The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/10/90• s • CITY 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 THE' HERMOSA'"BEACH FORM OF GOVERNMENT Hermosa Beach has 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 most economical and efficient form of City government in the United States today. GLOSSARY The following explanations may help you to understand the terms found on most 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 sthisttime. 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. p. "If your ship doesn't come in, swim out to it." -Jonathan Winters AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 10, 1990 - Council Chambers, City Hall MAYOR Roger Creighton MAYOR PRO TEM Chuck Sheldon COUNCILMEMBERS Robert Essertier Kathleen Midstokke Albert Wiemans Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. 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 TO THE CITY OF TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS TROPHIES BY PONY LEAGUE "BLUES" AND MAJOR LEAGUE "CUBS". 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.) 1 (e) (f) (g) (i) (j) (k) (1) Recommendation to approve minutes of regular meeting of the City Council held on June 26, 1990. Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive. Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. Recommendation to receive and file the June, 1990 in- vestment report. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated July 4, 1990. Recommendation to reject the one bid received for modu- lar playground equipment and authorize staff to purchase the equipment system directly from manufacturer and in- stall using in-house personnel. CIP 89-518. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated June 26, 1990. Recommendation to receive and file comparison of consul- tant vs. in-house plan check. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated July 2, 1990. Recommendation to deny application for leave to present late claim filed on behalf of Patrick F. Brennen. Memo- randum from Risk Manager Robert Blackwood dated July 2, 1990. Recommendation to adopt resolution to establish a load- ing zone in front of 737 Third Street. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 4, 1990. Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #20779 for a three -unit condominium located at 540 - 11th Street. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 2, 1990. Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #20644 for a two -unit condominium located at 1722 Golden Avenue. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 2, 1990. Recommendation to approve increase in project contract amount for sidewalk repairs, CIP 89-142. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated June 19, 1990. Recommendation to authorize staff to assign litigated tort claims for defense with firms recommended by the City's Liability Claims Administrator. Memorandum from Risk Manager Robert Blackwood dated July 3, 1990. Recommendation to approve use of the Prospect School House as a storage facility for items currently held at (o) the community center and that it be restored and main- tained as a two room school house in line with its his- torical significance. Memorandum from Community Resour- ces Director Mary Rooney dated July 2, 1990. Recommendation to deny request for Skate the Beach 10K Cruise. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated July 2, 1990. Recommendation on City Prosecutor replacement. Memoran- dum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated June 27, 1990. Recommendation re. updated appraisal for South School. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated July 5, 1990. Recommendation to authorize lease/rental of computer equipment. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated June 2, 1990. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. (a) ORDINANCE NO. 90-1038 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1215 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH"ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING REQUIREMENTS FOR FENCES AND HEDGES, AND ELIMINATING CHAPTER 15 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. For adoption.eiL (b) ORDINANCE N . 90-1039 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES, A PROVISION OF THE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW PROCESS AS SET FORTH IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH. For 3. I E S REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS. (a) Letter from George Barks, President Hermosa Beach Sister City Association, dated June 25, 1990, regarding the exchange student visit to Hermosa July 23-29, 1990. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. 5. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR THE END ZONE, 22 PIER AVENUE. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 3, 1990. 6. CONFIRMATION OF STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 1990-1991 AND LEVYING ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR COM- MENCING JULY 1, 1990, with resolution for adoption. 3 Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated June 28, 1990. 7. CROSSING GUARD MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1990-1991, with or- dinance for introduction. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated June 28, 1990. 8. 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; 2. PUBLIC PARKING LOT "C" BOUNDED BY 14TH COURT AND 13TH STREET BETWEEN BEACH DRIVE AND HERMOSA AVENUE, with resolution for adoption. 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; 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. C. AREA 10, BETWEEN BARNEY COURT AND MEYER COURT, FROM SOUTH CITY BOUNDARY TO THE REAR OF THE LOTS FRONT- ING ON SECOND STREET, with resolution for adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 3, 1990. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 9. STATUS REPORT ON RECENT STUDIES. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated July 5, 1990. A. STATUS REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING ELEMENT, with resolution for adoption. Memorandum from Public Works Direc- tor Anthony Antich dated June 28, 1990. B. STATUS REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF PARK AND RECRE- ATION MASTER PLAN. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated July 2, 1990. 10. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM: A. EXTENSION OF CONSULTANT CONTRACT FOR THIRD YEAR, 1990-1991 B. CONSIDER ALTERNATE USE OF THIRD YEAR FUNDS C. CONSIDERATION OF..PROGRAM PARTICIPATION FOR 1991 THROUGH 1994. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 3, 1990. 4 Ii. RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE FUNDING OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,000 FOR FY 1990-91. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated July 2, 1990. 12. RECOMMENDATION ON SISTER CITY VEHICLE REQUEST. Memoran- dum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated July 5, 1990. 13. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER 14. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Review of Vehicle Parking District applications. (b) Vacancies - Boards and Commissions 1) Civil Service Board, one term expiring July 15, 1994 2) Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commis- sion, (due to 2 absences in quarter). Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated July 5, 1990. 15. 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 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, June 26, 1990, at the hour of 7:35 P.M. CLOSED SESSION - The closed session was held at 7:04 P.M. pur- suant to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding Real Property Negotiations with Hermosa Beach City School District Board of Trustees concerning update on South School site, surplus lands acquisition, and with Macpherson Oil Company concerning City Maintenance Yard lease; and pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9b regarding Potential Litigation concerning Manhattan Grande. The session was adjourned at 7:27 P.M. to the regular scheduled public meeting. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - George Schmeltzer ROLL CALL: Present: Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton Absent: None PRESENTATION BY METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT ON WATER SOURCES Dale Hunter, Governmental Relations Representative of the Metropolitan Water District presented packets of information to the Council members and water conservation kits to the City Man- ager. He explained the role of the Water District in the state, provided an update on the drought situation, and asked the City Council to consider enacting a water conservation ordinance. PRESENTATION OF DONATION FROM COMMUNITY CENTER FOUNDATION Missy Sheldon, outgoing president of the Hermosa Beach Community Center Foundation, presented a check for $10,000, the final in- stallment of a $25,000 pledge to contribute toward the new air conditioning system at the Hermosa Civic Theatre at the Community Center. Mrs. Sheldon introduced the Foundation Board and re- viewed the accomplishments and capital -improvement and program goals of the Foundation. She also invited everyone to attend the many functions presented at the Center, in particular. the "60s Right On" gala and auction, scheduled for August 18, 1990, to raise money for recarpeting the common areas of the Community Center's upper level. CITIZEN COMMENTS Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street, regarding agenda items 1(e) and 1(i). 1. CONSENT CALENDAR Action: To approve the Consent Calendar recommendations (a) through (j) with the exception of the following items which were pulled for discussion but are listed in order for clarity: (e) ., Iidstokke, (f) Midstokke, (g) Midstokke, (h) Midstokke, and (i) Wiemans. Motion Mayor Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered. page 1 Minutes 06-26-90 (a) (b) Recommendation to approve_,the following minutes: 1) Special meeting of the City Council held on March 5, 1990; 2) Special meeting of the City Council held on June 7, 1990; 3) Regular meeting of the City Council held on June 12, 1990. Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants No. 33600 and Nos. 33741 through 33871 inclusive, noting voided warrants 33749, 33750, 33767, 33788, 33799, and 33800; and to cancel certain warrants as recommended by the City Treasurer. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) Recommendation to receive and file the May, 1990 finan- cial reports: 1) Revenue and expenditure report; 2) City Treasurer's report. (e) (f) Recommendation to approve revised class specification for Engineering Technician. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood' dated June 18, 1990. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Councilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting. Action: To refer this item to the Civil Service Board for review and recommendation. Motion Midstokke, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered, noting the objections of Essertier and Sheldon. Recommendation to adopt two resolutions approving Street Lighting District assessment report and setting date for a public hearing. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated June 14, 1990. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Councilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5372, entitled, HA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS OF SAID CITY MADE PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF RESOLU- TION NO. 90-5346 OF SAID COUNCIL," amended by deleting lines 1 through 5 inclusive of page 2, that read, "Whereas, said City Clerk has presented the said report to the City Council of said City, and said Council has proceeded to carefully examine, inspect and consider the said report and is satisfied with said report and with each and all of the items therein set forth. Motion Sheldon, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered. page 2 Minutes 06-26-90 Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5373, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER CERTAIN STREET LIGHTING FIXTURES AND APPURTENANCES TO BE INSTALLED, MAINTAINED AND ELECTRIC CURRENT TO BE FURNISHED FOR STREET LIGHTING FIXTURES THROUGHOUT THE CITY, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1990 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1991; AND APPOINTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN RELATION THERETO." Motion Sheldon, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered. Recommendation to adopt two resolutions approving Cross- ing Guard District assessment report and setting date for a public hearing. Memorandum from Public Works Di- rector Anthony Antich dated June 14, 1990. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Councilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5374, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS OF SAID CITY MADE PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF RESOLU- TION NO. 90-5347 OF SAID COUNCIL," amended by deleting lines 24 through 28 inclusive of page number 1, that read, "Whereas, said City Clerk has presented the said report to the City Council of said City, and said Coun- cil has proceeded to carefully examine, inspect and con- sider the said report and is satisfied with said report and with each and all of the items therein set forth." Motion Mayor Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5375, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER CERTAIN CROSSING GUARD SERVICES PURSUANT TO THE "CROSSING GUARD MAINTENANCE DISTRICT ACT OF 1974", CHAPTER 3.5, ARTICLES 1, 2, 3, AND 4, OF SECTION 55530 THROUGH 55570, OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AT CERTAIN LOCATIONS IN THE SAID CITY, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1990 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1991; AND APPOINTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN RELATION THERETO." Motion Mayor Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered. Recommendation to receive and file status report on new marquee proposal. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated June 18, 1990. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Councilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting. Action: To refer the item to the City Attorney to determine the appropriate method of repealing the sign waiver that had been granted by the Planning Commission; page 3 Minutes 06-26-90 (i) (j) then refer to staff for appropriate action. Motion Sheldon, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered. Recommendation to approve: revision to the Personnel Allocation for the Community Resources Department; the revised class specification for Recreation Manager; placement of the classification of Recreation Manager in the Administrative Bargaining Unit with a salary range adjustment; and the reclassification of the incumbent Recreation Specialists to Recreation Manager. Memoran- dum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated June 18, 1990. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Councilmember Wiemans for separate discussion later in the meeting. Proposed Action: To accept the staff recommendation. Motion Essertier, second Sheldon. Motion failed due to the objections of Midstokke, Wiemans, and Mayor Creighton. Action: To refer the recommendation to the Civil Service Board for review and recommendation. Motion Mayor Creighton, second Midstokke. So ordered, noting the objections of Essertier and Sheldon. Recommendation to receive and file report regarding up- grades to the City fire flow system. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated June 12, 1990. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. (a) ORDINANCE NO. 90-1036 - AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION XV TO CHAPTER 2 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE RELATING TO THE BOARD OF PARKING PLACE COMMISSIONERS, AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 84-756. For adoption Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 90-1036. Motion Mayor Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered. (b) ORDINANCE NO. 90-1037 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING DIVISION 4, ARTICLE IV OF CHAPTER 19 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE RELATING TO PARKING FUNDS. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 90-1037. Motion Essertier, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. Items (e) , (f) , (g) , (h) „and (i) were discussed at this time but are listed in order for clarity. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None page 4 Minutes 06-26-90 PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. CONSIDERATION OF 1990-1992 BUDGET AND FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, with resolution adopting budget and resolution establishing the appropriation limit for 1990-91. Supplemental letter from Karen M. Freeman, Dispute Resolution Services, dated June 6, 1990. The public hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak in favor of certain budget items were: Laurel Lee Roberts, 1656 Bayview Drive - City Survey Lance Widman, 1015 Fourth Street - Dispute Resolution Max Wade, 548 Manhattan Avenue - Dispute Resolution Ron Troupe, 1810 Stanford - 1736 Family Crisis Center Mike D'Amico, 559 Manhattan Avenue - Dispute Resolution Tom Skinner, South Bay Free Clinic Coming forward to speak in opposition to certain budget items were: Wilma Burt, 152 Seventh Street - Budget increases June Williams, 2065 Manhattan Avenue - City Treasurer pay increase The public hearing was closed. Action: To receive and file Exhibit A: answers to questions/comments from the May 24, 1990 workshop on the operating budget. Motion Sheldon, second Midstokke. So ordered. Action: To receive and file Exhibit B: answers to questions/comments from the June 7, 1990 workshop on capital improvements and Treasurer's recommendations. Motion Sheldon, second Midstokke. So ordered. Action: To receive and file Exhibit C: revised summary of Capital Improvement Projects. Motion Sheldon, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered. Proposed Action: To adopt the resolution approving the budget for the fiscal years 1990-92, with the Community Resources Department budget for Object Code 4201, Social Services/Private, contracts with non-profit oganiza- tions, starting on page 197, revised as follows: 1) South Bay Free Clinic, $3,000; 2) Beach Cities Symphony, $250; 3) South Bay Juvenile Diversion, $3,000 (moved to Police Budget); 4) 1736 Family Crisis Center, $5,000; 5) H.B. Coordinating Council, $1,000; 6) H.B. Little League, $1,000; 7) H.B. Youth Basketball League, $1,000; 8) Project Touch, $4000; 9) Dispute Resolution Service, $9,000; and 10) H.B. Sister City Organization, $1,000 only after compliance with the City requirements for finacial page 5 Minutes 06-26-90 information: with the understanding that any money not used by any organization prior to the close of the fis- cal year would revert to the General Fund. Motion Sheldon, second Mayor Creighton. Motion failed, due to the objections of Essertier, Midstokke, and Wiemans. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5376, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEARS 1990-92.", with the Community Resources Depart- ment budget for Object Code 4201, Social Services/ Private, contracts with non-profit organizations, starting on page 197, revised as follows: 1) South Bay Free Clinic, $4,000; 2) Beach Cities Symphony, $250; 3) South Bay Juvenile Diversion, $3,000 (moved to Police Budget); 4) 1736 Family Crisis Center, $5,000; 5) H.B. Coordinating Council, $1,000; 6) H.B. Little League, $1,000; 7) H.B. Youth Basketball League, $1,000; 8) Project Touch, $1,000; 9) Dispute Resolution Service, the decision was held over with the -money in reserve, pending further City Council consideration at the July 10, 1990 meeting to allow examination of infor- mation received this evening; and 10) H.B. Sister City Organization, $1,000 only after compliance with the City requirement for financial information; with the understanding that any money not used by any organization prior to the close of the fiscal year would revert to the General Fund. Motion Essertier, second Wiemans. So ordered, noting the objections of Midstokke, citing an unbalanced budget and opposition to the funding of non-profit organiza- tions with taxpayer dollars, and Wiemans, who concurred with Midstokke's objections. Further Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5377., enti- tled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1990-91." Motion Essertier, second Sheldon. So ordered, noting the objections of Midstokke and Wiemans. A. ADJUSTMENT OF THE COMPENSATION OF THE CITY TREASURER, with resolution for adoption. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5378, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, FIXING THE COMPENSATION, TO BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY TREASURER AND PROVIDING A JOB DESCRIPTION FOR SUCH COMPENSATION." page 6 Minutes 06-26-90 Motion Midstokke, second Essertier. So ordered, noting the objection of Sheldon. The Meeting recessed at 9:50 P.M. The Meeting reconvened at 10:04 P.M. 6. REVIEW DELINQUENT REFUSE CHARGES FOR PLACING SAID CHARGES ON THE TAX ROLLS SESSMENT, with resolution for adoption. Building and Safety Director William 19, 1990. The public hearing was opened. CONSIDERATION OF AS A SPECIAL AS - Memorandum from Grove dated June There being no one wishing to speak on this matter, the public hearing was closed. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5379, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE COUNTY ASSESSOR TO INCLUDE DELINQUENT REFUSE BILLS AS A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT TO BE COLLECTED AT THE SAME TIME AND IN THE SAME MANNER AS COUNTY TAXES." Motion Sheldon, second Wiemans. So ordered. 7. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT RE. HEIGHT OF HEDGES AND FENCES AND ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION, with ordinance for introduction. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated June 18, 1990. Director Schubach responded to Council questions. The public hearing was opened. There being no one wishing to speak on this matter, the public hearing was closed. Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 90-1038. Motion Essertier, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered. Final Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 90-1038, entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 1215 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING REQUIREMENTS FOR FENCES AND HEDGES, AND ELIMINATING CHAPTER 15 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION." Motion Mayor Creighton, second Sheldon. AYES: Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton NOES: None MUNICIPAL MATTERS 8. APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR PRELIMINARY SITE INVESTIGATION FOR RELOCATING THE CITY YARD. Memorandum page 7 Minutes 06-26-90 from Public Works Director_Anthony Antich dated June 19, 1990. Addressing Council on this matter were: Don Macpherson, of Macpherson Oil, who responded to a Council question stating that he was in favor of the preliminary investigation for both sites. Mary Lou Weiss, 2506 Ardmore Avenue, Hermosa Beach City School Board, who expressed concern about the possibility that the South School site was being considered as a possible relocation site for the City Yard. Proposed Action: To remove the South School site from consideration and reconsider the Self -Storage site. Motion Midstokke. Motion died for lack of a second. Action: To authorize staff to advertise the proposed request for a preliminary site investigation of two potential sites (adjacent to the Community Center, south of Pier and east of Ardmore, and, the South School property) for relocation of the City Yard; and, authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary. Motion Sheldon, second Essertier. So ordered, noting the objection of Midstokke. 9. PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN CLARIFICATION, with ordinance for introduction. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated June 19, 1990. Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 90-1039. Motion Essertier, second Sheldon. So ordered Final Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No 90- 1039, entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING, FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES, A PROVISION OF THE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW PRO- CESS AS SET FORTH IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH." Motion Mayor Creighton, second Sheldon. AYES: Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton NOES: None 10. PROPOSED ADOPTION OF PRIORITY LIST OF SCHEDULED AND UN- SCHEDULED STUDIES. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated June 18, 1990. Director Schubach responded to Council Questions. Action: To approve the list of scheduled studies numbers 1 through 6. To approve the unscheduled studies numbers 1 through 10, and number 13; delete numbers 11, page 8 Minutes 06-26-90 12, 14, and 15; and, reconfigure the approved items in sequence by points. Motion Midstokke, second Sheldon. So ordered. 11. REQUEST BY THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION ON THE CITY COUNCIL'S REQUEST FOR THE BOARD TO REVIEW JOB QUALIFICATIONS. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated June 21, 1990. Director Blackwood responded to Council questions Addressing Council on this matter was: Ted Dalton, 529 24th Place, Chairman of the Civil Service Board, who asked for clarification from the Council regarding the scope and timing of the Job Qualification Review. Action: To appoint Mayor Creighton to serve as liaison to the Civil Service Board, as the Board reviews the existing job descriptions within the City to determine if the classifications are still applicable and in line with comparable salary ranges in other cities, noting that the expected time frame would be approximately one year.. Motion Midstokke, second Sheldon. So ordered. 12. RECOMMENDATION TO OBTAIN A NEW APPRAISAL ON SOUTH SCHOOL IN ORDER TO PURCHASE FROM THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT. Memorandum from City Attorney Charles S. Vose dated June 20, 1990. Addressing the Council on this matter was: Mary Lou Weiss, 2506 Ardmore Avenue, Hermosa Beach City School Board, expressed concern about the phrase "eminent domain" in the recommendation. Proposed Action: To authorize staff to obtain bids from qualified appraisers and return to Council with a recommendation for the selection of a specific appraiser to perform an appraisal on the South School site. Motion Midstokke, second Essertier. Motion failed, due to the objections of Essertier, Sheldon, and Mayor Creighton. Proposed Action: To receive and file; put on the agenda for the next meeting; and to reinstate the subcommittee of Mayor Creighton and Councilmember Sheldon to negotiate with the Hermosa Beach City School Board. Motion Sheldon. Motion died for lack of a second. Action: To receive and file for future reference; await a response from the Hermosa Beach City School Board; and schedule for the meeting Qf July 10, 1990. Motion Mayor Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered. 13. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER page 9 Minutes 06-26-90 (a) Status report on discussions regarding Manhattan Grande project. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. North - craft dated June 21, 1990. An update was presented by City Manager Northcraft, who informed the Council of his meeting that morning with the Manhattan Beach City Manager and Public Works Director. He said the issues identified in his memo are all being addressed by the City of Manhattan Beach, specifically, the two left turns from Artesia onto Pacific Coast Highway, and an agreement to assure Hermosa Beach approval in the work with Caltrans. Also, there was agreement to consider support for ride sharing and transit systems in future budgets. Finally, City Manager Northcraft reported that there was mutual concern for the need to get policy input on projects within either jurisdiction that could have potential impact upon the other, and that a system to assure consultation was in progress. Action: To receive and file. Motion Mayor Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered. 14. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Setting August 8, 1990 at 6:00 p.m. for a public hearing workshop joint session with the Planning Commission for discussion of Housing Element. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated June 19, 1990. (b) Director Schubach responded to Council questions. Action: To schedule a joint public hearing/workshop on August 8, 1990, as recommended by the Planning Commis- sion, changing the hour of the meeting to 7:00 P.M. Motion Mayor Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered. Recommendation to appoint a sub -committee to coordinate the City Manager evaluation per Resolution 89-5328. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dat- ed June 18, 1990. Proposed Action: To appoint a sub -committee composed of Councilmembers Midstokke and Wiemans. Motion Mayor Creighton, second Essertier. Councilmember Midstokke declined, due to not supporting a sub -commit- tee format for this procedure. Motion withdrawn. Action: To appoint a sub -committee composed of Councilmember Wiemans and Mayor Creighton. Motion Essertier, second Sheldon. So ordered noting the objections of Midstokke and Mayor Creighton. •.Y 15. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: page 10 Minutes 06-26-90 (a) Request by Councilmember..Midstokke to discuss appoint- ment of new alternate director to South Bay Sanitation District and Fire Training Authority. Councilmember Midstokke said that due to new employment and being unable to attend daytime meeting, she would not be available for the last two meetings and asked if another alternate should be appointed. Mayor Creighton said that he would be available to attend the last two meetings; therefore, it would not be necessary to appoint a replacement. (b) Request by Mayor Creighton for review of merchandising on private property. Building Director Grove responded to Council questions. Action: Mayor Creighton directed that staff prepare a report, referring the item back to the Planning Commis- sion for reconsideration of its previous determination, and, directed staff to suspend enforcement pending the reconsideration. CITIZEN COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS - None ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned on Tuesday, June 26, 1990 at the hour of 11:35 P.M., to a Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday, July 10, 1990, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. 0.17Ma Deputy City Clerk page 11 Minutes 06-26-90 July 5, 1990 City Council Meeting July 10, 1990 Mayor and Members of City Council REVIEW OF VEHICLE PARKING DISTRICT APPLICATIONS Ordinance No. 90-1036, re -instituting a separate Board of Parking Place Commissioners, was introduced by the City Council on June 12, 1990, and adopted on June 26, 1990. The advertisement for commission member applications (attached) was posted on the bulletin board at City Hall and published in the Easy Reader newspaper on June 21 and June 28, 1990. Eight applications (attached) have been received, as follows: Wesley D. Bush Gerald W. Compton Fahed D. Dandah Helene Frost Paul Hennessey Jerry L. Newton Betty Ryan Jack Wood Alternatives for the selection process, with appointments to be made July 24, 1990, are: 1. Schedule a meeting and set up appointments with each of the applicants for formal interviews before the entire Council. 2. Individual Council members to contact the applicants on an informal basis. Elaine DoerflinClerk Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager 14 a • THE CITY Or HERiOSA BEACH APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO MUNICIPAL COMMISSION NAME OF COMMISSION VEHICLE PARKING DISTRICT Name: Wesley D. Bush Address: 11873 Cedar - - Hawthorne, CA. 90250 Occupation or Profession: Association Executive Name of Employer: Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce Address of Employer: 323 Pier Avenue Business Phone 376-0951 REFERENCES: Jerry Compton - - 200 Pier Avenue - - Hermosa Bch. CA 90254 Local: Don Macpherson - 2716 Ocean Pk. Blvd. - - Santa Monica 90405 Professional: Paul Deters, Ch. of the Bd.- = El Segundo First Nat'l Bank 275 Main Street, El Segundo CA. 90245 Other: Barbara Culberson, 415 Standard Street, El Segundo,CA 90245 Ken Spron'g, ( El Segundo Flower Shop ) 412 Main St., E.S.90245 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE: Past President El Segundo Optimist Club, JTirp Pres South Bay Assn of Chambers of Commerce Hon.Mbr. Kiwanis Club of �Iermosa Bch_, Member Friends of the Library, Hermosa Beach Why do you wish to become a Commission Member? I apply by a member of the City Council. Yes. It was suggested that What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission Member? Use experience and expertise to help guide the VPD in a business -like manner. Seek input from the downtown business community. Work with local business leaders and city officials to upgrade and improve the community. What are your present civil, fraternal or professional memberships and obligations? Member California Assn. of Chamber of Commerce Executives ( 32 Years ); Member So. Calif. Assn of Chamber of Commerce Executives ( 25 Years Charter Member of South Bay Assn. of Chamber of Commerce Exectives. Do you have any concurrent obligations and responsibilities which could be construed as a conflict of interests? If so, what are they? I don't believe so. Please give a resume fo your education, employment, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Commission member. I have been a professional Chamber of Commerce Executive for 38 years. I helped organize the El Segundo Downtown Assn. and served es the first board of directors. This Commission meets on at P.M. Do you foresee any scheduling problems that might make you miss meetings? How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? Comments: i have been a resident of the South Bay for 18 years, but do not live in Hermosa Beach. Signed: Date: Received: Name: THE CITY Or HERMOSA BRACH APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO MUNICIPAL COMMISSION NAME OF COMMISSION 1/gN'iCir 17/ k -14J(, -b)5fy icT 40- P\W lb aryl/ Address: Q(j Occupation or Profession:/112-6X/12-7- Name 2-6X}'l 2�-GT Name of Employer: Address of Employer: REFERENCES: Local: Zoo OW Business Phone 37Y-QZZZ Professional: Other: Nn� W/%Pc - 572-6011 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE: Gw 74- 77497 Tr-� •�r,� •/oe s 5i oig/ C4 :(L • b4 S" • Why do you wish to become a Commission Member? / l�/�J / C;41/./ . 7C/(Ct - Y,f'• T%' ui 7 uiA) Ute/ Ty /w What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission Member? GU/iG pY/6 7/R'; %7 2 bII/77i'A,li/5/.I b%% 5 filJtht L W/zi9 2 /J( /11-, e 5' 7 o G/ /Z -5 ; -&/ ei What are your present civiSl, fraternal or professional memberships and obligations? /M 6T ( ,) //1/ 7�*7 61% Affe _/v0 • Do you have any concurrent obligations and responsibilities which could be construed as a conflict of interests? If so, what are they? WWW4/ /1)6 Ong 2- (o r rf/,47, e /c fisc - MI Please give a resume fo your education, employment, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Commission member. This Commission meets on at P.M. Do you foresee any scheduling problems that might make you miss meetings? How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? Y;;A05 Comments: /7 -Ave- r oz/ -/i ,& y r'G/f2�I d5 A /Ou/.cl74— /A1 I � �— i /-72 Si?.. Dat Received: 1 THE CITY Of HERMOSA BEACH APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO MUNICIPAL COMMISSION NAME OF COMMISSION V Name: f- C'.�heci i • �ci rJqJ Address: 133; liettr/r,.sa a - //- Occupation or Profession: / esjya n r ,, V Name of Employer: SA-rcu,soe-7 f4/ch &t/ Address of Employer: 133a Y1054,,. Gee Business Phone 31.ZaI94f REFERENCES: Loca 1: Professional: K(4 e//eel t-€i2f-eY _ ;��,�of Other: Q COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE: 7 ropce Lo e F4 il./1. Why do you wish to become a Commission Member? 6yS/4ess 117 What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission Member? D'Jers rc. z bC /1aU ol2 L,t) ag Eh o cc. What are your present civil, fraternal or professional memberships and obligations? Do you have any concurrent obligations and responsibilities which could be construed as a conflict of interests? If so, what are they? Please give a resume fo your education, employment, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Commission member. This Commission meets on at P.M. Do you foresee any scheduling problems that might make you miss meetings? How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? Comments: 0iW oA aV i _oqev 4.t Li- 7 ears xLitt rr1? hl, Slol'I 4 Ol M Srn tcL GA. o /L rl d o rt o &ecc, I1 -C."c'`'i Zl'ie 1 ° o pi k 5 w (t h L Cava_ e 1e c Wit 1 0h.t_. GAS,' c. PC-nQA rtity,KA Ser s e VLI roe I. Signed: Le/ 4407, 4 i� Date: Received: ��..- A. • TILE CITY OF BERMOSA BEACH APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO MUNICIPAL COMM �n ' .to �13IIt $.4i. n JUN2519900 -1 Clty Clerk Clty of Hermosa Beech ON NAME OF COMMISSION Downtown Vehicle Parking District CMission Name: Helene Frost Address: 2900 Tennyson Place, Hermosa Beach, Calif.. Occupation or Profession: Co-owner/manager, Coast Drug, Hermosa Beach Name of usxmess : Coast Drug - self-employed Business Address of t44444: 58 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach Business Phone 213 372-8435 REFERENCES: Helen Tracy, 2906 Tennyson Place, Hermosa Beach, Calif. Local: Richard Greenwald - 900 The Strand, Hermosa Beach, Calif. Marion Moore, 727 Esplanade -#301, Redondo Beach, Calif. 90277 Professional: Other: Ruth Fertig, 706 Dianthus, Manhattan Beach, Calif. 90266 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE: Sandpipers_, member 25 years, past board member/ past president, American Martyrs Church Parish Board/ Past President, American Martyrs School Parents' Association/ Girl Scout Leader, 6 years/ Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce Why do you wish to become a Commission Member? As both a resident and a business owner I am in a unique position to understand that the needs of both the businesses and the residents must be served harmoniously, I intend to help to insure that the parking needs of the business community are better served now and in the future with the least impact on the residential community. What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission Member? 1) to assure our customers courteous, efficient, and professional parking facilities in the downtown dib l.rie t. 2) To administer parking revenue in a prudent and businesslike manner. ong erm guals Of i.he parrking distric What are your present civil, fraternal or professional memberships and obligations? American Association of Interior Designers (ASID) U.S.C. Alumnae Association Chi Omega Alumnae Association an Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce ons) Do you have any concurrent obligations and responsibilities which could be construed as a conflict of interests? If so, what are they? No Please give a resume fo your education, employment, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Commission member.Education Graduate U.C.L.A. School of environmental Design, 1988 B.S. in Education, U.S.C. 1960 Employment Owner/Manager Coast Drug, Hermosa Beach Tnteri nr D i er1 ASID iH l�P Frn�t Tnteri nr DPSi Et) Teacher, Los Angeles City Schools This Commission meets on at P.M. Do you foresee any scheduling problems that might make you miss meetings? No How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? 16 years Comments:As a former teacher and president of several organizations I feel I have the organizational skills to function efficiently on this committee. As a designer, I can both draw and understand architectural plans, a skill that would be most neipful in the planning of any beautification or expansion of our parking facilities. As a business person I understand finance, and the impor ance o p - - • •u•ge to achieve desired goals. A a resident i will have the wider interest of the cit35igned: •';7 in mind when making decisions. Date: 6 —(Sc Received: Name: THE CITY Of HERMOSA BEACH APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO MUNICIPAL COMMISSION \/ 1 -D NAME OF COMMISSION Lel_ e Address: a --'C.kN Cry Occupation or Profession: CL— Name of Employer: l-leN Al\Jeccv . Address of Employer: �5 C ��v aepci, Business Phone SitU-).ZZ V A -4-e r ,L)(\;e.-..__LNc... REFERENCES: Loca 1: V1 A Cv� Professional: Other: C�\ ,)The _ SD. (4 clb 'IY SlC� L-c`ec�OS� COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE: Why do you wishtobecome a Commission Member?lIO �ftil�'GO� � \)3uStstiess nuc; �. procL Over Al •- -C.C(M103d\ (c - What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission Member? �� c� l � l� G \ i A l lA f\-, I i.Jy1 1 0 CUC ()-05 L Tl— -DOW ry OU-) 'J What are your present civil, fraternal or professional memberships and 0.).1-)1 obligations? MA.NL,A . „) Ac l,A, C�iA� ger , 111-P ( ieAcik CSM &PCLA C �� L AG� F� �z WI° dh.A --\ Ler t)C i‘) t 6?S AcPc1-)* Assoc fO2 2 (them 1�ef' Do you have any concurrent obligations and responsibilities which could be construed as a conflict of interests? If so, what are they? Please give a resume fo your education, employment, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Commission member. V 1 oco rve r G f Rue r Avc. I to (\:)e-/- (IN k 6171.c -L-, Me A S O . This Commission meets on at P.M. Do you foresee any schedulingproblems that might make you miss meetings? k!U How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? Comments: Signed: Date: Received: THE CITY Of HERRMOSA BEACH APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO MUNICIPAL COMMISSION NAME OF COMMISSION Vehicle Parking District Name: Jerry L. Newton Address: 2041 Circle Drive, Hermosa Beach Occupation or Profession: Attorney Name of Employer: Self-employed at Newton and Newton, Attorneys at Law Address of Employer: 555 Pier Ave., Ste. 4 Business Phone372-4636 REFERENCES: Loca 1: Betty Ryan Professional: Other: • • • \ • . ert C. Bonner United States District Jud COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE: Biltmore Site -Citizen's Advisory Task rce• Hermosa Beach Communit Center Foundation Board of Directors Member: Historical Society, Sister Cities, Chamber of Commerce Why do you wish to become a Commission Member? I am a downtown commercial TO ert owner Loreto Plaza . I would like to have in•ut in addressing the parking issue, which is tied to downtown revitalization. What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission Member? Committment, participation, positive input and. reasonableness. What are your present civil, fraternal or professional memberships and obligations? They change monthly. I am a busy professional, but feel strongly enough about the need to address the current parking situation to make the time available to the VPD 1 Do you have any concurrent obligations and responsibilities which could be construed as a conflict of interests? If so, what are they? I am pro-business, pro -downtown and would like to see a viable business environment. That puts me in a minority in Hermosa Beach. Please give a resume fo your education, employment, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify. you as a Commission member. I have no particular qualifications in the area of "parking" or municipal law. I think I am well-informed as to what goes on in this community, what is controversial and what is not. I have been an attorney since 1971. And, I am impacted by parking policy. This Commission meets on at P.M. Do you foresee any scheduling problems that might make you miss meetings? I am available most evenings after -6:00 p.m. How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? Since 1977 Comments: Name: THE CITY Of HERMOSA BEACH APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO MUNICIPAL COMMISSION NAME OF COMMISSION HERMOSA BEACH VEHICLE PARKING DISTRICT BETTY RYAN (ELIZABETH A.) Address: 588 20th St. Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254 Occupation or Profession: REAL ESTATE BROKER Name of Employer: SELF — OWNER: ANDERSON—RYAN REALTY CO. Address of Employer: 239 Pier Ave, Hermosa Beach Business Phone 213-376-7988 REFERENCES: Local: Etta Simpson, Ruth Brand, Pat Gazin Professional: Dan Ericson, RE Broker, Laurel Roberts, Atty Other: R Marie and Joe Diaz Eric Rafter, Arty (Ret.) COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE: SEE ATTACHED SHEET Why do you wish to become a Commission Member? TO ASSIST IN DEVELOPING SOLUTIONS TO PARKING HEADACHES IN OUR TOWN.. What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission Member? TO BE AWARE OF, AND RESPONSIVE TO, THE PARKING NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS OF OUR BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND RESIDENTS. What are your present civil, fraternal or professional memberships and obligations? SEE ATTACHED -SHEET Do you have any concurrent obligations and responsibilities which could be construed as a conflict of interests? If so, what are they? NONE TO MY KNOWLEDGE Please give a resume fo your education, employment, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Commission member. SEF A TACHED SHEET. HERMOSA BEACH IS MY HOMETOWN AND I AM VERY INTERESTED IN SEEING HERMOSA BEACH TAKE IT'S RIGHTFUL PLACE AS AN ACTIVE COMMERCIAL COASTAL TOWN. CURRENT PARKING REQUIREMENTS NEED TO BE REVIEWED IN MY OPINION AND GUIDELINES This Commission meets TOMOREREALISTICALLY MEET BUSINESS Do you foresee any scheduling problems that might make you miss meetings? How long have you livadnim letr4osa Beach? Comments: Since 1964 Signed: ErZr Date: May 1, 1990. Received: SSS t �Q' 9a5 / %' Ge'\BETTY RYAN (ELIZABETH A.) c,o `re Married: 38 years to Bill (Wm. R.) Ryan, Division Manager, TRW 5e� Four married children Six grandchildren Hermosa Beach resident since 1964 Successful businesswoman - Real Estate Broker and Owner of Anderson -Ryan Realty Co. 239 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach since 1979. Active in Community Activities Sponsor of HB Community Center Active in Sister City Program. CURRENTLY Member of Board of. Directors: H. B. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SOUTH BAY BOARD OF REALTORS WOMEN'S CLUB OF HERMOSA BEACH Member: Hermosa Beach Garden Club (Past President Hermosa Beach.Firends of the Library (Past President) Honorary Life Member of P.T.A. National Association of Realtors California Association of Realtors CHARTER MEMBER OF: Hermosa Beach Coordinating Council Active since it's inception (19'63) Served in all capacities and offices. President 1981+ 1982 Hermosa Beabh Improvement Commission Served until 1969 1970 HERMOSA BEACH WOMAN OF THE YEAR 1989 SOUTH BAY REALTOR OF THE YEAR Name: THE CITY O$ HERMOSA BEACH APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO MUNICIPAL COMMISSION NAME OF COMMISSION wool VQ� Address: Gaf ft --JO „ Occupation or Profession: Name of Employer: Address of Employer: 200 'P'),. LJ t1 6 C - REFERENCES: Local: Professional: 6)1( Other: Business Phone 37C-€4-9 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE: Why do you wish to become a Commission Member? N What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission Member? -; Co What are your present civil, fraternal or professional memberships and obligations? u .. c1.4 „ c S VSs 0 c, / � Gs-t��.. 5 � I �,� I • Do you have any concurrent obligations and responsibilities which could be construed as a conflict of interests? If so, what are they? I do,J fit, . h k so Please give a resume fo your education, employment, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Commission member. a� c cm4 4 This Commission meets on at P.M. Do you foresee any scheduling problems that might make you miss meetings? N0+4116,4 / kInot.,r j How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? Comments: Sign Da - Received: PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Los Angeles, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above -entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the BEACH PEOPLE'S EASY REANR a newspaper of general circulation, printed avid published WEEKLY in the City of County of Los Angeles, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, under the date of 9/21 , 19 72, HERMOSA BEACH Case Number SLAC 22940 ; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to -wit: 6/2? _ all in the year 19.9.0.. I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at HERMOSA BEACH California, this.27.th..day of.,.0 N.1K, 1990 • Signature Free copies of this blank form may be secured from: CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER SERVICE BUREAU, INC. Legal Advertising Clearing House P.O. Box 31 Los Angeles, CA 90053 Telephone 625-2541 Please request GENERAL Proof of Publication when ordering this form. f of .Publication of •'•` ''' ''"CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • .The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach is accepting applications to fill vacancies on the BOARD OF PARKING PLACE COMMISSIONERS - • wTheBoard of Parking Place Commissioners shall have author- • ity over and control of Lots A, B, and C, and the small lot between the north end of Lot C and 14th Street, in Vehicle Parking District No. 1. The Board shall operate, manage, and control the parking places and make and enforce all necessary regulations for their,. use, including setting, regulating and collecting all rentals, fees, or charges for the parking of vehicles in District No. 1. Commis- sioners shall be persons of business. experience and ability, to the end that the affairs of the district shall be administered in the interests of the district. It is desired that all applicants be knowledgeable -in business affairs or be business owners or..; property owners of the' Hermosa Beach downtown area. The terms to be filled are: five (5) members appointed to staggered . three (3) year terms. The.deadline for applications is 6 p.m. July 9, 1990; postmarks not accepted. - • .i- - Contact the office of the City Clerk at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, 318-0204, for applications �r information. ELAINE DOERFLING 'City Clerk • ER 6-21-90, 6-28-90 HB -510A z HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL July 2, 1990. Regular Meeting of July 10, 1990 SUBJECT: FINAL MAP #20644 (C.U.P. CON NO. 89-1) LOCATION: 1722 GOLDEN AVENUE APPLICANT(S): MARK KAVANAUGH REQUEST: APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP FOR 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Final Parcel Map #20644 which is consistent with the approved Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and recommends the City Clerk be directed to endorse the certificate for said map. Background The Planning Commission approved Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #20644 at their February 21, 1989 meeting. This matter was appealed and scheduled for City Council on April 11, 1989. At that meeting, City Council concurred with Planning Commission's decision and thus denied the appeal. Analysis The staff has reviewed the Final Map and found it substantially consistent with the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map approved by the Planning Commission and in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act. Michael Schubach Planning Director <A27/ 'Kevin B. North/raft City Manager T/srfinmap Respectfully submitted, n • oee'rts Associate Planner lj 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 #20644 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1722 GOLDEN AVENUE, HER- MOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the City Council held a meeting on July 10, 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. 89-16, adop- ted after public hearing on February 21, 1989. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Planning Commission and to the recommendation of the County Engineer, the City Council does hereby grant final approval of Parcel Map #20644 in the City of Hermosa Beach, State of California, being a Subdivision of Lot 26, Angela Heights Tract, as recorded in Book 9, Page 149 of Maps, in the Office of the Recorder of Los Angeles, for a two -unit condominium project on land com- monly known as 1722 Golden Avenue, Hermosa Beach, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 10th day of July, 1990. ATTEST: APPROVED ASff1T(J., FORM: • T/rsfinmap PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 2 PARKER R. HERRIOTT 224 - 24th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213) 379-7196 July 10, 1990 Mayor Roger Creighton and Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: Opposition to Ordinance and Resolution to change designation of the Biltmore Site to Residential Zoning Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: I am opposed to the rezoning of the Biltmore Site property from the Specific Plan Area (Hotel) to Residential zoning for many reasons: 1. I believe that the citizens of Hermosa Beach should be saved from commercial and/or residential development, because of existing problems of parking, density, congestion, traffic, and air and noise pollution from traffic in the immediate area, and elsewhere in Southern California. Steps haveto be taken to improve our quality of life, our environment, and to help save our earth. Therefore, the Biltmore Site shall be landscaped, preserved, and maintained in perpetuity as a 100% Open Space Oceanfront Strand Public Park with grass, trees, and flowers for present and future generations to enjoy. 2. I can see that this ordinance will only attempt to circumvent my Open Space initiative petition, as I am sure most of you are well aware. By rezoning the property residential, what you are doing is simply trying to take away the city -owned property from the people. The people won't be able to enjoy the park, as proposed in my initiative, for present and future generations. 3. The Coastal Commission should deny your residential zoning request, as the Coastal Commission Executive Director Peter Douglas had stated in a letter dated March 6, 1988 (see Exhibit "A" plus the Writ of Mandate that I filed against the City which the City Attorney has in his possession) "I see no basis for recommending that the Commission approve a change to residential uses." 4. In the Writ of Mandate, I used various arguments against Measure "D" that the City proposed in the election of 1989 and also arguments to support Proposition "C", the voters' initiative. Those arguments should be incorporated in this letter to be used at a later time in any court proceeding. For example, the argument that the Biltmore Site is beachfront property has not been resolved yet. I still maintain that the Biltmore Site is beachfront property and requires a vote by the city council that the property is not suitable for a park. This is a finding that the present city council cannot make and our past city council voted to have 59% of the Biltmore Site an open space city park. 5 There was not a fair election in 1989 regarding the Biltmore Site; Proposition C was unfairly defeated, for the ballot title and ballot question were both misleading and confusing; also by having two similar open space measures on the ballot at the same time the open space vote was diluted. Proposition C was a Voters' Petition Initiative which called for 100% Open Space for the Biltmore Site and it received 47% of the Yes votes with 1589 Yes votes to 1,799 No votes; Proposition D was the City -sponsored Measure which called for 59% Open Space, 25% Commercial, and 16% residential for the Biltmore Site and it received 28% of the Yes votes with 932 votes to 2,385 No votes; 6. Voters overwhelmingly defeated residential zoning for the Biltmore Site in elections in 1983 with 283 Yes votes and 2,078 No votes and in 1988 with 3,989 Yes votes to 5,340 No votes. 7. The 1990 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan for the City of Hermosa Beach, which was prepared by outside consultants, recommends that the Biltmore Site be an open space city park. 8. The hotel developers have given up plans to build on the Biltmore Site, for in 1989 the developers submitted plans to the City to build their hotel on the property just south of the Biltmore Site (Strand Bathhouse block, etc.); 9. The voters defeated four hotel projects for the Biltmore Site in elections in 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1988, with the fourth hotel project being overwhelmingly defeated in 1988 with 3,340 Yes votes to 6,048 No votes; 10. The voters overwhelmingly defeated Commercial zoning for the Biltmore Site in elections in 1972 with 2,670 Yes votes to 6,659 No votes and in 1988 with 1,226 Yes to 7,949 No votes (commercial zoning allows for hotels). 11. It appears that the City Council has begun the process to rezone and sell the Biltmore Site without a vote of the people, which is undemocratic. After all the numerous elections on the Biltmore Site, for any councilperson to attempt to take away the people's opportunity to vote on the Biltmore Site is outrageous, tragic, and smacks of a dictatorship and is something that should never be allowed nor tolerated in any free country, especially America! 12. The Open Space vote had a higher percentage of Yes votes in comparison to residential in any election. So, if you want to follow the will of the people, you should adopt my ordinance as it was written and filed with the City Clerk. I hereby include in the foregoing arguments any further arguments brought up at the time of the City Council meeting and any other hearings on this matter. I would like to remind Mr. Albert Wiemans and Mr. Robert Essertier that you both said you were in favor of having the Biltmore Site a park during your election. I hope both of you keep your campaign promises. Anyone who would want to rezone the property residential and sell it should be recalled and I have every intention of filing notice of recalls against anyone who takes this action. The Biltmore Site is the most desirable open space land that we have in Hermosa Beach for a public park because it is on the Strand and it provides an unobstructed view of the ocean that is priceless. To want to sell this beachfront property for the purpose of purchasing the South School site which is down in the valley next to the greenbelt and, I believe, about 5 or more blocks away from where Mayor Roger Creighton owns property and lives, as well as Councilwoman Midstokke (who currently rents from Mayor Creighton). See grant deed relating to the beachfront property regarding the Strand, for it shows that the Strand is a walkway. Mr. Creighton, it is not a street as you have maintained. Therefore, the Biltmore Site is beachfront property. Please remember, the voters of Hermosa Beach have told the various city councils that they don't want the Biltmore Site to be rezoned commercial, residential or a mixture of these two zones; they don't want any buildings on the property. Therefore, if we had a fair election for open space on the Biltmore Site, or if you were to adopt my initiative for an open space park, I am sure the majority of the voters of Hermosa Beach would be greatly appreciative and relieved that the Biltmore Site has finally been resolved. The City Council has more important things to take care of, and so do the voters of Hermosa Beach. So, let us be fair, reasonable, and just in resolving the disposition of the Biltmore Site as a 100% Open Space Park with grass, trees and flowers! Some legal questions: What is the legal effect, if any: 1) of the filing my notice of intent to circulate the Initiative Petition for a 100% Open Space Public Park for the Biltmore Site? 2) if my petition qualifies for the ballot? and 3) if the property is rezoned residential by the city council and sold before the election is held and the open space petition passes? Can the City advise me of any legal assistance regarding the Biltmore Site and my petition. If you do rezone the Biltmore Site residential and sell it, will you have it sold like in the past, with a local realtor who is a friend or relative of a councilperson, and will it be sold at a public auction? spectfully, e'' 6206t_ Parker R. Herriott TATE or CA::FGRNIA-IHE kt.tOURCES AGENCY ALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 31 HOWARD STREET. 4TH FLOOR AN FRANCISCO. CA 94105 5) 543.8555 M'arch o, 1988 Mr, Brian Weber Santa Fe Pacific Realty Corporation Suite 550 2 North Lake Avenue Pasadena CA 91101 Dear Mr. Weber: GEORGE DEUKM_J'AN, Gc.-•"or You have asked for our comments about possible changes in zoning of the "Biltmore" site within the city of Hzr:osa Beach from visitor -serving to residential and. whether such a change in use designation can be authorized by voter initiative or referendu-:. The City of Hermosa Beach has not yet completed all work on its local coastal program (LCP) and thus most development within the coastal zone of the City .requires a coastal permit from the Coastal Commission, in addition to the normal local permits from the.City. To date, only the City's land use plan (LU?) portion of its LC= :-ras been certified. Once the implementation portion of the City's LOP is effectively certified by the Commission, the City will assu-:e coastal development permit issuing responsibilities and the policies .and uses designated in the certified LCP will be the standards py which the permissibility of new development .:ill be determined. However, until the LCP is effectively certified, the policies of the California Coastal Act constitute the standards against which development proposal must be evaluated. The LUP portion of the City's LCP was reviewed using those same Coastal Act policies. Any amendments to the City's certified LUP must also be found to be consistent with Coastal Act policies before they can go into effect and become part of the. certified LCP. On October 12, 1984, t',e Commission unanimously approved an LUP amendment which specifically designates the use of the Biltmore site for visitor -serving purposes. It is my understanding that .the City is currently reviewing the implementation portion of its LCP and intends to submit this final component of the LCP to the Commission for re':i,e*. and approval sometime in late spring or early summer. Given the current status and provisions of the City's LUP, residential uses on the Biltmore site could'not be allowed unless the certified LUP is amended be permit such use. If such a change in use designation were to be submitted to the Commission as an LU? amendment, I would find it difficult to see how such a change would be consistent with Coastal Act policies. Coastal Act goals and • Mr., Brian Weber March 6, 1988 Page Two • YIRt_�J I l .)C'. JT V.i 1 1111.1 SeN'J policies encourage public access and use of ocean front properties for visitor-servinc use= _hat "enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation." In fact, visitor-servinc uses are given priority under the Coastal Act over other uses such as residential.. Recalling 'the Commission's fi.ndigs Eor its action on the 1984 amendment and in view of the nee3 for visitor-serving,uses in areas .such as Hermosa Beach, I see no basis for' recommending that the Commission approve a change to r?sidential uses. Commission staff has already communicated its concerns about such a potential change in land use designation to the City's Planning Director. You have also asked whether the voters of' the City could mandate a use change from visitor -serving to residential by initiative or referendum. The answer is no. However, the voters can propose such a change just as the City Council can. In either case, the proposed use change does not go into effect unless and until reviewed and approved by the Coastal Commission as beinc consistent with Coastal Act policies. A recent opinion by .the At`orn_Y General makes clear that any action by a local government actinc through either its duly elected governing body or by vote of the people which directly or indirectly amends a previously c'erti'fied LC? des not become effective for purposes of altering permissi'ie land uses unless and until reviewed and approved by the Commission as being consistent with Coastal Act policies. Accordingly, if the voters in the City of Hermosa Beach are going to be asked to chance the land use designation of the Biltmore site. they shoul.f also be informed that such a change cannot become effective until r=.'iewed and approved by the Commission; I hope that I have answered your. uestions on this matter. Finally, I would ask you and other recipients of this letter t� understand that it is not normally our practice to voice opinions such as I have done here without first hav':ng discussed the matter with the affected local government. In this case how; er, time constraints were such that no time for such discussions '.:_s available. Please let me know if we can prov.ide you any further information. .elvr— fl ETER M. -D013LS Executive director cc: Maor Etta Simpson, City of Hermosa Beach: CEr k D a m Wayne Woodroof Ralph Faust 0380E A 100% Open Space Beachfront Strand Park for the Biltmore Site is the highest and best use of the site for present and future generations to enjoy!! VOTE "YES" ON C BULK RATE U.S. POSTAGE PAID Redondo Beach, CA Permit No. 85 Dear -Hermosa Beach Voter October 31, 1989 Hip hip hooray!!! We finally have the freedom to vote the Biltmore Site a 100% Open Space Park with grass and trees because we qualified Prop. C for the ballot. Close to 1,900 people signed the initiative petition, and I want to thank all of them. I hope those people, and the thousands of other Hermosa Beach voters who want the Biltmore a 100% Open Space Park, take the time to vote "YES" on Prop. C so we can win big on Tuesday, November 7, 1989. Mayor June Williams endorses Prop. C and over a year ago she attempted to have this 100% Open Space measure on the ballot, but no other city council person would go along with her in placing it on the November 8, 1988 ballot --not even Etta Simpson, the self- proclaimed environmentalist who, I don't believe, is much of an environmentalist since she was in favor of the 250 -room, 4 -story hotel complex that would have taken up about 3 blocks of an area of our city that is overly congested now with people and traffic. Prop. C repeals the Specific Plan Area that allows for a 250 -room, 4 -story hotel complex that includes the Biltmore Site and approximately 2 additional blocks. Prop. C rezones the Biltmore Site to a 100% Open Space Park with grass and trees. Prop. C also rezones the properties south of the Biltmore Site back to their previous zoning, commercial (C-2), from La Playita Cafe to the Strand Bath House, and public parking lot C that is owned by the city. I filed my Writ of Mandate in the Superior Court of the State of California on September 7, 1989, Case No. C736556. I alleged on page 12, lines 12-19, the following: "With the exception of Councilperson June Williams, the Council placed Measure D on the November 7, 1989 ballot -lust to sabotage my petition initiative and the election regarding the Biltmore Site. My initiative --Measure C --calls for the Biltmore Site to be 100% Open Space and the Council's Measure D calls for 59% Open Space, making both of the measures very similar. My measure qualified for the ballot before the Council placed theirs on the ballot. If both propositions fail, because of the open space vote being split --since they are very similar in regards to open space, the following will probably happen (To quote again from my Writ of Mandate, page 12, lines 27-28 and page 13, lines 1-2): "The Council will go ahead and rezone the land and sell it, without a vote of the people, for the Council will claim that voters have been unable to settle the issue by the ballot and, therefore. the Council has to settle it for the voters. (Page 13, Lines 12-17) Over a 16 year period, the voters of Hermosa Beach have been forced to go to the polls --in five elections from 1972 to 1988 --to defeat five potential hotel projects. The voters have been abused by certain politicians who have abused our electoral process, and they don't care about what the people want, but only what they want." I'rop..D calls for only 59% Open Space --a concrete urban plaza jungle on the Biltmore Site. We need grass and trees, not more concrete plazas. We don't need a slab of concrete a block long in Hermosa Beach. Prop. D calls for 41% development of the Biltmore Site, with high density residential and commercial development. We don't need four more condo's, and up to three more restaurants. VOTERS BEWARE OF THE BALLOT TITLE FOR PROP. C. I attempted to have the title changed by going to court, but the Judge said there wasn't enough time to hear my Writ of Mandate before the voter pamphlets were printed. The title gives, allegedly, the false impression that there is to be commercial zoning on the Eiltmore Site with Prop. C, but please remember that THERE IS TO BE NO COMMERCIAL ON THE BILTMORE SITE UNDER PROP. C; just read your voter pamphlet under the information for Prop. C. The only properties that are to be rezoned commercial are the properties adjoining the Biltmore Site and those properties are only being rezoned to C -2 --as they were prior to the specific plan area zoning for the hotel. CREZONING BILTMORE SITE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (S.P.A.) OPEN SPACE AND COMMERCIAL. Shall Petition Initiative Ordinance No. 89-998, be adopted which repeals Specific Plan Area (S.P.A.) 84-751 (Hotel), rezones the Biltmore Site Open Space, Parking Lot 'C' Commercial, and other private property Commercial? 27 YES -00 28 NO40 The present zoning ordinance for Open space reads as follows, regarding lot coverage: "Maximum building coverage of land area in the open space zone shall not exceed ten (10) percent." This should not apply to Prop. C because, as the author of Prop. C, I never intended any of the Biltmore Site to be built upon --not even the ten percent as permitted by the Open Space ordinance. Our former city attorney, James P. Lough, said at a council meeting, in regards to my ordinance and any ordinance, the courts look to the author's intent, and what was before the voters in interpreting the ordinance. Anyway, if a court thought that the Biltmore Site could have up to a maximum of 10% of the site covered, that would be a very small portion of the Biltmore Site, and it would be next to Cafe Christoper's on 14th Street on the east side of Beach Drive, so the rest of the Biltmore Site would remain 90% Open Space Park with grass and trees. Residential zoning for the Biltmore Site is absurd, for in a letter from Peter M. Douglas, Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission, dated March 6, 1988, regarding rezoning of the Biltmore Site from Specific Plan Area to Residential, he stated, in part, as follows: "If such a change in use designation were to be submitted to the Commission as an LUP Amendment, I would find it difficult to see how such a change would be consistent with Coastal Act policies. Coastal Act goals and policies encourage public access and use of ocean front properties for visitor -serving uses that "enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation." In fact, visitor - serving uses are given priority under the Coastal Act over other uses such as residential. Recalling the Commission's findings for its action on the 1984 amendment and in view of the need for visitor -serving uses in areas such as Hermosa Beach, I SEE NO BASIS FOR RECOMMENDING THAT THE COMMISSION APPROVE A CHANGE TO RESIDENTIAL USES." (emphasis added), So, the idea of Roger Creighton's, and others who think like him, that residential would be approved by the Coastal Commission lacks merit and is groundless and is definitely misleading and a hoax upon the people. The City has enough money to purchase the Sante Fe right-of-way without selling any part of the Biltmore Site, and the City Council is well aware of that fact. Mayor June Williams stated in the ballot argument for Prop. C that "it is not necessary to sell this valuable open space. We must preserve this open space for the .people. This measure also preserves existing parking on the site..." Our City Manager, Kevin Northcraft, has also stated that the city had the means of purchasing the greenbelt without the sale of the Biltmore Site. We own the Biltmore Site and we shouldn't sell any part of it to the big developers. We need all of it for open space. Feel free to call me any time at 379-7196 and I will be more than happy to answer any questions you might have regarding Propositions C and D. Also, please watch MultiVision Cable Television, Channel 10, for a discussion of Prop. C and D by Chuck Sheldon and myself. Call 318-3423 for airing times. Chuck Sheldon was wrong and I was correct when he said there were three condominiums next to the existing parking lot on the Biltmore Site, for there is only a single family dwelling next to the parking lot. Unfortunately, Chuck Sheldon made, also, other errors regarding the ballot propositions that only mislead people. PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO VOTE NOVEMBER 7, 1989. IF YOU DON'T, CHANCES ARE YOU WILL NEVER BE ALLOWED TO VOTE ON THE FUTURE OF THE BILTMORE SITE AGAIN. BELIEVE ME. I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. REMEMBER, WE HAVE THE FREEDOM TO VOTE "YES" ON PROP. C, 100% OPEN SPACE PARK WITH GRASS AND TREES, BECAUSE THE VOTERS QUALIFIED PROP. C FOR THE BALLOT, OTHERWISE WE WOULDN'T BE VOTING OPEN SPACE FOR THE BILTMORE SITE NOW. VOTE "NO" ON PROP. D, THE "BLOCK -LONG CONCRETE URBAN PLAZA JUNGLE." VOTE "YES" ON PROP. C AND LET'S MAKE THE 100% BEACHFRONT STRAND PARK WITH GRASS AND TREES A REALITY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1989. IT'S UP TO YOU. ectfully, Parker Richard Herriott PAID FOR BY PARKER R. HERRIOTT PARKER HERRIOTT (213) 379-7196 224 24TH STREET HERMOSA BEACH. CA 90254 RALPH M. OCHOA HERMAN SILL.nS JOHN M. COLEMAN TIMOTHY H. 9.'.'ARYAt ROSE 5LOAN JAMES P. LOUGH CAROL L.•.VILLIAM5 YVONNE GARCIA ANDREA G. ROSEN OCHOA 8 .5I LLAS ATTORNEYS AT LAW OVIATT BUILDING 617 SOUTH. OLIVE STREET, SUITE 1010 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA. 90O1a (21.7) 622-9170 March 7, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center Hermosa Beach,.California 90250 Re: SACRAMENTO OFFICE 925 L STREET, SUITE 30S SACRAMENTO,CA 95914 (916) 4-47-7797 OAKLAND OFFICE 125-12^' STREET. SUI -C I1I OAKLAND. CA 9..607 (415) 272-054 Initiative Questions on "Biltmore Hotel Site" PLEASE REPLY TO: Los Angeles Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: At your February 26, 1985 Meeting, you asked me to research several questions regarding the Biltmore Hotel Site and various related issues. This correspondence addresses those questions and concerns. Essentially, there were four basic areas which required a response from the Office of the. City Attorney. First, whether the initiative proposal presented by the developers of the Biltmore Site, Greenwood and'Langlo.is, complies with California Election Laws? Secondly, whether other materials may be place3 on the ballot in addition to the developer's initiative? Thirdly, whc would bear the cost of the election under various scenarios? Finally, whether the current initiative circulating which would result in the sale of the Biltmore Site is legal? Upon review of the relevant statutes and case law, our office has determined that the developer's initiative is legal in its present form. As to the second question of placing other matters on the ballot, this would depend on what matter is under consideration. The current initiative being circulated, which would sell the Biltmore property, could be placed on the ballot since the issue- has not been subject to previous initiative within the last year. An open space initiative would have to be on a different subject or substantially different than the previous one which was. defeated by. the voters in November, 1984. As to .the cost of the election, Greenwood and Langlois would have to bear the entire cost if its initiative was the only measure on the ballot. Howeve-r,--i t appears that the other possibility sul;gested would cause a reduction in the cost paid by GCeen,iood and Langlois in proportion to the number of measures placed on the ballot. Finally, our research indicates that the current initiative being circulated regarding the Biltmore Hotel The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach Re: March 7, 1985 Initiative Questions on "Biltmore Hotel Site" Site is invalid and not subject to the initiative process. We, therefore, advise that 'it not be placed on the ballot. As to the first question of whether the developer's initia- tive may be placed on the ballot, the most significant issue concerns California Elections Code Section 4014. This section states as follows: Any number of proposed ordinances may be voted upon at the same election, but the same subject matter shall not be voted upon twice within any twelve-month period at a special election under the provisions of this article. (Emphasis added.) This section sets up a twelve month prohibition on initia- tives when.an initiative, on the same subject matter, has been previously_brought before the voters. This prohibition only applies to cities and has never been cited in any reported case in California. Upon careful reading.of the statute, it is apparent that the prohibition does not apply to this situation. The reason it does not .apply is that it prohibits virtually identical ordinances from being placed on the ballot at a special election "under the provisions of this article." The article the section is referring to is Article I of Chapter 3, Division 5, of the California Elections Code. This particular article only discusses initiatives and is, therefore, limited to initiatives. The previous election regarding the 3iltmore Hotel Site was conducted under Article II dealing with referendums. Since the prohibition only applies to Article I elections, the fact that a previous referendum .was held on the Biltmore Site will not pre- vent the City Council from placing this measure on the ballot. The second question related to whether other matters can be placed.on the same ballot. This question was addressed to two possible scenarios. First, whether the current initiative being circulated regarding the Biltmore Site, which would cause the sale of the property, can also be placed on the ballot? •In answer to this question, there is nothing in the initiative article preventing its placement on the ballot since no previous initiative within the last twelve months, on the same subject, has been placed before the voters of the City of Hermosa Beach in a special election. On a related issue, if the City did place conflicting initia- tives on the same ballot, such as the Developer's Initiative and the one currently being circulated, the one receiving the highest The Honorable.Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach Re: March 7, 1985 Initiative Questions on "Bil.tmore Hotel Site" number of affirmative votes would prevail. So if both initiatives 'dealing with the Biltmore. Site were on the ballot, the one with the most yes votes would be implemented under California Elections Code Section 4016. The 'second question, mentioned above, was also to consider whether an open space initiative could be placed back on the ballot. Since the City has previously placed an open space initiative on the ballot within the last twelve months, at a special election, the City would haveto get around the same subject prohibition found in Elections Code Section 4014. Placement of. the same initiative as before would run afoul of . this section.' The initiative would have to be changed in some manner to allow its placement on the ballot. As to question number three regarding the cost of the election, the City may pass along the costs of said election to the developer under its Development Agreement Ordinance. This type of requirement has been upheld by the California Supreme Court in the case of -Associated Home Builders, 'Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1971) 4 Cal 3d 633, 94 Cal .Rptr 630. In that case imposed exactions in the form of required dedications or in -lieu -fees for subdivisions were considered a valid condition of project approval. The fee requirement was based on the fact that the money was to be spent on recreational facilities which are of a primary benefit to the project. It becomes more unclear as to whether the..City could require the developers to pay for the cost of a ballot initiative which is not .of primary benefit to their particular project. As to the open space possibility, it would depend on how the initiative is worded and whether significant benefit would -flow to the Biltmore Hotel Project. As to the initiative which proposes to. sell the Biltmore Site, it is difficult to see how a proposal which would prevent the developers from completing their project would be of any benefit to their particular Biltmore Project. Because of this, the developers would not have to pay the cost of the alternative initiative if it were placed on the ballot. The final category which must be addressed is whether the current initiative being circulated, which would sell the Biltmore Site, is substantively. legal. Previously, our office gave an opinion to the City Clerk's Office regarding the proce- dural legality of the initiative petition. Our office felt that the form of the petition did comply with California Election Le requiring that a copy of the ordinance be attached, signature lines correctly placed, and other procedural matters. At that time, we expressly refused to review the matter for substance The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach March 7, 1985 Re: Initiative Questions on "Biltmore Hotel Site" because neither the Clerk nor the City Attorney can stop an initiative petition on non-technical grounds, without a court order. This time, our office can review the initiative for substance because the City Council is considering putting it on the ballot without requiring its proponents to gather the requisite number of signatures. Upon our review, we find that the measure is invalid and should not be placed on the ballot because it vio- lates Government Code Section 37351. This section states as follows: The legislative body may purchase, lease, exchange, or receive such personal property and real estate situated inside or outside the city limits as is necessary or proper for municipal purooses. It may control, dispose of, and convey such property for the benefit of the city. The legislative body shall not sell or convey any portion of a water front, except to the state for use as a public beach or park, unless by a four-fifths vote of its members the legislative body finds and deter- mines that the water front to be sold or conveyed is not suitable for use as a public beach or park. ( mphaSis added.) •Since the Biltai6re Site is on the water front, this section would apply. This section sets up two prohibitions against the current initiative in question. First, it prevents the sale or convey- ance of the property unless there is a four-fifths vote of the City Council. Secondly, since the section vests authority in the legislative body, the land cannot be disposed of by initiative. As to the first question, the initiative sets up certain procedures which will ultimately result in the sale of the .Property. The property can not be sold unless by a four-fifths vote together with a finding that the property is not suitable for use as u public beach or park. Therefore, the initiative is invalid since it does not follow the state statutory law. As to the second reason why the initiative is invalid, we must first look at the meaning of the words "legislative body" as used in the statute. The courts have construed this term and other similar terms as vesting power exclusively in the legislative body unless otherwise indicated. This principle was L -Z The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach March 7; 1985 Re: Initiative. Questions on "Biltmore Hotel Site" enunciated in the case of Mervvnne v.. Acker (1951) 189 CA2d 558, 11 CR 340, which stated: When the legislative body is specifically designated in a statute to perform an act, that designation is generally deemed exclusive unless the wording of the Act is reasonably susceptible of a contrary intention. (189 CA2d at 564.) This principle has been followed in several other cases. The purpose of this rule is that if the legislature intended for a legislative body or city council to handle a. particular problem, then it. is assumed that the State Legislature felt that the ini- tiative or referendum machinery should not be applied to the situation mentioned in the statute. (See also Geiger v.'Board of Supervisors (1957) 48 Cal 2d 832, 313 P2d 545; Simpson v. Hite. (1950) 36 Cal 2d 125, 133, 22 P2d 225, 230; Camcen.v. Greiner (1971) 15 CA3d 836, 93 CR 525; People. v. Willem. (1939) 37 CA2d Sup 729; 93 P2d 872.) In summary, the initiative presented by the developers is valid; it can be placed on the ballot at the Council's discre— tion. Whether other matters can be. placed on the ballot depends on the particular question and further research would be required to determine if an'o.oen space initiative could be also placed :::before the voters. The cost of, the election would be borne by •=the developers unless other initiatives are also placed'on the ballot. In that case; the developer would only have to pay for . his pro'rata share of the election cost. Finally, the current initiative being circulated is invalid under Government Code Section 51, If you have any questions regarding any of the above- - mentioned matters, please feel free to discuss them with me. By .J PG/gp MB/bilt Yours very truly, JAMES P. LOUGH City Attorney for the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Title 4 power to grant do lands as had xlicated to com- ses. Wheeler v. 1; Hart v. Bur- • under f 862 of - Act of 1883, as 197, to acquire, railways, tele - gas, and other and to permit reet railways in •er to contract to be used for I, where it has to be used by in any way it I of to private rpoee whatever a subcontract supply to a n of a street • the company c. Riverside & iveraide (C.C. i class was the ordinance and of personalty Tether proper - Lad whether a er theory was mnefit of city, t be delegated cos. Davis v. 239 P.2d 656, of fifth class 1 unrestricted ermine what disposed of. position shall class was the rdinance and f personalty !cher proper. td whether a ✓ theory was refit of city. be delegated Id. re radio was 3 to be fur - was matter 2, and, hay - r, cannot be 's action to labor and of radio. P.2d 1077, Div. 3 CITY PROPERTY—GENERAL Stats.1869-70, p. 696. authorizing and empowering the board in which the cor-• porate authority of a city is vested to convey to a railroad company "not to ex- ceed 5,000 acres of the land of the city, or such parcels thereof as they may deem advisable, and upon such terms and condi- tions as. they may determine," did not create a mere ministerial duty, but vested in the board a discretion to determine what land within the limits named should be conveyed and upon what terms, and this discretion the members of the board were required to exercise purely in the in- terest of the city. City of San Diego v. Sea Diego & L. A. R. Co. (1872) 44 C. 106. . Under Stats.1851, p. 337, imposing cer- tain trusts upon the commissioners of the funded debt of San • Francisco, the com- missioners are•the exclusive judges of the necessity for the sale or lease of the property of the city held by them in trust, until the trust is finally closed; and their action cannot be interfered with, nor their discretion be controlled. by the city or its assignee, except upon the ground of fraud or a gross abuse of discretion by the trus- tees. Ellis v. Commissioners of Funded Debt of San Francisco (1869) 33 C. 629. An ayuntamiento, or town council, of San Jose, had no power to mortgage the town's lands. Branham v. City , of San Jose (1864) 24 C. 535. The city of San Francisco had no power to authorize the commissioners of the old sinking fund of 1850 to sell and convey lands. Heydenfeldt v. Hitchcock (1360) 15 C. 514. Under a city charter giving power to re- sell and dispose of real estate of the city for the benefit of the city the power to make a deed of trust, with power to the trustees to sell the estate as they may deem advisable, is not included. Smith v. Morse (1352) 2 C. 524. The common council of San Francisco must exercise the functions imposed on them by their charter, and have no power to delegate them to others, and the power to sell granted to them does not include the power to make a deed of trust, or place the property committed to their cus- tody in charge of others, for the term of three years: with power to sell as they may deem advisable. Id. The so-called "legislative assembly of the district of San Francisco" and the ayuntamiento of San Francisco had no valid powers whereby the former could make a grant and the latter confirm it. People ex reL Board of State ,Harbor Commissioners v. Central Wharf Joint § 37351 Note 3 Stock Co. of San Francisco (1866) 1 C.U. 319. 3. Acquisition of land A municipal corporation has no inherent power of eminent domain and can exer- cise it, if at all only when expressly au- thorized by law. IIarden v. Superior Court In and For Alameda County (1955) 2S4 P.2d 9, 44 C.^_d 630. Provision of this section permitting city to purchase land outside city for munici- pal purpose. § 37353 permitting city to exercise right of eminent domain to ac- quire property for parking motor vehicles, and Civ.C. § 1001 providing that any per- son may acquire private property for any public use, do not indicate that subject of boundaries is extraneous to exercise of power of eminent domain except in C.C.P. § 1241 providing that ordinance of public interest and necessity shall not be conclu- sive evidence of necessity as to taking of property located outside municipal limits. Id. Under provision of this section that leg- islative body•of municipality may purchase real estate situated outside city limits nec- essary and proper for municipal purposes. word "purchase" did not expressly au- thorize city to take private property for off-street parking outside its boundaries by eminent domain proceedings. court did not have jurisdiction over such proceed- ings, and writ of prohibition against them was issued. Id. • A contract of a municipal corporation for the purchase of real estate, pursuant to power conferred is, construed by the same laws as private contracts, and the rights and obligations of the parties will be adjudged on the same principles. Brown v. Sebastopol (1908) 96 P. 3G1, 153 C. 704, 19 L.R.A..\.S., 178. The acquirement of lands for public parks for children's playgrounds is within the power of the municipal authorities of San Francisco. Law v. City and County of San Francisco (100-I) 77 P. 1014, 144/ C. 384. An act authorizing a municipal corpora- tion to enter into a contract with a party to supply the city with water and ma- chinery, and connecting pipes for conduct- ing the water, confers no authority to purchase a sire upon which to erect the waterworks. People ex rel. Green v. McClintock (1572) 45 C. 11. By following the procedure set forth in Pol.t', § 4041.21(2) (repealed) a county board of supervisors might dispose of real property not needed by•selling it to a city of the sixth class located within the couu- 479 § 37351 CITY GOVERNMENT Note 3 ty, the city being authorized to acquire such property by Municipal Corporations Act, §§ S50. S62.2 (repealed). : Ops. i tty.Gen. 472. City has power to acquire real property from county within which city lies. Id. 4. Sales and conveyances The only way in which the city council could authorize a sale was by the passage of a law authorizing it.. and the sale could not be validated and confirmed by the passage of a subsequent ordinance, making an appropriation of the money realized from the sale, and accepting the reports of the land commissioner and city treasur- er in relation to such proceeds. Grogan v. City of San Francisco (13611 13 C. 590; McCracken v. City of San Francisco (1560) 16 C. 591 Where property of a city is sold under an invalid ordinance, the purchasers may recover the money paid from the city, and are not prevented by the subsequent adop- tion of the ordinance providing for such sale. Pimental v. City of San Francisco (1563) 21 C. 351. Ratification by a city of an illegal public sale of its property is: in effect making a • private sale, and does not cure the. illegal- ity. where, under the. law. the sale could only be made in a public manner. Id.. • Sales of city lands under' an ordinance that was never passed. and therefore a nullity. were invalid, and could not there- after be ratified by the city. Id. A grant by an alcalde in 1349 of pueblo lands in San Francisco is not invalidated by the fact that the lot so granted by the alcalde was sold at auction by direction of the town council. White v. Moses (1862) _1 C. 34. Where, in 1350, the alcalde was ordered by the town council of San Francisco to . grant a quantity of land in conformity with. the survey of tle town, as near as possible to the location of certain other lots,. this order did not direct the alcalde to grant land not belonging; to the city. and therefore his warranty ,decd of land not belonging to the city is so far in ex- cess of authority, and the warranty there- of is void. Findla v. City and County of San Francisco (1859) 13 C. 534. Acts of city' officers, in selling and con- veying real estate, under a void ordinance. are made good by a recognition of the void ordinance, in an ordinance passed be- fore performance of those acts. appropri- ating the proceeds of a sale authorized by the first ordinance. Holland v. City of San Francisco (1357) 7 C. 361. . Title: 4 Under a city charter providing that tite council shall have power to pass all neces- sary laws for the sale of city proberry. real estate can be conveyed only in the manner prescribed. Id.. A sale of land in the city of San Fran- cisco, by a portion of the board of .com- missioners of the funded debt. does not pass a legal title on which ejectment can be maintained, and though a majority may control. yet all must meet and consult. or have notice of the meeting, that they may attend if they desire, and a general reso- lution passed by the whole board, a year before, that they would sell all the city, property to .pay- its debts. will not' give validity to the sale of a particular lot sub- sequently made, in pursuance of a resolu- tion adopted by the board, when two of the five were absent. Leonard v. Darling- ton (1556) 6 C. 123. City of Los Angeles has power to • con- vey land to trustees for burial purposes. \Veisscnberg v. Truman .(1331) 7 P.C.L.J. 710. 5. Use of property Fact that municipal plunge was con- structed at least in part from funds ob- tained by municipality from federal gov- ernment did not give all persons resident in the United States right to use it. McClain v. City of South Pasadena (1957) 31S P.^_d 199, 155 C.A.2d 423. A municipal corporation may take and Bold property for charitable uses, under a statute permitting "corporations" so to take . and hold. In re Robinson's Estate •(1SS3) 63 C. 620. 12 P.C.L.J. 72. • Land belonging to the city- of San Fran- cisco. which, pursuant to its charter of 1551. could only he sold by it by the act and consent of the two boards of alder- men, may be reserved by the city, by res- olution of the two boards. for school pur- poses. Bonn! of Education of City and f'oanry of. San Francisco v. Fowler (1.361) 19 C. 11. 6. Title In view of Civ.('. S§ 2229. 2234. 2306, and the Municipal Corporation Act. §§ 750, 764. subd. transaction whereby board of trustees of a city. on pretense of selling part of the city's land for valuable consideration. conveyed title in fee .to the buyer, and, in lieu of payment of the con- sideration took back as part of the same transaction a limited conditional title, leaving the buyer the fee in reversion. was void, no title passing to the buyer by the trustees' deed to him, and his deed back conveying none to the city. City of • Title 4 Div. 3 CITY PROPERTY—GENERAL iding that the pass all neces- city property. d only in the of San Fran - ward of com- cbt, does not ejectment can majority may ad consult, or. that they may general reso- board, a year 1 all the city will not give icular lot sub - e of a resolu- when two of rd v. Darling - )ower to con- rial purposes. Il) 7 P.C.L.J. :ge was con- om funds ob- federal gov- -sons resident t to use it. iadena (1957) nay take and uses, under a ttions" so to aeon's Estate 72. of San Fran- ta charter of it by the act ,rde of alder- . city, by res- it- school par - of City and v. Fowler 2234, 2306. tion Act, §§ tion whereby ,n pretense of I for valuable in fee to the it of the con- : of the same litional title, in reversion, the buyer by and his deed city. City of Ft. Bragg v. Brandon (1919) 1S2 P. 454; 41 C -A. 227. The so-called "Ordinance No. 481" W:is never passed. and is a nullity; and all sales under it were invalid, and passed no title. Pimental v. City of San Francisco (1S63) 21 C. 351. 7. Recovery of purchase price Where a city sells property under an ordinance, and, after the money is in its treasury, appropriates it to municipal pur- poses, the purchaser may recover the amount from the city if no title was con- ferred by the sale, providing the appropri- ation was by valid ordinances. Herzo v. City of San Francisco (1867) 33 C. 134. If the treasurer of a municipal corpora- tion receives money arising from the sale of city property, which sale was void' for want of authority on the part of the city to make it, this is the unauthorized act of the agent of the city, and he alone is lia- ble, and the purchaser cannot recover the money from the city. Id. Where city ordinance No. 481, authoriz- ing a sale of city property, passed in De- cember. 1853, was defective in not being passed by the vote of the majority of the board of aldermen, but was acted upon as valid and public land sold thereunder at public auction, the city took the purchase money without consideration, and must re- fund the same. Grogan v.' City'of San Francisco (1S61) 13 C. 590. 8. Water front property—In general Under the act of March 26, 1851. grant- ing to the city certain beach' and water lots, with the provision that the city shall pay to the state, within 25 days of their receipt, 25 per cent. of all moneys arising from any disposition of the property, does not by this proviso make the estate of the' city conditional. neither subject to any trust, so far as the property itself is con- cerned, in favor of the state, and if there be any trust, it is only in one-fourth of the proceeds which the city may receive. and nowise qualifies the absolute estate of the city for 99 years. nor the estate of a grantee from the city, and the proviso is, in fact, only a covenant that if the city, from any disposition, realizes any pro- ceeds. she will pay the percentage, and if a disposition be made without the receipt of moneys, no obligation arises in favor of the state. Holladay v. Frisbie (1S60) 13 C. 630; Wheeler v. Miller (1860) 1C C. 124. "Privileges in connection therewith" as used in provision of the city charter of Santa Barbara prohibiting the conveyance is eai.code—n • N § 37351 Note 9 or alienation of the title to real estate or water, water rights and "privileges in « nnection therewith" except by a vote of the electors, relates under the doctrine of the "last antecedent," only to the words immediately preceding, namely "water rights." City of Santa Barbara v. Matter. (1938) 77 P d 306. 25 C.A.2d 325. Subsequent to March 26, 1S51, confirm- ing to the city of San Francisco certain beach and water property, the legislature had no authority to interfere with the dis- position of such property by the city, or to confirm a contract of the city in refer- ence thereto. Wood v. City of San Fran- cisco (1854) -1 C. 190, followed in 9 C. 39. 9. — Leases A lease by a city of water front privi- leges drawn in conformity with Stats.1911. p. 1254 transferring to' the city title to the lands in question for harbor develop- ment purposes and expressly providing for such leases, was a valid exercise' by the city of its powers and not inconsistent with the purposes of the grant to the city. City of Oakland v. Larne Wharf & Warehouse Co. (1918) 176 P. 361, 179 C. 207. Under Oakland city charter, the board of public works may execute a lease of tidelands, title to which is vested in the city by statute. Id. Under Stats.1909. p. 420, § S62. subd. 2, giving cities of the sixth class power to purchase realty for municipal purposes, and convey the same for the benefit of the city, provided "they shall not have power to convey any portion of any water front," and empowering such cities "to improve the water front," such a city had no power to lease to private persons a water front for private uses. People v. Banning Co. (1914) 133 P. 100. 166 C. 630, affirmed 30 S.Ct. 333, 240 U.S. 142, l;0 L.Ed. 569. Under a lease by the city of Monterey of a small. portion of its water front to a steamship company recited that such com- pany should erect a wharf thereon, and keep the same in good repair during the lease, that it could collect wharfage and dockage, and that in case of its failure to keep said wharf in repair. or its becoming unfit for use, and so continuing for 90 days after notice by the city, the lease should cease, and the order of the city au- thorizing the lease stated that the com- pany should not charge to exceed 30 cents per ton wharfage. there was nothing in the lease, or the order authorizing it. re- quiring such company to permit the use of the wharf by others. Pacific Coast S. S. Co. v. Kimball (1896). 46 P. 275, 114 C. 414. 481 § 37351 i CITY GOVERNMENT Title 4 Note 10 I0 — Sales and conveyances Stnts.1861, p. 384, amending Stats.1854. p. 184, § 12, of the charter of the city of Oakland. the successor of the town of Oakland, by words, "and the ordinances of the board of trustees of said town are -hereby ratified and confirmed," under a title showing no purpose to grant lands, did not thereby ratify and confirm an or- dinance that had been made by the true - tees of said town. conveying the entire water front of the town, contrary, to the provisions of its charter, u the ordinary meaning of the word 'ordinance" does not include a grant of lands. City of Oakland v. Oakland Water -Front Co. (1897) 50 P. 277, 118 C. 160.. Stats.1852, p. 180, if 1, 3, granting to the town of Oakland lands covered by the flux of tides, bounding the town on three aides, "with a view to facilitate the con- struction of wharves and other improve- ments, • • • provided that said lands shall be retained by said town as common property or disposed of for the purposes aforesaid," thereby give to the town au- thority that cannot be delegated; and hence a conveyance by the town to an in- dividual of all of said lands is void, though he may agree to construct wharves. etc., as the ownership of a part of the land,.at least. is essential to the exercise of said authority. Id. Under Manicipal Corporation Act of 1883, § 862.2. as amended by Stats.1935, P. 2069 repealed, the city of Newport Beach may convey to the State Park Commission certain lands above ordinary high tide line to comply with matching provisions of e. 1470 although the city is a city of the sixth class, notwithstanding Const. art. 15, § 3, and such corveyance should ordi- narily be made by grant deed rather than by quitclaim deed. 7 Ops.Atty.Gen. 334. Under Municipal Corporations Act, § 862.2 (repealed) the City of Crescent City, a city of the sixth class, had no power to Bell any portion of any water- front granted to it by St.1867-1868, p. 333. 1 Ops.Atty.Gen. 117. 11. — Quieting title In actions by city and American Legion Post to quiet title to lands from the state against adjoining littoral owners, defen- dants could not attack findings settling ti- tle as between the two plaintiffs, on ground that .conveyance to city violated statute. City of Newport Beach v. Fager (19.40) 102 Ptd 438, 39 C.A.2d 23. § 37352. Buildings for municipal purposes The legislative body may erect and maintain buildings for munici- pal purposes. (Added Stats.1949, c. 79, p. 155, § 1) . Historical Note Derivation: Stats.1883, c. 49, p. 253, § 764; S tata.1889, c. 258, p. 391, § 5; Stats.1897, e. 136, p. 196, § 1: Stats.1901, c. 218. p. 656, § 1; Stats.1905, c. 52, p. 45. §L Stats1909, c. 618, p. 937, § 1; Stats. 1917, c. 796, p. 1663, § 1; Stats.1927, c. 283. p. 502, § 1; Stats.1945,•c. 857, p. 1568, § 1. Stats.1883. c. 49, p. 93, § 862.14, added Stats.1935, c. 737, p. 2071, § 15. Library References Municipal Corporations x221. CJ.S. Municipal Corporations § 950 et seq. Civic auditorium as (1933) 6 So.CaLL.R. 165. Construction of town hall mted to city•aa a "plaza". L.B. 316. • Law Review Commentaries public utility. Municipal market 03 a public purpose of a municipal corporation. (1923) 11 C.L.R. 446. ♦• on land dedi- (1924) 12 C. 482 • aF �r Wir.:: _iT?}...►�• • -- ..7 a:.• •••:--..d..11.--•;%:-,::%., M :q:.p.y.-,^.-. . �'.. 1-1a�s•1Y4;.. • i. • • • � :-•t T;7:� '_2= ::+-.'-v.~ 4_ J4-. �:,.,;'_ _:4�-r.: it:-"y6-r_,--,.�f.-. :•-•44,...*r.:.,i-� _ --=..51.. .i4: _P..i._ ....;,. y _ '`'•-'.••t.:_-••s--a' ww' L•..vf'n-,-:._-:.••••:.•�; ♦..y..-".qai 1-'i. !M,y,'i-Ari:':.....- �r'*-. .^- :- i.;-_,:�f.—.r.+.....ti^•s^?;•--:,•,R.'r ; [ .- -i“,....j...-,",..-.„'::. ..cy-• '::•.4!•," ".�, '-^. _ ,.-ti'1 . ;p...• - .y�^-7—:µ .- ..• WHEREAS, the citizens of Hermosa Beach find and city-owned Biltmore Site property shall be saved and/or residential development, because of existi parking, density, congestion, traffic, and air and from traffic in the immediate area, and elsewhere California. Steps have to be taken to improve ourgali our environment, and to help save our earth. Therefore,uthe Biltmore Site shall be landscaped, P , preser_ved, and maintained in perpetuity as a 100% Open Space Oceanfront Strand Public Pa_k with grass, trees, and flowers for present and future generations to enjoy. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City-owned property commonly known as the Biltmore Site (hereinafter referred to as "Biltmore Site") hall be landscaped, preserved and maintained in perpetuity asas100% Open Space 0-8-2, Oceanfront Strand Public Park, with grass, trees, and flowers for present and future generations to enjoy. SECTION 2. That the Municipal Zoning Code of the City of Hermosa Beach (the "Code") is hereby amended to add a new zone designated as 0-8-2, Restricted Open Space, as follows: "Intent and Purpose The 0-S-2 Zone is intended to restrict further the use of certain designated open space to assure permanent open space for public park purposes. Permitted Uses. A Public Park --with landscaping beautification, flowers, plants and other uses ifspecifically authorizedeas a permitted improvement herein. Permitted Improvements. Improvements in the O-S-2 Zone shall be as follows: (a) Only non-building� lnsca in public improvements relating to ping, beautification--grass, trees, flowers, plants, soil, unobtrusive park lighting, benches to view the e ocean, existing public utilities, one flag pole for American Flag, and erosion and irrigation improvements to assure permanent open space for park purposes shall be permitted. (b) No buildings, malls, plazas or structures--temporary or permanent in nature--shall be built, developed, constructed or erected on the Biltmore Site. (c) Softscape shall include grass, trees, flowers, and shall be artistically designedlantsto cover all of the Biltmore Site except for the one already-existing parking lot area, which is currently located east of where the old Biltmore Hotel used to stand, east of Beach Drive, in between 15th Street on the north and 15th Court on the south, and the parking lot is to remain a parking lot, and it is to remain where it is currently located and may be improved as necessary, but such improvements shall not expand the existing parking lot area and shall be of a nature and material designed to ensure safety and preserve the beauty of the park. (d) The use and improvements tc the park are to ensure a natural, peaceful,' serene, passive and safe environment to improve and enhance the quality of life in Hermosa Beach." SECTION 3. Ordinance No. 84-751, as amended, is hereby repealed and the Land Use Element of the Hermosa Beach General Plan and the official zoning map are modified by reclassifying and rezoning certain property commonly known as the Biltmore Site. SECTION 4. The Biltmore Site is hereby reclassified as O -S-2 Open Space Two under the Land Use Element of the General Plan (hereinafter the "General Plan") and rezoned as O -S-2 Open Space Two. SECTION 5. For the purposes of this ordinance and the rezoning reclassification of the subject property, the Biltmore Site is defined as follows: (a) The Biltmore Site consists of that certain property identified as Lots #1 through 9, inclusive, Lots 19, 20, and 32 all in Block 15 of the Hermosa Beach Tract in the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 1, pages 25, 26 of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said county, together with all of the vacated portion of Beach Drive and 15th Court adjacent to the above noted lots. SECTION 6. The City shall seek necessary approvals from the California Coastal Commission for the amendments made by this ordinance and take all further actions necessary to implement and enforce the terms and intent of this ordinance. SECTION 7. If any section or sub -section of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unenforceable, such holding shall not affect in any respect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or any such part thereof. SECTION 8. There shall be no modification, amendment, or repeal of any provision of this ordinance without a vote of the people. SECTION 9. Any ordinance which is adopted concurrently with this ordinance which receives less votes and is in conflict with any provisions herein shall be repealed in its entirety and be of no force and effect. SECTION 10. This ordinances.shall take effect in the manner prescribed by law. SECTION 11. This ordinance shall only take effect if it receives a majority vote of the people. SECTION 12. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. SECTION 13. Funding for the improvements, landscaping; and maintenance of the Park may come from the following sources: (a) Private donations --money, trees, flowers, soil, grass, etc. (b) Parks and Recreation monies (c) All funds currently being generated from existing parking spaces on northeast portion of the Biltmore Site (d) Volunteers to help landscape the Biltmore Site by planting grass, flowers and trees, etc. (e) Fundraisers and other sources should they become available. SECTION 14. The Biltmpre Site is not to be sold, leased, nor consolidated with other lad, or lands, without a vote of the people. INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS The City Attorney has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CREATING AND DESIGNATING THE "BILTMORE SITE" AS OPEN SPACE O -S-2, TO ENSURE IT'S PRESERVATION AND USE AS A PUBLIC PARK. This proposed initiative ordinance would repeal Ordinance No. 84-751, modify both the Land Use Element of the Hermosa Beach General Plan and the official zoning map, and redesignate the property commonly known as the "Biltmore Site" as O -S-2 Open Space Two under the Land Use Element of the General Plan And rezone the Biltmore Site as "Open Space O -S-2." A "Open Space O -S-2" zoning classification as defined by this measure would restrict the use of the Biltmore Site to a public park and would only permit improvements relating to the park's beautification. No buildings or structures of any kind, permanent or temporary, would be allowed under Open Space O -S-2. Non - building improvements allowed under this designation would include landscaping with trees and flowers, unobstructive park lighting and benches to view the ocean. Funding for improvements and maintenance of the park may come from private donations, volunteers, fundraisers, park and recreation monies, and funds collected from the existing parking lot on the northeast portion of the Biltmore Site. The measure also provides that the already existing parking lot area located east of the old Biltmore Hotel shall remain a parking lot and may be improved, but shall not expanded. An additional mandate is that the Biltmore Site shall not be sold, leased, nor consolidated with other land, without the vote of the people. The measure provides that the City shall seek necessary approvals from the California Coastal Commission for the amendments made by this initiative and take all actions necessary to implement the terms and intent of this measure. If any part of this measure is invalidated, the rest will remain in full force and effect. Any ordinance which is adopted concurrently with this initiative, which receives less votes and is in conflict with the provisions herein, shall be repealed and have no force or effect. This measure shall only take effect if it receives a majority vote of the people, and once adopted, can only be amended or repealed by a vote of the people. July 3, 1990 Mr. Charles S. Vose, City Attorney City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: My initiative measure I submitted to our City Clerk on June 19, 1990 Dear Mr. Vose: Thank you for preparing the Title and Summary for my initiative petition regarding the Biltmore Site being rezoned a 100% Open Space Park with grass, trees and flowers. I would appreciate if you would add the word "grass" before the word "trees" in paragraph 4, line 7, to read: "...landscaping with grass, trees and flowers..." Also, in the same line, would you please change to word "unobstructive" to "unobtrusive" regarding the park lighting. Also, in paragraph 5, line 2, in order to clarify that the Biltmore Hotel is no longer on the site, I would request this section read closer to the way the section was written, if possible. May I suggest: "Softscape shall include grass, trees, plants, soil, flowers, and shall be artistically designed to cover all of the Biltmore Site except for the one already -existing parking lot area, which is currently located east of where the old Biltmore Hotel used to stand, east of Beach Drive, in between 15th Street on the north and 15th Court on the south, and the parking lot is to remain a parking lot." And, Mr. Vose, if there is room I would appreciate including "(d) the use and improvements to the park are to ensure a natural, peaceful, serene, passive and safe environment to improve and enhance the quality of life in Hermosa Beach." If you have any questions, please call me at 379-7196. Thank you. Parker R. Herriott MERNA MARSHALL 360 - 33rd Place Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213) 372-1740 July 10, 1990 Mayor Roger Creighton and Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: Opposition to Ordinance and Resolution to change designation of the Biltmore Site to Residential Zoning Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the proposed rezoning of the Biltmore Site from Specific Plan Area (which was intended for the development of a hotel) to Residential (which will lead to the ultimate sale and development of the property for residential use). After analyzing the results of previous elections, one can conclude that the residents of Hermosa Beach are not interested in rezoning the property for residential (or commercial, for that matter) use. In 1983, voters overwhelmingly defeated residential zoning for the site (283 Yes to 2,078 No votes) and again in 1988 (3,989 Yes to 5,340 No votes). I would like to see the City Council allow a fair election to be held with regard to Open Space zoning for the Biltmore Site. That is, place one open space measure on the ballot all be itself, without any other measures to dilute the vote. That way, you will get a clean cut, yes or no vote on open space. You have already done this with all of the other proposals --residential, commercial, hotel, mixed --and none of them passed. But, when the open space question was placed on the ballot it was placed alongside another measure which, in my opinion, split the vote and caused nothing to pass. The results of this election reveal that people are interested in open space for the Biltmore Site but, given two different choices and so many arguments for and against each of them, neither one of the measures got a majority vote (although the 100% Open Space Park got a much higher percentage than the mixed-use plan). Give us a choice. Give us a chance to vote on one open space measure and nothing else. Find out for yourselves what the majority of the people in Hermosa Beach really want to see for the future of the Biltmore Site. Don't take away the privilege of deciding this matter by rezoning the property on your own. I'm sure the majority of voters in Hermosa Beach would agree that it's not fair for you to take such an action. Respectfully, Merna Marshall 372-1740 Los Angeles County Bar Association Dispute Resolution Services Community Mediation Programs Lorena Frncesco, Program Director Main Office: 2530 fico Boulevard Santa Monica, CA 90405 (213) 450-5252 FAX: (213) 452-7825 Com pu)n Office: 4513 East. Compton Blvd. Compton, CA 90221 (213) 639-11555 Long Beach Office: 110 Pine Avenue Suite 420 Long Beach, CA 90502 (213) 437-8811 Pasadena Office: 2500 East. Colorado Blvd. Suite 315 Pasadena, CA 91107 (818) 793-7174 San Fernando Valley Office: 11243 Clenoaks Blvd. Suite ! Pacoima. CA 91331 (818) 596-2560 South Bay Office: 711) Pier Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213) 372-1608 Soothe:.tst. Office: 12455 Rives Avenue Downey, CA 90249_ (213) 923-1543 West. Hollywood Office: 5-13 N. Fairfax Avenue I.ns Angeles, C:\ 91)036 (213) 85-1-1)122 July 3, 1990 Mr. Kevin Northcraft City Manager City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Kevin: I am enclosing a Program Status Report for the fourth quarter of this program year for Hermosa Beach and the South Bay Program. The Hermosa Beach Program has been picking up steadily. You will notice that nearly 20% of our South Bay cases comefrom the City of Hermosa Beach. We anticipate a continued growth this coming year. We look forward to continuing our services in the City of Hermosa Beach this year and thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Gail Nugent Program Director cc: Lauren Burton Lance Widman A Non -Profit Corporation Cly of HERMOSA BEACH GRANTEE PROGRAM STATUS REPORT Agency Dispute Resolution Services Program South Bay Community Mediation Program Report Period 198 9-EQ0 1st 2nd 3rd 'llh x OBJECTIVES Her mosa Beach • SOUTH BAY Cur 0uc rent nor Year To Date An Tar Ann get Year Annual To Dale Target Unit of Service Total New Total DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAM Total Persons Served I.. Information and Referral 2. Intake Interviews (complainants & respondents) 3. Cases Opened 4. Mediations and conciliations 5. Follow-up Interviews Sanl• M. . ,,C■ rpnn 85 MO New Total Now 61 49 61 5 6 7 255 148 139 18 19 21 324 22]. 103 26 28 45 1,390 935 1,092 196 140 107 2,160 1,476 684 175 189 297 persons persons interviews cases proceedingE contacts Los Angeles County Bar Association Dispute Resolution Services Community Mediation Programs Loretta Francesco, Prug'ra t Director Main Office: 2830 Pico Boulevard Santa Monica, CA 90405 (213) 450-5252 FAX: (213) 452-7825 Compton Office: 4513 East Compton Blvd. Compton, (213) 639-0885 Long Beach Office: 110 fine Avenue Suite 420 Long Beach, CA 90802 (213) 437-8811 Pasadena Office: 2500 East Colorado Blvd. Suite 315 Pasadena, CA 91107 (81$) 793-7174 San Fernando Valley Office: 11243 Glenoaks Blvd. Suite ! Pacoima. CA 91331 (818) 896-2560 South Bay Office: 710 Pier :\Venue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213) 372-1608 Southeast Office: 12-158 Rives Avenue Downey. C:\ 90242 (213) 923-1543 West Hollywood Office: 543 N. Fairfax Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90036 (213) 854-0122 Outreach Hermosa Beach Fourth Quarter - 1989/1990 1. Attended meeting of Women's Club and gave a presentation of program. 2. Attended meeting of South Bay Director's Network. 3. Attended meeting of Coordinating Council. 4. Attended two meetings of the City Council and presented information. 5. Brochures distributed to Hermosa Beach Library. 6. Brochures distriubuted to Hermosa Beach Police. 7. Brochures distributed to Hermosa Beach City Hall. A Non -Profit Corporation Los Angeles County Bar Association Dispute Resolution Services Lauren Burton. Director 617 S. Olive Street P.O. Box 55(12(1 Los Angeles. (:A 90055 (213) 627-2727 FAN: (213) 489-7588 Community Mediation Programs Court Programs School Mediation Programs Attorney Client Relations Program May 21, 1990 Gary L. Brutsch City Treasurer City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885 RE: Information requested on Dispute Resolution Services (DRS) Dear Mr. Brutsch: It was a pleasure to meet with you recently in regards to our $10,000 contract with the City of Hermosa Beach. In response to your request for specific information about the scope of services provided by Dispute Resolution Services to the people of Hermosa Beach, we submit the following: Service Statistics For the first 6 months of the year, DRS provided the following specific services to the City of Hermosa Beach *: Persons Served: 82 Problem Assessment Interviews: 62 Dispute Resolution Information Assistance: 40 Cases Opened: Disposition: Resolved -Mitigation: 16 Resolved-Mediation/Conciliation: 6 * This information is more specific than information previously requested and submitted to the City of Hermosa Beach. Out of a total of 82 persons served, DRS obtained voluntary demographic information for 73 persons, the results of which follow: Monthly Family Income Age Very Low: 4 Low Income: 10 Above Lower: 59 16-20: 1 21-35: 36 36-44: 25 45-54: 7 55+: 4 A Non -Profit Corporation Race/Ethnicity Sex Disabled: 1 White: 69 Male: 35 Latino: 4 Female: 38 In addition, DRS identified the type of dispute and the referral source for which assistance was requested on 62 persons who had problem assessment interviews. The results of which follow: Landlord/Tenant: 35 Neighbor/Neighbor: 5 Domestic: 5 Consumer/Merchant: 5 Family Law: 3 Employer/Employee: 4 Auto Accident: 1 Real Estate: 1 Other: 3 Total: 62 Referral Source Used service before: 2 Community agency: 2 Court: 1 Government/City staff: 18 Lawyer referral service: 10 Law Enforcement: 9 Legal Aid: 2 Media: 3 Phone book: 4 Private attorney: 2 Friend/neighbor: 5 DRS literature 1 Other 3 Total: 62 As you can see from the information we submitted, 43% of the problem assessment interviews for Hermosa Beach were referred to [Be DRS South Bay Community Mediation Program by either the police department or City personnel. The 1985 State Commission on Crime and Violence Prevention found that a community's ability to resolve disputes in a timely manner was directly related to the incidents of crime and violence in the Community. As we discussed in our meeting, law enforcement statistics indicate that disputes that are left to fester over a long period of time, often escalate and result in acts of frustration, desperation and sometimes, violence, in our communities. More specifically, disputes that involve an ongoing social or economic relationship (such as those types of disputes referred to our program) require significant City resources to handle. In an era of limited City resources vital law enforcement and City staff resources should be allocated towards the most significant pressing problems that plague our community. With a small grant from the City of Hermosa Beach (this year, $10,000 and next year proposed, $9,000), matching funds from the California Dispute Resolution Programs Act (approximately $56,000 annual support to the South Bay Community Mediation Program), grants from other participating South Bay Cities (approximately $26,000 annually), and continued 391 hours of volunteer service, the DRS South Bay Community Mediation Program assists residents of Hermosa Beach to achieve a long term resolution of their dispute in a timely manner and thus, helps to improve the quality of life in the community and enable precious City resources to be allocated more effectively. As you requested in our meeting, we are in the process of developing a system which would enable us to follow up and report on the disposition of all matters referred to the program by both police and City personnel. We believe this suggestion of yours will help to be more responsive to perceived local needs for dispute resolution services and we thank you for the suggestion. In regardsto your request for clarification about our fee policy, please note the following: DRS charges a 0 - $10 case processing fee which is assessed upon the first party who initiates service. This fee is automatically waived for those who indicate they are unable to pay. In addition, for complex family law and business disputes, a sliding scale fee is charged based upon combined income and assets. A review of our records indicates that from July 1, 1989 - December 31, 1989, $515.00 was collected in fees for the total South Bay Community Mediation Program, $10.00 of which was collected from a Hermosa Beach resident. Finally, in reference to your request for information in regards to the allocation of Hermosa Beach funds for the July 1 - December, 1989 period, we submitted the following information to the City of Hermosa Beach: Los Angeles County Bar Association Dispute Resolution Services Year -to -Date Expenses for South Bay Program Hermosa Redondo/ In -Kind Total Beach Manhattan County Beach Funds Salaries 3,729 8,702 19,182 31,613 Temporary Help 332 332 Pay. Taxes/Benefits 669 1,563 1,954 4,186 Workmen's Comp. 62 143 103 308 Pension Exp. 130 304 (56) 378 Gen. Office Exp. 186 186 Space Costs 1,370 1,370 Supplies/Stationery 314 314 Duplicating 215 215 Telephone 1,455 1,455 Postage 212 212 Travel/Parking 361 361 Equip. Main./Rental 158 158 Outside Services 38 38 Outside Printing 733 733 Advertising 11 24 292 327 LACBA Overhead 1,120 1,120 TOTAL 4,601 10,736 27,969 43,306 In addition, since DRS primary services are provided by volunteers from the communities served, we thought you should know that the program was also supported by the following during the same time period: # South Bay Volunteers: 18 South Bay Volunteer Hours: 391 Finally at your further suggestion, we are investigating the feasibility of developing an expanded area of service to the City of Hermosa Beach (as a part of our proposed $9,000 contract) which we believe will result in additional cost savings to the City. The new areas of service would be twofold: 1. City liablity claim dispute resolution services. This new service would be developed cooperatively with the City's Risk Manager to provide early dispute resolution services of claims against the City reducing the amount of City staff time and dollars spent on processing and litigating such claims. 2. A mediation contract clause, for inclusion in all City contracts, that would require all disputes or controversies arising under any City contracts to participate in DRS mediation sessions to use their good faith efforts to resolve such claims prior to the institution of any action or proceeding over such dispute or controversy. Again, I enjoyed our personal meeting, your helpful suggestions and your progressive thoughts about how DRS mediation services could be better utilized to promote substantial cost savings to the City of Hermosa Beach. We look forward to continuing our service to the City and developing new services that are responsive to the City's specific needs. If you need further information, please contact Karen Freeman, Assistant Director, at (213) 627-2727, ext. 100, from 5/21/90 to 6/1/90 as I will be on vacation with my family in Hawaii. After that, I will be available to respond to your information requests at (213) 627-2727, ext. 287. Lauren BurtonC4). Director cc: Joe Kornowski, Esq. Karen Freeman Neil Weiner Gail Nugent Lance Widman LOS ANGELES COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES, INC. REPORT AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1988 AND 1987 Price Mterhouse iii 1 400 South Hope Street Telephone 213 236 3000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2889 Price Waterhouse REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS July 1, 1989 To the Board of Directors of the Los Angeles County Bar Association Dispute Resolution Services, Inc. In our opinion, the accompanying balance sheet and the related statements of activity and changes in deferred support and revenue and of changes in cash present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Los Angeles County Bar Association Dispute Resolution Services, Inc. at December 31, 1988 and 1987, and the results of its operations and its changes in cash for the years then ended in conformity with generally accepted accounting prin- ciples. These financial statements are the responsibility of management; our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits of these statements in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards which require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by manage- ment, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reason- able basis for the opinion expressed above. LOS ANGELES COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES, INC. BALANCE SHEET DECEMBER 31, 1988 AND 1987 ASSETS Cash Accounts receivable Grants receivable Prepaid expenses Office equipment - at cost, less accumulated depreciation of $7,843 in 1988 and $5,322 in 1987 Total assets LIABILITIES AND DEFERRED SUPPORT AND REVENUE Accounts payable Los Angeles County Bar Association liability Accrued expenses Total liabilities Deferred support and revenue: Arbitration/Client Relations Project Mediation Projects General Fund Other deferred revenue Total liabilities and deferred support and revenue 1988 $ - 20,000 175,367 4,158 1987 $ 96,206 38,267 1,288 33,173 11,205 $232,698 $146,966 $ 15,803 40,410 23,493 79,706 181,535 (91,973) 55,427 8,003 152,992 $232,698 See accompanying notes to financial statements. $ 4,317 15,154 19,471 125,637 2,192 (334) 127,495 $146,966 LOS ANGELES COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES, INC. STATEMENT OF ACTIVITY AND CHANGES IN DEFERRED SUPPORT AND REVENUE FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1988 AND 1987 Revenue: Grants - Corporate Los Angeles County Bar Foundation City of Santa Monica City of West Hollywood Los Angeles County Other Arbitration fees Processing fees Meeting receipts Sale of books and pamphlets Other Total revenue Expenses: Salaries Payroll taxes and employee benefits Total personnel expenses Outside services and printing Office rent Telephone and messenger Postage Travel and parking Office supplies Insurance Depreciation General office expenses Food service LACBA overhead Other Total expenses Excess (deficiency) of support and revenue over expenses Deferred support and revenue: Beginning of year End of year 1988 $ 18,286 66,735 76,637 36,566 175,367 3,650 377,241 214,766 13,245 14,314 1,244 51,215 672,025 362,459 86,772 1987 $ 38,408 47,290 63,550 25,000 10,078 184,326 181,086 17,027 2,037 1,041 385,517 227,561 53,382 449,231 280,943 52,864 31,437 43,613 29,595 23,683 11,273 12,301 10,509 5,136 4,299 11,116 4,495 6,852 4,154 2,521 1,374 9,905 1,283 6,129 105 14,496 1,787 8,681 6,590 646,528 25,497 127,495 $152,992 See accompanying notes to financial statements. 387,844 (2,327) 129,822 S127,495 LOS ANGELES COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES, INC. STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN CASH FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1988 AND 1987 Cash provided: Excess (deficiency) of support and revenue over expenses Charges not requiring cash in the current period - Depreciation Decrease in prepaid expenses Increase in accounts payable Increase in Los Angeles County Bar Association liability Increase in accrued expenses Cash used: Purchase of office equipment Increase in accounts receivable Increase in prepaid expenses Increase in grants receivable Decrease in cash for the year Cash, beginning of year Cash, end of year 1988 1987 $ 25,497 ($ 2,327) 2,521 1,374 28,018 (953) 1,871 11,486 2,612 40,410 8,339 6,204 88,253 9,734 24,489 2,125 20,000 2,870 137,100 37,670 184,459 39,795 (96,206) (30,061) 96,206 126,267 $ -0- $ 96,206 See accompanying notes to financial statements. LOS ANGELES COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES, INC. NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS NOTE 1 - ORGANIZATION AND BUSINESS PURPOSE: During 1987, the Los Angeles County Bar Association (the Association) established a new corporation, Los Angeles County Bar Association Dispute Resolution Services, Inc. (DRS, Inc.) which is composed of three existing Association projects - Mediation Projects, the Arbitration/Client Relations Project and the General Fund. The new corporation was established as a nonprofit organiza- tion exempt from income taxes under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code in order to meet the eligibility requirements for state grants which will be distributed through the county during 1988. Mediation Projects Mediation Projects is a program designed to conduct alternative dis- pute resolution procedures. Volunteers are trained to assist in the resolution of a wide variety of minor criminal and civil disputes through conciliation and mediation. Funding for the project con- sists substantially of grants from the City of Santa Monica, the City of West Hollywood, Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles County Bar Foundation. Arbitration/Client Relations Project The Arbitration and Client Relations project is supported by fees paid by lawyers and their clients participating in the program. The panel of volunteer lawyers arbitrate fee disputes and mediate other disputes which arise between clients and lawyers. General Fund The General Fund is utilized to finance the general and administra- tive expenses of the other projects, and to conduct dispute resolution procedures not falling into the categories described above. -2 - NOTE 1 - ORGANIZATION AND BUSINESS PURPOSE: (Continued) Fund Activity The fund activity for the year ended December 31, 1988 and 1987 is summarized as follows: Fund 1988 1987 Total Total support Increase support Increase and (decrease) and (decrease) revenue Expenses revenue revenue Expenses revenue Neighborhood Justice Center $ $ $ - $154,859 $197,537 ($42,678) Arbitration and Client Relations 268,692 212,794 55,898 228,621 187,936 40,685 Mediation Projects 302,048 397,674 (95,626) General Fund 93,012 35,789 57,223 - NOTE 2 - BASIS OF ACCOUNTING: To reflect observance of limitations and restrictions placed on the use of resources available to DRS, Inc., the financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the principles of fund accounting. This is the procedure by which resources are classified for accounting and reporting purposes into funds established accord- ing to their nature and purposes. Separate accounts are maintained for each fund; however, in the accompanying financial statements, all funds have been combined. Funds received by DRS, Inc., are deemed to be earned and reported as support and revenue when expen- ditures in compliance with the specific restrictions have been incurred. Amounts not earned are reported as deferred support and revenue. NOTE 3 - SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES: Grants receivable Grants receivable are recorded when expenditures in compliance with the specific restrictions of the approved grant are incurred. t -3- NOTE 3 - SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES: (Continued) Office equipment Expenditures for office equipment in excess of $500 are capitalized. Depreciation on such equipment is provided using the straight-line method over the estimated useful life of the assets, which is ten years. Leasehold improvements are amortized using the straight-line method over the shorter of the life of the assets or term of the lease. Income taxes DRS, Inc. is a nonprofit organization and is exempt from federal and state income taxes. NOTE 4 - CONTINGENT LIABILITY: Dispute Resolution Services, Inc. has received approximately $561,567 in grants from federal and private sources for specific purposes during the two-year period ended December 31, 1988. The grants are subject to review and audit by the grantors during the seven year period following their receipt. Such audits could lead to requests for reimbursement to the grantors for expenditures disallowed under terms of these grants. Based on prior experience, DRS, Inc. management believes such disallowances, if any, would not be material to the corporation's financial position. July 10, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 10,1990 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A TIME LIMIT PARKING ZONE Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council approve and adopt the attached resolution establishing a time limit parking zones on the north curb in front of 737 Third Street. This recommendation supercedes the recommendation in staff report #lh for the July 10, 1990 City Council meeting. Background: After discussion with Mr. Polak, he believes that a "time limit parking zone" will better meet his needs than the "loading zone" as originally requested. The attached resolution has been prepared for a "time limit parking zone". Respectfully submitted, I IA II 1iimi Ant'Wny Antich Director of Pub is Works Concur: i�/r 'Kevin B. Northc. aft City Manager cc: Leroy Staten, Acting General Services Director Steve Wisniewski, Public Safety Director Ed Ruzak, City Traffic Engineer SUPPLEMENTAL lh INfURMRTION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING A TIME LIMIT PARKING ZONE. WHEREAS, Section 19-77 of the Municipal Code of the City of Hermosa Beach provides for the authority to determine and mark time limit parking zones. WHEREAS, time limit parking zones shall be indicated by posted signs within such zones. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the following location is a time limit parking zone: Third Street on the north curb west of Pacific Coast,Highway in front of 737 Third Street for a total distance of approximately 45 feet. SECTION 2. The time limit parking zone shall between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. SECTION 3. That this amendment take effect immediately. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 10th day of July 1990. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: , City Clerk , City Attorney =+o ob- of - 0 - poscy --rroivacQ fi %ES -0 19 - ' 4 t1)6 - ; 1 04701 - 9b - 0 -- ; ilk* ,'\ — RES- 96 - - - '�i - 5 Pig 5"- Ob b'oi - oh - - g) rgCo !-ob - - (d)ebw4c __ - s - ab - .- Cr) 1 "'LTC-- ca2.s - Qb - - (91 , 1 NES- Q b - - (") I ' A`. =+o ob- of - 0 - poscy --rroivacQ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, June 26, 1990, at the hour of 7:35 P.M. CLOSED SESSION - The closed session was held at 7:04 P.M. pur- suant to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding Real Property Negotiations with Hermosa Beach City School District Board of Trustees concerning update on South School site, surplus lands acquisition, and with Macpherson Oil Company concerning City Maintenance Yard lease; and pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9b regarding Potential Litigation concerning Manhattan Grande. The session was adjourned at 7:27 P.M. to the regular scheduled public meeting. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - George Schmeltzer ROLL CALL: Present: Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton Absent: None PRESENTATION BY METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT ON WATER SOURCES Dale Hunter, Governmental Relations Representative of the Metropolitan Water District presented packets of information to the Council members and water conservation kits to the City Man- ager. He explained the role of the Water District in the state, provided an update on the drought situation, and asked the City Council to consider enacting a water conservation ordinance. PRESENTATION OF DONATION FROM COMMUNITY CENTER FOUNDATION Missy Sheldon, outgoing president of the Hermosa Beach Community Center Foundation, presented a check for $10,000, the final in- stallment of a $25,000 pledge to contribute toward the new air conditioning system at the Hermosa Civic Theatre at the Community Center. Mrs. Sheldon introduced the Foundation Board and re- viewed the accomplishments and capital -improvement and program goals of the Foundation. She also invited everyone to attend the many functions presented at the Center, in particular the "60s Right On" gala -and auction, scheduled for August 18, 1990, to raise money for recarpeting the common areas of the Community Center's upper level. CITIZEN COMMENTS Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street, regarding agenda items 1(e) and 1(i). 1. CONSENT CALENDAR Action: To approve the Consent Calendar recommendations (a) through (j) with the exception of the following items which were pulled for discussion but are listed in order for clarity: (e) Midstokke, (f) Midstokke, (g) Midstokke, (h) Midstokke, and (i) Wiemans. Motion Mayor Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered. page 1 Minutes 06-26-90 la (a) (b) Recommendation to approve the following minutes: 1) Special meeting of the City Council held on March 5, 1990; 2) Special meeting of the City Council held on June 7, 1990; 3) Regular meeting of the City Council held on June 12, 1990. Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants No. 33600 and Nos. 33741 through 33871 inclusive, noting voided warrants 33749, 33750, 33767, 33788, 33799, and 33800; and to cancel certain warrants as recommended by the City Treasurer. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) Recommendation to receive and file the May, 1990 finan- cial reports: 1) Revenue and expenditure report; 2) City Treasurer's report. (e) (f) Recommendation to approve revised class specification for Engineering Technician. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated June 18, 1990. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Councilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting. Action: To refer this item to the Civil Service Board for review and recommendation. Motion Midstokke, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered, noting the objections of Essertier and Sheldon. Recommendation to adopt two resolutions approving Street Lighting District assessment report and setting date for a public hearing. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated June 14, 1990. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Councilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5372, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS OF SAID CITY MADE PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF RESOLU- TION NO. 90-5346 OF SAID COUNCIL," amended by deleting lines 1 through 5 inclusive of page 2, that read, "Whereas, said City Clerk has presented the said report to the City Council of said City, and said Council has proceeded to carefully examine, inspect and consider the said report and is satisfied with said report and with each and all of the items therein set forth. Motion Sheldon, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered. page 2 Minutes 06-26-90 Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5373, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER CERTAIN STREET LIGHTING FIXTURES AND APPURTENANCES TO BE INSTALLED, MAINTAINED AND ELECTRIC CURRENT TO BE FURNISHED FOR STREET LIGHTING FIXTURES THROUGHOUT THE CITY, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1990 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1991; AND APPOINTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN RELATION THERETO." Motion Sheldon, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered. Recommendation to adopt two resolutions approving Cross- ing Guard District assessment report and setting date for a public hearing. Memorandum from Public Works Di- rector Anthony Antich dated June 14, 1990. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Councilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5374, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS OF SAID CITY MADE PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF RESOLU- TION NO. 90-5347 OF SAID COUNCIL," amended by deleting lines 24 through 28 inclusive of page number 1, that read, "Whereas, said City Clerk has presented the said report to the City Council of said City, and said Coun- cil has proceeded to carefully examine, inspect and con- sider the said report and is satisfied with said report and with each and all of the items therein set forth." Motion Mayor Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5375, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER CERTAIN CROSSING GUARD SERVICES PURSUANT TO THE "CROSSING GUARD MAINTENANCE DISTRICT ACT OF 1974", CHAPTER 3.5, ARTICLES 1, 2, 3, AND 4, OF SECTION 55530 THROUGH 55570, OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AT CERTAIN LOCATIONS IN THE SAID CITY, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1990 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1991; AND APPOINTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN RELATION THERETO." Motion Mayor Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered. Recommendation to receive and file status report on new marquee proposal. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated June 18, 1990. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Councilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting. Action: To refer the item to the City Attorney to determine the appropriate method of repealing the sign waiver that had been granted by the Planning Commission; page 3 Minutes 06-26-90 (i) (j) then refer to staff for appropriate action. Motion Sheldon, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered. Recommendation to approve: revision to the Personnel Allocation for the Community Resources Department; the revised class specification for Recreation Manager; placement of the classification of Recreation Manager in the Administrative Bargaining Unit with a salary range adjustment; and the reclassification of the incumbent Recreation Specialists to Recreation Manager. Memoran- dum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated June 18, 1990. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar... by Councilmember Wiemans for separate discussion later in the meeting. Proposed Action: To accept the staff recommendation. Motion Essertier, second Sheldon. Motion failed due to the objections of Midstokke, Wiemans, and Mayor Creighton. Action: To refer the recommendation to the Civil Service Board for review and recommendation. Motion Mayor Creighton, second Midstokke. So ordered, noting the objections of Essertier and Sheldon. Recommendation to receive and file report regarding up- grades to the City fire flow system. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated June 12, 1990. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. (a) ORDINANCE NO. 90-1036 - AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION XV TO CHAPTER 2 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE RELATING TO THE BOARD OF PARKING PLACE COMMISSIONERS, AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 84-756. For adoption Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 90-1036. Motion Mayor Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered. (b) ORDINANCE NO. 90-1037 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING DIVISION 4, ARTICLE IV OF CHAPTER 19 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE RELATING TO PARKING FUNDS. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 90-1037. Motion Essertier, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. Items (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i) were discussed at this time but are listed in order for clarity. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None page 4 Minutes 06-26-90 PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. CONSIDERATION OF 1990-1992 BUDGET AND FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, with resolution adopting budget and resolution establishing the appropriation limit for 1990-91. Supplemental letter from Karen M. Freeman, Dispute Resolution Services, dated June 6, 1990. The public hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak in favor of certain budget items were: Laurel Lee Roberts, 1656 Bayview Drive - City Survey Lance Widman, 1015 Fourth Street - Dispute Resolution Max Wade, 548 Manhattan Avenue - Dispute Resolution Ron Troupe, 1810 Stanford - 1736 Family Crisis Center Mike D'Amico, 559 Manhattan Avenue - Dispute Resolution Tom Skinner, South Bay Free Clinic Coming forward to speak in opposition to certain budget items were: Wilma Burt, 152 Seventh Street - Budget increases June Williams, 2065 Manhattan Avenue - City Treasurer pay increase The public hearing was closed. Action: To receive and file Exhibit A: answers to questions/comments from the May 24, 1990 workshop on the operating budget. Motion Sheldon, second Midstokke. So ordered. Action: To receive and file Exhibit B: answers to questions/comments from the June 7, 1990 workshop on capital improvements and Treasurer's recommendations. Motion Sheldon, second Midstokke. So ordered. Action: To receive and file Exhibit C: revised summary of Capital Improvement Projects. Motion Sheldon, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered. Proposed Action: To adopt the resolution approving the budget for the fiscal years 1990-92, with the Community Resources Department budget for Object Code 4201, Social Services/Private, contracts with non-profit oganiza- tions, starting on page 197, revised as follows: 1) South Bay Free Clinic, $3,000; 2) Beach Cities Symphony, $250; 3) South Bay Juvenile Diversion, $3,000 (moved to Police Budget); 4) 1736 Family Crisis Center, $5,000; 5) H.B. Coordinating Council, $1,000; 6) H.B. Little League, $1,000; 7) H.B. Youth Basketball League, $1,000; 8) Project Touch, $1,000; 9) Dispute Resolution Service, $9,000; and 10) H.B. Sister City Organization, $1,000 only after compliance with the City requirements for finan- page 5 Minutes 06-26-90 cial information; with the understanding that any money not used by any organization prior to the close of the fiscal year would revert to the General Fund. Motion Sheldon, second Mayor Creighton. Motion failed, due to the objections of Essertier, Midstokke, and Wiemans. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5376, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEARS 1990-92.", with the Community Resources Depart- ment budget for Object Code 4201, Social Services/ Private, contracts with non-profit organizations, starting on page 197, revised as follows: 1) South Bay Free Clinic, $4,000; 2) Beach Cities Symphony, $250; 3) South Bay Juvenile Diversion, $3,000 (moved to Police Budget); 4) 1736 Family Crisis Center, $5,000; 5) H.B. Coordinating Council, $1,000; 6) H.B. Little League, $1,000; 7) H.B. Youth Basketball League, $1,000; 8) Project Touch, $1,000; 9) Dispute Resolution Service, the decision was held over with the money in reserve, pending further City Council consideration at the July 10, 1990 meeting to allow examination of infor- mation received this evening; and 10) H.B. Sister City Organization, $1,000 only after compliance with the City requirement for finan- cial information; with the understanding that any money not used by any organization prior to the close of the fiscal year would revert to the General Fund. Motion Essertier, second Wiemans. So ordered, noting the objections of Midstokke, citing an unbalanced budget and opposition to the funding of non-profit organiza- tions with taxpayer dollars,; and Wiemans, who concurred with Midstokke's objections. Further Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5377, enti- tled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1990-91." Motion Essertier, second Sheldon. So ordered, noting the objections of Midstokke and Wiemans. A. ADJUSTMENT OF THE COMPENSATION OF THE CITY TREASURER, with resolution for adoption. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5378, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, FIXING THE COMPENSATION TO BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY TREASURER AND PROVIDING A JOB DESCRIPTION FOR SUCH COMPENSATION." page 6 Minutes 06-26-90 Motion Midstokke, second Essertier. So ordered, noting the objection of Sheldon. The Meeting recessed at 9:50 P.M. The Meeting reconvened at 10:04 P.M. 6. REVIEW DELINQUENT REFUSE CHARGES FOR PLACING SAID CHARGES ON THE TAX ROLLS SESSMENT, with resolution for adoption. Building and Safety Director William 19, 1990. CONSIDERATION OF AS A SPECIAL AS - Memorandum from Grove dated June The public hearing was opened. There being no one wishing to speak on this matter, the public hearing was closed. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5379, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE COUNTY ASSESSOR TO INCLUDE DELINQUENT REFUSE BILLS AS A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT TO BE COLLECTED AT THE SAME TIME AND IN THE. SAME MANNER AS COUNTY TAXES." Motion Sheldon, second Wiemans. So ordered. 7. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT RE. HEIGHT OF HEDGES AND FENCES AND ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION, with ordinance for introduction. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated June 18, 1990. Director Schubach responded to Council questions. The public hearing was opened. There being no one wishing to speak on this matter, the public hearing was closed. Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 90-1038. Motion Essertier, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered. Final Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 90-1038, entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 1215 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING REQUIREMENTS FOR FENCES AND HEDGES, AND ELIMINATING CHAPTER 15 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION." Motion Mayor Creighton, second Sheldon. AYES: NOES: MUNICIPAL MATTERS Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton None 8. APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR PRELIMINARY SITE INVESTIGATION FOR RELOCATING THE CITY YARD. Memorandum page 7 Minutes 06-26-90 from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated June 19, 1990. Addressing Council on this matter were: Don Macpherson, of Macpherson Oil, who responded to a Council question stating that he was in favor of the preliminary investigation for both sites. Mary Lou Weiss, 2506 Ardmore Avenue, Hermosa Beach City School Board, who expressed concern about the possibility that the South School site was being considered as a possible relocation site for the City Yard. Proposed Action: To remove the South School site from consideration and reconsider the Self -Storage site. Motion Midstokke. Motion died for lack of a second. Action: To authorize staff to advertise the proposed request for a preliminary site investigation of two potential sites (adjacent to the Community Center, south of Pier and east of Ardmore, and, the South School property) for relocation of the City Yard; and, authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary. Motion Sheldon, second Essertier. So ordered, noting the objection of Midstokke. 9. PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN CLARIFICATION, with ordinance for introduction. Memorandum .from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated June 19 ,1990. Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 90-1039. Motion Essertier, second Sheldon. So ordered Final Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No 90- 1039, entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING, FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES, A PROVISION OF THE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW PRO- CESS AS SET FORTH IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH." Motion Mayor Creighton, second Sheldon. AYES: Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton NOES: None 10. PROPOSED ADOPTION OF PRIORITY LIST OF SCHEDULED AND UN- SCHEDULED STUDIES. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated June 18, 1990. Director Schubach responded to Council Questions. Action: To approve the list of scheduled studies numbers 1 through 6. To approve the unscheduled studies numbers 1 through 10, and number 13; delete numbers 11, page 8 Minutes 06-26-90 12, 14, and 15; and, reconfigure the approved items in sequence by points. Motion Midstokke, second Sheldon. So ordered. 11. REQUEST BY THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION ON THE CITY COUNCIL'S REQUEST FOR THE BOARD TO REVIEW JOB QUALIFICATIONS. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated June 21, 1990. Director Blackwood responded to Council questions Addressing Council on this matter was: Ted Dalton, 529 24th Place, Chairman of the Civil Service Board, who asked for clarification from the Council regarding the scope and timing of the Job Qualification Review. Action: To appoint Mayor Creighton to serve as liaison to the Civil Service Board, as the Board reviews the existing job descriptions within the City to determine if the classifications are still applicable and in line with comparable salary ranges in other cities, noting that the expected time frame would be approximately one year. Motion Midstokke, second Sheldon. So ordered. 12. RECOMMENDATION TO OBTAIN A NEW APPRAISAL ON SOUTH SCHOOL IN ORDER TO PURCHASE FROM THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT.. Memorandum from City Attorney Charles S. Vose dated June 20, 1990. Addressing the Council on this matter was: Mary Lou Weiss, 2506 Ardmore Avenue, Hermosa Beach City School Board, expressed concern about the phrase "eminent domain" in the recommendation. Proposed Action: To authorize staff to obtain bids from qualified appraisers and return to Council with a recommendation for the selection of a specific appraiser to perform an appraisal on the South School site. Motion Midstokke, second Essertier. Motion failed, due to the objections of Essertier, Sheldon, and Mayor Creighton. Proposed Action: To receive and file; put on the agenda for the next meeting; and to reinstate the subcommittee of Mayor Creighton and Councilmember Sheldon to negotiate with the Hermosa Beach City School Board. Motion Sheldon. Motion died for lack of a second. Action: To receive and file for future reference; await a response from the Hermosa Beach City School Board; and schedule for the meeting of July 10, 1990. Motion Mayor Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered. 13. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER page 9 Minutes 06-26-90 (a) Status report on discussions regarding Manhattan Grande project. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. North - craft dated June 21, 1990. An update was presented by City Manager Northcraft, who informed the Council of his meeting that morning with the Manhattan Beach City Manager and Public Works Director. He said the issues identified in his memo are all being addressed by the City of Manhattan Beach, specifically, the two left turns from Artesia onto Pacific Coast Highway, and an agreement to assure Hermosa Beach approval in the work with Caltrans. Also, there was agreement to consider support for ride sharing and transit systems in future budgets. Finally, City Manager Northcraft reported that there was mutual concern for the need to get policy input on projects within either jurisdiction that could have potential impact upon the other, and that a system to assure consultation was in progress. Action: To receive and file. Motion Mayor Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered. 14. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Setting August 8, 1990 at 6:00 p.m. for a public hearing workshop joint session with the Planning Commission for discussion of Housing Element. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated June 19, 1990. Director Schubach responded to Council questions. Action: To schedule a joint public hearing/workshop on August 8, 1990, as recommended by the Planning Commis- sion, changing the hour of the meeting to 7:00 P.M. Motion Mayor Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered. (b) Recommendation to appoint a sub -committee to coordinate the City Manager evaluation per Resolution 89-5328. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dat- ed June 18, 1990. Proposed Action: To appoint a sub -committee composed of Councilmembers Midstokke and Wiemans. Motion Mayor Creighton, second Essertier. Councilmember Midstokke declined. Motion withdrawn. Action: To appoint a sub -committee composed of Councilmember Wiemans and Mayor Creighton. Motion Essertier, second Sheldon. So ordered noting the objections of Midstokke and Mayor Creighton. 15. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: page 10 Minutes 06-26-90 (a) Request by Councilmember Midstokke to discuss appoint- ment of new alternate director to South Bay Sanitation District and Fire Training Authority. Councilmember Midstokke said that due to . essure •m wvr 7 she would not be available for the last two meetings and asked if another alternate should be appointed. Mayor Creighton said that he would be available to attend the last two meetings; therefore, it would not be necessary to appoint a replacement. (b) Request by Mayor Creighton for review of merchandising on private property. Building Director Grove responded to Council questions. Action: Mayor Creighton directed that staff prepare a report, referring the item back to the Planning Commis- sion for reconsideration of its previous determination. CITIZEN COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS - None ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned on Tuesday, June 26, 1990 at the hour of 11:35 P.M., to a Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday, July 10, 1990, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. 4L--:) / 0-(A-/ "& City Cler"k� page 11 Minutes 06-26-90 2 2 2 2 2 .2 3 .3 *3 34, 4 43 44 45 46 47 4. 40 •50 51 v5 511 F I NANCE-SFA340 TIME 15:56:00 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST .FOR 07/10/90 PAGE 0001 DATE 07/05/90 'Gist ! rAY VLNLJUK NAME- ...., ,..../.:-i:- ;.„...:!:,i_VNU 7 •--, .„,ALLUUNI NUML.5..r,y.., - .-!:-,'.,!--.AMUUNI•,,,..,.,.„.,! iNV/HhE YU 14 LHA ..-I1:DESCRiPTION•-•-•?:;>,,...`;.A-,. .•-•,....,-.... AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP..,;.*.:..: t ,,,„ ,, ,, ..?,-":.• DESCRIPTION ..' itl ':'',....r.:.., , 0 •-• DATE ' I NYC f,:1::,..,.,,-, PROJ # ACCOUNT:,. -..:••E .• ,. .f•4..,,,I.t.,gy.,...2„,, ;•?..;;;•:...., • ..:-,: . . - -.,.;• :s.1..‘,,...K.:',•,;.,;.,..',;.,..-:!:....,'...;%:..;-'31.i4:Vii:f,.1.4‘.,6,‘,V,,'Z:1',,;6'.,'•'1"•;'.:,,:. '.......,... • , • ,,.• 2 1 . H MONSOON LAGOON WATER SLIDE 02953 001-400-4601-4308 00323 $375.00 • 11351 33875 SUMMER PROGRAM EXCURSION 07/02/90 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS % $0.00 07/05/90 vENDOR:.TOTALY'********************************.****,*****7,.,i.....i. ..,..., ,,:!3.7_, • ?:.0tO , . .,..,::., .1 , „1, ,', ..i.:i.,..3?!'i.4.7..•*', • ,..; .i.;:',;--',.._ r,',':::--:•::: •-.- :'',*.F'-!.? ;Cc '.;:'...',':', .'!. ,.,,,-; .., ?! ',....:.-r ,.-,...4.7,,:,..,..„.„_..:. ,.,:.„,,,,,.,,,.,:s. :,,:,,. , . ..x,,,,; ,,,,....,6....:„:., .:..:_,,,.z.,:,:.,....::,.,.;,;,,,,..;,c..,,, , ,5p,l: . . . • . , . .., • 4..,..,..N.,:„,.,1.r,,,,,i,:,,,,:k.,,:c.5..., , ,. , , , .„. ; .,:.„ . .,„,,, .. .,.. •• :„ 5 • 7 , • „ p .... ,,,,„•••:,-**., ' ' : .. -..,.: . ) 1 t • H SACRAMENTO INN 00990 001-400-2101-4312 01330 $746.62 HOTEL ADVANCE/W. V I NC ENT' 07/02/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST 11471 33872 :. $0.00 07/05/90 12 13 14 m ,e '*** . • s . . :, , . VENDOR TOTAL *************$**********4*******$******4.******!*4*-4*•-• $7,46:.:412:,,, r. . , - , ,,_ <,.•,,,,,...•-,:e..,,.:;.:;.,,9 17 I: s H TOYS R US 02850 001-400-4601-4308 00324 $63.94 SUMMER PROGRAM SUPPLIES 07/02/902.3 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS .. 11339 33876 $0.00 07/05/90 21 22 r ' 1 .----r'77--;-• ,',..:'' • , . ' , . _ - ' '''' ' ''. - ;''''' '.,. :..:444444;:4;.4....4.......444.....—...4,-*.i."F4.M„,/4., .,ii -...4..:4....?•• ,,,,,.. VENDOR ,TOTAL'***********4k11:1111.*"****”::*******!”11,.””.77,!.:7 11:: -- 7,7•7::,74':', -;.1:t.!gi'.0'..NN'',.. '....'-::1-:•,%'4'.gi'.',1a,. „. ;. '-' - .:: :.'..5-'.:...3:-. ..f.: f1;,:,.' 4,.;,aM:.:!.-• ', , .40.•.::',..'::.:,i .''.':.'..-!.'A.41`":',..;::,!;...'..4.:.i.'4,ft::;,.(,'6.'',',:'.'.';e=iti.tri'*`;'0WOX:r15:,',:k%t;V4iftRT' '' l'.',.':1'..:•i'',.P.'N':'? ., - , , -, , ,,. ''',„„„ , "f.'.', , •:-` ' ',... 25 26 ra , . H OFCR W I LL I AM*VINCENT 02251 001-400-2101-4312 01331 $368.50 PER DIEM ADVANCE 07/02/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST 11470 33873 $0. 00 07/05/90 20 30 31 32 . -'' '''' *4i.,. 4;4.....: -:„.-.......;.*4444.4;4; , 4368,50. **VENDOR rTOTALL**************************4!•11411,4133:,.......„-!11!'„ .')!'..,„„;„..2.3,44,,,,,,,,.,14,,...:;...... ,, ‹,. . „....,.....,. -,.. ,,. 6 „..v.,‘;.'•41., .... • ,. '...- . .i.,..•,...-,-..• ' Vf , ` '••'.-• , ie -3e;' Yir-.: , ' - ',f".: %':. ,•4.....a. '.1'‘i"k4Z:404r,'Wif:."4'el'AgOh•TQW.• ' ' ' --ist''; :'.::;- :- a ''' .k: .... .,, '..,.-..z,.;., ; , •-• 33: *** , PAY CODE TOTAL ****************************************************************** Si,54.06 '1 ,ri. . 37 40 • - ' • :• ': '• ,.,• ' ' "•,t...,.,.''.- .' -.'A.' ''. ', ..:•,?,.'''' ''''' !'' 4.,iiV-r-' ,,'". R2.1::I::::;, • ADAMSON'.:UNIFORM EGU I P.3:MISC CHARGES/JUNE 90. - CORP : ;..,•.,-3E.,$f,,:,.,,,:..,..ic..••.,.:, w0138 .•;,•.Z -,.:;X--: 00174007210174309 i'AVO031... ,..r ''''..-.n.W$251...•. 89.,-,,-. . : -.. 06/30/90:-4,.,„,:.,, •••.. : POLICE,.t'''.'[.'-''-':-t A,:,Ik•.?./MAINTENANCE : MATERIALS ''' ..,:o0cji.,2*,,i1 36,31::..-.a $0 . 00 ••••:!:..:/07 / 05 / 9 c'.:. 4241 *** vEN0oR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $251.89 45 44 47 48 .. •-:**,;.'1'',...'•?"..- ; ''.,i.,. ...;• ' ;' pJOY ELIASON*ALDEN .03469 .0.q%1.0.7300700007.33024M..34526.- .T$18:90n,,.,.EEzr._...9, ' •'.: -.,,.. CITEDAyMENT:REFUNDa7104406/30/9WA OURTRFJNES/PARKINGnW40.09507/05/90..-,,:.':.,a552, 80 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $18. 00 53 54 55 56 '....,. -:'-..,"; ;'• :.• • . . „ ...': ^ •• AMERICAN EAGLE :•:.;:: -: •••'.':5-:.-: ''... 03118 -AZ, 01.-.400.44;!,0il2408,.:i,,.()883ilitQV',.':'''',$325..':60'ik`• : '-.01;' SUMMER EXCURSION/7-22 $...;,. : :"?'. ''''' :. 0 7 / 0 5 /9 01 -k:•:: -.J1 :::"•; •3.:,--; '-:, , • :".. cbmri •RE6:uRcEsV)PROGRAti:-MATERIALS '...,.. •:.,, .. c ....-....,. .• ,-..--.--, • . A.,,,f- .,,,,,'•/ 1354 '•',--,...T.,-,.. 33883 :2.. :..,,,gi?.. --'-:•tr.... $0. 00 :-...:;';107/05/90,,i.,'..,.., 5 9 ' *** VENDOR TOTAL ********************************************************************-• - : $325.00 . 680, 62 63 64 '.f:.;..;?',:',.;.:;'• AMERICAN STYLE FOODSa 00857 7°CI74C97.1y1r/3-64Mrf833 14i.P8$4F .:: . - . ,–V., :.i,..,.t..,f;,:;,,.•44..,,,:4....:I..„.,!,:.4... ....... ,.,, • ' •:;: ,..g.::..' , .'.'':.- - k-fI .'.'. 3.' .,''..-' l.,j::g:.C' ::. '4 " '7 .; ; ,-1°-.,,:: ;„ .-7,,.,.„,:,•,,,,,,,,. ‘;.i.'. ....':..,..'', .• MISC CHARGES/JUNEi90V‘P06/30i10!34ePOLICE*0,MV /PRISONER MAINTENANCEA , 000634:.7,..33884 it $000-A07/05/913Z4.- ee: ea • , • 60 70 71 72 A,••,. „t)'•.. 3 75 e . . ;.; • , ' • . ' • 4 • vo 4 qv • • S • • 177,77.;kriraIr" 2 3 4 a 7 8 9 1 2 21 2 27 28 9 3 32 3 37 38 39 41 42 3 44 43 47 98 49 50 51 5 5 54 55 5 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 15: 56: 00 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH . DEMAND LIST FOR 07/10/90 PAGE 0002 DATE 07/05/90 R i Ari, •, .,. ..;„...,. .:,,, ) . - . # . (.. u tti 11U11-13hh Fiif k'N: ,-,,,,, • -•„: .,. : , Al ;,.. :„.L.M1.IVIN.1t- • Yif UCHF. W 11 DESCRIPTION . ';,:..:1F-1- •;:3,. DATE . I NVC,v ., PROJ tt , .','"ACCOUNT ,-i DESCRIPTION .,....,z,:.:1:.ivi,:c.:,:,,, .-: -, , : AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP • 2, ,` - ...---' J'1, e • . ; -, ; . ' ". ,. . : : <,.1A,...* -'11.,, .- .. ..41....:1,.., `'.` , . , ....,' .. . ' 5 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** - $156.00 6 7 . . .. .. • '' _:. " • ' ' ..'-''Y.'%'-`'''''U',;:":*' . ,1:1.„..j...,',1',;). ..1.;1, '.1.:1';:. ' ••• .' .. APOLLO LEASING COMPANY-. LTD -,:i,-;:-,--,,:::.::-t::;:::2 . 02558 ;;. -.0017.400.-31U4-6900WAU0044:it":"$841..-29 '..'..i'•:; -'*;;;I'''' ' ' ;',...J- . ',6 00066 33885 '''.-:;- 10 LEASE PMT /JULY 1990 ., ' i' ,'• :.. ..!-:!:',4i4R.;!:: l';? -07/01190*:: ''''':,...- ';'' ' ,..t? .TRAFFICiSAFETO:zYhjEASPYMENTS.P.Wil0 , -:'; ,.„:''',. $0.00 07/05/90 13 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $841.29 14 15 16 I. , ; . . . . , 17 , . R : .: : ASPA INSURANCE PLANS :::,...,''.02218i..,.:.,001-400-712124188 ;.f.,..=:'..:,:::,9 I. 7 El 6 3 1".P:Tij,. $76:-46::.:Z'g,? 07505-7050046,A.:00149 .,. 33886 - .• :•`;....,::,.. :: , • -'Y''..... ''' ': • ' 2 CITY HEALTH INS/JUL-AUG L:,004641:;:9 '.. 07/01190:g. ;,.--:', : -,....;. EMP BENEFITS:.'.;,,t/EMP/.0yEE.- BENEFITS $0.00 7: 07/05/90 .. 21 I *** VENDOR TOTAL *************************************************************t*****# $76.66 " 1 • 23 . 24 I . . , .. . ..„..:,,„. •,:., , . ,,.."".,.. .., ,,,,.', ,-. . ',„., 1 - 1..1.:1'< .,::1'4I,..,4 . '..',. ''F/<:Y6.Nr1:1A,1r!4::: '.'1? -r: • 'R PRISCILLA*ATWELL 03462 001=210-000072110q03764Vi$50.0000721 00505 387 256 77 . - • ANIMAL TRAP REFUND .';':"',," .':::::. 00721:.'....,"':.: ::.':.• 06/28/90:.,:: ; .',,'..!-...:'.''..: ... -.;-.4:--„,::--qz.;:'.::,,n4..V74,::',--- X;t:/DEPOSI TS/WORK ..::•GUARANTEE, .,-.,•:"':;:;,-;;;W:,".." $0.00 ,';,....07/95/905:-., 2. 29 55** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** .. ' $50.00 ao 31 32 R : BANC ONE LEASING 99....'.''. AR..02154y0. 0..1-.;: 40.'0'.'7' 42.0.,5-...6...'9.f.'00q0006..,2gei!g4f:,,•p.:0$,04A17,9!,6,,,,, 0,.0054 33888 LEASE PMT/JULY 1990,W $0. 00 07/05/90 ,.A.,.-35 ,6 • 37 *** VENDOR' TOTAL ******************************************************************** $417.96.. • • :: 40 ' • ' ' ' .-.,,-.- - -1 • : :.-, :,. • ' " ' ''"' !- "' .- '''' .. ' ' - ',,:,,,'• ' 41 R BATTERY SPECIALTIES 034200001-400-2101=43074002231$53.21t:v182113z00323 % . 33889 BATTERY 'ADAPTERS/POLICEI.82118.-!.:::':,5'.ik'017/25/90 '''...17.2.'. r .'-1.,'...:.':. POLICE.4tii:',1'J'..-'2;,Y.."4':/RADIOMAINTENANCE.1;.;:.!..ii....' ' . '.f.:.:A '. $0. 00 • 07/05/90 . 45 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $53.21 4.4 45 49 :;;;,-,..1:,;:1,.`••.,!-?.; •,...i-. MAUR I C E*BEAUDET '...'" 'J'...!:`,:',,,L,,,,,:,)„:.V.:.:4;.!:;:..::.2::!:'; 03482 ' ' . ..:t 001-300L00003826;.Vt01208e;;.;:: '...„,pg $45 00 '....:-:..:...f...... i , ::- .-. .. .0 51 -'''''' ..‘:''''''' '.. , • SUMMER PROGRAM REFUND ,-:.• ,.., "' :,','.'`,::( 06/26/90 '''', -, : '. ,..:.''',-.:•,-:,;.-:',.1.4:,-4P-;,, r..:";S,2',.-',.n/REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES'V 'i. ',,,::-i,,- $0.00 : . 07/05/90 52 53 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $45.00 . 54 55 56 3.. '• ' ' . ' • ' ' '.. '."- :.. '''...7.,.Nt'Yti, - z'. - -, 1-...i ,..''...:::.. ' .. • 2.'-'1,1.<,'C -...,j'; ' .. . BECKLEY 'CARDY V ':-!... '':‘::.4i4.:., ,.:',;("-"'',,: ' .,.:00256:-., ',:":, 0017-400-4601-4308 '.. 00325,:W,.''' '.-:'':.', 3501.;"..38 ',.,-yv,,..?;:.A.k ,;253,21.410499 ' ,:.;.: 33891 ;:''''•''''•••5 '' ."':" • SUMMER PROG. - SUPPLIES:',s':..:53424,‘i: : 06/13/90 COMM COMM RESOURCES, /PROGRAM • MATER IALSY,',:Z.:$1.5.:.::, "-,..,::',:..::1,,t,";:VT:$0. 00 .', 07/05/90 .-: 61 62 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** ! $501-1-38 63 " . :,...' . .;:',',:.1'....:-.',..f,...,,I.A..', .. - ..'',;i •,.';'"g':',' '''. -'; ' '', . .•' ?''', . ' ..15-..!,'1V.Z's:•J \ •;;%. '•.-. .•W:W•• ti;'•':' • ':•:•':'''-•*:1 3892'. BELSON 'S MANUFACTURING • CO c.:,:::'':::::'':z44f:i;-t, 03468 '.',."-: "::::.51.001-400-!4 661- ,5 402 ,P.,), 00015 :':!,;;-:•0:,:irN,,;',;.:31: 861:;.;.36,, -)*&;;W 4q7,ttw11315 :,-- 3 '' ,... 1 ' B AR -13-G/C OMM. • RESOURCES 2627473tif":* '06/11/90:,',.i.;,f;.:: '':" :.,:,',-- ":.,,.....,1-1 ,,,,:.,'. COMM RESOURCES.;.,ii't/EGU IP 7MOR E.:',THAN*5cipp. ,:ye,±::4-'4.,,,,,ggov.-. 80 . oo......? , • 07 / 05 /90 -5.•<.:":;. ae • 69 70 . . . 1. ' • .. .‘ .• • • - . , 71 72 73 '' - . - ^ ,,, .,,,, , .., .r., ,, ... .:- 4, ; ' ,?; ''' ,y1 : 11 .,., ; ,.. ...,, ";, .,' ,,,,, 4. ..,;„, r ,;1,, .„; .::, ''''''°141,1g417,1 ''''' „ ; c; '',,,, '''''.4 ''' ''''',..:,',•'•'',.:•: ',•,.; t:1; : '''',. ,.,5- -4- .,, 74 :•!,:,-''',.'.•,. `.';'4....'f.'^;:..1 1....,,,':,,:-...•;,;•:;.. 1).' : , ,,, .1 t .., -.... .1, ';''' '..1t .11'4 '''''. , *.4 t '''' ,,, . '''. 4-z ''' ....I '1 '', -1'.. '‘'.4 ''• ?,. . ''''':' '*'.- '' ',,' ,- ''''' ' ' . .:;1.- :41,' .-, ,...1' 715 ;''.7;:::,-,ils.W.:17;.*'.t,,:::' -%."....-t.C...1,1;;;' :=: ".3. , ;;, " %.. ',., • :"..,' ,,F 'e' ',A ,. , , ...:, ' .... 1. , - .*, „ • - .',-1, 11;1 2 i.. ' 1, "5., ‘. '''' .1 11 .1' '-`,.. 5. 76, 11 efT A-Aiva L 1, 9 4L fjj 4- BL tFatk.- fm 10a 111 13 14 16 17 19 22 • 23 25 25 28 29 31 32 415p 35 012! ao 44 4112 46 47 48 49 50 52 53 54 55 56 F I NANCE-SFA340 TIME 15: 56: 00 CITY OF HERMOSA.BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/10/90 PAGE 0003 DATE 07/05/90 . F14Y VtNUUK Milt. W ...•.ACCOUNT NUMUtfi • IHN.W . . , . AMUUNI . .. INNiffitt VU 4; CHK W • DESCRIPTION '.',.' .„5...."<-.2. '': - ., :,.„ DATE • INVC..1,,' ... PROJ # -:-.. ..: ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION • ,- '''. .::; ' AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP •• • '•:' • • ' i) 2 2 8-19.0 VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** 31, 861. 36 • • 6 • 7 a .... -' R BER IAN PRINTING SERVICE, INC..%',f . 02664 -:..*.-; ..0 • 0-'-1 BUS. CARDS/F. MCPHERSON 06/19/90 ::,- OPERSUPPLIE,:---$0.00 07/05/90-.?.: =. :-.4' 004 1' 014305 0043 ..q$ 42. 7. 0• ." ,-,,:,. 33893 . "1•0 12 , *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $42. 70 13 14 la la ''...•.4'*q•S',7;,':-.. • '•,,, . .,-,,.. ...:.;,,,: .,.,.., . .z. ., ,, , • . R ,- BLICKMAN, INC. - -- ... - •-..:% , -:, .:,:',,-.L.,,,,! 03092 ' ,,,,::-'i•:001-400-4601.-4201 '...''''' 00608 "..::-?4-,! --,.,:•$287. 00 --•,, -, •,',..' ,•-• ':% ..:•;.-.: ::::': 1/327 • . 33894 • • . '';"1: . . . . THEATRE TECH/JUN 3-15.90 .-. :,-....."--c-, :.. 06/18/90!.,:-,-- ',- -.. - •'. • COMM RESOURCES'.:/CONTRACT SERVICE/PR I VATr - :;* ',.. $0. 00 ' 07/05/90 'a • *00 VENDOR TOTAL *************************************************************,****** $287.00 • • 21 22 23 24 • • .;-." • , -•Y ..- • , '. ':•,, . '; ::.:•;:.•,.. ft:.; ;••. ' • : • •::,,., •:•.,- ; , i•,..•• .• •:',.:., • ' ' ;1 , .. R .. '. -.., , THOMAS*B OHL IN -,.,, :-.,,..:.,wz::..,...4-:„.„ .i-i:T 00894 ',:--:•,•k 001-4207240174312 4401332 i'...:y - %-:-. ( -:.,,i $10,92 •,,:,!i: : .' '.1.,,.,,,,-;..,: 11456 _ ,7,-... 3895 - MILEAGE/TRA IN ING, CLASS:3',,t;E•1,:;'",,Wi; "'- 06/18/90 1:-::.-:- -..--, r.;, ,'...•: '.:. POLICE :-"•:. ./TRAVEL7, EXPENSE.,:: POST:..,>' .:,.. $0. 00 - 07 4P 5/ 90i•.:':. 25 2 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $10.92 . 31 32 ,:-...* , • -'.,,., '7,•:',.,:ij;;: - R :•,: , LISA*BOREL ':" •.: • ".',: ..,:i4t,i ...,:.,,:,;,.T.:.:.g'::!..0 03424 '.:'-'',..,z:poi.73007opop-.3822 ?121'sp i;%!',, $25.'00 '''.,,7:..%'':::.::;,%4;&,-ij0. : ' ,, :11348 . • ' A: 33896 ". ':'., • :‘ ...::','":..,- • ' •:':1 ,‘ SUMMER PROGRAM REFUNDl'i, i••::;,•'::.:.:EW f:::5•QP:1::A. 06 /26 /90:i, ;•;::':'%.,,]::•,;!::-2,•%y.ali,'•:,•.;•04%.,''' :':'.*:'''>'•''''''''?•5'1/ CAPROGRAMS/CCASSES.gg4 •:"4,iV.,' $0. 00 /... '; 07/05/90 ': . .. 34 33: , *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $25. 00 37 :: 40 . • ' ' ' ': • : • ::••:::.k,!?• • . • • • • . ''• '' -. ' :: • ':•;;.‘,:7:•'••'ililt.,'•,:•.'1',. , ,',.',1;' • • ' '''E•• • ,;,1 - : .• .:':!%' . • ' . . . .. •,.',,'.,:! F71%:BROOKES ELECTRIC.' ''',- :-4-.y .,*- f.i.00355.--,7.1057-400 -2601 -430900625c,,w,:5,.a$55. 00:, ',,';971700422 :- 33897 •::,--, ,',. : •,:- EMERGENCY ELEC SERV/PIER- 19717i. -'.06/13/90;"*--:,:- -,,:',.-,:,i'- STREETLIGHTINGMAINTENANCE MATERIALS:-..,,,' $0.00 -'07/0b/90 41 .... *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** .. $55. 00 45, '..1 4a ,,.:. _,.. ,,. 3-,.,::,,::... -,..'.',',. '.:: -...-'',(,, . ' - , . . • ..,1 -;,...,,,,...Ft.:,.:..•::. JANET*BROWN :-..•,'. % --:'-- -,- -;,-Fi.i.?,, • ..oz -:.:-:g4.-. 03467 ,',,',,,,.001-300700003826,W,01205::. ''''''. $30. 00. -,7: , • •;,.',:. ,:..,:.•, "z!..„ 11344 33898 • --- •:.••:• •-;4•'•:•'• •'•.'' SUMMER PROGRAM REFUND A' -'-'%•if>,;:':.," ' •": ...." 06/26/90. . '•: • '',', •-•.,-.f'n;:,:t•,'./REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES --.,;.• -.- -:;','..," ' -*-,-,: $0.00 07/05/90 40 r, 5z *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** . $30.00 54 55 55 , . . . , • - • '' '''• • : • ' z:1•-•,';',•11''.,..''..,.;- ... ; .::: ..,-r':;:. „,... : • ' : • .' R - - GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER ,: ,?•4,02016 ••,-.:,.: 0017400-1206-4309 .:,:"`i 00152 :&.,..--.;.,,,.' ',-.- ,:.$8. 49 -7- . • ' • ': I ,1•.:9A.,•••, -,Q••!2. , 00519 -:-.:, . 33899 :....,, .5i6:4, ,,,;,',. i>/k-, , • ,, :•,:'';' -PETTY CASH RE IMB /JUNE 90' ; ': ..:'',."%;r: 06/30/90W .. • . ' :.:':.: :DATA ' PROCESS IND.!MAINTENANCE.i MATERIALS.,.-: :1..,.-." :::..;-',:-:,..;'-' $0. 00 --`, - 07/05/90 • 57 56 .9 GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-2101-4187 0.0367 $17.35 -- 00519 33899 PETTY CASH REIMB/JUNE 90 06/30/90'POLICE /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE $0.00 07/05/90 61 62 63 4.1,;....J., ::,:>. -V., .4. %, ,..• ,..'.,-,:,..', :,?.>.: Ak'''' . - - .,..„.,.., , ,..... • 66 8.7 69 70 71 72 73 76 7)) . •. • , , , • . . • , • • • 4, ,453 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 15:56:00 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • • " DEMAND LIST FOR 07/10/90 • ": • ,.•c% • PAGE 0004 DATE 07/05/90 • . rAY ,.. VENDOR NAmE _ - VND W i ALL laDril NUMBER FE Pi if , - : . ., •; fliT017P71 ; •,, . , ITATTFCU- FU W 1...NK W DESCRIPTION ',4"," ..11',DATEtINVG,,:i:." PROJ # ', ...1ACCOUNTDESC'RIOTION. -"",,,W--% .,; ,-/,'AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP ...,, '.,. R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-2101-4305 01293 $8.84 . 00519 33899 PETTY CASH REIMB/JUNE 90 06/30/90 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 07/05/90 -,.-:-.- - , :1,, • — ., R GARY*BRUTSCH,CITY TREASURER" *, 020160 0"71..,':4' 00L." -" 21; 0t' -4,'," 3• 1. 1.,;'4g,.,,,„,4,,„ 0-, 04' 9 0.5 ,I- 333 0: 2.:1 ":e, 00519 33899PETTY CASH REIMB/JUNE 90 -,K?06/30/90-POLICE ,l^/AUTO $0.00 >:': 07/05/90 ) . , R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-2101-4316 00569 $116.38 00519 33899 PETTY CASH REIMB/JUNE 90 06/30/90 POLICE /TRAINING $0.00 07/05/90 1 . '":'2016-_. 001.4002261-4305 0 . '3 .A GARY*BRUTSCHCITY TREASURER 0 -- '0036 ' $9 7 ' 00519 33899 -- ,, . , PETTY CASH REIMB/JUNE 90 :,----:,.-;!..*:06/30/90Z,ii%,,•....ff,,- ".., FIRE-~,,OFFICEi.OPEW,SUPPLIESA%': 474,„ $0.00y: 07/05/90 , 1 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-4101-4305 0044Q $67.96 00519 33899 PETTY CASH REIMB/JUNE 90 06/30/90 PLANNING ', /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 07/05/90 1 , 1 , R • . ' .-., - ..2...,,., 1::..,".,, :,- GAR Y*BRUTSCH, . CITY TREASURER ,,,z,:-,,, i ',. 02016 : :.1 0 0 1 - 4 0 0 - 4 2 0 2 - 4 3 0 5 li".;' 00494;;;7" 5,1:c: ,t $13. • 34 '`'.:. ::%" , ,,,-g.,,- ,;,00519 ' 33099 -*PETTY CASH REIMB/JUNE 90 - .,-.,...:; 06/30/90A,:: ":"-"I'," PUB WKS,ADMIN %,4,OFFICEOPEO",SVPPLIES ,:, '''- .!' $0.00:" 07/Q5/90 - . . ... z , , R . GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-4204-4309 01681 • $24:82 00519 33899 PETTY CASH REIMB/JUNE 90 06/30/90 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 07/05/90 5 R R .:-..„ , .'. . _,,:.0...;,,, ,_ _ GARY*BRUTSCHi.CITY TREASURER......r,02016'001-40074601,-430800330.$25.:.0.0. ' '%, 00519 ..33899 PETTY CASH REIMB/JUNE 90 '- ,.:Mr0:06/30/90y.A-3:.-COMM'RESOURCES/PROGRAM;MATERIALS .'-', N,,,,. $0.007,07/05/90 GARY*43RUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 110-400-3302-4305 00687 $6.35 00519 33899. PETTY CASH REIMB/JUNE 90 06/30/90 PARKING ENF /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 07/05/90 ) ; .... ?'.'. ..,-.•,:-, GARY*BRUTSCH,-CITY TREASURER 02016 :,:::,',160--40073102-430900494*"." -.;94,.„'"-*1?,, ' 00519. 33899 .:. PETTY CASH REIMB/JUNE 90 •--,*".%:- 06/30/90.Z.,... SEWER/ST-.ORAINMAiNTENANCEIMATERIALS *** vEN6OR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $338.22 R : • BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. '•:,,, ; ..'" :,,.' 00630 2:j;:001 -7400-4201.-4201.:',00381::Z'',","$772.98:,',",.::,, ,,:;234810377 -,:"1;.:, 33900 ; PLAN CHK/ 1344 MANHATTAWft234806/14/90., -.:,, :-., BUILDING*.t/CONTRACTSERVICE/PRIVAT$0.0007/05/90::: R . BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. 00630 001-400-4201-4201 00382 $889.46 2348 10382 33900 PLAN CHECK/1101 VALLEY 2348 06/14/90 BUILDING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT ' $0.00 07/05/90 *** .-:*.g)f,:':- . . : 4 .,. - -. - - • . ' _i--,,;:;:,;,;%,4?-• VENDOR TOTAL.*******************************************************************# 1o266244,,,," 1, : , .:", , : . „, .--:','::::t..,: „:::::-:''-i..."?•c;'.17'.'%-:';:S.:"'" ?..-:,:''''';'i::?"'-r'.'",ff'''.:-"..,if.':'''=.‘-<'''' "C' 'f*_::.",:.:",',7-F4K•j,i*Y-44--0:T: ,!**':-';:A','"4,. '‘ , '''' — -s --,—, ..- R THE*BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS 01269 001-400-1203-4316 00182 $320.00 --. 863-5203 10944 33901 SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL -5203 06/01/90 PERSONNEL /TRAINING .. $0.00 07/05/90 ",:,f.,•.:;;:,., ,,-.. .,;- ' ,:, . • : - ' •",,..''';;;;;-"i."'r^=:'<•, ' ' , , - l• _. ,:-.•' 1•, c , .' ., * - ' . . • .. . . , ,: i. i, , • ..,. ' , '• ; ,' ,,, ' . ', _ '' ,, ' ' '4: '',..t.:0,',.,'''''' 5 , ^; :., C ' f ,,,, ,. ,,: 4.. ' ', ' ' ' , , , '-.::-, ;!;r, ,g ,; ,... *.: - : , - ' . ' c. 5.'' , '4.: ' ' '''''i; c ' :-,; .,. •:, = . ''': ,' ' ^ '' ' ' 1,,,),?,f, , • ..,. 4 .:., ' , ''' ',,,, ' '' ' , . ' ,.,„ ..',.*=; 1;.,,, : ..A. ?! , A•p.,,I 4 .i, ;1., 7,,;eif 5r. < 4' 4 ., i ,, 17 2 25 a 4 5 7 2 3 5 8887 0 2 3 5. Oa 2 2 2 3 3 3 7 00 3 4 14 ' 2 43 4 47 48 49 5 5 F I NANCE-SFA340 TIME 15: 56: 00 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST • FOR 07/10/90 • • PAGE 0005 DATE 07/05/90 VLNUUK NAML ,..,,PAY A. . ..\#4u # -. ALLUUNT NUMULTI,: MIN WE.::y- :.,:; AMUUNT., iNV/HLF YU W t ,',, ., . • DESCRIPTION j',.. : , • • ':-,:-.",•, • ' , , -. . DATE : INVC :', -, PROJ # .,;' AC C OUNTDESCR IP T I ON `,1 :;•,,,.'4-:::, ,,%:. ' : , • AMOUNT UNENC DATE •,. , .. : . • '. . . , ..:2:,. , j:..,. , c ^ ,.,, , • ,... . i :',..; 7 ,!, ' ' .: '' • '''',',.,, ;•'' i ',' , , !.% ,1;.: f:',' , '1'!':;;I.:'%'',:•?,:l..'L''' •,''' "...": ',:'.. LHA W EXP 3 i *** . VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** 3320.00 • • . . 4 5 5 7 , . , . • • , ,,. , ' . ' .... • :. . . • BUSINESS RAD I 0 SYSTEMS.'. .•;,- .:',y..A*."4., 02992 :- i.':•••;:•:::: , 001 .-400-220 i -5402VOOG15Vi:::. 312,, 195., 60 & R-11 2085 06 /25 /90;;'..-••i'.. - - .i - ;", - --. :-.-c-:;- -,:. FIRE -.••-•.4.P:':3-J,...;••q/Ea.UIP-MORE , THAN 3506 -'.' ;',,, - • • '.,,:- : 30.00 : ,.. 33902RADIOS/E-11 - - 07/05/90 .',•, 8 ' ' ) I *** 2 VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** 31,195.60 ' '• 12 13 14 5 2 , s ... : •• s ,' . ,. . , ''' .. .: . '' . ' • . :•;°;K'' '•'' 01- : ,..‘,:'''' '!' '..- .. :.' •„‘.,i',','4,.1:, ,.f1),- ,,; .;•'• ' ',.. '. r. :' ..., R : : — CA LANDSCAPE MA I NTENANCE, .: INC: V -33..',^3,3i.:. 00599 ••:,!p 001740073101-4201 ',....00044:•'',D .,•.''. , 33, :150: 00.3 •••,,. . ,.,,:3:. •3::';f,,,.!.,..::! -,,,..i. !.:•.,- 00061 ,' .'.:';' .: PARKS MA I NT/MAY . 90 •:' , . .3 , -3- :;•;•.,.. . 4:.::,'..,'n••: 05/31 /90F •••••: •'''..: ; : ..- , , ...3!:. , •' MEDI ANS 'i',-;:3,•.'3•,>,.!.••3,,.•'/CONTRACT SERVICE/PR I VAT •::-;;..,;;;,,-:1,-, '• 30.00 33903 07/05/90 is s R CA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE, INC. - 00599 .001-400-6101-4201 oolpb 310,025.62 00061 PARKS MAINT/MAY 90 05/31/90 PARKS , /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 30.00 .• 33903 07/05/90 21 12 23 24 i . , , *** . ... .26 . VENDOR TOTAL **********************41-)!-***************3*************313,•175.62;.'.;:, ,, ., • . : , '. ,-,,...„..:.., „ .„: '...,•-,..•;,- . ,n-- ....5. ;,,, -;,-*.: : ..,',,':::::-. :.•:' ... .--t:::-,:.: ,: : >: . ,;':::Z;;:,:::',' :.: :::,-:',.:::.,:',.,,,•;:,.''F, ". ,r, '.!,-"-:-..;,--',';-:':,iz:.:?:!::,::„ :':'.• .)' -; i .:.,-,. -..:-.':::--,,'.:' ' , - - , - ', * . „, . - ' ,--,'''''"" , 25 227 I , R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 00016 001-400-3101-4303 00099 3542.11 00069 WATER BILLINGS/JUNE 90 06/30/90 MEDIANS /UTILITIES 30.00 • 33904 07/05/90 9 29 30 31 32 ,-. -. , ,' -'',3.• , ',,„... 3. ••......• • - ' ' • • ' • - •';,•,''.;:F3, - '' ..<..V> '.'i4• ',.0. • - ';.'' '''WP; : --4_ -.,,• '''' ,. „,.'-. - ' • . • •,•''; -',: CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE00016 0017400-4204,4303.O03?3W362511.00069V 1 • '• '''.;:,,',_.',1- ,: •••';,•: '1' : ' . .." ,'.,‘:•,:"',... ,-: :. 4',‘:-': WATER B ILL I NG S /JUNE 90 -, •• i'f'5.:.--.;','3,c.. ,, ' 06 / 30 /905:,'4.4..; - :•:;•'',-...."- .3: .; ',...„.• '. p I -DO ',MA I i,IT:50-14-v6.):Ti ii -T 'ES ‘i,:e.•;.7:::*:WW-gf.4',,,,, ''',',. : -:''':-.1!: $0. 00-.'t'.:' •' ' : • • •-' ,.• ' 5.'•.' 33904 •',..4i,ii? 07 /05 / 90 '4•:-',''i.:i "R 34 :: ,R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 00016 001-400-6101-4303 00310 32,403.12 00069 WAITER BILLINGS/JUNE 90 06/30/90 PARKS . /UTILITIES 30.00 33904 07/05/90 37 se se' ,so VENDOR,TOTAL ***********************************4*******44********4*4****4***- 3:570.,34.e'-' ,4,,,?,,•3!..--: --:., ::L.1., 42 4 e R CANADA LIFE . 000.46 -001-400-1212-4188 01788 3928.80 00008 CITY HEALTH INS/JUL 90 07/01/90 EMP BENEFITS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 30.00 33905 07/05/90 5 1, el :-.. VENDOR 'TOTAL ***********************************!*****4*****117.**!3*:#****-!*** ' 392880.-..:'',..,i'..,,.-': ',:........- ,- '', 50 ,, . . R CAREERTRACK, -INC. 00148 110-400-3302-4316 00186 395.00 00220 SEMINAR REG/M. HI TE 07/01/90 PARK I NG ENF /TRAINING 30.00 33906 07/05/90 3 4 86 • , • ; • . • VENDOR TOTAL **********************************##**********34#*****”*****#*****. ,.... L'i. 395299 . • :-. ' • • ',.. i53', : . ,•'.•-•,-,:,••;-,,.;•-•-..,,;•:,,,..;;-i,-,,.•:. .•:i.. ?....=;••.., -.:, : " ...: ',, - ,' -,•:.•••,,,,, :, ,.• ,,,V.,,,-••.:,3•3• :.:...,:0•2,•ii,'„•:s.3?:,',.;, ;:.:::,!q,,. '.,?2,,A - ',.' "%.:.5.,;,::::.'.:1.,q,;,,.. , ',. 1: , ,,. '-. , :, .-,ii): ..;-,? 57 R CERTIFIED OFFICE EQUIPMENT 00389 001-400-1202-4305 00326 313.29 • -- , 2684 00610 MISC. CHARGES/JUNE 90 2684 %06/30/90FINANCE ADMIN /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 30.00 33907 07/05/90 61 62 63 6. .• , ' 65 70 72 . ,. ••• q.' ?:' '.' . ' • •,''':',-:,,,•;.' '‘. ., :' .•:',' ‘,.(' , . ). ''. '.' '7 lt 2. ' - '''' "':::: ',, 2.• ,,,',:' .., '''., .. 7' '',: ''' „ '7',,, , ,., ''' '', . ''''. .i. c ' ' P,7 , , •., , ik: ,., ' 4 1 '-', ,, 2 14 ''k 75 ;,0T-.1111; FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 15:56:00 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/10/90 PAGE 0006 DATE 07/05/90 A 2 3 YHY VtNUUK NAM_ VNU R - :_. ML .UUN I NUI1BtK niN S . APfIIU1V 1 .INV7Ktt YU 14 DESCRIPTION. DATE INVC ,. PROJ 44- ACCOUNT, DESCRIPTION fry AMOUNT UNENC , LHK R DATE EXP 1\ 2 4 5 e R CERTIFIED OFFICE EQUIPMENT 00389 . 001-400-1203-5401 00017 $89.67 . 2623 10937 33907 • 6 CALCULATOR/PERSONNEL 2623 06/14/90 PERSONNEL/EQUIPMENT—LESS THAN $500 $0.00 07/05/90 7 e 7 a - ,' . R ' . CERTIFIED OFFICE EQUIPMENT ..00389'001-400-2101-5401 ?=-00032 . $593, 53 •', • 2651 ';::* 00353 , 33907 • 1O D TYPEWRITER STANDS/POLICE '2651 �•• 06/22/90 _'-.POLICE ; 1. �/EQUIP-LESS THAN'$500, z t .$0.00 07/05/90' " ;Z 10 N 11 *** VENDOR TOTAL *************************amara******************+Fara ****************** $696. 49 14 12 16 IS 1317 14 R CHAMPION CHEVROLET...00014 :,001-400-2101-4311 00902 :$100.00. sY W55692 00612 33908 16 15 ' .. MISC CHARGES/JUNE 90 =";, 55692 ".' -06/30/90 :.• :x: (' -' `:. POLICE$ = ':' ? A O"MAINTENANCE ° ' $0.00 ,4' 07/05/90 :- 19 20 15..21 n *** VENDOR TOTAL**************************************************************.****** $100.00 22 1a 23 24 19 25 20 R CHANDLER'S PV READY MIX 00009 :j 001-400-4204-4309 ?<,01679-.$215.36',.120024104;} 00613 33509 26 21 MISC. CHARGES/JUNE 90 ; ;`24104 '06/30/90 BLDG MAINT;.;'-'• •✓MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00'' 07/Q5/90 27 2e 22 29 23 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** -$215.36 30 ]1 24 32 25 ... . .. .. x ..t ` 33 28 R. CHAPMAN COLLEGE " �= 03026: ? 001-400-4601-420100609 i ' ,%$189.00' � ' : 11349 33910 'H 34 27 THEATRE TECH/JUN 28-29 ? ;' 06/30/90 ' ; ,.COMM RESOURCES './CONTRACT<tiSERVICE/PRIVATE c,'' $0.06 '' 07/05/90 :, ]s 36 2a ]7 212 *** VENDOR. TOTAL******************************************************************** $189.00 30 39 30 , 40 3 1. .. - 41 32 - <:..R COAST GLASS COMPANY ;V 00325., 0017400-4204-4309 `. 01680 .$56 79 ;. -7614 00614 ' MISC. 33911''.4`1 ',-07/05/90-- 33 , CHARGES/JUNE 90 ^ 7614. 06/30/90 ,,2BLDG MAINT , /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS .$0.00 44 34 45 35 *** VENDDR TOTAL******************************************************************** $56.79 46 47 36 46 37 , 49 36 <R - COLICH & SONS - ... a -.02294 w 160-400-8406-4201--•;- 00043 sK .,$40;`347.90'x± f ..: s �',.>� ,�--11138 ' 33912 "'. 5° 39 > SEWER REPAIR SERVICES :=06/30/90„,,,?'f. z: CIP .86-406 "'/CONTRACT°'SERVICE/PR IVAT ` s ;j : $0.00- 07/05/90 02 40 53 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $40,347.90 64 41 65 42 56 . Y • 64] 7 44 4 R ELISA*COLMAN , 02437' 01206 - $45"00� 1222 11329 . ..;,:001—...300-000073826-,; ` SUMMER PROGRAMREFUND 1222 06/18/90 ,.. `/RECPROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 33913 07/05/90 'ee 5 0 46 61 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $45-00 62 47 63 40 64 49 65 50 ;.:..- ,,;: . R .::- COM SYSTEMS, - INC ,` '.: . '-.< ;00017.: x 001-400-2101-4304 ,0059.5 - ' $11 52 �i" .� 374-4625'x; 00675 ,:;. 33914'"" 66 67 51 LONG DISTANCE/PD/JUNE'9O .,4625%+ 06/30/90 x ? POLICE ; rr /:TELEPHONE r ":x za {.; $0.00 .'1."07/05/90 "ae 52 69 53- - - 71 at 72 73 55 a&. 7ar ..ti `i i P'.i.2f r , F • nc 76 - 7,a7 -J J J as 4 5 6 7 9 1 ll 12 1 1 1 1 2 2 24 27 28 g32 36 37 1038 30 40 .41 • 43 45 as 0147 48 40 1950 51 52 53 54 56 55 7 F I NANC E-SFA340 TIME 15: 56: 00 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST . FOR 07/10/90 PAGE 0007 DATE 07/05/90 : .. • . FAY Vt..N1Alli NAL • . ,„ .•, •, . , •. - --;, , ,... •-•,,. .: VNLI R - . _ AL L ULJN I Nl/PILitH 4; IFN Tt ).• : -, . . -.•,-- ---:.•,,AVIUUN I ,-; : ,.YU ;:•,.:..;;•;i:••:.,. .: :. .. DESCRIPTION-;.;,•-•.• DATE .'. INVC ,-'z..:- . , PROJ .*,,•••,--, DESCRIPTION-;•":-IYACCOUNT:::-.,.. iY--:i •-•,;::-.• i',Y. - --: : - . .-., AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP ,, •- • 2 .:'. - , • - • • • - • • ••:• ':',4,.?",:9.;•"'.•!•'.:;;12 .•,;.':::•':,:' .• :•.,:ifY,:••••4':Q••• •i".'• ':•;',.. .. ;T.; • , :;-!'":: ..: ; .•:' . i• :: 'I-. :.:r•:‘,'•7;•..,;4.1k -.:.: ;!. .-- 1, - ,I,i4;14, 1,,, ',.•;4:,,;..:.: „. •:: ;!.?',••;',....;'''''';".:.;;,:''"'.•-.:',-.:;: ••• ':.:•' t-'1:11'.•; 5 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $11. 52 . 6 7 • a ..;1•.....::-.,•.-:;: . -, ,!' :.i.:1' : ' . '' '' :' •• .' *. • .: •': .,•--qg';' ,':..:c'::' ' : ' ':2 ' :. -• ' - '''''•:'; '''' - .''.;:nigagli:,::' " ' -•• -4 '.:4,••••••a:fr::t: ' - . .,'::,-..: COMPUTER BUSINESS COLLEGE-,--. );'',03472.--,.'i'','4:901740071.206T-431600095,n;,.$240P0,.----"g: 214.1:•-.,09516 :..;::: 33915 -g4 m •;;'----,---: '',4 CLASS REG/STURGES/MORGAN Hi23“k2,:06/29/902,:-.'-'-' "-HDATA-TRiiCESSING*RAININGi'riv-4- ' -y •••',,.4:,:,$0.00,':-: 07/05/90" . 12 Is *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $240.00 14 15 I6 ,::,..9.: ••• • .•:'.. ,. ' ' ' '''::Vg - ." ' '',-;•.;'W:7M4- :' ';'-'':•• ' 'i'. ' - - 17 ...,,,-; .• , : ]',.:.•. 5:••••. 7.N*n.;:•)„::'.5..T,.'.,.::`' '-".! :,:.,; : • • ';i;'?, ,- ' 1.' .'' ...'::- R CONTINENTAL COMPUTER 02622,001-40072101-4201005?1As.$2,562.00 a,1050,00361 33916-, •:'13:•1.1: , . '• ', :•,....-:: . • - , POLICE MODEM RENT / F Y90 - ''',,',',,;•;•••:•.1050: .:::',•!,-1:•;': :. '. 06/18 /904:.kiii.' ., '''''...'..,' P 01, I CE:024:3R.;`.•:`,::;'.ifiC/ C ONT R AC T , , SERVICE/PR I VAV:.'.M.-;Y...• -:::•-‘;••,••;::•,:k: : $0. 00 ',;•>'' 07/05/90 ,..•:. 2'. 21 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $2,562.00 u 23 24 `.•-, .9.•,',.,., ' - R : •. DAWN*C 00K ' ..- ' - ' '-',. -',.•• • ''`-- ',-- , -:•4.' '-'-'•'• i•1 -?-7. ••1%.:f • 03489 .- ', '.-*,. 0017400-72101-4312 i‘4:1 ;352 ;;,,,,,:':,:?,--;-,. $330. 00' -.1,..,.. J't,'::, • -;..t‘„':',',',,•,-,i , ,:•,•;:.1. -1::;11460 ••:? • 31917 • : :• MEALS/DISPATCHER CLASS •`!'''..:'.;'i :.,',...i.,>:7;„:',,.:,,',',' 07/01 /90 1 --::.• : • . , • :-.• POLICE --:%-ft:P: ' •,,...,,'•M /TRAVEL- EXPENSE ',•, ...i.' POST: ,,....-; - - .0'".?..•:;.'.;:j •i:• $0.00 -,‘ •, 07405/90 .,,,:•,, :7a 22 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** • $330.00 30 31 32 • : ` ''''. V I K I *C OP ELAND••:.• .'; :•.' : .‘`.•..„'(:,...• 0 0041••:•T •:• 0 o !• 740071 1202-' 3' 16 *';'::•'•il!•'.003• 1•::0.•.%,.Iii?:.'-19'"4,:'$•'1••• 4' .• 0' 0• :,C'"•%:• '••'• '"•`';': :4••'. •:.•;;%..•:,' • ;•..:•'.. 00• 14 7:„..•‘.:. .'r••;.., . ••': 3• 3••• 9: 18,i.:,.,MONTHLY • '••• '.-',`•. ; '.. :i.:- 3643 -, : • •,r•• ,.•:1.- ':...,. ,''.'. • R ••,,'...: , EXPENSE/JUNE 90. ':,•, ...!'q.!., 7.- 'ci',...±. 06/30 /90 ..-:,,•,i,,:" -, :-, • (..::, F ..NANcE,f,..ADm..,p,, .:',. . $0. oo -..,.. 07/05/90..1-i.: 33: .. . . ., . .,.., .. ..,- - . • - . . *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** , $16.00 - •. 39 40 ' " '••'.. • ' :-: • ' • ' ' L: .7..: ::•;.••••:;? ..•-• , ,J;; " '• • ' ,:•::1.i1',?;f1::;.: - - : •..:* ' - P'‘• '.'' ''.§4'.:,.:'•11"..-W1.•!.4i:V; • ::•..- , .:.4, .., „.„.i-,..,..: .:•;,;..:cJ ,:' .. .,,, ""••:-.1., .•: , :CRIMINAL.:JUSTICE:INSTITUTE'sg:- "1:60864:1-.1-„T00174007216143t2X-40116: ''' .."''''".:.$119:-'06„,,,.. x 11466A'.,33919 .-:.,,, 42 -.-' TUITION/L*JAAKOLA.- -,,...'• --(f",-.-.1",_,'-:::',: 07/01/90!::::,.--: :„:24i:.,POLICE,.1/TRAVEL:EXPENSE'1,:,:.:,POST 7: :„,$0..00'-'''-:07/05/90 43 R " CRIMINAL JUSTICE INSTITUTE 00864 001-400-2101-4312 01353 $119.00 11469 33919 46 TUITION/S. HARTT 07/01/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 07/05/90 47 48 • *** , VENDOR , TOTAL' .;,•-•49 • ' ; '., • ::.:, , 1;1: . ' .' *.* **;.,***: *. *.I.,*: *:'.**., **,9.*,.i, *.•,*,.•.** *.. •****•'.:•**'„ *•,, *.•:**: *. *: *' *-:-4 *,,*.*.* **' *4-''*'' *..9 *• c **, *99:' *••••. *.7 **,. ,.,**..-',,,_,*,. *'.: *•. ;•,, *:‘9", ••** •; *• • *9...*"9,•"*'**T,'2*TTi 4.':.'t•T*'gP'•‘'!t,:9:•.';4,,*, ''4.;.' $23 . •98•••%: •••44 ' 0Th''•0?>.;:•,;7:r9•9g••';:9.:1-•;••'.,':. ?•"''' , 1. •• •••; ' , •:• • • '.:: f'•,: ,•;;' •:.,1'•,;,:.. '''• • ' • '^ ' 5501 •:-. ,: .';. ';'• ' ' 52 53 R THE*DAILY BREEZE 00642 001-400-1202-4316 00312 $72.00 00148 33920 54 55 SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL 07/01/90 FINANCE ADMIN /TRAINING $0.00 07/05/90 66 • . • 57 '..k• ,,,,•', . *** VENDOR. . TOTAL , ******************************************************4i.*************i*: $72 00.--'30.*; ' ,•,' '' p- .,..P' '. .:;', ' . '-':1:i'''....'1'• 581 .600 .•:.° ,. .• - • • -:- . .• : •:' • . : • . . ' -. ' .1f, ".!,:,:., .,i ,:=•,; :' .,:- ''..!.: . , ':.•:',..`.-, :. ,.: -,'','...,--',-,:•.., .,.,:.... :t ', -',.., 1 ::.. E. -;;-;,..,:,;,,-,W '4'. ;;;.. "::-,:., c;,,,,;,.,;:::41..,,,<..1,;•;:!:',,, :,;.,...:.,;',.,:i,,;";";,:ki. g.....7,5-.;,_ .;. ;:'........:.:;;,..,:.',..,;.... ,:.' ,;.;,: 60 61 R DAMON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 03393 001-400-8142-4201 00004 $84,593.94 90-822-2 00405 33921 62 63 SIDEWALK REPAIR/PMT 2 822-2 .05/22/90 SIDEWALK REPAIR /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 07/05/90 64 ..•,...-1, ..,,,,,-,...,_•,;•-•,•• ::. f.: ... ,. ' ., • <e - ..- :-...., . , ".. ,.. "' ' '''Ve;:...lg'C''',V,," ' ''''''''V''''''''''''%-''''• . - v 't < :,. , ' -.. • 9. .9. ... ., ' , . '' „. ."•,,,-;:'',;,i:'%, , .,,,.9 if,, •,, •'• „ ' "`" T:"'";• ... ,•., •"'".;..,.,•;,-, .,,,,,,, r' '.. -,..,... ' :•„:„ :,., ,9, 4 ..,:li.m.,,, -,..: -. :€ • . ',:::.W.';'.s.::: 66 69 • 70 : . • . • 72 . . . ' "• • • . ' . , , 73 . , .-9......, ,••'; ., ' . , , • " ,;., j• y'• ''' ;; 9, " • :'" : 9•Z :3 ;•' ' 9` '• ''', 3- '" '11/ :.r '' ' '' ' '''.! , - . . .;-; T1% ::•! ..• 9•, '''' ', .7.4 . ‘:' ''• 9: -: .:: ,. '..''' ':'' ; •'''; ‘9, ,,. ' ,Tf,-77•77-7. 0 44q as, 4# RAP 110 i F I NANCE-SFA340 TIME 15: 56: 00 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • •'t • DEMAND LIST FOR 07/10/90 • " • • • -•• • • PAGE 0008 DATE 07/05/90 VAY VLNUUR NAMh.. VMU W .,FW.A.1.K./r41 MUMULKIIKINI IT .,,,, ', :',,-AMIJAJAI.I.,, .,INWHILF , PU If LHP. W • •. l.. ''- DESCRIPTION :.;,,-.1. %: DATE • INVC,..':;: - PROJ # : ;:.:,";I:f AC COUNr,'DESCk IP T IONik:i.' :•,-"Ali;,?• :-.:i; AMOUNT; UNENC DATE EXP . •• s. . • • ' • • , I.' ;:•:.•.• • • • - ,. •...-,, , ., . •••:..,.., . ,••,;i , ,, , ,,-.: <„ .....,?,,-k._;-•!k:,•:, ,f. T. -.,;.,.,',:i -7.•.?;-,-4 , , . • , • *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $84,593.94 . • 11 7 . R . :: .-: DANIEL FREEMAN - MARINA • HOSPITAL ::yi,..•,,;:','-:: 00047 '•,' :7::•-,:?:: 00 / 7400-.1203-4320 ''f%;,410320k:p!i••1-c".?•`;.:;Z $400...' 00 V4K 8006016270017;h:•10947 •,,: ' - : ANNUAL PHYSICAL/ti . - LINES -0017 i-5%.0. 05/31/90::: ..!.:4;•:.• -, .:•• ;`'.:,;.;;.., PERSONNEL ,N&I,.i.v?...VF;RE•••7EMP L OYMENTkE X AME;;;;114-::iik.:, :1.:::::, -, •.:',..s. $0: 00 , , ` 33922 07/05/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $400.00 .. .- 13 14, 16 ' • ' - • . . .• • • .. . DATA SAFE • : -- • .- • • • ' • 00156 ' ,.: -,:,' , 001-400-1206-4201 ,' :* 00727' %;,„ . '::.;'N'' $153.'00HR:'4,.,...r,,, :- '-`' .4496352 00047" '- :,--::: 33923 ' TAPE STORAGE/JUN 12 -30::,,49635. 06/30/90 •.-', :, DATA.PROCESSINOiCONTRACT:SERVICE/PRIVAT -, $0.00:07/05/90,:.P12: R DATA SAFE 00156 001-400-1206-4201 00729 $26.00 49635 00047 TAPE STORAGE/JUL 1-11 49635 06/20/90 DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 . 33923 07/05/90 21 u 2.3 4 ___-..:*** ' • .... - • , . VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** ,.- $179.00 ..7' .. • -...: - ,'.:-.•2 , ' ''' ' ' . ', • . , ,, :: . . , ' ,, :.- -.,.: .." , .. . :',,,, , '::. :: :,. . . ,•, ... :,' :1. :::...':..74P..4:.:' rAA' `. 2 R DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES 00440 001-400-4202-4305 00495 $10.00 . 00419 PUBLICATIONS/PUB. WORKS 07/01/90 PUB WKS ADMIN /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 33924 07/05/90 2- 31 ,- • *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** ,,i$10.00 ,:,! I,.. ' • -:.'1.: ' .: :•• ' • - '•-• . • : . • .; .: •:.':',''.-,7!•:,';::•:•.' .;": ; ' '••.* • :'-'•". .'-•''',J•J•-::•;: - : - '.- s'.: : . : : :?• • ,', .''• :•••• : '''';',•:-:f•••'i'f''.."-,;: ,:‘:c:::!:,,R;'-:, '',5%:::::' 3 3. 3. R DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 00267 001-400-3104-4251 00043 $863.27 113556 00417 HIGHWAY MAINT/APRIL 90 13556 06/05/90 TRAFFIC SAFETY /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT $0.00 , 33925 07/05/90 3 3 - ;' 1 . , R : : ' DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -,'-''',-,3.' ' 00267 :!: ,'•;:';:::105400=2• 601-4251'4. 00110 ;,•••„*.:..4` ''... ..,.,-':.:.; $863.28 •..:,2:'.:;,- 1, • ;:,.:::%, 113556 00417 .. • .r., :':'• ' HIGHWAY MA INT/APR IL 90. 13s565;:-,.':;06/05/90 V-.• •• : ..--: • . • STREET: L I GHT IN0',./CONTRACT• SER V I C E/GOVT,,' : $0.00 33925 07/05/90 4 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $1,726.55 • • 4 4 , . ., . . R ' . '' ' DICTAPHONE, ". INC . '':":''-', : [•••• --, "- "-;:,, 02855' .'-':••,,,.;!001-400•-2101-42010059i :•g•,•,. •••.,:.• 1:i 248.f 00.•-:.1''-r...'•';•,,'.:P, 51.13024.:' 00371 • .; ' EQUIP MA I NT/FY 90-91.-,,I.. i.•-11302 .'. 4:,;-* 07/01/901:,' • r . -• .....:' -:•: c POLICE a/CONTRAC T. SER V IC E/PR IVAT.f:::,--''d?, 50. oo--: 33926 .,• .- 07/05/90 ' .• 5: „ R DICTAPHONE, INC. • • 02855 001-400-2201-4201 00143 $832.00 P511302 00371 EQUIP MAINT/FY 90-91 11302 07/01/90 FIRE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 33926 07/05/90 54 05 56 *** - . VENDOR TOTAL ********************************************************************r i.(:)80:'00'C,„, • " ' ' ' ' : • ' ' • ' .'"••••'•• " '.-' •z'; ' ' . '' ''.- ' ' ''' ' ' ':',' '':•!:-1---* --* ''. • ': ' ''•-: ,'' ' :',-;::'. .::W: . ' :-'.'-':''''•;T . i'• ' '..s. a'Ni'.A'AX.4.,•''a'4`:"•t,-0.--;,*..-e&g 1Cl,.--,-5',. '';&".•At'-,; - - .' :.'''' • 60 R DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION 00269 001-400-2101-4201 00592 • $832.20 ---• 250821690 00068 COMPUTER MAINT/JUNE 90 21690 .06/08/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 33927 07/05/90 61 62 ea .:, ,. • - - ' - • 2'. ' 68 . • • 69 70 71 72 Z3' ' •:- .1 ?: •,., :...•,:: N ,„ ' ,,,, 73 74 721 79 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 15: 56: 00 1 2 2 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST • FOR 07/10/90 PAGE 0009 DATE 07/05/90 1 • FAY. VLNUUH NAM. .:,.:.., _.... • ,,..., =,.. .f..:„.' VNU 0 • i:;CLUUNI NUMLihti; INN 0.., . .,,.,..:-AMUUNI.:‘,...,-,.. .,1NV/HLF - PU 0. CHIA 0 DESCRIPTION '.:-—.-''- .,,'DATE INV0,'- PROJ #, ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION ,',...,. , .. T AMOUNUNENC DATE EXP '''':': " .*-It'; ':.:•1:•''' ' r,:. ' ''''' ,I. ':''I': ' , , .::, ! , , .. , •:;,_,,,.•,1: ,:., , !,:f,-.., . , , ,..-i .--•:- ,. ., .-•.•.,::: -.-,- .. • • „. , .. . . - . . . 1 iN 2 3 R DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION 00269 001-400-2201-4201 00142 $554.80 250821690 0006e 33927 1 COMPUTER MAINT/JUNE 90 21690 06/08/90 FIRE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 07/05/90 ' 5 a : 4.:,..• • • • , . . . . • ,. : - , .,..:***. VENDOR TOTAL-v*********************************************1***,*4********** $1i387 00., ' 'I, , .,-,,,;;..I, ' • -.! •-• • : ir - .'r Tr,r,. • '.'iI•:-,•;c''..,: ,••,•:',5,..:,:r•, -''-'•W':•''',1,,rW-s ,V,,A::t4 i?c',.', ,-V',-,,,••.`e:z•v.TP:e•ftiti,..iN•;.,N-.4..i...* ., ,..-f !,.,• v.,:;,:;:];•'.;*„. ,,-:- '''-f., ,-- -- •f• ' 9 D i 2 R MRS. JANINE *DOYLE 01338 001-300-0000-3826 01207 $60.00 11330 33928 SUMMER PROGRAM REFUND 06/18/90 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 07/05/90 12 13 14 3 , • , . _ , ..'.''.' . . ,•*** VENDOR TOTAL*****************************************************************,$6000 ''-'„I, ':• :5T.•'•::- • ''• •'5-•''':'"te-- .,,,•‘, ..:'••%.' '•••:,,.;,.''•• ..',1'„.•.;",`. .:. - Ir r'...'.: r' I! •', ;''''';' V: '''r.',. • • •'• ' *. V'••• *...tf:,'4.--:$7,f&••,iA:A,:.•ccs;)-,.j,2..N. 11a7 R DUNN-EDWARDS PAINT CO. 00161 001-400-4204-4309 0168R $99.97 140330141 11186 33929 PAINT/COMM. CENTER 30141 06/01/90 BLDG MAINT ., /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 07/05/90 21 m 5 . , .-1, '. • .. .-,:... .25 li...4:,, DUNN-EDWARDS PAINT CO ,,-;..,4,001610017400-78604-4309001,57,,:,,L ,:$231.65 ..„- „: 140330141 11185 i,,,..,-33929 -: .*:- :: PAINT/COMM CENTER - ,r ': g.;*',2: 30141',Yi''.,,.*:'-:. 06/01 /90: ''--;'-• ,:, :.i,;::' C IP' , (36-60"./MA I NTENANCE MATER IALS .,:, :.: ' -.,,.,„,: 2 . $0.00 .., 07i05/90 ,:,.:F, • 24 I *** 131 VENDOR TOTAL ********************************************************************.. . $331.62 22; 291 so •:''' .. .' ,.. ' ' ..I: :•;.•, • - • • • •-• s : ' ':'::. ''' '•''''4:.,?'i ' ''.i' : .. ' -.'4. -, -_-'.•''' :: . ”" ••,., ' - • 1: , • . -. ... '33 R:-', DYNAMIC GRAPHICS::': ',,it '.' „,u3470:, -,001-400-.4601-4305,00038i$41130 :-,!:.:, .:,,:,:' -,35980,11324 ',.-,, 33930 SUBSCRIPTION/COMM;RES.1g3598006/21/90-:,':,:4y':,::0:COMM'RESOURCESi,YOFFICE:.OPER SUPPLIES. ' ,:„,,,:',:$0. 00' 07/05/90 , . . , 32 ] ) *** ) VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $411.30 , • , .: $ t' , 36 32 40 , , :'• '''•.• ' . •' ' '':'' '•' '::1 ., . It ,',.i, 4„i;;: ',1•.-`r . ,t• .,,.. ' :„ •r,;..:'::„ :2, :,,Z. •.1:Ar4i--.::. :::•r•,.I ":te.. 'r,:,::. . ., l.-:,:-•rr.7,• r':,. ' .''.'•rS';r1.1;,':5‘,,.„,,,-.;r,4,r.,,, 5. -” t•., .. ,,','..i,,rr:_f ?"'.• e , R TERRI*EDISON 02771%001740074601-4315,00u64p..$9500w,.., " ,.,1.1343 ''q- 33931.''' ''•,..4t -;.CPRS DUES/FY, 89 -90:'''!':',!-:.it ' '06/21/90.5 -:'/,':-.COMM RESOURCESMEMBERSHIP ?...:0-1W73..,t,',..' ',,, I , *** 1 VENbOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $95.00 45 ‘:1.; 45 ., , -:•;.::••,,, - .,,..: .r . ., • r , , • ::_. R EL CAMINO COLLEGE ',5,?.,,,, , ' 'i3z*: 01469 . ,f';;':001 -400-2I.01-43127-' 013334V:,'::::ia„$10.00.4;:::*;:-..:;:7092750H:i;p11463 .?,:<' 33932. ,:;7 - TUI T I ON/SAVOY /PELKA ;.:''':''2-50H 06/25/904.":1.,.. :. - ::,..:. -.:,, ; •-:•. POL I CE1;; -;,'?:.',i,ei. TRAVELEXPENSE'',.'-':' POST:::•:?,-,.:-6.:ic:',,,:NZ.M:, $0. 00 '°: 67/05/90 :7 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $10.00 53 54 55 I 66 • • • ' • . '• , -,:'. ELGIN SWEEPER COMPANY 4'.?023547.001740073103 -6900,:.00054.W,rT7$1,7362,78'-:7„*Niv,,, A., 00060 ..-F":;,- '33933' LEASE PMT/JULY:.90,';',4 '-' '.:', 07/01/96,*,,:2:::,,,.T-MAINTENANCE/LEASE,PAYMENTS4M.:4 3, %, • .-$0.00,.-:07/05/90';', w .4** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $1,736.78 • 61 62 33 , 64 •.;:.);,';.:0., V, '' - ' ,'•' • • - • „ ••:,.,,,• • - • . 5„r- R - i.: , P AUL*EN GLE • '• .-:?:;.,:;':-. ' ': , '— ', :`: 4,FI.,• 02380 .::-.4001'.'•:21070000-2/10;;-, 03753)::'.i 51; :575; 00 '.,:;,';...•.!'?;,-j:i• .:.;' ::-!:,:3i,?p4 ' '--ti,• 00515.4' 33934 : ..'..,;1, WORK GUARANTEE' REFUND A . , 95545',.:::''---.6.: 06/28/90 'iaM,.. ,..•-- • .; --, • , *, . ';,?;:.•, 1,-,';;;;,,,-1,., 4ti-;"/DEPOSI TS/WORK ,GUARANTEEMS•:*q,„ ;',`,..;,,.. $0. 00 :'? 07/05/90 51 , - 59 70 71 72 •r ,I•Z , , 1. ''', - , ---' . , s . .1,. • . , - - ,-- --,- ,•:,,W;:-• - . ,.• f„. '`,. "•,;:k,::••:i--,- ...,5.''"•• %WaX . , ' ,r- d t. ..• `:'; '•'•• . .,". ,, . -- ' - ,, „ti.,a.,:,..,-40..,.,.. ,,..., i -,•:2,1 , - • , ..,..„ • ,-,. .:' ,,,, z :„ .'.. 't• ,.:' ' _ •',- :,, - ,',..e ..._ ._ ' •:,. 4- ' <-- 2.- 4 ; ., ! ,, - - , - - 73 34 . 26 3 3 • 3 3 3 4 41 42 43 44 45 4 31 5 55 54 6.56 • : ••• ••` • .; ' • .1.'......................__• F I NANCE-SFA340 TIME 15: 56: 00 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/10/90 PAGE 0010 DATE 07/05/90 --.----FmrvENDDRWATIE. VNU W ALLOUNI TJUMBLK WIN W .. AMUUNI.--, INV/X- YU W LH? R . . DESCRIPTION • ' . : • " DATE INVC PROJ It ACCOUNT . DESCRIPTION :.,- ,:,-;-;:•-,::,,,!.. • AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP , , 2 3 4 R PAUL*ENGLE 02380 001-210-0000-2110 03761 $375.00 . 95545 00512 33934 WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 95545 06/28/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 07/05/90 • 7 a *** . VENDOR TOTAL **********************************************************a:*********, ',A1,- $1. - ' ' .- `; '',' • . • . • to i t , R FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. 01962 105-400-2601-4201 00042 $12.13 4-003-14426 004.16 33935 , DELIVERY SERVICE/PUB WKS 14426 06/12/90 STREET LIGHTING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 07/05/90 :23 " M 16 1 ' R . -.- ' FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. ' . v i •.,, :;:l 01962 - ,',7155-400-2102-4201 '1' ';.; 00063 :::i,t' '.,..:,?.-•,, .:*: $12: 12 ,,;•-•.T.I'n%::' 4-003-14426 00416‘.- ..... . 33935 ' DELIVERY SERV/PUB. WORKS 14426 -...: q 06/12/90 4 : .;. :- . i CROSSING GUARD ''..i!..'/CONTRACT . SERVICE/Pa IVAT ;. ".:;';:.,-."-.;' .:::".: $0.00 07/05/90 :':'' 1 7 i a 20 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $24.25 . , 21 22 23 24 . _ '. R . . , , • ' •• • ' ,...4'.-:• : ‘. • ‘' :'' ,,,':•:'%' ,:' .." ,,. .•'.•:_•,'',. • . il STEVE*F ILLMAN ..-;::.:,..'• -,:.'-',. -',:-.. ' ,.`--- 03169 , ,-- - 001-400-4601-4201 ' ": ' 00607 ';',:,c ' •-•::' .: $300.00 .:,', n'''I. . f * . ';',`, '; ' • :" 11316 33936 ' ' VOLLEYBALL TOURNEY SERV: :, 4:.;.,......,;:':-.., -:i::' 06/11/90 .;:;.;-`',. :.: , .. -,,.. COMM RESOURCES :'.' '/CONTRACT SERVICE/PR IVAT.".:7,::*-A':,::::,:., $0. 00 07/05/90 221 23 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** . $300.00 20 3° 31 32 - , R • . ' ':'..;. • ' .:',.„':..., ; ''. ;-;;:,.' .-'• ;:.;.'-.-C'.. I.', ;', ...e. GARTH*GA INES ,- .7 •:•;,:':- 02822 ,•.r'• 001-400-2101-4312: -.01334 ',-, ,.,'• . • ; ' ',-.ii': $26.00 ..-..i:fM.". - 'j -,_-.n" ' -.- '11450 - 33937 ' : , MILEAGE/TRAINING COURSE .,:. `,''.i - ,:.. f: 06/18/90 :-..-., • ' ' POLICE '',.;'.:.,:.. -, .',;;",-*J: /TRAVELEXPENSE',;:;PYPOST..."-7/:.-: '' ''.. $0. 00 07/05/90 33 34 36 *** _ VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $26.00 33: 4c. R , : ' '..i.:' '''. JOSEPH*GA INES - , ' • 02720 .' 001-400-2101-4312 ':!, 01348 '.:$296.00-4.::::;:;.-,..* :, : ., ...., ',.,..,,'i '11458 : : 33938' '--,.. MEALS/FIREARMS CLASS - 07/01/90 POLICE •:.,- -' . • , >;,',/TRAVEL 'EXPENSE'e POST . -:!.' ::- $0.00 - 07/05/90 41 *** VENISOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $296.00 •5 .6 67 48 .,. . - ,. ,.-..,. ' ;-:• GBH DISTRIBUTING : :: ',:.'.i : :--;: ...,, 02875 ' .;,:;i001-400-2101-43091*003124,.;01;;;;,-.4,,f1,,*, $219:. 334,;.:1,-: -,:,,' 5423/5432 00357 . - . 33939 DISPATCH HEADSET REPAIR ';,; /5432 ..':. l:- 06/27/90 .::-. ' . , .. POLICE'We:-.sf '1,.P,it /MAINTENANCE': MATERIALS so. 00',, 07/05/90 :-: ^ .6 52 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $219.33 53 5,L 55 56 ..',..,. ! , - •-... • : • — !,'''• ' • '''' V•y:P.,,•••V'.' •••"'.:... , :s,.:' ,..:,,,c,t.,V.;:t. ‘,,,,,n e 4. ':'' -,- .;.;,‘,?!:- ' ! , i...; • " • • . , — ,, . ' :.„ R. W. *GILLETT • - 2•..?.. : - ' — ,... 03488 '..;;.. 001-210-0000-72110037514e.>:, , . -.$1, 575.00 :,...:. ,;,....,,.;,.. .--.: - , ,..,,,,,955qoT;A: 00518 ''',.,' 33940 / . ' WORK GUARANTEE REFUND.' .1."''. 95550 .,'-;.,',',::., ,..• 06/28/90g-•". -s ... .".....; :,;....,:',,.::: .':-..,Wt;•. • ci•';',:..:,,;',.,,...V:/0EPOSITS/WORK.GOARANTEL:;:?--3,: $0.00 ;" - 07/05/90 55 .*** VENDOR TOTAL ********************************************************************: ; ' $1,575.00 61 62 63 . ,,, •-. „....., . ' :„: '4'7, :',.....,....,...- ?., ., - - - • .. 2: :' ..itt, - .: i. ,,,, :e.?.::%.0.--.K-r,LA.,v,-.>';:w-jv 't -',.."'a::;;' . : '',. •••• '''''N.: '' •-,---,':4"•:,;.•,;. ..: R 4-°:•. - GOVERNMENT FINANCEOFCRS ASSOC e.i.,-- ,•-• 000591' :7•.,,iiz-, 001.-400-1202-4315:VI'000464,>?,'W*".,,';'$1000.0 • . 0287288::,,A' 00145 :::',.,:,-*. 33941-: ';'-'1.1,' ,:-.,-.7.5=,,,-;".',- ' •.; ''):^.: :,..i.',.i'..r,`::- .,... - -,,, - .: :...: .?-'-:.:',.. "...' '-',•-- . DUES/V. COPELAND ' ' :'' ' : 87288 ''.:•:-,.-i:•.:,' 07/01/90..nz:?li ,'!. '::',- '' '..;,:•,..:V .'FINANCADMIN :;;10/MEMBERSHIP - '' <,•.y.Q,:c;,,',4,,,;,5,... $0. 00 , -: 07/05/90 . 88 . 71 7,1, 72 '•1'..":, 'T ',.. .''''' '4• • ' ' 1: •1,.., 5,;.--' . . , . --,..4 4,..-',. ''' ' ::‘'...'t..;.' ' `'..'''. ' '" ' , 4 .< ..'-1:. ;:'.* .;.:::,‘ • . “ , 7,1 ., ,p.. ..11,..:r,•;::,'44 ''.' •:',',"/ • ' '''' ;.'"e''' --,,, e ',... ',.,—, ''1 ,„ ' , ,,,,,. ,.:-t- , , ,.,• 1 I ?' ''''':';''',;''''...:;n...:': ''' • ' •-,/,'• 1 . c• ".' .. , „ .. ' 761 73 78 • •. idea •;-1- • , • v FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 15:56:00 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/10/90 PAGE 0011 DATE 07/05/90 1 1 5 7 6 6 a - FAY VENDUK NAME VNU it • AU(.UUN I NUMBER _ I HN 0. - - AMUUN I 1NV/HEI- . FU # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT.DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP .... ,\ 2 *** VENDOR TOTAL*********atitttitatatarat*i►attt*atariafitat+tit*********itni►it***x ********+retit***»iri *** $100. 00 4 6 7 R. JEFF*GREENE .. ` 03464 001210-0000-21.10 03760 ': $375.00 95544' 00511 33942 WORK GUARANTEE-REFUND.95544.;06/28/90,' w /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00',07/05/90 • • 10 " 1 i *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $375.00 13 14 15 16 3 s: .. R' . GROSVENOR INN 03132 001-400-2101-4312t,� 01350 $156.96 11465 33943 HOTEL/L. JAAKOLA', 07/01/90 - POLICErt` ":✓TRAVEL,EXPENSE,:( POST .$0.00 : 07/05/90 H 17 16 zo s 6 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $156.96 21 22 23 24 • D , R GROSVENOR INN _ ; .y ,: 03490 001.-40072101-4312,4-� ,01349 ;" $156. 96 G . � .,..`., <. 11468 33944 .;HOTEL/S. HARTT �<07/01/90 ,POLICE;;^1 -.�v•,.°/TRAVEL. EXPENSE ,POST ,,3,...'.$0.00- :07/05/90. Y:r:2• 26 27 2 3 t *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** ' $156.96 2• 30 31 32 S 1 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1101-430400300 :$6.'4 318-0200' 00662 ,: 3394B DIRECT DIAL CHCS/JUNE 90 -0200 06/30/90 _t CITY:.COUNCIL:' /TELEPHONE $0.00 07/05/90 '•3S 34 3. 1 o . R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1101-4304 00301 $9.42 00625 33948 TELE CHARGES/JUNE 90' 06/30/90 CITY COUNCIL /TELEPHONE $0.00 07/05/90 S 37 38 39 .a R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED' 00015 001-400-1121-4304: 00301 =$18 47 31.8-0200100662 33948 '43 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/JUNE 90 -0200 06/30/90 ;,CITY •CLERK : /TELEPHONE is :'• ' $0.00 ^':•07/05/90 r 43 R " GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1121-4304 00302 $26.67 00625 33948 TELE CHARGES/JUNE 90 06/30/90 CITY CLERK /TELEPHONE $0.00 07/05/90 45 46 478 4 ..< _:.. R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED, 00015 001-400 1131-4304:" 00224 ' $9 23. 318-P200rt'00662 33948 .DIRECT DIAL CHGS/JUNE 90,70200j 06/30/90' ;' CITY.,`ATTORNEY. r +.* /TELEPHONE $0. 00.1 y07/05/90-- 40 50 51 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1131-4304 00225 $14.54 00625 33948 TELE CHARGES/JUNE 90 06/30/90 CITY ATTORNEY /TELEPHONE $0.00 07/05/90 53 D4 555 6 R 'GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED :00015 001.,400-1141-4304.1-00324 $13,.85 318-0200.! 00662 • 33948' DIRECT DIAL CHGS/JUNE_90 -0200 ;06/30/90 %";CITY TREASURER /TELEPHONE. $0.00 07/05/90, 57 58 eo R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1141-4304 00325 $23.21.- 00625 33948 TELE CHARGES/JUNE 90 '.06/30/90 CITY TREASURER /TELEPHONE $0.00 07/05/90 61 62 6J 65 * 's :k 'tD < 3 y;:.: I g. .rs x '?d E ?E�?' ..'` - i " -: xrx ,, t bg .. .. .., k .. .. A'` <. y. .. �k,"te �.s" • .."4 ° ,.. .. ., f. { ."9i..-3€ l .. 3, i4 < k, 05 66 67 68 6• 70 71 72 .k a 'cii' 4 �' s: L. tlxt .. ..T '< t Ff' 3 -.}.- ttu„ 2, \ n w.. gyp. $- .. wok: x h„ xE ;4 •-. / l �, r 'i•'w Yx f ...3 :4 v .'>. >:. ....: .r. . is .:' t i . "C' [ :... "as' ? § 3 Y•^ �" v`' �' M..£ C C=' t�:. ..d... y 2 .<5, Sir d { ?, S;. .L` 4 .. . s "4 ,.• . ... , f..., ,. < ...z=.'G. .1�.:-s- r.. c� :.F` L:> ..C" : r ,z 4 . 9• ,: s,," >1 pi^, � �:^ r ,.tT'} ,.5 _ v"'i zn. •'•4 k- -j. >s ¢Z ..._�'' `% > r r y.: 73 74 75 rt 2 '2 y2 2 2 2 3 _1.35 3 37 1341 14_14 43 45 46 4047 4144 4 4 SC 5, 5 5 S 5 5 .,r ..I 441 L 4J 4.40 dJ 441 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 15:56:00 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/10/90 PAGE 0012 DATE 07/05/90 J FAY VENUUH NAME DESCRIPTION VNIJ # A(.LUUNr NUM14EH • 1HN If -- ,. • : AMUUNI,:x.. :.: 1NV/HE- FU # CHK # DATE INVC . PROJ # ACCOUNT; DESCRIPTION,� AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 1N 2 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED DIRECT DIAL CHGS/JUNE 90 —0200 00015 001-400-1201-4304 00344 $15.70 06/30/90 CITY MANAGER /TELEPHONE 318-0200 00662 33948 $0.00 07/05/90 e 6 7 R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED. TELE CHARGES/JUNE 90 00015 001-400-1201-4304-00345,, $24 31 06/30/90 `' CITY MANAGER %TELEPHONE H 00625 33948 rn $0.00 07/05/90 r 1O 12 12 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED DIRECT DIAL CHGS/JUNE 90 —0200 00015 001-400-1202-4304 00349 $59.10 06/30/90 FINANCE ADMIN /TELEPHONE 318-0200 00662 33948 $0.00 07/05/90 13 'a i6 R : GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED > TELE CHARGES/JUNE 90 . . • ' . 00015 r; 001-400-1202-4304-00350 .-'$85 67 06/30/90 .. • FINANCE, ADMIN •/TELEPHONE 0062533948 • s : $0.00' 07/05/90 .. 17 1° 19 20 R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED FAX BILLING/JUNE 90 —6186 00015 001-400-1202-4304 00351 $4.29 06/30/90 FINANCE ADMIN, /TELEPHONE 372-6186 00669 . 33948 $0.00 07/05/90 21 u 23 za 24 . R• • GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED DIRECT DIAL CHGS/JUNE 90 —0200 00015 001-400-1203-4304 ".00356 .$22,16 06/30/90. , PERSONNEL,...=/TELEPHONE 318-0200`:00662 3344826 :$0.00 -':07/D5/90 25 2e R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/JUNE 90 00015 001-400-1203-4304 00357 $52.50 06/30/90 PERSONNEL /TELEPHONE 00625 33948 $0.00 07/05/90 20 3O 31 3z R ' GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED'. FAX BILLING/JUNE .90 —6186 ... 00015 001-400-1203-4304.' 00358 $1 49 :+:'06/30/90 .;- . .. -_%' PERSONNEL EP •' <LTELHONE �, ,.' .. ' 372-6186;;.00669 33948 . $0.00 .; 07/05/90.- : 33 34 3e GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED DIRECT DIAL CHGS/JUNE 90 —0200 00015 001-400-1206-4304 00238 $27.70 06/30/90 DATA PROCESSING /TELEPHONE 318-0200 00662 33948 $0.00 07/05/90 37 '8 '° ao R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED ' TELE CHARGES/JUNE 90 • 4 00015: T:,::001-400-1206-4364 •°'00239 y.,,./$278:? '00625 .06/30/90.' -.DATA PROCESSING/TELEPHONE �Y•$0,00 33948 Y Y .07/05/90., 41 4 2 as R "GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED FAX BILLING/JUNE 90 —6186 ' 00015 .001-400-1206-4304 00240 $1.20 06/30/90 DATA PROCESSING /TELEPHONE 372-6186 00669 33948 $0.00 07/05/90 45 ,us 47 ab R s• GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED:. DIRECT DIAL CHGS/JUNE 90 —0200 . 00015' _001 400-1207-4304 001982 $18:s48 i' 06/30/90 '. BUS LICENSE;:: ;,_;/TELEPHONE ,$0.00',>- 318-0200 00662 33948 07/05/90 SO 61 52 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/JUNE 90 00015 001-400-1207-4304 00199 $29.79 06/30/90 BUS LICENSE /TELEPHONE 00625 33948 $0.00 07/05/90 53 °` 0 ° 6 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 'r DIRECT DIAL CHGS/JUNE 90 —0200 00015 0017400-1208-4304- 00066 $ %$9 23°s� „06/30/909:' . GEN APPROP ^s /TELEPHONE ` s 318-0200 00662 33948 •s° -r" $0.00 07/05/90 .A 57 eo R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/JUNE 90 00015 001-400-1208-4304 00067 $12.46 --- '06/30/90 GEN APPROP /TELEPHONE :• 00625 33948 $0.00 07/05/90 e1 62 e3 ea ..,' ,. ,:a,`> ,q, .-,- r .... •. , . '..�_' ... .. . „ :' . :''. 'Y 3 .�:-•:.4+, -', .t. _A r4x, �3 y g44r.::-{„'.�3 'is iidA: q %..'..: :.^ '•' .e•i 3 .,Y• i \ `=, R 65 '°e e7 ea 69 70 71 72 ..: . - t .b' .:, .. . K � s f -r; �, .. ` Cf .w d'. i .m i. - .:. S. ,.� ., ..r :£._ ,y •lei.: 1. y'_ 'i3 A z -,.1'., r v.. 3 5 G 'r x< r rtV F '...< d' y 5 C 9 i litF -: fi. �i i 3..b t <3 k <y ..<i:t, r, 4 .< . rte' T. "�' � i�. .{•�. -x ' �• 4 'a ✓•s _.k" � >LF:� .. .. .i,Y .n � £.. ,.. ,, � ),. • 73 7a 7° 7p J 114. 3 4 10 25 Ti27 28 2B IL, 31 32 33 41.7f 37 �3e 12! ao 41 2 u 5 46 50a7ae 4B illSO 51 5z 54 55 8101: 7 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 15:56:00 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/10/90 PAGE 0013 DATE 07/05/90 E a J a e 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 J 16 17 le 1a JS 20 2, 22 2.3 Ia 24 J 2 3, J 3 3. J 3 3• J 4, 4 .' 4 4 51 52 53 e 65 1140 56 e7 5 59 60 61 62 64 66 67 ILO 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 10 7 FAY VtrIDDR NANt VND 8 ACLUUNI NUNHtK IKN 0 APIUUNI DESCRIPTION ... „ :: < DATE INVC PROJ # ., ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION /NV/Fitt- FU 0 LH', $ AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-2101-4304 00590 $356.00 318-0200 00662 33948 DIRECT DIAL CHCS/JUNE 90 -0200 06/30/90 POLICE /TELEPHONE 30.00 07/05/90 R .• GTE CALIFORNIA,INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-2101-4304.° 00591 '$1,572.21.. 00625. 33948 TELE CHARGES/JUNE 90 • : .:06/30/90 '`. ' POLICE,., '',/TELEPHONE'' . $0. 00 07/05/90 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-2201-4304 00264 $9.23 318-0200 00662 33948 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/JUNE 90 -0200 06/30/90 FIRE /TELEPHONE .$0.00 07/05/90 R .. GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-2201-4304 00265 $253:72 00625 ' 33948 • TELE CHARGES/JUNE 90 06/30/90 2 FIRE :; /TELEPHONE ., e.. . $0.00 .`. 07/05/90 . R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-2401-4304 00308 $13.85 318-0200 00662 33948 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/JUNE 90 -0200 06/30/90 ANIMAL CONTROL,. /TELEPHONE $0.00 07/05/90 R.. GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED,,.00015 001-400-2401-4304;\',00309 335 60• 00625 . 33948 ,:TELE CHARGES/JUNE 90 .;'06/30/90:ANIMAL, CONTROL?</TELEPHONE {a z 40.00-07/05/90 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4101-4304 00351 $46.17 318-0200 00662 33948 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/JUNE 90 -0200 06/30/90 PLANNING /TELEPHONE $0.00 07/05/90 • R .. GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4101-430400352 - $81,42. 00625 . 33948 TELE CHARGES/JUNE 90 : °.- 06/30/90 -'`:... PLANNING ./TELEPHONE $0.00 0.7/05/90 . R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4101-4304 00353 $17.63 372-6186 00669 33948 FAX BILLING/JUNE 90 -6186 06/30/90 PLANNING /TELEPHONE $0.00 07/05/90 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED. 00015 001-400-4201-4304 00333 ' $73.88. 318-0200 <00662 33948 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/JUNE 90 -0200 .. :.' 06/30/90 -'. BUILDING •. ,. 3,-1/TELEPHONE . . $0.00 07/05/90 R " GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 .001-400-4201-4304 00334 $179.23 00625 33948 TELE CHARGES/JUNE 90 06/30/90 BUILDING /TELEPHONE $0.00 07/05/90 , R . :° GTE CALIFORNIA,, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400 4201-4304 00335 2- ,345 ; 372-6186: 0066933948 - FAX BILLING/JUNE-90 .• -6186 = 06/30/90 • .BUILDING ; :..,,;'/TELEPHONE - • $0.00. .07/05/90 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4202-4304 00356 $93.27 318-0200 00662 33948 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/JUNE 90 -0200 06/30/90 PUB WKS ADMIN /TELEPHONE $0.00 07/05/90 y;eH; R g GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4202-4304'00357 >$282 54"Y -00625 . 33948 -TELE CHARGES/JUNE 90 •-:: •_ - : 06/30/90 .'•' -',' .:*-:PUB : WKS .'ADMIN. t ?/TELEPHONE :: $O. 00 .'- 07/05/90 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4202-4304 00358 • 37.37 372-6186 00669 33948 30/90 PUB WKS AD X HILLI JUNE 90 -6186 O6 FAX MIN /TELEPHONE NG// $0.00 07/05/90 C / ... sx ` . k Gt 1.> 9+` S Ei e. \ S ,%.r Jia.,' .. .. ,: � •Z �.tns ,; ': is 1 i � " ` ZED, .� 3... ..x'15': '•1 : £ �:":6 S ;.. ': k 0:- § :,...,:. .:: ...:,� . >.. .:.:.. .... ,.. .. YS^:. •(' £ :w:..,, �. .r Y, r: s., cr ...'._ . 1. Y..Y. SR t.- i, ,£..af. i "X.:.1 516.,... it .. 2'Y...� t� ¢ F . ,">^ d p+i't vks /..V i5 d"f' 3Lb a 2 ¢.h Fk. 7w ' y� nM •2. .5s¢;.3: -uL„, ,1 :. . �' v, .h„ x M> <.•y,. a•',r � i'. E a J a e 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 J 16 17 le 1a JS 20 2, 22 2.3 Ia 24 J 2 3, J 3 3. J 3 3• J 4, 4 .' 4 4 51 52 53 e 65 1140 56 e7 5 59 60 61 62 64 66 67 ILO 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 10 7 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 15:56:00 2 0 0 II 12 3 14 '5 1 SI CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/10/90 PAGE 0014 DATE 07/05/90' -7-17ATVENDUN NAMt , . .. • DESCRIPTION • %'. ' , '•-•:: :: :3.:!:., , - vNu n - ALLUg, ,11 c - , .-,,,y*MUUNI JNV!Htl- . VU 1 ' .:. DATE INVC .;-; PROJ # .., .,.%::-: ACCOUNT', DESCRIPTION .••k, -i,..;.,,. ' . AMOUNT • UNENC • -: ••.,;' .. . • :- 1 • , ..' ; :'''tf:q.:Z:- LHP 4 DATE EXP ' . iN 2 4 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/JUNE 90 00015 001-400-4204-4321 00515 $22.06. 06/30/90 BLDG MAINT /BUILDING SAFETY/SECURIT 00625 $0.00 33948 07/05/90 5 el 7 a R .. GTE CALIFORNIA INCORPORATED DIRECT DIAL CHGS/JUNE 90 -0200 • :,..;: 00015 ::-.:001.-400-4601-4304004061 :,',':?.$18:4 '''; „, -:;':312-0200.: Z06/30/90 %-,„..COMM RESOURCES/TELEPHONE •'-•,•,:, .. 00662 33948 : .$0.00,, 07/05/90 9 1° R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/JUNE 90 00015 001-400-4601-4304 00407 $209.30 06/30/90 COMM RESOURCES /TELEPHONE $0.00 33948 07/05/90 13 14 " le R . - - . ' :".• ' GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED .. -- 00015 .2. 0017400-4601-4304 i" :' 00409 :;;.-:'- .-!':.?? 345 :' ,,„ ' i 372-6186 ;' FAX BILLING/JUNE 90 -6186.-:06/30/90..', -: ' COMM RESOURCES /TELEPHONE ,;. ..,:•-,.::::,-_. 00669 $0.00 , 33948 07/05/90 17 10 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED DIRECT DIAL CHGS/JUNE 90 -0200 00015 001-400-6101-4304 00239 $9.23 318-0200 06/30/90 PARKS ' /TELEPHONE 00662 $0.00 33948 07/05/90 21 22 2_3 24 . R GTE CALIFORNIA , INCORPORATED :. TELE CHARGES/JUNE 90 ' -y. .,':. ;:,'2: -, 00015 : 001-400-6101-4304 .00240 ).` .' ; v, $12.', 467, ,, I ,:-' , ., , , .-..-: 06/30/90,-,..,::- -,-. :-,. PARKS -P,Ii,•-2:. /TELEPHONEA '" ;'' :;i: 00625 = $0. 00 ;; 34948 , 07405/90 • -- 2. R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/JUNE 90 00015 110-400-3301-4304 00139 $10:00 06/30/90 VEH PKG DIST /TELEPHONE 00625 $0.00 33948 07/05/90 29 3° 31 32 R • ,• .`. GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 ,.;1:110-400-3302-4304Z 00350 3107 12 ...- 31e-0200 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/JUNE 90 -0200-06/30/90.,:. i,.: : i:r.• PARKING ENF,....-.-*/TELEOHONE ,:-:7• , 00662 -', 33948 $0.00 f. 07/05/90 33 34 R . • GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/JUNE 90 00015 110-400-3302-4304 00351 $233.44 . 06/30/90 PARKING ENF /TELEPHONE 00625 $0.00 33948 07/05/90 37 38 30 40 Ft : •41 . GTE CALIFORNIA,' INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/JUNE 90, .- ' , ., -;,00015. .* 1457400-3401-4304 ,00062,,, ..:$4`..:1 '' ' '.: ,', ''-06/30/90.- ',. :., DIAL A RIDE -:".::i,:)/TELEPHONE;012 '• ,., , , 00625 :,'..:'.33948 -',:, . ..,.. $0.00 :,..-: 07/05/90 42 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** 34,420.80 45 46 47 48 ; ..., ., . • R , GTEL .• MAINT CHARGES/FY 89-90.-- • •49. •, . -. • • 01340 001-400-1101-4304. -00299-$35;04. ', , „, t ' 1:)6/30/90.:. : .,..: CITY COUNCILTELEPHONE-4 "::, -,:. -a, 00141 ''', $0.00 .- 33950 -...„7 07/05/90-. r 62 R GTEL MAINT CHARGES/FY 89-90 01340 001-400-1121-4304 00300 $100.09 06/30/90 CITY CLERK /TELEPHONE 00141 $0.00 33950 07/05/90 53 54 55 66 • . . R , • . GTEL •". , ,,,' ' ' • - .'":";f -)0%•'.W „. MA INT CHARGES/FY :89-96! Y.;1;14•5:-.,.:-' , .. . .:.,. 01340 ' . 001-400-1131-4304 ' --' 00223 2i),•" -„f•',• ' - -: 350.p5,_. , „. 06/30/90' %:•• - - ' • • , ..-: ,- CITY ATTORNEY • •;g;•/TELEPHONE K,:,A 'Dt:,V1 '' , - ''..: . 00141 ::,','. $ 0 • 00 :.: ' 33950 . , . 07/05/90 57 R GTEL MAINT CHARGES/FY 89-90 01340 001-400-1141-4304 ' 00323 $75.08 .. '.06/30/90 CITY TREASURER /TELEPHONE . 00141 $0.00 33950 07/05/90 01 02 63 ,64 -, . .•,. . :,-,' _,,,,, ',- , , ."7'.::- , .::' "- ' # ' .'', 4, - 55 • ,,, 65 „,„ 69 70 71 72 4.•••''. • • '.7- ' ,•'•'''- %.*:.'.. . .. ' ' ' ' , : ,'.1,:,..,. • ' S.. .; •-',- . , , ,.1'', '5S''' .'" ,,,- -'' .. 55 i '..' 4 " , • ' . ..V '.,- ,' ''• ' ', *Vgiv „; ,,' , :'• i ;:, '' ,, - • ' '''',;'a..' ''': 7734 n 20 21 2 2 25 26 7 2 20 30 31 32 33 6 37 38 30 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 -.,- 47 48 40 5 51 5 • 53 54 55 .."; 56 gar .7) .1x 44. s %•- \l• 1 15.1. F I NANCE-SFA340 TIME 15: 56: 00 CITY OF HERMOSA 'BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/10/90 PAGE 0015 DATE 07/05/90 FAY VENULMI NAPE z Vivi) It ALLUUNI NUMUltli . IKN # AMUUNI INV/HLP PU * LHK # DESCRIPTION • _. • , DATE INVC PROJ # .-ACCOUNLDESCRIPTION .. , AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP :-..: ..,,.., ,.., . . • 1 R GTEL 01340 001-400-1201-4304 00343 385.09 . 00141 33950 MAINT , CHARGES/FY 89-90 06/30/90 CITY MANAGER /TELEPHONE 30.00 07/05/90 :-.: 01340 ' ' Tf.- 001740074202-4304' '.,.:- 00348 ./.-. -..'.'•••:. s,.: 3320:-32-21],::.. -."..,,.i'I-'-,.' -,A 00141 . 33950 , . , , MAINT CHARGES/FY 89-90 7-"; . 06/30/90 -,:.- . '. - , ' ' F INANCE ADM IN AZiTELEPHONE ',1,..- :,',.-:::--,:,!,, - '-,-:', - ' 30.00 07/05/90 , R GTEL 01340 001-400-1203-4304 00355 3120.12 00141 33950 MAINT e CHARGES/FY 89-90 06/30/90 PERSONNEL /TELEPHONE 30.00 07/05/90 . ,, 5 R • : GTEL • - ::. . • . .,,,-.,..„:.:,:; 01340 .:. :,.,-;-!.001-400-1206-4304 -'. 00237 ,','',-• !.- ' C,;:, 3150.'15 •.:',,:::,.- , 00141 - , 33950 .. :•,,, - , MAINT CHARGES/FY 89-90. ,--s.::, -.y,...,.. ::.i', 06/30/90 • : ,,,,: ..1 • ...'. :. DATA PROCESSING.;:/TELEPHONE :..--,,.;:,..i,.,., 30.00 - 07/05/9O: R GTEL 01340 001-400-1207-4304 00197 3100.09 00141 33950 ) MAINT CHARGES/FY 89-90 06/30/90 BUS LICENSE ' /TELEPHONE 30.00 07/05/90 • R GTEL, . ,.,,-. • . -.- t• ",..'- 01340 : ..; 001-400:1208-4304 ,-; -,. 00065j -;:T.- ......,,-. ,, ':". 350. OP i:A- ';,,:f!. ,.., ., 00141 ..,,.:: 33950 ' '::-', 1 --- MA INT CHARGES/FY 89-90 :,.:,.,,.: ,:*:•.-: •,,,J;; „'; 06/30/90 .: -,:' , : ,•.''s GEN APPROP „ • .:"..1., !...;*-/TELEPHONE ..!..::::',:: ..,...:::A..,,.: •,,,; .,. ..... • 30.00 : 07'e.05/90 R GTEL . 01340 001-400-2101-4304 00589 31, .906.91 00141 33950 MAINT CHARGES/FY 89-90 06/30/90 POLICE /TELEPHONE 30.00 07/05/90 R , :- , ..:.: .,'.. ,. :. .... GTEL • ,,::,: . , ,..,„ .....,, 01340 - • 001-400-2101-4304,..A4 00592 ,?,,'.:,•:- -.,-:.‘, 3538.38 q-,1-:,:2233224/38671 00210 :- :.. 33950 •.'•:,,, :- SETUP SOUTH SCHOOL .,S I TE -, , 38671, Z4', 06/25/90 ,:,,;•!-:::. :,. .'' ..! • POLICE-V;=',.,,.:4,:v•4•ifTELEPHONE..., ., . - '.-.'-:, •':, - '- •'.. 30.00 . 07/05/90: . R GTEL 01340 001-400-2101-4304 00593 3102.38 00626 33950 EQUIPMENT RENT/JUNE 90 06/01/90 POLICE /TELEPHONE 30.00 07/05/90 . -1...„-.-: R - GTEL . ' . ..:' •'.'7%.-:: ,.„., • 01340 . ,'-. 001-400-2201-4304,,.0026-y,,!-.',:.;,-..:,- 350 ps ...:,.-::,._,,-,:,,!,.. ... 00141 ,.:, - 33950 • MA INT CHARGES/FY .89-90 ;:-,f-e,.;:- ', f.-- .... 06/30/90 --:-... ' - ....', • FIRE -?:':,',..1,":?" ,,::TELEPHONE C -';'','':.,',',,,-,`,..6::','';',..-e,, ,-; • 30.00 -.• : 07/05/90 '. R ,-. GTEL 01340 . 001-400-2201-4304 00266 3101.77 00626 33950 ' EQUIPMENT RENT/JUNE 90 06/01/90 FIRE /TELEPHONE 30.00 07/05/90 ' : ;:::: GTEL • . - : ;.• ' `-• "•' . "1`117,', ::,..:4',' .,,:':;,',..: 01340 : : .-' 001-400-72401-43041'; :- 00307:4?-:!.,- - .... 375.. 08 ::!,f:--,::,.. ,,, ,';;-‘ '. 00141 ' :,.•-: ... 33950 ,,.. • -., , MAINT CHARGES/FY, 89-90 '''..i.,:-..,-,'': - ;;-'.: 06/30/90;- : . .CONTROL-/TELEPHONE,M:...:.-.:,H- r,„:,...,,,,,,T ,,-,,..., 1.0. 00 :07/05/90 -.. R GTEL 01340 001-400-4101-4304 00350 3250.25 00141 33950 MAINT CHARGES/FY 89-90 06/30/90 PLANNING /TELEPHONE 30.00 07/05/90 , .,:,•: • -,,,... ,..,H,. _ R ;,:, , , GTEL . - . . • .•:::,.., i: 01340 , ::Z.,',0017-400-74201-4304 ..?...90p3?,.41,;-:::., ,,i,..3400:s4 ''. .'','00141 ' '?:.,:: 33950 MAINT CHARGES/FY-' 89-90 .-.. :;:'''i:1';'.;''' '.: 06/30/90. ' ; i, ',., ,- - BUILDING'..,:::',.c, :',...°.•;;:".T'ELPi-IONE,'.,ce:n. -g.,- ' $0. 00 ,':.--,:.. 07/05/90 ;- R GTEL 01340 001-400-4202-4304 00355 , 3505.51 - . 00141 33950 e . MAINT CHARGES/FY 89-90 '06/30/90 PUB WKS ADMIN /TELEPHONE 30.00 07/05/90 .. . ..., ,-..., ,..., : ,,,,,,, , . 7 . , 7 , 7., ...:'.4-,' '4 ,,...„, _ „,,, 3• 45' ,,, , . 7 a 7 8 **NI 2 %.A. 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 • 4 4 5 5 bil . . i. • • ii,ftz.I".".A•., 7. '75 •61 2 3 4 5 7 8 10 11 13 14 15 17 la 20 21 24 5 1 2 wet Cif 111 #50 7 0 loP 2 3 111. 7 .0 a IW IP. A777.1771775571 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 15:56:00 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/10/90 PAGE 0016 DATE 07/05/90 z 34 4 rto PAY 4ENUU1 NAMt VNU W ALUUUN1 NUMbEN . - MN if ., ,-. APIUUNI :, INV/Ktr VU W DESCRIPTION DATE INVC:. 7, PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTIONa AMOUNT UNENC DATE LHK if EXP 1\ 2 5 e 7 R GTEL 01340 001-400-4601-4304 00405 $100.09 00141 MAINT CHARGES/FY 89-90 06/30/90 COMM RESOURCES /TELEPHONE $0.00 33950 07/05/90 5 e e a 9 R GTEL 01340 001-7-400-46014304-''x00408 ,$245,00 t 2233224/38671`;00210 PHONE CHANGES/COMM RES %:. 38671 06/25/90 COMM RESOURCES /TELEPHONE :$0.00': r .. : . .,. - ., 33950 07/05/90 ° to 11 10 11 12 R GTEL 01340 001-400-6101-4304 00238 $50.05 00141 MAINT CHARGES/FY 89-90 06/30/90 PARKS /TELEPHONE $0.00 33950 07/05/90 12 13 t• ie 3 14 15 .:¢ .. r .. R GTEL..',*1057400-2601-4304.' 01340�s'00148 a ,> :-$100 00 �.. _1896527': 00210, - SPEED CALL:CHANGES '� 96527 05/22/90 ,` ' STREET 'LIGHTING /TELEPHONE $0. 00 , 33950 07/05/9015 17 Ie 17 R GTEL 01340 110-400-3302-4304 0034? $580.58 00141 MAINT CHARGES/FY 89-90 06/30/90 PARKING ENF ', /TELEPHONE $0.00 • 33950 07/05/90 21 22 v 1° 20 21 : , *** VENDOR TOTAL i<'+rir*****•°it***itiF*ir•Itit*itaritttarar#•tr*tfataritarat•ariritit****•x•Itit•*.**+air•o-it•wiFitifitat•n•itx••>Ftr�t�l••Ir* $61'092. 53 .. S k� f. . - F 25 26 26 22 23 za R HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO. 00731 001-400-3103-4311 00572 $131.94 1C14653 00404 ELGIN SWEEPER PARTS 14653 06/28/90 ST MAINTENANCE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 33951 07/05/90 2° 30 31 26 27 ..,... ' *** VENDOR TOTAL.:.*************************************•******************************* z.„ $13194 • .. ..: ..: :., :.. .. .. ; i.. 2..,.. ¢ . p ' 34 35 20 20 30 . R HALPRIN SUPPLY COMPANY 00946 001-400-2201-4187 00239 $145.18 37859 11210 TURNOUT PANTS/J. CLAWSON 37859 06/21/90 FIRE /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE $0.00 33952 07/05/90 37 3e 30 40 4 o 32 33 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** .. $15...18..-f- 44. 34 35 x R ” STEVE*HARTT 00896 001-400-2101-4312 01347 $77.25 11467 MEALS/INTERROGATION CRSE 07/01/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 33953 07/05/90 45 t6 47 418 37 38 *** VENDOR:TOTAL******************************************************************** i,.;<— $77 25 1 ,_.,.... ., au 50 51 52 40 41 42 R HAWTHONE POLICE DEPARTMENT 00172 001-400-2101-4251 00305 $21400.00 HB26 00042 WORD PROC. CHCS/APR—JUN HB26 06/07/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT $0.00 33954 07/05/90 531 54 55 57 43 44 45 .-' *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** , , , ,r `f r i ;,., :. , ,.. ,. -'' _-< fi 071 ee 5° 4061 47 48 R HERMOSA ANIMAL HOSPITAL 00322 001-400-2401-4201 00241 $35.00 - 0287 00627 MISC. CHARGES/JUNE 90 0287 .06/30/90 ANIMAL CONTROL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 33955 07/05/90 e2 63 e4 a9..;63 50 51 -: :. ( f s .., - ;.: ': .,.. „ � ., .rx y,c 23 ,I is , ,I4 rYR r ;s `, - �. _ ,. :: < :<. '.. -: :. > ':Z" .£:i ..��^J<: f N %cs .`� fk .�I Yf 5'V i 6a > 1. 6e 67 68 52 53 54 69 70 71 72 5573 5e 57 :x: .,� o _:v >74 .. .€ -.,< Zs^, a £ , s xFs a , a a t 'i. . <, r .,. 1 e �'. „s+g,.me:tt, 7-. . .. t ^i' s•"S T S "�,."'� v X_ .: u., + _'-..� ', 4...' ��t > r .•. ,<S X� «w'.., <Cr_ —I J v • 112222 �Iaaaa32 13 3 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 15:56:00 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/10/90 PAGE 0017 DATE 07/05/90 I • PAY 4tNDOR NAME ! 1 • vNI7 w . ACLUUNI NUrlU .P : IHN IF '. MI1UUNI INV/Fitt FU K CHK w = DESCRIPTION DATE INVC. PROJ #• ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION .. AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL *********************** ►**************************** ***** ********* $35.00 1 ? . R - LILLIAN*HEYERT001=300-0000-3826 ' 0 A } r 03471 1211 $20.00 11347 33956 SUMMER PROGRAM REFUND ', 06/26/90 EC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 ''07/05/90 3 1 2 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $20.00 3 t s - R - . HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS & ASSOC'03131:--001-400-1202-4201 - 00213 $900.00 > 1005'.00075 :. 33957 SALES TAX SERV/APR—JUN90 '1005 '•.06/11/90. FINANCE ADMIN %CONTRACT:SERVICE/PRIVAT,.' $0.00 •07/05/90...' *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $900.00 1 R HOFFMAN & SON.. 00735 001-21070000-2110 03752 ..$1,575.00 95565.. 00516 33958 , yy WORK GUARANTEE REFUND.,` .955654 ,06/28/90' ..- " k /DEPOSITS/WORK. GUARANTEE $0.00. _T 07405/90 ! 1 1 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $4,575.00 s s r. R :ICMA t 00205 001 400 1201-4315 00062[ `. $563 25 £ 09170 33959 ANNUAL DUES/FY;90-91 07/01/90 .• CITY MANAGER°. /MEMBERSHIP $0.00. ;07/05/90 1 1 1 • *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $563.25 R INDEPENDENT CITIES ASSOCIATION 00372 ''001 400 1101-4315:. 00098 ,> `' $78600' ` 09167 '33960' ANNUAL DUES/FY.:90-91,. x.07/01/90 '' -:: CITY.. COUNCIL. :./MEMBERSHIP,; :' _'. '$0.00''.:- 07/05/90':. *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $786.00 rov • 214 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 234 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 15:56:00 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST ' FOR 07/10/90 PAGE 0018 DATE 07/05/90 ' 2 9ND—ii - .,ACCOUNT NUMBER . TRN # -AMOUNT INV/REF • PO # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC - PROJ 3 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 4 AMOUNT UNENC DATE .. ., CHK # - EXP 1\ 2 3 4 S *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 5598. 91 5 6 7 6 7 a ° R INST OF TRANSPORTATION ENGRS: >02479 001-40073104-4309496 y s 327 00Fx 902219. 11176 PUBLICATIONS/PUD. WORKS 02219 ;`06/11/90 .. 'TRAFFIC SAFETY-: /MAINTENANCE:,MATERIALS = :$0.00.. 33964 07/05/90' s 10 12 ,o ,1 12 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $27.00 13 14 13 ,6 13 14 13 3.,; R - . J. M. CUSTOM HOMES . 03486 ,.001-210-0000-2110 03756 .$1,1'525.'00 i 83225:;: 00508 WORK GUARANTEE REFUND _ 83225 06/28/90 `.. - '/DEPOSITS/WORKGUARANTEE>.'. ' ,$0.00" '- 33965 07/05/90 '. �o 2O ,6 17 18 *** VENDOR TOTAL*************************************************************;n****** $1,525.00 . 21 u 23 24 20 z, _ • R OFCR LANCE*JAAKOLA 02137 001-400-2101-4312: 01335 $10.92 11455 MILES/TRAINING CLASS 06/18/90 POLICE '/TRAVEL;; EXPENSE POST .... .. � > '� � y:.-$0.00 ..:: 33966 07%OS/90 '� 26 2a 27 z6 zz 23 24 R OFCR LANCE*JAAKOLA 02137 001-400-2101-4312 01346 $77.25 11464 MEALS/INTERROGATION CRSE 07/01/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 33966 07/05/90 29 30 31 3z 25 z6 ... *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************ar*************�.'..,�- - - 368 17 . fy z ' , _ , .. .. .. .. _ s.. , > ✓c, f=a ., a ..._ ... .. . - ,. ! 34 3 3 28 29 30 R ANGELA*JANULEWICZ 02758 001-400-2101-4313 00291 $31.20 11472 MILES/TRAINING CLASS- 06/26/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE, STC $0.00 ' 33967 07/05/90 37 J8 3: to 31 32 ..*** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** ae $31:'20 ` S d •1 4 34 33 36 R " DONALD*JONES 02627 .001-400-2101-4311 00903 $105.19 23934 00358 EMERGENCY CYCLE REPAIR 23934 06/14/90 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 33968 07/05/90 u sa 4e47 37 38 3° �`' - _ , R DONALD*J0NES ': 02627 001-400-2101-4312 r 01336 $27.56..1 • 11451 ,` MILES/TRAINING CLASS +. -.� � 06/18/90 - - :=POLICE, �./.TRAVEL:' EXPENSE, yr POST $0.00, -' • 33968 07/05/90 :. 49 60 em 40 4, 42 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $132.75 33 54 SS 66 43 ea 45 R : KAVANAUGH DEVELOPMENT CO, INC 02061 ow -210,0006-211g ' 03755 ,$1,575'005 " ' 95568D100513. WORK GUARANTEE REFUND ; • 95568 ::> 06/28/90 . �p /DEPOSITS/WORK 'GUARANTE,.. $0. 00 c>s E : 33969. 07/05/90 ' 57 66 ° 660 48 47 48 R KAVANAUGH DEVELOPMENT CO, INC. 02061 001-210-0000-2110 03758. 5375.00 95568 00509 WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 95568 '•06/28/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 33969 07/05/90 81 O2 63 al 49 50 71;..-. R i Y At H 8 4 g- , 4 ,." . , a ' i' -: is s R: ..,.< < y>. -r .... a ,'' < + 3 .... A Y .+S K3` ''VF43 $ 2YyI .<'> 4i f.: r" ... y ->C: s :' ....�•.:' ... ,.,::{ •%=+ k>� 'F <.f tt :'>�... ... P� ':s <' Li ., £, £�;.•. . •. .._ .. fq .. 63 66 67 6a 52 37 54 - 69 70 71 72 SS 66 \7 R.' >. .. .. Lt >. _ g S f 1 1 f• 2' tr.. A.k,. 6' �$,jt4 Q zi9 _:. .. �'�' !' n. ' . $ e f x S — '7,?,1st 1> Si:s - f q�C Pv} -. a £ � v y 4. 4 ::;s d P^q 1": •4 ;,.: .::'".`• i : �' ..'`.. .. ,`.i y'i. j"»' .. 3!r£.j .7 iy , ri �' 1 Giv }z3.fY �' ):s,•S{i14S' _. .1,. �,2.. .. ..v '� e. �� 73 74 75 N ,L1J %LA 22 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 9 430 41 F I NANCE-SFA340 TIME 15: 56: 00 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH . DEMAND LIST FOR 07/10/90 PAGE 0019 DATE 07/05/90 - 0 : . YAY VLINIUUti NAME. . VNU if ALLUUNI NUMBLII : IN if . :- • ..-, AMUUNI:' !' INV/HLF I'U # I.: HK # :::...,..:,, .. DESCRIPTION :-... s. ' . :.::',!`: %..,- DATE INVC : PROJ # --..:-ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION :.•'''':*,,1' -- AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP ':.7.-:- . . •- - ''. '';',.:,:;-.; '''':?•:' .. • • IN 2 2 A *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************$1,950.00 . 5 • 7 6 ,,,,. ,: • ,. . , . . • . .. . - . , , . R . MONTEBELLO*KAWASAK I .„ , - :.:'. 03473 - • ''v 001-400-72201-5402000164»:.'->;4'..• :: $918. 05 • :.• - --:•;...:' - 29655 .11213 . 33970 GENERATOR/NEW ENGINE '---''' -:29655 ,. • 06/20/90 '.",.. ':''';'. r- '',.;;'..- F IRE', -,,.•4-.: i'.:';•-,.:;1EGi/I...P-MORE.:- THAN :$500.; -`':', -i!, • . • ---:. .: $0.00- " ' 07/05/90 y :' ..- •- 1° :; ) I *it* VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $918.05 1 13 14 15 16 . - • .. .. . 1 : - •:1.''.---:,"1'..,,.'''',-- , • ''.. .:, ,:',.,:-;;^: • ,. R i : . JOHN*KEAR IN - - , -.,.- 2, • ..?..,- ;: 01032 , 1 -:if .0017-400721-01-4:.11.2•1338-e•-?s,f:',... ...,. $27.56• ''';'.;'.!. - ' •s;, -., , ' ..]:--1. : 11452 .: 33971 '`.1•;k - " - MILEAGE/TRAINING CLASS :'•:,- ' •,- ,•-•••*;. 06/18/90 :.•:):••;'•-::',-• ' •.:r • • POLICE;;M:,',',%;!/TRAVEL' EXPENSE -.H POST- ,..,.t 2,';,••!':::-. - SO. 00 ' 07/05/90 • -,:' 16 ;: $ *** o VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** *27.56 21 22 23 24 ' '. . ... , • .. , KELLY BLUE BOOK ,..1-,..ec, -. . ,. ..-- 2,,.,,, ..,. 03029 ,', evg:.705-74007-1209-4316 ',',..00026,t-'-`,-, ••• - $47;,00 ,,,.-f.' ,-.1 10R325256 : 10943: % 33972 .f. R .. ......90-91 - • 90-91 BLUE BOOK 1 -f• -t.;•1--,,:'.'• 25256 •'.•,.- <-•'•' 07/01/90'. -:: ::'-(-- %;;i: ,' LIABILITY INS --../TRAINING--?;:':*.; ;:';i.,:•,'' •-,•'. '':, •,•,- i',-.--':?--". $0.00 '.:- 07?05/90 1-) •* 25 26 2;3 ! *** . VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** ' ' $47.00 212 30 31 32 . • . • : . „•,.,.... . ..• .,, ' R •.- WILL IAM*KELLY .•.i-.',:,.'1,, '..,•-• 00362 • - :;.: 001-400-2101-4312 ;',:601337;:7;;<-1 ' • $31,20 '. - - . 11454 -- 33973 . :- MILEAGE/TRAINING CLASS '• , - -:'...; ' 06/18/90 . -.: ' . . • . POLICE ,t.':`';:•:-- ;.',•:.:-,Y;',TRAVEL • EXPENSE - i • ' POST' - $0.00 07/05/90 .• 33 33: *** • VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** 331.20 • 7 . 37 3a 39 40 ' .• ' ' R --: ' THE*K IPL INGER CALIF. % LETTER -': -':':-- -' 02025 -'-,, 001-40071202-4316He 00311**1v.,,,:,'3, ,-- $54, 00 X.,,i90254CPEV6 00144;',...r ' 33974 • -• SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL,_ CPEV6 • ' .- 07/01/90 ' ' . FINANCE 'ADMIN .., ,•.-,i','• - •-: - ,' j.--:.• '$0.00H07/05/90 '.- 41 :43 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $54.00 45 " 47 46 ' • .-• • ' . , . '... • . • ' . .. , . . - . .. • . , , • • • ,. ,.. R -. - JAN*KOCH • • - ::-y -.' •V i.f..;:1 ,.:.'' 03483 " • • 001.-300-0000-3826 '`‘'''..." 0 1209 •'• '-: - $20.00' • :' • ' ..,,.. • '1',1': 1 /346 ::•-, : 33975 77--. ; ''•• SUMMER PROGRAM REFUND ''': ' ' .'' ,-•':'' 06/26/90', : • ''! - f, ' • • • • • ' ' ' --Q,, -: ! -';;::WREC.- PROGRAMS/CLASSES -'''-i':',.". •,..4::::':' SO. 00 ', .07/05/90 -'. r 52 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** *20.00 53 54 55 56 . • ' .. :>.': •!--1 . '..' . ... ., , . , • . • • COMMANDER MICHAEL*LAVIN ..i1. '', '<-; •4•:• 00792 . , :: 001-400-1203-4320 ' :. 00321',.. ' '• . • :. $85.00 ...- .-- : '.!-';'' ' '-''' -4 -/,10939 , 33976 ••••,:•: ' - • RE IMB PHYSICAL COSTS ' z.:-----•'''' - '':;'' 06/18/90 ., ' - - . . PERSONNEL- • ' ' .Y/PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXAMS '>i','i',,,Y‘• --, $0.00 : 07/05/90 57 45 .*** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $85.00 . 61 62 63 54 . • . • •'-:,:di:j•,:c3`:,,,., . . . - . . . . , . .,. .., R. :,1: :: • MICHAEL D. *LINES : •-• ' ,'' ',,.1;;TZ'''., 4' : 03474 : • ''''''-4.001-400-2201-4316a, 00245 --' - '' '. ,`,::‘: $55: 00 .,, :,.'.',:.,. . .,.. ;...., -7,•11216 ;- ')' 33977 '•T "RENEWAL/CLASS"B" LICENSE .- ;;06/27/90-. :'' • .- ' FIRE -'2''.. LH;';'',::/TRAINING::-::::re,,Z:'.- ,'. -'-'=:-$0.00-1,07/05/90';': 65 :: 58 60 70 71 72 - '• .'.- . . . .. . . • , :J• - ,., ... +,.., .;' '. _ ,.,,, ",, . ' ,.. '•,•; :,. ' %''' ':: ,: ' ,.• ''. '''' XI' ••••:,?,,,'; ,... 4 L i-•,; ,:. • . , !,, < 1, ,., ,. .• ., ... , 74 \10/44 45 46 AB 49 50 5 53 54 7 1100 • . - . s1 .1 ••• v.) FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 15:56:00 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/10/90 PAGE 0020 DATE 07/05/90 a FAY VENDOH NAME MUUNr .INV/HEF DESCRIPTION .'DATE INVC. PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION FU # AMOUNT UNENC C.HK # 1\ DATE EXP 3 *** VENDOR TOTAL*******************************************u************************ 555.00 e a 7 a s R LOS ANGELES COUNTY DIVISION i 01109_ 001=400=1101-4315 „`; 00096 > $.825:0 r r 09169 33978 10 ANNUAL DUES/FY 90-91 —07/01/90'' ; C ITV COUNCIL:` /MEMBERSHIP ` � , 3 80.00 07/05/90 :XI 13 *** VENDOR TOTAL ********sir***************et*at********tarn*************iter**arae"********* 8825. 00 14 15 1e 17 R M&K METALS 00777 001-400-6101-4309;°. 00884 ;$67.62 `64234'x00406 33979 16 STEEL PLATES/PIER . •, 64234 06/19/90`• PARKS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 10.00 07/05/90 • to 21 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 867.62 w 22 23 24 _. . ... R EILEEN*MADDEN :03273 001 400 2101-4312 01339 320.80' 11457 e. v _ 33980 26 MILEAGE/TRAINING CLASS 06/18/90 - ' POLICE' . '/TRAVEL- EXPENSE ."'POST e. s '50.00 :' 07405/90,' 2, 29 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 520.80 30 31 32 3 R MAIN ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. 00426,',.105-400-2601-430900626 868.94' z :35356-":00535 33981 34 MISC. CHARGES/MAY 90 35356 .-` 05/31/90 :MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 50.00 07/05/90` 34 37 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 368.94 38 39 4d 41 R ' MAINT.'SUPERINTENDENTS ASSOC ' 01822 001-400-3104-4315 ;',.00014 x 330 00' _ 00420 90 33982" 43 DUES/R. OLSON .. • 90-76 ': 07/01/90 `> :.TRAFFIC' SAFETY ;</MEMBERSHIPi �,ms, ?� .. .:i 80. 00 "= 07/05/90 44 45 R • MAINT. SUPERINTENDENTS ASSOC 01822 00015 830.00 90-76 00420 33982 46 .001-400-3104-4315 DUES/J. DAVIS 90-76 07/01/90 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MEMBERSHIP 80.00 07/05/90 t7 46 49 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** : c- 4J $60,00.': ,_._.50 , 52 03 R MANHATTAN FORD 00605 001-400-2101-4311 00904 889.39 105748 00637 33983 p4 . MISC. CHARGES/JUNE 90 05748 06/30/90 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE 80.00 07/05/90 08 56 57 *** VENDOR TOTAL***************************************************************at****Ei .' '.'.889 39 � iM 5e i .. , .. j:. e ,.1 r .k-•., .E rFM'. f �n n n, , f v, . ... 60 61 R MARQUETTE LEASE SERVICES. INC. 02272 . 001-400-2101-6900 00509 822.657.62'— 00063 33984 62 LEAST PMT/JULY 90 07/01/90 POLICE /LEASE PAYMENTS . 80.00 07/05/90 _ 05 �y 4'c�67 Z 4 60 60 ' 70 ' 71 72 . H. , ' # ♦ 3 Ss Z z 3<x .,. .. Z .v .�F ,,.; ,�'i �F• S 2 . ,.. .. � .. _.., ` i- ..,. ... r.. _ ,5. . ' � E;.it 4. ]3 74 , a 54. 3 4 5 a 7 a 9 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 37 38 4 40 39 42 3 44 5 49 50 51 54 55 56 7 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 15:56:00 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH:. DEMAND LIST • 'FOR 07/10/90 PAGE 0021 DATE 07/05/90 • • FAY VhNUUK NAnt . VNU * . ALLUUNI NUMUhK,. • IKN * ;.. . .., . - AMUUNI ?, , 1NV/HLF KU It LHP. 4 . • ' • DESCRIPTION ,,',:':..., , DATE INVC,' , PROS) # ,'. ..,..,.:ACCOUNT DESCRIPTIONAMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP.,..• ;`,•L?..:-",, - '- - ':: ..:,. , :• .".:•=., - . i\ a R MARQUETTE LEASE SERVICES, INC. 02272 001-400-2101-6900 00510 $39,843.87 • 00057 33984 LEAST PMT/JULY 90 07/01/90 POLICE /LEASE PAYMENTS. $0.00 07/05/90 6 : .,-; •• . . - • .•..i,s..;!•, .'-7.-' :,..:.R... MARQUETTE LEASESERVICESINC-402272001-4007.2101-6900A00511:: • --$1,,-233.52,-...,',..,_.% ', ,", 00056 ::- 33984 •:.'•.--":' ,..-:...-LEAST PMT/JULY 90 '...i: -...Hp,x0.-07/01/40'''[...›,':''...-,POLICEA47f4WI'yLEASE.PAYMENTSA , .,- ;'):' ': $0.00.:.'07/05/902 • 1 R MARQUETTE LEASE SERVICES, INC. 02272 001-400-2101-6900 00512 $1,072.55 00059 33924 LEAST PMT/JULY 9015 07/01/90 POLICE /LEASE PAYMENTS $0.00 07/05/90 13 14 16 I • . . . , • • .. - . . .. ' *** VENDOR TOTAL.***********************************************************4******** '..464,807.56. ".', 17 I6 19 20 ' R MEDICAL PLASTICS LABORATORY 03476 001-400-2201-5402 0007 $1,189.00 27813 11211 33985 CPR/EMT TRAINING DUMMY 27813 06/25/90 FIRE , /EQUIP -MORE THAN $500 $0.00 07/05/90 21 22 zs 2, . .. ..,:. ..-. - , f . . , *** VENDOR TOTAL,******************************************************************* $1.,',489,:.00-.: .i,,;:,'.',,>,,.;-',.>-, .=,- .. ,,... . ,:• .. - •.:,-;',.•%.'•=4,-''.:.:•,-,,,•%,-•:'..,,,..•4,. . . ,- -,' -;::.' > . -:-,-i.,...-,f.:-..I ..:',,...,:. ,,'..!',._ . .•,.. .-,,-'-:.c.- ,,-1,':;?..:-.:,....'••• ':',:::',-:-?".;',.,:-S-•',.:',:l4-.'.1'...,':','-e-,•; ii;. -,:_.„:,1; -', - - zp., • :::,,, ,,.:;: ..-1.;J;--;,'.-:.:.''':..":::;:.7t.'.H- .';',Y.:'..'",' • za R DEAN*MENART 02625 001-400-2101-4312 01340 $27.56 11453 33926 MILEAGE/TRAINING CLASS 06/18/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 07/05/90 30 31 32 - — , ***.VENDOR TOTAL ***********#*** •$27:56:,.., •-:', .,, = ',' _ -',.•,- - .'• ' - .,,=:`''.!'-',..,:k.':•'7,.i'.::•11.:.;!•:-..ii:',:.,•.•, ..-..::', •'.:: , • '-,-'.=::.',.',.-;. '-,:s.', •:•: -,,,-:•;;i?'':q4:1 ' • ':,'•.;''.1.,•':=% .' . .. a - '' ..- 33 34 35 36 R MIRAMAR COLLEGE 02451 001-400-2101-4312 01345 $20.00 11462 33987 TUITION/D. COOK 07/05/90 POLICE A /TRAVEL EXPENSE •, POST $0.00 07/05/90 37 319 -. .. •-.,,... . .„ ,, .--.....*** ******************************************************************** 1:420. 90-... z . . ., ,.', :, • 1 .:. . .. ' . • , . . • . : • ... .- ': . : , I, .::-', :,. y'.43 11 .,.:, -:.I " 5" .,,:'::7i';-7,'';' .: *. .-:;5' •I 42 44 R ''ALAN*MIZUSHIMA . 03487 001-210-0000-2110 03754 $1,575.00 95560 00514 33988 WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 95560 06/28/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 07/05/90 45 us 47 46 • ' *** VENDOR TOTAL *****************************************4**************************-1,575.00,.-. :''2;...:::' ,•••',.••••.... . -:1.•,..•:=,.,.-,-,,,•:-,,,,.-,;•.'..--:...,.;.::.,..,,=,' .:•;•.V.;k'.:::,-z?..,,,. ,., ',-,==4,•,. 40 :"," 52 R MYERS STEVENS & COMPANY 00091 001-400-1212-4188 01787 $772.20 00013 33989 CITY HEALTH INS/JUL 90 07/01/90 EMP BENEFITS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 07/05/90 53 54 55 'Ns . _ - *** VENDOR TOTAL ***********************************************-1z******************* i., _$77220.,:-:,,,.,4,0,,,,,,,, : .y . • ' ,; ..'.:, ',',' .. ':.' ,'-'' " '' . ' ' .5'.,: ' .'1' 1, ', '1 ' ' ;5', ; .,,-, ' ;:, '''':.- , ,.. '. ' • rr5; 5...5! ' : ' . '; ,';''' .' .1 .r ,'';'.','•,.5:f......•.5'%,•?, ''%';' I .,...',. '? - .'', .. . 57 50 60 R NADER TECHNICAL ENTERPRISES .00656 001-400-2101-4313 00290 $159.48 900257/900260 11475 33990 TUITION/A. JANULEWICZ 00260 '06/30/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE, STC $0.00 07/05/90 61 62 63 44 .. , .. -•. . ...'• . ,, •• • - .,,.., ••.: - ,..•65 - . - • • ,,, ,,i .5 , ‹,44.;,.,..s.::-il,..,>•,!. ,"•: '.,, ,i .%. ' :•':.' z, ,• ,,, . ., A '.•", '''' '. . • :, ''' , ' : l',‘'.: ','' • 5- 'r , ' 66 67 - . . . . • - . 59 70 71 72 . • -- f• :. ' ,'. = '.., '5,'. 11'. ' 6- '''...'->. .=;:- .z . ,„: „, ' • 't-:-.1.- ' . ' '''' • '••• ''' ' ..i. i.,•• .'f'` .. , . ?, ., -',. , , : ''' .•-•Z ..Y , ?. i .. :.1J'A'•7.,,1:.: ; ';',..,:•;;L: Z :,: -; .'.',F ." .•;';i5;t,'5,..'.,'I 5r. " ''''. 'n ' i'...; ;:. .r''''' ''' S... ' ':' -‘ ''''' ''''' '' !'ll ". '' ' ' ' ' ..-- '1.: ''' ''' '''' 1... -.' '1- '1' ' ' 73 75 757 4) 4) AI. val va) • - - 410 - -• - -- -- _ _ „ ;, „ , , T FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 15:56:00 2 3 4 5 6 7 16 17 10 21 2 2 2 2 `12 2 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/10/90 PAGE 0022 DATE 07/05/90 VAY VtNUOR—TTATIL 9ND 1 AC.C.UUNI NUrILitK iKN # • APIUUNI INV/Ktt. VU # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC' . PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION - AMOUNT UNENC , 4 LHR # DATE EXP 1\ 2 a *** VENDOR TOTAL***********************it*ir*tti►at****i►**ar+tit*ir*ir**#***atit+F•rtitit****ittr•****** $159.48 e 6 7 e R NATIONAL HOME LIFE -.,03465 001-400-1212-4188- :01785' ,$76.95. 00065 CITY HEALTH INS/JULY 90 06/15/90 -. EMP BENEFITS..•:/EMPLOYEE BENEFITS11 50. 00 33991 07/05/90 ° 10 12 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $76.95 13 14 15 16 R KEVIN 8.*NORTHCRAFT 02064 001-400-1201-4317 00219':-.$18..00• ;.s -09166 .., MONTHLY EXPENSE/JUNE 90 - 06/30/90'•. CITY MANAGER ' /CONFERENCE EXPENSE, *0.00 33992 07/05/90 17 16 19 20 *** VENDOR TOTAL**************************************************************,****** $18.00 21 22 23 24 r_. R NORTHSIDE VETERINARY CLINIC 03477 .001-400-2101-4316 00568 $148 00 4023„:00363 K-9 TRAINING KIT/NORBO , 4023 . 05/31/90 ' . 210005 POLICE;; ,..>;/TRAINING $0.00 r25, 33993-- '“)7/05/90-. 26 r.2° *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $148.00 30 31 32 R OLGUIN—RUTHERFORD 01917 001-210-0000-2110 _ 03759 .$375.00 83245 00510 WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 83245 ,;:06/28/90 :.•., r /DEPOSITS/WORK'.:GUARANTEE .$0.00 > 33994 • 07/05/90", 33 3 4 35 36 R OLGUIN—RUTHERFORD 01917 001-210-0000-2110 03763 $350.00 95522 00517 WORK GUARANTEE REFUND. 95522 06/28/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 33994 07/05/90 38 39 so *** VENDORTOTAL******************************************************************itet3y u $725 00 �' d al 41 4345R "OLYMPIC AUTO CENTER 00093 705-400-1210-4324 00019 $128.10 12810 00360 REPAIR DAMAGED VEHICLE 12810 ' 06/27/90 AUTO/PROP/BONDS /CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS $0.00 33995 07/05/90 5 46 t7 4s *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** ,, $1284 Of !s 'C" •51 f 1.:., s.. 6 r+ax 1. f.. ,'r ,t 2 ;,: Yo >x .. X - . ``... z ` : `` f :t .. 50 52 R ORIENTAL TRADING CO. • 03417 001-400-4601-4308 00326 $64.45 444087 11304 SUMMER PROGRAM SUPPLIES 44087 06/06/90 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS $0.00 33996 07/05/90 53 64 ea 5. *** VENDOR TOTAL********************************************************************a�}Y $64 45 z ,. crr,61 , _ o 57 69 60 R PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE 00321 001-400-2101-4304 00596 $158.96 00036 COMPUTER HOOKUP/JUNE 90 '06/01/90 POLICE /TELEPHONE $0.00 33997 07/05/90 62 63 as ' k 3 s • y; r:> r._ . 4 f .. 3 > S i ^d,•.1 ' : .> ' ,. r.:j. -: "L� v ' >.. .. .... z5 ... .„ Y �. ., ,. ,.. :1 e5 66 67 68 6° 70 71 72 ;. ...>,i_ *•t :.k a •5. 3 'v.`4J >,' N'N, `44'c .2U :. '.:,,.. .' -.. ... .. .• ..:^” .....�" v �, .�E .:.3 x „• . , ? .:: :b �„�"^ �a, ". 4' ;F', F rz i S %?„>- i 73 74 75 30 31 2 33 4 37 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 4 7 CB 49 O 51 52 53 54 55 5e 7 t} J 5 6 7 10 -11 12 13 14 15 17 1 J20 2 2 26 2 32 3 31 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 F INANCE—SFA340 TIME 15: 56: 00 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • . DEMAND LIST FOR 07/10/90 PAGE 0023 DATE 07/05/90 ''.4Ate..‘‘Ari'.1'41:VIT'ift.1•44:k4iq.-t7;:?.. t!;:j..•.:•:',7!tirr.:17:•-'4 • 0 2 3 55....) 4 5 6 7 • • 0 2 14 15 5s.) 16 17 16 19 20 1 2 2 1 J 3 3. 3 3 4 4 • 1 • 6 9 61 2 63 65 ea 67 68 60 70 71 72 yol ••••• %ad • . • ••• • • •-••": „ onit !Mit r1 • : 1 ' i.• I" AV VENIJUli NAME VNIJ It AL c UUN I ('JUrnitli I iiN 44 ArIUUN I • 1NV /REF- I -'U 44 CHR # DESCRIPTION.. • .,,, •H.,. , :, DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION .., AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP - , . . . ... *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $158. 96 " '...:- <".- ...' • ',,• .i.4.4;..."-;.::. , ''. . R, ,. PAC I F IC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PTA '4fx,..03463 ,. lfsi 0017-210700007;2110 03765.,:cr •,,"---):;,:i.,' ".:' $500 00:..,,:-,.. :.:1'..,..971613 .; 00506 -', , 33998 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND .: -.;., 97168 ;:...;•.W,',!-..:,-• 06 /28 /90*- : ,.. , .'.:.,z:.:...,!;.4)v,..i. ;,.,:../DEPOSITS /WORK 0UARANTEE ..,..:- ,.., : '-: $0. 00 ::'• 07/05/90 . *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $500. 00 , R , PACTEL CELLULAR — LA .- •-.-.:..•.,.....,z..:^:-,,..:,..,. -r- 03209 - ..-....., 001-400-2101-4304.00594 :'..,i,•:i'nY-i- :': $991 53 :.,,';-!.; '::, - --' •• - ., ..,. 00676 33999 . . ';,,,, • :': MOBILE PHONE CHGS /JUN 90 06/30/90 .,i, .F. :., - •c1;:.:?•,`.1- POL ICE;0,;,,,,,,G,A5,..,--iTELEPHONE:,•,,A,'.::Yik,, • , V.,...'...,-..,.;',,, '.:;: ,.. : . $0. 00 . 07 /05/ 90 '..-..;!• *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $991. 53 z, .. PADGETT—THOMPSON ;...;54.3V:r . • ',!...,.',p..,,..,4::,,,, 01658 110-400-3302-4316 ,;.k:t: 00185,-7;7;, -..,:;:"..-les.'r,`'" $99 00 ,,, :-,-, ,.z :;',I103886 : .• 00229 ;,,. 34000 , ',.',,., :: •.,,: . .. SEMINAR REG/H, TUBBS ,..: ..:,4, 03886 >.:-..-;:-..;',:',. 06/18 /90Y....: •,...4,Y.::. -i PARK INGENF. ": i.W7TRA INING . : 1-...t;,-. !,.:, ' ' $0. 00 ".*: ; 07/�5/9O': *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** .. $99.00 . . R , PAK WEST -.: — . ,,,:::,, : . . —,.',-:' :,...:Q;..,,: 00519 .: ,' .,:.;,".:.:: 001-400.74204-4309 -;;-: 016713A',.., ':,:, ::,„ $1, 524. 57:.- ''. -:= .. .. , ,,...;7:,:..::.p. : .:•, 11179 34001 JANITOR SUPPLIES : ',', '-' ' , ''.: 06/29/90 , :„?.* ., . ; •;', ,, , -. , BLDG MA I NT`'•,< ,,•Z'fqMAINTENANCE. MATER I ALS .'-.- ? . $0. 00 07/05/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $1.524. 57 * • •• .; .1. , . R PEP BOYS- : ' `....,'.-?:-: :. ,:-/•,,,^,,,,•., f.... ::..-:-: , 00608 — -,,,,- 001-400-2201-43111,y: 00342-.' •:-. -.`.: -,•,,,r:,' $13. 73 .E',' ''.; .` ''; - , ic:.. 00642 ir:; ,, .34002 ', . .•: MISC. CHARGES/JUNE 90 : ., ' Y. ......' • -1.:: ..' 06 /30 /90: ". ..... . FIRE , 7.'.;:-. , .., 'J ''. /AUTO MA INTENANCE ". '.',,,.,', : $0. 00 • ': 07/05/90 ,-; *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $13. 73 . , , . • , „,..-... R BRUCE*PHILLIPS :?:1,.....-:,, .-„ :. -.,:, 00534 .- —;,.. 001 —400 —2101 —4312•i-2,*01342::::$106.00 --,,.-, .... 11473 , - 34003 --- .. , " ,. RE IMB HOTEL' FEES . • •-;.-...:'.'. , ..... ,'' 06/26/90 ”. • POLICE'‘ '. '.••• ! .- /TRAVEL EXPENSE , . POST ' $0. 00 • 07/05/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $106. 00 . . ,.. . ..-::: •-• .., ,. R :" PHOENIX GROUP ' ' . ". • : . ,, 02530 'I.::: .110-400-3302-4201 / 00246 ;,- j., %. .„ ".' $766. 40 • 4831-00 . 00077 :: 34004 ' "..-:: • OUT—OF—STATE C I TES /MAY90 31-0 .?-:. 06/13 /90 7.-,- , ' , PARK ING ENF : /CONTRACT SERVICE/PR IVAT • — --. .- • 'e $0.00 07/05/90 .*** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $766. 40 R , PR I NTMASTERS - ' .;',:7:,.. , ; ,!: . 'if :,::::: 00350 :4, 001-400-2101-4305: . 01291 A t .. - ':', :;---' s $674. 28 '. • ',,' : - :..,.. 021598 i' -q -c.:•::: 00318 I ':;,,.. 34005 :::ii`.-;.-:''''' .- ,'''' ' LOUD PARTY NOTICES:::..e 21598 ' 06/28!90:.-.-•‘: . . • ! POLICE ;;':.,42 ' >„-,',> 'M /OFFICE OPER SUPPLiES,t:-::,,,::: ,. , ,' , %O. 00 (.: 07/05/90' 5 i . , :s. :',. % I., ,,., .', ', '•: f : 'I ;.;:,.2 , '`,;:. , '' ", ' '' ' ' ' '''..* .","..;,, ' ''''', ''' '' ',"" '; < .,.=., ''' ea ,,..:*, ''.4Ate..‘‘Ari'.1'41:VIT'ift.1•44:k4iq.-t7;:?.. t!;:j..•.:•:',7!tirr.:17:•-'4 • 0 2 3 55....) 4 5 6 7 • • 0 2 14 15 5s.) 16 17 16 19 20 1 2 2 1 J 3 3. 3 3 4 4 • 1 • 6 9 61 2 63 65 ea 67 68 60 70 71 72 yol ••••• %ad • . • ••• • • •-••": „ onit !Mit r1 • : 1 ' i.• 2 3 5 6 7 6 9 1 2 21 2 2 2 2 22 2 3 31 33 4 35 36 37 30 39 40 41 42 43 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 15:56:00 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/10/90 PAGE 0024 DATE 07/05/90 FAY 9 o VENDOR—NAM DESCRIPTION VND # DATE INVC ALLUO' 'S e - - . •MUUNI iNV/Fitt PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION FU # AMOUNT UNENC (,HF: R DATE EXP it 2 3 6 *** VENDOR TOTAL irtaitatarttirtrtrat****Intrar******ttitit****attt*atat******antra•n+ *********+tattFar********* $674.28 6 7 6 . 9 R KATHLEEN*PR3DST 03466. . 110-300-0000-3302 '; 34525 <'$18.00 862472 00153 34006 1O CITE PAYMENT REFUND `62472 07/03/90"; '/COURT.—FINES/PARKING:.'', 11 ,$0.00 07/05/90 12 i 13 1 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $18.00 14 15 16 17 I R QUALITY SUITES 03491 001-400-2101-4312,01344 '$771.-72.4 11461 34007 • 16 I HOTEL EXP/D. COOK 07/05/90 POLICE' • /TRAVEL 1° EXPENSES. POST $0.00' 07/05/90 20 1 21 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $771.72 u 23 24 26 l__ R RADIO SHACK • - ', 01429 001-400-2101-4309 ' <;. 00310` .. - ' $16.25' ' 00643 34008 26 MISC. CHARGES/JUNE 90 •.' ..06/30/90 POLICE . • /MAINTENANCE. MATERIALS . 30.00 07/05/90;`2B 29 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $16.25 3o 31 32 33 R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO- 00173 ,;001-400-1207-5401''00001 ` '$99:81 6274•;11015 34009 34 CAMERA PURCHASE/BUS LIC ; 6274 x'06/27/90 . -BUS LICENSE /EQUIPMENT -LESS :THAN $50 .' $0.00 . .67/05/90'Y 35 37 R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO 00173 001-400-2101-4305 01290 $226.25 00544 34009 38 MISC. CHARGES/APR—MAY'90 05/31/90 POLICE 3' /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 07/05/90 sa 41 R. t RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO 00173 ; 001-400-2101-4306 ;'0081 ,.$321,.:14. `E;; '00544 34009 42 MISC. CHARGES/APR—MAY 90: 05/31/90 '07/05/90 43 ...POLICE /PRISONER MAINTENANCE .. ,. .. .. - $0.00 as 45 R ✓RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO 00173 .001-400-2201-4305 00359 $5.88 00544 34009 46 MISC. CHARGES/APR—MAY 90 05/31/90 FIRE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 07/05/90 ;g R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO ,00173 001-400-3104-4309 00497 x• .-397.10, r 1. 00544:', 34009 49 50 MISC. CHARGES/APR—MAY 90 - 05/31/90; . TRAFFIC -SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS . $0.00 07/05/90,"'71 53 R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO 00173 001-400-4201-4305 00568 $23.51 00544 34009 64 MISC. CHARGES/APR—MAY 90 05/31/90 BUILDING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 07/05/90 oea 65 57 R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO ,00173 001-400-4202-4305 004930, •` „<$2194', ;x`•00544 . 34009 �o MISC. CHARGES/APR—MAY 90 J= <• 05/31/90 » >: PUB WKS.ADMIN t ,/OFFICE; OPER: SUPPLIES s : '. $0.00 , 07/05/90 : 60 61 R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO 00173 001-400-4601-4305 00839 • $35.26 00544 34009 62 MISC. CHARGES/APR—MAY 90 •05/31/90 COMM RESOURCES /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 07/05/90 63 a4 65 .. .. ..?1 Y ri 3 .C; }S } SE J y 67 69 • 70 71 72 : 73 ' : 4.. • t g X• i X"k .� E J^ K ' t .. .. •.• '� i �^ 134: L ,`. i F'�d " i:r f ., 45 4 4 49 52 C3 54 55 56 7 • Sr o4l s A t 9 d.> c•:, i. r1��Yi,rw,t f...,-51,3 r: Z_, • 2 .12 2 2 �z 2 3 3 .Y3 3 36 37 38 3 4 41 4 45 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 15:56:00 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/10/90 PAGE 0025 DATE 07/05/90 o hi ':u 7 R14i111'` VII' if ALCUUNI NUIIL3tPi 1KN S AUUUNI 1NV/HEt FU R DESCRIPTION '; DATE INVC PROJ #.• • ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC CHIT # DATE EXP 0 2 3 4 R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO 00173 160-400-3102-4309 00492 $24.21 00544 34009 6 MISC. CHARGES/APR-MAY 90 05/31/90 SEWER/ST DRAIN /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 30.00 07/05/90 7 6 9 R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO 00173 ..705-400-1209-4305 00026p $17.26 00544 34009 to MISC. CHARGES/APR-MAY 90 05/31/90 -,' LIABILITY,'INS K,{/OFFICE-OPER SUPPLIES . $0.00 07/05/90 1 t2 13 , R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO 00173 705-400-1209-4324 00138 $7.25 00544 34009 14 1 MISC. CHARGES/APR-MAY 90 05/31/90 LIABILITY INS /CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS $0.00 07/05/90 1e 16 1 *** VENDOR . TOTAL ****************** ►************************** r***#**•n#**********•n*** $879 61 �e •w:. 12 20 21 R RAMADA INN 03492 001-400-2101-4312 0134.3 $653.40 11459 34010 22 HOTEL EXP/J. GAINES 07/05/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 07/05/90 2' 24 25 *** VENDOR TOTAL`.********************iF*** ***********grit******************araF****a ***** • $653. 402; t..1, - ..*-,.:X*-' - - .. ., .. ., ., F.,, ... � "' C; z 261 t 2a , R CAROLINE*READER 03478 110-300-0000-3843 09890 $25.00 00226 34011 30 REFUND PARKING PERMIT 06/18/90 /PARKING PERMITS:ANNUAL $0.00 07/05/90 31 39 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** a\ $25. 00 :' - 3 3 .. 3 ,. .. . .,. .. >, 3 3 R READICARE-DANIEL FREEMAN 02390 001-400-1203-4320 00322 $441.00 94-36364 10940 34012 3q EMPLOYEE PHYSICALS/MAY90 36364 05/31/90 PERSONNEL /PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXAMS 3° $0.00 07/05/90 +o • *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $441,00 4 � 44 45 R . RICH GRAPHICS 00224 001-400-2101-4305 01292 $149.45 2636 00333 34013 46 SEIZED PROPERTY FORMS 2636 06/26/90 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 07/05/90 er 45 419 R RICH GRAPHICS .00224 „ 001-400-4601-4302 '00088 '$53.38 2652',.11318 34013 "" 50, SUMMER FLYERS 2652 - 06/27/90 COMM RESOURCES ADVERTISING '.,• $0.00` 71 . 07/05/90 52 63 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $202.83 64 66 5e 57 „ R ,, RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY COLLEGE ,. ,01421 001-400-2101-4312-. 01341, $5.00 1147434014 e& TUITION/T. THOMPSON 06/30/90 POLICE'`:' /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST F $0.00 • 07/05/90 eo et *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $5. 00 62 e3 64 R RYAN'S FLOOR • COVERING 02512 001-400-4601-4305:, 008371,. $2,450.00. r 11301 34015• °O CARPET/BLINDS/COMM CTR :_06/19/90, COMM RESOURCES /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES ;.� a• •$0.00 07/05/90 e7 62 70 71 72 74 I •t3 75 a.Y , . 79. "7. /4X4F?_'*r.4 �l>,'•" --fr.'�•i-'`AZWv sPsT4^ 'c '�ys ;'t:^ ' ,... •a:raR�Cer:-F&cd=.:�;iL':....F, �.J aJ �.J vJ v1/ vrl Nuoi Ned 3 4 5 6 7 9 C' 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 5 36 7 36 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 46 49 50 5, 5 3 54 55 56 7 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 15:56:00 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/10/90 PAGE 0026 DATE 07/05/90 J .16 , Hr PAY VhNUOR"1Vi4t1t VNU # ALLUUNT NUMBjR riN 4i ANUUN 1 INV/RLF DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ' ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION FU # LHP. # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 1\ 2 3 5 *** VENDOR TOTAL ********iritisrartratit****irar*atat**nat*at*at************ir*****jt;tarar*+catjtaattr•at***** $2,450.00 6 7 6 • R SAFEGUARD INDUSTRIAL DOOR, INC 02671 001-400-2201-4309s'c.c 00897 '. $1,164,'05 5027', 11204 34016 1O • GARAGE DOOR REPAIR/FIRE 5027 . 06/08/90 . ;; FIRE ./MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 07/05/90 " 12 13 I *** VENDOR TOTAL *******************ori****+rir*************************************** t* $1, 164. 05 14 15 16 ',7 R SEDGWICK JAMES OF CALIFORNIA 03429 705-400-1210-4201 , 00055 54,735.00 180267 10946 34017 16 HI—VALUE POLICY/ENGINEII 80267 07/01/90 • AUTO/PROP/BONDS /CONTRACT. SERVICE/PRIVAT - $0.00 07/05/90 19 20 21 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $4,735.00 u 1 23 24 1 r ` 25 >J R SIR SPEEDY 00361 001-400-4601-4302 00089 x'$123 96; 11671 11326 34018 36 SUMMER PROGRAM FLYERS . 11671 ... 06/19/90 - COMM RESOURCES /ADVERTISING > , r: . '. $0.00 . 07405/90 ` ae , 29 1 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $123.96 30 1 3, 3] 3 R SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY 00114 '001-400-4601-4308 00329 ' $92.70 436565 00647 34019 34 MISC. CHARGES/JUNE 90 36565 ' 06/30/90 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS-. 50.00 0.7/05/90 35 36 37 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $92.70 30 39 40 ! .�� . ., 41 R SO CAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVTS . 00343 001-400-1 101-4315' :, 00097 ,.$1x053 00• 09168 3402002 ANNUAL DUES/FY 90-91 07/01/90 CITY COUNCIL:;; . /MEMBERSHIP ` $0.00 07/05/90 49 44 45 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,053.00 46 47 46 R •. SO CAL PUB LAD REL COUNCIL .01209 001-400-1203-431500048 -$350,00 ; 10949 . 34021 '50 DUES/R. BLACKWOOD 07/01/90 '' -. . PERSONNEL /MEMBERSHIP '.;t : $0.00: :: 07/05/90 '.52 s' 53 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $350.00 64 65 56 57 R SOURISSEAU SUPPORT SERVICES 02075 .001-400-2101-4201 00593 ,:,5390.00 1607—:00362 34022 • 65 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION 1607-,;` 06/12/90 ' POLICE;,ry s,./.CONTRACT,SERVICE/PRIVAT .; ...•$0.00-' 07/05/90 ,; ;; 61 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** . $390.00 52 63 64 65 R ,. SOUTH BAY FIRE EXTINGUISHER r. c 00113 001740072101-4309 rF 00309 „$17:-61.:... s 00648 34023' 6° MISC. CHARGES/JUNE 90 06/30/90 : POLICE ? > /MAINTENANCE. MATERIALS r ; .$0.00' 07/05/90y ' ae 69 70 7, 72 73 r l > � , 75 1 � ..a�/ '° i ' .w;_,c,ja,sfy..4, .. . . •. „ ,. _ 79` J .16 , Hr FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 15:56:00 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ' DEMAND LIST FOR 07/10/90 PAGE 0027 DATE 07/05/90 4 VNU 6 ALLUUNF NUMULK 1KT7-4 : AMUUNI 1NV/KLF F LI 4 LHK 4 DESCRIPTION ,DATE INVC• PROD # ,ACCOUNT. DESCRIPTION .. AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP ,\ 2 3 a 7 ********ri*************************** $17.61 5 e 7 a o 10 R SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL,COURT .:.00118 110-300-0000-3302 34524 ' ' $26,154.00 00150 34024 • CITE SURCHARGE 09/31/90.; /COURT FINES/PARKING $0.00 07/05/90 -11 e e 10 11 12 113 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 526. 1 54.00 ,3 13 ,5 ,a `,s 1a R SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT 00400_. .110-300 0000-3302�� 34527.' x'$382.00 - 00234 34025 CITE COURT BAIL 06/28/90-' ra. ;,/COURTFINES/PARKING - $0.00.' 07/05/90,,.' 16 17 ,e 120e 17 B I B *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 3382.00 21 22 23 20 +21 222a R SPECIALTY MAINTENANCE CO 00115 001-400-3103-4201`•-' 00278 - $2,991.00 2525 O 0029 34026 SWEEP SERV/MAY 90 .. 2525 •" '05/31/90.'•' ST MAINTENANCE.'/CONTRACT 'SERVICE/PRIVAT .50.00'07%05/90-- 24 26 7 z3 ' 24 R SPECIALTY MAINTENANCE CO 00115 110-400-3301-4201 00267 $3,695.00 2525 00029 34026 SWEEP SERV/MAY 90 2525 05/31/90 VEH PKG DIST /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 50.00 07/05/90 2B 30 31 26 _26 a� I27 *** VENDOR. TOTAL************************************************************it******* $6. 686 00 • �,; " ]2 33 x 36 128 -29 �30 R SPORTMART 03479 001-400-4601-4308 00327 5787.64 11341 34027 ` SUMMER PROGRAM SUPPLIES 06/28/90 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS $0.00 07/05/90 36 37 3B 3o 31, -32 3 �J *** VENDOR TOTAL.******************************************************************** ;$787 64 `„ � ; .,, .. r... ' .., 4b •I •2 43 �('' • 36 ' '6 R ,. SQUEEKERS & HERB 03480 001-400-4601-4308 00328 $90.95 11325 34028 SUMMER PROGRAM SUPPLIES 06/18/90 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS $O 00 07/05/90 as 45 a6 '7 7 38 *** VENDOR TOTAL*****************************************4.****************4********* $90.95 ' a6 a0 50 51 40 •1 lag R TODD PIPE & SUPPLY 00124 160-400-3102-4309 00493 570.78 H27868 00657 34029 MISC. CHARGES/JUNE 90 27868 06/30/90 SEWER/ST DRAIN /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 50.00 07/05/90 52 53 64 O7 43• M 45 - ***.VENDOR TOTAL****************************************************************.** * $70:78 > 6e 60 46 47 1 R CITY OF*TORRANCE 00841 001-400-2101-4251 00306 5123.00 101312 00350 34030 . CAL ID COSTS/MAY JUN 90 01312 '.06/26/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT $0.00 07/05/90a0°�ICS 51 62 50 51 ., . _ x §f},, : L,: /i T:r.R ✓ ,� } '" F h Z i :.,� T Lap .`.t -f ,^r: . < as 66 68 52 53 . 69 70 71 72 55 7 . ;.� „ T f �'. , F ;a• : -¢ 7 ,..,,�. l.F..,x'. Y �",..-n'�' fray Ws`..8 _ & ,..... F .o-,1 a .3. .,. 'o- r: ,:•,. � ,._. ,: ".:... r;":.>: � ",F J '+.,.. >_..c! ,�' c f .. -:.' .y,.r ac .,.s . i• • b �4a...::.g v... 7 ,. s. .y '- . Z' S i4'.. F d 3, zt'x i•..:5. -� 1" i y.S9.v T.' . ra. M' �`.>r.+?'�'a. Lrxol.,e:. '%' i.. Tia a i , � . .. , - .. , ;i"µ�. ••" J" � / ,. #';..-..; %"' � .t� ,, .`r'.....��. <7". �''�� .� x. "`fix-. ;��ts ,.. 'i-¢...;•Y;vF .d� . .w ..: �, ,.� ,. .. < ,. 73 7• .. .. •1. ..J • FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 15:56:00 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/10/90 PAGE 0028 DATE 07/05/90 2 'AY VEND -0k NA VNU A ACCD PIUUNI 1NV/KtF DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT I'U .'i UNENC (.HK S DATE EXP 1 2 3 4 5 *** VENDOR TOTAL ****#•n*tr n*************** ****tr••n*+r•n***•n•I ******air****telt*************** $123. 00 5 67 7 a 7 a D R JOHN*TRIVERS 03485 001-210-0000-2110 . 03757 -., $1,575.00.. .95557 WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 95557 ,.. 06/28/90', ,: _ ., ';;./DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE `- ; 00507 .$0.00 34031 07/05/90 D 10 11 2 to 11 12 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,575.00 1} 4 16 16 3 14 15 R J.G.*TUCKER & SON, INC. 00717 160-400-3102-4201 00020' $500.00 g 60304 YEARLY SERV/GAS SNIFFER 60304 06/19/90. SEWER/ST DRAIN /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT: - .'11184 $0.00 34032 07/05/90-•` 17 16 19 so 1 6 17 18 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $500.00 .. 21 2z v 24 I 1/1 20 'zl _ . R• ULTRASYSTEMS 01331 001-210-0000-21 10 ; ` 03762 , ' $4,499.99 ` .,<., 93670' EIR SERV/OIL DRILLING 93670 .. 05/07/90 - /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE;',, 10629 + -$0.00 34.033 07,f05/90 25 26 32a29 22 123 24 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $4,499.99 .. _ 30 31 32 25 26 27 R R :: UNIFORCE CORPORATION ? 01720:: 001-400-1206-4201.,"00726 >: .- $300.00'..,� 900417'. SOFTWARE SERVICES/FUEL 00417'>-":•.. 06/27/90 ' . DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT, . 09544 $0.00 , 34034 07/05/90 34 }' 33 28 22 30 R UNIFORCE CORPORATION 01720 001-400-1206-4201 00728 $970.50 900366 COMPUTER MAINT/JUL—SEP90 00366 07/01/90 DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT • 00074 $0.00 34034 07/05/90 7 }a JD /o 31 32 *** VENDOR TOTAL**********************************#*********************************� 51-.270 50 ... ..44 . 41 42 .3433 35 x R - V & V MANUFACTURING 01938 .001-400-2101-4187 00366 $3,544.58 10212/10233 FLAT BADGES/POLICE 10233 06/20/90 POLICE /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 10751 $0.00 34035 07/05/90 la 46 47 46 38 39 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $3 544.5 'Y 50 51 52 40 41 42 R J. S.*WARD & COMPANY 02507 705-400-1209-4201 00140 $4,118.75 1ST QTR PMT/LIAR SERV. 07/01/90 LIABILITY INS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 00042 $0.00 34036 07/05/90 p} 04 66 66 43 a 434 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $4,118 75 . 57 6e 5D 60 6 47 48 . R J. F. *WEBER, CONSULTANT 00134 001-400-1202-4201 00212 $562.50 -- PROF SER/GANN INITIATIVE '06/28/90 FINANCE ADMIN /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 00152 $0.00 34037 07/05/90 61 62 67 Bl 4D SI '6 i. .,. y . .f ,: - ;�§dn )'L' " • ,e :e !.>Y ?` �'ss `, sq f `_ Y) �3 }. �.. •.? ®?' .,�..a' , =�h Pi> '.6Y b .r,o- t,Y. , �.,a'� . �i. ., .... 67 67 67 68 52 53 54 6D 70 71 72 55 56 ,e7 .. .. . £ :.:il,.. ... ,th" `T4. ,. > .. ,f r.. .. ., x:: ,. ,.a: k'..ra . . .... :. < .;d t..> . . ... :) 73 745 7,0 5i t. r .43 J 44. • -1, ri� 7THTii'� r �"e 1=;�. w a.;,..9� ,:,+1,s,1.i3.1{3.t 4:5 7z1 i'±ia•: • FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 15:56:00 VtN1JUK NAMt CITY OF HERMOSA REACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/10/90 PAGE 0029 DATE 07/05/90 _2 4 Liz VIMU of AULUUNI NUMIaLK INN # • ANUUNI LNV/Ktt PU # CA -IK # DESCRIPTION .DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION • AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP • " 1\ a a —5 e 7 *** VENDOR TOTAL ***trio►•Itatitatitatat*taatptt•n*a►at*** that•itatititirirttttatttatit*itattt•ntF*tf*f►*jtitttitattt,•tattF*tltfat**** $562.50 e 6 7 a o 0140• R SALLY' A, *WHITE0 001!-400:4102-42010026t f y -$272.00 ` 10840 34038 " SEC. SERVICES/JUN 5,90 «;; .06/14/90 <; PLANNING -COMM /CONTRACT. SERVICE/PRIVATc, $O 00 07/05/9011 e 0 10 _11 12 R SALLY A. *WHITE 00140 001-400-4102-4201 00262 $204.00 10843 34038 SEC. SERV/JUN 19,90 06/27/90 PLANNING COMM /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 07/05/90 12 13 14 1e 13 _14 ,' *** VENDOR TOTAL**************at*******•It**********atatitaf***aar***ar***at***ar*******at**atat*at ;. ; � $476 -0O ;16 16 to _17 �1e R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 001-400-1208-4201 00666 $65.15 025069095 00564 340• 39 COPIER METER USE/MAY 90 69095 06/11/90 GEN APPROP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 07/05/90 20 21 22 23 24 _20 21 *** VENDOR TOTAL****************************************************;r*****ttap******** „ $65. 15 ' 6 2226 _23 24 *** PAY CODE TOTAL****************************************************************** A627,255.42 29 30 31 32 6 26 .' *** TOTAL WARRANTS****************************************************************** , 0 .. '$628, 8 9.48 _ >:. '. 33 34 35 22 _29 30 36 37 38 39 40 31 33 1 I MtHEtif G£RT1�r TMAT T IC DEM Cf: �•�pCLDIMC rIIV RFq EIY . ` " " r : y ' ' THE WARRANTS LISTED,ON PAGES�TOO�' /INCLUSIVE OF THE //11 ^ = ? WARRANT REGISTER FOR 7-44019/�ARE ACCURATE az 43 44 134 6 r AND FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PAYMENI 1HtHL r. BY 45 46 FINANCE ADMI TRAT 47 4 8 139 1 //5190 _ • DATE 4P . e y<e f S no 61 82 40 _41 14255 63 54 56 43 45 r ; 67 58 60 46 47 48 61 62 63 64 49 61 5 rx t X I 1 L �" a 65 66 67 68 52 63 15472 69 70 71 55 ik7 S a 'F' 5�. E S ,k K . h ::f•• 5 ' I. K .3 ' T a 4 >4-- ' " ' G �A ''. x. t.� "f. � :�...D .,e cS _,�d C rS51. Y `.� r , 73 74 76 79I J ..J Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council July 2, 1990 City Council Meeting of July 10, 1990 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Responsible Agent July 24, 1990 Sister City - annual visit 3 -hr. vs. 2 -hr. parking meter limit in the downtown Ideas for pier utilization Call for bids - basketball courts CIP 89-512 Consider water conservation methods for new construction Request to restripe Plaza Hermosa and rework 20 -minute parking area Accept sidewalk repairs as complete CIP 89-142 Amortization of non -ABC conditional use permits General Services Director Comm. Resources Director Public Works Director Building Director General Services Director (as Parking Authority) Public Works Director Planning Director Agreement with County for overlay of Valley/Ardmore/Prospect. Public Works Director Cable Board's review of Cable Co. ascertainment General Services Director Pay Phone Agreement August 8, 1990 - 7:00 p.m. Special meeting public hearing workshop for Housing Element August 14, 1990 General Services Director Revision of City job qualifi- cations by Civil Svc. Board Personnel Director Hope Chapel Lease Agreement Comm. Resources Director s CIP 88-406 Call for Bids - Sewers Target Area 4 Curbside recycling alternatives public hearing (goal 17) August 28, 1990 City Council reorganization Presentation of tile plague to John Barry Pavement Management Report and slurry sealing, call for bids CIP 89-170 Recommendation on staffing for Cable TV administrator September 11, 1990 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. September 25, 1990 Award construction contract for basketball courts October 9, 1990 3rd Quarter General Plan amendments Housing Element revision Public Works Director Building Director City Manager Public Works Director City Manager Personnel Director Comm. Resources Director Comm. Resources Director Planning Director Public Works Director Planning Director ***************************************************************** Upcoming Items Not Yet Calendared Power Street drainage and grading Caltrans utility maintenance agrmt. Vehicle parking on pedestrian streets Historic Preservation Ordinance Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director (with Land Use Element) Planning Director 1 ***************************************************************** Initiated by Party Date City Mgr. 5/3 Energy Conservation report Building Dir. Council 5/8 Discuss financial arrangements on oil project City Mgr. Council 5/8 Re. oil project CUP - define "temporary" as relates to height of project Planning Dir. Goal 2 5/16 Options to direct dial to City Hall Gen. Svcs. Dir. Goal 4 5/16 Options to computerize per- sonnel as part of payroll function Finance Dir. Goal 8 5/16 Options to increasing service level of street sweeping Public Works Dir. Goal 8- 5/16 Review of 4 -hr. no -parking restriction for sweeper Public Works Dir. PW Dir. 7/3 Ordinance for new Chapter 19 of HBMC entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic" Public Works Dir. Council 6/26 Report on merchandising on private property Planning Dir. Council 6/26 Report on sign waiver repeal for Community Center Planning Dir. 1 3 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. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REJECTING BIDS AND DIRECTING STAFF TO PURCHASE CERTAIN MODULAR PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT RELATING TO VALLEY PARK AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Hermosa Beach received one bid in the amount of $24,117.00 for the purchase and installation of playground equipment which is significantly in excess of the budgeted amount for the project; and WHEREAS, Public Contracts Code Section 20167 provides that the City Council may adopt a resolution by a four-fifths (4/5) vote rejecting bids and declaring that the project can be performed more economically by day labor or that the materials or Supplies furnished at a lower price in the open market. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach as follows: 1. That the bids received for the modular playground equipment for Valley Park are hereby rejected. 2. That the City Council hereby finds and determines that installation of the equipment for the project can be performed more economically by city staff. 3. That the City Manager (or his designee) is hereby authorized, on behalf of the City, to sign all documents necessary and appropriate to order the modular playground equipment directly / SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 1e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 from the manufacturer and have the installation performed by City staff. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1990. By President of the City Council and Mayor of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney June 26, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 10, 1990 MODULAR PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT FOR VALLEY PARK CIP 89-518 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Reject the one bid received by the City and not award the contract. 2. Direct and authorize staff to purchase the playground equipment system for Valley Park directly from the manufacturer and install the equipment with in-house personnel. Background: The Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission has recommended the purchasing of plastic modular playground equipment for Valley Park. The staff prepared specifications for this playground equipment and received approval from Council to advertise for bids. Contract bidding documents were mailed to eight (8) prospective bidders on May 1, 1990. Only two bids were received by the City Clerk's Office and they were opened on May 31, 1990. One bid stated "No Bid" and the other bid was for $24,117. The budget amount for this project is $12,305, Bidders: Ortco Builders $24,117 R. G. Detmers & Associates "No Bid" Analysis: The analysis is divided as follows: 1. Direct Purchase and Install by City Crews 2. Fiscal Impact • 1. Direct Purchase and Install Using City Crews The submitted bid indicated a cost of $13,873 for the equipment plus $2,029 for sales tax and delivery fee for a total cost of $15,902. The bidder's installation cost was an extra $8,215. The staff recommends that all bids be rejected, and that this project be considered for purchase and installation by city staff. The City has also received a quotation from the manufacturer for the same equipment at a cost of $15,902.09. By using the city staff for installation, the City would be able to conserve and fully utilize the limited available funds for the playground equipment. Delivery for the modular playground equipment is approx. six to eight weeks. Installation of the equipment will take approx. eight weeks after delivery and will be subject to priority of other city projects. When compared to installation by a contractor, utilizing city staff (estimated at $4,000 City labor) will postpone completion by about five weeks but will save over $8,200 in funds that will not have to be appropriated - which could be used for potential open space land acquisition. 2. Fiscal Impact Available city funds or reimbursable state grant funds for park and recreational purposes that can be used at Valley Park are as follows: Project CIP 89-518 Grant Funds $12,305 CIP 89-517 $8,742 CIP 89-506 $ Comments (These funds are for the playground equipment) This action would fully expend the remaining funds in this State Grant. ($6,176.56 already expended) This action would fully expend the remaining funds in this State Grant. -0- (Park & Recreation Facilities Tax Fund) This amount would cover the difference not covered by the two state grants above. Available Funds $12,305.00 $2,565.44 $1,031.65 Total $15,902.09 • Alternatives: Alternatives considered by the staff and available to the City Council: 1. Bid the project again. 2. Drop the project and return the funds to the State. 3. Revise the project to use the grant funds in some other manner as allowed by the State. Respectfully Submitted, Lynn A. Terry P.E Deputy City Engineer Viki Copeland Director of Finance Attachment: ty/play Concur: (ryv1iA Ani o1Zy Antich Director of Publi Mary Ro Direct Kevin B. Works Community Resources // Northc ,: ft City Manager Drawing of the modular playground equipment CITY MANAGER COMMENT: Per the City Attorney, a resolution needs to be passed by a 4/5th vote for this recommended action to be in accordance with state law. The resolution will be supplied prior to the Council meeting. Cu wl 01.46 Pouts. £!eftuu .ru oe • et, RJ�S RaW Cu on (3va -u,.0 0-74 ;or ... .• ..r•.r. `�, F— CIA •i • F— .S•• I AV •`i " Ad R.47i ii , • •`• P !!..Cleititt . • Hurl(. LQJG DoUeL5 SU 06 SrP•It-I s5 Srttet• • wltan- ux. 1ZuN6 InUG stPrt �S / t� u 5 Snia-S tot 1tYnJ D (Lori L . "ITEM A" MODULAR PLAY SYSTEM PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT ATTACHMENT A itJ I0 r 5ut'Rnj s 1 uvJ F31L• woot% (o WeiV SUPE 5rrml r -(L rs.s SRS • STr,a3 I.71.•C2. ' 5crosus Pal ltrrwo ICA -1L. 3o113aaaLAI PIYAI �^I Tl)B SC IP X 11.-v"l mJ -5191 2/r- Sc. t 17 QUOTE# 0179103 MOORE REC. & PARK EQUIP., INC. P.O. BOX 3337 THOUSAND OAKS, C?► 91359 QUOTATION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ATTN: LYNN TERRY DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 QTY ITEM # DESCRIPTION 1 mousxs MODULAR 5Y5'TEH SHIP ZIP: 90254 6/28/90 UNIT EXT. WGT. PRICE PRICE 3743.0 13973.00 11873.00 3742.0 LBS SUB TOT: $13873.00 TAX: $936.43 FREIGHT: $1092.66 TOTAL: $15902.09 'FItItl iD k QUOTATION sin. TIID GMF. TTMF MODULAR DTTF,R,,raPE ON YOUR HID #CIP 89-518. a(esman'a Signature Customer's Signature Acceptance of this quote indicates your agreement to abide by all Game Time Terms of Sales and other Conditions. 6ders shipped within 45 days unless otherwise noted. Please call ('Ido) 831-3606 if you have any questions. July 2, 1990 Honorable Mayor City Council meeting of and Members of the City Council July 10, 1990 COMPARISON OF CONSULTANT VS. IN-HOUSE PLAN CHECKING RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report. BACKGROUND This subject was identified on the list of city goals for 1990. ANALYSIS The Department of Building & Safety inspection personnel consists of a senior building inspector and three (3) building inspectors, of which one (1) is devoted to illegal dwelling unit matters. The senior building inspector has primary responsibility for coordinating plan check activities. Currently the department operates with a combination of in-house and consultant plan checking. Plan check activities performed in-house include the following: 1) Zoning compliance review. 2) Compliance with conditions of approval (C.U.P.'s, etc.) 3) Coordination of review with affected departments (Fire, Planning, Public Works). 4) Small, non-complex structures (decks, additions, etc.). Consultant plan checking includes review for conformance with provisions of the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electric Code and state regulations for energy conservation. All jurisdictions, including large ones like the City of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles, typically utilize some consultant plan checking. Larger jurisdictions rely on consultants to relieve heavy workload. Smaller jurisdictions utilize consultant plan checking to avoid personnel costs associated with hiring permanent staff. In order to attract a staff plan checker with the expertise necessary to review all types of projects, it would be necessary to compensate that person at a level commensurate with that of Deputy City Engineer. The current annual cost of Deputy City Engineer, salary and benefits included, is approximately $52,237 to $63,488. The approved budget provides $45,000 for consultant plan checking in the next fiscal year. Consultant vs. in-house plan checking also is closely tied to another city goal "to reduce delays in the Building Department". A single in-house plan checker cannot provide plan review as rapidly as a consultant firm can in periods of heavy plan review activity. Consultant plan checking, allows us to process many plans simultaneously if needed. SUMMARY The use of consultant plan checking is a cost effective method which provides needed expertise to ascertain compliance with local and state building regulations. The use of consultants helps reduce delays in the plan review process by allowing several projects to be processed simultaneously. Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager Respectfully submitted, William Grove Director of Bldg. & Safety July 2, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of July 10, 1990 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES The following claim has been submitted to the City Clerk's office: Michael B. Baker on behalf of Patrick F. Brennen. 3250 Ocean Park Blvd. Suite 115, Santa Monica, CA 90405. Received May 29', 1990. Application for Leave to Present Late Claim with claim for damages attached. Recommended Action: To deny Application for Leave to Present Late Claim and refer to the City's Liability Claims Administrator. Analysis: Under Government Code Section 911.2, a claim for damages must be presented within six months after the accrual of the cause of action. The above application is in regards to an incident which allegedly occurred on October 15, 1989. Pursuant to Government Code Section 911.4, "When a claim that is required by Section 911.2 to be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action is not presented within such time, a writ- ten application may be made to the public entity for leave to present such claim". The City's Liability Claims Administrator, J.S. Ward & Co. con- curs with the recommendation that this Application be denied. Note: The above Application with the attached claim is available for review in the office of the Risk Manager (room 203). Respectfully submitted, ti Robert A. Blackwood Risk Manager Concur: er Kevin B. Northc aft City Manager July 4, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 10, 1990 RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A LOADING ZONE AT 737 THIRD STREET Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council Approve and adopt the attached resolution establishing a twenty minute loading zone (7:00 am to 6:00 pm any day except Sundays and holidays) at the following location: on the north curb in front of 737 Third Street. Background: A representative from.Vasek Polak, Inc. located at 737 Third Street requested a loading zone be installed adjacent to their business. This would provide a total of approximately 45 feet of loading zone. On May 15, 1990 the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for the use -of the property as a warehouse. A condition of approval required that all vehicles ingress and egress via Pacific Coast Highway. This means that all vehicles must turn left when existing the site. Analysis: A field investigation revealed the following: 1. The street width is only 25 feet measured from curb to curb. 2. There is no loading zone for this location. 3. The property is located in a commercial zone. 4. Truck traffic cannot turn safely onto Third Street with the present parking conditions. 5. The loading zone will provide better turning radius and will also provide a loading zone for other adjacent businesses. Fiscal Impact: City Ordinance No. 84-762 (July 1984) provides for a loading zone in front of a particular business provided that the adjacent merchant absorb the cost. The cost is as follows: Survey $100 Installation 250 $350 Plus $100 per year maintenance fee There are no parking meters at the proposed loading zone location so there will be no lost revenue to the City. - 1 - ih Alternatives: Other alternatives available to City Council are: 1. Deny the request. 2. Do not charge a fee as the loading zone will benefit other businesses in the area. Respectfully submitted, Ain A Ed Ruzak City Traffic Engineer cc: Viki Copeland third/pwadmin CITY MANAGER COMMENT: oncur: Anthokfy Antich Director of Publik Works Leroy' Staten Acting General ervices Director cd) Stdve Wisniewski Public Safety Director evin B. Northcra City Manager Stenciling of hours of operation is recommended so drivers will be able to utilize for parking during non -enforcement hours. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING A LOADING ZONE. WHEREAS, Section 19-83 of the Municipal Code of the City of Hermosa Beach provides for the authority to determine and mark commercial loading zones. WHEREAS, loading zones shall be indicated by yellow paint upon the top of all curbs within such zones. WHEREAS, the loading zone shall be at any time between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. of any day except Sundays and holidays provided that such loading or unloading of materials shall not consume more than twenty minutes. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the following location is a loading zone: Third Street on the north curb west of Pacific Coast Highway in front of 737 Third Street for a total distance of approximately 45 feet. SECTION 2. That this amendment take effect immediately. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 10th day of July 1990. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: , City Clerk , City Attorney HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL July 2, 1990 Regular Meeting of July 10, 1990 SUBJECT: FINAL MAP #20779 (C.U.P. CON NO. 89-4) LOCATION: 540 11TH STREET APPLICANT(S): HAROLD ANSCHEL REQUEST: APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP FOR 3 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Final Parcel Map #20779 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 #20779 at their April 4, 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. C�CUR: MichaeP Schubach Planning Director i" Kevin B. North0aft City Manager T/srfinmap Res•ectfully, submitted, Ken Rob-rtson 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 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #20779 FOR A THREE -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 540 ELEVENTH STREET, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the City Council held a meeting on July 10, 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 lof 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. 89-32, adop- ted after public hearing on April 4, 1989. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve as follows: 1 tt 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 #20779 in the City of Hermosa Beach, State of California, being a Subdivision of Lot 6, Knutsen Tract, as recorded in Book 20, Page 185 of Maps, in the Office of the Recorder of Los An- geles, for a three -unit condominium project on land commonly known as 540 llth Street, Hermosa Beach, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 10th day of July, 1990. ATTEST: AP QVED,1AS TO F0141: T/rsfinmap PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 1ti r June 19, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 10, 1990 SIDEWALK REPAIRS, CIP 89-142 INCREASE IN PROJECT AMOUNT Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. increase the project contract amount with Damon Construction Company from an amount not to exceed of $328,064 to a new amount not to exceed of $348,064. 2. allow the proposed $20,000 from the 1990-91 Fiscal Year CIP Budget to be added to this sidewalk repair contract. ,Background: On February 13, 1990, the City Council awarded a sidewalk repair contract to Damon Construction Company. The purpose of the project was to repair significantly damaged sidewalk areas, curbs and gutters at 1,500 various locations throughout the City. The total not to exceed amount approved by the City Council to repair the damaged locations was $328,064. Analysis: This section is divided as follows: 1. Current Status of Project 2. Should the Project Be Completed at This Time? 3. Why Are There Additional Costs? 4. Fiscal Impact 1. Current Status of Project The City was divided into five logical work area's, "A" through "E", by the staff with concurrence by the contractor in order to control the work throughout the project (see Attachment "A" for a map of the areas). The work in areas "A" through "D" has been completed. These four area's represent approximately 80% of the City's area, but contain 90% of the wor$. No work has been started in Area "E" which is East of Pacific Coast Highway and North of Aviation Boulevard. - 1 - 1k The areas adjacent to the beach were completed first because of the higher pedestrian usage during the summer months. The work was stopped after the completion of Area "D" so that the staff could: 1. Reassess the additional costs due to added work not found in the original 1988 field review 2. Check the quality of workmanship for cracks 3. Check for graffiti 4. Measure the completed quantities. It has been determined that the budgeted amount is insufficient to complete all of Area "E" which represents approximately the last 10% of the project. Currently, $313,296 of the $328,064 budgeted amount has been expended leaving $14,768. An additional estimated $12,763 is required to complete the project in Area "E". 2. Should the Project Be Completed at This Time? Staff recommends to continue this project to completion for the following reasons: 1. The original scope of the project was to repair all significantly damaged concrete sidewalks, curbs and gutters City-wide. 2. Areas that have been identified by the staff as in need of repair should be repaired as soon as possible in compliance with the direction given by the City Council. This action would remove any further potential liability to the City. 3. Finishing Area "E" within the current contract would result in a cost savings to the City. The unit costs are lower on a $300,000 contract then on a $20,000 contract. 4. If Area "E" were bid as a separate contract next year, the concrete contractors may not be interested in such a small project. Only two contractors bid on the present project, CIP 89-142, and $300,000 was considered to be a small job for them. 5. Damon Construction Company has demonstrated on this project that they perform high quality work in a timely manner. Their crews work quickly and have completed 90% of the work at 1,500 locations in only 30% of the allowed contract time. 6. Not completing the project now will result in additional administrative time being.required later. •The area would have to be administered as a separate project, including advertising for bids, preconstruction activities and project close out. 3. Why Are There Additional Costs? The budgeted amount of $328,064 for this project was based on estimated quantities in 1988 for bidding purposes. The estimated quantities were determined by a field inspection of City sidewalks, curbs and gutters by the Public Works Department personnel two years ago. Prior to starting the repair work in each area, an engineer from the City staff inventoried all locations within that area as it was scheduled for repair. The original list of locations was revised at that time and a final project work list was compiled. Some locations were deleted, some locations were added and the dimensions of the repair work at some of the locations were increased or decreased. Changes were made based upon the following considerations: 1. The existence of a potential trip hazard or some other type of public safety hazard as determined by the engineer in the field. 2. Since the 1988 field review, additional damage was determined to be in need of -repair. 3. Additional damaged locations were identified by residents. 4. Dimensions of some areas to be repaired were adjusted to assure that the new concrete would be structurally stable. For example, a one foot long section of curb will often shift and/or settle, whereas a longer section (usually a minimum of five feet) will remain stable and in place. 5. Sometimes it was necessary to remove additional badly cracked concrete which was deteriorated and broken up adjacent to a trip hazard location. Of the 1,500 locations identified, 1350 have been repaired at this time from the final project work list, and many locations were revised in some way. These revisions were the sole decision of the City's staff engineer. 4. Fiscal Impact Shown below is a comparison of the original estimate versus the final quantities. Both comparisons include area E. Estimated Estimated Preliminary Quanities Final Quanities Sidewalk 43,600 S.F. $211,460,, 40,578 S.F. $196,803 Driveway 2,200 S.F. 13,200 5,319 S.F. 31,914 Curb 1,900 L.F. 57,000 3,531 L.F. 105,930 21st St. -N. Side 2,075 S.F. 21st St. -S. Side 1,380 S.F. Contingency Total Shown below are the additional project: Funds Expended to Date Area "E" Repair Estimate Estimated Repair Costs Estimated Contingency Estimated Project Funding Less Budgeted Funds Additional Funds Required 8,300 8,280 29,824 $328,064 costs 1,545 S.F. -0- S.F. required to $313,296 27,531 $340,827 7,237 $348,064 328,064 $ 20,000 6,180 -0- 7,237 $348,064 complete this Shown below is the proposed increase in the project funds not -to -exceed amount:. Project not -to -exceed Amount Proposed Increase Proposed New Project Contract Not -to -Exceed Amount $328,064 20.000 $348,064 Staff recommends using the $20,000 for Sidewalk Repairs proposed and scheduled in the Capital Improvement Program Budget for FY 90-91 as the source of these additional funds. Funding Source of State Gas Tax Fund - $20,000. Increase in Funds: (See attachment "B") Alternatives: 1. Do not complete this project thereby deferring repair of the locations in Area "E" to be bid at a later time. 2. Expend the remaining $14,768 to partially complete the locations in Area "E". Respectfully Submitted, Brian Gengler Assistant Engineer Noted For Fiscal Impact: d i I, Viki Copela d Director of Finance Concur: Lynn A. Terry, P.E Depute City Enginee Anthony Antich Director of Pub is Works evin B. North aft City Manager CIP 89-142, SIDEWALK REPAIRS MAP OF WORK AREAS CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CALIIF0RNI[ A SCALE: I INCH•400 FEET I. °00 cam=� LD Na:o L� C� 3 =� 15, I �< B - ATTACHMENT "A" CIP 89-142 SIDEWALK REPAIRS EXPENDITURES PROJECT ELEMENTS EXPENDED PRIOR TO FY89-90 BUDGET FY89-90 EXPENDED THRU 2/28/90 ESTIMATED EXPENDED 6/30/90 ESTIMATED BALANCE 6/30/90 BUDGET FY90-91 BUDGET FY91-92 ESTIMATED FUTURE BUDGET NEEDS ESTIMATED PROJECT TOTAL 'FY92-93 FY93-94 FY94-95 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING 0 0 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 60,000 0 PLANS, SPECS 8 ESTIMATES 0 0 0 0 CONSTRUCTION 1328,064 298,240 0 298,240 0 20,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 358,240 INSPECTION 0 0 OTHER DIRECT COSTS 0 0 SUBTOTAL 0 298,240 0 298,240 0 20,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 358,240 CONTINGENCY 29,824 29,824 0 29,824 TOTAL EXPENDITURE SO S328,064 SO 1328,064 SO 520,000 510,000 510,000 510,000 510,000 1388,064 FUNDING SOURCES 001 GENERAL FUND 328,064 0 328,064 0 328,064 115 STATE 6AS TAX FUND 0 20,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 60,000 0 0 TOTAL FUNDING SO 1328,064 SO 5328,064 SO 520,000 510,000 510,000 510,000 510,000 1388,064 TOTAL UNFUNDED ATTACHMENT "B" Honorable Mayor and Members of the 'City Council July 4, 1990 City Council Meeting of July 10, 1990 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT OF INACTIVE PUBLIC DEPOSITS FOR HERMOSA BEACH Attached is a report of all Inactive Public Deposits for the month of June 1990. Respectfully submitted, Gary Bruts h City Treasurer NOTED: Kevin Northcra'ft City Manager INSTITUTION LAIF TOTAL INVESTMENT REPORT - JUNE 1990 DATE OF INVESTMENT DATE OF MATURITY INTEREST BALANCE 6/01/90 Investment BALANCE 6/30/90 LACPIF Railroad Right -of -Way BALANCE 6/01/90 BALANCE 6/30/90 General Account BALANCE 6/01/90 Withdrawal BALANCE 6/30/90 $2,810,000.00 500,000.00 $3,310,000.00 Account $ 325,593.08 443,158.98 $ 100,000.00 <100,000.00> CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT: Union Federal S&L Investment -0- $ 500,000.00 6/1/90 2/22/90 5/2/90 8.531% 9.02% 9.02% 2/21/91 8.10% City National Bank Investment City National Bank Investment CORPORATE NOTES: Ford Motor Credit Co. Investment $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 3/23/90 3/25/91 4/25/90 4/22/91 5/19/88 8.425% 8.50% 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 $11,548,849.65 SEATTLE 1ST NATL. BANK TRUST BALANCE 5/01/90 $ 515,502.05 Adjustment 3.34 5/31/90 BALANCE 5/31/90 TICOR BALANCE 2/01/90 BALANCE 2/28/90 TRUSTEE TOTAL GRAND TOTAL 516,905,07 8.3% $ 10,000.00 10,000.00 $ 526,905.07 $12,075,754.72 Respectfully Submitted, Gary Brutsh City Treasurer / -a,Z-4 r July 3, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of July 10, 1990 RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO ASSIGN LITIGATED TORT CLAIMS TO ATTORNEYS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY'S LIABILITY CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Risk Man- ager to authorize assignment of litigated tort liability claims to attorney's recommended by the City's liability claims ad- ministrator, J.S. Ward & Company, and approved by the City Man- ager and Risk Manager. BACKGROUND: When Jim Lough announced his resignation as City Attorney at the April 11, 1989 City Council meeting, the Council authorized the City Manager to hire the law firm of Coleman and Wright to take over the litigated tort claims which he was handling. In addition to the then existing litigated claims, Coleman and Wright has continued to be the firm litigated tort claims are referred to. Coleman and Wright is currently assigned thirteen (13) of the City's sixteen (16) litigated claims, the City Attor- ney is handling the other three (3). The City contracts with J.S. Ward & Company to process the City's liability claims. For non -litigated claims they are responsible for coordinating the initial investigation and for recommending denial or settlement of the claim. For claims where settlement authority is granted, J.S. Ward is responsible for negotiating_ the settlement. Also, as part of their contract, they are - responsible for the coordination of all litigation activity with selected council. ANALYSIS: Selecting Coleman and Wright at the time the previous City Attor- ney resigned allowed for a smooth transition of the litigated claims. J.S. Ward has requested this action to grant authorization to assign other attorneys to handle selected litigated claims. Al- though some claims will continue to be assigned to Coleman and Wright, the recommended action will allow the City and the Liability Claims Administrator to have the option to assign cases to other attorneys who have been identified by the claims ad- ministrator as having more expertise in a certain area of law. 11 In addition, since the law firm of Coleman and Wright consists of only the two attorneys, the time available to handle the City's claims could be limited by an increase in the volume of cases for their other clients. This action is consistent with the way the City handles the as- signment of litigated Workers' Compensation claims. Litigated Workers' Compensation claims are assigned to an attorney based on the recommendation of the Claims Administrator and with the ap- proval of staff. Respectfully submitted, Robert A. Blackwood Risk Manager Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager July 2, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council July 10, 1990 PROSPECT SCHOOL HOUSE RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission that Council approve the use of the Prospect School House as a storage facility for items currently held at the Community Center and that it be restored and maintained as a two room school house in line with its historical significance. BACKGROUND At the January 10, 1989 Council meeting, the Commission was directed to determine how to restore the old Prospect School House (6th and Prospect) and identify what its best use would be for the community. The Commission decided to form a subcommittee to investigate alternative uses for the building. Subsequent to the committee's formation, the Parks.and Recreation Master Plan study was initiated. At that time, the Commission determined that the committee should wait for the completion of the Master Plan before pursuing the project any further. With the Master Plan completed and approved by Council (February 22, 1990), the Prospect School issue remains unresolved No solid recommendations for its use were made. At the April 24, 1990 Council meeting, an allocation of $14,000 of Parks and Recreation funds was approved for the purposes of re -roofing the School and to provide funding for additional repairs as necessary in order to preserve the now deteriorating building. At their June 27th meeting, the Commission decided not to reinstate the subcommittee at this time; rather to make a specific recommendation to Council for the future use of Prospect School. ANALYSIS Keeping mindful of the potential historical significance of Prospect School, the Commission feels it would be appropriate to restore as far as is affordable and practical, the building's original look. And in recognizing the very serious parking problems at the locale as well as the sensitive nature of putting any activities so close to residences, the Commission further contends that most recommended uses/activities that a committee could come up with would be incompatible,, with the neighborhood. With the funds appropriated by Council and some pledged donations already in force, the Commission would like Council to direct 1 im staff to proceed with the re -roofing project; with replacing the electrical service and to do whatever is necessary to make the building functional as a City storage facility. Depending upon the selected storage use, it may be necessary. to retain the loading dock and to build shelves for the items being stored. If funds permit, improvements to the exterior that will blend aesthetically with the park may be implemented. The thought in doing so is twofold; first it would free up space at the Community Center which could be used for recreational purposes or rental space and second, it would be a low impact, unobtrusive use of the building. With upgrades and clean-up, the building could provide 1200 square feet of storage space which could prove to be valuable even as an interim use of the space. With Council's approval, the Commission would proceed with securing donations where possible to offset the $14.,000 appropriation and will set into motion the restoration project. Other alternatives available to Council include: 1. Select another use for the building 2. Request additional suggestions/alternatives from the Commission for the building. 3. Demolish building. Attachments: Council minutes (April 24, 1990) Commission minutes (June 27, 1990) Concur: Kevin B. Northcra'ft City Manager Respectfully Submitted, Mary C. ''ooney, Director Dep . of Community Resources Wisniewski dated April 2, 1990. Continued from 4/24/90 meeting. To continue to the May 8, 1990 meeting. So ordered. 10. REQUEST FOR FUNDING FROM CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR COMMUTER EXPRESS PARTICIPATION. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 16, 1990. To continue to the May 8, 1990 meeting. So ordered. REQUEST FOR randum from dated April REDIRECTION ON PROSPECT SCHOOL HOUSE. Memo - Community Resources Director Mary Rooney 16, 1990. A staff report was presented by Community Resources Director Mary Rooney. Addressing the Council on this item were: Steve Crecy, 114 Second Street Wilma Burt, 1152 Seventh Street Howard Longacre, 1221 Seventh Place Jerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, #9 `ction: To allocate a maximum of $14,000.00 from Parks and Recreation Utility Tax to repair the roof and dry rot, and to refer to the Parks and Recreation Commission to prioritize any additional repairs or improvements of the building. Motion Mayor Creighton, second Midstokke. So ordered. 12. RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AND FACILITATE THE IMPLEMENTA- TION OF A FARMERS MARKET PER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REQUEST. Memorandum from Community Resources Mary Rooney dated April 16, 1990. A staff report was presented by Mary Rooney, Resources Director. Director ommunity Addressing the Council on this item were: Howard Longacre, 1221 Seventh Place Parker Herriott, 224 24th Street Jim Lissner, 2715 El Oeste Drive Action: To accept the recommendation. Motion Mayor Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered, noting the objections of Wiemans and Midstokke, who wished the record to reflect that her objection was due only to the day, since she felt that Monday would be more successful than Friday. PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 27, 1990, MEETING ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Crecy, Commissioners Blaco, Reviczky Staff: Belser, Edison, Rooney Absent: Fish, Peirce Guests: Corey Lyon - Roller Skates of America Mark Conte - Mark Conte Productions Missy Sheldon - Hermosa Beach Community Center Foundation Roger Creighton - Hermosa Beach Mayor MINUTES Motion: "To approve as submitted."' Blaco/Reviczky All Ayes Motion: "To discuss Item Crecy/Reviczky All Ayes ITU on the agenda first." ROLLER SKATES OF AMERICA - SPECIAL EVENT Motion: "To approve staff recommendation." Crecy/Reviczky All Ayes Staff Note: Mr. Conte wishes to appeal the Commission's decision and proceed to the level of City Council. Staff is requested to initiate the appropriate procedures for this appeal. PROSPECT SCHOOL HOUSE COMMITTEE Motion: "To utilize Prospect School as a City storage facility to store items presently located in the Community Center." Blaco/Crecy All Ayes Motion: "To recommend that staff proceed with re -roofing Prospect School and restoring its electrical service. To repair the building as is necessary to make it functional as a storage facility and where possible in keeping/restoring it to a condition compatible with its historical use. Reviczky/Blaco All Ayes Motion: "To agendize this project ,;.for the July meeting if it is accepted by the City Council." Reviczky/Crecy All Ayes PROSPECT SCHOOL ROOF Motion: "To approve staff recommendation." Reviczky/Blaco All Ayes SOUTH BAY YOUTH BASKETBALL Motion: "To deny the request for fee waiver by South Bay Youth Basketball for the use of the Hermosa Beach Community Center Gym." Blaco/Crecy All Ayes STAFF REPORT Staff Note: Staff is requested to agendize the item of Overnight Parking: Greenbelt/Community Center for the next scheduled meeting in August (August 22, 1990 - 7:30 p.m.). OTHER MATTERS Staff Note: Staff is requested to keep the Commission informed as to any projects, grants, RFP's, etc., that effect the park and recreation areas (e.g. Valley Park playing field, Strand wall, Pier renovations, etc.). Staff Note: The Commission requests a copy of the 1990 Youth Basketball finance report that was submitted to the City Council on Tuesday, June 26, 1990. Note: Implementation of the Park & Recreation Master Plan will be agendized for July meeting. Staff Note: The Commission is scheduled to tour Clark Stadium and Valley Park on Saturday, August 25, 1990. Meet at Valley Park at 1:00 p.m. Staff Note: The Commission requests the repair of the crossbar on the N.E. entry gate to Clark Field. ADJOURNMENT: 9:30 p.m. July 2, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council July 10, 1990 SKATE THE BEACH 10K CRUISE RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission and staff that Council deny the request by Mark Conte Productions to hold a "Skate the Beach 10K Cruise" in the City of Hermosa Beach on Saturday, September 15, 1990. BACKGROUND On June 18, 1990 the Department of Community Resources received a special event permit application from Mark Conte Productions requesting the use of the Strand (from Pier Avenue to the north City boundary) and Pier Avenue (west of Beach Drive) to stage a 10K skate cruise sponsored by Rollerskates of America and Coors Light Beer. The event as requested would utilize -Pier Avenue (from 9am - 3pm) for the purpose of skating exhibitions by members of Rollerblade teams and booths which would be used to sell and/or exhibit skate related items. The event would also require blocking off the east side of The Strand (from Pier Avenue to Manhattan Beach) where participants would skate in both directions to complete the 10K cruise. Coors further requested to sell beer in the Pier Avenue area though it was not considered to be essential to the event. The permit application and supporting materials are attached for Council review. ANALYSIS The Commission and staff concur that the negative points surrounding this event far outweigh the potential community benefit. That is, the application poses several issues including the blocking of Strand access; alcohol sponsor; liability considerations with a skating event and conflicts with regular beach visitors and Strand traffic. The summer roster of activities places the event only two weeks after the Fiesta de las Artes and three weeks after the Men's USA Pro Volleyball Championships when the patience of the community will be put to the test with street blockage and congestion. While it is notable that Rollerskates of America is a Hermosa Beach based company, the event seems to be purely promotional; rather than a credible sporting event that is supported by sponsors. Thus it would seem thatthe direct benefit to the community as a whole in presenting them with what is already available (skating on The Strand) is minimal. Other alternatives available to Council include: 1. Approve permit application for event. 2. Suggest modifications for the event. 3. Request additional information from Mark Conte Productions. Concur: evin' B. Northcr, ft City Manager 2 Respectfully Submitted, Mary Dep P":777, Director of Community Resources MARKETING PRODUCTIONS MARK CONTE 2203 Curtis Ave. Redondo Beach. CA 90278 Phone/Fax (213) 371-5066 June 27, 1990 Mary C. Rooney, Director of Community Resources City of Hermosa Beach 710 Pier Ave. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mary, Hermosa Beach based Rollerskates of America and Mark Conte Productions request your assistance in obtaining the proper permits from Hermosa Beach to hold the first "Skate the Beach 10K Cruise". The event is scheduled to take place on Saturday, September 15, 1990 starting in the city of Hermosa Beach at 10:00 am. This is not a race, but a casual organized "skate cruise". There are organized events for runners and walkers, bike riders, volleyball players, "Iron Men and Women", and tennis players; there are programs for basketball, baseball, softball and raquetball, but - so far - not one event for rollerskaters. We think that it's time, and The Strand is the place. Mark Conte Productions has many years of experience in this field, ranging from the Redondo Beach Super Bowl Sunday 10K Run to the 5K at the L.A. Marathon to the latest Redondo -Riviera Rotary "Tour of the South Bay" bike ride. We know we can handle the task, and believe in the value of community activities. We expect approximately 500 participants. As this is not a race, street closures will not be required. The event begins with a staggered start where skaters are released in groups of approximately 40 at a time skating at their own pace, and obeying all traffic laws en route. They will be instructed to skate on the right side of the Strand/Bike Path two abreast. I have enclosed a map of the area in Hermosa Beach highlighted for your review. Please notify me if we have missed any area or street. We will locate a water station at the turn around point in Manhattan Beach where skaters can get a drink before proceeding. First aid will be available. The course will be set up early Saturday morning with directional signs and delineators where appropriate. Upon completion of the event we will then break down the course and water stations, leaving the area as we found it. Our volunteers will be acting as traffic monitors As always, each detail is planned with safety in mind. Skate the Beach 10K Cruise page 2 We will plan all activities in coordination with the City's Recreation and Parks, Police, Public Services and Fire Departments. The event will be covered by the appropriate liability policy with Hermosa Beach named as additionally insured. We are prepared to meet with the appropriate City department representatives as needed to insure proper coordination and compliance with City requirements. Thank you for your time and assistance in this matter. We are enthused about our first South Bay rollerskating event, and look forward to a safe, successful "Skate the Beach 10K Cruise". Mark Conte Event Coordinator City of Hermosa Beach Department of Community Resources 710 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, .�.•�, rr,_:•..,>.:., ///�� '7 -/ , CA 90254 SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION Organization's Name: Roller_skates of America Profit X Non -Profit Non-profit Number Organization's Address: Hermosa Beach, CA • 1328 The Strand Phone Number(s): (213) 372-8812 Zip Code 90254 Contact Person and Title: Mark Conte, Event Coordinator Mark Conte Productions Contact Person's Address: 2203 Curtis Ave. Redondo Beach, CA Zip Code 90278 Daytime Phone Number:371-5066 Evening Phone Number: same Brief Description of Event: "Skate the Beach 10K Cruise", a 10K roller_skati.n . - • the end of Pier Ave. arld f i n i ch i nq in Hprmnga geaf•J-L a t - Date(s) of Event: Saturday, Sept. 15, 1990 Location(s) of Event: Start/Finish at Pier Ave. and The Strand. We re•uest the closure of Pier A •u : • • street only. •The skaters will •roceed north on The Strand t _1• •..• .•• Manhattan Beach and back south via The Strand. We will detour at 32nd Pl. up to Hermosa Ave., left to MB Strand as to miss t at the end of The Strand. 'Set-up Time: 8:00 a.m. Time Event is to Commence: 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. The skate will start at 10:00 a.m., the slowest skaters should finish within 45 min. of the start. This is NOT a race, it is a Strand cruise. Number of Participants (Including volunteers): 500 Anticipated Numb of Sectators: 100 r 4. Number of Vehicles Involved and How Used: none Description of Set-up for this Event: See map for details. Pier Ave. from Beach Dr. to The Strand will be the registration area. Included is a demonstration area where members of the Rollerblade team will perform following the skate. Six to 12 booths may be in- cluded exhibiting and/or_ selling skate related items. There will be 12 to 20 tables, 50 chairs, and a PA system for announcements. Additional Information or Special Requests: Confirmed sponsors for the event are Rollerblades and Coors Light beer. Coor_s:. requests that we sell beer per ABC regulations to participants in the area of Pier Ave. reserved for the event. This is not a "must"; should you decide against serving beer, the event will not provide such a service. Area bars and restaurants will then become serving points. under their respective codes and laws. Fees, Charges and Other Requirements: Police Costs ' $ Fire Costs $ Business License $ Public Works Costs $ Processing Fee $ Other Costs $ SOU Total Duo_ Refundable Damage Deposit $ Damage Deposit is due: fee_ Balance of fees incurred are due:' Insurance Required: Yes No Date Received Unless greater or lessor coverage is requested, applicant agrees to furnish the City of Hermosa beach evidence of $1 million comprehensive general liability insurance in the form of a certificate, covering the entire period of this permit, naming the City of Hermosa Beach and its employees as additional insureds. Expiration Date . Permittee waives claims against the City of Hermosa Beach, its officers, agents and employees, for fees or damages caused by, arising out of, or in any way connected with the exercise of this permit. APPLICANT AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS AND TO MAINTAIN IN GOOD CONDITION AND TO RETURN SAID PREMISES IN THE SAME CONDITION AS THEY WERE BEFORE SAID USE. I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS TRUE AND COMPLETE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. ALL FEES, CHARGES AND OTHER NECESSARY MATERIAL WILL BE PAID AND/OR FURNISHED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY RESOURCES AS MUTUALLY AGREED TO BY BOTH PARTIES. Company Teprestative Date Permit to be processed through City Council: Yes If YES, Council's decision: Application is invalid without the following signatures: Department of Community Resouces Police Department Authorization Fire Department Authorization if Required Life Guard Authorization Needed on all Water Events • Date Date Date Date 3 each Bea c Pea e. t-Iun/ O f9 0 Q A *a U X 24 F i VA S k X Alb COW s o 46 c Pe Atow3(.-41! h �..►eat 1 2f O a o 0 0 ,n e,S' +o , S { rav�ci G kt 8eact% tir;,ie pito "13 Ig • 6 cacti% ve..'e V1 June 27, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of July 10, 1990 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING CITY PROSECUTOR SERVICES RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Approve the Scope of Services and qualifications for the City Prosector; 2. Delegate the direction of the City Prosecutor to the Director of Public Safety; and 3. Authorize the Director of Public Safety to seek proposals from qualified individuals to serve as City Prosecutor. BACKGROUND: At the regular Council meeting of June 12, 1990 the City Manager notified Council of the planned retirement of the current City Prosecutor, John Barry, by September 1, 1990. In planning for the pending retirement, staff was directed to explore the options available for handling the City prosectutions. The two options identified were 1) to transfer the responsibility to the District Attorney's office and 2) to recruit for another part-time City Prosecutor to replace John Barry. ANALYSIS: DISTRICT ATTORNEY Several cities in the South Bay, Manahattan Beach, Palos Verdes Estates, El Segundo, Signal Hill, and Gardena have been using the District Attorney to handle state law misdemeanor filings. The City of El Segundo is currently proposing that they retain their own prosecutor to handle the filings because of dissatisfaction with the District Attorney. For handling the various municipal code and state law infraction violations, the cities use two methods. 1) they pay the District Attorney on a per hour basis to file and handle the cases; or, 2) they have retained a part-time City Prosecutor to handle the cases on a per hour basis. For many years, the City of Hermosa Beach was utilizing the District Attorney for the filing of planning and zoning type municipal code violations that were not being handled by the City Prosecutor. In November of 1989, the City contracted for a Deputy City Prosector to handle those cases due to the fact that the District Attorney's office was not providing satisfactory service. 1 1 o Staff was provided with information that the District Attorney was obligated by the Government Code to handle state law misdemeanor filings and prosecutions at no cost to the City. Government Code §26500 does indeed designate the District Attorney as the "public prosecutor". The section states that "The public prosecutor shall attend the courts, and within his or her discretion shall initiate and conduct on behalf of the people all prosecutions for public offenses." In a recent case, People v Daggett(1988), it was decided that the public prosecutor is not required by §26500 to handle infractions. In our research, we contacted representatives of the District Attorney's office, the County of Los Angeles, and the Cities of Hawthorne and Pasadena. In 1985, the City of Pasadena considered shifting the responsibility for prosecution of state law misdemeanors to the District Attorney thinking that this would save the City money since this was a responsibility of the District Attorney. In December 1989, the City of Hawthorne considered a similar shift of responsiblity. Both cities quickly discovered that the District Attorney/County had a longstanding policy requiring fair compensation for the transfer of workload from any outside entity to any County agency. It is the County's position, relying on Revenue and Taxation Code §95(e) and §99, to charge for any "jurisdictional change" in order to recover the costs of adding the responsibility of providing misdemeanor prosecutorial services for cities that have been providing those services themselves. This charge is based on computations by the County regarding the costs necessary to provide the service to a City and the negotiation of a property tax exchange between the City and the County, as provided for in §99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, in order to recover those costs. (kind of like we do with "costs reasonably borne") As an example of the potential costs, the City of Hawthorne has a budget of approximately $194,000 per year to provide the prosecutorial services. Based on the actual filings/workload of the previous year, the County calculated that they would charge $412,672 to provide those services for the City. Using those calculations as a guide, staff believes that the cost to provide the services we now receive for a budget of $58,625 would double. That is, of course, if the City had to pay for the services. The big question is, will the City have to pay for the services? It is clearly the opinion of the City Attorney and our Deputy City Prosecutor that the County is obligated to provide the services at no charge. Based on our research and conversations with the County, it is our opinion that the County will attempt to recover costs for providing the services. The County does not seem willing to accept any additional workload for no cost, even though we are a small city, it would be precedent setting and other cities would be quick to shift their costs to the County. Although the City could litigate the matter(which would probably have to be done), it could be a long drawn out battle that would result in high legal costs and may not be in the best interest of the City. 2 CITY PROSECUTOR For many years the City Prosecutor has handled all misdemeanors and infractions, both Penal Code and Municipal Code. The Prosecutor comes to the department and reviews the cases for filing. The paperwork is later filed with the Court Clerk by the Court Liaison Officer. If the City used the District Attorney, Officers would have to take all of the cases to the District Attorney's office and wait for a Deputy District Attorney to review all of the cases to determine if they will be filed or not. This review is done on a first come, first served basis with other cities that use the District Attorney as well as the Highway Patrol and the Sheriff's Office. This process will increase the amount of time officers would have to spend at the court and will decrease the amount of time available to work on the cases and on patrol of the City. Currently, our City Prosecutor and the Court Liaison screen each case and determine which officers will or will not be subpoenaed for court on the case. This results in less court overtime being paid by the City. Additionally, because we handle the subpoenaes ourselves, we are able to allow the officers to remain on call for court instead of sitting in court waiting, only to find out that the defendant pleads out and no trial is held. It is District Attorney practice to subpoena all officers named in a report. Furthermore, there is no on call procedure, the officers must report at 8:30 in the morning. They then wait until a court time is set, usually in the afternoon, then they come back and wait for the trial. This is a very costly and time consuming practice that does not affect our City at this time because we handle our own. This is a common topic of discussion/complaint among Chief's whose city's use the District Attorney for filings. Past and present configurations of city prosecutions have been a splitting of the work between two part-time attorneys because one or the other did not want to handle some particular types of cases. In the past it was between the City Prosecutor who handled all criminal cases and the District Attorney who handled code violations; Because the District Attorney's office was not providing ade- quate or timely service, the City contracted with another part-time attorney to become the Deputy City Prosecutor and handle the code violations. CITY PROSECUTOR v DISTRICT ATTORNEY As previously stated, it is our opinion that the City will have to pay for the prosecutorial services one way or the other, it is just a question of how much. Based on past experiences with the District Attorney with our code violations, we were dissatisfied and sought our own prosecutor. The City of El Segundo is desirous of getting their own prosecutor because they are dissatisfied with the service and the fact that the filing guidelines established by the District Attorney results in many good cases not being filed. We have had some of the same problems with filing some of our narcotics cases because of such minor things as the quantity of narcotics possessed was not enough to file the case. Because of these experiences and those of others, there is no reason to believe that we would be happy with the service. 3 Based on the information regarding the filing review and the subpoena of officers we believe that our overtime budget will increase and we will reduce our available manpower to conduct our activities. Our own in house prosecutor could provide many more legal benefits to the city than has been provided in the past, and would not be provided by the District Attorney. A City Prosecutor is more sensitive to the City's particular problems and needs than the District Attorney and a City Prosecutor is more accountable to the City. In summation, it is our recommendation that we continue to provide our own City Prosecutor with the following recommended changes: * The attached scope of services should be adopted by Council and provided by the City Prosecutor in order to obtain maximum utilization of the City Prosecutor. * The recommended qualifications should be approved by Council. * The prosecution of all code and law violations should be handled by one prosecutor, not split—between two or more persons. This would provide better continuity and accountability with less confusion. * The City Prosecutor should, for functional and coordination purposes, report to the Director of Public Safety for guidance and direction based on desires of the Council. Concur: rte`! see a#kcf "Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager Go,,4�er(fs 4 Steve Wisniewski Director of Public Safety CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: The report and recommendation is based on issues that are in some dispute as two attorneys feel the City can require the County to handle state misdemeanors without charge. However, the ability to coordinate with the district attorney is nominal, resulting in additional costs. While these costs probably do not offset a City prosecutor's costs, the City also loses some ability to direct the prosecution such as full prosecution of drug abuse cases, which is a current direction. Accordingly, the recommendation seems appropriate, subject to reconsideration when the cost of proposals are known. 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, misdemeanor and infraction violations of the Penal Code for the City of Hermosa Beach. SCOPE OF SERVICE The scope of service shall include : Meeting with the various departments entrusted with the enforcement of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code concerning violations, enforcement, and prosecution Review of all misdemeanor, infraction, and municipal code violations Filing and/or coordinating filing of all criminal complaints Completes 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) Represents the City at traffic court as needed files answers and assists the departments with Pitchess and discovery motions makes court appearances and in camera hearings as needed Assists with legal filings for asset forfeitures in connection with illegal narcotics activity (it is desirable that the City Prosecutor attempt to become cross certified as an Assistant U.S. Attorney General in order to enable him to handle asset forfeitures directly) Prepares necessary documents to include motions and orders in conjunction with evidence and seized property releases and destruction, makes court appearances as necessary Develops and presents in service training programs and legal updates to personnel involved in the enforcement of the various codes Available on an on call basis 7 days a week, 24 hours a day to respond to crime scene locations and to assist the Police Department in the preparation and attainment of search warrants, arrest warrants, bail deviations and other legal matters as needed Provide legal support and advice on sensitive investigations Develops and maintains programs and procedures to effectively track prosecutions and report statistical data on case loads and case dispositions, etc on a monthly basis to the Director of Public Safety Maintains a minimum number of office hours per week (number to be established, office space to be established in the Police Department) DESIRABLE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE Member of California State Bar Five (5) years experience as an attorney, 3 of which dealing with prosecutions Significant courtroom and criminal prosecution experience CODE ion of or at of the 6397, the ithorizing ved from provision t on the sary and ding, but nd other .pair and s in the thorizing able and be made erefor. annum, :miannu- :tions or records: iistorical -tote the ,o desig- aate, the (if one ted, the to foster shall be n or his ate, and :od.) GOVERNMENT CODE § 26501 § 26500 and following sections general references: Csl Jur 3d (Rev) Distict and Municipal Attorneys § 19. cal Jur 3d Municipalities §§ 261, 265. § 26500. District attorney is public prosecutor The district attorney is the public prosecutor, except as otherwise provided by law. The public prosecutor shall attend the courts, and within his or her discretion shall initiate and conduct on behalf of the people all prosecutions for public offenses. Amended Stats 1980 ch 1094 § 1. Amendments: 1980 Amendment (1) Added ", except as otherwise provided by law" at the end of the first paragraph; and (2) amended the second paragraph by (a) substituting "The public prosecutor" for "he"; and (b) adding "and within his or her discretion shall initiate". City attorney's prosecution of misdemeanors, with consent of district attorney: § 41803.5. Cal Jur 3d (Rev) District and Municipal Attorneys §§ 11, 23. Diversion and the judicial function respecting violation of drug-related offenses; power and limitations on California prosecutor. 5 Pacific LJ 767. Review of Selected 1980 Legislation. 12 Pacific LJ 331. Environmental protection; powers of county attorneys. 14 Santa Clara Law 306. The district attorney has the responsibility of performing the duties of public prosecutor with respect to violations of ordinances enacted by special districts in the county to which criminal penalties apply. 65 Ops Atty Gen 330. Immunity of prosecuting attorney or similar officer from action for false arrest or imprisonment. 79 ALR3d 882. Disciplinary action against attorney for misconduct related to performance of official duties as prosecut- ing attorney, 10 ALR4th 605. 5. In General It is clearly not the function of a court to investigate criminal violations, as the power to enforce the state's laws is vested in the attorney general. The responsibility for investigating and prosecuting criminal activity is vested in the dis- trict attorney or the grand jury, and no one can institute criminal proceedings without the concur- rence, approval, or authorization of the district attorney. Rosato v Superior Court (1975) 51 CA3d 190, 124 Cal Rptr 427. Investigation and the gathering of evidence re- lating to criminal offenses is a responsibility insep- arable from the district attorney's prosecutorial function. The district attorney is charged with the duty of investigating as well as prosecuting crimi- nal activity. It follows that the requirement of Gov. Code, § 26500 (public prosecutor shall attend the courts), applies not only to postcomplaint proceedings but also to precomplaint proceedings that call into question the district attorney's inves- tigation of suspected criminal activity. People v Superior Court (Aquino) (1988, 1st Dist) 201 Cal App 3d 1346, 248 Cal Rptr 50. 7. Criminal Prosecutions The prosecuting attorney is not required by Gov. Code, § 26500, to be present at infraction trials. People v Daggett (1988) 206 Cal App 3d Supp 1, 253 Cal Rptr 195. 10. In General The state prosecuting attorney who acted within the scope of his duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution and in presenting the state's case is absolutely immune from a civil suit for damages for alleged deprivations of the defendant's constitutional rights under 42 USCS § 1983, which provides that every person who acts under color of such law to deprive another of a constitutional right shall be liable to injured party in an action at law. Imbler v Pachtman (1976) 424 US 409, 47 L Ed 2d 128, 96 S Ct 984. § 26501. Institution of proceedings for arrest: Attendance upon magistrates and grand jury Cal Jur 3d (Rev) District and Municipal Attorneys § 23. Cal Jur 3d Mandamus and Prohibition § 13. 111 (a Gov Cocke] 1 § 26509 GOVERNMENT CODE (27) The Bureau of Employment Agencies. (28) The Board of Osteopathic Examiners. (29) The Division of Investigation. (30) The Bureau of Automotive Repair. (31) The State Board of Registration for Geologists and Geophysicists. (32) The State Board of Examiners of Nursing Home Administrators. (33) The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. (34) The Department of Insurance. (35) The Public Utilities Commission. (36) The State Department of Health Services. (37) The New Motor Vehicle Board. Added Stats 1979 ch 559 § 1 as § 26508; Amended and Renumbered Stats 1980 ch 676 § 113. Amended Stats 1988 ch 1448 sec 30. Amended Stats 1989 ch 886 sec 84. Amendments: 1980 Amendment Routine Code Maintenance. 1988 Amendment: Substituted subd (dx14) for former subd (dx14) which read: "(14) "The Home Furnishings" Cal Jur 3d (Rev) District and Municipal Attorneys § 20. Bureau of § 26520. Legal services for county and local public entities: Legal opinions for school districts: Fee The district attorney shall render legal services to the county without fee, shall render legal opinions to school districts on matters as required by law, and may render legal services to local public entities as requested. Unless required by law to provide legal services to local public entities without fee, the district attorney may charge a local public entity a fee, not to exceed the total cost to the county, for such legal services. Amended Stats 1976 ch 800 § 1. Amendments: 1976 Amendment (1) Amended the first sentence by substituting (a) "The" for "When required and without fee, the"; and (b) "render legal services to the county without fee, shall render legal opinions to school districts on matters as required by law, and may render legal services to local public entities as requested" for "give his opinion in writing to county and district offices on matters relating to the duties of their respective offices": and (2) added the second sentence. Authority of county counsel to represent and advise officers and employees of special districts, subject to provisions of this section: § 27645. Cal Jur 3d (Rev) District and Municipal Attorneys §§ 2. 19. 58 Ops Atty Gen 241 (incompatibility of offices of district attorney and elementary school district trustee in general law county which has established office of county counsel). The elective offices of recreation and park district director in school districts are incompatible with the office of deputy district attorney. Accordingly, a deputy district attorney may not simultaneously hold either of those offices. 63 Ops Atty Gen 710. Unless a county charter provides otherwise, a district attorney may provide legal services. including legal counsel. to special districts within the county if the county has no county counsel. but where the county has a county counsel, the district attorney has only the authority to provide those legal services to special districts which are derived from his duties as public prosecutor. 64 Ops Atty Gen 418. County counsel of general law county does not have duty to render legal opinion on matter of general interest or application to school district upon request of individual member of its governing board. (1987) 70 Ops Any Gen 42. § 26520.5. Legal services, with approval of supervisors, for association, etc., contracting with county for operation of county fair: Compensation of county The district attorney or county counsel may, with the approval of the county board of supervisors, provide legal services to an association or 114 [8 Gov Code] GOVERNMENT CODE nonprofit corporation which con county fair pursuant to the pro association or nonprofit corpora services at a rate which is mutua Added Stats 1976 ch 800 § 2. Cal Jur 3d (Rev) District and Municipal Att. § 26521. Defense of suits: Prose and forfeitures Witkin Procedure (3d ed) Pleading § 132. Cal Jur 3d (Rev) District and Municipal An Environmental protection; general powers of Immunity of prosecuting attorney or simil ALR3d 882. § 26522. Preparation of legal Advice Cal Jur 3d (Rev) District and Municipal An 58 Ops Atty Gen 241 (incompatibility of off. in general law county which has established § 26523. Defense or prosecutiot surer Witkin Procedure (3d ed) Pleading § 132. § 26525. Illegal payment of 1 recover money paid or to restrai Witkin Procedure (3d ed) Pleading § 132. Cal Jur 3d (Rev) District and Municipal Ar. Cal Jur 3d Limitation of Actions § 108, Mu: § 26526. County counsel, or di. sors; Attendance at meetings; D The county counsel, or if none the board of supervisors. Tht attorney, shall attend its meet oppose all claims and accounts and illegal. Amended Stats 1980 ch 842 § 1. Amendments: 1980 Amendment: (1) Amended the first ser the comma after "district attorney"; and county counsel or if none. the district attorr Cal Jur 3d (Rev) District and Municipal At § 26528. Abatement of public nt Cal Jur 3d (Rev) District and Municipal A Cal Jur 3d Hotels. Motels, and Restaurants Environmental protection; mandamus to n Santa Clara Law 319. Right to maintain action to enjoin public n ALR3d 665. [8 Gov Cod.l § 95 IMPLEMENTATION CONST. ART. 13A Div. 1 Section 97.8. Computation of state assistance payments; adjustment to county health servic- es grant; allocation and apportionment of property tax revenues. 97.85. Removal of business inventory exemption subvention from allocation and apportionment formula; basis of removal; computation of share of addi- tional revenues. 98. Allocation of annual tax increment. 98.5. Apportionment of property tax revenues required by §§ 95 to 98; subtraction of redevelopment increment. 98.6. Reduction of amount allocated to special district; special district augmentation fund; notice and hearing on distribution; determination of allocation and disbursement of funds. 98.7. Special districts; amount of state assistance payments; San Joaquin County. 98.8. County or city; distribution of funds to special district. 98.9. Allocation of property tax assessed value attributable to unitary and operating nonunitary property. 99. Jurisdictional changes; incorporation of city or formation of district; effect on computation renegotiation of agreements. 99.1. Jurisdictional changes; special district providing services to area where not previously provided by local agency. 99.2. Jurisdictional changes; negotiation for exchange of property tax; conditions. 99.3. Marin county fire protection; transfer of responsibility; allocation of property tax revenue. 99.4. Allocation of property tax revenues by county auditor for 1985-86 fiscal year and thereafter; transfer or exchange of revenues; adjustments; conditions. 99.5. Transfer of property tax revenues; adjustment of allocations; resolution for exchange of property tax revenues; application of section. 99.9. Construction of amendments of section 99. 100. Request for reduction of amount; effective tax rate reduction; school entities; property tax allocations. Chapter 6 was added by Stats.1979, c. 282, p. 1025, § 59, eff. July 24, 1979. § 95. Definitions For the purpose of this chapter, (a) "Local agency" means a city, county, and special district. (b) "Jurisdiction" means a local agency, school district, community college district, or county superintendent of schools. For jurisdictions located in more than one county, the county auditor of each county in which that jurisdiction is located shall, for the purposes of computing the amount for that jurisdiction pursuant to this chapter, treat the portion of the jurisdiction located within that county as a separate jurisdic- tion. (c) "Property tax revenue" includes the amount of state reimbursement for the homeowners' exemption. "Property tax revenue" does not include the amount of property tax levied for the purpose of making payments for the interest and principal on (1) general obligation bonds or other indebtedness approved by the voters prior to July 1, 1978, including tax rates levied pursuant to Part 10 (commencing with Section 15000) of Division 1 of, and Sections 39308 and 39311 and 80 ALLOCA' Pt. 0.5 former S: of the Gc improver. June 4, 1 (d) "Ta tions oth (e) "Ju Section : Section . defined i as define in Sectio Section any char. jurisdicti Jurisdi two or otherwis district (f) "Sc and cou: (g) Ex a specifi combinz In the subject area su't school combine (h) "S (1) Fc tion 16: each co. with the pursuar. (2) Fc sions (b additior of June of Fina: (3) F, Chapter of the C and Ch. 59 C. ALLOCATION OF TAX REVENUES Pt. 0.5 former Sections 81338 and 81341 of the Education Code, and Section 26912.7 of the Government Code, and (2) bonded indebtedness for the acquisition or improvement of real property approved by two-thirds of the voters on or after June 4, 1986. (d) "Taxable assessed value" means total assessed value minus all exemp- tions other than the homeowners' and business inventory exemptions. (e) "Jurisdictional change" includes a change of organization, as defined in Section 35027 of the Government Code', an incorporation, as defined in Section 35037 of the Government Code', a municipal reorganization, as defined in Section 35042 of the Government Code', a change of organization, as defined in Section 56028 of the Government Code, a formation, as defined in Section 56042 of the Government Code, and a reorganization, as defined in Section 56068 of the Government Code. "Jurisdictional change" also includes any change in the boundary of those special districts which are not under the jurisdiction of a local agency formation commission. Jurisdictional change shall also include a functional consolidation where two or more local agencies, except two or more counties, exchange or otherwise reassign functions and any change in the boundaries of a school district or community college district or county superintendent of schools. (f) "School entities" means school districts, community college districts. and county superintendents of schools. (g) Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, "tax -rate area" means a specific geographic area all of which is within the jurisdiction of the same combination of local agencies and school entities for the current fiscal year. In the case of a jurisdictional change pursuant to Section 99, the area subject to the change shall constitute a new tax -rate area, except that if the area subject to change is within the same combinations of local agencies and school entities as an existing tax -rate area, the two tax -rate areas may be combined into one tax -rate area. (h) "State assistance payments" means: (1) For counties, amounts determined pursuant to subdivision (b) of Sec- tion 16260 of the Government Code, increased by the amount specified for each county pursuant to Section 94 of Chapter 282 of the Statutes of 1979, with the resultant sum reduced by an amount derived by the calculation made pursuant to Section 16713 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. (2) For cities, 82.91 percent of the amounts determined pursuant to subdivi- sions (b) and (i) of Section 16250 of the Government Code plus for any city an additional amount equal to one-half of the amount of any outstanding debt as of June 30, 1978, for "museums" as shown in the Controller's "Annual Report of Financial Transactions of Cities for Fiscal Year 1977-78." (3) For special districts, 95.24 percent of the amounts received pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 16270) of Part 1.5 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code, Section 35.5 of Chapter 332 of the Statutes of 1978, and Chapter 12 of the Statutes of 1979. 59 Cal.Cotle—s 81 § 95 ALLOCATION OF TAX REVENUES § 99 Pt. 0.5 shall receive a pro rata share of the amount in excess of the prior year's assessed value, as follows: (1) Each tax rate area shall be allocated an amount not to exceed 2 percent of the amount allocated pursuant to subdivision (a). (2) The amount in excess of the amount distributed pursuant to paragraph (1), if any, shall be distributed among all tax rate areas in the county by formula. The amount allocated to each tax rate area shall be the same percentage of the amount of the excess value of the unitary and operating nonunitary property in the county as the percentage of the total locally assessed value and the value of nonunitary property in the tax rate area is of the total value of locally assessed value and the value of nonunitary property is in the county. (c) The assessed value of the unitary and operating nonunitary property shall be kept separate for each company throughout the allocation process. (d) If a tax rate area is divided, the value of the unitary and operating nonunitary property shall be divided among the resulting tax rate areas in the same proportion that the value of locally assessed property and nonunitary property is divided among the resulting tax rate areas. (Added by Stats.1986, c. 1457, § 4.) § 99. Jurisdictional changes; incorporation of city or formation of dis- trict; effect on computation; renegotiation of agreements (a) For the purposes of the computations required by this chapter: (1) In the case of a jurisdictional change, other than a city incorporation or a formation of a district as defined in Section 2215 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, the auditor shall adjust the allocation of property tax revenue determined pursuant to Section 96 or 97, or the annual tax increment determined pursuant to Section 98, for local agencies whose service area or service responsibility would be altered by such jurisdictional change, as determined pursuant to subdivision (b) or (c). (2) In the case of a city incorporation or a formation of a district as defined in Section 2215 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, the auditor shall assign the allocation of property tax revenues determined pursuant to Section 54790.3 of the Government Code to the newly formed city or district and shall make the adjustment as determined by Section 54790.3 ' in the allocation of property tax revenue determined pursuant to Section 96 or 97 for each local agency whose service area or service responsibilities would be altered by such incorporation or formation. (b) Upon the filing of an application or a resolution pursuant to the Municipal Organization Act (Part 2 (commencing with Section 35000) of Division 2 of Title 4 of the Government Code)'- or the District Reorganization Act of 1965 (Part 1 (commencing with Section 56000) of Division 1 of Title 6 of the Government Code), but prior to the issuance of a certificate of filing, the executive officer shall give notice of such filing to the assessor and auditor 109 § 99 IMPLEMENTATION CONST. ART. 13A Div. 1 of each county within which the territory subject to the jurisdictional change is located. Such notice shall specify each local agency whose service area or responsibility will be altered by the jurisdictional change. (1)(A) The county assessor shall provide to the county auditor, within 30 days of the notice of filing, a report which identifies the assessed valuations for the territory subject to the jurisdictional change and the tax rate area or areas in which the territory exists. (B) The auditor shall estimate the amount of property tax revenue generat- ed within the territory which is the subject of the jurisdictional change during the current fiscal year. (2) The auditor shall estimate what proportion of the property tax revenue determined pursuant to paragraph (1) is attributable to each local agency pursuant to Section 96 or 97, and Section 98, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 98.6. (3) Within 45 days of notice of the filing of an application or resolution, the auditor shall notify the governing body of each local agency whose service area or service responsibility will be altered by the amount of, and allocation factors with respect to, property tax revenue estimated pursuant to paragraph (2) which is subject to a negotiated exchange. (4) Upon receipt of the estimates pursuant to paragraph (3) the local agencies shall commence negotiations to determine the amount of property tax revenues to be exchanged between and among such local agencies. Such negotiation period shall not exceed 30 days. Such exchange may be limited to an exchange of property tax revenues from the annual tax increment generated in the area subject to the jurisdic- tional change and attributable to the local agencies whose service area or service responsibilities will be altered by the proposed jurisdictional change. The final exchange resolution shall specify how the annual tax increment shall be allocated in future years. (5) In the event that a jurisdictional change would affect the service area or service responsibility of one or more special districts, the board of supervisors of the county or counties in which the districts are located shall, on behalf of the district or districts, negotiate any exchange of property tax revenues. (6) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the executive officer shall not issue a certificate of filing pursuant to Sections 35152 3, 54791 ', or 56198 5 of the Government Code until such local agencies included in the property tax revenue exchange negotiation, within the 30 -day negotiation period, present resolutions adopted by each such county and city whereby each such county and city agrees to accept the exchange of property tax revenues. (7) In the event that the commission modifies the proposal or its resolution of determination, any local agency whose service area or service responsibili- ty would be altered by the proposed jurisdictional change may request, and the executive officer shall grant, 15 days for the affected agencies, pursuant to paragraph (4) to renegotiate an exchange of property tax revenues. Notwith- standing the time period specified in paragraph (4), if the resolutions required 110 ALLOCATION Pt. 0.5 pursuant to par 15 -day period, be terminated. (8) No later jurisdictional c officer shall nc revenues and tl as provided in (c) Wheneve: approved by a service area o - change, shall g and auditor of tional change i service area or request the auc ant to paragra auditor of the subject to excr graphs (4), (5 property tax r: cies. Notwith change shall t negotiations property tax property tax r subject to the whose service jurisdictional annual tax inc the resolution notify the auc subdivision (z (d) With re. to this sectior may develop agreement m. agreement. (e) Except determining year and ther tional change January 1, P determine by between and determinatio 13A ALLOCATION OF TAX REVENUES § 99 )iv. I range =a or :n 30 tions or :erat- iring enue ency ;ions the -vice ition raph iocal )erty Such nues sdic- a or Inge. nent or sors If of :ues. >hall 198 tax sent lnty tion bili - and It to ith- i red Pt. 0.5 pursuant to paragraph (6) are not presented to the executive officer within the 15 -day period, all proceedings of the jurisdictional change shall automatically be terminated. (8) No later than the date on which the certificate of completionof executivehe jurisdictional change is recorded with the county recorder, the officer shall notify the auditor or auditors of the exchange of property tax revenues and the auditor or auditors shall make the appropriate adjustments as provided in subdivision (a). (c) Whenever a jurisdictional change is not required to be reviewed and approved by a local agency formation commission, the local agencies whose service area or service responsibilities would be altered by the proposed change, shall give notice to the State Board of Equalization and the assessor and auditor of each county within which the territory subject to the jurisdic- tional change is located. Such notice shall specify each local agency whose service area or responsibility will be altered by the jurisdictional change and request the auditor and assessor to make the determinations required purysue su- ant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (b). p auditor of the amount of, and allocation factors with respect to, property tax subject to exchange, such local agencies, pursuant to the provisions of para- graphs (4), (5), and (6) of subdivision (b), shall determine the amount of property tax revenues to be exchanged between and among such local agen- cies. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no such jurisdictional change shall become effective until each county and city included in such negotiations agrees, by resolution, to accept the negotiated exchange of property tax revenues. Such exchange may be limited to an exchange of property tax revenue from the annual tax increment generated in the area subject to the jurisdictional change and attributable to the local agencies whose service area or service responsibilities will be altered by the proposed jurisdictional change. The final exchange resolution shall specify how the annual tax increment shall be allocated in future years. Upon the adoption of the resolutions required pursuant to this section, the adopting agencies shall notify the auditor who shall make the appropriate adjustments as provided in subdivision (a). (d) With respect to adjustments in the allocation of property taxes pursuant to this section, a county and any local agency or agencies within the county may develop and adopt a master property tax transfer agreement. Such agreement may be revised from time to time by the parties subject to such agreement. (e) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (f), for the purpose of determining the amount of property tax to be allocated in the 1979-80 fiscal year and thereafter for those local agencies which were affected by a jurisdic- tional change which was filed with the State Board of Equalization after January 1, 1978 but on or before January 1, 1979. The local agencies shall determine by resolution the amount of property tax revenues to be exchanged between and among such affected agencies and notify the auditor of such determination. 111 § 99 IMPLEMENTATION CONST. ART. 13A Div. 1 (f) For the purpose of determining the amount of property tax to be allocated in the 1979-80 fiscal year and thereafter, for a city incorporation which was filed pursuant to Sections 54900 to 54904 after January 1, 1978, but on or before January 1, 1979, the amount of property tax revenue considered to have been received by such jurisdiction for the 1978-79 fiscal year shall be equal to two-thirds of the amount of property tax revenue projected in the final local agency formation commission staff report pertaining to such incorporation multiplied by the proportion that the total amount of property tax revenue received by all jurisdictions within the county for the 1978-79 fiscal year bears to the total amount of property tax revenue received by all jurisdictions within the county for the 1977-78 fiscal year. Except, however, in the event that the final commission report did not specify the amount of property tax revenue projected for such incorporation, the commission shall by October 10, determine pursuant to Section 54790.3 of the Government Code the amount of property tax to be transferred to the city. The provisions of this subdivision shall also apply to the allocation of property taxes for the 1980-81 fiscal year and thereafter for incorporations approved by the voters in June 1979. (g) For the purpose of the computations made pursuant to this section, in the case of a district formation which was filed pursuant to Sections 54900 to 54904, inclusive, of the Government Code after January 1978, but before January 1, 1979, the amount of property tax to be allocated to such district for the 1979-80 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter shall be determined pursuant to Section 54790.3 of the Government Code. (h) For the purposes of the computations required by this chapter, in the case of a jurisdictional change, other than a change requiring an adjustment by the auditor pursuant to subdivision (a), the auditor shall adjust the allocation of property tax revenue determined pursuant to Section 96 or 97, or the annual tax increment determined pursuant to Section 98, for each local school district, community college district, or county superintendent of schools whose service area or service responsibility would be altered by such jurisdictional change, as determined as follows: (1) The governing body of each such district, county superintendent of schools, or county whose service areas or service responsibilities would be altered by such change shall determine the amount of property tax revenues to be exchanged between and among such affected jurisdictions. Such determination shall be adopted by each affected jurisdiction by resolution. For the purpose of negotiation, the county auditor shall furnish the parties and the county board of education with an estimate of the property tax revenue subject to negotiation. (2) In the event that such affected jurisdictions are unable to agree, within 60 days after the effective date of the jurisdictional change, and if all the jurisdictions are wholly within one county, the county board of education shall, by resolution, determine the amount of property tax revenue to be exchanged. If the jurisdictions are in more than one county, the State Board 112 ALLOCATI' Pt. 0.5 of Educatio: jurisdiction: (3) Upon adopting ju auditor whc sion (a). (i) For pt district of t college dis: district anc revenues tc consideratit forest rese: previously exceed the for the pu: community population income, w communit' forest resei (j) At an agencies p renegotiate quent fiscz renegotiati (Added by 5 c. 1161, p. 4 1980; Stats. 271, p. 856, Sept. 30, 1C Repealed. 2 Repealed. 3 Repealed. Repealed 5 Repealed The 1979 sentence of "shall deter: mine": subs the third pa subdivision (e)": substir (e) "which t proved by ti year" for "V fiscal year": subd. (e). 59 Cal.Coc 13A 1v. 1 be tion but =red be the ;uch erty ;-79 all ver, t of hall lent ; of ons , in ) to ore for ned the ent the 97, )cal of lch of be ues ich on. ies tax he 'on be ird ALLOCATION OF TAX REVENUES § 99 Pt. 0.5 of Education shall, by resolution, within 60 days after the effective date of the jurisdictional change, determine the amount of property tax to be exchanged. (3) Upon adoption of any resolution pursuant to this subdivision, the adopting jurisdictions or State Board of Education shall notify the county auditor who shall make the appropriate adjustments as provided in subdivi- sion (a). (i) For purposes of subdivision (h), the annexation by a community college district of territory within a county not previously served by a community college district is an alteration of service area. The community college tax district and the county shall negotiate the amount, if any, of property revenues to be exchanged. In such negotiations, there shall be taken into consideration the amount of revenue received from the timber yield tax and forest reserve receipts by the community college district in the area not previously served. In no event shall the property tax revenue to be exchanged exceed the amount of property tax revenue collected prior to such annexation for the purposes of paying tuition expenses of residents enrolled in such community college district, adjusted each year by the percentage ta h enge in population and the percentage change in cost of living, or perP P al income, whichever is lower, less the amount of revenue received by the community college district in the annexed area from the timber yield tax and forest reserve receipts. of the local (j) At any time after a jurisdictional change is effective, any agencies party to the agreement to exchange property tax revenue may renegotiate the agreement with respect to allecurrent local agenciesl year or affected byb he quent fiscal years, subject to approvalby renegotiation. (Added by Stats.1979, c. 282, p. 1025, § 59, eff. July 24, 1979. Amended by Stats.1979, c. 1161, p. 4370, § 6.6, eff. Sept. 29, 1979; Stats.1980, c. 801, p. 513 § 811, eff. 1uly 8228, 1980; Stats.1981, c. 714, p. 2763, § 397; Stats.1981, c. 713, p. 6, eff. 271, p. 856, § 1, eff. June 16, 1982; Stats.1983, c. 828, § 1; Stats.1983, c. 1305, § Sept. 30, 1983.) I Repealed. 2 Repealed. See, now, Government Code § 56000 et seq. 3 Repealed. ' Repealed. 5 Repealed. Historical Note The 1979 amendment substituted in the first sess 1979 amend and herement av ere foree 9r 79-80 aa- ss- entence of the first paragraph of subd. (b) Note under Gov.C. § 53292. "shall determine" for "shall meet to deter- mine"; substituted in the second sentence of which 1p980 amend ant rewrote the section, the third paragraph of subd. (b) "pursuant to „ich For the purposes of the computations subdivision (c)" for "pursuant to subdivisionPrP (e)"; substituted in the first sentence of subd. required by this chapter: (e) "which became effective, or which was ap- "(1) In the case of a jurisdictional change, proved by the voters during the 1978-79 fiscal other than a city incorporation or a formation year" for "which occurred during the 1978-79 of a district as defined in Section 2215 of the fiscal ear"; and added the second sentence of adjust the amount of propertyltax revenue e auditor de - Revenue and Ttion Code, ( subd. (e). 113 59 Cal.Code-6 FUNCTION: LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM: PROSECUTION fhii fi,nction prosecutes all ■isaemeanor, City• including filing of complaints and apf.eals to Superior and Appellate Courts. lh rra,rding crimintl violations. rlescurce rteouirements full-time Personnel FersonneL Services Contract Services Materials, Supplies L Other Operating Transfers Out Fi■ea Assets Debt Service GENERAL Tota/ iota/ City of Hawthorn* 119-90 BUDGET DEPARTMENT: CITY ATTORNEY SUB -PROGRAM: GENERAL DESCRIPTION ii OBJECTIVES municipal code. state law violaticns and conlucting of court and jury trials in is function also acts as legal advisor PROSECUTION Operating Expenses Actual 87-88 3.00 150.203 0 8.649 0 0 0 164.852 Etidget 8a-89 Department Requested 89-94 3.00 3.00 178.009 0 11,600 0 0 0 183,458 0 10,950 a 0 C 189.609 194.40d PROSECUTION Resources 1 o4.852 164.852 189.009 194,40E 189,609 194,408 infractions the Municipal to the police City Manager Recommended 89-90 3.00 183,458 C 10.450 il 0 0 193.906 193.902 193.908 occurring vitnin the Court and resconcir..] to and other uepartxents City Council Approves 89-90 0.00 0 0 0 O Li 0 - 25 - RICHARD 8. DIXON CHIEF AOMINIITAATtVI OP!ICIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE February 22, 1990 T13 TALL OP AOM9 I1T A?ION LOS ANIMUS. OMLIPOPNIA WW2 114.»a • Mr. Michael Adamson City Attorney city of Hawthorne 4455 Wast 126th Street Hawthorne, CA 90350 maim Q ?mg ICAO r[TI IP P. DCMASARUM {NNeTN MANN IDMUND 0, IDELMAN DNANI DANA MfCNAiL 0. ANTONOVICrt Dear Mr i Adamson' PROPOSED TRAM= 07 CITY 07 8ANT80S= XIIDEMBAXOE UO88OQTION8 TO TES C0D3tTY 07 LO• ARM= This is in response to your latter dated December 11, 1989, regarding the possible transfer of misdamsanor prosecutions functions from the City of Hawthorne to the County of Los Angeles. Your latter indicated that the City of Hawthorne filed 3,047 misdemeanor prosecutions during the fisoal period of July 1, 1988 to Juns130, 1969. You estimate that your City required one full time attorney and one clerical support person to handle the caseload. Additionally, you noted that the Inglewood Municipal Court splits your caseload between two courts, thus requiring that two Deputy City Attorneys be present in Court on pre -trim and jury trial days. Eased upon the information you provided the District Attorney has prepared an estimate of the cost of tranefsrring prosecution of misdemeanors from your office to Los Angeles County. The following is the District Attorney's estimate: Salaries $244,078 OVsrh.ad 71,490 Employee Benefits 61,019 Fixed Assets 16,940 Services and Supplies 9,045 Rent 9.gee Total $412,672 Under your current arrangement with Inglewood Municipal Court, the District Attorney will require two Deputy District Attornoy II positions to handle pre-trial and jury responsibilities. Mr. Mich February Page 2 el Adamson 22, 198o Addition*l positions required to meat staffing needs include one Deputy District Attorney III for filing cases and two Legal office Support Assistant I positions. As office space is not available in the Inglewood Municipal Court for new District Attorney staff, it will be necessary to lease apace for staff assigned to this function, The amoulelt above is an annual estimate based upon our fiscal year 1989-90 figures. The actual amount charged for this service wall depend upon current expenses and adjustments for programmatic increase which occur during the course of our agreement. As was stated in my letter of ootobar 30, 1909, the County's acceptance of your City's misdemeanor prosecutions is contingent upon negotiation of an acceptable property tax exchange pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99. If you are interested in pursuing this matter further, ea contact Michael Henry at (213) 974--1138 to begin developmentlofsa joint resolution detailing the property tax exchange and schedule for transfer of prosecutions. s RI «' - DI 0 Chief Administrative Offi RBD:IgJH MM2bjs3 c: Supervisor Kenneth Hahn County Coutfse], Distribt Attorney mimosa. lein SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 ; 6-20-90 ;10:53AM ; RICHARD B. DIXON CHIEF AbMIN18TRATIVE 'FFICER 2139707033- 213 372 24504 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 713 MALL OF ADMINISTRATION LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90012 (213) 974.1 101 Octobe 30, 1989 Mr. Mic ael Adamson City At orney City of Hawthorne 4455 W. 126th Street Hawthor e, CA 90250 Dear Mr Adamson: PROPOSED TRANSFER OF MISDEMEANOR PROSECUTIONS MEMBERS OF THE BOA PETER F. BCHASARL KENNETH HA} EDMUND D. EDELM, DEANE DAI MICHAEL D. ANTONOVIC Thank ou for your letter of inquiry dated September 27, 1989 regardi g the possible transfer of misdemeanor functio s from the City of Hawthorne to the County of Lososecution Angeles. While w- certainly understand your City's need to consider this jurisdi•tional change as a cost saving measure, such a transfer would b= contingent upon several important factors. As you ay know, it has consistently been the County's policy to require fair compensation for the transfer of workload from any outside entity to any County agency due to the County's restricted revenue base and ongoing budgetary constraints. Therefo e, considering the burden that such a transfer would impose. upon the Office of the District Attorney, the County's acceptance of mis.- eanor prosecution functions would be contingent upon negotia,ion of an acceptable property tax exchan e Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99. Under this g pursuant to ovision of law, the Cit would not be able to unilaterally shift this obligation to the 'istrict Attorney until a joint resolution detailing propert tax exchange has been adopted by both jurisdictions. the State 1= (Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99) provides the Auditor Controller shall adjust the amount of propertytaxtrevenue for age cies which alter their service responsibility as a result of a ju isdictional change, such as the transfer of misdemeanor prosecu•ion functions. County Counsel recently reviewed this statute, and the Office reaffirmed its opinion of July 25, 1985 as it rela es to the transfer of a city's misdemeanor prosecution functio s. A copy of County Counsel's opinion is attached for your review. Mr. Mic October Page 2 Finally for pu know th filed o need to cases, Upon r analysi analysi only, a violati I look discuss Assista (213) 9 ael Adamson 30, 1989 to accurately determine the cost impact of such a transfer oses of developing a property tax exchange figure, we must exact number of misdemeanor prosecutions reviewed and during the last 12 months or fiscal year. Further, we know the number of City staff allocated to handle these nd in which area courts the prosecutions were adjudicated. eipt of this information, we would initiate the cost you have requested. It is important to note that any cost would be limited to the transfer of misdemeanor cases d would not include the prosecution of local ordinance ns unless otherwise indicated by your agency. orward to receiving your response. If you would like to this matter further, please contact me or Gerri Kariya, t Administrative Officer, Intergovernmental Relations, at 4-1100. RICHA Chief A RBD:GK DE : m. h Attachm-nt B. DIXO inistrative Officer c: Supe Tra. Dewi isor Kenneth Hahn, Second District einer., District Attorney t Clinton, County Counsel M• COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 0! wit? CLINTON. GOWN,. GOUNSCL OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL •Ae MALL OR AOM$NI$TRAT10N BOO WC$T TCMOI.t 3TRCtT LOS ANUCLta. CALI1rORNIA DooIZ July 25, 1985 Mr. James C. Rankle Chief Administrative Officer 713 Hall of Administration Los Angeles, CA 90012 Attentions Martin M. Marmot Mfrs Property Tax Consequences of Proposed City of Pasadena Transfer of State Law Misdemeanor Prosecutions to District Attorney 974-1889 Dear Mr. Rankles This letter will confirm our oral advice to Mr. Hammett that state law authorizes the County to require a property tax exchange should the City of Pasadena pursue its proposal to shift the responsibility for prosecution of stats law misdemeanors to the District Attorney. We understand that on July 30, 1985, as a cost saving measure the Pasadena City Council will consider final approval of a ballot measure to amend the City Charter to divest the City of responsibility for prosecution of state law, a responsibility which would then fall to the County if the measure is approved by the City electorate. The District Attorney's office has opposed such a shift of responsibility. The City Finance Committee analysis of this proposal. aakaowle4ges that the savings estimates would be reduced if there were either.a change in fines or forfeitures allocations to the City or if the County sought an entitlement to a larger share of the City's prOpirty tax revenue. Your office asked us to clarify whether such a shift in responsibility would entitle the County to seek a property tax exchange. State Law provides that the Auditor Controller shall adjust the amount of property tax revenue for agencies which alter their service responsibility as a result of a jurisdictional change. Revenue and Taxation Coda Section 99. .10 "Jurisdictional change is defined to include..."a Functional consolidation where two or more local agencies ... exchange or otherwise reassign functions..." Revenue and Taxation Code Section 9S. The language "otherwise reassign. functions" appears to be directly applicable to a transfer of prosecutional.functions frog a City to the County without County approval. Although there have been no appellate decisions interpreting this language, we believe that a court would find that the construction awarding the County a property tax share for such a transfer would ample..• went the legislative intent of Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. In 1901, this same issue arose when the Los Angeles City Council asked for a study of a shift of criminal prosecution functions from the City to the County. The Los Angeles City Attorney advised that then -District Attorney John Van de Kamp hat declared that the County would seek a property tax exchange pur- suant to Section 99 if the City prosecution functions were trans- ferred to the County. The City Attorney also advised that there. was a "strong likelihood" that a court would support the County position. We agree with that analysis and believe that later changes in state law have not weakened this interpretation. A jurisdictional change within the meaning of Section 99 only becomes effective when both the City and County accept a negotiated exchange of property tax revenues by resolution. Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99(c). Therefore the City will not be able to unilaterally shift this obligation to the District Attorney until an acceptable property tax exchange has been nego- tiated with the County. We hope that you will communicate this position to the City prior to its July 30 final consideration of its ballot proposal so that the County's view of these provisions is on record before the City votes to put this issue before its electorate. APPROVED AND RELEASED: W4 DS WITT W. LINTON County Counsel RSP:dh Very truly yours, DE WITT W. CLINTON County Counsel . By 14a144 HELEN 8. PARKER Deputy County Counsel f July 5, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of July 10, 1990 RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE SOLICITATION OF PROPOSALS FOR AN UPDATED APPRAISAL ON THE SOUTH SCHOOL SITE Recommendation: That the City Council authorize staff to seek proposals for an updated appraisal of the South School site as part of information gathering regarding the City's intention to purchase South School site from the Hermosa Beach City School District. Background: The attached memorandum from the City Attorney was presented to the City Council at your meeting of June 26, 1990. At that time, the School Board President requested, and the City Council agreed, to defer the matter to provide the School District an additional opportunity to continue negotiations with the City. Analysis: The City has not yet received oral'or written communication from the District indicating their wish to pursue the negotiations that have been ongoing for well over a year. However, it should be noted that the City has received two communications regarding the District's effort to auction the property under Section 39360 and 39363.5 of the Education Code, pursuant to the requirements of that code (see attached). These letters indicate that the property is available for lease or purchase. The properties and minimum bids are as follows: South School Spur - .2 acre $125,812 ($14.57/sq.ft.) South School - 4.3 acre $2,749,374 (14.57/sq.ft.) or $283,696/yr. to lease Prospect Heights lots - .29 acre $374,000 ($29.69/sq.ft.) The City's ongoing negotiations with the District are via alter- native procedures under Section 39030 of the Education Code, and our discussions have run parallel with the District's prior ef- fort to solicit publicly bids on the properties. Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager cc: School Superintendent Shalee Cunningham City Attorney Charles S. Vose NOTE: Staff learned late Thursday that,. the District is planning to forward additional relevant correspondence that should be available prior to the Council meeting. ljj H r rmosa each Vety &hods 1645 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BOARD Lynne Gonzales Greg Kelsey Joe Mark Susan Meyer Mary Lou Weiss SUPERINTENDENT/PRINCIPAL Shalee Cunningham (213) 376-8961 FAX: (213) 376-4974 June 29, 1990 1J, Planning Commission City of Hermosa Beach 1035 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Gentlemen: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 that the Hermosa Beach City Elementary School District intends to dispose of the properties consisting of approxi- mately .29 acres, located off Prospect Avenue between Gentry and Hollowell, and approximately 4.51 acres, located at 425 Valley Drive, both in the City of Hermosa Beach, California. Respectfully, i Shalee Cunningham Superintendent SC/mg • June 2, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of July 10, 1990 RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE LEASE/RENTAL OF COMPUTER EQUIPMENT RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Authorize the lease/rental of computer equipment for the Fire, Police, Narcotics, and Civil Defense units and 2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the necessary documents to initiate the lease/rental of the equipment. BACKGROUND: At the regular Council meeting of December 12, 1989 Council denied authorization to purchase computer equipment for the Fire, Police, Narcotics, and Civil Defense units pending a complete computer master plan study for the entire City to determine what type of computer and/or system should be utilized. On December 14, 1989 the City Manager issued a memorandum indicating that a freeze was placed on all computer hardware pending a master plan. In that memo the City Manager did indicate that computer rental would be an acceptable alternative to purchase, pending completion of the study. Because the new Director of the General Services Department has not come on board yet, there has been no master plan study completed. There has been a 5 year purchase planning document compiled by the General Services Department which pertains to the projected needs of the various City departments over that period of time based on maintaining the current computer system; not what type of equipment or systems should be purchased. ANALYSIS: The Problem , Thinking that the study would be completed and we would be able to make our needed purchases in a relatively short period of time, we continued to make do with the limited service we have and have continued keeping certain statistical information manually. In order to provide needed word processing and communication with other police departments we have continued to rent time for the word processing and other functions from the Hawthorne Police Department. This rental is $800 per month plus $214 per month line and modem charges for a total of $1,014 per month or $12,168 per year. This only provides service for 4 terminals in the Police Department, nothing for the Fire, Narcotics, or Civil Defense units. 1 lq Since there has been little movement on the study, it appears that we are no closer today than we were in December 1989 to having it completed. Everything is hinged on the new General Services Director coming on board. A quick check of that indicates that she will be on board sometime in July, it will take at least a month to get her feet on the ground, it will take at least another month to compose some sort of report, another month to debate it through the City and get Council approval, another month to receive bids, and another month before bids are awarded and approved by Council. Optimistically it will be at least December 1990 before we could even expect to order equipment, a full 12 months after our original request. We can no longer wait, the work is not going away...its piling up and back logging, work is going undone, officers are taking items home to do the work on their own computers, officers are bringing their own lap tops to work so they. can do their work, none of the hazardous materials information can be entered into the Hazmat program, we continue to attempt to keep the hydrant/fire flow information updated...by hand, and I don't know how we are going to meet the State Fire Incident Reporting mandate that requires all reports to be submitted by computer diskette beginning this year, we still have to obtain the program, get it working and implement the procedure. Therefore, we ask that authorization be given to begin a rental/lease program with Personal Support Computers at a cost of approximately $1,055 per month. This figure, based on a 36 month rental lease is just $41 more per month to provide equipment for 7 areas as opposed to only 4 that we currently have. We chose the 36 month period because it was within current budgeted amounts and would not require more appropriations. A month to month rental was in excess of $4,000 per month and seemed to be a waste of funds. We have obtained quotes from local vendors that rent/lease in our area. Personal Support Computers was the lowest and is one of the more accessable to us. Attached to this item is a map of the network that has been planned for the departments as a guide for the future. The equipment circled is what is included in the rental/lease quote. Why Macintosh EASE OF LEARNING AND USE The Macintosh provides the user with a degree of flexibility and friendliness not found in competing systems. This is due primarily to its visual interface and consistency of operation throughout all applications. Research by Xerox corp. has shown that most people find it more natural to point at something rather than trying to describe its location using a language or menu full of different choices. It is common for most Mac users to start using their systems for productive work without more than glancing at their manuals. This is due primarily to the "icon" method of operation used by the operating system, i.e., "a picture is worth a thousand words". It is also due to the consistency of operation throughout Mac applications. For example, if you know how to print or save a file in one application, you already know how to do it in other applications. 2 Pull-down menus residing in standard locations across applications also contribute to this ease of use. The selections contained therein are also standardized as to basic functions leaving only the expanded capabilities of individual applications for the new user to learn. The advantage of this type of user interface becomes apparent when we see that most other manufacturers are attempting to offer similar environments. It is only in the Macintosh, however, that this method of operation is standard system wide, not just in selected applications. This ease of use and standardization should not be overlooked because it truly allows users to become more productive in a much shorter period of time. The ease of use was noted in recent studies conducted by Peat, Marwick, Main & Co. which resulted in the following conclusions: * The ease of use of Macintosh promotes greater use. Broader and greater use of computing technology provides many more opportinities for efficiency and effectiveness gains. * Productivity, quality, efficiency, and effectiveness gains are reported by all levels of workers. Workers also report qualitative improvements, such as improved creativity, increased power of communications, and improved quality of work life. * The quality of products (e.g., reports, correspondence, budgets) is improved. Improvement appears to be attributable to a number of reasons, including: easy data interchange between different applications, increased pride that employees are experiencing in their Macintosh -produced work products, and the high quality professional appearance of documents. Another study conducted by Diagnostic Research, Inc. published the following conclusions: * User Productivity. Macintosh makes the producers more productive - and makes them more productive more rapidly. More specifically, Macintosh is judged far easier for learning both the basic system and for learning new applications. And Macintosh is judged easier to install and use than are MS-DOS systems. * Training Time and Costs. Macintosh users learn the basic system twice as fast as do MS-DOS users. As a result, Macintosh cuts the training cost by more than half. * Support Time and Costs. Macintosh requires less than half as many hours of support time as does MS-DOS systems. And MIS managers rate Macintosh significantly better than MS-DOS systems on support costs. * Output. Macintosh increases the visual effectiveness of the final product. MIS managers rate Macintosh significantly higher than MS-DOS on the quality business graphics and the quality of printed output. * Software. Macintosh users are familiar with and regularly use more software packages than do MS-DOS users. * Personal Fulfillment. Macintosh is seen to be more personally fulfilling and satisfying than MS-DOS systems. More precisely, Macintosh users are significantly higher in their ratings than are MS-DOS users on the enjoyment of using the systems and on giving them confidence as users. They concluded that Macintosh is easier to learn, is more enjoyable to use, and gives users more confidence. As a result, Macintosh users are more efficient and productive. COMPATIBILITY/CONNECTIVITY Apple Computer has recently taken the connectivity and compatibility of the Macintosh with other established systems quite seriously. This is evidenced by the connectivity of the Macintosh to other manufacturer's computer systems as mentioned earlier in this report. Recently, the City of Anaheim demonstrated that connectivity of the Mac to an IBM mainframe is possible. In fact, they indicated that it was easier to connect a Mac to the IBM mainframe than it was to connect an IBM personal computer to the IBM mainframe. Other cities such as Palm Springs, Westminster, and Carlsbad have adopted the use of Macintosh and have successfully connected them with existing HP equipment and systems. SOFTWARE In this area, both Mac and IBM enjoy the availability of a vast array of business productivity software. Due to its earlier release date, IBM has the greatest quantity of software compared to any other system. Although Macintosh has a way to go in order to have such a plethora of available software from which to choose, one has to ask the question....How many programs does one really need or use? We feel that the answer to that is not many. A good word processing program, a spreadsheet program, possibly some desktop publishing software should suffice. Most city employees are not, and have no desire to be, computer experts. They do have the need and desire to be productive and be productive in a quality manner. The software available for the Macintosh allows that capability. The tire service has taken a liking to Macintosh and there are a variety of programs to assist departments in inspections, reporting, inventory, and management. CAMEO, the hazardous materials program, was designed to operate exclusively on the Macintosh system and is the standard program of the fire service. Following passage of AB 2185 and 2187, which requires all businesses handling hazardous materials to tile a business plan with the department and SARA Title III which requires that information to be available to the public, the CAMEO system became essential to the fire service. Beginning this year, all fire agencies in Calitornia are required to begin reporting all incident information to the State Fire Marshall on either magnetic tape or diskette. Macintosh was quick to develop a program which meets all of the reporting requirements at a very reasonable cost. 4 . Software for wordprocessing, which is one of the most frequent uses of a business computer, is readily available for the Mac and there are some excellent programs. SUPPORT This area falls more into the intangible area than any of the above. In fact it can be argued both ways. Some will say, and justifiably so, that additional training is required in order to bring the current staff up to speed. This would probably be more than offset by the fact that the Mac is an inherently easier to learn and use machine than its MS-DOS counterparts. Users of the Mac tend to be more "fanatical" about their machines than their IBM counterparts and therefore seem to enjoy helping fellow users with problems and concerns. Remember, we said that this is an intangible area and up for debate depending on which side of the fence you're on. However, the companies which have done research reported that the Mac is indeed a more easily supported machine. We will, therefore, probably experience a much higher level of support on the Macintosh equipment than we now experience on the HP due to the requirement by Apple that a participating dealer service our account at no charge to us. This support includes initial installation, equipment maintenance, training, and software support. This should allow our staff to concentrate on issues of true productivity as opposed to hardware/software problems or trying to decipher how to perform a task. FUN FACTOR To some people a fun factor probably has no place in a business discussion. Yet this is a viable asset of the Macintosh which further promotes increased usage and productivity. Most of us would probably prefer using a piece of equipment which is friendly and fun as opposed to a clinical and somewhat cryptic device. If a user is afraid, intimidated, or not confident on the equipment, the productivity of that user/computer interaction will not be optimally realized. The Macintosh technology provides this ease of use and fun factor which promotes creativity and is yet another reason we see its continuing and increasing acceptance in the business world where productivity is placed higher on the priority ladder than alignment with IBM or HP. We feel that after careful research and consideration, it is in the best interest of the City of Hermosa Beach to make the Macintosh an accepted personal computer for use by the employees. To our way of thinking, the advantages of increased productivity and creativity should be the driving forces behind any business decision and, in this case, they favor the Macintosh. Conc Kevin B. No thcraft, ity Manager Noted• Not available for signature. Marguerite Sturges, Data Processing Submitted, Steve Steve Wisniewski Director of Public Safety Not for iscal impact: Viki Copeland, Direc or of Finance 5 To C SYSTEM FJgE. CHIEF 5E30 SEWER To P. . DEG SY5TE /Y) Sc Axm E POL. C E cx 440 HD 5RA 14444,0000 4.000001 HP DESKWRiT .Z'MAGE WATER Ii July 2, 1990 City Council Meeting July 10, 1990 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 90-1038- "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 1215 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING REQUIREMENTS FOR FENCES AND HEDGES, AND ELIMINATING CHAPTER 15 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, AND ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. "Submitted for adoption is Ordinance No. 90-1038, relating to the above subject." At the meeting of June 26, 1990, this ordinance was introduced by the following vote: AYES: Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Concu : Respectfully- submitted, City Clerk evin B. Northcr-.t, 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 NO. 90-1038 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 1215 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING REQUIREMENTS FOR FENCES AND HEDGES, AND ELIMINATING CHAPTER 15 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on June 26, 1990 to receive oral and written testimony on this matter and made the following Findings: A. The Zoning Ordinance requires variances for fences and hedges that exceed the maximum allowable height limit; B. Additional guidelines are needed for the construction of fences and hedges; C. Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code unnecessarily duplicates the requirements contained in the zoning ordinance regarding wall, fences, and hedges, and therefore should be eliminated; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain that the text of the Municipal Code be amended as follows: SECTION 1. Section 1215 of the zoning ordinance shall be amended as follows: 1.. - Section 1215 shall ;be retitled as follows: "Section 1215 Walls; Fences, and Hedges in Residential, Commercial, and Manufacturing Zones." 2. The existing two paragraphs shall be numbered and "2." 1. 3. Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6 shall be added to state the following: "3. No fence or wall three (3) feet or greater in height shall be constructed without first obtaining a building permit. 4. Under no circumstances shall any fence, wall, or hedge be constructed or altered to add razor fi 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 wire, barbed wire, broken glass, or other similar material. 5. Walls or fences shall be constructed of an aesthetically pleasing material such as earth -tone split face block, wrought iron or simulated wrought iron, brick, wood, stucco or a similar material approved by the Planning Director. Plain gray block is prohibited. 6. Where commercial, manufacturing, or any use other than residential uses abuts a residential use, a fence or wall with a height greater than as noted above may be constructed if a conditional use permit has been granted for such a fence or wall pursuant to Article 10, subject to the following criteria: a) The use of the higher wall or fence is necessary to mitigate potential noise, visual, or other impact of a non-residential use on a residential use. b) The greater height will not be detrimental to neighboring property or to the public welfare, and will not interfere with the light, air, and scenic views of any property. c) The higher wall or fence shall be constructed of materials as noted in Section 1215(5). d) Vehicle vision clearance shall not be hindered by a wall or fence resulting in a safety hazard." SECTION 2. Chapter 15 of ._the -,City of Hermosa -Beach Municipal Code, titled "Hedges,- Fences and-Walls,w shall be eliminated from the Code. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. SECTION 4. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the 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 the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROV; D A' TQI FORM: _' 1 ( CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 3 1. Location City-wide a. Address: b. Legal: 2. Description Text amendment regarding requirements for fences and hedges 3. Sponsor a. Name: City of Hermosa Beach, b. Mailing Address: 1315 Valley drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 'Phone: (213) 318-0242 NEGATIVE DECLARATION In accordance with Resolution 89-5229 of the City of Hermosa beach, which im- plements the California Environmental quality Act of 1970 in Hermosa Beach, the Environmental Review Committee must make an environmental review of ail private projects proposed to be undertaken within the City, and the Planning Commission must make an environmental review of all public projects proposed to be undertaken within the City, which are subject to the Environmental quality Act. This declaration is documentation of the review and, if 'it be- comes final, no comprehensive Enviromnental Impact Report is required for this project. FINDING OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE _We have undertaken and completed an Environmental Impact Review of this pro- . posed project in accordance with Resolution 89-5229 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report because, _ = •= --" "- it would not have a significant effect on the environment. Documentation • pporting - is find'ng is on file in the Building Department. Date of Finding - — / airman, Environmental Review Committee FINDING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION We have undertaken and completed an Envirbnmental Impact Review of this pro- ject in accordance with Resolution 89-5229 of the City Council -of Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive Environ- mental Impact Report because, - inpluded ' n *hQ pr ct, it would no vironment. Documentation support. ing Department. S—/&-90 Date of Finding have this signific . . 11 - - nt effect on the en - n file in the Build - i man, P an fg Commission FINDING OF THE CI COUNCIL We have undertaken and completed an environmental Impact Review of this pro- posed project in accordance with Resolution 89-5229 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find this project does not require a comprehensive En- vironmental Impact Report because, • _ , it would not have a significant effect on . supporting this .finding is on -file .in .the_ the environment.- Documentation. Building Department. • Date of. Fe_ ndina • Mayor, Hermosa Beath City Council July 2, 1990 City Council Meeting July 10, 1990 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 90-1039- "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING, FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES, A PROVISION OF THE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW PROCESS AS SET FORTH IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH. "Submitted for adoption is Ordinance No. 90-1039, relating to the above subject." At the meeting of June 26, 1990, this ordinance was introduced by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Concur: Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton None None None Respectfully submitted, City Clerk Kevin B. Northcr City Manager 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 ORDINANCE NO. 90-1039 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING, FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES, A PROVISION OF THE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW PROCESS AS SET FORTH IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH. WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 90-1026 which adopted the Precise Planning Review Development Process; and WHEREAS, the City Council added certain language to Section 1431 to the Zoning Ordinance which is in conflict with the intent of the City Council and it is the desire of.the City Council to now clarify this section. NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby ordain that the Zoning Ordinance text shall be amended as follows: Section I. Section 1431 of Article 14 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Section 1431. Projects Requiring Review. In order to achieve the purpose of this Section, it is considered necessary to require that the use of land, and erection, construction or location of buildings or structures in any zone shall require submittal of plans for Planning Commission review, with the exception of the following: 1. Single family residences, including new construction, remodels, or additions thereto. 2. Remodels or additions of less than 1,500 square feet in any zone." Section 2. This Ordinance scall become effective_ and be in full force and effect from and after 30 days of its final passage and adoption. Section 3. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after thedate of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause the summary to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach. // // // // 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 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 the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney Hermosa Beach Sister City Association, Inc. P. 0. Box eta, Hermosa Beach, CA. 90254 /oas- Thomas Reichelderfer u.S. Consulate P.O. Box 1358 JUN 25 1990 San Ysidro, Ca. 92073 Pr. Reichelderfer, The Hermosa Beach Sister City Association has invited Pr. Carlos Maraver, President of the Loreto Sister City Committee his adult chaperones and exchange students to Hermosa Beach California, U.S.A during July 23-29, 1990. This visit will complete the annual student exchange program between Loreto Baja California Sur Mexico and Hermosa Beach California U.S.A. for the year 1990. During their stay in Hermosa Beach they will be received by the Mayor and City Council. Planned activities include a tour of city hall, a visit to Disneyland, area museums, etc. Our. Loreto guests will be staying in Hermosa Beach homes. The purpose of this program is to further promote friendship and better understanding between the peoples of our two cities. Your cooperation and support to grant this invitation is res- rectfully requested. if you have any questions or need any additional information iiease call upon me. vct'F IvEU .sincerely, 42Z 4 Ueorge G. Barks President Hermosa '_;each Sister City Association tel: (213) 379-2538 c.c. earlos Maraver, Loreto Sister City President H.B. Mayor, City .ouncil, �,ity Manager �� H.B. School board trustees, Superintendent, rrincipal A Tax -Exempt Nonprofit Community Service Organization Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 3, 1990 Regular Meeting of July 10, 1990 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT 90-10 LOCATION: 22 PIER AVENUE - THE END ZONE APPELLANT: WILLIAM BEVERLY HITCHCOCK, BOWMAN, SCHACHTER AND BEVERLY SUITE 1030 DEL AMO FINANCIAL CENTER 21515 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD TORRANCE, CA 90503 REQUEST: TO EXTEND THE HOURS ALLOWED FOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT TO INCLUDE THE HOURS OF 4:00 TO 7:00 P.M. ON SATURDAYS, SUNDAYS, AND HOLIDAYS Recommendation The Planning Commission and Staff recommend denial of the request by adoption of the attached resolution. Background At their meeting of June 5, 1990 the Planning Commission denied the request because of concerns about allowing the "party" to start earlier and about increasing noise. Hours of live entertainment are currently restricted to the hours from 7:00 P.M. to 1:30 A.M. on Thursday through Sunday pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit granted in January, 1987. For further background please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report of 5/29/90. Analysis Although staff originally recommended approval of this request, staff supports the action of the Planning Commission. Staff believes that the Commission appropriately responded to additional concerns brought up by both the Police Department and from testimony at the public hearing. Please refer to the attached memorandum from Commander Anthony Altfeld, in which he points out that the downtown area is saturated with this type of business with amplified entertainment and drinking placing a burden on„police services. Additional expansion of entertainment hours would only compound this problem. Also, problems of noise and noise complaints would also be compounded. Staff believes this decision of the Planning Commission should be supported, and in the future the same hours of entertainment could be applied to all the bars in the downtown when they come up for Conditional Use Permit review. For further analysis please refer to the attached 5/26/90 Planning Commission staff report. r„g0NCUR: A, Michael Schubach Planning Director dj 'Kevin Borth aft %fre/ City Manager ,77,, 0,7(6' en-Ro.- ton Associate Planner Attachments 1. Proposed resolution 2. P.C. Resolution 90-45 3. P.C. minutes 6/5/90 4. P.C. staff report, supplemental, 5/29/90 5. Memo from Commander Anthony Altfeld 6. P.C. Resolution 87-4 7. Applicant letter 8. Public Notice Affidavit p/ccsr22 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 RESOLUTION 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONCURRING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST TO AMEND AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL, LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AND DANCING, TO EXTEND THE HOURS ALLOWED FOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT, AT 22 PIER AVENUE, THE END ZONE. WHEREAS, the City Council Commission held a public hearing on this matter on July 10, 1990 and made the following Findings: 1. The addition of the hours from 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. on weekends and holidays would contribute towards increasing the problems of noise, public drinking, and loitering, and require greater police surveillance; 2. The business is located in an area saturated with bars that include amplified live ---entertainment and, therefore, expansions to these establishments should not be allowed as it would only exacerbate many of the existing problems; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, does hereby concur with the Planning Commission to deny a request to amend the Conditional Use Permit to expand the hours for live entertainment. 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: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 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. 90-45 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUEST TO AMEND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AND LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AND DANCING TO EXTEND THE HOURS ALLOWED FOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AT 22 PIER AVENUE, THE END ZONE. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on June 5, 1990 and made the following Findings: 1. The addition of the hours from 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. on weekends and holidays would contribute towards increasing the problems of noise, public drinking, and loitering, and require greater police surveillance; 2. The business is located in an area saturated with bars that include amplified live" entertainment and, therefore, expansions to these establishments should not be allowed as it would only exacerbate many of the existing problems; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, does hereby deny a request to amend the Conditional Use Permit to expand the hours for live entertainment. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms.Ketz,Peirce,Rue,Chmn.Ingell None None Comm.Moore CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 90-45 record of the action taken by the the City of Hermosa Beach, California g o /Jun, 5, 1990. and complete Commi ion o r me e- ott Ingell, hairman 5 /D l Date Ii((Lf Michael Soli is a true Planning at their YLiet(' l�ii u'bach, Secretdry p/pers22 Comm. Rue noted that the Commission is at an impasse. He favored continuing the matter that the applicant can come back and present alternative plans. Mr. Vose su ested that the hearing be continued to a date certain. Mr. Barsoum asked for clarification.stating that alley -only access is not feasi. e. He said that he has considered other options; however, there does not appear to be any . a er way to provide parking which will makeN the project any better. Comm. Rue suggested that Mr. Barsoum prepare materials to d .sonstrate that other options are not feasible. Chmn. Ingell noted that there is a possib ty that the pr, ect might be approved when the fifth commissioner is present to vote. Mr. Vose, in response to a question from Co.' Peirce as to what would happen if no further action is taken, explained that a 2-2 vote .nstit•tes no action. He stated staff would then probably reschedule this matter before e Commision at a future date. Alternatively, the applicant could appeal the "no decisi. ' to the City Council. He suggested, however, that the matter be continued to a future in • .: when all Commissioners are present. MOTION by Comm. Rue, se .nded by Chmn. Ingell, to continue this hearing to the meeting of June 19, 1990, with a ecommendation that the applicant submit alternative plans for vehicular access off of ayview. AYES: Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell NOES: None ABSTAIN None AB7 : Comm. Moore CUP 90-10 -- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW LIVE ENTERTAINMENT FROM 4:00 P.M. TO 1:30 A.M. ON WEEKENDS AND HOLIDAYS AT 22 PIER AVENUE. THE END ZONE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 29, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the requested amendment which would extend the hours for live entertainment, which is currently allowed from 7:00 P.M. to 1:30 A.M. on Thursdays through Sundays and holidays, to include afternoon hours from 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. On January 6, 1987. the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P.C. 87-4 amending the conditional use permit to allow live entertainment and dancing in addition to the sale of general alcoholic beverages. This CUP amended the original CUP and resulted in the addition of several conditions regarding such issues as noise attenuation, hours of operation, the serving of hot meals, and the hours of live entertainment. The hours of live entertainment were restricted to between 7:00 P.M. and 1:30 AM. by the Planning Commission as requested by the applicant. The interior of the establishment has been recently remodeled by moving the music stage towards the rear and reorienting the bar. This remodel, along with the provision of an alcove entrance, double glazed windows, the installation of air conditioning, and other features required by the CUP has eliminated any serious noise problems. At this date, the business is operating incompliance with its conditional use permit. Staff has checked with both the Police Department and Building Department to determine whether any — P.C. Minutes 6/5/90 problems exist. The Police Department, through their routine inspection reports of the CUPs in the downtown area, have noted in all cases that the End Zone is in compliance. Also, the Building Department has not received any complaints and has verified that the applicant has completed construction of required interior improvements. The applicant, however, still has not complied with the conditions requiring the owner to sign an acceptance of conditions form and requiring that the CUP be recorded with the deed. The project is located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The present and proposed use is as a bar with live music. The building size is 1506 square feet. The applicant is requesting to extend live entertainment hours to include the hours from 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. on weekends and holidays. The applicant desires to have performances at these hours to compete with nearby establishments which provide entertainment during these afternoon hours. The Planning Commission established that the starting time for entertainment was at 7:00 P.M. in response to the applicant's original request for those hours. Starting at an earlier time of 4:00 P.M. on weekends would not appear to present any problems so long as compliance with all the conditions for keeping sound levels controlled are maintained throughout the period. This could become a problem during these hours in regard to the condition that doors and windows be closed, as the manager on site may be tempted to open doors or windows on a hot day. Therefore, it would be important that the same conditions be enforced. Otherwise, the noise ordinance permits a greater amount of noise during the hours between 8:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. Therefore, staff felt that this request is acceptable. Mr. Schubach noted that a letter had been received from Police Commander Altfeld dated June 4, 1990. The Commander recommended that this CUP amendment be denied for several reasons: noise impact, increased police services which would be required, and the desire not to increase and/or compound problems or calls for police services associated with citizen complaints concerning noise. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that other similar establishments with these hours of operation include Pier 52, the Lighthouse, and Hennessey's. Comm. Peirce pointed out, however, that those three establishments do not currently have CUPs, and they will probably soon be coming before the Commission for conditional use permit approval, at which time the hours can be modified. Mr. Schubach concurred and stated that staff hopes the Commission will be consistent in their imposition of hours of operation, especially since all of the businesses are close to each other. Public Hearing opened at 8:33 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Jim Furbee, 24 11th Street Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) strongly opposed any extension in hours of operation for live entertainment in this area since it is already so loud it keeps him awake at night; (2) stated that he has complained to the police about the noise on numerous occasions; (3) stated that he has twice written to the police chief about the noise pollution and handed out copies of the letters; (4) stated that other bars are also responsible for the noise; (5) said that live entertainment contributes to the general character of the neighborhood and causes problems for the area; (6) noted concern that the peace and quiet of the neighborhood is being destroyed and additional extensions will only make the problem worse; (7) said that he wrote to the City Council in January about the noise problems: (8) noted concern that the noise ordinance isnot being enforced; (9) felt that the hours of live 6 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90 entertainment should be restricted and that the CUP should be enforced; (10) stated that his apartment faces 11th Court. June Williams 2065 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted there have been a high number of complaints received in the past related to noise in the downtown area; (2) felt it is fair to ask the businesses to confine noise to their own premises; (3) stated that bars purposely want to open their doors and windows to lure customers into the party atmosphere; (4) noted that these establishments are very close to residential areas and they should confine noise to their own premises; (5) noted concern that the noise ordinance and conditional use permit requirements do not appear to be enforced in the downtown area; (6) commented that she has seen bars with their doors and windows open when there is live entertainment. Dale Jones, 46 11th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that many people are at the beach at 4:00 and she would rather see them at the beach than in the bars; (2) said there is no reason to encourage more noise at 4:00 in the afternoon; (3) felt that allowing live entertainment to begin at 4:00 would create additional traffic, parking, and noise problems as well as parking lot confrontations; (4) felt that if this action will set a precedent for the other three bars, 7:00 P.M. is more than reasonable to begin live entertainment. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Ingell, stated that the applicant was notified of this hearing; however, he was not present. Public Hearing closed at 8:42 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Rue noted that there is a proliferation of establishments with liquor in the downtown area. He felt that enough is going on in that area at 4:00 P.M. and it would not be appropriate to allow live entertainment to begin at that hour. He felt that 7:00 P.M. is a more appropriate time to begin entertainment. Comm. Peirce noted that the End Zone has been very cooperative in complying with the City's requirements, stating that this is the only one of the four businesses mentioned which has put money into the business in an attempt to reduce noise. He stated that the main issue at this time is when the party should begin in the downtown area. He stated that he is adamantly opposed to allowing live entertainment to begin at 4:00 P.M. He cautioned that other businesses would also then want to begin at 4:00 P.M. He therefore opposed the extension of hours for live entertainment at this location. Comm. Ketz agreed that 4:00 P.M. is too early to begin live entertainment and she did not want to set a precedent for the other businesses in this area to begin at 4:00 P.M. She therefore opposed the extension of hours. Churn. Ingell noted that the applicant previously came before the Commission to request additional hours for live entertainment on a holiday. He felt that the applicant acted in good faith since the applicant could have just gone ahead with earlier live entertainment on a holiday when he knew City officials would not be working. Chinn. Ingell had no problem with allowing this business to begin live entertainment earlier on holidays. He felt that it would be appropriate to allow the applicant the same rights on a holiday weekend as on regular weekends. Mr. Vose pointed out that Condition No. 1(a) could be modified to accomplish the intent: "Live musical entertainment shall be permitted from 7:00 P.M. until 1:30 A.M. on Thursday through Sunday and on Federal and State holidays, Cinco de Mayo, and St. Patrick's Day." MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-45, with the modification that Condition No. ...l(a)-.shall be modified to read: "Live musical P.C. Minutes 6/5/90 entertainment shall be permitted from 7:00 P.M. until 1:30 A.M. on Thursday through Sunday and on Federal and State holidays, Cinco de Mayo, and St. Patrick's Day." Comm. Rue pointed out, however, that the applicant's existing CUP has the exact same condition which is now being proposed. MOTION WITHDRAWN by Comm. Peirce, who concurred with Comm. Rue's observation. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to deny the conditional use permit amendment request to extend the hours of live entertainment from 4:00 P.M. to 1:30 A.M. on weekends and holidays at the End Zone, 22 Pier Avenue. Comm. Rue commended the applicant for his efforts to correct the noise problems at the End Zone. AYES: Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. Moore Recess taken from 8:49 P.M. until 8:55 P.M. SS. 89-13 -- ADOPTION OF THE 'PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN" A AN AMENDMENT TO THE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF A NEGA IVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubac ave staff report dated May 31, 1990. Staff recommended t the Planning Commission rec end to the City to amend the open space element of the/general plan to add the "Comprehensiv arks and Recreation Master Plan" with the correc a page ES -16 and to recommend adoption f an environmental negative declaration bopting the, proposed resolution. On January 3, 1990, the Planning Commission recommendded'approval of the document as a general policy statement subject several modifications noted by the staff. On February 22, 1990, the City Council also adopted document. The document provided to the Commission the document prepared by the consultant in response to the comments of staff. On May 3, 1990, the staff environmental/ eview c s 'ttee recommended an environmental negative declaration, based on the f . ing that this • ocument is a statement of policy for recreation programs and for poten ' . future improveme s and acquisition of park sites and consequently does not have indir- t or direct significant en ' onmental impacts. Staff reviewed the final do ment and found that the request modifications have been incorporated into the doc - ent. However, an omission on page ES -needs to be replaced by adding a sentence attheend of the last paragraph. Staff also noted dt a table of contents for the text of the document needs to be rovided. In regard t �ncluding this as part of the open space element, staff felt it is appropria because the policie's included in the document are consistent with the goals, objectives, and p licies of the open space element in regard to upgrading and improving existing park sites and pur the -'acquisition of additional sites. Also, the sites identified are in most cases alrea designated for open space on the general plan: and zoning maps. 8 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90 May 29, 1990 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission June 5, 1990 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT 90-10 LOCATION: 22 PIER AVENUE APPLICANT: BILL BASTION - THE END ZONE 22 PIER AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 REQUEST: TO EXTEND THE HOURS ALLOWED FOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the requested amendment which would extend the hours for live entertainment, which is currently allowed from 7:00 P.M. to 1:30 A.M. on Thursdays through Sunday and holidays, to include afternoon hours from 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. Background On January 6, 1987, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P.C. 87-4 amending the Conditional Use Permit to allow live entertainment and dancing in addition to the sale of general alcoholic beverages. This C.U.P. amended the original C.U.P. and resulted in the addition of several conditions regarding such issues as noise attenuation, hours of operation, the serving of hot meals, and the hours of live entertainment. The hours of live entertainment were restricted to between 7:00 P.M. and 1:30 A.M. by the Planning Commission as requested by the applicant. The interior of the establishment has been recently remodeled by moving the music stage towards the rear, an reorienting the bar. This remodel, along with the provision of an alcove entrance, double glazed windows, the installation of air conditioning and other features required by the C.U.P. has eliminated any serious noise problems. At this date the business is operating in compliance with its Conditional Use Permit. Staff has checked with both the Police Department and the Building Department to determine if any problems exist. The Police Department through their routine inspection reports of the C.U.P.'s in the downtown area have noted in all cases that the End Zone is in compliance. Also, the Building Department has not received any complaints, and has verified that the applicant has completed construction of required interior improvements. -9 However, the applicant still has not complied with the conditions requiring the owner to sign an acceptance of conditions form, and requiring that the C.U.P. be recorded with the deed. Project Description Zoning: General Plan Designation: Present and Proposed Use: Building Size: Environmental Determination: Analysis C-2 General Commercial Bar/Live Music 1506 Square Feet Categorically exempt The applicant is requesting to extend live entertainment hours to include the hours from 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. on weekends and holidays. The applicant desires to have performances at these hours to compete with nearby establishments which provide entertainment during these afternoon hours. The Planning Commission established the the starting time for entertainment was at 7:00 P.M. in response to the applicants original request for those hours. Starting at an earlier time of 4:00 P.M. on weekends would not appear to present any problems as long as compliance with all the conditions for keeping sound levels controlled are maintained throughout the period. This could become a problem during these hours in regards to the condition that doors and windows be closed as the manager on site may be tempted to open doors or windows on a hot day. Therefore, it would be important that the same conditions be enforced. Otherwise, the noise ordinance permits a greater amount of noise during the hours between 8:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. Therefore, staff believes that this request is acceptable. Michael Schubach Planning Director Attachments 1. Resolution P.C. 90-45 2. Application 3. P.C. Resolution 87-4 4. Public Notice Affidavit a/pcsr22 - /0- n Robeftsbn Associate Planner { CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Ken Robertson, Associate Plan SUBJECT: Supplemental Materials for 6/5/90 P.C. Meeting DATE: June 5, 1990 AGENDA ITEM 7 Attached is a letter from Tony Altfeld recommendiodifi ng�rtitcations to the propposed conditions of approval. Given the late receipt of this letter staff has not included..thse modifications in the resolution, although many app.eary8'to be worthwhile changes to consider. This letter should' e considered along with the letter from the City Attorney'which was received in the packet, but which the Planning -•-'Department did not receive until late last Thursday afternoon. IAGENDA ITEM 9 Attached is a letter from Tony Altfeld recommending denial of the request for expanded hours. Although the Planning Department agrees with the general statements in the letter used to support the recommendation, it should be pointed out that of the other 3 taverns, 2 have conditional use permits. Hennessey's is restricted to live entertainment on weekend nights only (They have applied for an amendment to allow weekday nights and weekend afternoons), Pier 52 has no restriction on live entertainment hours, and the Lighthouse does not have a C.U.P. for live entertainment. Therefore, when these establishments come in for review of their C.U.P's staff believes that the hours being requested by the End Zone are reasonable and similar restrictions on hours would be appropriate for all the taverns. AGENDA ITEM 11 Attached is the revised page 1 of the staff report which was revised to include recommendation No. 3. AGENDA ITEM 12 Attached is a response letter from D.R. Suess. - II - June 4, 1990 To: Michael Shubach Planning Director From: Commander Anthony Altfeld Field Services Division Police Department Subject: Conditional Use Permit Amendment To Allow Live Entertainment From 4:00 P.M. To 1:30 A.M. On Weekends and Holidays At 22 Pier Avenue (The End Zone Bar) 1990 I have reviewed the request for an amendment to an existing conditional use permit condition which would allow the business located at 22 Pier Avenue (The End Zone Bar) to have live/amplified entertainment from 4:00 P.M. to 1:30 A.M. on weekends and holidays. I am recommending that their request for this amendment to their existing conditional use permit be -denied for the following reason: * Presently, their are four (4) taverns in a roughly one block area on the southside of Pier Avenue, between the Strand walkway and Hermosa Avenue, which currently provide live amplified and amplified entertainment. Under their current conditional use permits (where they exist) and according to Chapter 19.5 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, the maximum permissible exterior sound levels generated by such entertainment has been established for these taverns. The conduct of these businesses and the demand for police services which are associated with the current number of live amplified and amplified entertainment establishments in this one block strip, presently requires the Police Department to deploy a fulltime, dedicated special enforcement unit, consisting of one (1) Police Sergeant and two (2) Police Officers, to respond to noise complaints generated directly from these businesses and to monitor and enforce all laws and ordinances associated with the live amplified and amplified entertainment which is now permitted and provided by these taverns. The deployment of the special enforcement unit is in addition to the standard deployment and response for calls for police service in the Downtown/Pier commercial business district by Patrol Bureau personnel which are also associated with and impacted by the operations of these establishments and frequently, in direct respo�jc r,„��1-�, rr �i-- ivi E AL INFORMATION complaints from citizens in the surrounding residential districts, about excessive noise generated by the live amplified and amplified entertainment coming from these establishments. Currently, Police Department resources required to monitor and enforce compliance with all laws and ordinances associated with live amplified and amplified entertainment in establishments citywide and to maintain an acceptable level of sustained compliance, are taxed to the limit. Realistic and substantive monitoring and enforcement of conditional use permits of businesses for sustained compliance with all laws and ordinances associated with live amplified and amplified entertainment cannot, therefore, be guarenteed. The expansion of the permitted hours for live amplified and amplified entertainment for any businesses within the impacted Downtown/Pier commercial business district area also runs contrary to current City public policy regarding its desire to minimize and negate the adverse effects to the surrounding residential districts arising from the excessive exterior noise which is generated by these establishments within the community. It is neither in the community's nor the Police Department's best interest to increase and/or compound the problems or calls for police services associated with citizen complaints concerning excessive exterior noise lev• s venerated by businesses with live amplified and am• fi-d entertainment in this reporting district or in rLaea of the community. C•"". d- •.nthiny ltfeld Field Se ices Division Hermosa :_ach Police Department /3 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. 87-4 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SALE OF GENERAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AT 22 PIER AVENUE, THE END ZONE. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on January 6, 1987 and made the following Findings: 1. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and consistent with the General Plan; 2. The imposition of conditions of approval will mitigate any significant problems; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby amend the Conditional Use Permit for the sale of general alcoholic beverages at 2 Pier Avenue to allow live entertainment and dancing subject to the following conditions: 1. Hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. with no occupancy of the premises after 2:30 a.m. a. Live musical entertainment shall be permitted from 7:00 p.m. until 1:30 a.m. on Thursday through Sunday and on Federal and State holidays, Cinco De Mayo, and St. Patrick's Day. 2. The establishment shall not adversely affect the welfare of the residents, and/or commercial establishments nearby. 3. The business shall provide adequate management and supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of patrons outside the business or in the immediate area. 4. Noise emanating from the property shallbe within the limitations prescribed by the City's Noise Ordinance and shall not create a. nuisance to the surrounding residential neighborhoods, and/or commercial establishemnts. a. During the performance of any type of entertainment, the exterior doors and windows shall remain closed. b. Air conditioning shall be installed and maintained in working order. c. Sound dampening acoustical back drop shall be designed and installed in such a manner so as to baffle and direct the sound away from the entrance/exit and window areas. - - 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 d. Dual pane windows shall be provided on all windows. e. Loudspeakers shall be oriented toward center of the room. f. An alcove shall be provided at the front entrance as shown on submitted plans. Tectum shall be provided as stated in the attached accoustical report. g• h. Front and rear doors shall be sealed as noted in the attached accoustical report. i. All music/entertainment volume levels shall be conscientiously controlled by the management. 5. Hot meal service, including entrees as well as hors d'oeuvres, shall be available whenever alcohol is served. 6. The business shall provide adequate management and supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of patrons outside the business or in the immediate area. 7. The exterior facade and all signs shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. 8. Operators of the business shall be responsible for the maintenance of the grounds immediately surrounding this establishment. 9. Screens shall be installed on all openable exterior windows at ground floor level to prevent pass-through of alcoholic beverages and to control flies. 10. Signs shall be posted in a conspicuous location warning patrons of the illegality of open alcohol containers in any public areas such as the public sidewalk and beach. 11. A manager or clerk who is aware of conditions of the Conditional Use Permit shall be on the premises during business hours. a. Each manager shall be given a copy of the Conditional Use Permit and shall acknowledge by signature that the Conditional Use Permit has been read and understood. 12. All alcoholic beverages shall be served in non -throw -away glass containers, including beer and wine. 13. The Police Chief may determine that a continuing police problem exists and may require the presence of a police approved doorman and/or security personnel. 14. Any violation of the conditions of approval and/or violation of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code may be grounds for a public hearing for the revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. 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 15. The exterior of the premises shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner at all times. 16. Any changes to the interior layout shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. 17. Prior to a Conditional Use Permit being in effect, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department, a signed and notarized "Acceptance of Conditions" form. 18. A Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded with the deed and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 19. All permits required by the City of Hermosa Beach shall be obtained by the applicant by January 10, 1987. 20. The Planning Commission may review the Conditional Use Permit at 6 month intervals and may amend the conditions or impose any new conditions if deemed necessary to mitigate detrimental effects to the neighborhood resulting from the use. The Commission has the right to terminate the Conditional Use Permit if the conditions are not adhered to or if the subject use is contributing detrimentally to the surrounding neighborhood. 21. In the event that any one condition is found to be illegal or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, then the parties agree that all other conditions shall remain in full force and effect. The parties understand that the applicant is represented by counsel at all steps of this proceeding and it is th eopinion of the City Attorney that the conditions meets Constitutional requirements and in the event that either attorney is in error both parties agree that no action for damage shall be brought against the other party and that the exclusive remedy on behalf of the applicant is for a Mandate of Declaratory Relief to make the determination that any one or more conditions is illegal and unenforceable, and parties waive all rights to damages. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Rue,Compton,Peirce,Schulte,Chmn.Sheldon NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 87-4 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting sof January 6, 1y87 C udk She don, Chairman Date Planning Commission City of Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Sir or Madame; 22 Pier Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213)374-1717 April 19, 1990 As a current holder of a City of Hermosa Beach commercial Con- ditional Use Permit, I wish at this time to request an amendment be made to my permit;specifically, that The*End Zone will no longer be restricted from presenting live musical entertainment at those times currently unacceptable per my present permit. Throughout the course of my ownership and maintainance of The End Zone, I have complied with all City of Hermosa Beach stip- ulations, to include the installation of an airconditioning system, sound -proofing all walls, duo glazing allwindows, and remodeling the stage as to minimize the projection of unnecessary band sound. I request this amendment so that The End Zone may fairly compete with the various bars and taverns within my imm- ediate areawhich are currently not restricted per their Conditional Use Permits. Thank You for your consideration, and I anxiously anticipate your response. Sincerely, 43,04=';:o Bill Bastian THE END ZONE I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of perjury that I did on the ;la +1/4 --day of PJ ()/ , 19q� deposit into the United Stated 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 rte• --v- ry the public notice attached as Exhibit "A". I also posted the two (2) two (2) clearly visible locations at the subject property. e pu� notices to be made in an accurate and timely fashion and agree to h t141%flt.2 90 �• harmless against any liability whatsoever for any defect of s notRium .4:721:1 ice notices. �of He,moq�R-d6) I understand and agree that it is my responsibility to cause thti In the event an action is instituted in a court of competent juri which questions the legality of the public notices, then the City may 1 exclusive discretion suspend all hearings or cause the cessation of a hearing which was held in acordance with the public notice. In the event that the court declares the notice or noticing procedure to be defective, 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 Zn� day. of 19 int Hermosa Beach, California. r vera ue_ (Project Location) C _lam, P Application for(CUP, Tract Map, Etc.) State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) On this the 0:4-t�day of the undersigned Notary Pub ss: Lignimo , per JUL , (Capacity) , 19 C), before me lly appeared 44/ e -g - proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence be the person(s) whose name(s) within instrument, and acknowledged to me that and official seal. (SEAL) • 111 • OFFICIAL EEK LEE WILKINSON NOTARY PUBLIC . CALIFORNIA PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY Gommiuion Exp. Oct. 16. 1992 (or personally known to me) to suscribed to the executed it. WITNESS my hand 1. Notary Public 11 June 28, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 10, 1990 PUBLIC HEARING CONFIRMATION OF FY 90-91 STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT ASSESSMENT Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 90- , a resolution of the City of Hermosa Beach confirming the FY 90-91 street lighting district assessment and levying assessment for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1990. 2. Revise the FY 90-91,estimated revenue for secured collections in the Lighting District from $296,124 to $294,404. Background: On April 24, 1990, City Council directed staff not to charge city administrative costs to the Street Lighting District. All administrative costs of the Street Lighting District are being subsidized from the general fund by $8,479 in FY 90-91 and by $9,109 in FY 91-92. This action was reflected in the FY 90-92 adopted budget. On June 26, 1990, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 90-5373 which set 8:00 pm on July 10, 1990, as the time and date for a public hearing in order to accept public input on Street Lighting District No. 1990-1991. A notice for this public hearing is to be printed in the June 28, 1990, and July 5, 1990, editions of the Easy Reader. Analysis: Adoption of the attached resolution provides the funds necessary to continue the operation of the City's street lighting system. The assessment provides for the payment of all costs related to street lighting operation and maintenance. The average assessment on a residential parcel is approximately $35.00. This is based on 5,484 parcels with an average frontage of 35 feet at a rate of $0.98 per foot. At the February 9, 1988, City Council meeting; the City's Assessment Engineer's proposal included a five year program to reduce the total street lighting assessment 10% each year for a period of five years. That goal is being accomplished. The FY 90-91 assessment and the assessments for the last two years are as follows: FY 87-88 FY 88-89 FY 89-90 FY 90-91 Amount of Amount of Percent Assessment Decrease Decrease $397,647.00 $365,878.80 $31,769.00 8% $329,026.80 $36,852.00 10% $294,403.66 $34,623.14 10% SA Associates, the City's Assessment Engineer, will be present at the July 10, 1990, meeting to answer questions about the assessment. Alternatives: Another alternative available to City Council is: 1. Let the district lapse; thereby, causing an increased general fund obligation of $294,403.66. Respectfully submitted, Lynn A. Terry P.E Deputy City Engineer Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Director Concur: An%kfy' Antich Director of Publi Works evin B. Northc%aft City Manager Attachments: Estimate of Costs FY 90-91 Resolution No. 90- ty/sldcon CITY MANAGER COMMENT: While the 10% per year reduction is reducing assessments, the elimina- tion of administrative charges, reduction in engineering costs, street light conversions to lower energy bulbs, and high returns on invest- ment have been offsetting. The result is the fund balance is not re- ducing, but still is increasing, and will do so in 1991-92 as budgeted. In keeping with the Council's desire to keep the taxes caused by our special districts as low as possible,._ it is recommended the Council direct staff to amend the 10% per year policy to reflect that the as- sessment and interest revenue be somewhat less than the cost of the district's operations. Further, that this policy continue at least until the fund balance reduces back to the 1988 level ($1,089,118). - 2 - HERMOSA BEACH STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1990-1991 FY 89-90 Actual July 1, 1989, Fund Balance $1,316,778 Estimated FY 89-90 Revenue * - Current year secured assessment 322,094 - Prior year collections 5,000 - Interest income 117,212 - Transfer -in 492 Estimated FY 89-90 Expenditure * - Operational Budget - Capital Improvement Budget (-) 340,772 (-) 32,000 Estimated June 30, 1990, Fund Balance $1,388,804 * Based on FY 89-90 estimate in 1990-1992 preliminary budget FY 90-91 Estimated July 1, 1990 Fund Balance $1,388,804 Estimated FY 90-91 Revenue - Assessment for FY 90-91 294,404 - Other Revenue 79,525 Estimated FY 90-91 Expenditure - Operational Budget (-) 323,673 - Capital Improvement Budget (-) 22,000 Estimated June 30, 1991 Fund Balance $1,417,060 hbcgs 4/9/90 t HERMOSA BEACH STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1990-1991 ESTIMATE OF COST FY 1990-1991 1. Direct Expenses: Regular Salaries/Miscellaneous Regular Overtime Vacation/Sick Pay Off Accrual Cash In Part Time/Temporary Retirement Employee Benefits Contract Services/Private: - Assessment Engineering Services Contract Services/Government: - L.A. Co. Collections of Assessments - PCH Lighting Agreement w/Caltrans Materials/Supplies/Other (incl. energy costs) - Street lighting utilities - Street lighting telephone - Street ligthing maintenance materials - Street lighting motors fuels"& lubes - Street lighting auto maintenance - Street lighting training - Transfer out -ins user charges $ 78,268 500 1,565 1,565 2,000 9,815 11,454 7,100 2,000 8,117 175,100 281 9,500 3,410 4,000 300 8,698 Subtotal: $323,673 2. Incidental Expenses: City Council Administration $ -0- City Manager Administration -0- Public Works Department Administration -0- City Clerk Expense -0- Legal Expense -0- 3. Operating Expenses of Equipment and Data Support Services: Subtotal: $ -0- Subtotal: 4. Capital Improvements: CIP 85-201 Light Conversion/Installation Street Light Upgrade 22,000 Subtotal: $ 22,000 Total Costs for Street Lighting District No. 90-91: $345,673 hbcgs (4/9/90) 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- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING MAP OF SAID DISTRICT, ASSESSMENTS AND LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 1990. HERMOSA BEACH STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1990-1991 WHEREAS, in the proceedings under the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" (commencing with Section 22500, Streets and Highways Code). the City Council adopted Resolution No. 90-5346 ordering the Director of Public Works to prepare and file the report required by said Act for the proposed levy of an annual assessment for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1990, and pursuant thereto such report has been prepared and filed with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted its Resolution No. 90-5372 approving the report as filed pursuant to Resolution No. 90-5346 ordering said report; and WHEREAS, the City council adopted its Resolution of Intention No. 90-5373 declaring its intention to order certain street lighting fixtures and appurtenances to be installed, maintained and electric current to be furnished for lighting of said fixtures for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1990, and appointing a time and place for hearing protests relative thereto; and WHEREAS, the hearing was duly held at the time and place fixed therefor and all interested persons desiring to hear and heard, either orally or in writing, were afforded the opportunity to hear and be heard on the report of the Director of Public Works, the Map of said District and Assessments contained therein said report, or in any way relating,to the report and the proceedings. 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 NOW, THERFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council has considered all oral and written protests made or filed by any interested persons, and except to the extent of any changes ordered by the City Council, each and all protests are overruled and denied. SECTION 2. The Assessments and Map of said District are hereby confirmed. The adoption of this resolution constitutes the levy of an assessment for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1990, as referred to in the assessment. SECTION 3. The City Clerk is directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution, the Map of said District and Assessments referred to herein with the County Auditor of the County of Los Angeles. Thereupon, the County Auditor shall provide for the collection of assessments at the time and in the manner provided in the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972". SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall cause the same to be entered in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council of said City in the minutes of the meeting at which time the same is passed and adopted. SECTION 5. That this Resolution shall take effect immediately. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 10th day of July, 1990. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of 26 Hermosa Beach, California 27 ATTEST: , CITY CLERK 28 APPROVED AS TO FORM: V !2 ! , CITY ATTORNEY S A ASSOCIATES 1130 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE, SUITE 12 ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91007 (818) 446-8650 June 19, 1990 Mr. Anthony Antich Director of Public Works City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-0214 Subject: 1990-91 Street Lighting District and Crossing Guards Maintenance District Dear Tony: Submitted herewith are the Reports for the Street Lighting District and Crossing Guards Maintenance District for Fiscal Year 1990-91. Included is one set of the computer printout and tape for each District. A copy of the tapes will be submitted to Los Angeles County. The following tables present a summary of the assessments for each District: Street Lighting District No. 1990-91 Zone Total No. of Parcels * Frontage (feet) Rate ($/ft) Amount ($) A 5,484 193,976 0.98 190,096.48 B 449 18,152 2.18 39,571.36 C 331 22,279 2.56 57,034.24 D 35 1,953 3.38 6,601.14 E 35 2,664 0.41 1,100.44 Total 6,334 239,044 - 294,403.66 * Some parcels in the District do not have street frontage. S A ASSOCIATES City of Hermosa Beach Maintenance Districts June 19, 1990 Crossing Guards Maintenance District Na. 1990-91 Page -2- Zone Total No. Adjusted Rate Amount of Parcels Total No. of Parcels* ($ per Parcel) ($) 1 2,155 2,237 11.54 25,814.98 2 2,266 2,374 11.54 27,395.96 3 1,843 1,866 11.54 21,533.64 Total 6,264 6,477 - 74,744.58 * Total No. of Parcels have been adjusted to reflect single ownership of multiple parcels. A copy of the Street Lighting District Map showing the bounda- ries of the District is available in City Hall. If there are any questions relating to the information contain- ed herein, or any interpretive service where we may be of assi- stance, we shall be pleased to respond to such requests at your convenience. The assistance and cooperation by the Public Works Department in the preparation of this report has been greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, Shahnawaz Ahmad, Principal !^ w1r P.E. t CITY OF IIER?1OSA BEACII ][ OR Ted][ A SCALE: I INCH•400 FEET — _I I t'•r �\ �: 11 �1 it k •_ % ��.:• l i II 1.1 If►_, -, 1�l 1 / 1 l fr rr II� I r I Imo^ 11 ! II I r, � r, f � l('P • _ , ...... / ��(Illirlc III ' I 1' 4:. it (‘"-,..,"":1" F1 f I, jam: . .. L l(liii. rlii - ,., ,� j r i . 1r - ii _--- 1I w I ll . �:.. _ _-- y r j l i r� 4-,ri'f g�I I pp; 1/1111PnliN11111:1-fli-i--- --J. . _ 1 1t.. _ JL_ J- l— i llulr r�u - I_ .. 1(� �-- .1'I.L_ �i� LJL-1L_..1(_. _ � h _ --1•1LJL_1L—J_ �_( u ` I1t!-=�,: �---.� rug r-. - -r (----/- if-- I-� ,, MAP OF STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1990-91 June 28, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 10, 1990 PUBLIC HEARING HERMOSA BEACH CROSSING GUARDS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1990-1991 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council 1. Introduce the attached ordinance which; a. confirms the report of the Director of Public works dated June 19, 1990, prepared pursuant to Resolution No. 90-5347 of said Council and the plans, specifications, estimates, map and assessment, and b. orders certain Crossing Guard Maintenance Services to be furnished and maintained for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1990. " 2. Revise the FY 90-91 estimated revenue for secured collections in the Crossing Guard District from $65,287 to $74,745. Background: The Crossing Guard Maintenance District was voted on at the Special Municipal Election of November 8, 1983. The measure passed by a 2-1 margin. As required, the necessary steps have been taken for the preparation of the public hearing set for July 10, 1990, for the adoption of the City's Crossing Guard Maintenance District, as follows: 1. March 13, 1990 - City Council adopted Resolution No. 90-5347 ordering the report for the renewal of the district. 2. On April 24, 1990, the City Council directed staff not to charge City administrative costs to the Crossing Guards Maintenance District. All administrative costs of the Crossing Guards Maintenance District are being subsidized from the general fund by $8,479 in FY 90-91 and by $9,109 in FY 91-92. This action was reflected in the FY 90-92 adopted budget. 3. June 19, 1990 - The Director of Public Works filed with the City Clerk the report consisting of estimate of costs, map, and assessment rolls. 4. June 26, 1990 - a. City Council adopted Resolution No. 90-5374, approving the report from the Director of Public Works. b. City Council adopted Resolution No. 90-5375, (a resolution of intention) which set the date of the public hearing for July 10, 1990, at 8:00 p.m. in order to accept public input on this matter. Analysis: The Government Code provides authority for this assessment. The adoption of the attached ordinance provides the funds necessary to sustain the City's Crossing Guard Maintenance District. Funds to operate and maintain the Crossing Guards are provided via an annual assessment. The assessment on each of the 6,624 parcels in the district is $11.54. The annual total assessments for FY 90-91 and for the last two years are as follows: FY 88-89 FY 89-90 FY 90-91 Amount $74,733.04 $75,183.00 $74,744.58 Amount of Change + $449.96 - $438.42 Percent Change + .6% Increase - .6% Decrease Alternatives: Other alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council are: 1. Let the District lapse; thereby, increasing the General Fund obligation by approximately $74,745. Respectfully Submi ted, Con Lynn A. Terry Deputy City Engineer Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Director A - any Antich Director of PublibWorks /74 Go Go^e:at- Pe ev,1eA7s, evin B. Nort craft City Manager Attachments: Estimate of Costs FY 90-91 Ordinance No. 90- ty/cg CITY MANAGER COMMENT The existing fund balance seems adequate as a reserve, so the revenue need should be equal to the annual district costs. Since estimated revenue for 1990-91 is $20,000 higher than expenses, it is recommended that the assessments be revised downward such that annual revenues equal expenses. HERMOSA BEACH CROSSING GUARDS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1990-1991 FY 89-90 Actual July 1, 1989 Fund Balance $ 40,811 Estimated FY 89-90 Revenue* - Current Year Secured Assessment 73,495 - Other Revenue 9,016 Estimated FY 89-90 Expenditure * - Operational Budget (-) 55,773 Estimated Fund Balance June 30, 1990 $ 67,549 * Based on FY 89-90 Estimate in FY 90-92 preliminary budget FY 90-91 Estimated Fund Balance July 1, 1990 $ 67,549 - Assessment for FY 90-91 - Other Revenue Estimated FY 90-91 Expenditure - Operational Budget (includes funds for an additional crossing guard) Estimated June 30, 1991, Balance hbcgs 4/10/90 74,745 7,021 (-)61,317 $ 87,998 HERMOSA BEACH CROSSING GUARDS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1990-1991 ESTIMATE OF COST FY 1990-1991 1. Direct Expenses: Regular Salaries/Miscellaneous $ 8,892 Special Duty Pay -0- Vacation/Sick Pay Off 178 Accrual Cash In 178 Crossing Guards 36,800 Retirement 1,115 Uniforms 400 Employee Benefits 816 Contract Services/Private: - Assessment Engineering Services 6,000 Contract Services/Government: - L.A. Co. Collections of Assessments 525 Transfer out -ins user charges 2,805 Subtotal: $ 57,709 2. Incidental Expenses: City Manager Administration $ -0- City Council Administration -0- Public Works Department Administration -0- City Clerk Expense -0- Legal Expense -0- Subtotal: $ -0- Total Costs for Crossing Guards District No. 90-91: $ 57,709 hbcgs 4/10/90 SA ASSOCIATES 1130 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE, SUITE 12 ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91007 (818) 445.8650 June 19, 1990 Mr. Anthony Antich Director of Public Works City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-0214 Subject: 1990-91 Street Lighting District and Crossing Guards Maintenance District Dear Tony: Submitted herewith are the Reports for the Street Lighting District and Crossing Guards Maintenance District for Fiscal Year 1990-91. Included is one set of the computer printout and tape for each District. A copy of the tapes will be submitted to Los Angeles County. The following tables present a summary of the assessments for each District: Street Lighting District No. 1990-91 Zone Total No. of Parcels * Frontage (feet) Rate ($/ft) Amount ($) A 5,484 193,976 0.98 190,096.48 B 449 18,152 2.18 39,571.36 C 331 22,279 2.56 57,034.24 D 35 1,953 3.38 6,601.14 E 35 2,6084 0.41 1,100.44 Total 6,334 239,044 - 294,403.66 * Some parcels in the District do not have street frontage. SA ASSOCIAThS City of Hermosa Beach Maintenance Districts June 19, 1990 Crossing Guards Maintenance District No. 1990-91 Page -2- Zone Total No. Adjusted Rate Amount of Parcels Total No. of Parcels* ($ per Parcel) ($) 1 2,155 2,237 11.54 25,814.98 2 2,266 2,374 11.54 27,395.96 3 1,843 1,866 11.54 21,533.64 Total 6,264 6,477 - 74,744.58 * Total No. of Parcels have been adjusted to reflect single ownership of multiple parcels. A copy of the Street Lighting District Map showing the bounda- ries of the District is available in- City Hall. If there are any questions relating to the information contain- ed herein, or any interpretive service where we may be of assi- stance, we shall be pleased to respond to such requests at your convenience. The assistance and cooperation by the Public Works Department in the preparation of this report has been greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, Shahnawaz Ahmad, P.E. Principal CITY OF IIERMOSA BEACH C A IL IIIF OR Nil A MAP OF CROSSING GUARD MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1990-91 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 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE 'CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATED JUNE 19, 1990, PREPARED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 90-5347 AND APPROVED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 90-5374 OF SAID COUNCIL, AND THE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ESTIMATE, MAP AND ASSESSMENT CONTAINED IN SAID REPORT; ORDERING CERTAIN CROSSING GUARD MAINTENANCE SERVICES TO BE FURNISHED AND MAINTAINED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1990. HERMOSA BEACH CROSSING GUARD MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1990-1991 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, did in Resolution No. 90-5347 of said Council, pursuant to the provisions of the "Crossing Guard Maintenance District Act of 1974" (Chapter 3.5, Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4, Sections 55530 Through 55570, of the Government Code of the State of California), require the Director of Public Works of said City to make and file with the Clerk of the City Council a report in writing, presenting certain matters relating to the proposed Crossing Guard Maintenance District No. 1990-1991, as contemplated under the provisions of said Act; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works, pursuant to the requirements of said City Council as expressed in Resolution No. 90-5347 and did on the 19th day of June, 1990, file in the office of the City clerk (who is ex -officio Clerk of the City Council) of said City, his report in writing responsive to the requirements of said Resolution No. 90-5347 and as contemplated under the provisions of said Act; and WHEREAS, the said City Council did in Resolution No. 90-5374 approve said report on the 26th day of June, 1990, in conformity with the provisions of said Act; and WHEREAS, said City Council did thereafter and on said 26th day of June, 1990, pass its Resolution of Intention No. 90-5375 declaring its intention to order certain Crossing Guard Maintenance Services for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1990; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and WHEREAS, said City Council did on said 26th day of June, 1990, in its Resolution No. 90-5375 fix and designate Tuesday, the 10th day of July, 1990, at the hour of 8:00 p.m. of said day as the time for hearing protests in reference to the proposed maintenance and assessment, at the Council Chamber, in the City Hall, Civic Center, in the City of Hermosa Beach, California; and WHEREAS, at the time and place above stated for hearing protests in reference to the proposed maintenance and assessment, certain written and oral protests and objections were filed and presented, which said protests and objections were fully and regularly heard and considered by said Council; and WHEREAS, said City Council being fully advised in the premises, does hereby proceed as- follows: NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, FIND, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That said Council does hereby deny all protests and objections and does hereby approve, confirm and adopt the said report of said Director of Public Works dated the 19th day of June, 1990, and does hereby approve and confirm the assessment proposed for said proposed maintenance as set forth and referred to in said report, which said report is now on file in the office of the City Clerk of said City, open to inspection, hereby referred to and made a part thereof; and said City Council does hereby also confirm and adopt the respective instruments therein contained and designated therein as SPECIFICATIONS, MAP OF CROSSING GUARD MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1990-1991, Estimate of Costs and Assessment, all of which,'on file as aforesaid, are hereby incorporated herein and made a part hereof. 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 2. That said Council does hereby order the said contemplated maintenance to be made in accordance with the said MAP and SPECIFICATIONS therefore, so adopted and approved, and does hereby order and determine that the fiscal year referred to in said Resolution of Intention No. 90-5375 shall be and the same is hereby fixed and established as the period commencing on the 1st day of July, 1990, and ending on the 30th day of June, 1991, both dates inclusive, as therein set forth; and said Council does hereby levy the said proposed total assessment made to cover the costs and expenses of said improvement upon the respective several subdivisions of land in the assessment district described in said Resolution of Intention No. 90-5375 and as fixed and determined by said report, dated June 19, 1990, and the proposed assessment, filed therewith,'as aforesaid, in the office of the City Clerk of said City, for the fiscal year beginning. July 1, 1990, and ending June 30, 1991, both dates inclusive. SECTION 3. That the City Council hereby orders and directs the City Treasurer toestablish a special fund entitled, "Hermosa Beach Crossing Guard Maintenance District No. 1990-1991 Fund"; and who shall place into said Fund all payments of assessments received from the County Tax Collector and payments shall be made out to said special Fund only for the purposes provided for in said Chapter 3.5, Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4, Sections 55530 through 55570, of the Government Code of the State of California. SECTION 4. That the City Clerk of said City is hereby ordered to transmit, or cause to be transmitted, to the County Auditor of Los Angeles County, State of California, as contemplated under the prbvis'ions of the "Crossing Guard Maintenance District Act of 1974", the Map and Assessment upon which such levy is based, and the County Tax Collector of said 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 County (who is also the City Tax Collector for said City) is ordered and directed to make collection of all assessments shown required by law of and to be performed by the officer, employee, or person so designated. SECTION 5. That prior to the expiration of fifteen 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. SECTION 6. That this ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of July, 1990. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ty/cgord July 3, 1990 Planning Dept. City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Dr. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 RE: Zoning for Area 10 e_ t) 1990 Area 10 (Barney Court and Meyer court, from the south City Boundary to the rear lots fronting on 2nd street to the north) should be changed to a low density area, and rezoned as R-1. This area is already very crowded, and there is very little room for parking. Traffic through these streets is difficult because of the narrow streets and parked cars lining both sides of the streets. Children who may suddenly enter the street (to chase a ball or each other) are at great risk because of the current difficulty of drivers maneuvering their way on these streets. Allowing increased density in these areas would be a severe detriment to the neighborhood, and increase the danger of traffic accidents. Carol Kirsch 939 First Street Hermosa Beach, CA 00254 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council (Continued from May 8, 1990) July 3, 1990 Regular Meeting of July 10, 1990 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, BY EITHER A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY TO MEDIUM DENSITY, OR A ZONE CHANGE FROM R -2B TO R-1 INITIATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION Recommendation The Planning Commission and Staff recommend that the Land Use Map of the General Plan be amended by changing the designation from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential by adopting the attached resolution. Background 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 report of 4/2/90. Analysis At this time, an advisory letter has notbeen received from the FPPC. The City Attorney expects to receive it prior to the meeting. For further analysis the subject area please refer to the attached 4/2/90 and 10/2/89 City Council staff reports. ,/— Micha€l`Schubach Planning Director Kevin B. Northc/aft City Manager (/ 4 Ken Robei` g -on Associate Planner Attachments 1. Location Maps 2. Proposed Resolution 3. City Council Staff Report 4/2/90 4. City Council Minutes 5/8/90, 4/10/90 5. Background information: C.C. Minutes 10/10/89; C.C. Staff Report 10/2/89; P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 6. Correspondence in favor of Medium Density 7. Correspondence in favor of R-1 8. Public Notice Affidavit p/pcsrgpa8 C C AREA 1 0 CURRENT ZONING R -2B CURRENT GP LD PROPOSED CHANGE: GPA: LD TO MD O • -11.'- 5T. ST• 3 ••••• • • • . GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AREA 10 ••••• LD : LOW DENSITY • HD : HIGH DENSITY. OS OPEN SPACE CC COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR HD 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 THE AREA AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing for General Plan Amendment 89-3 as part of the first quarter general plan amendments, regarding "Area 10" located between Meyer Court and Barney Court, on April 10, 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 current zoning; D. Amending the general plan designation is more appropriate for the subject area than changing the zoning, as the current zoning is consistent with existing and potential land uses and is compatible with surrounding area; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve that the land use map of the general plan be amended as shown on the attached map and described as follows: General Plan amend from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential the area located between Barney Court and Meyer Court from the south city boundary, between, the rear of the lots fronting on Second Street,, and legally described as follows: LL 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 - lots 22-25 and 28-31, inclusive, and a portion of lots 26 and 27, Trafton Heights Tract. 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: or,tebtL_J, V6,ste plandoc/persgpa8 CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY qL CURRENT ZONING CURRENT GP 10 PROPOSED CHANGE: GPA: LD TO MD R -2B LD- _ •ice • O • � 5T. oma. O•25 7 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 2, 1990 Regular Meeting of April 10, 1990 SUBJECT: FIRST QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND/OR ZONE CHANGES FOR GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING INCONSISTENCIES LOCATIONS: 1. 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 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-3) 2. SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ARTESIA BOULEVARD AND PROSPECT AVENUE (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-10, ZONE CHANGE 89-11) PURPOSE: TO CONSIDER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND/OR ZONE CHANGES FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES TO BRING THE ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN MAPS INTO CONSISTENCY INITIATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION Recommendation 1. Area 10 The Planning Commission and Staff recommend that the Land Use Map of the General Plan be amended by changing the designation from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential by adopting the attached resolution. 2. Southeast corner of Artesia and Prospect The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Changes by adopting the proposed resolution and introducing the proposed ordinance which will redesignate from General Commercial to High Density Residential and Zone Change from R -P to Specific Plan Area (R-3 Density, R-2 Standards) the residential portion, and zone change from R -P to C-2 the Commercial Portion of the subject property (refer to attached map). 1. AREA 10 Background On December 13, 1988, the City Council downzoned the subject area from R-2 to R -2B consistent with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The subject area was advertised and considered for downzoning to R-1, however, the R -2B designation was chosen because of the large lots and because with R -2B zoning the density would exceed the maximum of 13 units for the Low Density range by only 3.5 units per acre. On March 21, 1989, the Planning Commission recommended amending the General Plan from Low Density to Medium Density for the subject area for consistency, as part of the first quarter general plan amendments. This hearing was advertised for the general plan amendment only. On May 3, 1989, the City Council considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission. After public testimony from nearby residents generally opposed to such a change, a majority of the Council was unable to agree on the matter, and decided to postpone action to the third quarter general plan amendments of 1989 to include an option for a zone change to R-1. On September 5, 1989, the Planning Commission again recommended amending the General Plan from Low Density to Medium Density, as part of the third quarter general plan amendments. On October 10, 1989, as a result of a 2-2 vote, the City Council decided to continue the matter until a later date (Mayor Creighton resides within 300' of the area and abstained from participation.) Analysis The current R -2B zoning would permit the addition of only 3 additional units to this area. Staff does not believe this would be a significant impact if it were to occur. Currently one lot is nonconforming to density; if the area was changed to R-1, four additional lots would become nonconforming to density. The surrounding residential areas consist of an R -P zoned area directly to the west (allowing R-3 residential development) and a R-1 zoned area to the east and north. Because of the small lots the density for the R-1 area to the east along 1st Place and 1st Street is currently about 17.5 units/acre. The density along 2nd Street to the north is about 15.5 units/acre. Therefore, the 16.5 units/acre permitted by R -2B for the subject area is consistent with or less than surrounding areas. If zoned R-1, the 9.2 units/acre density would be significantly less. For further analysis of the subject area please refer to the attached 10/2/89 City Council staff report. 2. SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ARTESIA AND PROSPECT Background The subject block is one of the remaining inconsistent areas throughout the City as it is General Plan designated General Commercial, and zoned R-P...Residential-Professional. This amendment and zone change was initiated by the Planning Commission in response to a request to open a child care center in an existing office building located on Artesia Boulevard, and because of the inconsistency. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of March 6, 1989, recommended changing the residentially developed portion of the subject block from General Commercial to High Density Residential on the General Plan, and to change the zoning from R -P to a Specific Plan Area using R-3 density standards, and R-2 building standards. The Planning Commission also recommended to change the zoning on the commercially developed portion of the block from R -P to C-2 Restricted Commercial. Analysis RESIDENTIAL PORTION Staff originally recommended changing this area to Low Density and R-1 because the. surrounding residential neighborhoods are designated Low Density and R-1 and this neighborhood has a similar character. Since the R -P zone allows residential development to R-3 standards this would have been a significant downzoning from R-3 to R-1. After public testimony, the PlanningCommission, determined that downzoning the properties from R-3 to R-1 would be too significant of a change, and unfair to existing property owners, considering that duplexes had already been constructed on6 of the 8 affected properties. The reason R-3 density standards were chosen was because the size of these duplex lots are too small to permit 2 -units under R-2 zoning. The R-2 building standards were chosen to protect the existing character of the neighborhood which would perhaps be threatened by allowing 35 -foot high structures as allowed in the R-3 zone. Staff believes that the input of the public hearing has resulted in a reasonable solution, and, therefore, supports the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report for further analysis of the subject area. COMMERCIAL PORTION Staff originally recommended rezoning these lots to C-2 and the Planning Commission concurred. Since the General Plan currently identifies this area as General Commercial no change to the General Plan is necessary. Under current zoning these lots could potentially be developed as high density residential. Changing the zoning to C-2 will ensure that this highway frontage is utilized .,for commercial purposes in the future. Also, any new commercial projects would be subject to the requirement of submittal and review of a Precise Development Plan. Please refer to the Planning Commission Staff report for further analysis of this area. Procedure for Adoption of the Amendments Staff suggests that the Council open the public hearing for each area separately and take a "straw" vote on that area. When all the areas have been heard, the Council could then take a final vote on the adoption of the proposed resolution for the General Plan Amendments; and then take a final vote on the adoption of the proposed ordinance for the zone changes. CONCUR: Mithael Schubach Planning Director Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager en Robertson Associate Planner Attachments 1. Location Maps 2. Proposed Resolutions and Ordinance 3. Background information -Area 10: C.C. Minutes; C.C. Staff Report 10/2/89; P.C. Minutes; Public Correspondence; Public Notice Affidavit 4. Background information -SE Artesia/Prospect: P.C. Resolutions; P.C. Minutes; P.C. Staff Report; Correspondence; Public Notice Affidavit p/pcsrgpa8 OIL DRILLING AND PRODUCTION WHEN ALLOWED BY A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE.“ Motion Mayor Creighton, second Sheldon. AYES: Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton NOES: None 6. FIRST QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND/OR ZONE CHANGES FOR GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING INCONSISTENCIES. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 2, 1990. (Continued from April 10, 1990 meeting.) A. AREA 10 (BETWEEN BARNEY COURT AND MEYER COURT, FROM SOUTH CITY BOUNDARY TO THE REAR OF THE LOTS FRONTING ON SECOND STREET), GENERAL PLAN CHANGE FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, with Resolution for adoption. Assistant City Attorney Lee said that at the meeting of April 10, 1990, the City Attorney's office was requested to explore the possibility of the Mayor's participation in considering this item to break the 2-2 tie vote and resolve the issue. (The Mayor had declared a conflict of interest because he is a property owner in the area.) He said after considerable research and discussions with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), it was the recommendation of the City Attorney's office that the matter either be continued to a date certain to allow for the opportunity to seek a written advisory letter from the FPPC, or that Council proceed to consider the matter without the Mayor's participation. Action: To continue the item to the next quarterly General Plan Amendments, which will be July 10, 1990. Motion Midstokke, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered. B. SOUTHEAST CORNER ARTESIA AND PROSPECT TO HARPER AVENUE GENERAL PLAN CHANGE FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND ZONE CHANGE FROM R -P TO SPECIAL PLAN AREA (R-3 DENSITY, R-2 STANDARDS) THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION, AND ZONE CHANGE FROM R -P TO C-2 THE COMMERCIAL PORTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY, with resolution for adoption and an ordinance for introduction. A staff report was presented by Director Schubach. The Public Hearing was opened. There being no one coming forward to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5365, entitled, "A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED WITHIN AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTION OF., AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION." Motion Sheldon, second Essertier. So ordered. - Minutes 5-8-90 6. FIRST QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND/OR ZONE CHANG- ES FOR GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING INCONSISTENCIES: A. AREA 10 (BETWEEN BARNEY COURT AND MEYER COURT, FROM SOUTH CITY BOUNDARY TO THE REAR OF THE LOTS FRONT- ING ON SECOND STREET), GENERAL PLAN CHANGE FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WITH RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION Mayor Creighton declared a conflict of interest since he owns property within 300 feet of the subject area and left the dais, and the room, during consideration of the item. Mayor Pro Tem Sheldon chaired this portion of the meeting. Councilmember Midstokke said that although she resides within 300 feet of the subject area, she does not own property within the area, and therefore, pursuant to rulings by the City Attorney and the Fair Political Practice Commission, there is no conflict of interest, thus allowing her to participate. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 2, 1990. Supplemental letters from Bonnie Wulff dated April 9, 1990; and Brigido Farfan, dated April 10, 1990. A staff report was given by Associate Planner, Ken Robertson. The Public Hearing was opened. Coming Forward to speak in favor of R -2B were: Frank Fernandez - 1010 First Street Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street Jerry Compton - 200 Pier Avenue, #9 Jack Andren - 521 Gentry Street Steve Harris - 23 Barney Court, submitted letter from lending institution. Speaking in favor of R-1 were: Sam Edgerton - 1118 Second Street - submitted information on former petitions. Steven Crecy - 1148 Second Street Mike Meyers - 1104 First Street Guy Elefski - 1115 First Street Joanne Zambrano - 1118 Second Street Ruth Brand - 1231 First Street Dennis Cleland - 434 28th Street Roger Gillespie - 1026 Second Street Council member Midstokke wanted the record to reflect two phone callers in favor of R-1: Jack Duer - 1110 Second Street Patricia Gazin - 1250 First Street - /3 - Minutes 4-10-90 The Public Hearing was closed at 12:00 A.M. Proposed Action: To bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan and lower the zoning to R-1. Motion Essertier, second Midstokke. Motion tied, no action. AYES: Essertier, Midstokke NOES: Sheldon, Wiemans Proposed Action: To leave the area R -2B with a 25 foot height limit. Motion Wiemans. Died for lack of a second. Action: To continue to the May 8, 1990 meeting and apply a Rule of Necessity to allow Mayor Creighton to cast the tie -breaking vote. Motion Midstokke, second Essertier. So ordered. Further Action: To direct the City Attorney to advise Mayor Creighton, and the City Manager, as to The Mayor's ability to vote on this issue at that meeting. Motion Sheldon, second Essertier. So ordered. Mayor Creighton returned to the dais. B. SE CORNER ARTESIA AND PROSPECT TO HARPER AVENUE GENER)Y1', PLAN CHANGE FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY SIDENTIAL AND ZONE CHANGE FROM R -P TO SPECIFIC LAN AREA (R-3 DENSITY, R-2 STANDARDS) THE RESIDENTIAL POR- TION' AND ZONE CHANGE FROM R -P TO C-2 THE COMMERCIAL PORTIO OF SUBJECT PROPERTY, WITH RESOLUTION/'OR ADOP- TION AND ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION. Action: To ,•en the Public Hearing an continue Item 6B to the May 8, 990 meeting. So ordeped. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 7. REPORT ON COMMUNITY CENTER RE Memorandum from Communit R dated April 2, 1990. NUE AND EXPENDITURES. sources Director Mary Rooney Action: To continue t• the Ap it 24, 1990 meeting. 8• RECOMMENDATION TO RODUCE ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3 OF THE MUNICIPAL/CODE RELATING TO HANDBILLS AND ADVER- TISING. Memor dum from Public Safetj'NDirector Steve Wisniewski d ed April 2, 1990. Action: 2d continue to the April 24, 1990 me ting. 9. RECOMMENDATION ON EMERGENCY SEWER REPAIR. Memo ndum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated April 1990. Supplemental memorandum from Public Works Su isor Vernon Highfield, dated April 9, 1990. Minutes 4-10-90 BitICKOROOND AI/ITER/41 ZStreet Estates Home Owners Association ion Faelton - 730 Fourth Street Sean Guthrie - 710 Fourth Street Marilyn Spanburg - 705-706 Fifth Street Robert Kaufman - 715 Second Street Gerry Compton - 832-840 Seventh Street The Public Hearing was closed. (1) SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE "MULTI -USE CORRIDOR" Action: Too introduce Ordinance No. 89-101 . Motion Creighton, second Simpson. So ord-red. Final Action: o waive full reading of Ordinance No. 89-1013, entitle , "AN ORDINANCE RECO ENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY'\CHANGING THE ZONE BOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND RECOM- MENDING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE 'ECLARATION." (SOUTH- WEST QUADRANT OF THE "MULTI -USE C'�RRIDOR" R-3 to R-2) Motion Rosenberger, second Crei• ton. AYES: Creighton, Rosen•erger, •heldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams NOES: None (2) SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE "MUL -USE CORRIDOR" Proposed Action: To ap rove \ t e Planning Commission recommendation to main in the xisting R-2 zoning. Motion Rosenberger, s coed Willi ms. AYES: Rosenberger, illiams NOES: -Creighton, S eldon, Simpson Action: To intrq uce Ordinance No. 9-1014. (Staff recommendation. 'Motion Creight n, second Simpson. So d dered, noting the objection of Rosenberger. Final Action: To waive full reading of Or•inance No. 89-1014,'titled, "AN ORDINANCE RECOMMENDI G AMENDING. THE ZONINGnMAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR THE ••EAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP D RECOM- MENDING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION.' (SOUTH- EAST,1QUADRANT OF THE "MULTI -USE CORRIDOR" R-2 to R -2B) Mot yon Creighton, second Simpson. AYE'S: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, M or Williams OEs: None 7. THIRD QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND ZONE CHANGES - CONSISTENCY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND/OR ZONE CHANGES AS NOTED BELOW OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE OR GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO BRING THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAPS INTO CONSISTENCY FOR "AREA 10" AND - /3- - Minutes 10-10-89 THE NOTED AREAS WEST OF VALLEY DRIVE AND AN ENVIRONMEN- TAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. With Resolution and Ordinan- ces for introduction. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated October 2, 1989. AREA 10. LOCATION GENERALLY BETWEEN BARNEY COURT AND MEYER COURT, FROM SOUTH CITY BOUNDARY TO THE REAR OF LOTS FRONTING ON 2ND STREET TO THE NORTH, TO EITHER REMAIN R -2B ZONING WITH GENERAL PLAN AMENDED FROM LOW DENSITY TO MEDIUM DENSITY OR CHANGE TO R-1 ZONING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGA- TIVE DECLARATION. Councilmember Creighton declared an apparent Conflict of Interest due to owning property within 300 feet of the subject property. Proposed Action: To continue to the First Quarter General Plan Amendments in 1990. Motion Williams, second Rosenberger Addressing the Council on the motion were: Mike Meyers - 1104 First St. - against continuation Sam Edgerton - 1118 Second St. - against continuation Joanne Zambrana - 1118 Second St. - against continuation Gerry Compton - 200 Pier, #9 - against continuation The motion was subsequently withdrawn. A staff report was presented by Director Schubach. The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak were: Gerry Compton - 200 Pier Avenue #9 Sam Edgerton - 1118 First Street - submitted petition with 80 signatures in favor of the lower density. John Snyder - 111 Barney Court Mike Cleland - 3520 The Strand Dermot Leach - 1122- 2nd Street Joanne Zambrana - 1118 -..2nd Street Wilma Burt - 1152- 7th Street Dave Hull - 1136- 2nd Street Ruth Brand - 1231- 1st Street Steve Harris - 23 Barney Court Norman McGahem - 1018- 2nd Street Mike Meyers - 1104- 1st Street The Public Hearing was closed. - /6 - Minutes 10-10-89 C Action: To continue Area 10 and being back as part of the next quarterly General Plan Amendments. Motion Rosenberger, second Sheldon. AYES - Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Mayor Williams NOES - None ABSTAIN - Creighton A recess was called at 11:40 P.M. T e meeting reconvened at 11:48 P.M. AREA A. 1) GENERAL PLAN RE -DESIGNATION FROM OPEN SPACE T. IN- DUSTRIAL FOR THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF VALLEY ►•IVE AND 6TH STREET (THE "CITY YARD"); GENERAL PLAN RE -DESIGNATION FROM HIGH DENS TY RESIDENTIAL TO INDUSTRIAL FOR A PORTION O 725 CY- PRESS AVE:, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1, :LOCK V, RACT 2002; A staff eport was presented by Director S hubach. The Public earing was opened. No one q•ming forward to speak, the P clic Hearing was closed . Straw Vote (Are'. 1): To approve sta 'f recommendation. Motion Sheldon, -cond Rosenberger. Objections by Creighton and Simp on. Straw Vote (Area 2): To approve/staff recommendation. Motion Rosenberger, se nd Shel on. 5/0. AREA B. GENERAL PLAN RE -DESIGN BION FROM OPEN SPACE AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENT]. TO INDUSTRIAL FOR THE PROPERTY AT 552 11TH/fLA (SITE OF "HERMOSA MINI - STORAGE") AND FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO INDUSTRIAL FOR THE WEST SIDE BARD S EET (INCLUDING 1309 AND 1319 BARD STR ET) 91 TO 22 8 FT. SOUTH OF PIER AVE. A staff report was •resented by Directa Schubach. coati The Public Heari • was opened. No one ng forward to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Straw Vote: To approve staff recommendation. Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. 5/0 AREA C. 1) GENERAL PLAN RE -DESIGNATION FROM GENERAL COMME IAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE EASTERN PO - TION OF 66 9TH ST.,,_;801 HERMOSA AVE. AND 63 8TH S (LOTS 16, 25 AND 26, BLOCK 9, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT; - /7-- Minutes 10-10-89 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council October 2, 1989 Regular Meeting of October 10, 1989 SUBJECT: THIRD QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND/OR ZONE CHANGES FOR GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING INCONSISTENCIES LOCATIONS: "AREA 10," AND VARIOUS INCONSISTENT AREAS WEST OF VALLEY DRIVE (SEE ATTACHED MAPS) PURPOSE: TO GENERAL PLAN AMEND AND/OR ZONE CHANGE THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES TO BRING THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAPS INTO CONSISTENCY INITIATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION Recommendation The Planning Commission and Staff recommend that the City Council amend the Land Use Map of the General Plan and the zoning map for the subject areas as noted on the attached maps by adopting the attached Resolution and Ordinance. Background State law allows cities to amend the General Plan four times per year. The areas of concern include "Area 10," located between Barney Court and Meyer Court on both sides of First Street, for which the City Council directed staff to bring up as a 3rd Quarter General Plan Amendment or Zone Change, and the remaining inconsistent areas west of Valley Drive, in the Coastal Zone (areas A through F) as identified by staff. The recommendations, analysis, and location maps for each area are contained in the attached reports on each area, which is the same report submitted to the Planning Commission reorganized so that the analysis and the maps for each area are together. Recommendations as to whether to amend the General Plan or Zoning map were made primarily based on consistency with current land uses of the subject areas, although other concerns included consistency with surrounding land uses, and prevailing lot sizes. Alternatives Since each area was publicly noticed with a statement ..or to such other zone or general plan designation as deemed appropriate by the City Council," the City Council may amend the general plan or zoning maps in whatever way they deem appropriate to bring the general plan and zoning into consistency. li Procedure for Adoption of the Amendments Staff suggests that the Council open the public hearing for each area separately and take a "straw" vote on that area. When all the areas have been heard, the Council could then take a final vote on the adoption of the proposed Resolution, or an amended Resolution, for the General Plan Amendments; and then take a final vote on the adoption of the proposed Ordinance, or an amended Ordinance, for the Zone Changes. Michael Schubach Planning Director J 4r4.4„ -- Kevin Northcra&t City Manager Associate Planner Attachments 1. Recommendations/Analysis for Area 10, and Areas A - F 2. Proposed Resolution and Ordinance 3. P.C. Resolution No. 89-66 4. P.C. Minutes, 9/5/89 5. Public Notice Affidavit 6. Public Correspondence p/pcsrgpa8 CITY MANAGER COMMENT: This item was not resolved during its last discussion on May 3, 1989 due to consecutive motions failing by a vote of 2-2. Barring a change in sentiment by a Councilmember, the Council may wish to postpone this item to the 4th quarter amendments when at least one new viewpoint will be on the Council in hopes of ending the stalemate. AREA 10 Recommendation Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the subject area be general plan redesignated from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential to be made consistent with the R -2B zoning. Background On December 13, 1988, the City Council downzoned the subject area from R-2 to R -2B consistent with the recommendation of Staff and the Planning Commission. The subject area was considered for downzoning to R-1, however, the R -2B designation was chosen because of the large lots and because with R -2B zoning the density would not significantly exceed the maximum of 13 for the Low Density range. On May 3, 1989, the City Council considered a General Plan redesignation from Low Density to Medium Density for consistency. After public testimony generally opposed to such a redesignation the Council decided to postpone action to the third quarter general plan amendments to include an option for a zone change to R-1. The option to rezone the area to R-1 is available to the Council as this area was advertised for either a general plan amendment or a zone change. Analysis The current R -2B zoning would permit the addition of only 3 additional units to this area. Staff does not believe this would be a significant impact if it were to occur. Currently one lot is nonconforming to density; if the area was changed to R-1, four additional lots would become noncomforming to density. The surrounding residential areas consist of an R -P zoned area directly to the west (allowing R-3 residential development) and a \�R-1 zoned area to the east and north. Because of the small lots J the density for the R-1 area to the east along 1st Place and 1st \ Street is currently about 17.5 units/acre. The density along 2nd ) Street to the north is about 15.5 units/acre. Therefore, the 16.5. units/acre permitted by R -2B for the subject area is consistent with or less than surrounding areas. If zoned R-1, the 9.2 units/acre density would be significantly less. STATISTICAL DATA FOR AREA 10 General Plan Designation: LD Zoning Designation: R -2B Number of Lots: 10 Total Area: 47,290 sq. ft. Lot Sizes: 2900 - 6700 sq. ft. No. Existing Units/Density: 16 units / 14.7 du/acre Potential maximum additional units: under R -2B: 3 if R-1: 0 Potential Units/Density assuming all new construction: under R -2B: 18 units / 16.6 du/acre if R-1: 10 units / 9.2 du/acre Nonconforming under R -2B: 1 lot / 3 units Nonconforming if R-1: 5 lots / 11 units THIRD QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND/OR ZONE CHANGES AS RECOMMENDED OR AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 24, 1989. Staff recommended general plan amendments and zone changes for the subject areas. State law allows cities to amend the general plan four times per year. The areas of concern include Area 10, located between Barney Court and Meyer Court on both sides of 1st Street, for which the City Council directed staff to bring up as a third quarter general plan amendment or zone change, and the remaining inconsistent areas west of Valley Drive, Areas A through F. AREA 10: (Location generally between Barney Court and Meyer Court, from south city boundary to the rear of lots fronting on 2nd Street to the north): To either remain R -2B zoning with general plan amended from low density to medium density or change to R-1 zoning to be consistent with the general plan Staff . recommended that the area be general plan redesignated from low density residential to medium density residential to be made consistent with the R -2B zoning. On December 13, 1988, the City Council downzoned the subject area from R-2 to R -2B, consistent with the recommendation of staff and the Planning Commission. The subject area was considered for downzoning to R-1; however, the R -2B designation was chosen because of the large lots and because with R -2B zoning the density would not significantly exceed the maximum of 13 for the low density range. LS - 2 2 - P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 On May 3, 1989, the City Council considered a general plan redesignation from low density to medium density for consistency. After public testimony generally opposed to such a redesignation, the Council decided to postpone action to the third quarter general plan amendments to include an option for a zone change to R-1. The current R -2B zoning would permit the addition of only three additional units to this area. Staff does not believe this would be a significant impact if it were to occur. Currently, one lot is nonconforming to density; if changed to R-1, four additional lots would become nonconforming to density. The surrounding residential areas consist of an R -P zoned area directly to the west (allowing R-3 residential development) and an R-1 zoned area to the east and north. Because of the small lots, the density for the R-1 area to the east along 1st Place and 1st Street is currently about 17.5 units per acre. The density along 2nd Street to the north is about 15.5 units per acre. Therefore, the 16.5 units per acre permitted by R -2B for the subject area is consistent with or less than surrounding areas. If zoned R-1, the 9.2 units per acre density would be significantly less. Area 10 has a general plan designation of low density, with a zoning of R -2B. There are ten lots with a total area of 47,290 square feet. There are 16 units, with a density of 14.7 dwelling units per acre. There is a potential maximum of three additional. units under R -2B zoning; no additional units would be allowed under R-1 zoning. With all new construction, there is a potential of 18 units under R -2B, with a density of 16.6 dwelling units per acre. Under R-1, there is a potential of ten units, with a density of 9.2 units per acre. Under R -2B zoning, there is one lot and three units nonconforming; under R-1, five lots and eleven units would be nonconforming. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that the City Council was concerned with several matters: (1) that there was an assumption made that the area was going to be changed to low density, R-1, no matter what; and (2) there was no public notice made of the matter. Chmn. Rue noted that he had been handed a petition signed by a number of people on 1st Street opposed to the redesignation of Area 10 from low density to medium density because they believe such a redesignation will further deteriorate the family atmosphere in that area and will decrease property values. Public Hearing opened at 9:15 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Sam Edgerton, 1118 2nd Street, stated that the petition was signed by 55 registered voters to fight this proposition. He noted that there is a huge objection to changing the general plan from low density to medium density. He noted concern that the area will become too crowded if the designation is changed. He noted that the lots in this area are larger than in other areas, and the area could be turned into all condos in the future. He noted concern over density and height. He noted that this area is on the plateau of a hill and is mostly single-family homes. He said that this area differs from the area across the highway. He noted concern over the intrusion of condos creeping up the hill. - 23- P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 t < Mr. Edgerton stressed that the area should remain low density. He said that the zoning should be in conformance with the general plan, not the other way around. Mike Meyers, 1104 1st Street, stated that the original notice was misleading and people thought the area would be rezoned to R-1. He stated that Proposition EE should. be upheld. He stressed that residents favor lower density. He stated that the area should be low density to prevent the increase in density in the area. He urged the Commission to recommend that this area remain low density. Carey Downs, 1036 2nd Street, favored the area being designated low density in an effort to reduce density. He stated that the high density proponents are interested only in profits. He urged the Commission to reduce density. Ruth Brandt, 1231 1st Street, favored low density. She stated that the area is becoming too dense with worse parking troubles. She stated that this area is mostly single-family usage, regardless .of what the zoning is. She urged the Commission to follow Proposition EE and recommend low density R-1. Joanne Zambrana, 1118 2nd Street, favored low density, stating that if this area slides through, it will happen over and over again. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, discussed this area, stating that staff's recommendation is reasonable and it will remove, eight or nine units from this area. He continued by discussing: (1) what can be built on these properties; (2) the difference between low density and medium density; (3) the size of the lots; (4) the reasons why this area was rezoned R -2B instead of R-1, because of the large lot sizes; (5) the high density located down the hill from this area; (5) views which can be created with the medium density designation; (6) the problems encountered by developers when their property is redesignated or rezoned; (7) the City Council's original 5-0 decision to make this area R - 2B and their subsequent change in opinion; (8) possible condo development in this area; and (9) the topography of this area. Steve Harrison, 23 Barney Court, discussed a project he built at 1st Street and how much the neighbors liked the project. He stated that he attempts to design the projects so that they look like single-family residences. He stated that he has already been downzoned once, from R-2 to R -2B, which means that a unit would be lost if the project were destroyed. If the property is downzoned to R-1, there will be a further loss ;of two-thirds of his ability to rebuild . what is already there. He did not feel he should downzoned again; therefore, he suggested that the property remain as it currently is, R -2B. Mike Cleland, 3520 Strand, developer and partner, stated that when he purchased the property it was R-2. There was then a moratorium placed on the property. He continued by discussing what could have been built at his property and what was actually built there. He discussed the lot sizes and what can be built in the area. He supported the R - 2B zoning, noting his financial stake in the property. Carey Downs, 1036 2nd Street, commented on: (1) the difference in the slope of the lots between Barney and Meyer; (2) the project built by the developers who testified; (3) his desire to stop further large development; (4) a split lot in the area and what might be built on it; (5) potential monstrosities being built which can impact him; (6) the buffer zone between low density and high density; (6) views and view blockage; and (7) neighbors' feelings on new developments. 11 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 Sam Edgerton, 1118 2nd Street, stated that this matter was fully briefed the last time it was heard, and he suggested that everyone read those materials to become fully informed. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, stressed that three units cannot be built in an R -2B zone. He continued by discussing the potential size of projects. Public Hearing closed at 9:45 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Comm. Peirce gave background information on Proposition EE and stated that it ultimately left the final decision up to the elected or appointed body. He stated that it is important to avoid injustices. He said this particular area has large lots. Even if the area were developed to R -2B standards, the density would be almost exactly the same as the surrounding area, except to the west where it would be much higher density. He therefore did not see this as a density issue, noting that only three additional units could be added in this area. He stated that he intends to reaffirm the previous action of the Commission to make this area R -2B. Comm. Moore asked for clarification on the previous action taken by the City Council and how this issue was returned to the Commission. Comm. Moore felt that the real issue which will affect this neighborhood will be the height of future developments. He asked whether there are any statistics on the current height to which the existing developments were .built. Mr. Schubach stated that the heights are mixed. The newer developments are closer to the maximum height allowed. Chmn. Rue stated that he agrees with the comments made by Comm. Peirce, noting that these lots are larger than average. Therefore, the zoning went from R-2 to R -2B in an attempt to lessen density. He felt that R -2B is the appropriate zoning for this area. • Comm. Ketz, noting the large size of the lots in this area, felt that R -2B is the appropriate zoning. She noted that if the zoning were R-1, there would be five nonconforming lots and 11 nonconforming units. MOTION by Chmn. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to reaffirm that Area 10 remain zoned R -2B, and that the general plan designation be changed from low density to medium density. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None AREA A-1 General Plan redesignation from Open Space to Industrial for the northwest corner of Valley Drive and 6th Street (the "City Yard') Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 24, 1989. The city yard is zoned M-1, light manufacturing, with a general plan designation of open space. The available options to make this area consistent would be to general plan amend from open space to industrial, or, zone change from M-1'to open space. The recommended -25- P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 April 10, 1990 Planning Dept. City of Hermosa Beach Attn: Michael'Schubach I requested that the city council vote to retain R -2h zoning of my property located in Area 10. My reason for this request is based on the possibility of my property converting to a single family site. The property is now a two on a lot duplex with access from both Meyer Court and Barney Court. It fronts on two separate streets. The lot square footage is in excess of 3500 square feet. This property represents the bulk of my estate. I firmly believe the downzoning would erode my value dramatically. It would also'create a single family site which fronts on two separate streets. I don't believe that is the intention of the city fathers. Your consideration to my request in this matter is appreciated. Sincerely, Brigido Farfan 117 Barney Court 118 Meyer Court SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION JACK W. MORGAN JOHN J. CHEROSKE ROBERT J. REAMER MORGAN. CHEROSKE & REAMER ATTORNEYS AT LAW 23505 CRENSHAW BOULEVARD • SUITE 129 TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90505 April 26, 1990 Roger Creighton Kathleen Midstokke 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 City Attorney's Office John Barry 1840 S. Elena Suite 100 Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Re: HARRIS/CLELAND V. HERMOSA BEACH Property Address: 23 Barney Court Hermosa Beach (Area 10) Our File No: H900151 Dear gentle persons: L 141Y 0 1 1990 . A4Ay .1 19 g TELEPHONE (213) 325-5141 FAX (213) 325-6944 I represent Dennis Cleland and Steven Harris. My clients own that certain real property commonly known as 23 rney Court in Hermosa Beach. This property is improved with thr (3) apartments and is located in area ten (10) as reflected on the land use map of Hermosa Beach. My clients have provided me with information regarding the recent amendments and proposals for amendments regarding the general plan and zoning designations in area 10 as they affect my clients' property. I. understand that my clients' property was down -zoned from R2 to R2b in December of 1988. This down -zoning was consistent with the then recommendation of the Planning Commission to reject a down -zoning to R1 because the area contains large lots and because the R2b zoning was essentially consistent with the low density designation of the area. My clients' acquiesced in that down zoning result. My clients have been distressed by the recent attempt to further down -zone their property from it's current or proposed designation of R2b medium to R1. Their distress is based on several factors. The first is that their property was very recently down zoned. Additional down -zoning does not seem to be consistent with fairness or necessity. Additionally, the current zoning of the area is consistent with it's designation under the general plan. Additional down -zoning as sought by some members of C Roger Creighton Kathleen Midstokke April 26, 1990 Page 2 the community would result in four additional lots becoming non- conforming. Only one is currently non -conforming. Down -zoning is not fair or consistent with the surrounding area because the surrounding area designated R1 consists of small lots with density of 17.5 units per acre. Adjacent to the north is a density area of 15.5 units to the acre. Down -zoning to R1 would reduce my clients' area to 9.2 units per acre, significantly less then it's existing density and any of the surrounding densities. The information in my possession indicates that the Planning Commission and staff have virtually unanimously recommended against down -zoning to R1 and have supported the amendments to the medium. I understand that opposition to this was voiced by neighbors to the east, but the objections voiced by them simply do not seem to be relevant to the consideration of this question. My clients' property is in a transition area between high density on the west and low density residential on the east. Existing usages in the area would be very severely impacted by any down -zoned R1 designation. Economic as well as, other interests could be very significantly affected in an adverse manner by such an R1 designation. As you can imagine, my clients' are very seriously concerned about this proposal both from an economic and community standpoint. They are interested in voicing their concerns regarding these matters to the City Council and will continue to do so. One matter that especially concerns them is the fairness of the proceedings to consider these significant and serious matters. Their concern is the interest of certain council members in these matters which seem to clearly constitute a conflict of interest. Mayor Roger Creighton has previously abstained from voting regarding this matter on the basis that he "resides within three (300):hundred feet of the area" (quote from the agenda of regular meeting of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, April 10, 1990). It is our information that Mayor Creighton also owns a residence located within three (300) feet of the area in question, commonly known as 1101 Second Street, Hermosa Beach. Mayor Creighton therefore has a double conflict in that he not only resides within 300 feet of the affected area but also owns a second property within 300 feet of the affected area. My review of the applicable statutes, codes, regulations and cases brings me to the inescapable conclusion that Mayor Creighton clearly has a very serious conflict of interest with regard to the issue before the council in this matter and therefore must abstain from voting in connection with any issue relating to this matter. It is further our information that council person Kathleen Midstokke resides at 1101 Second Street,, Hermosa Beach, California. Clearly, council person Midstokke's residence within 300 feet of Roger Creighton Kathleen Midstokke April 26, 1990 Page 3 of the area in question also raises a serious conflict of interest with regard to her participation in consideration of these matters. That conflict of interest is acerbated by the fact that her landlord at that property is Mayor Roger Creighton. The clear economic interest of Roger Creighton, the landlord of Kathleen Midstokke, in connection with these matters raises what the courts would refer to as an "appearance of impropriety" of the highest degree. Again, my review of the applicable authorities clearly establishes that council person Midstokke has a very serious and obvious conflict of interest with regard to any matter concerned in the application or consideration of a down -zoning of my clients' property from it's present designation, and therefore said council person Midstokke must abstain from any voting in connection with these matters. I understand that some mention of council person Midstokke's place of residence took place in connection with a prior consideration of this proposal. I wonder if the fact that she is the tenant of Mayor Roger Creighton,.at the property which he owns at 1101 Second Street was also discussed? If so, I find it very difficult to understand how council person Midstokke's continued participation in these considerations could have occurred. My clients', as I have previously indicated, are very concerned with these matters for various reasons. They wish to have these matters considered with the highest level of propriety and fairness. It is therefore their position that neither Mayor Creighton nor council person Midstokke can legally have any part in either considering or voting upon these proposals. I would very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss these matters with Mayor Creighton, council person Midstokke and the City Attorney for Hermosa. Beach, and will be calling their offices for an appointment in the near future. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, MORGAN, CHEROSKE & REAMER RJR:kb CC: Dennis Cleland Steven Harris REXFORD FINANCIAL CORP. 310 Washington Street, Suite 212 Marino Del Rey, CA 90292 Mr. Steve K. Harris 2300 Barney Court Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 April 4, 1990 RE: 2300 Barney Court Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mr. Harris, We are responding to your inquiry regarding the viability of se- curing financing on the above referenced multi -unit property. It is our understanding that the property is currently designated as R-2. With the R-2 zoning classification there would not be a pro- blem in originating a mortgage loan given that the property could be rebuilt as three units if damaged or destroyed by fire. Should the zoning classification be down -graded to R-1, and code restrictions limit damaged multi -unit properties to single family residence reconstruction, we would be unable to issue new finan- cing. Our security position is represented by the value of the three unit improvement and all rental income relating to the three units. A single family residence does not represent the necessary security, nor would it provide an equal amount of income. In conclusion, it is our position that should your property be down -graded to an R-1 status, your ability to secure any financing would be severely impacted. Sincerely, John S. Evans Vice President Rexford' Financial (213) 306-4282 -30- t 310 Washington Street, Suite 212 • Marino Del Rey,. CA 90292 April 6th, 1990 Mr. Harris: After reviewing the information provided regarding your property at 23 Barney Court, Hermosa Beach. Cal Fed's position could be one of two options. Because of the large discrpancy in existing units and the R-1 zoning we would not lend on the property at all. This is due to the fact that our loanis based on income generated. If one or two of the units were destroyed, there would be a gross loss of income to cover the debt service. Our other option would be to loan on a greatly reduced loan to value which would probably not even cover your existing loans at this line. omas R. Carson CALIFORNIA FEDERAL BANK Loan Agent EOUAL GagrilioM LENDER P f>i,NytAt t•'2fN 111/ _ • .2-- _ _ • / •.; 1-7 _ p•riA-e-cA/ _ 1) • / • S - 0 .•CrUAr- - : / 1 0 'AUG 3 0 iggg June 29. 1990 To: Hermosa Beach City Council From: Mr. and Mrs. James Drennen Re: Zoning of 1010 First Street Hermosa Beach ',1900 By writing the council we are hoping to accomplish two things. First, we wish to encourage those council members who have voted to change our property to R1 versus R22to continue to do so. Secondly, we would like to persuade the council members who have voted for higher density, to change their vote to a lower density vote. We have resided at this address for twelve years and we own two -elevenths of this property. We understand that another owner of this property has spoken in favor of a higher density vote. There are presently eleven families who own this property. Not one, except for ourselves,, lives in this immediate area and only one other owner even lives in Hermosa Beach. Therefore, no other owners are directly affected environmentally by your vote. The people in the neighborhood are the ones who are affected daily by the outcome of your vote. In the past ten years condos have been built on the 900 block, eight dwellings have replaced five and one of those dwellings is an eight unit apartment building which has taken our view completely. As everyone knows, Hermosa has a parking problem. This parking problem is magnified on our particular block since there is parking on one side of the. street only on much of First Street. The condos that were recently built on Barney Court took at least four parking spots away but added six cars to the immediate area. We would like to see our neighborhood stay as is. Many of the people on our block who have fought for lower density are feeling defeated. They have expressed their views over and over and seemingly to no avail, because this situation comes up again and again. We urge you to listen to those of us who live here, not only those who invest here. Please assign us an Rl zoning as this will bring us one step closer to lower density in Hermosa. Jim and Anita Drennen. 14/1 J -33 OCTOBER 3, 1989 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1315 VALLEY DR. HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 GENTLEMEN: OCT o GI -1 g REFERENCING YOUR PLAN TO CHANGE AREA 10 - PLEASE LET ME SAY I AM ADAMANTLY IN FAVOR OF CHANGING TO R-1 ZONING. THERE IS ENOUGH POPULATION DENSITY IN THE CITY ALREADY!!! WE NEED MORE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, NOT MULTI -DWELLINGS. I LIVE AT 1120 1ST ST AND THERE IS ALREADY NO PARKING ON THE.STREET! I AM OPPOSED TO ANY MORE CONDOMINIUMS AND APARTMENT DWELLINGS IN THIS CITY!!! WE NEED MORE STABLE FAMILIES, NOT TENANTS. - SINCERELY, SUSAN SWANSON 1120 1ST ST. HERMOSA BEACH, CA 9,• 34- tt 1 1 Fhit 1) co -t- . TvT I ,1,1 , i) C; 2pcizi- i'll;t70, ! 0 , Pri%12. tillT; 1)- k7a. c.k.., •1 rs vc--, I) -e Li 'IP:Xi U C_ IL DS i. ')(-1. CP() / e,i_. ciD)s-Li Ct a)c...tit) b(y2 OCT 0 2 1g8g -a,e)1);(cE - )14S 61,2,2 4--(2_ Der I 1.) r,_ o12 r ve.„.C10 - , &O)Si.S*Qvri— L -k)) CC P , s e,e- c-).. 46 C C-4 Ji _c((2_rt-ft-4 _) 72 1.1 13 7. jt / • nA. 0,tkr L 1e 4-1\,-,;11;17c - . - 1 Jr- — C DATE: Sept. 27, 1989 TO: Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Dr Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 FROM: Carol Kirsch 939 1st Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 OCT 0 2 1989 SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment for Areai0 Area 10 should be re -zoned to R-1 to be consistant with the general plan. As a homeowner (condominuim) in this neighborhood, I am very concerned about this proposed change to the general plan. / There are several reasonsto keep the housing density as low as possible in this area. Traffic on First Str. from Pacific Coast Highway east to Area 10 is already heavy for a residential street. Because of the hill on First Street, the cars and numerous trucks that use the road usually use low, noisy gears to ascend the street. The noise from this traffic is very disturbing to the neighborhood. Parking is another issue to consider not allowing an increase in the density of the area. Parking is very scarce because many of the streets are narrow. Parking is only permitted on one side of the street, in many cases. This makes parking for guests of residents hard to find. As a homeowner change. It is not good for the neighborhood, and theref6re, not good for the city. in this general area, I strongly oppose this potential Thank you, 38 - OCT 021989 _ ► '2 i Cbnc (Yet), lyn.s r s • ) V\ (R e ri se M h G1 �� 1 i> 42 r &fir () 2,�it,n3 AI`G31 19$9 10e- _A-4,) _ (o S sr:zzo l' C� i F. ..z G en k P La cuidcYD . U h O 1 LA v i h7 e -cry Pe-c� C. 11- 3- ,e-' /-ct-(2-_ r' -`2-e- -.__. S;)PAY(-0^.;rt _ .. ►l -a— .. 1/3i.s _p a► t)- 2-1 k1;�� ,....-...vt a:4 dev26,oprhe�,fr D- �� \A azo // 0.61.1 vd25;iSt-‘ R -2 )3,)/Lailts t,DuLdc ell'." ..d;✓FLoptv-itY5s ..f1 -.q._:-. i 0, i 2,,..t, .de,40/22_,-iz- . poe..keit-s . Ndi . . ;cQ� LA4- eo�; 13 Cul pwr'ev'- o L� �' sL k;u !'y, (� ,�, coo 0 L . 1:41 -to ... per Dv 1(2, fiv LGvt2cc�.e (etiSi�'y I 44- /g- 2_ _ ; t4 -1P714 siZ\n, _ e, i i,i 'pQ 0, a S R- (2.e .se� ewr)'i cLQ, L w 5i1"� �,VeV-1 w1- `.- 1_ Zph 11 coon, . p� 02 ae tAA- c-0 .. n ec)1, bot. .z,o ,r2- e c e jtoC &Q Cod0,4x, _ (iJj1 CO 2— INFORMATION C Q.N. IC We the undersigned are opposed to .the redesignation from low density to medium density for area 10. such a change will further deteriorate the atmosphere that exists in the southeastern Hermosa now and We believe family corner of Beach.. First Street has a great deal of traffic increasing density will multiply the problem. In addition we believe it will detract from home values in the neighborhoods around the area and will obstruct views that exist under the present designation. We ask that the city council work towards keeping Hermosa Beach a family orientated and a low density community by not approving this change in density. Attached is a copy of the notice of redesignation. rfaNIE _S Se c� _ 38 PAGE ADSRESS `goy/r�-sr. /41�oe•FCrf,9-/f/j- 0 4 a4 /-S± S4. /2 /o -V t i,6' . I o 5Z S i( \\\ � \S e1 kr_A / A-( 6, ca_ 9°zs"� i -gyp- 1 - i3 . C .42 9c2,,, Ihamzt- 76WaL<X- czAz2.,0 m,62,t z/ 3a a.,7( g yz-in /A3(-) F (7} TL //i qgzs- z 01 o Sr ht T3 Y-krow, -74f 6AA;'' c4(ier &-eLLZ, a4adst\ :4 A.M s; 31 f-J,2sT s l 1/ , ' I Z D 5 /sr�r. �� L \Go S CSi• .• 120t cs-r-51- 4 -1 -ED - 37 — 1246 First St. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 April 4, 1990 Hermosa Beach City Council Civic Center, 1315 Valley Dr. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ?ECEivEU APR 05 1990 Good day, r This is in reference to the published agenda for the April 10, 1990, meeting of the City Council. I want to comment about the zoning or general plan amendment for Area 10 (between Barney Court and Meyer Court). I live up the street from the affected area. Because of unacceptable current levels of traffic on First Street, the lack of parking in the area, and the inevitable exacerbation of those conditions_.if density higher than R-1 is encouraged or allowed in the area, I am against amending the General Plan to increase the density (from low to medium) in this area. Along with a majority of those who voted in the advisory, I am in favor of resolving conflicts between the General Plan and the zoning so that the lower density is the result. In this case, that would involve changing the zoning to be consistent with the Low Density designation of the General Plan. When my two lots were merged, I accepted it as being for the general good of the community. If an exception to the voted advisory is made for Area 10, to benefit specific property owners to the detriment of the neighborhood and City, the inconsistency is not justified. -Thank you, qOakpke; David R. Suess C { Michael Schubach, Planning Director Civic Center, 1315 Valley Dr. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Good day, 1246 First St. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 August 25, 1989 4 UE3 3 `3 1989 This is in reference to the published agenda for the September 5, 1989, meeting of the Planning Commission. I will be unable to attend, but I want to comment. about item five, zoning for Area 10 (between Barney Court and Meyer Court). I live up the street from the affected area. Because of unacceptable current levels of traffic on First Street, the lack of parking in the area, and the inevitable exacerbation of those conditions if density higher than R-1 is encouraged or allowed in the area, I am against amending the General Plan to increase the density (from low to medium) in this area. Along with a majority of those who voted, I am in favor of resolving conflicts between the General Plan and the zoning so that the lower density is the result. In this case, that would involve changing the zoning to be consistent with the Low Density designation of the General Plan. I, too, have been affected by the actions taken to lower density --- my two lots were merged, with possible negative financial ramifications. However, the quality of life in the neighborhood is worth a great deal --- both in the case of my merged lots and in the cases of the property owners in Area 10. A quality neighborhood has positive financial ramifications --- and anything to cut the traffic and parking problems on First Street will improve that quality. Thankyou, c6>e442j"41 David R. Suess ss C HERMOSA HILLS COMMUNITY WATCH May 3, 1989 June Williams, Mayor Jim Rosenberger, Councilmember Roger Creighton, Councilmember Chuck Sheldon, Councilmember Etta Simpson, Councilmember City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Councilmembers:. On behalf of our organization and other neighborhood residents, we give our most sincere "thank you" for permitting us to be heard at the last City Council meeting regarding the proposed Barney-Me'er..Court General Plan amendment. As elected officials, •you have to make decisions based on a variety of factors and input. We appreciate the efforts of the councilmembers for preserving our right to be heard and for supporting us on this issue. We also appreciate the Mayor's flexible approach in recommending that the measure should be reviewed again by the Planning Commission. As you heard last Tuesday, we are adamantly opposed to the plan amendment favoring higher density. This measure is not in keeping with our neighborhood desire to keep down the density and traffic congestion and to prohibit the construction of tall condominium/apartment complexes that stand out as eyesores in an otherwise single-family neighborhood. The quality of life in this area is our utmost concern and we ask you for your continued support to prevent our neighborhood from being irreparably harmed by escalating density. As indicated at the last meeting, we stated that we would provide you with further information supporting our position in opposition to the amendment. Based on our inquiries following the meeting, we have discovered several compelling reasons why the plan amendment should not be permitted. I. Higher Density Is Not In Keeping With Ballot Measure EE In 1980, the voters of Hermosa Beach overwhelmingly approved a measure on the ballot which provided that any conflict between the general plan favoring lower density and zoning shall be reconciled in favor of lower density. In short, the general plan should control. The general plan in this area calls for low density. Low density has been uniformly interpreted to mean "R-1" zoning. It may be true, as was suggested at the meeting, that it is in violation of state law to have the applicable zoning regulations and general plan inconsistent with one another. Yet it strains credulity that zoning regulations should cause a change in the general plan rather than the reverse. A contrary measure would allow those in charge of zoning to make the ultimate decisions concerning density. Among other problems, this would also contravene the intent of Proposition EE and would certainly beg the question of whether the city elders intended on carrying out the desires of the electorate. II. The Lots In Question Are Not All Large Enough For "R-2" Zoning At the hearing, the City Planner represented that each of the lots between Barney and Meyer Court were approximately 6,000 square feet in size. He may not have realized that two of these lots were already legally subdivided. As you can see from the enclosed map of the northerly Section of Area 10,the two subdivided lots do not justify the building of an apartment complex upon them. Therefore, only two of the four lots in question are actually over 5,250 square feet. In addition, as you can see from the enclosed photographs, this is not spacious land. The lots are already fully developed. A plan amendment would allow developers to come in and tear down the existing structures and build taller condominiums or apartment complexes which would blight the skyline at the expense of those neighbors living in smaller single-family homes. III. Permitting "R-2" Zoning Would Be Inconsistent With Prior Actions Of The City Council Last fall, the city council voted to rezone Area 11 from R-3 to R-2 despite opposition. The basis behind this move was to follow Proposition EE for lower density. During this process Commissioner Rue stated that since the general plan was the lower designation there was no choice but to rezone this area to follow the lower density general plan. This same policy should apply to Area 10, thereby leaving it low density and rezoning it to R-1. IV. Misleading Notice Information The public notice sent out in the fall concerning Area 10 led the public to believe that a rezoning from R-2 to R-1 was to occur. Because the public relied on this information, the only two people who appeared, opposed R-1 zoning. However, unbeknownst to the public, the real issue was not to consider rezoning to R-1, but rezoning to R -2B. Had the public known this at that time, they would have publicly opposed the rezoning of that area to anything other than R-1. V. Prior Actions In Reference To Loss Of Land Use Prior actions by the city council also support the move to rezone to lower density, despite arguments of loss of land use. There were two cases where the city merged lots and the owners lost future financial opportunities with their lots. These decisions were upheld by the City Council even after the landowners appealed. The first case concerned 1549 Golden Avenue, where two lots were merged forming one 5700 square foot lot. This meant the loss of one additional potential dwelling to that owner. The second case was 1241 10th Street where three lots were merged forming a 7,500 square foot lot. This owner lost the potential of two additional dwellings. Based on these previous decisions, we feel that the loss of potential land use should not be a factor when considering the General Plan amendment of Area 10 We thank you for hearing our positions. In light of the above mentioned information we request that you vote to follow the electorate position and keep Area 10 low density and rezone it R-1. Rut Bra d DATE: Mar. 14, 1989 TO: Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Dr Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 FROM: Carol Kirsch 939 1st Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 SUBJECT: General Flan Redesignation for Area 10 MAR 1 6 19859 The proposed change for Area 10 from Low Density to Medium Density is not in the best interest of the residents in the neiqhborhood. Traffic on First Str. from Pacific Coast Highway east to Area 10 is already heavy for a residential street. Because of the hill on First Street, the cars and numerous trucks that use the road usually use low, noisy gears to ascend the street. The noise from this traffic is very disturbing to the neighborhood. Parking is another issue to consider in allowing an increase in the density of the area. Parking is very scarce because many of` e streets a .re narrow. Parking is only permitted on one side of the street., in many cases. This makes parking for guests of. residents hard to find. As a homeowner- in this general area, I strongly oppose this potential change. It is not good for the neighborhood, and therefore, not good for the city. Thank you, 962 First Street #D Hermosa Beach, California 90254 March 14, 1989 Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, Calif. 90254 Re: Redesignation of Area 10 LR 1 5 1989 Dear Planning Department, When is enough enough? I thought the philosophy of the City Council was to move toward low density not the other way around. Your general plan map shows most of the area surrounding Area 10 is low density except for a high density section of First Street between Pacific Coast Hwy. and Meyer Court. Why on earth or in congested Hermosa Beach would you consider eliminating a low density. area. The eight and nine hundred block of First Street is already too congested but since we are a high density area there's is not much we can do about it. Two years ago two small, quaint houses at 963 First St. were torn down to make room for a mammoth, towering, apartment building. Now I feel like this section of First Street is Wall Street, west, albeit only a fraction of the height of Wall Street, east. But to add to the congestion and severe shortage of parking, and detract from the residential nature of Area ten seems ludicrous. I suggest the Planning Department take a drive through Area ten and perhaps try to park a car during evenings or weekends. Although developers are required to provide additional parking, there is never enough, especially when guests come for a visit. I, my wife, and a majority of the Cariker Hermosa View Condominium Association which I represent, strongly request that you maintain the low density status of Area ten. Sincerely, Lee H. Grant, President Cariker's Hermosa View Condominium Association Y-: April 9, 1990 John and Bonnie Wulff 1212 Third St. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Mayor Creigton and Council Members: Midstokke, Essertier, Sheldon and Weimans Dear Mayor and Council, In reference, to property area 10 (Barney Meyer Court) we support maintaining low density designation. Rezoning as necessary to retain this designation. We live close to this area and know it is impacted already! Thank you. Supportingly, onnie S. Wulff and for John. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 6a CITY OF HERHOSABEACH I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of perjury that I did on the - k, day of J« , 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. 0I have executed this declaration on this the 3rd- day of , 1990 at Hermosa Beach, California. State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) On pais the �� day of 1 / , 1990 , before me, Q�!/'/Ce / / Ej,�� , thiefud`signed Notary Public, personally appeared v !`/ %/Z7and proved to me on the basis of satisfacto y evidence ko be the person(s) whose name(s) /,s suscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that `s/e__ executed it. WITNESS my hand and;,official seal. SS Ytt - Yi (Name) (8ignatu_re')) )MINiST24/7 I/E (Capacity) (SEAL) OFFICIAL SEAL LAURICE M. DUKE Notary Public - Celltnrnle PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN L A. COUNTY My Comm. Exp. Mar. 12, 1993 7- 3 - 1990 74 'di ./LA L _-_ Ar! c .70 erer- 40',~A/ 42-,Q dAl-GerAT 277" FRANKFANL ZT,FENANDEZ 19I3-8 CIDP AVE. ICEDONDO EAC.k 3 CALI F. - 9 OZ 7 ff te, 11111111E111111.-- CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH INTER -OFFICE MEMO TO: MAYOR CREIGHTON AND DATE: JULY 5, 1990 COUNCILMEMBERS RE: COMMISSION ABSENCES: FROM: MARY C. ROONEY, DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER MERLE FISH COMMUNITY RESOURCES DEPT. ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** Per Section 2-64 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, two absences from a regular Commission Meeting within one calendar quarter or four absences within a calendar year create an automatic vacancy. The City Council may waive application of this section if it is deemed appropriate to do so. Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commissioner, Merle Fish has been absent from two Council meetings during the April/May/June, 1990 quarter. He notified staff in advance of his anticipated absences which were for scheduled family vacations. Commissioner Fish has not missed any other meetings during the 1990 calendar year. With Council's permission, Mr. Fish would like to remain in his post as a Commissioner through his scheduled term (June 30, 1993). Mary Deptj /may, Director oPr Community Resources RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council waive application of Section 2-64, Hermosa Beach City Code by motion in this case. Concur: Kevin B. Northc'raft City Manager 1 _1> 1 14b(a) -3 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM DATE: January 8, 1990 TO: FROM: City Manager Kevin B. All City Commissioners and Staff Liaisons* 27-,2/-4—;--,-1.= �/G Northcraft. T h l -r T(/ RE: Section 2-64, H. B. Municipal Code Relating to Commission Absences ***************************************************************** Just a reminder note, as we start a new year, that the City Code provisions relating to commission absences were changed in the Fall of 1989. Since the new provisions are based on calendar quarter and calendar year, the start of this new calendar year seems an appropriate time to note that two absences from a regu- larly scheduled meeting of a member within one calendar quarter, or four absences from regular meetings within a calendar year create an automatic vacancy. While this provision makes no dis- tinction between excused and unexcused, the Council may waive the application of this section, and I believe they would for valid reasons. The provisions were not intended to -increase turnover of commis- sioners or be punitive in any way; rather, they were intended to insure that recommendations and decisions are made from the input of all appointees whenever possible. It is hoped that the provi- sions never come into play during this upcoming year or any others. The staff liaison is required by the code to notify the Council if any of the threshold absence levels are reached during the calendar year. Thank you for reviewing this reminder note, and best of luck in 1990 for you, your commission, and the City. Note: Civil Service Board members are covered by an ordinance approved by the people, so the attached ordinance provi- sions directly affect only the Recreation/Park and Plan- ning Commissions. The provisions do provide a useful guide for all boards and commissions, however. * Commissions - Planning Commission Recreation/Park Commission Civil Service Board TV Board of Appeals Planning Director Community Resources Director- Personnel Director 1.. General Services Director , Building and Safety Director Cable Board Liaisons - .. -i § 2-65 HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE § 2-66 If a vacancy shall occur otherwise than by expiration of term, it shall be filled by appointment 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 com- mission 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 res- ignation shall become effective on the date set forth therein. Two (2) absences from regularly scheduled meetings of any member within one (1) calendar quarter, and/or four absences from regular meetings within one (1) calendar year creates an automatic vacancy. There shall be no distinction between excused or unexcused absences. When an automatic vacancy occurs, the staff liaison shall promptly notify the city council, the commis- sion and the member. The automatic vacancy shall. not be effec- tive until council receives notice and fails to waive application of this section. The city council may waive application of the auto- matic vacancy upon its own motion; otherwise, the vacancy so created shall be filled pursuant to the above sections. (Ord. No. 663, § 2, 5-26-81; Ord. No. 88-957, § 1, 10-11-88; Ord. No. 89-996, § 1, 8-8-89) Sec. 2-65. Same—Ex officio members. To aid and assist the parks, recreation, and community re- sources advisory commission in its deliberations, two (2) ex officio members are hereby apointed. The ex officio members shall be without vote and they are designated as the city manager and the Superintendent of the Hermosa Beach School District. (Ord. No. 663, § 3, 5-26-81; Ord. No. 88-957, § 1, 10-11-88) Sec. 2-66. Same—Chairperson. At its first regular meeting following the effective date of oper- ation of this article, the parks, recreation, and community re- sources advisory commission shall elect by majority vote one of its members to serve as chairperson for a period of one (1) year. The chairperson may be re-elected to serve an additional term, or additional terms, upon a majority vote of approval. The chairper- Supp. No. 12-89 40.2 July 5, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of July 10, 1990 STATUS REPORT ON RECENT STUDIES The Council agenda for July 10, 1990, includes public hearings to add the recently revised Circulation Element and recently devel- oped Parks and Recreation Master Plan to the City's General Plan. Since these items, were previously tentatively approved by the City Council, the public hearing represents an opportunity for a "second look" at these documents. A logical inquiry would be what is the status of implementation actions being pursued by the staff. Accordingly, I have requested the staffs involved in implementing these studies to provide status reports and plans for implementa- tion at the same meeting in which the Council is reviewing these documents. One of the status reports, that from Public Works involving the Circulation Element, also includes a resolution to implement one section of the report. Kevin B. Northcr. t City Manager KBN/ld THOMAS W. STOEVER WILLIAM D. BARR CHARLES S. VOSE CONNIE COOKE SANDIFER ROGER W. SPRINGER EDWARD W. LEE HERIBERTO F. DIAZ JAMES GUFF MURPHY JANICE R. MIYAHIRA LAW OFFICES OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1000 SUNSET DOULEVARO LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90012 12131 250-3043 MEMORANDUM To City Councilmembers City of Hermosa Beach From •• Charles S. Vose, City Attorney Date •• June 21, 1990 TELECOPIER 12131 462-5336 Re •• Retention of Appraiser to Perform Appraisal of the South School Site for Possible Purchase From the Unified School District In order for the City of Hermosa Beach to proceed further with the potential acquisition of the South School Site, it is recommended that the City retain a qualified appraiser to perform an updated appraisal of the subject property. This updated appraisal will' be of great assistance to the City regardless of whether the acquisition is by negotiations or the exercise of the City's power of eminent domain. In order to prepare the City for further negotiations or potential condemnation, I recommend that the City Council authorize staff to contact certain qualified appraisers and obtain a bid for the appraisal of the subject property. Such bid would include a time frame in which the appraiser could perform the appraisal. It is estimated that a full comprehensive appraisal to meet the needs of the City will cost between $7,000 and $12,000. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council authorize staff to obtain bids from qualified appraisers and return to the Council with a recommendation for the selection of a specific appraiser to perform an appraisal on the South School Site. CSV:ilf 12 J June 28, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 10, 1990 STATUS REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING ELEMENT Recommendation: 1. Adopt Resolution 90- , a resolution of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, setting and confirming the posted speed limits of 25 mph on various streets. 2. It is recommended that City Council receive and file this report. Background: On January 12, 1990 City Council adopted Resolution No. 90-5339 which identified several modifications, changes and projects with the Circulation, Transportation and Parking Element. This report establishes a tentative schedule for projects (listed in Resolution No. 90-5339) necessary to implement the circulation element. These or other projects consistent with the circulation element may be modified and added by City Council. Analysis: This analysis is divided as follows: 1. Tentative Implementation Schedule 2. CIP Projects Approved FY 90-92 3. Fiscal Impact of Tentative Implementation Schedule 1. Tentative Implementation Schedule Below is a tentative implementation schedule for the circulation element. A description and action plan is provided for each project. Tentatively Project Scheduled 1. Gould Avenue; reclassification to residential FY 90-91 street Description: This Council action reclassified Gould Avenue from Pacific Coast Highway to Ardmore Avenue as a residential street; thereby, allowing for the posting of a 25 mph speed limit. Action Plan: a. Adopt resolution setting speed limit on Gould Avenue at 25 mph. b. Direct copy of resolution to presiding judge of South Bay Municipal Court. c. Post 25 mph signs 2. Eliminate reclassifying the following streets FY 90-91 from local to collector based on traffic volume: 1. Valley Drive (Pier Avenue to north border) 2. Ardmore Avenue (Pier Avenue to 2nd Street 3. Highland Avenue (Longfellow Avenue to north border) 4. Longfellow Avenue (Ardmore Avenue to Manhattan Avenue) Description: Consistent with the action of reclassifying Gould Avenue to residential and posting the street for 25 MPH, these streets receive equal treatment. These streets are currently posted higher than 25 mph, have lower traffic volumes than Gould Avenue and are of a residential character. Action Plan: a. Adopt resolution setting speed limit on these streets at 25 mph. b. Direct copy of resolution to presiding judge of South Bay Municipal Court. c. Post 25 mph signs. 3. Downtown Parking Structure FY 90-91 Description: Modify recommendation concerning parking structure as follows: Study providing a parking structure downtown to enhance business possibly on northwest corner Pier Avenue/Manhattan Avenue; possible trade land to obtain site. Action Plan: Refer to Vehicle Parking District 4. Study of Valley Drive at 2nd Street FY 91-92 Description: Study traffic intrusion on Monterey Boulevard, two-way traffic on Valley Drive between 2nd Street and Herondo in future. Action Plan: a. Develop scope of work and cost estimate. b. Council to approve scope and cost. c. Perform study analyzing alternatives d. Present results to City Council 5. Hermosa Avenue Angle Parking FY 91-92 Description: Study angle parking on Hermosa Avenue to improve parking and create bicycle lane in future. Action Plan: a. Develop scope of work and cost estimate. b. Council to approve scope and cost. c. Perform study analyzing alternatives. d. Present results to City Council. 6. Residential Street Classification FY 90-91 Description: 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. Action Plan: Complete 2. CIP Projects Approved For FY 90-92 Listed below are proposed Capital Improvement Projects for the next two years staff ng July 1, 1990 and ending June 30, 1992. CIP 85-137 89-141 89-142 89-150 89-151 89-170 86-176 Project Date Scheduled FAU, Overlay Valley, Ardmore Street Rehabilitation Sidewalk Repairs Miscellaneous Traffic Signal Traffic Engineering Program Slurry Sealing Traffic Control Pre-emption & Prospect FY 90-91 FY 90-92 FY 90-92 Improvements FY,90-91 FY 90-91 FY 90-91 FY 91-92 3. Fiscal Impact of Tentative Implementation Schedule: There is no fiscal impact at this time. Alternatives: Alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council are: 1. Add or modify projects to the tentative implementation schedule. 2. Adjust the tentative implementation schedule. Respe fully submitted: Concur: Anth: Antich Public Works Direc or scitad,_ Michael Schubach Planning Director cc: Steve Wisniewski, Public Safety Director Leroy Staten, Acting Director of General Services Viki Copeland, Finance Director circl/pwadmin 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, SETTING AND CONFIRMING THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT OF 25 MPH ON VARIOUS STREETS WHEREAS, on November 22, 1988, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 88-5204 certifying an engineering and traffic survey and established speed limits on various streets. WHEREAS, speed limits were established on the following streets: STREET/from-to VALLEY DRIVE North City limit to Gould Avenue Gould Avenue to Pier Avenue ARDMORE AVENUE Second Street to Eighth Street Eighth Street to Pier Avenue GOULD AVENUE Pacific Coast Highway to Ardmore Avenue Ardmore Avenue to Morningside Drive WHEREAS, the circulation, transportation defines local residential streets as: Speed Limit 35 mph 30 mph 30 mph 35 mph 35 mph 25 mph and parking element Local residential streets include those streets predominantly residential in terms of adjacent property use, and are intended to retain a residential character. WHEREAS, after numerous public hearing, citizen input and Council discussion, the City Council changed or confirmed the designation of the following streets as residential streets: VALLEY DRIVE, from north City border to Pier Avenue. ARDMORE AVENUE, from Pier Avenue to Second Street. GOULD AVENUE, from Pacific Coast Highway to Morningside Drive. WHEREAS, residential street speed limits are 25 mph. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: The speed limits on the following residential streets are: STREET/from-to Speed Limit VALLEY DRIVE North City limit to Gould Avenue 25 mph ARDMORE AVENUE Second Street to Pier Avenue 25 mph GOULD AVENUE Pacific Coast Highway to Morningside Drive 25 mph SECTION 1. Direct that a copy of the resolution be forwarded to the presiding judge of the South Bay Municipal Court. SECTION 3. That this resolution take effect immediately. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 10th day of July, 1990 PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FO City Clerk Ci Attorney July 2, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council July 10, 1990 STATUS REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by staff that Council receive and file this report. BACKGROUND At the February 22, 1990 meeting, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan was approved by City Council. Since that time, the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission and staff have been taking steps to determine how the ten year plan could best be utilized by the City. Listed in the analysis below, is a progress report on how the Plan has been implemented to date. ANALYSIS The Parks and Recreation Master Plan addresses several specific areas including funding sources, park development, staffing, maintenance and programming. After four months, the following areas have been addressed: FUNDING SOURCES: On May 17, 1990 the Commission and staff listened to a presentation by Mr. Zack McReynolds, of Rauscher, Pierce, Refsnes, Inc. who explained the various funding sources available for the development of recreation facilities. The purpose of this session was information seeking and the Commissioners determined that the next logical step prior to investigating funding sources any further was to select a specific project(s). PARK DEVELOPMENT: At the July 25th meeting, the Commission is scheduled to discuss what park project would be best initiated for FY 1990-91. Council has indicated that the $200 thousand that was listed in the FY 1990-91 CIP Budget for Master Plan implementation should remain unfunded pending approval of a specific project by Council. In response to this, the Commission will examine the Master Plan and recommend a project to the Council for approval in the near future. STAFFING: In response to a Council goal (increase productivity without increasing staff) and the Master Plan, staff submitted a recommended departmental reorganization at the June 26, 1990 Council meeting. The staffing changes included new position titles and functional areas of responsibility. Per Council direction, the reorganization will be reviewed by the Civil Service Commission at their July 18, 1990 meeting. 1 MAINTENANCE: One of the recommendations of the Plan was for Parks Maintenance to be moved under the purview of Community Resources Department. In recognition of the difficulty implementing that kind of change at this time, Community Resources and Public Works staff have initiated procedural changes that open up communication and clarify roles between the two departments. Community Resources staff conducts bi-weekly parks and recreation facility inspections and forwards the information when necessary to Public Works and/or the Commission. Grant administration has also been established as a shared responsibility between the departments with Community Resources taking responsibility for application and project selection and Public Works with implementation. Staff is currently investigating the possibility of having Community Resources staff draft RFPs for projects where the need for an engineer in drawing specifications would be minimal (i.e., fences, playground equipment). PROGRAMMING: As is evidenced by the last recreation brochure, staff has responded to the Plan's (and Council's) request for more community based activities; swimming programs; improved publicity (i.e., the Plan indicates we need improved marketing of our programs) and expanded leisure services. Implementation of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan remains a top priority for the Commission this fiscal year as timelines and prioritization will be agendized for the next several meetings. Concur: IRevin B. Nortab aft City Manager 2 Respectfully Submitted, Mary C ooney, Director Dep . of Community Resources 1 July 3, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 10, 1990 SUBJECT: COMMUNITY_ DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM INITIATED BY STAFF PURPOSE: 1. EXTENSION OF CONSULTANT CONTRACT FOR THIRD YEAR, 1990-1991 2. CONSIDER ALTERNATE USE OF THIRD YEAR FUNDS 3. CONSIDERATION OF PROGRAM PARTICIPATION FOR 1991 THROUGH 1994 Recommendation 1. Extend consultant contract for one year. 2. Sell third year funds for best possible price (Range $0.50 to $0.85 per dollar). 3. Withdraw from program for 1991-1994 (recommendation is based on the City Council's past actions). Alternative: Execute cooperation agreement with L.A. County and sell funds to another City during those years. Background 1. The consultant contract for administration of CDBG expired June 30, 1990. Pursuant to Community Development Commission (CDC) requirements, the City may extend the contractual agreement with the consultant for up to five years. 2. The City is currently into the third year CDBG July 1, 1990, and has approved continuing rehabilitation program up until October 31, 1990. 3. According agreement program. to the CDC, it is necessary to sign with the CDC prior to July 16th for program as of the housing a cooperative the 1991-1994 Analysis Extension of Contract Although staff is recommending selling the funds, there are numerous reports still to be generated, e.g., grantee performance report, reprogramming of funds agreement for selling of funds, housing project report. For this reason, staff believes the consultant should stay on for at least one year. Third Year Funding Currently, there is no agency to implement the rehabilitation program since the City of Redondo beach staff is not able to - 1 - 10 continue in the program because of new obligations for their own City. The City could hire its own rehabilitation specialist, or a consultant service to implement the program. However, since the City has opted to alter the program from grant to loan program, the City's consultant, Mark Briggs & Associates, believes that because of the amount of time necessary to implement the new program, it would not be worth the cost and effort assuming_ that the City does not intend to participate in the 1991-1994 program. Further, the viability of a program to loan rather than grant funds is questionable. There is a great reluctance to place liens against one's home. 1991-1994 Program According the Executive Director of CDC, all cities that intend be part of the 1991-1994 program are required to execute cooperation agreement, and have it filed with the Department Housing and Urban Development by September 4, 1990. Therefore, is necessary to submit the agreement by July 16th in order secure all the signatures (see attached letter from CDC). to a of it to If the City desires not to participate in 1991-1994, then, it is required that written notice be provided. This decision would be permanent for the program period. Once staff is aware of the City Council decision, a letter will be sent if the decision is to not participate. At this time, no decision is necessary concerning how to spend the funds; only an agreement to participate is necessary. The staff believes that the funds could be useful in the future to compensate for General Fund shortfalls, and therefore made the alternative recommendation that the City offer to participate in the 1991-1994 program. Attachments 1. Contract for 1990-1991 for administrative services from Mark Briggs & Associates (to be signed in triplicate). 2. Cooperation agreement from L.A. County CDC for 1990-1991 CDBG Program participation (to be signed in quadruplicate). 3. City Council Resolution stating intent to participate in 1991-1994 program. 4. Letter from CDC requesting participation in 1991-1994. 5. Letter from consultant regarding 90-91 rehabilitation program. CONCUR: cl Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager 2 Respectfully submitted, idteid/Cidact hy ,tee. ichael Schubach Planning Director June 21, 1990 Ms. Andrea Anderson Planning Aide City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Dear Andrea: Enclosed is an Agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach and Mark Briggs and Associates, Inc., for consulting services for the 1990-91 program year. As you are aware, our current contract with the City expires on June 30, 1990. As we discussed, no matter what avenue the City Council selects to pursue during the program year (i.e., staff rehabilitation programs or sell their funds to another jurisdiction), there are still reporting requirements that the City must meet. This includes the preparation of the Annual Grantee Performance Report (covering the City's 1990-91 projects), program amendment forms and preparation of contracts with the housing rehabilitation staff and/or preparation of Agreements between the City and other jurisdictions if they wish to sell their funds. The funds for our services are paid for from the CDBG funds. If you have any questions regarding the Agreement, please give me a call. Sincerely, Bryofi K. Baron Senior Vice President BKB:ajf Enclosure Hermosa2/6-2190 MARK BRIGGS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 505 N. Tustin Avenue, Suite 282, Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 550-0390 • FAX (714) 972-8321 PROVIDING SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS SINCE 1974 ,_I I.) N "1 H .1c1yrt AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 1990, by and between the City of Hermosa Beach, a municipal corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "City") and Mark Briggs and Associates, Inc., a California corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "Briggs"). RECITALS A. City desires technical assistance and implementation management for its 1990- 91 Community Development Block Grant Program. B. City further desires assistance with monitoring of its housing and public service programs and administrative requirements. C. Briggs is a consultant in community and economic development, and has the expertise to provide the City with the desired consulting services. D. Briggs has submitted a Work Program attached hereto as Exhibit A and by this reference incorporated herein. Pursuant to which, Briggs has offered to provide the consultant services desired by the City. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. TERM Briggs will provide consulting services in accordance with the work program as set forth hereto as Exhibit A, to begin July 1, 1990, and continue through June 30, 1991. 2. COMPENSATION As full compensation for the aforesaid services, City agrees to pay and Briggs agrees to accept an amount not to exceed $11,695, to be billed on time and materials based on the following hourly rates and overhead: is T Principal I $ 44.70/hour Principal II $ 41.69/hour Secretary $ ,-13.06/hour Overhead at 2.0 times the hourly rate for each staff position. These allocations of costs are based on actual salaries paid Mark Briggs and Associates, Inc., officers and employees, overhead percentages based on fiscal year and financial statements prepared by the firm's CPA and are consistent with the Community Development Block Grant guidelines and Office of Management and Budgeget Circulars A-102 and A-87. 3. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT FOR CAUSE If, through any cause, any party shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this contract, or if either party shall violate any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this contract, either party shall thereupon have the right to terminate this contract by giving written notice of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least ten (10) days before the effective date of such termination. In such event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, and reports prepared by Briggs under this contract shall, at the option of the City, become its property and Briggs shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed hereunder. Notwithstanding the above, Briggs shall not be relieved of liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by virtue of any breach of the contract by Briggs, and the City may withhold any payments to Briggs for the purpose of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the City from Briggs is determined. 4. TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE Either party may terminate this contract at any time by giving at least ten (10) days notice in writing to the other party. If the contract is terminated by the City as provided herein, Briggs will be paid for the time provided and expenses incurred up to the termination date. If this contract is terminated due to the fault of Briggs, paragraph 3 hereof relative to termination shall apply. 5. CHANGES The City may, from time to time, request changes in the scope of the services of Briggs to be performed hereunder. Such changes, including any increase or decrease in the amount of Briggs' compensation„ which are mutually agreed upon by and between the City and Briggs, shall be incorporated in written amendments to this contract. 6. NOTICES Whenever notices are required to be given pursuant to the provisions of this agreement, the same shall be given by personal service or by depositing the same in the course of transmission of the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: (a) City: (b) Briggs: City Manager City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Bryon K. Baron Senior Vice President Mark .Briggs and Associates, Inc. 505 N. Tustin Avenue Suite 282 Santa Ana, California 92705 7. PERSONNEL a. Briggs represents that it has, or will secure as its own expense, all personnel required in performing the services under this contract. Such 11 6 personnel shall not be employees, officers or agents of or have any contractual relationship with the City. b. All of the services required hereunder will be performed by Briggs or under its supervision and all personnel engaged in the work shall be fully qualified and shall be authorized or permitted under state and local law to perform such services. c. None of the work or services covered by this contract shall be subcontracted without the prior written approval of the City. Any work or services subcontracted hereunder shall be specified by written contract or agreement and shall be subject to each provision of this contract. 8. ASSSIGNABILITY Briggs shall not assign any interest in. this contract, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation), without the City's prior written consent, provided, however, that claims for money by Briggsfrom the City under this contract may be assigned to a bank, trust company, or other financial institution without such approval. Written notice of any such assignment or transfer shall be furnished promptly to the City. 9. REPORTS AND INFORMATION Briggs, at such times and in such forms as the City may require, shall furnish the City such periodic reports as it may request pertaining to the work or services undertaken pursuant to this contract, the costs and obligations incurred or to be incurred in connection therewith, and any other matters covered by this contract. 10. RECORDS AND AUDITS Briggs shall maintain accounts and records, including personnel, property and financial records, adequate to identify and account for all costs pertaining to the contract and such other records as may be deemed necessary by the City to assure proper accounting for all project funds, both Federal and non -Federal shares. These records will be made available for audit purposes to the City or any authorized representative, and will be retained for five years after the expiration of this contract unless permission to destroy them is granted by the City. 11. FINDINGS CONFIDENTIAL All of the reports, information, data, etc., prepared or assembled by Briggs under this contract are confidential and Briggs agrees that they shall not be made available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City. 12. COPYRIGHT No report, maps, or other documents produced in whole or in part under this contract shall be the subject of an application for copyright by or on behalf of Briggs. 13. COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL LAWS Briggs shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances and codes of the State and local governments, and Briggs shall save the City harmless with respect to any damages arising from any tort done in performing any of the work embraced by this contract. 14. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY During the performance of this contract, Briggs agrees as follows: a. Briggs will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, sex, color or national origin. Briggs will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their 1i race, creed, sex, color or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: Employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; lay-off or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. Briggs agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the City setting forth the provisions of this non-discrimination clause. b. Briggs will, in all solicitation or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of Briggs, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, creed, color, sex, or national origin. c. Briggs will cause the foregoing provision to be inserted in all subcontractors for any work covered by this contract so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor, provided that the foregoing provisions shall not apply to contracts or subcontracts for standard commercial supplies or raw materials. d. Briggs will comply with all provisions of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and of the rules, regulations and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor. e. Briggs will furnish all information and reports required by Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and by the rules, regulations and orders of the Secretary of Labor, or pursuant thereto, and will permit access to its books, records and accounts by the City's Department of Community Development and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations and orders. .6. 11, f. In the event of Briggs' noncompliance with the equal opportunity clauses of this Agreement or with any of such rules, regulations or orders, this Agreement may be cancelled, terminated, or suspended in whole or in part and Briggs may be declared ineligible for further government contracts in accordance with procedures authorized in Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and such other sactions may be imposed and remedies invoked as provided in Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, or by rule, regulations, or order of the Secretary of Labor, or as otherwise provided by Law. g. Briggs will include the provisions of paragraphs (a) through (g) in every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by rules, regulations or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to Section 204 of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor. Briggs will take such action with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as the City's Department of Community Development may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions including sanctions for non-compliance. Provided, however, that in the event Briggs becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a subcontractor or vendor as a result of such direction by the City, Briggs may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States. 15. CIVIL RIGHT ACT OF 1964 Under Title VI of the Civil Right Act of 1964, no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Briggs shall comply with Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and Section 3 compliance in the provision of training, employment and business opportunities. 7 16. INTEREST OF MEMBERS OF A CITY No member of the governing body of the City and no other officer, employee, or agent of the City who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection iwht the planning and carrying out of the program, shall have any personnel financial interest, direct or indirect, in this contract; and Briggs shall take appropriate steps to assure compliance. 17. INTEREST OF OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICIALS No member of the governing body of the locality and no other public official of such locality, who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the planning and carrying out of the program, shall have any personal financial interest, direct or indirect, in this contract; and Briggs shall take appropriate steps to assure compliance. 18. INTEREST OF BRIGGS AND EMPLOYEES Briggs convenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire interest, direct or indirect, in the City or any parcel therein or any other interest which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of his services hereunder. Briggs further covenants that in the performance of this contract, no person having such interest shall be employed. 19. HOLD HARMLESS Briggs agrees that City shall not be liable for injury or damage to person or property that should be occasioned or caused by any act or omission of Briggs or its members, officers and employees, or any organization Briggs should be associated with in the furtherance of this Agreement, and that it will hold the City, its officers and employees, harmless from liability thereon, and will defend the same in respect to any claim or legal action that might ensue as a result of such injury or damange. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MARK BRIGGS & ASSOCIATES, INC. A Municipal Corporation A California Corporation BY MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY cntrtl9/6-2190 BY ITS and BY 5::)-k—tot�ITS () l cA I % • EXHIBIT A 1990-91 CDBG WORK PROGRAM 1. Assist City with preparation of Annual CDBG Draft and Final "Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds", related City Council staff reports, and public notices. Assist City with preparation of forms and exhibits required by County. 2. Assist City with preparation of Annual Grantee Performance Report. 3. Assist City with preparation of other occasional reports required by HUD or the County. 4. Assist City with preparation of amendments of CDBG projects and budgets, and assist in implementation of program changes. 5. Provide assistance with preparation of news releases, program brochures and other publicity and marketing materials, as necessary. 6. Provide technical support to City staff in conjunction with program monitoring and audits conducted by HUD and Los Angeles County. 7. Assist with any appropriate amendments to program implementation plans. 8. Provide ongoing technical assistance with CDBG program regulations requirements. 9. Provide any appropriate technical assistance for community and economic development activities. 10. Attend City Council and other scheduled hearings and meetings concerning CDBG program activities. 11. Provide input to the City on other available Federal and State programs as possible funding sources to meet CDBG related or other community needs. cntrtl9/6-2190 .1.0 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATING CITY COOPERATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of 1990, by and between the City of Hermosa Beach , hereinafter referred to as "City", and the County of Los Angeles, hereinafter referred to as the "County". WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, County and City desire to cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertaking, community development, community renewal of lower income housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing, including, but not limited to, the improvement or development of housing for persons of low to moderate incomes and other community or urban renewal activities authorized by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, hereinafter referred to as the "Act"; and WHEREAS, County Counsel has determined that the terms and provisions of this agreement are fully authorized under State and local law, and that this agreement provides fully legal authority for the County to undertake, or assist in undertaking, essential community development and housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City and the County agree to cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertaking, community development, community renewal of lower income housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing, including, but not limited to, the improvement or development -of housing for persons of low to moderat*t:Dcomes and other community or urban renewal activities authorized I the Act. 2. The City hereby authorizes the County to perform, or cause to be performed, those acts necessary to implement the community development and housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing, including but not limited to improvement or development of housing for persons of low to moderate income and other community or urban renewal activities authorized under the Act specified for the City in the County's annual Statements of Community Development Objectives which will be funded from annual Community Development Block Grants from Federal Fiscal Years 1991, 1992 and 1993 appropriations and from any program income generated from the expenditure of such funds. County shall have final responsibility for selecting projects and annually filing Final Statements of Community Development Objectives. 3. The City and the County in the performance of this Agreement shall take all actions necessary to assure compliance with the County's certification required by Section 104 (b) of Title I of the Act, the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Section 109 of Title I of the Act, Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, the Fair Housing Act, the Act and all other applicable laws and regulations. 4. The City and County agree that Community Development Block Grant funding for any activities in or in support of any cooperating City, that does not affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction, or that impedes the County's action to comply with its fair housing -certification is prohibited. 5. Pursuant to 24 CFR 570.501 (b), the City is subject to all requirements applicable to subrecipients, including the requirement of a written agreement set forth in 24 CFR 570.503. 6. The City shall inform the County of any income generated by the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds received by the City. Any such program income may be retained by the City subject to the requirements of this agreement. Such program income may only be used for eligible activities in accordance with all CDBG requirements as may then apply. 7. The County shall be responsible for monitoring and reporting to HUD on the use of any program income; therefore, the City shall be required to maintain appropriate recordkeeping and reporting for this purpose. 8. In the event of close-out or changes in status of the City, any program income that is on hand or received subsequent to the close-out or change in status shall be paid to the County. 9. A11 program income generated from the disposition or transfer of real property acquired or improved by the City, using CDBG funds or program income, during the term of this agreement, shall be treated as described in Sections 5 through 7 of this agreement. 10. Any real property which is acquired or improved by the City during the term of this agreement, in whole or in part, using CDBG funds or program income, shall be subject to the following standards: a. The County shall be notified by the City in writing of any modification or change in the use or disposition of such real property from that planned at the time of acquisition or improvement. Such notification shall be made prior to the modification or change in use or disposition. b. If such real -property is ever sold or transferred for a use which does not qualify as an eligible use under CDBG regulations, the City shall reimburse to the County an.amount equal to the current fair market value of the property less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds. 11. The City shall make available for inspection and audit to County's representatives, upon request, at any time during the duration of this agreement and during a period of three (3) years, thereafter, all of its books and records relating to CDBG program income. 12. This agreement shall be effective for the period of time required for the expenditure of all CDBG funds allocated to the City from Federal Fiscal Years 1991, 1992 and 1993 appropriations and from any program income therefrom. In no event shall this agreement be terminated before June 30, 1994 except as a result of action by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the governing bodies of the parties hereto have authorized this agreement and have caused the agreement to be executed by their respective chief executive officers and attested by the executive officer -clerks thereof as of the day, month and year first above written. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES By By Mayor Chairman, Board of Supervisors ATTEST: ATTEST: City Clerk LARRY J. MONTEILH, Executive Officer - Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By By APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney DE WITT W. CLINTON County Counsel By By Deputy 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, STATING ITS INTENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM FOR 1991 THROUGH 1994. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public meeting on July 10, 1990, and made the following Findings: A. The County of Los Angeles and the United States Housing and Urban Development Agency require a cooperation agreement on file no later -than September 4, 1990; B. To secure all of the necessary signatures, an agreement must be submitted by July 16, 1990; C. It is not necessary at this time to specify the allocation of any funds for any type of project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVE that the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby state its intent to participate in the 1991-1994 Community Development Block Grant program. 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: V,,e€ p/ccrscdbg CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY �.t BACKGROUND MATERIAL David N. Lund Executive Director June 27, 1990 Community Development Commission County of Los Angeles 2525 Corporate Place • Monterey Perk, California 91754 (213) 260-2100 • Telefax: (213) 260-2194 Kevin Northcraft, City Manager City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885 Dear Mr. Northcraft: Commissioners Peter F. Schabarum Kenneth Hahn Edmund D. Edelman Deane Dana Michael D. Antonovich RECEIVE[) JUN 22 1990 '4 2 Y31990 The purpose of this letter is to invite your City to continue participating in the Los Angeles Urban County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. Your City and the other 46 cities currently participating in the Program have made a significant impact on community development, and I feel that we can make an even greatr contribution by continuing this cooperation relations -hip for another three years. As you are aware, the current three-year cooperative agreement between your City and the County of Los Angeles expires June 30, 1991, and a new agreement must be executed soon. I have the opportunity to invite your City to join in the Urban County three-year funding cycle, from July 1, 1991 through June 30, 1994. Your City's funding would begin July 1, 1991. I hope you will choose to remain a participant in the Urban County Program. Presented below for your consideration are general policies regarding participation for the period. 1. All cities that intend to be a part of the Urban County's 1991-94 Program are required to execute a cooperation agreement with the County. This agreement must be filed with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by September 4, 1990. 2. Cities cannot drop out of the Urban County Program during the three-year period. 3. Each participating city will retain control overits own CDBG funds based on Program regulations. 4. The Community Development Commission (CDC) often provides additional assistance to the participating cities by undertaking County -funded or jointly -funded community development activities within the local jurisdiction's boundaries. Kevin Northcraft June 27, 1990 Page two The required cooperation agreement has been enclosed for your convenience. Board of Supervisors approval and appropriate County signatures must be secured prior to submission to HUD; therefore, your City's participation can only be ensured if you return executed copies to the CDC no later than July 16, 1990. Your City may elect not to participate in the Los Angeles Urban County CDBG Program. Such a decision requires that you provide written notification to the CDC and HUD, no later than July 16, 1990. Your City's election for non -participation, or the failure to make such an election, will be effective for the entire period from July 1, 1991 - June 30, 1994. If you elect not to participate, I would appreciate knowing why you have made this decision. Attached are the appropriate addresses to which required documents must be forwarded. If you need additional information or further clarification, please contact Bobbette Glover at (213) 260-2218. DAVID N. LUND Executive Director MS:lw/9u Attachments 1. If your City wishes to participate in the Urban County CDBG Program, the following must be submitted: - four undated, executed copies of your cooperation agreement; and - one copy of the authorization by your governing body (city council resolution). Please forward the above mentioned copies to: Bobbette Glover, Director Community Development Block Grant Division Community Development Commission 2525 Corporate Place Monterey Place, CA 91754 DUE: No later than July 16. 1990 2. _If your City wishes to be excluded from the Urban County CDBG Program, please forward your written notification to both parties indicated below: Bobbette Glover, Director Community Development Block Grant Division Community Development Commission 2525 Corporate Place Monterey Place, CA 91754 Herbert L. Roberts, Director Community Planning and Development Division U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 1615 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90015 DUE: No later than July 16. 1990 MS:lw/9u 0 Mr. Mike Schubach Director of Planning City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 RE: CDBG Housing Rehabilitation Program Dear Mike: May 22, 1990 VIA FAX During our monitoring meeting with the City of Redondo Beach Housing Rehabilitation staff on May 16, 1990, they informed Andrea and myself they would not be able to continue to administer the City's Housing Rehabilitation Programs for the 1990-91 CDBG program year. Ed Hayduk indicated they would complete this years program and the projects currently in the pipeline. They: estimated they would have these rehabilitation projects completed by the end of July. Based on this information, and short of convincing Redondo Beach to continue with their services, there are a couple of options available to the City. The first option would be for the City to hire a Housing Rehabilitation Specialist to run the City's programs. Their costs can be paid for from the CDBG funds. A second option would be for the City to contract with a Housing Rehabilitation consultant service to implement the program. Their costs can also be paid for with CDBG funds. A third option would be for the City to drop the housing rehabilitation programs and put the funds into some other program, or as was discussed previously, the City could attempt to sale their funds to another jurisdiction. Based on the City Council's input during the Public Hearing several months ago, I do not think they want to fund public service activities. It would be difficult to come up with other programs that would benefit low and moderate income individuals. If the City elected to hire a staff person or contract with a consultant firm to implement the program, they would need time to get the program on line. This is based on the City changing the programs from grants to loans. In addition, based on the City Council's comments, I assume the City will not be participating in the CDBG program after the 1991-92 program year. It may not be worth the cost and effort to re-establish the Housing Rehabiltation Programs for only one year. MARK BRIGGS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 505 N. Tustin Avenue, Suite 282, Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 550-0390 • FAX (714) 972-8321 PROVIDING SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS SINCE 1974 Mr. Mike Schubach May 22, 1990 Page Two If you have any questions concerning the above information, please give me a call. Sincerely, Bryon . Baron Senior Vice President BKB:ajf Hermosa2/1-990 July 2, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council July 10, 1990 APPROVAL OF FUNDING OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by staff that Council approve funding of Dispute Resolution Services (DRS) in the amount of $9,000 for Fiscal Year 1990-91. BACKGROUND At the June 26, 1990 meeting, Council voted to postpone consideration of Dispute Resolution Service's request for funding until the July 10, 1990 meeting. In doing so, Councilmembers would have the opportunity to review materials that were submitted by DRS at the last meeting. DRS has been a tenant in the Commun,ty Center since October, 1988. They provide services to resolve neighborhood and community disputes including landlord/tenant, employer/employee, consumer/merchant, family issues and small claims. Simply stated, dispute resolution utilizes a neutral facilitator to assist people who are in conflict with clarification, communication and negotiation. DRS received $10,000 from the general fund last fiscal year. They have reduced their request by $1,000 to $9,000 for FY 90-91. ANALYSIS DRS serviced a total of 1,390 clients during FY 89-90. 255 of these clients live, work or own property in Hermosa Beach which represents 19% of the South Bay Program. $9,000 would represent 10.4% of the total cost of running the program at the Center. It is also noteworthy that in collecting the lease payments from DRS for FY 90-91, the City will recover a total of $1,848 or 21% of the general fund appropriation.. It is further suggested that DRS services could be better utilized by the City in an effort to resolve its, own liability claims as indicated in the DRS cover letter. Other alternatives available to Council include: 1. Deny request for funding. 2. Reduce the appropriation. 3. Request additional information. lii Steve Wisniewski Public Safety Director 2 Respectfully Submitted, Mary C-.'4`ooney, Director Dep'. of Community Resources Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Director Finance Department Los Angeles County Bar Association Dispute Resolution Services Lauren Burton, Dirrrlru 617 S. Olive Street P.O. Box 55020 Los Angeles. CA 90055 (213) 627-2727 FAX: (213) 459-7888 Community Mediation Programs Court Programs School Mediation Programs Attorney Client Relations Program April 4, 1990 Mary C. Rooney, Director Community Resources Center City of Hermosa Beach 710 Pier Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 RE: Los Angeles County Bar Association Dispute Resolution Services, Inc. (DRS) request for funding for fiscal year 1990-91 Enclosed you will find the DRS request to the City of Hermosa Beach for funding for the 1990-91 fiscal year in the amount of $9,000 to support the delivery of dispute resolution services to people who work or reside in the City of Hermosa Beach. Please note that due to the fact that we. are changing insurance carriers and our insurance costs have been lowered slightly, we are able to request $1,000 less than the previous year. We are pleased to submit the $9,000 request which represents approximately 10% of the total costs of our South Bay Community Mediation Program. Our 3rd quarter program report is currently being prepared for submission to the City of Hermosa Beach; however initial results appear to indicate that 19% of the total persons served in the South Bay Community Mediation Program live, work or own property in the City of Hermosa Beach. We have been pleased to provide direct service to the citizens of Hermosa Beach for the past two years and look forward to continuing a similar level of service in the coming year. Please contact me directly in the event that you have any questions or concerns about the supporting materials which I have enclosed. Sin erely, 'au•en Burton Director cc: Joe Kornowski, Esq.(no encls.) Neil Weiner (w/encls.) Loretta Francesco (w/encls.) Lance Widman (w/encls.) A Non -Profit Corporation City of HERMOSA BEACH GRANTEE PROGRAM STATUS REPORT Agency Dispute Resolution Services, Inc. Program tout- Bqy Community Mediation Program Report Period 1989 90 1st 2nd 3rd X 4th OBJECTIVES IIERMOSA BEACH SOUTH BAY Current Quarter Year To Date Annual Target Year To Date Annual Target Unit of Service Total New Total New Total New DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAM Total Persons Served 112 194 324 1007 2160 persons 1. Information and Referral 43 99 221 641 1476 persons 2. Intake Interviews 52' 78 10.3 717 684 persons 3. Cases 0p'ened 5 1 13 '26 150 175 eases 4. Mediations, conciliations and mitigations 6 13 28 111 189 proceedings 5. Follow—up Interviews 3 14 45 76 297 contacts _os Angeles County Bar Association .Dispute Resolution Services Community Mediation Programs Loretta Francesco, Program Director Alain Office: 2830 Pico Boulevard Santa Monica. CA 90405 (213) 450-5252 FAX: (213) 452-7825 Compton Office: 4513 fast Compton Blvd. Compton, CA 90221 (213) 639-0885 Long Beach Office: 110 fine Avenue Suite 420 Long Beach, C:\ 90802 (213) 437-8811 Pasadena Office: 2500 fast Colorado Blvd. Suite 315 Pasadena, C;\ 91107 (818) 793-7174 San Fernando Valley Office: 112.13 (;Ienoaks Blvd. Suite I Pacoima. (:;\ 913:) I (818) $96-2560 South Ray Office: 711) Pier Avenue 1 Ierniosa Beach, (:A90254 7 • (213) 372-1608 Sou tbeast-014 r: 12.158 Rives Avenue Downey, C:\ 90242 (213) 92:1-1543 West Hollywood Of lice: 5•I3 N. Fairfax Avenue Los Angeles. C:\ 510036 (21:)) 85-4-0122 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. OUTREACH HERMOSA BEACH THIRD QUARTER - 1989-90 Attended two Hermosa Beach Meetings Meeting with Meeting with Meeting with staff at staff at staff ,at Coordinating Council 1736 Family Crisis South Bay YMCA Rich Stone Center Brochures distributed to Brochures distributed to Dept. Brochures distributed to Center Hermosa Beach Library Hermosa Beach Police Hermosa Beach City Hall A Non -Profit Corporation SOUTH BAY BUDGET 1990-91 Hermosa Beach Other Sources Total Cost Salaries 7065 30372 37437 Fringe Benefits 1460 5698 7158 General Office Expense 0 354 354 Janitorial 0 136 136 Rent Expense 475 5103 5578 Utilities 0 193 193 Supplies 0 677 677 Duplicatings 0 516 516 Telephone 0 3232 3232 Postage 0 509 509 Travel/Parking 0 766 766 Equipment Maintenance 0 343 343 LACBA Overhead 0 2574 2574 Memberships 0 15 15 Outside Printing 0 1533 1533 Advertising 0 476 476 Insurance 0 529 529 Volunteer Mediators 0 24153 24153 TOTAL 9000 77179 86179 Hermosa Beach 9000 Hermosa % of Total Cost 10.4 Salaries Position Director DirecLor .Program Director, Community Mediation Programs Director, Community Mediation Secretary Secretary Program Coordinator Program Coordinator Grants Aclninistrator Grants Administrator Assistant Director Assistant Director Secretary Secretary Ad,nin. Assistant Admin. Assistant Volunteer Mediators sum' I3AY BUDGET 1990-91 Monthly Salary No. of Months 5,041 5,394 3,250 3,478 1,560 1,669 $13/hr. $.14/h r. 3,024 3,236 3,500 3,745 1,724' 1,845 2,000 2,140 $25/hr. 6 6 6 6 6 6 728 (lours 728 flours 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 966 Hours Amt. Hermosa Beach 399 427 1,030 1,102 371 397 1,374 1,470 240 256 -=0-- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- $7,066 Amt. Other Sources 1,113 1,191 2,870 3,071 1,033 1,105 8,090 8,657 667 715 158 169 388 415 720 770 24,153 * $55,285 * According to Dispute Resolution Programs Act Regulations volunteer hours necessary to support a program are to be valued at the rate of $25/hour. Total 1,512 1,618 3,900 4,173 1,404 1,502 9,464 10,127 907 971 158 169 388 415 720 770 24,153* $62,351 "productBy Victor Au* • *skit a mut chantpe,p disagree - meat oft yew next door I Amami* to theClaranoot Roa,CjroarEast iK matter�� *fogy, didood Aflame liceof being r- lout or court t '- And c " hi f�� Peart ex the director of the i "80 per cent cf< all civil •divisor handled' ,,T the ,,cenierneyer Etre in a mediation of disputes saves seniors' time and legal costs Contkmed from page 1 e says. "We get the two sides together to come to an agree- ment without resorting to the courts." She emphasizes that the ter es seniors know that action is not effective and is uently an unwelcome emotional experience: "'Seniors particularly appreci- .tbe non -adversarial, prob- approach Of media- **, as well as the tt #cost and every effort is made. to:svoid liti-- Dispute resoh►M , Russell recalls*C involv- ing a 73 -year-old woman who purchased a heating aid for about $2,000 jitit After several months of use, her bearing, she said, did not imprgve, Thr Wreestsuninal *Mu* alb* e woman said she had spent all the money she could afford :leer eudistec%st *V and was• not financially able to f4•47 par Ointilithn hire an attorney nor wait months for a paste court resolution. "We got the rnerht and the woman together," Russell says„ "and discovered the senior was not opergkig the hearing devices property: merchant agreed to take the hearing aid bade in order to demonstrate the_oorrect operation." And with more coop- eration from both sides the issue was resolve - Is the final resolution. of a par- ticular case binding on both par- ties? Aka the, experts at the cen- ter,' ihduding Bertha Valentine, head of the- West Covina office and Deletes Kelley, vice presi- dent at the center, agree that it is. Says McBride: "Me disputing parties know that when they put their signatures to an agreement, they're going to live .with it. Tete center'Btediators encourage $e" - two -sides to talk freely, kriowing khat theY say WillDot be used In a court oflawno.be Made pub:.'. lam" , McBride asserts that where parties to a conflict take the legal • • rt e, one will *in and one will. lose. "In mediation," he declares, "there is the potential for -win- win." '1,000 cases - - ''During the tast two years, about 1,000 cases were handled at the center "with only three in- stances in which the parties to disputes failed to live up to their agreement," adds Pearson. Participants in the mediation concept at the center are dcharged only $ IO for the service or nothing at all if they cannot afford this amount. The center is maintained through Los Angeles County funding, private dona- tions and from the $10 fee re - c etpts. Although the center gets in- volved with many kinds of dis- pute cases such as landlord/tenant, consumer/merchant, business, auto • accident, employer/employee, neighbor versus neighbor cases are ideal for mediation, says Pearson. He cites the case of a senior woman greatly in fear of her neighbor's son, whom, she thought, was a gang member. She was- frightened of the young man, who she said had the appearance of a gang mem- ber, and went to the police. The police were not able to do anything to calm those fears and no law had apparently been bro- ken. Then she went to the center which brought the two together. After a relatively -short period of mediation, the woman discov- ered the youth was not a threat and, in fact, liked the neighbor. The case had a happy ending. In disputes involving financial recovery, most cases handled by the center appear to be moderate in amount. However, McBride says, thereis one currently being negotiated in which the financial consideration ,is more than $2 million in real estate values. In this case one of the plain- tiffs came to the center after a class action suit had been filed in behalf of several property own- ers. The law suit however was dismissed by the daimants' at- torney after the cxcse had been"' filed: causing the center to bet come interested iri behalf of one of the senior citizens. Champion el ssniors A fiercely dedicated champion i of the causes of letikir citizens, McBride urges, the growing ranks of the elderly' to "find a mediation center in your city, and if not, form one in behalf otx the seniors and all lithe citizens ` in the community."' The concept of mediation is, said to have begun in the 1960s when the government decided it : - couldn't handle many of the lo- cal cases. It encouraged neigh- 1 borhood justice centers like the Claremont Resource Center. Now there are some 220 public mediation - centers throughout the country including about half the counties in California - - The goal of the California Dis- pute Resolution Program Act of 1986 is the preation of a state- wide system of locally funded programs"'which will provide dis- pute resolution services, prima- - rily conciliation- and mediation, to disputants. - The four field offices, of the center are located in Diamond Bar, Glendora, Pomona and West Covina. July 5, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of July 10, 1990 SISTER CITY ASSOCIATION REQUEST FOR DONATION OF SURPLUS CITY VEHICLES FOR USE BY LORETO, BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR, MEXICO Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council determine an appropriate policy for support of our sister city in Mexico through making available surplus equipment and vehicles for Loreto's use. Staff's recommendation is options 2 and 3 below, i.e., donate one vehicle and assist in fundraising efforts to purchase the second vehicle. Background: The Sister City program, which began nationally in the 1950s, was established between the City of Loreto, Baja California Sur, Mexico, and Hermosa Beach in 1967. It is both a people -to -people as well as city -to -city program. Because of the needs of sister cities in Mexico, many other counterpart cities in the United States do provide equipment, vehicles, and supplies to assist their sister cities in Mexico. Currently, clothing, sporting equipment, uniforms, mattresses, and school and medical supplies are provided by the Sister City Association to Loreto. In the past, the City has supplied a surplus ambulance, and sends a representative of the City Council annually to Loreto to dis- cuss continuation of the program and present a proclamation to their head of government. The City's past donation of an ambulance resulted in a taxpayer suit by Roger Creighton, which resulted in a judgment that the City was within its legal rights to make such donations. However, no other donations of City vehicles or equipment appear to have occurred since. Analysis: It would seem appropriate for the City Council to determine an appropriate policy for current and future use regarding surplus vehicles and equipment that could readily be utilized by our Sister City. If vehicles and equipment are donated by the City, there would still be costs associated with transporting and, in the case of vehicles, making them suitable for use by Loreto's security forces. Because of Loreto's express des.ire,for police related vehicles during the annual visit in October, 1988, staff has monitored and noted that two 1983 Chevrolet Malibus are now considered surplus by the City and would appear to meet the needs of Loreto. It is 12 estimated that these vehicles would bring approximately $1,800 each if auctioned by the City's normal procedures. Council's options include: 1) Donation of the two vehicles, increasing the City's con- tribution to the Sister City effort by approximately $3,600 for the fiscal year. 2) Donation of one vehicle, with a time limit given for the Sister City Association to raise funds to purchase the second vehicle at $1,800 from the City. 3) Offer assistance in organizing fund raising activities to fund the purchase of the vehicles for Loreto from private sources. 4) Determine that by policy the City will not include in its Sister City activity donations of surplus City equipment to our Sister City and direct that the surplus vehicles be auctioned according to the City's procedure for surplus vehicles. City Manager KBN/ld cc: Community Resources Sister City President George Barks Hermosa Beach Sister City Association, Inc. P. 0. Box 9f9, Hermosa Beach, CA. 90254 lo:2s- Honorable Mayor and City Council, Our Sister City of Loreto Mexico has made a request for patrol vehicles through our organization. I have spoken to the city manager about this request. I have either spoken to or left mesages on your answering machines. The city manager has informed be the city has (2) surplus 1983 Chevrolet Malibu's available. The aister City Association respectfully asks the city to donate these vehicles to our sister city. Our organization and the city of Loreto dot.not have the funds to purchase these vehicles. JUN 2 5 1990 6/Z3/,90 It is a common municipal policy to donate vehicles and other items to these sistercities. It is also legally (permissible to do so. The Hermosa Beach Sister City Association would be pleased to work with the city of Hermosa Beach to grant Loreto's request. If you need any additional information or have any questions I can be reached at (213)379-2538. c.c. Kevin Northcraft, City Manager Sincerely, 43444 y George G. Barks President A Tax -Exempt Nonprofit Community Service Organization Hermosa Beach.. . Hermosa, where the waves meet the sand, a friendly, active atmosphere. The popularity of Hermosa Beach, a bit over 20,000 residents, is due to its shore- line and summer recreation opportunities. Swimming, surfing, fishing, sailing in the blue Pacific, sunning or enjoying a rigorous game of beach volleyball in the sand, bicycling, jogging, even skating on the seaside Strand --all make the beach the focal point of activity. Landmarks scattered throughout the 1.3 square miles of the city include the windmill, once used to pump Herniosa's water from artesian wells and now pre- served as a historical landmark; the pier, which has offered year round fishing since 1904; and the Jarvis Memorial, a beauti- ful ocean -facing bicycle rest stop on the Strand built in memory of Greg Jarvis, once a Challenger astronaut and a resident of Hermosa Beach. Loreto.. . Loreto is a small, charming community of approximately 10,000 people. Once the hub of Baja and the capital of Baja California, Loreto houses a 300 -year old mission. Loreto's industry revolves around fishing and tourism, boasting 300 days of sunshine annually and over 650 varieties of game fish in the Sea of Cortez. Loreto is located on the East coast of the Baja Peninsula, on the Sea of Cortez, about 210 miles north of LaPaz in the state of the Baja California Sur. It is accessible by the Transpeninsular Highway (#1) which runs from Tijuana to Cabo San Lucas, and by commercial air carrier as well. Today, with the vision and planning of the Mexican government, this quaint fishing village is being developed for tour- ism, emphasizing the picturesque natural setting with the ocean at its front door and the beautiful mountains in its backyard. For additional information, please contact: HERMOSA BEACH SISTER CITY ASSN. P.O. Box 1025 Hermosa Beach, CA 93254 Promoting Friendship... In 1967 the Hermosa Beach City Council and el Delegado (Mayor) de Loreto agreed to become partners in the Sister City Program and the Hermosa Beach Sister City Association was founded. Our goals,"...to promote friendship and understanding between the citizens of Hermosa Beach ...and Loreto (particu- larly between school-age children of these communities)...and to promote under- standing and appreciation of Mexican culture and the Spanish language...", continue to guide our activities today. ...Person to Person... In 1973, HBSCA and the Hermosa Beach School District worked out plans for an annual student exchange between youth of Hermosa Beach and youth of Loreto, and in the spring of 1974 the ex- change was begun. Each year up to 15 junior high school age children exchange homes and families for a week with their counterparts in their Sister City in Loreto. Since its inception in 1973, the annual student exchange has pro- vided many children with loving, warm memories of their experiences. Loreto youth look forward to a visit to Disneyland and for Hermosa Beach kids, a great clam bake, island fishing and diving are a must. In addition we have... • sponsored students from Loreto who wanted to increase their understanding of the English language, • • facilitated medical arrangement for a Loreto youngster to obtain needed ear surgery. ...City to City. Almost every year, our city of Hermosa Beach has made a small official visit to Loreto since our Sister City relationship began in 1967 In recent years, these visits have grown in numbers and in popularity and have come to be known as Official/ Adult visits, with the Sister City Associa- tion making travel arrangements and City Staff arranging the official meetings. The 4 -night, 5 -day visit usually takes place in mid October or early November. Toward our goal of promoting friend- ship and understanding between our two cities, we have assisted our friends in Loreto in the following ways: • transported their first ambulance which was donated by the city of Hermosa Beach, • sent surplus Hermosa Beach school supplies to Loreto schools, • donated used clothing, baseball equip- ment, and other miscellaneous items. City o f`�iermosarl3eachv January 2, 1990 George Barks 847 3rd St. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear George: Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 Just a reminder that, per your request, we have been able to verify that there does appear to be some used City vehicles that will be declared surplus and available for sale this year. I think it would be advisable for the association to decide whether obtaining these vehicles for Loreto is a project they wish to pursue, though I know that it is something of strong interest by Loreto officials. Based on past auction prices for surplus vehicles, we could estimate the value of the vehicles if there were funds available through the association to purchase the vehicles. Of course, this or any other method of disposing of surplus vehicles requires Council approval. When you have had a chance to discuss the matter with your members, please let me know how you wish to proceed and I will help expedite. Best of luck to you in the new year. Sincerely yours, Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager meh July 5, 1990 City Council Meeting July 10, 1990 Mayor and Members of the City Council VACANCIES - BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS CIVIL SERVICE BOARD - TERM EXPIRING JULY 15, 1990 On August 7, 1989, John Wisdom was appointed to fill an unexpired term on the Civil Service Board. Said term will expire on July 15, 1990. Mr. Wisdom is eligible for re -appointment and has expressed an interest in being re -appointed to the Board. There are no other applications on file at this time. Alternatives 1. Re -appoint John Wisdom to serve a four-year term ending July 15, 1994. 2. Direct the City Clerk to advertise and request applications from interested persons. Elaine Doerflin , City Clerk Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager 14 bo)