmare for the residents of Hermosa Beach trying to get to work in the morning, or coming home from work at night. Further, there is a school crossing at 15th Place and PCH: That school crossing does not have a crossing guard or light. With all of the additional traffic coming out of The Development during peak school hours, a crossing guard or light would be needed, further slowing traffic The Development should not be allowed to go forward. Additionally, it appears that no traffic study has taken into account the fact that there is a busstop on PCH in frontof the site of The Development. Traffic coming into and coming out of the Hotel trying to navigate around buses, and having -buses' trying to navigate around The Development traffic can only lead to further congestion and accidents. This is yet another reason why The Development should not be allowed to go forward. Finally, the file characterizes the area around The Development as ` largely commercial.` The fact is that there are low density residences directly to the East of The Development. Adding a giant commercial development with numerous transient guests can only increase traffic and reduce the quality of life for all of the residents to the East of The Development. 211/121300.01 041200/1746 IV. Hermosa Beach Does Not Need Another Hotel We have spoken with the Manager of Hotel Hermosa, who is stronglyopposed to this project. Hermosa Beach already has enough hotels. The Manager of Hotel Hermosa indicated that there is a fairly low occupancy rate at hotels in the area and that the addition of another hotel will only create a significant hardship to the already existing hotels in the area. There are already no fewer than 12 hotels and motels within a couple of miles of The Development. There is no evidence that Hermosa Beach either needs or can support another Hotel, especially when the Hilton Express is already going m about a mile away from The Development. Another hotel will only put a financial strain on the existing hotels, and will not increase total occupancy of hotels in the area or the amount of room tax the City receives:. Instead, increasing competition among the hotelsmay only lead to the hotels spending less money on their maintenance. It may also lead to hotels being completely indiscriminate about the persons to whom they rent. In the 1990s, in Torrance, hotels were known to have methamphetamine labs being operated out of them when they rented to anyone who would pay the room fee. Hermosa Beach will not benefit by having an empty hotel on PCH, or several largely empty hotels on PCH. Eventually, hotels may go out of business, leaving empty buildings taking up space, blocking views, and generally being an eyesore. The Development should not be allowed to go forward. V. The Development Is Likely To Create Undue Noise And Disturbance To The Residents Living All Around The Development The Hermosa Beach Municipal Code has strict limits on noise levels. See Section 8.24.020. The residents of 829 and 833 15th Street have already had to deal with parking lot sweepers at Plaza Hermosa repeatedly violating section 8.24.020 in the middle of the night and very early morning hours. If parking lot sweepers are used in the underground parking lot of The Development, that is likely to cause further violations of noise ordinances. Additionally, the plans for The Development have a "laundry" that appears to face the West side of the residences at 833 15th Street and 834 15th Place. That "laundry" is likely to be run at all times of the day, causing violations of noise ordinances. 211/121300.01 041200/1746 Further, numerous rooms in The Development face the properties on 15th Street and 15th Place. Guests in the rooms of The Development may have parties or create other disturbances which violate the noise ordinances. VI. The Development Poses A Danger To The Stability Of Nearby Property A note in the file for The Development states that "massive. ,shoring will be needed." This is true for several reasons. First, the underground parking below a three story structure in itself creates the need for massive shoring. Beyond that, residences on the hill above The Development require a stable area below them. If the ground at The Development becomes unstable, it most definitely will pose a danger to the properties immediately surrounding The Development. Additionally, the property at 834 15th Place has a pool, and therefore makes it especially important that the ground West of the residences be stable. To the extent that The Development might make the ground unstable, the project should not be allowed to'. go forward. Living In Hermosa Beach Is About Quality Of Life As indicated above, allowing The Development to bebuilt will greatly impact the residents' quality of life in Hermosa Beach. We planned for fifteen years to move to Hermosa Beach. Our reason for our moving to the beach and buying the property at 833 Fifteenth Street was to be able see the ocean and watch the sunset from our home. We so thoroughly enjoy living in the Hermosa Beach community and are distressed by the effect The Development will have on our quality of life. We strongly urge that the Planning Commission take into- consideration the extremely negative impact that The Development will have on the residents of Hermosa Beach: (1) there will be an immediate decrease in property values (2) residents will completely lose theirocean and sunset views; (3) there will necessarily be a significant over -flow of vehicles parking on 15th Street and 15th Place (4) traffic on PCH will be unbearable 'during rush hour; (5) the building of another hotel is unnecessary and will likely have a significant economic impact on hotels already in the area; and (6) there will be a significant increase m noise to the surrounding residents. Clearly, if the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission allows The Development to be built pursuant to its current plans and specifications, the residents will suffer a serious hardship. We appreciate your giving us the opportunity . to express our concerns and overall dissatisfaction with the 211/121300.01 041200/1746 0-1 building of The Development and look forwarding to speaking before you on April 18, 2000. VIII. Conclusion The Planning Commission should reject the plan to build a 72 room structure where none is needed. The structure will be a blight on the beautiful City of Hermosa Beach and will decrease the quality of life of its residents. To avoid an unnecessary court challenge by the citizens of Hermosa Beach the plan should be rejected. Sincerely, ctorr& Bridgette de Gyarfas 211/121300.01 041200/1746 16' SHEET6 OF 9 SHEETS CONDOMINIUM PLAN FOR N 13'26'00"W PARCEL MAP. NO. 22156 ,— N76'34'00"E 42.00' e-90'00'0" R-1.25' L -t.96' "• T+1.25' = 20.00' 2-G LE -104.5 U.E-113.2 za.ar 10.25' $2-S 4 N LE -105.2 L4E-1132 11.50' 5 -ab' 11.50' LE -1052 U.E-113.2 ? 2-A i •11.so. LE -105.0 U.E-113.0 1-1,4 730' 1� • 17.50' 12.50' 1-G LEllo3.5 U.E-113.0 20.00' R 5. Sari . LE -104.0 (LE -113.0 •1 N7E34'00"E 42.00' �--""' 15 :STREET FIRST FLOOR PLAN: Al ,4LE : I"= 16' CURVE. DATA Q1 4.,90'00'00' R=1.25' La1.96' T=f.25' 0 4=45'35'05' R=1.75' Le 1.39' 11.0.74' 4.,90'00'00' Ra0.50' La0.79' T=0.50' Q4 4=90'0000' R=1.75' L=2.75' SHEET 7 OF 9SHEETS CONDOMINIUM PLAN FOR PARCEL MAP NO, 22156 N76'34'00"E 42.00' ,41A07 LE -11.14 2—Y U.E-12l.4n I® _29sa. .O g i • ALE : I"z 16' SHEET 8 OF 9 SHEETS CONDOMINIUM PLAN FOR PARCEL MAP•NO. 22156 CURVE DATA to C) d90'00'00" . . L-1.96' T,•1.25' i 90'00'00" R.•0.50' L-0.79' T 0.50' N76.34'00"E 42.00' 29.50' i -123.3 u.E-rJra 2-C wjS}� ^ soar © 9.23' N76'34'00" E 42.00' 15 STREET THIRD FLOOR PLAN ALE:I r- 16' SHEET 9 OF 9S CONDOMINIUM PLAN CURVE DATA of 4=90'00'00' R-1.25' L=1.96' T=1.25' 4=45'35'05" R=1.75' L=1.39' T=0.74' ® 4=90'00'00` R=1.75' L=2.75' T=1.75' FOR PARCEL MAP 'NO. 22156 1n N76'34'00"E 42.00' —Woo.-- —_ LE.1326 $I 2-0-2 1 uE-110.e-- 3.75' 24.00' n °non. .1 I I 1-0-2 2.75' I LE -123.3 U.E-131.3 I 2.75' L.25. 16.75' tri 26.00' s' N76'34'00"E 42.00' 15. ' STREET ROOF DECK PLAN Hotel Hermosa 2515 Pacific Coast Highway • Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (310) 318-6000 • (800) 331-9979 • FAX (310) 318-6936 RECEIVED APR 1, 3 2000 April 12, 2000 Hermosa Beach Planning Department Dear Sirs: QOM. DEV, DEPT, We have just been informed of a proposal to construct, a Hampton Inn Hotel on Pacific Coast Highway, only two blocks south of Hotel Hermosa, across the street from the old AMC Movie Theater. We are completely appalled that the.' city of Hermosa Beach would even consider building a second new hotel in our small community. We have ten hotels and motels in the proximity of a mile and a half radius that more than meet the cities needfor hospitality lodging. As the present ten properties only run at an average of 72% occupancy annually, an , additional hotel would cause financial hardship on the existing properties that have long upheld the small town beach city feel of Hermosa Beach: Also, additional traffic problems created by the new hotel due to be completed on or about July 2000 will increase the flow of traffic that currently exists between 2'1: Street " and Artesia Boulevard along Pacific Coast Highway. As an example of the past, I would like to convey my experience with the city of Torrance hotel -building boom that took place in the early 'nineties. Due to the economy, in addition to the lack of employment, the amount of corporate business decreased, therefore the hotels were compelled to lower their standards to a undesirable element in order to meet their financial needs. I can only stress that a new hospitality property in the city of Hermosa Beach would put an insurmountable strain on our present financial situation. We are confident that upon careful consideration by the Planning Department, the welfare of Hermosa Beach citizens and the existing hospitality properties will be emphasized above and beyond sudden proposals that do not reflect the true needs of our community. Sincerely yours, - k, General Manager la$ RS0E1110) APR 131.50 oak Dv. DEPT, Community Development Department Planning Division City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 To Whom It May Concern: I would like to let it be known that I am opposed to building a seventy-two room hotel located at 1514 - 1550 Pacific Coast Highway and 815 15th Street. I am opposed because it would contribute to the already major traffic and parking problems we have on Pacific Coast Highway, 15th Street and Mina. I believe it is necessary to preserve this area for residents and not add to the congestion. We have an existing problem with the VCA Hospital employees who do not use there own parking lot to park in.. We also had a problem when the AMC theaters were in business. Even though there is a parking lot availablepatrons would park on Pacific Coast Highway and 1ft Street and walk across the street. I am also opposed to a building that would block my city light and ocean view. I have owned my home for thirteen years and would like to continue to preserve the view that I have paid for so dearly. I understand this may not be a concern of yours but I would like to think the commission would like to take care of the residents instead of a few visitors We already have several hotels in the area that serve our out of town guests. Thank you for your attention. 846-848 16th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Neil & Teresa Gretsky 80 16th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 310-372-6502 May 16, 2000 Community Development Department Planning Division City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: 72 Room Hotel at 1514-1550 Pacific Coast Highway and 815 15th Street Dear Community Development Department Members: We are the owners of the building at 834 15th Place. Our building is directly east of the proposed hotel project ("The Project") at the, address cited above. ' This letter is inform you of our testimony and comments in opposition to the plan to construct The Project. Our presentation is in concert with presentations by Victor & Bridgette de Gyarfas and Michael Gilmore. Although we have many objections to the building of this project as planned, our main point is: THE PROJECT IS NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE PURPOSE OR THE INTENT OF PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLANS IN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 8. I. THE PROJECT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING USES AND IT IS NOT OF HIGH ENOUGH QUALITY. Applicable Zoning Ordinances: 17.58. 010 Purpose and intent of Precise Development Plans. The purpose and intent of requiring precise development plan review for development projects is to achieve a reasonable level of quality, compatibility, in harmony with the community's social, economic and environmental objectives, and to protect existing and potential developments, and uses on adjacent and surrounding property 17.38.400 Plan Area No. 8: Precise development plan. A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to set forth the procedures and guidelines for review of precise development plans, which are required when a proposed project exceeds any one of the first tier standards. B. Guidelines for Planning Commission Review: 1. General Guidelines. To allow projects which exceed any of the first tier standards, the overall building and project design should be of a superior quality, be compatible with surrounding properties, and be /31) designed in scale with the community. The planning commission shall consider the following in making this determination: c. The project should be compatible with neighboring projects with respect to height, scale, bulk, proportion. This is not a prescription for similar architectural styles, although in some cases it may be desirable, nor a prescription to match existing buildings, as many existing buildings do not stand scrutiny under these guidelines. Discussion: The Project is not compatible with neighboring projects and properties with respect to height, scale, bulk, or proportion. It is not in scale with the community. Harmony with the communities social and environmental objectives has never been discussed. The Project harms uses on the adjacent residential properties: the bulk of The Project affects the air flow, light, and views of these properties. A definite loss in property values and economic worth will occur in these residential properties. At least one Planning Commissioner has publicly expressed concern that the quality of The Project did not seem high enough to qualify for second tier standards. THE PROJECT HARMS THE WELFARE OF HERMOSA BEACH CITIZENS., Applicable Zoning Ordinances: 17.38.390 Plan Area No. 8 --Commercial development standards. k Purpose and Intent. The standards and guidelines are designed to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens; of Hermosa Beach and to encourage the development of high quality commercial development; along Pacific Coast Highway in respect to its impact on residential projects, environmental impacts, circulation and appearance. B. Standards. Two sets of standards apply in this specific plan area, first tier and second tier. Compliance with first tier standards allows the project to proceed with a building permit. If a project goes beyond any of the first tier standards the procedure for submittal and approval of a precise development plan shall be followed. Developments must be in compliance with second tier standards at all times: Discussion: This project will not protect the welfare of the citizens. Quality of life will be reduced for Hermosa Beach citizens. There will be negative effects in traffic flow, congestion, availability of bus stop access, and crosswalk usage across PCH. The traffic study that has been performed is inadequate and inaccurate. The times chosen for the study were inappropriate. A rough calculation shows that there will be at least 50 more trips per day during the peak on the morning rush hour on PCH. III. THE PROJECT DOES NOT SATISFY THE CRITERIA TO ALLOW SECOND TIER STANDARDS. Applicable Zoning Ordinances: 17.38.400 Plan Area Number 8—Precise Development Plan. 131 B. Guidelines for Planning Commission Review. Discussion: The section "Guidelines for Planning Commission Review" which pertains to second tier standards has at least eleven subsections concerning quality, compatibility, height, scale, bulk, proportion, interesting architectural features, avoidance of flat building faces, landscaping for mitigation of visual effects of flat/massive parts, minimization of view impacts, lot coverage, setbacks, etc. Most of these guidelines are violated by the Project. Many of these violations are documented in tonight's presentation. V. THERE IS NO MITIGATION OF VIEW IMPACT FROM THE EAST. Applicable Zoning Ordinances: 17.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development plan. 2. Height. To allow projects to exceed the first tier height limits, the building design should incorporate features to minimize and breakup the visual impact and view impacts of the higher structures on neighboring residential areas and on the streetscape. Discussion: This requirement has not been addressed at all. The three properties adjacent to The Project on the east will face a solid vertical wall that is higher than each of the three properties. V. THE LOT COVERAGE EXCEEDS SECOND TIER STANDARDS. Applicable Zoning Ordinances: 17.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development plan. 2a. Limit Lot Coverage of Uppermost Level. The area of the portion of the structure which exceeds the first tier height limit should not cover a major portion of the lot area, and said over -height area should be compensated by a proportional area of the building which. is at or less than the height limit. Discussion This requirement has also been ignored. There is no portion of the building which is not above tier one standards. The building covers the entire lot except that portion given over to egress/mgress and parking. VI. THE PROJECT HAS A LARGE FLAT VERTICAL WALL ON THE EAST SIDE AND NO. SETBACKS FOR UPPER LEVEL. Applicable Zoning Ordinances: 17.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8 -Precise development plan. 2c. Greater Setbacks for Upper Levels. Progressing from the first floor to the uppermost story of the building setbacks from the rear property line should increase and exceed minimum requirements, and the upper stories shall have tiered setbacks from the lower levels as viewed from the front Discussion: This requirement is also being ignored. The east side of the building is a flat wall with insufficient setback (As mentioned elsewhere, the wall of the underground parking structure is illegally close to the property line) VII. THE ROOFLINE DOES NOT HAVE VARIABLE HEIGHTS. Applicable Zoning Ordinances: 17.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8 --Precise development plan. B.3c. Variable Heights. The roofline of the building should be designed with variable heights, and roof patterns or materials, to avoid the appearance of a flat building; Discussion: When viewed from either the front or the back of the building, the roofline is constant. It is only from the side that any variation occurs, and that is made to accommodate the' steeply changing grade of the lot. VIII. THE PROJECT HAS TOO MUCH BULK. Applicable Zoning Ordinances: 17.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8—Precise development plan. B.3. Bulk To allow projects which exceed the maximum floor area/lot area ratio (FAR) the building design should incorporate features to minimize the, appearance of bulk, and to compensate for the bulk of a building with attractive architectural features which enhance the building and which reduce the visual impact of large areas of flat vertical walls. Discussion: The Project definitely exceeds the maximum F.A.R. area. Yet the design of the building is bulky when viewed from any direction. Moreover, the visual impact of the east -facing flat wall is enormous. IX. OTHER POSSIBLE USES HAVE NEVER BEEN DISCUSSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL. Applicable Zoning Ordinances: 7.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8—Precise development plan - C. General Criteria. In considering the precise development plan for any development, the following criteria for granting or conditionally granting said permit shall be considered: 4. The combination of uses proposed, as they relate to compatibility; 9. Impact of the proposed use to the city's infrastructure, and/or services; 11. Other considerations that, in the judgment of the planning commission, are necessary to assure compatibility with the surrounding uses, and the city as a whole. Discussion: There are several hotels in the city (with more on the drawing boards). None are of this scale, bulk, or visual impact. Although Hermosa Beach is an attractive destination for tourists and LAX users, its primary purpose for its residents has been as a small, friendly, unusual beach town in which to live and raise a family. Many of our citizens wish to resist an evolution into a city of monoliths put in by opportunistic developers who will not be here when the effects of their developments are felt. It is, or should be, the responsibility of the 'Community Development Department and the Planning Division to take seriously the overall direction that residential and commercial construction and development have on the city. At the last. Planning Commission meeting of April 18, a member of the audience presented a well thought out and very extensive list of possible uses for the property that would be within tier one standards and in keeping with the community character. Perhaps such community involvement needs to be sought out by the CDP. X. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ARE NOT MITIGATED. Applicable Zoning Ordinances: 7.38. 400 Plan Area No. 8—Precise development plan 10. Adequacy of mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts quantitative terms. Discussion: The stability of the hillside for the properties which are up the hill to the east of the project cannot be guaranteed, especially in light of the plan to "indent" underground parking closer to the property line than allowed by the setback requirements. On the other side of 15th Street there has already been some downhill motion of properties evidently caused by removal of earth from a construction site. Even though preliminary engineering studies were performed, these problems have occurred. There are environmental issues of noise, dirt, traffic, and vibration which will be brought' up by another presenter. XI. THE NOTICING HAS BEEN IMPROPER. Discussion: It is required that notice of public meetings on The Project be sent to adjacent residents and to property owners of adjacent properties. When this subject was brought up at the Planning Department meeting of April 18, it was stated that the Department had made an appropriate effort to effect the noticing. Nonetheless, my wife and I have never been sent a notice about this matter. I question how many other potentially concerned 'citizens are in the same situation: We urge the Planning Division not to approve this project. Sincerely, Neil E. Gretsky 11S April 12, 2000 Neil E. Gretsky 80 16th Street Hermosa Beach, Ca 90254 372=6502 Community Development Department Planning Division City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 RECEIVE® APR 1 3 2000 t;OM. DEV. DEPT To whom it may concern: I am writing in response to the Public Notice announcing a public meeting of the Planning Commission to consider the development plan for the construction of a hotel at 1514-1550 Pacific Coast Highway and 815 15th Street My wife and I are the owners of the building at 832-834 15t Place which is on a lot directly east of the north end of the proposed construction. There are several issues that I wish to raise. hi this letter I have divided them into two parts substantive and procedural. Substantive issues: I believe that an Environmental Impact Study should be conducted for a project of this magnitude. It appears that the staff of the planning commission has met previously and is recommending that such a study is not needed. (See the comments in the Procedural section below.) There are questions (in both the construction and operating phases of the hotel) that need to be addressed about traffic impact, effect on public transportation, noise impact, ground stability immediately up -hill of the development, waste disposal, and compatibility with the present surrounding mixed commercial -residential use. The impacts of these factors will be different for the commercial portion of Pacific Coast Highway and the residential neighborhood just east of the highway. Incidentally, a phrase in the planning document refers to this area as "an industrial area"; I believe that this is neither a factual nor a legal zoning description of the immediate environs of the project. I have two concerns about the height of this building. Evidently, the height limit and lot coverage in this part of the city has a "bonus" (which is not considered by the Planning Division to be a variance) if the project is judged to have suitable amenities. I would like to know what these criteria are and how it is decided that such criteria are satisfied. Secondly, from what points is the height to be measured? The project lot is, for the most part, substantially below the lots to its immediate east; how is this elevation disparity reflected in determining the allowable height envelope of the building? Other issues come to mind; I will briefly mention them here. There are questions of esthetics and design about the compatibility of such a massive structure in this neighborhood. How is the underground excavation for parking to be done without endangering the safety of the groundmass of, and the structures on, the lots immediately to the hotel's east? Where are the service deliveries to be made? What is the likelihood of such a project being economically successful? Procedural issues: The decision of the staff to recommend that no Environmental Impact Report need be done was decided at a meeting for which no notice by mail was made to nearby residents or property owners. The only notice was a small sign on the lot. When I was informed about the sign, I called the Planning Division to find out how important this meeting was. 1 was told that, although this meeting was open to the public, it was not really a public meeting but rather a meeting of the staff to discuss technical environmental aspects of the project. There was no indication that such an important recommendation would be considered. After I was given a notice of the April 18 meeting, I called the Planning Division tofind out what the phrase "Environmental Negative Declaration" meant. At that time I was told that there had been a public meeting, that virtually no one had attended, and that mail notice was not required. It would appear that I received contradictory information was this first meeting a staff technical meeting, which was open to the public, or was this a public meeting, which was meant to elicit comment about an important decision? I have not been mailed a notice about the second meeting, even though my wife and I are listed on the property rolls as the owners of a building immediately to the east of the project. Notification was mailed to "Occupant" at that address; my tenant was kind enough to forward it me. After my first phone call to the Planning Division I visited the Planning Division and was shown the plans. Since it was apparent that more than a few moments' study was going to be needed, I asked for a copy. I was told that the developer would have to consent and was given the phone number of Dixit Patel. I called and had a conversation with Mr. Patel in which he told me that (i) the plans were being changed and (ii), when they were completed, he would send me a copy. I never received a copy. I made a follow-up call a couple of weeks later at which time Mr. Patel told me that the architect had declared these plans were "proprietary" and therefore could not be given out. He had never initiated a call to me to inform me of this change of policy. Ifeel that these three occurrences indicate that the open flow of information to the public from the City and the obligation of the City to seek meaningful public input are somewhat lacking in the spirit, if not the letter, of the 'requirements for review of this project. X37 I would like this letter to be included in the agenda packet, and I would like the opportunity to speak at the public hearing. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Quality Inn _ .901 Aviation Blvd. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Phone: (310) 374-2666 Fax: (310) 379-3797 For Reservations Only: 1-800-553-1145 April 13, 2000 Hermosa Beach Planning Department We greatly oppose the proposal to construct a Hampton Inn Hotel on Pacific Coast Highway in Hermosa Beach. We already have a significant amount of hotels in this area & another hotel in Hermosa would significantly cause financial hardship. What we need is more parking in the city, not another hotel. ��9 'ALIFORNIA, C6-10 / COM•RCIAL REAL ES1 A fE; C14 SI MAY 16, 2000 floc Angeleo Gimeo W W W.LATIMES.COM/BUSINESS look at :ids that •st. and h -stock E: James Itzik dis- national Storage CS - net Health -hains could reimburse= :nsive cases Apparel de- lay off 90% :e its two re- f: Microsoft lable for its software to inning any ttachments, Apple Com- ial release of -w operating ear. C3 rlca Online million fine tions it ViO- ng rules -by _ts as assets, 1 -tory output I. Some ex - gain would _:reale in in- RTATF Fears of Glut Rise as Hotel Chains Continue Building More Rooms ■ Commercial real estate: It may bode ill for the industry, but consumers could benefit from a reduction in rates as competition heats up. By JESUS SANCHEZ TIMES STAFF WRITER A nationwide hotel building boom has raised concerns about a glut of guest rooms in certain markets and slower rev- enue growth in the years ahead. The surge of construction might be bad news for hotel owners but it could prove to be a bonus for guests. In suburban markets where building has been heavy, travelers could see a reduction in room rates as new hotels seek:to establish themselves and fill their rooms. Meanwhile, existing hotels may reduce rates too and renovate their properties to keep up with the new compe- tition. Construction began on nearly 149,000 hotel rooms last year—a level comparable to the industry building boom of the late 1980s. The current rate of building, which is far above historical levels, has contrib- uted to a decline in' occupancy rates and slower revenue growth only a few years af- ter the industry staged a dramatic recov- ery. The average occupancy rate dropped to 70.4% in 1999 from 71.5% in 1998, and from a peak of 72.7% in 1997, according to PKF Consulting. "We've had more supply than demand," said Joseph V. Coccimiglio, a hotel indus- try analyst at Prudential Securities. Much of the new construction—and po- tential 0-tential for problems—is focused in the popular limited -service end of the hotel in- dustry, which includes such chains as Fairfield Inn, Hampton Inn and Holiday Inn Express. This part of: the market has more than doubled in size during the last decade and continues to add rooms at a rapid pace. Industry giants Beverly Hills -based Hil- ton Hotels Corp. and rival Marriott Inter- national are in a race to open limited -serv- ice hotels. In the next two years, Hilton Please see HOTELS, C12 Building Boom Hotel occupancy rates in the U.S. have dipped in recent years as a surge in construction has increased the competition for travelers, particularly those staying at limited -service hotels. Hotel construction is booming:. . Construction starts, in thousands of rooms: I 1 L. 2003*: 116,566 r 180 L- '87 '88 '89 '90 .'91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 "00" '01' ... but occupancy rates have dipped ... Average percentage of rooms 150 I I , 120 I . 90 60 11 30 I 0 '02' '03' especially at limited -service hotels - Average percentage of rooms occupied per night at all hotels: occupied per night at limited 72% service hotels: 11999: 65.3%, 441111101 4elmil. 1999704%1 11111111 '89'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 69 66 i® 97 '98 '99 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 ." rmbh. 69 ss o 111111 so 72% 63 7'44, r BEATRICE DE GEA / Los Angeles Times Hampton Inn in Santa Clarita, one of the limited -service chain's hotels . Sources: PricewaterhouseCoopers, PKF Consulting 'Estimate r LF -o Los Angeles Times ■ fo Hl ar By • r:a ar. ex 9r HO`1'ELS: Occupancy Rates Falling and Revenue Growth Slowing Continued from Cl Hotels plans to open about 400 ho- tels -most of them franchised Hampton Inns—with a total of 60,000 rooms. . "Sure, you could say we are con- ' tributing to the supply," said Hilton Hotels spokesman Marc Grossman. But investors "got the money; they got land; they're going to build a ho- tel. We are going to do everything' in our power to make sure that it's go- ing to be one of our brands." A notch above a motel, limited - service hotels offer budget -minded travelers the comforts of a fully ap- pointed guest room without amen- ities found in more expensive hotels. . "Inside, the guest 'room is the equivalent of a [full-service] hotel room. Outside, it more like a mo- tel," said. Bjorn Hanson, who heads the hospitality and leisure industry :.practice at PricewaterhouseCoopers. The 'formula proved successful during the recession of the early 1990s, when travelers were eager to .trade bellmen, room service and a hotel restaurant for a comfortable ',room priced well below $100 a night, Limited -service properties emerged as industry darlings when the recession battered full-service, big city hotels. Investors loved the concept because they could open a 100 -room hotel on cheap land in an outlying location for as little as $5 million. In contrast, a full-service property downtown could easily cost $100 million or more. As a result, the number of limited - service hotel properties ballooned to about 468,000 rooms during the last decade, according to Pricewater- houseCoopers. But the same features that made the hotels so populdr among inves- tors have become weaknesses. "Sup- ply comes pouring in when builders can build whenever they can," said Los Angeles attorney 'Jim Butler, who is in charge of the hospitality group at Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro. • The surge of new development has proved painful for full-service competitors—such as Holiday Inn—and independents, many of which have been forced out of business. But as the construction boom con tinues—albeit at a slower rate— many suburban markets are on the verge of becoming overbuilt with limited -service hotels, industry ana- lysts warn. In California, most markets have seen little hotel development, but some pockets, such as suburban Sac- ramento and northern San. Diego County, are expected to see large numbers of new rooms. The construction boom has not created a "treacherous situation" but will force investors to be more selective and cautious about where they build, said Hanson at Pricewa- terhouseCoopers. "It used to be that any hotel proj- ect would be successful," Hanson said. "It was almost too easy." Individual investors—not the gi- ant lodging chains that franchise the properties—stand to bear most of the risk from building too many stripped -down hotels, industry ob- servers said. The spike in mid -priced hotels and the ease at which they can, be opened "is why we are typically not an owner in that end of the market," said Grossman at Hilton Hotels. The industry is expected to avoid a major hotel -room glut because lenders and investors have become more hard-nosed, lodging analysts said. Hotel developers who had been able to put up only. 20% of their money to finance a project may now be required to come up with 40%, said Alan X. Reay, president of hotel broker Atlas Hospitality Group. "Lending is getting tighter and tighter," Reay said. ' In a turnabout, investors are ndw more willing to finance the full-serv- ice, luxury hotels in major urban markets that were once out of favor. The difficulty and high costs sof 'building new properties in.centfal. cities has kept a lid on coinpetitiQn and freed hoteliers to raise' rates ag- gressively. "It's the economy end of the business that is suffering the most from the consequences [of the build- ing boom]," Butler said. "Now, the greatest growth, the greatest profit and greatest stability is at the high end." • Hampton Inn Gross Revenue Analysis Projected Annual Gross Revenue per Dixit Patel $2,300,000 Total Number of Rooms Current room rates at comparable hotels: Hampton inn - Carson 68.00 Hotel Hermosa - Hermosa Beach 62.00 Holiday Inn Express - Manhattan Beach 95.00 Quality. Inn - Hermosa Beach 89.00 Average Local Room Rate 78:50 Percentage of rooms occupied 100.00% 70:40% 65.30% Number of occupied rooms nightly 72 51 47 Room rate necessary to achieve projected $2.3 million gross revenue $88.00 $124.00 $134.00 Projected annual gross revenue at $78.50 average room rate 2,062,980.00 1,461,277.50 1,346,667.50 % by which Patel overstated gross revenues -10.31')/0 -36.47% -4.1.45% To: Honorable Members of Planning Board Hermosa Beach, CA From: Thomas V. and Lee A. Ranalli. 838 15th St. Hermosa Beach, CA E 'E . ED APR 1.8 2000 UOM. OEV. DEPT. As residents of. 15th Street in Hermosa Beach, we are writing this letter to express our concern about the proposed development plan to build a 72 -room hotel at 1514 to 1550 PCH in Hermosa Beach. It is important to note that parking on 15th Street in general is extremely limited the south side of the street completely forbids parking and the north side of the street parking is minimal. Additionally, parking on the north side of the street is prohibited -for a period once a week for street cleaning. Right now, residents of 15th Street have to compete with patrons of businesses on PCH for this limited parking. Overall, between the narrowness of the street, the amount of traffic on the street on any given day / night and the impact of large vehicles for on-going residential construction on the street, there are too many conditions which are already impactful in what should be a quiet residential neighborhood: The addition of crews for the hotel construction and most importantly, the expected additional competition for parking space on 15th Street by hotel patrons along with the related traffic that would be added by these patrons would cause undue hardship to the residents of 15th Street. Another consideration of which the planning board should be aware is the claim that the planned elevation of thehotel development is within city code. We have a very strong concern that the measurements taken to calculate the elevation were done in such a manner as to mislead the board of the true nature of the property's existing elevation. This will not only be unfair to those who follow the codes for construction in Hermosa Beach, but also will disrupt already reduced views for those in the neighborhood. For those of us who spend a considerable amount of our incomes in both mortgage and property taxes for these spectacular views— and made the purchase of our homes with the intent of selling the property for profit some day with these views intact — the construction of this hotel would be extremely negative to our property values and would make living in Hermosa Beach less appealing overall. There are a number of other considerations that the board. should review— namely whether another hotel in Hermosa Beach is even warranted in the SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION existing business climate. Another concern is whether construction of the magnitude anticipated for this hotel and its attendant noise and disturbance both during the construction and afterwards in the running of the hotel - is conducive to "acceptable residential life." We are very pleased to be new residents of Hermosa Beach and would like to continue living here. It is a good place to raise our son and the quality of life in general for all of us is better than other communities we considered. However, Hermosa Beach would quickly lose its appeal if this hotel project was to go forward and we would be forced to consider alternatives. We believe that Hermosa Beach wants to attract families such as ours who take pride in the communityand have our level of income to be able to afford and maintain properties such as ours that can only raise property values throughout the city. In the end, it comes down to quality of life for all of us - does the city wish to encourage superfluous commercial development for the little additional revenue it may generate at the expense of the upper middle class that is really the heart of the community? In the end, it is hoped that the residents' concerns are seriously considered and this hotel construction project is rejected: Thank you for listening. COMPARISON OF TRAFFIC GENERATION FOR DIFFERENT USES Use Total AM Peak PM Peak Fast Food Restaurant (Per 1,000 square feet) 496 64.8 46.3 Gas w/ Convenience Market (Per fueling pump) 162.8 10.56 : 13.57 Auto Repair Center (Per 1,000 square feet) 15.86 3.22 4.01 Medical/Dental Office (Per 1,000 square feet) 36 3.6 4:36 General Office (Per 1,000 square feet) 11 1.56 1.49 Specialty Retail (Per 1,000 square feet) 41 6:41 4.93 Proposed Hotel (per occupied room) 9,11 0.67 0.74 * from ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition Estimated Project Size Total AM Peak P.M Peak 3000 sq. ft. 1488 165 139 10 fueling pumps 1628 106 136 20,000 sq. ft. 317 64 80 20,000 sq. ft. 720 72 87 30,000 sq. ft. 330 2 47 45 20,000 sq. ft. 820 128 99 71 rooms 647 48 53 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION f/b95/cd/internwork/trafficgenerationmatrix 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28" 29 RESOLUTION NO. 00- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 71 -ROOM HOTEL ON APPEAL, AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1530 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTHERLY 67.5' OF LOTS 1 AND 2, AND LOT 3, HEFFNER, FIORINI, ALLEN TRACT; AND, THE WESTERLY 145.67' OF A PORTION OF LOT 5, BLOCK 84, 2ND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. An application was filed by Dixit Patel owner in escrow of property at 1530 Pacific Coast Highway seeking approval of a Precise Development Plan to construct a 72 -room hotel: Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed de novo public hearing to consider the application for a Precise Development Plan on April 18, and May 16, 2000, and considered substantial testimony and evidence. Based on the testimony and evidence received, The Commission approved the requested Precise Development Plan subject to conditions as set forth in P.C. Resolution No. 0.0-29: Section 3. An appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission was filed by neighboring property owners Mr. and Mrs: DeGyarfas, Mr. And Mrs. Gilmore and Mr. and Mrs. Gretsky. Section 4. The City Council conducted a duly noticed de novo public hearing to consider the appeal of the Planning Commission approval of the Precise Development Plan on July 11, 2000. Section 5. Based on evidence received at the public hearing, and the record of the decision of the Planning Commission, the City Council makes the following factual findings: 1. The applicant is proposing to construct a three-story hotel containing 39,000 square feet and 71 rooms. The hotel plans have been revised to comply with the Planning Commission conditions of approval, including reducing the proposed number of rooms from 72 to 71. 2. The proposed use is classified as a hotel, pursuant to the definition of the Zoning Ordinance, since the rooms are accessed through a common entrance, and includes a central registration and lobby area. Since a use classified as a hotel is listed as a permitted use in the C-3 zone, it is • permitted. in the S.P.A. 8 zone, which incorporates C-3 uses by reference. Proposed ancillary uses include a lobby, office, and breakfast room. The ancillary uses are intended to be exclusively for hotel occupants and employees. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 4 3. The site is zoned S.P.A. 8 which requires a Precise Development Plan for the construction of the hotel as it exceeds 25 -feet in building height, exceeds 10,000 square feet and exceeds a floor areas to lot area ratio of 1:1. Section 6. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the City Council makes the following findings pertaining to the application for a Precise Development Plan: 1. The overall building and project design is of a superior quality, is, compatible with surrounding properties and is designed in scale with the community. In making this finding, the City Council has determined that: The building is designed with interesting architectural features and materials to enhance the overall project. The building contains architectural features, such as angled balconies and tiered building levels, that are interesting and enhance the project. b. Landscaping is utilized throughout the site in a manner that enhances the building and the site, and that mitigates the visual impacts of any flat and/or massive parts of the building. Sufficient landscaping will, be utilized to enhance the project and mitigate adverse visual impactsof any flat and/or massive parts of the building. e The project is compatible with neighboring projects with respect to height, scale, bulk and proportion. The building and proposed use is sufficiently compatible with neighboring projects with respect to height, scale, bulk and proportion. 2. Exceeding first tier height limits is warranted because the building design incorporates features to minimize and breakup the visual impacts of the higher structures on neighboring residential areas and the streetscape. In making this finding, the City Council has determined that: a. The area of the portion of the structure that exceeds the first tier height limit does not cover a major portion of the lot area, and such area is compensated by a proportional area of the building that is at or less than the height limit. The project is setback up to 80 feet from the PCH frontage and does not cover a major portion ofthe lot. Additionally, a sufficiently proportional area of the building is less than the maximum allowable building height. The appearance of flat roofs and massive flat vertical walls is avoided thi:Ough throughthe use of stepping and tiered architectural features. The project contains stepped and sloping roofs along PCH frontage where floor setbacks step from floor level to floor level and the overall setback ranges from 'T to 21'. A consistent setback of 12 -feet is provided ' from the ground to upper floors along the rear propertyline to meet minimum requirements. The project incorporates greater setbacks along PCH frontage progressing from the ground level to the upper stories creating tiered levels as viewed from the front of the project. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25' 26 27 28 29 3. because the compensate reduce the v Council has Exceeding first tier maximum floor : area/lot area ratio (F.A.R.) is, warranted building design incorporates features to minimize the appearance of bulk, and to for the bulk with attractive architectural features that enhance the building and isual impact of large areas of flat vertical walls. In making this finding, the City determined that: Significant and attractive architectural features are used to break up the bulky appearance of box -like structures. The project contains architectural features, such as angled balconies and tiered building levels, that are attractive and minimize box- like design. Step-ins and step -outs are used on the front of the building to break up bulky appearance. The project contains sufficient setbacks and projections to break up bulky appearance and create an attractive project. c. The roofline of the building is designed with variable heights, roof patterns or materials to avoid the appearance of a flat building. The project contains a roofline varying in height and tiered from floor level to floor level along PCH frontage: 4. The general criteria of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.38.400(C) for granting or conditionally granting 'a precise development permit have been considered. In making this finding, the City Council has determined that: g. 11. The proximity of the project to existing residential uses will not result in negative effects. The, project's impact on ocean views from residential areas has been evaluated. The amount of existing and proposed off-street parking is sufficient for actual need. The use proposed are compatible with each other and with the area: The capacity and safety of the streets serving the area is adequate for the traffic volume estimated to be generated by the project: The proposed exterior signs and decor are sufficiently compatible with existing establishments in the area. Building and driveway orientation is appropriate to minimize noise and traffic impacts on nearby residential areas. The project will not result in adverse noise, odor, dust or vibration environmental impacts. 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28. 29 The proposed use will not result in an adverse impact on the City's infrastructure and/or services: The mitigation measuresimposed are adequate to minimize environmental impacts of the project in quantitative terms. 5. The criteria of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.38.400(D) for denial of a Precise Development Plan are not applicable. In making this finding, the City Council has determined that: The project will not substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity, or interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in such area, because of excessive dissimilarity or inappropriateness of design in relation to the surrounding vicinity. b The project will hot have significant environmental adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated." Section 7. Environmental Review. 1. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local-CEQA Guidelines, the Staff Environmental Review Committee prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. Based upon the Initial Study, the Committee determined that (i) revisions in the project plans or proposals agreed to by the applicant would avoid potentially significant environmental effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; and (ii) there was no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City, that the project as revised would have a significant effect on the environment. City staff thereafter prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project and duly provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission subsequently approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration. A copy of the. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 2. The City Council has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Based on the whole record, the City Council finds that: (i) the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii) there is no substantial evidence that the proposed project will have a significant effect on the environment The City Council further finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. Based on these findings, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the proposed project. The City Council also hereby adopts the following program for monitoring the changes that have been made a condition of this approval to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects: a. The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project: (i) right turn only exiting the project site; and (ii) oil separator to be provided in the parking lot. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Section 8. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby approves the subject Precise Development Plan subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1. The development and continued use of the property shall be in conformance with submitted plans reviewed by the City Council at their meeting of July 11, 2000, incorporating all revisions as required by the conditions below. Minor modifications to the plan shall be reviewed ` and may be approved by the Community Development Director. a) The building shall be setback a minimum of nineteen (19) feet from 15th Street property line. b) The vent for the laundry room shall be relocated a greater distance from the easterly property line. c) The surface materials at the entry to the lobby shall be considered for upgrades, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. d) The parking lot shall provide all the parking as shown on the submitted plans, and include designated spaces for employee parking. Spaces designated for employees shall be clearly marked on the pavementor signed, with the number and location of spaces to be designated for employees to be reviewed . and approved by the Community Development Director. The subject lots to be developed shall be merged pursuant to Section 16.20.110, prior to the issuance of building permits. Egress from the main entry driveway shall be right turns only. Appropriate signs prohibiting left turns out of the site shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. Parking shall be prohibited along the_ east side of P.C.H. for a distance of 40 -feet south from the driveway entrance. Appropriate red curbingor signing shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Department of Public Works. Architectural treatment shall be as shown on building elevations and site and floor plans revised in accordance with the stipulations below. Any modification shall require approval by the Community Development Director. a) The mansard roof shall be extended to wrap around the east and entire perimeter of the building. b) The mansard roof shall not be extended any higher than shown on the building elevations Precise building height shall be reviewed at the time of plan check, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The''plans shall be corrected to indicate that proposed heights are equal or less than maximum allowable height elevations at the critical points 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. 22 23, 24 25 26 27 28 29 The project shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Department and the Public Works Departments. The applicant shall obtain approval from the California Department of Transportation for ingress and egress at the proposed driveway location, and any design requirements of CalTrans shall be included on project plans prior to issuance of building permits. Final building plans/construction drawings including site, elevation, floor plan, sections, details, signage, landscaping and irrigation, submitted for building permit issuance shall be reviewed for consistency with the plans approved by the Planning Commission and the conditions of this resolution, and approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of any Building Permit. 10. A minimum of one 24" box tree shall be provided for every 10 -feet of length along the easterly property line, supplemented by shrubs and suitable ground cover to provide a landscaped screen and enhanced elevation as viewed from the residential properties to the east. 11. Tree planting along the easterlyproperty line shall be maintained at a height no higher than the parapet wall along the roof line of the of the hotel building. 12. All exterior lights shall be located and oriented in a manner to insure that neighboring residential property and public right-of-way shall not be adversely effected. 13. An oil separator shall be provided in the parking lot to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 14. The project and operation of the business shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code. 15. The Precise Development Plan shall be recorded, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. 16. Each of the above Conditions of Approval is separately enforced, and if one of the Conditions of Approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable. 17. Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, it agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employee to attack, set aside, void or annul this permit approval, which action is brought within the applicable time period of Government Code Section 65907. The City shall promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. - If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any claim,action or proceeding, or if the City 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27' 28 29 fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall no thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. 18. The permittee shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this grant. Although the permittee is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of the action, but such participation shall not relieve the permittee of any obligation under this condition. 19. The subjectproperty shall bedeveloped,maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of this grant and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulation applicable to any development or activity on the subject property. Failure of the permittee to cease any. development or activity not in full compliance shall be a violation of these conditions. Section 9. This grant shall not be effective for any purposes until the permittee and the owners of the property involved have filed at the office of the Planning Division of the Community Development Department their affidavits stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this grant. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this l lth day of July, 2000, by the following vote: PRESIDENT of the-City.Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney B95/cd/cc/pdpr1530 (revised 7/11/00) Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of July 11, 2000 REQUEST FOR THREE-WAY STOP CONTROL AT VALLEY DRIVE AND 18T" STREET Recommendation: It is recommended, that the City Council deny the request for three-way stop control @ Valley Drive and 18th Street. Background: Residents in the vicinity of the intersection of Valley Drive and 18th Street have expressed concern for traffic safety at the intersection. They have requested that the city install stop signs on Valley Drive. The, petitioners' letter is attached for your information. A traffic study of this intersection has been completed. The study included a review of traffic, the physical -conditions and existing traffic controls; an analysis of the Police Department records of reported accidents and observation speeds and traffic movement through the intersection. The study of many factors affecting trafficbehavior at this intersection indicates that the installation of STOP signs controlling southbound and northbound traffic on Valley Drive at 18th Street, creating a three-way STOP controlled intersection, will not promote the safe and orderly movement of traffic. Therefore, the installation is not justified. Analysis: CALTRANS WARRANT ANALYSIS FOR 3 -WAY STOP - VALLEY DR. @ 18TH ST. EVALUATION CRITERIA THRESHOLD VALUE MEASURED VALUE (PEAK HOUR) WARRANTED? Total traffic''entering from all approaches 500 vehicles/hour 483 No Traffic & Pedestrian Volume from minor street 200 vehicles and/or peds per hour 41 No Average Vehicular Delay 30 seconds 8 - No Accidents per Year 5 per year 1 No Based upon the Caltrans criteria, the conclusion of the technical analysis is that a three-way stop is not justified at this intersection. It should be pointed out, however, that a warrant analysis is not a hard-and-fast rule and is instead a suggested set of guidelines that should be used as input to the final decision. A jurisdiction may elect toinstall stop signs at a particular location even if the Caltrans warrants are not met if there are unique circumstances indicating that the stop signs would be advantageous. For example, when vehicles are parked along the west curb of Valley Drive north of 18th Street, visibility is partially blocked for motorists stopped at the 18`h Street stop sign. A three-way stop would reduce the risks associated with these visibility restrictions. As an alternative to installing stop signs, the City could elect to paint 50 feet or so of red curb to eliminate parking near the intersection. In the spirit of minimizing traffic delay on collector streets in the City, Staff would recommend that the parking be eliminated instead of installing the 3 -way stop control. Alternatives: 1. Approve Staffs recommendation. 2. Approve the request for three-way stop control @ Valley Drive and 18th Street and adopt the attached resolution entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DESIGNATING THE INTERSECTION OF VALLEY DRIVE AND 18' STREET A;THREE-WAY STOP CONTROL INTERSECTION". 3. Take no action. Fiscal Impact: Funds for the installation of the required signs and markings are available under the current Operations and Maintenance budget of Street Maintenance. Attachments: 1Petitioners' letter 2. Site Location Map 3. City Traffic Engineer's Report 4. Resolution Respectfully submitted, Concur: 'Harold C. Williams, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer Val Straser Chief of Police F/695/Pwfiles/Ccitems/3 way stop control @ valley Drive & 18th St: HERMOSA VALLEY SCHOOL , ALLEY x 32.9 x 35e x33.3 Stop Sign Petition- Valley Drive and 18tStreet RECEIVED JAN 1 1 2000 CITYMANAGESSO E We the undersigned Hermosa Beach residents request that the city council approve a stop sign at the corner of Valley Drive and 18th Street in the interest of public safety. Name Address 24. / J:3? 1/A—Y /- pie I7 / Valley Park Me.. e- 5-'7Z -/7/1-% (Ct . 5 -8o ) rS Qamc�StotOtuSkt.' /. r ,-WL-t uccI.Qt Yeu,.k due: 1737 valteti 1-I:6 t7r2_ icz1 Py l3 1c Ave. , Av ,v 2137 Pk. dur-- 5-tD6 vclrwyasso„ UcJlPari 3 RECEIVED to Sign Petition Valley Drive and 18th Street JAN 1 1 7000 . . StopCITY MANAGERS OFFICE We the undersigned Hermosa Beach residents request that the tcity council approve a stop sign at the corner of Valley Drive and 18 Street in the interest of public safety. ri53 Valial Harold Williams, Public Works Director Richard Garland, Contract Traffic Engineer June 29, 2000 SUBJECT: Request for Stop Signs on Valley Drive at 18th Street A requestwasreceived from residents of the adjacent neighborhood to install stop signs on Valley Drive at8th Street to create a three-way stop. This is a "T" intersection that currently has a stop sign only on the 18th Street approach. The primary reason for the stop sign request is to improve safety at the intersection. Typically, when an intersection is analyzed for the possibility of installing multi -way stop signs, a standard warrant analysis is conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Caltrans "Traffic Manual." The analysis addresses such issues as traffic volumes, pedestrian volumes, vehicle delay, and accident statistics. The primary objective of the warrant analysis is to maintain consistency in traffic control ` within a community and throughout the state and to guard against the installation of unjustified stop signs. The Caltrans -recommended evaluation criteria and the measured values at the Valley/18th intersectionare summarized on the table below. Evaluation Criteria Threshold Value Measured Value (Peak Hour) Warranted? Total Traffic Entering Intersection from All Approaches 500 vehicles/hour 483 No Traffic & Pedestrian Volume from Minor Street 200 vehicles and/or peds per hour 41 No Average Vehicular Delay 30 seconds 8 No Accidents per Year 5 per year 1 No The data in the table indicate .that a three-way stop is not warranted at this intersection according to the Caltrans criteria because 1) the traffic and pedestrian volumes are well below the prescribed thresholds, 2) there are only negligible traffic -related delays at the stop sign, and 3) there has been only one reported accident at this location over the past five years. The traffic volumes shown in the table represent the heaviest hour of traffic flow observed at the intersection (based on traffic counts that were taken at various times of the day and various days of the week). While the installation of stop sins at this intersection would make it easier for drivers to turn onto Valley Drive from 18 Street and possibly improve safety for the turning vehicles, there are several disadvantages. The stop signs would result in increased delays to motorists, increased noise at the intersection, increased gasoline consumption, and increased emission levels because approximately 6,400 vehicles per day would be required to stop at the intersection. Based on the Caltrans criteria, the conclusion of the technical analysis is that a three-way stop is not justified at this intersection. It should be pointed out, however, that a warrant analysis is not a hard-and-fast rule but is instead a suggested set of guidelines that should be used as input to the final decision. A jurisdiction may elect to install stop signs at a particular location even if the Caltrans warrants are not met if there are unique circumstances indicating that the stop signs would be advantageous. For example, when vehicles are parked along the west curb of Valley Drive, visibility is partially blocked for motorists stopped at the 18th Street stop sign. A three-way stop would reduce the risks associated with these visibility restrictions. As an alternative to installing stop signs, the City could elect to paint 50 feet or so of red curb to eliminate parking near the intersection. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING THE INTERSECTION OF VALLEY DRIVE AND 18TH STREET AS A THREE-WAY STOP CONTROL INTERSECTION. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, intends to continue to improve public convenience and safety, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that there is particular danger to motorists and pedestrians crossing at the intersection of Valley Drive and 18th Street. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the intersection of Valley Drive and 18th Street is designated as "Three -Way Stop Control Intersection" and the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to erect stop signs at all approaches to said intersection. SECTION 2. That the Director of Public Works is authorized to remove all conflicting signs and curb markings; SECTION 3. This resolution shall not become effective until appropriate signs.givin notice of such three-way stop have been erected. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 1 lth day of July, 2000. ATTEST: PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California , CITY CLERK , CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: .FB95/Pwfiles/Resos/fluee-way stop control at valley Drive & 18th st S 0 James Hausle 1824 Valley Park Ave. Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254 July 8, 2000 Dear City Council members, I am opposed to the installation of a stop sign at 18th Street and Valley Drive.I believe it will send more people driving into our neighborhood and make the streets less safe as confused drivers try to find their way out of our quiet little streets. I do find that it is difficult to turn left coming out of 18th street onto Valley Drive and I suggest that a portion of the curb be painted red to prevent cars from parking close to the intersection and provide visibility to oncoming traffic for a left hand turn. I believe this would be a better solution and improve the ability to make the left turn off 18th Street. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION DOUGLAS G. ROBINS BEVERLEY J. STOUGHTON 576 18111 Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Hermosa' Beach City' Council Member 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Subject: Sight Distance Problem At Valley Drive And 18 And Stop Sign Issue Dear Hermosa Beach City Council Member: This letter and the accompanying photos and graphics are to address the issue of the "sight distance" problem at the intersection of Valley Drive and: 18th Street. Something must be done. However we are not in favor of just putting in a stop sign without addressing the "sight distance" problem. A stop sign will not solve the problem of not being able to see when you pull out of 18th street. In fact, a stop sign alone would give a very false sense of security. If you pull out from 18th street figuring someone who you can't see coming South on Valley Drive will stop - you may end up dead when they don't stop ! ! We do not have a strong feeling one way or the other about a stop sign. However, what is much more important is eliminating some parking so that the "sight distance" problem is corrected. If it must be one orthe other, correcting the "sight distance" problem is much more important. Very truly yours, Douglas G. Robins, Beverley J. Stoughton SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 5 VALLEY DRIVE AND 18th St THIS IS THE ACCIDENT WHICH WAS WAITING TO HAPPEN AND FINALLY DID. IF THE PROBLEM WITH "SIGHT DISTANCE" IS NOT FIXED - - NEXT TIME IT COULD BE EVEN MORE SERIOUS!! Photos and graphics by Cbuglas Robins, 576 18th St. SIMPLY STATED - YOU CAN'T SEE ANYTHING ! ! ! Photo and graphics by Douglas Robins, 576 18th St. WHEN A D STOP LINE VER IS PROPERLY STOPPED AT THE NOTHING CAN BE SEEN ON VALLEY Photo and graphics by Douglas Robins, 576 18th St. OPTION 1 - - DELETE THIS PARKING TO INCREASE "SIGHT DISTANCE" NOTE - - A STOP SIGN WITHOUT INCREASING "SIGHT DISTANCE' IS A SERIOUS ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN. IT IS "SUICIDE" TO PULL OUT EVEN WITH A STOP SIGN IF YOU CAN'T SEE. IF SOMEONE GOES THROUGH THE STOP SIGN WITHOUT STOPPING - - YOU COULD BE DEAD ! ! Photos and graphics by Douglas Robins, 576 18th $t. OPTION 2 - - DELETE THIS PARKING TO INCREASE "SIGHT DISTANCE' BY ALLOWING DRIVER TO SEE NORTH ON VALLEY DRIVE AT AN ANGLE. THIS PRESERVES THE PARKING SPOT FOR THE FAMILY ON THE CORNER. NOTE - - A STOP SIGN ALONE DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM BECAUSE IT IS "SUICIDE" TO PULL OUT IF A DRIVER COMING SOUTH ON VALLEY GOES THROUGH THE STOP SIGN ! ! YOU MUST BE ABLE TO SEE BEFORE YOU PULL OUT ! ! Honorable. Mayor and Members of The Hermosa Beach City Council July 10, 2000 Regular Meeting of July 11, 2000 SUPPLEMENTAL - GOLDEN AVE. STREET IMPROVEMENTS & 24TH STREET IMPROVEMENTS AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PROJECT NO. NON-CIP 003-99 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Reject all bids for Golden Avenue Street Improvements Improvements; 2. Authorize Staff to negotiate an agreement with Paip, Inc. dba Excel Paving for the Golden Avenue Street Improvements; 3. Authorize city Manager to execute the agreement; and and 24"'` Street 4. Direct Staff to work with the property owner on 24th mutually agreeable solution to the ponding problem. Background: Subject projects were initiated, at the request of the adjacent property owners on Golden Avenue and on 24th Street. The property owner on Golden Avenue made a request for public improvements in order to be able to make on-site improvements that would join the public improvements at the proper (grades) locations. Meanwhile, the property owner on 24th Street made a request to eliminate a water ponding problem adjacent to his property which causes damage to his landscaping as a result of vehicles constantly splashing water onto his property. Since the bidding of the proposed work, the property owner on 24th Street has objected to the proposed work on the basis of aesthetics. The property owner indicated that he and his neighbors do not want a concrete gutter in the middle of the street. He said they don't want their street to look like an alley. On the other hand, the property owner • in Golden Avenue concurs with the proposed design in order to accomplish the construction work he requires. Street to develop a In view of the fact that the work was undertaken at the request of the property owners on both Golden Avenue and 24th Street and now the 24th Street property owner is objecting to the design, Staff is recommending that Council reject all bids and authorize Staff to negotiate an agreement with Palp, Inc. dba Excel Paving for the proposed work on Golden Avenue. Secondly, Staff recommends that Council direct Staff to work with SUPPLEMENTAL. INFORMATION U the property owner on 24th Street to develop a mutually agreeable solution to the ponding problem. Respectfully submitted, ebd,e,t. Concur: Harold C. Williams, P.E. Sten R. Burrell Director of Public Works/City Engineer City Manager F:\B95\PWFILES\CCITEMS \003-99 supplemental 7-11-00.doc To: The City Council of Hermosa Beach PETITION Re: Repairs to 24th Street from Power St. eastward approximately 100 feet. We, the undersigned, residents of 24th Street (and surrounding neighbors who travel on 24th Street) declare our opposition to the Hermosa Beach Department of Public Works' solution to repairing the damage on 24th Street. JUL 1 1 2000 T3 y p AGPTS OFF Acit -Aft avA5P-4..,..a1w •'. r;"w.tiirT+AV t...I, 1 We agree that the provision for a "swayle", down the center of the street, is a poor solution to the problem and demand that a solution of proper engineering and asphalt contouring be implemented. 2. We do not want our neighborhood street to be turned into the appearance of an "alley" or the "tail end of a flood basin." 3. We do not want the value of our neighborhood degraded due to a "cheap" solution. 4. We do not want to drive over concrete "ditches and ruts" going to and from our homes. 5. We agree that these "swayles" would create a hazardous situation for neighborhood children riding their bicycles, skateboard or inline skates down the hill. 6: We seek more involvement and imput in the solution with final approval of any solution. 7. It has now been 25 years that the poor drainage, on 24th Street, has been a problem. The city has had sufficient time and resources to fix the damage to the street and to eliminate the ponding. We want to see a timetable established setting a time for engineering completion, bidding, bid award, start and completion of construction. NO. • NAME ADDRESS FA -1r PHONE 1 Al Flo 11 Z 40, 37.4,-4-(4.3 :/ .4 11 12 • t 41, /� -- /S S 2 ,5it 3/€ 3 _ 2 k/2 -z 21( ate y, 310- 37' ?azo f s �� A - ..- - d its sy • 4111. 1 r 1' a 5 ...' V. 300 110 . AP QtAAA..1 c9Md(a, l q .2 21 l r- cO?2 15 � i5� �-Pr4,��" x-29 �� lc 937-6267 7 SUPPLEMENTAL 'g INFORMATION i1 To The City Council of Hermosa Beach Re: Repairs to 24th Street from Power St eastward approximately 100 feet. We, the undersigned, residents of 24th Street (and surrounding neighbors who travel on 24th Street) declare our opposition to the Hermosa Beach Department of Public Works' solution to re airing the damage on 24th Street. .xa.. —1. We agree that the provision for a "swayle", down the center of the street, is a poor solution to the problem and demand that a solution of proper engineering and asphalt contouring be implemented. 2. We do not want our neighborhood street to be tumed into the appearance of an "alley" or the "tail end of a flood basin." 3. We do not want the value of our neighborhood degraded due to a "cheap" solution. 4. We do not want to drive over concrete "ditches and ruts" going to and from our homes. 5. We agree that these "swayles" would create a hazardous situation for neighborhood children riding their bicycles, skateboard or inline skates down the hill: 6. We seek more involvement and imput in the solution with final approval of any solution. 7. It has now been 25 years that the poor drainage, on 24th Street, has been a problem. The city has had sufficient time and resources to fix the damage to the street and to eliminate the ponding. We want to see a timetable established setting a time for engineering completion, bidding, bid award, start and completion of construction. VIEMLMNIEgiarZggleAMA NO. 1 MFS 4-4-e, ALM a 69S" D..`fit% q. • Gie,44 'CV s') -;71Z-7 5331 all 3 Py -S 371-5 ADDRESS PHONE ?7 ;116 /7J J1fr1 ?\PRYW tov.P klO WILL/ A -,11 7r PR'w2 Z-F2Y06-• PR yo 2 Y fr I 1-1 p ,. ST )-rz? 9a"4'41. Cr - 5c z* t sr. i-1.13. 43'.-247 -ST. N,et 43O 2 LE r'f ST j4 ..� ll''ft--44-1--Nak,* % `i 2- .1-7' 7 57- 1-/ 13 / ,4a a- Qd we,/ 0- 44 . Fan l 2/th ?di .-(i /-. B es 03 oa4-1 --h . N R yds 37' r 51-/C PETITION To: The City Council of Hermosa Beach Re: Repairs to 24th Street from Power St eastward approximately 100 feet. We, the undersigned, residents•of 24th Street (and surrounding neighbors who travel on 24th Street) declare our opposition to the Hermosa Beach Department of Public Works' solution to repairing the damage on 24th Street. .ri.age. '. ak :P- 417;1,-. .. .. • 1. We agree that the provision for a "swayle", down the center of the street, is a poor solution to the problem and demand that a solution of proper engineering and asphalt contouring be implemented. 2. We do not want our neighborhood street to be turned into the appearance of an "alley" or the "tail end of a flood basin." 3. We do not want the value of our neighborhood degraded due to a "cheap" solution. 4. We do not want to drive over concrete "ditches and ruts" going to and from our homes: 5. We agree that these "swayles" would create a hazardous situation for neighborhood children riding their bicycles, skateboard or inline skates down the hill. 6. We seek more involvement and imput in the solution with final approval of any solution: 7. It has now been 25 years that the poor drainage, on 24th Street, has been a problem. Thecity has had sufficient time and resources to for the damage to the street and to eliminate the ponding: We want to see a timetable established setting a time for engineering completion,bidding, bid award, start and completion of construction. NO. NAME 1g' 141-1;3 77n ?¢• > %zs-:.a.'=k:.ra' 4vt?- ,a, as3. mss-.: .Year ADDRESS. EA 9 9 eld-t-A /4/7- t 4Z, CAINkeV i Vie-'` ` ` 514 (i 7 tAb°1-1- PHONE 3V- 3744.21, i 561-a-(-k-t- 5-r 10 11 12 13 14 15 • Honorable Mayor and Members of The Hermosa Beach City Council June 29, 2000 Regular Meeting of July 11, 2000 GOLDEN AVE. STREET IMPROVEMENTS & 24TH STREET IMPROVEMENTS AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PROJECT NO. NON-CIP 003-99 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council: Award the Construction Contract to Palp,Inc. dba Excel Paving of Long Beach, California based upon their lowest responsible bid of $34,900.00; 2. Authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest the construction contract subject to approval by the City Attorney; Authorize the Director of Public Works to make minor changes as necessary not to exceed $3,490.00; and 4. Approve the re -appropriation of $61,218 from FY 1999-00 budget (001-3104- 4201) to the FY 2000-01 budget. Background: The bid opening for the 24th Street and Golden Ave. was held in Thursday, June 15, 2000. The project was advertised in the Easy Reader, Beach Reporter, and Green Sheet (Construction News Reporter). A total of five bid packages were sold, and three were submitted to the City Clerk. The bids were publicly opened and read aloud. The bid results are as follows: BIDDER CITY TOTAL BID AMOUNT RSB Group Irvine, CA $28,614.00 Palp, Inc., dba Excel Paving Long. Beach, CA $34,900.00 Sully -Miller Anaheim, CA $38,540.00 Analysis: The price of apparent low bidder, RSB Group, is 26% below the engineer's estimate of $38,640.00. However, a review of the bid documents revealed that RSB Group is non- responsive for the following reason: RSB Group made several alterations to the original document. The bidder crossed out the original quantities of the bid and put in its own numbers, consequently, the bidder failed to quote on the basis stipulated in the invitation for bids. Staff is of the opinion that the above is not an informality or an irregularity that may waived. Therefore, Staff recommends that Palp, Inc:, dba Excel Paving Co., be awarded the construction contract as the lowest responsible bidder. Palp Inc:, dba Excel Paving Co.'s bid price is 10% lower than the engineer's estimate. Staff has reviewed the low bidder documents and has found them to be in order and reference calls have been supportive of the contractors work habits. Fiscal Impact: Sufficient funds were available in the 1999-00 project budget; however, there was no, opportunity to spend all funds appropriated for this project. Therefore, Staff is requesting that the funds ($61,218 in account number 001-3104-4201) be re appropriated in the FY 2000-01 budget. Alternatives: 1. Approve Staff's recommendation. 2. Reject all bids. Send back to Staff for downscale of the project. 3. Take no action. Respectfully submitted, Concur: Knneth Kim Assistant Engineer Harold C. Williams., P`E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer Noted for Fiscal Impact: Concur: 40/,,,•11/ Viki Cope Step y- �j' . 'r' Finance Director _ City grager F:\B95\PWFILES\CCITEMS\003-99 award construction contract 7-11-00.doc 2 Mayor and Members of the City Council July 5, 2000 City Council Meeting July 11, 1999 BOARD/COMMISSION EXPIRATION OF TERMS APPOINT PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANTS Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council appoint/reappoint from among the applicants interviewed earlier this evening to fill the three expired terms on the Planning Commission. Each of the appointments is for a four-year term ending June 30, 2004. Planning Commission: Three terms, which expired June 30, 2000. Nine applicants. All three of the incumbents applied for reappointment, and there are six additional applicants (no applications were received during the deadline extension).. Applicants: Charlie C. Cheatham Michael D. Keegan Langley Kersenboom Chris Ketz Ronald Pizer Steven Sammarco Carol Schwartz Joel Shapiro Peter C. Tucker All of the above applicants were notified by phone andby mail of the date, time and place of the scheduled interviews. Background: At its meeting of June 27, 2000, the City Council extended the application filing deadline to 6 p.m. Wednesday, July 5, and scheduled a meeting prior to the July 11 regular meeting to interview applicants for the above -noted commission. Those interviews were conducted this evening at 6:00 p.m. Appointments are appropriate at this time. 1AUL, I !i!.. aoma Valdes, Deputy City Clerk en R. Burrell, City Manager CITY OF:HERMOSA BEACH BOARD/COMMISSION APPLICATION Planning Commission 1 . I_ f. i!J JUN 101999 Ott* Cis tit 4/�Ef + 310-798-4225 VW, d Mit.ensN MISC.% z4 NAME OF COMMISSION `j' Name Charlie C. Cheatham Address: 548 2°d Street, Hermosa Beach Home Phone: Occupation/Profession: Federal Civil Service, Senior Manager Name of Employer: Department of Defense Bus Phone: 310-900-6526 Address of Employer: DCMDW-O, 18901 S, Wilmington, Carson CA 90746 REFERENCES: Local: Wilhelm Sarasalo, President Pacific Software, 310-545-7038 Professional: Dave Underwood, USAF Space & Missile Center, Finance Deputy, 310-363-2310 Other: Scott Fonoimoana, Construction, 310-600-2750 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE (past and present): Recently elected VP for Certification with the South Bay chapter of the National' Contracts Management Association. Additionally, I have been training to be a Disaster Assistance Coordinator with the American Red Cross. Also, I have attended and spoken at a number of City Council and Planning Commission meetings. Why do you wish to become a Commission member? I wish to become more active in community affairs and help to continue the improvements in Hermosa Beach that have been occurring over the past few years. Although there are many avenues for volunteering my time and efforts. the issues that the Planning Commission deals with are of most interest to me. - I feel that my background and circumstances will allow me to fully comprehend the process and fairly represent the Hermosa populace. What do you feelare the duties and responsibilities of a Commission: member? The Planning Commission member's primary role is to ensure that proposed projects and activities meet acceptable standards established by the City, and that these projects are beneficial to the populace. This includes serving as a member of the Design Review Board, investigating and reporting on improvements for subdivisions, approving vesting tentative maps, granting conditional use permits, granting precise development plans, approving development agreements, initiating or recommending for adoption amendments for zoning, approving signage, and other items. Do you have any current obligations or responsibilities, which could be construed as a conflict of interest with your being a board/commission member? Yes X No Please give a resume of your education, employment, memberships, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Board/Commission member: Education: • BS in Industrial Engineering, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, 1982 • MS in Systems Management, USC, 1992 Employment: • Architect Engineer; Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, 1977-1978. Designed industrial facilities for the shipyard. Industrial Engineer, Air Force Space Division, El Segundo, 1979-1985. Served as Manufacturing Operations Manager and Property Manager for space launch vehicles. Industrial Policy Manager, Headquarters Air Force, Pentagon, 1985-1986. Worked with Congress and other government Agencies to establish Air Force wide policies concerning Value Engineering, Strategic and Critical Materials, Priorities and Allocations, Title III, and other high level programs. Program Manager, Air Force Space Division, El Segundo, 1986-1988. In charge of the Industrial Modernization Incentives Program for launch vehicles. Manufacturing Assessment Branch Chief, Air Force Plant Office, Douglas • Aircraft, Long Beach, :1989-1990. In chargeof evaluating the. contractor's manufacturing operations for the C-17 aircraft. Program Support arid Systems Engineering Branch Chief, Air Force Plant Office, Rocketdyne, Canoga Park, 1990-1992. In charge of engineering surveillance and program integration on NASA Space Shuttle and Space Station programs Contact Administration Program Manager, Defense. Contract Management Command, Carson, 1992 -present. Held a number of senior level positions at our Western District Headquarters. Established programs and policiesregarding contracting practices, quality assurance, manufacturing surveillance,: engineering_ practices, and government property accounting Established functional - automation'systems for the District Involved in a number of acquisition reform initiatives that are establishing commercial. practices for:Depatment;of Defense purchasesof products and services. Established a Malcom :Baldnge based auditing system for the Command. Currently supervising fifty Senior Functional Advisors who are establishing knowledge management processes and training throughout the District. In 1998, I started.a firm called C3 Disaster Consulting Services to allow me to write a book on disaster. assistance. Memberships/certifications: Member National Contracts Management Association • Certified as a Professional Contracts Manager • Vice President, Certifications Member Order of the Engineer Received Engineer in Training (EIT) certification Senior member American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Member Department of Defense Acquisition Corps Certified in Manufacturing and Production Certified in Program Management This Board/Commission meets on Tuesdays at 7:00 p.m. Do you foresee any scheduling problems that might make you miss meetings? Yes X No How long have you lived in Hermosa beach? 1994 to present Comments: If the two current members are reinstated. I wish to still be considered for a Planning Commission 'position should another vacancy arise. Name. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BOARD/COMMISSION APPLICATION NAME OF COMMISSION iC.ha.-ei -DP a. h 1;1 Cornmi sio,(J (,ti n Home Phone: 3 / o - 7 ?5=7,--e9 _ger 41©se., Bea e, Address: ji 0 7 LOw;a. DYE tie. / v04 I Y Occupation/Profession: e ci 5 / S fl Y Name of Employer, Md.g.a.4 Address of Employer /8 2 - REFERENCES: Q j Local: Mf ' Professional: 14 4b • LA,GL-V -111111/4 Other: M'- I -01X U3 IO MMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE (past and present): L AJOUP be� 1`g'' (c i1eeess� I b (60� + . I q'i t't2v 111 d Go v Pr r ff�e a-/ r / hl 01 Y 4ee M ems, h. e� .'r' 7 Why do you wish to become a Commission member?. 1-11 It; i✓u' bet G&our ai-d -eferi 6r tej/d rtoQ tdo ijou feel are the: duties and responsibilities of a Commission qrynd' /f11(/ 1 ' `: �J/2%=moi �S' /� °--krt jeie'[ ,‘. Do you have any current obligations or responsibilities, which could be construed as a conflict of interest with your being a board/commission member? Yes X No (If yes, please explain) Please give a resume of your education, employment, memberships, past activities and other experience thatyou feel would qualify you as a Board/Commission member. 5:62e a 17'a ek re C<> kyv-e_ This Board/Commission meets -onIlia- fl r `te any scheduling problems that might make you miss meetiri s? Yes X No '7 p.m.. Do you foresee r How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? / �r�S Comments: -Page 2 of 2 Michael D. Keegan 1107 Loma Drive, Unit A Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (310) 798-2969 WORK EXPERIENCE & RELATED BACKGROUND: 1992 Present I opened the first bagel store in Manhattan Beach, Manhattan Beach Bagel Co., in 1992, and two years later expanded by opening the Manhattan Bread Co. Both businesses still operate 7 days a week and employ 40 people in both full, and part-time, positions. As the general contractor for both stores, I designed and built both stores which included successfully completing two conditional use permit applications for the city of Manhattan Beach. In 1995 and 1996, I owned another bagel bakery in Torrance, CA, which I then sold. In 1996, I became President of the Old Town Bakery, Northridge, CA and was involved in expanding this bakery from one location to four outlets, including two at Los Angeles International Airport, which are licensed by Host Marriott Corp. I sold my interest in Old Town in 1997. 1986-1992 In 1986 'I began employment Tishman West, a large commercial real estate developer, advancing to the position of vice-president before leaving to start Manhattan Beach Bagel Co. At Tishman, I worked on the completion of one million square feet of new commercial development in Orange County and San Diego. My duties included negotiating ground leases, commercial leases, and many other service and consulting agreements: My responsibilities included overseeing a construction department that performed over four million dollars a year in tenant improvement projects in a 2.5 million square foot development. At Tishman, I gained vast experience in both Type I and Type II construction projects. EDUCATION: Bachelor of Arts in Economics, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 1985 Real Estate classes completed at the University of California, Irvine, CA, 1987-1988 Culinary classes completed at the Culinary Institute of America, Hyde Park, NY, 1996 Bread Baking classes completed at the American Institute of Baking, Manhattan, KS, 1996 Bread Baking classes completed at the National Baking Center, Minneapolis, MN, 1997 LICENSES: Licensed California Real Estate Broker Licensed California General Contractor -B License MEMBERSHIPS: Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach Chamber of Commerce Arts. Manhattan Retail Bakers Association Bread Baker Guild of America - Founding Member Formerly a member of the. National Association of Corporate Real Estate Executives, National Asso- ciation of Office and Industrial Parks, Building Owners and: Management Association Name CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BOARD/COMMISSION APPLICATION NAME OF COMMISSION Langley Kersenboom. •: Planning `4' 44 _ r0 Home Phone: 798-1764 Address 544 Gravely Ct.. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Occupation/Profession: General Contractor/Builder` Name of Employer Self Address of Employer Same Bus. Phone: 252-0199 REFERENCES: Local: Bill & Betty Ryan Professional: Other: Charlie Swartz Rosamond Fogg _ Steve Fishman COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE (past and present): Planned and built a sand box for South Bay Adult School with the help of other parents in 1998. I want to do more for my canmunity. Why do you wish to become a Commission member? To give of my kncaledge in the building and construction trade. To protect people's Property rights,and to see that everyone is treated properly. Help plan the future of this City so my children can be proud. of -it. : _ .., What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission member? 1) Overlook future planning decisions, 2) advise City Ccinnri1 on Planning issues, 3) protect the beauty and appeal of the City. per the General Plan. 4) to find the c mmTrrmn ground between a Citizen's desire and the City's general plan. Pagel of2_ Do you have any current obligations or responsibilities, which could be construed as a conflict of interest with your being a board/commission member? Yes X No (If yes, please explain) Please give a resume of your education, employment, memberships, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Board/Commission member. 1970 1980 Grenville College, Boarding School, England -1980 1982 - Plymouth. Polytechnic, General Catering, England: 1983 1985 -:Culver City Nissan. Parts/Service, CUlver City, CA 1985 - 1988 -Steve's. BMW Service, Technician, Redondo Beach, CA 1988 - 2000 L.K. Renovations. Self Employed General COntractor . _. 3rd_ Tuesdayeach vont ,. 7 = 00 Do This Board/Commissionrneets on � - p.m. you foresee any scheduling problems that might make youmiss meetings? Yes X No How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? 14 Years Comments. c.. I have the full support of my family and friends who feel as I do. that I am an excellant candidate forthe P1 anni ng c'r ni Gsion of thi . ('i t y _ Signed: Date: 02/08/00 Page 2 of 2 (5/15/99) 06/20/00 16:57 FAX 13.76235 HERMOSA BCH CITY• " // A j CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BOARD/COMMISSION APPLICATION NAME OF COMMISSION . . 0,--J'. ✓ . Name: f r i S tCe_ Address: 3 s' Occupation/Profession: Name of Employer C E 1- J .� j --P _ Bus. Phone: 3 ? c) 6 7 "2-'L/ Z / o47154111 Z ,^ 31s4 -- Address (s,( - SS ( ✓► Home Phone: 3l 8 r 3 -576 Address ofEmployer Sb REFERENCES: Local: (007- Z i \ Professional: Other. S' d_l_ ,S,r.►-c-6 1-v S j . . l u - COMMUNITY PA,RTICIPATI0N AND SERVICE (past and preset): in. 1,/ L;c 1 5 7'a )S� AYSO Why do you wish to become a Commission member? 1-0 a What do you feel are the duties and.responsibilities of a Commission member? t-•r-wie^_) Page l of 2 06/20/00 16:57 FAX 13109376235 • HERMOSA BCH CITY U1004 Do you have any current obligations or responsibilities, which could beconstrued as a conflict of interest with your being a board/commission member? Yes • No (If yes, please explain) Please give a resume of your education; employment, memberships, past activities and other expedience that you feel would qualify you as a Board/Commission member. .e) • This Board/Commission meets on 7(A --9.s at '7 p.m Do you foresee any scheduling problems that might make yen Wins ngs ° �: s • INTD.......�•»..� How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach Comments - Signed: Date: i440_._. • Page 2 of • (5/15/99) ,...c,`1y�W't3[r- .. .:•0. •t..r..w•.•pr1iszu, CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BOARD/COMMISSION APPLICATION NAME OF COMMISSION Ra A/A 1 b /'l 202 Name /0LINN PI f fk1/ssi0pJ Home Phone 31 0 3 7 4 8d 2 Address: 7-11 S TQ,ENn Occupation/Profession: Caysu1thyr2-1a4'- m r. Bus. Phone: 3/ 0, 3/ 8 (g q 9 Name of Employer Skif Address of Employer .14-41e A S A igov ( REFERENCES: Local SA gb ctfl %Y/ a )0 774 0)93 Professional: lv t L sa >v * U 71¢ 9 9 3 070 Other. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE �/ (past1and present): •bovwroov �J�S1N+�S1 n�h.a,rG �uat�� Cpht,m.1 SS /o)It (% 4 P1aw4!NI (_6vea07.t) Why do you wish to become a Commission member? (4NT/it/Jig S L rtW1 c & Te) 1'.0 t Co mit ovl 17 What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission member? MJakr 06-4IS1OM itava0 ,V cO,4mkoraa lONs 1:1454C,b. pt,/ /O/aPL/CAet( /044,v.vr-44 Coi iSSiev. Igws 1 f4i1iwiss to ,Oppl!tAlrS ¢. GOut1+1(ttary f sawd not o1.p[=ctcm✓ op iNE G, r7 coviv ct L Page 1 of 2 Do you have any current obligations or responsibilities, which could be construed as a conflict of interest with your being a board/commission member? Yes ){ No (If yes, please explain) Please give a resume of your education, employment, memberships, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Board/Commission member: frog e n g b ,„ (W-/ vo bSS -lI L ,y T v /tL/off N g Co-npmisi row fit -Lo tAzila f L- ,9/315 44;seh Licz Poo -491m. z /°e24-Lfi2dhLv . p416e,v `` 'p- Ca)%g4h2#. c 14 np of s trio Los Mr6v44 CCs t s C 4.04v Eat nu Ni rtlr 4f il2 0� em L,, y.441- 4,04 q /3 g oL, a Dtvv✓ Px,ovoien1Xb lYv Hole- Nvi Lb plic /ltr-n0Vn f)ter✓ This Board/Commission meets on " . Tuc at 7 I at p.m.. Do you foresee any scheduling problems that might make you miss meetings? Yes X No How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? / y R ) Comments: 'Vebvi f' l S v&n y M.. a a l4 n' T 136-) _ vv;nr4 rctn`L Gon,�+jl�{�rI'' `n /et- po Ais? 42 Li fy O 01 k —19 is rnrt ,4 i s s d y,/ Name CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BOARD/COMMISSION APPLICATION NAME OF' COMMISSION Occupation/Profession: Name of Employer Address of Employer REFERENCES: Local: Professional: COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE (past and present): ll bw B V c- PreD ra r H a3., •i HB go -1G . y (5 fri'ck5 P rs c: (VO1) eA+4 O. ,La drir 7zr d2o0 t Why do you wish to become a Commission member? '' (on4-r<At o mi CoAAAAenk ct et . A t. Ite i.m 0 tone n Ais �o °o r 4o wn4ct)A _ p epc an What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission member? A . A • Do you have any current obligations or, responsibilities, which could be construed as a conflict of interest with your being a board/commission member? Yes )( No (If yes, please explain) Please give a resume of your education, employment, memberships, past activitiesand other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Board/Commission member. .Se.`iOA, 11411 (,AI t'el`Se l 69 $ 7- // i $-(vc, aA Business �d Yn ��1 P Ai A- (pL �C Inc /v6, 6424 t {- JAO/- Sce= t tov Mc Tf J B u �vr'c. - e' iLt/�C�ie� t A u Lsor-- P 1 rip 5icA t e: 1.7) e a.n; i tt e- Aceo J A# T jQC fVIc Vacs -,41 5Cnior C i i'Ztn 5 TN Rd- N\ 5 cc e^'`c 0v03 GA—kre.cc. PLA c ar This.Board/Commission meets on It -J. I uc.5 &ealt Malt at i%OO p.m. Do you foresee any scheduling problems that might make you miss meetings? Yes No, How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? Comments: 7 yeLet Signed... Date: 140 Page 2 of 2 (5/15/99) CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BOARD/COMMISSION APPLICATION NAME OF COMMISSION a-v)'u 5 UN 2 0.2000. ry Name CCUCO \ c aitit7 Home Phone: -22�rJ Address: A5 �✓0W DSCk(mak CIA 9 0 2 59 Occupation/Profession: 1 sf cls C t ) l +CUA Name of Employer ErVIS-1 1150 Bus. Phone: 310 :' S -- 41b Address of Employer . 2-041 (Q,U1tllr k- s1' L A- , Ci-)- 9 0 0(41- REFERENCES:- Local: 41-REFERENCES.,, Local: Professional: kAa i &4 -r-6,A Other: UCS COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE (past and present): to i vA - ativwviistfiermex l q g b Why do you wish to become a Commission member? t W's1► + -Niue cvd-r‘tioite- e,incou Inw1 K. fiplAA0 IA What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission member? ,'' 4- --Tc -ko -Wk.a t ear -011w is' retia, Lieu, • Page 1 of 2 a �' th Gee . (� l rvmy1 io `[t_ Iseoue 19Y-600' �SS)d1�-Vv� Do you have any current obligations or responsibilities,:which'could be construed as a conflict of interest with your being a board/commission member? Yes x No (If yes, please explain) Please give a resume of your education, employment, memberships, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Board/Commission member. a-60/14 ()vo Q ) W f r 2e. 1 uo5rh ' AQAce Yelp : r\i/ alACk fr+ sAD uMoIS}040 k1Y- owa IfrIA y k cddi- kM 1 SQc u avvl 6 1kcefrir ' t -kc `1A 111lK4 C 1i"r !kl1hr1Vfj .tom C Vamvlin iv115�6 r rhe uat Cc fWV t. �. FF This Board/Commission meets once �v i veal' Aat 1 p.m. Do you foresee any schedulii}g problems that might make you miss mee ..a? Yes .No 0cuterrnL�v�,n�� NIrnt) ko\ will—a -,1d eMc as ° { ancc.�r�r wtr°idti a v GA s ' S How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? l -atom , Comments: Page.•2of.2• (5/15/99) Carol Rose Schwartz 345 30th Street Hermosa Beach, California 90254 310-798-2255 professional experience 1998 -present ERNST & YOUNG KENNETH. LEVENTHAL Los Angeles, California Senior Manager, Real Estate Advisory Services. Specialist in management and financial consulting for home builders and other. real estate companies. Also conducted market and financial feasibility assessments for various types of real estate products, including master planned communities (MPCs)• Led notable engagements including: Financial strategy and analysis for urban infill MPC, including public finance and redevelopment assessment. Financial analysis andoperating strategy assessment for 3,000 -acre MPC in predevelopment stages in Ventura County, California. • Advisor to potential investor in Ritter Ranch MPC in Palmdale, California. Risk evaluation of national portfolio of residential condominium developments. Financial advisor to public home builder on alternative exit strategies. •1994-1998 ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO. Los Angeles, California Vice President, Real Estate and Management Consulting. Management and financial consulting, market and financial feasibility assessment. Managed the 20 -person Los Angeles office for two years. Notable engagements include: Prepared marketing and strategic plans for master planned communities in Denver, Colorado and San Antonio, Texas. Led consultant team in the evaluation of Playa : Vista, Los Angeles' largest undeveloped project, for a potential institutional investor. Managed corporate strategy planning for national home builder emerging from bankruptcy.'. Facilitated management team planning sessions, prepared industry, company, and market overviews, and conducted financial roundtable. Advised senior management of Fortune 500 company regarding strategic .alternatives for the growth or disposition of home building subsidiaries. • Assisted in the sale of a division of a publicly -held home builder. • Prepared development strategy for 13 -block, downtown land in Honolulu. 1992-1994 TACO BELL CORPORATION Project Manager, Real. Estate and Construction Division. Implemented Core Process Redesign initiatives to streamline real estate acquisition and construction administration processes'in anticipation of $1 Billion of development activity. Team included Real Estate, Construction, Capital Accounting, Audit, Legal and MIS. Project Manager, Architecture and Engineering. • Developed reuse and construction strategy for 120 -store acquisition, including framework for the evaluation of initial investment, operations tradeoffs, maintenance, and image. Irvine, California 1990-1991 Carol Rose Schwartz Page 2 JONES LANG WOOTTON Associate, Real Estate Investment Brokerage. Solicited interest in joint venture investments in two $100 million single family residential communities for nationally ranked home builders. Designed pro formas to project investment : returns to investors. Advised two international investors during due diligence of these transactions. Managed teams conducting due diligence, including financial analysis and market 'research, for the sale of refinancing of more than 3 million square feet of commercial properties located throughout the WestCoast. Made sales presentations for various' potential joint venture investments including $60 million luxury condominium tower and apartment development in Seattle. Los Angeles, California 1984-1987 BERGMEYER AND ASSOCIATES Boston, Massachusetts Project Manager in a 40 -person architecture firm, concentrating on commercial renovation and new construction. Managed in-house and engineering consultant team; established and monitored budgets and time frames; primary client contact. 1982-1984 ARROWSTREET, INC. Cambridge, Massachusetts Job Captain in a 30 person. Architecture office specializing in multi -family residential and institutional projects. Responsible formanagement of in-house team production of construction documents. education 1987-1989 HARVARD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION . Boston, Massachusetts 1979-1982 1975-1979 professional affiliations Masters in Business Administration. Concentrations in Real Estate and Finance. Field Study Project located potential building sites for multi -family housing in upstate New York for Trammell Crow Residential. MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Cambridge, Massachusetts Master .of Architecture Bachelor of Science in Architecture and Design. California Real Estate Salesperson, 1991 Registered Architect, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Certified, National Council of Architectural Registration Boards Planning Commissioner, City of Hermosa Beach, 1996— present. interests ;. World travel, reading,: collecting "floaty" pens., t, CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BOARD/COMMISSION APPLICATION Name O L_ 5 444 P 71e-0 Home Phone: 3 7, 6 6 06 -- Address: 6Address: r/ q f'%t? 05 P -i A tl Occupation/Profession: ,SEM/ R J ! REi) 8 uS //+&SS »,,2 iv Bus: Phone: 3 ` (-1—•fola 695` Address of Employer REFERENCES: Local: V L`.. 5 i 46-12, 3. / 2 Professional: t -R 4/6- n .tJ u, $4 9 Other:-" 0 WW/tt :/•&1) COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE (past and present): EAc-41 y ,bay 14f7l:r2 w,92- oak ,foo-, Pic -K UP ' r H►m, Why do you wish to become a Commission member? 'TO O 0 G-000 a- c,, -r y What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission member? 0 8 f A i g 4 ►'TPA lei 41_) J 100 T O P -j 11 8t–&-1. r ei eiz S t -01 1x l fZ i Page 1of2 Do you have any current obligations or responsibilities, which could a construed as a conflict of interest with your being a board/commission member? ' Yes No (If yes, please explain) Please give a resume of your education, employment, memberships, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Board/Commission member. This Board/Commission meets on A1) K� 4 ' at '% p. . Do you foresee any scheduling problems that might make you miss meetings? Yes No How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? 2 3 V &A RS Comments: Signed: AA: Date: 0 6 Page 2 of 2 (5/15/99) RESUME OF JOEL SHAPIRO P.0. BOX 3303 Manhattan Beach,'CA 90266 (310)374-6605 EXPERIENCE 1 g 9 6 Alliance, For. Child Equality (1975 - _ _) - Manhattan Beach, California. President and Founder. Marketing and Sales of Educational Material. Customers include school districts (LAUSD, CUSD, Inglewood), pre-schools and other institutions. Conduct informal motivational speeches -for children and young adults. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION (1969-1970, 1972-1974) - Washington, D.C., California and Hawaii. • i i Marketing; and sales.of data processing support for the U.S. Army in Hawaii, the State Government of 'Hawaii and the National Library of Medicine In Washington, D.O.. Inter .faced extensively with American and German scientists at Jet Propulsion Laboratories in Pasadena, California.. INTERNATIONAL COMPUTERS LIMITED (1970-1972) ---:London, England. Appointed Programming Executive to direct the Field Services Division. BUTLER DATA SYSTEMS .0.968-1969) Los Angeles,, California Senior Consultant for customer marketing. Established documentation, operational and programming standards. Conducted Seminars. - NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION (1967.-1968) - Los Angeles, California. Developed IBM 360 business systems in pricing and contracting using COBOL, HAL and JCL for -both disk and tape. DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT CORPORATION (1966-1967) 7 Santa, Monica, California: Liaison between data processing departments.. Wrote, proposals, user manuals business programs using COBOL, BAL and'JCL. EDUCATION - A.S. (PARALEGAL), El Camino College ( A.A. (Real Estate), El Camino .College E.E. Northrop. University (1966). MARITAL STATUS - Married, two children. Wife, Be school sophomore. Son, Ryan - high school senior town, Duke, USC,'UCLA and Berkeley Universities. 1989) 3.54 GPA. (1976) Dean's List. and IBM: 360 tty. - L.A.P.D.. Daughter, Kelly - high accepted to Yale, Stanford,. George - 6 am 5 / 99•Co yc,s3c-.z- N: -. p17b,'- c-At4/ u%a niloft G1.5 C— zoo o z.o o RYde - G-RMAU4T ¶, —w co ig CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BOARD/COMMISSION APPLICATION NAME OF COMMISSION CL.1..,0 to /7- 67A„,,,A l sl i d 0 Name Address: R3.: 3 4 ,. Home Phone: 310 - 3 7 9-57/7 Occupation/Profession: u w(- Zv �P Name of Employer cry o F 030PDbCbcAk Address of Employer' 4(5 Q L-t--vi=>Sz • REFERENCES: Local: V)\/ ve 4 ma=r' Bus. Phone: .3 10 - 31 - OG' 3 oi.-)DUjc v`'L Professional: /ti h Other: COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE (past and present): 5eZ. F Why do you wish to become a Commission member? o E poi k i- ) xi+cel- 44-4 +''1 ©E 'a.A., C2_4-Ti.-k("IL- StAb-A What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission member? 170 ovT. -6- CUD a -At vv e biotite Page 1 of 2 6-0 1,t,4 / G�vu�it Do you have any current obligations or responsibilities, which could be construed as a conflict of interest with your being a board/commission member? Yes X No (If yes, please explain) Please give a resume of your education, employment, memberships, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Board/Commission member. This Board/Commission meets on 1 v at . , p.m. Do you foresee any scheduling problems that might make you miss meetings? Yes / No How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? 82- 8 Y''� Comments: Signed: Date: Lc O!� Page 2 of 2 (5/15/99) Position as, Construction Manager, Construction Superintendent or Building Inspector. Licensed General Contractor (California Lie. 314740 B -i) and Building Inspector Over 25 years' experience in every aspect of the construction business Expert in assessing needs, establishing priorities, and evaluating projects to determine the most cost-effective plans and appropriate methods Work well under pressure Straightforward, expedient approach, always with a goal of saving money and beating deadlines, while maintaining quality Project Manatement Proven skills in: Cost tracking, control, and breakdowns • Developing contracts • Obtaining licenses and permits • Managing materials/equipment • Arranging schedules • Coordinating and supervising crew • Doing lumber take -offs • Conducting building inspections • Enforcing building codes • Providing value analyses Technical Experienced in: Architecture ■ Drawing plans • Reading blueprints ■ Carpentry. • Dry wall • Shoring ■ Framing, Concrete, and Finish Work • All aspects of construction work El Camino Community College Long Beach State College A. A. Degree, Architecture B. A. Degree, Industrial Technology '1967 1970 PROFESSIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS Developer for $4 million Cerca Lago Condos, Toluca Lake Project completed under budget Co-Planner/Builder for Hermosa Beach Veteran's Memorial (Pacific Coast Hwy/Pier Ave)' Master Carpenter & Restoration Committee Member for Vetter Windmill (Pacific Coast Hwy/Aviation Blvd) ■ Framing Contractor on over 250 projects For locations and descriptions of additionaljobs, please see attachment. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND PERSONAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS Chairman Commissioner Member Member Hermosa Beach Planning Commission 1993 to 1999 Hermosa Beach Theater of the Arts 1991 to 1994 South Bay Union High School Transition Committee 1991 to 1993 Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce 1988 to 1995 I, 7. • SCALE: 7 "= 7 O' ABBREVIATIONS: AC Asphalt Concrete CBW Conc. Block Wall CONC. Concrete D/A Driveway Appron EP Edison Pole EX. Existing FL Flow Line Elevation SMI -1 Sewer Manhole RW Retaining Woll S/W Sidewalk TC Top of Curb Elevation TW Top of Wall Elevation WF Wooden Fence WM Woter Meter LEGEND: • O O h 28.13' 44.12' EX. BLDG • CONC. WALKWAY N 13°25'10" W (120.30) (125.80) • • • • • • (123.53)\ (123.40) HIGH PLATEAU (124.30) (100.10) Existing Elevation - - (99)- -Ex. Ground Contour Line --X-X-- Chain Link Fence Fire Hydrant Street Light Guywire Ex. Tree, Diameter (112'30) BENCH MARK: B.M. NUMBER HERMOSA BEACH N0.7 L&T IN TOP OF CURB. NW COR 11TH PL (34 YALLEY DR ELEV. 47.099 EASEMENT NOTE: 114.00) i / / / / / / / / / / • (125.301 • \ (125.30) i' �'' - J ' - J ' .'- -• ' . - - ___{115} (112.47) --� (115.30) - f (120.30) 84.01' RW 8 H MIN -r- (1_15.30)_____ {115}'/ ---___---- / ----- // • / ____ _ __ . _ • / ------- 1 (110„99)' / J'J• J /' /' J/ JJ 11.40) Fi 1" LP / - •J / /' J • -/' / TOPOGRAPD-flC ru--AP (114.33) N 13°25'10" W Rw -) FD 1" I.P / 112.70 -a• // :- - J ' (113.90) EX. GARAGE (109.00) • tl - • (108.22) - - - (112.40) CONC. DWY RW 135.00' / /'/ __a J 1 / (107 60) F sw k' AI. �N112,•,-1-05 z II / / / /,/ /' (106.40) - J - RW 67.50 aa r FL II FD (1i O °• 105.24) I I 25' 'tz) FD L&T 07.9 _�t07.a0) CN ,r„ k- r ...., j 12.8' o / / / �' J -' /' / ' J ' J / /' ,/• ' / J- / , / / J / / -J / ' ------1 NO EASEMENT 15 SERCHED OR PLOTTED ON THIS MAP UNTIL PROPER TITLE REPORT OR TITLE ______ POLICY BE PROVIDEED BY CLIENT OR OWNER W. ,.T EF: 96.34' N 13°25'10" W (110.50)' -/ - y - - i -J/ 4 JJJ- c0' • (108:50) (107.59) (106.40) -- -�- a Oa -7- -'-------/ - . - - r ' 410. 601 r - '- •••••• ••••• - - - - 4)1 O• $' a 1/4••• C? r (99.31) 4.02' N 13°25'10'EPW 0 J J 0 w m N 9 O PACIFIC '000}-----_ 195.63 - - - -r / - _. O / (k) --. n of v imadmmaS D/A COAST a a • • (110:05) TW co (102.55) rzl to • 195.63 f/ wm 0 0 CO MI LEGAL DESCRIPTION: r A PORTION OF BLOCK 84 OF SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT, IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES., STATE OF ,CALIFORNIA, .AS. PER .MAP RECORDED - IN BOOK 3 PAGE 11-12 OF MAPS, AND LOT 3 AND THOSE PORTIONS OF. LOT 1 AND LOT 2, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 9 PAGE 106 OF MAPS, IN .THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. 0 01 00 EX. BLDG. tei 0) 11 (94 37)FL !keel vett Jill 05 2000 o o TRITECH ASSOCIATES INC. SUBDIVISION SURVEY ENGINEERING DESIGN 735 W. EMERSON AVENUE, MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP Eza 4.4 N 76°34'00" DATE: 5-6-00 DRAWN BY: REVISED: 1530, 1514; 1549 PACIFIC COAST HWY. HERMOSA BEACH, CA SHEET 1 OF 1 .10B NO 000234 124.3 2'-8r F 128'-2r 19'-0" 25'-0" 18'-0" a 0 a N RETAINING WALL 101.9 z < •••SNEINSIS IS LANDSCAPE F, 18,-0" a 25'-0" PROPERTY UNE 15'-0" 41-6" C —n EXIT ELEV. MACH GAS FlREP E 2 C CONC. DRIVEWAY, TYP. SEE STRUCTURE PLAN FOR SIZE OF CONCRETE COLUMNS. TYP. 23'-0" C C C STANDARD PARKING STALL, TYP. 8'-6" 1-1/2 HOUR FIRE RATED DOOR, "AR -GUARD MODEL 90", OF "WON -DOOR CORPORATION", 1-800-453-6494 CONSTRUCT PER MANUF RERS SPECIFICATIONS STORAGE PANTRY MEN GREAT ROOM ci LANDSCAPE O E IL, PROPERTY UNE SIDEWALK 17 WORK ROOM 0" MEW 0 REGISTER DICAP PARKING MANAGER <>1 age saw ) 0 N 0 0 O m N 0 m CONC. DRIVEWAY, TIP. PBX SUITE SHOP RETAINING WALL, TYP. C C 116.3 4.-0" 18'-0" 25'-0" 19.-0" a 69'-O" 0 N LANDSCAPE STANDARD PARKING STALL, TYP. 7 - 2ND FLOOR BUILDING UNE ABOVE m 0 o 0 0 0 6" WIDE, 6" HIGH CONC. CURB. TIP. r LOADING LOADING LANDSCAPE AREA (A) 273 S.F. 0 m 7'-6" z 2 6 LANDSCAPE -- -- AREA -(B)- — — 2' - 188 S.F. C RED CURB WM1 "FIRE LANE. NO PARKING" SIGN PER STANIDARD 4" HIGH CONCRETE CURB "RIGHT TURN ONLY" SIGN R041, PER STANDARD C C C C TRASH ENCLOSURE PER CITY STANDARD C C C COMPACT CAR PARKING STALL, TYP. C C • 0 0 N FRONT DESK CONC. DRIVEWAY, TYP. C CAR OVERHANj UNE, TYP. /IMO SO SP LANDSCAPE SO iA RETAINING WALL, TYP. 0 PROPERTY UNE 2ND FLOOR BUILDING UNE ABOVE 67'-0" 107 I maw ma. amdipimmammiaa —L.,ame--.11•Ipaaama SIDEWALK 1t TRANSFORMER 1 LOCATION LANDSCAPE AREA (C) 865 S.F. LANDSCAPE W z J 0 m • n N 9 O U) v 4'-0 T' -8r 77'-6" 4'-0" 8'-0" 12'-0" , 121-0" in • 8'-0" 4'-0" 25110" 196'-2r 52'-6" 17'-0" • 13'-0" 3' PAP FOO soar Hua w y lURE NOSH REFERENCE NORTH s LAN 81 o as mENT FLOOR OR p�Qm SCALE: 1/8" =1'-0" I • PROJECT INFORMATION: • PROPOSED PROJECT: 3 -STORY UPSCALE HOTEL & SUITE WITH BASEMENT PARKING STRUCTURE " LOT SIZE: 29973.9 S.F. • BUILDING FLOOR AREA: GARAGE 0 BASEMENT 12,908 S.F. LOBBY / OFFICE 0 BASEMENT --- 2,686 S.F. 1ST FLOOR 13,135 S.F. 2ND FLOOR 12,275 S.F. 3RD FLOOR 10.958 S.F. • PROPERTY CORNERS: SEE SURVEY MAP • PROPOSED GUEST ROOMS: 24 + 26 + 21 = 71 • PROPOSED PARKING STALLS: 66 STANDARD 42 COMPACT HANDICAP LOADING 2 19 (28.7%) 3 TOTAL 66 I TOTAL 39,054 S.F. • PROPOSE LANDSCAPE AREA (A) (B) & (C) (SEE SITE PLAN) n--- 273 S.F. - - 188 S.F.. - - 865 S.F. TOTAL ---- 1326 S.F. • PARKING LOT (OPEN TO SKY) AREA 9187 S.F. (A)+(B)+(C) / PARKING LOT AREA = 1326/9187- 14.4% • MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT FROM EXISTING GRADE UNE: NOTE: 35'-0" MAX, SEE CALLED OUT IN a (BUILDING SECTION PLAN) (1) SEE GRADING PLAN & LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR MORE INFORMATION REVISTIONS BY TEL: (626) 570-1300 Q FAX: (626) 570-9464 • 2227 WEST VALLEY BLVD. ALHAMBRA, CA 91803 0 1 a O I ©oI \L_jJ < irit o O THIS PLAN IS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION, UNLESS ARCHITECT, HUAMIN CHANG'S "WET" SIGNITURE & "WET" STAMP IS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN FROJECC NAME HAMPTON INN & SUITES 1530 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY HERMOSA BEACH, CA SHEL- TITLE SITE PLAN & SUBTERRANEAN FLOOR PLAN DATE: SCALE. DRAWN• - JOB SHEET 41 OF SHEETS • -a-- 128'-2r 2'-8r / O' -O• �3 -6 6.-611 29,-O• 5,-0" 46'-3" 17-9" 7,-6" 4'-6" 18,-0• 28'-3" •mo es./ eimanamface Man MN. Vila MEM PROPERTY UNE SSD t• RETAINING WALL CONCRETE 135,-0" CORRIDOR EMPLOYEE LOUNGE GARAGE RETAINING WALL BELOW RETAINING WALL ' CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE CONY. TY CONCRETE SLOPE UP FITNESS ROOM VF -NDN ICE L. CORRIDOR •aladallk aaelaaI"K•O•a W.•arallalea• M'KI..fY•••••Wall K•VC•1:Nli0. CORRIDOR STAIR #3 ELEC. ROOM TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN 12'-6" BALCONY, TYP. CONC. TILE ROOFING,TYP. LAUNDRY CORRIDOR ; CORRIDOR PROPOSED GUEST ROOMS: S -H (SUITE FOR HANDICAP) --- 1 S -J -H (SUITE WITH JACUZZI FOR HANDICAP) 1 QQ-H (DOUBLE QUEEN -BED FOR HANDICAP) 3 S (SURE) S -J (SUITE WITH JACUZZI) 1 K (KING -BED) 8 K -J (KING -BED WITH JACUZZI) - 1 QQ (DOUBLE QUEEN -BED) 9 TOTAL 24 1-1/2 HOUR FIRE "FIRE GUARD MODE ON -DOOR CORPi 1 :00-453-8494 P ' ANUFACTUREI RATED 90" F RA N", STRUCT SPECIFIC PICAI FLOOR PLAN 1 TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN 1 '-6• CONC. TILE ROOFING,TYP. CONC. TILE ROOFING 5• -Br • 11'-o• 5'-0" C91 FORST FLOOR P LA SCALE: VW as 9'-0'° REVISTIONS BY 0 `c.,;" 6 6 u) COa to CM a THIS PLAN IS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION, UNLESS ARCHITECT, HUAMIN CHANG'S 'WET" SIGNITURE & "WET" STAMP IS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. ail cts uui w fr8 J Q Lb DATE: SCALE: DRAWN: JOB - SHEET 42 OF SHEETS 128'-2t 2'-8t 101-0` 34'-0" 22'-0' -O` 18'-3' 12'-6" 6'-3' 5'-6' 7'-6' 4'-6' 3'-6' 6'-6' •o, a e 0 CONC. TLE ROOFING,TYP • 0 n 1 1 0 0, RETAINING WALL VIM/ S SSIINSIP•11, MIMEO NEWS 1 PROPERTY UNE 2 O 1ST FLOOR DECK BELOW • F4 BALCONY. TYP - D O I! iO 314 00 313 QQ 3121 00 310 K 308 291-0" TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN K 306 • V 0 \r , ff \2Cer 1d• 4'-0 STORAGE 16'-0' 1 UP. } STAIR #1 DN. 6 ELEV. rr Ij CORRIDOR 5' -Bt S 21'-9 D 0 4 I 302 S -J 21'-6' !EXIT ac— • 0 N r `J VENDIN- G _--1 CE - -_ L --_- EXIT a 12 cc0 0 5'-0" 0 N 0 ❑u Jv Q COD 315 I 316 CORRIDOR 4 . C 13 ELEC. ROOM 311 2HR WALL EXIT 5AR ILII DN. r BALCONY BALCONY CORRIDOR 27'-6' K 309 0 rr— EXIT 22'_0• QQ 305 Ji CORRIDOR 0 303 K 12'-6' 0 L 304 K 12'-9' e 1 In 9' 0' 31-9" 6 -6" 0 5' .6 6'13' I 7'-6' 0 in 1 0,0 317 BUT FLOOT CONY BUILDING UNE BELOW CONC. TLE ROOFING, TYP. 11,-0' EXIT h J� e J CONC. CONC. TILE ROOFING,TYP. 318 t• • 135'-0` r PROPERTY LINE =MO 41milluS • _� • • 0 RETAINING WALL to 19'-0' 0 0, \\ 0 CONCRETE DECK• 1ST FLOOR DECK BELOW J � lig 0 319 _-1 320 K _J 070 321 EDL BALCO 12'-6" 12'-6' L_ O N 322 -00 CORRIDOR 0 L 0 323 L QQ _ CONC. TLE ROOFING t 1ST FLOOR CONC. TILE ROOFING BELOW IS S. ar— _ _ _ \ _ _ MINNS _ _ _ _ dnillISISISSMI_ S _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 83'-2t 1ST FLOOR BALCONY BELOW, TYP. 1ST FLOOR CONC. TILE ROOFING BELOW, TYP. 196'-2r 324 --1 75-Z71 • 17'-6" RETAINING WALL 325 1 1 • • SECOND FLOOR PLaRg SCALE: 1/8" Do 91-0° • • • KSP S 21'-0" EXIT 0 0 / DN. UP. t PROPERTY UNE 26'-3' PROPOSED GUEST ROOMS: S (SUITE) 4 S -J (SUITE WITH JACUZZI) 3 K (KING -BED) 9 K—J (KING -BED WITH JACUZZI) - 1 00 (DOUBLE QUEEN -BED) 9 TOTAL 26 19'-0" 0 I ro 1- 0 I O 0 m TEL: (626) 570-1300 Q FAX: (626) 570-3464 A/cn—I\G9fi fie•Cf 411 r',F 9 \OT. 0 :ij! U a 0 'Q Ioo THIS PLAN IS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION, UNLESS ARCHITECT, HUAMIN CHANG'S "WET" SIGNITURE & ''WET' STAMP IS SHOWN ON THS PLAN. S EE TOTLE PROJEC NAME SECOND FLOOR PLANHAMPTON INN & SUITES 1530 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY HERMOSA BEACH, CA 128'-21' 6'-2i 0 10 o N N ro N -c4 N 0 Y 0 a \ 0 d 0 c0 0 N < • 0. co N N i0 0 0 O N 0 6'-6" 34'-0" 46'-3" 17-9" 5'-6" 12,-0" 5 -0" CONY, TYP 410 QQ 409 a 0 w 0 00 14081 00 406 i0 6'-29 6'-6" K 404 29,_0• O L6 EXIT WIC VENDINe ICE EXIT C) K -i I- - - ' � I I i D 411 EXECUTIVE SUITE F-3'-6" HIGH LOW WALL CORRIDOR e 0 o I 5'-0" ELEC. ROOM EXIT L 407 STAR 02 UP. DN. L BALCONY CORRIDOR 41 J J LJ 412 S' EXIT Eat r0 t • k � I 10 BALCONY L_ 27'-6" K' /0 6'-0" MECH. RM. v STORAGE CORRIDOR M , C) L %\ I CORRIDOR STAIR %1 DN. 1 EXIT 5'-0" C a h17'-9" S 401 S 402 - a O 17'-6" O a VI C- S -J 403 15'-3" 6'-6" SPE !77:I, L E-1 EXIT 7-0" 4> 4'-O" IP 74) �J 0 1-1/2 OUR FIRE RATED DOOR, / \ "FIR G ARD MODEL 90", OF / 1 "WON+Cp3R CORPORATION", OUTDOOR 1-800-453-8494 JACUZZI PER MA¢IUFACTUR P C CATIONS F ROOF DECK 6J 36'-0" 13'-0" 3'-O" 11141 14— IRON RAIL Ij 1 a" U N 5'-6" G 71_O" G /.31-0". 6'-0" U a Me CONC. TILE ROOFING 2ND FLOOR BALCONY BELOW o P 0 N a 1 C V S. CO a 1ST & 2ND FLOOR EXTENIOR WALL LINE BELOW 2ND FLOOR CONC. TILE ROOFING BELOW 2ND FLOOR BALCONY BELOW 2ND FLOOR CONC. TILE ROOFING BELOW 1ST FLOOR BALCONY BELOW, TYP. 1ST FLOOR CONC. TILE ROOFING BELOW, TYP. 413 135'-0" 0 m CONCRETE N DECK PROPERTY UNE a MINIM S MINN, 0 C) L JI 414 12'-9" 1ST FLOOR CONC. TILE ROOFING BELOW, TYP. 12'-6" Legi SIN Ti 1 415 K I I a 0.5 L O a nil C) JED 0 i 416 K BALCO 12'-6" 12'-6" ' r. t. 0 417 --QQ - OMB 40 0 12.-6° 0 CORRIDOR • O L J C) lo 418 L QQ -- r O 420 KSP S 40 1 Un J EXIT 0 11 DN. C) S -J STAIR (I t' • SIP S 17-6" as -2r 113'-0" 196'-2i MED FLOC) ED LA SCALE: 1/80 ®1°-0` 0 21'-0" PROPERTY UNE 26'-3" PROPOSED GUEST ROOMS: S (SUITE) 5 S -J (SUITE WITH JACUZZI) 3 K -(KING-BED) 5 K -J (KING -BED WITH JACUZZI) - 1 QQ (DOUBLE QUEEN -BED) 6 EXECUTIVE SUITE 1 - TOTAL 21 19'-0" 0 N 0 I 0 N. C0 In Cr I N a RE ST 10 NS BY 6 9 -J rn >U w co THIS PLAN IS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION, UNLESS ARCHITECT, HUAMIN CHANG'S "WET” SIGNITURE & "WET" STAMP IS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. rZ z f 0 0 HAMPTON INN & SUITES w VL DATE: SCALE: DRAWN. JOB: SHEET A-4 OF SHEETS 263'-2r 128'-2r 135'-0" 12'-8r 103'-6" 116'-0" 124.3 CONCRETE FAG TILE 4N 6" 41111111•1 S SISS/EiriMOS .111111.11 119.835 N 00 CRICKET, TIP. w a 0 N N 4 :0' 00 N N BUILT-UP ROOFING 101.9 C 1/2 : 12 SLOPE BUILT-UP ROOFING CONCRETE ROOFING TILE 1/2 : 12 SLOPE CONCRETE ROOFING TILE PROPOSED 131.95 (CP1C MAX. 141.11) 3RD FLOOR ROOF DECK BELOW PROPOSED 131.4 (CP2C MAX. 136.87) 99.5 • 193'- 00 116.3 L 110 OEM. S BUILT-UP ROOFING PROPOSED +141.95 (CP3C MAX. 143.72 ) CONCRETE ROOFING TILE PROPOSED 141.95 (CP2B MAX. 140.61) N PROPOSED 139.95 (CP1B MAX. 140.79) CONCRETE ROOFING TILE 97.62 PROPOSED +139.95 (CPIA MAX. 140.62) P 44^b - i rr 105.1 I 3 -6 19.-0" 107 0 v 0 I i0 N 0 a 104.89 o In a 196'-2r LA SCALE: 1/86 =11-0' REVISTIONS BY TEL: (626) 570-1300 Q FAX: (626) 570-9464 2227 WEST VALLEY BLVD. ALHAMBRA, CA 91803 0 giDC 4 1 1(g) w cI ©In 11 'Q O Os THIS PLAN IS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION, UNLESS ARCHITECT, HUAMIN CHANG'S 'WET' SIGNITURE & "WET" STAMP IS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. w � _\S 0 WI 0 X (a, HAMPTON INN & SUITES 1530 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY HERMOSA BEACH, CA SHEET TO -LE t3. LL S Ls DATE: SCALE. DRAWN - JOB SHEET //u�\ 45 OF SHEETS 2'-O" ♦ titO 1 -0' MAX. -fin` (+141.95) TOP OF PLATE O o 3RD FLR (+131.4) iD M i'-0" MAX �♦ O 2ND FLOR • 1'-0" MAX.'S'. O 1ST FLR (+109.95) BASEMENT SEE GRADING PLAN • TOP OF PLATE , 0 m 3RD FIR O o 2ND FLOR 1ST FLR i 0 o 12 12 • 0 12 —112 (+131.95) 0 12 —112 i I V - 12 1 I Ia 0 12 12 fl 0 0 r. 11!ji 'I!I1 -r j1lii�l'I) IIIHIOT I'i iz .il - I I I I TT ti T,I „ITT ii I I'I '',I rf SEE GRADING PLAN FOR PRECISE FINSH GRADE UNE, TYP. ;_.-,, 1 1:t, 7-77-‘,,-_ T V,, 1 II -7-�,, y' 00 0 L +1 1.95) a I I' WEST 12 12 r-7---\\ lt !l I V FRONT') HI IL II'1! a p :I 00 12 —112 TYP. 00 Jr I u 0 ELEVWJIOLIV SCALE: p E: 1j8 -1'-O" I • J A • 0 V d I. V SEE GRADING PLAN FOR PRECISE FINISH GRADE LINE, TYP. 12 \ 12 N C, z 0 CD CD w BASEMENT N ♦ 2'-0' L II H • TOP OF PLATE 0 , CO 3RD FLR SEE GRADING PLAN FOR PRECISE FINSH GRADE UNE. TYP. n �i li II L - -J-- — Oa 2ND FLOR a, 1ST FLR 5 a C, BASEMENT ♦ 0 TOP OF PLATE 0 3RD FIR 0 0 0 a 12 fl 12 2 12 re - r -r --`--I 6 12 0 Ito 2ND FLOR ♦ .0 a, 1ST FLR 0 S 0 0 O BASEMENT n 1 _,- 1 O EMT QREAM 12 12 E LSEUJ I O LJ V TYP. I' 4- 0 O 0 C O 26'-0' SEE GRADING PLAN FOR PRECISE FINSH GRADE UNE, TYP. EJEVaTICH SCALE:1/8'=1'-0' TOP OF PLATE O a, 3RD F1R • 2ND FLOR I O m 1ST FLR i z 5 a C, 2 co BASEMENT SCALE:1/8'=l'—O EXTERIOR FINISH MATERIAL SCHEDULE: CONCRETE TILE, "2540" OF "EAGLE ROOFING PRODUCTS", (909) 355-7000 STUCCO, "X-48, MEADOWBROOK (BASE 100)", OF "LA HABRA STUCCO", (714) 774-1186 METAL COPING; PAINTED, COLOR MATCHING STUCCO GLASS WINDOW OR DOOR WITH WHITE COLOR VINYL FRAME GLASS STOREFRONT WITH WHITE COLOR ALUMINUM FRAME PAINT OVER IRON, COLOR MATCHING STUCCO, WHITE. PAINT OVER STUCCO SCREED, COLOR MATCHING .STUCCO PAINT OVER STUCCO, "APRIL, DE 928 L1" OF "DUNN-EDWARDS', (800) 537-4098 a O V CONCRETE TILE, TYP PROVIDE 3'X10' OPENING 2 4'-0' MAX. D.C. ON BLOCKING, FOR ATTIC VENTILATION 40# FELT OVER PLYWOOD SHEATHING, WHITH 4' HEAD LAP & 6' END LAP GUTTER, PAINTED, COLOR MATCH WALL 1X2 WOOD BATTEN, TYP 2X2 WOOD STARTER STRI 28 GA. MIN. MTL FLASHING NO 2X WOOD FACIA, TYE,. STUCCO CORNER BEAD, TYP 7/8' EXTERIOR PLASTER, ON PAPER BACKED METAL LATH, TYP NOTE' (1) CONCRETE TILE TO BE OF 'EAGLETIL CO.', ICBG14660, LA RR#25021, TELT (909)355-7000. CONCRETE TILE AT EAVE RF-CNC17 I I' 1I! I� IIID V 4. T (4) til llr I,il:LI III II . u it 12 12 t 2-0 E TOP OF PLATE 12 ✓ V MONTH H MC W MO l A a, 3RD FLR I 2ND FLOR t 1ST FLR SEE. GRADING PLAN FOR PRECISE FINSH GRADE UNE, TYP. 0 BASEMENT REVISTIONS BY 1 I HuH -4 1 0 12 12 fl 0 0 r. 11!ji 'I!I1 -r j1lii�l'I) IIIHIOT I'i iz .il - I I I I TT ti T,I „ITT ii I I'I '',I rf SEE GRADING PLAN FOR PRECISE FINSH GRADE UNE, TYP. ;_.-,, 1 1:t, 7-77-‘,,-_ T V,, 1 II -7-�,, y' 00 0 L +1 1.95) a I I' WEST 12 12 r-7---\\ lt !l I V FRONT') HI IL II'1! a p :I 00 12 —112 TYP. 00 Jr I u 0 ELEVWJIOLIV SCALE: p E: 1j8 -1'-O" I • J A • 0 V d I. V SEE GRADING PLAN FOR PRECISE FINISH GRADE LINE, TYP. 12 \ 12 N C, z 0 CD CD w BASEMENT N ♦ 2'-0' L II H • TOP OF PLATE 0 , CO 3RD FLR SEE GRADING PLAN FOR PRECISE FINSH GRADE UNE. TYP. n �i li II L - -J-- — Oa 2ND FLOR a, 1ST FLR 5 a C, BASEMENT ♦ 0 TOP OF PLATE 0 3RD FIR 0 0 0 a 12 fl 12 2 12 re - r -r --`--I 6 12 0 Ito 2ND FLOR ♦ .0 a, 1ST FLR 0 S 0 0 O BASEMENT n 1 _,- 1 O EMT QREAM 12 12 E LSEUJ I O LJ V TYP. I' 4- 0 O 0 C O 26'-0' SEE GRADING PLAN FOR PRECISE FINSH GRADE UNE, TYP. EJEVaTICH SCALE:1/8'=1'-0' TOP OF PLATE O a, 3RD F1R • 2ND FLOR I O m 1ST FLR i z 5 a C, 2 co BASEMENT SCALE:1/8'=l'—O EXTERIOR FINISH MATERIAL SCHEDULE: CONCRETE TILE, "2540" OF "EAGLE ROOFING PRODUCTS", (909) 355-7000 STUCCO, "X-48, MEADOWBROOK (BASE 100)", OF "LA HABRA STUCCO", (714) 774-1186 METAL COPING; PAINTED, COLOR MATCHING STUCCO GLASS WINDOW OR DOOR WITH WHITE COLOR VINYL FRAME GLASS STOREFRONT WITH WHITE COLOR ALUMINUM FRAME PAINT OVER IRON, COLOR MATCHING STUCCO, WHITE. PAINT OVER STUCCO SCREED, COLOR MATCHING .STUCCO PAINT OVER STUCCO, "APRIL, DE 928 L1" OF "DUNN-EDWARDS', (800) 537-4098 a O V CONCRETE TILE, TYP PROVIDE 3'X10' OPENING 2 4'-0' MAX. D.C. ON BLOCKING, FOR ATTIC VENTILATION 40# FELT OVER PLYWOOD SHEATHING, WHITH 4' HEAD LAP & 6' END LAP GUTTER, PAINTED, COLOR MATCH WALL 1X2 WOOD BATTEN, TYP 2X2 WOOD STARTER STRI 28 GA. MIN. MTL FLASHING NO 2X WOOD FACIA, TYE,. STUCCO CORNER BEAD, TYP 7/8' EXTERIOR PLASTER, ON PAPER BACKED METAL LATH, TYP NOTE' (1) CONCRETE TILE TO BE OF 'EAGLETIL CO.', ICBG14660, LA RR#25021, TELT (909)355-7000. CONCRETE TILE AT EAVE RF-CNC17 I I' 1I! I� IIID V 4. T (4) til llr I,il:LI III II . u it 12 12 t 2-0 E TOP OF PLATE 12 ✓ V MONTH H MC W MO l A a, 3RD FLR I 2ND FLOR t 1ST FLR SEE. GRADING PLAN FOR PRECISE FINSH GRADE UNE, TYP. 0 BASEMENT REVISTIONS BY TEL: (626) 570-1300 A FAX: (626) 570-9464 0 &::9 4::3 © E I gr,,,,E) 1 4:3 cci 0 40 THIS PLAN IS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION, UNLESS ARCHITECT, HUAMIN ate "WET" STAMP IS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN, PRO ECCT NAME HAMPTON INN & SUITES 1530 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY HERMOSE BEACH, CALIFORNIA SHEET C1flE SHEET TITLE DATE: SCALE: DRAWN. JOB: SHEET OF SHEETS PROPERTY LINE EXISTINI. GRADE LINE SEE GR''•IING PLAN GUEST ROOM CORRIDOR ELEVATOR TOWER STAIR SHAFT CORRIDOR x to 0 cc 0 OUTDOOR JACUZZI PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATION 124 DECK 114 GUEST ROOM GUEST ROOM 112 110 STAIR SHAFT 1• STAIR SHAFT BASEMENT PARKING GARAGE / / / / i / / STAIR SHAFT CORRIDOR GUEST ROOM 1 TOP OF PLATE 0 3RD FLOOR 25'-6" 12'-0' i 30'-0" 1 EXISTING GRADE LINE, TYP. 9'-0" STORAGE 18'-0' / / / / / / / / GREAT R00M 106 8'-6" MHO SECTDCH PROPERTY UNE SCALE: 1 /4"=1'-0• 42'-0' 13'-0" 2'-6' 109.33 SEE GRADING PLAN MI CORRIDOR BATHROOM BATHROOM 12 SUITE SUITE HANDICAP UNIT 109.95 CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE — 1'-6' MIN —�� —0 MIN EXISTING CONTOUR UNE SEE GRADING PLAN r / FOUNDATION & RETAINING' WALL, SEE GRADING & STRUCTURE PLAN FOUNDATION SEE STRUCTURE PLANS. TYP. PROPERTY LINE 1 1 0 TOP OF PLATE 3RD FLOOR 0 2ND FLOOR 1ST FLOOR 104.75 SCALE: 1/4'a1'- • 1 104 / PROPERTY UNE 102 2ND FLOOR 1ST FLOOR 2 0 2 100 W v, EASEMENT 3'-0" 1 REVISTIONS BY TEL: (626) 570-1500 A FAX: (626) 570-9464 2227 W°IEST VALLEY t'LVf_ V V g I Q M a U r_-sen`� a C� o O THIS PLAN IS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION, UNLESS ARCHITECT, HUAMIN CHANG'S "WET" SIGNITURE & "WET" STAMP IS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. PROJECT NAME HAMPTON INN & SUITES 1530 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY HERMOSA BEACH. CA SHEET MLLE BUILDING SECTION DATE: SCALE: DRAWN: JOB: SHEET 47 OF SHEETS FILE NAME a a} S.y't!5:.r�!KM � e! to ' tis.al11.1 all +Pact..-. PODOCARPUS MACROPHYLLUS/ YEW PINE LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA/ CRAPE MYRTLE r L • SCREENING SHRUBS TRISTANIA CONFERTA/ BRISBANE BOX J J J PROPERTY UNE EAST (REAR) ELEVATION SCALE 1/8"=1'-0" + + + ++ ;i1 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + • + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + t + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + t + t + + ++ + + C�. RETAINING WALL. TYP. C PROPERTY UNE C C C CONC. DRNEWAY, TYP. STANDARD PARKING STALL, TYP. STANDARD PARKING STALL, TYP. r' I I L 6 0 N J ( 2ND FLOOR BUILDING UNE ABOVE 3/4'0 PEA GRAVEL - 2" MIN. .COVER (TYP.) w z CONC. DRIVEWAY, TYP. 1 r� 6" WIDE, 6" HIGH CONC. CURB. TYP. L- z L- \ rh-L PLANT LEGEND SYMBOL ITEM NO. BOTANICAL NAME W z HANDICAP PARKING STAU, TYP. HANDICAP PARKING STALL, TYP. CONC. DRIVEWAY, TYP. C C BOULDERS -18"0 MIN. (TYP.) • HANDICAP PARKING STALL, TYP. C C 2 COcellitoo do TRASH ENCLOSURE v PER CITY STANDARD C COMPACT CAR PARKING STALL, TYP. RETAINING WALL 4" HIGH CONCRETE CURB G 0 C 10 NOTE: AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALL IN ALL PLANTING AREAS. SIDEWALK VINYL DIVIDER (TYP.) • PACIFIC COAST HWY LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE : 1/8"=1'-0" Prk 1/4 MONUMENT SIGN SEPARATE PERMIT BY OTHERS +• F+r+ +. + .+ + .. + + + rte; t_+,A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 GEIJERA PARVIFLORA ARECASTRUM ROMANZOFFIANUM LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA 'CHEROKEE' PODOCARPUS MAC ROP HYLLUS SOLANUM RANTONNETII TRISTANIA CONFERTA COMMON NAME SIZE QUANTITY TYPE AUSTRALIAN WILLOW 24" BOX 3 TREE QUEEN PALM RED CRAPE MYRTLE YEW PINE PARAGUAY NIGHTSHADE BRISBANE BOX CUPRESSUS SEMPERVIRENS ITALIAN CYPRESS MUSA CAVENDISH BOUGAINVILLEA 'BRASIUENSIS' EURYOPS PECTINATUS RHAPIOLEPIS INDICA 'PINK LADY' PITTOSPORUM TOBIRA VARIEGATA" NANDINA BOMESTICA 'COMPACTA' OSMANTHUS FRAGRANS ASPARAGUS DENSIFLORUS 'MYERS' HEMEROCALLIS 'STELLA d' ORO' AGAPANTHUS AFRICANUS 'BLUE' FICUS REPENS ' PELARGONIUM . PELTATUM . , DUCHESNEA INDICA MARATHON II DWARF BANANA PURPLE BOUGAINVILLEA GOLDEN SHRUB DAISY PINK LADY INDIA HAWTHORN VARIEGATED MOCK ORANGE DWARF HAVENLY BAMBOO SWEET OLIVE PONY TAIL FERN YELLOW DAYULY ULY OF THE NILE CREEPING FIG IW GERANIUM INDIA MOCK STRAWBERRY TALL FESCUE 24" BOX 5 TREE 15TH STREET 24" BOX 4 TREE 15 GAL. 6 TREE 15 GAL. 2 PATIO TREE 15 GAL. 18 TREE 24" BOX 5 TREE 15 GAL. 1 SHRUB 5 GAL 3 SHRUB 5 GAL. 4 SHRUB 5 GAL 53 SHRUB 5 GAL. 38 SHRUB 5 GAL 64 SHRUB 5 GAL 9 SHRUB 5 GAL 12 SHRUB 1 GAL 48 SHRUB 1 GAL 27 SHRUB 5 GAL 1 VINE FLATS 8"O.C. GROUND COVER FLATS 12"O.C. GROUND COVER 50D SOD LAWN REVISIONS DATE NO • LANDSCAPE PLAN Date 06-14-00 Scale 1/8"=1'-0" Drawn T.L. Job 50400 Sheet L-1 C TOL: OF PLATE u 3RD FLR I 2ND FLCR (4 131.4) 1'-0' MAX. b 1ST FLR (+109.95) BASEMENT SEE GRADING PLAN 0 TOP OF PLATE • m 3PD FLR 2ND FLOR • • b i 1ST FLR • 0 SEE GRADING PLAN FOR PRECISE FINSH GRADE UNE. TYP. 12 0 12 L I ,2 it --- -------I 12 12 r 1 - r 0 (+131.95) 12 —112\\\ t 1-3 r 11 I r -ice -..�_ �, T - T I! I' �1r Ij �1 �ri 1 '14 " ~�r1 �1' , , ��; '� --I J I I,f O12 \J 1a z 3 a 0 z S 0 u w BASEMENT in -1- - Ir 12 12J,i 00 0 (+1.95) 'v 0 00 12 12 - ,, I 11•• � - IT Il -1 - III F ] 0 11 r 1----7{ _['- ' r L _ ,_[-- r_ I v 0 _=Ed °`1100 SCALE: 1 /3"n1' -C" _flti 12 0 10 N SEE GRADING PLAN FOR PRECISE FINISH GRADE LINE, TYP. ElEcEIVED JUL 10 2000 eOM. DEV. DEPT. 2 -0' b "t 0 TOP OF PLATE 3RD FLR SEE GRADING PLAN FOR PRECISE FINSH GRADE LINE, TYP. 12 fl 12 2ND FLOR 0 a, I I i1 I 11 � i I II • 0 TOP OF PLATE b a, 3RD FLR 0 a, 2ND FLOP a, 1ST FLR •o BASEMENT n 12 '0 1 11 0 1 0 • 6 WALL FRAM'NG, SEE PLANS BROWN COAT OF STUCCO. SEE PLANS APPROVED PRIMER ADHESIVE IS APPLIED -TO FOAM BACKSIDE & TO THE BROWN COAT OF STUCCO l2 1 Y 2 1 ' 1/2' 1 /2 =Jr a FOAM SHAPE SHALL BE ADHERED TO . BROWN COAT OF STUCCO NOTE . (1) FOAM SHA°E SHALL BE OF L.A.R.R. #25144. 'ADVANCED FOAM, INC.', IC.B.0. #4059, ` 1NDOW, OR DOOR, SEE PLANS a • (1) FOAM SHAPE PLUS 3' TO 4' BESIDES SHALL BE COATED WITH APPROVED PRIMER ADHESIVE (2) GLASS FIBER MESH BEGINS ON THE SUBSTRATE SHALL BE TROWELED INTO THE PRIMER -ADHESIVE COLOR FINISH COAT SHALL BE APPLIED WITH REQUIRED BONDER WINDOW OR DOOR MOLDING FOAM WITH STUCCO FINISH FOM14 12 12 0 • 1 L T_ •II 'i!!i! ..'moi:. -- 1-, 1 1 If 0 SOMA 2. 12 112 /-- L_ 25' -0' SEE GRADING PLAN FOR PRECISE FINSH GRADE UNE, TYP. ELSE V [r TDOU V SCALE: 1/&r1'-0' 2' x 6' x 1/4'(THK.) STEEL TUBE WELDED TO VERTICAL STEEL TOPE, TYP - '•2X BLOCKING WHERE GUARDRAIL CONNECTION OCCURS 1 _t- —4 NOTE '<1) -SUBMIT SHOP DRAWING FOR ARCHITECT'S •APPROVAL BEFORE FABRICATION. 2 X 2' X 1/4'(THICK) VERTICAL STEEL TUBE POST WELDED TO STEEL BASE PLATE, TYP. /1...1/4' X 1 1/2' STEEL SMOOTH -CURVED PICKET .." 2 4' O.C., WELDED TO HORIZONTAL STEEL TUBES rh 16± is OUR 5E8' MACHINC BOLT, TYP /2' THK. STL, PLATE ' ♦ i !/16' 4 1116' 1.5' MAX. SECTION X MIN, FLOOR JOIST OR BLOCK'G OR BEAM ELEVATION 6 ) STEEL GUARDRAIL ON WOOD FLOOR RL -STs 2'-O' I I I \ 0 TOP OF PLATE U, 3RD FLR 2ND FLOR 0 ro • a, 1ST FLR • E.E V ATIOU ll SCALE 1R37n41 Il1 it ILL!. - EXTERIOR FINISH MATERIAL SCHEDULE: CONCRETE TILE, "BURNT IVORY" OF "MONIER ROOFING", (909) 737-3888 STUCCO, "X-48, MEADOWBROOK (BASE 100)", OF "LA HABRA STUCCO", (714) 774-1186 METAL COPING, PAINTED, COLOR MATCHING STUCCO GLASS WINDOW OR DOOR WITH WHITE COLOR VINYL FRAME GLASS STOREFRONT WITH WHITE COLOR ALUMINUM FRAME PAINT OVER IRON, COLOR MATCHING STUCCO, WHITE. PAINT OVER STUCCO SCREED, COLOR MATCHING STUCCO STUCCO, X-79 VILLA (BASE 100)", OF "LA HABRA STUCCO". (714) 774-1186 WALL SIGN LOCATION, BY SEPERATE PERMIT. WOOD SIDING, PAINTED, COLOR MATCH STUCCO. "CASTLE STONE CC932" OF "MR. STONE INTERNATIONAL", (626) 333-7998 CAST WHITE CEMENT CONCRETE MOLDING ' • iI' iII I 'illll• I 1', 1; 0 i ;I �j x''1;1 I I ;, i'1 J 0 V V •,'� Il :'�,. �l, Fii II I 'I I I , 4 0) SEE GRADING PUN I 1ST FLR BASEMENT CONCRETE TILE, TYP PPOVIDE 3'X10• OPENING P 4'-0' MAX. EL C. ON BLOCKING, FOR ATTIC VENTILATION 404 FELT OVER PLYWOOD SHEATHING, WHITH 4' HEAD LAP & 6' END LAP GUTTER, PAINTED, COLOR MATCH WALL i 1X2 WOOD BATTEN, TYP 2X2 WAD STARTER STRI 28 GA, MIN. MTL, FLASHING 0 2X WOOD FACIA, STUCCO CORNER BEAD, TYP 7/8' EXTERIOR PLASTER, ON PAPER BACKED METAL LATH, TY2 SFE PLANS r= NOTE (1) CONCRETE TILE TO BE OF 'EAGLET II CO,', ICB044660, LA P,R425021, TEL, (909)355-7000. ,11,,111, �l�;l 1 .I l (Ilial, . I I i rt II i LI II' I I • • • I III I EMCDRITTA v it' I: I''. 17 T Ii I'. ,11;1 CONCRETE TILE AT EAVE 12 12 w !I I il-!III?i'I; i RF-CNC17 2,-0. 0 TOP OF PLATE 12 at 3RD FLR 40 Ito 2ND FLOR SEE GRADING PLAN FOR PRECISE FINGH Gr'41DE UNE, 1Y13. 1ST FIR • BASEMENT SUPPLEMENTAL A INFoRmorm TEL: (528) 570-1300 A FAX: (626) 570-945 2227 WEST VALLEY ELVD. ALHAM2 A, CA 91503 4:5 w 0 (?t;i) pui (U0) C- © figel Erf:i) "Cl THIS PLAN IS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION, UNLESS ARCHITECT, HUAMN CHANTS "WET" SIGNITURE SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. PJA hn till a HAMPTON INN t SUITES 1530 PACIFIC COAST N,CHWAY HERMOSE BEACH. CALIFORNIA SKEET -TELE tEj uu DC GO DATE: SCALE: JOB: SHEET OF SHEETS SUPPLEMENTAL A INFoRmorm