Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/14/90CITY HALL OPERATING HOURS MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY OPEN 7:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M. CLOSED FRIDAYS Where there is no vision the people perish... HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WELCOME! By your presence in the City Council Chambers you are participating in the process of representative government. Your government welcomes your interest and hopes you will attend the City Council meetings often. It is the policy of the City Council that no discussion of new items will begin after 11:30 p.m., unless this rule is waived by the Council. The agendas are developed with the intent to have all matters covered within the time allowed. CITY VISION A less dense, more family oriented pleasant low profile, financially sound community comprised of a separate and distinct business district and residential neighborhoods that are afforded full municipal services in which the maximum costs are borne by visitor/users; led by a City Council which accepts a stewardship role for community resources and displays a willingness to explore innovative alternatives, and moves toward public policy leadership in attitudes of full ethical awareness. This Council is dedicated to learning from the past, and preparing Hermosa Beach for tomorrow's challenges today. Adopted by City Council on October 23, 1986 NOTE: There is no smoking allowed in the Council Chambers r .' TBE'HERMOSA BEACH FORM OF GOVERNMENT Hermosa Beach bas the Council -Manager form of government, with a City Manager ap- pointed by and responsible to the City Council for carrying out Council policy. The Mayor and Council decide what is to be done.. The City Manager, operating through the entire City staff, does it. This separation of policy making and administration is considsered the moat economical and efficient form of City government in the United States today. GLOSSARY The following explanations may help you to understand the terms found on most agen- das for meetings of the Hermosa Beach City Council. Consent Items A compilation of all routine matters to be acted upon by one vote; approval re- quires a majority affirmative vote. Any Councilmember can remove an item from this listing thereby causing that matter to be considered under the category Consent Cal- endar items Removed For Separate Discussion. Public Hearings Public Hearings are held on certain matters as required by law. The Hearings afford the public the opportunity to appear and formally express their views regarding the matter being heard. Additionally, letters may be filed with the City Clerk, prior to the Hearing. Hearings Hearings are held on other matters of public importance for which there is no legal requirement to conduct an advertised Public Hearing. Ordinances An ordinance is a law that regulates government revenues and/or public conduct. All ordinances require two "readings". The first reading introduces the ordinance into the records. At least one week later Council may adopt, reject or hold over the ordinance to a subsequent meeting. Regular ordinances take effect 30 days after the second reading. Emergency ordinances are governed by different provisions and waive the time requirements. Written Communications The public, members of advisory boards/commissions or organizations may formally communicate to or make a request of Council by letter; said letters should be filed with the City Clerk by the Wednesday preceeding the Regular City Council meeting. Miscellaneous Items and Reports r..City Manager The City Manager coordinates departmental reports and brings items to the attention of, or for action by the City Council. Verbal reports may be given by the City Manager regarding items not on the agenda, usually having arisen since. the agenda was prepared on the preceding Wednesday. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Council Members of the City Council may place items on .the agenda for consideration by the full Council. Other Matters - City Council These are matters that come to the attention of a Council member after publication of the Agenda. Oral Communications from the Public - Matters of an Urgency Nature Citizens wishing to address the City Council on an urgency matter not elsewhere con- sidered on the agenda may do so at this time. Parking Authority The Parking Authority is a financially separate entity, but is operated as an inte- gral part of the City government. Vehicle Parking District No. 1 The City Council also serves as the Vehicle Parking District Commission. It's pur- pose is to oversee the operation of certain downtown parking lots and otherwise pro- mote public parking in the central business' district. "It takes a lot of luck to make up for a lack of common sense." -Anonymous AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 14, 1990 - Council Chambers, City Hall Closed Session - 6:30 p.m. Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. MAYOR Roger Creighton MAYOR PRO TEM Chuck Sheldon COUNCILMEMBERS Robert Essertier Kathleen Midstokke Albert Wiemans CITY CLERK Elaine Doerfling CITY TREASURER Gary L. Brutsch CITY MANAGER Kevin B. Northcraft CITY ATTORNEY Charles S. Vose All Council meetings are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. 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: PRESENTATION OF OUTSTANDING EMPLOYEES OF QUARTER AWARDS: Merelyn Vanole, Administrative Aide, Public Works Dept. Carol Belser, Recreation Specialist, Community Resources Dept. 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 minutes of regular meeting of the City Council held on July 24, 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 the July, 1990 in- vestment report. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated August 2, 1990. (e) (g) (h) (i) (7) (k) Recommendation to deny and refer to City's Liability Claims Administrator the following claim: 1) Michael Freidman on behalf of Robert Michael Tons, 3465 Torrance Blvd., Suite G, Torrance, filed July 31, 1990; alleged false arrest. Memorandum from Risk Manager Robert A. Blackwood dated August 2, 1990. Recommendation to approve -request for appropriation of $250,000 plus $10,000 for miscellaneous costs from Park and Recreation Facilities Tax Fund to CIP 513 for pur- chase of five Prospect Heights surplus lots currently owned by the Hermosa Beach City School District. Memo- randum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated July 30, 1990. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving Final Map #20176 for a two -unit condominium located at 620 Tenth Street. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated August 6, 1990. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving Final Map #20323 for a four -unit condominium located at 834-840 Monterey Boulevard. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated August 6,1990. Recommendation to approve revised class specification for Engineering Technician. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated August 9, 1990. Recommendation to adopt resolution of intent to direct staff to examine possible changes and additions to the standard conditions for conditionally permitted uses in Article 10 of the zoning ordinance. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated August 7, 1990. Recommendation to approve lease agreement between the. City of Hermosa Beach and Hope Chapel for use of space (1) (m) (n) (o) in the Community Center. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated August 1, 1990. Recommendation to reappropriate funds from 1989/90 bud- get. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated August 6, 1990. Recommendation to receive and file the Capital Improve- ment Program schedule for Fiscal Year 1990-91. Memoran- dum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated Au- gust 7, 1990. Recommendation to accept as complete the construction of the Myrtle Avenue Sanitary Sewer Emergency Repair (part of CIP 88-406) and appropriate an additional $39,233 to CIP 44-406 from the Sewer Fund for FY 89-90. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated August 7, 1990. Recommendation to receive and file report regarding the Civil Service Board's review of class specifications. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dat- ed August 9, 1990. Recommendation to approve loan to the asset forfeiture fund. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wis- niewski dated August 8, 1990. Recommendation re. review of Cable Company ascertain- ment. Memorandum from Acting General Services Director Henry L. Staten dated August 6, 1990. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. (a) ORDINANCE NO. 90-1041 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE HERMO- SA BEACH ZONING ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE AMORTIZATION OF BUSINESSES THAT REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS THAT CURRENTLY OPERATE WITHOUT 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. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. 5. CURBSIDE RECYCLING ALTERNATIVES. Memorandum from Build- ing and Safety Director William Grove dated August 6, 1990. 6. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR ADOPTION OF COMPROMISE SOLUTION FOR AREA 10 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE . CHANGE, with resolution for adoption and ordinance for introduction. (Continued from July 24, 1990 meeting.) 7. ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE FOR BILTMORE SITE AND PARKING LOT C, AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGA- TIVE DECLARATION, with resolution for adoption and or- dinance for introduction. (Continued from July 24, 1990 meeting.) MUNICIPAL MATTERS 8. 2ND QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS: A. MODIFICATION TO COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN (to be continued to 3rd Quarter General Plan amendments). B. ADOPTION OF FINAL CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN REVISION, AND ENVIRON- MENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, with resolution for adoption. (Continued from July 24, 1990 meeting.) 9. RECOMMENDATION REGARDING VEHICLE PARKING IN FRONT YARDS AND ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY (NOT STREET SURFACES). Memo- randum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated July 30, 1990. 10. INTERPRETATION OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION - MOTORCYCLES. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach (This item is withdrawn due to Planning Commission continuation at their meeting of August 7, 1990.) 11. STATUS REPORT: IDEAS FOR MUNICIPAL PIER RENOVATION. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated August 6, 1990. 12. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER 13. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Automatic vacancy on Planning Commission. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated August 7, 1990. (b) Amendment to City Manager agreement to provide sub- stitute car allowance for car and delete car from Build- ing Department budget. Memorandum from Personnel Direc- tor Robert Blackwood dated August 6, 1990. (c) Appointment of City Prosecutor. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated August 9, 1990. 14. 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 -1-4113-&25-1-0-5315- -6115-=-5---31-7-61&* g.- - 9-0- _� REGLivtu AUG 0 91990 U.iy F+i- -.^..� C... .lf�(:%✓F::J .j�:.4. {r7 titI�III��1�I .. .. "`' "3 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ' ,- PUBLIC.HEARING :." NOTICE IS. HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of.-: Hermosa Beach will hold a public hearing on:August 1,4,:1.990,to. ';discuss curbside recycling alternatives forthe city. =• PUBLIC,.HEARINGshall be at" 8:00 P.M. or as 'soon.: ?tthereafter as the matter may be heard in,the Council Chambers„ n City Hall,.1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach1CA 90254: AND' ALL'.. PERSONS: interested in the above matter are:;. invited .to appear. at that time .and place or, to submit their written comments to the Department of Building and Safety by 5:00 p.mr on the Thursday prior to the date of the public hearing. ..- = FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, contact,the_Departmentof ': 1. Building and Safety at 318-0235.:''+;~- "' ER 8-2-90, 8 9.90 HB -5211\'1 8/9/90 RE : REG YC LING The City Council should choose a program in which there is NO increased fees to the residents. The following appearded in today's issue of the HERMOSA BEACH NNS: Sincethe program began in:`Januaryt1.990, ;axed 2,230 tons of : resources by, re.cyciin ;axed 28 098; treed." A "long tone has 2240 lbs. hence Redondo Beach has recycled 4,995,200 lbs. of resources within a 7 month time. Here are some fees paid by one recycling center in a recent issue of THE GOLD DIGGER: Thurs., August 2, 1990 THE GOLD,DIE C1�CLII�G CE�iT _:. 4.�—.3'•. z,:. _,.r.!.pse., ^e,,. e[7' .r+�... 4..... -... t::l.. 1 Let's say that Redondo Beach had one-third of each (1,665, 067 lbs. of aluminum, 1,665, 067 of glass, and 1,665,067 lbs. of plastic): 1,665, 067 X .90¢ equals $1,498, 560.30 1,665,067 X .05 ; equals 83,253.35 1,665,067 X .4G¢ equals 660, 026.80 Redondo Beach Recycle, h3c 2 , 241' 840'45 he..new_ sprintyou recycled1And since the trash isi'i't going into the regular trash pick -up ---the trash company isn't picking up the 2,230 tons of recycling recourses ---so the regular trash bill should be less.. TOTAL REVENUE SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION I personally recycle my aluminum cans and glass products (since a California Redemption value is charge at the store). About once a month I put out a couple bundles of newspapers-- hich are picked up by someone before the regular trash truck comes. Hence I put out regular trash every two weeks. The trash company, BFI, should be required to only charge a bi-weekly fee for people like me. The Hermosa Beach Recycling Program could be run by the city. One of the old city's pickup trucks could be used and possibly an utility trailer could be purchased (they run $y3OO to 400 in the paper called THE RECYCL ). Both the truck and trailer could be lined with regular 30 gallon trash cans: - Some xray paint around the rim would indicate what product went in each. A retired person could be hired part-time (hence henifits won't have to be given) to drive the truck. Then court defend- ants that were given "community service" could be the ones to pick-up the curb side rec,ycables. (such like the ones who help the county pick-up trash on the beach). Or even a couple students part-time on min xum wage could be hired. r The recycling bins could be donated by one or more of the community clubs (Rotary, ;1:anis, etc UNOCAL Corporation coems to be interested in the environment by purchasing older cars, etc. maybe they would donate the bins. BFI could be asked to donate bins in lion of re- ducing their rates for the rest of the year (sine they won't be pic fang up as much trash) . Then next year have them reduce rates and also offer bi-weekly rates ,for people like me who only use them every -other -week. Manhattan Beach seems to have a fancy recycling truck ---don't be foaled by the trash coruapny in doing it that way. It can be done in a rcaaonabl manner. Sincerely, Ron Felsing 249 27th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-2438 e,/( (w ✓ti�i L Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach City Hall Dear Sirs: RE: Biltmore Site Rezoning Alison McMahon 436 Prospect Avenue Hermosa Beach, California 90254 t?Ui NO REZONING OF THE BILTMORE SITE If we keep the status quo, we with the property. Residential zoning will lead the future white elephants on the of preferential zoning within a long-time Beachfront property is too important an autocratic fashion. I hope to see proposals on the ballot until we, the citizens as a group, decide what to do. Leave it as is. Make it a public area. Make it a public building. Hold it for commercial use until building regulations protect the beachfront. retain o N T E. -BA LL0T a say in what is done to building of what will be Strand, in a telling pocket commercial area. to be given away in in No private housing on the site. Keep it for all, not a select I'm having a really hard time not saying something smells here, especially with the allegations of impropriety amongst the city council. I don't know, so I can't say. My feelings are that my rights to use of that land have been usurped by some private interest somewhere. I am thankful that this second hearing has been scheduled, and hope that it is not just cosmetic, or "frosting." Thank you for your time and consideratioul. few. Alison McMahon. Artist/Teacher M.A. CSULB 1977 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 1 THE REV. CANON RICHARD I. S. PARKER 2110 BORDEN AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 August 14, 1990 The Hon. Roger Creighton Mayor Hermosa Beach, California Dear Mayor Creighton, As a resident of Hermosa Beach since 1939 and Rector Emeritus of St. Cross Episcopal Church where I served forty-one years, I am writing as a deeply concerned citi- zen regarding the use of the BILTMORE property. The Biltmore property, the only open space remaining on the entire Hermosa Beach front, belongs to all the citi- zens and should be developed for their use and enjoyment, rather than for commercial or residential use. The City of Hermosa Beach has provided through the years adequate schools, and playgrounds for the children, and more recently, the Green Path for exercizing for younger people. I urge that the City Council set aside the Biltmore property as a park where our older citizens especially can enjoy the beauty of the ocean and the beach environment. Many of them find it physically impossible to walk in the sand and to sit down on the sand and rise again. It is also hazardous for them to walk on the Strand because of the many bicyclers, roller skaters and runners. A park would be greatly appreciated by many of the physically handicapped regardless of age. I sincerely hope that the Council will in its wisdom designate the Biltmore site as a park for the whole com- munity, to be enjoyed by all the residents but especially by our senior citizens. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 7 August 7, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of August 14, 1990 PRESENTATION OF OUTSTANDING EMPLOYEE AWARD The City of Hermosa Beach Employee Performance Award honors City Employees who have displayed either sustained performance above expected levels or have performed a one-time action which exceeds expectations. Nominations for the award may be made by citizens, City Council - members, Department Heads and other employees. From the nomina- tions, the Management Team selects the award recipient(s). For the Fiscal Quarter January through March, 1990, the Manage- ment Team, after considering the nominations, selected two indi- viduals for recognition. The Outstanding Employees of the Quarter are: CAROL BELSER, Recreation Specialist Carol, who has only been with the Community Resources Department since 1989, has already demonstrated her value to the Department. Carol exemplifies pride in her work as a Recreation Specialist. She has demonstrated sustained outstanding performance in expand- ing and improving the recreation classes offered by the City and, as the staff member responsible for the publication of the City Newsletter/Recreation brochure, Carol has demonstrated creative and organizational talents that have served the City well. Above all, Carol has demonstrated that most appreciated willingness to tackle new assignments with both tenacity and results. MERELYN VANOLE, Administrative Aide Merelyn began her career with the City in 1983 as a Clerk 'Typist in the Public Works Department. She was promoted to the position of Administrative Aide in 1988 and has served meritoriously in that capacity since. Merelyn was nominated and selected for this award because of her dedication and always meeting the needs of the public as demon- strated by her outstanding performance over these past 7 years. Merelyn's performance and willingness to take on additional duties was noted when the Public Works Director was ill with pneumonia during this years budget preparation. Merelyn accepted the responsibility for preparing and completing the Public Works Department budget. This was a major personal and professional accomplishment given the fact that the City prepared its first two year budget and that the Public Works Department budget is made up of ten separate divisions. Merelyn completed the budget on time, and, at the same time, maintained her high level of per- formance in completing her other regularly assigned duties. Merelyn's actions during a time of exceptional need, as well as in the daily performance of her duties, serve as a good example to all. Both Carol and Merelyn are being presented with plaque to commem- orate their selection as Outstanding Employee. Respectfully submitted, Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, July 24, 1990, at the hour of 7:36 P.M. CLOSED SESSION - The closed session was held at 6:05 P.M. pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 regarding Personnel Matters: evaluation of the City Manager and request to negotiate with the Firefighters Association, and pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 regarding Real Property Negotiations: concerning South School and Prospect Heights vacant property with the Hermosa Beach City School District and City Yard Lease/Tidelands Oil Lease with Macpherson Oil Company. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 P.M. to the regular scheduled public meeting. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Kathleen Midstokke, Councilmember ROLL CALL: Present: Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton Absent: None ANNOUNCEMENTS City Manager Northcraft reported on the action from the closed session, that the City Council has authorized an updated ap- praisal on the South School site. Also, the City Manager invited all to attend the Family Picnic and Concert on the Green at the Community Center lawn, Saturday, July 28, 1990, at the hour of 1:00 P.M. CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL PRESENTED BY CARL T. BAILEY, DISTRICT MANAGER, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS Mr. Bailey thanked the Mayor, City Council, and City staff for their cooperation with the 1990 census and added that they believed that at least 99% of the residents of Hermosa Beach had been counted. PROCLAMATIONS: Sister City Annual Visit, July 23 - 29, 1990 City Manager Northcraft announced that the City of Hermosa Beach had proclaimed July 23 to July 29, 1990, as "Sister City Week", and Councilmember Essertier would present the proclamation to the delegation from Loreto at a picnic in their honor, Wednesday, July 25, 1990, at Valley Park. CITIZEN COMMENTS Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street, item 1(k),1(p), and 1(q) June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue, 1(o) 1. CONSENT CALENDAR Action: To approve the Consent Calendar recommendations (a) through (r) with the exception of the following items which were pulled for discussion but arelisted in Page 1 Minutes 07-24-90 order for clarity: (c) Midstokke, (d) Midstokke, (k) Wiemans, (1) Essertier, (o) Sheldon, (p) Midstokke, and (r) Midstokke. Motion Mayor Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered. (a) Recommendation to approve minutes of regular meeting of the City Council held on July 10, 1990. (b) Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants No. 33874 and Nos. 34040 through 34209 inclusive, and to void warrant Nos. 34042, 34043, 34047, 34048, and 34049. (c) (d) (e) (f) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Coun- cilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting, due to questions regarding the appointment of a new City Prosecutor. Action: To receive and file. Motion Midstokke, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered. Recommendation to receive and file the June, 1990 finan- cial reports: 1) Revenue and expenditure report; 2) City Treasurer's report. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Coun- cilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting. Action: To receive and file. Motion Midstokke, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered. Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #19707 for a two -unit condominium located at 852 Cypress Avenue. Memorandum from Planning Director.. Michael Schubach dated July 16, 1990. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5387, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #19707 FOR A TWO - UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 852 CYPRESS AVENUE, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA." Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #20040 for a two -unit condominium located at 851 Loma Drive. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 16, 1990. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5388, entitled, ',A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #20040 FOR A TWO - UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 851 LOMA DRIVE, HER- MOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA." Page 2 Minutes 07-24-90 . • (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (1) Recommendation to adopt resolution as follow-up on im- plementation of Circulation, Transportation and Parking Element. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 16, 1990. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5389, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SETTING AND CONFIRMING THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT OF 25 MPH ON VALLEY DRIVE FROM GOULD AVENUE TO PIER AVENUE." Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing installa- tion of stop sign controls on Monterey Boulevard at Tenth Street. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated June 26, 1990. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5390, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADDING A STOP INTERSECTION ON MONTEREY BOULEVARD AT TENTH STREET." Recommendation to receive and file report regarding Civil Service Board review of City's class specifica- tions. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Black- wood dated July 19, 1990. This item was withdrawn from the Consent Calendar prior to the meeting. Recommendation to approve revised class specification for Engineering Technician. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated July 19, 1990. This item was withdrawn from the Consent Calendar prior to the meeting. Recommendation to approve: revision to the personnel allocation for the Community Resources Department and placement of the classification of Recreation Specialist in the Administrative bargaining unit with a salary range adjustment. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated July 19, 1990. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Coun- cilmember Wiemans for separate discussion later in the meeting. Action: To approve the staff recommendation. Motion Wiemans, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered, noting the objection of Midstokke. Recommendation to receive and file report on consider- ation of water conservation methods for new construction and direct Planning Department staff to consider drought tolerant landscaping in all landscape plans submitted for approval. Memorandum from Building and Safety Di- rector William Grove dated July 12, 1990. Page 3 Minutes 07-24-90 Director Grove and Public Works Director Anthony Antich responded to questions from the Council. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Coun- cilmember Essertier for separate discussion later in the meeting, due to concerns regarding any mandatory use of drought tolerant planting. Action: To receive and file the report. Motion Midstokke, second Essertier. So ordered. Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #21574 for a three -unit condominium located at 631 Sixth Street. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 17, 1990. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5391, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #21574 FOR A THREE -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 631 6TH STREET, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA." Recommendation to receive and file fourth quarterly re- port of Capital Improvement Program for 1989-90. Memo- randum from Public Works -Director Anthony Antich dated July 17, 1990. Recommendation to proceed with coordinated substance abuse enforcement measures. Memorandum from City Man- ager Kevin B. Northcraft dated July 18, 1990. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Coun- cilmember Sheldon for separate discussion later in the meeting, as Councilmember Sheldon wished to commend Mayor Creighton for his leadership in initiating the program. Mayor Creighton said that the original idea had come from the Manhattan Beach Police Department. Action: To approve the staff recommendation. Motion Sheldon, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered. Recommendation to contribute to the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated July 18, 1990. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Coun- cilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting, due to concern that the City of Los Angeles was not doing enough to control the Hyperion outflow. Action: To receive and file. Motion Midstokke, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered, noting the objection of Sheldon. Page 4 Minutes 07-24-90 (q) (r) Recommendation to authorize agreement for city oil con- sultant. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. North - craft dated July 19, 1990. Recommendation to adopt a resolution urging the U. S. Congress to adopt legislation conforming zip code bound- aries to the jurisdictional boundaries of local govern- ments, with resolution for adoption. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated July 19, 1990. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Coun- cilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5392, entitled, "A_ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, URGING THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO ADOPT LEGISLATION CONFORMING ZIP CODE BOUNDARIES TO THE JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS." Motion Midstokke, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered. Mayor Creighton directed staff to report back to Council on the status of the Hermosa Beach zip code, 90254, and why it was sometimes listed as Redondo Beach. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES (a) ORDINANCE NO. 90-1040 - AN ORDINANCE CONFIRMING THE RE- PORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATED JUNE 19, 1889, ORDERING CERTAIN CROSSING GUARD MAINTENANCE SER- VICES TO BE FURNISHED AND MAINTAINED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1990. For adoption. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 90-1040. Motion Mayor Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. Items (c), (d), (k), (1), (o), (p) and (r) were dis- cussed at this time but are listed in order for clarity. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE AN AMORTIZATION PERI- OD FOR BUSINESSES THAT REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, BUT ARE CURRENTLY OPERATING WITHOUT A C.U.P., with or- dinance for introduction. Memorandum from Planning Di- rector Michael Schubach dated July 16, 1990. Director Schubach presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. Page 5 Minutes 07-24-90 The public hearing was opened. Coming forward to address the Council were: June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue Merna Marshall - 360 Thirty -Third Place The public hearing was closed. Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 90-1041, and direct staff to prepare .a resolution of intent to investigate upgrading existing Conditional Use Permits that do not have standard conditions at this time. Consideration of a fee reduction was deferred until the user fee study has been completed. Motion Sheldon, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered. Final Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 90-1041, entitled, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE HERMOSA BEACH ZONING ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE AMORTIZATION OF BUSINESSES THAT REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS THAT CURRENTLY OPERATE WITHOUT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ADOPTION OF AN EN- VIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION." Motion Mayor Creighton, second Sheldon. AYES: Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, and Mayor Creighton NOES: None 6. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR ADOPTION OF COMPROMISE SOLUTION FOR AREA 10 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE, with resolution for adoption and ordinance for introduction. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 17, 1990. Two supplemental items: 1) Letter from Mrs. Francis A. Dedona, 1114 First Place, dated July 12, 1990. And, 2) Planning Commission action from the minutes of July 17, 1990. Mayor Creighton declared a conflict of interest, due to owning property within 300 feet of the subject area, and left the dais and the room. Mayor Pro Tem Sheldon chaired this portion of the meeting. Councilmember Midstokke declared a conflict of interest and left the dais and the room. Assistant City Attorney Ed Lee asked Mayor Pro Tem Sheldon to suspend item 6 and move to item 7(c). (The item was later con- tinued to the meeting of August 14, 1990.) Mayor Creighton and Councilmember Midstokke returned to the dais. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 7. 2ND QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS: Page 6 Minutes 07-24-90 A. MODIFICATION TO COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN (to be continued to 3rd Quarter General Plan amendments) B. ADOPTION OF FINAL CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN REVISION, AND ENVIRON- MENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, with resolution for adoption. Supplemental memorandum from Planning Director Schubach dated July 24, 1990 C. ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE FOR BILTMORE SITE AND PARKING LOT C, AND ENVIRON- MENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, with resolution for adoption and ordinance for introduction. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 17, 1990. Three supplemental items: 1) Biltmore Site ballot measures, a history re- quested by Councilmember Essertier, 2) letter from Howard Longacre, 1221 Seventh Place, dated July 22, 1990, and 3) supplemental memorandum from Planning Director Schubach dated July 24, 1990. The Assistant City Attorney informed the Council that a possible violation of the Brown Act had occurred due to a "serial meet- ing", via telephone, between threeCouncilmembers, i.e. one Coun- cilmember had contacted two others by phone. The Council was advised that items 6 and 7 were all part of the 2nd Quarter General Plan Amendments and must be acted upon at one time, or deferred to the 3rd Quarter. Therefore, in order to legally act on these matters, the Council was advised to reschedule items 6 and 7 to the August 14, 1990 meeting, and, renotice and reopen the public hearing on item 7(c). Action: To reschedule item 6 and item 7 (a), (b), and (c) to the Regular Meeting of August 14, 1990, and, to renotice and reopen the public hearing on item 7(c). Motion Sheldon, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered. Mayor Creighton recognized John Haddon, retiring District Manager for Southern California Edison Company, who introduced his suc- cessor, Walt Dougher. The Meeting recessed at 8:47 P.M. The Meeting reconvened at 9:09 P.M. 8. APPROVAL OF AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (AQMD) REG- ULATION XV - TRIP REDUCTION PLAN, AND APPROPRIATION OF $4,170 FOR INITIAL YEAR'S COST. Memorandum from Per- sonnel Director Robert Blackwood dated July 16, 1990. Director Blackwood presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. Proposed Action: To approve the staff recommendations with the exception of the following incentives: No. 7, to provide a $15.00 per month incentive for Page 7 Minutes 07-24-90 employees who walk, bicycle, or take the bus to work at least three times per week, and No. 8, to provide a $10.00 monthly stipend for em- ployees who rideshare to work at least three times per week. Motion Midstokke, second Mayor Creighton. Substitute Action: To approve the staff recommendation as proposed, with a review in six month to evaluate progress and to consider a parking charge for employees who do not carpool. Motion Mayor Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered, noting the objections of Midstokke and Essertier. 9. EXTENSION OF INTERIM ORDINANCE FOR ONE YEAR CONTROLLING DENSITY IN THE R-3 ZONE WHEN LOTS ARE BEING ASSEMBLED, with emergency Ordinance for adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 17, 1990. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 90-1042. Motion Sheldon, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered, noting the objection of Midstokke, who stated for the record that she had difficulty making the finding in Section 7 that the ordinance was designed to protect the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of Hermosa Beach. AYES: Essertier, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton NOES: Midstokke Mayor Creighton directed the City Attorney's office to review the ordinance to determine if there might be any problem. Final Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 90-1042, entitled, HAN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 89- 1011, CONTROLLING DENSITY ON R-3 ZONED LOTS WHEN THE NUMBER OF UNITS INCREASES WITH LOT ASSEMBLAGE, FOR ONE (1) YEAR.“ Motion Mayor Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered. AYES: Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton NOES: None 10. RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION ENDORSING A REGIONAL/ URBAN DESIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, with resolution for adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 17, 1990. Director Schubach presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. Addressing the Council on this item were: Dean Nota - 2467 Myrtle Avenue, representing the other architects, Gerald W. Compton and Pat Killen, Page 8 Minutes 07-24-90 who comprised the three member team sponsoring the R/UDAT Team Visit Proposal Wes Bush - Chamber of Commerce Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5393, entitled, ',A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ENDORSING THE REGIONAL URBAN DESIGN ASSISTANCE TEAM (R/ UDAT) PROGRAM SPONSORED BY THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS." Motion Sheldon, second Essertier. So ordered. Further Action: To appoint Councilmember Sheldon as the City Council delegate to the steering committee of the proposal. Motion Mayor Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered. 11. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER 1) City Manager Northcraft reported that a joint City Council workshop on the Housing Element was scheduled with the Planning Commission for Wednesday, August 8, 1990, at the hour of 7:00 P.M. 2) City Manager Northcraft noted that he would be on a two week vacation after July 26, 1990. In the interim, Personnel Director Blackwood would be serving as acting City Manager. 12. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Appointment of Board of Parking Place Commissioners. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated July 17, 1990 Action: To approve the selection made by Mayor Creigh- ton of the following appointments for City Council confirmation: Three year term - Jerry Newton, confirmed. Three year term - Betty Ryan, confirmed, noting the objection of Wiemans. Two year term - Helene Frost, confirmed. Two year term - Jerry Compton, confirmed. One year term - Jack Wood, not confirmed, due to the objections of Essertier, Sheldon, and Wiemans. One year term - Fahad Dandah, confirmed, noting the objection of Wiemans. Noting the approval of the Council, Mayor Creighton so ordered the above appointments. 13. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) Request by Councilmember Wiemans for consideration of streamlining City Council meetings. Page 9 Minutes 07-24-90 1 Addressing the Council on this item was: June Williams - Manhattan Avenue, who submitted documents to the Council. No action was taken. 14. MEETING OF THE HERMOSA BEACH PARKING AUTHORITY. The Regular Meeting of the City Council recessed at 10:15 P.M. to a meeting of the Hermosa Beach Parking Authority. The Regular Meeting of the City Council reconvened at 10:19 P.M. CITIZEN COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Councilmember Midstokke reported her concern about Police and Animal Control vehicles patrolling the Strand. Mayor Creighton directed staff to ensure that the pa- trols were justified. Coming forward to address the Council were: Howard Longacre - 1221 Seventh Place, concerned about Council meeting procedures. Wilma Burt - Seventh Street, concerned about City Hall parking. Jim Lissner - 27 El Oeste Drive, concerned about the Manhattan Grande Project and invited the City of Hermosa Beach to join his lawsuit. ADJOURNMENT: The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned on Tuesday, July 24, 1990, at the hour of 10:36 P.M. to a combined Workshop Meeting with the Plan- ning Commission on Wednesday, August 8, 1990 at the hour of 7:00 P.M. C(/cuY-rncL Deputy City Clerk Page 10 Minutes 07-24-90 v "t. 'f-FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 'he a 42 to .17 I.. Ar-- bi 177., SO� r CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0001 DATE 08/09/90 PAY • VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP H AERIAL DISPLAY 03566 001-400-4601-4201 00618 #400.0011380 /LUN I KAG I SEHVICE7PRIVA1 *400.00 • 34212 JAZZ-BAND/JULY e8, 90 07/25/90 LOMM RESOURCES ***VENDOR TOTAL##*ir*ir***ir"xar*ar***ar#*#*trar#ar***ir#atatr#*##it*#ir*#trarjttr**star**##nit#*#it#***#ar $0. 00----08708790— 0--08708790 —nnn H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1101-4304 00309 *7.00 00731 34216 TELEPHONE--CHGS7'JUCY-90 08/02t90— CITY -COUNCIL /1tLtrHUNt *0700-08708790 H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1121-4304 00313 *22.21 00731 34216 ELEPHONE-CHGSt ULY-90— 08/02790 CITY-CtERK/TELEPHONE *0:"00--08/08/90— H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1131-4304 00235 *10.31 00731 34216 TELEPHONE-CHGS7-JULY-90 08/02/90 CITY`ATTORNEY.---7TELEPHONE *0-00-08/08790— H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1141-4304 00335 *19.66 00731 34216 TELEPHONE-CHCS/JULY 90 08/02/90— CITY -TREASURER 1IELtPRONE $0:00-08/08/90--- 0:00—"-08/OB/90—H H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1141-4304 00336 *1.83 00733 34216 FAX BILLING/JULY-90 08/02790— L11 Y TREASURER /ItLEYHONt %0700 870 7,7,0 H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED —TELEPHONE-CHGS/JULY`90 00015 001-400-1201-4304 00353 *17.71 00731 34216 08/02/90 CITY MANAGER /ItLtI'RONE *0.0'0 09/08790 H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1201-4304 00354 *2.30 00733 34216 FAX-13ILEING7-JULY'90 "8/02/90 C.1 I Y MANAGER / I LLEFHUNE *U. 00 087087'10 H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1202-4304 00363 *65.06 00731 34216 TELEPHONE''CHGS7:7ULY-90 08/02/90 h iNANCE-ADMIN / t ELE-HONE S0.00-08/08/90--- 0.00-08/08/90— H H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1202-4304 00364 *8.28 00733 34216 FAX BILLING/JULY 90 08/02790 PINANCE-ADMIN /IELt-HUNt 50700087081'10 H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED - -' 00015 001-400-1203-4304 00367 *38,13 00731 34216 TELEPHONE CHGS/JULY 90 -'08/02/90 --"" "' --PERSONNEL — IILLE)HONE *0.06 08/09/90— H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1203-4304 00368 *3.39 00733 34216 /IELEP NE $0700 08708790---- FAX BILLING/JULY"90 08/02/90 PERSONNEL H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 • 001-400-1206-4304 00253 *76.21 00731 34216 TELEPHONE CHGS/JULY 90 08/02/90 . DATA PROCESSING /I)LEI'RONE $0.00-08/08790 H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED Y90 . 00015 001-400-1206-4304 00254 *5.04 00733 34216 FAX-BILEINGTJUE 08/02770 DATA-PRUCESSI S0700 .08708/90 lh 5 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED -"^'--TELEPHONE-'C HGSTUULY-90 - H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELEPHONE CHGS7Ji3EV 90 H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED ----TELEPHONE-CHGSf3ULY-90 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION PAGE 0002 DATE 08/09/90 INV/REF PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 00015 001-400-1207-4304 00207 $24.25 08/02790 BUS LICENSE 1ItLL HONE 00015 001-400-1208-4304 00075 $11.04 --'08/02/90--""`--------GEN-APPROP -7TELEPHONE- 00015 001-400-2101-4304 00619 $783.94 08/02790- POLICE /TELEPHONE H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-2201-4304 00275 "---" TELEPHONE CHGSYJULY-90---" "-77- -' 08/02/90- `"" " ' --- FIRE H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED FAX-BILLING-TOUL 90 H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELEPHONE-CHGS7JULY-90 H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 1ELEPHONE-CHGS/JULY-90- H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED FAX BILLING7JULY90 H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 1ELEPHONE CHGS-7JUEV-90' 1] 13 4' H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED, FAX BILLING7;:JULY-90 H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELEPHONE-CHGS7JUCY-9U 1, :z 13 14 49 i43 fa I 13 54 5O GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED PAX BILLING/JULY-90 H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 1ELEPHONE-CHGS7UULY-9U H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED FAX BILEING7JULY-96 00015 001-400-2201-4304 00276 08/02,90 FIRE $238. 00 7TEL"EPHONE- $0.85 1 1 tLLNFIDNE 00015 001-400-2401-4304 00317 $15.87 08/02/90 ANIMAL -CONTROL /IELEPHONE 00015 001-400-4101-4304 00366 $80.26 08/02796 PLANNI Jt • 00015 001-400-4101-4304 00367 $2.39 08/02/90 PLANNING /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-4201-4304 00344 $95.41 '09/02790 BUILDING / I"ELEP1-(ONE 00015 001-400-4201-4304 00345 $2.91 08/02/96- -BUILDING /1 ELEHRDNE 00015 001-400-4202-4304 00369 H 08/02790 $182. 07 PUB -WKS AUNRN / 1 ELEI'RUNE 00015 001-400-4202-4304 00370 $15.25 08/02790 PUB -WKSADMIN- 71LLEPHONE 00015 08/027VU 00015 08/02790 001-400-4601-4304 00426 $97. 64 COMM RESOURCES /IELEPHUNE 001-400"-4601-4304 00427 00731 34216 $0.-00-08/0879 00731 34216 $0.-00--08/ 088/90" 00731 34216 $0.00 08/0879 00731 34216 $0T00--08/08/90-- $0.85 -08/08/90- 00733 34216 $0.00----08/01379- 00015 0.00-08/0879" 00731 34216 4.0.00 08/08/90- 00731 34216 $0.0a---08708 $3. 40 COMM RESOURCES /1ELEPRONE GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-6101-4304 00250 1LLEPHONE LHGS7JUCY-9U -08/02790 $10. 03 PARKS /ItLLPHUNL 4 00733 34216 $0.0a---08/08790--- 00731 34216 $0T00 0870 00733 34216 $0.D0-08/09/9 00731 34216 $0.00 097097 00733 34216 $0.06 08/08/9C7-- 001-400-4601-4304 8/08/90 - 00731 34216 $01-00 0876879 00733 34216 $0.00---08/08/90--- GTE 0.00-08/08/90- 00731 $0700 34216 08708- ti FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0003 DATE 08/09/90 13 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 1 2 4 H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-6101-4304 00251 $1.20 00733 34216 5 e 7 e _ I_ i _ _ 1 -+ -n O D 0 m o m a r -1 x• -I r -1 r -I N m m �m - p n ., n i n = n ., D r:D oD o> r ✓ r:r zr zr r ., Mn Iti rn M m I. H TI 2 TI 1 71 • 71 Z O 0 0 n o n o a m \x i I N z G Z 4-3z 0 z U -. C: H Ill M (I) H C D r. :> -.D -.D r 1 � H so' M M j M ,, z o z -<z -<z a n � n n • n z j 0 O m o Z1 o 0 0 10 M MMI 1 23 D D D ! D -I -I -I i -I o I • o ;;o o o 00 00 00 0 o 01 0 0moN m0 0 N N .- 0 '- 0 •• 0 .• 0 (II r O 10N NN N N 40 40 .0 -0 0' o O CJi ! O 4.iT w o 0 tt+ til 41 W M IT A O m O .. N •0 O 0• UI W O 1 • 0 • 0 0 ,0 0 80.• 0 80 8 V 0 V 0 V 0 V 0 .W O o 0 •- O r O O O 1 W CO W CO W m W CO A \ A A N. A N ro O rU O to O N O 0] ,. 07 .. 0) .- 03 0• \ 0• V 0• v Q, v '0 ,0 ..0 40 O u N N 0 0 0. o Y. 1 P- O `1 +, +6 ,,. r127 TELEPHONE-CHGS/JULY-90" 08/02/90 DIAL A -RIDE_ i IELE'HONE $07007- 087087 26 *## VENDOR TOTAL ********#*********#***#***********##*#********** ********* r*+r#***** r $1,994.98 2s 2_ 26 30 H K EVIN+i-LEONAR.D 03565 001-400-4601-4201 00617 $5000.00 11379 34211 31 ._ _ 32 SOUND TECk7-J1 EY- 28, 90 07/25796 --COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.0(3----08/08/90 33 3, 35 # VENDOR TOTAL attraterat•trttatitititar****irerarir*nit•ttitartcat,xiratatar-tritttatatitatitataF•ttiratititit*aritaratir•p•statitatatitit•artrtr** $500. 00 3e 37 30 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 001-202-0000-2020 00999 $89,117.20 34210 30 RETIREMENT7-JUNE-90 07/25790 /At-COUNTS-PAYABLE$D 0Zi—'0 08,'08/9atm r= 42 3 3:: H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS'. 00026 001-202-0000-2020 01000 $16,237.83CR 34210 4 44 RETIREMENT7JUNE-90 07/25/90 /ACCOUNTS PAYABLE $0.25608!08/90 45 46 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS: 00026 001-202-0000-2020 01001 $71,168.29CR 34210 47 46 1? RETIREMENTTJUNE-90— 07/25790 /ACCUONTS-FAVABLE $0.00 08708790 40 r`'' 50 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00421 $70,352.03 34218 31 :' RETIREMENT-'ADVANCE/JUL90 08/09/90 RETIREMENT /RETIREMENT G4 5 $0. 050 08109/ . C$ ^53 + 54 55 47 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 105-202-0000-2020 00085 $633.82 34210 56 I•+ 4ETIREMENT7JUNE 90 07/25790 /ACCOUNTS PAYABLE $0.00 087240/90 57 56 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 110-202-0000-2020 00166 $36.0860 34210 6O RETIREMENT/JUNE 90 07/25/90 /ACCOUNTS PAYABLE $0.00 08/08/90 e+ ,"e2 lI4+1. H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. '.00026 110-202-0000-2020 00167 $5,029.62 34210 63 e4 ,s RETIREMENT7JUNE-90 07/25790 '. . /• /1 .. p 7� 1, of 8:70 65 .0 ae 51 67 5268 • 69 70 '^ 71 :.72 C 73 74 7 75 410 1 .110 6 411 5.41 4111 ar FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0004 DATE 08/09/90 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN 14 AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # 2 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC . PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP . H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 145-202-0000-2020 00088 $53.21 34210' -0O II RETIREMENT/JUNE-90 07/25790 /ALLUUNIb NAYABLE $O. 08/08/90---0 10 II H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026. 145-202-0000-2020 00089 $18.08 34210 1z " "'-"-""-"'"-"""RETIREMENT/JUNE' 90' - —` • —07/25790 7ACCOUNTS-PAYABLE $.0.00 08/088/90- is 1a H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 145-202-0000-2020 00090 $16.15 34210 1e -PAYABLE I.: ----"-RETIREMENT/JUNE 90 07/25790— /ACCOUNTS 140-00 08/09790 , 16 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 155-202-0000-2020 00022 $96.48 34210 ° 20 n ,. ----'.--"'"RETIREMENT/JUNE'-90 07/25/90 /ACCOUNTS -PAYABLE 140. 00 08/09790 21 22 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 160-202-0000-2020 00050 $925.43 34210 23 za ,. RETIREMENT/JUNE-90 07/25/90 /ACCUUNIS-PANAi3LE $07-00---087087Y0 25 26 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 705-202-0000-2020 00029 $135.51 34210 27 -"---RETIREMENT7JUNE-90 07/25790 /ACLDONfS-PAYABLE $0.-00 08/09790— H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 705-202-0000-2020 00030 $198.94 34210 RETIREr1ENT7JUNE-90 07/25/90— TAZ'CDUNTS-P74YABLL $0.00 02708790 *** VENDOR TOTAL ***************net*******************.******************3Ht*******at**** $79,206.43 3 3. H SEATTLE FIRST NATIONAL BANK 03263 126-400-8514-6900 00009 $424,551.60 00064 34217 3, 32 LEASE-PMT7R. R:U tJ. -08/08/90 CTP 69=514 /LEASE I'AYMENlb $07-00-087013/70 41 *** VENDOR TOTAL *sir********#iter*********************************************trig•#***** $424,551.60 4- .14 �: J. Js 45 4- *** PAY CODE TOTAL ***************************** ***************:l***** r************** $506,653.01 47 48 :J ; 49 50 R 3M CENTER 01066 001-400-3104-4309 00524 $3,074.40 TP29079 11193 34222 5, 52 259 STOP SIGN OVERLAYS -'29079 07/12790 TRAFFIC -SAFE T Y /MAINTENANCE -MAI EN 1ALs $3,074.40 D8708f90-,J 54 n** VENDOR TOTAL ************ ******************* ************ttt **************tr****** $3,074.40 55 43 4 43 57 58 R ADVANCE ELEVATOR 00003 001-400-4204-4201 00388 $80.00 . 23936 00003 34223 59 .17 43 ELEVATOR MAINTTAUG-90— 23936 08/01/90 . BLDG MAINT /LONTRACI bERVL E/PKIVAI $0.U0 ---08109790----610 0.U0— —08109790 61 62 *** VENDOR TOTAL tttttt*tt*tttttttrtttttt*tttttttHttrtttrtrtttttr'#trtttHttrtttrtt#tttHttrtt#tttrtHrtttrtHttttttrtttttttttttttrtttt*trtttHttt $80.00 67 64 43 'Lc 6, Ge R ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 00935 001-202-0000-2020 01020 $134.32 14180 00365 34224 ;,. :,J 34 667 8 REPAIR'MOBILE-RADIO-UNIT-I4180 06730/90 /ACCOUNTS -PAYABLE 140.00--08709790 69 70 7, 72 38 2J 74 75 L I! ' FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0005 DATE 08/09/90 PAY • VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC CHK # DATE EXP R ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 00935 001-400-2101-4201 00615 $2,266.40 .13637/14413 00048 $6760-097087'0 00365 34224 RAUr0 r AINT7UUE=AUG-901441.1 UT/31790 NULICE /t.UNUKAL I bERVLCE/PRTVA1 R ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 00935 001-400-2101-4307 00229 $4.73 14180 34224 REPAIR-"MOBIL'E-RADIO UNITT4180- 06730790—. POLICE /NNfl 1 -MAINTENANCE R ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 00935 001-400-2201-4201 00148 $566.60 13637/14413 —RADIO 80.:60—"08/09/96 00048 34224 MAINTTJUL=AUG 90-144:T3 07/31/90 F1HE /LUNuuALI SLHV1Ct/VHIVAl R ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 00935 110-400-3302-4307 00021 '8628.00 14579-80 $0700 00058 08708790 34224 RADIO"t1AINT7JUL=AUG"'90--79=80---07/25790 PARKING-ENF /RADTU71ATNTENANCt afafat VENDOR TOTAL#+t#atnatat#atatatat##atatatatafatatatafatatatafatat####ataf##### 83,600.05 80..00 08/09/94 • R SCOTT*ALDEN 03155 001-210-0000-2110 03820 850.00 92873 00529 34225 ANIMAL"TRAP-REFUND 92873 07/26790 MEPIO511S7WOFK-GUARANItt atatat VENDOR TOTAL a ***at**at**afataf*****neat********************************************** $50.00 $0:00 08709796 . R AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION 03538 001-400-1202-4316 00316 $21.40 00164 34226 PUBLICATIONS7FINANCE 08/07/90 FINANCE-ADMIN/RAINING *** VENDOR TOTAL •natat>f*-n*****>tat>f*>t*tt•n*at'F*##*at'tat*#atat##*at>tat*at>fat#-nat**arn#at#*atat*•n**ataf*at*•n** $21.40 80.00 08/0979. R AMERICAN STYLE FOODS • 00857 001-400-2101-4306 00833 $147.20 5177/5287 00075 $0700 34227 08/097 • PRISONER-'MEACS/JULY 90/528T "07/31790 POCTCE /YH1 DNER-MATNTENANLE *** VENDOR TOTAL *afatatafar•*****a ********afaf****Etat*****tt*at*****************at**#.n*>fa ******* $147.20 R APPLIED ELECTRONICS 03497 001-400-2101-4309 00329 $161.43 2688 00373 34228 INTOXILYZER'REPAIR 2688 08/03790 POLICE /rINTENANCE-T1 TERTAL5 afatat VENDOR TOTAL atatatatatat3t+t•natatit3tat•natttatjtatatatttafatatatafatat•itatatatitat-n-ntfaatttatatafatatatatafatat*afatafat*ttatttafatafatafatn $161.43 8T14.00 08/0979• R ASSOC. EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTORS 03558 001-400-4202-4305 00505 $37.50 00444 34229 PUBLICATIONS/PUB. WORKS 07/31790 • PUB -WKS -ADMIN /OFFICE -OPEN SUPPLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL ataFatatatat•ntratatatatatatat***atatat*p•atatafatat#atat*afar*atatatafatafat#af#atafaf#at#of*at*atat*atat•nat;taf3tafafat $37.50 $0700-08/0979 CY— R ASSOC. OF MUNICIPAL COURT 03542 001-400-2101-4305 01324 $72.00 CALIF""COURTS-DIRECTORY 00901 $0.00-08/09790 34230 07/31/90 POLICE /0} -FILE -OPER -SUPPLIES 4, 2 3 4 5 a 7 e • 0 z 5 a a 19 Jot 20 22 23 24 27 V 3, V 3 43r% 0 3 5 4 6 5 6 e 9 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0006 DATE 08/09/90 PAY ' VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 ] e e *** VENDOR TOTAL*************e***************************************a****.********* $72. 00 R AT & T 03423 001-202-0000-2020 01035 $5.60 00477 34231 9 10 ,2 14 15 16 ' ' —' -"- -" LONG -DIST' MOBIL'LHGSTJUN --' '- 06/30790 7ACCOUNTSPAYABLE $0:00'-' 08/09/90-,3 *** VENDOR TOTAL*****»************-tt****************************** ****************** $5.60 _ R AUDIO INTELLIGENCE DEVICES 02614 170-202-0000-2020 00002 $561.50 047969 00334 34232 ' ' "'"-----"— --"'"TRANSMITTER/SPEC-INVEST--47969-----06/21790 n 18 iB z6 u 23 24 /ACCOUNTS -PAYABLE $0. 00 ' '08/09/9G --- 8/099. /9G-22 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $561.50 • R BALLOONS BALLOONS 01922 001-400-4601-4308 00372 $68.06 7844 11375 34233 2] 26 27 26 3• 31 32 - -----. -- — HELIUM TANK/BALLOONS 7844 07/11790"-- -- COMM-RESOURCES--7PROGRAM MATERIALS $68.06 06/09/90---29 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $68.06 R CHRIS*BARHOUM 03546 001-210-0000-2110 03824 $50.00 03455 00526 34234 3 3 _ 3• 3. _ ANIMAL -TRAP -REFUND -"--03455 07/26790 /UEPOSITS7WORFC-GOARANIEE $0.00---08.709790----; -3 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $50.00 -z 33 R BAUER COATING & CHEMICALS 00251 001-400-3104-4309 00529 $196.82 47504 00436 34235 4, 44 ,3 STREET -PAINT -THINNER -"`-47504 07723/90 1NAFFIt-SAFETY- 7MAINIENANCE-MATERIALS $186762 08/09790 r� 33 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $196.82 45 47 46 I7 R BEACH CITIES ARMOURY 02100 001-202-0000-2020 01023 $213.50 17895 10769 34236 40 52 ]] 66 AMMO/RECRUIT" S--TANABE-1789S 06730790-- /ACLOUNTS PAYAIJLE $0700 08/09/961-53 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $213.50 :.) 0 R BEACH CITIES OFFICE SUPPLY 02509 001-400-2101-4305 01325 $75.63 00078 34237 57 5e 70 60 62 63 64 66 67 66 • MISC. CHARGESTJULY-90" 07/317907 POLICE —SOI -FILE UPER-SUPPLIES $0.00 08/09/90--"61 47 .,3 R BEACH CITIES OFFICE SUPPLY '.02509 001-400-2201-4305 00371 $13.58 00078 34237 ._ MISC-CHARGES7UUEY-90-"— 07/31790 FIRE 701 -1 -ICE Uf'ER bUYYL1ES . $0.00 087097r70—.75 -0 5I i2 53 34 GV 70 71 72 4 - 3 74 75 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0007 DATE 08/09/90 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP R BEACH CITIES OFFICE SUPPLY 02509 001-400-4205-4309 00482 $19.73 00078 34237 ` -' "MISC.: CHARGESr'JUEY-90 07/31790 EQUIP SERVICE ,MAiNItNANCE MATERTALb R BEACH CITIES OFFICE SUPPLY 02509 110-400-3302-4305 00699 $59.90 $0.-00-08/09791 00078 34237 -- ""---- ----'-""- MSC:- CHARGESTJULY 90 07/31790'--"""-"`- PARKING-ENF /OFFICE-OPER-SUPPE-1ES **a* VENDOR TOTAL ********************************************* t********************** $168. 84 $0.00--- 08/09/90 R BECKLEY CARDY 00256 001-400-4601-5401 00053 $552.77 297030 11321 34236 '"'—"-""---`" TWO -SIDE" DRY' ERASE"BOARD97030 07/27/90-" "' `— "'--COMM-RESOURCES /EQUIP= -CESS THAN $500 *** VENDOR TOTAL a*a*a** *ata**a*a*ata*a**a*a*a**a*a**a**a**a****a*a*ata****a*ata***a*a**a**a****** *****a*a*a*a*ata*a*a***a* $552. 77 t,552.77---06/09/90 R BERIAN PRINTING SERVICE, INC. 02664 001-400-2101-4305 01322 $298.90 166 50 00375 34239 BUSINESS"CARDS/FOLICE -- 166 07/21790 — '" - "'" 'POLICE /OFF1l.t OPER-SUPFEIES R BERIAN PRINTING SERVICE, INC. 02664 001-400-4201-4305 00564 $42.70 $256-20—'"'08/09/90— 10390 34239 BUSINESS-"CARDS/BUILDING 50- 07705790— 1iUIEDIN6 /UFI- ILL UPLR.. SUPPLLLS *** VENDOR TOTAL **a*t*a*a*a*t***************at********************tit****** *************that $341. 60 $000-08T09/'10 R STATE*BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 02411 001-202-0000-2020 01036 $38.03 BE13602 00079 34240 ACLOCATION-TAPESZAPRJUN-"T360d 06730790 /ALLUUN1b PAYAiLt *** VENDOR TOTAL *******************************************n***********************tt $38. 03 $0.00 0870Y/VO R THOMAS*BOHLIN 00894 001-202-0000-2020 01022 $67.86 11478 34241 MIEES7INTERROGATION-CRSS 06/30790 /AL(.UUNIb PAYABLE R THOMAS*BOHLIN 00894 001-400-2101-4312 01403 $170.25 --'----._--''MEALS/HOTEL/CRIMES-CLASS $0700---08707776--- 11493 34241 08/01/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST ***VENDOR TOTAL a****a***at**ata*a*a*****a**** **a*************Eta*ata*Eta*********a*********at*a*tt**a*a* $238. 11 $0.00---08/09790--- 0.00-0B/09790---a*** R BOWER WHOLESALE 03537 001-400-2101-4309 00328 $428.28 437464 00385 34242 AMMO7RECRUIT-`R-COCHRAN- 37464 07/18790- . POEIDL /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL a *ata*ata*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a***a** ******at*****a*a*****a**ata*****a**a*a***a*a***a*a******* $428. 28 $428. 28 08709/90 R BROWNING & FERRIS INDUSTRIES 00155 001-400-1208-4201 00675 $578.37 00005 34243 TRASH' P'ICKUP7AUG-90 08/01790 GEN--APPROP /LONTRACTSERVIDE7PRIVAI $07O0-0Bf09790— J 3 J 7 J 8 9 10 1I 12 31 V V 45 47 'y 4 5• ,�4P 51 UI 52 53 54 55 111191 58 57 ce �y 59 UI 00 62 63 64 65 68 87 60 60 72 74 75 V FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0008 DATE 08/09/90 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION R BROWNING fr. FERRIS INDUSTRIES ----TRASH-PICKUP/AUG 90 00155 08/01/90 INV/REF PO •ti CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 109-400-3301-4201 00003 $516.63 VEH-PKG-DIST-TCONTRAC I SERV-IEE7PR`1vA1 *** VENDOR TOTAL********************************************a**************** r****** R 13 GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/7-2 70-9=2-90 $1, 095. 00 00005 34243 3 5 6 7 e $0. O0-08/09790-'9 0 1 LJ 02016 001-400-1201-4305 00164 $17.33 08/02/90- CITY-MANAGER----7OFFICE-DPER-SOFPLlEb GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-1206-4305 00455 $0.20 ---''''' - "PETTY CASH/7=2 "TO' 8=2-90''"" " -� -" 08/02/90- ` "-'' . -' ` DATA PROCESSING-7OFFICE-OPER-SUPPLIES 7.3 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH// -d 10 8=2=90 GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/7-2-TO 8-2-90 27 7.3 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER -PETTY CASH/7-d 10 8-2=90- 02016 001-400-2101-4187 00383 $12.81 08702790 POC%E /UNIFURM ALLOWANCE R R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/7-2 TO 8=2-90 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH7/-d 1U M-2-90 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER - PETTY CASH77=2-T0-8=2=90 11 22 14 17 t6 GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH// -2 1U ll -2-V0 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/72-T0-82:-90 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH// -2 10 8-2=90 GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH77=2-TO-8=2=90- 02016 001-400-2101-4305 01321 $43.56 08/02796 POLICE- /DFFTCE-OPER-SOPFETES 02016 001-400-2101-4306 00831 $4.90 08/02790 POLTCE /PR1b 00542 34244 R 02016 001-400-2101-4310 00265 $20.00 08/02790 POLICE /MOTORFUELSThNU-CUBBS 02016 001-400-2101-4316 00574 08/02790 FOETCE • $5. 00 /I -RAINING . 02016 001-400-2201-4187 00245 $16.00 08/0279 --FIRE /UNIFORM-ALLUWANCE 02016 001-400-2201-4309 00917 $31.22 08/02790 FIRE. /MAlNIE.NANCE MAIEK1ALb 02016 001-400-4101-4305 00452 $24.99 08/02790- PEANNINU /01-FICE OPER-SUPPETEs 02016 001-400-4601-4305 00850 08/02790 02016 001-400-4601-4308 00371 $46.15 08/02790 LOMM-RESOURCES 7PRDGRAM MATERIALb R $0. 50 -CDMM-RESOURCES /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER .02016 PETTY CASH7/-2 IU 8-2-90 08/0279 160-400-3102-4309 00510 $2. 73 SEWER751 DRAIN /MA1NIENANCE MAIERIALb 3 $0.00-08709790-h7 e 19 20 22 z3 00542 34244 $0.00-08/09/90--- 00542 0.00 -" "'" 08 / 09 / 90-- 00542 34244 $0 0008/09790 00542 34244 30.00-08/09/90 00542 34244 30. 00 08/097M) 24 25 26 27 29 29 3C 31 32 00542 34244 $0.06-08709/9.0- 00542 34244 $0.00 08709/VU 00542 34244 $0.00---00/09790--- 00542 34244 $0.00 08/097V0 00542 34244 36.00 08/09790-- 00542 34244 $0.00 08709796- 00542 34244 $006-08/09/90 00542 34244 30. 00 0870979 33 34 35 3C 37 3e 39 40 42 44 4e 47 48 49 50 5, 52 54 55 R 57 50 59 60, 62 63 84 63 65 72 53 :4 5 55. 7 67 66 .9 70 7, 72 73 74 75 � e • 133 • */#37 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0009 DATE 08/09/90 PAY • VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************iter***a******** $225.39... R BUREAU OF BUSINESS PRACTICE 00253 110-400-3302-4316 00190 $45.12 00236 34245 . PUBLICATIONS7PARKING"ENF— 07/12190 PARKING-'ENF iTRAINING *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $45.12 $0:00----08/09/90--- R BUSINESS RADIO SYSTEMS 02992 001-400-2201-4309 00918 $64.05 2123 11222 34246 MICROPHONE/SPEAKERS/FIRE--2123-- -08/07190 FIRE MAINTENANCE -MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************?t***?f*************it******* $64.05 $0.: 00-08/09790- — R MATTHEW*CAHN 02626 001-202-0000-2020 01024 $43.68 11483 34247 $0:00---08/09/90---- 0.00--08/09/90'—*** MILES/OFFICER-TRAINING 06/30/90 /ACCOUNTS -PAYABLE ***VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $43.68 R CALIF NARCOTICS OFCRS ASSOC. 01798 001-400-2701-4316 00038 $640.00 00813 34248 TUITION74"-DEIE..TIVES 08/07/90 CIVIL DEFENSE / fATNING *** VENDOR TOTAL****************************************************************:a*** $640.00 $0.00----08/09790 R CALIF NARCOTICS OFFICERS ASSOC 03557 001-400-2701-4316 00037 $30.00 00804 34249 TUITION7J'.--GAINES 07/31790 CIVIL—DEFENSE / IRATNING *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $30.00 $0.00---08/0979D R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 00016 001-400-2101-4303 00003 $20.84 00710 34250 • WATER BILLINGS7JULY"90'- 07/31/90 POLICE Eb R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 00016 001-400-3101-4303 00103 $511.39 $0.-00 08/0B/90— 00710 34250 WATER"BICLTNGSTNCY'90- 07731790 MEDIANS JUrILITILS R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 00016 001-400-4204-4303 00399 $508.85 $U. UU 08T0,3/yU 00710 34250 WATER BILLINGS7JULY--90 07/31790 BLDG MATNT /UIIETTIES R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE '.00016 001-400-6101-4303 00314 $3,046.36 $0700 08708790 00710 34250 WATER-BILEINGS7UULY-96—07/3179D— —PARKS /UI1LI11ES S0:D0 US7087yo V 3 V 4 5 6 7 v 5 9 10 1, v 13 15 J ID 20 21 22 23 24 41 4 4 4 45 v5 v 4. 47 49 50 51 40 4 5 6 57 6 59 ISO 60 6 6 64 66 e 61+. 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 iiit FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0010 DATE 08/09/90 J PAY • VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP N 2 • *** VENDOR TOTAL trtrtrtrtrarantrtrtratrtrtruartr•aa*•nw•n•pir�rnirarainruir�rarttaraar*trirntrir*artrtrtrnarirattfsrn*•ntr•,ttr*tratr $4,087.44. e 7 6 R CAPIO 00367 001-400-1205-4315 00034 $60.00 00237 34251 ------------DUES/M. 6 10 12 4 s 7.31 IEHCERO 08/01790 "—"" —"— CABLE'TT--- 7MEMBERSRIP $0.00---09/09790i-2- tram VENDOR TOTAL ar?tartrararar*trararararaHrtrtratar*arartrartrar•nartrtrarararararartrtrartrarararararararirarartrtrarararararararararararartrartr $60. 00 1, R CARS MUFFLER SERVICE 03559 001-400-2101-4311 00930 $80.06 00393 34252 - VEHICLE 'REPAIR/POLICE— e 17 18 19 i1 22 z3 :c 08/02/90 POLICE /AUTO—MAINTENANCE $0. 00---08/09/96-20 *** VENDOR TOTAL tr*ar*ar***ar*ar*tr*tr*trar#'ntr*#*trar>f*arir#arty*ar*3r*3r*tr*aHr•n*ar** •artrtr*#arar*ar•utr*ar• tt*arar $80.06 2. R CBCI 02357 001-400-4201-4316 00212 $190.00 10398 24 25 26 27 26 3C 31 34253 PUBLICATIONS/BLDG 07/16796— BUILDING /1HAINTNG $d.00 08/09/9072-J *** VENDOR TOTAL tri'ar'•rararar�•arartr•ertr•Irtrtrar'Irtr*•uar•n.irt�.•x•p,.rarar•»ararararartrtrtr*trartrararartrar•�rtrtrararatararartrtrartrtrarartrartrar $190.00 R MONA JEAN*CEDAR 03159 001-400-4601-4201 00631 $432.00 37 32 34 J5 11388 34254 SUMMER -CLASS- INSTRU1,TOR" 08/01"790 r.o COMM—RESOURDES7C0NTRACT—SERVTCE7PR7VAT 40.00---08/0979U attar VENDOR TOTAL tr*trartrnar*tr+rtr*trartrar*****arir*•�rarararartrarttar*ar#arar;tarartrararararar*ar*trartrar*trtrarararartrtrtrtrartrar $432. 00 336 7 3e 3g ; I'3 1 R CERTIFIED OFFICE EQUIPMENT 00389 001-400-2101-4304 00625 $77.05 4C 41 42 4 3 _.: 00711 34255 MISC: CHARGES7JULY-90 07/31/90— —POLICE 33 /IELEPRONE $-0.00 08i09790 *** VENDOR TOTAL :*tr*ar*ar*ar>ttrtrtrararartrar**trarartrtrtrtrtrirtrarz•ar>ttrtrtrartrtrtrtrartrtrtrtrartrarartrartrtrtrtrtrtr*artrar*ararartr $77.05 444 5 46 47 40 46 50 61 171 R CHAMPION CHEVROLET 00014 001-400-2101-4311 00932 373.21 116811 00712 34256 MISC. CHARGES/JULY "9d— 168Tr —"— 07/31790 :2 POLICE /AMU MAINTENANCE $0700 08709750 a•a VENDOR TOTAL trtr>ttrirartrsrtr*artrtr*irtrar*tr*arartrirtr*tr*arartrartrtrtrtrar*trtrtrartrtrtrtrtrtrirartrartrtrtrarar*tr>tarartrtrtrartrar $73.21 53 54 ss 56 13 4.1 12 R CHEVRON USA, INC. 00634 001-202-0000-2020 01039 $165.29 57 57 50 sB ao 62 O7 e4 06 C7 ,: 00714 34257 MISC-CHARGESTJUN-'90 06/30/90 10 /ACCOUNTS—PAYAl3LE �6. UC) i 8109790—V R CHEVRON USA, INC. '00634 001-400-2101-4310 00267 $232.09 TJ 00714 34257 MISC. CHARGESULY YU 07/31790 _. 111 YOCTC • ■- �� $0 0U U8%C9%90-69 ,l 7, I,4 68 60 70 71 7754 7I 73 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0011 DATE 08/09/90 r, rp l;t 1'4e: ".a,c Pa.a, '0S1"` .. :+Altos t 3 J 6 7 J 10 11 J 12 13 14 15 J e '7 1e 10 20 21 22 23 `41, 24 2 z. 27 4 2: 2• 3 3 3 3 41 9 1 41111 2 3 5 5 0 0 3 5 J PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC CHK # DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL********************************************************cru********** 3397.38. R COM SYSTEMS, INC 00017 001-202-0000-2020 01042 $2.30 374-4625 00715 34258 LONG-DISTANCE7JUNE-90--4625 06/30790 R COM SYSTEMS, INC 00017 001-400-2101-4304 00627 -LONG-DISTANCE770EY-90— /ACCOUNTS -PAYABLE 34.17 374-4625 /iELErHUNE 36.47 $0.00 08/09790 00715 34258 $0700---08/07790--- . =4625 06730790 POLICE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 7 ° R COMPUSOURCE 03560 001-202-0000-2020 01025 375.00 35265 10842 34259 FURNITURE/PLANNING 35265 06/30/510 R COMPUSOURCE 03560 001-400-4101-5401 00026 —FURNITURE/PLANNING /ACLUUNIS PAYAULE 35.06 35265 $0700 08709790 10842 34259 $0.00---08709/90---1 3 :15265 06/30790 PLANNING /EBUIP=CESSTHAN 5500 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 380.06 R JIM*CUBBERLEY 02971 001-400-4601-4201 00627 31,152.00 11392 30.0G---.08709790 34260 SUMMER.CLASS-INSTRUCTOR 08701790 —COMM -RESOURCES /CUNTRAC r SERVICE/F'k 1VAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 31.152.00 R D. A. R. E. AMERICA 02964 001-400-2101-4305 01323 INFORMATION -POLICE 350.00 00389 34261 BOOKLETS 07/25790 210004 /OFFICE -OPER -SUPPLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 350.00 350.00 08/09790 R DATA SAFE 00156 001-400-1206-4201 00742 TAPE"STORAGE77=I2=8=1-i— 50 3134.00 50155 00015 50:00--08/0q/90 34262 1 55--07/13/90 DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 3134.00 R DAVID M. GRIFFITH & ASSOC, LTD 03567 001-202-0000-2020 01002 JUNE"-CHGS/USER-FEE 33,487.50 00166 34263 STUDY 06/30790— R DAVID M. GRIFFITH & ASSOC, LTD 03567 001-400-1202-4201 00222 /ACCOUNTS PAYABLE. 31,162.50 . -. _•.. �. ■ • SOT -007 00166 08/08/90 34263 e e JULT-CHGS7USER-FEE STUDY 07/31/90— MANCE-ADM -�d.00 ° dB7d�79`6 6 ° c 7 7 •7 • 7 r, rp l;t 1'4e: ".a,c Pa.a, '0S1"` .. :+Altos t 3 J 6 7 J 10 11 J 12 13 14 15 J e '7 1e 10 20 21 22 23 `41, 24 2 z. 27 4 2: 2• 3 3 3 3 41 9 1 41111 2 3 5 5 0 0 3 5 J FINANCE-SFA34O TIME 16:30:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0012 DATE 08/09/90 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # 2 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 5 6 7 *** VENDOR TOTAL +sir**********************************************iiia************#triter $4,650.00. 6 ° ,0 R DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION 00049 001-202-0000-2020 01026 $460.97 00603 34264 11 2 SEISMIC-FEES7APR=;JUN "90 06/30790 /ACCOQNTS-FAYADLL 80. 00 08;07/90— ' ,a ll ,4 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $460.97 15 ,a 12 17 :c 10 R DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION 00269 001-400-2101-4201 00616 8806.40 245445491 00006 34265 10 20 15 DISPATCH "'MAINT7JUE-90—'-4549r---07/01790-- -` POLICE /L❑NIRALI SERVTCE7Pk1VAI 40.00-08/08/96 21 17 22 R DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION 00269 001-400-2201-4201 00149 $537.60 245445491 00006 34265 23 24 .. DISPATCH-MAINT73UE-90 45491 07701790 FIRE /LUNIRALI SLNV1Lt/YRLVAI 40.00 087087'/0 25 26 2! *** VENDOR TOTAL***r**************************************************************** $1,344.00 27 ze. -.2 29 90 21 R DIVE N' SURF 00604 • 001-202-0000-2020 01037 $24.00 203532 00620 34266 31 32 -, MISC7-CHARGESTUUNE YO U353d 05730790 /ACCUUNIS PAYABLE $0.00-0870//YO 33 34 3, R DIVE N' SURF 00604 001-400-2201-4309 '00920 $18.00 41283-1 00723 34266 35 36 _ MIS6--CHARGES7JUC'Y-90-283-1 07/31790 FIRE /MAINIENANLE-11TAIERIALS 40.0157---408/09/90 37 2.9 3e 30 *** VENDOR TOTAL.******************************************************************** $42.00 39 . 40 s: 4, 3_ a2 23 R DRACULA'S CASTLE 02661 001-210-0000-2110 03817 $250.00 83732 11021 34267 43 an .;a 13ANPJER-DEPOSIT-83732 08/06790- /DEPUS1 i1 /WORK GUARANIE . $0-00-08 7 09 79 ae _3 46 .;3 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $250.00 47 48 22 4° -_ 50 R E & E AUTO BODY 03290 705-400-1210-4324 00022 $1,039.40 3970 10948 34268 - 51 5z REPAIR DAMAGED 'C"ITYCAR —3970 07/05790— AUTO7PROP7BONDS /CLAIMS/5E11LEMENIb 41:039 40 08/08790----53 ;1 54 12 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,039.40 5n 42 57 44 58 45 R EASTMAN, INC. 02514 001-400-1208-4305 00788 $826.85 00005 34269 59 OFFICE-SUPPLIES7JULY-90 07/31790 . GEN-APPROP- /UFI- LLL UPER-SDPPL1t5 80. 00 08/09790 6, 62 _ *** VENDOR TOTAL**************************#***************************************** $826.85 63 64 l 85 .." 66 ;, R EASY READER 00181 001-400-1121-4323 00105 $1,055.20 0268 00727 34270 07 08 .:z PUBLIC- NOTICING/JULY-"90-0268 07/31790 L11Y-CLERK /NUB$0.00-08/08790— a° 53 70 a 71 72 ,L. 73 00 74 75 79. . r FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0013 DATE 08/09/90 PAY ' VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL***************************************************************tax•*** $1, 055. 20. R EFRAM MOBIL 01400 001-202-0000-2020 01034 $63.46 171995 00623 34271 MISC"'CHGSTJUNE--98-1995 -06/30790 /ALCOUNIS PAYABLE R EFRAM MOBIL 01400 001-400-2101-4310 00266 $14.10 171995 $0.00---08/09/90 00723 34271 $0700 -08/09790 -- 0706-08/09790^*** MISC—CHGSTJULY-9U /1995------07/31790---- POLICE /MQTDH—HUELs AND—CUBES ***VENDOR TOTAL***************************************************tit*************** $97. 56 R EMERG. MED SERV PERSONNEL FUND 03371 001-400-2201-4316 00249 $85.00 11221 34272 $0700 -08/09790 --- O DO08./09790— STATE EXAM-FEE7FfAWKINS 07/23790 1-1RE /IHA1N1N( *** *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $85.00 R BARBARA*ERNESTUS 03556 001-210-0000-2110 03816 $50.00 03508 00533 34273 ANIMAL-TRAP—REFUND 03508 U7/26790 /UEPUSLIS/WUHK (;UAHANIEE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $50.00 $U.00 08709/90 R TRUDY*FALLON 03306 001-400-4601-4201 00621 $584.00 11386 34274 $0.00 08709/90 SUMMER—FROGT INSTRUCTOR 08/01790 LOT1VRESOURCES /CUNIHACI SERVIeE/}'HIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** _ $584.00 R STEVE*FILLMAN 03169 001-400-4601-4201 00624 $2,280.00 11395 34275 .$0700---08709/90 SUMMER—CLASS—TNSTRUCTOFT 08/01790 COMM—RESOURCE V10E/PRLVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $2,280.00 R FIRE APPARATUS INC. 03533 001-400-2201-4309 00919 $85.40 0761 11218 34276 AIR—PACK—BRACKETS 0761 07713790 FIRE /NAINTENANLE MAIEHIALS R FIRE APPARATUS INC. 03533 001-400-2201-5402 00026 $532.68 0761 $85.40 08709/90 11218 34276 ELKHART"NOZZLE/ENGINEZ'i--0761 07/13790— _ FIRE /EGUTP MORE—THAN—$SUU *** VENDOR TOTAL**************************.****************************************** $618.08 $538-47-08/099.790 R ANGELA*FOULKS 03561 001-300-0000-3826 01326 $40.00 97207 11381 34277 SUMMER PROGRAM- REFUND. 97207 07/18790 fREC. PHOGRAMS7CLASSES $6.00-08/08790 2 3 .J 3 e 7 J V 11 2 13 14 15 ' J 1e n 1e 19 20 22 23 V 24 25 26 27 2 2 31 U% 3• 3 3 3 3 L 41 a• 4G 5 51 11111 52 53 54 ''` 55 55 5 7 0 IJ 72 73 74 5 WI • FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0014 DATE 08/09/90 2 3 PAY ' VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 5 e *** VENDOR TOTAL**************************************************************-qtr**** $40.00 e 0 R MS RENNE'*GALLAGHER 03540 001-300-0000-3840 00395 $52.00 -BIL'L'ING -REFUND -02194--"08/01790 - 02194 11226 34278 ' 2 PARAMEDIC 7AMBULANCE-TRANSPORT $0.00-08/09/90 3 4 ,z *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $52.00 ,s e :3 17 e ,e S R GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY 00058 001-202-0000-2020 01027 $340.80 137-996163 08178 34279 19 20 3 LAMP/COMMUNITY•CENTER_—'96163 06/30790 /ACCOUNTS-PA''A8LE $0:"0008709/90—z, 22 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $340.80 23 9 24 25 __ ze R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-202-0000-2020 01030 $291.37 318-9765 00625 34282 27 $0. 0U L9709790-- 2e i9 _.. TELE CHGS7NEW"LINETP7D-9765 -06/30/90 /ALM:TOWS-PAYABLE. 90 _• R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1101-4304 00310 $5.89 318-0200 00832 34282 31 $0700---0870Y/Y0 32 33 _3 DIRECT'DIAL-CHGSTAUG-90 —0200 08701/90 LIIv-CTJONCIL /TELEPHUNE. _3 14 Z7 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1101-4304 00311 $1.66 --TELE-CHARGES/AUG 00831 34282 35 3e .. 96 08/15790— CITY -COUNCIL $0.00 08/09/90 ii _3 J9 _. R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1121-4304 00314 $15.98 318-0200 00832 34282 32 UiRECT-DIAL-CHGSTAUG-96-=0200— 08/01790 CITY-CLEit NE $0.00 087097'10 4, :2 4Z _._ R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED. 00015 001-400-1121-4304 00315 $4.51 00831 34282 4 44 _, rELE CHARGES/AUG 90 08/15740 CITY CLERK- TELEPHONE $0.00-08%09%95 <.5 -Z 4e 33 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1131-4304 00236 $8.41 318-0200 00832 34282 47 ae 37 DIRECT-i51AE-CHGS7ADG-9II-020U 08701790 CUY AT I URN c �087D./90 49 33 50 37 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1131-4304 00237 $2.37 00831 34282 a 5, 52 ,3 TELE CHARGES/AUG-90" 08/15/90 CITY -ATTORNEY /TtLl=t'ROFIt $0700 0870919cT- e3 41 54 .:z GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1141-4304 00337 $15.98 -DIAL 318-0200 00832 34282 55 5E :3 DIRECT CHGS7AUG 90- =0200 08/01790 CITY -TREASURER IrELEPHUNE $0.00-08709790 57 44 58 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1141-4304 00338 59 $4.51 00831 34282 e0 TELE-CHARGES/AUG-96 08/15/90 . C ITY-TREASURER--7TECEPRONE 40.700 08/09790— 51 '2 52 .13 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED '.00015 001-400-1201-4304 00355 $13.45 318-0200 00832 34282 e3 .:, D IRECT—DI!•CL" CHGS7AUG-90-02013 08/01790 t.1TY—MANAGE 11LLENHUNE 80.00 08109790-64 5 66 si 67 e9 32 89 7.', 70 5. 7, 72 73 '3 74 75 79, J FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0015 DATE 08/09/90 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION INV/REF PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 3 J 4 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 1tLE-CHARGESTAUG-9U 00015 001-400-1201-4304 00356 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED DIREC T-DIAL-CHGS7AUG-90--"0200 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE-OHARGES7AUG-90 08715190 $3.80 CITY-TIANAGEH /1ELEHHUNE 00015 001-400-1202-4304 00365 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED -DIRECT"DIAL-"'CHGS7AUG 96" =0200 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED —TELE CHARGES7AUG-90- R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED DIRECT-DIAL-CHGS/AUG-90'-=0200 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES7AUG,90 $48.77 U8/01790— FINANCE -ADMIN 7TELEHHONE 00015 08/15790 001-400-1202-4304 00366 h 1NANUE ADMIN 00015 001-400-1203-4304 00369 08/01790 PERSONNEL /IELEHH 00831 34282 6 7 J a $0. 00 08709/90 a ,0 11 318-0200 00832 34282 $13. 76 01 $20. 18 /IELEHHONE 00015 001-400-1203-4304 00370 $5.70 08/ 1'5790 PERSON NE 00015 001-400-1206-4304 00255 $24.38 08/01790— "- -- DATA-PROCESSING 71ELEPHONE 00015 08/15790 001-400-1206-4304 00256 $92. 33 DATA-PROCESSINV /IELEHHUNE .. R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1207-4304 00208 DIRECT-'DIAL"'CHGS7AUG-90-- =0200--08/0190— BUS-EICENSE R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED —TELE-CHARGES7AUG-90 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED - DIRECT DIAL'"'CHGS7AUG' 90 -"'=0200 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES7AUG 90 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED DIRECT DIAL CHGS/AUG"90 "=0200 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE-CHARGES7AUG-90 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHGS/NEW-LINE/P.-D - '-9765 00015 08715/90 1u.00 08/09/90 3 4 00831 34282 e 0-00-08709790 u 1a .y: 20 $0.06 08/09790 21 22 23 J 2a 318-0200 00832 34282 00831 34282 $0.00 08/09/90 25 26 27 J 2a $0.00 08/09/90 26 30 31 .1 32 318-0200 00832 34282 00831 $15. 98 /1ELEPHONE 001-400-1207-4304 00209 $4.51 BUS L10ENS 00015 001-400-1208-4304 00076 08/01-'/90— ' - '"GEN-APPROP $8. 41 /IELEHHUNE $0700 34282 U8709790 33 34 318-0200 00832 34282 3' 36 f0. 006-08/09/ 50— 37 36 00831 34282 3' `1 4,0-00 L8709/9C:1--÷c, 42 43 318-0200 00832 34282 44 $0.00 -08/09790 46 00831 34282• 46 $0760 08709790 49 50 51 \% 52 $0.00 08/09/90 53 54 00831 34282 56 $0.60 08/0979—'!T 00015 001-400-1208-4304 00077 $2.37 08/15790-- GEN' APPRD 00015 001-400-2101-4304 00620 $325.69 08/01790 POLICE— /IELEHHONE 00015 001-400-2101-4304 00621 08/15790 l'ULICE $433. 90 11ELSPHONE 00015 001-400-2101-4304 00622 $34.80 07/16/90- "-T""- 'POLICE /TELEPHONE R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED ".00015 U IRECT-DIAL--CHGS7AUG" "90—=0200 001-400-2201-4304 00277 08/01790— FIRE /IELEHHUNE $8.41 318-0200 00832 34282 66 318-9765 00625 34282 55 V) eo $0.00---08/09790--- 82 0.00-08/09790—_62 63 41100) 64 318-0200 00832 34282 50700 08709/90 65 66 67 00, 66 69 70 71 . 72 73 74 75 r FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0016 DATE 08/09/90 PAY R VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT PO # CHK # UNENC DATE EXP GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-2201-4304 00278 $2.37 • 00831 34282 11 J R "TELE CHARGES7AUG-90 GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 08715/90 h IR NE 00015 001-400-2401-4304 00318 $11.77 318-0200 $0.00-08709790 a 10 00832 34282 ,2 R -DIRECT-DIAL 'CHGS7AUG-"90 -0200 GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 08701790 ANIMALUONTROL /TELEPHONE 00015. 001-400-2401-4304 00319 $19.31 $0. 06-0 8 7 0 9 79 0-,3 ,4 00831 34282 " ,E R 1ELE7CHARGES/AUG 9U GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 08/15790 ANIMAL CUNTROE--7TEEEPAONE 00015 001-400-4101-4304 00368 $40.36 318-0200 $070J 08709790 i7 ,8 00832 34282 a 20 DIRECT-DIAL-CHGS7AUG-90 =0200- 08/01790 PLANNING— TELEPHONE $0.0G---08/09/90.---2, 17 22 :a R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4101-4304 00369 $11.40 00831 34282 23 24 $0.00 08709790M- IEEE CHARGES7AOG-90- 08/15790 PLANNING /TELEPHONE 26 ze R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4201-4304 00346 $64.75 318-0200 00832 34282 27 ze $0. 00 08/09790 i+ DIRECT' DIAL-CHGS7AUG`90- 200 06/01796— 8UILDINU /IECEPAONE 3 z, R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4201-4304 00347 $18.27 00831 342882 J1 LE-CHARGES7AUG-90 U8/-15/90— BUILDING /TELEPHONE $0:00 087097-0 3_ 3. R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4202-4304 00371 $89.13 ' 318-0200 00832 34282 3 3 a IR ECT"DIAL"CHGS7AUG"'90-"'=0200 08/01790 NUB-WK5-Ai1MIN-7TECEPfiONE $0.00 08/09790-3 _, 3' _, R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4202-4304 00372 $102.54 00831 34282 3^ TELE-CHARGES/AUG 90- 08/15/90 PUB-WKSFIIN—/TELEPHONE f0700 087979• a, 32 4' 33 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4204-4321 00521 $21.32 00831 34282 43 .. TELE CHARGES/AUG 90 08/15790— 1JEDG-MAINT /8OILDTNG SAFETY/SECURIT $0.00 08/097— 90a5 40 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED -DIAL 00015 001-400-4601-4304 00428 $24.38 318-0200 00832 34282 47 DIRECT CHGS7AUG-90-0?_0t 08701770 CUMM RESUUkCES / I ELEI'HUNE $0.00 UU/09 - • nu _ 50 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4601-4304 00429 $49.66 51 00831 34282 52 TELE CHARGES/AUG-90 08/15/90 COMM RESOURCES /IELEPRONE $0.-00----09/0979G---52 1 54 :z R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED -DIAL 00015 001-400-6101-4304 00252 $8.41 318-0200 55 00832 34282 56 $0.00 0870979. 57 .:, DIRECT CHGS7AOG-90—=0200. 08/01790 PARK B /IELEPHUNE :., 58 ,, R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-6101-4304 00253 $2.37 00831 342829 90 $0700----08709/90---5, as TELE CHARGES7AUG 90 08715790 • PARKS /IELEPHUNE 02 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED '.00015 110-400-3302-4304 00365 $100.90 318-0200 00832 34282 03 e4 ,. DIRECT-DIAL-CHGSTAUG-90-0200 08701790 PARKING-ENF /TELEPHONE $0.00 08/097 63 - 68 • 87 80 U,.., 70 4 71 72 73 G 74 75 F NANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0017 r3 PAY • VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 3 9 'c R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 110-400-3302-4304 00366 $44.47 00831 34282 5 6 TELE`CHARGES7AUG-'9U 08/15790 NARKING -ENI- /1tLJ'RUNE $07-60-08709790 *** VENDOR TOTAL ************************trim+rar*******it***ir*****ir+rir********ir*rr*trot***** $2,018.53 9 0 2 R GTEL 01340 001-400-2101-4304 00623 $102.38 00834 34283 3 4 5 EQUIP-RENTAtJAV6 90 V8/01-790 NOLICE /1ELEPHQNE g0 -00-08709790i7 R GTEL 01340 001-400-2201-4304 00279 $101.77 00834 34283 e 16 c EQUIP"RENTAL/AUG-90 08/01790 -'--" FIRE—7TECEPHONE 20 �'] 0 $0.-00 08/09/90 zl z2 *** VENDOR TOTAL***********************trtrtrtrtrtrirtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtttr*trsrtrtrtrt�•trtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtr****p. 23 $204. 15 21 23 25 26 R DEVIN*GUZMAN 02741 001-202-0000-2020 01028 $43.68 11484 34284 21 MILES/OFFICER TRRININV - 26 06/30%90" TACC11UtQT5�AYABLE $0.00 0B/09%9�'20 30 *** VENDOR TOTAL********************.Jr*********************************************** $43.68 J1 -_I :34 R HALPRIN SUPPLY COMPANY 00946 001-400-2201-4187 00246 $147.32 41090 3 11215 34285 --TURNOUT 'PANTS7G�ACE-41090 07/30790— 76 FIRE /UVIFORM ACEDWANCE $147. 31-06709790 37, 30 *** VENDOR TOTAL*********************irtrtrtr****tr****tr*trtrtrtrtr*trtrtrtrtrtrtr*trtr* trtrtrtrtrtr±rtrtrtrt *** $147. 32 3 i3- 40 41 42 STEVE*HARTT 00896 001-400-2101-4312 01401 $159.00 43 _R ----REIMBURSE-HOTEL-EXPENSE 00806 34286 08/01/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE-, POSi $0700-08/09/90 444 5. 46 *** VENDOR TOTAL****************trtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtr.n.***t�*****tt**trtrtrtrtrtr•Trutt*trtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtr $159. 00 a] 40 40 53 R HERMOSA ANIMAL HOSPITAL 00322 001-400-2401-4201 00245 $105.00 00735 34287 S1 MISC SERVICES/JULY 90 07/31790 ANIMAL-CONTROL7-7CONTRACT-SERVICE7PRI VAT $O.aCs— 46/09/90 542 3 54 ss � *** VENDOR TOTAL********************************************************************56 $105. 00 5e 17 57 56 R HIGH STANDARD AUTOMOTIVE 03536 001-400-2101-4311 00931 50 $385.60 1179/3124 00376 34288 REPAIR RADIO SYSTEM/HARC-73124` POLICE— 07/25794 /AUTO-MAINTENANCE$447'? 60 .17 481097.4-6 62 *** VENDOR TOTAL**************************4r***************************************** 631 $385.60 4 as 66 R IAPMO 00679 001-400-4201-4305 00582 $53.27 • 3168 10394 34289 67 G 1 J J J J J V V FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0018 a J - n r ✓ ri , t— w.(1.1 -717U PAY . VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # -__ DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 ; *** VENDOR TOTAL •nor******n*********************trtrtrtt**************** r***********ate**** $53.27. , e ' R IDENTICARD SYSTEMS INC 02001 001-400-2101-4201 00618 $434.52 99011688 00391 34290 ANNUAL-RENT7IDENII-KIF a 9 0 13 s e 17 18 10 zo zz zJ 24 25 ze 27 1Ib88 07/01790 POCICt /CO'IQTFTA(.I ZD E7PR IVAT 40.00 08/09/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $434.52 rs 16 R INDEPENDENT CITIES RISK 01484 705-400-1210-4201 00058 $17,322.07 10957 34291 - "--"----"'-----FY-90-91' PROPERTY -PREM. '' 07/19/90—" AUTOJPROP7DONDS-JCONTRAC 1 SERVTCE7PRTpAi 40.06-08/O'790—z, R INDEPENDENT CITIES RISK 01484 705-400-1217-4201 00080 $11,073.00 10958 34291 90=9I -EXCESS -WORK -COMP- 1:1 .: '3 2.1 07/20790 WORKhHS COME' , /LUNIRALl SERV1LtJYMIVAI $0700 08709790 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $28,395.07 R INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 02458 001-400-6101-4309 00909 $708.02 46487 00403 34292 TENNIS-COURTMtItH$ J - 31 46487-07713790— NARKS /MAINItNANCEMAIHjALS 40-00 08709/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** ?1 23 3 $708.02• 3 R OFCR LANCE*JAAKOLA 02137 001-400-2101-4312 01402 $159.00 3: 31 37 -EIMBURSE-HOItL LXPENbE -08/01790 00805 34293 3> a• 4, 4 a NO -0-0870-9790 VENDOR TOTAL ***'*****•***'******************************************************** $159.00 2.*** ANGELA*JANULEWICZ 02758 001-400-2101-4312 01404 $236.25 11500 34294 EALS7FOTEL7CPR-CLASS U//23/YU a as a- 4' aa a9 ,o ,1 37 1c 17 POETC •• - . ' - U. UU U8IO9J9U *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** -7 436. �-75 R JET DELIVERY, INC. 00281 001-400-1202-4201 00223 $37.50 ,z 53 54 55 . 1.4 WELIVERY SERV7CDBG-REIMD-60591--07/15790 60591 00156 34295 r INANCt ADM • - ♦ U. uv 0870979• *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** ,6 57 se 1: :3 437. 50 ,9 R JOBS AVAILABLE 01165 001-400-1203-4201 00687 $47.80 90-15-054 — 03" t1PECYEE-ADS7PERSONNEL 00 e1 ez 51 J3 54 10966 34296 oa.+, -054-0771779PERSONNEL /LUNitALi btRVICE/YHIVAI $U.VU �87D9 '• e5-.:5 ea 67 G8 3a • J .J J FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0019 DATE 08/09/90 (2 ,I :1 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 ' 4 . • *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $47.80 R DONALD*JONES 02627 001-202-0000-2020 01029 $60.32 11485 34297 w ,2 --MILES/MOTORCYCLECLASS 06/30/90 /KCLUUNTS—PAYABLE 1$0.00 08/09790 R DONALD*JONES 02627 001-400-2101-4312 01405 $170.25 11496 34297 ,3 ,. ,6 ',; MEALS/HOTEL7RADAR CLASS 07/23790 — PLC -ICE /IRAVtL LXIENbt , PUbI $0700 08709790 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $230.57 ,7 6 „ 20 17 ,,� R JUCKES CONSTRUCTION 01841 001-210-0000-2110 03811 3350.00 83240 00537 34298 z, 22 2' z4 ,r WORK GUARANTEE—REFUND-83240 08/02790 • /13EPOSTTS7AOHK (�UARANILE $0-00-0870'7/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******+rpt************************************************************ $350.00 26 27 2: 2, R JOHN*KEARIN 01032 001-400-2101-4312 01398 $32.00 11490 3429931 2- 3 II MEALS74`OFFICERS 07/23790— POLICE / 1 RAVtL tXrENSE. • rUS I $23700 08708/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL ************************* ************** *************************** $32.00 3 3. 3 3 1. R STAN*KIM 02833 001-400-4601-4201 00620 $764.00 11387 34300 3' 3: ' 4 4. • SUMMER PROD—INSTRUCTOR 08/01790 LOMM—RESOURCES /LUNIRALI bEhVILt/PRIVAT $0.00 08709790-4, *** VENDOR TOTAL************************n-tt***** ****** *******ir*****************#***. $764.00 n R KIWANIS CLUB OF HERMOSA BEACH 00380 001-400-4101-4315 00130 $80.00 10856 34301 45 4: 4 46 , 5, -DUC—AUG DUES/SCHUBACH 08/01/90 PLAERSHIr $6713-0-178/09/90—.0 *** VENDOR TOTAL**********************#********************************************* $80.00 z R SGT JOHN*KOEBSELL 00629 001-202-0000-2020 01019 $31.20 11490 34302 MICES7CIVIL'CIAB CLASS— 32 53 54 53 56 , s 07TT6790 /ALCUONTS—PAYABLE 30.00 08708790 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $31.20 57 56 50 60 ., R SYDNEY*KOPEIKIN '03548 001-400-4601-4201 00630 3596.00 11389 52 63 a a53 66 67 SUM 34303 CLASS"TNSTRUCTOK 08/01790 COMM—RE50URCE i ,,.66 VICt/PRIVAT $0.00 08/09740 , 60 70 7, l7 72 73 74 75 J J J J JS J Y FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0020 DATE 08/09/90 2 3 4 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP IN 2 3 4 e e *** VENDOR TOTAL****.************.t*************trig**.*mar***************************** $596. 00. 7 e 9 10 3 R L & M DISTRIBUTION, INC. 03496 001-400-6101-4309 00908 $165.06 44548 00432 34304 1 12 TENNIS POSTS 44548- 07%12790 PARKS !MAINTENANCE-MAIEKIALS $165.06 08/08/90-7-3 14 *** VENDOR TOTAL##tttrtttrtttr*tttttrttttatrtrtrtr*trt�*trtFtrtttrtrtrtrtrtttttrtr*tr�rirat-�r***irtrtr*ar**n*arir*ar-naratatar�rar**ir $165.06 s 1e :3 1e 1, R L.A. CO POLICE CHIEFS' ASSOC. 02428 001-400-2101-4315 00169 $25.00 00394 34305 '-'-ANNUAL-DUES/WISNIEWSKI- ° 20 07/23/90 POLICE /MEMBERSHIP— $0.-00-08/08/90 21 17 22 11 *** VENDOR TOTAL at***********************************************stat*************at**** $25.00 23 24 2e 2e R TIM*LAVALLI 03555 001-210-0000-2110 03815 $500.00 02514 27 00534 34306 -REFUND '08/02/90 DAMAGE DEPOSIT 02514 /UEPOSiiS/WORK-GUARANTEE $0700-0870979 2e 29 , 30 *** VENDOR TOTAL*****************tt**tt*tt*************************************at******* $500. 00 31 32 33 `- 34 R LAW ENFORCEMENT MGMT CENTER 03430 001-400-2101-4312 01397 $124.00 11499 34307 35 ITION/S. WISNIEWSKI 07/23790 POLICE—' /TRAVEL -EXPENSE , YUbi $0.00-08/08790-37 36 39 -_ ** VENDOR TOTAL**itar**ititarit*itatititititanaris*at*atitititatititirat*itit*gritnatatar*ititicititiritirit;tatit*tr-%*naris*it*crit $124. 00 J9 40 41 32 42 33 02832 001-400-4601-4201 00626 R LINDA*LOCKE$548.00 11393 34308 d7 J.1 SUMMER--'CLASS-INSTRUCTOR 0B/01790— COMM -RESOURCES /LUNTRAC1 SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00-0B/0979 44 <s 46 3:3 *** VENDOR TOTAL trarttatttarattrttaratts•atttatarattFarttaraf*as•araFtFataatftrtFarat*trattrattttFtratartttraraFattr*af*aa•af#tttfnat*aF*aFtrar*aF $548. 00 47 48 49 50 R LOMITA BLUEPRINT SERVICE. INC. 00077 001-400-4202-4305 00506 $36.67 00739 34309 mrsc: 31 CHARGES/JULY 90 07/31/90-- PUB -WKS -ADMIN /U)- f1Ct UPEH SUPPLIES $0-00-08/09/90 32 53 54 :2 *** VENDOR TOTAL**-jr*ar****#irarir**aratar*#***aririt**atarjt*tray#ir*ar*tr***tr*ir**iririrtr:atrattr*irat#*itat*ititarar $36. 67 ss 14 :1 Se 57 R 56 .15 LOS ANGELES CO. PUBLIC WORKS 00879 001-202-0000-2020 01032 $988.19 1271 08128 34310 POWER -STREET -SERVICES -09/01789 9 60 1 271 /AMOUNTS -PAYABLE $0.00 C}8 /09 7 90-81 e2 _ R LOS ANGELES CO. PUBLIC WORKS '00879 150-202-0000-2020 00008 $9,637.65 10338/6787 08123 34310 e3 :3 64 FIIGHCAND-AVE- � SERVICES678/ 06/2178 /AC ( UUNTS PAYABLE $0. 00 08709770 , Gs BC 51 07 __ 28 GO 70 71 72 l3 74 '.'l 75 7V/ FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0021 DATE 08/09/90 CG 3l rr 51, PAY • VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP ,\ 2 • • *** VENDOR TOTAL*************'****************#*******•***********4****************** 310, 625. 84 s 7 R LOS ANGELES COUNTY TAX COLL. 00589 001-400-8601-4201 00060 3488.00 900831 00451 34311 p 10 1 ;1 T*a** - ---'"PUBLIC-"HEALTH"-LICENSE -00831 07/01790 -- CIP 86=601 !CONTRACT-SERVICE7PR1VAT— 30.-06-09/O9/ 903 14 VENDOR TOTAL ********star**************its•****************************************** 3488. 00 s 16 v1.• 17 18 R LOS ANGELES TIMES 00213 001-400-1203-4201 00686 31,307.03 30-011832 00740 34312 9 20 r EMPLOIEE ADS7JULY"'96—'-11832-`-- 07/29/90`-'—""''-- PERSONNEL /CONTRACT-SERVICE7PRIVAI 30.00 08708790 21 22 *** VENDOR TOTAL*************************************************s.**********.******** 31,307.03 z3 24 • 25 28 R LOUIS THE TAILOR, INC. 00079 001-202-0000-2020 01021 3249.53 245298 00634 34313 27 MISC- '- z6 'CHARGES/JUNE90-'--"45298-'- "06/30/90 /AC.t,U�ITS PAYABLE 34.04 48709/94—zs 30 *** VENDOR TOTAL**a******i**i***i*a*a*i*a***i*a*a****t***a**********a***a**i**;rata***t***********a**t**** 3249. 53 31 3z 33 34 R MAIN ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. 00426 001-400-4201-4305 00583 333.87 00742 34314 3' 35 --MISC""CHARGES7JULY-90 07/37790 BUILDING /UFF- ILE-OPER SUPPLIES 30. 00 08709790 37 38 R MAIN ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. 00426 001-400-4204-4309 01710 3161.59 00742 34314 39 MISC"CHARGE57JULY '90 07737790 i CDG MA1NT— /NAINTEN7SNCE-MATEiTTALS 30T00 0870979 40 42 R MAIN ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. 00426 001-400-6101-4309 00911 395.06 00742 34314 43 44 19ISC 'CHARGESTJOLY"90 07/31/90 PARKS lMAT NTENANCE IIATERTALS $0.00-X8%09796 45 44 *4** VENDOR Tart*a* -TOTAL *********************i*t*** *a*a*t*a*i*a*i** *a*i*t*a** *t*a*t*t*t*i* **t*p•a*j*a*a*t*i*a*i**a*3*a*a*t* 3290. 52 47 48 IIr I'c t 4° 50 R MAIN STREET TOURS 03549 001-400-4601-4308 00370 31,040.00 11385 34315 • S1 i'• 2 _ 52 SUMMER "SENIOR "EXCURSION 08/01790 COMM -RESOURCES /VROGRAIIrrFATERIALS 30. Oa --08/09790----- 54 *** VENDOR TOTAL***********a*j*t*a*a*a*a*afa*a*a*a*art*a*a*ata*i*a*j*a*a**arxa*s*a*a*a*a**a*a*a*a*a*a*a*i*3*a*a*a**a**a*a*a*t*arna**a* 31, 040. 00 65 58 , 57 58 R CITY OF *MANHATTAN BEACH 00183 001-202-0000-2020 01015 3321.45 7373 00459 34316 52 7 ., CO ARTESIA-MAINT7MAR=JUN 90 7373 06/30790 . /ACCOUNTS -PAYABLE $07o0---08708790--- e2 R CITY OF *MANHATTAN BEACH •.00183 001-202-0000-2020 01017 3250.00 7454 00474 34316 53 - 54 SIDEWALK -CLEANER -RENTAL -7454--08/07790 7AGLOUIV15 PAYABLE $06700-08708/90 55 C6 57 88 r3 •1 G° 70 71 72 J T3 74 75 7q J J J J •I V V v IMO F I NANCE-SFA340 TIME 16: 30: 49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0022 DATE 08/09/90 . PAY • VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT PO # CHK # UNENC DATE EXP 2 • 5 6 R CITY OF *MANHATTAN BEACH 00183 001-400-3103-4251 00002 $100.00 —7454--"08/01/90 7454 00474 34316 7 $0.00---08/08/90---. SIDEWALK-CLEANER""RENTAL ST -MAINTENANCE /LONTWALI 5EFVLLE/60VI 10 R CITY OF *MANHATTAN BEACH 00183 160-202-0000-2020 00051 $3.032.55 -_ - --- —"-'06/30/90 7367 00458 34316 12 ARTESIA SEWER'"FEE/FY90--'---7367 /ACCOUNTS -PAYABLE $0:00--- 09/08/90~"n 1 1. stat* VENDOR TOTAL ***tat*******at***************stat**********it********it-nit****it#at**it;t;t#ititit $3, 1e 704. 00 1e n 1E R MANHATTAN FORD 00605 001-400-2101-4311 00929 $2_91.79 —"' -- --""07/25/90 —' —'" -- 106773 00325 34317 zo CATALYTIC' CONVERTER/PD -6773 P0LICE /AUTO -MAINTENANCE $386.-0^0'"---09/05790 -21 ) 22 t6 R MANHATTAN FORD 00605 110-400-3302-4311 00614 $25.60 27 106489 00744 34317 $0.00---$0.00---08/09790---2,0870979z, 24 1, MISC-CHGS70ULP-90 06489- 07/31740 PARKING -ENE /AUIU MAINTENAN E 26 { ____ stat* VENDOR TOTAL at**at*st******at***************tat**********attt*ttitatattt******at*****tt******at $317.39 z] 28 R DEAN*MENART 02625 001-400-2101-4312 01396 4*170.25 11495 34318 ;; j MEALS/HOTEL/RADAR-CLASS 07/23/90 POLICE_ /TRAVEL ERPENSE FObI $0.00-08/08750 3 3. ] stat't VENDOR TOTAL atatatatatatttatatatatatitatatttttatuatatatatatatatatatatjtatatatatatititatatatatataratttitatttrtatatitatttatatatatatatsratatatatat $170. 25 3 3 3 `3 3' 33 R MGM1, INC. 03539 001-300-0000-3823 00080 $660.00 -FILMING"-PERMIT-REFUND-02586 -'07725/90 02586 11384 34319 31 /SNBCIAL EVENT SECUNIIY $0.0008/097130 41 *6* VENDOR TOTAL a tatatatatatatatautatatitat;that'Fat*;tatatatatatatatatataFatatatatat#atatat*at#atatatatatititattt*itatat#atatpat.it*atatatatet $660.00 ._45 44 46 R MICHAELS 03167 001-400-4601-4308 00375 $83.65 001/002 00745 34320 47 MISC.---CNARGEST /002 07/31790 COMM -RESOURCES /PROURAM-MATERIALS $0700 08709790 46 4c *** VENDOR TOTAL ttatatttatttatatitttatatatitatttatatatatttatstatatatatatatatatatat;ttt*itatitatatatatttatatitaratstatatatttttatttttitatat*at,titatattt $83.65 r. 5• �l 52 53 it 54 12 R JOHN*MILLAR 03547 001-400-4601-4201 00628 $100.00 SUMMER--CLASS-INSTRUCTOR 11391 34321 55 56 08/01740 LOMM-RESOURCES /LONTRACTSLk V1LE/Pk1VA1 $0700 08/09740 57 9E stoat VENDOR TOTAL atatatitit>tttttatitttatttttttttatttatatat'tititatttatatatitatttttatatatttttat*tt;ttl.tt.attitat.tt.rtatitatttatitttatatatatatttitatatatit $100.00 58 1 7 60 61 ez 43 R KIM*MITCHELL '00522 001-202-0000-2020 01016 $122.98 63 , MILES/EMERG-OPS-CrAbs 06/30790 11476 34322 s• /ALLUUNIS PAYABLE $0.UU 08/08790 e64 s 66 51 e] 31•6e 3 70 tl 70 5.1 71 } 72 )3 74 75 1. i 1 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0023 DATE 08/09/90 c PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP is, 2 J *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $122.98.. 3 e e R MOBIL OIL CREDIT CORPORATION 00388 001-202-0000-2020 01031 $27.89 8839307843 00563 34323 0 10 " 12 ,3 14 MISC-CHARGES7MAY-90 —07843 06/30/90 PACCOONTS-PAYABLE $O.00-- 08/09/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $27.8913 12e 13 R JORGEN*MOHOLT 03551 001-210-0000-2110 03810 $50.00 03528 00539 34324 v ,e t° 20 ANIMAL"'TRAP-REFUND" 03528 08/02/90 /DEPOSTTS7WORK-GUARANTEE $0.00-08709/9 ,7 u *** VENDOR TOTAL ***** xtr ***** r it *********.* t ****** t# ****** * $50. 00 21 22 23 24 • R MONARCH BROOM 00084 001-400-3103-4309 01026 $845.61 00747 34325 25 26 27 26 30 31 32 MISC'CHARGES/-JULY-90 07731%90 ST MAINTENANCE 7MATNTENANCE-MAIEHLACS $0.00 08709/90-20 *** VENDOR TOTAL***********************************************er#;r******** ****:r**** $845. 61 _1 R MONSOON LAGOON WATER SLIDE 02953 001-400-4601-4308 00369 $225.00 4670 11382 34326 33 34 35 30 70 as 42 43 44 _c. SUMMER ;EXCURSION-- 4670 '07/23/90 COMM -R ESOURCES�PROGRAT'1-MATER1ALb $0.00---006/08/90--N `3 0 R MONSOON LAGOON WATER SLIDE 02953 001-400-4601-4308 00373 $171.00 11399 34326 SUMMER PROGRAM -EXCURSION 06702790— COMM RESOURCES /PHO,NANi-MAILH1ALb $0700-08/09790 *** VENDOR TOTAL********************************•n********iritic****** tit*ir*********** •it* $396. 00 R G.*NEIL COMPANIES 03541 705-400-1217-4305 00015 $62.50 00960 34327 45 46 07 LABOR-POSTERS/PERSONNEL 07730/90 WORKERS -COMP /L.9 -FILL PER bUPPLIES $0.00-08/09790 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $62.50 aN 50 51 52 R NORLAB 00900 160-400-3102-4309 00509 $356.78 20886 00452 34326 53 54 551 56 57 56 56 eJ TORN DFTA'IN-DEDDORTZER--20886 07/20790 bEWERTST-DRAIN-7FfATNTENANCE•-MAATEkIALS $356. !t! 087087YU :3 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $356.78 <. 7 R KEVIN B.*NORTHCPAFT '.02064 001-400-1201-4305 00165 $22.26 09172 81 82 eJ e4 e5 66 07 34329 ONTHCY-EXPENSE/JULY-90 0773I79U CITY MANAGEH /OFFICE UPEH SUPPL1tS 40700-08709/00 51 60 66 70 71 1 72 . ft .7 . 73 74 75 J J J J J J k.1 V FINANCE-SFA34O TIME 16:30:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0024 DATE 08/09/90 .J J PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 • 6 *** VENDOR TOTAL************t**************t*******-,titer**-xariritititnitat***»atttititat-tt****itar*atitttit $22. 26 ° • w R_ PAC. PRIME COMPUTER PRODUCTS 03531 001-400-2101-4305 01320 $1,553.21 —COMPUTER-SOFTWARE7POLICE-DO45d 900452 00387 34330 2 . 07/25/90 POLICE /OFFICE -OPER SU:FEIES $1,553:21-08/08/90 3 4 *** VENDOR TOTAL *********************tat**********iter*******.*************************** $1,553.21 s 6 v 14 B . R PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE 00321 001-400-2101-4304 00624 $158.90 "HOOKUPS/JUL 00036 34331 9 20 ;;"!--"—" COMPUTER 90 08/02/90" POLICE /IELtPHONE— $0.00- 08/09/9U 2, 7 22 *** VENDOR TOTAL ***********************************4*************************!****** $158.90 23 24 23 26 iz:L r R PACIFIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT CO. 01556 001-400-2201-5402 00025 $2,760.41 • --h278-71 24278-1 11212 34332 ze INTERCOM/FIRE-ENGINE 07/24/90 FIRE /E0UIP=MORE-THAN '$5OU t2 -,7b0.40 08/08/902 3. *** VENDOR TOTAL**ar*r*r*-n*****t*****r**t********************************r******t*****t****** $2,760.41 31 32 3 3 27 _; R PACTEL CELLULAR - LA 03209 001-202-0000-2020 01041 $95.15 -0$/30790 00776 34333 3 9OBILE"PHONE-CHGSTJUN-9U /AC'CIIOf1T5-PAYABLE $0.%0-08709740 3- 3 3> 30 R PACTEL CELLULAR - LA 03209 001-400-2101-4304 00626 $256.93 00776 34333 3. MOBTLEPHONE CHGSTJUL-90 07731790 F*OL1LE / I ELEPFIONE 32 •:, $0.00 08709790 .4. , :3 *** VENDOR TOTAL*********************k.*********************************************** $352.08 44 45 Iso R PAGENET 02487 001-400-1201-4201 00092 $11.50 00049 34334 47 F'AGING'""SER07FiUG-9U U8/0r79U (,1IY-MANALER /LUNIRACI SERV1Ct/PRIVAr $0.00-013/09/90 4c 50 R PAGENET 02487 001-400-2101-4307 00230 $173.50 PAGING 00049 34334 31 7z SERV/AUG--90 08/01790 POLICE— /RAD 0 11AINTENANCE $0. 06� 08709790— f . 53 4 R PAGENET 02487 001-400-2401-4201 00246 $11.50 55 .: :4 PAGING'SERV7AUG-90 O8/0179U 00049 34334 ANIMAL LUNTROL /LUNIKAL1 SEHV1LL/YH1VA1 $0:00 08709790 57 R PAGENET 50 45 02487 001-400-4202-4201 00277 $11.50 00049 34334 50 PAGING"SERV/AUG-90 08/01790 . PUB WKS ADMIN— /LONTRALI bhRVICE/PRIV4I — 30.00 08/09790---4,0 8709790 e, *** VENDOR TOTAL 62 •:, ******************************************************************** 3208.00 63 :3•65 e4 R PALOS VERDES 60 31 BIBLE CHURCH 02997 001-210-0000-2110 03809 $500.00 -DEPOSIT -REFUND 02601 67, 00540 34335 J.-. DAMAGE 02601 08/02/90 /UEPOSITS7WORK 6UARANIEt'1 3J • O.0U 08/09/90----4008 70 71 72 . 73 74 75 . 7: .J J FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0025 (: PAY - VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP iN z 1.} 1.• a** VENDOR TOTAL****narirer*irartrirtrittr-t+*ir#ar*irarirtrtrirat*trtt****ir*�rtr-tr*�t:t�rttirnar***trtr*tr*�rtrttaruttart� $500. 00 6 6o 1. R PASSON'S SPORTS 03334 001-400-4601-4308 00368 $87.?_! S888927 11377 34336 to 12 SOCCER""py"VOI_LEYBRttS tl8927 07/17/90 COMM RESOURCES 7PROGRAM-MATERIALS $78.-74--""OB/O9r96- ** VENDOR TOTAL **it:t****#tr*itatajrit**;r*at-»ir*itirar-ttirtrirtr*ir;t#ittritirit-nttitat-tt;tjtit;rittr-n3r-u**-tr-nit*****ttn# $87. 21 13 14 15 16 ,"R -c MIKE*PENNINGS 03562 001-202-0000-2020 01012 $40.00 00175 00602 34337 17 18 9 BLDG'PERMIT REFUND 00175 06/30/90 70 ~.c /ACCOUNTS PAYABLE $0.00---08/08/9p , zz *** VENDOR TOTAL �rttir*jtit-tr*�titir;rtrir* tit**ittrirn�r�riret*it*itit•tt:ttriririttrtr*ttitirir-tttt*ttttiririt*it3tiriraait�ritttitititir $40. 00 z3 y,! 24 25 26 R PEP BOYS 00608 001-400-2201-4311 00349 $17.02 56386 00853 34338 27 ze MISC "CHGS/AUGUST 9U 56386- --"08/10/90-"---` --FIRE /AIITErMAINTENAN( L $d. D6-08/09194 zo 30 *** VENDOR TOTAL it-zr;terarirarxirtr•�t-tt****-ttirutrtrtrirtt*iratit*iriritir****ir�t;ritirit�ritar�tititira�t3titir*atar�ttr-xir�r�ritir** $17. 02 31 + 32 33 34 R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. 02746 001-400-1212-4188 01822 $279.99 GARDO7C 00011 3433935 EMP'ASSIST"PROG/SEP-9O-"-RDO7C---"08/01/90 EMP BENEFITS'"- 7EMPCOYeL bENEFTT5 SR$0. 00—d8 'd9T�?0--3T 38 R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. 02746 105-400-2601-4188 00992 $5.19 GARDO7C 30 00011 34339 EMP -ASS IST'PROG-/SEP-90—'RD07C--09/0179L1-- 4O STREL I L ti1FITI ENEF 1 I S $0.00 Zti870979U R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. 02746 109-400-3301-4188 00013 $0.20 GARDO7C d3 00011 34339 EMP ASSIST PROG7SEP 90-""'RDO7C" - 08/01790 —7EMPCOYEE-BENEFITS VEH-PKG-DIST$0.00 08/09790 444 5 46 R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. 02746 110-400-3302-4188 01208 $35.19 GARDO7C 00011 34339 47 EMP-ASSIST`PROG7SEP-90— RDOTC 08/01790 NARKINGENF /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0700 U8/0979"0—.48 -6- 50 R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. 02746 145-400-3401-4188 00951 $1.06 " — "EMP'ASSIST'PROG/SEP 90' RD07C — 08/01/90'"-"''----- — GARDO7C 00011 34339 -A 52 DIAL RIDE- 7EMPLUYEE BENEFITS9 $0.00 08/0 . /90 - 53 54 R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. 02746 145-400-3402-4188 00955 $0.39 55 GARDO7C 00011 34339 EMP ASSIST"PROGtSEP-90- RDO7C- 08701790 56 ESLA /EMPLUYEL 13ENEF I I S $0.00 087097-90 57 56 R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. 02746 145-400-3403-4188 00296 $0.12 5P GARDO7C 00011 34339 EMP ASSIST 'PROG/SEP 90 — RDO7C 08/0!790 -GO BUS PASS-"SUBSDY-7EMPLOYEE-BENEI- 115 $0.00 08709790- 62 R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. '.02746 155-400-2102-4188 00537 $0.41 63 GARDO7C 00011 34339 EMP ASSIST PROG/5EP-90 - RD07C 08/0r790 64 ,, CROSSING-OUAR LNLFII5 $U7U0 087097Y0 55 66 e7 ee Ca 70 71 1 77 73 ]4 75 J JS J J J J 1.1 V FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0026 DATE 08/09/90 C3 z 7.e J PAY - VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP z ' l' 3 7 R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. 02746 160-400-3102-4188 00934 $5.92 GARDO7C 34339 3 ,z I, EMP ASSIST-PROG/SEP-90-RD07C- 08/01'790 SEWER7Si UR-ATN-7EMPLum. BENE -ITS X0700-08709790 R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. 02746 705-400-1209-4188 00305 $0.51 GARDO7C 00011 34339 a 10 z 4 e , ,8 'u zo EMP ASSIST-FROG/SEP 90—RD07C 08/01790--- LIABILITY-INS---7EMPCOYEE--BENEFITS $0.00 08/09/9013 R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. 02746 705-400-1217-4188 00308 $1.02 GARDO7C 00011 34339 EMP ASSIST-PROG7SEP-90 T2D07C 08/01790 WORKERS -COMP /EMPEOYEE BENE -lib 30.00-0870975• *** VENDOR TOTAL ararararar*iritatirartrntrar-tttr*-uir•it;ratarartt-xjr-»-trararrrarar*irrcirn••tf:F-z•ntrtrittr*ar*:r*• itartt:rtr*ta•aritarat-ttttat $330.00 R BRUCE#PHILLIPS 00534 001-202-0000-2020 01011 $22.36 11477 34340 -MILES/INTERROGATION-SEM. 21 zz 2' 24 -- 06/30/90-- ■ ..0-700—ue7007_. *** VENDOR TOTAL **at•mat•*****************at**********************at********************** $22.36 z; 26 n 28 R PHOENIX GROUP 02530 110-202-0000-2020 00171 $1,878.68 4883-00 00077 34341 -OUT-OF=STATE-•CiiEb/JUN90-83=00 ze 3 31 z, :.J 33 06/30790 TACCOEMTE FAYABLE $U.UU 08709790 a tat* VENDOR TOTAL ittt-�t*-trttatitittt•1111-xttitttitatitststatatttartttt•x�t•n-tftr*at•ntt-ttatattr•sttt•u•rtatattwtasttittt•�taaat•n-ttat-tttt•ttit*atiFatatat $1,878.62 3 3 2 3- R PITNEY BOWES 00222 001-202-0000-2020 01014 $13.50 556430 08028 34342 -METER 3 3- ' 4, 1d 43 4e 4' - POSTAGE HEELI URGS-56430— 06/30790 /ALCUUNIU PAYABLE $0--00-08708790 R PITNEY BOWES 00222 001-400-1208-4201 00674 $180.25 556430 08028 34342 ' ,3 POSTAGE`BY PHONE 56436 07/16/90 GEN APPROP /CONTRACT SERITTCE7PRIVAT $0.00-09708/90— *** VENDOR TOTAL +tit*ita11th*ititttiritirit*at*at•n*ttuatit*iriritat*#iratitit•a••tt•ttat•aitttatitirttititarititjt*ttatt*atitjt•n#aratatitir $193.75 17 _ :z .3 :4 - R RON*PONCIANO 02967 001-400-4601-4201 00623 $1,600.00 11396 34343 '• -CLASS -INSTRUCTOR 48 49 50 31 3z g: e4 ee SUMMER 08/01790—"------COMNf-RESOURCES7LONTRACT"SERVTCE7PRTDAT -$0.00-08/09/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL**********************************ar********u**•********************** $1,600.00 ae 37 3e R POSTMASTER 00398 110-400-3302-4305 00697 $2,000.00 460 00235 34344 B •eo .1, 40 LITENOTICE-POSTAGE 460 07/24/90 PARKING-ENF- /OFFICE -OPER bOPPETES 30700 08/00190--- ez ar*6 VENDOR TOTAL ************at,tat***********•*****************at**-*rat*.********at*tt******* $2,000.00 e3 .17, 3v 31 ed 05 66 R PRESENTATION PRODUCTS, INC. 01176 001-202-0000-2020 01013 $209.91 32767 00355 34345 B7 , .4 KROY'LETTERING-PACKS • 3276/ 06/22790 /ACCOUNTS -PAYABLE $0. 00--08/08790--as 70 7, :.3 , 72 /3 74 75 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0027 DATE 08/09/90 I2 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP i\ 2 3 a *** VENDOR TOTAL####ararataratarar*it*itirit*irir*it-iraatir uitititit**iritiriririt#tr ntt;ririrerit*ir**it**ait*it:t n*-zrtrirattra $209. 91 • 5 6 e R FRED*PRYOR SEMINARS, INC. 00298 110-202-0000-2020 00170 $99.00 561259 00228 34346 ° 10 11 12 la Is 16 , SEMINAR -REGISTRATION -61259 _.09/21/89 /ACCOUNTS -FLYABLE $0:"00---08!08/90'—"i3 *** VENDOR TOTAL**ar*****at-ira*n*at****#arar***ar�r*****#ar****#*******iterar*#**#*#*ata#.#3t#*�rtr## $99. 00 R RADIO SHACK 01429 001-400-2101-4311 00933 $3.82 00755 34347 v 16 D 20 21 22 23 24 17 ��e S -CHARGES/JULY-90 07/31790— POLICE /AUTO -MAINTENANCE $O. 00--08/09/90 — R RADIO SHACK 01429 001-400-2201-4311 00350 $4.27 00755 34347 ,, MISC-CHARGES73UCY•-90- 07/31790• 2C 21 TIRE /AUIU MAIN1ENANCE $-07-0 087097YU R RADIO SHACK 01429 105-202-0000-2020 00087 $22.13 00543 34347 26 2a 27 26 MISC CHARGES7MAl*-90' OS/31"79d -PAYABLE /ACCOUNTS $0.00-08/09/90 R RADIO SHACK 01429 105-400-2601-4309 00635 $6.38 00755 34347 26 30 J1 3z MISC CHARGES/.JULY-9U 07/31790 STREET -SIGHTING 27 /MA INTENANLE; MATERIALS $167100 OH/097 *** VENDOR TOTAL a tatarariratittrit****�t�tititit-»atatat3t:titit�titattritttitit�tttititattt�tit3tir�t-n'ttititit** rat#:rittt�t*ititet***** $36. 60 33 34 35 36 3 R RAYBETH ENTERPRISES 03563 0017-202-0000-2020 01010 $78.00 00530 11019 37 38 39 40 61 az 3 34348 13USINESS-LICENSE-REFOND--06530 r'7 06/30790 OUNIS PAYABLE $0760 08708/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL a rarararararatarataratafatarararatarar>tatararararatatararataratarararararaFatatararatatatataratat•arararatarataratatataratararatarararar $78. 00 R READICARE-DANIEL FREEMAN 02390 001-202-0000-2020 01033 $549.00 94-36485 4 <5 46 7 e 50 s 52 10955 34349 PREEMPLOYMNT-EXAMSTJUN—'364B5 06/30/90 /ACCUONTS-PAVABUE $0.00 0870976<45 *** VENDOR TOTAL a t*atararararatarat*ar3tatarararatarararatararatatsratarataratatararatitararatatatatararat*ararataatirararatitarararatatatarararatat $549 42. .00 R CITY OF*REDONDO BEACH 01763 145-202-0000-2020 00091 $27,604.44 53 54 5e 56 WAVE"-COSTS/APR=JCJN--qO-- 10855 34350 5 06!30790 /ACCOUNTS PAYABLE $6700 08/04790 R CITY OF*REDONDO BEACH 01763 145-202-0000-2020 00092 $2,024.58CR 57 50 50 60 62 63 6a 65 66 671 6e ea 70 71 72 73 74 75 FAREBOX RECOVERYTAPR-JUN 10855 34350 06/30/90 /ACCOUNTS PAYABLE $OTOCT —08/08/90-87 *** VENDOR TOTAL**********************at**************. *************. ********at******* $25, 579. 86 17 •_ 51 R AWARDS*REX GROUP 00100 001-400-4601-4308 00367 $100.88 - 18911 11376 34351 PRIZE"RIBBONS7SU M7PROG1— 991T 07712790 COMM RESOURCES— -M 7PROGRAMATERIALS $ i d0. 88—OS10^o/90— Y G J J J J V FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0028 DATE 08/09/90 L PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATEINVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP Ij 4 • *** VENDOR TOTAL **hetet**et*********tt**************•*****************tr************.****** $100.88 5 e e " R RIO HONDO COLLEGE 01070 001-400-2101-4312 01399 $15.00 11494 34352 ----'---""-"---"-TUITION/T.--BOHL"IN" a ,o z ' 07/17/90 PO(=ICE--"" / iRAVEI-EXPENSE , POST $0.00---08/09/90---6- 0.00--08/09/90--is,4 *** VENDOR TOTAL ************* ****************it*crit**#:t***** ;tit*******************#** $15. 00 :4, R RIO HONDO COLLEGE 02013 001-400-2101-4312 01406 $20.00 00807 3435310 ...--"---------""TUITION/N.-JANULEWICZ ,6 • ,� 20 08/02/90 - -- -'-"POLICE / I RAVES—EXPENSE , POST $0.00---08/09/90---ii zz # VENDOR TOTAL ## 3t ar tr er # ar at3ttr;ttritatar it #ttittrtt it jt# tr# ar�tatttatttr ### # #tr $20. 00 z3 24 25 2e R RIO HONDO COLLEGE 02014 001-400-2101-4312 01400 $20.00 11497 34354 27 --""TUITION/JONES/MENARI 28 707/23790 POLICE /1RAVEL—EXPENSE , POST $0.00 09/09796----20 30 *** VENDOR TOTAL at;tar�rirtratatatsratttirir�t�ratarattttr*itar�tttaratatttttttartrittt*irir*atirattrtraritirn*;rtririratatititat*atitiriritarit* $20. 00 3 37. • 33 34 _ — R RIO HONDO COMMUNITY COLLEGE 01865 001-400-2101-4312 01395 $30.00 11489 34355 35 —.TUITION/4'OFCRS 36 • 07/17790 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , PUSI $0.oo --08/08796— 3i, 36 tater VENDOR TOTAL trertrtreteterttetetttetttttttttttettttrerettttrttttettttttrttttttttettttttta*jt;tatttit-ttttirjttttrttjtarit*jttt*ir*iritittttt;tit $30. 00 3e :c IJ: 40 4, 42 .2 R JANIS*ROMAN 03543 001-210-0000-2110 03818 $50.00 00458 00532 34356 ANIMAL—TRAP-REFUND- --00458 07/26790— /DEPOSITS/WORK UU-ARANTEE $0.00-0870979Zf— a44 s 4e *** VENDOR TOTAL ttttetttttetererttttttettt*ttetttttttttttetttetetttettttttttttttttttttrtttrtttttr*ettttrettttttrttttttttettttttttttt*ttttttttettttttt $50.00 47 J7 iR 46 46 50 31 RUSS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 01647 001-400-3104-4309 00527 $279.35 39825 00448 34357 TIMERS/SCHOOL 'LIGHT —.--39825- — "'07/18/90— 52 „ IRAFFI-0—SAFETY-7MAINTENANCE—MATERIALS $278776---00700/96---53 54 *** VENDOR TOTAL ttetetttetettttrtretetttettterttttetttttttetetettteretetttttetetttttertttterttttettrtrtrtteterttttttetttttttetetttttetttettterttttetertt $279. 35 35 : : ,a 56 57 58 .9 R S & J SALES 02500 001-400-2101-4309 00327 $275.19 10681 BATTERY/POLICE-UPS —SYS 10 8I 08/01796`-- — '-- 00398 34358 60 :7 - POLICE /MAINTENANCE- MATERIALS $275. 19 08/08790—e, e2 *** VENDOR TOTAL tt>ttrttttettrtttttttrtttttttttttrtttttrtttttttttttttr*ttttttttttttttettrtttttttt*tttttttttrtttttrtttr;ttttrtrtttttttrtrtr#tttttttt# $275. 19 63 1: 64 65 66 R S. A. ASSOCIATES 03338 105-202-0000-2020 00086 $5,167.32 e7 2 00456 34359 ST—LITE DIST. ASSESSMENT 2" 06/30/90 5 4 — /ACCOUNTS—PAYABLEer 10.00 08/08/90—eo 70 71 • 72 a 775 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0029 DATE 08/09/90 Iz 3 ";. PAY . VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP R S. A. ASSOCIATES 03338 155-202-0000-2020 00023 $5,167.31 2 00456 34359 r CR GUARD -DIST -ASSESSMENT -2 06/30790-- /ALC0UNTS—PAYABLE $0.00 08/0879• *** VENDOR TOTAL *********************•grarata►******************************************* $10,334.63 o 10 tz 11 R SAFETY-KLEEN CORPORATION 03428 001-400-3104-4309 00528 $303.17 M32787 00442 34360 13 I4 1] 6 ,, ST. PAINT -GUN -THINNER 32787- � 07/19/90 IH AFFIC-SAFETYM7�TNTENANCE-MAItK1ALS #303.T7-08 70 9 7 9• *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $303.17 I,c 6 R SAFEWAY SIGN COMPANY 00021 001-400-3104-4309 00525 $2.327.15 38726 00412 34361 '21 HI -INTENSITY -STOP -SIGNS --38726 08/03790— TRAEt-Ic. SAFETY7MA NTENANCE-MAIEKIALS T273277-15 08/0879• *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $2,327.15 R SUSAN*SAXE-CLIFFORD, PH D 00839 001-400-1203-4320 00328 $275.00 0-0719-2 10956 34362 , PSYCH"EVAL'UATION7POLICE-7T9-2 07719790 PERSONNEL /YHEEMPLOYMENT-EXAMS $0700 08/08794, *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $275.00 3 3 3 • ' MARGARET*SAZANI 03544 001-210-0000-2110 03819 $50.00 02047 00531 34363 3 3: 3' a1 4 a. •NIMAL-TRAP-REFUND 0204/ 07/26790 7UEPO6IIS/WUHK GUARANTEE $0:0-0 08/09727• *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $50.00 R SANDRA*SCHNEIDER 03550 001-210-0000-2110 03808 $100.00 2603 00541 34364 — — 4] a. 4 4: 40 ]0 :32 ]4 65 ]6 ]o 60 DAMAGE--DEPOSIT-REFUND 603 08/02790 /UEPOSITS/WURK GUAKANIEL $070608709770 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $100.00 R MICHAEL*SCHUBACH 00536 001-400-4101-4315 00129 $15.00 10853 34365 —DUESTCR-PEANNING--CONE. 07/24790 NCANNING /MEMBERSHIP $0700-08/08/9if-67 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $15.00 R AL*SCHUMACHER •03073 001-210-0000-2110 03823 $50.00 95986 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 c 00527 34366 ANIMAL -TRAP -REFUND -95986--07/26790 51 /DEPOSZTS7RORK GUAKANIEL $0.00 08709/90 60 60 70 71 • 72 73 74 76 J J J J 1 J J J 6,01,1 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 J CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE C030 DATE 08/09/90 PAY - VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP z 4 43 6 e • *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $50.00 R MICHAEL*SCHWARTZ 03545 001-210-0000-2110 03821 $50.00 02399 00530 34367 ----"----` -ANIMAL-TRAP' e ,o iz e REFUND--- `02399 07/26796 /UEPOSITS7WORK-GUARARTEE'-- --$0.00-08/09/96--- --$0.06-08/09/96--*** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $50.00 *** 's R WILLIAM*SHENE 03553 001-210-0000-2110 03813 $375.00 95521 00536 34368 """""""-"' --- -REFUND ----95521-----.08/02/90 ,a ,0 22 za 24 WORK GUARANTEE /DEPOSITS/WORK-UUARANTEE $0.00 08/09/902, *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $375.00 "�:.• R SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT 00151 001-202-0000-2020 01009 $1,164.00 72686 00351 34369 -" ""-06/30794-"-"----'" 2- 26 2 2e8 3t 3• i"-----------CAL-ID MAINTENANCE/FY90--`72686 /ACCOUNTS -PAYABLE $0.00---08/09/90---2g *** VENDOR TOTAL*************4****************************************************** $1,164.00 R SHORELINE PRINTING 03505 001-400-1208-4305 00785 $160.13 9014 00167 34370 3: 3! 4C - .._ PUBLIC NOTICE POSTERS 9014 07/26790 GEN APPROP——70FFTCE-OPER-SOPPCIE $0.06-- 08/08/90— R SHORELINE PRINTING 03505 001-400-1208-4305 00786 $261.54 1037 00160 34370 LETTERHEAD7STOC4 1037--"07/16790 GEN-APPROP 7UI-1-1C.EtJPER-SUPPL165 1;6700 08708790 R SHORELINE PRINTING 03505 001-400-1208-4305 00787 $288.23 1038 00161 34370 4, <s 47 49 2 `6i 54 66 PUBLIC'NOTICE"'POSTERS 1038 07/17/90 GEN APPROP /OFF =OPER-SUPPLIES $0.00 08/08/90 R SHORELINE PRINTING 03505 001-400-2101-4305 01318 $144.11 9009 00397 — 34370 FIELD-INTERVIEW"-CARD57PD -- 900907/26790 POETCE IDFF7CE-OPER-SUPPEThs #T44 -ii 00708790 R SHORELINE PRINTING 03505 001-400-2101-4305 01319 $176.14 9012 00400 34370 TIMECARDS/POLICE "- 9012 - 07/26/90 —POLICE— /UFFIZE-OPER-SUPPLIES 4476.14---0e708790 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,030.15 R SINCLAIR PAINT CO. 01399 001-202-0000-2020 01038 $24.82 25-70690 36 6'l -6 68 6o 6, 62 63 3 66 B7 CS .7 20 71 00646 34371 MISC:"'CHARGES/JVNE"'90--70694 --06/30790 -PAYABLE ,, . /ACCOUNTS $0.00 08/09/90 R SINCLAIR PAINT CO. '.01399 001-400-4204-4309 01708 $55.62 25-74722 00759 34371 1IISCVCHARGES7JUCY-9d 74772-- 07/31790 :; }1 um-19A1NI /MAINTENANCE-MATERTAES 0-0Zf-08/0979664 ". S. 72 n 74 75 FINANCE—SFA34O TIME 16:30:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0031 DATE 08/09/90 _ "3 ••••• PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC_ PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 *** VENDOR TOTAL aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa*ir*"*#*3r***•n*#**it*-n***•n*;r##ir** u**#ar*****ir•x•n#*****# $80.44. , R SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY 00114 001-400-1101-4305 00323 $53.95 00760 34372 V N ul' W N �IO O O Vl0 U O U�N - 0 .1, 12 ----'MISC-CHARGESTJUC:Y-'96 07/31790—' CITY -COUNCIL— /OFFTCE-OPER-SUPPETES $0.00 O8/09/90— R SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY 00114 001-400-2101-4306 00832 $164.66 00760 34372 ... MISC CHARGESTJUCY-90 07731790 POLICE /PRISONER-MAINTEN7NCE. $O700-08/09790— R SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY 00114 001-400-4601-4308 00366 $126.50 436753 11383 34372 "- ----'--'SUMMER- PROGRAM" SUPPLIES --"36753_ --- --07/12/90--"-"•"-"--"-"-COMM-RESOURCES --MATERIALS 1,: I,a /PROGRAM $0:00--"-08/08/90- R SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY 00114 001-400-4601-4308 00374 $559.32 00760 34372 MISC"'CHARGES7JUL-Y-90 07/31/90 LOMM-RESOURCS 7PROCRAM-MAILHLALS $0.00--08709790— R SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY 00114 110-400-3302-4305 00698 $46.64 00760 34372 MISC- CHARGES/JULY -90- 07/31/90 PARKING-ENF -- �.. /OrF ILE-OPER SUPPETES $0.00---08/09/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL ?raaaaaiter�tatttatitttatat"stat#•n�tjt##itat�tatitatitttitnittt•ttat*******n********************** $951. 07 29 30 31 3z '7 R G. SCOTT*SMITH 03377 001-400-4601-4201 00625 $864.00 11394 34373 33 34 35 ._ SUMMER CLASQ INaTRUCTOR 08/01790 COMM' RESOURCES�CONT}TACT-SERVIrE7PRTVAT 38 :3 ' �a`0�0-08709790 *** VENDOR TOTALaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa************.�r******tt* x•*�t•ar*•x**•rr•n**ir***at*****•;t**•»***tr�rsr $864.00 3, 36 3� 40 1.7 R--_ JOHN*SNYDER 03554 001-210-0000-2110 03814 $375.00 95575 00535 34374 --"WORK_ GUARANTEE -REFUND -95575-" - -'08/02/90 4, 42 a3 /DEPOSITS7WOR4-GUARANTEE— $0.00-06/09790- *** VENDOR TOTAL##•u***•n**#it**irjt**#*#****##•n**it##at##�rarit#*****at*it*at*jt*#*atttit�r#*##*##at�r# $375. 00 4s 46 a7 R SO BAY TRNG OFCRS DEPOSITORY 00614 001-400-2201-4315 00060 $300.00 11225 34375 -----------DUES/PAUL OSEKOWSKY -"- "--- -09/01/90- - -" -"-FIRE 46 40 50 �z --�MEMDERSHIP i $O. 00-08. 09/90— �3 s4 *** VENDOR TOTAL Jrtrn�tirirat�rtttr rititirirttatat�tnaratttttir#ttatiritirnirarar�rttatntttttritttititatirnatatat»;titttntratttjrtrttat$300.00ss ss 57 5e R SO CAL PERSONNEL MGMT ASSOC 01600 001-400-1203-4315 00050 $30.0070 DUES/R.- BLACKWOOD- 10967$0.0 34376 ao k: 07/30790- .PERSONNEL �MEMIiERSI�IP $o. 00 06/09/9d ---Er a2 amt VENDOR TOTAL it:ritir�r"uitarttatitaat�tarit•n*itiritiritattritgtat•ttarattttrar utt-xititttttatitatttit-nititititarittt�rtt•p-ttirarttttat?t�r•�tsttt e3 $30. 00 51 e4 65 66 R SO CALIF RAPID TRANSIT DISTR. 00843 145-400-3403-4251 00078 $556.00 52138 00239 34377 Bo BUS PASS"SALES7JULY 90--52138 06/02/90 SUS PASg-SUDSD4%O tlNTFFAO:T-SEM1M-ETG°OvT $o. 00 08/08/90 �." • 70 71 t7 72 73 74 75 ,- J J '.J goo FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0032 DATE 08/09/90 r1 I. PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 3 5 a 7 e • *** VENDOR TOTAL �rar±r•niriritarit**** **irir�tir**star•tttrarir•u•ttariririrttir�r•»irtrirararartririr�rnitarirarttarar-frtritir»aritirar*** $556.00 R SOUTH BAY FIRE EXTINGUISHER 00113 001-400-2101-4309 00330 $39.50 00761 34378 " " " """ `MISC- . ,o 9IT— ;a 4 i CHARGES7JUCY "90 07/31790-- -" --' -PO(=ICE /MAINTENANCE "MATERIALS $0. 00 02/09/90--- R SOUTH BAY FIRE EXTINGUISHER 00113 001-400-2201-4309 00923 $78.43 00761 34378 --MSC:- ISC:" CHARGES7JULY`90-----' — "— --07/31/90 FIRE--7MAIMTENANCE-MA i EK IACs $0.00-08/09/9U **# VENDOR TOTAL **** *****4*-*******•r****************###*******•n*****************a *** $117. 9320 I:7 R SOUTH BAY HOSPITAL 00107 001-202-0000-2020 01008 $47.38 00390 34379 21 22 23 za 28 27 BLOOD- ALCOHOL -:SERVICES 06/30/90 /AL CUUNIS PAYABLE $0.0 6-0 8 /08790~25 R SOUTH BAY HOSPITAL 00107 001-400-2101-4201 00617 $142.14 00390 34379 '.. BLOOD ALCOHOL SERVICES 06/30790 POLICE- !CONTRACT -SERVICE7PHIVAl $0.00 08/088/96 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $189.52 2e 3• 3' 3 R SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT 00118 110-202-0000-2020' 00168 $1,677.00 . 00170 34380 3 3 :0 DMV ADJUSTMENT/JUNE-90 07/31/90 /ACCOUNTS-PAYABLI= $0.00 0870879a- R SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT 00118 110-300-0000-3302 35232 $15,960.00 00170 34380 3 3. q• 4 4 44 —CITE SURCHG7JUEV 9U 07/31790 /COURT-FINES/NARKING $07-00--05/0879_—<, *** VENDOR TOTAL****#***************•tt************************************#********** $17,637.00 L074e R SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT 00400 110-300-0000-3302 35233 $849.00 00240 34381 42 4E —CITATION -COURT -BAIL 08/0279U " 9 /LUUH1 h1NES/NARKING $0-0-0-08/0y/YU *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $849.00 4e S• 5, 2 R SOUTHERN CAL. TREE & LANDSCAPE 03416 001-202-0000-2020 01018 $20,047.50 00453 34382 53 54 55 5e 3 RESTORE -SOCCER -FIELD 06/30790 ,; 7ACLOUNTS FAYABLk $0.016-08709790 R SOUTHERN CAL. TREE & LANDSCAPE 03416 001-400-6101-4201 00191 $200.00 00454 34382 57 5e 59 e2 e, 4 SPRINKLER REPAIR/SOCCER-- --- -- —07/17790 . PARKS /CONTRACT SERVICF_7PH IVA I 4,200.00---08708/90----4, *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $20,247.50 . ;, R PAMELA*STASZEWSKI 03506 001-400-4601-4201 00619 $50.00 11368 34383 c5 ee 7 ee cv 70 7, SUMMER PROG"SERVICE 07/09/90 COMM RESOURCES /LONTR T-SERVICt7YRTVAI $6.00-08708/90— . ra 72 73 74 75 •J FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0033 DATE 08/09/90 J G J J •✓ J J PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 I.. 't** VENDOR TOTAL**###***tr#*+r*iritita***itit*tr*#*a•» n***tt**#*#**#*4tir*tr**it*tt#*#*#*#*****#*** $50.00.. 5 6 , 6 R STATE OF CALIFORNIA 00364 001-202-0000-2020 01040 $148.00 883787/882890 00023 34384 si o 11 3 4-INGERPRINT—APPS/JUN"-90--82890 06730790 /ACCIIUNTS—FAYADLf= $0.00-08/09/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL**************************************•*****************************a 3148.00 13 14 s ,6 R SUPERIOR MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 00425 001-400-2201-4309 00922 $27.00 00766 34385 ---' ------"MISC:"' 167 1li 200 zl 22 23 24 fl CHARGES/JULY 90 07/31/90-- "----"--"—FIRE—7MAINTENANCE—MATERIALS 30.00 —08/09J90 *** VENDOR TOTAL•�t*it#atat*ititttstit****�titatat3t**at�t*�titatititttititit*it#at#**�t*ar �tttattr**.ttatat�•atitatttatit;tttatatatat $27. 00 R RANDAL*THOMAS 03564 110-202-0000-2020 00169 $48..00 861935. 00163 34386 25 2• 27 2• 31 CITE PAYMENT -REFUND 61935-- 06/30790—"--- —ACCOUNTS—FAYADLE $0.00 08/08/90 ##* VENDOR TOTAL **#****##•stir*#*****#*****ira•rt*it#*#**ar***at****-trir#*ir•u#*#jr*****ar**#u•***#.0 $48.00 - R TOM*THOMPSON 01009 001-202-0000-2020 01004 $43.683 11481 3; 34387 MILES/OFFICER—TRAINING/06/30790 -o /ACCOUNTS—PAYABLE $0.00-08708/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL*at-»****.n*****it**#***.>f�r#*#at*srar*stat******#tr*tt#*#*irar**•utr-n*�t*1*-tt#****it*** $43.68 3 3+ ' , R TODD PIPE & SUPPLY 00124 001-400-2201-4309 00921 38.05 41 , 4 MISC.""CHARGES7JULY 90 00768 34388 07/31790 FIRE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS' $0.00-08/09790 R TODD PIPE & SUPPLY 00124 001-400-3103-4309 01025 $93.21 45 4. 4 47 S• 51 00768 34388 T9ISC7—CHARGES/JULY-90 07731790 ST—MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $416700 06709/90 R TODD PIPE & SUPPLY00124 001-400-4204-4309 01707 $509.69 H57503 11198 34388 FISHING SINK""FAUCETS — "07/26/902 57503"'_ BLDG MMMT /MAINTENANCE—MATERIALS $520.0q---09/09/90 R TODD PIPE & SUPPLY 00124 001-400-4204-4309 01709 $25.16 53 4 00768 34388 MISCT CHARGESYJUEY--90 07/31790 BLDG1IN MANCE MATERIALS $0. 0 08-70479Z— R TODD PIPE & SUPPLY 00124 001-400-6101-4309 00910 • $76.54 s7 Sa o0 MISC: CHARGES/JULY 90 00768 343880 .17 07/31790 PARKS /MAINTENANCE—MATERIALS $O. b0— 08.09!90 R TODD PIPE & SUPPLY 00124 160-400-3102-4309 00511 $33.15 6oi 2 G2 6463 63 TTISC: CHARGES7JUCY-90 07/31'790 — 00768 34388 50 51 T SERER7SDRATN7MAINIENANCE FfATENIALS $0.00 08/09790 65 66 67 68 68 70 71 72 73 74 5 :C • J G J J •✓ J J FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 PAY VENDOR NAME 3 DESCRIPTION 19 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0034 DATE 08/09/90 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER DATE INVC PROJ # TRN # AMOUNT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION INV/REF PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL ********-nor********************************************************** 3745. 80 1l R CITY OF*TORRANCE 00841 145-400-3402-4201 00150. ----------- M. A:' V--SHARETJUL=SEP-90-01365---'07/08790-'---------—COMMUTER- BUS $8,146.00 CONTRACT -SERVICES *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************-uta************************************ $8, 146. 00 101365 10851 34309 30.-00-—oe/m3/90-- 10 12 13 14 �. R TORRANCE NISSAN 00125 170-202-0000-2020 00003 -"--' CAR R.ENTAL/NARC/MAYJUN --- '--- 06/30/90----'-'-" R TORRANCE NISSAN CAR RENTAL/JULY=-AUG 90 $600.00 /ACCOUNTS -PAYABLE 00125 170-400-2103-4201 00058 $600.00 08/02790 SPEC-INVESTGTNS ILUNTHALI :2ERVILEn-RLVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL************************************•Ir*********;r***************-u***** F.._ J .1 .12 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE -MISC. CHARGES/JULY 90 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC:- CHARGES/JULY 90 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC:--CHARGESYJULY-'90 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC: CHARGES/JULY-'90 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHARGES/JULY 90 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE (MISC: CHARGES/JULY 90 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC. CHARGES/JULY-90 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC.-- CHARGES/JULY-9U R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC. CHARGES7JUEY-90 $1,200.00 00060 34390 $0:00-08/09/90- 00066 34390 30700-0810979 00123 001-400-2201-4309 00915 07/31790— T -IRE $74.28 /MAINTENANCE 11 TER1ALS 00123 001-400-2201-4311 00348 $24.38 07/31790 FIRE /AM -0 MA1NTENANCL 00123 001-400-3103-4309 01024 07731740 ST-MAINTeNANC $5.45 00770 34391 00123 001-400-3103-4311 00583 $4.21 07/31790---- -ST-MAINTENANCE /AUTUTM INTENANCE 00123 001-400-3104-4309 00522 07/31790 TRAFFIC SA'FEIY $20.44 /MAIN rENANCE fIATERTAALS 00123 001-400-4204-4309 01706 $512.88 07/31790 BLDG-MAINT /MAINTENANCE-MATERTALS 00123 001-400-6101-4309 00907 $166.50 07/31790— NARKS /MAINTENANCE MAIERIALS 00123 105-400-2601-4309 00634 $176.44 07/31790-. STREET LIGHTING-7MAiNTENANCE-MATERIALS '.00123 —D7/31/90 110-400-3302-5401 00041 $149.44 PARKIN(; ENF /EGUIP-LESS THAN $500 SO -1700---08708/90 16 17 18 19 20 zi 22 23 24 25 26 4..i 27 28 20 30 31 32 00770 34391 $0.00 08702/90— 00770 34391 3OTUU 08708790 00770 34391 40. 0th -08 708790- 00770 34391 $0.00 08708790 00770 34391 40.00 O8/08/90.- 00770 34391 $0. UU 08 708790 00770 34391 40. 00---08/00/s‘0.-- 00770 $0.00 34391 08708/90 33 34 3S 3e 37 30 30 '' 40 41 az 44 4_ 46 1 47 21 46 40 55,0 1 52 53 54 1 55 _ 56 58 56 . 60 62 . 53 J 64 65 63 57 80 .,1 70 71 72 73 74 75 25, , •- 1. I1 117 ki FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0035 DATE 08/09/90 2 3 4 0 7 8 n 16 19 20 23 22' 2 3 31 3 3 7 6 a 8 0 4 6 P 0 2 4 5 G .J .J J J J PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC CHK # DATE EXP R TRIANGLE HARDWARE 00123 160-400-3102-4309 00508 $127.00 00770 34391 MISC-"-CHARGES7JUtY'90 07/31790'— SEWER7ST-DRAIN-7MATNTENANCE-MA1EH1AL5 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,261.02 $0.00 08/08/90 R ULTRASYSTEMS 01331 001-202-0000-2020 01003 $5,713.76 93749-50/93672 10852 $0.00 34392 URBAN"-DRILLSITETMAR=UD«9367d 06/30790 /AC-LUONTS-PAYABLE *** VENDOR TOTAL ### # ## ********************itirtttt****antr**** ****** it**** tit #ar*. . $5,713.76 08/08/90 R UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 00740 001-400-4601-4305 00851 $1,000.00 52 -BROCHURE -POSTAGE 11398 34393 10700-08709790— 070008709790—, , FALL 5d 08/01/90 COMM-RESOURCES7OFFTCE-DPEH SUI'PLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL************************************tzar**********-tt******************* $1,000.00 R VALLEN SAFETY SUPPLY COMPANY 01934 001-400-2201-4309 00916 $313.85 2443702 11220 $313785 34394 AO LBS-"HAZ=70RB" 43702 .07123790 FIRE MAINTENANCE -MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL ************************* r*********** *stir****t ******* brit***it****•n*** $313.85 08709790 R JOHN*VAN DEN EYKEL 03374 001'-400-4601-4201 00629 $300.00 -CLASS -INSTRUCTOR 11390 80.00 34395 08/09790 • SUMMER 08/01790 COMM-RESOUR'CE5 /CUNTW CT-SEHVICE/FH1VAT *** VENDOR TOTAL **************ire****•******************************************trot**** $300.00 R ELAINE M.*WEINER 03375 001-400-4601-4201 00622 $1,524.00 -SUMMER-CEASS-INSTRUCTOR 11397 10700 34396 08-70-979.6— 08/01790 CUMM-RESOURCES /LUNIHACI SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL •»*******•**********•u****************it******at*:t•nar#*******#at********** $1,524.00 R WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY 00141 001-202-0000-2020 01007 $69.30 54089383 09346 34397 PUBLICATIONS7CIIY CLERK 8938.4 -06712790 /ACCUUN1S PAYABLE *** VENDOR TOTAL *********Ir*a*****trim**********at****tr ****stir**** r***tr•ntr•Ir#****#*•rt**arn* $69.30 $0.00 08/08790 R WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS •00131 001-400-3104-4309 00526 $683.20 178659 00445 $681.60 34398 08708790 RIVETS/STREET SIGNS ------78659-----.-07127790 1HAFFTC-SAFEIY /MAINTENANCE-MAIEHLALS • 2 3 4 0 7 8 n 16 19 20 23 22' 2 3 31 3 3 7 6 a 8 0 4 6 P 0 2 4 5 G .J .J J J J • L a✓ • FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:30:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0036 DATE 08/09/90 y 4.1 v.) PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP ,1 3 4 <I • aaa VENDOR TOTAL amen****************************a*******************a**»****tiara***** 4683.20 s a e R OFCR JAMES*WHIPKEY 00553 001-202-0000-2020 01005 543.68 11482 34399 u 'o I' 12 �4 1s 10 MILES/OFFICER-TRAINING 06/30/90 /ACCOUNTS PAVABEL 40. ao.-----oeion/co ---i7 ** VENDOR TOTAL ****************grit************************************************** 543.. 68 •:� --`"'"""'"` R SALLY A. #WHITE 00140 001-400-4102-4201 00268 $229.50 10854 34400 --SEC-SERV/JUL-17;90- ------`--`"---"07/30/90"""'-"-""--"--PL'ANNING- 18 1 200 ,. COMM-7CONTR'ACT-SERVICE7PRIVAi 40.00-0e/09/90 aaa VENDOR TOTAL ********* r****************************************************** *** 5229. 50 2‘ 22 23 24 R WHITLOW EMERGENCY MEDICAL GRP 03457 001-202-0000-2020 01006 4121.30 310-81653 00384 34401 "'EMERG -SERVICES -10/21784 25 20 2ze 3C 31 31 3- 34 3" 35 37 3E 3c 4C PRISONER 81653-' /ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 40.00 OB!G8/Sa--zo *** VENDOR TOTAL ***************stir*******#*********** ******************************* 4121.30 R MONTE*WILLIAMS 03552 001-210-0000-2110 03812 51,550.00 95561 00538 34402 —"WORK -REFUND- GUARANTEE 95561 08/027907 /DEPOSITS7WORK- UARANTEE 40.00 08/09790 ''' *** VENDOR TOTAL at ttaratar*•natatitatat�tt�at.Farhat**•ttattt*stir*-ttttitatatatttuatat�tttatatat•�tittrirttatir•tt3rat•�tatat�tit�t;t*�tattt•n3ratat 41,550.00 3tI R STEVE*WISNIEWSKI • 01364 001-400-2101-4312 01394 464.25 11498 34403 dl 42 a3 44 d6 47 MEALS/SYS ANALYSIS -CLASS 07/23796-- POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSET.PL5Si $0.OZ3—a8/O8796--7 haat VENDOR TOTAL �ttt�titat3tetirititatitaru;tatttxuar3tiritxjtir�tttatertt�titatatttatirattt�tttjtitttttjtittt;tititat�t�t;tattttf�tttatitttttttjttt 464.25 R JOHN*WULFF 01305 001-210-0000-2110 03822 450.00 02441 00528 34404 de 40 20 71 54 '' se ANIMAL TRAP'" REFUND —02441 — —07/26/90 --- -- "— /UEPOSITS7WORK GUARANTEE- 40.-00-09/09790-5452 ,_ aaa VENDOR TOTALaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 550.00 :3 <4 R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 001-400-1208-6900 00251 3945.93 526370204 00007 57 59 9 eu e, 02 e3 664 5 ee e7 60 ba 70 71 34405 LEASE-PMT/AUG-90 70204 08/01/90-7-" GEN APPROP =ASI PAYMENTS 40.04-08/09790 :, 10 R XEROX CORPORATION ',00135 001-400-1208-6900 00252 5321.83 526370619 00020 34405 -E.EASE"PMT/AUc 90 /06I9------08/01790 GEI PPRUY /LEAbL PAYMENTS 40.00 08/09790 33 72 )3 74 73 ?Si y 4.1 v.) I'= '?INANCE-SFA340 TIME_ 16:30:49 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/14/90 PAGE 0037 DATE 08/09/90 PAY , VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 001-400-1208-6900 00253 $238.72 526370618 00021 34405 LEASE-PMT/AUG 9U !0'618 08/01/90 GEN APPROF' /LEAbb FAYMENIS $0.00---08/09/90 R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 001-400-2201-6900 00119 $47.74 526370615 00026 34405 • LEASE'PMT%AUG-90 /0615 08/017907 FIRE—7LEASE PAYMENTS $0:00 08/09%9• R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 001-400-2401-6900 00069 $56.15 526370616 00024 34405 j LEASE-PMT/AUG-90 /0616 08/01790 ANIMAL CONTROL /LtASE-PAYMENTS $0.00 08/09/90 R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 001-400-4601-6900 00070 $189.65 526370617 00025 34405 -------'LEASE""PMT/AUG' • 90---- 70617 08/01 /90' -""` -"'-COMM RESOURCES-7LEASE-PAYMENTS $0. 00 ---08/09/90---' R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 110-400-3302-6900 00154 $114.40 526370616 00024 34405 LEASE-PMT/AUG-90' /0616 08/01790 -PARKING ENF • /LLAbE-FAYMENTS $0.00 08/09/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************* ************************** F#****##m#jr* ********* $1,914.42 R ZUMAR INDUSTRIES 01206 001-400-3104-4309 00523 $3,802.44 1270 00415 34406 HI-INTENSITY-STOP-SLGNS---T270 07719790— --TRAFFIC 5AI-LIY /MAiNILNANCE-MATERTAL3 $3T802 44 08/08/90— *** VENDOR TOTAL ************ ****************:r**************************** ********* $3,802.44 - *** PAY CODE TOTAL*+-n*:F*****-u*tr***ir*******#**#tt*#***n**ar******#itit*****ir************* $216,788.47 F *** TOTAL WARRANTS ;r**+r***+rat******#tr********trir#****;r#**,qtr****ir*#***er**tt**it*iF**-xirer- *## $723,441.48 b I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE DEINANDS OR CLAIMS COVERED ' INCLUSIVE OF THE THE WARRANTS LISTED ON PAGES/_—TO– Z p WARRANT REGISTER FOR p f N"'qU ARE ACCURATE AND FU/NN�DS.AREE�AVAAIILGABLE OR PAYMENT THEREOF: BY l'.�-„^"+1L ,i-e__i_i –} . FINANCE AD NISTRATOB CAT,- gil1q,� , , i • i 2 4 e 8 w 15 9 20 22 23 24 25 28 27 2 31 3 3 3 3 5 7 9 2 4 .J i J SJ 8 0 2 3 J 4 5 7 9 9 O 7. 1 J 2 5 •J • J Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council August 6, 1990 City Council Meeting of August 14, 1990 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS August 28, 1990 City Council reorganization Award of Certificates iation Public Access Service announcement of Apprec- Public competition Updated appraisal for South School Approval of air conditioning for Police Department bids Contracts with non-profit agencies Call for bids - basketball courts CIP 89-512 Acceptance of donations & grants - all departments L. A. County request for amending beach ordinance Accept Valley Park lawn renovations as complete Pavement Management Report and slurry sealing, call for bids CIP 89-170 Recommendation on staffing for Cable TV administrator Reappropriations of 1989-90 funds Report on City Assistance with fund raising for purchase of vehicles for Loreto Interpretation of zoning classifi- cation - motorcycles - 1 - Responsible Agent General Services Director City Mgr./City Atty. Public Safety Director Community Resources Dir. Public Works Director Public Safety Director Public Safety Director Public Works Director Public Works Director City Manager Finance Director City Manager Planning Director ic September 11, 1990 Accept sidewalk repairs as complete CIP 89-142 CIP 88-406 Call for Bids - Sewers Target Area 4 Approval of contract amendment workers' comp consultant Further review of 4/10 schedule Historical Society Lease Agreement Easter Seals Lease Agreement Public Hearing Continued hearing on Mobil Car Wash C.U.P. Text amendment to allow outdoor display in commercial zones September 25, 1990 Approval of agreement with County for overlay of Valley/Ardmore/ Prospect Approval of a joint powers agreement for compliance with AB939 - State Recycling Law Award construction contract for basketball courts October 9, 1990 Final report of Cable TV Board Public Hearing 3rd Quarter General Plan amendments Housing Element revision Revised Park Master Plan Public Works Director Public Works Director Personnel Director Personnel Director Comm. Resources Director Comm. Resources Director Planning Director Planning Director Public Works Director Building Director Public Works Director General Services Director Planning Director Community Resources Dir. ***************************************************************** Upcoming Items Not Yet Calendared Power Street drainage and grading Caltrans utility maintenance agrmt. Public Works Director Public Works Director .r Vehicle parking on pedestrian streets Historic Preservation Ordinance (with Land Use Element) Public Works Director Planning Director ***************************************************************** Initiated by Party Date City Mgr. 5/3 Council 5/8 Council Goal 2 Goal 4 Goal 8 Goal 8 PW Dir. Council Council " " Energy Conservation report Discuss financial arrangements on oil project 5/8 Re. oil project CUP - define "temporary" as relates to height of project 5/16 Options to direct dial to City Hall 5/16 Options to computerize per- sonnel as part of payroll function 5/16 5/16 7/3 Options to increasing service level of street sweeping Review of 4 -hr. no parking restriction for sweeper Ordinance for new Chapter 19 of HBMC entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic" Public Building Dir. City Mgr. Planning Dir. Gen. Svcs. Dir. Finance Dir. Public Works Dir. Public Works Dir. 6/26 Zoning text amendment on merchandising on private property 6/26 Report on sign waiver repeal for Community Center 7/10 Prospect School - impact on City offices to use for storage and other options 7/10 User Fee study to include review of loading zone maintenance fee City Mgr. 7/24 3 -hr. vs. 2 -hr. parking meter limit in the downtown (refer to VPD) Works Dir. Planning Dir. Planning Dir. Comm. Res. Dir. Finance Dir. Gen. Svc. Dir. I Council 7/24 Ord. & reso. on controlled substance abuses in licensed and permitted establishments Council 7/24 Possible procedures to expedite Council mtgs. and clarify citizen input opportunities City Atty. City Mgr./Clerk Staff 7/30 6 mo. review of Farmers' market Comm. Res. Dir. NOTE: Presentation to retiring City Prosecutor John Barry will be made by the Mayor at a ceremony at Torrance Court on August 21, 1990 so the item was deleted from 8/28 agenda. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council August 2, 1990 City Council Meeting of August 7, 1990 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT OF INACTIVE PUBLIC DEPOSITS FOR HERMOSA BEACH Attached is a report of all Inactive Public Deposits for the month of July 1990. Respectfully submitted, )/ZAZZ-11 Gary Bruffsch City Treasurer NOTED: (41c,f16144-64:4kt rL, Kevin Northcraft City Manager ld INSTITUTION TOTAL INVESTMENT REPORT - JULY 1990 DATE OF INVESTMENT DATE OF MATURITY INTEREST LAIF BALANCE 7/01/90 Withdrawal Withdrawal BALANCE 7/31/90 LACPIF Railroad Right -of -Way BALANCE 7/01/90 Investment BALANCE 7/31/90 $3,310,000.00 <900,000.00> <400,000.00> $2,010,000.00 Account $ 325,593.08 247,059.54 CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT: Union Federal S&L Investment City National Bank Investment City National Bank Investment 690,218.52 $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 2/22/90 3/23/90 4/25/90 7/10/90 7/24/90 2/21/91 3/25/91 4/22/91 8.538% 8.42% 8.10% 8.425% 8.50% CORPORATE NOTES: Ford Motor Credit Co. Investment $ 500,000.00 5/19/88 5/20/93 9.10% U.S. TREASURY BOND: Investment $ 500,937.94 2/22/89 1/31/91 9.20% Investment $ 499,326.42 1/03/90 12/31/91 7.71% Investment $1,025,032.92 1/29/90 2/15/91 8.22% Investment $1,001,542.12 3/06/90 2/29/92 8.50% Investment $ 500,845.79 3/08/90 2/29/92 8.50% Investment $ 999,492.83 4/20/90 3/31/92 8.763% Investment 1,019,779.01 5/14/90 2/15/93 8.49% FHLMC: Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. Investment $ 248,733.64 3/26/87 3/1/17 8.0% INVESTMENT TOTAL $10,495,909.28 SEATTLE 1ST NATL. BANK TRUST BALANCE 6/01/90 $ 516,905.07 Adjustment .01 BALANCE 6/30/90 516,905.08 8.625% TICOR TITLE INSURANCE CO. BALANCE 6/01/90 Adjustment BALANCE 6/30/90 TRUSTEE TOTAL GRAND TOTAL $ 10,000.00 711.04 10,711.04 $ 527,616.12 $11,023,525.40 Respectfully Submitted, / Gary Brut ch City Treasurer August 2, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of August 14, 1990 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES The following claim has been submitted to the City Clerk's office: Michael Freidman on behalf of Robert Michael Tons, 3465 Torrance Blvd. Suite G, Torrance , California, filed July 31, 1990; alleged false arrest. Claim 190-07-6 Recommendation: To deny claim and refer to City's Liability Claims Administrator. Note: The above noted claim is available for review in the Risk Manager's office. Respectfully submitted, • z%.L'ui Robert A. Blackwood Risk Manager July 30, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of August 14, 1990 REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATION FOR PURCHASE OF PROSPECT HEIGHTS SURPLUS LOTS Recommendation: That the City Council appropriate $250,000 plus $10,000 for miscellaneous costs from the Park and Recreation Facilities Tax Fund to CIP 513 for purchase of the five Prospect Heights surplus lots currently owned by the Hermosa Beach City School District. Background: A long term Council objective, reflected in the adopted Capital Improvement Program, is to purchase the five surplus lots next to Edith Rodaway Friendship Park in the southeast quadrant of our City. The purchase is to allow these lots to be dedicated to public open space in our City and made a part of the adjacent park. Analysis: As the Council is aware from numerous closed session discussions regarding real estate negotiations with the Hermosa Beach,City School District, the City and School now have agreed upon a price for these lots of $250,000, with the District to retain mineral rights and a right to repurchase if the property is used for any other purpose than open space. Funds for this acquisition have been designated in the Park and Recreation Facility Tax Fund, but were not appropriated to CIP 513 in the Capital Improvement Program pending resolution of our negotiations. It is now appropriate to fund this acquisition. (1,E-eco-<-1,1,-cr RC_ Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager KBN/ld Noted for fiscal impact: L -C Viki Copeland, Finance Director - 1 - 1f HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL August 6, 1990 Regular Meeting of August 14, 1990 SUBJECT: FINAL MAP #20176 (C.U.P. CON NO. 88-25) LOCATION: 620 10TH STREET APPLICANT(S): SADARO AND NOBUKO KOJIMA REQUEST: TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP FOR A 2 - UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Final Parcel Map #20176 which is consistent with the approved Tentative Parcel Map, and recommends the City Clerk be directed to endorse the certificate for said map. Background The Planning Commission approved Tentative Parcel Map #20176 at their October 18, 1988 meeting. Analysis The staff has reviewed the Final Map and found it substantially consistent with the Tentative Parcel Map approved by the Planning Commission and in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act. CONCUR: Respectfully supmit.ted, /1/ Robes-tsbn Michael Sc ubach V /Associate Planner Planning Director 4ia/` co cwtO rt Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager T/srfinmap 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, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #20176 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 620 TENTH STREET, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the City Council held a meeting on August 14, 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. 88-88 adop- ted after public hearing on October 18, 1988. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve as follows: 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Planning Commission and to the recommendation of the County Engineer, the City Council does hereby grant final approval of Parcel Map #20176 in the City of Hermosa Beach, State of California, being a Subdivision of the easterly 38' of the westerly 114' of Lot 5, Block 78, Second Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract, as re- corded in Book 3, Pages 11 and 12 of Maps, in the Office of the Recorder of Los Angeles, for a two -unit condominium proj- ect on land commonly known as 620 Tenth Street, Hermosa Beach, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 14th day of August, 1990. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM:/ (/�{ CITY ATTORNEY T/rsfinmap 2 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL August 6, 1990 Regular Meeting of August 14, 1990 SUBJECT: FINAL MAP #20323 (C.U.P. CON NO. 88-33) LOCATION: 834-840 MONTEREY BOULEVARD APPLICANT(S): MIKE HUBBARD REQUEST: TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP FOR A 4 - UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Final Parcel Map #20323 which is consistent with the approved Tentative Parcel Map, and recommends the City Clerk be directed to endorse the certificate for said map. Background The Planning Commission approved Tentative Parcel Map #20323 at their February 7, 1989 meeting. Analysis The staff has reviewed the Final Map and found it substantially consistent with the Tentative Parcel Map approved by the Planning Commission and in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act. CONCUR: ictiael Schubach Planning Director Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager T/srfinmap Resp(ectfu lly submitted, /7/10 Vv(J/1 Ken-Robertson Associate Planner lh 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, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #20323 FOR A FOUR -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 834-840 MONTEREY BOULEVARD, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the City Council held a meeting on August 14, 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. 89-14 adop- ted after public hearing on February 7, 1989. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve as follows: 4.1 44, 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 #20323 in the City of Hermosa Beach, State of California, being a Subdivision of Lots 5 and 6, Tract 1071, as recorded in Book 17, Page 136 of Maps, in the Office of the Recorder of Los Angeles, for a four -unit condominium project on land commonly known as 834-840 Monterey Boulevard, Hermosa Beach, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 14th day of August, 1990. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ( ,1.14„ ..„" (/i-,(, CITY ATTORNEY T/rsfinmap August 6, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council August 14, 1990 EVALUATION OF PUBLIC ACCESS ASCERTAINMENT SUBMITTED BY MULTIVISION CABLE TV Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Public Access Ascertainment as submitted by MultiVision Cable TV, be evaluated by Communications Support Corporation (CSC), the consultants previously contracted with to conduct the Compliance Audit and Analysis of the CATV system, at a cost not to exceed $1,000. Background: At your regularly scheduled meeting of January 10, 1989, the City Council approved the hiring of Communications Support Corporation to review the CATV Franchise Documents and assist the CATV Board in completing the duties assigned to them. As part of their Compliance Audit and Analysis, several recommendations were made regarding franchise non-compliance issues, among which, was a failure to conduct a needs assessment relative to public access. Section 5.3 CONSULTANT'S DOCUMENT REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS 8. Recommend informing [MultiVision] that they have not complied with the terms of the Transfer Agreement and that a statement of needs and a plan to improve public access based on those needs should be forthcoming -- immediately. Based in part on that recommendation, and the recommendation of the CATV Board, MultiVision was noticed (letter attached) of a breach of the CATV franchise Transfer Agreement on February 28, 1990. At the regularly scheduled meeting of March 13, 1990, the City Council, upon presentation of the noticed breach, requested that MultiVision prepare a written report to be submitted within sixty (60) days, that includes 1) a needs assessment; 2) an action. plan; 3) and an implementation plan. Analysis: Although members of staff have evaluated the ascertainment, a more thorough and industry conscious examination should be conducted to determine whether the submitted document satisfies not only industry guidelines, but a perceived view of the unique needs of our community. 1 lq The City Council, upon presentation of the ascertainment on June 12, 1990, expressed that it was inadequate; not representative of the Hermosa Beach community; had no schedule of commmunity events planned; and nothing that indicated how MultiVison is responding (Action Plan) to the needs assessment. Council's action at that time was to accept staff recommendation to refer to the CATV Board for review and recommendation. The CATV Board took no action, and had no comments. It is for that reason that Staff has reiterated their position to refer the ascertainment to CSC. Communications Support Corporation with its extensive analysis of the franchise documents and the current system, as well as their expertise in the field, is a knowledgeable source of background to which we can, on a per hour basis, avail ourselves. Alternatives: 1. Accept staff review of the ascertainment, and based on those comments, require further action/implementation from the operator. 2. Request RFP's for evaluation of the ascertainment. 3. Conduct a needs assessment of our own. CO CUR: _ A. enr. L. t:ten, Acting General Services Director Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager CITY MANAGER COMMENT: Respectfully submitted, Henry L. Staten, Acting General Services Director by Michele D. Tercero, Staff Liaison, CATV NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: Viki Copeland, Finance Director It appears to be appropriate that MultiVision be billed for the costs associated with the consultant's services as provided for in the Transfer Agreement.% , 2 BACKGROUND MATERIAL February 28, 1990 City of 2lermosa I3eacL Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 Mr. John Merritt, Regional Vice President MultiVision Cable TV Corporation 3041 East Miraloma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92806 Dear Mr. Merritt; On July 11, 1989, the City Council adopted all recommendations included in the Compliance Audit, Analysis, and Recommendations report submitted to the City on May 15, 1989 by Communications Support Corp (CSC). One of those recommendations was to recommend informing MultiVision Cable TV Corporation (MultiVision), that they have not complied with the terms of the Transfer Agreement related to a discussion of community needs and a plan to improve public access. Section 8 of the Transfer Agreement (Ordinance 86-5003), requires that Grantee shall provide a plan (dated no later than six months after passage of Resolution No. 86-5003, i.e., six months after 12/16/86), including milestones, for completion of the cable system, a plan for improved public access, a detailed maintenance plan, and a discussion of the needs of the city's citizens. On June 6, 1989, the City Manager notified you of MultiVision's failure to provide a discussion of community needs pursuant to the Transfer Agreement. While the City acknowledges MultiVision's efforts to support the local public access programs as described in your June 12, 1989 letter, the City.does not believe the company's responses represent an adequate plan and discussion of needs related to public access, that is required under the terms of the Transfer Agreement. Consequently, the City now elects to re -address this item of non-compliance. To remedy what we consider to be a material breach of the Transfer Agreement, I am considering submitting a recommendation to the City Council that the City impose liquidated damages in the amount of $1,000 per month for each month following July 6, 1989. I will provide you a minimum of ten days notice of the .date and time that this item will be discussed, once it is agendized. Secondly, you have made the City aware of potential franchise compliance difficulties facing MultiVision, due to your need to City Hall (213) 376-6984 • Community Center 379-3312 / 376-6984 • Fire t'epartment 376-2479 /376-6984 • Police Department 376-7981 / 376-6' secure staffing and equipment, brought on by the recent resignations of MultiVision's access staff and the removal of their personal equipment, which was used partially to support MultiVision's public access operations. These difficulties have resulted in elimination of public access from our community, which is a further breach of the agreement. Despite assurances from Karen Pescetti of your company that public access programming will be restored on Monday, February 26th; it was not. As you know, many members of the City's Cable Television Advisory Board have strong interests in Hermosa Beach's public access potentials. They have been vocal in the past and remain very committed to seeing that MultiVision's access operations reflect the needs and interests of the Hermosa Beach community, as evidenced by their recent discussions on January 22, 1990. Consequently, the Board at its January 22, 1990 meeting unanimously agreed, to direct City Staff to either enforce the terms of the agreement or to require MulitVision to work cooperatively with the City in hiring, at MultiVision's expense, a consultant to conduct a needs assessment to ascertain community needs related to public access, and recommend access improvements. Expenses related to this effort were recommended by the Cable TV Advisory Board not to exceed $10,000 and were suggested to be charged to MultiVision, once a consultant was selected and prior to the start of the project. To encourage MultiVision to consider the Board's proposal, the City would agree to not impose liquidated damages as indicated the the first page of this letter, provided MultiVision agrees to provide funding related to the needs assessment consultant and continues to foster activities related to the Hermosa Beach community as they pertain to public access. The latter is to say, that MultiVision must continue to show good faith efforts to support the playback and production efforts related to access programs currently underway and that arise during the course of the needs assessment process. The City would also be willing to provide both staff and CATV Board involvement in facilitating the Consultant's efforts. In summary, the Board's recommendations provide a "win-win" result: sufficient discussion of the needs of the community with regard to public access is accomplished at a time when MultiVision is faced with rebuilding its public access program, and MultiVision is given a reasonable opportunity to resume access operations without the risk of having to pay sizable liquidated damages related to existing access related items of non-compliance. Moreover, MultiVision's current franchise agreement with the City ,will expire on October 10, 1993. Pursuant to the Cable Act of 1984, there exists a six month window (30 to 36 months prior to - 2 - • the expiration of the franchise) for the City to open a public review to; 1) identify future cable -related needs and interests; and 2) review the performance of the cable operator. The window for the MultiVision franchise in Hermosa Beach is scheduled to begin October 10th of this year. The City agrees to allow the results of the proposed needs assessment to be offered as evidence by the company that it has been responsive to the City's needs, as part of MultiVision's efforts to support public access. In conclusion, I would like to advise the City Council at the March 13th City Council meeting, of your response to this letter. If you are interested in pursuing the Board's recommendation, we can set up a time at a later date, to discuss the RFP and solicitation of bids. I have attached sample RFP language for declaring what the City defines as a "needs assessment", and would look to recommendations from you as to firms you think should be included on our bidders list. I welcome your input and response. Sincerely, 7 0. Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager cc: City Councilmembers Michele Tercero, CATV Liaison Charles Vose, City Attorney Cable Television Advisory Boardmembers encl: Needs Assessment Statement KBN/mdt July 31, 1990 EVALUATION OF MULTIVISION ASCERTAINMENT In an attempt to avoid repeating previously stated remarks, I offer the following: 1. Ascertainment should have contained a copy of the returned questionaires, to allow City staff to evaluate the results independently. 2. Neither the CATV Liaison, the Acting Director, or the City Manager were contacted to express their views, concerns, ideas. 3. No request for an assessment of needs was made of the CATV Board. 4. Need more wide -spread information dissemination other than just available in the lobby of the office of MultiVision. 5. Did not address access to Character Generator as proposed by MultiVision and accepted by the City. 6. Was there any input from the educational institutions? In order to create a more conscious awareness of the Public Access offerings, a community -wide workshop featuring an overview of the opportunities, availability, and insight to the workings of Public Access should be scheduled, and aired over Channel 3. Maybe even the Access classes themselves could be taped for review at a later time, to allow interested viewers the chance to partake in the interest. This would allow the skeptical and apprehensive, the opportunity to see, first-hand, the relative ease with which Public Access can become a reality for them. Overall, MultiVision has made a most concerted effort to create and improve public access from a basically non-existent status. However, this report lacks the community -wide involvement necessary to ascertain the unique needs of Hermosa Beach, and project into the community the impetus with which to hone and mold Public Access to that which will most benefit the community as a whole. An evaluation of 80 persons out of an average 20,000 does not appear to constitute a accurate portrayal of the community's needs. Michele D. Tercero, Staff Liaison, CATV CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM DATE: June 19, 1990 TO: Leroy Staten and Michele Tercero FROM: City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft /tee RE: Review of MultiVision Cable's Ascertainment ***************************************************************** Per our discussion, the following are my comments on my quick review of the ascertainment. Please include these comments with those of your own, the City Council, and the Community Resources Department. The staff directly involved with Cable, being your department, should have the most thorough review, analysis, and list of recommendations. As we also discussed, we should set a time table with the commit- tee to return their recommendations to the City Council, and so reflect on the Council's tentative future agenda. 1 2 COMMENTS ON ASCERTAINMENT Inadequacy of survey - This was commented on by the City Council. It does not appear like the survey was adequate to represent a good cross section of the community. To improve the analysis of the ascertainment, I would sug- gest consideration of using Cable Company funds to pay for a review by our cable consultant. 3) The comments on the ascertainment should be coordinated with the City of Manhattan Beach, as programming obviously im- pacts both cities. It did not appear that the ascertainment incorporated our programming's impact on Manhattan,. Beach, or the impact of their programming on our residents. 4) The ascertainment does not appear to reflect how programming will be directed towards the identified needs; rather, it seems to be more based on the ideas of volunteers. The Cable Company's efforts to produce programming oriented to our needs needs to be identified. 5) There appears to be no steps or time tables to respond to the needs established in the ascertainment. Instead, there is a listing of programming that has been developed over the past couple of months. There needs to be better chronologi- cal steps, with time tables and goals. A goal of x hours of locally originated programming per month should be set. 6) The character generator is briefly mentioned in the ascer- tainment. It should be noted that the Cable Company's plan to allow cable generation from the respective City Halls has r• been retracted by a recent letter from the Cable Company. It also should be noted that the live action programming that was automatically imputed periodically during the character generation, which dealt with local issues of com- munity interest, has been discontinued. These two changes represent a decline in what has been offered for the local access channel by the Cable Company, and should be replaced. One example might be short news program segments that could be utilized on Channel 3 and perhaps during the local avail- able time on satellite programs. 7) The setting of priorities regarding use of Channel 3 does not seem well defined. The fact that they are considering leasing time on this channel is a concern. Other cable sys- tems have a separate channel each for government, education, and public access. The fact that all three must share Chan- nel 3 is a considerable limit in and of itself, not taking into account that part of the air time may be used for revenue purposes by the Cable Company. The ascertainment appears to show a major improvement in the Cable Company's effort in providing community access. While clearly late in arriving, the actions of the past couple of months reflect that the expectations of the City are being better understood by the Cable Company and -a serious attempt at respond- ing is being made. These efforts are much closer to the access opportunities envisoned in our franchise./ CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH INTER -OFFICE. MEMO TO: KEVIN NORTHCRAFT, CITY MANAGER DATE: 6/21/90 RE: MULTIVISION PUBLIC ACCESS FROM: MARY ROONEY ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** Per your request, I have reviewed the report prepared by MultiVision regarding their attention to public access. It is my recollection that Council had requested that MultiVision return to the City with an action plan for improved public access. The report submitted by cable spends most of the time reviewing what they already provide (i.e., training classes) and gives no attention to establishing objectives for future programs/changes. They did compile results from the survey they sent out to community leaders, however, no reference as to the response rate has been made. And what will be done about/with these suggestions? As an example, I had"submitted the idea of a systematic and audited public access application process. Will MultiVision set-up such a system? While the survey (if it had sufficient response) is a good start in finding out what the community wants, it should be the first step in creating a timelined plan of action for access. I would suggest some specific areas be addressed including: . inventory of equipment available for public use .comparison of access equipment with neighboring cable companies . inventory of equipment to be purchased within time frames (i.e., 6 months etc.) . programming suggestions/plan for implementation . audit system for requests/plan for implementation . publicity plan for access information (buy space in City newsletter?) .comparison of access time/programming with neighboring cable companies .plan for future surveys/attempts to find out what the community wants In short, I do not think it is sufficient to have general reports that reiterate definitions about what access is. We need to have an agreed upon plan that will enable the City to hold MultiVision accountable for access in specific terms. I think much of the difficulty in the past has evolved due to a lack of clarity and understanding on both parts about what is expected. Beginning with access, perhaps we can work with cable to improve the public perception about our cable service. 1-/(c: Michele Tercero Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council SUBJECT: PURPOSE: August 7, 1990 Regular Meeting of August 14, 1990 SPECIAL STUDY - STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO DIRECT STAFF TO EXAMINE POSSIBLE CHANGES AND ADDITIONS TO THE STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES IN ARTICLE 10 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. INITIATED BY STAFF Recommendation Direct staff to study possible changes and additions to Article 10, and to conduct the necessary environmental assessment, by adopting the attached resolution of intent. Background At the July 24, 1990 meeting the City Council introduced an ordinance to amortize existing businesses subject to the requirement for a Conditional Use -Permit (CUP) to obtain a CUP within two years of notification. Concern was expressed about the fairness of the program, considering that several businesses that already have a proper CUP are subject to lesser conditions than would be applied to businesses subject to the amortization. Analysis This proposed special study will examine the legality and effectiveness of placing additional standard conditions in the zoning ordinance text to apply to conditionally permitted uses, thereby subjecting all CUP's of the same type of use, both new and old, to the same basic set of conditions. Another option would be to bring all existing businesses subject to the requirement for a CUP up for reconsideration and review, if necessary. C NCUR: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manger Attachment 1. Proposed Resolution spectfully sbm,,.:L(te , Micha'er" Schubach Planning Director p/pcsrside 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO STUDY POSSIBLE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 10, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDING STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public meeting on August 14, 1990, and made the following Findings: A. Article 10 of the zoning ordinance includes a list of standard conditions applicable to certain uses which are only permitted with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP); B. The lists may be incomplete since some uses which require conditional use permits, which should have standard conditions, are not included on the list; C. Adding standard conditiops for certain uses, in conjunction with the amortization program to require existing businesses without CUP's to obtain them, will result in a more equitable application of CUP conditions to all affected businesses within the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby direct staff to study possible amendments to the zoning ordinance to add standard conditions for conditionally permitted uses. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1990. ATTEST: PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of. the City of Hermosa Beach, California CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY p/persint APPROVED AS TO FORM: rclAzue,e_ August 1, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council August 14, 1990 HOPE CHAPEL LEASE AGREEMENT (Rooms 5 and 6A) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by staff that Council approve the attached one year lease agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach and Hope Chapel for Rooms 5 and 6A in the Community Center. BACKGROUND Hope Chapel presently leases Rooms 5, 6A and 13 in the Community Center. They have been tenants in the Center since September, 1986. The Community Center rooms are used for storage for activities they hold in the Community Center, a nursery for Sunday services, counseling and youth activities. All of their services are provided free of charge. ANALYSIS The lease space for Rooms 5 and 6A is 924 sq. ft. with a monthly rental of $711. ($.77/sq. ft.) Per City Council direction this rate will be in effect until July 1, 1991 and then will increase to $.80/sq. ft. or $739 per month. The attached lease conforms to the present square footage rental policy approved by Council on March 19, 1990 with all other conditions of the former lease remaining the same. Concur: Mary C./.o• =y, Director Dep of Communityesources Ke in B. Northcraft City Manager 1 Respectfully •ubmi Mar ha Ernst Administrative Aide Noted for Fiscal Impact: 0:4; ria -lu ) Viki Copeland, Director Finance Department lk HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY CENTER LEASE AGREEMENT This Leasing Agreement is made and entered into on this, the First day of September , 19 90 , by and between the City of Hermosa Beach, a Municipal Corporation (City) and Hope Chapel (Lessee). A. RECITALS: 1. The City is the owner of a recreational/civic service facility generally referred to as the Hermosa Beach Com- munity Center (referred to herein as the "facility"). 2. The facility is subject to certain agreements and deed restrictions entered into on the 28th day of February 1978, between the City and the Hermosa Beach City School District and is further subject to certain provisions imposed by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment as set forth in a document entitled Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Real Property and dated the 28th day of February 1978. These documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City and are public documents and by reference.are incorporated into this leasing agreement and are referred to herein as the HUD and SCHOOL DISTRICT AGREEMENTS. 3. The Lessee desires to use a portion of the facility on the terms and conditions set out herein. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. TERM. The term of this lease shall be for a period of One (1) year commencing on the 1st day of September ,1990 , and ending on the 31st day of August ,19 91 2. DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES. The Lessee is leasing from the City that portion of the facility described as: Room 5 (792 sq. ft.) and Room 6A (132 sq. ft.) of the Community Center. 3. RENT. Lessee agrees to pay to the City rent ac- cording to the following schedule: Sept. 1, 1990 thru June 30, 1991 ($.77 sq. ft.) $711 per month. July 1, 1991 thru Aug. 31, 1991 $739 per month. ($.80 sq. ft.) Payable on the first day of the month. If this lease commences on a day other than the first day of the month, then the Lessee shall pay upon the commencement of the lease the rental on a pro rata basis for the remainder of that month and commence a full rental pay- ment on the first day of the following month. 1 3A. OTHER CONDITIONS. The following additional condi- tions are agreed to by the Lessee: 1. Lessee shall not mark, drill or deface any walls, ceilings, floors, wood or iron work without Lessor's written consent. 2. No signs or awning shall be erected or maintained upon or attached to the outside of the premises except such signs showing the business of the Lessee. All such signs shall be in accordance with the policy established by the Lessor. 4. USE. The Lessee agrees to use the premises only for the following purpose or purposes: Hope Chapel related activities And for no other purpose without the express written consent of the City. Lessee also agrees the premises shall not be used in violation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or School District Agreements as those agreements are interpreted by either the City or the Hermosa Beach City School District or the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 5. INSURANCE LIABILITY. Lessee shall obtain and maintain at all times during the term of this agreement Comprehensive General and Automobile Liability insurance protecting Lessee in amounts not less than $1,000,000 for personal injury to any one person, $1,000,000 for injuries arising out of any one occurrence, and $1,000,000 for property damage or a com- bined single limit of $1,000,000. Such insurance shall name City of Hermosa Beach and their officers, employees, elected officials and members of Boards or Commissions as additional insured parties. Coverage shall be in accordance -with the sample certificates and endorsements attached hereto and must include the coverage and provisions indicated. Lessee shall file and maintain the required certificate(s) of insurance with the other party to this agreement at all times during the term of this agreement. The certificate(s).is to be filed prior to the commencement of the work or event and should state clearly: (1) The additional insured requested; (2) Thirty day prior notice of change or cancellation to the City of Hermosa Beach; (3) Insurance is primary to that of the Additional Insured; (4) Coverage included; (5) Cross -liability clause. 6 WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE. Lessee shall obtain and maintain at all times during the term of this agreement Work- er's Compensation and Employers Liability insurance and fur- nish the City with a certificate showing proof of such coverage. Such insurance shall not be canceled or materially changed without a thirty (30) day prior written notice to: City Manager, City of Hermosa Beach. INSURANCE COMPANIES. Insurance companies must be rated (B:XIII) or better in Best's Insurance Rating Guide. 6. CONDITION OF THE PREMISES UPON TERMINATION OF THE LEASE. Lessee agrees to keep and maintain the premises in good con- dition and repair and to return to the City the premises upon termination of this lease in the same condition as when Les- see took possession of the premises excepting any repairs or alterations which were approved by the City, reasonable wear and tear excepted, and does promise to pay the City upon de- mand the reasonable sums to repair the premises in the event of a violation of this provision. 7. CONSTRUCTION. Lessee is prohibited from making any al- terations or performing any construction whatsoever on the premises without the expressed written approval of the City. Any such approval shall include provisions to protect the City from potential liens of labor and material persons. 8. DESTRUCTION, PARTIAL DESTRUCTION OR NECESSITY TO REPAIR BECAUSE OF CONDITIONS CAUSED BY OTHER THAN LESSEE. The City has no duty or obligation to reconstruct the premises in the event of destruction or partial destruction of the premises. The City at its option may reconstruct or repair the prem- ises, whereupon this lease shall remain in full force and effect except that no rent will be owing to the City during said period of reconstruction or repair if such reconstruc- tion or repair interferes with the tenancy created herein to the extent that the premises cannot be used for the purposes intended. In the event the City at its sole discretion determines not to reconstruct or repair the premises then either party at its option may cause this lease to be termi- nated and neither party shall have any liability each to each other. 9. HOLD HARMLESS. Lessee promises to hold the City harmless from any claims, causes of actions or damages of any nature whatever arising from Lessee's use of the premises and will pay the City any monies to which the City may become obli- gated because of Lessee's use of the premises. Lessee shall, if so instructed by the City, cause any occupants of the premises to execute a document in a form prepared by the City wherein that occupant shall expressly waive any right of ac- tion against the City for damages for any injury sustained because of Lessee's use of the premises. 10. RULES, REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES. The Lessee agrees to comply strictly with all applicable laws and any uniform Com- munity Center rules and regulations adopted by the City Council. 11. TAXES AND CHARGES. Lessee agrees to pay when due any and all taxes, assessments or charges levied by any governmental agency on or to the lease -hold premises. 12. DEFAULT. Should Lessee fail to pay any monies due pur- suant to this lease within three days after written notice from the City or to perform any other obligation required pursuant to the terms of this lease within thirty days after notice from the City, City may immediately cause this lease to be terminated and thereafter take any action and pursue all remedies available under the laws then existent in the State of California. 13. NOTICE. Any notice required to be made or given pur- suant to the provisions of this lease may be either personal- ly served upon the party or deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, LESSOR: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH . CITY HALL 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 LESSEE: HOPE CHAPEL 2420 Pacific Coast Hwy. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Any notices so given pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph will be deemed served twenty-four hours after the deposit thereof in the United States mail. 14. ATTORNEYS FEES. The parties agree that in the 'event any action is instituted concerning any of the provisions of this lease agreement, the prevailing party. may in the discretion of the court be granted as an additional item of damages its attorneys fees. 15. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. Lessee may not assign or sublease all or any portion of the premises without the writ- ten consent of the City, which consent may be granted or de- nied at the exclusive and total discretion of the City. 16. SUCCESSORS. Subject to prior provisions, this lease is binding upon the heirs, assigns and successors of interest of the parties. 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Hermosa Beach Community Center Lease Agreement at Hermosa Beach on the day first hereinabove set forth. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a Municipal Corporation, Lessor By CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY DATE: LESSEE: 5 Pastor, Hope Chapel August 6, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council August 14, 1990 REAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS 1989-90 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: 1. reappropriate amounts listed below from the 1989-90 Budget 2. ratify transfers totaling $32,797 from Prospective Expenditures and the Personnel Department to the Employee Benefit Account to provide funds for employee insurance premiums which were higher than anticipated. BACKGROUND Budget appropriations for 1989-90 expired June 30, 1990. Equipment and supplies or services must have been received by June 30th in order to be charged to the 89-90 budget. Departments have items or services that were budgeted and ordered in 89-90 but were not delivered or complete by year end. In these cases( unspent amounts for those items or projects need to be reappropriated if not included in the 90-91 budget request. ANALYSIS Reappropriations Department/Account Amount Reason GENERAL FUND FINANCE Equipment less than $500 $396 Chair, delivery late POLICE DEPARTMENT Lease payments $18,000 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Contract Services, Private COMMUNITY RESOURCES Equipment less than $500 CIP 142 Sidewalk Repairs $5,190 Lease purchase of mobile data terminal system, equipment not received Completion on seismic hazard mitigation program $396 Chair, delivery late $553 Dry erase board, delivery late $14,542 To complete remaining work on project. Council action increased contract amount and continued project 11 CIP 604 Various Building Improvements CIP 606 Police Department Remodel First Floor CIP 609 Possible City Hall Expansion CIP 615 Community Center Fire Alarm System PARKING FUND $18,768 $8, 164 $30,000 $10,000 CIP 148 Trash Enclosures $10,000 GRANT FUND CIP 512 Basketball Courts CIP 516 6th Street/Prospect Park CIP 517 Recreational Facilities CIP 518 Recreational Facilities $51,256 $7,958 Bids for air conditioning in the Police Department were received August 1990 Proposals are still being received on some portions of remodel $5,000 allocated for replacement of Council Chamber audience chairs with balance for modular furniture for Police Department and City Hall offices Installation to begin Summer 1990 Construction has just started on the prototype Project under design, to be constructed 90/91 Park improvements to be done 90/91 $2,566 Playground equipment, late delivery $12,305 Playground equipment, late delivery All of the amounts requested for reappropriation are unspent funds from the 1989-90 budget and are not included in the 1990-91 budget. The transfer from Prospective Expenditures ($12,385) and the Personnel Department ($20,412) is necessary since the Employee Benefit account is over budget. Original assumptions regarding premium increases were lower than actual increases, resulting in higher expenditures for the Employee Benefit account. Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft Viki Copeland Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council August 14, 1990 August 7, 1990 Regular Meeting of CIP SCHEDULE, 1990-91 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. receive and file the attached CIP schedule for the Fiscal Year 1990-91. Background: The Capital Improvement Program is an on-going development plan for projects throughout the City. This is the schedule for FY 90-91 of the present 5 -year program. Analysis: This schedule is a planning tool that is monitored and reviewed on a continuous basis during the year. Updated copies are provided for the City Council's review every three months. Respectfully submitted, Concur: A I•I �4L�u A - 4 Lynn A. Terry P.E. Ari �'ony Antich Director of Pu•lic Works Deputy City Engineer TY/cipsched obert Blackwood Acting City Manager PROJECT N0. 1 STREETS & SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS 85-137 Overlay Valley, Ardmore & Prospect 89-141 Street Rehabilitation 89-142 Sidewalk Repairs 90-144 Replace Strand Wall & Walkway 89-146 Street Median Upgrades 89-148 Trash Enclosures Downtown 89-150 Misc. Traffic Signal Improv. 90-151 Traffic Engineering Program 89-170 Slurry Sealing CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY90-91 PROJECT AMOUNT 1 JUL I AUG I SEP I OCT I NOV DEC I JAN I FEB I MAR I APR I MAY I JUN DESCRIPTION FUNDED 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 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 1 1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1-- -- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1,031,841 _4-1-4- —1—+-1!-- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1-+-4-1-4-4 -1- 1 1-4- 4-1- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i; i•.}••;••i••} i••}..;••i••}•. 129,750 34,542 446,000 10,000 10,000 20,000 40,500 337,219 STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS 88-201 Street Lighting Upgrades 22,000 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 88-406 Target Area 4 1,920,163 PARKS IMPROVEMENTS 89-506 Various Park Improv. 30,000 88-508 Park Irrigation 25,000 91-511 Railroad ROW Parking Lot 15,000 89-512 Basketball Courts 51,256 89-513 Purchase 5 Lots Adjacent to 0 Edith Rodaway Friendship Park 89-515 Purchase South School 0 89-516 6th Street & Prospect Park 7,958 89-517 Recreational Facilities 2,566 89-518 Recreational Facilities 12,305 PUBLIC BUILDINGS & GROUNDS IMPROVEMENTS 89-601 Fuel Tanks 4;000 89-604 Various Building Improv. 23,768 87-606 Police Dept. Remodel 8,164 91-608 Public Works Yard 0 89-609 Modular Furn. / Council Chairs 30,000 89-615 Comm. Ctr..Fire Alarm Sys. 10,000 90-616 Clark Bldg. Earthquake Reinf. 45,000 GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 89-701 City Parking Lot Improvements 15,000 * PROJECT COMPLETED 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11111 III 1 1 III 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 4••.••{..4..}.{..i..}..;..i..4..;..{•. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I' 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 -4- 1 i_1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 I III I 1-1- 4-F-� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 }" •{"4'•;'•{'•1••}";••i"4 {'•1 I I ; 1$ 1 1 1 1 1 -1-+-1-1•-+-a- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1..{..4..}..;..i..}••:.{.. ..}. 1..1..1..!....1.. .?..1..4..;..1..}..1.•1••1..;..{..1..}. 1..i..}..;..{....;••1•• •.}..;..i..}..;..{..} ..}..;..� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1-1--+-1-1-4-1-1--4- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I■■miml-1-1•-+-•1- I 1 1 I -+"F-1-•1- -1-1- 1 1 ..{..4..;..{..i..}. ;..i 11:: I 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 f, 1-I-4-1-+--I`-•1-1--f 4 4 1 1 1•1 : 1 I 1--1-1-4-1-1-+-1-I-+-4- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1..;..1..1..;..1..1..4.1..1 1•• 1 4, 1 41 '' 1:, 1 1 1 1---t--1'-1-4-4-1'-1-4-; .1 11 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1111111111111111111 I I 1 I LEGEND PROPOSAL DESIGN mrimagansma BIDDING CONSTRUCTION MEal August 7, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council August 14, 1990 MYRTLE AVENUE SANITARY SEWER EMERGENCY REPAIR, CIP 88-406 ACCEPT WORK AS COMPLETE Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Accept as complete the construction of the Myrtle Avenue Sanitary Sewer Emergency Repair (part of CIP 88-406). 2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the Notice of Completion. 3. Authorize staff to: a) release the retention payment to Colich & Sons; b) release Colich & Sons from the Faithful Performance Bond and the Labor and Materials Bond. 4. Appropriate an additional $39,233 to CIP 88-406 from the Sewer Fund for FY 89-90. Background: On April 9, 1990, City Council awarded a contract in the amount of $49,875 to Colich & Sons for the emergency replacement of sanitary sewer on Myrtle Avenue between 24th Street and 25th Street. The sewer was approximately 62 year old unreinforced concrete pipe, which suffered major deterioration resulting in a severe collapse. The collapse stopped the flow in the sewer pipe necessitating total and immediate replacement. Analysis: This section is divided as follows: 1. Construction A. Built According to Plans B. Time Schedule C. Notice of Completion D. Release of Bonds E. Construction Costs 2. Fiscal Impact and Project Accounting 3. Inspection 1. Construction A. Built According to Plans Staff recommends acceptance of the work as complete. The project has been built according to the plans prepared by Harris & Associates. B. Time Schedule Below is a summary of the project time schedule: Start Date Estimated Time Estimated Completion Date Actual Completion Date Days Past Estimate C. Notice of Completion April 26, 1990 14 Calendar Days May 10, 1990 May 18, 1990 8 Calendar Days Staff recommends that a Notice of Completion be approved by the City Council and recorded with the County Recorder's Office. D. Release of Bonds Pending City Council authorization; after the Notice of Completion is recorded, staff will release Colich & Sons from the obligation of the following bonds: Faithful Performance Bond Bonding Company Original Bond Amount Amount to be Released Bond Number Labor and Materials Bond Bonding Company Original Bond Amount Amount to be Released Bond Number Safeco Insurance Co of America $ 49,308 $ 49,308 5652192 Safeco Insurance Co of America $ 49,308 $ 49,308 5652192 Also pending Council approval; the retention payment, in the. amount of $4,483.10 will be released to Colich & Sons thirty (30) days after recordation of the Notice of Completion (provided no stop notices or mechanics liens are received within that time period). E. Below is a summary of construction costs for the project: Original Contract Amount $ 49,875.00 Quantity Adjustments (5,044.00) Final Construction Cost $ 44,831.00 2. Fiscal Impact and Project Accounting This project is funded 100% by the Sewer Fund. An additional appropriation of funds for FY 89-90 is required to cover the emergency repair costs. Originally, the FY 89-90 budget included design costs only. The design costs remained within the original budgeted amount but the emergency repair expenditures exceeded the budget. (Please refer to the attached budget detail sheet.) Shown below is a summary of FY 89-90 Expenditures: Total Expenditures FY 89-90 Budget FY 89-90 $119,233 (80,000) Amount over Budget $ 39,233 3. Inspection All staking and inspection was performed in-house by City staff. After construction was complete, the sewer line was inspected by remote video camera. Also, the replaced asphalt pavement in the trench was tested for density. The project was constructed to staff's satisfaction and passed both the video inspection and the material testing requirements. Alternatives: Other alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council are: 1. Do not accept as complete. Respectfully submitted, Brian Gengler Assistant Enginer Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Director of Finance Attachment: Budget Detail Sheet TY/myrt Concur: Lynn Terry Deputy City Engineer Ant ny Antich Director of Pub is Works 1-k-dika‘-467-20 Robert Blackwood Acting City Manager CIP 88-406 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS, TARGET AREA 4 EXPENDITURES PROJECT ELEMENTS EXPENDED PRIOR TO FY89-90 BUDGET FY89-90 EXPENDED THRU 2/28/90 FINAL EXPENDED 6/30/90 FINAL BALANCE 6/30/90 BUDGET FY90-91 BUDGET FY91-92 ESTIMATED FUTURE NEEDS ESTIMATED PROJECT TOTAL FY92-93 FY93-94 FY94-95 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING 16,800 892 119,233 892 0 1,792,220 17,692 PLANS, SPECS & ESTIMATES 30,875 75,488 73,168 • 2,320 0 104,043 CONSTRUCTION 180,000 50 1119,233 44,831 (44,831) 1,603,000 SO SO SO 12,096,562 1,647,831 INSPECTION 0 157,000 157,000 OTHER DIRECT COSTS 9,491 342 (342) 9,833 SUBTOTAL 57,166 76,380 0 119,233 (42,853) 1,760,000 0 0 0 0 1,936,399 CONTINGENCY 3,620 3,620 160,163 160,163 TOTAL EXPENDITURE S57,166 $80,000 SO ' $119,233 (S39,233) S1,920,163 SO SO SO SO 12,096,562 FUNDING SOURCES 127 6% UUT FUND 0 304,342 304,342 160 SEWER FUND 57,166 80,000 119,233 (39,233) 1,615,821 1,792,220 0 0 TOTAL FUNDING 557,166 180,000 50 1119,233 (139,233) 51,920,163 SO SO SO SO 12,096,562 TOTAL UNFUNDED NOTE: THE 144,831 UNDER CONSTRUCTION WAS EXPENDED FOR EMERGENCY REPLACEMENT OF SANITARY SEWER ON MYRTLE AVENUE BETWEEN 24TH STREET AND 25TH STREET. THIS REPLACEMENT HAD BEEN SCHEDULED FOR FY 90-91. August 9, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of August 14, 1990 REPORT REGARDING CIVIL SERVICE BOARD REVIEW OF CITY'S CLASS SPECIFICATIONS RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report regarding the Council's request to have the Civil Service Board review the City's Class Specifications. BACKGROUND: At the May 8, 1990 City Council meeting, the Council requested that the Civil Service Board review the City's class specifications. After receiving further clarification from the Council regarding the request and meeting with the Mayor on August 8, 1990, the Civil Service Board received and approved the Council's request. ANALYSIS: The Civil Service Board established a procedure for the review of class specifications. The procedure includes the following provisions: 1. Revisions are to be approved by the both the appropriate Department Director and Employee Organization prior to submittal to the Board. Should there be any dispute over the language con- tained in a given class specification, the matter in dispute will be submitted to the Board for resolution. 2. The Board is to be provided with a matrix which contrasts the existing class spec. to the proposed and indicates the impact of any wording added or deleted. 3. Following Board approval, the class specification will be submitted to the City Council for their approval. Any Board recommended changes to the class spec. will be reviewed by the appropriate Employee Organization, and if accepted, the specification will be forwarded to the Council for final approv- al. If a dispute develops, the class spec. will be returned to the Board. It is staff's goal to have two class specifications reviewed by the Board at each of their regularly scheduled meetings. At that rate, it will take approximately two years to review each of the o City's class specifications. Although there are 60 class specifications, those that have been developed recently may not require revision. Staff will identify those that are the most dated and commence reviewing them first. Respectfully submitted, Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director August 8, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of August 14, 1990 RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE LOAN TO THE ASSET FORFEITURE FUND RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council: 1) Approve a loan of $190,000 from the General Fund Contingency to the Asset Forfeiture fund for the operation of the narcotics enforcement units with interest charged at the average rate that the City is receiving on investments; 2) Appropriate $13,019.00 to the Employee Benefit account and $33,159.83 to the Retirement Account in the Special Investigations budget for fiscal year 1989/90; and 3) Appropriate $14,481.00 to the Employee Benefit account and $46,052.84 to the Retirement Account in the Special Investigations budget for fiscal year 1990/91. BACKGROUND: In December 1987, the Police Department was awarded $232,664 by U.S. Customs for our part in a narcotics/money laundering operation arrest and seizure in Hermosa Beach. In April 1988, Council approved the establishment of a special fund titled "Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Fund" for the purpose of funding narcotics enforcement for the City of Hermosa Beach using seized and forfeited drug money. At that same time, Council approved procedures and policies for use of the fund. In October 1988, a local narcotics unit became operational. In January 1989, a regional narcotics unit was formed by several Police Departments in the Southbay. In order to become a participant in this unit, approval was sought and given to establish a separate budget for narcotics enforcement funded entirely by forfeited money. It was anticipated that the initial funds awarded to the City would be sufficient to fund the unit until other seized moneys were awarded. 1 To date, the regional unit has seized cash in the amount of $21,884,861. Hermosa's share of this cash is approximately $2,600,000. Unfortunately, the return of the seized money is rather slow through the federal system so we have only received a check just recently for $90,934. The other $2.5 million is still pending arrival. On the local side, we have seized cash totaling $56,778 this year. We have received $12,464 back with the other $44,314 pending in the state system. ANALYSIS: Since there has been a great success in seizing narcotics money, more and more of the costs of operating a narcotics unit have been charged to the special fund. Recently, it was decided to charge the fund for the retirement and other employee benefits. These charges total $46,178.83 for 1989/90 and $60,533.84 for 1990/91. With the addition of these charges to the budget, all costs associated with the operation of narcotics enforcement are now being charged to the special fund. The initial funds received plus the interest earned on the money has been depleted and have not been replenished because of the slow forfeiture process. Because of this and other new charges to the fund, the budget for the narcotics units is now overdrawn. Because of these charges, the budget for 1989/90 will show a deficit of $78,488.88. This, coupled with the slow return of the seized funds has resulted in a depletion of the fund throwing it into a negative balance of $124,200.13. Factoring in the recent receipt of $90,934, leaves a negative balance in the fund of $33,266.13. In order to keep the narcotics fund in balance, it was suggested that a loan from the General Fund be made to the narcotics fund until sufficient funds are received from forfeitures to pay back the loan and balance the narcotics fund. It has also been suggested that interest be charged on the loan at the rate that the City is receiving on the other investments. 2 It is anticipated that we will be receiving more of the funds within the next 6 months. We have estimated that it requires approximately $21,110 per month to cover the operating expenses of the narcotics unit. Six months expenses of $126,660 plus the negative balance of $33,266.13 and $30,000 to cover equipment and miscellaneous costs of the unit totals $189,926.13. We believe that a loan of $190,000 will cover the costs of the operation for 6 months, or until we receive adequate funds. Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager Noted for Fiscal Impact: ctfu ly Submitted, Steve S.Wisniewski Director of Public Safety Viki Copeland, Director of Finance 3 August 8, 1990 City Council Meeting August 14, 1990 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 90-1041- "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE HERMOSA BEACH ZONING ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE AMORTIZATION OF BUSINESSES THAT REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS THAT CURRENTLY OPERATE WITHOUT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. "Submitted for adoption is Ordinance No. 90-1041, relating to the above subject." At the meeting of July 24, 1990, this ordinance was introduced by the following vote: -.- AYES: Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Respectfully submitted, City Clerk Concur: ( fic Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 '8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE 90-1041 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE HERMOSA BEACH ZONING ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE AMORTIZATION OF BUSINESSES THAT REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS THAT CURRENTLY OPERATE WITHOUT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 24, 1990 to receive oral and written testimony on this matter and made the following Findings: A. The Zoning Ordinance requires Conditional Use Permits for various commercial uses in commercial zones, for example, entertainment uses, automotive related uses, and adult uses, require conditional use permits because of their potential negative impacts on surrounding properties; B. Some of these businesses in the City were established prior to the requirement for Conditional Use Permits and, therefore, they operate without controls which are required of similar businesses; C. The establishment of conditions to regulate these uses consistent with those required for similar new uses will reduce the problems associated with the operations of these businesses; D. The subject text amendment is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Hermosa Beach, especially in regards to residential areas located in proximity to the subject commercial uses; E. The amendment is consistent with the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain the following amendments to the zoning ordinance, and the adoption of an environmental negative declaration. SECTION 1. Amend Section 13-5 as follows: 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. Amend the title of Section 13-5 to read as follows: "Sec. 13-5 Nonconforming commercial and manufacturing businesses subject to the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit" B. Move the entire current Section 13-5, titled "Nonconforming alcohol beverage establishment, on and off -sale." and locate it under sub -section "(a)" C. Add subsection "(b)" to read as follows: "(b) Remaining nonconforming commercial and manufacturing establishments subject to the requirement for a conditional use permit. The conditional use permit process, established pursuant to this ordinance, shall apply to the types of business establishments as identified on the commercial and manufacturing permitted use lists in Article 8 and Article 9. All such establishments which do not possess a conditional use permit as required by Article 8 and Article 9 on the effective date of Ordinance No. 90-104( shall be required to apply for a conditional use permit within two (2) years from the date of receiving notification from the City of the requirement to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. Upon receiving notification from the City, each establishment shall have a maximum of two (2) years to apply for a Conditional Use Permit, and once application is made it must diligently pursue its application and receive a conditional use permit. Said application must be heard before the planning commission within six (6) months of the filing of the application. Any applicant may be granted an extension of time within which to receive their conditional use permit if they can demonstrate to the planning commission there is good cause for an extension of time necessary to receive the permit. If no permit is either sought or granted within the time periods specified above, the establishment, or the portion of the establishment, conducting an operation subject to a conditional use permit requirement shall no longer have the legal authority to operate." 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. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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: F CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 3 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council August 6, 1990 City Council meeting of August 14, 1990 CURBSIDE RECYCLING ALTERNATIVES RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council direct staff to negotiate an amendment to the current refuse contract with Browning Ferris Industries to provide a residential curbside recycling program. BACKGROUND On February 27, 1990, the City Council approved the list of 1990 city goals which included curbside recycling. On May 8, 1990 the City Council directed staff to research this matter and to schedule a public hearing to receive citizen input. This public hearing was noticed twice in the Easy Reader and was noticed on the Cable TV community access channel. Individual notices were sent to those citizens who have previously sent letters expressing an interest in recycling. ANALYSIS As reported to the City Council on May 22, 1990, the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) requires cities to develop a source reduction and recycling element (SRRE). The SRRE must contain a recycling component. In an effort to comply with AB939, staff has been meeting with a group composed of South Bay cities and the County Sanitation District to provide for a group approach to addressing the tasks involved. An RFP has been generated by the County Sanitation District to solicit a consultant to prepare the required SRRE for each participating city. A joint powers agreement will be submitted for approval in the near future. AB939 requires that cities divert 25% of all solid waste from landfills by recycling, source reduction or composting by January 1, 1995 and divert 50% by January 1, 2000. In order to achieve or approach these goals, it will be necessary to make several adjustments to our current methods of disposing of solid waste. The SRRE which will be prepared will address the multitude of measures that must be implemented to comply with the goals set by AB939. It is a certainty that curbside recycling will be a required measure to meet the initial goal of 25% solid waste diversion. Due to that certainty, staff sees no reason not to proceed with a curbside recycling program. Additional recycling programs including commercial and industrial can be developed - 1 - later, following the information provided in the SRRE and utilizing experience gained from a curbside recycling program. The January 1990 Report on Curbside Recycling prepared by the California Department of Conservation indicates that 130 communities statewide have existing or pilot curbside recycling programs with an additional 83 communities considering or in the process of implementing a program. Clearly these numbers are expected to increase dramatically due to the requirements of AB939. In the South Bay area, several communities have initiated a curbside recycling program or are in the process of implementing a program. These cities include Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Rolling Hills Estates, Torrance and Palos Verdes Estates. All of these programs are voluntary, not mandatory. The participation rate of the immediate neighboring communities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach has been impressive. Redondo Beach reports a participation rate ranging from 50 - 71% depending on the pickup day. Manhattan Beach participation rate has steadily risen from the inception of the program at 54.73% to the latest monthly figure of June at 76.35%. It should be noted that, while the participation rates are impressive, the curbside program diverts approximately 12% of the solid waste stream in Manhattan Beach demonstrating that considerable additional measures will be necessary to meet the AB939 goal of 25% diversion. It is anticipated that Hermosa Beach residents would participate at a level consistent with that of our neighboring cities. There are two potential methods to pursuing establishment of a curbside recycling program. One method would be to solicit proposals from any firms interested in providing the service. The other method would be to negotiate with the current refuse contractor, Browning-Ferris Industries, to establish acurbside recycling program. It is staffs recommendation that an•amendment to the current refuse contract be negotiated with Browning-Ferris Industries as opposed to soliciting proposals. Advantages of this approach include the following: 1) BFI's extensive experience with providing refuse service for residential and commercial accounts in Hermosa Beach. 2) BFI's national experience with recycling. 3) Ability to recover recycling costs through the normal billing process of the contractor with rates approved by the city council. 4) A single contractor for all refuse matters should minimize conflicts and allow for speedier resolution of any concerns that may develop. 5) Ability to establish refuse rates which consider all refuse removal costs and benefits derived from lower landfill costs due to diverted material. 6) Ability to negotiate the cost per household for the program based on mutually agreeable criteria. 7) Ability to expedite implementation of a program. If the City Council desires to solicit proposals to establish a curbside recycling program, it is recommended that the City Attorney review the current refuse contract to determine if so doing would violate any terms of the agreement. Browning-Ferris Industries has previously submitted a curbside recycling proposal at the request of staff to demonstrate the type of program which could be implemented in Hermosa Beach. That proposal is attached to this report and would serve as the basis for a negotiated amendment to the current refuse contract. The curbside recycling program would consist of once weekly pickup at the same time as regular refuse pickup. Recyclable materials would be placed commingled in a provided container. Commingling of materials results in greater participation by residents since it requires less effort; however resultant revenues are less since further separation and processing is necessary. The program would initially be available to single family dwellings and multi -family dwellings of four units or less. Larger multi -family complexes do not lend themselves to curbside recycling programs and would have to be addressed in a future program. Regardless of the approach used to implement a curbside recycling program it will be necessary to once again prohibit scavenging in order for a program to be successful. All curbside recycling programs rely on revenues obtained from recycled materials to offset the costs of running the program. SUMMARY The provisions of AB939 effectively mandate that the city provide curbside recycling, if not now, in the near future. While the required SRRE is being prepared staff sees no reason not to proceed with implementing a curbside recycling program and recommends that a contract amendment be negotiated with Browning-Ferris Industries to provide the service. ALTERNATIVES 1) Direct staff to prepare an RFP for providing a curbside recycling program following review of the current refuse contract by the City Attorney. 2) Delay action on establishing a curbside recycling program pending completion of the Source Reduction and Recycling 3 Element (SRRE) mandated by AB939. The SRRE is expected to be completed by July 1, 1991. Concur: Lan 1 c c �u✓t ' i Robert Blackwood Acting City Manager 4 Respectfully submitted, 1A . -e. Wil iam Grove Director of Bldg. & Safety LAURIE BYREN 642 24TH STREET. HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 . (213) 376-2041 William Grove, Director August 3, 1990 Department of Building and Safety RECEIVED City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive AUG 0 61990 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Building& Sateiy Ref: August 14, 1990 Public Hearing regarding Curbside Recycling Dear Mr. Grove: On April 23, 1990, I wrote a letter to all councilmembers regarding the implementation of a curbside recycling program in Hermosa. Even though California has legislated that cities do not have to begin recycling until June 1991, I urged the council not to wait for that deadline before beginning a program. It's embarrassing that Hermosa has no plan on the books, while the curbside recycling programs of Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach are already enjoying a 50% level of participation. I understand there are some logistical problems such as collecting recyclable items at multi -family dwellings, but why can't we start with some interim measures? I suggested the following alternatives to Council: 1) Distribute recycling containers to single-family dwellings for newspapers, glass, aluminum and plastic. The Conservation Corps based in San Pedro delivers recycling bins to local cities free of charge. As far as the costs of collection, I would gladly pay an additional Si a month. 2) Have a monthly drop-off site in the city for people to bring their recyclable items. Possible sites could be Valley School or Prospect Heights School (now leased to IBS). 3) Have a annual drop-off site in the city for people to bring the remains of any toxic products and chemicals, such as nail polish, engine oil, paint, cleaning liquids, etc. There are many people, in addition to me who left their -names with the Building and Safety department as interested citizens for recycling. As I mentioned to Council, we could be a resource to help the city determine public sentiment and to "market" the recyling program. I look forward to your comments during the August 14th public hearing. Sincerel Laurie Byren STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF THE VOLUME, PARTICIPATION, "MANHATTAN AND a"LVtj VtU JUL 31 1990 Building & Satety DIVERSION RATES F O R BEACH RECYCLES- CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROGRAM WEEKLY RESIDENTIAL VOLUME (tons) OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS MONTH PARTICIPATION RATE PERCENT TRASH & TOTAL Newspaper Glass Tin Aluminum Cumulative Monthly DIVERTED YARDWASTE Average Average (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) Other COMMERCIAL CITY-WIDE PET Items Refuse PERCENT DIVERTED (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) DEC 1989 54.73% 54.73% 17.89% 1,374.96 299.76 220.10 71.86 5.38 1.87 .55 .86 921.03 11.54% JAN 1990 59.74% 64.75% 19.33% 1,512.05 362.68 243.34 107.61 8.06 2.85 .83 1.27 1,011.82 12.56% FEB 1990 60.89% 63.17% 19.39% 1,309.84 315.24 223.29 82.91 6.21 2.19 .64 .98 865.44 12.65% MAR 1990 62.51% 67.39% 19.32% 1,446.18 347.15 254.88 80.94 7.57 2.50 1.25 3.76 1,027.30 12.29% APR 1990 64.20% 70.94% 19.01% 1,443.85 340.24 252.80 76.18 6.93 2.44. 1.91 6.05 970.83 12.32% MAY 1990 66.01% 75.07% 19.05% 1,635.14 386.58 285.73 87.52 9.52 2.09 1.72 7.40 1.016.74 12.69% JUN 1990 67.49% 76.35% 18.27% 1,504.65 337.99 249.99 76.61 7.87 1.89 1.63 7.84 974.08 11.97% Averages 67.49% 67.49% 18.89% 1,460.95 341.38 247.16 83..37 7.36 2.26 1.22 4.02 969.61 12.29% Average weekly volume of City refuse = 640.61 tons (Commercial= 223.76, Residential= 338.07, & Recyclables= 78.78). Average monthly volume of City refuse = 2,775.96 tons (Commercial= 969.61, Residential= 1,464.97, & Recyclables= 341.38). Annualized volume of City refuse = 33,311.50 tons (Commercial= 11,635.27, Residential= 17,579.68, & Recyclables= 4,096.54). Data Supplied By Western Waste Recycling (213) 374-4006 --- 2420 W. Compton Boulevard, Redondo Beach, CA 90278 Calculations Performed By Public Services (213) 545-5671 x 380 --- 3621 Bell Avenue, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 WEEKLY PARTICIPATION RATE: The average percentage of households participating each week (i.e. The actual number of households where bins were set out divided by the potential number of households where collection was attempted). PERCENT DIVERTED: The percentage of residential refuse which was placed into the recycling stream instead of being sent to the landfill (i.e. The actual tons of authorized recyclable materials collected divided by the tons of residential garbage and yardwaste plus the tons of authorized recyclable materials and the tons of unauthorized other materials collected). VOLUME TOTAL: The total tons of authorized recyclable materials collected. Other items (e.g. HDPE) have been excluded from the Volume Total because these materials are not authorized yet. File: RECSUM 8, Printed on July 18, 1990 at 7:33 PM Page 1 of 1 Page CITY O F MANHATTAN S EAC H MEMORANDUM RECEIVED J U L 311990 Building& Satety DATE: July 20, 1990 FILE: L900074A TO: MERLE F. LUNDBERG, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE FROM: DAVID C. LUDWIG, PUBLIC SERVICES CONTRACT MANAGER THROUGH: CARL ABEL, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICES SUBJECT: JUNE 1990 CURBSIDE RECYCLING PARTICIPATION RATE Once again-- for the seventh consecutive month-- residential participation in the curbside recycling program was greater than 50% in the month of June 1990. Participation was 76% in June 1990. Participation has averaged 67% for seven (7) months of the program's operation (since it began on December 4, 1989) . Diversion of recyclables from the residential waste stream is about 19%. Di- version of recyclables from the waste stream of the City as a whole is about 12%. The attached chart summarizes the monthly figures since the program began. Revised reports for each month have also been enclosed. These revised, reports more accurately reflect the data gathered and the percentage of residential participation. Please discard all prior reports. attachment: FILE FILE FILE FILE FILE FILE FILE FILE RECSUM B (Statistical Summary of Recycling Facts) REC9006D (Recycling Facts for June 1990) REC9005D (Recycling Facts for May 1990) REC9004D (Recycling Facts for April 1990) REC9003D (Recycling Facts for March 1990) REC9002D (Recycling Facts for February 1990) REC9001D (Recycling Facts for January 1990) REC9012D (Recycling Facts for December 1989) cc: Bill Smith, City Manager Sherry Morelan, Finance Operations Supervisor City of Hermosa Beach RecycleNOW Proposal Submitted by: Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. 14905 South San Pedro Street Gardena, California 90247 Hermosa Beach RecycleNOW Program Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 BFI RECYCLING EXPERIENCE 2 3.0 VENDOR REQUIREMENTS 3 4.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS 4.1 Projected Participation Rate 4 4.2 Types of Materials 5 4.3 Projected Materials Volumes & Prices 5 4.4 Collection Vehicles/Recording Equipment Option 6 4.5 Ccntainers 7 4.6 City Hall and School RecycleNOW 8 4.7 Staffing Levels 9 4.8 Public Participation Campaign 10 4.9 Monthly Recycling Project Cost Estimates 17 4.10 RecycleNOW Personnel 18 4.11 References 20 5.0 GREEN WASTE RecycleNOW OPTIONS 21 1.0 Introduction Hermosa Beach has an exciting opportunity to initiate a curbside recycling program which will be considered a model for similar communities throughout Southern California. From its fifteen years of experience in collection and recycling, and its current curbside recycling service to over 800,000 homes across the Country, BFI has designed a program for Hermosa Beach which will establish state-of-the-art for residential curbside recycling. BFI's Hermosa Beach Curbside RecycleNOW Program will be unique in the following ways: Full Range of Recyclables The BFI Hermosa Beach RecycleNOW Program will include the full range of curbside materials. Newspapers, tin and aluminum cans, glass and PET plastic (soda bottles) all will be collected in the BFI Hermosa Beach RecycleNOW Program. More Convenient Home Storage We recommend that each residence- be provided with a single, appropriately sized recycling bin in which participants can conveniently store all recyclable materials and place at curbside for weekly pickup. BFI's single -bin system increases program participation. BFI successfully uses this system in such diverse communities as: Pasadena, California; Blaine, Minnesota; Jacksonville, Florida; and Edmonton, Alberta. Operational Plan Browning-Ferris Industries proposes no changes in procedures for residential refuse collection for the City of Hermosa Beach. We will continue to operate side -loaders, Monday thru Thursday, servicing single family units once weekly. Residential refuse collection for Hermosa Beach will be supervised by Allen Jenkins and Nathaniel Buie, our current supervisors for the City, who have long term experience with the City. 1 2.0 Related Experience Browning-Ferris Industries is the second largest solid waste collection, disposal, and recycling company in the world. The company has been in existence since 1969 and currently operates in more than 300 cities in the United States and in 12 foreign countries. BFI has been a nationwide leader in recycling since 1973, when it acquired Consolidated Fibres, Inc. and recycled over 1 million tons of paper annually. Since that time, BFI has diversified its recycling activities and offers the following programs: o Residential Curbside Recycling o Commercial Curbside Recycling o Office Waste Reduction Programs o Yard Waste Collection and Recycling o Waste Oil Collection and Recycling o Mixed Waste Processing Centers - The Recyclery o Buy -Back Centers o Education Programs Today, BFI provides curbside recycling, yard waste collection, waste oil recycling, and integrated resource recovery services to over 700,000 homes and families nationwide. These programs have been implemented under BFI's trademarked "RecycleNOW" name. Along with references in Section 4.11 a comprehensive listing of BFI's current recycling activities appears on the following pages. The financial strength and proven track record of BFI, combined with the cooperation and participation of the City and local residents, will make the Hermosa Beach RecycleNOW program one of the premier curbside recycling programs in Southern California. Included in the original copy of this proposal is BFI's most recent Annual Report (Appendix II). 2 71. I egg J Systems - BROWNING -FERRIS INDUSTRIES Pacific Region CURRENT RECYCLING ACTIVITIES Curbside Collection EAST CENTRAL REGION Howard County, MD Franklin Lakes, NJ Ramsey, NJ Wallington, NJ Buckingham Twp., PA Chalfont, PA Doylestown, PA Doylestown Twp.,PA New Britain, PA New Britain Twp., PA New Hope, PA * New Milford, NJ Plumstead Twp., PA Ridgeway, PA (pilot) Solebury Twp., PA Warrington Twp., PA Warwick Twp., PA * Fairfax Co., VA Williamsburg, VA TOTAL FOR EAST CENTRAL REGION ILLINOIS REGION Bartlett, IL Bloomingdale, IL Downers Grove, IL East Dundee, IL Elmhurst, IL * Mt. Prospect, IL * Palatine, IL South Barrington, IL TOTAL FOR ILLINOIS REGION 6,061 3,000 4,000 2,300 2,700 700 3,400 3,500 700 2,400 900 4,040 1,800 1,250 1,900 3,500 700 18,000 2,105 Units Units Units Units Units Units Units Units Units Units Units Units Units Units Units Units Units Units Units 62,956 Units 3,000 Units 1,200 Units 903 Units 788 Units 1,500 Units 8,000 Units 8,470 Units 700 Units 24,561 Units Materials Collected AL GL NP PL OCC X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X• X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X' X X X X .61 ::ORTHEAST REGION '`uincy, MA c: ifton Park, NY . Greenbush, NY Glenville, NY Guilderland, NY Nifkayuna, NY Rotterdam, NY r Subscription Subscription Subscription Subscription Subscription TOTAL FOR NORTHEAST REGION NORTHWEST REGION Apple Valley, MN Bloomington, MN Burnsville, MN Eagan, MN Edina, MN Blaine, MN Edmonton, Alberta Hennepin Recycling New Hope Crystal Brooklyn Center Inver Grove Hgts.,MN Lakeville, MN (ndotHeights, MN a Asseo, MN Savage, MN So. St. Paul, MN * St. Louis Park, MN * Tonka Bay, MN West St. Paul, MN Subscription Subscription Subscription Subscription Group (HRG) Subscription Subscription Subscription Subscription Subscription Subscription TOTAL FOR NORTHWEST REGION PACIFIC REGION Belmont, CA Burlingame, CA Foster City, CA Half Moon Bay, CA Hillsborough, CA Pasadena, CA Redwood City, CA San Carlos, CA San Mateo, CA San Mateo County, CA TOTAL FOR PACIFIC REGION 28,000 Units 5,000 Units 1,000 Units 2,300 Units 1,400 Units 300 Units 2,300 Units 40,300 Units 3,000 13,027 2,766 1,050 13,361 9,200 63,000 • 5,200 7,500 9,300 1,360 650 202 706 45 1,580 12,000 1,100 1,276 Units Units Units Units Units Units Units Units Units Units Units Units Units Units Units Units Units Units Units 146,323 Units 6,417 6,092 1,932 3,455 2,000 15,482 8,081 20,587 7,513 Units Units Units Units Units Units Units Units Units Units 77,722 Units !';i:L'C:rials Cc1 CC. . A.L GL NP PL OCC X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ,X X X X R X X X X X X X X X X X X X Curbside Collection Continued SOUTH CENTRAL REGION * "layton, MO C_neve Ceour, MO Springfield, MO Cincinnati, OH * Brentwood, TN Subscription Subscription TOTAL FOR SOUTH CENTRAL REGION SOUTHEAST REGION Alachua County, FL Broward County, FL Gainesville, FL Jacksonville, FL St. John's County, FL TOTAL FOR SOUTHEAST REGION SOUTHWEST REGION Acadia Parish, LA Breaux Bridge, LA T)uson, LA cott, LA 'oungsville, LA TOTAL FOR SOUTHWEST REGION Yard Waste Collection Weymouth, MA Crystal, MN Eden Prairie, MN Minneapolis, MN St. Louis Park, MN Tonka Bay, MN Eau Claire, WI TOTAL Oil Collection Santa Clara County Milpitas, CA TOTAL C_kL CURBSIDE COLLECTION SERVICED 450 Units 4,200 Units 700 Units 100,000 Units 162 Units 105,512 Units 15,000 5,031 20,086 7,050 3,000 Units Units Units Units Units 50,167 Units 20,000 Units 2,280 Units 600 Units 1,300 Units 475 Units 24,655 Units 19,900 Units 4,400 Units 6,000 Units 19,900 Units 12,000 Units 588 Units 21,000 Units 83,788 Units 7,300 Units 10,000 Units 17,300 Units 633,284 Units Materials Collected AL GL NP PL OCC X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Grass Leaves 3 Cent r--_ Rowan., County, NC Cranbury, NJ 3,••► -Back Centers a Mateo, CA llentown, PA East Jefferson Parish, LA (start-up July 1, 1989) Compost Ocean Spray, MA Pine Bend Landfill Heights, MN Seasonal cranberry compost - 120 TPD Yard waste Recycleries Tampa, FL -15,000 sq. ft., 1500 TPM - Baler w/BB Cap. - plans to expand bldg. and add sorting systems Akron, OH -9,000 sq. ft., 700 TPM - Process paper (all grades) - will be a sorting operation later Mansfield, OH -7,500 sq. ft., 600 TPM (maximum) - Primarily paper sorting operation DuBois, PA -4,000 sq. ft., 250 TPM — Paper sorting operation • Cleveland, OH -10,000 sq. ft., 1,500 TPM - Baler and buyback center. Rennovation underway to convert to full sorting operation. -44,000 sq. ft., 2,200 TPM - Serving 76,000 homes in a comingled source separation program; expansion to 92,000 expected. ,n Mateo, CA Commercial Recycling Toronto, ONT, CN - Mandated corrugated cardboard separation TransAmerica Bldg., Los Angeles, CA - Office paper recycling program Pinellas County Govt. & Municipal Bldgs., Fl - Office paper recycling program (Tampa SMSA) Louisiana State House of Representatives - Office paper recycling program (paper & aluminum) * St. Louis Park - pilot program - newspaper recycling in 519 multi -family, dwelling units Bale Houses Chicago, IL St. Louis, MO Permitting Process The Recyclery - The Recyclery - The Recyclery - "he Recyclery - Recyclery - Newby Island (San Jose, CA) - 350 TPD processed St. Louis, MO - 150 TPD processed Knoxville, TN - 500 TPM recovered Eden Prairie, MN - 150 TPD processed InverGrove Heights, MN - 150 TPD processed 3.0 Vendor Requirements BFI is willing to absorb up -front capital costs of the Hermosa Beach RecycleNOW Program, including trucks and containers with a five-year program. Costs in a program of lesser term would need to be negotiated with the City of Hermosa Beach. The terms of the present refuse hauling contract between BFI and the City of Hermosa Beach could be extended so that both the refuse and recycle terms expire at the same date. BFI will provide the City with monthly reports, which will include: o the current resale value; o the number of households participating; o the percentage of participation; and o the tonnage of material recovered. BFI will provide the data and work with the City of Hermosa Beach to insure that the City is in compliance with the State of California "Recycle Law" AB 939 regulations. 3 4.1 Projected Participation Rate BFI's Hermosa Beach RecycleNOW proposal is based on a projected weekly participation rate of 40%. A promotion and marketing campaign similar to the sample included in the proposal addendum, coupled with the demographic characteristics of the Hermosa Beach community, supports the high participation rate projected. Please be aware that there is a vast difference between a weekly participation rate and a monthly participation rate. Participation statistics from local recycling programs are often ambiguous in this regard. An Hermosa Beach RecycleNOW Program with 40% weekly participation will represent one of the most successful recycling programs in Southern California. 4 4.2 Types of Materials BFI proposes to collect and recycle the following materials in the Hermosa Beach RecycleNOW Program: o Newspapers o Glass o Aluminum cans o PET/HDPE Plastics o Tin cans (Note that waste oil is already being collected in Hermosa Beach.) 4.3 Projected Materials Quantities Tons Material Daily Weekly Annual Newspaper 11.29 45.15 2348.0 Glass 1.44 9.75 507.0 Aluminum .19 .75 39.0 PET/HDPE .09 .35 18.0 Tin cans .35 1.40 73.0 Total 14.35 57.40 2985.0 5 4.4 Collection Vehicles Two (2) vehicles will be required for the Hermosa Beach RecycleNOW Program. The vehicles will be designed by BFI, and will be equipped with walk-in cabs and dual -drives (left and right-hand drive). The cost per vehicle is approximately $75,000.00. The exact type of vehicle will depend upon the final type of program selected by the City of Hermosa Beach. 6 4.5 Containers BFI proposes a one -bin system. Single -Bin System BFI recommends providing each residence with a single, appropriately sized (14 -gallon) bin for the Hermosa Beach program. The single bin has several advantages: o convenient, space -saving storage o less curb clutter o discourages scavenging o lower capital outlay BFI was the first company in the U.S. to require its curbside recycle bins be made with recycled material. The rectangular bins for the Hermosa Beach RecycleNOW Program will be made from recycled plastic. The bins will be manufactured in the Los Angeles area. Delivery of the bins can be accomplished by BFI, the City of Hermosa Beach, or Job Corp. 7 4.6 City Hall and School RecycleNOW BFI also proposes an office paper collection program for schools and City Hall to collect higher grade office papers. BFI would provide small desk top containers, and large "cart" collectors for each school and for City Hall. These small, but highly visible, recycle containers will indicate that the City and schools are committed to recycling. They also serve as an educational tool by constantly reminding students and staff of the need to recycle. As part of BFI's community involvement program, the school/City Hall portion of the recycling program will be done at no cost to the City or school system. Please note that BFI has been actively involved in office waste reduction recycling programs. BFI is providing office paper recycling service for the Transamerica and Wells Fargo complexes in downtown Los Angeles. 8 4.7 Staffing Level The City of Hermosa Beach RecycleNOW Program will operate two (2) full-time trucks with one driver each. Assuming high program participation levels, the trucks will operate for an estimated 8 hours per day. The RecycleNOW drivers will be supervised by Darrell Chambliss, who currently supervises BFI's recycling operations in the Hermosa Beach area. Any complaints or missed pickups of recyclables will be easily handled by Darrell Chambliss, who circulates through the area and is in radio -contact with the BFI customer service department. Customer service and other support staff and management have been incorporated into G&A. 9 4.8 Public Participation Campaign Introduction There are two goals in the design relations program: 1. To maximize participation program; and 2. To be cost-effective. of a curbside recycling public in the curbside recycling A well designed public awareness campaign will increase participation in the curbside recycling program. In other words, we must send the right messages and use the right methods to reach the community. The messages should be simple and center around two themes which will appeal to the educated, environmentally sensitive residents of Hermosa Beach: that curbside recycling is convenient and that recycling has environmental and economic benefits to the entire community. The primary method for transmitting these messages in a cost effective way is to utilize the many local organizations in Hermosa Beach. This means an intensive grassroots effort coupled with public service announcements. There will also be aggressive advertising and a direct mail campaign utilizing a readily identifiable logo. 10 The Start -Up Campaign Media Relations: Write and distribute press releases outlining the curbside program, its environmental and economic benefits, and a fact sheet on the details of the program. Contact all papers which cover Hermosa Beach (The Daily Breeze, Los Angeles Times South Bay Section, The Beach Reporter, and The Easy Reader) meet with editors and editorial boards in order to encourage editorials and feature articles about the program. Assist in preparation of Public Service Announcements on the curbside recycling program to be shown on the local access cable TV Channel. These should feature elected officials, the city manager, and well known local residents as well as school children and senior citizens. These PSA's can be a mix of convenience and environmental messages. A typical environmental message might be: "Did you know that recycling one glass bottle saves enough energy to light a 100 watt bulb for four hours? That's why I support the curbside recycling program." The audio portion of these announcements can be sent to KFOX for use as Public Service Announcements. Local Organizations: BFI will assist in setting up and providing initial staffing for a Hermosa Beach Recycling Citizen's Advisory Committee. The Committee will act as advisors to the program and assist in the speaker's bureau and in contacting local organizations. The Advisory Committee, with BFI's assistance, could organize a speaker's bureau and begin giving talks on recycling and the curbside program to local heritage and historic preservation groups, PTA's, AAUW, Rotary Club, League of Women Voters, and senior citizen groups. 11 Another important group to educate on recycling and enlist in program support is the local real estate board. Having Realtors distribute literature about the curbside program and emphasize that it is a service to the community will be an important part of the ongoing program. This is an efficient way to keep participation levels high by introducing new residents to the program. Also important early in the process is that the Citizen's Advisory Committee coordinate with local recyclers and environmental groups. Contact local nonprofit centers, Boy Scout and school recycling programs, and the local Sierra Club chapter in order to coordinate all our efforts. Educational Programs: Because of the influence children have with parents and because it is important to get children in the recycling habit early, BFI places particular emphasis on schools. We will meet with the Hermosa Beach City School District administrators to offer our services supplying videotapes on recycling, offering speakers to classrooms and school assemblies, and setting up recycling programs in the schools. BFI will give out coloring books and comic books at the elementary level. Ad and Direct Mail Campaign: Residents should receive a brochure entitled, "Recycling is Coming," approximately two weeks before the container is delivered. At about the same time, ads should appear in local papers serving Hermosa Beach. As the PSA's begin on the Cable TV and KFOX, the container will be delivered with information on the program and the start-up contest. The ads and PSA's will continue for four weeks after the program begins. Sample ads and recycling announcement brochures used successfully by other BFI programs are included in this packet. In addition, Hermosa Beach RecycleNow posters featuring the program logo could be distributed to the libraries, supermarkets, community centers, information kiosks, and other facilities which serve as "public bulletin boards". 12 Participation Contest: In order to provide an incentive to recycle, BFI will select households at random to inspect their garbage cans during the first month of the recycling program. As an example, the first household which has no recyclables in its garbage cans could receive a prize of dinner for two at a local restaurant. Winners could be named on KFOX and listed in the local papers with accompanying photos and stories. Other promotional activities could be developed with the City as the program continues. Ongoing Programs: The specific components of the ongoing reminder program are best determined after the start-up program is evaluated by the City. Based on this evaluation, the City can continue or periodically institute those programs which are most effective. Generally, there are two activities which must be continued after the start-up in order to keep participation high: a customer relations program and a periodic reminder program. Customer Relations: Customers must have easy access to the contractor if they have problems with either billing or service. BFI maintains a full service customer relations department so that Hermosa Beach residents will always be able to talk to a BFI representative about their concerns. It is important to address program complaints immediately so that enthusiasm for the program remains high. Periodic PR Opportunities: In order to maintain interest following should be on-going: o BFI drivers will be using a hand-out during the year to are recyclable. in the program, items such as the "Thank You for Recycling" remindresidents what items o BFI will assist the City in preparing columns for the City newsletter. regular recycling o BFI will supply press releases to local papers on the status of the program in order to obtain on-going press coverage. 13 o Create "media events" to highlight the curbside program. For example, plant a tree with a plaque in a Hermosa Beach park to commemorate the City recycling 100 tons of newspapers. o Periodic newspaper ads can bring residents up to date on the success of the program, i.e., how many tons recycled, how many residents participating, etc. Conclusion The proposed public relations program will be effective because it is based on strong, easily understood messages: - Recycling is easy and convenient - Recycling is environmentally sound - Recycling benefits the Hermosa Beach community. To convey these messages, it uses cost effective methods: - Intensive use of citizen involvement -Local access cable television - School programs - Direct Mail - Advertising in local newspapers. And, most importantly, this public awareness program is tailored to the habits and general lifestyle of Hermosa Beach residents. 14 Implementation Schedule Public Relations Campaign (Tentative Scheduling - Times can be modified as needed) MONTH 1 MONTH 2 MONTH 3 - -Prepare and release press information - -Work with staff to set up Advisory Council - -Begin design work on recycling logo - -Initiate contact with local press and schools - -Organize speaker's bureau - -Contact local groups to set up speaking dates - -Prepare articles for City newsletters - -Solicit prominent local citizens to appear in PSA's on cable TV --First draft of direct mail piece - -Film local PSA's - -Printed material finalized and to printer - -Speakers begin giving presentations - -Make presentations to teachers on use of material and information available on recycling --Audio cassettes of PSAs prepared for radio - -Posters distributed MONTH 4 Week 1 - -"Recycling is Coming" announcement brochure sent (4 Weeks prior to start) - -Cable TV PSA's begin - -Speaker's bureau continues Week 2 - -Meetings with local press and editorial boards for feature stories - -Audio cassette PSA's distributed to radio stations - -Ad campaign begins Week 3 - -Bins are delivered with informational material and contest information - -Ad campaign continues Week 4 - -Bins still being delivered - -Ad campaign continues - -PSA's continue on radio and TV Recycling Collection Begins - -Ads and PSA's continue - -Contest begins - -Speakers bureau continues Phase into ongoing program 4.9 Monthly Recycling Project Cost Estimates Due to the preliminary nature of this proposal, it is difficult to provide the City of Hermosa Beach with an exact cost for the BFI RecycleNOW curbside recycling program. However, we have sought to provide the City with a general range for the cost of the program to each residential household. Depending on the materials collected, how collected material revenues are applied, and the scale of the entire program, the cost per household should range between $1.45 and $1.70 per month if all revenues for material are retained by BFI. If Hermosa Beach wishes to retain recycle revenues, the cost per household should range between $2.00 and $2.25 per month. The estimate is based on 6,500 households. Participation rate of these households per week is estimated at 40%. 17 4.10 RecycleNOW Personnel The following experienced BFI personnel will be responsible for planning and implementing the Hermosa Beach RecycleNOW Program: Ron Pfeifer - Local Project Coordinator Ron Pfeifer is the District Manager of BFI's Gardena District, the largest of its Southern California districts. Mr. Pfeifer was formerly District Manager of United Nottingham, BFI's portable services division in El Monte, California. He began his tenure with BFI after more than 10 years in the solid waste industry. He has held various positions which started in operations and culminated in the division manager headquartered in Minneapolis. The Minneapolis operation ran three city recycling operations. Mr. Pfeifer holds a BS degree in economics and a Masters Degree in communications from the University of Wisconsin. Ken Wells - Recycling Engineer Mr. Wells is BFI's Pacific Region recycling specialist and Project Manager for BFI's Recyclery at Newby Island in San Jose, California. Mr. Wells is responsible for the supervision of the design, construction, and start-up of the Newby Island Recyclery, a 500 TPD integrated refuse management facility. Prior to his current position with BFI, Mr. Wells was a project manager and environmental engineer with the consulting firm of Roy F. Weston, Inc. in Woodland Hills, California. Mr. Wells has nine years experience with a variety of environmental projects. 18 ( Joyce Hlava, Community Affairs Manager Joyce Hlava is responsible for ensuring that BFI projects are developed in accord with the needs and desires of the communities in which BFI operates. Ms. Hlava is a former Mayor and Council member in the City of Saratoga. In that capacity, she served on the Santa Clara County Intergovernmental Council Solid Waste Committee, on the County Transportation Commission, and as Chair of the ParaTransit Coordinating Council. She was a Planning Commissioner in the City of Saratoga and has been active in community organizations such as the League of Women Voters, American Association of University Women, and her local homeowner's association. For five years, Ms. Hlava was Vice -President of Corporate Communications at a Cupertino electronics firm, having primary responsibility for public relations and advertising. She worked for two years as a policy analyst on the staff of the San Jose Vice Mayor. Ms. Hlava is a graduate of the University of Michigan, the CORO Foundation Training Program in Public Affairs, and the Federal Government Management Intern Training Program. 19 C 4.11 References San Mateo County, CA Mary Griffin, President Board of Supervisors San Mateo County, CA 415/363-4571 Mike Garvey City Manager San Carlos, CA 415/593-8011 Pasadena, CA Richard DeLong City Manager San Mateo, CA 415/377-3300 Ross Hubbard City Manager Atherton, CA 415/325-4457 Joe Delaney Recycling Coordinator City of Pasadena 818\405-4500 Gainesville, FL 1st curbside recycling program in Phil Smith 904/374-2239 or Carl Smith 904/374-2215 Franklin Lakes, NJ Frank DeRosa 201/891/0048 Lafayette Parish, LA Mayor - Bobby Guidry 318/233-1130 Mayor - Lewis Kearn 318/332-2171 Ramsey, NJ Nick Saros 201/825-3400 Edmunton, ONT Francis Hugo 403/428-5748 Wycoff, NJ Bob Shannon 201/891-7000 20 the state 76,000 homes 2,000 homes 6,500 homes 3,000 homes 5,000 homes 4,000 homes 63,000 homes 4,565 homes 5.0 Green Waste RecycleNOW Options At the present time there appears to be three (3) potential options for a green waste collection program. Each option has its own unique characteristics and accompanying costs. Option 1 - Separate Collection: In order to accumulate clean loads of green waste, BFI would send a separate truck (similar to a rubbish truck) to pick up green waste exclusively. The City through its public education program, and BFI, through reminders, will instruct each resident to bundle or bag their green waste and place it at the curb on a weekly basis. The charge for providing this type of service will be similar in price to a rubbish service charge. Our proposal assumes a reduced disposal rate at County Disposal sites for clean loads of green waste. By providing this type of service, the costs for BFI providing our customers with rubbish service will be somewhat offset by reduced rubbish disposal charges. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the costs of separate collection ($60-100 per ton) fare exceeds the potential disposal discount, at least in the foreseeable future. Thus, the City will be assessed an additional fee for the separate green waste collection service. Option 1 Overview: O One time per week collection of green waste from the curb, bundled or bagged. O Separate vehicle (similar to a rubbish truck) picking up only green waste. O City of Hermosa Beach will receive a slight reduction in their normal rubbish fees, but will receive a separate additional fee (on the same bill) for green waste collection service. This additional fee would approximate the current charge for once per week collection. O Nonresidential customers receive a•separate bill from BFI for collection of green waste if the City chooses to have BFI serve as City wide green waste collector. The Downside of Option 1: O The cost for separate green waste collection on a weekly basis would be substantially higher than the cost of current collection and disposal of mixed waste in Hermosa Beach. O The number of trucks on the street could double; if we add a separate recycling truck, the number of trucks could triple. 21 k C Option 2 - The "BFI Tie System" For Commingled Collection: The "BFI Tie System" is very similar to the way green waste is currently handled within the City. Residents will be asked to tie bags of green waste with a special tie (supplied by BFI) that will be easily identified when dumped at the landfill. With the cooperation of the L.A. Sanitation Districts, and the participation of other involved parties, this method would probably be the most cost-effective and allow Hermosa Beach residents the greatest flexibility. Only a slight additional fee for this program would be incurred at the collection end. There would be costs associated with processing the green waste bags at the landfill. Bags of green waste with BFI blue ties would be pulled out of the regular waste stream and then processed by the landfill operator. Processing would include: splitting and/or shredding the bags; shredding the green waste; and any secondary or tertiary process of the material if it were to be used for products other than cover material. Despite these processing steps, we believe the cost of processing green waste at the landfill would be significantly less than the cost of collecting it separately. This option would also allow the landfill the flexibility of processing green waste when needed. The program could be paid for through increased tipping fees spread across all landfill users. Again, we feel the cost incurred (and the environmental impact of additional trucks on the streets) would be significantly less than the cost of collecting green waste with separate vehicles. Citizens would be educated to use the BFI -blue ties around bags and bundles of their green waste. The bags will be identifiable at the landfill by the specially colored ties. Option 2 Overview: O Green waste is picked up with regular waste. O Citizens are educated to put their waste in a bag or bundle and tie it with the BFI -blue ties provided to them. O The bundles and bags of green waste with the identifiable tags are sorted at the landfill and processed. This option will require the cooperation of and coordination with the County Sanitation District. This option will likely receive high participation considering that it is convenient, reasonably priced, and very similar to how most of the residents currently handle their green waste. 22 L If the L.A. Sanitation District feels they have a vested interest in the success of this pilot program, the Sanitation District may absorb the additional cost. Option 3 - The BFI Backyard Compost Program: BFI will provide appropriate residences (those with adequate yard space) with one (1) backyard compost bin. We will hold educational workshops and provide literature explaining how to use the bin and the advantages of homeowners reducing their waste stream and, at the same time, producing their own soil enriching humus. Compost bins would be offered on a one time billing at cost for those residents electing to participate. 23 Appendix I Public Participation/Promotional Materials • . • . ..•. • ' • • . - . . -...• • • . . A Neighborhood Recycling Program Everything You Need to Know to Participate in Curbside Recycling Recycling Programs From Browning-Ferris Industries rte- '" TS is `a:•le ` '7','i §-;y2kgv) u:+`f'ggif.' F''1 N,t�.A,' "lO P-14 .r"i iit'-`: A neighborhood recycling program from Browning-Ferris Industries Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 17, 1990 Regular Meeting of July 24, 1990 SUBJECT: SECOND QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PURPOSE: ADOPTION OF COMPROMISE SOLUTION FOR AREA 10 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE Recommendation The Planning Commission and staff recommend adoption of the attached resolution amending the General Plan and ordinance rezoning Area 10 to Residential Specific Plan Area (SPA). Background At the July 10, 1990 meeting, the City Council referred Area 10 to the Planning Commission for their consideration of a proposed solution for Area 10. The solution originally recommended by staff and accepted by Council was for a Medium Density Residential General Plan designation and Residential S.P.A. zoning designation allowing two units for the larger lots of 4000 square feet or more, but restricting the structures to 25 feet high and 50% lot coverage, and requiring detached units. The compromise solution has since been modified to also amend the General Plan to a Residential S.P.A.. Staff believed that the Medium Density range of up to 24 units is not appropriate for the site as the proposed Residential S.P.A. zoning permits a maximum of 14.7 units per acre. This approach satisfies the concern some residents had regarding the zoning changing in the future to a higher density without any need to alter the General Plan. At their July 17th meeting, the Planning Commission considered the proposed solution for Area 10 and recommended approval. Analysis Refer to attached Planning Commission staff report for analysis of Area 10. Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager Respectfully subm'i ed,, Attachments 1. Proposed ordinance 2. Proposed resolution P.C. Resolutions 90-60 & 90-61 P.C. staff report & minutes 7/17/90 5. Area 10 map - 1 - Mic ael Schu'ach Planning Director p/ccsrgpa2 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 90 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT BY CHANGING THE "AREA 10" FROM R -2B TO SPECIFIC PLAN AREA NO. 2 AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held public hearings on July 10 and July 24, 1990, and made the following Findings: A. The subject area has inconsistent General Plan and Zoning map designation, and state law requires consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance; B. In order to make the subject area consistent requires either an amendment to the General Plan Map or the Zoning Map; C. Rezoning the subject area as described below will bring the General Plan into consistency with the current zoning; D. Rezoning the subject area will not have a significant impact on the environment as it will lower the allowed density. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain that the zoning map and zoning ordinance be amended as shown on the attached map and described as follows and adoption of an environmental negative declaration: 1. Zone Change from R -2B Two -Family Residential to Specific Plan Area No. 2 the area located between Barney Court and Meyer Court from the south city boundary, to the rear of the lots fronting on Second Street, and legally described as follows: - lots 22-25 and 28-31, inclusive, and a portion of lots 26 and 27, Trafton Heights Tract. 2. The following text shall be added to the zoning ordinance to replace the entire Section 9.62: DIVISION 2. PLAN AREA NO. 2. Section 9.62-1. Authority. This Specific Plan Area is an instrument for implementing the General plan pursuant to Article 8, -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Chapter 3, of the State of California Planning and Zoning Law (California Government Code Section 65450 et. Seq.) Section 9.62-2 Location and Description. The subject area is Meyer Court from the the lots fronting on located between Barney Court and south city boundary, to the rear of Second Street Section 9.62-3 Purpose. The purpose of the Specific Plan Area is to set forth the development requirements, standards and permitted uses for the subject area. Section 9.62-4 Permitted Uses and Density. A. Any use permitted in the R-1 (One -Family) Residential Zone B. Two units on a lot provided the units are detached C. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall be not less than 2000 square fee;, Section 9.61-5 Development Standards A. A minimum of three (3) off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit. B. Lot coverage shall not exceed 507. C. Lots with two street frontages shall have a unit facing each street. D. The maximum height shall be 25 feet with a maximum of two stories. E. All other development standards shall be as set forth in ARTICLE 4. R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE F. All other standards shall be as set forth Hermosa Beach Zoning Ordinance. 3. This ordinance shall become effective and be and effect from and after thirty (30) days passage and adoption. 4. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. in the City of in full force of its final 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 5. 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: APPRO ED CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY T p/ccorgpa8 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, AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN BY CHANGING THE DESIGNATION FOR "AREA 10" AS DESCRIBED BELOW FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO A RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held public hearings on July 10, and July 24, 1990, and made the following Findings: A. The subject area has inconsistent General Plan and Zoning map designation, and state law requires consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance; B. In order to make the subject area consistent requires either an amendment to the General .Plan Map or the Zoning Map; C. General Plan amending the subject area as described below will .bring the General Plan into consistency with the proposed zoning; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby amend the land use map of the general plan as shown on the attached map and described as follows: 1. General Plan amend from Low Density to Residential Specific Plan Area thearea located between Barney Court and Meyer Court from the south city boundary, to the rear of the lots fronting on Second Street, and legally described as follows: - lots 22-25 and 28-31, inclusive, and a portion of lots 26 and 27, Trafton Heights Tract. 2, Amend the text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to add the following category under the "DENSITY PLAN" for Residential areas as follows: "SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS: The density for these areas shall be as established by the zoning ordinance. This designation is for purpose of recognizing unique areas of the City for which a standard density designation is not appropriate because of the specific characteristics of the area. Since these 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 specific plan areas are recognized as the General Plan designation for the areas, to change the designation or the standards of the Specific Plan requires an amendment to the General Plan." PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1990. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City o Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY p/ccrsgpa8 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. 90-60 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN BY CHANGING THE DESIGNATION FOR "AREA 10" AS DESCRIBED BELOW FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO A RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council referred this matter to the Planning Commission for recommendation, regarding "Area 10" located between Meyer Court and Barney Court and the Planning Commission made the following Findings: A. The subject area has inconsistent General Plan and Zoning map designation, and state law requires consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning:..Ordinance; B. In order to make the subject area consistent requires either an amendment to the General Plan Map or the Zoning Map; C. General Plan amending the subject area as described below will bring the General Plan into consistency with the proposed zoning; NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend that the land use map of the general plan be amended as shown on the attached map and described as follows: 1. General Plan amend from Low Density to Residential Specific Plan Area the area located between Barney Court and Meyer Court from the south city boundary, to the rear of the lots fronting on Second Street, and legally described as follows: - lots 22-25 and 28-31, inclusive, and a portion of lots 26 and 27, Trafton Heights Tract. 2, Amend the text of. the Land Use Element of the General Plan to add the following category under the "DENSITY PLAN" for Residential areas as follows: a 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 "SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS: The density for these areas shall be as established by the zoning ordinance. This designation is for purpose of recognizing unique areas of the City for which a standard density designation is not appropriate because of the specific characteristics of the area. Since these specific plan areas are recognized as the General Plan designation for the areas, to change the designation or the standards of the Specific Plan requires an amendment to the General Plan." VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ketz,Moore,Peirce,Chmn.Ingell NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm.Rue CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 90-60 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regulr mee 'ng Jly 17, 1990. ;, �� Michael Schubach, Secretary Scdtt Ingell,/Chairman i p/persgpa8 Date 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. 90-61 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT BY CHANGING THE "AREA 10" FROM R -2B TO SPECIFIC PLAN AREA NO. 2 AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council referred this matter to the Planning Commission for recommendation, regarding "Area 10" located between Meyer Court and Barney Court and the Planning Commission made the following Findings: A. The subject area has inconsistent General Plan and Zoning map designation, and state law requires consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance; B. In order to make the subject area consistent requires either an amendment to the General Plan Map or the Zoning Map; C. Rezoning the subject area as described below will bring the General Plan into consistency with the current zoning; D. Rezoning the subject area will not have a significant impact on the environment as it will lower the allowed density. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend that the zoning map and zoning ordinance be amended as shown on the attached map and described as follows and adoption of an. -environmental negative declaration: 1. Zone Change from R -2B Two -Family Residential to Specific Plan Area No. 2 the area located between Barney Court and Meyer Court from the south city boundary, to the rear of the lots fronting on Second Street, and legally described as follows: - lots 22-25 and 28-31, inclusive, and a portion of lots 26 and 27, Trafton Heights Tract. 2. The following text shall be added to the zoning ordinance to replace the entire Section 9.62: DIVISION 2. PLAN AREA NO. 2. Section 9.62-1. Authority. This Specific Plan Area is.. an.. instrument for implementing the General plan pursuant to Article 8, Chapter 3, of the State of California Planning and 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 Zoning Law (California Government Code Section 65450 et. Seq.) Section 9.62-2 Location and Description. The subject area is located between Barney Court and Meyer Court from the south city boundary, to the rear of the lots fronting on Second Street -Section 9.62-3 Purpose. The purpose of the Specific Plan Area is to set forth the development requirements, standards and permitted uses for the subject area. Section 9.62-4 Permitted Uses and Density. A. Any use permitted in the R-1 (One -Family) Residential Zone B. Two units on a lot provided the units are detached C. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall be not less than 2000 square feet. Section 9.61-5 Development Standards A. A minimum of three (3) off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit. B. Lot coverage shall not exceed 50%. C. Lots with two street frontages shall have a unit facing each street. D. The maximum height shall be 25 feet with a maximum of two stories. E. All other development standards shall be as set forth in ARTICLE 4. R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE F. All other standards shall be as set forth in the City of Hermosa Beach Zoning Ordinance. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ketz,Moore,Peirce,Chmn.Ingell NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm.Rue CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 90-61 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission o the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meet g% o f/July 17, 1990._ , l --7 Scott Ingey1' Chairman 28 / �,���/ Date Michael Schubach, Secretary p/ccordgp8 July 12, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission July 17, 1990 (Referred back to Planning Commission by City Council) SUBJECT: SECOND QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-3 LOCATION: BETWEEN BARNEY COURT AND MEYER COURT, FROM SOUTH CITY BOUNDARY TO THE THE REAR OF THE LOTS FRONTING ON SECOND STREET, ALSO KNOWN AS "AREA 10" PURPOSE: TO BRING THE ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN INTO CONSISTENCY INITIATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION Recommendation Staff recommends amending the General Plan designation from Low Density Residential to a Specific Plan Area and rezoning from R -2B to Specific Plan Area. Background On July 10, 1990 the City Council was unable to reach a majority vote on this issue as the Fair Political Practices Commission confirmed that the Mayor could not vote to break the previous 2-2 tie vote and also indicated that councilmember Midstokke could not vote. Without a majority of the total City Council, no decision can be made according to state law. Therefore, as a compromise, the Council would like to consider a redesignation to a Specific Plan Area which would allow two units for the larger lots with 4000 square feet, or more, but would restrict the structures to 25 feet high and 50% lot coverage, and would require that the units be detached and front on a street like single family homes (where double frontages exist). On May 8, 1990 the City Council continued this item to July 10, 1990, to allow the City Attorney to seek a written advisory letter from the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) on whether an elected official residing within 300 feet of the subject site can vote to break a 2-2 tie. The tie vote occurred at the April 10, 1990, public hearing. For further background please refer to the attached City Council staff reports of 7/10/90, 7/3/90 and 4/2/90. Analysis For the City Council to take action on the proposed S.P.A. it has to be returned to the Planning Commission for recommendation. The proposal is a compromise from the previously considered options of MD/R-2B or LD/R-1 in that it would allow the current level of density which is within the Medium Density range, but would apply development standards of the R-1 zone. The density under the proposed S.P.A. would be 14.7 units per acre, and it would allow the addition of only one unit to the existing 16 units; Low Density or R-1 is a maximum on 13 units per acre. Further, by designating the property in General Plan as S.P.A., no change in the zoning or density could occur without a General Plan Amendment. Please note that staff originally recommended Medium Density as the General Plan designation for the compromise. Staff believes that the S.P.A. would be more appropriate since the MD designation allows up to 24 units,pe.r. acre. For further analysis the subject area please refer to the attached 4/2/90 and 10/2/89 City Council staff reports. O1‘iC R• Michael' Schuba Planning Director /77': i Ken -Robertson - Associate Planner Attachments 1. Location Maps 2. Proposed Resolution 3. City Council Action Sheet 7/10/90 4. City Council Staff Reports 7/3/90, 4/2/90 5. City Council Minutes 5/8/90, 4/10/90 6. Background information: C.C. Minutes 10/10/89; C.C. Staff Report 10/2/89; P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 p/pcsrgpa8 Planning Commission minutes of July 17, 1990 will be available on Monday, July 23, 1990. C CURRENT ZONING R -2B CURRENT GP LD- Ir ••••• • • • GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AREA 21C • • • • • LD LOW DENSITY HD HIGH DENSITY. OS OPEN ..SPACE CC • COMMERCIAL CORRIDO LD HD TO 3Eidd /2•, : •_: .. '. •N ' ' ;TI•N • ; A 16 k• ; RED ...TI•N • RESIDENTI_Ai S'ECIFIC PIIAN ARE _AND REZONE TQ SPECIFj_ PLAN AREA AND PIZ TIVE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 12, 1990. This area is located between Barney Court and Meyer Court, from south city boundary to the rear of the lots fronting on 2nd Street. also known as "Area 10." This action was initiated by the City Council and Planning Commission_ On July 10, 1990. the City Council was unable to reach a majority vote on this issue, as the Fair Political Practices Commission confirmed that the mayor could not vote to break the previous two -two tie vote and also indicated that counciimember Midstokke could not vote. Without a majority of the total City Council. no decision can be made according to state law. Therefore, as a compromise, the Council would like to consider a redesignation to a specific plan area which would allow two units for the larger lots with 4000 square feet or more, but would restrict the structures to 25 feet in height and 50 percent lot coverage and would 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 item to July 10, 1990, to allow the City Attorney to seek a written advisory letter from the FPPC on whether an elected official residing within 300 feet of the subject site can vote to break a two -two tie. The tie vote occurred at the April 10, 1990. public hearing. Hearing opened and closed at 10:13 P.M. by Chznn. Ingell who noted that no one appeared to speak on this issue. Comm. Moore commented that there was previously a great deal of public testimony related to this issue, and he noted that no one appeared to address the issue at this time. Comm. Peirce stated that the Planning Commission had no problem with this area; rather, the difficulty was at the City Council level. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-60. AYES: Comms Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. ingen NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. Rue SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 6 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90 £ZSbbI8{£TZ) '1N9W 53021f1O53WO'Jd 6Z :4 06 bZ lilf Mrs. Francis A. Declona t 3553 Scadlock Lane Sherman Oaks, California 91403 A4APW/ffir 2-,D7 C/TY o &.4c4d /3/s- ,o ct.,sr y c7 ,41EQmo5.4 Qc4cA/, C4 2'414y JUL 1 6 1990 r Zee'A /o -za, ' OW 4 E frae .eE45o0Y5 Oaf- TD 4 c)te5 ai45 //a7 ,0 D r= See- - T: ///36-e-/-jo&oTer. �E4oG/.Y� -7/r/9o• /3or ev/sxv my .410 '57- , eaoT C,/44 4' es ,roc 14)EE/l/ 9ie,#'E y ,lidry2'.e Co a.e73; 77.1e- AU'e4 Toa 445c- 45 Lr' 7LO/0;eic ,dT leerd,C .4JaOx.s C6TE. em/taVeZsJ ' J. IS i oa -i) v c hJ 4 SZ" --r- / S . lve .610 ,,-07- /r��D /72424' ,oma 0.2/;6 ac c4,s• A )1/Z 4o.eE�(Oy 7ZI4 ✓�C Voa . ,4b *'2)' a V,veZ' -- ///9 /g"e2.ec t SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 6 August 7, 1990 Mayor Roger Creighton and Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mayor and City Council: I am writing this letter to encourage you to reconsider your action of last month, which was to rezone the Biltmore Site (by a straw vote) Residential, and to ask that you approve a compromise plan which would allow for the development of a park on the front portion of the site and commercial development on the back portion. As you know, the Biltmore Committee, appointed by the City Council, made a similar recommendation early last year; that recommendation was modified and ultimately placed on the ballot alongside the Parker Herriott 100% Open Space Park measure. During the campaigning process, it was very confusing for people to see the mixed uses (park, residential and commercial) and I feel that many people simply chose to vote against such uses because they weren't sure what they meant. However, it is very clear that a majority of the people do want to see a park on the site (if you combine the votes for each of the measures) and I feel that the compromise measure would be good for several reasons, including: 1. If the Council so desired, it could provide income from the sale of the rear property to be used to purchase open space property in other areas of the city. 2. As commercially -zoned property, the parking area could be maintained --or even expanded --at the discretion of the City Council, since parking seems to be one of the deterrents for viable commercial development in the downtown area. 3. It allows the City Council to decide exactly what improvements will or will not be allowed at the park and allows for changes to be made as times change. As you know, the proposed Parker Herriott measure locks the site into specific, very restrictive uses that can only be changed by another vote of the people. Please adopt a measure to provide for a park and commercial development on this site. It's time for a compromise on both sides. Sincerely, Merna Marshall 360 - 33rd Place Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 7 TELECOPIER (213) 376-3531 August 8, 1990 NEWTON AND NEWTONpp eS &wee�b a� aZata, 555 PIER AVENUE, SUITE 4 HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90234 TELEPHONE (213) 372-4636 The Honorable Roger Creighton, Mayor Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: BILTMORE SITE Public Hearing: August 14, 1990 Dear Mayor and Counsel Members: WESTWOOD OFFICE 10880 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD SUITE 1900 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90024 (213) 208-7300 I am writing this letter to communicate my thoughts and relative to your proposed rezoning of the Biltmore Site. I plan to be in attendance at the public hearing on August 14, 1990. I hope at that time to address each of you. However, because of the number of potential speakers and the three minute time limitation, I thought it prudent to reduce some of my comments and concerns to writing. concerns As a resident, I have the same quality of life concerns as others have expressed on many occasions during debate on the Biltmore Site issue. Traffic, density, pollution and noise are not conditions I seek to encourage or draw into the community I call home. In those areas of Hermosa Beach zoned residential, I am as militant as the next person when it comes to these issues. I am also cognizant that I have made a conscientious decision to live in a beach community. I was aware before I moved here that I would live on a small lot close to my neighbors. To me, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. If Hermosa Beach is to remain a viable municipality and not be absorbed by Manhattan Beach or Redondo Beach, it must take steps to upgrade and improve its commercial base. Most residents seem to ignore this fundamental fact. There are currently pending in the courts several challenges to the current method of taxing residential property, based on equal protection challenges to Proposition 13. Should Hermosa Beach or any other small municipality lose some of these revenues, other sources of income will have to be found. User fees are unpopular for the most part, and are not sufficient to support quality public services. What this town needs is a more receptive approach to commercial development and revitalization. Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach should not be benefiting from the receipt of tax revenues generated by customers and shoppers from Hermosa Beach. There is no reason why Hermosa Beach should be a second-class citizen in the South Bay. Riviera Village is no more quaint or charming than Pier Avenue. It was simply planned better. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 1 The Honorable Roger Creighton Members of City Council August 8, 1990 Page Two With all due respect to each of you, a decision to rezone the entire Biltmore Site residential is fundamentally the wrong decision. I served on a citizens' task force which exhaustively studied this issue. Eleven residents from vastly different backgrounds and persuasions spent over one hundred hours talking to city staff, local residents, business owners and representatives of the Coastal Commission. We explored dozens of possible uses for the Biltmore Site, ranging from a skateboard park to an oil drilling site. At the conclusion of several months of review, only two members of this group favored the action you are currently seeking to implement. Our recommendation to the City Council consisted of a compromise on the part of the eight members who co-signed the majority report (aside from the two residential votes, one vote was for open -space). Personally, my original position was that the site should be rezoned commercial, given the following: (1) under our certified land use plan, the area is within the commercial zone; (2) commercial use is "visitor serving" and thus has priority over residential, within the mandate of Section 30222 of the Public Resources Code (Division 20, California Coastal Act); and (3) planned, controlled commercial development would provide both immediate income, as well as a stream of income over the years. I ultimately compromised on this position to help forge a consensus. The final recommendation of the task force was to leave the original hotel site open space, and rezone (and sell) the back lots as commercial. Rezoning the back lots as residential was voted down for primarily two reasons: (1) the task force did not believe, based on the presentation from the Coastal Commission, that residential zoning would be approved -- even if the money derived therefrom went to purchase more open space. According to the representative who spoke with us, the Coastal Commission would not allow trade-offs, i.e., selling this site to acquire open space in some other location. The issue before the Commission will be whether or not Hermosa Beach can sustain its burden of proof and establish that the Biltmore Site is not "suitable for visitor -serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation . . . " (Pub. Res. Code, Section 30222); and (2) residential development in the downtown commercial area was inconsistent with the General Plan and would only serve to exacerbate the conflict between residents and business. The Honorable Roger Creighton Members of City Council August 8, 1990 Page Three The arguments in favor of residential zoning (aside from ending the debate on this contentious issue) is financial: the City will receive a large sum of money with which it can acquire more open space. While facially attractive, this begs the larger issue: the need to revitalize and upgrade downtown so the residents' needs are served and a solid tax base is provided to keep Hermosa Beach an independent municipality. A better result can be accomplished by following the recommendation of the task force. The sale of the back lots as commercial property, according to testimony before the task force, would produce in excess of $2 million. The tax base would be increased, additional fees would flow to the City over many years to come, and the residents would have their park. The net effect is improvement in the downtown area, a substantial sum of money realized by the City, and avoidance of the residential/business conflict created whenever residents move into areas dominated by commercial activity (witness the problem along Pacific Coast Highway). There need be no fear of what type of commercial development would take place on the back lots. Through your use of the CUP process, or through deed -restrictions, you could make sure that any development would serve the needs of the residents, provide additional revenue to the City, and enhance the downtown area. During the task force meetings, consideration was given to a quality restaurant or upscale retail establishments. Whatever ultimately was built on those lots would be more beneficial to the city than the addition of a few more wealthy residents living in expensive Strand property complaining about the noise and traffic generated by the downtown commercial establishments. In conclusion, I want to thank each of you for taking the time to read this letter. No matter what decision you come to, I urge you to reach a decision. Any decision, even a wrong one from my perspective, is better than no decision. JLN : ksh Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 17, 1990 Regular Meeting of July 24, 1990 SUBJECT: SECOND QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS PURPOSE: A. MODIFICATION TO COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN B. FINAL ADOPTION OF CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING ELEMENT C. FINAL ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE FOR BILTMORE SITE & PARKING LOT "C" Recommendation A. Continue Master Plan to the 3rd Quarter General Plan amendment, and refer this matter back to the Planning Commission to consider the proposed modifications. B. Adopt the attached resolution adopting the final Circulation, Transportation and Parking Element General Plan revision, and Environmental Negative Declaration. C. Adopt the attached resolution for General Plan amendment and introduce the attached ordinance for zone change for Biltmore Site and Parking Lot "C", and Environmental Negative Declaration. Background At the July 10, 1990 meeting, the Master Plan was continued to the July 24th meeting with a request for modifications. A straw vote for approval was taken for both the general Plan revisions, and the Biltmore Site amendment, the public hearings were closed, and continued to the July 24th meeting -for final adoption. Analysis In order to make all the necessary changes, and because of the requirement that the Planning Commission review any changes, the staff is recommending that the Recreation Master Plan be continued to the 3rd Quarter General Plan amendment in October. Refer to previous staff reports for additional analysis. Re.s-pectfuubm1tt CONCUR: ,L; ,57! Michael Schubach- Kevin B. Northraft Planning Director City Manager 1 MOTION RE/RC - STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH AMENDMENT TO REDUCE TO $54,000 FOR A 27% REDUCTION, SO ORDERED. MOTION TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCE 90-1040. SO ORDERED. 8. FkAi SECOND QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS: A. 1. THE BILTMORE SITE: PUBLICLY OWNED PORTION BETWEEN 14TH AND 15TH STREETS, ALONG THE STRAND, with ordinance for introduction; MOTION KM RE TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION STRAW VOTE: OK 3 P 2. PUBLIC PARKING LOT "C" BOUNDED BY 14TH COURT I AND 13TH STREET BETWEEN BEACH DRIVE AND HERMOSA AVENUE, with resolution for adoption. MOTION CS/RE STRAW VOTE IN FAVOR OF STAFF REC. OK 5-0. ft, Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 2, 1990. B. 1. AMEND THE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO INCLUDE THE "COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN, with resolution for adoption; MOTION RC/ STAFF BE DIRECTED TO REVIEW LIGHTING IN SOME OF THE PARKS, THAT ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE AS FAR AS POSITIONS BE CON- FORMED TO PRESENT WITH POSSIBLE MINOR TWEAKING SECOND KM WITH AMENDMENT TO STUDY TURNING OVER THE MAINTENANCE SERVICES FROM P.W. TO COMM. RESOURCES DEPT.STRAW VOTE 4-1 (CS - NO) . :/// 2. FINAL ADOPTION OF THE CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTA- TION AND PARKING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, with resolution for adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 3, 1990. MOTION RC/RE - TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. STRAW VOTE. OK 4-1 (CS -NO). C. AREA 10, BETWEEN BARNEY COURT AND MEYER COURT, FROM SOUTH CITY BOUNDARY TO THE REAR OF THE LOTS FRONTING ON SECOND STREET, with resolution for adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 3, 1990. MOTION RE/CS TO APPROVE MOST RECENT STAFF REC.(COMPROMISE) BY STRAW VOTE AND REFER BACK TO P.C. AND THEN BACK TO COUNCIL AT NEXT MEETING OF 7/24. NO OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.. Q S�rq,✓ vo-74e Weirs co.,14/AHelf 140 1- 2 y-onl c,cb/ic Aeg ri/19 eaArm iAe � lSt�fSG. / 11/7/72 11/8/83 11/8/83 12/11/84 6/11/85 11/8/88 11/8/88 11/8/88 11/7/89 11/7/89 BILTMORE SITE BALLOT MEASURES Ballot Measure - Council Initiative - 22 story development - Y: 2670 N: 6659 Ballot Measure - Council Initiative - Hotel, 75', at least 175 rooms - Y: 1069 N: 1383 Ballot Measure - People's Initiative - 49 Timeshare Condominiums, 45' - Y: 283 N: 2078 Referendum - Development Agmt. #84-754 - 260 room, 5 story, 45' Hotel - Y: 2130 N: 2149 Ballot Measure - Council Initiative #85-790 - 250 rooms 4 story, 39' Hotel - Y: 2399 N: 2399 Ballot Measure - Council Initiative - R-1 Use and sell to highest bidder - Y: 3989 N: 5340 % Yes 28.6% 43.6% 12.0% 49.8% 50.0% 42.8% Ballot Measure - Council Initiative - C-2 Commercial Use and sell to highest bidder - Y: 1226 N: 7949 13.4% Ballot Measure - Council Initiative - Hotel with current SPA zoning and sell to highest bidder Y: 3364 N: 6048 Ballot Measure - Petition Initiative #89-998 repealing SPA and rezone Open Space, with Parking Lot C to be Commercial Y: 1,589 N: 1799 Ballot Measure - Council Initiative - Rezone to Open Space (59%), Commercial (25%), Residential (16%) Y: 932 N: 2385 35.7% 46.9% 28.1% SUPPLtMENTAL INFORMATION REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSmON D be approach of Prop D (89-1000) is unbalanced. It mandates high density iidential, jamming 4 units on 16% of the Biltmore site. be results of selling 16% of the Biltmore Site for 4 Units are: . Possibly Si Million dollars, the fust to be used for preparation of plans and eveiopmeut of the urban plaza. . Some of the 51 Million may be used to maintain the plaza. Look at the Plaza Portion of Loreto Plaza on Pier Avenue to see what ublidy owned untaxed Open Space looks like when used for a plaza. 4 Units jammed together on 16% of the Biltmore Site generating a kaximum of 51 Million that may be used to maintain 56% of the Biltmore ite as an enlarged pier head environment is unbalanced. be taxpayers can increase their Open Space holdings by 20 fold without the 9e of a 4% U.U.T. or any other form of tax. it endorse the clear, responsible, logical, balanced choice; Residential. To Are the 4% U.U.T. tax, pay off the Railroad, and purchase excess School testy, Vote No on both measures, Prop C and Prop D as stated in the canal record ROGER D. CREIGHTON GERALD W. COMPTON PAUL F. AMARILLAS GEOFFREY RUE SUPPLEMENTAL \ INFORMATION �] C LA 11047 ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION D Arguments Against Cities Park (89-1000) Open Space, the greatest asset. A portion of the Biltmore Site used as Open Space is not the greatest asset and could be a long term liability. Sale of the entire Biltmore Site will purchase 21 acres of Greenbelt and surplus School Playgrounds within the Coastal Zone. Sale of the Biltmore Site for Residential use. Parks Acq. Fund & the 4% UUT Fund (current) = 8.375 Mil.+ = 3 Mil.+ 11;375 Mil.+ We can retire the 4% UUT, and have extra to purchase the pouth School site. To retire the 4% UUT and purchase the Greenbelt + Schwa property for open space, we endorse the following voting recommendations as stated in the City Council record on 6-27-89: Councilmember Sheldon: "If the people want Residential, they can vote no on both measures, that's a clear choice." The clear choice to retire the 4% UUT and purchase the desired open space is to vote no on C and D, the Council's clear choice for Residential. What does and doesn't Prop D do? 1. Prop D mandates funds from sale of Parcel 3 be used for the preparation of the Plaza on the 7 lot Biltmore Site. 2. It does not restrict sale or consolidation with other land. 3. Public malls and plazas, like the publicly owned one in Loreto Plaza are allowed in the Open Space zone. 4. Prop D does not prevent the publicly owned Biltmore Site from being used as a plaza for the Hotel. 5. Prop D does not restrict the use of funds received by the City for Parcel 2 ROGER D. CREIGHTON ELIZABETH A. RYAN GERALD W. COMPTON PAUL F. AMARILLAS GEOFFREY RUE PR -004.006 LA 11s-: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of .e City Council FROM: Michael Schubach •1ctor SUBJECT: DATE: July 24, 1990 Planning Commission Referrals / Biltmore Site It is required that the City Council refer planning matters, not already considered, back to the Planning Commission. Research of the files indicates the Planning Commission has considered the following: 1. Hotel (several versions) 2. All open space 3. 2/3 open space / 1/3 commercial combination (approx.) 4. All residential, low and medium density 5. 2/3 open space / 1/6 commercial / 1/6 residential combination (approx.) 6. 2/3 open space / 1/3 residential (approx.) SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION k c CITY OF HER1OSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of •e City Council FROM: Michael Schubach lctor SUBJECT: Planning Commission DATE: July 24, 1990 Referrals / Biltmore Site It is required that the City Council refer planning matters, not already considered, back to the Planning Commission. Research of the files indicates the Planning Commission has considered the following: 1. Hotel (several versions) 2. All open space 3. 2/3 open space / 1/3 commercial combination (approx.) 4. All residential, low and medium density 5. 2/3 open space / 1/6 commercial / 1/6 residential combination (approx.) 6. 2/3 open space / 1/3 residential (approx.) SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION C 1 BILTMORE SITE BALLOT MEASURES % Yes 11/7/72 Ballot Measure - Council Initiative - 22 story development - Y: 2670 N: 6659 28.6% 11/8/83 Ballot Measure - Council Initiative - Hotel, 75', at least 175 rooms - Y: 1069 N: 1383 43.6% 11/8/83 Ballot Measure - People's Initiative - 49 Timeshare Condominiums, 45' - Y: 283 N: 2078 12.0% 12/11/84 Referendum - Development Agmt. #84-754 - 260 room, 5 story, 45' Hotel - Y: 2130 N: 2149 49.8% 6/11/85 Ballot Measure - Council Initiative #85-790 - 250 rooms 4 story, 39' Hotel - Y: 2399 N: 2399 50.0% 11/8/88 Ballot Measure - Council Initiative - R-1 Use and sell to highest bidder - Y: 3989 N: 5340 42.8% 11/8/88 Ballot Measure - Council Initiative - C-2 Commercial Use and sell to highest bidder - Y: 1226 N: 7949 13.4% 11/8/88 Ballot Measure - Council Initiative - Hotel with current SPA zoning and sell to highest bidder Y: 3364 N: 6048 35.7% 11/7/89 Ballot Measure - Petition Initiative #89-998 repealing SPA and rezone Open Space, with Parking Lot C to be Commercial Y: 1,589 N: 1799 46.9% 11/7/89 Ballot Measure - Council Initiative - Rezone to Open Space (59%), Commercial (25%), Residential (16%) Y: 932 N: 2385 28.1% SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION D be approach of Prop D (89-1000) is unbalanced. It mandates high density sidential, jamming 4 units on 16% of the Biltmore site. be malts of selling 16% of the Biltmore Site for 4 Units are: . Possibly 51 Million dollars, the first to be used for preparation of plans and evelopment of the urban plaza. . Some of the 51 Million may be used to maintain the plaza. Look at the Plaza Portion of Loreto Plaza on Pier Avenue to see what ublidy owned untaxed Open Space looks like when used for a plaza. 4 Units jammed together on 16% of the Biltmore Site generating a Maximum of S1 Million that may be used to maintain 56% of the Biltmore ite as an enlarged pier head environment is unbalanced. be taxpayers can increase their Open Space holdings by 20 fold without the se of a 4% U.U.T. or any other form of tax. ✓e endorse the clear, responsible, logical, balanced choice; Residential. To tins the 4% U.U.T. tax, pay off the Railroad, and purchase excess School Vote No on both measures, Prop C and Prop D as stated in the banal ROGER D. CREIGHTON GERALD W. COMPTON PAUL F. AMARILLAS GEOFFREY RUE SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION e LA 11047 ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION D Arguments Against Cities Park (89-1000) Open Space, the greatest asset. A portion of the Biltmore Site used as Open Space is not the greatest asset and could be a long term liability. Sale of the entire Biltmore Site will purchase 21 acres of Greenbelt and surplus School Playgrounds within the Coastal Zone. Sale of the Biltmore Site for Residential use. Parks Acq. Fund & the 4% UUT Fund (current) = 8.375 Mil.+ = 3 Mil.+ 11 375 Mil.+ We can retire the 4% UUT, and have extra to purchase the uth School �n To retire the 4% UUT and purchase the Greenbelt + School property space, we endorse the following voting recommendations as stated in the City Council record on 6-27-89: Councilmember Sheldon: "If the people want Residential, they can vote no on both measures, that's a clear choice." The clear choice to retire the 4% UUT and purchase the desired open space is to vote no on C and D, the Council's clear choice for Residential. What does and doesn't Prop D do? 1. Prop D mandates funds from sale of Parcel 3 be used for the preparation of the Plaza on the 7 lot Biltmore Site. 2. It does not restrict sale or consolidation with other land. 3. Public malls and plazas, like the publicly owned one in Loreto Plaza are allowed in the Open Space zone. 4. Prop D does not,prevent the publicly owned Biltmore Site from being used as a plaza for the Hotel. 5. Prop D does not restrict the use of funds received by the City for Parcel 2 ROGER D. CREIGHTON ELIZABETH A. RYAN GERALD W. COMPTON PAUL F. AMARILLAS GEOFFREY RUE Pa -004.008 LA 114-: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 2, 1990 Regular Meeting of July 10, 1990 SUBJECT: SECOND QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-2 AND ZONE CHANGE 90-2 LOCATIONS: 1. THE BILTMORE SITE: PUBLICLY OWNED PORTION BETWEEN 14TH STREET AND 15TH STREET, ALONG THE STRAND 2. PUBLIC PARKING LOT "C" BOUNDED BY 14TH COURT AND 13TH STREET BETWEEN BEACH DRIVE AND HERMOSA AVE. PURPOSE: TO CONSIDER A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE TO AMEND THE CURRENT SPECIFIC PLAN AREA DESIGNATION FOR A HOTEL AND CHANGE IT TO A RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION FOR THE BILTMORE SITE AND TO RETURN IT TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND C-2 FOR PARKING LOT "C". INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission did not adopt a resolution and instead prepared a report for the Biltmore Site. In regards to Parking Lot "C" the Planning Commission recommended returning the designations to GC - General Commercial and C-2 Restricted Commercial zoning. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Biltmore site be redesignated on the General Plan to Medium Density Residential and rezoned to a residential specific plan area allowing a maximum of 14 units with a 30 foot height limit. The subject area would include the vacated portion of Beach Drive and 15th Ct. It. is also recommended that the proceeds from the sale of the Biltmore site be used to buy excess school property and/or railroad right-of-way for open space purposes. Staff also recommends the redesignation and rezoning of the public parking lot back to GC - General Commercial and C-2 - Restricted Commercial zoning as appropriate. BILTMORE SITE Background The Planning Commission considered this issue at their meeting of June 5, 1990. Since they were unable to reach majority agreement on the issue, the attached report was adopted which shows that the vote was split 2-2-1. Two commissioners favored a medium density residential designation with a 25 -foot height limit; two - 1 - favored a partial commercial and open space use, and one favored open space exclusively. The previous election involving the Biltmore Site resulted in two failing initiatives. The initiative for a combination of urban public plaza, commercial, and residential failed by a 7270 vote and the initiative for open space only on the Biltmore Site failed by a 5370 vote. The City Council has requested staff and the Planning Commission to study the option of designating the property for residential purposes. For further background and site statistics please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report. Analysis Given the direction of Council to study the Biltmore Site for residential purposes, staff has focused only on the alternative of residential in this analysis. Residential is considered to be a preferable alternative because of the current high value of residential property and because of its limited environmental impact. Please refer to the attached Planning Commission report for further analysis. `~In response to comments raised at the Planning Commission public hearing in regards to the subdivision of the property, it should be noted that the recommended residential specific plan area does not limit the city to a specific layout of the buildings or lots on the property. Under the proposal, the property could be sold as one large parcel and the buyer would then have the choice of utilizing the existing 12 -lot configuration for single-family units or, to develop the property as an integrated condominium project with up to 14 units. Additionally, rather than selling it as one large parcel the City could choose to sell the existing 12 lots individually. In the past, when single-family - R-1 zoning was being suggested, subdividing the property into 4000 square -foot lots was logical, but under medium density residential it serves no purpose since the larger lots could simply have two units per lot if developed individually. Eight lots as originally suggested would result in 16 units. Staff believes that structuring the specific plan area as proposed in this way provides an incentive for the buyer to develop an integrated project, but would allow for the use of the existing lots for individual dwellings if market conditions should prove it to be the best use of the property. Alternatives 1. Redesignate/Rezone the site to Medium Density/R-2B which would keep the current lot configuration and allow a total of 12 units. 2 2. Redesignate/Rezone the site to Medium Density/R-2 which would allow up to 21 units on the site if the lots were merged, and the vacated portion of Beach Drive and 15th Court were included. 3. Impose a 25 -foot height limit as part of the residential specific plan area. PARKING LOT "C" Background The Planning Commission, at their meeting, recommended that Parking Lot "C" be redesignated/rezoned to GC - General Commercial and C-2 - Restricted Commercial. Analysis Parking lot "C" was originally a part of the specific plan area for the defeated hotel project, and therefore retains that general plan and zoning classification. The proposed general plan amendment and zone change would return it to its previous GC C-2 designations. This would be consistent with its current use a commercial parking area, and consistent with the designation of the other downtown parking lot. Please refer to the attached Planning Commsion staff report for more analysis. CONCUR; / Michael Schubach Planning Director / Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager ertson Associate Planner Attachments 1. Proposed Resolution and Ordinance 2. Maps 3. P.C. Staff Report 6/5/90 4. P.C. Resos 90-43 and 90-44 and P.C. report 5. P.C. Minutes 6/19/90 6. C.C. Resolution 90-5341 7. Memo from City Attorney 8. Affidavit 9. Correspondence t/pcsrsite 3 July 5, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of July 10, 1990 CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS ON GENERAL PLAN AND ZONE CHANGE RECOMMENDATION FOR BILTMORE SITE The Council is in a rare dual role to act both as a planning and zoning agency, as well as a property owner, regarding the re- designation and rezoning of the Biltmore site. From a planning perspective, certainly commercial, medium density residential, and open space are compatible with surrounding areas. While com- mercial has been the historical use and may have been the best long term revenue source for the City, it has been defeated the most times by the public. It is now probably the least likely solution to the long term project of resolving what to do with the Biltmore site. This leaves the viable options of residential and open space. Residential has been supported because it is compatible with the surrounding area, and has a low impact on the City and the neigh- borhood. It also results in the highest immediate revenue source for the City via sale of the property. Open space is a high and well recognized public priority through- out the community. However, the Biltmore site seems ill situated to respond to this need. Its .8+acres is immediately adjacent to 40 to 50 acres of beach area, and close to the pier head and pier area. Use of open space on the Biltmore site would likely be consistent with use of the Strand, which has a high regional use. It would also no doubt be a second gathering spot, similar to the pier head, for undesirable activity. For these reasons, there is a great deal of logic to the concept that the open space priority of our community would be best served by using the funds from sale of the site for residential to provide acres of open space throughout the City for use by our residents as well as visitors. A conservative estimate is that 15 times the land area would be available by purchasing surplus school sites in all four quadrants of the City through the pro- ceeds of the sale of the Biltmore site. The ability to get 15 times the land area, in better situated areas throughout the City, make sale of the Biltmore site for residential with use of the proceeds to purchase open space a win-win situation for our community. Only those who are immedi- ately adjacent to the site would not be given their best option. Their property values and views may not be as positively impacted with residential as with open space uses of the Biltmore site. Everyone else in the community would seem to benefit by sale of the Biltmore site for residential. In order for this option to be approvedlby the Coastal Commis- sion, as much consensus as possible in our community needs to be developed. Since sale for residential serves both open space and residential interest, it is hoped that these two interests will combine to form a broad community consensus. Regarding height, it should be noted that the 30 ft. height recommended would be at or below the height to which surrounding properties have been built or can be built. The attached material includes a hand written estimate of value of the proper- ty that was developed for the Biltmore Task Force by Jonathan Coleman, of Real Estate West. It was presented to the Task Force on February 22, 1989. Mr. Coleman felt that the 30 ft. limit was an important factor in the valuing of the properties, so I am attaching a page from his report that provide his comments on height and other factors of value. It should also be noted that a reduction of lot coverage from 65% to 50% and the requirement for 10 ft. setback from the Strand could be considered a trade off for the added height, but may in fact make the properties not as valuable as they would be at the current code requirements of 5 ft. setback and 65% lot coverage. Kevin B. Northc, aft City Manager KBN/ld S JB`j/l d7 2/A kea/ s forf e I feel that the best sub -division for marketing purposes, which will bring the highest dollar amount for total sales of the subject property is as it currently exists. The other options for sub- division as illustrated will yeild a significantly smaller total purchase price. This property has distinct problems due to the proximity to commercial developement, and the generally high amount of foot traffic. It is the antithesis of why someone would want to purchase on The Strand. By making these lots R-1 the height will be limited to 25 feet. This places a large portion of the living areas on the Strand level. Most buyers would prefer to have these areas above the Strand level out of proximity to the traffic and noise. The buyer could develope a home of larger size by approx- imately 1000 sq.ft. However the slightly increased value of the larger size lot is more than compensated for by the value of the two extra lots which could be marketed by keeping the size of the subdivision on The Strand at the existing 30X80 size and by allowing maximum developement as R-2. Corner lots with the traditional 20 ft. sideyard easement will always have more inherit value. Yet with the subject property the lot on the North corner of 14th St. will have the undesireable element of being situated next to a busy restaurant. North corners have more value because of the exposure to. sunlight, but in this case I fell- that the lot on the corner 15th St. will be more desireable even though it is a South corner lot. If the R-2 zoned lots in excess of 3500 sq.ft. on the East portion can be developed as condominiums, they will have the pot- ential of yeilding a higher sale price from a developer. Regardless of how the property is sub -divided, I strongly advise that the individual lots be marketed on an individual basis as opposed to offering the site as a package to a developer. By selling them individually you will optimize the sales price. It might be more entailed, and require more administration, but if the transactions are all handled by the same escrow, in the same manner, it should minimize the additional work involved. Also, individual offerings of each of the lots does not preclude a pot- ential developer from offering on all of the seperate lots. Most importantly, with the current rate of appreciation, it is very important to re-evaluate the potential pricing before marketing the property. I feel that the figures T have given you are conservative, and in fact,_that the site should be marketed at ahigher price. The market and offers will truly determine what the values are. Time and again I am surprised by the new comparable sales data. It is advantageous to test the market. Any appraisal is merely an estimate of value, and no one can truly tell what that value is in a limited market such as The Strand, unless the market is tested. Please feel free to contact me at anytime for further information or for the marketing of the property. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE 90 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR THE BILTMORE SITE TO CHANGE THE PERMITTED USE FROM A HOTEL TO RESIDENTIAL, AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE PARKING LOT "C" FROM SAID SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO C-2 - RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on Zone Change 90-2 for the Biltmore site and Parking Lot "C" on July 10, 1990, to receive oral and written testimony, and made the following Findings: A. The proposed rezoning will not cause a significant impact on the environment as it involves a change to a lower intensity use on the Biltmore Site".and a change back to the previous zoning of Parking Lot "C," prior to its incorporation into the hotel plan; B. Residential use of the Biltmore Site is consistent with adjacent and surrounding land uses which to the north and east are predominantly multi -family residential uses; C. The Specific Plan Area zone will allow a density consistent with the Medium Density General Plan designation and the provisions of the Specific Plan Area will ensure that the development of the site is consistent with the character of surrounding uses and of an appropriate density given the existing congestion of the area; D. The citizens of the City of Hermosa Beach, have expressed their general opposition to non-residential use of the site by voting against proposals to use the Biltmore Site for �ti 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 visitor oriented commercial purposes such as a hotel or retail commercial uses; NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California, hereby amends zoning map as shown on the attached map, and amends the zoning ordinance text, described as follows: SECTION 1. The following text shall be added to the zoning ordinance: Article 9.6, Chapter 1, Specific Plan Area No. 1 Section 9.61-1. Authority. This Specific Plan Area is an instrument for implementing the General plan pursuant to Article 8, Chapter 3, of the State of California Planning and Zoning Law (California Government Code Section 65450 et. Seq.) Section 9.61-2 Location and Description. The subject area is located on theieast side of the Strand generally between 14th Street and 15th Street, and extending to approximately 350 feet west of Hermosa Avenue. Section 9.61-3 Purpose.' The purpose of the Specific Plan Area is to set forth the development requirements, standards and permitted uses for the subject area. Section 9.61-4 Permitted Uses and Density. A. Any use permitted in the R-1 (One -Family) Residential Zone to a maximum of 12 dwelling units. B. Condominium developments consistent with the provisions of the Condominium Ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach to a maximum of 14 dwelling units. Section 9.61-5 Development Standards A. A minimum of three (3) off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit. B. Lot coverage shall not exceed 5070 of the entire Specific Plan Area. C. A minimum setback of 10 feet shall be provided from the Strand. D. The development ofcondominiums shall require the merging of the existing lots into one parcel. - 2 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 E. Development standards shall be as set forth in ARTICLE 5. R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, except pertaining to lot coverage and setbacks as stated in Section 9.61-5(B) and 5(C). F. All other standards shall be as set forth in the City of Hermosa Beach Zoning Ordinance, except pertaining to required parking spaces as stated in Section 9.61-5A. SECTION 2. Rezone the property commonly known as Parking Lot "C" from Specific Plan Area to C-2 Restricted Commercial, legally described as follows: - Lots 19 through 29, inclusive, and lots 32 and 33, Hermosa Beach Tract SECTION 3. This .ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. SECTION 4. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the EasyReader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation pulished and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided bylaw. SECTION 5. 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: P/persbilt CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 9 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE BILTMORE SITE FROM A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR A HOTEL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND FOR PARKING LOT "C" FROM SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on General Plan Amendment 90-2 for the Biltmore site and Parking Lot "C" on July 10, 1990, to receive oral and written testimony, and made the following Findings: A. The proposed amendment will not result in a significant impact on the environment as it involves a change to a lower B. intensity use on the Biltmore Site previous designation for Parking incorporation into the hotel plan; Residential use of the Biltmore and a change back to the Lot "C," prior to its Site is consistent with adjacent and surrounding land uses which to the north and east are predominantly multi -family residential uses; C. The Medium Density General Plan designation is consistent with surrounding residential designations and such a density is consistent with the character of surrounding uses; D. The citizens of the City of Hermosa Beach have expressed their general opposition.. to non-residential use of the site by voting against proposals to use the Biltmore Site for visitor oriented commercial purposes such as a hotel or retail commercial uses; NOW, THEREFORE, the City' Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, hereby amends the Land Use Map of the General Plan as shown on the attached map: -/O- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 1. General Plan Amend the property commonly known as the "Biltmore Site" from Specific Plan Area to Medium Density Residential, legally described as follows: Lots 1 through 9, inclusive, and lots 19 and 20, Hermosa Beach Tract; and including the vacated portion of Beach Drive between 14th and 15th Street and the vacated portion of 15th Court extending 60 feet eastward of Beach Drive. SECTION 2. General Plan amend the property commonly known as Parking Lot "C" from Specific Plan Area to General Commercial, legally described as follows: Lots 19 through 29, inclusive, and lots 32 and 33, Hermosa Beach Tract ATTEST: 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 CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY p/ccrsgpab u MD MD GENE(IL PLAN AMENDMENT & LNE CHANGE AREAS BILTMORE SITE (PUBLICLY OWNED PORTION) OS: OPEN SPACE HD: HIGH DENSITY MD: MEDIUM DENSITY GC: GENERAL COMMERCIAL CR: COMMERCIAL RECREATION MD HD 10 r • O., ye' H! MONT FRFs HD 0 u BLV D GC GC 7 J. HD • MD • • l Y MD l c MD MANHATTAN MD N HD HD H ERMOSA Ave. AVENUE BEACH MD I JMDJHDJ W Qz W 1 STRAND 4 o' C 988 ;® \51" w a. )::•E 340 )R PRN. AJSMT. SEE: 159-10 1Al" HERMOSA BEACH M.B. 1-25-26 CONDOMINIUM PARCEL MAP P.M.196-58 t.SSE SSD =' i II:.P L 3 50' 1987 w 0 cc - W X00 . r• CODE 4340 HERMOSA BEACH FOR PREY. ASSMT. SEE: 159-9 rTh ASSESSOR'S HAP COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. CALI Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission May 29, 1990 Regular Meeeting of June 5, 1990 SUBJECT: SECOND QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-2 AND ZONE CHANGE 90-2 LOCATIONS: 1. THE BILTMORE SITE: PUBLICLY OWNED PORTION BETWEEN 14TH STREET AND 15TH STREET, ALONG THE STRAND 2. PUBLIC PARKING LOT "C" BOUNDED BY 14TH COURT AND 13TH STREET BETWEEN BEACH DRIVE AND HERMOSA AVE. PURPOSE: TO CONSIDER A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE TO AMEND THE CURRENT SPECIFIC PLAN AREA DESIGNATION FOR A HOTEL AND CHANGE IT TO A RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION FOR THE BILTMORE SITE AND TO RETURN IT TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND C-2 FOR PARKING LOT "C". Recommendation Staff recommends the following: 1. Redesignate the Biltmore site to Medium Density Residential and rezone the site to Residential Specific Plan Area allowing a maximum of 14 units with a 30 foot height limit, and include the vacated portion of Beach Drive and 15th Ct. 2. Redesignate/Rezone the public parking lot back to GC/C-2 3. Use the proceeds from the sale of the Biltmore site to buy the most excess school property and/or railroad right-of-way for open space purposes. BILTMORE SITE ON THE STRAND Background The previous election involving the Biltmore Site resulted in two failing initiatives. The initiative for a combination of urban public plaza, commercial, and residential failed by a 72% vote and the initiative for open space only on the Biltmore Site failed by a 53% vote. The City Council has now requested staff and the Planning Commission to study the option of designating the property for residential purposes. On April 19, 1990, the Staff Environmental Review Committee recommended an environmental negative declaration for the general plan amendment and rezoning because the change in designation would be to a lower intensity use than what is allowed under the current _general plan and zoning designation of S.P.A. for a hotel. When and if a specific residential project is consid{ L:oi.� , ..z; INFOIAi ION l for this site it will require precise development plan, and at that time the project would be subject to environmental review. Site Statistics Site Area (including R -O -W) 36,923 sq. ft. (.85 acres) No. of existing lots 12 Lot sizes 2400 - 3263 sq. ft. Area in R -0-W 5400 sq. ft. Area excluding R -O -W 31,523 sq. ft. Adjacent Uses/General Plan/Zoning: Use GP Zone North: MF Res. HD R-3 East (along 15th St.): MF Res. HD R-3 East (along 14th St.):Comm. CR C-2 South: Comm. GC C-2 West: Beach OS OS Potential Number of Units/Density Potential Under Residential " Zones: Current Lot Merged Lots Configuration Vacated R -O -W No. Density No. Density R-1 12 16.6 du/acre N/A R -2B 12 16.6 N/A R-2 12 16.6 21 24.7 du/acre R-3 17 23.5 27 31.8 Analysis Given the direction of Council to study the Biltmore Site for residential purposes, staff is focusing only on the alternative of residential in this analysis. Residential is considered to be a preferable alternative because of the current high value of residential property and because of its limited environmental impact. LOT CONFIGURATION /6 C In terms of the design and layout of a residential project two distinct approaches are available. One approach is to use the existing lot configuration of 12 substandard lots of 2400 - 3263 square feet and under an existing zoning category allow the development of these separate lots. This would also mean using the previously vacated alleys (Beach Drive and a portion of 14th Court). This approach was suggested by the minority report of the task force. Their suggestion was to use R-2 zoning, meaning that each lot could be developed with one unit to a height of 30 feet. The advantage of this approach from a developers perspective is that individual single-family lots could be sold rather than requiring a condominium form of ownership. The other option would be to merge all the lots and the vacated public rights-of-way into one large parcel, establish the density limits, and permit the buyer of the property several options for the layout of the units on the site. This could be accomplished either through a Specific Plan Area designation, or through one of the city's zoning categories. There are several advantages to the concept of merging the lots; for example, it would provide the developer the flexibility to design the units to maximize views for all units, including those that would not have Strand frontage; it would allow for a more efficient use of the property towards providing open space; and space would be available for a usable common recreation area. In general, the rather uniform appearance of row houses on 30 -foot wide lots would likely be avoided. In Staff's judgement the elimination of the substandard lots would be a benefit to the city as it would encourage a better more innovative design of the site, and would also make the site more valuable. However, as noted there are benefits to both approaches and staff believes the zoning for the site could allow either situation to occur, but provide an incentive to a developer wising to develop an integrated project. DENSITY The next issue is the determination of the number of units to be allowed on the site. In staff's judgement a density within the range of the Medium Density classification would be appropriate. This would not be significantly inconsistent with the multi -family character of the immediately adjacent areas, and it would be directly consistent with the density of surrounding residential areas to the north and east just beyond the limits of the High Density designated area. The Medium Density range is 14-25 units per acre. The following is a table of the density if the site is developed in a range between 12 to 20 units for both the area of the site excluding the right-of-way and the area including the right-of-way. Excluding R -0-W Including R -O -W 12 units 16.6 du/acre 14.2 du/acre 13 17.9 15.3 14 19.3 16.5 15 20.7 17.7 16 22.1 18.9 17 23.5 20.0 18 24.9 21.2 20 27.6 23.5 The surrounding residential areas are zoned for the following densities: R -2B zoned area between 15th Court and 21st Street west of Hermosa Avenue...16 du/acre (based on individual lot size) R-3 zoned areas directly to the east of the Biltmore Site on both sides of 15th Street...31 du/acre (based on individual lot size) Although its difficult to justify any specific density appropriate for the Biltmore Site, staff believes that an amount consistent with the medium density character of the blocks north of 16th Court would make the most'sense -- about 16 units/acre. This is both for the purpose of retaining the character and scale of the majority of surrounding residential areas, and to minimize the environmental impacts which could be generated from a high density residential development. According the density figures above, a density of 16 units/acre would be 12 units if the R -0-W is excluded, or, 14 units if the R -0-W is included. In conclusion, staff is recommending a S.P.A. with a maximum of 14 units, and a 30 foot height limit, because of the advantage that would be gained by merging the lots. This proposal would also allow the city to sell or a buyer to develop 12 separate single family units on the existing parcels if its desired based on design and market considerations. However, the S.P.A. allows up to 14 units if the parcels are merged, which may be an adequate incentive for a developer to develop the site as one project and to pay a price higher than could be obtained selling 12 individual lots. However, it should be noted that utility lines exist under Beach Drive and either an easement, or relocation would be necessary. The recommended S.P.A. also includes provisions to require 3 parking spaces per unit, and a limit on the lot coverage to 50% of the entire site. SPOT ZONING? Attached with this report is an opinion from the Assistant City Attorney regarding the potential for this action to be considered "Spot Zoning." He concludes that the City has wide discretion to rezone the site and withstand an attack based upon a claim of spot zoning. One limitation, however, would be a consideration to rezone the property to single family residential. COASTAL COMMISSION The use of this site for residential purposes constitutes a significant change in the Coastal Commission adopted Land Use Plan. This has historically been identified for visitor oriented commercial. It has been argued, however, that the City may be able to justify this change because the proceeds gained from the sale of the property would be used to purchase the greenbelt property and perhaps some additional open space property within the Coastal Zone. Alternatives 1. Redesignate/Rezone the site to Medium Density/R-2B which would keep the current lot configuration and allow a total of 12 units. 2. Redesignate/Rezone the site to Medium Density/R-2 which would allow up to 21 units on the site if the lots were merged, and the vacated portion of Beach Drive and 15th Court are included. PARKING LOT "C" Analysis This site was rezoned to Specific Plan Area for a hotel project along with the Biltmore Site proper, and the privately owned property between 13th and 14th Street. Since that time the privately owned portion has been redesignated and rezoned back to its original GC/C-2 designation. Staff believes it would also be appropriate at this time to redesignate this public parking lot to GC/C-2 which was its previous designation. This is an appropriate designation for a parking lot which .serves a commercial area. f Mi' h'ael Schubach Planning Director Attachments 1. Proposed Resolutions 2. Maps 3. C.C. Resolution 90-5341 4. Memo from City Attorney 5. Correspondence 6. Public Notice Affidavit t/pcsrsite en Robertson Associate Planner BACKGROUND. MATERIAL 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 P.C. 90-43 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR PARKING LOT "C" FROM SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearings on General Plan Amendment 90-2 for the "Biltmore Site" and Parking Lot "C" on June 5 and June 19, 1990, to receive oral and, written testimony, and made the following Findings: A. The amendment for Parking Lot "C" will not result in a significant impact on the environment as it involves a change back to the previous designation for Parking Lot "C," prior to its incorporation into the hotel plan for the "Biltmore Site"; B. Commercial designation orthe Parking Lot "C" is consistent with its current use as a commercial parking lot and is consistent with adjacent and surrounding land uses; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, hereby recommends amending the Land Use Map of the General Plan as shown on the attached map, legally described as follows: 1. General Plan amend the property commonly known as Parking Lot "C" from Specific Plan Area to General Commercial, legally described as follows: Lots 19 through 29, inclusive, and lots 32 and 33, Hermosa Beach Tract VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ketz,Moore,Peirce,Rue,Chmn.Ingell NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 90-43 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commis-sion of the it >of. Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meet 19, 1990. 11 i riL e ,‘ .ed rS"cott Ingell,;$ hairman Michael Schubach, Secret Date _20— p/persgpab 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. 90-44 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE PARKING LOT "C" FROM SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO C-2 - RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearings on Zone Change 90-2 for the Biltmore site and Parking Lot "C"on June 5, and June 19, 1990, to receive oral and written testimony, and made the following Findings: A. The proposed rezoning of Parking Lot "C" will not cause a significant impact on the environment as it involves a change back to the previous zoning of Parking Lot "C," prior to its incorporation into the hotel plan; B. Commercial designation of Parking Lot "C" -tis consistent with its use a commercial parking lot and is consistent with surrounding uses; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, hereby recommends amending the zoning map as shown on the attached map, described as follows: SECTION 1. Rezone the property commonly known as Parking Lot "C" from Specific Plan Area to C-2 Restricted Commercial, legally described as follows: - Lots 19 through.29., inclusive, and lots 32 and 33, Hermosa Beach Tract VOTE: AYES: Comms,Ketz,Moore,Peirce,Rue,Chmn.Ingell NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 90-44 is a true and c mplete record of the action taken by the Planning Comms ion the Ci y of Hermosa Beach, California at their Ftg Zar m of ng q J i 19 1990. fS-cott In ell' hairman _l l Date —2/— L� M ael chubach, Secre P/persbilt 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 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT ON BILTMORE SITE The Planning Commission, at their June 19, 1990 meeting, determined that no resolution regarding the General Plan designation and zoning could receive a majority vote of the Planning Commission; therefore, the Planning Commission by. a majority vote opted to prepare this Report rather than a resolution. The following are the three differing recommendations of the Planning Commission: 1. Residential Specific Plan area with the following conditions: a. maximum height : 25 feet b. Proceeds from the sale of the property to be used to buy open space within coastal zone. c. Less dense, and intense use of property within medium density parameters. ,, d. Some amount open space to be provided along the Strand. VOTE: AYES: NOES: 2. Open space Comm.Rue,Chmn.Ingell Comms.Ketz,Moore,Peirce area for park purposes VOTE: AYES: •Comm.Peirce NOES: Comms.Ketz,Moore,Rue,Chmn.Ingell 3. Specific Plan Area with low intensive Commercial, and open space, similar to 1989 Biltmore Task Force recommendation. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ketz,Moore NOES: Comms.Peir•ce,Rue,Chmn.Ingell CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing report is a true and record,,9f the action taken by the Planning Commission of of He'mosa Beall, Caaiforryia at their regular meeting of )cott Ingell, %J 1- 7() airman Date g4C Michael chubac complete the City June 19, " . 4,7 A- , Secretary p/perbsite GP 90-2/ ZON 90-2 -- TO CONSIDER GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION AND REZONING OF THE BILTMORE SITE PUBLICLY OWNED PORTION FROM A SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR A HOTEL TO RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONS OR TO SUCH OTHER DESIGNATIONS/ZONES AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PUBLICLY OWNED PORTION OF THE BILTMORE SITE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 29. 1990. Staff made the following recommendations: (1) to redesignate the Biltmore Site to medium density residential and rezone the site to residential specific plan area allowing a maximum of 14 units with a 30 -foot height limit and include the vacated portion of Beach Drive and 15th Court; (2) to redesignate/rezone the public parking lot back to general commercial. C-2; (3) to use the proceeds from the sale of the Biltmore Site to buy the most excess school property and/or railroad right-of-way for open space purposes. The previous election involving the Biltmore Site resulted in two failing initiatives. The initiative for a combination of urban public plaza, commercial, and residential failed by a 72 percent vote and the initiative for open space only on the Biltmore Site failed by a 53 percent vote. The City Council has now requested staff and the Planning Commission to study the option of designating the property for residential purposes. On April 19, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental negative declaration for the general plan amendment and rezoning because the change in designation would be to a lower intensity use -than what is allowed under the current general plan and zoning designation of SPA for a hotel. When and if a specific residential project is considered for this site, it will require a precise development plan, and at that time the project would be subject to environmental review. Hearing opened at 8:47 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Betty Ryan, 588 20th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) asked questions related to what size the lots would be if they are rezoned to R-2 and noted that if the sizes remain as is, they will be substandard sized lots: (2) discussed with staff and the Commission the required lots sizes for development; (3) asked about the proposed lot configurations and questioned what could be done with the properties if they are offered for sale; (4) asked about what will become of Beach Drive and the lots facing 14th Street; (5) questioned how the lots would be accessed; (6) stated that if the zone is changed, there must be a practical use for that particular zoning; (7) stated that if the land is going to be sold, the City must know what it is selling; (8) asked about the sequence of events related to• this property. June Williams, Manhattan Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) asked why anyone would want to sell open space in this City; (2) couldn't believe that anyone feels more condos should be built; (3) stated that the only reason this is being considered is because of money; (4) felt that the Commission should be concerned with good planning and the quality of life; (5) stated that the budget and financial issues should be handled by the City Council, not the Commission; (6) stressed that open space needs to be preserved; (7) said that many people want a place to sit and enjoy the ocean without having to go on the sand; (8) questioned whether it would be appropriate to develop this property and add to the problems of congestion, traffic, sewage, water. and contamination. Hearing closed at 8:58 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Peirce asked whether the parking lot and the Biltmore site itself must be voted upon together, to which Mr. Lee responded that the matters can be voted upon separately. P.C. Minutes 6/19/90 MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve staffs recommendation to rezone the public parking lot "C" bounded by 14th Court and 13th Street between Beach Drive and Hermosa Avenue to C-2, general commercial. AYES: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chinn. Ingell NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION by Comm. Peirce to zone the Biltmore site, publicly owned portion between 14th and 15th Street along the Strand, as open space. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Comm. Rue asked for clarification on the specific role of Planning Commissioners. He questioned whether it is the responsibility of commissioners to consider financial matters. He questioned whether their purpose is to look at issues solely from a planning standpoint or whether fiscal issues should also be considered. Mr. Schubach stated that issues should be addressed economically, environmentally, socially, and politically. He stated that these are all real concerns in planning matters. Comm. Moore, noting that he has read the minutes from the last meeting, stated that the motivations are clearly money and frustration as to what to do with the piece of property. He noted that there is the potential to get a fair amount of money for the property; however, the money will be gone in several years. Therefore, he felt it is important to focus on what will become of the site in the long run. He stated that Hermosa Beach is quite unique insofar as beach cities are concerned. He said that most -other successful beach towns have some type of barrier between the sand and the businesses and/or residences, stating that that is the striking key difference between Hermosa and other beach cities. He noted that Manhattan Beach has a hill, and Redondo Beach has a palisades or a very heavily developed commercial strip separating the town from the beach. Laguna has grassy areas for separation as well as a road separating the areas. He stated that the only other similar beach city is Venice. He commented that Hermosa Beach has a concrete sewer for a strand, and it should be an embarrassment that the City cannot do something creative with that area. Comm. Moore understood the special legal problems related to the sand portion and what can and cannot be done, but he felt that the situation is embarassing compared to the situations in the other beach towns along the coast. Comm. Moore stated that if a hotel is built to the south of this site, the northern area would fit a residential use, since it is generally residential in the north and easterly surrounding sides, and he felt that would be very wrong. He felt that there is a duty upon the Cityto provide public access to the beach and to provide usages at the beach, noting that the only areas where such conditions exist are a small pocket at 22nd Street, an area at 2nd Street, and at the pier head. Comm. Moore stated that "cookie cutter" condos next to a "cookie cutter" hotel will create a visual mess for the area. Comm. Moore explained that he did not second Comm. Moore's motion for open space because he did not feel it is appropriate to look at the site as open space, stating that he feels that makes no sense because of its proximity to the beach. Comm. Moore stated that if he had his druthers, the City would buy up every house on the Strand, demo them, and move the Strand wall back eighty feet, and develop that area with multiple paths and parkways. However, he noted that that is merely his pipe dream. He felt that a park at that site would not be particularly useful. He could not support residential either. He could envision a mixture of uses such as open space coming back from the Strand and to balance that with additional open space.going east from the Strand for 20 or 30 feet. He felt there should be public uses, such as a combination of commercial uses and parking at the 2 T P.C. Minutes 6/19/90 rear to continue the economic growth of downtown. He stressed that he could not support residential or entirely open space. Churn. Ingell did not feel that commercial would be economically viable because there is not adequate square footage to provide the required parking. He said there is no economic value for another empty store on that site. Comm. Moore hoped that parking could be addressed within the VPD because the City is strangling itself with unrealistic parking requirements. He said that the only time there are parking problems is on summer weekends. He felt that rather dramatic loosening of the downtown parking requirements is necessary, noting that there are plenty of people in the area who would go to the stores if the stores could only be built. Churn. Ingell felt it would be nice to have some green area in front of any proposed development at the site. He therefore favored the site to be zoned specific plan area. He felt that the only feasible development would be residential, and with the SPA, very specific conditions could be imposed for development. He opposed a mere rezoning to R-2 or R -2B, however, because there would then be no specific tailored conditions. Comm. Moore stated that he could support a specific plan area, but not for residential development. He felt that the SPA would be appropriate for commercial development or a combination of commercial and open space. Comm. Ketz noted that the task force recommended a mixed use of commercial and open space: however, that option did not reach the voters. Chmn. Ingell felt that commercial use would not be viable unless the City were willing to subsidize the purchase. Churn. Ingell. noting that the Commission appears to be at an impasse, suggested that a partial recommendation be sent to the City Council outlining each Commissioners' opinion on this matter. Chinn. Ingell favored voting to approve the site as a specific plan area. Comms. Moore and Ketz both strongly opposed residential development, Comm. Ketz stating that she favors a combination of commercial and open space. Comm. Rue, discussing commercial uses, stated that there are severe parking restraints as well as economic restraints. He noted deep concern that a commercial building could sit empty or have many tenants, one after the other. Comm. Ketz stated that she has never seen any economic study related to whether commercial development would or would not be feasible in the downtown area. She continued by stating that residential is inappropriate because this is the busiest part of the Strand, it will be right next to the new hotel, and it is in the downtown area. She did not want to see more condos at that site. Comm. Rue, noting that Comm. Moore feared "cookie cutter" development on the site, stated that it would be nice to have upscale R-1 development. He said that the Strand lots could be carved out as open space, tand he five residential lots could be made larger, with possibly a specific plan. Comm. Rue felt it is important to have more than just a park at this site. plan and open space combination might be appropriate. Chinn. Ingell felt that a park would not be. appropriate. He stated that where benches and landscaping could be placed for people wanting to —25— He felt that a specific there are other areas enjoy the beach. He P.C: Minutes 6/19/90 favored extra large setbacks if the area is designated SPA. He noted frustration over deciding what to do with the property. He stated that this is a political issue, and it is a shame it is no longer merely a planning matter. Chmn. Ingell noted that it appears the Commission cannot reach an agreement on its recommendation. Mr. Schubach explained that if a decision cannot be reached, staff would prepare a decision report for Council, rather than a resolution. Churn. Ingell favored the site as a residential specific plan area. He felt that if such a designation were approved, specific standards could be addressed at a future time. MOTION by Chmn. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to recommend that the site be designated residential specific plan area. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Rue as second, to recommend that a portion be set aside for open space along the Strand; to recommend that less dense and less intense development be considered within the constraints of medium density; and to recommend that the proceeds from the sale of the property go toward buying additional open space in the coastal zone. Amendment accepted by Churn. Ingell as maker. AYES: Comm. Rue, Chmn. Ingell NOES: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None (MOTION FAILS.) Comms. Rue and Moore felt that it would be most appropriate to send a report to the City Council, rather than a resolution. Comm. Peirce favored open space at the site, stating that there is very little open space in the City. He felt that there is no compromising on this matter. Comm. Rue felt that the Commission has a fiscal responsibility, and his amendment to the motion was a compromise to the problem. Comm. Ketz favoreda specific plan area with low -intensity commercial uses and open space as recommended by the task force last year. Comm. Moore concurred. Comm. Moore discussed parking, stating that something must be done to address the parking problem in the downtown area. Recess taken from 9:23 P.M. until 9:30 P.M. CON 90-7 -- REVIEW OF THE ELEVATION PLAN FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDO AT 829 15TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 14. 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the elevations as revised. At the 6/5/90 meeting, the Planning Commission approved a two -unit condominium, subject to the condition that the applicant return with revised elevations to be approved by the Commission. P.C: Minutes 6/19/90 -Z6- The applicant has submitted revised elevations which depict a contemporary design using rounded corners on the buildings to soften the impact. This is an improvement over the previous elevations which had no theme or consistency. Although the design is simple, staff believes it is appropriate, given the lower scale of the building and the large setback. Also, the landscaping proposed should serve to complement the building. The design could be enhanced with the addition of a limited amount of glass block or other features on the facade. The Planning Commission may wish to direct staff to work with the applicant to provide such enhancements where appropriate. Hearing opened at 9:33 P.M. by Chinn. Ingell. Armando Pablo. 4747 W. El Segundo Boulevard, Hawthorne, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) explained that the elevations show that the corners have been rounded: (2) noted that trees have been added at three locations: (3) stated, in response to comments by Comm. Moore, that it is possible that the curb cut could be narrowed to provide additional space for landscaping. Hearing closed at 9:35 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Chinn. Ingell noted that the curb cut does not allow two parking spaces anyway. He questioned, however, the ramifications of requiring narrowing curb cuts to provide additional landscaping on all projects. Comm. Ketz felt that additional landscaping would make the project more attractive from the street. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, noted that staff recommended additional glass block to enhance the project's appearance. Comm. Rue favored allowing the applicant to have an option over the design, noting that the plans have been improved since the last time they were seen by the Commission. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by.Comm. Rue, to approve the submitted elevations with one condition: that the front flower bed be enhanced, and that approval shall be subject to Planning Director approval. Comm. Moore was happy with the design, and he did not feel glass block would be appropriate, noting that this is a very pure, simple design. AYES: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell NOES: None . ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 27 ,.„ P.C. 'Minutes 6/19/90 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 - 5341 A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY REZONING AND DISPOSITION OF THE BILTMORE SITE. WHEREAS, the City Council discussed this matter at the City Council meeting on January 23, 1990; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to have the Planning Commission study rezoning the Biltmore Site to residential; and WHEREAS, The City Council intends, after the rezoning, to sell the site and use the proceeds to pay off the financing of the Railroad right-of-way, therefore eliminating the 4% Utility User's Tax; and also acquire available excess School properties for Open Space Parkland purpoes; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to present this as a "package" to the Coastal Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council requests the Planning Commission to study rezoning the Biltmore Site to Residential and amending the General Plan appropriately. They are to study this issue as a "package", using the monies to acquire excess available properties for Open Space Parkland uses and any remainder to pay off the railroad right-of-way. SECTION 2. This matter is a high priority item to the City Council, and they request the study as soon as possible. // // - 2B T 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution; and shall cause the action of the City Council in adopting same to be entered in the official minutes of said City Council. PASS APPROVED ADOP/ D S 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 1990. PR:' ID;4 o the ity4►ouncil an. MAYOR of the ATTEST: City of Hermosa Beach, California p/ccrsbilt APPR9VED AS TO FO g--41 ATTORNEY THOMAS W. STOEVER WILLIAM B. BARR CHARLES S. VOSE CONNIE COOKE SANDIFER ROGER W. SPRINGER EDWARD W. LEE HERIBERTO F. DIAZ JAMES DUFF MURPHY JANICE R. MIYAHIRA LAW OFFICES OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1000 SUNSET BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 1213) 250-3043 MEMORANDUM TO: KEVIN NORTHCRAFT, CITY MANAGER CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FROM: DATE: RE: FAX EDWARD W. LEE, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY May 21, 1990 Spot Zoning - Biltmore Site P/n ,off _..ociAC / /i L- f ' TELECOPIER 1213) 4B2-5336 A MAY 2 3 1990 This office has been requested to issue an opinion regarding the potential for rezoning of the parcel of property more commonly known as the Biltmore Site. FACTS The Biltmore Site is that certain property currently owned by the City of Hermosa Beach and generally bounded by 14th Street, 15th Street, Hermosa Avenue and fronting on the Strand. The Biltmore Site is currently designated under the General Plan and zoned, Specific Plan Area ("SPA11). The immediate surrounding properties are designated under the General Plan as: medium density, high density to the north; commercial recreation to the east; general commercial to the south; and open space to the west. The zoning of those same adjacent properties is: R-3, R -2B to the north; R-3, C-2 to the east; C-2 to the south; and O -S to the west. The City wishes to consider either an amendment to the SPA or a rezoning of the Biltmore Site to insure the compatible use of the site with surrounding and existing properties. ISSUE Does the possible rezoning of'''the Biltmore Site to residential uses constitute spot zoning? OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE MEMORANDUM Kevin Northcraft, City Manager May 21, 1990 Page 2 CONCLUSION It is this firm's opinion that the City has wide discretion to rezone the Biltmore Site and withstand an attack based upon a claim of spot zoning. Based upon the surrounding current uses, ranging from multi -family residential to commercial to open space, the City could reasonably exercise its discretion within that spectrum of uses. The one limitation, as noted in the discussion below, might be a consideration to rezone the property to single family residential. DISCUSSION Spot zoning occurs when a small parcel of land or a single lot is rezoned to treat that property differently than the surrounding properties. In other words, when rezoning allows permitted uses which differ significantly from existing or allowable uses of the surrounding parcels, the City has created in essence an "island." See, e.g., Wilkins v. City of San "Bernardino (1946) 29 Cal.2d 332; Hamer v. Town of Ross (1963) 59 Cal.2d 776. As a general rule, the smaller the piece of land at issue the more likely a spot zoning claim will be asserted. However, the mere fact that a parcel's zoning is different from the zoning or uses on surrounding properties does not make the zoning unreasonable. See, e.g., Viso v. State of California (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 15. A finding of spot zoning turns on the issue of consistency or compatibility with the surrounding adjacent uses. This issue of "compatibility" is addressed in a number of court cases. In Hamer v. Town of Ross, the requirement of a one acre minimum lot size on a parcel surrounded by developed lots of less than one acre was determined by the California Supreme Court to be an invalid spot zoning. In Reynolds v. Barrett (1938) 12 Ca1.2d 244, residential zoning of a parcel which was surrounded by nonresidential uses was determined to be spot zoning. Finally, in Kissinger v. City of Los Angeles (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d 454, the down zoning of a parcel to single family use, when the parcel was surrounded by multi -family residential and commercial uses, was determined to be invalid as spot zoning. EWL:mc CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of perjury that I did on the c)?f4. day of Oct,,. -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 and agree 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 rat_ day of% i , 1990 at Hermosa Beach, California. State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) SS 04 this the j4 day of Laar/ce a'1 , , t appeared ye, lidq T7 7 satisfactory evidence }'u - y,#JU- 77,J6 (Name) tc ( ignaure )> 7 mixitsT24T,vti-- (Capacity) , 19962 , before me, signed Notary Public, personally and proved to me on the basis of be the person(s) whose name(s) �S suscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that S/ v_ executed it. WITNESS my hand and...official seal. (SEAL) i OFFICIAL SEAL LAURICE M. DUKE Notary Public - CAlltnrnlA PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN L A. COUNTY My Comm. Exp. Mer. 12, 1993 -3z-- May 25, 1990 ..AA`( 3 0 \953 Planning Department CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Re: Rezoning of the Biltmore Site To Whom It May Concern: After the multitude of rezoning initiatives presented to, and rejected by the voters of Hermosa Beach in the past few years over the ill - famed "Biltmore Site", it amazes me that we are once again being coerced into fighting "another round" with the Planning Department over this perennial issue. The "learning -curve" of the Planning Department in my opinion, is definitely suspect. Hotel, Commercial and Residential zoning proposals for this site' have all been offered, and turned down by the citizens of this community; however the obvious grassroots support of the Biltmore Open Space proposal is being totally ignored by the Planning Department. As George Bush would state, "Read Our Lips ... We Want an Open Space Zoning Designation for The Biltmore Site !" Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Department: ... give up the futile fight for a commercial and residential designation for this long ago decided zoning issue in our community ... withdraw this latest proposal, listen to your constituents, and offer the only available proposal that we have asked for time and time, again ... Propose An Open Space Zoning Initiative for The Biltmore Site. Sin Craig Schwan, Resident 15 15th Street Hermosa Beach, California 90254 May 30, 1990 City o f`liermosarl3eacl.) Mr. Craig Schwan 15 15th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mr. Schwan: Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 In response to your letter, I appreciate the thought of having the power and authority you have envisioned this department has. Unfortunately the Planning staff is directed by your elected City Council to study the matter of the Biltmore site, (please refer to the attached resolution). In the five and a half years I haVe-worked for the City, I have never studied the Biltmore site issue, although the issue has been around for twenty years and was probably studied by previous staff. Most recently, the matter was studied by a City Council appointed task force of residents and the City Council, then, made it's decision to place the matter on the ballot based on the task force decision. The ballot measure was paralleled with an initiative for open space prepared by Mr. Parker Herriott; that initiative lost as well as did the City Council sponsored ballot measure. The City Council I understand, intends to sell the Biltmore site, for the highest and best use, and use the funds to purchase the Railroad Greenbelt. The amount of funds from the sale of the Biltmore site, approximately 2/3 ofan acre, will pay for almost the entire 20 acres of Greenbelt, it is believed. The portion of what was once included in the Hotel proposal and is currently used as Parking Lot "C" adjacent to the theater on the north, is being recommended by staff to be returned to C-2 zoning and to remain a public parking lot. It is not part of the property the City Council intends to sell. I sincerely hope this letter clarifies the role of the Planning Department. We only make recommendations, and have no authority to place any matter whatsoever.on -the ballot. - 31 - Mr. Creig Schwan Page 2 You are welcome to attend the Planning Commission and also the City Council public hearing and state your opinion as to what to do with the Biltmore site. Sincerely, /<::-;V/ Michael Schubach Planning Director 7 NAS/yyt December 6, 1989 TO: FELLOW COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: COUNCILMEMBER MIDSTORKE RE: REZONING AND DISPOSITION OF THE BILTMORE SITE I respectfully request that my fellow colleagues consider adopting, or sending to staff for refinement, the attached Resolution of Intention to the Planning Commission to Study Rezoning and Disposition of the Biltmore Site. Background At the recent election on November 7, 1989, there were again measures involving the Biltmore Site, and both measures failed. It is now time for the City Council to make some policy decisions regarding the management of this resource in the best interests of the citizens of Hermosa Beach. To sit and wait would be reactionary and poor resource management. To wait for another Initiative Petition to begin and circulate would be allowing an abuse of the Initiative process to successfully intimidate elected offician into not making policy decisions. The Biltmore Site has been the subject of numerous ballot measures, none receiving a majority vote of the electorate, since 1972. the most recent example was the latest Biltmore Site Task Force's, refined recommendation of mixed uses, receiving only 28% YES votes. In my opinion, the best management of this resource for the taxpayers of the City of Hermosa Beach would be to rezone the property low-density residentia, sell the property, and use the proceeds to pay off the Railroad right-of-way, retire the 4% Utility User's Tax, and purchase other available lands for Open Space (South School, Valley Park, etc.) The argument that the Coastal Commission would never approve Residential Use on this property is a political one, and is not based on fact. After 2 conflicting letters from Peter Douglas of the Coastal Commission, Charles Damm of the Coastal Commission attended a Biltmore Site Tapkl'or�ce Meeting on February 22, 1989. (A copy of the transcript is ). He says, about changing commercial to residential, "the Commission has seen a great number of proposals over the years to change visitor commercial to residential. . And some of those they have said YES, and some of them have said NO." The City has never attempted to present an argument in favor of Residential on this site to the Coastal Commission. The following are among many arguments which could be presented to the Coastal Commission to support the burden of justifying the Residential use: (1) The City of Hermosa Beach is presenting a package in rezoning the Biltmore Site. They are proposing to rezone a parcel to use the proceeds to acquire 16+ more acres within the Coastal Zone. (2) A Petition Initiative was passed in 1987, mandating that the City acquire the abandoned railroad right-of-way for parkland and open space purposes, and required that the City use all means available, and if necessary, a bond issue. (3) In regards to the additional acreage to be acquired within the Coastal Zone, an additional ballot measure was passed on November 7, 1989 allowing Improvements to two existing parking areas within this area, therefore resulting in additional parking spaces for visitor recreational users. (4) Immediately adjacent to this parcel, currently applying for a Coastal Permit, is an 170 Unit Visitor Serving Recreational Hotel. Visitor Serving Recreational is no longer necessary on the Biltmore Site as it is being provided immediately adjacent to the site. Mr. Charles Damm of the Coastal Commission, on February 22, goes on to stay "if they decide that they want to go to Residential .. it's not to say it wouldn't be approved -and certainly the scenario of the railroad tracks is an interesting concept I hadn't thought about." When the Biltmore Site Task Force Recommendation was presented to the Planning Commission prior to the November, 1989 vote, the Planning Commission voted to not accept the recommendation of mixed uses, but to recommend Residential as the highest and best use of the property. In summary, it is time for the City Council to make the decision on the Biltmore Site. If it is not accepted by the electorate, they have the opportunity to exercise their right of referendum. We can not sit idle and be an reactionary City Council due to our commitments to the electorate for fiscal management. Wehave the 4% WT hanging over ourheads; we have excess School Properties available with no funds for purchase; and we have an entire infrastructure system that needs to be replaced. 37 BILTMORE SITE TASK FORCE MINORITY REPORT It is the finding of the undersigned members of the Biltmore Site Task Force that the best disposition of the Site would be by auction, zoned. for Residential, R2, with the lots so configured as to permit 12 units. Attached is a diagram demonstrating the proposed method to subdivide the Tots so as to limit the number of units to be developed to 12, while permitting them to be built to the R2 limit in order to achieve a "vertical sound and traffic buffer". The primary reasons underpinning the recommendation of residential are: 1. A Residential development is likely to generate at least $8 million, the optimum revenue for the city, long or short term, through a development that would create minimal impact. 2. It is the proposal most likely to be well accepted by the sector of the community most affected by the disposition of the Site. In Precinct 4 (see attached), Proposition X, the 1988 Residential Measure, was approved by almost 2/3 of the voters. It received 254 yes votes and only 163 no votes, as opposed to the unequivocal rejection of hotel SPA and commercial) The City would use all proceeds from the sale in the following manner: 1. Apply to the balance of the cost of the Greenbelt/Right-of-Way (within Coastal Commission aegis) not already raised through the UUT. 2. From the business owners within the Vehicle Parking District area, the city would appoint five individuals who will spearhead the district. The city would direct the appointees to serve with two interested members of the community at large who would act as advocates for the residents. Of the remaining money, the greater of 20% or 1 million dollars would be given to the Vehicle Parking District to develop and/or construct parking within their sector. All proposals forthcoming would be subject to Council approval. 3. The balance of the proceeds would be earmarked for purchase of other available open space lands, primarily Valley Park. 4. This proposal would be submitted to a vote of the Hermosa Beach citizens. The sole point of concern relates to Coastal Commission approval. It is acknowledged by the undersigned that the city would have the responsibility of persuading the Commission of the feasibility of a nonpriority use. We believe demonstrating the workability of nonpriority residential use to be achievable and realistic. Trading .8 acre for possibly 25 times that amount to be dedicated to open space, recreational, and visitor serving use within the Coastal Commission territory is a powerful argument, which if presented cogently would be granted reasonable consideration. P/7J/ ki Zr i5 1. Proposition Z, the hotel site specific plan received 83 yes votes and 327 no votes, failing by 80% , Proposition Y, Commercial, received 31 yes votes and 375 no votes. Commercial failed by 92%. _ 3 I- .._ I I ... -- ..-- . — .— _ . — _— --- - —... I— - ... . .... . .. .. . — . .. _— . . . ... —. ..— .— .4 — .. . . — . ... —. .. . _._ . .— . . . ...... ... .. - - - -. - .. _ — - —.... —.. . —.- .1 — .. ... — ...... _ ...— — 1 1 .. .. . — ..... — I • ..— — ...... — .— . . I ili • 1 . . . .• i I ' I . I I _ . . . • I ' 4 . I ; • I . : I I I ! I s . I I I—.— 4 I I I . --.— - - .. -- — .... .... .. '1 . • I N 1 ve _ _ . _ 4 __ 1 _ ____ ___ _ I I 1 /I 41 _ _._ I • . ....1 _ 1 - _ _ . ... __ .___ iL _ ? • _ _ _ /PO — . . . _. - — I I _ _. fl I " I .-_____ _ _ _ ii) ...__ _ ,__. _ _ .4de 4 =1.- .. • . 1 I 1 I --- -- . r tit.to .20 — --.. — - ' a — I I — _. _. _ _ .. . r [ I . _.. ____ _ . I i 1 i • i I i . 1 • I 1 ' f• ' • I , - t • ; I ! r 1. I I I; . . • i i I 1 I • ; ! . I I. r • r I I i ; I ; a ' t r• .; I : . , ! i 1 - - I: i--- •• I • I 1 , . • ' . -4. • i ! 1 ; -4 ,_ • •• . I .- f - I; - 11— —: . . 1 ! I 1 I •. • .I . ! ; r '4 Citi o f21ermosa l�eacly Craig Schwan 15 - 15th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mr. Schwan: Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 July 2, 1990 We are in receipt of your letter dated June 20, 1990 regard- ing the Biltmore Site. The zoning and General Plan designation of the Biltmore site is set for public hearing before the City Council on July 10, 1990. Your letter will be included in the packet the Council receives, and you are invited to testify at the hearing. Thank you for your interest in improving our community. Sincerely, Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager KBN/ld cc: Planning Department cru June 20, 1990 Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Dear Mr. Northcraft, RECEIVED JLW 26 1990 Last night I watched with great interest the broadcast of the recent Planning Commission debate on the perennial issue of "The Biltmore Site", and what the Commission should recommend to the City Council and yourself to do with this both controversial and valuable piece of property. I can empathize with each of the Commissioner's opinions, and the logic behind the various positions; i.e. to designate the parcel Open Space, R-2 Residential, or Commercial/Open Space; all genuine attempts to balance responsible planning with good fiscal and civic responsibilities. After following this issue for over five years, I can certainly understand everyone's personal frustrations; and in the end, the most accurate comment of the session was "unfortunately, this is no longer a planning issue, but a political issue." Might I suggest, however, that perhaps we have all been too close to this subject to truly understand what has happened "politically" in regards to The Biltmore Site and the encompassing Specific Plan Area. As an example ... at what point did the selling -off of this parcel get inexorably linked with the purchase of Open Space in the Greenbelt area? ... By whom, and why? As I'm sure you are aware, any governmental body has a wide variety of choices when deciding on the funding of a civic project or public land purchase. Why then has the Greenbelt Open Space Purchase been considered possible only with the selling -off of The Biltmore Site? Are there not numerous funding alternatives? HOLLYWOOD 1755 N. Highland Avenue • Los Angeles, California 90028 • 213/462-7181 • Telex: 181337 • Fax: 213/466-9072 Operated by Holiday Inns, Inc. _ 4/-- Page Two CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA If we could all free ourselves from this "linkage" of funding, perhaps the issue could be considered a bit more logically; i.e. that the site in question is located directly between a high-density residential area and a very active commercial area, and as expert city planners, the Planning Commissioners and yourself must agree that the two environs do not mix; that designating the area as Residential, Commercial, or even a combination of both will not work, no matter what the developers may propose. Clearly, The Biltmore Site needs to be designated Open Space. Yes, perhaps you might say that the voters of Hermosa Beach have already made their decision on this topic, however I believe the entire issue has been clouded in the voter's minds with this most illogical linkage of The Biltmore Site sell-off and the Greenbelt Open Space purchase. As a responsible civic leader for Hermosa Beach, I urge you to separate these two issues when deciding the fate of this very special piece of real estate: The Biltmore Site. - - Sinc- -I Craig Schwan General Manager and Hermosa Beach Resident 15 15th Street 1/2 THOMAS R. FRANCIS 15 FIFTEENTH STREET UNIT HERMOSA, BEACH 90254 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH 90254 MO I WOULD LIFE TO REGISTER MY OBJECTIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL'S CONTINUING EFFORTS TO DEVELOP THE BILTMORE SITE. IN OBVIOUS DEFIANCE OF THE WILL OF THE VOTERS. CITY COUNCILS HAVE, IN THE FAST, CREATED SPECIFIC PLANS TO SATISFY DEVELOPERS OF HOTELS. THE HOTELS WERE FORTUNATELY DEFEATED SEVERAL TIMES AT THE POLES. CITY COUNCILS HAVE PLACED PROPOSITIONS ON THE BALLOT IN ORDER TO DILUTE A VOTE ON A PARK. THIS UNFORTUNATELY WORKED AND SOMETHING WE ALL COULD HAVE ENJOYED WAS DEFEATED. I MUST SERIOUSLY QUESTION THE MOTIVATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL IN THIS EFFORT TO REDESIGNATE AND REZONE THE GENERAL'F'LAN AS CONCERNS THE BILTMORE SITE. IN RELATIONSHIP TO THIS PROPOSED REVISION TO THE GENERAL PLAN. I SPECIFICALLY OBJECT TO THE ATTEMPT TO ALLOW THE CITY COUNCIL THE LATITUDE TO DETERMINE REDESIGNATION OR REZONING "AS DEEMED AF'F'ROPRIATE". IT HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SELDOM DOES ANYTHING IN THE BEST INTEREST IF THE PEOPLE. I REQUEST THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROPOSAL TO REVISE THE HERMOSA BEACH GENERAL PLAN BE CLARIFIED TO LIMIT THE AUTHORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL. I ALSO FEEL THAT ANY FINAL DECISION HAVING A LONG TERM AFFECT ON THE BILTMORE SITE SHOULD BE DECIDED BY POPULAR VOTE. THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO KNOW, SPECIFICALLY. WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL IS ATTEMPTING. I FEEL THAT ALLOWING THE CITY COUNCIL THE DISCRETION TO DO ANYTHING BASED SOLELY ON ITS DETERMINATION THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE WOULD BE NAIVE. THOMAS R. FRANCIS July 3, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council July 10, 1990 SUBJECT: SECOND QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS: PURPOSE: 1. AMEND THE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO INCLUDE THE "COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN" 2. FINAL ADOPTION OF THE CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendations Planning Commission and Staff recommend the following 1. Amend the Open Space Element of the General Plan to add the "Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan," with the corrected page ES -16 and adopt an environmental negative declaration by adopting the attached resolution. 2. Adopt the Circulation, Transportation, and Parking Element as part of the City's General Plan, and adopt an environmental negative declaration by adopting the attached resolution. PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN Background On June 5, 1990 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the document as an amendment to the Open Space Element and adoption of an environmental negative declaration. Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report for further background information. Analysis Staff has reviewed the final document and found that the requested modifications have been incorporated into the document. However an omission on page ES -16 needs to be replaced, as shown on the attachment, by adding a sentence at the end of the last paragraph. Also staff would like to note -that a table of contents for the text of the document needs to be provided. 1 Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report for further analysis. ADOPTION OF THE FINAL CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTATION, AND PARKING ELEMENT Background On June 5, 1990 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the document as the final Circulation, Transportation and Parking Element of the General Plan, and recommended adoption of an environmental negative declaration. For further background, please refer to the attached Planning Commission Staff Report. Analysis The consultant has provided you with the final corrected document. For further analysis please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report. Attachments 1. Proposed Resolutions 2. P.C. Resolutions 90-47 and 90-48 3. P.C. Staff Report/P.C. Minutes 6/5/90 4. Park and Recreation Master Plan a) Corrected Page ES -16 of Park and Recreation Master Plan b) C.C. Minutes 2/22/90 c) Resolution P.C. 90-10 d) P.C. Minutes 1/3/90 5. Circulation Element a) C.C. Minutes 3/27/90 and Resolution No. 5352 b) C.C. Minutes 1/23/90 and Resolution No. 5339 c) Letter From Ed Ruzak d) Letters From D.R. Suess CONCUR: Michael Schubac Planning Director evi B. Nort•hcraft City Manager 2 Et' Ro"liertson / Associate Planner 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 OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN BY ADDING "THE COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN" AS A GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, on July 10, 1990, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and made the following Findings: A. The amendment of the Open Space Element of the General Plan to include policies for recreation and the potential development of parks as provided in the Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan is consistent with the General Plan and does not cause any direct or indirect significant impacts on the environment; B. The subject document is a policy statement for parks and recreation; C. The document may be used to direct the development of future specific park and recreational projects; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Hermosa Beach, does hereby adopt an Environmental Negative Declaration and recommends amending the Open Space Element of the General to add a general policy document for future parks and recreation subject to unsubstantive corrections. 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: p/perspark CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE FINAL CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING ELEMENT AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 10, 1990 to receive oral and written testimony and made the following Findings: A. The said document is a state mandated General Plan Element; B. The document revises the current Circulation Element; C. The document is consistent with the General Plan; D. Adoption of the document as the official Circulation Element of the General Plan will not directly or indirectly cause any significant environmental impacts; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Hermosa Beach, California, hereby adopts an Environmental Negative Declaration and the final Circulation, Transportation and Parking Element of the General Plan prepared by DKS Associates, dated March, 1990. 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: plandoc/ccrscirc CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY L 11 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. 90-47 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN BY ADDING "THE COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN" AS A GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, on June 5, 1990, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and made the following Findings: A. The amendment of the Open Space Element of the General Plan to include policies for recreation and the potential development of parks is consistent with the General Plan and does not cause any direct or indirect significant impacts on the environment; B. The subject document is a policy statement for parks and recreation; C. The document may be used to direct the development of future specific park and recreational projects; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, does hereby recommend amending the Open Space Element of the General to add a general policy document for future parks and recreation subject to unsubstantive corrections. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ketz,Peirce,Rue,Chmn.Ingell NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm.Moore CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 90-47 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regu- dr meetJun of/ , 1990. ,,,4/=i l cpltt Ingel l , airman <97- 5- t� . Date p/perspark /%Ga( idatel___ (2 Michael Schubach Secretary 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 P.C. 90-48 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF THE FINAL CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING ELEMENT AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 5, 1990 to receive oral and written testimony and made the following Findings: A. The said document is a state mandated General Plan Element; B. The document revises the current Circulation Element; C. The document is consistent with the General Plan; D. Adoption of the document as the official Circulation Element of the General Plan will not directly or indirectly cause any significant environmental..impacts; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend adoption of the final Circulation, Transportation and Parking Element of the General Plan prepared by DKS Associates, March, 1990 subject to unsubstantive corrections. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ketz,Peirce,Rue,Chmn.Ingell NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm.Moore CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 90-48 is a true and cpiplete record of the action taken by the Planning Comu)r ,l'ion o the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their ]2r met.. g . Jut,/5 , 1990. ott Ingell,/33 airman zji" dical Michael Schu 4ac. , Secret'r Date p/CCRSCIRC C Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission May 31, 1990 Regular Meeting of June 5, 1990 SUBJECT: SECOND QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS: 1. AMEND THE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO INCLUDE THE "COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN" 2. FINAL ADOPTION OF THE CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendations 1. Recommend the City Council to amend the Open Space Element of the General Plan to add the "Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan," with the corrected page ES -16 and to recommend adoption of an environmental negative declaration by adopting the attached resolution. 2. Recommend that the City Council adopt the Circulation, Transportation, and Parking Element as part of the City's General Plan, with the corrected pages 45, 46, 48, 50 and 51, and recommend adoption of an environmental negative declaration by adopting the attached resolution. PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN Background On January 3, 1990 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the document as a general policy statement subject to several modifications noted by staff. On February 22, 1990, the City Council also adopted the document. The document provided to you is the final document prepared by the consultant in response to the comments of staff. On May 3, 1990, the Staff Environmental Review Committee recommended an environmental negative declaration, based on the finding that this document is a statement of policy for recreation programs and for potential future improvements and acquisition of park sites, and consequently does not have indirect of direct significant environmental impacts. - 2 - Analysis Staff has reviewed the final document and found that the requested modifications have been incorporated into the document. However an ommission on page ES -16 needs to be replaced, as shown on the attachment, by adding a sentence at the end of the last paragraph. Also staff would like to note that a table of contents for the text of the document needs to be provided. In regards to including this as part of the Open Space Element, staff believes it is appropriate because the policies included in this document are consistent with the goals objectives and policies of the Open Space Element in regards to upgrading and improving existing park sites, and pursuing the acquisition of additional sites. Also, the sites identified are in most cases already designated for open space on the General Plan and zoning maps. ADOPTION OF THE FINAL CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTATION, AND PARKING ELEMENT Background On March 27, 1990, the City Council approved the final Circulation, Transportation, and Parking Element document. The final approval included five minor changes which are noted in the attached City Council minutes of 1/23/90. The revised pages which reflect those changes are included as an attachment and are not yet incorporated into the final document which was distributed to you. On January 23, 1990, the City Council adopted several modifications to the document as recommended by the Planning Commission. The attached Resolution 90-5339 adopted by the Council specifies the items that were changed or eliminated. These items have been included in the document. The final adoption of the Element into the General Plan requires an environmental assessment. The Staff Environmental Review Committee, at their meeting of May 1, 1990, recommended adoption of an environmental negative declaration because the final document as approved by the City Council essentially recommended no significant changes to the existing circulation system. Analysis The final document as approved by the City Council eliminated the recommendations that possibly would have an environmental impact. For example, the recommendation to eliminate a parking lane and add a southbound lane on P.C.H. was,. eliminated. Also, the Planning Commission recommendations to add "no left -turn" signs on P.C.H.; to study widening of Ardmore Avenue; and to reclassify several streets from local to collector were eliminated. As a result of the elimination of some of these key recommendations for changes, the document essentially serves as. an informational and general policy document with no recommendations for significant change. As such, staff believes that the finding that no significant direct or indirect environmental impacts will be caused by adopting this as part of the General Plan can easily be made. In regards to the comments of D. R. Suess as contained in the attached letter, please note the response of Ed Ruzak, the City Traffic Engineer. In short, the City Traffic Engineer believes that Mr. Suess is correct and that his concerns need to be addressed. Implementation policy 2.1 of the Element, although not specific to the problems of Prospect Avenue, does allow the City Council to address the issue of reducing through vehicle traffic on Prospect it and when its desired. Therefore, the adoption of the Element in no way precludes the city from addressing this important issue in the future. The inappropriate reference to "Appendix A" on page 27 of the document, as noted by Mr. Suess, will be eliminated. Attachments 1. Proposed Resolutions 2. Park and Recreation Master Plan a) Corrected Page ES -16 of Park and Recreation Master Plan b) C.C. Minutes 2/22/90 c) Resolution P.C. 90-10 d) P.C. Minutes 1/3/90 3. Circulation Element a) Corrected pages 45, 46, 48,51 & 52 b) C.C. Minutes 3/27/90 and Resolution No. 5352 c) C.C. Minutes 1/23/90 and Resolution No. 5339 d) Letter From Ed Ruzak e) Letters From D.R. Suess Associate Planner 7 Michael Schubach Planning Director SS 86-9 -- ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION. TRANSPORTATION. AND PARKING ELEMENT, AND ADOPTION OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 31, 1990. Staff recommended That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the Circulation, Transportation, and Parking Element as part of the City's General Plan, with the corrected pages 45, 46, 48, 50, and 51; and to recommend adoption of the environmental negative declaration by adopting the proposed resolution. On March 27, 1990, the City Council approved the final Circulation, Transportation, and Parking Element document. The final approval included five minor changes which are noted in the City Council minutes of January 23, 1990. The revised pages which reflect those changes are included as an attachment and are incorporated into the final document. On January 23, 1990, the City Council adopted several modifications to the document as recommended by the Planning Commission. Resolution 90-5339 adopted by the Council specifies the items which were changed or eliminated. Final adoption of the element into the general plan requires an environmental assessment. The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of May 1, 1990, recommended adoption of an environmental negative declaration because the final document as approved by -- /0 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90 the City Council essentially recommended no significant changes to the existing circulation system. The final document as approved by the City Council eliminated the recommendations 'that possibly would have an environmental impact. For example, the recommendation to eliminate a parking lane and add a southbound lane on P.C.H. was eliminated. Also, the Planning Commission recommendations to add "no left turn" signs on P.C.H., to study widening Ardmore Avenue, and to reclassify several streets from local to collector were eliminated. As a result of the elimination of some of these key recommendations for changes, the document essentially serves as an informational and general policy document with no recommendations for significant change. As such, staff felt that the finding that no significant direct or indirect environmental impacts will be caused by adopting this as part of the general plan can easily be made. In regard to comments made by D. R. Suess in his letter to the City, the City Traffic Engineer feels that Mr. Suess is correct and that his concerns need to be addressed. Implementation of Policy 2.1 of the element, although not specific to the problems on Prospect Avenue, does allow the City Council to address the issue of reducing through vehicle traffic on Prospect if and when it is desired. Therefore, adoption of the element in no way precludes the City from addressing this important issue in the future. Public Hearing opened at 9:55 P.M. by Chinn. Ingell. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed the third lane going south on P.C.H. and noted concerns over safety: (2) stated that traffic is very heavy in that area and the third lane next to the curb is hazardous; (3) felt that a very bad accident will occur in the third lane, and she therefore objected to that lane since it is being designated in a piecemeal fashion: (4) requested that the turn arrow onto Pier Avenue be replaced. Public Hearing closed at 9:07 P.M. by Chinn. Ingell. Comm. Peirce acknowledged the letters written by Mr. Suess. Comm. Rue noted that several of the Commission's recommendations were not incorporated into this document: removal of parking along southbound P.C.H. during peak rush hour traffic: elimination of turning restrictions onto P.C.H. from residential streets during peak commuter hours; and elimination of widening of Valley/Ardmore from Pier Avenue to 1st Street. He noted concern over said widening for safety purposes. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-48, to recommend adoption of said element and negative declaration. AYES: Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm Moore t — / / — P.C. Minutes 6/5/90 1�-OcpQ t. NAAsTPL 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ■ Organization and Services DRAFT The current organization of the Department is provided in detail in the report. The Department is administered through the position of a Director who reports to the City Manager. An Advisory Commission of 5 members are appointed by the City Council. There are five full time positions and a number of part time positions and contract personnel hired on a seasonal and as needed basis. The City of Hermosa Beach also has a Community Center Foundation, a private non-profit organization who are presently structured with a 21 member Board of Directors, a President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and several committees made up of members of the Board of Directors. Staff support is provided, in part, by the Department of Community Services. The principal function of the Foundation is to "raise funds to support the Hermosa Beach Community Center". The text evaluates and describes organization structure on the basis of service categories and service requirements adjusted by the level of service needed to maintain quality facilities and programs. The four (4) categories discussed include: 1. Administration of Departmental Resources and Policies. 2. Management of Recreational Programs. 3. Management of Park Development and Facilities. 4. Management of Operations and Maintenance. The service requirements for the categories listed are outlined in five essential functions. Goals for each of the service categories are described and the basis of each function of the Department's organizational component and how they work collectively as a unit within City government is also described. The recommended organizational structure is outlined in chart format and includes a Director, Assistant Director and four key management classifications which are: 1. Administrative Services Secretary 2. Manager of Program Services 3. Chief Operations and Maintenance 4. Manager of Acquisition and Development An essential change recommended is that the Department assume full responsibility for maintenance -and operations of the Parks and Recreational Resources. Another is that a position (recommended Assistant Director) be actively engaged in funding programs development and liaison with the Foundation. ES 16 -/2— MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Thursday, February 22, 1990, at the hour of 6:30 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Terry Vermeulen, Easy Reader ROLL CALL: Present: Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton Absent: None 1. COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN. Memorandum from Acting Community Resources Director, Mary Rooney, dated January 31, 1990. Acting Director Rooney presented a staff report and then introduced Meredith Caplan of Purkiss Rose Landscape Architects, who presented highlights of the Master Plan. Ms. Caplan, Steve Rose, Purkiss Rose, and Norman Landerman-Moore of Landerman-Moore Planning & Economics answered questions from the Council. Addressing the council on this item were: Laurie Byren - 622 Twenty-fourth Street J.R. Reviczky - 650 Ardmore, member of the the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission George Schmeltzer - 515 Twenty-fourth Street Dani Peirce - 2121 Power Street, member of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street Pat Hill - 841 Manhattan Avenue Jack Andren - 521 Gentry Action: To direct staff to come back with a brief summary regarding using volunteer groups to participate in tree planting. Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered, Further Action: To adopt the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as amended by the addendum, and institute as funds allow. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered, noting the objections of Midstokke and Wiemans. The meeting recessed at 8:10 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:20 P.M. 2. REPORT ON RAMIFICATIONS OF WITHDRAWAL FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM. Memorandum from City Attorney Charles S. Vose, dated January 4, 1990. Supple- mental letters from Bobette Glover, Director Community Development Block Grant Division, dated February 15, 1990; Byron K. Baron, Mark Briggs & Associates, dated February 15, 1990; Dan Smith, South Bay Juvenile Diversion, dated February 16, 1990; Arlene Howell, -/3- Minutes 2-22-90 1aJ 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 P.C. 90-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVING THE COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN AS A GENERAL POLICY PLAN. WHEREAS, on January 3, 1990, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and made the following Findings: A. The subject document is a policy statement for parks and recreation; B. The document may be used to direct the development of future specific park and recreational projects; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Planning Commission recommends adoption of the subject document as a policy statement for future parks and recreation. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ketz,Mobre,Peirce,Chmn.Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm.Ingell CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 90-10 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 January 3, 1990. p/perspark PUBLIC HEARING WORKSHOP FOR DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN REVIEW Mr. Shubach gave staff report dated December 27, 1989. The City Council at their June 13, 1989 meeting requested that the Community Resources Department prepare a Master Plan regarding the future development of existing and future parks and recreational programs. This was to be an objective study to supply facts and numbers to aide the City in the development of specific programs and facilities. It appears, from the overview of the report, that the consultant relied heavily upon a survey distributed city wide to determine current needs. Unfortunately, none of the statistical data obtained was used and no projections were made for the future. Mr. Schubach briefly addressed some basic issues from the report for emphasis to the Commission, and then turned the floor over to the consultant for more detailed information. The public hearing was opened by Chmn. Rue at 9:16 p.m. Meredith Kaplan, 219 No. Harbor Boulevard, Fullerton, recreation consultant, stated that the report supplied to staff was merely a master plan for the parks and recreation element of the General Plan. This report reflects professional judgement and residential input. Guidelines and projections for the future have been included for the development of an implementation plan. Comm. Moore noted several major problems with the report. The demographic survey had a very low response rate, and almost all responses were received from the 45 year old home owner category. Hermosa Beach has a high concentration of young singles which haven't PC 01/03/90 been adequately represented, and there are almost no safe places for small children to play. There needs to be more input from the 21 to 39 year old residents. Also, the bike path/strand wasn't mentioned at all, and that is a major area of recreation for this city. There are too many conflicts between the pedestrians and bikers and skaters. This area needs attention. In response, Ms. Kaplan explained that not all the conclusions were drawn from the survey. As for the Strand, it is strongly recommended in the report that an intensive study be performed of the beach area and its activities, and solutions could be generated from that study. Norman Landerman Moore, Naples Island, Long Beach, consultant, interjected that he had asked if the Strand and pier were to be included in this study and the response received from the Community Resources Department was negative. The City should scope this area on an separate and individual basis because of the intense usage. He added that the report submitted also listed resources and guidelines for seeking necessary funding to implement new recreational projects. Mary Rooney, acting director of Community Resources, concurred that staff had decided it would be better to conduct a separate study on the beach area, and not include it as part of this master plan. Chmn. Rue stated that the Strand area is a large part of the recreation in Hermosa Beach and it needs to be addressed. Also, he was hopeful that the consultant could give the city ideas on how to raise the necessary funds to implement new projects. Mrs. Kaplan replied that the city needs to hire someone to specifically work on funding. There are goals to meet, and you have to develop a way to reach those goals. Mr. Moore, the consultant, explained that funding is based on user fees, outside financing, and financing mechanisms. Tapping into the different types of cash flow requires a study. There are 5 or 6 basic funding structures that work via an interrelationship with each other, and the city needs to work with a funding council to put a funding plan into effect. Comm. Peirce then referred to Mr. Northcraft's memorandum to the Community Resources Department, and agreed that it is difficult to determine from the plan submitted by the consultants what needs to be added or deleted from the current Parks and Recreation program of Hermosa Beach. He asked how it is determined if there is too much or too little of one type of recreation, such as tennis or racquetball, and who decides when and how to change it. Ms. Kaplan replied that this information is based on the demographics PC 01/03/90 r of the area, and if specific types of information is requested, a study is done and the data supplied. Mr. Moore added that, beyond determining the funding and general needs of an area, definite plans for implementation become very site-specific. This plan allows the city to evolve to the point of specifically telling the people what is needed where. Ms. Rooney noted the section on "action items" that was included with the report submitted by the consultants. This section addresses a more specific implementation plan, and supplied the information requested to the satisfaction of the Community, Resources Commission. When asked if it was the job of the Community Resources Commission to come up with the types of items deemed necessary to meet the needs of the residents, Ms. Rooney explained that it is the consultant's job to develop a broad plan, or Policy Statement, as a guideline for the Community Resources Commission. From this Policy Statement, the Commission implements more specific and focused items. Staff has suggested a few minor changes to the report, and the Commission concurs with these changes, however, all areas of open space should be included. George Shelnik, 515 24th Place, Hermosa Beach, said that he has read the document and found it to be too general to be adopted into the General Plan. Future developments need to be redefined. The city needs to look ahead to what will be needed in the 1990's, as opposed to what is needed at the present time. The survey performed was very inadequate and very predictable, and the report submitted does not serve as a basis for a General Plan element. The public hearing was closed by Chmn. Rue at 9:47 p.m. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm Peirce, explained that this report was developed for presentation to the Planning Commission, and once approved, it is sent on to the City Council. When the first quarterly adoption period for the General Plan comes up, the report will be included with the open space element. The report will be adopted as a Master Plan for recreational facilities, but it hasn't yet been determined how to adopt it into the General Plan. Chmn. Rue asked if it could be adopted into the General Plan as a more comprehensive policy statement containing more specificity. Mr. Schubach replied that it could be adopted as an appendix to the open space element of the General Plan with the recommendation that more specific data be added. Ms. Rooney suggested adopting the report as a "policy statement". MOTION by Comm. Moore, second by Comm. Ketz to adopt the report prepared and presented by the consultant as a "policy statement", and require that the Department of Parks and Recreation consider the comments of the 7 PC 01/03/90 Commission for analysis to develop a more specific plan. Comm. Ketz stated that a top priority should be to acquire all available school property. PC 01/03/90 13A c -K -q TZU U N D 1 cJ o RM A T o rN Cu2c_uL_r-TN1 e-mT 7. FINAL CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTATION, AND PARKING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, WITH RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated March 20, 1990. Supplemental letter from David Suess dated March 26, 1990, and responding letter from Plan- ning Director Michael Schubach dated March 27, 1990. A staff report was presented by Director Schubach. The Public Hearing was opened. There being no one com- ing forward to speak on this item, the Public Hearing was closed. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5352, entitled, ''A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE FINAL CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTA- TION, AND PARKING ELEMENT REPORT DATED MARCH, 1990, AND TO HAVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, with the following amendments to the document: 1) page 45, item 5, delete reference to traffic speed greater than 45 miles per hour; 2) page 45, item 5A, delete reference to bus shelters; 3) page 45, item 5C, delete reference to leasing benches and/or bus shelters and all references to bus shelters; 4) page 48, under second paragraph, delete "Highly visible advertisements," and change sen- tence to read "Advertisements at major entrances to the City will be considered by the City Council."; and 5) page 51, second paragraph from,bottom, Option Two, and page 52, first paragraph, delete all references to a separate bike path on the beach. - - 3/ -2 -vii 0 11 r Motion Midstokke, second Essertier. So ordered, noting the objection of Sheldon. Councilmember Midstokke also requested immediate Council consideration of the recommendation on page 60, under Zoning Code, regarding restaurant parking requirements. 20 3/z 7/9 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. 90-5352 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO ADOPT THE FINAL CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTATION, AND PARKING ELEMENT REPORTDATED MARCH, 1990 AND TO HAVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREPARED. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on March 27, 1990 to receive oral and written testimony and made the following Findings: A. The said document is a state mandated General Plan Element; B. The document revises the current Circulation Element; C. An environmental assessment is necessary, and an Environmental Impact Report may be necessary to meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; D. The changes, modificationsand deletions required by City Council Resolution No. 90-5339 have been made to the subject document. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby adopt the Circulation, Transportation, and Parking Element report, dated March, 1990, and directs an Environment: Assessment be :eared. Passed, approved, and adopted this 27th day of March,1990. ATTEST: !-S1 CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTO 1J Ey the City .uncil and MAYOR City of Hermosa Beach, California P/ccrescir (b) (f) (g) c tfre staff's goals and incorporated many of the sugges- tiointo the new goals list. (4) (Pg.4) Goals 17 ru 30 neto be added to the list. (5) (last page) etty Martin oke, not Betty Ryan. Motion Mi stokke, second Creighton. So orderey< noting the absence of Councilmember Sheldon. Recommendation approve Demands and War(ants Nos. 32049, 3223 through 32399 inclus'ie, noting voided warrants 32244 thr ugh 32246 inclusiv-; 32281 through 32283 inclusive; an 32309 through •2311 inclusive. Action: To approve the errands and Warrants. Motion Midstokke, second el • ton. So ordered, noting the absence of Councilmembe► Sheldon. Recommendation to recei - and frl.e Tentative Future Agenda Items. Recommendation to eceive and file De ember, 1989 City Treasurer's report. Recommendati n to receive and file Novembe 1989 Revenue an. Ex•enditure resort. Memorandum om Finance Direct iki Copeland dated January 17, 1990. Recommendation to receive and file December, 1989 •onth- ly/investment report. Memorandum from City Treasure Cary L. Brutsch dated January 9, 1990. Recommendation to adopt resolution approving draft Cir- culation, Transportation and Parking Element of the General Plan. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated January 16, 1990. Supplemental letters from Violet M. Isgreen, dated January 22, 1990, Jim Lis- sner, dated January 23, 1990 and David R. Suess, dated January 20, 1990. Addressing the Council were: Howard Longacre - 1221 Seventh Place Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street Proposed Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5339, which adopts the modifications, additions and deletions as noted within the Resolution to the. Circulation Transpor- tation Parking Element and include the recommended lan- guage as set forth in the City Manager's comments in the January 16, 1990 memo which are: "Local, residential streets include those streets predominately residential in terms of adjacent property use, that are intended to retain a residential character. Higher speeds and in- creasing traffic volumes are to be discouraged on such streets." (page 17-18) Motion Creighton, dies for lack of second. - 22- Minutes 1-23-90 Final Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5339, enti- tled, "A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE MODIFICATIONS, ADDI- TIONS AND DELETIONS AS NOTED BELOW TO THE REVISED CIR- CULATION, TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN", with the amendment that when the General Plan, as revised per the Resolution, comes back for adoption, there be another Public Hearing. Motion Midstokke, second Wiemans. So ordered, noting the absence of Councilmember Sheldon. (h\ Recommendation to approve waiver of parking fees for tide Sand and Strand Run on Sunday, February 11, 1990. Nero- randum from Acting Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated January 4, 1990. tion: To approve staff recommendation to waiv pa king fees and time limits for meters along P er Ave e (from Manhattan Avenue to the Municipa Pier) and on He.mosa Avenue between 8th and 16th Stree's during the Sa • and Strand Run on Sunday, February 11, 1990 between he hours of 7:00 A.M. and Noon. Motion Es-ertier, second Midstokke. So • dered, noting the absence of Councilmember Sheldon. (i) (j) (k) Recommendatio preliminary Eng Electrical Upgra cost of $5,880. ing.) Memorandum f Antich dated January to authorize Mayor to eering Services fo to John Snyder ontinued from m Public W 6, 1990. Addressing the Council w.s: Howard Longacre - 1221 Se nth Place Action: To Receive and ile Motion Midstokke, second Esser.ier. So ordered, noting the absence of Counc member Sh- don. ign agreement for Community Center nd Associates at a anuary 9, 1990 meet- rks Director Anthony Recommendation to -•prove schedule or Environmental Impact Report, Ge,jieral Plan amendmen•, Conditional Use Permit, and Lease Agreement for oil p •duction. (Con- tinued from Ja "ary 9, 1990 meeting.) Memorandum from Planning Dire for Michael Schubach dated anuary 17, 1990. Recommendation to receive and file the follow ng 1988-89 Financial reports: 1) C9mprehensive Annual Financial and Audit report, nd 2) Management Letter. Mei randum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated January 3, 1990. (Continued from January 9, 1990 nteeting. ) 'a3 - Minutes 1-23-90 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 NO. 90- 5339 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO ADOPT THE MODIFICATIONS, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS AS NOTED BELOW TO THE REVISED CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council held public hearings on December 12, 1989 and January 9, 1990 to receive oral and written testimony and made the following Findings: A. The said document is a. state mandated General Plan Element; B. The document revises the current Circulation Element; C. When the General Plan is returned for adoption as revised per this resolution, there will be a public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby adopt the following modifications, deletions and additions (note: Page numbers correspond to the subject document) to the Circulation, Transportation and Parking Element of the General Plan prepared by DKS Associates, June, 1989: 1. Eliminate recommendation to implement parking restriction on Pacific Coast Highway southbound during peak commute hours. (P. 32-33) 2. Eliminate turn restrictions onto residential streets from Pacific Coast Highway during peak commute hours recommendation. (P. 33) 3. Eliminate widening of eastbound/westbound approaches at Prospect Avenue/Artesia. Boulevard. (P.33) 4. Eliminate signalize following intersections recommendation: 1. Gould Avenue/Valley Drive/Ardmore Avenue 2. Pier Avenue/Valley Drive/Ardmore Avenue 3. Ardmore Avenue/21st Street 4. Hermosa Avenue/8th Street 5. Manhattan Avenue/27th Street/Greenwich Village 5. Eliminate removing street parking along east side of Ardmore Avenue for 80 feet prior to side streets - 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th recommendation. (P. 37) 6. Eliminate widening of Ardmore Avenue Street. (P. 37) from Pier Avenue to 1st 7. Eliminate reclassifying the following collector based on traffic volume: 1. Valley Drive (Pier Avenue to north 2. Ardmore Avenue (Pier Avenue to 2nd streets from local to border) Street) 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. Highland Avenue (Longfellow Avenue to north border) 4. Longfellow Avenue(Ardmore Avenue to Manhattan Avenue) 8. Eliminate recommendation to cul-de-sac 4th Street just west of Ardmore Avenue and eliminate connecting 5th Street to 3rd Street west of Ardmore Avenue as an alternative for parking on Ardmore Avenue (see figure 12). (P. 38) 9. Eliminate one-waying of streets in general. (P. 38) 10. Add Gould Avenue to be changed from collector to local street designation. 11. Eliminate bike path along the greenbelt recommendation. (P. 58) 12. Eliminate creating limited truck routes along the following: 1. Gould Avenue (Pacific Coast Highway to Morningside Drive) 2. 27th Street (Morningside Drive to Greenwich Village) 3. Hermosa Avenue (Greenwich Village to Pier Avenue) 4. Manhattan Avenue north City limit to 27th Street 13. Modify recommendation follows: Study providing a business possibly on northwest corner Pier possibly trade land to obtain site. concerning parking structure as parking structure downtown to enhance Avenue/Manhattan Avenue; (P. 71) 14. Delete providing residential parking structures in some neighborhoods recommendation. (P. 70) 15. Change title "non-residential" to "commercial". (P. 7.1) 16. Add study of traffic intrusion on Monterey Boulevard / two-way traffic on Valley Drive between 2nd Street and Herondo Street in future. 17. Add study of angle parking on Hermosa Avenue to improve parking and create bicycle lane in future. In addition the recommendation by the Planning Commission to prohibit left turns onto .Prospect Avenue south bound at Aviation Boulevard during peak traffic hours is eliminated. 18. Add notation that local residential streets include those streets predominantly residential in terms of adjacent property use, and are. intended to retain a residential character. PASS APPROV IP 0 PRE'IDE(. of e Ci Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California d ADOiT 3 this 23rd day of January, 1990. C /') KS-- CITY t CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: Anthony Antich, Director of Public Works SAY 2'2 MO FROM: Ed Ruzak, City Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Mr. Suess' Comments on Circulation Element Relative to South Prospect Avenue. DATE: May 21, 1990 The following are my comments regarding Mr. Suess' January 20, 1990 letter to the City Council: Mr. Suess is correct. South Prospect Avenue is clearly operating as a major north/south arterial. The volume levels on a daily and peak hour basis show this. The real through traffic percentage on Prospect should have been determined but is somewhat moot in that everyone who looks at Prospect's operation realizes that it: is one of the few north/south streets available for travel in the Hermosa Beach area. As such it will and does carry high commuter volumes. As an aside, the public perception of using STOP signs on collector and arterial streets to discourage commuter travel and to slow down traffic is once more shown to be erroneous. Up to 19,000 vehicles per day still use prospect despite the proliferation of STOP controls along this street. My belief is that there is no other place to go in a north/south direction for the commuter. Therefore, they continue to travel along this street despite all of the stop signs. It is true that PCH, Valley, Ardmore and Hermosa Avenue theoretically are alternatives to Prospect. PCH is already over capacity and the other streets are too far away from Prospect to be a viable "short cut " for commuters. Thus, Prospect volumes will continue to increase and vehicle queues will get longer. Mr. Suess is correct when he states the following: "If it is to remain a collector, the City should take steps to ensure it is used for that purpose. If it is the City's intent that south Prospect be made into an arterial based on its volume, then immediate steps should be taken to make improvements to South Prospect and to allow bordering residents to take steps to abate the adverse effects of an arterial through a low-density residential area. Further, a hearing should be held to receive public input on reclassification. if prospect is not to be reclassified and improved, then the City should work toward reducing the volume and changing the character of traffic on south Prospect to make its collector designation consistent with its use. until such time as either of these paths are taken, there will remain an inconsistency in the Circulation Element." I wholly agree with Mr. Suess' statement. On page 8, Mr. Suess makes a realistic comment regarding mitigation options that were included in the 1979 Circulation Element. These were not addressed by DKS. As City Traffic Engineer I have evaluated the STOP signs on Prospect Avenue and would like to remove several of them. I agree with a median on Aviation Avenue from the east city limits to PCH in order to control access to prospect. Regardless of the outcome DKS did not discuss these options and the ramifications of them in the Circulation Element. However, as noted in implementation policy 2.1, page 14 of the adopted draft dated June, 1989, this matter should be studied specifically in the future: "Through vehicle traffic shall be reduced and diverted from residential neighborhoods by implementation of a neighborhood traffic control program which include neighborhood participation and review. A neighborhood traffic control program would provide a mechanism for review of specific neighborhood traffic problems at the request of organized neighborhood groups. Neighborhood area studies would respond to specific through traffic, speed or accident problems. Traffic control devices such as signs, signals and pavement markings as well as traffic management devices such as medians and traffic diverters would be studied as potential solutions on a case-by-case basis. In closing, I believe that the City Council needs to establish a specific plan for Prospect Avenue's future operation. The DKS report does not do that in detail in its present form. 1246 First St. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 May 2, 1990 Hermosa Beach City Council Civic Center Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Good day, RtCEIVFp M AY 0 2 1993; This is in regard to the Circulation Element proposed for adoption. I have written seven times since the draft was made available last year, pointing out problems and shortcomings in the document. My January 20 letter detailed many of these shortcomings and provided copies of pages from the draft to illustrate. I was misled into believing that the City was taking some action to have these problems investigated, even being told in a March 22 letter from Mr. Schubach that the City Traffic Engineer "has corrected these problems." That letter said that some of the "errors" I had pointed out were determined not to be "errors." When I inquired as to which items these were, Mr. Schubach admitted in his March 27 letter that those "corrections" had been made before my letter was received. The upshot? I have examined the March 1990 version of the draft, and the issues remain issues. None of my complaints were addressed, and significant flaws remain. If approved, the City's Circulation Element will claim that 93% of rush-hour traffic on south Prospect (around 1000 cars per hour) is local. If approved, the City's Circulation Element will continue to assert that south Prospect is a collector, despite violating guidelines presented elsewhere in the document that require Prospect to be a four -lane arterial to support its current traffic flow and use. As I wrote several times, dating back to last August, the "through" traffic figure for south Prospect was apparently fabricated, since the technical appendix in the first draft contained information that contradicted the 7% figure (and in fact showed that no through traffic was successfully measured!) --- nothing has been done, no explanation has been given, and now the information that was in the technical appendix has been deleted completely (even though the main body of the document refers to it --- see the reference to Appendix A on page 27, first paragraph). This type of chicanery should not be tolerated by the City, let alone condoned. If Redondo can take a responsible approach to satisfying citizens' concerns about traffic intrusions into their neighborhoods, why can't Hermosa? Are we less qualified? Are we less capable? Or are we content to sit on our hands to avoid complicated problems? If so, we need new city staff. Meanwhile, down the road, 90 condos are being built on Prospect. The use of south Prospect as a Redondo arterial is getting worse, and the time for action is now. I wish that you would reconsider the extensive letter I sent on January 20 and use it to see for yourselves the flaws that exist in the document just with respect to south Prospect. If other parts of the report have similar shortcomings, adopting the Circulation Element in its current form will not best serve the interests of Hermosa Beach. Yours sincerely, David R. Suess cc: Kevin Northcraft, City Manager Michael Schubach, Planning Director. 2 1246 First St. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 January 20, 1990 Hermosa Beach City Council Civic Center Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 JAN 21 1990 Good day, Item " g " on the consent calendar for the January 23 City Council meeting is an item to approve adoption of the revised Circulation, Transportation, and Parking Element, draft dated June 1989, prepared by DKS Associates. I urge you to reconsider approval until such time as corrections are made to the document pursuant to the issues I will raise here. I have been writing for two years trying to find out what the City intends to do about traffic on south Prospect Avenue, and I want to point out a number of inconsistencies and shortcomings in the Circulation Element with regard to south Prospect (from Aviation to Anita/190th). In short, south Prospect, a narrow, concrete, collector in a residential area, has the highest non -PCH peak traffic volume in town. The updated Circulation Element, however, pays short shrift to this roadway --- and the document uses invalid and apparently fabricated numbers in its analysis of through (commuter) traffic. The Circulation Element is deficient and inconsistent in addressing the traffic on south Prospect, and approving the draft without demanding corrections or clarifications would be a disservice to Hermosa Beach and its residents. In my letter to Mr. Schubach on August 2, 1989, I pointed out one such inconsistency and suggested that the City have DKS take action to correct it. Although I was assured in a later later from Mr. Northcraft that all of my letters had been passed on to DKS; an inspection of the document shows that nothing was done (this was in regard to Table 10, which I will discuss, unfortunately, at length). Without justification or correction, the document remains inconsistent and (at least with respect to addressing south Prospect circulation properly) of dubious validity. If the City is to base its future actions on such a document, the results may be to the detriment of the City and its residents. I apologize for the length of this letter, but I feel that the City has neglected its duty to oversee traffic circulation and accommodate the residents and businesses of Hermosa Beach. By allowing south Prospect, a collector street, to function as an arterial for the benefit of Redondo Beach and South Bay commuters and to the detriment of Hermosa residents and businesses, the City has neglected its duty on all sides. Given that updates to the Circulation Element are not timely (twenty years maximum) and that ten years have elapsed since the last update and the last attempt to address traffic on south Prospect, it is important to ensure that the draft element you approve is a complete, consistent document --- and, at least with respect to south Prospect, with the highest peak traffic volume in the City except for PCH, the document before you is not yet complete nor consistent. I have included copies of select pages from the Circulation Element with appropriate highlighting, and I will address the following areas: 1. The "collector" status of Prospect. 2. Peak traffic volumes on Prospect make it important. 3. Table 10 (Through Traffic) is invalid for Prospect. 4. Reliance on invalid figures discounts reliability of future traffic projections on Prospect (Tables 11 and 16, Table 3 in Appendix A). 5. License plate survey was flawed with respect to Prospect. 6. Further inconsistencies found in Appendix A. 7. Unfinished business concerning Prospect remains from 1979 update. 8. Some items from Council hearing. 9. Some concluding remarks. 1. Collector Status of Prospect. On page 17 of the main body of the draft, collector streets are defined. Such streets are intended to carry local traffic between residential streets and arterials. Note that federal guidelines constrain traffic volumes on collector streets to "below approximately 15,000 vehicles per day in order to maintain acceptable levels of service at intersections and an environment compatible with residential land uses." It further states that higher volumes "may be acceptable on certain collector streets such as those with fronting commercial development or extra wide cross sections." As is seen on page 19 and elsewhere, Prospect Avenue is a collector street. This is an inconsistency. As is seen in Table 2, south Prospect has a daily volume of 17,230 --- about 15% over maximum collector capacity. Further examination of Table 2. shows that no other street in Hermosa except PCH has a higher peak hour traffic volume (1930 vehicles). Table 1, characterizing the streets, shows that south Prospect is one of the City's smaller streets, two lanes of concrete a mere 30 feet wide. There is no fronting commercial development nor is there an extra wide cross section. 2 It is further clear from Figure 4, "Roadway Capacity Ranges for Varying Levels of Operation," that even a two-lane arterial with the traffic volume of south Prospect would be operating in a "Restricted Conditions (Demand exceeds capacity) " status. Given a traffic volume of 17,230, south Prospect would require upgrading to a 4 -lane arterial to operate in a stable region. It is apparent from the above that south Prospect is not being used as a collector and that it is not suitable for the volume of traffic it is currently allowed to support. It is apparent to local residents that the use of Prospect is not as a collector but as an arterial (the function of an arterial, page 17 shows, is "to move vehicles into and through the City"), used primarily by non -local traffic to connect from one Redondo Beach arterial to another (190th, Aviation, 4 -lane Prospect south of 190th). The glut of non -local traffic is a deterrent to local traffic, defeating the purpose of the collector classification. Further, it is apparent from reviewing the Circulation Element that neither the document nor the actions of the City have adequately addressed this inconsistency. 2. Peak Volumes Make Prospect an Issue. As can be seen in Table 2, south Prospect has.a peak hour traffic volume of 1930 vehicles per hour. From Table 2 in Appendix A, the southbound component of this peak flow is 970 per hour. This makes south Prospect second only to PCH in peak traffic volume during rush hour (contrary to common sense, the 970 number is barely half of the total flow, implying that there are just as many northbound cars as there are southbound cars during the afternoon rush hour --- this inconsistency detracts from the credibility of measurements made and reported in the DKS document). The southbound flow on PCH is given as 2010 per hour. From Figure 1 in Appendix A, further refinement is possible: peak southbound traffic exiting Hermosa Beach is 970 on south Prospect and 1970 on south PCH. This means that PCH, a four -lane major arterial, maintained in good condition, is carrying barely twice that of Prospect, a 30 -feet wide, two-lane, cracked concrete strip with parking on one side only, in a residential neighborhood. Only PCH has a higher southbound peak density of traffic, yet Prospect has been given practically no attention in the Circulation Element. 3. Table 10 (Through Traffic) is Invalid for Prospect. Table 10, "Southbound Through Trips on City Streets During PM Peak Hour," in the main body of the document has several problems. Table 10 fails in several respects to represent accurately and adequately what it was intended to show: "through" traffic characteristics. First, the total peak volume given (4275) is inconsistent with information in Table 3 of Appendix A, where the total existing peak 3 southbound traffic volume is more correctly represented as 4915 per hour, fully 15% higher. This due in part to Table 10's use of the volume for Prospect at Artesia instead of the volume for south Prospect as the southbound volume on Prospect. As a result, the traffic volume used for Prospect is misleading. The 630 figure is the hourly peak traffic volume for Prospect at Artesia; the more appropriate figure here should have been the hourly southbound peak volume for Prospect at the south end of town, a volume fully 50% higher (970 vehicles per peak hour southbound). A look at Table 2 in Appendix A shows that Aviation was not considered as generating any through traffic, even though Table 1 shows that southbound traffic movement was supposed to be surveyed on each of the two days from the Aviation/Prospect corner. It is unreasonable to assume that no through traffic flows south through Hermosa via Aviation/Prospect, and the Circulation Element is deficient in not measuring nor reporting that figure. As I mentioned in my August 2 1989 letter, the Technical Appendix data provides no basis for the volume of through traffic shown for Prospect. Table 2 in Appendix A, "PM Peak Period Southbound Through Traffic," shows that no through traffic was measured for south Prospect (two samples were attempted: the first showed no through traffic, the second is flagged as having been an inadequate sample size). Yet there is a number given in Table 10 for through traffic: 44 vehicles per hour! There is no justification for this number; no data exists that explains where this number came from. There is no intuitive feel that this number can be correct: why would Prospect, the south end of which is not only a shortcut on a major commuter route but also carries more peak traffic than any other street but PCH, have the smallest percentage of through traffic in town? (I have a theory about where the 7% came from: I claim it is a "cooked" number, derived to fill in a line in Table 10. If the five percentages above the total in the final column are added, they sum to 100%. Since these percentages are not with respect to the same total volume as claimed but instead are with respect to each individual street, there is no reason for them to add to 100%, yet they do. This happy coincidence occurs only if the through traffic percentage on Prospect is 7%, since the others add to 93%. Since there is no data on through traffic other than zero for Prospect, according to Table 2 in Appendix A, the number "44" could have been picked to allow the final column entry to be the 7% necessary to make the mislabeled final column add to a total of 100%. This is hypothetical, but in the absence of any explanation from DKS, it better explains the "7%" figure than anything in the Circulation Element.) The figure of 44 cars per hour for commuter traffic on south Prospect is ludicrous. Anyone who observes that traffic can see that most of the traffic is in fact through traffic. I live on 1st Street and travel down south Prospect from Aviation to nearly the southern edge of the City on a daily basis, and I follow primarily traffic that never diverts --- the traffic comes from Aviation and from north Prospect and continues all the way through Hermosa and out the south end --- from experience, I would bet money on being able to track 44 "through" trips on south Prospect during rush hour in less than six minutes, let alone sixty. Further, there are more errors in the table as shown. The third of the four columns is mislabeled (the category should be "Through Trips"). The fourth column figures do not reflect "Through Trips as % of Total Volume" --- rather, they indicate through trips as a percentage of the peak hour volumes for that street, not for the total volume (hence, there is no need for them to add to 100%, as mentioned above). Continued reliance on this uncorrected table will add more confusion as time goes on; a representative of DKS has already used the "7%" figure in hearings before the council in responding to questions about traffic volumes. A more accurate representation of Table 10 would be the following: Street PM Peak Hour Southbound Traffic Volume Through Traffic Volume Through Trips as % of Street Volume Through Trips as % of Total Volume PCH 2010 885 44% 19% south Prospect 970 n/a n/a n/a Manhattan/Hermosa 745 97 13% 2% Ardmore 710 78 11% 2% Valley 180 45 25% 1% Total 4615 n/a n/a n/a Unfortunately, without data for Prospect on through traffic, many of the above are unable to be calculated. Saying so is preferable to manufacturing numbers just to fill in the blanks, however. 4. Use of Invalid Figures Discounts Reliability of Future Traffic Projections. Table 11, "Existing and Projected Future Through Traffic on Key Routes," in the main report, is flawed because it relies on the inaccurate figure of 44 vehicles per peak hour for south Prospect. The additional forecasted traffic is built on an invalid assumption, as a result, and the validity of this table for south Prospect is negated. Table 16, "Existing and Estimated Future Average Daily Traffic Volume," also does a disservice to south Prospect. The entry for Prospect is based on the measured volume at the Artesia end, which is less than 65% of the traffic at:the Anita end. The increase in ti daily volume for south Prospect is biased toward this lower number, and the situation is made to look less a problem than it actually is. Using the same ratio, an entry for Prospect Avenue south of 5th street, say, would result in a future volume of some 19,000 vehicles per day --- on a 30 -foot wide, concrete, two-lane street that barely exceeds half a mile in length. In Appendix A Table 3, "Forecast Traffic Redistribution," an inconsistency for traffic on Prospect results from the use of the invalid "7%" figure discussed above for Table 10. After constructing the 7% number without valid data, the percentage is applied here to see how much traffic would be redistributed to PCH if parking were removed and assuming that all through traffic would then redistribute to PCH. This latter assumption, mentioned on page 4 of Appendix A, is at best a gross simplification. And when the fabricated and obviously incorrect 7% through traffic figure is extended from its supposed derivation (volume entering on north Prospect) to the traffic on south Prospect, it gives a false sense of reality to an imaginary number --- each time the 7% figure is used, the more it takes on the quality of real data, and that is both unfortunate and unwise. Just imagine: at 970 cars per hour peak, using a conservative three hours for the peak period (which actually extends from 3pm to 7pm), about 3000 vehicles go south on south Prospect. Of these, we are expected to believe that 93%, or over 2700 vehicles, are local. If one recalls that this part of town is primarily low-density residential and comprises only about 30 blocks, one wonders how this part of town can produce 2700 vehicles traveling south out of town before supper, let alone why locals would all want to run their errands at rush hour. 5. License Plate Survey Flawed. As I wrote in my letter to Mr. Schubach, September 22, 1989, I believe the procedure used to measure "through" traffic on south Prospect was flawed in several respects. First, the traffic was measured during August, when more commuters are on vacation than in any other month of the year. Second, I observed the counting procedure, and it was my impression that the person parked on 1st Street near Prospect doing the counting was inattentive. Finally, measuring "through" traffic on Prospect by observing license plates only from Prospect/Artesia and neglecting the Aviation/Prospect contribution is a significant detraction from the validity of the numbers (which turned out to have no basis anyway, given the "zero/insufficient " raw data in Appendix A Table 2). The sampling methods used to calculate the figures here are not adequately described in the document. No standard error is cited, 6 nor is the sample size; consequently, comparisons using this data will be of dubious fidelity (for example, can the through traffic measured during the 3-4 pm period be compared with that measured during the 5-6 pm period with any statistical significance?), and the confidence in the measured figures is either unknown or undocumented, or both. Are the numbers of through trips reported with 95% confidence, based on sample size and technique? Or with 90% confidence? Or with 50%? A reasonable statistical survey would present enough information to answer the above questions; the license plate survey in the Circulation Element does not. 6. Further Inconsistencies in Appendix A. Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix A show a lot of useful information; however, some missing information is apparent. It is interesting (with regard to the traffic issue for south Prospect) that no volume figures are reported in Figure 1, "Existing Southbound PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume," for Aviation Boulevard, a major contributor to City traffic (according to Table 16 in the main document, Aviation has more total daily traffic than any other Hermosa street except PCH). This omission is further evidence that inadequate attention was paid to obtaining through traffic data for Aviation and south Prospect (as seen in Table 2 of this appendix). On Figure 2, "Percent Through Traffic on PCH and City Streets," missing information is again apparent. There are numbers of cars (from measurements, coinciding with Table 2 of the appendix) shown in parentheses next to the recorded percentages, except in two instances: the traffic flow from Aviation to PCH and to south Prospect. There, only percentages are given, without supporting data to indicate the measurements made. Since Table 2 shows no data for this traffic, the most' reasonable explanation is that no data was obtained. The Circulation Element is deficient, and the percentages shown for Aviation and south Prospect through traffic is unsupported. If DKS is relying on traffic volume figures from the 1979 update or from other sources and not from direct measurements, they should make this clear in the Circulation Element draft. One slight inconsistency observed in comparing the numbers in Figure 2 with the numbers in Table 2 shows that some of the numbers are from one sampling period (5-6 pm numbers are used for the four PCH traffic numbers) while others are taken from the 3-4 pm period (the numbers for Ardmore, Valley, and Hermosa). Apparently, only the maximum number was used. The result, unfortunately, is that the results presented in Figure 2 are not internally consistent; they represent traffic patterns that do not quite exist and hide a possible trend of later traffic diverting away from Manhattan/Hermosa and Ardmore (both of which show a significant decrease in "through" traffic from the earlier measurement period, L 7 as shown in Table 2). Figure 2 agains shows the "7%" figure, this time showing it to be representing (apparently) the percentage of Aviation traffic that is through traffic via south Prospect. This interpretation is bolstered by the last sentence on page 3 of the appendix So now there are three separate definitions for this 7% figure: • 7% of total southbound Hermosa traffic is "through" traffic on Prospect (Table 10). • 7% of southbound peak traffic on Prospect is "through" traffic (a corrected Table 10). • 7% of southbound peak traffic on Aviation is "through" and uses south Prospect (Figure 2 Appendix A). Add to this my theory about the number's derivation and there are four definitions to choose from --- and I don't believe any of them represent anything valid about the through traffic on south Prospect. The Circulation Element must be corrected to eliminate these inconsistencies. 7. Unfinished Business from 1979 Update. As seen in Policy 5, "Left Turn Prohibitions," on page 4 of the main report, a policy was adopted in 1979 to mitigate commuter traffic congestion on south Prospect. This policy had three parts: • Prohibit left turns from Aviation onto south Prospect at peak hours. • Establish a divider on Aviation to allow traffic to divert only at Prospect. • Evaluate the stop signs on south Prospect. Of these, the first item was attempted "and later reversed." The City failed to prohibit turns effectively at Prospect And gave up trying to address, let alone solve, the problem of traffic on south Prospect . There is nothing in the Circulation Element to show that the second and third items of the policy were ever addressed. Because the second and third items in Policy 5 were never attempted or were never documented, there is an incompleteness in the Circulation Element. Further, it should be noted that no Prospect Avenue intersections were covered in the Element's study of unsignalized intersections (see Tables 7 and 8, " Unsignalized Intersection Peak Hour Capacity Analysis" for AM/PM), despite Prospect having a peak hour traffic volume that exceeds all the streets that were studied. 8. Notes from the January 9 1990 Council Hearing. During the City Council meeting on January 9 of this year, the Element was discussed. Councilmembers Sheldon, Creighton, and Essertier justifiably expressed disbelief with DKS's numbers with respect to through traffic, and DKS had no compelling answers. In fact, the 8 3 DKS representative relied on numbers like the "7%" figure incorrectly derived for Prospect in making his remarks, this time using the percentage to represent the amount of traffic on Aviation that shifts to south Prospect. Mr. Schubach mentioned at that meeting that there were errors in the document that needed correction and that more work with the consultant would be required. I hope that the concerns I have about adequately and correctly addressing traffic on south Prospect are included in these corrections. At one point in the hearing, the DKS representative pointed out that the Circulation Element will be used as guidance for the City staff in making day-to-day decisions, based on direction by the City Council. If invalid or insufficient data exists in the Circulation Element, neither the Council nor the City and its residents are well -served. To perform their jobs, the Council must have access to accurate and complete information; with regard to south Prospect, the proposed Circulation Element has neither. Later in the hearing, in regard to changing the classification of Monterey from a collector to a local street, Mr. Antich pointed out that because Monterey has a volume that exceeds the maximum for a local street this would create an inconsistency in the Element. The City Attorney pointed out that the City has a duty to work toward making the street fit its designation, specifically with respect to traffic volume --- that if Monterey were to be classified as a local street, the City would be obligated to work toward making the traffic volume fit the designation. I ask that the same consideration be given to south Prospect: if it is to remain a collector, the City should. take steps to ensure it is used for that purpose. If it is the City's intent that south Prospect be made into an arterial based on its volume, then immediate steps should be taken to make improvements to south Prospect and to allow bordering residents to take steps to abate the adverse effects of an arterial through a low-density residential area. Further, a hearing should be held to receive public input on reclassification. If Prospect is not to be reclassified and improved, then the City should work toward reducing the volume and changing the character of traffic on south Prospect to make its collector designation consistent with its use. Until such time as either of these paths are taken, there will remain an inconsistency in the Circulation Element. 9. Concluding Remarks. I have written a dozen letters over the last two years asking the same question: "What is the City planning to do about traffic congestion on south Prospect?" The closest to an answer I have received is that "there are no planned changes ...other than what comes out of current Circulation Element update" (April 14 letter to me from Mr..NorZhcraft). Since the update does 9 not contain any planned changes in this area, and since the update further confuses the issues in this area by using invalid data, and since south Prospect has a higher peak traffic flow than any other street but PCH, and since through traffic is an unwelcome intrusion in our residential neighborhood and an unfortunate loss of potential business in commercial -corridor arterials, and since Prospect is not being used properly, and since the City has a duty to provide solutions to these problems, I must ask once more: What is the City planning to do about mitigating traffic problems on Prospect Avenue south of Aviation? I have every confidence that City staff are capable of providing solutions to this problem. I appreciate your consideration of these issues and I await your reply and your answer, Yours sincerely, David R. Suess cc: Kevin Northcraft, City Manager Michael Schubach, City Planner 10 1246 First St. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 June 4, 1990 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Civic Center Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Good day, This concerns the June 5 hearing on the Circulation Element; I cannot attend but would like to make a few comments on the May 21 memo from Mr. Ruzak to Mr. Antich about my January 20 letter. I am heartened that my letter finally reached the City Traffic Engineer, but I am confused about what action will be taken to correct inaccuracies and deficiencies in the DKS report. In particular, will the clearly incorrect figure for through traffic on south Prospect be corrected or at least deleted? Table 10 is still in error in several respects, and the replacement of Appendix A should be unacceptable (see my letter of May 2 to the City Council, copy sent to the Planning Director). Also, I only looked at parts of the Element relevant to south Prospect: similar deficiencies may well exist elsewhere in the DKS document. I do take issue with the statement by Mr. Ruzak that "there is no other place to go in a north/south direction for the commuter." It is true that there is (practically) no other place in Hermosa for that commuter traffic to go,. but how about Flagler? If commuters need a shortcut between Redondo arterials, why not let them use Redondo neighborhoods instead of ours? PCH being over capacity is no excuse for maintaining south Prospect at over capacity; at least commuters on PCH are being steered through our business district and not a low-density residential neighborhood. The City Traffic Engineer agrees with me that either Prospect should be reclassifed as an arterial or the City should take steps to ensure that it is used as a collector and not an arterial. Some arguments for 199(1 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION T -- retaining collector status are: • The Circulation Element shows that stable flow on south Prospect at the current volume levels will require a four -lane arterial, the impact of which is considerable. • Making south Prospect an official arterial will trap my neighborhood completely between two arterials, with no collectors. • The Circulation Element definitions of collectors and arterials leads to the conclusion that south Prospect should be a collector, based on the neighborhood characteristics. It is my belief that making south Prospect an official arterial would be unsafe without major redesign and construction. I assume that my street (First) was made into a one-way street for reasons of safety; I hope philosophy still endures. Finally, as a side comment, the ineffectiveness of STOP signs at discouraging through traffic is apparent, as Mr. Ruzak points out. However, I disagree that removing STOP signs on south Prospect will improve matters. Because of the hills and curves, and because the street is narrow and in poor condition, the effectiveness of the STOP signs is (I believe) more in the safety regime. Removing the STOP signs will lead to more accidents like last week's early -morning incident (I've never seen so many Hermosa police cars on south Prospect --- usually when I see a patrol car on south Prospect, it's from Redondo Beach, taking the shortcut between 190th and Aviation). Thank you, David R. Suess cc: Hermosa Beach City Council Ed Ruzak, City Traffic Engineer Michael Schubach, Planning Director August 6, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council August 14, 1990 STATUS REPORT: IDEAS FOR MUNICIPAL PIER RENOVATION RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council review the preliminary designs and ideas submitted by the Coastal Conservancy and direct staff to proceed with the following with regards to the potential renovation of the Municipal Pier: Obtain input and reviews for conceptual designs from the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission and the Planning Commission. Secure financial commitment from the Coastal Conservancy for up to $20,000 in matching funds for design services. Examine potential funding sources for renovation (Coastal Conservancy and others). Forward conceptual designs for Pier Avenue and the Pier to the Downtown Revitalization Committee and the Chamber of Commerce for their review. BACKGROUND One of City Council's stated objectives is to "do something interesting with the Pier" (under goal #7: Upgrade downtown). Since March, 1990 staff has been working with the California State Coastal Conservancy (created by the legislature to take positive steps to preserve, restore and enhance California's coastal resources) who have provided advice and preliminary design services to the City for the Municipal Pier and downtown area. ANALYSIS The conceptual sketches and suggestions provided by the Conservancy to date are attached to this report for Council review. These preliminary ideas have been developed with input from Public Safety, Public Works and Community Resources staff in order to address security, maintenance and recreational issues. For example, opening up the entrance of the Pier would not only serve to provide a town plaza area but would also discourage skating by having a stamped surface and would alleviate some of the security problems we now have due to the lack of visibility caused by the brick walls and "hidden seating areas." The most significant recommendations from the Conservancy for the Pier are: • Open -up the entryway/create plaza area (cobblestone); ▪ Remove restrooms at end of the Pier; ▪ New or redesigned building at end of the Pier (add viewing deck); ▪ Move fishing sinks; • New trash receptacles, fishing sinks, backless benches light fixtures, water fountains, bike racks; Addition of interpretive panels (panels that depict ocean wildlife pictorials); Seek innovative restaurant vendor (such as Ruby's who lease Seal Beach Pier and Balboa Pier buildings) for Pier building. These ideas as depicted in the sketches and notes attempt to retain the full use of the Pier as a fishing area as well as to provide an area to attract and accommodate other visitors. The use of interpretive panels, the potential for a restaurant at the end of the Pier and new seating areas are intended to provide more opportunities for Pier usage by the general public. Naturally these suggestions would require more extensive review and examination by the Commissions, staff and Council prior to initiating any design work. It would also be sensible to obtain input from the Downtown Revitalization Committee and the Chamber of Commerce to insure that any proposed changes in design would be complimentary with their plans. Once these reviews have been completed, the major issue for the remodel will be funding for design services and renovation. Marc Beyeler, Program Manager for the Conservancy has suggested that the City would need to obtain three types of consulting services in order to begin to address this project: . Landscape architectural services . Engineering analysis of Pier . Structural analysis for building at end of the Pier Mr. Beyeler indicated that he will recommend to his Board that an amount not to exceed $20,000 in matching funds be provided by the Conservancy to Hermosa Beach for these services. He also indicated that the Conservancy would (at the City's discretion) provide support services in administering the design process. Staff recommends that the City request this money from the Conservancy presently as it will take approximately 3 months to secure the commitment of funds from the Board. Funding from the Conservancy for the actual renovation may exist pending the passage of AB1445 (California Wildlife, Park, Recreation, Coastal, Museum Bond Act of 1990) on Nov. 6, 1990. With Council's direction, staff will investigate this and other funding sources for the project. Other alternatives available to Council include: 1. Form a City Council subcommittee to review these and other potential ideas for the Pier. 2. Direct staff to investigate different ideas for the Pier than those that have been included in the Conservancy's reports. (i.e., creative ideas from Council). 3. Direct staff to discontinue the project. Attachments: Conservancy Pier Report and Sketches (July 27, 1990) Conservancy Report for Hermosa Beach (May 17, 1990) Respectfully Submitted, Mary De Concur: Robert A. Blackwood Act 'n Ci y Manage ' ,' kfl/144 �i Anthony Antich,r Director P • 1' c Works p partment Steve Wisniewski, Director Dept. of Public Safety ooney, Director f Community Resources July 27, 1990 Mary Rooney Director, Department of Community Resources Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive City of Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Dear Mary: The following is a set of considerations and ideas regarding the areas in Hermosa Beach that we have considered for remodeling. Most of them come from conversations we have had over the past several weeks, and from the meeting on July 11th. I. Building at the end of the Pier • For any changes to the actual building, it is important to consult with a civil engineer to find out how much weight the Pier can withstand, and where the main building walls should be located. • The existing building is underused and the restrooms are not essential; people could easily use the facilities at the entrance of the Pier. Removing the restrooms from the building plus the sewer pumping station would free up more than half the space. • A new (or redesigned) building at the end of the Pier could take many different forms. The first thing to decide is what the building would contain, and how big it should be. For the purpose of this exercise we have considered it to be a small restaurant. • The second thing to consider is the location of the building at the end of the Pier. There is a great variety of possibilities for the location of the building. The ones I have considered assume that the building does not need to be bigger than it is now (refer to sketches). It is important also to consider if it is going to have one or two stories; is it going to have a deck? • I have contemplated a one story building with a deck on top, because I think it would not block the view as much as the existing building does. Additionally, a deck would probably attract people to the end of the Pier. • Although I considered the possibility of moving the building all the way to the end of the Pier, I do not recommend this alternative; people usually like to get to the end of the Pier and take a look at the open sea. This gives them a sense of accomplishment that would not be fulfilled if the end was blocked by a building. • The hole that was left at the end of the Pier for a possible stairway leading down. to the water is now covered with plywood and fenced off. It should be covered with concrete like the rest of the Pier and the railing around it should be taken off. 2. Pier area. • Fishing sinks should be moved away from the end of the Pier to avoid the garbage linked to cleaning fish in the restaurant area. They could be moved approximately 150 feet away from the restaurant area and then scattered along the Pier. This would encourage fishermen to use the whole Pier and not concentrate at the end of it. • New sinks should be built of a strong material (not wood) and should be tilted so that they can drain towards the ocean without the need of pipes that can eventually clog. ' • The gates used to close the Pier for emergency situations could be replaced by a nicely designed wrought iron gate. • New backless benches should be built of a strong and durable material; this way people can decide whether they want to face the ocean or people passing by. • Trash receptacles should be like the ones on Pier Avenue. This would give some design unity to public spaces in Hermosa Beach. • Light fixtures on the Pier could be redesigned tying to give the Pier a more human scale. The idea is portrayed in the drawings that I sent in May. • Water fountains along the Pier could be improved. The pipes below them could be covered; a possibility would be to use the same material as for the trash receptacles. 3. Pier entrance Plaza • The ideas for this plaza are very clearly stated in the set of drawings I sent in May; basically it should be a very simple open plaza. • According to what we discussed, the idea is to design a plaza with stairs going down towards the area adjacent to the strand, forming a small amphitheater. This is possible as you can see from the sketch; nevertheless, the change in height is very small, and therefore it only permits us to have two rows of seating space. • This plaza could also have a set of stairs going down towards the volleyball courts. As in the former case, the stairs could be used as a seating area. • Bike racks should be placed in this area. They should be of an indestructible material (if such a thing exists). We talked about concrete racks bolted to the ground. • Finally we talked about having a "cobblestone" plaza which could be achieved by stamping rough concrete. Hopefully this will discourage skateboarders from destroying the furniture. 4. Interpretive panels • Interpretive panels could be placed at the entrance to the Pier, and possibly at mid - Pier. The Conservancy is looking at the possibility of designing a set of panels specifically for urban waterfronts, which would be more appropriate for this setting. This is something that is going to happen some day, but it is a long-term project. The design should take this possibility into consideration, but should not be tied to it. 5. Pier Avenue • This area was clearly explained in the May report. It is important from this point on to look at every intersection separately. Although the basic idea is the same for all of them, they have to be considered individually for the final design. • Planted areas in street corners should only take up unused space; in no case should existing parking spaces be eliminated. • It is important to consider changes in height along Pier Avenue. In some instances the planters could be separated from the pedestrian walkway by a low concrete wall that could be used as a seating area. Sincerely yours, Juan Martin Carvajal Project Manager P. D. Mary, I'll be leaving the country by the end of this month, so by the time you receive this letter I'll be gone. I am really sorry I can't continue with this project, but hope it will come out fine. I had hoped I could have spent more time on the design ideas, but time just flew by. Good luck with your projects. 4. OPEN PLAZA. AT PIER ENTRANCE Status as of May 1990 (approximate sketch) Proposed Improvement 3v1 rN q 41- "1 H v D - PER PERrvior,4 BE4cH Mak-Z b;/SJ /9 5iief, /Qa Open S Q a C2_ Ea '. r.5 j;ve. people a .7142a 7bwa.rds 'e. head If s off, area is used for ovl ; - W I l p ra bald a e4 ple +kJ-- c4,-‘ see »- ± 'Pier Lei„vve e bvi(d/ sa, ie s'rZe buF louo4 osd s -1-1.t Te.Ac cvs sed fossil); ItYlw cam(d -. rs us rk,q� oil, CL r j1-1€ 71 7) r. 1 4,4' Joug vz4s(.0VI p rrn--%4; Pete w el -6(W ;s..C. Coobld 12.k2 Nc,)) p ; 0 L ?Icy . . OJt D/r1&' 4r -rHF_ E- J o '► 4- MOSA- g"ht,tosami. Leave, fy 60�ie 0Li -tI_Moe oW s'k; G fsi; 7N4 O/f a roci\d o/d s trwotf , J ;')c4-2dse l�h-hj fuck s;0t o c ;Id�'� (►,,�f src�e) -'ave CL2c.1c. O n 4DP Of b1;1Si`j a s C21d QJl or GZi^;� area , J or) v; p) d�1r / Nf bo 1d.�� s it 12aill'3 Ten (262. 'Pr) uJ;i/ jive /eT,l Plaza IouJar'd s P c< a D��.,, . c s b Places sf ,)L (u (pis ;bici aQ s,\s+ • STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor • CALIFORNIA STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY 1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1100 OAKLAND, CA 94612-2530 ATSS 561-1015 TELEPHONE 415/464-1015 FAX 415/464.0470 May 17, 1990 Mary Rooney Director Department of Community Resources Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive City of Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Dear Mary: I am finally sending you the ideas for Hermosa Beach. I hope they are helpful in being a catalyzer for more ideas and as a starting point for getting something done. Although they are not actual designs, and getting these done would take some more work, I want you to look at them and give me your own ideas of what you like and dislike. If you have other suggestions regarding other areas that could be improved please let me know. I will be gone for three weeks, but we can talk about how to continue from this point on Monday June 11. Meanwhile, if you can get maps of these two streets (Pier and Hermosa Avenues) I will need them to work on more site specific design. Probably Public Works has maps that show the width of the street, the sidewalks, and marked parking spaces. I will call you as soon as I get back so we can get this project going. Sincerely yours, Project Manager HERMOSA IMPROVEMENTS May 1990 This chart is a first attempt to convey ideas of what can be done in the City of Hermosa Beach to improve the aesthetic quality of major commercial streets such as Pier and Helinosa Avenues and the approach to the Pier. For the commercial streets I want to emphasize a pedestrian oriented environment rather than the existing automobile oriented one. At the strand I want to open the view of the Plaza towards the Pier and the ocean. On the Pier I want to create an interesting intermediate area. The following chart is keyed to the set of drawings conveying both the actual state of the areas considered in this proposal and the visual idea of the proposed improvements. It is important to notice that these sketches are ideas that need to be thoroughly developed after consideration of what the City wants and could achieve with the changes. Location Status Proposal 1 Pier Avenue at Hermosa Avenue • The crossing is an auto oriented area, with big distances between sidewalks, and ample spaces for cars to turn and maneuver. • Use street corners that are not used for parking as planted areas to make the area look nicer and more inviting. This will shorten the distance between sidewalks, making it more pleasant for pedestrians. It also helps separate the pedestrian from the automobile environments, making the walking experience around Hermosa Beach a more pleasant one. la Pier Avenue North of Hermosa Avenue • The roadway is divided by yellow lines painted on the pavement. • A planted area as a divider with plants and palms as on Pier Avenue south of Hermosa Avenue would surely make the street look more appealing. It would also provide additional visual interest for the driver and slow him/her down and look at what is around. 2 Planter at Pier Avenue • Existing planters on Pier Avenue seem to stress a technical constraint (water diversion) instead of emphasizing on aesthetic and pedestrian oriented factors. • Water diversion should be a secondary constraint and diverted differently (underground for example). This would increase the size of the planted area, serve as a better buffer and be part of the pedestrian area. It is also important that these planted areas be really planted and maintained. A study of what height of bush -like vegetation could tell us how they could best function without becoming a safety hazard that could block the view between cars and pedestrians. 3 & 4 Open plaza at Pier entrance • The existing area at the entrance of the Pier is too cluttered.The brick walls do not contribute to any type of aesthetic or functional value of the space and block the view for passers-by or for people who want to sit down and watch people go by. • This should be an area designed with simplicity in mind. It is the entrance to the Pier, and a meeting and observation area. It should be a very simple open plaza with stairs where people could sit down to eat something, relax or just watch skaters and bicyclists go by. Any type of planter should be located as a heavy but loose standing object that does not obstruct the view or the flow of people. A set of interpretive panels could be located at the Southern end of the Plaza where they do not obstruct the view while they help to hide the back well of the bathrooms. A change in floor patterns and perhaps the addition of tiles could contribute to the improvement of the Plaza. 5 • The way this Pier goes up • Another set of interpretive panels located Mid -Pier and then levels, discourages the visitor at the point where the Pier stops its ascent and flattens could give a sense of because he/she cannot see "entry" to the 2nd part of the Pier. They what is at the end. could be an interesting asset and educate Additionally, the gates at the public about the environment. It is this point do not important that these panels do not contribute any aesthetic obstruct the flow of people and cars. value to the structure. Deliveries and police should be able to reach the end of the Pier in their vehicles. This would be a good place to create a small semi -protected place where a small group could gather and sit down. This is a possibility that can be further pursued in the design. * I will need some additional information about the problems and constraints regarding the gate at this point. I do not know how often this gate is used, or if it can be eliminated and something could beset up for special occasions. I have already thought about an alternative design (not the draw -bridge) for the case of a permanent gate. 1. & la. PTFR AVENUE AT HERMOSA AVENUE Status as of May 1990 Proposed Improvement 2. PLAN I ER AT P1I-R.AVENUE Status as of May 1990 Proposed Improvement 3. OPEN PLAZA AT PIER ENTRANCE Status as of May 1990 Proposed Improvement 4. OPEN PLAZA AT PI F. R .ENTRANCE Status as of May 1990 (approximate sketch) Proposed Improvement 5. MID -PIER (Gates) Status as of May 1990 Proposed Improvement CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council _ FROM: Michael Schubach,'Plan DI ctor SUBJECT: DATE: August 7, 1990 Automatic Vacancy on Planning Commission Request Waiver of the automatic vacancy resulting from absences by Commissioner Carl Moore. Recommendation Waive vacancy by minute order. Background The Planning Commission, at their July 17, 1990 meeting, were made aware of the automatic vacancy on the Commission if a waiver by the City Council was not granted. Analysis Section 2-74 of the Municipal Code discusses when automatic vacancy will occur unless waived by the City Council (refer to attached ordinance). Commissioner Moore has been absent on June 5th and August 7th; these absences were prior noticed by Commissioner Moore as business trips. In the future he will also be absent on September 18th and October 16th which will also be for business reasons. According to Section 2-74, two absences in one quarter, or four in one year results in an automatic vacancy Noted: oted: /J kevin B. Northcraft City Manager p/memo5 13 a *.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 ORDINANCE NO. 89-996 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 2 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLED "ADMINISTRATION", BY ADDING HERETO PROVISIONS RELATING TO ABSENCES ON CITY COMMISSIONS. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach is concerned with the regular attendance of Commissioners on the various appointed bodies of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council directed on June 27, 1989 that a revised policy be presented for approval; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Chapter 2, Article V. Community Resources Section 2-64 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Section 2-64. Same- Terms of -members; vacancies. The members of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission shall serve for a period of four (4) years. No member shall remain on said commission for a period of time longer than two (2) consecutive terms. If a vacancy shall occur otherwise than by expiration of term, it shall be filled by appointment by the City Council for the unexpired portion of the term. Appointments shall be made pur- suant to Government Code Section 54970 et seq. Upon the expiration of a full term, each member of the Commis- sion shall serve until a successor is appointed and qualified, except that in the event of a written resignation filed with the City Manager and accepted by action of the City Council, said resignation shall become effective on the dateset forth therein. Two (2) absences from regularly scheduled meetings of any member within one (1) calendar quarter, and/or four absences from regu- lar meetings within one (1) calendar year creates an automatic vacancy. There shall be no distinction between excused or unex- cused absences. When an automatic vacancy occurs, the staff liaison shall promptly notify the City Council, the Commission and the Member. The automatic vacancy shall not be effective until council receives notice and fails to waive application of this section. The City Council may waive application of the automatic vacancy upon its own motion; otherwise, the vacancy so created shall be filled pursuant to the above sections." /// X 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ORDINANCE NO. 89-996 SECTION 2. That Chapter 2, Article VI. Planning Commission Section 2-74 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Section 2-74. Terms of members; vacancies. The members of the Planning Commission shall serve for a per- iod of four (4) years. No member shall remain on said commission for a period of time longer than two (2) consecutive terms. If a vacancy shall occur otherwise than by expiration of term, it shall be filled by appointments by the City Council for the unex- pired portion of the term. Appointments shall be made pursuant to Government Code Section 54970 et seq. Upon the expiration of a full term, each member of the commission shall serve until a successor is appointed and qualified, except that in the event of a written resignation filed with the City Manager and accepted by action of the City Council, said resign- ation shall become effective on the date set forth therein. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Two (2) absences from regularly scheduled meetings of any member within one (1) calendar quarter, and/or four absences from regu- lar meetings within one (1) "'calendar year creates an automatic vacancy. There shall be no distinction between excused or unex- cused absences. When an automatic vacancy occurs, the staff liaison shall promptly notify the City Council, the Commission, and the member. The automatic vacancy shall not be effective until Council receives notice and fails to waive application of this section. The City Council may waive application of the automatic vacancy upon its own motion; otherwise, the vacancy so created shall be filled pursuant to the above sections." SECTION 3. The respective city liaison shall give a copy of this ordinance to each current commissioner and every newly appointed commissioner upon appointment. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its passage and adoption. SECTION 5. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. 1 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 l ORDINANCE NO. 89-996 SECTION 6. 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 8th DAY OF August, 1989 M)f A4V/n PRE ENT of the City Council and MAYOR of e City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APP 'OV,ED S TO FO 11 City •ttorney • e. August 6, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of August 14, 1990 RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBSTITUTE A VEHICLE ALLOWANCE FOR A CITY PROVIDED VEHICLE; APPROPRIATE $2,500 FROM THE PROSPECTIVE EXPENDITURES ACCOUNT TO THE CITY MANAGER BUDGET; AND DELETE $10,000 FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT BUDGET FOR THE PURCHASE OR ONE VEHICLE Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution amending the Employment Agreement with the City Man- ager to provide a $250.00 per month vehicle allowance in lieu of providing a City vehicle; appropriate $2,500 from the Prospective Expenditures account to the City Manager's budget; and to delete $10,000 from the Building Department budget, account number 001- 401-4201-5403, for the purchase of a vehicle. Background: Pursuant to the Employment Agreement with the City Manager, the City Council and the City Manager have met and reviewed the ex- isting terms and conditions of employment. At that meeting, the City Manager made the recommendation to sub- stitute a vehicle allowance for the current practice of having the City Manager provided a city vehicle. This recommendation was accepted by the sub -committee of the City Council and recom- mended to the City Council. Analysis: A survey of eight selected cities indicated that five of those eight provided a vehicle allowance in lieu of providing a city vehicle for the City Manager. The average amount of the vehicle allowance provided to the City Manager in the survey cities was $320.00 per month. This change in the City Manager's Employment Agreement allows the City to transfer the city vehicle currently provided to the City Manager to the Building Department and thereby eliminate the need for that department to purchase one of the two new vehicles as provided for in the FY 1990-91 Council adopted budget. Respectfully submitted, Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director Noted for Fiscal Impact: .6-ifL6t4c4L,) Viki Copeland Finance Director 13b 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, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO 89-5328 ESTABLISHING CERTAIN CHANGES IN THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR THE CITY MANAGER KEVIN B. NORTHCRAFT EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 1990 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 89-5328 was adopted the 14th day of November, 1989 which established salary and other terms and conditions of employment for City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft; and, WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of employment for the City Manager are stated in an Employment Agreement adopted pursuant to Resolution No. 89-5238; and, WHEREAS, the City Council and the City Manager have reviewed and agreed upon certain changes in the terms and conditions of employment; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the Employment Agreement with Kevin B. Northcraft is amended as follows: A) SECTION 6. AUTOMOBILE is amended to read: "The City Manager shall be provided with an automobile allowance in the amount of $250.00 per month. Said allowance to be paid monthly as part of the regular payroll process." 3. That all other terms and conditions of employment as described in the Employment Agreement entered into as of the 1st day of February, 1989, and amended by Resolution No. 89-5328, shall remained unchanged. 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 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution; and shall cause the same to be entered among the original resolution of said City; and shall make a minute passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council of said City in the minutes at which time 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: CKAAL„ , City Clerk , City Attorney August 9, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of August 14, 1990 RECOMMENDATION TO APPOINT CITY PROSECUTOR RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council: 1) Appoint David G.Coffey as the part-time City Prosecutor; 2) Approve the attached agreement for legal services; 3) Authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement; and 4) Authorize staff to take necessary actions and make necessary notifications to cancel the agreement with the firm currently handling code enforcement prosecutions. BACKGROUND: At the regular City Council meeting of June 12, 1990 the City Manager notified Council of the planned retirement of the current City Prosecutor, John Barry. In planning for the pending retirement, staff was directed to explore the options available for handling the City Prosecutions. The two options identified were: 1) to transfer the responsibility to office and, 2) to recruit another part-time City John Barry. the District Attorney s Prosecutor to replace At the regular City Council meeting of July 10, 1990 Council approved staff recommendation to recruit a part-time City Prosecutor and authorized the Director of Public Safety to seek proposals from qualified individuals to serve as City Prosecutor, delegated the direction of the City Prosecutor to the Director, and approved the scope of services and qualifications for the City Prosecutor. 1 13c ANALYSIS: Requests for proposals were posted on the City bulletin board on July 18, 1990 and an advertisement for the position was placed in the Daily Journal, a legal newspaper of general circulation to attorneys, to run from July 19 to July 27, 1990. Eight proposals were received by the deadline of August 1, 1990. Staff reviewed all of the proposals to select the qualified candidates. Five of the candidates submitted complete proposals and were scheduled for an interview. Three of the candidates did not submit a complete proposal and were rejected. The list of candidates and their proposals is attached to this item. The interview board, consisting of the Director of Public Safety, the Building and Safety Director, and the Personnel Director interviewed each of the five candidates and rated them on their qualifications and experience as follows: 1) David G. Coffey 2) Janet Bogigian 3) Martin Mayer (a firm) 4) Kenneth Mersand 5) Steven Berman The candidate judged to be the most qualified for the position also proposed to perform the service for the City within the current budgeted amount for City Prosecutions which is an added qualification factor. It is the recommendation of the interview board that David G. Coffey be retained as the City Prosecutor handling all prosecutions, code enforcement and criminal, for the City and that the current agreement with the firm of Martin Mayer for code enforcement be terminated as provided for in the agreement. Robert B.Blackwood Acting City Manager William Grove Director of Building and Safety 2 Resctfully Submitted, Steve Wisniewski Director of Public Safety . CITY PROSECUTOR PROPOSALS HOURLY RATE 96 HOURS PER MONTH 1,248 HOURS PER YEAR COFFEY, David $70.00 $4,600 $55,200 MEERSAND, David $75.00 $6,875 $82,500 BOGIGIAN, Janet $90.00 $8,640 $112,320 BERMAN, Steven $95.00 $9,120 $118,560 MAYER, Martin $130.00 $12,480 $162,240 WICZYNSKI, Marilyn No quote given MONETTE, Steven No quote given GREAGOS & GREAGOS No quote given CURRENT BUDGETED AMOUNT FOR CITY PROSECUTOR SERVICES: $58,625 for 1990/91 $51,140 for 1991/92 AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES WITH DAVID G. COFFEY Attorney at Law THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 14th day of August, 1990, by and between the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, (hereinafter referred to as the "City") and David G. Coffey, (hereinafter referred to as "Prosecutor"). WHEREAS, the City desires to engage Prosecutor to render legal services, advice, and assistance in connection with City's enforcement activities. NOW ,THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO DO MUTUALLY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. SCOPE OF SERVICE Reporting to and under the general direction of the Director of Public Safety, the City Prosecutor is responsible for the prosecution of violations of the municipal code and misdemeanor and infraction violations of the Penal Code for the City. Prosecutor agrees to render legal services to the City as City Prosecutor pursuant to the terms herein and when and as required by the City Council, the City Manager, or the Director of Public Safety. For the monthly retainer specified herein, Prosecutor will provide up to 96 hours of legal services per month which may include, but shall not be limited to: *Meeting with the various departments and staff entrusted with the enforcement of the various legal codes concerning violations, enforcement, and prosecutions during regular office hours each week; *Review of all misdemeanor, infraction, and municipal code violations; *Filing and/or coordinating filing of all criminal complaints; *Complete all legal procedures for prosecution through the municipal court system making all court appearances in connection with prosecutions including arraignment, pretrial appearances, motions, and trials (jury and court); 1 *Representing the City in traffic court as needed; *Filing answers and assisting the departments with Pitchess and discovery motions, making court appearances and attending in camera hearings as needed; *Assisting with legal filings for asset forfeitures in connection with illegal narcotics activity; *Preparing necessary documents to include motions and orders in conjunction with evidence and seized property releases and destruction, making court appearances as necessary; *Developing and presenting in-service training programs and legal updates to personnel involved in the enforcement of the various codes and laws; *Providing legal support and advice on sensitive investigaions; *Developing and maintaining programs and procedures to effectively track prosecutions and report statistical data on case Toads and case dispositions on a monthly basis to the Director of Public Safety; *Being available on an on call basis to respond to crime scene locations and to assist the departments in the preparation and attainment of search warrants, arrest warrants, bail deviations and other legal matters as needed. 2. COMPENSATION For the services specified in this Agreement, the City shall pay Prosecutor a monthly retainer in the amount of $4,600.00. For all legal services in excess of 96 hours per month, Prosecutor shall be compensated for services rendered under this Agreement at the hourly rate of $70.00. City shall reimburse Prosecutor for reasonable expenses incurred in an amount equal to actual out-of-pocket costs such as reproduction, messenger services, filing costs, witness fees, jury fees, court reporter fees, and similar costs relating to prosecution of City cases. All expenses shall be submitted with appropriate receipts. Prosecutor shall not be reimbursed for secretarial or typist services or normal office operating expenses. 2 Fees listed herein shall be subject to adjustment during the regular City budget process each year. 3. METHOD OF PAYMENT Within ten (10) days after the first of each calendar month, Prosecutor shall submit a statement to the City, attention : Director of Public Safety, containing a breakdown of services performed during the preceeding month specifying the services performed by dates and number of hours, and itemization of other expenses related thereto. Prosecutor agrees to modify and/or add to billing statement at City's request to show cumulative totals and improve clarity. 4. STATUS OF CITY PROSECUTOR The City Prosecutor is an independent contractor and not an officer, administrator, or employee of the City. The City shall not be liable, responsible, or otherwise answer for any claims for damages or other relief against Prosecutor based on any undertaking not authorized or directed by the City. 5. INSURANCE REQUIRED Malpractice: The City Prosecutor shall carry malpractice insurance covering errors and ommissions in an amount of not less than $300,000. The City Prosecutor shall provide the City with a certificate verifying such coverage or endorsement acceptable to the City. Such policy shall require 30 days notice to the City in writing prior to cancellation, termination, or expiration of any kind. Worker's Compensation: In accordance with State Compensation Laws, the City Prosecutor shall carry Worker's Compensation insurance for all persons employed in the performance of services as set forth herein. The City Prosecutor shall provide the City with a certificate verfying such coverage. Such policy shall require 30 days notice to the City in writing prior to cancellation, termination, or expiration of any kind. 3 6. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT Prosecutor shall serve at the pleasure of the City and this Agreement may be terminated by either party on ninety (90) days written notice to the other, the effective date of cancellation being the 90th day of said written notice without further action by either party. Notice shall be deemed to have been given as of the date of personal service, or as of the date of deposit of the same in the custody of the United States Postal Service addressed as follows: CITY: Director of Public Safety City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 PROSECUTOR: 7. SEVERABILITY David G. Coffey 17809 Florwood Avenue Torrance , CA 90504 If any provision or portion of this agreement is held to be unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable, then the remainder of this agreement or portions thereof shall be deemed severable, shall not be affected, and shall remain in full force and effect. The text herein shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and Prosecutor have executed this Agreement as of the date first hereinabove set forth. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY PROSECUTOR Roger Creighton, Mayor David G. Coffey 4 July 30, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of August 14, 1990 RECOMMENDATION REGARDING VEHICLE PARKING IN FRONT YARDS AND ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY (NOT STREET SURFACES) Recommendation: That the City Council authorize staff and the Planning Commission as appropriate to review the City's ordinances and enforcement of parking within the front yard setback of properties in the City, with the intent to prohibit such parking. Background:" City staff has received a complaint from John and Susan McFarlane regarding the practice on certain walk streets of utilizing the public right-of-way in front of residential property for parking. Analysis: The City has many right-of-ways that are not currently being used for street purposes. The twenty-five walk streets in the City are obvious examples. Also, Monterey Boulevard and Prospect Avenue have right-of-way far in excess of the improved street surface. The use of these right-of-ways by the adjacent proper- ty owners for many years is well established. For this reason, any discussion of changing that use would no doubt be controver- sial, but could be considered if there was an interest in con- sidering vacating the right-of-way or opening it up for public use. A less controversial way of dealing with the complainants concern could be to review the City's policy on using the front setback for parking. Section 1157(D) of the Municipal Code prohibits parking in the first twenty feet of the front yard except where a driveway exists as an approach to a garage. It would seem ap- propriate that this prohibition should apply to the first twenty feet, whether or not it is private property or technically a public right-of-way in use by the adjacent property. This interpretation and enforcement of this provision has ramifica- tions on walk streets and other streets in the City, and could result in a reduction of offstreet parking that would help aggra- vate the current parking problems in the community. However, it is well established that parking in the front of lots that are most visible to the public do have a negative impact on a neigh- borhood and on our community in general. (For this reason, our ordinance provision is similar to ordinances in other cities that are concerned about the quality and aesthetics of their neighborhoods.) - 1 - Alternatives: A variety of alternatives are available to the Council, including direction to staff to: 1) Consider the opening of right-of-way areas not used for street purposes for general public use, 2) Review of the impact of vacating public right-of-ways that are not anticipated to be used for any public purpose, 3) Require encroachment permits and insurance for a continued use of the right-of-way by the adjacent property owners, 4) Prohibition of use of unimproved public right-of-way for parking, 5) Require a permit for use of these areas for private parking. (1014,a,iteea_cl-ticivz.-C 62_ Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager KBN/ld cc: Planning Department Public Works Department John and Susan McFarlane EXAMPLES OF PARKING TN FRONT YARDS (INCLUDING R-O-W) BEACH DRIVE & WALK STREETS SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION OTHER AREAS - 15TH STREET STRAND HERMOSA AVENUE if NINTH STREET cry • 1 ! •1 R in M 14'-0' 20'-O' 5'R 5' R >0 W J ow O w J < J CONCRETE BLOCK WALL 8' FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY 9' HIGH CONCRETE BLOCK WALL N1326'00'W 108.17' PLANTER NEW 6' CONC. CURB (TYP.) 1 STORY WOOD HOUSE 1 STORY WOOD - GARAGE 8'-0' 20'-83, 400 AMP., 3 PHASE ELECT. SERVICE MAIN W/ PULL SECTION IN RAINPROOF BOX N1326'00'W 108.19' WOOD SHED • W 0 1 STORY STUCCO Im 400W AREA LIGHT 28'-0" A 8' BUILDING SETBACK 24'-0' 12'-0' 8'-8 31 6' 9' HIGH CONCRETE BLOCK WALL (8' FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY) - 18'-0' - 26'-0' PLANTER STORAGE TRASH ENCLOSURE 5'R 400W AREA LIGHT 10 R I1t 400W AREA LIGHT NEW 6' CONIC. CURB (TYP.) 8' BU 400W AREA LIGHT 2 \'NCij w I 11� CONC. PLATFORM . —t o �2S 8' BUILDING SETBACK 4- NEW U.G. STORAGE TANKS W/ 6' CONIC. MAT m ONCRETE MAT AREA CANOPY w U dS W mo CC F'" 0} Z» O U U 3 4_ ww ZD.. I 1 1 14'-10' I.D.U. 8 PLACES, TYP.) FIRE HYDRANT (01 N Z+ 20' R n oI E)CIST. S t� T(11 BE REM' J I n-- O PULL BOX 0PULL BOX 8' R • 'MOBIL° CANOPY LEGEND 400W TWIN FIXTURE AREA LIGHT W/POS RECONSTRUCT EXISTING APPROACH NEW CONC. CURB RETURN PER CITY STD'S (TYP.) 18'-4' (TYP EDGE OF PLATFORM RESTROOM (BARRIER -FREE) 76 - RAGE COOLER GS BUILDING II 1111(1 '15 RAMS', 7'-6' / (MAX.) / 34'-8' 163'-O' AREA CANOPY & CONCRETE MAT 5 R// LOW LEVEL AREA LIGHT N V —t SALESROOM REMOVE EXIST. STRUCTURES PEGASUS DISC (2 PLACES,TYP.) MOBIL MART LEGEND 34'-8' FULL DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVING NEW 6' CONC. a (TYP.) A MI I ¢ O J w wCC G SETBACK NO PARKING SIGN 6' R W "TWIN FIXTURE L'IkHT W/POS EXIST. - O MANHOLE PLANTER 5' R 0_ >- 1- 0 O (`7 LOW LEVEL aim AREA LIGHT nn I\ 8' R N13'26'00'W 216.27' 8' R 32'-0' 30'-0' 10 ENTRY SIGN CLEARANCE 7' INSTRUCTIONAL SIGN 20'-0' / TYP. CUSTOMER SERVICE AREA (AIR & WATER) It —E -MPD (TYP) CAR WASH LEGEND kg HIGH HOSE)FASCIA (4 PLACES, TYF.) _NPD (T LOW LEVEL AREA LIGHT 14'-10 P) 'MOBIL' >- 1Z w 0 z CAR WASH J immoollImm.-.. 10'-0' CANOPY LEGEND 12FT TWIN POLE ID/PRICE/CW SIGN NEW 6' CONC. CURB (TYP.) 5' R PLANTER PULL BOX OTRAFFIC o PULL BOX SIGNAL OEXIST MANHOLE OEXIST MANHOLE cc ¢ 0 , 1- , NEW 6' CONC. CURB (TYP.) DANNER POLE RELOCATE 7 EXISTING 'NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH' SIGN m , I in PL_REOCAT EXISTING L BO , 43'-6' 6-12 7o Bei /co r 20'-0' RELOCATE EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL NEW CONC CURB & GUTTER PER CITY & CAL'TRANS STD'S. / NEW CONC. CURB RETURN PER CITY STANDARDS •(TYP.) ELOCATE XISTING SIGN PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY w Y, ym K -U. 1-6 oZwa 2 F -.t'•• 3 ii w Z O O U O cc WccZ 1—Q�=oo Zvi° r • 'M o ) '.aw Q Zrwp3 >Q Intro OJOZaw 1.,.'o w . s -' moi►- - 00 C m U N W xes Li_ tuv)=o Cr' Q�wxwJ =wa CC 3w�in CC cc cc 0a. O m o 2< ±=viavv)) AUG 7 1990 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOTS 11,12,13,14,15,16 , &' 17 OF TRACT '223 '- IN -IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA.BEACH, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE',OF--CALIFORNIA,-AS - PER RECORDEDIN .BOOK 80, PG. 190 OF .- MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF-THE•CDUNTY RECORDER OF -SAID -COUNTY. ' STATISTICAL INFORMATION , RER'D. SR. FT. - 7 . GROSS & NET AREA OF PROPERTY:.65 ACR. 28,655 100% LANDSCAPE AREA 3181 11.1 PARKING SPACES (3) 9x18 (1) 14x18 H.C. .- 16 ° 2808 ; 9.80 STRUCTURES HEIGHT TYPE OCC. G S BLDG. _ .. 10'-6' II N • B2 ` . -924 3.22 CANOPY 16'-3' II N • B1 '4944' 17.3 CAR WASH 12'-11' II N 62 ` 648' 2.26 STOR./T.E. 6'-11' II N ''62.' ` '192 .006 TOTAL BLOC.', AREA, _ 6108. 21.3 NET OPEN .AREA 16.550 57.8 ZONING EMPLOYEES (4) PER 24 HR. PERIOD " APPLICANT: B. RECHSTEINER PLANS PREPARED BY: . MOBIL' OIL CORPORATION ;•'-' 53- 3800L.W.HAW.NLEYALAMEDA •(818)9AVE.*20002585' BURBANK, CA., 91505'... U cc ¢ • 4.1 4-- W x000 Nd' I , 1 1 No, co tot 0 m 0 0 • CO 0 z 0 N m 0 J. • 0 .+N CO LOCO 1` x J W w c 1•- = F- rc (/) W o t-- V" 0 'ed It. 0 . Z'Q= -JIM <I 2 -' 1 - N ;a_ ao a occ o Z-) 0 ,- 0 .o N ® 7 P--1 (Di C�tr)„m t� O o O W'fern oVzi.,� m 0(3 3 ©Cto cD m S F- • m w 1— , w -0 2 0 1 •w 0 DESIGN FILE NAME:11E3FPP2.DGN)3 ; SCALE: I = 40' SHEET I OF I SHEET PARCEL MAP NO. 20176 IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF LOT 5 , BLOCK 78 , SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH , AS SHOWN ON MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 3, PAGES II AND 12 OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES SUBDIVIDER'S STATEMENT: / HEREBY STATE THAT / AM THE SUBDIV/OER of THE LANDS INCLUDED WITHIN THE SUBD/V/S/ON S//ONN ON TN/S MAP WITHIN THE D/ST/NGT/VE BORDER LINES, AND / CONSENT TO THE PREPARATION ANO FILING OF SAID MAP AND 5UB- p/VIS/OM. 5ADAPC KOJ/ SUBDIVIDER STATE OF CALIFORNIA S5 COUNTY OF LOs ANGELES ON TH/5 Z3 DAY OP , 986,BEFORE ME TONY MILLS A NOTARY PUBLIC /N AND FOR SAID STATE, PERSONALLY APPEARED S9VASd /rOo///s1-f PE/7SONALL Y KNOWN 777 ME Of? PROVED 7U ME ON THE 8A - S/5 OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON, WHOSE NAME /6 SUBSCRIBED 7V THE W/77//N INSTRUMENT AND AC- KNOWLEDGED TV ME THAT HE EXECUTED THE SAME. TONY MILLS -NOTARY PUBLIC' TONY f/LLS 4//Or•9fgr Pl/Be/C CALIFORN/A-COUNTANGELES , / MY COMMISSON EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 2/, /992 CITY TREASURER'S CERT7F/LATE : /HEREBY CERT/FY THAT ALL SPEC/AL ASSESSMENTS LE- VIED UNDER 77/E JUR/SD/CT/ON OF THE C/TY OF HERMOSA BEACH, TO N,W4t'THE LAND INCLUDED IN THE WITHIN 51/50/- V/S/ON OR ANY PART THEREOF /S SUBJECT AND/VeMAY BE PAID IN FULL, HAVE BEEN PAID /N FULL. DATED: BY ciry TREASURER OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH C/rr GG 7,rA GE�r/, 7'C 17E , / //Efrcr,- CSirr 2 775:9 7M 6/717- Go//%/C/G ac- 7/96 G/rf'" of ,&' //'72 S-9 6E1'Gy 45r /1107704/ fr /7 5E� S/may o// Ty6 p)9K of , /9 A��F�Ov6p 7 3 5r _.4-V/' 2re c7 �1�9P Sly•' G/77 t2 -r4 G/77- oma --/a20-/4",9 g Tf &" 4/7 76 OD FOG r STREET ti. CTf-a. a6 (f) 0 v NI A/70° 34 00'E - JUL 2519 O ENGINEER'S STATEMENT• : 77//S MAP WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MV DIRECTION AND WAS COMPILED FROM RECORD DATA IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND LOCAL OR- DINANCE AT THE REQUEST OF s, -(439;r27 v'e2crA a 7r , /798. / HEREBY STATE THATTINS PARCEL MAP SUBSTANT/ALLY CON- FORMS 7D THE APPROVED OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVED TEN- TATIVE MAP, IF ANY. (� JACK WOOD, R.G.E. 20 367 4/G. 6 -dr- rr .50, 1993 RECORD DATA NOTE: RECORD DATA /5 FROM SECOND ADDITION 70 HERMOSA BEACH, RECORD OWNERS = 5A0A,fro rae..//M.9 ,4/f/p /1/a8/// 2 X2' z Mh' C/TY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE: THIS MAP CONFORMS WI171 THE REQUIREMENTS OF LOCAL ORDI- NANCE. /y DATED; 7/6/90 BY : crt �n mra:r, `7/ DEPUTY ,!t'rr arc Ar/rMgS4 43S9c.4/ R.Ga /698 4/6: EXE .6/(C/J'3 c/7--T,1,"7f"' GE.P77,cz�9T•.. / / h' Z 5 € Err/Ar 775%97- r»MF A•f4'5 -%-Ep /V,1/ Goti�'dy�s sa/BS'T.1;f/T/.-9GGf— To Te -1oO/o//6P .Bim Tf7/S- fGAyi(/2t/q Gc A ,/-S5/o(/ a4- z2C ,e7)9/� pimp Bf Ec/rro'»/--' of /2,-7/(//(//4/ C� CONDOMINIUM NOTE: ciry /767r214,-<>41 ,e5 -AC -A`/ THIS -sdBDIVISION 15 APPROVED AS A CONDOMINIUM PROTECJ7'W 211//TS WHEREBY THE OWNERS OF THE UN/IS OF AIR -SPACE It/ILL HOLD AN UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN WE COMMON AREAS #/7-/e/1 WILL, IN TURN, PROVIDE THE NECESSARY ACCESS ANO UTILITY EASEMENTS FOR WE UNITS. 5;15./ii---/V7- 4/0 rte' . * //I/q,q q5>v /4 Z4 ,t' f/OGAE� of /A, - /MC/1/T o3r CoW.L// TS AS nxEEO jrc0rrn-r G - z7 - ccr , //1/ n- /l'/75 /7„."--- -07 *S-07 7,c 1fl 5 , /F6 -C 'S o� Cos Ait/C�G�S GzU/f/ry. as-aweNr /s ,BG-'�/c& 1 /A/ /c4TU?E= 4-2k" SEC. Z- 2C'-4¢ , /N 432r- Zot sS, F' 3732 0./f • 0 ALV DF Goy- 5, ,er:"7, 5 L�-76 00 7G -54 "etra--- /9! OD, ,VLY 6/WE DF LOT 0, BLK 78, *° SECONG' A4.P7720V To h'EI�iwOSA BEACH, M.B. 3-//-/Z -I- 0 9TH A/21' G/4/E of as ' SEG. 5- 9- 4s /y z 4 r 2/897, ';; 390, o.5: N 70°34:06-- STREET 4aD STREET v Q 4EGEND' • • • • /No/CA7"ES 7 -,WE 6DeDVP'- 04R77 DF TyE GA,/o BE'GVO SZ/BP/17/067, BY 7'/5 Nl4 &t/ A ,47/9- ea 47/9sa -05=9, ,t.// PARCEL. MAP NO. 20323 IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING A •SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 5 AND 6, TRACT NO. 1071, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 17, PAGE 136 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES SUBDIVIDER'S STATEMENT I HEREBY STATE THAT I AM THE SUBDIVIDER OF THE LANDS INCLUDED WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION SHOWN ON THIS MAP WITHIN THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER LINES, AND I CONSENT TO THE PREPARATION AND FILING OF SAID MAP AND SUBDIVISION. L-2441‘x,e944,144 __ MAJILOTr &TJ XU8&ARD - - (SUBDIVIDER) RECORD OWNER t MAHLON G. HUBBARD , RAPHAELE' F. HUBBARD, ALLAN H. JUGKES, AND JOAN C. JUCKES THIS SUBDIVISION IS APPROVED AS A CONDOMINIUM PROJECTYOR_Y UN/TS WHEREBY THE OWNERS OF THE UNITS OF AIR SPACE WILL HOLD AN UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE COMMON AREAS WHICH WILL, IN TURN, PROVIDE NECESSARY ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENTS FOR THE UNITS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. 19,E . BEFORE ME ON THIS DAY OF C /V TO NN. O RY UB IC IN F SAID STATE, PERSONALLY APPEARED ¶I «. 4' + PERSONALLY KNOWN TO ME OR PROVED T[[[UUUjjj ME ON HE ASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON WHOSE NAME IS SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE EXECUTED HE SAME. 050-757 NAME OF NOTARY k II€GN 4.U?14Z DATE OF EXPIRATION Q'.f /.2) /99( PLACE OF EXECUTION astith9JTANo H&C L.R. Coat/T)" OFFICIAL SEAL KAPrN LPLOR F 2r4;: Ai 21 ICL IN LOS A.WS COUNTY . My Commission Expires Oct. 12, 1991 SHEET I OF 2 SHEETS AUG 21990 ENGINEER'S STATEMENT THIS MAP WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION AND WAS COMPILED FROM RECORD DATA IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND LOCAL ORDINANCE AT THE REQUEST OF MAHLON G. HUBBARD ON 12-10-89 I HEREBY STATE THAT THIS PARCEL MAP SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMS TO THE APPROVED OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP, IF ANY. J1 EDWARD G. S R.C.E. 11284 EPIRATIONi 12-31-92 RECORD DATA WAS TAKEN FROM TRACT NO. 1071 M.B. 17 - 136 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS LEVIED UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, TO WHICH THE LAND INCLUDED IN THE WITHIN SUBDIVISION OR ANY PART THEREOF IS SUBJECT, AND WHICH MAY BE PAID IN FULL, HAVE BEEN PAID IN ,FULL. CITY TREASURER OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DATE PITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE THIS MAP CONFORMS WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF LOCAL ORDINANCE. 1A. 71r...; 1K.5 kI a•c.E. 255.59 ,W 6eFuTY 6xPIKATLe,11: /2- /-93 7//F,07d DATE COUNTY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE THIS MAP CONFORMS WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT. COUNTY ENGINEER BY DEPUTY DATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BY MOTION ADOPTED AT ITS SESSION ON THE DAY OF , 19__ APPROVED THE ANNEXED MAP. CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ANNEXED 'MAP CONFOMS SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE TENTATIVE MAP APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE DAY OF 1989 DATED BY' 'SECRETAY OF PLANNING WARREN C/c4E[6'N 15 THE f/OL/JER O/-- A 644NKET 14/47-EFt P/PEL//YE EASEMENT PER .Boor{ /6/7 /%cE y7, OF OEE,pS, RECORDS OF 'of A'NGELfS c00N1%- SCALE: I u= 20' SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS FD L&T IN MON — PER P. M. NO. 17511 P.M.B. 198-59-60 PARCEL MAP NO. 20323 40' IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES STATE OF CALIFORNIA e\0' FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES 40 -TEKT" 77�O"E • • • 401 g10' FD. SPK IN WELL MON. PER ,P M. NO. 17511 PM.B. 198-59-60 SW'LY LINE OF LOT 7 TR. NO. 1071 M.B. 17-136 AUG 21990 INDICATES THE BOUNDARAY OF THE LAND BEING SUBDIVIDED BY THIS MAP. 10 7 0 o O O -0 O 0 o N N Z 40 Z 0 0 0 100 NW'LY LINE OF LOT 4 TR. NO. 1071 M.B. 17-136 H ✓STREET E,GH 1