Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01/08/91
SPREA- 17 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, January 08, 1991, at the hour of 7:35 P.M. CLOSED SESSION - The closed session was held at 7: .P.M.. pur- suant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) regarding matters of potential litigation; Gbyernment Code Section 54956.9(a) regard- ing matters of litigation: Matteson vs City of Hermosa Beach; and, Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding real property negotiations for City yard lease/tidelands oil lease with Mac- pherson Oil. The session was adjourned at 7: P.M. to the regu- lar scheduled public meeting. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - CA.) ROLL CALL Present: Creighton, Essertier, Midstokke, Wiemans, Mayor Sheldon Members of the Public wishing to address the City Council on the Consent Calendar or any items within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. (Exception: Comments on public hearing items must be heard during the public hearings.) Please limit comments to one minute. Citizens also may speak: 1) during Public Hearings, 2) with the Mayor's consent, during discussion of items appearing under Municipal Matters, and 3) before the close of the meeting during "Citizen Comments". 1-1� Absent :r None PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Coming forward to address the Council ops )114 , a- - c?'7"/"KOV-4-JA-1/ / f.4,,,c),); at this time were: ,G -Le.. -75 a cv "4-4 -'-P 14cA>4 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.) City Council Minutes 01-08-91 Page 7354 1. CONSENT CALENDAR Action: To approve the (a) through (s), with items which were pulled order for clarity: ( ) , Motion (., , second e„.. Creighton: Essertier: Midstokke: Wiemans: Sheldon: Consent Calendar recommendations the exception of the following for discussion but are listed in. ( ) , and ( ) . So ordered. (a) Recommendation to approve minutes of the Regular Meetin of the City Council held on December 11, 1990. �i Quo---- " tt / 2- 1L 1;44-14-0-1, 1Y%Je.. Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants Nose' through inclusive. (b) (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) Recommendation to receive and file the November, 1990 Financial Reports. 1) City Treasurer's Report 2) Revenue and Expenditure Report Recommendation to adopt resolution relative to the An- nual Statement'of Investment for the City of Hermosa -Beach for the. year, 1990. 'Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary Brutsch dated December 6, 1990. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 91-54,27, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT AND FILING OF THE ANNUAL STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY FOR THE YEAR 1991." (f) Recommendation to receive and file monthly investment report. Memorandum from City. Treasurer Gary Brutsch dated December 27, 1990. _ eZ) J / ` W/6 City Council Minutes 01-08-91 Page 7355 (g) (h) (j) Recommendation .to adopt resolution approving Final Map #46826 for a 10 unit condo at 540 1st Street. Memoran- dum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated Decem- ber 27, 1990. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 91-54=, entitled, HA_ RESOLUTION, OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA,GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL TRACT MAP #46826 FOR A TEN -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 540 FIRST STREET, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA." Recommendation to approve lease agreement with Beach Cities Coalition for Room 4. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney` dated December 26, 1990. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to approve a month to month lease with the Beach Cities Coalition for Alcohol and Drug -Free Youth, Inca for the use of Room 4 in the Community Center for the amount of $614 permonth, at a rate of .77 cents per square foot for 798 square feet. Recommendation to approve lease renewal for rental of Room 13 to Hope Chapel. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated December 26, 1990. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to approve a one year lease agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach and Hope Chapel for the use of Room 13 in the Com- munity Center for the amount of $992 per month, at a rate' of'.77 cents per square foot for 1,288 square feet until July 1, 1991, and then will increase to $1,030 per month, at a rate of .80 cents per square foot..0� Recommendation to amend Resolution 90-5422 to establish a late fee of 1% per month on user fees. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated December 24, 1990. Action: To approve Resolution No. 91-54,29, entitled, SIA_ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 90-5422 TO ESTABLISH .A LATE FEE ON CERTAIN AMOUNTS DUE THE CITY AFTER SIXTY DAYS." 6'4-4 % �/'' �/ L%"�'� C i t �G ✓� r' .rn 67 6 ,/e; .6 712/d, "7. /-(3. !E City Council Minutes 01-08-91 Page 7356 e- or" e- ,/;45 `-a' '.A/d. `P e ©` pi 4✓ (k) (1) (m) Recommendation to deny claim fora damages submitted on December 26, 1990. Memorandum from Risk Manager Robert Blackwood dated December 27, 1990. Recommendation to approve Request For Proposal for Work- er's Compensation Administration Services and authorize advertising for proposals for administration of claims. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dat- ed December 31, 1990. This item was removed from the. Consent Calendar by Coun- cilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting. Action: To approve the staff recommendations to: 1) approve the Request for Proposals (RFP) for Workers' Compensation Claims Administration Services, and 2) authorize staff to advertise for, and solicit,. proposals for third party administration of workers' compensation claims. Motion , second . So ordered. Recommendation to receive and file report regarding City water conservation. Recommendation from' Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated December 27, 1990. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Coun- cilmember Essertier for separate discussion later in the meeting. Action: Motion , second . So ordered. (n) Recommendation to receive and file report regarding Parking. Place Commission approval of R/UDAT Study. City Council Minutes 01-08-91 Page 7357 Memorandum from General Services Director Cynthia Wilson dated December 13, 1990. Recommendation to receive and file report regarding the Police K-9 Program.. Memorandum from Public Safety Di- rector Steve Wisniewski dated December 26, 1990. Recommendation to authorize an amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement for the South Bay Corridor Steering Committee. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated December 24, 1990. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to au- thorize the Mayor to sign the agreement entitled, "AN AGREEMENT AMENDING THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE SOUTH BAY CORRIDOR STUDY, PHASE III (Implementation)." Recommendation to approve a negative declaration and extension for the the Chamber of Commerce Farmer's Market. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated December 26, 1990. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Coun- cilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting. Action: To approve the staff recommendations that Coun- cil approve a negative declaration for the Chamber of Commerce Farmers' Market, and, to approve the continua- tion of the Market as an ongoing special event until such time that Council may withdraw this approval, sub- ject to the following conditions: 1) approve as a "special event" per Section 22-5 of the Municipal Code; 2) maintain business license (for Southland Farmers' Market Association; 3) maintain general liability insurance in the amount of $1 million; 4) indemnity clause; 5) market to be located on 13th Street, west of Hermosa Avenue; 6) hours of operation to be 12:30 - 4:30 P.M. ev- ery Friday; 7) waive meter enforcement for 13th Street meters west of Hermosa Avenue from 11:30 - 5:30 P.M. City Council Minutes 01-08-91 Page 7358 (r) on market :days with the Chamber responsible for the posting of signs; 8) Chamber responsible for clean-up and associated costs; 9) waive special event and banner permit fees; 10) parkingattendant to' be on duty at. all times during market set-up, operation and tear -down; and, 11) maximum number of vendors allowed to be limited to twenty (20). Motion , second . So ordered. Recommendation to extend the lease of Macpherson Oil Company. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin Northcraft dated January 3, 1991. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to extend the drilling term for three months, to April 13, 1991, and to authorize the Mayor to sign the extension of the lease of the City yard with Macpherson Oil Company, en- titled, "CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDMENT TO OIL AND GAS LEASE NO. 4." Recommendation to approve a request for a 30 -day exten- sion of temporary appointment of Acting Deputy City Clerk. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Black- wood dated January 3, 1991. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Coun- cilmember Wiemans for separate discussion later in the meeting. Action: To Motion , second So ordered, noting the objection of 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES - None 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. Items ( ), ( ), and ( ) were discussed at this time but are listed in order for clarity. City Council Minutes 01-08-91 Page 7359 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS. (a) Letter from June Williams re. revocation of business license for Fantasy Adult Arcade. (Staff action: Re- ferred to Public Safety Department for response..) PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION GRANT OF .CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 4 2 -UNIT CONDOS AND VESTING, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPS #22634 37 AT 138 -142, 144 - 148, 150 - 154, AND 158 160 MANHATTAN AVENUE. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated December 31, 1990 The Director Schubach presented the staff sponded to Council questions. public hearing was opened, Council on this matter were: Pt -,k - coming forward report and re - to address the 9-26 4?/, a6- * The public hearing was closed. Ation: ) ,� < 5_,)) Motion , second G So ordered. �w (K41-1-7/6 G-6 ) 6.401 Lp /1i.e....e.4 - c� f _. o Council Minutes 01-08-91 Page 7360 6. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION GRANT OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 2 -UNIT CONDO AT 619 TENTH COURT. Memoran- dum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated Decem- ber 31, 1990. Supplemental letter dated January 7, 1991, from Carl A. Janssen, Jr., 625 Tenth Street. Director Schubach presented the staff sponded to Council questions. The ublic.hearing was opened, coming forward Council on this matter were: „;134 ba ed--A-ffr-,''a'a-A---) 6 A 5 The public hearing was closed. Action: To deny the appeal, mission conditions of app ova 90-54 , entitled, 'IA RES THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION'S DEC USE PERMIT, VESTING TE ATI PRECISE DEVELOPMENT P :+ FOR JECT TO CONDITIONS TH^'EBY DEN TION NO. 2, AT 619 T NTH STREET PORTION OF LOT 4, OCK 78, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH.” report and re to address the su ain the Planning Com - 1 and adopt Resolution No. ON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING THE N TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL PARCEL MAP #22409, AND 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM SUB - NG THE APPEAL OF CONDI- LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A Motion , second e. So ordered. rz. /60 /,4'9 1/// City Council Minutes 01-08-91 Page 7361 (./ - V � 7. APPEAL OF DENIAL BY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR VARIANCE AT 40 SEVENTH COURT (hearing date postponed from 11-27-90 at request of applicant). Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated December 31, 1990. Director Schubach presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. The public hearing was opened, coming forward to address the Council on this matter were: • 40/ The public hearing was closed. Action: To deny the appeal, sustain the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the variance, and adopt Resolution No. 9Q -54..8b, entitled, HA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK AND TO ALLOW LESS THAN THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE AT 40 SEVENTH COURT, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTH 32'OF LOT 20, BLOCK 7, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT." Motion 6, second So ordered. City Council Minutes 01-08-91 Page 7362 .72 MUNICIPAL MATTERS 8. RECOMMENDATION TO REQUEST CLARIFICATION FROM CALTRANS AND TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING REMOVAL OF P.M. PARKING ON PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated December 24,. 1990. Supplemental petition , dated January 03, 1991, from residents of El Oeste Drive requesting the es- tablishment of permit parking on El Oeste Drive with a one hour limit for cars that do not have a permit. Director Antich presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Coming forward to address the Council on this matter were: "0° -7-- Ai - J-4) ice .942„e3 2__. 3-7,- en aD' -� -c /d'_ ,/)Action Tarove the he staff recommendations 6)1) Request 'Caltrans staff to make a �/`_ _, figures" presentation to the City. 2) Set the matter for a public hearing s a ),43 CEJ A a / cam' . -may, Further Action: 22, 1991 Motion , second 0 Motion second (0—r at 8:00 P.M. a2), of:. "facts and on January -7/SdQ „>>� So ordered..,,//s /..� 971 (4:;,(7._-"T„ ./1//e5 . So ordered. City Council Minutes 01-08-91 Page 7363 . 9. RECOMMENDATION TO PROVIDE CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROGRAM UNDER CONTRACT WITH BROWNING FERRIS INDUSTRIES. Memo- randum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated December 24, 1990. Supplemental letter, dated January 8, 1991, from, Mark JamesPavlakovich, 1824 Val- ley Park Avenue. Coming Director Grove presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. forward to address the Council on this matter were: Action: 1) To approve the staff recommendations to: Direct staff to negotiate an amendment to the current refuse contract with Browning-Ferris Industries to provide for curbside residential recycling, multi -family recycling and commercial/industrial recycling. The basis for the amended contract to be consistent with the proposal dated November 14, 1990. Authorize the extension of the expiration of the current refuse contract to coincide with the five year expiration of the recycling provision. Direct staff to prepare an ordinance to pro- hibit scavenging at other than public refuse receptacles such as those utilized on the Beach and in parks. Motiorr , second So ordered. 10. RECOMMENDATION TO DENY APPEAL REQUEST ASSOCIATED WITH USE OF POLICE FOR SECOND RESPONSE TO A PARTY AT 2124 HERMOSA AVENUE #5., Memorandum from Public Safety Direc- tor Steve Wisniewski dated December 26, 1990.. City Council Minutes 01-08-91 Page 7364 Director Wisniewski presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. Coming forward to address the Council on this matter were: e Action: To approve the staff recommendation and deny the appeal. Motion �,,) , second So ordered. 11. RECOMMENDATION REGARDING POSSIBLE ACQUISITION OF CITY WATER SERVICE AND WATER FRANCHISE FEES. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin Northcraft dated December 26, 1990. City Manager Northcraft presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Action: To approve the and file the report. /t -7s y .7 staff recommendation to receive Motion , second So ordered. 12. RECOMMENDATION REGARDING SPEED HUMPS IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FROM RESIDENTS OF EL OESTE DRIVE. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated December 27, 1990. Supplemental letter, dated January 07, 1991, from James Lissner, 2715 El Oeste Drive, regarding "un- dulations" (speed humps) for El Oeste Drive. City Council Minutes 01-08-91 Page 7365 Director Antich presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Action: 1) To approve the staff recommendations of: direct.. staff to develop standards for speed hump installations on City streets, consistent with the implementation policy of the Circula- tion Element, and, as a matter of policy, require that individuals requesting speed humps be required to fund their installation, and removal if necessary. .)k0 Mo on , second . So ordered. 7/5 ,a - J71xe„.a..= --,----c-- `( p , / 13. C /�J 74/5 14. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION ON JANUARY 14, 1991 AT 6:00 P.M. IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS REGARDING MEET AND CONFER. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dat- ed January 3, 1991. 04'7 f %D -*ID Action: To approve the closed session for Monday, January 14, 1991, at -64-- P.M. 2,-,44/b MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL City Council Minutes 01-08-91 Page 7366 16. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible futureagenda items: Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to discuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a future agenda; or 3) resolution of matter by Coun- cil action tonight. CITIZEN COMMENTS Citizens wishing to address the Council on items within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. Please limit comments to three minutes. Coming forward at this time to address the Council were: fir ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned on Wednesday, January 09, 1991, at the hour of 12: A.M., to a Regular Meeting to be held on Tues- day, January 22, 1991, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. Deputy City Clerk City Council Minutes 01-08-91 Page 7367 Where there is no vision the people perish... HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WELCOME! By your presence in the City Council Chambers you are participating in the process of representative government. Your government welcomes your interest and hopes you will attend the City Council meetings often. Meetings are televised live on Multivision Cable Channel 3 and replayed the next day (Wesdnesday) at noon. Agendas for meetings are shown on Channel 3 the weekend before the meetings. Opportunities for Public Comments Citizens may provide input to their elected Councilmembers in writing or oral- ly. Letters on agenda matters should be sent or delivered to the City Clerk's '_ or City Manager's Office. If sent one week in advance, they will be included in the Council's agenda packet with the item. If received after packet com- pilation, they om-pilation,`they willbe distributed prior to the Council meeting: Oral communications with Councilmembers may be accomplished on an individual basis in person or by telephone, or at the Council ` meeting. Please see the notice under "Public Participation" for opportunities to speak before the Council It is thepolicy of the City Council that no discussion of new items will be- gin after 11:30 p.m., unless this rule is waived by the Council. The agendas are developed with the intent to have all matters covered within the time allowed. 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: City offices are open 7'A.M. to 6 P.M., Mon. - Thurs.; Closed Fridays. There is no smoking allowed in the Council Chambers. (over) THE HERMOSA BEACH FORM OF GOVERNMENT Hermosa Beach has the Council -Manager form of government, with a City Manager. appointed by and responsible to the City Council for carrying out Council policy. The Mayor and Council decide what is to be done. The City Manager, operating through the entire City staff, does it. This separation of policy making and administration is considered the most economical and efficient form of City government in the United States today. GLOSSARY The following explanations may help you to understand the terms found on most agendas for meetings of the Hermosa Beach City Council. Consent Items .. A compilation of all' routine matters to be acted upon by one vote; approval requires a majority affirmative vote. Any Councilmember may remove an item from this listing, thereby causing that matter to be considered under the category Consent Calendar items Removed For Separate Discussion. Public Hearings ... Public Hearings are held on certain matters as required by law or by direction of Council. The Hearings afford the public the opportuni- ty to appear and formallyexpress their views regardingthe matter being heard. Additionally, letters may be filed with the City Clerk, prior to the Hearing. Ordinances An ordinance is a law that regulates government'. revenues and/or public conduct. All ordinances require two "readings". The first reading introduces the ordinance into the records. At least 5 days later Council may adopt, reject or hold over the ordinance to a subsequent meeting. Most or- dinances take effect 30 days after the second reading. Emergency ordinances are governed by different provisions and waive the time requirements. Written Communications ... The public, members of advisory boards/commissions or organizations may formally communicate to or make a request of Council by letter; said letters should be filed with the City Clerk by Noon the Tuesday preceding the Regular City Council meeting and request they be placed on the Council agenda. Municipal Matters... Non-public Hearing items predicted to warrant discussion by the City Council are placed here. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Manager ... The City Manager coordi- nates departmental reports and brings items to the attention of, or for action by the City Council Verbal reports may be given by the City Manager regarding items not on the agenda, usually having arisen since the agenda was prepared on the preceding Wednesday. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Council ... Members of the City Council may place items on the agenda for consideration by the full Council. Other Matters - City Council ... These are matters that come to the attention of a Council member after publication of the Agenda. #9/-/053 3) wg--/o4 5v-WF,s *s? "When you have faults do not fear to abandon them" - Confucius AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 8, 1990 - Council Chambers, City Hall MAYOR 25 -Chuck Sheldon MAYOR PRO TEM ,3 -Kathleen Midstokke COUNCILMEMBERS J- Roger Creighton .2 -Robert Essertier y Albert Wiemans Closed Session - 7:00 p.m. 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. The Council receives a packet with detailed information and recommendations on nearly every agenda item. Complete agenda packets are available for public inspection in the Police Depart- ment, Public Library and the Office of the City Clerk. During the meeting a packet also is available in the Council foyer. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Members of the Public wishing to address the City Council on the Consent Calendar or any items within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. (Exception: Comments on public hearing .terns must be heard during the public. hearings.) Please limit comments to one minute. Citizens also may speak: 1) during Public Hearings, 2) with the Mayor's consent, during discussion of items appearing under Municipal Matters, and 3) before the close of the meeting during "Citizen Comments". 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following routine matters will be acted upon by one vote to approve with the majority con- sent of the City Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless good cause is shown by a member prior to the roll call vote. (Items removed will be considered under Agenda Item 3.) (a) Recommendation to approve minutes of regular meeting of the City Council held on December 11, 1990. (b) Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) (e) (f) (g) Recommendation to receive and file the November, 1990 Financial Reports. 1) City Treasurer's Report 2) Revenue and Expenditure Report Recommendation to adopt resolution relative to the An- nual Statement of Investment for the City of Hermosa Beach for the year 1991. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary Brutsch dated December 6, 1990. Recommendation to receive and file monthly investment report. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary Brutsch dated December 27, 1990. Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #46826 for a 10 unit condo at 540 1st Street. Memoran- dum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated Decem- ber 27, 1990. (h) Recommendation to approve lease agreement with Beach Cities Coalition for Room 4. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated December 26, 1990. (i) Recommendation to approve lease renewal for rental of Room 13 to Hope Chapel. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated December 26, 1990. (j) Recommendation to amend Resolution 90-5422 to establish a late fee of 1% per month on user fees. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated December 24, 1990. (k) (1) (m) Recommendation to deny claim for damages submitted on December 26, 1990. Memorandum from Risk Manager Robert Blackwood dated December 27, 1990. Recommendation to approve Request For Proposal for Work- er's Compensation Administration Services and authorize advertising for proposals for administration of claims. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dat- ed December 31, 1990. Recommendation to receive and file report regarding City water conservation. Recommendation from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated December 27, 1990. (n) (o) (p) (q) (r) (s) Recommendation to receive and file report regarding Parking Place Commission approval of R/UDAT Study. Memorandum from General Services Director Cynthia Wilson dated December 13, 1990. Recommendation to receive and file report regarding the Police K-9 Program. Memorandum from Public Safety Di- rector Steve Wisniewski dated December 26, 1990. Recommendation to authorize an amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement for the South Bay Corridor Steering Committee. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated December 24, 1990. Recommendation to approve a negative declaration and extension for the the Chamber of Commerce Farmer's Market. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated December 26, 1990. Recommendation to extend the lease of Macpherson Oil Company. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin Northcraft dated January 3, 1991. Recommendation to approve a request for a 30 -day exten- sion of temporary appointment of Acting Deputy City Clerk. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Black- wood dated January 3, 1991. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS. (a) Letter from June Williams re. revocation of business license for Fantasy Adult Arcade. (Staff action: Re- ferred to Public Safety. Department for response.) PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE.AT 8:00 P.M. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION GRANT OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 4 2 -UNIT CONDOS AND VESTING TENATIVE PARCEL MAPS #22634 - 37 AT 138 -142, 144,- 148, 150 - 154, AND 158 - 160 MANHATTAN AVENUE. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated December 31, 1990. 6. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION GRANT OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 2 -UNIT CONDO AT 619 TENTH COURT. Memoran- dum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated Decem- ber 31, 1990 7. APPEAL OF DENIAL BY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR VARIANCE AT 40 SEVENTH COURT (hearing date postponed from 11-27 at request of applicant). Memorandum from Planning Direc- tor Michael Schubach dated December 31, 1990. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 8. RECOMMENDATION TO REQUEST CLARIFICATION FROM CALTRANS AND TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING REMOVAL OF P.M. PARKING ON PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated December 24,' 1990. 9. RECOMMENDATION TO NEGOTIATE A CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROGRAM UNDER CONTRACT WITH BROWNING FERRIS INDUSTRIES. Memo- randum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated December 24, 1990. 10. RECOMMENDATION TO DENY APPEAL OF FEES FOR SECOND RESPONSE TO A PARTY AT 2124 HERMOSA AVENUE #5. Memoran- dum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated December 26, 1990. 11. RECOMMENDATION REGARDING POSSIBLE ACQUISTION OF CITY WATER SERVICE AND WATER FRANCHISE FEES. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin Northcraft dated December 26, 1990. 12. RECOMMENDATION REGARDING SPEED HUMPS IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FROM RESIDENTS OF EL OESTE. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated December 27, 1990. 13. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION ON JANUARY 14, 1991 AT 6:00 P.M. IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS REGARDING MEET AND CONFER. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dat- ed January 3, 1991. 14. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL 16. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to discuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a future agenda; or 3) resolution of matter by Coun- cil action tonight. CITIZEN COMMENTS Citizens wishing to address the Council on items within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. Please limit comments to three minutes. ADJOURNMENT PARKER R. HERRIOTT 224 - 24th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213) 379-7196 January 8, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Charles Vose, City Attorney Michael Schubach, Planning Director Kevin Northcraft, City Manager 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: The Biltmore Site and the Possible Residential Election.. and the Definite 100% Open Space Park Election) Dear Mayor and City Council Members, City Attorney and City Manager and Planning Director: Regarding the letter from City Attorney Charles Vose to Ms. Teresa Henry of the California Coastal Commission dated December 19, 1990 (see attached copy marked Exhibit "A"), and the letter from Michael Schubach, to Teresa Henry of the California Coastal Commission dated December 7, 1990 (see attached copy marked Exhibit "B"), I have some questions for the City Council, the City Attorney, and Michael Schubach. 1. Will the City Council place on the ballot a residential initiative for the property commonly known as the Biltmore Site in response to the referendum petition that has allegedly been declared invalid by the City Attorney? If so, when would this residential initiative be on the ballot? Under what conditions would this residential initiative be on the ballot? Will the residential initiative be on the ballot if the 100% Open Space Petition for the above described Biltmore Site doesn't qualify for the ballot? 2. If the 100% Open Space Park qualifies for the ballot, will the City Council then place their residential initiative zoning for the Biltmore Site along side the Park measure? 3. Would Mr. Vose please explain what he means in the above mentioned letter dated December 19 to the Coastal Commission, "Contrary to the statement contained in your December 7, 1990 correspondence, a negative vote on any initiative placed at a subsequent election would not void the City council's redesignation and rezoning of the Biltmore site to residential." In Ms. Henry's letter, she stated referendum and not initiative as Mr. Vose has stated. The point is., are you, Mr. Vose, saying that if the people vote down residential zoning for the Biltmore Site then the Council will ignore theelection results? Would you please explain what you mean by the above quote? If the 100% Open Space Park receives a majority vote in an election, the City Council would have to --by law --change the designation and the zoning of the Biltmore Site. If the residential zoning is defeated, I am be forced to change the designation andthe Biltmore Site to reflect the results of the Are there going to be any elections prior to that will be held in November of 1991? sure the City would zoning for the election. our general election I have more than enough qualified signatures now on the 100% Open Space Park Initiative Petition and if I handed in the petition tomorrow there would be an election in November, 1991, on this matter. Will the City Council be able to, if they wanted to, have a special election on the 100% Open Space Park Initiative -- even though I don't have the required number of signatures to require a special election? The problem is, I don't know what the City Council majority will do with my petition. It would be nice if the City Council would take a straw vote regarding the various questions raised in this letter so I can have some answers at this time. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, 6-4 Parker R. Herriott THOMAS W. STOEVER WILLIAM 5..BARP CHARLES S. VOSE CONNIE COOKE SANDIFER ROGER W SPRINGER EDWARD W. LEE HERIBERTO F. DIAZ JAMES DUFF MURPHY JANICE R. MIYAHIRA LAW OFFICES OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & V A PROFESSIONAL. COPPORATION 1000 SUNSET BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 (2131 250-3093 December 19, 1990 Ms. Teresa Henry Assistant District Director California Coastal Commission South Coast Area 245 West Broadway, Suite 380 Long Beach, California 90802 Re: City of Hermosa Beach Land Use Plan Amendment No. 3 Dear Ms. Henry: .COP+ER • 12131 452-5336 GE^ 2 CAUFORN1A. COAST Al COMMiSS'01-4 SOUTH COAa1 RISTRICT This firm serves as. City Attorney for the City of Hermosa Beach and, in such capacity, I am responding to your December 7, 1990 correspondence to Mr. Michael Schubach in reference to the above matter. Since there appears to be some confusion, I am transmitting this letter to assure you that the prior,City Council action constitutes final action on the subject zone change. . As you are aware, .the City Council adopted, prior to November of 1990, a zone change •ordinance and General Plan Amendment Resolution redesignating the subject property to residential. Thereafter, on November 13, 1990, LUP Amendment No. 3 was adopted pursuant to Resolution Nu. 90-5420. Apparently, the confusion arises as a result of the fact that after the adoption of the zone change and General Plan Amendment a referendum was circulated within the community challenging the action of the City Council to zone this property residential. Upon conclusion of the referendum circulation process and submittal of the petition to the City, it was determined that the referendum was invalid. This determination is consistent with.legal precedent set forth in a number of cases which have been brought before the California appellate courts. You are also probably aware of''the fact that there exists a desire on the part of certain members. in the community to circulate an initiative to rezone this property as open space. However, the actions by the'City Council to rezone the subject property to residential is final and further submission of the issue to the voters is not legally required. If an initiative OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE Ms. Teresa Henry December 19, 1990 Page 2. is placed before the voters and fails to receive a majority vote, the property will continue to be zoned and designated in the general plan as residential. Contrary to the statement contained in your December 7, 1990 correspondence, a negative vote on any initiative placed at: a subsequent election would not void the City Council's redesignation and rezoning of the Biltmore site to residential. The legality of Resolution No. 90-5420 is not subject to a favorable vote by the electorate at a subsequent referendum election. Therefore, at this point in time, the City's proposed LUP Amendment is, legally, "in proper order" as required by Section 13553. Should you or your legal counsel require additional information regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Otherwise, we will expect the Coastal Commission to process the LUP Amendment in accordance with your normal proceedings. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Very truly yours, Charles S. Vose City Attorney CSV:ilf cc: Kevin Northcraft, City Manager Michael Schubach, Planning Director CALIFORNIA. COASTAL COMMISSION SOyTM COAST AREA 243 WEST, $ROADWAY, SUiTE 380 LON ACM, CA •90802 (24 ) 590.5071 December 7, 1990 Mr. Michael Schubach Planning Director Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA. 90254-3885 Dear Mr. Schubach: ••�• 4•01./'1.1IN1 Re: City of Hermosa Beach Land Use Plan Amendment No. 3 On November 26, 1990, our office received your letter dated November 21 and associated documents regarding the above -referenced amendment to the City of Hermosa Beach Certified Land Use Plan (LUP). According to Section 13551(a) of the Commission's Administrative Regulations, an amendment to the Certified LUP shall be accepted for filing if the amendment is "submitted pursuant to a resolution adopted in accordance with the provisions of Public Resources Code, Section 30510(a)." That section, in turn, specifies that the required resolution be one that is "adopted by the local .government,...." added.)Depending on the circumstances, the "local (Emphasis sectio30510(a) could be either the local government".referred to in governing body, e.g., a city council, or the residents of the locality acting pursuant to their power of initiative or referendum. According to your November 21 transmittal letter, you are submitting LUP Amendment No. 3 pursuant to resolution no. 90-5420, which the City Council adopted on November 13, 1990. In your letter you also state that the City Council elected to submit this resolution to a vote of the electorate in an up -coming public election, in the form of a referendum. A negative vote in this referendum election would "void the City Council's redesignation and rezoning of the Biltmore Site to residential." It would thus appear that said resolution as required by 30510(a) will become final only.upon a favorable vote by the electorate in the -referendum election. Therefore, at this point in time we do not consider the city's proposed LUP amendment to be "in proper order" (section 13553). Depending on the election results, the city may desire to resubmit the amendment Mr. Michael Schubach page 2 Section 13551(b)(2) (the counterpart in the LUP/LCP amendment context to section 13518(b)(2), cited in your letter) offers a procedure whereby the same "local government", i.e., the governing body or the electorate, as the case may be, which adopted the LUP/LCP amendment and the submittal resolution reserves to itself the right to confirm its actions after Commission certification. It does not authorize timing of Commission action to occur between two stages of a single approval process of the kind that the City Council has elected to use in this case. We look forward to continue working with the City in the processing of this important LUP amendment. Sincerely Yours, Teresa Henry Assistant District Director TH/lm 7540D (1918L) PARKER R. HERRIOTT 224 - 24th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 213-379-7196 January 3, 1991 Mayor and City Council Kevin Northcraft, City Manager Charles Vose, City Attorney Michael Schubach, Planning Director City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: THE MOBIL GAS STATION AND THE APPARENT NEED FOR A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS REQUIRED BY THE NEW ORDINANCE RELATING TO ALL PROPERTIES IN THE CITY EXCEPT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. Dear Mayor and City Council, Kevin Northcraft, Charles Vose,, and Michael Schubach: I hereby request that the City Council have a public hearing regarding the need for precise development plan for the new Mobil gas station and car wash proposed on Pacific Coast Highway at 9th Street. I believe the applicants need to apply for a precise development plan since they did not obtain a building permit for their development project by the November 1990 deadline. This time around I would appreciate it if Mr. Reckstiener would answer the questions that I raised in my .letter of June 12, 1990, regarding this matter (see attached letter marked Exhibit "A"). I raised these questions again at the city council meeting regarding the appeal in this matter and Mr. Reckstiener never even bothered to answer any of the questions that I raised or the statements that I had made. I would like to know why Mr. Reckstiener didn't have to answer my questions. Why should we have public testimony sections in the various hearings in the city if people do not need to respond to legitimate questions? Our hearings are not really hearings. That's all I cansay, for many times questions that are raised are never answered by the city council or by other parties involved in the public hearings. Questions should be answered in this matter and in other matters before the council, and to ignore questions is just wrong. The Council should have required Mr. Reckstiener to answer the questions and I hope that the Council will require him to answer the questions during the precise development plan process. Respectfully, Parker R. Herriott attachment PARKER R. HERRIOTT 224 - 24th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 June 12, 1990 Mayor and City Council Kevin Northcraft, City Manager Charles Vose, City Attorney Michael Schubach, Planning Director City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 89-5 to allow the replacement of an existing service station/snack shop with 16 new gas pumps, a 24-hour snack bar and a self-service automatic car wash (free or pay wash) Dear Mayor and City Council, Kevin Northcraft, Charles Vose, and Michael Schubach: On October 17, 1968, my brother Marshall York Herriott was tragically killed in a so- called "accident" at the Shell Oil Refinery in Carson, California. My brother trusted Shell OH to give him a safe working place. Shell Oil never should have been trusted. Most big oil companies care more about profits than people. Therefore, I hereby request the City Council to look very closely at this mega gasoline car wash station in regards to the health, welfare and safety of the users of the gas station and the residents who live next door to the gas station. I hope that the City Council requires Mr. Brian Recksteiner to be responsive to the following questions: 1) How much will the 16 -pump gas station increase in sales over the existing gas station? 2) How many 16 -pump gas stations does Mobil have? 3) For refineries and gas stations, how many accidents, claims, or citations from CaIOSHA, and the Air Quality Management District has Mobil Oil had over the last year in Los Angeles County? 4) How many of these mega gas stations does Mobil have now? 5) Does Mobil Oil have to have a building permit application on file with all the required plans, etc., in order to avoid the Precise Development Plan review? )4_6 6) Does Mobil Oil have to go to the South Coast Air Quality Management District before coming to Hermosa? When asked the question recently at a Planning Commission meeting by one of the Planning Commissioners "what kind of increase in sales are you projecting with this type of increase with the gas station?", Mr. Recksteiner stated "We don't know. Hopefully we will have some." And then he went on to ignore the question and stated the following: "We do not generate traffic. What we hope to do and what we bet on when we build this station is that we can attract more people that are going by the intersection to come in and buy from us rather than going down the street and buying from someone else People don't drive across town to just buy gasoline." Mr. Recksteiner should have answered the question. Surely, he has an idea of how much they expect to make with increased sales; and if he doesn't have any idea, someone should be able to have that information for the City Council in the future. called today and talked with Mr. Gore of Mobil Oil in Burbank and he said there was going to be an increase of people using the gas station, since it will be a new station, new snack shop, car wash, etc. But Mr. Gore's answer didn't supply any figures and we should have those figures from Mobil Oil. It is very difficult to determine the impact of this gas station without having an environmental impact review being required. We do know, though, this gas station calls for an increase from 4 gas pumps to 16 gas pumps, which means the capacity has quadrupled --which means we have gone from 4 motor vehicles sitting at gas pumps to 16 motor vehicles sitting at gas pumps at any one given time. And, of course, the car wash will have the capacity for one automobile per minute and with the hours of operation, about 12 hours per day, would imagine there will be about .360 car washes a day. Having this gas station open 24 hours a day will endanger the life of the gas station clerk/cashier and also endanger the lives of people using the gas station besides the people who live nearby in the event that a holdup is ever attempted at this gas station. We should not allow this to be a 24-hour gas station operation because of the inherent danger of this .type of operation. Remember, there are problems now with the existing gas station with noise from people who use the station from 5 a.m. to 11 p.m. and this is not fair to the neighbors who have to put up with all the noise of door slammings, car starting, people yelling, loud music, and motor vehicle fumes. An 8 ft. wall should be built on the west property line to protect the residents even if this new gas station is denied, to protect the residents from the existing 4 -pump gas station as well. There should be installed a "NO RIGHT TURN" sign as one exits the gas station onto 9th Street to steer all traffic towards Pacific Coast Highway and away from the residential area --because of existing traffic hazards on 9th Street and If this gas station is allowed to go from four to sixteen gas pumps, there will be potentially four times the amount of carcinogen benzene to be released into the air, especially if a person "tops off" their gas tank where the gas vapors escape into the air. People will top their gas tanks off no matter what, as long as the nozzles allow gas to come out of the hose even when there is not a tight seal. Gas also goes onto the ground, creating release of vapors. A few questions to think about: 1) Would you want to live next to this gas station? 2) Do you think Mr. Recksteiner would want to live next to this gas station? 3) Do you think it is fair to have others be subjected to an unreasonable expansion by the Mobil Oil Company? We know Mobil Oil just defeated the ban on hydrofluoric acid at their Torrance Refinery last year. They spent over a million dollars to defeat the Dan Walker Initiative. In Redondo Beach the City Council recently sided with the residents who objected to expansion plans for the Unocal Gas Station located at Torrance Blvd. and Pacific Coast Highway. They denied Unocal's request to expand hours of operation and expand their service. I hope that you all review this appeal very carefully and use your finest judgement in arriving at a decision for the residents, to protect the residents, and to say no to insensitive big business projects like this Mobil Oil 16 -pump gas station/car wash. Cars getting gas would allow for 16 cars every five minutes, which would mean 80 cars per hour; 24 hours per day x 80 cars per hour = 1920 cars per day = 700,800 cars per year, plus car washes of 131,400 per year = 832,200 vehicles into the station per year. Respectfully, Parker R. Herriott PARKER R HERRIOTT 224 - 24th Street Hermosa Beach; "CA 90254 213-379-7196 January 3, 1991 Mayor and City Council Kevin Northcraft, City Manager Charles Vose, City. Attorney Michael Schubach, Planning Director City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 7 JAN031991 0. City Clerk Clty. of Hermosa Beach Re: THE MOBIL GAS STATION AND THE APPARENT NEED FOR A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS REQUIRED BY THE NEW ORDINANCE RELATING TO ALL PROPERTIES IN THE CITY EXCEPT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. Dear Mayor and City Council, Kevin Northcraft, Charles Vose, and Michael Schubach: I hereby request that the City Council have a public hearing regarding the need for a precise development plan for the new Mobil gas station and car wash proposed on Pacific Coast Highway at 9th Street. •I believe the applicants need to apply for a precise development plan since they did not obtain a building permit for their development project by the November 1990 deadline. This time around I would appreciate it if Mr. Reckstiener would answer the questions that I raised in my letter of June 12, 1990, regarding this matter. (see attached letter marked Exhibit "A"). I raised these questions again at the city council meeting regarding the appeal in this matter and Mr. Reckstiener never even bothered to answer any of the questions that I raised or the statements that I had made. I would like to know why Mr. Reckstiener didn't have to answer my questions. Why should we have public testimony sections in the various hearings in the city if people do not need to respond,. to legitimate questions? Our hearings are not really hearings. That's all I can say, for many times questions that are raised are never:, answered by the city council or by other parties involved in the public hearings. Questions should be answered in this matter and in other matters before the council, and to ignore questions is just wrong. The Council should have required Mr. Reckstiener to answer the questions and Ihope that the Council will require him to answer the questions during the precise development plan process. espectfully; R Herriott attachment PARKER R. HERRIOTT 224 - 24th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 June 12, 1990 Mayor and City Council Kevin Northcraft, City Manager Charles Vose, City Attorney Michael Schubach, Planning Director City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 89-5 to allow the replacement of an existing service station/snack shop with 16 new gas pumps, a 24-hour snack bar and a self-service automatic car wash (free or pay wash) Dear Mayor and City Council, Kevin Northcraft, Charles Vose, and Michael Schubach: On October 17, 1968, my brother Marshall York Herriott was tragically killed in a so- called "accident" at the Shell Oil Refinery in Carson, California. My brother trusted Shell Oil to give him a safe working place. Shell Oil never should have been trusted. Most big oil companies care more about profits than people. Therefore, I hereby request the City Council to look very closely at this mega gasoline car wash station in regards to the health, welfare and safety of the users of the gas station and the residents who live next door to the gas station. I hope that the City Council requires Mr. Brian Recksteiner to be responsive to the following questions: 1) How much will the 16 -pump gas station increase in sales over the existing gas station? 2) How many 16 -pump gas stations does Mobil have? 3) For refineries and gas stations, how many accidents, claims, or citations from CaIOSHA, and the Air Quality Management District has Mobil Oil had over the last year in Los Angeles County? 4) How many of these mega gas stations does Mobil have now? 5) Does Mobil Oil have to have a building permit application on file with all the required plans, etc., in order to avoid the Precise Development Plan review? „A 6 Does Mobil Oil have to go to the South Coast Air Quality Management District before coming to Hermosa? When asked the question recently at a Planning Commission meeting by one of the Planning Commissioners "what kind of increase in sales are you projecting with this type of increase with the gas station?", Mr. Recksteiner stated "We don't know. Hopefully we will have some." And then he went on to ignore the question and stated the following: "We do not generate traffic. What we hope to do and what we bet on when we build this station is that we can attract more people that are going by the intersection to come in and buy from us rather than going down the street and buying from someone else People don't drive across town to just buy gasoline." Mr. Recksteiner should have answered the question. Surely, he has an idea of how much they expect to make with increased sales; and if he doesn't have any idea, someone should be able to have that information for the City Council in the future. I called today and talked with Mr. Gore of Mobil Oil in Burbank and he said there was going to be an increase of people using the gas station, since it will be a new station, new snack shop, car wash, etc. But Mr. Gore's answer didn't supply any figures and we should have those figures from Mobil Oil. It is very difficult to determine the impact of this gas station without having an environmental impact review being required. We do know, though, this gas station calls for an increase from 4 gas pumps to 16 gas pumps, which means the capacity has quadrupled --which means we have gone from 4 motor vehicles sitting at gas pumps to 16 motor vehicles sitting at gas pumps at any one given time. And, of course, the car wash will have the capacity for one automobile per minute and with the hours of operation, about 12 hours per day, I would imagine there will be about 360 car washes a day. Having this gas station open 24 hours a day will endanger the life of the gas station clerk/cashier and also endanger the lives of people using the gas station besides the people who live nearby in the event that a holdup is ever attempted at this gas station. We should not allow this to be a 24-hour gas station operation because of the inherent danger of this type of operation. Remember, there are problems now with the existing gas station with noise from people who use the station from 5 a.m. to 11 p.m. and this is not fair to the neighbors who have to put up with all the noise of door slammings, car starting, people yelling, loud music, and motor vehicle fumes: An 8 ft. wall should be built on the west property line to protect the residents even if this new gas station is denied, to protect the residents from the existing 4 -pump gas station as well. There should be installed a "NO RIGHT TURN" sign as one exits the gas station onto 9th Street to steer all traffic towards Pacific Coast Highway and away from the residential area --because of existing traffic hazards on 9th Street and If this gas station is allowed to go from four to sixteen gas pumps, there will be potentially four times the amount of carcinogen benzene to be released into the air, especially if a person "tops off" their gas tank where the gas vapors escape into the air. People will top their gas tanks off no matter what, as long as the nozzles allow gas to come out of the hose even when there is not a tight seal. Gas also goes onto the ground, creating release of vapors. A few questions to think about: 1) Would you want to live next to this gas station? 2) Do you think Mr. Recksteiner would want to live next to this gas station? 3) Do you think it is fair to have others be subjected to an unreasonable expansion by the Mobil Oil Company? We know Mobil Oil just defeated the ban on hydrofluoric acid at their Torrance Refinery last year. They spent over a million dollars to defeat the Dan. Walker Initiative. In Redondo Beach the City Council recently sided with the residents who objected to expansion plans for the Unocal Gas Station located at Torrance Blvd. and Pacific Coast Highway. They denied Unocal's request to expand hours of -operation and expand their service. I hope that you all review this appeal very carefully and use your finest judgement in arriving at a decision for the residents, to protect the residents, and to say no to insensitive big business projects like this Mobil Oil 16 -pump gas station/car wash. Cars getting gas would allow for 16 cars every five minutes, which would mean 80 cars per hour; 24 hours per day x 80 cars per hour = 1920 cars per day = 700,800 cars per year, plus car washes of 131,400 per year = 832,200 vehicles into the station per year. Respectfully, Parker R. Herriott /, MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, December 11, 1990, at the hour of 7:36 P.M. CLOSED SESSION - The closed session was held at 6:05 P.M. pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) regarding matters of litigation: LaFay vs City of Hermosa Beach; Government Code Section 54956.9(b) regarding matters of potential litigation; and, Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding real property negotiations for City yard lease/tidelands oil lease with Macpherson Oil. The session was adjourned at 7:08 P.M. to the regular scheduled public meeting. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Robert Essertier, Councilmember ROLL CALL Present: Creighton, Essertier, Wiemans, Mayor Sheldon Absent: Midstokke ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Sheldon announced that this meeting would be adjourned in memory of Edward Edwards, former Hermosa Beach mayor. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Coming forward to address the Council were: June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue, questioned what property the City planned to purchase as open space with the proceeds of the Biltmore site sale (re: application to the Coastal Commission) Mayor Sheldon referred the question to staff. Wilma Burt 1152 Seventh Street, questioned if citizens were still allowed to speak on consent calendar items under the new agenda policies, and wants minutes to specify actual geographic location of all areas discussed. Mayor Sheldon referred the matter to staff and stated that he would allow questions on consent calendar items for this meeting. Roger Bacon - 1100 Pacific Coast Highway, thanked the City and staff for quickly removing graffiti. CONSENT CALENDAR Action: To approve the Consent Calendar recommendations (a) through (j), noting a no. vote by Wiemans on (g). Motion Essertier, second Creighton. So ordered. City Council Minutes 12-11"90 Page 7345 la Recommendation to approve minutes of regular meeting of the City Council held on November 27, 1990. Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants Nos. 35391, 35392,35393, 35394, and Nos. 35396 through 35523 inclusive, noting void warrants Nos. 35397 through 35412 inclusive, and No. 35455; and to cancel certain warrants as recommended by the City Treasurer. (Please note: Computer malfunction caused warrant Nos. 35397 through 35410 to be voided) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. Recommendation to receive and file the November, 1990 Monthly Investment Report Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #46903 for an 11 -Unit Condo at 603 First Street. Memo- randum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated December 3, 1990. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5425, entitled, 'IA RESOLUTION- OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL TRACT MAP #16903 FOR AN ELEVEN -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 603 FIRST STREET, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA." (f) Recommendation to modify the conditions in the CUP for Robert's Liquor located at 74 Pier Avenue. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated November 28, 1990, with revised Resolution for adoption. Action: To adopt Revised Resolution No. 90-5357, enti- tled, HA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ON APPEAL FOR 74 PIER AVENUE, ROBERT'S LIQUOR, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 14, BLOCK 12,,HERMOSA BEACH TRACT." (g) (h) Recommendation to review Final Housing Element document. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated December 3, 1990. Action: To receive and file the revisions to the Final Housing Element Document. Councilmember Wiemans recorded a no vote on this item. Recommendation to.approve lease agreement with Project Touch for Room "C". Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated December 3, 1990. Action: To approve the agreement between the City of .- Hermosa Beach and Project Touch to lease Room "C" in the City Council Minutes 12-11-90 Page 7346 (i) Community Center; (312 square feet x $.77) for $240 per month, from January 1, 1991, to June 30, 1991; and, (312 square feet x $.80) for $250 per month, from July 1, 1991, to December 31, 1991..,.,.. Recommendation to accept and file report re. Christmas Tree recycling plan. Memorandum from Building & Safety Director William Grove dated December 3, 1990. Action: To accept and file the agreement between Browning-Ferris and the City of Hermosa Beach to have a Christmas tree special pick-up for the entire City on Saturday, December 29, 1990, and to supply a bin on the City parking area of the self -storage lot, so the trees. could be shredded and used as composting for a landfill. There would be no extra charge for this service. (j) Recommendation to receive and file Community Center lease policy. Memorandum from Community Resources Direc- tor Mary Rooney dated December 4, 1990. Action: To receive and file the staff report. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES ORDINANCE NO. 90-1052, HAN ORDINANCE OF THE CITYOF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO A PROVI- SION REGULATING THE PARKING OF TRAILERS, SEMI -TRAILERS, CAMPER TRAILERS, AND RECREATIONAL TRAILERS." For adoption. Motion. :Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered. 3. ITEMS REMOVED; FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Letter from Roger Bacon re. traffic problems at Park Pacific Shopping Center, dated November 19, 1990; con- taining letter from Tom Gast, Director of Real Estate, Alpha Beta Company. (Staff Action: Referred to Traffic Committee). Supplemental letter from Janet E. Congle- ton, Manager of Security Pacific Bank, 1100-5 P.C.H., dated November 18, 1990. Coming forward to address the Council on this matter were: Roger Bacon - 1100 Pacific Coast Highway, of Park Pacific Shopping Center, Beverly Daughtry - 1100 Pacific Coast Highway, manager of Alpha Beta,, Doreen Yarson - 1100 Pacific Coast of Far West Savings, Janet Congleton - 1100 Pacific Highway, manager Coast Highway, City Council Minutes 12-11-90 Page 7347 manager of. Security Pacific Bank, and Chris Tsiboukas - 1100 Pacific Coast Highway, owner of Fabulous Char Burgers. All said that there was a severe problem for cus- tomer ingress and egress caused by the increased traffic on Pacific Coast Highway. Mayor Sheldon -directed staff to work with the traffic engineer and Cal -Trans to try to reach a compromise solution. The meeting recessed. at 8:10 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:16 P.M. ,PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPEAL AT 588 TWENTIETH STREET. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated December 4, 1990. Director Schubach presented the staff. The public hearing was opened.: Coming forward to address the Council was: Betty Ryan 588 Twentieth Street, property owner, requested that the reference to a three lot split of her property being detrimental to sur- rounding property values be deleted from find- ing D of the proposed Resolution. The public hearing was closed. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5426, entitled, "A_ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, MODIFYING THE PLANNINGCOMMISSION APPROVAL OF A THREE LOT SUBDIVISION AND, INSTEAD, AP- PROVING VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 21943 FOR A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION AT 588 20TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTHWESTERLY 1331 BY 120.75 PORTION OF LOT 9, BLOCK 71, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH.", as amended on page one, line 22, to delete the word "and", and to delete line 23 in its entirety. Motion Essertier, second Creighton. So ordered, noting the objection of Wiemans. 6. RECONSIDERATION OF PARAMEDIC FEES. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated December 3, 1990,. with Resolution for adoption. Director Copeland presented the staff report. The public -hearing was opened. Coming Council were forward to address the City Council Minutes 12-11-90 Page. 7348 Wilma Burt 1152Seventh Street, in favor of a fee for paramedic services; would rather pay our paramedics than wait for an ambulance. June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue, feels the fee for paramedic service is reasonable. Public Safety Director Wisniewski responded to Council questions and said that paramedic transport was at the discretion of the officers at the scene, but they usual- ly did not transport unless the •situation was life threatening as it would leave the City without paramedic coverage while they were gone. The public hearing was closed. Action: To receive and file. (Thereby leaving the schedule of fees unchanged) Motion Essertier, second Mayor Sheldon. So ordered, noting the objection of Creighton. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 7. SANITARY SEWERS REHABILITATION TARGET AREA 4, CIP 88- 406. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony An- tich dated December 5, 1990, with supplemental letter received November 19, 1990, from Colich and Sons, 547 West 140th Street, Gardena, CA 90248. (a) Award of Sanitary Sewer Construction Contract. Director Antich presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Coming forward to address the Council on this matter was: Mark Hagon - Attorney, representing Peter C. David, spoke of irregularities in the bid from Colich and Sons. Action: To approve the staff recommendations, with the exception of changing the time frame to 180 days,- to: 1) Select the construction contract time forthis project as 180 calendar days; 2) Waive the irregularity in Colich & Sons' bid for 180 calendar days thereby saving $32,403; said action being in the best interest of the City. 3) Authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with Colich & Sons (JV) for. Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation project, Capital Improvement Project 88-406 in the amount of $1,587,648. 4) Authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary within the budget limitations. Motion Essertier, second Creighton. So ordered. City Council Minutes 12-11-90 Page 7349 (b) Award of Sanitary Sewer Inspection Contract Director Antich presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) Authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement with BSI Consultants, Inc. for contract administra- tion and inspection services. 2) Authorize a not to exceed amount for BSI'. as follows: Inspection $ 45,200 Soils Testing 11,460 Contingency 5,660 Not to Exceed Amount $ 62,320 3) Authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary within budget limitations. Motion Essertier, second Creighton. So ordered. 8. CITY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 89-90. Memo- randum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated Decem- ber 5, 1990. Director Copeland presented the staff report 'and ,re- sponded to Council questions. (a) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (including report of independent auditor). (b) Letter to management from auditors. Action: To receive and file Motion Mayor Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. 9. STRAND SAFETY MEASURES ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW STRAND COMMITTEE. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated December 4, 1990. Director Wisniewski presented the staff report and re- •sponded to Council questions; Addressing the council on this matter was: June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue, who felt that another Strand Committee was unnecessary as there were numerous reports from previous committees. Action: Mayor Sheldon noted that 60% of the paramedic calls involved bicycles, agreed that there were ample suggestions and information from previous committees, and directed that a City Council sub -committee be formed of Councilmember Creighton and Mayor Sheldon to meet with staff, discuss and review this information, and report back to the Council. City Council Minutes 12-11-90 Page 7350 The meeting recessed at 9:40 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:51 P.M. 10. GENERAL SERVICES, PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAM AND CITY- WIDE PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM. Memo- randum from General Services Director Cynthia Wilson dated December5, 1990. Director Wilson presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to ap- propriate'funds in the amount of $3167 from the Parking Fund to initiate the .first of two phases of the Public Information Program for the General Services (G.S.) Department, to include: 1) Change the name from Parking Enforcement to Community Services; 2) Change the current Officer uniforms to blue at a cost of $2967;4: 3) Establish one-to-one dialogue with businesses, merchants, Chamber of Commerce, and City Commissions; 4) Participate in local Neighborhood Watch groups, schools, and other organization(s) meetings; 5) Provide in-house training and materials at a cost of $200; 6) Increase officer and supervisor accountability; and, 7) Provide periodic updates to Council on the sta- tus of the program. And, to approve the expenditure of funds for existing programs. Motion Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered. 11. RECOMMENDATION FOR TRIAL PROGRAM FOR ELECTRONIC HAND HELD CITATION WRITERS. Memorandum from General Services Director Cynthia Wilson dated December 5, 1990._ Director Wilson presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Supervisor Vince Balvin demonstrated the hand held cita- tion writer by issuing a mock "ticket" for Mayor Sheldon. Action: To approve the staff recommendation for the purchase of continuous form citations at a cost of $11,400 from the Parking Enforcement Office supplies account. The Clancy Hand Held Citation Writing System will be provided at no additional charge, on a four month trial basis (March — June, 1991), with the cita- tion purchase. And, to make the determination that this is a trial period for a service product that is ob- tainable from only one vendor. City Council Minutes 12-11-90 Page 7351 Motion Creighton, second Mayor Sheldon. So ordered. 12. RECOMMENDATION FOR A TASK FORCE FOR DEVELOPING CONSENSUS FOR A HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (NEW POLICIES. OF DEVELOPMENT). Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated November 28, 1990. Director Schubach presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to "au- thorize creation of a task force program; provide addi- tional funding at mid -year budget for extensive adver- tising; and, to advertise for task force applicants. Motion Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered, noting the objection of Wiemans. 13. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER City Manager Northcraft reported: 1) That Cal -Trans had announced their intention of removing parking on the west side of Pacific Coast Highway during the afternoon peak traffic hours starting February 1, 1991. Cal -Trans is taking this action independently of the City, as the City has not concurred with the action because the City has not been provided with the information that parking removal would provide. a benefit to anyone as well as the negative impact it would have on the affected busi- nesses. Staff will present its opinion, with input from the Chamber of Commerce, of the im- pact of this action at the City Council meeting of January 8, 1991; 2) This year's Tree Lighting ceremony went espe- cially well with double the attendance of last year; 3.) There will be a "Sand Snowman" contest, on the beach, on Saturday, December 15, 1990, from 10:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M.; and 4) There will be "Holiday Carols" on the beach on Wednesday, December 19, 1990, starting at 7:30 P.M. 14. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL - None 15. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL None CITIZEN COMMENTS Coming forward to address the Council was: Wilma Burt - 1152 -Seventh Street, concerned about the rate of water extraction presumed for the excavation of the Strand Hotel basement parking City Council Minutes 12-11-90 Page 7352 and the possibility of a subsidence problem for surrounding property. ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned on Tuesday, December 11, 1990, at the hour of 11:12 P.M., to a Regular Meeting to be held on Tues- day, January 8, 1991, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. Adjournment was in memory of Edward Edwards, former Mayor and council member from 1954 to 1959. Note: The December 11 meeting is the only scheduled regular City Council meeting in December. 0/ Deputy City Clerk City Council Minutes 12-11-90 Page 7353 January 3, 1991 Honorable Mayor and For the Meeting of Members of the City Council January 8, 1991 WARRANT LISTING Due to the holidays and the number of purchase ordersto be paid since there was not a second Council meeting in December, processing of payables for the January 8, 1991 Council meeting will be delayed. The list of demands and warrants will be available on Monday, January 7, 1991. Viki L. Copeland Finance Director Concur: Kevin B. Nor craft City Manager 1b Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council January 22, 1991 January 2, 1991 City Council Meeting of January 8, 1990 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS RFP for Computer system. 7/24 Review Rule XV & parking fees for employees in 6 months Annual report and review of City Goals Amendment to profession agreement for City Attorney services Council 11/13 Action Plan for. Wave Improvement Recommendation on VPD - request for meter money Recommendation on telephones in right-of-way. CATV ascertainment Street rehabilitation and slurry seal call for bids, CIP 89-114 and CIP 89-170 Recommendation to approve a contract for Street Lighting/Crossing Guard Assessment Districts Downtown revitalization Committee request to donate Palm trees Recycling bid award Peace Run City Mgr. 9/4 Recommendation on Council Chamber chairs Council 10/30 Beach volleyball court. report General Service Director Personnel Director City Manager City Manager Planning Director General Services Director General Services Director General Services Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Building and Sfty Dir. Community Resources Dir. Finance Director Public Works Dir. February 12, 1991 Mid -year Budget Review Finance Director Conceptual approval of Greenbelt steps March 12, 1991 Public Works Director Historical Society relocation alternatives Community Resources Dir. Utilization of Prospect School House Community Resources Dir. Goal 8 5/16 Options to increasing service level of street sweeping Public Works Dir. March 26, 1991 8/20 Gann limit - Appropriations subject to Finance Goal 2 5/16 Options to direct dial to City Hall Gen. Svcs. Dir. May 14, 1991 Project Touch Lease Renewal (Rm. 3) Community Resources Dir. June 11, 1991 Dispute Resolution Services Lease Renewal Community Resources Dir. Project Touch Lease Renewal (Rm. 11) Community Resources Dir. ***************************************************************** Upcoming Items Not Yet Calendared Caltrans utility maintenance 'agrmt. Public Works Director Vehicle parking on pedestrian streets Public Works Director Historic Preservation Ordinance (with Land Use Element) Planning Director Council 11/13 Place Biltmore referendum equivalent on next election Planning ***************************************************************** Initiated by Party Date Council 5/8 Council 5/8 Goal 4 Discuss financial arrangements on oil project City Manager Re. oil project CUP - define "temporary" as relates to height of project Planning Director 5/16 Options to computerize per- sonnel as part of payroll function Finance Director Goal 7 10/17 City Mgr. 7/24 Council 8/14 Council 8/14 City Mgr. 8/22 Council 10/9 Dept. 11/5 Dept. Review Fiesta cost/benefit Finance Director 3 -hr. vs. 2 -hr. parking meter limit in the downtown (refer to VPD) General Services Director Review of standard CUP conditions Planning Dir. Review ways to enforce no parking in front yards Public Works Dir. Joint meeting with Chamber of Commerce City Manager Map and time schedule for street sweeping Public Wks. Dir. Ordinance for new Chapter 19 of HBMC entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic" Public Works Dir. RFP for Traffic Engineer Public Works Dir. 11/5 Approval Process for South School Conceptual Design Comm. Res. Dir. Place Biltmore referendum equivalent on next called. election Planning Director Council 11/13 City Mgr. 12/17 City Mgr. 11/27 Photocopiers Public Safety. Director RFP for Health Ins. Broker done in comprehensive fashion Personnel Director. CITY TREASURER'S REPORT - NOVEMBER 1990 FUND GENERAL NUMBER ACCOUNT 11/1/90 BALANCE CASH ADJUSTMENTS WARRANTS ADJUSTMENTS 001 GENERAL 105 LIGHTING DISTRICT 109 VEHICLE PARKING DIST. 110 PARKING 115 -STATE GAS TAX 120 COUNTY GAS. TAX 125 PARK REC.FAC.TAX 126 RAILROAD RT.OF WAY 127 6%'UTILITY USERS TAX 140. CDBG 145 PROPOSITION A FUND 150 GRANT FUND • 155 CROSSING GUARD DISTRICT 160 SEWER MAINTENANCE 170 POLICE. ASSET SEIZURE 180 FIRE PROTECTION FUND 305 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT -705 SELF.INSURANCE FUND TRUST ACCOUNTS $1,831,534.23 1,392,236.97 44,426.40 292,204.31 733,301.41 23,223.88 1,732,472.20 527,432.13 7,567.99 127,459.21 378,150.38 <576.22> 52,607..53 1,703,650.20 92,861.48 316,366.36 1,610,283.92 323,141.14 $11,188,343.52 $ 638,538.45 3,322.06 12,706.25 161,543.21 8,340.66 - 0- 25,740.00 68,977.80 103,466.69 - 0- 15,962.00 - 0- 908.12 2,139.24 35,915.32 85,850.50 70.00 119.53 $1,163,599.83 $152,777.39 683.34 1,263.81 143.42 359.92 11.40 850.34 4,807.69 3.71 -0- 185.61 -0- 25 .82 67,866.87 45 .58 155 .28 591,290.45 66,540.00 $887,010.63 $732,212.23 23,075.98 5,715.71 75,389.94 - 0- -0- -0- 378.41 0--0- -0378.41 - 0- 578.64 4,815.99 939.03 5,582.14 9,583.22 20,751.04 - 0- 22,250.66 42,200.78 $ 943,473.77 $.72,218.77 2,897.11 1,407.03 115 ,,604 .22 115,580.42 2,903.42 289,985.00 -0-. 112,861 .83 -0- 90.00 14,684.00 234.00 153,901.54 1,125.00 -0- 3,498.43 19.86 $887,010.63 11/30/90 BALANCE $1,818,419.07 1,370',269.28 51,273.72 262,896.78 626,421.57 20,331.86 1,469,077.54 600,839.21 <1,823.44> 126,880.57 389,392.00 <16,199.25> 47,725.33 1,610,171.55 106,946.34 402,372.14 2,175,895.28 347,580.03 $11,408,469.58 BALANCE RECEIVED PAID BALANCE STATEMENT BALANCE PAYROLL $10,287,035-.16 INACTIVE DEPOSIT $2,511.61 $557,982.18 $517,875.32 INACTIVE DEPOSIT HELD BY FISCAL AGENT RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY $405,620.75 INTEREST RECEIVED TO DATE $614,962.80 $615,560.30 $1,914.11 GARY BRUT DECEMBER H, CITY REASURER , 1990 GENERAL PAYROLL OUTSTANDING CHECKS INACTIVE DEPOSIT BALANCE $ 723,229.78 3,825.36 727,055.14 161,688.79 565,366.35 10,845,017.34 11,410,383.69 ld /e -e -e-//' December 20, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of January 8, 1991 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORTS, NOVEMBER 1990 Attached are the November 1990 financial reports. Revenue for the General Fund is 29.4% for 41.67% of the year. Adjusting for property taxes, the revenue would be 42.0% received. Over $100,000 of this revenue, however, is attributed to the unusually large project for the hotel. Parking Fund revenue is slightly ahead of budget at 42.1%. All revenue will be reviewed and ad- justed if necessary at Midyear Review. Expenditures are under budget in both the General and Parking Funds. For 41.67% of the year, General Fund expenditures are 38.6% and Parking Fund expenditures are 39.9%.. Appropriations too, will be examined at Midyear Review. Concur: Kevin B. North raft Viki Copeland Finance Director City Manager Attachments VC/so `FINANCE-FA484 TIME -17:51:18 FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION 001 GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENT 0000 IS IG r- 17 IG 1Do frp 21 3100 TAXES 3101 3102 3103 • 3106 3107 31.08 • 3110 3111 3112 3113 3114 3115 OBJECT SUBTOTAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY REMIT Ciiy FUND) FROM 11/01/90 -TO,11/30/90 EST REV MONTHLY REV • YEAR TO DATE PAGF .0001. DATE 12/13/90 41.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZ BALANCE /CURRENT•YEAR SECURED /CURRENT YEAR UNSECURED /PRIOR YEAR COLLECTIONS /SUPPLEMENTAL ROLLSB813 /TRANSFER TAX /SALES TAX /CABLE TV FRANCHISE /ELECTRIC FRANCHISE ./GAS FRANCHISE /REFUSE FRANCHISE /TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY 3, 035, 712. 00 207, 756. 00 53, 000. 00 .; 80, 000. 00 116, 244.00 1, 929, 824. 00 114, 000. 00 39. 882. 00 29, 603. 00 147, 000. 00 277._175._00 425, 000. 00 6, 455, 196. 00 /BUSINESS LICENSE 3200 LICENSES AND PERMITS 3202 /DOG LICENSES 3203. _ ./BICYCLE LICENSES LICENSES 3204 /BUILDING PERMITS • 3205 /ELECTRIC PERMITS 3206 /PLUMBING PERMITS 3207 /OCCUPANCY PERMITS 3209 /GARAGE SALES 3211 --- -----._-_-- ---•-•-----/BANNER..._ PERMITS " 3212 /ANIMAL/FOWL PERMITS 4S [14: 51 51. 0. 00 0. 00 3, 035, 712. 00 0. 0 0 00 '185,967 55 21,.788_45 H4.. 5. 4. 578. 43 48. 421. 57 8. 6 44, 390. 28 0.00 Q OQ 204, -500. 00 ate. Is r. 0. 00 80. 000. 00 • 0. 0 31, 043..39___ 85, 200..61 26..2 736, 478. 19" 1, 193, 345. 81 38. 1 27, 926. 12 58, 536: 69 55, 463. 31. 51. 3 4 -SIC/ Q-00 39..882._00_ .0_.O_ 0. 00 0. 00 29, 603. 00 0. 0 23, 491. 81 58, 012. 33 811..987. 67 39. 4 42, 692 03__.___106/.616- 73 1.70,.558. 27. .38..4 15, 408. 49 169, 209. 33 255, 790. 67 39. S 358, 408. 73 1, 350, 442. 64 5. 104, 753. 36 20. 9 7 17# 107. 00 1, 476. 00 12, 390. 00 4, 717. 00 72. 4 300 00 0 00._. 45 _0Q 255 on 15 O 170, 000. 00 91, 128.65 139, 344. 40 30, 655. 60 81. 9 40. 000. 00 2, 154. 00 10, 119. 00 29, 881 00 25. 2 321000. 00._x -739....00 9,163 00 22,837 00 28..6____ 4, 600. 00 24. 00 .. 3, 600. 00 1, 000. 00 78. 2 21.00 66.00 14.00 82.5 5(._00= 200 00 _1._100.00 15 3 50.00- 300.00 500.00 37.5 180. 00 1, 944. 00 1, 556. 00 55. 5 — — 0.00 �760.CM_ --- :_.. 220. 00-.--`---.140-.7.___.: -. 95, 622. 65 177, 931. 40 92. 295. 60 65. 8 3213 /ANIMAL REDEMPTION FEE 3214 /AMPLIFIED SOUND PERMIT OBJECT SUBTOTAL 3300 FINES & FORFEITUR 3301 3303 ES /VEHICLE CODE VIOLATIONS /COURT FINES/POLICE DEPT 80. 00 1,..300. 00 . 800. 00 3, 500. 00 _ _..5.40., 00 270. 227. 00 z,I 115, 000. 00 2. 971. 98 54, 113. 31 - 51, 000. 00 11, 857. 68 28, 595. 79 OBJECT SUBTOTAL .166, 00Q. 00"�_.-_-_,_ 14, 82i, 66.________ ... .824.709...10.____ 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 _ /INTEREST INCOME 194.701 00 3402 /RENTS & CONCESSIONS 2,000.00 10, 700. 00 /COMM CTR LEASES. __84.000.00_ /COMM CTR RENTALS 52,000.00 3403 /PIER. REVENUE 3404 3405 3406 3412 . /COMM CTR THEATRE /OTHER FACILITIES /TENNIS COURTS 38, 000. 00 24, 000. 00 12, 000. 00 60, 886. 69 22. 404. 21 _.. 83. 290. 90..... 47. 0 56. 0 49.8 2.476._04- __36,_483._00________15a, 218._.00 __.____ 18.7.___-.. 429. 29 1, 637. 44 362. 56 81. 8 I' 1, 272. 00 6, 418. 00 4, 282. 00 59. 9 8, 903. 60-----_-37,133. 83 _-._-_-.46, 266. 17 -- 44. 9 _— 5, 322. 00 22, 175. 75 29, 824. 25 42. 6 2, 099. 00 9, 691. 00 28, 309. 00 25. 5 . -2,_697,-00__ 10,280._65._______13:719. 35 .-----..42..8 _-_ 1, 359. 75 4, 986. 45 7. 013. 55 41. 5 • I - • 1 r 7 0• - 0 110 FINANCE-FA484 TIME 17: 51: 18 FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION 001 GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENT 0000 0: '4 I 0, 11-0 0.0 11!•1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE • 0002 FROM 11/01/90 'TO 11/30/90 DATE 12/13/90 , 41.07. OF YEAR COMPLETE Alb, _________-_..._.._ .._...- _. __,....... _ _ ___ . UNREALIZED .:.......--___,..j EST REV .- MONTHLY REV:- YEAR TO DATE . BALANCE '•,.. 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3418 /SPECIAL EVENTS 38, 000. 00 984. 80 16. 716. 80 ' 21. 283. 20 43.9 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 455. 401. 00 . 20,59140 146: 122..92 _ _ _-._307L 278._08_____-_,32.0.__- ' - i. 3500 INTERGOVERNMENTAL/STATE r, '...., 3504 /IN LIEU OFF HIGHWAY 333.00 0 00 188._e2 4411a_ 56 7 2:1 3505 /IN LIEU MOTOR VEHICLE 734, 614. 00 54, 297. 16 286: 883. 97 447, 730. 03 39.0 3507 /HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE 3, 000. 00 0. 00 1,294. 06 1. 705. 94 43. 1 3508 /MANDATED COSTS 0. 00 0. 00 q,....p02. oo 3, 502.00- o 0 -' 3509 /HOMEOWNER PROP TX RELIE 65,, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 65. 000. 00 0. 0 3510 /POST 42, 000. 00 18. 068. 54• 28. lla. 83 13, 881. 17 66. 9 ,,..... 3511 /STC -SVC OFF TRAINING EL 500. 00 0. 00 0 90 __8, 500.00 3514 /CIGARETTE TAX 37, 207. 00 3. 953. 29 15. 858. 65 21. 348. 35 42. 6 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 890, 654. 00 76, 318. 99 335, 846. 33 554, 807. 67 37.7 . 4... i43 • 27, :7 14,-3 .30 31 f::44 " 0 47 413 40 I • 50 51 52 • 53 , 54 55 • 3800 CURRENT SERVICE CHARGES 3801 /RESIDENTIAL INSPECTION 9.000,00 . ' 680. 00 3/ 560. 00 5. 440. 00 39. 5 3802 . . .... /SIGN REVIEW 1, 000. 00 50.00 600, 00 400, 00. - 60.0 3803 /ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT '6, 075. 00 1, 150. 00 4. 920. 00 1. 155. 00 - 80. 9 3806i /BOARD OF APPEALS 300. 00 O. 00 O. 00 300. 00 O. 0 ...., 3808 (ZONE VARIANCE REVIEW1; 920 00 O. 00 1.280. 00_ _ __640. 00 _. __ _. 66. 6 3009 /TENTATIVE MAP REVIE14-----------5. 650: 00 ' O. 00 1: SOO. 00 4, 050. 00 30. 7 3810 /FINAL MAP REVIEW 2. 250. 00 125. 00' 1, 625. 00 625. 00 72. 2 3811 /ZONE CHANGE REVIEW . 1. 800. 00 0: 00 3812 450. 00 1/ 350...00 ___--25. 0 3813 /CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW 23. 250. 00 lt 600. 00 11.227,00 12. 023. 00 48. 2 3814 /PLAN CHECK FEES 105, 000. 00 6. 799. 80 102. 398. 72 2. 601. 28 97. 5 3815 - /PLANNING/ZONING APPEAL 2. 132. 00 ' 0.00 1, 066. 00 1, 066. 00._____ 50. 0 /PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES 10, 000. 00 lo 359. 43 3817 /SPECIAL CURB MARKING 300.00 9. 103. 95 896. 05 91. 0 6, 2Z(5):1CT 3818 ' O. 00 . 200. 00 33. 3 '. /POLICE SERVICES 17, 000. 00 7, 632. 50 2t 724 82 3819 /JAIL SERVICES 10, 200. 00 O. 00 3, 130. 00 7, 070. 00 30. 6 3820 3821 /TRUSTY ADMIN FEE 200. 00 340. 00 . , 1.120. 00 920. 00- 560. 0 . /FINGERPRINT SERVICE . 2, 500. 00 . 11p. oo - ---- ' 1/ 171. 00 1. 329. 00 -- _ 46. S._-- 3823 /SPECIAL EVENT SECURITY 45. 000. 00 2, 534. 00 ; 13, 796. 00 31. 204. 00 30. 6 3824 /VEHICLE INSPECTION FEES 3. 000. 00 . 204. 00 . 1.590.0O 1, 410. 00 53.0 3825 /PUBLIC NOTICE POSTING 80. OQ 0, 00 __44 00 50 Org. 2g 3826 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES 41, SOO. 00 1, 016. 75 18. 23s 776. 80 43.1 3827 /LIBRARY GROUNDS MAINT 4. 788. 00 61 O. 00 A. 788. 00 3831 . /STREET CUT INSPECTION - 15, 000. 00 . _ 1: 975. 00 ....... ?, 4q?. la w,,(C:1). 001it100. 0 , 64 2 - •-: : 3834 . /ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 17. 600. 00 1, 748. 50 :. :. . St 394. 90 .- ' ': .-. 9/ 205. 10 47.6 3836 /FUMIGATION INSPECT FEE . 7t 500. 00 . 479. 40 ..- :... 2, 453. 00 ': .:.% ' s ' 5s 047. 00 ' 32. 7 3837 /RETURNED CHECK CHARGE 3838 /SALE OF MAPS/PUBLICATIO 800. 00 80000. " PO_QP -'R60 00" ' 544.-00-----22 16.80 301. SOI - 498. 20 37.7 0 • 0 . 4)- FINANCE-FA484 REVENUE SUMMARY REPQRT (ZY__FU4D)0003_ (' Fr;2% TIME 17:51:15 FROM 11/01/90 TO 11/30/90 12/13/90 !. 41 0/ OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED FUNDOBJ DESCRIPTION EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE7. 144; CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 4.0 43. 001 GENERAL FUND ----- DEPARTMENT 0000 01:7 [15. 0 •, 3800 CURRENT SERVICE CHARGES 3839 /PHOTOCOPY CHARGES 1, 000. 00 46. 25 573. 70 426. 30 57. 3 114/0 3840 /AMBULANCE TRANSPORT 8, 500.00, 65. 00_ _2/.670. 50 _5/ 829. 50_31. 4 _---1:: 3841 /POLICE TOWING 26, 500. 00 2, 012. 50 12, 907. 60 13/ 592. 40 48. 7 "I 3856 /GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 900. 00 0. 00 900. 00 0. 0 • V;e0 3857 /PKG PLAN APPLICATION 960.00 0 00 • 3858 /TENANT REFUSE BILLING 200.00 0.00 60.00 120.00 40.0 1 3859 /REFUSE LIEN FEE 500. 00 979. 24 1, 890. 86 1. 390. 86- 378. 1 I. 3861 /HAZARDOUS MAT PERMIT .2. 000. 00 0 00 0 00_2, 000. 00 0 0 1' 3862 /ALARM PERMIT FEE 11000. 00 90. 00 410. 00 590. 00 41. 0 !- • 3863 /FALSE ALARM FEE 0.00 300.00 900.00 900. 00- 0.0 k k... 3866 /NONCONFORMING REMODELS 3, 200 00 0 00 320. 00- 2. 880. 00 .10. 4 3867 /PRECISE DEVLMNT PLANS 320. 00 0. 00 0. 00 320. 00 0. 0 3868 '- /PUBLIC NOTICING/300 FT 50, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 no, 000. 00 0. 0 3869 ' /2nd PARTY FEE 0. 00 _ O. 00 994. 20. 994. 20- -0. 0. OBJECT SUBTOTAL 430, 225. 00 311349. 17 237/ 859. 74 192/ 365. 26 55.2 3900 OTHER REVENUE 1-' 3901 /SALE OF REAL/PERS PROP 8/ 000. 00 0. 00 11, 374. 00 3: 374. 00- 142.1 0 3902 /REFUNDS/REIMB PREV YR 500. 00 13, 496. 00 23, 727. 80 23/ 227. 80- 4745. 5 3903 /CONTRIBUTIONS NON GOVT 5, 000. 00 1,..s3o. 00 2. 00- 23: 66124.. 7134 ________ 1, 387. 66 __ _ 72.2 3904 /GENERAL MISCELLANEOUS 500. 00 2. 114. 73- 522. 9 4) - 3908 . /DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION 40/ 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 40, 000. 00 0. 0 k...' 3955 OPERATING TRANSFERS IN 1/ 601, 034, 00 - 1--4 3 OBJECT SUBTOTAL l'e 655/.034. 00 1483L12 451./763 83 710, 467. 82 944, 566. 18 42. 9 DEPT 0000 TOTALS 10, 322, 737, 00 745, 57R 4a a, 041 t 372..45 7, 281, 357. 05 .29 4 11.17 CP.2 42 • FUND TOTAL 10, 322, 737. 00 745i 572. 43 3, 041: 379. 95 7, 281, 357. 05 40 FINANCE-FA484 TIME" 17:51: 18 FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION 105 LIGHTING DISTRICT FUND .DEPARTMENT 0000 3100 TAXES 3101 3103 _ OBJECT SUBTOTAL 0 20 21 • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ' REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 11/01/90 TO 11/30/90 EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE PAGE-_0004 DATE 12/13/90 41.0. OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED BALANCE %. CA 0 lia ffil ]Ia 1 6I /CURRENT YEAR SECURED /PRIOR YEAR COLLECTIONS 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 OBJECT SUBTOTAL - DEPT 0000 296, 124. 00 O. 00 O. 00 296, 124. 00 . O. 0 5, 000. 00 3, 316. 28 15, 694. 25 10&.694.25- 313._.8_ 301, 124. 00 3, 316.28 15, 694. 25 285, 429. 75 5. 2 /INTEREST INCOME 74, 525. 00 74, 525. 00 683. 34 683.34 25, 874. 42 25, 874. 42 48, 650. 58 48, 650. 58 34. 7 34. 7 TOTALS 375, 649. 00 3. 999. 62 41, 568. 67 334, 080. 33 11. 0 023 24 23 27 23 ®- 30 FUND TOTAL 375, 649. 00 3, 999. 62 41, 568.67 334, 080. 33 11. 0 33 11'y F L 0 1146 v � ii 34 33 36 37 ®:6 39 140 0.31 `42 .0 ®.43 45 46 e47 40 40 0 30 51 35 6 • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-FA484 REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT. .(BY..EUND L (' TIME 17:51:18 FROM 11/01/90 TO 11/30/90 FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION 13 109 VEHICLE PARKING DIST ®�� DEPARTMENT 0000 4).1 0.1 EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE PAGE.. _0005._,_ DATE 12/13/90 ' 41.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED- _____ BALANCE 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 3407 /INTEREST INCOME. : O. 00 21. 81 383. 15 383. 15- 0. 0 _ /PARKING LOT RENTAL 14, 966. 00 2..484 00___ 7, 687. 92 . 7. 278. 08 51.:.3__ 3409 VEHICLE PKG DIST/LOT B 22, 990. 00 1, 915. 84 9, 579. 20 13. 410. 80 41. 6 3413 VEHICLE PKG DIST/VPD LEASE 66, 084. 00 5. 143. 21 44, 062. 93. 22, 021.07 66. 6 OBJECT _SUBTOTAL 104, 040 00 9, 564 86 61..713_20 __ 42. 326. 80.___.___59. 3-- 3600 CURRENT SERVICE CHARGES 3845 /VPD LOT PERMITS/DAILY._., 3846 %VPD LOT PERMITS/MONTHLY 3847 VEHICLE PKG DIST/VALIDATION STAMPS OBJECT SUBTOTAL DEPT 0000 TOTALS • 7, 771. 00 10, 985. 00 1. 062. 60 3, 976. 31 7. 008. 69 36. 1 22, 000. 00 2. 403. 16 10. 200. 25 11, 799. 75 46. 3 144, 796. 00 13, 970. 06 80, 060. 70 64/ 735. 30 55. 2 FUND TOTAL 144, 796,.00 13.97.0._06.___-_._..$0...960....7_0_____..__._.64. 735..30.._ - 55. 2 IIC o •. 1: r ®'i 1-1 FINANCE-FA484 TIME 17:51:18 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 11/01/90 TO 11/30/90 FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION 110 PARKING FUND DEPARTMENT 0000 EST REV ti; PAGE_ . 0006 DATE 12/13/90 41.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE I. q.Z. --------...------------------------....----.UNREALIZER__._._��,. MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE 3300 FINES & FORFEITURES 3302 /COURT FINES/PARKING 1, 351, 000.00 92, 660. 49 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 1, 351, 000.00 92, 660.49 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY _ - 3401 /INTEREST INCOME 3407 /PARKING LOT RENTAL 3409 /LOT B 3413 /VPD LEASE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 3800 CURRENT SERVICE CHARGES 3842 /PARKING METERS 15, 510. 00 7, 200. 00 0. 00 0. 00 22, 710. 00 559, 591.02 791, 408. 98 41.4 559/P91,02 143. 42 5,891, 91 642. 00- 1, 558. 00 0. 00 - 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 498. 58- 7, 449. 91 3843 ' /PARKING PERMITS:ANNUAL 3844/DAILY PARKING PERMITS 3845 /VPD LOT PERMITS/DAILY 3846 /VPD LOT PERMITS/MONTHLY 3847 /VALIDATION STAMPS 3848 3849 3850 OBJECT 700, 000. 00 51, 741. 72 185, 000. 00 1, 070. 50 1, 234. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00-- 0, 00 00,00 0,00 9,.618. 09 _37. 9 5, 642. 00 21. 6 0. 00 0. 0 15, 260.09 32.8 365, 640. 61 334, 359. 39 52. 2 17, 171.00 167, 829.00 9.2 1,640.-00 _ ------406. 00-._-._._132. 9 25.00. 25.00- . 0.0 Of -00 O. 00 O. 0 0 00__ . O. 0 0 00 /DRIVEWAY PERMITS 1,032.00 30.50 149.50 473. OQ /CONTRACTOR'S PERMITS 720.00•_ 180.00 1,360.00 SUBTOTAL 888, 738.00 53, 071.72 386, 457.11 /GUEST PERMITS 752. 00 49. 00 3900 OTHER REVENUE 3902 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 882. 50 2279. 00 _640. 00- 502, 278. 89 14. 4 62. 8 188.6 43. 4 /REFUNDS/REIMB PREV YR DEPT 0000 TOTALS k7 0 FUND TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 687. 70 687. 70 687. 70- 0. 0 687. 70- 0. 0 2, 262, 448. 00 145, 233. 63 954, 187. 74 1, 308, 260. 26 42. 1 2, 262, 448. 00 145, 233. 63 954,187.74- 1, 308, 260. 26 42. 1 F I NANCE-FA484 . i' I TIME 17: 51: 18 i1 I -i FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION 11.5. STATE GAS TAX FUND DEPARTMENT -0000 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 0. ' 3401 /INTEREST INCOME 19, 360.00 359.92 15, 591.50 3, 768.50 80.5 j" OBJECT SUBTOTAL 19,.360. 00_ ___ _ _359,92_ -___ 15, 591. 50 ----- -- - ...-.. 3, .763. 50 ._____ .._80. 5_. __ 0 0 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ! REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT __SU FUND) FROM 11/01/90 TO 11/30/90 EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE 7.. PAGE 0007___ DATE 12/13/90 41.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE -UNREALIZED__ 3 Illy . ®' 3500 INTERGOVERNMENTAL/STATE j`'_- __-_.3501__ -._. /SECTION_2106 ALLOCATION_-___ 83, 299. 00 8, 833..00-_._ 27, 888. 84 ____ I: 3502 /SECTION 2107 ALLOCATION 174, 268. 00 0. 00 57, 226. 41 ®d 3503 /SECT 2107.5 ALLOCATION 4, 000. 00 0. 00 4, 000. 00 _____ __ 3512 _ /SECTION 2105 (PROP 111 )_______-. O. 00 ,__^___8, 340. 66_---_._.11, 230. 59.:.-_-- .' 3522 /TDA ARTICLE 3 (58821) 451, 656. 00 0. 00 ®' OBJECT SUBTOTAL 0.00 � 713, 223. 00 492. 34- 100, 345. 84 DEPT 0000 TOTALS 732, 583. 00 132. 42- 115, 937. 34 FUND TOTAL ®_ 732, 583.00 132.42— 115, 937.34 55, 410...16:_._.. --.-33..4.-- 117, _---._117, 041. 59 32. 8 0. 00 100. 0 11, 230. 59—.- _ _ ._ O. 0 451, 656. 00 0. 0 612, 877. 16 14. 0 616, 645. 66 15. 8 616, 645. 66 15.8 1: FINANCE—FA484 - -- TIME 17:51:18 FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION ®, jc 120 COUNTY GAS TAX FUND ® s i., FT", 0„ ii ®: DEPARTMENT 0000 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 11/01/90 TO 11/30/90 EST REV MONTHLY REV PAGE 0008 DATE 12/13/90 41.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED. ------- YEAR TO DATE BALANCE 7. 3401 /INTEREST INCOME 1,466.00 11.40 515.33 ' i OBJECT SUBTOTAL �.. 1,466.00 -_._._.._ 11.40,_ DEPT 0000 TOTALS 1.466.00 11.40 515.33 FUND TOTAL 1,466.00 40 90. 67 35. 1 950. 67 33. 1 950. 67..----- 35_...1. ---- , i CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE—FA484 REVENUE_$UMMARY_REPORT SBY_EUNDJ PAGF non!? TIME 17:51:18 FROM 11/01/90 'TO 11/30/90 DATE 12/13/90 41.0/ OF YEAR COMPLETE t 1NREAL I'ZED EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE Z 3 FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION s ®11 12 125 PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES FUND DEPARTMENT 0000 13 110 4)1' 0 21 22 . •23 24 3100 TAXES 3116 OBJECT SUBTOTAL Y1 ei 61 /PARK REC FACILITY TAX 17, 500. 00 17, 590. OQ 0. 00 8, 580. 00 8, 920. 00 49. 0 Q QQ 8,58Q Q0 8,92Q Q0 49 0 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 /INTEREST INCOME 761.129 00 850-24 12,414-5/ 43,214 49 43 ? OBJECT SUBTOTAL 850.34 76. 129. 00 3900 OTHER REVENUE 3910 /PARK/RECREATION :IN LIEU 130,000.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 130,000.00 32, 914. 51 43, 214.49 43.2 Slav 1F.• :71 2▪ 1i 25, 740. 00 25, 740. 00 68, 640. 00 68, 640. 00 61, 360. 00 52. 8 61, 360. 00 52. 8 25 025 k7.7 7,3 31 152 173 134 C33 6 DEPT 0000 TOTALS 223, 629. 00 FUND TOTAL 223, 629. 00 26, 590. 34 110, 134. 51 113, 494. 49 49. 2 26, 590. 34 110, 134. 51 113, 494. 49 49.2 u„ z:• ,Vyr 2 43 0 - i e, .1] 40 3 0 0 0.-- 1t= FINANCE-FA484 TIME 17:51:18 FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION 126 UUT RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY FUND DEPARTMENT 0000 3100 TAXES 3120 OBJECT SUBTOTAL /UTILITY USER TAX 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3.401 /INTEREST INCOME OBJECT SUBTOTAL TOTALS ' CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY. REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE.... 0010 _. FROM 11/01/90 TO 11/30/90 DATE 12/13/90 ;.' 41.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE I. EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE 863, 766. 00 68, 977. 80 349, 233. 85 914, 932. 17 40. 4 863. 766. 00 ;68, 977,_80_.—_.349, 233...85..._____.__ 514. 532. 40. 077. 00 40, 077. 00 4,807,_69 4,807.69 11.707 lb 28,.369_.54__ 29_2_ 11.707.16 28, 369.84 29.2 903, 843. 00 73, 785. 49 350,E 91-1..01 542.701.97.. a FUND TOTAL 903, 843. 00 73, 785. 49 360, 941, 01 542, 901. 99 39. 9 ®:' i•® fes' !3( is 0» F I NANCE—FA484 TIME 17: 51: 18 FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION 127 67. UTILITY USER TAX FUND DEPARTMENT 0000 3100 TAXES ' 3120 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT__ .SBY__FUND)._ FROM 11/01/90 TO 11/30/90 EST REV MONTHLY REV PAGE _______0011 DATE 12/13/90 41.07. OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREAL I ZED_ ._________ .:. YEAR TO DATE BALANCE 1'` OBJECT SUBTOTAL •.:J 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY _3401 /INTEREST INCOME 6.876 00 3. 71 t' OBJECT SUBTOTAL 6, 876. 00 3. 71 /UTILITY USER TAX 1, 295, 658. 00 103, 466. 69 523, 850. B2 771, 807. 18 40. 4 1, 295, 658, AQ_ IQ3c..466..62__ __523, 850. _ 771.807. 19_._____._..40__4. A'' ®. I,c b3• c, 0 111 ®. ®•I 0• DEPT 0000 FUND TOTAL 8 34.9-19. 349. 19 6, 526. 81. 6, 526. 81 3.0 TOTALS • 1, 302, 534 00 X.03, 47.0._4Q.��:524 200..01 1, 302, 534. 00 103, 470. 40 524, 200. 01 778, 333. 99 40. 2 • ®.. 3s ®' ®' FINANCE-FA484 TIME 17:51:18 l II,� ®FTf: FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY. REPORT' (BY FUND) PAGE 0012,-, FROM 11/01/90 TO 11/30/90 DATE 12/13/90 41.07. OF YEAR COMPLETE r F:;. UNREALIZED j EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE Z 140 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND • DEPARTMENT 0000 3700 INTERGOVERNMENT/FEDERAL 3713 /HOUSING REHABILITATION 105,255.00 3715 /CDBG ADMINISTRATION_._ 11,695.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 116, 950. 00 DEPT 0000 0. 00 8, 831. 00 96, 424. 00 8. 3 0. 00 0. 00 12, 404. 00 -104, 546. 00 10. 6 TOTALS 116, 950. 00 0. 00 12, 404 FUND TOTAL 116, 950. 00 0. 00 . 12, 404. 00 104. 546. 00 10. 6 FINANCE-FA484 TIME 17:51:18 FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION 145 PROPOSITION 'A FUND DEPARTMENT -0000 3100 TAXES CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE, SUMMARY REPORT. . <BY FUND) PAGE. -___0013._ FROM 11/01/90 TO 11/30/90 DATE 12/13/90 41.07. OF YEAR COMPLETE 74 UNREAL I ZED __ EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE 3117 /PROPOSITION A TRANSIT 3121 SUBREGNL INCENTIVE FUNDS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 /INTEREST INCOME OBJECT SUBTOTAL 190, 000. 00 6, 000. 00 196, 000. 00 15, 332.00 73, 053.00 116. 947. 00 38. 4 0. 00 0 00 6: 000. 00. 15. 332. 00 73, 053. 00 122, 947. 00 37.2 19, 042. 00 185. 61-6.463.57 19, 042.00 185.61 6,463.57 12, 578. 43 33. 9 12. 578. 43 33. 9 3800 CURRENT SERVICE CHARGES T .3854 /FARES, DIAL A RIDE 8,500.00 0.00 0.00 8,500.00 3855 _ /BUS PASSES 6,000.00 _.630..00. 2.270. 00 3,730.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL14, 500, 00 630.00 2,270.00 12, 230. 00 _ DEPT 0000 0 �-n 0. TOTALS 229, 542.00...^__-16...1.47..61_.__._._81..786. 57____.-...__ .147..755. 43.. FUND TOTAL 229, 542. 00 0. 0 37.8 ...- 15. 6 35.6 16. 147. 61 81, 786. 57 147, 755. 43 35. 6 2 FINANCE—FA484 TIME 17:51:18 FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION 150 GRANT FUND 0 10 I1 12 13 14 tv 16 10 1L 0 21 DEPARTMENT 0000 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY, FUND ). _ PAGE .,__.__0014_ _ FROM 11/01/90 TO 11/30/90 DATE 12/13/90 41.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE ,! UNREALIZED. 4 3500 INTERGOVERNMENTAL/STATE .3517 /OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFET OBJECT SUBTOTAL • DEPT 0000 FUND TOTAL TOTALS EST REV 40, 500. 00 40, 500. 00 40, 500. 00 MONTHLY REV 40. 500. 00 0. 00 4,PQ 0.00 YEAR TO DATE 0. 00 O. 00 0.00 BALANCE 40, 500. 00 44L500-00 0:0 0.1) 40, 300. 00 0. 0 0 00 0 00 442,500-00 0 0 22 24 25 5 27 26 30 1gai`i2+ 31 0 ..2 133 34 ®._5 +6 37 0.35 139 I60 142 45 46 :7 4.l 46 ® 50 . 51 0 153! '9 • •_.. 52 0 6 56 Ca" 12 113 FINANCE -FA484 TIME 17:51:18 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 0 REVENUE SUMMARY_REPORT_ FUNDI PAGE 0015 FROM 11/01)90 TO 11/30/90 DATE 12/13/90 41.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE 3.0 _ UNREALIZED_ 4: FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE 155 CROSSING GUARD FUND DEPARTMENT 0000 • 3100 TAXES 3101 /CURRENT YEAR SECURED 65,287.00 0.00 0.00 3103 ' /PRIOR YEAR COLLECTIONS 5,000.00 908_12 ,737-66. OBJECT SUBTOTAL.. . - - 70,287.00 908.12 : 3,737.66 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 7 , t 65,287.00 O. 0 0 66,549.34 5.3 3401 /INTEREST INCOME 2,021.00 25.82 1,095.66 925.34 54.2 L OBJECT SUBTOTAL 2,021.00 25.82 1,095.66 925.34 54.2 1. DEPT 0000 TOTALS 72,308.00 933.94 4, 833. 32 67, 474. a8 6. 6 : FUND TOTAL 72,308.00 933. 94 4, 833. 32 67,474.68 6.6 0 1:f 0 0 FINANCE-FA484 ..... !II TIME 17:51:18 oj #8.4 160 SEWER FUND I " CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH (0. REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE - 0016 . FROM 11/01/90 TO 11/30/90 DATE 12/13/90 41.07. OF YEAR COMPLETE 1 L UNREALIZED______!.. FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION EST REV. MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE 03 DEPARTMENT 0000 3400 USE OF MONEY Z PROPERTY 1.1 0," 3401 /INTEREST INCOME 76,897.00 836.19 34.088.31 42,836.69 44.4 41) OBJECT SUBTOTAL 76:597.00 834),19 838. 69 ______44. 4 1 , 3600 INTERGOVERNMENTAL/COUNTY . . .• - Iiili 3602 /BEACH OUTLET MAINTENANC_ 4,000.00 0 00 _103872.614a___25_9 !,- OBJEdT-SUBTOTAL 4,000.00 0.00 1,036.57 2,961.43 25.9 111.i 111/ 3800 CURRENT SERVICE CHARGES 3828 /SEWER CONNECTION FEE 18.000.00 2,390.76- 4.263.96 13,736.04 23.6 . 3629 /SEWER DEMOLITION FEE 1,300.00 135.00 240.00 1.060.00 18.4 3832 /SEWER LATERAL INSTALLTN 1,000.00 75- OQ 1, 91 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 20,300.00 2.180.76- 6.418.96 13,681.04 31.6 0, = ' 3900 OTHER REVENUE — 3902 /FiEFUNDS/REIMB PREV YR 0.00 ' 38.00 38.00 38.00- 0.0 ; 3955 OPERATING TRANSFERS IN 800,000.00 66,666.67 333,333.35 466.666.65 41.6 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 800,000.00 66.704,67 DEPT 0000 TOTALS 900,897.00 65f360.10 374.887.19 ,526.009.81 41.6 0 f, 0, :I FUND TOTAL 900,897.00 65.360.10 37.ALME2115____ 0 . . ' 0. " 0 FI NANCE—FA484 . , TIME 17. 51 . 18 DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • REVENUE SUMMARY REP OR _( BY—FUND FROM 11/01/90 - TO 11/30/90 170 ASSET SEIZURE/FORFEITURE FUND DEPARTMENT 0000 EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE -DATE 12/13/90 41.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE n UNREAL I ZED -- BALANCE % 0 3300 FINES & FORFEITURES 3304 /FORFEITED FUNDS 312, 000. 00 12, 415. 32 . 145, 398. 61 166: 601. 39 46.6 1- 44./ - OB JECT SUBTOTAL 312, 000. 00 • 12 415, 32 145158....61. 186,6o 1 39 _41S-6_______ . . 17i 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY . . 3401 /INTEREST INCOME 7e 003. 00 45 5a _1./.346-21 5656 79. 192. --- OBJECT SUBTOTAL 7 / 003. 00 45.58 - 1, 346. 21 5. 656. 79 19.2 DEPT 0000 TOTALS 319, 003 00 12 L460..90 ' 1461_744._ 82172J 258. 18 ____--.46._ 6.—____ _ .7: ... 19 CY- • • 0 FUND TOTAL 319/ 003. 00 12, 460. 90 146, 744. 82 172, 256. 18 46. 0 o 17: o' i• 3.7 0 0 ®z 3 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE—FA484 REVENUE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) TIME 17:51:18 . FROM 11/01/90 TO 11/30/90 4 FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION ®; 5 '6 180 FIRE PROTECTION FUND ®5 f9 Ito ® I 1 1a �I3 40l4 s DEPARTMENT 0000' 16 0 17 10 19 ® 20 121 EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE ...PAGE 0018._., DATE 12/13/90 41.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZ • BALANCE 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY .3401 /INTEREST INCOME 16, 693.00 155.28 5,571.83 11, 121.17 33.3 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 16.693.00 155.28 5 571,B3 111121.17 3"3 3900 OTHER REVENUE 3912 OBJECT SUBTOTAL DEPT 0000 /FIRE FLOW FEE.' TOTALS 100. 000. 00 85,850„...50 12 72Q4 2-4,720-2=____121 7 100, 000. 00 85, 850. 50 123, 720. 24 23,720.24— 123. 7 116, 693. 00 86, 005. 78 22.2:g_T2yQ7 12 9207— 11.0 7 3 to 161 701 2I2,I t i 2:I.. 2'i. a 125 .17 FUND TOTAL 116, 693.00 86, 005. 7B 129, 292. 07 12, 599. 07— 110. 7 3 1 "+,i/ ®:.9 02 1333, ® 75 d ® L0 139 140 ® 41 43 ®44 I45 66 41- _ 37 SD 49 F30 51 .3 54 55 36 FINANCE-FA484 TIME 17:51:18 r FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION 305 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 123 DEPARTMENT 0000' 3400 USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY 3401 /INTEREST INCOME 0.00 790.37 16, 543.50 16,543.50 - OBJECT SUBTOTAL O 00 7910!„..a7 16,542-50 - CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE SUMMARY.REPORT_S0Y FUNK? _PCF 00 DATE 12/13/90 41.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE IlNREALIZFO FROM 11/01/90 TO 11/30/90.. EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE 3900 OTHER REVENUE 3955 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 0.0 Ic `',, I1' ,4, /OPERATING TRANSFERS IN 4, 3283 326, 00 -.590,...000-08__L_21_2331_883 40 2, 094`4.42_60 9J 4, 328. 326. 00 590, 500. 08 2. 233, 883. 40 2.094.442.60 51.6 DEPT 0000 TOTALS 4, 328.326,D0 2i...2501_426 -2D • 7. ()12,. 833._7.n 51 9 FUND TOTAL 4, 328, 326. 00 591. 290.45 2.250, 426.90 2.077. 899.10 51.9 W' �I 25 2 20 3 30 3 ®.'>2 34 36 37 3 40 42 43 4 e47 w 40 30 51 52 3 7,, 0 FINANCE-FA484 TIME 17: 51: 18 • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REVENUE• SUMMARY REPORT (DY FUND) FROM 11/01/90 TO 11/30/90 FUND OBJ DESCRIPTION 705 INSURANCE FUND DEPARTMENT 0000 3900 OTHER REVENUE PAGE 0020 DATE 12/13/90 41.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE UNREALIZED__ .`.! EST REV MONTHLY REV YEAR TO DATE BALANCE % 1' I: V ; 3902 /REFUNDS/REIMB PREV YR 0.00 0.00 268.11 . 268.11- '3955 OPERATING TRANSFERS IN 797, 279.00 � 0, 00 0.00279. DO ..._.__._..... O. O _..._ . (' 3957 /TRANSFER IN -DEPT INS SVS . 0. 00 66, 440. 00 332, 200. 00 332,200.00- 0. 0 �1. OBJECT SUBTOTAL 797, 279.00 66, 440.00 332, 468.11 464, 810. 89 41.7 (' .. ^� DEPT 0000 TOTALS 797, 279. 00 66, 440. 00 ' 332, 468.11 464, 810. 89 41.7 ® .: FUND TOTAL REPORT TOTALS 797, 279. 00 23, 191, 163. 00 66, 440. 00 1, 951, 139. 73 332, 468. 11 8, 561, 768. 24 464, 810.89 41,7 14, 629, 414. 76 36. 9 ®.:: [40 0 2 5 FINANCE-FA454 TIME --1 --32r22- • t CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0001 FROM -1-1-L01-/-90_ TO -1-1/30/90 DATE -12/13/-90 41. OX OF YEAR COMPLETE FUND DIV OBJT DESCR ARPROPRIAT-ION MONTHLY EXP YTD -EXP --ND. ENCUMBRANCEUNENC-.BALANCE 6 001 GENERAL FUND 0000 6 10 11 12 DEPT; 211G DEP-OS-I,-S/-WORK--GUARANTEE 0,-00 0.00 0.00 800.00 800.-00- 0 0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 ' 800. 00 800. 00- 0. 0 f0 14 13 4 15 16 :..DIVISION.=.. . TOTAL DERARTMENT TOTAL 1101 CITY COUNCIL 0.00`. 0. 00 DEPT: LEGISLATIVE 0.00,: 0.00; 0.10 2 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 23. 216. 00 '2, 535;'21 10,355. 87 41-10-VACAT-I ON/S ICK -PAY-OFF 464,-00 000 0.00 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 464.00 620. 10 872.76 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 18, 000. 00 1.500. 00 7, 500. 00 OBJECT -SUBTOTAL 42.-1440 4. 655..-3-1 18. 728 63 25 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201-- CONTRACT -"SERVICE-APR IVATE 8. 000. 00 8, 000. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 0. CO 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 800..00 . 800.--0n 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 3,50 3, 500. 00 • • • 800. 00- . ... 0. 0 Ron On- n n 12,86O.13"'44.6 464 -.-On 0 n 408.76- 188.0 10, 500. 00 41. 6 93.415 37 44_4 •• •• 31 4300 -MAT -ER -I ALS /SUP -P -DI ES /OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 280. 00 24. 53 87.97 0. 00 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 11. 000. 00 263. 57 3. 174. 72 1. 124. 08 431-5-MEMBERSH-IP 6.-250.-00 0 00 2.884.-00 0 00 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 2, 750. 00 0. 00 305. 00 0. 00 2. 445. 00 11. 0 4319 SPECIAL EVENTS 500.00 45.63 186.59 0.00 313.41 37.3 4396-TRSF-R-OUT-INS USER -CHCS 34-055.-00 - 955,Q.n 1. 2Z5 Ofl 0_00 1 L28Q4() 41 7 OBJECT SUBTOTAL ;; 23, 835. 00 . 588. 73 7, 913. 28 ; :1, 124. 08 . 14, 797. 64 37. 9 3 34 36 37 38 39 40 4. 500. 00 43. 7 "i 192. 03 .. 31. 4 6, 701.20 39. 0 11-366._00 4A 1 42 43 5400 EGTA -P- LENT'`` 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 351. 00 351. 00 0.00 0. 00 351.21 351.21 0.00 0. 00 0.21- 0.21- 100. 0 100. 0 44 45 45 DIVISION TOTAL :74, 330. 00 .5, 244.04 26.993. 12 4, 624. 08 42. 712. 80 42. 5 48 49 /1.. 50 51 1121 CITY CLERK 52 /-- 53 54 55 r• 56 �S] r DEPT: LEGISLATIVE. 41-00 PERSONAL--SERV-ICES • 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 32, 807. 00 0. 00 542. 69 0. 00 32, 264. 31 1. .6 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 656.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 656.00 0.0 4111-ACCRUAL--CASH-IN 656.-00 0.00 0.n0 0 0n 0 4. Or2 :1 ' CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-FA454 EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) TME -1.-7-4,Q2-22 FR9M , 1 '01140 _.Tg :11/30/90 PAGE 0002 DATE .12/13/90 _. 41.0% OF YEAR 69MPgrg FVNTI_.t3iY__4 4TAI s@ @ NERA6 €YMB Ei3v ELEkt6EPT: EE8 6rATi --- - - - 488-PER580Aty-_5ERVIEEe_ 17 .41 ig PART T1MEFTEI tPERAt Y 8, r59 88 8' g$ bi£' - - 19' 7s5 #1 ---P 88 --. S 6: 54 �9 f 58: 7 4288 CbtiTt A -8T ERVI � BthEhT-.SUBTrOTAL�r e P fw r - � ...,�_ Pt c is . : € RgE8T §05 e8TAL Si;8i5: o8 ; s nth: a ±>' t 910: s0 0: 80 ; e. 430Q MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 0 20 4315 MEMBERSHIP 21 4316 -TRAINING 22 23 24 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 4323 PUBLIC NOTICING 4396-TRSFR--.OUT-INS USER -CHCS OBJECT SUBTOTAL ® zc ,, 0 30 3, 32 33 34 35 5400 EQUIPMENT 625 00 66 04 238 42 0 00 386-58._--38..1--___-_- 2, 100. 00 206. 36 823. 37 0. 00 1, 276.63 39. 2 270. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 " 270. -00 0. 0 1, 033. 00 196 00 196 00 0 00 837 00 1.8 9 600.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 600.00 0.0 9, 700. 00 1, 320. 65 3, 412. 46 0. 00 6, 287. 54 35. 1 2, 270 00 189 00 945 00 0 00 1.325 00 -41..6._- 16, 598. 00 1. 978. 05 5, 615. 25 0. 00 10, 982. 75 33. 8 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 OBJECT -SUBTOTAL 800. 00 800. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 800.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 800.00 0.0 DIVISION TOTAL • 90, 806. 00 5, 259. 85 1122 ELECTIONS DEPT: LEGISLATIVE 3e 4200 CONTRACT -SERVICES 37 38 3 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 0.00 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT 1,766.00 OBJECT -SUBTOTAL 1-,-766-00 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304. -TELEPHONE 100 00 0 00_ 0 00 0 00 100..00.__...._______ O. 0 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 200. 00 3. 35 9. 70 . 0. 00 190. 30 4. 8 4316 TRAINING 1, 167. 00 0. 00 . 0. 00 0. 00 - 1, 167..00 0. 0 317--CONFERENCE-EXPENSE 600.00 0 00 0 00 0 00 600 00 0.0 _____ OBJECT SUBTOTAL 2, 067. 00 3. 35 9. 70 0. 00 2, 057.30 0. 4 22, 055. 03 0. 00 O. 00 0. 00 1, 765. 50 1, 765. 50 1. 765.-50 1+765.-50 0. 00 0. 00 0 00 68, 750. 97 24. 2 41 0.00 0.0 0. 50 99. 9 0 50 99 ®0 DIVISION TOTAL 3, 833.00 1.768.85 1.775.20 0.00 2, 057. 80 46.3 1131 --CITY ATTORNEY DEPT- -LEGISLATIVE 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201--COtNTRACT..SERVICE/PRIVATE 115,.00Or00L __x.0,-822_11 74, 873_-57 0-00 90, 126 43 21. 6 . 0 FINANCE-FA454 --TIME-1-94-324-22 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM.11./01/90 TO 11/30/90 'D -D -I-V -OBJT DESCR APPROPR IAT ION MONTHLY-EXP----Y-T.D_EXPND ENCUMBRANCE-UNENC • BALANCE - 44. PAGE 0003 DATE..._12/13/90 _________ 41. 0% OF YEAR COMPLETE 1 ., 001 GENERAL FUND 9 11 ,2 1131 CITY ATTORNEY DEPT:'' LEGISLATIVE 00 -CONTRACT -SERVICES OBJECT SUBTOTAL 115, 000. 00 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 3 4304 TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES OBJECT -SUBTOTAL 16 ,4 ,5 10, 822. 11 24, 873. 57 0. 00 90, 126. 43 21. 6 185. 00 310. 00 49500 O 17 18 0 zo 29. 0.00 29 55 133. 38 7.20'` 140.-58 0. 00 0.00_. 0 00 51.62 302. 80 354 4? 72. 0 2.3 aR 4 DIVISION TOTAL 115, 495,-00 10.85.1-.-66. 25+-014.4.5 1132 CITY PROSECUTOR' DEPT:, LEGISLATIVE 0 00 90.-480..85 21_6 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4112'1' ART TIME/TEMPORARY 25, 440. 00 0.00. 5,300.00 OBJECT ---SUBTOTAL . 25,-440, 00 0.0O 5,200-00 4200 CONTRACT. SERVICES 01-CONTRACT-SERVICE/PR-IVATE 33.-000-00 5.-590,-00 20,-130.-50 0,-00 12,869-50________61 0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 33, 000. 00 5,590.00. 20, 130. 50 0. 00 12, 869. 50 61. 0 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 -TELEPHONE 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHCS OBJECT" -SUBTOTAL DIVISION -TOTAL 59.-489.-00 5,-662,-00 25,-790.-50 0 -00 _.33+ 698 50 43 3 11.41 CITY TREASURER DEPT::'.LEGISLATIVE 32 73 34 ® "15 35 0. 00 20, 140. 00 20. 8 0 00 20,140 00 20 8 37 39 40 42 185. 00 864. 00 1,-049. 00 • 0. 00 72. 00 72.-00 0. 00 360. 00 360.-00 0. 00 0. 00 0 00- 185. 00 0. 0 504.00 41.6 689 00 34 3 43 .15 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 28, 775. 00 1, 202. 00 5, 853. 00 0. 00 22, 922. 00 20. 3 4106 REGULAR -OVERTIME 500. 00- 0 00 204 12 0 00 295.68 _:__.._, 40. 8 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 288.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 288.00 0.0 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 288.00 325.95 811.40 0.00 523. 40- 281.7 112 PART--TIME/TEMPORARY 14,-979.-00 1,262.00 6.-145 00 0 00 8, 834..00.___-_41..0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 44, 830. 00 2, 789. 95 13, 013. 52 0. 00 31, 816. 48- 29. 0 4200CONTRACT-SERVICES 46 47 43 5 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL , 2, 000. 00 2, 000. 00 0. 00 48. 76 0. 00 0. 00 1, 951. 24 2. 4 48. 76 0. 00 1, 951. 24 2. 4 1,1 E t 3 b[i FIt1ANCE-FA454 MP 194-32:_22 ,tn n :r nBjr DESC 001 GENERAL FUND 1141 CITY TREASURER CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM..1.1/01/90___.TO_ 11/_30/90_____ P-PROP-R_IATION_ DEPT: LEGISLATIVE ,_. O--MATER-IALSISUP-RtrISG nTHE 4304 TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES785.00 315 -MEMBERSHIP- 1,470.00 4316 TRAINING 185-00 4317 CONFERENCE. EXPENSE PAGE 0004 DATE_.12/13/90__,,_, _ 41.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE ON'CHL�LEXP vrn `pxPtin G1iMBEANCE-_Ut�SENC_BALATICE i 96-TRSFR-OUT I -N USER-CHGS ' 500. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL , 44, 779S•-00- 98. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 'EP_ARTMENT 'TOTA6: 1201 CITY MANAGER 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 110-VACATION/SICK-PAY-OFF- O, 966.00 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 1, 966.00. 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY1, 966.00 3, 640. 00 OBJEC1 SUBTOTA 4200 CONTRACT -SERVICES 0- --CONTRACT-SERVICE/-RR,IVATP 300 -00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL ---- 300.00 00 51, 628. 00 69. 04 180. 47 -0_0Q 0.00 0. 00 3400- 383. 51 39S.�Si On 272. 11 O. 00 687.73 0.00 512.89 34.6 OrOo 782.27 46.7 A_. 00 0.00 ----__185_00______ a_0 O. 00 250.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 0 --670.00 SOd.00 O.O a 8 Oa �a_T c 1, 629. 84 0. 00 16 3, 168. 16 33. 9 14,692.12' 0.00 36. 935. 88 28.4 DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 9, 043. 21 0-0 619. 90 O. 00 42, 395. 45 872. 18 08, 388._00 c� 260. 16 --=-.�663_l;ig.3�52Z__Z9_ 00-MATERIALS/SUPP_.LIES/_OTH 4304 TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 615.00 52.47 315- OFF I CE 1, 650.00 206.80 FUELS-AND_L,UBEa 595. 31 973.50 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 220.00 a 4315 MEMBERSHIP 135.00 ---23.5 700.00 0.00 4366-TRAINING0.00 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE • 504. 00._x_ .00 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS 1.700. 00 111 .97 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 5, 227. 00 3,-747-00 1__50 11. 50 123-74 123. 74 DIVISION-TOTq� 122�435_OQ y 1202 FINANCE ADMIN DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 209, 154. 00 i 3. 19 563. 25 0_.00_ 151. 97 436. 00 • 2, 180. 00 -.-095r7.5 _4,02.-23_ 17, 781. 19 85, 212. 20 0. 00 55, 420. 55 0. 00 1, 093. 82 0. 00 3, 379. 54 Q_Q- 42. 0 -aa 44.3 7. 1 64,_860_.21. L� a_________176_26______41-2______ �6 a--.26 ___4L ; . 0.00 176. 26 41.22 0.00 408.20 33.6 0.00 676.50 59.0 0.-00 ---_ i96_ 48 0_ 6 0. 0 131.81 2.3 0. 00 136. 75 80. 4 .0_.00 3, 500._00 _..0._0.. 0. 00 1, 548. 03 8. 7 0. 00 3, 047. 00 41. 7 0-0a 9,._644 7Z 29_.B_ 0. 00 681.24 --------39. 0 ... 123, 941. 80 40. 7 is FINANCE-FA454 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH - EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0005 LIME -1g;-32.22 FROM 11/01/90-T0-11/30/90- DATE -12/13/90 41.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE F-UND-D.i--OBJT-DESCR APPROPR IAT -ION 001 GENERAL FUND 1202 FINANCE ADMIN DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 100 -PERSONAL -SERVICES 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 3, 600. 00 149. 69 1. 524. 03 0. 00 2, 075. 97 42. 3 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4, 183. 00 O. 00 O. 00 0. 00 41 183. 00 O. 0 111 ACCRUAL -CASH --TN 4. 183.-00 3. 603 15 44016-65 0 00 166. 35 __ 96 0 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 1. 500. 00 ' O. 00 143. 55 0. 00 1, 356. 45 . 9. 5 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 222, 620. 00 21, 534. 03 . 90, 896. 43 O. 00 131, 723. 57 40. 8 MONTHLY -EXP Y -TD -EXP -ND ENCUMBRANCE UNENC-BALANCE •% 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER ® 33 24 28 29 30 4304 -TELEPHONE 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4315 MEMBERSHIP 4316 -TRAINING 66. 095. 00 66.-095:- 00 0. 00 0, 00 30. 286. 42 30. 286: 42 0. 00 35. BOB. 58 45. 8 0 00 35, 808.. 58 ----45. 8 - 2. 646:00 208. 33 816.-24 O. 00 - 9, 700. 00 858. 16 4, 131:61 26. 21 250. 00 65. 00 165. 00 O. 00 3, 652. 00 668 00 1.-002..04 O. 00 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 800.00 30.00 170.00 O. 00 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS 8, 639. 00 720. 00 3. 600. 00 0. 00 OBJECT -SUBTOTAL 25. 687 00 2.-549-49 9,'884 89 26 21 5400 EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT-LESSTHAN-$500 796 00 0 00 396 05 89_09- - OBJECT SUBTOTAL 796.00 0.00 396:05 33 1.829.-76 10 8 5, 542. 18 42. 8 85. 00 66. 0 2, 649. 96-- ---- -27. 4.._.--._ 630. 00 21. 2 5. 039. 00 41. 6 15.775 90 -38 5 89. 09 310.86 60.9 iI 34 3G 37 36 39 40 32 43 3 433 DIVISION TOTAL 315, 198. 00 24, 083. 52 131, 463. 79 115. 30 183, 618. 91 41. 7 203 -PERSONNEL DEPT-:-MGMT/SUPPORT 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 102 REGULAR--SALARIES/MISC 59,-552.-00- 4.873. 58 22.-375.95 0-00 37,176-05.______37_5____ - 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 1. 191. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 191.00 O. 0 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 1. 191. 00 957. 60 957. 60 0. 00 . 233. 40 80. 4 4112-PART--TIME/TEMPORARY 3.640, 00---- _-._.-.._0. 00--- -.127. 16. __.___._._ 0..00--._ 3. 512. 84._..... ___.._ 3. 4 _... 14 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 65, 574. 00 5.831. 18 23, 460. 71 0.-00 42.113. 29 35. 7 200--CONTRACT--SERV ICES 49 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT OBJECT -SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER.' 4304 --TELEPHONE 13, 600. 00 9. 875. 00 23.- 475. 00 963:-00 642. 95 0.00 642. 95 4, 955. 08 445. 00 -5, 400.-08 105 99 427 75 0. 00 8, 644. 92 36. 4 0. 00 9. 430. 00 4. 5 0 00----. --18. 074. 92 . _ -_.. 23.0 0 00 535 25._..__...._44.4 et- , CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-FA454 EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) TIME -19_:-32x22_ _--_ FROM 11/01/90 TO 11/30/90 PAGE 0007 DATE 12/13/90 41.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE -UND__DI OBJLDESCR APPROPRIATION__._- _._.MONTHLY.. EXP__.._._YTD.. EXPNQ._..�____...__. ENCUMBRANCE........ UNENC .. BALANCE.._____....% ___ ___.. 001 GENERAL. FUND 10 19 PERSONNEL DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 00 -MATER IALS.ISUPPL 1ES/OTHER 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 5,200.00 4315 MEMBERSHIP 650.00 4316_ TRAINING 9, 200..00 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 915.00 4320 MEDICAL EXAMS 15, 500. 00 327--AGMD-I NCENT.I VES 0 00 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHCS 2,172.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 28, 600. 00 652. 01 122. 50 0 00 0. 00 0. 00 0 00 181.00 1, 061. 50 2, 738. 20 572. 50 40 00- 602. 00 2. 773. 00 3,200.00- 905. 00 4, 778. 45 0. 00 2, 461.80 52. 6 0.00 77. 50 88.0 0 00.___.__3,.240.00..___.______1.2_.__.-__ 0.00 313.00 65.7 I 0. 00 12, 727. 00 17.8 1 , 0 00 3, 200_.00_ 0.. 0 ___ 0. 00 - 1, 267. 00 41.6 I 0. 00 23, 821. 55 16. 7 1110.12° DIVISION TOTAL 1 i7, 649. 00 7, 535. 63 33, 639. 24 O. 00 22 4;23 24 0 26 27 84, 009. 76 28. 5 1205 CABLE TV DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4100 PERSONAL -SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 26, 000. 00 2, 022.46 8, 858. 14 0. 00 17, 141.86 34. 0 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF • 520.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 520.00 0.0 111 ACCRUAL -CASH -IN 520.-00 0 00 0 00 0 00 520.-00._ D. 0_ 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 2, 700. 00 127. 75 675. 50 0. 00 2, 024. 50 25. 0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 29, 740. 00 2, 150. 21 9, 533. 64 0. 00 20, 206. 36 32. 0 34 35 3] 4111 38 39 40 0 4, 43 0 4'. 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 5, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00• 0. 00 5, 000.00 0. 0 OBJECT -SUBTOTAL 5, 000.-00 0 00 0 00 0 00 5,000. 00 0__0_ 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4305 -OFFICE .OPER SUPPLIES 700. 00 __._ .__74 12.. 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 1, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 • 0. 00 1, 000. 00 0. 0 4315 MEMBERSHIP 400.00 0.00 60.00 0.00 340.00 15. 0 431b TRAINING 350.-00 0 00 0 00 0 00 _-___-_-350. 00.-_--_._ O. 0_-_-- 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 500. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 500. 00 0. 0 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHCS 1, 078. 00 90. 00 450. 00 O. 00 628. 00 41. 7 OBJECT. SUBTOTAL 4, 028. 00 ------__---.164. 12_ ..753. 84- 0..00 _......_ _ 3, 274_16_ :.----__ 18, 7 _ 4, :, DIVISION --__TOTAL 38, 768 00 2, 314 33 10,-287. 48 0 00 28. 480.._52_._ .26. 5. 1206 DATA PROCESSING DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 49 54 55 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 79, 264. 00 6. 494. 19 4106 -REGULAR -OVERTIME 500.-00 -63 19 28, 709. 79 0. 00 50, 554. 21 36. 2 17-5 11 0 00 324 89 56 7 F INANCE-FA454 T -IME -19-32 -22 • -UND-D-I--0BJT-DESCR 001 GENERAL FUND 1206 DATA PROCESSING CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0007 FROM -11/01/90--T0-11/30/90 DATE_42213/-90._ 41.-0% OF YEAR COMPLETE APPROPRIATION MONTHLY -EXP Y-TD-EXPND. ENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE 7 DEPT:::` MGMT/SUPPORT 00 PERSONAL -SERVICES -- 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 11779. 00 0. 00 O. 00 0. 00 1, 779. 00 O. 0 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 1, 779. 00 872. 00 2, 094. 20 O. 00 315. 20- 117. 7 OBJECT -SUBTOTAL 83.-322 00 7. 429.-3R 30.979 10 .0 00 --52, 342.90 37_..1_ 014 ,5 ,6 100 20 2.4.23 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 1201 -CONTRACT SERVICE/PR-I-VATE 93,-451-,-00 686.-00 30.-396,-54 1+805 00 61.249-46 34 4 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 93, 451. 00 .686. 00 30, 396. 54 1, 805. 00 61. 249. 46 34: 4 00--MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER • 4304 TELEPHONE 2. 568. 00 325. 29 1, 436. 34 O. 00 1. 131. 66 55. 9 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 11, 348. 00 49. 58 3.'022. 64 51.28 8, 274. 08 27.0 1309 --MA I NTENANCE-MATERIALS 2, 200.- 00 0 00 0. 00 0 00- -2. 200-00- 0_.0 _ 4315 MEMBERSHIP 830.00 200.00 200.00 0.00 630.00 24.0 4316 TRAINING 69.00 98.00 166.21 0.00 97.21- 240.8 4317--CONFERENCE-EXPENSE 1, 350, 00 0 00 155. 00 0 00 1. 195. 00._____._11. 4.-_____. 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS 2, 926. 00 244. 00 1, 220. 00 0..00 1, 706. 00 - 41. 6 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 21, 291. 00 916.87 6. 200. 19 51.28 15. 039. 53 29. 3 , X27 30 31 032 5400 EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN :$500 0.00 437.68 437.68 201.76 639.44- O.0 -5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE THAN $500 95,-000.00 0. 00 0. 00 -- ,._0-00 95.000..00 --___._....0. 0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 95, 000. 00 - 437. 68 437. 68 201. 76 94, 360. 56 0. 6 DIVISION TOTAL 293, 064. 00 9, 469. 93 68. 013. 51 1207 -BUS -LICENSE DEPT-t1GMT-/SUPPORT 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 102-REGULAR-SALARIES/M ISC 79.979. 00 6,-685 26 32, 291 59 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 500.00 0.00" 0.00 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 1, 600. 00 0. 00 0. 00 4111 -ACCRUAL-CASH IN 1,600. 00 - .445. 95. - _445..95. OBJECT SUBTOTAL 83, 679.00 7. 131. 21 32. 737. 54 13 4e Q ;7 2, 058. 04 222. 992. 45 23. 9 200-- C ONTRAC T-- SERVICES •,3 0- 0. 00 -47..687. 41 - 40.3 ___....- 0. 00 500.00 0.0 0. 00 1. 600. 00 0. 0 0. 00 .____-__._- 1. 154. 05 27. 8 0.00 50.941.46 39. 1 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT OBJECT -SUBTOTAL 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER -4304--TELEPHONE • 29. 00 160.00 18900 0. 00 19.78 0.00 9.22 68.2 38.03 38.03 0.00 121.97 23.7 38 03 57 81 O 00. _:. 131. 19 ... _ _..._ 30. 5 375.-00 66 -43 238 44 0 00 _--136._.56_-_.____ _ ._ 63. 5 I. -_ FINANCE-FA454 IIL1E�9 32 22 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH. EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE' 0000 FROM .11/01/90..TO 11/30/90. DATE 12/13/90. 41.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE ND DIV OUT TESCR APPROPRIATION _MONTHLY_ EXP_ YTD_EXPND_ _ENCUMBRANCE_......__UNENC...BALANCE_.____% 001 GENERAL FUND 1207 BUS LICENSE • DEPT:;; MGMT/SUPPORT 16 1© C 24 00-MATERIALS/SUPRLIES/OTHER 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 4:380.00 853.86 1,774.32 0.00 2,605.68 40.5 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 286;00 19.95 64.26 0.00 221.74 22.4 431E AUTO._.t1AINTENANCF 105 00 4 00 12 00 0 00 93 00__--_.11.4__ 4315 MEMBERSHIP 50.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 10.00 80.0 4316 TRAINING 850.00 0.00 •298.61 98.00 453.39 46.6 317 -.CONFERENCE -EXPENSE 700-00 0 00 988 40 0 00 311 60 55 4 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS 4:520.00 377. 00 18885.00 0. 00 2.635.00 41. 7 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 11, 266.00 1,321.24 4,701.03 98.00 6,466.97 42.5 DIVISION TOTAL • 1208 GEN APPROP 25 '6 2:1 :_J 29 30 95, 134. 00 8, 490. 48 DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 37, 496. 38 98. 00 57;539.62 39. 5 4100 .PERSONAL.- SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 26:312.00 1.090.00 9:526..00 0. 00 16, 786. 00 36. 2 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 526.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 526.00 0.0 4111 -ACCRUAL -CASH -IN- 526.-00 9.00 0 00 0 00 526 00 0 0 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 0.00 1;535.63 1,766.13 . 0.00 1,766.13- 0.0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 27, 364.00 2,625.63 . 11;292.13 0.00 16, 071.87 41.2 31 ®.32 133 Iia 35 3e 37 4200.CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 15:600.00 1..702.27 5,685.06 OBJECT SUBTOTAL ' 15.-600..00 1,_70227 5,-685 06 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 46 49 51 0. 00 0 00 9,914.94 36.4 2.-914-94 '16 4 268 00 29 59 113 88 0 00_ 154.12.____.___...42..4. 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 300.00 5.897.35- 22,695,75- 0:00 22. 995. 75 7565:2 4316 TRAINING 200.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 200.00 0.0 96 TRSFR-OUT-INS-USER-CHGS 1-,-152. 00 96 00 480. 00 0. 00 -__.672.-0Q__ -_41_6., OBJECT SUBTOTAL 1,920.00 5,771.76- 22,101.87L- p.00 . 24, 021.87 1151.1 5400 EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 100.00 89:67 - 89.67 0.00 10.33 89.6 5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE THAN $500 5.200.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 - 5,200.00 0. 0 OBJECT -SUBTOTAL 5,300,00 89 67 89 67 0.00- 5,_210_33.-_______1-6 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS OBJECT SUBTOTAL • 22, 970..00 1,506-48. 22, 970. 00 1:506.48 7,532.40 0.00 • 15, 437. 60 . . 32.7 15, 437.60 32.7 0 53 t 54 O, 0 DIVISION TOTAL 73, 154. 00 152. 29 2, 497. 39 0: 00 I 1. 0 F I NANCE-FA454 T CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0009 FROM11/01/90--TO-11/30/90 ((Z _ - - -- -- 41.0/ OF YEAR COMPLETE )--0BJJ DESCR APPR0PR IATION MONTHLY—EXP YTD -EXP -NO ENCUMBRANCE—UNENC q -UND—I-I-V BALANCE X ' 001 GENERAL FUND j e 1212 EMP BENEFITS, DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 1 9 '100-PERSONAL-SERVICESlo 4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS - 670, 458. 00 15: 316. 53 223, 792. 49 O. 00 446, 665, 51 33. 3 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 670, 458. 00 15: 316. 53 223, 792. 49 O. 00 446, 665. 51 33. 3 12 14 DIVISION TOTAL 670r 458. 00 15, 316. 53 - 223, 792. 49 O. 00 446, 665.51 " 33. 3 15 G 1213 RETIREMENT DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 1v B 4100 PERSONAL ---SERVICES 19 23 4180 RETIREMENT 858, 463. 00 70, 890: 69 281, 026. 88 O. 00 577, 436. 12 32. 7 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 858, 463. 00 70. 890. 69 2814 026. 88 0. 00 577, 436. 12 32. 7 21 ,23 DIVISION TOTAL 858, 463. 00 70. 890. 69 281, 026. 88 O. 00 577, 436. 12 32. 7 .2e 1214 PROSP EXP DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT • `' 1300-MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 28 4322 UNCLASSIFIED 127, 388. 00 O. 00 O. 00 O. 00 127, 388. 00 O. 0 4397 2. 57. ANTICIPATED SAVINGS 254, 757. 00- O. 00 O. 00 O. 00 254. 757. 00- O. 0 30 OBJECT - 127,369..00- 0 00 0 00- --SUBTOTAL _ ___0..00_ .-._127.369..0077.-_.____-0.0 ___ . ,3 DIVISION—TOTAL 127,369,00- 0 00 0 00 0 00 127369 00- 0 0 - 34 5 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 36 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 33 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT 1514 474. 00 4. 083. 33 122. 890. 65 0. 00 28.583. 35 81. 1 39 OBJECT -SUBTOTAL 151-x474.-00 4. 083.-33- 122,-890 65 0 00 --- 28, 583- 35.— 81- 1--__.__ _. DIVISION TOTAL43 — DEPARTMENT TOTAL 2, 608, 428..00 153, 107. 09 958, 861. 57 2. 271. 34 1, 647. 295.09 36. 8 2101 POLICE DEPT: POLICE 47 49 — - - -4100 PERSONAL SERVICES... -... — 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 579, 135. 00 43, 541.36 . 216, 776. 31 O. 00 362. 358. 69 37. 4 •f 4103 REGULAR SALAR IES/SAFETY 1, 626, 990. 00 135, 585. 42 670, 876. 08 O. 00 956, 113. 92 41. 2 4105-SPECIAL--DUTY-PAY 22. 560.-00. 1, 880..-00 9, 400_00 0 00.— 54 J LC FINANCE-FA454 TIME -19:-3P-32 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FRom_11/01/90 --T0-11/.30/90 0 a • 0 0 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 001 GENERAL FUND 2101 .:POLICE 4400 PERSONALSERVIrES 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 4107 PREMIUM OVERTIME 410.9 -COURT TIME 4110 VACATION/SICK%PAY OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4112--PART-TI1EITEMPOFiARY 4114 POLICE RESERVES 4117 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 4-1.-18RIELD-TRAINING-OFFICER PAGE 0010 DATE_12/13/90___ 41.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE PPEOPRIATION MONTHLY -EXP YTD-EABNI) ENCUMBRANCE---UNENC-BALAt DEPT: POLICE 20,000.00 6.618.38 23,542.38 0.00 96,000.00 9.546.69 65,499.57 0.00 20,-000-00 , 639 27 54-257-711 .000 . . :. . 44, 574. C10:.'..;!:..:.-:-,...:,..1 . 0. 00 '...,.............,.`;:::::".2, 939. 67....:...,-;.;....;.:*..:'..:':,' 0.00 -- . . ..,- •-•.'.2.... 4187 UNIFORMS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 44, 574. 00 . 186:42 .:.",:130003. 62 0 00 21-4-000-00 * 0-00 - 0-:00 *: ' 0 00 * * 24, 000. 00 9, 065. 00 94-000-00 38, 500. 00 2/ 196. 10 14 317. 20 0. 00 2, 555, 398. 00 211, 074. 08 1: 035, 466. 18 - . 0. 00 . • 1808. 00 a, 549. 50 529. 20 3, 086. 61 743 54 2,217-46 3,542.38- 117.7 .30,500.43 68. 2 144_742-22 26 P ' 41, 634. 33 6. 5 31, 570. 38 29. 1 214.D00-1) 0. 00 15, 450. 50 35. 6 0. 00 5, 978. 39 34. 0 a_on 64-782-54 2 -.24.192.80 374-. 61 1, 519, 931. 82 40. 5 • 4'6‘ 25 22 23 24 25 226, 2289 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 110,437.00 4251 CONTRAC-T-SERVICEIGOVT 35,-229,-00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL : ' *145,666.00 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 4300 MATERTALS-ASURPLIESAOTHER 4303 UTILITIES 4304 TELEPHONE 4305-OFFICE-OPER-SUSRLIES 4306 PRISONER MAINTENANCE 4307 RADIO MAINTENANCE 4309-MAINTENANCE-MATERIAL8 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 4312 -TRAVEL -EXPENSE -4 --POST 4313 TRAVEL EXPENSE, STC,, 4315 MEMBERSHIP . 4,928.82 33,676.15 285.00 76:475.85 30.7 175.--251,0 63-77 0 00 34,165 23 n 5. 104. 07 344'739. 92 .285. 00 .110, 641. 08 24. 0 0. 00 28, 890. 00 364000.-00 10. 160. 00 3, 000. 00 7.-500 00 19, 250. 00 22, 000. 00 214-500.-00 8. 500. 00 1, 660. 00 14,000.--00 4. 500. 00 333, 904. 00 910,864-00 .53 B_IN4.- '., 74.34 324.36 0.00 324.36- 0.0 .'..i 3,735.18 12,770.82 0.00 16:119.18 44.2 .,1*... 3,360 28 16,522 07 83 26 19,394 67 46 1 778. 52 . 3, 099. 26 , 0. 00 7, 060. 74 30. 5 185. 00 1, 215. 31 - :• 18175. 41 609. 28 79. 6 :..is.., 117.-36 2,-1884,342.77 11,569.80 0.00 7,680.20 60.1 t' .-62 0 00 5 - .11 29 1 -1-3R 2;885.38 12,073.16 73.39 9,853.45 55.2 3,225 57 194_553-56 11-00 5,546-44 72 a_______,..• 0.00 1,081.03 0:00 7,418.97 12.7 0.00 175.00 0.00 1,485.00 10.5 1.452-11 5.754 44 0 00 0,245_56 41 1 ,... 0. 00 100. 00 0. 00 4, 400. 00 2. 2 , 27.823. 00 139. 115. 00 0. 00 194. 789. 00 41. 6 48,179- 2244-542 41 1.332-06 P87,98251 43 6 53 - 5- 4316 -TRAINING 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHOS OBJECT -SUBTOTAL 5400 EQUIPMENT ' 5401 EQUIPMENTLESS-THAN-$500 5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE THAN $500 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 111 550.-00 30, 086. 00 30, 636. 00 • 0 00 24-312-36 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 2, 312. 86 0 00 0. 00 0. 00 1 762-86- 30, 086. 00 28, 323. 14 420 5 0.0 7.5 49 50 51 52 53 54 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS , 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS 134, 626. 00 2, 306. 07 51/ 337. 31 0. 00 83. 288. 69 1344-626.-00 OBJECT -SUBTOTAL 2,306.-07 514-33731 R36288 69 38. 1 38 1 55 50 fif QF` J FINANCE-FA454 TIME -49:32:22 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0011 FR0M-1-1-10149070-11430190 DATF 12/1,/90 ND ^'"-DiV 0""'TDESCR APPRORR IATLON MONTHLY 'EXP YT -D- EXP -ND. : ENCULIBRANCE UNENC BALANCE X 41. 07. OF YEAR COMPLETE 2 001 GENERAL FUND 10 12 13 2201 FIRE 16 DIVISION:;:. _TOTAL'. 3, 377, 190.00 266. 663. 75 1, 345,398. 70 `; s" 1, 617. 06 2, 030, 174.24. 39. 8 : DE€AR�P{ENT��AL 3. 377. 190-00 266,-663 75 a ` a , ---.�,-,�,�+z.9821030,-174.3 1' DEPT: FIRE 3 • 6 7 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALAR I ES/M ISC• 43, 784 ` 00 3, 694:50, -< 4103-REGULAR_SALAR-IES/-SAFETY85,x, 791 00 78,307.--74 19 21 22 023 24 25 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 4108 FLSA OVERTIME 1110-VACATION/SICK-PAY-OFF 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 4119 FITNESS INCENTIVE '4187 -UNIFORMS 99, 500. 00 60, 255. 00 18,-032.-00 18, 032. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL '4200 -CONTRACT -SERV -ICES '4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL` 27 28 30 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 3, 750. 00 312. 65 4305-0EF-ICE- OPER _SUPP-L-IES 3.-800,-00. 145.-5'1 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 7,000.00 284..94_ 4310 MOTOR FUELS,. AND LUBES 3,080.00 153. 19 36 0.00 7. 163. 04 3. 828.25 0. 00 751.88 0:00 8,-040.-00 ' 278-00 14 le 1. 105, 439. 00 21, 718. 00 21, 718. 00 94. 123. 21 1, 511.:46:• 1, 511: 46_,'_' :17..577 50=. 378,1-7-9 81 A -21 -1 -AUTO -MAINTENANCE 1. 000.-04 . 119.-86 4315 MEMBERSHIP 650.00 0.00 4316 TRAINING 2, 500. 00 0. 00 4317 -CONFERENCE -EXPENSE 2,.000 -00- 0 00 4396 TRSFR DUT-INS USER CHGS 91,210.00. 7.601.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL '114,990.00 8,617.17`: 40 46 7 48 4 55. 358. 17 27, 566. 91 0.00 29, 170. 41 2, 400. 00 : 2.-725. 71 512, 978. 51 14,'776 53 -: 14, 776 53 5400 EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 1, 900. 00 5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE -THAN --$500 2,-100.-00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4, 000. 00 6900--LEASE-PAYMENTS. 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS OBJECT SUBTOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL 1, 020. 05 1. 307. 37 1 902. 31 402. 18 333 88 350. 00 112. 80 265.-69 38, 005. 00 43, 699. 28 0 00 26, 211. 50 40. 1 0. 00 479.--611. 19 44 0 0.00 44.141.83 55.6 0.00 32.688.09 45.7 0. 00 18.-032 00 n 0 O 00 11. 138.41- 161.7 `"i 0.00 2, 400. 00- O. 0 �; I'� 0. 00 5,-314 24 33 9 0.00 592,460.49 46.4 24 0. 00 - 6. 941. 47 6. 941.47 68.0. 68. 0 0.00 2.729.95 27.2 0-00 71492-.63 34 4 93. 94 5, 003. 75 28. 5 0. 00 2, 677. 82 13. 0 0- on 666.-12 3q q 0.00 300.00 53.8 0. 00 2, 367. 20 4. 5 0- 00 1,734 -31 13 2 O. 00 53, 205. QO 41.6 93. 94 71, 196. 78 38. 0 0.00 988.47 0.00 911.53 52.0 0 00 1.-880 22 D_..00 1. 780-22=____-1.84 7 0. 00 4, 868. 69 0. 00 868. 69- 121. 7 82, 541. 00 82, 541. 00 47. 74 47. 74 25, 239. 30 25, 239. 30 0. 00 0. 00 1, 328, 688 00 104, 299. 58 57.301.70 57, 301. 70 727. 031. 75 601, 562. 31 .93. 94 727. 031.75 30.5 30. 5 45. 2 45.2 ... _... ._ ..s .. .x.15_.• .. ,' 7. W. i i *ma/ 74 n f • o FINANCE-FA454 TIfIF 19• 37 • 22 6 9 10 12 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM_11/.01J.90._TO__ 11/30/90 FUNn DL B:JT DE5CR APPRORR-IA-TION MONTHLY._EX2 _YZD EXP_ND ENCiif9Ii8ANc' t tntEUC_EALALdCE 001 GENERAL FUND 2401 >'AN I MAL'. CONTROL 4100 PERSONAL -SER -V -ICES 18 19 21 22 23 24 PAGE 0012 DATE_. 12/ 13/90._____ 41.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE ANIMALREGULTN. 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC • 96, 342. 00 7. 326.11 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 1, 000. 00 . 57. 50 41101 -VAC ATI ON/SI CK -PAY OFF 1.927.-00 0.00 . 4111- ACCRUALCASH: IN 1,927.'.00,- 1.:065.96 4117 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL: ` .500.00 ;' 0.,00 ' 4187 UNIFORMS 500:-00 '1F176 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 102, 196. 00 8. 468. 33 4200 -CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE;: 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT 25 27 1, 900. 00 6. 000. 00 OI#JEC T SUBTOTAL 7.-900.-00 • 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 -TELEPHONE 700,00 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 1.800.00 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 800.00 9310-MOTOR-FUELS-ANDLUBES 1,-540,00 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE- 2, 500. 00 4315 MEMBERSHIP 50.00 4316 --BRAINING 350 00 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 4396.TRSFR OUT-INSUSER CHGS .. OBJECT SUBTOTAL 28 30 31 2 33 34 35 36 37 39 40 42 43 550. 00 11, 559. 00 19.-84-94-00 5400 EQUIPMENT 5401_ EQUIPMEN.ILESS--IHAN1-. 500 1. 000.-00 OBJECT: SUBTOTAL 1, 000.00 900 -LEASE --PAYMENTS 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 76. 50 35, 652. 99 529. 75 0-00 :1,656. 54 253. 35 93 '80 38, 186. 43 0. 00 60, 689. 01 37. 0 0.00 470.25 52.9 0 00 1.927 00 0 0 0. 00 0. 00 0: On 0.00 270. 46 85. 9 246. 65 50. 6 406._2n 111 7 64,009.57 37.3 783 19 O 00 1, 116.81 .. , . 41. 2 241. 79 ;•`2, 283. 01 O. 00 •;r 3, 716. 99 38. 0 318. 29 3.-066. 3 60-31 66. 98 9.92 375,-04. 505. 15 0.00 n 00 121.95 963.00 2.in? 39 50_O0- 50. 00- 246. -OR 1, 027. 44 24. 63 801. 07 591. 33 000 n nn 121. 95 4, 815. 00 7, 627 50 -..0-00 0.00 O 00 •1 110. 49 O 00 O 00 45 772. 56 57. 0 775. 37 3. 0 778 93 57 0 4 p. ,7; 1, 798. 18 50. 00 750 00 28. 0 0. 0 O.0 O 00 428. 05 - . 22. 1 O. 00 6, 744. 00 41.6 - iin 49 12 111 1 38 9 50._00- n 00 50. 00- O. 00 14050- 04 1, 050. 00 5 0 5. 0 714. 00 56. 15 714. 00 56. 15 280. 75 0. 00 280. 75 0. 00 433. 25 433. 25 39.3 39.3' 44 45 46 47 48 DIVISION ' TOTAL • 131, 659. 00 10. 895. 12 49, 110. 88 . . 110. 49 82, 437. 63 37.3 49 51 52 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 131, 659.00 10, 895. 12 49, 110. 88' 110.49 82, 437. 63 37. 3 2701 -CML -DEFENSE DERTT_i2ISASTER-PREP 4.100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4103-REGULAR_SALAR IES/SAFETY ' 24.-826 00 74201 57 i i :dna s p r) 00 11, 818 -40 44 3 53 54 5 56 1`7 2 • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-FA454 EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0013 TIME -=19:-32-:-22 FROM -11/01/90 .-TO 11/30/90 DATE ---12/13/90 41.0/ OF YEAR COMPLETE I -FUND-DI-V-OBJT-DESCR APPROPRIATION MONTHLY -EXP YTD-EXPND. ENCUMBRANCE UNENC-BALANCE /. 1 001 'GENERAL FUND I 10 12 2701 CIVIL DEFENSE DEPT:. DISASTER PREP 41 -00 -PERSONAL -SERVICES is 411.4 4200 -CONTRACT -SERV -ICES ,6 .7 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF .497.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 497.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 ` 4187 -UNIFORMS 285 00 14 58 72 90 0 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL •• 26, 105. 00 2.216. 10 H .:;;11,080. 50 0.00 20 22 0,23 497. 00 497. 00 212 10 15; 024. 50 0. 0 0.0 25. 5 _______ 42. 4 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 0. 00 316. 84 1, 969. 83 0. 00 1. 969. 83- O. 0 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT 2, 800. 00 O. 00 O. 00 . O. 00 2, 800. 00 O. 0 OBJECT -SUBTOTAL 2.800.00 316..84 1-.-969 83 0 00 ----830 17 70 3 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER -4305-OFFICE-.OPER SUPPLIES 2S 26 27 26 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 4316 TRAINING ,4396-TRSFR-OUT -INS-USER-CHCS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 5400 EQUIPMEN 3.-725. 00 600. 00 3, 600. 00 2, 319. 00- 10, 010, 244. 00 129. 64 0. 00 0. 00 193. 00 322. 64 129. 64 0. 00 480. 00 965. 00 1. 574. 64 0.00 0. 00 0.00 3. 595 36 3 4 600. 00 0. 0 3.120.00 13.3 0 00 --------.-1. 354-00-----_--.41..6 ----_ 0. 00 8, 669. 36 _ 15. 3 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 1,000.00 5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE THAN $500 5,000.00 OBJECT --SUBTOTAL 6. 000.00 0. 00 0. 00 0 00 0.00 0. 00 0 00 0. 00 1. 000. 00 0. 0 0.00 5.000.00 0.0 I ISION-T--01 AL 45,147,00--------2,855-58 14.-624.-97 0. -DO 30, 524 03 32 3 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 45, 149. 00 2, 855. 58 14. 624. 97 O. 00 30. 524. 03 32. 3 3101 MEDIANS DEPT: ST/HWY/ST-DRAIN 100 PERSONAL -SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 50, 847.00 4,174.20 20, 293.19 0.00 30, 553.81 39.9 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 300.00 . 0.00 25.43 0.00 274.57 8.4 4110 VACATION/SICK- PAY --OFF 1, 017. 00 0..00. =---_._:0..00-__._�__..__O..dO-- ---_-- 1, 017 00 _. .. O. 0 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 1, 017. 00 1, 400. 85 1, 491. 87 ` O. 00 474. 87- 146. 6 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 53. 181. 00 5, 575. 05 21. 810. 49 0. 00 31, 370. 51 41. 0 ©'7 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE. 4251 -CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT--- OBJECT SUBTOTAL 47. 630. 00 1.260. 00- 48. 890. 00 3. 202. 59 0,00 3. 202. 59 -4300--MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4303 UTILITIES 9, 027. 00 12, 810. 36 0.00- 12. 810. 36 352. 00 34, 467. 64 27. 6 -0. 00 .1. 260. 00 ...._ . 0. 0 352. 00 35. 727. 64 26. 9 727. 69 2, 547. 87 0. 00 6, 479. 13 0 28. 2 FINANCE-FA454 TIME-1.9.�32�22. • 2 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH .EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 11/01/90 TO 11/30/90 PAGE 0014 DATE 12/13/90 41.0. OF YEAR COMPLETE FUNDDIV-OBJ.-DESCR APPROPRIATION.___ _____MONTHLY._.EXP..___..__YTD.. EXPND______.___.ENCUMBRANCE ..._.UNENC BALANCE__.. -.i.._-._._. 001 GENERAL FUND 3101 MEDIANS DEPT: ST/HWY/ST. DRAIN 300-MATER-IALS/SUPP-LIES/OTHER 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 6. 000. 00 136. 77 250. 14 1. 179. 59 4, 570. 27 23. 8 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 660.00 1. 19 8.35 0.00 651. 65 1.2 4311 AUTO. _MAINTENANCE 500._00 93 09 _465..05 0 00 34.95__. 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHCS 4, 686. 00 391. 00 1, 955. 00 0. 00 2, 731. 00 41. 7 OBJECT SUBTOTAL "' 20. 873. 00 ; 1, 349. 74 5, 226. 41 1, 179. 59 14, 467. 00 30. 6 6 0 0 f. c III 0:20 12, 27 Ltl 211 0311 31 0 J2 33 l 0 35 36 5400 EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 500. 00 0. 00 162.26 0.00 337. 74 32. 4 5499NON-CAPITALIZED-ASSETS 1, 500._00_ 0 00 0 00 0 00 1500. 00__ 0. 0^.___ OBJECT SUBTOTAL 2, 000. 00 0. 00 162. 26 0. 00 1,837. 74 8. 1 DIVISION TOTAL 124, 944. 00 10, 127. 38 40, 009. 52 1. 531. 59 83, 402. 89 33.2 3103 -ST -MAINTENANCE DEP-TEST/HWY-/ST.-DRA IN 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102-REGULAR-SALARIES.1M1SC 155.-214.-00 12.-956,-20 621-711. 14 0 00 92.._502_8A 40_4 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 500.00. 0.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.0 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 3. 104. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 3, 104.00 0. 0 4111 ACCRUAL -CASH IN -3.-104.--00 2,482 26 2.-573 28. 0 00 530_.72--_82..2_ _____ ..... OBJECT SUBTOTAL 161, 922. 00 15, 438. 46 65, 284. 42 O. 00 96. 637. 58 40.3 00 CONTRACT -SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 82, 977. 00 8, 731. 98 24, 134. 97 210. 00 58, 632. 03 29. 3 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT . 1, 200. 00 0. 00 100. 00 0. 00 1, 100. 00 8. 3 .-OBJECT.-SUBTOTAL 84. 177 00 8, 731 98 24.,-234 97 710 00 59. 732. 03. _____ .._29. 0.___.. 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 309 -MAINTENANCE -MATERIALS 14,-800 00 1.184.08 4.478-91 0 00 101_321_09. 30.2 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 4. 180. 00 . 862. 44 1, 776. 65 0. 00 2. 403. 35 42. 5 4311 AUTO t1AINTENANCE 13, 500. 00 730. 81 3. 512. 44 822. 36 9. 165. 20 32. 1 4316 -TRAINING 600_..00 0 00 0 00 0 00 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS 53, 324. 00 4, 444. 00 22, 220. 00 0. 00 31, 104. 00 41. 6 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 86, 404. 00 7, 421. 33. 31, 988. 00 822. 36 53, 593. 64 37. 9 0 17 4E6 ns C 51 53 5400 EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 -5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE -THAN --$500 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 200. 00 2. 800. .00 3;000. 00 0. 00 0 00 0. 00 0. 00 0 00 0. 00 0.00 0 00 0.00 .6900 -LEASE --PAYMENTS 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS 20. 844. 00 1, 736. 78 10, 420. 68 0. 00 200. 00 2. 800. 00 . . 3. 000. 00 0. 0 0.0 0.0 10, 423. 32 49. 9 55 056 a ti 02 FINANCE-FA454 TIME --194-324-22 3 F-UND-D 11--OBJT DESCR 001 GENERAL FUND 0 -LEASE -PAYMENTS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 20, 844. 00 1. 736. 78 10, 420. 68 0. 00 CITY OFHERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0015 FROM -.11 101./90. -TO 41/30/90 DATE.12/_ 13/90 41.07 OF YEAR COMPLETE i APPROPRIATION MONTHLY-EXP---Y_TD-EXPND ENCUMBRANCE--UNENC-BALANCF 7 10,.423.32 49.9 13 DIVISION TOTAL 356, 347. 00 33. 328. 55 131, 928. 07 1. 032. 36 223.386.57 37.3 104 -TRAFFIC --SAFETY DEPT:__ ST/HWWST DRAIN 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES ,s 4402-REGULAR-SALARIES/MI SC .. 106,-327.-00 - 7, 845.42 37, 332.-69 16 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 500. 00 0. 00 162. 70 ®0 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 2, 127. 00 0. 00 0. 00 19 4111 ACCRUAL -CASH-IN 2. 127. 00 1,-051 -48 2,-103. 81 402 ' 21 22 0 23 24 25 0 26 27 OBJECT SUBTOTAL.: 4200 -CONTRACT- SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 15, 000. 00 0. 00 2, 100. 00 0. 00 12, 900. 00 14. 0 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT 8, 117. 00 300. 00 32. 85- O. 00 8, 149. 85 0. 4 OBJECT- SUBTOTAL 23r 117-.-00 300 00 2.067,45 0 00 21, 049..85.--;.8_3-_-_ 111. 081. 00 8, 896. 60 39, 599. 20 0. 00 68.-994 31 35_--1 0.00 337.30 32.5 0. 00 2, .127. 00 0. 0 0.00 23 19 98.9.-__ 0. 00 71, 481. 80 35. 6 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER '303 -UTILITIES 6,-180,00 548.-54 2.-135. 32 0 -00 4.-044 .68 34 5 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS .. 36, 000. 00 5, 969. 57 29, 577. 89 5. 241. 40. 1, 180. 71 96. 7 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 1.430. 00 344. 42 732.51 0. 00 697. 49 51. 2 4311 -AUTO -MAINTENANCE 1.200.00 3.34 17 56 0 00 1.:.182.-44__-._._.L_4 4315 MEMBERSHIP 200.00 0.00 60.00 0.00 140.00 30.0 4316 TRAINING 300.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 300.00 0.0 9396: TRSFR-DUT�-INS-USER-CHCS 9,401.-00 783 00 i/-915 00 0 00 5. 48600 41 6 OBJECT: SUBTOTAL 54, 711. 00 7. 648. 87 36, 438. 28 . 5. 241. 40 13. 031. 32 76. 1 5400 -EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 2.380.00 . 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.380.00 0.0 'OBJECT SUBTOTAL 2, 380. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 2,:380. 00 0. 0 2J ®2; 33 31 0 32 33 ®,4 136 3, 0 33 139 40 ®41 42 43 0 44 1'. 46 ® 47 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS 10, 096. 00 841.29 5. 047. 74 0. 00 5, 048. 26 49.9 OBJECT --SUBTOTAL 10, 096. 00 _ -- 841.29. __5, 04774.______.__ DIVISION ---TOTAL 201x385.-00 17.686.-76 83.-152.-37 -5...241._40 112.991_23..___-._43.6.._.__ DEPARTMENT TOTAL 682,676.00 61. 142. 69 255, 089. 96 7, 805. 35 419, 780. 69 0 50 In'v 151 53 4101 PLANNING DEPT: PLANNING 4100- PERSONAL -SERVICES 38. 5 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 195. 156. 00 12, 011.62 59. 511. 17 0. 00 135.644.83 30.4 0 I� FINANCE-FA454 TIME_1.9:-32:.22-- FUND -DI .OB.J--T-DESCR 001 GENERAL FUND CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) . FROM 11/01/90 TO 11/30/90 PAGE 0016 DATE 12/13/90 41 07. OF YEAR COMPLETE APP.ROPRIAT.ION__._______.MONTHLY.EXP....._YTD. EXPND....___...._.____.ENCUMBRANCE..__.Ut•.ENC.BALANCE ._ ® ° 9 ® ,1 1` 014 15 1G ® 17 19' 0 20 11 22 ® 23 4101 PLANNING 00 -PERSONAL -SERVICES- DEPT: PLANNING 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 300.00 9.20 9.20 0.00 290.80 3.0 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 4,188.00 0.00 44.13 0.00 4,143.87 1.0 4111 ACCRUAL -.CASH IN 4,188-00 ___2.013'35 2,013.35 0 00.____ 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 22, 020.00 3.220.48 16.102.53 0.00 5,917.47 73.1 OBJECT SUBTOTAL ' 225, 852.00 ' 17,,254.65 77, 680.38 0.00 ` . 148+171.62 . 34.3 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 62,000.00 OBJECTSUBTOTAL62. 000, 00 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE ®.25 ® z: 1. 712.--00 0. 00 199. 55 0. 00 61, 800. 45 0. 3 0 00 199 55 226 74 867 28 0.00 844-72. .50..6._-._ 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 15, 500.00 528.07 3.648.93 147.74 .11.703.33 24.4 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 220.00 25.79 58.06 0.00 161.94 26.3 4311 -AUTO- MAINTENANCE 600-00 636 42 1,-240 85_ 0 00 .640_85r _206.8 4315 MEMBERSHIP 825.00 65.00: 240.00 0.00 585.00 29.0 4316 TRAINING 1,800.00 318.78 318.78 0.00 1.481.22 17.7 4317--CONFERENCE-EXPENSE 1.250,-00 0.00 140.-00 0 00_ 1.110 00 11 2 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHCS 9,616.00 801.00 4,005.00 0.00 5,611.00 41.6 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 31. 523.00 2.601.80 10, 518.90 147.74 20, 856.36 33.6 31 ® 3z 3 • 0 35 3 0 5400 EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 400.00 BJECT-SUBTOTAL 400 00 0.00 5.06 0.00 394.94 1.2 0 00 5_-06 n 00 144_94 1 2 IVISION TOTAL 319.-775 00 19..856 45 88403_89 147-4_ 2312_223 37 27 6 4102 PLANNING COMM DEPT: PLANNING Y0 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 0 11 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 6,000.00 OBJECT -SUBTOTAL 6, 000.-00 01 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4305-OFFICE--OPER-SUPPLIES 5.000.00 " 4316 TRAINING 204.00 0 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 1.200.00 4.1 OBJECT. SUBTOTAL 6. 404.00 49 0.'x, 51 0 53 54 ®LG 0 DIVISION ---TOTAL 102.00 1.411.00 102 00 1,411 On 0. 00 4. 589. 00 23. 5 0...00 4, 589. 00 23. 5 347 93 1.. 571 07 0 00 __.._ _.:.._...3, 428. 93 31. 4 26. 69 26.:69 0. 00 177. 31 13. 0 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1, 200. 00 0: 0 0. 00 4, 806. 24 24. 4 9.395.24 24.2 71 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-FA454 EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0017 IME 194-32.-22 FROM -11/01/90 TO -1-1/30/90 DATE -1241349 41.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE T Dn In-V-0ts..r DESCR APPROPR-IA1ION 001 GENERAL FUND 12 DEPARTMENT TOTAL MONTHLY --EXP YT�ExPtu2 ENCUMBRANCE.-UNENC-BALANCE X 332, 179. 00 20, 333. 07 DEP CONS-/ENG-IN/ENF ' .. .. ., 91, 412. 65', , 147. 74 240. 618. 61 27. 5 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102-REGULAR-SALAR I ES/41-LSC 241-,--390-00 17. 613.-62 834-246 11 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 500.00 0.00 0.00 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF. 4,828.00 0.00 .2,383..96 1 -ACCRUAL -CASH -111 1.-828:-00 1-.-337.-8S 1,337,-85 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 251. 546. 00 18,951. 47 86, 967. 92 4200 CONTRACT -SERV -ICE° 7 19 0 zo 411 22 co23 24 25 S 20 27 26 ®'29 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 5 39 40 0_00 1-5844.43 89 14..-.4 0.00 500.00 0.0 0 00 2. 444. 04 49. 3 0.-00 3.-49D..4 27 7 0. 00 164. 578. 08 34. 5 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 55.827. 00 0. 00 10, 520. 07 22, 586. 80 22, 720. 13 59. 3 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT 890. 00 : 0..00 0. 00 0. 00 890. 00 0. 0 OBJECT -SUBTOTAL 56.-717. 00 0,--00 1-0,520,-07 22. 586,-80-23.-610.-13- 58. 3- 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 3-.-461-.--00 278.-44 976.-47 0.-00 1.484.53 39.6 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 6, 825. 00 523. 45 2,.475. 41 65. 00 4, 284. 59 37. 2 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 578. 00 217. 97 ' 510. 67 0. 00 67. 33 88. 3 4311 -AUTO --MAINTENANCE 525.-00 25.86 134.-00 0 00 '191 On 24_5 4315 MEMBERSHIP 365.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 265.00' 27.3 4316 TRAINING 3, 000. 00 80. 00 419. 00 172. 77 2. 408. 23 19. 7 4317--CONFERENCE-EXPENSE 1, 500.-00 0-00 0 00 0 00 14. 500_.00 0-0 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS 31, 090. 00 2. 591.00 12, 955. 00 0. 00 18, 135. 00 41. 6 OBJECT . SUBTOTAL 46, 344. 00 3. 716: 72 17, 570. 55 237. 77 28. 535. 68 38. 4 5400 -EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 700.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 700.00 0.0 5403 -VEHICLES 11.-000 00 0 00 0 00 9705 28 1, 294_ _72 _ 88.2 ______ OBJECT SUBTOTAL 11,.700. 00 O. 00 0. 00 9, 705. 28 14994. 72 82. 9 42 43 ® as 45 46 Oa7 50 3 54 55 ®56 DIVISION TOTAL 366, 307. 00 22, 668. 19 115, 058. 54 32. 529. 85 218. 718. 61 40. 2 1202 PUB -WKS -ADMIN DEPT: CONST/ENGIN/ENF 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 1102 REGULAR-SALARIES/MISC 191,877 00 15,413.-41 73,-333 51. 0 00 1.18..543...49 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 3,838.00 63.40 63.40 0.00 3.774.60 1. 6 I 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 3. 838. 00 246. 00 337. 02 0. 00 3, 500.98 . 8. 7 4187 -UNIFORMS 7.210.-00 477 83 2,.041 89 -0 00 5, 168. 11.._______28. 3._-. OBJECT SUBTOTAL 206, 763. 00 16. 200. 64 • 75, 775. 82 0. 00 130. 987. 18 36. 6 1200 -CONTRACT --SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 3, 000. 00 11. 50 192. 28 0. 00 2. 807. 72 6. 4 ki 4. •2 i3�itND nrii OBJ -T nES 5 • F I NANCE-FA454 ME 194-32-22 6 7 e 9 ,0 • ,I 12 4300_ MATER- IALS/SUPSLIEG/OTHER '3 4304 TELEPHONE 5 564. 00 ; 627. 83 2.615. 65 0 14 '4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES ,5 �.9. 890. 00 745. 83 31811. 07 4210-MOTOR.FUELS-AND-LUBES 1,036 00 219 4A 843^94 06 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 2, 040. 00 8. 00 51. 66 17 164315 MEMBERSHIP 740.00 175. 00 175.00 4316 -TRAINING o ,9 4-D00.-.00 0 00 072 35 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 1.000. 00 O. 00 16. 00 4025 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHCS 2' 48. 440. 00 4,'037. 00 20, 185. 00 OBJECT -SUBTOTAL 70,710 00 5. 813.-12 ' '- 28.-070_-.67 001 GENERAL FUND '.4202 PUB.: WKS ADMIN 4200 -CONTRACT SERVICES OBJECT SUBTOTAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM .11/01/90. TO -11"/30/90 PAGE 0018 • DATE -12/13/90 _____ 41. 07.. OF YEAR COMPLETE AP.P_ROPRIATION MONTH V FXP YTD EXPND ENCUMBRANCE-UNENC-BALANCF DEPT: '' CO•NST/ENGIN/ENF 3. 000. 00 11. 50 192. 28 • • O • 22 23 24 5400 EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT=LESS-THAN '6500. 75 00 0.-00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 75. 00 ; 0. 00 25 26 27 26 29 30 3, 32 33 DIVISION TOTAL 280,548.00 4204 -BLDG -MA I NT DEPT: CONST/-ENGIN/EN 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102-R EGULAR-SALAR I ES /MISC 1$5.-762 00 13, 028.-30 A';, 72Z...60 ' 0-00 924_034 40 40 9 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 1, 600. 00 334. 77 481. 41 O. 00 1, 118. 59 30. 0 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 3, 115. 00 0. 00 O. 00 0. 00 3, 115. 00 O. 0 41.11 -ACCRUAL -CASH -IN 1. 115 00 11_993 24 7, 666 2A 0. 00 448 74 85 5 4.187 UNIFORMS 315.00 16.68 83: 40 O. 00 231.60 26.4 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 163, 907. 00 15, 372. 99 66.958. 67 O. 00 96. 948. 33 40. 8 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 21, 260. 00 1, 705. 00 OBJECT -SUBTOTAL- 21.260.-00 14-_705 -00 6,300 00 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 • 041 42 • 0 C 43 44 45 46 47 49 50 5, 52 53 54 55 56 1, 57 22. 025. 26 0. 00 2.807. 72 6. 4 0.00 - 2.948.35 47.0 0. 00 6. 078. 93 38. 5 O 00 492-0A 52 5 745.00 1.243.34 39.0 0. 00 565.00 23.6 O 00 1, 32Z. 65 13 6 O 00 984. 00 1. 6 O 00 ': 28.255. 00 41. 6 745-00 41.894_31 40_7 74.-62 7462:` 0.00: -0 00 104, 113. 39 745. 00 0_3R 99_g 0. 38 99. 4 175, 689.61 37,3 6. 300. 00 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4303 -U -TIL -I -TIES 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 4310 MOTOR FUELS. AND LUBES 4311--AUTO-MAINTENANCE 90,-000,-00 8,057.-97 31+649_11 0 00 584-350_89 35 1 '40.000.00 3.686. 18 12, 092. 05 1,228.11 26, 679. 84 33. 3 800.00 190.31 376.44 0.00 423.56 47.0 600 00 0 00 400 12 0 00 199 88_ .66.6. 4316 TRAINING 200. 00 0. 00 0. 00 O. 00 200. 00 O. 0 4321 BUILDING SAFETY/SECURITY 8, 000: 00 21.38' 124. 22 269.67 7, 606. 11 4. 9 4396-TRSFR--OUTINS-USER-CHCS 24, 834x00 2.-070,•00 10. 350,-00 0 00 144 484 00 .41 6 1 1 r,I c.. i a:l O. 00 14. 960. 00 29. 6 29 6 1 G-00 141_960...00 0.7 FINANCE-FA454 TIME -15732:-22 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM -11/01/90 .TO 11/30/90 PAGE 0019 DATE -12/13/90 41.07. OF YEAR COMPLETE ND-DIS-013J-T-DESCR APPROPRIAT-ION MONTHLY EXP Y-TD-EXPND. ENCUMBRANCE --UNENC_.BALANCF % 001 GENERAL FUND 4204 BLDG MAINT DEPT: CONST/ENGIN/ENF 00-MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER OBJECT SUBTOTAL 5400 EQUIPMENT 11 164. 434. 00 14, 025. 84 54, 991.94 1, 497. 78 107, 944. 28 34. 3 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 650.00 5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE THAN $500 5.500.00 OBJECT -SUBTOTAL b. 150.-00 DIVISION TOTAL 4205 EQUIP SERVICE 0.00 0. 00 -0 00 187. 87 0.00 187 87 0. 00 462. 13 0. 00 5. 500. 00 0. 00.---_.5, 962. -13 28. 9 0. 0 -3 0 355,-751.-00.----31.,-103 $3- _128,-438. 48-•. -_-1,.497. 78 - 225. 814..74.-.--_-_-36..5 DEPT: CONST/ENGIN/ENF • ® 124 126 30 1.31 ®:2 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 4106 -REGULAR OVERTIME I'sa ® 3.. 36 3, :VD 11.0 0.1 o 43 as 104, 362. 00 8. 563. 67 600. 00 0.. 00 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 2, 087. 00 0. 00 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 2, 087. 00 287. 00 9112 -PART TIME/TEMPORARY 5,000.-00 0 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 114, 136.00 8. 850. 67 300-.MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 4, 500. 00 266. 92 983. 48 0. 00 3. 516. 52 21. 8 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 1, 650. 00 146. 18 11089. 55 0. 00 560. 45 66. 0 311 , AUTO --MAINTENANCE 3. 150.-00 8 83 766.-.59 0 00 2.- 383. 41-_- .24..3 4316TRAINING 200. 00 - 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 200. 00 0. 0 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHCS 10. 127. 00 844. 00 4.220.00. 0. 00 5, 907. 00 41. 6 OBJECT -SUBTOTAL 19.627..00.,-------.1.265..-93_ 7.059.62 0 00.... --- ._-_12.567..38 35.9 42, 355. 72 0 00 0. 00 378: 84 0 00 42, 734. 56 0. 00 62. 006. 28 40. 5 0 00 0. 00 _ 2. 087. 00 0. 0 0. 00 1, 708. 16 18. 1 0 00 5, 000. 00 0. 00 71. 401.44 37. 4 5400 EQUIPMENT 5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE THAN --$500 20.400.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 20.400.00 6900 LEASE --PAYMENTS 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS OBJECT SUBTOTAL • 0 00 0 00 0.00 20. 400.00. 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 20, 400. 00 5, 016. 00 - 417. 96 5, 016. 00 417. 96 2, 507. 76 0. 00 2, 507. 76 0. 00 45 1J L.1 2. 508. 24 2. 508. 24 DIVISION TOTAL 159, 179. 00 10, 534. 56 ' 52, 301. 94 0. 00 106. 877. 06 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 1..161, 785. 00 86, 331. 84 399, 912. 35 34, 772. 63 727, 100. 02 4601 -COMM RESOURCES- DEPT: COMM PROMOTION 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC- 166...737.00 .12..610..-75. .60..853_52 0. 0 0. 0 49. 9 49. 9 32. 8 37. 4 4 00 105. 883. 48 .... _.. __. 36. 4 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-FA454 EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) TIME__19.:22:.,22 _ _ FROM 11/01/90 TO 11/30/90 PAGE 0020 DATE 12/13/90 .. 41.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE F-UND-D I-V-_OB.JT DESCR APPROPRIATI ON. -___.-___MONTHLY.._ EXP. __YTD_EXPND.- ENCUMBRANCE__ UNENC.._BALANCE 7. 001 GENERAL FUND ' 4601 COMM RESOURCES DEPT: COMM PROMOTION 100 -PERSONAL -SERVICES 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 1,000.00 0.00 885.82 0.00 114.18 88.5 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 3, 221.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 3, 221. 00 0. 0 4111 ACCRUAL--CASH-IN d, 221_00 0 00 2, 976 00_ 0 00.____ 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 67. 500. 00 6, 678. 77 35. 205. 00 - 0. 00 32, 295. 00 52. 1 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 241, 679. 00 19, 289. 52 99, 920. 34 0. 00 141, 758. 66 41. 3 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 65. 650. 00 395. 00 13, 495. 86 0. 00 52, 154. 14 20. 5 OBJECT SUBTOTAL .65,-650.-00 395 00 13,-495..86 0 00 52,.154_14. _20.5..__ 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4302 -ADVERTISING 11.000.-00 583 75 3,919 12 3,026 85 4J 054 03 63 1 C 4304 TELEPHONE 4, 300. 00 393. 67 1, 623. 87 O 00 2, 676. 13 37 7 02: z4 I:, L, 1315 -MEMBERSHIP 700.-00 15.00 115 00 0 00 585_00 16 4 0 4316 TRAINING 1, 000. 00 289. 08 369. 08 0. 00 630. 92 36. 9 30 0 4317 CONFERENCE EXPENSE - 1, 600. 00 0. 00 370.-00 0. 00 1, 230. 00 23. 1 34396-TRSFR-,OUT- INS -USER -CHCS -20..557.-00. __1. 713. 00 8. 565.. 00_ _ 0 00. 11, 942. 00 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 7, 600. 00 868. 98 3, 503. 34 0. 00 4, 096. 66 46. 0 4308 PROGRAM MATERIALS 13. 000..00. 2, 204...77._ --7-,.-173...58 401 59 5. 424. 83.._.___.58. 2 4310. MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 700. 00 152. 15 284. 33 0. 00 415. 67 40. 6 - 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 300. 00 0. 00 60. 99 0. 00 239. 01 20. 3 31 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 60. 757. 00 6, 220. 40 25, 984. 31 3, 428. 44 31. 344. 25 48. 4 5400- EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $500 4,449. 00 0. 00 948. 81 3, 425. 31 74. 88 98. 3 5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE THAN $500 1. 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1, 000. 00 0. 0 OBJECT.. SUBTOTAL 5, 449. 00 0 00 948 81 .__3...425. 31._._ 1. 074. 88...._.__-...._ 80.2 .._.. _ .. 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS -900-LEASE--PAYMENTS 2,300.-00 189 65 4U 948 25 0 00 I, 35i_75 .4i_.2. OBJECT SUBTOTAL 2, 300. 00 189. 65 948. 25 0. 00 1, 351. 75 41. 2 ®.3 3:' 0135 3<. 3, ® 1J 33 0 0 4i 4., 4' 4< 0 47 48 40 6101 PARKS DIVISION TOTAL 375, 835. 00 26. 094. 57 141, 297. 57 6, 853. 75 227, 683. 68 39. 4 DEPARTMENT -TOTAL .375. 835.. 00 26..094-57 -141.-297_57 A. 853 75 227.683.68 39.4__..__..__... DEPT: PARKS/REC 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 79,364.00 106REGULAR-•OVERTIME 500 on 6, 577. 30 0 00 31, 993. 10 2-5 38 0. 00 47, 370. 90 40. 3 0-00 474 62 5 0 • 5) 4 02 FINANCE-FA454 TIME -19422:22 3 F-UND-D-I-V-OEJT-DESCR Ods 001 GENERAL FUND 6 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM -11/01/90 TO -11/30/90 APPROPRIATION PAGE 0021 DATE 12/13/.90 41.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE MONTHLY -EXP VTD-EXPND ENCUMBRANCE UNENC_BALAUCE 6101 PARKS ® of DEPT: PARKS/REC 9 4100 -PERSONAL -SERVICES 41!0 VAGATIONtSICK PAY OFF 1, 587. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1.587.00 0. 0 6119° " 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 1, 587. 00 1, 874.57 1, 965. 59 0. 00 378. 59- 123. 8 .2 OBJECT -SUBTOTAL 83. 038 00 84-451 87 33a 984 07 0 00________49, 053..93___40. 9_._._. 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 1:65 4201 CONTRACT-SERVICE/PRIVATE 138,510.-00 10.896.-15 43,-690-58 . 210 00 94.609._-42 31 6 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 138, 510. 00 10, 896. 15 43, 690. 58 210. 00 94, 609. 42 31. 6 13 ® 14 118 4300-MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4303 4303 UTILITIES 02° 56, 093.00 4, 247.58 17, 653. 41 0. 00 38, 439.59 31.4 ( 21 4304 TELEPHONE 350. 00 33. 89 3, 345. 40 0. 00 2, 995. 40- 955. 8 4309 -MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 12. 500.00 1.848. 90 9r 985. 36 296. 09 2, 218. 55 82. 2 ,3 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 770.00 159.12 0490.51 0. 00 279.49 63.7 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 3, 500. 00 203. 23 440. 33 0. 00 - 3, 059. 67 12. 5 14 4315 -MEMBERSHIP 500.-00- 0 00 0 00 0 00.--�---_ .-_-500. 00._-_-;__0. 0 2; 4316 TRAINING 500.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 494.00 1.2 ® 2/ 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS 13, 560. 00 1, 130. 00 5, 650. 00 0. 00 7, 910. 00 41. 6 ri zu OBJECT -SUBTOTAL : 87.-773.-00 7•.-622. 72 37,571-.-01 296 09 49.-905..90 43 1 0 29 X31 ®',2 34 ®,3' 36 37 ®'3'i !3. 9 •41 4.' F•13 5400 EQUIPMENT 5402-EQUIPMENT--MORE--THAN--$500 0 00 0 00 620 22 O. 00 620. 22-______-_-0. 0 5403 VEHICLES 15, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 13, 842. 36 1, 157. 64 92. 2 5499 NON -CAP ITALI ZED ASSETS 3,'000. 00 O. 00 0. 00 0. 00 3, 000. 00 0. 0 OBJECT= SUBTOTAL 18,000. 00 0 00 620 22 13.842.-36 3, 537...42. DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL 327.-321-00-_ 26,-970-74. .115, 865.8B 14..248_-45 ___..__197, 106..67 327, 321. 00 26, 970. 74 115, 865. 88 14, 348. 45 197, 106. 67 39. 7 8146 CIP 89-146 DEPT: STREET/SAFETY 4300--MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 0.00 2.684.42- 0.00 0.00 0.00 O. 0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 0. 00 2, 684. 42- O. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 0 .:6 DIVISION TOTAL 0. 00 2, 684. 42- 0.00 0. 00 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 8601--C-I P-- 86-601- 0. 00 2, 684. 42- 0.00 . 0.00 DEP4 BLDGS---Es--GROUNDS 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201-CONTRACT-SERVICE/PRIVATE 0 00 488 00 - on 1.,-125 00 0. 00 0. 0 0.00 0.0 0 FINANCE-FA454 II1E-19 -32-22 CITY OF HERtMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0022 -. FROM 11/01/90.....TO 11/30/90.. ___ _..._ ._.. DATE 12/13/90 __ 41.07. OF YEAR COMPLETE ND -DI ---D J-T-DESCR'' APPROPRIATION MONTHLY__EXP____Y_TD_EXPND._- __ENCUMBRANCE.___. UNENC_.BALANCE____7____ 001 LIGHTING DISTRICT FUND 10 12 13 4 15 8601 CIP 86-601 DEPT: BLDGS & GROUNDS 00-!MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER OBJECT SUBTOTAL 0.00 488.00- 0. 00 1, 125. 00 1.125.00- 0.0 16 7 DIVISION TOTAL 0.00 488.00- 0.00 DEPARTMENT -TOTAL 0 00 488 00- 0-00 10, 766. 491. 00 787, 481. 47 4, 089, 456. 96 FUND TOTAL 1.125. 00 1, 125. 00- 0. 0 1. 12500 1..125 00- 0�0 74, 569. 83 6, 602, 464. 21 38. 6 40.- • 0.-® 26 27 ® `' 30 31 O 32 33 34 O 35 3E 37 ® 3t' 4 0 41 42 43 0144 0 45 4e, 53 54 0 ,i {1 3.4 ;; a:. TIP -0 ,S711MR7?. ..,2A!riq',l1rT Me. F7V.7" f.'11 - - - I i ® 2 3 6 F I NANC E-FA454 TIME -1-94-324 22 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY.FUND) PAGE 0023 FROM --11 /01 / 90.-_TO_11 /30/90 DATE -12/-13L90 • 41.07. OF YEAR COMPLETE FUND DIV OEJT DESCR /APPROPRIATION MONTHLY EXP ,Y.TD-EXPND ENCUMBRANCE-UNENC_BALANCF 7. 105 LIGHTING DISTRICT FUND' 10 0,1 12 13 0 1,1 1v ® 11 15 it 0 121 122 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER - DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 4300-MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT 22,000.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL, 22,000.00 1, 833. 33 11833. 33 9, 166. 65 9,166. 65 0. 00 0. 00 12, 833. 35 12, 833. 35 41. 6 41.6 DIVISION TOTAL 22, 000. 00 - 111 833. 33 9, 166. 65 0. 00 121 833. 35 41. 6 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 22, 000. 00 1, 833. 33 2601 -STREET -LIGHTING 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102 REGULAR:.SALARIES/MISC 78,"268.-00 5.684.54 27-,-874...22 0.00 50,393 78 15 6 4106. REGULAR OVERTIME 500.00 0.00 68.48 0.00 431.52 1p.6 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 1,565.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,565.00 0.0 4111- ACCRUAL -CASH -IN 1,565-00 14-051-48 t.-967 10 0 00 . 402.10.----125.6---- 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 2,000.00 0.00 0.00 . 0.00 2:000.00 0.0 4180 RETIREMENT 9,815.00 714.11 2,579.05 0.00 7,235.95 26.2 4188--EMPLOYEE--BENEFITS 11, 454. 00 81 70 2,849.-31 0 00 8.604.-69 24 8 OBJECT SUBTOTAL. 105,-167.00 7,531.83 35, 338.16 0.00 69, 828.84 33.6 200 -CONTRACT -SERVICES 9, 166. 65 0. 00 12. 833. 35 41. 6 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 7,100.00 1,579.18 2;997.15 0.00 4,102.85 42.2 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT 10, 117.00 0.00 222:86- 0.00 10, 339.86 2.2 OBJECT. -,,SUBTOTAL 17. 217.-00 1,-579 18 24774 29 0 00 14.442 71- 16...1.___ 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4303- UTILITIES 175, 100.. 00 ----___13.944. 41.. --54 657.- 70 0 00 - _ 120, 442. 30 ..._ . _ ..._ 31. 2 4304 TELEPHONE 281.00 8.87 44. 51 0.00 236.49 15.8 4309 MAINTENANCE MATER I ALS 9, 500. 00 702. 20 3, 196. 14 3, 576. 13 2, 727. 73 71. 2 4310-MOTOR--FUELS--ANO-LUBES 3, 410. 00 334 55 899.-92 0 00 2, 510. 08________26. 3 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 4, 000. 00 257. 74 1, 091. 47 264. 42 2. 644. 11 33. 8 4316 TRAINING 300.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 300.00 0.0 4396 TRSFR - OUT- INS-USER--CHGS 8.698. 00.-__--___.__,_.725. 00 --- ____.3,.625.-00. O_00 _.___..5.073.00...__. . 41. 6 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 201, 289. 00 15, 972. 77 63, 514. 74 3. 840. 55 133. 933. 71. 33. 4 a3 0.1! DIVISION TOTAL 323, 673. 00 25, 083. 78 101, 627. 19 . 3, 840. 55 218, 205. 26 32. 5 DEPARTMENT --TOTAL 323,.673. 00 25. 083 7.8 1014-627 19 3, 840..-55.-____. 218, 205. 26 _ __ 32. 5 FUND TOTAL 345, 673. 00 26, 917. 11 110, 793. 84 3, 840. 55 231, 038. 61 33. 1 r. '.1 0 31 FINANCE-FA454 TIVIE-19-:-322: • FiWn'OIV OBJT DESCR 109 VEHICLE PARKING DIST , CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 41/01/90 T0_11/30/90. PAGE 0024 . DATE 12/13/90 41.07. OF YEAR COMPLETE APPROPRIATION MONTHLY_EXP YTD_EXPNT) ENCUMBRANCE UNENC ALANCE 7. 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER - . DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 14 15 '6 19 20 21 22 23 24 27 0 -MATER I ALS/SUPPL I ES /OTHER 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT 15, 779. 00 1,314. 92 6, 574. 60 0. 00 9, 204. 40 41. 6 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 15, 779. 00 1,314. 92 6. 574. 60 • 0. 00 9. 204. 40 41. 6 DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT TOTAL 15, 779. 00 1/ 314. 92 6, 574. 60 15/ 779. 00 1, 314. 92 • 6, 574. 60 3301.-VEH MG DIST- DEPT-:--PKG FACILITIES 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4102-REGULAR-SALAR 'ES/11'SC 16 , 454.-00 1-1.55.40 430259 0 00 12..151 41 76-1 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 329.00 0.00 0.00. 0.00 329.00 0.0 . 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 329.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 329.00 0.0 4180- RETIREMENT 2.063 00 144 85 386 15 0 00 1/ 676. 85. 4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 11254. 00 14. 19 279.01 0.00 974.99 22.2 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 20. 429. 00 1, 314. 14 4, 967. 75 0. 00 15, 461. 25 24.3 ,',... 0.00 9, 204. 40 41.6 0. 00 9. 204. 40 41. 6 0» 22 44 0•' 45 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PR I VATE 47. 000. 00 4, 353. 63 17, 931. 15 0. 00 29, 068. 85 38.1 OBJECT SUB MTN 47. 000. 00 4.353 63 17. 931-_15 0 00 291 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 -TELEPHONE 150.-00 20 00 50 00 0 00 100_00 33-3. 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 300.00 14. 11 28. 58 0.00 271.42 9. 5 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 0. 0 v. 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS -USER-CMGS 931.. 00 _78. 00 - 390 00 0 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 2, 381. 00 112. 11 468. 5B 0. 00 It 912. 42 19. 6 5400 EQUIPMENT 5420 DEPREC IATION/EQUIP&VEH 265.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 265.00 0.0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 265. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 265. 00 0. 0 317 0 40 49 5!) 5600 BUILDINGS/IMPROVEMENTS 5620 DEPRECIATION/BLDOSUMPRV OBJECT -SUBTOTAL DIVISION- -TOTAL DEPARTMENT • TOTAL 2. 145. 00 2.-145. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 2. 145. 00 0. 0 •-•-• 0 00 n 00 0 00 72. 220. 00 .5...779...88_.._.23,367...48 0 00 . 48. 852. 52 32. 3 FUND TOTAL 3.3 3.4 72, 220. 00 87, 999. 00 5: 779. 88 23, 367. 48 0. 00 48. 852. 52 32.3 7. 094. 80 29, 942. 08 0. 00 58, 056. 92 34. 0 • • FINANCE-FA454 --S IME -194-32 -22 0' 3 -UND-DIV OBJ'>-DESCR 110 PARKING FUND CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH •EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0025 FROM --11 /01 /90-- TO. 11 /30/90 DATE -12/113/90 41.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE APPROPRIATION MONTHLY -EXP Y-TD-EXPND ENCUMBRANCE UNENC-BALANCF 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER DEPT: ..MGMT/SUPPORT 00-MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT OBJECT SUBTOTAL 314, 755. 00 1, 314. 755. 00 108. 729. 58 108. 729. 58 553, 647. 90 553, 647. 90 0.00 0. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 1, 314, 755. 00 108, 729. 58 553, 647. 90 0. 00 761. 107. 10 761. 107. 10 761, 107. 10 42. 1 42. 1 42. 1 DEPARTMENT TOTAL `'302-.FARKI NG-ENF 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 102-- REGULAR -'SALARIES/-MISC 545.-487.-00 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 10, 000. 00 4110 VACATION/SICK PAYOFF 10, 909. 00 111. -ACCRUAL- CASH -. IN 10. 909. 00 -. 4112 PART TIME/TEMPORARY 42.000.00 4117 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 5,500.00 1180 --RETIREMENT 68,404.-00 1 0 113 1, 314, 755. 00 108, 729. 58 553. 647. 90 0. 00 761, 107. 10 42. 1 DEPT ,-PKG--FACILITIES 36 40,-812.- 99 198.-299,-56 0 00 347.-187 44 36 .2 1. 969. 75 5, 463. 01 0. 00 4. 536. 99 54. 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.909.00 0.0 1.-.931. 89-- 5, 577 58 0 00 ...5. 331. 42_.__..51. 1. ___ ..___ .. 7. 291.81 38, 388. 85 0. 00 3. 611. 15 91. 4 243. 27 1, 406. 78 0. 00 4, 093. 22 25. 5 5.-167...90 19.600. 36 0. 00-.- 48. 803.64 -..28._6 1, 380. 05 249. 47 1, 970. 48 45. 2 4187 UNIFORMS 3, 600. 00 450. 98 4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 57, 642. 00 592. 85 20, 130.38 OBJECT -SUBTOTAL 754.-451. 00- 58,.461_.44 _290, 246._57--__._____.-249..47..-.- ----- -463,954_ 96 .___._.___.38..5_ ... _:_... 0. 00 37, 511.62 34. 9 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT-SERVICE/PRIVATE 6.000.-00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL _ 6. 000. 00 300. --MATER I ALS /SUPPL IES /OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 3, 300. 00 521. 89 1, 954. 99 0. 00 1, 345. 01 59. 2 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 35, 000. 00 898. 23 . 15, 927. 1.1 3, 127. 50 15, 945. 39 54. 4 4307 -RADIO -MAINTENANCE 3.500.00 314.00 1.570 00 0 00 .1.930_,.00 44.8.. 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 15, 000. 00 31.28 1, 460. 90 665.50 12. 873, 60 14. 1 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 6, 600. 00 1, 066. 96 3, 175. 44 0. 00 3. 424. 56 48. 1 4311. AUTO • tIAINTENANCE 12, 000. 00. -__._.______1, 232. 26 ---------- .3, 645.94 ______ _.O. 00 _. 8. 354. 06: _.._._._...30. 3 4315 MEMBERSHIP 400.00 40.00 40.00 0.00 360.00 10.0 4316 TRAINING 1, 500. 00 75. 00 215. 12 • 0. 00 1, 284. 88 14. 3 4317---CONFERENCE-EXPENSE 1, 500. 00 0 00 - 683. 54 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHCS 45, 646. 00 3. 803. 00 19, 015. 00 0. 00 26, 631. 00 41. 6 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 124, 446. 00 7, 982. 62 47, 688. 04 3, 793. 00 72. 964. 96 41. 3 40 ® 41 142 '43 0.m I4t, H3 283. 84 783 34 0 00 5. 216_..66 13__0. 283.84 783.34 0.00 5.216.66 13.0 t ,3 �tr 5400 EQUIPMENT 5401 EQUIPt1ENT-LESS THAN $500 5403 -.VEHICLES........ -..--.-----------.-.•-- 2, 350. 00 30. 000. 00 422. 14 0 00 619. 60 192. 35 1, 538. 05 34. 5 0 00 0 00 .-_.--_-,- 30. 000. 00 ... __ _.. 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FINANCE-FA454 TIME -19 32* 2 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM.11/01/90 ..TO 11/30/90 PAGE 0026 41. 0% OF YEAR COMPLETE , Imn iv OBJILDESCR APPROPRIATION_ MONTHLY_EXP, Yip _EXP ND ENCUMBRANCE__ UNENC ... B ALANC E________ _ 110 PARKING FUND 't,,,MDEEHPT : PKG FACILITIES 00-EGUIPMENT 11 3302 PARKING ENF 5420 DEPREC I AT I ON/EGU I 27,196.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27, 196. 00 0.0 - 5499 NON -CAPITALIZED ASSETS 10, 000. 00 O. 00 9, 947. 68 O. 00 52. 32 99. 4 • OBJECT - . 94_546 00 422-14________10. 567 28 -SUBTOTAL_ 192 35 5SE_786.:37__ _15 A------- 13 1,1 %: •::. :':: ,. ,- 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS . - . - - 80 -LEASE PAYMENTS ' ' 114 40 572 ''' 00 0-._00 2.3280.0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 3 1500. 00 114. 40 572. 00 0.00 2, 928. 00 16. 3 17 113 Iv DIVISION . TOTAL ;. .: .. 957, 943. 00 67, 264. 44 349, 857. 23 .:..' 4, 234. 82 603: 850. 95 36. 9 DEPARTMENT -TOTAL 957. 943 00 67; 264 44 349_857 23 4., 234_82 603.850 e12 1 .., 2 4 _9.5 36 2.___ ;FUND TOTAL 2, 272, 698. 00 175. 994. 02 903, 505. 13 4. 234782 1. 364,950. 05 39. 9 25 L. • r I 23 . 31 . . . 34 . . 3Z. , 38 .19 , . 41 . 1731142 48 50 51 . . . 5? 53 . • 51 di 0 i a- 4(2 3 4 ® • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-FA454 EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0027 TIME -19c32;.22 FROM..11/01/.90. T0._.11/30/90 41.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE FUND -DIV OBJT DESCR APPROPRIATION 115 STATE GAS TAX FUND MONTHLY_EXP YTD-EXPND FNCUMBRANCF UNENC_BALANCF 7.. 0 9 10 0 11 12 13 ® 14 6 0„ 10 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER DEPT:. 4300 NATER.IALS SUPPLIES/OTHER 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT. OBJECT SUBTOTAL MGMT/SUPPORT 1. 280, 969. 00 1, 280. 969. 00 106, 747. 42 106, 747. 42 533. 737. 10 533. 737. 10 0.00 0.00 747, 231. 90 747, 231. 90 DIVISION TOTAL I . 280, 969. 00 106, 747. 42 533. 737. 10 0.00 41.6 41. 6 747, 231. 90 19 0 20 21 22 ® 23 25 24 lu DEPARTMENT TOTAL FUND --TOTAL 41. 6 1, 280. 969. 00 106. 747. 42 533, 737. 10 1.4-280,L969700 106,-74..47 533..1737 10 0. 00 747, 231. 90 0-00 747, 231 90, 41.6 31 33 34 ® 15 36 37 • 0 :0 39 40 ® 41 43 ®'1.. Ire 4^ 1�1 ®.3 0 1, 0 0 0 O 0 FINANCE—FA454 LIf1E CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) .FROM 11/01/90 TO 11/30/90 _.._ PAGE 0028 ' ®s ® ®16 0 2 ,- 41.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE F_t.ttdD DIV OP.JI_DESCR APPROPRIATION.______—_..MONTHLY__ P EX _YTD_.EXPND.____—.____ENCUMBRANCE._..UNENC. BALF,NCE___ %______ 120 COUNTY GAS TAX FUND ] ° ° ' 12 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 00 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER ° 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT 34, 841.00 2,903.42 14, 517.10 0.00 20, 323.90 41.6 • OBJECT SUBTOTAL 34, 841.00 2,903.42 14:517.10 0.00 20, 323.90 41.6 13 ' ' 15 DIVISION TOTAL 34:841.00 2;903.42 14, 517, 10 0.00 20;323.90 41.6 17 u DEPARTMENT TOTAL 34, 841. 00 2, 903. 42 14, 517. 10 0. 00 20, 323. 90 41. 6 FUND TOTAL_ 34,841 00_ 14,517 '0 21 2,.903._42 1 O 0 00 20/323 9019 22 24 27 - - 23 31 37 38 39 41 43 .17 1 FA5556 0 IGO 0 w. 3 FINANCE-FA454 TIME 19:92.-22 ® 5 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM -11/01/90--T0-11/30/90 PAGE 0029 DATE_12L13/90 41.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE FUND DIV OBJT-DESCR APPROPRIATION MONTHL.L.EXP Y.TD_EXPND ENCUMBRANCE_.UNENC_BALAUCF 125 PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES ® 6 9 10 ® 11 12 13 0 14 15 16 ® 1] 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER DEPT:. MGMT/SUPPORT 1300--MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT 663,485.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 663, 485. 00 289, 985. 00 289, 985. 00 593, 485. 00 593, 485. 00 0. 00 0. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 663, 485. 00 289, 985. 00 593, 485. 00 70, 000. 00 89. 4 70, 000. 00 89. 4 , .. 0. 00 70, 000. 00 89. 4 15 020 21 22 ®23 24 2S DEPARTMENT TOTAL FUND -TOTAL 663, 485. 00 289, 985. 00 593, 485. 00 0. 00 70, 000. 00 89. 4 663, 485 00 2894 985^00 5934-485._00 0 00-_..__�__.70,000...00_T-__...BEA -.__ _. 0.6 27 31 0'2. e J': ®' 35 �36 3, 34 .31 43 45 Jf 017 ®Ir.. 0- F I NANG E-FA454 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE -SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE - 0030 TIMF 19z_3222_ FROM_ 11/01/90 _TO_ 11/30/90 DATE .12/13/90 '. . 41. 0% OF YEAR COMPLETE-- 4i, i JT-DESCR ' APPROPRIATION MONTHLY_EXP • YTII_EXPNI2 ENCUMBRANCEUNENC_BALANCE % 126 UUT RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY FUND 91 4200 -CONTRACT SERV -ICES 7 10 8514 CIP 89-514 DEPT: PARKS 0 II • , 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 3, 200. 00 3, 200. 00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 3. 200. 00 3, 200. 00 0. 0 r. 0. 0 13 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS I 617. 255. 00 584. 84- 423, 966. 76 nsJECT-SUBTOTAM2.255.00 584. E14_- 423,366_76 0119 :7 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIVIS I ON__-TOTA1 620,_455-00 584.84- 423 O. 00 193. 288. 24 68. 6 0 00 173,288.24. 6e. ".1 I.zt 17.' 1,3 144 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 620, 455. 00 - 584. 84- 423, 966. 76 O. 00 196. 488. 24 68. 3 • FUND TOTAL 620, 455. 00 584. 84- 423, 966. 76 O. 00 196, 488. 24 68. 3 I 49 IC1. 31 I 3.1 • .13 3. . 11. .77 58 39 4G 4 I -- --- ------- --- --- -- - .-- 3-1 - .... 1717' ;47 . 49 . • . G 1 84 83 54 . 55 GG 4 •._ 0 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 0:• FINANCE-FA454 • EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0031 •• ,.- TIME -19-324-22 FROM.11/01/.90__TO 11/30/90 DATE_12/13/90____,„ 4)2 41.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE l .. ti 3 -----FUND DIV OBJT-DESCR APPROPRIATION • MONTHLY EXP YID_EXRND ENCUMBRANCE_-_UNENC_BALANCF % O 5 127 6% UTILITY USER TAX FUND 6 7 O a 9 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER : DEPT:. MGMT/SUPPORT OIl 12 13 0: 115 21 00-MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT 1.354.342.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 1.354/342.00 112, 861.83 112, 861. 83 564/309.15 564,309.15 0. 00 790, 032. 85 41. 6 0. 00 790, 032. 85 41. 6 DIVISION TOTAL 1.354/342.00 112.861.83 564.309.15 0.00 790.032.85 41.6 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 1/354/342:00 112,861.83 564.309.15 0.00 790,032.8.5 41.6 FUND -TOTAL--- 1.354,-342-00. 112861-83 564...309-15 _0 0 23 125 27 :: 41 0:; 1-i .10 51 54 0 FINANCE-FA454 • • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FPnM 11 /!T1 /9Q TO 11/30(90 PAGE 0032 D --....---- .. ----- UAIt 12/13/90 41.0/ OF YEAR COMPLETE 3 F►INn nTV 0J 1LDESCR AEP RQER'ATION MONIHLY_EXP YTD_EXPND ENCUMBRANCE-____UNENC_.IIALAp CE______._._____. _ i5 140 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GR, 6 4701 HOUSING REHAB DEPT: OTHER 0 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES �1O 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 105, 255. 00 0. 00 B, 831. 14 O. QO 96, 423. 86 8. 3 'j" • OBJECT SUBTOTAL 105, 255. 00 0. 00 8, 831. 14 0. 00 96, 423. 86 8. 3 12 .. .. '. '14 13 DIVISION -" TOTAL ``' .105,255.00 0.00 8,831.14" 0.00 96,.423.86 8.3 le 4703 CDBG ADMIN DEPT: OTHER 17 " 4200.. CONTRACT... SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 11, 695. 00 578. 64 4, 151. 43 0. 00 7, 543. 57 35. 4 't OBJECT SUBTOTAL 11, 695. 00 578. 64 4, 151. 43 0. 00 7,.543. 57 35. 4 1 DIVISION TOTAL 11,695.00 578.64 4,151.43 0.00 7543.57 35.4 H DEPARTMENT TOTAL 116, 950. 00 578. 64 12, 982. 57 0. 00 103, 967. 43 11.1 FUND TOTAL 116.-350 00 578._64 12, 982_57 0-00 103,_96Z 4`4 11...1 30 31 31 .lam 36 iii - - 30 - 41 -12 a3 - - .. . ..._ _ 47 5ll3541 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) TIME 4.9 32:-22 FROM 11/01/90. _10_.11/30/90 FINANCE-FA454 PAGE 0033. ®6 011 41..0% OF YEAR COMPLETE FUND-DIAPPROPRIATION --OBJT--DESCR MONIHLX-EXP YTD-EXPND ENCUMBRANCF ►1NENC_BALANCF 145 PROPOSITION 'A FUND e 9' 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER . . : DEPT::. MGMT/SUPPORT t 4300-MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER - 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT 0. 00 O. 00 O. 00 O. 00 0. 00 O. 0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.0 13 w 15 DIVISION TOTAL 0.00 0.;00 0.00 4.00 O. 00 O.0 10 0 17 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O. 0 3401 19 10 z1 l. 23 4 -DIAL -A -R -IDE- DERT:-PUBLIC-TRANSIT 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 1102-REGULAR-SALARIES/MISC 16,451..-00 1.350 77 6, 387,-36 0 00 -1D, 063 64 38 8 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 0.00 . 90. 15 90. 15 0.00 90. 15- 0.0 4180` RETIREMENT 2, 063. 00 59. 87' 229. 81 0. 00 1, 833. 19 11. 1 4188 25 7 -EMPLOYEE -BENEFITS 1.542 00 7 29_ 475 17 0 00 1, 066.83.____30. 8.-.-_I OBJECT SUBTOTAL . • 20, 056. 00 1, 508. 08 7, 182. 49 O. 00 12, 873. 51 35. 8 1' '200 129 301 -CONTRACT -SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 133, 886. 00 O. 00 ' O. 00 O. 00 133, 886. 00 O. 0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 133, 886. 00 O. 00 O. 00 O. 00 133, 886. 00 0. 0 >Z ;i 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 1. 4304 TELEPHONE 50. 00 8. 32 20.80 0. 00 29. 20 41.-6 4305OFFICE OPER-SUPPLIES 34 31 500.00 0 00 47 76 0 DO 452 24 9 5 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS 283. 00 . 24.-00 120. 00 0. 00 163. 00. 42.4 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 833.00 32.32 188.56 0.00 644.44 22.6 n hD DIVISION TOTAL 154, 775. 00 18 540. 40 7! 371. 05: , O. 00 147, 403. 95 4. 7 I;, 2 3402 COMMUTER BUS DEPT: PUBLIC TRANSIT 4100 PERSONAL 43 -SERVICES 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 5, 936. 00 485.951. 2, 311. 19 O. 00 3, 624. 81 38. 9 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN O. 00 60. 10 60. 10 O. 00 60. 10- 0. 0 ' 180 --RETIREMENT 744. 00 VO 30 77-79 - 0 00 666. 21...._.... ..10. 4 4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 576.00 2.56 169.88 0.00 406. 12 29. 4 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 7, 256. 00 568. 91 2, 618. 96 0. 00 4, 637. 04 36 0 49 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 53, 000. 00 942. 92 9. 088. 92 O. 00 43. 911.08 17 1 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 53.-000.-00 9.422 9088 92 0 00 43. 911. OD 17. 1 52 54 __..._.. t 4 ito0 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-FA454 EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0034 G TiME_12.:L32_22 FROM 11/01/90 TO 11/30/90_ .. DATE 12/13/90 .. .. 41.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE FuND DIV riRJT__DESCR APPROPRIATION MONTHIY FXP YTD.....EXPND ENCUMBRANCE UNENC_BALANCE .% • 145 PROPOSITION 'A FUND 3402 COMMUTER BUS • DEPT: PUBLIC TRANSIT 00-MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS 95.00 .: 8.00 40.00 0.00 55.00 42.1 ' . OBJECT SUBTOTAL 95.00 8.00 40.00 0.00 . 55. 00 42. 1 DIVISION TOTAL 60, 351. 00 1, 519. 83 3403 BUS PASS SUBSDY DEPT: PUBLIC TRANSIT 4100 -PERSONAL- SERVI CES - 4102 REGULAR SALAR IES/MISC 1, 631. 00 4180 RETIREMENT 205.00 21 4188 -EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 240.00 122 2, 076. 00 0 33 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 11,747.88 0. 00 48, 603. 12 19. 4 4200 -CONTRACT -SERVICES 137.40 17.23 0 65. 155.28 669. 00. 66. 47 63 33 798. 80 ; •! 0.00 962.00 41.0 , 0. 00 138. 53 32. 4 0 00 _176..6Z 0. 00 1, 277. 20 38. 4 kt, 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT 13, 650. 00 1, 594. 00 3, 544. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 13, 650. 00 1, 594. 00 3/ 544. 00 0. 00 10. 106. 00 25. 9 0. 00 10/ 106. 00 25.9 '44 4300 MATER IALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS 699.00 58.00 290.00 0.00 409.00 41.4 OBJECT- SUBTOTAL 699. 00 58 00 290-00 0 00_ 409. 00 _41. 4 DIVISION TOTAL 16, 425 00 1, 807 28 41-632-80 0 00 11,292 20. 28.2__._ 3408 COMMUTER XPRESS 33. DEPT: • PUBLIC TRANSIT 42 14 1‘. 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT 8, 608. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 8. 608. 00 0. 0 BJECI.SUBTOTAL__ 8, 608 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 8._608 00 Q. 0 DIVISION- --TOTAL- 8.608.00_0 00 0 00 0 00 _13, 60e. oo 0. 0 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 240, 159. 00 4, 867. 51 23, 751. 73 0. 00 216. 407. 27 9. 8 46 37 4,3 49 0 VD 51 FUND TOTAL 240. 159. 00 4, 867. 51 23, 751. 73 0. 00 216, 407. 27 9. 8 2 tk..7 0 ter 0 FINANCE -+A454 In TIME -19;-3222 • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0035 .....• ........ •.., 41. 0% OF YEAR COMPLETE UND DIV-OBJT-DESCR APPROPRIATION MONTHLY -EXP YTD-EXPND ENCUMBRANCE UNENC_BALANCE____-% 150 GRANT FUND , 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT • . ' 00 1 -MATER I ALS/SUPPL I ES/OTHER - 1 12 . 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT 125. 894. 00 14, 684. 00 102. 269. 00 0. 00 . 23, 625. 00 81: 2 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 125, 894. 00 14. 684. 00 102, 269. 00 0. 00 23. 625. 00 81. 2 13 10 14 DIVISION TOTAL 125, 894. 00 14,684. 00 102,269. 00 0 00 23, 625. 00 81. 2 1.• ‚IF its DEPARTMENT TOTAL 125, 894. 00 14, 684. 00 102, 269. 00 O. 00 23, 625. 00 81. 2 . 8506-CIR7-86-,506- ' DEP-T-4---PARKS 1r' 21 . . 5400 EQUIPMENT 5499 NON 24 -CAP I TAL I ZED -ASSETS 0. 00 .939-03 ' 939 03 0 00 939_ 03- -'3 24 0 0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL O. 00 939. 03 - 939. 03 0. 00 939. 03- O. 0 ..., ' DIVISION TOTAL O. 00 939. 03 . 939. 03 O. 00 939. 03- 0. 0 2 'EPARTMENT-TOTAL 0 00 03 -939 939-03 0 00 .939_ 03- 0- 0 FUND TOTAL 125, 894. 00 15. 623. 03 103, 208. 03 0. 00 22, 685. 97 81. 9 30 31 . . 33 . . 34 . 35 37 1 Jca aco 1.1 142 43 . . • 4fi • • , .,0 . . . 51 , 1 1--- , . . . 4 = G 0 C 0 I wry FINANCE-FA454 TTt'F 1932 22 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) 11/01/94...TO 11/30/90 04 PAGE 0036 DATE 12/13/90 41. 07. OF YEAR COMPLETE 1;,: FUND -DIV 013JT-DESCR APPROPRIATION MONTHLY_EXP YID. EXPND.______ENCUMBRANCE...__ UNENC BALANCE_______% 155 CROSSING GUARD FUND 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER DEPT MGMT/SUPPORT Q MATERIALS/SUPPL.IES/OTHER 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT 0.00 0.00 0.00. 0.00 0.00 0.0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.,4 15 DIVISION. TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 • 0. 00 0. 0 16 ® 17 .6 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 0.00 0.00 2102_CROSSING_GUARD DEP T• POLICE 22 ®z3 ® 27 10 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 41.02 -REGULAR -SALARIES/MISC 8,- 892 00 1. 090 06 4, 658.._53 0 00 4,.233...47 52 3 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 178. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 178. 00 0. 0 4111 ACCRUAL CASH IN 178.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 178.00 -0.0 4113 CROSS ING_GUARDS - 40.-408. 00_=__.3._973. 97. 101 046 52 0 00_______..30, 361.. 48___. _____ 24.8 ... _ 4180 RETIREMENT 1, 115. 00 120. 52 445. 35 0. 00 669. 65 39. 9 4187 UNIFORMS 400.00 0.00 67. 17 0.00 332.83 16. 7 4188 -EMPLOYEE -BENEFITS 216 00 12 41 327 05 0 00- 488._95 40.4____-.. OBJECT SUBTOTAL 51, 987. 00 5. 196. 96 . 15, 544. 62 0. 00 36, 442. 38 29. 9 4200 CONTRACT..SERVICES 34 ® :5, 3; 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 6, 000. 00 .723. 12 1.841. 07 0. 00 4. 158. 93 30. 6 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT 525.00 0.00 110.00 0.00 415.00 20.9 OBJECT -SUBTOTAL A. 525 00 323 12 t. 951__07 0 00 4. 573 93 29 3 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4396. TRSFR. OUT -INS. USER CHGS_ 2.805..00..______._._____.234..00____.______1._170..00 0 00_.____..__-.1,-635. 00.__..___._41...7. .._. OBJECT SUBTOTAL - 2. 805. 00 234. 00 1, 170. 00 0. 00 1, 635: 00 41. 7 0 41 43 0 44 F,5 p, :1, Fr o .DIVISION TOTAL DEPARTMENT --TOTAL FUND TOTAL 61, 317. 00 6, 154:08 18, 665. 69 0. 00 42. 651.31 30. 4 ---61, 317_-00..__- _____.6, 154. 08_____.18,._665 69 0 00 42, 651 31.___.__ 30. 4 61, 317. 00 6. 154. 08 18, 665. 69 0. 00 42, 651.31 30. 4 0 5., O 54 55 55 11. '\7 fr 5 9 FINANCE-FA454 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) TIME 19.3222 FROM -11/01/90 -TO -11/30/90 PAGE 0037 DATE ---12113 /90 41.07. OF YEAR COMPLETE FUND-DIV-OBJT-DESCR APPROPRIATION MONTHLY -EXP YTD-EXPND ENCUMBRANCS____UNENC-BALAUrr 160 SEWER FUND 1279 BUDGET TRANSFER DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 00-MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 13 .4 7. • 0 21 22 24 • 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT 1. 765: 821. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 1, 765, 821. 00 147. 151. 75 147. 151. 75 735. 758. 75 735, 758. 75 0. 00 1. 030, 062. 25 41. 6 0. 00 1. 030: 062. 25 41. 6 DIVISION TOTAL 1. 765. 821. 00 147. 151. 75 735, 758. 75 0.00 1. 030. 062. 25 41.6 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 1, 765, 821. 00 147,, 151. 75 735,.758. 75 O. 00 1, 030, 062. 25 ' 41. 6 DEPT4.---ST/HWY/ST-DRAIN 3102-SEWER/ST-DRAIN 27 126 130 131 33 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES '... 4102- REGULAR- SALAR I ES/M ISC 93,.575.-00. 7. 423. 08 37.495 17 0 00 56.379 83 39 7 1 4106 REGULAR OVERTIME 3. 000. 00 366. 60 566. 40 0. 00 2. 433. 60 18. 8 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 1, 872. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 1. 872. 00 0. 0 4111. -ACCRUAL CASH IN 1, 872. 00 675. 30 766..32 0 00 - 4180 RETIREMENT 11, 734. 00 978. 03 3. 592. 21 0. 00 8. 141. 79 30. 6 4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 9; 924. 00 102. 99 2, 917. 70 0. 00 7, 006. 30 29.4 OBJECT- SUBTOTAL 121, 977. 00- -9.546 00 45, 037. 80 0 00 76. 939. 20 _____.36-9 ________- 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201- CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 2t 000. 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 2, 000. 00 0. 0 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT 3, 100. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 3. 100. 00 0. 0 OBJECT 'SUBTOTAL 5, 100. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 5, 100. 00 0. 0 .19 36 37 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4303 UTILITIES 515. 00 35. 81 98. 84 O. 00 416. 16 19. 1 4309 .MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 10, 100. 00_ 566 77 1807 07 0 00 .-_-____8, 292. 93 __ 17. 8 880.00 231.52 510.83 0.00 369. 17 58.0 6, 400. 00 O. 00 28. 58 O. 00 6, 371. 42 O. 4 26,488..00- 2, 207 00 11, 035- oa 0 00 44, 383. 00 3.041. 10 13, 480. 32 O. 00 . 30, 902. 68 30. 3 4310 MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 0!) 4311 AUTO MAINTENANCE 39 1396- TRSFR OUT -t. INS--USER-CHCS 4 0 013JECT SUBTOTAL ." 42 o 13 .15 44 411 5400 EQUIPMENT 5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE THAN $500 800. 00 0. 00 613. 82 0. 00 186. 18 76. 7 5403 VEHICLES 70, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 70. 000. 00 0. 0 013JECT SUBTOTAL 70.800.-00 0 00 613 82 0 00 70s 186. 18 ----- O. 8 51 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS 6900 LEASE PAYMENTS 9.07000 0 00 0 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 9. 070. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 9, 070. 00 0. 0 5e 05.3 54 55 DIVISION TOTAL 251, 330. 00 12. 587. 10 59, 131. 94 0. 00 192: 198. 06 23. 5 . • 0 0' F I NANC E-FA454 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) P AGE 0038 4 0 0 04 ! L. .— rmun-lIfUlt7U ILI 111-JUIVO _._ _ _______ _______. _. . . . DATE 12/13/90.. , , 41. 0% OF YEAR COMPLETE ' • ND_DIV 1-111.1T nESCR APPROPRIATION ' EXPND ENCUMBRANCE —____MONTHLY_EXP _YTD UNENC_BALANCE.7 160 SEWER FUND . DEPARTMENT TOTAL, . - :: ' 251, 330. 00 ' :. 12) 587. 10 59131. 94 .- ' !! 000 192t 198. 06 23. 5 . . . : 06 CIP 88=406 ' " DEPT: ' SANLTARY-SEWER 0 2 , . 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT_SERVICE/PRIVATF 0 00 13 326 01- 0 00 0 00 Q 00 0 0 . -'- OBJECT SUBTOTAL ! -! : !, .. -.:!,:H O. 00 -: - ". 326. 01!- ... O. 00 O. 00 O. 00 O. 0 _ 1,7 w DIVISION TOTAL 0.00 326.01- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 DEPARTMENT -TOTAL 0 00 326 01- 0 00. 0 19 21 00_ FUND TOTAL 2, 017, 151. 00 159, 412. 84 794, 890. 69 000 1: 222, 260. 31 39. 4 22 / ...''. 24 El'I'T 129 Jr) 31 32 - 3., 36 . i t ib 40 41 42 , 44 4t, • , 4E, •::: • . .,.., . . . ..„ ..... . : ,. __ ... ,:.. .. . . , .... • c''..... . . , 4 0 0 04 ! L. FINANCE-FA454 9 9 • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0039 IME 19:-32.22 - • FROM_1.1/01L90- TO._1.1130/90 DATE.�2L13!_90__ 41.07. OF YEAR COMPLETE ND-DISI-01JT-DESCR APPROARIATION MDNIHLY_EXP _'D-EXPN0- ENCUMBRANCF t1NEISIC-I3ALANCF 170 ASSET SEIZURE/FORFEITURE FUND 1299 BUDGET TRANSFER DEPT:. MGMT/SUPPORT 12 00-MATERIALS/SUPPL-IES/OTHER 4399 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT OBJECT SUBTOTAL 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 '3 ® 10 DIVISION TOTAL 0.00 ` 0.00 0.00., 0.00 0.00 -0.0 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0. 0 2103-SPEC-INVESTGTNS DEPS-,-ROL-ICE 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4103 REGULAR SALARIES/SAFET 2.. 4105 SPECIAL DUTY PAY 4107 PREMIUM OVERTIME an 4111 -ACCRUAL CASH IN e 28 30 a+ 1-70,--604.00. -14,.342.__00. 71,-710.-00 1) 00 98,.894_00 42_0 10, 560. 00 - 880. 00 4; 400. 00 0. 00 6, 160. 00 41. 6 24. 000. 00 3, 396. 36 16, 599. 15 0. 00 - - 7, 400. 85 69. 1 3. 623. 00 0 00 2, 359 80 0 00 4180 RETIREMENT 46, 053. 00 ' 4, 172. 02 16, 688. 08 0. 00 29. 364. 92 36. 2 4187 UNIFORMS 2. 800. 00 - 233. 36 . 1, 166. 80 0. 00 11633. 20 41. 6 4188 -EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 14,481. 00 79 72 3, 136.-24 0 00 11,.344.-76.--_21_.6._. OBJECT SUBTOTAL 272, 121. 00 23, 103. 46 116, 060. 07 0. 00 156, 060. 93 42. 6 35 4200 CONTRACT -SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 6, 425. 00 302. 96 2, 000. 95 0. 00 4, 424.05 31. 1 OBJECT iSUBTOTAL 6, 425. 00 302. 96 2, 000. 95 0. 00 4, 424. 05 31. 1 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4304 TELEPHONE 7. 680. 00 0. 00 0. 00 . 0. 00 7, 680. 00 0. 0 4310 -MOTOR. FUELS AND LUBES 6. 000. 00_ _.___-_0. 00 0 00 0 00. _6, 000. 00 ______ 0. 0 ......_ 4322 UNCLASSIFIED 5, 000. 00 23, 500. 00- 1, 150. 00 0. 00 3, 850. 00 23. 0 4396 TRSFR OUT -INS USER CHGS 13, 496. 00 1, 125. 00 5, 625. 00 0. 00 7. 871.00 41. 6 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 32,-176..00 -.22, 375.-00- 6. 775 00- 0 00..._ _ .25..401_.00_.___-___.21_ 0...__. 5400 EQUIPMENT 5401. EQUIPMENT -LESS- THAN -$500 5403 VEHICLES OBJECT SUBTOTAL 5, 030.-00._-------____ 20, 300. 00 25, 330. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 . 0. 00 0. 00 __ 5, 030. 00 20, 300. 00 25. 330. 00 0.17 0. 0 0. 0 DIVISION TOTAL 336, 052. 00 1, 031.42 124, 836. 02 0. 00 211, 215. 98 37. 1 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 336, 052. 00 1, 031. 42 124, 836. 02 - 0. 00 211. 215. 98 37. 1 FUND -TOTAL 336, 052..00-__--1, 031.._42.__ .-124, 836 02 - 0 00... ______ ..211, 215. 98 ... 4. u. 0 0 m FINANCE-FA454 T_IME_19_32 22 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 11/01/90 .TO 11/30/90 PAGE 0040 DATE 12/13/90....._. 41.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE FUND_I).JV ORJI_DESCA AEEROPRIATION MONTHLY EXP YTD_EXEND. ENCUMBRANCE UNEN�BAL6NCE 180 FIRE PROTECTION FUND 0 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS .2202 HYDRANT UPGRADE DEPT: FIRE .: 4200_CONTRACT-SERV I CES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 100, 000. 00 100, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 17, 264. 45 17, 264. 45 0. 00 0.00 82, 735. 55 82, 735. 55 17. 2 17.2 DIVISION TOTAL 100: 000. 00 0. 00 17,264. 45 = 0. 00 82, 735. 55 17. 2 th DEPARTMENT TOTAL 100, 000. 00 ®" 0. 00 17, 264. 45 0. 00 82, 735. 55 17. 2 18 18FUND_TOTAL 100.-000 00 0 00 174_.264 45 _0 00 82, 735. 55__ 21 24 .113 28 .:u :11 • L 3a • s 36 37 • x 34 40 ®.11 42 43 /� • 44 0 0 FINANCE-FA454 i CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0041 IME_ 194-32-22 FROM .11/01/90 T0.11/30/90 DATE -12t13/90 41.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE ND DIV OBJT-DESCR 305 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND APPROPRIATION MONTHLY_.EXP YTD-EXPND ENCUMBRANCE UNENC_BALANCF 8137 CIP 85-137 DEPT::: STREET/SAFETY 00 -CONTRACT -SERVICES i 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 505,841.00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 505, 841. 00 0. 0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 505, 841. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 505, 841. 00 0. 0 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER . 4316 TRAINING 0.00 0.00 29. 10 0.00 29. 10- 0.0 BJEC -SUBTOTAL 0 00 0_00 29 10 0_00 22._10- 0 0 0 3.3 24 DIVISION ---TOTAL 505.-841-.-00 0_00 29 10 0 00 .505,811_90. 8141 CIP 89-141 DEPT: STREET/SAFETY 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL 129, 750. 00 129, 750.-00 IVISION TOTAL 129,-750.00 8142 CIF 89-142 DEPT: STREET/SAFETY 0.00 -0 .00 36 r1 00 0. 00 0. 00 129, 750. 00 0. 0 0 00 0 00_- 00 0 00 429,750_00 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201. CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 34, 542.00 0.00 34, 201.34 0.00 340.66 99.0 OBJECT. SUBTOTAL 34.542 00 0 00 34,201_34 0 00-_______ __340.66 _ _4.9..0. 3] e36 3: DIVISION TOTAL- 34,542_00 0..00: .34.201 34 8144 CIP 90-144 DEPT: STREET/SAFETY QV - n.% 243 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE .,446,000.00 0. 00 0. 00 OBJECT -SUBTOTAL 446, 000.00.._..____ .._._.____ 0.00__. DIVISION -TOTAL 446, 000.00 _0..00 0 00, 8146 CIP 89-146 DEPT: STREET/SAFETY 0.00 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 7,300.00 0.00 0.00 OBJECT -SUBTOTAL 7.300.-00 0 00 0 00 340.66..___ :99.0. 446, 000. 00 446, 000. 00 0. 0 0. 0 0. 00 7, 300. 00 0. 0 __ 7, 7, 300. 00 __ . __. 0. 0 Q�l 1. 0 0' FINANCE-FA454 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (13Y FUND) PAGE 0042 • 0 0 0 3 i-nui i ILIS/117V {LJ 1 / OW 7l/ VAIL le.(1,1PP). . 41. 0% OF YEAR COMPLETE Nr) wry firi.J_T__.1)ESCR APPROPRIATION MONTHLY_EXE_______YTD__EXEND FNCUMBRANCEUNENC_BALAN_CE % 305 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 8146 CIP 89-146 DEPT: STREET/SAFETY . •O_MATERIALSISUPP_LIES/OTHER 0 i 4309 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 2, 700. 00 2: 684. 42 2. 684. 42 . 0. 00 15. 58 99. 4 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 2, 700. 00 2. 684. 42 2, 684. 42 0. 00 . 15. 58 99. 4 15 DIVISION TOTAL 10,000. 00 2.684. 42 2, 684. 42 0. 00 7o 315. 58 26. 8 17 Is 8148 CIP 89-148 DEPT: STREET/SAFETY ' 200 CONTRACT- SERVICES 19 120 21 _ 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 10, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 4, 800. 00 5, 200. 00 48. 0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 10, 000. 00 0. 00 0 00 4, 800. 00 5, 200. 00 46. 0 24 DIVISION TOTAL 10, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 4, 800. 00 5, 200. 00 48. 0 35 li-.• 2t 8150 CIP 89-150 DEPT: STREET/SAFETY , 4200 CONTRACT- SERVICES ...0 I,q _ 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 20, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 208 000. 00 0. 0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL. 20, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 20, 000. 00 0. 0 1 31 n DIVISION TOTAL 20, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 20. 000. 00 0. 0 8151 CIP 89-151 DEPT: STREET/SAFETY I ' 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES bf,... 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 40, 500. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 40, 500. 00 0. 0 12 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 40, 500. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 40. 500. 00 0. 0 39 41 DIVISION TOTAL 40, 500. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 40, 500 00 0. 0 43 8170 CIP 87-170 DEPT: STREET/SAFETY _ 41 4200 CONTRACT -SERVICES 6 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 337, 219. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 337, 219. 00 0. 0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 337, 219. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 337o 219. 00 0. 0 ...., DIVISION TOTAL 337, 219. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 337, 219. 00 0. 0 51 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 1, 533, 852. 00 2.684. 42 36, 914. 86 4, 800. 00 1. 492, 137. 14 2. 7 5 5. sr `-ref • 0 0 0 3 • 2 FINANCE-FA454 T -IME 19:-32. 22 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM -11/01/90. TO..11/30/90 F„Nn nT-...LV __4T--DESCR APPROPRIATION 305 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND PAGE 0043 DATE_12L13L90. 41.0% OF YEAR COMPLETE MONTHLY -EXP YTI1 EXPND ENCUMBRANCE UNENC_.BALANCF 7 8201 CIP 85-201 1200 -CONTRACT -SERVICES DEPT: STREET LIGHTING. 4201 CONTRACT: SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION DEPARTMENT TOTAL p406--GIP-887406 12'" 411'2G 27 22, 000. 00 22, 000. 00 0. 00. 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 22, 000. 00 ' 0. 00 22, 000.00 0. 00 0. 00 22, 000. 00 0. 00 22, 000. 00 0. 00 22, 000.00 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 00 22, 000.00 DEPT- SANITARY SEWER 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/P-R.IVATE 1,920, 163.-00 288 OL 761 99 - OBJECT 'SUBTOTAL 1, 920, 163. 00 288. 01 761. 99- 0. 0 3 0 00 --1. 920,.924_9.9 O. 00 1, 920, 924. 99 O. 0 ' ®. 8506 CIP.86-506 • 131 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES CO- • 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 13 OBJECT ;SUBTOTAL • 13.: 03 136 37 411' DIVISION TOTAL 1, 920, 163. 00 DEPARTMENT -TOTAL 1,920,-163-00 288.-01 DEPT: PARKS 288. 01 761.99- 761-99- 0. 00 1, 920, 924. 99 0. 0 0.-00 _1, 920, 924 99 .0 0_ 24, 800. 00 7, 719. 39 7, 719. 39 O. 00 17, 080. 61 31. 1 ' 24. 800. 00 7. 719 39 7.719 39 0 00 ._17, 080. 61 ______31_1________ 5400 EQUIPMENT 5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE -THAN $500- 0 00__ _--__..__x.0..00.__ .1, 030 92 0 00 _ - _ 1. 030. 92- .Q. Q OBJECT SUBTOTAL O. 00 O. 00 1, 030. 92 O. 00 11030. 92- O. 0 .:S DIVISION TOTAL 24, 800. 00 7, 719. 39 8, 750. 31 0. 00 16, 049. 69 35. 2 $508-CIP 87-508. DEPT:- -PARKS 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES -4201 -CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 25, 000.-00- -_ -_.___.0...00 0 00 • 0 00 25, 000. 00 _0. 0 Cy 47 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 25, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 O. 00 25, 000. 00 0. 0 DIVISION TOTAL 25, 000. 00 O. 00 851-1-C I P--90-511----------____ DEP-T- --.PARKS 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 .CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE- -15,-00000 0 00 0.00 0.00 25.000.00 0.0 0 00 0 00 15, 000. 00 . . 0.0 • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 0 F I NANCE-FA454 EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (13Y FUND) PAGE 0044 (I, II ME_19.: 32: 22 FROM. _11/01/90 __TO_ 11/30/90___ /I- - DATE 12/13/90 - . 41. 0% OF YEAR COMPLETE - - (1... - FUND D I V-OBJT-DESCR APPROPRIATION MONTHLY_EXP YTD__EXENDENCUMBRANCE UNENC BALANCE X ' 9 305 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 4200 CONTRACT -SERVICES OBJECT SUBTOTAL 15. 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 15, 000. 00 0. 0 I 0 0 1.1 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 -CONTRACT -SERV I CE/PR I VATF 94.-75000 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 944 750. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 15. 000. 00 0. 00 512 -CI E89--512 DEPT PARKS 0. 00 0. 00 15. 000. 00 0..0 18 20 00- 250..00- 0-D0 954_000 00 0_2_________ 20. 00- 250. 00- 0. 00 95, 000. 00 0. 2 DIVISION TOTAL 94, 750. 00 20. 00- 250. 00- 0. 00 95, 000. 00 0. 2 8513 -C -IP .139-513 DEPT • PARKS 0 .16 27 5500 LAND 5501- LAND 513.-000 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 513. 000_ 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 513, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 513, 000. 00 0. 0 DIVISION TOTAL 513, 000. 00 i 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 513, 000. 00 0. 0 to 8516 CIP-89-516 r)EPT-:---PARKS 31 0 ' 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 3 4201 -.CONTRACT. SERVICE/PRIVATE 7.-958.-00 1, 394_27 1. 394 27 0 Dr, 4. 563 71 42 6 0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 7. 958. 00 3. 394. 27 3. 394. 27 Q. 00 4, 563. 73 42. 6 15 28 37 III 28 39 40 10•41 143 le:44 0 DIVISION TOTAL 7, 958. 00 3, 394. 27 3, 394. 27 0. 00 4. 563. 73 42. 6 8517 CIP--89-517 DEPT ----PARKS 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201. CONTRACT SERV I CE/PR I VATE 2. 566. 00 0. 00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 2, 566. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 2. 566. 00 0. 0 5400 EQUIPMENT 5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE THAN $500 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 51 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2, 565. 44 2. 565. 44 0. 00 2. 565. 44- 0. 0 0. 00 2. 565. 44- 0. 0 DIVISION . TOTAL 2, 566. 00 2. 565. 44 8518 CIP 89-518 DEPT: PARKS 4200 CONTRACT- SERVICES •0. 00 0. 56 99. 9 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 12, 305. 00 t 0. 00 0, 00 0. 00 12/ 305. 00 0. 0 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-FA454 EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) PAGE 0045 TIME -194-32'22 FROM 11/01/90. -TO 11/30/90 DATE. -12/_13/90._T___ 41.07. OF YEAR COMPLETE FUND-IIIV-OBJT-DESCR APPROPRIATION MONTHLY -EXP Y-TD-EXPND ENCUMBRANCE-UNENC-BALANCF 305 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND s 9 10 0 11 12 8518 CIP 89-518 DEPT: PARKS 1200 -CON TR A C -T -SERV -I.0 ES I0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 12, 305. 00 0. 00 5400 --EQUIPMENT 5402 EQUIPMENT -MORE THAN $500 0.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 0.00 0. 00 0. 00 12, 305. 00 0. 0 0. 00 12, 305. 73 0. 00 12, 305. 73 0. 00 12, 305. 73- 0. 0 0. 00 12, 305. 73- 0. 0 ©'r' 18 DIVISION TOTAL 12, 305. 00 0. 00 12. 305. 73 0. 00 0. 73- 100. 0 19 e..3 I2. i=' le. DEPARTMENT TOTAL 695, 379. 00 11. 093. 66 26, 765. 75 0. 00 668, 613. 25 3. 8 8601-CIP-86-601 DEPT: BLDGS-&-GROUNDS 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201- CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 4.000. 00--- _1..613 00 1.613...00 0 00 2.387..00_.._____ OBJECT SUBTOTAL 4, 000. 00 1, 613. 00 1, 613. 00 0. 00 2,-387. 00 40. 3 3r OP- 134 i6 DI.VISION TOTAL 4. 000. 00 1, 613. 00 1,613.00 0.00 8604 CIP--86-604 DEPT' BLDGS-&-GROUNDS 2, 387. 00 40. 3 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201--CONTRACT--SERVICE/PRIVATE 23.-768.00 0 00 0 00 15...790_00__ _7.978..00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 23, 768. 00 • 0. 00 0. 00 15, 790. 00 7, 978. 00 66. 4 3] ®30 133 40 0 n J43 DIVISION. TOTAL 8606-CIP -87--606 23. 768. 00 0. 00 0. 00 15, 790. 00 7, 978. 00 DEPT. -BLDGS-&-. GROUNDS 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 8,164.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 8, 164. 00 -0. 00 0.00 0 00 0. 00 0. 00 8. 164. 00 .. 8. 164. 00 DIVISION TOTAL 8. 164. 00 0. 00 --8608.-CIP- 89-608 -- • .--....-.•.---._____... DEPT4---BLDGS-.&• GROUNDS. 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201. CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE- 21r 000.-00 0- 0. 00 0. 00 000 000 66.4 0. 0 .. 0. 0 8, 164. 00 0. 0 -.0.00-._-__... _ 21.000..00 _.. _. .. 0. 0 .. 0 • FINANCE-FA454 IME --19.:-32• 22 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM 11/01/.90 . TO .11/30/90 PAGE 0046 DATE 12/13/90 41.07. OF YEAR COMPLETE I : ‘4. ND-DIV-OBUTDESCR APPROPRIATION MONTHLY_ EXP YTD_EXPNJ) PNC UMBRANC E_UNENC_BALANCE • % ! 305 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND b.k 4200 -CONTRACT SERVICES ! OBJECT SUBTOTAL 21,000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 21. 000. 00 0. 0 3 4 lb 17 DIVISION TOTAL 21, 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 21. 000. 00 0. 0 8609 CIP 89-609 DEP-T• BLDGS_ & GROUNDS 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4. 201 -CONTRACT SERVICE/PR I VATF 30.000 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 :10.000.D0 0 0 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 30: 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 30. 000. 00 0. 0 19 DIVISION TOTAL 30: 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 30; 000. 00 0. 0 861-5 C -IP 89-615 DEPT. BLDGS-.&- GROUNDS 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT. SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT SUBTOTAL• 10.000 00 10.000. 00 0 00 0.00 .0 00 O. 00 O 00 10. 000.00 _0. 0 0. 00 10.000. 00 0. 0 0 2; 30 131 Ott 32 DIVISION TOTAL 10. 00 0 . 0 0 O. 00 8616- CIP-90,616 11EPT• BLDGS &- GROUNDS 19 36 3, 0 36 :39 as 0.00 0. 00 10. 000. 00 0. 0 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 201 CONTRACT-SERVICE/PRIVATE 45..000.-00 0 00. 0 00 0 00 45. 000.00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 45. 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 45; 000. 00 0 . 0 DIVISION TOTAL 45. 000. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 45. 000. 00 0. 0 DEPARTMENT -TOTAL 141,_932 00 1. 613 00 1.....613 00 _152_790-00 124. 529-00 12, 2 8701 CIP 89-701 DEPT: OTHER PROJECTS 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 15. 000. 00 OBJECT- SUBTOTAL 15. 000 00 DIVISION TOTAL - DEPARTMENT TOTAL FUND TOTAL 15. 000..00 15: 000. 00 4. 328. 326. 00 0.00 0 00 0 00 0. 00 15. 679. 09 0. 00 0 00 .0 00 0. 00 0.00 O 00 15. 000. 00 15, 000- 00 0.0 • .0.0. O 00 15. 000. 00-------------0. 0 0. 00 15. 000. 00 0. 0 64.531.62 20. 590. 00 4. 243. 204. 38 I . 9 F I NANC E-FA454 0 11E-1-94-22;-22 ESCR 705 INSURANCE FUND CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FR01-11.1101./.90.T0-11130190 APPROP-RIATTON MCINT , • 1207 LIABILITY INS.DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT - 4100 -PERSONAL -SER V10ESLLLL. 18 • PAGE 0047 IDAIF 12/1L20 41.07, OF YEAR COMPLETE UMBBANCE--L-UNEhlr nAIANrF % 4 k 4 6 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 23, 244. 00 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 465.00 1-11--ACCRUAL-CASH-IN 465 00 4180 RETIREMENT 2, 915. 00 4188 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ' 3, 444. 00 ABJECT SUBTOTAL 30,-533-00 4200 CONTRACT SERVICES io:23 24 23 .0 26 27 28 0 29 30 31 0 32 33 4201-CONTRAC-T-SERV-ICEI-P-RIVATE 34-7-,-937-..--00 OBJECT SUBTOTAL • : • - •- 4300MATERIALSISUPPLIESI0THER 1, 886. 50 8, 333. 10 0.00 0.00 478 80 478 80 904.5724. 73 649. 70 246. 22 2,636-25 10.36A 17 132-50 289,-763-48 347, 937. 00 137. 50 - " 289, 763. 48 • - 0. 00 0. 00 .0 00 0.00 0. 00 O 00 O 00 0.00 14. 910. 90 35.8 465. 00 O. 0 13 8�- 102 9 2, 010. 43 31.0 2; 794. 30 18. 8 0,166-8-4 '4"1 9 58,173_52 83-2 58, 173. 52 83. 2 4305 OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 500. 00 19. 16 36. 44 0. 00 463. 56 4315 MEMBERSHIP 365. 00 O. 00 220. 00 O. 00 145. 00 316 -TRAINING 275 00 55 00 132-00 0 00 143 DO 4324 CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS 50, 000. 00 0.00 . 22, 016. 85 , O. 00 27, 983. 15 , OBJECT SUBTOTAL 51, 140. 00 74.16 22, 405. 29 0. 00 28, 734. 71 7. 2 60. 2 48..0 44. 0 43. 8 IS DIVISION TOTAL 429, 610. 00 2. 847. 91 322,534.94 0. 00 107, 075. 06 75. 0 1210 AUTO/PROP/BONDS DEPT:• MGMT/SUPPORT 4200-CONTR ACT -SER VICES 34 5 36 37 413a 39 40 41 43 45 46 7 411 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE OBJECT.SUBTOTAL 35, 480. 00 35. 480. 00 101. 00 101. 00 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER • . . 4324 CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS .10,000.00 . 119.53 - OBJECT -SUBTOTAL 10,000.-00 1-19-53- D IVIS ION TOTAL 22, 200. 07 22, 200. 07 0. 00 0.00 13,279.93 13,279.93 62. 5 62. 5 166. 12- 5, 176. 31 4, 989. 81 50. 1 166-12- 5,126 31 4, 989 81 50. L 4:1 45.-480-00 .18 -53-- 22,033 95 5. 176-31 8. ! 1215 UNEMPLOYMENT DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 41) go 50 4100 PERSONAL SERVICES 4186 UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL 52 C)53 54 • 7. 000. 00 7..000...00 • DIVISION • TOTAL 7-,-000 00 0. 00 0 00 0. 00 0. 00 7).000. 00 0-00 0 ea 7, 000- 00. 0.100 0-00 O. 0 1) 00 7, 000..00_ _4. 0 56 056 i ® FINANCE-FA454 TIME -19.:-32:22 012 - HIND nru DBJT-DESCR APPROPRIATION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT (BY FUND) FROM .11/01/90 .. TO 11/30/90 705 INSURANCE FUND 1217 WORKERS COMP DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 1.00 -PERSONAL --SERVICES 05 24 MONTHLY _EXP __YTD.__EXPND._.ENCUMBRANCE PAGE 0046 DATE 12/13/90 41.07. OF YEAR COMPLETE UNENC_..BALANCE . 4102 REGULAR SALARIES/MISC 29, 648. 00 2, 426. 00 4110 VACATION/SICK PAY OFF 593:00 0.00 4111..ACCRUAL-CASH IN 593 00 .478.80 4180 RETIREMENT 3, 718. 00 313. 87 4182 WORKERS COMP CURRENT YR 202, 000. 00 29, 146. 70 4188 -EMPLOYEE -.BENEFITS 5,-784 00 32 49 OBJECT SUBTOTAL 242, 336. 00 32, 397. 86 10. 987. 57 0. 00 478.. 80 1, 169. 77 76, 492. 54 A. 249 34 90, 378. 02 4200 -CONTRACT- .SERVICES 4201 CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE 31,655.00 4251 CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT 445.00 OBJEC.LSUBTOTAL 32, 100 00 4300 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER 4305. -OFFICE OPER-.SUP-PL,IES 4316 TRAINING OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL. 1218 MEDICARE 4100 PERSONAL -SERVICES 0.00 18.660.43 37.0 0. 00 593. 00. 0. 0 0. 00 2, 548. 23 31. 4 0. 00 125. 507. 46 37. 8 D 00 4, 534. 66_ 21_ 5 O. 00 151, 957. 98 37. 2 4, 000. 00 19, 073. 02 0.00 0.00 4, 000__00 ,1.9._073._ 02 200 00 92 74-- 1, 4-1, 220. 00 304. 99 1, 420. 00 212. 25 275, 856. 00 DEPT: MGMT/SUPPORT 36, 610. 11 146 08 571.87 717. 95 110, 168. 99 0. 00 0. 00 0 00 0 00 0. 00 0. 00 12, 581.98 60.2 445. 00 0. .0 13, 026 98 59 4 53 92 _ _._73.. 0... 648. 13 46. 8 702. 05 50. 5 0. 00 165, 687. 01 . ' 39. 9 4189 MEDICARE BENEFITS OBJECT SUBTOTAL DIVISION TOTAL 39, 333. 00 39, 333. 00 39, 333. 00 3, 145. 10 3,145.10 3, 145. 10 16, 374. 93 16, 374. 93 16, 374. 93 0. 00 0. 00 0.00 • 40 ® a, 0 6 a4 DEPARTMENT TOTAL FUND. -"TOTAL- REPORT TOTALS 797. 279. 00 42. 584. 59 471, 112. 81 797..279. 00_-.___._...._.42, 584. 59_..:__._.___.47.1.,..112-.81_ 25,550. 081. 00 1, 755. 331. 43 8, 894, 956. 73 5, 176. 31 22. 958. 07 22, 958. 07 22, 958. 07 320. 989. 88 41. 6 41.6 41.6 59. 7 _ . _._._..•5. 176..31__x________324,._989_88 59.7 108, 411. 51 16. 546, 712. 76 4] 4:. !it 15, 35.2 December 06, 1990 Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the City Council January 8, 1991 ANNUAL STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY FOR THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Recommendation It is recommended that the council adopt the attached resolution relative to the Annual Statement of Investment Policy for the City of Hermosa Beach for the year 1991. This policy is the same as the council adopted in 1990. On January 1, 1985 the governor signed Chapter 1226 legislation into law requiring that local public agencies file an Annual Statement of Investment Policy. The 1990 Hermosa Beach City Treasurer's investment policy will comply with Government Code Section 53600 thru 53659, which governs municipal investments in the State of California. The California Government Code provides a large menu of legally allowed public fund investment opportunities. I have attempted to tailor this investment policy to reflect the council's investment personality, while continuing to strive for maximum return on investment funds. Safety of principle is my first priority. I am pleased to announce that our 1990 investment portfolio has generated $905,844.66, or a 8.5% yield this year, compared to a 7.785% year to date return on U.S. Treasury Bills. This year I have requested authorization to invest in: 1. Time Certificates of Deposit 2. U.S. Treasury Bills, Notes, and Bonds 3. Bankers Acceptances 4. California State Local Agency Investment Fund 5. Los Angeles County Pool Investment Fund 19 The attached 1990 investment policy resolution is respectfully submitted for your review. Respectfully submitted, Gary L. utsch City Treasurer NOTED: evin B. Northcr City Manager 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 ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT AND FILING OF THE ANNUAL STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY FOR THE YEAR 1991 WHEREAS, the California State Legislature passed legislation during the 1984 session requiring the filing of an annual Statement of Investment Policy by local public agencies; and WHEREAS, the Governor of the State of California signed such legislation into law effective January 1, 1985 (Chapter 1226); and WHEREAS, the City Treasurer of the City of Hermosa Beach declares the annual Statement of Investment Policy to be as follows: PURPOSE: This statement is intended to provide a guideline for the prudent investment of temporary idle -cash, trust funds and restricted monies and to outline a policy for maximizing the efficiency of the cash management system. Ultimate investment goals include the enhancement of economic status and the protection of pooled cash investments. OBJECTIVE: The cash management system of the City of Hermosa Beach is designed to accurately monitor and forecast expenditures and revenues, thus insuring the investment of monies to the fullest extent possible. Attempts to obtain highest interest yields possible are statement of fact as long as investments meet the criteria required for safety and liquidity. POLICY: The City of Hermosa Beach operates its investment program with State and self-imposed constraints. It does not buy stocks; it does not speculate; it does not deal in futures, options or security loan agreements. Longer term investments (over one year) are generally limited to maturities of 3 years or less, but will never exceed five years. Criteria for selecting investments and the absolute order o priority are: '1. Safety 2. Liquidity 3. Yield 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The City's investment philosophy is to insure the safety of principle and to provide money when needed. A high dollar yield on investments, though important, ranks third in the priority of investment strategy. Depository Services Money must be deposited in state or national banks', state or federal savings associations, or state or federal credit unions in the state. It may be in inactive deposits, active deposits or interest-bearing active deposits. The deposits cannot exceed the amount of the bank's or savings and loan's paid up capital and surplus., We require that each financial institution submit, current financial statements which are evaluated prior to the investment of funds. We use the following criteria: The institution must have been in business at least three years. The institution must submit audited financial statements. In addition, examination is made of the Reserve for Loan Losses category to evaluate the financial trend of the institution's asset base. Whenever possible, the use of several years' financial data is evaluated to present a trend of activity in the institution. We also require that interest be paid to the City on a monthly basis (current state law only requires quarterly payment). Authorized Investments Generally, investments shall be made in the context of "prudent man" rule, which states that, "investments shall be made with judgement and care, under circumstances then prevailing, which persons of prudence, discretion, and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs, not for speculation, but for investment, considering the probable safety of their capital as well as the probable income to be derived." The City is further governed by the California Government Code, Sections 53600 et seq. Within the context of these limitations, the following investments are authorized, as further limited herein: 1 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TCD's (Time Certificates of Deposits) which are insured for $100,000 by FDIC or FSLIC or fully collateralized as required by state law if over $100,000 are purchased.. Not more than 5% of the City's portfolio is invested in any one insitu- tion. Time Certificates of Deposits are safekept in a legally acceptable safekeeping account. An institution must meet the following criteria to be considered by the City: 1. The institution must be located in California. 2. The institution must have current financial information, signed contract and waiver on file with the City. '3. The institution must maintain a net worth to asset ratio of at least 5%, and have a positive earnings record. 4. The institution must be at least 3 years old. 5. For collateralized investments, the institution must have at least $100 million in assets. Acceptable collateral is 110% of the public fund account in government securities. U. S. TREASURY's are direct obligations of the United States Government. U.S. TBILLS are issued weekly with maturity dates up to one year. They are issued and traded on a discount basis and the interest is figured on a 360 day basis, actual number of days. They are issued in amounts of $10,000 and up, in multiples of $5,000. They are a highly liquid security. U.S. TNOTES are initially issued with two to ten year maturities. They are actively traded in a large secondary market and are very liquid. The Treasury may issue note issues with a minimum of $5,000. BANKERS ACCEPTANCES are negotiable time drafts drawn to finance the export, import, shipment or storage of goods, and they are termed "Accepted" when a bank guarantees to pay the face value at maturity. A Banker's Acceptance constitutes an irrevocable obligation of the accepting bank and a contingent obligation of the drawer and of any endorsees whose names appear upon it. The bank is protected by its customer's agreement to provide the necessary funds in advance of the maturity of the Acceptance and also by the pledge of documents such as bills of lading, independent warehouse of terminal receipts, and other documents evidencing ownership and the insurance of the goods so financed. 2 3 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Cities and other local agencies are authorized to purchase Banker's Acceptances subject to several restrictions. First, the Banker's Acceptance must be eligible for purchase by Federal Reserve Systems. Second, purchases of Banker's Acceptances must not exceed two hundred seventy (270) days' maturity or 40% of the City's surplus money invested under Sections 53601 and/or 53635. Finally, no more than 5% of the agency's surplus funds may be invested in the Banker's Acceptances of any one commercial bank (Government Code Sections 53601(f), 53635(f). LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND is a special fund in the State Treasury which local agencies may use to deposit funds for investment. There is no minimum investment period and the minimum transaction is $5,000, in multiples of ,$1,000 above that, with a maximum of $5,000,000 for any agency. The City is restricted to a maximum of eight transactions per month. It offers high liquidity because deposits can be converted to cash in twenty-four hours and no interest is lost. All interest is distributed to those agencies participating on a proportionate share determined by the amounts deposited and the length of time they are deposited. Interest is paid quarterly via a check or warrant. The State keeps an amount for reasonable costs of making the investments, not to exceed one-quarter of one percent of the earnings. The interest rates are fairly high because of the pooling of the State surplus cash with the surplus cash deposited by local governments. This creates a multi -billion dollar money pool and allows diversified investments. In a high interest rate market, we do better than LAIF, but in times of low interest rates, LAIF yields are higher. The City continually invests in the Local Agency Investment Fund (Government Code Section 16429). LOS ANGELES COUNTY POOL INVESTMENT FUND California Government Code ("Government Code") Section 53684 allows local agencies in the County of Los Angeles (the "County") to deposit excess funds in the Los Angeles, County Treasury Pool for the purpose of investment by the Treasurer and Tax Collector of the County (the "Treasurer") pursuant to Government Code Sections 53601 and 53635; 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The County keeps an amount for reasonable costs of making the investments, not to exceed 16 basis points per month. The number of monthly transactions are not restricted. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: That an annual Statement of Investment Policy for the City of Hermosa Beach has been filed by the City Treasurer for calendar year 1991 in compliance with Section 53646 (A) of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF JANUARY 1990. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council December 27, 1990 City Council Meeting of January 8, 1991 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT OF INACTIVE PUBLIC DEPOSITS FOR HERMOSA BEACH Attached is a report of all Inactive Public Deposits for the month of December 1990. Respectfully submitted, Gary Brutsc, City Treasurer NOTED: evin Northcraf City Manager 1� INSTITUTION TOTAL INVESTMENT REPORT - DECEMBER 1990 DATE OF INVESTMENT DATE OF MATURITY INTEREST LAIF BALANCE 12/01/90 Withdrawal Investment Investment BALANCE 12/31/90, $3,510,000.00 .<993,000-.00> 200, 000•. 00 1,260,000.00 $3,977,000.00 LACPIF Railroad Right -of -Way Account BALANCE 12/01/90 $ 507,548.80 BALANCE 12/31/90 507,548.80 CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT: Union Federal S&L Investment $ CORPORATE NOTES: Ford Motor Credit Co. Investment BANKERS ACCEPTANCES: Tokai Bank N.Y. U.S. TREASURY BOND: Investment Investment 500,000.00 $ 500, 000.00 $ 992,637.50 $ 500,937.94 499,326.42 12/06/90 12/19/90 2/22/90 5/19/88 12/03/90 2/22/89 1/03/90 12/02/90 2/21/91 5/20/93 1/03/91 1/31/91 8.269% 8.42% 8.10% 9.10% 8.55% 9.20% 12/31/91 7.71% 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% Investment $1,023,029.89 9/14/90. 6/30/94 8.50% FHLMC: Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. Investment $ 248,733.64 3/26/87 3/1/17 8.0 INVESTMENT TOTAL $12,270,873.94 SEATTLE 1ST NATL. BANK TRUST BALANCE 11/01/90 $ 507,164.28 BALANCE 11/30/90 TICOR TITLE INSURANCE CO. BALANCE 6/30/90 BALANCE 6/30/90 TRUSTEE TOTAL GRAND TOTAL $ 10,711.04 10,711.04 $ 517,875.32 $12,788,749.26 Respectfully Submitted, //7Y/6( -Z-42 Gary Brut ch City Treasurer 8.625% 7.5% f 9/-.2,3 December 27, 1990 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the Regular Meeting of HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL January 8, 1991 SUBJECT: FINAL MAP #46826 (C.U.P. CON NO. 88-34) LOCATION: 540 FIRST STREET APPLICANT(S): THOMPSON OF CALIFORNIA REQUEST: TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP FOR A 10 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Final Tract Map #46826 which is con- sistent with the approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and recom- mends the City Clerk be directed to endorse the certificate for said map. Background The Planning Commission approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map #46826 at their August 1, 1989 meeting. Analysis The staff has reviewed the Final Map and found it substantially consistent with the Vesting Tentative Tract Map approved by the Planning Commission and in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act. CONCUR: Michael Schubach Planning Director Kevin B. North'craft City Manager T/srfinmap Respectf ugly submitted, Ken Robertson Associate Planner ig 10 11 12 13. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL TRACT MAP #46826 FOR A TEN -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 540 FIRST STREET, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the City Council held a meeting on January 8, 1991 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. 89-58 adop- ted after hearing on August 1, 1989. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve as follows: 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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 Vesting Tract Map #46826 in the City of Hermosa Beach, State of California, being a Subdivision of poortion of Lot 42, Block 78, Second Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract, as recorded in Book 3, Pages 11 and 12 of Maps in the Office of the Recorder of Los An- geles County, for a ten -unit condominium project on land com- monly known as 540 First Street, Hermosa Beach, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 8th day of January, 1991. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: (2: 1— T/rsfinmap CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY December 26, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City Council Meeting of January, 8, 1991 RENTAL AGREEMENT WITH BEACH CITIES COALITION FOR ALCOHOL, AND DRUG FREE YOUTH PROGRAM FOR ROOM 4 IN THE COMMUNITY CENTER RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by staff that Council approve a month to month lease with the Beach Cities Coalition for Alcohol and Drug -Free Youth, Inc. for the use of Room 4 in the Community Center. BACKGROUND The Department of Community Resources recently received a request from the Coalition for lease space. They were recently awarded a grant from the Office of Substance Abuse Prevention that will enable them to lease space for offices and meetings. The group serves Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach youth (see attached information). ANALYSIS The leasable space in the Community Center is currently filled. To.date, Room 4 has been utilized as a daily rental space and for recreation activities. Originally the Coali.;ion expressed interest in Room 7 which may be available after April 1, pending the Council decision regarding the potential relocation of the Historical Society (on the Council agenda - March 12). With this in mind and because the organization has an immediate need for space, it seemed appropriate to offer the use of Room 4 on a month to month basis at the standard lease rate until such time as space may become available in the Center. Due to time constraints (the Coalition request arrived on December 20 and they needed space beginning on January 1), staff approved an interim use of the space as a rental until the January 8`Council Meeting. Revenue generated ,from the lease will be $614 per month. Council approval of the attached lease will help to insure that this vital social service organization continues to work in the community as they have done with success since 1988. Concur: evin B. Northraft City Manager Respectf y Submitted, Mary ' . ',Toney, Director Dept of Community Resources Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Director Finance Department lh Beach Cities Coalition For Alcohol and Drug -Free Youth, Inc. 200, N. Pacific Coast Hwy., Redondo Beach, California 90277 (213) 372-1171 x2457 December 20, 1990 Ms. Mary Rooney Director Department of Community Resources 710 Pier Ave Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mary:. The Beach Cities Coalition for Alcohol and Drug -Free Youth was formed in 1988 to provide a forum and funding for community programs and services to prevent and treat substance abuse in our youth. The Coalition is a free-standing, non-profit organization consisting of representatives from local school districts, police departments, city councils, parent organizations, community agencies, and business and civic organizations. Currently our service areas are Hermosa, Redondo, and Manhattan Beach. In September of this year the Coalition received a five year grant from the. Office of Substance Abuse Prevention to support our activities. Based on this grant award the Coalition is expanding and has a need for office space. We are interested in negotiating a lease agreement for permanent office space at the Hermosa Beach Community Center•begining January 1991. This space will be used to house Coalition staff and as a site for bi-monthly meetings of our Executive Committee and the full Coalition. We will require approximately 800-1,000 square feet of space to meet our needs. So that you can become more familiar with our organization and it's goals I have attached a packet of information about the coalition. Please contact me at (213) 374-2068 if you have any questions about the Coalition or our request for office space. Sincerely, Karen Ledebur Executive Director Announcing 1&'''1,)''Beach Cities fi .�No tz, Coalition For ic. Alcohol and O'0'4) Drug -Free Youth To provide a forum and funding for Community programs and services to prevent and treat substance abuse in our youth. Announce new and continued State and Federal funding to local schools and law enforcement to combat substance abuse in our youth. Manhattan Beach Hermosa Beach :;@edando Beach Attlyr Four School Districts Community Teens Community - Based Programs Service Clubs Councils •hsu.',• Law Enforcement Juvenile Diversion Parent Groups Local Business We Need Your Support BEACH CITIES COALITION FOR ALCOHOL AND DRUG-FREE YOUTH 1. To educate the Beach Cities community about the dangers regarding the use of alcohol and other drugs. 2. To provide a forum where consistent coordination of programs and services can exist among schools, law enforcement, community youth service agencies and providers, interested parents, civic and business organizations in the areas of prevention and treatment of chemical abuse. 3. To facilitate a comprehensive K-12 prevention and intervention program. 4. To act as an advisory body for drug prevention grant programs. 5. To conduct an annual needs assessment to identify and prioritize current needs. 6. To identify and access financial and human resources to meet the community's needs for prevention and intervention programs. EXECUTIVE BOARD Sara Content . Judi James Ted Mertens Pat Collins Brad Parton Bob Essertier Bob Jones Jim Shumate Charlotte Lesser Dan Smith K-8 School Representative (School Superintendent) 9-12 School Representative (Special Needs Counselor) Law Enforcement Representative (Chief of Police) Manhattan Beach City Council Representative (City Councilperson) Redondo Beach City Council Representative (Mayor) Hermosa Beach City Council Representative (City Councilperson) Civic/Business Representative/Financial Offic (Lions Club President) Community Agencies Representative (Clinical Director) At Large Representative/Secretary (Parent) Board Chairperson (Executive Director) COALITION HISTORY In December of 1985, the concept of a community -supported school program to meet the mental health needs of secondary students was developed by a group of interested school and community individuals. After discussing the many urgent needs, a proposal was presented to the South Bay Hospital District Board in order to receive start-up funds for mental health program. The Hospital District Board responded positively and the Best Defense program was established in September of 1986. Due to the widespread problems identified during the first year, the Best Defense proposed successfully to the South Bay Hospital District for a second year of funding. The overall purpose of the Best Defense has been to design and implement a program which would meet the mental health needs of the students of the South Bay Union High School District. The major program components included the following: Building community awareness of student problems and needs Conducting extensive staff development Providing education for students and parents Strengthening the coordination of referrals to community resources and agencies concerned with teen mental health Developing a Student Assistance Program Establishing a Student Study Team with supportive Impact and Peer Counseling programs Developing a district mental health curriculum Attracting outside funding to establish broader support for these programs. During the early part of the second year, it was recognized that there was a need to broaden the base of ownership of mental health programs to all schools and community agencies within the South Bay cities. In order to accomplish this, a community -wide Coalition was developed and implemented. The major purpose was to educate and meet the mental health needs of K-12 students in a cost effective manner without duplication of services. The Beach Cities Coalition for Alcohol and Drug Free Youth consists of representatives from the school districts, police departments, city councils, parent organizations, community agencies, and business and civic organizations. The goals of the Beach Cities Coalition for Alcohol and Drug Free. Youth are: To provide a forum where consistent coordination of programs and services can exist among schools, law enforcement, community youth service agencies and providers, interested parents, civic and business organizations, in the areas of prevention and treat- ment of chemical abuse. To provide a regular exchange of information among all community groups and individuals concerned with the substance abuse problems of our youth. To facilitate a comprehensive and sequential.K-12 prevention and intervention program. To act as an advisory body for drug prevention grant programs. To conduct an annual needs assessment to identify and prioritize current needs. To identify and access financial and human resources to meet the community's needs for prevention and intervention programs. Through the Executive Committee of the Coalition, financial resources have been identified and funding is being pursued. During this process, the Coalition became aware of the Office of Criminal Justice Planning Drug Suppression in the schools grant program. The proposal, sponsored by the Coalition was one of seven new grants to be funded by the State of California this year due to the unique multi -district and community agency approach to meet the problems of our youth. This was the first time that a Coalition written and supported grant was submitted. The Coalition is now applying to become a free-standing, non-profit organization. It is also compiling community -wide child/adolescent mental health matrix of existing programs. Along with the matrix, the Coalition has contracted with the Western Center for Drug Free Schools and Communities for an evaluation of our current programs and to help with a needs assessment for future needs. -A-3 REDONDO BEACH CHAMBER Ernie O'Dell OF COMMERCE MANHATTAN BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE HERMOSA BEACH COORDINATING COUNCIL SUPERVISOR DEANE DANA Martin Davis Mary Lou Weiss Leah Jefferies SOUTH BAY CENTER FOR Collen Mooney COUNSELING SOUTH BAY FREE CLINIC Sue Rivera Sara Content Judi James Ted Mertens Pat Collins Brad Parton Bob Essertier Bob Jones Jim Shumate Charlotte Lesser Dan Smith EXECUTIVE BOARD K-8 School Representative 9-12 School Representative Law Enforcement Representative Manhattan Beach City Council Representative Redondo Beach City Council Representative Hermosa Beach City Council Representative Civic/Business Representative Community Agencies Representative At Large Representative Board Chairperson Beach Cities Coalition for Alcohol and Drug Free Youth Inc. Officers Executive Director Dan Smith Secretary Charlotte Lesser Chief Financial Officer Bob Jones The Best .Defense Matrix Prevention and Education The Best Defense Network Intervention Therapy - Atter Care Infant to Pre -K Chid D.viprtwi• rereatemt Math habits. Preaind«ouMn Headset, cooperatives, palm gala funded, arch Infant t0 Pre -K Private and county drug deoerhoacy treatment pavans SoBay Comer bar coonsea g. The. apeoec rt,.wg Scrod Primary Kindergarten to third Redondo Manhattan Hermosa Health Fain Hanan Growth and D.t+loOM Ont Sarum* Abed STOP Education program (3rd) Health Tao • Merril Church Programs Youth Sports Programa Heath Fin Prefect S.N£steem • STOP Education Program (K • 2nd) Heath Ted - AeniM El Hilo Program (K - 2nd) lieu's Looting 2000 Ed Program Kind on the Block Ed Program School Awed Haigh Fan Frey Lae Education Saha STOP Educaion Program Ord) Hen's looking 2000 Ed Program El lido Program Hath Ed N PE Gauer Heath Saes erg PTA Awards Church Program Caacla Programs -: Yarn Sports Proem Youth Spee Programa Primary Kindergarten to third • 'Chid Study Tarn Elementary Fourth to sixth Heath Fairs 14,.... Growth and Development Substance Alae DARE(6h) Heath Tart • Mari Youh Spore Programs Church Programa Heath Fain Frrey Lie Sarin (4h • 6sy Heats Tad • ferrel DARE TW (CO STOP Educeicn program (6h) Pride F.araion.proem. (OM - 6h) Suns. Educaicn Program (eh) Kid on he Block Ed Program Scholl Award Youth Sports Programs Church Pregame Heath Fars Foray lie Edgar r Hee. Looking 2000 Ed Program DARE (ea) EI Hid Eduerion Program Owns* Cube -ACE! id Nog peg No Tobacco Ed Program (eh) - Teen Adotaes Ed Program (6th) Hoath Ed N PE Oren Heath Screenings PTA Awrds Youth Spats Programs Chach Program Elementary Fourth to sixth Opportunity Cor (nth HB) k awls a Education Program Scholl AttMdercs Racer Booed Pn-Sdea Madera* Review Board Chid Study Team Intermediate Seventh to eighth Heats Fain . Health Firs Hurn Grown and Dsyslop rent Fam)y Lie Seim (711.6/t)' Substance Aber ACES Ed Program (7th) Heston Tad - Merril DARE (Stn) Sarah Bay Coalition Youth Spats Program ALNE Program ph -leg Church Rogan Juane Diversion Suwon Group Mach Pregame Youth Sports Programs Coordinating Could Awad. Hsieh Fein Frey 11H. Ed Sere. El tido Ed Program DARE OM) SB Coatat ALIVE Ed (Th- la) Oppomsiy Gar -ACES Teen Advoceas Ed Program Hath Sparing PTA Awad. Church Programs Youth Spats Program Intermediate Seventh to eighth Al d M above and... OppofMiy Cies (7h • Sh RE) Project Touch t3roupe (HB) Juvenile Dive see Careers Hot Lima PsKlnbpiui Tying High School Ninth to twelfth School Based Here's Looting 2000 Edueaicn Program Sat -esteem Asserbfee Peer Careafr g Tutoring Health Fain Spoors Acavia Club Activities Drug Free Educaaon Spates Cops on Campus lunch -ire Rap Groups Community Church Programs Teen Advocaats Your Spats Program Wideman Quarte Programs Hot Lines Sete Rea Project Touch - Step Teen Grote Project Touch - Erly Touch Groep Coordinating Canty Mania Adults Parents Heath Fan Neighborhoods n Action Moray and Me STOP Program • Church programa lde Sesta Education Caaruiy Program Youth Services Notwoak Projct Touch - Sep Para Programs Drug Fra Education Spears s Prem Pledge Get Amro Grad Rood. Effective Parenting Program (HO) Because 1 love You Support Group Family Health Fan STOP Education Program Haas Looking 2000 Educator Program Opoonu•y Gar (HB) Del Amo Grad Roads Cann rely Ed Progrrn Carat Prograrre Drug Free Education Spears Youth Services Network Effective Parenting (HE) • Community Health Fan STOP Education Program Red Ribbon Week Lie Sens Cormnniy Educ1an Propane 58 Coalition Afve • Fariy Yakima Cotrc. Drug Free Education ScWws Goch Programs Youh Sanaa Name Tampa Memorial Ewing Meehge Det Amo Grand Rand Professionals School/Agency knaves M school. Porta Department Iw*.. Youth Samar Network Pude Day Del Amo Grand Raids les Stara TimeOO a nit�Tadaonally Ed d' k" Ower PadMo -Grad Roue Coalition M FamlyV4.rce . IA* Caprty01 May Hogged*Mk High School Ninth to twelfth Mal to above Pus.- Sakii Naafi Carrier Peer Canoeing Lkou>rd Supen;:om Substance Abu* Wiry Ansa* DivrMan Olioe Nan Wiped Program Project Touch- StupT..ns .frena Dewar Intimation �. Wilderness Grate Progrm See Mei Overawe of Chidrsn. Unica Referrals Peramecka Private Phaedra SO -referral . Opporaiy Clara Sobriety Support Groups Psychiatric Can sere SWdrWgwld Study Teal • Vista Recovery Canter Saari Bay Juvenile Manion Project Touch South Bay Free Clinic Saha Bay Cana for Counseling 1706 Project Enter Seals Sark Bay CITU Guidance Canter Season Army Far.ly Sauces South Bey Human Services Cater Clinches (Youth Groups) The Choices Program Became t Love You Supp0M Out, Prtivei Therapy Preciiorws Carer Chapala Services • Corti) Community Mental Heath Spike keparkent Charter Pacific HcepiW Cereal* Lie Servs Det Amo Hospital Lamaist Cortview Sobriety Support Groupe Wilarnar Change Programs Adults Parents Project TMrdlGroan HM Urea Firmly Cottoning .fnenis DMinac n Arrests Projict Touch Step Tees Se6.nlarals Homes Emergency Roam • Hoepta ReeMaat Paramedics - Privets Physicians A. the above red.... Alcoholics Anonymous Alanon Co -Dependency AnonrrmA Newlon Anonymous Cocoon* Anonymous amity Al of to above M of the above Community Al dha above M of 0e above COMMUNITY CENTER MONTH-TO-MONTH RENTAL AGREEMENT. This rental agreement is made and entered into on this, the 8th day of January , 1991 , by and between the City of Hermosa Beach, and Beach Cities Coalition for Alcohol and Drug Free Youth (renter). A. RECITALS: 1. The City is the owner of a recreational/civic service facility generally referred to as Hermosa Beach Community Center (referred to herein as the "facility"). 2. The renter desires to use a portion of the facility on the terms and conditions set out herein. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. TERM. The term of this rental agreement shall be month- to-month commencing on the 1st day of January, 1991. 2. DATES AND HOURS OF USE: The renter will have use of then facility: Normal business hrs.(exceptions noted in #5) 3.. DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES. The renter is renting from the City that portion of the facility described as: Room 4 (798 sq. ft.) RENT. Renter agrees to pay to•the City rent in the sum of Six Hundred Fourteen Dollars ($ 614.00 ) per month payable on the first day of each month If this agreement commences on a day other than the first day of the month, then the renter shall pay upon the commencement of the agreement the rental of a pro rata basis for the remainder of that month and commence a full rental pay- ment on the first day of the following month. 5. EQUIPMENT/ACCOMMODATIONS: A. Renter will be given a key to the hall door and outside master to the building. B. Room may be used for Community Resources Department activities. C. Room may be opened by .Fire Department for fire inspection at any time. USE. The renter agrees to use the premises only for the following purpose or purposes: house Coalition staff and site for bi-monthly meetings of Executive Committee and for no other purpose without the express written con- sent of the City. 7. INSURANCE LIABILITY. Renter shall obtain and maintain at all times during the term of this agreement Comprehensive General and Automobile Liability insurance protecting • Renter in amounts not less than $1 million for personal injury to any one person, $1 million for injuries arising out of any one occurrence and $1 million for property damage or a combined single limit of $1 million. Such insurance shall name City of Hermosa Beach and th..:ir of- ficers, employees, elected officials and members of Boards or commissions as additional insured parties. Coverage shall be in accordance with the sample certifi- cates.and endorsements attached hereto and mus: include the coverage and provisions indicated. Renter shall file and maintain the required certifi- cate(s) of insurance with the other party to this agree- ment at all times during the term of this agreement. The certificate(s) is to be filed prior to the commencement of the work or event and should state clearly: 1. The additional insured requested; 2. Thirty day prior notice of change or cancellation to the City of Hermosa Beach; 3. Insurance is primary to that of the Additional Insured; 4. Coverage included; 5. Cross -liability clause. WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE. Renter shall obtain and maintain at all times during the term of this agreement Worker's Compensation and Employers Liability insurance. and furnish the City with a certificate showing proof of such coverage. Such insurance shall not be canceled or materially changed without a thirty (30) day prior writ- ten notice to: City Manager, City of Hermosa Beach. INSURANCE COMPANIES. Insurance companies must be rated (B:XIII) or better in Best's Insurance Rating Guide. Boards or commissions as additional insured parties. Coverage shall be in accordance with the sample certifi- cates and endorsements attached hereto and mus., include the coverage and provisions indicated. Renter shall file and maintain the required certifi- cate(s) of insurance with the other party to this agree- ment at all times during the term of this agreement. The certificate(s) is to be filed prior to the commencement of the work or event and should state clearly,: 1. The additional insured requested; 2. Thirty day prior notice of change or cancellation to the City of Hermosa Beach; 3. Insurance is primary to that of the Additional Insured; 4. Coverage included; 5. Cross -liability clause. WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE. Renter shall obtain and maintain at all times during the term of this agreement Worker's Compensation and Employers Liability insurance and furnish the City with a certificate showing proof of such coverage. Such insurance shall not be canceled or materially changed without a thirty (30) day prior writ- ten notice to: City Manager, City of Hermosa Beach. INSURANCE COMPANIES. Insurance companies must be rated (B:XIII) or bett<r in Best's Insurance Rating Guide. 8. CONDITION OF THE PREMISES UPON TERMINATION OF. THE AGREE- MENT Renter agrees to keep and maintain the premises in good condition and repair and to return to the City the premises upon termination of this agreement in the same condition as when renter took possession of the premises excepting any repairs or alterations which were..approved by the City, reasonable wear and tear excepted, and does promise to pay the City upon demand the reasonable sums to repair the premises in the event of a violation of this provision. 9. DESTRUCTION, PARTIAL DESTRUCTION OR NECESSITY TO REPAIR BECAUSE OF CONDITIONS CAUSED BY OTHER THAN RENTER. The City has no duty or obligation to reconstruct the prem- ises in the event of destruction or partial destruction of the premises. In the event the City at its sole dis- cretion determines not to reconstruct or repair the prem- ises then either party at its option may cause this lease to be terminated with -a ten (10) day notice and neither party shall have any liability each to each other. 10. HOLD HARMLESS. Renter 'shall hold harmless and indemnify the City, its officers, agents and employees from every claim or demand which may be made by reason of any injury and/or death to persons and/or injury to property caused by any direct or indirect act or any omission of the Renter, its officers, agents and employees arising out of the Renter's use of said premises. The Renter, at its own cost, expense and risk shall defend any and all ac- tions `suits or other proceedings that may be brought or instituted against the City on any such claim or demand and pay or satisfy,any judgment that may be rendered against the Renter on any such action, suit, or legal proceedings as a result hereof. 11. RULES, REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES. The Renter agrees to comply strictly with all applicable laws and any uniform Community Center rules and regulations adopted by the City Council. 12. NOTICE. Any notice required to be made or given pursuant to the provisions of the agreement may be either per- sonally served upon the party or deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid. LESSOR: City of Hermosa Beach City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 9254 RENTER: Beach Cities Coalition for Alcohol and Drug -Free Youth, Inca 200 N. Pacific Coast Hwy Redondo Beach, CA 90277 372-1171 ext. 2457 Attn: Karen Ledebur Any notices so given pursuant to the provisions of this ,paragraph will be deemed served twenty-four hours after, the deposit thereof in the United States mail. 13. ATTORNEYS FEES. The parties agree that in the event any action is instituted concerning any of the provisions of this agreement, the prevailing party may in the discre- tion of the court be granted as an additional item of damages its attorneys fees. 14. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. Renter may not assign or sub- lease all or any portion of the premises without the written consent of the City, which consent may be granted or denied at the exclusive and total discretion of the City. 15. SUCCESSORS. Subject to prior provisions, this agreement is binding upon the heirs, assigns and successors of interest of the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Hermo- sa Beach Community Center Rental Agreement at Hermosa Beach on the day first hereinabove set forth. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a Municipal Corporation Mayor ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: V �f� CITY ATTORNEY DATE: RENTER: December 26, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council January 8, 1991 HOPE CHAPEL LEASE AGREEMENT (Room 13) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by staff that Council approve the attached one year lease agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach and Hope Chapel for Room 13 in the. Community Center. BACKGROUND Hope Chapel presently leases Rooms 5, 6A and 13 in the Community Center. They have been tenants in the Center since September, 1986. Room 13 is used for counseling, lectures and youth activities. ANALYSIS The lease space for Room 13 is 1,288 sq. ft. with a monthly rental of $992 ($.77 sq. ft.). Per City Council direck,ion, this rata will be in effect until July 1, 1991 and then will increase to $.80 per sq. ft. or $1,030 per month. The attached lease conforms to the present square footage rental policy approved by Council on March 19, 1990 with all other conditions of the former lease remaining the same. Concur: Mary C ;.e ey, r^tor Dept. of Community Resources Kevin B. Northbraft City Manager Respectfull Su 'matted, Marsha Ernst Administrative Aide Dept. of Community Resources Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Director Finance Department -9/ Ai Insured; (4) Coverage included; (5) Cross -liability clause.. WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE. Lessee shall obtain and maintain at all times during the term of this agreement Work- er's Compensation and Employers Liability insurance and fur- nish the City with a certificate showing proof of such coverage. Such insurance shall not be cancelled or material- ly changed without a thirty (30) day prior written notice to: City Manager, City of Hermosa Beach. INSURANCE COMPANIES. Insurance companies must be rated (B:XIII) or better in Best's Insurance Rating Guide. 6. CONDITION OF THE PREMISES UPON TERMINATION OF THE LEASE. Lessee agrees to keep and maintain the premises in good con- dition and repair and to return to the City the premises upon termination of this lease in the same condition as when Les- see took possession of the premises excepting any repairs or alterations which were approved by the City, reasonable wear and tear excepted, and does promise to pay the City upon de- mand the reasonable sums to repair the premises in the evenc of a violation of this provision. 7. CONSTRUCTION. Lessee is prohibited from making any al- terations or performing any construction whatsoever on the premises without the expressed written approval of the City. Any such approval shall include provisions to protect the City from potential liens of labor and material persons. 8. DESTRUCTION, PARTIAL DESTRUCTION OR NECESSITY TO REPAIR BECAUSE OF CONDITIONS CAUSED BY OTHER THAN LESSEE. The City has no duty or obligation to reconstruct the premises in the event of destruction or partial destruction of the premises. The City at its option may reconstruct or repair the prem- ises,•whereupon this lease shall remain in full force and effect except that no rent will be owing to the City during said period of reconstruction or repair if such reconstruc- tion or repair interferes with the tenancy created herein to the extent that the premises cannot be used for the purposes intended. In the event the City 'at its sole discretion determines not to reconstruct or repair the premises then either party at its option may cause this lease to be termi- nated and neither party shall have any liability each to each other. 9. HOLD HARMLESS. Lessee shall hold harmless and indemnify the City, its officers, agents and employees from every claim or demand which may be made by reason of, any injury and/or death to persons and/or injury to property caused by any di- rect or indirect act or any omission of the lessee, its of- ficers, agents and employees arising out of the lessee's use of said premises. The Lessee, at its own cost, expense and risk- shall defind any and all actions, suits or other pro- ceedings that may be brought or instituted against the City on any such claim or demand, and pay or satisfy any judgment that may be rendered against -the Lessor on any such action, suit, or legal proceedings as a result of hereof. 10. RULES, REGULATIONS AND' ORDINANCES. The Lessee agrees to comply. strictly with all applicable laws and any uniform Com- munity Center rules and regulations adopted by the City Council. 11. TAXES AND CHARGES. Lessee agrees to pay when due any and all taxes, assessments or charges levied by any governmental agency on or to the lease -hold premises. 12. DEFAULT. Should Lessee fail to pay any monies due pur- suant to this lease within three days after written notice from the City or to perform any other obligation required pursuant to the terms of this lease within thirty days after notice from the City, City may immediately cause this lease to be terminated and thereafter take any action and pursue all remedies available under the laws then existent in the State of California. 13. NOTICE. Any notice required to be made or given pur- suant to the provisions of this lease may be either personal- ly served upon the party or deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, LESSOR: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY HALL 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 LESSEE: HOPE CHAPEL 2420 Pacific Coast Hwy. Hermosa Beacham CA 90254 213 374 -HOPE Any notices so given pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph will be deemed served twenty-four hours after the deposit thereof in the United States mail. 14. ATTORNEYS FEES. The parties agree that in the event any action is instituted concerning any of the provisions of this lease agreement, the prevailing. party may in the discretion .of the court be granted as an additional item of damages its attorneys fees. 15. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. Lessee may not assign or sublease all or any portion of the premises without the writ- ten consent of'the City, which consent may be granted or de- nied at the exclusive and total discretion of the City. 16. SUCCESSORS. Subject to prior provisions, this lease is binding upon the heirs, assigns and successors of interest of the parties. IN WITNESS:WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Hermosa Beach Community Center Lease Agreement at Hermosa Beach on the day first hereinabove set forth. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a Municipal Corporation, Lessor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY DATE: LESSEE: Pastor, Hope Chapel /-2 -9/ December 24, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council January 8, 1991 Amendment to Master Fee Resolution 90-5422 Establishing a Late Fee on Amounts Due The City Recommendation • It is recommended that the City Council amend Resolution 90-5422 (the master fee resolution) to establish a late fee of 1% per month on amounts due the City after 60 days. Background It was suggested at the workshop on user fees that the City con- sider implementing a late fee for amounts past due. Penalties currently exist for property tax, utility user tax, transient occupancy tax and business licenses. Analysis Most fees paid to the City are paid in advance or at the time service is requested. There are some amounts however, such as paramedic fees, damage to City property, false alarm responses, second party calls, billings for driving under the influence and some filming and special event fees which are billed after the fact. The late fee would apply on these types of billings if not paid within sixty days. The City Attorney has reviewed the late fee and indicates that notice of the fee needs to be given at the time of the original billing. The notice can easily be incorpo- rated into the billing form upon reorder and with a stamped or typed notice until reorder is necessary. Late fees for delinquent payments are a common business. practice since delinquent accounts do require additional work. The 1% fee is reasonable in light of the city's loss of interest on uncol- lected funds and time spent on additional work to collect. The notice of the fee will be on the original invoice so the party billed will be aware of the potential charge. The late fee should serve as incentive to pay in a timely manner. Concur: Kevin B. Nort %raft City Manager Viki Copeland Finance Director 1 2 3 4 5 6. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 90-5422 TO ESTABLISH A LATE FEE ON CERTAIN AMOUNTS DUE THE CITY AFTER SIXTY DAYS WHEREAS, the City of Hermosa Beach intends to collect all amounts due the City in a timely manner; and WHEREAS, additional costs are incurred by the City when actions are necessary to collect unpaid amounts; and WHEREAS, implementation of a late fee may serve as an incentive for timely payment of amounts due the City; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach that Resolution 90-5422 is amended by adding Section 10 to read as follows: SECTION 10. Any amount due the City, for fees and charges contained herein, remaining unpaid for sixty (60) days shall be subject to a late fee of 1% per month (commencing the first month following the sixty day period), in addition to the original amount due. Notice of the late fee shall be reflected on the original invoice. SECTION 11. This resolution shall take effect on the day of its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 8th day of January, 1991. PRESIDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL, AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: a'eL4 CITY ATTORNEY Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council CLAIM FOR DAMAGES The following claim has been submitted to the City: December 27, 1990 Regular Meeting of January 8, 1991 Lynn Welch c/o Law Offices of Eric Bryan Seuthe 500 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90017 Filed: December 26, 1990; auto accident alleging obstructed view of traffic signs. Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council deny the claim and refer to the City's Claims Administrator. Since the location of this accident was on Pacific Coast Highway, which is State controlled, claimant has been notified of the appropriate agency with which to file this claim. Note: The above claim is available for review in the Office of the Risk Manager. Respectfully submitted, Concur: Robert A. Blackwood evin B. North raft Risk Manager RAB:mv rab/claim City Manager 90- iZ -3 i.c4Yil ot wc: ;: ' 31t'f CLAIM FOR DAMAGES TO PERSON OR PROPERTY CLAIM AGAINST: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ORIGINAL r(ECEIVED DEC 2 61990 " ERSONNEURISK PrPT TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ADDRESS CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1315 VALLEY DRIVE. , HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 REFER ALL COMMUNICATIONS TO LAW OFFICES OF ERIC BRYAN SEUTHE 500 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE TWENTY SECOND FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071 (213)614-1080 FAX NO:(213)688-9084 NAME OF CLAIMANT LYNN WELCH ADDRESS 852 CYPRESS. STREET HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 (213)374-9700 DATE OF BIRTH...., 06-09-62 1 -DATE OF ACCIDENT NOVEMBER 15, 1990 2 -TIME OF ACCIDENT 4'00 P.M. 3 -LOCATION OF. ACCIDENT PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY,NEAR ITS INTERSECTION WITH 9TH STREET, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 4 -HOW DID DAMAGE OF INJURY OCCUR? A) CLAIMANT SOUTHBOUND ON P.C.H., INTENDING TO MAKE A LEFT TURN EASTBOUND ON 9TH STREET, OTHER PARTY (ANTHONY JAY LAWRENCE) NORTHBOUND ON P.C.H. PROCEEDS THROUGH INTERSECTION AND SMASHES INTO CLAIMANT. ORIGINAL 5 -WHY DO YOU CLAIM THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE? A) TRAFFIC SIGNS ON N/E & N/W CORNERS OF THE INTERSECTION FACING S/B TRAFFIC OF P.C.H. ARE CONCEALED AND WERE NOT VISIBLE AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT. 6 -GIVE NAMES OF CITY EMPLOYEE CAUSING THE INJURY OR DAMAGE IF KNOWN? A) UNKNOWN 7 -CLAIMANT 'S VEHICLE LICENSE NO: 380WWP 8 -CLAIMANT'S DRIVER'S LICENSE NO: W2357 50000 56624 N.J. 9 -THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF DAMAGES SUSTAINED IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED ACCIDENT: a) MEDICAL EXPENSES PAID AND TO BE PAID IN THE FUTURE: DOLLAR AMOUNT IS UNKNOWN. b) LOSS OF INCOME AND FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME: DOLLAR AMOUNT IS UNKNOWN. c) AMOUNT CLAIMED: $200,000.00 d) GENERAL DAMAGES FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING: $60,000.00 e) PROPERTY DAMAGES IN THE SUM OF: UNKNOWN AT THIS POINT. 10 -THE FOLLOWNG IS A LIST OF DAMAGES OF INJURIES SUSTAINED: A) SOFT TISSUE, PAIN TO HEAD, LEFT LEG INJURIES 11 -WAS DAMAGE AND/OR INJURY INVESTIGATED BY POLICE? A) YES, C.H.P REPORT NUMBER 90-6119 \\\ ORIGINAL 12 -THE FOLLOWINGS ARE WITNESSES, DOCTORS, AND HOSPITALS INVOLVED: WITNESS PETER CASEY LAW ADDRESS 1456 5TH STREET, MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 TORRANCE MEDICAL GROUP...(213)540-1584 DR. JOHN VIBOCH DR. KIM , DATED: 19th December, 1990 • LAW 0 CE:/OF ERIC YAN SEUTHE BY ERIC BRYAN SEUTHE ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF LYNN WELCH 3 December 31, 1990 J� 9/ Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of January 9, 1990 APPROVAL OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council: 1) approve the attached Request for Proposals (RFP) for Workers' Compensation Claims Ad- ministration Services and, 2) authorize staff to advertise for, and solicit, proposals for third party administration of workers' compensation claims. BACKGROUND: On September 25, 1990 the City Council approved an amendment to the existing Services contract with Gates McDonald for ad- ministration of the City's Workers' Compensation claims which established the second years' fee for, services. The current con- tract commenced October 1, 1989 and was intended to be for a three year period (with provision for cancellation upon 90 days notice by either party). Citing substantial changes in Workers' Compensation laws which were effective January 1, 1990 which required Gates McDonald to increase their claims administration and supervisory staff, Gates McDonald negotiated a 50% increase in the service fee over the previous year's fee. A increase of 6% for the third year of the contract was also negotiated and approved by the Council. The current fee is $2,000/mo. and effective July 1, 1991 the monthly fee will be $2,120 (should the contract be continued). Because.of the substantial increase, Council directed that staff prepare and circulate a Request for Proposals for Worker's Com- pensation Administration services to ensure that the City -was receiving the most competitive price for this service. Staff has prepared the attached after reviewing sample RFP's pro- vided by the cities of Manhattan Beach, Alhambra, Azusa, Santa Monica, and the Orange County Cities Risk Management Authority. ANALYSIS: Councilmembers recently indicated a desire that staff formalize. the process of requesting and accepting Requests for Proposals for professional services. The attached RFP directs prospective service providers to submit their sealed proposals to the City Clerk's office by February 14, 1990. At that time the proposals will be opened by the Clerk's Office. The proposals will be evaluated by the Risk Manager and the City Manager and a recom- mendation regarding 'future claims administration services will be forwarded to the Council. In addition to legal notice (see attached) in the Easy Reader, staff is surveying all surrounding cities to insure that as many. service providers are identified as possible. Staff has current- ly identified nine (9) Workers' Comp. Claims Administrators who will be forwarded a copy of the RFP. Respectfully submitted, bCA Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director Concur: Kevin B. Nortlicraft City Manager NOTICE INVITING PROPOSALS FOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Hermosa Beach is soliciting sealed proposals for third party administration of Worker's Compensation Claims. The proposals must be received by Thursday, February 14, 1991, no later that 2:00 p.m. Please mail or deliver your proposal to: Office of the City Clerk City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Your proposal must be received in a sealed envelope marked "Proposal for Workers' Compensation Claims Administration". The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals. The City's decision, as with all professional service contracts, will be made upon a variety of performance factors, including, but not limited to price. For complete proposal packages detailing specifications and conditions, contact the Personnel Department at (213) 318-0230. Personnel Department City of.Hermosa Beach Run Legal: January 10, 1990 January 31, 1990 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION The City of Hermosa Beach is seeking proposals from qualified claim administration firms to provide Worker's Compensation Claims Administration Services. Currently, the City's contract is with Gates McDonald which has served the City since October 1, 1988. As a result of the recent changes in Workers' Compensation Laws and the increase in third party administration fees, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach has directed that this Request for Proposal be circulated to insure that the City is provided quality administration services at the most competitive rate. General Background: --The City of Hermosa Beach, self-insured for Liability Claims since 1979, is located in Los Angeles County, five (5) miles south of Los Angeles International Airport. The City employees approximately 170 full time and 42 part time employees with an estimated payroll of $6.3 million. The City of Hermosa- Beach is a full-service City, including Police (41 sworn) Fire (18 sworn) Street Maintenance, Equipment Service, City Planning, Building Inspection, Personnel Administration, Risk Management and Municipal Finance Services. The City contracts for refuse pickup, landscape maintenance and janitorial services. The City currently maintains excess Workers' Compensation insurance coverage through General Reinsurance Corporation with a S.I.R. of $300,000 and a Statutory limit. Information regarding the City's claims experience through November 30, 199.0, can be found in the enclosed Claims Experience Report from Gates McDonald. The City has, as of November 30, 1990, sixty-five (65) open claims. Also enclosed is a copy of the City's June 30, 1990 Self Insurers Annual Report. CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM SPECIFICATIONS Terms of Contract: --The contract will commence as soon as legally possible and is initially intended to be for a three (3) year period. Proposals will include provisions for assumption of existing claims and renewal. It is the intention of the City to continue this contract subject to the contractor's satisfactory performance and the needs of the City. Selection Process: --Your written proposal will be accepted by the City up until 2:00 p.m., Thursday, February 14, 1991. Proposals must be submitted to: Office of the City Clerk City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Your proposal must be received in a sealed envelope marked "Proposal for Workers' Compensation Claims Administrations. The City will review written proposals and reserves the right to select that administrator which appears to be able to provide the service and performance described in this document and that which is in the best interests of the City. Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the following criteria: 1. Knowledge and experience of the firm and its personnel in serving self-insured public entities. 2. Creativity, originality, and responsiveness in proposal and presentation. 3. Value received versus fee proposed. Information shall be included in the proposal on pricing for claims administration services. This information must indicate whether your firm charges a flat annual fee, a per -claim fee, whether there is a fee for handling "carry-over" claims, and if you would include a maximum annual increase. 4. The experience and qualifications of the personnel who will be assigned to the City's account. Selection of Account Claims Manager and/or Examiner shall be approved by the City. 5. Professional references. 6. Claims handling philosophy (include case load per adjuster). 6. Corporate history, including a list of clients similar to the City of Hermosa Beach. 8. Description of statistical report capability (include sample reports). 9. Ability to provide City other services; safety rehabilitation, medical standards, etc. 10. Description of Loss Control and Prevention Services, with a separate cost, to be considered by the City. 11. A sample proposed contract. Minimum Proposal Requirements: 1. Presentation of three (3) copies of written materials establishing standards of performance for administering City claims concentrating on, but not limited to, the following areas: - Report of claims - Claimant contact - Timely payment of T.D. - Timely payment of P.D. - Claims denials - Comp and release agreements payments - safety pay benefits payments - Serious and willful claims - Verification of bill accuracy - Determination of P.D. - Rehabilitation - Litigation/Attorney selection - Investigation - Sub-rosa/activity checks - Trust Account - Requested authority - Establishment of medical panel. - Subrogation - Knowledge and experience coordinating comp law with P.E.R.S. system retirements and benefits Regular on-going personal and written contact must be maintained between the claimant, the City, and the contractor from the inception of the claim. Contractor control must be maintained over all legal, medical, procedural and strategical decisions. Whenever possible, litigated claims will be handled to a conclusion by the contractor, without defense counsel involvement. Referrals to defense counsel shall be approved by the City. 2. An on-line computer claims information system that provides effective reports to document claims activity, provide analysis to reduce losses and increase efficiency as follows: a) A monthly detailed listing of all open and closed claims sorted by. fiscal year and City department; stating case number, employee name, date of injury, body part, T.D. paid, P.D. paid, medical paid, rehabilitation paid, future T.D., future P.D., future medical, future rehabilitation, and total incurred losses. b) A monthly check register listing all checks in numerical sequence stating claim number, date of injury/illness, service. date, description, payee charges, and account numbers. Checks to be issued from a trust account, approved by the Finance Department and administered by the contractor. All forms necessary to the City's processing of benefits to be provided at the expense of the contractor. 3.. Existing Claims: It is anticipated that there will be approximately 65 claims being serviced by the present - contractor. In the event of selection of a different contractor, it is contemplated that all pending claims shall be transferred in a responsible manner and shall be professionally administered by the contractor with proper notifications being sent to all concerned parties by the new contractor. It shall also be the responsibility of the new contractor to input all previous claims information from all prior cases currently on-line with the existing contractors computer program for the City. 4. Indemnification and Insurance Requirement: Contractor must agree to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City from all claims and legal action, or any damages arising from the performance of this agreement. Insurance Requirements: --Contractor shall maintain at its own expense• 1. Insurance in the amount of $1 million, combined single limit for General and Auto Liability, to include: a) Premises/operations b) Independent contractors c) Products/completed operations d) Blanket contractural e) Non -owned, owned and hired vehicles 2. Professional liability insurance with minimum limit of $1 million per occurrence, providing coverage for all errors and omissions, which the contractor or his agents may make, resulting in financial loss to the City. 3. Blanket Fidelity Bond in the amount of'$500,000 naming the City as a "Loss Payee". Status Meeting: --Meetings shall be held between the City and the contractor to discuss case status, contract problems or related matter, on a quarterly basis; meetings to be held at City Hall. Notice: --The City of Hermosa Beach reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and to waive any irregularities of information therein. No obligation, either expressed or implied, exists on the part of the City of Hermosa Beach to make an award or to pay any costs incurred in the preparation of submission of proposals. Costs incurred are the sole responsibility of the proposer. All proposals will become the property of the City of Hermosa Beach. Information withinthe proposals will become public property subject to the disclosure law. The City of Hermosa Beach reserves the right to make use of any information or ideas in the proposal. rfpwc Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council December 27, 1990 Regular Meeting of January 8, 1991 STATUS REPORT FOR THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH - WATER CONSERVATION Recommendation: It is recommended that. City Council receive and file this report. Background: At the May 8, 1990 meeting, City Council adopted Resolution No. 90-5361, "A Resolution Requesting and Encouraging Water Conservation Practices by All Water Users in the City of Hermosa Beach," which adopted a program of voluntary water conservation. This report provides the City Council with an update of water conservation efforts by the City. Analysis: The analysis is divided as follows: 1. The City's efforts to conserve water and 2. Water Rationing Plan proposed by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD). 1. The City's Efforts To Conserve Water We received information from the California Water Service Company, Hermosa Redondo District which we have tabulated. The results are as follows (stated in cubic feet): 1989 1990.. Medians Division 5,438 2,411 Parks Division 25,010 20,048 Building Division 4,536 4,36.3 Police Department 0 8 Total 34,984 (2,000)* (1,000)* 31,984 26,830 *Water break The efforts of the City resulted in a 16% reduction of water use from 1989 to 1990. 2. Water Rationing Plan Proposed by MWD California Water Service notified the City that MWD will be instituting mandatory water rationing. Since the City does not own the water company, California Water Service is responsible for conducting public hearings and for making a final decision. Attached are the proposed rules. Following is the public hearing information: A public hearing on the proposed 1991 water rationing plan for the Hermosa -Redondo district of the California Water Service Company will be held: Tuesday, January 15, 1991, 7:00 p.m. Hermosa Rotary Building 2521 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA Respectfully submitted: Barbara Conklin Administrative Aide Concur: Anthony Antih Director of Public Works Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager Attachments: Information from Water Management Plan Hermosa Redondo District California Water Service Company cc: Terry Tamble, California Water Service pw/watercon Rule No. 14.1 MANDATORY WATER CONSERVATION/RATIONING PLAN FOR EAST LOS ANGELES. HERMOSA-REDONDO. AND PALOS VERDES DISTRICTS (continued) E. ENFORCEMENT (continued) removal charge set forth below. After the removal of such restricting device, if any such nonessential, or unauthorized use of water shall continue, the Company may install a flow -restricting device which shall remain in place for a period of notless than two weeks or until this water rationing plan shall terminate and until the appropriate charge for removal set forth below shall have been paid to the Company. However, if despite installation of such flow -restricting device pursuant to the provisions of the previous sentence, any such nonessential or unauthorized use of water shall continue, then the Company may discontinue water service to such customer.. In such latter event, a charge as provided -in Rule No. 11 shall bepaid to the Company as a condition to restoration of service. It is the intent of the Company that restriction devices will not be installed in a customer's service due to exceeding a monthly quota if a customer's accumulated usage does not exceed his accumulated allocation beginning with bills rendered after -the effective date of this tariff. 2. The charge for removal of a flow -restricting device shall be: Meter Size Removal Charge 5/8" to 1" $25 1-1/2 to 2" 50 3" and larger Actual cost F. APPEAL PROCEDURE Any customer who seeks a variance from any of the provisions of this water rationing plan shall notify the Company in writing, setting forth in detail the grounds for a variance. Any customer not satisfied with the Company's response may file an appeal with the Staff of the Commission requesting relief. The customer and the Company will be notified of the disposition of such appeal by letter from the Executive Director of the Commission. If the customer shall disagree with such disposition, he shall have the -right -to file a formal complaint with the Commission. Except as set forth in this •Section,.F, no person shall have any right or claim in law or in equity, against the Company because of, or as a result of, any matter or thing done or threatened to be done pursuant to the provisions of this water rationing plan. Rule No. 14.1 MANDATORY WATER CONSERVATION/RATIONING PLAN FCR EAST LOS ANGELES, HERMOSA-REDONDO. AND PALOS VERDES DISTRICTS (continued) C. PROHIBITION OF NONESSENTIAL OR UNAUTHORIZED WATER USE APPLICABLE TO ALL THREE PHASES (continued) e. Use of water through a hose for washing cars,.buses, boats, trailers or other vehicles without a positive automatic shut-off valve on the outlet end of the hose. f. Use of water through a hose for washing buildings, structures, sidewalks, walkways, driveways, patios, parking lots, tennis courts, or other hard -surfaced areas, except as required for sanitary purposes. Use of water to clean, fill or maintain levels in decorative fountains unless such water is part of a recycling system. h. Use of water for construction purposes, such as consolidation of backfill, unless no other source of water or other method can be used. F. Service of water by any restaurant except upon the request of a patron. j. Use of water from fire hydrants shall be limited to fire. fighting and related activities and other uses shall be limited to activities necessary to maintain the public health, safety, and welfare. D. EXCESS WATER USE PENALTY Phase II: An excess use penalty of S2 per 100 cubic feet of water used in excess of the applicable allocation during each billing period shall be charged by the Company for all service rendered on and after the effective date of this tariff, except that such excess use penalty shall not apply to any customer and/or dwelling unit whose consumption is 600 cubic feet or less per billing period per dwelling unit, nor to any customer whose total consumption to date during the period this rationing plan has been in effect does not exceed his or her total allocated usage for said period. Any monies collected by the Company through penalty charges shall not be accounted for as income, but shall be accumulated by the Company in a separate reserve account for disposition as directed or authorized from time to time by the California Public Utilities Commission. E. ENFORCEMENT 1. The Company may, after one written warning, install a flow -restricting device on the service tine of any customer observed by Company personnel to be using 'water for any nonessential or unauthorized use defined in Section 8 above. The restricting device may be removed only by the Company, only after a two-day period has elapsed, and only upon payment of the appropriate r Rule No. 14.1 MANDATORY WATER CONSERVATION/RATIONING PLAN FOR EAST LOS ANGELES, HERMOSA-REDONDO, AND PALOS VERDES DISTRICTS (continued) C. PROHIBITION OF NONESSENTIAL OR UNAUTHORIZED WATER USE APPLICABLE TO ALL THREE PHASES 1. No customer shall use water for nonessential or unauthorized uses, as such uses are hereinafter defined below. 2. The following uses of water are determined to be, and are defined as, nonessential or unauthorized:. a. Any use of water in excess of the following allocations: (1) The allocation* for each customer shall be the percentage shorn below of the quantity of water used by such customer during the comparable billing periods during the historical base period: Phase II Voluntary Less than or equal to 90X Notwithstanding the above -listed allocations, no customer will receive a monthly allo- cation of less than 6 Ccf. (2) The allocation for each customer using process water shall be 90X• of the quantity of water used by such customer during the comparable billing periods during the historical base period. Car washes with recycling systems and commercial laundries are exempt from allotment restrictions. (3) For any customer without a prior period billing record, or where unusual circumstances dictate a change in.atlocation, the customer's monthly allocation shalt be determined by the Company on the basisof usage by similar customers or on such other basis as may be fair and equitable under the circumstances. b. Use of water for more than minimal landscaping in connection with any new construction. c. Use of water through any meter when the Company has notified the cstamer in writing to repair a broken or defective plumbing, sprinkler, watering or irrigation system and the customer has failed to effect such repairs within 5 days after receipt of such notice. d. Use of water which results in flooding or runoff in gutters or streets. * Allocations falling between full hundreds of cubic feet will be rounded upward to the larger amount. (continued) CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY Rule No. 14.1 ,MANDATORY WATER CONSERVATION/RATIONING PLAN FOR EAST LOS ANGELES, HERMOSA-REDONDO, AND PALOS VERDES DISTRICTS A. DEFINITIONS As used in this water rationing plan, the word: 1. "Company" means the California Water Service Coapany; 2. "Person" means any individual, person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company, organization or govern ental entity; 3. "Customer" means any person who uses water supplied by the Company in its East Los Angeles, Hermosa -Redondo, and Palos Verdes Districts; 4. "Process Water" means water used to manufacture, atter, convert, clean, grow, heat or cool •a product, including water used in laundries and car wash facilities that recycle the water used; 5. "Water" means water supplied by the Company; 6. "Historical base period" means the twelve (12) month period preceding July 1, 1990. B. WATER SHORTAGE CONDITION This mandatory water conservation rationing plan shalt become effective following notification by the Metropolitan Water District (MLA) that deliveries of potable water supplies have reached a level such that each member agency is being requested to reduce the use of water. The plan will be implemented in two phases: Phase I: Phase I will consist of mandatory water use restrictions and voluntary water conservation of less than 10%. This phase will become effective upon notification by MLA that water usage should be reduced by less than 1024 •Phase IIe Phase II will consist of mandatory water use restrictions and mandatory water rationing of at least 10%. This phase will became effective upon notification by MWD that water usage should be reduced by at least 10%. The allocation percentages will be based on MWD's percentage reduction. A 10% reduction by MWD will result in a 90% allocation for the Company's customers. (continued) CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY 1211 SOUTH PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY• REDONDO BEACH , CA 90X74#6• (213) 540-1033 Display Advertising for general News Section • 7°Columns by 2•Ieches . . Run three times only OrcE on December 28, 1990 Once on January 4, 1991 Once on January 11, 1991 Displace d to read as follows: .MANOATCRY RATER RATIONING. FUSLIC HEARING .A public hearing .on. the praposec 1991 wate2.rationing plan. :for. the Hermosa—Redondo d:stri£% t th California Water Service Company will be neld; .Tuesdav January 13. 1991 7;00•PM Hermosa2Rotary Building. =±E1 V31lsv Drive, Hermosa Beach, Ca. Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council . PARKING PLACE COMMISSION Recommendation: ,X)z-e-/f December 13, 1990 City Council Meeting of January 8, 1990 APPROVAL OF R/UDAT STUDY It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report. Background: At their regularly scheduled meeting of Tuesday, November 26, 1990, the Parking Place Commissioners unanimously approved, in concept, the Regional/Urban Design Assistance Teams (R/UDAT) study, which includes the downtown area and Pier Avenue. Analysis: The R/UDAT program is a public service of the Urban Design and Planning Committee of the. American Institute of Architects. The R/UDAT process begins when a local government, community organization or AIA chapter recognizes a local urban design or community planning problem and asks the national AIA for help. The AIA responds by fielding a team of experts to work with that community. An intensive four day workshop is held and subsequent follow-up visits are made as necessary. It was agreed by the Commissioners, that the study will directly benefit the Vehicle Parking. District,which is under their auspices. CONCUR: wton, Chairman Place Commissioners h/441- Cyrfthia A. Wilson, Director General Services Department evin B. Northc City Manager Respectfully submitted, Cynthia A. Wilson, Director by i etic� G lS— Michele D. Tercero,: Staff Liaison, CATV December 26, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of 'January 8, 1991 RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE INFORMATIONAL REPORT REGARDING THE POLICE K-9 PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council receive and file this report. BACKGROUND: At the regular City Council meeting of March 14, 1989, Council instructed staff to explore the possibility of funding a K-9 program for the Police Department through donations from the public and possible use of narcotic funds to augment the donations. At the regular City Council meeting of May 23, 1989, Council authorized the Police Department to implement K-9 program: .Over the next few months, donations totaling $11,428. were collected for the K-9 program. .In October 1989, the K-9, Norbo, was purchased and placed into service: In October 1990, the K-9 handler informed us of health problems that Norbo was experiencing. After numerous medical evaluations and treatments it was determined that Norbo was suffering from several medical problems. It was diagnosed that these problems were severe enough that they would prevent him from continued service in police work, When the K-9 was purchased, a guarantee was provided. This guarantee provided for unconditional replacement of the K-9 should any congenital medical problems occur within 3 years. On November 20, 1990, representatives of the department met with the owner of the kennels where Norbo was purchased. At that meeting it was agreed that Norbo would be taken back and replaced at no charge to the City. Further, the new handler would receive the full training at no charge to the City. Norbo and the handler had also been trained on narcotics detection. When the K-9 was cross -trained, we did it knowing that. only on rare occasions does a cross -trained dog work well in both. areas. As experience showed, Norbo did not work as well in narcotics as desired. During negotiations for replacement of Norbo further agreement was reached concerning the narcotics aspect of the .K-9 program. LeMaster Kennels agreed to furnish another K-9 for exclusive narcotics detection and the complete training of the handler for an additional $750.which covers limited expenses incurred in selecting and training a narcotics dog. The usual cost of a narcotics dog and training is $5,000. Since we had already paid $1,200. for the narcotic training for Norbo and since LeMaster, who furnishs dogs and training for a majority of the South Bay Police Departments; wanted to maintain a good reputation, the reduced fee was agreed on. ANALYSIS: There is presently $672 remaining in the K-9 donation fund and there have been other donations promised. If the donations don't arrive in time to cover the expenses, the balance of the funds will be taken from the Asset Seizure fund. The veterinarian providing the free service for Norbo has agreed to continue the free service for both of the new dogs. In addition, he will continue to provide free food for one dog and will give us the food for the other dog at his cost. This is estimated to be $25. per month. The new handlers have been selected and the training begins on January 14, 1991. Training for.:the patrol dog -will last for ' 4 weeks and for the narcotics dog, 5 weeks. We are looking forward to having a dedicated narcotics detection K-9. There is only one other narcotics dog in the South Bay area. Dogs in other areas have been very successful in finding both money and narcotics The San Bernardino County dog found over $5.8 million in his first year; Azusa's dog found $6.8 million in two years; Corona's dog helped seize 29 airplanes and $5 million; and Chino's dog found $2.8 million, Based on our information of drug trafficers and money launderers operating in and around Hermosa Beach, we believe that we will be very successful in helping fight, and funding the fight, against narcotics. The experience with the patrol dog, Norbo, have been many. Not' only is a K-9 a very good public relations tool, he has saved many hours of patrol officers time in doing building searches. A patrol dog is very effective in searching an area for a fleeing. suspect and Norbo was used in many of these searches with success. Additionally, the presence of a dog at volatile situations usually has a calming effect because of the fear factor. The use of both dogs should greatly enhance our capabilities and we believe that the program will become even more successful, Concur: Gv' Restfully mitted, Kevin B. Northcraft Steve Wisniewski City Manager No�o financial impact: VIKI COPELAND, FINANCE DIRECTOR Director•of Public Safety December 24, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council January 8, 1991 SOUTH BAY CORRIDOR STUDY STEERING COMMITTEE AGREEMENT Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor to sign the attached Agreement amending the Joint Powers Agreement for the Steering Committee. Background: Attached is a December 4, 1990 letter from Raymond D. Mattingly, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Palos Verdes Estates, Chairman, South Bay Corridor Study Steering Committee. The Chairman of the Committee is requesting that all cities execute the Agreement. Analysis: The South Bay Cities formed a transportation study team (South Bay Corridor Study Steering Committee) to develop a comprehensive, cooperative transportation plan to serve the transportation needs of the South Bay area. More information is detailed in the attached Agreement. Phase I defined the transportation needs of the area, along with policy and guideline determination. Phase II developed and analyzed alternative solutions, costs/benefits, environmental and community impacts and constraints with respect to common transportation problems in the South Bay area, and established necessary data for a research base. Phase III. provides for the development of implementation programs for recommendations contained in Phase II, recommends priorities of projects and develops means of financing for implementation. The Agreement establishes a technical committee to meet on a quarterly basis. Fiscal Impact: There is no identifiable fiscal impact at this time other than staff time. Respectfully submitted: Concur: Ant - y Antich Director of Public Works evin B. North City Manager CITY OF PALOS VERDES ESTATES RECEIVED -D€C 11 1990 r_tirP'cwnRKs :JEEr,. (213) 378-0383 Honorable Mayor INCORPORATED 1939 c9LIFORO I "Val CITY HALL / POST OFFICE BOX 1086 7) 1' G PALOS VERDES ESTATES nn CALIFORNIA 90274-0283,,zn � /' " December 4, 1990 ‘,/,/,.,;a>/\ ,�%i to Dear Mayor: Over the past several weeks the South Bay Corridor Steering Committee Ad Hoc Subcommittee has spent a considerable amount of time evaluating the goals and objectives of the South Bay Corridor Study Steering Committee. While the Committee has been successful in dealing with a number of transportation issues in the past, Committee members felt that recently the Committee has not been as effective as it could be. Therefore, the Committee felt is was time to reevaluate its purposes. To this end, the South Bay Corridor Study Steering Committee approved a proposed agreement amending the Joint Powers Agreement for the Steering Committee at its regular meeting of November 29, 1990. The proposed agreement 'establishes the Committee's goals and objectives for future work efforts. It also establishes a Technical Advisory Committee comprised of staff members of each member city to serve as staff support for the Steering Committee. In addition, to make its meetings more meaningful, the Steering Committee agreed to meet quarterly, instead of monthly, and to rely heavily on the Technical Advisory Committee to prepare agendas and issue papers/staff reports for the Steering .Committee's consideration. On behalf of the South Bay Corridor Study Steering Committee, I am requesting that you present the attached agreement to your City Council for consideration and approval. Once your city has executed the attached agreement, please forward it to Jim Hendrickson, City Manager of the City of Palos Verdes Estates. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely, Raymond D. Mattingly, a or Pro Tem City of Palos Verdes Estates Chairman, South Bay Corridor Study Steering Committee Attachment 340 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST PALOS VERDES ESTATES, CALIFORNIA 90274-1299 AN AGREEMENT AMENDING THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE SOUTH BAY CORRIDOR STUDY, PHASE III (Implementation) This agreement, made and entered into this day of , 1990, by and among the South Bay Cities, a group of cities consisting of Carson, El Segundo, Gardena, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, Lawndale, Lomita, Los Angeles, Man- hattan Beach, Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, and Torrance, each of which is a municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, all ' of which collectively shall be hereinafter referred to as "CITIES"; WITNESSET H: A{! WHEREAS, the South Bay Cities formed a transportation study team (South Bay Corridor Study Steering Committee) to develop a comprehensive, cooperative transportation plan to serve the transportation needs of the South Bay area; and WHEREAS, Phase I of the study comprehensively defined the transportation needs of the area, along with policy and guideline determination; and WHEREAS, Phase II developed and analyzed alternative solu- tions, costs/benefits, environmental and community impacts and constraints with respect to common transportation problems in the South Bay area, and established necessary data for a research base; and WHEREAS, Phase III provides for the development of implemen- tation programs for recommendations contained in Phase II, recommends priorities of projects and develops means of financing for implementation; and WHEREAS, by agreement dated September 10, 1981, the term of Phase III was extended for an additional term of three. years; and WHEREAS, by an extension.of that agreement the parties extended the term until June 30, 1988; and WHEREAS, by an additional extension entered into on July 1, 1988 the parties extended the term until June 30, 1993; and WHEREAS, the'Committee has determined that to meet its goals and objectives it must have a technical staff which would support it; and WHEREAS, in order to clarify its mission the Committee wishes to refine and restate/its goal and objectives. NOW, THEREFORE, CITIES, for and.in consideration of the mutual benefits; promises and agreements set forth herein, do agree as follows: 1. A Technical Advisory Committee for the South Bay Corridor Study Phase III is established and shall consist of the City Manager/Chief Administrative Officer or his responsible designee from,each city which is a party to this Agreement, and it shall be chaired by the representative from the city whose representative to the Steering Committee is Chair- man/Chairwoman of the Steering Committee. 2. The following goal and objectives are established for the remainder of Phase III of this study: Goal: To bring about an efficient, coordinated transportation system for the South Bay Corridor.- Objective: Identify projects which are neces- sary for an efficient transporta- tion system. Objective: Identify funding sources for the proposed projects. Objective: Establish priorities and a proposed schedule for completing the pro- jects. Objective: Coordinate efforts to gain approval of full City Councils of the cities participating in various projects. Objective: Coordinate lobbying efforts with county, state and federal govern- ments to secure funding for the projects proposed by the Committee. Objective: Assist in the establishment of lead agencies for the various projects. 3. The South Bay Corridor Study Steering Committee shall meet quarterly at a time and date established at least one week in advance by the Chairman of the Committee, or more frequently as called by the Chairman. 4. The Technical Advisory Committee shall meet at least quarterly or more frequently, if necessary, to provide staff support for the Steering Committee, which meet- ings shall be called by the Chairperson of the Tech- nical Advisory Committee at least one week in advance at a time and place designated by the Chairperson. 5: This Agreement shall become operative and binding upon the parties hereto upon execution by all of such . parties, which event its effectiveness shall be measured from January 1, 1991. 6. The covenants,. conditions, promises and agreements contained in the Joint Powers Agreement are incor- porated herein by reference and shall be binding upon the parties hereto with the exception that none of the cities will be subject to any expense, assessment,. financial or budgetary contribution or any other type of financial liability by their participation except as already provided for in said Phase III Agreement or in this document without the review and advance consent thereto by eachsaid city's City Council. Where any conflicts exist )etween this agreement and previous agreements, the terms of this agreement shall supercede the previous terms. IN• WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to: be executed and attested by the proper officers thereunto duly authorized, their official seals to be hereto affixed, as of the date first written above. CITY OF CARSON CITY OF GARDENA By By ATTEST; ATTEST: Date: Date: CITY OF EL SEGUNDO CITY OF HAWTHORNE ByBy ATTEST: ATTEST: Date: Date: 4 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY OF PALOS VERDES ESTATES By By ATTEST: ATTEST: Date: Date: CITY OF INGLEWOOD CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES By By ATTEST: ATTEST: Date: Date: CITY OF LAWNDALE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH By By ATTEST: ATTEST: Date: Date: CITY OF LOMITA CITY OF ROLLING HILLS By By ATTEST: ATTEST: Date: Date: CITY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES By By ATTEST: ATTEST: Date: Date: CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH CITY OF TORRANCE By By ATTEST: ATTEST: Date: Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Legal Counsel December 26, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of. January 8, 1991 of the City Council RECOMMENDATION SIX MONTH REVIEW OF FARMERS' MARKET It is recommended by the Planning Commission and, staff that Council approve a negative declaration for the Chamber of Commerce Farmers' Market. Staff further recommends that Council approve the -continuation of the Market as an ongoing special event with the requirements and conditions listed below until such time that Council may withdraw this approval.. Requirements and Conditions for Farmers' Market . Approve as a "special event" per Section Municipal code . Maintain business license (for Southland Association . Maintain general liability insurance . Indemnity clause . Market to be located on 13th Street (west ($1 22-5 of the Farmers' Market million) of Hermosa Avenue) • Hours of operation to be 12:30 - 4:30 every Friday . .Waive meter enforcement 13th Street meters west of Hermosa Avenue from 11:30 - 5:30 on market days (Chamber responsible to post signs) . Chamber responsible for clean-up and associated costs . Waive special event and banner permit fees . Parking attendant on duty at all times during market operation and tear -down . Maximum number of vendors allowed are twenty (20) set-up, BACKGROUND At the April 24, 1990 meeting, Council approved the Chamber of Commerce request to establish a Farmers' Market in the downtown area (east half of Parking Lot C) for a six month trial period. At the June 12, 1990 meeting, Council approved the Chamber's request to move the Market to the first half of 13th Street west of Hermosa Avenue. Hours have recently been changed to' accommodate more working people (12:30 pm - 4:30 pm every Friday). The Market was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their December 4 meeting (minutes and traffic impact report attached ANALYSIS By all observations, reports and feedback from the community the Farmers' Market has been a tremendous success to date. Not only 14 has the Market run smoothly and without negative incident; it has also provided a unique activity for Hermosa residents and visitors alike. As evidenced by the attached reviews, the impact of the Market on the adjacent area is minimal and may in fact provide additional shoppers for the local merchants. The Chamber of Commerce volunteers have provided the manpower for parking control, validations and general information on a consistent basis. The Chamber of Commerce has met all of the listed requirements with the City including posting of insurance, indemnity clause and the procurement of a business license. They have also been cooperative with all City requests as they have arisen. One of Councils' goals for this year has been to enhance the sense of community. The Chamber of Commerce, Market Director Mary Lou Weiss and the numerous volunteers who have contributed to this effort should be commended for meeting this goal with an event that seems not only to provide farm freshproduce; but also. a fun and informal meeting place for residents. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Minutes from December 4, 1990 Planning Commission meeting 2. Traffic Impact Report (from Public Works) 3. Council Item: "Recommendation to Approve New Location For Chamber of Commerce Farmers' Markef" (June 12, 1990) Council Item: "Farmers' Market" ( pri1 24, 1990) Respectfully Submitted, Mar /'.oney, Director Dep . of Community Resources Concur: 1 Sc ba h, I' ector ing nepartme Ant ' ny Antich, Diector Public Works De•artment F••4 — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR FARMER'S MARKET AT HERMOSA AVENUE AND 13TH STREET ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF 10/16/90 AND 11/20/90) M:r. Schubach gave staff report dated November 2% 1990, and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend an environmental negative declaration to Council for Farmer's Market. At the April 24, 1990, meeting, the City Council approved a request from the Chamber of Commerce to conduct a Farmer's Market downtown on Fridays between 10:00 A.M. and 2:00 P.M. This approval was for a six-month trial period and is scheduled to be reviewed by Council at their meeting of January 8, 1991. The concept behind a Farmer's Market is that items are grown by the farmers and are sold directly to the consumer. The Hermosa Beach market has been in operation since July. The staff review recommended a negative declaration with mitigation measures to include a parking attendant; hours of operation from 12:30 P.M. to 3:30 P.M; and a maximum of 20 vendors. • The Farmer's Market hours have recently been extended to include an additional hour (12:30 P.M. - 4:30 P.M. on Fridays). This was due to the success of the market and to the numerous requests from members of the community to accommodate hours that would serve more of the working population. Chamber volunteers have been providing direction for parking during the market hours as well as for the farmers' set-up and tear -down times. Since staff had additional concerns related to traffic circulation during the activity, the City traffic engineer was asked to provide a report, copies of which were provided to the Commission. He indicated that no significant circulation problems had been observed during the operation of the market. He further noted thatjthere may be future concerns with the traffic flow when the proposed hotel is completed. From all observations, the Farmer's Market has proven to be a low impact, smooth -running activity that is a popular event for Hermosa Beach residents and visitors alike. If approved, the recommendation for a negative declaration will be forwarded to the City Council at the six- month review. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Marks, explained that the market itself is responsible for clean-up activities. Comm. Rue suggested that the Farmer's Market again be reviewed if and when a hotel is built in the area; Mr. Schubach agreed. Public Hearing opened at 8:09 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz Mary Lou Weiss, 2506 Ardmore Avenue, manager of the Farmer's Market, addressed the Commission and: (1) spoke on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce; (2) stated that the market was started to stimulate business in the downtown area, and it has been successful in doing that; (3) explained that volunteers clean up after ;the market; (4) stated that there is validated parking for the market, and there have been no traffic or parking problems associated with the market; (5) said that the additional hour of operation is being requested to accommodate working people. Public Hearing closed at 8:11 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. P.C. Minutes 12/4/90 Chinn. Ketz stated that the market is a wonderful asset for the downtown area. Also, she has experienced no traffic or parking problems when she has attended. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation, with the inclusion of the recommendation to allow the extra hour of operation to 4:30 P.M. on Fridays. Also, that the market again be reviewed if and when a hotel is constructed. Comm. Aleks felt that if there are problems, other businesses in the area would report them to the City. AYES: Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chinn. Ketz NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None P.C. Minutes 12/4/90 - 4i- DATE: TO: Anthony Antich, Director of Public Works FROM: Ed Ruzak, City Traffic Engineer 'CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM November 28, 1990 SUBJECT: Farmers Market Traffic Impact The Chamber of Commerce has been operating a Farmers Market along 13th Street west of Hermosa Avenue for the past six months on Fridays. The Planning Director has requested a study of the traffic impact for this operation since portions of 13th Street are closed for the farmers market operation. In addition, access to Lots B & C are restricted. Traffic access to Lot C is restricted from 13th Street on market days. Traffic used Pier Avenue to Beach Drive thence to 13th Street to access the lots. From the north traffic uses 14th Street and Beach Drive to access theiparking lot. This operation has not exhibited any circulation problems the past six months of operation. There should be additional signing provided on days that the market operates to ensure that traffic is aware of these alternate routes. There have not been any reported accidents on market days due to the operation. Future plans for the hotel along the Strand in this area are aware of the market operation. Conditions have been applied to development of the hotel during the;excavation/grading time to not disrupt the market. After the hotel is completed it may be more desirable to route all users to the market via the Pier Avenue/Beach Drive access so as not Ito commingle with hotel traffic along Beach Drive between 13th and 14th Street. This can be monitored after the hotel is built and in operation. At this time the impact of the Farmers Market on the traffic circulation is insignificant and the safety of the users is not reduced.. June 1, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council June 12, 1990 RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE NEW LOCATION FOR CHAMBER' OF COMMERCE FARMERS', MARKET RECOMMENDATIOII It is recommended by staff that Council ,approve the change in location for the Chamber of Commerce Farmers' Market scheduled to open in July, 1990. BACKGROUND At the April 16 meeting, City Council approved the request from the Chamber of Commerce to run a Farmers' Market on Parking Lot C to begin in July, 1990 (see attached agenda item) for a 6 month trial period. Since that time, the Chamber has been attending to the details of organizing the Market including hiring a director and arranging for clean-up and insurance details. At a meeting that included the Chamber, City Staff and representatives from Allright Parking, it was determined that moving the Market to the first half of 13th Street west of Hermosa Avenue would be more desirable. ANALYSIS The recommended change would include placing barricades on 13th Street at Hermosa Avenue and diverting traffic to Parking Lots B and C through the alley (Beach Drive) as is done at the Fiesta de las Artes (see attached map). Barricades would also be placed midway on 13th Street to enclose the market area for pedestrians. Allright Parking has agreed to provide 1/2 hour of free parking for Market shoppers. A validation procedure, will be agreed upon between the Chamber and Allright Parking. As Council has already approved the waiving of parking meter fees on,l3th Street west of Hermosa Avenue, no additional parking spaces would be required with the change. In addition to providing a more aesthetically pleasing market, the new proposed location would leave the Lots completely available for market shoppers and potentially displaced (with the former location) downtown. employees and/or residents. It is also suggested that pedestrians may have much more convenient access to the market'than they would in Lot.0 in which pedestrian access would be in the same direction as vehicles. This could prove to be important from a safety standpoint. Barricading 13th Street as recommended has proven tobe successful at the Fiesta where crowds greatly outnumber the anticipated market goers. As directed by Council, the Farmers' Market in Hermosa Beach is on a 6 -month trial period. It is projected that during this time period, staff and the Chamber will be able to evaluate and address where necessary what changes would be appropriate to insure the success of the event. Moving the Market to 13th Street is one such suggestion. Other alternatives available to Council include: 1) Retain original approved location:. East half of Lot C 2) Suggest an alternative location. Respectfully submitted, Concur: Mar . Rooney, Director De .• of Community Resources Ke in B. Nortl1creft Manager Steve Wisniewski Public Safety Director April 16,_1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of April 24, 1990 of the City Council RECOMMENDATION `FARMERS' MARKET It is recommended by staff. that Council approve and direct the Chamber of Commerce in their efforts to initiate a Farmers Market in downtown Hermosa Beach. Staff further recommends the following as detailed in the analysis below: 'Approve market as a "special event" per Section 22-5 of the Municipal code„for-.six month trial period (waive fees) . 4Conditiona1 Use Permit after'six'month'trial"(waiVe—fees)7 Business' License' (for :°Southland Farmers' 'Market"Association ) $1 million general'"liability 'insurance • Indemnity'°'clause . Market location: East -half -of parking -lot . Waive meter ,enforcement •,13th -Street.meters westi of::Hermosa Avenue from -9:00 a.m.-oto 3:00 p.m. -ion market. -days• . Hold Chamber responsible -for-.clean-up -and :associated -costs. . Waive -fees for.: banner.,permits,�,,� BACKGROUND The Chamber of Commerce has requested permission to hold a weekly Farmers' Market in downtown Hermosa Beach beginning in July, 1990 (see attached). This proposed activity would take place on Mondays from 10:00 am - 2:00 pm on the east half of Parking Lot C (located on 13th Street west of Hermosa Avenue). The concept behind a Farmers' Market is that items are grown by the farmers and sold directly to the consumer. The Chamber will utilize the services of Southland Farmers' Market Association which is a non-profit, certified organization which means that County Agricultural Commissioners have certified each seller's produce as being farm direct (see attached). ANALYSIS City staff has investigated this request. Listed below are the areas that the Chamber should address in presenting this activity as well as a review of what the City of Torrance and Redondo Beach have done to facilitate their own markets. (A) Planning Department: City staff suggests that the market be operated as a'"special event" under section 22-5 of the municipal code fora six month trial period. During this time, it can be added as a permanent permitted use with a CUP (and an EIR required if staff review indicates need). It is recommended that all applicable permit fees for the above be waived. The City of Torrance (Farmers' Market is City -run) prepared an EIR which they noted was particularly non -controversial. The City of Redondo Beach handles the market as a "street fair activity." They made no changes in city codes and did not require a Planning Commission review. As they interpreted that there was no construction and no project they did not notify the Coastal Commission about the market. (B) Business License: Staff suggests that a single business license be obtained by the Southland Farmers' Market Association as opposed to charging each participating vendor. The City of Torrance amended a City Code in order to exempt the farmers from paying license fees. The City collects 5% of gross proceeds from each stall. The City of Redondo Beach does not charge business license fees to the farmers. (C) Insurance: Staff would suggest that the market provide liability insurance as is standard with other special events ($1 million naming the City as additional insured) and an indemnity clause for use of the property. As other Farmers' Markets have received claims, it would be advisable to require the above. The City of Torrance requires $1 1/2 million general liability for the market. The City of Redondo Beach requires $1 million in general liability insurance from Southland Farmers' Market Association. (D) County Health Codes: The County has health codes related specifically to farmers' markets. Requirements are not stringent but do include providing restrooms within 200'; no animals; keeping food 6" from ground; and sterilized utensil requirements for sampling. Staff has requested this information from the County. (E) Clean up: The Chamber's assigned market manager should be responsible to see that the premises are clean after each market day. It may be necessary to have a special cleaning with a street sweeper after each market day as is done in both Torrance and Redondo Beach. Currently, Allright Parking is responsible for lot clean-up. It is recommended that the Chamber make arrangements with them for sweeping. City crews will attend to 13th Street as regularly scheduled. (F) Parking: Parking lot requests will need to be addressed to Allright Parking. The east half of Parking Lot C seems to be an appropriate location for this kind of activity because the lot is rarely full during those weekday hours. The west half of the lot would remain available for parking. The Chamber may also request free parking for the 13th Street meters west of Hermosa Avenue, which could be done at Council discretion. (G) Security: The market should have a manager on duty at all times who can be contacted by City staff should'security concerns arise. No notable security problems were reported by Torrance or Redondo Beach. (H) Publicity: Staff suggests the City assist in publicizing this event with the City newsletter and by waiving fees for banner permits as well as proclaiming the opening day as "Farmers' Market Day" at the appropriate Council meeting. The popularity of farmers' markets is growing rapidly. Both Torrance and Redondo Beach have been pleased with and successful at these markets (Torrance has been doing this for 5 years and Redondo Beach for 10). Average attendance at the Torrance market is 5,000 while Redondo Beach claims 1,000-2,000 depending on the season. The Chamber of Commerce is hoping that this market will attract visitors to the downtown area as well as provide a wholesome activity for residents. They have committed to funding the market which will likely take time to develop and the City would do well to support their efforts in bringing the project to fruition. Concur: Respectfully submitted, Mary .Ac.coney, Director Dept of Community Resources evin B. Northc City Ma age Michael Schubach Planning Depa/r�tm 1-(1,1AAVW2,e rector ob Blackwood Risk Manager - 10 HERMOSA BEACH.CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 323 PIER AVENUE/P.O. BOX 404 HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 (213) 376-0951 To: City Manager Kevin Northcraft April 11, 1990 From: Wesley D. Bush Subject: Farmers Market The following matters need to be addressed as the next step toward the goal of opening our Farmers Market in July: 1. Negotiate with parking lot operator to waive fees in Lot C on the day of the market from 8am to 4pm. 2. Negotiate to bag parking meters on 14th Street from 9am to 3pm the same day. Chamber will furnish bags. 3. Contact BFI relative to having dumpster available in the vicinity on market day. 4. Notify Coastal Commission of our plans. 5. Notify County Board of Health. 6. Notify Public Safety Department. 7. Arrange for Public Works Department to put up and remove Farmer's Market banner. Chamber will furnish banner. 8. Proclamation for Farmer's Market Week. Any assistance in coordinating these efforts will appreciated. Chamber is handling insurance through Bichlmeier Insurance. Arrangements for rest room facilities will be worked out with a neighboring restaurant. Clean up will be taken care of by the Chamber. Copy: Mary Rooney Mayor. Roger Creighton .MMM . ,.:.r._. IMM/111.0M 7MMillaidr WOMISOMMAW 11 - This brochure is provided in preparation for your visit to a Certified Farmers' Market. Markets are located on a variety of sites: Church parking lots, school premises, and even blocked -off streets. The markets are set up once a week usually for, four hours. For your convenience, a list of markets with their locations, hours of operation, and managers has been enclosed. WHAT IS A CERTIFIED FARMERS' MARKET? The concept behind the Certified Farmers' Market is that all items are grown by the farmer and brought 'directly to you, the consumer. In cooperation with the County Agricultural Commissioners around the state, each grower is certified as the actual producer thus as a consumer you can be assured of California -grown produce. We encourage you to inquire with the farmer about • his/her operation. Each grower takes pride in discussing their work with you and in turn you can appreciate even more the products of their efforts. PRICES As a shopper at the Certified Farmers', Market you can expect to save 20- 30% in your purchases. Surveys have indicated this is possible due to Direct Marketing regulations applicable to . , Certified Farmers' Markets which exempt growers from labeling, and standard packaging. By direct marketing, farmer -to -consumer, growers do not have to incur certain costs and this, in turn, means savings to you. . Remember that only California -grown products are sold at the markets saving transportation costs which contributes to lower prices for the consumer. QUALITY Quality at the markets is ensured in various ways. First, in cooperation with the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner, inspectors visit the markets and inspect both the grower's certification and their products. These are .'the same inspectors who maintain quality at all retail stores. This helps to maintain quality standards plus assure the continued participation of only farmers. In addition, Southland Farmers' Market Association market managers do meet for quality control workshops. This is an in- house training which helps managers have a continued awareness of quality and seasonal availability of crops. WHO OPERATES THE MARKET? Markets may be sponsored by a local community group or by the city in which the market is located. The sponsoring group is responsible for directing the market manager. In addition, each market has both a community arid farmer representative who serve on the Southland Farmers' Market. Asso- ciation Board of Directors. • COMPLAINTS If you should have any complaints concerning your purchase, feel free to approach the grower about your situation. There are also market managers at each location that are available to answer any questions you nay have. Lastly, the Southland Farmers' Market Association who is responsible for coordinating all member -markets may also be contacted. Your input will benefit all markets. • • • y • ftf,•-...•-,;.. • ,.; SOUTHLAND FARMERS' MARKET ASSOCIATION "Direct from the farm to the consumer." (213) 749-9551 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FROM THE FARMER TO CONSUMER At a Southland Certified Farmers' Market.. you buy directly from the farmer. In fact, the • •!-..:.*, person handling your purchase .is usually the person who grew it! . . Any questions about selecting, preparing , • ... or :preserving - your fresh food? Ask the \ • . . person _who knows the best: The Farmer! ". Most:of our farrns are family owned and operated.. By 'eliminating the .middle man, ' • • these families are able to gain a foothold against today's hard times..while you can expect an average savings of 20-30%1 • •:. • • • • ,.• ALHAMBRA— Sundays, 9:00 am - 1:00 pm Chico Street near Garfield and Main . BELL— Sundays 10:00 am - 2:00 pm '• 6312 Atlantic Ave. between Gage and Randolph ` GARDENA— Saturdays, 6:30 am - 12 Noon 13000 Van Ness Avenue Just south of El Segundo Blvd. ' • LOS ANGELES— Wednesdays, 2:00 pm - 5:00 pm 1432 West Adams Blvd. at St. Agnes Church • .. • . • •• • . . POMONA— Saturdays. 7:30 am -11:30 am comer of Pearl and Gorey Ave. ' • • REDONDO BEACH— Thursdays, 10:00 am - 2:00 pm End of Torrance Bivd. at the Redondo Beach pier *SAN FERNANDO VALLEY— Saturdays, 7:00 am - 10:00 am :-• 14400 Van Nuys Blvd., west of the 5 freeway • *SANTA MONICA— Wednesdays, 10:00 am - 3:00 pm intersection of Arizona and 2nd • • • SOUTHGATE— Mondays, 9:00 am - 1:00 pm Southgate Park. corner of Tweedy and Walnut VENICE— Fridays, 7:00 am - 10:30 am corner of Pacific Ave. and Venice Blvd. . - WEST HOLLYWOOD— Mondays, 10:00 am - 2:00 pm 7377 Santa Monica Blvd. at Plummer Park The Southland Farmers' Market Associ- ation is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization dedicated to bringing the farmer and consumer together for the benefits of direct 'marketing. .. • • • • • For.more information , about a market near you call: • . (213) 749-9551 SAN DIEGO COUNTY CORONADO— Thursdays, 3:00 pm - 7:00 pm • 7th and Orange, next to Visitor's Center. . • :.: • . , . • ESCONDIDO— Tuesdays, 4:00 pm - 8:00 pm ••••• • , .•• • •,. • • • : Grand Ave. between Broadway and Maple i; • . • • • ' '*. • • NORTH COUNTY— Wednesdays. 10:00 am -1:00 pm • • ' 3660 Sunset Drive, 2 blocks east of 115 off Via Rancho Parkway • PACIFIC BEACH— Saturdcrys, 8:00 am - 12 Noon •, • The Promenade -on Mission between Reed & Pacific Beach Btvd. : *call for time and location after April 1st. • • . ••••• • •••1 . . FRESH FOOD Our farrners bring food fresh from their, fields directly to you, and freshness means good nutrition. Vegetables, fruit, eggs, fish, nuts, honey and fresh cut flowers are all at the peak of their season. Bring new life to your favorite recipes: use farm fresh produce from your Southland Certified Farmers' Market! • CERTIFIED THE MARKETS • Rain or shine, our markets are open year 'round. You can expect a shopping day like no other: warm, friendly, relaxed and filled with an outdoor, festive atmosphere! Certified means that our farmers must meet the standards of the California Deparment of Food and Agriculture includ- ing quality and assurances that the food is California grown, direct from the farmer. —We accept food stamps— § 22-5 HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE § 22-5 (a) Cut, break, deface, mark or write upon, or in any manner injure or damage any public building, stadium, bleachers, •grandstands, toilet and sanitary facilities, street tunnel, lighting standards or any fixtures, fur- niture or appurtenances attached thereto. (b) Cut, break, deface or disturb any tree, shrub, . plant, fence, bench or other structure, apparatus or property, or pluck, pull up, take or remove any shrub, bush, plant or flower within any parkway or other public area not designated as a public park. (c) Tamper with, take, remove or carry away any machinery, equipment, motor vehicle, apparatus, furniture, or fixture of any kind from any public building, playground, park, yard, stadium, pier, strand or other area without permis- sion from the custodian in charge of such buildings or premises. (Ord. No. N.S. 21, § 4) Sec. 22-5. Special event policy, (a) Permit required. Permits shall be required for any commer- cial or nonprofit group requesting use of any outdoor public facil- ity within the City of Hermosa Beach; and, park permits for residents are recommended. (b) Permit fees. (1) Any Commercial or nonprofit organization charging an entry fee to participants or any group with commercial sponsors with the intent to sell or advertise shall pay the following permit fees: a. Commercial: Two dollars ($2.00) per registered par- ticipant. b. Nonprofit: One dollar ($1.00) per registered participant. (2) All Hermosa Beach based nonprofit organizations shall be exempt from paying permit fees. However, all direct costs incurred by the city on behalf of the organization will be the responsibility of the organization. . (3) The department of community resources director may waive permit fees for nonprofit organizations not Hermosa Beach based upon a showing by the organization that it does not Supp. No. 10-88 § 22-5 PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS, ETC. § 22-5 have the money to pay the fees, that there is norealistic possibility that it could raise the money to pay the fees, and that the benefits to the community justify the city bearing the expense of the special event. Direct costs in- curred by the city may not be waived. Supp. No. 10-88 -15 - 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 • 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION C.C. 89-5327 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF HERMOSA BEACH ADOPTING FEES AND CHARGES FOR SPECIAL EVENTS HELD IN THE CITY ON CITY PROPERTY. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public meeting on December 14, 1989 to consider adopting fees and charges; and WHEREAS, the City Council strives to equitably administer major events held within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council makes every effort to recoup costs reasonably borne. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does adopt the following fees and charges: Commercial Groups: Public Outdoor areas & Misc. Facilities Minimum $1,500per day Non -Profit Groups: Public Outdoor Areas & Misc. Facilities $1 per participant & spectator Non -Profit Groups: Pass Thrus $100 Permit Fee Non -Profit Groups: Fundraising/Parks . $ 25 Permit Fee Hermosa Beach Residents: Block Parties Filming: $ 25 Permit Fee 30 Amplification Fee Commercial $700/day Location Fee - 16 - $300 Permit Fee $ 10/day parking meters 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Still Photography: Commercial PASSED, APPROVED 'AND ADOPTED NO ERH 1989. $ 50 Permit Fee $ 50/day Location Fee. this 14th day of L`i41, 'RE' 'ENT rf - ' t Counci , and MAYOR of the Ci y of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Va"J.e CITY ATTORNEY - 17 - STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH I, KATHLEEN MIDSTOKKE, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 89-5327 was duly and regularly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach at a Regular meeting of said Council at the regular meeting place thereof on November 14, 1989. The vote was as follows: AYES: Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Creighton NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DATED: November 21, 1989 18 January 3, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the City Council of January 8, 1991 EXTENSION OF CITY YARD LEASE WITH MACPHERSON OIL COMPANY Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council authorize the.Mayor to sign the attached extension of the lease of the City yard with Macpherson 0i1 Company to extend the drilling term for three months, to April 13, 1991. Background The lease with Macphereson Oil Company providing for use of unoccupied portions of the City yard site for oil drilling purposes was approved on October 14, 1986, and has been extended three times. The last time occurred in October, 1990, when the City Council chose to extend the lease for only three months. This set a high priority for resolution of the current negotiations with the Oil Company. Analysis Since October, negotiations have been quite productive. Only a few details need to be resolved to conclude the discussions and begin preparing the legal documents. The new agreement will contain extension provisions, as discussed in negotiations. In order to continue the high priority need to resolve negotiations and complete and sign the legal documents, only a three month extension of the existing agreement is suggested at this time. This is consistent with the Council's action of October, 1990. cc: Macpherson Oil Company Planning Director Kevin B. Nor hcraft City Manager 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 WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City Clerk, City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA AMENDMENT TO OIL AND GAS LEASE NO. 4 This Oil and Gas Lease Amendment NO. 4 is entered into this 8TH day of January, 1991, amending Oil and Gas Lease NO. 1, with Macpherson Oil Company entered into on October 4, 1986, and previously amended on December 16, 1986, September 27, 1988,.and October 9, 1990. Section 1 of Exhibit "B" is amended to read as follows: 1. DRILLING TERM The "drill term" is that period of time in which developer shall commence drilling operations. The drill term shall be extended for three (3) months, to April 13, 1991. LESSEE: Macpherson Oil By: LESSOR: City of Hermosa Beach, CA (Signature) (Signature) (Name of Officer) (Name of Officer) (Title) (Title) (Date) (Date) APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council /-43 -9/ January 3, 1990 City Council Meeting of January 9, 1990 REQUEST FOR 30 DAY EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT - ACTING DEPUTY CITY CLERK RECOMMEND ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council extend for thirty (30) days the six-month temporary appointment of acting Deputy City Clerk Naoma Valdes. BACKGROUND: The incumbent Deputy City Clerk is currently absent from City Service on a medical leave. Section 2-33 of the Hermosa Beach City Code precludes a temporary appointment of an individual to a permanent Civil Service Posi- tion for more than six months without, on a 30 days at a time basis, approval from the City Council. ANALYSIS: Since it has not been determined whether or not the incumbent Deputy City Clerk will be able to return from medical leave to resume her position, no recruitment has been initiated to es- tablish a new eligibility list. Therefore, it is requested that the City Council extend this part-time temporary appointment. Respectfully submitted, Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 , unz (I'vitLia`ns 2065 11an) attan c le mora Dcac%, CA 90254 I �- it- DSC + = r.-)nt� C'11 rk MfY of }+erno5n BnorN c; �v/1� r' • Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: This is to demand that you immediatly begin procedure to revoke the business license of the Fantasy Adult Arcade on Pacific. Coast Highway: I believe the city now has police evidence for support of a revocation. This business should be comming under the amortization of the Conditional Permit process. It would appear there is justification to deny the to revoke the business license due to the a public nuisance. Sincerely, C.U.P, and. establishment being HERMOSA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT FIELD SERVICES DIVISION MEMORANDUM Date: January 3, 1991 To: Steve Wisniewski Director of Public Safety From: Commander Anthony Altfeld Field Services Division Subject: Response to Communication From N. June Williams Re: Fantasy Adult Arcade and Bookstore Please find this memorandum in response to the issues raised in the communication from N. June Williams regarding her request that the City Council consider revocation of the business license for the Fantasy Adult Arcade and Bookstore. As you know, Section 17.21 of Chapter 17 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code permits the City Council or City Manager to initiate revocation proceedings against a business licensee when any of seven (7) conditions set forth in Section 17.21 HBMC have been met (see attached Ordinance 90-1047). In October 1990, the Special Enforcement Unit of the Police Department, in conjunction with the Administrative Vice Unit of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, initiated vice enforcement actions against the Fantasy Adult Arcade and Bookstore in connection with civil abatement proceedings due to illegal vice activities occurring in the business and/or arising directly from the operations of this business. Since October 1990, 12 arrests have been made in the Fantasy Adult Arcade and Bookstore. 11 of those arrests were for violation of 647(a) P.C., (Solicitation) and 1 arrest was for violation of 314.1 P.C., (Lewd Conduct),. In addition, two arrests were made by members of the department's Special Investigations Unit in February 1990 for violation of 647(a) P.C., (Solicitation). In total, 14 arrests have been made inside the Fantasy Adult Arcade and Bookstore for either solicitation or lewd conduct since February 1990. Members of the Special Enforcement Unit have also obtained 18 signed civil abatement declarations from residents and business residing/located in the neighborhood adjoining the Fantasy Adult Arcade and Bookstore which allege a variety of criminal activities which include persons engaged in open sexual activity on private property, used condoms littering the neighborhood, etc. These declarations allege that the activities are as a direct result of the business activities conducted by and within the Fantasy Adult Arcade and Bookstore. Presently, the decoy operation conducted by the department's Special Enforcement Unit and the Sheriff's Department Administrative Vice Unit is continuing along with the civil abatement process. It is anticipated that both units will conduct one more decoy operation at the location in January 1991 before proceeding to the next phase in the civil abatement process. The teams are now waiting for an official "title search" by the County Recorder to be completed to determine who, in fact, is the legal owner of the Fantasy Adult Arcade and Bookstore,and the property where the business is located. The "title search" to identify the official owner of the business/property is necessary for the purpose of serving the party with official notification that illegal activities are occurring at the business and/or on the property as a part of the civil abatement process. Once the "title search" is completed, and official notification has been made, the teams will then approach the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office for the purpose of obtaining a preliminary injunction. This injunction will enjoin the owner from permitting any illegal activities from occurring at the business and/or on the property. In the event that any illegal activity occurs at the business and/or on the property after the service of the preliminary injunction, a permanent injunction would then be solicited/ obtained. This would also force the closure of the business for one year. The owner of the business would then also be subject to possible fines and/or imprisonment. With regard to William's concern about the amortization of the business's conditional use permit, I spoke with Code Enforcement Officer Frank Mcpherson in the city Planning Department concerning the current status of the amortization proceedings affecting the Fantasy Adult Arcade and Bookstore. Currently, the business operates without a conditional use permit having received a business license from the city without the requirement of such. Mr. McPherson told me that the owner of the business, Mr. Richard Papillion, was notified regarding the a •rtization •rocess on December 17, 1990. Consistent with this p •ce s, Mr. 'illion has until December 17, 1992 to approach y fo• onditional use permit. Com an•er .f on., A feld Field Sery es Division Hermosa Be h Police Department 716 December 31, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach. City Council January 8, 1991 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF: CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - CON 90-16,17,18, & 19 PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLANS 90-4,5,6, & 7 LOCATION: 138-160 MANHATTAN AVENUE (BAY SHORE SANITARIUM SITE) APPELLANT: COUNCILMEMBERS SHELDON AND MIDSTOKKE APPLICANT: OLGUIN AND RUTHERFORD DEVELOPMENT 2306 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 REQUESTS: CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR TWO -UNIT DETACHED CONDOMINIUMS Recommendation Continue the hearing on the appeal for the applicant to revise the design to integrate the four proposed projects into one cohesive design to improve the project in the following manner: - provide alley only access and save on -street parking consistent with the adopted Circulation, Transportation and Parking Element of the General Plan - provide adequate common recreation space to meet requirements for projects of 5 -units or more - attach the units in clusters of two or four units to maximize usable open space Alternative Approve the proposed design by approving the attached resolution sustaining the decision of the Planning Commission to approve Conditional Use Permits and Tentative Parcel Maps for four separate two -unit condominium projects subject to the conditions in the attached Planning Commission resolutions. Background At their meeting of November 20, 1990, Planning Commission approved the four two -unit projects as proposed by a 3-2 vote. For further background please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report and minutes. Analysis In response to the appeal and in response to concerns expressed about the mass and bulk of the structures, the applicant has revised the exterior architectural features and modified the floor plans to reduce the bulky appearance of the proposed buildings. Staff believes these revisions are a positive improvement, and result in more interesting and attractive structures. However, these modifications are not significant enough for staff to change its recommendation on the projects, since the basic layout and floor plans for the buildings have not been changed. The primary concern of staff is still that the basic plan provides for access from both the street and the alley, which is inconsistent with the City's recentlyadopted Circulation,. Transportation and Parking Element; specifically, implementation policy 4.9 which reads: "Require that vehicle access to new residential developments which front both street and alley be provided in the alley only. This will minimize on -street curb cuts and preserve available parking." A design which would result in access from only the alley could be accomplished in several ways. For example, an underground parking area could be used with access from the alley only. It should be noted, however, that the underground parking alternative is only one of several ways that access could be provided from the alley only. Another concern noted by staff is that since these lots are to be developed together, Section 7.6(e) of the zoning ordinance (which requires an additional 100 square feet of recreation space per unit for projects of five or more) should be applied. This requirement could be met if some units were clustered"together and a common landscaped courtyard or pool/spa area was provided. Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report for a more detailed analysis. Alternative Since the separate lots have not been merged, and are legal lots, the Planning Commission determined that the four separate proposals meet minimum zoning requirements and approved the projects. The Planning Commission chose not, to use their discretionary authority to require any revisions to the proposals. If the Council agrees with thisdecision, staff has prepared a resolution of approval sustaining the decision of the Planning Commission. The resolution also includes 'a condition that the projects must conform with the revised architectural features as depicted in the revised submitted plans CONCUR: Michael S ubach` Planning Director No-1ED ' , 2" Kevin Northcraft City Manager Attachments 1. Proposed Resolution 2. P.C. Staff Report 11/6/90 3. P.C. Minutes 11/6/90 and 11/20/90 4. Site Map 5. P.C. Resolutions of approval 6. Exhibit A - alternative sketch plan 7. Zoning Analysis 8. Photographs 9. Public Correspondence 10. Public Notice Affidavit CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Robertson Associate Planner a/pcsr138 Both the proposed development and staff's recommendation result in negative impacts. The most positive residential development seems to be one single family residence per lot, but the zoning allows a higher density. 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR FOUR CONTIGUOUS 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS AT 138-160 MANHATTAN AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 6 THROUGH 9, TRACT NO. 1123 WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearipg on January 8, 1991 to receive oral andwritten testimony regarding an appeal of four Conditional Use Permits at 138-160 Manhattan Avenue and made the following findings: A. The maps are consistent with applicable general and specific plans; B. The site is zoned R-3 and is suitable for the type and density of the proposed development; C. The development shall pose no threat to the public safety and welfare; D. The subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; E. The subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; F. Design of the proposed subdivision is compatible and consistent with applicable elements of the City's General Plan; NOW,' THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve to sustain the Planning Commission's decision to approve Conditional Use Permits, Tentative Parcel Maps, and a Precise Development Plans for four (4) contiguous 2 -unit condominium projects at 138-160 Manhattan Avenue subject to the conditions contained in Planning Commission resolutions 90-89, 90, 91 and 92 and including an additional 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 condition that floolans and. exterior elevations shall be as submitted for Council review on December 27, 1990. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1991 PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: rr:Lei A I Vo ---)...e CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 114 cK cR arrND MATFRML (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 6, 1990 MEETING) October 29, 1990 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission November 6, 1990 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - CON 90-16,17,18,.& 19 PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLANS 90-4,5,6, & 7 LOCATION: 138-160 MANHATTANAVENUE (BAY SHORE SANITARIUM SITE) APPLICANT: OLGUIN AND RUTHERFORD DEVELOPMENT 2306 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 REQUESTS: CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR TWO -UNIT DETACHED CONDOMINIUMS Recommendation Continue the request to the December 4, 1990 meeting for the applicant to consider revising the design to integrate the four proposed projects into one cohesive design which would improve the project in the following manner: - provide alley only access - provide adequate common recreation space to meet requirements for projects of 5 -units or more - attach the units in clusters of two or four units to maximize usable open space Alternative Approve the proposed design by approving the Conditional Use Permits and Tentative Parcel Maps subject to the conditions in the attached resolutions,`including a condition that the existing palm trees be retained on the site. Background Project Information: Zoning: General Plan Designation: Parcel Size: Existing Use: Proposed Density: Parking Provided: Open Space Provided: R-3 High Density Residential 12,000 Sq. Ft. (consists of four 3000 sq. ft. lots) abandoned sanitarium 29 units/acre 28 Spaces 320 sq. ft. per unit Environmental Determinations: *Categorically Exempt *Staff's determination that each proposed project is categorically exempt was based on section 15303 of the C.E.Q.A. guidelines which exempts, in urbanized areas, "apartments, duplexes and similar structures designed for not more than six dwelling units..." and these requests involve 2 -unit projects on separate legal lots. (The guidelines, however, provide for an exception to the categorical exemptions under section 15300.2(b) that the exemption is inapplicable if the "cumulative impact.:of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant". As such, if the Planning Commission determines that the impact of 4 separate 2 -unit projects being constructed at once is significant, it can require the applicant to go through the CEQA review process, and perhaps require., an Environmental Impact Report.) The subject property currently consists of four lots of approximately 3000 square feet each. Each lot is a separate legal lot although the entire parcel is under common ownership and covered by one building. The property has a moderate slope downward from the alley to the street. Analysis The proposed project consists of four two -unit detached condominiums using both the alley and the street for access. Each project has a similar floor plan, similar bulk, and the same height. The individual units differ in their proposed exterior architectural features, and because of slight variations in floor plans. Each unit contains about 2000 square feet, and consists of 3 bedrooms and 3 1/2 bathrooms. Although some of the exterior features vary between units, all of the buildings exhibit a style that can be characterized as "Contemporary" or "Post -Modern." Each project, viewed separately, conforms to minimum planning and zoning requirements. Lot coverage. is near 657, about 320 square feet of private open space is provided per unit, and the proposed garage and paring layout provides enough parking and guest parking to exceed minimum requirements and to compensate for the loss of one on -street parking spaces. The parking requirements are exceeded because of the applicant's choice to use a 17 -foot garage setback on the alley as well as on the street. A positive feature of the development, which serves to integrate the projects, is the use of a shared driveway arrangement between adjacent lots which saves four of the existing on -street parking spaces. There is currently five on -street metered spaces available. Staff believes that the subject parcel represents a rare opportunity to improve on the typical design for housing units in this city, which are normally constrained by small lot sizes. As such, staff has suggested to the applicant that a more integrated and cohesive design be used to take advantage of the large parcel. Such a design could provide additional usable open space C and other amenities rather than the typical two -unit design with three-foot sideyard setbacks and a succession of garage openings and curb cuts facing the street. Also, staff has advised the applicant to provide access to the project from the alley only. The applicant has chosen, however, to stay with the two -unit per lot design. He has indicated that the primary reason is to be able to market detached, single -family -like units with private access and parking rather than condos in a large project. Staff believes, however, that the single-family concept, although usually desirable, is unrealistic and inappropriate for this level of density. The benefits of single-family detached housing are gained when adequate lot size is available for usable yards, and for separation of homes to allow for privacy. Staff, believes, that for the proposed density amenities are improved by clustering the units and by integrating the parking so only one or two points of access are provided. Also, the impacts of the project on the surroundings (street appearance, traffic and pedestrian safety, on -street parking) would definitely be reduced by an integrated design. For example, instead of the unitsbeing separated by six feet, some units could be clustered together, meaning that buildings could be separated by ten to fifteen feet, or even more. A common sound proof wall on one side and a fifteen foot separation on the other affords more privacy and quiet than a six-foot separation from adjacent building on both sides. (See attached exhibit A, which is a sketch of one of many possible alternative designs; this one uses the footprint sizes proposed by the applicantand clusters the units into four 2 -unit buildings). Also, in regards to the question of street access versus alley access, the proposed design results in six direct ingress/egress points into the City's street and alley. This could easily be focused into one or two points of ingress/egress if parking was shared, thereby reducing the traffic conflict points and pedestrian/traffic conflict points. Staff also believes that the proposed use of the street for access to the project is inconsistent with the City's recently adopted circulation element, Implementation Policy 4.9 which reads: "Require that vehicle access to new residential developments which front both street and alley be provided in the alley only. This will minimize on -street curb cuts and preserve available parking." Additionally, the zoning ordinance condominium provisions under Section 7.2-3, Purpose, includes the following statement: "The purpose of this division is to promote the following standards:...(d) A layout of structures and other facilities to effect conservation in street, driveway, curb cut, and other public or quasi -public improvements..." Staff also believes that since these lots are being proposed to be developed together, that section 7.6(e) requiring an additional 100 square feet of recreation space per unit for projects of five or more units applies. This requirement could be met if some units are clustered together and a common landscaped courtyard or pool/spa area is provided. Also, in regards to the six-foot separation between buildings that results from the three-foot side yard setbacks used in this design, it should be noted that the R-3 zoning standards require a minimum eight -foot separation between buildings when theiron the same property. In sum, the developer is proposing four separate two unit projects which meet the standards of the zoning ordinance''.' if viewed as separate projects. However, the four lots which contain these four projects are contiguous, are currently occupied by a building which covers all four lots, and are under the same ownership. As such, staff believes that it is reasonable to view the development of these four lots as essentially one project --even if these individual projects were staggered over time --and to apply design standards and review criteria as if it were one development. As a result, staff believes that the proposed design falls well short of meeting standards of good design in terms of maximizing usable open space, or in terms of its impact on the streetscape. Further, it is not in conformance with the condominium provisions regarding common recreation space, or consistent with the General Plan. Alternative Since the separate lots have not been merged, and are legal lots, the Planning Commission has the option of making a decision on the four separate proposals. If so, staff has prepared resolutions of approval for each project, which includes a recommended condition in addition to standard conditions, that the existing palm trees be retained on the site and that a revised landscape plan be provided depicting the proposed locations for the trees. CC-UR _.� Michael Schubach Planning Director Attachments 1. Site Map 2. Exhibit A alternative sketch plan 3. Proposed Resolutions of approval 4. Zoning Analysis 5. Photographs 6. Applications 7. Public Notice Affidavit v en Robg Associate Planner a/pcsr138 space is required for'Units 1 and 2. This could alsobe accomplished by adjustments in dec) sizes to meet minimum dimensional requirements for open space. // Even though the building is quite large, staff felt that this project proposes an excellent and unique design, especially since all access is provided from the alley. Also, it is consistent with the character of the surrounding R-3 area and other recent projects. f Comm. Rue 'asked for clarification of the location of the winows, to which Mr. Schubach pointed out the -location of the windows on the south side of Units 3 and 4. Public Hearing opened at 7:40 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Doug Leach, 119 West Torrance Boulevard, Redondo Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) displayed pictures of the project site; (2) displayed a color rendering of the proposed project, and in>response to questions from Comm. Rye, described the proposed treatments for the facade; (3)\stated that he has worked closely wits staff on this project, and he felt that staff fully supports`the project; (4) commented that this is an attractive proposal which will be an improvement t9 what is currently existing45) noted that, even though five units could have been built, they 'have elected to construct Qnly four; (6) said that the four -unit project will be better for the site, and will not generate as much traffic as five units. Mr. Leach continued and: (1) noted that all access is.Arom the alley, which is a major asset to the design; (2) stated that alley access provides more attractive options and also eliminates having garage doors facing on Monterey; (3) stated that the back-up area behind the interior garages is on-site, and no cars will be backing,out onto the alley, thus creating a dangerous condition; (4) stated, in response to questions/posed by Comm. Rue, that large units are very necessary in today's real estate market; (5) explained that five units would have created parking problems and probably would have precluded the attractive parking arrangement which is possible with only four units; (6)" said that .five -unit project probably would have had about the same amount of square footage as is being proposed for the four units. Dean Kroll, owner of the property across the street from the proposed project, stated that, even though he will lose his ocean; view, he is in favor of this project because it will be an improvement to the neighborhood. He continued by cammenting on the City's code enforcement policy related to bootlegs, and he said he is not satisfied with the procedure because it is hit and miss. i Public Hearing closed at' :47 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve stf. s recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-88, as written. Chmn.- Ketz stated that this is a very attractive project, and she particularly favors the proposed parking arrangement. AYES: �/ Comms. Aleks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz NOES:' None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. Ingell CON 90-16 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22634 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 138-142 MANHATTAN AVENUE CON 90-17 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22635 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 144-148 MANHATTAN AVENUE P.C. Minutes 11/6/90 10. -- CON 90-18 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22636 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 150-154 MANHATTAN AVENUE CON 90-19 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22637 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 158-160 MANHATTAN AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 29, 1990, and recommended that the; Planning Commission continue this request to the meeting of December 4, 1990, so that thkapplicant can consider revising the design to integrate the four proposed projects into one -cohesive design which would improve the project is several ways: provide alley -only access; provide adequate common recreation space to meet the requirements for projects of five units or more; and to attach the units in clusters of two or four units to maximize the usable open space. Mr. Schubach suggested an alternative recommendation to approve the proposed design by approving the CUPs and tentative parcel maps, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolutions, which also include a condition specifying that the existing palm trees be retained on site. This project is located in the R-3 zone, with a general plan designation of high density residential. The parcel size is 12,000 square feet, consisting of four 3000 square -foot lots. The existing use is an abandoned sanitarium. The proposed density is 29 units per acre. Twenty- eight parking spaces will be provided. Open space provided will be 320 square feet per unit. The subject property currently consists of four lots of approximately 3000 square feet each. Each is a separate legal lot; although, the entire parcel is under common ownership and is covered by one building. The property has a moderate slope downward from the alley to the street. The proposed project consists of four two -unit detached condominiums using both the alley and the street for access. Each project has a similar floor plan, similar bulk, and the same height. The individual units differ in their proposed exterior architectural features because of the slight variations in floor plans. Each unit contains approximately 2000 square feet and consists of three bedrooms and three and a half bathrooms. Although some of the exterior features vary between units, all of the buildings exhibit a style that can be characterized as contemporary or post modern. Each project, viewed separately, conforms to minimum planning and zoning requirements. Lot coverage is near 65 percent, approximately 320 square feet of private open space is provided per unit, and the proposed garage and parking layout provides enough parking and guest parking to exceed minimum requirements and to compensate for the loss of one on -street parking space. The parking requirements are exceeded because of the applicant's choice to use a 17 -foot garage setback on the alley as well as on the street. A positive feature of the development which serves to integrate the projects is the use of a shared driveway arrangement between adjacent lots which saves four of the existing on -street parking spaces. There are currently five on -street metered spaces available. Staff felt that the subject parcel represents a rare opportunity to improve the typical design for housing units in the city, which are normally constructed on small lot sizes. As such, staff suggested to the applicant that a more integrated and cohesive design be used to take advantage of the large parcel. Such a design could provide additional usable open space and other amenities rather than the typical two -unit design with three-foot sideyard setbacks and a succession of garage openings and curb cuts facing the street. Also, staff has advised the. applicant that he should provide access to the project from the alley only. Mr. Schubach gave to each of the Commissioners a copy of a letter he received dated November 6, 1990, from the Director of Public Works, in which Mr. Antich advises that even if these 1/_ P.C. Minutes 11/6/90 projects are approved by the Planning Commission, he will not issue a permit of access from Manhattan Avenue. The decision would then need to be appealed to the City Council. The letter goes on to state that he feel access should be from the alley in accordance with the City's circulation element. The applicant has chosen, however, to stay with the two -unit per lot design. He has indicated that the primary reason is to be able to market detached, single -family -like units with private access and parking rather than condos in a large project. Staff felt, however, that the single-family concept, although usually desirable, is unrealistic and inappropriate for this level of density. The benefits of single-family detached housing are gained when adequate lot size is available for usable yard and for separation of homes to allow for privacy. Staff felt that for the proposed density, amenities are improved by clustering the units and by integrating the parking so that only one or two points of access are provided. Also, the impacts of the project on the surroundings (street appearance, traffic, pedestrian safety, and on -street parking) would definitely be reduced by an integrated design. For example, instead of the units being separated by six feet, some units could be clustered together, meaning that buildings could be separated by ten to fifteen feet or more. A common, soundproofed wall on one side and a fifteen -foot separation on the other affords more privacy and quiet than a six-foot separation from adjacent buildings on both sides. Related to the issue of street access versus alley access, the proposed design results in six direct ingress/egress points into the City's street and alley. This could easily be focused into one_or two points of ingress/egress if parking were shared, thereby reducing the traffic conflict points and pedestrian/traffic conflict points. Staff also felt that the proposed use of the street for access to the project is inconsistent with the City's recently -adopted circulation element. Implement Policy 4.9 read: "Require that vehicle access to new residential developments which front both street and alley be provided in the alley only. This will minimize on -street curb cuts and preserve available parking." Additionally, the zoning ordinance condominium provisions under Section 7.2-3, Purpose, includes the following: "The purpose of this subdivision is to promote the following standards:....(d) a layout of structures and other facilities to effect conservation in street, driveway, curb cut, and other public or quasi -public improvements." Staff also felt that since these lots are being proposed to be developed together, that Section 7.6(e) requiring 100 square feet of recreation space per unit for projects. of five or more units applies. This requirement could be met if some units are clusteredtogether and a common landscaped courtyard or pool/spa area is provided. Also, in regard to the six-foot separation between buildings that results from the three-foot sideyard setbacks used in this design, it should be noted that the R-3 zoning standards require a minimum eight -foot separation between buildings when they are on the same property. The developer is proposing four separate two -unit projects which meet the standards of the zoning ordinance if viewed as separate projects. However, the four lots which contain these four projects are contiguous, are currently occupied by a building which covers all four lots, and are under the same ownership. As such, staff felt that it is reasonable to view the development of these four lots as essentially one project, even if these individual projects were staggered over time, and to apply design standards and review criteria as if it were one development. As a result, staff felt that the proposed design falls well short of meeting standards of good design in terms of maximizing usable open space or in terms of its impact on the streetscape. Further, it is not in conformance with either the condominium provisions regarding common recreation space or with the general plan. P.C. Minutes 11/6/90 Since the separate lots have not been merged and are legal lots, the Planning Commission has the option of making a decision on the four separate proposals. If so, staff prepared resolutions of approval for each of the projects, which include a recommended condition in addition to standard conditions that the existing palm trees be retained on the site and that a revised landscape plan be provided depicting the proposed locations for the trees. Mr. Schubach, in response to comments by Comm. Aleks; stated that there are other designs available for this project which would be more acceptable to staff; however; at this time, he was not prepared to address alternative designs. Comm. Rue asked for clarification from Mr. Lee related to whether these are four separate lots, or whether it is one lot since it is under common ownership. Mr. Lee explained that four separate projects on four separate legal lots are being proposed at this time. He said that the Commission must address the issue of cumulative environmental impacts which would be created by these projects. : He continued by explaining that the proposed access must be consistent with the general plan. He noted that staff feels an opportunity exists at this time for the developer to meet both the letter and spirit of the law. He concluded by stating that the applicant does have the right to develop each of these lots separately. Public Hearing opened at 8:07 P.M. by Chinn. Ketz. Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the proposed projects are unique; (2) said that staffs philosophical concerns are being expressed somewhat late in the course of this project; (3) said that four separate applications are being proposed at this time; (4) said that the four -lot concept utilizing the original subdivision of this property is a very logical and appropriate use of this property; (5) said that this proposal is a very reasonable residential proposal. Ms. Srour continued and: (1) said that this project addresses the very real neighborhood concerns related to parking; (2) noted that the developer has a great deal of experience in building in this City, and the concerns of the city have all been addressed; (3) felt that the project also addresses the marketplace reality, in that it provides an attractive location in which to live in this area of the City; (4) stressed that from the beginning of this project, the applicant has communicated with both the City and the County Engineer, and at no time did staff state their preference for looking at this project as a consolidated site. Ms. Srour went on and: (1) noted that staff encouraged access from the rear, however, after studying that possibility, the developer determined that such access would not be feasible; (2) said that it was determined that it would be better to distribute the access between the front and the rear; (3) commented that the circulation element has only recently been amended to require access from the rear, and she noted that such access was not required for one of the other projects at this location;(4) discussed the configuration of the streets in this area, noting that Monterey is a fairly quiet street and is not a major arterial, but it is an access to the beach; (5) said that condos in this area are looked at very differently from other parts of the City; (6) said that five metered parking spaces have been installed at this location within the very recent past; (7) said that the present sanitarium facility location has had a metered parking space put in near the driveway; (8) noted that this project will preserve four of the five public parking spaces: Ms. Srour continued and: (1) explained that one of the primary goals of this developer is to provide the type of lifestyle people want; (2) stated that most people prefer single-family homes, but the concept of two detached condos is becoming very appealing to people; (3) said that there are very few problems associated with managing two -unit condos; (4) discussed the six -lot parcel on which the sanitarium is located, stating that at no time did the City specify that the parcels should be a consolidated development, noting that issue was not raised during the lot -- / _ P.C. Minutes 11/6/90 d_•.• • merger discussions; (5) felt that staff is now being unfair in their suggestion that this be a consolidated project, noting that the project is already well underway. Ms. Srour went on and: (1) discussed staff's recommendation related to the open space, stating that staffs concept is somewhat naive because the 14 -foot separation between units will primarily provide access, and to call that area private open space would be compromising the access; (2) stated that the potential of this site allows for nine units, but this project is proposing only eight; (3) said that a subterranean garage is not feasible without compromising the parking as proposed; (4) said that the lot configuration and slope almost prohibit subterranean parking altogether; (5) continued by discussing the retaining which would be necessary, noting that it would mean a loss of parking and the possibility of building nine units. Ms. Srour continued and: (1) said that the units are reasonably designed, and 500 square feet have been given up in order to provide parking; (2) said that the facades have been broken up in this proposal; (3) noted that staffs proposal could result in a loss of parking and it could take away from the attractive facades now being proposed; (4) mentioned that 16 spaces plus four guest spaces are required with the eight units, and she continued by discussing proposed and potential parking requirements; (5) said that the developer and architect have done an exceptional job in providing visible, on-site parking which is easy to use. Ms. Srour went on and: (1) discussed the parking at other projects in the vicinity of this proposal; (2) said that underground parking is much less desirable for reasons of security, access, and maintenance; (3) felt that on -grade parking is much more desirable,. and should be a goal of the City; (4) explained that if the City determines this project must be a consolidated development, all of the work done so far on the project would have to be redone. Comm. Peirce pointed out that, even if this project were to be approved by the Commission, the Director of. Public Works has indicated that all access must be from the rear; otherwise, he would not issue the necessary permit of access. Ms. Srour continued and: (1) stated that rear access is a guideline, not a requirement; (2) agreed that guidelines are important, however, in this case, rear access is not feasible; (3) in response to comments from Comm. Peirce, she questioned what authority the Director of Public Works is acting upon in relation to his memo; (4) said that at this time, the applicant will not be addressing the memo; rather, they would like Planning Commission approval of the project. Comm. Peirce noted that the issue of alley access has been discussed in the past by both staff and the Commission. Ms. Srour went on and: (1) stated that a strict interpretation of the requirement is not applicable in this case, stressing the it is merely a guideline and not a requirement; (2) in response to questions from Comm. Aleks regarding maintenance of two -unit developments, explained that in much larger projects there can be problems with large homeowner associations; (3) said that each of the projects meets all of the development standards; (4) noted that the open space, height, and setback requirements have been met; (5) said that parking requirements have been met. Ms. Srour continued and: (1) stated that they were nonplussed with staff's position on this project; (2) displayed plans and pointed out the proposed parking layout; (3) pointed out the proposed landscaping, stating that it will be substantial; (4) noted that the building facades are stepped back; (5) stated that she strongly supports approval of this project, noting that it is a very attractive development and is one which is a reduced use of each of the lots; (6) stated that the overall impact of separate projects would be less than if this were one consolidated project. Ms. Srour concluded and: (1) discussed the setback requirements, stating that the buildings as proposed break up the elevations and facades as well as reducing the potential density; (2) highlighted positive aspects of this project, including its compatibility with the area, its P.C. Minutes 11/6/90 preservation of on-street parking, its creation of an attractive streetscape, and its safety features related to vehicles and pedestrians; (3) stated that the projects meet the City's goals and code requirements; (4) felt that it would be reasonable and fair for the Commission to address these as four separate projects. Jerry Olguin, 2306 Pacific Coast Highway, project developer, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted that he has been a developer in the area for many years and he is veryfamiliar with the City's requirements and needs; (2) stated that he is attempting to provide a "project which will enhance the area; (3) explained that he is very familiar with the parking problems in the area; (4) said that this proposal will provide open space; (5) stated that this proposal will give the feeling of single -family living. Mr. Olguin continued and: (1) stated that staffs proposal to have this be a consolidated development will create an apartment-typeeffect, which is in direct opposition to the City's goals; (2) felt that home ownership is of benefit to the City; (3) opposed a consolidated development on this site; (4) stressed that these are four individual lots, and he was never informed by staff that alley-only access would be required; (5) discussed the parking on the other lots at this site. Mr. Olguin went on and: (1) said that there was no metered parking at this location until only a few months ago; (2) noted that the project mass is not as great as it would have been with another proposal; (3) explained that he has put a great deal of effort into making this an attractive project; (4) stated that the issue of alley -only access is a new issue to him; (5) noted that he could build four maxed -out houses on these four lots with no approval at all; (6) stated, however, that he feel the proposed project is better for the City and will be an asset. Larry Korgan, 3600 Elm, Manhattan Beach, project architect, addressed the Commission and: (1) pointed out on the rendering the parking configuration; (2) discussed subterranean parking, stating that it would be very difficult because of the slope of the lot; (3) stated that if staffs proposal were implemented, there would only be five guest parking spaces, as opposed to the proposed sixteen for this project. Mr. Korgan, in response to comments from Comm. Rue regarding grouped projects and whether or not more open space can be obtained, explained that more common open space can sometimes be obtained; however, more private open space would not. He felt that most people prefer private open space. He noted that even if the project were grouped, space is space, and the units would merely be moved around. Ron Riggs, 143 Manhattan Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) favored the proposed project; (2) felt that single-family living is appropriate in this area, and he would actually prefer single-family homes at the site; (3) stated that he will soon be doing a project at 143 Manhattan Avenue; (4) opposed alley -only access on Bayview, noting that the traffic would be horrendous; (5) noted that most people want single-family homes with private open space and parking. Richard Macano, 113 Monterey Boulevard, addressed the Commission and: (1) favored approval of the project as proposed; (2) favored saving the palm trees; (3) fel1that the applicant has made an excellent proposal and one which should be a precedent; (4) said that the applicant has done everything possible to please the City. Glenn Tanner, 170 Manhattan Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) spoke on behalf of the Coral Terrace Homeowner's Association; (2) stated that the group strongly opposes alley - only access for all units of this project; (3) discussed Bayview, noting that it is very narrow and potentially dangerous; (4) displayed several photographs depicting the alley and cross streets and the dangerous situations occurring there; (5) said that even though Bayview is called a street, it is actually an alley. -15-- P.C. Minutes 11/6/90 Mr. Tanner went on and: (1) stated that the increased traffic in the alley would be unacceptable; (2) stated that Bayview is too narrow to accommodate parked cars; (3) felt that it would be more appropriate to flip the project so that access is all on Manhattan Avenue; (4) discussed the removal of the curb cut at the sanitarium and the placement of a new curb cut with metered parking; (5) stated that parking will actually be gained by this project; (6) stated that the group supports the development proposal as submitted, rather than one large development; (7) questioned whether it is in the purview of the City to require a consolidated development. Mr. Tanner concluded and: (1) discussed the demolition of the sanitarium and noted concern over the removal of asbestos; (2) felt that the asbestos is being removed in an unsafe manner, and he urged the developer to ensure that removal is occurring within all regulations; (3) noted concern over construction/demolition activity taking place outside of the allowed hours; (4) noted concern over apathy in the City related to new projects. Jim Shirk, 446 Monterey Boulevard, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that his complex has a subterranean garage, and he strongly urged the Commission not to allow any more of them; (2) stated that large developments are more conducive to renters, and home ownership is much more desirable; (3) said that many cars used the alley when the sanitarium was operating. Sandra Aden, 158 Bayview Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) was impressed by the proposed plans; (2) favored saving not only the palm trees, but also the other mature hardwood trees on the east side of the property; (3) turned in a petition signed by homeowners and residents who favor saving the trees and who oppose ingress/egress on Bayview; (4) said that the additional traffic on Bayview would be quite a burden; (5) noted that the traffic created by the sanitarium was light, especially since there was no parking on Bayview. Ms. Aden continued and: (1) favored the construction of individual homes, stating that it would be beneficial to the area and would also promote home ownership; (2) said that the City needs to increase its percentage of homeowner residents; (3) continued by discussing the trees, stating that they serve as homes to many birds, and the trees also help with the air pollution problems; (4) was encouraged that the plans appear to depict much landscaping; (5) stated that with a few minor adjustments, these plans would meet with her complete approval. Ms. Aden went on and: (1) noted concern over 'damage done to streets by developers during construction, and she suggested that developers be required to pay into a fund which could be used for street improvements; (2) stated that she has corresponded with the City on this matter, and she did not feel it is appropriate for the City to pay for damage caused by development. Nathan Salter, 113 Monterey, addressed the Commission and noted concern over asbestos clean up, to which Mr. Lee responded that the City has no purview over asbestos removal; and that if there are problems, the County Health Department should be notified. Mr. Salter favored saving the trees; however, he opposed the alley -only access as recommended by staff. Public Hearing closed at 9:12 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. Peirce stated that condominium approval is a discretionary act and not a right. He noted that this is an R-3, multiple -dwelling zone; however, in general, the R-3 zone was created for high-density residential use, not duplexes. He discussed the enclosed parking, stating that there is essentially parking for only two cars at each unit because people have a tendency to use garages as workrooms and storage areas rather than for parking. He noted that this conversion does not occur in common garages. ;He noted that even though these are four small lots, the City would be better served by a larger project. Comm. Peirce discussed the access and stated that the buildings are four narrow buildings on four narrow lots. He noted that this project proposes a bank of double garage doors on both -16 P.C. Minutes 11/6/90 Manhattan Avenue and Bayview Drive; however, he would prefer that situation rather than the elimination of the grade difference at the alley. He noted that there is already traffic in the alley because of the parking available there. Comm. Peirce discussed openspace, stating that there is approximately 1700 square feet of non -usable open space with the proposed project. He therefore felt that a better design could be implemented by having a consolidated building. Comm. Peirce felt that the proposed buildings are not very attractive. He said tlat'`one of the goals of the City has been to consolidate lots, and he felt that one large project could provide more amenities as well as additional private open space. ,Based on these reasons, he stated that he would favor one consolidated project. Comm. Aleks questioned whether requiring a consolidated project would be appropriate, noting that the lots could be sold off and developed individually. He stated that there must be trade-offs, and he felt that single -family -type dwellings are preferable to larger, consolidated condominiums. He felt that the project seems to have adequately addressed the parking concerns. He therefore stated that he could support this project as submitted. Comm. Aleks noted concern over the asbestos removal and asked whether a recommendation could be made to require that removal is done within all guidelines. He also favored saving the • trees. Comm. Rue asked for clarification on why these lots were not merged during the lot merger hearings, to which Mr. Schubach explained that this is an R-3 area. Also, there was one large sanitarium building covering the lots; therefore, the lot merger requirements were not met in this case. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, explained that this property was not designated as an SPA or precise plan because of its R-3 zoning. Comm. Rue stated that he does not like to have concrete where landscaping could be provided instead. He continued by commenting that he has never been a proponent of the 17 -foot setback requirement. He discussed other projects in the area which he felt have too much asphalt leading to the garages. In looking at the available alternatives, he felt that this proposal would provide more private open space than other projects. Comm. Rue felt that the intent of the circulation element has been preserved in this case. He felt that the access proposal is far better than having all access from Bayview. He noted the great need for parking, and he felt that this project addresses the issue adequately. He felt that the project meets the R-3 requirements, and under the circumstances,..the units are as attractive as can be expected. Comm. Rue commented that it is a shame that the City does not take the initiative to attempt to group projects together; however, he questioned whether that would have been effective in this case. He felt that approval of this project would uphold the general plan and circulation element because the project is of lower density than could be built. He also noted that the project proposes two guest spaces per unit. Based on these reasons, he favored approval of the project as submitted. Chmn. Ketz felt it is important to address the memo from the Director of Public Works. She reminded the Commission that she had voiced concerns over access when this site was originally discussed, noting that she very much supports the circulation element's goal of having alley -only access whenever possible. She also felt that a better design is available, noting that she does not favor four driveways backing out onto Manhattan Avenue and four driveways backing out onto Monterey. She favored approval of staffs recommendation to address other options available for this site. - P7— P.C. Minutes 11/6/90 f Comm. Alex did not feel that the ,memo from the Director of Public Works should be addressed by the Commission. He noted that he has never before seen such a letter, and he felt that the letter should be regarded as testimony. He questioned whether the City can legally require the applicant to consolidate these lots. Mr. Lee clarified that the applicant has the legal right to develop each of the lots separately; however, it does not mean that the applicant can build anything he wants. He noted that conditional use permits are required for condominiums, and the City therefore has discretionary purview over such projects. He continued by explaining the extent of the City's discretionary control over condominium development and the bases of denial. He stated that it is well within the purview of the Commission to refer this matter back to staff for the purpose of determining potential environmental impacts based on the cumulative impact of the four developments. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve Resolutions 90-89 through 92, with the inclusion of additional wording to condition 4B specifying that if palm trees are lost, similar -sized specimen trees shall take their place; further, that other trees shall be encouraged to be maintained at the discretion of the planning director. Comm. Aleks suggested the inclusion of wording specifying that the asbestos demolition be undertaken in accordance with the rules and regulations. Comm. Peirce felt it would be more appropriate to send a memo to the building director related to asbestos removal. Mr. Schubach concurred that the building director is the appropriate person to notify of this concern. AYES: Comms. Aleks, Rue NOES: Comm. Peirce, Chmn. Ketz ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: - Comm. Ingell (MOTION FAILS.) Mr. Schubach noted that one Commissioner is absent; he therefore suggested that this item be continued to the next meeting for decision. In the meantime, staff can continue to work with the applicant on the project. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to, continue this item to the meeting of November 20, 1990. AYES: Comms. Aleks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz NOES: None ABSTAIN: • None ABSENT: Comm. Ingell Recess taken from 9:32 P.M. until 9:38 P.M. LLA 90-4 LOT -LINE -ADJUSTMENT AT 1712 THE STRAND Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October --33. 99 i , and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Jot4ine adjustment. The subject -property o ed by Steven Legare. It contains approximately 6400 square-feet_is —currently developed with a nine -unit apartment building, and is zoned R -2B. P.C. Minutes 11/6/90 Lee explained that the item can be continued to a date certain without having to renotice; ho - r, it can be published in the newspaper so that people are aware of the new he ate. Mary Orozco, .10 Longfellow, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission�and asked questions related . hether or not this item needs to be renoticed. She said -that a notice is not posted on the property this time, explaining that she received nothing from the City to post. Mr. Lee suggested that this entire matter be renoticed--m compliance with =applicable requirements. He recommended tsfrat a notice be mailed, the item be republished in the newspaper, and a sign be posted at the pro itself' Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed the date to which this item should be continued. Ms. Orozco stated that sheha"s no objection to a continuance to first meeting in January, noting that the request-xelates to summertime hours. Chmn Ketz stated that this item would be continued to the meeting of Wednes • . January 2, 1991. S e--vised the applicant to call the Planning Department for instructions rela . to the prop ro ticing. CON 90-16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22634 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 138-142 MANHATTAN AVENUE CON 90-17 —CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22635 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 144-148 MANHATTAN AVENUE CON 90-18 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22636 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 150-154 MANHATTAN AVENUE CON 90-19 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22637 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 158-160 MANHATTAN AVENUE (FOUR ABOVE HEARINGS CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF NOVEMBER 6. 19901 Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 29, 1990, and recommended that the Planning Commission continue this request to the meeting of December 4, 1990, so that the applicant can consider revising the design to integrate the four proposed projects into one cohesive design which would improve the project is several ways: provide alley -only access; provide adequate common recreation space to meet the requirements for projects of five units or more; and to attach the units in clusters of two or four units to maximize the usable open space. Mr. Schubach suggested an alternative recommendation to approve the proposed design by approving the CUPs and tentative parcel maps, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolutions, which also include a condition specifying that the existing palm trees be retained on site. Mr. Schubach, noting that there is a new Commissioner, stated that Commissioner Marks has read all of the minutes related to this project and is therefore able to participate in the discussion and voting of this item. Public Hearing opened at 7:30 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Jerry Olguin, 2306 Pacific Coast Highway, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) for the benefit of the new commissioner, gave background on his experience in the area and other projects he has designed; (2) said that he is aware of the parking problems in the area, and this P.C. Minutes 11/20/90 4 was taken into account when ->this project 'was: designed; (3) discussed the 17 -foot setback requirement; (4) said that this project will provide ample parking; (5) said that even though City requirements allow a nine -foot setback on an alley, he decided against that so that more parking could be provided. Mr. Olguin continued and: (1) said that the parking has been integrated into the overall project; (2) noted that, even though the units could have been built larger, he elected to keep them smaller, in conformance with the surrounding area; (3) discussed the fact that parking meters were installed in front of this property which resulted in _additional problems for this project; (4) explained that only one on -street parking space will be lost as a result of this project; (5) said that the trees on site will be preserved. Mr. Olguin went on and: (1) discussed access from Bayview; (2) commented on the suggestion of using subterranean parking, explaining that such parking would not be feasible; (3) for the benefit of the new commissioner, discussed the plans and parking layout of the proposed project; (4) explained that each of the four building facades will be different in an effort to avoid a "cookie -cutter" appearance; (5) explained that the parking and access will be fifty-fifty, half from Manhattan Avenue and half from Bayview; (6) felt that the design elements of this project will be an asset to the community. Mr. Olguin went on and: (1) discussed the plot plan as related to the parking and driveways; (2) explained the layout of the units; (3) commented that he is aware of the impacts in the area, and these concerns were taken into account when the project was designed; (4) pointed out on the plans the difficulties which would be encountered with subterranean parking because of the seven -foot drop-off on the lot; (5) stated that a subterranean garage would require a gate, which would create problems for guest parking; (6) noted that there are also security problems with subterranean parking; (7) said that such parking would be very expensive to build and to landscape. Mr. Olguin continued and: (1) said that the proposed project will create more of a single-family feeling; (2) stated that the bulk of a combined project as recommended by staff is not desirable; (3) noted that during his meetings with staff on this project, no mention was ever made that he would have to integrate these four separate lots into one project; (4) stated that another project in this vicinity was approved as submitted, with no requirement that they be integrated; (5) stressed that his concept is better suited for the area than one integrated project would be. Mr. Olguin went on and: (1) said that the units will be owner -occupied; (2) felt that a consolidated project would be conducive to renters, which is not desirable for the City; (3) stated that people will use their garages for parking as intended; (4) commented on the letter he sent to the Commission dated November 15, 1990; (5) in response to questions from Comm. Marks, explained how they arrived at . the cost of subterranean parking for this project ($400,000) and what would be involved; (6) reminded the Commissioners of the goals of the City, stating that home ownership is something to be desired. Glenn Tanner, 170. Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) spoke on behalf of the Coral Terrace Homeowners Association; (2) reiterated the points he made at the last public hearing on this matter; (3) said that eight more units would greatly impact Bayview Drive, therefore, the association objects to access from Bayview; (4) said that they also opposed one integrated project, feeling that it would look like an apartment building with subterranean parking; (5) said that a precedent has already been set at 128 Manhattan Avenue by approval of that project which has half of its access off of Bayview; (6) said that this project does not fit in with the City's vision; (7) displayed photos depicting the surrounding area of the proposed project (8) favored a project which will have the least impact on Bayview. Mr. Schubach explained that staff never said a subterranean garage would be required; that was merely one possibility which was suggested as an alternative. He continued by explaining why the other project was approved with access from both Bayview and Manhattan Avenue, noting that there were different circumstances related to that project. P.C. Minutes 11/20/90 Ron Riggs, 143 Manhattan Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that he owns Lot No. 4 which has been discussed, and he continued by explaining why the access was done as it was; (2) noted that the proposed project consists of four separate lots; (3) said that he supports the project as submitted; (4) felt that the project will benefit the neighborhood; (5) said that 28 households in the area support this project as proposed and they do not want all access on Bayview; (6) felt that single-family residences are much more desirable in the City than an apartment -like structure; (7) commented on the problems associated with subterranean garages and the fact that people do not like them; (8) read a definition of "alleys"; (9) urged the Commission to approve the project as submitted. June Williams, Manhattan Avenue, addressed the Commission and (1) stated that Bayview is very congested now, especially because people park there illegally; (2) supported the project as submitted; (3) said that the project could not be any better; (4) stressed that people do not like to use subterranean parking garages. Jim Shirk, 446 Monterey Boulevard, addressed the Commission and: (1) described the many problems associated with subterranean parking; (2) commented on open space in condo projects, stating that it is not useful and it creates many problems: (3) said that it is desirable to have owner/ occupied units, not renters, which are undesirable; (4) said that an integrated project as recommended by staff would not be good for the neighborhood. Mr. Olguin, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, stated that the landscaping will be as depicted on the plot plan. He said that additional landscaping will enhance the overall project. He said that he would be able to provide an overall landscape plan, if so desired. Public Hearing closed at 8:10 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. Peirce stated that approval of condominium projects is a discretionary act. He stated that there are few pieces of property in the City which can be tied together. Even though he felt the applicant brought up good points regarding one large project, he felt that the proposed project does not utilize the land to its best advantage, if one considers all four projects together. In regard to subterranean parking, he stated that in order to avoid the downslope from the alley to the parking lot, one driveway from the street would be more pleasant than driving down the alley. He also noted concern over loss of on -street parking. Comm. Rue discussed various parking configurations which could be utilized. He noted concern over loss of open space and the creation of a concrete sea in order to accommodate parking. He agreed that subterranean parking would be totally inappropriate, based on safety concerns and economic realities. Comm. Aleks stated that he favored this project the last time it was heard. He felt that single- family type units are much more desirable than apartment -like structures. In this particular area, he did not feel one large integrated project is appropriate. He noted that these are four legal lots and they should not be required to be tied together. Even though he admired staffs intentions, in this case he favored approval of the project as submitted. Comm. Marks commented that a project of this size would impact the area. Chmn. Ketz stated that she opposed the proposed project based on the fact that she feels there is a better design than having four driveways on both Bayview and Manhattan Avenue. She also noted concern over the possibility of having so many curb cuts along the streets, which results in a loss of landscaping. She concluded by stating that she feels a better design is available for this project. Comm. Rue asked whether the applicant had an opinion related to whether this hearing should be continued so that he could prepare and present a new design. P.C. Minutes 11/20/90 Mr. Olguin stated that the would prefer to have the Commission vote on the project as submitted at this time. Comm. Rue commented that he felt the proposal as submitted is a good project; however, he also felt that there could be other good designs as well. Mr. Olguin explained that other parking and driveway configurations were considered; however, it was determined that this proposal is the best design for the project. MOTION by Comm. Aleks, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolutions 90-89 through 92, with the inclusion of additional wording to Condition No. 4B specifying that if palm trees are lost, similar -sized specimen trees shall take their place; further, that other trees shall be encouraged to be maintained at the discretion of the Manning Director. AYES: Comms Aleks, Marks, Rue NOES: Comma Peirce, Chmn. Ketz ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Churn. Ketz stated that the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. Comm. Rue requested that the Commission receive copies of the final landscape plot plan. CON 90-20/ PDP 90-8 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND: VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAI' #22409 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 619 TENTH STREET Mr. Schub h gave staff report dated November 15, 1990, and recommended that Oa Planning Commission approve the CUP and vesting tentative map, subject to the conditionslspecified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the R-2 zone, with a general plan designatiprf of medium density residential. The lot size"is 4109 square feet, with an existing use asa/single-family unit. The proposed density is 21 units.per acre. Five parking spaces will be provided, and 980 square feet of open space will be included: The environmental determination'is categorically exempt. The subject property is rectangular ihshape and slopes from side to'side towards the west. The proposed units contain approximately tely 3000 square feet each and consist of three bedrooms, a loft, four bathrooms, an1.Na roof deck! The project : consists of two separate detached structures with two floors and a mezzanine/level above a semi -subterranean garage. The proposed building elevations exhibit asmooth cement plaster exterior, steel railings, architectural reglets, an architectural trellis, glass block, and a waterfall on sheet glass. The proposed waterfall would fall into a sly ll pond in fr)t of the building. This combination of features gives the building somewhatVof a contemporary appearance. The landscape plan depicts seyc�ral trees and bushes to provide�visual relief from the otherwise large and bulky structure. 1`he design also features a rounded tairway protrusion, exterior balconies, and glass bloeXto provide further visual relief. The proposed fron d setback is variable, ranging from 5.5 feet to 7`feet, which conforms with the minim requirement of 5 feet. A balcony encroaches to within"4 feet, which also falls within 93. requirements for balcony encroachments into the front yard. The average front yard setback along this portion of 10th Street is about 13 feet. • This articular street has recently been the subject of three other condominium prod cts for which the front yard setback has been an issue. Most recently, the project across the stree 612 1'Oth Street, was allowed a protrusion to no closer than 8 feet, while 620 10th Street s - 2 Z - P.C. Minutes 11/20/90 /?J . SEE: 7501 - I I MANHATTAN AVE. FIRST ADDITION TO HE RMOS.A BEACH M. B. 1- 59- 60 TRACT NO. 1123 .TRACT_NO. 36244 M.B. 17 -141 M.B. 916- 90-91 • REVtS�n 7-9-59 9- 2/- 63 7O'37 .7006/9409 8007I62/D 8/020400/ 8608286/23-� 8WS/9507--87 y004/70400100/-/4 CONDOMINIUM TRACT NO.44032 _ M.B. 1070-29 -30 PARCEL, MAP. •P. M.124-59 ASSESSOR'S 1.1AP /nnulnTv nr I n ..i#.'t r^ ra I 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 C 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 90-89 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF.HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22634 AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 138-142 MANHATTAN AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 6, TRACT NO. 1123 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on November 6 and November 20, 1990 to receive oral and written testimony regarding an application for a Conditional Use Permit at 138-142 Manhattan Avenue and made the following findings: A. The map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; B. The site is zoned R-3 and is suitable for the type and density of the proposed development; C. The development shall pose no threat to the public safety and welfare; D. The subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; E. The subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; F. Design of the proposed subdivision is compatible and consistent with' applicable elements of the City's General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #22634, and a Precise Development Plan for a 2 -unit condominium project at 138-142 Manhattan Avenue subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with submitted plans. Any minor modification shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. 4 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. The project shall -meet all requirements of the Condominium Ordinance. a. Covenants, Conditions, and restrictions in compliance with the Condominium Ordinance shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. b. Proof of recordation of approved CC&R's shall be submitted to the Planning Director within six (6) months after City approval of the Final Map. c. Requirements of Section 7..2-6(g) shall be shown on structural plans and reviewed at the time of Building Department Plan Check. 3. There shall be compliance with all requirements of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 4. Three (3) copies of a landscaping plan indicating size, type, and quantity of plant materials shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. a. An automatic landscape sprinkler system shall be provided, and shall be shown on plans. b. All existing palm trees shall be maintained on the site and the final location shall be shown on the plans. If palm trees are lost, similar size specimen trees shall. take their place. Other trees shall be maintained at the discretion of the Planning Director 5. Architectural treatment shall be as shown on building elevations and any modification shall require approval by the Planning Director. a. Precise height shall be reviewed at the time of Building Plan Check, and plans shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Building Director. 6. Any satellite dish and/or similar equipment shall comply with the requirements of Section 1227 of the Zoning Ordinance. 7. Conduit shall be installed in each unit for cable television. 8. The address of each condominium unit shall be conspicuously displayed on the front street side of the -building with externally or internally lit numbers and the method for illumination shall be shown on the plans. 9. The street name, "Manhattan Avenue" shall be displayed with the address numbers for the units facing the alley. 10. Automatic roll -up garage doors shall be installed on all garage door openings. -ZS 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 C14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ( 27 28 11. The Final Map 'shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits unless the Directors of the Planning Department and the Building Department give prior approval. 12. Two (2) copies of revised plans including site, elevation, and floor plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of any Building Permit. 13. An ''Acceptance of Conditions" form shall be executed and submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of the Building Permits. 14. The Conditional Use Permit shall be null and void one and one-half years from the date of approval unless Building Permits have been obtained and approval of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map shall become null and void twenty-four months from the date of approval unless the final map is finaled. The applicant may apply in writing for an extension of time to the Planning Commission prior to the date of expiration. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Rue,Marks,Aleks NOES: Chmn.Ketz,Comm.Peirce ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 90-89 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of November 20, 1990. Michael Schubach, Secretary Christine Ketz, Chairman 1ec_. `i/ IS 97) Date a/pers138 10 11 12 13 ( 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 C 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 90-90 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22635 AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 144-148 MANHATTAN AVENUE, LEGALLY. DESCRIBED AS LOT 7, TRACT NO. 1123 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on November 6 and November 20, 1990 to receive oral and. written testimony regarding an application for a Conditional Use Permit at 144-148 Manhattan Avenue and made the following findings: A. Themap is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; B. The site is zoned R-3 and is suitable for the type and density of the proposed development; C. The development shall pose no threat to the public safety and welfare; D. The subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; E. The subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed, subdivision; Design of the proposed subdivision is compatible and. consistent with applicable elements of the City's General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED .that the Planning. Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #22635, and a Precise Development Plan for a 2 -unit condominium project. at 144-148 Manhattan Avenue subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with submitted plans. Any minor modification shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. 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 C 27 28 2. The project shall meet all requirements of the Condominium Ordinance. a. Covenants, Conditions, and restrictions in compliance with the Condominium Ordinance shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. b. Proof of recordation of approved CC&R's shall be submitted to the Planning Director within six (6) months after City approval of the Final Map. c. Requirements of Section 7.2-6(g) shall be shown on structural 'plans and reviewed at the time of Building Department Plan Check. 3. There shall be compliance with all requirements of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 4. Three (3) copies of a landscaping plan indicating size, type, and quantity of plant materials shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. a. An automatic landscape sprinkler system shall be provided, and shall be shown on plans. b. All existing palm trees shall be maintained on the site and the final location shall be shown on the plans. If palm trees are lost,, similar size specimen trees shall take their place. Other trees shall be maintained at the discretion of the Planning Director 5. Architectural treatment shall be as shown on building elevations and any modification shall require approval by the Planning Director. a. Precise height shall be reviewed at ,the time of Building Plan Check, and plans shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Building Director. 6. Any satellite dish and/or similar equipment shall comply with the requirements of Section 1227 of the Zoning Ordinance. 7. Conduit shall be installed in each unit for cable television. 8. The address of each condominium unit shall be conspicuously displayed on the front street side of the 'building with externally or internally lit numbers and the method for illumination shall be shown on the plans. 9. The street name, "Manhattan Avenue" shall be displayed with the address numbers for the units facing the alley. 10. Automatic roll -up garage doors shall be installed on all garage door openings. 3 4 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11. The Final Map shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits unless the Directors of the Planning Department and the Building Department give prior approval. 12. Two (2) copies of revised plans including site, elevation, and floor plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director. prior to the issuance of any Building Permit. 13. An "Acceptance of Conditions" form shall be executed and submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of the Building Permits 14. The Conditional Use Permit shall be null and void one and one-half years from the date of approval unless Building Permits have been obtained and approval of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map shall become null and void twenty-four months from the date of approval unless the final map is finaled. The applicant may apply in writing for an extension of time to the Planning Commission prior to the date of expiration. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms.Rue,Marks,Aleks Chmn.Ketz,Comm.Peirce None None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 90-90 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of November 20, 1990. Christine Ketz, Chairman 04. /910 Date Michael Schubach, Secretary. a/pers138 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 90-91 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22636 AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 150-154 MANHATTAN AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 8, TRACT NO. 1123 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on November 6 and November 20, 1990 to receive oral and written testimony regarding an application for a Conditional Use Permit at 150-154 Manhattan Avenue and made the following findings: A. The map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; B. The site is zoned R-3 and is suitable for the type and density of the proposed development; C. The development shall pose no threat to the public safety and welfare; D. The subdivision or type of improvements, are not likely to cause serious public health problems; E. The subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed, subdivision; F.' Design of the proposed subdivision is compatible and consistent with applicable elements of the City's General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #22636, and a Precise Development, Plan for a 2 -unit condominium project at 150-154 Manhattan Avenue subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with submitted plans. Any minor modification shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. -30- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. The project shall meet all requirements of the Condominium Ordinance. a. Covenants, Conditions, and restrictions in compliance with the Condominium Ordinance shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. b. Proof of recordation of approved CC&R's shall be submitted to the Planning Director within six (6) months after City approval of the Final Map. c. Requirements of Section 7.2-6(g) shall be shown on structural plans and reviewed at the time of Building Department Plan Check. 3. There shall be compliance with all requirements of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 4. Three (3) copies of a landscaping plan indicating size, type, and quantity of plant materials shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. a. An automatic landscape sprinkler system shall be provided, and shall be shown on plans. b. All existing palm trees shall be maintained on the site and the final location shall be shown on the plans. If palm trees are lost, similar size specimen trees shall take their place. Other trees shall be maintained at the discretion of the Planning Director S. Architectural treatment shall be as shown on building elevations and any modification shall require approval by the Planning Director. a. Precise height shall be reviewed at the time of Building Plan Check, and plans shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Building Director. 6. Any satellite dish and/or similar equipment shall comply with the requirements of Section 1227 of the Zoning Ordinance. 7. Conduit shall be installed in each unit for cable television. 8. The address of each condominium unit shall be conspicuously displayed on the front street side of the building with externally or internally lit numbers and the method for illumination shall be shown on the plans. 9. The street name, "Manhattan Avenue" shall be displayed with the address numbers for the units facing the alley. 10. Automatic roll -up garage doors shall be installed on all garage door openings. 1 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11. The Final Map shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits unless the Directors of the Planning Department and the Building Department give prior approval. 12. Two (2) copies of revised plans including site, elevation, and floor plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of any Building Permit. 13. An "Acceptance of Conditions" form shall be executed and submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of the Building Permits. 14. The Conditional Use Permit shall benull and void one and one-half years from the date of approval unless Building Permits have been obtained and approval of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map shall become null and void twenty-four months from the date of approval unless the final map is finaled. The applicant may apply in writing for an extension of time to the Planning Commission prior to the date of expiration. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Rue,Marks,Aleks NOES: Chmn.Ketz,Comm.Peirce ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 90-91 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their - regular meeting of November 20, 1990. Christine etz, Chairman 1°--.4c• / Mb Date. Michael Schubach, Secretary a/pers138 3 10 11. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 90-92 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22637 AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 158-160 MANHATTAN AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 9, TRACT NO. 1123 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on November 6 and November 20, 1990 to receiveoral and written testimony regarding an application for a Conditional Use Permit at 158-160 Manhattan Avenue and made the following findings: A. The map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; B. The site is zoned R-3 and is suitable for the type and density of the proposed development; C. The development shall pose no threat to the public safety and welfare; D. The subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; E. The subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; F. Design of the proposed subdivision is compatible and consistent with applicable elements of the City's General Plan;. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #22637, and a Precise Development Plan for a 2 -unit condominium project at 158-160 Manhattan Avenue subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with submitted plans. Any minor modification shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. 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 2. The project shall meet all requirements of the Condominium Ordinance. a. Covenants, Conditions, and restrictions in compliance with the Condominium Ordinance shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Proof of recordation of approved CC&R's shall be submitted to the Planning Directorwithinsix (6) months after City approval of the Final Map. c. Requirements of Section 7.2-6(g) shall be shown on structural plans and reviewed at the time of Building Department Plan Check. 3. There shall be compliance with all requirements of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 4. Three (3) copies of a landscaping plan indicating size, type, and quantity of plant materials shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. a. An automatic landscape sprinkler system shall be provided, and shall be shown on plans. b. All existing palm trees shall be maintained on the site and the final location shall be shown on the plans. If palm trees are lost, similar size specimen trees shall take their place. Other trees shall be maintained at the discretion of the Planning Director 5. Architectural treatment shall be as shown on building elevations and any modification shall require approval by the Planning Director. a. Precise height shall be reviewed at the time of Building Plan Check, and plans shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Building Director. 6. Any satellite dish and/or similar equipment shall comply with the requirements of Section 1227 of the Zoning Ordinance. 7. Conduit shall be -installed in each unit for cable television. 8. The address of each condominium unit shall be conspicuously displayed on the front street side of the building with externally or internally lit numbers and the method for illumination shall be shown on the plans. b. 9. The street name, "Manhattan Avenue" shall be displayed with the address numbers for the units facing the alley. 10. Automatic roll -up garage doors shall be installed on all garage door openings. al 1 2 4 9 10 11 12 13 C 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 C 27 28 11. The Final Map shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits unless the Directors of the Planning Department and the Building Department give prior approval. 12. Two (2) copies of revised plans including site elevation, and floor plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of any Building Permit. a) Plans shall be revised such that lot coverage does not exceed the maximum of 65%. 13. An "Acceptance of Conditions" form shall be executed an• submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of the Building Permits. 14. The Conditional Use Permit shall be null and void one an• one-half years from the date of approval unless Buildin: Permits have been obtained and approval of the Vestin Tentative Parcel Map shall become null and void twenty -fou months from the date of approval unless the final map is finaled. The applicant may apply in writing for an extensio of time to the Planning Commission prior to the date o• expiration. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Rue,Marks,Aleks NOES: Chmn.Ketz,Comm.Peirce ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 90-92 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of November 20, 1990. z_ C ristine Kett; Chairman Michael Schuba'ch, Secretar )(2-ec_ V) riyo Date a/pers138 Z-U0tT' LDC UJ/ GENIT1_. Go y PT /A -1) 1 UK) 2u8Geo PST) P1441"-. N A L LE/ oniL'l A -C c.'ESS • A PD' L cREN 517.4 -c -e • se40A -rta of PAR-K-114GIoM PFD Esleht. 3 01/412-E4s • No 6-AagGe (DP0.31.43 6s. PArcc 6.111-E S-IREST• Cans\c o ptp_A -- dLr 65 RESIDENTIAL ZONING ANALYSIS Project Address: 1�-1`{-Z I44 --I1-$1 fro -1 5-41 ( S -uoo M 4A--Tr4!.I AMIE Legal Description: Type of Project: 4 cZ•(thif a_CMlcS No. Units:-{zr}'a,l Property Owner: ,-1-12-0-`-/ DL&AINI Applicant(s): II Designer: Lary le-rAra, 3w1 Date of Plans: IC/ I 1410 Analysis Prepared by: ******************************** Zoning: R-3 General Plan Designation: 1( Maximum Dwelling Units R-1 R-2 R-3 13 DU/AC 25 DU/AC 33. DU/AC per Acre Allowed (DU/AC):, 1 Dwelling. Unit per Lot 1 Unit per 1750 sq. ft. of land 1 Unit per 1320 sq. ft. of land Lot Area: 4 Lots @ 77,00 (-pa4 cuC04 9 Proposed Density -Dwelling Units/Acres Z7,04 - Maximum 7,O4 Maximum Allowable Lot Coverage: 657 Proposed Lot Coverage: 138- 4t s% X44 -lochs J (�o-(e)4s�� / (►�� Minimum Unit Size: a) 1 bedroom b)2 bedroom c) 3 bedroom d) 4 bedroom - 900 - 1100 - 1400 1600 sq. sq. sq. sq. ft. ft. ft. ft. Proposed Unit Sizes) : a4avd- o2ood .0) 3 w),.„0,,("too McµS £(AAl Useable Open Space Required a) R-1 b) R-2 c) R-3 d) R -P - 400 sq. ft. 75% ground & R -2B - 200 - 200 sq. ft - 200 sq. ft , minimum dimens - 25% balconies, sq. ft., minimum minimum dimens minimum dimens ion of 10' open to :the sky dimension. of 7' ion of 7' ion of 7' -a/c- Condominium developments requires 100 sq. ft. of additional private open space, minimum dimension of 7'. Each condominium 'development of five (5) units or more requires 100 sq. ft. of common open space per unit. Open Space per Unit: Required Proposed Private:. 300 '.•-• 320 41 for &tot& uttia"i" I?A ww. c\vokmA-Floo ( QcAA-16 - S� -too IK (.[.vtQ a QS Common: �or bl Q.c1S Cit S--O�nl-4s o,r lbo--� S-0t K lo�^i �.a-c�{�' J vvvAr, ; loo t w\ 1+ *** ***************************** Maximum Allowable Height a) R-1 - 25 feet, maximum 2 stories b) R-2 & R -2B - 30 feet, maximum 2 stories c) R-3 - 35 feet d) R -P - 35 feet, maximum 3 stories Condominium developments located along walk streets shall not exceed the maximum height of 25 feet within the front half of the lot. Proposed Building Height: g rtc�`j`+ �- 35 ---- Note: Height shall be verified by the Building Department during Plan Check. ******************************* Building Setbacks Where garages or parking stalls front on a public street or alley, the minimum setback shall be 17 feet provided roll -up doors are installed; a minimum of 20 feet shall be required shere standard doors are installed. - 38.E Setbacks continued Required S( Front: Rear: Side: Proposed 4/ 3/ J *** * V r.. r. r ** r. * V * Parking a) Two parking spaces per unit, minimum dimension of 8 1/2 feet wide by 20 feet deep -enclosed, 8 1/2 feet wide by 18 feet -open. Total Required: Z%rK ig b) One guest space for each two units (round up; e.g. 3 unit site must provide 2 guest spaces) One guest space shall alsobe required for each on -street parking space eliminated because of new driveways or curb cuts. Total Required: 8 ) -t r 'csti.' Lco`4.1- Parking Proposed a) Spaces per Unit - - b) Guest Parking - .Required Turning Radius Proposed Turning Radius ********************************* Required Sound Insulation Required: a) The minimum wall insulation rating between units shall be 52 STC. b) The minimum floor/ceiling rating between stacked units shall be 58 STC. Proposed Sound Insulation \<XL Ckakck 04-014A(St-C4 Note: Sound Insulation requirement shall be. verified by the Building Department during plan check. Storage Area Required per Unit: a) 200 cubic feet of storage area per unit t Storage Area Proposed per Unit - Location of Trash Staff Comments: Facilities - C pYov Ic- Y C�nQ A ` c/� lov IA. c1 Q l.o d � l ZOCiA e c \J[ oNrAlV.0.1 lot. \l aAt,sz- 9icwtS f e. OCAMCAAA (9A C -CMA -k - REVISED -eptemb r 1987 cLa.ct.-c-n,. S (AS Gus_ ,a3e, -Qfowl ecv1 tr.o.AANAAA S Csw vv\.dNA �r.�csL e 100 as2_ aAckS -R Cr6(112X-H IFex VVu�" -A\ so -C tr\. \reAke_8. a -c_02-5 cxi \) t Ira \I .e.),/eLL.ks\ -cr6 44-(1- -t° CAAAJAs-o-r- eov\ks 01/4_ adk, u(sz.Q. -}>4 s k-\\ vu) pakAA 41 -c -Q -)S C,r+ L&n«Jk c.ann SvA c`r ria Ioc—cowka_s o\! cv �,� l ` `� Sa AANAAA Vv\ ��:� = d-00 \ SCJ <4nctto_It,_ o.akA s. tof 7v f \o S;uiv -anv f - Vlaui 4;a (NIA) . 1n12Z�c\o 158 Bayview Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 November 15, 1990 Chris Ketz, Chairman James Peirce, Vice Chairman Edmund Aleks Robert B. Marks Geoffrey Rue Planning Commissioners City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Re: Proposed Development, 138-160 Manhattan Avenue Dear Planning Commissioners: I spoke at the meeting of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, November 6, 1990. The proposal for the development at 138-160 Manhattan Avenue was before the Commmission. (It is important to note that I came to the planning meeting that night prepared to oppose the project because I was afraid that they would try to construct a large apartment -like building which would attract more "renters".) This proposal will come up for consideration on November 20. I will be unable to attend that meeting, therefore, I want to go on record in re -stating my concerns. Instead of opposing the project, I spoke in favor of the plans, because I was delighted that they have retained the palm trees, and have provided for access from both Manhattan Avenue and Bayview Drive (the alley). They also include an abundance of "green space", of which there is a dearth in this neighborhood. Unfortunately, the buildings will block the ocean view we have enjoyed for over 4 years, but that's the only real negative for us. There are two hardwood trees on the property which have been identified as camphor trees. While, according to the University of, California Extension Service horticulturist, camphor trees are not endangered, I doubt there are many in Hermosa Beach. In fact, in South Hermosa, there are almost no trees! Please require the developer to save these trees. It will be a safety disaster if all vehicular access for the 8 condominium units is required to be from Bayview Driye SUPPLRMFNTA INFORMATION Page 2 Hermosa Beach Planning Commissioners November 15, 1990 Bayview Drive is an alley, barely 20 feet wide. Both ends of Bayview, at 1st and 2nd Streets, are blind, resulting in routine "near misses" of other vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians. There are children who live in the as those who visit regularly. Vehicles must back out blindly from andprivate parking spaces on the alley. neighborhood, as well the numerous garages Additionally, there is one apartment whose front door is, literally, less than three feet from the red line! This could be a very dangerous situation for the inhabitants of this resi- dence. We should keep traffic to a minimum on this narrow street. Please make your decision with the above issues in mind. Very truly'yours, G -.ory . Aden Sandra R. Aden cc: City Council, Hermosa Beach November 15, 1990 0MM , o d City of Hermosa Beach Planning' Commission Civic Center Hermosa Beach,CA 90254 O\ .. 5'\Y90 Madam Chairman and Commissioners: We have submitted to you an application,to develop two residential condominiums on each of four adjacent lots. Our proposal has come forward to you as four separate parcel map applications and was submitted only after extensive analysis over a period of approximately four months. 'A critical aspect of this analysis involved the City Planning Staff, in the initial stages, as well as the County Engineer in addition to the usual architectural and engineering studies required for such a project. A very critical element of our analysis is our intimate understanding of residential design, and our experience with the City over the past several years as neighborhood and design standards have been formulated and strengthened. We believe the overall proposal before you addresses all of the issues that are a matter of concern for the Planning Commission and the City Council. We support the goal of the City in its effort to preserve residential environments and believe that our proposal creates a residential lifestyle compatible with the immediate neighborhood and sets a standard of residential development that should be welcome in many similar neighborhoods throughout the beach area. This correspondence is submitted in response to the recommendation of City Staff that the property be developed as an integrated site with vehicular access from the alley. We would also like to explain why we feel that this approach will be very detrimental to the neighborhood. With regard to the issue of an integretated site, we raised this question at the very beginning of our studies and at no time were we advised by the Planning Staff that there was any interest on the part of the city in pursuing an integrated site. We were aware that the Planning Staff preferred vehicular access from the alley, and it is our opinion that the neighborhood is better served by sharing access between the alley and Manhattan Avenue. In this regard, the Planning Commission did review and approve a two unit condominium project just two lots south of our site and that project does have driveway access both from Manhattan Avenue and Bayview Drive. It is also our belief that new homes in Hermosa Beach must encompass the elements ofU PLEMJT privacy, security, parking and single family ambiance to be accep by the community. "Ui'.f.d ; ;ter 2306 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SUITE 401, HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 (213) 376-9406 -- t —. 8 A. An integrated site design mandates that parking be provided in a subterranean garage. It is possible to meet the minimum parking, requirements with a subterranean garage but taking into account the lot size and topography the following conditions will apply: 1) Only one entry ramp is possible and it would barely meet the maximum 15% slope permitted for ramps. The ramp would have three locations at which an automobile would "bottom out" or scrape the ramp. 2. This garage would be open with no private individual garages and would have common stairway access to the first level. The garage access would be controlled with an automatic gate and intercom for guests; both required and guest parking will be within the subterranean garage and behind the automatic gate. 3. Maximum number of parking spaces that can be provided: 23. Reducing the ramp slope to a 12% grade will result in a maximum of 19 parking spaces. 4. The parking deck would support only a very limited type of planting and tree growth because of the shallow ground medium over the garage deck. It may not be possible to save (or replace in kind the tree growth presently on the site. There was very strong neighborhood support at the Commission hearing to save the existing trees if possible and we are in agreement to save the trees or replace in kind. 5. This configuration has the potential for creating greater interference with traffic and pedestrian flow on Bayview because of the awkward entry/exit configuration resulting from the steep slope and sharp turn at the top of the ramp. This will definitely have a negative impact on safe access and circulation on Bayview. There was overwhelming neighborhood support for our concept and in addition there was strong public opposition to the City proposal for alley access from a subterranean garage with potential for additional building bulk. B. An integrated site design would: 1) preserve one on -street parking space, more than the proposed design 2) possibly allow for more ground level open space that would be shared by all the residents and would not be private open space. page 2 C. The cost of a subterranean garage must be considered as it would add substantially to the overall development costs(an additional $400,000). This factor imposes the need to maximize living area above the garage structure and will most likely result in a totally, different type of residential development having more in common with apartment lifestyle than the single family ambience that we are seeking to achieve. In addition, there are inherent design constraints using a subterranean garage as the garage deck limits 't,,46 flexibilty and creativity of structures supported by the deck on such a small site. D. An integrated site would require totally new plans and a new subdivision map. It would result in a homeowners association comprised of eight or nine unit owners. Our goal in maintaining the original individual lots is to create a residential ambience that blends with the surrounding neighborhood and that reflects the development standards that the City and the community have long sought: It is our opinion that private and accessible parking must be a paramount consideration. Our proposal addresses the critical issues of density, building mass, parking, access, private and usable open space and protection of residential neighborhoods by incorporating the following elements: 1. Less building density and bulk: Achieved with separate residences each with a 17' setback which reduces the gross living area by approximately 500sf per residence. 2. Adequate on-site and accessible parking: There is a total of 32 on-site parking spaces: two enclosed and two open guest spaces per unit. The guest parking_is private and not shared. All of the parking is totally visible and accessible as -it is on grade. One additional curb cut is added to Manhattan Avenue and access is disbursed between Manhattan Avenue and the alley so as not to overburden one location. 3. Appealing streetscape: Achieved through building facades that are stepped back and broken up with decks that eliminate flat building facades from the ground level up. Also achieved by use of different facades for each residence. Landscaping pockets result from shared driveway arrangement. 4. Self contained residential living areas that do not impose living needs on adjacent neighbors: each unit has a private storage room at the ground level; private residence and guest parking; private open space that provides visual and usable open areas; separate entry area for each unit that does not interfere with or compromise neighbors' privacy. page 3 The General Plan guideline to discourage curbcuts on streets is presented in the context of preserving residential environments; it is a guideline and.not a code requirement. We share the interest of the City in promoting safe streets and walkways. We do comply with the spirit and intent of, the guidelines in that only one curbcut is added to Manhattan Avenue and vehicular access is shared between a street that does not experience a high traffic flow and an alley that is somewhat marginal. The key,issues of an integrated site and alley access as defined by staff may be appropriately applied in some situations. It -is our opinion that strict application of these staff sponsored guidelines will result in a residential environment that is far inferior to our proposal and in this situation contrary to community interests. The proposal before you provides superior parking and access arrangements, reduces potential building bulk and residential density, provides private and visual open space, enhances residential security, and creates a comfortable residential ambiance. Our project does adhere to the City goal to protect residential environments. All of these qualities will further the goal of encouraging home ownership and the strengthening of neighborhood communities. In evaluating the merits of our proposal in the context of City goals, we hope that you will agree that our overall proposal is within these goals and should be approved. erry,- Olguin Page 4 C U2, 0/2_o7' SUMMARY: THE CORAL TERRACE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. [FIVE UNITS, 162-170 MANHATTAN AV.] IS FIRMLY, ADAMANTLY, AND VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR TOTAL ACCESS TO DEVELOPMENT(S) AT THE OLD SANITARIUM SITE ON BAYVIEW DRIVE. REASONS FOR OPPOSITION TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION: THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC BY 80 TO 100 CARS PER DAY [= 4 LOTS x 2 UNITS x 3 TRIPS x (1 IN + 1 OUT)]. * BAYVIEW DR. IS UNABLE TO HANDLE THIS AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC BECAUSE ... IT IS A NARROW (BARELY 18' WIDE) ALLEY, MUCH LESS WITH PARKED CARS ALONG SIDE OTHER PROPERTIES. O IT HAS BLIND INTERSECTIONS AT BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH INTERSECTIONS ON BOTH THE LEFT AND RIGHT SIDES. o THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC WILL CAUSE UNBEARABLE INCREASES IN NOISE FOR 'ALLEY -SIDE' RESIDENTS OF MONTEREY AND MANHATTAN. THERE ARE MANY BLIND DRIVEWAYS AND GARAGES ON BAYVIEW WHICH CONSTITUTE A COLLISION HAZARD. o THERE ARE CHILDREN PLAYING IN THE ALLEY WHICH ARE ADDITIONAL OBSTACLE FOR VEHICLES. * THE ALTERNATIVE ACCESS ROAD, MANHATTAN AV. IS WELL OVER 40 FT. WIDE AND PREFERABLE FOR THE INCREASED TRAFFIC. * THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS ALREADY RULED AGAINST EXCLUSIVE ACCESS TO / FROM BAYVIEW ON THE PROPERTY AT 128 MANHATTAN AV. THEREBY SETTING THE PRECEDENT. * STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS AN 'APARTMENT -LIKE' LOOKING BUILDING. WE DO NOT NEED MORE APARTMENTS IN SOUTH HERMOSA BECAUSE... THEY ARE UNSIGHTLY AND UNWIELDY, AND SOME ARE UGLY. THESE COMPLEXES ARE OFTEN "NON -OWNER -OCCUPIED", RESULTING IN UNSIGHTLY REDUCED MAINTENANCE AND LESS 'LOVING CARE'. O COMMON, SUBTERRANEAN PARKING RESULTS IN UNITS WITH. LOWER RESALE VALUE AND LOWER AREA PROPERTY VALUES. THIS HURTS US ALL. 'APARTMENT -LIKE' DEVELOPMENTS ALWAYS HAVE LOWER PROPERTY VALUES THAN TWO -ON -A -LOTS, OR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. PARKING IS NOT LESSENED WITH THE PROPOSED OLGUIN & RUTHERFORD DEVELOPMENTS. IN FACT, WHEN COMPARED TO 1989, THERE ARE 4 NET PARKING SPACES INCREASED ON MANHATTAN AV. * THE CITY CANNOT FORCE A DEVELOPER TO 'TIE' THESE LOTS TOGETHER. THIS DEVELOPER COULD SELL THESE 4 LOTS TO 4 PEOPLE RESULTING IN4 DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE UN -RELATED AND CONFLICTING. * THE OLGUIN & RUTHERFORD DEVELOPMENT IS ARCHITECTURALLY COORDINATED AND HARMONIOUS. * WE DO NOT WANT ANOTHER MONSTROSITY'SUCH AS ON THE 400 BLOCK OF MONTEREY !!! CONCLUSION: A COMPLEX DEVELOPMENT WITH COMMON WALLS AND SUBTERRANEAN PARKING, AS PROPOSED BY STAFF, IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE CITY VISION IN SEVERAL AREAS: ************* "... A LESS DENSE, MORE FAMILY ORIENTED ... LOW PROFILE...COMMUNITY . DISTINCT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS THIS COUNCIL IS DEDICATED TO LEARNING FROM THE PAST..." ************* 7:;;-e d1,14L -t 3•s- e t.-64--/)614 d-erv-Le . 44)74444_‘ tO i b 'MO ; 041.2-4-41 414-4,--ez4 eicti ez°44,e_ fr-c- /414 tejef.C. -414.4t4-‘4, 44,4Ld /1"'" II Mr. Angelo Colavita P.O. Box 762 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORNL'ATION• .• F CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM DATE: November 6, 1990 TO: Michael Schubach, Planning Director FROM: SUBJECT: 138-160 Manhattan Avenue Anthony Antich, Director of Public Works U Ck- Access via Manhattan Avenue I concur with the Planning Department recommendation that all access be taken from Bayview Avenue and that no access be allowed from Manhattan Avenue. The City's circulation element reads as follows: "Require that vehicle access to new residential developments which front both street and alley be provided in the alley only. This will minimize on -street curb cuts and preserve available parking". Municipal Code Section 29-12 grants authority to the City Engineer pertaining to the establishment of the location of curbs and reads: Sec. 29-12. Location of curbs, etc. Curbs, gutters and sidewalks shall be located within the street right of way at the locations and grades established by the City Engineer.(Ord. No. 235 N.S., 2.) The findings of the City Engineer are: 1. Alternative access is available from Bayview Drive to the subject property. 2. The location of the existing curb on Manhattan Avenue along the entire frontage is consistent with the City Council goal of increasing parking and is consistant with the circulation element. 3. Vehicle access to the subject property shall only be allowed from Bayview Drive. If the development is approved as proposed, I will not issue a permit of access from Manhattan Avenue and,_an _apg_e.al.,must be_.xnade by the applicant to the City Council. Municipal Code Section 29-5 allows for appeal to City Council: Sec. 29-5. Appeal from action of Superintendent of Streets Any person feeling aggrieved by any action of the superintendent of streets taken under the provisions of this chapter may appeal to the City Council within thirty days after the completion of.: the work, and its decision relating thereto shall be final and: conclusive. (Ord. No. 86 N.S., 4.) PETITION (o SAVE THE TREES!!! I am a resident and concerned citizen of the City of Hermosa Beach. I am interested in the preservation of trees in my neighborhood, particularly those trees which are threatened by the proposed development of the property located at 138-142, 144-148, 150-154, and 158-160 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, California. These trees are the home of singing birds and are a touch of green in an otherwise concrete jungle. I am also opposed to any development on the block between 1st and 2nd Streets which would provide for ingress and egress from Bayview Drive. NAME g: Signature S igjiature ,// 1A441 Signa,ture e /MA ff • GZ14:- Signatu 6 , aimg4 Signature .y) Si nature OL SEgna ( / Sign Signature' ure ADDRESS (2e;. • 171 .6 C/4 Foecy r)//04,4@a,, 3/ 41e revic.,,s,:--43,26,./- -59 / 31 tl ,)kk./-e frrA-fr• •M 4((:)D —5-74Me AS • /5z17. .5"reP)- -&t/ /4, i‘eiryylds,Q i 3 ( (Y10-0 --9,,LY-r‘) • 90d.5. LQ 0 3 av r . di Gil 9 6 -5c-,-L 6 Ietric /y ,i e 7 buta liSa_ I AN/IA=7C-) (7o -1,4-) A V r 1 I IQ 1/1,1(,„, CAD rk 71-Atir5 (Iv\ \;C Yilovv\te-tili PETITION SAVE THE TREES!!! I am a resident and concerned citizen of the City of Hermosa '= Beach. I am interested in the preservation of trees in my neighborhood, particularly those trees which are threatened by the proposed development of the property located at 138-142, 144-148, 150-154, and 158-160 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, California. These trees are the home of singing birds and are a touch of green in an otherwise concrete jungle. I am also opposed to any development on the block between 1st and 2nd Streets which would provide for ingress and egress from Bayview Drive. NAME AAA Ic .e/(ci Signature Sign tdre Signature Sigr}ature Sign S 1 g t/ uure!1 v S,rg atur Signature Signature Signature ADDRESS /a/cayp/iimica.& 57iye/v 1 11(,9 G r% 2( 67 t 2 f'r d ck rZ t %iO?D-5 (,l_7 l /O13 /16/.w5W 1A - 16 mi1 o* AJ c,4-% . '102. tb2, fQ\ 5.-)77 f' l 1+ `=r) c , i Lam- `CL NAME AfAf\f/M'sr-171-A) -I) G., LS/5 /iGiif-� c 6I (fry ec ti - /j f 4 ; - / Com..: q0 -1s -t A toD W3 /9vn etke/ A I) C. (_?e, A act( ('P» C:cCA cA- gC22 al-A4-e_g" j1 - ii nature LE)- k_^:f D S icdna1ture 0-44477-,/17 i Sign re/;' / S71-~FY'(f )---k-ttAosrt igc ofIL 1-4-07L a c it. () c I -1 c �`j C G.)- / C tit( “"fV /t'/rpto' - 2? 04 .. Sign Signature i CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of perjury that I did on the .Z6/i,. day of jec.Cr'WEIz , 1990 , deposit into the United States Post Office, first class postage prepaid, a copy of the Public Notice attached as Exhibit "A" to each and. every person attached as Exhibit "B". I warrant that the persons named on Exhibit."B" are all the persons required by applicable` law to receive the Public Notice attached as Exhibit "A". I understand and agree that it is my responsibility to cause these Public Notices to be made in an aaccurate and timely fashion and agree to hold the City harmless against any liability whatsoever for any defect of said notice or notices. In the event an action is instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction which questions the legality of the Public Notices, then the City may in its exclusive discretion suspend all hearings or cause the cessation of any consturction or of any use which was permitted as a result of a hearing which was held on accordance with the Public Notice. in the event that the court declares the notice or noticing procedure to be effective, then the City may in its exclusive discretion revoke any permits-- granted and cause any approvals given pursuant to those Public Notices to be declared null and void and I agree on behalf of myself and my heirs, assigns or successors -in -interest to hold the City harmless in connection therewith. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. I have executed this declaration on this the .?td day of cJaa��, , 199 ( at Hermosa Beach, California. Yu -- Ynrc- 7 'C (Name ) (Si atdree-) (Capacity) State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) .SS On this the ....31"4 -day of, 199/ , before me,. -.77.44/Ave e. o0-15ei-7e//n . , the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared / _ V, Tnand proved to me on the. basis of satisfactory evience` to be the person(s)• whose name(s) J5 suscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that,, executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. yEpi. of Ty^ OFFICIAL SEAL (SEAL).ELAINE C. DOERFLING .._ . NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY IFORA i . My Commission Expires Oct. 11, 1994 NOTARY PUBLIC - -r /-�- 9s December 31, 1990 Honorable .Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council January 8, 1991 SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT/ APPELLANT: REQUEST: APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CON 90-15 PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 90-8 619 10TH STREET • SOUTH BAY PARTNERS C/0 JEFF GREENE 2306 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 APPEAL OF CONDITION NO. 2 REQUIRING AN AVERAGE FRONT YARD SETBACK 10 FEET RATHER THAN THE PROPOSED VARIATION OF 5.5 TO 7 FEET. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council sustain the Planning Commission conditions of approval for the subject two -unit condominium by adoption of the attached resolution. Background At their meeting of November 20, 1990 the Planning Commission approved the requested two -unit condominium subject to several standard conditions and included condition No. 2 which reads as follows: "An average front yard setback of ten (10) feet shall be provided, allowing protrusions to a minimum of seven (7) feet from the front property line." For further background please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report. Analysis The front yard setback proposed by theapplicant is variable, ranging from 5.5 feet to 7 feet, which conforms with the minimum code required setback of 5 feet. A balcony encroaches to within 4 feet, which alsofalls within the requirements for balcony encroachments into the front yard. The average front yard setback along the portion of 10th Street between. Ardmore Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway is about 13 feet. This particular street has recently been the subject of three other condominium projects for which the front yard setback has been an issue with the Planning Commission. Most recently, the project across the street 612 10th Street was allowed a protrusion to no closer than 8 feet, while 620 10th Street was required to provide 10 feet. The adjacent project at 625 10th Street was allowed a, setback of 7 feet (with a protrusion to 5.5 feet) back in July of 1988. For about the last three years the Planning Commission has been using their discretionary authority as part of the C.U.P. process to require setbacks consistent with the neighborhood. The requirement for 10 feet on this block is consistent with previous actions for this block, and consistent with actions taken for the neighborhoods located from the south city boundary to Eleventh Street between Ardmore and Pacific Coast Highway. The architect and applicant were advised early in the process to be sensitive to nearby front setbacks in the design of this project to be consistent with the character of the block, but instead chose this variable setback with the inclusion of the waterfall feature. Based on past practices and to be consistent with the neighborhood, staff believes that the appropriate setback for this block is 10 feet, perhaps with an allowance for minor protrusions. As such, staff recommended that an average setback of 10 feet be required for this project, but allowing for protrusions to a minimum of 7 feet since the project immediately to the east is at 7 feet. For further analysis please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report. Michael Schubach Planning Dire tor r Kevin North raft City Manager Attachments 1. Proposed Resolution 2. P.C. Staff Report 3. P.C. Minutes 11/20/90 4. P.C. Resolution 5. Zoning Analysis 6. Application/Appeal letter. 7. Public Notice Affidavit Robe rIt`s'ohi Associate Planner CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Using the philosophy that new develop- ment should improve and not just match existing conditions, the 10 foot setback appears to be the minimum acceptable. Regarding other items, the tree sizes should berequired to be adequate for their locations. Also, should the water- fall be installed the developer should bE made aware of possible noise, vermin, an( vandalism (soap suds) impacts. Its. advantages versus water and energy con- servation goals also must be weighed. 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22409, AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, THEREBY DENYING THE APPEAL OF CONDITION NO. 2, AT 619 TENTH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF LOT 4, BLOCK 78, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on January 8, 1991 to receive oral and written testimony regarding an appeal of condition no. 2 of the Conditional Use Permit and Precise Development Plan granted for 619 Tenth Street and made the following findings: A. The maps are consistent with applicable general and specific plans; B. The site is zoned R-2 and is suitable for the type and density of the proposed development; C. The development shall pose no threat to the public safety and welfare; D. The subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; E. The subdivision or type of improvements will' not conflict with easements,•acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; F. Design of the proposed subdivision is compatible and consistent with applicable elements of the City's General Plan; G. The Planning Commission's condition of approval No. 2 to require a ten foot average setback for the project is 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 reasonable for the subject site in consideration of average setbacks on the block, lot depths, and past practices; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve to sustain the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Conditional Use Permits, Tentative Parcel Map, and a Precise Development Plan for a 2 -unit condominium project at 619 Tenth Street to the conditions contained in Planning Commission resolutions 90-97. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1991 PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 114 cK cR arrND /dJATER/AL Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: REQUEST: Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit for a two -unit condominium, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 22409, subject to the conditions in the attached resolution. November 15, 1990 Regular Meeting of November 20, 1990 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CON 90-20 PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 90-8 619 10TH STREET SOUTH BAY PARTNERS C/0 JEFF GREENE 2306 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO UNIT DETACHED CONDOMINIUM Background Project Information: Zoning: General Plan Designation: Lot Size: Existing Use: Proposed Density: Parking Provided: Open Space Provided: R-2 Medium Density Residential 4,109 Sq. Ft. (38 X 108) single family unit 21 units/acre 5 Spaces 980 Square Feet Environmental Determination: Categorically Exempt The subject property is rectangular in shape and slopes from side to side towards the west. Analysis The proposed units contain about 3,000 square ,feet each and consist of three bedrooms, a loft, 4 bathrooms, and a roof deck. The project consists of two separate detached structures with two floors and a mezzanine level above a semi -subterranean garage. The proposed building elevations exhibit a smooth cement plaster exterior, steel railings, architectural reglets, an architectural - trellis, glass block, and a waterfall on sheet glass. The proposed waterfall would fall into a small pond in front of the building. This combination of features gives the building somewhat of a contemporary appearance. The landscape plan depicts several trees and bushes including to provide visual relief from the otherwise large and bulky structure. The design also features a rounded stairway protrusion, exterior balconies, and glass block to provide further visual relief. The proposed front yard setback is variable, ranging from 5.5 feet to 7 feet, which conforms with the minimum requirement of 5 feet. A balcony encroaches to within 4 feet, which also falls within the requirements for balcony encroachments into the front yard. The average front yard setback along this portion of 10th Street is about 13 feet. As the Commission may recall this particular street has recently been the subject of three other condominium projects for which the front yard setback has been an issue. Most recently, the project across the street 612 10th Street was allowed a protrusion to no closer than 8 feet, while 620 10th Street was required to provide 10 feet. The adjacent project at 625 10th Street was allowed a setback of 7 feet (with a protrusion to 5.5 feet) back in July of 1988. The architect was advised to be sensitive to nearby front setbacks in the design of this project to be consistentwith the character of the block, but has instead chosen this variable setback with the inclusion of the waterfall feature. Staff believes that the appropriate setback for this block is 10 feet, perhaps with an allowance for minor protrusions. As such, staff is recommending that an average setback of 10 feet be required for this project, but allowing for protrusions to a minimum of 7 feet since the project immediately to the east is at 7 feet. Parking is provided in two 2 -car garages oriented to the.center of the lot and accessed by a 9'6" wide driveway. One guest space is provided, and no on -street spaces are lost as a result of curb cuts. As noted in the zoning analysis two corrections to the plans are necessary. The balcony encroachment into the rear yard is not permitted, nor are the chimney encroachments into the required 6 foot building separation between buildings. The project complies with all other planning and zoning requirements. Lot coverage calculates to be 63%. Adequate open space is provided in the two roof decks and adequate storage space is provided. Overall, although the proposed project is larger than the typical. single. family homes in the area, it is consistent with the standards of the R-2 zone, and with the three other newer:'_ projects located nearby. / CONC f �Lr Michael Schubach Planning Director Attachments 1. Site Map 2. Proposed Resolution 3. Zoning Analysis 4. Application 5. Public Notice Affidavit Ken Robertson Associate Planner a/pcsr619 EET i C 1 Y991 p II071-' 30J 138 38 49.7 42 60 I R en Ll ! . , . , ,, ,, _ oierve SHEET 2. W 36 cx elimmeomia so -8 36 24 '/2 • 36 .36 ,79.36 ° 5 K. 42 I I 45252 ° CDI 60 3B•.:: 38.80 O 1 /4 W I I7 20 Z 3 0 Ic I LOT 4 1 ILOTR I 7 Q I ,r....., I 1 30 i ( _ I 1 38 ! .. i 38 13986''- 45 O J_ •��t,,1j VI' N.�76°341 - _ .�P56' pp``rr y�v n� 30 Lit ARDMORE 30 is •I (�L 38 1 1 N, I 107A N N I .3 1 40.26 _ is 8 r IIS. -1C7-) 9 ; i) 10 3 .._ . . 11 y O II. I I I I I LOT0 ` 1 1 Po. 1 1 BILK. 1 38 I 0 1 5. I. 1 7B 1 - ,. Q I 1 I . •i 1 C .38 t 41.32 119.32 5, 990 4, 0 v . \ So to Por n SHEET y1 2 ...so CI. 50 1 70 0 Par Fill 70 2Q • 21 45 - 2) 20 ., • SHE ET2 1 (:) 18 45 ' 50.38 , So r N .. 0 L� P 67 11 to 2.'c . _ _ _.o 4'4 .�`.�..T -�'�.. . Mr. Olguin stated that the would prefer to have the Commission vote on the project sub •: 'tted at this time. Comm. Rue ..mmented that he felt the proposal as submitted is a good projec , • owever, he also felt that the : could be other good designs as well Mr. Olguin explained t other parking and driveway config ons were considered; however, it was determined t this proposal is the best design fj rthe project. • MOTION by Comm. Aleks, seconde with the inclusion of additional wo lost, similar -sized specimen trees shall encouraged to be maintained at the discreti Comm. Rue, to rove Resolutions 90-89 through 92, Conditio o. 4B specifying that if palm trees are r place; further, that other trees shall be e Planning Director. AYES: Comms. Aleks, ).:. ks, Rue NOES: Comm. Peirc : , hmn. Ketz ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Non Chmn Ketz stat- . that the decision of the Planning Commission may be app . ed by writing to the City Co zl within ten days. C Rue requested that the Commission receive copies of the final landscape plot p CON 90-20/ PDP 90-8 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22409 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 619 TENTH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 15, 1990, and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the CUP and vesting tentative map, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the R-2 zone, with a general plan designation of medium density residential. The lot size is 4109 square feet, with an existing use as a single-family unit. The proposed density is 21 units per acre. Five parking spaces will be provided, and 980 square feet of open space will be included. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The subject property is rectangular in shape and slopes fromside to side towards the west. The proposed units contain approximately 3000 square feet each and consist of three bedrooms, a loft, four bathrooms, and a roof deck. The project consists of two separate detached structures with two floors and a mezzanine level above a semi -subterranean garage. The proposed building elevations exhibit a smooth cement plaster exterior, steel railings, architectural reglets, an architectural trellis, glass block, and a waterfall on sheet glass. The proposed waterfall would fall into a small pond in front of the building This combination of features gives the building somewhat of a contemporary appearance. The landscape plan depicts several trees and bushes to provide visual relief from the otherwise large and bulky structure. The design also features a rounded stairway protrusion, exterior balconies, and gjass block to provide further visual relief. The proposed front yard setback is variable, rang'ng from 5.5 feet to 7 feet, which conforms with the minimum requirement of 5 feet. A balcony encroaches to within 4 feet, which also falls within the requirements for balcony encroachments into the front yard. The average front yard setback along this portion of 10th Street is about 13 feet. This particular street has recently been the subject of three other condominium projects for which the front yard setback has been an issue. Most recently, the project across the street, 612 10th Street, was allowed a protrusion to no closer than 8 feet, while 620 10th Street was P.C. Minutes 11/20/90 required to provide 10 feet. The adjacent project. at 625 10th Street was allowed a setback of 7 " feet (with a protrusion to 5.5 feet) in July of 1988. The architect was advised to be sensitive to nearby front setbacks in the design of this project to be consistent with the character of the block but has instead chosen this variable setback with the inclusion of the waterfall feature. Staff felt that the appropriate setback for this block is 10 feet, perhaps with an allowance for minor protrusions. As such, staff recommended that the average setback of 10 feet be required for this project, but allowing for protrusions to a minimum of 7 feet since the project immediately to the east is at 7 feet. Parking is provided in two, two -car garages oriented to the center of the lot and accessed by a 9'6" wide driveway. One guest space is provided, and no on -street spaces are lost as a result of curb cuts. One correction to the plans is necessary. The chimney encroachments into the required six- foot building separation between buildings is not allowed; however, the balcony encroachment into the rear yard is permitted in the R-2 zone. Staff therefore recommended the deletion of Condition No. 12(a) related to that issue. The project complies with all other planning and zoning requirements. Lot coverage calculates to be 63 percent. Adequate open space is provided in the two roof decks, and adequate storage space is provided. Although the proposed project is larger than the typical single-family home in the area, it is consistent with the standards of the R-2 zone and with three other newer projects located nearby. Public Hearing opened at 8:30 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Fran Baker, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that this project meets or exceeds all of the zoning requirements, including parking; (2) said that the project exceeds the open space requirement; (3) felt that this project would be an asset to the neighborhood and is one which meets the goals of the City; (4) urged the Commission to approve the project as submitted. Larry Peha, 67 14th Street, Hermosa Beach, project architect, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the main issue appears to be that of the front yard setback; (2) said that in this area of the City, the code allows a five-foot setback; (3) noted that the Planning Department seems to have no clear-cut answer as to what the setback requirement is; (4). gave examples of setbacks for neighboring projects which have recently been approved; (5) stated that there has been no definite standard related to front yard setbacks in the City. Mr. Peha continued and: (1) said he was informed by staff that the setback is left to the discretion of the Commission; (2) stated that the point of the project which has a five and a half foot front setback is the location of the pools for the waterfalls; (3) said that the setbacks for this project were based on those of the neighbors, which are five and a half feet and seven feet; (4) said that the setbacks are therefore in conformance; (5) noted that the property is under the allowable lot coverage. Mr. Schubach explained that staff takes into consideration the various setbacks on a street before making its recommendation. He noted that blocks have varying setbacks, and older homes are generally set back much further than newer developments. Staff therefore averages the setbacks so that projects conform to the existing neighborhood. P.C. Minutes 11 /20/90 Mr. Peha continued by stating various setback measurements of other surrounding properties. He went on, at the request of Comm. Rue, to describe the project setbacks as depicted on the color rendering. He also described the curved waterfall enclosure. Mr. Peha explained that the waterfall cascades into an inside pool at the stairwell landing, at which point it then goes to the exterior. Jeff Green, 922 10th Street Manhattan Beach, project developer, addressed the Commission and: (1) explained that existing neighborhoods are taken into account when he ' designs projects; (2) discussed the setbacks, stating that other developers he has talked to assert that the City has no clear-cut requirement for the front yard setback; (3) discussed the five-foot requirement, stating that additional square footage can be utilized in the structure because of the smaller setback; (4) said that a larger setback would not be feasible because an additional bedroom could not be built; (5) said that this is a high-quality project; (6) commented that he would like approval of the project as submitted. Mr. Green continued and: (1) stated that there is an unusual situation at this property, in that from the property line to the sidewalk there is an extra two feet which is an encroachment area and is basically dead space; (2) stated that he could find no reference in the code related to whether or not chimneys can protrude into the required building separation; (3) stated that the chimneys could be staggered to give more space between them; (4) said that staggering would create a more open area. Mr. Schubach stated that the matter of the chimneys is a zoning code issue which is not within the purview of the Planning Commission. Public Hearing closed at 8:47 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. Peirce stated that this is a very attractive project with unique features. He noted that over the past several years, the City has been making an attempt to have new projects blend in with the older units, especially in the older neighborhoods which are in transition. He felt that the five-foot setback requirement was not well thought-out when it was implemented a number of years ago. He felt that the averaging method has been working out well in the City; however, he noted concern over the front setback of this project, stating that he could not support a five- foot front setback. He felt that a setback between eight to ten feet would be appropriate, considering that the neighboring property has a setback of seven feet. Comm. Aleks noted that the applicant was aware of the setback requirement; therefore, he favored staffs recommendation of a ten -foot front setback. Comm. Rue discussed the reason why the City began the averaging method' for setbacks. He discussed the project and stated that it is very attractive with some unique features. He could not support a five-foot front setback, stating that he would prefer to see it be a little larger. Churn. Ketz stated that this is a beautiful project; however, it is important to adhere to the front setback requirements. She felt that the larger setback also helps reduce the building bulk. Mr. Green approached the Commission and stated that the homes with the larger front setbacks are very small and very old, and will be torn down soon and replaced with newer projects. He therefore felt that it is not appropriate to say the average setback is 13 feet, especially when almost all of the newer projects have five feet. He stated that if a larger front setback is required, he will have to redesign the entire project. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-97, including the deletion of Condition No. 12(a). Comm Peirce asked whether the Commission will see these plans again if they are redesigned for the ten -foot front setback. —If — P.C. Minutes 11/20/90 Mr. Schubach explained that minor revisions are approved at the discretion of the Planning Director. Substantial changes, however, are sent back to the Commission for their review and approval. AYES: Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz NOES: Comm. Rue ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Comm. Rue explained that he voted against the motion based on the fact that he feels Condition No. 2 requiring a ten -foot front yard setback is excessive; he favored a compromise of seven feet, noting that the building next door is at five and a half feet. He also noted that a mitigation measure is the two -foot encroachment between the property line and the sidewalk. He felt that the larger setback would have a detrimental effect on both the front facade and on the square footage of the unit. Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. Recess taken from 9:00 P.M. until 9:08 P.M. C ` ' 1-12 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOLIC BEVE • : ES AT EXISTING ESTABLISHMENT ALREADY LICENSED BY ALCOHOLIC BE " • • GE CONTR • - AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATIO T 2510 PACIFIC C • T HIGHWAY. LUCKY STORE Mr. Schubach ga . • staff report dated November 15, 1990, and recommen requested cpnditio use permit, subject to the conditions specif resolution. This project is located in th C-3 zone, with a general plan des' The lot size is approximately •,000 square feet, and the b The current use is as a grocery st.• e with off -sale liquor. The The Lucky Market is located on the outheast corn Boulevard. It shares the east lot with - . jacent s parking space. The combined lot is appro to operated combination market and off -sale liq approval of the in the proposed tion of general commercial. size is 32,656 square feet. are 166 parking spaces. of Pacific Coast Highway at Artesia businesses that also have additional 00,000 square feet. The store is a 24-hour store. The Lucky Store is one of the remaining : ting b inesses selling alcoholic beverages which has not obtained a CUP subject to the cohol amo : . 'on ordinance At their meeting of October 18, 1* 0, the staff environmen' . review committee recommended an environmental negative d ation and recommended •• at the Planning Commission require the applicant/owner o maintain parking lot landscap The requested CUP wo .: authorize the continued off -sale alcohol fro e premises. Staff's concerns . e minor in nature. On the east parking lot, repairs o ously had been completed pre '.usly; however, minor blemishes and medium-sized cracks t`1 exist in the middle driv- ays of the east parking lot. It also appears that when those repairs were complete. +. ' summer, no slurring occurred at that time. It is ca. erwise obvious that Lucky Stores has accepted the spirit of cooperation regardin the scaping. Automatic watering has been provided at all islands, and plants and bushes have ecently been rejuvenated. P.C. Minutes 11/20/90 5 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 90-97 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22409 FOR A 2 -.UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 619 TENTH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF LOT 4, BLOCK 78, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 20, 1990, to receive oral and written testimony regarding a Conditional Use Permit at 619 Tenth Street and made the following findings: A. The map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; B. The site is zoned R-2 and is suitable for the type -and density of the proposed development; C. The development shall pose no threat to the public safety and welfare; D. The subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to. cause serious public health problems; E. The subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; F. Design of the proposed subdivision is compatible and consistent with applicable elements of the City's General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #22409 for a 2 -unit condominium project at 619 Tenth Street subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with submitted plans. Any minor modification shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. . /3 - 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. An average front yard setback of ten (10) feet shall be provided, allowing protrusion to a minimum of seven (7) feet fo the front property line. 3. The project shall meet all._ requirements of the Condominium Ordinance.' a. Covenants, Conditions, and restrictions in compliance with the Condominium Ordinance shall be submitted to the Planning Directorfor review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. b. Proof of recordation of approved CC&R's shall be submitted to the Planning Directorwithin six (6) months after City approval of the Final Map. c. Requirements of Section 7.2-6(g) shall be shown on structural plans and reviewed at the time of Building Department Plan Check. 4. There shall be compliance with all requirements of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 5. Three (3) copies of a landscaping plan indicating size, type, and quantity of plant materials shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. a. An automatic landscape sprinkler system shall be provided, and shall be shown on plans. 6. Architectural treatment shall be as shown on building elevations and any modification shall require approval by the Planning Director. a. Precise height shall be reviewed at the time of Building Plan Check, and plans shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Building Director. 7. Any satellite dish and/or similar equipment shall comply with the requirements of Section 1227 of the Zoning Ordinance. 8. Conduit shall be installed in each unit for cable television. 9. Automatic garage doors shall be provided 10. The address of each condominium unit shall be conspicuously displayed on the front street side of the building with externally or internally lit numbers and the method for illumination shall be shown on the plans. 11. The Final Map shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits unless the Directors of the Planning Department and the Building Department give prior approval. 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 • 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12. Two (2) copies of revised plans including site, elevation, and floor plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of any. Building Permit. a. Chimneys shall not encroach into the required 6 -foot separation between the two buildings. 13. An "Acceptance of Conditions" form shall be executed and submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of the Building Permits. 1.4. The Conditional Use Permit shall be null and void one and one-half years from the date of approval unless Building Permits have been obtained and approval of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map shall become null and void twenty-four months from the date of approval unless the final map is finaled. The applicant may apply in writing for an extension of time to the Planning Commission prior 'to the date of expiration. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Aleks,Marks,Peirce,Chmn.Ketz NOES: Comm.Rue ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 90-97 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their. regular meeting of November 20, 1990. 1//,:1<:-/ Christine Ketz,Chairman Michael Schubach, Secretary 12ec- 9/ 1590 Date a/pers619 Project Address: Legal Description: Type of Project: COPJDO No. Units: 2. Property Owner: 5004'tk Leal ? RESIDENTIAL ZONING ANALYSIS ,1c1 I o4'' Applicant(s): Designer: ?4-P Date of Plans: Zoning: 12=-2- General 2=2- Analysis Prepared by: -2. ******** x k*** k****************** General Plan Designation: 1\-ex,t M 111)00.S1-11 Maximum Dwelling Units R-1 R-2 R-3 Lot Area: 13 DU/AC 25 DU/AC 33 DU/AC 4) tks per Acre Allowed (DU/AC): 1 Dwelling Unit per 1 Unit per 1750 sq. 1 Unit per 1320 sq. Lot ft. of land ft. of land Proposed Density -Dwelling Units/Acres 02/ Maximum Allowable Lot Coverage: 65% Proposed Lot Coverage: Minimum Unit Size: a) 1 bedroom - b) 2 bedroom - c) 3 bedroom - d) 4 bedroom - 900 1100 1400 1600 (03/ sq. sq. sq. sq. ft. ft. ft. ft. Proposed Unit Size(s) : 3 WAtYY1-tots-- had_ of t'f ) Useable Open Space Required a) R-1 - 400 sq. ft., minimum dimension of 10' 75% ground - 25% balconies, open to the sky b) R-2 & R -2B - 200 sq. ft., minimum dimension of 7' c) R-3 - 200 sq. ft., minimum dimension of 7' d) R -P - 200 sq. ft., minimum dimension of 7' Condominium developments requires 100 sq. ft. of additional private open space, minimum dimension of 7'. Each condominium development of five (5) units or more requires 100 sq. ft. of common open space per unit. Open Space per Unit: Required Private: D2-00 Z)4 Ira coc) Proposed 2H -o 1/3 1, * I, I t �* t 1 1, * I * .J * * �. ..****�.x***x**n nxXi.*..x**n*7. .0 *n Maximum Allowable Height a) R-1 - 25 feet, maximum 2 stories b) R-2 & R -2B, - 30 feet, maximum 2 stories c) R-3 - 35 feet d) R -P - 35 feet, maximum 3 stories Condominium developments located along walk streets shall not exceed the maximum height of 25 feet within the front half of the lot. Proposed Building Height: L50 f4%. Note: Height shall be verified by the Building. Department during Plan Check. Building Setbacks Where garages or parking stalls front on a public street or alley, the minimum setback shall be 17 feet provided roll -up doors are installed; a minimum of 20 feet shall be required shere standard doors are installed. Setbacks continued Front: Rear: Side: Required 5-1 3.g/ Proposed S/6. // 14c1-. (le') 10 4/ r S/ Parking a) Two parking spaces per unit, minimum dimension of 8 1/2 feet wide by 20 feet deep -enclosed, 8 1/2 feet wide by 18 feet -open. Total Required: b) One guest space for each two units (round up; e.g. 3 unit site must provide 2 guest spaces) One guest space shall also be required for each on -street parking space eliminated because of new driveways or curb cuts. Total Required: /f " - Parking Proposed: a) Spaces per Unit - b) Guest Parking - Required Turning Radius - LSA -%✓ Proposed Turning Radius at to J c.- S ********************************* Required Sound Insulation Required: a) The minimum wall insulation rating between units shall be 52 STC. b) The minimum floor/ceiling rating between stacked units shall be 58 STC. Proposed Sound Insulation NVA- / (AVIA Note: Sound Insulation requirement shall be verified by the Building Department during plan check. Storage Area Required per Unit: a) 200 cubic feet of storage area per unit Storage Area Proposed per Unit - 2- cc — vu eNA Location of Trash Facilities - h AN Staff Comments: kvl. II)c tAka-P- \-2-e_cawle- ( kuMvt7 co' • 19) eutnkor W rI CU C -- �.� �� REVISED - September 1987 ffe-cikir `/442j) SF�--T6A-4. o luc-k't 5/6 /f o n J C 14 cotak° n 614(1--5) ccMclo (o I . Ion S-�- %zo t' S-}- Lv t o s +- �'U 9 Q av . 13 c{- 1 9 4j- -RA Wine" wi`ltij 5-•S 4 PROJECT ADDRESS . 1Y OF HERMOSA tACH 619 10th STREET qn1 :5 4/88 Project Name .(If applicable) VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22409 PORTION OF LOT 4, BLOCK 78 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2nd ADDITION TO HR APPLICANT INFORMATION: Name(s) SOUTH BAY PARTNERS (c/o JEFF GREENE Mailing Address Phone ZONING R-2 213/376-8130 2306 Pacific Coast Hwy. HB 90254 (Suite 307) Applciant's Relationship to Property APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE• SEE BELOW OWNER DATE October 15, 1990 PROJECT REQUEST Conditional Use Permit -Commercial XX Conditional Use Permit -Condominium Number of Units 2 Development Agreement Environmental Staff Review Final Subdivision (Parcel/Tract Map) General Plan FOR OFFICE USE ONLY- Date of submittal: Lot Line Adjustment Lot Split Parking Plan Precise Plan Specific Plan Specific Plan Amendment XX Tentative Subdivision (Parcel/Tract Map) Zone Change Zone Variance TOTAL FEES $$65.00 • Received by: DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE PM 22409. for construction. of two residential condominium units.. attach additional pages if necessary) OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT* OFFICIAL SEAL ELfZAf3ET I C. oROUR • Notary Public -California LOS ANGELES COUNTY My Comm. Exp. Nov. 2, 1990 We/I ...JEFF GREENE being duly sworn, depose and say that we/I are/am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are true and.correct to the best of our/my knowledge and belief. Subscribed and sworn before me this � G 12th day of June , 19 90 P : IC . in for the County of • State of California. * Signature required from current property -owner Owner's Address,: 2306 PCH, Suite 307. Hermosa Beacn, uA 90254 Telephone SOUTH BAY PARTNERS 2306 Pacific Coast Hwy., #307 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213) 376-8130 November 28, 1990 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH City Clerk 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 SUBJECT: 619 10th Street Parcel Map No. 22409 P.C. 90-97 i (--, NOV -') 99 1 1 i -JJ 0 Clty Clerk City of Hermosa Beach At the Planning Commission meeting of November 20th, our proposed two unit condominium project at 619 10th Street was approved. We would like to appeal one of the conditions of approval as shown on Resolution P.C. 90-97. That condition is item number 2: "An average front yard setback of ten (10) feet shall'be provided, allowing protrusion to a minimum of seven (7) feet of the front property line." We would like to have the opportunity to address the City Council regarding this condition and request that it be deleted from the conditions of approval for our project. Your truly, SOUTH BAY PARTNERS Jeff Greene attachment SOUTH BAY PROPERTIES, INC. 2308 PACIFIC COAST HWY., STE. 307 213-376-8130 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 AY 70 THE ORDER OF FOR /141144ACt /3/eA (/et/1.4et/1.4 MANHATTAN BEACH OFFICE WELLS FARGO BANK 3110 SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD, MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 902E6 10005487II' ,: L 2 2000 24 71:08 LO 045864II' 5487 11q.O16-1220(7)2201 0 19 I$3�.g�� DOLLARS CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of perjury that I did on the 27th day of December , 19 90 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 on 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 also posted the two (2) signs in two (2) clearly visible locations at the subject property. I understand and agree that it is my responsibility to cause these public notices to be made in an accurate 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 a hearing which was held in accordance 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 December. , 1990 at Hermosa Beach, California. 619 10th Street ELIZABETH SROUR 27th day of (Project Location) (Name) CUP Application for (Signature) (CUP, Tract Map, etc.) State of California County of Los Angeles SS: REPRESENTATIVE (Capacity) On this the 27th day of December , 19 90 , before me, FRANCENE BAKER the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared ELIZABETH SROUR and ( ) proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence or ((X) personally known to me to be the person(s) whose name(s) IS subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me hat SHE executed it. WITNESS my hand and official Seal. i (seal) •7— OFFICIAL SCCAL FRANCENE D. BAKER > �� NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFL)AN!r�. LOS ANGELES COUNTY ' E'Y COM. EXP. J„3.1. 16,1993 it NOTARY PUBLIC 22 — .1"V '15-11 t • • -4 Council of Fici-ri-losa Beach 1315 Valle'-; Drive Herrn o: a Eeach, CA 0,54 J r:iury Dear Cou: icllrnernhers. . , 1991 I have been notified of an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to impose Condition Number 2 concerning setback provisions at 619 Tenth Street. I own and reside in 625 Tenth Street which is the front house irnrnediately} east of the subject property. Condition Number 2 is extremely important to our view since our home, which was built in 1989 is also set back farther than the minimum distance required by the current rules. My family and I understand that we will lose most: of the view that we enjoy from. the west side of our home. This is toward the pari: and the beach. this will make the view that remains from the front of our house very important to us. Please support the Planning Commission's decision to impose Condition Number 2 at 619 Tenth Street, Thank you for the notice we received of this appeal and your careful consideration of this important issue. isv JANo 1991 4' %, CVfy ofR CM,k cs, Respectfully, Carl A. Janssen, Jr. 625 Tenth Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Home: 213-318-6833 Office: 213-486-8205 8 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION December 31, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council January 8, 1991 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY - PARKING Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Request Caltrans staff to make a "facts and figures" presentation to the City. 2. Set the matter for a public hearing on January 22, 1991 at 8:00 p.m. Background: At the October 9, 1990 City Council meeting a Caltrans letter dated August 1, 1990 (Attachment 1) was presented to the City Council indicating Caltrans' desire to remove parking on Pacific Coast Highway. (PCH) from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday. Council directed staff to send a letter to Caltrans and to include Council's concerns. Staff sent the letter on October 22, 1990 which included Council's input (Attachment 2). The City has not received a response to the specific questions in the October 22, 1990 letter or to Mr. Ruzak's September 4, 1990 memo. On December 6, 1990 the City received a November 27th letter addressed to Honorable Richard Katz, Chairman, Assembly Committee on Transportation from Mr. Jerry Baxter, District 7 Director Caltrans. The letter (Attachment'3) indicated Caltrans' intention to remove on -street parking on PCH through Hermosa Beach. On December 11, 1990 the City received a December 3, 1990 -letter (Attachment 4) from Mr. Baxter informing the City that Caltrans will take independent action to prohibit parking along the west side of PCH (3 p.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday, holidays excepted) if the City of Hermosa Beach fails to adopt the appropriate parking regulation and submit it to Caltrans for approval within the next 60 days. Analysis: Alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council are: 1. Request a delay until after a public comment period. � 1 Because of the holidays it was difficult to reach Caltrans staff. On December 31, 90 I spoke with Mr. Dave Gilstrap, Senior Transportation Engineer, Traffic Operations Branch, Caltrans. Mr. Gilstrap said it was his understanding (based on news articles) that the Council wanted the decision of parking removals to be made by Caltrans. 1 asked Mr. Gilstrap to provide answers to the following: Question: Would Caltrans send a representative to make a presentation (at a City Council meeting) of the facts and figures? Response: Yes, they are willing to make the presentation prior to enacting a parking prohibition. Question: What authority (State Code Section) does Caltrans have to implement this matter? Response: Mr. Gilstrap will have his staff get this answer. Question: What other alternatives were examined? Response: Mr. Gilstrap will get an answer. Question: Where is the response letter to the City's October 22, 90 letter? Response: Mr. Gilstrap will locate the response letter and forward it to the City. 2. Do nothing. This alternative will most likely bring about Caltrans' intended action. 3. Request review after six months implementation trial basis. This allows the City to request Caltrans to review the accident history, etc. after six months. 4. Propose another alternative - HOV (High Occupancy vehicle) lane. This alternative was proposed in the Circulation Transportation and Parking Element review that occurred on January 23, 1990. At the January 23, 1990 and subsequently at the March 27, 1990 meeting, Council considered the elimination of the parking lane and to add a southbound lane along PCH during peak hour traffic. The Planning Commission recommended approval. There was no staff consensus. The City Manager and Public Works Director desired to convert the lane to an emergency and high occupancy vehicle only lane. Summary: The best alternative considered is. to request a delay until after a public hearing especially in light of information uncovered by Mr. James Lissner (Attachments 5, 6 and 7). Respectfully submitted: Anthony Antich Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft Director of Pub is Works City Manager Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Attachment 4: Attachment 5: Attachment 6: Attachment 7: Attachment 8: City Council October 22, November 27, December 3, October 10, December 12, December 20, December. 24, Attachment 9: January. 2, 1990 Letter from Staff cc: Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce James Lissner Jerry Baxter, Caltrans District 7 Director Dave Gilstrap, Caltrans Senior Transportation Engineer Item - Response to Caltrans Letter 1990 Letter from Staff 1990 Letter from Caltrans 1990 Letter from Caltrans 1990 Letter from James Lissner 1990 Letter from James Lissner 1990 Letter from James Lissner 1990.Le.tt.er from Music Plus BC11 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council October 9, 1990 RESPONSE TO CALTRANS LETTER October 2, 1990. Regular Meeting of Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council receive and file this report. Background: On August 9, 1990, the City received a letter (attached) from Caltrans indicating their desire to remove parking on PCH from 3 P.M. to 7 P.M., Monday through Friday. The letter (and backup material) is available for review in the City Clerk's office. Analysis• Mr. Ed Ruzak, City Traffic Engineer, has reviewed the letter and prepared a response. A copy of his response will be forwarded to. Caltrans after the October 9th Council meeting. Respectfully submitted, 1 Antr%6ny Antich Public Works D'rector pworks/srcaltr Attachment 1 Concur: -Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager lk 4' 4 • Citi of armosaTeaclt.,.) Civic Center, 1315 valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254.3885 October 22, 1990 Department of Transportation District 7, 120 South Spring Street' Los Angeles, CA 90012 Attention: R.D. Gilstrap, Senior Transportation Engineer Traffic Operation Branch Subject: Peak hour parking restrictions Dear Sir: Thank you for your August 1, 1990 letter. The City Traffic Engineer does not concur with the conclusions reached and has prepared the attached response. on October 9, 1990, the City Council considered the matter and directed that I include their concerns. 1. The Council felt it unusual that a single complaint would generate such a time consuming response and asks why? ' 2. The Council thought it peculiar that this concern comes right on the heels of its recently completed Traffic Circulation Elernerit update. Atter taking extensive public testimony on the matter of parking removals, the City Council voted not to pursue the matter. 3. The Council requested that Caltrans make available -all data supporting this conclusion that parking removals is the best choice.of the several alternatives considered. 4. The Council requested information on the results of limiting parking on the east side of Pacific Coast Highway. 5. provide all the accident data evaluated by Caltrans staff evidencing the hours of the day when the accident occurred and potential causes. I look forward to your written response and hope we can reach Attachment 2 tiarbrok., .2._ Department of Transportation Page 2 concurrence. If your have any questions please call Ed Ruzak directly at (714)964-4880 or me at (213)318-0214. Si e1y tAyAn ny Antich Director of Public Works cc: Kevin B. Northcraft, City Managar Edward Ruzak, City Traffic Engineer ty/meh Oarkeet X 2a CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM TOt Tony Antich, Director of Public Works FROMZ Ed Ruzak, City Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Caltrans Proposed Prohibition of Curb Parking on Pacific Coast Hwy. Southbound, Herondo to 10th Street DATE* September 4, 1990 Reference is made to an August 1, 1990 report from Mr. Jack Gilstrap of Caltrans relative to a recommendation for curb parking removal on Pacific Coast Highway. The Caltrans study was prompted due to a request by Mr. Steve Case, a resident of Lomita, and frequent Pacific Coast Highway commuter. I have reviewed the report and have the following comments and suggestions: - I disagree that the current accident rate along the Pacific Coast Highway section in Hermosa Beach is well in excess of what is expected for "similar" facilities. I believe it is necessary for Caltrans to explain their rationale for "similar" facilities and the way that they determine what is a similar facility. This is important to compare "apples" to "apples". From what I know of Caltrans expected accident rates, they do have a valid basis for comparison. However, it is necessary to document this. - There is a serious question as to -whether the peak period allowances will "reduce accidents". The report states that the predominant accident -types are -rear -end and sideswipes. It states that 25% of these types will be reduced with the peak period prohibitions. There needs to be much more documentation to convince me or others that this percentage is realistic. First, the peak period parking prohibitions will allow the curb lane to be transformed into a through lane. The width of this lane will not be 12', (the standard width). Throughout the section to be changed the lane will vary from 11.5' to 10.8'. As such, traffic will have to travel in the gutter to some degree. The propensity for loss of control or being sideswiped by an adjacent through vehicle will still exist. The cross street traffic that enters PCH will have good sight distance without the curb parking, but will enter directly into the through curb lane. If a driver places the front of his car in the through lane so it interferes with through curb lane traffic there is a greater possibility of a rear -end or sideswipe accident; i.e., the through vehicle stops suddenly or changes lanes into the adjacent through traffic. - 1 - 1 ,i-rrn,. These geometric and operational conditions in the curb lane would lead to problems that could -clearly offset the alleged 25% reduction of accidents due to the parking prohibitions. Parking prohibitions during the a.m. peak period were implemented on the east side of PCH for the entire length of Hermosa Beach several years ago. The merchants along this section are not open during the a.m. peak hours. Thus, they were not in opposition to the parking prohibitions. Nonetheless, Caltrans should have a sufficient accident base for the before and after time period in this section to show the benefit of prohibition in terms of accident reduction. These data should be cited in their report. Without further definition of these critical elements I cannot support the statement made in their letter request. er STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, 120 50. SPRING ST. LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 TDD (213) 620-3550 (213) 620-3874 November 27, 1990 Honorable Richard Katz Chairman Assembly Committee on Transportation State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 RECEIVED • ..:PEC.0 6 1990 GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor Dear Mr. Katz: This is in response to your October 26, 1990 letter requesting advisement on Caltrans' intentions regarding removal of on -street parking on Route 1 in Hermosa Beach. We appreciate and share your concerns for the improvement of traffic flow and safety on Route 1 in. Hermosa Beach. We also agree that removal of on -street parking would improve safety and operation on this segment of Route.1, and on the adjoining segment. of Route 1 in the City of Manhattan Beach to the north. "Caltrans -staff has been working patiently towards .obtaining concurrence from the City of Hermosa Beach for weekday p.m. peak period parking restrictions on the west side of Route 1 in that City. However, there appears to be great reluctance on the part of the City Council of Hermosa Beach to commit to the requested action. Fear of adverse economic effects to merchants whose businesses are located on the west side of Route 1 seems to be their chief concern. The City Council has also chosen to ignore Caltrans' studies and the recommendations of both its own consultants and planning department staff. This took place, most recently, during the latest revision to the traffic circulation element of the City's .Master Plan when the Hermosa Beach City Council again refused to provide the needed parking regulation on Route 1 early this year. Therefore, if immediate concurrence cannot be elicited from the City Council of Hermosa Beach to provide the enabling parking regulation ordinance, it will be necessary for the Department to independently institute and implement an order for the needed parking regulation on Route 1. Said order would be instituted February 1,-1991. Attachment 3 Honorable Richard 'Katz -2- November 27, 1990 It should be noted that it has been the goal of the Department to achieve its mission through a balanced, evenhanded approach in its dealings with local agencies. And, in this case, to provide a small city with ample opportunity to concur with an appropriate solution to provide both long -needed congestion relief and improved safety on a State highway within its boundaries. Sincerely, JERRY B.. BAXTER District Director • cc:KPNorthcraft, City Mgr., City of Hermosa Beach AAntich, Dir. of Public Works, City of Hermosa Beach ERuzak, City Traffic Engr., City of Hermosa Beach Kathleen Meyers, El. Segundo Employers' Assoc. Bruce Lyttle, L.A.. County Transportation Commission • •w STATE O CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY Cery GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, 120 SO. SPRING ST. LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 TDD (213) 620-3550 (213) 620-3874 December 3, 1990 RECEIVED DEC 1 1 1990 PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. Mr. Anthony Antich Director of Public Works City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885 Dear Mr. Antich: 7 -LA -1 20.62/22.161 Route 1 in Hermosa Beach YOUR OCTOBER 22, 1990 LETTER REGARDING PEAK HOUR PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY IN HERMOSA BEACH Weekday p.m. peak period parking restriction on the west side of Route 1 in Hermosa Beach is urgently needed to provide congestion relief and improved safety. All studies performed and information obtained by Caltrans over the past nine years indicate this need. This has all been forwarded to the City of Hermosa Beach. Nevertheless, our requests for the enabling ordinance have been turned down by the City Council, repeatedly. The congested conditions on southbound Route 1 during the weekday p.m. peak period through the southern third of Manhattan Beach and the whole of Hermosa Beach is a problem with significance to the regional State transportation network. Also, the congestion. related accidents occurring at this same time on the southbound segment contribute markedly to the excessively high accident rate on Route 1 in Hermosa Beach. This condition can be alleviated by weekday p.m. peak period parking restriction on southbound Route 1 in Hermosa Beach. Therefore, Caltrans will act to provide a no stopping zone, 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, holidays excepted., along the west side of Route 1 between the north and south city. limits of Hermosa Beach. This action will take the form of an order to regulate parking as above described, and Caltrans posting the appropriate signs. Caltrans will take this independent action if the City of Hermosa Beach City Council fails to adopt the appropriate parking regulation ordinance and submit it to Caltrans for approval within the next 60 days. Attachment 4 Mr. Anthony Antich Page 2 December 3, 1990 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the area Senior Traffic Engineer, Mr. Dave Gilstrap, at (213) 620- 3304. Sincerely, J. B. BAXTER District 7 Director cc: Ms. Kathleen Meyers El Segundo Employees Association P. 0. Box 547 El Segundo, CA 90245 Mr. Bryce Little Los Angeles County Transportation Commission 818 West Seventh Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Assemblyman Richard Katz Chairman, Assembly Committee on Transportation State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 James Lissner 2715 El Oeste Hermosa Beach, California 90254 (213) 376-4626 October 10, 1990 Mr. R.D. Gilstrap Caltrans Traffic Operations Branch 120 South Spring Street Los Angeles, California 90012 Dear Mr. Gilstrap: KECEIVEb OCT 17 1990 I reside near Artesia/PCH and read with interest your August 1 letterto the Hermosa city manager. You argue that the parking on PCH should be removed because there is (you claim) a higher than usual accident rate in Hermosa, this accident rate is due to congestion, and the congestion can be eliminated by the creation of a third traffic lane. I have a few questions. First, it looks like the "actual" accident rates you 've%used are 24 hour figures and could include many accidents that occurred during periods when traffic was flowing freely. The computer record for each accident includes a time of day. If you wish to make a case for a congestion -related higher -than -usual accident rate you should try to look at the statistics for just the congested parts of the day - or compare the rate for the congested parts of the day to the rate for the uncongested parts of the day. Next, your letter, doesn't discuss signal synchronization. Presently, you have a "north" synchronized system covering Rosecrans to Artesia, and a "south" system which covers -Pier Avenue to Irena. They operate independently. During the PM rush the north system dumps cars onto PCH south of Artesia without regard for whether the signals of the south system are red or green. The result is a long queue from Boundary Place south to Pier Avenue waiting for entry into the south system. Last year you laid cable across the North Hermosa Gap with the potential to link the two systems, but the cable hasn't been connected because, according to your engineers, the types of signals and the typical traffic flow is so different in the two areas that they can't easily be linked. I believe that the two systems can be linked, and that the North Hermosa Gap should be closed before you again ask Attachment 5 Hermosa to reconsider its stance on parking. No amount of • roadway widening can ever reduce congestion (and the related accidents) if the signals aren't synchronized! You waited 16 months to reply to Mr. Case's letter. Did you reply now because we've recently resumed asking for the very badly needed two left turns from Artesia onto PCH (see enclosed Traffic Investigation form where your engineer cites heavy left turn demand) and you are trying to reinforce your earlier technical studies which provided only weak support to your policy of making installation of two left turns hostage to Hermosa's removal of parking on PCH? (See attached 1985 Caltrans letter, page 1, which claims a less than 1% change in the v/c ratio should two lefts be installed.) Mr. Case's letter also leads to another question. Are -complaints about PCH in Hermosa -as rare as the age of his letter suggests? If you require any additional information, please call me. Sincerely, Attachments: 1. Steve Case to Caltrans, March 2, 1989 2. Caltrans to Hermosa, August 1, 1990 3. Caltrans to Hermosa, May 28, 1985, page 1 of 4 and attachment 1 of 5: Traffic Investigation form cc: /1. Ms. Kathleen Meyers, El Segundo Employers Assn. 2. City Manager, Mayor and City Council, Hermosa Beach 3. Mayor and City Council, Manhattan Beach 4. Mr. Steve Case, Lomita 5. Easy Reader, Hermosa Beach 6. Beach Reporter, Manhattan Beach 7. Hermosa/Redondo News, Redondo Beach 8. Daily. Breeze, Torrance 9. Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce '•• • ,arch 2, 1989 . Steve Case 2314 Cypress Circle Lomita, CA 90717 Mr. Karl Berger .Associate Transportation Engineer CALTRANS 120 S. Spring Street Location 2-1A Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Mr. Berger: I am writing to you to convey my frustation with the traffice flow on Pacific Coast Highway (SR 1) in the city of. Hermosa Beach and offer a solution to fix the problem. I commute from the city of Lomita to the city of E1 Segundo each Monday through Friday. 1 always know when I enter the city of Hermosa Beach because the traffic just stops! The problem is getting so bad that traffic is backing up into the city of Redondo Beach going north in the morning and into the city of Manhatten Beach, southbound in the afternoon. The traffic congestion can be re- lieved simply by removing the bottlenecks that are disrupting the traf- fic flow. The problem with the northbound flow in the morning is due to a bottle- neck that exists between Ninth Street and Aviation Blvd. SR l has three northbound lanes from the city limit at the intersection of Herondo/ Anita until Ninth Street. There is a no stopping restriction in the morning to make the curb lane into the third traffic lane. At Ninth Street, the curb lane becomes a mandatory right turn lane with the aid of a paintedisland to separate traffic. This act of engineering caus- es some problems. Northbound traffic in the third lane must divert to the second lane to continue north creating a bottleneck. Many drivers are either forced to divert or allow themselves to get stuck in that lane causing them to cross the solid line to enter the second lane. This now creates a safety hazard as drivers are forced to merge and most of the time, unsafe and illegal lane changes are occurring. Yesterday, a three car collision occurred here and I can only presume that somebody was trying to get out of the mandatory right turn lane. Because of the mandatory right larie designation, .the curb lane is now under utilized and forces the first and second lanes which are already at capacity to take up the additional vehicles that are forced to merge. The whole situation does not make any sense to. me because there are a total of three usage lanes available to through traffic except for a distance of 100 feet! The solution to this problem is to remove the painted island and change the curb lane to a combination straight and right turn lane. This will relieve the bottleneck, increase safety and provide maximum utilization for that lane. The total expense for this fix should be minimal because all that would be required is to remove the right turn only sign and sandblast the island and lane striping so that it will be broken in- - stead of solid. oca A southbound traffic going home presents another bottlenecking - .I. Recently in the area between Pier Avenue and Aviation Blvd., the street was restriped to provide three southbound lanes. This was very •. good. However, it was also shortsided as well. When that third traf- fic lane (curb lane) reaches 10th Street, a bottleneck occurs because of street parking. To remedy this situation, i suggest a parking re- striction that would read "No stopping from 4:30 PM to 6:30ail. This restriction should be implemented between 10th Street an hway to Herondo Street to allow three lanes of traffic through the.- rea just as it is northbound in the morning hours. These two changes will greatly increase the throughput and vehicle hand- ling capacity on this heavily commuted route at very little expense. I hope to hear from you soon regarding these recommendations. Sincerely, Steve Case Attachments: Map of affected area Map of SR 1 and Aviation Blvd. intersection � .;_. • - • �... `v/�• i•1%41>s Jim Lissner 2715 El Oeste Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213) 376-4626 December 12, 1990 Mayor and City Council City of Hermosa Beach Honorable Councilmembers: I think we should fight Caltrans'. order to remove parking from PCH. On what grounds? 1. They have not exhausted other, more easily obtained, remedies. For example, they have not activated signal synchronization even though the cable has been .in place for over a year. 2. Their research, which purportedly supports the third lane idea., is incomplete and full of holes. If you have a hard time getting in the mood to question their expertise, look at the terrible "straightening" job they did on PCH at Pier. For more about both of the above, see the letter I wrote to Caltrans on October 10, which was copied to you at that time. 3. They need an EIR. Please, don't give up without a fight. Sincerely, Attachment 6 James Lissner 2715 El Oeste Hermosa Beach, California (213) 376-4626 December 20, 1990 RECEIVED 43CC 2 6 1990 !!JRL'O WORKS DEPT.: 90254 Honorable Richard Katz Chairman, Assembly Committee on Transportation State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Assemblyman Katz: I am writingbecause of Caltrans' recent ultimatum to Hermosa Beach to remove parking, approximately 150 spaces, on Route 1, or Pacific Coast Highway. I would like to bring to your attention two facts Caltrans has not mentioned. 1. Caltrans has not synchronized the signals on PCH in Hermosa. Presently.,, there is a "north" synchronized system. covering Rosecrans in Manhattan south to Artesia in Hermosa, and a "south" system which covers Pier Avenue in Hermosa south'to-Irena in Redondo. These systems operate independently. During the PM rush the north system dumps southbound cars onto PCH south of Artesia without regard for whether the.signals of the south system are red or green. The result is a long gueue stretching from the. Manhattan/Hermosa boundary south to Pier, waiting for entry into the south system. Over a -year ago Caltrans laid cable across the gap between the two systems, giving the ability to make the two systems operate in unison. This cable hasn't been connected because, according to the signal engineer at Caltrans, it will be somewhat difficult to find a signal timing. appropriate for both systems. I believe that the two systems can easily be linked and the queue eliminated. I suspect that the real reason Caltrans is waiting is to keep the commuters hopping mad so that public pressure to remove the parking here in Hermosa will be sustained. I can also imagine that Caltrans would like to hook-up the link on the same day the parking is removed, so that commuters will attribute the improvement to the removal of the parking. I inquired about the lack of synchronization in a letter I wrote to Caltrans on October 10. They chose not to reply. Attachment 7 2., Manhattan's accident rate is as high, or higher, than Hermosa's. And Manhattan already has the restricted parking that Caltrans wants to force on Hermosa as the purported cure for our.high accident rate. Caltrans knew that Manhattan's rate was as high as Hermosa's - Caltrans is the author of the accident rate chart ("Table I") I've attached. I believe that in Caltrans' August 1 letter the use of a statewide average for comparision was inappropriate, misleading, and was not an oversight. Based on the more appropriate Table I data, the most supportable conclusion is that we will see an increase in the number and seriousness of accidents in Hermosa if speeds are inceased by the opening of a third lane. The very low rate of accidents north of Manhattan Beach Boulevard (where most turning movements are protected by green arrows), and a tabulation (attached), of current accident statistics for Hermosa, suggest that the largest possible reduction in rush-hour accidents will be obtained by modifications at just a few locations where drivers have the incentive and opportunity to make unprotected (by a signal) turns into and across PCH traffic. For example, improper left turns resulting in 'broadsides' (a non congestion -related accident) at the intersection. of 9th and PCH accounted for 35% of all peak -period accidents on PCH in Hermosa during the first 9 months of 1990, while p.m. peak -period congestion -related accidents (rear -enders, sideswipes) exceeding the a.m. rate accounted for only 7%. I suggested a comparison of Hermosa's accident rates to those for Manhattan in a letter I wrote to Caltrans on October 22." Again, they chose not to reply. Conclusions If reliance is made on simplistic solutions and a third lane is added to an otherwise unmodified PCH, Hermosa's accident rate will go up, not down as Caltrans argues. To reduce accidents and improve traffic flow through Hermosa the facts suggest the following changes. First remove, signalize or modify unprotected turning movements to reduce broadside accidents, with a result of a 35% or greater reduction of all peak period accidents. Next, synchronize the signals so that southbound commuters can cross Hermosa with no more than one stop. Then, and only then, if there has not been a dramatic reduction of congestion and accidents, a third lane should be tried. Addition of this third lane should be followed-up within 3 months with an effort to identify and modify intersections where there is a high frequency of broadside accidents between southbound third -lane speeders and northbound -drivers making left turns. I believe that had you been made aware of the above you would not have asked Caltrans to go ahead at this time with the parking restriction. I hope you will reconsider your decision. Given the very short deadline Hermosa has been given, could you please ask your staff to call me and let me know your reaction to this letter? Sincerely, Attachments: 1. Table I, Caltrans Engineering and Traffic Survey, Sepulveda Boulevard, Manhattan Beach 2. Caltrans to Hermosa, August 1, 1990 3. Tabulation, SWITRS Jan -Sept, 1990 cc:1. Mr.J.B. Baxter, Caltrans 2. El Segundo Employers Association Mayor and City Council Hermosa Beach 4. Mayor and City Council Manhattan Beach 5. Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce ‘7, fl C'c7,4,0/.y Ti�r� .,i. ��►�Lti/ t. TABLE I E 3INEERING STUDY AND TRAFFIC SURVEY SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD (CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH) , DECEMBER, 1985 ACCIDENT AVERAGE 1984 RATE POSTED RAIDED ROADWAY DAILY ACCIDENT PER SPEED CRITICAL SPEED STREET LIMITS WIDTH LANES TRAFFIC FREQUENCY M.V.M. LIMIT SPEED LIMIT Sepulveda Artesia to 74 6-D 47,000 21 5.05 35 39.0 35 Boulevard Longfellow Longfellow to 8th 74 6-D 47,000 45 5.45 35 36.6 35 8th to Manhattan 74 6-D 47,000 23 5.16 35 34.5 35 Beach Boulevard Manhattan Beach 74 6-D 58,000 35 3.16 35 38.5 35 Boulevard to Marine Marine to Rosecrans 74 6-D 58,.000 34 3.18 35 37.5 35 NUPE: ACCIDENT RATE FCR A SECTICN CV ROADWAY IS EXPRESSED IN ACCIDE[JPS PER MILLION VEHICLE MILES. STATE AVERAGES FOR A 2 -LANE URBAN FACILITY IS 2.85 ACC/MVM STATEWIDE AVERAGES FOR A 4 -LANE URBAN FACILITY (UNDIVIDED) IS 4.39 ACC/MVM STATEWIDE AVERAGES FCR A 4 -LANE URBAN FACILITY (DIVIDED) IS 3.29 ACC/MVM D- DIVIDED HIGHWAY f STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, 120 SO. SPRING ST. LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 TDD (213) 620-3550 (213) 620-3304 August 1, 1990 RECEIVED AUG 1 3 iso vECET""' pI!Rt !r 1Nr1RKS.DEPT. NG 91930 Mr. Kevin P. Northcraft City Manager City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mr. Northcraft: 7 -LA -1 - Var. Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Hermosa Beach We are forwarding to you the request of Mr. Steve Case for p.m. _ peak period parking restrictions along the west side of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) from 10th Street to Herondo'Street . We strongly support Mr. Case's request. However, traffic conditions indicate that this proposed prohibition should extend from Boundary Place on the north to the south city limit .just north of Herondo Street - Anita Street, and that the time period should be from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 D.m., Monday through Friday, holidays excepted. Our support for this proposal at this time is based primarily upon safety considerations. Studies produced for the Route Concept Report for Route 1 in District 7 indicate that the segment of Route 1 through Hermosa Beach has the highest accident rate of any similar segment in Los Angeles County. We have also recently completed an accident study on Route 1 in Hermosa Beach for the 5 1/4 year period of January 1, 1985 through March 31, 1990. This study is addressed to the issue of determining whether an accident reduction could be achieved by providing southbound p.m. peak period parking restrictions on Route 1 as discussed above. As a result of this, our most recent study, it has been determined that the accident rates on Route 1 in the City of Hermosa Beach are as follows: PCH. Anita/Herondo to Artesia/Gould NB & SB Actual* Expected* F F+I All F F+I All .008 2.54 5.33 .021 1.32 3.30 Mr. Kevin P. Northcraf August 1, 1990 Page 2 - Sepulveda Blvd., Gould To Boundary SB Only Actual* Expected* F+I All F F+I All .000 2.13 5.20 .023 1.27 3.30 *These rates are accidents per million vehicle miles: expected is based upon statewide average for like facilities. Please notice that the rates for all actual accidents are far above the rates for all expected accidents. It is likewise for - the fatal -plus injury accidents. This history indicates the need for safety improvement. We also examined the relationship of the frequency of occurrence -of the.two primary congestion related accident types, rear -end and sideswipe, to all accidents, to all accidents on weekdays, and to all accidents on weekdays in the directional peak periods. It has been determined that a significant potential accident reduction can be achieved by implementing the aforementioned southbound p.m. peak period weekday parking restrictions on Route 1 in Hermosa Beach. The potential accident reduction in the southbound direction on weekdays in the p.m. peak period (3:00-7:00 p.m.) would be 25% of congestion related accidents occurring in this direction during this period. It should be remembered that this is based on existing reported accidents, and that reportage of property damage only type accidentsHs quite low (about 30-40%). This represents a potential reduction of about 6 accidents per year within the 1.58 miles of southbound Route 1 in Hermosa Beach. However, because of the existing accident history, any potentially achievable accident reduction measure deserves serious consideration. In view of this, we are renewing our request for the City of Hermosa. Beach to pass the necessary ordinance to enable the implementation and enforcement of parking restrictions along the westerly side of PCH/Sepulveda Boulevard (Route 1) from the south city limit (north of'Herondo Street) to Boundary Place.` This ordinance should regulate parking by creating a "No Stopping 3 to 7 P.M. Monday thru Friday, Holidays Excepted" zone within the limits described. Mr. Kevin P. Northcraft August 1, 1990 Page 3 .If you require any additional information. please contact Mr. Karl F. Berger of my staff at (213) 620-3829. R. D. GILSTRAP Senior Transportation Engineer Traffic Operations Branch Attachments: 1. Letter of Mr. Steve Case 2. Accident Study 3. TASAS Table B Selective Accident Rate Calculation Printouts 4. TASAS Selective Accident Retrieval Summaries, Only. cc: El Segundo Employers Association Attention Ms. Kathleen Meyers 4975 Marshall Drive Culver City. CA 90230 PCH (Route 1) in Hermosa Beach Monday -Friday Directional Peak Period Accidents Annotated with Cross -Street Location of Accident Derived from SWITRS (Statewide Integrated. Traffic Records System) Report for Jan -Sept 1990, by James H. Lissner. Format per page 2 of 4 of Attachment No. 2 to Caltrans August 1 letter. Accident entry coding: First two letters indicate type of accident: Congestion -related accidents: Re = rear -ender Ss = side swipe Non congestion -related accidents: Br = broad. side Pe = pedestrian Ru = run off Ws = wrong side Cross -street (of accident) is next, followed by SWITRS page number Table is on following page. Congestion -Related (CR) NB 6-10 am SB 3-7 pm Ss24thPg20 Rel7thPg18 Re24thPg19 Re2ndPg30 •Re32ndPg20 Yearly Rate (YR) 1.3 Dist. 1.298mi YR/mi 1.0 4.4 4.5% 2.3% 5.3. 1.580mi 3.4 19.2% 19.0% 9.3% All Others NB 6-10 am Pe16thPg18 Brl9thPg19 Br19thPg19 Rul9thPg19 Br4thPg20 Br4thPg20 Br5thPg20 Br5thPg21 Br6thPg21 Br6thPg21 Br7thPg21 Br9thPg23•• Br9thPg23 Br9thPg24 Br9thPg24 Br9thPg24 Br9thPg24 Br9thPg25 Br9thPg25 Br9thPg25 WsllthPg29 21 (Non CR) SB 3-7 pm PePierPgl4 Br2lstPgl6 BrllthPgl7 BrllthPgl7 BrllthPgl8 BrllthPgl8 BrllthPgl8 Br6thPg21 Br7thPg22 Br8thPg23 Br9thPg23 •Br9thPg23 Br9thPg24 Br9thPg24 Br9thPg25 Br9thPg25 BrLongPgll 17 Add CR: 1 4 All Acc: 22 7% 2.9% Potential reduction of all M -F Peak Period accidents, both directions, with modifications at 9th Street 21 29.3 28 1.298mi 1.580mi 22.6 17.7 YR/mi of CR accidents % of the YR/mi of all Peak Period accidents DIRECTION as a M -F BY CR accidents as a % of all M -F Peak Period accidents BY DIRECTION CR accidents as a % of all M -F Peak Period accidents IN BOTH DIRECTIONS Potential reduction of all M -F Peak Period accidents, both directions, assuming that addition of a 3d lane would reduce evening CR rate to that for morning Potential reduction of ALL PCH accidents (24x7'hours), both directions, assuming that addition of a 3d lane would reduce evening CR rate to that for morning 35% °mus end P.O. BOX 58900 2551 SOUTH ALAMEDA STREET LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90058 (213) 234-3336 24 December 1990 Honorable Mayor Chuck Sheldon City Hall 1315 Hermosa Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 % 1990 RE: Music Plus Hermosa Beach Caltrans Restricting Parking on PCH Dear Mayor Sheldon, It's been a while since we've last spoken, and an article in the Daily. Breeze regarding Caltrans' elimination of parking on PCH caught my attention and prompted this letter to you. (By the way, congratulations on becoming Mayor!) Obviously, if Caltrans disallows parking on PCH, we, the other businesses, and all customers will be put at a tremendous disadvantage, not to mention the problems which the residents will experience as drivers circle the neighborhood searching for parking. I noticed (in the article) that you and Councilman Creighton both recognized the impending problem, but feared the City would have little opportunity to stop the State. We hope that the State may yet be persuaded that its proposed .action isshortsighted, but failing that there is a positive action which is within the City's power to take namely the conversion of selected residences into municipal parking areas. As you may remember, at one point Music Plus came very close to implementing additional parking, through private means, by transforming the residence next to our parking on 8th street into a parking lot, consistent with the City's General Plan.. Music Plus is not currently in a position to repeat its efforts but I remembered your support and thought it worthwhile to revisit the conversion concept. In particular I remember that after our defeat at the hearing the City Manager, Mr. Northcroft, suggested that the City's eminent domain powers could be used to correct the parking inadequacies. As PCH is Hermosa's commercial zone and center, such action by the city would seem not only appropriate, but also truly necessary. Attachment 8 24 December 1990 Honorable Mayor Chuck Sheldon City Hall Music Plus Hermosa Beach - Caltrans Restricting Parking on PCH Page2of2 Given the seemingly imminent State action, this might be a perfect opportunity for the City to study the, lots behind the retailers on PCH and create some desperately needed parking lots. The City could install meters to fund such a program, perhaps in combination with bond issues or other revenue raising techniques. With real estate prices currently at a relative low point, distressed properties or other bargains may be available to the City, which would help keep overall costs low. I remember the courage it took for you to offer the parking resolution at our hearing, and I'm sure it will again take courage to suggest a similar solution now, but I truly feel bold steps must be taken if the City is to avoid serious injury to its commercial livelihood.. I hope all is well with you, and look forward to hearing from you soon. Happy New Year! Best Regards, Mark Wesley Director of Real Estate mimiimmommo. At wv January 2, 1991 Mark Wesley Director of Real Estate Music Plus P.O. Box 58900 Los Angeles, CA 90058 Dear Mr. Wesley: Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 I am writing to acknowledge your letter to Mayor Sheldon, dated December 24, 1990. Yourletter and this response is being copied to the entire City Council. Regarding your comments on Caltrans' announced intention to ban afternoon parking on Pacific Coast Highway, this issue is agendized for the January 8, 1991 Council meeting. Your letter will be included in the agenda material on this subject. Regarding the possibility of adding to the publicly owned sites along the highway, there are currently no plans or funds to consider such a venture, though placement of a structure on the City -owned lots on the westside between 2nd and 3rd Street has been discussed with some PCH businesses. The City has recently created a separate board of Parking Place Commissioners to manage the existing vehicle parking district in the downtown area. While their jurisdiction is for this district only, it is possible that they may wish to consider recommending creation of additional districts to serve commercial areas along the highway as well. For this reason, I am copying your letter to our General Services Department, which serves as the liaison to the board, so your interest could be passed on to that body. On behalf of the Mayor and Council, thank you for your interest in improving our City. Sincerel yors, Kevin B. Nort City Manager KBN/mh cc: City. Council z~", General Services Director Cindy Wilson Public Works Director Anthony Antich Attachment 9 Petition To The Hermosa Beach City Council December 1990 We the undersigned residents request that the City establish permit parking on El Oeste, with a one-hour limit for cars not having a permit. We ask that this change be made concurrent with the upcoming posting of PM parking prohibition signs on PCH. -014 .� r 7d � OU2 1/C--et/4" ag33 Ag LEs- � y VO E! or. Q_,)> dmc-7 838 -t-EL DucrE piz.‘ 73_,b?."-? (3-g-e&ge_ 2,g4g ft_ 05-.5-7E- 2 ,R. m,,, 02.E CZ 0.., 4.1-6 We the undersigned residents. DISAGREE with the above petition and ask that at this time the City NOT consider modifying the parking on El Oeste. r +`Zt JAN 0 31991 c ti`s City Clerk City of Hermosa 8eae5 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Petition To The Hermosa Beach City Council December 1990 We the undersigned residents request that the City establish permit parking on El Oeste, with a one-hour limit for cars ,not having a permit. We ask that this change be made concurrent with the upcoming posting of PM parking prohibition signs on PCH. 044 (x� ye -D71 07(5. &eL A- (47? We the undersigned residents DISAGREE with the above petition and ask that at this time the City NOT consider modifying the parking on El Oeste. g oSO(U w 413 1.661 Y,ONVI% 'd City Council Hermosa Beach City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Deach, California 90254 Pear Councilmembers: 1,524 Valley Park Avenue Hermosa Deach, CA 90254 January 8,1991 gICtiNtb JAN081991s1 Immo, City o1 Hermosa Beate Another trash day, and once again the "scavengers" have visited our neighborhood. I don't know how it is in yours, but in our neighborhood the scavengers are getting quite picky. They went through both trashcans (even leaving the lido off), but they bypassed a cardboard box stacked with two weeks' worth of the Los Angeles Times, It was in the open, right next to the trashcans. I even saw their truck farther down the street — full of cans bottles, and other Gast off items, but I guess newspaper doesn't interest them. The only way to ensure recycling of all recvclables is through a city-wide recycling program, When will Hermosa Beach join Kedondo and Manhattan ;n curbside recycling? Please, let it be soon. Sincerely, Mark James Pavlakovich V. 1PPLEMENTAL m1FORMATION SO:SI 1661'Sl'IH 'CUNT •SdHiS NIi'll 1,10•d Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council RECOMMENDATION December 24, 1990 City Council Meeting of January 8, 1991 AWARD OF BID FOR RECYCLING It is recommended that the City Council: 1) Direct staff to negotiate an amendment to the current refuse contract with Browning-Ferris Industries to provide for curbside residential recycling, multi -family recycling and commercial/industrial recycling. The basis for the amended contract to be consistent with the proposal dated November 14, 1990. Authorize the extension of the expiration of the current refuse contract to coincide with the five year expiration of the recycling provision. 3) Direct staff to prepare an ordinance to prohibit scavenging at other than public refuse receptacles such as those utilized on the Beach and, in parks. BACKGROUND On September 25, 1990, the City Council authorized staff to distribute a Request for Proposals for curbside recycling. The RFP was distributed to approximately one hundred and fifty companies identified as being involved in recycling in California. Five proposals were received. The proposals were received from Browning-Ferris Industries, Western Waste Industries, Bestway Recycling Co., Inc., Waste Management of Gardena and Recycology. ANALYSIS Two of the proposals were determined to be non responsive for cause as indicated: 1) Recycology - This proposal did not include provisions for actual collection of recyclables. The proposal was to provide for community and school education activities and to promote the curbside recycling program by working with the selected contractor at a cost of $20,000.00. 2 Waste Management of Gardena - This proposal recommended that the city seek proposals for refuse removal and recycling together which is not possible due to an existing contract with Browning-Ferris Industries. This proposal did not include a cost for a curbside recycling program. The three remaining proposals were judged to be capable of providing a curbside recycling program. A comparison matrix of the submitted proposals is included with this report; however significant points are addressed in more detail as follows: Cost Using an agreement where the contractor and city would share in the proceeds from the sale of recyclable materials on a 50%/50% basis, the cost per household per month for each remaining proposal is as follows: 1) Browning-Ferris Industries - $1.26 per dwelling unit. 2) Western Waste Industries - $1.85 per dwelling unit. 3) Bestway Recycling Co., Inc. - $3.75 per dwelling unit. Additional city costs would be incurred for the Western Waste Industries proposal of approximately $10,000.00 to $15,000.00 to initiate a public awareness campaign and $500.00 to $1000.00 per. month for ongoing promotion. Western Waste Industries cost was contingent on a prohibition on scavenging. Browning-Ferris Industries also proposed a cost of $1.45 per dwelling unit if the city retained all redemption revenue and a cost of $1.06 per dwelling unit if they retained all redemption revenue. Western Waste Industries proposed a cost of $2.25 per dwelling if the city retained all redemption revenue. Bestway Recycling Co., Inc. did not provide any alternate cost proposal. While cost alone is not the only criteria by which to select a contractor, it is certainly an important consideration. Multi -family and Commercial/Industrial Recycling Both BFI and Western Waste Industries proposals indicated an ability to provide service for multi -family complexes. Bestway Recycling recommended that mandatory recycling be considered to make multi -family or commercial/industrial recycling effective. BFI indicated an ability to provide service for commercial/ industrial accounts; however costs were not included since each business has differing waste streams and concerns to address. Western Waste Industries indicated that commercial/industrial recycling was not viable unless it was in conjunction with,a contract for regular refuse removal. Recycle Materials and Separation All proposals included newspaper, glass, aluminum and bi-metal cans and plastic containers. Western Waste Industries also included "mixed paper" (junk mail, magazines, etc.) in their proposal. BFI indicated that "mixed paper" could be added if markets develop for those materials. BFI also currently recycles waste oil in conjunction with regular refuse disposal. All proposals included a single bin for commingled materials with. newspaper separately stacked. Redemption money from the sale of the materials will vary depending on whether it is soldin a commingled state or following separation. BFI projected annual redemption money of $25,500.00 based on selling the materials commingled. Western Waste projected annual redemption money of approximately $60,000..00 based on selling the materials after separation. Bestway Recycling projected annual redemption money of $51,634.00 based on selling the materials after separation. Although separation prior to sale increases costs, redemption value increases appreciably. if BFI is the selected contractor, negotiations will include the issue of the state of the materials sold. Scavengers Both BFI and Western Waste Industries recommended prohibiting scavenging due to lost revenues and AB 939 reporting problems. Bestway Recycling indicated that scavenging would not be a problem; however they incorrectly indicated that the bulk of scavenged material would be lower value newspaper. Scavengers tend to take low volume, high redemption value items such as aluminum cans and glass containers. Contract Term All three proposals indicated a contract term of five years in order to amortize start up costs (bins, vehicles, etc.). Western Waste Industries indicated a willingness to renegotiate the contract in 3 1/2 years in conjunction with open bidding on the entire refuse contract. Staff believes the current refuse contract should be extended to be consistent with the term of the recycling proposal for future bidding purposes. Miscellaneous Factors The proposal of BFI also included a city hall and school -office paper recycling program at no additional cost and recycling for city designated special events at no additional cost. Redemption money from special events recycling would be returned to city designated organizations. The proposal of Western Waste Industries also included a city hall recycling program with redemption revenue divided with the city on a 50%/50% basis minus processing costs. The proposal of Bestway Recycling Co., Inc. included a semi- annual recycling drive to collect regular items plus scrap aluminum, copper and brass. Citizen Input As directed by the City Council, staff requested input from those citizens who had previously expressed an interest in recycling via letters or appearance at City Council meetings. Letters were sent to. 22 residents inviting them to attend a workshop meeting. Five residents attended the meeting and one submitted written comments. The residentswere enthusiastic about implementing a curbside recycling program. Comments from those in attendance were as follows: 1) Scavengers - The majority favored prohibiting scavenging as inconsistent with an organized program. There was some interest in trying to involve scavengers in the recycling program, although it is not apparent how this could be accomplished. 2) Redemption proceeds - The majority favored splitting the proceeds with the contractor so they would have an interest in obtaining highest return. Redemption proceeds returned to the city would be utilized to promote recycling or other environmental concerns. 3) Volunteers --The majority favored a block leader program to promote and encourage recycling provided sufficient volunteers are available. 4) Materials - "Mixed paper" recycling should be provided if at all possible. The majority favored the proposal of Browning-Ferris Industries since it was the most cost effective and was equivalent or superior to the other proposals on most areas of concern. SUMMARY Staff believes that the proposal of Browning-Ferris Industries best suits theneeds of the city at the lowest cost. A single contractor for all refuse related matters also has the significant advantage of enabling the city to comply with the diversion requirements of AB 939. Complete copies of. the proposals are available in the City Clerks office for review. Respectfully submitted, William Grove Director of Building & Safety Concur: Kevin North d aft City Manager BACKGROUND MATER1ALS. RATE COMPARISON Due to the variety of factors that comprise rates, it is more appropriate to compare total refuse rates than to isolate recycling rates when companies perform both services for a municipality. Current refuse rates are as follows: HERMOSA BEACH REDONDO BEACH MANHATTAN BEACH $8.02 PER MONTH PER DWELLING $10.50 PER MONTH PER DWELLING $9.95 PER MONTH PER DWELLING. Currently, both Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach offer curbside recycling services which is funded through the monthly refuse rates. The rate for Redondo Beach also includes a surcharge of $0.24 to fund a yearly household hazardous waste drop off program and the rate for Manhattan Beach includes a surcharge of $0.55 to fund AB939 compliance efforts. Both of the neighboring cities rates include city administrative costs (the contractor is not responsible for billing), however there is no franchise fee. The Hermosa Beach rate includes the 10% franchise fee which is returned to the city general fund. The rate for Hermosa Beach refuse removal including curbside recycling would be between $9.19 and $9.62, including franchise fee, if BFI is selected as the recycling contractor. The actual rate is dependent on who retains the redemption money from recycled materials. In Manhattan Beach, the contractor retains all redemption money and in Redondo Beach the contractor retains the first $7,000.00 of redemption money and all redemption money in excess of that amount is shared 50%/50% with the city. From this comparison, it is apparent that Hermosa Beach rates. for refuse removal, including curbside recycling, will remain among the lowest in this area. PROPOSER: FREQUENCY: COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL MULTI -FAMILY COST (MONTHLY) DEGREE OF SEPARATION USE OF VOLUNTEERS USE OF PROCEEDS RECYCLE 'MATERIALS SCAVENGERS START UP ESTABLISHED MARKETS CONTRACT TERM EDUCATION PROGRAMS AB 939 REPORTING OTHER FACTORS BROWNING -FERRIS Once weekly to coincide with regular.refuse pickup RESPONDENTS TO RFP FOR•CURBSIDE RECYCLING WESTERN WASTE Once weekly to coincide with regular refuse pickup BESTWAY RECYCLING Once weekly to coincide with regular refuse pickup Able to provide, but must Did not indicate it was Recommends a mandatory be custom designed for viable without contract recycling program each business for regular refuse removal also Will provide semi - automated bins A. $1:45/d.u. B. $1.26/d.u. c. $1.06/d.u. with CPI increases 1 Bin commingled Will help initiate a citizens advisory committee if desired Return to city or use to offset cost of program Newspaper Glass Aluminum cans Bi -metal cans PET plastics HDPE plastics Waste oil Recommends prohibiting due to lost revenue & AB 939 reporting problems 4 Months Unclear other than newspaper 5 Years Extensive public aware- ness campaign and school programs Monthly reports Will provide semi - automated bins A. $1.85/d.u. B. $2.25/d.u. with periodic adjustments for increased contractor costs 1 Bin commingled Will promote & coordinate a "Block Leader Program" Return to city or use portion to offset cost of program Newspaper Mix paper Glass Aluminum cans Tin cans PET plastics HDPE plastics Points out problems of lost revenue & AB 939 reporting problems 90 - 120 Days after contract approval List of markets included 5 Years Extensive public aware- ness campaign and school programs Monthly reports 1) City hall and school 1) programs at no additional cost. 2) Recycling containers & redemption•for city designated special 2) events at no additional cost. City hall program with proceeds less contrac- tors processing cost split 50/50 with the city. Requires city funds of $10,000 to $15,000 to initiate public aware- ness campaign and on- going promotion. Recommends a mandatory recycling program $ 3.75/d.u. with CPI increases 1 Bin commingled Would organize civic meet- ings to encourage recycling WASTE MANAGEMENT Once weekly to coincide with regular refuse pickup Implement 6-8 months after multi -family program Implement 8-10 months after curbside program No information Source separated Use to distribute containers and promote recycling drives Shared 50/50 with the city Return to city for community uses Newspaper Glass Aluminum cans Plastic bottles Bi -metal cans Not indicated as a problem Newspaper Glass Aluminum cans Bi -metal cans PET plastics HDPE plastics Not indicated as a problem Time frame not indicated No information No information provided No information 5 Years No information Quarterly civic meetings & Develop a school program semi-annual newsletter Will provide reports 1) Semi-annual recycling drive. NOTE: RECYCOLOGY also responded to the RFP, but to provide recycling support services at a cost of $20,000. An actual curbside program was not proposed. Carole/matrix Monthly reports 1) Recycling containers should be provided at all special events. September 25, 1990 Proposing Company Recycling Division Street address City, State, Zip Code REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL The City of Hermosa Beach is accepting proposals for a City-wide Curbside Recycling Program. It is requested that your company submit a proposal explaining the type of service it would be able to provide to the City of Hermosa Beach. Proposals must be labeled "Curbside Recycling Proposal for the City of Hermosa Beach" and submitted by 2:00 P.M. on Thursday, November 15, 1990. Three (3) copies of the proposal must be submitted to: City Clerks Office Hermosa Beach City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 The City Council hopes that this request for proposals will stimulate some creative ideas for curbside recycling programs. The City hopes to receive comprehensive proposals that will address all aspects of curbside recycling, including, but not limited to funding methods, advertising, incentives for community participation, cost effectiveness, accounting procedures, term of commitment and risk management. Presently, the City requires its maintenance and service contractors -to secure general liability insurance, naming the city as an additional insured, in the amount of $1,000,000. A curbside recycling program should be implemented by a contractor who has a proven record of success in curbside recycling and is able to stimulate the community to participate in the program. The proposal should include the resondents experience and references. A curbside recycling program should facilitate recycling by making it easy for people to place recyclable items into the recycling stream. The proposals will be evaluated, in part, in terms of how each one addresses and makes recommendations concerning the following issues: 1) Recommendations should be made as to what should be done with the redemption money received from recycling. Should it be used to offset the cost of recycling or returned to the city to designate a specific use for the funds, and why? The initial view of the City Council is that redemption money should return to the city. Recommendations should be made as to who should be included in the curbside recycling program. Hermosa Beach has 7,210 refuse accounts served by individual cans, 270 multi -family accounts served by bins and 287 commercial/industrial accounts. 3) Recommendations should be made as to how refuse accounts not served by curbside recycling may be provided with recycling capabilities. The City Council has expressed a desire to pursue recycling capabilities for multi -family and commercial accounts as soon as possible. 4) Recommendations should be made as to how the curbside recycling program should be funded. The initial view of the City Council is that residents should pay for the program via a surcharge on the monthly refuse bill. Currently refuse charges are billed directly to users by the City's refuse contractor, Browning-Ferris Industries. BFI services all residential and commercial accounts. 5) Recommendations should be made as to what ways the community could be involved with a curbside recycling program. 6) Recommendations should be made as to how frequently curbside recycling should occur. Should it be offered on the same day as regular refuse is picked up or should it be bi-weekly or monthly in order to reduce the collection costs. 7) Recommendations should be made as to what types of items should be included in the recycling program and what degree of separation should be required of participants. The following items should be considered: Newspaper, glass, aluminum cans, metal cans, PET/HDPE plastics, glossy paper and telephone books. Separation could be by residents (separate bins), by pickup personnel (segregated trucks) or by a recycling facility (all materials commingled in one. truck). 8) Recommendations should be made as to what measures should be taken to contend with the problem of scavengers. The municipal code presently allows scavenging, however this may be inconsistent with a curbside recycling program. The City Council has expressed a reluctance in the past to eliminating. scavenging since it represents the means of livlihood for some lower income citizens. 9) Recommendations should be made as to how recycling could be incorporated into special events such as our bi-annual Fiesta De Las Artes, beach volleyball tournaments, etc. Following initial review of the proposals, an interview may be requested with respondents to clarify terms of their proposal. The City of Hermosa Beach looks forward to receiving your proposal by 2:00 P.M. on Thursday, November 15, 1990 and hopes that it will contain the necessary ingredients to make curbside recycling a success in our community. If you have any questions regarding the request for proposal, please contact me at (213)318-0235. Yours truly, William Grove Director of Building & Safety December 26, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of January 8, 1991 'INFORMATIONAL REPORT ON APPEAL OF CHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH USE OF POLICE OFFICERS FOR SECOND RESPONSE TO PARTY AT 2124 HERMOSA AVENUE #5, ON OCTOBER 19, 1990 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council deny this appeal request. BACKGROUND: The Police Department receives numerous calls involving loud, disturbing parties. Department employees are frequently required to respond to, loud parties a second, or third time in response to citizen complaints concerning the noise and/or unruly, disruptive participants. Repeated calls to the same disturbance leaves Police personnel unavailable to perform moreimportantduties that have a greater community priority. Chapter 20, Section 20-2.2 of the Municipal Code permits the City to charge a "service fee" to the responsible parties hosting any loud or unruly assemblage which requires the Police Department to respond a second or any number of subsequent times in a 24 hour period. The cost may include damages to city property and/or injuries to city personnel. ANALYSIS: On October 19, 1990, at about 10:56 P.M., members of the Hermosa Beach Police Department responded to 2124 Hermosa Avenue #5 in response to citizen complaints concerning a loud party. Per department procedure, Officers issued a "LOUD PARTY - FIRST RESPONSE" notice to a responsible party at the location. On October 19, 1990, at about 11:_24 P.M., members of the Hermosa Beach Police Department again responded to 2124 Hermosa Avenue #5 in response to citizen complaints concerning a loud party. Per department procedure, Officers issued a "LOUD PARTY DISTURBANCE - NOTICE" to a .responsible party at the location. Upon receipt of the disturbance notice, Officers at the scene reported that several of the partygoers became uncooperative and belligerent necessitating the response of the Field Supervisor along with additional field personnel and the ongoing attention of station personnel. X10 December 18, 1990 Clark D. York 2124 Hermosa Avenue, #5 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 City of2iermosafl3eaclt Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 RE: Appeal to the City Council of Hermosa Beach of the billing, pursuant to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Section 20-2.2, entitled, "USE OF POLICE OFFICERS AT A LARGE' PARTY OR GATHERING, SECOND RESPONSE.", in the amount of $223.79, by the Hermosa Beach Police Department, for a second complaint call on the night of October 19, 1990, for a loud party at 2124 Hermosa Avenue, #5. Dear Mr,. York: Your appeal of the subject billing, filed December 18, 1990, has been scheduled for consideration before the Hermosa Beach City Council on Tuesday, January 8, 1991, as soon after the public hearings. (which begin at 8:00 P.M.) as the matter may be heard. This hearing will be held in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 1315 Valley Drive. If you wish to submit any written evidence to be considered by the City Council at this meeting, we request that it be received by the Director of Public Safety by noon on Thursday, December 27, 1990, for inclusion in the City Council agenda packets. A staff report may, be obtained on or about Thursday, January 3 1991, at the end of the business day, from the office of the Di- rector of Public Safety. Please address any questions to that department at 318-0301. Ver truly yours, Q!0')rCCY_ Qiks Naoma Valdes Deputy City Clerk cc: City Manager Director of Public Safety As a result of the commitment of field and station personnel to this event, which occurred in conjunction with a second response to a loud party within a 24 hour period to the same location, a violation of Section 20-2.2 HBMC, the Watch Commander completed Cost Accounting Worksheets which detailed the committed time of various department employees to this event for the purpose of recovering the costs associated with a second response to the location. Noteder;;'�;�; Kevin B. Northraft City Manager Res • -ctfully ,S emitted, Steve Wisniewski Director of Public Safety U) is 'C7" 0 u' :7. • t (D • • U 'C) (D 0 Q • : )" :3-71 rl El E3 (D 0 r1 . . .rr 0 C) :7' .t Gt. E1 (1) f:. (0 G' .-• lD :) •.• fD (l r1 0 • < 0 CO rt rt w rr (D •.. (D • 0 r1 0 0 () pt :7 e h -O (D • •• :7 •C 0 If) • • '7 :1 rt . • ( ) r1 O.• 0 :) • •() rt (D :.7 l7 • •:1'C) 0 r) (: fy CJ '0 0 (D r1 -• O •• (D C) O (1) :7 't.:l - 1.1 t1•. (0 . O (0 U 0:7 • C) r. :) (0 r1 C) r ' O (D :7 CO () El () (D (1) (D El 1,: f) r + r1 •1 Qr ••. • (D • .- r+ ' :7 • -'•O '0 0 0 r' 0 • . 0 At :.J. C) 0 (D C) J• r t rD C) rt 0 (0 r1 r t (' • t (D O ;P ) CO (D 0' 0 CO ' •• (J) : 1 ("< (0 (D CO f) to (0 (D •'D :7 1 • O (0 '1 O rt • . (D O f" eO ft. : 7 r t rt O Co •h C) 0 'rt. p1 '1. rt (D(J)(D :1()O:1 (D .O rt ••:: C. it (0 C. • -• i) f) • • U (0 0) • 'o . 1 • r 1 (J) (t• .• 1 r1 0• '1 (3 rt t•• •10 .t 1 • :T (D (0 '< (D • CD T (1). El .1 , ro C. IG :I•r • ()O t) :l: f.) '1 (D (t) • .... j (0 (D • • '1 • - r1 rt • (3 '1 (•.•) rl UI -� (D Ll C) r: El 0 U (n : o : lD 0 O :I: r) fu sir..'t' l' (0 0' (D r1 () (D (D (D I() '- • (D C) 1 in. •< r1 (D ('J Qe (A O C) n 0 - c) u• O 0 '1 :T ' 1 (f) - . 1 r - . :t r • .. 1'' :) 0 O 0 0 O •'D 0' (D w ' 1 C:) to :) -. rD 0 . • C- . (1' • h (D 1t: O ,t rfi (3 :r 0 tt r1 "1 UI :1 :-7 Ile Lu o 0 O c) ('-.3 P,.) (11 (11 ,t.. ,r. • •0 C) 41P'o 4aaaCITY OF hE; IO !L Y3EKgh REQUEST FOR BILLING BILL- CLARK DAYTON YORK NAME 2124 HERMOSA AVENUE #5 STREET HERMOSA BEACH, CA., 90254 CITY '. Cross Ref• DR# 90-5661 DATE 11-13-90 Finance Department Use Only _Inv. No. Assigned _ Date Billed _Billed by FOR:POLICE SERVICES RENDERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH VIOLATION OF 20-2.2 HBMC ON *FRIDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1990. 1 POLICE SERGEANT — 54 MINUTES @ .61 PER MINUTE 3 POLICE OFFICERS — 215 MINUTES @ .57 PER MINUTE 2 LEVEL I+5 RESERVES - 75 MINUTES @ .40 PER MINUTE 1 PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHER — 55 MINUTES @ .40 PER MINUTE 1 POLICE SERVICE OFFICER — 15 MINUTES @ .42 PER MINUTE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING FEE ACCOUNT No.: 001300-126-9 $32.94 $122.55 $30.00 $22.00 $6.30 •-$10..00 TOTAL DUE: $223.79 Requested by Approved by FINANCE OFFICER COMMANDER THONY ALTFELD FIELD SER\ CES DIVISION HERMOSA B CH POLICE DEPARTMEN`.I HERMOSA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT PAGE OF ZONTINUAT ON OF - ! 1929 I OR NO �y� �� � 77 ARiME REPORT•— NCIDENT REPORT I �jylj I Y _, 415: OFFiCER �J 11 (� ' _..ARREST/gOpKINGREPORT L�SUPPLEMENTALREPORT !REPORTING iCEP/itee/37, / � 0 SUSPECT (LAST. FIF6T. MIDDLE) NK KNAME (AKA) We RACE I SX . i AGE I HEIGHT 'WEIGHT 1 • HAIR EYE.e BUILD SUSPECT ADDRESS. KNOWN e . •• OL - 'IC U c • ••i ti, SUSPECT (LAS?. FIRST. MIDDLE) NICKNAME (AKA) 1006 - SFX err " ! HMR QUI • :, SUSPECT ADDRESS. KNOWITRANGOUTS ` $ - - • - •DE S - Stolen - - -ecovereo L • Lost - ouna • • s amagea v • vidence • • Under •bservatton V • Vanaahzed _ _ (Use all applicaOle codes_ For example. if property is both stolen 8 recovered. Code Is SIR) C ITEMI ARTICLE NAME : OTY i SERIAL NO. BRAND/MAKE MODEL NAMEJNO.I MISC DESCRIPTION ICODE J VALUE , 7/sr PESPo/v5C oM /o-- /9- 90 »r A-PPRakwn4 -TELi ZZS6 /' oyes, o F/C--/2 6EAKV A -ND -(TAAJ//-6e)) 2ESPoNOED Tc 2../z y ftEPin__ ,ie5 i2&-'6-A-,eD ENG A '/ 15 PSR TY tiPoN 4REE vA c , c)Fr. 83Ei2, us 007v T/a-cTED 4 ,q SPoN s/ gu AND A- D V/SED o Trn NR• r-ci 2 E OF Tft6 CALL.:. OFF IC 6Q 8CR/cUS A-DV/SSD T/fAT" 777, ST /•Eo 5E T vie&' C,0 :.,oinV 7V A RFA SO NA 6te veil_ vin E, A•/V1D TbAT %7- • PA2 FY BE mOvED //vs /De- -TW-6- gCS/oc NCS" OFF. 1.3ERlLcis - /SS 4/ co A- f/RSr /'4QrY RESPoNsF A/On ere - -e -i o TO SEPH C'ARDoSo .S'E'A SeciivEivCC- -9 75q� ). or acAxvs , No _.1-. Cc e-A-2Eo T/tE CAcc. Ar 2312_ i-tove5• Ste-Con/0 2E SPONSE ; ON /0- /9- yo AT 232g HOc14S TwEivE iniNt✓;Es (AFTER - Cc.,-Ag/AEG CA -c0 A6o/vG- wires oc�P i /n i Cr-I-Ee_ wb--46 PES PA-TCrt-CD •TIS r( SArnE to 6/4-r/oi✓ fISE OcAiD 77 me- teE6-4 D iN6- A I//5 i O vry In us/ e . 0 P0nl AkkiVAL = i4E;4,20 TfE srEigO Tv2NE4 UP A6-A/N To j— • A• ffl6-H L.E VEL 1rsAW r//E Door TO RES/ OENC Aiio OP -NJ ANO 7-7-fE p4,2 rY .&o6")25 STAND /NG • our G'2 GN r pN PA -T' o A-eEA 'TALx/Nv Lova. -t." Con/ rA crED A R6--sP0A8 /31-E CG/b21< Yo/2K, wif()H S ri rED HIS Roo/r, /n/1 .10.5E -PH CARDOSO (SEE /4BovE.4 A/AD LEFT AND 'TH/tT /fE W4 S /VOCQ T/ k/N6- /2 5poN5/ 8/4 /Ti P2z CV\44c W14- 1Cl M(: HERMOSA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT PAr'F OF a CONT [Nu*LION OF - t UO I DR NO � - J 6 1, \ - : CRIME REPORT '� INCIDENT REPORT. r 929 l - , b // r 4-e TY - �- ARREST(8OOXING REPORT A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT. I REPORTINGOFFI Er /_ A / ^ g� - / 3 7 'v z3 -USPECT (LAST. FIRST. MIDDLE) NICKNAME {AKA) CAA RACE SEX i AGE ( HEIGHT I I WEIGHT NAIR EYES BUILD F 11( I -s SUSPECT ADDRESS. KNOWN , .: - 11 IDL �I;sPEC INFORIY SUSPECT (LAS CTW, MIDDLE) NICKNAME 1 ..: RACE ;SFX iAGE :HEKiI1T WEIGHT (HAIR EYES BUILD SUSPECT ADDRESS. KNOWNHANGOUTS - PROPERTY CODE: S - Stolen R - Recoverea L - Lost F - Founa D - Damaged Ev - Evidence 0 - UnderObservation- Vandalized (Use all applicable codes. For example. If property is both stolen 8 recovered. Code Is SIR C !ITEM) ARTICLE NAME I OTY J SERIAL NO. BRAND/MAKE j MODEL NAME/NO.1 MISC DESCRIPTION CODE VALUE • ' --tea -7-W P ler Y. S 7w -en/ hs D YOdC ii TD -TU4 N .r s7 o F 4it/D 7 II -:5,e Ei/E2YDNe- i/115 -7,0e: SEE,efl s,B. TQC Ts A-TT ND/N 7;:11-E PA -R rt-' /3ECftm 6 X T,eert'r&-LY UN COoPE:4-Trv' Gv/TH OFF/CE4,S STAT/NG- /NE ff4-0 NO 2./6-Af7- •rte T ' e . c_. 'i keM --Tv TUgAi 'THS S'rE, eo 0CF 56v EEA L OG .7 / SUBTECTS Qt:IEST/o/vED me 6 Y sr/Fr/N6-/ "t wh'4-r LA-tc.' H'A4vE s RLo ,Q ?" DfF/CEi2 e_tt//S /Also ,4 i(/ 2' O/J SCENE To ASS/ S T ,4ND /, 4f./4-3- A -t 5o OoFsT/o NEO • A-Frez A -D vis -0 v - TU rogN rite- S r6,QED OFP S' E vE0,9 L Sv6,TCCT S we -NT /.J3/7 •TSE / S/Pe-NCE 1 C4-0 SED r7 -/e" UOOf2 86;-/-174/0 7W -E71 AND 7o,NED TH-E STEgea Oti/ t STA-riA & " TH-CY / CAN "T Con/ E tN He -4E /7A/ aikY, '' XT uiel S AT 771/S T/me x A-Dv/.SED SGT- ,-rwo2e 14)y0 froze? vel. on/ • SC ENE twt.-A-ND 'To '? gk /F wA-D To i2ESPW.ND TO .T/ LO CA4"r/ON 4Gl4//Il .T/f '`4-,2T z'86 8F SHvT Do(.OA.I . 1 SECoivD RESPo/v.5-E L✓AS .EFT A -T Lo C:fi-T/on/ R S' ()AI /Ts Ct E ED SCcNE Ar / PPROX /rY/A-TEt-Y 0O/? //ov,QS . (ivor - A- Tor -4-4- or 5.4 m/ ivv7ES ctift s Pe- i C A-'Ev. "TO 7 -1../ -is SPCC: /F/ C C 4 r✓ e_ w/7-24/ F/ rrE i, 7 TS OA/ SG ENE • .. • :- LOUD PARTY , FIRST RESPONSE SEQUENCE # 5-7" This NOTICE OF VIOLATION is given to: Sos (4- G f - ° ° Name who is the responsible host of the party/gathering located at: la 1 4ttznosA tw E --5. Address nn� Street Apt. # PCNs 104— ky City Zip Code ' on /D —1 19 9/ Date at .3I 2— Time The telephone number at the location is: ( l )) Identification of responsible party verified YES EL NO by: cOL A327s Type of ID Officers Comments: A second and all subsequent police responses to this location will result in a service fee charge to you for the time • all C' y • rsonnel and any damage to City e • ipme or jj uries sustained by . . City •'ersonne9I. i11re4 '4 -gnat re of • espons ble Party /0 79 P,3 Date -Signature of Officer J Time Additional Pages? &YES ❑ NO • 3t• T ::rLOUD PARTY DISTURBANCE -NOTICE INITIAL CALL INFORM TION; SEQUENCE # 15 Y--4 (7 5 51 Date: / ( 19 b Time RETURN CALL INFORMATION: D.R.# - cj (a (0 ( This DISTURBANCE VIOLATION NOTICE is given to: e4 -ARK VA 7 A) rogK Name of Responsible Party/Host LOCATED AT: z 1 Z1/ #021rios� is e AddressStreet Apt. # . C4 . gozgy City Zip Code on /D - / 19 /10 Date 3yS- Time The telephone number at the location is: 9� (7,/3) Identification of responsible party verified YES NO ❑ by: C'Di. T pe of ID `/N.) Signatur of Re nsible Party x Date ` " t/ e -/3 7 Signature of Officer Signature of Supervisor Citation issued?: ❑ YES , NO If yes, Citation # Comments: Additional Pages?: 1I� YES 0 NO C DATEOFREPORT: HERMOSA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT FIELD SERVICES DIVISION COST ACCOUNTING WORKSHEET 1,0 f a -o [ q 0 DATE OF INCIDENT: id j t = a.o ! Q LOCATION OF INCIDENT: t -f Z- (0 flog 1 A -P7'• 5 DR#: e1W -& t te( SUPERVISOR REPORTING: Employee: (6(4° , K�cz�r le,140 Classification: F. ,c) L c e CEtic Unit Designation:.;,r „..1 A-'4..nil —(When Applicable) • Employee: Q C � , N i�2�►� w U 11L -I & uD t (L Classification: eb W Unit Designation: (When Applicable) AI "Time ' on -Scene : 3 �-i Time on Scene: D...3%:1_.,4 Time Cleared Scene: �� 60: t 4 Time Cleared Scene: O©',, .1 -Total Field Time: -153 Total Field Time: 5� (In Minutes) _(In Minutes) Booking Time: DM A (In Minutes) .- Booking Time: (In Minutes) Total Records Processing Time Total Records Processing Time (In Minutes): (In Minutes): Total Report Time: ,(3 Total Report Time: "-/5"- (In "-(In Minutes) (In Minutes) -Total Dispatching Time: -G- —Total Dispatching Time: (In Minutes) -. _(In Minutes) All Cate ories 4/ Total Time ( Categories, In Minutes):3 5 Total Time (All Categories, In Minutes) : Copies of Dispatching Logs Attached?:--- -)C Comments: Yes No HERMOSA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT FIELD SERVICES DIVISION COST ACCOUNTING WORKSHEET DATE OF REPORT: c / p 1 �r O .LOCATION OF INCIDENT: ), i 7)-4 DATE OF INCIDENT: lc / r 4 — .3-C 1,9 [4-e(z-,•-te_ > A 6-06- r - PT 5 DR#: q C -,510(0 I SUPERVISOR REPORTING:. S.zt.t til_CcT Employee: 0l%G, Se -a-0 A - Le Employee: 06-6+ .a ,'r} ;`-F«?ir;7 Classification: ecol--cr� t -Classifications Unit designation: (When applicable) Time on scene: )---1 �vt a 3', Unit designation: 1 (When applicable) Time on scene: Time cleared scene: CQ) ;1G Time cleared scene: JC te( Total field time: '� S (In minutes) Booking time: (In minutes) 6 Total records processing time (In minutes): Total report time: 6-0 (In minutes) Total dispatching time: -Q-' (In minutes) Total time (All categories, in minutes) : / ( 5 Total field time: S S (In minutes) Booking time: (In minutes) Total records processing time (In minutes): Total report time: -460- (In minutes) Total dispatching time: IS" (In minutes) Total time (All categories in minutes) : Copies of dispatching logs attached?: Yes " Comments: • HERMOSA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT FIELD SERVICES DIVISION COST ACCOUNTING WORKSHEET DATE OF REPORT: 10 /a,0 1 q o DATE OF INCIDENT: jo I 1 -- e t LOCATION OF INCIDENT: I4-E24.A.tt> 4 4-U-, it- F i 5 DR#: 5 cao 1 SUPERVISOR REPORTING: SAT' . Employee: S6T. (t}NACrit.E Classification: 3&-26;,-..(+xJT Classification: ?OL_1G& ( Sk.ekl.e Employee: tOf t .314-&R4 Unit designation: ( w (When applicable) Time on scene: .a't S S Time cleared scene: 00: 0 Total field (In, minutes) Booking time: -0-- (In 0 -(In minutes) Total records processing time (In minutes): •-49- Total Total report time: 2 0 (In minutes) Total dispatching time: —6— (In minutes) _ Total time (All categories, in minutes): 54 Unit designation: aC �{- (When applicable) Time on scene: 23 get Time cleared scene: dOn', t 9 Total field time: . 2-0 (In minutes) . Booking time: -�— (In minutes) Total records processing time (In minutes) : 0 - Total report time: (In minutes) Total dispatching time: $-- 0 (In minutes) `Total time (All categories, in minutes): Copies of dispatching logs attached?: Y.- Yes Comments: r HERMOSA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT FIELD SERVICES DIVISION COST ACCOUNTING WORKSHEET DATE OF REPORT: , o I I Q.O DATE OF INCIDENT: 10/ t LOCATION OF INCIDENT: ,c -F ET DR# : Q1. D -510 !01 SUPERVISOR REPORTING: Employee: no„,),) eLiodDR Classification: es. aLsePfq-f" i1 - Unit designation: (When. applicable) Time on scene: Time cleared scene: Total field time:. (In minutes) Booking time: (In minutes) Total records processing time (In minutes): Total report time: (In minutes) Total dispatching (In minutes) _ Total time (All categories, in minutes): Employee: j&- Classification: r'S.O Unit designation: (When applicable) Time on scene: Time cleared scene: Total field time: (In minutes) Booking time: (In minutes) Total records processing time (In minutes): /5 Total report time: (In minutes) Total dispatching time: (In minutes) - . -- -. _._...... - -.. Total time (All categories, in minutes).: Copies of dispatching logs attached?: X Yes No Comments: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council =/_]3 /4- w January 3, 1991 Regular Meeting of January 9, 1990 WATER COMPANY ACQUISITION/FRANCHISE FEE CONSIDERATION Recommendation: It is recommended that. the City Council file this report, and continue to monitor the adequacy of water service by the California Water Service Company. As an alternative, should the Council wish to pursue either matter, it is recommended that the City Council authorize soliciting proposals for dividing the current water system into municipal and private water company components, and appraising the value of the municipal components. Regarding franchise fees, it is recommended as an alternative that Council request the City Attorney further research this matter and supply a recommendation on implementation. Background: The City has been serviced by a private water system since the 1920's. During a budget study session held June 7, 1990, the City Treasurer, Gary Brutsch, suggested the City consider acquiring the water system, and Council directed further research in this area. Also, from time to time, discussion of charging a franchise fee for the water company has been discussed. The water company is currently the only utility operating in Hermosa Beach that does not pay a franchise fee. Both matters were referred to the City Attorney, who has since provided direction. Analysis: Acquisition of the water company: Advantages to the City include: 1) Water is a basic service to residents and an essential ingredient to providing fire protection in a community, which is a municipal responsibility. 2) Citizens have much greater access to their local City Hall than to either our current water company offices or the Public Utilities Commission which governs its rates and activities. A city -owned water company would give citizens direct control, via their elected representatives, over the quality, cost and operations of the water company. 3) Costs of a municipal water company include the cost of the overall City administration. This spreads the cost of that administration to a major enterprise fund, reducing the cost 1 of providing services City-wide. With a private water company, such as ours, those costs pay for administrative activities in remote locations, such as the headquarters of our water company in San Jose, California. A City operating its own water company is directly involved in regional water planning and conservation measures, and can directly communicate and respond to citizens concerns and issues without working through an intermediary, a private water company. 5) A City -operated water company eliminates confusion over responsibilities, such as who is the major coordinator and planner for current and future fireflow needs, the adequacy and age'of the lines, the types of conservation and construction materials, long range planning, and, the adequacy. of water pressures. This situation results in the City requiring developer improvements in the system, which then become the property of the private company. In our current situation, these issues require the coordination of efforts by several City departments and the water company. There are very valid advantages for City ownership of the water supply. Because of these advantages, a City is better structured, more responsive to its citizens, and more financially secure when it supplies water to its own community. Despite these many advantages, the situation in Hermosa Beach is that a private water company has provided service for decades.Because of the history of providing water service, it is probably unprecedented for City to acquire a water company in the absence of great public dissatisfaction with the water company service, and/or a strong interest in the water company in selling. Staffs' initial contacts with the company regarding the possibility of acquisition indicate there is absolutely no interest in a friendly acquisition, as the company is acquiring more properties and not liquidating any of their current holdings. Regarding public dissatisfaction, it is well documented that the system in the 1980's was not kept in top condition, resulting in low water pressures and fire flows below those recommended. As a result of actions and lobbying by the City, these inadequacies are being remedied. Accordingly, in the absence of these conditions, it does not appear fruitful for the City to utilize its limited resources in exploring this option further. If the Council wishes to pursue, the City Attorney advises the next step would be to seek engineering proposals for dividing the current water system and appraising the value of the divided system. A "ball park" estimate for the cost of such services would be $20-30,000. Franchise Fee: A typical water franchise fee would be two percent of gross revenues resulting in approximately $40,000 revenue to the City's General Fund if this fee were approved. The water company maintains that their operations existed prior to State authorization for franchise fees, and are therefore "grandfathered" and not subject to any municipal franchise fee. The City Attorney has indicated that he feels this interpretation could be challenged; however, a key factor is that any implementation of any franchise fee would lead to a rate adjustment and a direct pass on of that fee to the water customers within Hermosa Beach. Given the current status of the 10 percent Utilities User's Tax being paid by water and other utility users, it does not appear appropriate to add to the cost of current utilities by initiating a new fee that has no off -setting services. Respectfully submitted, .fes even B. Northc aft Gary Bruts h City Manager Concur: Attached: Water rate Survey City Treasurer SOUTH BAY CITY WATER RATES MONTHLY RATES December 1990 Monthly Monthly Cost for Meter Water Family of 4 Using Provider Fee Use 1200 c.f. Per Month California Water $4.70 First 300 c.f.-$.811/100 c.f. $21.78 Service above .979/" El Segundo .83 2 month; 1st 2,000 c.f. @ $0.6410 $12.54 100 c.f. next 8000 at $6621/100 c.f., above at $0.7044/100 c.f. Hawthorne $5.00 2 month; none if under 800 c.f. $24.80 1.10/every 100 c.f. otherwise Inglewood $5.52 1.44/100 c.f. $31.44 Manhattan Beach $6.70 2 month; over 400 c.f., $19.55 $.803/100 c.f. Torrance $3.40 $.76/100 c.f. $17.08 AVERAGE $4.29 - $21.08 hull/wat Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council December 27, 1990 Regular Meeting of January 8, 1991 USE OF SPEED HUMPS IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Direct staff to develop standards for speed hump installations on City streets. This is consistant with the implementation policy of the Circulation Element. 2. As a matter of policy, require that individuals requesting speed humps be required to fund their installation, and removal if necessary. Background: The residents of El Oeste have petitioned the City to provide "road bumps" on their. street. A copy of the petition is attached. The City Staff Traffic Safety Committee (Public Works and Police Department) has concerns over the policy of providing speed humps or bumps on City streets and alleys. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the research with respect to these design features of the roadway and has provided a recent report titled, Recommended Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps, to assist the City Council in its decision. This third draft report dated March 9, 1990 was prepared by an Institute of Transportation Engineers Special Task Force. A copy of this report is available for reviewin the Office of the City Clerk. Staff checked with auto club representative, Gary Foxen, who is a member of the committee (California Traffic Control Devices Committee) and he has told us that no action has been taken to finalize the study. There is no time table to act on this, "its in limbo". Analysis: The analysis is divided as follows: 1. Purpose 2. Speed Hump vs Speed Bump 3. Items of concern: a. Design, Placement Design b. Potential Liability c. Potential Cost to Taxpayer d. Effectiveness 12 M 4. Experience of Other Cities 5. Can Speed Humps Be Effective in Hermosa Beach to Reduce Speed? 6. Potential Fiscal Impact 7. Summary 1. Purpose Speed humps are defined as a geometric design feature of a roadway whose primary purpose is to reduce the speed of vehicles traveling along that roadway. While there may be certain side effects to speed hump installations such as traffic diversion, their primary purpose is speed reduction. The intended use of speed humps throughout the nation is for residential streets only. Speed humps should only be considered for installation on those roadway facilities functionally classified as "local" streets. Further, these local streets should be generally residential in nature. 2. Speed Humps vs Speed Bumps A speed "hump" is a raised area in the roadway pavement surface extending transversely across the travel way (see Figure 1). Sometimes called pavement undulations or "sleeping policemen", speed humps normally have height of three to four inches with a travel length of approximately twelve feet. A speed "bump" is also a raised pavement area across roadway and generally has a height of three to six inches with a length of one to three feet (see Figure 1). Speed bumps are not recognized by the State or any City as an adequate design feature or as a traffic control device. Speedbumps are typically found on private roadways and parking lots and therefore do not tend to exhibit consistent design parameters from one installation to another. -e SPEED BUMP FIGU".E 1. SPEED HUMP 3. Items of Concern a. Engineering Design The lack of guidance and heavy reliance on individual judgement has led to a number of speed hump -type installations that incorporated poor designs, improper roadway geometric coordination, poor choice of construction materials, methods, and absence of needed signs and markings. The safety of speed humps and the ability to perform their intended use is directly contingent upon their proper design and application. When it is determined that a residential traffic management problem exists, speed humps can be an effective tool in the reduction or elimination of the problem. b. Potential Liability If speed humps are not installed in a proper manner and with due care, and vehicle damage or personal injury occurs,it is possible that the installing City could be found to be maintaining a public nuisance, i.e., a known defect in the street system which may result in increased liability exposure. Therefore, complete and proper documents should be retained to justify the decisions made. c. Potential Cost to Taxpayer The draft "Recommended Guidelines" state "Consideration should be given to the requirement that those individuals requesting speed humps be required to fund their installation, and removal if necessary." d. Effectiveness With the proper engineering analysis and judgement, a speed hump can be a useful geometric roadway design feature to manage traffic speeds on local residential streets. Speed humps have been found, in general, to reduce traffic speed, volumes, and accidents depending on the site-specific circumstances of the installation. In addition,they discourage through traffic from using a local street as an alternative route to either non-existent, inconvenient, or congested arterial and collector systems. However, speed humps are not a cure-all for residential street traffic problems and should be applied only where sound engineering judgement justifies their use. Other passive and active devices and techniques should be considered and possibly tested to determine if less restrictive forms of residential traffic management will address these concerns. 4. Experience of Other Cities Thirty-six public agencies in California were contacted by letter, and subsequentlyby phone, to determine their experience with "speed humps." The cities were chosen on the basis of their concern for the situation as reflected in participation through the California Traffic Control Devices Committee The following reflects their comments. Twenty cities have not used speed humps. The reasons stated varied from lack of interest, too costly for overall city-wide use, potential for liability, lack of approval by the recognized bodies such as the California Department of Transportation and the California Traffic Control Devices Committee. Of the remaining sixteen, all others have been using speed humps for period of two to eleven years. All sixteen agencies admitted a speed reduction for a distance before and after the undulations The reduction in speed was quantified by most agencies between 2 and 5 mph. All agencies stated that the speed hump installations were well received by the public. The primary concerns of the agencies were the potential for liability, the ability of emergency vehicles to respond quickly over the streets that had speed humps and the cost of the humps if placed as part of a large scale city-wide or county -wide program. On November 29, 1990, the Los Angeles Times reported on the City of Los Angeles' efforts to reduce speeds on residential streets. I've attached a copy of the new article to this report. 5. Can Speed Humps Be Effective in Hermosa Beach If speed humps are limited to residential streets where speed problems and problems of residential intrusion have been identified then the effectiveness of placement could reduce said speed 2 to 5 mph and discourage intrusion. Attached is a map of potential streets. The use of speed humps, from the consensus, is limited to level, long residential streets where the humps can be placed and be effective in speed reduction. Speed humps can result in lost parking, additional signage, curb markings, striping and additional maintenance cost. The placement of a speed hump on El Oeste has the potential of lost parking in the vicinity of the hump. Several issues will still need to be resolved with the petitioners;- such as in front of which house shall the speed hump be installed. El Oeste may not be the best street to install speed humps because among other things it isn't long and level. 6. Potential Fiscal Impact Individually the cost of speed humps varies between $800 and $2,000. If these design features are installed on any large scale then the cost to the City could be in excess of $50,000. This does not include maintenance -of the speed humps.' 7. Summary The consensus is mixed on the benefit/adverse effects of speed hump installation. While isolated instances have reduced speed by 2 to 5 mph and restricted residential traffic intrusion, there have been instances where traffic has been simply diverted to an adjacent residential street and those speeds increased. Thus, a network of speed humps in a structured traffic management plan is necessary for total effectiveness. Alternatives: Other alternatives considered by staff are: 1. Do not consider the request. 2. Do not charge the petitioners. Respectfully submitted, ff 4 Ed Ruzak City Traffic Engineer NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: Viki Copeland Director of Finance pwclerk/spdhumps Concur: Steve Wisniewski Public Safety Dire tor _;// evin B. ort4/ raft City Manager Jim Lissner 2715 El Oeste Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Jim: 2(ermosa �Cbr��t (1-4LCiti o fTeach..) Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254 EIVED S Z P 181990 EUKICJWORKS711EP September 17, 1990 We are in receipt of your petition dated September 12, 1990, regarding road bumps on El. Oeste. Your petition has been referred to our Traffic Committee (Public Works Department) for necessary action and response. That department will be contacting you with the results of your inquiry. If you wish to check on the status, the department's number is 318-0214. Thank you for your interest in improving our community. Sincerely, ?4g, Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager KBN/ld cc: 'Public Works Department Public Safety Department Cover letter to El Oeste petition of September 1990 SEP 1 2 1990 September 12, 1990 To date, out of seventeen El Oeste homeowners three have not yet signed this petition (Wright at 2845, Gelb at 2726, and Cummings/Engle at 2720) . Their petitions will be forwarded to you when available. James Lissner A PETITION TO THE-HERMOSA.BEACH CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned owners of homes on El Oeste do request the Hermosa Beach City Council to install road bumps on our street. This is not a request for, and we do not desire, the installation of speed bumps. Road bumps are distinct from speed bumps in that the former has a base dimension of 10 to 12 feet while the latter has a base of 2 to 3 feet. DZ 7/S" Erc -6 0 4/ f- 7- 2 7 2 -272 / L 73 LV / a cZB FS) Afesisc_ &iss K,ed.ec eP.a,,z, /71,4 reozi-Keawgz 7,/a6o,c4 3 /1 MOW c9-7D,�Q, -�--� Ewol If ens+E, of, 4z ,C z 7 70 ze �-- TDMA PAS r A PETITION TO THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned owners of homes on El Oeste do request the Hermosa Beach City Council to install road bumps on our street. This is not a request for, and we do not desire, the installation of speed bumps. Road bumps are distinct from speed bumps in that the former has a base dimension of 10 to 12 feet while the latter has a base of 2 to 3 feet. 144 qr A/70 ge . .ilio/r6 ' r L o4 ST au -F5 41c ,V/c//) 44.1 Cover letter to El Oeste petition of September 1990 September 12, 1990 To date, out of seventeen El Oeste homeowners three have not yet signed this petition (Wright at 2845, Gelb at 2726, and Cummings/Engle at 2720). Their petitions will be forwarded to you when available. James Lissner Awlf RECEIVED SEP 27 1990 I 01 A PETITION TO. THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned owners of homes on El Oeste do request the Hermosa Beach City Council to install road bumps on our street. This is not a request for, and we do not desire,, the installation of speed bumps. Road bumps are distinct from speed bumps in that the former has a base dimension of 10 to 12 feet while the latter has a base of.2 to 3 feet. iWee66,6,7 q-, 3 -qc .7a.23-5/ A PETITION TO THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned owners of homes on El Oeste do request the Hermosa Beach City Council to install road bumps on our street. This is not a request for, and we do no desire, the installation of speed bumps. Road bumps are distinct from speed bumps in that the former has a base dimension of 10 to 12 feet while the latter has a base of 2 to 3 feet. a7a� Eutt) A PETITION TO THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned owners of homes on El Oeste do request the Hermosa Beach City Council to install road bumps on our street. This is not a request for, and we do no desire, the installation of speed bumps. Road bumps are distinct from speed bumps in that the former has a base dimension of 10 to 12 feet while the latter has a base of 2 to 3 feet. "to_ C . L-� fq - o Bradley's Plan for Traffic IoeAugele> ("gimes ■ Congestion: Mayor's proposal includes • banning valet parking on [ residential streets. He also recommends speed -reducing humps on neighborhood streets. SECTION B THURSDAY NOVEMBER 29, 1990 l 'CCt By GEORGE RAMOS TIMES STAFF WRITER Mayor Tom Bradley on Wednesday unveiled an ambi- tious 20 -point plan to improve -traffic flow in Los Angeles, in- eluding a ban on valet parking on residential streets and the place- ment of "speed humps" to dis- courage speeding motorists. It was the second time in three years that Bradley issued a set of proposals to fight traffic gridlock. In 1987, the City Council adopted most of the mayor's measures, toughening parking regulations, fining motorists who blocked in- tersections and more than dou- bling the number of city traffic control officers to 600. But the centerpiece of the 1987 plan—a ban of about 70% of all trucks from city streets during peak rush hours—has yet to go into effect because of stiff opposi- tion from trucking firms and -de- lays in federal transit guidelines. At a City Hall news conference, the mayor touted the new series of proposals as a "transportation plan for the 1990s" to protect residential areas from increasing commuter traffic and provide al- ternatives to motorists driving alone. "Since the 1984 Summer Olym- pics, when we had such a great experience with moving traffic, we've put into action a rumbe" of [laws] that have helped us with moving traffic in Los Angeles," • Bradley said. Some of the proposals, such as doubling the budget to $250,000 for nonprofit group, Safe Moves, to lecture at schools about traffic and bike safety, may be imple- mented by the end of the year. But others, such as creating bus and car-pool lanes on surface streets, increasing fees on 25 -cent parking meters, creating taxi zones for short cab rides and building more city parking lots. may take longer. Funding for many of the proposals has yet to be worked out. As with the truck ban, some parts of Bradley's initiative, espe- cially the proposed restrictions on valet parking, are likelyto run into stiff opposition from restau- rant owners. "They [restaurateurs] aren't going to be happy," said Council- man Richard Alatorre, who ap- peared at the news conference. "There is no single cure to the cancerous disease of automobile • Please see TRAFFIC, 138 138e THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1990 * METRO NEWS WS ANGELES TIMES TRAFFIC: -New Plan .by Bradley - Continued from Bl . i; congestion," added Councilman Marvin Braude. "All these strafe- . gies won't work in all areas. Let's • have the courage to fail but let's :move forward and improve things." Under the proposal, which re- quires City Council approval, busi- ness establishments would be re- ..quired to identify off-street locations where valet parking would be accommodated. The city Department of Transportation would then review all valet parking services for compliance within a year. Representatives of some restau- rateurs reacted cautiously to the proposal late Wednesday. • We're willing to be cooperative because we want to be sensitive to residents' concerns," said Rudy Cole, executive director of a res- taurateurs' group that vigorously opposed a smoking ban in restau- rants earlier this year. But he added that enforcement would be difficult in dense ,areas where restaurants compete with apartment and condominium buildings for parking spaces. Residents who say their drive- ways have been blocked by valet parking attendants were more en- thusiastic about the proposed ban Wednesday. Said Raul Alcala, who shares a small house with a friend from El Salvador just off Melrose Avenue in Hollywood: "Great. Now, I can come home and park in my own driveway, instead of leaving my car halfway to Mexico City." (....Another proposallikely to draw approval from residents is the sug- gested 2% -inch -high "speed humps" in neighborhood streets • where at least 60% of the residents request them. The proposal is based, in part, on the enormous popularity of speed humps in Pasadena, where they proved to be so successful that the city could not keep up with resi- dents'requests for them. Under the city plan, three speed humps would be placed within a block to slow down traffic. .• Bill Bicker, the mayor's trans :THE CITY.'S720 STEPS:TO IMPROVE•'TRAFFIC+;?'MNk'tsaZ:.x"W 1. Ban valet parking on city streets, 2. Place speed humps on selected 'residential streets. • ::.3. Double the number of committee. for citizens to offeradwce on traffic matters ; , ,4. Increase paikmg meter fees V25 -cents an hour 4 ..5. Build more bus and carpool lanes 6. To encourage rideshanng or;' '` bus -riding, require employers to offe } .' workers cash for parking subsidies, 7. Set aside public funds to pay for' - : workers' taxi rides homey)! ,,,,- •••••c:, emergencies +: 8. Add 70 natural -gas -powered DASH `and Commuter Express buses to the road within 12 months 9. improve and expand the clty's bicycle safety program. 10. Set up satellite centers where residents can communicate with qty departments without driving downtown 11. Create an advisory committee so public transit riders can speak up 12. Create taxi zones to limit the 1. ost of short cab rides. - 13. ides.13 Implement a truck manager program 14. Use electronic parking mete devices to charge shippers for, ;parking in loading zones.• '9.5. Ticket and remove adverbsi trailers blocking traffic flow 16. Step up enforcement; bckeun and towing of parking scofflaws. 17; Reduce the number of times a .developer or utility can tear up city streets during construction T.1.8. Schedule more evening <meetings of city traffic committe and commissions so residents o f offer Input.::'. 19. Air more public service announce: - merits with transportation nnouncementswithtransportation. _. 20. Create a committee to study. traffic signs _ . . Among the latest devices to ease traffic flow is the speed hump, a modification of the speed bump. Under a two-year pilot program, speed humps may be placed on neighborhood streets where 60% of residents request them and where they would not hamper police or fire vehicles. Engineers designed the smoother humps in response to motorists' complaints -about the sharp jolts of speed bumps. • • portation policy . adviser, said a motorist would barely notice the 12 -foot -long hump at 20 m.p.h. but would feel a moderate jolt at 50 m.p.h. The humps, he added, were considered much safer than speed "bumps," which are several inches higher. "Also discussed Wednesday was the stalled proposal to ban 70% of all trucks from city streets during peak rush hours. Bradley predicted that it would go in effect, after council approval, by June 1. A major barrier to the mayor's rush-hour truck ban was overcome recently with the passage of feder- al legislation that puts the ban in jeopardy, according to Deputy Mayor Mark Fabiani. The federal rule, published last June, requires that truckers have unimpeded access to cargo termi- nals so that they can drop off and pick up their shipments. It also requires that truckers be allowed Los Angeles Time access to areas within at least one mile of freeways and highways so they can stop for food, gasoline and repairs. At the request of Bradley's of- fice, Rep. Henry Waxman (D -Los . Angeles) won passage. of an amendment to the federal Clean Air Act that exempts Los Angeles ' from the rule, Fabiani said. A spokesman for the California Trucking Assn. was quick to reit- erate his group's opposition to the proposed ban. "This plan would penalize cus- tomers of businesses that need deliveries during peak hours," said spokesman Gregory deGiere. "If consumers want to eat day- old bread—and •meat and pro- • duce—because stores can't get . same-day deliveries, this is the • way to go." • Times staff writers Elaine Woo and . Jane Fritsch also contributed to thls • story. . STRIKE,: Teaching Assistants Walk Out Continued from B1 "Parents should send their chil- dren to school, teachers will be teaching and the majority of teach- er assistants will be on the job,"-.... said .Diane Munatones, a spokes- woman for Supt. Bill Anton. While some teachers voiced sup- port for the plight of their assist- ants, they are forbidden by their contract from honoring the strike. United Teachers -Los Angeles, the powerful teachers union, has warned that teachers who refuse t� cross picket lines may face admin- istrative action. "I certainly hope Local 99 knows - • what it's doing; they are not going to bring the system to a halt," said union President Helen Bernstein. put 20 -year-old Tigran Demir- jian, an Armenian teaching as- sistant at Grant Elementary School in Hollywood, expected his absence to cause problems. Demirjian works in a classroom filled with Armenian students, most of whom left the Soviet Union within the last year. He says his teacher speaks only a few words of Arme- nian. "Without me the class is almost • unteachable," Demirjian says. "The . only thing the teacher can maybe do today is math." The number of assistants who walked off their jobs. appeared short of the 2,000 that union offi- cials had predicted. Estimates by union and schools officials ranged from 600 to 1,200. , School officials at Belmont esti- mated that up to half of the school's 20 teaching assistants stayed away. Langdon Principal Daniel Balder- rama said fewer than 10 of the 38 teaching assistants took part in the strike. Union officials said the teaching assistants will strike the same 119 schools today, but will target other schools later. Some of those who took part in Wednesday's strike said many of their colleagues opted to work because they could not afford to lose the pay, currently $9.44 per hour. Others said they were torn between striking and remaining loyal to their teachers and stu-• dents. Both sides have agreed on rais- ing salaries by 8% to $10.20 per hour. Teaching assistants can make more if they pass two lan- guage proficiency exams and earn college credits. Both sides have also agreed on granting, teaching TEACHING ASSISTANTS DISPUTE UNION DEMANDS DISTRICT OFFER Paid Leave . 15 days - Four days Job Security ' Permanent status and a minimum guarantee of four hours of work each day; layoffs by seniority and right to transfer based on seniority Individual written contracts with some hours guaranteed Health Benefits Premiums fully paid with option to purchase family coverage Medical benefits for those who work four or more hours per day; employees would pay .50% ($680 per year) Salary and Career Advancement • ' Hourly salary ranging . from $8.24-$17.44; no college requirement; college tuition reimbursement up to, $300 per year Hourly salary ranging from $8-$11.50 based on college courses completed; bilingual differentials ranging from 28 cents to 75 cents per hour; 15 college units per year required to maintain employment Grievance Procedure Review by neutral arbitrator for discipline or termination Review by Personnel Commission staff with , the right to have a union representative present Contract - One year. Three years. • assistants the right to appeal fir- ings to the district's personnel commission. Previously, the assist- ants could be fired at will by school principals. Still at issue are mini- mum hours worked per day, health benefits and paid days off. . One of the biggest stumbling • blocks to reaching a settlement is the union demand for a minimum four-hour work day. In August, the state Public Em- ployment Relations Board filed a complaint against the school dis- trict alleging that the district vio- lated labor law by unilaterally cutting the work schedule of teaching assistants from six to three hours per day in retaliation for the assistants' decision to affili- ate with a union. An administrative law Judge is scheduled to hear the complaint in January. •The district argues` that the scheduling and hiring of teaching assistants is decided by school principals, with recommendations from parent advisory groups. Schools may use state and federal funds to hire teaching assistants or pay for other services, such as counselors or campus security workers. The shortage of bilingual teach- ers is so severe in Los Angeles that district officials estimate that it will take more than 10 years to hire the number needed to accommo- date the 200,000 or so students who are learning English. Times staff writer Bob Baker con- tributed to this story. . ...... ...... ij ... '0)CD LLI z 0': U .714T••1{- ._ • 0,. ot 1, te-...... • -� ( ...'_.. _.....� SKS Associates 4. �r t1Juu.� o a=u :,t, t."".7.:::::::::::,-�.�) t -:l L_, ., , i' James Lissner 2715 El Oeste Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213) 376-4626 January 5, 1991. Mr. Anthony Antich Public Works Director City of Hermosa Beach City Hall Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 RECEIVED MAN 7 1991 PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 7-1 J ; C�� tt-2L Yq%v�`� yY t4-41 Re: Staff report, speed humps, Council Meeting of January 8' ' U� Dear Tony: I've researched some of the questions raised by the staff report, and hope that you will add some clarification you speak at the council meeting. Here is what I've f Potential Liability. I did not find record of any liability loss by any city due to "undulations" (which is what I will, call them). I specifically asked the big 3 local users what their experience had been. Thousand Oaks said that they had had undulations for 10 years and their only suit was by a driver who claimed excess wear -and -tear on his car, but that the suit was dropped. Pasadena said they had been sued by a driver whose tie rod came loose causing him to go out of control, and that this case was thrown out on demurrer because the court saw the terrible state of maintenance of the car (bald tires, accelerator pedal wired down, etc.). Sacramento, which has the most installations of any city, has never had a suit. Who pays?. Individuals do not pay for the undulations in any of the cities cited above and I am not aware of any city where they do. Effectiveness. Your report gives the impression that a 2-5. mph decrease would be the most we could expect from the installation of undulations, while the studies from Pasadena's Bellefontaine Street show a decreases of 8.5 to 10.1 between undulations and 9.5 to 13.5 at undulations. Parking. The staff report twice mentions a potential for loss of parking. None of the three cities cited above remove parking at undulation sites. 12 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION :F Traffic diversion. The staff report states that the potential for diversion would require a citywide study and planned network before any undulations are installed. I agree that in general this is correct, with one exception. I would argue that we do not need to design a citywide network in order to install on a cul-de-sac, since there is no through traffic thus no potential for diversion. (I'would also suggest that in. Hermosa Beach undulations offer the ability to eliminate some present diversions. We have many streets which have been barricaded in order to stop commuters from cutting through. Since direct access from the highway is often blocked, the barricades make the residents of the barricaded streets cut through other neighborhoods in order to get home. Installation of, undulations and the removal of barricades would eliminate some of this extra neighborhood traffic.) El Oeste. The staff report correctly states that El Oeste isn't long and level. First, about length. I would argue that, logically, if El Oeste is long enough for cars to attain excessive speeds, it is long enough for undulations to work. Next, I agree that El Oeste is not level, particularly in the middle. But the ends are sufficiently level, and long enough, to hold a total of two sets of single or paired undulations (paired undulations, 24 to 42 feet apart on centers, are used on 132 streets in Sacramento). Cindy Avenue in Thousand. Oaks is an example of where the flatter portions have undulations and the steeper portions do not (see Clement's ITE article, page 38, which is part of a package Thousand Oaks has just sent to you and may be in Monday's mail). On El Oeste, one undulation (or set) could be located at the south edge, of my driveway. This would keep it off the curved portion of the street, the slope there, 7%, is moderate compared to Cindy Avenue (14.5%) and it is adequately far from the stop sign, about 200 feet. Another undulation could be located near the north end of the cul-de-sac about 50 feet south of the center of the bulb. Speed bumps vs. undulations. While your staff report did include a picture showing that undulations are not as abrupt as a speed bump, I hope you will also display that picture (your fig. 1) at the council meeting so that the public will not become alarmed. Thank you for your attention to this. Sincerely, fr January 3 199 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of January 9, 1991 REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION ON JANUARY 14, 1990 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING UPCOMING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE HERMOSA BEACH POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council schedule a special closed session on Monday, January 14, 1991 at 6:00 p.m. for the purpose of discussing contract negotiations with the Police Officers' Association. BACKGROUND: The current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and Police Officers' Association (POA) expires February 28, 1991. The POA has submitted its request to commence negotiations and staff is currently completing an analysis of their initial pro- posals and preparing the management proposals. ANALYSIS: The requested Closed Session is for the purpose of discussing the POA and Management proposals prior to commencing the formal "Meet and Confer" process under the provisions of California Government Code, Section 3500 et. seq. (a.k.a. Meyers-Milias-Brown Act). An orientation to State meet and confer law, and history of past negotiations, will be included in the closed session presentation. Respectfullyfsub itted, Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager 13 TRACT NO. 46826 IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PORTION OF LOT 42 BLOCK 78 OF THE SECOND ADDITION OF HERMOSA BEACH, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BUOK 3 PAGESI1 AND 12, BOTH OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES LANCO ENGINEERING OWNER'S STATEMENT: WE HEREBY STATE THAT WE ARE THE OWNERS OF OR ARE INTERESTED IN THE LANDS INCLUDED WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION SHOWN ON THIS MAP WITHIN THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER LINES AND WE CONSENT TO THE PREPARATION AND FILING OF SAID MAP AND SUBDIVISION. NNE NERe.BY DEDICATE 'To -iltE PUBU C USE ALL STREETS, HIGHWAYS, AND oTHE_R ri1FSLIC WAYS SHOWN ON SAM MAP. JASON LANE, AS TRUSTEE OF THE LANE FAMILY TRUST, UNDER A DECLARATION OF TRUST DATED JULY 24, 1979 JASON LANE, TRUSTEE (OWNER) HAWTHORNE SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION RECORD HOLDER OF THE BENEFICIAL INTEREST UNDER DEED OF TRUST RECORDED SEPTEMBER 19, 1989 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 89-1501683, OFFICIAL RECORDS. VE-AWON 0 #E,QBS7, PIPES/DENT AL efE,P7 E V/NCENT, ASST saw rzber THE SIGNATURE OF CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, SUCCESSOR TO HERMOSA BEACH LAND AND WATER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, EASEMENT HOLDER FOR WATER PIPELINES BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 27, 1902 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 80 IN BOOK 1617 PAGE 47 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, HAVE BEEN OMITTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 66436(a)3A(I-VII) OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, THEIR INTEREST IS SUCH THAT IT CANNOT RIPEN INTO A FEE TITLE AND SAID SIGNATURE 15 NOT REQUIRED BY THE LOCAL AGENCY. SAID EASEMENT I5 BLANKET IN NATURE. THE SIGNATURES OF ATCHISON TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND/OR THEIR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST, OWNERS OF OIL, GAS OR OTHER HYDROCARBONS OR MINERALS RESERVED IN THE DEED RECORDED MARCH 4, 1955 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 1496 IN BOOK 47096 PAGE 53 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS HAVE BEEN OMITTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 66436(a)3C OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT. THIS TRACT 15 APPROVED AS A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT FOR 10 UNITS, WHEREBY THE OWNERS OF THE UNITS OF AIRSPACE WILL HOLD AN UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE COMMON AREAS WHICH WILL, IN TURN, PROVIDE THE NECESSARY ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENTS FOR THE UNITS. PURSUANT TO SECTION 66499.202 OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, THE FILING OF THIS TRACT CONSTITUTES THE ABANDONMENT OF THE SLOPE EASEMENT ACQUIRED BY THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION SUCCESSOR BY INCORPORATION TO COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES A PUBLIC BOUNDARY CORPORATE AND POLITIC BY INSTRUMENT NO. 3150 RECORDED MARCH 31,1915, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY., NOT SHOWN ON THIS MAP. SHEET I OF 2 SHEETS ENGINEER'S STATEMENT: I HEREBY STATE THAT I AM A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THAT THIS FINAL MAP, CONSISTING OF 2 SHEETS; IS A TRUE AND COMPLETE SURVEY AS SHOWN, AND WAS MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION IN SEPTEMBER 1989; THAT THE MONUMENTS OF THE CHARACTER AND LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN PLACE; THAT SAID MONUMENTS ARE SUFFICIENT -TO -ENABLE THE SURVEY TO BE RETRAJe,ED. MICHAEL A. NICHOLS R.C.E. 22504 EXP. 12-31-93 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE CITY COUNCfL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BY MOTION ADOPTED AT ITS SESSION ON THE DAY OF 1990, APPROVED THE ANNEXED MAP AHDACM-pre? ON BE=HALF OFTHE PUBLIC Fog HtGHWNA`( PuRPOSEs,T}1E StREETS, HIGHWAYS, AND U1HER PUBLIC WAYS A5 6E1OY4N ON SAID MAP DATE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH I HEREBY STATE THAT THE ANNEXED MAP CONFORMS SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE TENTATIVE MAP APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE 1S1 DAY OF Atnc- f , 1989. DATE SECRETARY OF PLANNING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH I HEREBY STATE THAT ALL SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS LEVIED UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, TO WHICH THE LAND INCLUDED IN THE WITHIN SUBDIVISION OR ANY PART THEREOF 15 SUBJECT, AND WHICH MAP BE PAID IN FULL, HAVE BEEN PAID IN FULL. DATE CITY TREASURER OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH I HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THIS MAP AND THAT IT CONFORMS SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE TENTATIVE MAP AND ALL APPROVED ALTERATIONS THEREOF; THAT ALL PROVISIONS OF SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH APPLICABLE Al THE TIME OF APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH; AND THAT I AM SATISFIED THAT THIS MAP 15 TECHNICALLY CORRECT WITH RESPECT TO THE CITY RECORDS. /143/90 CT..l t7 � - /-.:..GCac,.uJT;;,., DATE .- R.C.E. NO /(;7P ^ EXPIRA4.10N 6 BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE BEARINGS N 19°19'06" E OF THE CENTERLINE OF ARDMORE AVENUE AS SHOWN ON MAP OF TRACT NO. 22187 AS FILED IN BOOK 1027 PAGES 39 AND 40 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, WAS TAKEN AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS SHOWN ON THIS MAP. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ON DCT, 17/lggr BEFORE ME, THE UNDERSIGNED, A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID STATE, PERSONALLY APPEARED JASON LANE PERSONALLY KNOWN 10 ME TO BE THE PERSON WHO EXECUTED THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AS THE TRUSTEE OF THE TRUST THAT EXECUTED THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND KNOWN TO ME TO BE THE PERSON WHO EXECUTED THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE TRUST AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT SUCH TRUST EXECUTED THE SAME. 9 t,Y r'.C'A. SFA. DuUGLAS K. WOOL i rA'•Y PU'iI CA;!FIRMA ,R,'4CPA ..;F4. N ANr,F' e. roi.N::1 ie, - SO" hp. e- •' r f NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ON b -V a p`O BEFORE ME, THE UNDERSIGNED, A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID STATE, PERSONALLY APPEARED VetV10n A Mte411t PERSONALLY KNOWN TO ME OR PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON WHO EXECUTED THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AS THE PRESIDENT, AND Alkow S r.eant PERSONALLY KNOWN TO ME OR PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON WHO EXECUTED THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AS THE A'Kt 'SECRETARY OF HAWTHORNE SAVINGS AND LOAN, ASSOCIATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, THE CORPORATION THAT EXECUTED THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT SUCH CORPORATION EXECUTED THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT PURSUANT TO ITS BY-LAWS OR A RESOLU ION • S BOARD OF DIRECTORS AS BENEFICIARY. u; ,:,,. F. w -..r•.. -Yom..-.. ^_..�.. sP s • .TA•Y PUBL C SCALE: I"= 30' TRACT NO. 46826 IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES LANCO ENGINEERING s° tea`_ Qo,z ss e, PNOE"E 2000' RAO BE6/NN/N6 OF CURVE ES74B//SNE0 AT RECORD 9/STANCE FROM ARDfriORE ,4V64/UE ANO ,47 RECORO 0/STANCE EROS N/LL STREET MONUMENT L/NE, +BOTH PEP TRACT NO. ??/87, N.S. /027-99-40 LOCAT/ON OFS4'vV TO BE SET PER TRACT NO 46903, iYlB. _ _ ._ ECY !/NEOFPgpce/ / DF CRANI °EEO RECOR°ED MARCN ?4 /967 AS /NSTROHENT NO 29/9 OR EST,45//,J'h'EO AT RECORD ANC/ ,4,YO O/JTANl2 1199.07,9 F,P041 SOU7A', rs7 CORNER LOT 4? PEP .SA/0 DEED. ACCEPTED AS THE EZY L/NE OFSPU,PTRACT NO 2 PER O. R 2759-/9 W'LY!/NEOFPARCEL / OF C,PA,v7 OEEO A7CO4POE0 match' 24, /967 AS /NSTRU/YTENTNO. 29/9 O,? ESTABL/SHED PAR,LCEL fr/TH AN0 AT ,PECORO O/STANCE FRO/Y/ 7,9E -EZ/ L/NE OF,JA/O PARCEL /. ACCEPTED AS THE iYLY L/NE OFSPI/R TRACT Na 2 PER O. R 0759-/s. J. irv' CORNER OFLOT 42, BCOCk 75+ SECOND A00/T/ON TO HERMOSA BEACH /*/ie 3-//-/P. AO by ESTABL/S//EO BY/NTE.PSECT/ON FO 34'4' PEP 1,4 CO RD FE 6737C-9 p0R 516-8 FB ° 835- 8°4610,9 E�\ a, 9033 / R; /O A.CO R° / 0�. /gall 98 / 58 64 FD 2X ? PEP LA CO RD. ED 05/6 -54 Y cos' ,3.57 951 A ea - / �a Cq 41 it x/976 E 4133'." 3 PT EST.9B//J'HEO , BY /NTERSECT/ON • FOS /V PER GA CO RP. FB 05/6- 9.61 r 20• Aa - 2p . \ SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS Pp /N /NL/EUOF S(7 PER TRACT NO 22/87 MB. /027 -39-40 FD SPK Re"( P0367 ,45 S1/2/0/VN ON TRACT NO20/87, M,B/007-39-10 w V"' 0 nes, nes, ems,.4 / s T o 4 6.349. "• ec?sB+ • 4; 075' \.-J ci. A_2.3,7G7SO.ET. g 50" 60' N/LET. WALL FSG 404 ... 4989..... 15c 9901 HER T 6717: SET 2" LP, 6"DEEP L_ //197' T 604x' lOr47/04/ OFS 41n1/ TO SE (SET PER TRACT Na 4650/ SET 6 " DEEP 76°36+. m Levi' 8 _0900 ACCEPTED AS THE NWCY!/NEOF SPUR TRACT ND. / PEROR 7755- /8. N76°482TE RA0. /l9'l gg 32 STREET O N00 92 /DOB. 76 S AC C LINA°0/ 3/ SB EA vp0 U6d /ACCEPTEOAS THE E LY //NE OF SPUR 7A',4CT4.2/ PER OR P759 -/S ESTABL/SHE0 BY CONT/NUAT/DN OF THE Caere /NTHESev7Y ONE OF ht/LL STREET AS SHO/YN ON TRACT Na 77/57 478 /027- 39-40 _N75°59 SS'E i- 5' 5 cK 78, T BN S A now UNO M DULIDAgi pf of Ack fNERM0SA 010pf �,t E 0/tBEApN RE°°N°0 TO AV MON /N /if/ PER Z.,4. co. RD ES 0.5/6 -/DA kin _4_4_2. /ND/CATES THE BOUNDARY CFTyELA/VD ST/NG S(%9.O/P//0EO BY Th'/5 Al.