Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/29/14 July 24, 2014 Honorable Mayor and Members Regular Meeting of of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 29, 2014 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS AUGUST 12, 2014 – NO MEETING AUGUST 26, 2014 @ 5:00PM STUDY SESSION: USE OF PIER PLAZA AND ENFORCEMENT AUGUST 26, 2014 PRESENTATIONS LEADERSHIP HERMOSA BEACH PRESENTS ALUMNI PROJECT DONATION OF ARTWALK POSTERS TO CITY HALL FROM SAM PEROTTI AND ARTWALK COMMITTEE CONSENT CALENDAR Workers Compensation – 3rd Party Administrator Contract Assistant to the City Manager Award of Contract – Fire Beacon Fire Chief MUNICIPAL MATTERS Oil Project Update:  Receive and File Oil Project Cost Benefit Analysis  Receive and File Oil Project Health Impact Assessment Community Development Director Policy review regarding – Bars and Restaurants Conditional Use Permits Community Development Director Video Cameras – Pier Plaza Police Chief MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER Strategic Plan Update City Manager SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 @ 6:00PM STUDY SESSION: EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AT EOC SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 APPOINTMENT OF MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEMPORE PRESENTATIONS NO PRESENTATIONS THIS DATE PER MAYOR CONSENT CALENDAR Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Public Works Commission meeting of July 16, 2014 Public Works Director Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission meeting of August 5, 2014 Assistant to the City Manager Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 19, 2014 Community Development Director Consideration of adoption of resolution opposing reopening of heliport at Los Angeles International Airport and resulting flight activity and noise with the potential to adversely affect the City Community Development Director MUNICIPAL MATTERS Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy Adoption Community Development Director Events Policy Discussion Assistant to the City Manager Sewer Funding Update Public Works Director Regulation of drones on the Beach, Pier Plaza, Parks, and other Public Areas Police Chief MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER Carbon Neutral Municipality – SCE On-Bill Financing Energy Efficiency Project Report City Manager 2 PENDING ITEMS Consideration of reduction of business license fee request from Carol G. Weiss, Ph.D. Finance Director Green Zone Recommendations and the Installation of Silver and Green Meters Downtown Police Chief Procurement Policies – RFP City Manager Ethics Policy City Manager & Finance Director Contract Public Information and Communications Plan City Manager SCE Update City Manager SEPTEMBER 2014 Events Policy Discussion Assistant to City Manager Citywide Service Level/Performance Benchmark System Report Finance Director AES Intervener, Future Development on the Site - Update Community Development Director Living Streets Update Report Public Works Director Public Safety Service and Staffing: Quarterly Report Police Chief / Fire Chief Public Information and Communications Plan Adoption City Manager Cypress Avenue – Direction on Zoning Changes for Manufacturing Uses Community Development Director Update on Direction for Schools Strategy and Specific Actions: Support for Top Quality Schools City Manager Priority Based Budgeting Report Finance Director OCTOBER 2014 Oil Project:  Development Agreement  Ballot Measure Community Development Director Carbon Neutral Municipality – Economic Comparison and Solar Report – Early Actions and Overall Direction City Manager Carbon Neutral Municipality: A. SCE Street Light Energy Efficiency: Update Report B. Municipal GHG Emissions Inventory: Update Report (SBCCOG) Community Development Director Carbon Neutral Community Policy, Direction on Plan Development Community Development Director NOVEMBER 2014 Compensation Study and Policy Direction Assistant to the City Manager National Citizen Survey Overview Assistant to the City Manager DECEMBER 2014 Comprehensive City Facilities Master Plan – Award Contract Public Works Director Carbon Neutral Municipality: A. Final SCAG Report: Setting Target, Action Plan, Funding – Employee Commute Program B. Net Zero Carbon Policy for City Facilities and Service Delivery Analysis C. Renewable Energy Policy for City Facilities and Service Delivery Community Development Director Strategic Plan – Quarterly Update City Manager JANUARY 2015 None FEBRUARY 2015 Employee Salaries/Benefits Funding Assistant to the City Manager 1 1 David Lantzer From:David Lantzer Sent:Tuesday, July 08, 2014 9:32 AM To:Michael DiVirgilio; Peter Tucker; Nanette Barragan; Carolyn Petty; Hany Fangary Cc:Tom Bakaly; Diane Strickfaden; 'Fsenteno@hermosabch.org'; CHIEF Sharon Papa; 'vcopeland@hermosabch.org'; 'krobertson@hermosabch.org' Subject:Shark Incident Importance:High Council,  I have been in contact with County Lifeguards and MBFD in the aftermath of the shark incident on Saturday.  I have also  watched the video that the media has shown of people on the pier yelling at the swimmers about a shark.  However, this  is the entire video and is very disconcerting.  To view it yourself, please go to http://youtu.be/ESzXLQhMMlo.  There is  also an article with comments about the incident at http://www.thesurfchannel.com/news/20140707/alex‐grays‐ opinion‐on‐the‐manhattan‐beach‐shark‐attack/.    I have come to the following conclusions:   It is not necessary, nor do I recommend, a blanket ban on fishing from the pier.  If I had any evidence that fishing  in and of itself was the cause of the shark incident, then I would immediately recommend such a ban.  However,  we must reinforce that chumming is absolutely not permitted.   Temporary fishing bans on days of events that occur in the waters near the pier is prudent.   The full video shows that those fishing off Manhattan’s pier were fully aware they had a shark on the line (which  is already illegal); you can hear them laughing as the flailing shark “jumped right on top of him (the swimmer)”.   Words are important.  The Lifeguards termed this a “contact” and that seems to be the most appropriate  description, not “attack”.  As the comments in the video reveal, the flailing shark and the swimmer collided.  The  wounds Mr. Robles suffered are consistent with that description.    If other information/evidence comes to light that indicates these initial conclusions are not appropriate, adjustments to  them and to what I recommend will be made (the investigation is ongoing).  I am continuing to liaison with the  Lifeguards and MBFD.  Please see the e‐mail below that I received from County Lifeguards Chief Yamamoto.    In summary, a blanket fishing ban does not to address the cause of this incident.  It does not hold accountable those  who are responsible (though, my hope is that the investigation’s conclusion will start that process).  We will reinforce  what is illegal (fishing for sharks, chumming).    If you have any further questions or would like to discuss this incident further, feel free to contact me at 310‐345‐0497  (cell) or via e‐mail.    Sincerely,    David Lantzer Fire Chief  City of Hermosa Beach  540 Pier Ave  310‐376‐2479      2 From: "Yamamoto, Terry" <Terry.Yamamoto@fire.lacounty.gov> Date: July 7, 2014 at 5:06:49 PM PDT To: David Lantzer <Dlantzer@hermosabch.org> Subject: RE: Sharks Hi David First let me start off by say there are sharks in all oceans; can Hermosa have a shark attack. The answer is yes BUT with that said the odds are very low. As for a provoked shark attack such as the fisherman fishing for shark, the answer again is yes. Fortunately, Hermosa has not gotten the sharks as close to shore as Manhattan Beach. At this time I am working with the Manhattan Beach on the possibility of fishing restrictions on the pier. If they have a code stating there is no overhand casting they can create more codes. I will be making some suggestions for codes that may help. 1. One is to have a "baited hook code" this will help alleviate casting issues. 2. Two is to have "No Chumming off the pier code" stopping chumming. MB has a bit more issues because they do not lock the pier at night like Hermosa but they should. By locking the gates at night it also disallows chumming to take place overnight which is a good thing. Of course it has help with the night time pier jumpers as well. The issue that MB faces to get any codes past is in the state/ city contract. As a fishing pier all codes and restrictions must go through the State agencies which may take some effort. MB will be temporarily closing the pier to fishing down for possibly 60 days Based on the Shark incident and safety but it is not for sure, I will find out later. HB is ahead of the game due to the night closure of the pier. Hopefully MB can follow suit with the safety issue. Let me know if you want me to include you in the updates. Terry 2 From: Pete B. [mailto:broussinos@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 9:30 AM To: Michael DiVirgilio - External; Hany Fangary; Nanette Barragan; Carolyn Petty; Hany Fangary; Peter Tucker Subject: Fishing ban on the Hermosa Pier Dear City Council, The city of Manhattan Beach has correctly decided to extend the ban on fishing on their pier through at least September as a result of the recent shark attack on a swimmer near the pier (see link below). We respectfully request that you consider doing this for the Hermosa Beach pier as well. Our concern is related primarily to safety. There are lots of kids in the water this summer, especially with the LA County Junior Lifeguard Program in full swing. We're very concerned that the people who will now not be able to fish on the Manhattan pier will all come to Hermosa's pier and start doing many if the same things that may have resulted in this shark hitting the swimmer near Manhattan's Pier. It has been noted these fishermen may have been "chumming" or otherwise taking measures to attract sharks. This is obviously a real concern for us as many kids are swimming nearby. I have no problems with fishing - I'm an avid fisherman myself. However I do have some concerns about the practices of some of the folks fishing on the piers. This includes the aforementioned concern related to the recent shark incident as well as a practice known as "snagging," whereby multiple large treble hooks are cast off the pier in an effort to snag and kill gamefish in shallow water near the pier. I've asked the Dept. Of Fish & Wildlife about this, and they've informed me that, while currently it's not technically illegal, it's considered very unsporting. Unfortunately it results in real damage to our local fishery. Out of an abundance of caution we urge you to immediately consider a ban on fishing on the Hermosa pier, at least through the end of the summer. We appreciate your consideration. Respectfully, Pete & Tracy Broussinos Hermosa Beach http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-manhattan-beach-shark-attack-pier-fishing- ban-20140707-story.html 1 David Lantzer From:Terri Dinubilo on behalf of City Clerk Sent:Wednesday, July 16, 2014 2:24 PM To:David Lantzer Subject:FW: Fishing and/or Chumming on Hermosa Beach Pier Per our conversation ‐ for your records.    ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Marylou von Heyman [mailto:mvheyman@icloud.com]   Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 3:37 PM  To: City Clerk  Subject: Fishing and/or Chumming on Hermosa Beach Pier    Hi!       My name is Marylou von Heyman and I am a resident of Hermosa Beach, CA.  Kevan Puckett, another Hermosa Beach  resident, and I take regular walks along the strand and the Hermosa Beach pier.  Normally in summer, we see quite a  few fisher people fishing on the pier, many of whom are fishing with more than one fishing rod.  As summer progresses,  we have noticed that the fisher people leave more and more fish remains on the hand‐railings, which smells and looks  disgusting.        Last Sunday, July 13, 2014, we were appalled.  One half of the pier resembled a slaughterhouse.  There were fish  remains and pools of blood all over the ground.  It was a humid day and there was a heavy stench of fish guts in the air.   Tourists on the pier appeared to be sickened by the sight and smell.  Was this situation created as a result of the fishing  ban on the Manhattan Beach pier?  Have the fisher people and/or chummers moved their operations to the Hermosa  Beach pier?         This is outrageous!  I would like to make a call‐to‐action and request the Hermosa Beach City officials to regulate the  fisher people on the pier.  If nothing is done, there could be a repeat of the shark attack incident that occurred in  Manhattan Beach, in addition to the immense loss of tourism dollars that is already occurring.                  Sincerely,        Marylou von Heyman    Sent from my iPad  3 7/16/20141Sharing the waves with thesharks of the South BayChris LoweLong Beach State UniversityChris.lowe@csulb.edu 7/16/20142The CSULB Shark Lab, founded in 1969, is dedicated to the study of the physiological and behavioral ecology of sharks, rays, and other economically important gamefishes. Our mission is to advance our understanding of the ecology of marine fishes, training future marine scientists at the undergraduate and graduate levels, and disseminate information to resource managers and the general public to improve conservation of sharks, rays and economically important marine fishes. 7/16/20143Yikes – what have we done! 7/16/20144Growing problems…Decades1840185018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020Human population (millions)010203040California 7/16/20145The hazy days of California…Air pollution of Los Angeles - 1940s-1970s 7/16/20146Cleaning up the air•CA reached it’s worst state of air pollution in late 1940s•Concerned citizens pushed for more science and stronger regulations•Led to landmark clean air legislation – Clean Air Act (1970)•Air quality is much better now! 7/16/20147Just dump it… 7/16/20148Cleaning up the water•CA was discharging 1º sewage offshore (screen out the big chucks) up until the 1970s•Resulted in >100 tons of contaminants dumped in the ocean (many don’t breakdown)•Lot changed after 1972 –Clean Water Act•Now all of SoCal has full 2º treatment•Urban runoff and trash still a problem 7/16/20149A community of seafood lovers 7/16/201410Taking too much…• Over 100 years worth of declining marine stocks through early 1990s• Hunted many marine mammals to near extinction• Dirty fisheries (bycatch impacts)• Loss of marine predators• Some landmark legislation– Marine Mammal Protection Act (1973)– State ban on nearshore gillnets (1994)– Magnuson-Steven Act (1996)– CA Marine Life Protection Act (1999) 7/16/201411Effects on ocean communities?•All these impacts have taken their toll•Predators are usually first impacted•Cascading effects•Food web out of whack 7/16/201412Direct and indirect effects of overharvesting 7/16/201413 7/16/201414White sharks• Vulnerable to overfishing – Life history traits– High value of jaws, meat and fins• Caught as bycatch– Relatively low abundance– High market value• Protection – 1994 CA– 1997 U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico – 2004 CITES Appendix II– 2005 HMS Fishery Mgmt. Plan – All U.S. EEZ 7/16/201415Farallon IslandsAño Nuevo IslandGuadalupe IslandKnown adult seasonal aggregation sitesLos Angeles 7/16/201416Adult habitat and migrations 7/16/201417White shark nurseryLos Angeles 7/16/201418NOAA-DFG Gillnet logbooksDFG shark tagging programDFG game warden reportsNOAA Observer programPacFINMBA Juv. white shark tagging Prog.Scientific collectionsNewspaper and scientific articlesWhite shark catch data sources 1936-2009; n=369NOAA –DFG Gillnet logbooksMBAPacFINSci. coll.Lowe et al. 2012 7/16/201419YOYs Juveniles Adults UnkNo. of sharks reported020406080100120140160Fishery reports1936-2009; n=369< 5.7 ft5.8-11.4 ft> 11.5 ft 7/16/201420entangle netset lineharpoontrawlpurse seinelobster traphook-and-linegaffno dataNo. of sharks reported0255075100125150175300YOYJuvenileSubadult - adultUnk Captures by fishery type and ageCommercialRecreational1936-2009 7/16/201421Subadults - Adults (> 11.5 ft)Blocks fished1936-2009 7/16/201422Juveniles (5.8-11.4 ft)Blocks fished1936-2009 7/16/201423YOY (< 5.7 ft) Blocks fished1936-2009 7/16/201424Entangling Net Captures & Effort 1981-20121980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Number of white sharks02468101214161820Number of sets02000400060008000100001200014000160001800020000Offshore drift gillnets - swordfish, sharkInshore set & drift - halibut, angel shark, wt. seabasssign of populationincrease 7/16/201425Signs of stock recoverymeso-predators•White seabassabundance is rising since 1994 (Allen et al. 2007)•Increase attributed to nearshore gillnet ban•~40 boats fishing outside 3 nmilesMetric tonYearNearshore gillnet ban 7/16/201426Recovery of bycatch speciesmeso-predators• Other spp. caught in nearshore gillnets have shown similar increases (Pondella & Allen 2009)– Giant black seabass– Leopard shark– Soupfin shark (tope) 7/16/201427CA sea lion (Calif. & Baja)1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000050,000100,000150,000200,000250,000Numbers300,000350,0002010Extensive huntingMarine Mammal Protection ActMajor gillnet regulationsStrongEl NinoPopulation growth6.5% per year!NOAA concludespopulation carrying capacity 7/16/201428What’s the deal with these babies?• Where are they born?• Where do they go?• What do they eat?• How long do they stay?• Who’s babies are they? 7/16/201429Working with local commercial fishers 7/16/201430 7/16/201431 7/16/201432 7/16/201433 7/16/201434 7/16/201435Where do they live?SPOT tagPAT tagAcoustic tagSince 2006:19 SPOTs27 PATs11 acoustic tags (8 year life)10 archival tags 7/16/201436White Shark Captures (MBA program)You are here 7/16/201437JWS SPOT Detections (2006-2009)44% of detections inside state waters 7/16/201438Fisheries interactions•Avg. 44±24% baby white sharks found dead in nets annually (2006-2012)• 94% survival for live caught and released sharks!• Shorter net soak times can further reduce mortalities 7/16/201439Beach BabiesPhoto: Randy Wright 7/16/201440Will Rogers State Beach 7/16/201441 7/16/201442MalibuSanta MonicaMarina Del ReyManhattan BeachHermosa BeachRedondo BeachVenice BeachAcoustic receivers 7/16/201443Will Rogers Beach #1Will Rogers Beach #2Santa Monica PierManhattan Beach Pier 7/16/201444Seasonal migrations 7/16/201445Why are these babies here?• What makes these locations special?• Developing “shark surveillance robots”• Tracking and mapping 7/16/201446Drone surveys • Cost effective• Non-intrusive• Full automated 7/16/201447Return of the predators•It’s taken decades•Better water quality, fisheries management has allowed for ecosystem recovery•Predators return!•“unintentional ecosystem management” 7/16/201448California’s greatest conservation success story 7/16/201449Has all this “acting” got us anywhere? 7/16/201450Sharing the waves 7/16/201451Should you be worried about these sharks? 4 1444 9th Street ph 310 451 1550 info@healthebay.org Santa Monica CA 90401 fax 310 496 1902 www.healthebay.org July 15, 2014 City of Hermosa Beach City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Via email: cityclerk@hermosabch.org; krobertson@hermosabch.org RE: Recommended education program to reduce conflict between pier fishing & shark interactions Dear Mayor DiVirgilio and Honorable Councilmembers, On behalf of Heal the Bay, a local non-profit environmental organization with over 15,000 members dedicated to making Santa Monica Bay and Southern California coastal waters and watersheds safe, healthy, and clean, we’re writing the City of Hermosa Beach in response to the unfortunate shark bite situation over the 4th of July weekend. We are concerned about recent proposals to prohibit fishing from piers in response to this situation. Instead, Heal the Bay believes an education program is urgently needed to prevent white shark fishing from piers and other negative human-ocean wildlife interactions in the Santa Monica Bay. Specifically, we recommend that municipalities pursue a shark ambassador educational program for pier anglers in the Santa Monica Bay. Santa Monica Bay is home to dozens of shark and ray species. Many of them are small, like the swell shark and horn shark, and live in kelp forests and rocky reefs. Juvenile great white sharks are seasonal residents of Southern California's coastal waters, likely congregating in Santa Monica Bay in summer months due to a mixture of abundant prey and warm water. Sharks play an important ecosystem role by keeping populations of other fish healthy and ecosystems in balance. In addition, a number of scientific studies demonstrate that the depletion of sharks can result in the loss of commercially important fish and shellfish. Despite popular perceptions of sharks as invincible, shark populations around the world are declining due to overfishing, habitat destruction and other human activities. White shark numbers in the Northeastern Pacific are unknown but are thought to be low, ranging from hundreds to thousands of individuals. White shark fishing is illegal in California, and they were recently considered for potential special status listing under the California Endangered Species Act. White sharks are vulnerable to ongoing threats, such as incidental catch, pollution and other issues along our coast. It has come to Heal the Bay’s attention that many cities with piers along the Santa Monica Bay (e.g. Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Venice, Santa Monica) are considering the possibility of issuing temporary closures to fishing on their piers. Manhattan Beach elected to prohibit fishing from its pier for the next 60 days. Although we understand why Manhattan Beach issued a temporary pier fishing moratorium, we oppose such action. Piers are one of the only places where people can fish without a fishing license in California, which results in high numbers of subsistence anglers from many areas throughout Los Angeles that come to piers to fish for food due to the low cost and easy access. We are concerned about the environmental justice issues presented by prohibiting fishing on Santa Monica Bay piers. The shark bite was a very unusual situation, and we believe closing piers to fishing goes beyond what should be done to reduce the risk of angler, shark, and beachgoer interactions. 1444 9th Street ph 310 451 1550 info@healthebay.org Santa Monica CA 90401 fax 310 496 1902 www.healthebay.org As an alternative, Heal the Bay recommends the establishment of a pier and sport angler shark ambassador educational program. Such program would involve on-the-pier ambassadors that educate anglers about about which fish are allowed to target, and which ones cannot be caught (e.g. white sharks); how to avoid catching these sharks and target the other species; and to safely remove sharks and other marine life from the line. Such a program could also educate anglers and other pier visitors about the diversity of sharks in the Santa Monica Bay, and their ecology. Heal the Bay already has a platform for a shark ambassador educational program through our pier angler outreach program, which reaches an average of 10,000 pier anglers each year. Our pier angler outreach program began in 2002 in partnership with the Fish Consumption Education Collaborative, and reaches anglers on 10 piers throughout Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Currently we work in four languages: English, Spanish, Russian, and Chinese. In previous years, we have also conducted outreach in Tagalog, Vietnamese, and Cambodian. The program currently focuses on educating anglers about how to avoid contaminated fish, but could be extended to educate about better interactions with sensitive species, like white sharks, if resources were available to support such an effort. In addition to providing an education benefit, an ambassador program could also help reduce the occurrence of intentional pursuit of white sharks on piers, since there would be a dedicated presence on the piers. We understand the importance of responsible ocean recreation that benefits both people and wildlife and support the City’s commitment to finding a good solution to meet both of these goals in relation to fishing on the pier. Please contact us if you have any questions, or would like to further discuss this recommendation. Sincerely, Sarah Abramson Sikich, MESM Ruskin Hartley Science & Policy Director, Coastal Resources President & Chief Executive Officer 5 CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS Section 25. The people shall have the right to fish upon and from the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, excepting upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water containing fish that have been planted therein by the State; provided, that the legislature may by statute, provide for the season when and the conditions under which the different species of fish may be taken. 6 7 32 ARTICLE 2 PUBLIC ACCESS Section 30210 Access; recreational opportunities; posting In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse. (Amended by Ch. 1075, Stats. 1978.) Section 30211 Development not to interfere with access Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation. Section 30212 New development projects (a) Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided in new development projects except where: (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources, (2) adequate access exists nearby, or, (3) agriculture would be adversely affected. Dedicated accessway shall not be required to be opened to public use until a public agency or private association agrees to accept responsibility for maintenance and liability of the accessway. (b) For purposes of this section, "new development" does not include: (1) Replacement of any structure pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (g) of Section 30610. (2) The demolition and reconstruction of a single-family residence; provided, that the reconstructed residence shall not exceed either the floor area, height or bulk of the former structure by more than 10 percent, and that the reconstructed residence shall be sited in the same location on the affected property as the former structure. (3) Improvements to any structure which do not change the intensity of its use, which do not increase either the floor area, height, or bulk of the structure by more than 10 percent, which do not block or impede public access, and which do not result in a seaward encroachment by the structure. (4) The reconstruction or repair of any seawall; provided, however, that the reconstructed or repaired seawall is not a seaward of the location of the former structure. (5) Any repair or maintenance activity for which the commission has determined, pursuant to Section 30610, that a coastal development permit will be required unless the commission determines that the activity will have an adverse impact on lateral public access along the beach. As used in this subdivision "bulk" means total interior cubic volume as measured from the exterior surface of the structure. (c) Nothing in this division shall restrict public access nor shall it excuse the performance of duties and responsibilities of public agencies which are required by Sections 66478.1 to 66478.14, inclusive, of the Government Code and by Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution. (Amended by: Ch. 1075, Stats. 1978; Ch. 919, Stats. 1979; Ch. 744, Stats. 1983.) 33 Section 30212.5 Public facilities; distribution Wherever appropriate and feasible, public facilities, including parking areas or facilities, shall be distributed throughout an area so as to mitigate against the impacts, social and otherwise, of overcrowding or overuse by the public of any single area. Section 30213 Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities; encouragement and provision; overnight room rentals Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred. The commission shall not: (1) require that overnight room rentals be fixed at an amount certain for any privately owned and operated hotel, motel, or other similar visitor-serving facility located on either public or private lands; or (2) establish or approve any method for the identification of low or moderate income persons for the purpose of determining eligibility for overnight room rentals in any such facilities. (Amended by: Ch. 1191, Stats. 1979; Ch. 1087, Stats. 1980; Ch. 1007, Stats. 1981; Ch. 285, Stats. 1991.) Section 30214 Implementation of public access policies; legislative intent (a) The public access policies of this article shall be implemented in a manner that takes into account the need to regulate the time, place, and manner of public access depending on the facts and circumstances in each case including, but not limited to, the following: (1) Topographic and geologic site characteristics. (2) The capacity of the site to sustain use and at what level of intensity. (3) The appropriateness of limiting public access to the right to pass and repass depending on such factors as the fragility of the natural resources in the area and the proximity of the access area to adjacent residential uses. (4) The need to provide for the management of access areas so as to protect the privacy of adjacent property owners and to protect the aesthetic values of the area by providing for the collection of litter. (b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the public access policies of this article be carried out in a reasonable manner that considers the equities and that balances the rights of the individual property owner with the public's constitutional right of access pursuant to Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution. Nothing in this section or any amendment thereto shall be construed as a limitation on the rights guaranteed to the public under Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution. (c) In carrying out the public access policies of this article, the commission and any other responsible public agency shall consider and encourage the utilization of innovative access management techniques, including, but not limited to, agreements with private organizations which would minimize management costs and encourage the use of volunteer programs. (Amended by: Ch. 919, Stats. 1979; Ch. 285, Stats. 1991.) 34 ARTICLE 3 RECREATION Section 30220 Protection of certain water-oriented activities Coastal areas suited for water-oriented recreational activities that cannot readily be provided at inland water areas shall be protected for such uses. Section 30221 Oceanfront land; protection for recreational use and development Oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use and development unless present and foreseeable future demand for public or commercial recreational activities that could be accommodated on the property is already adequately provided for in the area. (Amended by Ch. 380, Stats. 1978.) Section 30222 Private lands; priority of development purposes The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry. Section 30222.5 Oceanfront lands; aquaculture facilities; priority Oceanfront land that is suitable for coastal dependent aquaculture shall be protected for that use, and proposals for aquaculture facilities located on those sites shall be given priority, except over other coastal dependent developments or uses. (Added by Ch. 1486, Stats. 1982.) Section 30223 Upland areas Upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses shall be reserved for such uses, where feasible. Section 30224 Recreational boating use; encouragement; facilities Increased recreational boating use of coastal waters shall be encouraged, in accordance with this division, by developing dry storage areas, increasing public launching facilities, providing additional berthing space in existing harbors, limiting non-water-dependent land uses that congest access corridors and preclude boating support facilities, providing harbors of refuge, and by providing for new boating facilities in natural harbors, new protected water areas, and in areas dredged from dry land. 8 CHAPTER 12.24 MUNICIPAL PIER Sections: 12.24.010 Changing clothing in washrooms or toilets on municipal pier. 12.24.020 Permit to sell goods. 12.24.030 Throwing bait or litter on pier. 12.24.040 Casting of lines from pier. 12.24.050 Writing on or cutting on pier. 12.24.060 Diving off pier--Exception as to lifeguards. 12.24.070 Skates, skateboards, bicycles and scooters prohibited on pier. 12.24.080 Dogs, cats or other animals, on or off leash, prohibited on pier. 12.24.090 Consumption of alcoholic beverages prohibited on pier. 12.24.100 Swimming and surfing near pier prohibited. 12.24.110 Trespassing on restricted portion of pier. 12.24.120 Regulations for fish stalls on pier. 12.24.010 Changing clothing in washrooms or toilets on municipal pier. It is unlawful for any person either to dress or undress in the washroom or toilets on the municipal pier or to change from clothing into bathing suits in such washrooms or toilets thereon, and a violation of this section shall be an infraction. (Prior code § 5-36) 12.24.020 Permit to sell goods. It is unlawful for any person to solicit any custom or trade, or peddle or sell tickets, goods, wares or merchandise upon any part of the municipal pier without first obtaining a permit and license from the city council to do so, which permit or license shall designate the kind of goods, wares or merchandise permitted to be sold thereunder, and exclude the right or privilege to sell on the pier any goods, wares or merchandise not named in the license or permit. A violation of this section shall be an infraction. (Prior code § 5-37) 12.24.030 Throwing bait or litter on pier. It is unlawful for any person to leave any fish, clam sells or other fish bait, or the remnants from cleaning any fish or any other debris upon the municipal pier, and every person bringing the same, or any luncheon, papers or fish bait upon the pier, shall keep the same in a receptacle or package and when leaving the pier shall remove the same from the pier and leave thereon no litter or debris of any kind. A violation of this section shall be an infraction. (Prior code § 5-38) 12.24.040 Casting of lines from pier. Page 1 of 3City of Hermosa Beach : Chapter 12.24 Municipal Pier 7/16/2014http://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=445 It is unlawful for any person on the municipal pier to cast a line with any weight, and/or hook, and/or bait attached thereto by swinging same above the railing on the pier or by swinging or casting the line overhead or sidearmed from a pole or from the hands; and it is unlawful for any person fishing from the pier to fish by means of more than two fishing lines in use by him on the pier at the same time. A violation of this section shall be an infraction. (Prior code § 5-39) 12.24.050 Writing on or cutting on pier. It is unlawful for any person to write, cut, mark, stain or otherwise deface any portion of the municipal pier, or any building or attachment thereon. A violation of this section shall be an infraction. (Prior code § 5-40) 12.24.060 Diving off pier--Exception as to lifeguards. It is unlawful for any person or persons to either dive or jump from the pier or to push, shove or cause any person to fall, dive or jump from the pier; or to climb or be on the outside of the railing of the pier except members of the lifeguard service of a governmental agency or such other person as may be delegated by the lifeguard service, or any of its personnel, to assist them in rescuing or saving lives, or in the regular drills and training therefor under the supervision of the lifeguard service; and except for authorized persons in the maintenance and repair or construction of the pier or parts thereof; and except for such aquatic events or activities as are approved and authorized by the city. A violation of this section shall be an infraction. (Prior code § 5-41) 12.24.070 Skates , skateboards, bicycles and scooters prohibited on pier. It is unlawful for any person to ride or drive any automobile, horse or other vehicle or animal on the pier unless authorized to do so by the city manager or his authorized representative and a permit obtained therefor; or to ride and/or park any skates, skateboard, bicycle, scooter or similar conveyance on the pier. A violation of this section shall be an infraction. (Prior code § 5-42) 12.24.080 Dogs , cats or other animals, on or off leash, prohibited on pier. It is unlawful for the owner, or any other person having custody of, any dog, cat or other animal to permit the same to be on the pier, whether said animal is on leash or not, or whether in the custody of any person or not, and a violation of this section shall be an infraction. (Prior code § 5-43) 12.24.090 Consumption of alcoholic beverages prohibited on pier. It is unlawful for any person to consume any alcoholic beverage, liquor or intoxicating liquor while on any part of the municipal pier, and a violation of this section shall be an infraction. (Prior code § 5-44) 12.24.100 Swimming and surfing near pier prohibited. It is unlawful to swim, operate or otherwise use a surfboard, skin dive, or use self-contained Page 2 of 3City of Hermosa Beach : Chapter 12.24 Municipal Pier 7/16/2014http://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=445 underwater breathing apparatus within an area described as one hundred (100) feet of either side of the pier, except for purposes otherwise authorized by this chapter. A violation of this section shall be an infraction. (Prior code § 5-45) 12.24.110 Trespassing on restricted portion of pier. It is unlawful for any person to trespass or enter upon that portion of the municipal pier restricted against public use by any order of the city council, or to attempt to climb over any fence or barricade separating such restricted portion of the pier from the part thereof to which the public is admitted. A violation of this section shall be an infraction. (Prior code § 5-46) 12.24.120 Regulations for fish stalls on pier. It is unlawful on the municipal pier for any person: A. To maintain or operate more than one fish stall for fresh fish or one fish stall for smoked and cured fish; B. To place or cast dead fish or parts thereof, garbage or any other refuse in the Pacific Ocean, or on its beach, unless it be placed or cast therein or thereon under supervision of the police department of the city; C. To keep or place any refuse, fish heads or garbage on such pier, excepting in clean and sanitary garbage cans provided with suitable covers; D. To use bait set lines or fish hooks which are to be used for commercial purposes; E. Use loud or boisterous language thereon for the solicitation of business or any other reason; F. Keep or store any boat thereon for a period of more than four hours in any one day or use the pier for the repair of boats excepting minor repairs; G. Sell other than fish for smoking purposes; H. To maintain their business, stall or other appliances appurtenant thereto, in an unclean or unsanitary condition; I. To keep tender boats on the pier, providing however, that one tender boat and no more may be kept thereon; J. Maintain or operate a fish stall until the plans and equipment thereof shall have been approved by the local health officer; K. A violation of any provision of this section shall be an infraction. (Prior code § 5-47) Page 3 of 3City of Hermosa Beach : Chapter 12.24 Municipal Pier 7/16/2014http://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=445 From: joe imbriano <joeimbriano777@gmail.com> Date: July 22, 2014 at 4:43:12 PM PDT To: mdivirgilio@hermosabch.org, ptucker@hermosabch.org, nbarragan@hermosabch.org, cpetty@hermosabch.org, hfangary@hermosabch.org Subject: proposed action regarding regulating and or banning peirfishing in Hermosa Beach. Fishing is a protected right written into every beach city's tideland grant spelling out the State Constitution article I section 25. Hermosa Beach is no exception. The pier was built as a fishing pier. All of these protections were placed as the right to feed yourself was and is one that is tantamount to being a free society. While I applaud your willingness to, on the surface, seek legal, viable and workable solutions to this bizarre, once in a ten thousand year coincidence, I would like to remind all involved in city government that what I have read regarding your plans sounds eerily familiar. Here is some history from 20 years ago. From 1993 to 1996, the City of Newport Beach under the direction of the acting city manager Kevin Murphy, embarked on a plan that ultimately led to his demise. It was a long term plan to snuff out the out of town visitors to the city’s piers so they could be developed. It involved the city attorney cooking up section 11.20.60 of the municipal code and bamboozling the city council into adopting it. They wanted to make, of all things, fishing illegal on all or part of the piers ostensibly to accommodate merchants. At the same time I watched parking meters come out down Balboa Blvd when the sewer pipes were replaced and not get put back until I made a call to the Coastal Commission. I drew the line in the sand and had a letter drafted and ready to mail to the acting Attorney General at the time, Dan Lundgren ccing general counsel at the State Lands commission along my rep in the State Assembly, to begin an investigation into the possibility of a partial or full revocation of the city’s tideland grant if the fishing ban was enacted. It could have turned Newport into a state beach. Newport officials have never implemented the illegal portions of the ordinance nor will they ever. The city manager shortly thereafter resigned and the fishing on the piers and parking down the center of Balboa Blvd still remain to this day. The pier is built on State property below the high tide line which consists of submerged tidelands which through legislative enactment were deeded from the State to the City to be held in Public Trust. The beaches as well, are tidelands which are State property currently deeded to the city in an agreement subject to revocation if the public trust is violated. Expressly written into the grant is the State Constitution's provision reserving in the people the absolute right to fish. Many beach cities are a dichotomy with both State and City beaches and consequently have NEVER attempted to cross the line. I can understand being well intentioned. I just hope that the council and all involved are well informed. The City can restrict access to fisherman on the pier but the access has to be restricted to everyone. The City needs to work with the appropriate regulatory agencies where preemption exists. Jurisdiction is key here. A possible no take area of great whites in the form of a type of SMCA, combined with municipal code restrictions on steel leaders, line test and hook sizes coupled with a 100 yard buffer zone all around the pier banning swimming, diving, and boating will solve the problem. Any attempts at banning fishing must be accomplished via a Constitutional amendment. The city has absolutely no legal grounds to stand on when it comes to banning fishing. This in not my legal opinion but rather established fact. As far as regulating methods of fishing, you are on shaky ground as well. White sharks are already protected and hook and gear restrictions on shark fishing may pass with the DFG, but you most certainly cannot ban legal fishing activities such as fishing with baitless hooks, lures and underhand casting. The United States is a nation of laws. This very fact is directly responsible for the continued gainful employment of taxpayer funded city staff as their sole purpose is to navigate these laws. I will never forget some 40 years ago, as an 8 year old boy, my mother would drop me off at the Balboa pier around 3:30 am so that I would get a spot at the end. I will never forget the hundreds of dirt poor farm workers and immigrant laborers that lined the rails along side myself in eager anticipation of some of the most incredible runs of pelagics in the world. At the time, the runs seemed if they would never end. They would fill buckets to take back to the other farm workers to supplement their diets as they could not afford to buy meat. Things have changed I know. We don't see runs like that anymore. Sadly, socioeconomically for many in our society things have not changed. What remains the same is the fact that the right to fish is an absolute right clearly being preempted at the state level being subject to the terms and conditions that the legislature deems necessary. This puts the City Council at the back of the bus. Tread carefully on your plans. Admirably,it sounds like you are being proactive and upfront with what are viable solutions unlike Newport did 20 years ago where general services and law enforcement were intentionally called off, abandoning maintenance and refusing to cite violators as a pretext to manufacture a public health and safety crisis to package and deliver to the council a bogus, illegal, unenforceable section of the municipal code that ended the career of a city manager. Realtors and huge developers were behind it. They tried to railroad the fisherman out of town. It didn't work then and it won't work now. Just a thought and hoping all involved will do the right thing. Sincerely, Joe Imbriano site administrator http://thefullertoninformer.com/ From: Pete B. [mailto:broussinos@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 9:55 AM To: Michael DiVirgilio - External; Hany Fangary; Nanette Barragan; Carolyn Petty; Hany Fangary; Peter Tucker Subject: Re: Fishing ban on the Hermosa Pier Dear City Council, We've heard back from a couple of you on this topic and we're hopeful you're planning to take some action on this. We have indeed noticed an increase in the number of fishermen on the Hermosa Beach Pier recently, and we're guessing it is a direct result of the Manhattan Beach pier being closed to fishing. Unfortunately, the publicity associated with the shark incident at Manhattan has probably also attracted more people to the pier hoping to hook a "Great White Shark." This is not a good development. The other day our son's Junior Lifeguard group, which gathers at the Tim Kelly lifeguard tower, did a long swim around the pier, and they noticed a really large number of people fishing on the pier. This is obviously worrisome to us. It also seems like a bad idea from the perspective of potential impacts to our tourism in Hermosa to continue to allow people to do this on our pier. At the very minimum we ask that you find a way to require anyone who fishes on our pier to hold a valid California Fishing License. This just seems like common sense, and will at least help to promote more sportsmanlike behavior by people fishing on our pier. But based on what we've observed on the pier, including the aformentioned awful practice of "snagging" and killing gamefish, it would be preferable to simply ban fishing on the pier. Sincerely, Pete & Tracy Broussinos Hermosa Beach From: Pete B. <broussinos@yahoo.com> To: Michael DiVirgilio <mdivir@gmail.com>; Hany Fangary <hsfangary@gmail.com>; "nbarragan@hermosabch.org" <nbarragan@hermosabch.org>; "cpetty@hermosabch.org" <cpetty@hermosabch.org>; "hfangary@hermosabch.org" <hfangary@hermosabch.org>; "ptucker@hermosabch.org" <ptucker@hermosabch.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2014 9:30 AM Subject: Fishing ban on the Hermosa Pier Dear City Council, The city of Manhattan Beach has correctly decided to extend the ban on fishing on their pier through at least September as a result of the recent shark attack on a swimmer near the pier (see link below). We respectfully request that you consider doing this for the Hermosa Beach pier as well. Our concern is related primarily to safety. There are lots of kids in the water this summer, especially with the LA County Junior Lifeguard Program in full swing. We're very concerned that the people who will now not be able to fish on the Manhattan pier will all come to Hermosa's pier and start doing many if the same things that may have resulted in this shark hitting the swimmer near Manhattan's Pier. It has been noted these fishermen may have been "chumming" or otherwise taking measures to attract sharks. This is obviously a real concern for us as many kids are swimming nearby. I have no problems with fishing - I'm an avid fisherman myself. However I do have some concerns about the practices of some of the folks fishing on the piers. This includes the aforementioned concern related to the recent shark incident as well as a practice known as "snagging," whereby multiple large treble hooks are cast off the pier in an effort to snag and kill gamefish in shallow water near the pier. I've asked the Dept. Of Fish & Wildlife about this, and they've informed me that, while currently it's not technically illegal, it's considered very unsporting. Unfortunately it results in real damage to our local fishery. Out of an abundance of caution we urge you to immediately consider a ban on fishing on the Hermosa pier, at least through the end of the summer. We appreciate your consideration. Respectfully, Pete & Tracy Broussinos Hermosa Beach http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-manhattan-beach-shark-attack-pier-fishing-ban- 20140707-story.html Supplemental from H. Longacre to the July 29, 2014 6PM Adj-Regular Council Meeting - Agenda Item 6-c Page 1 of 13 Supplemental To Municipal Item 6-c City Manager's office, City Clerk: This is supplemental correspondence for Municipal Item 6-C of the July 29, 2014 adjourned-regular 6-PM City Council meeting. Please advance copies to those listed, at the meeting, and announce as supplemental material for the public and press. Please also post with the agenda materials on the Internet. Thank You. July 27, 2014 To: Councilmembers (Peter Tucker, Michael DiVirgilio, Nanette Barragan, Carolyn Petty, Hany Fangary), City Clerk, City Manager, Assistant to City Manager, Planning Commissioners, Public Works Commissioners, Finance Director, Community Development Director, Public Works Director, Police Chief, Fire Chief, and contract-City Attorney. From: Howard Longacre, a Hermosa Beach Resident Regarding: 1- Regarding that nothing of the high-density intensification being fostered by the City Council to increase transient-residency in Hermosa's downtown, as being so-ignorantly encouraged via so-called "catalyst site" merging of parcels for mega-monolith-developments, will ever enhance the net quality of life or value of Hermosa Beach residential properties and its community for the men, women, and children residents, but instead will depress the rate of residential value-increase and cause incalculable long term property value loss to what value-increase could have occurred. 2- Regarding the immediate need for enactment of a six month study "Urgency Moratorium on acceptance, or processing, of development applications involving the assembly/combining of multiple existing legal parcels, for the purposes of removing/modifying present commercial structures and then building larger non-individualized commercial projects in the Hermosa Beach C2 zone." 3- Regarding that the City Council and its City Manager are now apparently operating in a most-ignorant, less-than-transparent, joint-effort with the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce to facilitate doing everything possible to unknowingly lower the quality of life for residents of Hermosa Beach, and for that matter the rest of the South Bay, and to ignorantly be facilitating conditions leading to our living like packed in rats, given the fact that the supporting South Bay transportation infrastructure and more is already beyond saturation. Reference: Reference prior communications from H. Longacre regarding the proposed redevelopment of the "Mermaid properties" and unneeded downtown transient-resident intensification. Supplemental from H. Longacre to the July 29, 2014 6PM Adj-Regular Council Meeting - Agenda Item 6-c Page 2 of 13 Click-on, or copy each of the following three links to a browser's address box to display each of these prior communications; 1- February 25, 2014 council meeting complaint regarding the having of an illegal closed session benefitting the "Mermaid" properties developer; http://hermosabeach.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=6&event_id=1295&meta_id=141545 2- July 8, 2014 council meeting complaint regarding a future agenda item appearing for the "Mermaid properties" developer before any public communication or approval for such having been given by the Council; http://hermosabeach.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=4&clip_id=3169&meta_id=154019 3- July 22, 2014 council meeting concerns re: a "Mermaid Properties" development and other high-density intensification of Hermosa's downtown; http://hermosabeach.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=4&clip_id=3193&meta_id=155363 Honorable Councilmembers, and others: Your 7/29/2014 council meeting agenda states for item 6-c; MUNCIPAL MATTERS: 6 (c) CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST BY STRAND AND PIER HOLDING COMPANY, LLC TO STUDY USE AND INCLUSION OF CITY PROPERTY IN A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR A HOTEL PROJECT, AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION REGARDING THE DOWNTOWN CORE REVITALIZATION STRATEGY OR RELATED MATTERS. Memorandum from Community Development Director Ken Robertson dated July 24, 2014. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Grants consent to include Parking Lot B and Beach Drive in a development application as stated herein and directs the City Manager to commence property negotiations; and, 2. Directs staff to return with a discussion and possible adoption of the Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy including guidelines for catalyst projects. 14-page Staff Report link: http://hermosabeach.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=4&event_id=1332&meta_id=155904 The following are my comments, given freely, and they are entirely my views and opinions on everything I've stated herein. _________________________________________________________ First off, in the future kindly insist that prepared staff reports be displayed on the Granicus in "direct-PDF" text searchable form whenever possible. There are means to attach signatures and scanned image attachments, etc., where such attachments themselves are not available in "direct-PDF" form. I have noticed that more city reports are being presented in "direct-PDF" form, however not this item 6-c staff report. The first 6 pages of this item's staff report could have easily been output in direct-PDF form and then combined as a single PDF with its two attachments. Supplemental from H. Longacre to the July 29, 2014 6PM Adj-Regular Council Meeting - Agenda Item 6-c Page 3 of 13 _________________________________________________________ With respect to this item 6-c, the staff report presented implies a lot of apparent activity (wheeling and dealing) that's been going on behind the scenes in unfortunately a less than transparent manner to date, and presents fairly well what appears to be many, many unanswered questions. I.e., It also illustrates that it certainly is far, far too-premature for the Council to be giving any direction to the "City Manager to commence property negotiations" i.e. for price and terms for the use of City-property to be benefiting a particular developer, with respect to his required parking that he's apparently above placing on his own property. Is the City offering up this specific city property to anyone else in town? Somehow this appears to a great degree to be somewhat unfair. If the City is planning to wheel and deal the people's property away to facilitate the reduction in the residents' own quality of life, you might need to get certified appraisals, and also advertise, and offer-up the property to anyone. How else will you know that the rent or de facto sale/bartering of the people's property(s) is proper and legal? Something once again stinks badly with what has been going on between the City and the "Mermaid" properties owner/developer to date, and with it all being essentially in secret between the City Manager, the 5 individual city councilmembers, and God only knows whom else in the government. It stinks rotten. How do we get such filthy rotten sneaky government in tiny Hermosa Beach? I believe it has a lot to do with the no-bid contract city attorney, evidently for life, firm of Jenkins and Hogin; and especially given that Jenkins and Hogin is also under contract with the other big-bars districts city, West Hollywood. Council's no-bid, year-after-year, contract with Jenkins and Hogin continues to also stink badly. With respect to this "Mermaid" properties development, Council and the City Manager most-definitely have the cart presently way too far out in front of the horse. The cart in-fact appears to not even be connected to the horse, and to be racing downhill completely out of control, heading for a significant collision with the sensibilities of the community. _________________________________________________________ Following for reference are two computer renderings of what I would call a pig- development that the "Mermaid Properties" developer had apparently presented at one of his PR (Public Relations) sessions held at the Beach House Hotel, i.e., the Chamber of Commerce insider's location for such PR scam presentations, and which images were included in a July 24, Beach Reporter newspaper story. Supplemental from H. Longacre to the July 29, 2014 6PM Adj-Regular Council Meeting - Agenda Item 6-c Page 4 of 13 Proposed Pig-Development Image #1 Proposed Pig-Development Image #2 As so often, and almost always being the case, renderings are designed to enhance and to a degree significant deceive the viewer that the PR pitch is being made to. That's expected. That's why the makeup business does so well, especially i.e., lipstick. This is unquestionably a "pig"-development for Hermosa Beach, and is massively out of scale for the downtown. It is even too high for the highway where the height limit is 35 feet. So out of scale it's actually an "Obscene-Pig"-development. By the way, while Hermosa's downtown 30-foot height limit is 4 feet higher than that of Manhattan Beach's downtown 26-foot height limit, be aware that Hermosa's PCH 35-foot height limit is also 5 feet higher than Manhattan Beach's 30-foot PCH (Sepulveda Blvd) height limit. So while this proposed pig-development is almost 20 feet higher than what would be permitted in Manhattan Beach's downtown, it's even some 15 feet higher than what would be permitted on Manhattan Beach's highway. Supplemental from H. Longacre to the July 29, 2014 6PM Adj-Regular Council Meeting - Agenda Item 6-c Page 5 of 13 It's even10 feet higher than what would be permitted on Hermosa Beach's Pacific Coast Highway where hotels belong. It's a PIG-DEVELOPMENT and a damn insult by a bunch of Beverly Hills evidently cash-rich, slick, wheeler-dealer developers, out to buy off this town from a bunch of gullible town leaders, most evidently. No different than E&B. It's disgusting beyond belief that this city has reached this new cesspool low of moneyed individuals evidently believing this town is operating as one big PROSTITUTE, out to sell itself, and be trampled all over, pushed around, and essentially raped-over for a quick mega-buck. Such has become the filthy, rotten, scummy, need for greed these days by those coming to Hermosa Beach. Any honest Planning Commissioner will tell you that virtually every ugly, and or quickly- dated monolith that's been built in virtually any city, originally had some consultant or slick wheeler-dealer developer standing before a city Planning Commission stating, "This will be a BUUUTAFUL edition to the City", "it will generate revenue for the city", and, "It will replace a very blighted and tired condition", etc., etc., or some other crock of disingenuousness BS crud like that. And by the way, with the blighted condition(s) having often been created by those with an agenda to build more than should be reasonably built on a particular property in the first place. I.e., "Created blight" to aid a NEED FOR GREED. There's just no end to the con-games in the world of garbage over-development approvals with the wheeling-and-dealing and massaging-the-egos of the politicians of the day. This is all about GREED. Don't let anyone fool you. GREED. Nothing but GREED. You may have noticed, i.e., images in real estate ads for properties in the last few years that have most-apparently been computer-manipulated to make homes or whatever appear to be more desirable, and other such photo-enhancements. Such is the nature of the cheap world we live in now where it is up to the buyer to beware as GREED RULES. For example, it's always interesting to see a realtor's smiley picture in an advertisement and then when you happen by their 'open house' the same agent has somehow significantly become much older in appearance. I guess that's sort of realtor's license. In the above hotel renderings to enhance this PIG-DEVELOPMENT, the first computer- rendering appears to leave off the swimming pool via its angle of projection. That structure on the 5th level goes up even higher than the four levels of the high-density hotel units. People citywide with/without telescopes will have a nice view of the pool activities and private parties, I suppose. But maybe not, as after built, the additional creeping crud, i.e., awnings, wind-break walls, etc. will of course materialize with time. The Pig-Development proposal essentially is a five level mega-monolith structure, unquestionably designed to be built on the cheap. It's interesting that it's been proposed with the first level sunk way down, especially after hearing one of the numerous and expensive city consultants that Council and City Manager Bakaly have hired recently, Supplemental from H. Longacre to the July 29, 2014 6PM Adj-Regular Council Meeting - Agenda Item 6-c Page 6 of 13 essentially bash the "Beach House" condo-hotel design because the first level of that condo-hotel was below grade a foot or so. Here now we have this pig-development proposal with the first level sunk down below grade perhaps 5 feet, and of course that's where the parking should be but why would a developer want to put parking on his own property, as every residential property developer has to do in town? Especially why, when you've got a Council/City Manager general-law government to so-easily be manipulated over the ever-present glass of wine or booze? And what is a developer with a need-for-greed pig-development to do when he wants to cram in as many units as possible in his maxed out "Boutique" mega-monolith? He simply crams them in below grade, and then gets, as-mentioned, three gullible, or two gullible and one SNEAKY Hermosa politician-council members, and some others to drink the infamous "Jim Jones served-up Kool-Aid poison", to then agree to provide his parking on the relatively cheap, using the people's city open space land. The analogy of this kind of crap is little different than having one not only pay for and then dig their own grave, before being executed and dumped into it, i.e., World War-II style. That's something long-ago put aside by such wheeler-dealer developers with today's need- for-greed to then brag about at their cocktail parties far away from the damage they've done elsewhere, or those on the Council needing to do something fast to skirt around any awful and confrontational public processes, etc. God-forbid those confrontational public processes. Some on Council evidently cannot stand anything confrontational, i.e. especially when they view it as confrontational because they already have a different point of view and a very small mind already made up and cast in a TOT concrete-obsession. It's no wonder one wears a name-badge to be sure they can be identified when they have their head buried in the proverbial sand. It's unfortunate for many neophyte politicians who simply don't understand that government is often a very messy, very slow, bogged-down, and contentious business. Good government, that is. When it runs too smooth, too slick, too fast, you'd best look out. Something is probably not right and a stinky odor is probably just around the corner. Now in the second computer-rendering above, the developer has taken the liberty to show the "Hennessey's" property on the south-west Plaza/Strand corner as being a big box as high as the proposed pig-development project, i.e. probably 50% higher than the actual Hennessey's property could be now; or was that meant to show that more of this way-too- big pig-development hotel-garbage is coming next on that side of the Plaza? Or was it to make the pig-development appear small in scale? When will we see a professionally constructed silhouette outline of the developers actual proposed pig-monolith structure as done down in Torrance's Hollywood Riviera for even tiny additions? Don't hold your breath for something as transparent as that. Supplemental from H. Longacre to the July 29, 2014 6PM Adj-Regular Council Meeting - Agenda Item 6-c Page 7 of 13 And further, this bird's-eye view #2 rendering of the proposed pig-development seems to have its structure fade from view to the north rather than showing the full block-long size. Birds have very sharp vision, but evidently not the bird transmitting this view. They've also shown a bunch of view-blocking palms that would never be approved above the already too high mega-monolith. Nothing like a super-tall palm in a rendering to make something too-tall appear much smaller in scale. More deceit by the developer. Anyway we all know it's a pig-development, way out of scale. It's a starter asking for the moon and it will probably get in the end way more than it should ever get. Such is the way a pig- development with a need for greed operates. Place four troughs of slop in front of a pig and the pig will have a foot in each trough. A pig wants to get all the slop he can. Nonetheless, the rendering does faintly show some outlines of existing businesses along the north side of the Plaza, east of the developer's proposed pig-development monolith, and of course those, if accurately shown, are in fact only about half as tall as the most- apparently oversized proposed hotel pig-development. WAY TOO BIG "Slick Developer Technique 101:" A UCLA extension 1-credit course I believe. Developers often operate deceitfully to get what they want and to satisfy their NEED FOR GREED. Let's for example say that a developer wants to build 40 condos where clearly no more than 25 condos should be built. What the pig-developer may likely do is to put in an application for 75 condos with beautiful renderings and all that B.S. He'll of course try to meet privately with all the commissioners and people able to vote on his project --- to see how their minds work, to see which ones have the putty brains, or which ones need to be praised and patronized, etc. He'll likely hire a consultant who knows how to work and manipulate the various government commissions, to talk about how wonderful the project will be, how it will clean up a blighted or "tired" area and all that crap. Then the public will weigh in after receiving an innocuous mailed notice, probably yelling and screaming rightfully about all the traffic, and other impacts to be screwing-over their long and carefully developed neighborhood. The Commission or Council will then say to all, "no we can't allow this for one reason or another, it's just too many condos." They'll state that, "The residents have made cogent points and we have heard them." But then after, of course, 3 or 4 continuations of the Public Hearing process over a couple months, designed specifically to grind down and ignore opposition, the Council or commission will state that they were elected or appointed to protect the community and that therefore they can only approve 65 of the requested 75 condos. The developer will real sad and dejected as if he's suffered a big loss of value. Supplemental from H. Longacre to the July 29, 2014 6PM Adj-Regular Council Meeting - Agenda Item 6-c Page 8 of 13 So what happens, as you can see, the pig-developer, who really only wanted 40 condos in the first place, ends up getting approval for 65 condos. And remember that in this example, there really only should have been 25 condos permitted ever. This is the filthy, rotten, dirty way the system works. And so then the people leave the meetings believing they have won a victory, when in actuality they and their town has been royally screwed over, all for the NEED FOR GREED and continued egotistical political power by those making the approvals. It's likely that this developer has purposely made this project so damn massive, and so outrageous, so that after the processes grind everyone down, and the commissions and/or Council token-scales it back, the pig-developer will end up with far more than he even expected in the first place, and nevermind that the City as a whole will be forever screwed royally. Then of course in the case of this downtown hotel pig-development, a massive propaganda campaign will play out for the height election and with the electorate having their mailboxes filled with all the glossy baloney-garbage that is virtually guaranteed to be coming, much like the E&B con-job the voters will have just perhaps a couple months earlier had to endure. And of course this developer will make sure he's got enough signatures to force a special election so he can further be manipulating the apathetic electorate. It will be a sham election, that's a given. Hermosa Beach is paying top dollar for the most expensive City Manager in the South Bay when calculated per city-resident, per square mile of city, per city employee managed, per budget dollar controlled, and yet his job is evidently to also help the developer rape over the very taxpayers/residents paying his salary, not to mention with the aid of City Attorney Jenkins, also all of the above, and thus ensure that the Hermosa Beach downtown remains an overly intensified high-density cesspool for ever and ever with cabs and transient people and expensive to police chaos in city late into the night. The real problem is that since Tom Bakaly became City Manager and has had his big- government approach rubber-stamped, meeting after meeting by the present dysfunctional Council, with the residents of the city really having not a clue that everything accomplished to date has been a set-up for just this sort of massive hotel intensification of the downtown 24/7. Even animals being led to slaughter have a better instinctual sense of what is to happen to them than the resident men, women, and children of Hermosa Beach do. The town is overdue for a full Recall of the City Council to replace same, the City Manager, City Attorney, and to put an end to the Chamber of Bars (aka the Chamber of Commerce) use of this town as their big play toy. Even the Chamber of Bars' "Farmer's Market", since the passing of Mary Lou Weiss (its former contract operator) seems to be morphing into just another Chamber Crapola-Swap-Meet garbage operation to help maintain Hermosa Beach as the arm-pit of the South Bay. There's no question the same manipulation of the wording will be accomplished with the revised General Plan to guarantee that the dinky downtown cesspool remains an Supplemental from H. Longacre to the July 29, 2014 6PM Adj-Regular Council Meeting - Agenda Item 6-c Page 9 of 13 essentially any-damn-thing-goes, high-density, high-impact, late-night, costly-to-the-city cesspool, and to Hell with the residential community's men, women, and children residing especially those west of Pacific Coast Highway. URGENCY MORATORIUM. Given that the present Council, and also the prior Council, has sucked up all of Tom Bakaly's high intensity tourist intensification garbage methods for the downtown, it's about time, before the public wakes up and simply Recalls the whole Council membership, that you start in a real way to consult with the residents as to whether they also buy into all this ignorant downtown intensification of lumping parcels together into so-called large "catalyst" sites and then converting them to ultra-high density hotel/bars sites with mega-monoliths being built on them and with their parking placed on the people's property. What is the plan for moving upwards of 1000 transient residents in and out of the downtown daily along with all of the support people for such high-density transient population increase 24/7? Pier Avenue is the only commercial ingress/egress street. So just how many cabs, buses and other high intensity vehicles are there to be racing up and down Hermosa Avenue, Monterey Blvd, Manhattan Avenue, 2nd Street, 5th Street, 8th Street, Valley/Ardmore and Gould Lane to service all this unneeded intensification of the dinky and very negative downtown? You on council, and also the residents of today do not seem to understand that these hotels bring some 16 times the density per square foot of land in for transient-residential living units as do the surrounding residential is permitted to have. The developer of this pig-hotel proposal knows that, but he's not going to tell you. If you were to subdivide the land that the developer has, the "Mermaid" properties, for single family homes, the city's municipal code states that he could put one home on each 4000 square feet of land. And he'd have to provide two parking spaces in the garage and at least one guest parking space for each home. Instead he's putting one unit on less than 240 square feet of land. My calculation shows that this developer is instead to be placing, not one unit on each 4000 square feet of land, but instead at least 16 units, and not only that, he's not providing a single parking space on the 4000 square feet of land, not even 3, when 16 homes would require 48 parking spaces. Now with about 181 transient hotel units already existing or approved in the downtown adding this developers additional 120 units brings Hermosa Beach to over 300 downtown transient-resident units, and then adding the latest "Mangurian" properties' likely pig-hotel- development it will push Hermosa Beach to well over 450 hotel units in its dinky downtown. If those were homes those 450 units would require 1350 parking spaces. Supplemental from H. Longacre to the July 29, 2014 6PM Adj-Regular Council Meeting - Agenda Item 6-c Page 10 of 13 Now compare that to Manhattan Beach's 38 units in their two story downtown Shade Hotel (yes with roof pool seldom used) and with its open space all around it, and at a total height of just 26 feet. Compare 450 units in Hermosa's downtown to 38 units in Manhattan's downtown. Compare Hermosa's 30-foot height limit already, to Manhattan's 26-foot height limit. Who in the HELL GAVE THE PRESENT CITY COUNCIL THE RIGHT TO SCREW UP THIS WHOLE DAMN TOWN BY TURNING THE DOWNTOWN INTO ONE BIG CESSPOOL WITH 450 AND PROBABLY EVEN MORE HOTEL UNITS? Did you leave your brains in bed once you barely were elected basis the very flawed California General City form of Council elections? Why do you want to have everyone living like rats in Hermosa Beach with this ignorant intensification of the downtown with transient hotel units? Why do you have no sense of the history of Hermosa voters getting rid of hotels in the downtown by vote, repeatedly? You on Council and this cash rich (made off swap meets on the people's streets) filthy rotten Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce are doing all you can to forever destroy any chance for Hermosa Beach to have a better quality of life. You as a Council are displaying an unbelievable ignorance and arrogance in encouraging such a pig-development for the Mermaid properties. It is time for the five of you including Carolyn Petty (absolutely unqualified to be on the Council) and Mayor DiVirgilio (who proved what a filthy rotten sneak he is with his self- appointed arrogant wheeling-and-dealing with E&B and his slap-in-the-face to his fellow councilmembers, and 11-PM announcement of such sneak-work in the July 22 meeting, not to mention again City Attorney Jenkins' involvement), it is time, to immediately enact an "Urgency Moratorium on acceptance, or processing, of development applications involving the assembly/combining of multiple existing legal parcels, for the purposes of removing/modifying present commercial structures and then building larger non-individualized commercial projects in the Hermosa Beach C2 zone." The reason that such "Moratorium" is needed is that the people of the City need to weigh in, and perhaps even by having, whatever is decided for a downtown Specific Plan Area, being placed on the ballot for an "Advisory Vote" to determine if the residents want their downtown to be filled with mega-monoliths, and high density transient units. The assembling of multiple parcels, never-combined before, now being assembled into mega-parcels, has got to stop before the downtown is turned into downtown Santa Monica, or made like the 'Plasticville" over-development that Huntington Beach so stupidly accomplished to destroy its beachfront community, notwithstanding that the Huntington Beach beachfront town is directly on Pacific Coast Highway. Supplemental from H. Longacre to the July 29, 2014 6PM Adj-Regular Council Meeting - Agenda Item 6-c Page 11 of 13 Hotels in Hermosa Beach belong on Pacific Coast Highway and nowhere else, and certainly not in the prime center of Hermosa Beach's small residential beachfront tiny commercial business/bars area. When are Hermosa Beach policy makers going to stop trying to cram 10 pounds of manure into a 5 pound sack downtown? ___________________________________________________________ Here are some things you on Council need to understand since you obviously don't seem to at this point. Pacific Coast Highway and Aviation Blvd are already more than grid-lock-saturated during the 3-1/2 hour commuter sessions in the morning and again in the afternoon. It's getting worse by the day. The Redondo Beach Mayor made an obscene presentation for you last meeting describing what he thought was the greatest thing since sliced-bread. Talk about high-density garbage to replace the AES power plant. If that's built on the AES site you we all may as well pack up and leave town. If you desire to live packed in like rats then keep on the present course you are on for Hermosa's dinky downtown. Go ahead and permit these NEED-FOR-GREED out-of-towners with their deep pockets to use Hermosa Beach to wipe their feet and fatten their already fat wallets. Would Rancho Palos Verdes do the stupid things Hermosa Beach and Redondo Beach are doing? Would Palos Verdes Estates? Keep it up. Show your ignorance, read about your ignorance, and by all means keep drinking the toxic Jim Jones Kool Aid served up by Bakaly, Jenkins, and these deep-pocket out-of-town fat-cat need-for-greed slick talking developers. Show the electorate of Hermosa Beach and these NEED-FOR-GREED developers just how damn dumb and milquetoast a government that Hermosa has. In conclusion, absolutely do not give Bakaly any direction or authority to negotiate with the developer to place his pig-development's parking on city lands. The developer needs to scale his project way, way back and fully park it on his own property. It's that simple. If he cares one iota about Hermosa Beach he should know that the best thing is to not build maxed out. He needs to build to the present code, completely. Tell the developer to break up his development into at least three perhaps four individual standalone projects with each having distinct architecture and each being fully parked, perhaps with shared parking among the three or four projects on his own land. Tell him his project is not only any ugly monolith, tell him he needs to get religion and have some respect for this community, some respect for something more than his wallet. Tell the developer to not exceed the 30-foot height limit with anything, notwithstanding that the Beach House Hotel developer got away with bloody murder thanks again to rotten Supplemental from H. Longacre to the July 29, 2014 6PM Adj-Regular Council Meeting - Agenda Item 6-c Page 12 of 13 Jenkins advice and no court challenge. The people meant for the height limit to be 30 feet, not 31, 32, 35, 40 or 45 feet. The height limit is more than generous for those small downtown lots. The developer should be building 2 nice levels not 5 levels. Place on the ballot a Council height limit measure to lower the height limit 4 feet to 26 feet to directly compete with any ballot measure the developer places on the ballot to protect the downtown from these deep-pocket, need-for-greed developers who want to screw and rape this town over, take the money and run. To Hell with these greedy people, to Hell with all of them. Ensure that any initiative this developer qualifies is placed on the 2015 general council election in November, 2015. Use the city's leverage to ensure that that happens. Do not let this developer manipulate our elections the way E&B has been allowed to via the totally defective and sloppy Jenkins approved 2012 secret oil settlement agreement. And be sure to tell the developer that under no circumstances is he to be permitted to build anything on or over the City's Beach Drive 20-foot wide street easement to block out more sky from the downtown and then set a bad precedent for other pig-developments. A previous council already made that mistake with the completely unneeded Beach House hotel bridge over Beach Drive. Any councilmember who has in any manner already told the developer that he or she would approve this or that should be off the Council. Why would any council member agree to anything prior to hearing everything from the public, and before an application had even been processed by the city? Put in place, within 72 hours, or sooner, a six month, "Urgency Moratorium on acceptance, or processing, of development applications involving the assembly/combining of multiple existing legal parcels, for the purposes of removing/modifying present commercial structures and then building larger non- individualized commercial projects in the Hermosa Beach C2 zone." Such moratorium may be extended possibly an additional two six-month periods for final resolution and creation of an specific plan area (SPA) zone clearly specifying the maximum amount of all commercial usages, and the maximum individual parcel size to be permitted, so as to maintain the character, and to control the day and night intensity and traffic leading into and out-of the downtown. The downtown is presently for all intent and purpose, completely out of control from a planning point of view. It's virtually the wild west. The oil drilling application brought by E&B, including high-pressure water injection under the entire city, beach and ocean, is beyond nutsy and also obscene, however in my personal view, as is everything contained herein, the placement of so much as one more transient living unit in the downtown is beyond stupid and far worse than even E&B's lunacy. It's flat out something that only an insane idiot would do to destroy the Hermosa Beach residential quality of life developed for over 100 years. You were elected by the residents, and with some of you barely being elected. Downtown businesses are here at the residents' pleasure. More hotel units bring net-nothing to the Supplemental from H. Longacre to the July 29, 2014 6PM Adj-Regular Council Meeting - Agenda Item 6-c Page 13 of 13 table but more density, more impacts in the night, more traffic on the grid-locked arterials, and more transients 24/7. Any additional TOT will be eaten alive by the increased required City bureaucracy and City Attorney as fast as it's generated by this downtown cesspool intensification that Councils of the past 25 years so cavalierly made worse and worse. The net depreciation and reduction in property value growth rates from downtown transient living units is incalculable. Tell the developer to build something to the present scale of the downtown, something that won't stand out like a big sore thumb the way the already dated and cheaply wood-frame constructed Beach House hotel does. Tell the developer to build to the city's code. His proposed garbage pig-development does not belong in Hermosa Beach except perhaps on Pacific Coast Highway (but only if meeting the PCH 35-foot height limit). Wake up or simply don't be surprised and shocked when you are served with Recall papers. And further, start informing Hermosa Beach residents what you are doing behind the scenes. You don't need to operate with Michael DiVirgilio's hallmark sneaky methods. There's still just too much filthy rotten sneaky stuff apparently going on, even with Kit Bobko having been booted off the council. *** End of Supplemental *** Lot ALot BLot C Lot D City Hall Parking Lot Community CenterParking Lot Project Site Palm DrPier AveValley Dr Loma Dr The Strand Bayview Dr 8th StSunset Dr Ardmore Ave Hermosa Ave Monterey Blvd Manhattan Ave 14th St11th StOak StBard St 15th St8th Pl9th St13th St13th CtCypress Ave 9th CtBeach Dr 11th Ct10th St15th CtPier Plaza10th Ct9th StLoma Dr 10th StBard St Cypress Ave11th StOak St13th St11th St11th StBeach Dr ±Downtown Public Parking Lots