HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/22/14 April 16, 2014
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of
Hermosa Beach City Council April 22, 2014
Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy Implementation
Recommendation:
Confirm the implementation strategy outlined in this report.
Background:
On January 28, 2014, Staff and ROMA Design Group made a presentation to the City Council
outlining the concepts presented in the Downtown Hermosa Beach Core Revitalization Strategy
report prepared by ROMA. The Council provided comments, generally agreeing with strategies
and next steps to include an implementation strategy and public comment. The January Staff
Report and supplementals, Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy, Market and Economic
Analysis reports and Council discussion may be reviewed here:
http://hermosabeach.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=2857&meta_id=140254
Per the Council’s Strategic Planning Process, Leader’s Guide 2014, Protocol 12, this
Work/Study Session Type III Report provides the following topics: Background Information
(above), Discussion of Topics, Explore City’s Role in Need for Action, and Focus on Overall
Policy Direction and Guidelines.
Discussion of Topics:
The Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy and Market and Economic Analysis
(http://hermosabeach.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=2857&meta_id=140254)
finds there is potential to enhance the downtown to create a focus of social life in the city that
appeals to a diversity of people and provides the following key findings. The purpose of this
work session is to seek Council’s input on next steps related to each of the proposals in the
Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy. For each component of the strategy, staff provides a
recommendation on the next steps for council review and confirmation. Generally, each
component would be referred to the specified department(s) to develop additional information,
provided to the relevant city commissions to solicit public input, and then be forwarded to the
City Council for direction on implementation.
1. Hermosa Avenue Streetscape Improvements: The Revitalization Strategy proposed
streetscape improvements on Hermosa Avenue between 14th and 10th Streets with diagonal
parking on the east side of the street and landscape improvements on both sides of the street
as well as in the median. These improvements are similar in concept to what was undertaken
on Pier Avenue by the City.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that these proposals are forwarded to Public Works
with input from Finance for further evaluation and development. The effort would include a
review of traffic, parking and other considerations, coordination with utilities, preparation of
a preliminary cost estimate, and options for funding and financing. Then it would go to the
Public Works Commission for consideration and public input, and their recommendations
would then be forwarded to the City Council for direction on implementation.
Implementation steps could include commitment of funding and direction on the preparation
of construction documents.
2. Pier Plaza and Strand Improvements: The proposal is for extending the line of palms,
planting a second row of canopy trees to provide human scale, new lighting, banners and
banner poles, and removal of obstructions in the pavement. Council also recommended
consideration of fountains and/or sculptural elements in the plaza. For the Strand,
introduction of a children’s play area, adult fitness equipment and a bicycle kiosk were noted.
The purpose of all of these is to create a more diverse, family-friendly environment.
Recommendation: The proposals would be forwarded to Public Works in coordination with
Community Resources and Financing and consultation with Police to outline the
improvement program, develop cost estimates, and evaluate potential funding and financing
sources. From there, the proposals would go to a joint Public Works and Parks and
Recreation Commission meeting for consideration and public input and based on the
recommendations of these Commissions, they would be forwarded to the City Council for
direction on implementation. Implementation steps could include commitment of funding
and direction on the preparation of construction documents.
3. Downtown Core Parking Structure south of Pier Plaza: The Revitalization Strategy proposes
the construction of a similar public parking structure south of Pier Plaza adjacent to 11th
Street on City-owned property. This parking structure would provide additional parking to
meet parking demand and to support redevelopment and intensification efforts. The design
concept includes retail uses adjacent to the Hermosa Avenue frontage, similar to the parking
structure to the north of Pier Plaza. In addition, consideration could be given to the inclusion
of a downtown solid waste facility and public restrooms within the structure.
Recommendation: The recommendation is to forward the concept to Public Works and the
City Manager with input from Finance. The Public Works Department would coordinate
with utilities, confirm cost estimates, identify any related infrastructure improvement
requirements, identify funding options and prepare a construction phasing strategy. Finance
would also assist in identifying potential revenue streams and funding and financing options.
The proposal will then be forwarded to the Public Works Commission for consideration, and
public input, and then based on their recommendation, it will be forwarded to City Council
for action. The potential for the Hermosa Avenue frontage to incorporate retail on the
ground floor and office on the upper floors will be explored and, since the Planning
Commission would be involved in considering a discretionary precise development plan, it
may be efficient to conduct a joint Public Works/Planning Commission meeting for
consideration and public input. Based on the recommendations of these Commissions, the
proposal would be forwarded to the City Council for direction on implementation.
Implementation would include commitment of funding, environmental documentation,
permitting and construction documents.
4. Land Use and Zoning Recommendations: The Revitalization Strategy recommended that
certain zoning and land use regulations particularly related to the Downtown Core be
modified and/or augmented. These included requirements for active ground level uses on
Hermosa Avenue, Pier Plaza and on the Strand between 13th and 11th Streets, augmenting
provisions in the ordinance to facilitate upper floor office development, and modify parking
requirements in the zoning ordinance to encourage a pedestrian and bicycle oriented district
and to allow flexibility to meet parking requirements in public parking facilities. Parking
studies should be undertaken in summer 2014 to support this work.
Recommendation: Land use and zoning proposals should be forwarded to the Community
Development Department for further analysis and refinement and then to the Planning
Commission for consideration and public input. Based on the Planning Commission
recommendations, these will be provided to the City Council for direction on
implementation. Implementation could include zoning amendments.
5. Catalyst Project: The Revitalization Strategy also identified potential public actions that
may be desirable to achieve a catalyst hotel project with public-spirited qualities and
activities that would contribute to making the downtown a more diverse and inviting
environment for residents and visitors, thus adding to the quality of life in the city. If these
qualities and activities adequately meet public benefit criteria, then the City could consider
the closure of a portion of Beach Drive between 13th Court and Pier Plaza, off-site parking in
City facilities which would be paid for in part by in-lieu fees, and pursuit through the ballot
process for voter approval of a height limit change to 45 feet for a three-story project,
particularly since the Bijou Theater, directly adjacent to the project is already 45 to 50 feet in
height. The Revitalization Strategy explicitly stated that these considerations should only be
pursued if the programming and design of the hotel would have clear public benefits and the
quality of development that is desired by the City.
Recommendation: The recommendation is to forward this proposal to the Community
Development Department and City Manager for further study and refinement with input from
Public Works and public safety. The more developed proposals would then be forwarded to
the Planning Commission for consideration and public input. The Planning Commission
recommendations would be provided to the City Council for direction and next steps.
Explore City’s Role or Need for Action:
The City owns significant strategically located land resources that can be used to strengthen the
economic vitality of the area and enhance the quality of life in the community as a whole.
Realizing the potential of the Downtown Core will require both public and private initiatives
including large and small capital improvement projects as well as changes to parking and zoning
involving private development. These require City action to effect change.
The City has been contacted by various developers regarding key private sites, and the Council
has expressed the desire for the City to provide the framework for development. Adoption and
implementation of this Revitalization Strategy will provide guidelines and by which private
development may proceed and ways in which the city can provide incentives to achieve its stated
objectives. This approach is consistent with the premise of the Community Dialogue process that
the City defines its values and objectives, and by doing so, set expectations for future
development.
In addition, this Revitalization Strategy is a valuable input to the General Plan rewrite process,
and the process and quality of the planning process will benefit from the public input process
recommended in this report.
Given the many projects and priorities of the Council, preliminary work to support planning,
review and implementation of each component of the Revitalization Strategy, and staff capacity,
the following timeline should be viewed as conceptual. In particular, several components require
parking studies and traffic analysis which will be undertaken during the peak summer months.
Coordination with the General Plan update is a further consideration. As each department
responsible for implementation commences work, the timeline may shift as the work effort is
more specifically evaluated for the preparation of preliminary studies, costing and funding and
for scheduling Commission reviews and Council direction. Public Works notes that this work
will compete in priority with other projects, such as the PCH/Aviation Improvement Concept
Plan, although construction schedule will ultimately depend on funding resources.
Component FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16 +
May-Jun Jul-Dec Jan-Jun Jul-Jun
1. Hermosa Ave Improvements
Prep for Commission review
Commission /Council review
Implementation
2. Pier Plaza/Beach Improvements
Prep for Commission review
Commission /Council review
Implementation
3. Parking Structure
Prep for Commission review
Commission /Council review
Implementation*
4. Land Use and Zoning
Prep for Commission review
Commission /Council review
Code Amendment**
5. Catalyst Project
Prep for Commission review
Commission /Council review
Code Amendment/Implement**
* Likely to be implemented in conjunction with private development proposals.
** Some amendments might be appropriately implemented in conjunction with General Plan/Coastal Plan rewrite.
From: Lana Leslie <lanacollinsleslie@me.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 12:59 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Strategic Plan
Dear Council,
I do not support the Strategic Plan which upholds and future implements the Agenda 21 plan. You
should be not be taking and dictating the use of land, from the American Citizen's who are the rightful
owners.
Stop the movement and get back on a Constitutional track. If you are unfamiliar with Agenda 21 - do
your homework.
Lana Leslie
From: John Bell [mailto:jonbel3@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 1:36 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject:
I DO NOT SUPPORT THE ADOPTION OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
From: iAgenda21 [mailto:futureearthus@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 11:09 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Letter to the Mayor and Council
4-14-2014
Dear Council Member:
My name is Dan Titus and I belong to the coalition, The American Coalition for Sustainable
Communities (ACSC). We are a group of volunteers who work with people to edify them about
history of Sustainable Development (SD) and offer solutions for people in order to assist them to
dialog with their elected officials on this very important topic.
For decades planners have been doing what they do - plan. Now citizens and the business
community are here to debate issues as they pertain to SD.
What is Sustainable Development or Sustainability?
Ask this question of a layman and more than likely you will get a blank stare, or a explanation
that has nothing to do with the real definition as used by planners and agencies.
1. Your City Planner's Are Using This Definition
In 1987, the UN's Brundtland Commission released a report, which included the Vancouver
Plan's recommendations. It also defined the term "sustainable development" as "development
that meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs." The UN set the definitions for current and future needs.
(See/Google: "Our Common Future," - Brundtland Report, "Towards Sustainable
Development"?).
Vague. Here is our definition:
2. The American Coalition for Sustainable Communities (ACSC) Definition
SD is government influenced development, which uses science, politics and consensus to predict
future needs and create present-day planning schemes; therefore, it is preemptive in nature and
promotes centralized planning. SD appeals to the influence of unelected regional boards, bodies
and commissions. This can have unintended consequences. It can undermine local elected
official’s authority, and ultimately local control. A primary driver of SD is taxpayer funded
grants. Grants, through specific terms and conditions, often usurp American exceptionalism:
bottom-up, local control. SD generally results in increased taxation, restricted land use and
cosmetic benefits for the present with potentially harmful impacts on future generations. In the
long run, this ultimately hampers property rights in that property owners often have all the
responsibility of ownership and no authority of ownership.
3. Comments
As you go through your planning process, please be aware of the aforementioned definitions.
Also, SCAG RTP plans are just that: plans. Your city maintains land use authority under AB375
and under RHNA, SCAG quotas, based on population figures from the California Department of
Finance, have been found to be wrong, opening up cities to litigation. For example the city of
Hollywood was sued and the plaintiffs prevailed based this.
We all want to be good stewards of our environment; however the current frenzy of planning
fueled by AB32 and AB375 and grants from stimulus money are already have negative impacts
on communities across California. Be cautious.
I invite you to visit the iAgenda 21 Web site, which is a entity I started a couple of years a ago,
to learn more about SD and how it pertains to your local community.
Please call me if you have questions,
Dan Titus
Alta Loma, California
909-510-0722
--
iAgenda 21
iagenda21.com
FutureEarthUS@gmail.com
As California goes, so goes the Nation;
as the San Francisco Bay Area goes, so
goes California.
1
From: Woodrow Clark II <wwclark13@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 11:32 AM
To: Terri Dinubilo
Subject: City Council Letter to be given in Person at Council Meeting on 22 April
HI Terri,
My name is Woody Clark.
Attached is a Letter to the City Council.
I am planning on attending the next Council
meeting this Tues, 22 April --- public comment
is fine --- at 7PM?
Let me know.
And if I need to do anything special -- have slides and
materials to present or whatever.
Thanks.
Woody
--
Woodrow W. Clark, II, MA3 , PhD
Qualitative Economist
Managing Director
Clark Strategic Partners
PO Box #17975
Beverly Hills, CA
USA 90209
wwclark13@gmail.com
TEL: +1 (310) 858-6886
FAX: +1 (310) 858-6881
web site: www.clarkstrategicpartners.net
2
Clark Strategic Partners
Sustaining the Earth 17 April 2014
永續地球
P.O. Box #17975
Beverly Hills, CA 90209
TO: Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
FROM: Woodrow W. Clark II, MA3, PhD
Daniel Wolf, Esq.
RE: Draft Cost/Benefit Report
The issues noted herein were covered in the Comments submitted to the City of Hermosa
Beach by Clark Strategic Partners and its team. However, below are three summary
points of key issues, which stand unaccounted for and explained by the Authors of the
Draft Report. Each one needs the Council’s attention and could be provide a parallel path
of action items for the City.
1) The economic and financial areas in the Draft Cost Benefit Report are seriously in
error. Aside from numbers being incomplete, dated and wrong, they lack any life-cycle or
externality economic analyses.
Consider among other examples the use of a formula for job creation based on the first
year and then calculated for four years hereafter to project for the life of the E&B Project.
When a base number is wrong; then when used for along term calculation, the entire
charts and figures are suspect.
Another example includes materials and reports cited on real estate values in 2007-09.
The global economic collapse occurred in the middle (October 2008) so these numbers
are suspect. Real estate values have changed dramatically since 2008. And to make
predictions based on real estate numbers then and even before 2008 are wrong. The
conclusions therein are seriously suspect.
Furthermore in the economics and finance areas the reference and use of the BRG data
and report, whose contractor was E&B, makes their numbers and conclusions also
suspect. For example, in the Draft Report, E&B has limits and caps on its liability and
insurance coverage which therefore makes the City also responsible for damages,
liabilities and potential legal actions.
2) Legal settlement issues. The E&B project advocates “state-of-the-art directional well
oil drilling” (Settlement Agreement and Release, March 2012: pg#2) which is otherwise
known as hydraulic fracturing or “fracking”. This is commonly done and the terms
interchanged today. While E&B states in the Settlement that “Due to technology and
operational advancement in the past 15 years made by the oil and gas industry related to
safety and efficiency of oil and gas production “ (ibid. pg#2) that is simply wrong,
3
incorrect and false given the overwhelming evidence of accidents, environmental, land
and atmospheric impacts from the climate change due to these projects. The evidence is
overwhelming and in fact can be attributed to oil and gas wells in Texas and Oklahoma
where the frequency and unusual damage to property and loss of lives has risen
dramatically in the past decade. There is plenty of data to show these results from oil and
gas drilling.
The settlement recites that it was an "oil and gas lease", but that it was an "oil project"
and a "directional well oil drilling project". Whatever the original lease said, this
document is probably operative as far as this whole Project is concerned. So there needs
to the development of legal definitions, referencing industry norms, of the terms such as
"directional well oil drilling project".
Paragraph C says that E&B contemplates a "state of the art directional drilling". That
would probably include horizontal, but would it include unconventional recovery
(fracking)? We suspect not, or the words "and recovery" would have been included.
The paragraph also mentions oil and gas, which is consistent with the idea of gas being
sought after, but E&B is an assignee of Mcpherson rights and would not, under normal
legal doctrine, be permitted to expand on the rights of the assignor (and the liability of the
city) by slipping in their own expectations and hopes.
Important elements: Does the definition include more than incidental gas recovery? What
have the other thousands of wells in this field produced (this goes to City
expectations)? Does directional drilling include horizontal drilling, i.e., a 90-degree turn
(as opposed to, say, angles from the drill site that involve no turning)? Does the term
encompass unconventional recovery techniques? If it does now, did it then? i.e., did the
parties clearly contemplate unconventional recovery techniques? If not, what did they
contemplate? If they contemplated different things because the terms weren't defined,
then was there a meeting of the minds on exactly what was contemplated? And if there
was not a meeting of the minds, then whose definition should be privileged?
The definitions in Section II do not answer these questions. They remain open to judicial
fact-finding, interpretation and decisions.
Gas is contemplated in Para 7b of the Grant Deed, but the question remains as to what the
expectations were for proportion of gas recovered and recovery techniques to be utilized.
The insertion of GAS within the last few years (and legally on what basis?) when Oil was
the original issue and basis for the settlement. Specifically the oil-to-gas sleight of hand is
a critical issue. Most oil wells produce gas, but that is usually minor, and is often flared
off. So-called dry wells are all gas; the more profitable ones produce oil and gas in
various mixtures; the higher profits come from the higher and more resilient/stable value
of the oil, which is in shorter supply and is not being competed down in price the way gas
is drilled, processed, shipped and consumed today.
The issue for using a sleight of hand argument is in whether the shift is one of degree or
4
of kind. Contract law whereby generally expectations would allow for reasonable shifting
to be contemplated in situations where industry standards contemplate it. But even
industry standards would define a boundary condition for a change in kind. If the change
in expected output can be described convincingly as a change in kind that exceeds
industry standards for well descriptions, then perhaps the contract can be challenged as
not conforming to the subject matter of the prior legal action. These issues too are
connected to liability and insurance concerns for the City.
One way for the City, as well as the Land and Ocean Commissions to prevent fracking
(eg directional and other drilling), is to prohibit the use of more than incidental amounts
of water. This restriction needs to also apply to horizontal and directional drilling which
also uses water in order bore and dig its holes.
3) Land and Coastal Commissions need to issue a note to stop this Hermosa Beach
project as proposed by E&B due to a long list of land and ocean issues due to accidents,
safety and security. They need to issue rules and regulations in coastal and ocean areas
immediately. The separately submitted analysis by Howard Goldstein, Esq that provides
the background and data.
Recommendation: The E&B Lease, arbitration result and now Draft Report are very
biased including the legal settlement toward the City of Hermosa Beach. In fact, this
should be re-examined by the City for further legal actions. The legal fees to take such
actions are dramatically lower than those in the settlement.
Thanks for your attention.
Woodrow W. Clark II, MA3, PhD
Qualitative Economist
and
Daniel Wolf, Esq
Legal Advisor
Clark Strategic Partners
PO Box #17975
Beverly Hills, CA 90209
Tel: +1 (310) 858-6886
Fax: +1 (310) 858-6881
Email: wwclark13@gmail.com
Web Site: www.clarkstrategicpartners.net
From: Marlowe Kepner <marlowekepner@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 5:47 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Smart growth
HB
I don't support this plan.
1145 6th Street
HB
--
Marlowe Sutton
310-375-6300 phone
310-943-2737 fax
04/03/2014
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
1
5:55:03PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
14403 4/3/2014 14008 YORK SCRMA 033114 W/Comp Claims - 3/28/14
705-1217-4324 15,559.58
Total : 15,559.58
73548 4/3/2014 00321 A T AND T 248 134-9454 462 8 Circuit Billing - March 14
001-2101-4304 26.70
Total : 26.70
73549 4/3/2014 04715 ADMINSURE 6874 LIABILITY & AUTO CLAIMS/APR 14
705-1209-4201 1,300.00
Total : 1,300.00
73550 4/3/2014 15141 BAYSIDE MEDICAL CENTER 3903 Blood Alcohol Draw/Feb 14
001-2101-4201 63.60
Total : 63.60
73551 4/3/2014 18444 BELASCO THEATRE COMPANY 03572 Instuctor Pymt # 19496
001-4601-4221 616.00
Total : 616.00
73552 4/3/2014 17531 BUCHWALD, LUKASZ 03553 Reimbursement Cables for Data Network
715-1206-5401 190.36
Total : 190.36
73553 4/3/2014 17206 BUCKNAM AND ASSOCIATES INC 228-02.13 PAVEMENT MGMT PROG ADMIN/FEB 14
146-4208-4201 1,828.88
Total : 1,828.88
73554 4/3/2014 01037 CALBO 03550 Class I Membership Renewal
001-4201-4315 215.00
Total : 215.00
73555 4/3/2014 00262 CALIFORNIA MARKING DEVICE 4215 Self Inking Stamp/ "Signature"
001-4204-4309 34.88
Total : 34.88
73556 4/3/2014 18445 CALIFORNIA TRAINING INSTITUTE 03580 Regis Human Factors/M.Zwoyer
1Page:
04/03/2014
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
2
5:55:03PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
73556 4/3/2014 (Continued)18445 CALIFORNIA TRAINING INSTITUTE
001-2101-4313 209.00
Total : 209.00
73557 4/3/2014 00016 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 4286211111 Water Usage - Feb 14
105-2601-4303 2,675.29
001-6101-4303 10,765.69
001-4204-4303 923.27
001-3304-4303 225.10
Total : 14,589.35
73558 4/3/2014 09632 CDWG JW88332 Replacemebt WiFi Antenna
715-1206-5402 444.63
JX90866 (4) Aruba Replacement WiFi Antenna-Feb
715-1206-5402 5,210.20
JZ71949 Toner - Feb 14
715-1206-4305 861.28
JZ90757 Toner - Feb 14
715-1206-4305 489.59
KB10368 Aruba Replacement WiFi Antenna-Feb 14
715-1206-5402 540.00
Total : 7,545.70
73559 4/3/2014 16933 CHALLENGER SPORTS GROUP 03542 Instructor Pymt/ # 19506-07
001-4601-4221 448.00
Total : 448.00
73560 4/3/2014 18070 COME LAND MAINTENANCE CO INC 78420 JANITORIAL SERVICES/JAN 14
001-4204-4201 4,192.50
Total : 4,192.50
73561 4/3/2014 15182 COPP CONTRACTING INC 1813R Street Improve-Various Locales/Retention
147-8127-4201 13,802.26
301-8127-4201 22,138.56
115-8127-4201 29,950.20
Total : 65,891.02
2Page:
04/03/2014
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
3
5:55:03PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
73562 4/3/2014 00642 DAILY BREEZE, THE 162184 Legal Ad/Draft EIR for Public Review
001-2109 1,274.45
Total : 1,274.45
73563 4/3/2014 18446 DANCE N ASSOCIATION LLC, TINA LEDER03541 Instructor Pymt- # 19490,19496
001-4601-4221 752.50
Total : 752.50
73564 4/3/2014 18222 DITLOVE, ROSS 03570 Damage Deposit Release-338 The Strand
001-2110 25,000.00
Total : 25,000.00
73565 4/3/2014 00122 DUNCAN PARKING TECHNOLOGIES DPT016877 AutoTrax Wireless Mgmt/ Feb 14
001-3302-4201 47.00
001-3305-4201 188.00
001-3304-4201 423.00
DPTO16908 Liberty AutoTrax Wireless Mgmt/ Jan 14
001-3302-4201 1,096.50
DPTO16957 Liberty AutoTrax Wireless Mgmt/ Feb 14
001-3302-4201 680.00
Total : 2,434.50
73566 4/3/2014 06344 FIRST CALL STAFFING SERVICES 0709-141790 Temp Services/ Week ending 03-16-14
001-4202-4112 722.76
0709-141867 Temp Services/ Week ending 03-16-14
001-1204-4112 800.28
Total : 1,523.04
73567 4/3/2014 18451 FRESNO COUNTY TREASURER SO11324 Regis-Core Traning/Y.Plata
001-2101-4313 371.18
Total : 371.18
73568 4/3/2014 17149 GREELY, CRAIG 03540 Instructor Pymt / # 19469
001-4601-4221 35.00
Total : 35.00
73569 4/3/2014 14204 HARTZOG AND CRABILL INC 14-0176 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES/FEB 14
001-3104-4201 1,437.52
3Page:
04/03/2014
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
4
5:55:03PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total : 1,437.52 73569 4/3/2014 14204 HARTZOG AND CRABILL INC
73570 4/3/2014 05345 HAWTHORNE, CITY OF IT-13-0317-04 Annual Maint/ Tiburon RMS/ARS/CMS
001-2101-4251 22,724.95
Total : 22,724.95
73571 4/3/2014 08673 HIGGINS, ROBERT 03477 Per Diem - Motrorcylce Officer Training
001-2101-4312 56.00
Total : 56.00
73572 4/3/2014 12586 INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL 2993192 Membership Renewal
001-4201-4315 125.00
Total : 125.00
73573 4/3/2014 02758 JANULEWICZ, ANGELA 03577 Per Diem - A. Janulewicz
001-2101-4313 24.00
Total : 24.00
73574 4/3/2014 18449 KONRAD, GINA 03651 Reimbursement for Lic Renewal
001-2201-4315 200.00
Total : 200.00
73575 4/3/2014 11065 LAOLAGI, ROSE 03539 Instructor Pymt/ # 19597
001-4601-4221 318.50
Total : 318.50
73576 4/3/2014 10655 LILY PAD FLORAL DESIGN INC 222 Surfer's Walk of Fame Inductees Flowers
001-2130 355.00
Total : 355.00
73577 4/3/2014 10045 MAIN STREET TOURS 39284 Excursion/ San Diego Zoo & Safari Pk
001-4601-4201 2,263.00
39285 Transportation/San Diego Zoo & Safari Pk
145-3409-4201 540.00
Total : 2,803.00
73578 4/3/2014 18312 MANIACI INSURANCE SERVICES 556 Benefits Connect Services/Mar 14
001-1203-4201 535.50
4Page:
04/03/2014
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
5
5:55:03PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total : 535.50 73578 4/3/2014 18312 MANIACI INSURANCE SERVICES
73579 4/3/2014 18448 MARGOLIN MAYER, SHELLI 352 Per Diem- Cal Ed Conf
001-1201-4317 70.00
Total : 70.00
73580 4/3/2014 18071 MERCHANTS LANDSCAPE SERVICES 42311 REPLACED TREES/ PIER AVE
001-3301-4201 2,450.00
Total : 2,450.00
73581 4/3/2014 15589 MONKEY STYLE INC 21368 Deposit-Day Camp Trip/Scooter's Jungle
001-1550 150.00
Total : 150.00
73582 4/3/2014 13791 MONTROSE AND ASSOCIATES INC 25125 AV Equip Maint/ Mar 14
715-4204-4201 270.00
Total : 270.00
73583 4/3/2014 10324 MUNI SERVICES COMPANY 33201 UUT AUDIT/ 3RD QTR
001-1202-4201 1,250.00
Total : 1,250.00
73584 4/3/2014 17007 ORTLEY TRANSPORTATION 3200 Afterschool Shuttle-Mar 17-28 2014
145-3411-4201 2,300.00
Total : 2,300.00
73585 4/3/2014 11314 PALM SPRINGS FOLLIES 03080 Balance/ Palm Springs Follies Trip
001-4601-4201 1,957.00
Total : 1,957.00
73586 4/3/2014 14693 PARS PUBLIC AGENCY RETIREMENT, U.S. BANK28230 PARS/ARS Admin - 6746022400/Jan 14
001-2101-4185 10.35
001-2201-4185 101.48
001-3302-4185 5.54
001-4101-4185 7.65
001-4204-4185 24.95
001-4601-4185 150.03
5Page:
04/03/2014
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
6
5:55:03PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total : 300.00 73586 4/3/2014 14693 PARS PUBLIC AGENCY RETIREMENT, U.S. BANK
73587 4/3/2014 00608 PEP BOYS 08141019374 Auto Parts Supplies/ Feb 14
715-4206-4311 71.82
08141019375 Auto Parts Supplies/ Feb 14
715-3104-4311 38.37
08141019454 Auto Parts Supplies/ Feb 14
715-2101-4311 188.00
08141019456 Auto Parts Supplies/ Feb 14
715-2201-4311 94.00
08141019543 Auto Parts Supplies/ Feb 14
715-4201-4311 108.67
08141019616 Auto Parts Supplies/ Feb 14
715-2201-4311 94.00
08141019617 Auto Parts Supplies/ Feb 14
715-4206-4311 19.61
Total : 614.47
73588 4/3/2014 17064 PET MART 00300 Pet Supplies - K-9 Officer/ Keef
170-2105-4309 127.50
Total : 127.50
73589 4/3/2014 08837 REDONDO BEACH, CITY OF 20211 Fuel Purchases - Diesel/ Jan 14
715-2201-4310 990.57
715-3102-4310 20.03
Total : 1,010.60
73590 4/3/2014 02927 REGISTRAR RECORDER CO CLERK 14-2060 Reim HB Municipal Election - Mar 14
001-1121-4251 42,522.22
Total : 42,522.22
73591 4/3/2014 15512 ROUND TABLE 03575 Lunch-All Hands Meeting/PD
001-3302-4317 108.73
Total : 108.73
73592 4/3/2014 03428 SAFETY KLEEN CORPORATION 62773685 Parts Cleaner Service/ Feb 14
715-4206-4201 302.98
6Page:
04/03/2014
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
7
5:55:03PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total : 302.98 73592 4/3/2014 03428 SAFETY KLEEN CORPORATION
73593 4/3/2014 00839 SAXE CLIFFORD PH D, SUSAN 14-0418-2 Pre-employment Exam/Mar 14
001-2101-4201 450.00
Total : 450.00
73594 4/3/2014 01600 SCPMA HR 03565 Membership Renewal-D Strickfaden
001-1203-4317 50.00
Total : 50.00
73595 4/3/2014 17903 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 3646-6 Paint Supplies/ March 14
001-3104-4309 204.92
3651-6 Paint Supplies/ March 14
001-3104-4309 210.51
Total : 415.43
73596 4/3/2014 00114 SMART AND FINAL IRIS COMPANY 132999 PARK Program Supplies - Feb 14
001-4601-4308 262.94
138874 Jail Supplies/Jan 14
001-2101-4306 147.60
139464 Cleaning Supplies/Feb 14
001-4204-4309 158.27
142268 Office Supplies- Feb 14
001-3302-4305 26.13
142573 Excursion Spplies
001-4601-4308 97.00
142576 Office Supplies - March 14
001-4601-4305 25.05
Total : 716.99
73597 4/3/2014 15212 SPLASH WATERPARK 10170 50% Deposit-Summer Camp Trip/Waterpark
001-1550 432.45
Total : 432.45
73598 4/3/2014 10098 SPRINT NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 269424317-147 Wireless Mgmt-PD - Mar 14
153-2106-4201 382.31
7Page:
04/03/2014
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
8
5:55:03PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
73598 4/3/2014 (Continued)10098 SPRINT NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
371554311-148 Cell Phone Usage - Mar 14
001-2201-4304 296.65
Total : 678.96
73599 4/3/2014 00015 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 310 318-0200 Phone Charges-Mar 14
001-1121-4304 14.27
001-1132-4304 7.55
001-1141-4304 3.65
001-1201-4304 10.98
001-1202-4304 46.27
001-1203-4304 47.02
001-1208-4304 1.84
001-2101-4304 354.95
001-2201-4304 209.25
001-4101-4304 31.70
001-4201-4304 53.71
001-4202-4304 166.92
001-4601-4304 81.54
001-1204-4304 49.83
001-3302-4304 5.06
715-1206-4304 15.93
8Page:
04/03/2014
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
9
5:55:03PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
73599 4/3/2014 (Continued)00015 VERIZON CALIFORNIA
310 318-6379 Phone Charges-Mar 14
001-1121-4304 5.07
001-1132-4304 2.68
001-1141-4304 1.29
001-1201-4304 3.90
001-1202-4304 16.43
001-1203-4304 16.70
001-1208-4304 0.66
001-2101-4304 126.07
001-2201-4304 74.32
001-4101-4304 11.29
001-4201-4304 19.08
001-4202-4304 59.28
001-4601-4304 28.96
001-1204-4304 17.70
001-3302-4304 1.79
715-1206-4304 5.62
310 406-2462 Phone Charges - Feb 14
001-2101-4304 47.35
310 RTO-0181 Phone Charges - Feb 14
001-2101-4304 65.76
310 UH9-9686 Circuit Billing/ Feb 14
001-2101-4304 161.64
310 UHO-3618 Circuit Billing -Feb 14
001-2101-4304 430.22
310 VM6-6158 030623 Circuit Billing/ Feb 14
001-2101-4304 42.66
Total : 2,238.94
73600 4/3/2014 03209 VERIZON WIRELESS LA 9720170590 Blue Check Devices - PD/ Feb 14
153-2106-4201 134.80
Total : 134.80
73601 4/3/2014 15597 VORTEX INDUSTRIES 07-802570-1 Emerg Repair - Apparatus Garage Door
001-2201-4201 1,713.27
9Page:
04/03/2014
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
10
5:55:03PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total : 1,713.27 73601 4/3/2014 15597 VORTEX INDUSTRIES
73602 4/3/2014 11219 WESTCHESTER MEDICAL GROUP CH026-6690 Annual Physicals/Feb 14
001-1203-4320 1,000.00
Total : 1,000.00
73603 4/3/2014 04628 YAGER, PAMELA 03578 Per Diem - P. Yager
001-2101-4313 24.00
Total : 24.00
81136 2/26/2014 00170 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO 01100457009 Gas Bill/ 1-9 to 2-10-14
001-4204-4303 75.90
Total : 75.90
84540 2/26/2014 00170 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO 09790459003 Gas Bill/ 1-9 to 2-10-14
001-4204-4303 166.09
Total : 166.09
84686 2/26/2014 00170 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO 10210459003 Gas Bill/ 1-9 to 2-10-14
001-4204-4303 104.89
Total : 104.89
86104 2/26/2014 00170 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO 13910446007 Gas Bill/ 1-9 to 2-10-14
001-4204-4303 67.31
Total : 67.31
86182 2/26/2014 00170 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO 14120446001 Gas Bill/ 1-9 to 2-10-14
001-4204-4303 25.45
Total : 25.45
201404 4/3/2014 00243 HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT 03312014 PAYROLL 3/15/14 TO 3/31/2014
10Page:
04/03/2014
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
11
5:55:03PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
201404 4/3/2014 (Continued)00243 HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT
145-1103 95.58
147-1103 892.35
150-1103 223.10
152-1103 229.56
160-1103 7,519.79
705-1103 3,782.10
715-1103 8,284.03
001-1103 642,224.86
105-1103 5,228.90
115-1103 2,677.03
117-1103 2,357.15
125-1103 669.26
Total : 674,183.71
460885 3/26/2014 00170 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO 01100457009 Gas Bill/ 2-10 to 3-12-14
001-4204-4303 66.91
Total : 66.91
464249 3/26/2014 00170 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO 09790459003 Gas Bill/ 2-10 to 3-12-14
001-4204-4303 146.25
Total : 146.25
464411 3/26/2014 00170 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO 10210459003 Gas Bill/ 2-10 to 3-12-14
001-4204-4303 116.79
Total : 116.79
464908 3/26/2014 00170 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO 11540469001 Gas Bill/ 2-7 to 3-11-14
001-4204-4303 62.06
Total : 62.06
465807 3/26/2014 00170 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO 13910446007 Gas Bill/ 2-10 to 3-12-14
001-4204-4303 80.52
Total : 80.52
465905 3/26/2014 00170 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO 14120446001 Gas Bill/ 2-10 to 3-12-14
001-4204-4303 23.86
11Page:
04/03/2014
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
12
5:55:03PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total : 23.86 465905 3/26/2014 00170 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO
823645 2/24/2014 00170 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO 11540469001 Gas Bill/ 1-8 to 2-7-14
001-4204-4303 80.09
Total : 80.09
Bank total : 909,168.88 70 Vouchers for bank code :boa
909,168.88Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report 70
"I hereby certify that the demands or claims covered by the
checks listed on pages 1 to 12 inclusive,
of the check register for 4/3/14 are accurate
funds are available for payment, and are in conformance to
the budget."
By
Finance Director
Date 4/14/14
12Page:
04/10/2014
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
1
6:14:23PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
14410 4/10/2014 14008 YORK SCRMA 04102014 W/Comp Claims - 4/04/14
705-1217-4324 34,253.99
Total : 34,253.99
73604 4/10/2014 14090 ABRAMS, SAMUEL H 03618 2013 Assessment Tax Rebate
105-3105 24.61
Total : 24.61
73605 4/10/2014 13609 ARROYO, ERIC 334 Background Investigations/Mar 14
001-2101-4201 1,506.52
Total : 1,506.52
73606 4/10/2014 13361 AT AND T MOBILITY 287016141723 Cell Phone Usage - Mar 14
001-4202-4304 226.44
Total : 226.44
73607 4/10/2014 18444 BELASCO THEATRE COMPANY 03545 Instructor Pymt # 319494
001-4601-4221 294.00
Total : 294.00
73608 4/10/2014 18452 BLOMER, CHARLES 03615 2013 Assessment Tax Rebate
105-3105 24.61
Total : 24.61
73609 4/10/2014 08482 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 81359107 Medical Supplies - Mar 14
001-2201-4314 310.84
Total : 310.84
73610 4/10/2014 16452 CASCADE SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE 1266459 Subscription Renewal
001-2201-4317 426.00
Total : 426.00
73611 4/10/2014 09632 CDWG JZ65986A Audio Video Equp/Smart Classroom in EOC
150-2201-5405 75,000.00
001-2201-4201 278.78
Total : 75,278.78
1Page:
04/10/2014
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
2
6:14:23PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
73612 4/10/2014 18185 CERTAPRO PAINTERS 81 Prep & Paint Stop Signs (8)/Pier Ave
001-3301-4309 1,100.00
Total : 1,100.00
73613 4/10/2014 05970 COLLINS, DENNIS 03560 Instuctor Pymt/ #19633,37,41,34,38,42
001-4601-4221 2,128.00
Total : 2,128.00
73614 4/10/2014 18409 COMMONWEALTH CTR FOR HPO INC 3269 HPO Seminar & Expenses/Jan 14
001-1201-4201 12,660.86
Total : 12,660.86
73615 4/10/2014 00879 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES RE-PW 14031007155 ARTESIA MEDIAN MAINT/MAR 14
001-3104-4251 108.68
Total : 108.68
73616 4/10/2014 18401 CRYSTAL LIGHTING CORP 9681 LED Lights /Community Center
105-2601-4309 514.50
Total : 514.50
73617 4/10/2014 00850 CURTIS, L N 1301075-00 Uniform Supplies/ Jackets & Pants
001-2201-4350 1,312.36
Total : 1,312.36
73618 4/10/2014 18446 DANCE N ASSOCIATION LLC, TINA LEDER03701 Instructor Pymt # 19490 & 92
001-4601-4221 227.50
Total : 227.50
73619 4/10/2014 11449 DEWEY PEST CONTROL 8439376 PEST CONTROL SERVICES/
001-4204-4201 601.00
Total : 601.00
73620 4/10/2014 10131 ENKEBOLL, RALPH 03616 2013 Assessment Tax Rebate
105-3105 24.61
Total : 24.61
73621 4/10/2014 08422 FIRE INFORMATION SUPPORT SERV 1040 Records Mgmt/ Mar 14
001-2201-4201 150.00
2Page:
04/10/2014
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
3
6:14:23PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total : 150.00 73621 4/10/2014 08422 FIRE INFORMATION SUPPORT SERV
73622 4/10/2014 14713 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS 1414146 STORMWTR & NPDES PROG ADMIN/JAN 14
160-3102-4201 6,537.72
Total : 6,537.72
73623 4/10/2014 11509 HENGES, PAULA E E46181 DETECTIVE JACKETS
001-2101-4314 179.92
E46585 POLICE PATCHES & NAMES/ DETECTIVE SHIRTS
001-2101-4314 50.14
Total : 230.06
73624 4/10/2014 18196 HUDSON MOTORCYCLES 1611 Motorcycle Repairs
715-2101-4311 494.10
1978 Motorcycle Repairs
715-2101-4311 402.28
Total : 896.38
73625 4/10/2014 00372 INDEPENDENT CITIES ASSOCIATION 2014-21 Membership Renewal - 2014-15
001-1101-4315 823.00
Total : 823.00
73626 4/10/2014 17441 INTELLIBRIDGE PARTNERS, LLC 194744 TEMP SERVICES - FEB 14
001-1202-4201 7,095.00
Total : 7,095.00
73627 4/10/2014 10820 JENKINS AND HOGIN LLP 22258 Legal, RE: Gen City Attorney Svc-Feb 14
001-1131-4201 12,622.50
22259 Legal, RE: E & B Oil/ Feb 14
001-2109 5,610.00
22260 Legal, RE: Community Dev Land Use-Feb 14
001-1131-4201 1,159.40
22261 Legal, RE: Pitchess Motions/ Feb 14
001-1131-4201 784.80
22262 Legal, RE: Code Enforcement-Feb 14
001-1132-4201 27,918.00
3Page:
04/10/2014
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
4
6:14:23PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total : 48,094.70 73627 4/10/2014 10820 JENKINS AND HOGIN LLP
73628 4/10/2014 14360 KAZANJIAN, GARY 03658 2013 Assessment Tax Rebate
105-3105 24.61
Total : 24.61
73629 4/10/2014 18453 KING, LINDA J 03659 2013 Assessment Tax Rebate
105-3105 24.61
Total : 24.61
73630 4/10/2014 00151 LA CO SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT 143323WC Prisoner Meals/ Feb 14
001-2101-4306 278.20
Total : 278.20
73631 4/10/2014 00842 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 136364 Membership Dues/ 2014
001-1101-4315 6,342.00
Total : 6,342.00
73632 4/10/2014 12482 LEXISNEXIS RISK DATA MGMT INC 1114400-20140228 Information Services/ Feb 14
001-2101-4201 50.00
1114400-20140331 Information Services/ Mar 14
001-2101-4201 50.00
Total : 100.00
73633 4/10/2014 17288 LOS ANGELES PHILHARMONIC ASSOC 03595 Hollywood Bowl Excursion/ Deposit
001-4601-4201 367.00
Total : 367.00
73634 4/10/2014 07174 MANION, EMMITT L.03617 2013 Assessment Tax Rebate
105-3105 24.61
Total : 24.61
73635 4/10/2014 18071 MERCHANTS LANDSCAPE SERVICES 41991 LANDSCAPE MAINT/ JAN 14
001-6101-4201 16,490.00
41992 LANDSCAPE MAINT/ JAN 14
001-6101-4201 3,306.00
42189 LANDSCAPE MAINT/ FEB 14
001-6101-4201 16,490.00
4Page:
04/10/2014
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
5
6:14:23PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
73635 4/10/2014 (Continued)18071 MERCHANTS LANDSCAPE SERVICES
42190 LANDSCAPE MAINT/ FEB 14
001-6101-4201 3,306.00
Total : 39,592.00
73636 4/10/2014 18350 NOWICKI, KAREN 346 United Airlines/CMTA
001-1141-4317 204.00
Total : 204.00
73637 4/10/2014 17007 ORTLEY TRANSPORTATION 3223 Afterschool Shuttle/ 3/31-4/4/14
145-3411-4201 1,150.00
Total : 1,150.00
73638 4/10/2014 18447 POSTMASTER 03566 Postage Refill/Bulk Permit #52
001-4601-4305 2,100.00
Total : 2,100.00
73639 4/10/2014 11539 PROSUM TECHNOLOGY SERVICES 147579 IT SUPPORT/ MAR 14
715-1206-4201 12,659.00
Total : 12,659.00
73640 4/10/2014 18223 RAIMI AND ASSOCIATES INC 14-771 GEN & COASTAL PLAN UPDATE/FEB 14
150-4104-4201 13,964.01
Total : 13,964.01
73641 4/10/2014 13255 REDMOND, GEORGE DAVID 30099 Locksmith Service/ Jan 14
001-2101-4305 117.31
Total : 117.31
73642 4/10/2014 16921 ROUND STAR WEST LLC 03544 Instructor Pymtt/# 19516
001-4601-4221 83.30
Total : 83.30
73643 4/10/2014 17903 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 3928-8 Paint Supplies/ March 14
001-6101-4309 9.30
Total : 9.30
73644 4/10/2014 08604 SOUTH BAY FIRE CHIEFS ASSOC 03495 Annual Membership Dues - 2014
5Page:
04/10/2014
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
6
6:14:23PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
73644 4/10/2014 (Continued)08604 SOUTH BAY FIRE CHIEFS ASSOC
001-2201-4315 375.00
Total : 375.00
73645 4/10/2014 08812 SOUTH BAY REGIONAL PUBLIC COMM 02268 DISPATCH SERVICES/
001-2101-4251 129,883.20
001-3302-4251 16,235.40
001-2201-4251 16,235.40
03724 Reimb Air Card Chargers for FD MDC'S
001-2201-4251 2,557.61
03726 Maint CST Tracking System - 2013
001-2101-4251 2,135.84
Total : 167,047.45
73646 4/10/2014 00159 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO 2-01-414-1071 Electrical Billing - Feb 14
001-4204-4303 2,926.40
2-01-414-2152 Electrical Billing - Feb 14
001-6101-4303 1,397.12
2-01-414-3747 Electrical Billing - Feb 14
105-2601-4303 58.45
2-01-414-3994 Electrical Billing - Feb 14
160-3102-4303 78.11
2-01-414-4281 Electrical Billing - Feb 14
105-2601-4303 481.16
2-01-414-5106 Electrical Billing - Feb 14
001-3104-4303 559.83
2-23-687-8021 Electrical Billing - Mar 14
001-3104-4303 60.50
2-23-725-4420 Electrical Billing - Mar 14
001-4204-4303 4,085.24
2-29-332-0750 Electrical Billing - Feb 14
105-2601-4303 286.66
Total : 9,933.47
73647 4/10/2014 15212 SPLASH WATERPARK 10193 Deposit/ Summer Camp Trip - Aug 14
001-4601-4201 432.45
6Page:
04/10/2014
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
7
6:14:23PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total : 432.45 73647 4/10/2014 15212 SPLASH WATERPARK
73648 4/10/2014 10098 SPRINT NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 551834312-147 Cell Phone Usage -Feb 2 - Mar 1 2014
001-4601-4304 85.10
Total : 85.10
73649 4/10/2014 08207 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 220140307 Underground Service Alert/ Feb 14
160-3102-4201 40.50
Total : 40.50
73650 4/10/2014 04768 UPTIME COMPUTER SERVICE 23643 Printer Maintenance/April 14
715-1206-4201 704.60
Total : 704.60
73651 4/10/2014 00015 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 310 167-1756 990511 Circuit Billing/ Mar 14
001-2101-4304 323.60
310 318-0113 101216 Telecommunications - EOC/ Mar 14
001-2201-4304 422.87
310 318-6379 Phone Charges - Apr 14
001-1121-4304 5.07
001-1132-4304 2.68
001-1141-4304 1.29
001-1201-4304 3.90
001-1202-4304 16.45
001-1203-4304 16.71
001-1208-4304 0.66
001-2101-4304 126.19
001-2201-4304 74.40
001-4101-4304 11.30
001-4202-4304 59.34
001-4601-4304 28.99
001-1204-4304 17.72
001-3302-4304 1.80
715-1206-4304 5.64
001-4201-4304 19.10
310 318-9458 080421 Credit Card Line/ Mar 14
001-1204-4304 51.21
7Page:
04/10/2014
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
8
6:14:23PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
73651 4/10/2014 (Continued)00015 VERIZON CALIFORNIA
310 372-6186 890831 Phone Charges - Mar 14
001-1132-4304 44.60
310 PLO-0346 030623 Circuit Billing - Mar 14
001-2101-4304 45.01
310 PLO-0347 030623 Circuit Billing - Mar 14
001-2101-4304 45.01
310 UH9-9686 060508 Circuit Billing/ Mar 14
001-2101-4304 161.64
310 UHO-3618 030623 Circuit Billing/Mar 14
001-2101-4304 430.22
310 VM6-6158 030623 Circuit Billing/ Mar 14
001-2101-4304 42.66
Total : 1,958.06
73652 4/10/2014 09056 VERIZON ONLINE 1160742236 Fiber Optic Line - Mar 14
715-1206-4201 170.00
Total : 170.00
73653 4/10/2014 03209 VERIZON WIRELESS LA 97020170591 LCM 12 Lead Program - FD/ Feb 14
001-2201-4304 91.44
Total : 91.44
73654 4/10/2014 05939 WEBER, TRAUDL 03648 2013 Assessment Tax Rebate
105-3105 24.61
Total : 24.61
73655 4/10/2014 17569 ZGRAY SPORTS LLC 03543 InstructorPymt/ # 19463 & 19461
001-4601-4221 1,310.40
Total : 1,310.40
73656 4/10/2014 17268 ZWOYER, MEGAN 03581 Per Diem- California Training Institute
001-2101-4313 16.00
Total : 16.00
Bank total : 454,079.19 54 Vouchers for bank code :boa
8Page:
04/10/2014
Check Register
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
9
6:14:23PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :boa
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount
454,079.19Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report 54
"I hereby certify that the demands or claims covered by the
checks listed on pages to inclusive,
of the check register for are accurate
funds are available for payment, and are in conformance to
the budget."
By
Finance Director
Date
9Page:
April 15, 2014
Honorable Mayor and Members Regular Meeting of
of the Hermosa Beach City Council April 22, 2014
TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
MAY 13, 2014 @ 6:00PM
STUDY SESSION: PCH/AVIATION
MAY 13, 2014
PRESENTATIONS
WEST BASIN WATER DISTRICT – OCEAN FRIENDLY GARDEN
HERMOSA ARTS FOUNDATION DONATES $25,000 WORTH OF LIGHT/SOUND EQUIPMENT TO HERMOSA PLAYHOUSE
MUNICIPAL MATTERS
E&B’s Proposed Oil Drilling and Production Project Update Community Development Director
Valuing Employees: Policy Statement City Manager/Assistant to the City
Manager
Approve PCH-Aviation Beautification Final Concept Plan Public Works Director
Events Calendar and Review Process Assistant to the City Manager
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Finance Director
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER
SCE Update City Manager
Vehicle Replacement Update Report Public Works Director
Surf Memorial Statue Update Public Works Director
THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2014 @ 7:00PM
BUDGET/CIP WORKSHOP AND CITY FISCAL HEALTH
MAY 27, 2014 @ 6:00PM
STUDY SESSION: EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AT EOC
MAY 27, 2014
CONSENT CALENDAR
Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Emergency Preparedness Advisory
Commission meeting of March 3, 2014
Fire Chief
Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of
May 20, 2014
Community Development Director
Contract Public Information and Communications Plan City Manager
MUNICIPAL MATTERS
E&B’s Proposed Oil Drilling and Production Project Update Community Development Director
Employee Salaries/Benefits – Survey City/Approach, Compensation Policy Assistant to the City Manager
City of Redondo Beach Harbor Dr/Herondo St Improvement Project Public Works Director
Land Management Software Award of Contract Community Development Director
2
PENDING ITEMS
AES Corporation Presentation and Update Community Development Director
JUNE 2014
UCLA Study on Community Chose Aggregation and Other Options for Zero-Emissions Renewable
Energy
City Manager
Adoption of Budget Finance Director
Oil - EIR Certification Community Development Director
Oil - Cost Benefit Analysis, Health Impacts Assessment Community Development Director
Oil – Development Agreement Community Development Director
Capital Improvement Funding for Year 1 Projects Public Works Director
Citywide Service Level/Performance Benchmark System Report Finance Director
Carbon Neutral Municipal Policy Direction City Manager
Carbon Neutral Community Policy, Direction on Plan Development Community Development Director
Comparative Economic Analysis – Benefits and Opportunities from 1st Carbon Neutral
(Community/Municipality) vs. Leader in Carbon Neutral
Community Development Director
AES Resolution, Intervener, Future Development on the Site Community Development Director
Undersea Cable (Addition) Lease City Manager
JULY 2014
Oil – Ballot Measure Community Development Director
Communications Plan and Direction City Manager
Downtown Use of Assets Community Development Director
Carbon Neutral – Employee Commute Program Community Development Director
Living Streets Update Report Public Works Director
Carbon Neutral Municipality:
A. Clean Fleet Energy Policy: Update Report
B. SCE Street Light Energy Efficiency: Update Report
C. Municipal GHG Emissions Inventory: Update Report (SBCCOG)
Community Development Director
Public Safety Service and Staffing: Quarterly Report Police Chief / Fire Chief
AUGUST 2014
Restaurant/Bar (50/50) Definition Community Development Director
Oil – Simulating Project Impacts Community Development Director
Public Information and Communications Plan Adoption City Manager
Cypress Avenue - Direction on Zoning Changes for Manufacturing Uses Community Development Director
Priority Based Budgeting Report Finance Director
Update on Direction for Schools Strategy and Specific Actions: Support for Top Quality Schools City Manager
Strategic Plan – Quarterly Update City Manager
SEPTEMBER 2014
None
OCTOBER 2014
Carbon Neutral Municipality - Solar Report – Early Actions and Overall Direction City Manager
NOVEMBER 2014
Compensation Study and Policy Direction Assistant to the City Manager
National Citizen Survey Overview Assistant to the City Manager
Priority Based Budgeting Report Finance Director
DECEMBER 2014
Comprehensive City Facilities Master Plan – Award Contract Public Works Director
Carbon Neutral Municipality:
A. Final SCAG Report: Setting Target, Action Plan, Funding
B. Net Zero Carbon Policy for City Facilities and Service Delivery Analysis
C. Renewable Energy Policy for City Facilities and Service Delivery
City Manager
Strategic Plan – Quarterly Update City Manager
CIP NO. 13-401 Sewer Improvements
Street Segment List
Street Name From: To:
1st Street Ardmore Avenue Pacific Coast Highway
3rd Street Ardmore Avenue Pacific Coast Highway
Ardmore Avenue 6st Street 8th Street
Ardmore Avenue Porter Lane 25th Street
Ardmore Avenue 11st Street 9th Street
Bonnie Brae Street Aviation Blvd 14th Street
Gentry Street 6th Street Prospect Avenue
Hill Street Ardmore Avenue 2nd Street
Hopkins Street 3rd Street 5th Street
Massey Avenue 5th Street Prospect Avenue
Prospect Avenue Massey Avenue Hollowell Avenue
Prospect Avenue 8th Street 9th Street
Prospect Avenue 16th Street Campana Street
Hillcrest Drive 21st Street 18th Street
Springfield Avenue 21st Street End
31st Place Manhattan Avenue Morningside Drive
15th Street Ocean Drive Pacific Coast Highway
30th Place Manhattan Avenue Palm Drive
8th Place Pacific Coast Highway Ardmore Avenue
Pal
m Dr Val
l
ey Dr
The Str
andManhat
tan AveAr
dmor
e AveBayvi
ew DrPr
ospect
AvePaci
f
i
c Coast
HwyMont
er
ey Bl
vdBea
ch Dr
7 t h S t
8 th P l
5 t h S t
25th St
1 0 t h S t
6 t h S t
P i e r A v e
2 n d S t1 4 th S t
H
e
r
mo
s
a Av
e 30th S tH
arp
er A
v
e31st S t1 6 t h S t
Ocean Dr29th S t31st P l28th S tSunset
Dr
Gould Ave30th Pl32nd P l33rd S t17th S tAlley33rd P l29th C t28th C t1 s t S t3 r d S t7 t h P l
L
o
ma Dr
Aviation Blvd8th S t
24th Pl
9t h S t27th S t4 th S t
1 s t P l
H e ro n d o S tO
z
o
n
e
C
t
2 4 t h S t
Longfellow Ave
Artesia Blvd
2 1 s t S t
1 3 t h S t26th S t1 5 t h S t
1 9 t h S t34th S tBonni
e Br
ae StOwosso AveRhodes St
1 1 t h S t
In
gle
s
id
e
D
r
20th StHill
cr
est Dr
Hol
l
owel
l
AveO a k S t
Bard St 20th P lGentry StMyrtle A
v
e
Power St
Gould Ter
Reynol
ds Ln1 s t C tPark Ave22nd St34th PlHill St
1 7 t h C t
1 8 t h C t
1 8 t h S t1 6 t h C t
1 5 t h P lAva AvePorter Ln
1 9 t h C t
11 t h P l
1 4 t h C t
Circle Dr
1 3 t h C t Cypress AveL y n d o n S t
9 t h C t
1 1 t h C t
1 5 t h C t
1 2 t h C t
2 0 t h C t
1 0 t h C t
Hopki
ns St
3 5 th S tGolden Ave
Silver St
6 t h C t
Cul
per Ct Me
y
e
r Ct
2 1 s t C tHig
h
l
a
n
d
Av
e
5 t h C t Massey AveSpr
i
ngf
i
el
d AveN e p tu n e
4 t h C t23rd StCampana St
3 r d C t Bar
ney CtAmby PlMarlita Pl
Morningside Dr
2 1 s t S t
30th St
21st StL
o
ma Dr
1 1 t h S t
5 t h S t Bard St
2 0 t h S t
1 6 t h S t17th S t
1 s t S t
1 3 t h S t
4 th S t7 t h S t
24th St
2 5 t h S t26th S t4 th S t1 9 t h S t
1 5 t h S t
3 rd S t2 4 t h S t
3 r d S t
1 0 t h S t
2 n d S t
11 t h St
6 th S t
2 4 t h P l
2 0 t h S t
4 t h S t
2 0 th S t
1 s t P l8 t h S t Reynolds LnA l le yCypre
ss Ave1 8 t h S t
1 8 t h S t
A
r
d
mo
r
e Av
e
7 th S t1 s t S t
1 4 t h S t
1 0 t h S t
9 t h S t
4 t h S t
O a k S t
Her
mosa Ave1 st S tLoma Dr2 4 th S t1 1 t h S t
1 s t S t9 t h S t
1 9 t h S t
6 t h S t
1 1 t h P lCIP 13-401Sewer Repairs
City of Hermosa Beach
¯
Sewer Repairs
City Sewer Lines
1
Supplemental submission to the 4/22/14 City Council agenda 6a – Attachment 1.
To: The City of Hermosa Beach
Honorable Mayor,
Mayor Pro tem and
Council Members.
From: Tom Morley
I have made a concerted effort to honestly evaluate the Draft Cost Benefit Analysis and
share my observations on page one. Please consider the action item suggestions on pg2-3.
1. In the spirit of transparency and full disclosure I am asking the City Council to assist
the citizen ‘decision makers’ to compare a presentation of historical facts to the current
Draft CBA projections which are based only on their experts evaluation of E&B provided
Oil Industry data.
On 4/3/2014 the City provided to Kosmont new information produced by the State Lands
Commission in a report commissioned by the City of Hermosa Beach.
( and to citizens per our 05/30/2013 Public Records Request )
This Hermosa Beach border data (Redondo Beach North Lease) is the most similar
example with which to compare our proposed 35 year, 30 well project. The CBA team
had not previously considered the complete dataset for production volume from Redondo
Beach’s 35 year, 31 well adjacent oil field.
It should be noted that every Oil Operator applies contemporary laws, market conditions
and technology to the benefit of stakeholders. It should be assumed that any future
operator will also attempt to maximize production as required by State Law and our Oil
Lease. It can not be assumed that Triton Oil withheld production from Redondo Beach.
The CBA used the Intera report (1996 -1997) to extrapolate the CBA Oil estimates. The
CBA report, page 24, clearly states that the Intera data was flawed and “cannot be agreed
with at this time” and, page 25 “Even with newer technology, it is considered very
optimistic to escalate the recovery factor to almost 2-1/2 times the base recovery factor as
shown in the 1997 Intera report”. Previously the CBA only had relied upon 6 month old
hand notes from a report viewing at Oil Company’s law office.
On 4/17/2014 the City provided, for the first time, the complete Intera report.
I reviewed the actual reports with the CBA oil expert last Friday and I came to the conclusion the
Intera report errors vastly increased the oil producing sand depths and acreage beyond that known
to be true from the Redondo Beach actual data. I suggest the CBA report should continue to use
their own experts Oil volume estimates and knowledge of modern technology but it should be
based on actual historical Redondo Beach production volume.
Thank You, Tom Morley
2
Potential action items for the 4/22/14 City Council Meeting pg 1/2
Action:
1.A. Action: I ask that the Council directs staff that Kosmont shall include the Redondo
Beach North Lease 35 year, 31 well, proven actual production volume data be added to
the CBA oil volume projections for reference.
For example;
Table 1: Original Oil in Place for Each Major Zone (In million stock tank barrels)
Table 2: Estimated Reservoir Production (In million stock tank barrels)
Table 3: Comparison of Production Estimates (barrels of oil)
1. B. Action: I ask that the Council directs staff that Kosmont shall include the
Redondo Beach North Lease 35 year, 31 well, proven actual production data be added to
the many existing projections of revenue in the CBA Tables and Figures.
For example;
Table 7:City Oil & Gas Revenue Projections (Project Lifetime / Over 34 years)
Table 8: Comparison of Scenario Revenue Projections
Table 14: Estimated Incremental Property Tax Revenues - -$ -$ -$ -$ -
Table 15:Gross School District Oil & Gas Revenue Projections (Project Lifetime)
Table 23 through Table 27 summary calculations of net City revenues
Table 28 Sample Annual City Cashflow - CBA expected, Advances Utilized
Table 39: Summary of Net Projected City
Table 39: Summary of Net Projected City
1. C. Action: I ask that the Council directs staff that Kosmont shall reconsider the draft
oil volume estimates and consider using the new Redondo Beach North Lease complete
dataset as the baseline instead of the Intera data.
1.D. Redondo Beach North Lease utilized 31 wells, directionally drilled, to produce 5.5
million barrels from under 300 acres. The Intera report projects 900+ acres for the
Hermosa Beach production area. The CBA indicated 850 acres. This begs the question of
how many wells would be required to drain three times the acreage.
Note: CBA Figure 14 indicates that 22% of the Oil will be produced from 184 Uplands
acres and from that datapoint I calculated that 666 acres would be needed for the other
78% in the Tidelands. See. Figure 14: Assumed Land Ownership Distribution
1. D. Action: I ask that the Council directs staff that Kosmont shall include an
explanation of the ability of 30 wells to extract each of the “Recoverable Oil” volumes
projected in the report. Or from another perspective, describe how many acres the
Hermosa Beach limit of 30 wells could efficiently produce and specify techniques which
must be used to attain the various projected volumes identified in the CBA.
3
Potential action items for the 4/22/14 City Council Meeting (continued) pg 2/2
2. Action: I ask that the Council directs Staff that each NOP and Draft comment should
have a response and must be part of the CBA report. Please pay particular attention to the
existing Tideland Trust expenditure limitations and avoid speculative future changes.
3. It would be beneficial to the citizen ‘decision makers’ to view the data formatted as a
“breakeven analysis” for each production CBA volume estimate and including Redondo
Beach North Lease historical data. This may accomplished with a style change to the
CBA Table 39 on page 101 but the CBA must include all expenses, costs and losses
considered as General Fund expenditures today. The chart could be supplemented later if
other sources of funds such as City fees are enacted at a later date or if cost reductions
are found.
3. Action: I ask that the Council directs staff that Kosmont shall provide a chart and
graphic which includes a list of all fixed and potential City expenses, costs and losses
(PV) and calculates the volume of Oil required to pay foe each listed expense. It should
be noted which items are being paid by the Tidelands Trust or from the General Fund.
4. The CBA does not analyze the residential resale price reduction to be expected during
the Construction and the 24 hour continuous drilling and re-drilling periods. All of the
comparable date in the CBA is after 2002 and not from a location with active drilling or
re-drilling. I contend that the days surrounding the most intense periods of the project
would depress resale prices for those who must sell due to typical ‘must sell’ emergency
situations (i.e. health, birth and death, divorce, estate division, employment changes and
others) My example is the Lease terms which allows 120x35=4200 days that are in a
bank of available 24/7 drilling days over 35 years. The EIR specifies 900 days initial
drilling in the first 5 years and then 6 additional years of 150 days a year for a total of
1800 re-drilling days (only 21% of available drilling days).
4. Action: I ask that the Council directs staff that Kosmont shall provide a separate
analysis of Property Value Impact during the intense activity periods and those the EIR
designated to present the most disturbance and danger.
In Closing, there is a real benefit to the public understanding of the range of potential
financial outcomes of the project based on real, actual and comparable data from the most
similar oilfield directly adjacent to the Hermosa Beach proposed project target oilfield.
New information has come to light this month and Kosmont should have the time and
opportunity to incorporate it in to the CBA report. The independent actual production
data from the Redondo Beach North Lease should be available to all citizens while
contemplating their vote and will allow a more informed ‘kitchen table’ and ‘across the
fence’ discussion as the ballot measure is considered.
Thank you for your consideration, Tom Morley
4
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
40,000,000
Est. Production
Est. Production
Est. Production 5,500,000 10,900,000 17,100,000 22,200,000 35,600,000 27,200,000 35,000,000
RB North Lease
Actual CBA Low CBA Expected CBA High Applicant Morris (1993)Hacker (1998)
Table 3: Comparison of Production Estimates (million barrels of oil)
Barrels Percentage of RB Increase
RB North Lease Actual 5.5 100% x 1.0
CBA Low 10.9 198% x 2.0
CBA Expected 17.1 311% x 3.0
CBA High 22.2 404% x 4.0
Applicant 35.6 647% x 6.5
Morris (1993) 27.2 495% x 5.0
Hacker (1998) 35.0 636% x 6.4
5
HB Oil Breakeven Analysis Cost vs. Revenue
$26,542,574
$49,658,743
$66,115,139
$83,971,053
$106,170,296
$144,777,677
$168,907,290
$0
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$80,000,000
$100,000,000
$120,000,000
$140,000,000
$160,000,000
$180,000,000
Total Direct City
Costs = RB 5.5
Mil BBLS 35
years 31 wells
Total Direct City
Costs $9.9 Mil+
Financed
remainder = 10.2
Mil bbls CBA
Low = 10.9 Mil
BBLS
Vol HB 13.7 Mil
……
Total Direct City
and Potential
Direct City Costs
= 17.4 Mil bbls
CBA Expected =
17 Mil Barrels
Vol CBA High 22
Mil Barrels
Total City
Costs+Potential
Costs $18 Mil +
Financed
remainder = 30
Mil Barrels
Vol E&B's
promise 35 Mil
Barrels
Various Oil VolumesGeneral Fund RevenueGeneral Fund Oil Contribution $27 mil Total Direct City Costs
$80 mil Total Direct City Cost + Potential Direct City Costs Total Direct City Costs $9.9 Mil + Financed remainder
Total City Costs+Potential Costs $18 Mil + Financed remainder
Direct City Costs (not eligible for Tidelands Trust expenditures)
Present
Value cost $
(in millions)
Barrels of Oil
(in millions) @
CBA $95
Total Direct City Costs 27.25 5.94
Finance Amount of Direct City Costs (remainder) 17.35
Extended Financed amount of Direct City Costs 37.30
Total Direct City Costs non-financed $9.9 Mil + Financed
remainder $47.20 10.29
15.43
Total Additional Potential Direct City Costs 47.33 10.31
Finance Amount of Potential Direct City Costs (remainder) 31.90
Extended Financed amount of Potential City Costs $54.40
Total Potential Costs non-financed $15.4 Mil plus Financed
remainder 95.41 20.79
Total Direct City Cost + Potential Direct City Costs 74.58 16.25
Total City Costs + Potential Costs non-financed $25.3 Mil +
Financed remainder $142.61 31.08
6
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
500000
Oil Volume in Barrels1956-1992 35 year Redondo Beach Oil Volume 5.5 Mil Barrels from 31 Wells
56-76 cum oil 437,454,414,411,337,224,205,177,151,163,138,76,59,2375,570,283,992,394,6100,64,385,888,340,870,043,463,230,121,99,319,06 315
77-91 cum oil 61,341,738,11,9464,866,156,026,647,127,926,079,7139,69,266,952,239,025,415,248,920,317,261,818,142,115,834,416,923,99,777,75
Well #42 2 12 1 21 31 8 20 5 9 25 53 24 3 29 43 34 49 10 19 23 6 11 27 7 41 22 17 44 54 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Est. Production
5.5 Mil Barrels RB North
Lease Actual
35.6 Mil Barrels Applicant =
whole circle
5.5 Mil Barrels RB North Lease Actual 35.6 Mil Barrels Applicant = whole circle
NOTE: Every HB well would need to produce more than twice
the single highest RB well in order to meet the Applicants Oil Volume.
7
EXISTING LAW:
1. Creates DOGGR within the Department of Conservation.
2. Requires DOGGR to do all of the following:
a. Supervise the drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of wells
and the operation, maintenance, and removal or abandonment of tanks and
facilities attendant to oil and gas production, including certain pipelines
that are within an oil and gas field, so as to prevent, as far as possible,
damage to life, health, property, and natural resources; damage to
underground oil and gas deposits from infiltrating water and other causes;
loss of oil, gas, or reservoir energy, and damage to underground and
surface waters suitable for irrigation or domestic purposes by the
infiltration of, or the addition of, detrimental substances.
b. Supervise the drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of wells
so as to permit the owners or operators of the wells to utilize all
methods and practices known to the oil industry for the purpose of
increasing the ultimate recovery of underground hydrocarbons and
which, in the opinion of DOGGR, are suitable for this purpose in each
proposed case.
Declares as a policy of the state that to further the elimination of waste by
increasing the recovery of underground hydrocarbons, a lease or contract for the
exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons is deemed to allow, unless otherwise stated,
the lessee or contractor to do what a prudent operator using reasonable diligence
would do, having in mind the best interests of the lessor, lessee, and the state in
producing and removing hydrocarbons, including, but not limited to, the injection of
air, gas, water, or other fluids into the productive strata, the application of pressure heat
or other means for the reduction of viscosity of the hydrocarbons, the supplying of
additional motive force, or the creating of enlarged or new channels for the underground
movement of hydrocarbons into production wells, when these methods or processes
employed have been approved by DOGGR.
Data corrected to pay Macpherson
3.33% from General Fund not TL
Fund.
Corrected City Rev - Uplands ($2014) EIA Low $ EIA Base $ EIA High $ Fixed $
RB North Lease Actual 18,895,518 30,213,296 44,564,451 26,878,654
CBA Low 37,529,100 58,829,400 87,229,800 53,250,750
CBA Expected 59,336,550 97,372,800 143,016,300 83,679,750
CBA High 77,086,800 128,816,100 188,659,800 108,530,100
Applicant 121,716,000 192,209,850 283,496,850 173,952,450
Morris (1993) 91,794,150 139,973,400 207,931,500 132,873,300
Hacker (1998) 120,194,550 193,224,150 285,018,300 170,909,550
8
9
Intera 1996 end of submission 6a , 1
1
Clark Strategic Partners
Sustaining the Earth 17 April 2014
Ӭ᠃ٿ
P.O. Box #17975
Beverly Hills, CA 90209
TO: Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
FROM: Woodrow W. Clark II, MA3, PhD
Daniel H. Wolf, Esq.
RE: Draft Cost/Benefit Report
The issues noted herein were covered in the Comments submitted to the City of Hermosa Beach
by Clark Strategic Partners and its team. However, below are three summary points of key
issues, which stand unaccounted for and unexplained by the Authors of the Draft Report. Each
one needs the Council’s attention and could provide a parallel path of action items for the City.
1) Economic and Financial Errors
The economic and financial areas in the Draft Cost Benefit Report are seriously in error. Aside
from numbers being incomplete, dated and wrong, they lack any life-cycle or externality
economic analyses.
Consider among other examples the use of a formula for job creation based on the first year and
then calculated for four years thereafter to project the lifetime employment on the E&B Project.
When a base number is wrong and then used for a long-term calculation, the entire charts and
figures are suspect. In this instance it appears to heavily over-estimate the employment impact of
the project.
Another example includes materials and reports cited on real estate values in 2007-09. The
global economic collapse occurred in the middle (October 2008) so these numbers are suspect.
Real estate values have changed dramatically since 2008. To make predictions based on real
estate numbers before and during a crash is methodologically suspect, making the conclusions
suspect. Real estate values since 2008 have been responding primarily to regional and national
economic conditions. Separating out the positive effects of highly local projects is difficult
during periods of secular rises in real estate values, and secular rises can hide the negative effects
of local projects on surrounding property values. If the report is to be credible, its authors must
distinguish and quantify the project’s effects, positive and negative, from wider secular trends.
Finally, in the economics and finance areas, the reference and use of the BRG data and report,
whose contractor was E&B, makes their numbers and conclusions suspect. For example, in the
Draft Report, E&B cites limits and caps on its liability and insurance coverage. Damages
exceeding these limits could make the City liable for damages and potential legal actions.
2
2) Legal settlement issues.
The E&B project advocates “state-of-the-art directional well oil drilling” (Settlement Agreement
and Release, March 2012: pg#2). This terminology is often used to specify hydraulic fracturing
or “fracking”. This is commonly done and the terms have become interchangeable. E&B has
stated that it will not do fracking, but in the absence of contrary legal agreements, this wording
would appear to open the door to their legal right to conduct fracking operations.
Furthermore, though E&B states in the Settlement that safety has improved “Due to technology
and operational advancement in the past 15 years made by the oil and gas industry related to
safety and efficiency of oil and gas production “ (ibid. pg#2), there continues to overwhelming
evidence of accidents and environmental and land damages due to these projects. Oil and gas
wells in Texas and Oklahoma are responsible for frequent and and unusual damage to property
and loss of life over the last decade.
There has been undeniable the environmental, local atmospheric, and climate impacts due to
these projects. The evidence is overwhelming. There are instances of groundwater poisoning, of
excessive use of potable water supplies, of noxious and poisonous off-gasing, and of significant
releases of methane due to improper bore sealing.
The authors must either build these impacts into their report, or specify clearly and
unequivocally how and why the E&B operations will be different from those elsewhere.
They need to describe industry best practices, define concretely what measures E&B proposes to
use to conform to best practices and to assure the safety of the project, the probability and
expected gravity of accidents that may occur in spite of the use of those measures, and the City,
should it approve those measures, must, to protect itself, secure the necessary legal writings to
guarantee that E&B actually conducts operations as described and continues to make
improvements in operations as industry best practices evolve and improve.
The settlement recites that it was an "oil and gas lease", but that it was an "oil project" and a
"directional well oil drilling project". Whatever the original lease said, this document is probably
operative as far as this whole Project is concerned.
For instance, Paragraph C of the Settlement says that E&B contemplates "state of the art
directional drilling". Does this include unconventional recovery (fracking)? One would suspect
not, or the words "and recovery" would have been included. On the other hand, if this is not
clarified, E&B could claim, with some color of legal right, that it does.
The paragraph also mentions oil and gas, which is consistent with the idea of gas being sought
after, but E&B is an assignee of MacPherson rights and therefore would not, under normal legal
doctrine, be permitted to expand on the rights of the assignor (and the liability of the city) by
slipping in their own expectations and hopes.
Another important element is the question of whether the definition of gas recovery includes
more than incidental gas amounts. What have the other thousands of wells in this field produced?
Does the City expect the same or different? Does directional drilling include horizontal drilling,
3
i.e., a 90-degree turn (as opposed to, say, angles from the drill site that involve no turning)? Does
the term encompass unconventional recovery techniques? If it does now, did it then? That is, did
the parties clearly contemplate unconventional recovery techniques? If not, what did they
contemplate? If they contemplated different things because the terms weren't defined, then was
there a meeting of the minds on exactly what was contemplated? And if there was not a meeting
of the minds, then whose definition should be privileged? Is the City obligated to accept E&B’s
definition of “state of the art” if it was never made clear what was meant by that term?
Gas is contemplated in Para 7b of the Grant Deed, but the question remains as to what the
expectations were for proportion of gas recovered and recovery techniques to be utilized.
The definitions in Section II of the Settlement do not answer these questions. They remain open
to judicial fact-finding, interpretation and decisions. This report must clearly define, without
resort to jargon that can be interpreted in multiple ways, what is contemplated. The report, and
any follow-on legal documents, must develop legal definitions, referencing industry norms, for
such terms as "directional well oil drilling project".
The issue of gas production may be a critical legal issue. Most oil wells produce gas, but that is
usually minor, and is normally flared off if it can’t be piped away. So-called dry wells are all gas;
the more profitable ones produce oil and gas in various mixtures; the higher profits come from
the higher and more resilient/stable value of the oil, which is in shorter supply and is not being
competed down in price the way gas is drilled, processed, shipped and consumed today.
The legal issue is whether the shift is one of degree or of kind. Contract law generally allows for
reasonable shifting of product proportions in situations where industry standards contemplate it.
But even industry standards would define a boundary condition for a change in kind. If the
change in expected output can be described convincingly as a change in kind that exceeds
industry standards for well descriptions, then a contract that does not conform with these
standards as applied to the Settlement may be open to legal challenge on the grounds that it does
not conform to the subject matter of the prior legal action.
These issues too are connected to liability and insurance concerns for the City.
Fracking is impossible without large supplies of water. A city’s inability or refusal to provide
this water or to allow shipment along city streets would prevent the fracking.
3) Conclusion
The E&B Lease and arbitration result, and now the Draft Report, are biased against the City of
Hermosa Beach.
The City of Hermosa Beach should carefully consider the defects identified in this letter as well
as the testimony of other witnesses, such as the separately submitted analysis by Howard
Goldstein, Esq. If it moves ahead with the project, it must act to protect itself by binding E&B to
industry best practices, without exception and irrespective of cost.
4
The City’s job would be easier were the Land and Coastal Commissions to issue a note to
impose standards on this project as proposed by E&B. Such a note would include rules and
regulations applicable to both coastal and ocean areas.
The City’s obligations under the Settlement should be re-examined by the City for further
understanding of its options given the concerns raised herein. The legal fees to take such actions
would be dramatically lower than those imposed by the settlement.
Thank you for your attention.
Woodrow W. Clark II, MA3, PhD
Qualitative Economist
and
Daniel Wolf, Esq.
Legal Advisor
Clark Strategic Partners
PO Box #17975
Beverly Hills, CA 90209
Tel: +1 (310) 858-6886
Fax: +1 (310) 858-6881
Email: wwclark13@gmail.com
Web Site: www.clarkstrategicpartners.net
Supplemental from H. Longacre for Item-6-b of the April 22, 2014 - 7-PM HB Regular City Council Meeting Agenda.
Page 1 of 3
City Manager's Office and City Clerk: This 'Supplemental' resident written testimony is for Item-6-b of
the April 22, 2014 - 7-PM, Hermosa Beach Regular City Council Meeting. Please advance a copy to
those listed under To: below, and include with the Granicus agenda materials on the website for
Item-6-b and at the meeting for the press and others in attendance. Thank You.
April 22, 2014
To: Councilmembers (Peter Tucker, Michael DiVirgilio, Nanette Barragan, Carolyn Petty,
Hany Fangary), City Clerk, City Manager, Assistant to City Manager, Finance Director,
Community Development Director, Public Works Director, Police Chief, Fire Chief, and
contract City Attorney.
From: Howard Longacre, a Hermosa Beach resident.
Regarding: An unnecessary 10,000-attendees major event being approved with utterly defective
ongoing notice, and with items being placed on the agenda without sufficient information for
the public to decide whether they have an interest, pro or con, that would cause them to believe
they need to review additional information in staff reports and or consult with City Hall. Another
"Railroad" job by the City while the Council looks, for the most part, the other way.
Honorable Councilmembers, and others:
The following are my comments, given freely, and they are entirely my views and opinions on
everything stated herein.
With respect to item 6-b on the April 22 regular meeting agenda, the agenda face states only
the following;
MUNICIPAL MATTER
......
6-b) SPECIAL EVENT APPLICATION FOR DISCOVERY CHANNEL’S FIN FEST.
Memorandum from Assistant to the City Manager Diane Strickfaden dated April 22, 2014.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the special event application for
Discovery Channel's Fin Fest event.
The Council had requested better public noticing and a public hearing at the Council level after
the Parks & Recreation Commission approved this event with extremely useless wording in the
public noticing on their agenda, and in a legal advertisement in the Easy Reader.
The item is not even listed under Public Hearings.
A useless public notice was placed incorrectly in the Beach Reporter (not the specified paper
for the City's legal notices) on Thursday, April 10, 2014. All it stated was that there was to be a
consideration for a new event "DISCOVERY CHANNEL’S FIN FEST". It stated nothing else
about the event. Not the date, not the location, nothing. That was the proper date to provide
for 10-days advertised notice, but it said essentially nothing and it was in the wrong paper.
Supplemental from H. Longacre for Item-6-b of the April 22, 2014 - 7-PM HB Regular City Council Meeting Agenda.
Page 2 of 3
Further there were no Orange notice placards placed at the event venue's locations at that
time. Since then I and possibly others have complained about the lack of placards, and some
have been placed on Parking Lot A and at other locations I understand in recent days.
Also another revised "Public Notice" not "Public Hearing" notice was placed in the correct
paper for the City's notices, i.e., the Easy Reader. That notice did not meet the 10-day
noticing period however as it was run only last Thursday, and notwithstanding that this noticing
is not necessarily required by state law in the first place.
That notice stated the following;
As such the Agenda Face should have stated something much better, i.e.,perhaps like the
following;
MUNICIPAL MATTER
......
6-b) Consideration of a new special event [Discovery Channel’s “Fin Fest”]
proposed to take place in the downtown area on the Beach (near the Pier)
and in Parking Lot-A(located south of Pier Plaza) and/or Parking Lot-B
(located north of Pier Plaza) August 9 and 10, 2014, with an estimated
10,000 attendees.
Supplemental from H. Longacre for Item-6-b of the April 22, 2014 - 7-PM HB Regular City Council Meeting Agenda.
Page 3 of 3
Memorandum from Assistant to the City Manager Diane Strickfaden dated April 22, 2014.
COMMISSION and STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the
special event application for Discovery Channel's Fin Fest event.
While some might say the noticing that's been done is "close-enough for government work".
Unfortunately things need to be far better than that when it comes to the public being informed.
1. The agenda face description is clearly defective.
2. The public legal notice states Lot-A or Lot-B without indicating they are parking
lots.
3. The public notice states Lot-A or Lot-B when it should have stated Lot-A and/or
Lot-B.
4. The notice accomplished was not made in time for 10 days of notice and was
initially placed in the wrong paper.
5. The placards were not placed up in time for 10 days of notice.
6. The notice completely left off the fact that the event was to also be on the Beach
itself as well as one or two parking lots, all day, and for two days (not simply the
area of the Beach/Pier Plaza)
7. The most important item, the expected 10,000 attendees as stated in the
application for the 2-day event is missing from the notice and the agenda face.
This item should be continued for two meetings to, do the noticing that the Council directed,
and correctly, or simply the event should not be approved at this late date. It's too big, and is a
complete distortion of what is needed to be accomplished to make for smooth-running of the
Sunsets Concerts. The Sunset Concerts are being used to justify another unrelated event that
the City does not need. The Council does not need to approve this massive additional event
to keep the Sunsets Concerts running smoothly. This business of "railroading" through last
minute decisions needs to end if Hermosa Beach is to return to having good, careful, and
honorable government.
This event, once approved, will never go away and will only itself grow, or be replaced
with something more egregious, probably having liquor, as originally wanted.
This is just more incremental continued destruction of the downtown and the quality of
life for the men, women, and children living in Hermosa Beach.
-- end of supplemental --
1
SUPPLEMENTAL FROM NANETTE B. BARRAGAN to 6(c)
RE: Code Enforcement Ride Along Report
On Friday April 18, 2014, from 10:00 p.m. to 2:30 a.m., I went on a code enforcement
ride along to observe efforts being made by our new code enforcement team. Code
enforcement advised me that it was a relatively slow weekend. I wanted to provide
a report of what I observed for the benefit of the council, staff and public.
Enhanced Enforcement for Public Urination & Open Containers
Throughout the night code enforcement did a great job of enforcing problems such
as public urination and open containers; several of these citations were given
throughout the evening (all to out of town visitors). A good system is set up; it
allows a Community Service Officer (“CSO”) who is conducting parking enforcement
checks to call in incidents of pre-drinking in parking lots that result in open
container citations. During one citation for public urination in the parking structure,
a crowd of about 10-12 people gathered, two groups of 5-6 (mostly guys).
Concerned about the crowd size and as a safety precaution, the code enforcement
officer called for law enforcement backup. As I saw a crowd start to gather, I too
was concerned and walked further away in the event an incident broke out. The
individuals appeared to be very young aged 19-25 out of town visitors; they
eventually piled into two older model cars and drove away.
Problems on Pier Reconfirmed
Unfortunately, the complaints that I have heard from residents (and seen myself)
concerning problems in and around Pier Plaza late-night on weekends were
reconfirmed. I saw intoxicated patrons in bars and outside of bars with one young
lady throwing up in a planter while friends with her said they were waiting for a
taxi. There were also at least two fights; one in or near American Junkie in which a
security guard was bitten, and another in front of The Lighthouse that resulted in a
bloody ending with the need for Hermosa firefighters to respond and treat the two
who were in the brawl.
With only 3 police officers assigned to Pier Plaza, each time a fight breaks out all our
Pier Plaza personnel are occupied on the one fight. In one instance, a transient in
parking Lot A, behind Sharkeez, taunted a code enforcement and a CSO officer for
issuing open container citations; he threatened to open his bottle and drink it in
front of us. The same individual later was seen littering and began throwing food at
the code enforcement officer and myself which resulted in us being chased away out
of fear for public safety (without any citation). This was an instance where lack of
resources on the Pier and the need for officers to respond to priority calls such as a
fight on Pier Plaza lead to walking away from a public safety risk (the second fight
broke out about 5 minutes after our second encounter with the transient).
At the end of the ride along, we were advised that the person involved in the
American Junkie fight earlier in the evening punched our police jailer.
2
No Noise Citations Being Issued: The Establishment
Another observation during the ride along was that while code enforcement is busy
citing out of town visitors, noise ordinance problems are not being enforced. Chief
Papa reported in the Planning Commission meeting last week that each
establishment owner was sent a letter by mail and code enforcement delivered a
letter in person and met with business owners in advance of starting the weekly
patrols, yet there are still no citations for noise violations being issued to businesses.
For example, as we walked out of the parking structure by Starbucks we heard loud
music and followed it. It didn’t take long to realize the loud music was coming from
the Establishment. We proceeded to walk into the Establishment and only got about
two or three feet in before the code enforcement officer instructed that we turn
around to walk out because there were so many patrons that there was no way to
perform a walk-through without pushing and shoving our way through as the aisle
was full of patrons. We immediately walked out and the code enforcement officer
asked the bouncer what the head count was; he said 121, then he was asked what
was capacity and he responded 140. The officer then proceeded to say they are
doing a good job of keeping a count and then said, “hey man, please turn down the
music”.
When I asked how one could determine the capacity count was accurate, code
enforcement advised that he had to take the bouncer’s word for it. The fire
department was not called to do a head count and we did not do a head count. As
the code enforcement officer and I talked outside the Establishment, a member of its
management approached us and advised there were only about 80-90 patrons and
the door guy was wrong about the capacity. Management let us in through the back
door to show the establishment was not jam packed in the back as it was in the
front. No citation was issued for blocked aisles, loud music or any other issue; the
fire department was not called to do a head count and we did not even do a walk
through because we could not. There were so many people packed inside.
Management invited me back during weekdays to see the business when it looks
more like a restaurant, he advised it was not fair that I was there on a Friday night to
observe.
The Establishment was not the only establishment that had noise issues. Several
businesses were told to lower their music; no citations for noise were issued. There
was clearly loud thumping music coming out of several other establishments whose
entrance doesn’t have a traditional door (Sharkeez) and another with a wide open
patio whose roll up or propped up door was not used (American Junkie). When
asked why noise violations were not issued, code enforcement advised that to
do so would require council direction since the city is trying to “work with
businesses.” In other words, this basic conditions listed in CUPs (and our city’s
noise code) is not being enforced.
3
Other Observations:
The code enforcement officer advised that the 3 things he was instructed to focus on
regarding business establishments are enforcing (1) excessive noise; (2) national
defense pollution standard violations such as washing off mats in the alley and (3)
merchandise encroachment. Although we did do some walk-throughs of some of
the business establishments downtown the main thing that was being checked was
whether the emergency exits were blocked.
Upon arrival into an establishment, it is clear that code enforcement and the
business bouncers/management have established a friendly relationship with high
fives and welcome greetings, and in some cases an offer for water, Redbull, etc. At
no point did I observe code enforcement reviewing a CUP or site plans to confirm if
a business is in compliance with their CUP. We did observe tables and chairs being
moved to make room for dance floors. Tables and chairs were not stacked in the
alley and thus I was advised that the changes were okay. One establishment had a
folded ping pong table in the back (when used to play beer pong it would become a
violation).
I also observed long lines on Pier Plaza that extended into the public right of way. It
would be interesting to hear from staff if permission has been provided for the
establishments to set up lines; in some cases, bolt cement foundations to the ground
to help set up their lines. If permission has been granted, how will it impact the
current downtown revitalization plan. I was unable to find the line issue addressed
anywhere in the downtown revitalization plans. How and will the lines that result
in congestion be addressed in the plans? The City is spending thousands of our tax
dollars having consultants review the downtown for advice and planning without
considering this important obstruction/nuisance.
Finally, during the evening, code enforcement also performed checks of public
bathrooms in the parks and on the Pier, made sure the taxi line area didn’t have
problems and multiple smokers were advised of the no smoking policy on the plaza
so they relocated to smoking areas.
--Nanette B. Barragan
From: Ron Newman <ron@sharkeez.net>
Date: April 19, 2014 at 10:12:10 AM PDT
To: tom bakaly <tbakaly@hermosabch.org>
Cc: Andrea <andrea@jamaauto.com>, Dave Lowe <dave@knight-restaurant-group.com>, Ken
Hartly <khartley@cidrsystems.com>
Subject: feedback code enforcement friday night.
From Ron Newman: With so many people doing walk though can you imagine how easy you
can add points to your cup review. Even if you run the best operation their can be a mistake
once in a while!
This is what I talked about micro managing. Worrying if the line was two feet one way or another. Do we
have to use a tape measure? They should be looking at how we dress code people and strict Id check and
turn away the trouble makers we don’t want in Hermosa. Some of the other taverns let anyone in. The city
is spending a lot of money. I hope there is a goal in sight. Does this type of enforcement improve anything.
Code enforcement was also taking pictures of our line saying that it was too far on the promenade
which it was not. I gave her my card and told her it was in our plans to curve exactly like it was
doingFrom: Ron Newman
The meter made guy with a city official lady came thru twice. Jordan and myself talked to her and she was not very
friendly. They walked through both times and had nothing to say. We tried to ask for feedback but she wasn’t having
it. We were on point. We were very good both times trying to help our crowd. Sound was solid. She was looking for
something. She also walked through junkie and molloys.
Dear Council Members Please stop the injustice by
the Planning Commission failure to act last week
and support 50/50, and in accuracy of Ron Newman
Letter dated 4.16.14
Regarding Ron Newman Letter and 50-50:
What Mr. Newman wants is bad for Hermosa Beach,
he wants the outlaws to run the “town” with no law,
because canceling 50/ 50 is just that. The 50-50 is a
great tool for keeping the alcohol sales in check and
forces bars and bona fide restaurants to serve more
and better food. It is a tool for the city council to use
to promote less drinking
(and is the law), more dining and encourages better
chefs and menus. It helps the city and reduces its
law enforcement costs. The 50/50 is in their
ABC License, it's a condition of their license and CUP
you can’t get rid of it, without due course.
With that said, if you aren't doing anything wrong
what’s the big deal? If you’re a bona fide restaurant!
Getting rid of a tool that you can use to help govern is
not a good idea. If the bar owners were left to their
regulate themselves with no 50-50, it would result in
disruption of the peace and enjoyment of this
community. No 50-50 will also result in lawless and
strain city services. We are at high levels of city
services now with it!
Restaurant owners who think that 50/50 is stupid is
because it invades in their quest to serve whatever
levels of alcohol they want and become a Class 48
bar, unchecked, unregulated and for profit with out
answering to anyone. This is lawlessness, criminal
and the deregulation of alcohol without limitation is
wrong.
This attempt to abolish this code and its enforcement
demonstrates the need for continued regulation.
The proof of this lies in your memorandum from the
city’s community development director. Five people
were audited and all needed correction in the area of
over serving alcohol under the code 50-50. Currently,
right now one-restaurant/The Establishment refuses
to give you their sales report, which its license calls
for. Presently, under this situation anyone can see
without any regulation or ability to regulate what
would happen, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.
The Establishment needs to immediately turn in the
required sales figures or meet revocation of its license.
State Law
You can’t wipe state codes and conditions off the
books. The City of Hermosa Beach is a steward of all
ABC licensees and has a duty to enforce all
conditions put on by the ABC and the imposed City’s
CUPs conditions.
The letter enclosed is that attempt to fool you. We
would have alcohol everywhere at out of control levels,
resulting in a level of drunkenness that is beyond the
welfare or morals that this City and its Citizens are
entitled to and its absence will result in loss of life in
the end.
I quote from the ABC,
“Whereas, the issuance of a unrestricted license
would be contrary to public welfare or morals”
Everyone who has an ABC license has signed and
agreed to the above and its 50-50 code.
Alcohol needs regulations. Self-regulation should not
come from the Money hungry bar owners. Left to
self-regulation by these "want to be bars owners"
would them turn into outlaws and without regulation,
lawlessness would be the order of the day. It would
be like a pharmacy having no regulations on drugs
Lastly, to undo this would invalidate all the public
hearings, Brown Act, all the public notices, all ABC
notices and all hearings done in the public by the City
of Hermosa Beach and ABC. All that input would be
undermined, without addition public input and legal
due process. Anyone who bought a house near a
class 47 would now have their property rights taken
away because of the Resolutions, CUP, City Civil
Code, and the ABC conditions of the licensed
property, without due process would be change and
enforceable, resulting in a magnitude of potential loss
and damage, resulting in laws suits. Plus, it would set
precedence and weaken all other conditions, CUP.
Don't have to obey this what not disregard others.
Three of you are new councilmembers if you can look
back on what you all said during the debates” we
have enough laws currently on the books they only
need to be enforced.” I ask you to live up to your
campaign promises and enforce 50-50 which is on the
books.
Do not vote for lawlessness, deregulation of alcohol,
unlimited amounts of alcohol not checked by any
condition, Civil Code and against existing state ABC
laws and wanting to turn every restaurant and bar in
this city into a class 48, unrestricted bar without
regulation and violating everything you know
regarding unchecked intensity of alcohol according to
Public Heath Report reducing alcohol-related harm.
On April 22, next week you can enforce our existing
laws and set the City Manager, City Attorney,
Community Development Director, Planning
Commission and Police Dept. straight on this law,
please do and don’t lent this slip away!
Sandy Saemann
Ron Newman Letter
Truth and Honesty Check
>Heads up!
>The planning commission is doing 50/50 audits on every business
weather>you are a problem or not.
False: They have only audit five bars that were in trouble source
Ken Robertson memorandum
They will ask for your records every six months
>with a hired auditor going through your books.
False: the law requires that you have your figures available on a
quarterly basis, source ABC code 50 – 50
Like you are a criminal.
False: no one has accused anyone of being a criminal, source
ABC code/violation of 50-50 noncriminal
>They slipped this law through which supposedly supersedes your
CUP
False: all licensees must sign and agree to 50-50 when license
was issued, source ABC code
>without us being informed or having a chance to argue our
property>rights. We might have to file a class action law suit against
the city.
False: all licensees must sign and agree to 50-50 when license
was issued, source ABC code
>It's easy for a Ruth cris to be 50/50 with $60.00 food check average,
>not a patrick malloys with 12.00 food check average. People are
sharing
>plates now. Even the blue zone recommends it. With the high price
of
>alcohol, wine and craft beer that people are drinking, times have
>changed.
False: If operator elects to sell cheap food and high price
alcohol and violates the 50-50 codes, then operators should file
for a class 48
I have never seen a city do a witch hunt like this.
False: self impose term enforcing the state law is not a “Witch
Hunt” source, ABC code, Hermosa Beach City code
50/50 is
>only used with a problem operator. We have good operators that
cooperate.
False: there was nothing in the issuance of an ABC license that
has the condition of 50-50 that says it’s only activated when the
operator has a another violation, source ABC license itself
>Crime is down. How can any one run a business by being micro
managed,
False: with today’s modern point of purchase sale tracking
systems and licensees acknowledgment of his requirements
under the ABC 50-50 code, and CUP issued by the city
operators/licensee agrees to the CUP, is not micro managing,
it’s following the law.
>this city is never satisfied. They almost destroyed Palmilla before it
>opened. Look at all the new restaurants coming to hermosa
because one
False: City is only enforcing local and state laws nothing has
been added in years, source terms and condition of ABC license
signed by licensee at the time of issuance.
>upscale owner took a chance. If police follow you in your car all day
you
>will get some kind of a ticket. That is what the city is doing in
Hermosa
False: If police follows you all day and you drive correctly and
didnt not break any laws you would not get a ticket
>nit picking everything. Now they hired two code enforcement officers.
Is
>this the United States or Russia.The more we cooperate and do, the
more
>they want. Between all the government state agencies, when do we
have
>time to run our business.
False: It’s United States, city of Hermosa Beach, demanded is
in the code of the city and the state law requires, to refer it
nitpicking is a gross exaggeration, Point-of-purchase/POS
systems to all the work that’s required to satisfy maintaining
quarterly statement.
I thought once the citizens showed the city on
>the no on b measure which we won by a 2/3 vote and kicked one
councilman
>out of office. The citizens spoke. Do we need to prove this to them
>again. the rest of the council should learn extreme measures don't
work
False: Measure B was not about 50-50 it was a reduction of
hours over a period of time and there is no correlation between
measure B not passing, with the bar owner’s opposition
resulting in them kicking City Councilman out of office.
>across the board with all business. Because why be good, you are
treated
>the same as the bad ones.
False: ABC conditions, CUP’s require that your sales figures
are available on a quarterly basis, there is no bias in this
requirement, resulting in good or bad labeling. Everyone with
the requirement are treated equal, Source ABC code.
The beach reporter wrote a article a month ago
>of how hermosa and business are working together solving
problems and how
>improved the downtown is. First time a positive article. You see a
person
>like dave Lowe from establishment that has busted his butt getting
the
>tavern association together paying for security and bathrooms on
special
>holidays. As well as working with a parking plan for small business
in
>the city. Half his week is working to help improve areas in the city.
He
>doesn't have any violations, he has to close at 12:00 midnight yet
they
>are doing 50/50 audit on him.
False: 50-50 audits and the enforcement of them is a condition
of Mr. Lowe license/CUP, there’s nothing in the 50-50 code that
is connected or has a requirement that there be another
violation, it stands a loan, and not maintaining 50-50 is the
violation itself.
50/50 which is hard for some
>of the finest restaurants to be. Will his punishment be to close at
11:00
False: When Licensee violates 50-50, enforcement is arbitrary
according to law stated by the ABC. Final decision is left to the
Council or the ABC. If, the licensee continually violates the 50-
50 code they have the right applied for a class 48 unrestricted
license. Then under the guidelines set forth by the Planning
Commission and its termination along with the ABC determine
should licensee be granted a class 48, after public input. The
lowering of food prices and the raising of alcohol prices is not a
condition found in the license, this election of the licensee.
Note: petitioner understands that any violation of the foregoing
condition shall be grounds for suspension or revocation of the
license.
There is a council meeting on the 22 I suggest you all show up.
>Ron newman
1Data Conversion in process 1
April 14, 2014 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting of
the Hermosa Beach City Council April 22, 2014
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
ACTIVITY REPORT, MARCH 2014 STATISTICAL SECTION
Finance Administration
CURRENT
MONTH
THIS MONTH
LAST FY
FISCAL YEAR
TO DATE
LAST FISCAL
YR TO DATE
AVERAGE T.O.T.
OCCUPANCY RATE
77.1%
February 2014
72.8%
February 2014
78.7%
February 2014
74.6%
February 2014
INVOICES/ACCOUNTS
RECEIVABLE
42 8 276 485
CASH REGISTER TRANSACTIONS Total not available at this time. 8,833 Total not available at this time. 35,844
CHECKS ISSUED 213 296 2,573 2,742
PURCHASE ORDERS 135 145 1,562 1,425
DISCOUNTS TAKEN $62.22 $98.51 $1,150.13 $660.64
LANDSCAPE/
ST. LIGHT REBATES
(2012 Tax Yr.)
17 15 71 75
UUT EXEMPTIONS
TO DATE (0) 1,951
(30) 1,930
PAYROLL
Full Time Employees 116 114
Part Time Employees 45 44
CITATION PAYMENTS 5,212 4,268 44,407 35,433
DMV PAYMENTS 694 418 4,675
4585
DELINQUENT NOTICES SENT:
California 01 15,801
Out of State 01 1,666
TOTAL: 2,498 01 30,934 17,467
2
NOTED: Respectfully submitted:
___________________________
Tom Bakaly, Viki Copeland,
City Manager Finance Director
Finance Cashier
CURRENT MONTH THIS MONTH LAST FY FISCAL YEAR TO DATE LAST FISCAL YR TO DATE
DISMISSALS 267 408 2,633 2,772
REVENUE - VEH. IMPOUNDS $902.00 $0 $31,451 $16,315
PARKING PERMITS: Driveway 3 4 61 34
Guest Party Passes 321 292 4,713 3,780
Temp. Res. Passes 0 0 100 0 Contractor 57 49 517 382
Daily 2 11 172 155
Annual Preferential Transferable 1,753 1,664 3,708 3,720
Employee Vehicle
Sticker
92 108 179 193
Vehicle 2,089 1,970 4,477 4,428
Energy Efficient
Vehicles- NEW 11 9 47 23 TOTAL: 3,945 3,751 8,411 8,364
MONTHLY (DAILY) PERMITS FOR PARKING
LOTS 110 160 1,515 1,605
MONTHLY (24 HR)
PERMITS FOR PARKING LOTS 156 92 1,685 1,259
MTA BUS PASSES 10 11 102 113
TAXI VOUCHERS SOLD 360 390 4,250 3,780
TAXI VOUCHERS USED 423 330 3,577 3,264
CASH KEYS SOLD 0 10 35 91
CASH KEY REVENUE $0 $2,022.50 $5,375.25 $14,564
ANIMAL LICENSES 17 27 847 861 BUSINESS LICENSES
Licenses Issued 182 236 1,768 1,892 Revenue $53,500.06 $64,344.08 $565,007.02 $564,543.56
DOWNTOWN CORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION ON NEXT STEPS: APRIL 22, 2014
R O M A D E S I G N G R O U P A N D E C O N O M I C & P L A N N I N G S Y S T E M S
Downtown Core
A diverse family-friendly downtown environment
Public Space Improvements – Hermosa Avenue
Hermosa Avenue – a Gateway from the North and South
Pier Avenue – a Gateway to the Downtown from the East
Hermosa Avenue Concept
Public Space Improvements – Pier Plaza
Pier Plaza on an Everyday Basis
Pier Plaza Streetscape Improvement Concept
Public Space Improvements – The Strand
Active Recreation along the Strand
Refreshment Kiosks along the Strand
Adding a Public Parking Structure
Ground Level Commercial Frontage
PROPOSED ZONING MODIFICATIONS
1.Designate the Downtown Core as a pedestrian-
oriented district and require active ground level
uses along Hermosa Avenue, Pier Plaza and on
the Strand between 13th and 11th Streets.
2.Incentives to encourage upper level office to
increase day-time population.
3.Consider modifications to parking requirements
to bring them more current with market trends
and to meet the requirements in consolidated
parking facilities.
A Potential Catalyst Project
An Off-Site Parking Approach
Considerations of Additional Height for Public Benefit
Supplemental from H. Longacre for Item-2 of the April 22, 2014 - 6-PM HB City Council "Study Session" Agenda.
Page 1 of 10
City Manager's Office and City Clerk: This 'Supplemental' resident written testimony is for Item-2 of
the April 22, 2014 - 6-PM, Hermosa Beach City Council "Study Session". Please advance a copy to
those listed under To: below, and include with the Granicus agenda materials on the website for Item-2
and at the meeting for the press and others in attendance. Thank You.
April 18, 2014
To: Councilmembers (Peter Tucker, Michael DiVirgilio, Nanette Barragan, Carolyn Petty,
Hany Fangary), City Clerk, City Manager, Assistant to City Manager, Finance Director,
Community Development Director, Public Works Director, Police Chief, Fire Chief, and
contract City Attorney.
From: Howard Longacre, a Hermosa Beach resident.
Regarding: Yet another 45 to 55 minute brief sham "Study Session" for the purposes of
"railroading"-through another HB agenda, based on, in my view, recommendations of another
overpaid, over-stuffed, pompous consultant who's been hired and finessed by the City
essentially to furnish in glossy images and words what the City Council and the City Manager
wants to be recommended. In other words the S.O.P. for justifying-to, and fooling the taxpayers
into paying for more stuff that will in the end screw the rest of the City residents for the benefit
of a handful of downtown adult-oriented, liquor-dispensing businesses, and associated
downtown property owners/developers.
The overpaid-consultant is thusly to legitimize Council's intention to implement this latest
downtown "railroading" operation which is;
· to continue a never-ending obsession to facilitate the downtown "adult liquor-dispensing
district" and industry at taxpayer expense, and
· to justify building and enlarging one, two, or even more downtown parking structures to
increase liquor-serving activity between 10 PM and 2 AM in the lower downtown, and
· to justify giving over of the City's Beach Drive easement, and thus closing off all of
Beach Drive eventually, through the downtown, to permit a developer(s) to add bigger,
and more bulky density and impacts to the downtown and the Strand, and
· to justify a process to raise Hermosa Beach's downtown voted-height-limit from the
present 30 feet by 50% to 45 feet, or for reference, from Manhattan Beach's downtown
voted-height-limit from 26-feet 50% to 39-feet for the benefit of a particular developer,
and
· to justify the spending of taxpayer money on other ancillary, sugar-coated, superficial
stuff to add more lipstick to the downtown pig -- that prior councils have already
endlessly enhanced for the benefit of the adult and liquor-dispensing industry and
property owners there,
and with all of this going down while the vast residential (real tax-generating areas) of the city,
and the PCH and Aviation commercial districts forever continue to receive superficial short-
Supplemental from H. Longacre for Item-2 of the April 22, 2014 - 6-PM HB City Council "Study Session" Agenda.
Page 2 of 10
shrift, i.e. careless, could-not-care-less neglect and focus, by yet another useless Council run
majority, now clearly made up of Hermosa's latest lost brains-trust of Michael DiVirgilio, Carolyn
Petty, and Hany Fangary.
And additionally, regarding the continued sham noticing to the public (except for those
"insiders") who are suspected to desire what the latest "railroading" operation is designed to
accomplish.
Honorable Councilmembers, and others:
Kindly pardon typos, and or grammatical mistakes that may exist unintentionally in this text.
The following are my comments, given freely, and they are entirely my views and opinions on
everything stated herein. If they seem negative to the Council, that's unfortunate. They are
intended to wake you up from your making of too-casual, too-fast, and too-cavalier dumb,
rubber-stamp decisions.
I do not set dumb policies in this city. I pay taxes and vote in this city and observe. I have no
power to spend taxpayer money willy-nilly as does the Council and City Manager for too many
over-paid, over-stuffed, pompous consultants ad nauseam.
Further, I am not deceitfully trying to fool or con the residents as I believe Council's agendas
(as prepared by the City Manager) are too often attempting to do these days. I am merely
stating my views, and you should be aware that my views often are as a result of hearing
others say the same things that I am expressing. Those others are more than often unwilling
to place their names on the record, as they have businesses or families in town and have seen
the type of retribution dished out to those that speak out. That's unfortunately the nature of
this city that's developed as a result of too many prior councilmembers pandering to special
interests; for fear that they might lose their council seats or not receive campaign donations.
Why else would so many councilmembers be so useless or deceptive overall during their
tenure. Leadership is not doing things in a deceitful way. Deceit unfortunately is the hallmark
these days of most politicians, and many if not most politicians unfortunately become just flat
out rotten scoundrels in my view. Few stand up for what is right, and when they do they are
back-stabbed, and bad-mouthed endless by their fellow politicians in private. You can tell a lot
about a politician when they endlessly bad-mouth, and backstab their fellow politician in private
but never do so in public.
First off, this is yet another extremely-poorly noticed sham "Study Session" of only 45-
55 minutes. Clearly it's been made especially short such that no real time is available to
properly discuss the matter seeking a sham-approval, or to take any real testimony from all
interested parties' points of view, with those parties of various views having been fully and
properly noticed of what is even being discussed, not just a select few insiders.
Supplemental from H. Longacre for Item-2 of the April 22, 2014 - 6-PM HB City Council "Study Session" Agenda.
Page 3 of 10
This 6-PM "Study Session" meeting is based on pure deceit and deception thusly. The City
Manager claims to have earned the rank of "Eagle Scout" when younger. What happened to
his young training once learned? Did all the big-money wheeling-and-dealing of the 2002
Winter Olympics in Park City warp his standards of letting the people know what's going on?
What is it that Tom Bakaly doesn't understand about making an agenda face state clearly
what's going on and properly providing enough time for a real "Study Session"? Why does
everything in this city have to seemingly be a "railroad Job"?
Further, the noticing has once again just been the last-minute agenda face, except that I heard
that many insiders got special emails from the City. Insiders, but not the public at large,
evidently got advance specifics, perhaps so they could show up and get on the record
supporting the latest "railroading" operation.
Further the agenda is once-again improperly formatted. It's a 6-PM adjourned-meeting of a
prior (unknown) meeting, although the agenda does not even reflect that. Although the "Study
Session" begins at 6-PM, it was placed on the new regular meeting's 7-PM agenda of the
same date, but hidden away in the text at the end, after that agenda.
This is more purposefully deceitful agenda design as overseen by the Council's tolerated net-
$350-thousand per year overpaid City Manager Tom Bakaly. He uses this technique obviously
to keep the public from thinking this meeting is not important. Please, please, do not accept
from Bakaly that it's done this way because of the Granicus system. That's a flat out distortion.
This meeting should have had a separate agenda on the Granicus and much more time
allocated than a net 45-50 minutes sham. It's obviously been done such that later someone
can say we had this meeting where "x, y, z" direction was approved and supported by the
public. That's flat out a "railroading" operation and all of you, especially Bakaly, know it.
Further the agenda face makes no mention other than to "view the report", wherein you then
learn of all the stuff that I've listed at the top of this communication under RE: The public
should not have to view the staff report to see the major items being proposed for rubber-
stamping.
City Manager Bakaly is your typical big-government, over-paid, California City Manager,
clearly looking to enhance his resume for his next job, perhaps as administrator of the City of
Long Beach or of the mammoth Los Angeles County wheeling-and-dealing bureaucracy.
If the Council is unable or unwilling to direct to Bakaly that you want these agendas to be
separate, and informative, then you have met the enemy, and it is yourselves.
Bakaly and the City's no-bid Contract-City-Attorney firm (evidently for life), Jenkins and Hogin,
are most-apparently controlling the Council, which in my view now has a wishy-washy,
dysfunctional and somewhat screwy majority, made up of DiVirgilio, Petty, and Fangary at the
moment, and apparently is to impotent to give clear direction in public meetings for fear of
upsetting Bakaly, Jenkins, the bars, or the Chamber.
Supplemental from H. Longacre for Item-2 of the April 22, 2014 - 6-PM HB City Council "Study Session" Agenda.
Page 4 of 10
Further, this ongoing business of individual councilmembers meeting virtually weekly privately,
and more by other means, with City Manager Bakaly, in my view is little more than Bakaly
conducting de facto and illegal Brown-open-meeting-act serial meetings. Hermosa Beach
continues to be operating, in my view, as a back room type of government between the City
Council and the City Manager.
With regards to beginning the lunacy of giving away and closing off Beach Drive access rights
through the downtown, I have yet to hear a single utterance in a public meeting by the Council
giving direction for Bakaly to spend a nickel of staff time, or consultant time, to give up the
City's in-perpetuity rights to free access use of Beach Drive by the people of the City, Public
Safety fire and police access, and utility conduit needs, etc., yet the Council has already had
an illegal "closed private meeting session" agenda item regarding the matter to benefit a
private developer, and here it is in this staff report, and notwithstanding whether anything of
substance was accomplished after I put in a written complaint prior to that "closed session".
Nonetheless that illegally agendized "closed session" item was evidently discussed.
It's long, long overdue that the Council moves to hire a new fresh thinking contract City
Attorney firm. Nothing is going to change in this city in my view so long as Jenkins and Hogin
is this City's primary contract counsel. That the Council is unwilling to even put out an RFP
periodically to rebid contract counsel services, clearly indicates the Council is impotent. Not
replacing Jenkins and Hogin clearly indicates there is a Council majority that has no intention
of changing anything of this town's dysfunctional policies that keep the City's money flowing to
Jenkins and Hogin and to the subsidizing of the now clearly adults-oriented downtown liquor-
serving obsession, an area which will never pay its true cost of the city services, degradation,
and wear-and-tear that it brings to the City.
I find it interesting that on the Jenkins and Hogin website it indicates that their firm when
serving clients stays out of politics. If that be the case then the Jenkins and Hogin firm in my
view has an extremely warped view of what politics includes. Michael Jenkins in my view runs
the politics of this city, has for years, and Council after Council are subservient to his
manipulation and evidently blind to that manipulation.
It's also time that Council again considers getting a new City Manager because Bakaly is
clearly controlling you and is out of control in running the City's staff ragged. The City did not
elect you on Council to be dictated to by the City Manager and your contract attorney firm.
This City Manager is clearly consultant-happy and is obviously trying to turn this City into some
kind of tourist Las Vegas.
If Las Vegas is what you on the Council desire with your insidious never-ending downtown
liquor-district focus, then fine. State that in a public meeting. It will just be more reason to
move forward on the recall rumblings that are more and more in the undercurrent of discussion
these days, especially for DiVirgilio and the Chamber's puppet, Carolyn Petty.
Supplemental from H. Longacre for Item-2 of the April 22, 2014 - 6-PM HB City Council "Study Session" Agenda.
Page 5 of 10
If you desire to further-embellish Hermosa's money-losing dinky-downtown adult-district,
simply state that in a meeting. Nothing you are doing is going to encourage downtown
property owners to not prefer renting to other than liquor-serving bars disguised as
"restaurants".
I've now heard that the Beach Drive bike shop will be proposed some special deal in a new
Hotel development once his landlord sells out to the Mermaid property developer, along with
the property owner of the apartments on the lot(s) to the east of the bike shop.
Why is the Council facilitating the systematic destruction of the character of Hermosa's
downtown, by encouraging, or participating in, all this sneaky behind the scenes wheeling and
dealing?
Why?
What makes anyone believe that placing a gargantuan hotel box 45-feet high on the
Strand frontage is going to somehow bring the City bed tax to solve all its ills? (it won't
look anything like those Fancy-Dancy pictures that the over-paid, over-stuffed,
pompous consultant showed to you last January)
The increased bureaucracy, increased traffic, increased chaos, increased crowds, increased
crime, is going to eat that bed-tax money up as fast as it comes in. Hotels belong on PCH not
in Hermosa's dinky downtown unless they are two story boutique, and fit the present zoning.
The 30-foot height limit zoning was never intended for the twisted-myth that the consultant is
pushing, i.e. that nice three story hotels cannot be built in the City's 30-foot height limit.
The Beach House hotel was permitted by a rotten, filthy Council of that period to cram three-
stories into the voted 30-foot height limit. The voted height limit of 30-feet was designed for
nice two-story buildings. Now the voters are to be tricked into thinking you "can't build a nice
three-story building". This is what filthy, rotten, dirty politicians allow to happen; i.e., the
distortion of what was originally intended but which has already been abused by a prior
deceitful council.
You on the Council need to wake up, smell the coffee, and go take a careful look at Manhattan
Beach's downtown. Then check out Redondo Beach. You need to understand that Manhattan
Beach's voted height limit has been a mere 26-feet for well over 40 years (as voted by their
people).
Compare our downtown from 11-PM to 2 AM to that of Manhattan Beach's downtown. You
should be amortizing our downtown back to 11-PM over a 10-year period to midnight, but no,
you on council are so brilliant that you, and no doubt the Chamber of Commerce (in my view,
clearly the 'Chamber of Liquor and Booze') will sell the people down the river on raising the
height limit because a still standing, too-big Bijou building of 80 years ago is 45-feet high. Well
if the Bijou building burned down it should not be rebuilt to 45 feet. More deceit thusly.
Supplemental from H. Longacre for Item-2 of the April 22, 2014 - 6-PM HB City Council "Study Session" Agenda.
Page 6 of 10
And of course the stated objective of raising the height limit to 45-feet is probably an initial ruse
prior to actually going for a height limit increase to 39-feet. I.e. 6 feet of the 45-foot talk being
a developer throw-away to actually get 9 feet above the 30 foot-height limit. Kindly don't fail to
note that 39-feet would still be 50% higher than the 26-foot height limit of the very successful
downtown Manhattan Beach.
That kind of deceitful ruse is of course a standard filthy, rotten developer and politician trick.
Sort of like the "created blight" ruse developers often use. Demand more, knowing the Council
might try to make it look like they are protecting the town by only placing 39-feet on the ballot.
Or create blight to justify something unjustified being built. It's just more political-trickery from
the filthy, rotten type of government that people seem to put up with these days.
And exactly who is it that would not prefer Manhattan Beach's preserved downtown low-rise,
low-density atmosphere to that of the insane Hermosa Beach atmosphere of liquor, liquor,
liquor, and more liquor, cabs, chaos, expensive sworn police officers having to play nanny to
the drunks into the late night downtown, etc. The mentality is that you've gotta have your wine
and booze morning, noon, and night. It's an absolutely insane booze-mentality obsession that
permeates downtown Hermosa Beach. Even the Councilmembers are supposed to cozy up to
the bar at all the Chamber "mixer" functions. Drink, get loaded, and fry your brain cells on
wine and liquor. I.e. be a part of Hermosa's downtown alcoholics manufacturing district. It's
actually a C2 (commercial) zone, but really it's a kind of an M1 (alcoholics manufacturing) zone
as such.
Now I notice the City actually advertised ("Holy Macro", even a half-page ad was run in the
EasyReader, amazing!) for the PCH "beatification" stuff (by yet another overpaid, pompous
consultant), however that particular noticed-meeting (not a Public Hearing interestingly) has
incredibly been canceled, and continued now to yet another one of Bakaly's sham 6-PM
"Study Sessions" in May.
Unfortunately, Bakaly didn't bother to advertise anything for this downtown-enhancement sham
"Study Session", as this is one of those meetings where de facto direction is given under the
guise that it's only a "Study Session". Who in Hell are you trying to fool. This again is more
filthy, rotten Hermosa government and it seems to get more filthy and rotten with each week
since Bakaly arrived, and now since Hany Fangary and Carolyn Petty joined with Michael
DiVirgilio, in my view one of sneakiest individuals if not the sneakiest ever to be on Hermosa's
City Council. DiVirgilio is up for reelection to a third possible term next year. He'll be the bars
and thusly the Chamber's favorite, but he has the same superficiality, empty-suit baggage that
Kit Bobko had and needs badly to be removed from the Council.
Meanwhile the good people of the City are being distracted from all of this by the
incredibly ridiculous and unneeded oil debate, which in my view is one of the dumbest
debates ever, i.e. with the premise of slant-drilling 30 major oil wells and 4 waste water
injection wells, and then endlessly pumping millions of gallons of waste water under
million-dollar residential neighborhoods of tiny Hermosa Beach. That is in my view the
Supplemental from H. Longacre for Item-2 of the April 22, 2014 - 6-PM HB City Council "Study Session" Agenda.
Page 7 of 10
most incredibly stupid idea ever concocted. The vote will obviously be to not lift the
ban.
Given E&B's wild unbacked-up projections, I'm still waiting for E&B to place in escrow a
check for everyone promising a new Rolls Royce to be paid for when the people vote
for the insanity of oil drilling. Oil drilling, higher downtown density, vacating streets for
additional density, adding additional parking structures downtown, incentivizing more
liquor-dispensing late at night downtown is clearly the senseless agenda of the City.
What brilliant brain-farts will next come from the decision makers, "the Leaders", of
Hermosa Beach?
But note, people in this city may be apathetic about the endless garbage and whining of
bar-operator-gurus that goes on with the downtown liquor-dispensing district, but even
I will be amazed to see the oil vote come anywhere close to approving such utter-
nonsense as drilling 34-wells under the entire city and offshore under the beach-front
ocean floor from the small City Public-Works yard and then pressurizing the ground
endlessly with recirculated waste-water. The need for greed, for big fat egos, for self-
aggrandizement, and endless dictatorial-power that some seem to need, never ceases
to amaze me. One only needs to look back to WW-II to see the incredible damage that
can be brought upon people's lives by the self-serving stupidity and ignorance of a few.
However, trying to slip through still more of this latest downtown adults-oriented-liquor-district
intensification-garbage, i.e. to vacate Beach Drive, and to raise the height limit for a giant hotel
building, and to build another giant parking structure behind the Bank of America and the Pier
Plaza bars to yet provide more direct parking for late night liquor-seekers, is just more
Hermosa City Council thoughtless insanity.
Has the Council gone totally out their minds? If Hermosa's Council in its wildest dreams
believes that the downtown liquor district, with-or without wall-to-wall hotels, cabs, parking
garages, etc., is ever going to pay its true cost of city services, not to mention the horrendous
cost of the escalated degradation and wear-and-tear on the rest of the vast residential
community, and the resulting increased costly bureaucracy, and costs to the quality of life of
the men, women, and children residing in the community, then someone should be asking if
you've in fact lost your marbles too.
Hermosa Beach is a daytime beach town, and nighttime bedroom community. When is the
Council going to stop trying to make it something else just to stay elected.
Even the bars should be concerned as to whether you on the Council have gone nuts. They
badly wanted to have a bar here, now they want it all changed too? Like a couple getting
married. Once married each wants to change the other to something else, and then the
subsequent divorce ensues.
One of the Planning Commissioners simply mentioned that there might have been perhaps a
couple more date palms in each line of palms on the Plaza. Now we find that this overpaid,
Supplemental from H. Longacre for Item-2 of the April 22, 2014 - 6-PM HB City Council "Study Session" Agenda.
Page 8 of 10
overstuffed, pompous consultant took that suggestion and is recommending a variety of trees
out into the Plaza. That's ridiculous. Is the idea now to completely block out the fact that we
are at the ocean? A prior council already destroyed the 'Pier Head' view of the ocean with that
absolutely ugly, view-blocking, crappy-looking, abortion of a county lifeguard tower, complete
with its cheesy, plastic-crap, do-it-yourself fence-railings. You know, the one with the huge
wall blocking the ocean views with all the bronze plaques with names of the officials that stuck
that abortion there. And now the Council or someone(s) desire to add still more ocean, view-
blocking stuff to Pier Plaza? It's a bar zone slab. Stop wasting money on it.
I remember this over-paid, overstuffed, pompous consultant also suggesting that we do the
Plaza over with "kiosks". Was this overpaid consultant having a brain-fart too? "Kiosks"?
Such that the Plaza might look and operate like the interior of Del Amo shopping mall selling
all kinds of trinkets-trash. Doesn't the consultant understand that the Hermosa Chamber
already cruds up the town on the sacred "Memorial Day" 3-day weekend, and also the "Labor
Day" 3-day weekend with their swap-meets? Why didn't the consultant suggest moving or
eliminating those six days of Chamber swamp meets that so-stifle the City's downtown
economic development and residential community and not to mention completely disgrace the
Memorial weekend, which is supposed to be to honor armed-service individuals who gave their
lives in wars?
Why didn't the consultant suggest moving the Chamber's office to Pacific Coast Highway?
Why are we paying all this money to this pompous consultant? Pay them off and send them
on their way.
No it is all about the need for greed, the need for self-aggrandizement, the need for big fat
egos, and the need to be a bigger dictator in the City. Fortunately I cannot recall ever of
someone who ran for Council with the idea of seeking higher office, who ever made it there
from this city. Thankfully at least the City did save others from learning the hard way about
Bobko and DiVirgilio. They certainly will never be elected anywhere that they would need to
get 50%+1 of the vote.
Shame on the Council majority for not demanding in a public meeting to Bakaly and Jenkins,
that it is time to take a few extra minutes to be sure the agendas state clearly what is going on.
I've seen agendas of other cities and only the sleazy cities seem to use the deception method
(minimizing information on an agenda face) and then make the ludicrous claim of following the
Brown -open-meeting- Act. The Jenkins and Hogin firm in my view are experts at the Brown
Act it would seem, i.e. as if the Brown Act was meant that you are to do whatever possible to
keep things as closed from the public as possible.
"DOWNTOWN CORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION." is the agenda-
face description stated for this item-2. It purposely left off any heads-up information and in my
view that was done on purpose by Bakaly.
Clearly the main agenda of this item-2 after spending all this money on this pompous
useless consultant is gaining a Council vote to move forward with;
Supplemental from H. Longacre for Item-2 of the April 22, 2014 - 6-PM HB City Council "Study Session" Agenda.
Page 9 of 10
· Vacating Beach Drive as a gift to a private developer at the expense of the
residents and the City's needs.
· Raising the height limit 50% via some kind of smoke-and-mirrors zoning trickery
suggestions as probably to be provided by Jenkins for a "special" developer, and
actually giving a windfall to that "special" developer.
· Building/enlarging one or more downtown Parking Structures to further blight the
downtown and provide yet more late-night parking and visitor chaos for the
liquor-dispensing industry.
· And other superficial candy-sweet embellishments to "Gild the Lily", i.e., place
more lipstick on the pig.
The above was not made clear on the agenda face simply because we have a sneaky city
management operation via a grossly overpaid City Manager and no-bid Contract City Attorney
firm, and all, as evidently desired by a weak-as-water elected-Council-majority that either has
a deceitful, self-serving agenda, or are simply too dumb to realize they're being served-up Kool
Aid constantly from those to be benefiting from Council approvals.
Additionally, when DiVirgilio or others state that there is an overriding parking deficiency
problem in this City, he is, or they are, fabricating a de facto lie.
This city has tons of parking, but DiVirgilio and other useless and sneaky councilmembers of
the past have done absolutely nothing to stop adding late night bars that bring people here
when the City should be sleeping, or to stop facilitating people and bar workers from parking
essentially for free on residential streets rather than in their garages, and further doing nothing
to stop de facto bootlegging of apartments with the lax selling of parking permits to residents.
The City has far more parking than is obvious, and there is plenty of parking for the people
who should be living here and for the businesses that operate in the daytime. DiVirgilio is a
downright sneak in my view, and in September he thankfully will no longer be the ceremonial
Mayor. Next year he will be gone from the Council whether or not he decides to stupidly run
again the way Bobko did.
DiVirgilio has had 7 years on Council but he's wasted all of them because he hasn't been
serving the people. He's been serving no one but himself, and he doesn't understand it. He
doesn't get it that there is far more to this city than the bar district and their groupies and the
Chamber of Commerce, i.e. Chamber of Liquor. He believes he's a "Leader". He'll continue to
fool a lot of people with that baloney.
What a waste of money down the toilet, hiring this pompous consultant who is providing
nothing but what the City wanted to be put into an official report in the first place. It's just more
of the filthy, rotten, deceitful government that the Council participates in. If you wanted to
Supplemental from H. Longacre for Item-2 of the April 22, 2014 - 6-PM HB City Council "Study Session" Agenda.
Page 10 of 10
accomplish the above lunacy that the pompous consultant is recommending, i.e. paraphrasing,
you could write your own report in 15 minutes. Tell Bakaly to stop hiring overstuffed,
pompous, unneeded consultants. It's rare that you are required by law to hire a consultant.
I've seen millions wasted on consultants and their fancy reports over the last 30 years. That's
money spent wastefully that came from some poor taxpayer's wallet. It's outrageous.
-- end of supplemental --