HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/14/87ACTION SHEET - ACTION SHEET
"Life is Like a Ten -Speed Bike. Most of us have gear`
we never use." -Charles M. Schulz
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, July 14, 1987 - Council Chambers, City Hall
Regular Session -
MAYOR
John Cioffi
MAYOR PRO TEM
Etta Simpson
COUNCILMEMBERS
Tony DeBellis
Jim Rosenberger
June Williams
7:30 p.m.
CITY CLERK
Kathleen Midstokke
CITY TREASURER
Norma Goldbach
CITY MANAGER
Gregory T. Meyer
CITY ATTORNEY
James P. Lough
All Council meetings are open to the public.
PLEASE ATTEND.
Complete agenda materials are available for public inspection in
the Police Department, Public Library and the Office of the City
Clerk.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL:
PROCLAMATIONS: Loreto Sister City Week, July 13 - 20, 1987
PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES OF ACHIEVEMENT TO OUTSTANDING
HERMOSA BEACH GRADUATING SENIORS OF REDONDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL
AWARDS TO SHUTTLE COMMITTEE MEMBERS
PRESENTATION OF POSTER BY SISTER CITY ASSOCIATION
INTRODUCTION OF LORETO EXCHANGE STUDENTS
ACTIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION: GASKAMPE V, HB - HANNON, PARK, LEN -
NON APPOINTED TO REPRESENT CITY; SIMMONS V...H.B, MEYER.- OCHOA.&
SILLAS APPOINTED TO REPRESENT GREG MEYER
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any items on the
Consent Calendar may do so at this time.
CONSENT CALENDAR: The following routine matters will be
acted upon by one vote to approve with the majority con-
sent of the City Council. There will be no separate
discussion of these items unless good cause is shown by
a member prior to the roll call vote. Items removed
will be considered under Agenda Item 3.)
(a) Approval of Minutes: Regular meeting of the City Coun-
cil held on June 23, 1987.
(b)
Recommended Action: To approve minutes.
Demands and Warrants: July 14, 1987.
Recommended Action: To approve Demands and Warrants
Nos. .. ...through inclusive.
(c) - Tentative Future Agenda. Items,
Recommended Action: To receive and file.
(d) City Manager. Activity. Report: Memorandum from City Man-
ager Gregory T. Meyer dated July 8, 1987.
Recommended,Action: To receive and file.
(e) Monthly Investment. Report.- June, 1987. Memorandum from
City Treasurer Norma Goldbach dated July 7, 1987.
(f)
(g)
Recommended,.Action: To receive and file.
Approval of Traffic.Control Plan for Sanitary Sewer Con-
struction (CIP 85-402). Memorandum from Public Works
Director Anthony Antich dated July 9, 1987.
Recommended Action: To approve Traffic Control Plan.
Request of.the Community_Center Foundation for concep-
tual.approval_of Fall outdoor concert series on the
beach. Memorandum from Community Resources Director
Alana Mastrian dated July 1, 1987.
Recommended Action: To approve in concept a free out-
door concert series to be sponsored by the Community
Center Foundation and the Easy Reader to be held in
September/October of this year.
(h) Request of. the Historical Society for the .City..of.Hermo-
sa Beach's assistance in the celebration. of. the City's
0th Birthday. Memorandum from Community Resources Di-
rector Alana Mastrian dated July 1, 1987.
Recommended Action: To approve the request of the His-
torical Society as follows: 1) the City co-sponsor the
80th Birthday celebration; 2) the City Council authorize
City staff to assist; 3) that City purchase a street
banner to advertise the event; and 4) the City waive all
rental fees at Community Center for this event.
2
PULLED BY WI - TO QUESTION THE PROPOSED PARADE ON VALLEY DRIVE.
MOTION JR/DEB - TO APPROVE. STAFF. RECOMMENDATIQN._ OK 5-0.
(i) Approval of contract between City and Group.. Dynamics for -
Women's Pro Volleyball Tournament. Memorandum from Com-
munity Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated July 1,
1987.
Recommended. Action: That City Council approve the
agreement between Group Dynamics, Inc. and the' City for
the Women's Pro Volleyball Tournament to be held July 25
and 26, 1987.
PULED BY WI TO APPROVE THE. SPONSORS.. MOTION WI/JR TO APPROVE
THE AGREEMENT AND SPONSORS FOR.THE.TOURNAMENT, OK 5-0.
(j)
Notice to the City Council. of. intent. to. consider alter-
native hours of operation for city departments. Memo-
randum from Personnel Administrator Robert Blackwood
dated July 6, 1987.
Recommended Action: To receive and file.
PULLED BY WILLIAMS -.SAID SHE WAS CONFUSED RE. SURVEY. MOTION
CIO/JR.TO R & F. ,S0 ORDERED.
(k) A
ing Unit MOU revising the salary range; establishing_a
premium pay;and approval of the revised, class. specifi-
cation for General Services..Coordinator. Memorandum
from Personnel Administrator Robert Blackwood dated July
6, 1987.
Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to ex-
ecute the supplemental to the MOU and approve the re-
vised class specification.
••
royal of su••lemental to the.Administrative Bar:ain-
(1)
(m)
(n)
A roval.of su••lemental to..the Su•ervisor
Bargaining.Unit MOU.revising the salary range;.and ap-
proval,.of the.r,evised class specification for General
Services Supervisor. Memorandum from Personnel Ad-
ministrator Robert Blackwood dated July 6, 1987.
Recommended,Action: Authorize the City Manager to ex-
ecute the supplemental to the MOU and approve the re-
vised class specification.
• •
Em
to
ees
Cancellation of Warrants: Memorandum from City
Treasurer Norma Goldbach dated July 7, 1987.
Recommended„Action: To approve cancellation of Warrant
No. 23247.
Claims. for Damages:
1) Richard Allen Nickey, represented by Lawrence B.
Haile, Simon, Buckner, Haile & Migdal, 4551 Glencoe
3
Ave., Suite 300, Marina Del Rey 90292, filed June
17, 1987.
Recommended Action:
administrator.
To deny claim and refer -td -claims
2) Leave to present late claim: Ronald Simmons and
Barbara Myer, represented by Stephen M. Garcia,
Atty., 1125 Manhattan Avenue, filed June 18, 1987
with supplemental letter dated June 22, 1987.
Recommended Action: To deny Leave to Present Late
Claim.
(o) - Report from Councilmember Williams re. attendance. at
June.25,.1987 meeting of the South Bay Steering Commit-
tee and South Bay Cities Association.
Recommended Action: To receive and file.
(p) Recommendation to conce•tuall su ort AB 1393. Memo-
randum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated July 9,
1987.
Recommended_Action: To conceptually support AB 1393,
authorize City lobbyist to notify legislators and
request City Clerk to apprise League of Cities, etc.
PULLED BY WILLIAMS -..THINKS A_LETTER IS SUFFICIENT RATHER THAN
USE LOBBYIST,..THINKS HBPOA.SHOULD.;BE LOBBYING.THIS.. MOTION TO
APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1 . & .3, . DELETING. N0..2.. OK 5-0
(q) LAX Tunnel -.Street Widening financing. Memorandum from
Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 8, 1987.
Recommended Action: Authorize $ 25,000 in participation
funding (Gas Tax) over two fiscal years subject to other
South Bay cities funding their share.
PULLED.BY WILLIAMS - MOTION.JRLWI TO SEND LETTER.OPPOSING.REQUEST
FOR FUNDING AND SUGGEST A MORE ACTIVE ESEA ROLE ON.SHUTTLE
BUSING. ,OK.5-Q.
(r)
(s)
Consideration of Joining Rails To Trails Conservancy.
Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated
June 30, 1987.
Recommended Action: Authorize City to join, funding to
come from current City Council department budget.`
Consideration of.imelementing an. Ordinance to require
on -sale li9uor establishments to prominently.post.a
"Fetal Alcohol Syndrome If You.Are Pregnant", sign.
Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated
July 1, 1987
4
Recommended Action: Refer to staff for preparation of
such an ordinance.
NO.VOTE.REGISTERED BY DEBELLIS
(t) Community .Center _Gymnasium. Use K ,Rental Policx. Memo-
orandum from Community Resources Director Alana M.
Mastrian dated July 1, 1987•
PULLED BY SIMPSON - CONTINUE,TO 7/16.. QUESTIONED.ALANA ON.FUND-
ING SOURCE. MOTION CIO/TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH
AMENDMENT.TO CHECK TO SEE AGREEMENT ON MAINTENANCE,AND TO SEE
WHAT WE GET OR GIVE. .OK.4-1 (DEB -NO)
Recommended.Action:, Concur in Community Resources Com-
mission and staff recommendations to:
(u)
a. Endorse present rental policy,
b. Not pursue an open gym policy,
c. Direct Public Works to upgrade the outdoor
basketball courts at the Clark facility, and
d. Request of the Hermosa City Schools that they
upgrade their basketball courts at North School/
Valley Park.
Child, Abuse_ Monthly Report. Memorandum from Community
Resources Director Alana M. Mastrian dated July 1, 1987•
Recommended Action: To receive and file.
(v) Request for Closed. Session. Memorandum from City Man-
ager Gregory T. Meyer dated July 9, 1987•
Recommended Action: To calendar a Closed Session for
Tuesday, July 28, 1987 at 6:00 p.m.
*****************************************************************
Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any item listed
under Consent Ordinances and Resolutions may do so at this time.
*****************************************************************
2. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
(a) ORDINANCE NO. 87-886 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SEC-
TION 21-23 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, BY CHANGING THE TITLE
FROM "DRINKING ON STREET OR PLAYGROUND" TO "CONSUMPTION
OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ON STREET, PLAYGROUND OR IN A
PLACE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC" AND BY ADDING PROVISIONS REG-
ULATING THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL IN PUBLIC PLACES OPEN
TO THE PUBLIC AND A PROVISION REQUIRING THE POSTING OF
PREMISES LICENSED FOR RETAIL OFF -SALE OF PACKAGED AL-
COHOLIC BEVERAGES. For waiver of further reading and
adoption.
MOTION.WI/JR TO ADOPT ORDINANCE. OK 5-0
5
(b) ORDINANCE NO. 87-887 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING EN-
CROACHMENT ORDINANCE NO. 85-821; AS AMENDED,_I_DENTIFYING
THE APPROVAL PROCESS OF COMMERCIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
APPLICATIONS, ESTABLISHING A POLICY WHEREBY THE LESSEE
OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY MAY OBTAIN A COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR
DINING ENCROACHMENT PERMIT, AND MODIFIES THE FINDINGS
FOR GRANTING ENCROACHMENT PERMITS. For waiver of fur-
ther reading and adoption.
MOTION.DEB/JR.TO ADOPT ORDINANCE.. OK.5-0.
MOTION.JR/SI TO CQME..BACK WITH RESOLUT1ON.RE., BOND.AMOUNT.
(c) ORDINANCE NO. 87-888 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATED APRIL 20,
1987 PREPARED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 87-5016 AND
APPROVED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 87-5032 OF SAID
COUNCIL, AND THE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ESTIMATE, DIA-
GRAM AND ASSESSMENT CONTAINED IN SAID REPORT; ORDERING
CERTAIN CROSSING GUARD MAINTENANCE SERVICES TO BE FUR-
NISHED AND MAINTAINED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY
1, 1987. For waiver of further reading and adoption.
MOTION DEB/CIO TO ADOPT ORDINANCE..,.OK 5-Q.
(d) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP
417511 FOR A FOUR -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT
912 MONTEREY BOULEVARD. For adoption. Memorandum from
Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 7, 1987.
MOTION DEB/JR TO.ADOPT RESOLUTION. QK'5-0.
(e) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING .DELINQUENT BILLS TO BE
PLACED ON THE TAX ROLLS AS A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. For
adoption. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director
William Grove dated July 9, 1987.
MOTION DEB/JR TO ADOPT RESOLUTION, OK.5-0
(f) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING AN ALLOCATION AND PAYMENT
OF COUNTY AID TO CITIES FUNDS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE
SELECT STREET SYSTEM. For adoption. Memorandum from
Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated June 30,
1987.
MOTION DEB/JR TO ADOPT RESOLUTION. OK 5-0
3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE
DISCUSSION.
q. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC.
6
ALL, OF ITEM4:_CONTINUED TO 7/16
(a) Letter dated June 26, 1987 from A. John Berardo,.D.D.S.,
2510 Strand, re. setback requirements rega-rding garages.
Recommended..Action: Council to make a policy determina-
tion whether to refer this issue back to Planning Com-
mission for public hearing re. further code revisions.
MOTION JR/SI TO.SEND..TO P.C..TO STUDY ALTERNATE.AMENDMENTS.TO._17'
SETBACKS..FOR PARKING.. OK 4-1. (WI -NO)
(b) Letter dated July 5, 1987 from Debra Perry, Agent for
the Board of Directors of Hermosa Surf Condominiums,
1707 Pacific Coast Highway re. problems due to construc-
tion on adjacent property.
Recommended Action: Refer to staff for investigation
and follow through.
MOTION DEB/JR TO APPROVE STAFF.. RECOMMENDATION....0K,_5-0
(0) Letter from Darrell Lee Greenwald, The Sea Sprite, 1016
Strand, re. Miller Lite Volleyball and Bikini contest.
Recommended Action: Refer to Community Resources Com-
mission for comment and return to City Council at August
25 meeting.
MOTION SI/WI TO APPROVE.. STAFF RECOMMENDATION,._ _OK..4-1. (DEB -NO)
(d) Letter from John Berardo resigning from Planning
Commission.
Recommended Action: to accept with regrets.
MOTION.DEB/JR TO ACCEPT WITH REGRETS AND TO.READVERTISE....0K_5-0
APPOINTMENTS_ TO BE SCHEDULED.FOR AUGUST_11,.MTG.
PUBLIC,.HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M.
5. SIX MONTH PROGRESS REVIEW PERTAINING TO THE ASSIGNMENT
OF CABLE T.V. FRANCHISE RIGHTS TO M.L. MEDIA PARTNERS.
Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dat-
ed June 26, 1987•
MOTION SI/JR TO.APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 3.,4,5. OK 5-0
TO ,CONTINUE .THE MATTER (BUT NOT THE .PUBLIC HEARINGY. TO AUGUST. 11,.
6. TEXT AMENDMENT TO HEIGHT LIMITATION IN COMMERCIAL,
RESIDENTIAL -PROFESSIONAL (R -P), AND MANUFACTURING ZONES.
Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated
July 7, 1987•
MOTION TO. APPROVE .PLANNING COMM-REC. NO. -1 .DEB/JR OK 4-1 ._(JW-
MOTION DEB/SI.TO ADD WORDING. IN ORDINANCE PER JIM..LOUGH,WORDING_
RE..BILTMORE SITE .SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, OK 3-2 .(WI/JR-NO)
MOTION JR/DEB TO INTRODUCE.ORDINANCE.WITH.THE FOLLOWING ADDITION
OF WORDING."THE AMENDMENT TO.ORDINANCE 8'-111NOT CHANGE,
AMEND.OR OTHERWISE AFFECT ANY VSTED.RIGHTS WHICH HAVE ACCRUED
UNDER THE SPECIFIC. PLAN AND/OR DEVELOPMENT. AGREEMENT.VOTED.UPON
AT THE .JUNE .11_,..19:5 .SPECIAL ELECTION." OK 5-0
MOTION .JR/WI TO. APPROVE. PLANNING COMM.. REC. NO. 2. OK. 5-0
MOTION WI SI TQ.APPROVE.PLANNING COMM. REC..NO. 3.. JR ASKED.FOR
AMENDMENT THAT. HE.WOULD.LIKE..SPECIFIC.RECOMMENDATION FOR.EACH
ZONE IN.HOW HEIGHT LIMIT.ISDETERMINED - REVIEW ALTERNATIVE METH-
ODS FOR DETERMINING HEIGHTS_IN...EACH .ZONE. 1ST .AND;.2ND CONCUR.
OK 5-0.
MOTION DEB/JR TO. STUDY.:POSSIBLE ELIMINATION OF .R -P ZONE, .OK 5-Q.
7. ZONE CHANGE FROM "M" TO R-2, OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS
DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY CITY COUNCIL AT 602, 614, 622
THIRD STREET/228 ARDMORE. Memorandum from Planning Di-
rector Michael Schubach dated June 30, 1987.
MOTION DEB/SI.TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCE,APPROVING.ZONE CHANGE WITH
ADDED WORDING BY CITY ATTORNEY AS FOLLOWS: "THE.ZONE.CHANGE_DOES
NOT IMPOSE ANY SIGNIFICANT..IMPACTS ON THE. ENVIRONMENT AND THE
CITY COUNCIL THEREBY.APPROVES,.THE ISSUANCE OF.A NEGATIVE.DECLARA-
TION.." . OK._5-0
MOTION.TO CONTINUE REMAINDER OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION_(I.E..,.N0.3).
OK 5-0.
8. PROPOSED SEWER CONNECTION ORDINANCE. Memorandum from
Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 7, 1987.
MOTION CIO/DEB TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCE.... OK .3-2. (JR/WI-NO) .
*****************************************************************
Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any of the
remaining items on the agenda may request to do so at the time
the item is called.
*****************************************************************
MUNICIPAL MATTERS
9. CONSIDERATION OF BALLOT MEASURES FOR NOVEMBER, 1987
ELECTION.
A. STATUS REPORT BALLOT MEASURES. Memorandum from
City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke dated July 7, 1987.
Recommended Action: Receive and file.
MOTION DEB/JR TO R.& F. OK 5-0
B. IMPACTS OF BALLOT BOX PLANNING. Memorandum from
City Attorney James P. Lough dated June 18, 1987.
Recommended. Action: Receive and file.
MOTION JR/DEB TO.. R .. & F. OK 5-0
C. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO MOTION PICTURE BUSINESS
LICENSE TAX. Memorandum from City -Attorney James -
P. Lough,dated July 7, 1987•
Recommended.. Action: To approve the placement of the
measure on Ehe November ballot based on Council's pre-
vious direction.
MOTION.JR/WI TO.PLACE ON BALLOT WITH_.AMENDMENT CHANGING.$1.00.TO
$1.50 FOR EACH ADDITIONAL THOUSAND...OK.4-1 (DEB -NO)
D. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS LICENSE
TAX EFFECTIVE JANUARY 4, 1988. Memorandum from
City Attorney James P. Lough dated July 7, 1987 and
memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated
July 9, 1987.
Recommended Action: City Council to make a policy deci-
sion as to whether or not to place the proposed ballot
measure on the November, 1987 ballot.
MOTION DEB/CIO TO,R & F CITY. ATTORNEY REPORT. OK 4-1.,(JR-NO).
MOTION DEB/SI TO ASK CITY.ATTORNEY.TO PREPARE GROWTH LIMITATION
ORDINANCE BASED ON A LIMIT OF NO...OF.UNITS,TO BE BUILT PER YEAR.
AMEND MOTION TO, ASK STAFF TO INVESTIGATE,RECOVERY OF COSTS FOR
SERVICES. .SO,ORDERED.
E. CONSIDERATION OF REQUIRING VOTER APPROVAL TO ALTER
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS IN ALL OR
SOME ZONES OF THE CITY.
Recommended Action: Instruct City Attorney to draft
appropriate language consistent with ordinance intro-
duced through Agenda Item No. 6 entitled "Text Amendment
to Height Limitation in Commercial, Residential -
Professional and Manufacturing zones."
MOTION.JR/WI TO.APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND INDICATING_ONLY
ADDRESSING COMMERCIAL ZONES ANP_R-P ZONE...CITY ATTORNEY.TO.PRE-
PARE. OK 3-2 (CIO/DEB-NO).
10. MISCELLANEOUS.ITEMS AND.REPORTS.-.CITY MANAGER
(a)
Recommendation re. legislative position on SB 442: Land
Readjustment Law. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory
T. Meyer dated July 7, 1987.
Recommended Action: That City Council consider whether
to take a legislative position on SB 442.
MOTION. SI/DEB TO. OPPOSE SB 442. OK 37_-2 (JR/WI-NO)
11. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS.-_CITY,COUNCIL
(a)
Request by Councilmember Rosenberger for discussion of
CUP enforcement.
MOTION JR/CIO TO HAVE STAFFCOME.BACK WITH.REPORT ON HOW WE CAN
SITE IN.ATIMELY FASHION... OK 5-0..(INFRACTION PROCEDURE)
(b) Request by Councilmember Williams for motion to recon-
sider denial of appeal from Planning Commission decisio
to deny a variance request of 17' parking setback at
3104 Ingleside Dr. for the purpose of granting a parkin
variance but requiring construction of a single car
garage and two uncovered parking spaces. Memorandum
from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated July 9, 1987.
MOTION WI/JR TO SEND A,LETTER ,.TO APPLICANT .INDICATING .IF,.HE.SUB-
MITS NEW PLANS SHOWING.A SINGLE CAR GARAGE .CITY WOULD.WAIVE
FEES. MOTION FAILS.2-3,(DEB/SI/CIO-NO)
(c)
Request from Sister City Association for Council discus
sion of annual city/adult visit to Loreto, B.C.S. Let
ter from Diane "Missy" Sheldon dated July 1, 1987.
MOTION, JR/DEB TO APPROVE .THURSDAY, ..NOV. .12 TO MONDAY. NOV. 16 .FOR
OFFICIAL SISTER CITY VISIT. OK 5-0.
(d) Political campaign contribution limitations
1)
Request by Councilmember Williams for Council con
sideration of an ordinance limiting campaign con-
tributions to $500 from any one source and putting
a limitation on spending by candidates for electiv
office.
2) Proposal from City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke to en-
act a resolution governing political campaign
contributions and establishing a $250 limit.
MOTION CIO/SI TO.INTRODUCE WITH.CHANGE_OF WORDING IN.SECTION.1..0&
ORDINANCE TO SAY."NO CANDIDATE FOR CITY.COUNCIL, CITY.CLERKEIT:
TREYS -TUTOR HIS.HER.COMMITTEE OR ANY.CANDIDATE FOR ELECTIVE OF-
FICE .SHALL ,ACCEPT...." OK .14-Q-1 . (DEB -ABSTAIN)
12. OTHER.MATTERS.- CITY. COUNCIL
(a) Vacancies - Boards and Commissions
Civil Service Commission - 2 four-year terms
ending July 15, 1991
Community Resources Commission - 1 four-year term
ending June 30, 1991
Memorandum from City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke dated
July 6, 1987 indicating that incumbents desire and
are eligible for reappointment.
MOTION DEB/JR.TO ADVERTISE._ALL VACANCIES.. .0K,570
MOTION..CIO/JR TO IN.THE FUTURE.ADVERTISE.ALL,VACANCIES. OK 5-0
JR.- STEAM CLEANING DOWNTOWN,-_WOULD.LIKE DQNE_ON REGULAR BASIS,
I.E., 2-3. TIMES/YEAR. WOULD. LIKE DONE BEFORE STREET FAIR. CIOF-
FI REFERRED TO C.M..FOR REPORT.BACK AT EARLY TIME.
JR -.STATUS OF DOWNZONING.ISSUE.,FROM,ARDMORE.TO PCH IN R-3. C.M.
SAID WILL HAVE PLANNING DIRECTOR, INCLUDE.. IN NEXT ACTIVITY. REPORT,.
JR - SHUTTLE. BUS - WOULD LIKE. TO KNOW_WHERE .WE ,STAND .ON THIS.
C.M. SAID WOULD BE.IN.PLANNING.ACTIVITY REPORT.
JR_- SAID UNHAPPY.WITH CITY ATTORNEY BILLS.- NOT.WORKING OUT THE
WAY.IT SHOULD...CITY ATTY. SAID HE WOULD.PREFER TO. DISCUSS IN
CLOSED SESSION... C.M. WILL PUT ON _NEXT. CLOSED SESSION .AGENDA.
SI - HAS TALKED WITH MR. HARAOF BILINGUAL SCHOOL RE.,SISTER.CITY
AND. MR...HARA WILL HAVE DESCRIPTION OF. JAPANESE .CITY._IN ABOUT. A
WEEK. ,.SHE WOULD.LIKE SOMETHING PREPARED FOR DESCRIPTION.OF OUR
CITY...CITY.CLERK WILL DO AFTER JUL'Y.28 MTG.
APPEARANCE OF INTERESTED CITIZENS
Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any matter within
the jurisdiction of the Council not elsewhere considered on the
agenda may do so at this time. Citizens with complaints regard-
ing City management or departmental operations are requested to
submit those complaints in writing to the City Manager.
ADJOURNMENT AT 11:15
1 /
1 ICIAN) NbeeLL 3'74 1 -
"Life is Like a Ten -Speed Bike. Most of us have gears
we never use." -Charles M. Schulz
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, July 14, 1987 - Council Chambers, City Hall
MAYOR
John Cioffi
MAYOR PRO TEM
Etta Simpson
COUNCILMEMBERS
Tony DeBellis
Jim Rosenberger
June Williams
Regular Session - 7:30 p.m.
L
CITY CLERK
Kathleen Midstokke
CITY TREASURER
Norma Goldbach
CITY MANAGER
Gregory T. Meyer
CITY ATTORNEY
James P. Lough
All Council meetings are open to the public.
PLEASE ATTEND.
Complete agenda materials are available for public inspection in
the Police Department, Public Library and the Office of the City
Clerk.
DGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL:
PROCLAMATIONS: Loreto Sister City Week, July 13 - 20, 1987
P1EENTATION OF CERTIFICATES OF ACHIEVEMENT TO OUTSTANDING.
OSA BEACH GRADUATING SENIORS OF REDONDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DS TO SHUTTLE COMMITTEE MEMBERS
PSENTATION OF POSTER BY SISTER CITY ASSOCIATION
J1RODUCTION OF LORETO EXCHANGE STUDENTS
CITIZEN COMMENTS C n
MEI
Citizens wishing tot/address the City Council
Consent Calendar may do so at this time.
1. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following routine matters will be
acted upon by one vote to approve with the majority con-
sent of the City Council. There will be no separate
discussion of these items unless good cause is shown by
a member prior to the roll call vote. Items removed
will be considered under Agenda Item 3.)
on any items on the
(a)
Approval of Minutes: Regular meeting of the City Coun-
cil held on June 23, 1987. c��s
1
Recommended Action: To approve minutes.
(b) Demands and Warrants: July 14, 1987.
Recommended Action: To approve Demands and Warrants
Nos. through inclusive.
(c) Tentative Future Agenda Items.
Recommended Action: To receive and file.
(d) City Manager Activity Report: Memorandum from City Man-
ager Gregory T. Meyer dated July 8, 1987.
Recommended Action: To receive and file.
(e) Monthly Investment Report - June, 1987. Memorandum from
City Treasurer Norma Goldbach dated July 7, 1987.
Recommended Action: To receive and file.
Approval of Traffic Control Plan for Sanitary Sewer Con-
struction (CIP 85-402). Memorandum from Public Works
Director Anthony Antich dated July 9, 1987.
Recommended Action: To approve Traffic Control Plan.
Request of the Community Center Foundation for concep-
tual approval of Fall outdoor concert series on the
beach. Memorandum from Community Resources Director
Alana Mastrian dated July 1, 1987.
Recommended Action: To approve in concept a free out-
door concert series to be sponsored by the Community
Center Foundation and the Easy Reader to be held in
September/October of this year.
(h) Request of the Historical Society for the City of Hermo-
sa Beach's assistance in the celebration of the City's
80th Birthday. Memorandum from Community Resources Di-
rector Alana Mastrian dated July 1, 1987.
Recommended Action: To approve the request of the His-
torical Society as follows: 1) the City co-sponsor the
80th Birthday celebration; 2) the City Council authorize
City staff to assist; 3) that City purchase a street
banner to advertise the event; and 4) the City waive all
rental fees at Community Center for this event.
(1) Approval of contract between City and Group Dynamics for
Women's Pro Volleyball Tournament. Memorandum from Com-
-1 munit.' somoz irector Alana Mastrian dated July 1,
19
Re ommen•e. c ion: That City Council approve the
corva
(f)
Sc-
(g)
'
(g)
agreement between Group Dynamics, Inc. and the City for
- 2
(j)
(k)
(1)
the Women's Pro Volleyball Tournament to be held July 25
and 26, 1987.
Notice to the City Council of intent to consider alter-
native hours of operation for city departments. Memo-
randum from Personnel Administrator Robert Blackwood
dated July 6, 1987.
Recommended Action: To receive and file.
Approval of supplemental to the Administrative Bargain-
ing Unit MOU revising the salary range; establishing a
premium pay; and approval of the revised class specifi-
cation for General Services Coordinator. Memorandum
from Personnel Administrator Robert Blackwood dated July
6, 1987.
Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to ex-
ecute the supplemental to the MOU and approve the re-
vised class specification.
Approval of supplemental to the Supervisory Employees
Bargaining Unit MOU revising the salary range; and ap-
proval of the revised class specification for General
Services Supervisor. Memorandum from Personnel Ad-
ministrator Robert Blackwood dated July 6, 1987.
Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to ex-
ecute the supplemental to the MOU and approve the re-
vised class specification.
(m) Cancellation of Warrants: Memorandum from City
Treasurer Norma Goldbach dated July 7, 1987.
Recommended Action: To approve cancellation of Warrant
No. 23247.
(n)
Claims for Damages:
1) Richard Allen Nickey, represented by Lawrence B.
Haile, Simon, Buckner, Haile & Migdal, 4551 Glencoe
Ave., Suite 300, Marina Del Rey 90292, filed June
17, 1987.
Recommended Action: To deny claim and refer to claims
administrator.
2) Leave to present late claim: Ronald Simmons and
Barbara Myer, represented by Stephen M. Garcia,
Atty., 1125 Manhattan Avenue, filed June 18, 1987
with supplemental letter dated June 22, 1987.
Recommended Action: To deny Leave to Present Late
Claim.
3
(o)
(p)
Report from Councilmember Williams re. attendance at
June 25, 1987 meeting of the South Bay Steering Commit-
tee and South Bay Cities Association.
Recommended Action: To receive and file.
Recommendation to conceptually support AB 1393. Memo-
randum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated July 9,
1987.
Recommended Action: To conceptually support AB 1393,
authorize City lobbyist to notify legislators and
request City Clerk to apprise League of Cities, etc.
LAX Tunnel - Street Widening financing. Memorandum from
Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 8, 1987.
G Recommended Action: Authorize $ 25,000 in participation
4Q funding (Gas Tax) over two fiscal years subject to other
/ South Bay cities funding their share.
C>
(r) Consideration of Joining Rails To Trails Conservancy.
Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated
June 30, 1987.
(s)
(t)
(u)
Recommended Action: Authorize City to join, funding to
come from current City Council department budget.
Consideration of implementing an Ordinance to require
on -sale liquor establishments to prominently post a
"Fetal Alcohol Syndrome If You Are Pregnant" sign.
Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated
July 1, 1987
Recommended Action: Refer to staff for preparation of
such an ordinance.
Community Center Gymnasium Use & Rental Policy. Memo-
orandum from Community Resources Director Alana M.
Mastrian dated July 1, 1987.
Recommended Action: Concur in Community Resources Com-
mission and staff recommendations to:
a. Endorse present rental policy,
b. Not pursue an open gym policy,
15. Direct Public Works to upgrade the outdoor
basketball courts at the Clark facility, and
Request of the Hermosa City Schools that they
upgrade their basketball courts a North School/
Valley Park. JA Q1( k_
Child Abuse Monthly Report. Memorandum from Community
Resources Director Alana M. Mastrian dated July 1, 1987.
Recommended Action: To receive and file.
- 4-
(v) Request for Closed Session. Memorandum from City Man-
ager Gregory T. Meyer dated July 9, 1987.
Recommended Action: To calendar a Closed Session for
Tuesday, July 28, 1987 at 6:00 p.m.
Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any item listed
under Consent Ordinances and Resolutions may do so at this time.
2.
(a)
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
ORDINANCE NO. 87-886 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SEC-
TION 21-23 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, BY CHANGING THE TITLE
FROM "DRINKING ON STREET OR PLAYGROUND" TO "CONSUMPTION
OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ON STREET, PLAYGROUND OR IN A
PLACE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC" AND BY ADDING PROVISIONS REG-
ULATING THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL IN PUBLIC PLACES OPEN
TO THE PUBLIC AND A PROVISION REQUIRING THE POSTING OF
PREMISES LICENSED FOR RETAIL OFF -SALE OF PACKAGED AL-
COHOLIC BEVERAGES. For waiver of further reading and
adoption.
(b) ORDINANCE NO. 87-887 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL -nA )
OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING EN- (trwA
CROACHMENT ORDINANCE NO. 85-821; AS AMENDED, IDENTIFYING t o
THE APPROVAL PROCESS OF COMMERCIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT vomAl.
`�
$ APPLICATIONS, ESTABLISHING A POLICY WHEREBY THE LESSEE j
OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY MAY OBTAIN A COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR ``�`
DINING ENCROACHMENT PERMIT, AND MODIFIES THE FINDINGS
FOR p� Am'
thread i
or waiver o
640 CAGE
ur-
0'1 NAN E NO. 87-888 - AN IRDIN'- 1 THE CITY COUN IL
OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATED APRIL 20,
1987 PREPARED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 87-5016 AND
APPROVED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 87-5032 OF SAID
COUNCIL, AND THE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ESTIMATE, DIA-
GRAM AND ASSESSMENT CONTAINED IN SAID REPORT; ORDERING
CERTAIN CROSSING GUARD MAINTENANCE SERVICES TO BE FUR-
NISHED AND MAINTAINED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY
1, 1987. For waiver of further reading and adoption.
(d) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP
#17511 FOR A FOUR -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT
912 MONTEREY BOULEVARD. For adoption. Memorandum from
Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 7, 1987.
(e) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING DELINQUENT BILLS TO BE
PLACED ON THE TAX ROLLS AS A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. For
5
7c.6' 449t,)(
E,s-- 24 4, •" A cr3 tct)
+0,—u42,4
11\-°9
p
adoption. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director
William Grove dated July 9, 1987.
(0 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING AN ALLOCATION AND PAYMENT
OF COUNTY AID TO CITIES FUNDS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE
SELECT STREET SYSTEM. For adoption. Memorandum from
Public Works Director Antho y Antich dated June30
1987. 1P--0241,,, 4.4
ITEMS3. R • OVED FROMONSENT CA`ZENDDAAR FOR SEPARATE
DISCUSSION.
4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC.
(a) Letter dated June 26, 1987 from A. John Berardo, D.D.S.,
2510 Strand, re. setback requirements regarding garages.
1-71 qecommended Act on: ouncil to make a policy determina-
tion whether t rifer this issue back to Planning Com-
Li^(Y� mission for p ring re. further code revisions.
(b) Letter dated July 5, 1987 from Debra Perry, Agent for
the Board of Directors of Hermosa Surf Condominiums,
1707 Pacific Coast Highway re. problems due to construc-
tion on adjacent property.
Recommended Action: Refer to staff for investigation
and follow through.
(c) Letter from Darrell Lee Greenwald, The Sea Sprite, 1016
Strand, re. Miller Lite Volleyball and Bikini contest.
Recommended Action: Refer to Community Resources Com-
mission for comment and return to City Council at A-ugus-t
‹l
25 meeting, (',�7 ("3��+�tj p te
� ,r;
PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M.
SIX MONTH PROGRESS REVIEW PERTAINING TO THE ASSIGNMENT
OF CABLE T.V. FRANCHISE RIGHTS TO M.L. MEDIA PARTNERS.
Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dat-
ed June 26, 1987.
dce
6. ATEXT AMENDMENT TO HEIGHT LIMITATION IN -!+' tCIAL,MO
RESIDENTIAL -PROFESSIONAL (R -P), AND ACTURIN "ONES.
Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schu•ach dated
ifiC)(1(er.
July 7, 1987.
ZONE CHANGE FROM "M" TO R-2, OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS
DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY CITY COUNCIL AT 602, 614, 622
5,A7c) THIRD STREET/228 ARDMORE. Memorandum from Planning Di-
rector Michael Schubach dated June 30, 1987.
8. PROPOSED SEWER CONNECTION ORDINANCE. Memorandum from
„<j1, Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated July 7, 1987.
- 6
74 -E --e c� �
18.11, at; ADA-
--))z4
Sia tai•:' SO, P-zr+
ta----t AA144 914
c •
.dvDch-Fm /1/-0 tJ) Lt 1401/0 (W6 17(JI)
ec
i 7 to
12)
7b*ALcLLJ
hettA
I .000;acito awda44;Ap,
,IPL -7/2_6
&;11v,
Cine l tcttAs31 - ,1I ,► , h ! rI�"
Q—C-d 5 7/15') ,kv,
Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any of the
remaining items on the agenda may request to do so at the time
the item is called.
ICIPAL MATTERS 1111 @ 13`'g" �w ~ i4rL TVG
CONSIDERATION OF BALLOT MEASURES FOR NOVEMBER, 1987
ELECTION.
A. STATUS REPORT BALLOT MEASURES. Memorandum from
City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke dated July 7, 1987.
Recommended Action: Receive and file.
B. IMPACTS OF BALLOT BOX PLANNING. Memorandum from
City Attorney James P. Lough dated June 18, 1987.
Recommended Action: Receive and file.
(a)
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO MOTION PICTURE BUSINESS
LICENSE TAX. Memorandunhfrom City Attorney James
P. Lough dated July 7, 1987.
Recommended Action: To approve the placement of the
measure on the November ballot based on Council's pre-
vious direction.
D. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS LICENSE
TAX EFFECTIVE JANUARY 4, 1988. 'Memorandum from
Nue City Attorney James P. Lough dated July 7, 1987 and
memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated
,�� July 9, 1987.
ecomomended Action: City Council to make a policy deci-
sion as to whether or not to place the proposed ballot
measure on the November, 1987 ballot.
E. CONSIDERATION OF REQUIRING VOTER APPROVAL TO ALTER
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS IN ALL OR
SOME ZONES OF THE CITY.
Recommended Action: Instruct City Attorney to draft
appropriate language consistent with ordinance intro-
duced through Agenda Item No. 6 entitled "Text Amendment
to Height Limitation in Commercial, Residential-
Prof
Residential-
Professional es.and--Manu-ae-tyar-i-ng—zn✓rres". "
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER
Recommendation re. legislative position on SB 442: Land
Readjustment Law. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory
T. Meyer dated July 7, 1987.
7
Q cc „,
Recommended Action: That City Council consider wther
to take a legislative position on SB 442.
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL
Request by Councilmember Rosenbe ger f r disc
CUP enforcemen . f ecg o(' ►iW L42' .4 � in .,,,;,�,
4 G t 6� 'd.5.1A
equest by Coun i memb r Wil iamss =ormotion
sider denial of appeal from Planning Commission decision
to deny a variance request of 17' parking setback at
3104 Ingleside Dr. for the purpose of granting a parking
variance but requiring construction of a single car
garage and two uncovered parking spaces. Memorandum
from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated July 9, 1987.
Request from Sister City Association for Council discus-
sion of annual cit a. to Loreto, B.C.S. Let -
1987.
(c)
sion of
And
4-coP
1)
rom Diane 'Missy" Sheldon date
contra
1
ution a `li it�
cam•ai_n ions
Request by Councilmember Williams for Council con
sideration of an ordinance limiting campaign con-
tributions to $500 from any one source and putting
a limitation on spending by candidates for elective
office
2) Proposal from City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke to en-
act a resolution governing political campaign
c9nAr b U ions and e tabl Cshin a$250 limit.
O0
OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL
Vacancies - Boards and Commissions
Civil Service Commission - 2 four-year terms
ending July 15, 1991
Community Resources Commission - 1 four-year term
ending June 30, 1991
Memorandum from City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke dated
July 6, 1987 indicating that incumbents desire and
are eligible for reappointment.
r, _n�
APPEARAN E OF NTERESTED CITIZE CP-C�c P(i''``"C-)
Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any matter within
the jurisdiction of the Council not elsewhere considered on the
agenda may do so at this time. Citizens with complaints regard-
ing City management or departmental operations are requested to
submit those complaints in writing to the City Manager.
Q
ADJOURNMENT
8
JR
C01 j I�3 g«.c.«6s - Cc9,,o cabuciD d
E:CPS'l ries C 471
I MAG.
0/91°
0.114
0,14 c/6
Ak4 r
74, Q
GL4 ILL - aLld cofii?
14., it 40 0.44
Where there is no vision the people perish...
HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
WELCOME! By your presence in the City Council Chambers you are
participating in the process of representative government. Your
government welcomes your interest and hopes you will attend the
City Council meetings often
CITY VISION
A less dense, more family oriented pleasant low profile,
financially sound community comprised of a separate and distinct
business district and residential neighborhoods that are afforded
full municipal services in which the maximum costs are borne by
visitor/users; led by a City Council which accepts a stewardship
role for community resources and displays a willingness to
explore innovative alternatives, and moves toward public policy
leadership in attitudes of full ethical awareness. This Council
is dedicated to learning from the past, and preparing Hermosa
Beach for tomorrow's challenges today.
Adopted by City Council on October 23, 1986
NOTE: There is no smoking allowed in the Council Chambers'
THE HERMOSA BEACH FORM OF GOVERNMENT
Hermosa Beach has the Council -Manager form of government, with a City Manager ap-
pointed by and responsible to the City Council for carrying out Council policy. The
Mayor and Council decide what is to be done. The City Manager, operating through
the entire City staff, does it. This separation of policy making and administration
is considsered the most economical and efficient form of City government in the
United States today.
GLOSSARY
The following explanations may help you to understand the terms found on most agen-
das for meetings of the Hermosa Beach City Council.
Consent Items
A compilation of all routine matters to be acted upon by one vote; approval re-
quires a majority affirmative vote. Any Councilmember can remove an item from this
listing thereby causing that matter to be considered under the category Consent Cal-
endar items Removed For Separate Discussion.
Public Hearings
Public Hearings are held on certain matters as required by law. The Hearings afford
the public the opportunity to appear and formally express their views regarding the
matter being heard. Additionally, letters may be filed with the City Clerk, prior
to the Hearing.
Hearings
Hearings are held on other matters of public importance for which there is no legal
- requirement to conduct an advertised Public Hearing.
Ordinances
An ordinance is a law that regulates government revenues and/or public conduct. All
ordinances require two "readings". The first reading introduces the ordinance into
the records. At least one week later Council may adopt, reject or hold over the
ordinance to a subsequent meeting. Regular ordinances take effect 30 days after the
second reading. Emergency ordinances are governed by different provisions and waive
the time requirements.
Written Communications
The public, members of advisory boards/commissions or organizations may formally
communicate to or make a request of Council by letter; said letters should be filed
with the City Clerk by the Wednesday preceeding the Regular City Council meeting.
Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Manager
The City Manager coordinates departmental reports and brings items to the attention
of, or for action by the City Council.
Verbal reports may be given by the City Manager regarding items not on the agenda,
usually having arisen since the agenda was prepared on the preceding Wednesday.
Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Council
Members of the City Council may place items on the agenda for consideration by the
full Council.
Other Matters - City Council
These are matters that come to the attention of a Council member after publication
of the Agenda.
Oral Communications from the Public - Matters of an Urgency Nature
Citizens wishing to address the City Council on an urgency matter not elsewhere con-
sidered on the agenda may do so at this time.
Parking Authority
•
The Parking Authority is a financially separate entity, but is operated asan inte-
gral part of the City government.
Vehicle Parking District No. 1
The City Council also serves as the Vehicle Parking District Commission. It's pur-
pose is to oversee the operation of certain downtown parking lots and otherwise pro-
mote public parking in the central business district.
ARTHUR E. JONES
CITY MANAGER
350 MAIN STREET
EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA 90245
(213) 322-4670
July 13, 1987
City Managers and Mayors
Cities of El Segundo, Hermosa Beach,
Manhattan Beach, and Redondo Beach
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Subject: Beach Cities Committee Meeting July 29, 1987
The City of El Segundo is pleased to host the next.Beach
Cities Committee dinner meeting on Wednesday, July 29, at
6:30 p.m. in the Embassy Suites Hotel, 1440 E. Imperial
Avenue, El Segundo.
Tentative agenda items are listed on the attached meeting
announcement. Please call Eileen Hunter at 322-4670 by
July 22 to confirm your attendance and to place additional
items on the agenda.
I look forward to seeing you on the 29th.
Sincerely,
c •
Arthur E. Jones
City Manager
AEJ:eh
Attachment
BEACH CITIES COMMITTEE MEETING
Wednesday, July 29, 1987
Capistrano - Patio*
Embassy Suites Hotel
1440 E. Imperial Avenue
El Segundo
6:30 p.m.
7:30 p.m.
Social Hour
Dinner
TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEMS
1. Transportation Matters
a. Widening of Sepulveda Tunnel
b.
2. Review of Proposition A Fund Projects
3. Follow-up Discussion on Transient Occupancy
Tax Deduction
4. Any other matters of mutual concern to our
neighboring communities
Please confirm reservations and submit additional
agenda items to City of El Segundo, 322-4670, ext. 203
by July 22.
*Note: Capistrano Patio is a non-smoking area.
If there is any objection, please indicate this
so other arrangements can be made.
"MINUTES OF ,THE REGULAR MEETING OF .THE,.CITY. COUNCIL of the City of
' Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, June 23, 1987 at the
hour of 7:37 P.M.
CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - To discuss matters of personnel,
litigation and potential litigation under Government Code Section
54956.9.
Present: DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi
Absent: None
•
PLEDGE QF ALLEGIANCE - Councilmember June Williams
ROLL CALL
Present: DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi
Absent: None
PROCLAMATIONS: Physical Therapy Week, June 21 - 27, 1987 -
accepted by Joe..Yarmolovich, Bay Shores
Rehabilitation Center Physical Therapy
INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEE: ,John Triggs, Maintenance I,
Public Works Department
RESULTS FROM CLOSED SESSION:
Legal counsel for the City has sent correspondence to
AT&SF Railroad, based on citizen requests, to solicit
from AT&SF terms and conditions pursuant to which the
City might acquire the entire railroad right-of-way.
2. A Writ of Mandate hearing was held on June 10, 1987 in
downtown Superior Court in the matter of Szmudanowski
vs. City of Hermosa Beach and judgment was awarded in
favor of the City in that case:.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Ed King, 1816 Grand Avenue, Deputy Superintendent of the South
Bay Union High School District - re 1.v. - urged Council to grant
South Bay Union High School District release from'their lease
with the Hermosa Beach Community Center.
1. CONSENT CALENDAR
Aption: To adopt Consent Calendar items (a) through
(ee) with the exception of the following items which
were pulled for further discussion but are listed in
order for clarity: (e) Rosenberger, (v) Rosenberger,
(w) Rosenberger, (bb) DeBellis and (dd) Rosenberger, and
Minutes 6-23-87
(a)
noting a NO vote by DeBellis on (t).
Motion Rosenberger, second Simpson. So ordered.
Approval of Minutes: Regular meeting of the City Coun-
cil held on June 9, 1987.
Action: To approve minutes.
(b) Demands and Warrants: June 23, 1987
Action: To approve Demands and Warrants Nos. 23460
through 23589 inclusive and noting voided Warrants Nos.
23461, 23464 and 23465.
(c) Tentative Future Agenda Items.
Action: To receive and file.
(d) City Manager Activity Report: Memorandum from City Man-
ager Gregory T. Meyer dated June 17, 1987
Action: To receive and file.
(e) Building and Safety Department MonthlyActivity,Report:
May, 1987.
Councilmember Rosenberger requested the Building
Department to look into CUP violations by businesses
such as the Hennessey's (screens), etc. and to enforce
existing code's.
Action: To receive and file.
Motion Rosenberger, second Williams. So ordered.
• (f) Community. Resources Department Monthly. Activity Report:
May, 1987.
(i)
Councilmember DeBellis commended this department for
becoming virtually self-sustaining.
Action: To receive and file.
Finance Department Monthly Activity Report: May, 1987.
Action: To receive and file.
Fire Department Monthly Activity.Report: ,.May, 1987.
Action: To receive and file.
General Services Department Monthly Activity Report:
May, 1987. Supplemental information - letter from Kevin
Code, H.B. Downtown Merchants Assn., dated 6/22/87
Action: To receive and file.
- 2 - Minutes 6-23-87
(j) Personnel Department Monthly Activity Report: May, 1987.
Action: To receive and file.
(k) Planning. Department Monthly Activity Report: May, 1987.
Action: To receive and file.
(1) Police Department, Monthly Activity Report: May, 1987.
Action: To receive and file.
(m) Public. Works Department Monthly, Activity Report: May,
1987.
Action: To receive and file.
(n) Monthly.. Revenue. Report: May, 1987.
Councilmember DeBellis noted that revenues to date were
approximately $473,000 more than anticipated.
Action: To receive and file.
• (o) Monthly Expenditure Report: May, 1987.
Councilmember DeBellis noted that expenditures to date
were approximately $496,000 less than budgeted.
Action: To receive and file.
City. Treasurer's Report: May, 1987.
(r)
(s)
•
Action: To receive and file.
Claim for Damages:
1) Ken Morrisey, 2627 Fifth Street, #5, Santa Monica,_.
filed June 12, 1987
Action: To deny claim and refer to City's claims
administrator.
Award of contract_for.irrigation installation and land-
sca•in: for Park_Develo•ment. CIP_85-502. Memorandum
from Public Works*Director Anthony Antich dated June -5,
987.
1
Action: Award contract to Landscape West for irrigation
and landscaping installation at a cost not to exceed
$24,697, authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary,
and authorize Mayor to sign.
Request.to approve..revisions to the class specifications
for. Maintenance . II . and ..Sweeper .Operator. Memorandum
from Personnel Administrator Robert Blackwood dated June
16, 1987.
3 - Minutes 6-23-87
(t)
(u)
Action: Approve.the revisions to the class
specifications:;
Amendment. to Memorandum of Agreement for. Workers' Com-
pensation.Administration_services. Memorandum from Per-
sonnel Administrator Robert Blackwood dated June 16,
1987.
Action: To approve amendment to the Workers' Compensa-
tion Administration Services contract to acknowledge
contractors name change to Self Insurers Service, Inc.,
to authorize an increase in the fee for services to
$9,000 per year for 40 claims and $225.00, per claim
above 40, and authorize Mayor to sign. - Noting a NO
vote by DeBellis.
Appropriation of donations, Police Department. Memoran-
dum from Finance Administrator Viki Copeland dated June
1, 1987.
Action: Appropriate donations of $100 to Police equip-
ment account for D.A.R.E. program.
(v) Re•uest for termination of.Lease A:reementbetween the
City of Hermosa Beach and the South Bay .Union High
School District. Memorandum from Community Resources
Director Alana Mastrian dated June 16, 1987.
Action: That City Council not terminate the lease
agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach and Redondo
Union High School District until such time another les-
see is secured for that space at the Community Center.
Motion Rosenberger, second DeBellis. So ordered noting
a NO vote by Williams.
(w) FY 86-87 Proposition A budget. amendment request for the
Hermosa Commuter Bus and the "WAVE!! Dial -A -Ride pro-
grams. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael
Schubach dated June 17, 1987. Supplemental information
- memorandum from Planning Aide Lisa Breisacher dated
June 23, 1987.
• (x)
Action: Approve amended Proposition A budget for FY 86-
87 from $88,113 to $123,854 for the Hermosa Commuter Bus
Program and from $83,594 to $113,077 for the "WAVE"
Dial -A -Ride program.
Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered.
Report on City Owned Federal Home Loan_Mortgage..Corpora-
tion_Seeurities. Memorandum from City Treasurer Norma
Goldbach dated June 17, 1987.
Action: To receive and file.
- 4 - Minutes 6-23-87
(y)
Recommendation to seek from the City Attorney a. formal
opinion re.; any possible deed restrictions that may af-
fect a
f-fecta Public Parkin Facility in thevicinity.. of the
Community Center. Memorandum from General Services Di-
rector Joan Noon dated June 12, 1987•
Action: Request City Attorney to prepare a formal
opinion as to any public parking facility restrictions
in force and effect as a result of the Community Center
grant deed from the Hermosa Beach City Schools.
(z) Cancellation of,Warrants:. Memorandum from City
Treasurer Norma Goldbach dated June 16, 1987.
Action: Approve cancellation of Warrants Nos. 022873
and 013214.
(aa) Award of Bid for Excess Workers', Compensation Insurance.
Memorandum from Personnel Administrator Robert Blackwood
dated June 17, 1987.
Action: Award_ bid for Excess Workers' Compensation In-
surance to Employers Reinsurance Corporation in the
amount of $22,390.
(bb) Request.by Mayor_Pro Tem Simpson for. City analysis and
sukport of the.California Wildlife,,, Coastal and Parkland
Initiative,_with letter from Californians forParks.and
Wi ldlife._dated June 10, 19 7. .
Action: To support the California Wildlife, Coastal and
Parkland Initiative.
Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered noting
NO votes by Williams and Mayor Cioffi.
(cc) Acceptance of work as_eomplete --asphalt street repair
(CIF' 86-163). Memorandum from Public Works Director
Anthony Antich dated June 15, 1987•
Action: To 1) accept as complete-. the asphalt street
repairs, 2) release the 10% retention payment and the
Labor & Materials,Bond and Faithful Performance Bond to
Vernon Paving Co., and 3) return $5,800 to the State Gas
Tax Fund Balance for subject project.
(dd) Contract extension.with Communit Transit Services Inc.
for.the Hermosa Commuter Bus.Program. Memorandum from
Planning Director Michael Schubach dated June 16, 1987.
Action: To 1) approve a 90 -day extension of the Hermosa
Commuter Bus contract (at a cost of $38,165), and 2)
approve.the elimination of the 6:15 a.m., 4:06 p.m. -and
5:31 p.m. runs thereby reducing the contract cost to
$19,500.
Motion Rosenberger, second Williams. So ordered.
5
Minutes 6-23-87
(ee) Written report from RCC Delegate Councilmember Rose-
n erger r. e'. special meeting _of . the ' South Bay Regional.
Public Communications Authority on June 3, 1987.
Action: To receive and file.
2. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
(a) ORDINANCE NO. 87-885 - AN.ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF_HER-
MOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA,, AMENDING CHAPTER 7 ,ARTICLES It
II _III, IV AND CHAPTER 24 OF THE CITY CODE. RELATING TO
BUILDING AND PLUMBING REGULATIONS AND ADOPTING WITHCER-
TAIN ADDITIONS, DELETIONS AND_AMENDMENTS WHICH ARE SET
FORTH HEREIN THE RULES REGULATIONS PROVISIONS AND
CONDI IONS SET FORTH IN:T OSE CERTAIN. CODES ENTITLED
"UNIFORM BUILDING.CODE 1985 EDITION" "UNIFORM. BUILDING
CODE STANDARDS 195.EDITION" "UNIFORM HOUSING .CODEL
19 5 EDITION",. AND "UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF
DANGEROUS .BUILDINGS r.1985 EDITION" PROMULGATED AND
PUBLISHED .BY,.THE INTERNATIONAL_ CONFERENCE OF. BUILDING
OFFICIALS AND THE "UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE 1985 EDITION"
ECHANICA CODE 19;5 EDITION"..PROMU GATED
AND
"UNIFORM M
AND PUB SHED JOINT Y BY-,. THE IN ERN
ATIONAL CONFERENCE OF
BUILDING OFFICIALS.AND THE INTERNATIONAL.ASSOCIATION OF
PLUMBING._AND.MECHANICAL_OFFICLALS. For waiver of fur-
ther reading and adoption.
Action.. To waive further reading of Ordinance No. 87-885
entitled "ORDINANCE NO.. 87-8-85.- AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 7,
ARTICLES I, II, III, IV AND CHAPTER 24 OF THE CITY CODE
RELATING TO BUILDING AND PLUMBING REGULATIONS AND ADOPT-
ING WITH CERTAIN ADDITIONS, DELETIONS AND AMENDMENTS,
WHICH ARE SET FORTH HEREIN, THE RULES, REGULATIONS, PRO-
VISIONS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THOSE CERTAIN CODES
ENTITLED, "UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1985 EDITION", "UNI-
FORM BUILDING CODE STANDARDS, 1985 EDITION", "UNIFORM
HOUSING CODE, 1985 EDITION", AND "UNIFORM CODE FOR THE
ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS.BUILDIN.GS,.1985 EDITION", PROMUL-
GATED AND PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF
BUILDING OFFICIALS AND THE "UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, 1985
EDITION" AND "UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, 1985 EDITION"
PROMULGATED AND PUBLISHED JOINTLY BY THE INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS AND THE INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL OFFLCIALS."
Motion Rosenberger, second Williams
AYES - DeBellis,.Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor
Cioffi
NOES - None
Final._Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 87-885.
Motion. Rosenberger, second Williams. So ordered.
Minutes 6-23-87
. (b) A RESOLUTION OF:THE CITY COUNCIL OF.THE.CITY OF HERMOSA
EACH•, . CALIFORNIA, APPROVING . AN. AMENDMENT TO, THE . IN- .
DEPENDENT_CITIES. RISK..MANAGEMENT,AUTHORITY JOINT.POWERS
AGREEMENT T0. PROVIDE.FOR.THE ADMITTANCE.TO.MEMBERSHIP OF
THE.CITIES_OF COLTON_AND.MONROVIA; APPROVING AND.AU-
THORIZING VALIDATIQN._PROCEEDINGS. AND.DESIGNATING..CITY
REPRESENTATIVES. For adoption. Memorandum from Person-
nel Administrator Robert Blackwood dated June 16, 1987.
Action: To adopt Resolution No. 87-5050 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN .AMENDMENT TO THE IN-
DEPENDENT CITIES RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY JOINT POWERS
AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE FOR THE ADMITTANCE TO MEMBERSHIP OF
THE CITIES OF COLTON AND:MONROVIA; APPROVING AND AU-
THORIZING VALIDATION PROCEEDINGS AND DESIGNATING CITY
REPRESENTATIVES."
Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered.
(c) A RESOLUTION OF THE.CITY_000NCIL.OF THE CITY OF.HERMOSA
BEACH CAIFORNIA URGING.THE ADOPTION OF. SENATE. CONCUR-
RENT.RESO UTION NO. 3 , DESIGNATING STATE HIGHWAY.. ROUTE
1Q5._AS._THE .G:ENN,.ANDERSQN .FREEWAY. For adoption.
Action;. To adopt Resolution No. 87-5051 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, URGING THE ADOPTION OF SENATE CONCUR-
RENT RESOLUTION NO. 34, DESIGNATING STATE HIGHWAY ROUTE
105 'AS THE GLENN -ANDERSON FREEWAY."
Motion Simpson, second Williams. So ordered noting a
NO vote by'Rosenberger.
(d). . AN.ORDINANCE_OF._THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITx.QF HERMOSA
BEACH,.CALIFORNIA,.AMENDING SECTION 21-23 OF._THE
MUNICIPAL CODE, BY CHANGING.THE TITLE,FROM_"DRINKING,ON
STREET OR.PLAYGROUND" TO "CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE.ON STREET PLAYGROUND .OR .IN A PLACE .OPEN..TO THE
PUBLIC" AND. BY ADDING PROVISIONS REGULATING THE CONSUMP-
TION,OF ALCOHOL.,IN PUBLIC.,PLACES OPEN TO.THE.PUBLIC AND
A.PROVISION REQUIRING,THE POSTING OF._PREMISES LICENSED
FOR RETAIL OFF -SALE OF PACKAGED. ALCOHOLIC.BEVERAGES.
For introduction°. Memorandum from Public Safety Direc-
tor Steve Wisniewski dated June 15, 1987.
'Action: To waive full reading and introduce Ordinance
11757 77-886 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION
21-23 OF THE -MUNICIPAL CODE, •BY CHANGING THE TITLE FROM
"DRINKING ON STREET OR PLAYGROUND" TO "CONSUMPTION OF
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ON STREET, PLAYGROUND OR IN A PLACE
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC" AND BY ADDING PROVISIONS REGULATING
THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL IN PUBLIC PLACES. OPEN TO'THE
PUBLIC AND A PROVISION REQUIRING THE POSTING dF PREMISES
LICENSED FOR RETAIL OFF -SALE OF PACKAGED ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES."
7
Minutes 6-23-87
Motion Williams, second Simpson
AYES.- DeBellis,. Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor
Cioffi
NOES - None
(e) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY.COUNCIL OF THE.CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH CALIFORNIA APPROVING AND ADOPTING.THE ANNUAL
APPROPRIATIONS .LIMIT _FOR _THE . FISCAL._YEAR .1987-1988. For
adoption. Memorandum from Finance Administrator Viki
Copeland dated June 16, 1987.
Action.; To adopt Resolution No. 87-5052 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE ANNUAL
APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR.1987-1988" in
the amount of $8,609,457.
Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger
AYES - DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor
Cioffi
NOES - None
(f) A RESOLUTION,OF TUE.CITY COUNCIL OF.THE„CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND_ADOPTING THE.1987-$8
BUDGET. For adoption. Memorandum from Finance Ad-
ministrator Viki Copeland dated June 15, 1987.
Action: To adopt Resolution No. 87-5053 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH,. CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE 1987-88
BUDGET” in the amount of $13,517,932.
Motion Simpson, second Williams
AYES - DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor
Cioffi
NOES - None
(g) A RESOLUTION OFTHECITY COUNCIL .OFTHE CITY.OF HERMOSA
BEACH CALIFORNIA CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF..THE
HOLDING OF AGENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION .TO BE
SAID .CITY, ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 19:7, . FOR THE ELECTION
OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AS.REQUIRED.BY THE PROVISIONS,OF,THE
LAWS OF,.THE .STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING .TOGENERAL LAW
CITIES. For adoptl.on.
Action: To adopt Resolution No. 87-5047 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE'•'CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY,OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE
HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN
SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1987, FOR THE ELECTION
OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE
LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW
CITIES."
Motion Rosenberger, second Simpson. So ordered. -.
HELD IN
(h) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY_OF HERMOSA
BEACH CALIFORNIA,..REQUESTING THE BOARD OF.SUPERVISORS
OF _THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.. TO, CONSOLIDATE . A GENERAL
8
Minutes 6-23-87
MUNICIPAL ELECTION,.OF SAID CITY.TO BE.HELD.ON NOVEMBER
3 19 7,• WITH THE SCHOOL.DISTRICT.AND_GENERAL DISTRICT
ELECTIONS.TO.BE HELD ON, SAID DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION
233Q2.OF THE ELECTION CODE. For adoption.
Ac�Qn: To adopt Resolution No. 87-5048 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL
MUNICIPAL' ELECTION OF SAID CITY TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER
3, 1987, WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND GENERAL DISTRICT
ELECTIONS TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION
23302 OF THE ELECTION CODE."
Motion Rosenberger, second Simpson. So ordered.
(i) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL.OF.THE.CITY.OF HERMOSA
BEACH,. .CALIFORNIA,..ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR. CANDIDATE$
FOR ELECTIVE. OFFICE PERTAINING. TO CANDIDATES STATEMENTS
SUBMITTED. TO THE VOTERS.AT,.AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON
TUESDAY,.NOVEMBER.3 1987. For adoption.
Action:. To adopt Resolution No. 87-5049 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES
FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE PERTAINING TO CANDIDATES STATEMENTS
SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1987'".
Motion Williams, second Rosenberger. So ordered.
Action; To suspend the agenda at.this time and go to Public
Hearings, beginning with agenda item 5, scheduled for 8:00 P.M.
Motion DeBellis, second Mayor Cioffi. So ordered.
(j) ENCROACHMENT PERMIT. AMENDMENTS
1) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA AMENDING RESOLUTION 85-
4885 AS AMENDED TO ESTABLISH ADDITIONAL. POLICIES
FOR. ENCROACHMENTS ON CITY.RIGHT-OF-WAY. For adop-
tion. Memorandum from Public Works Director
Anthony Antich dated June 15, 1987.
Aci4on: To adopt Resolution No. 87-5054 entitled
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION 85-
4885, AS AMENDED, TO ESTABLISH ADDITIONAL POLICIES
FOR ENCROACHMENTS ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY.."
Motion DeBellis,. second Wililams. So ordered.
Final_Action: To direct staff to perform a study
on the amortization of non -conforming existing com-
mercial encroachments and make a report of the
'findings to City Council at a later time.
Motion Williams, second Rosenberger. So ordered
noting NO vote by DeBellis.
- 9 - Minutes 6-23-87
2) AN ORDINANCE OF.THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ENCROACHMENT
ORDINANCE.NO. 85-821. For introduction. Memoran-
dum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated
June 15, 1987.
Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 87-
887 entitled " AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
ENCROACHMENT ORDINANCE NO. 85-821.
Motion Mayor Cioffi, second Rosenberger
AYES - DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams,
Mayor Cioffi
NOES - None
Final.Action. To introduce Ordinance No. 87-887.
Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered
noting NO vote by Mayor Cioffi.
3) a) A RESOLUTION OF.THE CITY COUNCIL OF_THE.CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH .CALIFORNIA APPROVING,THE COM-
MERCIAL.OUTDQOR DINING ENCROACHMENT. PERMIT
AGREEMENT, EXHIBIT.C.
Action: To adopt Resolution No. 87-5055 enti-
tled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HERMOSA/BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
THE COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR DINING ENCROACHMENT PER-
MIT AGREEMENT, EXHIBIT C. . _
Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So
ordered.
b) A,. RESOLUTION..OF.,THE . CITY . COUNCIL,.OF _THE . CITY..OF
HERMOSA_BEACH1.CALIFORNIA, AMENDING. RESOLUTION
86-4932.LOWERING THE REQUIREMENT FOR.RESIDEN-
TIAL ENCROACHMENT. PERMIT LIABILITY.INSURANCE
ANDAPPROVING AN,.UPDATED CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ENDORSEMENT. For adoption.
Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony
Antich dated June 15, 1987.
Action: To adopt Resolution No. 87-5056 enti-
tled "A RESOLUTION OF THE. CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
RESOLUTION 86-4932 LOWERING THE REQUIREMENT FOR
RESIDENTIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT LIABILITY IN-
SURANCE AND. APPROVING AN UPDATED CITY OF HERMO-
SA BEACH ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ENDORSEMENT."
Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So
ordered.
- 10 - Minutes 6-23-87
3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM.THE.CONSENT CALENDAR .,FOR .SEPARATE
DISCUSSION.' • •
The following items were heard at this time but are
listed in order on the Consent Calendar for clarity:
(e), (v), (w), (bb) and (dd).
4. WRITTEN._COMMUNICATIQNS FROM THE PUBLIC.
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION.DENIAL•OF A VARIANCE TO
ENCROACH, INTO 17 FT..PARKING SETBACK .TO. PROVIDE .ONLY 100
SQ..FT..OF. GROUND LEVEL.OPEN. SPACE AND. TO VARY .WITH_ SEC-
TIQN.1309,., GOVERNING.EXISTING_NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES,
AT.31�4 INGLESIDE DRIVE, Gerald W. Compton, Appellant
for owners Hadaway. Memorandum from Planning Director
Michael Schubach dated June 16, 1987.
The staff report was presented Planning Director Michael
Schubach.
The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak
in favor of granting this appeal were:
Jerry Compton, GWC Design, 200 Pier Avenue, representing
the owners of .the property.
Jim Hadaway, 3104 Ingleside Drive, owner
L. B. Studinger, 457 - 31st Street
Lonnie Johnson, 514 - 31st Street
Elizabeth Studinger, 457 - 31st Street
No one spoke in opposition.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Proposed.,.Action: To .grant the appeal with the condition
that a single car garage be built with two open parking
spaces instead of one.
Motion Williams,- dies for lack of a second.
Proposed Action: To grant the appeal and adopt Resolu-
tion No. 87- • entitled "A RESOLUTION•OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AP-
PROVING ON APPEAL A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH
INTO THE REQUIRED SEVENTEEN FOOR PARKING SETBACK, TO
PROVIDE ONLY 100 SQUARE FEET OF GROUND LEVEL OPEN SPACE,
AND TO VARY WITH SECTION 1309 OF THE ZONING CODE AT 3104
INGLESIDE DRIVE" with the findings that it preserves the
character of the neighborhood, there are exceptional and
extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to
the property such as lot size and location and alley
width, and the substantial property right has been gran-
ted to other property owners within the vicinity for
- 11 - Minutes 6-23-87
similar lots of the same size, shape and location.
Motion Rosenberger - dies for lack of a second.
Action; To deny the appeal and adopt Resolution No. 87-
5057 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING ON APPEAL A
REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED
SEVENTEEN FOOT PARKING SETBACK, TO PROVIDE ONLY 100
SQUARE FEET OF GROUND LEVEL OPEN SPACE, AND TO VARY WITH
SECTION 1309 OF THE ZONING CODE AT 3104 INGLESIDE
DRIVE."
Motion Simpson, second Williams
AYES - DeBellis, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi
NOES - Rosenberger
6. AN ORDINANCE OF,THE_CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH CALIFORNIA CONFIRMING THE REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
OF. PUBLIC. WORKS DATED APRIL 20 1987.PREPARED .PURSUANT
TO RESOLUTION, NO. :7-501• AND APPROVED PURSUANT TO
RESOLUTION NO. 87-5032 .OF SAID COUNCIL .. AND . THE PLANS
SPECIFICATIONS, ESTIMATE, DIAGRAM AND._ASSESSMENT CON-
TAINED IN SAID REPORT) ORDERING CERTAIN CROSSING GUARD
MAINTENANCE. SERVICES.TO_BE.FURNISHED AND MAINTAINED_FQR
THE FISCAL_YEAR BEGINNING_JULY_1, 1987.
The staff report was made a part of the record.
The Public Hearing was opened. No one coming forward,
the Public Hearing was closed.
Action: To waive full reading and introduce Ordinance
17 -71888 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF. THE CITY OF.HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATED APRIL 20,
1987 PREPARED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 87-5016 AND
APPROVED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 87-5032 OF SAID
COUNCIL, AND THE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ESTIMATE, DIA-
GRAM AND ASSESSMENT CONTAINED IN SAID REPORT; ORDERING
CERTAIN CROSSING GUARD MAINTENANCE SERVICES TO BE FUR-
NISHED AND MAINTAINED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY
1, 1987.
Motion DeBellis, second Simpson
AYES - DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor
Cioffi
•
NOES -None
7. AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY.000NCIL.OF.-THE_CITY
OF HERMOSA.BEACH CALIFORNIA TO._PROHIBIT THE;ISSUANCE OF
BUI DING .PER.MI S FOR_ PROJECTS INVOLVING. EXPANSION AND .OR
REMODELING OF NONCONFORMING BUILDING.AND/OR USES WHEN
SAID PROJEC'PS ARE,.NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH.STANDARDS_AND
REQUIREMENTS.SET,FORTH WITHIN. THIS ORDINANCE. Memoran-
dum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated June
16, 1987. Supplemental information - memorandum from
Planning Director Michael Schubach dated June 22, 1987.
- 12 - Minutes 6-23-87
The staff report was presented by Planning Director
Michael Schubach.
The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak
were:
Betty Ryan, 588 - 20th Street -suggested study
Mark Ring, 502 Manhattan Avenue -opposed
Ron Vollmer, 924 Duncan Avenue, Manhattan Beach -opposed
Evan Wright, 2215 Hermosa Avenue -opposed
The Public Hearing was closed.
Proposed L ctiont To approve staff recommendation and
waive full reading of Emergency Ordinance No. 87- en-
titled "AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA TO PROHIBIT THE
ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR PROJECTS INVOLVING EX-
PANSION AND/OR REMODELING OF NONCONFORMING BUILDING AND/
OR USES WHEN SAID PROJECTS ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH
STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH WITHIN THIS OR-
DINANCE" with changes as recommended under Alternative
A.
Motion Williams - dies for lack of a second.
Action;. To refer this matter to the Planning Commission.
Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger (for clarification)
Proposed Substitute. Motion: To extend the existing
moratorium for 45 days. •
Motion Simpson, second Williams
Vote, on making, Substitute, Motion the. Main_ Motion
AYES - Simpson, Williams
NOES - DeBellis, Rosenberger, Mayor Cioffi
Motion fails.
Vote on.Main Motion
AYES - DeBellis, Rosenberger, Williams, Mayor Cioffi
NOES - Simpson
8. HEARING,TO REVIEW DELINQUENT.REFUSE.BILLS FOR.THE.PUR-
POSE OF ,ORDERING SAID BILLS PLACED. ON THE TAX . ROLLS . AS A
SPECIA ASSESSMENT. Memorandum from. Building and Safety
Director William Grove dated June 12, 1987.
The Public Hearing was opened. No one coming forward,
the Public Hearing was closed,
Action; To direct staff to return with a resolution
listing delinquent refuse bills which remain ten days
following this hearing for the purpose of submitting
said charges to the County Assessor for inclusion as a
special assessment against the parcel.
- 13 - Minutes 6-23-87
Motion Rosenberger, second Williams
AYES - DeBellis,. Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor
Cioffi
NOES - None
A recess was called at 9:40 P.M.
The meeting reconvened at 10:05 P.M.
MUNICIPAL MATTERS
9. PROPOSED_ SEWER,_CONNECTION..ORDINANCE. Memorandum from
City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated June 3, 1987. (Con-
tinued from May 26, 1987 and June 9, 1987 meetings.)
Action: To approve the amended staff recommendation as
follows:
1. The long term goal be to recover 25% of the full
cost as a development fee and that the pay as you
go (UUT) portion be 75%;
2.. For "grandfather purposes", projects that get a
building permit before the implementation date of
the new Connection Ordinance and that have not yet
paid a connection fee shall pay a levy equal to 15%
of the Formula 5 cost determination;
3. That the new Connection Fee Ordinance levy be 25%
of the Formula 5 cost,premisedon the Formula 5
cost assumption being re -calculated annually (see
Section 3.03 of the Ordinance).
4. Set the proposed ordinance for public hearing at
8:00 P.M. on July 14, 1987, or as soon thereafter
as 'the matter may be heard.
Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger (discussion). So
ordered noting NO vote by Williams.
10. PROPOSED BALLOT MEASURE - AN.ORDINANCE OF THE_CITY.OF
HERMOSA BEACH SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS BY THE CITY COUN-
CIL REQUIRING THAT AN ADDITIQNAL_ASSESSMENT_AND COLLEC-
TION OF LICENSE TAX_BE PLACED_ON.NEW .RESIDENTIAL CON -
.S UC ION. Memorandum from City Attorney James P. Lough
dated June 2,'1987 with supplemental memorandum from
Building and Safety Director William Grove dated June 8,
1987. (Continued from June 9.., 1987 meeting.:)
Action: To approve in concept the placement of the or-
dinance on the ballot for the November election, the
City Attorney and staff to be back with a measure at the
next, meeting, July 14, 1987.
Motion Simpson, second Rosenberger. So ordered noting a
NO vote by Williams.
- 14 - Minutes 6-23-87
11.
STATUS REPORT REGARDING THE PARKING OF RECREATIONAL
VEHICLES_ON.CITY STREETS. Memorandum from General Ser-
vices Director Joan Noon dated May 28, 1987.
Action: Direct staff to pursue alternative solutions to
the problem of parking recreational vehicles on City
streets, noting Council concern regarding this problem.
Motion DeBellis, second Cioffi. So ordered.
12. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND.REPORTS - CITY MANAGER
None
13.-°r MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS -.CITY COUNCIL
(a) Legal issues regarding placement of.oil revenue limita-
tion on November..ballot. Memorandum from City Attorney
James P. Lough dated May 4, 1987. (Continued from 5/12/
87, 5/26/87 and 6/9/87 meetings.)
(b)
(0)
Action: To receive and file report.
Motion DeBellis, second Simpson. So ordered noting NO
votes by Rosenberger and Williams.
Final Action.;. Staff to prepare an ordinance regarding
the restriction of onshore or uplands royalty monies,
excluding taxes and fees, to the purchase of open space.
Motion Rosenberger, second Williams. So ordered.
Request by; Mayor Pro. Tem Etta Simpson and Councilmember
June Williams to consider preparation of a.report by
City Attorney James P...Lough..and Planning..Director
Michael.Schubach re. establishing a threshold for.re-
quirement of.a.PEIR.
Action: Staff to put together a discussion paper to
include information about categorical exemptions and
ministerial vs. discretionary abilities, this matter to
be calendared by the City Attorney for return to Council
for debate within 90 days.
Motion DeBellis, second Simpson: So ordered.
Letter.from Mr. Tadao.Hara,..Prinpal,.International
Bilingual.School Los Angeles dated June 5 .1987 re.
Sister.City:Program. Memorandum from City Manager
•Gregory T. Meyer dated June 16, 1987. Supplemental in-
formation - letter from Jimmy R. Cruz, Chairman, Sister
City Committee, Filipino -American Societydated 15 June
1987 .
Action: To communicate to both Mr. Hara, Principal,
International Bilingual School Los Angeles, and Mr.
Cruz, Chairman, Sister City Committee, Filipino -American
Society that the City Council is interested in working
with these groups and will pursue possible interest in
- 15 -
Minutes 6-23-87
the community in .setting up a new program, Councilmember
Simpson ffer'ing' to work With both the requestors and
the community.
Motion Simpson, second DeBellis. So. ordered noting a NO
vote by Rosenberger.
14. OTHER HATTERS. -,CITY _ COUNCIL
(a) Vacancies.- Boards.and Commission,
Planning_Commipsion - Two 4 -year terms ending
June 30, 1991
One
Nomination - Rosenberger - Berardo
Simpson - Rue
DeBellis - Meyer
Williams -
Mayor Cioffi -
Vote - Rosenberger -
Simpson -
DeBellis -
Williams -
Mayor Cioffi
Two
Berardo
Meyer
Berardo Berardo
Rue Berardo
Rue Meyer
Berardo Berardo
Rue Berardo
Appointed to the Planning Commission for full four-year
terms. ending June 30, 1991 were A. John Berardo, D.D.S.
and Geoffrey Rue (reappointment)
Community.Resouroes.Commi.ssion - Two 4 -year terms
ending June 30, 1991
Qne Two
Nomination - Rosenberger - Crecy
Simpson - Cascio
DeBellis - .-
Williams - Fish
Mayor Cioffi
Vote - Rosenberger - Crecy
Simpson- , Cascio
DeBellis - Cascio
Williams - Crecy
Mayor Cioffi - Cascio
Crecy
Crecy
Crecy
Crecy
Crecy
Cascio
Appointed to the Community Resources Commission for full
four-year terms ending June 30, 1991 were Joseph Cascio
and Steven Crecy.
Action; Staff to prepare appropriate recognition for
outgoing commissioners to be presented at the City Coun-
cil meeting of -July 14, 1987.
Motion Rosenberger, second Mayor Cioffi. So ordered.
- 16 - Minutes 6-23-87
(b) Vacant Property. on PCH owned. byAMI/South Bay Hospital
Beard - DeBe.11is. - asked •for a report at the next
meeting. .•
Action; To establish• a• subcommittee of the City Council
to approach AMI/South Bay Hospital Board to talk about
this situation.
Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered.
(c) Manor_Ticketing_Procedures,-.Rosenberger - requested
staff to obtain a copy of the Manhattan Beach document
changing minor tickets from misdemeanors to infractions.
(d) Study..of.._Height Ordinance -liams - City Manager
Meyer informed Council that this will•be on the agenda
of July 14, 1987.
(e) Handicapped , Parking_DowntQwn.,4rea...-~Williams - asked for
a report.
(f) FOyer.Pictures _MayorCioffi - with concurrence of
Council, established policy to allow the City Manager. to
use his discretion regarding pictures placed in the
foyer outside Council Chambers.
APPEARANCE OF. INTERESTED. CITIZENS
None
ADJOURNMENT
The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa
Beach adjourned on Wednesday, June 24, 1987 at the hour of 12:05
A.M. to a Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday, July 14, 1987 at
the hour of 7:30 P.M.
Deputy City Clerk
- 17 -
Minutes 6-23-87
Honorable Mayor and Members of
the Hermosa Beach City Council
July 8, 1987
Regular Meeting
July 14, 1987
APPROVAL OF TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN
SANITARY SEWER REPLACEMENT -TARGET AREA 2, CIP 85-402
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council approve the attached Traffic
Control Plan for the Sanitary Sewer Target Area 2 construction.
Background:
On May 12, 1987, City Council awarded an agreement in the amount
of $527,925 to Christeve Corporation for the construction of
sanitary sewer replacement in Target Area 2. Section 100.12 of
this agreement states:
"Prior to any excavation, the contractor shall submit traffic
control plans, signed by a registered traffic engineer in the
State of California, to the City for review for each street
where a sewer is being installed".
Chapter 19 1/2, Article I, Section 19 1/2-4, titled, Noise
Regulations, of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Codes exempts Public
Works which are authorized by the City. Section 19 1/2-11 allows
for a 7:00 a.m. construction start time.
Analysis: The analysis of this report is divided into two
sections as follows:
1. Traffic Control Plan
2. Hours of Construction
1. Traffic Control Plan
Exhibit "A" illustrates the traffic control plan proposed by
Christeve Corporation. This plan has been reviewed by Ed Ruzak,
Registered Traffic Engineer, the contractor's consulting
engineer, and has also been verbally approved by ASL Consulting
Engineers (the engineering inspection firm contracted for this
project by the City), who will follow up with a written approval.
Pending City Council approval, construction shall begin
immediately (See Exhibit "B" for project schedule). The traffic
control plan should cause the least inconvenience and will
provide for pedestrian and traffic safety. All affected property
owners will be notified in advance, either by the City or the
contractor. The Public Safety Director has been informed about
this project, so that emergency service will not be
inconvenienced.
\k� 14 • It a.ar�
J
1f
In summary, this plan includes the following:
1. Local access to all properties shall be provided at all
times. The contractor shall work with the (property) owner
to provide local access in the most appropriate manner
possible.
2. Working hours shall be 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. No excavations
will be left open after the contractor has left the premises
at completion of work each day.
3. Hermosa Valley School parking lot access shall be kept open
at all times.
4. Valley Drive between Hermosa Valley School and Pier Avenue
shall be closed to through traffic approximately four (4)
weeks.
5. When the contractor is working in the vicinity of the
Pier/Valley/Ardmore intersection, he shall detour traffic to
one lane each on Pier Avenue for east and west directions.
Flaggers shall be utilized during mid-day, a.m. and p.m.
traffic build-ups. "Temporary No Parking Anytime" signs
shall be placed on Pier Avenue (east and west of
construction) as determined by the City.
6. Valley Drive from Pier Avenue to Eighth Street shall be
closed to through traffic for approximately three (3) weeks.
7. Access to AT & SF Railroad parking areas shall be provided at
all times. Appropriate public parking signing shall be
relocated as necessary.
8. Ardmore Avenue from Pier Avenue to approximately 100 feet
north of Pier Avenue shall be closed to through traffic for
approximatelytwo weeks. During construction, access to the
underground parking lot north of Pier Avenue will be
restricted as follows:
South Access Open only during evening
North Access Open at all times.
If possible, every effort will be made to keep the south access
open during the day.
9. 15th Street from Prospect Avenue to approximately 50 feet
east will be closed to through traffic for approximately
three (3) weeks.
10. Corona Street will be partially closed from Prospect Avenue
to Aviation Blvd. for approximately four (4) weeks. Local
Access to all properties shall remain at all times.
11. All traffic control, barricading and signing shall be in
accordance with the State of California, Department of
Transportation, "Manual of Traffic Controls', 1985 ed.
2. Hours of Construction
In an effort to expedite construction and cause the least amount
of inconvenience to residents and traffic, it is the department's
intent to commence construction at 7:00 a.m. and end at
approximately 3:30 p.m.
Alternatives:
Other alternatives considered by staff and available to Council
are:
1. Request a revised traffic control plan.
Respectfully Submitted,
imp Gtr
Deborah M. Murphy
Assistant Engineer
Concur:
Grego / l Mcy�r1
City Manager
Concur:
OktvG0 0\5:4i3
Ant ony Antich
Director of Public Works
Concur:
Steve Wisniewski
Public Safety Director
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Traffic Control Plan
Exhibit "B" - Project Schedule
cc: Bill Grove, Director of Building & Safety
Marilyn Corey, Hermosa Beach School District
DMM:mv
trafcon/v
3
•
Mr. Mike Mitrovich. President
Christeve Corporation
233 Longley Way
Arcadia, California 91006
Dear Mike:
July 7, 1987
EXHIBIT "A"
I have completed a review of the submitted traffic control plan
strategy for the Hermosa Beach Sewer project. I have discussed the situation
with Mr. Antich, the Public Works Director and have modified some of the
signing requirements. I believe the control plan now satisfies the
intent of the specifications. I have also signed all copies and have
provided you with sufficient copies to send to ASL Consulting Engineers for
their review. Since ASL is the engineer for the project, they must approve
the traffic control plan also. Send them a copy as soon as possible and have
them review and sign it. When these signed copies are approved by the City
Council you should be ready to begin.
I have sent ASL and the City of Hermosa Beach a copy of my signed _
report and this cover letter. Good luck.
ejr/encl.
Res
ly s m tted,
Edwar' ' J.
18824 ,RTE 202
10061 TALBERTAVENUE SUITE200 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 964-4880
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
SANITARY SEWER -TARGET AREA 2
TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN AND STRATEGY
Contractor: Christeve Corp.
233 Longley Way
Arcadia, California 91006
818-445-4683
The following time schedule and time phasing were developed by the
contractor. They were reviewed by a professional traffic engineer and
modified as necesary to conform to recognized guidelines and good traffic
engineering practice.
Sheet 1 Project Location Map
Sheet 2 Legend
Sheet 3 Valley Dr. between Valley School and Pier Ave.
To be closed to thru traffic approximately FOUR WEEKS.
School parking lot access to be open at all times,
. Local access to all properties will be provided at all times.
. Construction hours -0700 to 1530, Mon thru Fri.
No open excavations will be left after contractor has left
premises at completion of work. Plating shall be used'to cover excavation.
Contractor will start work at the school side and proceed from north to
south. Thru Traffic will be warned at Gould Ave.to detour so they do not
enter Valley Drive Southbound. Local access will be allowed in and out.
When work occurs in front of a particular driveway access to a single family
residence or other property, Contractor shall work with owner to provide
local access in the most appropriate manner possible for conditions.
As contractor proceeds southbound and completes work local access will
be assured. Critical area is 100 feet north of Pier Avenue. Access out of the
U.S. Post office on to Valley Dr. must be ensured or relocated onto Per
Avenue at a point other than the entrance driveway. Contractor will work
with affected property owner to ensure this condition. Typical signing to
prohibit turns into Valley Dr. from Pier Avenue is shown on sheet 3.
Sheet 4 Pier Ave. Detour- North & South
. South half of Pier Ave. work will detour traffic to one lane
each for east and west directions. These lanes will be on the north side of
Pier Avenue. Post office"in"access will be retained on Pier Avenue. Post
office"out"traffic w'ill be directed,by signing,only onto Valley Dr. north-
bound. Typical signing and barricading are shown on sheet 4 for north side
work. Also in Figure 5-3 of Manual of Traffic Controls.
. North half of Pier Ave. work will detour traffic to one lane
each for east and west directions. These lanes will be on the south side of
Pier Avenue. Post office access will not be affected.
. Detour, signing and barricading to be modified or removed
for evening traffic hours as construction dictates. All open excavations
shall be plated after work day is complete.
. Construction hours 0700 to 1530
. Temporary No Parking Anytime shall be placed on Pier Ave
east and west of the construction areas. Locations and time of prohibition
shall be determined by contractor and city.
Contractor will consider doing necessary manhole work at the northwest
quadrant of Valley/Pier as well as the work along the north side of Pier
Ave.between Valley and Ardmore during this phase so that the minimum
disruption takes place. Appropriate pedestrian crossing prohibition signs
R43 and R49 from Caltrans Manual,shal] be utilized where conflicts may arise
between normal pedestrian path and area adjacent to construction.
Flaggers shall be considered necessary during this phase to ensure
vehicular and pedestrian safety during mid-day, am and pm traffic buildups
Exact times and days necessary to be determined by contractor and city ^
inspector as construction progresses.
Sheet 5 Valley Dr. from Pier Ave. to Eighth St.
. To be closed to thru traffic for approximately THREE WEEKS
. Local access to all properties to be maintained at alltim^=s
. Access to AT&SF RR parking area to be provided at all time ^
Appropriate public parking signing to be relocatd as necessary. s^
. Construction hours 0700-1530
lot As construction proceeds south from Pier Avenue, the AT&SF RR parking
access near Pier will be closed. The access opposite 11th St shall
always remain open. Typical signing and barricading shall be provided
shown on sheet 5. Bard street access or partial access shall b as
sae
long as possible. When Bard is completely closed for construction,
kept open as
contractor and city should coordinate to remove parking for appru:eimat l
three stalls on the north side of Pier Ave at Bard at.Ty
better sight distance for the emerging left
^ turn vehic^esni s wzl� provide
When 11th st to the west is closed f ~
^
Public parking at the RR would b se or construction, signing to the
eprovided to route the users to the Valley
Dr^ access,which will now be open,
Sheet 6 Ardmore Ave. from Pier Ave to approximately 100 feet north of Pier.
. Closed to thru traffic for approximately TWO WEEKS
. Access to underground parking lots north of Pi A.
Pier
maintained during evening hours. At end of construction day«enue to be
driveways shall be provided. Approriate signs shall access to these
the access location, provide notification of
able to withstand
open excavations at the end of the day shall be plated and
thstand vehicular traffic loads.
. Appropriate detour and turn prohibition signs on Pier Avenue sha1l
shall be provided to alert motorists tc:' the closure c:n Ardmore and to the
necessity of using Valley D1'
Sheet 7 Corona Si; . Aviation toy 15th St.
. 15th St. from Prospect Ave. to approximately 50 feet east w111
be closed to thru traffic for approximately THREE WEEKS.
. Corona Street a.i11 have the west ].ane partially closed from
Prospect Ave. to Aviation Ave during work: hours of 0700 to 1520. 1t wi l ]. be
open at all other times.
• All open excavations at the and of the work day shall be plated
. Local access to all properties shall remain at all times.
. Work on Corona Street will be approximately FOUR WEEKS.
GENERAL NOTES
1. Fl.aggers to be utilized as construction dictates .and in concert
with concerns of inspector.
P. Normal working hours shall be 0700 to 1.5S0q additional hour; may be
requested when necessary for safety and tc: deal with construction situations
that could not be previously anticipated.
3. Traffic Control, barricading, and signing as per State of California,
Department of Transportation, "Manual of traffic Controls", 1985. _
4. Adjustment or preparation of traffic signing and barricade drawings
to be done by contractor in field, per "Manual on Traffic Controls"
on an as needed basis to ensure safety and smooth traffic flow for the
users.
5. Additional signing and barricading wi].1 be readily on site .and
available to supplement the drawings when needed.
c:. Submitted sketches are not to scale and are typical situations that
may be modified by mutual cony it of the contractor and the engineer.
Reviewed By:
Prepared By:
Approved By
Dat
Edward J. R(% y i 1 't 1.88=4 RTE 208
M.P. Mitr-ovi.r_h, President Chri teve Corp.
ASL. Consulting Engineers, Project Engineer
LOCATION
TENTATIVE F'ROJE:CT SCHEDULE
WEEKS OF CONSTRUCTION
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Valley
Valley School to Fier
Valley
Pier to 9th S t.
Fier Ave. Detour
Ardmore
Fier- to 100' North
Corona
Aviation to 15th St.
++++++++
•r -++-r-+ +
+++++
+++ OR; ++1-
++++++++++++
+ TIME FOR STREET CLOSURES AND CONSTRUCTION
SHEET 2
LEGEND
SIGN CODE CALTRANS SIGN MESSAGE
C-1 DETOUR AHEAD
C ROAD CLOSED
C -3A RAD CLOSED TO THROUGH TRAFFIC
C-13 END CONSTRUCTION
C-18 ROAD CONSTRUCTION AHEAD
C-21 SINGLE LANE AHEAD
R-7 KEEP RIGHT
R -7A }KEEP LEFT
N-11 LANE TRANSITION SYMBOL SIGN
W-56 DOUBLE ARROW
F:43 PEDESTRIANS P'ROHIDITED
R -4S NO F'ED CROSSING
USE CROSSWALK-:>
SIGN SYMBOL
O CONES OR DELINEATORS
I BARRICADES
--> DIRECTION OF -TRAFFIC
C is
fJ
Av- rr- cv-
Ave
QD
--.---9. I
rRai I ROCA.C1 Proper --Y" Types Ill 80...41e.aos
/;\evcrk cl
1 / • •• ,, , • 4
//iireloY'..1
I
C3A
vls6 Via lie y Dv-.
AL Ts.
Tu two
0
0
0
R.41
Ar 011 o r C.
Valley or-.
)3C.2
80.1rci
Ave
o r
V
0
0
0
T
0
0
0
u • 0
0 0
riv
0 OCrir 0
to
C 7A (a) 0
• 0
0
0
Type. I
IL
c,
6 ,
.*
0 .c..\° a.
1 / /./
. .:„.
i - ..._ 0
: c 2- 0
_u. 1 i ' o
1
ItAnf ; t
poST 0
office ! 1
1
..
0
0
0
.57
L
1
SHEET 4
C13
R7 Call
a A
• w' SC.
ri 7A Ce.r)
4 4 '
cia
C. I
C1 8
NTS
• t • . •
, ••• , '•
(v•ip;•,$;
, •
- • •
Valley Dr.
0)
7 •
. • •:. r
Construction - Valley Dr. between Pier Ave. & 8th Street - Barricading
• 7 -6,41 -Er 130,, r C 0. des
C3A
11
6a rci
Y Press
Ave
e.2
• - \\;
•
Ave.. //
e.2
1-
V)
C.3A
1
Al 1\
w5c.
co
j
NTS
C3A
CI c,3
4 4
,
VA
Or.
NTS
C/3 rr
Pier Ave
AIT c
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE '
PROJECT NAME : ''t;. --i-/ 14 / 7-741e)1 �L0 - Toe --61-e-7 / p .Zr
ACCOUNT NUMBER : G /P 5S -9-O 2.
LEGEND
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE : 11111111111111111
ACTUAL SCHEDULE :
X : 100% COMPLETE
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
TASKS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
I I I I I I II111111 1 1 1 1 1---1
Final design approval before advertising 1 1111J
1 1 1
for construction
Prepare advertisement & set bid opening
date
f Advertising period
(issue addendums as necessary)
Accept sealed bids & public bid opening
Review bids
Award contract
Sign contract
(bonds,insurance & workers comp. cert.)
Preconstruction meeting procedure
Issue "Notice to Proceed"
Construction Period
Monitor progress & maintain records
Progress payment and
change order procedure
Acceptance of work as complete
Issusing and recording a
"Notice of Completion"
Retention Payment
Project close out
corm i mr--'
�II'
1
1
1
1
1111+111II II1iu1Urllirtllrmirulr--1-----
1111111111111111111111111111111Di111U16II►► '
IIIIill1lrl1lfrriirniimrm1 mrmiimrr--'
1
&Lau ZIHIHXa
July' 1, 1987
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of
of the City Council July 14, 1987
OUTDOOR CONCERT SERIES
Recommendation
It is recommended that City Council approve in concept a free
outdoor concert series to be sponsored by the Community Center
Foundation and the Easy Reader to be held in September/October of
this year.
Background
The Easy Reader has approached the Foundation with a proposal to
co-sponsor an outdoor concert series in September/October of this
year with the Easy Reader providing sponsorship funds and the
Foundation handling the production end of the series. This event
will not proceed until the funds are secured.
Analysis
The Easy Reader's purpose for this is to bring a nice element
into the downtown area and to enhance business in that area as
well.
The Foundation was approached as it now has a reputation for
producing good quality entertainment. In exchange for this
expertise, the Easy Reader has agreed that a contribution will be
made to the Foundation for it's efforts.
The Board of Directors of the Foundation is asking for conceptual
approval only at this time.
The following details will give the City Council a better idea of
what the series will entail.
ivv\cv, U(A i)""
. Series to consist of five Sunday afternoon concerts
probably beginning at 2:00 p.m. and lasting two hours.
▪ 'Series to take place in' late September, early October.
. Entertainers to be "middle of the road" with both the
Foundation and the Easy.Reader mutually agreeing on the
entertainers. This will dictate the type of person
attending.
. The concerts will be free to the public and held
immediately south of the Pier on the beach.
;cuA ^A � s
Targeted area for advertising is South Bay only. By
restricting the advertising, it is felt it would also
the attendance. Public Service announcements wil
as well.
limit
Security, clean up, shuttle service a d al
pertinent to a special event will be handle
Foundation/Community Resources staff.
The attendance figure for each concert is projected at
2,000. As a comparison the Pro Volleyball Tournament
estimates attendance at 15;000 people per 'day.
Portable band shell will be used.
Department of Beaches and Harbors will be contacted to
receive their assistance.
Both the Easy Reader and the Foundation are most concerned that
this be a very low-key, enjoyable Sunday afternoon event and will
do everything it can to insure such.
The action taken by the Foundation Board of Directors at their
June 15th meeting was as follows: Motion: "To support this idea
with the following conditions: 1) That the sponsors agree to
restrict advertising to the. South Bayarea only; 2) that both the
Easy Reader and Foundation mutually agree on the entertainment."
Further, that the two above conditions being acceptable to the
sponsors, the Foundation will pursue support from the City
Council and that inherent in all this, the Department of
Community Resources staff will produce the series." Please see
the attached staff report to the Foundation.
Should the Council support this proposal in concept only, the
Board will begin work on it immediately and return to a City
Council meeting as soon as possible with more details and at that
time ask for final approval of the project..
Concur:
Gregory T. eyer
Ci y Manager
Respectfully submitted,
Alana M.-Mastrian, Directo
Dept. of Community Resources
George S melTzer, Presiden
Board of Directors .
Community Center Foundation
CO-SPONSOR: OUTDOOR CONCERT SERIES: FALL 1987
The Foundation has been approached by Mr. Richard Budman of the
Easy Reader with a proposal that the Foundation and Easy Reader
be co -presenters of an outdoor concert series to be held in
Hermosa Beach this fall.
Mr. Budman indicated the Easy Reader would provide the funds
necessary for this event, up to $79,000 and would handle all the
marketing and advertising.
Our responsibility would be to book the talent, produce the shows
and lead the charge, if necessary, to gain approval from the City
Council.
Both the Easy Reader and the.Foundation must mutually agree as to
the entertainers.
The Series' calls for five concerts to be held at an outside
location on five Sunday afternoons in September and October.
The budget breakdown is as follows:
Entertainer Contracts: $25,000
Miscellaneous Costs: 29,000
Foundation Contribution and site rental
fees 25,000
Total $79,000
After taking a "tour" of the City, it appears there are possibly
three locatons that may be considered. And it is important to
note that the financial backers are looking for attendance
figures in the area of 2,000 people per concert.
LOCATION #1: VALLEY PARK
While there is plenty of room, homes are located very close by
and there is very limited parking.
•LOCATION #2: CLARK FIELD' •
Same problem as Valley Park in regard to the homes being located
close by and while the parking situation is somewhat better, we
would have to displace soccer and adult softball leagues for five
Sundays. That would create a lot of bad feelings.
LOCATION #3: SOUTH SIDE OF THE PIER ON THE BEACH
This appears to be the best location. However there are many
potential problems with this also. Things to be considered:
3
There was.• opposition to the Chamber of Commerce's idea
of concerts on the beach albeit they were going to
fence it off, charge people and tie it up for a full
weekend. This event may get mixed up with that event
in the minds of people.
How do we handle more than 2,000 people and is that a
problem.
What are the advertising/marketing boundaries? All of
Los Angeles; just the South Bay; etc.
Will the few businesses in the proposed location be
negatively affected by the event?
As there are many questions to be answered, Mr. Richard Budman of
the Easy Reader will be at the meeting to discuss this proposal
thoroughly.
4
July 6, 1987
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting
the Hermosa Beach City Council of July 14, 1987
APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEES
BARGAINING UNIT MOU REVISING THE SALARY RANGE; ESTABLISHING A
PREMIUM PAY; AND APPROVAL OF THE REVISED CLASS SPECIFICATION FOR
GENERAL SERVICES COORDINATOR
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Authorize the City Manager to execute the attached sup-
plemental to the Administrative Employees Bargaining Unit MOU
revising the base salary range and establishing a Premium Pay for
the classification of General Services Coordinator, and
2. Approve the attached revised Class Specification for
General Gervices Field Supervisor.
Background:
During the closed session of June 23, 1987, the City Council in-
structed staff to negotiate with representatives of the Teamster
Union, Local 911, for the purpose of revising (1) the Class
Specification for General Services Field Coordinator and (2) the
salary range for that classification.
The rationale for these adjustments was to acknowledge the in-
creased responsibilities for this position due to the recent in-
crease in duties assigned to the General Services Coordinator.
The increased duties were a result of the transfer of a number of
functions, previously performed at the City Hall complex, to the
General Services Office at 1035 Valley Drive. These functions
include sales of resident parking permits, contractor permits,
and RTD bus passes. Additionally, responsibility for administer-
ing the City's Crossing Guard program was transferred from the
Police Department to the General Services Department and has been
assigned to the General Services Coordinator.
The instruction to revise the Class Specification was to allow
duties associated with those recent operational changes and addi-
tional responsibilities assigned to the General Services Coor-
dinator to be incorporated into the Class Specification for that
position.
Analysis:
The attached supplemental to the Administrative Employees Bar-
gaining Unit MOU establishes that;
1. Effective July 16, 1987, the base salary range for the
classification of G.S. Coordinator will be increased 10%. This
increase is to compensate for the additional duties associated
with supervision of the additional clerical staff assigned to the
1K
G.S. Coordinator to perform the necessary processing for permit
sales, and
2. Effective July 16, 1987, the General Services
will be eligible for a 10% Premium Pay for assuming
sibilities associated with administering the School
Guard program.
Coordinator
the respon-
Crossing
The Class Specification has been revised to include duties and
responsibilities associated with the supervision of the Crossing
Guard program and the clerical staff functions of parking permit
and RTD bus pass sales. Also, the employment standards have been
increased to require education and experience equivalent to
graduation from a college or university.
Respectfully submitted,
(Nri-Q------__
Robert A. Blackwood
Personnel Administrator
Noted for fiscal impact:
Viki Copeland
Finance Administrator
Concur:
Gre:ory T! Meyer
City Manager
Teamster, Local 911, has
agreed to the above:
UnioRepresentative
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
GENERAL SERVICES COORDINATOR
Definition
Under the direction of the General Services Director,
supervision of immediate subordinates who perform functions as
General Services Field Supervisors, General Services Officers,
Parking Enforcement Officers, Meter Maintenance personnel,
Crossing Guards and Parking Permit Booth Operators. In addition,
supervises the office clerical personnel and related functions.
Typical Duties
This is a middle management position with overall responsibility
for the General Service Department field operations and Crossing
Guard function. Is responsible for the enforcement of all
parking and animal control violations; recruitment, hiring and
training of crossing guards; training and supervision of all
field and office personnel; conducts employee evaluations and
progress reports; arranges for job related training seminars for
subordinates; prepares schedules and reports; responsibility for
equipment, vehicle maintenance and supplies; coordinates annual
rabies clinic and summer enforcement program; maintains
communication between the department and other related
enforcement agencies; supervises the clerical staff functions of
radio dispatching, preparation of department payroll, parking
permit/dog license and RTD bus pass sales.
Employment Standard*
Knowledge of pertinent local and state laws pertaining to
parking, animal control and personnel regulations. Ability to
collect and analyze data and to prepare oral and written reports;
ability to assign and supervise the work of others; ability to
deal tactfully and effectively with the public; ability to
establish and maintain effective working relationships with other
municipal officials.
Any combination of education and experience equivalent to
graduation from a college or university of recognized standing
with major work in the social sciences or related field, with at
least two years experience in the enforcement field and/or in the
field of supervision.
7/7/87
1
A SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE
SEPTEMBER 1, 1985 - AUGUST 31, 1988
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
AND
CALIFORNIA TEAMSTERS PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL
AND MEDICAL EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 911
ADMINISTRATIVE..EMPLOYEES BARGAINING.UNIT
Effective July 16, 1987, Exhibit A, the schematic list of class
titles and base monthly salary schedule, of the Memorandum of
Understanding, Administrative Employees Bargaining Unit, is
revised to reflect the change in the title of the class
specification of General Services Field Coordinator to General
Services Coordinator and to reflect the following base salary
range for the classification of General Services Coordinator:
A B C D E
2112 2218 2329 2445 2567
Additionally, an Article 27.1 shall be estabilshed to read:
ARTICLE 27.1
GROSSING GUARD COORDINATOR_SPECIAL DUTY PAY
Effective July 16, 1987, the City agrees that the General
Services Coordinator shall receive a 10% Premium Pay above base
salary for duties associated with coordination of the City's
School Crossing Guard program. Said Premium pay shall not be
included in any merit pay entitlement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused their duly
authorized representative to execute this Supplemental Memorandum
of Understanding this
day of , 1987.
Gregory T. Meyer, City Manager
City of Hermosa Beach
Michael Flaherty, Chief Union
Steward, California Teamsters Public,
Professional & Medical Employees
Union, Local 911
July 6, 1987
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting
the Hermosa Beach City Council of July 14, 1987
APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES BARGAINING
UNIT MOU REVISING THE SALARY RANGE AND APPROVAL OF THE REVISED
CLASS SPECIFICATION FOR GENERAL SERVICES FIELD SUPERVISOR
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Authorize the City Manager to execute the attached sup-
plemental to the Supervisory Employees Bargaining Unit MOU revis-
ing the base salary range for the classification of General Ser-
vices Field Supervisor, and
2. Approve the attached revised Class Specification for
General Services Field Supervisor.
Background:
During the closed session of June 23, 1987, the City Council in-
structed staff to negotiate with representatives of the Teamster
Union, Local 911,.for the purpose of revising (1) the Class
Specification for General Services Field Supervisor and (2) the
salary range for that classification.
The rationale for these adjustments was to increase the salary
differential between the G.S. Field Supervisors and and their
subordinates. The existing base salary structure differential is
at 5% (or $4.32/day).
The instruction to revise the Class Specification was to allow
duties associated with recent operational changes and additional
responsibilities assigned to the General Services Department to
be incorporated into the G.S. Field Supervisor classification.
Analysis:
The attached supplemental to the Supervisory Employees Bargaining
Unit MOU establishes that, effective July 16, 1987, the base sal-
ary range for the classification of G.S. Field Supervisor will be
increased 10%, which will establish a 15% differential between
the Fld. Supervisor and G.S. Officer. Equivalent differentials
within the City are 19% for Crewleader/Maintenance II and Senior
Equipment Mechanic/Mechanic.
11
�.s
The Class Specification has been revised to include responsibili-
ty for supervision of the Crossing Guards and office clerical
staff in the absence of the G.S. Coordinator.
Respectfully subm..-d
h41
Robert A. Blackwood
Personnel Administrator
Noted for fiscal impact:
Viki Copeland
Finance Administrator
Concur:
0141
Gr gory Tl Meyer
Ci y Manager
Teamster, Local 911, has
agreed to the above:
Uni Represe tative
.10
'.i
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
GENERAL SERVICES FIELD SUPERVISOR
Definition
Under direction of the Field Coordinator, supervision of
immediate subordinates who perform functions as General Services
Officers, Parking Enforcement Officers, and Parking Permit Booth
Operators. In the absence of the Field Coordinator, may also act
as supervisor to the Crossing Guards and field office clerical
personnel. Does other related work as required.
Typical Duties
Supervise the activities of the overall General Service field
operations. Compilation, preparation and submission of all daily
work and operating reports, summaries and other forms as
required. Authorizes requested leaves, overtime, etc.
Supervises maintenance of vehicles and equipment used by
officers. Insures compliance with all existing procedures and
all orders of his superiors. Is responsible for the overall
efficiency, discipline, training, conduct and activities of the
uniformed personnel on his shift. Required to assist the Field
Coordinator in his/her assigned duties. Must perform all duties
incorporated in the General Services Officer's job description,
when necessary.
Employment Standards
Knowledge of pertinent local and state laws pertaining to
parking, animal control and personnel regulations. Ability to
collect and analyze data and to prepare oral and written reports;
ability to assign and supervise the work of others; ability to
deal tactfully with the public; ability to establish and maintain
effective working relationships with co-workers, department heads
and other municipal officials.
Any combination of education and experience equivalent to an AA
Degree, with at least two years experience in the enforcement
field and/or in the field of supervision.
Work may require odd hours, changing shifts and other adjustments
to meet department needs. Valid California driver's license
required. One year probation.
7/7/87
A SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE
SEPTEMBER 1, 1985 - AUGUST 31, 1988
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
AND
CALIFORNIA TEAMSTERS PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL
AND MEDICAL EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 911
SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES BARGAINING UNIT
Effective July 16, 1987, Exhibit A, the schematic list of class
titles and base monthly salary schedule, of the Memorandum of
Understanding, Supervisory Employees Bargaining Unit, is revised
to reflect the following base salary range for the classification
of General Services Field Supervisor:
A B C D E
1793 1883 1977 2076 2180
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused their duly
authorized representative to execute this Supplemental Memorandum
of Understanding this
day of . , 1987.
Gregory T. Meyer, City Manager
City of Hermosa Beach
Michael Flaherty, Chief Union
Steward, California Teamsters Public,
Professional & Medical Employees
Union, Local 911
Honorable Mayor and Members of the
Hermosa Beach City Council July 1, 1987
City Council Meeting of
FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME - IF YOU ARE PREGNANT
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that staff be directed to prepare an Ordinance
amending the municipal code to require on -sale liquor
establishments to prominently post signs that warn patrons that
drinking beer, wine and other alcoholic beverages during
pregnancy can cause birth defects.
BACKGROUND
Councilmember Williams brought to our attention the Los Angeles
City warning signs re Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (copy attached).
ANALYSIS
This is an issue that has received considerable debate among
various cities and by the State Legislature. At this point in
time such a requirement has not been enacted as State law.
In addition to the staff recommendation, other options available
to the City Council are:
1. Table the matter
2. Refer back to staff for further analysis
Gre:ory T. eyer
Ci y Manag-r
attachment
cc Planning Commission
Planning Director Schubach
Public Safety Director Wisniewski
1
.1,0 IL. • , •
7
FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME - IF YOU ARE PREGNANT: ij'a
RING
E 111 WIN
AL t HOLI
URING
C NCU
• 0,
R
N
T
EF
T
LOS ANGELES MUNICIPAL CODE 46.80
y3I5-c&
Mayor and Members
of the City Council
July 6, 1987
City Council Meeting
July 14, 1987
ORDINANCE NO. 87-886 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 21-23 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, BY
CHANGING THE TITLE FROM "DRINKING ON STREET OR PLAYGROUND" TO
"CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ON STREET, PLAYGROUND, OR IN A
PLACE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC" AND BY ADDING PROVISIONS REGULATING THE
CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL IN PUBLIC PLACES OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND A
PROVISION REQUIRING THE POSTING OF PREMISES LICENSED FOR RETAIL
OFF -SALE OF PACKAGED ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.
Submitted for waiver of further reading and
No. 87-886 relating to the above subject.
adoption is Ordinance
was
Mayor Cioffi
At the regular meeting of June 23, 1987, this ordinance
introduced by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Concur:
DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams,
None
None
None
rV T1 Meyer, City Manager
Kat leen Midstokke, City Clerk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. 87-886
AN ORDINANCE OF.THE CI.T.Y.COUNCIL.OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 21-23 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE, BY CHANGING THE TITLE FROM "DRINKING ON STREET OR
PLAYGROUND" TO "CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ON STREET,
PLAYGROUND, OR IN A PLACE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC" AND BY ADDING
PROVISIONS REGULATING THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL IN PUBLIC
PLACES OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND A PROVISION REQUIRING THE
POSTING OF PREMISES LICENSED FOR RETAIL OFF -SALE OF PACKAGED
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.
The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does ordain as
follows:
SECTION 1. That Section 21-23 of the Municipal Code, Titled
"Drinking on Street or Playground" is amended to read
"Consumption of Alcoholic Beverage on Street, Playground, or in a
Place open to the Public" and the Section shall read as follows:
A. No person shall drink any malt, spirituous or vinous
liquor containing more than one-half of one percent of alcohol by
volume, upon any street, sidewalk or parkway, park playground, or
in any public place, or'in any place open to the patronage of the
public; which isnot licensed for the consumption of such liquor.
B. No person who has in his or her possession any bottle,
can or other receptacle containing any alcoholic beverage which
has been opened, or a seal broken, or the contents of which have
been partially removed, shall enter, be, or remain on the posted
parking lot immediately adjacent to, any retail package off -sale
alcoholic beverage establishment licensed pursuant to Division 9
(commencing with Section 23000) of the Business and Professions
Code of the State of California, or on any public sidewalk
immediately adjacent to the licensed and posted premises. Any
person violating any provision of this Subsection shall.: be guilty
of an infraction.
C. All licensees of retail package off -sale alcoholic
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
beverages licensed pursuant to Division 9 (commencing with
Section 23000) of the .Business and Professions Code of the State
of California shall install and maintain signs not less than
seventeen (17) inches by twenty two (22) inches in size with
lettering not less than one (1) inch in height on the licensed
premises, clearly visible to the patrons of the establishment and
to persons in or on any parking lot or public sidewalk
immediately adjacent to the licensed premises, which notify all
such persons that the provisions of Subsections A and B of this
Section are applicable. Any licensee violating any provision of
this Subsection shall be guilty of an infraction.
D. As used in Subsections B and C of this Section, "posted
premises" means those premises which are licensed under any
retail package off -sale alcoholic beverage license and the
parking lot immediately' adjacent to the licensed premises on
which clearly visible notices have been placed pursuant to the
provisions of Subsection C of this Section.
E. The provisions of Subsections B and C of this Section
shall not apply to a private residential parking lot which is
immediately adjacent to the posted premises.
F. No person shall have in his or her possession, with
intent to consume any part of the contents thereof, any bottle,
can or other receptacle containing any alcoholic beverage which
has been opened, or a seal broken, or the contents which have
been partially removed, upon any street, sidewalk or parkway,
park playground, or in any public place, or in any place open to
the patronage of the public, which is not licensed for the
consumption of such alcoholic beverage. Any person violating any
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
provision of this' subsection shall be guilty of an infraction.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14th day of .Ju1x 1987.
PRESIDENT of the City Council and
MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach
ATTEST:
- 3
CITY CLERK
CITY ATTORNEY
SR
lpg)SK
Mayor and Members
of the City Council
July 6, 1987
City Council Meeting
July 14, 1987
ORDINANCE NO. 87-887 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 85-821; AS AMENDED,
IDENTIFYING THE APPROVAL PROCESS OF COMMERCIAL ENCROACHMENT
PERMIT APPLICATIONS, ESTABLISHING A POLICY WHEREBY THE LESSEE OF
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY MAY OBTAIN A COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR DINING
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT, AND MODIFIES THE FINDINGS FOR GRANTING
ENCROACHMENT PERMITS.
Submitted for waiver of further reading and adoption is Ordinance
No. 87-887 relating to the above subject.
At the regular meeting of June 23, 1987, this ordinance was
introduced by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams
Mayor Cioffi
None
None
lecantc,“\
\z-4.4
Concur:
Gre
171/41=
Meyer, ety Manager
Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk
211
•
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. 87- 887
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA AMENDING
ORDINANCE.NO..85-821; AS AMENDED, IDENTIFYING THE APPROVAL
PROCESS OF COMMERCIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS,
ESTABLISHING A POLICY WHEREBY THE LESSEE OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
MAY OBTAIN A COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR DINING ENCROACHMENT PERMIT, AND
MODIFIES THE FINDINGS FOR GRANTING ENCROACHMENT PERMITS.
WHEREAS, it is recommended that wording in Ordinance 85-821
be amended in an effort to clearly identify the Commercial
Encroachment Permit Application process, and
WHEREAS, City Council is.desirous of permitting the lessee
of commercial property to secure a Commercial Outdoor Dining
Encroachment Permit, and
WHEREAS, there is no language to establish a policy whereby
the lessee of commercial property may secure a Commercial Outdoor
Dining Encroachment Permit, and
WHEREAS, City Council is desirous of deleting findings 1
through 4 of Section 29.37, necessary in granting approval of an
encroachment permit application.
NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of Hermosa
Beach, California does here by ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. "Section 29.36. Commercial Encroachments."
shall be amended to read as follows:
"Approvals of all commercial encroachments shall be done in
conjunction with the Conditional Use Permit process, shall be
reviewed by the Staff Environmental Review Committee and the
rules and guidelines are set forth herein."
SECTION 2. Findings (1) through (4) of Section 29.37 shall
be deleted.
SECTION 3. "Section 29.37. Findings necessary to grant an
encroachment." shall be amended to read as follows:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"The. Director of Public Works, in granting approval of an
encroachment permit application shall make a finding that the
plans and application meey the guidelines and conditions of
approval as set forth in Section 29.38, and the granting of such
encroachment will not adversely affect the General Plan of the
City. Approval of encroachments which deviate from these
established criteria can only be granted with City Council
approval in an appeal process."
SECTION 4. The first paragraph of "Section 29.39.
Commercial Outdoor Dining." shall read as follows:
"The lessee of commercial property may make an application
for a Commercial Outdoor Dining Encroachment Permit. The lessee
shall become the permittee of the encroachment."
SECTION 5. "Section 29.40. Mandatory conditions imposed
upon all encroachments." shall be amended to read as follows:
"(c) Residentiai.and.Commercial Encroachment Permits are
issued to the legal owners of real property. Commercial Outdoor
Dining Encroachment Permits are issued to the owner and/or lessee
of commercial property, as the permittee. The encroachment
permit is revokable by the City upon the surrender of posession
of the property by the owner or lease by lessee unless the new
owner or lessee applies for and receives an encroachment permit
within ninety (90) days."
SECTION'6. The following shall be added to "Section 29.40.
Mandatory conditions imposed upon all.encroachments.":
"Commercial Outdoor Dining Encroachments"
"Upon the surrender of possession of lease by permittee,
this encroachment permit shall not succeed to the new permittee
except upon Conditional Use Permit review by the CITY and
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
reissuance to the new permittee upon said new permittee's
application. In.the.event that the new permittee does not apply
for a Commercial Outdoor Dining Encroachment Permit for the
continued use of the herein described land as conditioned by this
permit, the original permittee shall restore the land within
fifteen days of surrender of possession of lease."
SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance amending
Ordinance 85-821 shall become effective and be in full force and
operation from and after thirty days after its final passage and
adoption.
SECTION 8. PUBLICATION. The City Clerk shall cause this
ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper
of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of
Hermosa Beach.
SECTION 9. CERTIFICATION. The City Clerk shall certify to
the passage and adoption 'of this ordinance; shall enter the same
in the book of original ordinances of said City; shall make a
minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the
proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and
adopted.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 14th day of July , 1987.
PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED A TO 0'M:
ITY ATTORNEY
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
July 9, 1987
City Council Meeting
July 14, 1987
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ASSESSOR TO INCLUDE DELINQUENT
REFUSE BILLS AS A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT TO BE COLLECTED AT THE SAME
TIME AND IN THE SAME MANNER AS COUNTY TAXES.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached
resolution authorizing delinquent refuse bills to be collected
via a special assessment.
ANALYSIS
The attached resolution is provided pursuant to the council ac-
tion taken following a public hearing held on this matter on June
23, 1987. The resolution contains all delinquent refuse bills
which remain unpaid following the public hearing.
Concur:
Grt'Ani ever
LI
Ci y Manager
Respectfully submitted,
William Grove, Director
Department of Building & Safety
1
2
3
4
5
6
lP
slJ
sql,
'RESOLUTION NO. 87-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE COUNTY ASSESSOR TO
INCLUDE DELINQUENT REFUSE BILLS AS A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
TO BE COLLECTED AT THE SAME TIME AND IN THE SAME MANNER
AS COUNTY TAXES.
WHEREAS, Section 38790.1 of the California Government
Code authorizes cities to collect delinquent refuse bills via a
special assessment to be collected with county taxes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 860-840
hich provides for collection of delinquent refuse bills in
accordance with California Government Code Section 38790.1; and
WHEREAS, the owners of property where refuse bills were
delinquent were properly noticed of a public hearing held before
the City Council on June 23, 1987 at which time they had an
opportunity to dispute said delinquent bills; and
WHEREAS, In accordance with Ordinance No. 86-840 ten
says have passed since the public hearing during which time
roperty owners had additional time to pay delinquent refuse
•ills.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I•
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THV CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Each delinquent refuse bill shall be
ncreased by ten dollars ($10.00) to compensate for the
dministrative costs incurred by collecting delinquent refuse
ills via a special assessment.
Section 2. The list of properties and the amount to be
ollected, attached as Exhibit "A", shall be forwarded to the
ounty assessor for posting on the tax bill as a special
ssessment.
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th DAY OF JULY
1987
President of the City Council and Mayor of
the City of Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
sr
•
"EXHIBIT A"
PARCEL # AMOUNT
4183022010 -- $181.90
4185006018 -- 66.70
4188008008 -- 84.25
4186029020 -- 28.90
4181029012 -- 95.95
4188003029 -- 28.90
4188025005 -- 28.90
4187014048 -- 66.90
4187030017 -- 48.21
4187011019 -- 85.60
4185020007 -- 28.90
4188009021 -- 95.95
4186020014 -- 45.10
4184011015 -- 28.90
4187028008 -- 28.90
4188028045 -- 28.90
4184007024 -- 75.57
4185023008 -- 85.60
4183009018 -- 48.70
4185010019 -- 24.63
4185014039 -- 155.80
4188027021 -- 84.25
4186023003 -- 84.25
4183022018 -- 37.51
4188031013 -- 66.70
4184011027 -- 28.90
4186013001 -- 28.90
4188026006 -- 63.25
4182020013 -- 28.90
4182028016 -- 24.25
4185008007 -- 95.95
4187008039 -- 66.90
4188006005 -- 66.70
4181009011 -- 233.70
4181009008 -- 152.65
4188008018 -- 45.10
4188022034 -- 28.90
4181023005 -- 47.80
4186016007 -- 85.60
4160024016 -- 84.25
4188014044 -- 66.90
4181007003 -- 84.06
4187017014 -- 84.25
4188005012 -- 66.70
4188010049 -- 48.00
4181035010 -- 28.90
4182010004 -- 47.80
4188021019 -- 78.40
4183015016 -- 78.40
4161028012 -- 84.25
4183009015 -- 181.90
4188030005 -- 28.90
4181024024 -- 47.80
TOTAL $3,643.88
June 30, 1987
HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of Regular Meeting of
the HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL July 14, 1987
REQUEST FOR AVAILABLE FUNDS - AID TO CITIES
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached
resolution for the purpose of procurring $16,000 from the County
Aid to Cities program.
Background
On September 28, 1982, the County Board of Supervisors adopted a
policy establishing fees for apportionment of County monies to be
paid annually to cities in the form of Aid to Cities (ATC).
Analysis
ATC monies are funds legally due to the City. The County is the
official holder and bookkeeper of the funds. To get the funds
from the County to the City we must file a claim in the form of a
resolution.
ATC funds are extended to Cities under the authority of Section
1680-1684 of the California Streets and Highways Code and will be
used within the Traffic Safety Division and CIP 85-160 of Public
Works for maintenance of the Select Street System in Hermosa
Beach.
Distribution of Funds
Traffic Safety Division $11,000
CIP 85-160 (Roadway Improvements & Appurtenances) 5,000
TOTAL: $16,000
The dollar amount reflects the adopted budget and includes all
eligible recovery costs.
2f
4 .,
Alternatives
Other alternatives available to City Council:
1. Use City of Hermosa Beach's General Fund monies to fund all
Traffic Safety and CIP 85-160 during FY87-88.
CONC R:
41.4
1AA111V .L
-
Anthony Antich
Director of P
is Works
l5c- oL�.�9 l V l
Gre or T.IMeyer
City Manager
2
Respectfully submitted
LyStevens
Administrative Aide
NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT:
/���
Viki Copeland
Finance Administrator
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
g)f-d-
RESOLUTION NO. 87-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING AN ALLOCATION AND PAYMENT OF COUNTY AID TO
CITIES FUNDS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE SELECT STREET SYSTEM.
WHEREAS, the County of Los Angeles has appropriated certain
monies to the City of Hermosa Beach as County Aid to Cities; and'
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to expend the amount of
$16,000 of said funds accrued to the City for the maintenance of
streets on the Select Street System.
NOW, THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Hermosa
Beach, California does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. That the County of Los Angeles is hereby
requested to allocate $16,000 of the Aid to Cities funds
apportioned to the City for the maintenance of those streets on
the Select Street System.
SECTION 2. After the allocation is approved by the Board of
Supervisors and funds are available, the County is requested to
send such allocated amount to the City. The City will begin
using the funds for the street maintenance according to the terms
of the allocation.
SECTION. 3. The City Clerk is directed to forward a
certified copy of this resolution to the Los Angeles County Road
Commissioner for processing.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of
1987.
PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED
F
M:
1
TY ATTORNEY
July 1, 1987
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of
of the City Council July 14, 1987
APPROVAL OF REQUEST BY HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Recommendation
It is recommended by the Community. Resources Advisory Commission
that City Council approve the following request of the Historical
Society:
1. That the City co-sponsor the 80th Birthday celebration
party for the City of Hermosa Beach;
2. That the City Council authorize City Staff to assist in
this celebration;
3. That the City purchase a street banner to advertise the
the•• -event to the community;
4. That the City Council waive all rental fees for use of
the Community Center. .
Background
At the Council meeting of December 16, 1986 the City Council
extended to the Historical Society the opportunity to plan a
function to commemorate this anniversary year.
Analysis
The celebration is scheduled for Saturday, Sept. 26, 1987 with
the primary site being the Community Center.
Attached is the Historical Society's request to the Community
Resources Commission.
A representative from the Historical Society will be at the
Council meeting to answer questions and provide more information.
o.cur:
Gr:gor T. Meyer
Ciuy Manager
Respectfully submitted,
Alana.M. Mastrian, Director
Dept. of Community Resources
111
•
•
•
3Lrmnst 3Mnrrd
To:
710 Pier .Aiscnice
3irrmasir'!cttch. (11.! JIIZ54
6/24/07
aritku
7-4
R6 -e- 1
6A- .911'
+z)
i)
City of Hermosa Beach Community Resources Commission 0 1SS pC
From: Hermosa Beach Historical Society
Re: Cosponsership of Hermosa's 80th Birthday Celebration
with the H.B. Historical Society.
The Historical Society has responded to the city
council's direction and the organization of a city wide
Birthday celebration has begun!
The event will be Saturday, September 26, 1987. The
primary venue will be the Community Center. Other sites
will include Valley Park. and Clarke Field.
The Historical Society requests the city's assistance
as follows:
1 -Officially co-sponser the event.
2 -Supply support with personnel and facilities:
Community Center staff liason
Waive fees for facilities
Public safety support to block str
Personnel to facilitate use of CommCen er
for event.
3 -Mailing of an announcement to all house -olds in Hermosa
Beach.
e for parade,etc . .
f•
•
TO: ADVISORY COMMISSION
DATE: JUKE 22, 1987
RE: HISTORICAL SOCIETY REQUEST• FOR FROM: ALANA M. MASTR
SUPPORT OF CITY OF HERMOSA BEA"H
FOR CITY'S 80TH BIRTHDAY PARTY
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Recommendation
It is recommended the commission grant the request of the
Historical Society as follows:
1. That the City co-sponsor the 80th birthday party;
2. That the City authorize City staff to assist;
3. That all rental fees for use of the Community Center be
waived;
Further, the commissiori.forward.this item to City Council for
final approval at the Council meeting of July.11-4th.
Background
The City Council requested the Historical Society assume the lead
role in coordinating a celebration of the City's 80th Birthday.
Analysis •
Staff recommends that the City co-sponsor the event, waive rental
fees and authorize city staff to assist. In the area of
city-wide mailing, staff has some concerns. The approximate cost
for mailing of 10,000 pieces at a bulk rate would be
approximately $400 for printing plus $800 for mailing. Also, the
City does not have a bulk mail number, but the C.immunity Center
Foundation does. •
Perhaps it may be a better marketing strategy to:
1. A•sk the Easy Reader to run an ad for each of the .four
weeks prior to the party as their donation toward%t•he
celebration.
2. Ask the Daily Breeze to do a feature article three weeks
before the celebration;
3. Run an announcement on the crawl space M. L. Media;
4. Use City marquee for announcement.
Utilizing all of the above may generate more exposure than the
bulk mailing.
(0)
(d)
(e)
Re•uest by Counciiiiember Williams for discussion of
p acing eig imi a ion or•inance on •a o . up-
plemental information - draft submitted by Councilmember
Williams.
Proposed•Action: 195 put this matter oh a future agenda
for discussion re..putting this ordinance on the ballot.
Motion Williams - dies for lack .of a second
Action: To receive and file.
Motion Mayor DeBellis, second Cioffi. So ordered noting
a NO vote by Williams.
City of Hermosa Beach 80th Anniversary of date of incor-
poration January 14, 1907. Memorandum from City Clerk
Kathleen Midstokke dated December 8, 1986•.,
Action: To approve the staff recommendation extending.
to the newly created Historical'Society the opportunity
to plan a function to commemorate this anniversary year,
the Society to come back to Council with a recomrn•enda-
tion for an event to be held before the summer.
Motion Mayor DeBellis, second Cioffi. So ordered.
Minutes of Strand Safety Committee meeting held November
20, 1986 with oral report from Councilmember June,
Williams.
Action: To receiV,e and file. .
Motion Mayor DeBellis, second Cioffi. So ordered.
(f) School District consideration of change in election cal-
endar. Memorandum from City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke
dated December 11,;1986.
Action: To receive and file this report.
Motion Mayor DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered.
13. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL
(a)
Certification of Election Results from November 4, 1986.
Memorandum from City, Clerk Kathleen Midstokke dated De-
cember 10, 1986. •
Action: To adopt Resolution No. 86-5007 entitled•,"A
•RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE' CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECITING THE FACT OF THE CANVASS OF
THE BALLOTS FROM THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL.ELECTIONH.ELD IN
THE CITY ON NOVEMBER 4,1986, DECLARING THE RESULT AND
SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY. LAW."
Motion Rosenberger, second Mayor DeBellis. So ordered.
(b) Community Center Parking Structure and Trolley -f
DeBellis - asked the City Manager for an update. .
r
- 14 -
Minutes 12-16-86
{
•
December 8, 1986
City Council Meeting
December 16, 1986
Mayor and Members
of the City Council
Hermosa Beach 80—Year Anniversary
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council extend the opportunity to
the newly created Historical Society to plan a function to
commemorate this anniversary year. They would come back to
Council with a recommendation, with the event to be held before
the summer.
Analysis:
•
The City will be 80 years old on January 14, 1987. On our 75th
Anniversary, the Chamber of Commerce had a formal black tie
dinner on the Biltmore site. Due to the date, there is no longer
adequate time to plan an event near the actual date, however, a
resolution could be prepared for the 'City Council meeting of
January 13, 1987 commemorating this date, and perhaps presented
to the Historical Society: '
The Chamber of Commerce has indicated support and help. The
School District and other service organizations could be
contacted to participate in the planning. Since the City Council
has indicated a desire to support the newly formed Society, I
feel this would be a positive action.
Background:
I have been discussing this Anniversary celebration with various
people in the community. My personal preference would be for a
function the entire community could attend, family oriented, at a
low cost .or no cost. A potluck picnic at Valley Park on January
31, 1987 was suggested with a small program, but after realizing
all the work involved in,coordinating the planning, I feel •I
cannot make this total commitment. Staff will be very busy at
that time in preparing for the Community Center Foundation Annual
Gala two weeks later.
This would be a good event to publicize the new Historical
Society. Since this event is of historical nature, it is a good
opportunity for the new Society to introduce themselves to the
Community. ,
1
121
I have.. talked to Rick Learned and he supports the idea of the
Society planning a function and will present it to the committee.
Many long-time residents who would be able to give invaluable
assistance are on the organizational committee.
Any suggestions you may have will be conveyed appropriately.
Noted:
(
gory TI Meyer/ City Manager
July 1, 1987
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of
of the City Council July 14, 1987
APPROVAL OF CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND
GROUP DYNAMICS FOR WOMEN'S PRO VOLLEYBALL TOURNAMENT
Recommendation
It is recommended by the staff and the Community Resources
Advisory Commission that City Council approve the attached
agreement between Group Dynamics, Inc. and the City of Hermosa
Beach for the Women's Pro Volleyball Tournament to be held in
Hermosa Beach July 25 and 26, 1987.
Background
Group Dynamics, Inc. has approached the City with this request
which appears to be a Women's Pro Volleyball Tournament tour --the
same as the Men's Tournament the City has been approving for the
last several years.
Analysis
This is a first time event to be held here in Hermosa Beach. The
conditions of the contract are exactly the same as the agreement
between the City and Group Dynamics for the Men's Pro Volleyball
tournament with the exception of the bathing beauty contest and
the sponsor. There will be no bathing beauty contest (or the
male version of). And the sponsor will not be an alcohol or
tobacco corporation.
In view of the fact that Group Dynamics, Inc. has conducted an
orderly event with regard to the Men's Pro Volleyball Tournament,
staff recommends the approval of this agreement. We have just
concluded the Men's Pro Volleyball Tournament and there were no
major problems. The problem of traffic conjestion was due to the
fact there were approximately 20,000 to 25,000 people attending
the tournament over the weekend.
On June 9, 1987 City Council expressed concern over the permit
fee charged for the Men's Tournament. At that time, staff
reported the Community Resources Advisory Commission will be
reviewing the Special Event Permit Policy and fees at their July
meeting. The commission's recommendation to Council regarding
the special event fee will be before City Council in August. The
Women's Tournament is scheduled for July 25 and 26th and would
therefore not be subject to any changes that may be recommended
by the commission.
C:?Qc'31'tj2Ao�
Concur:
Gre;ory T. Meyer
Cit Manager
Respectfully submitted,
Alana M. Mastrian, Director
Dept. of Community Resources
Not��e))dfor Fiscal Impact:
Viki Copeland
Finance Administrator
AGREEMENT
This agreement is entered into on July 14, 1987, at Hermosa
Beach, California by and between GROUP DYNAMICS) INC.z a Sporting
Events Promoter (GDI), and the THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH (CITY),
with regard to the following facts:
A) GDI is a promotion company which promotes sporting
events.
B) City administers beach programs in Hermosa Beach,
California and annually stages beach volleyball
tournaments,
C) GDI and CITY are desirous of entering into a relationship
with regard to the 1987 California Open Women's
Professional Beach Volleyball Tournament.
THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows:
1) GDI will pay to CITY a fee of $3,000 for use of the beach.
volleyball courts located at the Hermosa Beach Pier, July
25 and 26, 1987. Said fee to be paid prior to
tournament.
2) GDI agrees to provide beach clean up around tournament
site both Saturday and Sunday.
3) GDI will pay the cost for Police Officers to supervise
the event both days; the Pulbic Safety Director or his
designate will mandate the number of officers and hours
worked. In the event of an emergency or other situation
arising from a volleyball related activity which
necessitates additional security, GDI is responsible for
the additional costs incurred. Said costs to be paid no
later than two weeks after tournament.
GDI will supply a security force of their own, minimum of
eight at any one time to supervise the crowd vnd alert
11 present to t P " Container" Ordinance of the
City. All such personnel sha TI—be wearing indentifiable
t -shirts.
5) GDI will provide the CITY a Certificate of Insurance
providing liability insurance naming the CITY and County
of Los Angeles their officers, employees and agents as
additional insured with a minimum coverage of $1,000,000
combined single limit coverage.
GDI agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the CITY and County
of Los Angeles harmless from and against any and all
liability and expense, including defense costs and legal
fees, caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of
GDI, its agents, officers, and employees, including, but not
limited to, personal injury, bodily injury, death and
property damage.
6) GDI will guarantee a minimum announced purse of $10,000.
In no event is the CITY liable for the prize money.
7) All P.O.P. materials (i.e. event posters) produced will
mention the event and all posters, counter cards and tour
schedules will mention the ocmpetition site.
8) Adequate funds will be committed by GDI and its sponsors
to advertise the event. The CITY shall assume no
advertising obligation.
9) GDI shall be permitted to sell official Pro Volleyball
concession items at no more than one concession booth at
the tournament site.
10) No food or beverage concessions are permitted.
11) CITY shall be notified no later than July 15, 1987, of
any co-sponsors supporting the Tournament. Each
co-sponsor shall pay to CITY a fee of $100. Said fees to
be paid by GDI prior to the tournament.
Co-sponsors shall be permitted to display their products
at no more than one concession booth each. CITY and GDI
will mutually agree to display areas.
12) GDI shall provide portable audio system capable of
reaching primary spectator area.
13) CITY shall permit GDI to place two event banners
announcing the tournament over major thoroughfares, at
mutually agreed upon locations, for the period of two
weeks preceeding the event. Installation to be done by
City Public Works Department and cost to be borne by GDI.
14) CITY shall request the Los Angeles County Department of
Beaches to level the beach and sift and sand before 7:00
a.m. on July 23rd. Costs shall be borne by GDI.
15) GDI will provide up to four portable toilets at a
location agreed to by both contracting parties and the L.
A. County Lifeguards.
16) GDI shall provide a leaderboard, volleyballs, nets,
referees and all equipment necessary to stage the event.
17) All sponsor signs, props, product facsimiles, etc.,
deemed necessary by GDI to identify the event, shall be
approved as to location and content by CITY. CITY will
not unnecessarily deny said approval and will not curtail
certain constitutional rights of GDI.
18) That Group Dynamics be required to post signs throughout
the impacted area as well as at major ingress roads to
the CITY indicating 1) where there is free parking and 2)
that the CITY will strictly enforce all traffic and
parking regulations.
19) GDI shall have access to the Tournament site 36 hours
prior to start of event.
20) CITY to contact L. A. County Lifeguards to provide power
source for GDI.
21) CITY shall block the end of Pier Avenue for GDI staff
parking and television access. GDI will be responsible
for monitoring use of this area. Beach Drive to Strand.
PPROVED, AS T
ORM:
CI
ATTORNEY Da e
GROUP DYNAMICS, INC.
7
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
Municipal Corporation,
By
Mayor Date
Relatio s/Promotion Date
f•
r.
TO: CITY COUNCIL DATE: JULY 14, 1987
RE: WOMEN'S PRO VOLLEYBALL TOURNAMENT FROM: ALANA M. MASTRIA
AGENDA ITEM Ii DIRECTOR
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY
RESOURCES
**********************************************x******************
*****************************************************************
The major sponsor for this tournament is:
LE COQ SPORTIF
(a clothing manufacturer)
The co-sponsors are:
Honda Scooters
Paramount Pictures: "Back to the Beach"
Igloo Coolers
/4:er /,:ica,effeey-,..-----37?---cppc-N,___
Honorable Mayor and Members of
the Hermosa Beach City Council
July 6, 1987
City Council Meeting
of July 14, 1987
NOTICE TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE INTENT TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE
HOURS OF OPERATION FOR CITY DEPARTMENTS
Recommended Action: 4.
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this
report.
Background:
Included in the Memorandum of Understanding for the General,
Supervisory, and Administrative Employees Bargaining Units, rep-
resented by the Teamster Union, Local 911, is an article which
sets forth that there shall be Bi -annual meetings conducted
between representatives of the union and city management. The
stated purpose for these meeting is to keep "open lines of
communication".
At the recently scheduled bi-annual meeting with union represen-
tatives, the Union requested that consideration be given to al-
ternative schedules of operation for city departments.
In response to that request, it was agreed that further inves-
tigation into the feasibility of alternative scheduleing would be
conducted. Specifically, the impact of alternative schedules for
four specific city functions are to be addressed. These functions
are: City Hall office operations; City Yard field operations;
General Services Field operations; and, Public Safety operations
(non -sworn positions).
As part of the investigation, information will be gathered from
individual departments within the city, other communities with
alternative schedules, and a "city service user" survey.
Attached is the proposed survey form to be utilized in gathering
public input.
Analysis:
Following an analysis of all the data gathered, a specific recom-
mendation will be formulated for presentation to the City
Council.
Respectfully submitt d,
Robert A. Blackwood
Personnel Administrator
Concur:
—r1A4Nei_
Gr gory T. Meyer
Ci'y Manager
s�-
GiraavAl
1j
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
SURVEY
To best accomodate the needs of City service users, the City of
Hermosa Beach is exploring possible alternatives to the current hours
of operation for City Hall. Please assist us by responding to the
following:
1. WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE CITY HALL OPEN BEFORE 8:00 a.m.?
[ 1 Yes
[1 No [] No Preference
IF YES, AT WHAT HOUR?
[1 6:00 a.m.
[] 6:30 a.m.
[1 7:00 a.m.
[] 7:30 a.m.
2. WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE CITY HALL OPEN AFTER 5:00 p.m.?
[1 Yes [1 No
[] No Preference
IF YES, UNTIL WHAT HOUR? [1 5:30 p.m.
[1 6:00 p.m.
[] 6:30 p.m.
[1 7:00 p.m.
3. CURRENTLY CITY HALL IS CLOSED BETWEEN 12:00 AND 1:00 P.M.
WOULD YOU PREFER TO HAVE CITY HALL OPEN DURING THIS TIME?
[1 Yes [] No
[1 No Preference
4. CURRENTLY CITY HALL IS OPEN MONDAY THRU FRIDAY (8:00 - 5:00).
IF CITY HALL WERE OPEN FOR EXTENDED HOURS (BEFORE 8:00 AND/OR
AFTER 5:00), BUT BE CLOSED AN ADDITIONAL DAY DURING THE WEEK,
WHAT ONE DAY WOULD YOU LEAST LIKELY NEED TO CONDUCT BUSINESS
AT CITY HALL?
(circle one) Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri
OR
(check one) [1 prefer current schedule OR [] no preference
5. IF CITY HALL WERE OPEN ONLY 4 DAYS EACH WEEK, WHICH 4 DAYS OF
THE WEEK WOULD BEST SERVE YOUR NEEDS?
(circle four) Sun Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat
OR
(check one) [1 prefer current schedule OR [1 No preference
6. PLEASE ESTIMATE THE NUMBER OF TIMES YOU CONDUCT BUSINESS AT
CITY HALL:
Monthly:
Yearly:
7. TYPICAL HOUR WHICH YOU CONDUCT BUSINESS AT CITY HALL:
8. TYPICAL DAY THAT YOU CONDUCT BUSINESS AT CITY HALL:
9. TYPE OF BUSINESS TRANSACTED AT CITY HALL:
10. ARE YOU A HERMOSA RESIDENT?
[1 Yes [] No
11. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS:
NAME (Optional)
Honorable Mayor and Members of the
Hermosa Beach City Council July 8, 1987
City Council Meeting of
July 14, 1987
RECOMMENDATION TO CONCEPTUALLY SUPPORT AB 1393
RECOMMENDATION: StAi
It is recommended that the City Council:
Take a legislative position of co pL suvuort of AB 1393
ich would protect law enforcement officers from the disclosure
their home addresses by state or local registrars of voters;
2. Authorize our lobbyist to apprise legislators of the City's
position; 1C �ck S�Qa�nSor��
Request the City Clerk to notify our Assembly and Senate
epresen a iv an eague of Cities of the position taken.
BACKGROUND
As the law now stands the home address of any registered voter
can be obtained by anyone who requests the information from any
registrar of voters.
According to the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs
(COPS), there have been incidents where police officers have been
disturbed at their homes caused by defendents tracking them down
via the voter registration rolls.
The Hermosa Beach Police Officers Association has asked the City
to endorse AB 1393.
ANALYSIS
AB 1393, introduced by Assemblyman Richard Floyd (copy attached)
seeks to take protective measures to preclude the release of the
home address of law enforcement addresses by state or local
registrars of voters.
Balanced against the public's right to information, staff
recommends that the City Council conceptually support AB 1393.
The League of Cities is not taking a position.
1
ip
In addition to the staff recommendation, other options available
to the City Council are:
1. Take no position
2. Oppose AB 1393
3. Refer back to staff for further information
4. Refer to the Council Legislative Committee
Gr gor T/ Meyer
Ci y Manager
attachment
cc City Clerk Midstokke
Hermosa Beach Police Officers Association
2
1
BILL NUMBER: AB 1393
Compliments of
Hon. Robert G. Beverly
Senator, 29th District
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN SENATE JULY 1, 1987
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Floyd
MARCH 4, 1987
An act to add Seet4en +5434v6 to the EleetHens Section 6254.4 to the
Government Code, relating to elections information, and declaring the
urgency thereof, to take effect immediately .
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
PAGE 1
AB 1393, as amended, Floyd. Palling piaees Public records: home
address .
Existing law makes confidential the home address of any Member
of the Legislature, judge, court commissioner, or district attorney,
or any peace officer or his or her spouse or children, when it
appears in any record of the Department of Motor Vehicles and apt2n
the request of the public official. Existing law also extends this
confidentiality to include the Attorney General, the State Public
Defender, any public defender, and attorneys employed:.the
Department of Justice, office of the State Public Defender, or a
county office of the district attorney or public defender.
This bill, in addition, would make confidential the home address
of specified public officials when it appears in any record of any
state or local voter registration affidavit and upon request of the
public official, except as specified.
The bill would take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Bxisting law des net regtr4re the state to mare €ae€i4ties
available €er trse as palling plaees:
This'bill twill regtr€re that state -awned build€rrgs- parking letsr
and ether €ae€l€t€es be made available €ree e€ eharge to the
eednty elerle €er dee as polling plaees:
Vote: maj-er€ty 2/3 . Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes
no . State -mandated local program: no.
PAGE 2
BILL NUMBER: AB 1393
BILL TEXT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SEeTiee 17 Seetlen 156476 is added to the Bleet ees eede- to
read:-
1594767
ead-1564-6- State -awned ba ld4age- parki.ag 1.etsr and ether ae11i64es
shall be made available free et eharge to the eeanty eler} far
nse as palling plaees-
SECTION 1. Section 6254.4 is added to the Government Code, to
read:
6254.4. The home address of any judge or court commissioner, or
a peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section
830.1) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, or the spouse or
children of a peace officer whether living with the peace officer
or not, appearing in any record of any state or local voter
registration affidavit is confidential if the person requests
confidentiality of that information, and shall not be disclosed to
any person, except to any other governmental agency or to any
person engaged in the business of examining public records and
files for the primary purpose of reporting those portions of the
public records which impart constructive notice under the laws
relating to land and land titles, and except as prohibited LI
Section 1808.4 of the Vehicle Code.
For purposes of this section, 'home address' means only street
address and does not include an individual's city or post office
address. Any address shall be open to public inspection to the
extent otherwise provided by law, if the address is completely
obliterated or otherwise removed from the record. The agency shall
tell any person who requests a confidential home address what
agency the individual whose address was requested is employed by or
the court at which the judge or court commissioner presides.
SEC. 2. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the
immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within
the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall
go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to protect court officials and peace officers in
criminal proceedings from threats against their personal safety as
soon as possible, it is necessary for this act to take effect
immediately.
LAST PAGE, PRESS ENTER TO RETURN TO LIST
Vacft rnunb
PA airria.
PLEASE POST
J
U
L
Y
1
1
9
8
7
F
0
R
I
M
M
E
D
I
A
T
E
R.
E
L
E
A
S
E
BILL INTRODUCED TO PROTECT POLICE
COPS LEADS THE FIGHT
On behalf of the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs,
Assemblyman Richard Floyd has introduced AB 1393 which will take
the necessary steps to protect law enforcement officers from the
disclosure of their home addresses by state or local registrars
of voters.
Presently, the home address of ANY registered voter can be obtained
by ANYONE who requests the information from ANY registrar of voters.
NO reason is needed and NO identification is required.
In a recent incident, numerous officers of the Burbank and Los
Angeles police departments were served subpoenas at their places
of residence. The officers were involved in the same case and the
defendant was able to obtain their home addresses from the registrar
of voters. The municipal court judge who signed the search warrant
which resulted in the arrests was also served a,t home.
In another incident, a Los Angeles superior court judge answered a
knock at his front door and, when he opened the door, was confronted
by a defendant at whose trial he had presided. The defendant said
nothing, merely smiled, turned and walked away.
In order to offer some emergency protection for peace officers and
judges who have been victimized by these and other incidents, and to
protect peace officers and judges from any future incidents, the
California Organization of Police and Sheriffs went to work. An
exhaustive investigation was conducted, with the cooperation and
assistance of the Burbank and Los Angeles police departments, and
the conclusion resulted in the introduction of AB 1393 by our good
friend Assemblyman Richard Floyd..
CALIFORNIA ORGANIZATION OF POLICE A!JD SHERIFFS
BILL NUMBER: AB 1393
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN SENATE JULY 1, 1987
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Floyd
MARCH 4, 1987
An act to add Seetien 159476 be Abe Bleetiens Section 6254.4 to the
Government Code, relating to eleetiens information, and declaring the
urgency thereof, to take effect immediately .
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1393, as amended, Floyd. Polling plaees Public records: home
address .
Existing law makes confidential the home address of any Member
of the Legislature, judge, court commissioner, or district attorney,
or any peace officer or his or her spouse or children, when it
pears in any record of the Department of Motor Vehicles and upon
the request of the public official. Existing law also extends this
confidentiality to include the Attorney General, the State Public
DDefender, any public defender, and attorneys employed by the
Department of Justice, office of the State Public Defender, or a
count office of the district attorney or public defender.
This bill, in addition, would make confidential the homes address
of specifiedpublic officials when it spears in any record of any
state o_r local voter registration affidavit and upon request of the
public official, except as specified.
PAGE 1
The bill would take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law does net require the state to make aeilities
available far use as piling plaees-
This bill would require that state-owned buildingsT parking lebsT
and ether aeilities be made available riee of eharge be the
eeanby elerk Ear use as polling plaees-
Vote: mai-eriby 2/3 . Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes
no . State -mandated local program: no.
SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION
ip
PAGE 2
BILL NUMBER: AB 1393
BILL TEXT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE ON CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SFETi9N Section 159476 is added to the Bleetiens Gede; to
read:
15941-6.- State-owned buildings; parking lets; and ether aeilities
shall be made available free e€ eharge to the eeanty eek &er
use as polling plaees-
SECTION 1. Section 6254.4 is added to the Government Code, to
read: -__--- ------ --- - ----- 6254.4. The home address of any judge or court commissioner, or
a peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section
830.1) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, or the spouse or
children of a peace officer whether living with the peace officer
or not, appearing in any record of any state or local voter
registration affidavit is confidential if the person requests
confidentiality o` that information, and shall not be disclosed to
any person, except to any other governmental agency or to any
person engaged in the business of examining public records and
files for the primarz purpose of reporting those portions of the
public records which impart constructive notice under the laws
relating to land and land titles, and except as prohibited by
Section 1808.4 of the Vehicle Code.
For purposes of this section, 'home address' means only street
address and does not include an individual's ci y or post office
address. Anti address shall he open to public infection to the
extent otherwise 2_rovided by law, if the address is completely
obliterated or otherwise removed from the record. The agencj shall
tell any person who requests a confidential home address what
agency the individual whose address was requested is employed by or
the court at which the judge or court commissioner presides.
SEC. 2. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the
immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within
the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall
go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to protect court officials and peace officers in
criminal proceedings from threats against their personal safety as
soon as aossible, it is necessary for this act to take effect
immediately.
LAST PAGE, PRESS ENTER TO RETURN TO LIST
July. 1, 1987
Honorable Mayor and Members City.Council Meeting
of the City Council July 14, 1987
COMMUNITY CENTER GYMNASIUM
USE POLICY AND RENTAL POLICY
Recommendation
It has been recommended by the Community Resources Advisory
Commission that City Council approve the following:
of
The City retain the present use policy and rental policy,
for the Community Center gym; `
That the City not pursue an "open gym" policy; OL
6
ct the Public Works D 6pa'rtment to do
rade the outdoor basketball
unding for the project being
allocated from the Prospective Expenditure account; further
that this project be initiated as quickly as possible and
that the commission oversee this project.
That t e ity Council make a 'request of the Hermosa Beach
chool Di trict that they (the District) upgrade their
outdoo b sketball courts at Valley Park.
iC-pal, CLQ, Q �. Q4-4,
Background
This issue of Community Center gymnasium use was brought to the
City Council on April 28th by a concerned citizen, Mr. Ken
Ashman.
Attachment A was staff's response to the City Council regarding
this issue. Subsequently, at the May 12, 1987 Council meeting,
staff was directed to..."have the commission investigate
establishing open gym time at the gymnasium on a regular basis,
Monday through Friday, with preference being given to Hermosa
Beach residents."
Analys.i.s
While understanding the concerns brought before the commission,
the staff and commission feel the present system for: -.use of the
gymnasium is working very well and feels an open gym program is
not necessary at this time. The cost to staff that program,
print: and issue permits, and overall administration of the
program is, in the opinion of the commission not a cost efficient
program. The hours the gym is available for that kind of use
varies from day to day. As reservations for this present fiscal
year are already confirmed, the schedule for an open gym would
vary considerably. As an. example, not all Friday evenings are
available; not all Tuesday afternoons are available.
1
it
A comparison of surrounding comunities would not be fair as those
communities do not have.similar facilities and they are not
mandated to generate revenue as wellas provide a service.
The commission and staff strongly feel the system is working and
should not be altered at this time.
All other requests from single individuals for use of gym time
have been put in.contact with the basketball teams already using
the gym and have joined those groups.
The staff report to the commission is attached (Attachment B) and
will.,,provide the City Council with considerable detail regarding
this issue.
The commission strongly feels the issue of sub -standard outdoor
basketball courts at Clark Field needs to be addressed rather
than charging a policy that is working very well.
In that vein, the commission recommends the City upgrade the
outdoor courts at Clark Field in order to make them usable to the
community .at large.
Things to be examined would be regulation size courts, lighting,
new backboards, new surface and a regular maintenance schedule.
The commission would like to oversee this project via the Public
Works Department and make a final recommendation to the City
Council as to the scope of work to be done and the cost of the
project.
It is also the recommendation of the commission that the City
formally request the School District to do the same thing with
their outdoor basketball courts at Valley Park.
Concur:
Greg
City
ry . .� eyer
Manager
2
Respectfully submit ed
Alana M-. Mastrian, Director
Dept. of -Community Resources
(!tentmuz„,6,-47Z.An 0A.ea,t4t407";Lla.r.ria-c...44,73 csiez-P6-y
y 1, 1987 4 ciaAttachment A
onorable Mayor and Members
of -the City Council
City Council Meeting of
May 12, 1987
COMMUNITY CENTER GYMNASIUM USE
Recommendation
It is recommended by staff that City Council receive and file
this report.
Background
At the Council meeting of April 28, 1987 staff was asked by
Council to return with a report as to the rental policy for the
Community Center gym.
Analysis
In 1978, when the Community Center was purchased, it was the
intent of the then City Council that the facility become as close.
to self sustaining as possible. The department has always
operated under that mandate. A rental policy has been in effect
since the Community Center first opened its doors May 1, 1979.
All rooms at the Community Center are available to the public on
a rental fee basis. The gymnasium is one of the most constantly
used rooms in the Center. Presently, the rental fee is $25 per
hour for non-profit groups/$30 per hour for commercial groups
plus damage,. staff and clean up fees:
On an operating schedule of 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily, the
gym is rented on an average of eight hours per day. The time
period during the day it is not booked is generally
mid-afternoon.
The use of the gymnasium generates approximately $25,000 in
revenue to the City per year. For three months during the year
the gym is reserved for the Youth Basketball League and all
rental fees are waived. If fees were charged, the yearly gym
revenue amount would be increased by approximately $6,000.
The entire Community Center this year (87/88) will generate
approximately $110,000 in revenue to•the City.
And lastly, the attached letter was sent to the gentleman who
addressed Council at the last meeting. We do not give out names
and phone numbers unless both parties-. agree. Therefore we will
await his response and proceed accordingly.
Concur:
Gr
Ci
gor T. M yer
y Manager
Respectfully submitted,
Alana M. Mastrian, Director
Dept. of Community Resources
May 1, 1987
Mr. Ken Ashman
48 Hermosa Ave. ##1
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Dear Mr. Ashman:
City of Hermosa¶13eacL.
• Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885
I have been asked to respond to your suggestion that the City
provide "open gym" time in the Community Center gymnasium at a
nominal cost for the public. The "open gym" idea is one I am
familiar with as I have operated those in previous job
experiences.
The Community Center gym is one of the most used recreation
facilities the City operates. The intention of the City Council
when purchasing the Community Center was to have it "pay its own
way" as much as possible. ..Therefore a .rental policy was adopted.
We feel the rental fees are reasonable, albeit only when a group
is paying. For a single individual wanting to play a little
basketball, the fees are not.
In an effort Mr. Ashman to assist individuals such as yourself,
my department has put people like you in contact with the groups
that already are renting the gym to play basketball. We have
several different groups who, it appears, are always looking for
individuals to join them.
If we can assist you in this respect, please do not hesitate to
contact the Department at 876-6984 ext. 280.
Sincerely,
Alana M. Mastrian, Director
Dept. of Community Resources
City Hall (213) 376-6984 • Community Center 379.3312 / 376-6984 • Fire Department 376.2479 / 376-6984 • Police Department 376-7981 / 376.698
Attachment B
GYMNASIUM RENTAL POLICY
Recommendation
It is recommended by staff the Commission continue with the
rental policy now in effect for the use of the gymnasium and
direct staff to return in August with a proposal for an open gym
policy.
Background
This Issue of Community Center gymnasium use was brought to the
City Council on April 28th by a concerned citizen, Mr. Ken
Ashman.
Attachment A was staff's response to, the City Council regarding
this issue. Subsequently, at the May 12, 1987 Council meeting,
staff was directed to..."have the commission investigate
establishing open gym time at the gymnasium on a regular basis,
Monday through Friday, with preference being given to Hermosa
Beach residents."
Analysis
Staff contacted Mr. Ashman and upon. reiterating Council's action
on this matter, Mr. Ashman indicated that was not the issue with
him. What he actually wanted was to have City Council re-examine
the entire rental policy for the use of the gym because he feels
it is not equitable for everyone. He suggested we have "open
gym" on a fulltime basis and further suggested we may generate
more revenue to the City in that manner.
Staff has invited Mr. Ashman to the commission meeting to express
his thoughts to you directly. Please see attached letter dated
June 2, 1987.
Staff's concerns regarding Mr. Ashman's suggestion are as
follows:
▪ Since the opening of the Community Center in 1979, it was
mandated that this Center operate on as much a "break even"
basis as possible.
▪ The operation of the Center including utility bills and
Public Works support is approximately $200,000:.per year.
The Community Center will generate $110,000 in revenue this
fiscal year. This figure is a result of leasing office
space and rentals of meeting rooms, gymnasium, dance studio
and theatre. Thus, we are recovering 55% of our costs.
And each year, the revenue figure increases as does our
demand -for usage.
. The present rental policy is working well, with etablished
users booking their'activities on a yearly basis, because
they want to be guaranteed gym time. We presently have
groups and organ'izati-ons booked through next fiscal year
ending June 30, 1988.
. Due to the great demand for the gym we have organizaitons
on a waiting list.
While staff understands Mr. Ashman's statements and concerns,
staff strongly disagrees that the entire rental policy needs to
be changed. There is no way to estimate the number of people who
would "take advantage" �f an "open door, open gym" policy at a
minimum yearly permit fee. Therefore, it would be difficult to
estimate the potential revenue. It may be feasible to institute
the open gym concept one day/evening per week i.e. Friday evening
6:00-10:00 p.m. And contrary to the thought that the "dead time"
is not a good time for open gym, staff suggests it is good for
that individual player versus the "group" player.
Almost always, anyone who wants to use the gym for basketball can
join a group that presently has a reservation. An idea of cost to
the individual user is as follows:
Total Cost: (1 1/2 hrs at $25 hr.)
Number of participants: .
Total cost per participant:
$37.50
10
3.75
As a very subjective statement, the. $3.75 per person is an
affordable sum of money.
Naturally, the numbers change as do number of hours reserved and
number of participants playing.
Individuals can play free "pick-up" basketball at Clark Field and
at Valley Park, albeit both locations are in need of repair.
Perhaps that is where the focus should be. It is the
responsibility of.the Public Works Department to properly
maintain the Clark Field courts and the Valley Park courts belong
to the School District.
Mr. Ashman suggests our present policy is not equitable and fair.
Staff suggests no policy is ever totally equitable and fair.
Again, to reiterate, the present system is working well. Revenue
generated this year from gym rental will be $25,000. Staff
•suggests a policy that -has worked well for eight years, and that
the majority of users is comfortable with, should remain as is.
Staff agrees with Mr. Ashman in that it would be a responsibility
to put together and maintain a group of basketball players.
Inherent in his suggestion, though, is that that responsibility
become the City's. Staff also agrees with Mr. Ashman, that
perhaps priority should be given to Hermsoa residents, but within
our present policy.
2
n
r
4.
May 1, 1987 pi• /,','`'?1-vi���
of? Honorable Mayor and,Members City Council Meeting of?
of the City Council. May 12, 1987
COMMUNITY CENTER GYMNASIUM USE
Recommendation
It is recommended by staff that City Council receive and file
this report.
P -a
Background
At the Council meeting of April 28, 1987 staff was asked by
Council to return with a report as to the rental policy for.the-
Community Center gym.
Analysis
In 1978, when the Community. Center was purchased, it was the
intent of the then City Council that the facility become as close
to self sustaining as possible. The department has always
operated under that mandate. A rental policy has been in effect
since the Community Center first opened its doors May 1, 1979.
All rooms at the Community Center are available to the public on -
a rental fee basis. The gymnasium is one of the most constantly
used rooms in the Center. Presently, the rental fee is $25 per
hour for non-profit groups/$30 per hour for commercial groups
plus damage, staff and clean up fees'.
On an operating schedule of 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily, the
gym is rented on an average of eight hours per day. The time
period during the day it is not booked is generally
mid-afternoon.
The use of the gymnasium generates approximately $25,000 in
revenue to the City per year. For three months during the year
the gym is reserved for the Youth Basketball League and all
rental fees are waived. If fees were charged, the yearly gym
revenue amount would be increased by approximately $6,000.
The entire CommunityCenter this
year (87/88) will generate
approximately $110,000 in revenue to the City.
And lastly, the attached letter was sent to the gentleman who
addressed Council at the last meeting. We do not give out names
and phone numbers unless both parties agree. Therefore we will
await his response -and proceed accordingly.
Concur:
Gr:gor T. M yer
Ci y Manager
ResPectfully submitted,
Alana M. Mastrian, Director
Dept. of Community Resources
,. F'
May 1, 1987
Cityof1ermosa!13eadi_'
Mr. Ken Ashman
4+8 Hermosa Ave. #1
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Dear Mr. Ashman:
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885
I have been asked to respond to your suggestion that the City
provide "open gym" time in the Community Center gymnasium at a
nominal cost for the public. The "open gym" idea is one I am
familiar with as I have operated those in previous job
experiences.
The Community Center gym is one of the most used recreation
facilities the City operates. The intention of the City Council
when purchasing the Community Center was to have it "pay its own
way" as much.as possible.. Therefore•a rental policy was adopted.
We feel the rental fees are reasonable, albeit only when a group
is paying. For a single individual wanting to play a little
basketball, the fees are not.
In an effort Mr. Ashman to assist individuals such as yourself,
my department has put people like you in contact with the groups
that already are renting the gym to play basketball: We have
several different groups who, it appears, are always looking for
individuals to join them.
If we can assist you in this respect, please do not hesitate to
contact the Department at 376-6984 ext. 280.
Sincerely,
Alana M. Mastrian, Director
Dept. of Community Resources
City Hall (213) 376-6984 • Community Center 379-3312 f 376.6984 • Fire Department 376-2479 /376-6984 • Police Department 376-7981 1376.69
'Ken Ashman
48 Hermosa Avenue.#1
Hermosa. Beach, California 90254
June 2, 1987
M$ Alana M. Mastrian, Director
Department of Community Resources
Civic Center
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885
Dear Ms Mastrian:
This letter is the on -e you requested I write on behalf of my
suggestions regarding the basketball programs and
facilities, or lack thereof, in Hermosa Beach. It is
intended for all those who may be in a decision-making
position regarding these suggestions.
Recently, I spoke before the Hermosa Beach City Council to
address my concerns as a resident,, and as a recreational
basketball player.
I indicated to the council that there.is no equitably
adequate playing facilities in the city; one must go to
another community in order to play basketball.
I said this because the facilities at Clark Stadium, for
example, are very poor. The playing surface is a stoney
type of concrete.- It is dangerous; any slight fall will
immediately result in injury. The surface, very quickly,
wears down basketballs --even those made specifically•for
outdoor use. Basketball shoes, too, are much -to -quickly
worn down. The surface inhibits proper cutting and movement
by the players.
Beyond all this, this poor surface is even more poorly
maintained! There is glass, garbage,, leaves, and other
hazardous debris constantly on the courts. This,
inciden'tiy, is in sharj contract to the meticulously
maintained baseball fields, complete with chalked base -lines
and portable outfield fence, which are adjacent to th.e
basketball courts. .
The basketball rims are, for the most part, bent. Most rims
have no nets. Those that do have "chain" nets. This
further destroys balls, while slowing the pace of the game.
Players fingers, too, have become cut because of the
intermingling with these chains.
Although basketball playing is permissible until 10 pm, only
one court has lights, and very inadequate ones, at that.
My suggestions, then, pertaining to the outdoor court are as
follows:
1. Clean the courts of glass and other debris on a
regular, perhaps weekly or bi-weekly, basis.
2. Keep all rims strictly maintained with proper
string nets.
'l3. Fix and install lights on all courts for proper,
and safe, illumination during permissable nighttime playing..
4. Resurface courts for a flat, and thus, safer and
more pleasurable, playing area.
I mentioned, too, to the council, the inequitable situation
with regard to the community center. Presently, as you well
know, the.gym is rented to. anyone who pays the required fee.
This fee is cost -prohibitive to any individual basketball
player. Therefore, he must be involved with a group.
This entails one of two.processes:. The first is to get a
group of friends together to commit to a specified amount of
money, and a specified playing date,.for the purposes of
playing basketball. -The second is to join an already
established group.
The problem with the first approach is that it turns a
simple basketball player into a manager and an organizer.
One must be a recruiter, if one even knows enough players;
a treasurer, to collect their money; a collection agency,
for those who are deliquent;. a secretary, to call those
involved; and a counselor, to resolve disputes. All this to
play a little basketball!
Beyond that, one, in either of the two processes, is very
limited in his playing time. Perhaps only one or two hours
per week are allotted. This is barely enought time to warm
up and play one game. Any more time than that is, again,
cost -prohibitive.
Additionally, one must play at precisely the same time every
week, with no variation. For someone who works on a'
variable work -schedule, like myself, it is impossible to
commit to specific time every week. Moreover, if one does
commit, he is liable for his portion of the rent, regardless
of whether he can show up or not!
Lastly, and ironically, the courts are rented to those that
have the money, regardless of their. residence. Therefore,
much of the Community Center's use is by those who do not
live, or pay taxes, in ,Hermosa Beach. Our community, then,
is providing services to outsiders, while denying its own
citizens decent playing facilities. We, in turn, must go to
Manhattan Beach or El Segundo to find decent courts. How
does this make sense?!
I grew up in a community, outside of California, that also
had a community center. Residents were offered ID cards for
a cost of about $5 or $10 per year. Most residents
purchased these, which generated substantial revenue.
The center provided an equitable schedule of its. functions.
A gymnastics class, or an aerobics class, or a volleyball
class would be offered during various time slots. Time, •
too, was permitted for open gymnastics and open volleyball,
as well as others. And, most importantly to me, open
basketball was offered, in an indoor, wooden -floored court,
with proper rims and nets, during fair and reasonable times.
Non-residents were allowed to play, too. But, an increased
fee was charged at the time of admittance. No yearly passes
were available to non-residents. In this way, the center
was serving our community primarily, while still benefitting
from revenues from outside the community.
Our community center goes under the name, Hermosa Beach
Community Center. Does that name indicate that it is simply
a gym, available for rent, that just happens to be located
in Hermosa Beach? Or does the name indicate that it is
Hermosa Beach's community center, there to serve the
residents of Hermosa Beach (at least primarily)?
If the answer is that it serves the residents of Hermosa
Beach, then I would like to see a study done on the
suggestions I have made (or ones similiar, with similiar
results) indicating the expected costs/benefits of the
proposals, in comparison with the current system. Perhaps
investigating the practices of other local communities, such
as El Segundo, would be helpful.
Lastly, I have been told that the board is considering
having open basketball when the gym is dormant. This is not
a solution! The gym is dormant fora reason; no one is
available to use it at those ,inconvenient times! Certainly,
if the board wishes to say, at least technically, that the
center offers open gym, why not offer it at 3 am? The
results would be the same.
My point is, is that we need playing time during the peak
hours --in the evenings and on weekends. We need outdoor
courts that are safe and well-maintained. We need to stop
ignoring the needs of an unorganized, but an assuredily
discontented, facet of our community; namely the
recreational basketball, players.of.Hermosa Beach.
On Itheir bahalf, and on mine, I thank you.
.e f Ak, g 9
f711 i'ia &' Jo ado, Mave 400
ar/4 Qtdo geca, VS1 90277
June 26, 1987
Dear City Council;
After listening to the June 23, 1987 city council
meeting, and !a?or Cioffi's statement, Public Hearing, #5,
I am requesting that the council reconsider changing
the setback requirement regarding garages, 17' and 20'
respectively, to the original requirements. I personally
think the city isTasking oo muc . A11 other changes to
residential uses are a definite benefit to the city.
If the Founding Fathers were to lay out the residential
subdivisions today, with todays quality of life as it
exists in Hermosa Beach, I feel all the streets, alleys
and lots would not be what they are.
Finally, I feel we are loosing potential new
quality citizens to Hermosa Beach because of this
recent change.
Clty CI'
City of Leach
Sincerely
L�. oh =erardo
2510 The Strand, H.B.
()\\A&
sc
LW -Es
JYtt-ti
It--k,.\)‘ekNrAdati
SCJ
( coi,t4A s) L-(1 Ea--- 614-0 rale
rLi
fid' %
J& SitcuCP —
Hermosa Surf Condominiums
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
1707 Pacific Coast Highway
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
July 5, 1987
Honorable Mayor and
City Council Members
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254
Honorable Mayor and City Council:
We are forwarding this correspondence to your attention for distribution
to the appropriate Agency or Department within the City that would be
responsible for a serious matter of concern regarding adverse conditions
which have developed due to new construction next to our Hermosa Surf
Condominium project located at 1707 Pacific Coast Highway.
The new development to the immediate south of our project has done
such extensive grading so as to cause serious settling and earth
movement cracking on our south and southeasterly cement widewalks
and possibly problems with walls, balconies and foundations problems.
We sincerely believe that the appropriate City officials should order
an inspection of the conditions listed herein and take or order
whatever action that maybe necessary to resolve these conditions
before a liability results.
Thank you for your consideration and efforts in our behalf.
Sincerely,
Debra Perry
Agent for the
Board of Directors
Hermosa Surf Condominiums
DP:be
Bali Management, Inc.
25550 Hawthorne Boulevard, #106
Torrance, CA 90505
(213) 373-9496
s
4b
July 6, 1907
The Honorable Mayor- and City Council:
Dear Mayor and Ci ty Council;
Re: The miller Lite Volley Ball an
d Bikini contest.
Please Reevaluate the benefifs verses the problems and
hardships this event causes. As a resident and business
person for the past 16 years I have done everything in my
power to discourage people form coming to the beach to drink
in public. I have worked with many city and business groups
in order to help set city policies to discourage this
problem.
When we have a city ordinance prohibiting the consumption of
alcoholic beverages on the beach and strand. why do we have
an event on that very beach that is sponsored by an alcoholic
beverage company???????
We have many other events on the beach such as the 10 k runs,
the Chambers Fiesta Del. Arts and none of these other events
have the number of people engaged in public drinking to the
magnitude the Miller Lite Beer event does.
It would be easy just to say that this event is a police
problem and beet up the patrols etc; however the real
question 15 as Citizens of Hermosa Beach do we want to
encourage public drinking at the beach by allowing an event
on our beach to be sponsored by_an alcoholic beverage company
that encourages drinking on that very beach.
In conclusion 1 would like to say that ]: have nothing against
Miller Lite Freer Company , in fact they were very courteous
during the this past event. It is only the welfare o+ our
city that. I am concerned bout.
Respectfully,
DARRELL.. LEE GREENWALD.
IAA()
4c
d. d7, ,CNatte/o, 9
CJ �.9en/ulx� ��
1711 l a Cn/ Yxad(a,, i u:o 40(
✓lrali•nair, grad.Ti.S3' 9(77
July 13, 1987
Dear City Council of Hermosa Beach;
It is with my deepest regrets that I must give my
resignation from the Flanning Commission at this time. I
wish the situation at hand would have arisen prior to my
appointment. The timing of events here could not be worse.
I have an opportunity for a position at my Almamater
that one does not know the exact year or time frame
until the position is vacated by the present holder. Even
though it does not become available until September 1,
1987, I feel that due to the upcoming E.I.R. with
A.T.&S.F. Railroads that I be replaced before the start
of this long and
Having been
and intending to
involved item and process.
a long time resident of Hermosa Beach
live in the community for a long time
to come, I will again apply for this or another position
and hope to serve the city in that capacity.
I also want to thank the council at this time
for their confidence in appointing me for this position.
And finally, it has been a very difficult decision
for me to resign after just being selected.
Recommendation:
A. John Berardo
regret.
O r%
A. John Berardo
0 SO)$/-Af S4)1141
T /s412 aQ(4
14
To accept the resignation of
from the Planning Commission wit
c -/D aLaei
4d
01110"'*.;
, Y
•
10,
June ,26, 1987
Honorable Mayor and Members• City Council Meeting of
of the City Council July 14, 1987
SIX MONTH PROGRESS REVIEW PERTAINING TO THE ASSIGNMENT
OF CABLE T.V. FRANCHISE RIGHTS TO M. L. MEDIA PARTNERS
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council take the following
action:
1. Permit Staff and ML Media to make presentations re.
six month progress review.
2. Hold. Public Hearing.
3. Continue matter to the regularly scheduled meeting of
August 11, 1987, in order to provide staff with enough
time to evaluate and analyze the following required
materials from ML Media:
a. A detailed plan, including milestones, for
completion of•the Cable T.V. system throughout
the entire city.
b. A detailed maintenance•plan showing what parts
of the Cable T.V. system are in need of main-
tenance and/or replacement and what steps will
be taken by the Transferee to maintain and
and upgrade the system.
c. A plan for improved public access to the
Cable T.V. system.
4. Consider contracting with a consultant to determine if
ML Media's cable system meets current industry standards
and Federal Communications Commission technical per-
formance standards, and adequately, serves the subscribers
in the city, and to pursue an agreement with the City of
Manhattan to jointly share the cost of hiring said
consultant.
5. Consider at the meeting of August llth., convening a
Cable T.V. Board to review the provisions of the
ordinance and franchise agreement and the.grantee's
performance thereunder; Said Board to report back to the
City Council prior to the third option to renew the
franchise (October 1988).
Background
At your regularly scheduled meeting of December 16, 1986, the
City Council adopted Resolution No.. 86-5003, granting consent and
1
•
approval for the assignment and transfer of the Cable. Television
Franchise .from .Storer -Cable TV, Inc. to ML Media Partners, L.P.
As a condition of said transactions and conveyances, ML Media
agreed to assume, perform, and discharge the obligations and
duties of Grantee pursuant to the franchise granted under
Ordinance No. 78-596. In addition, a contract was executed
between the City of Hermosa Beach; SCIPSCO, Inc.: and ML Media
Partners, L.P. According to the contract, the Transferee agreed
to bring to the City, within six months;
a. A detailed plan, including milestones, for completion of
the Cable T.V. system throughout the entire City.
b. A detailed maintenance plan showing what parts of the
Cable T.V. system are in need of maintenance aftd/or
replacement and what steps will be taken by the
Transferee to maintain and upgrade the system.
c. A plan for the improved public access to the Cable T.V.
system.
Something that was not anticipated is the increased number of
complaints, pertaining to poor reception and service, that have
been received by this department, over the past six months. Due
to this fact, the six month review was scheduled for public
hearing. We formally requested ML Media to send a notice of this
hearing to all Hermosa Beach subscribers in the billing that was
to be mailed in June. ML Media did not comply with our request,
in lieu, we received 'correspondence from them, dated June 25th.,
which indicated that they would provide notices on access channel
10 of the purpose, time and place of this hearing and would also
prepare "ads" to appear on more frequently watched channels Cable
News Network and ESPN. In response to our request for their
complaint log, we received a computerized print-out of service
calls. Our ordinance requires the grantee to maintain a record
of individual complaints and a separate record of substantial
system failures, which shall be open to the City for inspection.
We have included, in your background material, copies of our
correspondence to ML Media over the past six months, as well as
copies of complaint letters we have received.
By way of background information, over the past six months, the
City of Manhattan.Beach has also been at odds with .ML Media.
They feel that ML was in violation of their franchise ordinance
when they raised the subscriber rates without giving thirty days
notice. When they were unsuccessful in dealing with ML on this
subject, they attempted to exercise the arbitration clause in
their franchise to mediate the situation. ML was unwilling to
comply with the city's request and notified Manhattan Beach that
they would instead file a complaint with the Federal Court. -
Subsequently Manhattan Beach, as advocate for their residents,
filed suit against ML.
2
•
It is my understanding, as of this writing, that ML has recently
notified. the. City of Manhattan.Beach that they are now willing to
negotiate, in order to insure that the problem would not reoccur
in the future.
Analysis
According to Ordinance No. 78-596, the franchise was granted for
an initial term of five (5) years. The Grantee was further
granted an option to extend the franchise for two (2) additional
terms of five (5) years each, provided that at the time of
excercise of the option, the Grantee is not in default under the
Franchise Documents, and the Grantee's cable system meets
generally acceptable current industry standards and Federal
Communications Commission technical performance standards, and
adequately serves the subscribers in the City. The third five
(5) year option is due to be exercised in October of 1988.
Staff recommends that the City Council consider contracting with
a consultant to determine if ML Media's cable system meets
current industry standards and Federal Communications Commission
technical performance standards. Said work to be performed prior
to consideration of the third five (5) year option.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Section 7.5-16, sub -section A (2),
provides that " the council may appoint a cable TV board whose
composition, powers and responsibilities, pursuant to this
chapter, shall be determined by the council." We are required
under Section 7.5-10 to appoint a cable TV board, twelve months
before the expiration of the franchise.
Staff recommends that the City Council consider on August 11,
1988, appointing a Cable TV Board to review the provisions of the
ordinance and franchise and the grantee's performance thereunder;
the Board to submit a formal report before October, 1988.
J ' n Noon
General Services Director
Concur:
Gr or T ( Meye
Ci'y Manager
3
•
SECTI .I N I
AC G UN
•
Law Offices of James P. Lough
• JAMES P. LOUGH
Mr. Christopher J. Conley
Conley & Associates
784 Colonial Avenue
Pelham Manor, NY 10803
Dear Mr. Conley:
May 22, 1987
1605 WEST OLYMPIC BLVD.
SUITE 9018
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90015
(213) 381-6131
This letter is to inform you and ML Media Partners, L/P.
that a public hearing addressing the 'Six Month Review of Cable
Services' has been scheduled before the City Council of Hermosa
Beach for July 14, 1987. This review is provided for in the
contract between ML Media Partners, L.P. and the City of Hermosa
Beach. Acording to the contract:
1) Transferee agrees to bring to the City, within six
months;
A. A detailed plan, including milestones, for completion
of the Cable T.V. system throughout the entire City.
b. Transferee shall also present to the City a detailed
maintenance plan showing what parts of the Cable T.V. system
are in need of maintenance and/or replacement and what steps
will be taken by the Transferee to maintain and upgrade the
system.
c. As part of the submissions, the Transferee shall present
a plan for improved public access to the Cable T.V. system.
d. Transferee and. City shall use their best efforts to
improve public access in a way that will benefit the
citizens of Hermosa Beach.
The City has expressed its concerned in the past about
upgrading the current standards and the actual cabling due to
corrosion caused -by wet salt air. They have also expressed
their desire for additional public interest programing for local
issues. In addition, the City still has areas without cable
service. These issues will be addressed at the hearing.
The City hopes that thxough this review process, ML Media
Partners, L.P. and the City can work out any problems that may
have arisen whereupon the citizens of Hermosa Beach are
guaranteed quality cable television.
If you have any questions about this matter, .please feel
free to contact me.
Yours very t
AMES P. LOUGH, Cit Attorne
ITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
cc: Joan Noon, General Services Director
Gregory T. Meyer, City Manager
ML Media Partners, L.P.
P.O. Box 174
Pelham, New York 10803
As of December 31, 1986
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Ms. Kathleen Midstokke
Hermosa Beach City Hall
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
Re: Acceptance of Cable Television Franchise
To the City Clerk:
Reference is made to that certain Resolution dated
December 16, 1986, evidehcing action taken by the City
Council on that date by which approval and consent was given
for the transfer of a franchise to construct, operate and
maintain a cable television system within the City of
Hermosa Beach from Storer Cable TV, Inc. to ML California
Cable Corp and ultimately to ML Media Partners, L.P.
Reference is further made to ML California Cable
Corp.'s letter to you dated as of December 24, 1986,
accepting the franchise transfer and delivering the required
insurance certificate and performance bond;
This is to advise you that the second—stage
transaction pursuant `to which ML California Cable Corp.
caused its cable television franchise to be finally
transferred to ML Media Partners,. L.P. was consummated
December 31, 1986. This will confirm that ML Media
Partners, L.P. accepts the franchise transfer effective as
of December 31, 1986. Furthermore, this will confirm that
ML Media Partners, L.P. agrees to faithfully comply with all
the terms and conditions of the cable television franchise
transfer Resolution, and of its cable television franchise.
As of Decembel, 1986
Page 2
•
Enclosed in compliance with the subject cable
television franchise and the conditions of transfer are two
originally executed performance bond riders transferring
coverage to ML Media Partners, L.P. Please note that the
insurance certificate delivered with ML California Cable
Corp.'s December 24, 1986 letter provided that coverage was
assignable to ML Media Partners, L.P. Such insurance
coverage has indeed been assigned to ML Media Partners, L.P.
You are requested to arrange for the enclosed copy
of this letter and one of the two original.bond riders to be
signed on behalf of the City of Hermosa Beach and returned
to the undersigned in the enclosed postage paid envelope.
CJC:wpc
cc:
I. Martin Pompadur
Walter W. Hahsell
James P. Lough, Esq.
Very truly yours,
Christopher J. Co ey
Senior Vice President
Media Management Partners,
General Partner
The City of Hermosa Beach confirms receipt of each
of the enclosures specified in ML California Cable Corp.'s
letter of December 24, 1986 and ML Media Partners, L.P.'s
letter of December 31, 1986, and acknowledges the transfer
to and acceptance by ML Media Partners, L.P. of the
referenced cable television franchise.
Dated: January , 1987
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
BY. c2).43(..Aee-7. C�
I t s
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
RESOLUTION NO. 86-5003
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, GRANTING CONSENT AND APPROVAL FOR THE ASSIGNMENTS AND
TRANSFER OF THE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE FROM STORER CABLE TV,
INC. TO ML MEDIA PARTNERS, L.P.
WHEREAS, Storer Cable TV, Inc. ("Storer" or the "Grantee")
has been granted authorization to construct, operate, maintain,
and provide cable television services in the City of Hermosa
Beach by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Storer has requested the City's consent and approval
for a series of transactions in which such authorization (the
"franchise") would be transferred to ML Media Partners, L.P. or
its wholly-owned subsidiary ("ML Media"); and
WHEREAS, ML Media is qualified to become the grantee of the
franchise; and
WHEREAS, the interests of the citizens of the City of Hermosa
Beach are best served by the adoption of the Resolution set forth
herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, .CALIFORNIA:
SECTION 1. The City Council, of the City of Hermosa Beach,
hereby gives its consent and approval to transactions and
conveyances whereby control of the franchise now held by Storer
will be transferred to ML Media, it being expressly provided that
such transactions and conveyances may include, but are not
required to include, each of the following:
/1/
/1/
1
2
3
U
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• (a). The franchise will be assigned to SCI 30,
Inc., an affiliated corporation which is under the
same ultimate control which presently exists for
Grantee.
(b) The ownership of SCI 30, Inc. will be trans-
ferred to ML California Cable Corp., which is owned
by ML Media Partners, L.P.
(c) The franchise will be assigned from SCI 30,
Inc. to ML California Cable Corp.
(d) The franchise will be assigned from ML Calif-
ornia Cable Corp. to ML Media Partners, L.P.
SECTION 2. Such consent and approval shall be deemed
effective upon the date of receipt by the City Clerk, of an
executed original of the agreement attached to this resolution as
Exhibit "A" incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3. As a condition of said transactions and
conveyances, ML Media shall agree to assume, perform, and
discharge those obligations and duties of Grantee under the
franchise.
SECTION 4. From and after the date that ownership of the
cable system is transferred to ML Media, Storer shall for all
purposes be discharged and released from its obligations and
duties as a franchisee.
///
///
1
2
3
4
5
6•
7
8
G
10
11
12
13i
14
15
16
17
18 !
SECTION 5. This Resolution shall be in full force from and
after its passage and,.adoption•.
ATTEST:
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of December
, 1986.
o the City Council and Mayor of the
mosa Beach, California
04:6645-40.14,tiTy CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
191
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
, CITY ATTORNEY
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
_ 12
13
14
15
16
17
1 8
a
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• •
AGREEMENT TO ASSIGN FRANCHISE RIGHTS
OF STORER CABLE TV, INC.
THIS AGREEMENT is made this 16th day of December, 1986,
at Hermosa Beach, California, by and between the City of ,Hermosa
Beach (City), a Municipal Corporation; SCIPSCO, Inc., (Trans-
feror); and ML Media Partners, L.P. (ML Media), a limited
partnership whose general partner, known as "Media Management
Partners," is a joint venture between RP Media Management, a New
York joint venture, the principals of which are Elton H. Rule
and I. Martin Pompadur, ML Media Management Inc., a Delaware
corporation and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Merrill
Lynch & Company, Inc. and ML California Cable Corporation, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of ML Media.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the City is authorized to grant one or more non-
exclusive franchises to construct and operate a cable TV system
within the jurisdiction of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has previously issued a nonexclusive
franchise to Transferor and that said franchise is currently in
full force and effect; and
WHEREAS, ML Media has requested a transfer of said franchise
to ML California Cable Corporation and then to ML Media Part-
ners, L.P. (Transferee), and is willing to take on all of the
rights and responsibilities of transfer regarding the cable TV
franchise of Hermosa Beach,' a nonexclusive cable TV franchise
within the boundaries of Hermosa Beach.
///
12/AGRMT2 -1-
•
1 NOW, THEREFORE, the City hereby transfers to ML California
2 Cable Corporation and approves the subsequent transfer to
3 ML Media Partners, L.P. the nonexclusive Hermosa Beach Cable TV
4 Franchise in accordance with the provisions of this agreement,
5 Hermosa each Ordinance No. 78-596,, and Chanter 7.5 of the
6 Hermosa Beach Municipal Code.
1. TRANSFER OF FRANCHISE. The City hereby transfers to
8 ML California Cable Corporation and approves the subsequent
9 transfer to ML Media Partners, L.P. (Transferee) the franchise
10 granted under Ordinance No. 78-596, which is attached hereto and
11 incorporated herein, from and after the effective date hereof,
12 to use the streets, sidewalks, and municipal rights-of-way to
13. construct, operate, and remove a cable TV system.
14 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this transfer
15 shall be the date that the City Clerk receives the signed
16 original of this agreement executed by each and every party.
17 3. DURATION OF FRANCHISE. The franchise transferred herein
18 shall run for the period of time set out in Ordinance
19 No. 78-596. Apart and after the franchise's expiration, all
20 obligations of the City to the Transferee shall cease.
21 Transferee's obligations to the City to construct and operate
22 the cable TV system shall also cease, except as herein provided
23 and as provided in the City ordinances.
24 4. EXCLUSIVITY. The transfer granted hereunder shall be
25 nonexclusive. The City shall have the right to grant to other
26 persons or entities rights similar or different than those
27 granted to _Transferee herein.
28 ///
12/AGRMT2 -2-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
11
12
13
14
15
10
17
18
19
20
21-
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FRANCHISE410 .
TERRITORY. The franchise in question shall
5.
cover the entire area•of the City of Hermosa Beach.
6. RIGHT OF CITY TO ISSUE FRANCHISE. The Transferee
acknowledges that the City has the right to issue and approve
the assignment of this franchise and agrees that it shall not
contest the City's power over the franchise in question at any
time.
7. FRANCHISE FEE. Since the Transferee will be using the
City's streets in constructing and operating the cable TV
system, which are.valuable public properties that were acquired
and maintained at great public expense and without which the
Transferee would be required to expend great sums in order to
acquire rights-of-way from other sources, and also since the
City will incur expenses in regulating the Transferee and in
administering the franchise assigned to Transferee, the
Transferee. shall pay the city a fee of five percent (5%)
pursuant to Ordinance No. 78-596.
8. SIX MONTH PROGRESS REVIEW. City and TransferQe bet
agree that it is difficult, at this time, for Transferee to
determine the exact needs of the system with regard to ccr.-.
pletion of the cable TV system and upgrading deterio:at•d
equipment. In addition, the parties agree that it is 3d:Int1-
geous to review the public access. requirements and needs -' =`e
citizens.of Hermosa Beach after Transferee has operated the
system for a period of time. Basad on these ccnc r:s, Trans-
feree agrees to bring to the city, within six months, a detailed
plan, including milestones, for completion of the cable tele-
vision system throughout the entire City of Hermosa Beach.
12 /AGRMT2
-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• •
Within this six month time frame, Transferee shall also present
to the City a detailed maintenance plan showing what parts of
the cable Tv system are in need of maintenance and/or replace-
ment and what steps will be taken by Transferee to maintain and
upgrade the system. As part of the submissions, the Transferee
shall present a plan for improved public access to the cable TV
system. Transferee and City shall use their best efforts to
improve public access in a way that will benefit the citizens of
Hermosa Beach.
9. TRANSFEREE ASSIGNMENT COSTS. Transferee shall reimburse
City for all the City's costs (including reasonable charges of
the City's Attorney) incurred during the assignment review
process. City shall present Transferee an itemized bill for
such costs within ninety (90) days of the effective date of the
assignment of the franchise, and -Transferee shall remit the
balance owed within.sixty (60) days from presentation of the
bill.
10. TRANSFER OF FRANCHISE. The franchise transferred
hereunder cannot be transferred, leased, assigned, or disposed
of including, but not limited to, either voluntary or involun-
tary sale, merger, consolidation; receivership, the addition,
and/or deletion of general partners, or other means without
prior consent of the City and then only by Such conditions as
the City may, in its sole discretion, determine. The City
approves*the pledge of the franchise to, Bank of America and
other banks pursuant to a credit agreement between those banks
and Transferee. The City, however, may not unreasonably
///
12/AGRMT2 -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
withhold its transfer or assignment pursuant to the Hermosa
Beach Municipal Code.
11. CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP. The Transferee shall properly
notify the City of any proposed change in, transfer of, or
acquisition by any party in control of or major change in owner-
ship of the Transferee. This requirement shall not be limited
to changes in ownership of majority equity owners of the Trans-
feree, but it includes any significant change in control of
ownership of Transferee. This shall include any addition or
deletion of general partners of the partnership of Transferee or
sale or transfer of any general partners by signatories to this
agreement. Every such change, transfer, or acquisition of
control shall subject the franchise to cancellation unless and
until the City has consented thereto. Acceptance of any fran-
chise fee, payments, reports, etc., on or after the date that
the City receives notification of the change of ownership or
control shall not constitute a waiver of the City's right to
cancel the franchise hereunder, since the City's regulatory
obligations and expenditures therefor are continuing.
12. OFFICE. The Transferee shall maintain an office within
the franchise territory which shall be open during all usual
business hours and have a publicly listed toll-free telephone
number or numbers to receive subscriber complaints. The Trans-
feree shall provide separate telephone numbers:•for complaints
after normal business hours and also must be capable of handling
complaints on a twenty-four (24) hour a day basis.
13. INSPECTION OF TRANSFEREE. The City or its authorized
employees and agents may, during reasonable business hours,
-12/AGRMT2 -5-
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
(
inspect the egpment, facilities, books
Transferee.
'Transferee's
include
any
and records of the
The inspection shall not be limited to the
operations within the franchise area, but it may
or
the franchise area.
all of the Transferee's
make copies
operations which affect
The City or its employees and agents may
of such documents as they may deem necessary.
TONY DE
CITY 0
ATTEST:
LLIS, MAYOR OF THE
HERMOSA BEACH
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO
12/AGRMT2
-6-
ML MEDIA
FRANCHIS
1
PARTNF iS , L.P. ("MLMP')
SFEREE
SCIPSCO,
INC.
RP MEDIA MANAGEMENT ("RP")
General Partner of MLMP
General Partner
ELTON H. RULE, President
THE ELTON H. RULE CO.,
General Partner of RP
•/ �.._.
:77,2
/' :• ..��• L ./‘
I. MARTIN POMPADUR President
IMP MEDIA MANAGEMENT, General
Partner of RP
2SIXZEDMOMANAGEMBINKNOCINZ.
. MEDIA.. MANAGEMENT • A:RTNERS
("MMP"), General partner
of MLMP
it
M.L.• CALIFORNIA CAPLE
By I. Martin Pompaaur,
President
CORP.
ML Media Cab TV
June 25, 1987
Joan Noon
General Services Director
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach CA 90254
Dear Joan:
•
3041 East Miraloma Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92806
(714) 632-9222
As we discussed in our meeting of June 9th we are in the process
of performing several technical improvements to the cable
television system serving Hermosa Beach customers. The attached
letter to the city of Manhattan Beach, which I gave to you at our
meeting, discribes progress. through June 9th. Since that
report we have coninued on the sweeping of the main trunk lines
of the system and expect the project to be completed within two
weeks.
In the recent letter from the city attorney to Christopher Conley
there was an indication that the system was not complete.
However, as .we have discussed, the system, presently, is
available to provide -cable service to every single family
residence in Hermosa Beach. In the case of multiple dwelling
units, such as apartment buildings, service is dependent upon
negotiation of an agreement between our company and the owner of
thecomplex before we can provide service to the tenants.
However, in tle case of such multiple dwelling units, our cable
plant is in the public right of way immediately in front of all
multiple dwelling units, or in very close proximity,' and would
not inhibit the provision of service if we secure the agreement
of the apartment owner.
Also enclosed is a copy of a computer run showing service calls
received from Hermosa Beach customers for the month May 21 to
June 18. As indicated there were 151 service -calls. Since there
are approximately 6,400. customers in Hermosa Beach, this
represents' a 2.4% service call rate, lower than industry
standards of 3 - 3 1/2%. If you find the computer report useful
we can provide it to you on a monthly basis.
In reference to the upcoming July 14th hearing, that the city has
scheduled to review the progress of ML Media, we will provide
notices on our access channel 10 of the purpose, time and place
of this hearing and will also prepare "ads" to appear on more
frequently watched channels Cable News Network and ESPN. I
believe this will provide proper notice of the hearing to our
customers in Hermosa Beach.
1
A DIVISION OF ML MEDIA PARTNERS, L.P.
• •
I want to assure you that ML Media's goal is to provide the very
best. in cable television service to the residents of Hermosa
Beach,' both in terms of picture quality and customer service. I
believe we have made significant progress in these areas to date
and further progress will be evident in the ensuing weeks.
If I can provide any further information please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Sincerely,
Vice Prf'ident & General Manager
2
AML Media Cabt TV
June 9, 1987
Mr. David Thompson
City Manager
City of Manhattan Beach
1400 Highland Avenue
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
•
1529 Valley Drive
P.O. Box 506
"--= Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
(213) 318-3423
Dear Mr. Thompson:
At our meeting on June 1st, you requested that I provide the
following information to you by June 9th for you to forward
to the City Council for its meeting of June 16th:
1. A log of service calls, as required by the franchise
and as you recently requested by letter.
2. Information relative to ML Media's plans to improve
cable television service in Manhattan Beach.
SERVICE CALLS
Attached is a log of all service calls received from April
22, 1987 through May 30, 1987. Also attached are summaZies
of those service calls for your analysis. As the report
indicates, there were 253 service calls for this period,
of which 64 were situations judged not to be system caused,
such as TV set problem. etc. The remaining 189 calls
represents 2.3% of our 8,200 customers in Manhattan Beach.
This service ratio is below cable industry standards,
which are typically 3-3.5% of total customers. The average
time to fix reported problems was 4.5 calendar days. However,
for the most serious customer problem of having no picture,
the correction time averaged only 1.6 days. -
SERVICE IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND PROGRESS
As you know, ML Media purchased the Storer cable television
system.effective December 23, 1986. This system is an
older system' which Storer had partially rebuilt prior to our
acquisition. Since assuming operational control, ML Media
Cable TV has expanded the channel capacity'from 30 to 35
channels and developed engineering plans designed to improve
the picture quality and overall operation of the system.
The decision to increase channel capacity was based upon
customer demand for new services, such as Prime Ticket, and
the assurance from Storer's engineering surveys which indicated
that all field equipment had been replaced to enable 35
. Mr. David Thollon, City Manager
•.Page 2
channel operation. When'the channels were expanded on
March 1, 1987, we discovered that a significant number
of amplification equipment necessary to enable proper
35 channel operation had not been replaced.. This resulted
in picture quality problems on channels 32 to 36. Also,
automatic gain control (AGC) equipment, which balanced
signal strength, had been deactivated by Storer in the
system's amplifiers. The purpose of this AGC equipment
is to maintain consistant signal levels, which vary due
to factors such as weather temperature changes.
In addition, there has been an interference problem, seen
as ghosting on channel 4, which was caused when KCBS,
channel 2, relocated their tower on Mount Wilson. While
this is a problem affecting all cable television systems
in Southern California, as well as non -cable subscribers,
our customers rightfully expect a superior quality picture.
We have been in contact with Channel 2 and they will provide
a letter to us attesting that this is their problem. We
have not received an estimated date when their problem will
be corrected. When their letter is received, we will forward
the letter,to you.
The combination of the above factors has led to a temporary
period of not consistently providing the high level of
service to which ML Media Cable TV, is committed. Since the
expansion of channel capacity when engineering problems were
discovered, we have been developing an action plan to correct
any deficiencies. Our Regional Engineer, located in Anaheim,
has completed an action plan and implementation has commenced
under his direction. Under this plan, the Chief Engineer
from our Northern California system in Rhonert Park will work
the week of June 8th to totally check and make necessary
changes to our off -air receiving location and the headend.
Two technicians from the Anaheim system will electronically,
sweep the trunk system and correct any problems found.
Additionally, two construction techs have been assigned to
the system from Anaheim to complete the Manhattan Village
project and correct other underground construction problems.
The Manhattan Village project should be completed this week.
We anticipate that this concentrated effort, leaving existing
system personnel free to handle normal workload, will result
in significant improvements in the near future. Completion -
of the'action plan is targeted for July 1, 1987 and we will
report to you weekly on progress.
Sincerely,
charaterman
Vice P fsident & General Manager
RJW:bg
Attachments
June 23, 1987
Mr. Richard Waterman
M L Media Cable TV
3041 E. Miraloma
Anaheim, CA. 92806
Dear Mr. Waterman;
•
City o f`�iermosaTeach..)
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885
Attached, is a copy of our correspondence to you, dated May 18,
1987. At that time, we formally requested, that you include a
copy of the Notice of Public Hearing, pertaining to the six month
progress review, in the billing to be mailed in June.
We received no written response from you, regarding this matter,
and therefore anticipated you,would.comply with the City's
request.
In following up on our formal request, we have heard from several
resident/subscribers, that they did not receive a notice of the.
public hearing in their billing this month. Please advise us, as
soon as possible, why you have chosen to not comply with the
City's request.
Very truly yours,
Join Noon
General Services Director
cc: Gregory T. Meyer, City Manager
James Lough, City Attorney
City Hall (213) 376-6984 • Community Center 379-3312 / 376-6984 • f irgDepartment 376-2479/376-6984 • Police Department 376-7981 / 376-6984
f
May 18, 1987
•
City of 2temosa l�each.)
Mr. Richard Waterman
3041 E. Miraloma
Anaheim, CA. 92806
Dear Dick;
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885
As you are aware, the agreement to assign franchise rights to
M. L. Media called for a six months progress review. We have
scheduled a public hearing, for the purpose of this review, at
the City Council's regularly scheduled meeting of July 14, 1987.
A copy of the Notice of Public Hearing is attached. We are
formally requesting that you include a copy of this notice,'in
your -June billing to all Hermosa Beach subscribers.
In addition to the documents required for review in Section 8 of
the Agreement, we request that you also submit your records of
subscriber complaints and substantial system failures, over the
past six months, for inspection, as provided in Section (F)
Subscriber Complaints and Service Personnel, paragraph 3, of the
Franchise Ordinance.
If you have any questions pertaining to this request, please
contact my office as soon as possible. Thank you for your
cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
oan Noon
General Services Director
cc: Gregory T. Meyer, City Manager
James Lough, City Attorney
City Hall (213) 376-6984 • Community Center 379-33121376-6984 • Fire Department 376-24791376-6984 • Police Department 376-7981 / 376-6984
— 1 —
City of Hermosa Beach
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of
Hermosa.Beach, will on Tuesday, July 14, 1987, hold a Public
Hearing to consider the following:
SIR MONTH PROGRESS REVIEW PERTAINING TO THE ASSIGNMENT
OF CABLE T. V. FRANCHISE RIGHTS TO M. L. MEDIA PARTNERS
SAID HEARING TO BE HELD at 8:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 1315
Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California.
ANY AND ALL PERSONS interested in the above matter are invited to
submit written coulments to the General Services Department, 1315
Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254, prior to the date
of the meeting.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the General Services
Department at 376-6984.
1
SCT.irs 11
C A u'
LAINTS
1
July 6, 1987
•
'
Cityof1ermosaJ3eac!L.
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885
Mr. Dick Waterman
Vice President/General Manager
3041 E. Miraloma
Anaheim, Ca. 92806
Dear Dick;
Attached is an update on complaints received, by our department;
through the end of June. Also attached is a copy of City
Attorney Lough's letter of May 22, 1987, to Chris Conley,
reminding him of the detailed plans that are to be submitted to
the City within six months. It would be greatly appreciated if
we could have these documents prior to the public hearing on July
14th, so the City Council would have time to review them.
In regard to the computer run showing service calls received for
the month of May, while this may have some value in determining
the number of repeat complaints, etc., it does not provide us
with an accurate accounting of subscriber complaints. There is
no record of billing/personnel/customer service complaints, etc.
Our request to you on May 18th, was that you submit your records
of subscriber complaints and substantial system failures, over
the past six months, as provided in Section (F), paragraph 3, of
the Franchise Ordinance. If these records are not available,
please notify us in writing, as soon as possible.
Hopefully, the construction project, that has just been completed
along the Strand, has corrected the majority of the reception
problems in Hermosa Beach. We look forward to reviewing ML's
detailed maintenance plan showing what parts of the Cable T.V.
system are in need of maintenance and/or replacement and what
steps will be taken by you'to maintain and .upgrade the system.
Sincerely,
Joan Noon
General Services Director
cc: Gregory T. Meyer
City Manager
City Hall (213) 376-6984 • Community Center 379-3312 / 376-6984 • _Fir/ Department 376.2479 / 376-6984 • Police Department 376-7981 / 376.6984
6)
- •
M.L. Media Complaints
Update,
10/87 -Howard Fishman
1133 7th P1.
372-6140 ,
6/11/87
6/15/87
,0.11718,7,
Scott Birnberg
30 5th Ct.
376-1724
Ralph Crabb
Manhattan
'3.745014
Jerry Wenzig
30 13th St. #A
827-2300 ext. 348
6/19187 .Eric Anderson
_
_1917, Hermosa 3&3 ,
•-• -
852-6593-
• Poor reception on Channel 2.
• • .•
0
rc.-!,-2
• '
6/26/87 Greg Wiemett
711 Longfellow
379-7352.
6/29/87_ Cynthia Meyer.
. , 416 30th St.
376-4509
-... -L.., •1,c •
7/2/87 Miss. TomMiller
839 7th St. .
372-8395 ,
June 10, 1987 - July 2;1987
Cable TV out, 3:10 pm.
re'
Reception very,,very poor.
Can't get around to check it
until next Monday.
Service off for almost 2 weeks.
Disconnected a week ago.
Calling every day since last
week.
- 5 months. All channels.
Sometimes bas a good channel -
987 bad. Has spoken, w/ Bert•
Something about the wave being
• too strong. Fixed about a week
•ago; worked for a day, then
• bad. No other problems in
building. _• „,_,
Poor ieception. Billing problem
- (referred him to Brenda). -Staff
super rude.
• Spoke wh someone at M.L._Media
this morning, who was very_
rude, hung up on her. Has had 3
appointments, no one showed.
Night before last, scrambled
Disney Channel - called
•yesterday, it will now cost
$9.00 per month for channel &
box.
ANALYSIS:
fourteen (14) complaints
eight (8) reception
four (4) staff
two (2) other
AVERAGE 18.75/MONTH
•
Law., Offices of James P. Lough
JAMES P. LOUGH
•F .�'
Mr. Christopher J. Conley
Conley & Associates
• _784 Colonial Avenue
Pelham Mannr;,NY 10803
_ /,.
Dear Mr. Conley:
This letter is,4o inform you and'ML Media.. Partners,-L/P,
that a public hearing addressing the•'Six Month Review of Cable
gervices' has been scheduled before the City Council of Hermosa
;,,Beach for July 14, 1987. This review is provided -for . in the
cunbract. between ML Media Partners, _L.P. ,(and the LCity of Hermosa
Beach Acarding to ,_the cpntract: , •._,. ; .
1) Transferee agrees to bring to the City, -within six'
months.; ,
a. 'A detailed plan, including milestones, for completion.
of the' Cable T.V.. system throughout the entire City.—
b. Transferee shall also present to the City a detailed
maintenance plan showing what parts of the Cable T.V,--system
are in need of maintenance and/or replacement and what steps
will be taken by the Transferee to maintain and upgrade the
system. ,:;,
c. As part of the submissions, the Transferee shall present
•` (; , ca- plan for •improved public access to the Cable T.V. system.
d. Transferee and City shall use their best efforts to:
improve public access in a way„that will benefit the
citizens of Hermosa Beach.
The City has expressed its concerned in the past about
upgrading the.current standards and the actual cabling due to
corrosion caused by wet salt air.They have also expressed
their desire for additional public interest programing for local
issues. In addition, the City still has areas without cable
service. These issues will be addressed at the hearing.
The City hopes that through this review process, ML Media
Partners,. L.P. and:the City can work out any problems that 'may
have arisen whereupon the citizens of Hermosa Beach are
. guaranteed quality cable.,television. •-
If you have any questions about this matter, please feel
free to contact me.
May 22, 1987
1605 WEST OLYMPIC BLVD.
SUITE 9018
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90015 .
:.r•C;-(213) 381-6131 . •
cc:
C Yours very t
•
AMES P. LOUGH, Cit Attorne
ITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Joan Noon; General Services Director
Gregory T. Meyer, City Manager
•
{).
June 10, 1987
• •
City o f2-iermosaTeach�
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885
Mr. Dick Waterman
Vice President/General Manager
3041 E. Miraloma
Anaheim, CA. 92806
Dear Dick;
In keeping with City Manager Meyer's request to keep you apprized
of the nature and number of complaints we are receiving, please
find the following report.
M.L. Media Complaints
Update
4/14/87 Edna Lehman Needed clarification
1520 Hermosa , on billing, had been
372-1790 bi-monthly, and $2.99
retroactive charge. Spoke with
someone at M.L. who was very
pleasant, and problem is
resolved.
4/17/87
4/21//87
4/21/87
4/27/87
Tim Bauler
926 18th St.
379-2023
Nancy Hogan
1860 P.C.H. #C
379-1297
Pat Harper
920 Loma •
.379-6997
Kay Inouye
649 llth St.
Reiterated previous
complaint, wonders if they
have promised the City
something and are not
delivering.
3 months, has had bad
reception, can't see Channels
2-11 all snowy.
Called them 2 weeks ago about
bad reception. Reception .
better without cable. than
with. Bad for at least one
month. •
Static on.lower channels
2,3,4,5, and 7 on up, black
lines. Started again Thurs.
had only 11 good days this
month.
City Hall (213) 376-6984 • Community Center 379-33121376-6984 • Fire Department 376.24791376-6984 • Police Department 376-7981 / 376-6984
— 1 — .
Vere.•... -4
• •
4/28/87 Jack Preijers (Madea)
249 26th St.
4/28/8.7 Byron Rife
1029 llth St.
Manhattan Bch.
5/4/87
5/1/87
5/7/87
5/11/87
Paul Mullick
1720 Ardmore #327
374-4378,
818-247-7060
Lynn Bryson
2017 Power St.
379-9953
Lynn Bryson
Scott Birnberg
30 5th Ct. •
•376-1724
2
Poor reception, at
old location (8th St.) and now
at new address for 2 weeks.
Can see picture but has lines.
All channels affected. Spoken
with M.L. several times, this
last time women was very rude,
admits he came off a little
strong. Can get better
reception without cable, with
antenna.
Called for service last
Tues. for an appt. to be home
Thurs. 1 - 5pm, waited until
5:15. Went down Friday,
talked to Bert: Bert
apologized, asked someone to
be there Sat., but no one
showed. Bert called him Mon.,
said he'd have someone over by
10:30, no one showed or
called. Bert asked him when he
would be home- 5pm, said he
(Bert) would call, didn't.
Called today, Bert in
conference.
Bert says he'll come out. Has
had appt's 4 times, including
2 Sat. s. No service yet.
Channels 2,4,5,7, snowy. She
called M.L. two weeks ago.
Took them 4 days to get back
to her.
Mrs. Bryson says problem
solved.by Bert, but also says
they no longer have an
answering service.
Bad reception since Feb. 15.
Cable went off completely; 5-6
times. 4-5 channels are bad at
different times.
• •
5/11/87 Reuben Rivera Since the first of the year
925 21st St. cuts out in the middle of
376-3826 • movies. Was told they don't
keep track of complaints, nor
do they have a system for
that. Poor reception. Lost a
Laker game . Blocks of
stations go out at a time.
5/11/87 Dr. Zendle Had problem before, that was
247 34th St. fixed. Now all channels have
379-9901 lines. Bert says he knows what
the problem is., has said for
last 3 weeks, it will be
fixed.
5/12/87 Teresa Bland
709 6th St.
379-2573
5/18/87 Earl Welliver
137 Palm Dr.
376-4766,
714-662-2204
5/19/87 John Libbert
167 Lyndon
372-0581
5/20/87 Clarence Sibley
1015 Prospect Apt I
372-9620 606-2255
5/22/87 Jill Kirby
615 llth St.
376-1228
5/26/87 John Mayne
205 28th St.
372-0620
- 3
r•
Cable line down last week in
the street and now on the
sidewalk, still not picked up.
Poor reception, channel 2,5.
System goes up/down, lines
thru screen, 3-4 weeks.
Don't get good service. Poor
reception. Goes out all times
of day and night. Going on
2-3 months. They say they're
working on it.
6 months, picture bad. Says
that for 3 months they've been
lying to him, saying that it's
a systems problem. Bad
9,11,13, snowy. Neighbors in
the same building have good.
reception. M.L. doesn't return
calls. Stayed home on Sat.
4/25 and Fri. 5/1, no one
showed.
Bad streaks., May 7, called for
appointment, no one showed.
Talked to Brenda and Bert -is
going out to Kay Inouyes, and
will stop by. Problem going on
about 3 months.
HBO off 2-3 hrs. today,
happens 2-3 times a week. Poor
reception on Ch. 5,7. Snowy
picture. Audio trouble.
Personnel hide. 5 to 10 mins.
on hold.
5/27/87
5/27/87
6/1/87
6/1/87
6/2/87
6/3/87
6/3/87
6/3/87
• 6/4/87
6/4/87
• •
Debra Eisenrich
3720 Strand
Manhattan Bch.
Elizabeth Call
515 24th St.
376-7122
Pat Riley
725 24th P1.
Laura Holmes
2242 Circle Dr.
374-4573
Bea Pfiffner
838 Cypress
379-0779
Steven Mair
430 8th St. #E
376-0403
garbage.
Charlotte Malone
260 31st St.
372-3625
Jill Kirby
615 llth St.
376-1228
Kay Onouye
649 11th St.
372-3873
Willis Dobbins
644 24th P1.
6/4/87 •Henry Rado
720 24th St.
372-1513
6/5/87
William Buck
5-91 18th
376-9202
Scrambled, HBO, Showtime,
Movie -Channel. 3-4 months.
Can not see, ghosting. Brenda
has been out. System down
since Feb.
In support of retaining KCET
on Ch. 3.
Keep KCET as is. Also, poor
reception, and choice of
channels. Willsend letter for
public hearing.
Must adjust each channel,
2,4,7. Snow and lines.
Image filled with noise,
unwatchable picture. Sometimes
complete snow. Intermittent on
lower ch., above ch. 20,
Ghosting channels 2-7.
Starting a 9am - 10 busy, 10 -
12, ringing, no answer.
Terrible reception. Busy from
4:45 to 5pm today.
Streaks are on all channels.
Is worse since June 1, when
supposedly fixed..
Starting 6/1/87, lots of snow
on higher channels, (7 on up)
snowy. ESPN hopeless. Called
3 times, Monday evening,
Tues., Wed. They said they'd
check it out.
Lousy service. Supposed to be
someone out yesterday, no one
showed. Lines, snowy, worse at
night. Poor reception for at
least 2 months.
CNN Channel 26, commercials on
the hour only, volume doubles.
M.L. Mediatays they're not
able to control.
> w •
ANALYSIS:
April 14, 1987 - June 10, 1987 forty-three (43) complaints
twenty-seven (27) reception
twelve (12) staff
four (4) other
AVERAGE 21.5/MONTH
It seems to be fairly consistant, the main complaint from the
public is, streaks or lines and a snowy picture, as well as what
seems to be an unwillingness to cooperate. Additionally, the
complaints against the M.L. Media staff, range from of lack of
interest in the complaint, to failure to return calls, and even
being rude at times.
After our converstation, yesterday with yourself and Bert, it
would seem that some progress is being made in addressing, and
solving the problems represented here. I would hope however,
that next months report, finds the monthly complaint average
falling back to the pre -transfer ratio.
Thank you for your personal attention to this matter
'Sincerely,
Joan Noon,
City/Cable Franchise Liaison
JN/mt
cc: Gregory T. Meyer,
City Manager
May 22, 1987
Ms. Brenda Gillen
M.L. Media, L.P.
1529 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA. 90254
Dear Brenda;
•
City o f .2iermosa l�each
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885
I hope things are calming down a little around your office, we
are finally a bit more situated, since our remodel. You'll have
to come by an see how the offices have changed.
Anyway, I've got a list of subscriber complaintants I've referred
to you over the past few weeks, that I haven't gotten any
information on. I thought rather than trying to get the
dispostions over the phone, I'd try listing them, and maybe save
us both a little time.
SUBSCRIBER COMPLAINT
4/21 Nancy Hogan
1860 Pacific Cst. Hwy. #C
379-1297
4/21 Pat Harper
920 Loma
379-6997
4/28 Jack Preijers
249 26th St.
5/11 Scott Birnberg
30 5th Ct.
376-1724
5/11 Reuben.Rivera
925 21st St.
376-3826
Has had bad reception for
the past 3 -months. Can't
see channels 2 - 11, all
snowy.
Called M.L. 2 weeks ago
about bad reception.
Reception better w/o
cable, than with. Bad for
at least 1 month.
Was scheduled for service
May 9th, re: poor
reception, when we last
talked.
Bad reception since 2/15.
Cable went off completely
5 - 6 times, at least 4
or 5 channels are bad
always.
Cuts out in the middle of
movies. Sent letter re:
recording his complaint.
City Hall (213) 376-6984 • Community Center 379-33121376-6984 • Fire Department 376-24791376-6984 • Police Department 376-7981 1376.6984
— 1 —
• •
5/11 Dr. Zendle
247 34th
379-9901
5/18 Earl Welliver
137 Palm
376-4766
5/19 John Libbert
167 Lyndon
372-0581
5/20 Clarence Sibley
1015 Prospect
372-9620, 606-2255 day
That's all folks !!!.
Had problem before,
fixed. Now all channels
have lines. Bert says he
knows what the problem
is, and has been telling
Dr. -Z., for 3 weeks it
will be fixed, but is
not.
Poor reception channel
2, 5. System goes
up/down. Lines through
screen, 3 - 4 weeks.
Don't get service, poor
reception, goes out all
times of the day and
night. Going on for the
last 2-3 months.
Picture bad for last 6
months. Says M.L. has
been lying to him, saying
that it's a systems
problem, when neighbors
in the same building have
good reception. Snowy
9,11,13. Don't return
calls. Stayed home on
both Fri. 4/25 and Sat.
5/1 for service call, but
no one showed.
Hope you had a safe, sane, and enjoyable Memorial weekend. We
should have lunch together soon, so we can keep up with each
other.
See you soon,
Sincerely,
.Michele D. Tercero
Administrative Aide,
General Services Dept.
•
April 28, 1987
•
City o f liermosarl3eacl.)
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885
Dick Waterman, Vice President
M.L. Media Cable TV
3041 E. Miraloma
Anaheim, CA. 92806
Dear Mr. Waterman,
Subsequent to your meeting with City Manager Meyer on March 17, I
was advised, by Mr. Meyer, to keep you apprised of the number and
type of complaints that we were receiving, pertaining to cable
T.V.
We have noticed a considerable increase in the number of
complaints, we normally receive, over the past four months. Our
current complaint log dates back to June of 1984. Between June
of 1984 and December 31 of 1984, there were six complaints
recorded for an average of 1 per month. From January 1985
through December 31, 1985, there were thirteen complaints'
recorded for an average of.1 per month. From January 1986
through December 16, 1986, there were twenty-eight complaints
recorded for an average of 2.4 per month. Between December 17,
1986 and April 13, 1987, we recorded thirty-six complaints for an
average of 9 per month.
One might expect that the majority of compliants were due to the
rate increase and/or the unfortunate incident involving the
Leonard/Hagler fight. However, this was not the case. I have
attached for your review, a copy of our analysis as well as a
list of the complaints.
When we receive a complaint, it is our procedure to advise the
complaining party that we 'will contact the franchisee and try to
resolve the problem. We further advise, that if the problem is
not resolved, they should, call us back. ,We attempt to follow-up
on these complaints, either by contacting 'the franchisee or the
complaining party.
In most cases, the problem is eventually resolved. As you can
see, from the attached information, there appears to be only one
problem that has not yet been taken care of. The complaint in
question is that of Kay Inouie, 649 llth. Street. We have
contacted the office several times regarding the alleged
reception problem. They have advised us that there is no problem
however, the complaints continue.
City Hall (213) 376-6984 • Community Center 379-3312 / 376-6984 • Fire Department 376-24791376-6984 • Police Department 376-7981 / 376-6984
— 1 —
411
Very honestly, it would appear that the majority of complaints
seem to involve poor reception. I have a very limited knowledge
of cable technology, but it is my understanding that when you
provided more programming with the basic rate, some technological
change had to be made. We were curious as to whether or not this
change could be causing the poor reception problems. I have
discussed this possibility with Burt Bramley, who assures me that
this is not the case.
We would be grateful for any explanation you could offer and that
we might be able to share with our community. In addition, any
information on changes or upgrade to the system you might be
considering, would be greatly appreciated.
We will continue to keep you apprised of the situation. If you
require any further information, please let us know. Thank you
for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Joan Noon
General Services Director
cc: Gregory T. Meyer
City Manager
2
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
INTER -OFFICE MEMO
TO: Joan Noon, Director, DATE: April 13, 1987
General Services Department
SUBJECT: Cable Service FROM: Michele D. Tercero,
complaints Administrative Aide
*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*
*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*
An analysis of the documented complaints against the Cable T.V.
Companies servicing Hermosa Beach was done. The complaints were
divided into three categories; (1) reception, (2) staff attitude,
and (3) other, (refers to billing, installation, or disconnection
problems). That analysis reveals the following:
STORER CABLE, INC.
June 1984 - December 31, 1984 six (6) complaints,
six (6) other
AVERAGE 1/MONTH
January 1985 - December 31, 1985 thirteen (13) complaints,
two (2) reception
two (2) staff related
nine (9) other
AVERAGE 1/MONTH
January 1986 - December 16, 1986 twenty-eight (28) complaints,
nine (9) reception
four (4) staff
fifteen (15) other
AVERAGE 2.4/MONTH
(DECEMBER 16, 1986, COUNCIL APPROVED THE FRANCHISE TRANSFER FROM
STORER., INC. TO M. L. MEDIA, ' L . P . )
December 17, 1986 - April 13, 1987 thirty-six (36) complaints,
twenty (20) reception
six (6) staff
ten (10) other
AVERAGE 9/MONTH
1
• •
The general consensus seems to be, although service from Storer
Cable, Inc. was not exemplary, service from M.L. Media, L.P., has
been going down steadily since the transfer... Customers have in-
dicated that their staff has a less than professional attitude,
and are at times rude, even hanging up on the them. Customers
have also reported, there are times when the phones are not an-
swered, nor are calls returned when messages are left, either in
person, or with M.L. Media's answering service.
2
M.L. Media Complaints
12/29/86 Steve Brown
421 Gould
374-3928
Storer added Movie
Channel to his system
saying they had
spoken to him and
gotten authorization.
Storer removed Movie
Channel, no charge
for service.
1/31/87 Loren Davis Intermittent
1100 Monterey #8 problems. Storer
372-1769 supposed to come out.
Will call back if
still has problem.
2/4/87
Kay Inouie
649 llth St.
372-3873
Has spoken with
Sharon at M.L., has
lines across screen
and blank -outs. Will
call back if
continues.
2/12/87 Kay Inouie• Reiterated supra, we
649 llth St. both have spoken to
Brenda.
2/17/87. Mrs. Brandi Not getting channels
2411 Prospect #119 promised on with
376-7431 basic. Called
Brenda, she called
Mrs. Brandi,
explained services.
2/24/87 Betty Martin Lines and snowy
257 27th Channel 5, poor
service, personnel.
Will call Brenda.
• 2/24/87
Marge Baer
301 27th St.
1
Snowy channels,
lines, uncooperative
.personnel.
3/2/87
• •
Kay Onouie
649 lith St..
Still having problems
•w.ith lines -on
Channels 2,4,5,6.
Spoke with Burt on
2/18/87, was to come
out, but he never
showed.
3/3/87 Jim Garcia Question on rate
501 Gentry increase.
3/4/87 No Name With out service on
March 28, can't get
through on telephone.
3/4/87 Reynolds Cable went out 14:15
yesterday, still out
at 10:30. Burt went
out, cable back on
next day.
3/5/87
Roger Harrell
514 24th St.
372-0571
3/5/87 Dr. Les Zendle
247 34th St.
379-9901
3/6/87
3/9/87
Lee Grant
962 1st St.
372-1123
Steve Houghland
3508 Crest, MB
516-2364
Has had charges
doubled. Installed
cable, purchased by
him, himself for
additional outlets.
Advised him to speak
with Brenda. I spoke
with Burt, he says
most companies charge
full regular rate for
added outlets
Channels 2,3,4,5,
snow, barely
watchable. Burt says
he has been out but
sees no problem.
Objects to double of
extra outlet charge,
poor reception.
Checked with him on
3/12/87, still has
some channels with•
'snow, especially new
ones.
Been told T.V. is too
sophisticated for
system, causes
interference.
3/10/87 Kay Inouie
649 llth St,.
.372-3873
3/10/87 Jim Wood
421 Manhattan
379-1659
3/23/87 Vivian Hager
316-8464 wk.
3/23/87
3/24/87
• 3/24/87
3/25/87
3/30/87
Harry Abramowski
333-7880 wk
544-8473 ans. service
Claude Vargas
621 2nd St.
no phone
Don Coleman
33 4th St.
376-9791
Velma Hastings
2721 Hermosa
376-6917
Carol Tanner
2134 Circle Dr.
376-1322
3
Has again spoken with
both Brenda and Burt,
someone came out, but
did nothing. Brenda
was supposed to call
back, but didn't. She
also left a message
for Burt to call her,
and he hasn't.
Cable keeps going
off. 3/12/87, has
come to• agreement
with them. Is
willing to work with
them.
Complained about show
with offensive
format, (gay men
topic), degrading
show.
Poor reception
Question re: doubled
basic rate. Was
explained by M.L.
Media, but wondered
if City had control
over regulating.
Complaint about
raising of rates.
Snow on channel 2,
3 months.
Can barely get
Channel 2.
4/7/87 Javier, Sola Motors
376-7927
4/7/87
Margaret Herrell
514 24th St.
372-0571
Re: Attitude of
personnel last night
when problems with
broadcasting
fight
(Hagler/Leonard).
Said they said, they
were having problems
with the boxes, and
even though they
could unscramble the
signal, they would
not. "Tough luck".
Re: rates raise,
prempting Channel 28
(KCET) a "pay for
channel", for the
fight.
4/13/87 Mrs. Bauler Service down all
926 18th St. weekend. Called
379-2023 Monday, person with
whom she spoke was
very rude. All day
Sat. no answer, Sun.
answering service
took name and
message, but were
told by operator that
they probably
wouldn't get to them
until Monday.
4/14/87 Edna Lehman
1520 Hermosa
372-1790
4/17/87 Tim Bauler
926 18th St.
379-2023
4/21//87 Nancy Hogan
1860 P.C.H. #C
379-1297
4
Needed clarification
on billing, had been
bi-monthly, and $2.99
retroactive charge.
Spoke with someone at
M.L. who was very
pleasant, and problem
is resolved.
Reiterated previous
complaint, wonders.
• if they' have promised
the City something
and are• not
delivering.
3 months, has had bad
reception, can't see
Channels 2-11,, all -
snowy
411
4/21/87 2 weeks
Pat—Harper Called them
920 Loma ago about bad
379-6997 reception. -Reception
better without cable -
than with. Bad for at
least one month.
4/27/87 Kay Inouie Static on lower
649 llth St. channels 2,3,4,5, and
7 on up, black lines.
Started again Thurs.
had only 11 good days
this month.
4/28/87 Jack Preijers (Madea)
249 26th St.
379-4520
5
Poor reception, at
old location (8th
St.) and now new
address for 2 weeks.
Can see picture but
has lines. All
channels affected.
Spoken with M.L.
several times, this
last time women was
very rude, admits he
came off a little
strong. Can get
better reception
without cable, with
antenna.
a
•
MORGAN, LEWIS St BOCKIUS
PHILADELPHIA COUN$ELORS AT •LAW
WASHINGTON 801 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE
NEW YORK Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-3189
TELEPMONe:(213) 612-2600
CABLE ADDRESS: MORLEBOCK
TeLex: 6631012
FRANK H. SMITH, JR.
DIAL DIRECT (213) 612-1016
June 23, 1987
M. L. Media Cable TV
1529 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
Attn: Ms. Brenda Gillen
Re: Diane R. Good
Dear Ms. Gillen:
MIAMI
HARRISBURG
LONDON
SAN DIEGO
I am writing on behalf of Diane Good, a subscriber of
your cable service for whom you recently terminated service.
As indicated in Ms. Good's correspondence of June 12,
1987 (a copy of which is enclosed for your convenience of
reference), the sole reason for Ms. Good paying less than the
full amount charged for your service has been due to the fact
that her cable service has been totally inadequate for a
number of months. As detailed in Ms. Good's letter, she has
been unable to receive some channels completely, e.g.,
Channel 2 and ESPN, and other primary channels, e.q.,
Channels 4 and 7, have come in very fuzzy and virtually
unwatchable. This has been the case even though her
immediate neighbors who are also subscribers to your service
have continually received clear pictures.
Ms. Good has complained frequently regarding the lack of
service and has had numerous service calls made to her
residence, albeit usually only after several calls were made
to request service. On one such service call, it was
indicated that the wiring into her apartment is defective and
needs to. be replaced, but even after your company had become
aware of this, you have refused to take any steps to do so.
Whatever the reasons for the reception. problems.,. it is -
inexcusable that your company has not taken the steps
necessary to correct the problem, especially in view of the
fact that your license gives you a monopoly for cable service
to the area and does not give a customer who has received
terribly shoddy service any alternative source from which to
seek cable reception.
In view of the past history of this matter, it is
demanded that you immediately reinstate the cable service
without charge and take whatever steps are necessary to make
the system work as it should. Furthermore, you are requested
to supply the undersigned with any information you are
requested by law to furnish publicly or to a customer with
respect to your license and, in particular, any information
MORGAN, LEWIS Sc BOCKIUS
M.L. Media Cable TV
June 23, 1987
Page 2
regarding renewal of such license and the right of interested
parties to intervene in such renewal process. You can be
assured that if you continue to refuse to supply the service
that your exclusive license requires, steps will be taken to
fully inform the appropriate governmental authorities.
It would be appreciated if you would respond to this
letter as soon as possible. •
'~' Very truly -yours,
.. (�i
Frank H. Smith, Jr.(
cc: Diane K. Good
•
WRATHER
CORPOR ATION
12 June 1987
ML Media Cable TV
1529 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Re: Diane K. Good - Cable Television
•
Dear Office Manager:
I am in receipt of the Cablegram (copy enclosed) sent to me on
June 10, 1987. In response to this Cablegram, I must explain to
you that I have the correspondence, as well as records of all
phone calls, as well as witnesses to the status of the cable
service I am not receiving. As I have continued to maintain and
explain since November of 1986, I have not received the cable
service for which I am paying.
For instance, I have not since November of 1986 been able to get
Channel 2 or ESPN on the cable. Also, the main channels, 2, 4,
and 7, have always been fuzzy and very seldom come in clearly. I
have refused to pay my bills in total for this reason. I have
had numerous service people from both Store Cable and ML Media
come out to my home, each one giving me many different reasons as
to why the cable is not coming in. So far, no one seems to be
able to do anything about it, even though the homes on both sides
of me are able to receive very clean pictures on their cables.
I refuse to pay any further bills until this matter is resolved.
The week of June 8 I have called your office every single day
asking for the Office Manager, of which a message is taken and to
date has never been returned. I am more than willing to talk
this out, and I am more than willing to have you come out, make
another effort at providing me the service for which you are
demanding money (for which I am not receiving), to try to resolve
the problems. However, I refuse to be intimidated by your
Cablegrams and threats of disconnection and Past Due Notices when
you are not providing a service for which you should be paid.
I would appreciate your immediate attention to this matter. I
can be reached during working hours, Monday through Friday, at
213/278-8521. I can be reached evenings and weekends at 213/374-
6602 or 818/441-1216.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Diane K. Good •
cc:
Hermosa Beach City Hall
Civic Center
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Frank Smith, Esq.
270 NORTH CANON DRIVE, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210 213'278-8521 P.O. BOX 111, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90213
=ROM:
ML MEDIA! CAZ;LE TV.
1529ALLEY
HE n A EE CH CA ,7,0 .S4
— MESSAGE AREA
!ale --,ram
OEAR 4; ./*5. 1 NE
•
CUR RE(OFOS IkC ICATE TF'AT 13UR ,ACCO NT IS . FAST DUE IN TRE A70CJNT OF
43.2E • ALTHOUGH 4E i44VE P4EVI•CUSLY SENT YOU STAT hPENTS INA
FALA CE REVAI''Sl'Y? i AY'5 bT liUS ' FS 1ECEIi;:D IF -f ' `SA
BEACH CFFICF IVe€EIAT•'LY, T3 'AVOID TI N L l T C :;RE •.
FAILU;E T) vIM<E THIS PAYS=LST 6r/LL RE.uLT Iii DISCO A7:CTI7 CF YC;�
CER.VICE. IN OF:C::F TC RECO14Ni.:C FDA PAYFFKT "f PAST DUE ?ALA`4C.'
A fiyCOT+r•3ECT CHARGE ANO tiEXT ecAT?& SERVICE 'qv -:;1 E y ,DG, Al VH1C
+ia YCv »ILL EF ;C14Eril._?, FC7 OLR 11EX1 A+VAILAELS
xt�9ttxTt •.'T tip PC F.f);, 6 ^z r
?QCT RECEIV_i Fci.10A 1-1 I3CQ3:"ECT Z .
TO:
HE IA CALF Ty
C?:ErIT dEPA T,..ENT
.,.rK JUA O_::t 1717.
***. x*xask
312 THS 5T_A£ G R;„7-.11.2
. HEF CSP .EEACi• CA 1-'0234
1�ianz X. 00d
312 c4 EME ,Sfaanci
1Evnosa 1&a.cIi, eaLi f oznia 90254
4 February 1987
Media Cable TV
1529 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-2999
Re: Account No. 15508-981822-01-7, Diane K. Good
Attn: Brenda
As you know, as of .November, 1986 I have never gotten a
clear cable picture on all of the channels I am supposed
to be getting. I have been given by your office every
excuse in the book, from needing new wiring on the
outside of the house; inside of the house; need a new
cable box; it's out of our control; to, my neighbors
supposedly illegally hooking into my cable.
I have been patient in trying to work with Storer and
Media Cable in getting this matter resolved, and it has
been to no avail.. I've been told to be home for servicing
and no service agent shows.up. I've been told they cannot
service the cable after dark only to have two service
people show up at my home at 8:00 p.m. Now when I call
Media Cable to discuss this problem I can't even get a
return phone call.
•
Therefore, I am refusing to pay for any charges in the
month of January since I never had complete cable for
more than 15 minutes, and that was only on two days! I
further refuse to pay any charges in February until the
cable is up and operating 100% on all of the channels for
which I am paying.
•
r
•
My hands are tied. I feel I have done everything to work
within the system to get this matter resolved and I am
still not getting any results. If you would like to
discuss this, I can be reached during working hours at
213/278-8521, ext. 236 or at home on 213/374-6602.
Very truly yours,
Diane K. Good h. -1K
DKG:ms
cc: Hermosa Beach City Hall
Attn: Michelle
Civic Center
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
-
ML MEDIA CABLE TV•
1529 VALLEY DRIVE '
HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254-2999
FORWARDING AND ADDRESS
CORRECTION REQUESTED
0000571586111 00051 04033J
DATE DUE AMOUNT DUE
02/01/87 28.36
PLEASE RETURN THIS TOP PORTION ONLY, WITH REMITTANCE TO -
000 -01 -87 -A -C
Nm1 CP 1.15379.5S*MCR 01
DIANE GOOD
312 THE STRAND APT REAR
HERMOSA BEACH CA
90254
15508 981822 01 7 7 002836
ML MEDIA CABLE TV
PLEASE INDICATE
AMOUNT ENCLOSED
ML MEDIA CABLE TV
P. 0. BOX 78103
PHOENIX AZ 85062-8103
ACCOUNT NUMBER BILLED FROM BILLED TO DATE DUE INCLUDES PAYMENTS
RECEIVED BY
15508-981822-01-7 2/01/87 2/28/87 02/01/87 1/22/87
FOR- 312 THE STRAND APT REAR' xmNOTICEmm FOR ASSISTANCE WITH BILLING,
PROBLEMS, PLEASE CALL OUR HERMOSA BEACH
12/31 AEGINNING BALANCE 26.86 OFFICE AT 318-3423 FOR PROMPT RESOLU-
TION.
1/21 SERVICE ADJUST 24.93-
2/01- 2/28 CABLE SERVICE 10.13
2/01- 2/28 USERS UTILITY TAX 1.50
2/01- 2/28 CONVERTER RENT 3.05
2/01- 2/28 PREMIUM SERVICE 11.75
1/31 BALANCE DUE 28.36
FEB 01 THRU FEB 28, 1987
• •
VIDEO
REPRODUCTION
SERVICES
ML Media Cable TV
1529 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA.
Dear Mr. Bramley,
(2131 372-9459
629 Prospect Ave.
Hermosa Beach
California 90254
6-24-87
Since you have not returned my recent calls I assume you can guess
why I am calling. I am sick of having to call and complain about your
service deficiencies each month. I have talked to you and several of
your employees' and have received replies such as "We are working on
a bad line in your area" to "All of our service technicians have been
sent to Florida
Being in the Video business myself, I understand reception problems
and have conferred with my neighbors to assure my problem isn't unique.
The only channels that I receive from ML satisfactory are regular net-
work channels (2-13). Since the cable channels especially ESPN, my fav-
orite, are too snowy to enjoy and my roof antenna out -performs your
satellite I no longer require your services. You might as well dis-
connect my service because until it is satisfactory I will not pay
this enclosed bill or any future bills.
Cordially,
Zer1,144/—
Joel Saltzman
C.C.
Joan Noon
General Services Director
Hermosa Beach, California
June 17, 1987
Ms. Michele Tercero
Administrative Aide
Hermosa Beach, City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Dear Ms. Tercero:
I would like to add my complaints to those already expressed
.regarding M.L. Media. Since they have taken over the cable
system in Hermosa Beach, the quality has deteriorated in all
aspects. I do not always get a clear picture, maybe 50% of
the time, some stations I cannot watch due to static or noise
interference or both, the cable service itself is shut down
frequently, and the volume is uneven from station to station.
I do not think M. L. Media's franchise should be renewed.
Sincerely,
MARYANW SOUTH
1830 Hermosa Avenue #4
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
• •
649 Eleventh Street
Hermosa Beach, CA
June 16, 1967
Honorable Mayor John Cioffi and
Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council
We have had poor reception from the ML Media Cable TV Service
between the dates Of January 15 and June 8. We had called the cable
company to have the problem repaired only to be subjected to nearly
five months of hassle and further problems.
On April 2, Bert Bramley (plant manager) came to see the static
problem -we had. He saw streaks (black and white horizontal lines) and
said it was an overdrive problem and would take care of it. He came
to the house on April 27 and saw the streaks again. (They had gotten
worse since June 1) He told us that the "static" or "noise" problem
on the television was a station problem. On May 21, we received a
supposed "letter from Channel 2" (enclosed) from Brenda Gillen
(office manager) which she claims verifies that the static was a
station problem. However, that letter does not mention the static
problem and was not on KCBS letterhead.
We have sent letters td KCBS (Channel 2), KNBC (Channel 4) and
KTLA (Channel 5) to verify the static problem. Enclosed is a reply
from KTLA which states that the static was not a station related
problem.
We had talked with Brenda or 'Bert or been in contact with the
office a total of 26 times since April 27. Bert had been to the house
twice, failed to appear twice (appointments made by Brenda both
times) and had even seen the streaks on a neighbor's television, so
was aware that it was a system problem. (We had talked with five
other neighbors and they all had the same poor reception)
In regards to service: a service call appointment was made only
to be told later that no arrangement was made, messages had been left
with the answering service only to be told later that no calls were
documented, scheduled calls and visits made by Bert were not kept,
and messages were left with Richard Waterman (general managerand
vice president) which were not answered.
After 145 days and 40 contacts with the cable company, the
problem has finally been solved. HOpefullYin the future,if the
'
need arises, the problem will be solved much quicker so that so much
time and effort will not have to be spent.
Yours trul
P.S. Michele Tercero (General,ServiceS Department, City Man) was
kept informed about the problem since itS start.
• •
Monday, May 4 -went 't� /office, saw Bert and Brenda—talked with
Bert, said he was going to work on it, told him I
would call him when problem was fixed.
Tuesday, May 5 -Streaks still there
Wednesday, May 6 -Streaks still there
Thursday, May 7 -talked with Brenda --she said they are still working
on it --told to call her when problem fixed.
Friday, May 8
Saturday, May 9
Sunday, May 10
Monday, May 11
Tuesday, May 12
-Streaks
- Streaks
-Streaks
-Streaks
-Streaks
Wednesday, May 13 -Streaks
Thursday, May 14 -Streaks
Friday, May 15 -called office, Brenda on holiday—saw Bert at
office --told no longer working on it --told him
problem not fixed, Bert said he'd get Luis to look
at it. Streaks still there.
Saturday, May 16 -Streaks still there.
Sunday, May 17 -Streaks still there.
Monday, May 18 -called Brenda --said would look into it
Tuesday, May 19 -Brenda called, said Bert will be here tomorrow
night
Wednesday, May 20 -Bert here, saw streaks, plus neighbor's streaks on
television
Thursday, May 21 -Streaks still pre'ent--Bert said nothing else could
be done to fix problem.
-called Brenda--talked.with Bert --says he'll work on
it..
- called Brenda --told Bert still working on it with
help from Anaheim office
3 -Streaks still present. --from June 1 streaks
worsened. --called Brenda --Bert said it should have
been better --Brenda said Bert would call and come
over (NO SHOW)
4 -in touch with Brenda --said Bert would come on
Friday
-Bert did not show up
6 -called office, left. message
-talked with Mayor John Cioffi
- talked with Brenda --Bert and Mark (Anaheim -
technician) arrived here—STREAKS are gone. --Bert
said he'd call in evening --No Call.
- around:,four in'the afternoon, Bert, Michele and
Dick Waterman came to see the reception --problem
was finally fixed.
still
still
still
still
still
still
still
there.
there.
there.
there.
there.
there.
there.
Friday, May 22
Tuesday, May 26
Wednesday, June
Thursday, June
Friday, June 5
Saturday, June
Sunday, June 7
Monday, June 8
Tuesday, -June 9
Dates when we have contacted ML Media Cable T.V. Service:
January 20, 22
February 3,6,1,18
March 2,3,6,11
April 1,2,10,27,30
May 1,2,3,4,7,15,18,19,20,21,2 ,26
June 3, 4, 6g 8
--written to Mr. Waterman twice
--called Mr. Waterman three times
• •
649 Eleventh Street
Hermosa Beach, Ca.
May 26, 1987
Mr. Steven A. Bell
Vice President & General Manager KTLA
5800 Sunset Blvd.
Hollywood, Ca, q0028
Dear Sir,
We are subscribing to a cable service provided by ML Media Cable
T.V. I have been having a problem with the reception on Channel 5
(KTLA). Since January 15/off and zzn) there has been "static or
noise" on the television screen. I had complained to ML Media Cable
T.V. and was told (in April) that it was a station -related problem
and that they could not do anything about it.
Could you please look into this matter and verify it.
Yours truly,
411
STEVEN A. BELL
Senior Vice President
and. General Manager
June 4, 1987
Ms. Kay Inouye
649 Eleventh SL.
Hermosa Beach, CA
Dear Ms. Inouye:
We referred your recent letter to our chief
engineer, who has researched the matter and
tells us that the signal to your area is
fine from the station standpoint.
However, from time.to time we do studies
on specific areas and will keep your letter
on file, so that if we receive enough
complaint's from. your area, we may survey
it some time in the future to see if the
problem can be addressed.
Thanks for your interest in KTLA, but
be assured this is not a station -related
problem.
Sincerely,
Milly Gladstone
. Executive Secretary to the
General Manager
KTLA Inc. • 5800 Sunset Boulward • PO. Box 500 • Los Angeles, CA 90078 • (213) 460-5751
A Tribune Broadcasting Station
• •
649 Eleventh Street
. Hermosa Beach, Ca.
May 26, 1987
Mr. John H. Rohrbeck
Vice President & General Manager KNBC
3000 W. Alameda Ave.
Burbank, Ca. 91523
- Dear Sir,
We are subscribing to a cable service provided by ML Media Cable -
T.V. I have been having a proble' with the reception on Channel 4
(KNBC). Since January 15 (off and pn) there has been "static or
noise" on the television screen. I had complained to ML Media Cable
• T.V. and was told (in April) that it was a station -related problem
and that they could not do anything about it.
Could you please look into this matter and verify.it.
Yours truly,
•
649 Eleventh Street
Hermosa Beach, Ca.
May 25, 1987
Mr. Robert Hyland
Vice President & General Manager KCBS
6121 Sunset Blvd.
Hollywood, Ca. 90028
Dear Sir,
We are subscribing to a cable service provided by ML Media Cable
T.V. I have been having a prob1eni with the reception on Channel 2
(KCBS). Since January 15 °(off and on) there has been "static or
noise" on the television screen. I had complained to ML Media Cable
• T.V. and was told (in April) that it was a station -related problem
and that they could not do anything about it.
Could you please look into this matter and verifyit. '.
Yours truly,
ML Media Cable TV
3041 E. Miraloma
Anaheim, CA 92806
(714) 632-9222
March 27, 1987
Ms. Kay Inouye
649 Eleventh Street
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Dear Ms. Inouye:
After receiving your letter dated March 2, 1987, I requested our
Plant Manager, Bert Bramley, to make contact with you and resolve
any reception problems you were experiencing.
Mr. Bramley has reported that he has subsequently personally
visited your home and found no reception problems. Hopefully any
problems have been resolved. I also discussed the billing for
service with Brenda Gillen. She reports that she has been
providing credits for past reception problems.
However, if you are continuing to have any reception problems or
billing problems, please ,contact me by telephone at (714)
632-9222 or by note and we will resolve any remaining problems.
Sincerely,
Rkchard:' . Waterman
Vice P esident and General Manager
RJW: It
cc: Joan Noon, City of Hermosa Beach'
Bert Bramley, Plant Manages
Brenda Gillen, Office Manager
v
f: e."io s '?e .,v
f � • 7
1`ir. Lick 'ater'iani,
11 Media C.ble TV,
Gener71 1'1 En,�_: -r
3041 .:ast laralotria
'.na,hei"*, Ca. 92B06.
Dear Sir:
ance Janu,rr 15, 2937 t-ne'e h�a been .szrstezr. nroL1e..
,ever�� cals to Erenda
(office C: r"l-'z ,r) re: tl'!e bad rece'ition •:rIvE, been r1^'.ae ,;i.us a c^11 to Bert (n1.?nt
;*?nnr-er). -,,resent.
T r`amore ctC', e Callir` i_p ^C;?' t1 " t`e occurs rrr lie _+,(1,1er+1
seems to he i'no,ed. T h^ve been •'3?Ciuctinz e. c'i air of noir recti ti . frc-,:t the
bill:(in ja-.ri -12 ._days ..nd in February - 19 d) ^.^.I will cort_nile
to do sc .
:il l
::ou •Jlens+e 1cr':'nte t?.iro '."'. I .:"ve n Herres_^. �,e;c.'_ Cit:
?i all (Generzl .Services Dept. involved. Please c211 _.'i c_ie 1 e F.t (213) 376-6934
,_,::t. 257. =
Messages la=ve been. left for B_'end?(1.7.?'_c .•Tere never rece.itec), service c=11
a-cfeint`_'len_t ^l.^c.e. (rnl r to told no nrr nn,,ereent T'-'= s m pde) , t:ne :1l ant mall ^ 'r s =1C he
toto, ro �eii y _� t -•r nnurs (_.eve_ r ed)
T47�.J.': come t,l�i s street check C.7 the -� �� ^ t�•ti r r�,ct-r
2nd a ries e was left w t- the r)i nt rtl^rir,r•-_ =nt, rend ('•''^_c`" r e nver received).
. 34 -'_"ice the r.?.t_es hnv . een 31'� CE r.rd ,a7^-ve t'he
sy- ;ter•,. rC ^1 -.=_?l ,"-c71
36 4-0
lirutz
n f
Custc~ler,
• •
Russell C. Sanders D.C.
Chiropractor
1007 Hermosa Ave.
Hermosa Beach, Calif. 90254
(213) 374-9710 (213) 374-9721
June 15, 1987
Ms. Michele Tercero
Administrative Aide
Hermosa Beach City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Dear Ms. Tercero:
It has come to my attention due to a recent issue of "The
Easy Reader" that M.L. Media is coming up for a city license
renewal. I have many complaints with M.L. Media's service
and transmission problems that I would like to relay to you
since they took over from Storer Cable. I have experienced a
rapid degeneration in quality of signal and service. The
following is a summary of these complaints:
1) Faulty picture signal which combines a unique combination
of distortions, including constant double and triple
images, shadows and ghost images; frequent black outs
(daily basis) sometimes lasting hours; fuzzy picture and
constant horizontal lines.
2) Lack of ability to bring in pay-per-view broadcasts.
We are all familiar with the Haggler -Leonard fight
fiasco. Now, months later, this lack of ability
combines with a lack of interest on M.L. Media's part
bringing in the Spinks vs. Cooney fight on June 15.
Does this mean no more special events?
3) Upon acquiring the franchise, they added channels I
didn't want or request and raised my monthly charge
and lowered quality at the same time.
4). The refund ,for the,Haggler vs. Leonard screw. -up was in
the form of a credit for the April and May billing,
which in effect, constitutes an interest free loan for
M.L. Media.
5) The office personnel at M.L. Media are of little or no
help in dealing with service problems. Their stock
answer when calling into report a problem is "we're
working on it". I have gotten this answer on four
different occasions over a period of three to four
months, which seems like a more than adequate period of
time to fix an area or system problem.
Ms. Michele Tercero
HERMOSA BEACH CITY HALL
Page two
6) We have experienced a very dark picture at times on some
channels and uneven audio volume on certain cable channels
which will blast the volume when switching to that channel
or blast when M.L. Media's local advertisingcomes on.
Normally I would not take the time to write a complaint
letter, and I am sure you will find many area *residents who
have complaints won't write, In this case, I feel M.L.
Media has seriously neglected their responsibility to the
customers in this area and have a careless attitude towards
fixing the problems since they have a monopoly over this
service.
In consideration of these problems and complaints, I feel
M.L. Media's franchise should not be renewed and another
company should have the opportunity to provide this service
to area residents.
Sincerely,
RUSSELL C. SANDERS, D.C.
RCS:acm
•
June 11, 1987
William Ramstack
Clair Kelly
26 16th St.
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Ms. Michele Tercero
Administrative Aid
Hermosa Beach City Hall
1315 Valley Dr.
Hermosa Beach, Ca 90254
Dear Ms. Tercero:
I am writing you in an attempt to help you judge the cable
operators in service in our area.
Since we started with ML cable ip March , our service has
yet to be of the quality that is expected of cable
television. We have had at least four service calls that
were of little success in clearing the interference from
channels 23-34. The Service people were not very helpful in
trying to determine the problem except that it was in the
mainline transmitter that needs to be tuned. This has gone
on for several months and we have had as many as two weeks
with poor reception on all channels. After several calls
ML Cable did give us credit for one week.
Our overall assessment of ML cable service is/PoordWat best
and we feel that for $368.28 a year we deserve better
service.
Sincerely,
.
William Rdr tack
Clair Kelly
• •
June 9, 1967
Mse Michele Tercero, Administrative Aide
Hermosa Beach City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Re: ML Media Cable
Dear Ms. Tercero,
Since ML Media started providing our TV reception the quality
of the picture has been poor. Not only is the picture grainy,
but a white bar moves continuously up the screen and is very
obvious on a dark background. Last week the reception was es-
pecially
s-
pecial1y bad - - on some channels at some times one could
barely discern a picture,
Before ML Media, reception was good.most of. the time and some-
times the picture was exceptionally sharp and beautiful. We
have never approached that quality since Storer Cable left..
No, there is nothing wrong with our TV! We have 3 and the re-
ception is poor an all.
Sincerely,
De Rhoads Dolan
1414 Manhattan Avenue
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
(213) 372-4111
June 8, 1987
Ms. Michele Tercero
Hermosa Beach City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Re: ML Media
Dear Ms. Tercero,
I would like to add my input concerning ML Media. Since
this organization has taken over from Storer Cable our
reception on all channels has been appalling. A typical
example is trying to watch the golf tournaments. There is
so much snow in the picture you can't see the ball coming
into the green and after it arrives on the green you can
barely make it out.
Since this outfit has come to town any complaint about the
reception is either ignored or they seem to have a bunch of
standard answers. One being; "We are aware of the problem
and have a crew working on it." After all these months of
TERRIBLE RECEPTION I wonder what ever happened to that crew.
Sincerely yours,
Arthur F. Tweedie
1414 Manhattan Ave.
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
(213) 372-4111
Ms Michele Tercero
Administrative Aide,
HB City Hall
Hermosa Beach CA90254
05 June 87
Dear Ms. Tercero,
I am writing in response to the letter in Easy Reader of
06/04 concerning ML Media Cable.
The service from Storer Cable was never great but the
deterioration since December has been considerable.
The number of black -outs, poor reception and lack of
response or interest on the part of MLMC has been
unacceptable.
I have written to them twice and enclose a copy of a recent
letter, to which I have had no reply.
I am also enclosing copies of complaints which appeared in a
single edition of The Manhattan Beach Reporter.
Let's get rid of this company and replace them with a more
professional organization.
Sincerely,
David Smethurst
500 Third Street
Manhattan' Beach
CA 90266
Tel: 374 6237
•
The Manager
'M.L. Media Cable
1529 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach CA90254
21 May 87
Dear Manager,
40 e
I am writing to complain about. the deterioration in my cable
service since MLMC took over from Storer.
My cable reception went bad on Saturday and I could not
reach anyone at your office until Monday. When I did get
through I was told it would be Thursday before you could get
an engineer out.
There have been more frequent black -outs and periods of poor
reception since Christmas than I can remember.
Where we used to get educational programming on channel 58
(KLCS) we now get trashy 'home shopping' material.
I have read of other complaints in the local papers and
heard other families in the street discuss this, so 1 don't
think I am an isolated case.
I would be glad to hear what you are doing about the
situation.
Sincerely,
David Smethurst
500 Third Street
Manhattan Beach
CA90266
Z cr,—(1 xcacR.,�`
\.0Wp r `
mA°|OS-h4
•
ML. t'` A:c.--Co—c rs,
owe
+t r 1 :;
ll weekend •
hr
. i ani writing this on Monday; May 11.
MI; Media cable transmission- has been
,,totally, unacceptable; all weekend..on all
frequencies. 'As of this writing,` the pic '
tureis streaked with lines. I.have;made
3.my complaints known on'a daily basis to --
the cable company '4r'.
i ce. ;; - Robert E .Lockney
R fi g: ,; Manhattan Beach
No s ppo 4'}
First of all, not bniythe reception is ;
sometimes poor, but the service as well
;.When ML-Media.saewed •up"(Mahe`
coding for the big fight, which was ant
unfortunate_ ."mishap, _` thee service pm
return was terrible. That's what angered .
me. Their motto iscertainly not, "Sere -`
ice to the customer is our.most impor
- tant product:' :They -jus[ don't:want'to
Roz” SFr, bSv v ]�3"e ��/ iiDn:
Fr Disgusted
J have never been so disgusted by a -
company than I am with Merrill Lynch
Media Cable (ML Media) .
After three weeks of constant phone
calls and appointments that were not
kept by "Bert" the manager no less,. and _
get right back to you",
ands
never was, my reception was restored -
"to an "O.K., I can live with it" condition.
Only -to: have a ' new, more . irritating
problem arise after only two days! -
I don't know about the rest of Man-
j:,ahattan and Hermosa Beach but I must
(:•work for a living and staying home for
'.half a day at a time really hinders my
ability to do so. This new problem will
.:,undoubtedly take yet another full morn-
ing or afternoon away from my work.
i• As a new resident of Manhattan, I
have nothing but praise for my new city,
except in the choice of cable com-1`
panies: ` While living . in- Redondo, I
moved four times and Century Cable
was always there and I never had a
problem. Too bad Manhattan can't get',
• into contract with Century. I bet just
having a more responsible management
;.team would make all the difference in
the world!
Manuel Nelson
jy7
Manhattan Beach s.
,L fake the_time support. you. ;'s:.
,;,;.The„_company's ;;programming `is-
lousy:;Lt needs some, help::
' ''.
A Anon mous ;
a- x4•x, ,'.i:."1, -.`Manhattan Beach-
"n,.,iJ.3.ci�.�-£'.i4r _
L, -„,,._tea..- -,.^-,, ..
KJ
In living stereo
•
Imagine back in -the '60s having just;;
bought your=first•color 1V, seeing the
NBC peacock announce a show in -"liv-
ing color," and discovering that the local
cable company only shows it in black:'-'
and -white! .That ts exactly_ .what ML:
Media-- is doing with all the available
stereo " channels .not only MTV and
: VH=1„but also Showtime,,TheTMovie..
'Channel,- HBO and _others are being
sent to us in mono In fact; -ML Mediais
i' not `relaying ,any cable channels
stereo: r'aar�
_.From ` last week's; overwhelmingly
negative Letters it is evident that in -circler
I _;for ML Media to keep , -its`;
•
4 •••
a-44_
/'7_&.-i
0176-- 1,0-et,teL
a-4-(..4 6 /-2_,6
c„.4e ao-L
C70 -7,--Q-- 64, -el
A
•
/G:30
Ms Michele Tercero
Administrative'Aide
Hermosa Beath City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA
902.54
Ms Tercero
Ruben A Rivera
925 -21st Street
Hermosa Beach, CA
90254-3106
When an organization is granted the right to do exclusive
business in the city of Hermosa Beach, it is very important
that that business serves the public interest. I feel this
is not the'case with ML Media which currently operates the
city cable system.
As a paying customer, it should be reasonable to expect that
when paying full' price for a given service. that one should
recieve full, quality service. Ever since ML Media teak over
the Storer Cable franchise, service has been consistantly
poor. I have lost a Prime Ticket .L A Lakers game and several
boxing matches. Also, it took approximately two weeks to
have a service representative come to my home to fix corrod-
ing..undergrai.rnd cables which had been giving my home poor
reception after we had called about the poor picture and
sound quality. I have experienced several periods of partial
and complete blackouts of both sound and picture, which have
occurred intermittently for months. About six weeks ago, on
an informal visit to their offices to voice concern of the
worsening situation, the company representative refused to
give me her name when asked, for my future use, if the ser-
vice situation had not improved.
On Friday, May 5, 1987, I was watching "Amadeus" during the
early afternoon, and I experienced several blackouts that
lasted from about thirty seconds to several minutes. I
called ML Media during one of the more lengthy blackouts to
inquire about the problem. The representative stated that
they were changing out amplifiers and that service would be
disrupted, on and off, for several hours. At this point, I
informed the representative that I was making a formal com-
plaint about the poor quality of the service. She took my
name and address and the nature of my problem. About three
hours later, I went into the ML Media offices to recieve a
copy of my formal complaint. The supervisor, Brenda Gillen,
stated that they had no policy or procedure for lagging com-
plaints from customers on the phone. Ms Gillen stated that
"ten or twelve irate customers a day call in with complaints
and that it would be too time consuming to log them all or
even the nature or locale of the complaint. At this paint, I
requested to file a complaint, in writing, with her.. .Ms Gil-
len again stated that they had no policy or procedure to lag
even written complaints when made in.person at their offices.
When I demanded some acknowledgement of my complaint and
visit to their offices, Ms Gillen wrote me a "Cufplaillt
Received 5/8/87" receipt on one of their cash receipts(See
Attached).
It seems to me that ML Media is not interested in serving the
public interest of the citizens of Hermosa Beach. I feel
that close review of the -.current situation will clearly show
this to be true. I also feel that,'if such a situation is
indeed found to be true by your close review, the citizens of
Hermosa Beach deserve an apology from ML Media in writing in
one of the local papers(ie 'The.Easy Rader'), a commitment
for real improvement of the service, and if serious enough
problems are found, rebates on cur bills until the service
improves to reasonable 'commun'ity standard.
Respectfully Yours,
1
Ruben A Rivera
r
r
ML MEDIA CABLE
1529 Valley Drive (213)318-3423
Hermosa Beach, CA 0254
RECEIVED FROM
THE SUM OF
- t12 007733
DATE 19 8..7
FOR
AMOUNT OF ACCOUNT $
AMOUNT PAID $
$
❑ M.O.
BALANCE DUE
0 CASH 0 CHECK
BY.
•
Patricia L. Mingus
2528 Ozone Court
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
213-374-2414
29 April 1987
Mr. Dick Lotterman
ML Media Cable TV
Anaheim, CA
ML Media Cable TV -
Phoenix, AZ
ML Media Cable TV
Hermosa Beach, CA
City of Hermosa Beach
With Storer Cable TV I had perfect reception, always.
Since ML Media took over, I have never had consistent
reception, all the while paying the monthly fee.
I have spoken numerous times with the Hermosa Beach
office. Once a repairman (who 'I had to wait for and
finally call to get him here), Louis came and to check
the sound reception he plugged in a testing TV that had
no sound! He suggested I call the supervisor, whic h I did
and I was reassured that the disk was to blame. It was
fixed, I had good reception for one day and then it returned.
I've probably called once a week til I just gave up.
The last time, two weeks ago, someone was to come on a
Tuesday and I was here and no one came. Whenever there is
a little bit of wind it just gets even worse! One
station now is so bad I cannot hear it due to the static.
My neighbor's is the same so I know it is not my set.
The time has come to pay another month. For what I ask?
I feel I am being taken for a ride and I cannot sucombe
to it again. I am a reliable person, always paying on
time my bills. I have decided that you people (ML Media
Cable TV) owe ME money so I am not paying this month.
Hereafterwards, I` shall be glad to pay the days I do get
reception. I understand you are under contract to The
City of Hermosa Beach to provide quality service to its
citizens. I shall not pay anymore for the poorest quality
ever. I truly hope that this can be remedied the soonest
--possible and that the service will return to what it
was before and should be.
Thank you for your. attention.
Sincerely,
Patricia L. Mingus
April 1,1987
Mr. Chris Connoly
ML Media, Inc.
55 Old Post Road, #2
Greenwich, CT 06830
Dear Mr. Connoly:
As stated in my previous letter (copy attached), I have been a subscriber to
Storer Cable (and now ML Media) for about two years. During the time Storer
was the cable company in this area, service was usually good and, if there was
a problem, it was fixed withina reasonable period of time and I always
received a call from someone in the office to make sure everything was
resolved satisfactorily. Unfortunately, this is far from the case with ML
Media.
This last "upgrade" to the cable system has been an absolute disaster. Ever
since the upgrade, television reception has been deplorable. There have been
times when Ave lost all service during the early morning hours; the Atlanta
station and others have been "scrambled" several times.
I have called more than five times in the last month and nothing has been
done to improve service in this timeframe, nor has anyone from the local office
returned my calls to apologize for the lack of service or to let me know when
the problem would be resolved..
If I had a choice of cable companies, I would certainly switch to another at this
time. Being as this is not possible, I am pro rating my basic rate charge (at the
rate of $0.43 a day for 15 days, the period I started calling to request service; a total of $6.45
for the month of March) to compensate for my inconvenience, and I will continue
to do so until the problem(s) is resolved.
My initial reason for getting cable was to have good television reception. If
Pm not getting this, why pay for cable? Would you pay for something you did
not receive?
A reply would be appreciated.
Sip.cerely,
Maryittmann
1817 Tenth Street
Manhattan Beach, California 90266
c: ML Media Cable TV Mr. Tom Parker
Att'n: Bert City Hall
1529 Valley Drive 1400 Highland Avenue
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-2999 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
ML Media Cable TV
Accounts Receivable
P.O. Box 78103
Phoenix, AZ 85062-8103
Ms. JoarrNoon'_
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
17
March 2, 1987
ML Media Cable TV
P.O. Box 78103
Phoenix, AZ 85062-8103
Gentlemen:
T have been a subscriber to Storer Cable (and now ML Media) for about two
years. Every time cable channels have been moved around, notification
was not made either before or after the occurence. As your customer, I
feel this is a very poor way of doing business.
During the last upgrade .(this past weekend), I found it very annoying
because major changes were made and it was particularly dfficult to
figure out where the stations are now located. It would be an
improvement if you would send out a new chart (perhaps with the invoices,
which you are certainly very prompt in issuing...with increased charges without any
prior notification!) with the stations and channels identified for your
customers' convenience.
However, not to write just to complain, I do want to compliment you for
finally giving us separate A&E and Nickelodeon stations, and for the
addition of The Discovery Channel (or is it just a sneak preview before we will
have to pay for it?). But, where is Channel 58?
A reply would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Maryfi`ittmann
1817 Tenth Street
Manhattan Beach, California 90266
c: ML Media Cable TV
1529 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-2999
ML Media CabP TV
April 24, 1987
Ms. Mary Tittmann •
1817 Tenth Street
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Dear Ms. Tittmann:
•
3041 East Miraloma Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92806
(714) 632-9222
Mr. Chris Conley referred your letter of April 1, 1987 to me for
reply.
We have provided a credit to your billing and Mr. Bramley has
attempted to contact you to correct any remaining service
problems. However, I would like to extend my apologies for the
problems you had in the past both in terms of television
reception and difficulties in getting proper response from our
system office.
There is no question that we have experienced difficulties
beginning in March as we extended the channel capacity of the
system and offered new services. However, I believe that we have
solved those problems and are providing both good picture quality
and responsiveness to customer's calls.
I appreciate your understanding for the period of difficulty and
hope you continue to enjoy the new services being offered. If
you should have any future difficulty with our service that is
not resolved to your satisfaction by personnel at our Hermosa
Beach office, please feel free to contact me at the above address
or telephone.
Sincerely,
Richar• +. aterman
Vice Pw'esident & General Manager
•
RJW:it
CC: Mr. Tom Parker, City of Manhattan Beac
Ms. Joan Noon, City of Hermosa Beach
Mr_- Chris Conley, ML Media Cable TV
Mr. Bert Bramley, ML Media Cable TV
rm•TcTn\• nr \TT •r••• • •-,•
tie A
•
Mr. Dick Waterman, Vice President and General Manager,
ML Media Cable TV
3041 East Miraloma Av.
Anaheim, CA 92806
March 24, 1987
323 36th St. Apt. C
Manhattan Beach, CA
RE:. Billing for account 15508-981204-02-5 and the unprofessional behavior of your Hermosa Office.
[copies have been sent to Ms. Noon's office at Hermosa City Hall and to the Better Business Bureau of
Arizona]
Mr. Waterman;
After dealing with Ms. Brenda Gillen and her staff too many times already, I am forced to bring
this matter to your attention. Please bare with the lengthy accounts of my interactions with your
Hermosa office.
Despite the length of this letter and the enclosed copies of documents, it is in ML Media's best
interest that you read this. It will make you aware of a situation in your Hermosa office that will
result in loss of more revenue in the future unless some changes are enacted. On a brighter note,
it will also make you aware of one particular employee, Debbi B.[I regret I did not get her full
name], a young lady who was as helpful as she could be at all times, even at moments when
all others in the office, including myself, were hostile. She was courteous and polite and it would
be a shame if ML Media did not recognize this when the time comes for personnel changes at the
Hermosa office.
Some background: Due to the nature of our businesses, my roommates and' are frequently out of
town at different intervals and the over -lapping times we are together in our home is minimal.
This, unfortunately, allows us to easily fall a payment or even two behind in our utilities as it is
difficult to assess who should pay what, etc. To compound matters even further, in the first week
of February, one of my roommates, owing for his share of the prior two months utility bills as
well as February's rent, left town [permanently] and left my other roommate and myself with
those bills to pay!
This situation lead to our account with ML Media to be over two months past due and a
disconnection warning notice had finally appeared. I called the Hermosa office and spoke with a
Ms. Shierre Nelson-Marzullo[please excuse the misspelling] ori the afternoon of February 17th, a
Tuesday. I explain the situation, apologized for the delay in payment and asked her if partial
payment could be made to ML media. Ms. Nelson-Marzullo responded that a sum of $53.66
against the total amount owed of $95.03, needed to be in the office that day by 5pm or we would be
scheduled for disconnection. Expressing that I might not be able to come to the Hermosa office by
that time,.Ms. Nelson-Marzullo 'said•she could delay the.scheduling of disconnect until the •
following Friday, the 20th, but after that she would have to schedule a disconnect. I thanked her
for her help and appeared at your Hermosa office at 4:30pm that Friday.
At this point Ms. Nelson-Marzullo stopped being helpful and began a defensive posture that
quickly grew into a shouting match between her and myself. Please keep in mind that I appeared
at your office initially with a humble attitude. After all, it is not ML Media's concern what
problems I have with my roommates nor with paying my bills. I was well aware of this and had
no thoughts of anything else but to express thanks for your cooperation. Unfortunately, that is
not how the situation developed.
ttn`.
• •
Ms. Nelson-Marzullo began by telling me that disconnection had already been scheduled that
morning. I asked how could that be when I had until 5 to come into the office. She said I was
suppose to be there by 8am that morning,.I reminded her I was informed I had until Friday and
since she did not ever mention 8am, I assumed she meant all day Friday. Her response was , "I
always tell people by 8am; I told you by 8am. If you want to keep your cable you have to pay an
additional $20 re -connect charge now." I let Ms Nelson-Marzullo know I only had one
conversation with a cable company that week and that I was fully aware of what was said. I asked
that she cancel the disconnection and she replied she WOULD not do it "because she knew what
she said and I was wrong." You can imagine the tone of the conversation at this point. I handed
her the check for $53.66 and warned her that if she did not cancel that disconnect I would re-
connect myself afterwards. With that I left the office, leaving the billstub with the PAID stamp at
your office. • I regret making that threat but by that point I was quite angry with her for reneging
on our verbal agreement. When I got home, the cable was still on, so I taped a note to the cable
connection explaining that payment had been made to the office and that the cableman should
come to our door before doing any actions. That seemed to have worked.
Two weeks later, we were still getting cable when we got a notice from ML Media, via a hand-
written reminder left on our door[obviously left by one of the service people paying a call on our
home] that stated we had five days to pay the bill or disconnect would occur. A day earlier we
received our March billing which had a handling charge of $10.00[for late payment] applied just
8 days after I made partial payment. We felt that this should not have happen and expecting that
the Hermosa Office may not be authorized to delete this charge, I typed up a letter to bring along
so that it maybe forwarded to the head offices of ML Media for a decision. A copy of that letter is
enclosed. You will note I made no reference to the incident between Ms. Nelson-Marzullo and
myself, assuming there was no need since we still had our cable and all was fine. It turns out that
all was not fine and that future dealings with your Hermosa Office would be ones where I was
treated with a vengefulness, I was now "the man who told Sheirre he would re -connect the cable
himself." Debbi, of course, is the exception to that attitude.
I walked into the Hermosa office on March 10th, prepared to pay up the remaining amount due as
well as clear up the matter of the additional handling charge. Debbi was first to assist me; she
informed me that we were listed as disconnected as of February 20th, the day I came in with the
partial payments. I showed her the bill I had in my hand that clearly showed I was still being
charged for the month of March. At this point I also inquired about the additional special
handing charge of $10. Debbi said she would needed to speak with the manager. Ms. Gillen came
over to the terminal and again repeated that I was disconnected as of 2/20/87. I told her we still
had our cable, showed her the billing, and again explained why we felt the handling charge
should be removed. At this point, Ms. Gillen asked me if I was the man who argued with Sherrie
and then asked me if I reconnected the cable myself. I told her what had happened and that I did
not reconnect myself; I was never disconnected. She then made some changes at the terminal to
correct the disconnected status and then informed me of the amount I owed. I again inquired
about the service charge billed to us on 2/28/87 and gave her my reasoning as to why we felt that
to be in error. She disagreed and stated that charge would not be removed. I then asked her to
please allow that charge to proceed to -the next billing and to forward the letter I had typed to'the
head offices for their ruling. SHE REFUSED TO DO THIS.
I was willing to pay the remaining amount owed except the $10; which I would pay the following
month if thehead offices of ML Media disagreed with me, and her response as office manager was
"No. You have to pay that ten dollar charge now or we will disconnect you." Faced with that
choice, I responded "Fine. Please tell me what the past due is up to today and I'll pay that. You
can disconnect us immediately." For not waiting a month to hear what ML Media in Anaheim
had to say, for TEN DOLLARS, Ms. Gillen would rather lose a $31/month account. That is what
your Hermosa office manager would rather do. Concerning Ms. Nelson-Marzullo, to prove that
she was right, to prove she was the one in control, she insisted that our service would be
i• r
t
disconnected.. Regardless of who is at fault, and I will admit that there were times here I reacted
as nasty as I felt necessary, regardless of whatever satisfaction these two ladies got from giving
me this "service' ; the bottom line is that ML Media loses revenue as a result. There I was an
February 20th, entering the office, humble and apologetic about being behind, ready to work
with the company to pay up as soonas possible-andcontinue our cable service and the end result
is I am so angry with your company that I decide I no longer want to deal with the hassle and I end
the service. -
•
I thought that to be the end of that. I was awaiting the final billing for the days of March 1st
through 10th, and when it arrived I could see that Ms. Gillen was determined to have the final say
in this matter. I am fully paid up to February 28th -and yet there was a billing that stated that I
owed for the days 2/20/87 through 3/12/87. I am not going to pay for 2/20 through 2/28 as these
days have been paid for in the two checks of $53.66 & $41.37.
I called the office yesterday to get the account straightened out. Someone ,who unfortunately I
did not get her name, answered and I began to tell them that the two payments made on 2/24[which
of course should actually read 2/20, but someone chose to enter it at a later date] and 3/12[again I paid this on 3/10 and I
have a stamped bill stub this time to prove it] cover cable service up to 2/28 and that I only owe from 3/1 to
3/12 [even at that point I was willing to pay the extra two days, 3/11 and 3/12, I should not have been charged]. This
lady then states "I remember you; you told Sherrie you were gonna re -connect your cable". I told
her that I never needed to do that and as I attempted to explain once again why the billing is
wrong, without warning she put me on hold in mid -sentence. I stayed on hold for 5 minutes until
someone else came on and asked if I was being helped. AGAIN, I explained what I wanted and I
also told her about the previous person's actions and she asked if I could hold. They had me on
hold for ten minutes when I finally had enough. I hung up the phone and immediately call
Phoenix information for ML Media Cable TV In an attempted to locate the headquarters of your
company.
Needless to say I didn't find such a company listed and after making-caIls from the Business
licensing office of Pheonix City Hall to the Arizona Better Business Bureau, I finally got in
contact with Joan Noon's office and now, finally, someone of higher authority at ML Media.
ALL I WANT FROM THIS IS TWO THINGS:
1. That the billing be adjusted to be 3/1/87 to 3/10/87 and you allow us to pay it without hassle.
and
2. That no erroneous information, such as this latest billing dated 3/19/87 which states I am 60
days past due on services given from 2/20/87 to 3/12/87, be reported to any credit agencies. As a
businessman in this community, such inaccurate information on my credit rating can have
serious effects on the livelihood of my comp. y.
pincer
arry • .r:mowski,
323 3. • t. Apt C
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
(213) 545-3874 or (213) 544-8473
March 10, 1987. .
323 36th St. Apt. C
Manhattan Beach,CA
RE: Billing for account 15508-981204-02-5
To ML Media Cable;
Concerning our over -due account for the amount of $141.43, I am sure you are aware by now that
$53.66 of this past due amount has been paid. This was by check delivered to your HERMOSA office
in person on 2/20/87.
We no longer have a television in the room where the additional outlet is[new roommate] so we would
like that charge eliminated from future billings. We have brought the converter back today and we'll
assume you will pro -rate us at one third of rental[.33 X ($4.50 + $3.00) = $2.50].
Concerning the handling charge of 2/28/87, we believe this to be in error. Since partial payment was
delivered just 8 days earlier for a little over one half the amount owed and since the HERMOSA
OFFICE did not inform us at that time a partial payment would not stop the addition of a handling
charge , the handling charge of $10 [for deliquent bills beyond 45 days] should not have been applied.
If partial payment of a deliquent bill DOES NOT prevent such a charge from being levied, please send
a written notice in addition to having the charge re -appear on the next billing.
IF ML Media agrees with the above summation of our account then the amount due to ML Media
should be:
141.43
- 53.66 payment on 2/20
- 5.00 [$7.50 - 2.50]pro-rate of additional outlet and converter
- 10.00 handling charge of 2/28
$72.77
And if it has any bearing at all, I would like to request ML Media bring back station KSCI, channel 18
UHF.
Thank you for your time, patience, and efforts,
Sincerely,
The residents of Apartment C, 323 36th Street, Manhattan Beach.
I
MEDIA CABLE TV
9 VALLEY DRIVE
HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254-2999
FORWARDING AND ADDRESS
CORRECTION REQUESTED
•
0000361362116 00031 04032
DATE DUE
DUE NOW
AMOUNT DUE
25.5
$
PLEASE RETURNTHIS'TOP PORTION ONLY, WITH REMITTANCE TO —N ... 74aa *44111 LEASE woicare
000-03-87-A- DaMOUNT E'NDGWSE
**1 ZP 3.93292.311
MR HARRY ABRAMOWSKI
323 36TH ST APT C
' MANHATTAN BEACH CA
90266-3205
1 15508 981204 02 5 7 002558
ML, MEDIA .CABLE TV
ACCOUNT NUMBER
15508-981204-02-5
FOR- 323 36TH ST APT C
2/28 BEGINNING BALANCE
PAYMENT
/ 2 PAYMENT
- 3/31 PREM1IUM SERVICE
1 MONTH, 8 DAYS
2/20- 3/31 ?ARTIAL MONTH
8 DAYS
2/20- 3/12 PARTIAL M
20 DAYS AT 1.300=
ML MEDIA CABLE TV
P.O. BOX 78103
PHOENIX AZ 85062-8103
BILLED FROM BILLED TO DATE DUE
3/31/87 3/31/87 DUE NOW
OUR RECORDS INDICATE THA
Awe • •SWN ABOVE I5
AST IMMEDIATE PA T MUST
E TO AVOID FURTHER ACTION.
141.43
53.66-
41.37-
20.51-
26.30-
25.99
25.58
3/31
BALANCE DUE
THRJ MAR 31,
1987
irn .2 1-0 - vrtj DA..y
4 5 Q ccsVL,d Y+� Lucc..5
fe-ti
rvl -e �
6efi_ c-ttc IDA\
3
•
INCLUOESiAYMENTT
NECEIVEOWY
3/19/8
**NOTICES'* FOR ASSISTANCE WITH BILL:
PROBLEMS, PLEASE CALL OUR HERMOSA BE.
OFFICE AT 318-3423 FOR PROMPTESOLU-
TION.•
:: (1.0\m_11 -A.,,, I i
)
(6
%/tV.
gj5 3 c_ 01
1)u
S
1 Z• 1
6(_ 50w,c.. 5..kcpZ on k6. S .
it
x \OCL 4-=L s wt - i
Yk
•
ML MEDIA CABLE TV
1529 VALLEY DRIVE
HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254-2999
FORWARDING AND ADDRESS
CORRECTION REQUESTED
410 0010761608119 01003 040314
DATE DUE AMOUNT DUE
PAST DUE 141.43
PLEASE RETURN THIS TOP PORTION ONLY, WITH REMITTANCE TO --
**1 CP 2.56096.39K**CR 08
MR HARRY ABRAMOWSKI
323 36TH ST APT C
MANHATTAN BEACH CA
90266-3205
L- 981204 02 5
ML MEDIA CABLE TV
2 014143
PLEASE INDICATE
AMOUNT ENCLOSEC
090 -02 -87 -A -C
ML MEDIA CABLE TV
P. 0. BOX 78103
PHOENIX AZ 85062-8103
ACCOUNT NUMBER BILLED FROM BILLED TO DATE DUE
1550? -981204=02-5 3/01/87 3/31/87 PAST DUE 2/20/87`
MW.10,16PAVIMMOM
OECENtO SY
FOR- 323 36TH ST APT C
1/31 BEGINNING BALANCE
-'1/28 HANDLING CHARGE
3/01- 3/31 PREMIUM SERVICE
3/01- 3/31 CABLE SERVICE ,
3/01- 3/31 ADDL TV OUTLET
3/01- 3/31 CJHVERTER RENT
HANDLING CHARGE
2/28 BALANCE DUE
*** NOTICE *0**
YOUR ACCOUNT IS PAST DUE.
IF PAYMENT IS NOT RECEIVED
105.03 IMMEDIATELY YOUR SERVICE WILL
BE DISCONNECTED. IF DISCONNECTED
10.00- YOUR ACCOUNT WILL BE SUBJECT TO.
15.95 A RECONNECT CHARGE.
12.95
4.50 WITH
3.00 PROBLEMS,*PLEASE FORACALLTOUR EHERMOSAIBEA
10.00 OFFICE AT 318-3423 FOR PROMPT RESOLU-
TION.
141.43
MAR 01 THRU MAR 31, 1987
c2 E 0.lkScos- kLA
f1-2:vnit .
STJSEP k3LE TV
PAID 1�l
MA: + 0 1987 C
/ 4/.3-
By
HERMCS.'.
• DAVID D. LAUFER 41/
ATTORNEY AT LAW
19001 S. WESTERN AVENUE, TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90509
TELEPHONE (213) 618-4762
March 5, 1987
M. L. Media Cable TV
1529 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, California 90254-2999
Dear Sirs:
r,,
As a long-standing subscriber to Storer Cable TV Ser-
vice, I am outraged at your cavalier treatment of customers upon
taking over Storer's business. Without consultation with or
notification to subscribers, you saw fit to rearrange channels,
add and delete networks, and, apparently, raise rates.
Without notice, justification or explanation, my March
bill showed an increase in cable service from $9.92 to $12.95
(approximately 33%) and an increase from $10.00 to $18.00 for
"additional TV outlet" (an increase of 80%). In the absence of
any written statement from you, I assumed this was an error and
have paid the same amount billed'in February.
Your failure to provide subscribers with any prior
written indication that you rearranged channels, deleting some
and adding others, is inexcusable, reflecting both insensitivity
and bad business judgment. Would you please explain, for exam-
ple, why you have dropped the Financial News Network (previously
on channel 12, then 28) replacing it with "The Travel Channel."
That question is probably rhetorical, since it appears from the
actions you have taken thus far that you have no understanding of
good business practices and, therefore, would probably not under-
stand why a significant number of viewers in the South Bay area
would be interested in financial news.
Because of your monopoly position, and the South Bay
community's reliance on cable TV services, I hope you will modify
your operating philosophy and practice. Otherwise, I foresee a
very strained relationship between your organization and your
customers.
Sincerely yours,
David D. Laufer
A:E0470092.
cc: City Councils of Manhattan Beach,
Hermosa Beach and Redondo Beach.
March 19, 198 r
Dear Concerned Citizen:
1 3/ f)
1111AyoR cOUQCiL
(pst-VC Piz
ih«C w 4-m-Zet A to
Fy•�• —
With the recent acquisition of the local c
CABLE, by M.L. MEDIA, which now provides cab
Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach, I offer the
tions:
)1
e company, S
servic
following
TO ER
•oth
observa
1.. While local cable service has been marginal at best in terms
of audio/video transmission, the new owners have not opted to
rectify any existing problems or limitations, but rather have
mounted an extensive media campaign to promote the addition
of "services and programming" on local cable TV - expounding
upon the supposed additions that '''w.e have been requesting, if
not demanding."
2. Due to our supposed requests, M.L. MEDIA has opted to add six
or seven "new" channels to the existing cable service in
Hermosa and Manhattan Beaches, with a corresponding rate
increase of 27% for basic cable service. For this ;hopping
27% increase, let us look at what they are really giving. us:
A. Prime Ticket - A local sports channel with LA Forum
events.
B. American Movie Classics - A channel most cable compa-
nies have eliminated years ago since late-night TV on
regular channels carry the same movies.
C. CNN Headline News - A 10 minute version of CNN News
that is currently offered. A complete duplicated
ripoff!
D. Discovery Channel - A dinosaur in cable TV. Now
intending to broadcast Russian TV, for cable survival.
E. Home Shopping - We already have_' access to a similar
channel...thank you.
F. Travel Channel - Underwritten by TWA Airlines, a
commercial travelogue at best.
G. VH -1 - A basically bad music channel for those over
35...supposedly.. Bland trash...watch it for yourself.
The intentions and actions of M.L. MEDIA are suspect at best.
Their actions are certainly questionable. If we REALLY had a
choice in local cable TV programming, 'real direct community
input, I am certain that the BRAVO CHANNEL, SELECT TV, CINEMAX,
PLAYBOY CHANNEL, would have been suggested and requested if a
true community poll were taken. But N00000 - M.L. MEDIA decided
to add the above channels and delete such channels as KSCI
(channel 18 - LA Schools educational channel). What about WOR -
New York and KLCS-LA Public Broadcast? It is obvious that M.L.
MEDIA is as disconcerned with the desires of the local residents
as STORER CABLE. Nothing has changed except the name and the
price.
On top of all this, N.L. MEDIA does not even offer a comprehen-
sive program guide of all the channels they offer. Thus you do
not knot: what TV program will air when, on what day, or at what
hour (on the "newly added" channels that we are now paying an
additional 27% for through our new cable company) . Where is our
free subscription to Cable Guide Magazine,k a top quality publi-
cation which is provided as part of basic service to customers of
other local cable companies including Century Cable, Cox Cable
and Falcon Cable? Maybe they should spend the tremendous amount
of money they have been lavishly cpcnding in Loth the Easy Reader
and The Beach Reporter announcing their "fantastic expansion
plans" in multiple advertisements in more important areas like
customer service and accurate programming guides. Without a
doubt, this recent acquisition of STORER CABLE TV by M.L. MEDIA
has not exhibited ars increase in service, but rather, an increase
in cost and aggravation. What gives ---are we really getting a
better product? I say no.
Cheryl McGrath
1567 Manhattan Avenue
Hermosa Beach, CA 90.254
cc: Hermosa Beach City Council
Manhattan, Beach City Council
Easy Reader
Beach Reporter
March 23, 1987
Ms. Cheryl McGrath
1567 Manhattan Avenue
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Dear Ms. McGrath:
ML Media Cable TV 411
3041 E. Miraloma
,Anaheim, CA 92806
(714) .632-922
I received a copy of your March 19, 1987 letter regarding the
price increase and new services implemented by ML Media Cable TV
on March 1, 1987.
While I understand your concern about increasing prices, I would
like to respond to some of your concerns and explain the
rationale behind the price increase and new services.
First, ML Media Cable TV is most concerned about improving the
quality of the television picture offered to our customers and
have commenced a quality improvement program. If you arc
experiencing picture quality problems, I will ensure that
technicians will be dispatched to resolve any such problems.
As to the new channels, we have expanded the channel capacity
from 30 teo 35 channels, installed extensive new equipment, and
utilized a survey of customers conducted by the Annenberg School
of Communications of the University of Southern Calitornia
approximately one year ago. This was a random survey of 600
customers, which produces a statistically valid result, including
276 customers in Hermosa Beach and 324 customers in.Manhattan.
Beach. In terms of the channels we deleted, KLCS and KSCI, the
survey indicated 68% rarely or never watched KLCS and 72% rarely
or never watched KSCI. The survey also asked for the type of
services customers would like to sec more of. The most desired
new services ranked as follows: Classic Movies - 74%;
Documentaries, Nature - 67%; Sports - 52%;.Headline News 31%; and
Contemporary Video Music - 17%. The results were very similar
.for both residents of Heimosa•Beach and Manhattan Beach. In
addition, we have had literally hundreds of specitic requests for
Prime Ticket and the Prime Ticket office has confirmed our
experience by recent calls from Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach
of customers requesting their service.
The channels we added - Prime Ticket, American Movie Classics,
Discovery Channel, CNN Headline News, and VH -1 are all directly
the result of wha411we perceived to be subscr er demand for these
services, as indicated in thc above mentioned survey. The
addition of the Travel channel was based upon what we thought
would be a- useful s-ervice, but we have been disappointed with its
programming and arc re-evaluating its continued carriage.
Incidentally, many cable companies charge $4.95 per month for
American Movie Classics (AMC) as a "mini" pay service and AMC has
10 times the number of classic movies (without commercials) of
any LA independent station. Far from being a channel most cable
companies have eliminated years ago, AMC was founded in October
1984 and ended 1984 with 350,000 customers. As of December 1986,
AMC had 4.6 million customers and projects 8.0 million by
December 1987.
The channels you mentioned for possible addition: Bravo, Select
TV, Cinemax, and Playboy are all pay-TV channels which typically
range in price from $4.95 for Bravo to $21.95 for Select TV for
that channel only, in addition to the cost of basic cable
service.
To retest our customer's preferences, we plan to do surveys on
the new channel line-up and suggested new services in the near
future and will be responsive to what we hear from customers such
as yourself.
As to the lack of a comprehensive cable guide, we arc in the
process of evaluating such a guide for our customers and plan to
make such a guide available in the near future. In the meantime
we have added a video guide, which you can see on channel 6 when
Prime Ticket is not programming.
In summary, I can understand your concern about thc price
increase, but it was necessary due to costs of expanding channel
capacity and significantly higher new programming costs for
existing and new services. In addition, funding is necessary to
upgrade the quality of our overall service --I feel certain you
will see the evidence of such improvements in the near future.
Sincerely,
chard Waterman
Vice Piesident & General Manager
cc: Hermosa Beach City Council
Hermosa Beach City Manager
Manhattan Beach City Council
Easy Reader
Beach Reporter
ML Media Cable, .T
July -9, 1987
Joan Noon
General Services Director
City of Hemosa Beach
Civic Center
1350 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach CA 90254-3885
Dear Joan:
•
�;.
3041 East Miraloma Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92806
(714) 632-9222
In response to your letter July 6, 1987, I have responded to the
City Attorney's letter dated May 22, 1987. (copy attached)
In reference
provided to
necessitating
problem. As
customers who
problems -not
technician.
to the subscriber complaint log, what we recently
you does include all subscriber complaints
the dispatching of system personnel to resolve the
you point out, the information does not include
call relative to a billing problem or other
necessitating the dispatching of a service
Unfortunately, logs have never been kept on those
types of customer inquiries and complaints and are, therefore,
not available for the past 6 months. However, since you have
pointed out that this is a requirement in the franchise ordinance
we will commence logging this information immediately. With
reference to the records of substantial system failures, we
initiated an outage log form in May and can provide this
information to you. (sample copy attached)
I do believe that the work that we have completed on the system
to date, including the construction project along the Strand has
corrected the majority of reception problems in the City of
Hermosa Beach. As we continue the preventive maintenance program
we should be able to dramatically improve the reliability of the
system to avoid future occurances o those kinds of problems.
If there is any additional information I can provide prior to the
public hearing, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
)11! / Ade7 /' ?�✓CE4-L--
• c _rd Waterman
Vice Pr ident and General Manager
A DIVISION OF ML MEDIA PARTNERS, L.P.
SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION
5
• I.
DATE:
From (--/-g7 To (4,—,36-2
Ii of
Tech amps
off
of
L.E. '
off
Length of
outage
minutes
Cause of outage
Action taken
LkJ
Uri
6 .5T77gi 170'
Itg giO
1/ /1 oei
10
9(9
$20g2ECMV.4.11Ve.
-2•e
owe -f-- 1. res-kr-e_o
4.
iltel"912111MC
61...tstr / e CI a:
'4 pMvsZ.17..2:S=4".2-7:11-74.17.T.
/a-.),,9//eA,61
iec.12„(
/ax:' ce
ea -fa/
!=r112i=t _
SMIECOMI=6=1-2115229241
r4OZEIZE:=111=
p
"rtESPIELMIZL11.1.t.t.M.12M".—.1....
• , • n ...,....• • , ...ay., . Ir. •.•.. ; *N..- t. 1 Y.Ireng..41 • ,•,. .....
.. .
.. . .
. ,
'
1.....L.r.nr7T.'.13.1.."=SIES=17nalrean:
-ML Media Cable TV
July 9, 1987
James P. Lough
City Attorney
City of Hermosa Beach
1605 W Olympic Blvd, Suite 9018
Los Angeles CA 90015
Dear Mr. Lough:
3041 East Miraloma Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92806
(714) 632-9222
This is in response to your letter dated May 22, 1987 to Mr.
Christopher J. Conley regarding the July 14, 1987 public hearing
at the City Council of Hermosa Beach.
The following is our response to the items in your letter
which were excerpted from the contract between the City of
Hermosa Beach and ML Media Partners, LP :
1. A. A detailed plan including milestones for completion of
the cable TV system throughout the entire city.
The cable TV System is complete throughout the entire city of
Hermosa Beach. Any single family housing owner is able to
contact our office and be connected to the system. In the case
of apartment units, or other multiple dwelling units, it is
necessary for us to have a contract with the owner of the
apartment complex before we can provide service to tenants of the
apartmentor condominium project. We are not presently serving
all apartment units in the city of Hermosa Beach, however, we
have active cable running either in front of all such apartment
units or in close proximity. We are able to provide service to
any apartment or condominium complex once an agreement is reached
to allow our access to the premises and construction of the
system.
B. Transferee shall also present to the City a detailed
maintenance plan showing what parts of the Cable TV
system are in need of maintenance and/or replacement and
what steps will betaken by the transferee to maintain
and upgrade the system.
A DIVISION OF ML MEDIA•PARTNERS, L.P.
5
SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION
Attached is a summary of the preventive maintenance program which
we have initiated in the Hermosa System in recent weeks. Since
the initiation of this preventive maintenance plan we have been
able to provide dramatic improvement in the picture quality we
provide to our customers. This is an on-going plan which will
assure that we can continue to provide the level of service that
our customers desire and that we intend to provide.
C. As part of the submissions, the transferee shall present
a plan for improved public access to the cable TV system.
Please see the attached programming report which shows the
improvements we have made.
D. Transferee and City shall use their best efforts to use
public access in a way that will benefit the citizens of
Hermosa Beach.
Again refer to the attached report. However, we are always
interested in working with the City of Hermosa Beach to use
public access to benefit our customers.
I hope the above information provides you with the necessary
information prior to the upcomming public hearing.
Sincerely,
RI a erman
Vice P.esident and General Manager
cc: Christopher J. Conley
ML MEDIA CABLE TV
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CABLE GROUP
HERMOSA BEACH
PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
We, at ML MEDIA know that the successful way to operate a cable
system is to prevent problems before they happen rather than after they
happen. We have a Preventative Maintenance Program which allows us to
do just that. Here are the key points to our program.
SYSTEM TESTPOINTS - We install and monitor o
number of system test points which allow us to
measure the systems performance and correct any
problems while they are minor and not noticeable to
the customer.
PICTURE QUALITY CHECKS - We monitor the picture
quality at the office to ensure that all of the
audio and video signals are of good quality as they
leave the headend.
HEADEND CHECKS - We perform tests in the headend
to monitor the quality of the incoming signals and
the operation of the headend electronics.
SYSTEM POWER SUPPLYS - We monitor the current
draw on our system power supplies to ensure that
they are operating properly.
SYSTEM SWEEP - We maintain an ongoing electronic
"sweep" of the system. This includes inserting a
signal at the headend which can be observed in the
system with the use of a test oscilloscope.
This is the "heart" of our program.
SIGNAL LEAKAGE - We install very sensitive
receivers in some of our technicians vehicles which
can detect very low amounts of signal which may be
"leaking" from the system through corroded
connectors or other mechanical problems in the
system. These problems are logged and corrected.
Systern problems con and do happen. This Preventative Maintenance
Program is our way of m i n i mum i r i ng those problems by "catching" them
while they are minor.
N IH1n CAkkH T.V.
1529 Valley Dr
l(crmosa ,13cach, CA. 902541
213,/3.L8-3423
1985 was the year the Video Production Department built our
television studio by hand for Storer Cable. In 1986 the studio
became the work horse of the department as improvements made
the studio more flexible and efficient.
Presently we cablecast four running weekly series live from the
studio. Tne advantage of live versus tape programming is the
dimension of taking live phone calls, which makes the viewer
an integral part of the program. Our Friday night viewer call-in
snow is so popular that we actually jam our lines weekly, and the
viewership is ranked in the thousands.
The secret to our success of local programming however, lies in
the balance that programming. We oversee the taping of
council meetings and planning commission meetings in both .Hermosa
and Manhattan Beach. We also cover political issues through our
new political call-in discussion show and our long time popular
in-depth documentary series. Balanced in with this is some of
the best coverage of local events ever produced by a cable company,
making our local "Channel 10" as interesting as it is popular.
In 1987, our committment through ML Media to local programming
could not be stronger. Following are a fe-w examples of program
series'carried over from 1986 we still continue to support:
COMMUNITY AWARENESS ( community/family ) cablecast live, hosted by
both the Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach police departments. This
program focuses on community issues that relate to the prlice.
Recent programs have covered child car restraints, drug enforcement,
use of K9 units, use of helicopters and neighborhood watch.
SOUTH BAY NEWSREEL (community documentary ) taped locally. An
in-depth documentary program examining local community issues.
Provided by outside producers utilizing our facilities. Topics
range from an award winning special on the "West Side Homeless"
of Los Angeles, an informative program on "The Railroad Right of Way"
in Manhattan and Hermosa Beach, and the future prospects of solid
waste dumping in the Santa Monica Bay.
SOUTH BAY STUDENT NEWS (conversations)/student ) studio taped news
program utilizing high school students from the area, primarilyfrom
Mira Costa. Topics range from coverage of school events to large communis_
events. Taped reports are inserted with studio wrap provided by
the student anchormen. All done from a responsible "student"
perspective, provided by the students in association with adult
program advisors.
In addition to these programs is a wide variety of other programs
we carry and support. Please refer to the attached copy of our
weekly listings we have printed in Tlie Beach Reporter.
In March we have unveiled two new programs that will be provided
through our department that will be presented weekly over Channel 10
in addition to all other programming:
TALK OF THE TOWN (political talk show ) cablecast live. Bi -weekly
show discussing 'community problems and local topics of interest
as they relate to Manhattan and Hermosa Beach. Purpose of the.
program is to make viewers aware of issues before they are
finalized through council and planning commission action, thus
allowing more to become involved in their local government. In
addition to hard-hitting programs such as our first on "The General
Plan" of Manhattan Beach, are less controversial topics such as, The
Manhattan Beach 75th Anniversary, will be covered. This program
is cablecast live from our studio every other Monday, taking phone
calls during the show from"local viewers. The program repeats the
following week.
WAVE WATCH ( surfing talk show ) taped locally. Many are familiar
with this program which was first carried on our system 41 years
ago and has been runnign weekly since. This program was provided out
of Group W in Santa Monica, which recently cancelled the program.
Due to the high popularity of this program, I have contacted. the
producer and have made arrangements to have the program "home based"
in Hermosa and Manhattan Beach, This'means the "wrap arounds" will
be provided on location at our beach giving the program a real local
flavor. This program features top international surfers and the
best surf footage from around the world. This new version, taped
locally, has been reformatted, making it far better than the
previous program. The series is shown on public access stations,
in beach communities, from San Luis Obispo to San Diego, proud to
have our beach the."home" of Wave Watch.
Good news is that I have recently been assured by our technical
department that we will soon be capable of cablecasting meetings
live from both the councilroom and the Joslyn Center. We have
found a way much.iess complicated than before, giving us
greater flexibility in the transmission. We will be sending the
signal back from the head end at Live Oak Park using reverse
amplifiers and cablecasting on subbands to our studio in Hermosa
Beach. From there we have control to mix it with our other
programming and to recablecast it over "Channel 10". The only
hangup will be to get a cable line across 15th St, to the Joslyn
Center. I understand there is a city conduit for the traffic
signal which may work. We do not need to trench the basketball
courts to get to Live Oak Park headend, as planned before, since-
I'm told there is a vault we can tap into near the street. We
need to trench under the lawn and a couple of walkways I believe.
We will soon be presenting this in more detail to city staff.
In conclusion, we have plans to not only provide the same quality
programming local residents have grown to appreciate from us, but
there are several improvements to both programming and our
technical capabilities we are currently_working on. April 1st we
are hiring an additional employee to work on staff in the,production
department as a result of the many new additions we are adding,
and plan to add, to local programming. As summer draws near we
are making preparations to more efficiently .cover the local events
we have covered in the past, with the addition of new events such
as the parade through Manhattan Beach.
CHANNEL 10 PROGRAMMING 10/85 - 10/86
Breakdown:
Public Access Series: 43
Public Access Specials: 36
Storer Produced/co-produced
Series 12
Storer Produced/co-produced
Specials 69
Complete Breakdown:
P.A P.A.' Storer Storer
Series Specials Series Specials
Political 1 3 5 8
Educational/Student 10 6 2 8
Local Interest 2 1 15
Community /Family 4 6 2 4
Religious 3 1
Health 1 2 1
Interview 5 3 1
General Interest 3 1 2
Sports 4 9
Surfing/Beach Sports 2 1 8
Bikini Contests 1 8
Music(classic-rock-folk-relig.) 8 3 2
Entertainment 1 3
Park Service. 3 1
Aerospace 5 1
1986 LOCAL PROGRAMMING IMPROVEMENTS
Studio outfitted for live programming
Capability of answering multi -line phone calls live from studio
Live hook-up with Hermosa Beach City Hall
Addition of Full -Time employee from Part -Time
Large Increase in Volunteer and Student Intern involvement
Increase in Locally Produced programs
Large increase in Co -Produced programs
Large increase in number of cablecast program series and specials -
Increased programming hours
Increased studio availability
Upgraded Studio facilities
Upgraded technical flexibility
Upgraded efficentcy
Increased Community Involvement
Increased Media coverage and Publicity
Increased public awareness in Local. Programming
Arl
ML MEDIA
The Hermosa/Manhattan Beach Community Programming Channel 10
Week of June 9th through June 15th
THURSDAY
6pm Econews - A weekly enviromental documentry program.
6:30 Collector Talk
7:00 Talking Health - Weekly health discussion program featuring local
chiropractor Dr. Chris Ullman.
7:30 Manhattan Beach Planning. Commission Meeting - Full coverage from the
Planning meeting held 7/8 in the council chambers.
FRIDAY
6pm Interviews
6:30 Curtain Going Up - This month's cable highlights.
7:00 Wave Watch - The all new surfing variety program coming from Hermosa
Beach. This program is produced once a month, and repeated for the following
three weeks--- tonight featuring the next new show!
7:30 Burgle LIVE - He's been humiliated, he's been arrested, he's been
electrocuted. What could come next for Bob? Call in live and join the fun!
8:00 TV FM - Contempory rockvideos.
8:30 Off The Wall - Contempory Christian rock videos.
9:00 Party Line - Call in live and talk with as many as eight others live over
Channel 10!
10:00 SPECIAL: 1987 30th Srteet Ironman Triathlon - The eight annual competion
from Hermosa beach held on July 4th. Competiors must paddle a surfboard
one mile, run one mile and drink a sixpack of beer. Not recomended viewing
for the weak or young.
MONDAY
6pm UCLA Woman's Athletics
6:30 The Best of wave Watch - Featuring a show from the past four years.
7:00 Talk of the Town - Community discussion program concerning issues and
agencies within Hermosa and Manhattan Beach. This program is presented live
every other week.
7:30 LIVE: Community Awareness - Hosted by the police departments of Hermosa
and Manhattan beach. This program will tonight be taking live viewer
phone calls.
8:00 Curtain Going Up - Cable movie highlights.
8:30 South Bay Student News - Produced by the students of Mira Costa.
TUESDAY
6pm Woman's Wellness - a special forum discussion program presented by
Torrance Memorial Hospital.
7:00 LIVE: Talking Health - Studio call-in talk program focusing health related
issues, featuring Dr. Chris Ullman.
7:30 The Hermosa Beach City Council Meeting - Featuring complete live coverage
of tonight's council meeting.
WEDNESDAY
6pm Redondo Video Scrapbook - Presentd by the students of Redondo Union.
6:30 Curtain Going Up
7:00 Talking Health - Replay of last night's live program.
7:30 SPECIAL: The Point Mugu Air Show- Taped at the Pacific Missile Test Center
at Point Mugu in Oxnard, this 1984 air show features the Blue Angels
Flight Team and the Army Parachute Team. Featuring pilot Art Shoul in one
of his last preformances before his fatal death flying for the movie
Top Gun.
June 30, 1987
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of
Hermosa Beach City Council July 14, 1987
SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 87-2
LOCATION: 602, 614, 622 - 3RD STREET and 228 ARDMORE AVENUE
APPLICANT: KURT and CRYSTAL ROSSART
PAUL HEALY
REQUEST: TO MAKE THE ZONING OF LOTS 74, 75 and 76 OF WALTER
RANSOM COMPANY'S VENABLE PLACE TRACT CONSISTENT WITH
MEDIUM DENSITY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION BY CHANGING
THE ZONE FROM M-1 ZONE TO THE TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
ZONE, R-2.
Recommendation
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the following:
1. Approval of the proposed zone change from Light Manufacturing
to Two -Family Residential and an Environmental Negative
Declaration.
2. Waive further reading and introduce an ordinance effecting a
zone change from M-1 zone to R-2 zone.
Adopt the attached Notice of Intent resolution to add an
"Existing Use Overlay" zone to the Zoning Ordinance.
The Staff Environmental Reveiw Committee, at their November 17,
1986 meeting, recommended a Negative Declaration for the subject
property and a Negative Declaration for the general vicinity in
conjunction with a City -initiated General Plan amendment and zone
change.
The Planning Commission, at their December 2, 1986 meeting,
recommended redesignating the subject property and general
vicinity from Medium Density Residential to High Density
Residential and rezoning the subject property and area from M
zone to R-3 zone.
On January 13, 1987, the City council referred the subject
property and adjacent M -zoned properties back to the Planning
Commission for further study. It was suggested that possibly the
area could be rezoned commercial so that the existing businesses
could remain.
1
Analysis
COMMERCIAL ZONING: Staff has examined commercial zoning and
determined that this area is highly unsuited for commercial
development for the following reasons:
1. Ardmore Avenue is only 30 feet wide, making it inadequate
from the outset for commercial traffic, particularly in
regard to large trucks.
2. The access to the subject area is via residential streets.
3. Additional commercial traffic and congestion could increase
three to four times over traffic generated by residential
development.
4. Noise, air pollution, water and sewer problems as well as
other problems could result from commercial development and
therefore, an E.I.R. would be necessary for commercial
rezoning.
5. Commercial signage would detract from the abutting
residential development.
6. Realistically speaking, this area is so inaccessable, has
such low visibility and the land values are so high that most
commercial businesses would not want to locate in this area.
Consequently, the area will remain in the same state as it is
now under the M-1 zone.
7. The City currently receives complaints from time to time
about outdoor work activities, noise, dust and odors. The
complaints result from the close proximity of residential
development.
8. The property is worth mor more)as residential.
EXISTING USE OVERLAY ZONE: Staff believes that the best method
for allowing the existing businesses to remain and at the same
time, make the zoning consistent with the General Plan would be
to create an overlay zone which would permit the existing uses.
The subject areas' primary zoning would be R-2, but the overlay
would allow existing uses to continue without being
non -conforming. Also, the existing residential uses which are
currently non -conforming would become conforming.
The overlay zone would also include standards for improvement and
expansion of existing businesses.
Refer to the attached Planning Commission Staff Report for more
analysis.
OVERVIEW: On the surface, it appears that the City is increasing
residential density. However, looking at the bigger picture, the
overall density of this general area is being reduced.
2
Originally, the surrounding area to the east was zoned R-3. It
is now zoned R-2 which is a 25% reduction in density. The
general area to the west was designated Medium Density; it is now
designated Low Density which is a reduction of 487 in density.
Attachments
1. Resolution P.C. 87-26
2. Planning Commission Minutes of 5/5/87
3. Staff's Report to Planning Commission 5/5/87
4. Aerial photo of subject property
5. Map of subject property
CONCUR:
!VU
Gr o44Meyer
Ci y Manager
- 3
Planning Director
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
wti5,•-'Lf\
C ltj
ORDINANCE NO. 87-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA AMENDING
THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM M-1, LIGHT
MANUFACTURING, TO R-2, TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, AND APPROVING
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 602,614,622 THIRD
STREET AND 228 ARDMORE AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 74, 75
AND 76 OF WALTER RANSOM COMPANY'S VENABLE PLACE TRACT.
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 21,
1987 to receive oral and written testimony regarding this matter
and made the following Findings:
A. The location and size of the subject property is adequate and
more suitable for residential development than manufacturing;
B. Changing the zoning to R-2 is a logical extension to the R-2
zone adjacent to the east and would not result in "spot
zoning";
C. The proposed zone change is consistent with the General Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
1. The official Zoning Map shall be amended by rezoning the
property at 602, 614, 622 Third Street and 228 Ardmore
Avenue, legally described as Lots 74, 75 and 76 of Walter
Ransom Company's Venable Place Tract, from M-1, Light
Manufacturing zone to R-2, Two -Family Residential zone.
2. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force
and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final
passage and adoption.
3. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date
of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to
be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of
general circulation published and circulated in the City of
Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law.
4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of
this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original
ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the
passage and adoption thereof in the records of the
proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed
and adopted.
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
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of July, 1987.
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY CLERK
CITY ATTORNEY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 87-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO INITIATE APPROPRIATE
ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE
BY ADDING AN "EXISTING USE OVERLAY" ZONE TO BE USED AS DEEMED
APPROPRIATE BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
WHEREAS, the City Council considered this matter at the
regularly scheduled meeting of July 14, 1987; and
WHEREAS, it was determined that the present provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance do not provide for maintaining non -conforming
commercial and manufacturing uses; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to amend the
Zoning Ordinance to provide for such uses when deemed appropriate
by the City Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Planning Commission shall review the Zoning Ordinance for
appropriate amendments as deemed necessary in conjunction
with providing an "Existing Use Overlay" zone.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of July, 1987.
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY CLERK
CITY ATTORNEY
1
2
3
4
5
<7
8
.9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION P.C. 87-26
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM
M-1, LIGHT MANUFACTURING TO R-2, TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONB AND,
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 602,614,622 THIRD
STREET AND 228 ARDMORE AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 74',75
AND 76 OF WALTER RANSOM COMPANY'S VENABLE PLACE TRACT.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing oil May
5, '1987 to receive, oral and written testimony regarding this
matter and made the following Findings:
A. The location and size of the subject property is adequate and
more suitable for residential development/than manufacturing;
B. Changing the zoning to R-2 is a logical extension to the R-2
zone adjacent to the east and would not result in "spot
zoning";
C. The proposed zone change is consistent with the General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission -
of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby
recommend a zone change from M-1, Light Manufacturing, to
R-2, Two -Family Residential zone for 602, 614, 622 - 3rd
Street and 228 Ardmore Avenue.
VOTE: AYES: Comms.Compton,Peirce,Rue,Schulte
NOES: Chmn.Sheldon
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 87-26 is a.
true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning
Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, at their
regular meeting of May 5, 1987. -'.
Chuck Sheldon, Chairman
-57/V17
Date
1
ubach, Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 5, 1987 PAGE 6
4,,
111
ZONE CHANGE FROM M-1 TO R-2 ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6112, 614,
AND 622 3RD STREET, 228 ARDMORE AVENUE AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 29, 1987. • The staff environmental review
committee, at their meeting of November 17, 1986, recommended a negative declaration
fcr the subject property and a negative declaration for the general vicinity in conjunction
with a City -initiated general plan amendment and zone change.
The Planning Commission, at their meeting of December 2, 198b, recommended
redesignating the subject property and general vicinity from medium density to high
density and rezoning the subject property and area from M to R-3.
•On January 13, 1987, the City Ccencil referred the subject propert;' and adjacent M- -
zoned properties back to the Planning Coimnission for further study..
•
Currently, two dwelling units and a dwelling unit •
converted to a small business operation
exist -on the property. Total area of the subject property is approximately 13,648 square
feet, and it" has a generally parallelogram shape with frontage on 3rd Street and Ardmore
Avenue. The property is surrounded by residential uses. on all sides, even though the
• property on the south and north is zoned M-1. The property to the east is zoned•R-2 and
to the west, R-1.
The property is currently designated medium density residential by the general plan but
zoned M-1, manufacturing. The two dwellings are, therefore, nonconforming uses, and if
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 5, 1987 PAGE 7
the property is rezoned to conform to the general plan designation, the existing
businesses will become non -conforming.
The zoning of the property to R-2 is a logical extension to the R-2 zone to the east and
would not result in "spot zoning."
Based on the total area, seven dwelling units would be permitted under the R-2 zoning
requirements.
Thi City Council requested that the.general area be given more study prior to rezoning.
Staff has used this property owner's request as an opportunity to restudy the general
area. •
The, property to the north and so th. is being used for residential purposes and should be
rezoned to .conform to the general plan. These properties are more valuable as
residential than manufacturing. The idea to zone this general area 'manufacturing was
ill-conceived from the outset; the ex.sting lots are clearly too small for ,reit st
manufacturing purposes. Observation of the area indicates that most businesses are
storing and conducting outdoor activities due to the inadequate size of their facilities.
Complaints are received from time to time regarding these outdoor activities, and also
fumes, noise, and "eyesores." These kinds of complaints are classic examples of why
manufacturing should not be located adjacent to residences, except in very limited and
controlled situations. The latest knowledge of the dangers of chemicals and toxic wastes
should caution us even more so than in: the past to allowing residential development in
close proximity to manufacturing.
If these properties were to remain M-1, most likely they would simply remain in the same
state they currently exist which is no asset to the community. However, if these
properties were to be developed as manufacturing uses, the potential for environmental
impacts related to traffic, including truck traffic, noise, air pollution, and public utilities
would be significant. Contrary to popular beliefs, the intensity of manufacturing uses
,can,,outweigh the impacts of increased residential density levels, particularly in regard to
traffic.
The two main concerns of the City Council were (1) how to preserve the existing
businesses and (2) how to deal with existing non -conforming housing. By rezoning the
residential portions of the subject area to R-2, the problem of non -conforming housing
will be resolved without impact to existing businesses. After talking to several property
owners within the area, staff believes that most of the area could be rezoned residential
without opposition.
Staff also believes that possibly the whole area could be rezoned R-2, and a "preservation
overlay zone" could be imposed to allow continuance ' of the existing businesses.
However, this idea needs more study and refinement.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff recommends approval of the proposed zone change from
M to R-2.
Chinn. Sheldon questioned•Whether it would be fair to the City'and the applicant for the
Commission to study this area as an isolated portion of an area which will be studied in
its entirety in the future. He noted concern over possible spot zoning.
Mr. Lough stated that changes could be made in the future if so desired by Planning
Commission. He gave background information on the zoning and previous actions taken
•
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 5, 1987 PAGE 8
by the Commission. He noted that applicants can request zone change requests and/or
general plan amendments.
Chmn. Sheldon felt that more study is necessary to differentiate between the limitations
of nonconforming uses and the preservation overlay zones.
Mr. Schubach stated that this rezoning would not affect the extant businesses because -
the property in question does not include 'those businesses.
Public Hearing opened at 8:33 by Chmn. Sheldon.
Bob Catalano, o\Cner of an auto repair business at 323 Ardn"ore Avenue, opposed the zone
change to R-2 based on density and traffic problems on Ardmore. He felt- that past
studies should be analyzed more thoroughly. He felt that condominiums would aggravate
an already congested situation in the area.,
Ivars Janicks, 708 8th Street, applicant, addressed the Commission, stating he is
currently in escrow to purchase the property in question. He stated that he intended to
develop this property as R-2; although there are currently no definite plans for this
property. He stated that he tentatively planned to put in two single-family homes and
five condominium units.
Mr. Janicks stated that an R-3 designation would make the property more valuable, but
he would be satisfied with an R-2 designation.
Gary Walsassian, 620 2nd Street, Hermosa Beach, opposed the zone change to R-2 east of
Ardmore. He felt it should remain a manufacturing zone.
Public Hearing closed at 8:45 by Chmn. Sheldon.
Comm. Compton stated that he would favor rezoning to R-2.
Comm. Rue noted that most of the area is currently R-2, medium density. He did not
feel that the limitations of the Planning Commission would be severely limited by the
rezone, nor did he feed it would constitute spot zoning. •
Comm. Schulte favored rezoning the property to R-2.
Chmn. Sheldon felt uncomfortable rezoning this piece of property when the entire area is
soon to be studied by the Commission. He felt that the impacts should first be
determined before any decision is made. He felt that this parcel should be included in
the study to be done. He concurred that there are traffic problems in the area already.
MOTION by Comm. Compton, seconded by Comm. Schulte, to approve the zone change
from M-1 to R-2 for property located at 602, 614, and 622 3rd Street, 228 Ardmore
Avenue and negative declaration, as recommended by staff.
AYES: Collin's. Compton, Peirce, Rue, Schulte
NOES: Chmn. Sheldon
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
•
April °29, 1987
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission May 5, 1987
SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 87-2
LOCATION: 602,614,622.- 3RD STREET, 228 ARDMORE AVENUE
APP,LICANT: .PAUL RICHARD HEALY
REQUEST: TO MAKE THE ZONING OF LOTS 74, 75 AND 76 OF WALTER
< RANSOM COMPANY'S VENABLE 'PLACE TRACT CONSISTENT WITH
THE MEDIUM DENSITY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION RY
CHANGING THE�ZONING FROM M-1 ZONE TO -R-2 ZONE.
t
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the proposed zone change from M to
R-2 zone.
Background
The Staff Environmental Review Committee, at their November 17,
1986 meeting, recommended a Negative Declaration for the subject
property and a Negative Declaration for the general vicinity in
conjunctin with a City -initiated General Plan amendment and zone
change.
The Planning Commission, at their December 2, 1986 meeting,
recommended redesignating the subject property and general
vicinity from Medium Density to High Density and rezoning the
subject property and area from M zone to R-3 zone:
On January 13, 1987, the City Council referred the subject
property and adjacent M -zoned properties back to the Planning
Commission for further study.
Analysis
Property Characteristics: Currently, two dwelling units and a
dwelling unit converted to a small business operation exist on
the property. Total area of the subject property is 13,648
square feet (approximately), and it has a generally parallelogram
shape with frontage on 3rd Street and Ardmore Avenue. The
property is surrounded by residential uses on all sides, even
though the property. on the south and north is zoned M-1. The
property to the east is zoned R-2, and to the -west, R-1.
•
General Plan/Zoning: The property is currently designated Medium
Density Residential by the General Plan,but zoned M-1,
Manufacturing. The two dwellings are, therefore, non -conforming
uses, and if the property is rezoned to conform to the General
Plan designation, the existing business will become
non -conforming.
The zoning of the property to R-2 is a logical extension to the •::
R-2 zone to the east, and would not result in "spot zoning".
Based on the total area, seven dwelling units would be permitted__
under the R-2 zoning requirements,.
•
Study Area: lThe City Council requested that the general area be
given more study prior to rezoning. Staff h as used this property
owner's request as an opportunity to restudy the general area.
The property to the north and south is being used for. residential
purposes and should be rezoned to conform to_the General Plan.
These properties are more valuable as residential than
manufacturing. The idea to zone this general area Manufacturing
was ill-conceived from the outset; the existing lots are clearly
too small for most manufacturing purposes. Observation of the
area indicates that most businesses are storing and conducting
outdoor activities due to. the inadequate size of their
facilities. Complaints are received from time to time regarding
these outdoor activities, and also fumes, noise, and "eyesores".
These kinds of complaints are clasic examples of why
manufacturing should not be located adjacent to residences,
except in very limited and controlled situations. The latest
knowledge of the dangers of chemicals and toxic wastes should
caution us even more so than in the past to allowing residential
development in close proximity to manufacturing.
If these properties were to remain zoned M-1, most likely they
would simply remain in the same state they currently exist which
is no asset to the community. However, if these properties were
to be developed as manufacturing uses, the potential for
environmental impacts related to traffic, including truck
traffic, noise, air pollution and public utilities would be
significant. Contraryto popular beliefs, the intensity of
manufacturing uses can outweigh the impacts of increased
residential density levels, particularly in regard to traffic.
The two main concerns of the City Council were (1) how to
preserve the existing businesses and (2) how to deal with
existing non -conforming housing. By rezoning the residential
portions of the subject area to R-2, the problem of
non -conforming housing will be resolved without impact to
existing businesses. After talking to several property owners
within the area, Staff believes that most of the area could be
rezoned residential without opposition.
•
Staff also believes that possibly the whole area could be rezoned
R-2, and a "Preservation Overlay Zone" could be imposed to allow
continuance of the existing businesses. However, this idea needs
more study and refinement.
Michael Schubach
Planning -Director
(
•
3
1
•
1
+#! 4J
° 1 •,s
T&! .
r ? s,•
r 4-
•
tt ~�
�_ 4 ,117''' S1r n:xa as
S,a_ �.tk'".y
z't Vis__. _•.l
5
�1r testi rr -a
k
o
n1 fe
144
• • •
28
SHEET 1
111.6
Bii 41iS/S
1984
•
• •
• : t' . g. • .1."
. 1
:; .•• j
,•
.• :t • . • - • '
• •
• '1-••••• ;
...•:•;••• '; ": .:".
• 1. •.•.:
• ,
• .1
.•
25
3RD.f
;' ••••4 .•
•
• • ; ••
• ": ; • .
6•34'E.
35 3 83
\74\ cz,
• I '
40
.
.
72
Pen:
4 3
&
., •
41 •.• i ..
.
:ti
ku
,:,\A •
!.,..1,7-1•
Cri • .
0
0 •. ,';'.
.. ;
.,- .
®
70
•
•.
'
:
„
,. ,
@
69
• ••
- ...
•
.• 1
•
@iC)
:1 .
I
i
0
67 .
•
• 66
I
\ 7 ,E9 i)
3-•,../40,-, 12,tat-, A 2,4 4 0 \
,4
.5D 35 33" 73
1 . (..t, ..,egio..t.,
,
. 76 N
• ,of 64 014,1
: • (,:i //.94of '
, .. - - • - •••••---0. - -- •-• - , , 2502,
'...i.
,
, .• v 325/
. '
• 7.\•;',NO
r"It.
63'3
i 10 -....
E et)
% 4 3 2 ''-: 1
4,1,01°1 4,320-ta 1 4f,.fgenat If seat*/
CC •
40
•_._ . 36 . 360S'
. 5 .
; -
ZI
4i
\82
4 7.
5/
,
/3
.0
. •
"
.1N1/4 @
83
Pof:
•
•
20 40
•
,
.
-
CDS
84
.0•
-
SO
85
n
•
0
86
40
.
I
I
@ I
871\‘
A
:•7.- 1 ' :
I
30 V
•'I- 2'
TRA-cr
0 40 0
13.
• CoNboriinituM
P R P -L. YY101) '
• ge • •• "if
4 P.M. 13•5-'36-31
coNbotenNium
PCL
rni3-D
-47-45-
CONPOlvIllkWit
E.l— Yn A
A.M. 141. -
•
WALTER RANSOM
• VENABLE P.LACE .
. .
. , • 1,
• : ,;, , •
• •
•
July 7, 1987
HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of Regular Meeting of
the HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL July 14, 1987
PROPOSED SEWER CONNECTION ORDINANCE
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Convene the Public Hearing, take public testimony and then
close the hearing;
2. Based on its discussions of June 23, 1987:
A. Modify Section 3.03 CALCULATION OF THE CONNECTION FEE
RATE, last sentence to read "The connection fee rate
shall be 25% of the cost of a sewer unit."
B. Add a column (4) to "Exhibit A" specifically listing
the 25% connection fee rate.
3. Modify Section 3 of the Ordinance directing the City Attorney
to prepare a condensed version for publication in a news-
paper of general circulation (as recommended in the supple-
mental memorandum from the City Manager dated June 18, 1987).
Background
As required by law this matter has been set for a public hearing.
Over the last six months the City Council has had considerable
discussion on how best to obtain an appropriate fee from
additional burdens placed on our aging sewer system.
Analysis
Attached are the materials from the June 9, 1987 City Council
presentation.
Alternatives
Other alternatives considered by staff and available to City
Council are:
1. Modify the Ordinance
2. Drop the Ordinance
Respectfully submitted
IlA
An i"rny Antich
Public Works
ector
CONCUR:
Gre;,ory T. Jeyer
Cit Manager
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance, "Exhibit A"
Background Material
1
NOTES FOR FISCAL IMPACT:
Viki Copeland
Finance Administrator
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. 87 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, PRESCRIBING FEES FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF CONNECTING ANY
PARCEL WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO THE SEWERAGE SYSTEM, OR FOR INCREASING
THE QUANTITY OF WASTEWATER ATTRIBUTABLE TO A CONNECTED PARCEL
WITHIN THE CITY, AND PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION OF SUCH
CHARGES, AMENDING CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE II, SECTIONS 28-7 THROUGH
28-14.
WHEREAS, for reasons of health and safety, it is necessary
to maintain and rehabilitate the sewer system.
WHEREAS, the Santina and Thompson report (titled: Sewer
System Analysis -January, 1985) concluded that the City sewer
system is in disrepair and is in need of rehabilitation.
WHEREAS, all new construction and development which increase
wastewater flow (when compared to existing conditions) contribute
to the accelerated deterioration of the City's sanitary sewer
system. This represents an added burden on the sanitary sewer
system, an added expense to taxpayers and a potential negative
environmental impact.
WHEREAS, on March 24, 1987, after considering several
alternatives, City Council approved a method to calculate the
proportionate share of cost. This method considers the impacts
of intensified land usage on the City's sanitary sewer system.
Land usages which are not intensified do not negatively impact
the sanitary sewer system.
WHEREAS, City Council's decision of March 24, 1987
represents the policy and method by which the City of Hermosa
Beach calculates (Alternative No. 5) proportionate share of cost
for intensified land usages which impact the sanitary sewer
system.
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, The Santina and Thompson report identified 8319.7
sewer units within the City of Hermosa Beach. Using $168 per
foot, in 1987 it
is estimated to cost up to $30,000,000 to
replace approximately 34 miles of sanitary sewer. The cost of
one sewer unit is:
$30,000,000 = $3,605.90
8319.7
WHEREAS, The fee calculation for a land usage which
intensifies the wastewater flow is illustrated in the following
example:
Description
Existing
Existing
Total:
Proposed
Proposed
Total:
Single Family House
Duplex
5,000 s.f. Office Bldg.
10,000 s.f. store
SUMMARY
Credit for existing structures
Cost for proposed development
Net:
WHEREAS,
Sewer Fee
$ 3,605.90
4,976.14
$ 8,582.04
$ 6,852.21
13,702.42
$20,553.63
Sewer Units
1.00
1.38
2.38
1.90
3.80
5.70
$ 8,582.04 2.38
20,553.63 5.70
$11,971.59 3.32
On March 24, 1987 City Council directed staff to
prepare a draft sewer connection fee for review and
consideration, using Alternative No. 5, with an inflation factor.
This was presented to City Council on May 12, 1987.
WHEREAS, it is the intent to apply this ordinance equally to
all construction and development.
WHEREAS, the proposed fees are attached as a separate
document to this ordinance as Exhibit "A".
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, on May 12, 1987, City Council adopted Resolution
No. 87-5038, a resolution of the City Council of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California ordering the preparation of an
ordinance prescribing fees for the privilege of connecting any
parcel within the boundaries of the City of Hermosa Beach
directly or indirectly to the sewerage system, or for increasing
the quantity of wastewater attributable to a connected parcel
within the city, and providing for the collection of such
charges.
WHEREAS, the ordinance preparation has been completed and
reviewed.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The amendment to Sections 28-7 through 28-14, Chapter
28, Article II shall read as follows:
PART I - GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 1.01 - SHORT TITLE
This Ordinance shall be known as the "Sewer Connection Fee
Ordinance for the City of Hermosa Beach" and may be cited as
such.
SECTION 1.02 - PURPOSE
The purpose of this Ordinance is to impose charges for the
privilege of connecting a parcel within the City directly or
indirectly, to the City's sewerage system as hereinafter defined
or for increasing the quantity of wastewater attributable to a
connected parcel, and to provide for collection of said charges.
All properties shall discharge wastewater to City sewer lines.
Funds derived under this Ordinance shall be deposited in the
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
City's Sewer Fund.
SECTION 1.03 - AUTHORITY
The City Council is empowered to fix fees or charges for the
privilege of connecting to its sewerage system.
SECTION 1.04 - ADMINISTRATION
The Director shall administer, implement, and enforce the
provisions of this Ordinance. Any powers granted to or duties
imposed on the Director may be delegated by the Director to
persons acting in the beneficial interest of, or in the employ of
the City.
SECTION 1.05 - VALIDITY
If any part, section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional -for
any reason by any court, that decision does not affect the
validity or constitutionality of the remainder of this Ordinance.
The City Council declares that it would have adopted each
provision of this ordinance irrespective of the validity of any
other provision.
PART II - DEFINITIONS
This Ordinance shall be construed according to the following
definitions:
SECTION 2.01 - ADDED BURDEN
An added burden shall mean any of the following:
(1) A connection, direct or indirect, to the sewerage syste
for the first time, of any structure located on a
parcel(s) of land within the City.
(2) An existing connection from a parcel where the number
of sewer units attributable to said parcel has been
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
increased due to construction of additional dwelling
units or change in land usage.
SECTION 2.02 - DIRECTOR
Director shall mean the Director of Public Works of the City of
Hermosa Beach or his duly authorized deputy or agent.
SECTION 2.03 - LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL PARCEL
Local governmental parcel shall mean any parcel which is not
subject to this ordinance and which is owned by the City;
provided that such parcel is used for a governmental rather than
proprietary function and which use is for the direct benefit of
the public in general and not for the benefit of a single class
or classes of individuals.
SECTION 2.04 - PARCEL
Parcel shall mean real property upon which an assessment is made.
SECTION 2.05 - PERSON
Person shall mean any individual, partnership, committee,
association, corporation, public agency, and any other
organization or group of persons, public or private.
SECTION 2.06 - SEWERAGE SYSTEM
Sewerage system shall mean the entire network of wastewater
collection and conveyance, which are interconnected by means of
sewers and owned in whole by the City.
SECTION 2.07 - SEWAGE UNIT
The average daily quantity of sewage flow from a single family
home measured in terms of flow.
SECTION 2.08 - UNIT OF USAGE
Unit of usage shall mean the basic unit of measure which
quantifies the degree of use of a particular parcel (e.g.,
dwelling unit, square footage). Square footage of an improvement
5
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
shall be based upon the gross exterior dimensions of the
structure.
SECTION 2.09 - USER CATEGORY
User category shall mean the specific land use classification for
a particular parcel which is defined in terms of its use (e.g.,
single family home, restaurant).
SECTION 2.10 - WASTEWATER
Wastewater shall mean the water carried wastes of the community
derived from human or industrial sources including wastewater of
domestic origin and industrial wastewater.
PART III —FEES
SECTION 3.01 - CONNECTION FEES
No person shall impose an added burden, as herein defined, to the
sewerage system from any parcel within the boundaries of the City
until an application for sewer connection has been made and
approved by the Director and a connection fee has been paid to
the City. Local governmental parcels shall not be subject to a
connection fee under this Ordinance.
(1) Any person imposing an added burden shall pay a connection
fee in accordance with this Ordinance. With respect to
discharges which constitute an increase in the quantity of
wastewater attributable to a particular parcel or operation
already connected, the connection fee shall be based on the
increase in anticipated use of the sewerage system.
(2) A credit shall be allowed with respect to new construction
replacing a demolished building which had been connected to
the sewerage system or with respect to a change in use of a
building which had been connected to the sewerage system.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The credit for a demolished building shall be equal to the
connection fee that would have been paid with respect to the
most recently demolished building under the terms of this
Ordinance and based on the current connection fee rate.
The credit for a change in use of a building which had been
connected to the sewerage system shall be based upon the
units of usage existing immediately prior to construction of
the improvement or occurrence that brought about the
increased use and the current connection fee rate.
If a demolished building or a building for which there was a
former use had a prior connection fee application approved
by the City, the credit provided for above shall be based
upon the highest number of sewer units for which a
connection fee application had been approved and the current
connection fee rate.
It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to
demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director
the user category and the number of units of usage
applicable to a demolished building or a building for which
there was a former use, and whether or not such building was
connected to the sewerage system. The credit provided for
(2) above shall be applicable only to the specific parcel
upon which the demolition has occurred and may be allocable
by the owner of such parcel if more than one building is
being connected.
(3) The City Council finds that under certain circumstances the
transfer to a different parcel of a business operation
discharging wastewater does not impose any additional burden
on the sewerage system.
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
,A credit which shall be referred to as a relocation credit
shall be allowed for the relocation to a different parcel of
a business operation discharging wastewater upon the
following requirements being met:
(a)
That essentially the same business operation has been
transferred from one parcel to another and such
operation was previously connected directly or
indirectly to the sewerage system.
(b) That the business operation was owned prior to the
transfer by the same person now making claim to a
relocation credit.
That the discharger has demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the Director that the business
operation has been abandoned from the parcel from which
the transfer has occurred or presented a certification
in writing that such business operation will be
abandoned within six months of the City approving an
application for connection. Should the facility not be
abandoned within the prescribed period, the relocation
credit shall be revoked and a connection fee with
respect to the parcel to which the business operation
was transferred shall be due and payable as of the date
said parcel was connected to the sewerage system. The
connection fee shall equal the product of the number of
sewer units upon which the relocation credit was based
and the current connection fee rate.
(d) That the Director has made a determination that there
is adequate capacity in the sewerage system to
accommodate connection of the business operation to be
(c)
8
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
transferred. In no case shall the credit provided for
in subsections (2) or (3) above exceed the new
connection fee.
(4) The City Council finds in the case when the discharger is
required to construct/replace sewer facilities, the
discharger shall pay a fee equal to the calculated fee rate
minus a credit for the actual construction cost of the sewer
facility. In no case shall the credit for the actual
construction cost exceed the calculated fee rate.
SECTION 3.02 - CALCULATION OF THE CONNECTION FEE
(1) The connection fee for any parcel within the City's
boundaries imposing an added burden to the sewerage
system shall be based on anticipated use and shall
equal the product of the estimated number of sewer
units which will result from the added burden, as
determined in paragraph (2) of this section, and the
connection fee rate determined pursuant to Section 3.03
hereof.
(2) Calculation of the Number of Sewage Units -The number
of sewage units (SU)
following formula
SU
where: FLOW
shall be determined by the
(FLOW )
( avg)
(FLOW )
( sfh)
Average flow of wastewater from a single
family home in gallons per day;
FLOW = Estimated flow of wastewater which will
avg enter the sewerage system from a user in
gallons per day.
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(3) The number of sewer units attributable to a parcel from
which no industrial wastewater is discharged shall be
calculated using mean loadings per unit of usage for
each connecting parcel's user category as adopted from
time to time by the City Council of Hermosa Beach. The
mean loadings per unit of usage for flow in gallons per
day, shall be based upon the best data currently
available, including updated sampling information and
data from other jurisdictions and publications
including the Board of Directors of the Los Angeles
County Sanitation District.
SECTION 3.03 - CALCULATION OF THE CONNECTION FEE RATE
The estimated cost of the entire City sewer system divided by_the
estimated total number of sewer units in the City equals the cost
of one sewer unit. This calculation, including an inflation
factor, is performed once annually. The connection fee rate
shall be 25% of the cost of a sewer unit.
SECTION 3.04 - PAYMENT OF FEE
All fees shall be determined by and paid to the City's Building
and Safety Department. The fee shall be paid prior to building
occupancy. The monies collected shall be deposited with the City
and credited to the Sewer Fund.
SECTION 3.05 - REFUNDS
In the event that any person shall have paid the applicable sewer
connection fee and no installation shall have been commenced and
the permit for such installation shall have been cancelled or
have expired, said person shall be entitled to a refund in an
amount equal to one hundred per cent (100%) of the sewer
connection fee paid by said person, minus one percent (1%) of
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
said charge; however, the amount retained shall not be less than
ten dollars ($10.00), nor more than one hundred dollars
($100.00).
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become
effective and be in full force within the time periods prescribed
by law.
SECTION 3. PUBLICATION. That the City Council does hereby
designate the City Attorney to prepare a summary of this
ordinance to be published pursuant to Government Code Section
36933(c) (1) in lieu of the full text of said ordinance. That
prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of
its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause the summary to be
published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general
circulation, published and circulated in the City of Hermosa
Beach.
SECTION 4. CERTIFICATION. The City Clerk shall certify to
the passage and adoption of this ordinance; shall enter the same
in the book of original ordinances of said City; shall make a
minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the
proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and
adopted.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this
day of 1987.
PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the C' t
Hermosa Beach, California.
ATTEST:
APPROVED /AS TO/ FOR
CITY CLERK ITY ATTO
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
UNITS OF USAGE, FLOW, SEWER UNITS AND CONNECTION FEE
July 1, 1987 - June 30, 1988
(1) (2) (3)
LAND USE CATAGORIES:
RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY HOME
DUPLEX
TRIPLEX
FOURPLEX
CONDOMINIUMS
REDUCED SFH
> OR = FIVE UNITS
MOBILE HOME PARKS
COMMERCIAL
HOTELS/MOTELS/RM. HOUSES
STORES
SUPERMARKET
SHOPPING CENTER
OFFICE BUILDING
PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
RESTAURANT
INDOOR THEATRE
CAR WASH - TUNNEL TYPE
CAR WASH - WAND TYPE
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
SERVICE SHOP
ANIMAL KENNEL
SERVICE STATIONS
AUTO SALES/REPAIR
WHOLESALE OUTLETS
NURSERIES/GREENERIES
MANUFACTURING
DRY MANUFACTURING
LUMBER YARDS
WAREHOUSING
OPEN STORAGE
DRIVE-IN THEATRE
NIGHT CLUB
BOWLING/SKATING
CLUB
AUDITORIUM, AMUSEMENT
GOLF COURSES, CAMP & PARK
HOMES FOR THE AGED
LAUNDROMAT
MORTUARIES/CEMETERIES
HEALTH SPA, W/SHOWERS
HEALTH SPA, W/0 SHOWERS
INSTITUTIONAL
COLLEGES/UNIVERSITIES
PRIVATE SCHOOLS
CHURCHES
(1) Obtained from the LA County
(2) Effective from July 1, 1987
Sanitation District
(3) Sewer units = FLOW (by land
(4)
UNIT OF USAGE
PARCEL
PARCEL
PARCEL
PARCEL
NO. OF UNITS
PARCEL
NO. OF UNITS
SPACES
ROOMS
1,000 SQ.
1,000 SQ.
1,000 SQ.
1,000 SQ.
1,000 SQ.
1,000 SQ.
1,000 SQ.
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
SQ.
SQ.
SQ.
SQ.
SQ.
SQ.
SQ.
SQ.
SQ.
SQ.
SQ.
SQ.
SQ.
SQ.
SQ.
SQ.
SQ.
1,000 SQ.
1,000 SQ.
1,000 SQ.
BED
1,000 SQ.
1,000 SQ.
1,000 SQ.
1,000 SQ.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
FT.
SEWER
FLOW(GPD) UNITS
260.00 1.00
360.00 1.38
540.00 '2.08
720.00 2.70
180.00 0.69
180.00 0.69
180.00 0.69
180.00 0.69
100.00 0.38
100.00 0.38
100.00 0.38
100.00 0.38
200.00 0.77
300.00 1.15
1,000.00 3.85
500.00 1.92
3,700.00 14.23
700.00 2.69
100.00 0.38
100.00 0.38
100.00 0.38
100.00 0.38
100.00 0.38
100.00 0.38
25.00 0.003
200.00 0.77
25.00 0.003
25.00 0.10
25.00 0.10
25.00 0.10
20.00 0.08
750.00 2.88
150.00 0.58
20.00 0.08
350.00 1.35
100.00 0.38
90.00 0.35
4,600.00 17.69
100.00 0.38
600.00 2.31
300.00 1.15
STUDENT 20.00
1,000 SQ. FT. 200.00
1,000 SQ. FT. 50.00
Sanitation District
to June 30, 1988 for the
use category) e- FLOW (of
house)
0.08
0.77
0.19
"EXHIBIT A"
(4)
SEWER
CONNECTION
FEE
$ 901.48
1,244.03
1,875.06
2,433.98
622.01
n
11
11
342.56
11
11
n
694.13
1,036.69
3,470.67
1,730.83
12,827.99
2,424.96
342.56
n
fl
u
It
2.70
694.13
2.70
90.14
n
72.11
2,596.24
522.85
72.11
1,216.99
342.56
315.51
15,947.09
342.56
2,082.40
1,036.69
72.11
694.13
171.28
South Bay Cities
single family
Replacement Cost = $30,000,000
Total Equivalent Dwelling Units = 8319.7.
Cost of one (1) sewer unit = 0.25 x $30,000,000 8319.7
"EXHIBIT A"
= $901.48
BACKGROUND MATERIAL
Honorable Mayor and Members of the
Hermosa Beach City Council June 3, 1987
City Council Meeting- of
June 9, 1987
PROPOSED SEWER CONNECTION ORDINANCE
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council, consistent with its
March 24, 1987 acceptance of the cost assumptions in the Alterna-
tive 5 formula ($ 3605.90/single family equivalent unit):
1. Determine the proportionate share of monies to be paid:
A. Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy as a
development fee, and
B. On a pay as you go basis via the Utility Users Tax.
2. Establish a method of transitioning from the current
"plumbing fixture" connection fee to Formula 5.
In this regard the City Manager recommends that:
A. The long term goal be to recover 2570 of the full cost
as a development fee and that the pay as you go (UUT)
portion be 757o;
B. For "grandfather purposes", projects that get a building
permit before the implementation date of the new Connection
Fee Ordinance and that have not yet paid a connection fee
shall pay a levy equal to 15% of the Formula 5 cost
determination;
C. For 12 months after implementation of the new Connection
Fee Ordinance the levy be 20% of the Formula 5 cost and that
thereafter the levy be 25%. All of this is premised on the
Formula 5 cost assumption being re -calculated annually (see
Section 3.03 of the Ordinance).
3. Set the proposed ordinance for public hearing at 8 p.m. on
July 14, 1987, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be
heard.
1
11
BACKGROUND
On May 12, 1987, City Council adopted Resolution 87-5038 ordering
the preparation of an ordinance. This work is complete and is
presented at this time for review.
ANALYSIS
Since presented to City Council in draft form
minor changes have been made and incorporated
For ease of reference these changes have been
on May 12, 1987,
into this document.
bolded.
The balance of this analysis will consider the following:
1. Methods for adoption - Resolution vs Ordinance and Time
Schedule.
2. Fiscal Impact
1.
METHOD OF ADOPTION - RESOLUTION vs ORDINANCE AND TIME
SCHEDULE.
Section 54992 (b) of the Government Code states:
"Any action by a local agency to levy a new fee or ser-
vice charge or to approve an increase in an existing fee
or service charge shall be taken only by ordinance or
resolution."
Hence, there are two methods available to City Council -
resolution or ordinance. Both have the same effect, with
the resolution being effective immediately and the or-
dinance requiring the following time frame:
Date
June 9, 1987
June 23, 1987
July 14, 1987
August 13, 1987
September 11, 1987
Action
Set for Public Hearing,
Introduction of Ordinance
Second Reading
Residential connection fee effective
30 days from second reading
Commercial connection fee effective
60 days from second reading
In addition, Section 54991 (a) of the Government Code
states:
"At least 10 days prior to the meeting, the local agency
shall make available, to the public, data indicating the
amount of cost, or estimated cost, required to provide
the service for which the fee or service charge is levied
and the revenue sources anticipated to provide the ser-
vice, including general fund revenues."
The City Attorney advises that this matter should be a
public hearing before the rates are set.
- 2
2. FISCAL IMPACT
What has been collected?
CURRENT SEWER CONNECTION FEE
Fiscal Year
80-81
81-82
82-83
83-84
84-85
85-86
86-77
Actual Revenue Notes
S 7,035
14,560
8,880
12,410
40,979
27,477
26,735
Begin July 1, 1980
Ends May 7, 1987
What could reasonably be presumed as potential income via a sewer
connection fee?
To make that "assumption" we must first determine how much growth
will there be. To assist us in that the Building Department com-
piled the attached chart entitled Dwelling Unit History, 1979 to
Present. That chart indicates a 50+ units/year growth. Carried
out the full 30 years of our cost assumptions would mean a growth
of 1,500 single family equivalent units.
On the practical side it is hard to imagine that magnitude, based
on development standard limitations, reductions in density, etc.
However, were it to occur it would increase our units by about
18%.
Setting aside the growth "assumptions", from a fiscal standpoint
it is clear that new units cannot carry the financial burden of
generating enough money to finance a $ 30,000,000 sewer system.
To do so would require each of the 1,500 units to pay $ 20,000
each. Even if the number of "single family equivalents" were
doubled (taking into account commercial and industrial growth),
the per unit levy would then be about $ 10,000.
The proposed (1987 - 1988) UUT income devoted to sewer replace-
ment is approximately $ 800,000. For the following year it is
anticipated that this amount will be $ 1,000,000. On that basis
it would appear that, over a 30 year period, the UUT will sub-
stantially pay for the needed replacement of our sewer system.
Thank goodness, for to rely on development growth would be
impractical.
As an alternative to either trying to obtain 100% (i.e. the
$ 3,605.90/unit) from new development or zero, it is suggested
that we do have a levy that:
1. Is "in the ball park" vis-a-vis other agencies, and
2. Is reflective of what we might presume to be a 15% to 25%
increase in sewer system usage based on future growth over
the next 30 years.
3
OTHER AGENCIES
A review of neighboring agencies indicates the following single
family equivalents:
Sanitation District $ 775 (ffective July 1, 1987)
El Segundo $ 580
Los Angeles $ 923
Gardena $ 140
Hawthorne $ 140
Manhattan Beach $ 68
Redondo Beach $ 20
Hermosa Beach alternatives are:
$ 3605 (10070), $ 901 (25%), $ 721 (20%), $ 540 (15%), $ 360 (1070)
Overall we are now at more than $ 10,000/unit in fees and per-
mits. As a part of the "gold coast" our land supply is inelastic.
Demand is there. Increased fees will therefore predominantly
influence the rate of change but not whether it will occur.
ALTERNATIVES
Other alternatives available to City Council and considered by
staff are:
1. Drop from consideration the proposed ordinance.
2. Revise the proposed ordinance.
3. Refer the matter to staff for further review and comments.
Noted for
Fiscal Impac :
/:14
Viki Copeland
Finance Administrator
Attachments: Ordinance 87- Sewer Connection Fee Ordinance
Dwelling Unit History 1979 to present
GTM/ld
200
150
100
50
0
Dwelling Unit History
1979 to Present
Dwellings Dwellings
Built Demolished
Dwelling units
//:
:`.'.
SS
a: Pr
9t .•I: i cel Mi —• L �`sir
��
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
Calendar Year
1985
1986
1987
DWELLING UNIT HISTORY
1979 TO PRESENT
YEAR DWELLINGS BUILT DWELLINGS DEMOLISHED NET CHANGE
1979 100 13 +87
1980 53 24 +29
1981 84 43 +41
1982 35 24 +11
1983 31 5 +26
1984 57 19 +38
1985 104 14 +90
1986 178 78 +100
1987* 47 16 +31
TOTAL +453
* As of 5/7/87
Prepared by the Department of Building and Safety on 5/7/87
Honorable Mayor and Members of the
Hermosa Beach City Council June 18, 1987 `
City Council Meeting of
June 23, 1987
MODIFICATION TO PAGE 11 OF PROPOSED
SEWER CONNECTION ORDINANCE
Attached is a revised page 11 of the Ordinance. The revision
adds a Section 4, PUBLICATION. This allows for a condensed
printing of the ordinance adoption in the Easy Reader, thereby
saving considerable printing expenses.
cc Public Works Director
City Clerk
SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION
9
Law Offices of James P. Lough
JAMES P. LOUGH
1429
July 7, 1987
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
MEMORANDUM
30 NORTH RAYMOND AVENUE
SUITE 708
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91103
(213) 381-6131
(818) 792-4728
(818) 792-4776
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 14, 1987
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney
RE: Proposed Motion Picture Business License Tax for
November Ballot
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve
the placement of the attached measure on the November ballot
based on council's previous direction.
BACKGROUND: This matter was generated out of the recent budget .
hearings. Basically, it is a measure which changes the manner
in which motion picture theaters are taxed under the city's
business license la, Currently, live and motion picture thea-
ters are treate• equal and both require an annual business
license fee or $250.00 This proposal would change that to
$100 per year p • gross receipts for motion picture theaters
while leaving •- eral live theater and shows under the $250 per
year fee. Although there are many reasons why such a distinc-
tion should be made, the primary reason would be the different
traffic levels generated by occasional theaters versus multiple
and daily shows put on by motion picture theaters.
ANALYSIS: This matter must be placed on the ballot under the
recent provisions put into law by Proposition 62. The formula
in question was one approved by the City Council at its last
meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
JPL/gp
Enclosure
cc: Gregory T. Meyer, City Manager
G2/SR0714B
„I
AMES P. LOUD, City Atto
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
cvfuttuo „ip) 110
Ut‘ ;R a° @,
9c
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
PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 87 -
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS BY THE CITY COUNCIL
AMENDING SECTION 17-19 TO DELETE THE WORDS "MOTION
PICTURES" FROM SECTION 17-19(b)(CLASSIFICATION "B")
(GROUP 11(a)) AND TO ADD A NEW SECTION 17-19(b)
(CLASSIFICATION "B")(GROUP 26) GROSS RECEIPTS TAX
FOR MOTION PICTURE THEATERS.
The People of the City of Hermosa Beach do ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. That Chapter 17 (Licenses) of the Hermosa Beach
Municipal Code, Section 19, subsection (b), Classification B,
Group 11(a) be amended to read as follows:
Group 11.
(a) Vaudeville shows and legitimate theaters
-- $250.00 per annum.
SECTION 2. That Chapter 17 (Licenses) of the Hermosa Beach
Municipal Code be amended to add Section 19, subsection (b),
Classification B, Group 26 which shall read as follows:
Group 26.
Motion picture theaters -- $100.00 for the
first = •,•.0.00 of gross receipts per annum
plus i:1.0•ifor each additional $1,000.00 of
gross -c iptCss per annum.
SECTION 3. That the taxes imposed by this ordinance shall be
applicable to all covered businesses beginning on January 1,
1988. All businesses that apply for a new license or renew an
existing license after January 1, 1988 shall pay the fees estab-
lished under this ordinance beginning on the date of renewal or
issuance of a new license.
/1/
G2/ORD19 -1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION 4. That if any section or portion of this initiative
ordinance is declared invalid by a court of proper jurisdiction,
the remaining sections or portions are to be considered valid.
SECTION 5. That there shall be no modification, amendment or
repeal of any provision herein except by a vote of the people.
ATTEST:
KATHLEEN MIDSTOKKE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO
N41,J-4
J
ES P. LOUG , CITY AT 0
G2/ORD19 -2-
Th � L`YICcii GQ/ :4b-AU '
51D 11(---ec %-,t; (ovit
Honorable Mayor and members of the
Hermosa Beach City Council July 9, 1987
City Council Meeting of
July 14, 1987
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS -
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS LICENSE TAX
ANALYSIS
The proposed new Residential Construction Business License Tax
would produce additional General Fund revenue. Our estimate is
as follows:
1. For fiscal 1987 - 1988, one half of the year (the tax
being effective January 4, 1988: assume 25 additional
residental units at a construction value of $ 150,000
each, income would be $ 112,500
2. For future fiscal years the assumption would be at an
annual rate of 50 units/year, a $ 150,000 construction
value each [based on 1987 dollars] would then produce
$ 225,000 annually.
This is a "guesstimate"; recognizing that there have been recent
reductions in development density standards, this estimate could
be high.
0,4
Gr-:o y/T.(MLer
Ci■y Manager
GTM/ld
plc
NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT:
Viki L. Copeland
Finance Administrator
342— cA,s12,1l �- pR,C1 rLtopo
M —°9-e-4\Y)\AASOciL
k 9d
Law Offices of James P. Lough
JAMES P. LOUGH
July 7, 1987
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
MEMORANDUM
30 NORTH RAYMOND AVENUE
SUITE 708
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91103
(213) 381-6131
(818) 792-4728
(818) 792-4776
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 14, 1987
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney
RE: Residential Construction Business License Tax
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council make a
policy decision as to whether or not to place the attached
proposed ballot measure on the November, 1987 ballot.
BACKGROUND: This matter was brought to the council's attention
as a staff generated item at its last city council meeting.
Concerns were raised by William Grove, Building Director,
regarding implementation of the attached ordinance. Based on
these concerns, the council directed staff to redraft the item.
The proposed ordinance attached includes changes proposed by
Mr. Grove in order to make the ordinance easier to understand
and work when, and if, it is implemented.
ANALYSIS: The proposed ballot measure is designed to tax the
construction of residential buildings or structures at the rate
of three (3%) percent of the estimated value of the construc-
tion. The proposal would exempt one-for-one replacement of
single family homes. As to residences with more than one dwell-
ing unit, t4,___t_q_K__m_oulq_ppy to all new dwellin unit to
alterations or additions va ued at more than 10,000.00 per
year.
As drafted, the measure is intended to provide disincentives
to persons desiring to increase density in residential areas.
Also, the measure is designed to create disincentives for
remodels or alterations of substantial nature which allow noncon-
formities to be extended beyond the normal life of existing
structures.
N4k
JAMES P. UGI, City Attorney
Respectfully submitted,
JPL/gp ' CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
cc: Gregory T. Meyer, City M
G2/SR0714A
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
PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 87 -
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS BY THE CITY COUNCIL
REQUIRING THAT AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION
OF LICENSE TAX BE PLACED ON NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
The People of the City of Hermosa Beach do ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. That Chapter 30 (Taxation) of the Hermosa Beach
Municipal Code be amended by adding Article VII which shall read
as follows:
Section 30-65. Purpose and intent.
The People of the City of Hermosa Beach declare that the
license taxes required to be paid hereby are assessed pur-
suant to Section 37101 of the Government Code of the State
of California and the taxing power of the city and solely
for the purpose of producing revenue. This chapter is not
adopted for regulatory purposes. The continued development
of the city, with the consequent increase in population and
in the use of public facilities, has imposed increased bur-
dens and requirements for such facilities including but not
limited to parks, major streets, traffic signals, sewers,
storm drains and public buildings. The necessity for such
facilities results from new construction. The need for such
facilities cannot be met from existing city revenues. The
most practical and equitable method of raising city revenue
is to impose a tax upon new residential construction in the
city.
Section 30-66. Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter,
(1) "Mobile home space" means each space, area or building
in a trailer park, mobile home park or other place designed
or intended as a place to accommodate any mobile home,
trailer, van, bus or other vehicle or mobile structure at a
time when the same is being used as living or sleeping
quarters for human beings.
(2) "Person" shall include every individual, firm, partner-
ship, joint venture, association, trust, corporation or any
other group engaging in construction activities itself or
through the services of any employee, agent or independent
contractor.
-1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Section 30-67. Imposition an• mou of tax.
(1) In addition to any othe fee, li ense or tax required
by this code, every person onstruct g or causing to be
constructed or erected any resident --1 building or structure
in the city for which a bu'ldin• .mit is required shall
pay a license tax in the a = --...dr
f three (3%) percent of the
valuation of the residential building or structure estab-
lished by the building official pursuant to this code for
determining the building permit fee.
(2) The developer of a mobile home park shall pay a license
tax fee of one thousand one hundred and fifty ($1,150.00)
dollars for each mobile home space.
(3) For the alteration of or addition to residential struc-
tures or mobile homes parks, the license tax shall be com-
puted on the valuation of the alteration or addition to the
dwelling units or mobile home spaces. No tax shall be
charged for alterations or additions having a value less
than $10,000.00 per annum.
Section 30-68. Credit.
A credit toward the license tax imposed by this chapter may
be given if a public facilities fee has been paid pursuant
to Hermosa Beach Zoning Code Article 15.5, Development
Agreements, in satisfaction of an obligation under a public
facilities fee agreement for the building or structure. The
amount of the credit shall be the amount of the fee paid. A
credit shall also apply toward the license tax imposed by
this chapter for the first $10,000.00 per annum of valuation
of any alteration or addition to residential structures or
mobile home park spaces.
Section 30-69. Time and place of payment.
The license tax imposed pursuant to Section 30-67 shall be
due and payable at the Office of the Director of Building
and Safety, City Hall, Hermosa Beach, California upon issu-
ance of the building permit. The tax for a mobile home
space shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first
permit for the construction of such space or, if such con-
struction is performed without a permit, at the time when
construction is commenced. No permit shall be issued until
the tax is paid.
Section 30-70. Refunds.
If a permit for construction work expires or if such permit
is revoked and if within thirty days following the expira-
tion or revocation date of the permit the permittee files
written application for a refund of the entire tax paid,
there shall be a refund of the entire tax paid. There shall
be no refund if any construction work has been performed nor
shall there be any partial refund. In the event of a refund,
it is unlawful for any person to proceed in any way with
further construction without first applying for another
building permit and paying the tax imposed by this chapter.
If no refund is made and a permit expires after work has
been performed, a new building permit shall be required and
L5/ORD18 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
2,k2
3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the tax imposed by this chapter shall be paid; however, a
credit shall be given not to exceed the tax paid in
connection with the expired permit.
Section 30-71. Disposition of proceeds.
Funds from this tax shall be placed in the general fund and
shall be available for general governmental purposes. Deci-
sions on the expenditure of such funds shall be made by the
city council in the context of approval of the city's annual
operating and capital improvements budget or at such other
time as the council may direct.
Section 30-72. Exceptions.
There is excepted from the tax imposed by this chapter the
following:
(1) Accessory buildings or structures in mobile home parks,
such as a club house, swimming pool, or laundry facilities;
(2) Buildings or structures which are clearly accessory to
an existing use, such as fences, pools, patios and automo-
bile garages; 1 jv,
(3) Construction of a single-family home;
(4) Additions or alterations to existing single-family ct
residential structures provided the addition does not
create a new dwelling it or econom dwelling unit as
defined by the Uniform Building Code; and
(5) The city council may grant an exception for a low cost
housing project where the city council finds such project
consistent with the housing element of the general plan and
such exception is necessary. In approving an exception for
low cost housing, the city council may attach conditions
including limitations on rent or income levels of tenants.
If the city council finds a project is not being operated as
a low cost housing project in accordance with all applicable
conditions, the tax which would otherwise be imposed by this
chapter shall immediately become due and payable.
Section 30-73. Exemptions.
There is excluded from the tax imposed by this chapter:
(1) Any person when imposition of such tax upon that person
would be in violation of the Constitution and laws of the
United States or the State of California;
(2) The construction of any building by a nonprofit corpora-
tion exclusively for religious, educational, medical or
charitable purposes; and
(3) The construction of any building by the City of Hermosa
Beach, the United States or any department or agency
thereof, or by the State of California or any department,
agency or political subdivision thereof.
Section 30-74. Construction prohibited.
It is unlawful for any person to erect, construct, enlarge,
alter, repair, move, improve, make, put together or convert
any building or structure in the city or attempt to do so or
cause the same to be done without first paying the tax
imposed by this chapter.
L5/ORD18 -3-
•
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Section 30-75. Tax liability; enforcement.
The taxes imposed by this chapter are due from the person by
or on behalf of whom a residential building or mobile home
space is constructed, altered or added to whether such per-
son is the owner or a lessee of the land upon which the
construction is to occur. The director of building and
safety shall collect the tax due hereunder. The full amount
due under this chapter shall constitute a debt to the city.
An action for the collection thereof may be commenced in the
name of the city in any court having jurisdiction of the
cause.
The city manager shall be responsible for the administration
and enforcement of this chapter. His decisions may be
appealed to the city council whose decision shall be final.
Section 30-76. Effective date.
The taxes imposed by this chapter shall be applicable with
respect to building permits for residential construction
activities issued on or after January 4, 1988.
SECTION 2. If any section or portion of this initiative
ordinance is declared invalid by a court of proper jurisdiction,
the remaining sections or portions are to be considered valid.
SECTION 3. There shall be no modification, amendment, or repeal
of any provision herein except by a vote of the people.
ATTEST:
KATHLEEN MIDSTOKKE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO ORM:
S P. LOUGH, CITY ATTORN
L5/ORD18
-4-
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
RECOMM
It is
rer
BACKGROUND
July 7, 1987
City Council Meeting
July 14, 1987
STATUS REPORT BALLOT MEASURES
d that the City Council receive and file this
This report i for your information regarding the status of
proposed ballet measures for the Nov. 3, 1987 General Municipal
Election. At t'is time, City Council has approved in concept two
measures:
New Residentiak Construction.Tax - wording is coming back at
this meeting fo revisions.
Theater Admittaac
Tax - wording should be presented to you
at this meeting b the City Attorney.
Building Height - P blic Hearing at this meeting, and
recommendation from he Planning Commission. Proposed Ordinance
submitted by Planning Department. Council direction would have
to be given tonight to put this on the ballot.
As I have mentioned sever- times, the July 28, 1987 City Council
Meeting is the last regula meeting for passages of'Resolutions
incorporating all proposed •-llot measures. Decisions will have
to be made that night regards g Ballot Argument Authors, if
Rebuttal Arguments will be all wed, and Preference for the
Placement of the Measures on t - ballot.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathleen Midstokke
City Clerk
Noted:
QQ ( r
Gr gory? Meyer
Ci y Manager
�J6
Law Offices of James P. Lough
JAMES P. LOUGH
June 18, 1987
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
TO: Mayor and Members of the City CouncfL.
FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney
RE: Impacts of Ballot Box Planning
30 NORTH RAYMOND AVENUE
SUITE 708
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91103
(213) 381-6131
(818) 792-4728
(818) 792-477 .
PT.T
This memo is an attempt to explain to the council some of
the legal issues which must be considered when the council is
deciding whether to place a land -use issue on the ballot. Hope-
fully, this memo will give the council some useful information
to help it decide what issues should be placed on the ballot.
Primarily, this memo will focus on land -use issues since that
seems to be the area where this city is most active and where
the courts have also been very active.
The right to initiative, referendum and recall are rela-
tively new concepts in this country. California originally
adopted all three methods of direct democracy in 1911 to prevent
the railroads from dominating the state legislature. The initia-
tive article in the California Constitution is found under
Article II, Section 8(a).
The philosophical underpinnings of the initiative power were
a change from the traditional view of democracy in America.
Government in America is basically a republican form which means
that governmental decisions are not made by the people them-
selves but by the officials they have chosen to guide government
policy. This was the system of government founded 200 years ago
under the Constitution.
The process of initiative, referendum and recall are a
different philosophical view of how government should be con-
ducted. These procedures are methods by which the citizens can
directly adopt legislation and bypass their elected officials.
Because government with the State of California and on the
federal level is considered to be a gift of power, through the
constitutions, by the people, the use of the initiative process
is considered a reserve power which the people never gave to the
government. Therefore, it is considered an equal or more
important power than the Constitution.
While the initiative is considered equal or greater than the
Constitution, there are limitations placed upon the power of
initiative. Under the California Constitution, initiatives are
limited to the coverage of only one subject per initiative.
L6/SR0618 -1-
b
JUNE 18, 1987
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney
RE: Impacts of Ballot Box Planning
sonFioenne�
Also, direct democratic methods cannot be used to repeal urgency
statutes, statutes calling elections, and statutes providing for
tax levies or appropriations for usual current expenses
(Article II, Section 9(a)).
Over the years, there have been judicial limitations placed
on the people's power of initiative. As a general rule, courts
have held that ordinances adopted by initiative are subject to
the same limitations as ordinances adopted by the city council.
The initiative power confers no greater authority on the people
than that held by the city council over legislative matters. In
general, the court restricted limitations are as follows:
(1) violate the California or United States
Constitutions, Hawn v. County of Ventura, 73
Cal. App. 3d 1009 (1977); (2) conflict with
general law, Galvin v. Board of Supervisors,
195 Cal. 686 (1925); (3) impair an essential
governmental function, Birkenfeld v. City of
Berkeley, 17 Cal. 3d 129 (1976); (4) invade a
duty imposed solely on the city council as an
agent of the State, Simpson v. Hite, 36 Cal.
2d 125 (1950); or (5) affect administrative,
as opposed to legislative, matters, McKevitt
v. City of Sacramento, 55 Cal. App. 117
(1921) .
California Land -Use and Planning Law
(1987 Edition), Daniel J. Curtin, Jr., p.203.
The fact that initiatives may only address issues that can
be raised by the city council is of particular importance.
Often citizens attempt to bring about certain results through
the initiative process because they have been frustrated at the
council level. Oftentimes the reason they are frustrated at the
council level is because the council does not have the legal
ability to act on the matter. This creates a dilemma since if
the council cannot act neither can the people and, hence,
litigation usually follows.
The restriction to legislative matters only is also of
importance especially in the land -use field. When dealing with
land -use questions, the city council acts in two different roles
depending on the issue. It serves as a legislative body on some
issues and as a quasi-judicial body on others. Among the
legislative decisions, as interpreted by the courts, are zoning
L6/S?0618 -2-
JUNE 18, 1987
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney
RE: Impacts of Ballot Box Planning
COflFhEflThL
ordinances, general plans and specific plans (Yost v. Thomas
(1984) 36 Cal. 3d 561; Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa
Mesa (1980) 28 Cal. 3d 511).
Quasi-judicial decisions such as variances, conditional use
permits, and subdivision map approvals are considered administra-
tive in nature and not subject to the initiative process. This
is because the usual types of approvals considered administra-
tive involve particular facts dealing with one landowner usually
and are more like a court or judicial review rather than a
legislative or policy decision affecting the general population.
When an initiative deals with a proper legislative subject,
it still must comply with the provisions of the general law of
the State of California. This is especially true in a general
law city such as Hermosa Beach. This gives the public no
greater authority than the city council on any particular
subject.
This is particularly important when initiatives are enacted
with the requirement that they may only be changed by a vote of
the people. If there is a legal problem with the initiative in
question, it cannot be repealed quickly by the city council in
the face of a lawsuit as with ordinances with no such restric-
tion. This often occurs when a citizen or group attacks an
ordinance and it is determined by the city that the attack will
be successful. In those cases, the city council can just repeal
the offending ordinance to save the unnecessary expense of
litigation.
In the case of an initiative which can only be repealed by
the vote of the people, it takes several months to place a
matter on the ballot. Even once the matter is placed on the
ballot, there is no guarantee that the people will repeal the
offending ordinance. The city is then faced with the duty of
defending an ordinance which it knows is in violation of the
general law.
Another problem arises when an initiative is adopted and can
only be changed by a vote of the people and, at a later time,
the state legislature enacts a law which conflicts with the
initiative in question. This necessitates the city having to
force an election to change the law in question based on the
legislature's amendment. If that is not done, the city is open
to challenge at any time if either the city fails to put the
L6/SR0618 -3-
JUNE 18, 1987,
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney
RE: Impacts of Ballot Box Planning
CDflFCEflTIL
matter on the ballot or it is put on the ballot and the voters
agree to retain the offending initiative.
Many times with an initiative there is less debate than when
the matter is held before the city council. Oftentimes the
matter is put on the ballot and has no significant opposition or
support and passes or fails based on people's general percep-
tions of the issue. This is because there is no notice or
public hearing requirements that are normally held for planning
and zoning matters when the issue is placed on the ballot.
Also, there is no environmental review process when a matter
goes on the ballot to determine the environmental impacts of a
particular measure. One procedural barrier that does apply to
initiatives is found under Evidence Code Section 669.5. This
section affects the burden of proof when a growth control
measure is adopted by a city. Normally, when someone challenges
an ordinance, the person challenging the ordinance has the
burden of proving that the ordinance is invalid. When a growth
control ordinance is at -issue, the city has the burden of
proving that it complies with all relevant statutes and consti-
tutional protections. This is true even of an initiative.
In the land -use area, another important aspect that must be
considered is whether the initiative is consistent with the
general plan. If an initiative does not amend the general plan
or amends it in a manner which is inconsistent with other
elements of the general plan, the ballot measure will be invalid
(Patterson v. County of Tehama (1986) 184 Cal. App. 3d 1546;
DeBottari v. Norco City Council (1985) 171 Cal. App. 3d 1204).
In both of these cases, ballot box measures were struck down
because they conflicted with various elements of the general
plan. This is particularly important whenever an initiative
restricts growth or limits density. In doing so, people can
argue that the initiative in question may conflict with the
housing element of the general plan which is filled with
statements trying to increase housing needs to meet regional
demands as required by the California Government Code.
As can be seen, there are many pitfalls and traps within the
initiative process. It is a tool that must be used as carefully
as, and sometimes more carefully than, the regular city council
process. The reason more care is required is that mistakes
cannot be remedied in a quick or efficient manner. The remedy-
ing of mistakes also costs much more time, effort and money to
rectify when something needs to be changed by a vote of the
L6/SR0618 -4-
JUNE 18, 1987
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney
RE: Impacts of Ballot Box Planning
conFioEnnfl�
people. Finally, I am sure it is apparent to members of this
City Council that matters voted on at the ballot box are
challenged much more often than regular ordinances.
If you have any questions regarding any of the above-
mentioned matters, please do not hesitate to discuss them with
me. Thank you for your attention. I hope this helps guide you
in your decision making process.
Respectfull
JPL/gp
cc: Gregory T. Meyer, City• Manager
William Grove, Director of Building & Safety
Michael Schubach, Planning Director
Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk
sufitted, ,;
1 fir.
JAMES P. LOUGH, City Att•rney _
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
COV ID.E PIAL COMMUNICATION
NOT A PU; L1C RECORD
This document is exempt from
public disclosure pursuant to
Government Code Section 6254 &
is a Confidential Communication
between Attorney and Client
under Evidence Code Section 952
L6/SR0618 -5-
".11,4:4
0
Honorable Mayor and Members of the
Hermosa Beach City Council
July 7, 1987
Regular Meeting of
July 14, 1987
SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY OF BUILDING HEIGHT IN ALL ZONES
CITY COUNCIL INITIATED
Planning Commission Recommendation
1. Reduce the maximum height in the following zones:
'ta' C 1 Zone: From 45 feet to(30-'feettN)
C-2 Zone: From 45 feet to35feet
R -P Zone: From 45 Feet for office structures to 35 feet
' "Biltmore Site" Specific Plan Area: From 54 feet to 45 feet
2., ,Conduct additional studies of Section 1201 which allows
' exceptions to height limitations, y�i1f q'
3..,Rev a for clarification the method of height measurement.
.12410,-,.. �-mss'
Staff -Reeomanendat1on *�__--
a. Reduce the maximum height in the following zones:
C-1 Zone: From 45 feet to (25)feet:'
R -P Zone: From 45 feet to 35 feet
"Biltmore Site" Specific Plan Area: From 54 feet to 45 feet
(C-2 Zone: No Change)
2. Change the method of measurement from a "parallelogram"
development envelope to an "average height" method. (Refer
to Diagrams A and B, and Exhibit A) . '+ _
3. Study limiting the height and bulk of roof mounted' equipment
and amend Section 1201, Height of Penthouses and Roof
Structures, accordingly.
4. Study the possiblility of eliminating the R -P Zone
altogether.
Alternatives
Staff recommends the possible following alternatives to the above
recommendation.
1. In the C-2 zone, allow larger lots, or the assemby of small
lots totaling at least 9,600 square feet to have a maximum
height of 45 feet; all others would be limited to 35 feet.
2. Perform extensive field study to determine what view impact
occurs at 35 feet and at a 45 foot height limit in the C-2
zone.
3. (Change the method of height measurement in the commercial and
\ manufacturing zones only to the method noted above.
s� - - 1 -
Background
On April 28, 1987, the City Council passed a resolution noting
its intent to study height in all zones.
On June 16, 1987, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P.C.
87-36, recommending amending the Zoning Ordinance regarding
height as noted in the above Planning Commission recommendation.
Analysis
P.C. STAFF REPORT: Staff has prepared an analysis for each zone
in the attached Staff Report to the Planning Commission. The
following discussion is in regard to the alternatives.
ALTERNATIVE 1: Allowing an additional story would serve as an
economic incentive, and in the good planning sense, it would be a
benefit to the City. Most of the lots in the C-2 zone are
seriously deficient in size for commercial development of any
significance. The parking alone is almost impossible to provide
on-site. Larger sites would not only accomodate parking, but it
could also be underground.
ALTERNATIVE 2: To be certain that a reduction in height will be
beneficial in respect to view, or even light, air and
ventilation, a more extensive analysis including field studies
should be prepared.
ALTERNATIVE 3: It may be too late to modify the method of
measurement for residential buildings. However, commercial
development in the recent past has been minimal, particularly in
respect to taller structures. Therefore, it may be beneficial to
change the method of meaurement now, prior to the reconstruction
of the City's aging commercial areas.
Attachments
1. Diagrams A and B
2. Exhibit A
3. P.C. recommended ordinance
4. Staff recommended ordinances
a. Height in various zones
b. Method of measurement
5. Background
a. Resolution P.C. 87-36
b. Staff Report to P.C. - 6/2/87
c. P.C. Minutes - 6/2/87
CONCUR:
Gror T. Me36.4t4'
NY
Ci Manager
- 2
Respectfu_ly sur itted,
A�
Al !ALA
Michae. 'chubs
Planning Direct
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. 87 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
THE ZONING CODE IN REGARDS TO HEIGHT LIMITATION IN THE COMMERCIAL
AND R -P ZONES AND FOR THE BILTMORE SITE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA.
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 14,
1987 to receive oral and written testimony regarding this matter
and made the following Findings:
A. The height in certain zones is excessive in reglation to the
intent and purpose of those zones;
B. Limiting the height will improve and pro.ecL light, air,
ventilation, and views within the community;
C. Amending the height is not contrary to the General Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
1. SECTION 8-5(6). BUILDING HEIGHT shall be amended as follows:
a. In the C-1 zone, any building may have a maximum height
of 30 feet.
b. In the C-2 zone, any building may have a maximum height
of 35 feet.
c. In the C-3 zone, any building may have a maximum height
of 45 feet.
2. SECTION 701. HEIGHT shall be amended as follows:
"Any building may have a maximum height of 35 feet."
3. ORDINANCE 84-751, SECTION 7 shall be amended as follows:
"The project shall not exceed 45 feet in height including any
mansard roof or similar structure and shall comply with
Section 1201 of the Zoning Ordinance." ,
4. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force
and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final
passage and adoption.
5. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date
of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to
be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of
general circulation published and circulated in the City of
Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law.
1
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
6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of
this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original
ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the
passage and adoption thereof in the records of the
proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed
and adopted.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of July, 1987.
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY CLERK
CITY ATTORNEY
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. 87 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
THE ZONING CODE IN REGARDS TO HEIGHT LIMITATION IN THE COMMERCIAL
AND R -P ZONES AND THE BILTMORE SITE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA,
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 14,
1987 to receive oral and written testimony on this matter and
made the following Findings:
A. The height in certain zones is excessive in relation to the
intent and purpose of those zones;
B. Limiting the height will improve and protect light, air,
ventilation and views within the community;
C. Amending the height is not contrary to the General Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
1. SECTION 8-5(6). BUILDING HEIGHT shall be amended as follows:
a. In the C-1 zone, any building may have a maximum height
of 25 feet.
b. In the C-2 zone, any building may have a maximum height
of 45 feet.
b. In the C-3 zone, any building may have a maximum height
of 45 feet.
2. SECTION 701. HEIGHT shall be amended as follows:
"Any building may have a maximum height of 35 feet."
3. ORDINANCE 84-751, SECTION 7 shall be amended as follows:
"The project shall not exceed 45 feet in height including any
mansard roof or similar structure and shall comply with
Section 1201 of the Zoning Ordinance."
4. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force
and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final
passage and adoption.
5. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date
of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to
be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of
general circulation published and circulated in the City of
Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law.
1
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
6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of
this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original
ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the
passage and adoption thereof in the records of the
proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed
and adopted.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of July, 1987.
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY CLERK
CITY ATTORNEY
- 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. 87 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
SECTION 208, DEFINITION OF "BUILDING HEIGHT".
WHEREAS, on July 14, 1987, the City Council held a public
hearing to receive oral and written testimony regarding this
matter and made the following Findings:
A. The existing definition of building height should be revised
to clarify building height measurement;
B. The proposed revised building height definition is more
conducive to building design;
C. View impact to properties directly uphill will be lessened;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
THE FOLLOWING:
1. SECTION 208 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be revised to read
as follows:
"SECTION 208. BUILDING HEIGHT
Building height means the vertical distance from the average
level of the highest and lowest point of the lot measured
from natural grade covered by the building to the topmost
point of the roof not including the Building Code required
parapet fire wall."
2. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force
and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final
passage and adoption.
3. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date
of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to
be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of
general circulation published and circulated in the City of
Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law.
4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of
this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original
ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the
passage and adoption thereof in the records of the
proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed
and adopted.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of July, 1987.
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY CLERK
CITY ATTORNEY
2
IP
(6011‘./e( 1:0111,P) 4 i)p.vr.--Y DY ,- *rArr-- F5--416-rogr;:. LA4v9 Yog.
OF )) c...00-Jegs 6r- Prir
v- Lo; • •
ON • ftMsi4 Vo t- rz. . . 17..e.t•AA4 r-) IP 4. ..gkiTir4i .eorgs) cdiv g*s. . f'JZDffl
1)4,0 • r31- .) fir.opfz.tY 1-06A-rot35
pizorgv LIPe-
r1975i2r0-INP.—
15 , 0
o
1 -1-r LE.
r tiAv
-1N10 Tt.IAX IJ
4.
: 7-::-A•411-zAtAlri Li t',.0)
•0 )DNCifrk)D1.11\
M (OAT" RI -A I /0,&ril Ni • °••—•
DIAGRAM "A"
1
_ -Am .0
—m.kx
fZZ
2T-3-35
""Faceg.tzile LAW
• (tr N)F4)
ktiOt
cmOF Letixosit teach
CIVIC OCACN CALIFORNIA 110254
Cif/ NALL: MCI 1/6.1111
PIDLICI AND Hhl AAAAAAA INVI: 111101111
DIAGRAM B
ABSTRACT PROFILE OF CURRENT & PROPOSED "BUILDING ENVELOPE"
Maximum
Height
45'f
45'
45'
Maximum
Height
CURRENT
STREET
PROPOSED
of Morro Bay
-".7-11iti 595 Harbor St.
`' '' —Morro Bay, - CA 93442
;-805-772-1214
CALCULATING BUILDING HEIGHT
DEFINITION OF BUILDING HEIGHT - SECTION 17.12.310 "Height of Building"
Height of building means the vertical distance.from the average level
of the highest and lowest point of that portion of the lot measured -
from natural grade covered by the building to the topmost point the
roof (including chimneys).
IMPORTANT: It will be the responsibility of the owner, as listed
below, to ensure the building meets the height limit,-
- as -well :as provide -the city with adequate height data -TM-
on the plans including a benchmark in the field for
measuring'the height -of the building during construction,
as approved by the Building Official.
HEIGHT DATA REQUIREMENTS - The applicant must submit:
1) Site Plan with contour map(Topograghical lines),
2) Highest & lowest elevation of the building pad (found-
ation pad).
3) The average natural grade of the lot (contours before
any cutting orfilling).
4) Setbacks for the the building(s).
5) Natural grade...and finish grade on elevations .(or .indicate
if the lot is to be cut or filled or neither).
6) Dimension distance from building edge to average natural
grade on elevation and site plan.
7) Building elevations relating building to the average
natural grade.
CITY HALL
595 Harbor Street
'HARBOR DEPARTMENT
1275 Embarcadero
SEE THE EXAMPLE ON THE REVERSE SIDE
FIRE DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS
. 715 Harbor Street
POLICE DEPARTMENT
850 Morro Bay Blvd
EXHIBIT A (Page 1 of 2)
695 Harbor Street
RECREATION. AND PARKS
535 Harbor Street
EXAMPLE OF NORcri ELEVATION `& CROSS SECTIO -OF CONTOURS
fast
REAR •►
PROPERTY
LINE
11.75'.... HIGH
AVE.
15.0 -
FRONT
5'O'FRONT YARD
SETOACK
12:00'
10.00'
0
10
20
30
40
SO
NORTH ELEVATION
60
N.T.S.
EXAMPLE OF SITE PLAN & CONTOUR MAP
13.25'
)11
6.00'
50.00'
t.
0
O
O
••••••••
6.00' .______
low point
70
14.25'
•
5.56' /
fr
LOW: 5.5'
HIGH: 11.5'
DWELLING
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE
•••••• 6.5'•••••••
GARAGE
'1
CONC.
DRIVE
high point 11.5'
•
•0
SITE PLAN
N.T.S.
4.17'
CALCULATION OF AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE IN FEET
( 5.5 11.6 )1' 2 e 8.5 AVERAGE: 6.5'
(high point ..low point).:- 2= avarap• natural grad•
MAXIMUM ELEVATION
NO PART OF THE STRUCTURE MAY EXCEED
6.S'4. 25.0'm 23.6'
60 feat
KEY
• 0 ®• 6 avrag•
natural grad•
ImmEzdwallInp
footprint
'� �• prop.rty tin•
natural grad.
HEIOHT LMR: 2 5'-0'
EXHIBIT A (Page 2 of 2)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION P.C. 87-36
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE HEIGHT
LIMITATION IN THE FOLLOWING ZONES:
ZONE HEIGHT
C-1 7U—YT:
C-2 35 FT.
R -P 35 FT.
BILTMORE SITE S.P.A. 45 FT.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
June 2, 1987 to receive oral and written testimony and made the
following Findings:
A. The height in certain zones is excessive in relation to the
intent and purpose of those zones;
B. Limiting the height will improve and protect light, air,
ventilation and views within the community;
C. Amending the height is not contrary to the General Plan; -
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, hereby recommends
reducing the maximum height in the C-1, C-2, R -P and Biltmore
Site S.P.A. as follows:
1. SECTION 8-5(6). BUILDING HEIGHT shall be amended as follows:
a. In the C-1 zone, any building may have a maximum height
of 30 feet.
b. In the C-2 zone, any building may have a maximum height
of 35 feet.
c. In the C-3 zone, any building may have a maximum height
of 45 feet.
2. SECTION 701. HEIGHT shall be amended as follows:
"Any building may have a maximum height of 35 feet."
3. ORDINANCE 84-751, SECTION 7 shall be amended as follows:
"The project shall not exceed 45 feet in height including any
mansard roof or similar structure and shall comply with
Section 1201 of the Zoning Ordinance."
VOTE: AYES: Comms.Rue,Peirce,Compton,Chmn.Sheldon
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Comm.Schulte
1
1
2
3
4.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 87-36 is a
true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning
Commission of the City of Hermos. Beach, California at their
regular%meeting on une 2, 19&7!-
7
Chuck Sheldon, C a man
(tile?
Date
2
Michael Schu•ach, Secretary
Honorable Chairman and Members of the
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
May 25, 1987
Regular Meeting of
June 2, 1987
SUBJECT:. SPECIAL STUDY OF BUILDING HEIGHT IN ALL ZONES
CITY COUNCIL REQUESTED
Recommendation
Staffrecommends that the. Planning. Commission review this special
study of height limitations, consider amending the height
limitations within the Zoning 'Ordinance and direct Staff to
prepare a resolution for the next meeting in accordance with the
decisions of the Planning Commission. -
Background
At the April 28, 1987 City Council meeting, the City Council
adopted a Resolution of Intent to study height limitations of
buildings as it pertains to screening,density, lot size, value
of unique skyline, ocean views, light, air and ventilation.
Analysis
PREFACE: To examine ,all the zones, each zone must be considered
individually because of locational factors, variations in uses
permitted and the intent and purpose of each zone. Also, the
method of measurement and the exceptions to height limitation
need.to be addressed.
R-1 ZONE: A maximum of 2 stories and a height of 25 feet are
allowed in this zone.
The intent and purpose of the R-1 Zone is to provide low density,
single family neighborhoods.
Because of the large variation in lot sizes and dimensions, and
the splitting of two lots'that once was developed with only one
home, the density of some R-1 areas is above the norm, and the
size and bulk of the single family .structures is _somewhat
excessive for the size 'of the lots. With minimum required
setbacks coupled with the two-story height, these structures in
relation to aesthetics, light, air, ventilation and intensity of
development have a significant impact. In many instances, these
large, two-story homes are replacing smaller, one-story single
family homes and have a significant impact on the skyline, ocean
views, and the character of the neighborhood. Many of these
factors are qualitative and subjective in nature. Many long-time
residents may, therefore, sense these impacts more than newcomers
who are more or less unaware of howthe area was once developed.
To resolve these kinds of impacts in the R-1 Zone, it would be
- 1 -
c. c
necessary to limit development to one-story on substandard lots,
i.e. lots under 4000 square feet. In other words, lots under the
minimum size could be limited •in height because of their limited
lot size which together functions to impact light, air,
ventilation, and view. Toy impose this requirement would result
in many newly built, non -conforming dwellings as well as older,
non -conforming dwellings. Another approach may be to limit a new
dwelling to the same height as the previous dwelling. This
approach would limit view blockage caused by future two-story
structures on lots where only one-story currently exists.
If dwellings were limited to .one-story as noted above, a
substantial loss in property value may result since the amount of
floor area that could be constructed would be substantially
reduced. However, certain properties would maintain their value
since their views would not be blocked.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, in an effort to protect views,
allows a maximum height of 16 feet unless a "Height Variation
Permit" is obtained. This Permit allows a maximum height of 30
feet, but can only be obtained if the additional height will not
"significantly impair the primary view" from adjacent lots. A
lot which would have its view 'blocked by a structure which did
not exceed 16 feet in height is not considered a view lot.
R-2 & R -2B ZONE: The two-family zone allows two stories and a
maximum height of 30 feet.
Since two dwelling units are permitted on lots of 3500 square
feet, it would be difficult to :place two units on that size lot
if the height were reduced to allow only one story, particularly
when considering the required open space and parking setback.
A two-story structure could be constructed within a 25 foot
height limit on flat terrain, but on hillsides, there may be
difficulty because of the method of meaurement although many
two-story structures under 25 feet are built in the R-1 Zone on
hillsides. Architectural design may be limited to flat roofs or
minimum pitch if the height were reduced to 25 feet. The
difference between 30 feet and 25 feet is generally not
significant in relation to the skyline, light, air, and
ventilation. It may be significant in relation to view in some
instances -since 5 feet could mean the difference of seeing over
the roof line or not.
R-3 ZONE: Maximunn height allowed in this zone is 35 feet and
there is no maximum number of stories; however, building more
than 3 stories would be extremely difficult, although it does
allow for partially -below grade parking level.
Similar problems as noted for the R-2 Zone would occur if the 35
foot height limit were reduced by 5 feet and the benefits would
also be the same..
Limiting the number of stories in the R-3 Zone to two stories
would have a significant impact to not only the height, but also
2
intensity and density of development; the size of units as well
as the number of units would be reduced because of the small size
of most lots within the City. The number of non -conforming
dwellings created would be immense.
C-1 ZONE: This zone permits a maximum height of 45 feet and its
purpose is to provide convenient neighborhood services.
Areas zoned C-1 are found in the midst of densely developed
residential neighborhoods on generally flat terrain. The
existing uses are generally small food establishments,
laundromats and liquor stores. Existing development is not over
two stories in height.
The 45 foot height limit is excessive for neighborhood,
convenience -type businesses. A maximum of 25 feet would be more
appropriate and should not create any difficulty in construction
of two-story structures.
C-2 ZONE: This zone allows a maximum height of 45 feet. Uses
allowed are more intensive than in the C-1 Zone, but not as
intensive as in the C-3 Zone. The majority of development
existing within this zone is two stories or less, and under 35
feet.
The 45 foot height limit results generally in structures having
no more than four stories. If the maximum height were to be
changed to 40 feet, four-story structures could still be
constructed, but with greater difficulty. Reducing height to 35
feet would, of course, result in structures of no more than three
stories.
Surrounding the C-2 Zone, is residential development, constructed
on terrain that generally slopes upward as it moves away from the
commercial area along Hermosa Avenue. Along pier Avenue, the
commercial strip is parallel to the primary view corridor and
appears to have a small potential for view blockage.
Reducing the height to a 40 foot maximum may result, in some
cases, to less view blockage; to determine what properties would
benefit would require some extensive field work such as floating
balloons at various heights in various commercial locations,
taking photographs from a variety of locations and then
modifiying the photographs in a way that would show how much
blockage would result at various heights. Based on the
juxtaposition of the residential and commercial areas, Staff
believes that, in most cases, view blockage will occur just as
much at 35 or 40 feet as at 45 feet.
In regard to light, air, ventilation, intensity of developement,
and skyline, Staff believes a 40 foot height limit would not make
a significant difference over the current 45 feet.
A 35 foot height limit may have some impact on view and light in
some cases. In regard to intensity of development, a 35 foot
height limit would be significant since it would result in
three-story developments instead of four, or about 25% less
development. Economically, it would have a negative effect since
3 -
the value of the commercial property would be reduced to some
extent.
C-3 ZONE: A maximum, height of 45 feet is allowed. This zone is
intended to allow the most intense commercial uses.
This zone is located alongPacific Coast Highway on its east and
west sides from the north to the south City limits. The terrain
has a significant slope upward and downward respectively. :This
factor coupled with the method of measuring height on hillsides
results in the majority of buildings within this zone being
significantly lower than 45 feet either—at the rear of the
structure or at the front. A good example is the Hermosa
Pavillion; at the front elevation, the structure is two stories
and 36 feet in height; at the rear,. it is 45 feet in height. If
height were to be lowered to 40 feet, it would have, as noted for
other zones, little impact on ocean views, skyline, light, air
and ventilation. However, it could be significant in regard to
intensity of development because of the method of measurement on
hillsides; the number of stories may be reduced. Even if the
proposed method of measuring height as noted below is adopted,
there may be difficulty in constructing structures under 40 feet.
•
SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS (SPA): This type of zoning is unique to the
standard type of zoning because it allows development of
standards and requirements which only relate to a specific area.
In this manner, the unique features of a particular area can be
more_ aptly addressed. For example, height standards may be
modified through the adoption of an S.P.A. because of the
location and topography of the'subject'area.
Currently, the City has two S.P.A. areas. One location known as
the "Biltmore Site" allows a height of 54 feet. Since the
adoption of this S.P.A., the applicant has proposed a revised
plan for a structure with a maximum height of 39 feet. Since the
54 foot height limit is no longer necessary, the maximum height
should be reduced.
However, if a maximum height limit were to be placed on all
future S.P.A.'s, the intent and purpose of S.P.A. zoning would
be, in part, defeated. It is the intent of this zoning to allow
zoning standards on a case by case basis.
HEIGHT MEASUREMENT ON SLOPING LOTS: The method of height
measurement is also a significant . actor. The method _that is
currently used forms a parallelogram development envelope (refer
to attached diagram A). An alternate method of measurement used
by Morro Bay and which is similar to Manhattan Beach has some
advantages:
1. A horizontal plane is established as the maximum building
height which is usually more conducive to building design
than a sloped line. ,
2. Buildings on sloping lots will be shorter from an uphill
standpoint due to the measurement from an average grade.
- 4
View impact on properties directly uphill is therefore
lessened.
The disadvantage is that buildings will be taller from a downhill
standpoint due to the average grade measurement. This may be an
acceptable trade-off to lessen primary view impact.
The present definition is also difficult to work with because
lowering the finish grade elevations affects the allowable
height. In essence, a project is "penalized", heightwise, if the
natural grade is lowered (refer to attached Exhibit A for details
of proposed height calculation).
ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT: Another factor that should be considered
is the exception to the height standards, Section 1201, which
allows roof mounted equipment to exceed the maximum height.
There are no parameters as to how large a roof structure housing
mechanical equipment can be or how extensive the screening of
such equipment can be. The "Biltmore Hotel" project is one
example; the mansard roof was described as screening and was
proposed to be 9 feet above the maximum height of 45 feet and to
be constructed around the parameter of the roof.
Allowing screening 9 feet high and completely surrounding the
roof is the result of having no maximum or limitation on how much
of an exception is permitted.
Staff believes that roof equipment and screening should be
limited but to what degree is difficult to determine.
Screening could possibly be limited to only surrounding the
actual equipment and in no case, the entire roof.
As for equipment itself, possibly it could be limited to absolute
maximum height necessary. Staff believes certain limits should
be imposed. However, those limits may need modifications over
time to reflect genuine development requirements.
R -P ZONE: This zone permits both R-3 Residential and office
development, or a combination of both on the same site.
The height allowed for R-3 development is 35 feet; for office
development, 45 feet is allowed. What is allowed when a
combination of office and residential is proposed is unclear.
There are only three locations, which are small in size, that are
designated R -P, and office development in these areas is all but
neglible; a small boat sales office exists at Herondo Avenue and
Palm Drive.
These areas are designated High Density Residential in the
General Plan and therefore, are inconsistent since nothing in the
General Plan allows offices in Residential areas.
Because of (1) lack of interest in constructing offices, (2) the
inconsistency with the general Plan, (3) the small size of most
of the lots, and (4) the potential environmental impacts of
office development being placed in the midst of residential
development, Staff believes the R -P Zone should be eliminated.
- 5 -
If the zone is not eliminated, then the height should be limited
to a maximum of 35 feet for all development. There is no logic
in allowing office buildings to be 10 feet higher than other
developments in the same zone.
Further, if this zone is maintained, then the same setbacks as
required in the C zones for projects abutting residential uses
should also be imposed.
M-1 ZONE: This zone allows a maximum height of 35 feet and
maximum of 2 stories. The purpose of this zone is to allow a
limited range of manufacturing and wholesale uses.
Manufacturing uses in many instances require taller than normal
ceiling heights and Staff, therefore, believes that 35 feet is
adequate and not excessive.
There are two M-1 zoned areas. One area is located within a
valley terrain and for the most part would not have a significant
impact on light, air, ventilation or view. The other area along
Ardmore Avenue is General Plan designated for Medium Density
Residential; if this area is to remain zoned for manufacturing
uses, the maximum height should be reconsidered since the
surrounding R-2 and R-1 uses are at a maximum of 30 feet and 25
feet respectively.
OVERVIEW: Staff believes that after considering all factors, the
height limit should be reduced in teh C-1 Zone, and the "Biltmore
Site" S.P.A. Zone. Prior to reducing height in the C-2 or C-3
Zone, more extensive field studies should be conducted to
determine what benefit would occur.
Both the method of measuring height on sloping lots and the
exception to the maximum height limitations should . so be
amended.
6
Mi aeS' u • ach l
Planning Directo
TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING HEIGHT LIMITATION IN ALL ZONES
Mr. Schubach, gave staff report dated. May 25, 1987. At the April 28, 1987, City Council
meeting, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intent to study height limitations of
buildings as it pertains to screenings, density, lot size, value: of_ unique skyline, ocean
views, light, air, and ventilation.
Mr. Schubach gave extended background information and clarification on this issue,
stating that to examine all zones, each zone must be considered individually because of
locational factors, variations in uses permitted and the intent and purpose of each zone.
Also, the method of measurement and the exceptions to height limitation need to be
addressed.
Mr. Schubach discussed the R-1 zone, stating a maximum of two stories and a height of
25 feet are allowed in this zone. The intent and purpose of the R-1 zone is to provide
low density, single-family neighborhoods.
Because of the large variation in lot sizes and dimensions, and the splitting of two lots
that once were developed with only one home, the density of some R-1 areas is above
normal, and the size and bulk of the single-family structures is somewhat excessive for
the size of the lots. With minimum required setbacks coupled with the two-story height,
these structures in relation to aesthetics, light, air, ventilation, and intensity of
development have a significant impact. In many instances, these large, two-story homes
are replacing smaller, one-story single-family homes and have a significant impact on the.
skyline, ocean views, and the character of the neighborhood. Many of these factors are
qualitative and subjective in nature. Many long-time residents may, therefore, sense
these impacts more than newcomers who are more or less unaware of how the area was
once developed. To resolve these kinds of impacts in the R-1 zone, it would be necessary
to limit development to one-story on substandard lots, i.e., lots under 4000 square feet.
In other words, lots under the minimum lot size which together function to impact light,
air, ventilation, and view. To impose this requirement would result in many newly built,
k-LANNIINU L OMMISS1vN MINUTES - JUNE 2, 198/
PAGE 9
non -conforming dwellings. Another approach may be to limit a new dwelling to the same
height as the previous dwelling. This approach would limit view blockage caused by
future two-story structures on lots where only one story currently exists.
If dwellings were limited to one story as noted, a substantial loss in property value may
result since the amount of floor area that could be constructed would be substantially
reduced. However, certain properties would maintain their value since their views would
not be blocked.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, in an effort to protect views, allows a maximum height
of 16 feet unless a "height variation permit" is obtained. This permit allows a maximum
height of 30 feet, but can only be obtained if the additional height will not "significantly
impair the primary view" from adjacent lots. A lot which would have its view blocked by
a structure which did not exceed 16 feet in height is not considered a view lot.
Mr. Schubach discussed R-2 and R -2B zones, stating that this two-family zone allows two
stories and a maximum height of 30 feet. Since two dwellings are permitted on lots of
3500 square feet, it would be difficult to place two units on that size lot if the height
were reduced to allow only one story, particularly when considering the required open
space and parking setback.
A two-story structure could be constructed within a 25 -foot height limit on flat terrain,
but on hillsides there may be difficulty because of the method of measurement although
many two-story structures under 25 feet are built in the R-1 zone on hillsides.
Architectural design may be limited to flat roofs or minimum pitch if the height were
reduced to 25 feet. The difference between 30 feet and 25 feet is generally not
significant in relation to the skyline, light, air, and ventilation. It may be significant in
relation to view in some instances since five feet could mean the -difference of seeing
over the roof line or not.
Mr. Schubach stated that the maximum height allowed in the R-3 zone is 35 feet, and
there is no maximum number of stories. However, building more than three stories would
be extremely difficult, although it does allow for partially below -grade parking levels.
Similar problems as noted for the R-2 zone would occur if the 35 -foot height limit were
reduced by five feet, and the benefits would also be the same.
Limiting the number of stories in the R-3 zone to two stories would have a significant.
impact not only to height, but also to intensity and density of development. The size of
units as well as the number of units could be reduced because of the small size of most
lots within the City. The number of non -conforming dwellings created would be
immense.
The C-1 zone permits a maximum height of 45 feet, and its purpose it to provide
convenient neighborhood services.
Areas zoned C-1 are found in the midst of densely developed residential neighborhoods on
generally flat terrain. The existing uses are generally small food establishments,
laundromats, and liquor stores. Existing development is not over two stories in height.
The 45 -foot height limit is excessive for neighborhood, convenience -type businesses. A
maximum of 25 feet would be more appropriate and should not create any difficulty in
construction of two-story structures.
A
PLANNING COMMISSIUN MINUTES JUNE 2, 1987 PAGE 10
The C-2 zone allows a maximum height of 45 feet. Uses allowed are more intensive than
in the C-1 zone, but not as intensive as in the C-3 zone. The majority of development
existing within this zone is two stories or less and under 35 feet. -
The 45 -foot height limit results generally in structures having no more than four
stories.: If the maximum height were to be changed to 40 feet, four-story structures
could still'be- constructed, but with greater difficulty. Reducing height to 35 feet would,
of course, result in structures of no more than three stories.
Surrounding the C-2 zone is residential development constructed on terrain that
generally slopes upward as it moves away from the commercial area.
Reducing the height to a 40 -foot maximum may result, in some cases, to less view
blockage; to determine what properties would benefit would require some extensive field
work such as floating balloons at various heights in various commercial locations, taking
photographs from a'variety of locations and ,then modifying the photographs in away that
would show how much blockage would result at various heights. Based on the
juxtaposition of the residential and commercial areas, staff believed that, in most cases,
view blockage will occur just as much at 40 feet as at 45 feet.
In regard to light, air, ventilation, intensity of development, and skyline, staff believed
that a 40 -foot height limit would not make a significant difference over the current 45 -
foot limit. '
A 35 -foot height limit would have some impact on view and light in some cases. In.
regard to intensity of development, a 35 -foot height limit would be significant since it
would result in three-story developments instead of four, or about 25 percent less
development. Economically, it would have a negative effect -since the value of the
commercial property would be reduced to some extent.
A maximum height of 45 feet is allowed in the C-3 zone. This zone is intended to allow
the most intense commercial uses.
This zone is located along Pacific Coast Highway on its east and west sides from the
north to the south City limits. The terrain has a significant slope upward and downward
respectively. This factor coupled with the method of measuring height on hillsides
results in the majority of buildings within this zone being significantly lower than 45 feet
either at the rear of the structure or at the front. A good example is the Hermosa
Paviilion; at the front elevation the structure is two stories and 36 feet in height; at the
rear, it is 45 feet in height. If height were to lowered to 40 feet, it would have, as noted
for other zones, little impact on ocean views, skyline, light, air, and ventilation.
However, it could be significant in regard to intensity of development because of the
method of measurement on hillsides; the number of stories may be reduced. Even if the
proposed method of measuring height as proposed is adopted, there may be difficulty in
constructing structures under 40 feet.
Specific plan area zoning is unique to the standard type of zoning because it allows
development of standards and requirements which only relate to a specific area. In this
manner, the unique features of a particular area can be more aptly addressed. For
example, height standards may be modified through the adoption of a S.P.A. because of
the location and topography of the subject area.
Currently. the City has two specific plan areas. One location known as the Biltmore site
allows a height of 54 feet. Since the adoption of this S.P.A., the applicant has proposed a
rLr�ivlvliv� LUMM!JJiv►V M1NU 1 LS - JUNL 2, 196/ PAC.h' 11
revised plan for a structure with a maximum height of 39 feet. Since the 54 -foot height
limit is no longer necessary, the maximum height should be reduced. _
However, if a maximum height limit were to be placed on all future specific plan areas,
the intent and purpose of S.P.A. zoning would be, in part, defeated. It is the intent of
this zoning to allow zoning standards on a case-by-case basis. .
The height measurement on sloping lots is also asignificant factor. The method that is
currently used forms a parallelogram development envelope. An alternate method of
measurement used by Morro Bay and which is similar to that used by Manhattan Beach
has some advantages: 1) A horizontal plane is established as the maximum building
height which is usually more conducive to building design than a sloped line; 2) Buildings
on sloping lots will be shorter from an uphill standpoint due to the measurement from an
average grade; 3) View impact on properties directly uphill is therefore lessened.
The disadvantage is that buildings will be taller from a downhill standpoint due to the
average grade measurement. This may be an acceptable tradeoff to lessen primary view
impact.
The present definition is also difficult to work with because lowering the finished grade
elevations affects the allowable height. In essence, a project is "penalized," heightwise,
if the natural grade is lowered.
Another factor that should be considered is the exception to the height standards,
Section 1201, which allows roof -mounted equipment to exceed the maximum height.
There are no,parameters as to how large a roof structure housing mechanical equipment
can be. The Biltmore Hotel project is one example; the mansard roof was described as
screening and was proposed to be nine feet above the maximum height of 45 feet .and to
be constructed around the parameter of the roof.
Allowing screening nine feet high and completely surrounding the roof could obviously
block views and could have an impact on light, air, and ventilation of adjacent
developments.
Staff believed that roof equipment and screening should be limited, but to what degree is
difficult to determine. Screening could possibly be limited to only surrounding the actual
equipment, and in no case the entire roof. As for equipment itself, it could possibly be -
limited to the absolute maximum height necessary.
Mr. Schubach concluded by stating that staff believes that after considering all factors,
the height limit should be reduced in the C-1 zone and the Biltmore Site S.P.A. zone.
Prior to reducing height in the C-2 or C-3 zones, more extensive field studies should be
conducted to determine what benefits would occur. Both the method of measuring height
on sloping lots and the exception to the maximum height limitations should also be
amended.
Mr. Lough stated that the 54 -foot height limit on the Biltmore Site is not in effect unless
the Court of Appeals were to overturn the current 39 -foot specific plan area height
limit. He gave background information on the height at this particular site.
Public Hearing opened at 9:02 P.M. by Chmn. Sheldon.
Wilma Burt, 1152 7nd Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission. She discussed
view corridors, stating that since the City is already so built up, the question is moot.
cLi�cvlvtivV �.Vtv1lV11JJ1.JN A/111NU1CJ - JU[Vt Z, 1J2S/
PA(b. 12
She discussed the sloping configuration of the City, stating: that many people would lose
their views regardless of the action taken. She agreed that height should be lowered in
the C-1 zone, noting that 30 feet would be more appropriate for that zone. She
suggested that the slope of the hill be considered when making a recommendation on the
C-3 zone along Pacific Coast Highway. She noted concern for the height on the east side
of P.C.H. and the possible resulting shadows. She felt that more attention should be
given to the R -P zones, stating that she felt it would be quite good for the City and could
be effective. She concluded by stating that she felt the view corridor has already been
lost.: ..
Public Hearing closed at 9:07 P.M. by Chmn. Sheldon.
Chmn. Sheldon discussed the R-1 zone, stating that the discussion centers primarily on
substandard lots. He felt that there are very few substandard lots in the R-1 zone. He
felt there is a very minor view corridor problem in the R-1 zone. He felt that it is not
possible to protect view corridors by legislation, stating that, most of the viewcorridor
has been lost already because of the heavy buildout in the City. He felt that no changes
are necessary in the R-1 zone.
Comm. Compton discussed the R-1 zone, stating that because of the two-story, 25 -foot
height limit, small homes typically end up on those lots. Because of the high cost of
property, people like to maximize the size of houses in this zone. He felt that possibly it
should not be limited to two stories, citing the sloping hills in the City. He stated that
bulk would not be increased, but more square footage would be possible. He felt that this
is possibly the only change required for the R-1 zone. He felt that the 25 -foot, height
limit is satisfactory.
Comm. Rue agreed that there should not be a two-story height limitation in the R-1
zone; but he favored the current 25 -foot height limitation.
Chmn. Sheldon felt that the residential zones are all adequate as they currently exist.
He felt that heights in the residential zones are not a problem.
Comm. Peirce agreed that the residential zones are all adequate.
Comm. Compton discussed the possibility of more than two stories in the R-1 zone. He
explained the way the calculations are determined in such circumstances. He suggested
that a recommendation be sent to the Council recommending the abolition of the two-
story limits in both the R-1 and R-2 zones without changing the height.
Comm. Peirce strongly opposed changing the number of stories and the method of
measurement for the residential zones. He felt that the current regulations are
appropriate. He felt that to allow a small majority of people to maximize their
investments by allowing them to build more than two stories would be unfair to the
majority of people in the City. He stated that the current regulations allow for
architectural diversity by stepping up slopes. He noted concern over the possibility of
creating a "canyon" effect if the ordinance were changed. He stated that that was the
original intent behind the ordinance.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to recommend that the. R-1, R-2,
and R-3 zones remain as they currently exist in terms of height and story.
Comm. Rue agreed that the original intent is appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSI•uN MINUTES - JUNE 2, 1987
PAGE 13
Comma Compton felt that though the original intent may have been good, that is not
what has occurred in the City. He felt that the current regulations are not allowing for
architectural diversity. •
AYES: Comms. Compton, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Sheldon
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Comm. Schulte
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Compton, to reduce the height in the
R -P zone to 35 feet.
Comm. Rue suggested that the R -P zone be made R-3. He questioned whether the R -P
zone would ever really develop into a residential/business type zone.
Comm. Peirce felt that the R -P zone has potential.
Comm. Compton felt that there are areas in the south end of town that have potential
for the R -P type development. He felt that to change the designation would create some
nonconformities in the City.
There being no objections to the motion; so ordered by Chmn. Sheldon.
Chmn. Sheldon felt that substantial changes are necessary in the C zones, stating that C-
1 should be 25 feet; C-2 should be 35 feet; and C-3 should be 40 feet. He stated that C-1
zones are neighborhood shopping areas, and there is no reason to allow more than two
stories. C-2 zones should be low -scale commercial areas, and he noted concern for the
future should Hermosa Avenue and Pier Avenue be built to -•.45; feet. He felt that views
should not be the driving force in commercial zones; the issue is bulk and mass.
Comm. Peirce discussed C-1, stating that those zones are mostly in areas of R-2 and
R-3. He felt it would be unfair to penalize the C-1 properties by reducing them to 25
feet. He favored 30 feet in the C-1 zone. He agreed that C-2 should be 35 feet, and C-3
should be 40 feet.
Comm. Compton stated that either 30 or 35 feet would be appropriate in the C-1 zone.
He noted that the C-1 zone is the only zone in town allowing businesses with residential
uses. He felt that the C-2 zone should be 35 feet, noting that 45 feet is excessive and
could be disastrous to the appearance' of the downtown area. He felt that the C-3 zone
should remain the same, 45 feet. He noted that many of the current 45 -foot buildings
are stepped. He noted concern that buildings would become too "boxy" if they were
restricted to a lower height. He felt that there would be a very minimal difference in
regard to views whether the height is 40 feet or 45 feet.
Chmn. Sheldon stated that much recycling is necessary in the C-2 zones.
Comm. Compton felt that 3.5 feet in the C-2 zone is reasonable. He stated that
alternate requirements could be imposed to ensure architectural diversity, other than
drastically lowering the height in this zone.
Comm. Peirce felt that higher limits might be appropriate for the Lucky Market property
at the southeast corner of Artesia and Pacific Coast Highway, noting that it is flat, on a
hill, and blocks no views. He suggested that staff study the possibility of an increased
height limitation for that particular piece of property. He suggested a C-3 designation,
1-1LANN1Nt; C:OMM1SSfuN M1N U 1TES - JUNE 2, 1987 PAGE 14
stating that the area has a wonderful view which is being currently wasted.
Comm. Rue favored 30 feet in C-1 zones, noting that it is in residential areas. He felt
that C-2 is near much R-3 and 35 feet is appropriate, stating that he likes the diversity
of roof lines in that area. He felt that more study is necessary in regard to the C-3
zones, noting concern for the east side of Pacific Coast Highway. He agreed that more
study is necessary in regard to the Lucky Market property.
MOTION by Chmn. Sheldon, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to recommend that the C-1 zone
be reduced to 30 feet; the C-2 zone be reduced to 35 feet; and the C-3 zone shall remain
at 45 feet. No objections; so ordered.
MOTION by ° Comm. Compton, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to recommend that the
specific plan area be reduced to a maximum of 45 feet. No objections; so ordered.
Chmn. Sheldon and: Mr. Schubach discussed the method of measuring height on sloping
lots.
Comm. Peirce favored leaving the measurement method as it currently exists. He stated
that if the proposed new method had been implemented 30 or 40 years ago, it would have
been feasible, but not so today. in regard to views.
Bill Grove, Building Director, addressed the Commission and discussed the method of
measurement of height on sloping grades. He explained the diagrams which had been
received by the Commissioners. He stated that most of the lots in the City have been
developed, and .not many remain with the "natural" grade. Therefore, the Building
Department tries to ascertain what the natural was. He continued by discussing
ramifications of the proposed new method in regard to
Mr. Grove stated that height would be easier to determine if the Morro Bay method were
used.
Comm. Compton felt that the document presented by staff needs to be clarified, stating
that it does not address instances where the lower grade is in the middle. He noted
difficulties in measurement because of this fact.
Mr. Grove agreed that the present requirement stating that height must be measured
from the natural grade is somewhat difficult because of the present definition. He
stated that the interpretation seems to be inconsistent.
Comm. Compton felt that the wording needs to be clarified.
Mr. Grove stated that the definition could be amended to more accurately indicate that
the height is a straight line drawn from the front to the back of the lot or from street.
improvement to street improvement. He concurred that difficulties arise in the
calculations because of the current wording.
Chmn. Sheldon directed the Building Director prepare a report in regard to this issue and
return to the Planning Commission with this information.
MOTION by Chmn. Sheldon, seconded by Comm. Peirce, that that measurement of height
on sloping lots remain the same as currently exists. No objections; so ordered.
Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed roof -mounted equipment and height,
particularly elevator towers.
Mr. Grove stated that most elevator towers are typically one story in height above the
roof line, approximately ten to twelve feet. He stated that difficulty arises in
determining bulk.
Chmn. Sheldon suggested that the Planning Director further analyze and consider
prohibiting roof -mounted equipment to exceed the height limit in any residential zone.
He requested that the Planning Director return to the Planning Commission with this
information at a future meeting.
Comm. Compton suggested that both residential and commercial areas be addressed in
regard to roof -mounted equipment. He noted that residential areas have solar collectors.
Mr. Lough discussed recent developments in the satellite dish legislation, stating that
that is not within the purview of the Building Department.
Recess taken from 9:55 P.M. until 10:00 P.M.
••
eviously in Bulletins #16-1987, #20-1987, #22-1987.)
4. INFORMATION Explanation of Condemnation Provisions of Antiquated
Subdivision Bill. SB 442 (Bergeson).
Numerous city officials have inquired about the eminent domain provisions of
SB 442, the bill supported by the League and many other organizations, to
facilitate remapping of old subdivisions filled with substandard, primarily
undeveloped lots.
The bill alio _the lanslowner's__assocation to exercise eminent domain, if the
ci y council approves_by a p/ivnte, and ihe-- Dowing additiQna1 requ semen` s'
are met:
1. The governing instruments of the owners' association formed to do the
readjustment specifically provide that the group may seek authority from
the city to use eminent domain powers;
2. Three-fourths of all landowners in the area who also own at least 3/4
of the land in the readjustment area have agreed to participate in the
project;
�3,_ he city has approved a specific plan for the area that complies with
he specific plan law and SB 442's additional planning requirements; and
\a: The council has held a public hearing, and based on substantial
evidence in the record, makes all of the following findings, which must
be made separately for each parcel proposed for acquisition:
a) The project serves one or more of the listed public purposes of
the bill (generally solving problems of inadequate infrastructure,
solving environmental and health and safety problems caused by the
existing subdivision, and reconfiguring substandard lots into
standard ones);
b) All owners of property proposed for eminent domain have been
notified that they may file a notice of willingness to participate
in the project, have not done so, and the association has used
reasonable means to obtain their membership or to buy out their
interest;
c) That project implementation is not possible unless the property
is acquired;
d) That the property is not in single-family residential use; and
e) No more than 20% of the total land readjustment project area is
already developed.
Additionally, the conclusive presumption of the right to take that applies to
city -initiated condemnations does not apply to these condemnations, so the
property owner can challenge in court the association's right to condemn.
(Referred to previously in Bulletins #16-1987, #19-1987, #23-1987.) SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION
5 JULY 10, 1987
10a
Honorable Mayor and Members of the
Hermosa Beach City Council
s$ oj
CRIR-
1\60' LEGISLATIVE POS
" LAND R•
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended th
a legislative positi
BACKGROUND
City Council Meeting of
July 14, 1987
RE SB
USTMENT LAW
t the City Council
n on SB 4424
Attached are Background Materials
copy of the bill as most recently
private land consultant.
owsignarep
from the
amended,
41111112tUrASIS
sider whether to take
League of Cities, a
and a flyer from a
As a matter of legislative policy, it is a City Council deter-
mination as to whether to take an advocacy position on this pro-
posal. The League of Cities supports the bill; the City of Rose-
mead has formally opposed the bill; some citizens also oppose the
bill, feeling that it encourages undesirable land condemnation.
In the opinion of staff the chances of this measure being uti-
lized in Hermosa Beach appear remote; there just aren't those
kind of "paper subdivisions" existing in the community.
Gr gor'9° 1 Meyer
City Manager
GTM/ld
Attachments
Es Alb
Na ��
111 a
MAYOR:
G.H.' PAT CLEVELAND
MAYOR PRO TEM:
ROBERT W. BRUESCH
COUNCILMEN:
JAY T. IMPERIAL
DENNIS McDONALD
GARY A. TAYLOR
July 2, 1987
The Honorable John Cioffi
Mayor, City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
(Pit ye. �osesnead
8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD • P.O. BOX 399
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770
TEL. (818) 288-6671
TELECOPIER 8183079218
Dear Mayor Cioffi:
On behalf of the Rosemead City Council, I am writing to urge the City
of Hermosa Beach to oppose SB 442 (Bergeson). The bill will soon be
heard by the Assembly Ways and Means Committee.
We realize that the intent of this measure is to provide an
additional impetus to re -subdivide antiquated subdivisions for the
purpose of promoting the orderly development of parcels which might,
otherwise, be difficult to develop. However, it is our opinion that
this measure would grant "landowner's associations" far too much
influence in promoting eminent domain proceedings. It is the opinion
of our Council that eminent domain should be used as a method of land
acquisition only in cases of the last resort; and we believe that
SB 442 would do little but promote the misuse of that power.
Once again, we urge that the City of Hermosa Beach state its
opposition to SB 442 (Bergeson) by notifying the appropriate
legislators and organizations.
Sincerely,
410w -Rcy
G. H. "PAT" CLEVELAND
Mayor
City of Rosemead
GHPC:nv
advantages for cities: first, it would make the Vehicle Code restrictions
meaningful in residential areas that do not meet the state's uniform criteria
for a residential district; second, it would create a precise solution to the
problem by prohibiting large commercial vehicles from parking in residential
areas, while still allowing them to use the streets; and third, it would not
require signing. The absence of signs however, may create a trap for the
uninformed driver of a commercial vehicle. This disadvantage, however,
appears to be no greater with a local definition of "residential district"
than with the current Vehicle Code's definition. A residential district
cannot now be ascertained in either case simply by looking at the curb, but
can be ascertained in both cases from official records. To guard against
creating a trap, however, local agencies would be required by AB 815 to hold a
public hearing before adopting their own definition of "residential district"
and would also be required to give a warning to the driver before a citation
is issued.
The League is indebted to Walnut Creek City Attorney David Benjamin for the
legal research and drafting of AB 815. We anticipate that it will be assigned
to the Assembly Transportation Committee, whose members are: Richard Katz,
Chair; Bill Duplissea, Vice Chair; Areias, Clute, Eastin, Eaves, Ferguson,
Frazee, Hansen, Harris, Killea, Lancaster, Polanco, Wyman.
7. SUPPORT Absentee Ballot - Third Party Handling. SB 133
(Presley). Approved by Senate.
SB 133 clarifies a recent Supreme Court decision, Wilks v. Mouton which_
relates to third party handling of absentee ballots and provides that a voted
absentee ballot may be returned by mail or in person to the official from whom
it came or returned in person to any member of a precinct board. The bill
provides an exception for an incapacitated absentee voter to have an immediate
family member return a ballot.
SB 133 has cleared the Senate and will soon be heard in the Assembly Elections
and Reapportionment Committee where its passage is less assured. City
officials are urged to contact the Chair and members of the Committee urging
support of SB 133. The members are: Peter Chacon, Chair; Richard Mountjoy,
Vice Chair; Baker, Bane, Dennis Brown, Condit, Elder, Klehs,_Lewis, Margolin.
8. SUPPORT Antiquated Subdivisions. SB 442 (Bergeson).
COMMENTS REQUESTED
California has many subdivisions which have been described as "antiquated
subdivisions." These are subdivisions which usually were formed sometime
between 1890 and 1930, and which are undeveloped or partially developed.
Included in these are "paper subdivisions" usually consisting of lines drawn
on hills or in deserts which cannot be developed, and old subdivisions which
have health and safety problems such as slide, water and sewer and access
problems. Others are in prime agricultural lands or timber zones, or in
environmentally -sensitive areas such as wetlands and riparian habitats. Some
are developed, blighted, urban subdivisions which are typically the subject of
public redevelopment. Problems presented by these subdivisions include: (1)
they develop in an illogical and checkerboard fashion, (2) they do not utilize
public resources and infrastructure well, and (3) the lots in these
subdivisions are repeatedly sold, with the buyers unaware of the difficulty in
building on the lot. Often the lot eventually sells for a high price, the
6 FEBRUARY 27, 1987
•
city council feels sorry for the buyer and allows development to take place in
an unsound manner.
Because of the problems presented by these antiquated subdivisions, Senator
Marian Bergeson created a working group to formulate legislative solutions.
SB 442 might be described as a "private redevelopment" bill. The process
operates as follows:
The project begins when three or more landowners form a private land
readjustment association and identify a project area. When the
association has signed up landowners who own at least two-thirds of the
affected area, the association may apply to the city for permission to
prepare a specific plan for the area. The city council then authorizes
the association to prepare its specific plan, the city reviews the plan
at a public hearing, and if adopted, the specific plan becomes the zoning
for the land readjustment area and the association submits a financing
plan, a boundary readjustment map, and a subdivision map. Under
specified circumstances, the association could use special assessments
under the 1911, 1913 or 1915 acts to make the land readjustment costs
special assessments. The bill provides for protecting the city from any
liability in case of default on those assessments.
When the association's membership includes at least two-thirds of the
landowners who also own at least two-thirds of the affected area, an
agent is appointed who takes control of the property and the members
receive a prorated share of the association's assets. The association_
maythen buy out landowners in the area who are unable or unwilling to
participate in the association. As a last resort, after passing several
hurdles, the association representing two-thirds of the landowners owning
two-thirds of the land or more, can petition the city to acquire the
remaining parcels by way of eminent domain, but the eminent domain power
can only be exercised when the city council makes a number of public
purpose findings and the property owners meet other strict criteria.
The land readjustment is implemented when the association records its new
parcel boundaries and the association then disposes of the land or
develops it.
The bill also modifies land disposition procedures for tax deeded lands and
excess or surplus lands owned by government agencies. A government agency
disposing of those lands would be required to notify the city planning agency
of its intent to dispose of the land. The planning agency would then have to
inform the disposing agency of city requirements that must be met before
development could occur on the parcels. Prior to disposition, the selling
agency would then be required to readjust the boundaries of its parcels if
doing so would solve development problems with the parcels. In any event, the
selling agency would be required to disclose to prospective buyers the
information received from the local planning agency.
We expect SB 442 to be assigned to the Senate Local Government Committee for
hearing. The League's Board of Directors has voted to support the bill,
subject to technical review. We request interested city officials to send
comments to the League's Sacramento office and to contact the members of the
Senate Local Government Committee in support of SB 442.
7 FEBRUARY 27, 1987
ATTENTION: ALL CALIFORNIA PROPERTY OWNERS
THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN WILL BE GIVEN
TO DEVELOPERS UNLESS YOU ACT!
OPPOSE SB 442 - Land Readjustment LAW?
EMINENT DOMAIN is the power of government to require you to sell your property for
building projects such as freeways, schools on other public buildings.
A new state law has been introduced (SB442) that would grant this same power to
Commercial and Residential Developers. "ASSOCIATIONS" 'with three or more people,
and even in cities whose citizens have voted down redevelopment agencies.
Local governments subdivide land by turning large tracts into smaller lots for develop-
ment. Since we are now nearing building saturation they want to re -subdivide by com-
bining SMALL HOME LOTS into LARGE SITES for larger developments, (condos, apartments,
hotels, shopping centers, etc.) This new process is called LAND READJUSTMENT.
Developers argue that this new law is .needed because existing laws don't encourage
enough collaboration between the PRIVATE SECTOR and Local Governmental Agencies
to assemble lots into parcels which are desired for large developments. Developers
and Real Estate Investors are calling this problem a STATEWIDE CONCERN and have
convinced Senator Marion Bergeson and other Legislators to create another major
land use law to add on to the existing LAND USE PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT
POWERS.
SB442 WILL:
--ALLOW PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS to form for consolidating. redesigning
and re -subdividing land. after the approval by the City or County
having jurisdiction. Only three land owners are needed to form
the "Association".
- -EXPAND EMINENT DOMAIN POWERS TO PRIVATE ENTITIES?
Private Associations can force land owners to sell who can't or who don't
want to. participate in the Association by petitioning the city or
county to acquire those parcels for them, through Eminent Domain. The
City could also let the association start the Condemnation.
- -ALLOW LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO MORE EASILY DECLARE AN AREA IN
NEED OF RE -ADJUSTMENT whenever a developer wants to seize the property
through Eminent Domain. HOW? By changing development standards and
regulations or by zone changes that make you an INCOMPATIBLE OR . NON-
CONFORMING USE!
• —TRANSFER MAJOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT costs to the taxpayers to pay
the cost of land assembly. relocation, administrative expenses of the
Association or public improvements. (sewer. streets, sidewalks and utilities)
in the form of "Special Assessments".
-BAIL OUT OR FINANCE investors and developers who made unwise land in-
vestments by allowing the city -to' grant monies or make loans to the Asso-
ciation. This means the investment risk and project costs are forced on the
TAXPAYERS instead of the developers or land investors.
. \ 1.
,
SB 442 WILL:
--ALLOW ILLEGAL SUBDIVIDERS to be bailed out; They sell property (LOTS)
without putting in the required public improvements. Many counties have
allowed these illegal subdivisions but now local governments could bail out
these developers by TAXING the citizens to put in the required improvements.
* THE CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Opposed SB442, stating that there are
more then adequate procedures in the Subdivision Map Act to effect land readjust-
ment - which would be a great deal less cumbersome then the proposed legislation.
* THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS IN SB442 to certain geographical areas or to lands
that were subdivided before 1930. Land parcels do not have to be vacant!
your HOME or BUSINESS could be within a new LAND READJUSTMENT AREA.
STOP THE EXPANSION OF EMINENT DOMAIN AND TAXING POWERS!
Oppose SB442: LAND READJUSTMENT LAW (Senator Marion Bergeson
Newport Beach)
CALL AND WRITE TO: ASSEMBLY LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN-CORTESE-
AND
MEMBERS;
ASSEMBLYMEN- FRAZEE, HANNIGAN, HOUSER, JONES, KELLY, LANCASTER,
SHER, WATERS. ALLARD.
HONORABLE:
STATE CAPITOL
SACRAMENTO, CA. 95814
BEFORE JULY 1, 1987. Send Copies of letters to your own Assemblymen,
Senator and to the Governor.
SB442 - HAS ALREADY PASSED THE SENATE WE NEED ACTION NOW!
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:
SHERRY PASSMORE
Land use Consultant
P.O. Box 1332
Temple City, Calif. 91780
(818) 447-5500
4.
a specificplan developed by the'association:and a roved b
Pp Y ,_
the city` orf,countyhaving' jurisdiction i The' h ll , would specify
the',roting rights of landowner members:'of these' associations
" tnperrits',:would permit' norilandowier members to t'also
have voting' rights, as2.,speoified -The bill would' authorize
land development association"to request the city or county'"for:
authorization to prepare''a'specific'plan' and wouldaimpose , a:
state -mandated local program by=requiring"the city or noun
legislativer.'body' to `hold. a` hearing '-before t,authorizing'' th
association to prepare a specific plan: The, bill would authorize
the cityreedounty to make grants or loans'for the preparation
of the` spe cific`plan rt �, y a `'`
`The bill`wbuld,authorize a land ;readjustments association''
with Membership owning' at least % of the land area within
a land readjustment area to: form an assessment district, with
the approval of the city.or<county to pay the'costs of the' land
readjustment'�.'project ,t,Th
, ``e b :?;`wed: `else -';authorize'
'plfteefflefit. of , les €ar''eests 'e spccificd ,
laftegitiit lam refteljustiftent area where afts,sessffteirt distet
is ' farmed; under ''preseribed circum3tancc3': The bill `would';
authorize' the :use;. of the "'Improvement', Act of 1911;' the
Municipal;. Improvement Act of 1913, and the Improvement
Bond Act of 1915 for this purpose. The `bill'would require the
cityfor county to' appoint' a district administrator to impose,' -c7
assessments and',, sell bonds. -The bill would';' require'. Ian
adjustrnent'l associations; to =provide a special `<<means ':fo
repayment of assessments'
The bill Would authorize ' processingthe`'specific plan as' an
application for a development permit. The hill would require
the land readjustment associationto obtain approval fromsthe
city or'' county <'of `a' plan for financing- the project `rand'a
boundary' readjustrrient' map. The bill would authorize the
land readjustment association to acquire"property by'eminent
domainith`-the 'approval ' of the county''' or city,:' after.
members' of the association,' comprising % of the landowners
in the'landreadjustment area who"own.at least,�%:of the'land
'area therein; : have' agreed to convey': their'°property to the
association's agent. The bill would"require the city, or county
J to ;make'-'.; specified' finding's ° before''' authorizing "the°'; land''
readjustment' association to utilize; the ;'power -' of ' eminent `
. Sjl�`� �: 'v r1 Yf°i ':`t t
LL
omam ! 7� l� . tr.Fi s iJ yG „r��x q;�` eCi n.� til r .Y �i 47 f'.i1
The bill ,would -specify „;procedures for land ; readjustmen
ssociations to.'sell: their4resubdividedparcels, ;including7an,
appraisal requirement, and -would- give',members a,first:right ,.
of refusal m repurchasing` parcels closesta,to;-their original -f..
ownership's at appraised;value The. bill ;,would authorize
counties:and cities, to, adopt,ordinancesffor land readjustment?,
projects and to, impose fees to,: defraycosts of,:administration.
-The bill -would. imposea/state-mandated. local program by ,`
requiring , public . agencies, `with certain;:- exceptions, `'. to
determine the, subdivided status of excess, or surplus lands and
tax -deeded. lands ; offered :for sale • or other ;dispositionto
private parties., The bill \vould impose a- state -mandated local ,
program by requiring -prescribed review .of these proposed
'dispositions by the: designated local planning :agency of the
cit; or ,county,' The bill would impose a,state.-mandated local
program by requiring! boundary adjustments prior to,,sale
these lands,, as specified k{ FrF.+ = rw`t� ;;. c,;}' F' ,Y; ...
'" ,,The bill would require,: the, Office of Planning and Researc
-to report to the Legislature; on the use of eminent domain, by:��
land readjustment, :association's; by'January::1, 1991, and to
ort re on the bill to the. Legislature b
' p. g' yJanuary 1; 1992. All of
the above provisions of the bill would be repealed January..,l;
1993, unless extended by the Legislature =;
The bill would; : with, certain exceptions, require. the, State .'
Coastal Conservancy, California, ;Tahoe ,,,Conservancy;.; and
Santa Monica'- Mountains 'Conservancy. ;to':i' readjust the
boundaries of parcels, conveyed by them;in accerdance,with
'
e bill to. the extent feasible.
-'(2) ,The , California Constitution requires. the state to
reimburse Jocal agencies and school districts for certain costs
mandated,: -by the ' state.:; Statutory ' provisions establish
procedures;for making that -reimbursement, including the
creation of a State Mandates Claims. Fund to pay the costs of
mandates which do not exceed $500,000 statewide and other.
procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed $500,000.
bill .. would provide. that for ; certain . costs fie
reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
:,.Moreover,'the, bill would provide.that, if the Commission on
State ;,Mandates determines , that this.-: bill contains costs
1. �.1 r
• ,•,,
rnandated,bY, the State; rehribursernent.fOr•those costs shall be
• ,•'-,-T-,,,,
Made ursuariC''to ; thoseistatutbrY '•proedures '.and, v if 'the'r,":4,
,
' k
'
statewide cost does4.notf4ceed;:$500000*1$Sliall,be*madefrOnii.:
,.
• , the State Mandates ClahrisiFuticl.,'*,',7`:',.:',4104•:',--,-',',',ii.';•:-•,';',;:6`.,';',11f.A&,4,,,.:
Vote :m'a‘i' o'nI; Appropriation no)Fi•spa.:,cormittee:31$?;,`,.
S*e,i-Jp.datedi1oeft.iiprcigrariies.,4;44fi'l;',,,, :'' •,,•i';`'li .(0/-' fic.
';'''1g`f..4.11_t -C,'''''' S. ''':°, .4-'.7t.'''-+ '44A,;., .4,1'f',• .,'Z'' -..';.i4'-'4 , 1 -
IL
l'''-
.1The,,pqqp10,,Ofthk-Rate01:PalifcgiAk;acy1. 0a0-; as follows.
, ..
:jf'1:1•::::SECTIONI;c:11cseatiori "1245.'320? OfIthelOode':,' of Civil
2•"6PrOcedure,'is,arn' ended ,to 'read ,;':.:,r',J,''',1:',11::'`1,(.'''''-'4:!;'''.,i'';','
1'k.';'- 1245 213;•:,'i:As)usedinthisartiole,',., quasi-public!entity7c
44.fiLidap-si,".p.,;_'4,4•;:14,,w, lf.•,:,:i*,,;',';'••?,-,,,•,.$,0;'''-,,,-T.!., .,..4 .'-•';,,-;),,,,,,i, '.,-.' ':4.1.-','gt:,!,!,,,,i;., "?, :',.1 I'L ,-,'; ,
5V4'!:, (a),Arri.eduCational;institUtioriof,"collegiat&grade,inot ',•_,_-:, :
• '.,,,, 64`stOnductedfor-1, profit,' ; that...,seekS' to 4ake- propert3'i, r'bk,717..,:,..,
,-.•.:'-,.:.eruilicnt!diimOu:.:undeF'$ectiopk2,-,300519.1tbe''',Educatipri
(8...-;,.Code'..-4.1giitii::•k'';APN:qtf,:r*.,V',,',..'13;4,'.,',,g,r.''44.;''''''''''''''.i.4,'!';;;:i'll'al'"'''''
c,,•.:,-99.t.,u•';,(b)7A,rionprofthospitaltliat seeks to take property by
10erhinent!.dornainuriderf:ectiorr2604''Otthe:-.1-lealthiand':*• -
.,,.
11:4 -Safety Code
''
120,,,Iii,*,:•;(0) •,A cemetery authOrit;thaf..seeks:,to take. Property •,, ,„.
1314'breminent domain under Section 8501 of the Health and
151.e--; d afetycCode:i:;;-#,C.I,'-i'lill:
A limited -dividend —
housmg corporation that seeks16 lto ,.
take property by eminent dOrpain uuder Section 34874
17 of the Health and Safety Code .:=?-7; 3 1
18(e)A land -chest i'lcorporationr.; that Seeks ' to take
ft4.PtErt',5;',1L4iNDAIEADjustmENt'L
Article al
ilM0enerfroVisiOhs';fand',Declaration*of/State
,.„
• .
6 66000
•
This chaPter.'Shall•beknOwn'and may 1be cited
-
a 1
's' the _;and,Readjustment.LawX,',,,.1
'•
8 The Legislature finds‘,' and declares ,that 'there
9 are 'subdivision's of land throughout the. state containing
10 parcels that cannot be fully developed or redeveloped in
11 their current .ccinfiguratiOn* and 'fragmented 'pattern of •
12 ownership in-a'mariner•Consistent-with the.requirements " •
13 icif4•ctirrent-"lavy:,'These::-Subdivisions; and parcels within
.:".14 «subdivisions,; are' characterized Wide -`;‘variety ; 6f
•
15 problems which impede orderly development, including;;";,,,;,
16 but not'limited, td;'':one''or'' more: of the, following:'-!‘', ;,11
17 1•••:.(a)4 The ,•• roads, drainage systems, waste disposal •
181,'•SyStems,-Water supply systems, and other ,public facilities
19 :: have not 'been bompletelyinstalled, 'arenot feasible to •.:
r20 :;,build, or do not meet current state or local regulations:-
21'2f,P4(b) The buildmg of public facthties described ' in• '
22 'environmental' :damage;- •
• 23 aggravate erosion • or geologic ' hazards,-'. createwater •
• 24'pollution • problems, '!expose the -Coriamunity to, health
25 hazards, or otherwise:threatentthe publio,peace; health;'
26 safety, or welfare. *,•• • ••
27 . ' (c) ''• The' size and 1Configu-ration. 'ofA. parcels, in' the
subdivision do not meet current:state or local regulations -
as individual building -sites.' •'"
30';'•••• (d) The developmentof the' existing' parcels, without:
•.: 31reconfiguration; may •"'"I• cause ••• environmental damage;:
aggravate ' erosionor'. geologic'. hazards.; oreate!water.
33 pollution problems,' =expose the Community0to' health'
34!: hazards, or otherwise, threaten'the public peace, health,
'35 safety; or welfare. ,r,r •rr •
bvall, of the parcels in the subdivision bverlak,
«3Pr. and 'conflict with prior oWnership. rights. in that land,
. 38 including, but not limited to, aboriginal rights, mineral •0
39 rights, prescriptive rights, or the sovereign, rights of this . •
40 '
• • A ., ,..,,, F.
., i•,
-„,
:= ,c- 1 , Some or all of the parcels in the subdivision overlay
;2 `:.land which local or state plans designate for agricultural
.A.:-,,use,!..rniperal,. .extractipp,Aor7: timberk;,,productior the
•
-', 4 • pattern .of iownership, js: , too fragmented . to -.allow, for
. :. 5 .leffective , , production, : of;i' those .,resources, • ,, or i: the ••
,-
' ; . -I 6 : construction ,. of ,,improvements :,to -,'serve. parcels ,, may ...•]1.
7=7, conflict . with . the ,production, of iresources:„o-n,adjacent
8
,:
- • ..:, ,,,, -4),..„.,,,, =-.:.,:''' -..--- •-•-:,-' -:-- .•••.; -,i. '..• :.,•• ; =,,...-11-
lands.-,-,. •,:;- • := r.,-, 4,,,,.s=1.,;,-,v,i1. p'-' -eil'ii t -r- i sii-;::?,,;_ :1 ' 1- 1 ,!' ; ,, , : . :.4, 4.) 1, ill ::', ' ''t ' :, ' '
9.; (g) • Some , or, r all. of , the,: parcels in.. the ' subdivision
- 10,; overlay i'land:,,which,,local or ! state plans !:designate for
11; ,,natural resource protection,and the further development
,12-i;i.ofthe parcels in the current layout of the subdivision may
132;4retrievably4,i:.damage•-,;izo,r- eliminateitthose,i,';potential:
:14 !,Ii-,esources,,.ii,,,. ,.„.1, =1-,•;1 :;'-:, 1-4:'.4-- -', ' ?'' •'' '','• . '.• 'i'l) ; '1 ;1`;''.
151110-i ,(h) '• Development of some ,or all of the parcels in the;
• • 16. subdivision requires provision of sanitary sewers,,public .,• . ,
•,
17., water supplies, or substantial investment in, other public' .
laisfacilities; and the parcels are located in rural areas remote •,--'!'=
,- , ,:,, from existing , developed areas or ' areas whereiptIblic
. 20 agencies plan to .extend these public. facilities. .,,q, -,'; -..:. *Yr
. , •
21, t?, ,(1)- - There ,. is -, an . inadequate. -!water', : supply,!,,. waste •
22, disposal capacity,-, or., road ;Capacity. P to:, serve . all , future,-
, 23i potential building sites in the subdivision, and adequate :L
- 24,f,r facilities are. not ;likely sto,,be.,,available tin the foreseeable.,
25futur• -,, ,' - =:,--=, ,;., _.. -,•-:---,, - - ,:.= -,..•=.v „ i ::•;,. .. - ,,:':: '.-','!'• ''.
2641.': (j) . The size and configuration of lots in the subdivision
. 27....i. prevent. the development • of, the _ typesof uses , that are,
' 28 ,; consistent,with applicable, laws, regulating.,development
29 within the subdivision. .:„.'cA., .• -, . -,',4i'l -if i, ; ;,,..,' `-,,;!-.,",, 411- ,c,- -
30,'-': ‘,,,(k),- The size: and configuration . of ,lots, 'streets, ;'and
31.'public . facilities - prevents private k1= redevelopment, -,-.'
32 consistent with applicable laws after. a natural disaster.
33;;,,,` ;,., (1 ) The: configuration and layout 'of,lots •and streets, ..re
. :34ii:i and the fragmentation of ownership prevents the private ,'',
35 redevelopment of properties that suffer, from economic.
36.. dislocation, .deterioration,;,or ;,disuse to . an extent .that.. '
., 37 iyconstitutes a. serious physical,-,social,,or, economic burden.
38 ., ,on, the community' ' ,i ''--•= - ' - ' ' •i •t • i ' - - ' ,,-.= - •
.Ofl
_• 39,.. -, (m) The size_,andiconfiguration 9f lots prevents:, the;'.;: ._,..
priVateTi*rket.4
.11';Y:66002':41-16 .:1:a6gi§lati.it!finds, and declarest that the;1
;. • •
ii -problems' =described in4Sectiori; 6600If 'occur throughout
the stateYliritirbanreSubiirbari;:4; and rural areas
• 54.:ACcordingly;:.the ,LegislaturP:fmdS'and declare§ithat
, •
6 ',i-',','enactirigicf this'', chapter is 'responding ' issue.' of
`7,i(statewide-concern:.'•ThiS 'chapter shall'be applicable to all
8 local 'agencies; inCludirig charter" cities
:,• •
9",'-.4‘L'66003.11•TheLegislature further finds and declares that'••'',!
10 many of the parcels .in previously lands have.
•
11 been sold to many individual property owners,'Mani of
12 Whom:d6,-not reside: in .the local' agency .' Because of this
13'.il.:fraginented 'ownership, '. public 'officials and landowner§,,,•,;.•,,,:-,„:,
.. • .
14
find. it difficult to - reach equitable resolutions. of their
15 problems through the development ' permit !.,Process
16-':.%These•difficillties: result ;ill severe' constraints on the use
17 of lots in the individual ownerships or issuance of building k;•,-,,•!;,:
18.permit§].that,:i;:lare.:§incOnsistent,',', with essential pubhc
•
66004.- The Legislature finds and declares that it is in -
21 the public•interest to develop new procedures that public$.. •'
224.'offiCials'and landowners can'use to resolve the problems
•
23 described in. Section 66001 The public •• -and priYate
24 benefits • these' ;'-neVt; -procedures will: vary on • a • •
25 'case7by-case basis,;acCordirig to the particular location
26 -; and • characteristics of ? parcels,' the '-'expectations "
• 27'I landowners, the nature of public agency regulations, the'': , •
28 extent landownership fragmentation, and the nature of t'
29: private market forces affecting the parcels.. However, the -
'30Legislature recognizes that there are circumstances
31 throughout the state where landowners of parcels may be • '
able to:' resolve' • their' problems ; through organizing
• 33:. themselves in' land readjustment' associations to address
344: the use of their adjoinirig parcels . as an entirety. 'Once'''.
35 'J organized; these landowners may redesign subdivisions, • '
36'1 readjust ownerships, or alter rights-of-way and easement • -
• 37.';boundaries' *where those 'actions will resolve problems
• . 38, ' which. impede orderly ' development,'' consistent with. „
,
39'! -;'state and local regulatory. standards and goals.'." '''•': . • . -!
• 46 development cif=;. the -,'...type,S.;:-,of;11,sesderrianded,,,)by': the_ '-,Umid
.
1 ‘, •
40 66005 66005. ',•The Legislature recognizes that'some private - •
' •:
. • • 11'
•
land readjustment is already''OCcUrringPThe'LegiSlature
further 'finds and declaresqhat furtheringprivate land
• t
m appropriate locations. is, a public purpose
4b for state and local agenciesAtIS in the'publie interest for
5.1, • these agencies. to assistlandowners? organizations'inthe
6;,:y redesign of subdivisions /and • the readjustment of lot;
ri ownership,. easements,' , and , rights-of-way where' those
actions will resolve 'l- problems );which- impede orderly
9;:1'development; consistent withstate and local regulatory
10•1. standards and goals.-,.,
11 t7,'t 66006. The • Legislature finds ; and:. declares , that m'
12;- enacting this chapter it is not preempting the field bUtT,,
_ 13-,:Antends to create an alternative to existing procedures for
14landowners and local agencies to usainthe readjustment
15 of previously subdivided land. The, Legislature furtherf , .
16. finds -and declares that,' if 'a landoWners?" organization
171,‘Eicommences a land readjustment project pursuant to. this
18zif, chapter, then the procedures set forth herein shall be thei
exclusive procedure that local ,agencies shall folloWwith,
readjustment
)..4.
(d)i+`.`13oundary. .adjustinent :t.tmap7v,means,-0-ar."'flittp
indicating changes ii the legal €lesefiptien''ef.pareelie
• seveiee emementa which is cxccutcd 'under the
5 proccdurc3 and requirementa of DiN-Lisiet--12 -(eefaffteneiftg
with Section 6644.9), tentative map which is prepared
• `•`,-'pursuant ' the procedures' and requirements of the
8 :$ Subdivision' -Mag-vict,VDivision 2 (commencing, with :rtt
9 --Section, 66410), • or a map ' showing-1,:the proposed
710 -,boundaries of the readjusted parcels. , • 2'
'V 11 (e) "District'', means a special 'assessment district
12• formed pursuant to .Article 3 (commencingyith Section
•,;i.',...(f)i.si”Governing.?instruments7J means 'those creating
15and govermng docUments. ,by • the .land •
• 2,-
1,-,16;;;.readjustmentassociation: -regulates the< busines§,,qf the
?17 . associations and the conduct of its affairs ..
•18 (g):;"Landowner7.means any .public -agency or person
19 who alone or •collectively with- others can convey legal .
20 respect to that project 20 aftcl equitable title to a' specific parcel or parcels21 . -:. ,.•
66007...--:.1f any' provision 'of this ".':'chapter • or .." '; . .21 (h) "Land readjustment area?? means that. geographic
224, application thereof to any person or circumstances is area .l
theand readjustment association .:
23kinvalid, that invalidity shall'not affect other provisions or -'t;)23 draws its, '4 membership 1 and intends to assemble,
24 .;:,applications of the • chaptee/which..Cati • be.: given' effect:'., ' 24 :::Consolidate, redesign,. and,resubdivide land'
25 without the invalid provision • or application, and to this‘061 4-.25 .-Mand 'readjustment association"- means' any, legal . .; •
26entity, including withouf • limitation,' a,'` corporation, a
, 27 partnership (general oramited), a joint venture, trust, of .`'
28 other organization of landowners who have organized
29 themselves to execute a land readjustment project.'
.30 (j) "Land readjustment,project" means the assembly,
31, consolidation, redesign;,and resubdivision of land
„32 pursuant to -this chapter.' -
33 (k) "Legislative body?! means the governing body of
34kthe local agency 1
35 5, (l), ?local agency" means a county; city and county, ,
36 .or a city, including a charter city. '
• (m) "Member" means (1) any landowner who agrees ,
to convey land within the land readjustment area to the
agent in exchange for a pro rata interest• in the association
40
'or (2) any other persento.whom the association conveys i.
37
- •
• "ttr;,!%it
•
pro rata, interest in exchange.-:forgoods,',serVices, or a
,•, •
2financial contributionWhere- more, than.: one,. person
,,..:•.3'',.,,,collectively,:owns.,a'.singlerparcel,-all.the persons...owning
,
4 that
single parcel shalLcollectively:.,bp one member
5 .(n) "Parcel" means ,fttiy
:6: Iawfully creatcd, by, deed -0; 'recorded map and
Ind oadju 1enarca,ef ftny-r4ghtleflway
• 8 ; -'. easement ,ee4 1e eon' cy cd Gcparatc from
S. " ' •
(n) 'Parcel". means anyexisting`unit ofreaiproperty11 ...
or. interest therein,%Which....ds;,.:located....:: Pa land12':,readjustment area:13,
. .
(o) i "Person" includes any person,firm,. association,
.
14 organization, partnership,
company.-,,
16
(p) • •"Project. area'., means the land 'readjustment aread7 and
additional ;lands specified in 'Section 66018.,...4.„:
(q).Public, agency" : means '4 .,locat.agency;,;, a special
19 district, a school district, .a. community ,,college district; a
cornmunity... redevelopment .agency;:f.,-;and:o(
.21 agency,. board, or comrnission. '
• :"Public service, easement" means a:public service
:23), easement', as defined.`pursuantytoi.,Section..8306: -0 the
24'„Streets and Highways Code.. -; -
"Subdivi3ion", ,mcana (1) ft .ettbdivieieft as' dcfined.. V
ptif5thifkt te Section 6€424, er (2) 'ftfy.et-hef ,partition ef
.13i÷pstrat,,t-e., courf'a
28 .;,dc\iicc. , , ;,-,. • .sii:
29. Subdivision meanS, any division or readjustment
30-.---of.real property r,
31
32••• Article
3,„.Initiation of L.„fand,'Readjristmen•t
-
34
'..66015. ',land: 'readjustment associationmay be
35, ,:organiied. for •the.. purpose. of assembling, •• clearing,
redesigning, de,veloping,.,and readjusting subdivided ;or.
87partitioried land pursuant to this - chapter:, ' •:,
.66016. .Three or more landowners owning parcels in a
•
39 proposed land ,readjustment: area may, create"- a land
.404, readjustment,,signrnggo
uhd-
,
„ 7.", • .
•
r),instruinentS.'which shall contain each of the 'following:',;
2 (a) The namek of the 'association, which shall include •::' ' •
5 this state -
(b) 'The office',' which shall'be' in
the words' "land readjustment
6 ::The 'purposesand powers of the' association:', '
(d) The names and mailing addresses of the persons:,
8 Who' vvill 'constitute' the association governing 'body. ,
9 (e), The names and mailing •addresses, of- the persons
:10 :isigning the governing inStruments of the association. , '
(f) ' The manner in which the association shall regulate
12 the 'business of the association and -the 'conduct :of ,its
'113 ;,!-affairs, including, but not limited to,, all of the following:
14' Eligibility:and requirements for membership in ,
15 the association arid the nature of the interestof members'
; in the: association. Each landowner within a proposed
,
17 land readjustment area shall be an eligible :Member and
'118 the governing instruments 'shall' provide an alternative
19 mean. s of attaining membership for landowners who wish
- ' 20 • to" become members • butcannot meet' the'financial
. 21 - requirernents of membership. '
22 (2) Voting procedures governing the conduct of the
.
:23 affairs 'of the association. 'Each landowner who is a
24- member shall have one vote per parcel, except that joint
•" 25 • of :several landowners'ef equitable ti4e e owning the :
26,, same' parcel' shall . have only one' combined vote.: The
27 association"' shall ' establish" the voting,' rights' for each:
28 person who receives a membership in the association in .
29 exchange for goods, services, or a financial contribution
, 30 to the land readjustment project in accOrdance•with the
31 pro rata value of those contributions. • ' .
:32: (3): The ' establishment; 'responsibilities, and
33 composition ' of the, ' association governing body.' The •
34 association governing body shall be. composed of at least
35'; three persons:- r'''
36 ,. (4) The method of establishing the 'pro- rata share. of
37 the valuation for each separately owned parcel within a
:38 proposed land readjustment area. The yaluation of the.
• i39 entire, proposed land readjustment- area ',and the
r,40 proportionate 'value' of individual:parcelS, shall be 'based
•
mm
'?
tf,TIV,,C1-
re.
1444
PLJ,
1...1t,";.„-Jtrp•
\ ,
- - ,tt • 1 • .pt 4." ' '
on market i!alue ,- as of the 'date:PftestablishipePe of the ,,,,,..i. • :01"Arsubject-oribi ,.•;..to';',-, the'.,,, yprOVisions,.c.--'pfr' the ..;governing
2-1';association...'".::lexcept 52( ai:Ifotherwise1-4,Providedvij through :'.'.',
. g,4 4, , • '':- ' ''.. i':,'..: -::',..,!A'!•,.7 , t,'. ,.: '' '2,-) instrument at any,tinie) before., the. associationc.filegi.an .;;;•.;--.,
3 :,,..inammouagreemerit igf4riembers,VT'i:411:1''..".applicatior.i. Pursuaritto-JSection '66021.:th.`,.'i,i104f(414"Pl,4'..:-...,..t',
,.,..444;i(5)-:.".7he.fiinanneri,?by.iqwhic.1*the4Asso'ciation ..irilay:,''': , ,.`'..-66018.:',;•..iMe.:.Projecti:Ureu•shall•!includeVthe,,proposed
7,,iassociation/i•bri-,•the: '1.aridoWners.;.•for:purposes1,. of:: land , '' ',7;ir,'.:fi`:•',.:.(a),,,,J,arid-,,to.be used for"Public-improvementsjoi serve .:-,i'-'... ':,....1.
.. i"#5 .....designat6i. •and:'i. replace i.,. thei)i'agerit 'responsible ,fori.. ..:.5, ',land readjustment area; -In': addition;,,it.may..include land, '.. .
, • receiving, holding,. and disposing oflarid conveyed to the '-,:.• 3,:.,,,,,6 outside landireadjustinent area; a follows
,-4-8 readjustment, and the,specific;;d0eSi.::qualifications,,; and ,:.',.,,'
,...--:',..10,, i (6)..;.The Mariner and conditions under 'which members '-
9AresponSibilities'ofthat: agent - ',',,:'•A',.'i.Q't".'.:.•,Y.c.6.,•,',.1...'. s.`'!i....-..f.',....,'-'!,-.-:',..
.,- .,.::.10: :.exchanged'forlland in the readjustment;area :''..'J',..: ' ‘..'''.-. • ' ',-'. ..,
,.*:•4.'.` 9.- -.:„' . (b) Land outside . the land readjustment • are4-2..:toi,lie
?.8 ' :',e4evelopinent ;in.' the and .readjuStment area '3
.' ,..',F,e11.0_-will be .requested toconvey their property to the agent :;. 11 (c)' (c) 'Land outside . the land 'readjustment area to allow ,:...-• ',. • -•
:-12 ,gacil. landowner "shalt,repeive, upon • cqnveyarice,t a pro ‘,; :,..,:;..,12T any development rights recognized,by the public. agency • ;:.. , .. '.,
. , . • , ,,
13,.rata interest in the'Ussetsiof the' association, based on the.:
: ... .. ;',':',:' `, 13. t;..to . be ' transferred , by the- landowners •• to or ',' from the
• :
14 pr valuation of parcel or parcels conveyed, less any'... 14;;.proppsed land readjustment area Purgianttpauthorizing
15 .i...interests which the association.•may,,convey. to the "agent,. .
-- ..:,.1.11 6k;any- investors, or others......Troyicling*rvices' to ',the.. land .. --.`), 15 ..'„ordinances. ..',-.4.•,4!..',.1•Ai?#'-: ,i' ••,...„-.,...! '-i'd".!"..'4.4,--,t-iitp --,, i`•:,..-P;.ri i .r. ‘ -:, ... ' - , ,:.'
r .,..%r .
.;.'16,;.' '-' 660192Whenthei::•membership...- of.. the association
readjustment prolecL:?:'..g.i.-AW.k-A..t.A.?,i'..,,..:•,:::,
'17 includes at leasttwo-thirds of thelandowners' who also
,i4i1.4£41:•,•iip„ (T). .!The Method, and .tiining by which parcels will•.:be,-, i,‘, --,...;:i18 ' own at least.two-thirdS.olthe'area:of-the land in the land . .....-2. -
. . ,- .
• ."';j09recoriveyod .tojandowners if: they choose to.Withdraw as
.
•
r> em ers“.sp association or if the association
1.121 terminates -its efforts to effect;.,aland,... readjustment
n
ZZ ?, project.- 6 -0 Lir ) ' „ c: •
;123 y_
(8). ,The method;by which the association will. protect "
.4,thelocal agency from liability for defaults by landowners
any bonded indebtedness incurred ; based on the
26;4 formation, of an assessment district pursuant to Article 5
27 4..(commencing with Section 66025)
19 readjustment area, • the association. governing body shall
20 ., select aan'agent. responsible for receiving,: holding; and
,•
• •; 21 : disposing of parceLs in 'the land readjustment area and
shall secure. and record, the, written .agreementof each r
' , .., :1.23 member as to all of the following:, V (-., ' '4, ",, :::z:' ' ':' ' •
• ) ....' , : 24' • (a) ' The method of determining pro rata valuation for
.!•;:'...,;,?28'4:(9)...Maps ; indicating:the , boundaries of ;- the proposed. -
29 land readjustmentarea and the'proposed.project area, as
,,,..:130..,;iadopted;hy.kmajority,yote9fthea.,ssooiAi9P 's,g9yernirig
••
,....
31body i . .
3 s...N,,-: -.', ,, .,4,:!:.T.:4,'Ar,ti.e'''''!'
,7132 ';;.,'"-. (10)- ,The';': voting:;:, and other other ;:procedures - ' that the l'..-
• ' •,,e._ op-,-, association is required to:use:in. arrienchrigpraltering the..
...,....,..-34 :-!. governing 'instrument„,..i
.' . ,-.. 35;:•;..! i.. (11) :Th procedure , by which' -'•the''. association .may
..;.;',.36,•,;.dissolveitself.and distribute assets . toithe members when '.
.:':;•37 tthe • .:. land readjustment4i..prOject.44s Ti'completed :,j'.pr
-:'...,38;literrninated...;•.!. !,'i`,:*,.... -..; i,42'::'::...',,i',;'i 0 j/. : •:„..;
:'•;-*139,:.pq017,. .,;.The . a$sociatioplgo,verningbody. may amend,
. .
.;.....:;.'4404,4',,,thes....lari, d;ireadjustki?ePt,49EPaln4P'i'...9r,/pfoi.pcti,ar.ek map
.;-7...,•,-,v.i,3-?.-2.....:t v!,,,,::,-:.,.',...?-':.,, . :' '..' ,• 'T..•••!' ;+,', '0:,'",'• ,,' f '-,:,,,:':,. t--:". q,..i, -:'''-'',,,- 2-, ..', ., ,.- • '. 'A • ' ,, - ., ...
„Wi,,,,'.1-‘;'' -":-%•..1:!:, ,' :, -;_ ‘' -. '' ..
T.`,!:!:': .'-• ,•_.• • ':-,: !• .:. '-r... • • ,
V • :25.i all parcels within the land readjustment area, and the
26 specific, pro fratavaluation. of. that .member!s! parcel:.or .
27 ,parcels. - - -2—
28
31
32
:03 '
time,:or condition fupori:which therfinetn.ber •
:agrees to convey: his or her: parcels :•to.: thei agent in
exchange ifor: ' a pro rata share the assets t. of 'the .
association in the manner' and under the..conclitions lset •
forth in the goVerning. instruments::..; ' . •
(c) Payment of any assessments levied 'pursuant to •
Article 5 ' (commencing with Section. 66025) 7' ;and the
provisions .of the •igoverning instruments respecting .. • , • •,
,default :on :bonded'mdebtedness."7
•' • ; • • • • ;: •
•Article 4 Authorization • to Prepare, a, Specific -Plan, .
, • ',"s•, •S''
C1,-4 • • • •,1' ,.. •
66021:::,--ifhe*,,asociation.may,,applyJ to the:local:. agency •
, •
:34•
35'
••.
36
'1,37
39
- •
--01=10 •
•
... •
B 442
< ,14
•• 1,11. '-
.41.having jurisdiction over th& land 'readjustment.'area, for
r
4Y 2 V". authorization to prepare a specific plan
• ,
3 •;; ,66022. If ''the. ;associationdembnstrat4:::to the
satisfaction of the local: agency that the members of the
".5il association 'include landoyvners Who,:held equitable title
6 te own at least two -third of the land area within the land
711-eadjustment, area;the local agency .' shall • Consider any
8 • 'application, petition, ,purspant, to this
x 9 5.'article to be a "development" ' within' the meaning'of
10 Chapter 4.5 '(commencing'with''Section 65920)
(b) If th& members Of the association do not include
q'12 ,.landoWners' who held 'equitable t=itle` te 'own at least
tWo-thirds of the land areaWithin;the land readjustment
J4area, 'the •local agency"May;lin its discretion, determine
16 whether to consider any • applicatior petition, ' and
16-t''submission as a "development.":.::11
(c) i,The application ',:for: authorization to prepare'.• a.18 -
,;
specific plan shall include each of the following
,The governing instruments' of the association20 ?,'":
(2) Maps of the proposed land, readjustment area and
•''421 1 j•
•fl 22 r.) (3) A description of the problem Or problems specified.
23 in. Section 66001' which Justify the., application,' of this
), article to the land readjustment area.
025 .(4) :Evidence demonstrating that the members have.
0:26 -voted in accordance with the governing documents to
27Ysupport the apphcation 1,s•
•28 7.:1 66023. Before " taking action' to 'authorize the
, -;-;29.?'assaciation' to 'prepare the specific plan,' the legislative:
30 'body' of the local agency - shall hold at least one public
1,:.:31hearing to review and consider, testimony regarding the
adequacy of the application in meeting the requirements
this chapter: Notice' of the hearing shall be given
• pursuant to Section 65090. In addition, the local agency
iP:35 shall mail or deliver notice of the hearing 'to the State
36; .Lands Commission at least 10 days prior to the hearing.
37 66024. Upon conclusion of the 'hearing • on the
•,.38•`-: application, the legislative body of the local agency shall
39 authorize the association to prepare the specific plan if it
A40 affirniatively determines both of thejollowingi,
' .
•
(a) ;The '.1and 'readjustment project ;proposed by,the'
2 association for the land readjustment area addresses one
l:or more of the problems described in Section 66001:
Ayr
,‘6 (b) The association 1 has complied ',with -,,the
5•,requirements of Sections 66015 66016 66017 66018 'and'
• 6- t, 66022,', where [applicable.- I.: ,1;;, • 4•,
Akrtircle 5;q:,Approyal, of arr,-Assessment,Pistrict
10 66025 When thel membership of:. the association
....„
..,01;includes landowners who held equitable title te own at
12 least two-thirds -.of :land: .-area within •the: land
,:Teadjustment area,..theassociation.may petition the local
• 14„ agency.for formation of an assessment district to finance
15 any all ; necessary .'.costs of the - land ',readjustment.
•project. The association.may file its petition 'concurrently .
with,- or subsequent,to itsapplicationmade pursuant :to
.
18
:;Section 06021.. .t 7.
1".: 19 66026..The.. petition 'to form,An assessment district
;.:;:•.'„ 20 4shall ,, be accompanied by. a 'proposal', for'a land.
21 , -readjustment project approved by the association, which,
22 ,• ,shall in general terms indicate each of the following: - •
,. 23 (a)-..The':existing -and proposed land 'uses, including
, 24 .::.existing and proposed population densities and building
V
,25 • intensities, within' the project area. •• • „ •
(b) The...'requirements ',for additional infrastruature,
27 ..ineluding •iroads, sewers, water: facilities,:: drainage
28 , facilities,:. and :flood control .. facilities; and . • any
• 29 • rights-of-way required, for ithese facilities. The. proposal
r30 -may include broad changes to the location and design of
,
"5,31 roads, 'other public facilities, and rights-of-way to create
,..',safe access •to. • building 'sites and ‘a circulation and
development. pattern that -is consistent. with public
34 agency plans and regulation.. • , -. • • •
• 35 , :(c), How the purposes of this chapter, will be attained• •
36 . by . the implementation of , , the, „, proposed. land
37 ,.readjustment project. • • , •, • . • .
38 • (d) The., extent. ,.to. which the proposed . land
• • 39
• readjustment project is consistent with the local general ' •
40 plan, any applicable, e,psting. specific. plans,. zoning, and • ,
: 4
'MP"
T-1 having jurisdiction i o'ver't' the' land `readjustment ' area for
'S'authorization to''prepare'a specific`
' 66022.: (a) y ' If 'the' lassociatioi demonstrates' to 'the
4?satisfaction 'of the' local agency -,that the members of 'the
association include landowners' who;. held
ems title
6 ' to own at least two-thirds of the land area within the land
:;71" -readjustment area;' the'. local agency' shall: consider' any
'8 •'application,' ,petition,? and submission pursuant: to this
'article to be;development"= within` the meanin ' of
J'10'; Chapter 4.5' comm 'with" g~
encing Section 65920) :'
}- '11u! "' (b) If'the; members':of 'the' e` association" do note include
rr''12`-aandowners''who : held"`egui�le''title� te''own 'at least,
P•13 ;• t*o-thirds of the land a rea'within:`the' land readjustment'
,'4141; area, the local agency -may' in itsdiscretion,' determine
15 ' whether 1 to consider '''any application, "` petition, and
416 submission as.- a "development.' f
17 , 1:3: (c) 'The application ; for-' authorization to 'prepare'. a'
18 ` specific plan shall include .each°of the =following;
19 ; . (1) :•The governing instruments of the ' association.`1
20'? • :(2) Maps of the proposed land readjustment area and
21 -`' project 'area.':if:' I? ., ra,.'.= d�;t;�.�. ,.,a?«;,i
_ (3) A description of the problembeproblems specified'.
23 :in Section 66001f. which'. justify the application of this
24 'article to the land readjustment area: '_' f:i
25 - (4) Evidence demonstrating that the. members have.
26 ,Y voted in accordance ; with' the"'governing ;documents to
27 support the application h' ` _' _ : ' . ;' �.,
28 ` '"66023:'1 Before ; taking'§r action 'to ' authorize the'
*29' ?'association' t� 'prepare the' specific' plan, the legislative-
r,430.r' body' of the • local.' agency ` shall' hold at`" least' one public
3V'hearing to review and consider testimony regarding the
1.32 adequacy of the application•.in meeting the requirements
'?;;',33 eiof'this chapter.' Notice of the hearing shall be given
+*34 '' pursuant to Section 65090. In addition, the local` agency ,
;235 shall : mail or deliver notice of ' the hearing to the State
36 Lands Commission at least 10 days prior to' the hearing.
37 " ' 66024. Upon conclusion ,of the hearing ' " on the
t 38 application; the legislative body of the local agency shall
439: ;authorize the association to prepare the' specific -plan if it
X4.40::,•:affirmatively determines both."of thefollowin '' ' s`
a) ;The.; landreadi ustment :project : p ro p osed by,
t1
2 , association rfor: the land readjustment area addresses'one.
more bofithe problems., described in Section 66001.
� ,4 ; . • • (b) -.The = ':;association' has'. s,+ complied i ;,with ` :.the
..5 '.requirements: of: Sections ?66015,=„66016„660.17,:66018,
6= :ip60,`;w
22here tapplicable;; ;x•
24i -P:;' . ?!'. t c �?ri y � 1,4 r tp; •
4cle 5 Approval .of 'anAssessment:• District
.
66025..: When,: the 'membership, of: the association
1- ;`..includes landowners . who .held -equitable title to own at
2 : ;:least two-thirds' .of, •,the •,::land . area ; . within ,the; land
3 ,:;'readjustment area, the. association. may petition the local
4.,ragencyfor formation -of an assessment.district to•finance
Y i5 any_ or all •;..necessary ."costs of the' land: readjustment
<16.f project..The associationmay file its petition concurrently
7 :with, -.or subsequent,to,,its;application;made pursuant :to ..
8',Section '
9 66026.;,''.The ,petition to form.,•,an assessment 'district -
•;20 .ahall :' be accompanied ,. by. ;:a proposal1, for a land
4 21 -readjustment project approved by the association, which/
.;'E 22 :;shall in general terms indicate each of the, following:
..; 23 . (a)• The existing and .proposed • land .'uses,: including '
24 =existing and proposed population densities and -building
: 25 intensities, within' the project
;,, ; 26, (b); The.. requirements for: additional infrastructure,
27 ;including:', roads, sewers, • water facilities, drainage l
28 ` facilities,, • and ).,.flood control facilities,-. and . :any
291:rights-of-way required for ,these facilities: The proposal '
;30 ,: may include broad changes to the location and design of .
31: , roads, 'other, public facilities,: and rights-of-way to create ,
:,32 .;safe .'access to building ?sites; and .acirculation and
,33.' development, :pattern that ,is•;;.consistent; with :;public •
34 agency plans and regulation. ` < = - ;.
35 . ,;(c). How the purposes of'this .chapter will be ,attained
36.. by • • • the implementation ,'•; of the , , proposed, land
4.37., readjustment project.
38 (d) The d- extent •,to • which .the proposed . land
=',39 readjustment project is consistent with the local general
40 plan, ,any applicable' existing,: specific: plans,, zoning, and
1!
•.B 4424
•
4-9.•
41,
•
•
i41`• •' • • • _
Vtavgig.jurisdiction,oVeetheland'readjustment;areajor,
2 authorization to prepare a'specifid:Plarif0t,44'i,'-'1Wr:Ye,';'Y.'"!'
,• • A:
• 3 • 66022: 'the'associatioridem'Onstrateek6 the
••;'
satisfaction !ofthe local agency' 'members of the
51;aSsociation 'include landowners who held- equitable title
•6 te own at least two,thirdSiof-the land area within the land
7'3'&eadjustment area, the'. local agency ': shall . Consider'. any
8• *: ' • •
•application, • petition, and Submission pursuant to this
•
9:7;.`article to be -a within ni!`development", the paning .,E of
•
'10 Chapter 4.5 '(commencing with :Section ,,•
- • (b) If the members': of the association do not include •'
;•;!;
• 12'•.11andoWriers'•who•;heldvsequitable ±1e te own -.at • least
-• 1)J3tvvo-thirds' of the land are.a'withirkitheland readjustment
:144 ',Zarea, the .local' agency:,rnay; in its discretion, determine
• ••• ?15 'Whether to consider '"• any; application.;petition;.:1and..:
16 'submission as a '"deveiopment.".•.'v,-.".
. . . .
(c) )The'' 'application for" authorization:- to prepare-
'Al.8 ',.'specific plan shall include eadll'of the followmg
'3119 A:••-,(1) ,JT -he governing :instruments' of the 'association.
• "-'4:
. 20 (2) Maps of the proposed land readjustment area and
121 project area 1
22 (3)A descriptiOn'of the ProblerribeprOblems:Specified
• 23 in •Section 66001' ",whichitjustify ',the'. 'application'', of ,:this ,•
24 article to the land -readjustment' area'. •
.(4) 'Evidence demonstrating that' the. members have
26 'votd in' accordance 'with' the'gOverning documents to
27'support the ,application ;.,:" -,Y ,E
66023;''j' Before taking action to authorize ' the
29 to 'prepare the 'specific plan,' the' legislative --
1 3�:,bodyrof the loCal':agerieyshall ',hold at least one public
'.1'31ZThearing.to review and consider testimony regarding the
32 adequacy of the application in meeting the requirements
33Of11this , chapter.' Notice'•of the hearing' shall be given
• •-'!•34 pursuant to Section 65090: In addition, the•local'agency...
.:,..4-,!•35'1,
shallmailor deliver •-notice ' 'of' the 'hearing to the' State
.-'H36;•-J_Jands Commission at least' 10 days 'prior to' the hearing.
37 1 66024; • Upon conclusion: -of the hearing on the -
38,applicaticin; the legislative body of the local agency .shall •
— -1'39 authorize the association to prepare the specific plan • •-14:4'• • , -
40;..,;,!affirrriatively. determines both of' thee
. • .
- . • . . .
B ,.442 -712
1 _, on market value as: ,of .the date of:: establishment of the ,'
•'' association, . except as ' otherwise . provided ;through .
3 ..unanimous agreement :of members: ,:.
r..4..:= (5) The .'manner. by ;;which : the ' association• may :? `
designate' , andreplace they. agent 'responsible for,
6 :receiving, holding, and disposing of land conveyed to the
;7 , association: by.; the landowners for purposes of land f
. 8 readjustment, and the specific duties, :qualifications, . and
9 , responsibilities .of that agent. i
10 (6) , The manner and conditionsunder which members 1
11 ' will be requested to convey their property to the agent. •
12 Each - landowner shall receive, upon conveyance, a pro '
,13 rata interest in the assets of the association, based on the
"::14 pro rata valuation of parcel or parcels conveyed, less any
15 interests which the association may convey to the agent,
;516; . any investors, or others, providing services to 'the land
17 readjustment project.: i • •
;1E4 (7). 'The method and timing by which parcels will be
;;19 reconveyed to landowners if they choose to withdraw as
-.members ..of the -association.. or,; • if the association
21 , terminates - its efforts to effect • ar;land readjustment
22 . project: • . , •
:23 . (8) The method by which the association will protect
•:.24 the local agency from liability for defaults by landowners Ak
25 on_ any bonded indebtedness incurred based ' on the
26•. formation of an assessment district pursuant to Article 5'
'27 . (commencing with Section 66025) . '
:228 .(9) Maps: indicating the boundaries of the proposed
29 land readjustment area and the proposed project area, as
•..30 adopted by'a majority vote of the association's governing
31 body. ' ' • .. .
32 (10) The - voting and :other procedures that the
• 33 association is required to .use in amending or altering the
34 ' governing instrument. , • •
. 35 (11) 'The procedure 'by which the association may
• 36 dissolve itself and distribute assets to the members when
37.. the ' land readjustment • project . is completed or
38 terminated. , ' ;•
39 ' 66017. The association governing body may amend
40 the; land, readjustment area map --or. projectarea map.,
l
SB 442
:1 ..subject ` only ' 'to the; . provisions° . of ' the governing .
2 instruments at any. time, before the association files. an
3 application pursuant .to Section 66021..
4 - 6601&. The . project area shall 'include the 'proposed
5 land readjustment •area. In addition, it may include land
: , 6 outside the proposed land readjustment area, as follows:
.7 (a) . Land to .be used,for public improvementsto: serve
r,, 8 development in the land readjustment. area. , ` •,
9 (b) Land outside the land readjustment area to•'be
.10 exchanged for, land in° the readjustment area. :
V7•3.V.,:',.,;4. :i-'• • •,-. ' r' ,V; :\:' ''''',,' , .• 7:/7:',_;:1T; -Y'. '77;
'.,': '' !'.:,4 ''';'',:"r," II) . ,,' •
'; i±!•,,:$' . . '1-,::: ''. '
'
SB442 . ,.: ./.;,:)..'.e,
=41,1741?'"'
•I`F.;.`,,..
0 ' •• .' f
. .: . , , • . . • . , i.,
i •.';' S.:1`4'haVing ' jurisdiction ; over the land readjustment area 2for
..
• .,-
2):r.iauthoriation to 'prepare a specific plan..'''i;''''','''
. • -'.'-P:: i.! 3 ; .66022. demonstrates 'the •=.,r
• • 11044X:satisfactien of the 'lobar agenthat'the members of the
5 association include landOwners-who,heldequitable titlo ..
.. 4,'• 6 .:.te own at least two-thirds of the land area Within the land',.
readjustment' area, the local agency shall consider any
•: 8 ,'application.,?petition, and fsubmission pursuant to this • -..2'.,
9'1'article to be a ' "developmentwithin...the meaningof
..,-,10 , Chapter 4.5 '(commencing with Section 65920)
...'.-4-..A1'-`. (b)If the' members. of 'the associationdo not include • ,
- '>.I2'=.,1andOvvners'• who held' equitable .- title' te . own at least
;two-thirds of the land area within:the' land readjustment '.
-71.4-,:area, the local •agency'-iTiay; in its discretion, determine :•
1.5 whether to consider ' any- application;;? petition, and
.i.1.6 .*ssubmission as a • "development.''''''' '''''',',..'(:'- ''.,.''.:'-'24.'," ' :'•1-,r:.`. '
17 '2!-! (c) )The 'application ':for -z.authorization'. to prepare a- .:
18' specific plan shall include each of the ifollowing
:19,'.., ',•(1)' ,;,The governing instruments' Of the 'association '-'
20 ,:.,-;.'•(2) ',Maps of the, proposed land readjustment area and
21:' / project. area.' ' .1!:-' .,.,---. • .i0 -ir..p.- -...=,,,,_,.-::',.;,:,..,,, r..,, -t ;.,:,•;;;'-:, , ,..:,., -,
22 -Ir? (3) •A description of the problem or:problems specified *.-.,.
.. :,..;:.23 iri 'Section 66001 which justify ,the;.:applicatior of . 'this.
k,-,;.'24:-i'article.to the land -readjustment area: '''''.,'' ':, • `'.','-' " - ':".. ' •
(4) Evidence demonstrating 'that the ..members have
I, • . :-
- 26 -'! voted in accordance with the governing •documents.. to
. .( .,•
,27 . support the application '' ,:',...t... -,;.,, ,:;...;•,.i-::,•.1...,-,. :, :.
z7-.:28' 66023. ' Before ''taking'action ' - to - authorize '' the.
- - '291':assO•ciation' t� prepare 'the specific 'plan,' the legislative
--
• ' 030: 'body'ef the loCal '.agenCY:' shall .hold at least' one public -.
•':' 31hearing to review and consider testimony regarding the. •
-..,::,.32 adequacy'of the application in meeting the requirements '
-',--5,33.Liof this . chapter.' Noticeof the hearing shall be given
.34 - pursuant to Section 65090. In addition; the local. agency
: • :7!351 shall mail or deliver notice of' the ' hearing to the' State
.:1:36: 'Lands Commission at least 10 days 'prior to. the hearing. -.
,,, : ...;.•37 ,.':. 66024. Upon conclusion' . of . the-' 'hearing ..' on the
:':.38.',, application; the legislative body of the local. agency shall
-- .-.-''39 ;“:"Authorize the association to prepare the specific plan if it
• , ,„
(a) The land readjustment project proposed by the
2- .• „•
',.association,fOr•the landreadjustmentarea' addresses one
•;i.or.more'of:4the',problerns.-,described in Section 66001;..,.
4:;,';;'..C,•-(b).7.:The.:,•7-association':,.',;ha.S..f.4.. comphed' with the
1 -requirements. of,Sections6015,...66016;66017,.66018,:'and::,',:,,,:',
6 66022, where applicable »
; :5 t;.:-3„`
44 1 '". •
8„ir.4c.19,50iApproyal>pfan..„.Assessment,,piistrict.',.1..
9 • •14, •
10 . 66025 When the .'• membership :” of... the association - .. •
,
•
:includes landowners who hold equitable title, te own at , • '
12 -least two-thirds .of the 1and_ area within. .the land .,
13.,readjustment area, the association, may petition the local
•,.
14 agency for formation of an assessment district to finance
15 any ',or.. all t -necessary ...1,costs. of the.- land. readjustment
'project. The association.may file its petition concurrently
17 with, or subsequent to, its.application made pursuant to
18 ''-iSection :4., ' - • 4
19 .4:: : 66026. .The petition'toform...fan assessment district'
20 'f,shall . -be 'accompanied bya proposal s. for ,' a land.
21 ,readjustment project approved by the association, which,:
22 shall in general terms indicate each of the following:- ,
•,,r, 23 (a) ,The.:existing and 'proposed land . uses, .including •
.ff, 24 ...;existing and proposed population densities and:building- ..
25 ::intensities, within the project area.
1. 6. 262', (b) -The...requirements ,for additional infrastructure,• -•':
27 including: roads, sewers, water facilities, drainage
28 facilities,:. • and ...flood control . facilities, and :any .
29 ;-,rights.-of-way required for ;these facilities. The, proposal
30 may includebroad changes to the. location and design of
31 roads, 'other:public facilities, :and rights-of-way to ,create
32 ,safe ...access - to '-,,bUilding .'sites. and 'a circulation and • ,
33 development . pattern that ; ,consistent . ,with :.public .
34 , agency plans and regulation. . ..%.: •.. •. ;-•
?i 35 = (c). How- the purposes of this chapter will be attained
36: by • the implementation the,.,, proposed land • _
37 readjustment project. ,1, - • • • H •
• 38 .(d) ;The.: extent , to. which .the proposed land
readjustment project is consistent with the ,local general
i5'
;?-',..“",13--Plaving jurisdiction ; over tthe' land 'readjustment area for
2 -':authorization to prepare a 'specific 'plan • T'II
- .'' ' 66022.' ' (a)''` If °the'''association >dembnstrates'''to the
satisfaction 'of the local" agency,thaf the members of the
;- association include landowners' who, held equitable title
to own at least two-thirdsrof the land area within the land'
7,'readjustment 'area,' the local agency' shall consider' any
application,' 'petition,! and '`submission "pursuant: to this
'9 :'article to be a "development". within the meaning of
, Chapter 4.5 (commencing with'Section 65920)':
`11 ' (b) If the members of the association 'do not include"
<'12' -;:landowners who held" ewe title' to ' own at least
t-1413' ' two-thirds of the land area within the land. readjustment
'‘'area, the local agency'-rnay" in its' discretion,' determine
15 whether to consider any- application;', petition, and
i16 ''submission as a`"development.",
(c) ,The application'. for authorization to: prepare • a-
!,018 ,specific plan shall include each''of the following:.,.
119 "_: (1) -The governing instruments' of the ' association.`
20 =.'`,'(2)'Maps of the proposed, landreadjustment area and . ,
'21-1 project.' area. •- ;s} ,r{ . . , t- .a. <:.
<<22 (3) A description of the problemnorproblems specified
23 ' in *Section 66001'which` justify the.; application of this
24 }'article to the land readjustment area:
(4) Evidence demonstrating that, the members have
-1.26' voted in accordance with the governing documents to.
27 support the application:.' -'A' _• -1- -:r'
a) ;The land"readjustment' project: proposed by'the
association.for the land 'readjustment area addresses one
;; or more t of tithe problems.,, described in Section• 66001:'
'(b);:The -_.association; ; has.':;' complied ,with :the'
,a requirements.; of Sections .66015;:.66•016, ,.66.0.17,. 66018, "and
6. 66022,,.Where- applicable., ;,t vrf `{,i
*.lEy;8 k� ,y� 'Article 5,{Approval, of an,,Assessment .District
0 s" 66025. �.` When`; the?: 'membership . " of.' the association
1 :`;includes landowners :who held equitable title to own at .
12least -two-thirds' .of...the.. land . area within 'the. land .,
3 ,,, readjustment area, the association.may petition the local
:14 agency,for formation of an assessment district to finance
/x;15 ,'any or all necessary `costs. of : the - land ,readjustment
project. The association,may file its petition concurrently.
17,• ;with,=or subsequenb,to, its application made pursuant to .
18 •'Section 66021.E f :,,. ,
19 ,'; : 66026.:' .The petition i'to form;!,an assessment' district
20 .,;shall r. be - accompanied'; by. a proposal for .'• a • land
`r'21 -readjustment project approved by the association, which
T` 22 shall in general terms- indicate each of the following:
23 ~ ' (a) The -:existing and proposed land uses, including
• ,= . 24 __.existing and proposed population densities and building .
25 intensities, within, the project area.
'26,c ° . (b) The.:,requirements 'for additional infrastructure,
27 ..including ; roads, sewers, water facilities, drainage ..
28 facilities, and -:flood control facilities, " , and : 'any
29 „..rights-of-way required for ;these facilities:. The, proposal
30 : may include broad changes to the location and design of -
.31 roads, 'other public facilities, ,and rights-of-way to create
safe . access • to building sites and 'a . circulation and
'33 development ,pattern that ,,is ;1_,consistent. with -, public •
• 34 ,..agency plans and regulation..'. - . ' . ., •. . • ..
35 ; '• : (c) How the purposes of this chapter will be attained
36.. by the. :implementation of ; the , , proposed land
a, 37 .-.readjustment project. f: . '. ', ' • •
38 '.. -,(d) The : extent to which. .the proposed land
,39 readjustment project is consistent with the local general
40 , V plan, ,any applicable existingspecific.plans,. zoning, and -
-28'r=` 66023. ' Before ' > taking"' action to " authorize the
29' 'association' to 'prepare 'the` specific ' plan,' the' legislative:
body of the' local 'agency' shall 'hold at least' one public
1'31 x'hearing to review and consider, testimony regarding the
32 adequacy of the application in meeting the requirements
�33'.N}of this , chapter.' Notice' of the hearing shall be given .:
,"=34 'pursuant to Section 65090: In addition; the ' local agency
35 shall mail or deliver notice of' the hearing ' to the State
36 . Lands Commission at least 10 days prior to the hearing.
37 66024. Upon conclusion of the':'' hearing on the
''38`•application; the legislative body of the local agency shall
39 }, authorize the association to prepare the specific plan if it
,f.'40t affirmatively determines both of thee following: r
,1 i�'.having jurisdiction overwthe' land" readjustmen't'areaafor
'',i authorization to prepare` a" specific
66022.:.1.1.(a)`4:' If `'the association' demonstrates qto ''the
'satisfaction:of thelocal' agency-that",the'members of ;the ':
t , association include landowners'who':.he14' equitable title ,
to own at least two thirds'of the land'area within the land
, `readjustment area the local agency' shall 'Consider: any
..''application; -:petition; and"submission 'pursuant to • this
:..s -!article to be' a ' "development",..within` the meaning ,,of
y`10' Chapter 4.5 '(commencing with -Section 65920) . '`
(b) '' If ' the' members of :the associatio.65920)'.
'do not include
`-'.'12 ::landowners' who held
eitiit-alale'#it-le` to 'own `at least;
1 13,'.'tw.o-thirds of the land area within the'land readjustment
' 14 area, the local.agency-'may;`in its' discretion,'''determine
:15 whether to consider any.; application,;; petition, and
-16 =,submission as a "development" �' h : '
`17 � 2!,' • (c) ',The' application for:. authorization • to- prepare =
18 ,specific plan shall include' each,'of the =following:
(1) :-The governing instruments'. of the 'association r '
,(2) ' Maps of the proposed land. readjustment area and'.
21'Iproject.area.' , y. •
•'-22>'.`.1''.• (3) , A description of the,problem orlproblems specified
=_.23 ` in Section 66001'.which•T'justify :the;` application°',of this
`;24_'article'to the land readjustment area. •'
(4) •Evidence demonstrating that the members have .•
26'"'voted in accordance with the''governing documents • to . .
27 support the application
28 =' 66023.' Before ,taking action to" authorize the
29'`association` to prepare 'the' specific plan',' the legislative:
30
''body of the local' agencyshall 'hold atleast one public
31'x`hearing to review 'and consider' testimony regarding the
32 : adequacy' of the application in meeting the requirements
'x;33 <j of 'this , chapter: Notice of the hearing shall be given
'.34 'pursuant to Section 65090.' In addition, the local agency
;:'35 { shall mail or deliver notice 'of'the hearing to the' State
-..Lands Commission at least 10 days' prior- to the hearing.
37. '. 66024. - Upon conclusion' of " the': hearing " ori the
• 38'-t application; the'legislative body of. the local agency .shall
39.'7, ; authorize the association to prepare the specific, plan if it •
o atively• foll '
:'affirm determines both of'the�Y owin '�',,.
'
(a) The land -'readjustment' project; proposed by the
association for the land readjustment area addresses one
:;or• more'ofAthe'problems, described in Section, 66001'.°
:association;, ,:'has complied.{ r`j:with `' :,:the
-f requirements. of Sections .66,015,, 66016,;,66017 66018, an
66022;;'where ,applicable: y
(, u
ticle proval;,of an;,Assessment District r`;•
- .(,S '�,., r.,.. 'Yir , t i•': . .. ;';rI'�'!i' .,.�_ �:�, Cod 4 ;, -.;. ,
66025. ; When ; the membership of - the association
.includes landowners who held ewe title t -e own at
2, -least two-thirds ..of r;the, .land area within the land
readjustment area,the association may petition the local
agency, for formation of an assessment district to finance
any or all;, necessary,' costs of the land readjustment
-16 project. The association; may file its petition 'concurrently
17•. -with, . or subsequent to, its,application application made pursuant to
;18 ~Section. 66021•.(, s ; y 4 .s,,, , ; , : E.1;
19 66026. --,The °petition.'to form;;an assessment,' district
,20 . shall be -accompanied', by a proposal, for a land
V' � F 21 -readjustment project approved by the association, which
22 shall in general terms -indicate each of the following:
`,23 .°; 1. (a) -'The,:existing rand proposed- land uses, including -
24 :_existing and proposed population densities and -building
25 intensities, within the project area. • ,
(b) The,: -requirements .,for additional infrastructure,
27 including..:,roads, sewers, • .water facilities,:. , drainage v
28 facilities, . and .flood - control facilities, and any
29, rights-of-way required. for ,these facilities. The proposal '
30may include broad changes to the location and design of
,31:-• roads, other, public facilities, and rights-of-way to create -
,;32 safe access to • building sites . and a circulation and
33 development • pattern that .,is:.;consistent . with „public
34 ,.agency plans and regulation.
:35 -' ; (c) How the purposes of this chapter will be attained
36:. by the implementation -.of , the :-,;proposed . land
37 readjustment project.
38 (d) The, extent, to ' which the proposed land
:x,39 readjustment project is consistent with the local general -
:i -r.40,2 plan, ,any, applicable • existing specific plans, zoning, and
k11.2.?
' A ; • "
'';,q•SB '442 •
tt:- .
' ,1':?;• 1
'4 • •
any other land use regulations of the local agency To the
extent that the proposed land readjustment project is not
consistent :with the generalplan r,orlapplicable - specific
41 plans, the 'proposal.' shall ',-recommend the necessary
• :'.amendments to those plans
6
(e) The effect that implementation 'of, the proposed
land readjustment project would have on land, residents,
8 and landowners in the project area and any:adjacent land
which bears relation to the project area.
(f) A' schedule 'for the completion of the specific plan
and actions to implement the land readjustment project
L12 ..that the association proposes to undertake.'
• /(*13 :z.! (g) The association's'', estimate of its ,cost in preparing
145: the specific' plan, administering c, the association, and
•4157 undertakings the implementation • actions described :in
161: subdivision (f). -Project costs borne by the association
07,,, shall include:any relocation assistance required pursuant
418 to Chapter 16 (commencing with L: Sectiori.7260)'s of
19 Division '7 of Title 1. ;
20 : .(h) Evidence that land ,iwithin the 4:'proposed
217 --assessment district is adequate security for any bonded
V 22 .4..t indebtedness incurred by the proposed district in
23 ifiriancing the costs identified pursuant to subdivision (g);
24 '66027. Before taking,, -any action pursuant to Section
66025, the local agencyshall hold at least one public
26 .!; hearing. Notice of the hearing shalhbe given pursuant to
Section 65090. 7
4.66028: • '2 At the hearing, the-' legislative: body shall
t.:9review and consider testimony regarding the, proposed
Jand readjustment project and the proposed assessment
district. Afterthe hearing, the legislative body shall order
.th0 formation of the district only if it has authorized the,
• )
33 association to prepare the specific plan: and if :it :has
34 determined all of the following: !:. , • r :
35 ' (a) .One or more of the conditions described in Section
'3666001'exists within: the land readjustment area and the
37 Aand readjustment project ' and propOsed assessment
382.',!:1itrict are necessaryto remedy the' condition or
_ 39 •-..conditions. ' :2. „••211::
- The land: readjustment project!, is necessary 2; or
. •
,SB 442 7...
. , . •
¥1.:'appropriate in the project area to implement the general.'1.
plan, any specific,' plans, zoning, and any other locally
3 adopted land.use
(c) '2:Thedevelopment.,..of the `. project area by. the
g•5 .cassociation will assure the future protection 'of the public
6 .,,interest and the, achievement of public objectives to the
same' or higher' .idegree''. tharr::would !,,application ;. of
• i.y.-8..:.regulations.ito the individual. properties: -; •
• 9 (d) The land ',readjustment 'project' is .financially
feasible and the association has 'adequately protected the:
"!•-..,•11 local • agency' from 1iabi1ity for defauW.- on: any
12 indebtedness undertaken by the. district.' ' .
13 . -.: 66029. • . Before,the.districtis formed, the local agency
<: may • require resolution from. the'association that
-„;r15 .,requires each member:to sign an agreement which binds
16 • them and their successors in interests, both individually
;••:.:117 • and collectively,-, to , abide by • 'and implement :a specific
plan ...that is consistenU 'with the proposed I land
• 19 readjustment project. If required by the local agency, the
20 -agreement shall be signed by each member at the same
21 time as the written agreement specified in Section 66019.
22 The right to enforce the agreen-ient. shall also•be granted . •
:23-: to the local agency...'. ' !
24. 66030. The legislative body2. 'may • approve the
25 formation of . the district subject to any conditions or
, 2 26 changes in the land readjustment project it determines to
.27 • be in the public interest. •
28 66031:..Y The district's boundaries shall be. coterminous
. 29. with the land readjustment area. The assocation shall not
30 alter its land readjustment area. without 'action by the
,:local agency to similarly alter the district boundaries...
, 66032. After the formation of the district, the local
• 33 agency'shall appoint, a district administrator. The district
34; administrator shall be the local agency's representative to
' 35 the association and shall, on behalf of the local agency, be
.responsible for selling bonds, disbursing proceeds from
37., the sale of bonds to the • association, and imposing
38 assessments to repay those bonds upon parcels within the
39 land readjustment area. pufsuant to the, Improvement
413 ;Act of 1911, Division,7,,(comrriencing,with Section 5000) , ••
•
1°19
-
111,'Division:2:(commenbing with Section 66410)
66037:-i(ce-(a):,:The 'specific' 'plan 'shall be prepared and
submitted by the association, and adopted and amended
4 by the local agency under the procedures provided for in • J.
"
"J): 5Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450) of Chapter 3,'
6:except as providedin--4SeCtion 66039. 'Notwithstanding
7' Section' 65453, ' notice of the hearing shall iq be given ,
. pursuant to Section' 65091,.' ' ?' -
9 (b)' 'At the hearing, the, legislative body ,shall, review
10 'and consider' testimony on the' specific plan': If the )."
. 11. ' legislative body determines •that 'the criteria specifiedin
12 Section 66028 have been met, the legislative body may'
13 adopt the specific plan. The 'legislative body may' amend •
14 the _specific plan from time to time.
15 66038. 'Adoption" of the specific plan, together' with
, any conditions: and•''% restrictions imposed and.
.,17 notwithstanding any other:. ',provision of law to' the
18' contrary, shall constitute the 'zoning for the project. area,
19 provided that zoning regulations -which applied before • „
- 20 ' the' approval of the plan and which are consistent with ,
21the plan shall continue to apply.
22 66039. ' (a) If the legislatiye body determines that a
23 proposed land readjustment project submitted pursuant
24 to Section 66026 is consistent with the general plan, any
25 specific plans,' Zoning,.. and other local land use
26 regulations, -• the 'specificplan shall be treated as an
27' application for 'a• development permit and, processed
28 under' applicable provisions of state law.' and local
29 ordinances controlling these permits. .'.'!
30 (b) Notice of the hearing for approval of the specific
31, plan as an application for a development permit shall be
32',' given pursuant to Section 65091:- "
• 33 (c) At the hearing the legislative body :shall review
34 ' and consider testimony on. the specific plan as an
35., application for a development permit. After the hearing,
36 the legislative body may adopt and approve the specific
-37 plan as an application for a development permit if it finds,
- 38 based. on substantial evidence in the record, that the
.:"39- criteria specified in Section 66028 have been met' and
411- there is compliance with.the applicable requirements for
yy.
i
. the development permit `�
� ,ii� .�� .�tr�, h n7"f
•,;tih:: 66040.:',,The,' local , agency' may 'grant or ` loan':'funds' to .
the district to pay the costs of specific plans with loans to
be . repaid, as 'a cost' of, the land readjustment project. '
;. ' 66041: f No 'building'permit - shall be issued within the
1 'boundaries of . a `°specificsplany which. has been °adopted :-
, ,., pursuant to =this article ^unless'• the permit, is 'consistent . -ti
:with the specific plan and other, applicable 31and ,use and
{9t,zoningrequirements,f{�i�,�„1rs;, ..:,ra, .;.•�,,.,.
,..y.,11'.-,, ,; .r }Article 7:;- ' Approval :of the Financing Plan
.:`,12:—a ` , Boundary Readjustment Map :''i;
„13;
cover these; costs,`' and the: proposed ,role,'•if• any,,: of the.;
t :assessment;'. ,district- , 'and the .district. administrator ;7in•
implementing the financing.plan.
When'',- the locals, agency approves 'the financing
;:,plan,: it, shall:gauthorize, the district, administrator of any
:;}assessment—.;',,'"district,(',' created „ to ' finance: the 1 land
r.. readjustment to . implement required • :responsibilities
;,..under,,the, financing plan, in the manner that the plan '
provides, including, but not limited- to, the costs of land
acquisition and . disposition,` legal , and engineering costs,
1 site improvements costs, and costs of providing relocation
12- assistance.:` '".. ,.
'',66044.,(a), Notwithstanding any other -•provision :of
14 state law or local ordinance, ; the . association ; may ttse
select and comply with any procedure in the Subdivision
;16.•i Map -Act, Division 2 '(commencing . with Section' 66410) ,.
17; ' to accomplish required boundary adjustments pursuant
18. to subdivision (b) of .Section ' 66042, including, .but not
.19 limited to; lot line adjustment, voluntary merger, merger -.
20 ; and ' resubdivision, .amending or correcting - a ' final' or
21 parcel. er g� map, reversions to acreage, new
22 . tentative maps; new parcel maps, or,new final suis t
23 : maps , ,
24;:• `; (b) The local agency may reject a procedure proposed,
• 25 by the association pursuant to subdivision .(a) only if it •
26'.' determines that the procedure does not provide for an
27 ',orderly transition 'from the • existing boundaries• to the
'282 ' proposed boundaries, does not, accurately describe the
29 , location- of new boundaries, or creates boundaries which
30 ; are not consistent with the general plan. If a local agency
(31 rejects a procedure, it shall concurrently or within 60 days.
32 , • recommend a substitute. procedure which accomplishes
,33 the same purpose. If the local agency fails to recommend
:,34 a substitute procedure within 60 days. after submission of .•
:35 the applicant's proposal pursuant to, Section 66042, the . .
36 local agency shall permit ,use of. the procedure proposed
37 by the association.
38 (c) Upon its approval of the boundary ,.adjustment
;-.39 map, - the . local ; agency s shall not . approve or permit
•,40. recordation,~ ;.; of an individual property ; ..boundary
c q
66042.'( Either concurrently with' • submittal of the
specific plan or subsequent to its approval, the association
16 4 'shallsubmit for, review. and -approval: of the local agency:
(a). A financing plan: _�
<a18 ;: �•' (b) A : boundary, readjustment" map ''.,showing -' the
t.19. existing r and; ; proposed P, boundaries':; of , all; parcels, , .
;20 easements, and rights-of-waynecessaryto implement the-
specific:-
he -
specific - plan submitted pursuant'' ...• to-,PArticle ";-.:.6
-22i(commencing with Section 66036) -,
23 ; b (c) The ' : specific ' - . procedure ;, under - Division ':`:•2
124 (commencing with Section 66410) proposed to be used, to
25: make these:boundary adjustments..'-
26:,:k;,,
djustments. •'
' 26- 66043:0 (a) The financing plan shall precisely describe
:127:`;;the costs of actions that the association will undertake' to .
28:. 'implement -the 'specific plan, including, but not limited
:295, to, costs of landacquisition, legal actions to 'clear title,''
>30.{:costs of. clearing and '.`,demolition;'f'; relocation ' costs,
:31 1;; administrative costs : 'incurred -:1 by the '''association
:‘32. governing body, the agent, and the district administrator,
t 33: + fees to public agencies, costs of executing, any conditions
i341, on approval of the specific plan, costs of processing and
35 i --recording boundary ,adjustments,} costs ' of development ,
:'366e and improvements, and costs of:appraisal, marketing, and
37 ,.;disposal of property pursuant:to, the specific:plan and.
38 r ;boundary 'adjustment map. `r
":„99:r (b). ' The financing plan shall also precisely describe the
amounts; sources, and availability of funds: and; security,to.''
22._42
t1' `adjustment ori parcels'which have not yet been'conveye
;a 2 by a member to the' agent for the'association or, acquire
3 `. by. the ;association
, :N•',rrb- ,J�at'.ndj•-nc'onvey-edr.{tro
he'.agent sI
{ xy) ". ?4 +.
.
:t4 Fl;.,i 4j " '!'4. ri:
5 V' Article 8 "mplernentation'oflLand.ReadjustmentI•i p 'r,fP r�`'t',;i
• ;6 1 nt;s 1-��;+Projectsll ••a"i',41-144i
• in }ef---. ; , •':xi .' ,i.,J.-(,,,,-..„•;,1,,,{,75.
'443•.',:''' 66050: For' the pufrpose''oaiding and cooperating`'in
9 - the planning, undertaking, constructing;or operating of
0 a ''r' land -' readjustment project locatee within ., ''its
'11i:i' jurisdiction, 2 any ',�
public;' agency f may.,do ' any of the
:� •:12 'following: ot'12'....';.•' fz'��i.,,-t`i $`.;=. `kJ....`+' , f_r.t �t.g�Y; t7Y - .
', 1'13 - icate,sell,(a).;;Dedconvey,'or-lease any:of'its'property.
1.4• .to • the` association.':;..'.i•-•41•••0`02,-,,.Ysf,. li .', k, f '`,:i
15:;.:''.'(b).' Provide'"''parks;*''-'Yom'
la ounds,' .:recreational,.
P
;16 community.,4 .educational, "water; ;' sewer, ` or drainage
d17:' facilities,' or' any '`other 2works; which;: it"is 'otherwise
,18 '.':empowered to provide adjacent to,'or.in connection with,
:;' 19 ' the•lard readjustment''project. xa 1f ' 4` ' r'3� With,
' ,
•20 _':•}:''(c) •;Furnish'dedicate vacate'close,''pave,install,
grade; regrade, plan, `or .replan streets, roads;':roadways,:
=alleys; sidewalks; 'Or ` other . places�'.which it t is 'otherwise
',empowered to. provide _ •' . _..'. x ; •.• , ::.;; r c ';•:.
'24 F '''(d) 'Relocate and.'redesign •any,- `public';; services.
125'. easements: , ' .0.1;'.;•!•q -i•:•:. t.-, , w -F,.. :>,, s 7-T t .
14i
readjusmenttarea is unable: or unwilling to ;convey the:
1and; theE :agent 'ebutc is .1willing, to # sell;' it, then
>R 3 associations `i ,governingr'',`; tbodys a'may;:' 'pursuanti 'to the
4 governing instruments, 'acquire the by negotiated
5,',-'.purchase::If the plan is... thereafter ,irepealed\or-amended .
6 exclude .the land;from .the land readjustment area, the'
fi 7. agent. shall ;dispose . of •the acquired, land by first offering
8:: ,the land, to::_the •forrner,,landowner ffor repurchase at the .
9,; i same price,,. pard, bys the association;; less: any; associated
;<ll; • - *ft) -.-4f {4) -..the t of .the asseeiatiork
Deludes landowners • who held equitable title. to :at ;least
',13 t tl ds of the land area's the:land readjustnient
3.14 `° prejeet; -(Q - ee a33c3smcnt distriet is fornied•pursuaricte .'
15 k..,Artielev it . l3; Scction and.
of'Ja par el , er , parccl3 leeated :lit tete:
d7� ; areais....unable tebecome a
3;18 ainenaber.and agrcc to eenvey the. parcel er parcels .te the
1519.` ,agent, unable a ,fig to sell the parccl:er•parccl3,te
20 a .the , and is unwilling te,cithcr pay €e .er rftake
••21, the ' .required under the spccifie plan; then
22 : the association ,may_ place. a lieu en the land fe the pre
23 rata share - ef any' iffiprovernents ' prozeided ' : by • the
24 .'asseeiatieft.c3 benefit the land. Written netiec shall
:• 25 = be givcn te. the landowner at least 39 days .ie advance: of
26 the lief .being planed en • the property. The landowner
27 ; nifty appeal the lien b' a publie hearing before • •
28 , the legislate bedy of . the ; leeal agency.' The lien shall
29 attach en the. date,that .any, a33c33mcnt is established by .
30 the asseeiation:f
1f aft assessment•diet is for nod pant te. ' 1 '>
66052. If an assessment distict•is formed pursuant.to
a 33 .,Article 5 (commencing with Section 66025) of Chapter -4.
`'34 q2 and the• landowner.of parcel or, parcels. located in the
35
district .is, unable or: unwilling tobecome a,member and
36 • agree to convey the parcel or parcels to: the agent, unable
37.;. or unwilling to sell the parcel or parcels to the association,
y-;• 38 ;, and is. unwilling -toy pay. for or make the;.improvernents
:0-%39 ,. •required '',under!.the ' specific. plan, ' the r. , district
`; 40/ •,administratormay place a lien on e, the land for thpro rata ,
(e)- Provide technical ' assistance and services which'it
27 is' otherwise empowered to provide. '' y4''' z```
28 ': • (f) 'Provide 'relocation services .and financial assistance
29 •'' Which ' it is ' otherwise' 'empowered to undertake 'to
t 4,'30 ' households, businesses and nonprofit organizations,`' if
31 any, ' who are tenants to' be .displaced in connection, with
32,'• land readjustment projects:''`''`'-` . .' 5 4:
33.1,'. (g) Enter into development- agreements.;.; with the
`34 • 'association, pursuant t to Article` ` m
,(comencing: with
'35.... Section 65864) of Chapter 4.•;'`',i
^ r t
'36''-' h 4-Acce tor 'furnish any' money,' ants.
( ) P ' Y Y�' �' ;goods,''or
.
372.* services from any federal agency,`public agency, or any
•3389 -other 'pers•on' for• the benefit of theland-readjustment � rt •
r i3"; `i;projectu 4 wr'
,or
-ai'owner 'oV' land located: { in i the' t, land
• f t
..,share of any'improvenierits provided:by, the association
2 `..:Written.notice shall be given, to -:the landowner_'at least.30
s 3 •f :daysin advance; of the lien being placed ontheproperty
,4 .=The'`landowner`mayr;appeal:-thetlien=•by' requesting: a
5`F:public' hearing :before -the legislative body ,:of the local
*i,.1 6agency: The..,lien shall `-attach uon the:. date?that any
r,3t 7`;,assessment' is established by the district administrator.
66053.t• ; (a) When° at`.`- least'l`two-thirds ' .of the
9:F-landowners"who also own at least two-thirds of the land
10 area in the land readjustment area have agreed to convey
1; their property to the agent pursuant to Section.66019 and
12r the landowners of any other parcels located m the land
3,:,readjustment areaare:unable"'or-unwilling'to ;become
-4.1.41=•:members and agree to: convey the property to the agent,
.15:? unable or unwilling to improve the: property. pursuant to
16 ' the :specific.'plan and unable' 'or unwilling to sell the
r17 _
property,.‘ to 1 the. association, -.the association•f-governing
8:j -body may;'Pursuant to;- the -governing ,instruments and
9:LL with the:approval of thelocal agency; acquire the land by
20; r eminent domain. `All costs of ;the s,acquisition shall ;be
1•, --,,:.borne. by the associations
t22 (b) Any condemnation procedure :initiated.- by the
,23-, association pursuant to subdivision (a) shall comply with
24 the " -`-procedures • ''• and ',?''• requirements -' of ' ':Title ;- ° 7
25 (commencing- with Section 1230.010) ` of Part '3 ; of the
26_, .Code. of Civil Procedure, and the provisions- of Article .3
27M:(commencing :'with' Section -11245.310)', of. Chapter4
;28: iThereof shall be `applicable-. to those . acquisitions.- : L '=.•
29..., (c) Before a local agency approves of the acquisition of,
30. , a parcel by eminent domain pursuant to subdivision "(a) ,
31 the agency shall hold a noticed public hearing and, based
on substantial evidenceidn , therecord, , find . each;, of the
3 followings
4 - : ,,: (1) `:That the land readjustment project serves' one or
35 more public purposes specified in subdivisions (a)
�,43-
(1) -,inclusive, of Section 66001; ;�
+ J-'`{
7r.* (2) "That' all . landowners " of 'parcels to be 'acquired
:r.through:-•eminent domain have cbeen, notified of their
9;,y`+right to file;notices with the local agency declaring their:"
Iwillingness to become- members_ of thee`association 'i
(3) That no landowner who has filed a notice`:with t=_e
q local( agency' declaring. willingness to be'a member in the,
I 'Y.
4l associations `sha11 3 bet' t'subject' ;'tot ,eminent "+ domainr'
:�proceedings 'until ;the"
fassociation has demonstrated that `
4. every ,reasonable:"means.{has' been used -Ito =secure' the
,:,,membership of that landowner, -including provisions for
' financing ,that;landowner's;,:,financiali,;obligationst; to the
association''or the district
9 - ,(4) That', the inclusion` of the .'parcels .'in the land .,
•10z., readjustment is essential' to, the'fimplementation of the
11 I land readjustment project : , µ aJ '" F ; «s f
12 f (5) ' That,' every reasonable' means has been"used to
13 k voluntarily . acquire the' land at, fair' market value from:
14 landowners not willing' to become ` members;; of, the
15:,, association ` �'. �, hp a �, {: 6
• 16 + '° (d) , Notwithstanding • any' other;- provision 7 of
17compensation for::' lands: acquired by the association'
18n pursuant to subdivision (a)' shall not include any increase..,
19 ° in value of the parcel acquired attributable to the actions
"! 20 '.'of the association, -local agency; district administrator, or
21 public agency, pursuant to this chapter.
22 ; ` 66054.E The x. land , -.readjustment project •`shall be
=23 -effected upon completion of all of the following: '••
24 -Eat The ssseeiatieft rccord3 the beundary adjustments
25 aid e€€ers •e€ dedication- &ppfevecl by the local ngcncy
26‘:,,plifStiftfkt to Lection 66944 Oil all parcels conveyed to the
agent of fteeittifedbythe itsseeiatiefi and allfights/4, y
28 aid publie ees casements adjusted by the }seal
29 .agency pupstiant , to the;,spccific ply atid' beundftfy
30 adjustmentt f t
31 (a) The association, records the applicable documents
32 '.which are needed to complete resubdivision or other
33 reconfiguration of the land readjustment., project
1.1 "34 ,.pursuant. to the Subdivision.. Map:. Act, , Division : °2
35 r(commencing with Section 66410)
36 (b) Thepublic' agency vacates 'any public service ,
'37= .::ca3cmcnt3.eensiatent with the speeifie plan , easements.
'38,; -pursuant: to'. the Public. Streets, Highways,, and Service.:,
39;Easements Vacation' Law, Part 3 (commencing with
V :40 _:Section 830q);,.of Division -9. of the; Streetsand Highways
'
•
• SB 442
CodeY`0_,/,'. * i'-'.,.,fl'i,.-,4-!,11,,;:;-:
. . i ed
,..!.. -boundary?,adjustments Tursuanit'to'''Sectioilik66054;Z the
. . . ,.; „.!... _ . _. ,
.!2 66055:,',bubsequent`LVIO ..ti•recordingrl,.'6.11,-'1' necessary .4.
-T,
r• I 1. ,
.1j4t'assoCiaftiori i-na)k do 'arVof•the 'folloWing,','",i'd'''''1':$7i'r!'''4'1.‘
.
-, ,..'..•;,,i .,,i .,- i 4" ' • t '"1 • • - '• . '' •'.5.-. • • '7" - '•;•(•:` ' ' ' - ' • •-•. ) ; • l' ' '
5 i -,. (a) Authonze- • the, agent.. to, convey . to, . any . public . •
- .:. v.,1, • k , • ), . ...,. ., ,,, • r.". ,..„.., ...i,
6: agency ' all ' or .0 a' portion ,•,of -. interests ;.-; In. (,land • - and
. • '';'-'-'',, 7kimpidVerrients to' b&'dei'idted:-td:PUbli9,..',Use',::PursUantio
8 4
.. :.,,,-.....1,1-.., .. • , . • • • • ..- • •,!..-4,:,.: is.it • ,...•i•••.,,...„..,...;..,,,,,y,..i.;,. i-1 .,i..;;. I,: i,., ..i.A.: . • ::.
•,.,the adopted 'specific' plan:',..,,-•,),,}.,r,,,'r- ,:ii,,,,, -s.),,,,.•€ ,:- ,,R..,,,,,:. --y:.., ., ..,..,.. ,, • -,
• r., - . - .,,,„,.
9:-''' `:-(b) Order .an' - appraisal ' of all properties ' in •:the . land
' ..• :-.1-.10'breadjustrrient:area'1Which ' are'. riot to'. be ' retained for
..' . :.,::,:!111frights.--of-Way or'Other public uses:- The appraisal, shall be
,...-...;112' Used 'for `• purposes of considering' offers'. .to purchase .,
'»13 •IP•arcels' from the'assobiation', and Shall,be'niade :ayail.able,...,
', • ', ;s •'-'14-.','-.to ianSi'inernbern't3 '''''' :-•k-It'' .::1 '!' V' '", .! '''I'''.:Ci. Li,P''''.•'''•''fi','" 1 '• ''':' '':':`-;'':,•It':-.iC* " ..'
;-'15 ':',-. - --J(9) .,Direct• the agent to selI or lease interests in' parcels ..
16 in the land readjustment.' area 'i• that • conform to the .,.
'.
17 approved ' boundary'''. readjuStMene, Map The property .
11• 8.1!-.4-haybe' sold'Or' leased 4o :'-any: person or ' agency ,....
q9-.1.:S‘tibjeet to ' any lirnitations,'restrictionS; requirements, , or
- 20rA'Coriiienarits "Which P'.-Willl' ensure its .continued '-`use -in .,.
• ,' ,.:f A -. • -
• .,'.:•':-.•,"21 .:‘-accordance with the specific Plan;'and!iri a 'manner that...,
• f-...-:.:22 ';i:Will'' best '''Promote'i-thetinterests' ' 'and '.- welfare of the
• .., .:•'.,•-,f.,23'1a.S.Sogiation: However, 1. .before': 'Conveying 'or making 'a '
24;?.:i.'9ontract to- 'sell 'land in' the'.. land - readjustment.' area, the !
'`•';','.:254'agent'shall give Published notice of intention to contract .'
. .„
- • A6!ifor the'Sale of, or:to 'sell,•the proPertY; and within 60.days
• 27 after :' the •• first','publiCation-' ' of , thej-notice;ii'shall '' give',
28 : members ' Of. the -,association • first '• right' - of refusal 'in
• -..'•
29 repurchasingthe:: parcels Y''' closest '..1' to '''• their 'original
s•'-..:-,30.' .'ownership at the ' appraised.'" value.Y, Members' 'shall be
, . V
( (3I.' entitled' to' provide as conSideration'for all • those parcels
all .or pare of. their pro rata 'interestin'the'association as
• •'• 33 r full. or partial payment for a parcel. .'-' r':.'-; ' :-I,- • ' ''' '':-.- "-.- ','''
3466056.. All legal instruments ' reCordedin connection ,',.•
35 .-,.. with. the'' sale; 'leaSeOr. other ' conveyance • pursuant,' to -•
• 36 ;', Section ,66055 of parcels in -a land :readjustment area , to ,
• '.37t:1;rriemloers,•'publiCgencies.," or fpersons ' 'shall. be • 'clearly
. r. 3819-feaded;•iri bold 'face type; as. a' transfer 'Of •real' property. . •
89;-'4frdin'''`i`,•42:2'.'Land '-Readjustrnent'AsSociation"; and •!.•
.....::::'.c400.s4a.11. ti&fecOrdedIvittl 4 ;=.esolutioil;‘ froiri' the' assoCiation.'.
• . :,::$-...,;,,-,4,.,,,.i.,..„,:.., .•': ,,,..,c...... ,y.„..-:- •,.•:;,,,,,.. :-.. • _,.‘,..- _, - .„ • • -
, 6' , t•;':'': ... / -.!74 rr",., ' ' ,,°
•
P P • .
by
authorizing .,the, sale, lease, or other • conveyance .of the
..t • • • •.•
. ' i il ' • . 14'1 S ' -
2-,..F.-- -parCel, ';: signec1..,-' all :,/rnembers'•! of •:', the association.
• • . . , ,
- • 3,,, governing ;bodyk:The:,resoliition' shall , be - 'mailed to all '';.,'1,::. • 6(1,
:••• '.,s:
4 i,:meriabers. of •the association and the local agency40 days '.'•:.,'-' '-'':'!
. ,„
,5 ,-., prior .7: to _recordation.: • of ..,' these ', documents. , Upon • .: - : : . r
6.'recordation,:-:;,, the ,,,' resolution , - and .• instrument, . of ,,,-.•. :,.'„
.,..
7,:.;-,.ponveyare shall create a: conclusive presumption as to ,,•• ,,, s . :,..•
81_,.;the validity of the sale,lease, or other conveyance, absent
: 9„;;fraudnlerit .action„, ,. '...:_ •-. ,!; ,:-,.; ,'.;• ••:,;: ., . .. . •,• . ,-;i;',. c,... ,,. ,. • - ,.. T . . ' I
/10 !- - 66057: ..,:After disposition of. all; parcels the association
governing body,' shall, " in . accordance ' with procedures. ..: • :.:, • ,•:+.. I
..-...,12, : outlined in the governing instruments, pay all remaining . '•:,‘. ••-. • .'•
13, costs and disburse funds to:' theiribers. • Funds shall be
14 , disbursed. based ,upon '. the pro rata interestof each
.15-.inemberiafter:p.a.yment1of.their .pro .rata share. of:project - . = . • .-''
.. ,-,..• . ,,
16 • costs. '•-•:;:',;,,,,;.'•':-.',4:. ';)':;-'..'; :':-..:.....1".::',.,h.'0..,,,i: ,, .; ,,, . • -,; , : :1. ,:, , , .. , , , , ,, :•• : : - .
. • - . • • 1 r -
, 1 . ', •, .
17 •,'..T 66058. The local agency may, pursuant to Chapter 13 :, • ..-i, • .::,
• • 18',/,- (comniencirig with Section 54990) of Part 1 of Division 2,
,,,•
,:19 ., impose; fees to cover the estimated reasonable cost of ....
-20, processing:and administering applications,,petitions,,and
• .
21' .4 s
, .
• - ubrnissions under this. division. ,, ,•:- ' . ',- •-;,.: - • • ,-: ' • .
.22., 66059: ' The.; local 'agency :may adopt an • ordinance" ' ...,
,-!....,
23. establishing regulations for, the administration. of land
•• ',24 . readjustment projects•The•regulations shall be consistent
25.,i_ with this chapter, ,The adoption of an ordinance pursuant
%I. 26., to this section isnot required before a land readjustment
:,. ,27 -.association may apply. for:or receive approvals pursuant
.28 ;Ito this chapter.. .:.4,.:: ;i:?..::-,':,..-.,, •T- • . , .. . . . . :. • „ .. , ,....
:.:Z9,.. •,' • 66q6q.f,. Nothing.in this chapter,shall.be.construed to
.: ,3.0 limit or restrict the use,of any of the procedures of the
..,ii., . ,
'31,.Sybdivision Map ,Act, ffivision 2 (commencing with
':. ;32. ,§eqp.o.n,66410, ineffectinga land readjustment.project.
. .,, - •
•
:'34,.''.'..Article '9...;,, Readjustment ;of Public Agency Subdivided
, ‘ •
, 35 ..',.,'i:=`;'' f ,,,,
,':.-:, Lands ,Prior • to ,Sale or Disposat...,,,.'•,,iT.;:.,
.....-„..•,.,'2,,,- • - • • • •,.4 . ._.
,..37'.;., 66075.. (a) , The • Legislature ,finds and declares that
i•,•'::'•38 ; many public agencies throughout the state have acquired-
,39,, parcels, characterized,'„byl, the. problems described in ' , ' • '..,::',',
''''40Sep' ction pP001 .. anq that.sorne..9f, these parcels may, in the ' • •'-'
.• i , ... : ... ., .
.. '
, . • ,
i,.,1!..11.,,1
';?!..- ;''.1":',., , 11
foreseeable future, '•beLdeclaredA teei, or -.stikpliks
2
:L property ParcelsIpropOsecl-4o;,,*?.,Scild.' for5:!,deljn'iluefiC,,
3property-,f;',taxe0,Ofteri06XohaaatelizecK1510theSe
;44, problemsas.lwell.•11,-;Ig,,,,,q.,,,,,,,1,,,-/.,,,V.liel,,,r,,,,..•44,:.,.) t:,,.--•!,;
'4:'.--,:-(b)1,• The ?.Legislattire'further finds' 'arid deOlares'tliaffit
is contrary tolthe •, ptiblid,, interefi:!tp,CliStiO§e'; ofthese
excess, ,' surplus, ortax=deeded''parOelSv` hich!z,'";cannot 1,e,,'..,
8 5'reasonably[iise&in.•,a n-iaiiner,conSisterit with '-'applicable4,
' 9 land use regulations; and that publie'agericies should takel'''
--,;:2,--,1011reasonable action toJpreyenttlie?,rele4eof these parcels,
.,g, ,
1 -f-•,:11'::,,-ion the private:niarket.'.*'-'7,,,.';',4i:Y.,.4'MV:4.-,,,r,,,04,
5..X„
c:66076." 'As.' used' iri this- article i '•;*'-'0i''.'•-7,:'-`.1,-0-0'Q''
—,,,
13 (a) orsurplirs7 meanssuhjeef tO sale of sold b
14 a public ':ti'.'agency pursuant anYZofjhe,-following:t:9,.
;415 • ,,
T,';'•).(1):.., Section':11011 '.'-I1.-=.1i.r'-,-`4' ''i;•,`-'',7'",V.•.;fi'''''',1' ''j?11cr'1
e16,',.1,' .(2),; Article 8, ' (commencing Nyth;.:SeCtion : 54220) ','D
q'T '' Chapter 5 ;of Division'' 2 z•of Title '8 '..'W,n'A-' ' , - _. --.7„ s, ;.‘;.,',r' ';
,j.i...J8 ,ii.(3),'; Chapter p',,,f(cppoicingi:o.tf,i, ',seotioxi;0•9g7)::,of.
..;-.41191.1Ii1e 7:42'.,:,f.`•:''',';Y.,".11,A;;1,.,v4,-.1W.;-,:..,q.tii.01'.;,.-pg : ,t,,;:i',,t.•,,,
P20)k;!,•:':(4).:,IniplernentationVofYabataf)'kesid•Tatidn 'irk'plan
211r approved, pursuant ;,`•toliiiiSectioni;,;-3i2Qa i.' Of '-.heqi:PubliO "-..
22 Resources Code'.',,,2.e-'1.40',.:§,;'';!f;;;,•‘:ie',',f-',..1;4.ff'fAli ,•.i -,-'••..,7g ..'";'', ,• 4, ,i.4,, ''',
-,,..„•,...., -0,,,,,-/r",‘ . • ' • - ' ,,ff-: . ' .,,
:di-,:‘ -4.446-3 44' k0) ' Chapter 3 '-. (coniniencing; With 'SectiOWq3200):-.;6t
24 Division 23ofthe plibliejlesoUrdes-2,s,COde '":-..':':*T.'Y',''',r• 7IN:'. :
• 25,1,:',1',,(6)'Section '118,',i`•118•.4.';';bi....1.18.6,i'ofiqhe ', Streets'?, arid
26 3'=Highways 'Code .';'''‘Oi:f','''',.1•,?0,•f 6sr,'•;i-,:i14,ia'pil,•,',-',..*.'•-.:,7',:.W.?: iik.:7':; V!1,c-
,
,,,,. , -, --7 ,,,i,,, -J, - , •:-,,,, •,- - , 1'.._
27,''' • (b)''"Local'''' planning ,agency"means • the:'":planning2,
•••_28'''..:agenCy,designated pursuant to Section 65100 by the local
29 agency having jurisdiction, to; apprOesUbdiVisionjof real 1.;
30t:r property 'subject to this article': .':!:'''),pq-p';`1'. -,:;•3., 1',N;.,
'''31',W,' • •kc):',"Qualified buildind,' site, means a parcel sulfable;-,'
32 , for construction ,' of • an enclosed ',permanent ' structure
33 intended for human'', habitation ' or occupation or for
..! 3411' storage : of f animals,''I! process '; equipment, goods, orii,-'
.-•,,,-.',' 35 ..:. materials '4-' ofi,...fany, lcindffiinder ap,plicable,•.- land3i use
36 i•egulation.:i !,:/'', ,» '''';-- ':'•''''vR-t'';''rj, ' i i.2 . .• -,,, , '. ;.(, t .:
.., .. .i, ,,,,,, -, , ,. ...ii '. : :.,,o
•
kP4.•„11'. ."
.111.;;',".e.;••54.,114
property taxes pursuantto Chapter:'i'.(6Ornmencirig with
. ,
Section 3691)bof Paftfi,of; Division 1;, of the Revenue and
,axatiorfiCodeP.h0z7,
66077,,v --•‘i (a) !The requirements of this' -article:do-not
apply to excessf'dr; surplus lands ,l'ownedhetd by the
Monica6 Santa' ,?.,fettrit-Etii,.34,Con3crvicincy, tho.,Girlifeffkift
7 Tahoe Conscrvancy,Noiriak,./Vountaink;Conservancy or ''.$";:`:'•4`'
8 the State Coastal Conservancy if title is transferred upon;`\'':;`,,,,,,,
9 sale by an instrument Containing restrictions, enforceable
10 by the grantor agamstthegratee..1- 411 Successprs in
•,
11 '1interest' doing
12 r• ,
(1) Prohibiting development'of ahy.
*13*, .
14 :":sites on:',the2e?coes, ovsurplus land conveyed !
15
° t % t
, • p
16 (2)." Effectively reducing the development potential of
1, IT,' the property below the' current number of parcels.'‘." --k,',
18 c'(b) The requirements of this article do not apply to
19 lands conveyed or 'transferred by the Californiat,tTahoe
20§ Conservancy for management purposes.11,,,:-;,.:' '
21f•-.!,'; 66078.= .Prior to,sale orother disposition of vacant lands , •
22' held by- a public agency thaf are, excess -or, surplus or.
23 '7tax-deeded,responsible public agency shall •
; determine whether the property 'consists of -more than
25 one parcel'', that can , be separately conveyed. If the
26 propertycontains more than one parcel, the responsible •
27, ;agency ;:lshall provide, written'. notice i of •• the sale or
28 disposition to the local planningagencY. This notice shall s • ••
•
29 :include' all of the followmg 1•
30 • • (a) • A copy of the recorded map or the deed or deeds
31 that created the subdivision and, that identify the,subject
32, parcels.' ,
• : - " •
33 r(b),•A description of the improvements, if any, made to
34 roads and public services in the subdivision. •
35. (c) A copy of the assessor's map of. the lands and a list '
36 of the' assessor's' parcels that the responsible publio.
37;,) agency intends to sell, or. otherwise dispose �f to private,
38 •, persons 11; •
39 (d) A written requestthatthe local planning:. agency
40,--,i,do'both,,of the following:1‘;',A;4-4-•.•t'.,,,•-riokP-,-.. ' , -
Slf44
• 'd)
' -••
•
E,•• (1) Describe the,requirements of applicable.land use
2 , regulation that are required to.,beLmet to make parcels
3 that are to beindiviqually, sold prAisposedlofqqualified
building ''• ' :4, -; •
5 (2) Provide • any currently ,available information on:
factors or unanswered[ problems ,..,which. mayt4preyent
7' , building on the parcels in that location '
66079.,,, The ,tocal planning agency 'shall! review its
existing records or the,. parcels identified in the notice
0,, provided pursuanqo Section. 66078 and within 60 days of
. .
-,r-••?"--"'.-
•
' k
11 receiving the notice, shall • make a ,: written response
12, t. describing requirementfor qualified 1Duildng .sites and
13 specific factors, or. . unresolved problems .affecting •
•'14.. buildability in that location and under applicable land use
15 regulation. The local ‘ agency shall not consider the
16; .request 'to be a development application, unless' so
17 requested by the, responsible public agency.,
18
', 66080. In preparing its written response, the local ,7
19 „planning agency l -shall, evaluate:-, the real property
20 specified in the notice by the same standards that would ;1/4
• - 21 ijbe applicable; to ;the property„under applicable .land use
22 regulation. • ,•;
66081. Prior to the sale or disposal of the'real.property •
,• • %24,, described in the ,notice, the responsible public- agency
25 , shall initiate an, application to the local agency. having
26. jurisdiction to readjust the boundaries of any parcels if
•e 27 (a) the local planning agency indicates that some .or all
• - .2 28 of the parcels are not qualified building sites or have
29 unresolved problems affecting development and (b), a
. .
f,30 boundary readjustment would address, to a significant
•'31...degree, , the ,problems . limiting the, development, of the
parcels. •
,,. 33 66082. (a) , Notwithstanding any provision of state or
34 local law, except as provided in subdivision (b), the
• 35. responsible public agency may use any procedure in
36 ,Division, , 2 , (commencing. with . L. Section 66410) to
these boundary adjustments, including, but
38 not _limited to, lot line adjustment, voluntary merger,
39merger and, resubdivision, amending or correcting a final
40 arcel' or subdivision man reversion,- to-, acreaze
• .- • • '
• ,-,;;:•S • • ' • '
reversion • ,
.• ,. • . •
t4:Y resubdivision, new tentative •
maps;,,riew: parcel maps, or' ,new 'final subdivisionmaps
3» (b) Thedoca1agency may reject a procedure selected
4 by the responsible public agency pursuant to. subdivision
,s•-5';;I.i(a).!otily if it determines that use of the procedure -Will not
6 accurately .',establish,•,theYloCationt-':of new. boundaries or
create boundaries which are not consistent with the
8 localAgendy's'"'generafp11an If a-.loCal'agencYrejects;'a '
i..procedure. it''' shall '-concurrently; or within :60' dayS, • . •
10 recommend :a'substitute-procediirel Which' accamplishes. •,,,-
11;:!;,- the same'purpOse.'If the local agency fails to recommend
12 a'substitute procedure within 60 days;thelocal'agencY,'
13 shall . permit, z use of the Jprocedure ' .!proposedthe
.14: responsible public..agency. • ••
15‘'' 660832.. The responsible, public'. agency may proceed16 according
tolaW-••to :sell or otherwise dispOse of parcels
17 -::subsequent to- recordationOf-:'houndary.'1 adjustments
18 approved by the 'local ,agency. •
If the parcels to be sold or 'otherwise 'disposed . •
20 of by. the: responsible.. public agency are isolated' so that
211;]boundary readjustments cannot create qualified building •
sites, the responsible public agency shall disclose, ' with
231, any written notice of sale,therequirements of applicable
24 . land use regulation .for qualified ' building, 'sites at that
2.5 location 'and any specific 'factors or unresolved problems.
26 ',..iaffecting development of the subject parcel identified by
,
27 'the,local!agency.pursuant to Section • 66079.'.',..":;•••-'
.., 28 2
29 I ATticle'10i'.?E.Valuation ;:and'Termmation
30 • -•?. . "
• . , ..•
31 • 66090.. ,!. (a)." On or before January 1, 1991, the Office of
• 32' Planning and Research shall submit to the Legislature' a
33 -report. •on 'the' • .extent to' which land readjustment
34 associations have used eminent , domain pursuant to
Section 66053. '
36 (b) On or. before 'January. 1992, the.1:0ffice ofi •
37 Planning and Research shall submit to the Legislature a
-38-1:report on the effectiveness of this chapter, recornmended'. ,'•
changes,' c-ifi any,' i and i•ecommendationg'? " the
40,•;,desirability::Of continuing'.this • chapter inforce on 'and'
: ,
fS. `I'''.
f� after Januar 1 '�:1993.Un rearing its report:- the Office
y` l� � P P
•f2 of Planning . sand ,;)Research 'x shall:: 'consult2f With
3 r representatives ;'; . off' landowners, ` builders, land :?
t4 readjustment -associations;- and: state: and local agencies.':
5 '.66091.'; ,)This division :shall remain in ' effect'only "-until ;
January 1,'1993, and• as' of that date; is repealed, unless a .:
later enacted statute, -which is chaptered;',before. January:
1993,rdeletes:or'extends that; date;-,-,
The 1.repeal • effected-. -b, this:, section shall not be
l construed to deprive any person:' or public; agency of 'a
,::.substantial right.,which,would have existed or,hereafter
2. „ exists had , that repeal :not been. effected, .nor'- shall. the
3,i; repeal effected by this section apply,to land readjustment
.:14.,.: projects for which an application is pending.before a local
a4';15),agency on January... 1;o1993." These land readjustment ,'
-16 = projects "shall continue:r,to be governed by., the provisions..
of this;.chapter..as
,,theyex;..ist-im.._ med`.riatel
,prior; to theirrepeal..
19•SEC. 3.,.
Section, 66907.11,:of-.the'. Government Codeis
amended to read:
,.
(a) The , conservancy' may, merge, or' split
22 :i acquired ' lots, adjust:,,., boundary: lines,, . or take similar
23 . r actions -facilitate -
,needed .. to ,r�the:;-{;;acquisition and
;24."man f 1
25 x ; (b) Whenever,. the conservancy' sells ; or otherwise
�•. �
agement o ands:?`�a;;..
26
eet ey s real prepert5,,i:, ,toe
eetiservai27 . eiter t feasible . t _.
^ a s13a1};' .the
28 h S e ief 660;5+ withpter stele 9'
29 ` e t e€ .T -it -le :readjust Llaeurkdaies ef arty
e€,
are te eetiveyeel feythe�e€-
31' ;.deii
yyeleprert' conveys real property' other than for.:
32 management purposes, the conservancy shall, 'to the;
.' ;.33Q ,extent feasible, readjust the boundaries of the parcels, or
34 • reduce their development potential.
35';- SEC. 4. Section 31203 is added to the Public Resources
36 Code, to read: . , t
37 ; ;' % 31203.. ' When implementing a coastal restoration plan;
"38`' the conservancy shall, to the extent feasible, readjust the
39,f, boundaries of any parcels. which- are, to be conveyed for;
40j rthe,: purpose development;.:.or..'.otherwise.-'reduce-
developinent`petential: '
2 SEC: ":5. `:a Section : 33203.7:c is Y."added to . 'the Public,'
{ 3 Resources:Code,'to'read:
4 •.•' 33203.7.:" Whenever,the conservancysells or otherwise
5 "conveys ' real property,,, the. 'conservancy shall, to the
6 extent , fca3ible titael accordance with Chapter a;
7 ' (commencing with Seetien 66000- ef men ef Title;
8 `' ; ef the Covcrnmcnt. Code,.re•a•elj-u,st the betrixiktries ef
9 aily parccl3ch are to be conveyed €er the Wiese ef
10 , development extent feasible, readjust the boundaries of
11 any parcels which are to be conveyed for the purpose of
.•' 12 . development,' : or' ': otherwise reduce;` ' development.
13 . potential. f. f.. „, "
14 . SEC. 6. No reimbursement is required by this act
15 pursuant to Section 6 "of Article XIII B of the California
16 Constitution for the cost of any program or level of
i7 - service mandated by this act for which the local agency
18 or school district has the authority to levy service charges,
19 fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or
20 level of service. However, notwithstanding Section 17610
21 " of the Government Code, if the Commission on State
22, Mandates determines that this act contains other costs
23 mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies
24 - and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant .
•25 to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4
26 of Title 2 of the Government Code. If the statewide cost ,
27. of the claim for reimbursement does not exceed five
•
28 hundred thousand . dollars ($500,000), reimbursement
29 shall be made from the StateyMandates Claims Fund.
• „ •
$134442.,:f
•
4:after januarY:1;14993.,In preparing its rePort; the's:Office
of f.,f 'Planning shall consultX;:4 with'
:' •.
,3 representatives builders, and4 4 :
•ireadjustment associations,- and 1state z'and local agencies5;:':
66O9J;Th division] shall remain in effecCorilY:until
6.: January 1;:1993, and as of that.-clate; is repealed, unless 'a
7 r. later enacted statute, which is chaptered.,•,before Januar,
8.?1, 1993•deletes-,or'extends that date.:t,' 7
9 The ',repeal effected -sby this section' shall ; not be
1011construed to deprive any perSon'.'or public!:agency of a
144 • 4./4Th
11 substantial right which :would have existed:or hereafter .
12 ,-,exists , had that repeal :not been. effected, nor shall the.
13 repeal effected by this section apply to land readjustment,
.:.., -,;.•,•14 .
projects for which an application is pending,before a local.
c:.•:::,,',15' :agency on January1;61993: These land' readjustme.nt
•:. 16 '''' projects 'shall continueito be governed by the prbvisions.,
17p. of this; chapter ,as . they -exist limmediately,pricr;:td, their,
.,••••4i.,,, . •
.:.,.:. 18 , • repeal ; ..' ' -- ;,-- ''- ''' r:'-:.: ' ' 6' ::% '7-•• '..3.::-. -,•:.-:•::- 'i‘ 1„-c•,.,,'..1-:1-,
194;:,`• '. SEQ. •3.;” Section:. 66907.11.bf.the Government...Code' is •
• ;-• 20 ,:,', amended to read: '.. i''F4-i-,',i...,;'',.--,--.,:.,-, ---.11,/\ •1; - .?.. 4 !, V.' • ;f'. „. • • ;• :•J
21 .11i:f.='.66907.11.., I • (a) . The :; conservancy ' may 'merge `,..or • split.
:.
• ' ' :•:;:•:' 22 'acquired '' lots; adjust boundary lines, or take -similar:
23 if actions ,:.needed - to ',-facilitate the'' acquisition ';' and!.
24'management of lands*. Ty. ?"?;'''..'"' .y:i'' -=4,' •,4.,;,-,:. : '• - i'.-:-...-•:•,,,.::.
:, 25 ,..!..•-•'. (b) Whenever:. the conservancy sells i or otherwise2'. ••
'. ,:'-.•:::.,6::. eetweysreal property;'h,' eeftserwiney . shall te the
. - •.''.:. »27 extent feasible ' and . ift., iteeer-dafiee .' with ,.. A-Ptiele .9
• -.-i..;•'28',•7(eeffrateileig with Seet4eft 50075)- ef • Ghapter • 5
:---,• •-,
-, -,•''S'-'29 •:134•*iefk 1 •ef ...Title 77 !readjust the lsetiftelai.ies ef• inty
1 ‘••'":.30 pareels whieh .ftre .te be eonvcycd forthe:purpose efi :
«,31: ,4e=s;Leleptileftt7: -:- convey4'real property.' otherthan for.; .
,
'432,, management purposes, ,the . conservancy shall, to the;
'-'','-,:::•:33,-,.. ,extent feasible, readjust the boundaries ofthe parcels, or
-,-: 34 ',.reduce their development potential.',4-:-; . •'‘' :: -.".-.:.-;-' ''•.' :: '
- 35:::. '-'" SEC. 4. • Section 31203 is added to the Public Resources :
- ','T,•
36 Code, to. read: :',.''4 . ''''' '' .' - :"•:--'''t< • :,•': `i',!;!;.'1'4-; -,.:..'s•- ::''. - ';• .,'' -:,1•'• :, rw,
37 •!;s.".::' 31203: .When implementing a coastal restoration plan,
';38';'t.the conservancy shall, to the extent feasible, readjust the
'...- 39boundaries of.any parcels. which-are:to be conveyed for,:.1
'40.the.:': purpose', of development, or otherwise reduces:.
• ,-.,,,,: ,•;•::•.• ::: .,•.. , ,,, . ,,,- ...,:-.7,,,,:.,,,,:..: ,. ,-,.:.--,:- ,•-.:.,,,-;.!-.,'''..;•:..;.1,`••••••,- • :': • - ',:-' •-•-,'
,,.,....
-• development potential. „
2 SEC.:, Section 33203.7 is added to the.;. Public.
;•4;•;3':,Resources Code, to read: - - •
4 't • -,
4• . 33203.7; 'Whenever the conservancy sells or otherwise
conveys real property, the conservancy • shall, to the
6 extent , fea3ible admaccordance with Chapter 5, "
z-' 7 (commencing with Section 66009) ef alvisieft ef Title ••
• 8 7 ef the Gevertiffiefit Codc,. readjust the boundariea-ef
. • 9 ally parccl3 which ttre te he conveyed fei the purpose ef
,•' 10 developmentextent feasible, readjust the boundaries of ,
11 any parcels which are to b6 conveyed for the purpose of
12 development, •= ,or otherwise • reduce.' `development
;.' 13 ,potenbal..r.,(,. • , • ,' -
14 SEC. 6. :No reimbursement is required by this act
*, 15 pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B -of the California
16 , Constitution for the cost of any program or level of
,•
q -1-17 , service mandated by this act for which the local agency
18 or school district has the authority to levy service charges
•,.
19 fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or '
20 level of service. However, notwithstanding Section 17610 -' •
21 of the Government Code, if the Commission on State
22, Mandates determines -that this act contains other costs 1, •
23 'mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies
24. and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant „
• 25 to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4
26 of Title 2 of the Government Code. If the statewide cost
27 of the claim for reimbursement does not exceed five
28 hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), reimbursement
•- 29 , shall be made from the State Mandates Claims Fund. ' ,: •
t.: , • • .
•1
•
•
41
•
Honorable Mayor and Members of the
Hermosa Beach City Council
July 10, 1987
City Council Meeting of
July 14, 1987
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION RE SB 442
Attached for your information is a copy of the SB 442 as most
recently amended. Also enclosed is a copy of City correspondence
on this matter.
9Gr gory pu21 Meyer
Ci y Manager
GTM/ld
attachment
10a
CITY COUNCIL
John Clottl, Mayor
Etta Simpson, Mayor Pro Tem
Jim Rosenberger
June Williams
Tony DeBeills
Norma Goldbach, City Treasurer •
Kathleen Mldstokke, City Clerk
Ms Vi Isgreen
726 Prospect Avenue
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Dear Vi:
City of2lermosa rl3eaclt.�
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885
June 23, 1987
SENATE BILL 442
Thanks for your recent letter re SB 442 and the enclosure from
Sherry Passmore urging opposition to the bill. I've asked our
City Manager to get more information on it and then make a full
report to the City Council.
In the meantime, I thought you would be interested in the synop-
sis from the League of Cities, which urges support for the bill.
Enclosed is a copy. They seem to be saying that it's basically
designed to clean up antiquated subdivisions.
I've asked Greg to give to you a copy of his report as he submits
it to the City Council. Any further input you might then have
would be most appreciated before the City Council takes any
action.
Sincerely,
2
John Cioffi
Mayor
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
JC/ld
City Hall (213) 376-6984 • Community Center 379-3312 / 376-6984 • Fire Department 376-2479 / 376-6984 • Police Department 376-7981 / 376-69i
111J CP".•-1 VFW .S:+ 'Z.";
t • t' • '4' - , yr'
' 4 fr- "Si``-f",.'.•'-', t •
•v, ' • ; • v.. • )7,1%sr::•.'5:r";'q't • 'IL'3
• '
• ' • ,
Introducedby Senator Bergeson kk; •
• i• rfq.: •t • 4 •••.,., > ; • .
": ' ."' COMPrIMents of
C r'N
February 18, 1987-7 Hon Robert G., Beverly
•
' 7)i '-'C'SeOctfor, 29th District
•
• ,
• • -• ; , , - .•
•
4 'j; An: act to ,amend Section,c4245.320''of the-Codeof Civil -
Procedure, to amend Section'66907.11 of; d to add chapter
4.10 (commencing with Section 56999) to Division1' of. Title
7 of, to' add and repeal Chaptcr 5 Division 1.5 (commencing ..7,
sS 'with Section 56000)- ef Division 66300)• of Title 7 of, andto
repeal Chapter 6 " (commencing with Section 66400) of
Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, *ad' to add
Sections 31203 and 33203.7 to the Public Resources Code, and
Niff to add Section 101002 to the' Streets and Highways Code,
relating to real property 1 ; ;:!f
• -•;•,'1 ,14; vl•
31 Jf.; +I; '•:41'•• 1 LEGISLATIVE COUNSELS DIGEST
SB 442, as amended, :Bergeson:'. Land readjustment
'projects.
• (1) • Nothingin.' e3dsting law provides for the' utilization:of
governmental assessment authority or the power of eminent
• _domain to effectuate the assembly, consolidation, redesign,
' andresubdivision of land by a private organization . of •
landowners. However, existing provisions of the Community
Redevelopment Law authorize redevelopment agencies to
• acquire land by eminent' domain and other means for the
-purpose of effectuating a redevelopment project to eliminate
conditions constituting "blight," including, in part, disuse of 1-
,
•• rnd real 'property due!''‘'tcri, certain' '9'problems - created by
•
{q •
':�. inappropriate • c"d; land � 'subdivision ' or`,: � made uate ,,:public
;improvements .or utilitieswhich;can_not be remedied without
'redevelopment::: , , ; . :, = . ' ' in s l : ;,
r•
This •bill, would ':authorize;;formationof private land
i7readjustment : associations to effectuate- the l assembly,
-;consolidation, redesign, and ,resubdivision ofland pursuant to
a. specific plan developed: by the association and approved by
the city or county having jurisdiction.. The bill would specify -
x ,the, voting rights of landowner members of these associations
and, , would • permit 'norilandowner • members to also have '
!voting rights, as specified. The bill would authorize a land
development association' to request : the city or county .for,
:;,,authorization to, prepare a specific' plan and would impose a
:'state -mandated local program by requiring the city or county
,;legislative: body . to hold a hearing before authorizing. • the'
. ..association to prepare a specific plan. The bill would authorize, -
the city.. or county to make, grants., or,loans, for; ,,the_ preparation =
of: the specific plan. i- {
• { ; The -bill would authorize a :land. readjustment. -association .
with membership owning at;least,?/3; of; the gland area within -
a land preadjustment area to form. an assessment district;"with
the approval of the pity or; county, to pay the ,costs'of.the' land
readjustment project.,The'bill would authorize, the' use, ofthe,
;.iffkpreverfteitt Act e 1911, the Municipal Improvement Act of
• 1913 ; and the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 for, this purpose.:
The bill would require the city or county.to appoint a district
administrator to impose assessments and sell bonds. The bill
r. -.would. , require land • adjustment: associations .to' . provide., a _ {
;special means for repayment of assessments in
.The bill would authorize processing, the specific plan as_ an'
application for a development permit. The bill would require
,,the land readjustment association to obtain approval from the
city or county of a• plan ; for financing the project and a
,boundary readjustment map.. Thebill would authorize the
land readjustment associationto acquire property by eminent ,.
:domain, with , the approval- of :,the county ; or city, after
members .,of the association, I.; comprising 34 % of . the`'';
I:landowners in the land readjustment area who own at least '
of the .land area therein, ' have agreed to ' convey their, •
:i property; to; the association's_ agent. The .bill would require the
:city, ;or : county' to',hold a ;noticed ` public- hearing 'and, make
i'specified.-findings •before authorizing the land readjustment
• association to utilize the power of.eminent
bill would specify, .procedures for 'land readjustment
; •.,associations to sell : their resubdivided parcels,. including an
r
appraisal requirement;. and .would give members a first.right
Yof irefusal in repurchasing'. parcels closest,' to their'. original
ownership • at'' appraised value. The' .bill 'would'. authorize
-: counties and cities to adopt ordinances for land readjustment
^-projects and to:impose fees to&defray costs of administration.
The bill. would impose a state -mandated local program by
','requiring public agencies, 'with •; certain exceptions, to.•
determine the subdivided status of excess or surplus lands and
::deedeel.. tax -defaulted lands :offered for sale' or other
-disposition ' to private parties. t 'The'. bill_ would impose a
state -mandated local program by requiring prescribed review
of:',these proposed, dispositions by- .the, designated local
planning agency of the city or county. The bill would impose
1:a state -mandated localprogram by requiring -boundary
(adjustments prior l to'sale of. these lands; as specified. .
ILLI The bill would require the Office of Planning and Research
'', i jto report to the Legislature, on the use of eminent domain by ,
:.land readjustment !associations by January :1, 1991;. and to
,_izeport on the bill to the Legislature by January 1, 1992. All. of
theabove provisions of the bill would be: repealed January 1,
;'.1993; unless extended .by the Legislature. '
i : r `The bill would, with certain exceptions, require the State
'=. Coastal Conservancy .California Tahoe` Conservancy; -and
Santa ',Monica ,. Mountains Conservancy = = to' readjust' the
boundaries'of parcels conveyed by,them in accordance with
the bill to the' extent feasible. - i1 ,' :
t:.. 'This bill would recodify provisions on highway interchange
.:;:districts without substantive change.
(2) The.'. California Constitution requires the :state to
3 reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs
• mandated by the 1 state. Statutory provisions . establish
procedures . for' making that reimbursement, including the
creation of a State Mandates. Claims Fund to pay the costs- of
'i mandates which do not exceed $500,000 statewide and other
c.procedures .for claims whose statewide costs. exceed..$500,000.
— -I •
It
This hill Would provide l:f that for, ,i,,,cerr.tam. osts no
.reimbursement is required by this act -for a specified reason.
Moreover, the bill would provide that, if the. Commission on
State' Mandates ;} determines - that this -;,bill contains costs
mandated by the state; reimbursement for those costs shall be =
• maae?, pursuant to •those./statutory :procedures -And, if the
statewide cost does not' exceed .$500,000,-,shall,..be made:from
the State Mandates Claims •
Vote:,; majority:- Appropriation': n6'.-,Fiscal.pommitteec yes,'
State -mandated •local program:yes
-
1 " • r
people of the State of Californiatdaenact. as follows:
= • • -Iv- :; • -;•;:!
; 1; Section'-1245:320'of ,the' Code of .Civil
2 Procedure is amended to read: -• • •-"Ht, '
1245.3206 -As used in this article; -ficluasilmblic• entity"
4 kmeans: 1‘1.-;?;', .`•
(a) An educational institution of collegiate grade not
;‘'conducted for profit , that 'seeks' to take property by
7‘1. eminent, domain:under Section',30.051 of; the ,Edu.cation
•',Code. c; -; •• p.:,r
9-(b), A nonprofit hospital that seeks to take property by
-{1.0 eminent domainuncler Section 1260 of ,the Health and
11 Safety Code.: ' , .•
12 :-0-(c) A cemeteryauthority that seeks to take property
, 13, by eminent domain under,Section 8501 of the Health and
14 Safety Code I • - , •
-; A limited -dividend housing corporation that'seeks'
;16Jotake property by eminent domain under Section 34874
`;.17 of -the Health and Safety- Code.....1••,-,:: • ,
A 18 A land -chest corporation -.'•that seeks - to take
t.19 \,,,property by' eminent domain- under -Section 35167 •of the
20 ; Health and Safety Code. -
21 A mutual' water company that ,: seeks to - take .
T22 property by eminent domain', under Section 2729 of the
,23.-thiblic-,Utilities Code.' • .,,;
24 (g) A land readjustment association that seeks to take
,,property, by eminent domain under Section 66053 66353
26of1the Government Code.,
- Chapter 410 :.(commencing with
'(?11''', Section ',65999) is'ladded to Divisipn'i ofTitle: 7; of the ,
,2,A•uovernme t,Code,-to •read• ("J0qT 8,f 19/i-11)1"-`'flICil
471 OP .1' '71 `,0+. f; 1 c: r LIP
"•Rj.4;(i.. CHAPTER 4.1a HIGHVt7AYIlVTERCHANGEID1kRICTS. ,
5' C';•-:471 ;-.1b:i ;1F1 v
g 6 -' 65999.' The Legislaturd,finds and declares thaOince •
,P•7•2'substantial:publib moneys'. will be expended.:' on -the
development,of the Westside' 'Freeway,' Inter:state Route
• , -5, including the development of recreational and scenic
10. "observation sites, in relatively undeveloped -areas,> and
since new commercial and other development tends to
12 locate at freeway -interchanges in these 'areas; and this
development may be detrimental to bath traffic capacity
safety- and t&'. the preserVation':Of scenic
15 characteristics along' the freeway route, it is -therefore
16c ' necessary in the interests Of the public health,safety, and
.1?
17 •;., welfare, and to safeguard community :,=economib
'„,•,N1.8 'development along the route of that freeway, to establish
'7''19 controls over the kinds, intensity and design of land use
,
, •'i 20 and development which is permitted to' occur at those
21 interchanges along that freeway route Frain 'its
" 22 r• intersection with the San Joaquin River to the junction'of
‘2342- said route with United States Highway 99 in the tvicinity
24 of Wheeler Ridge. ' • .• - • r!
-re, 25 • - 65999.1. To preserve the effective traffic 'capacity and
26 ;safety of the Westside Freeway, to maintain and enhance
the present character of the landscape abutting that
28 freeway,' -and to • insure - compatible land use and
development at and near interchanges along' this rout6,
the kind, intensity- and, design of', land.' Use. and
2,31 •‘ development occurring at the freeway interchanges 'On
32 ; the portion of the . Westside Freeway designated., in
Section 65999 shall be regulated within highway
-1-84:;,interchange districts, which shall be established by each
4 'local jurisdiction traversed by the Westside' Freeway. in
'1‘ 36 -:which is located any of the interchanges identified in this
•
37 section, I , - f ' , -t
38 65999.2. ' The boundaries of each highwayinterchange
,distlict shall be designated by the local jurisdiction within
:40 s' 'which each interchange is located and shall include that
•
;:SB '442
1 territory as the local jursidiction deems; to be.affected
r. each interchange, but m:no case shall -the area:•consist of'`�
< 3 ;less than,a -circle. of one mile. radius,from..the'point; of
4 ;` •intersection of the centerline' of the WestsideFreeway.'
- 5 with the. centerline ; of_ -any ` highway, -street, :or_• road
6; 1-intersecting•at an interchange: :,
:65999.3.: Each local jurisdiction shall prepare'for each' '
=�
highway interchange, district a general land use plan and
appropriate zoning ordinances byJanuary 1,1964. It shall
40 . be recognized that the state has a con tin uing interest in -
11,.: adequate enforcement of these plans and ordinances due., .
.12
to construction by: the. state of the Westside Freeway.
'SEC. 3. Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 66400)
14 of Division 1 of: Title 7 of; the'Government Code '1is
.15::repealed. -{ _ ?, -,<; j'.
. • 16. SEC. -4: "'Division 1.5 (commencing with Section 66000
',,'17'-1.66300) is added to. Dii4siett:1 of Title 7 of the Government, '"
20 .CiiAr rEn 5: DIVISION 1.5. LAND
„ .
•,. READ USTMENT= •�'.;
J; L�YY' :�74 �;J<t`� �•,f0,:f
22 ki .Ft �, �5.� .' r. l f: } f .)f i..S'1Y., .i ;,,«•
.•, 23 .. fele : ,1-Gettera4 Provisions.a
24
26 ' e`;+tz i; c: CHAPTER 1.' .- GENERAL PROVISIONS AND
1'27 s ; :r • DECLARATION, OF STATE >POLICY, v';a -: `'
•
29 ,A . . ,.
i,.:> Tris. , .
30
66300. This Division. shall be known and, maybe cite
31 ,as the Land Readjustment Law:...
! 32 qr,,4.i 6600 ., r ,..1..
33 j 66301. The Legislature finds and declares that there are
:34 subdivisions.'' of land throughout the -state containing
:25 ..:parcels that cannot be fully. developed or redeveloped in
J:36 -;:their, current configuration and fragmented pattern: 'of
37._ ownership in a manner consistent with the requirements
,38 : of current law. • These subdivisions,• and parcels within `'
..39 subdivisions, are , characterized by a . wide variety '-of
. 440 I problems which impede orderly development,: -including,' . (
•
1?ut`inot limited::to; :orie:or:more,of .the following: ,1
`:3c.; -2A? a) ;:1'hei \ .roads;' ;.5.drainage,sk.systems, ,, .:wasted" disposal
wr
3systezns,.water !supply. ,systems,'and'.other. public facilities
• :;4 ;, have anotr,been: bo'mpletely,; cinstalled are ,not- =feasible' to
1�4>.5 ;;build; ;or do:not meet' current state: or:local regulations.
6 .• (b) .The: :building : of•public facilities'.' described:) in , '
ztir;7:).; subdivision'.`.,(a)-.',may:`k.;cause;:'-environmental `':damage,
::,aggravate3 erosion .'!!'or geologic hazards'. create: water'
=, < 9. pollution •' problems; expose .. • the ; community ; to; ; health .
:a 10 = hazards;, or otherwise,.threaten'.the public peace;:health,
x:;11 zsafety,'or ,welfare:;, j
121. rV•;.(.c)». The.; .size , and'configuration::;; of. -, parcels: .in the
s.13 f subdivision do not meet currenbstate. or local regulations
•14;\ as individual building sites.
15 . (d) The development of the existing parcels .without
?=163• ireconfiguration;i--•may,•r-cause i environmentalldamage,
•-3?17 r.aggravate :erosion :Yor` geologic:•-hazards,::create : water
s 18 pollution problems,. expose the community.. to health
19 • hazards, or otherwise threaten the public peace, health, . .
20 r1 safety..; ;or:rwelfare:
21.: • (e) Some or all of the parcels in the subdivision overlay
22 and conflict with prior ownership rights in that land,
;; 23 ;,:including,, but-inotlimited. to;• aboriginal rights,"'mineral
• 24 • rights, prescriptive rights, or the sovereign rights of this
25 state..' - .. - .
26 ..(f) Some orall of the parcels in the subdivision overlay
27 land which local or state plans designate for agricultural
28 use, . mineral :extraction, or,-. timber production, the .
29 pattern of • ownership is too • fragmented •. to,,allow 'for
',:3(310 t effective ;: production : f of ... those '..resources,>>":ror the
31 ; construction of improvements :to ..serve . parcels may
32 . ' conflict with 'the production of ry resources:; onk»adjacent
'133 =Llandsi:{°' r -r .. <. S, r �_,•
(g) Some -or' all' of. the' :,parcels in- .the ' subdivision
-.. 35.: ;,overlay land :-which. local or state : plans , designate for
x:,36 ,,natural resource protection and the further development
•-4317' _37 of the parcels in the. current -layout of the subdivision may
!38.s irretrievably,';.damage:i,;-or.= eliminate.j those <rpotential
{t:39; •>resources.'.. • 51.:;,.:.::, :: ,.+: - -i:, rs
Development... of "some. or ,all :of. the' parcels yin the
•
( 7;:
• •ip:vs,, • .1
SBi442' .•
subdivision requires provision, of. sanitary sewers,' public
supplies,, or: substantial investment in other public . •
the'parcels are located in -rural areas remote
fr,A?1,frorxil,_existing developed' -area&-: or- areas ,wherec).public
51ilagericies- plan to extend
6 ' (i) 'There ::: is an •r'n inadequate... water supply,waste
7 disposal capacity, or road capacity, to serve , all future
• -potential building sitesin: the subdivision, -and.:adequate
9facthhes are not likely to be available 'in ;the 'foreseeable
. 'future11 t (j) ,,The size and configuration of lots in the subdivision
..,.12 -.prevent the. development of the types of, uses: that' are,
13 1 consistent with applicable laws regulating development
14 -within 'the, subdivision. •
size, and . configurationof lots, ', streets, and
16 ..,,public'...facilities prevents private :I! redevelopment:
l7iconsistent with applicable laws aftera natural disaster18, . ;,
(/)'The. configuration - and layout of lots and• -;streets..
...19, -.and the fragmentation of ownership prevents the private
L ifind 1 it .• difficult, to reach equitable ''.resolutibris','.4: their!:
2 problems through:, the 'development -.permit 4 process.'::
3,,,,,,,Thesei.difficulties 'result in :severe constraints' 'on theuse
;of lots irahe individual ownerships or issuance of buildin.g'•
5 permits that' are.:.4inconsistent 'public
6:: regulation.
8 66304.-' The . Legislature` finds and declares that it is
in
9 the public interest to develop new procedures that public
10 officials and landowners can use to resolve the problems ,
11 ,described in Section 66001 66301. The public and privatd ,
12 k2, benefits' of these new procedures will' vary on- ;
13 case-by-case -basis, according to. the particular 'location '=
14 and characteristics of iparcels;'' the expectations of
.1511 landowners, the nature of public agency regulations, the 11 •
16 extent of landownership fragmentation, and the nature of •
17'; private market forces affecting the parcels. However, the'"
18 ), Legislature recognizes.. that there ' are circumstances
'19 throughout the state where landowners of parcels may be
re eve opment of properties that suffer from economic . 20 'able to resolve their 'problems through organizing: .
.
,21! ---.dislocation, . deterioration, .or • disnse, to an extent that -AO 21 themselves in land readjustment associations to address'
22' the use of their adjoining parcels as an entirety., Once:",
23 organized, these landowners may redesign subdivisions,t
24. readjust ownerships, or alter rights-of-way and easement'
25 boundaries where those actions will resolve problems
26 which impede orderly 'development, consistent "
27- state and local regulatory standards and goals. ':)4!)
28'''66005.
29 66305. The Legislature- recognizes- that some- private.:
30 .'land readjustment is already occurring: The Legislature,
31 further finds and declares that furthering private. and,
32 readjustment in appropriate locations is a public purpose'
33 ''. for state and local agencieS. It is in the public interest for,
; '34 these agencies to assist landowners' organizations inthe:
35, -,redesign of subdivisions and the readjustment lot,
-.= 36 ownership, easements, and rights-of-way where those;
37 '-, actions will resolve problems which impede orderly;
38 development, consistent .with state and local, regulatory' `' •
39 standards and goals.
40 , €6606: ,
,,--,constitutes a senous physical;social;or economic burden
23 .c.on the community.. ;
(m) The size and, configuration of lots .prevents the.".
25.. development of the . types of uses demanded' by the. ,
26 n --,private 'market.
27 , ,
28 , 66302. The Legislature finds and declares that the
29 ,problems' described in Section 66001 66301 occur
30 .:throughout the state in urban, suburban, and rural areas.
Accordingly,' the 'Legislature:finds 'and declares that in
32::: enacting this chaptcr division it is responding to an issue
33 of statewide, concern. This"- el:kept-el= division • shall be
34 applicablei to. all local agencies, including.:charter ,cities.
35 66092«,:,1-
36 66303. .The Legislature further finds and declares that ,)
1. 37 -11 -many of the parcels in previously 'subdivided lands have 2
38m,bden, sold to many individual property owners, many of ,
139 whom do`not reside in the local agency. .Because of this
40 fragmented .ownership, public _officials and. landowners
1 ; subdivision •requires provision of sanitary - sewers;' public
9..': 2 •crtwater supplies,. or. substantial investment in other public
;3 ;s facilities,'and the'parcels are located in rural areas remote
4 ::,from' • existing developed ‘:areas- or areas where ) public
;51e_4agencies' plan to.extend these .public . facilities: r'
6 (i) 'There' is . an inadequate` water 'supply,.: :waste
SB. 442 f.
'
1iit: difficult to reachs'equitable' resolutions `of their; -
2 'Problems through - , .the l : development permit :-process. •
3. ;These• difficulties :result in severe: constraints on the use
. 4 of lots in the individual ownerships or issuance of building
;.- 5 permits that; are.:: inconsistent .with essential '(public::-
6• ; regulation
a n ;x t ;} •
�.. +
7. disposal capacity, or road capacity ty
to serveif all future' " r 7 � ,r:: �A8�4-' - i •. • � • ' r r' ` � `-y � � ' + j=: `s?• '
8. ;potential building sites in the subdivision; and 'adequate :' '7 8 ;; 66304.' The Legislature finds and declares that it' is in
9 :: the public interestto develop new procedures that public
10 -officials and landowners can use- to resolve the problems
11 'described in Section 6.6001 66301. The public and private.:
12 ' benefits of . these - new procedures will vary on- : a
13 ,case-by-casebasis, according to :the particular :location
14 ,and characteristics- of •parcels,'• the 'expectations of
15 f landowners, the nature of public agency regulations, the •
16 extent of landownership fragmentation, and. the nature of
17.; private market forces affecting the parcels. However, the'
18 ;'.Legislature recognizes : that there are circumstances'
19 throughout the state where landowners of parcels may be
20 ,'.able to resolve their problems through organizing:
21. themselves in land readjustment associations to address
22.1 the use' of their -adjoining parcels as an entirety.' Once:
23 . organized, these landowners may redesign subdivisions',:
.24. ' readjust ownerships, or alter rights-of-way and easement
25 boundaries where those actions will resolve problems •
-
26 -; which - impede orderly development, consistent 1 with
27- , state and local regulatory standards and goals.VP ;M., . '.. = .
28 166005. lw:.
29 ' 66305. 'The' Legislature- recognizes • that some private:
30 ;land readjustment is already occurring: The Legislature
31 ' further finds and declares that furthering private land':
32 ..readjustment in appropriate locations is a public purpose'.
33':'. -for state and local agencies. It is in the public interest for
34 these agencies to assist landowners' organizations:in:the:
35 -,_-redesign of subdivisions and the readjustment •of lot;
T, ,• 36 -,:imwnership, , easements, 'and rights-of-way . where those
' 37,'-; actions will resolve problems ' which impede orderly.
38 development, consistent with state and local regulatory .
, 39 standards- and 6
40 F ;;.;66006- ; `r. , : {,.;. r f.r F
, 9,, :facthties'are not likely, to. be available.in'the foreseeable
10, x cfuture:
11 ; - (j) .,The size and configuration of lots in the subdivision
12 : prevent ,the development of the types of uses' that are
• 13;1 consistent ,with applicable laws regulating. development .
14 within the. subdivision. ' ' - , . +. .
15 .: (k) :. The size and configuration of 'loth, streets, and
16.:. public'.:- :facilities : prevents •<<private :'` . redevelopment
17 consistent with applicable laws after a natural disaster.
- 18 (l) 'The configuration: and layout of lots and streets.
and the fragmentation of ownership prevents the private
20: ; redevelopment of properties that suffer from economic
21t : dislocation, , ,deterioration; or disuse, to an extent that
constitutes a serious.physical,:social,_or economic burden
23 r Yon the . community:. , f,:2 s s; < _; 4
(m) 'The size and ,,configuration' of lots .prevents the
25.. , development of the , types of, uses demanded- by the,
26.-.private,market.:.;, ..
27 t
28 66302. The Legislature finds and declares that the
29 'problems described :. in Section 66001 66301 :occur
30.; throughout the state in urban, suburban, and rural areas:
31 v_Accordingly,' the Legislature finds and declares that in
- 32 ,::enacting this ehapter division it is responding toan issue
33 of:• statewide concern. This- chaptcr division shall . be
34 ; applicable::, to all local agencies, .including charter .cities.'
35,' ':x.66003 ;., z., • i.; ,. _ .
36 o.'-• 66303. The Legislature further- finds and declares that
371;:many of the parcels in previously subdivided lands have
38::.5.been sold 'to many individual property owners, many of ,
39 whom do'not reside in the local agency. Because of this'
40 fragmented ownership,' public officials and. landowners
•
SW.L44.2P's —.10
1: i'.•1 66306. The. -Legislature' finds ..and declares "that in` 1.
2 ' enacting this' chaptcr 'division 'it is not' preempting=then;
3,:.field but ,intends to. create an•.•alternative''•to Existing-;
4 ;..procedures for landowners and local agencies :to f use m
,5 the readjustment of previously • subdivided 'land: •' The
6 Legislaturefurther 'finds and declares }'that; 3'if a
landowners' organization,' • = commences ' `a land,
8. readjustment project pursuant • to 'this ehEtptei 'division,
• 9 then the procedures set forth •herein • shall be the
• 10 .. exclusive procedure that local agencies shallsfollow`with
11.: respect to that project.
12 66907.: t--; -y , , •
13 66307: If any 'provision, of this chapter division` or the',
14. application thereof to -any person orcircumstances is held
• 15 - • invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions 15
16 applications of the chaptcr division which can be given:j
16
17
18-
19
2
3
4
i 6
0. 8.
9
10
11
12
13
14
17' effect without the invalid provision or application, and to •
18 this end the • provisions,, of ' this`• chaptcr' division
19 .severable: t.. r :1;f :,-. i..1'_ F� . , .���'� .�:; •
.. .• h 20
..,� ,:Articlec•Definitiefts Iii ti(=ir'i1 f,: 1 :2 21
't;. ;., ,:4.i` ,• 22.
• CHAPTER '2. DEFINITIONS ` f' = 23
�r .+t 24
21
22 Cc
23 ..1' '
•
24
25• 66940: -
_.� 25
26' ' 66310. The definitions in the artiele this chapter. apply '` 26
27. to this chaptcr division only and do not affectany other- ' 27
28 provisions of law. As used in this chaptcr division:' ;, 28
29 , ; (a). '"Agent" means a person responsible for receiving,. 1` 29
30 . holding, and disposing of land conveyed by landowners to 30
31,_. • the. association for purposes of ;land readjustment' under < r: 31
32 ' . this chapter. = ' : =. 32
33. : ' (b) "Association" means a?, land ' 'readjustment' <, 33
34 . association.. ; . ,.. - • . . . -.• - , . ') 34
35 (c) "Association ' governing • body" means ''those :' . 35
36 persons designated to conduct the business of the 'land-',: 37
36
37 'readjustment association.: 38
38 .. • (d) ."Boundary adjustment . map" ' means a tentative -
39. map which is prepared pursuant to the procedures and - 39
40 requirements of the 'Subdivision Map; Act, Division 2' °' ,) 40
—.11 SB 442
(commencing with Section 66410), or a map showing the.
proposed boundaries of the readjusted parcels. . ; , .•
(e), "District" means a special assessment district
formed pursuant to Miele Chapter 3 (commencing with
Section 66025 66325) .
(f) "Governing instruments" means those creating
•and governing documents by which the. - • land
readjustment association regulates the business . of, the
associations and the conduct of its affairs.
(g) ,, "Landowner" means any public agency or person
who alone or collectively with others can convey legal
title to a specific parcel or parcels.
(h) "Land readjustment area" means that geographic'
area within which the land readjustment association
draws its membership and intends to assemble,
consolidate, redesign, and resubdivide land.
• (i) "Land readjustment association" means any legal
entity, including without limitation, a corporation, a
partnership (general or limited), a joint venture, trust, or
other organization of landowners who have organized
themselves to execute a land readjustment project.
(j) "Land readjustment project" means the assembly,"
consolidation, redesign, and resubdivision of -land
pursuant to this chaptcr division.
(k) "Legislative body" means the governing body of
the ,local agency.
(1) "Local agency" means a county, city and county,.
or a city, including a charter city. '
(m) "Member" means (1) any landowner who agrees
to convey .land within the land readjustment area to the
agent in exchange for a pro rata interest in the association
or (2) any other person to whom the association conveys
a pro rata interest in exchange for goods, services, or a
financial contribution. Where more than one person'
collectively owns a single parcel, all the persons owning
that single parcel shall collectively be one member. •
-( 3- "Parcel" means at egg e ef feel pr-eperty
(n) "Parcel,"except as otherwise provided in Chapter .
6 (commencing with Section 66375), means any existing -
unit of real property or interest therein which is located
-"1
'1 i • in ,a laird! read'Justment -'area 4. �: �i < t� H
:g,r (o); •a "Verson',; includes any,: person; , ffirm,# association;'
i.a.....,prganiation,olpartnershipp4;trust, { corporation, , or
i r4 .eoznpany:, ✓ .i�'i
"Project•area'• means the land 'readjustment area
6 nand i additional;,lands specified .in Section 6601-8 66318. :j:
' (q)' 3'r"Publics agency," l means • a- local :.agency;- a 'special
:8 district,=a, school. district,' a community; college district, a
,..:9:: communityf redevelopment-:: , agency 0 f and; any , :state,:
10 agency, board, or conunission = , : ! ;; ,. 3 r
11-i : (r)';..' Public: service easement„,.means a public service
12 'easement(.as defined, pursuant.ito-.•,Section;:83.0.6 of;..the,.
2 1.33 Streets and Highways Hi hways Code: -
14 ru.t s(s):..”Subdivision" Rmeans, any.,.division or. readjustment
15%e{of:real �property t tit .'
16 C:,Sr';I: :SI} f�' J ��f
,C -t; `, .. �• r, Ct,°.
Pro
jccts:.fV
18 t , .GI3APTER 3, r r INTITIATION OF 'LAND READJUSTMENT
,20
. 4 Y 4t I •1 I �{! N 11. �2..��
1't r• „ { ,
660157, ii .!S +, ! YF,. h1, „j r ,.r 77 4
ktli } k. ? .•,'..•
•
., 22 " \ ' 66315. A i land readjustment T r association:
23 ; organized for the. • purpose ; of�,-assembling, •:clearin g''}'
24 'redesi'.
. redesigning, developing, and 'readjusting subdivided ,ori:
• 25 --:partitioned land; pursuantto;t
this
r 4:apt-et division::
27. 66316: Three; or more landowners owning parcels in a.'
28 i proposed, land :readjustment area; {may •-create a land
29; readjustment- , association n •by :.signing. " 'governing::•.
30,:ainstruments :which shall', contain each of the. following: t` �•'
31: r: , ; (a)' . The name of the association,- which , shallinclude
32 the words •"land readjustment association." +;=• 's
33:f,:. (b).The-place. ;of its principal office,. which. shall be in
34,1 this
state.-:;,,].-- i
,; ;r35 }?c;��(c)-The.-purposesand powers
of the association:;.,
(d) : The, names and :mailing' addresses of the persons: ,
37 Lt who; will constitute, the association governing body. •
• 38 (e) The names and' mailings addresses :of 'the persons'.:;
39::signingf the..governing: instruments of' the. association:
4O.f0g. f)ffhe fmanner-,'in which .the association shall regulate
the business of . the ,association and°:the conduct of its
affairs; including, but not limited to, all of the following:
3> : : (1) ' Eligibility and requirements. for :membership in ,
, 4 the association and the nature of the interest of members
55 in, the association. Each landowner within 'a proposed
6. land' readjustment: area shall be an eligible member and
t7 -: the governing instruments shall provide an alternative
.:',means of attainingmembership for landowners who wish
-9 r ,.to become members but cannot ,4'meet, ' .the: -.financial
10'.:requirements of membership.:' : '' ` ,'r:}',':.kt. ``
11 ; (2) Voting procedures governing the `conduct of the
12 '.:affairs _ of • the • association. ° Each landowner ;who' is 'd,
13 • ;member shall have one vote per parcel; except that joint
14 ;_or several landowners owning the same parcel shall have •
15 -"only one combined:vote. The, association shall establish
f 16.- the ,, voting rights :.for., each person . who receives 'a
17 membership in . theassociation in exchange- for goods;.
': 18 services, or ` a - financial ;"contribution to ` the . land
19 ; readjustment project ' in accordance with the pro rata
20 value of those contributions. ; - •
21 (3) The establishment, size,, responsibilities, and:
22 composition of the association governing body. The:
23 association governing bodyshall be, composed of at' least
24 : three persons. ; . . ..
25 (4) The method of .establishing the pro rata share of
26 the valuation for each separately owned parcel'within .a
27 proposed land readjustment area. The valuation of the -
28 `; entire proposed land readjustment' area and ; the:
29 . , proportionate value of individual parcels shall be based.
30 ,on market value as of the date of establishment of the
31 association, . : except as otherwise provided `through
32 ,:unanimous agreement of members. . - • i I
' 33 (5) ` The,' manner by which. the :association: may
34 r, , designate and • replace the agent responsible' for.
35 receiving, holding, and disposing of land conveyed to the.
::36' -;,association by the landowners for purposes.' of land.'
37 .;,,readjustment, and the specific duties, qualifications, and
.38 responsibilities of that agent. `' •=' ;
• 39 (6)' .The manner and conditions under which members •
40 :.will be requestedto convey their property to the agent-
.
, , Ln •
SW442%
•
1.7
Each .landowner shall' receive,;_bpon 1conVeYanbe;:-'7a pro
• ,
•
. , 2 rtratainterestlin the assets of the association,' bated n the
, ro, rata valuation of parcel or parcels .conveyed;less any
41;interests-whiCh the asSociation;thayfconvey the'agent,5 any .
investors.; or others providing services'46 the land
•
16 . -readjustment project: 1 !,6 t
q7) %The method and timing bywhich:parcels will be :.
:8: reconveyed to landowners ifthey choose 6y -withdraw as
1:, !'‘ 9 oinembers !of,t-the or•-,pif association
10 _I terminates its \,effortS,.. to effect a 'land.-creadjustinent.
, • 11 project. t :
12c!7.•':' (8) The method by. which the association4ill protect'
13 the local agency from liability for defaults by landowners
• 14 on any bonded., indebtedness incurred based' on ' the
: 15.;formation of an assessment district pursuant to Article 5.1
16'2 ,(commencing with SeCtion:660253- 66325) of chapter
17 '-(9)-f,'; Whether the association,intends to seek the locar,'
l&-,2agencY's, authorization; to utilize ,the Power of eminene,
19 domain z: I and,.v the .;,Procedures.'' by which
association or its' governing body,?:willi,cletermine to`2,:
• 21, -,proceed pursuant to`Section 66353.i.1r' 1 F-
- 22 (10) Maps indicating!the boundaries of the propose&
-- 23 land re -adjustment area and the proposed project area, as;::
24 ; adopted by a majprity:vote,of the association's governing:
• : 25 body:i
26 7:i:i..1(10) • : '"
•• 27',..1 r?y(1.z.) The voting land -.e other procedures that the:
28 association is required to use in amending:or:altering the'.
290governing; instruiTtent.,A-,:f.';fic,,-.1.,i4
(11) rti 411:`:ft•"1
-•(12).:7The procedurebyj which- the association:: may`;
32 4 dissolve. itself arid distributeassetsto. the members when ;
33 the `-:'-danct),:.--readjustment, project ,tiuis completed, or' •
34 ,.-Iterminated:-.1
.35 I ti
36 H. 6631Z The association governing body may amend the
• 37 (land readjustment area map -or project area map subject
38 only to the provisions of the governing instruments at any:
' 39 time before the association files•an application pursuant:'
40to;.SeCtion 66021 06321AY:,it:ii.vjgg4':''4i:4--,''',vq71-"'...-'4.0'',
,
r j-
2 66318.. The,Projectarea shall,inClude the .proposed land
31 Teadjiistrnent-).:area.41r0 addition;.( it may mc1ude r land- •
-outside ',thepropos. edeland-readjustmeritarea;s follows:
. , ; •
5,:;•••1 (a) Land to be used for.p,ublic. improvements to serve . .• .
.6 development in the land- readjustment area:,
(b) Land . outside .'the ',land readjustment r area to, be
. 8 ;!exchanged for, land •in the: readjustmentarea.,; '
9ti;Mc) i,Land outside the land readjustment area to alloW•
10 '-any development rights recognized by the public agency`,. • • •
11 to be transferred by the 'landowners to or..from the
.. • 12 proposed land readjustment area pursuant to authorizing.:
14 1 66019 1
c -7 •
15 66319: -When...- the -• membership of,: the association:
16, -.•-includes at least two-thirds of the_ landowners -,who
17-:1) own at least. two-thirds of. the area of the land in the land
18.0 readjustment area,,. the -'association governing body,,shall!; • ,
•'19.,,select• an .agent -responsible for receiving, holding, .and
20-.: disposing 'of.parcels in the. land readjustment , area and .
21 .rshall secure and record. the written -agreement ,of eacha •
• 22 -,member as, to -all of the following:— • 2 • '
• 23,-,,;•,,.•1(a) ,.:The method of determining pro rata valuation foe',
240..0., parcels 'Withinthe, land. readjustment area, 'and the.'
25. specific pro rata.' valuation -of that .member's parcel. or?,;:
26, .• parcels. •-•'' : - . ;
. 27 - . The , time .or Condition:upon' which the .membei
28 ; agrees to ',convey ...his .or .her parcels the, agent
• 29 exchange for a pro - rata share in the. ; assets of the':
30 association in the manner 'and under the conditions setT,
: 311 forth:in the governing instruments..-'
32 ' (c) Payment: of any: assessments levied pursuant ti -.•Z
33 Article 5,2 (commencing with -Section 66025) 66325) of
34 --._: Chapter and the '• provisions of the governing
35 ,instruments respecting default on bonded ingebtedness..c;
)
- CHAPTER4.. LOCAL AGENCY APPROVAL OF LAND
.. 38 PROJECT
39 • •.1 • ' q•E
40 Article 41 : -:;,',Authorization to. Prepare. a Specific'.Plan
--,41 • • •
• •
•SBA42.
:1 ' Each landowner ,shall .receive, :upon 'conveyance'''s' prb••
2 r, •rata' interestin the assets of the -association;' based on the
:.3, -.:!pro. rata evaluation 'of parcel or parcels 'conveyed; less -any
4, .interests.which the: association.May,convey.:to the -agent;•
5• .,any investors;"or,-others.:providing'.services'ad the land
:6 readjustment project. : ', `s'i;�� , Es1. ct {;,�:::;:.' :;',.aE, P
7 (7)• {The -method and timing bywhich: parcels will be •'.•
8 reconveyed to.landowners if.they `choose to'''withdraw as
9 ,members . 'of.: -the . j':association'-foil'i.t:if {;
�the�-.'association
10 terminates its .efforts:::to:1 effect :"a ,landx:readjustment :
project.--:.-. ; ,,
12 - • • (8) ' ;The method by which the, association Will' protect`
13 the local agency from liability for defaults by .landowners
14 • on any bonded :indebtedness incurred based'' on • the..
15 .. formation of an assessment district pursuant to Article 5.
•16 • i 2 .-(commencing with Section :6698+-} 66325) ' of chapter 4.!\
Whether the association:intends to seek the local"
18 • :agency's: authorization; to utilize the power •sof eminent -
19; , domain-- ; and,'. if:, so, ' 'the: ' procedures ' by which .the
20 association •or' its' governing body: will •,«determine to`
21 ::proceed pursuant to- Section 66353.- � ,.,> ::: ;_ x ;::;, .14 + .', ;
22 : (10) Maps indicating; the boundaries 'of the proposed-•
23 ,,'land readjustment area.and the proposed project area, as'
24. adopted by a'majorityvote of the association's governing:;
• 25 body. ")f`Iti" �'s� t3,r: it �'st�r�r,.!_�`a�„ �',s'°` , • ;'. , ,.,
.26 (i0) . - '` • •
y(11) The -voting rand. other'.procedures that the;•
28 association is required 'ta: use' in amending _or'altering- the"_
• 29r`governinginstrument.,�'r'r;;;
31:-. • (12):-- The procedure=' by' which the. association• may';.
32' dissolve itself and distribute -assets to' the members when.,
33A the •':' -land = =:readjustment= t, proj ects u t is }- - completed L or..
35i''.T.:[_6 ' ,`?r+ a'1 Y,� i:' , t2 � �ri..i;"} �- rF
•
36 ' s ' 66317. The association governing body may amend the? '
37 : eland• readjustment area- map 'or project area' map subject, .
38 only to the provisions of the governing instruments at any' ,
: 39 , time before the association_ files an application pursuant::.
40,r_to:Sectior} :; 66001:66321.i4 r I v s :t.s �; � , w f,,•,'
`1 •,� �, .; t, � � 17 ;r.re,., I.
2 ; t 66318 The,projectiarea shall include the proposed'land
3,•E;readjtistment area: i'In •;addition,' it:may include' land
4: r outside '.the.'proposedtland readjustnient:'area, As follows:
5... (a)• Land to be used for.public'improvements to serve
6 :i development in the land readjustment area.' ,. ';± ;.r-'}
(b) - Land outside the land readjustment area ;to , be
. 8::?exchanged for land in the readjustment area.:y
'9(c) rLand outside the land readjustment area to -allow
10 ! ..any development rights recognized by the public agency.
11 to be :"transferred by the ' landowners to or:"from
12 =:proposed land readjustment area pursuant to authorizing
• 13 .ordinances 1 �, h , �c ;�; ...r I
15 ' 66319. When the ''••• membership of -the: association:
16,i.includes at least two-thirds of the landowners ,who also -
17K own at least two-thirds of the area.of the land in the land':
18 c,,readjustment area,' the 'association governing body shall
19,',,select an agent -responsible for receiving, holding, .and'
20 •.: disposing ' of:parcels in the land readjustment area and-;
21 shall secure -and record the written agreement of each": •;
22 inember as to •all of the following: j `•
23. J.. - : (a) :The. method of determining pro rata valuation for .
• 24;, :all parcels 'within . the ' land readjustment area, 'and the]
25 specific pro;, rata 'valuation .of that member's parcel ori
: 26, ' parcels. • _. • • `'
27 ; s (b) The • time .or -condition -upon' which the member',
28. ;-.agrees" to convey • his • or . , her parcels • to the, agent int
29 . exchange for a pro rata share in the. assets of-'
i.-30 association in the manner 'and under the conditions set',
31: forth in the governing instruments..`
;1
32r. ,(c) • Payment: of any assessments levied pursuant t�Z'
-,•:;,33.1: Article 5,2 (commencing with. Section 66025)- 66325) of
34Yi Chapter 4, and. the provisions of : the : governing;
35,••• instruments respecting default on bonded indebtedness:
37:,,x,?CHAPTER'4.. ' LOCAL AGENCY APPROVAL OF LAND
38READJUSTMENT PROJECT i y•
40 Article .4 1; •Authorization to Prepare. a Specific' Plan; 7.
- 41
Each landowner ; shall :receive,. upon `conveyance; apr.,
. 2r ::Irata, interesbin the. assets :of the .association; based (on the
3•,:,1pro rata evaluation "of parcelor parcels conveyed, Bless "any+
,.4;k.interestmhich.the:association;rrlayeconvey.to the!agent;.
any < investors;, or others 1providing services t� the land
64,',., -readjustment prof eft. .f r'"t r > a °
7r : to q7}'The method and timing by`which''parcels will be,
8. reconveyed toaandowners if -they choose'to, withdraw as
.9°omembers.. iof.r-the;::,association:-tor-Y;if`rsrthe-'association
10 ; terminates its effortsto:,eeffect» a `;land,:readjustmerit:
• l l r tproject. { r A'F'F. S, T{ ')•. A t
12,,f,:. (8) +;The method, .b
by -Which the association�will protect':
the local agency from liability for defaults by landowners
14 on` any bonded ..indebtedness incurred - based's on the`
15 . formation of an, assessment districtpursuant to' Article 5:
16'12:(commencingwith'.Section 66025) 66325) of chapter 4.
17z:; (9)'r Whether. the associationintends to seek the local
18 agency's.: authorization ; to utilize the power of eminent.
19, domain : land» .if so, 's the! procedures:: by r which' the:.
20association or'. its governing body will .determine to`•-''
21 -;..,.,.proceed pursuant to'Seciion 66353 +: ' a +. ;
22' T " (10) Maps indicatingthe: boundaries. of the- proposed
23 '?land "readjustment areaandthe proposed project area; as`:
24.'.
adopted by a majority, vote of the association's governing::.
25 , ,
j�: K �K{tsari�.:=t
26.-=g' .,(10): =
`' ,- 't :'+� � rti� ; �1� i. sir' id. t �-i. [i ;t
271i i ft:(11) ?The M voting y and." other -`procedures . that the.
association is required:to.use`in amending.or'altering=
29r overnin rY..
311:k . ,
31 (12): ,
The procedure' by : which the; association; may
32' dissolve, itselfand distribute assets to' the -members when;
33 <_'the '7-,lanlreadjustment,=., project:��'is �f completed =l or ,
34 ;,:terminatedk i
Ji"'
35 ���6FiA1-'�,r fir
36 f 66317. The association governing body may amend the':
37 ' (land readjustment area map 'or project area' map subject,
38 only to the provisions of the governing instruments at any'
39 time before the association files 'an
-application
rpur't suant407�:toiSeCt orf .
66318..1The.proj ect area shall include the, proposed. land
34;readjustment areaY. In -addition; r it' inay.,include'rland
outside'the-propos.ed�'land'readjustmerit-area, asyfollows: ••
•.;'j (a)' Land to be used for.public improvements .to: serve
development •in the land' readjustment area. ~ ,71E)P?'). •
outside :.the land readjustment + area :to, be
. 8:4exchanged for, land 'in the readjustment? ,.
•`9raa(c) (,Land 'outside the- land readjustment'area`to'allow
10 ;i .any development rights recognized by the public agency.' _< ,
11 to be' transferred by the landowners to or :Ffrom11 the'[
12 proposed land readjustment area pursuant to authorizing
f t { Y'.i
13':'4 ordinances '#' ,$,;j' y ir�kb��ri x�`d � M r`< y n "�;� ,�t,r 4} s1 � r 0,.4
15 _ ': 66319: •When the 'membership of the association:
:-_ 16; includes at' least two-thirds of, the landowners .who also
17 own at least.two-thirds•ofthe area of the land in the land.,
18.;..' readjustment area;: the 'association governing body shall '
-select an agent responsible -for receiving, holding, ,and'
;`` 20`, disposing 'of' -parcels in the::land -readjustment area
21 'shall secure and record: the .written: agreement ,of , each":'
22 .,member as'to-all of the following. •
(a) -:The method of determining pro rata valuation .for
24, ,all: parcels `within 'the land. readjustment area, 'and the ..: -
25 specific prop rata ' valuation. -Of. that 'member's parcel - or;
26, parcels.
27: r • '(b) The . timeor condition r -upon. which the member'u.
28 = agrees:" to ` convey his -'.or .her parcels 'to the,', agent in-
29 exchange for a pro ' rata share in 'the assets of -
30
f a30 association in the manner and under the conditions setts
31::;;forth in the governing instruments. `; `: ,S'''
•32,, ' ' (c) ' Payment of any assessments levied pursuant
33 iArticle 5,2 (commencing with Section • 66025) 66325) of .
34 <, Chapter 4,- and. ' the •. provisions: of the : governing'.
35,E `instruments respecting default on bonded indebtedness
36:o- its _,' i SjA., •;!
37.4i CHAPTER • 4.. • LOCAL AGENCY APPROVAL OF LAND 7C
38READJUSTMENT PROJECT •
39 }'' 4 Pa' .".'t',} !.{ .' .''r'.':_ tV . i
40 Article- 4 "1.: , Authorization to Prepare a SpecifiCiPlanr1.:1.L.
41
F
663241The-association;_+may?apply-,to the;local agency`,
31;'thaving:Fjurisdiction'.overrthe land: readjustineritrarearfor':''
4 authorizahori} to prepares a�specthc, plan ?k � i� , � i,� A p `
6 E•16-":_66322.-; (a) If}, the,-,' association demonstrates ::to.,i the
7;' isatisfaction,of'the local. agency, that<the•'members.of the
8. -:.',.association include ;landowners 'who, -' own: at;.'. least
9,r two-thirds of the land,area within the:land readjustment
10 ;r area, ;'the: local agencyi shall;''consider any.'application.t
:11 : •' petition, and submission pursuant to .this article to be al."
• 12 ;. "development"within • -the meaning 'of ' Chapter r:: 4 5 f'
13 '.(commencing with Section 65920)' of Division 1 ^ j. < .'',
14 (b) If the members of the, association do not include l
17'15 ::,landowners who own ;at least two-thirds of the land areal
16 within- the land!readjustment area;_the local.agency
'17 r in • As -.discretion,' determine r whether -.to : consider -any I.
18 application, petition,:and submission as a "development.:_,;
(c). • The application-` for 'Authorization to ..prepare. a f
20, ,,specific plan shall include each of the` following:
• .: 21. i ' .(1) '4 The :governing instruments of'the association :: f
221 (2) 'Maps of the,proposedaan.d.readjustment area and.
4'project'
area. r r} :�'�<,7;; � ; F:S,_. : ;.: s
- (3) A description' of the problem or problems specified
25 ~: in Section 66001 66301 which justify the application'of this
26,,article to the land readjustment,area:':'•rt,
2T -f Hj(4) Evidence demonstrating .that theimembers have'2
28 voted
inaccordance.with.=_thef ..governing,d
o`cuat ments2risupport :the :application+
30 -,F• ?.oPt
,
3
66323. Before -taking action -to authorize the• association
. 32:,to•prepare,the specific plan; :thellegislative body of thea.:
• -33: local ' agency; shall hold at least one- public 'hearing to
;.34,,review and .consider testimony regarding the adequacyc
-_ ,-35..;xof ...the application :in. meeting the requirements of this',
, 36 t" chapter.'Notice bf the hearing shall be given pursuant t�.'t
: 37 ;taSection.65090.-,In'.addition; the local agency shall:mail or t;..
38,:.deliver, i notice • of : ; the .'hearing :.:to. the State 'Lands:.
39,.'.Commission, at:least l0.clays .prior,.,to the hearing. `,. ' t,
40+,'1 660247,
'. 66324: °'Upon conclusion-of�:'.the .t hearings tion' the
2 i.application, the' legislative .body Of the:local'agency shall:: .
3.:'authorize:the association to-prepare='thesspecific planif its
4'4affirmatively tdeterr'irieFbothrof the following:
5 f. '. ` (a) The land' readjustinent project -proposed' by the
6: f.•association for. :therland readjustment area: addresses
7-,eor.more of the problems described in Section 6600.166301:;,
8;, .. (b): The-, ` .association F ~ -has•? '` complied < .with>1z•:the'
0.,i-requirements_:of Sections, 66U15, 66016, 6661-71.660-K '
10 ':66022 x•66315, 66316,166317,'t 66318, and '66322,, wher611
1h1- applicable..
1G..d ? `; � , ! ti .£.j.S i.)1:q i_fAl h. tix ft t ':i !,,r
13 tf" �r Article 2. lApproval of an;4Assessment;bistricti}•
14..F/).,k ��3e� (i%°Sil
•15 :s�. 6602:5. Fr`�•�{rrf ��; � SS".: .1 "==. '+ J-�.. (."tJ4 i; 1j:,.l•f. f` E(('r"M•
16�r, 66325.
When 1' •the'rmembership' ;of;'the. ''.association1°`
17ls.includes•landowners'who own. at least two-thirds: f the i
land • area 'within ,:the' land=.':readjustment 'area;`1 the'`'
.195.;association may petition the local agency for formation of I:
20; an assessment 'district to finance any 'or annecessarycosts'
21 T'> of the land readjustment project:_The.association may file''.;
22 ,its,: petition concurrently, with, 'or) subsequent' 'to,'-'itsf.
23 ; ap�QCQ2pl(i�cA�a(�tion .made pursuant to Section 66021:6632.P.,
'1' • .y
24'=:x...660 _ '.S `'.�_ �i r '')'y �r'iis Y�r [ �t{ '''•�;1 '.k
25 66326. The petition to form'an assessment district shall
26 ;: be• accompanied by. a proposal for a land 'readjustment` .
27 ?-project .;approved • by : the:-. association, which ' shall T.
28 ,: general terms ,indicate each' of .the
• 29 (a) The existing and proposed land uses,' including• '
30 existing and proposed population densities and,building�''
313•, intensities, within the .project
(b)`'•The requirements for additional infrastructure<
33't"including x `roads, ° • 'sewers, : water facilities; =drainage
34.: • facilities, and • flood control • facilities;., and ^any .%
.35 • �� rights-of-way required for these facilities:.:The proposaF'„
1. 36z --.may include,broad changes to the location and design or,
37.. roads, othenpublic facilities, and rights-of-way to create:
38:: safe • access ' to- : building ' sites • .and a circulation-. and'
.39 development ,pattern ' that :is ' consistent•: with:. public' .
40:= agency plans and regulation::,r '' .. a t:17.
•r.-• •r s.: C'!"{
:.(c) How. the"
purposes.of;this-�diyisioriwill
2 attained. by, -the, implementationsoff,the..proposed land•-
3::readjustment .project t f � ciXi �� L� c� :," ,►6 �.,r� ; bra :;a r r;',
,(d) . Thethe =, :. proposed land
S.Ii:readjustment project: is consistent with,the-local•general•`
plan; 'any applicable •• existing specific: plans; 6zoning, ; and '
.,any other land use regulations of the local agency: To the'
8,,'extent that the•proposed landreadjustment project is not,
' 9 ;•.consistent with :the general', plan: : or., applicable,:•specific?'
/•,10 Eplans, , the proposal .shall'•.recommend.k�• ei->°'necess `
• 11 amendments to those plans. -„,c F,
-1241r: (e).''The effect, that implementation of the: proposed!.
13:i (land readjustment project.would have:On land, residents;
14,, sand landowners in the project. area "and any adjacent land
15 _ which bears relation to the • project area.
16 (f).-. A schedule for•the completion of the specific plan t
and, actions to ...implement the landreadjustment{project 1:
18.,:_that; the association proposes: to.:undertake: �.:,- =:;� t; t
(g) The association's estimate :of•,its, cost:•in'preparing'L
._ 20 the specific , plan,- administering -,; the -association, , and'.;.
• 21.. ,undertaking • tlie, implementation-- actions described in' L
22 ;,subdivision ;.(f).x•Project costs borne' by the 'associatiori'.g
23:::.shall include any relocation:assistance required pursuant;"
24 i ; to Chapter 16 (commencing with:,, Section•:�b7260): r of
25. ':Division 7 of Title -1:40' rx
: Evidence :,; that " :land «:within the - ,''proposed
27 -assessment. district is adequate • security -for any bonded
28„'indebtedness • incurred by.. the..1's proposed . district • in
29.r,frnancing the costs identified pursuant .to.subdivision' (g):
31,c' 66327.,: Before taking . any -action-pursuant • to ''Section
32 66025 66325, the local agency shall hold;at least one public: ”:
•3d3 . hearing. Notice of Jthe hearing shall •be given pursuant to'.
34' Section 650901it.4 Yyy .0 rKJrS L1?f �� ��,r { `t t;
y;,,,;',:;4,1,1:h , t� E ;
66328. At the hearing, the -legislative. body shall review %.?.. •
37- and consider: testimony regarding the, proposed :•
38 readjustment project and the "proposed assessment $
399:district: After the hearing, the legislative body shallorder:T
40, °,the;formation of the. district: only if it has : authorized_
.1
SRA
hd'associaticirrVio-prepare`_•they specifiorplah drif it. has'
2:<<determ_ ined� all 'of 1the.following: cirri.. ' od
3 • (a)' One or more of theconditions: described in' Vection,
• 4.1:6609.1 '6630hexists Awithinithe land readjustment area and'
5:; the, land(readjustment:project arid'proposed"assteksninf
6:. '.district? =:arel.+siiecessarya. remedy.s-:theTcontlitioiiq ori?
t};;4T:!bnl4i:`0/116 sefu .
8 TAY . (b) a2'he land `;readjustment.Rprojectoisi'.iiecessary) ori
W.'? appropriate .in .the project ;area to, implement th&gerieral
10 ..plan, any ; specific rplans; w zoning, and any •other?zloeally)
11 Y adopted land use regulation:, i,'. fi ? naFIs::ow1E LI •
12 ry ,(c)' '!The- development•: `of -',the�'project :area -(by . the'.1
13.,t1 association will assure the future: protectiowofithe&ptiblic I .
14;r interest 'and, the 'achievement: of public ;objectives to -the•;
15' same or • higher:.' degree than "would( aaplicatibii % of
-16:. regulations .to- the ',individual propertiesSK-,n' i'. -C1)
17 (d)' -Thee land-: "readjustment ' project } is'` finar cialVi
18 ' feasible and the.association has.adequatelyprotectedithe°
19, = local ' agency ; . from liability `a A for= i :default's on) any''
20:1.:.ind�e//btt�edness:undertaken=by'the f. district: `)f;; JeWW-'• sdi
21 ?, 66029-.. )!r • '
22!'(.' 66329.. Before' the :districtis formed,'thelocal agency's
23 . may :require,:a ' resolution;, from the' associatioiialhaa
24: ; requires each member to sign an agreement which binds,2-
25 . them and their" successors in interests, both iridi'idually1-2
'26 :and ' collectively,; to abide -by and implement'a 'specific' -2'
272, plan f. that ' -is',: i consistent; with ; the" ' proposed rland'`-
28 readjustment project. Ifrequired bythe local'agenoSTthe-,2
29 agreement shall be-signed,by, each member ati the ;same`-
30.,. time as the written agreement specified in Section! 19
311'.66319.. The. right to 'enforce the fagreemenf:shall arso be` a ,
32 ;!:;granted to:.the;:local EzE
33 f{."•`? ?; .:rrl.'• .:f7: r'r !��d?rli `, ii7519:"1 ?,
34 f 2 66330. The legislative body may approvethe forinatio&C
35 of the district subject .to any conditions or changdsih the .
361:" land 'readjustment project' it ,determine`§ to .ber;M the)C
37: ; public interest.:. bf..nro`3; -bac TC
38 r,1:3�'66034,'. ,; ; F ;'is 'r; ;[ I, = r.:" Ftp (V.'7Pi1P1. ,b^.31 A1C
66331: The` district's :boundaries-shallj be'bbterhirnbus-'�,
-;; 40 -.With the land• readjustment area "The assocation-Tsliall Y of;?
SB: 442':
1 alterr,its land readjustmentarea.without action by the
2 local agency to similarly, alter, the •district: boundaries
3 S: , 'F' :': .e, o!"x';40
4' : 66332.. After the. formation ?of the ` district; 'the` local
5;; agency shall • appoint a'district administrator:!;The.district
6 , administrator shall be the local agency's representative to
7% the association and shall, on behalf of the local agency, be
8 : responsible ,for selling bonds, disbursing 'proceeds from
9 - the 'sale .. of bonds to': the `association,`:. and ,imposing
10 assessments to repay those bonds upon parcels within the
11 land readjustment area pursuant to the iflipPOVeilierit
12 j. 4e of 1911; Seetien 5990-
13 . the .Improvement Bond.', Act of _; 1915, Division 10
14 4, (commencing' :.with i Section 8500)'7 . or. the'' Municipal
15 Improvement Act of 1913, Division 12 (commencing with
16 . Section 10000.),-�of,the Streets and. Highways Code. ,(-=t,- 1'4
17 669x3:;
ar.r ' pl r�t:�. t'; `� ; �. : � : �L:. i . Inc �lY r. .
18 • • ' 66333; The districtadministrator may only sell bonds in(
19: the amount and under-' conditions approved '. by thel.
20 association for costs identified in the proposal for ,a land
21'readjustment project approved pursuant to Section 66030`;
22 66330.
:
5
23 660,31:',
"•.
24''; 4 ti 66334. The "association shall provide a means to repay''
25 ';.'assessments in default by individual landowners in order`'
26 to protect the local , agency: and district administrator.
=
27 from liability for repayment of bonds:..t,Mt�.
{
28 ; ` 6603x-
29 66335.'-,The.:association-, ° shall :submit , detailed'.
30 ` accounting :. of -J. expenses incurred in' : developing the
1 31 ; specific plan; . administering .•' the, -association; rand';
• 32 implementing 'the land 'readjustment • project to': the`
33 district administrator at regular intervals agreed to by the ,
34-, association and the district administrator. The district''.
35 t administrator shall disburse the proceeds of the bonds to,,
• 36 ti the 'association in amounts 'adequate to pay all expenses =`.
, ' 37' : for which : the bonds 'Were' authorized that . are actually
38 •: incurred ' by the association, based on the submissions
39 . provided at regular.,: intervals: r : '•
'SBi 442
<Article,6:3 4pproyal,of the:Specific Plan itc�
M1 t c r,+ !" t ;f F,ry r tr ifr r: 4' c:nSr k!? ', i• 'F ::' P1 1 ji�:jf''E
660x4: i'' w. .r f �r� I ti;
4,, 361 66336.: (a). GThe; , specific': plan': shall .,conform' -to ` the
5 r; requirements ..of ..Section? 65451;1 except: as .provided in
63 Section 66039
The. -.?.association . may'>- : make .:' 7application .. s w for
8y�,;,developmen;,^permits. in> the eland. -readjustment . area
�, . pursuant 7 to ; the.:.'specific s ,plan ' concurrentih:with t or
10 subsequent to submission, of a. ,specific plan:.
11 < (c)
.If the .proposal.for'•.the land readjustment project
12 ;'submitted? pursuant_*'; to ';Section ;- 66926" '66326 contains
13 c - sufficiently detailed information; including a, boundary
14.r,,,.adjustment: map, " then ,, :the• legislative '''.:body::. shall
.15;;concurrently• process. the. specific'plan as an application:
16 : for.: resubdivision • br-. other ; reconfiguration under r the
17 Subdivision . Map Act, J. Division 2 (commencing; with
181 ....Section,
66410)
�,, ri' uli— rc�r ;'r ax a".L, r .aa' � tiitC9•
19. . 6603T?' t rl rri7 4' .'a r5 , i
20 ;z :' 66337 (a)r.The ; specific • plan: shall ,be prepared ' and::
submitted by the association,,and adopted and amended.;
22 , by the local agency under the procedures provided for in'.;
• 23 Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450) ofChapter 3
24 of Division' 1, except: as provided in Section 66839.66339
25 Notwithstanding' Section. 65453, .notice, of . the. •hearing':
26 shall be given pursuant to Section 65091:' T `�
27 • (b) - At the. hearing, the legislative body:shall, review
28., and consider testimony • on the specific the::
29'.. 'legislative body determines that the criteria specified in'.
30 Section 66028 66328 have been met, the legislativefbody.
31.. may adopt the specific, plan.. The 'legislative body<mayC
32 ',amend the; specific plan,:from • time to time.....;,t : - `<.; w'.::, .
33 ,, t 660357 ;,, is s4,
34 L.,- 66338: Adoption of the specific plan, together with any'''
35' conditions and restrictions.imposed and notwithstanding:, .
36 any other provision of law, to the contrary,' shall constitute: • ,
37 the ,zoning for the .Project • area, provided that - zoning:',
38 , regulations which applied before the approval of the plan.
39 and which are consistent with the plan shall *continue to
40 .,:• apply; •
1-c-,•:!%71,X7Z7,k't`
• • f
• ;-
D•;ir, •
•
3
• ,‘
:i.:: • , -',,,,. ,:!:" SB • 4424> ": --"` :' - -
. ,.
..: ,, ..,:„..i,,.::. -A-• : r : :. < , . ,,:'4,-'
" ;:- ': :-, :"..".f..,. •,---,..„: ,,..)-ATIJ 669a9..; orl;P'.414,.!,z.-i.)7!',N. - ,z0
2 - 66339.:', (a)'4 If the legislative • body i" deterrninesi. that a
..:. ; 3::;iproposed.land readjustment project :submittedpursuant
toSection 66026 .66326 consistent .with the' general, plan,
5,:', any existing specific .plans, zoning, and other:local land,
6:;.: userregulation; the specific plan shall be treated as an.
. .
70:2applicatiori.for ;-&•Idevelopment . permit aid processed
,_ .• ,-.-.-ir' ,: .:.,,-, 8 c.: under applicable provision$: --.4,-; state ija*?,.'4and':;':•IOcal,,
.• . .:"!.. ,-' <'..'`.' ,: *
9 - , ordinances controlling these perMits. '-"i• :'',.,.1,' :Y"' '`..f,".'"• -',c..:".":-"-• • 1' 'i.',
10(b)i.,Noticerof the..hearing for:approval of the .specific'.'
.116:p1an as anapplication fora development perrnit,shall,be.•
l2 given pursuant. to Section -65091 ''.'i.,.;•,"..ft,,,,,.:•-.!,<.',..;;••i',,-;i •,---:.'.7:;,:':: 1:,:"<.
13.,,,,-(o).;,...At .the;liearing the: !legislative.. body ::$hall.,review,:-.
14-4,.., and consider testimony on - the specific ; plan' '• as . an.!'".•
- - -: '''':.• 15;• application for a development permit. After the hearing,
.-.-
.., :.... 16,the...legislative .body. may, adopt .and approve the specific,
. .
17e.' , plan as anapplication.for a development permit if it finds, .;.
. ..,
- ,-•'-:, ";: 18 t , based-., on ,:substantial evidence • in. the. record, that the -,,r',
.- . • . .... .
. • ".. _.....--•
19 criteria specified Section66028.66$28 hai7e.been met4'
:. _ .• -:: ,..- 20 L and ,.' there ;,F is :',-.compliance:,';-, with <'‘,12,the), applicable,
;.. -.. - 21 ,-,-_-„reqUirergents,fori,,,,the.,,developriv,nt :ippOrkit.......,k,4:,,,.,,,41A,,-";.r):
22 66040- " . ' :• ,. . - - : . <,,' --,-,, • , :•,1:-'',<.,-1 :',:" :<;;iii.1":"''.::' <:;','' —:',',1. ''': ''':- ''''. ''''''',''
. .
,. ,.• 234.;", 66340. The Ideal agency ma , ant an $ to the.
. . , _ • • .
• ..1 24 .i-district,t9 pay the costs of specific plans with loansto'::bet:',,,
• • -.:-i,
25 'repaidas a cost of-„theland .readjustment , project
..
. -
26 660447;.-- :'.--:' • '"i,':".t.';'''-f'.:i:- ''.'..• y• ..;.1:i'",.:- <",)..-!'' ..';`•
, . •1- 27 = ::," ' 66341. ' No bUilding, permit< shall": be .isSued -within the
• ,
28 -6,boundaries: of -a,, specific plan :which has been adopted '-',-.•
- :
29 pursuant . to., this article unless the.. permit': is consistentk
- ..
. . ..
•
.30 t. with the specific plan and ptlier applicable Jana use and
31 zoning -requirements :,.... i< ; i,-.' .i.;i-. i -•,,,O.::'. :,:t;, -,=;,i -a •.,-.•;.=:.",A ."' - .,':
32
3akJ'," i .:,< ', ,. 'i,<-4..L:"-'-ii,i'l '-'!'-.,: `', .-;<( '-<, :''::;"<'.,-:,"iW ,:. '..1..,.;';';',';''''!."<"'': -:'''':-•, ::: '."-4•<'-''.1::;:...r...5,
le
34 1.-)ir Arb49,.1. ','" Approval of the; FinanCing,Rlanland.,:,,"
.,,- -1. " --•-• --• ••,:-;; - :.BoundarY Readjustment•Map -;:';1<•--'g'-:,-,T' :.-"-; '-'.--f-
35...4''1,1'!""<<:c'4:'--:,-Ijr („,....4,-.1,,,,,,,-k-• ....:, ,,,i,
-: • .36 ,;.:; , 660427 '
37 ;":"'• 66342; Either concurrently ; with .'s'ubmittal 'of • the
„38irspeofic plan or subsequent to its approval, the association
• • ' : :39 :all submit_ forxeyiew and approval of Vie, local .agency:..;.
40 r•ii",(4)A -4,P,4ACiig13.4111
.?<_1.;;. !.',.k7'.6:.",.:.(1?<";::6.i:.b ''.i.....ii.i,.-4'114:<-';'i'...k,..4.4.1,:',i'•?:-
. _
. .• , <:,:<,• , . . . . .
At: ,
(b) A, boundary readjustment ' map • shoirig,::the
•
eldSting.:1A.rid3' ',Proposed v,•;bOuridaries ,lof("<t-',allParceLs,!,<":”
3-'veasenieritsnd:rightSovay.neeessary •
4; F.,ispecifiplaril sUbrxiitteth::±pursuantos
5 (clornm6iicing with <SeCtion.66036 66336)':.e.VQ;ril,!-- 'Iuti3
The. 3 '..speCiAc.'q 'procedure "•••-'-under'Division"1:' 2'; :•.'"
Pr'• (commencing "with Section 66410) proposed to'be";,used
8f.krnakethese?.boinidarY4djustments:,>,P•11,5".'07.:,:::1'''';'u
6€0g,
0...f.:!:.!1 -166.743.(:-(a).1- The 'financing plan'shall precisely' dcribe
costs of 'actions that the association undertake 'to 1
2 -r implement the specific', plan;' including, but hot
34ito; costs "Of :land acquisition;legal actions -to c1ear title," -=5..
14 :.costs :c of clearing' and :demolition;:relocation• costs,."1.
15. '-iadmiriistrativ6 incurred 's by: the Association •
16.7.1'; governing body;the agent;And.the district administrator,5
17,-3 fees topublic agencies, 'costs of:executing any "conditions • .
18On 'approval of the' specific 'plan; costs :of processing -And
19 1:recording * boundary adjuStments; costs :of -development •
20 ',E'Jand'improvements; and costs of appraisal, marketing, and
21-", disposal of property purstiapt;to the; specific plan'and
22...boundary adjustment Map. • -;
23 LI; (b) '.The financing plan -shall also precisely describe the
24 :'amounts ; sources, and availability of funds and security to.
25 cover: these costs.; and'the proposed role, if a,ny;of.the
26 assessment. district -and • the' district. admMistrator .
27 implementing .the financing ,•
28 h (c)': When the local agency approves the' finanaing:3
29 it shall. authorize the district administrator' of:any
30"-• 'assessment • district <, created ' ' finance the ' '• land
31 readjustment :to implement required : responsibilities-;
32 under the financing planlin the manner that the plan -4,1;'•
33 •. provides,' including; but not limited to, the costs: of land •
34 {, • acquisition and 'disposition,' legal and engineering costs,
35.. site improvements costs,and costs of providing relocation`c,.:i
36: 'I assistance. ": • -
37 • 66044,-,si • ; •
66344:f, (a)' Notwithstanding any 'other t proVi$iorf f :Of
39 2State". law or local ordinance, the association may select •
40,.and comply with any procedure in the Subdi'visioriiMap
, • .,.,
. SB,4420•
1-.)1:ij 66039—
F
Y tf
266339.•;,(a)4.1f the,- legislative, body, determines ',. -that, airy
3:,,/proposed.land , readjustment project submitted pursuant,,;
4yto, Section 6602/6 66326 consistent,.with the; general, plan,?.
5 any existing sPecific .plans, zoning, and other local: land;
64, use .regulations, ;the specific plan shall be treated as anr•;
7f, _application: for a`.,development.: permit'; and -:processed
8 . under applicable provisions • of, • state
9 ordinances controlling -these permits. j
(b)-. Notice .of the hearing .for approval of. the specific'.;,
'11 ,plan as an,application fora development permit shall, be
12;given pursuant. to Section.
13� �"(c),.. At .the hearin "65091:;';: ,.;�,...�,., ,,:. •,r :; - ,,, . . ''.°F.
the:
g legislative bod shall;
and consider-, :.testimon bodyshall review,•,
c plan as an
15 application for a development permiteAfter the hearin ;
16 the legislative ,body. may, , adopt and approve g'
P pprove the specific
17., plan as an application for a development permit if it finds,
18 j , based- ,on, substantial evidence in, the record, that the
19 ; . criteria specified_in Section 66928 66328 have been met.
20,., and , there ;= is compliance_', ; with the.`
21','_,requiremen s £ dev 1 aPPhcable:
t ., or the ,
22 6694&• a .opment ,permit t f: pi
66340. . ..,:: : � ,, ,;:, •
'The agency may grant or loan funds to the•
24 ,district. to pay. the• costs 'o f specific plans with loans to;be TM;
25, J ;repaid. as a cost, of ,the .land readjustment
660417 :project. .,, ..,,
•
27 66341. No building permit shall be».issued .
within the
28 , boundaries of a. specific plan which has been 'adopted
29 pursuant . to this article unless 'the
permit: is consistent
30 i' with the specific plan and other, applicable land' use and ;i''
32 �� zgning;• requirements
Arti.'
34 e'7.4.' ' Approval. of the, Financing ?; ;r ti: :. .!.r,x Boundary.Reacljustment: Ma . ;Plan and.
35,
36 6604$7�:` rY`,�i1;'i� t;f Ai)l"�•3''ti�w i:��ir)c��Is)ifiY y ��? };;$"2-+.
a
37. 66342.• Either concurrently
• with submittal of the •.•;
38. (specific.plan or; subsequent to its approval, the association :,
39.1,shall submit for;review and approval•ofthe local, agency: id.
40 ; '= financing pantt
1 (b) ' A ,boundary's, readjustment ' map showing;'` theft
2' existing 4 +'arid t proposed ' boundaries of ` = all' -' parcels,';
3 s=easements; and.nghts-of--way necessary to implement' the`:
4:i submitted-'•' . pursuantto' ' ! Articlett 6'
5c;i(commencirig with,Section'66036 66336);. ' `' (, •
(c)' The' -specific 'procedure" 'under''`Division' 2
(commencing with Section 66410) proposed to be used to
8 make
.these °.boundary `adjustments ��, � � E, " .> r ..• . r.•,?, ):;
t
9 d �}, `tY 91,o,i,Y r (( 1r .,.j() i S '3t IN^J.l% (.
The financing plan shall precisely describe`
11'', the costs' of actions that the association will undertake to - s.
12 implement the specific' plan,. including; but riot limited .f;
13 i? to, costs "of land acquisition, legal' 'actions to clear' title,
14 ' costs ` of clearing and .demolition;:' relocation costs,'-;;
15. . administrative costs incurred ' by the association's a
16 -t.'governing body, the agent; and the district administrator,
17., fees to public agencies, costs of executing any conditions "':-
18 -!,;on `approval of the' specific plan, costs of processing'"and��
19 l'':recording boundary adjustments, costs -of development' .,
20'..''andimprovements; and costs of appraisal; marketing, and':
21 ;.•disposal of property pursuant to the specific plan 'and
22 boundary adjustment map. •• -
23',"!1,j (b) P The financing plan' shall also precisely describe the 4 r
24.. --(amounts; sources, and availability of funds and security to `.
25 cover these- costs; and the proposed role; if any;' of the
26 • assessment district and the districtadministrator in`
271, implementing the financing plan. ..'...
28 • • (c) ' When the local 'agency approves the financing'.
29 • plan,- it shall : authorize the district administrator -of 'any'',4;
30 =' assessment • district created ' to finance the '.land
31 readjustment 'to implement required responsibilities
32 under the financing plan' in the manner that the plan ^`�
r 33 provides; including, but not limited to, the costs of land
34 acquisition and disposition, legal and engineering costs,
35 . site improvements costs, and costs of providing relocation
36:i assistance. • _` {.' ::,,,, �• 6'.-;
37 669,447'F:1 -y ..Y `i 7E!
38' ' 66344.. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision` of "=?.-'.
39 :;state law or local ordinance, the association may 'select
40 ' and -comply with any procedure in the SubdivisionsMap `!Y'
et -,Division') 2..•• (commencing:; with Section` 66410) ,••
-2 accomplish required boundary adjustments pursuant' to.
3.: subdivision (b) of.Section 66042 66342,•including;;but not
' r 4szlimited to, lot line adjustment, -voluntary merger;,merger
_ 5; and ,resubdivision; amending or correcting. .a final or :
6 parcelrmap, : reversions :to acreage,' new:tentative maps,
7.tnew parcel maps, or new:final maps.
8 ; . :,(b) The local agency may reject a procedure proposed'.'
'• , 9*by. by: the , association pursuant to subdivision (a) only if it -
10 gdetermines that the: procedure does not provide for an ;.
:11 . orderly transition from the ' :existing - boundaries to the
12')proposed ' boundaries, does :not; accurately describe the.
' 1 13 =;•location of =new boundaries, or creates boundaries which =`
14';4 are not consistent with the general plan' If a local agency
15 rejects a procedure, it shall concurrently or within 60 days
16 Itrecommend a'substitute :procedure' which accomplishes
17 ,:..the. same purpose: If the local agency fails to recommend
18 t,a substitute procedure within 60 days after submission of ;''
19 '-,the applicant's proposal pursuant to Section 66042 66342;
20 . the local.' agency ;shall ' permit, .use, of :the' procedure
' associa
21,"fproposed-by ahe tion:.�;�,�=-Yi;;,''•, ,t; . l�l <�M � ,•_�, �
22 f, ' (c) Upon it approval' of. 'the- boundary .adjustment..
23 map, • the local agency shall ' not '-approve . or 'permit
: 24 . recordation • of ' :_ an individual.''' property " : boundary
25 :::adjustment on parcels which have not yet been conveyed
26 ;by a member to the agent for' the association or acquired -
27 by the association and conveyedto the agent:. _ i,r r
28 _:': > „ ::r`c+;r
29 rr Y. 'Artiele 8: _ . e€. ,
? k tr"} i�"o1i r+ 1� } 5` D
30 A Projccts
31{
_rte:;...-....,t,a.;
321.,;;;`':,,:.;),? ? j CHAPTER 5 ,-: IMPLEMENTATION OF.;LAND '`;a4,
33,f':x,; READJUSTMENT 'PROJEC•T
•
,z• t,1`. ��r=
r 36;; 66350.; For the purpose of aiding and cooperating in.
37i'..;the planning, undertaking; constructing, or• operating of'
3&.-a::rland,; 'readjustment ; project. -::located : within its
39 • jurisdiction, . any public , agency,: may !do .any, of .: the'
r i Via) Dedicate,-sell;''convey, orlease:.ariyof'its.property
2 ;-i to.:ther association.- f •r, r�y�, � ,,
Provide �`: ` ':parks;%'S y''playgrounds, ` -tt recreational,
;.4 community;:,, educational; .r water, sewer, . f-or7 drainage
5 facilities,-' or• any other,.works• 'which it is 'otherwise
�. 6t. empowered to provide adjacent to or in connection with, .
7. _the land readjustment project:-`�. 'tai' ?,"
8 ;: Furnish; c ;dedicate, vacate,-; close; pave, install,
•:9 grade, regrade, plan, or replan streets roads; roadways,
10 ' :alleys,' sidewalks, or, other places:.which''it, is.otherwise,
11; ! empowered . to provide. '2.,,,°•• 'r' .. , _ . ... ;: ` .
,anyublic..'services
12 .:� �' (d); Relogate and' Tredesign � t p �
13 .easements.'. ;6-; ;.
14 r'=.'.-; (e) - Provide technical assistance and services ,which it
I
115 ris, otherwise empowered • to provide.' •
*1,16 : • '(f). Provide relocation services and financial assistance
117which . it is , otherwise- =empowered to °undertake to
18` households, businesses, and nonprofit organizations, if
19 • any, who are tenants to be displaced in connection 'with
20 .land readjustment projects: _ ,, r:. :.' • '
21'; • (g) • Enter into development agreements : with the.
association, pursuant 'Ito Article 2.5 (commencing with.
'.'23 Section 65864)'.of Chapter 4 of Division 1. :
24 r. (h): Accept or furnish any money, grants, goods, or
25 services from any federal agency, public agency, or any"
26, other. person :for, the'�.benefit of the land readjustment'
27 project ` _,
. 28 ' . 6605-17,1.', "•
29 . 66351: ' ':. If an owner . of land located in ° the land
? 30 ::preadjustment• area is unable or unwilling to convey the
31. land to the agent, but, is willing to sell it, then the' .
32 association _ : governing • I. body 'may, : '.pursuant to the,
33 governing instruments, acquire the land by negotiated
34 purchase. If the plan is thereafter repealed or amended
35 . to exclude the land from the land readjustment area, the;
36 agent shall dispose of the acquired land by first offering
37 the land to the former landowner for repurchase at the
38 ' same price •paid =by: the, association, 'less -any associated
39 costs.. ::l\ \13'.�d:r,ilnr).fir.•
40 .',?: 1i,�y�fe.Jl', �l{ �i i•
•
,rAct, = Division : 2 -(commencing with Section' 66410) ; to
2 accomplish required boundary adjustments' pursuant" to
3 fl subdivision (b) of Section 66912 66342, including,,but not
r 4. r:; limited• to, lot line adjustment, voluntary merger, merger
5, : and . resubdivision, amending- or' correcting .a : final or •
.6:4 parcel map, • reversions :to acreage, 'new tentative maps,
7 new parcel maps, or new final maps...;J`
8 ; ; (b) The local agency may reject a procedure proposed;
9 by the , association pursuant to subdivision (a) only if it
10i i determines that the; procedure does not provide for an
11 : orderly transition from the existing boundaries to . the
12,,, :proposed " boundaries, does not. accurately - describe the
13 location of new boundaries, or creates boundaries which:`.'
14 are not consistent with the general plan; If a local agency
15 rejects a procedure, it shall concurrently or within 60 days
16 : i recommend a 'substitute procedure which accomplishes
17 . the same purpose. If the local agency fails to recommend
18 a substitute procedure within 60 days after submission of , 4,
19 ,,the applicant's proposal pursuant to Section 66042 66342,', i-
20 the local agency , shall ' permit euse, rof •:the:; procedure
21 proposed -by .the: association. 1 • ,
22 ; (c) : Upon its approval ofthe ••boundary adjustment.
' 23, map, the local, agency shall not :, approve • or permit
24 ;,recordation of . an individual : property..: boundary
25; :;adjustment on parcels which have not yet been conveyed
26. 1:by a member to the agent for the association or acquired
• 27 by the association and conveyed to the agent: •1i,
28 .;t ,''Fr;:
29 -f 4. ,Attiele 8 ef:
30 =:' r< a ;� • Y.'',Projccts
!•
32:;:' ;t::;;?iCHAPTER ,5. . IMPLEMENTATION. OFLAND
',:•t.;
33j •; l;• Ly ;READJUSTMENT PROJECT': t."-
34;,:,r , ,
•_a
t
• 351 :66959:::~ ,; „ , . a 'S.
36 ;; :• 66350.: For l the purpose of aiding and cooperating in
37 ;the planning, undertaking, constructing, or operating of
38:. a,, -,land' , readjustment project:: located within its:•
' 39'" jurisdiction, •, any public ; agency.; may . do ;: any-. of .-I the• •
40,.following ;:: 1 ;r,
i -(a) Dedicate, sell; convey, or -lease any:ofits property
to :the/ association: f °r ?1 + t ` ,'.. , J`.1:7;) 1-
(b) Provide '. ''•`-parks; _, ! 'playgrounds, . •, f recreational,
• 4 • community,': ,,educational, water, sewer, r or drainage
f.': 5' facilities, ' or ` any other :° works 'which it is otherwise
6,, empowered to provide adjacent to, or in connection with,
7 the land readjustment project. -‘1 c ,
8 , _ (c) Furnish dedicate, vacate;: close ' pave, • install,
=9 grade,• regrade, plan, or replan streets; roads, roadways,
10 , : alleys, sidewalks; or other places, which it . is , otherwise
11; empowered to provide. , ;.. • i
• 12 t° (d) , Relocate , and redesign Iti:.any public ;:services,
,,13 easements: F : _ ; r;. ' 1 :. '^ : 1 ,
14 :,,x (e) Provide technical assistance and services which it
• .15 . as, otherwise empowered to provide: ° _'. .•
.16 (f) .Provide relocation services and financial assistance
17 which Atis . otherwise empowered • to undertake to
Y.18* households, businesses, and nonprofit. organizations, if
19 any, who are tenants to be displaced in connection .with
-`20 .i., land readjustment projects. -.'
• 21 (g) Enter into development agreements ; with the.
,.-221•;: association, pursuant 'to- Article 2.5 (commencing with,
23 Section 65864) :of Chapter 4 of Division 1.
• 24 , (h)• Accept . or furnish any money, grants, goods; or-
25 . services from any federal agency, public agency,or any -
26 ; other/ person for -.the-,:benefit of the : land readjustment
-27 .project.- ,,.; t
28 .r_
., '
29 , 66351: If . an owner . of land located in the land
30 readjustment area is unable or unwilling to convey the
31. land to the agent, but_ is willing to sell it, ' then the'
32 association governing --body 'may, pursuant to the,
33 ; governing instruments, acquire the land by negotiated
ii34 :' purchase. If the plan is thereafter repealed or amended
• 35 to exclude the land from the land readjustment area, the
36 agent shall dispose of the acquired land by first offering
37 the land to , the former landowner for repurchase at the
38. same price, paid lby2 the. association, less .any associated
39 , e of • i , � �i1; 4 =
;� • •
40 ').---"-:•.66952-.• ` iy, 1 : ra i : '. j 4tiV/ f
„ •
.J.:;.,:...:..740,:zadmnustratori mayplace a lien onthe land for the pro rdt
• '•••1,11, share , of any improvements provided by. the association
. „ • 12 - Written notice shall. be given tothelandowner:at least 3q
• days in advance•of, the lien, being placed on the.'propeityl
,The- landowner ,-.mayappeal, the.i,lien.„,by :requesting'
15 t public -,-.hearing before the -legislative,- body of ithe lod
. • 16 agency The lien n I. the date': that • an.
Assessment 15.:,established .br.the,distric,t;Administrataii
iirj;66053 t1- tI '•
19(:,:4,1.,6635.3.i.,:r.t..(a) :When. at least,..,-twelthirda three-fourths to
. • - . . :
20
e landowners, ,who also -own at least ,..,--tweltbirdl
21 three-fourths of the- land area; in,,the land readjusimen
-.221'!-Arealaye ;agreed to, convey. their' property to the 'agen
' 23 pursuant to Section 66919 .66319. and . the landowners z.o
• 24.j. any other parcels located in the'land,.readjustment area
.:,;.•,,,•;'.,,,25,1•••are, unable or unwilling to become members. and, agree to
26'-'4,.convey.the.property to the agent, unable or 'unwilling:to
27 improve the property pursuant to the',,specific plan, an.
71.
.• unable or unwilling to sell the property -to the -association,
.
• !b 29i ..)thei.., association , governing •. body, may, pursuant to the
30,:;. governing instruments and with the approval ef the Ieeal
'agency, aerinire the land by cmincnt domain- All eestS:
- . 32 the aegaisitieft shall be borne by the .ftsseeiatien7-1.,:.
• 33 . -(4)- Any eendeniitatierk procedure initiated by the,
te subdivision -Ea* shall eernpIy with,
J,35-k,the-,',- • proccdurc and rcquircmcnta ef Tit1c
,:.'':::,•::,.36,-..feeistrisetteirig with Section 1234479103- ef .Part ef the
ef GiVil,Proccdurc, fiTiti the previsions ef Articli
38 ieernirterteing with -Seefieft 12454103% ef,\. Ghapter. 4,
39 thereof .9641 be applieable..te these itequisitien*
tieit S•efere a localigolcy approves the .tr€1144414.ert ef
•••••.• ”: , . •
it t!ft parcel by eminent dernairt pursuant te subdivisieft
2 the agency shall held a noticed public hearing and, based •
31 kcal agency for authorization to acquire'the ,
•.
4 i, property, by -eminent domain:;;'-'‘fi0 v.4111:1 L- • '
0-.1 5 ',-•-pf (b) Before the local agency authbriies:the association ' ;•';
) 6 to ,iacquiie, the property by .!'eminentj' domain, the
;IL 7 legislative body'of the. local'agency shall hold a nbticed
!,S'f, public c,7'hearing' thereon, • and, based / on ,s substantial
9 evidence in the record,find each of the following: "1
10 (1) q That the•land readjustment -project serves one 'or
publics purposes specified in subdivisions' (a) to (1
12 );- inclusive; of Section 66091 66301.1'''',)35-,i,',.
13 .r•;,' (2), That all. -landowners,' of, parcels to: beacquired
/1.4 ; through eminent domain have been notified' 'of their
i.15 right to file notices withthe local agency declaring their
16 willingness to become'mernbers ofthe association.
17,'p (3)' That -no landowner whohas filed a notice with the ,
18local agency declaring willingness to be a member in the • -
'•19 ,v association ,Isha.11 bec --subject to - 'eminent- domain
, •
20 proceedings until the association hasdemonstrated that
:21', every reasonable means has ' been 'used,- to. 'secure the
membership of that landowner, including provisions for
financing that landowner's 'financial 'obligations to the
C.;24.•: 'association or the'distii.ci.2.•-f.,,''' 7 '.
25 • -(4)- -That the Arkeinsierk .,'ef the' • parccla-in' 'the" land
26 readjustment is c33cntial•t-e•the implernentatierkref 'the
27last€1,fetiOjisstmeist projcct '
28 ,;••;,, „iiTyy1 1•
'• 29 (4) That. every 'reasonable means has been usedto
30-: voluntarily acquire 'the .land at fair market value from
31 landowners 'not wilhng to become members ;.!of the
33 1;-,(-€.)-11, ' • ;- ".
•.;?,34 ,• (5) 'That implementation of the .lanth;readjustment
'35 ',project will not be possible without the acquisition ofihe
;. 36 property. '
37 (6) That the property is not developed 'and used for
38 single-family residential use.
39 cr !). (c) If the local • = agency': • authoiizes;'' thei,4 land
'i•-•,40; readjustment association to acquireproperty breminent
•
. • .
•
1
,•;
: ,.66352.f,,If;an:,assessment:'distict;:is•:formed;pursuant'to
2,.,4Article ,
6r;•3.:,:-(conunencing,'with ,Section.,66352) .• of Chapter:4''and 'th
4 tlandowner of a parcel;or parcels. located in- the district
05'y._unabletor unwilling to become a•member:'and':'agree t
' , t 6 ; convey; the .parcel ,or parcels.,. to the agent, unable v o
,--,?7,:.unwilling 'to sell, . the parcel, or,'parcels. to the association
-F ;f 8- _and ;is unwilling, to.: -pay . for - or. make ;theadmprovement
9 ,-=.required . ; under ;, the0i-specific, '.plan, ; ther;r`�<; distric
administrator may place a lien on the land for the pro rat
1, 11 t share of. any improvements provided by. the, association
12 - Written notice' shall be given to, the :landowner• :at least 3
i ) 1a :days in advance of -the lien; being placed on the .property,
ir1.4 .The landowner :may',appeal, the .lien ,by requesting. a,
115; ;' public . hearing before the aegislative,-body - of ; the loc.
16 agency.,The lien - shall attach ;•on4 thedate ''that an
x;517,;; .assessment; is established. by: the,district;.adxninistrator:
66053 , „
(a) ,When at, least: tweeds three-fourths o
,i , 20 ' :the landowners :who ' � also ' own - at '1; least - twelthirds
21 ..,three fourths of the land areaan.the. land .readjustment
-; f,22.J, -area have agreed to, convey their: property' to the agen
23 .;pursuant to Section' 66919 66319. and the landowners
24 any other parcels located in the land, readjustment area
25 are, unable or unwilling to become members -and agree. to
26 convey the property to the agent, unable or unwilling -to
27 improve the property pursuant to the' -specific plan, and
28 unable' or unwilling to sell the property to the: association,
29, ;,the- • association-{ governing body may,-; pursuant to the
c,30, , governing instruments and with. the approval of the }seal
',1;_-,„31 'agency, aequire the land by eminent domain: All eests..e€
32 the &equ4sition shall be borne by the feaSeeitiCkeit: •;!
33 -(» Any eendeunlation procedure wed by the
34. •,,asseeifttieft pursuant'te subs {-a} shall eemply .
• k,35tc e"'' pre en , :.and requirements ';'ef
36. with Seetien 1230.010) ef Part a' of the
1 37 L. Code. of Givtl Procedure, and the previsions of Article'' 2,
• 38 with Seetien ' 4845734% :eft, Chapter,,; 4
thereof shall be api3lieable:_te these Vis; • J
e€ele a leealagency approves ef the ttequisitieft4
27 ;r - , S;SB 442
Fra pareel-by cmincnt dog pursuant to subdi44siont 4E07
2 the'ageney shall held ft noticed die hearing and; based
s 3;•applyto;thelocalagencyforauthorization toacquire-the
'4 property by eminent domain.
61 5 ' (b) 'Before the 'local agency authorizes'the association
6. into'
',acquire- the • ' property' by ''eminent'. domain, 'the
7 legislative body 'of. the, local.'agency- shall hold a'noticed
8 t' 'public ='Fhearine'thereon: based., on : substantial
,.9 «evidence in the record;''find each of the following:
10 ; 't (1)'-', That .the • land readjustment project serves 'one or
;11. ,more public' purposes specified in ,subdivisions' (a)-'to(1
:.12 ,);''inclusive; of Section 6690166301: :�_ :':...t: �;r't' ' •"'
. 13 (2) That.-. all.: landowners " of ,..parcels -• to- be'' acquired
14 - through eminent domain have 'been . notified' of their
right to file notices with the local-agency.declaring their
16 .',willingness to become members of the association.
?' 17',.x' (3):' That -no landowner who has filed a notice with the
local agency declaring ;willingness to be a member in the
'':19.x; association
shall '''be ., subject' to - 'eminent.. ''domain
20/:: proceedings until the association has demonstrated that
: 21''' every reasonable means has been ' used ' to' secure the
r `:22 ' membership of that. landowner, including provisions for
..23 financing that landowner's ''financial' 'obligations to the
24 association or the' district::
25 . {-4} That the lien ' "e€ ' the : parccla ; in. the land
26 . readjustment is essential to :the ' of 'the
' 27 laud,readjustmentproject. •,: „i
28 •'"' } { �!'•
• • 29 : (4) Thatevery' reasonable means'' has been used to
30 voluntarily ' acquire' the land at fair -market value from
31 `,; landowners :-'not :`willing : to : become' members-rof the
' + 33 ii /�\ }.ati % . r i s..•, l a c r t ,':' "'
(5) .That implementation of the • land' `readjustment
:735,'i project will not be possible without the acquisition of the
s. 36 -property. '.:• ; a > ; ? , s '• •'- "•;'' _, :. ,,•r r.°' •
37 .: : •'(6) That the property is not 'developed and u:sed for
A.38 single-family residential use.' y -'.'.a
.39 (c) 'If , the '.local -: agency .authorizesthe land
0; :readjustment association to acquire property byeminent
•
kti
t 1)7doriiain;;the association shall complywiththe procedure
and` requirements of Titlei`7-(commencingtwith Sectio
�� 3 `x'1230.010) - ofTart `3:of the.1Code 'of;CivilProcedure; ani
v 4 tfArtidle3`(commencingWithSection 1245310)"!OfChapte
�' 5 `'4+ thereof shall :be 'applicable''to"acquisition:1`:i1,4l'Eti? •-: '
(d):'tAll costs of the acquisition of property pursuant" t.
thisfsection, shall be;born'e +by. ;the fassociationA*.:t °
(e)f'`Notwithstariding?`kany`'.'other:+ provision -'-of law
r., 9-;f compensations 'Mori,` land acquired,,- bb'.: the}:L as'sociatio
10 pursuant tdsubdiviion(ay :hall not include"an , increas'e
'll in •value. of the parcel acquired attributable tothe actions
121; of -•the' association; local +agency,. district'administrator,'or
13 ptublic agency pursuant.'to : this, chaptcr 3 division F s '�
j15f 66354.',Theland readjustment project'.shall',be'effect'ed
'16 upon:: completion of all of'tthe
47-;:r- ;(•,(a) The ).association:•records the]applicable' documents
' 1,'18 which' • are ; needed :to c conmplete'-resubdivision "or! other
19 ..reconfiguration .:' :of' `the ?'.land;" readjustments project
.20,! pursuant : to ' ,the Subdivision Map.;Act, Division' , 2
2•:,,,i2li t(commencing:'with; Section•'66410) ';s
0'() P g y :Vacates:. ' any=pubhc`tservice
% They � ublic�. a enc
23 easements pursuant'to the Public:Streets; Highways, and•.
-•','24=�--Service Easements,':Vacation•,Law;;Part:3"(commencing
25` -,=with Section'. 8300)',.of'-:Divisidn` 9,; of +the Streets: and,
e':^
126•Highways: Cod •, ' � zf a ��• r ..4` ' S r i
`28 to, 663554 Subsequent to recording gall necessary' boundary,
f29radjustments4 ,pursuant, to''':Section;•' .66054 z66354,�' the;
30 E -association' may do. any of the'•following'
3L;(a) :i Authorize. -:the % agent to' ?convey s ito 'any" public.
• :32• agency. all .or.:'a - 'portion •. of -interests '.in .' land : and':
'33 improvements' to• be devoted :to..public. use' pursuant' to
t34 ,,'the +adopted ':specific plan: ' E ," • � : +i : a r
(byl Order' an':appraisal t of all -properties: in the land
.•••:36 readjustment area which are not 'to be retained for
37 -,rights-of-way or other public uses. The appraisal shall be,
• :38 71=used. r, for!apurposes ''of ' considering f offers to. purchase
39.j? iarcels from thea association and shalPbe made. available .
40d to any1mernberc' ,xksE}£t',IL ",4'� �N + F,ras" �k r4
.Direct ,the agent.to sell or lease interests in parcels
tt 2,, in r. the land -readjustment; area: that . • conform; ,to the
, 3, . approved,' -'.boundary; readjustments. mapX-The property
r 4 ; ;may •,be, sold or leased to ,any 'person • or public .agency ;
5: • subject to any limitations; .restrictions; requirements, or
f.; 6 4- convenants which ;,will ->,ensure its , continued.' use in
7 accordance. with the .specific plan, and in a manner that
8;1 will :.'best; ,promote the interests and +welfare.: of the
9�;:association.• However,::before conveying • or.; making a
10 • contract to 'sell land in the land readjustment .area, the
,.11 agent, shall give published notice of intention to contract
412 ;, for the sale of, or to sellthe property,. and within 60 days
•`13 after-, the rst .publication.- of the, notice; • shall give
14 members :-;:fiof the association first right of refusal in
•15• • repurchasing:.. the parcels •:.closest,` to.. their.. -;original
16 ,,ownership; at ; the appraised value.' Members'' shall be
17.•;,entitled to provide as ,consideration for all those .parcels
-18 all or • part, of their pro rata; interest in the association as
-19 full or partial :payment fora parcel.
2014 , ; 66056: '';'. r ,! .: r . , . r,
21 66356. ; All legal 'instruments • recorded , in •connection
22,; •with 'the, -sale, lease,,, or other conveyance pursuant -to
23,, Section 66055 66355 of parcels in a land readjustment area
24-, to. members,: public agencies, or persons shall be clearly
25: headed; in bold face type, as a transfer of real property
26 from. " . Land .Readjustment Association" and
27 shall 'be recorded- with a resolution from the association.
28 + authorizing the sale,, lease, or other , conveyance of the '
29 parcel, ' signed . by ..all members of • the association
30 governing body. .The resolution shallbe mailed to all
31; members,of,the association and the local agency.'10 days
• 32 prior to recordation of these documents.: Upon
33 ; : recordation, the resolution • and 'instrument of
34 .. conveyance shall create a conclusive presumption as to
135,1 the validity of the sale, lease, or_.other; conveyance, absent
36 fraudulent: action: ;.' _,v'
37 j 66057. !• t
38 , • 66357 After, disposition f of • all parcels the association
39, governing body • shall; in accordance' with procedures
40 :outlined in the governing instruments,pay; all remaining
•
ts-•"".
_B442•
1 costs and disburse funds to; :members:, i Funds <;'shall sbe
224'disbursed-, based,-upon'the 'pra:.rata,•._inter'est`+ of each
M�3dnember3after,payment.oftlieir pro rata shareiof project
c(i571 41:669581r.,:) bar -7;1. r • . ;.. .
;c:4),7 rlocalF:agency Jmay, pursuarit-to''Chapter13
" o7.- 2(ebramencing;with:Section 54990) of Part..1 • of Division 2;
8' impose fees' to -I cover; the `.estimated -• reasonable. cost' of
9 . processing and administering applications, petitions, and
10 submissions annder:this..
11 ... 66059. ,.
•12 . •"• 66359. The local agency may adopt an : •:ordinance
13 establishing;regulations -,for the• administration of land
+:1r4bireadjustment projects.•The'regulations shall be consistent• ,
'15 • with this chaptcr.division.-The-adoption of an -ordinance
• 16 pursuant : to this section is,. not t.required. before • a land
117 (readjustriient ;association.rsmay, apply' .for,ra oe:-:„ receive
.18 . approvals pursuant tothis
ffdivisio`n.t�',`_f
i19(";L4 060 .moi tris.chaptcr
•'20 66360. Nothing in. this division shall be construed to
;2l limit; •ororestrict the,use of: any' of.:the ,procedures 'of the
r221.u;Subdivision ?Map Act; ;Division_ 2, ;(commencing +with
23 !! vSection 66410), in effecting a land readjustmentproject
x'24(13,.\`n'
25 + Article 97:,,..)41darliftstrfteftt of Pftblie Agency SularliiFirlerl
t : T. . to Sale or_ Dispesal� ' : ;, r
27
CHAPTER ; 6:.rt'T READJUSTMENT OF PUBLIC AGENCY:}:a
(29011. EC;Si. sDIVJ»ED.L'ANDSi PRIOR TD:`SALE:,ORtDISPOSAL~`.._
ia0 ; .•
x�E� rrr°I.^t f. to?f.F:.�- ti.f C2'r (',je.i:: {;tF .a r�_,..�cr �{r. +�',. ti7
J
31' Article 1. : Declaration sof.State: Policy
4•32.w:c.)- !.i
33 66075 •
X34' : ,u66375:anti (a).,tThe Legislature •'finds:. and declares that
5.i nany publicagencies,:throughout the state have acquired
f •parcels+; characterized,:b3 `:the :problems 'described
-137 ,_Section W394'66301, and that some of these parcels may;
r3$i :ifs, the ,=foreseeable ;future, be.. declared' .tor, be -excess . or
39 surplus property. .+ Parcels . proposed , to. :.: be '1:sold for
40 delinquent . property; taxes; often, are , characte'rized by,
SB 442
t.h 1 i these` problems, as 'well:.:... ,r•
rie2';. '+.(b)'. -The LLegislature further finds and declares that it
3.:. is ; contrary.' to • thepublic interest to dispose; of, these
4 excess, surplus, or terkleerleri tax -defaulted parcels which
5 cannot be reasonably used in a manner consistent with
;''F 6 : , applicable land use. regulations, and that public agencies
.117 , should take reasonable action to prevent the release 'of
- 8 these 'parcels. on :the; private market::•
10 Article 2.ia',Definitons.''./. t:/ 7i, ,•
,
11 ;.r._ ; .
• 12 ,: • 66076 1.1 f ,.: ; ..•r. ,.. .. ..., . �r _
;13 • 66376. As -used in' this article chapter:,,1.1.,11. `,»-
-14 : (a) "Excess or surplus"•means subject to sale or sold by ,
'15 a, public agency pursuant to any of the following:
16 . (1) 'Section 11011.. ' ° . } -11
,17
-
,17 : r. • (2) .:`Article 8 (commencing with' / Section' 54220) ','of
18 Chapter 5 of Division , 2 of Title 5.
• 19 ' (3) Chapter 5 (commencing with . Section 66907) ; of
20 Title 7.42. ;;;:; ;.,,,,:,t. Y_:.•:r .,:,: _,.,;.
21 1, (4 ). ' Implementation . • of ' .a ' ; coastal ' '.'restoration ` plan
22/, approved ' • pursuantl,'', to ',Section - 31208 - i.of the `:Public
23 Resources Code. ", . .
24 (5) Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 33200), of
25 : Division 23 of the Public Resources Code. '
26 . (6) Section 118, .118.1 or 118.6 » of the Streets and
27 Highways Code.: .
28 _::' (b) ."Local planning'. agency".means the 'planning
29 agency designated pursuant to Section 65100 by the local
30 agency having jurisdiction to approve subdivision of real
31 property' subject to this• article. :' - -''
32 : (c) `Parcel' means -any existing unit of real property
33 or interest therein.
X34 ; • '(d) .' "Qualified building site" means a parcel suitable
135 :'for construction' of an 'enclosed permanent structure
.36 ' intended for human ; habitation or » occupation . or for
37 storage' ' of • animals, - process equipment, goods, or
38 : materials . of :. any kind , . under = applicableland use
'39 regulation., .r"t:,:,, ;;tt- s ,.`:.;•:; }.;::r,. ? f,y,
'40 {,3. cc _r:
,,5"+:{..'('�"l :.al�'�45: +;iii; :�-r Mt�� 11 Y. '7 1 ,ji 1'ls.)'x1itii!.+i~i:�i tb fT'
,t
•
'
•r.
1, Acts Division 2 r {commencing ;with Section.66410) , to
2 _` accomplish required boundary adjustments: pursuant to {
3, isubdivision (b) of:Section 66946, 66342,•includingSbut not.F;
...A. un.ited:to, lot line 'adjustment, voluntarymerger;merger:'
.5r,, and 'resubdivision; arriending orrl correcting' -"a final or
,6' :'parcel; map, • reversions : to.: acreage,, new tentative maps, '
7;4 new 'parcel maps; or• new•final maps., `t' , ? ?ck'} ;�
8 , !
(b),' The local agency;may,reject a procedure.proposW
..9:,r; by, the ; association pursuant to •.subdivision (a) .- only 'if
'10;=r determfries that the procedure does not provide for an
11.:: orderly transition from the •:existing • boundaries to
• 12'1proposed' boundaries,. does not .accurately describe the
13 'i location of new boundaries, or: creates boundaries which
14 dare not consistent with the generalplan.,'If a local agency'
'-15 . rejects a procedure, it shall concurrently or within 60 days:
16 ;: recommend a"substitute .procedure which accomplishes',
17' ;• the same.purpose:- If the local agency fails to recommend
18 ti; a substitute procedure within 60 days after submission of ,
19•:'{the:applicant's proposal' pursuant to Section 66342;'»
20.. the local. ' agency :shad' permit (:use '-oP` the, procedure:;
21•! :proposed-by;the; association.F ; :T y' �r
«! -(c) ';Upon its approval of•:'the=).boundary,;adjustment:
= - 23 !„Map, . the local. •agency `shall . not . approve or permit'.
24 : r recordation >' of- r an x; individual : property . boundary Y;
':,` 25,. -;adjustment on parcels which have not yet been conveyed.'.
26..t, by a member to the agent for the association or. acquired-:
• 27 -_by the. association and conveyed to' the agent: $t:E,'7 30
29r Article 874,1mplerftefit4ieit ef..l -
Yit.dSjt (.'+4=';1
'31t r} ,
CHAPTER 5. IMPLEMENTATION OF.LAND
- j i)t1READJUSTMENT PROJECT°' °r a,
34,-ET.1•! , ' til. aYf d 4N ,� ; c
351, �T 66059:.;•~; ... ' r , . `t ,� Y;
'36,:i•: -..66.75a; For. the • purpose of aiding and' cooperating in -
, ' `- • 37i the planning,. undertaking; 'constructing, or operating of
38:6 a; -=land.: readjustment project located within its •.
39 - jurisdiction, any , public . ; agency.r. may of the
40 .fo wing =F,r. do any,.
llo ; i y . �=n ' T'ji ,� � s',• !j �'�i �'f . �g �,
•
(a)',Dedicate, sell; convey, or'lease`:any of'its:property
to -the association: .,
Provide `i'. sparks,`* vplaygrounds, 5A{':recreational,
community, educational, 4 ::water, ' sewer, :f or';,' drainage
facilities,;4or''' any,' other ;-:works, {'which ' it is '.otherwise
6 1,empowered to provide adjacent to, or.in connection with,
7 _the land readjustment project.'"
� i 8•;:A ,(c). Furnish; -, dedicate, ':vacate, close;i? pave,' • install,
s ; 9 '•` grade,•• regrade, plan; or replan streets,' roads; 'roadways;
,10 = alleys,: sidewalks, ' or other places, which' it is'; otherwise .• ,.
=f 11
empowered to -provide:
(d)" Relocateand �redesign:Is:.anyttt;publiOnrservices ,
13. easements:
C'14 .r'y'a (e) - Provide technical, assistance and services which it
�SB4
;15 •ris. otherwise empowered' to provide.:-_.- ,..'s.
x.16: `(f).- Provide relocation services and financial assistance
''`'17 which .;it''is,-otherwise.-'empowered "to-Y•undertake to
`18 households, businesses,and nonprofit organizations, if.
19` any, who are tenants to be displaced in connection -with
q;20 land readjustmentprojects:
21 (g) Enter into development agreements with the
k�22t, association, pursuant' to Article 2.5 - (commencing with
'1,23:- Section 65864) .of Chapter .4 of Division 1. }.. ".
24 ,+x (h) : Accept or furnish any money, grants; goods; or
25 , services from. any federal agency, public agency, or any"
'4126 , other; person *for =.the:3:benefit .of the :land : readjustment`
.27 . project a>5 !a 71�:t. �, .t,� °r:txr t.`r���; ,�,�. r _,°cr,•:3 :`;' '`'
28 66951-:. ! s- :'
29 ; 66351: If an owner "+'of .land located in- the land.
^301';:readjustment area is unable or unwilling to convey the,
4,31 land to the agent, but, is willing to sell it, - then the'
32 , association'.: governing ' body may, ".pursuant to the
X33 .` governing instruments, acquire the land by negotiated,
34 purchase. If the plan is thereafter repealed or amended', ,
'.k35 :' to exclude the land from the land readjustment area, the.
• ;36 : agent shall dispose of the acquired land by first offering
37 • the land to the former landowner for repurchase at the
38, same' price, paid iby the. association, less any associated
i 39 costs.
:x°40 r::>~;.660527-'
p66352If an.,assessment7;distict:is formed pursuant'tol
;fp2, Article r• ::,'),. , with;' 4/SOction- :66025Y1 2
,i,sip3 i;(con rnencing;'.w..ith:Section 66352);,'of:Chapter,4'.and the
''„,4 -landowner., of a parcel,or.`parcels:located-'in=theidistriet
t Tunable; or, unwilling. to Jbecome, a member`,:and 'agree t9
4fi6 .convey; the. parcel or"parcels.::to ;the' agent,-,, unable' oij
',r 7 i;unwilling ;to sell the parcel or.`parcels. to ;the.3associationll
f 8 t and, is unwilhng ; to ipay ,for or . make ,, theitimprovements),
1 9 required ,;under. - the. 'specific } L :'plan, s_the'_. j-,'distric
-107,`tadministrator may place a lien on the land the pro rat
11 share of, any -improvements provided by the, association
..12 Written notice' shall. be given to'the.landowner:at least 3
51.3:,:j days in advance of+the lienbeing placed on: the 'property
14 .The' , landowner inay,' ,appeal,; the. � lien: by :requesting:
;15 x public: -hearing before the legislative body -, of ;the lona
16 _ r agency., The; lien shall _attach e. on ` the date that 'an
3;17 assessment; is established, „districtby; the . administrators ':'
18 :ni E r'/..� - `i §' 7 ", I F if'• Y 1.'``l7 ?. j
.119, ;.a,;1,6635.3.,,.,' :;:(a} ',When, at.;least! twe/thi ds three three-fourths,
':;-the
the , landowners : ' ;wh,o , also � •-.own .� at least S�
, 21 _;;;three fourths: of .the land area; in'the... land-,readjustmen
j 22 s, area .have agreed to,. convey, their: property: to the agen
23' ,,;pursuant to ,Section' 660-19.66319, and : the.landowners 4o
24.j any other parcels located in the. land.' readjustment area
.1;:,,25],; are: unable or unwilling to become members and agree'to
26.1 convey. the property,to the agent, unable or.unwilling:to
27 improve the property pursuant to' the: specific plan, an
28 unable or unwilling to sell the property to the -association,
'.)29,:.;the, association; governing body may, pursuant to the
1) 30,-; governing instruments arid with the approval. ef the leeal
r; 31 ' agcncy, aee the land by eent domain: All eests:
32 - the rtequisitieft shall be berne by the .asseeiatieft,.•
33 . -(4)- isety eetiderorkatieft pie irAtiated by the
;34 aasseeiatien Witte {a3-, shall comply with.
:'..€35-k,-;,.the-''.'preeed es ; s,and ,.requirements ef
36,.: with Section 1230.010) ef Part .3: ef .the
Proccdurc, and the previsiees of Miele' a
X38ieerfirfterkeirkg with . Seetiee 4.-24573403-% Giapter. c 4
-;-:•;:.39,vitikereef.shall:be applieablc to these aee -efts: •
4� .I{e} e a leeal agcncy approves:of the a tel!.
o'ltl a Pareelby. crnindnV derea4ri piirStiftikt to seh� (a),
2 :, `the "agcncy'shall held• s rketieedpie h-earirti and based
�5 3r ,apply, to?the local agency for authorization to"aoquirethe,,
4 4' ,P P n'�,, ro er kb -Y( -eminent'
.domam: <<.
(b) - Before. the local. agency authorizesthe'assodiaiion'
�o. 6-"i�to ,'acquire the property" by . eminent=': domain, � the
legislative body of the. local.' agency shall hold a'noticed
8' public :.hearing'��thereon `and,: `based. on substantial
i9:,:'evidence 'in. the record,' -find 'each of the following:
(1)t.That.the land readjustmentproject serves one or
711.':fmore •publicipurposes :specified in, subdivisionsL(a) to (1
:12 "ic.):, inclusive; of Section -€690-166301
:13 :E=''(2),That`'.all.i landowners -of ',parcels.; to • be;''acquired
.,-.1.4R• through eminent domain' have ' been ., notifiied "of their
x.15 right to file notices. with the local -agency declaring their
willingness to become'members of the association.
That -no landowner who has -filed a notice with the
;18 local agency declaring, willingness to be a member in the
-.19; t- association shall;{ be' :' subject to : 'eminent r ' domain
20;;t proceedings until- the association has demonstrated that
21:1': every reasonable =means has' been "used.' to. -secure the
j-!22'; membership of that'landowner, including provisions for
23 ,financing that', landowner's 'financial'obligations to the
424.- ' association or the' ' '
."4-f 25 ; .E4).: Tha - the t " 'ef ' the' ' parccls' ' :t416 land
',. 26 is 'essential. to :the ' ' .ef the
'�' 27 land readjtraeikt projcct. •
: • r:
(4) :` That. every''reasonable means has been used"to
30 , voluntarily' .acquire' the -land at fair .market value from
`'; 31,:`landowners :'not :'willing .: to ' become ' members {_'of the
ii33 r'?•
(5) That implementation of. the land preadjustment
'n35:,:.aproject will not be possible without the acquisition' of the
X36 .property. f' jrr;a;<' ; +.•
- (6) ' That the property is not developed and used for
38 -4 single-family residential:use. ' ,
(c) . If the local agency ,-'.authorizes - 'thee ` land
readjustment association to acquire property byemineiit
J.4./ • ;Au can
WiPdortiain;theaSsOciattiOn. :shalt Comply,Withlbepiticedures
.p2., and: reqnirethents ofTitletf(CornmenCing! with. SeCdOn'
-IF:4230.010) a Pate3 :Ori Mei Code- 'oPCIOPPibeedi.ire;and
,.,_,-• .y.,4-.-•?i.krbble. 3( (commencing With Section1245)310)6f,chapter
.'..'.1,1,t5 ,4.i there -of - shall. 1;,•e•applicable-..to.: acqnisitioni ','.1:'.1,''-,--• • g -•:,.:
• - -" • : , -11,6, ;:•?1•1 ( d) ,i All costs of the; acquisition Of ilroperty pursuant:. ta
,.,
41,4 this section shall, be ;borne-b.},7th ' aSsOciation.V.41',;,12 ,4";•:.
(e)F'),i'• NotWithstaridineany4'otherj,fprovisiOn.4Of.' law,:
„ ':•.'',...' f;: 9.z.reOmpensatiOni. qor-'" lan& I acquired by , thassOciation
',-16, , pursuant to subdivision (a) Shall not include ankinerease'
! 1 • .
J1-141-1•Value:ofthe parcetaCquired attributabletcithe actions.
. • ,
. r,• '•-;:.,- •:',..,:,,-:-:•_.;,.-..,,•, ,', ,,•f-,12 iOf• 'theasSoOi,atori loCF,a:_.gencyi'districtadministra)„t,por,•",, ,.. ,.O..
r
'13 "public agency pursuant4o this haptcr'diiFion,p•
.
.,-- .,,•,F : . 44 1:t.pq,16€0521..c1.•..r,r•'';, ,"0•1'1?.0,1,-1,,, 1-t,:p• ;..ii4,:;,-,-;-y,lkE-1.!-,••.'il
, • • .,. . . . 4 • . . , •
''••• , '
15 1:7..:!11. 66354.. 'The land readjustment projectslialllpe:effected
).:,:,',;•••!7-;,,-, 16 upon .completion of all 'of ;the :'following: . .• ..1..',,;,
• . ,-.,',::::,',,,', 47',,*•,(;(a)1iTheiaSsOciatiOn:records the applicable doCurnents,
-V-;';,',•-.18,1Which.:are' -nee'cl.ed --tOr'Conaplet0.4esubdivision or other
,:,•''?„`2-‘, :19... reconfiguration ,''..ofthel.A. land' readjustnient ,' project•
. .., -,,.„ '• ,•'-':: 20 ! pursuant to the :Subdivision • Map, ,•Act;;:',Divisionfr-`,2.
. .,..•- •, -:-.,,s
•:.:',.. i=,: ; .'210: -4cominenqing'with::,SectiOn:'66410).;cfr; '.,!.:••N ., -u. ',-,1 •;-, A3-! • -. ' •
. •.'''.,::;,':•:,, .422 t",P.P(13-)The,',-public•-'.ageridy' 'Vacates :'''anyl,piiblicxServiCe':
23J, easements pursuant to the3tiblic.•Streets; Highways, and
• I
. . • • ‘.. '' . 24,s, Service-, Easetnents 'Vacation Law, Part '3"(corninencirig
•'1256.with'' Section ',8300)., OfW:DiviSidn.;:"1:9.fof?'•theiStreets', arid
, • , .„,,, t.. „,1.;,. ,.p „4,1I., :;, ,..: --;:•..: :,:t :, .'ii:.....:,',; , ..: ,,,i,
'.. • - . :,;: • : 126" Highways' Uocke...4q:7:-=:',M,ti.41:,!:4i.; ,-q.,.„.,i,.!,•-.t.1...:,,,.-, ,.ir.,.....,...,'`,.!. ..'f'
- 1 f'. :* 2,./i.i' .€6056;.y....:: ')'',•?,•':,-ry.,.4,i,07i0,, ::..,-; 1ii.iv•;•..4.],t,,,t.:4.1-k.;0 t;;;Ik''-
.. , , .
. ‘ .
• ,, - -. ,.. '28! t(,),663554 Subsequent to recording all necessary boundary.
• '.','',',./.'":•;'.: .,,29::s adjustmentS_ pursuant: to Section 66051 '',.66,354 `,,,:th&
,... . , . ., • „ , „
',.r.'",`-•:30 °association. may 'do any `ot the' tolloWing:,.:,!''','•N%t.',-;fi.,:o:A•
,31'1(a).-IAUthoriZe:',:the'f agenttol,eorivey .',.to,•-••anyi,' public.
• .. -
32.i agen60,f'all .•,•lor, .'a.. 'portion ' of ,I,„'interests ,..,•iri'l, land •', and',
...: 133 . ithprOvetnents ',to, be ' devoted to public use pursuant to:
: : 1-.- (.34t''';IstheadOpted,SpecifiC- plan.:•:,-..).'t"c..-,i.,:',,-s. :) ,;,,,'.i.,. -i••'.:..,..,; ,•,•i
' ,• , ...' 35,',;., (b) Order Jan'4ppraisaltof.a.11.•Properties. in the land
36
. ..„.,
•-.;-.._',:i,, • ";••,..36 - readjustment area which are not' to be !retained for''
•,
,',':•'.::,,• .. 37 -rights-of-way or other public uses. The appraisal be
,•-- ,'- • .:. ••• :38d)tised.5,foriptirposes 'of ' considering l offers to purchase
, ; -' .,:i39.1) parcels from thel.assOciatiori. and: shall'be.made.,:aVailable
• '.- '.'1.,.5.' 404 ktoi• -anylinemberi ',',. ONO .
.. :1;1
' ' r•
, .• •, .. • . f ' ,
• , , • , . • . .
•
442,
--pirectthe agent to sell or lease interests in'parcels
the fr, land :readjustment l area- that conform .to the
approved,' boundary,, -readjustment, map The property
4,) may ,,be sold or leased to .any person or public , agency
5 subject to any limitations; restrictions; requirements, or
6,,-,convenants' , which will ; ensure its continued:,use -in
7• accordance with the.specific plan, and in.a manner that
8.5 will bestpromote , the interests , and . welfare , of the
9 ,association. , However,' before conveying, or making a
• 10 .2, contract to •sell land in the land readjustment area, the
11 , agent, shall give published notice of intention to contract
for the sale of, or, to sellz:the property, and within 60 days
.13 A after Ithe :,first ;.publication of - the, notice, shall , give
' 14 .; members of the -association first right of - refusal in
• 15:..c repurchasing,: the -1 parcels • closest: to_, their original
, ownership , at , the- .a.ppraised • value. Members shall be
,17.;_entitled to provide as consideration for all those parcels
•18 , all or part of. their pro rata interest in ,the association as
19 full or partial payment for -a parcel.
(20 66056-: ',! ,=,'
21. • 66356. All legal instruments 'recorded in connection
,22 with. The, sale, lease, or other conveyance pursuant to
23,. Section 66055 66355 of parcels in a land readjustment area
24 to, members,public agencies, or persons shall be clearly
25.,- headed,, in bold face type,.,as a transfer of real property
26 from -" Land Readjustment Association" and
• 27 shall be 'recorded with a resolution from the association
28 •authorizing the sale, lease, or other conveyance of the •
• •29 ;parcel, signed by, , all members of the association
30 governing body. The resolution shall be mailed to all
31 members of the association and the local agency 10 days
32 prior to recordation of these documents. Upon
33 ; recordation, , the resolution and . instrument of
34 conveyance shall create a conclusive presumption as to
135the validity of the sale, lease, or other conveyance, absent
36 fraudulent action,
37 660577, - , „-, , r , • r, „ ,
38 66357. After disposition of all parcels the association
39, governing body shall, in accordance with procedures
, 40 outlined in the governing instruments, pay all remaining
•
.•
• --S.
'N.
i 42
1 • costsand disburse funds ,to, _members:+i-Funds<.'sliall ibe
12 Alisbutsed-, based ).upon: i the :pro:.rata}•_interestr4 of each
sz3d xrzemberi after> payment of their, pro rata
share of project
l i:4r \co,Sts.'."�F.i!�i �'?`.j - 4S�i E:.'�9a iNs 'f �' '' `.. `=�Y�i 475.3 3�,fi '+ii�.J�l �.� r�iG! �.,�{'a.� `.;:,ic t`
t5fd ::rr:66058...0t) '1'3tAldE_:I( :?'
6358..1 f,heglocalkagencyJmay, pursuarit:td.-Chapter 13
- 107ez_'(eommencing:with-Section.54990). -of Part.1;of Division 2,
• , 8 impose fees' to l covert the --estimated ,• reasonable i cost: -••.'o
9 processing and administering applications, petitions, and
10 submissions under:this :, • F
11 . , , 66059: . : , '
12 66359. 'The local agency ` may adopt • an -.,..:Ordinance_
13 establishing4egUlatibns4or.'the: administration` .of lan
vl:4bfreadjustmentprojects..The regulations shall be consisten
., 15-with~this chapter diyision.-Ther•adoption of an'ordinance
• 16 pursuant, to this section is,. not !.required before. a lan
�a7 (reaidjustii1ezit ssociation.,=may., :apply.: forrj.'or,':receive
.18 1. approvals pursuant to;this ellaptet=
9 66060.1
• ':20 ' 66360. Nothing in. this division shall be :'construed to
• 2l it limits ororestrictUthe::use of: any., of. :the.procedures of the
- • :12211iSubdivision8Map. Act;,:Division+::2+t..(commencing- wi
23 ')'}S/•1�5ection 66410),yin'effecting a land rreadjiustmentrproject.
J.x�l1i �:. li' t!(,,jjn:s„`�F Ff LA'.�.. �`',�.., .i.'.� •,1.1.,1 .)•' , r:'�:, ,
25 �Atiele 9::.� of PolitieAgcncy 'Su
:641: ise a esal _'
27 • , - •IP •
CH44PTER.6:_1.0READJUSTMENT.:OF. PUBLIC AGENCY} '>
12901...sil5L DLV_JDEDJ`.IANDSi P.RIOR:;TD' SALE OR.DISPOSAL 'w
.1.30-x l0 rrolzi t'i xj1 ::Declaration
31 , ; • 'Article 1. Declaration tofState: Policyz�. ;r1
•
,:3,41, 0iu663Z54;fi •(a).ruThe Legislature.t`finds:�-and. declares tha
;.35i-ilmany publictagencies',throughout the state -have acquire
16 -parcelsnccharacterized rbY .;thea r..,problems 'described
-37. ,lection 66001,66301, and that some.of these parcels may,
innthe ,,foreseeable -:future, be . declared, oto.: be•_`excess . o
39 • surplus property.• t . Parcels. proposed ' to. -be, i, sold fo
40 delinquent ; property ,taxes,. often; are . characterized b
t1 these;problenis,as well.•; t•
'r,(b) : The legislature further finds and declares 'that it
3:: is contrary .to the: public • interest ' to 'dispose l of , these
4 excess, surplus, or tax -defaulted parcels which
• 5 cannot be reasonably 'used in a manner consistent with
!6. applicable: land use, regulations, and that '•public agencies
7• should take reasonable action to prevent :the release :of
8; •: these parcels. on -the) private market:- . ' �r ,�. ,
•.9 r�{`1'"Q as IE•. qi SIC f: § • 'i"j 4•(u•ifi,
:.Article 2. -.Definitions::i., 01.''''''f-
•
,
„
13 ; 66376. • : As' used in this artiele chapter:- .'::'• .'r=
14,. •; (a) ' "Excess or;surplus".means subject to sale or sold by ,
15 a+ public .'agency pursuant to any :of-the_following: •
' 16. ,••(1) ''Section 11011: ,d:, `t'; .s , ..Y ' •
1T • (2):'Article .8 (commencing 'with'. Section 54220) '-:of
18 Chapter 5 of Division -2 of 'Title 5.
19 (3) Chapter 5': (commencing with. Section;66907) of
20.Title .7.42. ,,r:,°" • • :4.,r r
21 (4) Implementation of ' a •'coastal `'restoration ` plan
22/, approved''.pursuant.:to' ,Section.. 31208'• of the';'Public
23 • Resources Code. } .. ', ‘1•"!; . ;
24 • (5) Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 33200) - of
25 .Division 23 of the :,Public 'Resources Code. '
26 (6). Section 118, ,118.1,-' or • 118.6 ' of the Streets and
27 Highways Code.; • , , . ' • . • .. `
28, (b) "Local i plan_ning.. •agency means- the 'planning
29 • agency designatedpursuant to Section 65100 by the local
30 agency having jurisdiction to approve subdivision of real
31 property ' subject '.to this article. ' ` 2-
32 : (c) "Parcel" means -any existing unit of real property
33 or interest therein.
34 : (d) -"Qualified .building site" -means a parcel suitable
135' r'for construction ` of an . enclosed ' permanent structure
36 ° intended :for: humanhabitation or occupation' or for
.37 , storage', :, of , animals, ., process equipment, • ' goods, or
38 '• materials:, of::: any • kind , . under applicable- •land use
.39 regulation.----
40
egulation.40 rr' :' is l.'S, s 3`f s,f:�i :.�, J f; t s9? S4 ar.iflrYjiitii.r •01,
•
i4 L� rf.•5.� 1y�" M i 4� ! , 1 1 r 1 / .���
e)� Responsible public agency: ;means the publi
2 : agency?. that; carries, out:; the:,. sale,, or.2 other dispositiono
3 •lands. _ r a t t•,� r 4 r,' <, m �i s "�P�i t" , l>::
1`evS.. ab 7 L i.t�r:
5<l i- ..().'+ 'Tax=defaulted'' ;- means ( subject..tO,-,:sale fo
6. :? delinquent's property Y taxes pursuant•'''. ' to`.' : Chapter'. `
>t 7 °:X(commencing with Section 3691) of Part:' 6''of Division
8 :` of the Revenue. and Taxation„Code i r . rir 4 5
9
660-1-17
10 '66377. "i.7'(a)-.7The.'requirements of this article chapte
11 . do not apply to excess or surplus lands owned or held b
{ 12 "the Santa, Monica Mountains .Conservancy or the Stat
13 Coastal Conservancy if title is transferred upon sale by
14; instrument containing _ restrictions, enforceable by th
15 __ grantoragainst the_. grantee:-andc;successors , ininterest,
16 doing .either of the following. ' `t 4 . ' y '
:Prohibiting:development of any qualified buildin
;
1 boundary readjustment would address, :to :•'a'significant
2 degree, ; the, problemslimiting the . development. of the •,9
3 , parcels:. !
:- 5 .` 66382.., (a) ,. Notwithstanding any. provisionof state or
- 6 local law, except4.as provided in subdivision (b), the
7 responsible public -agency may use any procedure in. the
8 . Subdivision, Map 'Act,-: Division . 2 . (commencing with 4
9 Section . ` 66410) -+ to . accomplish '. these >' ' boundary
10adjustments,'• including,... :but : note limited • .to, ' lot line
:11 adjustment, voluntary merger, merger and resubdivision,
12 amending or correcting a final parcel or subdivision map,
13 ' reversion to , acreage, - reversion -to - acreage and t;
14 resubdivision, new tentative: maps, new parcel maps,. or -
15 s newfinal subdivision maps. , . • ' ' 4
16 • (b) The local agency may reject a procedure selected �.
;.,17 i• by the responsible public agency pursuant to subdivision ,"
18 (a), only if it determines that use.of the procedure will not r,•
19 accurately establish, the location . of new :boundaries, or
20 "r, will create boundaries which are not consistent, with the
21 / local agency's :general plan.' If a local-; agency:, rejects a ?
22 •.procedure,'. f it .'shall concurrently;'' or. Within.', 60 . days,
23 recommend .a substitute procedure ;which accomplishes ,a
24 :°.the same purpose. If the local agency fails to recommend
25 , a substitute procedure .within' 60 -days, the- local agency .,-
26 shall ' permit, use:: of :'the'.: procedure,proposed by the
27 responsible public agency.'>�k. fsc ;,•,r /eP�RKf� esA,
29 . 66383. The responsible.`public agency' may -proceed
30 (;according to law *to sell or • dispose of parcels kt
31 : subsequent to recordation of; :boundary :adjustments
32 approved -by. the local agency 1 A
33 • 66084- 1€ • r
34 ;., 66384. (a) Except ' as otherwise provided ` in
35 subdivision (b);-: if the parcels • to be : sold or otherwise,
36 - disposed of by the responsible .public agency are isolated
37 so that boundary readjustments cannot create qualified
38 _ building sites; . the.. responsible :public agency shall
N "i disclose, with any written notice of sale, the requirements
40' 'id, applicable.1and.,use :re gulation:. forqualified building
4 66082:
SB '442
1 sites ` at that'' locationand ' any • specific. factors _ or r
2 i unresolved problems.., affecting development of the ":'
3 subject parcel identified by the local agency pursuant to
4 , Section 66079: ' 66379.
5 1:. (b) f The requirements of subdivision' (a) do not apply
. 6 to excess,- surplus, or tax -defaulted parcels sold and -'
7 .'conveyed. to the owner.or owners of contiguous property
8;'.or to a public agency stk_�=i,;�;x,.:,-e
9 r. rs`j q4 , /•-1 •
10 - Evaluation + as
11 •. .; 1 •
12 r' -i_::, CHAPTER 77.'U -EVALUATION AND TERMINATIONS;:,
13 `! al., , •;.�:; i, . )s ( t ta, +' . ,S .:; t � ( ` , .
14 -.•:•!,66990:::.;.i' ;: :�, r j.. r.
15 . 66390. (a) On or before January 1,:1991, the Office of
16 : Planning and Research :shall submit to the Legislature a •
17 • report • on • the ., extent .Y, to • 'which ' land ' • readjustment • '
18 associations have used eminent • domain.' .pursuant ` to
19 Section 66053 66353.-, .
20 ' i J (b) On or. • before -January: 1, .1992, . the Office ' of
21 •: Planning and Research shall submit • to the Legislature a
22 .:report • on the effectiveness of this •'chaptcr division, ° .•
23 recommended changes, if any, and recommendations as TL..
24 to the desirability of continuing this chaptcr division in
25 force on and after January 1,- 1993. In preparing its report,
26 the Office of Planning and Research' shall consult with '-
27 representatives • ; of • landowners, • - : builders, land
28 readjustment associations,: and- state and local agencies.'
29 ' 'r 6609 ::: F: ;.- <<'., F; .:. ;;. ..•
30 • 66391: 'This division. shall remain in effect only until
31 January 1,:.1993,, and as of that date, is repealed, unless a :? ,
32 later enacted statute, which is chaptered before January '
33 1, 1993, deletes or extends that date.
34 s :: The repeal. effected by this section shall not be
35 construed to deprive any person or public agency of a r•
364. substantial right' which would have existed or hereafter
37 ;:exists had that repeal not been effected, -nor shall the
38 Irepeal effected by this section apply to land readjustment
39 projects for which an application is pending before a local • •
40 t agency: 'on: lJanuary5 1,':1993.: These land readjustment
•
•
•
t`; projects ,shall continue to ,be -governed by the provisions
2 of this eitapt-et division as ,they exist•immediately prior to.
..,
their re eL� aa? i�.�i� h 4• Y �af tr����.`hi
•
sEG
} t.
:SEC. 5. t, . Section.66907d1,1 of the..:Government,;Code is+
amended to read:.•
66907.11....' (a) The: ;conservancy: may.? rnerge,or, split
acquired, lots,adjust..boundary :lines,.- or:'. take (simila
actions needed to ' facilitate ,the .' Y acquisitionand
management of lands.14. = ,; a . « K ... S { •
(b): Whenever the conservancy .sells' or otherwise
conveys real.,' property:, -other than for ;management
purposes, the 'conservancy shall, to theextent feasible,
14 readjust the boundaries, of the parcels, ,or reduce ;:their,
15 developments potential. , r;,r;-- i 5t a " ' t 'E• i <} s `, P2 d r r , ~.1
16 ;d.)- SEC. 21: a :i ; .' ''
17+ .. SEC. 6.. Section 31203 is added to -the Public, Resources
18 Code, to read f = t Y r: _:. ., • . •
19 31203. ' _When implementing a coastal restoration plan,.
20,;• the conservancy'shall, to the extent feasible, readjust the,
`. 21 boundaries of any -parcels ,which
22 ,. the purpose 4 of development;
development potential
T. 24 r: SEG: 57:-.4
} 25; _ SEC. 7. Section .,33203.7,: is
26 . Resources Code, to read: `,'
are. to be conveyed for.
otherwise, reduce,
added to , the .:Public.
27d r 33203.7.:: Whenever the conservancy sells or otherwise
28• conveys real property, the conservancy, shall, to the
";-;°29 : extent feasible, readjust the boundaries of any. parcels
30.: which , are to, 'be,, conveyed ,t,for s: the :' purpose ' of,
31 ,,,development,*„... or,, =,1 otherwise reduce ,developmen
32
33 SEG 6: j
34, ::"' SEC.'8. Section 10100.2 is addedto the. Streets an
'35 "Highways Code, to read:.
,36 ; 10100.2.'', Whenever. •. the,- :; public ' : interest . 1: -. or,
:' 37 5.1convenience . requires, , the legislative.. body of any,
38 municipality may finance any or all necessary costs of a-
;:,39 •'.land readjustment.,: project : pursuant = to- ' the :Land'
40 ,f Readjustment 4 Law,- Division ;.;1.5, (commencing. ::with'
1 Section ,66!.3001 of•Title 7 of the' Government Code.
2 SEC. 9. No reimbursement is' required by this act
3 . pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
4 Constitution for the cost of any program or level of
5 service mandated by this act for which the local agency
6 or school district has the authority to levy service charges,
-7 -fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or
8,', level of service: However, notwithstanding Section 17610
9 of the Government Code, if the Commission on State
10 :Mandates determines that this act contains other costs
11 ' mandated by the state, -reimbursement to local agencies
12 : and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant
13 • to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4
14 • of Title 2 of the Government Code. If the statewide cost
15 of the claim for reimbursement does_not exceed . five
16 hundred thousand 'dollars ($500,000), reimbursement
117; shall be made .from the State Mandates Claims Fund.
HERMOSA REAL ESTATE COMPANY
1001 HERMOSA AVENUE
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254
(213) 376-3421
July 1, 1987
Gregory Meyer, City Manager
'City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Dear Greg,
I am writing on behalf of the Sister City Association of Hermosa Beach to request
time on the agenda of the next City Council meeting to establish the dates of the
annual city/adult visit to Loreto, B.C.S.
We wish to recommend that the official visit take place Thursday, November 12 to
Monday, November 16, 1987. This will be the twentieth year of our Sister City
relationship with Loreto, and we would like to encourage the members of the City
Council to attend, as well as the City Staff, if possible.
On behalf of the Sister City Association, I will again make travel arrangements
for the group visit. We would ask that the city again make arrangements for the
official meetings and/or other activities during the visit.
For your information, the newly_elected mayor of Loreto is: PROF. RODRIGO MURILLO TALAMONTE:
(and we were told he goes by the nickname, "BOLIVI")
Thanks for your help.
Sincerely,
Missy Sheldon.
cc. Mayor Cioffi and Councilmembers DeBellis, Simpson, Rosenburger, and Williams.
Sc,//DoL_
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
ORDINAN E NO. 87-
t't °-\-(0 6./1
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISH-
ING LIMITATIONS ON POLITICAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND CAMPAIGN
CONDUCT.
WHEREAS, California Election Code Section 22808 permits a
City to limit campaign contributions by ordinance or resolution
in municipal elections; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 84308 prohibits
contributions of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or more from
any party while a proceeding involving a license, permit, or
other entitlement for use is pending before the agency and for
three months following the final decision; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is desireous of avoiding these
potential conflict of interests; and
WHEREAS, local government should serve the needs and respond
to the wishes of all citizens equally, without regard to their
wealth; and
WHEREAS, public officials should perform their duties in an
impartial manner, free from bias caused by the financial
interests of persons who have supported them; and
WHEREAS, reasonable campaign contribution limitations will
encourage a broader public participation in the local elective
process and will provide all residents with the real chance of
becoming elected officials;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. Words and phrases used hereinafter
shall have the same meaning as defined in the Political Reform
Act of 1974, as amended, Title 9, California Government Code
1
Ochs, -
1 (Section 81000 et. seq.) as it now exists or may hereafter be
2 mended.
C2044
3 SECTION 2. CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITATIONS.shall
4!'='- contribution, gift, subscription, loan, advance, pledge,
promise of money in aid of the nomination or election of a
6 andidate which will cause the total given by such person
ith respect to a single election in support of, or opposition
8 0, such candidate, including contributions to all committees
9 ,upporting or opposing such candidate, to exceed the sum of two
10 undred forty nine dollars ($249.00). This section shall not
11 =pply to amounts given by a candidate to his own campaign.
12 SECTION 3. ENDORSEMENTS AND SEALS. (a) No person
13 .hall issue any campaign literature or material to the public
14 uring an election which claims or implies any endorsement of
15 : candidate without filing with the City Clerk his affidavit,
16 .igned under penalty of perjury, that he has obtained the
17 ritten consent of such person whose endorsement is claimed or
18 .mplied. (b) No person shall in any manner, on any campaign
19 literature or material, make use of the official seal of the
20 ity of Hermosa Beach, or any facimile or likeness of the seal.
21 SECTION 44. SEVERABILITY. If any provision, or the applica-
22 ion thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the
23 emaining provisions of these sections and the applicability of
24 .uch provisions to other persons and circumstances shall not be
25 :ffected.
26 SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective and be in
27 ull force and operation from and after thirty days after its
28 inal passage and adoption.
2
3
4
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be
ublished in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general
irculation, published and circulated in the City of Hermosa
each.
SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and
doption of this ordinance; shall enter the same in the book of
riginal ordinances of said City; shall make a minute of the
assage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of
he City Council at which the same is passed and adopted.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of
1987.
TTEST:
PPROVED AS TO FORM:
PRESIDENT of the City Council, and
MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach
City Clerk
City Attorney
C;AA oat ^5 a .e,ge
CSI/A241(7c*
fAa4 //2e4
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 87-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING LIMITATIONS ON POLITICAL CAMPAIGN CON—
TRIBUTIONS AND CAMPAIGN CONDUCT.
WHEREAS, California Election Code Section 22808 permits a
City to limit campaign contributions by ordinance or resolution
in municipal elections; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 84308 prohibits
contributions of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or more from
any party while a proceeding involving a license, permit, or
other entitlement for use is pending before the agency and for
three months following the final decision; and
WHEREAS, the City Council i desireou� of avoiding these
potential conflict of interests; and
WHEREAS, local government should serve the needs and respond
to the wishes of all citizens equally, without regard to their
wealth; and
WHEREAS, public officials should perform their duties in an
impartial manner, free from bias caused by the financial
interests of persons who have supported them; and
WHEREAS, reasonable campaign contribution limitations will
encourage a broader public participation in the local elective
process and will provide all residents with the real chance of
becoming elected officials;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. Words and phrases used hereinafter
shall have the same meaning as defined in the Political Reform
Act of 1974, as amended, Title 9, California Government Code
1
d2
{
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(Section 81000 et. seq.) as it now exists or may hereafter be
amended.
elagjAb
ECTION 2. CAMPAGN.CONTRIBUTION LIMITATIONS. No person shall
any contribution, gift, subscription, loan, advance, pledge,
or promise of money in aid of the nomination or election of a
candidate which will cause the total given by such person
with respect to a single election in support of, or opposition
to, such candidate, including contributions to all committees
supporting or opposing such candidate, to exceed the sum of two
hundred forty nine dollars ($249.00). This section shall not
apply to amounts given by a candidate to his own campaign.
(Total amount expended by any candidate on a single campaign
shall not exceed $10,000.)
SECTION 3. ENDORSEMENTS AND SEALS. (a) No person
shall issue any campaign literature or material to the public
during an election which claims or implies any endorsement of
a candidate without filing with the City Clerk his affidavit,
signed under penalty of perjury, that he has obtained the
written consent of such person whose endorsement is claimed or
implied. (b) No person shall in any manner, on any campaign
literature or material, make use of the official seal of the
City of Hermosa Beach, or any facimile or likeness of the seal.
(SECTION 4• VIOLATIONS AND PENALITES. Any person who
knowingly or wilfully violates any of the foregoing provisions
is guilty of a misdemeanor. )
- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY. If any provision, or the applica-
tion thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the
remaining provisions of these sections and the applicability of
such provisions to other persons and circumstances shall not be
affected.
SECTION 6. EFFECT. This Resolution shall apply to the next
General Municipal Election in the City of Hermosa Beach on
November 3, 1987, and every municipal election thereafter.
SECTION 7. NOTICE. The City Clerk is hereby instructed to
give a copy of this resolution to any person who is issued
nomination papers for any elective office in the City of Hermosa
Beach.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the
City of Hermosa Beach on the 14th day of July, 1987.
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PRESIDENT of the City Council, and
MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach
City Clerk
City Attorney
{
1
HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of
the HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
y
1
I
July 8, 1987
Regular Meeting of
July 14, 1987
EL SEGUNDO EMPLOYER'S ASSOCIATION REQUEST FOR CITY FUNDING FOR
LAX TUNNEL WIDENING
Recommendation
It is recommended that City Council:
1. A. Determine that the LAX Tunnel Widening is a regional
concern for Hermosa Beach.
B. Provided all other agencies agreed to funding, set aside
$12,500 for FY87-88 and $12,500 for FY88-89 as a contribution
toward the LAX tunnel widening stuff The funding for this
contribution to be State Gas Tax
- OR -
2. Receive and file this report
Background
On June 5, 1987, the El Segundo Employer's Association (ESEA)
requested that the City of Hermosa Beach make a total
contribution of $25,000 to help pay for a study of the future
widening of the Los Angeles Airport Tunnels, north of El Segundo,
on Sepulveda Blvd. The contribution could be paid from FY87-88
and FY88-89 in payments of $12,500 per fiscal year. The $3
million study will be funded over five years by the federal
government and will require $600,000 in local matching funds.
Analysis
In September 1985, DeLeuw, Cather & Company (Transportation
Engineering Consultants) prepared a report for the City of El
Segundo which summarized the results of a preliminary evaluation
of the Sepulveda Blvd. Tunnel under the LAX south runways.
According to the report, the new Century Freeway, scheduled for
completion in 1991, will terminate at Sepulveda and Imperial
Blvds. The Century Freeway will increase traffic demand on the
northbound tunnels thereby producing congestion in the LAX area..
The tunnel construction could cost up to $76 million. The design
is estimated to cost up to $3 million.
The traffic impacts are directed primarily northbound from
Imperial Blvd. through the LAX tunnel. DeLeuw, Cather's
preliminary study assumes a two way (eight lanes total) tunnel
along with a similar eight lanes on Sepulveda Blvd. through El
Segundo. The City of Manhattan Beach is planning for the
possibility of an eight lane Sepulveda Blvd. There is no plan in
either Hermosa Beach or Redondo Beach for an eight lane highway.
1
•
t
The benefits to Hermosa Beach for widening the tunnels beneath
LAX are small since most of the congestion is anticipated for
traffic traveling northbound on Sepulveda Blvd. (through the LAX
tunnels) from westbound Century Freeway.
The regional impacts of the tunnel widening are greater than the
local (Hermosa Beach) impacts and are discussed in this
memorandum. The choice before City Council is whether it should
or should not participate in this study. If no participation is
desired by City Council the action required is to receive and
file. Assuming participation by City Council is desired the
recommendation at the beginning of this memorandum is the
appropriate action. Therefore, further analysis will respond to
the effects of participation and how best to deal with the
funding concern. The analysis will address:
1. Agencies requested to participate
2. Potential funding sources and their restrictions
3. City revenue and fund balance history
4. The Effects to Hermosa Beach
1.
AGENCIES REQUESTED TO PARTICIPATE
The ESEA has requested money commitments from the
sources:
Funding Source
El Segundo
Manhattan Beach
Hermosa Beach
Redondo Beach
Hawthorne
Torrance
L.A. County
City of L.A./
Dept. of Airports
Amount
$75,000
$25,000
$25,000
$25,000
. $25,000
$25,000
$150,000
$300,000
TOTAL REQUESTED $650,000*
Action
following
City Council has committed fund-
ing.
To be presented to City Council
on 7-21-87.
To be presented to City Council
on 7-14-87.
To be presented to City Council
on 7-21-87.
Action planned not confirmed by
Hawthorne.
Recommendation is pending furth-
er analysis by City staff.
No action taken to date. Pend-
ing further discussion with City
of Los Angeles.
Both agencies will participate.
* Allows for rejection.
Note: The State of California has declined to financially
participate in this study.
2
1
2. POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES AND THEIR RESTRICTIONS
The following are potential funding sources should the City
Council decide to financially participate in the LAX tunnel
study.
General Fund:
State Gas Tax:
3. CITY REVENUE
These monies are unrestricted and may be used
for any lawful purpose. Given other funding
sources, General Fund should be the last type
of fund to use as a contribution.
According the Section 2101 of the California
Streets and Highways Code, State Gas Tax
monies may be used on public streets for:
a. research and planning (includes design)
b. construction or improvements
c. maintenance repair and operations
d. administrative costs associated with the
above
AND FUND BALANCE HISTORY
BEGIN
JUNE 30TH
REVENUE SOURCE * FY FUND BALANCE REVENUE
YEAR END
JULY 31ST
EXPENDITURES TRANSFERS FUND BALANCE
GENERAL (2)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(1)
STATE GAS TAX (2)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(1)
83-84
84-85
85-86
86-87
87-88
83-84
84-85
85-86
86-87
87-88
1,495,349 4,526,485
44,032 5,323,084
21,235 8,819,883
11,116 7,056,781
1,362,834 7,636,044
6,526,785 548,983
7,299,032 1,953,151
7,912,812 (75,482)
7,401,776 579,945
8,063,081 (35,049)
44,032
21,235
852,824
246,066
900,748
496,157 283,218 358,604
421,296 256,776 269,128
405,105 412,171 550,594
383,571 359,900 348,422
411,578 281,867 671,577
525 421,296
(3,839) 405,105
190,807 457,489
(89,291) 305,758
13,792 35,660
(1)ESTIMATED
(2)ACTUAL
4. THE EFFECTS TO HERMOSA BEACH
The City's State Gas Tax Fund is available for this regional
concern. The effects locally to Hermosa Beach are:
1. $25,000 will not be available for local street maintenance or
improvements for the next two years. The FY87-88 State Gas Tax
Fund balance is anticipated to be $23,160.
2. Less congestion for Hermosa Beach residents during commuter
peak hours in the vicinity of LAX.
CONCLUSION
Financial participation by all the contacted agencies will meet
(and exceed) the local match goal for the study, thereby moving
the widening project one step closer to reality.
3
L
Alternatives
Other alternatives considered by staff and available to City
Council are:
1. Receive and file this request.
2. Contribute more or less.
3. Contribute without other agency participation.
Re1s • - •' fully submitted
Ant y Antichv
CONCUR:
vv�
Gregor en eyer
Director of PAX
is Works Ci y Manager
NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT:
Viki Copeland
Finance Administrator
Attachments: Letter from El Segundo Employer's Association
DeLeuw, Cather & Company Report
4
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Chairman
DAVID C. ROWLEY
Rockwell International Corporation
Vice -Chairman
GENE DIAMAND
Xerox Corporation
DAVID J. O'REILLY
Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
THOMAS NEWMAN
Computer Sciences Corporation
RICHARD C. LUNDQUIST
Continental Development
Corporation
FRANK GODOY, JR.
Hacienda International Hotel
DONALD A. SMITH
Hughes Aircraft Company
JOHN B. KILROY, JR.
Kilroy Industries
J. MICHAEL HATELEY
Northrop Corporation
GERALD G. GEISMAR
TRW Inc.
JAMES A. BOWERS
Wyle Laboratories
OFFICERS
Secretary
NANCY BEDONT
Hughes Aircraft Company
Treasurer
JERRY A. SAUNDERS
Continental Development
Corporation
Deputy Director -
Legislative Affairs
TODD GERSTENBERGER
Northrop Corporation
Deputy Director -
Membership
MICHAEL JACKSON
TRW Inc.
Executive Director
DONALD H. CAMPH
Deputy Executive Director
WILLIAM H. BIRTCIL, JR.
EL SEGUNDO
EMPLOYERS
ASSOCIATION
July 1, 1987
The Honorable John Cioffi
Mayor
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Dear Mayor Cioffi:
P.O. Box 547
El Segundo, CA 90245
(213) 640-3403
Recently I wrote you concerning the possibility of
Hermosa Beach participating in the $3 million
demonstration project to increase the capacity of
the Sepulveda Blvd. tunnel underneath LAX. As you
may recall, this project, which was made possible
through the efforts of Glenn Anderson, requires
$600,000 in non-federal matching funds, and we are
attempting to assemble that funding package.
Since the date of my letter the City of El Segundo
has voted to commit $75,000 toward the project.
Other South Bay cities are being asked to contribute
$25,000, with the remainder of the $600,000 to be
made up by the Department of Airports, the City of
Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles.
As you deliberate as to whether this would be a wise
expenditure of Hermosa Beach's funds, I thought it
might be helpful if I provided you with a summary of
ESEA's major accomplishments over the past few years
and also gave you a glimpse at our current work
program (attached).
ESEA's major emphasis in the past 3 years has been
securing the necessary local, State and Federal
funds to make sorely needed transportation infra-
structure improvements in the area. Both employers
and developers have an obvious interest in this ob-
jective. During this period, ESEA has achieved a
number of significant objectives, including:
THE GREEN LIGHT FOR COMMUTERS
Mayor Cioffi
July 1, 1987
Page two
o Winning approval of $254 million to build the
Century Freeway light rail line (in addition to
"high occupancy vehicle" lanes on the Freeway).
o Winning an additional $150 million to extend the
light rail line through the El Segundo employment
center.
o Winning inclusion of $3 million in demonstration
funds in the new Federal transportation bill to
begin addressing anticipated severe congestion in
the Sepulveda Blvd. tunnel under LAX.
o Winning approximately $13 million to add a lane to
the "South Bay curve" of the San Diego Freeway (via
re -striping) between the Marina Freeway and the
Harbor Freeway.
o Winning approximately $3.5 million to widen and make
intersection improvements along Sepulveda Blvd.
o Sponsoring legislation to extend the State employer
ridesharing tax credit allowance.
o Sponsoring legislation to enhance the possibility of
achieving funding for the Rosecrans/Aviation inter-
section.
Obviously, ESEA did not accomplish all this by itself. By work-
ing with South Bay cities and our elected representatives in
Sacramento and Washington, D.C. we have, I believe, demonstrated
the viability of the cooperative approach to improving the traf-
fic situation in our area. While we haven't solved all the traf-
fic problems in the area, we have made a pretty good start and,
as you can see from our work program, most of what we're working
on is now actually outside the city limits of El Segundo.
It is in this context that I would ask that you consider the re-
quest for Hermosa Beach's participation in the LAX tunnel
project. In particular, I would make the following arguments in
support of the request:
o Access to LAX from the south will be critically
affected by the completion of the Century Freeway
and the resultant congestion in the tunnel. Good
ground access to LAX is important for both residents
and citizens of the South Bay.
Mayor Cioffi
July 1, 1987
Page three
o Many residents of Hermosa Beach work north of LAX
and use the tunnel on their way to and from work.
Even more residents will be employed there in the
future. Commuter peak hours tend to coincide with
the peak hours at LAX, so a badly congested tunnel
will have a direct and negative impact on a
substantial number of your citizens.
o The "all for one, one for all" philosophy that ESEA
employs only works when we all work together to sup-
port each other's goals. While this project may not
be a number one priority for the City of
Hermosa Beach, the cooperation which you may seek in
the future on projects closer to home will be easier
to achieve if we can establish the "working
together" habit.
o Congressman Anderson is a strong supporter of the
project and has been a real friend of the South Bay
when it comes to transportation. We need to demon-
strate to him that we are appreciative of his ef-
forts. Failing to do that will make future support
from him more difficult to achieve.
I hope this letter and the attachment helps establish a better
understanding of ESEA's objectives and activities, and that it
provides a better framework for your decision on participation
in the tunnel project. I would be happy to discuss this at
further length at your convenience. Thank you very much for
considering our views.
Sincerely,
Donald H.
Executive
Camph
Director
DHC/ss
Attachment
cc: Gregory T. Meyer, City Manager
1987 ESEA WORK PROGRAM
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS
1. I-405 Re -Striping
Initially under the leadership of Supervisor Dana, a
committee has been formed to examine the entire I-405
corridor from the San Fernando Valley to the Orange County
line to ascertain whether HOV commuter lanes should be
implemented. The project for which ESEA secured funding
(an additional lane from the Marina Freeway to the Harbor
Freeway) is central to this discussion. The committee has
not yet begun substantive discussions. Once these start,
ESEA staff will present to the Board its recommendations
with regard to this issue. Caltrans has made it clear
that if "the community" does not want HOV lanes then the
additional lane on the I-405 will be a mixed use lane.
2. Sepulveda Blvd. Widenings & Intersection Improvements
Caltrans has indicated that the EIR for this project is
about complete. Once it is approved, the way will be
clear for implementation of these four projects to begin.
The projects are:
o Widening of Sepulveda Blvd. from Rosecrans to Grand
Ave.
o Widening of Sepulveda Blvd. (NB only) in Manhattan
Beach near AT&SF RR undercrossing.
o Widening of and signal improvements
of Rosecrans and Sepulveda.
o Widening of and signal improvements
of Marine and Sepulveda.
at intersection
at intersection
ESEA staff will continue to monitor these projects to
ensure timely implementation.
3. Capacity Improvements, Sepulveda Blvd. Tunnel @ LAX
$3 million in Federal demonstration funds for design and
environmental work on this project were lost when the 99th
Congress failed to pass a surface transportation reauthor-
ization bill. The project has been retained in the new
House Bill (HR2) but there may be a local match require-
ment imposed by the Senate. When the situation becomes
clearer, ESEA staff will work with the LACTC, County of
Los Angeles, City of EL Segundo, City of Los Angeles and
the L.A. Department of Airports to identify sources of
matching funds, if required.
- 1 -
4. Reconstruction of Aviation/Rosecrans Intersection
The City of El Segundo has again applied for State PUC
grade separation funds for this project under the new
formula specified in the bill which Senator Beverly car-
ried for ESEA. Should this project fail to qualify for
funding, ESEA staff will explore further legislative
remedies. In addition, ESEA staff will explore with the
LACTC and other appropriate agencies the possibility of a
joint freight/LRT bridge over the intersection. Some
expenditure of funds may be necessary to obtain an accu-
rate cost estimate of the potential savings to be realized
from a joint use bridge.
5. Douglas Street On -Ramp to Century Freeway
It is our understanding that Caltrans' appraisors will
soon release their estimate for the two alternative on-
ramp configurations (original design and locally preferred
alternative). ESEA staff will continue to work with af-
fected parties to coordinate this effort and protect the
interests of all ESEA members involved.
6. Removal of Peak Hour Parking from Sepulveda Blvd. in Hermosa
Beach
ESEA staff is in the process of beginning discussions with
selected community leaders in Hermosa Beach to develop a
grass roots action campaign to pressure the City council
into removing parking from Sepulveda Blvd. during peak
commute hours. A staff strategy paper will be presented
at the February meeting of the ESEA Board for review and
approval. It is anticipated that a working committee
involving interested ESEA members and community represent-
atives will guide this effort.
7. Widening of Aviation Blvd. between Imperial Hwy. and Artesia
Blvd.
In cooperation with the County of Los Angeles and the
cities of El Segundo, Hawthorne, Redondo Beach and
Manhattan Beach, ESEA will work to identify what widenings
and other improvements to Aviation Blvd. are needed and to
identify and secure funding for such improvements.
PUBLIC TRANSIT - RIDESHARING/TSM
1. Century Freeway - El Segundo Light Rail Extension
At its December 17, 1986 meeting, the Los Angeles County
Transportation Commission (LACTC) approved $150 million to
construct the extension of the Century Freeway light rail
line through the El Segundo employment center to a yard
site in Hawthorne. There are a variety of implementation
issues which will need to be resolved, foremost being the
possibility of a "local" cash and/or in-kind contribution
to persuade the LACTC to elevate portions of the line
currently designated as being at -grade. ESEA staff will
be contacting the City of El Segundo and affected property
owners in the very near future to discuss ways in which to
proceed. It is likely that an appraiser will have to be
retained to develop a detailed estimate of the condemn-
ation value of various rights-of-way involved. It is
suggested that an LRT Implementation Task Force be estab-
lished to meet on a regular basis to address this and
other issues as they arise.
2. Bus Service in the South Bay
With the termination of the Hughes Aircraft Commuter Bus
Line and other cutbacks in SCRTD service, the El Segundo
employment center remains woefully underserved by public
transit. Various calls for better coordination and joint
efforts by South Bay cities have not to date been suc-
cessful in achieving higher levels of service. ESEA staff
will try to work with local communities to explore the po-
tential for improving bus transit service to the employ-
ment center.
3. Joint Action Plan with Commuter Computer
ESEA staff, in cooperation with Commuter Computer, has
developed a Draft Joint Action Plan to enhance the level
of ridesharing and TSM program effectiveness in the em-
ployment center. This proposal has been informally dis-
cussed with appropriate Federal officials with regard to
the possibility of demonstration funding. If the response
is encouraging, ESEA staff will bring the proposal to the
Board for formal review and approval so that an applica-
tion for funds can be made. To minimize the administra-
tive burden and expense to ESEA, staff suggests that
Commuter Computer be the lead entity in applying for any
Federal demonstration funding.
LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES
1. State Transportation Financing
Three measures have recently been introduced which propose
to increase funds available for transportation programs.
A summary of these bills has been provided below.
o AB 18 (Katz, et. al.) - This measure would place a
$1.5 billion transportation bond measure on the June
7, 1988 direct primary election ballot. These bonds
would be of a general obligation nature (backed by
the full faith and credit of the state General Fund)
and proceeds could be used to finance the capital
costs associated with non -interstate highways,
transit guideways and local public streets. ESEA
staff is inclined to support this measure since it
would mean access to a new source of revenue (i.e.
the General Fund) for transportation.
o SB 140 (Deddeh) - This bill places a $1.8 billion
transportation revenue bond measure on the June 7,
1988 ballot as part of a six-year effort to increase
funds available for state highways and mass transit
guideways. The bonds would be secured by highway
user fees (state fuel tax revenues and fees on motor
vehicles).
The bill also requires that beginning in 1989, and
biennially there -after, the Governor submit a six-
year transportation plan to the Legislature for
approval and explicitly defines the responsibility
of the state and local agencies in maintaining and
constructing state highways in the future.
In this regard, the state would continue to operate,
maintain and rehabilitate all state highways and
would continue to make necessary safety and opera-
tional (non -capacity -related) improvements. The
state would also complete the Interstate System
(including the Century Freeway) and all projects in
the 1986 STIP. The responsibility for widening or
increasing the capacity of highways with more than
four lanes, however, would fall to local authori-
ties.
Although none of the proceeds from bonds would be
subvened directly to local agencies, the bill would
permit State Highway Account funds of up to $200 mil-
lion annually to be used to provide a 50 percent
match for local highway and transit guideway proj-
ects.
-4-
ESEA staff has no recommended position on this bill
at this time. One concern is that it is a revenue
bond issue against existing user fees and as such
would not result in additional resources for trans-
portation projects. Further, there is some question
as to the wisdom of a bond issue (which would effec-
tively "front -load" the revenue pipeline) when
Caltrans is having difficulty in delivering projects
funded under the current structure. Finally, ESEA
staff wants to further examine the impacts of the
bill in terms of the division of authority between
the State and local jurisdictions.
o SB 142 (Deddeh) - This measure authorizes any county
board of supervisors to create a local transporta-
tion authority for the purpose of imposing a sales
tax of up to one percent for transit, highway or
local road purposes. In counties such as
Los Angeles, where a local transportation sales tax
is already in place, the amount of the new tax, when
coupled with the existing one, could not exceed a
total of one percent.
The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission has
in the past year been examining the possibility of
such a local sales tax program for highway improve-
ments. A decision is expected sometime in 1987.
2. Other State Legislation
At this time, the only other bill known to be of substan-
tial iterest to ESEA is the potential reintroduction of
Marian Bergeson's bill which would permit Caltrans to
contract out for services relating to highway projects in
order to facilitate delivery of the State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP). This bill died in the last
session of the Legislature because of opposition by the
State employees union. It is expected that a modified ver-
sion of this bill will be introduced in the near future
and ESEA staff will probably recommend a support position.
3. Federal Transportation Financing
As mentioned above, the new comprehensive surface transpor-
tation reauthorization bill has been introduced in the
House of Representatives (HR2 - Anderson). This bill
contains $3 million in funds to do design and environmen-
tal work on a project to enhance to capacity of the
Sepulveda Blvd. tunnel at LAX. Companion bills have not
yet been introduced in the Senate. ESEA staff will con-
tinue to work with ESEA members, the cities of El Segundo
and Los Angeles, and the L.A. Department of Airports to
ensure the success of this project.
-5-
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Chairman
DAVID C. ROWLEY
Rockwell International Corporation
Vice -Chairman
GENE DIAMAND
Xerox Corporation
DAVID J. O'REILLY
Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
THOMAS NEWMAN
Computer Sciences Corporation
RICHARD C. LUNDQUIST
Continental Development
Corporation
FRANK GODOY, JR.
Hacienda International Hotel
DONALD A. SMITH
Hughes Aircraft Company
JOHN B. KILROY, JR.
Kilroy Industries
J. MICHAEL HATELEY
Northrop Corporation
GERALD G. GEISMAR
TRW Inc.
JAMES A. BOWERS
Wyle Laboratories
OFFICERS
Secretary
NANCY BEDONT
Hughes Aircraft Company
Treasurer
JERRY A. SAUNDERS
Continental Development
Corporation
Deputy Director -
Legislative Affairs
TODD GERSTENBERGER
Northrop Corporation
Deputy Director -
Membership
MICHAEL JACKSON
TRW Inc.
Executive Director
DONALD H. CAMPH
Deputy Executive Director
WILLIAM H. BIRTCIL, JR.
EL SEGUNDO
EMPLOYERS
ASSOCIATION
June 5, 1985
Hon. John Cioffi, Mayor
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Dear Mayor Cioffi:
P.O. Box 547
El Segundo, CA 90245
(213) 640-3403
In September, 1985, a report prepared for the
City of El Segundo (and co-sponsored by ESEA and
the L.A. Department of Airports) concluded that
with the completion of the Century Freeway in
1993 the Sepulveda Blvd. tunnel at LAX will be
deficient in its ability to handle future traffic
flows (report enclosed). As you know, Sepulveda.
Blvd./Pacific Coast Highway is one of only two
through north -south arterials west of the San
Diego Freeway and is a critical transportation
link for the entire South Bay.
At the request of ESEA, Congressman Glenn Ander-
son included a $3 million demonstration project
in the recently passed Federal highway bill to
complete necessary environmental and engineering
work to increase the capacity of the tunnel.
Under provisions of the bill, $1,500,000 of this
amount is new obligational authority, $900,000 is
discretionary money out the State's existing
obligational authority, and $600,000 must be
provided as the local matching share.
ESEA is working with the Department of Airports,
the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los
Angeles and the cities to the south of LAX to
raise the necessary match. While we anticipate
that the Department of Airports will contribute a
substantial amount of the funds, we are hopeful
that Hermosa Beach can also to participate to
some degree. The preliminary funding plan (which
THE GREEN LIGHT FOR COMMUTERS
Mayor C i of f i
June 5, 1987
Page two
by no means is set in concrete) shows the City's share to
be $25,000 which would be need to be allocated over the
next two fiscal years. It seems to us that this is an
excellent opportunity for South Bay cities to show the kind
of mutual cooperation that will be necessary if our traffic
problems are to be solved.
The next meeting of parties who are interested in this
project will be on June 19 at the Department of Airports.
It would be very helpful if we could get at least an
initial indication of the City's willingness to participate
prior to that date.
I am available at your convenience to discuss this matter
further. I look forward to talking with you soon.
onald Camp
Executive Director
DHC:me:LAXTUN
cc: Greg Meyer
DeLEUW
CATH E R
De Leuw, Cather & Company
Engineers and Planners
•
96TH ST.
CENTURY BLVD.
Los Angeles
International Airport
Tunnel
MAPLE AVE.
MARIPOSA
AVE
SEPULVEDA BLVD.
El Segundo
1-105
x
QD
z
DOUGLAS ST.
SAN DIEGO
AVIATION BLVD.
Sepulveda Boulevard Tunnel
Evaluation
prepared for the
City of El Segundo
September 1985
r
r DeLEUW
CATHER
r
r
r
t
1
1
1
L
l
De Leuw, Cather & Company Our Ref.
Engineers and Planners
Suite 202
403 West 8th Street
Los Angeles, California 90014
(213) 622-8761
To whom it may concern:
This report summarizes the results of a preliminary evaluation of
the Sepulveda Boulevard Tunnel under the Los Angeles International
Airport (LAX) south runways. The report was submitted on
September 18, 1985.
The consultant concludes that, with the introduction of the
Century Freeway, the existing Sepulveda Boulevard tunnel in the
northbound direction will be deficient in its ability to handle
future design traffic flows. The introduction of direct freeway.
connections, plus anticipated improvements along Sepulveda
Boulevard at the Imperial Highway, will allow enough traffic to
enter the tunnel in the northbound direction to cause the existing
three -lane tunnel to regularly operate at highly congested levels
during peak periods. During most peak periods, poor traffic flow
conditions would exist with backups occasionally extending in the
northbound direction from the tunnel through the Imperial Highway
intersection. In the southbound direction, similar (but somewhat
less) congestion is projected to occur after the improvement of
intersections along Sepulveda at 96th Street and Lincoln
Boulevard.
Additional parallel northbound and southbound tunnels, which would
extend from the I-105 freeway ramps underneath the airport
runways, appear to be the most logical solutions in terms of
roadway continuity and traffic services. The new tunnels could
connect with the roadway ramps servicing the airport circulation
roads, with merging lanes provided to allow full traffic access
between Sepulveda Boulevard and the tunnel roads.
This study was jointly sponsored by the City of El Segundo, Los
Angeles Department of Airports and the El Segundo Employer's
Association. The analysis contained herein was produced by De
Leuw, Cather & Company. The conclusions reached in this report
are those of the consultant.
i
i
DE LEUW, CATHER & COMPANY
Keith G. Meyer, P.E.
Vice President
SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD TUNNEL EVALUATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description Page
I SUMMARY
A. Purpose 1
B. Evaluation Results 1
0
II BACKGROUND
A. Project Identification 5
B. Assumptions 6
III TRAFFIC FORECASTS
A. Introduction 7
B. Existing Counts and Forecasts 7
C. Methodology 8
D. Year 2000 Projections 10
E. Reasonableness Checks 15
IV CAPACITY EVALUATIONS 17
V OPERATIONS EVALUATIONS
A. 96th Street 21
B. Lincoln Boulevard 22
C. Imperial Highway 22
D. Traffic Demand 22
E. Conclusions 24
VI RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Conclusions 26
B. Recommendations 26
APPENDIX - COST ESTIMATE
i
DeLEUW
CATHER
DeLEUW
CATHER
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
No. Description Page
1 Study Area 2
2 Suggested Tunnel Concept 4
3 Existing ADT/Peak Hour Traffic 9
4 Year 2000 ADT --Base Scenario 11
5 Year 2000 ADT --Specific Plan 12
q 6 Year 2000 Peak PM Volume Base Scenario • 13
7 Year 2000 PM Volumes - Specific Plan . ▪ 14
8 Suggested Tunnel Concept 28
A-1 Proposed Two -Lane Travel Section A-3
Table
No.
LIST OF TABLES
Description
Page
1 Traffic Volume Comparisons 16
2 Description of Traffic Levels of Service 18
3 Maximum Lane Capacities 19
4 Tunnel Service Flows 20
5 Hourly Capacity of Sepulveda
Boulevard Intersection 23
A-1 Cost Estimate A-2
ii
L
SECTION I
SUMMARY
A. PURPOSE
DeLEUW
CATHER
The purpose of this report is to provide a summary evaluation of the
Sepulveda Boulevard Tunnel under the Los Angeles International Airport
(LAX) south runways. Figure 1 shows the study area. Sepulveda
Boulevard, as the westernmost principal arterial in Los Angeles
County, serves inter -city traffic within the L.A. coastal corridor,
and it serves as a major connection from LAX to large employment
centers in El Segundo and points south.
The new Century Freeway (I-105) is scheduled to be completed between
I-405 and Sepulveda Boulevard by 1991. The western terminus of this
east -west freeway will be Sepulveda Boulevard. Direct connect ramps
are planned to funnel traffic to and from Sepulveda Boulevard north.
The City of El Segundo and the local business community have expressed
concern that, with the introduction of the Century Freeway ramps, the
Sepulveda Boulevard tunnel will be subjected to traffic volumes in
excess of the capacity of the tunnel. As a result, several pertinent
questions have been asked that are addressed in this report.
o Will the Sepulveda Boulevard tunnel be a capacity constraint to
future traffic flows after the introduction of the Century
Freeway?
o If so, can the tunnel be widened or are other alternatives
available?
o If capacities of other intersections (Sepulveda/Imperial, 96th/ -
Sepulveda, Lincoln/Sepulveda) are increased, does this contribute
additional traffic such that the Sepulveda Boulevard tunnel will
be further congested?
B. EVALUATION RESULTS
Based upon the analysis of future traffic flows, this report concludes
that, with the introduction of the Century Freeway, the existing
Sepulveda Boulevard tunnel in the northbound direction will be defi-
cient in its ability to handle future design traffic flows. The
introduction of direct freeway connections, plus anticipated improve-
ments along Sepulveda Boulevard at the Imperial Highway, will allow
enough traffic to enter the tunnel in the northbound direction to
-1-
1
i
SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
DeLEUW
CATHER
cause the existing three -lane tunnel to regularly operate at highly
congested levels during peak periods. During most peak periods,
unstable traffic flow conditions would exist with backups occasionally
extending in the northbound direction from the tunnel through the
Imperial Highway intersection. In the southbound direction, similar
(but somewhat less) congestion is projected to occur after the
improvement of intersections along Sepulveda at 96th Street and
Lincoln Boulevard.
Several options were explored to alleviate this congestion, including:
o Expansion of existing tunnels
o Construction of new parallel tunnels to service I-105 ramps
o Construction of a third tunnel with reversible flow
o Construction of an additional tunnel under the runways to connect
Airport Boulevard to Nash Street
All alternatives described would fully alleviate congestion in the
tunnels for the foreseeable future. Of the alternatives considered,
new northbound and southbound tunnels, which would extend from the
I-105 freeway ramps underneath the airport runways, appear to be the
most logical in terms of roadway continuity and traffic service. The
new tunnels could connect with the roadway ramps servicing the airport
circulation roads, with merging lanes provided to allow full traffic
access between Sepulveda Boulevard and the tunnel roads. In this
fashion, airport -related traffic could have a direct route to the
airport circulation roadways. Figure 2 shows a suggested concept.
Tunnel construction can be expected to be extremely expensive due to
construction and traffic maintenance requirements. New parallel
tunnels are suggested in this analysis instead of other options for
the following reasons:
o Separate tunnels could be stage constructed (northbound first,
southbound second).
o Less disruption would occur for Sepulveda Boulevard traffic.
o A direct connection of freeway traffic to LAX upper/lower level
roadway system could be provided.
Order -of -magnitude costs of $26 million for "cut -and -cover", and $76
million for "hydraulically jacked" tunnels have been estimated for
both Sepulveda Boulevard tunnels. Each tunnel would be about one-half
the total cost, with the southbound tunnels probably costing slightly
more due to impacts to ventilation buildings. At the present time,
additional engineering is required to determine the actual feasibility
of constructing these tunnels and to develop more accurate cost
estimates.
-3-
break line
EAST -WEST
AIRPORT RUNWAYS
v
EXISTING SEPULVEDA BLVD
(3 lanes each direction)
SEPULVEDA
BOULEVARD
IMPERIAL HWY
COLLECTOR/DISTRIBUTOR TUNNELS
(2 lanes each direction)
'4/T; To
4, r 0,,;>, 104,4(
).- O
60
-`•F
L,q
Ra
SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD
OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
FIGURE 2
Suggested Tunnel Concept —� N
SECTION II
BACKGROUND
A. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
DeLEUW
CATHER
This analysis stems from several studies that have been completed
within the L.A. coastal area in recent years. Much attention has been
focused on the problems of north -south traffic growth and roadway
capacity along the coastal corridor from Manhattan Beach to Santa
Monica.
The Los Angeles City Coastal Corridor Transportation Study, the most
extensive recent effort in the area to assess transportation needs,
contains many recommendation for roadway infrastructure improvements.
Due to the significant increases forecasted in development activity in
the Westchester/Northside areas, the expected increases in employment
activity in the cities of El Segundo and Hawthorne, and the location
of the Los Angeles International Airport at a key focal point, many
roadway facilities are forecasted to be seriously deficient in capa-
city in the future.
Based on forecasted traffic volumes in a "Projected Growth Scenario",
the Coastal Corridor Transportation Study recommended major improve-
ments in the north -south corridors including widening Sepulveda
Boulevard to eight lanes from Imperial to Lincoln, construction of an
extended Airport Boulevard tunnel under the LAX runways (to connect
with Nash Street) and widening the San Diego Freeway (I-405) to eight
lanes.
With the introduction of the I-105 Freeway between I-405 and
Sepulveda, significant additional traffic will be brought into the
area south of the L.A. airport. In addition, current through -traffic
operating on Imperial will be diverted to the elevated I-105, which
will make roadway capacity available for other locally generated
traffic.
Currently, no additional widening is programmed for the Sepulveda
Boulevard tunnels concurrent with the construction of I-105. It has
been suggested that capacity constraints of the existing intersections
on Sepulveda at Imperial, 96th, and Lincoln, would probably not allow
enough traffic to get through the airport tunnels for the tunnels to
be a capacity constraint. However, improvements are proposed on
Sepulveda at 96th, Lincoln, and Imperial that will increase current
available capacity at these intersections, thus increasing traffic
flows through the tunnels.
-5-
DeLEUW
CATHER
B. ASSUMPTIONS
This analysis assumes that several major developments, that would have
direct effects on the need to widen Sepulveda Boulevard, will be in
place in the future.
A variety of roadway improvements have been suggested for project area
roadways. These include the following improvements with approximate
dates of implementation:
o Opening of the I-105 Freeway --6 lanes --1991
o Widening Sepulveda Boulevard from El Segundo to Imperial --
8 lanes --1987
o Widening Imperial Highway to 6 lanes, plus double lefts
at Sepulveda, 1990
o Grade separation of 96th Street at Sepulveda, plus ramps and turn
lanes, 1990
o Widening Lincoln Boulevard (SR1) to six lanes, 1990
In addition to major roadway improvements, certain development assump-
tions have been made that will have an effect on traffic generated
within the project area. Major development assumed to be in place
include:
o The Garrett Development --96th at Sepulveda
o Northside Development
o Production of the F-20 at Northrop
o All other development/employment assumptions contained in the LAX
TSM and Coastal Corridor Transportation Studies
For the purpose of this report, the extension of Airport Boulevard
under the south runways to connect with Nash is not treated as a given
transportation improvement. Instead, transportation impacts were
evaluated in this report with and without the connection to determine
effects to the Sepulveda Boulevard tunnels.
Light rail transit is currently being designed within the center
median of I-105 from Aviation Boulevard east. Studies are currently
being conducted by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission
(LACTC) to establish other potential east -west and north -south corri-
dors.'It is not expected that introduction of light rail transit
would reduce the long-term need to widen the Sepulveda Boulevard
tunnels.
-6-
SECTION III
TRAFFIC FORECASTS
A. INTRODUCTION
DeLEUW
CATHER
Several traffic forecasts have been prepared within the study area in
recent years. The various forecasts reflect differing assumptions
and, as a result, contain different levels of traffic flows. Fore-
casts for the study area have been previously prepared in the follow-
ing documents:
"City of El Segundo General Plan Circulation Element"; March 6, 1984;
ASL Consulting Engineers.
"Los Angeles Coastal Transportation Corridor Specific Plan"; 1984;
LADOT.
"LAX Corridor TSM Study"; 1984; Southern California Association of -
Governments.
In general, the different forecasts are due to different assumptions
contained within each study, particularly those of land use projec-
tions and capacity constraints. A consensus has been reached by most
agencies (SCAG, LADOT, and CalTrans) that capacity constraints of the
roadway network will impose a limit to the actual traffic growth in
the area, regardless of land use changes.
This saturation of street networks will be particularly noticeable on
the future I-105 (Century) Freeway which is forecasted to absorb
currently diverted traffic demand upon its opening. The Coastal
Transportation Corridor Specific Plan has recommended additional
capacity to accommodate future traffic demand, particularly in the
Sepulveda corridor near L.A. International Airport.
B. EXISTING COUNTS AND FORECASTS
The following available traffic counts and forecasts in the Sepulveda
Boulevard and Douglas/Nash corridors were utilized:
1. Existing average daily traffic volumes, provided by the City of
Los Angeles DOT.
2. 1983 intersection turning movements at locations south of LAX,
provided by the City of El Segundo.
-7-
DeLEUW
CATHER
3. LAX entering traffic counts,
March 1985, provided by the City of
Los Angeles Department of Airports.
4. Year. 2000 projected daily traffic, provided by the City of El
Segundo Department of Public Works, May 1985.
5. Year 2000 projected daily traffic, prepared by SCAG and taken
from the Coastal Trans ortation Corridor S ecific Plan EIS.
C. METHODOLOGY
In order to evaluate traffic operatiused, s in the along withSepulcertaina growthvand
Corridor, the above sources were
distribution assumptions, to forecast Year 2000 Average Daily Traffic
(ADT) and PM peak hour turning movements. The method used is summar-
iz,.' is follows:
1. Existing counts were assembled. The 1983 counts
south
of LAX
were increased by approximately 5-10 p where
tency with City of Los Angeles counts. Turning movements, where
—
available, were used in development of turning movement p j
tions. Figure 3 shows the reconciled current traffic flows in
the study area.
2. Base Year 2000 ADT was projected ected for two scenarios, as set forth
Coate
in the Trans ortation Corridor Studer Airport
a
irporSepulveda
were
Boulevard Year 2000 projections south of the
adjusted to provide consistency with the projections as provided
north of Imperial Highway. Increases in Airport -related h a
traffic
were estimated based on surroundingtraffic
growth,
whicis oul-
d
yield a .17 percent increase. Airport
penger ercent to a projected 40
gr' jected to have a maximum increase of 16
that the 17 percent
million annual passenger capacity,
factor utilized is reasonable.
3. Additional traffic from a proposed development at the northwest
corner of Sepulveda and Century, not included as input in the
SCAG model runs,.was added to the roadway system. The following
development levels were estimated by De Leuw, Cather:
Use Area
1,350,000 gsf office
750 -room hotel
1000,000 gsf retail
Trip
Generation Rate
12.3/1000 sq.ft. 16,600
0.5/room 7,900
66/1000 sq.ft. 6,600
Daily Trips
-8-
Total Trips 31,100
•
Lincoln £3;w3,
20.0
(1.6)
•
110
•
••••••
r1:1 •
AISPORT
50.8
(4.05)
50.8
(4.05)
LOS ANGELES
Arbor %Mae St.
::•7t
33th t.
14.7
62.2
Century .1.31vv..
60.1
.1£3404\--SZEIES
24.8
(2.0)
`-4
r} •
32.6
tiarsitsi
Imperial
42.5
EL SEGUNDO (3.2)
Mariposa A''a„
17.4
(1.4)
OM*
cs
71.3
49.3
(3.7)
55.3
(4.15)
31.4
(2.5)
!I
L.A. COUNTY
Existing ADT/Peak Hour Traffic
SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
Siva.
:3
XX.1 ADT X 1000
(X.1)= Peak Hour
X 1000
Figure 3
DeLEUW
GATHER r
Based on analysis of current turning movements and estimation of
productions and attractions in the coastal area, these trips were
distributed as follows:
20% north on Sepulveda Boulevard
30% east on Century Boulevard
50% south on Sepulveda Boulevard .
4. Peak hour turning movements were forecasted for Sepulveda Boule-
vard. Only PM peak hour movements were forecasted, since the
relatively even directional distributions and the higher general
traffic levels in the afternoon cause the PM peak to be the
controlling design hour.
5. The following approximate peak hour percentages, dbased on exist-
ing counts, estimated future conditions, and reasonable assump-
tions, were used as guidelines:
o Minor east -west streets: 9%
o Sepulveda Boulevard, in highly congested sections: 7-8%
o All other roadways: 8%
6. The following approximate directional distributions were used:
o Imperial Highway,
o Sepulveda Blvd.,
o Douglas/Nash, PM
AM
PM Peak: 60% EB
AM Peak: 60% WB
PM Peak: 55% SB south of Imperial
Peak: 60% NB
Peak: 60% SB
o El Segundo, PM Peak: 55% EB
AM Peak: 55% WB
o All other roadways: 50%-50%
D. YEAR 2000 PROJECTIONS
Two scenarios for projected Year 2000 daily traffic and peak hour
turning movements have been developed. Figure 4 shows the Year 2000
ADT for the Base Scenario; Figure 5 shows the Year 2000 ADT for the
Specific Plan Scenario.
The principal difference between the two scenarios is that the Spe-
cific Plan recommends an extension of Airport Boulevard south of
Century Boulevard to Imperial Highway (connecting with Nash). Also,
the Specific Plan recommends improvements on 96th Street and Lincoln
Boulevard.
Hourly turning movement forecasts are. provided on Figure 6 for the
Base Scenario, and on Figure 7 for the Specific Plan Scenario.
-10-
Lincoir. 83:vd,
LOS ANGELES
m i
m
37.2
59.6
.?O
Arbor `Vfea $t.
34.0
Fri3th "fit.
19.0
65.9
Century & hhri.
59:6_
3WTERI4ATtO
tuns 134.7
50.8
65.0 FWY linPerfaf Tay 85.5 FWY
't$ ~ 22.0 IMP 30.0 IMP
CD 19
oa
�— x
Maxie Axs�, cc
8.0
ca
M
0
T
Ma ips) 2 fl.
6.0
Grand AV ds.
8.0
17.0
co
0
LA. COUNTY
a3€1`• M
I?O in
e6 3N N
O
10.3
Q)
O
co
C)
Ef
22.4 38.5 52.3
Year 2000 ADT Base Scenario
SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
XX.1 = ADT X 1000
Figure 4
Linc*In BEvd,
28.3
59.6_
w
O
LOS ANGELES
A3.2
23.0
Arbor 'Vita St.
59.3 Cwt':wr} EI Ed_
vI
rn'
<_ ^� tom•. - - i .....- w MRPORT
58.7
ttsfYrtoi
86.1 t— ▪ --1
75.5 FWY Hwy 1 96.0 FWY
22.0 IMP
• EL SEGUNDO
m
tvtaPi AYn, c• : 10.5
8.0
co
M r#pnsa A.
6.0
30.0 IMP
CD LN
O
Cr: ttd Avtrs.
8.0
fD
Ect
M
M
N
17.0 22.4 38.5 52.3
N
CD
Year 2000 ADT Specific Plan Scenario
SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
XX.1 •.:.: ADT X 1000
Figure 5
—12—
. . 0 s A N G Y. L -•'.
0..1
Cr)
0(0
N. al
Y,1
co ciN 2.0 -Th';::k
k i
0 .'"- 25
-
:*--4-
ir 0.
4.5 "1/4 Lq til q
CO *-• V) OD
Tt 0 to
i 7 l .0* -4---15.0
1 ....,_i ,1,--- 8.0
- v.
..---•,,:, .•::--1,70.------1--
... s s.-4:•..''',,1
*---,;•"1:'•'' ,/
...4,>.4).
----I-5;o _...rc / f r
14.0 -6- 0 0 0
19.0 ---'t .,..: 05 d
Asi.“)r Vila* St.
: - • • -
• '"" " • • •
?...\i'51;;;'?5,W:.:4Ek ES tOTERXATIWO.L. XIERPOR"(
...........
C(5retury Svc.
co cv
turalof 103.5
2.0
2.0
to
co
5.
-4- 6.5
"-- 6.0
)
1
Freewa
Ave
f r Offramp 14.5
''SEGUNDO Onra
•cf-ii‘oj cc)
000
*-• et
4.5
3.5
2.5-1 r
4.0
1.0 q
1.0
N N CI)
000
11 f •cr 1.5
-4-_9•
2.0
1.0
14.0
tciqtq
N N
77)
P 21.0
00(0
co 01 3.0
!Ac--- 2.0
1.5 -el A r
16.5 --
1 I I
Year 2000
PM Peak Hour
Base Scenario/Unconstrained
Lower Level
• II
•
2.0
-4-- 9.0
#- 1.0
r
cf,
es
c.:
cr;
N
L.A. COUNTY
(01.0
N tfl
4.5flf
2.0 q
N
El esiica/•:$
SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
X.1 = Peak Hour X 100
Figure 6
-11-
•
0 10Qo&Mla6dddf6
2.5
3.0 V
65+ k/-3.5 1 t
2.0-- ototo
4.5-.
T (D.
ootn
toN to
1 f
tq in 0
� ..-•• :. cc .^�.dp.....• •�
A. bvr Vft •: f.
s;st?ur-; B:rd,
to l
ai
MI
r.•
-Al ,, - Yutzne170.5 +�
m aS IN l
M - �"'
t- 6.5
6 i . 2.0
a' m
J3 0��= T I Offramp 18.0
c - .5-�: ,TEGuNDo Onram 26.0
13. T
I X11.0
'4-- 8.0 oto to
7.5 -4 -
Lower Level
LO 00
N O CO
T
flk
2.0 -"
8.0 -o-
3.5 --1/4
Of
VJ
? M tfj N
reeway -
1.5--
t\ 7.0--
1.5-1
G::1+.1 Ave. 01
���N x--35
}A-30
otno
c. Q) N
j T
1.5 -/
14.0 --►-
1.0-
--�- I
4.0
in
M
' 1.5 '-
9.0
x-2.0
1.5 -•'
16.5 ---
ower eve
coicoocc'i x--3.5
4.5
A T lk A-1.5
Nc--- 3.5
-'---10.5
�- 2.0
'Nor
0tn0A
1.5 ch •
V.:,
2.5-+i 1
8.5 -I.- to to to
1.5-" cMet
L.A. COUN Y
o0
r�r•
Jt
Year 2000
PM Peak Hour
Specific Plan Scenario
SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
X.1 = Peak Hour X 100
Figure
TABLE 1
TRAFFIC VOLUME COMPARISONS
De Lein, Cather
Year 2000 Forecast
LA Coastal Corridor El Segundo
Year 2000 Forecast Year 2000 Forecast
Existing Baseline Specific Growth Specific Circulation
Traffic Scenario Plan Scenario Plan Element
1-105 West of 1-405
Sepulveda Tunnel
•Century Blvd. East
of Sepulveda
Sepulveda North
of Century Blvd.
Imperial Hwy West
of 1-405
85,500 96,000 78,500 89,100 56,200
71,200 134,700 86,100 119,800 71,200
62,200 65,900 59,300 56,900 49,400
61,300 119,500 86,800 113,600 90,000
32,600 30,000
30,000 25,000
43,300 29,200
nv
=c
DeLEUW
CATHER
Daily unconstrained traffic through Sepulveda Tunnel is projected at
134,700 vehicles per day (vpd) for the Base Scenario and 86,100 vpd
for the Specific Plan Scenario. Afternoon peak hour traffic through
the tunnel is projected at 10.350 vehicles per hour (vph) for the Base
Scenario and 7,050 vph for the Specific Plan.
E. REASONABLENESS CHECKS
In order to test the reasonableness of these forecasts, comparisons
have been made with other available traffic forecasts. Table 1
provides a comparison of forecasts. In general, the De Leuw, Cather
forecasts are somewhat higher than those contained in the LA Coastal
Corridor Specific Plan, due to added development activity. The
proposed Airport Boulevard extension would have a significant impact
on traffic flows on Sepulveda Boulevard.
0
-15-
DeLEUW
CATHER
SECTION IV
CAPACITY EVALUATIONS
.In order to complete the evaluation of capacity deficiencies, calcula-
tions of available roadway capacities with and without certain
improvements were required.
Capacity calculations were made using the 1965 Highway Capacity
Manual, draft chapters of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, and TRB
Circulation 212, Interim Materials on Highway Capacity.
The design of roadway improvements is typically made in order to have
some allowance for future traffic growth. Various "levels of service"
have been established in order to represent different levels of peak
hour congestion. Table 2 describes the various levels of service for
urban conditions.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) recommends that roadway facilities be designed in urban areas
for a 20 -year design hourly level of service "D". This level of
service allows for some measure of traffic fluctuation and will
accommodate moderate congestion. In general, the I-105 freeway for
this length between 1-105 and Sepulveda Boulevard is forecasted to
operate at level of service "C" or "D" during design hours.
The "capacity" of a facility is generally defined as the limit of
level of service "E". Absolute capacity is usually characterized by
travel speeds below 30 mph and frequent breakdowns.
Service volumes for different levels of service of the Sepulveda
Tunnel were developed from the 1985 Draft Highway Capacity Manual
Chapters. The maximum service flows under ideal conditions for a
multi -lane highway at various levels of service in passenger cars per
hour per lane are shown in Table 3.
-17-
A
DeLEUW
CATHER
SECTION IV
CAPACITY EVALIIATIONS
In order to complete the evaluation of capacity deficiencies, calcula-
tions of available roadway capacities with and without certain
improvements were required.
Capacity calculations were made using the 1965 Highway Capacity
Manual, draft chapters of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, and TRB
Circulation 212, Interim Materials on Highway Capacity.
The design of roadway improvements is typically made in order to have
some allowance for future traffic growth. Various "levels of service"
have been established in order to represent different levels of peak
hour congestion. Table 2 describes the various levels of service for
urban conditions.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) recommends that roadway facilities be designed in urban areas
for a 20 -year design hourly level of service "D". This level of
service allows for some measure of traffic fluctuation and will
accommodate moderate congestion. In general, the I-105 freeway for
this length between I-105 and Sepulveda Boulevard is forecasted to
operate at level of service "C" or "D" during design hours.
The "capacity" of a facility is generally defined as the limit of
level of service "E". Absolute capacity is usually characterized by
travel speeds below 30 mph and frequent breakdowns.
Service volumes- for different levels of service of the Sepulveda
Tunnel were developed from the 1985 Draft Highway Capacity Manual
Chapters. The maximum service flows under ideal conditions for a
multi -lane highway at various levels of service in passenger cars per
hour per lane are shown in Table 3.
-17-
i
r
DeLEUW
CATHER
TABLE 3
MAXIMUM LANE CAPACITIES
Level of Maximum
Service Per Lane Flow
A
B 850 pcph
C 1,150 pcph
D 1,450 pcph
E 1,900 pcph
F Highly Variable
Several roadway characteristics were then considered which reduced the
actual service flow of the tunnel from the maximum service flow. The
actual service flow is given by SF = MSF x N x Fhv x Fw x Fe x Fp,
where the following factors were applied.
MSF = Maximum Ideal Service Flow
N — 6 lanes
Fhv = .94 (heavy vehicle factor for 2% trucks with a 2%
grade over 1/4 to 1/2 mile)
Fw = .96 (width factor for 2 foot clearance on both sides)
Fe a 1.00 (environmental factor)
Fp = .95 (a factor based on driver behavior, where
1.00 = commuters, regular users, and
.75 -.90 Q recreation or other non -regular users)
DeLEUW
GATHER
Table 4 shows the resulting tunnel service flows in vehicles per hour.
TABLE 4
TUNNEL SERVICE FLOWS
Level of One -Way Two -Way
Service Service Flow Service Flow
A
B 2,175 vph 4,350 vph
C 2,950 vph 5,900 vph
D 3,725 vph 7,450 vph
E 4,875 vph 9,750 vph
F Variable Variable
-20-
DeLEUW
CATHER
SECTION V
OPERATIONS EVALUATIONS
Analyses of roadway operations were made for cases both with and
without upstream roadway improvements.
Key intersections in the analyses included Sepulveda Boulevard at
Imperial, 96th, and Lincoln. In addition, the impact of an Airport
Boulevard/Nash Street connection was explored to determine the possi-
ble mitigation effects to traffic demand.
A. 96th STREET
A grade -separated 96th/Sepulveda intersection was assumed to provide
Sepulveda Boulevard access via ramps to north and south intersections.
With this configuration, signalized intersections would continue to
provide capacity constraints in the area. Capacity through the
Century/Sepulveda intersection is significantly greater, such that the
96th/Sepulveda intersection will continue to be the southbound capaci-
ty constraint. Maximum peak hour traffic levels through this inter-
section destined to the Sepulveda tunnel were estimated as follows:
Southbound Additional Traffic
Through Traffic From Entering
96th Century Blvd. Tunnel V/C LOS
2,850 vph +1,550 vph 4,400 vph .90 E
Conclusion: With the 96th Street intersection operating at capacity
(assuming a grade -separated 96th Street intersection) the southbound
Sepulveda Tunnel would operate within level of service E (capacity)
limits (V/C m .90). If the 96th/ Sepulveda intersection is designed
for greater capacity (e.g., a partial cloverleaf) then it is antici-
pated that an additional 10 percent peak hour traffic would flow in
the southbound direction, thereby causing level of service F opera-
tions in the tunnel.
If additional traffic demand to and from points east or north of LAX
were to shift to Century Boulevard, the tunnel would become further
congested.
If the Sepulveda Boulevard/96th Street intersection is not improved,
traffic flowing to the Sepulveda tunnel would be more constrained,
-21-
DeLEUW
CATHER
resulting in level of service D (moderate congestion) conditions in
the tunnel.
B. LINCOLN BOULEVARD
The volumes through the 96th/Sepulveda intersection would equate to
2,850 vph southbound through the intersection of Sepulveda and Lin-
coln. These volume levels would produce satisfactory operations at
Lincoln, with an at -grade intersection.
Conclusion: Lincoln Boulevard would not further constrain traffic
beyond the constraints at 96th. If Lincoln Boulevard were to be
grade -separated from Sepulveda, the 96th Avenue intersection would be
further emphasized as the southbound capacity constraint.
C. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY
At the Imperial/Sepulveda intersection, peak northbound capacity- -
restrained traffic volumes were derived as follows:
Northbound Northbound Total
Through Traffic Tunnel
Imperial From I-105 Traffic V/C LOS
3,250 +1,500 vph 4,750 .97 E
Conclusion: At capacity through an upgraded Imperial intersection
(three through -lanes) the northbound tunnel would operate at LOS E
(V/C - .97). Northbound traffic passing through the intersection at
Imperial, plus projected northbound traffic from the Century Freeway,
would create an unstable flow condition through the tunnel as a
three -lane facility.
The above analysis is. based on three through -lanes at the northbound
approach to the Imperial intersection. If a fourth through -lane is
constructed in the northbound direction, enough traffic will pass
through the intersection to allow level of service F to occur in the
tunnel during the average peak hour.
Intersection
TABLE 5
HOURLY CAPACITY OF SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD INTERSECTIONS
Total Projected
Unconstrained
Approach Total Volumes Through
Capacity Intersection Intersection
EB WB SB NB Intersection Base Scenario V/C LOS
Imperial and
Sepulveda Upgraded 1,100 950 3,620 3,500 9,150 10,250 1.12 F
Lincoln and
Sepulveda Upgraded 850 2,050 2,650
96th and Sepulveda
Grade Separated --
South Signalized 1,100 2,700 4,350
Intersection
Sepulveda and 96th
Existing 850 550 2,900 3,000
Intersection
5,550
8, 150
7, 300
10,150 1.82 F
10,100 1.24 F
11,800 1.62 F
DeLEUW
GATHER
D. TRAFFIC DEMAND
Tah1r 5 indicates that .at all locations, projected north -south demand
will be such that intersections will operate at capacity during peak
hours for the best scenario. The capacity of roadways, as discussed
above, would provide a constraint to traffic flows in the project
area. The area -wide demand can be expected to be sufficient to
saturate the roadway system.
In the case of the Specific Plan Scenario, which includes a north -
south tunnel under the LAX runways east of Sepulveda, projections show
that the Imperial/Sepulveda intersection would not be saturated with a
total intersection volume of 7,700 vph, compared to an intersection
capacity of 9,150 vph. Based on these traffic volumes, the northbound
peak hour flow through the tunnel would be 3,550 vph, creating level
of service D during peak hours. This level of service would not
suggest the need for further widening of the tunnel.
E. CONCLUSIONS
The intersections within the Sepulveda Boulevard -LAX vicinity cur-
rently (and will continue to) operate at extremely congested levels of
service during peak hours.
The introduction of the Century Freeway will further aggravate local
area traffic problems by placing an additional traffic component into
the system. Without the Century Freeway, not enough traffic would
reach the Sepulveda Boulevard tunnels to cause recurrent congestion
problems. However, with the introduction of the Century Freeway,
traffic demands'will increase through the tunnel (primarily due to'the
location of the Century Freeway relative to LAX) such that recurrent
congestion can be expected to occur in the tunnels. This will be
particularly pronounced in the northbound direction.
The analysis in this report indicates that level of service E would be
attained in the tunnel for average peak hour conditions. An analysis
for design hour flows increased to the 30th highest peak hour (typical
for roadway design purposes) suggests that the design hour volumes
would produce level of service F within the tunnel in the northbound
direction.
The concept of an Airport/Nash connector is a major possibility for
alleviating peak period traffic flows. The results of this connector
would be. however, to overload Airport Boulevard, Century Boulevard,
Imperial Highway, Nash Street, and possibly Douglas Street. Major
improvements to these facilities (e.g., additional through -lanes and
double lefts), as well as improvements to I-105 ramps, would be
-24-
DeLEUW
CATHER
required. As a result, from an operational viewpoint, the Airport/
Nash connection is not necessarily seen as a major advantage to the
operating condition of the area's roadway system. Instead, the
provision of additional capacity at the Sepulveda Boulevard tunnels is
a logical step toward accommodation of relatively direct freeway -to -
airport travel. Since Sepulveda Boulevard is at the west end of the
Century Freeway, significant turning demands are projected to occur at
this junction. An expanded tunnel facility would accommodate all
travel within the foreseeable future, given the constraints of the
area's roadway system.
•
-25-
z
SECTION VI
RECOEMENDATIONS
A. CONCLUSIONS
DeLEUW
CATHER
Based upon the analysis of probable traffic flows and improvements to
the roadway network, the following conclusions have been reached:
1. Without an Airport/Nash connector, the introduction of the
Century Freeway will allow enough traffic to enter the Sepulveda
Boulevard tunnel in the northbound direction causing traffic
volumes to exceed the desirable hourly design levels for this
tunnel. Congestion in the northbound direction can be expected
to cause periodic backups into the Sepulveda/Imperial intersec-
tion.
2. Capacity improvements on Sepulveda Boulevard at 96th Avenue and
Lincoln would allow enough southbound traffic to access the
tunnels (destined for I-105 and points south) that would cause
regular level of service E operations in the southbound direction
within the tunnel.
3. Traffic from the WB I-105 ramp to NB Sepulveda and from SB
Sepulveda to EB I-105 could be routed through parallel two-lane
tunnels which would directly tie into the Airport upper/lower
level roadway access system.
4. An Airport Boulevard/Nash Street connector would obviate the need
to widen Sepulveda Boulevard but would require major widenings on
Imperial Highway, Nash Street, Century Boulevard, and Airport
Boulevard to handle increased traffic. In addition, I-105 ramps
would be overloaded.
5. Not enough directional split exists to build an additional
two-lane tunnel that would be used for reversible flow opera-
tions.
B. RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that additional tunnel lanes in primarily the
northboup,1 nnd, secondarily, the southbound direction on Sepulveda
Boulevani': ! explored as an extension of the.I-105 ramp terminals.
Particular attention should be paid to the westbound I-105 to north-
bound Sepulveda movement, as this direct -connect ramp can be expected
to regularly overload the tunnel capacity.
-26-
1
DeLEUW
CATHER
1
Without widening, traffic entering the northbound Sepulveda tunnel can
be expected to back up from the tunnel, with queues forecasted to
periodically extend into the Imperial Highway intersections, depending
on weather, traffic volumes, and time of day. In the southbound
direction, traffic backups can also be expected to periodically occur;
however, backups into the airport access roadways, and other impacts
due to queuing, are not foreseen to be as great a problem as the
northbound queuing.
Figure 8 shows a possible configuration for the I -105 -LAX connection
tunnels. Features of the connections could allow for proper weaving
of traffic between the I-105 ramps and Sepulveda Boulevard.
Preliminary cost estimates have been prepared for the tunnel section,
as described in the Appendix. Cost of the tunnel construction in 1985
dollars is estimated as follows:
Northbound Southbound Total
$13 - $38 million $13 - $38 million $26 - $76 million
It is not fully known at this time whether construction of the tunnels
is completely feasible. The potential items which have not been
included in this analysis and would be subject to much more detailed
engineering include:
o Western Airlines Operations
o Impact to aircraft operations
o Subsurface conditions
o Liability insurance requirements Il
o Utility impacts and relocations
o Ventilation Buildings
Capacity problems in the existing northbound tunnel are forecasted to
occur upon completion of the I-105 section between Sepulveda and
1-405. Capacity problems in the southbound tunnel would occur after
improvement of Sepulveda intersections at 96th and Lincoln.
With additional tunnels, Sepulveda Boulevard and the ramp connections
will operate at level of service C or better (stable flow) well beyond
the design life of the Century Freeway. It must be questioned,
therefore, whether this improvement would be cost-effective given the
high cost of potential tunnel construction. Improved tunnel opera-
tions wo»tld be of most benefit to I-105 ramp traffic, with free flow
conditions in the Sepulveda tunnel. The surrounding roadway network
would, on the other hand, be operating at extremely congested condi-
tions. As a result, it is recommended that this tunnel improvement be
1
27
1_
7-
break line
EAST -WEST
AIRPORT RUNWAYS
EXISTING SEPULVEDA BLVD
(3 lanes each direction)
SEPULVEDA
BOULEVARD
IMPERIAL HWY
COLLECTOR/DISTRIBUTOR TUNNELS
(2 lanes each direction)
C,q *v
TF
r1 449'4,4
FtiTG T 09). O 'N J
Rr9
ob
1'To
•
SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD
OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
FIGURE 8
Suggested Tunnel Concept N
DeLEUW
CATHER I
balanced with other transportation infrastructure improvement priori-
ties for the coastal area. Although it appears that current 1-105
designs do not preclude the development of parallel tunnels in the
future, the feasibility of future tunnel construction and ramp tie-ins
is recommended to be advanced to a greater level of detail.
-29-
•
DeLEUW
CATHER
APPENDIX
SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD TUNNEL COST ESTIMATE
The tollowing cost analysis has been prepared based upon limited
available information and site investigation. Construction technique
and unit costs were selected as reasonable assumptions of what might
be applicable for this situation. Design features, construction
technique, and general assumptions on costs are detailed below.
DESIGN FEATURES
Based on measurements from recent aerial photography, it is estimated
that the new tunnel will be approximately 2,115 feet in length. A
typical section for a two-lane tunnel has been selected from AASHTO's
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 1985, that will accommodate
anticipated traffic volumes. (See attached Figure A-1). Two 12 foot
travel lanes, a five-foot inside shoulder and 10 foot outside shoulder
were used to size an appropriate tunnel section for estimating pur-
poses. New independent alignments have been assumed that will not
interfere with the existing tunnel.
CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES
Numerous approaches are available for construction of roadway tunnels,
and the selection of the most appropriate or least costly method
would, of course, need to be made after much moredetailed study. Two
approaches have been identified that would yield an appropriate range
of costs, including: 1) the cut -and -cover method and 2) tunneling by
the hydraulically jacked shield method.
The cut -and -cover method would consist of using normal excavating
techniques, possibly in combination with excavation support in criti-
cal areas, to produce a trench. A reinforced concrete box would then
be constructed in the trench and, as soon as possible, the trench
would be backfilled and the former surface restored. This method
would require temporary closing of runways and taxiways as the work
progressed, but has .the advantage of being much less costly than
tunneling.
The tunneling method would utilize soft ground, hydraulically jacked,
chemical grout shields to provide a positive means of preventing
settlement. Excavation of the tunnel face would be by conventional
equipment with muck trammed to the portal. After every 50 feet of
excavation, a monolithic concrete lining would be placed and steel and
timber temporary supports provided. This would be a very expensive
method, but would not require closing of any runways or taxiways.
A-1
DeLEUW
CATH ER
COSTS
Approximate costs and quantity ranges have been detailed on Table A-1.
Only major items have been included with unit prices in 1985 dollars.
The following have not been included in the estimates:
o Utility relocation
o Traffic control (air and vehicular)
o Liability insurance requirements
o Subsurface requirements
o Right-of-way
o Unit price modifications for local conditions
o Western Airlines Operations Center impacts
TABLE A-1
SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD TUNNELS
COST ESTIMATE
Project No. 3700-01
August 20, 1985
Cut and Cover Method (Per Tunnel)
Box and Excavation ($5,000/LF) — 2115 LF x $5,000 — $10,575,000
Other Roadway Modifications — 2,000.000
TOTAL $12,575,000
Tunneling Method (Per Tunnel)
Excavation and Support ($10,000/LF) — 2115 LF x $10,000 — $21,150,000
Lining and Finish ($7,000/LF) a 2115 x $7,000 — 14,80.5,000
Other Roadway Modifications — 2,000,000
TOTAL $37,955,000
A-2
Figure A-1
Sepulveda Boulevard Evaluation
Proposed two-lane tunnel section