Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10/23/90
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF. THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, October 23, 1990, at the hour of 7:32 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Dee Strange and students from Hermosa Valley School ROLL CALL Present: Creighton, Essertier, Midstokke, Wiemans, Mayor Sheldon Absent: None PROCLAMATIONS Red Ribbon Week, October 22 - 27, 1990 Mayor Sheldon presented the Proclamation to Dee Strange, accept- ing on behalf of the 740 students of Hermosa Valley School, who introduced Officer Thompson of the Hermosa Beach Police Depart- ment, who announced that Thursday, October 25, 1990, was "Wear Red Day" as a pledge .to not use drugs, he then asked the students from Hermosa Valley School to give red ribbon wristbands to the Council Members. Buckle -up for Life Challenge, November 1, 1990 through 1991 Mayor Sheldon read the Proclamation stating that there was a sig- nificant decrease in injuries and deaths when seat belts and child saving seat restraints were used. OUTSTANDING EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER: Rachel Gaines Public Works Department Mayor Sheldon presented a plaque to Rachel Gaines, in recognition of her outstanding work and her thirty-five years of service with the City of Hermosa Beach. CITIZEN COMMENTS 1. CONSENT CALENDAR Action: To approve the Consent Calendar recommendations (a) through (h) with the exception of the following item which was pulled for discussion but is listed in order for clarity: (f) Essertier. Motion Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered. Recommendation to approve minutes of regular meeting of the City Council held on October 9, 1990. Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants Nos. 34814, 34944, and 34948 through 35101 inclusive, noting voided warrants Nos. 34952, 34953, 34954, 34974, 35016, and 35017; and to cancel certain warrants as recommended by the City Treasurer. Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. Recommendation to receive and file the September, 1990 Financial Reports: Page 1 Minutes 10-23-90 1a�� T y 1) Revenue and Expenditure Report; 2) City Treasurer's Report. Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #21580 for a two -unit condominium at 833 Loma Drive. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated October 15, 1990. Action: To adopt Resolution NO. 90-5417, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP # 21580 FOR A TWO UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 833 LOMA DRIVE, HER- MOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. Recommendation to receive and file Quarterly review of Capital Improvement Projects through September 30, 1990. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated October 11, 1990. Supplemental letter from City Treasurer, Gary Brutsch, dated October 22, 1990, in op- position to bonded indebtedness for Capital Improvement needs. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Coun- cilmember Essertier for separate discussion later in the meeting. Action: To receive and file the Quarterly review of Capital Improvement Projects through September 30, 1990, that include: 1) CIP 85-137 - FAU, Overlay Valley, Ardmore, and Prospect; 2) CIP 89-141 - Street Rehabilitation; 3) CIP 89-142 - Sidewalk Repairs; 4) CIP 90-144 - Replace Strand Wall and Walkway; 5) CIP 89-146 - Street Median Upgrades; 6) CIP 89-148 - Trash Enclosures Downtown; 7) CIP 89-150 - Misc. Traffic Signal Improvements 8) CIP 89-151 - Traffic Engineering Program; 9) CIP 89-170 - Slurry Sealing; 10) CIP 88-201 - Street Lighting Upgrades; 11) CIP 88-406 - Sanitary Sewer Improvements, Tar- get Area 4; 12) CIP 89-506 - Various Park Improvements; 13) CIP 88-508 - Park Irrigation Rehabilitation; 14) CIP 90-511 - Railroad Right -of -Way Parking Lot; 15) CIP 89-512 - Basketball Courts; 16) CIP 89-516 - Sixth Street and Prospect Park; 17) CIP 89-517 - Recreation Facilities; 18) CIP 89-518 - Recreation Facilities; 19) CIP 89-601 - Fuel Tanks; 20) CIP 89-604 - Building Improvements at Various Locations; 21) CIP 87-606 - Police Department Remodel; 22) CIP 89-609 - Modular Furniture/Council Chairs; 23) CIP 89-615 - Community Center Fire Alarms; 24) CIP 90-616 -Earthquake Reinforcement of Clark Page 2 Minutes 10-23-90 (g) (h) Building; and, 25) CIP 89-701 - City Parking Lot Improvements. And, to delete the reference on page 2, paragraph 5, to bonded indebtedness as a possible form of financing. Motion Essertier, second Midstokke. So ordered. Recommendation to receive and file Energy Conservation report. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated October 16, 1990. Action: To receive and file the Energy Conservation Report that enumerated the implemented measures, based on an energy audit performed by the Southern California Edison Company, to reduce energy consumption at the City Hall, the Community Center, and the Clark- Building. These measures focused on energy efficient lighting and showed a daily saving of 106.1 Kilowatt Hours for a $220 per month saving on electric bills. Recommendation to approve execution of a joint powers agreement between Hermosa Beach, other South Bay Cities, the County of Los Angeles, and the County Sanitation Districts of L.A. County for purpose of compliance with requirements of AB939 - state recycling law. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated October 16, 1990. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES (a) ORDINANCE NO. 90-1048 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FROM R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO OS, OPEN SPACE, FOR THE CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF PROSPECT AVENUE BETWEEN 15TH AND 17TH STREET AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARA- TION. For adoption. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 90-1048. Motion Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. Item (f) was discussed at this time but is listed in order for clarity. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None Councilmember Essertier informed the public that Proposition B, on the November ballot, would provide Hermosa Beach. with $6,000,000 to repay the Greenbelt/Railroad Right -of -Way; $1,500,000 to rehabilitate the pier; and, additional cash for parks restoration, if passed. Mayor Sheldon reported on his attendance at a Mayor's workshop on the role of the City Council at the annual League of California Cities which began October 21, 1990. Page 3 Minutes 10-23-90 ,Due to the brevity of the previous actions and the publicized time of 8:00 P.M. for the start of the Public Hearings, a recess was called. The meeting recessed at 7:54 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:01 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AT 1081-85-87 AVIA- TION BLVD, WITH RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated October 15, 1990. Supplemental draft minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of September 18, 1990, and supplemen- tal letter from Wanda S. Horn, 1111 Eighth Street, dated October 22, 1990. Director Schubach presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. The public hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak in favor of the appeal were: Jim Marquez - 1860 South Elena, Redondo Beach, representing the appellant Paul Phillips - Co -consultant for the appellant Wanda Horn - 1111 Eighth Street Sheila Donahue Miller - 77 Seventeenth Street Bob Du Pre - 1127 Fourteenth Street Coming forward to speak against the appeal were: Bernice Lindo - 1232 Corona Street, who submitted a paper listing the auto related businesses in the area Ray Martin - 1255 Corona Street, who submitted a petition against the appeal containing 62 sig- natures, and stated that he had counted 59 junked autos visible in the area Maurice Beaudet - 1203 Eleventh Street, who submitted a petition against the appeal con- . taining 85 signatures Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street Tonya Beaudet - 1203 Eleventh Street The public hearing was closed. Action: To uphold the Planning Commission, deny the appeal, and adopt Resolution No. 90-5418, entitled, HA_ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONCURRING WITH THE PLANNING COMMIS- SION DECISION TO DENY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PRE- CISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUEST FOR AN AUTO BODY REPAIR AND PAINTING ESTABLISHMENT AT 1081 TO 1087 AVIATION, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 49 AND 50, AND THE SOUTHERLY 58 FEET OF LOTS 47 AND 48, HERMOSA HEIGHTS TRACT." Motion Creighton, second Wiemans. Page 4 Minutes 10-23-90 Proposed Substitute Action: To refer the matter back to the Planning Commission to review the staff alternative proposal, and to have staff contact the Air Quality Man- agement District to determine how, or if, odors can be controlled. Motion Wiemans. Motion died for lack of a second. Proposed Substitute Action: To refer the matter back to the Planning Commission with the direction that there is merit in the appeal, but in its present form it is unac- ceptable, and to request that the Commission determine the conditions that could be placed on the proposal that would allow it to be agreeable to the neighboring resi- dents and to the appellant. And, to continue the appeal to the meeting of November 27, 1990. Motion Mayor Sheldon, second Essertier. Motion failed due to the objections of Creighton, Midstokke, and Wiemans. Following a call for the question by Midstokke, seconded by Creighton,, the motion on the floor was brought to a vote. The main motion was so ordered, noting the objections of Essertier and Mayor Sheldon. The meeting recessed at 9:15 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:22 P.M. 6. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY AMBIGUITY IN ZONING ORDINANCE BY ADDING ',MOTORCYCLE SALES', AND ',MOTORCYCLE PARTS AND ACCESSORIES (NEW), RETAIL SALES', TO THE COM- MERCIAL PERMITTED USE LIST SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WITH ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated October 15, 1990. Director Schubach presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. The public hearing was opened. There being no one wishing to speak on this matter, the public hearing was closed. Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 90-1049. Motion Essertier, second Creighton. So ordered. Final Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 90-1049, entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT TO ADD MOTORCYCLE SALES AND. MOTORCYCLE PARTS SALES AS PERMITTED USES IN THE C-3 ZONE WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION." Motion Creighton, second Essertier. Page 5 Minutes 10-23-90 • AYES: Creighton, Essertier, Midstokke, Wiemans, Mayor Sheldon NOES: None 7. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW OUTDOOR DISPLAY IN COM- MERCIAL ZONES, WITH ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION. Memo- randum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated October 16, 1990. Director Schubach presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. The public hearing was opened. Coming forward to address the Council on this matter were: Shirley Cassell -.611 Monterey, opposed Wilma Burt 1152 Seventh Street, opposed Howard Longacre - 1221 Seventh Place, opposed Parker Herriott - 224 Twenty-fourth Street, opposed Wesley Bush - Chamber of Commerce, concerned about the effect on the Chamber's proposed bi-annual outdoor sales; informed that the Chamber's pro- posals were special events and not ongoing sales. The public hearing was closed. Action: To approve the Planning Commission recommenda- tion to make no changes in the present City Code. Motion Essertier, second Midstokke. So ordered, noting the objection of Creighton. 8. EXPEDITING OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND PUBLIC COM- MUNICATION OPPORTUNITIES. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated September 20, 1990. (Con- tinued from September 25, 1990 meeting to hold a public hearing.) City Manager Northcraft presented the report and re- sponded to Council questions. The public hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak on this matter were: Tom O'Leary - Redondo Beach, objected to the term "audience", wanted the Council to use the term "citizen participators", and wanted to speak at the start of the meeting. Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street, wanted citizen participation at the start of the meeting Howard Longacre 1221 Seventh Place, Hermosa Beach Council is "unfriendly", Manhattan Beach Coun- cil format is good Parker Herriott - 224 Twenty-fourth Street, wanted to be able to speak on every item on the agenda Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Blvd., wanted the Council to limit their own speaking time to three minutes- Page inutes- Page 6 Minutes 10-23-90 June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue, did not think it was fair to people attending the Public Hearings to have to wait in order to allow those who dropped in to speak early, also, felt that all written comments and let- ters should be listed on the agenda Jim Lissner - 2715 El Oeste Drive, wanted all letters and written comments listed on the agenda, and to talk at the start of the meeting The public hearing was closed. Action: To suspend the formal proceedings and just dis- cuss this item informally. Motion Essertier, second Wiemans. So ordered, noting the objection of Creighton. Straw Votes: (agreement or disagreement is shown only as there had been no return to formal proceedings) Page No. 1, Report -- Recommendations Item 1 - Yes, Adhere to City policies Item 2 - No consensus, revised agenda Item 3 - Yes, "Welcome.." brochure. Item 4 - No, Speaker request forms. Item 5 - No, City Attorney as Parliamentarian, (the City Clerk shall be the chief Parliamentarian, assisted by the C.A. if needed) Item 6 - Yes, Closed sessions shall recess at 7:20 if not completed Item 7 - Yes, Meeting recesses shall be limited to 10 minutes Page No. 4, Report -- Alternatives Item 1 - Yes, Oral communications, citizens shall have one minute each to comment on any non-public hearing item on the agenda or any subject within Council jurisdiction at the start of the meeting Item 2 - Yes, Voting machine, without speaker's timer light (Creighton/Wiemans object) Item 3 - No, Staff table Item 4 - Yes, Mayor's discretion for public discus- sion on municipal items Item 5 - No, Meeting procedure training for Councilmembers Item 6 - No, Parliamentarian (see 5 above) Final Action: To have the item returned with the agreed upon changes, and to continue the public hearing to the meeting of November 13, 1990. Motion Creighton, second Mayor Sheldon. So ordered. Page 7 Minutes 10-23-90 MUNICIPAL MATTERS 9. FINAL REPORT OF CABLE TV BOARD. Memorandum from General Services Director Cynthia Wilson dated October 15, 1990. Director Wilson presented the staff report and responded to Coun- cil questions. Addressing the Council on this matter was: Charlotte Malone - 260 Thirty-first Street, Chair- person of the Cable Television Advisory Board, who submitted the final report, of approximate- ly 750 pages, from the CATV Board Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) accept the final report of the CATV Advisory Board; and 2) accept as complete, the Duties and Responsibili- ties charged to the Board; and 3) accept the attached resignations, and discharge the Board. Also, to direct staff to have commendations prepared for the meeting of November 13, 1990, to be presented to the CATV Advisory Board members. Motion Essertier, second Creighton. So ordered 10. APPROVAL OF LORETO PLAZA AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT. Memo- randum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated October 17, 1990. Director Antich responded to Council questions. Addressing the Council on this matter were: Howard Longacre - 1221 Seventh Place, wants Plan- ning Commission study Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Blvd., opposed Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street, wants Planning Commission study Proposed Action: To approve the staff recommendation to prepare a license/lease agreement for City Council ap- proval to allow for enclosed air space, including the standard fee (currently $.50 per square feet, per month). Motion Creighton, second Mayor Sheldon. Motion failed due to the objections of Essertier, Midstokke, and Wiemans. Action: To send the matter to the Planning Commission for review and the development of a Conditional Use Permit. Motion Creighton, second Wiemans. So ordered. 11. ABATEMENT PROCEDURE FOR STRUCTURES IN RIGHT-OF-WAY - NORTH HERMOSA AVENUE. Memorandum from Public Works Di- rector Anthony Antich dated October 16, 1990. Page 8 Minutes 10-23-90 Director Antich presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Addressing the Council on this matter was: Janet Hamilton - 3417 Hermosa Avenue, approved of the abatement procedure; presented photographs to show trash problem Proposed Action: To approve staff recommendation No. 1, to have the city staff red tag the existing illegal wooden trash enclosures located in the public street right-of-way along the west side of north Hermosa Avenue; but, to extend the time deadline on recommenda- tion No. 2, from November 15, 1990 to June of 1991 be- fore staff removes any remaining trash enclosures. Motion Midstokke. Motion died due to the lack of a second. Proposed Action: To approve staff recommendations Nos. 1 and 2. Motion Essertier, second Wiemans. Motion failed due to the objections of Creighton, Midstokke, and Mayor Sheldon. Action: To approve staff recommendation No. 1, but ex- tend the time deadline on recommendation No. 2 to March 1, •1991. And, to direct staff to begin rapidly on abatement proceedings for other areas of the city where similar problems exist. Motion Mayor Sheldon, second Essertier. So ordered 12. RECOMMENDATION TO SUPPORT THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CIT- IES ',OPERATION BUDGET FREEDOM', TO ELIMINATE CITY FUNDS BEING USED TO BALANCE THE STATE'S BUDGET. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated October 18, 1990. City Manager Northcraft reported on California State Senate Bill 2557, which would shift certain City revenues to the Counties to make up for a cut in State funding, and would cost Hermosa Beach over $100,000 in this fiscal year alone. Action: To approve the staff recommendation. Motion Creighton, second Wiemans. So ordered. 13. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER City Manager Northcraft reported: 1) there would be an Adjourned Regular Meeting on Tuesday, October 30, 1990, at 7:00 P.M. to have a workshop on the User Fee Study; and 2) since the Council had not approved item No. 7, "Outdoor Display in Commercial Zones", enforcement of the prohibition of such displays would be rein- stated; and Page 9 Minutes 10-23-90 3) this would be the last meeting in this calendar year that would be attended by Laurie Duke, the Executive Secretary to the City Manager and City Council, as she was scheduled for knee surgery in November. 14. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Report on validation of Biltmore site referendum. Memo- randum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated October 17, 1990. City Clerk Doerfling presented a Certificate of Suf- ficiency for a Referendum protesting the passage of Or- dinance No. 90-1043, which changed the permitted use of the Biltmore site from a hotel to medium density residential. The Certificate of Sufficiency showed: Number of unverified signatures 1,798 Number of signatures verified 1,650 a. Number of signatures qualified 1,326, b. Number of signatures not qualified 324 c. Percentage of those verified 80.36% City Clerk Doerfling further recommended that since November 13, 1990 is the date that was publicly an- nounced for consideration of this matter, and the Elec- tions Code does not require Council action at the time the. certification is presented, that the item be con- tinued to the meeting of November 13, 1990. Addressing the Council on this matter was: Parker Herriott - 224 Twenty-fourth Street, submitted a letter with attachments Action: To continue this item to the regular meeting of November 13, 1990. Motion Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered. 15. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Request by Councilmember Creighton for discussion of newsletter. Concern was expressed by the Council that staff confine the City Newsletter to program activities, up -coming events, and non-political City activity. No action was taken. CITIZEN COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Coming forward to address the Council were: Rene Burke - Redondo Beach, concerned about recycling, wants "double barreling" in public areas, with one container for trash and the second for recyclable items Howard Longacre - 1221 Seventh Place, concerned about hotel parking lot being 30 feet below sea Page 10 Minutes 10-23-90 level Parker Herriott - 224 Twenty-fourth Street, should have the right to speak on every item; the Farmer's Market sign on Pier Avenue is illegal; announced there will be a hearing in November on the noticing for the hotel for the Coastal Commission Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Blvd., concerned about graffito on the memorial to the Chal- lenger astronauts and graffiti on the ocean side of the Strand wall Sheila Donahue Miller - 77 Seventeenth Street, concerned that there had been no Environmental Impact Report on the hotel June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue, concerned with changes to the agenda format Tom O'Leary - Redondo Beach, opposed to the hotel ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the'City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned on Wednesday, October 24, 1990, at the hour of 12:48 A.M.; to an Adjourned Regular Meeting j g to be held on Tuesday, October 30, 1990, at the hour of 7:00 P.M. r511 Deputy City Clerk Page 11 Minutes 10-23-90 "By nature, men are nearly alike; by practice, they get to be wide apart" - Confucius AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, November 13, 1990 - Council Chambers, City Hall Closed Session - 7:00 p.m. Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. MAYOR CITY CLERK Chuck Sheldon Elaine Doerfling MAYOR PRO TEM CITY TREASURER Kathleen Midstokke Gary L. Brutsch COUNCILMEMBERS CITY MANAGER Roger Creighton Kevin B. Northcraft Robert Essertier CITY ATTORNEY Albert Wiemans Charles S. Vose All Council meetings are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. Complete agenda materials are available for public inspection in the Police Department, Public Library and the Office of the City Clerk. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PRESENTATIONS OF DONATIONS - 1) $500 GIFT FOR TREE PLANTING FROM WOMAN'S CLUB 2) HEARING IMPAIRED TELEPHONE BY KIWANIS/OPTIMIST CLUBS PRESENTATION OF COMMENDATIONS TO FORMER CABLE TV BOARD MEMBERS PROCLAMATIONS: CITIZEN COMMENTS Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any items on the Consent Calendar may do so at this time. Citizens may request to speak during Public Hearings and items appearing under Municipal Matters at the time the item is called. Citizen comments on items not on the agenda but within the Council's jurisdiction will be provided time at the_end of the agenda. Please limit comments to three minutes. Citizens with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are requested to submit those comments to the City Manager. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following routine matters will be acted upon by one vote to approve with the majority con- sent of the City Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless good cause is shown by a member prior to the roll call vote. (Items removed will be considered under Agenda Item 3.) (a) Recommendation to approve the following minutes: 1) regular meeting of the City Council held on October 23, 1990; 2) Adjourned regular meeting held on October 30, 1990. (b) Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) Recommendation to receive and file October, 1990 monthly investment report. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated November 6, 1990. (e) (f) (g) (h) Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #21575 for a 3 -unit Condo at 641 6th Street. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated November 5, 1990. Recommendation to receive and file report on National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated November 5, 1990. Recommendation to award construction contract for bas- ketball courts. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated November 5, 1990. Recommendation to approve Maniaci Insurance Services, Inc. as the City's Health Insurance broker. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated November 6, 1990. (i) Recommendation to approve award of bid for truck with utility body. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated October 31, 1990. (j) Recommendation to approve Hermosa Beach Rotary Club Tree decoration. Memorandum from Community Resources Direc- tor Mary Rooney dated November 6, 1990. (k) WITHDRAWN (1) Recommendation to approve designation of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission as County Congestion 2 (m) (n) (o) (p) Management Agency. Memorandum from Public Works Direc- tor Anthony Antich dated November 1, 1990. Recommendation to approve annual request to bag meters during holidays and street closure for tree lighting ceremony. Memorandum from General Services Director Cynthia Wilson dated November 6, 1990. Recommendation to receive and file the Wave Dial -A -Ride Annual Summary Report. Memorandum from Planning Direc- tor Michael Schubach dated November 6, 1990. Recommendation to reject claim filed against City of Hermosa Beach by Potlatch Corporation and Simpson Paper Company. Memorandum from Risk Manager Robert Blackwood dated November 6, 1990. Recommendation to direct staff to contact the City's Service Clubs to request funds for the South Bay Home- less Coalition. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated November 6, 1990. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. ORDINANCE NO. 90-1049 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT TO ADD MOTORCYCLE SALES AND MOTORCYCLE PARTS SALES AS PERMITTED USES IN THE C-3 ZONE WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. For adoption. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 5. BILTMORE SITE ISSUES (a) REPORT ON BILTMORE REFERENDUM VALIDATION. Memorandum from City Attorney Charles Vose dated November 2, 1990. (b) PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND CERTIFIED LAND USE PLAN TO RE- FLECT THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION IN THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE BILTMORE SITE, WITH RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION. (c) APPLICATION TO COASTAL COMMISSION FOR AMENDMENT TO CER- TIFIED LAND USE PLAN. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated November 5, 1990. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. 6. APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT RE. HOURS OF LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AT 8 PIER AVE., HENNESSEY'S. Memo- randum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated November 5, 1990. 7. FEE RECOMMENDATIONS RESULTING FROM USER FEE STUDY AND STAFF RESEARCH. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin Northcraft dated November 8, 1990. 8. TEXT AMENDMENT RE. SPECIAL STUDY 90-6 - SIDEYARD EXCEP- TIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION with or- dinance for introduction. Memorandum from Planning Di- rector Michael Schubach dated November 1, 1990. 9. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON CITY COUNCIL MEETING PRO- CESS. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin Northcraft dated November 7, 1990. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 10. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER 11. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Scheduling of December City Council Meeting. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin Northcraft dated November 7, 1990. (b) Notice of automatic vacancy on the Planning Commission. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated November 8, 1990. 12. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to discuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a future agenda; or 3) resolution of matter by Coun- cil action tonight. CITIZEN COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Citizens wishing to address the Council on items not on the agenda but within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. ADJOURNMENT November 5, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 13, 1990 PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES OF COMMENDATION TO MEMBERS OF THE HERMOSA BEACH CATV ADVISORY BOARD Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council, in recognition of their dedicated, unselfish, volunteer contributions to the community, present to the Cable Television Advisory Board, Certificates of Appreciation from the City, City Council, Staff, and the Community. Background: At your regularly scheduled meeting of October 23, 1990, the City Council approved Staff's recommendations to:. 1) Accept the Final Report of the CATV Advisory Board; and 2) Accept as complete, the Duties and Responsibilities charged to the Board; and 3) Accept the attached resignations, and discharge the Board. The Board was appointed in October of 1987. Initially, all twelve (12) applicants were appointed to serve as Board members, for an initial period not to exceed six (6) months. During the first year, due to conflicting work schedules, and other commitments, the Board dissolved to only five (5) members. During the next two (2) years, in addition to producing, circulating and compiling their own CATV Subscriber Survey, the Board continued to pursue the realization of their dream of Public Access. That dream has become a reality for the citizens of both Hermosa and Manhattan Beaches, as a direct result of the diligent efforts of the Board. In cooperation with MultiVision's Operational Manager, Chantal Hargis, Production Manager John Atkinson, and General Manager John Merritt, Hermosa Beach residents can now take a certification class, and become a Public Access producer. Also, as a result of the recommendation by the Board, a consulting firm was hired, at the expense of the Cable Operator, to conduct a compliance audit and analysis. Based on the results of that audit, the Board made several recommendations to the City Council. Among other significant contributions made by the Board, Consumer Protection Standards were drafted, and upon recommendation by the Board, were subsequently adopted by the Council in June of 1990. • The last responsibility of the Board was to compile a Final Cable Television Report. This report consists of 750 pages of resource material, research, Board actions, discussions and minutes in chronology order. On October 23, 1990, the Final Cable Television Report was submitted to Council for acceptance. Copies of the report will be on file with the General Services Department, City Clerk and Hermosa Beach Public Library. This document will serve as an excellent historical and reference record for future discussions with MultiVision. Analysis: Staff proposed and the Council agreed that all of the Cable Television Advisory Board members would be recognized and commended for their outstanding service, dedication and contributions to the City. Letters of commendation will be sent to the following past seven (7) Board members: R. Sylvia Barton, Susan Hay, Barbara Jean Holland, John A. McIntyre, D. Scott Rosenberg, Dr. S. Roy Schubert and C. Evan Wright. Formal Certificates of Appreciation will be presented to the resigning five (5) Board members: Charlotte Malone, Robert Fleck, Stephen Gach, Christopher M. Rowe and Jane Allison -Fleck. Respectfully Submitted, Cynthia Wilson Director, General Services by - /-eA,,C,L4A5- Michele D. Tercero Administrative Aide Concur: c� Cynthia Wilson Director, General Services evin B. Northc'aft City Manager 2 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, October 30, 1990, at the hour of 7:05 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - William Grove, Director of Building and Safety ROLL CALL Present: Creighton, Essertier, Midstokke, Wiemans, Mayor Sheldon Absent: None 1. WORKSHOP OF USER FEE STUDY - Memorandum from City Man- ager Kevin B. Northcraft dated October 25, 1990. Mayor Sheldon advised the Council and the public that this was a workshop session, intended to allow any questions to be answered concerning the user fee study, and that no decisions would be made at this time. a. Introduction - City Manager Northcraft City Manager Northcraft reported: 1) The goal of this study was to identify user fees in only four key departments; Building and Safety, Planning, Public Safety (Police and Fire Depart- ments), and Public Works. The consultants had worked with the departments involved to determine the actual cost of the procedure, and staff had supplied the recommendation for the fee. 2) The service fee policy considered the fact that these fees were for some special service that bene- fited only one person or group, not the city as a whole, and a charge for the special service freed tax monies for city services that benefited the entire citizenry, such as street or sewer repairs. 3) The criteria for setting fees included: elasticity, subsidization, economic incentives, competitive restraints, the policy and fee in other cities, and the "ridiculous factor"; these combined to attempt to determine a balance between the actual cost of the service and a point where people would say, "That's ridiculous to pay that amount for...". 4) The fee adjustment procedure criteria would in- clude: the process by which fees are established should be set by ordinance; the actual amount of the fees should be set by a master resolution that lists the amount of all user fees for ease of ad- ministration, accessibility and updating; the fees should have a minimum automatic adjustment annual- ly; other adjustments and/or fees for unanticipated requests would be set by the City Council. 5) The impact of the recommended fees would be: an increase in 33 existing fees; a decrease in 11 ex- isting fees; the establishment of 23 new fees; and Page 1 Minutes 10-30-90 a $250,000 decrease in taxpayer subsidy of special services. b. Consultant's Study - Brad Wilkes, Erin Payton, David M. Griffiths Associates The consultants, Brad Wilkes and Erin Payton; Building and Safety Director, William Grove; Planning Director, Michael Schubach; Public Safety Director, Steve Wisniew- ski; and Public Works Director, Anthony Antich, respond- ed to Council questions. The meeting recessed at 9:00 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:08 P.M. c. Staff's fee recommendations - Finance Director Viki Copeland Finance Director, Vicki Copeland, responded to Council questions. 2. NAMING OF NEW BASKETBALL COURTS - Memorandum from Com- munity Resources Director Mary Rooney dated June 25, 1990. Director Rooney presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Proposed Action: To name the new basketball courts, soon to be completed at Clark Building, in honor of Lo- gan Cotton. Motion Mayor Sheldon, second Wiemans. Motion failed due to the objections of Creighton, Essertier, and Midstokke. Action: To direct staff to prepare an appropriate plaque, to be presented to Mr. Cotton in honor of his ninetieth birthday and his many years of service to Her- mosa Beach. Motion Midstokke, second Creighton. So ordered. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Councilmember Creighton raised a question regarding the 42 condi- tions that had been placed on the proposed hotel to be construct- ed on the Strand; Mayor Sheldon directed staffto identify any changes of a ministerial nature that may have occurred. Councilmember Creighton requested that the full Council meet with the oil developer, Mr. Macpherson, in a regular open session to discuss any perceived "breach of contract". No action was taken. There was no other member of the public wishing to speak. Page 2 Minutes 10-30-90 „ ADJOURNMENT The Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned on Tuesday, October 30, 1990, at the hour of 9:51 P.M., to a Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday, November 13, 1990, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. dia,n. Deputy City Clerk Page 3 Minutes 10-30-90 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 AY—VENDOR—NAMt- VNU 0 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 AtCUUNT—NUMbtx J HN PAGE 0001 DATE 11/08/90 rj DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ S ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 H DAVID G.*COFFEY 03677 001-400-1132-4201 00058 $4,635.00 00956 34945 6 CITY PROS SERV/SEP 90 10/09/90 CTY PROSECUTOR /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/90; *** VENDOR TOTAL*********************************************************it********** $4,635.00 10 2 H CPRS PARK OPERATIONS 03426 001-400-4601-4316 00144 $30.00 00718 34946 4 SEMINAR REG/C. BELSER 10/09/90 COMM RESOURCES /TRAINING $0.00 11/08/90;; „ *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $30.00 ,e ,G 20 2, H LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 03261 110-400-3302-4316 00192 $75.00 00284 35107 27 SEMINAR REG/C. WILSON 11/08/90 PARKING ENF /TRAINING $0.00 11/08/90:4 25 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $75.00 26 271 2.fl 2. H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00439 $85,818.62 35103 RETIREMENT/SEP 90 10/23/90 RETIREMENT /RETIREMENT $0.00 11/08/90;2 33 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00440 $15,168.58CR 35103 34 RETIREMENT/SEP 90 10/23/90 RETIREMENT /RETIREMENT $0.00 11/08/903; 3. H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00441 $70,948.99CR 35103 3' RETIREMENT/SEP 90 10/23/90 RETIREMENT /RETIREMENT $0.00 11/08/903,' H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00442 $72,610.09 35106 42 RETIREMENT ADV/OCT 90 11/07/90 RETIREMENT /RETIREMENT $0.00 11/08/9044 45 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 105-400-2601-4180 00135 $711.70 35103 " RETIREMENT/SEP 90 10/23/90 STREET LIGHTING /RETIREMENT $0.00 11/08/90 ; 4y H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 109-400-3301-4180 00005 $144.85 35103 ',, RETIREMENT/SEP 90 10/23/90 VEH PKG DIST /RETIREMENT $0.00 11/08/90', 5.1 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 110-400-3302-4180 00136 $5,038.12 35103 '''., RETIREMENT/SEP 90 10/23/90 PARKING ENF /RETIREMENT $0.00 11/08/90;;, .4 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 145-400-3401-4180 00109 $57.70 35103 3e RETIREMENT/SEP 90 10/23/90 DIAL A RIDE /RETIREMENT $0.00 11/08/90;0 6, H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 145-400-3402-4180 00109 $19.42 35103 62 RETIREMENT/SEP 90 10/23/90 ESEA /RETIREMENT $0.00 11/08/90,. es 77 ec ID 6] 6. 61 ,n r, 72 2, 75 751 lb J 0 J J J • O • • • • • FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 PAY - VENDOR NAME CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 VND-'K"-—ACCOUNT NUMBER--- TRN"It"----------'-- PAGE 0002 DATE 11/08/90 iv n„Idv19, 11VV/RLr ru W - -----c MK 6 ,\ DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ 8 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 3 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 145-400-3403-4180 00054 $17.13 35103 6 RETIREMENT/SEP 90 10/23/90 BUS PASS SUBSDY /RETIREMENT $0.00 11/08/909 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 155-400-2102-4180 00107 $120.52 35103 10 RETIREMENT/SEP 90 10/23/90 CROSSING GUARD /RETIREMENT $0.00 11/08/901: 13 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 160-400-3102-4180 00134 $940.72 35103 • RETIREMENT/SEP 90 10/23/90 SEWER/ST DRAIN /RETIREMENT $0.00 11/08/90:: 17 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 170-400-2103-4180 00008 $4,172.0235103 10 i RETIREMENT/SEP 90 10/23/90 SPEC INVESTGTNS /RETIREMENT $0.00 11/06/90;: 21 I H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 705-400-1209-4180 00058 $236.57 35103 22 RETIREMENT/SEP 90 10/23/90 LIABILITY INS /RETIREMENT $0.00 11/08/90:1 '•! H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 705-400-1217-4180 00058 $304.22 35103 RETIREMENT/SEP 90 • 10/23/90 WORKERS COMP /RETIREMENT $0.00 11/08/90:9 25 26 *** VENDOR TOTAL**************************************•****************************** $84,074.11 3k 31 3 ,- 3" H SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT 00400 110-300-0000-3302 36834 $453.00 00271 34947 3 CITATION COURT BAIL 10/09/90 /COURT FINES/PARKING $0.00 11/08/9013 3' H SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT 00400 110-300-0000-3302 36835 $418.00 00273 35102 3f CITATION COURT BAIL 10/22/90 /COURT FINES/PARKING $0.00 11/08/903- 41 : *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** . $871.00 - 42 I1 4.1 H STEVE*WISNIEWSKI 01364 170-400-2103-4322 00029 $23,500.00 00975 35104 •' SPEC INVESTIGATION FUNDS 10/30/90 SPEC INVESTGTNS /UNCLASSIFIED $0.00 11/08/904 17 49 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $23,500.00 57 XII51 ff 53 *** PAY CODE TOTAL****************************************************************** $113,185.11 54 ]. 55 56 57 1,, R 1 DAY PAINT AND BODY CENTERS 03509 001-400-4101-4311 00119 $506.87 181560 10875 35111 50 AUTO REPAIR/PLANNING 81560 10/25/90 PLANNING /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 11/08/906,, 61 a:• *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $506.87 62 :A 63 64 41 65 R A & E TROPHIES 02744 ` 001-400-1101-4319 00091 $20.28 00102 35112 66 MISC. CHARGES/OCT-90 10/31/90 CITY COUNCIL /SPECIAL EVENTS - $0.00 11/0B/906a 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 75' .4 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 -------FAY---VENDOR-NAME VND-R CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 ACCOUNT-NUMBER— PAGE 0003 DATE 11/08/90 r uaa%.RariauN DATE INVC PROD * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTIONVv"AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP R A & E TROPHIES 02744 001-400-4601-4308 00430 $91.59 MISC. CHARGES/OCT 90 00102 33112 10/31/90 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS $0.00 11/08/908 6 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $111.87 10 „ R. KATHRYN*ADAMS 03724 001-300-0000-3826 01621 $35.00 8284 00724 35113 FALL PROGRAM REFUND 8284 10/29/90 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 11/08/90;: 14 *** VENDOR TOTAL***********************************************************et******** $35.00 1e 20 R ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 00935 001-400-2101-4201 00678 $200.00 18067 00948 35114 FREQUENCY TEST/MDT SYS 18067 10/12/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $200.00 11/08/90)3, 21 22 R ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 00935 001-400-2101-420100679 $392.00 18073 00945 35114 UPGRADE/DISPATCH BASE 18073 10/12/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $392.00 11/08/90;7 2 6 2., *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $592.00 -, J1 32- R AHN'S RESTAURANT 03610 001-210-0000-2110 03951 $250.00 05959 11045 35115 3" TEMPORARY BANNER REFUND 05959 10/25/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $250.00 3-1 R SCOTT+►ALDEN 03155 001-210-0000-2110 0395341 $50.00 4953 00596 35116 ANIMAL TRAP REFUND 4953 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/904,3, 45 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $50.00 46. 47 . .1. R AMAZAHN ELECTRIC 03709 001-210-0000-2110 03948 $375.00 95617 00593 35117 60 WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 95617 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/90; 53 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $375.00 54 55 . 6'7 R AMERICAN STYLE FOODS 00857 001-400-2101-4306 00883 $75.50 5573 00105 35118 5B MISC. CHARGES/OCT 90 5573 10/31/90 POLICE /PRISONER MAINTENANCE $0.00 11/08/90:o 61 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $75.50 62 63 . 9.4 R LORI*ANGELERI 03722 001-210-0000-2110 03942 $75.00 95523 00585 35119 66 WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 95523 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/90;7 69 70 71 q 72 73 74 75 411 LP • map MEP FINANCE—SFA34O TIME 16:05:21 PAY —'—VENDOR VND"'* CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 ----ACCOUNT NUMBER —TRN * AMOUNT PAGE 0004 DATE 11/08/90 LJ DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ it ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 3 *** VENDOR TOTAL *****at***************************stat************stat**********aFititit*itit** $75.00 7 e R ASAP FIRE PROTECTION 00250 001-400-4204-4201 00402 $150.00 26763 01056 35120 SEMI—ANN HOOD SYS SERV. 26763 10/23/90 BLDG MAINT /CONTRACTSERVICE/PRIVAT $150.00 11/08/90:1, 1O *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $150.00 13 14 15 16 R ASPA INSURANCE PLANS 02218 001-400-1212-4188 01904 $115.00 07505-0500464 00061 35121 CITY HEALTH INS/CTY MGR 004641 10/23/90 EMP BENEFITS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 11/08/90:0 17 16 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $115.00 1 21 22 21 24 R AT & T 03423 001-400-2101-4304 00690 $5.92 00096 35122 LONG DIST/MOBILE PHONES 09/30/90 POLICE /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90�0 25 26 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $5.92 1 29 '10 31 32 R B & N ASSOCIATES 03688 001-210-0000-2110 03949 $375.00 95594 00590 35123 WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 95594 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/O8/9Oj;' 'i R B & N ASSOCIATES 03688 001-210-0000-2110 03958 $1,550.00 95594 00586 35123 WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 95594 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/90 "^ *** VENDOR TOTAL***************************************************************it**** $1,925.00 42' a3 44 R BANK OF AMERICA 00180 001-400-1203-4201 00721 $231.05 01303 35124 4i OCT EXP/R. BLACKWOOD 10/31/90 PERSONNEL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/90; 41. R BANK OF AMERICA 00160 001-400-2101-4316 00613 $22.99 00982 35124 50 OCT EXP/S. WISNIEWSKI 10/31/90 POLICE /TRAINING $0.00 11/08/90" 53 R BANK OF AMERICA 00180 001-400-2101-4316 00614 $5.96 00958 35124 54 SEP EXP/S. WISNIEWSKI 09/30/90 POLICE /TRAINING $0.00 11/08/90 5./ *** VENDOR TOTAL**********************************************+tit******************** $260.00 50 59 60 61 R KRISTINA*BELL 03710 001-300-0000-3826 01612 $35.00 8256 35125 62 FALL PROGRAM REFUND 8256 10/15/90 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 11/08/90;; G5 CO 57 1:N 70 i 71 72 73 74 , 75 w 6 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 i — —PAY VENDOR NAME CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 VN NT—NUMBER---TRN w AMOUN r 1NV7REF J PAGE 0005 DATE 11/08/90 rJ UtbCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 w** VENDOR TOTAL ****www**w**w*www***www***www******w**www*www**************www****** $35.00 a 7 6 R BERIAN PRINTING SERVICE, INC. 02664 001-400-1207-4305 00213 $588.60 838 11036 35126 0 BUSINESS LICENSE. FORMS 838 10/18/90 BUS LICENSE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $486.56 11/06/9012 R BERIAN PRINTING SERVICE, INC. 02664 001-400-4101-4305 00474 $42.70 839 10869 35126 4 BUS CARDS/L. HIRSH 839 10/18/90 PLANNING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $42.70 11/08/9016 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $631.30 ,6 a 20 R BLICKMAN, INC. 03092 001-400-4601-4201 00654 $56.00 00032 35127 22 THEATRE TECH/10-15-90 10/18/90 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/90:: 25 R BLICKMAN, INC. 03092 001-400-4601-4201 00655 $245.00 00738 35127 26 THEATRE TECH/OCT 16-21 10/22/90 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/90:7„ *** VENDOR TOTAL***************************************w***************************w $301.00 ,0 is R OFCR DAVID*BOHACIK 01983 001-400-2101-4312 01534 $32.76 00874 35128 34 MILES/P. O. S. T. COURSES 10/29/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 11/08/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************w* $32.76 j eo 4, R THOMAS*BOHLIN 00894 001-400-2101-4312 01535. $22.36 00876 35129 42, MILES/INVESIGATION CLASS 10/29/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 11/08/904' *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************w************************* $22.36 46 46 R LOU*BOURGEOIS 03687 001-210-0000-2110 03955 $350.00 95559. 00588 35130 30 WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 95559 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/905' 53 R LOU*BOURGEOIS 03687 001-210-0000-2110 03959 $1,525.00 95559 00587 35130 54 WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 95559 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/90;; 57 *** VENDOR TOTAL*****************************************w**w******w*****w********** 51,875.00 58 59 17 R JEAN*BRIAN 03676 001-400-2101-4312 01536 $393.75 00868 35131 62 MEALS/HOTEL/POST CLASS 10/29/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 11/08/90 R; 65 66 67 68 69 70 � 71 72 7 ,1 1 75 J54 '9 • J J J J 4. v v Vr VP 410 W FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 VENDOR NAME CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 VND' it..—'--'—•`ACCOUNT"NUMBER---TRw- p----- --- PAGE 0006 DATE 11/08/90 RG,- ru R -- l.F7Y1--VF— DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ it ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP "\ 2 *** VENDOR TOTAL********************itittt3tit#*ttitat*it**it#itat3titatititat3tit*iti►'►itititit*atiti►a►itttat*itatit* $393.75 . 6 ] n R BUREAU OF BUSINESS PRACTICE 00253 001-400-2101-4305 01377 $212.76 00967 35132 SUBSCRIPTION/POLICE 10/29/90 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 11/08/9012 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $212.76 14 1- 15 R C. P. P. A. 00818 110-400-3302-4315 00037 $40.00 .00282 35133 ANNUAL DUES/C. WILSON 10/25/90 PARKING ENF /MEMBERSHIP $0.00 11/08/9028 17 18 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $40.00 21 22 23 24 R THE*CALIF PARK & REC. SOCIETY 00602001-400-4601-4316 00146 $74.08 00750 35134 PUBLICATIONS/M. ROONEY 10/30/90 COMM RESOURCES /TRAINING $0.00 11/08/90;', 2c *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $74.08 3L 31 3: R CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF MUN. 00590 001-400-1202-4315 00048 $65.00 00200 35135 ANNUAL DUES/V. COPELAND 11/06/90 FINANCE ADMIN /MEMBERSHIP $0.00 11/08/90' 3•: :" *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $65.00 ( 3, 3P 40 R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE ' 00016 001-400-2101-4303 00015 $21.18 0101035136 WATER BILLINGS/OCT 90 10/31/90 POLICE /UTILITIES $0.00 11/08/90 s1 '3 R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 00016 001-400-3101-4303 00115 $582.50 01010 35136 WATER BILLINGS/OCT 90 10/31/90 MEDIANS /UTILITIES $0.00 11/08/90, i,- "' 40 ` R CALIFORNIAWATER SERVICE . 00016 001-400-4204-4303 00416 $460.16 01010 35136 50 WATER BILLINGS/OCT 90 10/31/90 - BLDG MAINT /UTILITIES $0.00 11/08/9055; 53 1 R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 00016 001-400-6101-4303 00324 $3,002.92 0101035136 5e -,I WATER BILLINGS/OCT 90 10/31/90 PARKS /UTILITIES $0.00 11/08/90,, 1. 57 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $4,066.76 50 55 60 61 J R CRAIG*CASNER 00332 001-210-0000-2110 03954 $375.00 95610 00594 35137 62 :,, WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 95610 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/90:, .... 65 .1 .. 67 I 60 69 70 ]1 ]2 I'::I ]3 74 ]5 ]6 3 i 3 J u or r FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 PAY—VENDOR-NAML CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 VNO—* ACCOUNT -T UMBLK IHN * AMOUNT PAGE 0007 DATE 11/08/90 .LJ ut,c.rciriluN DATE INVC PROJ it ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 3 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $375.00 6 7 e R CERTIFIED OFFICE EQUIPMENT 00389 001-400-1208-5401 00021 $89.67 3201 08036 35138 CALCULATOR/M. HULL 3201 11/02/90 GEN APPROP /EQUIP—LESS THAN $500 $0.00 11/08/9012 H R CERTIFIED OFFICE EQUIPMENT 00389 001-400-2101-4305 01375 $30.43 01011 35138 MISC. CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 11/08/90;; 13 , *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $120.10 20 R CHAMPION CHEVROLET - 00014 001-400-2101-4311 00997 $313.33 01012 35139 MISC CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE$0.00 11/08/902; 21 2- R CHAMPION CHEVROLET 00014 110-400-3302-4311 00638 $74.70 01012 35139 MISC CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 PARKING ENF /AUTO MAINTENANCE$0.00 11/08/902; 25 2' *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $388.03 z, ;; 31 R PHILLIP*CHEN & JAMES OVERMAN 03714 001-300-0000-3211 00057 $250.00 593 11043 35140 3 TEMPORARY BANNER REFUND 593 10/25/90 /BANNER PERMITS $0.00 11/08/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $250.00 ;a .1 R RICHARD*CHERTOW 03252 001-210-0000-2110 03960 $1,525.00 83223 00591 35141 42 WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 83223 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/90.; *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,525.00 .:i H R CHEVRON USA, INC.. 00634 001-400-2101-4310 00280 $385.35 1417284419 01014 35142 eo MISC CHARGES/OCT 90 84419 10/31/90 POLICE /MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES $0.00 11/08/90;.', : *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $385.35 ,,' 56 51 R COAST IRRIGATION CO. 00354 001-400-6101-4309 00971 $1,492.15 667 00449 35143 '" REP SPRINKLERS/GREENBELT 667 08/15/90 PARKS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $1,654.40 11/08/905; 6i *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,492.15 62 6]1 6., 6 R DAVID G.*COFFEY 03677 001-400-1132-4201 00059 $4,600.00 00981 35144 60 CITY PROSECUTOR/OCT 90 10/31/90 CTY PROSECUTOR /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/90; 11 72 13 • .. _ 7 J J V V Y FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 -`PAY- VENDOR -NAME DESCRIPTION VND * DATE INVC CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 ACCOUNT-NUMBER--TRN-W--- AMOUN PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION NV/REF- AMOUNT PAGE 0008 DATE 11/08/90 al UNENC DATE EXP 2 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $4,600.00 R COM SYSTEMS, INC 00017 001-400-2101-4304 00689 LONG DIST/POLICE LINE -4625 10/31/90 NE5'28 POLICE _ /TELEPHONE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 4 5 6 7 $25. 28 374-4625 01017 $0. 00 35145 11/08/90 R RUTH*CONROY 03707 001-300-0000-3826 01619 $20.00 FALL PROGRAM REFUND 6158 10/23/90 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $20. 00 6158 D0740 $0. 00 35146 11/08/90 6 9 10 11 IZ I4 15 16 17 IS 19 20 22 23 R OFCR NANCY*COOK 02173 001-400-2101-4316 00612 $24.00 MEALS/3 OFFICERS 10/29/90 POLICE /TRAINING *** VENDOR TOTAL**********************************************************s********* $24. 00 24 25 00884 35147 26 $0. 00 11 /08/90 ?B 29 30 31 R VIKI *COPELAND 00041 001-400-1202-4317 00066 $30.00 REIMB TRAVEL EXPENSES 10/31/90 FINANCE ADMIN /CONFERENCE EXPENSE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $30. 00 00197 $0. 00 32 35148 34 11/08/90 37 30 R NICK*COURINOS ANIMAL TRAP REFUND 03719 001-210-0000-2110 03944 $50.00 7945 11/01/90• /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $50. 00 7945 00598 $0. 00 35149 42 11/08/90 4(. 47 R CPOA FOUNDATION 03689 001-400-2101-4312 01526 $148.00 TUITION/4 POLICE EMP. 11/05/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $148.00 00897 35150 $0.00 11/08/90 R CPOA/CPOERT TUITION/B. PHILLIPS 01796 001-400-2101-4312 01537 $72.00 10/31/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST 00882 35151 $0.00 11/08/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $72.00 R CPRS SUPERVISORS' SECTION SEMINAR REG/T. EDISON 03706 001-400-4601-4316 00147 $30.00 10/17/90 COMM RESOURCES /TRAINING 49 50 51 52 53 Sd 55 57 50 59 60 61 62 63 64 J 55 00728 35152 66 $0. 00 11/08/90 .J FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 PAY--VENDOR—NAME VND N CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 PAGE 0009 DATE 11/08/90- r- ia DESCRIPTION - --"' ._—"' ^'""",, +lwincr FU * CHK DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 0 2 3 *** VENDOR TOTAL*****iFatitit****iFiti►*iticiti►****•itit•kitua►!t•rilit*#ititititit•uititit•iFat•MiFitit#+.r********•Irit*** $30.00 6 7 R BERTHA*CRAFT 03720 001-210-0000-2110 03943 $50.00 8586 00597 35153 ANIMAL TRAP REFUND 8586 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/90;: a 1O *** VENDOR TOTAL**************************a********itis*itititititit*itis•kitititaititititititit•kitititititititit $50.00 13 I• 16 R CATHERINE*CRUDUP 03705 001-300-0000-3826 01620 $35.00 08255 00725 35154 FALL PROGRAM REFUND 08255 10/15/90 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 11/08/90:0 16 1, *** VENDOR TOTAL********************************************a*********************** $35.00 22 23 R DATA SAFE 00156 001-400-1206-4201 00782 $140.00 51759 00015 35155 TAPE STRGE/OCT 12—NOV 11 51759 10/17/90 DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/9022; 24 25 26 *** VENDOR TOTAL *******itis******************************itis*iota******************itis*** $140.00 • i 31 R KAREN*DE SOTO. 03704 110-300-0000-3302 36838 $15.00 929252 00195 35156 3' CITE PAYMENT REFUND 29252 10/17/90 /COURT FINES/PARKING $0.00 11/08/90;;' 3/ *** VENDOR TOTAL*********************************************************it********** $15.00 31.. 39 4 R EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY 02840 001-400-1208-4201 00696 $255.00 006M12800 00926 35157 42 MAINT/IBM 60/SEP 90 12800 10/07/90 GEN APPROP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/90;,; R EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY 02840 001-400-1208-4201 00697 $280.40 006M12800 00926 35157 '" METER USE/AUG 90/IBM 60 12800 10/07/90 GEN APPROP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/90:7; i49s *** VENDOR TOTAL********************************itis********************it******itis***** $535.40 ,0 51 62 63 R EASTMAN, INC. 02514 001-400-1208-4305 00823 $287.53 01025 35158 " OFFICE SUPP/STOCK/OCT 90 10/31/90 GEN APPROP /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 11/08/90;' R EASTMAN, INC. 02514 001-400-2701-4305 00014 $129.64 6713991 00959 35158 6" HINDERS/EMERG PROGRAM 13991 10/12/90 CIVIL DEFENSE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 11/08/90 x' 131 *** VENDOR TOTAL *************ita*************•kit*****************it**it*•kit*******a**iota $417.17 e: i.;. 6.31 6< R EASY READER 00181 001-400-1121-4323 00113 $1,320.65 0268 00927 35159 6° •� PUBLIC NOTICES/SEP 90 0268 09/30/90 CITY CLERK /PUBLIC NOTICING $0.00 11/08/906!1/ 6. 71 I ]2 I3 7• 751 7F J J J J J Y J J J J FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 —PAY VENDOR NAME VND K CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 ACCOUNT NUMBER—TRN PAGE 0010 DATE 11/08/90 cs J J J; UtSGRiPTION •.tvincr ru W CHK R DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP .\ 2 R EASY READER 00181 001-400-1203-4201 00720 $25.40 0268 00927 35159 EMPLOYEE ADS/SEP 90 0268 09/30/90 PERSONNEL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/907 *** VENDOR TOTAL+tir**•itit*ita►itetiwtitat**uatita►a►ifa►ititit**iti►i►et*it*itit*iritiratiFati ***iti►itirifiFa►atititifltet*it#*at $1.346.05 0 1. 12 R EL CAMINO COLLEGE 01469 001-400-2101-4316 00611 $30.00 AJ50J 00887 35160 TUITION/RESERVE OFCRS AJ50J 10/06/90 POLICE /TRAINING $0.00 11/08/9016 13 " *** VENDOR TOTAL**************************************itis**************************** $30.00 e 18 20 21 22 25*** 26 27 R MATTHEW*ELMES 03715 001-300-0000-3826 01611 $10.00 8325 00747 35161 FALL PROGRAM REFUND 8325 10/30/90 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 11/08/9024 VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $10.00 -------------- R STEVE*ENDOM 01034 001-400-2101-4312 01538 $33.28 00877 35162 MILES/ETHICS CLASS 10/17/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE . POST $0.00 11/08/90]1 20 2. 30 *** VENDOR TOTAL**********it********************************************************* $33.28 3 4 35 R ROBERT*EVANS 03712 001-210-0000-2110 03946 $250.00 3018 11041 35163 TEMPORARY BANNER REFUND 3018 10/25/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/9040 3. 37 3A *** VENDOR TOTAL********************************************itis********************** $250.00 .2 .3 44 R FLEXIBLE SYSTEMS 01207 160-400-3102-4309 00544 $314.26 235543 01085 35164 SEWER RODDER VALVE 35543 11/01/90 SEWER/ST DRAIN /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 11/08/90:n d6 *** VENDOR TOTAL**ir*************it*************************************************** $314.26 50 52 R THE*FORUM 03721 001-400-4601-4308 00452 $509.50 00746 35165 EXCURSION TICKETS/CIRCUS 10/30/90 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS $0.00 11/08/90;; 53 34 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $509.50 eo 59 60 R FRANKSONS. INC. 00010 110-400-3302-4311 00639 $289.87 18543 00249 35166 ;.� CUSHMAN WINDSHIELDS 18543 • 10/25/90 PARKING ENF /AUTO MAINTENANCE $275.59 11/08/90G4" 61 62 65 66 6A . 66 70 n 72 73 7. 75 cs J J J; r FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 PAGE 0011 DATE 11/08/90- r- PAY--VENDOR-NAME VND i1—ACCOUNT—TUMBER—SRN W AMOUNT rNV/REF PO—W-----CHK— ,\ DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP T *** VENDOR TOTAL *******************************Bre ************+tern►*******************t► $289. 87 6 9 R GANDALF DATA, INC. 01432 001-400-1206-4201 00781 $546.00 41669 00018 35167 '0 MODEM MAINT/OCT—DEC 90 41669 10/08/90 DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/90;; *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $546.0014 IS R GATES, MCDONALD & COMPANY 02538 705-400-1217-4201 00088 $4,000.00 00044 35168 ADMIN SERV/OCT—NOV 90 11/01/90 WORKERS COMP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/90ro 'e *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $4,000.00 I 21 27 z R GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY 00058 001-400-4204-4309 01796 $461.05 845-308150 01042 35169 FAN MOTORS/CITY BLDGS 08150 10/12/90 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $389.43 11/08/90;,', J5 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $461.05 'I:I 'J R GERBER AMBULANCE SERVICE 02897 001-400-2101-4201 00680 $295.50 109553 00968 35170 EMERG PRISONER SERVICES 09553 10/09/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT$0.00 11/08/90,3. " ', *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $295.50 R LORI*GONZALEZ 03718 001-210-0000-2110 03945 $100.00 6079 00583 35171 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND 6079 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/90;; " *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $100.00 Al, 47 4. R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1101-4304 00333 $5.86 318-0200 01132 35175 i DIRECT DIAL CHGS/NOV 90 —0200 11/01/90 CITY COUNCIL /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90,'', 4, " R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1101-4304 00334 $9.39 01031 35175 TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 CITY COUNCIL /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90,., - 5" sn R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1121-4304 00343 $15.91 318-0200 01132 35175 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/NOV 90 —0200 11/01/90 CITY CLERK /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90;,, " R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1121-4304 00344 $23.06 01031 35175 TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 CITY CLERK /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90 51 6} ., 6'J cA 67 57' 5:• 70 71 72 7= 74 76 76 J J FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 PAY-- VENDOR -NAME VND 11 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 ACCOUNT"' NUMBER-" TRN""* AMOUN INV/REF PAGE 0012 DATE 11/08/90 . _..r--1 utbcKIV I1ON DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP , 3 • R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1131-4304 00261 $8.37 318-0200 01132 35175 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/NOV 90 -0200 11/01/90 CITY ATTORNEY /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/902. 6 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1131-4304 00262 510.83 01031 35175 TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 CITY ATTORNEY /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/9012 0 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1141-4304 00365 $0.27 372-6186 01033 35173 FAX BILLING/OCT 90 -6186 10/31/90 CITY TREASURER /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90 M1 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1141-4304 00366 $15.91 318-0200 01132 35175 DIRECT DIAL CHCS/NOV 90 -0200 11/01/90 CITY TREASURER /TELEPHONE ' $0.00 11/08/902'' 6 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1141-4304 00367 $23.71 01031 35175 TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 CITY TREASURER /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/901: s7 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1201-4304 00385 51.29 372-6186 01033 35175 FAX BILLING/OCT 90 -6186 10/31/90 CITY MANAGER /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/901 z, 2' I - R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1201-4304 00386 $13.40 318-0200 01132 35175 DIRECT DIAL CHCS/NOV 90 -0200 11/01/90 CITY MANAGER /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90, R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1201-4304 00387 $19.06 01031 35175 �.• TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 CITY MANAGER /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/901' R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1202-4304 00395 $8.78 372-6186 01033 35175 FAX BILLING/OCT 90 -6186 10/31/90 FINANCE ADMIN /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90; I'CR 3 GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1202-4304 00396 $48.57 318-0200 01132 35175 i.- DIRECT DIAL CHGS/NOV 90 -0200 11/01/90 FINANCE ADMIN /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90;'; 47 45 R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1202-4304 00397 564.52 01031 35175 . TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 FINANCE ADMIN /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90: R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1203-4304 00399 $5.31 372-6186 01033 35175 FAX BILLING/OCT 90 -6186 10/31/90 PERSONNEL /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90" '^ 57 53 " , st 5" R GTE, CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1203-4304 00400 $20.10 318-0200 01132 35175 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/NOV 90 -0200 11/01/90 PERSONNEL /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90:3 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1203-4304 00401 $36.72 01031 35175 TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 PERSONNEL /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1206-4304 00287 $1.69 372-6186 01033 35175 .,, FAX BILLING/OCT 90 -6186 10/31/90 DATA PROCESSING /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90 61 6' •', 06 67 na cl 70 7' 7z n 74 75 70 J 13 .J FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 FAY ----VENDOR NAME 4.1410.4 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 VND-17ACDOUNT-NUMBER-TRN * AMOUNT- INV7REF PAGE 0013 DATE 11/08/90 ----•.-• •---'- Wilt tnvc PROD if ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 a R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1206-4304 00288 $24.30 318-0200 01132• 35175 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/NOV 90 -0200 11/01/90 DATA PROCESSING /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90: 6 6 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1206-4304 00289 $161.68 01031 35175 I TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 DATA PROCESSING /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/9012 o 1O R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00013 001-400-1207-4304 00227 $1.08 372-6186 01033 35175 FAX BILLING/OCT 90 -6186 10/31/90 BUS LICENSE /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90:: 1' R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1207-4304 00228 $15.91 318-0200 ,01132 35175 DIRECT DIAL CHCS/NOV 90 -0200 11/01/90 BUS LICENSE /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/9020 17 18 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1207-4304 00229 $25.12 01031 35175 TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 BUS LICENSE /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90:: 21 22 R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1208-4304 00095 $8.37 318-0200 01132 35175 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/NOV 90 -0200 11/01/90 GEN APPROP /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/902: 26 26 R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1208-4304 00096 $10.87 01031 35175 TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 GEN APPROP /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90, R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-2101-4304 00693 $335.10 318-0200 01132 35175 3 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/NOV 90 -0200 11/01/90 - POLICE /TELEPHONE $0.00 1i/08/90;. R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-2101-4304 00694 $946.55 01031 35175 TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 POLICE /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-2201-4304 00304 $8.37 318-0200 01132 35175 DIRECT DIAL CHCS/NOV 90 -0200 11/01/90 FIRE • /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90:: 4 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-2201-4304 00305 $272.94 01031 35175 TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 FIRE /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90 49 a, R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-2401-4304 00339 $11.72 318-0200 01132 35175 DIRECT DIAL CHCS/NOV 90 -0200 11/01/90 ANIMAL CONTROL /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90;; 49 60 R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-2401-4304 00340 $32.74 01031 35175 TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 ANIMAL CONTROL /TELEPHONE $0.00 1i/08/90 '° a R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4101-4304 • 00398 $3.89 372-6186 01033 35175 FAX BILLING/OCT 90 -6186 10/31/90 PLANNING /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90 - .._..._._._._._..---'------..-_ ....- ------....----------------- li ,6 x - R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4101-4304 00399. $40.20 318-0200 01132 35175 DIRECT DIAL CHCS/NOV 90 -0200 11/01/90 PLANNING /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90:: 61 02 66 69 67 66 63 70 71 . 72. 73 74 7±1 7 J FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 .--------PAY----VENDOR NAME CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 VND 71 ACCOUNT--NUMDER PAGE 0014 DATE 11/08/90 I. a.•v, racy rt.; N GHK i►-`,\ DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ M ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 3 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4101-4304 00400 $75.35 01031. 35175 TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 PLANNING /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90: 6 R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4201-4304 00370 $0.33 372-6186 01033 35175 FAX BILLING/OCT 90 -6186 10/31/90 BUILDING /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/9012 9 ,o R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4201-4304 00371 $64.48 318-0200 01132 35175 DIRECT DIAL CHCS/NOV 90 -0200 11/01/90 BUILDING /TELEPHONE - $0.00 11/08/9016 14 I R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4201-4304 00372 $108.37 ,01031 35175 TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 BUILDING /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/9020 v7 16 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4202-4304 00407 $19.42 372-6186 01033 35175 FAX BILLING/OCT 90 -6186 10/31/90 PUB WKS ADMIN /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/9023 21 22 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4202-4304 00408 $91.94 318-0200 01132 35175 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/NOV 90 -0200 11/01/90 PUB WKS ADMIN /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/9027 25 26 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4202-4304 00409 $280.78 01031 35175 • TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 PUB WKS ADMIN /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90332 xw 3° 33 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4204-4321 00527 $21.38 01031 35175 34 X25] TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 - 10/31/90 BLDG MAINT /BUILDING SAFETY/SECURIT $0.00 11/08/90" 1-• r• 3/ R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4601-4304 00470 $0.27 372-6186 01033 35175 36 FAX BILLING/OCT 90 -6186 10/31/90 COMM RESOURCES /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/9040 4, R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4601-4304 00471 $25.42 318-0200 01132 35175 42 DIRECT DIAL CHCS/NOV 90 -0200 11/01/90 COMM RESOURCES /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/9043 I•.• 45 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4601-4304 00472 $131.35 01031 35175 44 TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 COMM RESOURCES /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90:: 40 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-6101-4304 00280 $8.37 318-0200 01132 35175 57 _ _ ____ - __ DIRECT DIAL CHCS/NOV 90 -0200 11/01/90 PARKS /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90;; 53 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-6101-4304 00281 $10.73 01031 35175 5" TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 PARKS /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/901; - - 57 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 109-400-3301-4304 00007 $10.00 01031 35175 30 TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 VEH PKG DIST /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/9060 61 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 110-400-3302-4304 00397 $3.37 372-6186 01033 35175 62 FAX BILLING/OCT 90 -6186 10/31/90 PARKING ENF /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/9051 q.. 65 66 67 68 -.1 69 70 7, 72 .... 7J 74 75 .. I Iry Ij J J J FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 FAY—VENDOR NAME CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 J PAGE 0015 DATE 11/08/90. LI ""-- -- •----••• ••_••••-•• ••••• v NI-IIJ6g41 arvvintr PU $ CH 1 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 110-400-3302-4304 00398 $100.50 318-0200 01132 35175 6 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/NOV 90 —0200 11/01/90 PARKING' EN.,-: /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90; RGTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 110-400-3302-4304 00399 $171.75 01031 35175 TELE. CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 PARKING ENF /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/9012 1,' R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 145-400-3401-4304 00070 $4.16 01031 35175 TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 DIAL A RIDE /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90;; 13 'a *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $3,359.56 17 16 19 20 R GTEL 01340 001-400-2101-4304 006.88 $51.56 1778129 01034 35176 EQUIP RENTAL/OCT 90 78129 10/22/90 POLICE /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/902; 21 2' *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $51.56 23 26 27 29 R ELIZABETH*GUILD 03703 001-300-0000-3826 01614 $54.00 06181 00730 35177 FALL PROGRAM REFUND 06181 10/17/90 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 11/08/9033 2. ' ';, *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $54.00 34 35 11 R HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO. 00731 001-400-3103-4311 00613 $205.98 1C15449 01041 35178 ELGIN SWEEPER PARTS 15449 10/04/90 ST MAINTENANCE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $202.28 11/08/90 3' R HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO. 00731 001-400-3103-4311 00614 $323.38 1C15548 01070 35178 ELGIN SWEEPER PARTS 15548 10/17/90 ST MAINTENANCE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $323.38 11/08/90:3, 41 42 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $529.36 47' 411 • R HARBOR CITY ENTERPRISES, INC. 03571 001-400-2101-4311 00996 $276.60 24464 01076 35179 MISC. CHARGES/OCT 90 24464 10/31/90 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 11/08/90;; 50 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $276.60 51 54 55 5, R HEIMAN FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC. 03681 001-400-2201-4311 00368 $51.03 081946 11244 35180 WHEEL CHOCKS/ENGINE 11 81946 10/20/90 FIRE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $51.35 11/08/90659 5l 5O 01 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $51.03 61 62 65 64 R HEWLETT—PACKARD COMPANY 00149 001-400-1206-5401 00018 $437.68 7Y45233 09556 35181 BAR CODING WAND 45233 10/19/90 DATA PROCESSING /EQUIP—LESS THAN $500 $0.00 11/08/90;:1 60 6,, l0 71 72 l3 74 75 1 7P J 'J 1J V V V W FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 VENDOR NAME VND IF CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 ACCOUNT'-NUMBER—TRN W— AMOUNT NV/REF PAGE 0016 DATE 11/08/90 m —P0 —V .,......,,.,,•r , •W,. UAIE INVC PROJ A ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP I' 2 3 *** VENDOR TOTAL+t**itit#it•xitit•p•****•it#*atat*atatat****it****ititit#atatit*at•it•xa►*tt#itir****itat****itif#atit*** $437.68 8 7 0 R ICMA 00205 001-400-1201-4305 00175 $427.00 219287 09182 35182 SUBSCRIPTION/CTY MGR 19287 10/10/90 CITY MANAGER /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES$0.00 11/08/9012 " *** VENDOR TOTAL*******************************************************x•************ $427.00 13 R IDENTICARD SYSTEMS INC 02001 001-400-2101-4201 00681 $201.00 ,00963 35183 ANNUAL SERV AGREEMENT 10/17/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/90; ," *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $201.00 21 22 23 2" R INDEPENDENT ORD. OF ODDFELLOWS 02591 001-210-0000-2110 03957 $500.00 6094 00582 35184 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND 6094 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/90; 25 25 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $500.00 30 31 32 R INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 02458 001-400-3104-4309 00589 $111.12 01074 35185 MISC. CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 11/08/903,5, 33 3' R INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 02458 001-400-4204-4309 01798 $980.59 01074 35185 -• MISC. CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 11/08/90'; 3" R INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 02458 105-400-2601-4309 00668 $304.38 01074 35185 MISC. CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 STREET LIGHTING /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 11/08/90"' ", I..; *** VENDOR TOTAL*******************ir************************************************ $1,396.09 ., !I An R INSTITUTE OF INDUSTRIAL ENGRS 01929 001-400-4202-4305 00522 $27.00 01077 35186 SUBSCRIPTION/A. ANTICH 10/24/90 PUB WKS ADMIN /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 11/08/90; so *** VENDOR TOTAL*****************************************************at************** $27.00 , " 35 _l R JACK*JANKEN 03702 001-300-0000-3202 03215 $50.00 6733 00277 35187 5" _ _ _ ANIMAL TRAP REFUND 6733 10/16/90 /DOG LICENSES $0.00 11/08/90. *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $50.00 012 !J n na "v. 45 . R ANGELA*JANULEWICZ 02758 001-400-2101-4312 01539 $25.48 00875 35188 °" MILES/CPR CLASS 10/15/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 11/08/90°" 69 7G n n /3 ii 7. 75 . • 2S J 1 FINANCE—SFA34O TIME 16:05:21 PAY—VENDOR—NAM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 J PAGE 0017 DATE 11/08/90 Li - ------.------•--.. ..... .. rvwv,., •,vvirtar rU R CHK -11 -Th DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 *** VENDOR TOTAL************x************atatit*• **************at+t****•r**.*firer******uiri►•u** $25. 48 6 R JET DELIVERY, INC. 00281 001-400-4201-4305 00609 $54.00 64623 00637 35189 DELIVERY SERV/BLDG 64623 10/15/90 BUILDING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 11/08/90;2 ', *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $54.00 ,4 „ ,5 ,6 R DONALD*JONES 02627 001-400-2101-4312 01540 $393.75 ,00870 35190 _ MEALS/HOTEL/TRAFF. CLASS 10/31/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 11/08/9012° 17 '6 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $393.75 21 22 2] 2e R LAWSON PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED 00076 105-400-2601-4309 00667 $74.80 519187/528699 01011 35191 NUTS/BOLTS/CABLE SUPP 28699 10/08/90 STREET LIGHTING /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $75.64 11/08/902„ 2.5 26 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $74.80 2" ]1 37 R LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 00842 001-400-4102-4316 00023 $26.69 16398 10871 35192 PUBLICATIONS/PLANNING 16398 10/16/90 PLANNING COMM /TRAINING$0.00 11/08/90;1 3, *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $26.69 R LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 03261 001-400-1202-4316 00326. $140.00 01101 35193 '2 SEMINAR REG/V. COPELAND 11/06/90 FINANCE ADMIN /TRAINING $0.00 11/08/90:- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $140.00 .;1, R DENNIS*LINDSEY 03708 001-300-0000-3418 00027 $1,665.20 00733 35194 5, SLOW—PITCH LEAGUE SERV. 10/22/90 /SPECIAL EVENTS $0.00 11/08/90' *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,665.20 „ 57 R H.*LONGACRE 02172 001-210-0000-2110 03961 $1,575.00 74772 00589 35195 " WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 74772 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/90; *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,575.00 62 63 64 65 R LOUIS THE TAILOR, INC. 00079 110-400-3302-4187 00256 $221.38 403626 00246 35196 66 INITIAL UNIFORM/ROLAND 03626 10/18/90 PARKING ENF /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE $221.38 11/08/906„ 7C 71 72. n l< , ) J J J �.J V r►/ FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 PAY -- VENDOR• NAME DESCRIPTIO CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 VND # —ACCOUNT NUMBER---TRN"*— AMOUNT PAGE 0018 DATE 11/08/90 INV/REF— --p0--# CHK-_#' ..r.,4_ •..v., rrtu.1 AGGOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 *** VENDOR TOTAL***************************************+t* ************************** $221.38 , 7 6 R M & W ELECTRIC 01119 001-400-4204-4309 01797 $305.07 184745 01082 35197 0 CITY HALL FURNACE MOTOR 84745 10/31/90 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 11/08/90:1 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $305.0713 i 3 16 17 R LORI*MARCEL 03700 001-300-0000-3826 01615 $25.00 08280 .00035 35198 16 FALL PROGRAM REFUND 08280 10/22/90 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 11/08/9010 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $25.00 22 23 24 R ERROL C. *MAYA 23 03701 001-300-0000-3826 01613 $15.00 06189 00726 35199 26 FALL PROGRAM REFUND 06189 10/15/90 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 11/08/90;7, *** VENDOR TOTAL********************************************************************$15. 00 3. 3 R MARTIN J.*MAYER 03220 001-400-1132-4201 00060 $990.00 89.12.1 00635 35200 FINAL BILLING/CITY PROS. .12.1 09/30/90 CTY PROSECUTOR /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/90' *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $990.00 R DEAN*MENART 02625 001-400-2101-4312 01541 $281.58 00879 35201 MILES/SAFETY CLASS 10/31/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 11/08/904) . 4- R DEAN*MENART 02625 001-400-2101-4312 01542 $393.75 00871 35201 40 • MEALS/HOTEL/TRAFF CLASS 10/31/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 11/08/90:: *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $675.33 ,o 5. 3] R MICHAELS 03167 001-400-4601-4308 00449 $138.35 01045 35202 . MISC. CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS $0.00 11/08/90..' *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $138.35 36 59 60 61 R MIRACLE RECREATION EQUIP CO. 00439 305-400-8516-4201 00003 $3,334.87 320716 01015 35203 62 PLAY EQUIP/6TH & PROSP. 20716 10/19/90 CIP 89-516 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $3,334.87 11/08/90, 63 66 ' • 67 6R IA 70 71 72 73 74 75 AO* ,J J .J J • FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 PAY ----VENDOR —NAME CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 VND—R ACCOUNT—NUMB) INV7REru PAGE 0019 DATE 11/08/90 CJ DATE INVC PROD it ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION _ NC a CEXP AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 2 3 *** VENDOR TOTAL *******witi►i►iti►*** tit*iti►x*•»•u•ki►•n•ita►*i►i►•prat•it*•itatitrit•i►it•3►atititiF•i►•sit•ratitit*it•u*i►a•r*i►at*it $3,334.87 6 R MOBIL OIL CREDIT CORPORATION 00388 110-400-3302-4310 00129 $10.92 930783J2 00948 35204 MISC. CHARGES/SEP 90 783J2 10/09/90 PARKING ENF /MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES $0.00 11/08/90;12 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $10.92 I ,4 ,s R MONARCH BROOM 00084 001-400-3103-4309 01063 $240.18 7847 ,01047 35205 MISC CHARGES/OCT 90 7847 10/31/90 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 11/08/90;: ,e 17 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $240.18 221 ! 23 R MONTEREY GRAPHICS 03413 001-400-4601-4302 00113 $533.75 5492 00713 35206 TYPESET FALL BROCHURE 5492 10/01/90 COMM RESOURCES /ADVERTISING $533.75 11/08/907 24 25 26 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $533.75 3� R MOORE BUSINESS FORMS 00423 001-400-2101-4305 01376 $945.35 61838490 00957 35207 COMPUTER PAPER/POLICE 38490 10/15/90 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $910.22 11/08/90;: 34 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $945.35 37 3•, 3'-' .1 R NATIONAL CAREER WORKSHOPS 02203 001-400-1121-4316 00037 $196.00 512621531/532 09351 35208 SEM REG/VALDES/DOERFLING 1/532 10/29/90 CITY CLERK /TRAINING $0.00 11/08/90;; AO 4? ,,,I *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $196.00 4, 47, 4., 4„ R NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL 03532 705-400-1209-4316 00030 $55.00 10999 35209 '0 PUBLICATIONS/BLACKWOOD 10/29/90 LIABILITY INS /TRAINING $0.00 11/08/90;7 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $55.00 ',i R NATL PUBLIC EMPLOYER LABOR 03148 001-400-1203-4315 00054 $122.50 874 11000 35210 " ANNUAL DUES/R. BLACKWOOD 874 10/12/90 PERSONNEL /MEMBERSHIP $0.00 11/08/90' 61 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $122.50 E:. "34 "4 es R NEW HORIZONS 03587 001-400-2101-4316 00610 $200.00 18701 00922 35211 3° COMPUTER RENTAL/TRAINING 18701 10/12/90 POLICE /TRAINING $200.00 11/08/90 614 70 7/ Q 72 !3 74 75 J J v v v 1110 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 --' PAY-- - 'YEN CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 PAGE 0020 DATE 11/08/90 D - ,n,\ w nrtuvm1 Lmv/RCr ru W -- _ (;f{K-W-i. DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 3 4 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $200.00 6 7 e R KEVIN B.*NORTHCRAFT 02064 001-400-1201-4317 00223 $11.97 09183 35212 t° MON EXPENSE/OCT 90 10/29/90 CITY MANAGER /CONFERENCE EXPENSE $0.00 11/08/9012 ,3 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $11.97 ,6 ,7 R OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE 02892 001-400-1131-4201 00611 $1,112.50 09181 35213 11 LEGAL SERV/SEPT 90 10/31/90 420001 CITY ATTORNEY /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/90.' 2, R OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE 02892 001-400-1131-4201 00612 $9,646.50 09181 35213 22 LEGAL SERV/SEPT 90 10/31/90 CITY ATTORNEY /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/0B/902' ___ — --------- _ 26 R OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE 02892 705-400-1209-4201 00161 $137.50 09181 35213 26 LEGAL SERV/SEPT 90 10/31/90 LIABILITY INS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/90;7,, *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $10,896.50 30 3, 32 3" R PACIFIC BELL TELEPHG,It 00321 001-400-2101-4304 00692 $163.99 00036 35214 3 COMPUTER HOOKUPS/OCT 90 10/31/90 POLICE /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/9033,5 . *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $163.99 3, t R PACTEL CELLULAR - LA 03209 001-400-2101-4304 00691 $888.21 01050 35215 • I- MOBILE PHONE CHGS/OCT 90 10/31/90 POLICE /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/9013 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $888.21 4„ 47 46 i.. R RICHARD*PAPILLON 03711 001-210-0000-2110 03947 $250.00 194 11042 35216 60 , TEMPORARY BANNER REFUND 194 10/25/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/9052 D3 1., *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $250.00 54 55 S7 _. R PEP BOYS 00608 001-400-2201-4311 00367 $11.90 015761 01053 35217 S0 ,. MISC. CHARGES/OCT 90 15761 10/31/90 FIRE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 11/08/90;,; 61 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $11.90 67 E3 n 64 61 R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS: •"02746 001-400-1212-4188 01903 $279.99 12679/12287 00011 35218 00 , EMP ASSIST PROG/NOV 12287 11/01/90 EMP BENEFITS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 11/08/90;7, 70 7, 72 73 74 ..4 76 76 .46 7 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 -PAY "- VENDOR -'NAME CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 VND iF--ACCOUNT'NUMBE}i-TRN-# AMOUNT- INV7REF PAGE 0021 -- DATE 11/08/90 LJ a.r-c,,nar,iaury DATE INVC PROJ 0 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. 02746 105-400-2601-4188. 01038 $5.19 12679/12287 00011 35218 EMP ASSIST PROG/NOV 12287 11/01/90 . : STREET' LIGHTING /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 11/08/90; 6 R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. 02746 109-400-3301-4188 00051 $0.20 12679/12287 00011 35218 EMP ASSIST PROG/NOV 12287 11/01/90 VEH PKG DIST /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 11/08/90;; R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. 02746 110-400-3302-4188 01254 $35.19 12679/12287 00011 35218 EMP ASSIST PROG/NOV 12287 11/01/90 PARKING ENF /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 11/08/90;; 13 14 R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. 02746 145-400-3401-4188 01003 $1.06 12679/12287 00011 35218 EMP ASSIST PROG/NOV 12287 11/01/90 DIAL A RIDE /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 11/08/90;9 '° R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. 02746 145-400-3402-4188 01007 $0.39 12679/12287 00011 35218 EMP ASSIST PROD/NOV 12287 11/01/90 ESEA /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 11/08/90;; <7 R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. 02746 145-400-3403-4188 00324 $0.12 12679/12287 00011 35218 EMP ASSIST PROG/NOV 12287 11/01/90 BUS PASS SUBSDY /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 11/08/90;; 7S R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. 02746 .155-400-2102-4188 00575 $0.41 12679/12287 00011 35218 3 EMP ASSIST PROG/NOV 12287 11/01/90 CROSSING GUARD /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 11/08/90' R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. 02746 160-400-3102-4188 00980 $5.92 12679/12287 00011 35218 EMP ASSIST PROG/NOV . 12287 11/01/90 SEWER/ST DRAIN /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 11/08/90`_1 R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. 02746 705-400-1209-4188 00345 $0.51 12679/12287 00011 35218 EMP ASSIST PROD/NOV 12287 11/01/90 LIABILITY INS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 11/08/90_ R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. 02746 705-400-1217-4188 00354 $1.02 12679/12287 00011 35218 '• EMP ASSIST PROG/NOV 12287 11/01/90 WORKERS COMP /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 11/08/90;±{ *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $330.00 • :,I 47 R MINHHOA*PHAM 03436 001-210-0000-2110 03950 $250.00 04405 11046 35219 TEMPORARY BANNER REFUND 04405 10/29/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/90S; 1. .1 60 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $250.00 R BRUCE*PHILLIPS 00534 001-400-2101-4312 01531 $8.00 00883 35220 MEALS/DISCIPLINE COURSE 11/01/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 11/08/90,; >J 6° - *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $8.00 61 62 63 64 R PHOENIX GROUP. 02530 110-400-3302-4201 00255 $283.84 5031-00 00063 35221 OUT-OF-STATE CITES/SEP90 31-00 10/23/90 PARKING ENF /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/90:: b^ "• ro 71 77 73 74 76 i J J LI u 41 41 v 410 r iko FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 PAY — VENDOR NAME CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 VND * ACCOUNT—NUMBER--- TRN-*---- —AMOUNT INV/REF PAGE 0022 DATE 11/08/90 ru vi 1.117—* ----i- DATE INVC PROJ it ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 6 7 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $283.84 R READICARE—DANIEL FREEMAN 02390 705-400-1217-4182 00153 $760.05 10990 35222 EXPOSURE TESTING 10/09/90 WORKERS COMP /WORKERS COMP CURRENT YR $0.00 11/08/90" 0 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $760.05 i3 R REGISTRAR—RECORDER 00225 —+ 001-400-1122-4201 00209 $1,765.50 721—G ,09352 35223 VERIFY SIGS/REFERENDUM 721—G 10/18/90 ELECTIONS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/90;7, ,7 ,0 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,765.50 21 22 23 4 26 25 I R OFCR DAVID*RICKEY 00949 001-400-2101-4312 01529 $393.7525 00872 35224 (1 MEALS/HOTEL/TRAFF CLASS 10/31/90- POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 11/08/9027 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $393.75 3 3, 32 33 34. R RIO HONDO COLLEGE 01070 001-400-2101-4312 01532 $16.50 00885 35225 TUITION/J. GAINES 10/29/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE ,,POST $0.00 11/08/9033 i R RIO HONDO COLLEGE 01070 001-400-2101-4312 01533 $6.00 F90.80 00886 35225 TUITION/D. BOHACIK -90.80 08/27/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 11/08/90.d 3: ;� ***-VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $22.50 42 R RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY COLLEGE 01421 001-400-2101-4312 01530 $30.00 00873 35226 TUITION/3 OFFICERS 10/31/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 11/08/9017 45 *** VENDOR TOTAL**►************************************************************4**** $30.00 ,f, 6. 51 2 •; R S. C. M. A. F. 03696 001-400-4601-4315 00069 $15.00 00741 35227 ANNUAL DUES/T. EDISON 10/23/90 COMM RESOURCES /MEMBERSHIP $0.00 11/08/90;;, 53 •, 13 *** VENDOR TOTAL**************•***************************************************** $15.00 57 53 60 60 R SAN PEDRO BUILDING SUPPLIES 03679 150-400-8506-5499 00002 $939.03 J25938 01069 35228 VALLEY PRK EQUIP INSTALL 25938 10/24/90 CIP 86-506 /NON—CAPITALIZED ASSETS $939.03 11/08/90(;3 61 62 :o s, 65 66 67 ea 70 71 72 73 74 76 S. [J J J d FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 PAY—VENDOR-NAME VND— 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 J PAGE 0023 DATE 11/08/90 (J aWV7Rtr PU R —C Ii DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP V 1 2 3 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $939.03 _.___.. 6 7 R AMY*SINCLAIR 03697 001-300-0000-3826 01610 $80.00 8310 00744 35229 FALL CLASS REFUND 8310 10/24/90 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 11/08/90;; e 10 ,3 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $80.00 „ ,6 n R SINCLAIR PAINT CO. 01399 001-400-4204-4309 01794 $270.77 ,01059 35230 ,6 MISC CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 11/08/90;° 12, R SINCLAIR PAINT CO. 01399 001-400-6101-4309 00970 $164.71 01059 35230 MISC CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 PARKS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 11/08/90I�, 25 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $435.48 26 27 i; i. 7n 2,.. R SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY 00114 001-400-2101-4306 00884 $124.14 01060 35231 '1 MISC. CHARGES/SEP—OCT 90 10/31/90 POLICE /PRISONER MAINTENANCE30.00 11/08/90;, i1 R SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY 00114 001-400-2201-4305 00409 $41.70 01060 35231 ''I MISC. CHARGES/SEP—OCT 90 10/31/90 FIRE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 11/08/90 R SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY 00114 001-400-4601-4308 00448 $212.45 0106035231 '-� MISC. CHARGES/SEP—OCT 90 10/31/90 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS $0.00 11/08/90I',,j i,. I,. *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $378.29 42 A] +a , R DEBORAH*SMITH 03694 110-300-0000-3302 36837 $46.00 891054 00196 35232 16 CITATION PAYMENT REFUND 91054 10/23/90 /COURT FINES/PARKING $0.00 11/08/90% <n I.. � *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $46.00 5, 5, sz 51 R MILES W.*SMITH 03717 001-400-4601-4201 00653 $94.00 00751 35233 5• 5 AFTER SCHOOL PROD SERV 10/31/90 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/907 JI 57 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $94.00 56 59 60 , 61 R SO CALIF RAPID TRANSIT DISTR. 00843 145-400-3403-4251 00084 $1.594.00 53143 00274 35234 62 BUS PASS SALES/OCT 90 53143 '. 10/31/90 BUS PASS SUBSDY /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT $0.00 11/08/908; :0 5, 05 66 67 en 71 6'. 70 7, 72 79 75. 7. J J J J J 1 T• F I NANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 PAY ""— 'VENDOR 'NAME VND-- K' CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 PAGE 0024 DATE 11/08/90 L) a,w i,ccr ru W __-_GF1K—K— - DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP i 2 3 *** VENDOR TOTAL ***it+tatititi►•it•it•w** Fat*****x*************iFitatatiF***** tit•p•it•x•i►iF**•r**•µ•µ.0*****.a** $1,594.00 • e 6 •. R SOURISSEAU SUPPORT SERVICES 02075 001-400-2101-4201 00677 $435.00 1682 00965 35235 DACKGRND INVESTIGATIONS 1682 10/15/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT$0.00 11/08/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL*•n**x•******•x*************a•*****************************************+r $435.00 D 10 13 1n R SOUTAR'S 03620 001-400-2101-4311 0099B $474.74 32124 .00927 35236 REPAIR NARCOTICS VEHICLE 32124 09/13/90 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $475.00 11/08/90i° 17 18 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $474.74 21 22 23 24 R SOUTH BAY HOSPITAL 00107 001-400-2101-4201 00676 $189.52 00973 35237 BLOOD ALCOHOL TESTING 10/25/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/90'n 2: 2, *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $189.52 30 31 32 J.t R SOUTH DAY MUNICIPAL COURT 00400 110-300-0000-3302 36836 $175.00 00283 35238 J.* CITATION COURT DAIL 11/01/90 /COURT FINES/PARKING $0.00 11/08/90;,37' *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $175.00 J,, u an R SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY 01688 001-400-3104-4251 00050 $150.00 1351063 01058 35239 42 - EQUIPMENT PERMIT FEES 51063 10/08/90 TRAFFIC SAFETY /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT $0.00 11/08/90; R SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY 01688 001-400-3104-4251 00051 $150.00 1351064 01058 35239 .," EQUIPMENT PERMIT FEES 51064 10/08/90 TRAFFIC SAFETY /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT $0.00 11/08/90°i, 49 R SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY 01688 001-400-4204-4201 00401 $150.00 1351065 01058 35239 5c- EQUIPMENT CEQUIPMENT PERMIT FEES 51065 10/08/90 BLDG MAINT /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/902 53 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $450.00 54 55 56 7 R SOUTH COAST MARRIAGE, FAMILY, 03699 001-210-0000-2110 03956 $500.00 06113 00584 35240 S0 — — DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND 06113 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/90', 12. 61 17 R SOUTH COAST MARRIAGE, FAMILY, 03699 001-300-0000-3406 00310 $151.50 6112 00745 35240 O2 ,•, THEATRE RENTAL REFUND 6112 10/29/90 /COMM CTR THEATRE - $0.00 11/08/90:;, 65 • 66 51 6'7 ,56 64 7U 71 5.1 72 73 74 75 75' J J FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 -- PAY --VENDOR 'NAME CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 VND W-----ACCOUNT— Kit NUMBER - 7R PAGE 0025 DATE 11/08/90 Li + EF— ru if CHK If—Th DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ M ACCOUNT DESCRIPTIONVv" AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 *** VENDOR TOTAL**************************************3ter*******i►*•r*at*****•p********** $651. 50 . 7 e R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO. 00170 001-400-4204-4303 00415 $670.14 01064 35241 0 GAS BILLINGS/SEP—OCT 90 10/31/90 BLDG MAINT /UTILITIES $0.00 11/08/90;0 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $670.14 1, 1. R SOUTHERN PACIFIC ASSOC. OF 00543 001-400-4601-4302 00112 $50.00 00734 35242 18 AD/SAND & STRAND RUN 10/22/90 COMM RESOURCES /ADVERTISING • $0.00 11/08/90:; 1.1 *** VENDOR TOTAL*********'*********************************************************** $50.00 - ! 7.3 14 7., R SOUTHWEST REG OCC TRNG CENTER 02295 001-400-4601-4316 00145 $185.00 00742 35243 16 TUITION/M. ERNST 10/24/90 COMM RESOURCES /TRAINING $0.00 11/08/90;7 , *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $185.00 ,.,i 3. R MARILYN*SPANGDERG 03695 001-300-0000-3212 00051 $50.00 6743 00276 35244 ANIMAL TRAP REFUND 6743 10/16/90 /ANIMAL/FOWL PERMITS $0.00 11/08/90; *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $50.00 A 3. 4' R STATE OF CALIFORNIA 00364 001-400-2101-4251 00334 $140.75 887118 00023 35245 42 FINGERPRINT APPS/SEP 90 87118 10/22/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT $0.00 11/08/9043 4 4, *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $140.75 .,. 47 48 R MARK*STOVER 00797 001-210-0000-2110 03962 $1,575.00 95612 00592 35246 3° WORK .GUARANTEE REFUND 95612 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/90" *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,575.00 5^1 5.5 II; 51 R DEBBIE*STRATTON 03698 001-300-0000-3826 01617 $54.00 08201 00731 35247 38 FALL PROGRAM REFUND 08201 10/17/90 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 11/08/90;0' 61 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $54.00 67 63 64 6, R SUPERAJIT, INC. 03713 001-300-0000-3211 00058 $250.00 243 11040 35248 63 TEMPORARY BANNER REFUND 243 10/25/90 /BANNER PERMITS $0.00 11/08/906', r: 71 77 73 74 7. 7c/ J J •.J ,J .J .J .J r gard I FINANCE-SFA34O TIME 16:05:21 ` ' PAY-- - '- VENDOR -NAME VND * CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 ACCOUNT"NUMBER ' PAGE 0026 DATE 11/08/90 INV/REF utwAtiFTION ru w --t.HK-* DATE INVC PROJ M ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP ,\ 2 3 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $250.00 a 1 R SUPERIOR MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 00425 001-400-2201-4309 00980 $27.00 01066 35249 MISC. CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 FIRE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 11/08/9012 a *** VENDOR TOTAL*****************•u*****•r**********************************•x•n******** $27. 00 14 4 15 R SWANK MOTION PICTURES INC. 03158 001-400-4601-4308 00451 $261.00 503686/503897 .00702 35250 FILMS/COMM CTR PROGRAMS 03897 10/15/90 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS $261.00 11/08/90;°, 16 '0 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $261.00 21 2: 23 R KIM*THOMAS 03693 001-300-0000-3826 01616 $49°00 08222 00737 35251 FALL PROGRAM REFUND 08222 10/22/90 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 11/08/90:7. 7.4 n 26 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $49.00 r 30 31 R TODD PIPE & SUPPLY 00124 160-400-3102-4309 00543 $9°59 ° 48945H 01068 35252 MISC CHARGES/OCT 90 8945H 10/31/90 SEWER/ST DRAIN /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 11/08/903 32 33 J4 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $9°59 3.- 3a 3, R' CITY OF*TORRANCE 00841 001-400-2101-4251 00335 $34.50 102062 00068 35253 -4!- PRISONER ID CHGS/SEP 90 02062 09/30/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT $0.00 11/08/90° 40 R CITY OF*TORRANCE 00841 145-400-3402-4201 00152 $942.92 102024 10870 35253 46 2ND QTR SHARE/MAX PROG. 02024 10/12/90 COMMUTER BUS /CONTRACT SERVICES $0.00 11/08/90°7 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $977.42 50 51 57 54 I R TORRANCE NISSAN 00125 170-400-2103-4201 00068 $150.00 00066 35254 '4 AUTO RENTAL/OCT 1-15,90 10/23/90 SPEC INVESTGTNS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/90;;; 57 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $150.00 50 53 60 61 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE 00123 001-400-4204-4309 01793 $149.40 10275 01083 35255 '2 WATER HEATER/COMM CTR 10275 10/31/90 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 11/08/90 % ,3 66 57 ,In 5,• 70 71 72 i I 73 7• - 75 79 115 0 M C- 444 4,4 5116 • FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 «......_......,r �.. .. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 PAGE 0027 DATE 11/08/90 --- - —•.. ,, ••••••— vg44, w .I INV...Gil I MIN w APIUUN1 1NV/NtF PO * —CHK DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 3 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************w************* F I*iter***** F************* *149. 40 a 8 R MILDRED*WARREN 03691 001-300-0000-3202- 03214 *4.50 8554 00275 35256 1O REFUND OVERCHG/AN LIC. 8554 10/16/90 /DOG LICENSES *0.00 11/08/90:: „ *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $4.50 ,4 15 15 17 R JOANNE*WEEMS 03723 001-210-0000-2110 03952 *50.00 8122 .00581 35257 19 ANIMAL TRAP REFUND 8122 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE *0.00 11/08/90;0 2, *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $50.00 2- 1, 24 � 2> R WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY 00141 001-400-1131-4201 00610 $63.11 652893746 09353 35258 2' PUBLICATIONS/CITY CLERK 93746 10/03/90 CITY ATTORNEY /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *0.00 11/08/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** *63.11,1 ,,I R WESTFALL ROOFING COMPANY 03716 001-300-0000-3115 03163 *308.00 349700 11044 35259 ,1 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 49700 10/25/90 /BUSINESS LICENSE 50.00 11/08/90; *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** *308.00 ,,,I 4.1 R SALLY A. *WHITE 00140 001-400-4102-4201 00278 $102.00 10874 '35260 42 SEC SERV/OCT 16, 1990 10/25/90 PLANNING COMM /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 .11/08/90;, 41 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** *102.00 45 47 4f1 , 4,1 R GARY*WIGGINS 03692 001-300-0000-3826 01618 *35.00 6161 00722 35261 •• FALL PROGRAM REFUND 6161 10/15/90 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES *0.00 11/08/90'; *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** *35.00 54 55 R CYNTHIA*WILSON 03690 001-400-2401-4317 00041 *121.95 00278 35262 '° MEALS/RABIES CLINIC VOL. 10/16/90 ANIMAL CONTROL /CONFERENCE EXPENSE *0.00 11/08/90;4 51 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 5121.95 432 Ir 5, 6I 5, R STEVE*WISNIEWSKI 01364 001-400-2101-4312 01527 *32.00 00896 35263 55 MEALS/4 OFFICERS 11/05/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST *0.00 11/08/90% n•, 7° 72 74 75 -0 Jy r• t. FINANCE-SFA3409 TIME 16:05:21 ----PAY----VENDOR-NAME CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 VND-11- ACCOUNT-NUMBER---TRN-# AMOUNT PAGE 0028 DATE 11/08/90 w NV/REF-- _ ---PO 1K- CHK" -#-1; ..nar,aury DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 5 *** VENDOR TOTAL •r;******•ra****at**********•n•r***********tt***********•It**at************•n* 532. 00 ._ s H R SGT MARK*WRIGHT 00133 001-400-2101-4312 01528 511.95 00878 35264 MILES/P. O. S. T. CLASS 10/15/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST 50.00 11/08/90 9 a '_ *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 511.95 7 „ e , R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 001-400-1208-4305 00824 532.03 142548078 00192 35265 COPIER SUPPLIES/STOCK 48078 10/31/90 GEN APPROP /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES r 50.00 11/08/90?: n 1e R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 001-400-2401-4303 00174 535.23 142548078 00192 35265 COPIER SUPPLIES/STOCK 48078 10/31/90 ANIMAL CONTROL /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.21 - 00 11/08/90 2, 22 24 26 R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 001-400-4601-4305 00882 $425.93 142548078 00192 35265 20 COPIER SUPPLIES/STOCK 48078 10/31/90 COMM RESOURCES /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 50.00 11/08/9027 JY R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 110-400-3302-4305 00729 $105.68 142548078 00192 , 35265 .,: j•. COPIER SUPPLIES/STOCK 48078 10/31/90 PARKING ENF /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 11/08/90 ;1 .3a !.. *** VENDOR TOTAL*****•*************************************************************** $598.87 34 1 35 R ZUMAR INDUSTRIES 01206 001-400-3104-4309 00588 5202.24 3042 01086 35266 , i,:. "NO LEFT TURN" SIGNS 3042 11/01/90 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 50.00 11/08/90' ZUMAR INDUSTRIES 01206 001-400-3104-4309 00590 $4,740.28 1522/2388 00447 35266 22! '; STREET SIGNS/HARDWARE /2388 10/04/90 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $4,729.18 11/08/9045 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $4,942.52 .,, An *** PAY CODE TOTAL****************************************************************** $83.406.39 50 5, ' 5l *** TOTAL WARRANTS****************************************************************** $196,591.50 54 55 50 59 AS 60 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE DEMANDS ORtiLAIMS COVERED BY O' l e2 • THE WARRANTS LISTEDc: �/ ' ON PAG S TD0 INCLUSIVE- OP THE S� .,. EGISTER FOR/ WARRANT -R 45 • - AND FUNDS A E AVAI ABLE FOR PAYMENT THEREOF: 04 a,' BY 6n • I 'NAME AD ¶U JIST ATOR DATE 0/8"/U 79 n' ,2 a 7: 7• rn /57,9 .IY W y 1r 1.E Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council October 29, 1990 City Council Meeting of November 13, 1990 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS November 27, 1990 Review of 4 - 10 schedule Recommendation to expand Rodaway Park Contract for Street Lighting/Crossing Guard Assessment Districts Recommendation to accept toxic study Award of contract, Sanitary Sewers, Target Area 4, CIP 88-406 and for inspections Hand held citation writers Kenny Letter re. Strand Bike improvements Status after 1 yr. of sidewalk cleaning and scrubbing Auditor's financial report for fiscal year 89-90 Ordinance for non -motorized vehicles parked on City r -o -w Greenbelt a) Conceptual approval of Greenbelt steps b) Pedestrianjogger crossing mid - block at Greenbelt intersection Amendment to the ICRMA liability program to allow participation of Costa Mesa, El Segundo, & Upland Street rehabilitation and Slurry Seal call for bids, CIP 89-141 and CIP 89-170 - 1 - Responsible Agent Personnel Director Community Resources Dir. Public Works Director City Manager Public Works Director General Services Director City Clerk Public Works Director Finance Director Public Safety Dir. Public Works Director Public Works Director Risk Manager Public Works Director Ic Acceptance of environmental assessment report on 2 surplus school sites Sale of FAU funds Municipal Matters 8/14 Municipal Pier modifications Public Hearings Appeal of denial by P.C. for variance at 40 Seventh Court December 11, 1990 1st meeting - continued public hearing on 20th St. subdivision Project Touch lease agreement Public Information' Program Recycling bid award January 8, 1991 7/30 6 mo. review of Farmers' market 8/20 Gann limit subject to - Appropriations 11/6 Extension of lease January 22, 1991 7/24 Review Rule XV & parking fees for employees in 6 months Macpherson Oil Annual report and review of City Goals March 12, 1991 Historical Society relocation alternatives Utilization of Prospect School House 2 City Manager Public Works Director Community Resources Dir. Planning Director Planning Director Community Resources Dir. General Services Director Building & Safety Dir. Community Resources Dir. City Manager City Manager Personnel Director. City Manager Community Resources Dir. Community Resources Dir., ***************************************************************** Upcoming Items Not Yet Calendared Caltrans utility maintenance agrmt. Public Works Director Vehicle parking on pedestrian streets Public Works Director Historic Preservation Ordinance (with Land Use Element) Planning Director ***************************************************************** Initiated by Party Date Council 5/8 Discuss financial arrangements on oil project City Mgr. Council 5/8 Re. oil project CUP - define "temporary" as relates to height of project Planning Dir. Goal 2 5/16 Options to direct dial to City Hall Gen. Svcs. Dir. Goal 4 5/16 Options to computerize per- sonnel as part of payroll function Finance Dir. Goal 7 10/17 Goal 8 5/16 City Mgr. 7/24 Council Council Council Review Fiesta cost/benefit Options to increasing service level of street sweeping 3 -hr. vs. 2 -hr. parking meter limit in the downtown (refer to VPD) 8/14 Review of standard CUP conditions 8/14 Obtain consultant's review of Cable Co. ascertainment 8/14 Review ways to enforce no parking in front yards City Mgr. 8/22 City Mgr. 9/4 Council Joint meeting with Chamber of Commerce Recommendation on Council Chamber chairs 10/9 Map and time schedule for street sweeping Finance Dir. Public Works Dir. Gen. Svc. Dir. Planning Dir. Gen. Svc. Dir. Planning Dir. City Manager Finance Director Public Wks. Dir. i Council 10/9 Status of Strand safety measures Review Comm. Ctr. lease policy Council 10/30 Beach volleyball court report Ordinance for new Chapter 19 of HBMC entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic" Dept. 11/5 RFP for Traffic Engineer Dept. 11/5 Approval Process for South School Conceptual Design Public Safety Dir Comm. Res. Dir. Public Works Dir. Public Works Dir. Public Works Dir. Comm. Res. Dir. r• Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council November 6, 1990 City Council Meeting of November 13, 1990 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT OF INACTIVE PUBLIC -DEPOSITS FOR HERMOSA BEACH Attached is a report of all Inactive Public Deposits for the month of October 1990. Respectfully submitted, Gary Brut ch City Treasurer NOTED: evin Northc .ft City Manager ld INSTITUTION LAIF BALANCE 10/01/90 BALANCE 10/31/90 TOTAL INVESTMENT REPORT - OCTOBER 1990 DATE OF INVESTMENT DATE OF MATURITY INTEREST LACPIF Railroad Right -of -Way BALANCE 10/01/90 BALANCE 10/31/90 $3,610,000.00 $3,610,000.00 Account $ 336,188.77 474,928.61 CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT: Union Federal S&L Investment CORPORATE NOTES: Ford Motor Credit Co. Investment U.S. TREASURY BOND: Investment Investment Investment Investment $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 500,937.94 $ 499,326.42 $1,001,542.12 $ 500,845.79 2/22/90 5/19/88 2/22/89 1/03/90 3/06/90 3/08/90 2/21/91 5/20/93 1/31/91 12/31/91 2/29/92 2/29/92 8.333% 8.42% 8.10% 9.10%. 9.20% 7.71% 8.50% 8.50% Investment Investment Investment FHLMC: Federal Home Loan Investment INVESTMENT TOTAL SEATTLE 1ST NATL. BALANCE 9/01/90 Adjustment BALANCE 9/30/90 $ 999,492.83 $1,019,779.01 $1,023,029.89 Mortgage Corp. $ 248,733.64 $10,878,616.25 BANK TRUST $ 963,093.80 <455,545.00> 507,548.80 TICOR TITLE INSURANCE CO. BALANCE 6/30/90 BALANCE 6/30/90 TRUSTEE TOTAL GRAND TOTAL $ 10,711.04 10,711.04 $ 518,259.84 $11,396,876.09 Respectfully Submitted, Gary Bruts City Treasurer 4/20/90 5/14/90 9/14/90 3/26/87 3/31/92 2/15/93 6/30/94 3/1/17 November 5, 1990 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the Regular Meeting of HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL November 13, 1990 SUBJECT: FINAL MAP #21575 (C.U.P. CON NO. 89-23) LOCATION: 641 SIXTH STREET APPLICANT(S): HB PARNERSHIP REQUEST: TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP FOR A 3 - UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Final Parcel Map #21575 which is consistent with the approved Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and recommends the City Clerk be directed to endorse the certificate for said map. Background The Planning Commission approved Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #21575 at their November 21, 1989 meeting. Analysis The staff has reviewed the Final Map and found it substantially consistent with the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map approved by the Planning Commission and in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act. Michael Schubach Planning Director 'Kevin B. Nortbcrpft City Manager T/srfinmap Respectfully submitted, n Robe is n Associate Planner 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #21575 FOR A THREE -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 641 SIXTH STREET, HER- MOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the City Council held a meeting on November 13, 1990 and made the following Findings: A. This project will not violate any of the provisions of Sections 66427.1, 66474, 66474.1, and 66474.6 of the Subdivi- sion Map Act; B. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan required by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Government Code, or any specific plan adopted pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Government Code; C. The development of the property in the manner set forth on the subject division of land will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity and/ or public utility rights-of-way and/or easements within the subject division of land; D. The approval of said map is subject to all conditions out- lined in Planning Commission Resolution P.C. No. 89-87 adop- ted after public hearing on November 21, 1990. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Planning Commission and to the recommendation of the County Engineer., the ,City Council does hereby grant final approval of Parcel Map #21575 in the City of Hermosa Beach, State of California, being a Subdivision of Lot 18, and a portion of Lot 19, Dr. Dougher- ty's Hermosa Bay View Tract, as recorded in Book 10, Page 140 of Maps, in the Office of the Recorder of Los Angeles, for a three -unit condominium project on land commonly known as 641 Sixth Street, Hermosa Beach, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 13th day of November, 1990. ATTEST: T/rsfinmap PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY r November 05, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 13, 1990 STATUS REPORT NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEMS (NPDES) Recommendation: It recommended that City Council receive and file this report. Abstract: The 1987 Clean Water Act requires all cities to monitor water runoff and improve the Santa Monica Bay Water Quality. The Los Angeles County Public Works Department is assisting Hermosa Beach tocomply with the new rules. The new rules initially require the City staff to gather information about the storm drainage system and types of business in the community. This time consuming information gathering effort as required by the Clean Water Act is in the works by City Staff. However, potential litigation against L.A. County may make the rules more stringent and the associated potential future costs to the City are unknown at this time. Background: This report summarizes the status of the stormwater discharge permit required of the County and the City in order to comply with the 1987 Clean Water Act. Analysis: The analysis is divided as follows: 1. 1987 Clean Water Act 2. Permits are Required 3. Permit Requirements for the Los Angeles Area 4. The Permit Application Procedure 5. Potential Future Costs 6. Potential Litigation 7. Summary - 1 - 1� 1. 1987 Clean Water Act In 1987, Congress re -authorized the Clean Water Act providing for more stringent controls of stormwater runoff in urban areas. Under the 1987 Clean Water Act amendment, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to permit all urban storm drain systems. All government agencies would fall under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permitting program. All stormwater systems serving population areas of 100,000 people or more would be required to obtain permits. For implementation purposes, EPA has designated population areas of 250,000 and greater to be permitted beginning by the year 1990 and population areas of 100,000 to 250,000 to be permitted by 1992. Hermosa Beach is in a "designated population area" that includes eighteen other cities discharging runoff into the Santa Monica Bay. On June 18, 1990, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, adopted Waste Discharge Requirements for stormwater/urban runoff discharge for Los Angeles County and co -permittees (NPDES Permit No. CA0061654). This permit application includes Hermosa Beach as a Co -Permittee. 2. Permits are Required The intent of the permit is to control the water quality of flows from land drainage facilities for the protection of the beneficial uses of the receiving waters (lakes, rivers, groundwater, and the ocean). The County of Los Angeles is the Principal permittee, with each of the incorporated cities, plus other entities with large and/or significant drainage areas under their control, functioning as Co -Permittees. L.A. County Public Works Department is the lead for the County and has the obligation to coordinate the required permit activities, including efforts of co -permittees, within both unincorporated and incorporated areas. 3. Permit Requirements for the Los Angeles Area Los Angeles County is comprised of. 86 cities with distinct political boundaries that share a common watershed and an integrated storm drain system. The majority of the storm drain system is owned and operated by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. However, catch basins and various portions of storm drains are owned and operated by different municipalities within the County. Whereas, all municipalities have direct control over their land use. To effectively provide for this set of conditions, a special permit was developed that would address the needs of Los Angeles County. To meet the requirements of the 1987 Clean Water Act in respect to stormwater discharges, representatives from Los Angeles County Public Works and City of Los Angeles met with members of the Los AngelesRegionalWater Quality Control Board, the State Water Resources Control Board and the Environmental Protection Agency's District 9 office to draft a model permit application. This permit application was submitted prior to the EPA's permit application deadline in July of 1990. The permit was geared to the particular hydrology and land use pattern that exists in Los Angeles County. The permit application identified five drainage basins. 1. The Santa Monica Bay drainage basin. 2. The upper Los Angeles River drainage basin. 3. The upper San Gabriel River drainage basin. 4. The lower Los Angeles River drainage basin. 5. The lower San Gabriel River drainage basin. 4. The Permit Application Procedure A permit application was submitted by Los Angeles County, Public Works Department, the lead permittee acting on behalf of all the Santa Monica Bay co -permittees. The Regional Board required that the County's permit application include letters of intent from all cities desiring to participate as co -permittees. The City of Hermosa Beach Public Works Department submitted a letter of intent. 5. Potential Future Costs Future City costs of the permit application are unknown. The first year will require considerable staff time to put together the characterization of.the storm drain system within our community and how it relates to the overall storm drain system in Santa Monica Bay, as well as develop a plan for a monitoring program and definition of land use "Best Management Plan" (BMP's) to control discharge of pollutants to the storm drain system. In subsequent years, additional funds and staff time will be required to fund the City of Hermosa Beach's portion of any monitoring program that will need to be implemented. 6. Potential Litigation On July 17, 1990 the National Resources Defense Council, Inc.(NRDC) filed a petition with the State Water Resources Control Board requesting a review of California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Los Angeles Region Order No. 90-079, NPDES Permit No. CA0061654 (CI 6948) Waste Discharge Requirements stormwater/urban runoff discharge for Los Angeles County and Co -Permittees. The petition claims: 1. The permit fails to impose enforceable standards. 2. The permit fails to require adoption of discharge controls to the maximum extent practicable. 3. The permit fails to impose a three-year timeline for compliance. NRDC requests that the permit be modified to comply with the provisions of the 1987 Clean Water Act. On September 25, 1990 the County of Los Angeles Public Works Director filed a response to the petition. On October 19, 1990, I spoke with Mr. Craig Wilson, Assistant Chief Counsel to the State Board, who informed me that the board has up to nine months from August 24, 1990 to respond. August 24th is the date the board deemed the petition as complete. If the board is unable to resolve the matter within the time period the petitioners will have exhausted their administrative remedies and they must petition the courts. On October 19th the L.A. Regional Water Quality Board issued a response to the State Board indicating their belief that the County permit application should be upheld by the State Board. 7. Summary Elimination of Santa Monica Bay water pollution is a public concern and enjoys substantial support of several parties and environmental groups - notably Heal the Bay, Sierra Club and American Oceans Campaign, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency. Government has required large industrial polluters to change their discharge practices. Studies have shown that storm drains can negatively impact water quality. The efforts of the cities within the Santa Monica Bay's watershed may help to reduce and identify future pollution sources. Preparing the necessary data base is time consuming and will require a concentrated effort by staff to meet the deadlines however it will meet the environmental concerns of many interested parties. Alternatives: Other alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council are: 1. Consider hiring of additional personnel at midyear to handle the additional workload demand. 2. Request additional information. Respectfully submitted, 1/1,((L�i Anth.ny Antich Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft Public Works Dir ector City Manager pworks/npdes November 5, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 13, 1990 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR BASKETBALL COURTS AT CLARK FIELD CIP 89-512 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with Hines Construction Company at a cost not to exceed $94,750, which includes a 10% contingency. 2. Authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary within budget limitations. 3a. Appropriate $7,181 from the Grant Fund (to be reimbursed from the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Grant No. BB -19034) to CIP 89-512. b. Appropriate $4,128 from the Grant Fund (to be reimbursed from the 1986 Community Parklands Grant No. 86-1-19095) to CIP 89-512. c. Transfer $11,200 in the Park and Recreational Facilities Tax Fund from CIP 89-506 to CIP 89-512. d. Appropriate $20,985 from the balance in the Park and Recreational Facilities Tax Fund to CIP 89-512. Background: This project proposes to install two full-size lighted basketball courts immediately north of the tennis courts at Clark Field. On July 30, 1990, the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission reviewed and recommended that the City Council approve the plans and specifications. In addition, the Commission recommended that additional funds from CIP 89-506 and the Parks and Recreation Facility Tax Fund be approved to provide lighting on the courts. On September 11, 1990, City Council authorized staff to advertise for construction bids on this project. Analysis: The analysis is divided into the following sections: 1. The Base Bids 2. Fiscal Impact 3. Reference Check 4. The Lowest Cost and Most Responsible Bidder 5. Summary 1. The Base Bids Eight sealed bids were received by the City Clerk on November 1, 1990. The bids were publicly opened and read aloud. The bid results are shown on Attachment "A". 2. Fiscal Impact Construction Contract Amount Contractor's Bid (including alternates) 10% Contingency Not to Exceed Amount $86,137 8,613 $94,750 Shown below are the low bidder's proposed construction costs: Contractor's Base Bid $59,464 The Contractor's Base Bid includes demolition, grading, the installation of a reinforced concrete pad, basketball goals and posts, acrylic surfacing, striping, and fencing with screening. Alternate Bid Items 1. Underground Conduits for Lighting System 6,698 2. Court Lighting Alternate System "A" -0- (Contractor bid of $79,345 NOT RECOMMENDED) 3. Court Lighting Alternate System "B" 16,225 4. Drinking Fountain Installation 1,750 5. Benches 2,000 Cost of Alternate Items (1,3,4 and 5) $26,673 Total Construction Contract Cost $86,137 Estimated Total Project Costs Design (FY 89-90) $ 6,744 Construction 86,137 $92,881 Contingency 8,613 Proposed Project Budget $101,494 Note: Inspection on this project will be performed in-house and will require no additional appropriation of tax dollars. Project Funding The City Council approved Grant Fund amount for this project in the 1989-90 fiscal year budget was $58,000 of which $6,744 was spent. The unexpended grant amount of $51,256 has been carried forward to the 1990-91 fiscal year. (See Attachment "B") Shown below is the proposed funding scheme for the total project. Per Capita Grant No. 88-1-19025 $ 58,000 Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Grant No. BB -190384(1) 7,181 1986 Community Parklands Grant No. 86-1-19095(2) 4,128 CIP 89-506(3) 11,200 Other(4) 20.985 Total $101,494 3. Reference Check At least three references were questioned for each of the three lowest bidders to determine their qualifications. All three contractors have a valid class "A" contractor license (General Engineering) issued by the State of California and no violations have been filed against the firms. References indicated that the threelowest bidders were qualified to construct this type of project, finished on schedule, within budget and produced quality work. 4. The Lowest Cost and Most Responsible Bidder Award of this contract is based on the lowest cost to the City and the most responsible proposal which best meets the needs of the City. Hines Construction Company is the lowest cost and most responsible bidder best meeting the needs of the City. (1) This grant funding is available for development of Facilities for recreational purposes at Clark Stadium. This money is remaining funds from previous improvements at Clark Field and must be spent this fiscal year. (2) This grant funding is remaining from CIP 89-507, Tennis Courts at Clark Field and must be spent this fiscal year. (3) This amount is anticipated to be remaining depending upon final fencing costs at various locations. (4) Proposed funding sources are: a) Park and Recreation Facilities Tax Fund ($257,944 available funding).. b) General Fund, Designated for Capital Improvements ($39,907 unspent). 5. Summary The newly adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan identifies the need to add basketball courts at Clark Field. Over $69,300 State Grant dollars are eligible, and have been approved by the State, for this project. Also, the Commission has recommended that Parks and Recreation Facility Tax Fund dollars be approved to provide lighting on the courts. There is $11,200 in Parks and Recreation Facility Tax Fund dollars available in CIP 89-506. However, almost $21,000 additional Parks and Recreation Facility Tax Fund dollars is still needed to complete the entire project. This project is recommended for approval by the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission and is consistent with the City Council's adopted goals. Alternatives: Alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council are: 1. Reduce the scope of work. (Eliminate any or all of the "alternate bid items".) 2. Award the project to the next lowest bidder. (This alternative should be considered only when the lowest bidder is non-responsive and is not recommended.) 3. Reject all bids and rebid the project. 4. Drop or delay the project. Respectfully submitted, Brian Gengler Assistant Engineer Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Director ty/basaward Concur: Lynn Terry Deputy City Engineer.. -AltflAAA Anthony Antich Director of Public Works Mary 'o• ey Comm n'i y Resources Director ,1 evin B. Nor 'craft City Manager ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE BID NO. 1 BID NO. 2 BID NO. 3 BID NO. 4 BID NO. 5 BID NO. 6 BID NO. 7 BID NO. 8 BASE BID ITEM 1. Demolition, Clearing & Grubbing 8,000 2,730 12,572 16,900 15,000 23,000 17,334 23,000 52,800 2. Reinforced Concrete Pad 34,500 31,680 41,328 46,080 46,800 39,600 41,760 46,080 46,800 3. Basketball Goals & Posts 2,000 4,800 5,832 6,940 5,200 8,800 5,800 8,000 6,000 4. Acrylic Surfacing 6,210 6,048 5,328 4,320 5,616 4,464 6,048 4,320 2,160 5. Striping 500 600 520 350 1,500 1,200 1,325 500 600 6. Fencing 6,264 12,180 12,396 10,788 9,483 10,614 11,213 10,544 8,700 7. Windscreen 992 1,426 1,810 1,488 1,302 1,240 1,314 1,488 1,488 TOTAL BASE BID 58,466 59,464 79,786 86,866 84,901 88,918 84,794 93,932 118,548 `o• a o JG OJ JG Cy 0(` 0 % ( G K. O C:% ;O K. c y 4 c K G GP cc ~e .o �cA G' �c �JG yc ey Ote 064- .A,0a \c GP G°0 4 ,I'0�c c4' °�` eyc ``a c �a-t 1 0�e 0 �o V'> it �e *° p Va ALTERNATE BID ITEMS 1. Underground Conduits 3,400 6,698 4,624 2,720 2,346 3,740 4,780 4,692 1,700 2. Court Lighting System "A" 34,600 79,345 25,892 32,312 83,650 28,515 118,919 33,900 42,250 3. Court Lighting System "B" 25,000 16,225 20,416 15,994 21,600 16,615 28,619 19,410 29,650 4. Drinking Fountain Installation 600 1,750 2,423 2,027 2,100 2,200 4,000 6,500 2,000 5. Benches 400 2,000 1,856 2,940 2,600 2,600 3,200 2,600 4,800 { GRAND TOTAL "BASE BID" PLUS ALTERNATE BID ITEMS 1,2,4,5 GRAND TOTAL "BASE BID" PLUS ALTERNATE BID ITEMS 1,3,4,5 GRAND TOTAL "BASE BID" PLUS ALTERNATE BID ITEMS 1,3,4 GRAND TOTAL "BASE BID" PLUS ALTERNATE BID ITEM 1 ONLY 97,466 149,257 114,581 126,865 175,597 125,973 215,693 87,866 86,137 109,105 110,547 113,547 114,073 125,393 87,466 84,137 107,249 107,607 110,947 111,473 122,193 141,624 169,298 127,134 156,698 124,534 151,898 61,866 66,162 84,410 89,586 87,247 92,658 89,574 98,624 120,248 Attachment "A" CIP 89-512 BASKETBALL COURTS EXPENDITURES PROJECT EXPENDED EXPENDED FINAL FINAL (7/1/90) REAPPROP. DATE ESTIMATED FUTURE NEEDS ESTIMATED ELEMENTS PRIOR TO BUDGET THRU EXPENDED ` BALANCE BUDGET BUDGET 51,256 0 TOTAL PROJECT FY92-93 FY93-94 FY94-95 FY89-90 FY89-90 2/28/90 6/30/90 6/30/90 FY90-91 FY91-92 TOTAL PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING 0 TOTAL FUNDING SO $58,000 0 $6,744 $51,256 $51,256 SO SO 0 PLANS, SPECS & ESTIMATES 558,000 8,000 6,744 1,256 1,256 8,000 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION 50,000 '50,000 0 50,000 50,000 0 OTHER DIRECT COSTS 0 0 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCY 0 58,000 0 6,744 51,256 0 51,256 0 0 0 0 58,000 0 TOTAL EXPENDITURE SO S58,000 SO $6,744 S51,256 S51,256 SO SO SO SO $58,000 FUNDING SOURCES 150 GRANT FUND BUDGET MIDYEAR REVISED 0 (7/1/90) REAPPROP. DATE REVISION DATE BUDGET 150 GRANT FUND 0 PER CAPITA GRANT 58,000 PER CAPITA GRANT 6,744 51,256 51,256 0 TOTAL SO 551,256 58,000 STATE GRANT 88-1-19025 0 0 TOTAL FUNDING SO $58,000 SO $6,744 $51,256 $51,256 SO SO SO SO 558,000 TOTAL UNFUNDED 551,256 IS PROPOSED TO BE REAPPROPRIATED TO FY 90-91. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS OCCURRING AFTER 7/1/90 NOTE: CONSTRUCTION OF THE PLAYING AREA IS PROPOSED FOR FY 90-91 FROM THE EXISTING STATE GRANT. ADDITIONAL FUNDS FROM CIP 89-506 WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF LIGHTS TO COMPLETE THIS PROJECT. PROPOSED PROJECT FUNDING (1) PER CAPITA GRANT NO. 88-1-19025 (2) R -Z -H GRANT NO. BB -19-384 (3) 1986 PARKLANDS GRANT NO. 86-1-19095 $58,000 7,181 4,128 $69,309 Attachment "B" BUDGET MIDYEAR REVISED FUNDING SOURCES (7/1/90) REAPPROP. DATE REVISION DATE BUDGET 150 GRANT FUND 0 51,256 8/14/90 51,256 PER CAPITA GRANT 0 TOTAL SO 551,256 SO 551,256 NOTE: CONSTRUCTION OF THE PLAYING AREA IS PROPOSED FOR FY 90-91 FROM THE EXISTING STATE GRANT. ADDITIONAL FUNDS FROM CIP 89-506 WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF LIGHTS TO COMPLETE THIS PROJECT. PROPOSED PROJECT FUNDING (1) PER CAPITA GRANT NO. 88-1-19025 (2) R -Z -H GRANT NO. BB -19-384 (3) 1986 PARKLANDS GRANT NO. 86-1-19095 $58,000 7,181 4,128 $69,309 Attachment "B" Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 6, 1990 Regular Meeting of November 13, 1990 RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE MANIACI INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. AS THE CITY'S HEALTH INSURANCE BROKER RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the attached Services Agreement with Maniaci Insurance Services, Inc. to provide employee health insurance brokerage services. BACKGROUND: The City provides group coverages for Medical, Dental, Vision, Psychological/Mental Health, Life, and Long Term Disability insurances to all civil service employees. These coverages renew each year in December. The level of benefits available to employees and contributions toward payment of premiums are governed by the individual Memoranda of Understanding with the bargaining units. Since approximately 1981, the City has placed its employee benefit coverages through Maniaci Insurance Services. Since the City had not considered other brokers during that time, a Request for Proposals (RFP) was circulated to interested health benefits insurance brokerage firms. Information regarding covered employees and the current benefits structure was also provided to the firms in order that they could approach insurance underwriters and obtain coverage quotations. ANALYSIS: Proposals were solicited from the following seven firms: Associated Risk Services, Corp. - Robert French Insurance Cal-Surance Associates, Inc. Maniaci Insurance Services, Inc. PGA Insurance Services, Inc. TPF&C - A Towers Perrin Company Western Group Agencies, Inc. Of those seven, four responded to the RFP by submitting the requested firm information and quotations for proposed coverages. The attached matrix describes the information contained in the proposals. Submitting firms were evaluated on their responses to the information requested in the RFP (copy attached) as well as comments relating to the level of service provided by the firm to current and previous clients of the firm. - 1 - 1h As the initial review of the proposals indicated that each of the submitting firms has access to the same provider markets with no difference in quoted rates for benefits, the ability to provide service to the City and employees became the primary rating factor. Again, this was determined by contacting the client referrals provided by the submitting agency. Particular focus was placed on the responsivness of the Broker in resolving billing/payment errors and employee complaints regarding service. In the area of service, two firms stood out: Maniaci Insurance Services, Inc. and PGA Insurance Services, Inc. After interviewing both firms, the decision was made to recommend the City maintain its relationship with Maniaci Insurance Services, Inc. It should be noted that it is a common practice of cities who place employee benefits through a broker to retain the same broker. The advantage of this approach is to allow the broker to negotiate with the insurance companies for the best premium rates. If more than one broker is soliciting quotations, companies provide a "published rate" to all brokers and are not willing to negotiate the rate. At the time of this writing the City is finalizing renewal coverages and premiums. Staff is also meeting with employee organization representatives toward making modifications to the benefit structure in order to minimize premium increases. With modifications, it appears that the City will be able to renew coverage at $50,000 less than initial renewal quotations. Respectfully submitted: Robert A. Blackwood Risk Manager Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager FIRM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HEALTH INSURANCE BROKERAGE SERVICES MUNICIPAL EXPERIENCE OF OTHER MARKET INS. COMP. REFER. EXPERIENCE ASSIGNED PER. SERVICES REVIEW Assoc. Risk Did Not Submit Services, Inc. Cal-Surance Declined Assoc., Inc Robert French Did Not Submit Insurance Maniaci Ins. 10 yrs + 20+ yrs yes yes yes Comm/ A+ Services, Inc. Fee PGA Ins. 20 yrs + 15+ yrs yes yes yes Comm/ A Services, Inc. Fee Western Group 40 yrs + 38 yrs + yes yes yes Comm C Agencies, Inc. Towers Perrin Not traditional "broker". Provides consultation services in designing and reviewing employee benefits programs. Negotiates with carriers for renewal on "fee for service" basis. City o f2lermosarl3eacly September 28, 1990 Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254.3885 Cal-Surance Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 3459 2790 Skypark Drive Torrance, CA 90510 RE: Health Insurance Brokerage Services, and Request for Quotations Dear Sir: The City of Hermosa Beach is seeking Brokerage services and quotations for employee benefit coverages from qualified Brokers. The City's benefit year commences December 1st. Attached is a list of the City's current providers for employee benefits and a breakdown of the number of employees enrolled in each. Also in- dicated on the attached is the current premium structure for each coverage. The City has a personnel allocation of 178 employees eligible for health insurance benefits with an additional twelve (12) retired employees currently maintaining benefits. Also, at the present time there are eight (8) previous employees who are taking advantage of continuation coverage under C.O.B.R.A. Benefit booklets for the various policies currently maintained are enclosed as well as employee census data and lists of indi- viduals covered under the various plans. Benefits are negotiated with the City's employee organizations and any proposed change in coverage must be negotiated with those groups. Quotations must describe any changes from the current level of coverage (either increase or decrease in benefit). Previous to this time, the City's practice has been to work with a single broker for the renewal of the City's policies. The cur- rent broker is Maniaci Insurance Services, Inc. who has provided this service since approximately 1981. For this renewal, the City will entertain quotations from other qualified brokers. In addition to providing coverage quotations, Brokers are also required to submit information concerning the following areas: 1. Knowledge and experience of the firm and its personnel in serving public entities. Proposals should include a list of clients with an individual indicated as primary contact. 2. The experience and qualifications of the personnel who will be assigned to the City. Include resumes of individuals to be assigned to the City's account. 3. Ability to provide the City with other services such as notice of changes in the laws impacting on Employee Benefits and providing information on self-insurance options. 4. The firms ability to provide service to the City and its employees in the resolution of employee complaints regarding provider service; billing/payment errors; and other conflicts which may arise with the provider. 5. The firms ability to conduct a through market review toward providing the City with the best available health care options. 6. The firms philosophy regarding "due diligence" in investigating any proposed carrier's financial strength and commitment to providing health insurance benefits. 7. Assurance that the firm will provide evidence of professional liability insurance with a minimum limit of $1 million per occurrence, providing coverage for all errors and omissions, which the broker or his agents may make, resulting in a financial loss to the City. 8. The proposed method of compensation for providing brokerage services. The City of Hermosa Beach reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and to waive any irregularities of information therein. No obligation, either expressed or implied, exists on the part of the City of Hermosa Beach to make an award or to pay any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of pro- posals. Costs incurred are the sole responsibility of the pro- poser. All proposals will become the property of the City of Hermosa Beach. Information within the proposals will become public property subject to the disclosure law. The City of Her- mosa Beach reserves the right to make use of any information or ideas contained in the proposal. Interested parties may contact the individual noted below for further information. Three copies of the quotations should be sent to: Robert A. Blackwood City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Proposals and quotations must be submitted by October 18, 1990. This time limit may be waived if the market is unable to respond. Inquires should be directed to Robert A. Blackwood at (213) 318- 0200. Sincerely, Robert A. Blackwood, Director Personnel & Risk Management INSURANCE SBRVICS AGRBINENT This.:insurance .Service Agreement (hereinafter the "Agreement") :is made as. of `--this 1st day of December, 1990, by and between Maniaci Insurance Services,' Inc., a ..California corporation `(teteinafter- "Agent") and the City of Hermosa Beach, California (hereinafter '"Cityn) . RBCrraxs -111BZREAs, Agent 'is.an :experienced ptovidaer . of Insurance Services and enjoys theresourcesand experience toprovide.. to -=-11poa City all of.the services set forth herein; and WEERE S, Agent desires and is wiling .to be retained by City the terms : and -Subject .to . the - covenants _and: Conditions set forth herein; and WHEREAS, City desires to be 'assured of the association and services.: of Agent for City. - AST NOW, ..TEERZFORE, _. in ..consideration of the mutual texas, Covenants mid > conditions. hereinafter -set forth, the parties do hereby agree as follows: 1. ,Agent -in -Fact. .. : City. ..2aereby retazns : agent as .City's. Agent. -in -Fact for _the: -purpose of., -advising,. -managing, directing and administrating HO) -08-1990 17:O5 FROM Maniaci Insurance Service TO 3726186 P.03 _City'snow existing..: and.. hereafter initiated insurance -related needs, :.as .hereinafter defined. ;__2. Term. -.... �.:.:. The term :of._this Agreement cha11: be for a period of three (3) years commencing on The date hereof, and ending on December 1,. 1993, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section ? below. 3 _ Compensation. .-For all services. render by Agent: under this • Agreement, city shall deem Agent its exclusive insurance provider...„City .aalcno'.tledges _ that. ;Agent'sr.monetazy .c mLpensation shall stew solely .from commissions paid Agent by- the insurance companies chosen by City to provide insurance coverage to City. 4 . Scope of Duties. '(a) .':.Agent :"<too 1 have. such . duties as shall be . assigned .to it :.from time .::to time by City's Administration commensurate with Agent's experience and. responsibilities in the position_ for:whieh it -retained pursuant to Section 1 hereof. (b) Agent shall.. devote the time,abilities, resources energy.- -necessary.. ta..arhimmvn the .:.faithful performance ;of GB:\ssraeca ts\manlsei.mb 2 . 11-8-90 4:44m N0) -08-199O 17:06 FROM Maniaci Insurance Service TO 3726185 P.04 'the -duties 'assigned- to: it and. to the' promotion and .forwarding . of .the ..bast -.interests of .City. Subject'tothe-snpervision and -recommendations of City, ,Agent's duties under'this Agreement shall include, but not be limited ted to, the duties set forth as follows: "(1). :-The review and analysis of City's existing or ' . cvntetplated :_Insurance :Policies, Employes Benefit_ Plans and/or Profit Sharing and/or Pension Plans �'" (collectively, . -.".thy Programsn) (2) .The preparation and submission of written ::: :reports :-and . • ecommendations .setting .. _forth the results of Agents review and -analysis of the Programs and addressing changes or modifications to individual programs, -:.if. any... -which Agent concludes would be in the 3 aest -;interests of City; (3) RQpresenting City:as Agent -in -Pact for purposes: of .,solicitation 'and ..negotiation of . alternative souses. cf' insurance -.related services or. modifications to any. Program - as the ?est -interests -of City dictate; (4) The.. daily---opexatlonal management and administration of the Programs. . Representations and c�ants of Anent. .-(a) ' _�,gent�:.is �. �aiiioraia �eorpo tion .in good- -standing has .acquired and 'presently saaintains _ all requisite GBAagreements\mar►;ac .rpb 3 11-3-90 4:42 NOV—OP-1990 17:07 FROM Maniacs Insurance Service TO 37�b1Sb P.05 licenses, 'permits and/or.: certification necessary and lawful _ for..the- proper end :-'1-awful.. performance of Agent • s : duties •contemplated: hereby. • {b) Agent bias .sufficient :resources, personnel :and experience to lawfully and properly perform.. all of the duties.imposed upon it under this Agreement. (c) Agent does not practice law and enters into this Agreement in reliance upon City's representation that the .. services: contemplat*-d hereby include .: no function - or . duty which `could"be° construed as the' unauthorized practice.'of law. - A.gent rQpre_sents that . it .:will . obtain the counsel and advice of'liconted practitioners' of law with sufficient ,„:.expertise ,mod::.skill when asked to dorso by City_.. or if such counsel and advice is deemed appropriate by Agent. The cost ;of such counsel, if incurred at the request of City, shall '.be passed along to City in the form of a separate invoice submitted 'zaonthly 'along With all appropriate documentation (d) Agent expressly'. disclaims any responsibility for '.fuse .financial' solvency, `_:ability to- pay :`claims, or -adequacy of capitaX....reserves of any. insurer: now or hereafter doing business' with' : City. ''` .gent. affil -utilize best :efforts -.commensurate with the `obligations imposed hereunder to investigate each present or contemplated insurer's current and/or projected financial solvency,-ability.to pay claims and . capital ...reserves .._':.This obligation:. to ;'.investigate . shall 'not create a duty tc .'access • and obtain information beyond G8: Vvr tsUor ixi -rpb 4 _ 11-8-90 4:42 that contained in the subject insurer's disclosure statements and other documents of public record actually provided City by Agent. 6. Representations and Covenants of City. (a) City is an incorporated municipality in good standing, has obtained all of the necessary and lawful approval, ratification or consent to enter into this Agreement and is capable of performing all of City's obligations contemplated hereby and that the individual whose signature is affixed hereto is authorized to execute this Agreement and to bind City to and under the terms and provisions hereof. (b) City represents that the duties of Agent contemplated hereby does not include the practice of law and that the services contemplated hereby include no function which could be construed as the unauthorized practice of law. (c) City represents and warrants that Agent shall be held harmless from any responsibility whatsoever arising from or in connection with the financial solvency, ability to pay claims or adequacy of capital reserves of any insurer now or hereafter doing business with the City. Further, City will indemnify and hold Agent harmless for any legal action at law or in equity arising from or in connection with an 5 insurer's financial solvency, ability to pay claims or adequacy of capital reserves; provided, however, that Agent has in good faith made and presented the disclosure pursuant to Section 5(b) hereof. City shall further indemnify and hold Agent harmless for any legal action at law or in equity arising from or in connection with Agent's performance of its duties and obligations under this Agreement. (d) The provisions of Section 6(c) hereof shall be void and inapplicable to any instance a willful breach of duty by Agent, habitual neglect of duty by Agent (as determined by prevailing industry standards consistently applied), or any. act of dishonesty, gross carelessness or gross misconduct. This provision shall not apply to situations where individual employees or agents of Agent have engaged in unapproved, unratified conduct of the type addressed in this Section 6(d), unless the attendant circumstances dictate that the individual employee's or agent's conduct is properly imputed to Agent under California law. 7. Termination. (a) This Agreement may be terminated at any time by the mutual written agreement of the parties hereto. 6 HO.) -08-1950 17:09 FROM Man 1ac1 1n ur.'rice Set -i? ice TO 3726186 8. . _....Transfer and Assicrrut.. This Agreement:is-personal.as to Agent and shall. not be • assigned . or transferred by Agent without . the prior ' written consent of `City. This• agreement -fth*l 1 be -binding upon and shall inure to the benefit`_ of- the parties hereto and their respective permitted successors and assigns. . Severability. _ = -Nothing -contained herein' shall be construed :.to require the .conisjon. of any act contrary to law. should there be any conflict between any provisions hereof and any present or future 'statute, law, ordinance,' regulation or other pronouncement having the force of laws ._thelatter shall prevail, but the provision of this Agreement affected thereby shall be curtailed and limited only:.to the extent necessary to bring it within the requirements of the law, and the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. :10. 'G overs ing Law. This Agreement is made under and shall be construed pursuant- to the laws of the State of California and any action arising from or it connection with this Agreement shall be subject.. to the eXClusive jurisdiction of the Courts therein. ;l]..._ counterparts. This Agreemeut-.may .be . exec ted _in several counterparts G8:\mgratments\monlaci.rpb 7 -- 11-8-40 6:62pm NOL1-08-1990 17:09 FROM Maniac' Insurance Service TO 3726186 P.09 `and a11..documents soexecuted.`. shall --constitute one agreement, binding on all. of .the .-parties hereto, . uo+ ithstanding ..that all of the . plies .did not sign. t 1 :,torr..... . 12. Entire Avregment. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior oral or written agreements, arrantionentsi'and understandings 'With- respect thereto. No representation, promise, •inducement,. statement or. intention .has been made by aziy party _ hereto that is not embodied herein, and no_ party shell be bound by or liable for any alleged representation, promise, Inducement,' dor statement not so sat forth herein. 13. j&odi£ication. This Agreement may be modified, amended, superseded, or canceled, and any of the terms, covenant, 'representations, warranties or .conditioQLs :hereof may -be waived only by a written instrument executed by ::the. party or parties to ba bo ind by any such modification, amexaent, •. supersession, ' cancellation, . or waiver. 14. ALttornevs' Fees and Costs. In the event of any dispute arising outof the subject- -matter. ;of _this `Agreement; : the prevailing party. shall recover, in addition to any other .damages assessed, _its- attorneys' fees and 43:tapr ntAmvnieci.r b 8 11-240 4:42pa HOU -08-1990 17:10 FROM M ..n i ac i Insur._.nce Service TO 3725186 P. 10 court . costs incurred inlitigating. or .:otherwise.. settling or resolving such dispute. ':- in : coning this Agreement, : none of the ..p&i±jes hereto shall have any term or:provision construed against such party solely ` by reason of such party_ having-'_ drafted the same. 15. a ver. The waiver by either of the parties,. express or i�pUed, of'any :right under this Agreement or any failure to perform . under this . Agreement by the . other party, shall not constitute or be deemed as a; waiver of any otherright under this Agreement or of any other failure to perform under this Agreement by .the other party, Whether of a similar or dissimilar nature. -16. Cumulative Rem,ediei. Each and all of the several rights and remedies _provided. in this. Agreement, or by law or in equity, shall be cumulative, :and no = one of :.them shall . be exclusive . of any other right or remedy, and the exercise of any one: of such rights or remedies shall not be deemed a waiver of, or an election to exercise, any other such right or -.remedy. 1.7. Headings. The section and other headings contained in this Agreement . are ::-for .reference ., purposes „only_ and. shall .not . in any • way affect the -meaning - and ::interpretatio¢r-of-_this Agreement. es:lagraoraentAminieci_rpb 9 17.8.90 4142pm a IN WITNESS..HHER£oFt the partieshereto have caused this .?�FlQYment . . Agreement ,to_: be:executad as ot: the date :.first set forth .above. " ."AGICaT„ Maniaci Instance Services, Inc. -:The Cityof Hermosa Beach, California ■ T City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorney sa:isoreeme tstuat;aet.rpb 10 11-8-90 4:4. October 31, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 13, 1990 AWARD OF BID FOR PICKUP TRUCK AND UTILITY BODY Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council award a bid to Golden State Ford for the purchase of a 1991 1/2 ton pickup truck at a cost of $11,496.00 (tax and license included). Background: In preparing the FY 1990-92 budget the staff requested an $18,000 appropriation to purchase a new 1/2 ton pickup truck with utility body. The City Council adopted the budget on June 26, 1990 which included a $15,000 appropriation in the Parks Division to purchase a used truck with a new utility body for $15,000. Staff began the search for a used truck but could not find an acceptable used truck. After discussions with the City Manager, the staff advertised for a new truck and utility body, keeping in mind the $15,000 limit. A copy of all bid package information is available for review in the City Clerk's office. Analysis: The analysis is divided as follows: 1. Advertising For Pickup Truck 2. Utility Body 3. Fiscal Impact 4. Summary 1. Advertising For Pickup Truck The staff prepared specifications for purchase of a new truck and advertised the request for bids in the Easy Reader. Seven (7) sealed bids were received by the City Clerk on October 25, 1990. The bids were publicly opened and read aloud. The results of the pickup truck bids were as follows and include all applicable fees, taxes and manufacturer rebates: - 1 - �I 1. Golden State Ford (1991) 2. Clippinger Chevrolet (1991) 3. Good Buick -GMC Trucks, Inc. (1990) 4. Chaffee Motors (1991) 5. Thorson (1990) 6. Downey Auto Center (1991) 7. Camino Real Chevrolet (1991) $11,496.00 $12,096.23 $12,254.25 $12,384.60 $12,740.61 $13,086.48 $14,623.21 Mike Flaherty, Crewleader for the Parks Department, inspected the low bidder's pickup truck. This pickup truck from Golden State Ford meets or exceeds all specifications in the bid package. 2. Utility Body The staff obtained four (4) bids for a new utility body. The bids include all applicable fees, taxes and manufacturer rebates and are as follows: 1. Royal Truck Body, Inc. 2.. Trojan 3. Harbor 4. Douglass Closed Top $ 2,132.86 $ 2,707.25 $ 2,484.13 $ 2,678.36 Open Top $ 2,346.36 $ 2,857.06 $ 2,631.81 $ 2,888.66 Pending City Council approval of a new truck, staff will issue a purchase order to Royal Truck Body, Inc. (the low bidder) in the amount of $2,346.36 for an open top utility body. It has been determined by Mike Flaherty, of the Parks Department, that there is additional storage in the open top configuration and the access to the storage is easier in the open top utility body. 3. Fiscal Impact Amount budgeted: $15,000.00 Truck Utility Body $11,496.00 $ 2,346.36 Total: $13,842.36 Amount under budget: $ 1,157.64 4. Summary The staff identified a need to replace a 1970 truck and had estimated a cost of $18,000. The City Manager also saw a need to replace the truck with a newer model, but because of budget constraints he suggested that the staff look at used trucks. To accomplish the goal of a new, lower maintenance vehicle, the staff prepared a bare bones specification package for a new truck and received a bid under the budgeted amount. • It is recommended that it will be cost effective to purchase a new truck and utility body rather than continuing to search for a used vehicle which would require engine maintenance and body work. This recommendation is consistent with the City Council goals of: - Search for "cost-effective" improvements for City Departments. A new truck will reduce the mechanic maintenance workload. - Improve the image of Hermosa Beach. A visible representation that the City is upgrading its equipment. Alternatives: 1. Reject the low bidders. 2. Rebid the project. 3. Drop the project; however, this does not procure the necessary equipment. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Conklin Administrative Aide Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Cop e►lan ��/ Finance Director Concur: kAIAIMAI AY on Antich Director of Pub�l is Works 1(evin B. Northcraft City Manager November 6, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the City Council of November 13, 1990 HERMOSA BEACH ROTARY CLUB TREE DECORATION RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by staff that Council approve the decorating of the Rotary Tree located on the Community Center Lawn for the holiday season. BACKGROUND In 1963, the Rotary Club of Hermosa Beach donated the pine tree located on Community Center lawn (Pacific Coast Highway side) in honor of the "children of Hermosa Beach." In years past, this tree has been decorated for the holiday season with lights and ornaments made by the children. • ANALYSIS The Hermosa Beach Rotary. Club is prepared to donate the funds necessary to provide lights for the tree and have already trimmed the tree in preparation for the decorations. The plan for 1990 would be to have the Rotary Club purchase the lights; to have students in Hermosa Beach schools and park programs make decorations for the tree and to have City Public Works staff hang the lights and ornaments on the tree prior to the City's Tree Lighting Ceremony on December 4. Both staff and the Rotary Club feel that renewing the tradition of decorating the tree would add to the festive appearance of the City and would provide a spirited and fun eventVHermosa Beach's for youth. Concu : evi. Nort raft Ci ):pager Anth• y Antich, erector Public Works Dep rtment Respectfully Submitted, Mary C 'ooney, Director Dep . •f Community Resources November 01, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council November 13, 1990 DESIGNATION OF THE LOS ANGLES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (LACTC) AS THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council adopt the accompanying resolution designating the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) as the Congestion Management Agency for Los Angeles County. Background The passage of Proposition 111 providing for an increase in the gas tax also triggered the passage of Assembly Bill No. 1791 which mandates the development and implementation of a Congestion Management Program (CMP) in all the State's urbanized counties. The State laws require the creation or designation of a Congestion Management Agency (CMA) to prepare the update the County -wide CMP and monitor its progress and implementation. State legislation requires that this agency will either be a County transportation commission, or some other agency designated by resolutions, adopted by the County Board of Supervisors and the city councils of a majority of the cities representing a plurality of the population in the incorporated area of the County. Analysis The analysis is divided as follows: 1. AB 1791 2. Who wants to be the Congestion Management Agency (CMA)? 3. Who has adopted resolution designating LACTC as CMA? 4. Potential Effects to Hermosa Beach 5. Summary 1. AB 1791 and the Congestion Management Program AB 1791 introduced by Assembly Members Nate and Clute was signed by the Governor on March 12, 1990. The legislative counsel's digest is available for review in the City Clerk's office. AB 1791 requires either the county transportation commission, or another designated public agency, to adopt a Congestion Management program (CMP) by December 1, 1991, or risk losing state transportation funding. Five primary elements of the CMP are as follows: - Traffic level -of -service (LOS) standards; - Public transit service and coordination standards; - Trip reduction and travel demand requirements that promote alternative transportation methods, such as car pools, van pools, transit, bicycling, park-and-ride lots, flexible work hours, parking management strategies, as well as improvement in the jobs/housing balance; - Programs that analyze the impacts of local land -use decisions on roads, highways, and transit systems. - Seven-year capital improvement program consistent with the transportation -related air quality program to reduce vehicle emissions, maintain and improve the LOS and transit performance standards, and mitigate regional transportation impacts identified by the land use analysis. AB 1791 specifies that CMPs be developed in consultation with the regional planning agency (for the South Coast Air Basin, this organization is the Southern California Association of Governments), regional transportation providers, local governments, California Department of Transportation, and the air pollution control agency, (which is the AQMD in the South Coast Air Basin). 2. Who wants to be the Congestion Management Agency (CMA)? a) LACTC: At its July 25, 1990 meeting, the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) acknowledged that they would be willing to be the Congestion Management Agency for the Los Angeles County. The LACTC has in turn requested that all the incorporated cities in the County consider the adoption of a resolution supporting this resolve. Because LACTC is the County's Transportation Commission, which is a prerequisite to be named as a CMA, and they have the organizational capabilities plus experienced personnel, it is appropriate that they be designated as the Congestion Management Agency for Los Angeles. b) How about others? I spoke to Diane Perrine Project Manager, South Bay Area Team of(LACTC) on October 2, 1990 and she said no other agency is in the running. The three viable options are: 1. LACTC 2. LA County Public Works Department 3. Creation of a new agency 3. Who has adopted resolution designating LACTC as CMA? As of October 2, 1990, County Public Works says that the County Board of Supervisors has not designated LACTC as CMA at the present time. How about other City Councils? See attachment listing all cities as of who have confirmed LACTC as CMA. 4. Potential Effects to Hermosa Beach On October 22, 1990, I sent a letter to LACTC requesting answers to the following questions. Answers from (LACTC) are attached. Should the City Council adopt the attached resolution 1. Does the City Council relinquish or diminish its sovereignty over Pacific Coast Highway? 2. Does the City Council relinquish or diminish its sovereignty over Artesia Boulevard? 3. Will the CMA demand and/or request or suggest any parking removals along the west side of Pacific Coast Highway? 4. What control will the CMA have over Pacific Coast Highway or the other City streets? 5. Summary LACTC appears to be the front runner in obtaining approval from other cities. Adoption of the attached resolution is consistent with the city's circulation element of the General Plan. Alternatives Other alternatives considered by staff and available, to City Council are: 1. Do not adopt the resolution 2. Modify the resolution Respectfully submitted, Concur: Anthony Antich Kevin B. Nort Public Works Dirjctor City Manager raft RESOLUTION NO. 90- 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ACKNOWLEDGING THE DESIGNATION OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2 TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AS THE LOS ANGELES CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) AGENCY FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY 3 WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65089 requires the 4 development of a Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles 5 County which includes the County and every city in the County; 6 and 7 WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65089 provides that the 8 Congestion Management Plan shall be developed either by the 9 County Transportation Commission, or by another public agency, 10 as designated by the County Board of Supervisors and the City 11 Councils of a majority of the cities representing a majority 12 the population in the incorporated area of the County; and 13 WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission 14 by action taken on July 25, 1990 has supported its designation 15 as the Congestion Management Agency; 16 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Hermosa 17 Beach does hereby acknowledge the designation of the Los 18 Angeles County Transportation Commission as the Congestion 1911 Management Program (CMP) Agency for Los Angeles County. 20 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of November 1990. 21 22 23 PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California 24 25 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 26 27 City Clerk City Attorney 28 RECEIVED O C i :; 1 1990 PUBIC W(1RKS DEPT. October 25, 1990 Mr. Anthony Antich Director of Public Works City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885 Dear Mr. Antich: ‘4, LACTC Los Angeles County Transportation Commission 818 West Seventh Street Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel 213 623-1194 Fax 213 236-4805 SUBJECT: LOCAL PARKING AND THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY. Thank you for your letter asking for information about the rela- tionship of the Congestion Management Program (CMP) and the on - street parking on the Pacific Coast Highway in Hermosa Beach. We have answered your questions in the same order as you posed them. 1. Does the City Council relinquish or diminish its sovereignty over Pacific Coast Highway? The Congestion Management Program does not change the authori- ty or sovereignty of either the state or the city over any road. Because it is a state highway, the route will have to be monitored and a level of service will need to be adopted by the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) in consultation with the city and Caltrans. 2. Does the City Council relinquish or diminish it sovereignty over Artesia Boulevard? Same answer as above. 3. Will the CMA demand and/or request or suggest any parking removals along the west side of Pacific Coast Highway? The CMA does not have the authority to demand the removal of parking on any streets. 4. What control will the CMA have over Pacific Coast Highway or the other City Streets? The CMA will only become involved in the Pacific Coast High- way, Artesia Boulevard, or any city streets when a capital project is submitted for funding by your city or Caltrans for inclusion in the CMP seven year Capital Improvement Program or as part of a locally generated deficiency plan. Leading the Way to Greater Mobility Mr. Anthony Antich October 25, 1990 Page 2 We hope that the City of Hermosa Beach will join the other 56 Los Angeles County cities (representing over 6.5 million people) which have formally concurred with the designation of the LACTC as the CMA for the County. We will be happy to attend your council meet- ing to answer any further questions or address additional concerns you may have regarding the designation and a responsibilities of the Congestion Management Agency. If we can provide you with any additional information, please don't hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, 17/& -&-?) k(//, VICTOR KAMHI Program Manager, South Bay Area HB1/vk4 vk:me CONGESTION MANAGEMENT SAN GABRIEL VALLEY POPULATION CITY 80,740 48,007 39,844 64,481 816 32,699 42,453 28,053(1980) 20,536 104,189 47,257 812 992 36,450 30,827 34,792 60,567 129,518 129,315 51,156 32,439 36,760 12,920 10,727 20,100 23,759 30,769 28,905 94,391 Alhambra Arcadia Azusa Baldwin Park Bradbury Claremont Covina Diamond Bar Duarte El Monte Glendora Industry Irwindale La Puente La Verne Monrovia Monterey Park Pasadena Pomona Rosemead San Dimas San Gabriel San Marino Sierra Madre South El Monte South Pasadena Temple City Walnut West Covina SAN FERNANDO VALLEY' 19,850 Agoura Hills 95,000 174,800 1,980 Burbank Glendale Hidden Hills STATUS AGENCY Update 10/29/90 10:00 AM Passed Passed Passed Passed No (will reconsider) Passed Passed Passed Passed Passed Passed Passed Passed Passed Passed Passed Passed Passed Passed Pending. Passed Passed Passed, conditioned on participation Scheduled 10/23 Passed To be scheduled Passed Passed Passed Passed scheduled 10/23 -Passed Pull Council heard this on August 27th and took no action per Cheria Paglia; it will not be heard again. Z 4: HOt/39 VSOW83H A.I04-319179E3EL3 Wd60c17 06-5-II:LIOt, .ieido3aIal XO�J3X :,19 INS Page 2. SAN FEI !TANDO VALLEY (Continued) 20,500 LaCanada- Held. Flintridge 88,:700 Lancaster To be scheduled 4 56,500 Palmdale Passed 20,650 San Fernando Passed 121,200 Santa Clarita Passed 8,575 Westlake Village No action WESTSIDE 41,500 Culver City Passed 34,304 Beverly Hills Scheduled for October. 38,000 West Hollywood Passed 97,212 Santa Monica Passed CENTRAL 3,433,600 Los Angeles Passed SOUTH BAY 2,470 Avalon Passed 83,000 Carson Passed 51,200 Gardena Not scheduled. . 16,000 El Segundo No. 12,500 . Hawaiian Gardens Rescheduled. 67,800 Hawthorne Passed 19,650 Hermosa Beach Unscheduled 102,600 Inglewood _. Scheduled for October 9 Page 3. SOUTH BAY (Continued) 27,650 Lawndale Passed 419,700 Long Beach Passed 20,950 Lomita Passed 35,100 Manhattan Beach Passed 15,000 Palos Verdes Estates Unscheduled 46,050 Rancho Palos Verdes Passed 8/21 65,100 Redondo Beach Scheduled for 11/6 2,090 Rolling Hills Asked for another packet for new CM to review 7,825 Rolling Hills Estates Passed 8,175 Signal Hill Scheduled for October 16 142,500 Torrance Passed SOUTHEAST 15,000 Artesia Waiting for copy of Norwalk's resolution. 28,650 Bell Passed 38,800 Bell Gardens Passed 61,300 Bellflower No action taken. 58,400 Cerritos Scheduled for November 11,850 Commerce Passed 93,400 Compton 20,400 Cudahy e ft: Nodaa denwMau 11 Tn.7IAbOR7.Rl7 Council action delayed Passed ! nR_C _I I'IIAI IAT�InlAI I Vt J V •10 line Page 4. SOUTHEAST (Continued) 87,200 Downey 52,000 Huntington Park 4 5,450 La Habra Heights 42,900 La Mirada 76,700 Lakewood 54,500 Lynwood 24,800 Maywood 59,300 Montebello 91,600 Norwalk 45,700 Paramount 58,300 Pico Rivera 16,400 Santa Fe Springs 79,800 South Gate 80 Vernon 75,600 Whittier L A County JW2:CMA Scheduled for November Passed On agenda for 10/11 Passed. No action taken. Scheduled for 10/16 No action taken. Passed. Passed. Passed. Passed. Passed. Passed. Scheduled for 10/16 Study session 11/13. Scheduled for action 11/20. Referred to Public Works staff. Not yet scheduled for Board action. 6,589,873 Population of cities that passed CMA (56) 955,201 7,770,135 8,725,336 Unincorporated population Total incorporated population Total population November 5, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council November 13, 1990 REQUEST FROM THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REGARDING HOLIDAY ACTIVITIES Recommendation: That the City Council approve: (1) the attached annual request from the Chamber of Commerce to; (a) place a bag over all silver post meter in the City to allow three hours free parking, (bags are purchased by the Chamber) from December 1, 1990 until January 1, 1990. (b) authorize the closure of Pier Avenue from Hermosa Avenue to the Pier Head, on Tuesday December 4, 1990 between the hours of 4:30pm and 7:30pm with enough barricades provided to block off both ends of Pier Avenue for the Holiday Lighting Ceremonies. Background: The Chamber of Commerce has made this now traditional request of the City Council for many years, in order to promote increased patronage of the business in the community, and citizen participation in the activities. Analysis: The City Council has traditionally granted this request. If approved, the City may need to purchase at an approximately cost of eighty dollars an additional 500 bags as replacements due to vandalism and weather. 1 m Alternatives: Deny this request. CONCUR: x4. Cyri'thia A.Wilson, G.S. Director (Kevin B. Nort craft, City Manager Respectfully submitted, Cynthia A.Wilson General Services Director A •.ny Antich Public Works Director Steve Wisniewski Public Safety Director 2 b L. Staten G.S. Coordinator Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director HERMOSA BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 323 PIER AVENUE/P.O. BOX 404 HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 (213) 376-0951 October 11, 1990 Mayor Chuck Sheldon and City Council Members City Hall/Civic Center Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Honorable Mayor and Council Members: The Christmas season is fast approaching and the Chamber of Commerce is planning events to make this a prosperous and enjoyable holiday season. To create goodwill and a worry free shopping atmosphere, we would like to request that all silver posted meters be bagged from December 1, until January 1, 1991. We also request that three hour free parking be allowed. This year once again, we are planning to have our annual Christmas mixer and lighting ceremonies together as one event. On Tuesday, December 4. -from 5:00 to 7:30 pm the festivities will start with Santa setting up shop at Loretto Plaza for children's holiday wishes and refreshments. The remainder of the outside ceremonies will consist of an inspirational message, caroling and the mayor officially lighting up the downtown. In addition to the above festivities we are planning a mixer in the Bank of America, 90 Pier Ave..from 5:30 to 8:00 pm. We will need permission from the City Council to close Pier Ave. from Hermosa Ave. to the Pier Head on the above date between the hours of 4:30 to 7:30. We will also need some barricades to block the flow of traffic in that area. We look forward to your favorable consideration of these holiday plans. Sincerely, BJ Conte Special Event Coordinator cc: Tony Antich, Director Public Works Richard Contreras, General Services r ® l�. .-. 1 r November 6, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 13, 1990 SUBJECT: WAVE DIAL -A -RIDE ANNUAL SUMMARY REPORT INITIATED BY STAFF PURPOSE: FOR CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION Recommendation Receive and file. Background The City is now receiving an annual report on the City's Dial -A -Ride program from the contractor. Analysis Attached is the annual report concerning various aspects of the City's Dial -A -Ride program. Several items are of concern: 1. The accident rate is high. The Redondo / Hermosa Beach staff have discussed this matter as well as other problems with the contractor and requested termination of certain employees. These employees have been terminated. Also a new manager will be employed with which the staff is satisfied. Also other problems are being resolved regarding service quality, and staff is looking forward to better service in the future which should increase riderships. 2. Ridership is down in Hermosa Beach for the first quarter of this year. This factor is probably a result of in and out migration and death rate for the year and as noted above quality of service. The ridership will fluctuate from year to year. More advertisement may be necessary to inform new arrivals, and individuals, who recently lost use of their personnel vehicles for a variety of reasons, to become aware of the program. Staff will be placing a notice in the City newsletter, and looking for other ways of advertising. However, it should be noted that ridership in 89-90 was higher than 88-89. 3. The miles per gallon of gas is low, and at this time the possible use of other fuels has not been examined. Staff will contact the Redondo Beach staff, and the contractor to explore alternate fuel possibilities in the future. CONCUR: evin B. North» aft City Manager C_ Resp •c,.t Michael Sctiubach Planning Director P/ccsrwave �c,T 1ggn ANNUAL SUMMARY REPORT THE WAVE July 1, 1989 through June 30, 1990 Submitted to: CITY OF REDONDO BEACH 415 Diamond Street Redondo Beach, California 90277. By: COMMUNITY TRANSIT SERVICES; INC. 201 East Sandpointe, Suite. 800 Santa Ana, California 92707 COMMUNITY TRANSIT SERVICES, INC. COMMUNITY TRANSIT SERVICES, INC. A Subsidiary of DAVE Transportation Services, Inc. 201 E. Sandpointe, Suite 800 • Santa Ana, CA 92707 • (714) 549-3283 • FAX (714) 755-5552 August 30, 1990 File: C:CA-Redondo Beach RJW-09050-WP/GS-FC Ms. Cara Rice Transportation Grants Manager CITY OF REDONDO BEACH 415 Diamond Street Post Office Box 20 Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Dear Cara: In accordance with the terms of our agreement, enclosed is the Annual Summary Report on the operation of The WAVE for the period July 1, 1989 through June 30, 1990. If you have any questions or comments on the report, please let us know. Very truly yours, RJW/gs Wilson esident/Chief Operating Officer Enclosure xc: W. Fritz M. Jackson T. Slimmer 3 ANNUAL SUMMARY REPORT THE WAVE SUMMARY During the past fiscal year (July 1, 1989 through June 30; 1990), 13,195 revenue hours were provided to the residents of Hermosa and Redondo Beach. This level of service produced transportation for 69,620 passengers. While the total passengers during this period were only 2 percent higher than the previous fiscal year, productivity increased significantly during the past year. Productivity -- the number of passengers carried per in-service revenue hour -- increased from 4.89 to 5.25. While this 8 percent increase is meaningful in itself, the most important significance is that the system meets and exceeds the productivity standard of 5.0 established by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission for demand -responsive systems. The majority of passengers are from Redondo Beach and the system is predominately used by senior citizens. The satellite locations, used mainly for medical trips, are used quite frequently. The fleet traveled a total of 182,562 in-service revenue miles and was involved in 9 preventable accidents. The ratio of immediate -response trips has decreased, and most trip requests are for deferred or reservation service. This ratio of scheduled/unscheduled trips may effect on-time performance. The performance standard of 90 percent of all pre -scheduled trips being picked up within the window of no more than 10 minutes early to not more than 15 minutes late is being met. However, the standard that all immediate response trips be picked up within 30 minutes has not been met on a consistent basis. Overall, during the past year we feel that the system has performed well and has met, and in some instances exceeded, expectations. An in-depth analysis of many aspects of this service is presented in this report. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The WAVE is a general public dial -a -ride system serving the cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and selected satellite points outside of the service area. The service is provided utilizing 2 lift -equipped vehicles, 2 standard vans, 3 sedans and 1 stationwagon. the service is available to the general public Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Transportation services are available for senior citizens and disabled passengers seven days a week from 6:00 a.m. to midnight. It is the intent of the cities and CTS to provide the maximum level of service to the maximum number of passengers in the most cost-effective and efficient manner. Although the service has an allocation of 16,500 service hours, 13,195 revenue hours were provided. This efficient use of scheduling vehicle hours has resulted in higher productivity and overall lower cost of the WAVE operation. COMMUNITY TRANSIT SERVICES, INC. _ tL- 1 The WAVE offers four types of service: • Reservation Service - Trips can be scheduled 24 hours in advance up to one week in advance. • Deferred Service - A specific time request made the same day. • Subscription Service - Standing order for request at a specific time and/or day. • Immediate Response Service - Same day service. There are also goals and objectives associated with the various levels of service. Performance standards have been established for the various types of service. For immediate -response service, a maximum wait time has been established. For all other advance reservation type service, a 25 minute pick-up window has been incorporated as a goal of the system. The latter objective has been consistently met. However, the goal of all immediate -responsive requests being picked up within 30 minutes 90 percent of the time has been less consistent. A more detailed discussion on these performance standards appears elsewhere in this report. Ridership during the past year slightly exceeded the previous year's total. The system carried 69,620, passengers during fiscal year 1989-90, compared to 68,446 passengers the previous year.. :Perhaps the most significant goal and objective that was achieved this past year was the productivity' rate of 5.25 passengers per in-service vehicle hour. This exceeds the standard of 5.0 passengers per hour as established by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission. REVENUE Farebox revenue for the fiscal year totalled $45,198. Approximately 51 percent of the revenues are generated by the senior citizen fare of 50 cents. The seniors, however, account for approximately 66 percent of the total ridership. The second highest source of farebox revenue is from the general public fare of $1.00. A total of $16,392 was collected from the basic general public fare. Coupons, the satellite fare of $1.50, and group fares account for approximately 7 percent of revenue. The average fare collected from the farebox for all passengers is 65 cents. PRODUCTIVITY Productivity is the number of passenger trips per service hour. It is perhaps the single. most important measure for a demand -responsive system. Productivity generally develops over the course of a project and then stabilizes after a certain period. Since the inception of The WAVE program, productivity has increased on an annual basis from 3.5 the first year to 4.89 during fiscal year 1988-89. During fiscal year 1989-90, the average monthly productivity was 5.25, with a high of 6.3 in July of 1989. Productivity met or exceeded the 5.0 standard each month with the exception. of May when a productivity rate of 4.95 passengers per hour was achieved. COMMUNITY TRANSIT SERVICES, INC. —S- 2 The achieved increases in productivity during the past year are due to several factors. During the summer months, The WAVE participates actively in transporting groups to recreational facilities in the service area. Productivity was highest during July and August when it reached 6.3 and 5.75 passengers per hour, respectively. Increases in productivity can be attributed to several other factors -- more efficient allocation of service hours and scheduling. Unlike scheduled transit, dial -a -ride programs should be flexible enough to meet customer demand.. When requests for service is high, the maximum number of vehicles should be placed into service. Conversely, when demand is low, vehicles should be removed from service. This serves two purposes. First it ensures that a high level of productivity is maintained, and, secondly, removing vehicles from service reduces costs. These hours can then either be treated as a cost -reducing method or saved hours can be utilized during future heavy demand periods. The key in any demand -responsive, dial -a -ride type service is in the ability to group passengers traveling in the same direction in the same time periods. It is also helpful that the service area has one or more high trip generators. There are several in the Redondo/Hermosa Beach service area. They include the Galleria Shopping Mall, El Camino College, and several of the satellite facilities including Skypark and Del Amo medical facilities. Dispatch staff strive to coordinate the scheduling of trip requests to accommodate the maximum number of passengers and attempt to organize these trips at certain times. It is felt that given the constraints on the service area, high percentage of senior riders, number and distance of satellite points, and traffic pattern in the area, the productivity rate of 5.25 is close to pushing the upper limits of what can reasonably be achieved. Control room staff will, however, continue to maximize fleet efficiency and effective scheduling. RIDERSHIP Total ridership for The WAVE during fiscal year 1989-90 totalled 69,620 passengers. Senior citizens are the predominate users of the service, accounting for 66 percent of total passengers. General public ridership traveling within the service area amounts to approximately 24. percent. The 'percent of trips traveling out of the service area to the various satellite points accounts for approximately 7 percent of all trip requests. The remaining 3 percent are passengers utilizing the various group rates. Ridership during the past year was highest during the first two months of the fiscal year. Average monthly ridership during the months of July and August was 7,031 riders. Average monthly ridership during the balance of the year. was 5,556 passengers (see Table 1). This increase during the summer months can be attributed to the high number of group trips. These group trips are utilized by day care centers and several schools in the area. The most frequently traveled destinations are the Redondo Pier, Hermosa Pier, and a local swimming lesson program. These trips can normally be accommodated without causing undo hardship on the general public and senior ridership. These trips are accommodated using additional vehicles, often driven by dispatch staff, using the larger capacity vans. During the .past year, 826 wheelchair passengers were transported. This . amounts to approximately 1.2 percent of the total ridership. The majority of wheelchair trips take place during the week and average approximately 3 trips per day. lfil COMMUNITY TRANSIT SERVICES, INC. —6— V TABLE 1 MONTHLY RIDERSHIP AND PRODUCTIVITY THE WAVE July 1, 1989 through June 30, 1990 Month Ridership Productivity July 1989 7,042 6.3 August 7,020 5.75 September 5,587. 5.0 October • . 5,431 5.05 November 5,456 5.15 December 5,352 5.25 January 1990 5,784 5.2 February 5,516 5.0 March 5,745 5.1 April 5,493 5.1 May 5,647 4.95 June 5,554 5.15 TOTAL 69,620 AVG 5.25 COMMUNITY TRANSIT SERVICES, INC. _7 There are seven satellite points, outside of the service area,. that are utilized by WAVE passengers. Five are medical facilities, one is the Manhattan Beach Social Security Office, and El Camino College. The most popular satellite point is the Skypark/Lomita medical facility, and the least utilized is El Camino College. Considering that the majority of the ridership is from the senior populace, this utilization to medical facilities is not surprising. Approximately 6.8 percent of all trips are outside of the area. A total of 4,735 trips were made to satellite locations during the past fiscal year. One of the types of service offered to the public is subscription, or periodic service. Passengers that make the same trip on a frequent basis are eligible to utilize subscription service. Passengers do not need to call for their ride but have a "standing order" to be picked up. Passengers need only to call to cancel or make changes to their schedule. During the past year, there were an average of 55 passengers per month utilizing this type of service. The majority of these periodic requests are for medical, work, and some school trips. Approximately 40 percent of subscription trips occur between the hours of 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. Although the system was designed as an immediate -response type of service, many of the trip requests are placed in advance. This transition evolved as a result of passengers having to wait longer than the system goal of all passengers being picked up within 30 minutes of their requests. During peak demand periods, the average wait time will often exceed 30 minutes. Wait time is the elapsed time from when a customer calls to the actual time that they are picked up. Wait time is largely a function of supply and demand. When demand is high, there is less supply and wait times increase. When demand is low, there is a plentiful supply of vehicles and wait times are usually lower. Through experience with these fluctuations, passengers who would previously call 30 minutes before their desired pickup time only to be told it may be longer, now call either the day before or several hours prior to their desired pickup to make a reservation for a specific time. Based upon the sampling in the monthly management reports, reservation requests account for 62 percent of all trips. While, from the passenger's point of view, this results in not having to "wait" for their ride, it can have a limiting effect on the flexibility and efficiency of the service. It is felt that this ratio is tolerable as long as productivity exceeds 5.0 passengers per hour. If productivity decreases along with an increase in reservation trips, this procedure should be evaluated. ON-TIME PERFORMANCE On-time performance is an extremely important factor in demand -responsive transit. From the rider's point of view, it is usually the single most important element ... does the vehicle arrive when scheduled? There are two performance measures in The WAVE -CTS agreement. The first standard is that 90 percent of all deferred and periodic trips are to be picked up within a 25 -minute window. The vehicle should arrive no more than 10 minutes early, nor more than 15 minutes late. Based upon the sampling reported in the monthly management report, this standard, on the average, has been met. The actual percentage is 89.6. COMMUNITY TRANSIT SERVICES, INC. -.g Reservation trips are the predominate type of request on The WAVE system, accounting for approximately 62 percent of all trips. On several of the individual days that were sampled, reservation requests accountedfor more than 90 percent of the total trips. While this type of service results in a high degree of reliability and on-time performance, it can have a limiting effect on the overall efficiency of the system. The second performance standard for the system is that 90 percent of all immediate -responsive trips be picked -up within 30 minutes of the passenger's request. This standard is not as easily achieved as meeting the window for reservation trips. One of the contributing factors is the high percentage of deferred and periodic requests. On some days, immediate response calls account for less than 10 percent of all trip requests. With such a high number of timed calls, it is often difficult to respond to immediate requests due to pre -scheduled commitments. Based upon the monthly sampling during the past fiscal year, the 30 -minute on-time performance standard was achieved 77.5 percent of the time. The standard was actually achieved 4 of the 12 months sampled. This performance measurement may not always be representative due to several factors. One of them is the dual reporting of statistics for the combined Hermosa/Redondo system and a separate accounting for Redondo Beach. Since the Redondo Beach statistics reflect only one vehicle's performance, it is possible that the low number of trips creates a less than representative picture of overall performance. For example, there may be only 4 to 5 immediate -response trips reported on the Redondo vehicle. If 3 out of 4 trips are picked up within the 30 minute standard, then the rate is 75 percent, which then lowers'A the overall' percentage. ' When examining this standard, it is necessary to put the number of trips into perspective. The other contributing factor is that sample days are selected at the start of the fiscal year. It may, be that on the designated day there were some contributing factors such as weather, high demand, vehicle allocation, etc., that would adversely effect performance. Under these conditions, a different or additional day should be sampled and reported. We do not believe that this procedure has been implemented on 'a routine basis. Trip ticket analyses for the coming fiscal year will take these factors into consideration and statistics reported will reflect a more representative accounting of system performance. SYSTEM STATISTICS During fiscal year 1989-90, a total of 16,089 billing hours were provided. Deducting the deadhead hours from the garage to the first pickup and the last drop off back to the garage, a total of 13,195 revenue vehicle hours were provided. The vehicles traveled a total of 193,627 miles. Deducting the deadhead miles resulted in revenue miles of 182,562. The fleet consumed 25,750 gallons of fuel averaging 7.4 miles per gallon. The vans averaged 5.6 miles per gallon and the sedans and stationwagon 13.0 miles per gallon. There were a total of nine preventable accidents. Our accident frequency rate for the past year was one preventable accident per 21,512 miles driven. There were 6 months during the year when no preventable accidents occurred. The average wait and ride time from the monthly sampling revealed an average wait time of 19.7 minutes and an average ride time of 16.9 minutes. The WAVE system experienced a no-show rate of 4.2 percent and a cancellation rate of 5.5 percent for a combined no-show/ COMMUNITY TRANSIT SERVICES, INC. -- 9 - -6- cancellation rate of 9.7 percent. The ideal would be a percentage no greater than 5 percent. Anything higher than 10 percent can be considered excessive, and can have a negative impact on system efficiency. A high no-show/cancellation rate can certainly effect productivity. We believe that the number of no-shows and cancellations is higher on The WAVE system due to several factors. Systems with a high percentage of senior citizens tend to have higher no-show/cancellation frequencies than general public systems. Elderly and Handicapped systems in turn can experience frequencies of 18 to 20 percent. The other contributing factor is the number of pre -scheduled trips on The WAVE. As discussed earlier, reservation requests can amount to 70 to 90 percent of the daily requests. There appears to be a correlation between the duration of time when a trip request is made and the instances of no-shows and cancellations. We do not recommend any corrective action be taken at this time. MAINTENANCE Maintenance for The WAVE vehicles are performed at CTS' location in Long Beach. CTS' comprehensive preventive maintenance program has resulted in a minimum of downtime and infrequent number of road calls during the past year. The average number of days out -of - service per vehicle per month is 1.6 days. There were a total of 4 road calls as a result of mechanical causes. The vehicles have performed well over the past four years while in WAVE service. During the month of June, delivery was taken on 8 new vehicles and several were placed into limited service. It is expected that the new, larger vehicles will provide a higher degree of reliability and service to WAVE riders. COMMUNITY 'TRANSIT SERVICES, INC. /0 7 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 6, 1990 Regular Meeting of November 13, 1990 RECOMMENDATION TO REJECT CLAIM FILED AGAINST THE CITY BY POTLATCH CORPORATION AND SIMPSON PAPER COMPANY The following claim has been received by the Risk Manager's office: Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe on behalf of Potlatch Corporation and Simpson Paper Company alleged release of hazardous substances, filed October 3, 1990. RECOMMENDED ACTION: On the advise of counsel, it is recommended that the City Council reject the claim filed by Potlatch Corporation and Simpson Paper Company on the basis that the claim was not filed within statutory limits. BACKGROUND: The above noted claim has also been filed with 76 other cities and is a result of Federal and State agencies filing suit against Potlatch Corporation and Simpson Paper Company for release of hazardous substances into the environment. Note: The above claim is available for review in the Risk Manager's office. Respectfully submitted: Robert A. Blackwood Risk Manager Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager November 6, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the City Council of November 13, 1990 SOUTH BAY HOMELESS COALITION RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by staff that Council direct staff to contact the City's service clubs in an effort to request funds for the South Bay Homeless Coalition. BACKGROUND On October 30, 1990, the Mayor and City Manager both received a request from. Bernard Laverty from the South Bay Homeless Coalition to assist them in obtaining financial support for their efforts to house the homeless during conditions of extreme cold weather (attached). The Mayor requested that the subject be agendized. When the weather is predicted to be 40 degrees or lessor 50 degrees with a 50 percent chance of. rain, the Inglewood National Guard Armory and other facilities are used to house the homeless people. ANALYSIS In order to staff the emergency cold weather program for the LAX / South Bay area, the Coalition projects that close to $7,000 in funds will be necessary. They have asked that local city governments support this need by providing funds to assist in meeting the overall projected budget of $7,000. As the funding request is modest, it may be possible for Hermosa Beach to provide an appropriate share of dollars via private donations. The most efficient vehicles for gathering these donations are the service clubs (i.e., Women's Club, Kiwanis, Rotary). With Council's direction, staff will contact the clubs and forward the request from Mr. Laverty to them. It is apparent that the funds would be used to provide a much needed service for the South Bay's homeless population and Hermosa Beach would serve its community well by contributing to this vital program. Other alternatives available to Council include: 1. Deny request 2. Appropriate City funds for this program 3. Request additional information Concur: City Manager Respectfully Submitted, Mary, /C.,/ Ro-oney, Director Dept. of Community Resources p 4 L�' City of _71ermosarl3eacjv Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 November 1, 1990 Bernard Laverty South Bay Homeless Coalition P. O. Box 7257 Torrance, CA 90504 Dear Mr. Laverty: We are in receipt of your letter received October 30, 1990, regarding funds needed for the South Bay Homeless Coalition. Your letter has been referred to our Community Resources Department for necessary action and response. That depart- ment will be contacting you with the results of your inquiry. If you wish to check on the status, the department's number is 318-0280. At Mayor Sheldon's direction, your request has been scheduled for consideration by our City Council at their November 13, 1990 meeting, which begins at 7:30 p.m. You are welcome to send a representative to that meeting. Thank you for your interest in improving our community. Sincerely yours, Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager KBN/ld cc: Community Resources Department Mr. Kevin B. Northcraft City Administrator 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 October 8, 1990 Dear Mr. Northcraft, RECEIVED OCT 3 01990 As you are probably aware, the County of Los Angeles has been involved in a countywide effort to house the homeless during extreme cold weather conditions for the past three years. National Guard Armories are utilized as group shelters for. homeless individuals, and motel vouchers are distributed to families and individuals who are mentally or physically ill whenever the weather is predicted to be 40° or less, or 50° with a 50% chance of rain, during the months of November through March. The program is administered by the County of Los Angeles Department of Community and Senior Citizens Services' Homeless Coordination Office, and is operated through a network of city and community based organizations. Its implementation involves a community communication network which relies upon contact with participating service providers, police, churches, govern- ment entities, etc. This past winter the Salvation Army of Inglewood staffed and operated the Inglewood National Guard Armory on cold/wet weather nights, and St. Margaret's Center of Catholic Charities in Lennox provided intake, vouchering, and transportation to and from the Armory. A bus was used to pick up homeless people from local parks and transgortthem to the intake site and Armory. While the program functioned fairly smoothly last year, many improvements can and should be made in planning for the winter of '90-'91. The South Bay is an unique region in Los Angeles County. It is comprised of many different jurisdictions, which individually may not be equipped to tackle a countywide problem. But a combined effort at the regional level may make the difference in identifying the homeless, safeguarding them in harsh winter weather, and providing them with the means to break the cycle of homelessness. The South Bay Homeless Coalition, which was instrumental in the implementation of last year's program, in conjunction with local social service agencies, has made the following recommendation: Involve local city governments withal appeal for support in staffing the program. The program is funded by F.E.M.A. (Federal Emergency Management Agency), which does not allow administrative/ personnel costs. In the past three years it has become increasingly apparent that social service agencies which provide the vital link in this program lack sufficient staff and resources to adequately administer it. Volunteers provide crucial support but cannot be expected to coordinate the program. Adequate security has not been provided for this after-hours program. We are therefore appealing to you to assist us in implementing next winter's program. We have collected $ 1,800 from private donors for staffing costs. We calculate that the cost for hiring a coordinator, intake worker, case manager at the Armory and two part-time security guards for an estimated 30 cold/wet weather nights will be approximately $7,000. That is a small price to pay for the possibility of providing shelter to every homeless person in our communities during the winter months. Some of the additional benefits for your city may be: * a reduction in police time spent dealing with homeless people and problems attributed to them. * the establishment of a regional network that will garner community support and provide a model for future regional projects. * the establishment of a more effective system for referring people in need of emergency services to agencies/ programs best suited to respond to those needs. Homelessness is a tragedy that touches us all. While the Emergency Cold Weather Homeless Program may not always alleviate homelessness, it does introduce some warmth and humanity into a bleak picture, and may save lives. In order to maintain, and improve, this program we need your city's support. Please consider our request; we will contact you next week to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your time and interest. Sincerely Yours, Bernard Laverty South Bay Homeless Coalition EMERGENCY COLD WEATHER PROGRAM FOR THE HOMELESS LAX/SOUTH BAY AREA WINTER, 1990-91 PERSONNEL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS Number of Workers Position Monthly Salary* Months to be Hired Total Costs 1 Coordinator 480 5 2,400 1 Intake Worker 180 5 900 2 Security 270 5 2,700 Guards 1 Case Manager 162 5 810 TOTAL SALARIES 6,810 * based on a projected 30 days of activation per program period. October 24, 1990 City Council Meeting November 13, 1990 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 90-1049 - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT TO ADD MOTORCYCLE SALES AND MOTORCYCLE PARTS SALES AS PERMITTED USES IN THE C-3 ZONE WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION" "Submitted for adoption is Ordinance No. 90-1049, relating to the above subject." At the meeting of October 23, 1990, this ordinance was introduced by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Concur: Creighton, Essertier, Midstokke, Wiemans, Mayor Sheldon None None None evin B. Northc a t, City Manager Respectfully submitted, E1 Clerk aine Doerflin City 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 90- 1049 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE .TEXT TO ADD MOTORCYCLE SALES AND MOTORCYCLE PARTS SALES AS PERMITTED USES IN THE C-3 ZONE WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on October 23, 1990, and made the following Findings: A. Motorcycle sales and motorcycle specifically listed as a permitted parts sales use are not in any zone while motorcycle repair is listed subject to a conditional use permit; B. Businesses which sell motorcycles and motorcycle parts create a potential noise problem to adjacent property owners and residents because of the noise impact of the customers use of motorcycles, potential test driving, and testing of engines on the site; C. Restricting this business activity to the C-3 zone and requiring a conditional use permit will ensure that environmental impacts associated with this activity will be minimized; D. The subject amendment will clarify an ambiguity in the existing code in regards to the subject use, and will subject said uses to the proper regulation to ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses; E. Approval of this amendment is not in conflict with the General Plan and is necessary to carry out the general purpose of the zoning ordinance to serve the public health, safety, and welfare; 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 • NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain that the zoning ordinance text be amended as follows, and recommends adoption of an environmental negative declaration: SECTION 1. Amend Section 8-4. C-3 Restricted Commercial zone by adding the following to the permitted use list in alphabetical order: "Motorcycle parts and accessories (new) retail sales; Conditional Use Permit required subject to Article 10 Motorcycle sales, new and used: Conditional Use Permit required subject to Article 10" 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. 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 said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1990, by following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPR'VLD TO FORM CITY CLERK. CITY ATTORNEY 2 p/persauto Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council SUBJECT: APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL CUP 90-3 November 5, 1990 Regular Meeting of November 13, 1990 USE PERMIT AMENDMENT LOCATION: 8 PIER AVENUE, HENNESSEY'S TAVERN APPELLANTS: COUNCILMEMBERS MIDSTOKKE AND WIEMANS APPLICANT: PAUL HENNESSEY 8 PIER AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 REQUEST: APPEAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW EXTENDED ENTERTAINMENT HOURS TO INCLUDE 9:00 P.M. TO 1:15 A.M. ON WEEKDAYS AND 2:00 P.M. TO 1:15 A.M. ON SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS, NATIONAL HOLIDAYS, CINCO DE MAYO, AND ST. PATRICK'S DAY Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission approved the amendment to the, entertainment hoursas requested by the applicant subject to the conditions contained in Resolution P.C. 90-78. A draft resolution to sustain the Planning Commission's action is attached. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends an amendment allowing entertainment to begin at 7:00 p.m. on Saturday, Sunday and holidays and end at 1:15 a.m. (resolution attached). Alternative: Allow entertainment to begin at 7:00 p.m. and end at 1;15 a.m. on all days of the week (no resolution attached). Background At their meeting of October 2, 1990, the Planning Commission granted the requested amendment to an existing conditional use permit (CUP) for on -sale alcohol and entertainment, expanding the allowed entertainment hours previously limited to Saturday and Sundays from 9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M., to include weekday nights from 9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. and to include afternoon hours on weekends beginning at 2:00 P.M. The approved CUP incorporates applicable conditions from the original CUP, additional conditions concerning noise, and currently applicable standard conditions for alcohol establishments. The applicant applied for this CUP amendment, as agreed with staff, to resolve a discrepancy in hours limitations for live entertainment in two older CUP's. Staff's position is that Resolution BZA 154-391 (12/15/80), limiting the hours of entertainment to between 9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. on Saturdays and Sundays only is the currently applicable CUP requirement. - 1 - 6 For further background please refer to the attached Planning Commission Staff report, and for background on the original CUP's please refer to the attached chronology of entertainment at Hennessey's. Analysis Please refer to the attached Planning Commission Staff Report for staff's analysis of the request. Also, please refer to the attached comparison chart of entertainment hours. It should be noted that it would not appear to staff that starting at 7:00 p.m. would be a detriment with all the other conditions imposed particularly keeping all windows and doors closed. CONCUR: 1 Michael Schubach Planning Director Kevin B. North c a t City Manager obertson Associate Planner Attachments 1. Resolution to sustain P.C. decision 2. Alternative resolution w/different hours of operation 3. P.C. staff report/chronology dated 9/11/90 4. P.C. Resolution 90-78 5. P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 6. Site Map 7. Staff Review Minutes 8. BZA Resolutions 154-391, 154-365 9. Application 10. Public Notice Affidavit a/pcsr8 CITY MANAGER COMMENT A reasonable principle to follow is to maintain the same live enter- tainment hours for the saloons on Pier west. of Hermosa Avenue. An appropriate standard would be 7:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m., all days, as as these. hours were'previbusly approved for Thurs.-Sun. and holidays. This protects and separates family day use 'from evening nightclub use while allowing historic Commercial activity to continue. 2 COMPARISON OF ENTERTAINMENT HOURS HENNESSEY'S: AUTHORIZED BY B.Z.A.' RESO 154-365, 5/5/80, REVOKED 9/15/80 WEEKDAYS WEEKENDS/ HOLIDAYS 9:00 PM - 1:15 AM 2:00 PM - 1:15 AM AUTHORIZED BY B.Z.A. NONE 9:00 PM - 1:15 AM RESO 154-391, 12/15/80 (SAT/SUN ONLY) STAFF RECOMMENDATION STAFF ALTERNATIVE THE END ZONE: 9:00 PM - 1:15 AM 7:00 PM - 1:15 AM 7:00 PM - 1:15 AM ON ALL DAYS APPROVED BY P.C. 7:00 PM - 1:30 AM 7:00PM - 1:30 AM 1/6/87 (THURS/FRIDAY) REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL AFTERNOON HOURS ON WEEKENDS, STARTING AT .4:00 P.M. WAS DENIED BY P.0 AND COUNCIL IN JUNE/JULY 1990 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION 90- A RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING BAR AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 8 PIER AVENUE, HENNESSEY'S, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTHERLY 45 FEET OF LOT 5, BLOCK 12, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on November 13, 1990, to receive oral and written testimony regarding the appeal of a Planning Commission decision to grant Conditional Use. Permit amendment and made the following findings: A. The Board of Zoning Adjustments approved Resolution BZA 154-391 on December 15, 1980 to allow amplified entertainment at a bar at 8 Pier Avenue; B. The sale of general alcoholic beverages is being conducted in an existing establishment already licensed by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; C. The applicant is proposing amending the allowed hours for entertainment, to clarify the hours specified in BZA Resolution 154-391 and to expand those hours; D. The proposed entertainment hours are compatible with surrounding uses; E. Strict compliance with the conditions of approval will mitigate any negative impact resulting from the issuance of the conditional use permit; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit Amendment on appeal, to authorize live entertainment in conjunction with an existing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11: 121. 13 14. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 bar at 8 Pier Avenue, subject to the conditions contained in P.C. Resolution 90-78. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1990. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: oc‘,.,/,- V -_e a/ccrs8 CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ALTERNATIVE - STAFF PROPOSED RESOLUTION 90- A RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING BAR AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 8 PIER AVENUE, HENNESSEY'S, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTHERLY 45 FEET OF LOT 5, BLOCK 12, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on November 13, 1990, to receive oral and written testimony regarding the appeal of a Planning Commission decision to grant Conditional Use Permit amendment and made the following findings: A. The Board of Zoning Adjustments approved Resolution BZA 154-391 on December 15, 1980 to allow amplified entertainment at a bar at 8 Pier Avenue; B. The sale of general alcoholic beverages is being conducted in an existing establishment already licensed by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; C. The applicant is proposing amending the allowed hours for entertainment, to clarify the hours specified in BZA Resolution 154-391 and to expand those hours; p. The proposed entertainment hours arecompatible with surrounding uses, except .that the proposed starting time of 2:00 P.M. on Saturdays and Sundays, creates a conflict with nearby uses, and is not compatible with hours of similar establishments; E. Strict compliance with the conditions of approval, and allowing the entertainment to begin no sooner than 7:00 P.M. on Saturdays and Sundays will mitigate any negative impart resulting from the issuance of the conditional use permit; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12' 13 14,. 15, 16' 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit Amendment on appeal, to authorize live entertainment in conjunction with an existing bar at 8 Pier Avenue, subject to the following conditions, which supersede the conditions contained in P.C. Resolution 90-78: 1. The hours for live entertainment shall be limited to the hours from 9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. Monday through Friday, and from 7:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. on Saturday, Sundays, and Federal and State Holidays, Cinco De Mayo, and St. Patrick's day. 2. The establishment shall not adversely affect the welfare of residents, and/or commercial establishments nearby. 3. The business shall provide adequate management and supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of the patrons outside the business or in the immediate area. 4. Noise emanating from the property shall be within the limitations prescribed by the City's Noise Ordinance and shall not create a nuisance to the surrounding residential neighborhoods or commercial establishments. a. During theperformance of amplified live entertainment, the exterior doors and windows shall remain closed b. Prior to this conditional use permit being effective an acoustical study shall be prepared by an acoustical expert, including a proposed sound dampening features to baffle and direct sound away from the entrance/exit and window areas to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. Said study and sound dampening features shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and shall be implemented in the building. c. Management shall be responsible for the music/entertainment volume levels. d. A maximum of three entertainers shall be allowed to perform at any one time. 5. Screens shall be installed on all openable exterior windows at ground floor level to prevent pass through of alcoholic beverages and to control flies. 6. Signs shall be posted conspicuously and prominently at all exits and all check-out stands warning patrons who purchase any and all types of alcoholic beverages that "possession and/or consumption of alcoholic beverages in any public sidewalk, parking lot, beach, and/or any public place is prohibited by law and subject to citation and fine. The City of Hermosa Beach vigorously enforces its liquor laws" Said signs shall be at least 12" X 14", shall be printed in a large type, permanently maintained, and shall be posted in visible locations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7. An employee who is aware of the conditions of this conditional use permit shall be on the premises during business hours. a. All employees shall be given a copy of the conditional use permit and shall acknowledge by signature that the conditional use permit has been read and understood. 8. The business shall provide adequate management and supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of patrons outside to business or in the immediate area. 9. The exterior of the premises shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner at all time. 10. All signs shall comply with the City Sign Ordinance. 11. All alcoholic beverages shall be served in non -throw -away glass containers, including beer and wine. 12. Any violation of the conditions and/or violation of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code shall be grounds for _an immediate revocation hearing and/or citation. 13. The police chief may determine that a continuing police problem exists and may require the presence of a police approved doorman and/or security personnel paid by the business. 14. Any changes to the exterior or interior design shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. 15. Dancing shall be prohibited. 16. Maximum permissible occupancy must be clearly posted and may not be exceeded at any time. If the Department of Public. Safety determine that the maximum occupancy is being violated, they may cite the business and initiate a conditional use permit revocation. 17. Food service shall be available between the hours of 11:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. daily. 18. Prior to the conditional use permit being in effect, the applicant shall submit to the planning department, a signed and notarized "Acceptance of Conditions" form. 19.A conditional use permit shall be recorded with the deed, and proof of recordation shall be submitted with the planning department. 20. The Planning Commission may review the conditional use permit and may amend the subject conditions or impose any new conditions if deemed necessary to mitigate detrimental effects on the neighborhood resulting from the subject use. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13. 14 15 16=.. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21. Each of the above conditions is separately enforced, and if any of the conditions of approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable. 22. This resolution incorporates and supersedes BZA Resolution 154-391 23. This resolution supersedes P.C. Resolution 90-78 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this , 1990, by: ATTEST: day of PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California • CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: (vt,„ ff._ 1 CITY ATTORNEY a/pers8 ci CONTINUED FROM 9/18/90 MEETING September 11, 1990 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission September 18, 1990 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP 90-3 LOCATION: 8 PIER AVENUE, HENNESSEY'S TAVERN APPLICANT: PAUL HENNESSEY 8 PIER AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND ENTERTAINMENT HOURS TO INCLUDE 9:00 P.M. TO 1:15 A.M. ON WEEKDAYS AND 2:00 P.M. TO 1:15 A.M. ON SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit amendment subject to the conditions contained in the attached resolution, and except that entertainment shall not begin until 7:00 P.M. on weekends and holidays. Background The applicant has applied for this C.U.P. amendment as agreed with staff, to resolve a discrepancy in hours limitations for live entertainment in two older C.U.P.'s. Staff's position is that Resolution BZA 154-391 (12/15/80), limiting the hours of entertainment to between 9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. on Saturdays and Sundays only is the applicable requirement. For further background on these original C.U.P.'s please refer to the attached chronology of entertainment at Hennessey's. The Staff Environmental Review Committee recommended a mitigated environmental negative declaration, recommending the following mitigation measures: 1. That the building shall be sound reinforced to contain noise inside the building. 2. An acoustical study shall be prepared by an acoustical expert to identify the appropriate improvements necessary for containing the sound. 3. Musical entertainment volume shall be -the responsibility of the management not the entertainer. 4. Noise readings shall be performed by the City to verify compliance once the mitigation measures are implemented. The Planning Commission recently denied a request by the End Zone, located at 22 Pier Avenue, to extend its hours to include 4:00 to 7:00 P.M. on weekends, This decision was upheld by the City Council on appeal, and therefore the End Zone's allowed -/0- entertainment hours are restricted to between 7:00 P.M. and 1:30 P.M. on Thursday through Sunday and Holidays. Analysis The primary concern with extended hours of live entertainment is the expanding of the noise problems. Problems relating to excessive noise and non-compliance with the C.U.P. have been documented by the Police for several years. On some occas/ions, the violations have been corrected. Often, however, the same problems arise again and require further police monitoring and enforcement. The Police Department indicates that because of the utilization of the special enforcement unit this summer, that the establishment was kept under control, and that problems were minimal. It does not appear that the establishment has ever been in compliance with the restriction that entertainment be only on weekend nights. Also, the police department has historically had difficulty obtaining compliance with the condition that doors and windows be closed during amplified entertainment. Given the history of the problems at this location staff is 'hesitant to recommend extending the hours. However, a precedent .has been set with the End Zone for the week -nights of Thursday and Friday nights (The End Zone never requested entertainment for °Mon - Wed), and Hennessey's has been using these nights for entertainment for several years. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of weekday night hours from 9:00 P.M. to '1:15 A.M. In regards to the hours for Saturday and Sunday, staff believes -that to be consistent with the hours granted for the End Zone -that the entertainment be allowed to begin no sooner than 7:00 P.M. Additional conditions are being recommended to require that the building to be sound -proofed. Also, several standard conditions applicable to alcohol establishments not previousl,� a pajt of the BZA Resolutions are included. CONCUR :J t4 Robebe rtson � Associate Planner '� / c•v ,syr ..z., icnael Schubach Planning Director Attachments 1. Proposed Resolution 2. Chronology 3. Site Map 4. Staff Review Minutes 5. BZA Resolutions 154-391, 154-365 6. Application 7. Photographs 8. Public Notice Affidavit a/pcsr8 ENTERTAINMENT AT 8 PIER IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER 5/5/80 The Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) granted a Conditional Use Permit for live amplified entertainment in the form of amplified bands (Resolution B.Z.A. 154-365). The C.U.P. included a condition limiting the hours to between 9:00 P.M. and 1:15 A.M on weekdays, and from 2:00 P.M. to 1:15 on weekends. Prior to that time, Hennessey's was operating legally as a bar, with provision for non -amplified entertainment with less than three performers, grandfathered from previous establishments. 9/15/80 The B.Z.A. revoked the C.U.P. because of failure to comply with the condition to keep doors and windows closed during entertainment 10/14/80 The City Council upheld the revocation, however, it gave Hennessey's 60 days to apply again if another solution to the noise problem was considered. 12/15/80 The B.Z.A. granted a C.U.P. for amplified live entertainment, by adopting Resolution 154-391. One of_ the reasons for granting the C.U.P. this time was that the house amplification system was modified to orient the speakers away from the street. The condition relating to closing doors and windows was modified to read "If the sound emanating from the business is sufficient enough to cause a nuisance evidenced by complaints or sound measurements... exterior windows and doors shall be closed". This language in the resolution is corroborated by the minutes of the meeting. Resolution 154-391 also contained new limits on the hours for entertainment -- 9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. on Saturdays and Sundays only a change which is not at all noted in the minutes, or mentioned in the staff report. A further problem is that a signed copy of Resolution BZA 154-391 has not been found. 6/2/87 The Planning Commission granted a C.U.P. to authorize the change of the use of site from a bar to a restaurant. This was to enable Hennessey's to change the type of A.B.C. license to allow minors on the premises. The conditions of approval contained the same limits on the hours of entertainment as Resolution B.Z.A. 154-391 (9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. on Saturdays and Sundays). This C.U.P. was never implemented by the applicant. -/2- 84CHOROUND M4TERML 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 90-78 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING BAR AND ADOPTION OF A ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 8 PIER AVENUE, HENNESSEY'S, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTHERLY 45 FEET OF LOT 5, BLOCK 12, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 18, 1990, to receive 'oral and written testimony regarding a Conditional Use Permit amendment request and made the following findings: A. The Board of Zoning Adjustments approved Resolution BZA 154-391 on December 15, 1980 to allow amplified entertainment at a bar at 8 Pier Avenue; B. The sale of general alcoholic beverages is being conducted in an existing establishment already licensed by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; C. The applicant is proposing amending the allowed hours for entertainment, to clarify the hours specified in BZA Resolution 154-391 and to expand those hours D. The proposed entertainment hours are compatible with surrounding uses; E. Strict compliance with the conditions of approval will mitigate any negative impact resulting from the issuance of the conditional use permit; NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby approve.a Conditional Use Permit Amendment, to authorize live entertainment in conjunction with an existing bar at 8 Pier Avenue, subject to the following conditions: 1. The hours for live entertainment shall be limited to the hours from 9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. Monday through Friday, and from 7:00 P.M. to 1:15 P.M. on Saturday, Sundays, and Holidays. 2. The establishment shall not adversely affect the welfareof residents, and/or commercial establishments nearby. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16'. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. The business shall provide adequate management and supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of the patrons outside the business or in the immediate area. 4. Noise emanating from the property shall be within the limitations prescribed by the City's Noise Ordinance and shall not create a nuisance to the surrounding residential neighborhoods or commercial establishments. a. During the performance of amplified live entertainment, the exterior doors and windows shall remain closed b. Prior to this conditional use permit being effective an acoustical study shall be prepared by an acoustical expert, including a proposed sound dampening features to baffle and direct sound away from the entrance/exit and window areas to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. Said study and sound dampening features shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and shall be implemented in the building. c. All music/entertainment volume levels shall be controlled by the management, not by the entertainers. 5. Screens shall be installed on all openable exterior windows at ground floor level to prevent pass through of alcoholic beverages and to control flies. 6. Signs shall be posted conspicuously and prominently at all exits and all check-out stands warning patrons, who purchase any and all types of alcoholic beverages that "possession and/or consumption of alcoholic beverages in any public sidewalk, parking lot, beach, and/or any public place is prohibited by law and subject to citation and fine. The City of Hermosa Beach vigorously enforces its liquor laws" Said signs shall be at least 12" X 14", shall be printed in a large type, permanently maintained, and shall be posted in visible locations. 7. An employee who is aware of the conditions of this conditional use permit shall be on the premises during business hours. a. All employees shall be given a copy of the conditional use permit and shall acknowledge by signature that the conditional use permit has been read and understood. 8. The business shall provide " adequate management and supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of patrons outside to business or in the immediate area. 9. The exterior of the premises shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner at all time. 10. All signs shall comply with the City Sign Ordinance. 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C 11. All alcoholic beverages shall be served in non -throw -away glass containers, including beer and wine. 12. Any violation of the conditions and/or violation of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code shall begrounds for an immediate revocation hearing and/or citation. 13. The police chief may determine that a continuing police problem exists and may require the presence of a police approved doorman and/or security personnel paid by the business. 14. Any changes to the exterior or interior design shall be subject_ to review and approval by the Planning Director. 15. Dancing shall be prohibited. 16. Maximum permissible occupancy must be clearly posted and may not be exceeded at any time. If the Department of Public Safety determine that the maximum occupancy is being violated, they may cite the business and initiate a conditional use permit revocation. 17. Food service shall be available between the hours of 11:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. daily. 18. Prior to the conditional use permit being in effect, the applicant shall submit to the planning department, a signed and notarized "Acceptance of Conditions" form. 19.. A conditional use permit shall be recorded with the deed, and proof of recordation shall be submitted with the planning department. 20. The Planning Commission may review the conditional use permit and may amend the subject conditions or impose any new conditions if deemed necessary to mitigate detrimental effects on the neighborhood resulting from the subject use. 21. This resolution incorporates and supersedes BZA Resolution 154-391 VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 90-78 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of. Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of September 18, 1990. Scott Ingell, Chairman Michael Schubach, Secretary Date a/pers8 -/5- QS REVISED, AS A GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION; Resoluf1 n P.C. 90-77, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE'CITY OF HERMOSANEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PRECISE DEVELOPM T PLAN REQUEST FOR AN AUTO BODY REPAIR AND PAINTING ESTABLISHME • T 1081 TO 1087 AVIATION, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS Lars 49 AND 50, AND THE SOUTHE 58 FEET OF LOTS 47 AND 48, HERMOSA HEIGHTS TRACT; 7- Resolution P.C. 90-79, A SOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFO ••' • , APPROVING A CONDITIONAL/ _1SE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE REMODEL AND ADDITION TO NIT WITHIN A FOUR -U FI'CONDOMINIUM APPROVED AT 44 7TH STREET; Resolution P.C. 90-80, A RESOLUTION 6 THE P NTNG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. APPROVI A/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW ON - SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL IN CONJUNCTIO ► I TH A RESTAURANT, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION • R 11 PIER AVENUE, THE MERMAID RESTAURANT, AND LEGALLY DESCRIEgD AS LOTS -4. INCLUSIVE. BLOCK 13, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT. AYES: Comms. Ket'z, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell NOES: None 7 ABSTAIN: Comm. Aleks ABSENT: None COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CUP 90-15 -- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND ALLOWED ENTERTAINMENT HOURS TO INCLUDE 9:00 P.M. TO 1:15 A.M. ON WEEKDAYS AND 2:00 P.M. TO 1:15 A.M, ON SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 8 PIER AVENUE HENNESSEY'S TAVERN (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18. 1990) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 11, 1990. Stals recommended approval of the requested CUP amendment, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution, and except that entertainment shall not begin until 7:00 P.M. on weekends and holidays. The applicant has applied for this CUP amendment as agreed with staff to resolve a discrepancy in the hours and limitations for live entertainment which were.in two older conditional use permits. Staffs position is that Resolution BZA 154-391 (December 15, 1980) limiting the hours of entertainment to between 9:00 P.M. and 1:15 A.M. on Saturdays and Sundays only is the applicable requirement. The staff environmental review committee recommended a mitigated environmental negative declaration and recommended several mitigation measures: (1) that the building shall be sound reinforced to contain noise inside the building; (2) an acoustical study shall be prepared by an acoustical expert to identify the appropriate improvements necessary for containing the sound; (3) musical entertainment volume shall be the responsibility of the management, not the entertainer; and (4) noise readings shall be performed by the City to verify compliance once the mitigation measures are implemented. The Planning Commission recently denied a request by The End Zone, located at 22 Pier Avenue, to extend its hours to include 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. on weekends. This decision was P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 upheld by the City Council on appeal, and therefore The End Zone's allowed entertainment hours are restricted to between 7:00 P.M. and 1:30 A.M. on Thursday through Sunday and holidays. The primary concern with extended hours of live entertainment is the expansion of noise problems. Problems relating to excessive noise and non-compliance with the CUP have been documented by the police for several years. On some occasions, the violations have been corrected. Often, however, the same problems arise again and require further police monitoring and enforcement. The police department indicates that because of the utilization of the special enforcement unit this summer, the establishments were kept under control, and problems were minimal. It does not appear that the establishment has even been in compliance with the restriction that entertainment be only on weekend nights. Also, the police department has historically had difficulty obtaining compliance with the condition that doors and windows be closed during amplified entertainment. Given the history of the problems at this location, staff is hesitant to recommend an extension in the hours. However, a precedent has been set with The End Zone for the weeknights of Thursday and Friday nights (The End Zone has never requested entertainment for Monday through Wednesday), and Hennessey's has been using these nights for entertainment for several years. Therefore, staff recommended approval of weekday evening hours from 9:00 P.M. until 1:15 A.M. In regard to the hours for Saturday and Sunday, staff felt that to be consistent with the hours granted for. The End Zone, the entertainment should be allowed to start no sooner than 7:00 P.M. Additional conditions were recommended to require that the building be soundproofed. Also, several standard conditions applicable to alcohol establishments not previously a part of the BZA resolutions are included. Public Hearing opened at 7:10 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Paul Hennessey, owner and applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that he has worked with staff and he has applied for a clarification of Condition No. 1 of the CUP; (2) passed out copies of the past BZA resolutions and stated that it is apparent that a typographical error was made, in that BZA 154-365, Condition No. 1. contains additional wording not found in Condition No. .1 of BZA 154-391, related to the hours of entertainment; (3) noted that BZA 154-365, Condition No. 1, states: "Electronically amplified musical entertainment shall be limited to the hours of 9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. on weekdays and from 2:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. on Saturdays and Sundays; (4) said that Hennessey's has had live entertainment for the past 14 years, prior to The End Zone ever even applying for an entertainment permit; (5) therefore did not feel that the decision made related to The End Zone is applicable in relation to Hennessey's. Mr. Hennessey continued and: (1) in response to a question from Chmn. Ingell related to the changes made from BZA 154-365 to BZA 154-391, stated that at the time BZA 154-391 was approved, the Board made no comments related to the hours for live entertainment; (2) discussed closure of the windows and said that the Board at that time said the doors and windows could remain open during live entertainment, so long as no complaints were received from the neighbors, and none have been received; (3) passed out copies of letters he has received from the City (one dated 1988 and one dated summer of 1990) commending this establishment on its compliance with City regulations and requirements of the conditional use permit. Mr. Hennessey went on and: (1) passed out a copy of a document dated October 8, 1986, "Status Report Regarding Downtown Noise Enforcement," and he said the report makes no mention whatsoever of any noise problems emanating from Hennessey's; (2) said that Hennessey's has established a good track record for complying with City requirements; (3) stressed that there P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 /7- has been live entertainment at this establishment on Saturdays and Sundays for 14 years, and it is apparent to him that there was a typographical error on the second approval by the BZA, 154-391. Comm. Peirce noted that a standard condition has been to require that all windows be screened in order to prevent the passing through of alcoholic beverages, to which Mr. Hennessey replied that the front windows currently do have screens. He stated, also, that he has never seen drinks being passed out through the windows. Comm. Rue noted that the police department has historically had problems enforcing the condition that doors and windows must remain closed during live entertainment. He noted that there appears to be a discrepancy in the CUP related to this condition. Mr. Hennessey said that the current conditions do not specifically state that doors and windows must remain closed during live entertainment. The police have come to the establishment requesting that the windows and doors be closed during entertainment, and they have voluntarily complied. He felt, however, that the police department is having a problem in determining which CUP should be enforced. Comm. Peirce countered that BZA 154-391. Condition No. 2, states: "If the sound emanating from the business is sufficient to constitute a nuisance evidenced by complaints or sound measurements, the outer doors and exterior operable doors and windows shall be closed at all times when electronically amplified entertainment is occurring." He further noted that the same condition is included in BZA 154-365. He felt, however, that this point is academic, noting that he has been in the area many times, and music from this establishment is booming out into the street. He stressed that the doors and windows must be closed during live entertainment, and he asked whether Mr. Hennessey intends to comply with the condition. Mr. Hennessey stated that the doors and windows are being closed now. Further, he has been told by the police that this establishment is in compliance. He said that he will continue to close the doors and windows, if so required by the City. He said that his main objection relates to Condition No. 1, regarding the hours of entertainment. Public Hearing closed at 7:20 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Aleks asked what differences there are between this establishment and The End Zone, to which Mr. Schubach explained that The End Zone is more of a sports -oriented bar. Essentially, however, they are both alcoholic establishments. They are located very near to each other, and they are on the same side of the street. He said that The End Zone's band area is slightly larger than Hennessey's; however, there are many similarities between the two businesses. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Aleks, stated that approval of additional hours would set a precedent, which he did not feel would be desirable. noting that there have been problems in the past. He felt that the hours should be the same for the two establishments. Comm. Rue asked whether there is data from the police department related to the noise, to which Mr. Schubach explained that reports have been received, but it would be necessary for staff to locate them. Comm. Rue stated that the police department has historically had difficulty enforcing the condition that doors and windows shall be closed during live entertainment. Mr. Schubach stated that there has recently been more compliance with that condition, and the number of complaints has been reduced. P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 Comm. Rue noted that there have been many problems throughout the City with noise: however, it is difficult to specifically address the problem without having additional information, such as police reports. He noted also that one of the conditions requires that an acoustical study be done to identify appropriate improvements for containing the sound, and he questioned when that study would be completed. Mr. Schubach stated that this is the same requirement imposed on The End Zone, and that the applicant will be required to provide staff with the appropriate data related to the noise level and what can be done to resolve the problem. He continued by explaining what The End Zone has done to mitigate the noise. He said that this applicant must provide the data within a reasonable time period. Chmn. Ingell felt it is inappropriate to compare Hennessey's with The End Zone. He noted that Mr. Hennessey himself asked for this clarification; whereas, The End Zone was being considered for a revocation hearing due to their noncompliance. Mr. Schubach stated that this applicant has an existing CUP in effect at this time. The applicant approached staff in regard to the hours of operation and asked for clarification on the hours. Comm. Peirce stated that it appears that the only operable differences between past CUPs and the current CUP being proposed is Condition No. 4(b) which requires an acoustical study to be prepared and the attendant mitigation measures, and the hours of operation. Chmn. Inge11 stated that it appears that Hennessey's hours of operation have been grandfathered in. He noted that new businesses would not necessarily have the same conditions imposed as older businesses. Comm. Peirce stated that the condition related to the sound study in this CUP appears to be an extension of BZA 154-391, which also required sound measurements (Condition No. 2). He felt that such a condition is appropriate, no matter how long this business has been in existence. He felt that during the periodic reviews, the Commissionshould attempt to make recommendations for improvements based on what is best for the City. Comm. Peirce opposed an extension in the hours of operation, stating that the main question is when the party should begin in the downtown area. He therefore did not feel that longer hours are necessary, and he thought that 9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. on weekdays and 7:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. on the weekends is adequate. Chmn. Ingell stated that this case differs from The End Zone, especially in light of the fact that the applicant was not aware that he would be losing his hours of operation in the new conditional use permit, and the applicant has been operating for years with the understanding that his hours of operation were in compliance. He further noted that he could find no mention of the hours in the minutes of the BZA meetings at which this business was discussed; therefore, he did not feel hours of operation was a major concern of that board. Comm. Peirce asked whether the Board of Zoning Adjustments kept detailed minutes in 1980, to which Mr. Schubach replied that the sparse minutes proved to be a problem, and more thorough, detailed minutes are now prepared in an attempt to avoid this very type of problem. Comm. Peirce noted concern that the resolution adopted ,by the Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA 154-391) was not signed. Comm. Rue asked whether there would be any objection to allowing live entertainment to start at 5:00 or 6:00 P.M. on the weekends, noting that such a starting time would not be in the middle of the afternoon, which was a previous concern of the Commission. He noted that many people like to relax after a day at the beach, and he felt such_ a starting time would be acceptable and would be a fair compromise. P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 -/9- Comm. Peirce noted that The End Zone cannot start live entertainment until 7:00 P.M., and he questioned what the rationale would be to allow this business to start its entertainment earlier. Comm. Rue said that this is an older CUP which has not been signed, and the minutes do not detail the specifics of the conditions. He did not feel that the earlier starting time would be detrimental. Comm. Peirce stated that the Commission should be consistent, and he did not feel it would be appropriate to allow one business to begin entertainment earlier than another. Comm. Ketz agreed that the businesses should be treated similarly; therefore, she favored the hours being the same for each. Comm. Rue and Chmn. Inge11 agreed that the type of entertainment offered at the two businesses differs. Hennessey's entertainment is on a smaller scale; whereas, The End Zone has larger groups performing. It was also noted that Hennessey's has been in operation for many years at this location. Comm. Peirce cautioned that the CUP runs with the business, and another owner could come in and have much larger groups performing. Public Hearing reopened at 7:33 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Paul Hennessey, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) replied to a question from Chmn. Ingell regarding his opinion of the new staff -proposed conditions, to which he replied that several of the conditions have been met, such as that requiring a sound study; (2) explained that a sound study was done in 1981 and the study was given to the City, and there were no objections at that time; (3) said that the speakers and volume control methods were changed at that time; (4) said that there have been no complaints from the City since that time. Mr. Hennessey continued and: (1) stressed that he is not asking to expand the hours of entertainment; (2) rather, he is asking to continue with the hours he has had for the 14 years they have been in operation; (3) again noted that this problem arose because of a typographical error in the resolution; (4) said that this business is not physically large enough to accommodate any more than two or three performers at one time; therefore, he would have no objection to a condition limiting the number of performers. Chmn. Ingell referred to Condition No. 4(c): "All music/entertainment volume levels shall be controlled by the management, not by the entertainers." Mr. Hennessey replied that that condition is not feasible, explaining that the musicians themselves control the volume of their own instruments and amplifiers. He said that it is a matter of the musicians policing themselves. Comm. Rue stated that the Commission desires the management to monitor the sound, even if they do not actually control the volume levels of the instruments, to which Mr. Hennessey replied that management has no problem with monitoring the noise level. Mr. Hennessey stated that the business has built its reputation on its entertainment, and any changes now would be very detrimental to the business. He stated that by providing entertainment, higher prices can be charged, therefore ensuring a higher -quality clientele. He did not feel that afternoon entertainment is detrimental, and he did °not feel it would disturb the neighborhood. Comm. Rue felt that there would be no objection to earlier hours for live entertainment, so long as there is a guarantee that the noise would be contained within the building. He said that the P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 biggest problem is that noise can be heard on the streets, and it almost seems as though the bars are competing with each other for business. Mr. Hennessey again noted that his business' was never cited for noncompliance. He stated that he is asking for nothing new; he merely wants to continue with the hours he has had for many years. He did not feel it is fair to be penalized for problems which have been created by other businesses. Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, Hermosa Beach. addressed the Commission and: (1) asked whether Chmn. Ingell might have a conflict of interest due to his interest in Scotty's Restaurant, to which Chmn. Ingell explained that he has had no involvement with Scotty's since last January; (2) stated that Hennessey's is a nice business, however, he did not feel there is a significant difference between it and The End Zone; (3) opposed the increased hours, based on the fact that increased hours would mean increased alcohol consumption, which he does not favor. Comm. Rue asked whether it is possible to have quieter entertainment in the afternoon hours, to which Mr. Hennessey replied that that would be possible, but it involves hiring the appropriate entertainment and having proper monitoring by management. He stated that it would be detrimental for his business to have entertainment that is very loud, since that tends to drive people away. Mr. Hennessey explained that last summer he instituted a new policy whereby the entertainers are required to sign a form stating that they are aware that if they are asked too many times to turn down the volume, they will not be hired to perform again. Dave Reimer, 802 Monterey, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and suggested that the applicant be required to purchase a sound monitoring device and maintain records of the noise levels. Mr. Hennessey stated that they have already purchased noise meters which they have been using to control the noise. Public Hearing closed at 7:44 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Rue felt that Hennessey'smanagers are making an effort to comply with the requirements, noting that noise meters have been purchased. He felt that if the noise can be controlled and kept inside, the Commissions' goal would be reached. So long as the noise is kept inside, he had no objection to the hours. Comm. Ketz stated that she could support approval of the request if the noise can be kept inside, and if there can be a limit on the number of entertainers. She fell that the main objective is to have businesses meet the noise requirements, and if this can be accomplished, she has no objection to the hours of operation. Chmn. Ingell felt that if the hours of operation had been a major concern, the minutes of the BZA would have reflected that fact; therefore, he felt that this problem arose due to a typographical error. He agreed that if the noise can be kept inside and the business can stay in compliance, he would have no objection to the hours. He felt that the Commissions' purpose at this point is to correct a clerical error. Comm. Aleks did not see this as a noise issue, but rather one of alcoholic consumption and hours of operation for this and other businesses. He felt that just because this business has been in operation for a long time is not adequate reason to approve extended hours; therefore. he favored approval of staffs recommended hours for live entertainment, from 9:00 P.M. until 1:15 A.M. P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 Comm. Rue stated that the Commission does not want to be arbitrary; however, this business has a track record and has not been cited for noncompliance. He noted that violations at The End Zone were well documented, and their hours were imposed based on that documentation. Comm. Peirce felt that to allow different hours for this business would constitute special treatment, which he did not favor. He felt that the decision should be based upon what is actually happening in the area at the present time. Chmn. Ingell did not feel that the standards would be different for the different businesses. He stated that this problem arosesolely because of a clerical error, and the applicant merely came in to request clarification on the issue of hours of operation. Comm. Peirce stressed that this decision should be based upon what is best for the City today, not what happened years ago. He could see no difference between this business and The End Zone. Comm. Rue questioned whether it would be feasible to include a condition related to the maximum decibel level which could be allowed inside the building. Mr. Schubach stated that Condition No. 4(c) could be modified to indicate that noise levels shall be controlled by the management. Comm. Peirce stated that noise inside is not the issue; rather, the issue is the level of noise emanating outside the business. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve Resolution 90-78 with the following modifications: (1) Condition No. 1 shall be modified to read: "The hours for live entertainment shall be limited to the hours from 9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M Monday through Friday, and from 2:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. on Saturdays. Sundays. and national holidays, as designated by the City of Hermosa Beach: (2) Condition No. 4(c) shall be amended to specify that management shall be responsible for the music/entertainment volume levels; and (3) a condition shall be added specifying that there shall be a maximum of three entertainers at any one time. Comm. Rue stated that the intent is to have the expanded hours on holidays when people are off work. Comm. Rue commented on findings and stated that one of his reasons for allowing the additional hours is that this conditional use permit is affected by the physical layout of the building, and any changes in the layout require Planning Commission approval. He included more findings; i.e., the past history of this establishment, and the fact that .management has purchased noise meters which they are using in an attempt to keep the noise level down. Chmn. Ingell offered an additional finding; i.e., the applicant was requesting a. clarification of the hours. Comm. Peirce questioned whether it is the intent to leave Condition 4(b) in the resolution (related to the sound study), to which the maker of the motion replied in the affirmative. AYES: Comms. Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Ingell NOES: Comms. Aleks, Peirce ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Chmn. Ingell announced that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 1 \ER f ,C1 •'''v p\JE. ,00 c� HERMOSA BEACH. 0 X00 •i //) /5 is -7 -Fs 670206 rmmander Altfeld expressed that this area of downtown is 'hi.•ly impacted with several alcohol establishments, that spec 1 enforcement unit is necessary to monitor the establ'• hments and the related problem of noise, public drunkenn:ss, loitering, etc. and as such the Police Depar ment recommend against an additional alcohol establishment n this area of the ity. He said that it would definitely • ace an additional bu •en on the Police services. Mr. Robertson agr-ed to change #14(b) to "Mayb Mr. Robertson asked •mmander Altfeld how felt they could mitigate the problem. Commander Altfeld stated tt if allo.-d, there should be an intensely detailed C.U.P. Mr. Grove felt that in regards item #21 of the Environmental Checklist, that it should be ec ed yes.under #21(c) as this project would have impacts t'at are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Mr. Terry stated that the curbs and s.dewalks were in disrepair, the appli :nt would be require • to repair them. Motion by Mr. Gr.•e that because this project alis under the category of im..cts that may be individually 1. 'ted, but cumulatively-onsiderable, that they planning cossion must require mit'gation measures to address the impacts, and seeing that in ter- past alcohol businessess have not succes ully mitigated the problems, recommend against granting a c• ditional use p trait. S,,Cond by Commander Altfeld. No objections, so ordered. PROJECT CUP 90-15 Conditional Use Permit amendment to extend entertainment hours at 8 Pier Avenue, Hennessey's Tavern. APPLICANT: Paul Hennessey Mr. Hennessey explained that there are two C.U.P.'s, and there is a discrepancy on which is the correct one. The most current C.U.P. shows the hours permitted for live entertainment to be weekends only. It was agreed that we would request an amendment to clear up the matter. The requested hours of live entertainment are: 2p.m. - 1:15a.m. Saturdays and Sundays 9p.m. - 1:15a.m. Weekdays He added that these have been the hours for entertainment for several years. - zy Commander Altfeld stated that the current C.U.P. does not permit live entertainment during the week. This condition has not •been enforced, and it has been determined that it will not be enforced until this C.U.P. request is resolved. Mr. Robertson stated that the oldest C.U.P. does allow entertainment on the weekends and weekdays. Mr. Grove added that he believed that hours of the current C.U.P. were based on the original C.U.P.. In reading the minutes, they showed no discussion regarding a change in hours, and he is not sure why the hours were changed or if they were meant to be changed. Mr. Grove asked if there were any other existing conditions in violation. Chief Wisniewski stated that condition #2 regarding the closing of doors and windows when amplified music is played is consistently in violation. Mr. Grove asked that applicant if they had considered installing an air conditioner in the building. Mr. Hennessey replied that the property is in trust, and restricts their ability to make changes as the length of their lease is in question. Commander Altfeld added that the building should be sound reinforced to eliminate the exterior noise. Mr. Robertson stated that this is clearly an environmental issue, and that staff should require mitigation measures to address the present problems. Motion by Mr. Robertson to recommend a negative a declaration with the following mitigating measures: 1. That the building should be sound reinforced to contain noise inside the building. 2. An acoustical study shall be prepared by an acoustical expert to identify the appropriate improvements for containing the sound. 3. Musical entertainment volume shall become the responsibility of the management. 4. Noisereadings shall be performed by the city to verify compliance once the mitigation measures are implemented. Second by Mr. Grove. No objections, so ordered. • s Re� /'1 —zS 6 /?-/gam C RESOLUTION B.Z.A. 154-391 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 PIER AVENUE, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Adjustments of the City of Hermosa Beach, at a public hearing held on December 15, 1980 in the Coun- cil Chambers of the City Hall, considered the request of Mr. Paul E. Hennessey for live entertainment in the form of amplified bands in conjunction with the operation of a bar at 8 Pier Avenue, legally described as Lot 5, Block 12, Hermosa Beach Tract; and WHEREAS at said public hearing, the Board reviewed the data sub- mitted by the applicant and city staff; and WHEREAS, the proposed conditional usepermit is not in conflict with the area's zoning or general plan designation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Zoning Adjust-.__ ments of Hermosa Beach does hereby approve a conditional use per- mit for live entertainment in the form of amplified bands in con- junction with the operation of a bar at 8 Pier Avenue, subject to the following conditions: 1. Electronically amplified musical entertainment shall be limited to the hours of 9:00 p.m. to 1:15 a.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. 2. If the sound emanating from the business is sufficient to constitute a nuisance evidenced by complaints or sound mea- surements, the outer doors and exterior operrable doors and windows shall be closed at all times when electronically am- plified entertainment is occurring. 3. Chapter 19 1/2 of the City Code entitled Noise Regulation ,shall be complied with. Specifically, this conditional use permit is not a permit to violate Section 19 1/2-3 entitled Noise Limits. 4. Maximum permissible occupancy must be clearly posted and may not be exceeded at any time. If the Police/Fire Departments determine that the maximum permissible occupancy of the building is being violated, they may cite the business and initiate a conditional use permit revocation. 5. If the operation of this establishment causes a risk of harm to persons or property, the Police Department may assign two policemen as doormen during hours of operation of the appli- cant's expense. - 6. No admission, or service of alcohol, to anyone on skates. t• Posting of sign :.:.in"the interior advising patrons of illegali- ty of open containers on sidewalks, streets, the Strand, and the beach: .,,., 8. Installation of screens on all exterior,,openable windows to prevent -any possible pass"-thru of alcoholic beverages and for control of flies. Exterior doors shall be self-closing or screened or use Health Department approved fly fans. 9. Operator of business must police the sidewalks which are di= rectly adjacent to the businessfor litter' and loitering'' -"- `problems and maintain in a clean and orderly manner on a dai- ly::basis, _.... 10. Hours of operation to be 6:00 a.m. - 2:00 a.m. daily. 11. Any changes to the interior design of this establishment shall require that it be retruned to the Board of Zoning Ad- _ justments, and it may revoke the conditional use permit if ----new interiors are,not consistent with the original' approval. 12. Food service available (hot and cold sandwiches) at a minimum s of -from 11:00 a.m.=to 10:00 p.m.' -13. Conditional use permit is to be for only this use as defined :•'==inithe present conditions; any change in use or concompliance of.any "condition of operation will be cause for revocation of the permit. 14. -Na dancing at any' "time. 15. First review for compliance with these conditions shall be - 'three months after date of approval. - 16. In the event that any one condition is found to be illegal or unenforceable by court of competent jurisdiction, then the parties agree that all other conditions shall remain in full force and effect. The parties understand that the. applicant is represented by counsel at all steps of these proceedings and it is the opinion of the City Attorney that the condi- tions meet Constitutional requirements, and in the even that either attorney is in error both parties agree that no aciton for damages shall be brought against the other party and that the exclusive remedyon behalf of the applicant is fora Man- date of Declaratory Relief to make the determination that any one or more conditions "i illegal and undenforceable, and parties wiive -all rights -to -damages. -- _1 . ,_17. This conditional use permit shall be reviewed every six 'months ..:. VOTE: AYES: Comms. Beard, DeBellis, Merrill, Moore, Walker, Chmn. Ebey. NOES:•: None ABSENT:.. None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify. that the foregoing -Resolution BZA 154-391 was adopted by the Board of Zoning Adjustments at a regular meeting held on the December .15, Date CORALIE EBEY, CHAIRMAN JIM WALKER, SECRETARY::: RESOLUTION B.Z.A. 154-365 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CON- JUNCTION WITH THE OPERATION OF A BAR ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 PIER AVENUE, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Adjustments of the City of Hermosa Beach, at a public hearing held on May 5, 1980 in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, considered the request of Mr. Paul E. Hennessey for live entertainment in the form of ampli- fied bands in conjunction with the operation of a bar at 8 Pier Avenue, legally described as Lot 5, Block 12, Hermosa Beach Tract; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing; the Board reviewed the data submitted by the appli- cant and city staff; and WHEREAS, the proposed conditional use permit is not in conflict with the area's zoning or general plan designation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Zoning Adjustments of Hermosa Beach does hereby approve a conditional use permit for live entertainment in the form of amplified bands in conjunction with the operation of a bar at'8 Pier Avenue, subject to the following conditions: 1. Electronically amplified musical entertainment shall be limited to the hours of 9:00 p.m. to 1:15 a.m. on weekdays and from 2:00 p.m. to 1:15 a.m. on Saturdays. and Sundays. 2. That outer doors and exterior openable windows be closed at all times when electronically amplified musical entertainment is occurring. 3. Chapter 192 of the City Code entitled Noise Regulation shall be complied with. Specifically, this conditional use permit is not a permit to violate Section 191/2-3 entitled Noise limits. 4. Maximum permissible occupancy must be clearly posted at all times and may not be exceeded at any time. If the Police/Fire Departments determine that the maximum permissible occupancy of the building is being violated, they may cite the business and initiate a conditional use permit revocation. 5. If the operation of this establishment causes a risk of harm to persons or prop- erty, the Police Department may assign two policemen as doormen during hours of operation at the applicant's expense. 6. No admission, or service of alcohol, to anyone on skates. 7. Posting of sign in the interior advising patrons of illegality of open containers on sidewalks, streets, the Strand, and the beach. 8. Installation of screens on all exterior, openable windows to prevent any possible pass thru of alcoholic beverages and for control of flies. Exterior doors shall be self-closing or screened or use Health Department approved fly fans. 9. Operator of business must police the sidewalks which are directly adjacent to the business for litter and loitering problems and maintain in a clean and orderly manner on a daily basis. - Continued - • PAGE TWO - RESOLUTION B(- .L.A. 154-365 8 PIER AVENUE 10. Hours of operation to be 6:00 a.m. - 2:00 a.m. daily. 11. Any changes to the interior design of this establishment shall require that it be returned to the Board of Zoning Adjustments, and it may revoke the conditional use permit if new interiors are not consistent with the original approval. 12. Food service available (hot and cold sandwiches) at a minimum of from 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 13. Conditional use permit is to be for only this use as defined in the present conditions; any change in use or noncompliance of any condition of operation will be cause for revocation of the permit. 14. No dancing at any time. 15.- First review for compliance_ with these conditions shall be three months after date of approval... 16. In the event that any one condition is found to be illegal or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, then the parties agree that all other :conditions shall -remain in full force and effect. The parties understand that .the applicant is represented by counsel at all steps of these proceedings and is.the:opinion of the City Attorney that the conditions meet Constitutional requirements, and in the event that either attorney is in error both parties 'agree that:no action -for damages shall be brought against the other party and (:that the exclusive remedy on behalf of the applicant is for a Mandate or Decla- tory Relief to make the determination that any one or more conditions is illegal. :and unenforceable, and parties waive all. rights to damages. • VOTE: AYES: Comms. Beard, DeBellis, Merrill, Moore, Walker, Chmn. Ebey. NOES: None ABSENT: None • CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution BZA 154-365 was adopted by the Board of Zoning Adjustments at a regular meeting held on the 5th day of May, 1980. Date '242y/0 JIM WALKER, S CRETARY c, • CD ACNcOUsu CORALIE EBEY, CHAIRMAN Planning Dept. City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach May 18, 1990 : t ? 1 1 g g 0 Enclosed please find our ,application for an Amendment to our Conditional Use Permit. We are requesting that /#1 read the same as Resolution B.Z.A. 154-365. "Electronically amplified musical entertainment shall be limited to the hours of 9:00 pm to 1:15 am on weekdays and from 2:00 pm to 1:15 am on Saturdays and Sundays". Although we feel strongly that we should not be obligated to apply for an Amendment to our current Conditional Use Permit, in intrest of avoiding litigation and in intrest of cooperation with the city, we are submitting the enclosed package for consideration. Thank you for your consideration and help. Enclosures PH/cf Sincerely, .Paul Hennessey." HENNESSEY'S TAVERN, INC. HENNESSEY'S TAVERNS, INCORPORATED-� CORPORATE OFFICE: 1845 SOUTH ELENA, SUITE 300, REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90277 - PHONE: (213) 540-2274 TY4:- OF HERMOS PROJECT ADDRESS Hennessey's Tavern EACH Project Name (If applicable) LEGAL DESCRIPTION 8 Pier Ave, Hermosa Beach \.4A\r' 2 1 iqo APPLICANT INFORMATION: Name(s) Mailing Address 'cfi F3b��►� 1845 S. Elena #300, Phone ZONING Redondo Beach 90277 Applicant's Relationship to Property APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE Renter DATE PROJECT REQUEST X Amendment Conditional Use Permit -Commercial Conditional Use Permit -Condominium Number of Units Development Agreement Environmental Staff Review Final Subdivision (Parcel/Tract Map) General Plan FOR OFFICE USE ONLY -,DATE OF SUBMITTAL: Lot Line Adjustment Lot Split Parking Plan Precise Plan Specific Plan Specific Plan Amendment Tentative Subdivision (Parcel/Tract Map) Zone Change Zone Variance Total Fees RECEIVED BY: DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Restaurant / Bar (attach additional pages if necessary) OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT* We/I being duly sworn, depose and say that we/I are/am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the fore- going sttements and answers herein contained and the inf•rmation herewith submitted are true and correct to the best o /my k • 1 -•-.and belief. Su cribed and sworn before me this /8 7—eday of /t1,-7 , l99e. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the County of Los State of California. * Signature required from Angeles, Owner Addre` Telephone o1-1.I(:IAL ShAL WIWAM A. HERRO Notary PUbflc - California PNINCIPM. bIttfCE IN L, A. O NTY loty sov,t., E,xry(: fyJ6w: 1, 191 current property owner, not owner in escrow. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of perjury that I did on the 30f4 day of QG9abe-r , 1990 , deposit into the United States Post Office, first class postage prepaid, a copy of the Public Notice attached as Exhibit "A" to each and every person attached as Exhibit "B". I warrant that the persons named on Exhibit "B" are all the persons required by applicable law to receive the Public Notice attached as Exhibit "A". I understand and agree that it is my responsibility to cause these Public Notices to be made in an aaccurate and timely fashion andagree to hold the City harmless against any liability whatsoever for any defect of said notice or notices. In the event an action is instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction which questions the legality of the Public Notices, then the City may in its exclusive discretion suspend all hearings or cause the cessation of any consturction or of any use which was permitted as a result of a hearing which was held on accordance with the Public Notice. In the event that the court declares the notice or noticing procedure to be effective, then the City may in its exclusive discretion revoke any permits - granted and cause any approvals given pursuant to those Public Notices to be declared null and -void and I agree on behalf of myself and my heirs, assigns or successors -in -interest to hold the City harmless in connection therewith. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. I have executed this declaration on this the gf4 day of /( ou F -Hl , 199 at Hermosa Beach, California. YU - Y/N4- 77Aj - (Name) (Signature)-) nett (Capacity) State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) SS On this the d day of nio VG -,v/4 -5/f=- =-", 199 a , before me, 4.1/4i iX . ",710s-,19/,_/, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared yu_y„i 7/,i/E, and proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence'to be the person(s) whose name(s) /5 suscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that .7',,/-2-7 executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (SEAL) OFFICIAL SEAL KAREN K. MIZUSAKI Notary Public—California LOS ANGELES COUNTY My Comm. Exp. Mar. 16, 1992 NOTARY PUBLIC �� 4 • MAR 24 1987 i-1 Fcp1, V.`e:1,014- ETZArr : 1/4" CO Li _I I- ! 1 1 t10.3/.16V4Y "r4\WW Plea. kve ' I-tafrtosA Egitc4 ,C.a rogAile LK's'b TlooM n J• o • • Ti • • 1 mo Piot A161 ri ( .1 3 IID C.1-4-44-4" 6C4t,e t/4"= ID 1-1N 5E`( TAVVN o_mR 14E-VO4 geAG41CA November 8, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 13, 1990 FEE RECOMMENDATIONS RESULTING FROM USER FEE STUDY AND STAFF RESEARCH Recommendation: That the City Council accept the user fees study and cost allo- cation plan from the firm of David M. Griffin and Associates, and adopt the implementing ordinance and resolution. Background: The City Council held a workshop lasting nearly three hours on this topic on October 30, 1990. The attached memo, dated October 25, 1990, was prepared for that workshop, and contains the background and broad analysis information on this topic. Analysis: There are several matters that have been finalized and new information developed since the workshop, as follows: (1) The questions of the Council were reviewed and responses prepared, as reflected in Attachment A. (2) An ordinance to modify the article in the City code related to fees, as well as numerous sections referring to fees, has been finally drafted and is included as Attachment B. (3) Additional current fees not reviewed by the consultant were added to the fee master resolution (Attachment C) as schedule 6. Two current fees were added to schedule 1, Building and Safety, and one current fee to schedule 5, Public Works. These documents include the staff's current recommendations. Some changes since the workshop are reflected in Attachment A. Others are as follows: (1) Conditional use permit - the Planning Commission had previously requested consideration of a reduced fee for existing businesses who are now being required to apply for CUP due to the amortization ordinance. In researching the matter pursuant to this request, it is apparent that existing operations that now require a CUP result in less cost to the City in processing the application, as the nature of their activities is well known and easily observed. This also applies to businesses with current CUP's requesting amendments that do not affect their entire operation. Accordingly, staff is recommending that the recommended increase in permit fees for CUP'S only apply to new businesses, or existing businesses wishing to change their operations to include activities requiring a CUP. The existing fee, at a substantially reduced rate, 1 then would apply for existing businesses that either desire amendments to their CUP, or are required to apply for a CUP for the first time as a result of the amortization ordinance. (2) The Permitted Use, Text Amendment, and Planning Commission Appeal Request - while processing these applications initially benefit the applicant, they also serve to clarify, interpret, and improve the City's code for others in the future. Accordingly, it is not appropriate to charge 100% of cost for these fees, and staff is recommending 75% of the current cost be recovered by the fees for these applications. Two new fees also were considered by the staff, but are not being recommended at this time. One would be a fee for mailing out the agenda. The fee would approximate $25.00 per year. After reviewing, it seems apparent that the processing cost to collect and account for the fee may absorb much of the revenue. Further, it may discourage people from requesting copies of the agenda, which work against our high priority goal to improve communications with the public. As a alternative, staff is planning on notifying current recipients periodically that their continued receipt of the agendas will require affirmative notice to us of their continued interest. A second fee used by some cities is a research fee when elaborate research is requested of city records. Since a certain amount of effort is expected, it is unclear at what point this fee should be charged, so staff is not recommending at this time. We will continue to monitor requests to see whether city time is being invested in efforts that are clearly for individuals rather than for the public at large. Since fee adjustments will result in different demand levels for request for services, it is impossible to know the exact fiscal impact for these recommendations. However, together with the $11,000 increase in revenue for implementation of the cost allocation plan and the changes since the October 30, 1990 meeting, it is estimated the annual impact on our Citys budget will be between $100,000 and $250,000. Perhaps as significant, the indexing of our fees will permit the value of those fees to stay constant as the value of the dollar fluctuates in future years. One final note; the recommendations contained here do not include any charges that are classified as taxes, rentals or leases, fines, charges set by contract, recreation fees, or developer impact fees. These other areas are continuing to be reviewed by staff and will be updated as staff time and priorities allow. Respectfully submitted, evin B. North a t City Manager { RESPONSE TO CITY COUNCIL QUESTIONS/COMMENTS ON USER FEES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 30, 1990 Comment: FIN/PLN 1. Noticing for appeals to Council would cost less than 300' noticing fee. Need to consider special fees. Answer: Question: Staff agrees and recommends that the 300' noticing fee minus the costs of the contractor ($250) that prepares the noticing list be charged as a noticing fee for appeal to City Council. The new fee of $90 allows for the fact that the noticing list has been prepared. The fee is included in the master fee resolution. FIN/PLN 2. 300' noticing not currently done inhouse - would have new cost to offset. Impact would be less. Are there other fees where impact is overstated? Answer: Comment: The new cost to have a contractor perform the noticing services will be approximately $26,000 of the total $27,200 impact therefore the City will recover $1,200 in administrative costs if all work is done by contractor. Other fees contained in the user fee study are based on costs being incurred currently, not new costs, therefore no other fee impacts would be overstated. BLD 2.1 Zoning enforcement costs should be better recovered from violators - civil method used in Los Angeles. Answer: A separate report will be presented to City Council at a future meeting. Question: FIN/PS 3. Non -transport fee. Who determines when to charge? DMG will supply chart of other cities fees for comparison. Not charge for all? Does not include readiness costs. Answer: There are several options that could be used to charge for paramedic responses: 1) charge for all non-residents and give residents free service using the rationale that residents principally pay taxes for us to provide the service, non-residents do not; 2) charge for all calls that are non -life threatening. The paramedics and the Chief can ATTACHMENT A determine which ones would receive billings after the response is made and the reports are filed; 3) charge for all calls with no exceptions or exemptions; or 4) charge 50% of cost for all non-resident responses and for resident calls that would be categorized as non -emergency, non -life threatening calls. The Chief and the paramedics would determine which are non -life threatening calls such as those for headaches, broken fingernails, small cuts, drug related problems, helping people into bed and other calls considered to be an abuse and misuse of the emergency medical system; 5) charge $50 for all resident emergency calls, $100 for non-resident and non -emergency resident calls. Staff recommended alternative 3 at the October 30th workshop. Charging less than full cost reduces costs for insurance companies and Medicare, which seems an unintended benefit. Attached are the comparison charts of paramedic fees provided by DMG and a survey of neighboring cities provided by our paramedic coordinator. Question: FIN/PS 4. Do we have to provide clearance letter? Cost seems too low. Answer: The City does not have to provide clearance letters...it is a courtesy service. The Chief has checked the costs and they seem to be appropriate based on the time and rates for the employees involved. Comment: FIN/PS 5. Sign off tickets - cost seems too high. Answer: The costs calculated should have included only one officer, not two. After discussions with records staff, the Chief has reached the conclusion that it may be in the best interest of the department and the City for public relations to discontinue charging for the sign -offs. Some of the surrounding agencies do not charge for this service and the Marshalls provide the service free. The City is not required to provide this service, it is a courtesy. Only the Marshalls are required to provide the service. The records staff feels that the fee should be discontinued since the individuals now have to pay the fine for citations for registration tags (this was not the case in the past). Many complaints are received about the fee for vehicle inspection. The recommended resolution ll for vehicle inspection. The recommended resolution reflects no charge for this service. Comment: FIN/PS 6. Review historical fiesta/film/special event income for police fees to determine impact of changes. Answer: Question: Staff recommends that special event security fees be left at the present rate of $55, therefore there would be no impact or increase in revenue. The summary sheets presented at the workshop assumed no increase in revenue. The cost data presented by DMG assumed the cost of two officers for each event. The full cost for one officer would be $53.05, which is equivalent to our current fee of $55. FIN/PW 7. Do other cities charge utility companies for street excavation. KN - Are not many excavations caused and paid for by contractor even if utility company does work? Answer: Comment: A survey of neighboring cities fees is attached. The Public Works Director has confirmed that many street excavations performed by utility companies are a result of requests by contractors performing residential development. FIN 8. Beach volleyball fee should indicate "application" in title. Answer: The title of the fee has been changed to include the word application. Comment: PW 9. Report on volleyball courts - where are they, how many have permits, how far from Strand wall, what is current procedure for permit issuance. Answer: A separate report will be presented to City Council at a future meeting. Comment: FIN/PW 10. Review $.50 per square foot charge on commercial encroachments. Answer: Staff intends to review the reasonableness of this rate in the future. Comment: FIN Answer: 11. Consider using deposits, late fees. Government Code allows 1.5%/mo according to Councilmember Creighton. The Deputy City Attorney finds no specific reference to late fees or monthly interest charges in the code, however, suggests that a reasonable fee could be implemented. Staff is recommending an escalation in the rate for some fees (paramedic transport, fire inspection) if unpaid after a certain period of time which is similar to a late fee. Deposits are currently used on some fees such as facility rentals and street excavations. Most fees are paid in advance, alleviating the need for deposits, however if collection problems arise in some areas, deposits could be implemented. -ort CHARGE Response Fee (BLS) Response Fee (ALS) Transportation Fee (BLS) la Transportation Fee (ALS) 1a Resident (ALS. BLS) Non -Resident (ALS. BLS) Med-Care Fee Subscription Service (yearly) . :ADDITIONAL CHARGES Ic_ • NighUHoliday Charge Mileage Fee Additional Patient Oxygen Charge Stand-by Charge/l5 minutes Wait lime Charge/15 minutes Code 3 Charge Extra Handling lv EKG Airway (wilh oxygen) Medical Anti -Shock Trousers OB Krt Bum Kit Mulli-Traurna Dressing Decontamination of Unit Report Copies Incubator Surgical Collar Fee for Transportation beyond nearest hospital VACAVILLE MANHATTAN BEACH FIRE DEPT FIRE DEPT ld 1d $250.00 $37500 $78.00 $125.00 NOTES COMPARISON OF PARAMEDIC FEES CULVER CITY FIRE DEPT 1d $90.00 $150.00 ANAHEIM FIRE DEPT 1e 5150.00 $250.03 $24.00 BEVERLY HILLS FIRE DEPT $85.40 $85.40 $45.50 $45.50 $15.35 $30.60 $12.30 BURBANK FIRE DEPT $80.00 $80.00 $12.00 $5.00 $40.00 $12.00 $12.00 [- - LONG BEACH FIRE DEPT $151.00 $151.00 $8.50 $28.00 $56.00 1a II shore is no HESPONSE FEE. Ikon the T HANSPOATATION FEE reflects the transportation and response charges together_ 5b Hellecls charges lot non -subscribers only. AIsathis fire dupartrnent only responds and does not transport. 1c Charmed per item. per call td Charged only d patient is transported 4e Reflects charges for non-Ell(scribers only. fEEORCHARGE;:> <; Response Fee (BLS) Response Fee (ALS) Transportation Fee (BLS) is Transportation Fee (ALS) la _Resident (ALS. BLS) Non -Resident (ALS. BLS) Medi -Care Fee Subscription Service (yearly) Night!Holiday Charge Mileage Fee Addkional Patient Qxygen Charge Stand-byChargeli5 minutes Wail time Charge/15 minutes Code 3 Charge Extra Handling Iv EKG Autlray (with oxygen) Medical Anti -Shock Trousers OB IGt Burn Kit Multi -Trauma Dressing Decontamination of Unit Report Copies Incubates Surgical Collar Fee for Transportation beyond nearest hospital ORANGE FIRE DEPT lb $100.00 $150.00 $24.00 FULLERTON FIRE DEPT lb $75.00 $125.00 $14.00 COMPARISON OF PARAMEDIC FEES CARLSBAD FIRE DEPT $5.00 $100.00 $10.00 NOTES PIEDMONT FIRE DEPT le, $125.00 $225.00 $337.00 $15.00 PASADENA FIRE DEPT $151.00 $271.50 $28.00 $56.00 ALAMEDA CO TRAUMA CTR SYSTEMS $183.00 $240.00 $30.75 $7.40 $30.25 $21.60 $26.75 $51.00 1a N there is no RESPONSE FEE, then the TRANSPORTATION FEE 'enacts the transportation and response charges together. ib Reflects charges lot non -subscribers wily. Also Nits lire department only:Impends and doos nut transport. 1c Chained per Awn, pot call. 1d Charged only it patient is transported. Ia Reflects charges tow non-subsvrhers only_ MERCY PENNINSULA AMBULANCE (S.F.) $212.30 $440.00 $38.50 $8.25 $38.50 $53.75 FEE OA CHARGE Response Fee (BLS) Response Fee (ALS) Transportation Fee (BLS) la Transportation Fee (ALS) to Resident (ALS, BLS) Non -Resident (ALS, RLS) Medi -Care Fee Subscription Service (yearly) f, ADDn1ONAL' CHARGF,S. Night/Holiday Charge Mileage Fee 1 Addf4ional Patient Oxygen Charge Stand-by Charge/15 minutes Wait time Charge/15 minutes Code 3 Charge Extra Handling EKG Airway (with oxygen) Medical Anti -Shock Trousers OR Kit Burn Kit Multi -Trauma Dressing Decontamination of Unit Report Copies Incubator Surgical Collar Fee for Transportation beyond nearest hospital r(PROF AMBULANCE SVCS, INC. tA COUNTY) $156.00 $260.00 COMPARISON OF PARAMEDIC FEES SACRAMENTO AMBULANCE SERVICE $175.00 $350.00 $350.00 $40.00 $7.50 $50.00 $30.00 $50.00 $50.00 $45.00 $75.00 $25.00 $15.00 $5.00 $30.00 25 10 NOTES METRO AMBULANCE SERVICE (SACTO) $175.00 $350.00 $40.00 17.50 $50.00 130.00 $12.50 $45.00 $30.00 $30.00 DOCTOR'S AMBULANCE (MODESTO) $170.00 $365.00 $35.00 $8.00 $30.00 115.00 $45.00 $50.00 165.00 115.00 STOCKTON AREA $170.00 $375.00 $46.00- $6.60 $30.00 $46.00 ACME AMBULANCE (ALAMEDA) $245.00 $50.00 $10.00 $40.00 11 there is no RESPONSE FEE. than the TRANSPORTATION FEE reflects the transportation and response charges together. tb Refects charges for non-suhecribors only. Also this fire departnnal only responds and does not traJISfrol. tc Charged per item. per call. W Charged only if pationt is transported. to Rullads charges for non-subscribors only. CITY Of H ERMOSA BEACH INTER -OFFICE MEMO TO•Director Of Public Safety SUBJECT' ParmPrli c FPPS DATE• 11-5-90 FROM•Paul Hawkins, Paramedic Coordinato. The following is a list of local Cities Paramedic fees. Transport Response Inglewood 100.00 Resident 100.00 Non -Res. 200.00 Non -Res. N.C. for Res. Beverly Hills Santa Monica Culver City 100.00 150.00 N.C. 90.00Resident' 150.00 Non -Res. N.C. 100.00 Gardena 56.00 Torrance. N.C. N.C. Hawthorne 150.00 75.00 Manhattan Beach 75.00 Res. 125.00 Non -Res. El Segundo 120.00 Non -Res. Redondo Beach N.C. N.C. /D 175.00 Advanced Life Support CHARGES TO UTILITY COMPANIES FOR STREET EXCAVATION FEE PLUS 2 HOURS CITY FEE CHARGED INSPECTION Hermosa Beach Existing: Permit Fee: $ 25.00 $145.00 Inspection Fee @ Hr/Inspec.: $ 25.00 Proposed: Permit & 2 hr.s Inspection: $145.00 Manhattan Beach Permit Fee: $ 11.30 $ 56.40 Inspection Fee @ Hr/Inspec.: $ 22.55 "After -The -Fact" Permit Fee: $100.00 Excavation Construction Permit Deposit: $369.00 Plan check fee for construction plans related to private development: Based upon the direct and overhead costs incurred by the City. Hawthorne N/A N/A El Segundo Permit Fee: $ 90.00 $150 Inspection Fee: Actual direct labor cost (Hermosa Bch.Est.$30) vehicle charges Torrance Rancho Palos Verdes Redondo Beach Underground Alert Fee $ 16.00 (If applicable) Util. Co. Blanket Fee: $2,000.00 Inspection Fee: Actual direct labor cost x 1.8 vehicle charges No charge to Utility Co. Excavation Permits: Inspection Fee (per hour): Excavation Permit: Excavation Inspection: 0 $ 25.00 $117.00 $ 46.00 $ 40.00 $120.00 $ 40.00 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORDINANCE NO. 90 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTICLE XIII OF THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE RELATED TO FEES AND SERVICE CHARGE REVENUE/COST COMPAR- ISON SYSTEM AND AMENDING VARIOUS OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CODE INCONSISTENT THEREWITH. WHEREAS, the City has conducted a general review of its user fees and cost allocations as part of a study performed by David M. Griffith Associates; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this review is to update fees and charges and clarify the procedure by which fees and charges are kept current, to allow more frequent and routine updating; and WHEREAS, the procedure developed in 1984 during the last general update has not proven to be a clear or efficient method to keep fees and charges updated; and WHEREAS, fees and charges are typically set by resolution, where they can be consolidated for easier reference and updating; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Article XIII of the Hermosa Beach City Code is hereby amended by deleting in their entirety Sections 2-110, 2- 112, 2-113, and 2-114; by amending Sections 2-109 and 2-115; by adding a new Section 2-111, and by renumbering sections so that Article XIII is amended to read as follows: "ARTICLE XIII. FEE AND SERVICE CHARGE REVENUE/COST COMPARISON SYSTEM. Sec. 2-109. Intent. 26 Pursuant to Article XIIIB of the California Constitution, it 27 is the intent of the City Council to require the ascertainment 28 and recovery of costs reasonably borne from fees and charges ATTACHMENT B -12- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 levied therefor in providing the regulation, products or services. Sec. 2-110. ',Costs reasonably borne'' defined. "Costs reasonably borne," as used and ordered to be applied in this article are to consist of the following elements: (a) All applicable direct costs including, but not limited to salaries, wages, fringe benefits, services and supplies, operations expenses, contracted services, spe- cial supplies, and any other direct expense incurred. (b) All applicable indirect costs including, but not re- stricted to, building maintenance and operations, equip- ment maintenance, communication, printing and reproduc- tion, and like distributed expenses. (c) Fixed assets recovery expenses, consisting of deprecia- tion on fixed assets, and additional charges, calculated on the cost divided by the approximate life expectancy of the fixed asset. (d) General overhead, expressed as a percentage, distribut- ing and charging the expenses of the city council, city manager, finance department, city treasurer, city clerk, city attorney's office, community promotion, personnel office, and all other staff and support services. (e) Departmental overhead, expressed as a percentage, dis- tributing and charging the cost of each department head and his or her supporting expenses. Sec. 2-111. Schedule of Fees and Service Charges. Fees and service charges, whether or not provided for else- where by ordinance, shall be set and adjusted by resolution of the City Council following a public report and recommendation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 from City staff reflecting the cost reasonably borne and the recommended percentage of recovery, except that the City Manager is hereby empowered to set a fee for service requests, not sub- ject to Section 54990 et. seq. of the California Government Code, when no fee has otherwise been established, and the request can- not be met unless the City incurs costs that can be reasonably borne from fees and charges. Fees specified in Sections 54990 and 54991 of the California Government Code shall be effective only after meeting the requirements set forth in Section 54993. To the extent possible, the City's fees and charges shall be fixed by one master fee resolution of the Council. Sec. 2-112. Appeal to City Council. Any person who feels that any fee or charge is in excess of the percentage of costs reasonably borne to be recovered, or is inappropriately set, may appeal in writing to the City Council. SECTION 2. Section 4-4(a) is hereby amended to read as fol- lows: "Any person desiring to keep, harbor, possess, or maintain any nonhousehold animal as required under the provisions of this article shall make application for such permit in writing, ad- dressed, and file the same with the general services department on a form to be supplied by that office. Each application shall be accompanied by an application fee, payable to the City, of an amount fixed by resolution of the City Council, which shall be retained by the city to cover its costs in connection with the processing of such application and which shall not be refunded. Such application shall state the kind of animal for which the permit is desired, the location of the premises where the same is to be kept or maintained, and the manner in which the applicant proposes to keep the same, giving details as to enclosures, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 tethers, cages or other means which the applicant proposes to employ in the event the permit is granted and their distance from the nearest dwelling or other structure used for human habitation." SECTION 3. Section 4-4.1 is hereby amended to read as fol- lows: "Upon the granting or denial of a permit or revocation, the applicant and all parties expressing concern shall be notified of the decision by the General Services Director in writing. Appeals shall be in writing, including specific items of dis- agreement with the General Services Director's decision or find- ings. Appeals shall be filed with the city clerk's office within fifteen (15) days of the issuance of the report of decision and findings. The fee for appeals shall be an amount fixed by resolution of the City Council. The filing of an appeal with the City Clerk shall stay the decision of the General Services Direc- tor until the appeal has been acted on. When an appeal is filed, the General Services Director shall forward the record of the case to the City Council. The City Council shall conduct a public hearing. Such hearings shall be held within forty (40) days of the Council's receipt of the written appeal. The City Council shall announce its decision and findings within sixty (60) days of the closing of the hearing, unless good cause is shown for an extension of time. The Council may incorporate by reference the findings of the General Services Director. Within thirty (30) days of the final decision on the administrative pro- cess, the City Council shall mail notice to the appellant and applicant. A copy of this notice shall be included in the General Services Director's files." 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 4. Section 4-11 (a) is hereby amended to read as follows: "Every person owning, harboring or controlling any dog within the City shall before the first day of October of each year apply for and procure a license and license tag for each such dog and shall pay to the City an amount fixed by resolution of the City Council. Exception: For dogs owned by senior citizens of the City aged sixty (60) or over, fifty (50) per cent of the rate established by this section when said owner's annual household income is less that seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) per year. A dog owner seeking to qualify for this exemption shall file a statement under penalty of perjury certifying as to the facts of eligibility upon payment of each annual fee. Exception: Seeing eye dogs shall be licensed, but no fee shall be charged." SECTION 5. Section 4-18 is hereby amended to read as fol- lows: "(a) For the first, second and third redemptions of the dog, increasing fees in amounts set by resolution of the City Council shall be paid to the city. (b) In all cases, if the animal has been impounded at the con- tracting animal shelter facility, said fee shall be paid prior to payment of the appropriate impound fees to the poundmaster. Any license required by such dog shall be purchased from the city prior to the redemption of an impounded dog if said license has not been previously obtained or is not in full force and effect. SECTION 6. Section 4-40 (c),(e) & (f) is hereby amended to read as follows: (c) "The registration fee shall be in an amount fixed by resolu- tion of the City Council per cat so registered. Registration 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 shall be valid for the life of the cat. The fee may be reduced to 50% if a certificate of spaying or neutering is presented upon application for registration hereunder. (e) There shall be a fee in the amount fixed by resolution of the City Council for the duplication of a lost cat tag. (f) There shall be a fee in an amount fixed by resolution of the City Council to have a change in ownership entered upon the records." SECTION 7. Section 7-1.3, Sec. 304 (b) is hereby amended to read as follows: "The fee for each permit shall be as set forth in the most recent resolution of the City Council adopted pur- suant to the requirements of Chapter 2, Article XIII of, the City Code. The determination of value or valuation under any of the provisions of this code shall be made by the building official. Where work for which a permit is required by this code is started or proceeded with prior to obtaining said permit, the fees above specified shall be quadrupled, but the payment of such quadrupled fee shall not relieve any persons from fully complying with the requirements of this code in the execution of the work nor from any other penalties prescribed herein." SECTION 8. Section 7-4.3 Sec. 304 (b)is hereby amended to read as follows: "The fee for each permit shall be as set forth in the most recent resolution of the City Council adopted pur- suant to the requirements of Chapter 2, Article XII of the City Code." SECTION 9. Section 11-2 first paragraph is hereby amended to read as follows: " Section 304 of said electric code is here- by amended to replace the term "Table No. 3-A." with the term "the most recent resolution of the City Council adopted pursuant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 to the requirements of Chapter 2, Article XIII of the City Code." SECTION 10. Section 13-15 is hereby amended to read as fol- lows: "Eligible organizations desiring to obtain such permit to conduct bingo games in the City shall file an application in writing therefor and a fee in an amount fixed by resolution of the City Council in the office of the Business License Depart- ment. The issuing authority shall be the City Manager, or his authorized representative. The permit issued shall be for a term of six (6) months from the date of issuance. The issuance of a permit or permits shall not confer upon any applicant any rights whatsoever that any subsequent permit shall be issued. The City Council reserves the right to rescind this article for any reason at any time whereupon all permits shall immediately be termi- nated, canceled and of no further force or effect, whereupon the City shall forthwith return to the applicant the application fee and the applicant shall immediately cease all bingo activities." SECTION 11. Section 17-16.1 is hereby amended to read as follows: "A duplicate license may be issued, with the consent of the license collector, to replace any license previously issued hereunder which has been lost or destroyed upon the licensee filing statement of such fact, and at the time of filing such statement paying to the license collector a duplicate license fee in an amount fixed by resolution of the City Council." SECTION 12. Section 17-55.14 (a) is hereby amended to read as follows: "A service charge in an amount fixed by resolution of the City Council shall be paid to the City by each subscriber or permittee of an alarm system, for each response made by the Police or Fire Department to the location of a false alarm after the first three (3) responses are made during the same calendar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 year." SECTION 13. Section 19-61.1 (b)is hereby amended to read as follows: "Payment of fees as fixed by resolution of the City Council." SECTION 14. Section 19.5-21 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Prior to the issuance of the permit, a permit fee in an amount fixed by resolution of the City Council per day, or any portion thereof, shall be paid to the City. No fee shall be paid by any nonprofit organization." SECTION 15. Section 24-2.4 is hereby amended to read as follows: "The schedule of fees contained in section 20.7 of the Uniform Plumbing Code is hereby deleted and the schedule of fees most recently enacted by resolution of the City Council pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 2, Article XII of the City Code is hereby substituted therefor." SECTION 16. Section 29.5-12 (b) is hereby amended to read as follows: "A filing fee fixed by resolution of the City Coun- cil shall be submitted by the applicant to cover costs of filing and examination of tentative maps. This fee shall be nonrefundable." SECTION 17. 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 18. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. SECTION 19. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceed- ings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1990. PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: IANIS CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 4© 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 90 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING A MASTER SCHEDULE OF SERVICE CHARGES AND FEES WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XIIIB of the Constitution of the State of California, it is the intent of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach to ascertain and recover costs reasonably borne from fees and charges levied therefore in providing certain City regulation, products or services; and WHEREAS, in furtherance of this objective the Hermosa Beach City Council authorized a study in 1990 by David M. Griffith and Associates and City staff to review the City's revenue structure and costs related to non -tax supported services to the public; and WHEREAS, such study was completed pursuant to the requirements of Article XIIIB Section B (6), and found that revenue from fees and charges for certain services benefiting only portions of the general taxpaying public, or which are used in varying amounts by rate payers, were inadequate to avoid being subsidized by the general tax paying public, and in a few cases were higher than appropriate; and WHEREAS, increases in service fees and charges will in many cases cause the services to be self-supporting, thereby freeing much needed tax revenue to provide services to our citizens at large; and WHEREAS, it is organizationally beneficial to consolidate as many fees and charges as reasonable into one resolution for sy reference and updating; and ATTACHMENT C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS, notice and public hearing requirements for fee subject to Government Section 54992 have been met prior t passage of this resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of th City of Hermosa Beach that a master schedule of service fees an charges for services performed by City Departments shall be a shown on the attached schedules for the departments set fort below: SECTION 1. BUILDING AND SAFETY 2. FIRE 3. PLANNING 4. POLICE 5. PUBLIC WORKS 6. MISCELLANEOUS FEES 7. All fees and charges specified in this resolutio shall be administratively adjusted annually September 1 of each year up a maximum percentage o the lower of the following: a. the percentage increase in the. City's Genera Fund operating appropriations over the prio fiscal year, or b. the percentage change in the Consumer Price Inde for all urban consumers, Los Angeles/Long Beac area, all items, for the twelve months ending th prior May of the same calendar year. 8. All portions of prior resolutions conflicting wit this resolution are hereby superseded. - Z Z -�- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9. This resolution, following its adoption by the City Council, shall take effect upon the effectiveness of its companion ordinance on the same subject. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1990. PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 0-er CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY BUILDING BUILDING PERM/INSP PLBG/MECH PERM/INSP ELECTRICAL PERM/INSP PLAN CHECKING SIGN REVIEW TEMP SIGN PERMIT RBR RES INSP OCC PERMIT COMM INSP BOARD OF APPEALS LEGAL DET HEARING ZONING APPEALS REFUSE LIEN FEE -TENANT REFUSE BILLING SCHEDULE 1 LEGAL AUTHORITY HBMC 7-1.3 HBMC 24-2.4/7-4.3 HBMC 11-2 Ord 84-762 Ord 77-574 New Res 84-473 Exec Ord 9/84 Ord N.S. 508 New New Res 87-5024 Res 87-5024 FEE * REFER TO SCHEDULE REFER TO SCHEDULE REFER TO SCHEDULE * 65% OF BLDG PERMITS $80 $30 $40 $40 $150 $1,000 $450 $10 $10 *EXCLUDED FROM COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS, BASED ON VALUATIONS 2� BUILDING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE Total Valuation Fee $1.00 to $500.00 $500.00 to $2000.00 $25.00 $25.00 for the first $500.00 plus $4.00 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof, to and in- cluding $2000.00 $2001.00 to $25,000.00 $85.00 for the first $2,000.00 plus $15.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $441.50 for the first $25,000.00 plus $11.75 for each additional $1000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00 $50,000.00 to $100,000.00 $735.25 for the first $50,000.00 plus $7.75 for each $1000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00 $100,001.00 and up $1122.75 for the first $100,000.00 plus $6.50 for each additional $1000.00 or fraction thereof OTHER INSPECTION AND FEE SCHEDULES 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours - (minimum charge - two hours) $25.00 per hour 2. Reinspection fee assessed under provisions of Section 305 (g) - $25.00 each 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated - (minimum charge - one half hour) $25.00 per hour 4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans - (minimum charge - one half hour) $25.00 per hour ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE New General Use Branch Circuits Rating, Type or Use of Branch Circuits 15 or 20 amp. 120v lighting or general use recept.; and dwelling appliances 15 to 50 amps. and non -dwelling motors or appliances supplying loads not exceeding 3 HP or KVA. 1. 1 to 10 branch circuits 2. 11 to 40 branch circuits 3. 41 or more branch circuits 4. 15 or 20 amp. 208v to 277v lighting 5. All other lighting branch circuit 600v or less Fee for each Branch Circuit $ 12.00 11.00 10.00 15.50 19.00 Fees for adding outlets (to existing br. cir.) or temporary lights & yard lighting. Fee Number of Outlets or Lampholders 1. 1 to 5 inclusive $ 14.00 2. 6 to 10 inclusive 18.00 3. For ea. additional 10 outlets or fraction thereof 8.00 4. 50 or less lampholders, total fee 10.00 5. 51 to 100 lampholders, total fee 20.00 6. Ea. 100 Lampholders or fraction thereof over 100 10.00 Fees for Motors, Transformers, Heating App. & Misc. Equipment or Appliances. H.P., K.W., or K.V.A. Rating of Equipment 1. Over 3 and not over 5 $ 13.00 2. Over 5 and not over 20 20.00 3. Over 20 and not over 50 30.00 4. Over 50 and not over 100 66.00 5. Over 100 100.00 Fees for Required Fire Warning, Communications and Emergency Control Systems. 1. Up to 50 devices 2. 51 to 100 devices 3. 101 to 200 devices 4. 201 to 300 devices 5. 300 to 500 devices 6. Over 500 devices 7. Each control panel, standby power panel, annunciator panel, or similar main piece of control equipment $ 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 20.00 ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE continued Fees for Service and Switchboard Sections. Ampacity and voltage ratings of service entrance conductors, services switches or circuit breakers or switchboard sections. Services 1. 200 amp or less rating - 600v or less $13.00 2. 201 to and incl. 600 amp - 600v or less 26.00 3. Over 600 amp - 600v or less 54.00 4. Over 600 volt ratings 100.00 5. Temporary Power Pole 13.00 Switchboard Sections $12.00 20.00 30.00 60.00 Miscellaneous: Fee for issuing each permit 20.00 Fee for issuing each supplemental permit 6.00 MECHANICAL PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE (HEATING, VENTILATION, AIR CONDITIONING OR REFRIGERATION) Forced -air or Gravity Up to 100,000 B.T.U. 12.00 type Furnace including ducts and vents: Over 100,000 B.T.U. 15.00 Floor Furnace 12.00 Heater - Suspended, Recessed wall or floor mounted 12.00 Gas Piping System of 1 to 4 outlets 10.00 Gas Piping System of 5 or more outlets, per outlet 2.00 Appliance vent - only 6.00 Boiler - Up to 3 H.P. or 100,000 B.T.U. 12.00 Compressor - 3 to 15 H.P. or 100,001 to 500,000 B.T.U. 22.00 Absorption - 15 to 30 H.P. or 500,001 to 1,000,000 B.T.U. 30.00 System - 30 to 50 H.P. or 1,000,000 to 1,750,000 B.T.U. 45.00 Over 50 H.P. or 1,750,000 B.T.U. 75.00 Air Handling Unit Including Ducts - Under 10,000 C.F.M. 9.00 Over 10,000 C.F.M. 15.00 Evaporative cooler (non-portable) 9.00 Vent fan / single duct 6.00 Mechanical Vent 9.00 Mechanical exhaust hood 9.00 Domestic type incinerator 15.00 Commercial / Industrial incinerator 60.00 Repair, alter, addition to each heating appliance, refrigeration unit, comfort cooling unit, or system including controls 12.00 Any equipment regulated but not included above 9.00 Fee for issuing each permit 20.00 Supplemental Permit 6.00 PLUMBING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE Each plumbing fixture, trap, or set of fixtures on one trap (including water, drain piping & backflow protection) Each building sewer or trailer park sewer Rainwater system per drain (inside building) Each water heater and/or vent Each piping system of 1 to 5 outlets Each gas outlet over 5 Each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor including trap & vent, excepting kitchen type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps Each installation, alteration or repair of water piping and/or water treating equipment Each repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping Each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter including backflow protection devices Atmospheric type vacuum breakers not incl. above: 1 to 5 Over 5, each Each backflow protective device other than atmospheric type vacuum breakers: 2 inches and smaller Over 2 inches Fire sprinkler piping system 1 to 10 heads 11 to 25 heads 26 to 50 heads 51 to 100 heads 101 to 200 heads 201 to 300 heads 301 to 500 heads 501 to 1000 heads 1001 or more heads Fee for issuing each permit Supplemental Issuance Fee 8.00 20.00 8.00 10.00 10.00 2.00 16.00 4.00 4.00 12.00 10.00 2.00 10.00 20.00 10.00 15.00 24.00 34.00 54.00 74.00 94.00. 124.00 184.00 264.00 20.00 6.00 • FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE REPT COPIES P/M RESP TRANSPORT P/M RESP NON -TRANS LOCK -OUT (CAR) LOCK -OUT (HOUSE) FLOODING WATER REM SPRAY BOOTH PERM SPRAY BOOTH INSP FIRE PROT SYS EXIST OPEN FIRE PERMIT SPRINKLER CERT TEST COMM BLD / APT INSP FUMIGATION PERM/INSP HAZ-MAT STORAGE AUTO REP PERMIT CAPTAIN HRLY RATE ENGINEER HRLY RATE FIREMAN HRLY RATE FF/PARA HRLY RATE Note SCHEDULE 2 LEGAL AUTHORITY Dept Policy Res 83-4657 New New n New New New Ord 84-762 New n n FEE $9 $100/150 $50/100 $60 $95 $87 $15 $300 $105 $43 $92 $175 $43 Schedule $57 $65.26 $54.92 $41.95 $45.68 Note 1 Note 2 Note 3 Note 4 Note 5 1 $100 for residents, $150 for non-residents, paid within 60 days Fee increases to $150/200 after 60 days Note 2 $50 if paid within 60 days, increases to Note 3 First inspection and re -inspection free, Note 4 First inspection and re -inspection free, Note 5 Schedule of fees as follows: Category I 0-500 gallons 0-5,000 pounds 0-2,000 cubic feet $100 after 60 days $105 each thereafter $175 thereafter $100 annual fee Category II 501-2750 gallons $300 annual fee 5,001-25,000 pounds 2,001-10,000 cubic feet Category III Over 2,751 gallons $700 annual fee Over 25,001 pounds Over 10,001 cubic feet Category IV Governmental agencies Exempt SCHEDULE 3 PLANNING ENVIRON ASSESSMENT CUP CONDO 2 UNITS CUP CONDO 4 UNITS CUP CONDO 8+ UNITS CUP COMMERCIAL CUP COMMERCIAL AMENDMENT FINAL MAP ZONE CHG / GPA NONCONFORM REMODEL PARKING PLAN PRECISE DEV PLAN TENT MAP SUBDIVISN ZONING VARIANCE FINAL/TENT MAP EXTEN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PERMITTED USE REQ TEXT AMEND PRIVATE VOLUNTARY LOT MERGER PLAN COMM APPEALS 300' RADIUS NOTICING 300' RADIUS NOTICING, APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL LEGAL AUTHORITY FEE Res 84-4735 $295 $900 * $1,200 * " $1,800 * $600 $320 $225 $1,200 Res 89-5326 $670 Res 85-4884 $920 Res 90-5351 $1,145 HBMC 29.5-12 $920 $925 New $225 Res 88-5144 $515 New $325 " $445 $160 $330 $340 $90 * $600 BASE FEE PLUS $150 PER UNIT ** NEW ACTIVITY *** AMENDMENT OF EXISTING ACTIVITY OR AMORTIZATION OF EXISTING GRANDFATHERED ACTIVITY SCHEDULE 4 LEGAL POLICE DEPARTMENT AUTHORITY FEE FALSE ALRM RESPONSE HBMC 17-55.14 $100/AFTER 3 YR ALARM PERMITS " $30 JAIL SVCS PROGRAM Ord 84-762 $125 TRUSTEE ADMIN PROG " ACTUAL COST AMPLIFIED SOUND PERM HBMC 19.521 $35 CLEARANCE LETTERS CC Act 8/85 $5 ACC REPT T/C W/INJ If $18 ACC REPT T/C NO INJ " $12 FINGER PRINT SVC " $12 POLICE PHOTOGRAPH Dept Policy $7 INCID REPT PROCESS Ord 84-762 $12 CRIME REPT CC Act 8/85 $18 BICYCLE REGISTRATN " $6 SPEC EVENT SECURITY It $100/HOUR VEHICLE INSPECTION CC Act 8/85 $0 VEHICLE TOWING CC Act 8/85 $35 DISPATCH HRLY RATE * New $31.02 PSO HOURLY RATE * It $34.90 SGT HOURLY RATE * " $63.62 OFFICER HRLY RATE * " $49.03 * HOURLY RATES WILL BE USED FOR DUI AND 2ND PARTY CALL BILLINGS TO RECOVER ACTUAL COST PUBLIC WORKS BANNER PERMIT STR EXCAV CONSTR STR EXCAV UTIL CO SEWER PERM LATERAL DEMO SEWER PERMIT CASH DEP SIDEW PROC LIEN AGR SIDEW PROC LIBRARY GEN MAINT ENCROACH FILING FEE STRAND PERMIT DUMPSTER DROP SPEC CURB MKG-SURVEY SPEC CURB MKG-INSTAL BEACH VOLLEY CTS COMM OUTS DINE ENCR DIRECTOR HOURLY SUPERINTNT HOURLY CREW LDR HOURLY MAINT II HOURLY MAINT I HOURLY SWEEPER HOURLY HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE 5 LEGAL AUTHORITY Memo 6/84 Ord 84-762 Ord 84-762 Dept Policy Res Ord Res Res Res Ord 82-4499 84-762 88-5202 79-4303 79-4304 84-762 New CC Act 5/88 New n n Ord 84-762 FEE $185 $145 Note 1 $115 $150 $150 $75 $75 $4,788 $285 $20 $40 Note 2 $250. $170 Note 3 $200 $280 Note 4 $93.96 $64.26 $53.75 $40.95 $31.57 $37.63 Actual cost Note 1 Projects with estimated value over $5,000 will be based on time and material costs Note 2 Plus $6.00 per parking space Note 3 Handicap marking requests would be exempt Note 4 Plus $.50 per square foot MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENTS BUSINESS LICENSE DEPARTMENT GARAGE/YARD SALES BINGO PERMITS DUPLICATE BUSINESS LICENSE CITY CLERK PUBLIC NOTICE POSTER APPEAL TO COUNCIL COPIES, ZONING CODE SUBSCRIPTION, ZONING CODE SUPPLEMENTS DUBBING AUDIO TAPES VIDEO TAPE COPIES PHOTOCOPIES * GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DOG LICENSES CAT LICENSES ANIMAL/FOWL PERMITS ANIMAL REDEMPTION FEE PARKING PERMITS/ANNUAL DAILY PARKING PERMIT DRIVEWAY PERMITS GUEST PERMITS CONTRACTOR'S PERMITS BOOT RELEASE FEE SCHEDULE 6 LEGAL AUTHORITY ORD. 82-682 HBMC 13-15 HBMC 17-16.1 RES.78-4239 HBMC 2.27 RES. 82-4500 RES. 82-4515 n RES. 82-4500 HBMC 4-11 HBMC4-40 HBMC 4-4 HBMC 4-4.1 HBMC 4-18 RES 88-5162 HBMC 19-61.1 RES. 85-4793 RES. 86-4962 FEE $3 $50 $5 $10 $266.50 + COST OF AD $16 $10 $20/ONE SIDE, $25/TWO SIDES $25 $1.00/FIRST COPY, $.15/ADDITIONAL $18 $9 NEUTERED 50% DISCOUNT SENIOR CITIZEN $10 $5 NEUTERED $5 LOST TAG $10 CHANGE OWNERSHIP $5 CHANGE OWNERSHIP, NEUTERED $50 PERMIT $50 APPEAL $20 FIRST $35 SECOND $50 THIRD $25 $5/DAY $27.50/ONE TIME FEE $1/PERMIT, $5 MAXIMUM $20/MO/VEHICLE $35 COMMUNITY RESOURCES SPECIAL EVENTS PERMITS: COMMERCIAL GROUPS - PUBLIC OUTDOOR AREAS/MISC FACILITIES STILL PHOTOGRAPHY RES. 89-5327 FILMING NON-PROFIT GROUPS - PUBLIC OUTDOOR AREAS/MISC FACILITIES PASS THRUS FUNDRAISING/PARKS RESIDENT BLOCK PARTIES FINANCE DEPARTMENT RETURNED CHECKS SALE OF MAPS RES. 84-4734 RES 82-4500 MINIMUM $1500/DAY $50 PERMIT $50/DAY LOCATION FEE $700/DAY LOCATION FEE $300/PERMIT FEE $10/DAY PARKING METERS $1/PARTICIPANT & SPECTATOR $100 $25 $25 PERMIT $30 AMPLIFICATION FEE $10 $0.60 * PHOTOCOPIES OF CANDIDATE DISCLOSURE STATMENTS ARE $.10/PAGE IF FILED PURSUANT TO POLITICAL REFORM ACT. DOCUMENTS OVER FIVE YEARS OLD MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL $5 RETRIEVAL FEE 84CHOROUND AI/ITER/4i October 25, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members Workshop Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of October 30, 1990 WORKSHOP ON CITY USER FEES Recommendation: That the City Council review the information to be supplied at your workshop meeting of October 30 in order to look in some detail at the David M. Griffith's User Fee Study information and the staff's recommendations for fee adjustments. While questions in order to understand fully this complex issue are encouraged, this meeting is not intended to formulate decisions. The formal presentation of the report is scheduled as part of a public hear- ing at the regular Council meeting of November 13, 1990. Background: In 1984, the City commissioned a major study of user fees. This study, occurring at a time of major fiscal problems for the City, was the first comprehensive look at our fees, and resulted in a listing by ordinance of our fees, with percentages of recovery to be accomplished. In staff's view, that study, while useful and well implemented at the time, is very cumbersome to keep up to date and has a difficult and confusing process for updating. Because the City Council's continuing top priority goal is to improve the City's financial picture, updating the City's user fees is high on the list of projects to accomplish and rep- resents the most significant effort that likely will be conducted during the current fiscal year to accomplish that specific goal. As a result of this priority, the City Council on March 13, 1990 authorized contracting with David M. Griffith and Associates for development of a cost allocation plan and user fee study for our City. In order to keep consultant costs to a minimum, the study was limited to four departments, and omitted any recommendations. As a result, staff has used in-house resources to cover other areas. Analysis: The consultant's summary report and presentation discuss the study methodology and rationale for setting fees in California. In brief, the concept is that fees for special services should be adequate to fund those services, rather than relying on the general taxes of a city paid by all taxpayers. This allows tax- payer funds to go for services used by all citizens, such as police and fire protection, streets, parks and open space, etc. The state law requires fees be set at not higher than the cost reasonably borne in providing the services for which the fee ap- plies. This requires a rather sophisticated study to ascertain 1 the direct, indirect, and overhead costs that should be assigned to every service for which a fee is appropriate. For example, the services of our police officers for special events such as filming are appropriate to charge fees, as they benefit the film maker and should not be subsidized by Hermosa taxpayers. Accordingly, the City should charge (costs are esti- mated for illustrative purposes only) $20 per hour direct cost for the officer, plus $18/hr. pro -rated cost for health in- surance, retirement, uniforms, etc. as indirect costs, plus $17 per hour for the pro -rated costs of the officers supervision, the police department building, the Council, Clerk, City Manager, and Finance time, the mechanics time for the officer's vehicle, the vehicle's gas and depreciation costs, etc. the total is $55 per hour. There are obviously limitations to this procedure. First, not all services are appropriate for assigning fees, and clearly no amount of reasonable effort could be precise to the penny for every individual request for service. To provide some allowance for this fact, the staff recommendation does not adjust the '89- 90 data used to take into account the current year's higher costs. Staff actions - To follow up and continue the work initiated by the consultant, the staff has developed recommendations based on the following goals and criteria: 1) As pointed out on Page 6 of the consultant's handout, the factors in determining appropriateness of a fee include the elasticity of demand, the subsidization policy, the economic incentives, and the competitive restraints. 2) Continuation of the basic concept adopted by the City Coun- cil in 1984 that special services should be paid by the in- dividuals causing and/or receiving those services, not the taxpayer that does not receive them. 3 4 5 The process by which fees are established in the City should be set by ordinance, and that their actual amount should be set by a master resolution adopted by the City Council to assure ease of administration and updating, as well as full public accountability. A procedure should be developed that causes fees to be regu- larly and routinely updated to assure that the value of the fee amounts remain constant despite fluctuations in the values of the dollar. This is consistent with the Council's direction to develop a system that would avoid repeated need for comprehensive studies by consultants. The recommended fees should not appear to be "ridiculous", in that they would be out of line with what other cities charge or be so high as to result in a shock and resentment from our citizens. 6) That the method of adjusting fees be clear and require public input at the Council level as well as Council approval. Application of these criteria to the findings of the consultant result in staff recommendation to increase 42 existing fees, while decreasing 11 existing fees. Staff is also recommending that 37 new fees be created to charge for services for which no charge has been previously assessed, but which would be consis- tent with the City's fee policy. The estimated annual impact of these recommendations would be elimination of up to $249,826 in taxpayer subsidy of special ser- vices. In turn, that same amount would represent an annual in- crease in revenue to the City's budget to be utilized for ser- vices affecting all our residents. (This figure is not adjusted for demand changes resulting from the fee changes, and could be less.) Staff is also recommending a procedure for an annual automatic minimum adjustment to apply to assure that the same fee is charged in terms of the purchasing power of the dollar from one year to the next. This would be accomplished by annually adjust- ing by the lower of the percentage increase in the General Fund operating appropriations over the prior fiscal year or the per- centage change in the Consumer Price Index for our area. Because unusual requests occur for which no fee has previously been es- tablished, staff is also recommending that the City Manager be authorized to set a fee for such circumstances, subject to appeal to the City Council. This would eliminate provision of special services without any reimbursement of City costs in the case where no fee has been established. These recommendations, when approved, will represent a major com- ponent of long term fiscal solvency for our City. Staff also believes the recommendations will accomplish the Council direc- tive to implement a system that is self updating and will not require frequent consulting services to be maintained. Kevin B. Northcaft City Manager KBN/ld Attachments - 1) David M. Griffith Report on Costs, Fees and Revenue (sepa- rately bound) 2) User Fee Study Summary Sheet 3) Survey of Area Cities' Selected Fees 4) Draft of Proposed Ordinance 5) Draft of Proposed Resolution Note: Item 17 on the Police Department's Fee Study Session - Vehicle Inspection - has an incorrect "Current Cost" -3- Planning 1 ENVIRON ASSESSMENT 2 CUP CONDO 2 UNITS 3 CLP CONDO 4 UNITS 4 CUP CONDO 8+ UNITS 5 CW COMMERCIAL 6 FINAL MAP 7..ZONE CNG / GPA 8 NONCONFORM REMODEL 9 PARKING PLAN 10 P.D.P. 11 TENT MAP SUBDIVISN 12 ZONING VARIANCE 13 FINAL/TENT MAP EXTEN 14 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 15 PERMITTED USE RE0 16 TEXT AMEND PRIVATE 17 VOLUNTARY LOT MERGER 18 PLAN COMM APPEALS 19 300' RAD NOTICING 20 COUWER / TELEPHONE 21 LONG RANGE PLANNING 22 TRANSIT PROGRAMS 23 OTHER NON -FEE 24 CODE ENFORCE TOTALS DESCRIPTION State Required review Discretionary project Review for Qualitative Purposes, Code Conpl., end Public Input Code Compliance Review Req for chug/Pub Input Exception/Leg Non-conf Exception/Stand Pkg Req See CUP Description Code Conpl/Dual Review Exc to Stand/Hardships More time/req by St Law Adjust Property line Add to permitted list Request Zone Ord Change Req serge/Mul lots to 1 Plan Comm interpret Ord Public hearing noticing Zoning Inquiries General Plan review Dial-s-Ride/Comm bus Miscellaneous Violation Insp/Admin UNIT CURRENT VOLUME FEE 40.0 8.0 9.0 8.0 20.0 25.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 4.0 1.0 10.0 2.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 80.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 $230.00 $865.00 $1,185.00 $2,145.00 $320.00 $125.00 $450.00 $320.00 $320.00 $320.00 $225.00 $320.00 $0.00 $320.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 City of Hermosa Beach User Fee Study Summary Sheet CURRENT COST $294.40 $988.25 $1,482.00 $1,975.88 $891.80 $224.28 $2,383.60 $670.20 $924.80 $1,150.75 $919.00 $924.70 $225.50 $515.60 $435.50 $591.00 $161.00 $439.00 $340.91 $56,305.00 $93,470.00 $15,654.00 $50,877.00 $56,295.00 CURRENT LEGAL FACTORS SUBSIDY AUTHORITY CONSIDERED $64.40 Res 84-4735 $123.25 $297.00 ($169.12) $571.80 $99.28 $1,933.60 $350.20 Res 89-5326 $604.80 Rea 85-4884 $830.75 Rea 90-5351 $694.00 Res 84-4735 $604.70 " $225.50 New $195.60 Rea 88-5144 $435.50 New $591.00 N $161.00 $439.00 $340.91 $56,305.00 $93,470.00 $15,654.00 $50,877.00 $56,295.00 N N N N N N $7,145.00 $14,597.26 $7,452.26 N N N Man hours required, percentage of overall cost per project to applicant, fairness/ community values and comparison with other. cities. RECOMM FEE ANNUAL FEE INC/DECR (-) IMPACT $295 $65 Note 1 $900 $35 Note 1 $1,200 $15 Note 1 $1,800 ($345) Note 1 $600 $280 $225 $100 Note 2 $1,200 $750 $670 $350 $920 $600 $1,145 $825 $920 $695 $925 $605 $225 $225 $515 $195 $435 $435 $590 $590 $160 $160 $440 $440 $340 $340 - Items marked with an asterisk have been excluded from the fee for service totals. ote 1 • Fees calculated on $600 base fee plus $150 per unit. ote 2 - City initiated zone changes were included in current cost calculation. Applicant initiated changes are estimated to be 50%, therefore fee is recommended at $1200. a $13,505 $2,600 $280 S135 ($2,760) $5,600 $2,500 $7,500 $3,500 $3,000 $3,300 $695 56,050 $450 $975 $870 $590 $480 $440 $27,200 56,360 563,405 uilding 1 COUNTER / TELEPHONE 2 ZONING ENFORCEMNT 3 BUILDING PERM/INSP 4 PLSG/MECN PERM/INSP 5 ELECTRICAL PERM/INSP 6 PLAN CHECKING '7 SIGN REVIEW 8 TEMP SIGN PERMIT 9 RIR RES INSP 10 OCC PERMIT COMM INSP 11 BOARD OF APPEALS 12 LEGAL DET NEARING 13 ZONING APPEALS TOTALS City of Hermosa Beach User Fee Study Summary Sheet UNIT CURRENT CURRENT DESCRIPTION VOLUME FEE COST Public Contact 1.0 $0.00 $16,708.00 Zoning Code Enforcement 1.0 $0.00 $99,596.00 New Bldg Construction 1.0 5170,000.00 5171,718.00 New Pleb/Mech Installatn 1.0 $34,000.00 $34,216.00 New Elec Installation 1.0 540,000.00 $41,609.00 11,609.00 Review plans/Code Conf 1.0 $104,000.00 $104,710.00 $710.00 Review new signs 44.0 $25.00 $78.27 $53.2 Review Temporary signs 50.0 $0.00 $29.46 $29.46 Insp Res Prop(at sale) 287.0 $40.00 $40.38 S0.3 New Bus. Inspections 197.0 $25.00 $38.97 $13.9 Appeal Bldg Code Matters 4.0 $75.00 $150.75 $75.75 PC Appeal Dwelling Stet 2.0 50.00 $998.00 $998.0 Appeal Bldg Ofcl Dec 2.0 $0.00 $452.50 $452.5 CURRENT LEGAL SUBSIDY AUTHORITY $16,708.00 $99,596.00 $1,718.00 Exec Ord 9/84 $216.00 " " Ord 84-762 7 Ord 77-574 New 8 Res 84-473 7 Exec Ord 9/84 Ord N.S. 508 0 New 0 New $348,165 5470,345 $122,180 • It marked with an asterisk have been excluded from the fee for service totals. FACTORS CONSIDERED NO RATIONALE FOR GENERAL TAXPAYER TO SUBSIDIZE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY RECOMMENDED FEE ANNUAL FEE INC/DECR (-) IMPACT SO SO SO SO SO SO $170,000 SO SO $34,000 : SO SO $40,000 $0. SO $104,000 $0 SO $80 S55 $2,420 $30 $30 $1,500 $40 SO SO $40 S15 S2,955 $150 S75 $300 $1,000 S1,000 $2,000 .$450 5450 $900 $349,790 $1,625 $10,075 Fire Deportment 1 MUTUAL AID (FIRE) 2 SUPPR TRAINING 3 FIRE REPT COPIES 4 EARTNOUAKE PREP S STATION TOURS 6 SCHOOL FIRE SAFE 7.OPEN HOUSE 8 SAFETY LECTURE 9 EMER MED PROBLEM 10 CPR CLASS 8 HOUR 11 CPR CLASS 4 HOUR 12 P/M RESP TRANSPORT 13 P/M RESP NON -TRANS 14 P/M STAND-BY 15 B/P SCREENING 16 PHOTO INSP FIRE/SAFE 17 LOCK -OUT (CAR) 18 LOCK OUT (HOUSE) 19 FLOODING WATER REM 20 SPRA?'SOOTN PERM 21 SPRAY BOOTH INSP 22 PLAN CHECK NEW CONST 23 ALARM SYS PLAN CHECK 24 ALARM SYS INSPECT 25 FIRE PROT SYS EXIST 26 FIRE PROT SYS NEW 27 OPEN FIRE PERMIT 28 SPRINKLER CERT TEST 29 COMM BLD / APT INSP 30 FUMIGATION PERM/INSP DESCRIPTION Helping other Cities Fire -fighting Trng Sale of Report copies Trng/Various groups School/group tours Sfty trng at schools Am Fire Prev Week Sfty talks/Var grps Emer Sfty grp talks CPR instruction O Transp/In lieu of Amb No P/M transport Stand-by/Var Events Citizen B/P check Photos Taken at Insp Open Car/Key stuck Open House/Key stuck Vacuum leaked water Auto paint Bus perm Insp/Prior to permit Fire Dept Plan Review u Insp New Facilities Insp Existing Fac. Insp New Facilities Fire Pits/Park 8 Home Pressure Test System Am Insp/Re-Insp Iss Perm/Insp Tents City of Hermosa Beach User Fee Study Summary Sheet UNIT CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT VOLUME FEE COST SUBSIDY 8.0 50.00 $75.25 12.0 S0.00 5308.50 28.0 52.50 S8.64 4.0 $0.00 5258.75 14.0 50.00 $393.93 2.0 S0.00 5166.50 1.0 $0.00 $3,319.00 8.0 50.00 5167.88 8.0 $0.00 5167.88 2.0 $0.00 5943.00 6.0 $0.00 5578.67 502.0 565.00/105.00 S201.10 494.0 50.00 $99.67 1.0 $0.00 $269,553.00 545.0 $0.00 S11.42 2.0 $0.00 $41.00 170.0 S0.00 S59.48 40.0 $0.00 $94.65 30.0 $0.00 $86.50 8.0 $0.00 $15.38 8.0 S0.00 $298.13 30.0 S0.00 554.23 35.0 $0.00 $38.09 35.0 S0.00 $298.31 80.0 $0.00 $106.91 20.0 50.00 S596.55 50.0 $0.00 542.62 60.0 $0.00 $91.95 925.0 S0.00 $126.37 224.0 $28.20 $42.67 LEGAL AUTHORITY $75.25 $308.50 $6.14 Dept Policy 5258.75 $393.93 $166.50 $3,319.00 5167.88 $167.88 $943.00 S578.67 $201.10 Dept Policy S99.67 New $269,553.00 $11.42 $41.00 $59.48 $94.65 $86.50 $15.38 $298.13 $54.23 $38.09 5298.31 $106.91 New $596.55 542.62 New 591.95 New $126.37 $14.47 Ord 84-762 FACTORS CONSIDERED RECOMM FEE ANNUAL FEE INC/DEC (-) IMPACT Cities help us SO In-house trng SO 100% of Cost S9 Pub info/awareness SO SO SO - SO SO SO SO SO Note 1 5100/150 Note 2 $50/100 So Public Relations SO City Use SO No chg if Emerg S60 11 $95 No chg/City cause S87 100% of Cost S15 $300 Bldg Dept Collects SO SO SO Note 4 $105 SO 100% Cost to Issue S43 100% of Cost $92 Note 3 $175 100% of Cost S43 11 U 11 SO SO $7 SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO 535/45 S50/100 SO SO SO $60 $95 $87 $15 $300 SO SO SO $105 SO S43 $92 $175 $15 SO SO $182 SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO $26,606 $41,990 SO SO SO $10,200 S3,800 $2,610 S120 $2,400 SO SO SO $2,100 SO $2,150 $5,520 540,469 $3,315 31 NA2-MAT STORAGE 32 ARSON/FIRE INVEST 33 AUTO REP PERMIT 34 HOOD SYS INSP - NEW '35 CAPTAIN HRLY RATE '36 ENGINEER HRLY RATE '37 FIREMAN MALT RATE '38 FF/PARA HRLY RATE 39 OTHER NON -FEE TOTALS Naz -Mat Storage Fees Investigate Incident New Auto Rep Bus Restaurant Fire Hoods 1.0 1.0 20.0 1.0 465.0 465.0 920.0 930.0 1.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 51,100.00 $903.00 $56.20 $119.00 $65.26 $54.92 $41.95 $45.68 $791,444.00 $1,100.00 New Note 5 $903.00 City Use Only SO SO SO $56.20 100% of Cost $57 $57 $1,140 5119.00 " Bldg Dept Collects SO SO SO 565.26 " $54.92 " 541.95 " 545.68 " S791,444.00 $30.70 $1,072,076.04 $1,072,045.34 • It marked with an asterisk have been excluded from the fee for service totals. • Revenue for this fee area is based on an estimated recoverable volume._ See REVENUE/COST COMPARISON sheet for more information. *These hourly rates are calculated for use in 2nd party response calls and DUI accident response calls. They can be broken down into per -minute rates as shown below: Captain per -minute: Engineer per -minute: Fireman per -minute: FF/Para per -minute: $1.09 $0.92 $0.70 $0.76 $1,081 51,050 $142,602 to I -$100 for residents, $150 for Non-residents - if paid within 60 days. Goes to 5150/5200 if paid after 60 days. Based on 50/50 Res/non-res rates and 30% collected within 60 days; 70% collected after 60 days te 2 -$50 for all if paid within 60 days. Goes to $100 after 60 days. Based on 30% collected within 60 days; 70% collected after 60 days. to 3 First Inspection i 1 re -inspection per year free; $175 each thereafter. Figures based on 25% of total inspections billable. te 4 First inspection t 1 re -inspection per year free; $105 each thereafter. Figures based on 25% of total inspections billable. te 5 This fee will cover the costs involved in the inspection of the premises, issuance of the permit, and the costs associated with the administration of the hazardous materials program. Four subcategories will be implemented as follows: Category I 0-500 gallons 0-5,000 pounds 0-2,000 cubic feet $100 annual fee Category II 501-2750 gallons $300 annual fee 5,001-25,000 pounds 2,001-10,000 cubic feet Category III Over 2,751 gallons $700 annual fee Over 25,001 pounds Over 10,001 cubic feet Category IV Governmental agencies Exempt Police Department ' 1 FALSE ALRM RESPONSE 2 ALARM PERMITS 3 JAIL SVCS PROGRAM 4 TRUSTEE ADMIN PROG 5 AMPLIFIED SOUND PERM 6 CLEARANCE LETTERS 7,.ACC REPT T/C W/INJ 8 ACC REPT T/C NO INJ 9 FINGER PRINT SVC 10 POLICE PHOTOGRAPH 11 INCID REPT PROCESS 12 CRIME REPT MINOR 13 CRIME REPT MAJOR 14 BICYCLE REGISTRATN 15 SPEC EVENT SEC MINOR 16 SPEC EVENT SEC MAJOR 17 VEHICLE INSPECTION 18 VEHICLE TOWING "19 DISPATCH HRLY RATE "20 PSO NbURLY RATE "21 SGT HOURLY RATE "22 OFFICER HRLY RATE 23 ALL OTHER NON FEE TOTALS Resp to False Alarm Permit/Alarm System "Pay for Stay" Program "Pay for Stay" Crt Ord Permit for Asp Sound Passprt/Travel Letters Acc w/Inj Report Copy Acc w/o Inj Report Copy Take Prints/Citizen Apps Copies /Police Photos Var Calls for Service Copy of Offense Report " Bicycle Licenses Security for Fiesta, Filming, etc. Ckg vehicles for Corr Tow veh/Police/Pkg UNIT CURRENT VOLUME FEE 456.0 140.0 144.0 1.0 26.0 20.0 138.0 450.0 100.0 20.0 500.0 350.0 150.0 77.0 18.0 9.0 500.0 656.0 100.0 500.0 250.0 1500.0 1.0 8100.00 510.00 585.00 5120.00 130.00 526.50 824.00 524.00 825.00 125.00 S24.00 524.00 524.00 53.00 5440.00 5448.00 56.00 535.00 822.80 520.40 536.60 831.80 City of Hermosa Beech User Fee Study Summery Sheet CURRENT COST $87.75 825.04 8123.86 8200.00 534.23 54.80 517.77 811.86 811.76 56.75 511.87 517.76 517.72 55.99 5798.78 5822.00 585.96 834.31 531.02 534.90 563.62 549.03 0 53,676,771 CURRENT SUBSIDY LEGAL . FACTORS RECOMM FEE ANNUAL AUTHORITY CONSIDERED FEE 1NC/DEC (-) IMPACT (112.25)Ord 89-984 After 3/yr 515.04 " 100% of Cost 538.86 Ord 84-762 100% of Cost 580.00 54.23 Ord 88-971 (521.70)CC Act 8/85 ($6.23) " (512.14) " (513.24) " ($18.25)Dept Policy (812.13)Ord 84.762 100% of Cost (16.24)CC Act 8/85 100% of Cost (56.28) " 52.99 " 5358.78 $374.00 579.96 CC Act 8/85 Note 1 ($0.69)CC Act 8/85 100% Recovery 58.22 11 " 11 11 11 11 " " " 514.50 527.02 517.23 53,676,771 51,585.10 83,679,267.78 53,677,682.68 - Items marked with an asterisk have been excluded from the fee for service totals. ' - Revenue for this fee area is based on an estimated recoverable volume. See REVENUE/COST COMPARISON sheet for more information. New 11 11 5100 SO SO S30 S20 52,800 8125 S40 85,760 ACTUAL COST SO SO S35 S5 S130 85 (222) (8430) S18 (S6) (S828) S12 (812) (55,400) S12 (813) (51,300) S7 (518) (5360) 812 (S12) (56,000) S18 (S6) (82,100) S18 (S6) (5900) S6 83 5231 ACTUAL COST SO SO ACTUAL COST SO SO *6 SO SO S35 SO SO 5439 (S27) (58,397) • • These hourly rates are currently charged on a per -minute basis. The comparison between the current per -minute charge and the full cost per -minute charge is as follows: Current Full Cost Dispatch per -minute: $0.38 50.60 PSO per -minute: $0.34 50.63 Sergeant per -minute: $0.61 50.95 Officer per -minute: 50.53 50.78 Note 1 - Fee level is in line with those of neighboring cities. /6) Public Works DESCRIPTION City of Hermosa Beach User Fee Study Sumary Sheet UNIT CURRENT CURRENT VOLUME FEE COST 1 BANNER PERMIT Banner/Non-profit grps 11.0 5100.00 $183.36 2 STR EXCAV CONSTR Priv Work/Rt of Way 100.0 550.00 $146.75 3 STR EXCAV UTIL CO Utility/Rt of Way 288.0 $50.00 $117.07 4 SEWER PERM LATERAL Hookup to City Sewers 51.0 $50.00 $151.84 5. DEMO SEWER PERMIT Sewer cap inspection 43.0 $40.00 $152.00 6 CASH DEP SIDEW PROC Dep/In lieu of install 4.0 525.00 $74.50 7 LIEN AGR SIDEW PROC To allow for Cash Dep 4.0 S25.00 $74.50 8 LIBRARY GEN SAINT Library grnds mint 1.0 $4,788.00 $6,573.00 9 ENCROACH FILING FEE Private use/Rt of Way 10.0 $151.00 $287.40 10 STRAND PERMIT Vehicle on Strand 3.0 $25.00 S20.00 11 DISASTER DROP When on Pub Rt of Way 23.0 525.00 $40.83 12 SPEC CURB MKG-SURVEY Insp for Loading Zone 1.0 S350.00 S249.00 13 SPEC CURB MKG-INSTAL Mark Loading Zone 1.0 $100.00 $172.00 14 BEACH VOLLEY CTS Install Beach Courts 3.0 $0.00 5201.67 15 COMM OUTS DINE ENCR Comm Use/Rt of Way 4.0 S151.00 $277.75 16 DIRECTOR HOURLY 50.0 $35.70 $93.96 17 SUPERINTNT HOURLY 50.0 $19.00 $64.26 18 CREW•LbR SOURLY 100.0 $19.00 $53.75 19 SAINT II HOURLY 100.0 519.00 $40.95 20 SAINT I HOURLY 100.0 S19.00 $31.57 21 SWEEPER HOURLY 40.0 519.00 S37.63 22 ALL OTHER NON•FEE 1.0 $0.00 S1,773,863 CURRENT LEGAL SUBSIDY AUTHORITY $83.36 Memo 6/84 596.75 Ord 84-762 567.07 Ord 84-762 $101.84 Dept Policy S112.00 549.50 $49.50 Res 82-4499 $1,785.00 Ord 84-762 $136.40 Res 88-5202 (55.00)Res 79-4303 $15.83 Res 79-4304 ($101.00)Ord 84.762 572.00 " 5201.67 5126.75 CC $58.26 545.26 $34.75 $21.95 $12.57 S18.63 $1,773,863 TOTALS $6,060.70 51,782,906.79 $1,776,846.09 • Items marked with an asterisk have been excluded from the fee for service totals. New Act 5/88 New 11 N 11 N N - Current hourly rates are used in billings for public property damage, development review, request for street vacations, billings to LACPW (storm drain maintenance), and project reimbursement for grants. to 1•- Projects with estimated value over 55,000 will be based on time and material costs. FACTORS CONSIDERED User should pay, no direct or indirect benefit to Public. See Number 1 See Number 1 See Number 1 Existing cont. See Number 1 See Number 1 See Number 1 See Number 1 See Number 1 See Number 1 See Number 1 RECOMM FEE ANNUAL FEE INC/DECR (-) IMPACT $185 S85 5935 Note 1 S145 $95 S9,500 $115 $65 $18,720 5150 S100 S5,100 S150 S110 $4,730 $75 S50 5200 S75 S50 $200 54,788 SO SO S285 S134 S1,340 S20 (S5) ($15) $40 $15 $345 S250 (S100) ($100) $170 S70 $70 $200 S200 5600 S280 $129 S516 $6,928 $998 $42,141 USER FEE COMPARISON CHARTS PLANNING EIR Report HERMOSA BEACH 230.00 MANHATTAN BEACH 358.00 TORRANCE EL SEGUNDO ` HAWTHORNE 37.00 , 110.00 750.00 ; 3,605.00 ; + 300.00 4,105.00 ;for Neg.Dec. Variance Minor Lot Line Adjustment Exc to Ord. 320.00 320.00 Non -con. 320.00 689.00 204.00 1,000.00 675.00 935.00 1,835.00 375.00 520.00 1,020.00 1,502.00 1,502.00 386.00 Tent Parcel/ Tract Maps 225.00 413.00 1,000.00 675.00 935.00 1,835.00 1,502.00 Final Maps 125.00 198.00 Zone Change 450.00 689.00 1,000.00 935.00 1,320.00 3,060.00 Lot Split 450.00 689.00 900.00 Cond. Use Per. ; 320.00 (Amendment) CUP Condo per ; 320.00 Unit ++ 160.00 Gen. Plan Amend i 450.00 689.00 338.00 1,000.00 675.00 935.00 1.835.00 2,198.00 1,502.00 1,502.00 1,819 Base + 150.00 689.00 750.00 2,158.00 Parking Plan 320.00 Development Agreements 1,500.00 Deposit 1,235.00 REDONDO ; BEACH 585.00 535.00 i F F F 880.00 1 F F F 880.00 1/1- 730.00 730.00 ; 935.00 + 470.00 E i F i F 1,170.00 Plan.Comm. Appeal 348.50 274.00 80.00 170.00 235.00 460.00 3/4 of original fee Zoning Ordinance 16.00 Planned Dev. Permit (Amend.) 320.00 689.00 204.00 1,170.00 F F USER FEE COMPARISON CHARTS r BUILDING FEES HERMOSA Building Permits ($50,000 project) BEACH r 735.25 MANHATTAN 1 BEACH ; TORRANCE r 484.70 Plan Check Fee ($50,000 project) 477.91 T 395.00 T -1 484.70 ; 405.00 REDONDO BEACH 756.46 393.36 Elec. Permits Plmbg. Permits Redondo Beach goes by sq. ft., Torrance & M.B. by outlets. Our is by branch circuits - No viable comparison T 8.00 3.30 8.76 Mech. Permits (per furnace) 12.00 r 8.80 13.14 RBR 40.00 45.00 /3- FIRE HERMOSA r BEACH USER FEE COMPARISON CHARTS MANHATTAN BEACH TORRANCE EL SEGUNDO REDONDO BEACH Paramedic trans. 100.00 150.00 100.00 Res. 150.00 Non Open fire permit 43.00 35.00 Sprinkler Cert. test Comm.Bldg./Apt. Insp. Fumigation permit T T V 92.00 57.00 +.50/per head 115.00 +1.00/head S.F.T 300.00<15000 625.00>15000 175.00 after 2 43.00 Spray booth permit Auto repair T 315.00 T 28.00 57.00 96.00 113.00 50.00 1st 50.00 2nd 200.00 3rd r<15000 sg.ft.T 35.00 35.00 T 70.00 57.00 28.00 70.00 Fire reports i 9.00 T 10.00 ; ; ; 5.00 USER FEE COMPARISON CHARTS POLICE Clearance letter HERMOSA ; MANHATTAN BEACH ' BEACH 5.00 12.00 EL SEGUNDO REDONDO BEACH 35.00 Accident report 18.00 12.00 59.00 32.00 Fingerprint Photographs r 12.00 12.00 10.00 +.10 card 10.00 7.00 12.00 ; 5.00 18.00 T T Alarm permit ; 30.00 256.00 Bus. 128.00 Res. 25.00 False alarm response 100.00 after 3rd r 100.00 after 3rd Vehicle insp.* 6.00 5.00 4.00 -0- *Hawthorne, Torrance do not charge USER FEE COMPARISON CHARTS PUBLIC WORKS HERMOSA BEACH MANHATTAN BEACH EL SEGUNDO REDONDO BEACH Banner permit St. Excay. T 185.00 74.70 80.00 145.00 Strand Permit ; 20.00 33.85 33.85 T 140.00 + actual cost of insp 40.00 Dumpster drop 40.00 i 50.00 80.00 November 1, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 13, 1990 SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 90-6 LOCATION: CITY WIDE INITIATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PURPOSE: TO EXAMINE GIVING THE PLANNING COMMISSION GREATER DISCRETION IN GRANTING SIDE YARD EXCEPTIONS FOR CONTINUATION OF NONCONFORMING SIDE YARDS. Recommendation Planning Commission and Staff recommend amending Section 13-7(c)(3.) to give the Planning Commission authority to allow expansion of existing walls with nonconforming side yards of at least three feet when deemed a minor extension and consistent with the neighborhood. Background At their meeting of October 2, 1990, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the proposed amendment. For further background please refer to the Planning Commission staff report Analysis Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report for the analysis of the proposed amendment. / CONCUR: Itichae`l Schubach Planning Director evin B. Norticraft City Manager en Robertson Associate Planner Attachments 1. Proposed Ordinance 2. P.C. Staff Report 10/2/90 3. P.C. Resolution 90- 83 4. P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 5. P.C. Resolution initiating text amendment 6. P.C. Minutes 7/17/90 p/pcsrside 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 L.,7 28 ORDINANCE 90 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT, SECTION 13-7(C)(3) REGARDING EXTENSIONS OF WALLS WITH NONCONFORMING SIDE YARDS TO GIVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MORE DISCRETION TO APPROVE REQUESTS FOR SUCH EXCEPTIONS AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on November 13, 1990, and made the following Findings: A. Although the code allows for exceptions to extend walls with nonconforming side yards, it only allows it in cases where 7570 of the lots on the same block have the 'sameor lesser nonconforming side yards; B. This criteria is to restrictive and does not allow the Planning Commission the flexibility to allow logical minor additions to existing buildings based on the character of the existing structure and the surrounding neighborhood; C. Approval of this amendment is not in conflict with the General Plan and is necessary to carry out the general purpose of the zoning ordinance to serve the public health, safety, and welfare; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain a amendment to the zoning ordinance text as follows, and adopts an environmental negative declaration: SECTION 1. Amend Section 13-7(c)(3) by adding the following underlined text: Where existing walls are a minimum of, or more than three (3) feet from the side property line, the wall may be expanded if at least seventy-five (75) percent of the block as defined by the zoning ordinance, has the same or smaller nonconforming side yards (excluding commercial and manufacturing uses); or, the wall may be expanded if the Planning Commission determines that the expansion within the otherwise code required setback is minor and necessary for the logical extension of a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 wall and that the nonconforming side yard is generally consistent with the majority of existing side yards in the "block" as defined by the zoning ordinance. Measurement of side yards shall be approximated by use of aerial photos and field inspections. Fees for such requests shall be set 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 by law. 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 said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1990, by following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ' ATTEST: PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of. Hermosa Beach, California CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: p/persside .-wp I- 3 September 27, 1990 Honorable Chairman and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission October 2, 1990 SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 90-6 LOCATION: CITY WIDE INITIATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PURPOSE: TO EXAMINE GIVING THE PLANNING COMMISSION GREATER DISCRETION IN GRANTING SIDE YARD EXCEPTIONS FOR CONTINUATION OF NONCONFORMING SIDE YARDS. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend amendment of Section 13-7(c)(3.) to give the Planning Commission authority to allow expansion of existing walls with nonconforming side yards of at least three feet when deemed a minor extension and consistent with the neighborhood. Background At the August 7, 1990 meeting, the Planning Commission initiated this study by adopting a resolution of intent (Resolution P.C. 90-76) This issue came up because, at the July 17, 1990 meeting the Planning Commission considered a request to grant an exception to continue an existing nonconforming side yard (3.21 feet rather than 4.5 feet) for a second story addition. Based on section 13-7(c)(3), the Planning Commission was not able to grant this request because less than 75% of side yards on the same block have similar nonconforming side yards. Although the Planning Commission denied the request, it was expressed that perhaps the ordinance was too restrictive, especially since the expansion involved a wall length along the side yard of only 22 feet. Analysis Selected sections of 13-7(c) reads as follows: (2) Existing structures which are nonconforming as to yards, lot coverage, open space or height may be expanded or enlarged provided the expansion or enlargement complies with the regulations of the zone in which the structure is located. Existing nonconforming side yards may be maintained with an addition provided the side yard is not more than ten (10) percent smaller than the current side yard required. (3) Where existing walls are a minimum of, or more than -- three (3) feet from the side property line, the wall may be expanded if at least seventy-five (75) percent of the block as defined by the zoning ordinance, has the same or smaller nonconforming side yards (excluding commercial and manufacturing uses). Measurement of side yards shall be approximated by use of aerial photos and field inspections. Fees for such requests shall be set by the City Council. This exception of (b) was included in the revision to Article 13 to allow approval of the expansion or extension of a wall with a nonconforming side yard, when such nonconformity is clearly a common situation on the same block. The 75% rule was chosen to establish a minimum criteria. The merits of the particular proposal, such as the scale of the expansion and other project characteristics, could also be considered by the Planning Commission to allow such an exception. In the case mentioned above it was calculated that only about 717 of the dwellings on the same block had similar or smaller nonconforming side yards. Therefore, pursuant to the ordinance the only choice was denial of the request, even though it only involved the extension of a 22 -foot wide portion of the house for a secondstory addition. Staff is proposing the addition of a statement to Section 1307(c)(3) that allows the Planning Commission to also consider requests for -extensions of walls with nonconforming side yards, if it', is determined that the extension is minor, and that it is generally consistent with a majority of existing sideyards in the neighborhood. CON UR: G< Michael Schubach Planning Director Attachments 1. Proposed Resolution 2. P.C. Resolutions initiating text amendment 3. P.C. Minutes .1 //), den Robertson Associate Planner p/pcsrside S 84CKcR avND MATER/AL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 P.C. RESOLUTION 90-83 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT, SECTION 13-7(C)(3) REGARDING EXTENSIONS OF WALLS WITH NONCONFORMING SIDE YARDS TO GIVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MORE DISCRETION TO APPROVE REQUESTS FOR SUCH EXCEPTIONS AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 2, 1990, and made the following Findings: A. Although the code allows for exceptions to extend walls with nonconforming side yards, it only allows it in cases where 75% of the lots on the same block have the same or lesser nonconforming side yards; B. This criteria is to restrictive and does not allow the Planning Commission the flexibility to additions to existing buildings based on existing structure C. Approval of this General Plan and allow logical minor the character of the and the surrounding neighborhood; amendment is is purpose of the zoning safety, and welfare; necessary not in conflict with the to carry out the general ordinance to serve the public health, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend amendment the zoning ordinance text as follows, and recommends adoption of an environmental negative declaration: SECTION 1. Amend Section 13-7(c)(3) by adding the following underlined text: Where existing walls are a minimum of, or more than three (3) feet from the side property line, the wall may be expanded if at least seventy-five (75) percent of the block as defined by the zoning ordinance, has the same or smaller nonconforming side yards (excluding commercial and manufacturing uses); or, the wall may be expanded if the Planning Commission determines that the expansion is minor and necessary for the logical extension 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of a wall and that the nonconforming side yard is generally consistent with the majority of side yards in the neighborhood. Measurement of side yards shall be approximated by use of aerial photos and field inspections. Fees for such requests shall be set by the City Council. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 90-83 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of October 2, 1990. Scott Ingell, Chairman Michael Schubach, Secretary Date 7 p/persauto easures for businesses of this type. She noted that the uses which elicit the most complaints he city are auto dealers and bars. She did not feel that such a use would enhance the espeally since this city does not have the appropriate acreage for this use. Comm. . e felt that applicants should at least have an opportunity to propose such a use. If there are n-itIgation measures, the City has an obligation to allow the use; if ere are not adequate mita_ : tion measures, the conditional use permit can be denied. Comm. Aleks felt t:.t there is a distinct difference between motorcycle :ales and parts sales and repairs. He not - • that the revving of engines during repairs . n be quite noisy. He therefore could not suppapproval of such a use in a city where t . - commercial areas are so close to residential. Comm. Peirce said that he wou . support approval of the t - t amendment, based on the fact that he feels there are appropria areas in the C-3 z. e which would be appropriate for motorcycle repairs and parts sales. clarified, howev- , that he is voting to approve only the text amendment, not any specific proje . He said at approval of specific projects must be based on adequate mitigation measures. Chmn. Ingell stated that he would support p .val of this text amendment, noting, however. that each individual use would need to be - dresse..n a case-by-case basis. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, secon by Comm. Ru - to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-81, as written. Mr. Schubach explained, for e benefit of the new commissier, the rationale behind this text amendment. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: s. Peirce, Rue, Chmn .Ingell omms. Aleks, Ketz None None Chmn. Ip: ell announced that this decision of the Planning Commission may be a . ealed by writing'to the City Council within ten days. SS 90-6 -- TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING NONCONFORMING SIDEYARD EXCEPTION AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 27, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend amendment of Section 13-7(c)(3.) to give the Planning Commission authority to allow expansion of existing walls with nonconforming sideyards of at least three feet when deemed a minor extension and is consistent with the neighborhood. At the August 7, 1990. meeting, the Planning Commission initiated this study by adopting a resolution of intent (Resolution P.C. 90-76). This issue arose at the July 17, 1990, meeting, when the Planning Commission considered a request to grant an exception to continue an existing nonconforming sideyard (3.21 feet rather than 4.5 feet) for a second -story addition. Based on Section 13-7(c)(3), the Planning Commission was not able to grant this request because less than 75 percent of sideyards on the same block have similar nonconforming side yards. Although the Planning Commission denied the request, it was expressed that perhaps theordinance was too restrictive. especially since the expansion involved a wall length along the sideyard of only 22 feet. Selected sections of 13-7(c) read as follows: P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 "(2) Existing structures which are nonconforming as to yards, lot coverage, open space or height may be expanded or enlarged provided the expansion or enlargement complies with the regulations of the zone in which the structure is located. Existing nonconforming sideyards. may be maintained with an addition provided the sideyard is not more than ten percent smaller than the current sideyard required. "(3) Where existing walls are a minimum of, or more than three feet from the side property line. the wall may be expanded if at least 75 percent of the block as defined by the zoning ordinance has the same or smaller nonconforming sideyards (excluding commercial and manufacturing uses). Measurement of sideyards shall be approximately by use of aerial photos and field inspections. Fees for such requests shall be set by the City Council." The exception of (B) was included in the revision to Article 13 to allow approval of the expansion or extension of a wall with a nonconforming sideyard, when such nonconformity is clearly a common situation on the same block. The 75 percent rule was chosen to establish a minimum criteria. The merits of the particular proposal, such as the scale of the expansion and other project characteristics, could also be considered by the Planning Commission to allow such an extension. In the case mentioned, it was calculated that only about 71 percent of the dwellings on the same block had similar or smaller nonconforming sideyards. Therefore, pursuant to the ordinance the only choice was denial of the request, even though it only involved the extension of a 22 - foot wide portion of the house for a second -story addition. Staff is proposing the addition of a statement to Section 1307(c)(3) that allows the Planning Commission to also consider requests for extensions of walls with nonconforming sideyards, if it is generally consistent with a majority of existing sideyards in the neighborhood. Public Hearing opened at 9:25 P.M. by Chmn. Inge11. Bernard Kersulis, 1781 Valley Park Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and stated that his project was the one which gave rise to this issue. He felt that this amendment would allow the Commission to operate within the spirit that was intended. Public Hearing closed at 9:26 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Ketz felt that this is a necessary amendment, and she favored approval. Mr. Lee suggested several changes in the wording of the proposed amendment: Wording under "Amend Section 13-7(c)(3) by adding the following underlined text:" shall be changed as follows: "....or the wall may be expanded if the Planning Commission determines that the expansion within the otherwise code required setback is minor and necessary for the logical extension of a wall and that the nonconforming sideyard is generally consistent with the majority of existing side yards in the "block" as defined by the code...." MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-83, with the amendments as suggested by the City Attorney. AYES: Comms. Aleks, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Ingell NOES: Comm. Peirce ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Comm. Peirce explained that he voted against the motion, stating that if the City is to be upgraded, existing sideyard nonconformities should not be allowed to continue. P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 9 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C C RESOLUTION P.C. 90-76 A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO STUDY A POSSIBLE TEXT AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 13, NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND USES, TO GIVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION GREATER DISCRETION IN ALLOWING THE CONTINUATION OF NONCONFORMING SIDEYARDS FOR ADDITIONS AND EXPANSIONS. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 7, 1990, and made the following Findings: A. Although the code allows for exceptions to continue nonconforming sideyards, it only allows it in cases where 757 of the lots on the same block have similar or less nonconforming sideyards; B. This criteria is too strict and does not give the Planning Commission discretion 'to allow what would otherwise -be logical additions to existing buildings based on the character of the existing structure and the surroundings; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby direct staff to study possible amendments to the zoning ordinance to give the Planning Commission more discretion for allowing nonconforming side yard extensions. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ketz,Rue,Chmn.Ingell NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comms.Moore,Peirce CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 90-76 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission o the City of Hermosa Beach, Californi at their re ar me t; of/August 7, 1990_..._.. /Scott Inge 4', Chairman i "-" Date Michael Schubach, Secretary p/persint Mr. Schubach specified several alternatives: (1) to approve the request as previously suggested; (2) to continue matter and direct staff to return with additional conditions related to the land use itself, in addition to the sta - . d conditions; (3) to continue to an unspecified date when this court case is finally settled. He noted that simil.. CUPs have been -continued and are coming back to the Commission in September. Mr. Lee, in sre ponse to questions from the Commission, explained the appeal process, as w as other viable options available a is time. Comm. Moore stated that e entire purpose of planning is to have a social, economic, . environmental balance in a City. He therefore felt ' : it is desirable for• a City to have control over wh - can be allowed in regard to concentration of businesses. Mr. Lee stated that his office is curre tl actions being taken in the court case and imposed, and mitigation measures can be specific liquor sales. struggling with that very issu . d they continue to monitor the recent d use issues. He stated at s time only land -use type conditions can be im ..sed. He cautioned at the focus must be on land use impacts, not Chmn. Ingell stated that the Commission has no info be difficult for the applicant to mitigate the use wi monitoring of the dining room when liquor is sery n at this time to enable any decision. He felt that it will pital outlay. He noted that there must be a continual MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by,Chmn. Ingell, to contin, this hearing to the meeting of September 4, 1990, for the purpose of obtaining additional information from staff. Comm. Peirce hoped that more%mf rmation on the court case will be a - ilable, since this hearing is being continued. Chmn. Ingell noted that this is a rare instance, in that the staff environmental review c denial of the projec,t-based on the significant cumulative impacts to the area. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 3SSBNT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell None None Comm. Rue mittee has recommended NR 90-5 -- AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7(B) TO CONTINUE A NONCONFORMING SIDEYA.RD AT 1781 VALLEY PARK AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 12, 1990. Staff continued to recommend denial of this request. At the July 3, 1990, meeting, the Planning Commission approved a requested variance to allow the expansion of the dwelling with an existing substandard garage. However, the request to continue the first -floor nonconforming sideyard of 3.21 feet to the second floor was continued for staff to respond to comments made by the applicant and to return with an interpretation of Section 13- 7(c)(3). Section 13-7(c)(3) reads: "Where existing walls are a minimum of, or more than three feet from the side property line, the wall may be expanded if at least 75 percent of the block as defined by the zoning ordinance, has the same or smaller nonconforming sideyards (excluding commercial and manufacturing uses). Measurements of side yards shall be approximated by use of aerial photos and field inspection." - It is clear by the zoning definition of "block" that the entire block to 20th Street must be considered. Staff had previously calculated that only seven of the 14 other lots have a side yard of less than four feet. Previously it was stated that to meet the criteria of Section 13-7(c)(3) at least 75 percent of the lots would need to have. sideyards P.C. Minutes 7/17/90 of 3.21 feet or less to meet the criteria for exception. The applicant has correctly pointed out, however, that 10 of the 15 lots on the block have 50 -foot widths rather than 45 feet. • Therefore, staff believes that the correct interpretation is to determine if at least 75 percent of the lots have the same or smaller nonconforming sideyards in terms of the degree of the nonconformity. Therefore, percentage of lot width should be used rather than actual distance. Calculating it in terms of percentage, the subject lot's nonconforming sideyard is 7.1 percent of the lot width. Using the same calculation on the other 14 lots shows that only six have the same or smaller percentage. This is far short of the needed 75 percent. Even if a very liberal interpretation of the ordinance is considered (that any other nonconforming sideyards be counted towards the 75 percent) staff measurements show that 10 of the 15 lots have nonconforming sideyards. This calculates to be only 66 percent. To clarify statements made by the applicant, staff did encourage the applicant to apply for the exception rather than a variance because staff does not believe that findings for a variance can be made in this instance. There is clearly nothing extraordinary about the physical characteristics of the lot or even the characteristics of the existing structure which limit the applicant's ability to complete the proposed addition in conformance with the ordinance. It should be noted that a precedent had been established in the past for side yard variances, and as a result, the zoning ordinance was amended to allow some exceptions since it was determined that variance findings could not be made. It -should also be noted that three-foot sideyards are not considered adequate for two-story structures by the Fire Department, since a ladder cannot be placed in three feet of space. Comm. Peirce asked how this request could be approved if the numbers are correct. Mr. Schubach explained that this request is only to allow the applicant to continue an existing nonconforming sideyard setback. Staff feels, however, that the sideyard should be set in. Mr. Lee clarified that the exception relates to the upper story and whether or not the applicant should be allowed to encroach into the required sideyard setback. Comm. Peirce asked about the findings, stating that he did not feel adequate findings can be made according to the numbers which have been presented. He did not feel that the Commission has authority to approve this_ exception. Mr. Lee stated that according to staff, Comm. Peirce is correct in his assertion that this project does not meet the criteria for approval. He also noted that appropriate findings could not be made for a variance request. He noted, however, that the applicant does have the option of filing for a variance hearing. Comm. Ketz asked whether the Fire Department considers three feet to be adequate for sideyards on 30 -foot lots, to which Mr. Schubach explained that the Fire Department prefers not to have three-foot sideyards, based on safety and accessibility precautions. Comm. Moore, noting that only 20 feet is in question, asked if the applicant pulled in the second story 14 inches whether there be a problem, to which Mr. Schubach replied that the problem would then be solved. Comm. Moore stated that there comes a point when the rules are of benefit to no one. He could see no benefit in requiring this applicant to pull the second story in 14 inches. He felt that there should be provisions for reasonable designs which continue minor nonconformities which are innocuous. He was therefore convinced that there are grounds to approve this request. Mr. Schubach explained that staff does study these issues, and he stated that if the rules are incorrect, then the code should be changed to reflect those inadequacies. Comm. Ketz agreed that she could see no reason to require this applicant to pull in the second story, concurring that she could see no benefit to such a requirement. P.C. Minutes 7/17/90 -12- Mr. Lee explained the nonconforming provisions and the method by which the City allows or disallows the continuance of nonconformities. He noted that it is difficult to establish what is or is not•"innocuous." He said that the way to change this situation is to recommend an amendment to the nonconforming section of the ordinance. Comm. Peirce, noting that there is an ordinance in place, stated that the rules should be followed. He stated that the limit must be somewhere. Hearing opened at 9:54 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Bernard Kersulis, 1781 Valley Park Avenue, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that if one counts the number of nonconforming sideyards on the tract map, 13 of 15 are nonconforming, or a total of 87 percent of the block does not comply with the zoning ordinance; (2) continued by discussing staffs interpretation of the number of nonconformities; (3) stated that this project would not change the character of the neighborhood. Comm. Peirce stated that the code is very specific on this issue, and the numbers are clear on this matter. He did not feel there is any question about the interpretation, stating that this is a matter of math. Mr. Kersulis stated, in response to a question from Comm. Moore, if this request is denied, he will go ahead with the project as is; although, he felt this requirement is silly. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed overhanging roof impediments; (2) stated that three-foot sideyards are not a major problem to the Fire Department because the ladder can be placed in the neighbor's yard; (3) felt that this project will not be detrimental to anyone, stating that from a safety standpoint, this proposal is better that not approving it; (4) stated that he disagrees with the criteria established for this ordinance.— Hearing rdinance._ Hearing closed at 10:01 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Chmn. Inge11 questioned whether the Planning Commission has an option in this matter. Mr. Lee, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz regarding the outcome if this request is approved, explained that the decision would be subject to appeal. He noted that staff has given its recommendation, and approval would set an unfortunate precedent. Comm. Peirce felt that if the law is inadequate, it should be changed, not ignored. He noted that the law has only been in effect for several months now. • Mr. Schubach gave background information on the impetus for establishing this ordinance. He stated that if the ordinance is not proper, it should be amended. Chmn. Ingell noted concern over setting a precedent. He agreed that if the ordinance is incorrect, it should be changed. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve staffs recommendation to deny this request for an exception. AYES: Comm. Peirce, Chmn. Ingell NOES: Comms. Ketz, Moore ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. Rue (TIE VOTE; MOTION FAILS.) Comm. Moore stated that he intended to be a strict interpreter of the code; however, this screams out for equity adjustment. He did not feel approval would create'any jeopardy. He favored apprbval based on the special circumstances of this project being very innocuous to the neighbors, the size of the extension, and the nature of the zone. P.C. Minutes 7/17/90 -/3= 1 Comm. Peirce stressed that if the code is incorrect, it should be changed. He asserted that this is a nation of laws, not men; to which Comm. Moore countered that if this were a mechanical formula, the Planning Commission would not be necessary. Comm. Moore stated that the only option, given the regulations presented, would be to deny the project. He felt that some equity should be built into the way the City is run; however, he noted that change takes time. He noted, however, that he feels this is a silly situation. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staffs recommendation to deny the request for the exception. Comm. Moore stated that it is clear that the issue revolves around equity issues, not legal interpretations. He stated that the City Council could appeal this decision and override the decision of the Planning Commission. He noted that he would unhappily support the motion to deny. He felt that some flexibility and equity should be incorporated into the ordinance. AYES:. NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell Comm. Ketz None Comm. Rue r'N GP`89-3/ZON 89 8 t.I1 T RECONSIDERATION OF AREA 10 FO' P FI P • R D R ADOPTION OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 12, 1990. This area is located between Barney Co and Meyer Court, from south city boundary,to the rear of the lots fronting on 2nd Street, also known as "Ar . 10." This action was initiated by the City Council.and Planning Commission. On July 10, 1990, the City Counci as unable to reach a majority vote on this is . , as the Fair Political Practices Commission confirmed that the mayor'eould not vote to break the previous tw• wo tie vote and also indicated that councilmember Midstokke could not vote.N\Vithout a majority of the total 'ity Council, no decision can be made according to state law. Therefore, as a compromise, the Council would]: e to consider a redesignation to a specific plan area which would allow two units for the larger lots with 40, o square feet or more, but would restrict the structures to 25 feet in height and 50 percent lot coverageand wou . require that the units be detached and front on a street as do single-family homes (where double frontage exists). On May 8, 1990, the City Council continued this ite o July 10, 1990, to allow the City Attorney to seek a written advisory letter from the FPPC on whether an ected official reeding within 300 feet.of the subject site can vote to break a two -two tie. The tie vote occurred the April 10, 1990, public hearing. Hearing opened and closed at 10:13 P.M. by mn. Ingell who noted that no one ared to speak on this issue. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, secon by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommends' ion, Resolution P.C. 90- 60. REDE I IF P Comm. Moore commented at there was previously a great deal of public testimony related to t i• issue, and he noted that no one appear address the issue at this time. Comm. Peirce stated that the Planning Commission had no problem -with this area; rather, the difficulty was a City Council level. AYES: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: . Comm. Rue P.C. Minutes 7/17/90 November 8, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 13, 1990 PROCEDURES TO EXPEDITE COUNCIL MEETINGS AND CLARIFY CITIZEN INPUT OPPORTUNITIES Recommendation: After receiving further public comment, and closing the public hearing, it is recommended the Council finalize and approve the revisions to Council meeting procedures supported by the Council majority at your October 23, 1990 meeting, as follows: (1) The Council continues to support and direct preparation of a "Welcome to Your City Council Meeting" brochure to be made available to citizens. It shall include how citizens can provide input to their Council, both oral and in writing. (2) The City Clerk shall be the Council's parliamentarian, and shall be assisted by the City Attorney insuring proper parliamentary procedure is followed. Jointly they shall prepare a brief reminder of the motion making process, to be fastened inside Council folders, and actively provide input during Council deliberations to assure correct procedures. (3) Closed sessions before Council meetings shall recess at 7:20 p.m. if items are not completed at that time. (4) Recesses of Council meetings shall be for 10 minutes and enforced. (5) The agenda shall be revised to reflect an early opportunity for one minute oral communications by citizens to comment on any non-public hearing item on the agenda or any subject within the Council's jurisdiction. (6) A voting machine shall be purchased to allow Council votes to be all recorded at one time, and to be visible to the public. (7) Public input during discussion of municipal matters shall be allowed at the discretion of the Mayor. (8) As provided in Section 2-2.11(g), Councilmembers shall comply with the rule that during debate, no Councilmember shall be allowed to speak twice until all others Councilmembers who choose have spoken. As provided in Section 2-2.11(f), the Council shall comply with the rule that the Councilmember making a motion shall be allowed the privilege of closing debate. (9) 1 (10) Written communications shall be agendized by the City Clerk upon the request of the author of the letter. (11) The wording on the first page of the agenda to assist citizens in understanding their opportunities for comment, availability of materials and the availability of agenda material shall be clarified, and the reference to referring matters to the City Manager shall be deleted. Background: The public hearing on this item was begun at your meeting of October 23, 1990. Following much public input and Council comments, straw votes on possible changes in Council procedures were taken, with the above noted items receiving support from a majority of the Council. The last action of the Council was to continue the public hearing to the November 13th meeting for final approval before implementation. Analysis: The analysis of possible suggested changes and current methods to facilitate public comment and expedite our meetings was contained in the Council memo for the September 25, 1990 meeting dated September 20, 1990. Copies of the memo are available in the City Clerk's Office. Respectfully submitted, `ice Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager NOT AVAILABLE FOR SIGNATURE Elaine Doerfling. City Clerk Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council SCHEDULING OF DECEMBER, November 7, 1990 Regular Meeting of November 13, 1990 1990 COUNCIL MEETINGS Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve holding the regular meeting of the City Council on December 11, 1990, as the only scheduled Council Meeting for the month of December, 1990. Background: The December holiday season presents an annual need to review the dates for City Council meetings. The Council's regular meetings are the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month. The fourth Tuesday this year is December 25, a national holiday. Analysis: Since there are only four Tuesdays in the month, it seems appropriate to hold the first regular meeting of the month on December 11, 1990 and have no scheduled meeting until the first regular meeting in January, 1991, which will occur January 8th. Of course, should a need arise, the Mayor or three members of the City Council can call a special meeting. For your information, the Park, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission is combining its November and December meetings to one, to be held December 5, 1990. The Planning Commission is holding its regular meeting December 4, 1990, but it is not planning to hold a second meeting in December. Respectfully submitted, evin B. North raft City Manager 11 TO: FROM: Michael Schubach, Plannin'/B'ect � SUBJECT: Automatic Vacancy on Planning Commission DATE: November 8, 1990 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Honorable Mayor and Member of the ity Council Background The Planning Commission, at their November 6, 1990 meeting, were made aware of the automatic vacancy on the Commission. Their concern was that Chairman Ingell represented the business community particularly downtown and he would be a loss to the Commission. Attendance Chairman Ingell has been absent the following dates this year: January 3 August 21 October 16 November 6 Municipal Code Section 2-74 This section indicates that after 4 absences in one year or 2 in one quarter causes an automatic vacancy unless the City Council grants a waiver. However, a commissioner continues., to serve. until a replacement is found, or the commissioner resigns. Discussion with Chairman Ingell Staff discussed this matter with Chairman Ingell, and he has indicated that he is willing to continue until there is a replacement. He does not believe a waiver would be appropriate since there is a chance that it could happen again because of his growing business which has resulted in more out-of-town trips. Noted: evin B. North City Manager aft 11� p/memoa Mayor'andMembers sof the City ..Council November 8, 1990 :City .Council. Meeting "November '.'13 , .1990 VACANCIES BOARDS -AND COMMISSIONS LAIMIN3 COMMIBBION +- `TERM ERPIRrNi3 DUNE 30, .1991Due to four absences in one year by Planning Commission Chairman. Scott Inge11, there' is an automatic vacancy on the. PlanningCommission for an unexpired term ending June 30, 1991.On August 23rd_ and 30th of 1990, the City Clerk's Offices Planning Commission.There are currently four- names remaining in our files:Gila Katz-- 1125 Ninth Street"'Robert' B. -Marks - ABB ',Nineteenth ;Street3) Julius (J.R.) Reviczky - 600 Ardmore Avenue) Glenn R. Tanner - 17.0_Manhattan Avenue: --Alternatives • 1. -Appoint from the current .*list to serve a seven-month term ending June 30, 1991. 2. Direct the City Clerk to advertise and request..applications interested. persons_. _Concur: evin B. NorthCraft, City Manager .. Elaine.: Doer.fling; _; C'O.y C erk 11 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION p -r O86;. c 3, 100 ���:•1�7��11S4�. �g1ey-a»o )fv?L,ii,7 , 1 /Yv/101✓ dl��.�s x//12 /* 161/L��L f/ ��77/ CS2//✓�' ✓'a -a'' s s5 j Z ,'.� ' '6 cY .. t Nbyu3ut ys, - :.. �.�NM*37 v 76%70740 . <#.6a: X70 Gr�!S/ error 4i1aAA £(e(C£ 03413'1 4ZUZZ301:1 -I 1 t tsr- 0 -)/:;27467: �ir1d1/y'�,L 0�,�10�' lfd"i177d Ol/D O.? "' 77./1/Y1 ,9 . • .:G'7a. 7 '- 1,33H • L4%�0 �/✓/7/�7rJ - • ow.-0/,'H'/t!°'17VbfL M3/A: AV9 5'001314.'' S, A1}i3NJR09,''}/Q, 01,.5}1313iI: . .; ti g ti �� P� ale" 224,:c2.- e Q \aa@ �' _6- 83? -/.2-44:.t • te ..• ,•dVN Via AH`O30/A/090r6N/3H.' VNV7 9N1 40 ',1 HYVNR063t14 f1Y7/0NI• : r - : CN3937 .. N • 6Yv ✓�56� X27 72: 4iyd.'SS�.2..7d ' CV,I, _a al7 1 i `77/4 .• 7. / jYf '> 7,a 77/ 1 aJ?16Y/d' . 'rya X��.%.fi/I'/ - Sliil!// �f71:�"Q.�1.�����v� G✓/7//f/G✓Ol/jic02 di67P___ ecesd �o/sii>/DAi7�n/y�: •�.1o/t7'Gi7/7 ZA-Eai'O.P .. AC7VitoCa, '4.77/ .1<YY///y�o•;�Yv�s/,�!/4�///Yft1//1���'�: " 77frex(( )e,./1�'�.7i(et��f7//4 Ft X66/ `v/ 7w : / '/W /,10F a/aS�iit s/S5 —�71 ,,G!O.G✓ v1:4-S�ve'ec>o-S-✓ sx7n.7,7vs 'T ,d1 fl i.%O/? ; off : -.. °.«. ` 7/7A/I il.Y�v/✓fr _ ( Pi *vs : •t . 9 way) �.6/ `• : : "'- Hili f•_... 7,,-7 f y'fz/� /y0 Sral.0/. •SJSOdWfld' IN(IINIWOGNOO, 21O }._ q'ilNf100. GIVS AO 8302I0032I5.1Nf100.3141:NI'' `SdV1A1 Obl 3JVd,` 01)1008 NI-: a302I0332I4VI 283d;SV'`10da1 Mal Ad8.VS00183H.'' S,111d3HJf100i'2Ial`61,101,40' N0112IOd V QNV`: 81.101-d0 NOISIAIa8flS,;V DN138` VIN2I0drIVO - ' 40, :'<' 3idls:' r. :.S31NV 3J,. SO1 40 • .;Jl1Nf100> ` HOV38 . VS0IN2I3Hf .40 -A113 314.1. : 1.33H s • A .31 QS