HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/26/88r
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than
sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, January 26, 1988 - Council Chambers, City Hall
Closed Session - 6:30 p.m.
Regular Session - 7:30 p.m.
MAYOR
Etta Simpson
MAYOR PRO TEM
Jim Rosenberger
COUNCILMEMBERS
Roger Creighton
Chuck Sheldon
June Williams
CITY CLERK
Kathleen Midstokke
CITY TREASURER
Gary L. Brutsch
ACTING CITY MANAGER
Alana M. Mastrian
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:
PROCLAMATION: American History Month, February, 1988
INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEES: Nancy Cook, Police Officer
✓Michele Derks, Police Officer
bonnie Kendall, Police Officer
CITIZEN COMMENTS
_Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any items on the
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.)
(a) Approval of Minutes: Special meeting of the City Coun-
cil held on January 6, 1988.
Recommended Action: To approve minutes.
•
(b) Approval of Minutes: Regular meeting of the City Coun-
cil held on January 12, 1988.
Recommended Action: To approve minutes.
(c) Demands and Warrants: January 26, 1988.
Recommended Action: To approve Demands and Warrants
Nos. through inclusive.
(d) Tentative Future Agenda Items.
Recommended Action: To receive and file.
(e) Building and Safety Department Monthly Activity Report:
December, 1987.
Recommended Action: To receive and file.
(f) Community Resources Department Monthly Activity Report:
December, 1987.
Recommended Action: To receive and file.
(g) Finance Department Monthly Activity Report: December,
1987.
Recommended Action: To receive and file.
(h) Fire Department Monthly Activity Report: December,
1987.
Recommended Action: To receive and file.
(i) General Services Department Monthly Activity Report:
December, 1987.
Recommended Action: To receive and file.
(j) Personnel Department Monthly Activity Report: December,
1987.
Recommended Action: To receive and file.
(k) Planning Department Monthly Activity Report: December,
1987.
Recommended Action: To receive and file.
(1) Police Department Monthly Activity Report: December,
1987.
Recommended Action: To receive and file.
(m) Public Works Department Monthly Activity Report:
December, 1987.
2
(r)
(s)
_(t)
Recommended Action: To receive and file.
Monthly Revenue Report: December, 1987.
Recommended Action: To receive and file.
Monthly Expenditure Report: December, 1987.
Recommended Action: To receive and file.
City Treasurer's Report: December, 1987.
Recommended Action: To receive and file.
Sand and Strand Run - Parking Waiver. Memorandum from
Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated
January 15, 1988.
Recommended Action: To waive the parking fees and
parking enforcement of Hermosa Avenue between 6th and
16th Streets during the Sand and Strand Run on Sunday,
February 7, 1988, between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and
noon.
Graffiti. Memorandum from Community Resources Director
Alana Mastrian dated January 15, 1988.
Recommended Action: The Community Resources Advisory
Commission would like to City Council to commend Public
Works Director Antich for his department's efforts in
addressing the graffiti problem whenever it occurs in
the City.
Pro Volleyball Beach Tournament Policy. Memorandum from
Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated
January 15, 1988.
Recommended Action: That City Council adopt the Pro
Volleyball Beach Tournament Policy as the City's
operating policy for handling such events.
Planning Commission Policy statement re. expiration of
condominium conditional use permits. Memorandum from
Planning Director Michael Schubach dated January 19,
1988.
Recommended Action: To approve Planning Commission
Policy Statement 87-2 allowing a 1-1/2 year time frame
forexecution of a C.U.P. in conjunction with a vesting
map.
(u) Report re. issuance of Alcohol Beverage Licenses prior
to Conditional Use Permit approval by City.. Memorandum
/'4Y from City Attorney James P. Lough dated January 18,
1988.
(v)
(w)
Recommended Action: To receive and file.
Cable TV Board meeting summary and resignation of two
board members. Memorandum from General Services Direc-
tor Joan Noon dated January 19, 1988.
Recommended Action: To 1) receive and file report, and
2) accept the resignations of Cable TV Board members
Susan Hay and Barbara Jean Holland, effective January
18, 1988. Also to approve Board request to not fill
those vacancies, thereby having a Board consisting of
only 10 members.
Award of Bid for lease/purchase of computer and com-
munications equipment for dispatch and records. Memo-
randum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dat-
ed January 19, 1988.
Recommended Action: To 1) authorize City Manager to
enter into lease agreement with Security Pacific Mer-
chant Bank of Los Angeles for the lease/purchase of com-
puter and communications equipment and software neces-
sary for dispatch and records management; 2) authorize
purchase of equipment from the responsible vendors meet-
ing all requirements of the requests for proposal; and
3) authorize staff to issue change orders and negotiate
with vendors as necessary.
.(x) Preliminary Design Approval for Council Chambers/Foyer
Area (CIP 87-602). Memorandum from Public Works Direc-
tor Anthony Antich dated January 18, 1988.
Recommended Action: To not authorize Joncich, Sturm &
Associates to proceed with final design for the Council
Chambers/Foyer area renovation.
(y) Child Abuse Monthly Report. Memorandum from Community
Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated January 18,
1988.
Recommended Action: To receive and file.
17(z) Agreement for inspection and administration services for
Beach Drive improvements. Memorandum from Public Works
Director Anthony Antich dated January 18, 1988.
Recommended Action: To 1) authorize Mayor to sign
agreement with BSI Consultants, Inc. in an amount not to
exceed $24,745, and 2) authorize staff to issue change
orders as necessary.
1/(aa) ., Award of Bid for Pier Grounding System (CIP 85-203).
Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich•
y dated January 18, 1988.
(bb)
(CIA •
,,,por%
Recommended Action: To 1) authorize Mayor to sign
agreement with Wright Diving Service, Inc. for the re-
pair of the Pier grounding system in an amount not to
exceed $20,665; 2) authorize staff to issue change or-
ders as necessary; 3) transfer $9,465 from CIP 85-201
(Light Conversion and New Installation) to CIP 85-203.
Award of Bid for leasing various city vehicles: engine
analyzer, street sweeper, paint truck. (Continued from
January 12, 1988 meeting.) Memorandum from Public Works
Director Anthony Antich dated January 19, 1988.
Recommended Action: To 1) authorize the purchase of the
above listed equipment; 2) authorize staff to readver-
tise for bids for one utility van for Community Resour-
ces Dept.; 3) approve budget transfers and appropria-
tions as follows: a) return $21,000 to Street Lighting
Fund fund balance, and b) appropriate $112,571 from
General Fund fund balance for purchase of engine an-
alyzer, the paint and sign truck and the street sweeper.
City Reimbursement for Fire Protection Measures for Sin-
gle Family Residences. Memorandum from City Attorney
James P. Lough dated January 20, 1988.
Recommended Action: To receive and file.
(dd) Approval of grading plan revision to accommodate street
improvements at 532, 534-540 20th Street. Memorandum
from City Attorney James P. Lough dated January 15,
/f:5" 1988.
Recommended Action: To approve a revision to the con-
ceptual grading plan to accommodate street improvements
at 532, 534-540 20th St.
*****************************************************************
Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any item listed
under Consent Ordinances and Resolutions may do so at this time.
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
^MOTION TO WAIVE FURTHER READING:
After the City Clerk has read the title to any resolution or or-
dinance on tonight's agenda, the further reading thereof be
waived, reserving and guaranteeing to each Councilmember the
right•to demand the reading of any such resolution or ordinance
in regular order.
*****************************************************************
2. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
Sec 5w Let
k,
ORDINANCE NO; 88-915 - AN ORDINANCE OFTHECITY OF HER-
• MOSA.BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-
2, C -POTENTIAL TO C-3 AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 720 8TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS
LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK A, REDONDO HERMOSA TRACT. For
adoption.
(b) RESOLUTION 88-5099 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING OF A
PRECISE PLAN FOR 720 - 8TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS
LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK A, REDONDO HERMOSA TRACT. Resubmit-
tal for approval as to form. Memorandum from City Clerk
Kathleen Midstokke dated January 19, 1988.
(c) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR THE FILING OF
A NOTICE OF INTENT TO CIRCULATE INITIATIVE PETITION WITH
THE CITY. For adoption. Memorandum from City Clerk
Kathleen Midstokke dated January 19, 1988.
(d) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION 86-4818, WHICH
ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES FOR A SELF-INSURED LIABILITY PRO-
GRAM. For adoption. Memorandum from Risk Manager Rob-
ert Blackwood dated January 18, 1988.
(e) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE PROCEDURES FOR MERGING
LOTS UNDER SECTIONS 29.5-19 THROUGH 29.5-28 OF THE HER-
MOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE. For adoption. Memorandum
from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated January
18, 1988.
(f) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE RESOLUTION NO. N.S.
2435, AS AMENDED BY ADDING THERETO A LOADING ZONE See��yh
RESTRICTION ON A CERTAIN SECTION OF VALLEY DRIVE AS
HEREIN DESCRIBED. For adoption. Memorandum from Public
Works Director Anthony Antich dated January 18, 1988.
3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE
DISCUSSION.
4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC.
_(a) Letter from Rosamond Fogg, Chairperson, OSPAC, 610 Sixth
Street, Hermosa Beach, dated January 8, 1988 re. ballot
measure earmarking 4% increased U.U.T. toward purchase
yrdo) of railroad right-of-way.
Recommended Action: Refer to staff and City Attorney
for report back to Council.
(b)
Letter from Rod Merl, 485 - 25th Street, Hermosa Beach,
dated January 11, 1988 re. zoning and general plan
changes in area between Pacific Coast Hwy. and Ardmore,
from llth Street to 6th Street.
Recommended Action: Refer to staff for report to City
Council.
(C)
(d)
Letter from Frances Parker, 521-1/2 Loma Drive, Hermosa
Beach, re. light and noise problems from new condos at
446 Monterey Blvd.
Recommended Action: To refer the letter to staff for
investigation and reply.
Letter from Chamber of Commerce President Jerry Compton,
dated January 19, 1988 re. Hermosa Beach Chamber's goal
setting meeting and activities and accomplishments over
the past years.
Recommended Action: To receive and file.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M.
CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR ATCHI-
SON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY CO.'S PROPOSED GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN THE NORTH AND SOUTH CITY
LIMITS, AND ARDMORE AVENUE AND VALLEY DRIVE ON THE EAST
AND WEST RESPECTIVELY. Memorandum from Planning Direc-
tor Michael Schubach dated January 19, 1988.
*****************************************************************
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
6. IMPROVEMENT TO WALKWAYS ACROSS AT&SF RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-
WAY AT 21ST & VALLEY AND 16TH & VALLEY. Memorandum from
City Attorney James P. Lough dated January 5, 1988.
Recommended Action: To authorize staff to send letter
to AT&SF.
7. PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO REVISE TRUCK ROUTE. Memorandum
from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated January
19, 1988.
Recommended Action: To adopt resolution adding to the
truck route Valley Drive (southbound only) from Pier
Avenue to Herondo Street.
8. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER
9. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL
(a) Discussion of City Council Goals. Memorandum from Act-
ing City Manager Alana Mastrian dated January 20, 1988.
(b)
Recommended Action: Review list of goals, submit any
new goals you want to pursue, and directr new City Man-
ager to develop a plan of action for achieving the high
priority goals.
Future Planning Commission/City Council Subcommittee
Meeting. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael
Schubach dated January 20, 1988.
Recommended Action: To 1) discuss items the City Coun-
cil would like to discuss at a future Planning Commis-
sion/City Council Subcommittee meeting; and 2) schedule
3 tentative dates for the subcommittee meeting to allow
subcommittee members to select a mutually acceptable
date.
10. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL
Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items:
(a) Request by Councilmember Creighton for discussion of a
ballot measure for two -unit limit in R-2 zone.
Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to
discuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back
on a future agenda; or 3) resolution of matter by Coun-
cil action tonight.
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 comments regarding
City management or departmental operations are requested to sub-
mit those comments in writing to the City Manager.
ADJOURNMENT
8
y
NEW CITY HALL OPERATING HOURS
EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 30, 1987:
MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY
OPEN
7:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M.
12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
CLOSED FRIDAYS
etcdo
te.
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 otber 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 as an inte-
gral part of the City government.
Vehicle Parking District No. 1
The City Council also serves as the Vehicle Parking District Commission. It's pur-
pose is to oversee the operation of certain downtown -parking -lots end otherwise pro-
mote public parking in the central business district.
•
1
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, January 12, 1988 at
the hour of 7:30 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke
ROLL CALL
Present: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Williams, Mayor
Absent: None
PROCLAMATIONS: Cancer Awareness Week, April 18 - 24, 1988
PLAQUE OF APPRECIATION: Charles W. Sheldon, Planning Commissioner
June, 1984 - November, 1987
ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION
None
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Jerry Compton, 932
Edie Webber, 1201
Moira Nelson, 2415
Bill Stroyke, 3205
- 7th Street
- llth Street
Silverstrand
The Strand -
Simpson
- asked to speak to l.dd.
- asked to speak to 1.v.
- asked to speak to 1.dd.
asked to speak to l.dd.
1. CONSENT CALENDAR
Action: To adopt Consent Calendar items (a) through
(dd) with the exception of the fallowing items which
were pulled for further discussion but are listed in
order for clarity: (e) Williams, (f) Williams, (p)
Rosenberger, (t) Rosenberger, (v) City Clerk Midstokke
for Edie Webber, (z) Rosenberger, (bb) Creighton, (cc)
Williams, and (dd) City Clerk Midstokke for Jerry Comp-
ton, Moira Nelson and Bob Stroyke.
Motion Williams, second Rosenberger. So ordered
(a)
Minutes: Special meeting of
Saturday, December 12, 1987.
cil
of
held on
Action: To
(b) •
cil held on
approve minutes.
Approval of Minutes: Regular meeting
December 15, 1987.
Action: To
approve minutes.
the City Coun-
of the City Coun-
(c) Demands and Warrants: January 12, 1987
Action: To approve Demands and Warrants Nos. 25117
through 25126 and 25128 through 25279 inclusive noting
voided Warrants Nos. 25130, 25131, 25132 and 25186.
Tentative Future Agenda Items.
Action: To receive and file.
City Manager Activity Report: Memorandum from Interim
City Manager Gayle T. Martin dated January 6, 1988.
Proposed Action: To direct the City Attorney to edit
the AT&SF report for public viewing.
Motion Williams, second Rosenberger
AYES - Williams
NOES - Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Mayor Simpson
Action: To receive and file.
Motion Rosenberger, second Sheldon. So ordered noting
a NO vote by Williams.
(f) Annual Investment Report. Memorandum from City
Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated January 4, 1988.
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
Action: To receive and file report and adopt Resolution
No. 88-5096 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT
AND FILING OF THE ANNUAL STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY
FOR THE YEAR 1988."
Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered.
Monthly Investment Report - November, 1987. Memorandum
from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated December 14,
1987.
Action: To receive and file.
Monthly Investment Report - December, 1987. Memorandum
from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated January 4,
1988.
Action: To receive and file.
Monthly Revenue Report - November, 1987. Memorandum
from Finance Administrator Viki Copeland dated January
6, 1988.
Action: To receive and file.
Monthly Expenditure Report - November, 1987. Memorandum
from Finance Administrator Viki Copeland dated January
6, 1988.
Action: To receive and file.
- 2 - Minutes 1-12-88
r
V
(k)
(1)
(m)
(n)
(o)
(p)
City Treasurer's Report - November, 1987.
Action: To receive and file.
Recommendation to accept a liability settlement plan, as
outlined by Computil and authorize the City Manager to
sign agreement. Memorandum from General Services Direc-
tor Joan Noon dated December 16, 1987.
Action: To 1) approve the liability settlement plan as
outlined by Computil, to satisfy the debt owed by Verti-
cal Management Systems, and 2) authorize the City Man-
ager to sign the agreement.
Authorization to bid for downtown area maintenance.
Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich
dated December 21, 1987.
Action: To 1) approve contract and specifications for
downtown area maintenance, and 2) authorize staff to
advertise for bids and issue addenda as necessary.
Claims for Damages:
1) Ann Zemenak, 2055-B Manhattan Ave., represented by
Darrow & Meyer, 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 650, LA
90025, filed December 28, 1987.
2) Christine Myers, 71 - 19th Street #E, represented
by N. Clay Jacke II, 880 W. First St., #805, LA
90012, filed December 30, 1987.
3) Annette Macfarlane, 71 - 19th Street #F, represent-
ed by N. Clay Jacke II, 880 W. First St., #805, LA
90012, filed December 30, 1987.
Action: To deny claims and refer to the City's Claims
Administrator.
Proposed budget amendment to increase outside plan check
appropriation (Contract Service/Private) and increase
plan check revenue projection. Memorandum from Building
and Safety Director William Grove dated December 30,
1987.
Action: That the City Council increase the appropria-
tion for outside plan checking (plan check service/
private) to $32,000 and increase the plan check fee
revenue projection to $118,000.
Hermosa Beach Pavilion - Budgeting for future traffic
improvements. Memorandum from Public Works Director
Anthony Antich dated December 28, 1987.
- 3 - Minutes 1-12-88
Action: To approve the budget for future improvements
to the Pier/Valley/Ardmore intersection ($40,000).
Motion Rosenberger, second Creighton. So ordered.
Informational item regarding award of funds to the
Police Department. Memorandum from Public Safety Direc-
tor Steve Wisniewski dated December 28, 1987.
Action: To receive and file.
Switers report for the third quarter of 1987. Memoran-
dum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated
December 28, 1987.
Action: To receive and file report.
Cancellation of Warrants. Memorandum from City
Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated December 17, 1987.
Action: To approve cancellation of Warrants Nos. 024874
and 022849.
Planning Department staff report re. conditional use
permit enforcement program. Memorandum from Planning
Director Michael Schubach dated January 5, 1988. Sup-
plemental information - memorandum from Assistant Plan-
ner Alex Hernandez dated January 11, 1988.
Proposed Action: To receive and file, staff to work
closely with the Public Safety Director and the Planning
Commission re procedure for ticketing, parking enforce-
ment, notification in writing to all violators, letters
to commend those in conformance, and this list to be
sent to the Chamber of Commerce.
Motion Rosenberger,- withdrawn by the maker of the
motion.
Action: To receive and file report, and direct that all
public safety infractions be forwarded immediately to
the Public Safety Director for corrective action and all
suggestions mentioned here relating to the infraction
procedure for fines be incorporated in the action
brought before the Planning Commission for incorporation
in their final action.
Motion Rosenberger, second Sheldon. So ordered.
Final Action: To direct staff to return with a Resolu-
tion of Intention to send to the Planning Commission for
their recommendations of an amortization period for all
existing businesses that under our present zoning would
require CUP's but do not have them.
Motion Williams, second Sheldon. So ordered.
Minutes 1-12-88
•
(u) Child Abuse Monthly Report. Memorandum from Community
Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated January 5, 1988.
Action: To receive and file.
(v) Cost of public noticing for City initiated zoning chang-
es. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach
dated January 4, 1988.
(w)
(x)
(y)
(z)
Edie Webber, 1201 - 11th Street, stressed that Proposi-
tion EE was an Advisory Measure, not an Initiative.
Action: Authorize use of existing funds available in
the Planning Department's budget for public noticing of
the zone changes for consistency with the General Plan
and Advisory Measure EE.
Motion Rosenberger, second Sheldon. So ordered.
Review of Cooperative Personnel Services Labor Market
Salary Survey for Management Classes - Selected Cities.
Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dat-
ed January 6, 1988.
Action: To receive and file.
Acceptance of work as complete - sanitary sewer replace-
ment Target Area II (CIP 85-402). Memorandum from
Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated December 28,
1987.
Action: To 1) accept as complete work completed by
Christeve Corporation, 2) authorize staff to release the
10% retention payment for CIP 85-402 to Christeve Corp.,
3) release the Labor and Materials Bond and the Faithful
Performance Bond from Christeve Corp.
Request for authorization to solicit proposals for lease
of computer and communications equipment. Memorandum
from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated
January 4, 1988.
Action: Authorize the Police Department to solicit pro-
posals for the lease of computer and communications
equipment for the stand alone dispatch and records
functions.
Award of Bid for Kelly Courts resurfacing project at
Clark Field (CIP 87-507). Memorandum from Public Works
Director Anthony Antich dated December 30, 1987.
Action: To 1) authorize Mayor to sign agreement with
Richard Zaino in an amount not to exceed $51,480, 2)
authorize staff to issue construction change orders as
5
Minutes 1-12-88
•
necessary, and 3) authorize staff to apply for a trans-
fer of $31,000. Parklands' Grant Fund from CIP 87-508 to
CIP 87-507, and direct that user -pay fees be examined.
Motion Rosenberger, second Creighton. So ordered.
(aa) Street improvements proposed by Caltrans at Pier Avenue/
Pacific Coast Highway intersection. Memorandum from
Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated January 5,
1988.
Action: To receive and file.
(bb) Award of Bid for leasing various city vehicles: engine
analyzer, street sweeper, paint truck. Memorandum from
Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated December 28,
1987.
Action: To continue this item to the next meeting
(January 26, 1988) to allow Councilmember discussion
with the Director of Public Works.
Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered.
(cc) Award of Bid for construction of Beach Drive improve-
ments, and professional services agreement for inspec-
tion and contract administration services (CIP 87-302).
Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich
dated December 23, 1987.
Action: To 1) authorize Mayor to sign agreement with
Colich & Sons in an amount not to exceed $302,397, and
2) authorize staff to issue construction change orders
as necessary.
Motion Williams, second Rosenberger. So ordered.
(dd) Report and recommendations concerning fire hydrant re-
quirement at 2415 Silverstrand and recommended alterna-
tives for future problems of this nature. Memorandum
from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated
January 4, 1988.
Speaking in opposition to the staff recommendation were:
Jerry Compton, 932 - 7th Street
Moira Nelson, 2415 Silverstrand
Bob Stroyke, 3205 Strand
Jim Anderson, 3220 Morningside Drive
Action: To 1) direct staff to come back with a way to
gather funds for upgrading the fire hydrants and flow
requirement's, and 2) oblige the City to pay the first
$3,500, for single family residences only, for each new
fire hydrant to be installed due to inadequate fire hy-
drant spacing or. flow, the City Attorney to return with
a report at the next meeting determining if any dis-
crimination exists.
Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered.
- 6 - Minutes 1-12-88
s
A recess was called at 9:20 P.M.
The meeting reconvened at 9:30 P.M.
MOTION TO WAIVE FURTHER READING:
Action: To waive full reading of any ordinance or resolution on
this evening's agenda.
Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger
AYES - Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Williams, Mayor Simpson
NOES - None
2. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
(a) ORDINANCE NO. 87-912 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HER-
MOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING HERMOSA BEACH CITY
CODE SECTION 2-8, RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR CITY MAN-
AGER. For adoption.
Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 87-912 entitled "AN OR-
DINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA,
REPEALING HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE SECTION 2-8, RESIDENCY
REQUIREMENT FOR CITY MANAGER."
Motion Rosenberger, second Sheldon. So ordered.
(b) ORDINANCE NO. 87-914 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HER-
MOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION
19 1/2-10, ARTICLE II, CHAPTER 19 1/2; REGULATING THE
USE OF BACKPACK LEAFBLOWERS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. For
adoption.
Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 87-914 entitled "AN OR-
DINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA,
REPEALING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19 1/2-10, ARTICLE II,
CHAPTER 19 1/2; REGULATING THE USE OF BACKPACK
LEAFBLOWERS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS."
Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. So ordered.
(c) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP #18414
FOR 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 645 FIRST
PLACE. For adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director
Michael Schubach dated January 4, 1988.
Action: To adopt Resolution No. 88-5097 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP #18414
FOR 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 645 FIRST
PLACE."
Motion Williams, second Rosenberger. So ordered.
(d) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPOINTING A CITY MANAGER. For adop-
tion. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Black-
wood dated January 12, 1988.
Minutes 1-12-88
Action: To adopt Resolution No. 88-5098 entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPOINTING A CITY MANAGER (Kevin B.
Northcraft) with a change on line 16 "effective February
21, 1988." and on line 24 adding "Said contract is at-
tached as Exhibit A."
Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. So ordered.
3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE
DISCUSSION.
The following items were discussed at this time but are
listed in order on the Consent Calendar for clarity:
(e), (f), (p), (t), (v), (z), (bb), (cc), and (dd).
4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC.
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. ZONE CHANGE FROM R-2, C -POTENTIAL TO C-3 AND PRECISE
PLAN AT 720 EIGHTH STREET. Memorandum from Planning
Director Michael Schubach dated January 4, 1988. Sup-
plemental information - memorandum from Assistant Plan-
ner Andrew Perea dated January 11, 1988.
The staff report was presented by Planning Director
Michael Schuback who noted that residents feel that one
unit was not notified of the hearing.
City Attorney Lough directed that the minutes of the
December 15, 1987 City Council meeting be made a part of
this record.
The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak
in favor of the zone change were:
Mark Westley, 3324 Colorado Street,
representing Music Plus
Wilma Burt, 1152 - 7th Street
Tim Syvar, 19725 Sherman Way, Canoga
for Music Plus
Curtis Adams, 1217 Owosso
Speak in opposition to the zone
Long Beach,
Park, architect
change
Pat Price, 719 - 8th Street
Randy Warren, 710 - 8th Street (former
Shirley Myer, 654 - 8th Street
Mary Wright, 731 - 8th Street
The Public Hearing was closed.
- 8
were:
owner)
Minutes 1-12-88
Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 88-915 entitled "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AP-
PROVING A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-2, C -POTENTIAL TO C-3 AND A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 720 8TH
STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK A, RE-
DONDO HERMOSA TRACT."
Motion Sheldon, second Williams
AYES - Rosenberger, Sheldon, Williams, Mayor Simpson
NOES - Creighton
Further Action: To allow Jerry Cohen to speak for three
minutes.
Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered.
Speaking to Council was Jerry Cohen, 1429 - 4th Street,
Santa Monica - broker representing Music Plus - urged
approval of the Precise Plan.
Final Action: To adopt Resolution No. 88-5099 entitled
"RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING OF A PRECISE PLAN FOR 720 -
8TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK A,
REDONDO HERMOSA TRACT" with an amendment that the busi-
ness must secure the parking lot and eliminate lighting
(with the exception of security lighting) at 10:00 P.M.
Motion Sheldon, second Williams
AYES - Sheldon, Williams, Mayor Simpson
NOES - Creighton
ABSTAIN - Rosenberger
MUNICIPAL MATTERS
6. INSTALLATION OF A SOUND SYSTEM FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED
IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS. Memorandum from
Public Works Administrative Aide Merelyn Vanole dated
December 23, 1987. Supplemental information - letter
from Fleet Nuttall"dated January 7, 1988.
The staff report was presented by Public Works Director
Anthony Antich.
Action: To 1) approve the purchase and installation of
a sound system in the Council Chambers for the hearing
impaired, and 2) transfer $600 from Prospective Expendi-
tures to the City Council Equipment account.
Motion Creighton, second Williams
AYES - Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Williams, Mayor
Simpson
NOES - None
- 9 - Minutes 1-12-88
7. M. L. MEDIA CABLE TV
A. Request from Cable TV Board to approve subscriber
survey and appropriate funds to produce, circulate
and compile results. Memorandum from General Ser-
vices Director Joan Noon by Administrative Aide
Michele Tercero dated January 5, 1988.
Dr. Roy Schubert spoke to Council regarding the
subscriber survey and asked to have the award of
contract postponed.
Action: To 1) approve survey with corrections as
noted by Dr. Schubert, and 2) transfer funds from
Prospective Expenditures to the Cable TV Board, not
to exceed $2,000, for printing, mailing, etc.
Motion Sheldon, second Rosenberger. So ordered.
B. Recommendation to award contract for Cable TV con-
sulting services to Communications Support Corpora-
tion. Memorandum from General Services Director
Joan Noon by Administrative Aide Michele Tercero
dated November 23, 1987. (Continued from 12/15
meeting)
Action: To continue this matter for 60 days.
Motion Rosenberger, second Sheldon. So ordered.
8. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER
(a) Consideration of appointing an Acting City Manager.
Memorandum from Interim City Manager Gayle T. Martin
dated December 30, 1987.
(b)
Action: To approve the staff recommendation and adopt
Resolution No. 88-5100 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA,
APPOINTING AN ACTING CITY MANAGER (Assistant City Man-
ager Alana M. Mastrian)."
Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered noting a
NO vote by Williams who stated her objection was to
Section 2 - manner of fixing salary.
Proposed membership in the Southern California Water
Committee. Memorandum from Interim City Manager Gayle
T. Martin dated December 30, 1987.
Action: To receive and file.
Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered.
9. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL
(a)
City Council Personalized Stationery. Memorandum from
Finance Administrator Viki Copeland dated January 5,
1988. Supplemental information - memorandum from City
Clerk Kathleen Midstokke dated January 12, 1988.
- 10 -
Minutes 1-12-88
MARKETING INVESTMENT
PHONE 264-3700 5535 GATEWOOD DRIVE
AREA CODE 313
January 19, 1988
Ms. Diane Fairchild
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Dr.
Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254
Re: Pacific Coast AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc.
Dear Ms. Fairchild;
STERLING HEIGHTS. MICH. 48310
Please consider this our 30 day cancellation letter from the
date of January 1, 1988. WE were leasing property at 640
Flint Street, Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254.
circ. -Ar
Sincerely,_-
40 o�,A �.,U rt t �Z � fi
Nancy1.\\\CUA
CCeba 1`t
Agent 3M eaXh
RECEIVED
JAN 251
EIMNCE DER,
C
gra
bAo
GP-('L,c
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California, held on Wednesday, January 6, 1988 at
the hour of 7:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilmember Chuck Sheldon
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Creighton (arrived at 8:00 P.M.), Rosenberger, Sheldon,
Williams, Mayor Simpson
None
The meeting adjourned to a Closed Executive Session at 7:01 P.M.
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1), Potential
Litigation, and for discussion of the potential AT&SF railroad
right-of-way acquisition.
ADJOURNMENT
The Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa
Beach adjourned at 10:47 P.M. to a Regular Meeting to be held on
Tuesday, January 12, 1988 at the hour of 7:30 P.M.
Deputy ty Clerk
1
Open Space People's Action Committee - OSPAC
610 Sixth Street, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
(213) 379-5698
January 8, 1988
Mayor Etta Simpson
Hermosa Beach City Hall
1315 Valley Dr.
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Dear Mayor Sime
We who comprise the steering committee of OSPAC request that the following subject be
placed on the Council Agenda for discussion and consideration:
In Ju!y of 1987 OSPAC agreed to endorse a 4% increase of the Utility Users Tax (UUT)
proposed (and unanimously approved) by the City Council and placed on the November, 1987
ballot.
To our knowledge, this general purpose increase was the only tax increase approved by voters
anywhere in California that November, and the first time Hermosa Beach voters imposed a tax
on themselves. It remains a strong testimony to the depth of the citizen's commitment to
preserving the Greenbelt and their faith in the responsiveness and trustworthiness of you,
their local government.
The tax, unless earmarked by the voters, may be repealed by a vote of the people. This
current status makes it highly unlikely that any lending institution would regard the income
generated from the UUT as a stable and secure source of repayment.
For this reason, we urge the City Council to place this measure before .the public again.
Language might approximate the following:
"Shall that portion of the existing UUT approved by the voters in November of 1987 (a 4%
increase) be applied solely toward the purchase price (excluding legal, brokerage and other
fees) of the Santa Fe Right of Way and_retired once it is no longer required?"
We are confident that such a measure would readily receive the necessary 2/3 vote of the
people, and would be heartily welcomed by your constituents.
We are eager to leam when this item will be placed on your agenda, and request that we are
notified when this occurs.
Respectfully,
Rosamond Fogg __
Chairperson, OSPAC
Priscilla Atwell
sxinr:``
January 15, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of
of the City Council January 26, 1988
GRAFFITI
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Community Resources Advisory Commission
that City Council commend Public Work's Director Antich for his
department's efforts in addressing the graffiti problem whenever
it occurs in the City.
BACKGROUND
Various Commissioners have observed the quick action taken by the
Public Works Department in removing graffiti from public
property.
ANALYSIS
At the Commission meeting of December 16th, the Commission
discussed the graffiti problem in the City. At that time, in
addition to the recommendation above, they also wanted City
Council to direct the Public Works Director to research various
anti -graffiti paint and purchase the best on the market.
I have discussed this matter with Mr. Antich and he has indicated
he has already researched the various anti -graffiti paint on the
market. In contacting various agencies/cities that use the paint
he found the overwhelming consensus is, it doesn't work.
Mr. Antich also feels the graffiti "problem" is a minor one.
Areas that have been defaced are the Strand Wall at Second Street
(ocean side); outside of Clark Building (field side); and the
restroom (both inside and out) at the end of the Pier.
Public Works Director Antich feels his department can adequately
handle the minor graffiti problems the City now has with the
procedures he already has in place.
Concur:
Alana M. Mastrian
Ac g City Man-.er
Anthony'Antici, Direc
'AilAADept. of Public Works
Respectfully submitted,
Alana M. Mastrian, Director
Dept. of Community Resources
January 15, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of
of the City Council January 26, 1988
PRO VOLLEYBALL BEACH TOURNAMENT POLICY
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by Staff and the Community Resources Commission
that City Council adopt the attached Pro Volleyball Beach
Tournament Policy as the City's operating policy for handling
such events. Attachment A
BACKGROUND
The Commission, Council and Staff are concerned about the impact
of the Pro Volleyball Tournament on the residents of Hermosa
Beach.
While no major incidents have occurred, the consensus was to
review the entire tournament and devise a policy that is fair and
equitable for everyone concerned.
ANALYSIS
Up to now, no written policy regarding an event of the magnitude
of the Pro Volleyball Tournament was in place. A contract
between the City and the tournament producer was in effect and
that document essentially spelled out the responsiblities of both
parties. Please see attachment B.
A policy, however, such as the one we are recommending this
evening will serve as a basic guideline for both parties
stipulating basic conditions for which each party is responsible.
Any group requesting a permit for such as event will be given the
policy first. If they can meet the minimum guidelines of the
policy, then a contract will be negotiated.
The attached policy gives the City flexibility in dealing with
` any size tournament.
Respectfully submitted,
Alava M. Mastrian, Director
Dept. of Community Resources
Concur:
Alana M. Mastrian
Acting City Manager
A Attachment A
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
PRO VOLLEYBALL TOURNAMENT(S)
POLICY
FEES
Permit fee shall be negotiated by both parties with minimum
amount set at $3,000.
All predetermined costs/fees shall be paid two weeks prior to the
Tournament.
All unanticipated costs incurred by the City on behalf of the
event shall be paid three (3) weeks after tournament.
SECURITY
The City of Hermosa Beach
immediate vicinity of the
staffed at all times with
Police Department and one
its event promotion firm.
shall establish a command post in the
Tournament. The command post shall be
one representative of the Hermosa Beach
representative of the sponsor and/or
Event promotion firm/sponsor shall provide no less than ten
security officers. Said officers shall wear identifiable
uniforms that indicate a seperate identity from other Tournament
staff.
A representative of the security staff shall meet with the
Hermosa Beach Police Department Watch Commander prior to the
Tournament for a pre-event,briefing.
The private security staff shall be responsible primarily for
informing spectators of the City's alcohol ordinance.
The City of Hermosa Beach shall provide Police Officers for the
event as follows for each day of tournament, 10:00 a.m. - 6:00
— p.m.:
Cost of officers
firm/sponsor.
1 Sergeant
3 Officers ��!!
(✓J /��^�"'�Ls� h LG�/YJ OUW -d
all be assumed by the event promotion
CLEAN-UP
Event promotion firm/sponsor
maintenance service to clean
Tournament:
shall provide a professional
the following areas each day of 'the
. The Beach and Strand, from 8th Street to 15th Street.
. Pier Avenue, from Strand to Monterey Avenue.
The maintenance service shall be responsible for hauling the
trash collected outside the City each day of the Tournament.
All maintenance work is to be concluded by 8:00 p.m. each
evening.
Event promotion firm/sponsor shall provide additional trash
recepticals at the following locations:
. Beach (impacted area)
. Strand (impacted area)
. Parking Lots B and C
. Railroad Right-of-way
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BEACHES AND HARBORS SERVICES
Event promotion firm/sponsor shall assume all costs for two (2)
additional lifeguards each day of tournament.
INSURANCE
Event promotion firm/sponsor shall 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 million combined
single limit coverage.
Event promotion firm/sponsor agrees to defend, indemnify, and
hold the CITY and County of Los Angeles harmless from and against
any and all liabilty and expense, including defense costs and
legal fees, caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission
of the event promotion firm/sponsor its agents, officers and
employees, including, but not limited to, personal injury, bodily
injury, death and property damage.
CO-SPONSORS
A fee of $100 each shall be charged for all co-sponsors; with
each co-sponsor permitted one display booth.
ADVERTISING
Signage regarding the CITY'S alcohol ordinance shall be required
of the event promotion firm/sponsor. City staff shall determine
criteria for size, wording and locations for posting.
City of Hermosa Beach shall permit two street banners to be
posted for tournament. Cost of installation shall be the
responsibility of the event promotion firm/sponsor.
CITY shall permit event promotion firm/sponsor to display two*
large replicas of their product. City staff shall have final
approval of said replicas and determine location.
In the event of an alcohol sponsor, event promotion firm/sponsor
shall be required to make two (2) announcements per hour
informing spectators of the CITY'S alcoholic beverage ordinance.
All sponsor signs, props, product facsimilies, etc. deemed
necessary by event promotion firm/sponsor 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 event promotion firm/sponsor.
PARKING
Event promotion firm/sponsor shall 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.
Event promotion firm/sponsor shall provide a shuttle bus service
from a major satellite point(s) on the outskirts of or outside of
Hermosa Beach.
The City shall provide four (4) reserve officers to direct
traffic at locations to be determined by the Hermosa Beach Police
Department.
SPECIAL EVEN --
The CITY shall review all requests for any special events
requested to be held as part of the Tournament. The CITY shall
have the right to deny all requests.
MISCELLANEOUS CITY RESPONSIBILITIES
The CITY shall make any necessary contacts on behalf of the event
with the Los Angeles County Department of Beaches and Harbors.
If the event promotion firm/sponsor desires any County services,
they must process their request through the CITY. Any costs for
County services will be borne by the event promotion
firm/sponsor.
The CITY Police Department shall act as liaison with various
downtown merchants in an effort to mitigate any disruption during
the Tournament.
The City shall allow access to Tournament site for set-up
thirty-six (36) hours prior to Tournament.
The CITY shall reserve the end of Pier Avenue, Beach Drive to the
Strand for Tournament staff parking.
The CITY shall allow event promotion firm/sponsor the opportunity
to sell official pro volleyball concession items per certain
conditions.
No food or beverage doncessions shall be permitted.
THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH RETAINS THE RIGHT TO AMEND, ADD OR
DELETE ANY CONDITION(S) OF SAID POLICY.
MISCELLANEOUS EVENT PROMOTION FIRM/SPONSOR RESPONSIBILITIES
Event promotion firm/sponsor shall provide as many portable
port -a -johns as determined necessary by City staff.
Event promotion firm/sponsor shall designate area for spectators
to store alcoholic beverages.
Event promotion firm/sponsor shall be responsible for all prize
money, volleyball equipment, sound system and personnel necessary
for conducting such a tournament.
-4'1(C e -6 • ,//''r0t5e ICue
(
C SC c ud e n 4,4^,,,40
4
Attachment B
AGREEMENT
'This agreement is entered into on May 6, 1987, at.Hermosa Beach,
'California by and between GROUP DYNAMICS, INC, a Sporting Events
"'Promoter (GDI), and the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH (CITY), with regard
to the following facts:
11.
•
•
,,THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows:
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, including the Hermosa Beach Open.
C) GDI and CITY are desirous of entering into a relationship
with regard to the 1987 Hermosa Beach Open.
• ,.
•
1) GDI will pay to CITY a fee of $3,000 for use of the beach
volleyball courts located at the Hermosa Beach Pier, June
27 and 28, 1987. Said fee to be paid prior to
tournament.
2) GDI agrees to provide beach clean up around tournament
site both Saturday and Sunday as it did in 1986.
3) GDI will pay the cost for Police Officers to supervise
the event both days; the Chief .of Police or his designate
will mandate the number of officers and hours worked. In
the event of an emergency or other situationarising 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.
4) GDI will supply a security force of their own, minimum of
eight at any one time to supervise the crowd and alert
all present to the "Open Container" Ordinance of the
City. All such personnel shall be wearing identifiable
t-shrits.
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 the GUI, its agents, officers, and employees,
including, but not limited to, personal injury, bodily
injury, death, and property damage.
4.
S. •
6) GDI will guarantee a minimum announced purse of $20,000.
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 of the competition 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 June 1, 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.
r
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 permit the staging of a regional bathing
beauty competition for one hour, beginning at 1:00 p.m.,
June 27th; in conjunction with the volleytall tournament.
Procedures and guidelines for staging the bathing beauty
competition will be the same as last year's format. Said
competition shall take place at the south side of the
Pier and shall not impede lifeguarding activities. In
the event temporary construction is needed, GDI shall
return site to original condition.
15) CITY shall request the Los Angeles County Department of
Beaches to level the beach and sift the sand before 7:00
a.m. on June 26th. Costs shall be borne by GDI.
16) GDI will provide up to four portable toilets at a
location•agreed to by both contracting parties and the L.
A. County Lifeguards.
17) GDI shall provide a leaderboard, volleyballs, nets,
referees and all equipment necessary to stage the event.
•
18) All sponsor signs, props, product facsimilies, 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.
19) 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.
20) GDI shall have access to the Tournament site 36 hours
prior to start of event.
21) CITY to contact L. A. County Lifeguards to provide power
source for GDI.
22) CITY shall bloc
parking and to
for monitorin
pas . Beac
OVED,
the end of Pie- Avenue for GDI staff
ision access. GDI will be responsible
of this area. (Same area as in years
to Strand.
B
,CITY/. OR
•tr
.
GROUP DYNAMICS, INC.
B
Dir.
Date
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
Municipal Corporation,
ublil' Relatio
/Promotions Date
• C117
Date
January 19, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of
Hermosa Beach City Council January 26, 1988
SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 87-23 & POLICY STATEMENT 87-2;
EXPIRATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
INITIATED BY PLANNING COMMISSION
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission requests confirmation of the attached
Policy Statement 87-2 allowing a 1 1/2 year time frame for
execution of a Conditional Use Permit in conjunction with a
vesting map.
Background
On October 20, 1987, the Planning Commission requested that the
expiration date of Conditional Use Permits be reviewed in light
of the State's new requirements for vesting tentative maps.
Abstract
The proposed policy will limit the time an applicant has to
execute a Conditional Use Permit for a condominium project via a
standard condition imposed at the time of approval.
Analysis
Staff has investigated the time frame necessary to obtain a
Building Permit for a typical size condominium. One year should
be adequate except in unusual circumstances.
Once an applicant obtains a Conditional Use Permit, he must have
Coastal Commission approval, and submit plans for Structural Plan
Check prior obtaining a Building Permit. If for some reason a
year is not adequate, the Planning Commission could extend the
expiration date.
Staff believes that an applicant's vested rights should be
limited. If an Ordinance was changed several months after an
applicant had obtained a Conditional Use Permit, he would be
"Grandfathered" for up to one and one-half years.
Refer to Staff Report to Planning Commission for additional
analysis.
1
1t
t
Attachments
1. Planning Commission Policy Statement 87-2.
2. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of January 5, 1988.
3. Background Materials:
a. Staff Report dated December 15, 1987.
b. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of December 1,
1987.
c. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of November 17,
1987.
d. Staff Report dated November 10, 1987.
CONCUR:
Alava Mastrian
Acting City Manager
2
Respectfully submitted,
Mi
chu•ac
Planning Director
0.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
POLICY STATEMENT P.C. 87-2
A POLICY STATEMENT BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA REGARDING CONDOMINIUM CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that one and a half
years is adequate time to execute a proposed condominium project,
and therefore, the following conditions of approval shall be
imposed on all condominium projects:
1. This Conditional Use Permit shall become null and void if not
executed within 18 months of the date of Planning Commission
approval, or if reviewed on appeal, the date of approval by
the City Council.
2. The Planning Commission may extend the date of expiration
upon receipt of written request by the applicant when
submitted 30 days prior to the original expiration date.
VOTE: AYES: Chmn.Compton,Comms.DeBellis,Ingell,Peirce,Rue
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing Policy Statement P.C. 87-2 is
a e and complete record of the action taken by the Planning
Co':Iis: o of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their
et'nof -;n y 5, 1988.�i 1
/,, 937-2
19
20
- 21
22
23
24
25
26
27
' 28
ald ompton, Chairman
Date
3
Michael Schubach; Secretary
PLANNING COMMIC JI‘I MINUTES - JANUARY 5, 1988 PAGE 16
POLICY STATEMENT 87-2: CONDOMINIUM CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXPIRATION
DATE (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF DECEMBER 1, 1987)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 15, 1987. He suggested that the
Planning Commission not adopt the Policy Statement 87-2 as suggested by the
Commission at their meeting of December 1, 1987; rather, he suggested that the policy , f•e„-
.4 •;.;••
-4--
c
1.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 5, 1988 PAGE 17
statement as proposed by staff be adopted.
To adopt a policy statement which makes the staff in any way responsible for the
applicant requesting an extension to the conditional use permit is not wise.
The staff should not be burdened with reminding an applicant of his responsibility. If the
reminder letter is lost in the mail, or the applicant claims he did not receive the letter,
the staff will be blamed for the expiration of the permit. Further, staff has a large
workload at this time which has a high priority with the City Council.
At this time, staff sends a letter and the resolution to each applicant notifying him of
the conditions of approval. The expiration condition will be noted in every resolution. If
necessary, staff will put the expiration condition in bold print.
Mr. Lough agreed that a requirement that staff send out notices would put the staff at a
disadvantage. He noted that there could be a problem if an applicant says he did not
receive such a notice. He continued by discussing the legal aspect of this issue.
Comm. Rue agreed with staff on this matter, stating that he feels it is adequate to put
the expiration date in bold letters on each application. He concurred that the burden of
sending out letters should not be placed on staff.
Comm. Ingell suggested that the date be stamped on the form in large red letters. He
felt that such a notice is very important, stating that property rights are involved in this
issue.
Chmn. Compton suggested that the expiration date be in a large box at the top of the
page. He stated that the date should be as conspicuous as possible.
Chmn. Compton asked about automatic extensions for the conditional use permits.
Mr. Schubach stated it would not be necessary to go through the public hearing process
again. He stated that the applicant could send a written communication to staff, who
would then check to make sure the, project conforms with all current zoning regulations.
That information could then be passed along to the Planning Commission. He noted that
sufficient notice must be given by the applicant before the expiration date.
Comm. Peirce suggested that there be wording in the resolution advising that a written
request for an extension must be made at least 30 days before the expiration date.
Chmn. Compton felt that the date on the original form should be 30 days before the
actual expiration date; or, he suggested that both dates be on the form.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. DeBellis, to approve Resolution P.C. 87-
2, with the modifications that Condition No. 3 be deleted; and Condition No. 2 be
modified to clearly indicate that the written notice must be received at least 30 days
prior to the date of expiration. No objections; so ordered.
Earkgrounti
glatPr-iais
•
Ug.
Honorable Chairman and Members of the
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
(CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 1, 1987)
December 15, 1987
Regualar Meeting of
January 5, 1988
SUBJECT: POLICY STATEMENT 87-2; CONDOMINIUM CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE
INITIATED BY PLANNING COMMISSION
Recommendation
Staff recommends not adopting the attached Policy Statement 87-2
as suggested by the Planning Commission at their December 1, 1987
meeting.
Staff recommends adoption of the Policy Statement as proposed by
the staff.
Analysis
To adopt a policy statement which makes the staff in any regard
responsible for the applicant requesting an extension to the
Conditional Use Permit is not wise.
The staff should not be burdened with reminding the applicant of
his responsibility. If the reminder letter is lost in the mail,
or the applicant claims he did not receive the letter, the staff
will be blamed for the expiration of the permit. Further, staff
has a large workload at this, time which has a high priority with
the City Council.
At this time, the staff sends a letter and the resolution to each
applicant notifying him of the conditions of approval, the
expiration condition will be noted in every resolution!
-If necessary the staff will put the expiration condition in bold
print.
—6 —
Michael "Schubac
Planning Director
PLANNING COMMISS( 1 MINUTES - DECEMBER 1, 1987 PAGE 2
Chmn. Compton discussed Policy Statement P.C. 87-2, A POLICY STATEMENT BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA,
REGARDING CONDOMINIUM CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE. He
questioned whether the Commission had previously discussed the matter in detail.
Mr. Schubach suggested that this Policy Statement be continued to a future meeting so
that further discussion can take place.
Chmn. Compton did not feel the Policy Statement as presented is adequate, particularly
the first WHEREAS. He also noted that the statement did not address the issue of
vesting tentative maps. The statement also does not include the wording pertaining to a
courtesy notification by the City before the expiration date. He noted that that issue
was previously addressed and could be found on Page 19 of the minutes of November 17.
Comm. Rue asked for clarification of this issue as it relates to vesting tentative maps.
Mr. Schubach stated that he would return with more information on this matter.
MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Rue, to continue this item and request
that staff return with more clarification on the matter of this policy statement. No
objections; so ordered.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 17, 1987 PAGE 18
SPECIAL STUDY 87-2j AND PROPOSED POLICY STATEMENT REGARDING
EXPIRATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 4,
1987)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 10, 1987. On October 20, 1987, the
Planning Commission requested that the expiration date of conditional use permits be
reviewed in light of the State's new requirements for vesting tentative tract maps.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the proposed Policy Statement
87-2, and that vesting tentative maps be studied in conjunction with the Special Study of
Precise Development Plan Process.
Comm. Peirce favored a time limit of one and a half years, as opposed to one year, for
the life of a conditional use permit.
Chmn. Compton agreed, stating that one year is many times an inadequate amount of
time in which to complete a project. He noted, however, that there is a procedure by
which to request an extension. He continued by explaining the sequence of events in a
project and the times involved.
Chmn. Compton noted concern that applicants are not notified in advance that their
conditional use permits are about to expire.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Policy Statement 87-2,
with the modification to Condition No. 1 stating that "This Conditional Use Permit shall
become null and void if not executed within one and a half years of the date of Planning
Commission approval, or if reviewed on appeal, the date of approval by the City
Council."
Comm. Peirce felt there should be_a notification to applicants when the conditional use
permit is about to expire.
Comm. Ingell agreed, stating that property rights are at issue. He felt that notification
is a courtesy which the City should provide.
Mr. Lough stated that notification by the City could be done as a courtesy; however, he
cautioned against wording in the policy statement specifically requiring such a
notification.
Comm. Peirce suggested that there be a notification at 16 months advising an applicant
that the CUP will expire in two months.
Mr. Schubach stated that such a requirement could become onerous on his planning staff.
Mr. Lough suggested wording to the effect that as a courtesy, the City will send out
notifications; however, failure on the part of the City to send out notifications in no way
affects the deadline still in place.
Chmn. Compton wanted to ensure that applicants receive the notification in an adequate
amount of time.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 17, 1987 PAGE 19
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Ingell as second, and agreed to by Comm.
Peirce as maker, to add a condition to the Policy Statement stating that as a courtesy,
the City shall send out notification sufficiently in advance of the expiration of the
conditional use permit; however, failure on the part of the City to send out such notice in
no way affects the expiration date. Also, the expiration date shall be clearly visible on
the conditional use permit.
AYES: Comms. Inge11, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
AINID
Honorable Chairman and Members of the
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(Continued from November 4, 1987)
November 10, 1987
Regular Meeting of
November 17, 1987
SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 87-23 & POLICY STATEMENT 87-2; EXPIRATION
OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
INITITATED BY PLANNING COMMISSION
Recommendation
Staff recommends that attached Policy Statement P.C. 87-2 be
adopted and the vesting tentative map be studied in conjunction
with the Special Study of Precise Development Plan Process.
Background
On October 20, 1987, the Planning Commission requested that the
expiration date of Conditional Use Permits be reviewed in light
of the State's new requirements for vesting tentative maps.
Analysis
Current Ordinance: Currently, the expiration date for all
Conditional Use Permits is 2 years, unless another date is
specified within the conditions of approval (refer to attached
ordinance for specifics).
Since the ordinance already -allows the Planning Commission to set
the date of expiration, Staff will be adding an expiration date
of 1 year to condominium Conditional Use Permits which are
submitted in conjunction with vesting tentative maps. Also, a
provision will be added that the Planning Commission may allow an
extension to the Conditional Use Permit so that if there seems to
be no need to conduct a public hearing or to change and/or add
—more conditions of approval, the Planning Commission can opt to
not do so.
Precise Development Plans: If an applicant requested a vesting
tentative map which was not in conjunction with a condominium,
all the ordinances in place at the time would apply for the next
three years.
The City's only option to impose additional, or modified
conditions of approval, would be to require some type of approval
process for all projects.
Upon City Council's request, Staff is currently conducting a
study of requiring a Precise Development Plan for all types of
-10 -
projects so that an Environmental Assessment can be made and
mitigation measures imposed.
Staff believes it should add the examination of using the Precise
Development Plan process in conjunction with vesting tentative
maps to its study. %
///
Michael Subach
Planning Director
Law Offices of James P. Lough
JAMES P. LOUGH
January 18, 1988
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
30 NORTH RAYMOND AVENUE
SUITE 708
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91103
(213) 381-6131
(818) 792-4728
(818) 7924776
MEMORANDUM
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 1988
TO: Mayor and Member of the City Council
FROM: JAMES P. LOUGH, City Attorney
Linda LeVanway, Paralegal
RE: Issuance of Alcoholic Beverage Licenses Prior to C.U.P.
Approval by City
Introduction
This office has been asked to address why the A.B.C. has
issued licenses within the City without prior C.U.P. approval
imposed by the City. This memorandum will examine the ABC's
preemptive ability to issue licenses and the ability for a city
to appeal the issuance of a license.
Analysis
Pursuant to California Constitution Article XX Section 22,
the state has the exclusive right and power to license and
regulate manufacture, sale, purchase, possession, and
transportation of alcoholic beverages within the state. Because
the power vested in the state by the constitution is exclusive,
local control of traffic in alcoholic beverages by counties or
municipalities is generally precluded. This is true
notwithstanding a preexisting constitution provision vesting in
chartered municipalities the power to make and enforce all laws
and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, since the later
constitutional provision in effect removes the licensing and
regulation of the traffic in alcoholic beverages from the realm
of a municipal' affair, makes it a matter of general state-wide
concern, and controls the specific field which it expressly
purports to cover. The only field of regulation not exclusively
a matter of state-wide concern and not preempted is the area of
consumption of alcoholic beverages. Consumption could
reasonably be expected to create a police problem, therefore
subject to local regulation.
Pursuant to the authority vested in it by the State
Constitution, the legislature has enacted various statutes
regulating the traffic in alcoholic beverages, the principal one
being the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, which provides for the
licensing, regulation; and control of the manufacture,
transportation, sale,purchase, possession, and disposition of
alcoholic beverages. The act is administered and enforsed by
the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Business and
L20/abcmemo -1-
Professions Code section 23000 et seq. provides extensively for
administration, licensing, types of licenses and revocation, and
various restrictions such as location of alcohol licenses near
schools or churches and licenses issued per population.
Although issuance of licenses are in the discretionary power
of the ABC pursuant to law, Business and Profession Code section
23790 states:
"No retail license shall be issued for any premises
which are located in any territory where the exercise
of the rights and privileges conferred by the license
is contrary to a valid zoning ordinance of any county
or city. Premises which had been used in the exercise
of such rights and privileges at a time prior to the
effective date of the zoning ordinance any continue
operation under the following conditions:
(a) The premises retain the same type of retail liquor
license within a license classification.
(b) The licensed premises are operated continuously
without substantial change in mode or character of
operation.
Obviously, this section means that it is not within the
discretion of ABC to issue a license in a residential
neighborhood. Also it means that prior to the issuance of a
license the ABC is mandated to make sure that the license
conforms to the zoning restrictions of the subject property.
Ideally, the ABC should hold a license until the City declares
that all zoning conditions are met. However, recently the ABC
issued licenses to Martha's Restaurant, Backburner Cafe, and
Hennesy's Bar before a CUP has been approved. There are
measures by which the City can enforce its zoning restrictions
before the issuance of a license and after.
Methods By Which the City Can Enforce
a Valid Zoning Ordinance Before and After
the Issuance of an Alcoholic Beverage License
1. Protest of Issuance
Upon receipt of an original application for any license or
an application for transfer of any license, the ABC must mail a
copy of such application to specified governmental bodies and
law enforcement agencies of the locality where the premises
sought to be licensed are situated. No license may be issued or
transferred until at least 30 days after the mailing the
application copies are mailed (B&P 23987). In addition, a
notice of intention. must be posted on the entrance of the
premises for at least 30 days prior to the issuance of a license
and a publication of notice pursuant to Governemnt Code 6061 is
required (B&P 23985 and 23986). At any time during the 30 days
from the first date of posting the notice of intention, a
protest may be filed with the ABC. The department may reject
protests, except protests made by a public agency or public
official or protests 'made by the governing body of a city or
-2-
county (B&P 24013). Pursuant to Business and Professions Code
section 24015, a hearing on the protest shall be held not more
than 60 days after receipt of the protest by the State Office of
Administrative Hearings. The issuance of the license is
withheld until final determination of the hearing.
2. Appeal for Review to Alcohol Beverage Control Board
The decision made upon a protest hearing may be appealed.
On or before the tenth day after the last day on which
reconsideration of a final decision of the department can be
ordered, any party may file an appeal with the board from such
decision. This appeal shall be in writing and shall state the
grounds upon which a review is sought (B&P 23080 et seq.) No
decision of the department shall become effective during the
period in which the appeal may be filed and the filing of an
appeal shall stay the effect of the decsion until such time as a
final order is made by the board (B&P 23082). The review board
shall be limited to the questions it considers during appeal,
two of which are whether the department has proceeded without,
or in excess of its jurisdiction and whether the department has
preceeded in the manner required by law. Upon finding that
there is ample evidence to reverse the decision by the
department, the board may direct the reconsideration of the
matter in light of its order and may direct the department to
take such further action as is specifically enjoined upon it by
law. (B&P 23085) Only after this step may the decision of the
board be appealed to the Supreme Court or to the court of appeal
for a writ of review of the final order. -
3. Suspension and Revocation of License
Generally, a licensee may at the discretion of the ABC be
suspended or revoked because of violations concerning moral
turpitude. However, any conduct constituting a violation of any
section of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act is a ground for
suspension or revocation of a license.
Any person may submit to the department a written accusation
against any licensee, stating one or more grounds that would
authorize the suspension or revocation of the license held by
—the licensee. Business and Profession Code section 24203
prescribes that when a local legislative body certifies that the
public safety, health, or welfare requires an immediate hearing
of an accusation, the department shall provide for a public
hearing within 60 days after the filing of the accusation with
the department. In any proceeding to suspend or revoke a
license, a notice of the hearing must be mailed to the licensee
and all interested parties.
Conclusion
As discussed, the City has three options to enforse the CUP
for businesses with alcoholic beverage licenses. First, upon
notice, the City can file a protest within the specified period
of time to delay the •issuance until all zoning regulations are '
met. Second, if the license is still issued after the protest
is heard, which is not likely, the City can appeal the hearing
to the Alcohol Beverage Control Broad. Lastly, the City can
certify that the public safety, health, or welfare requires an
immediate hearing on the revocation or suspension of a license
because it was issued in violation of Business and Profession
Code section 23790.
NOTED:
i�
A ANA MASTRIAN, Acting City Manager
Respectfully submitted,
S P. LOUGH, C
Y OF HERMOSA BEACH
L20/abcmemo -4-
V
Honorable Mayor and Members of
the Hermosa Beach City Council
January 19, 1988
City Council Meeting
of January 26, 1988
RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE ATTACHED
CABLE TV BOARD SUMMARY AND TO ACCEPT THE
RESIGNATIONS OF TWO BOARD MEMBERS
Recommendation:
(1) To receive and file report, and (2) to accept the resigna-
tions of Cable TV Board members Susan Hay and Barbara Jean Hol-
land, effective January 18, 1988. The Board also requests that
the Council not appoint others to fill those vacancies, thereby
having the Board consist of only 10 members.
Background:
At your regularly scheduled meeting of August 11, 1987, Council
approved staff's recommendation to appoint a Cable TV Board.
Staff then arranged for a notice to be published, advertising the
City's desire to institute the Board. Twelve applications were
received. Subsequently, at your regularly scheduled meeting of
October 27, 1987, Council approved the appointment of all twelve
(12) applicants to the Cable TV Board.
Analysis:
The Board seems to be having a difficult time attaining a quorum
of the twelve (12) members and desires to reduce their membership
by two (the two who have resigned), and thereby have the Board
consist of only (10) members.
Alternatives:
1. Fill the vacancies left by the two members who resigned, by
asking for additional applicants. (all twelve original applicants
were appointed)
CONCUR:
Joa( Noon,
General Services Director
ede
Alana' M. Ma•str3an.,
Acting City Manager
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Noon,
General Services Director
by
Michele D. Tercero,
Administrative Aide
Staff Liaison, CATV Board
SUMMARY OF 4TH MEETING CABLE TV BOARD
January 18, 1988
The meeting was convened at 1938 hours
Present were: Dr. Roy Schubert
Scott Rosenberg
Stephen Gach (1)
Absent were: Evan Wright (2)
Barbara Jean Holland (3)
Charlotte Malone (2)
Jane Allison arrived at 2040 hours.
by Dr. Schubert.
Christopher Rowe (1)
Robert Fleck (1)
Sylvia Barton (3)
John McIntyre (3)
Susan Hay
Chair Schubert stated that he believed there was a quorum present
of five, pending the acceptance by the Council of the resigna-
tions of Susan Hay and Barbara Jean Holland. He asked that staff
present the resignations to Council at their meeting of January
26, 1988, and to advise the Council that the Board does not want
them to reappoint replacements.
Motion by Scott to adopt a set of by-laws, by which the CATV
Board operate henceforth. Second by Chair Schubert. He asked
for suggestions. Staff read from Robert's Rules, page 295, 1st
paragraph, "Proceedings in the absence of a Quorum'. Chair Schu-
bert said that he was declaring they have a quorum, as it is a
question of opinion whether there is a quorum. Staff referred to
Section 2-2.14 HBMC, "Rules of Order". Chair Schubert again de-
clared that the Board had a quorum and asked Staff to present to
the Council the resignations of Ms. Hay and Ms. Holland, asking
that the Council not appoint replacements, and that the actions
of this meeting depend upon the acceptance of the resignations by
Council.
Motion by Scott to adopt as theirs, the by-laws of the Planning
Commission of Hermosa Beach. Second by Chair Schubert.
Discussion regarding the content of the by-laws, what constitutes
"excused" absences. Reference to HBMC by staff.
All ayes.
Motion by Robert to adopt a modification of the Planning Commis-
sion by-laws, whereby a Board member may have an unlimited number
of excused absences, excused absences meaning that the if the
Chairman is notified at anytime before the commencement of the
meeting, then it shall be at the discretion of the Chairman to
declare it an execused absence. Second by Scott.
All ayes.
Status report fr.om Chair Schubert on the Council's approval of
the survey last week. Chris Rowe offered to put the survey.on
his Macintosh.
The order of the questions changed: #9=#1, #10=#2, #11=#3,
#12=#4, #1=#5, #2=#6, #3=#7, #4=#8, #5=#9, #6=#10, #7=#11,
#8=#12, #13 on status quo.
Finalized format of question #12.
Scott to detail arrangements with M.L. Media. Christopher to
finalize survey.
Jane Allison arrived at 2040 hours.
Staff to check on the availiblity of the paper through the City,
and the cost.
Motion by Scott to adjourn, reconvene, pass the two motions
passed earlier with reference to the by-laws now that there is a
formal quorum. Second by Robert. Scott, Chris, Robert, Stephen,
Chairman Schubert, all ayes.
Meeting reconvened at 2042 hrs. Present: Schubert, Gach, Rosen-
berg, Rowe, Allison and Fleck.
Motion by Scott to adopt as their by-laws, the by-laws of the
Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, with the added
provision that, members of the CATV Board may have an unlimited
amount of absences so long as those absences have been excused by
the Chairman of the Board, at his discretion. The Chairman of
the Board, at his discretion, may terminate the appointment of
any member, who in the judgment of Chairman has been absent in
excess of three (3) times, unexcused. Second Gach.
Motion redefined. Three (3) absences from regular meetings of
any Board member within one (1) calendar year period creates an
automatic vacancy on said Board unless excused from such atten-
dance by the consent of the Chairman prior to the meeting, ex-
pressed by an action on the record. The Secretary of the Board,
shall thereupon promptly notify the City Council and any such
member of that fact, whereupon the vacancy shall remain vacant.
Second Gach
All ayes.
Motion by Rosenberg, to appoint Staff Liaison as the non-voting
Secretary of the CATV Board, and that the CATV Board summary be
attached to the General Services monthly activity report. Second
Allison.
All ayes.
Motion by Rosenberg, to have the Secretary send to Bert at M.L.
Media, a copy of the Boards agenda, and summary. Second Gach.
No objections.
Scott to provide Chairman Schubert with better copies of part 76
FCC. Staff to forward to. Chairman Schubert and Scott copies of
the progress report sent out to the Board members, but not
received by them.
Motion by Chair Schubert to settle on two methods to get the sur-
vey mailed. Either M.L. to process, mail etc. if they will, or
use the City's envelope with the survey inside. Second Gach.
All ayes.
Next meeting February 8, 1988.
Staff to get a copy of the Planning Commission by-laws.
Motion from Jane, to start the counting of unexcused absences
effective this meeting. Second Rosenberg.
All ayes.
Motion by Jane, to adjourn. Second Schubert.
Meeting adjourned at 2125 hrs.
Michele D. Tercero,
Administrative Aide
Staff Liaison CATV Board
January 19, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting
of the Hermosa Beach City Council of January 26, 1988
AWARD OF BIDS FOR LEASE/PURCHASE OF COMPUTER AND
COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT FOR DISPATCH AND RECORDS
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that City Council:
1. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a lease agreement with
Security Pacific Merchant Bank of Los Angeles for the lease/purchase
of computer and communications equipment and software necessary for
dispatch and records management.
2. Authorize purchase of equipment from the responsible vendors meeting
all requirements of the requests for proposal
3. Authorize staff to issue change orders and negotiate with vendors as
necessary.
BACKGROUND:
At the regular City Council meeting of May 26, 1987, Council instructed staff to
prepare reports and recommendations regarding withdrawal from South Bay Regional
Public Communications Authority (RCC).
At the regular Council meeting of October 27, 1987, Council adopted a resolution
of intent to withdraw from RCC; approved an agreement with California Water
Service Company for location of a radio transmitter facility, and directed staff
to obtain all necessary equipment to begin in-house dispatch and records manage-
ment on July 1, 1988.
Council authorized solicitation of bids for acquisition and lease of the
necessary equipment at the regular meeting of City Council on January 12, 1988.
ANALYSIS:
On January 19, bids were received and publicly opened. All bids are on file in
the office of the City Clerk. The analysis of these bids are divided into the
following sections:
I. Lease
II. Digital Hardware and Software
III. Power Conditioning and Distributing Equipment
1
1 w
A.
I. LEASE
Receipt of Bids
The following bids were received:
Vendor
1. EL Camino Resources Ltd.
2. Gelco Municipal Services
3. Security Pacific Merchant Bank
4. Marquette Lease Services, Inc.
5. New Tech Leasing, Inc.
Annual Payment Interest rate
$118,227. 9.75%
$116,698. 7.57%
$116,438. 7.45%
$115,785 + 11,404 dn. 7.125% *
$ 86,898. 13.590% **
Except for the bid from #5, New Tech, each of these bids are for a 5 year period
and are for the total package. New Tech is only for 3 years and they will only
handle the computer equipment and software.
B. Evaluation of Bids
* Marquette Lease Services, Inc. have the lowest interest rate. However, the City
would be required to do a buydown of 2.25% up front in order to get this rate.
This amount, when added to the total of the annual payments, exceeds the next
low bidder, Security Pacific. ** New Tech's proposal was not for the total
package as specified in the request for proposal, and are disqualified.
Security Pacific Merchant Bank has extensive experience with municipalities.
They were the successful bidder on the RCC project and are a California based
firm
The annual payment method was selected because it is the most cost effective
financing plan.
C. Recommendation
Staff recommends entering into a lease/purchase agreement with Security Pacific
Merchant Bank.
II. DIGITAL HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE
A. Receipt of Bids
The following bids were received:
Vendor
1. El Camino Resources Ltd.
2. Hamilton/Avnet Electronics
3. Command Data Systems
4. Lex Computer Systems
2
Amount
$119,400
$119,921.56
$136,982.
$123,119.11
f
B. Evaluation of Bids
It is indicated on the Request for Proposals that the City was seeking bids from
"authorized Digital distributors". This was specified because Digital may be
sold by many vendors, but the warranty may not be valid if the vendor was not an
authorized Digital distributor. The bid from El Camino Resources Ltd. was low
bid, but an inquiry with Digital Equipment Corporation indicated that they are
not an authorized Digital distributor. That being the case, this bid should be
disqualified. The next low bid is from Hamilton/Avnet and is only $521.56 more
than the El Camino bid. Hamilton/Avnet is an authorized Digital distributor and
the distribution sales manager for Digital indicates that Hamilton/Avnet is a
very reliable vendor.
C. Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council award the bid to Hamilton/Avnet, the low bidder
meeting all specifications.
III. POWER CONDITIONING AND DISTRIBUTING EQUIPMENT
A. Receipt of Bids
The following bids were received:
Vendor Amount
1. S&J Sales
$21,270.
Only one bid was received on this equipment. The proposal was delivered
other vendors.
to five
B. Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council authorize purchase of the equipment from S&J
Sales. Their bid is consistent with the budgetary figures obtained prior to the
request for proposals.
Concur:
Alana Mastrian,
As:4 tont City Manager
Al
ctfully Subiitted,
Steve S. Wisniewski
Director of Public Safety
Noted for Fiscal Impact:
62.4.1
Viki Copeland,
Finance Administrator
January 18, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of
the Hermosa Beach City Council January 26, 1988
PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS/FOYER AREA
CIP 87-602
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council not authorize Joncich, Sturm
& Associates (JSA) to proceed with final design for the Council
Chambers/Foyer area renovation.
Background:
Historical Background
On June 23, 1987, City Council approved the FY 87-88 Capital
Improvement Budget, which included the following:
Community Center Air Conditioning $45,000
Community Center Furnace Replacement $ 8,000
On August 11, 1987, City Council was presented a report outlining
deficiencies in the City Hall electrical system. City Council
appropriated $74,250 for the provision of electrical upgrade at
City Hall.
On August 25, 1987, City Council authorized solicitation of a
request for proposal for various electrical/mechanical/structural
improvements. In addition to the work described above, City
Council appropriated an additional $6,000 for the provision of
designing (only) an air conditioning system in the City Hall
Council Chambers and investigating extending the Council Chambers
into the foyer.
**********
On November 10, 1987 City Council authorized the Mayor to sign an
agreement with Joncich, Sturm and Associates for architectural
services for the various electrical/mechanical/structural capital
improvements for the Hermosa Beach Council Chambers and Community
Center Theatre at a cost not to exceed $19,250, and to consider
appropriation of construction dollars after the design is
completed.
After receiving a valid insurance certificate, a Notice to
Proceed was issued December 8, 1987, and design work began on
December 14, 1988.
Analysis:
The analysis
sections:
of this report is
divided
1. Project Status
2. Council Chambers/Foyer Area
3. Fiscal Impact
4. Alternatives
into the following
1. Project Status
The status of the design services for CIP 87-602, 87-604 is
indicated below:
Task
Electrical Upgrade of City Hall
Community Center Theatre
Air Conditioning
Status
Design to be completed
by January 29, 1987
Design to be completed
By January 29, 1987
Design to be completed
Council Chambers Air Conditioning by January 29, 1987
2. Council Chambers
On January 7, 1988 JSA submitted Exhibit A to the Public Works
Director. Exhibit A illustrates two possible preleminary designs
(Scheme A and Scheme B) for the Council Chambers/Foyer area. The
cost to prepare Scheme A & B was $800.00.
In summary, the only difference between Scheme A and Scheme B is
as follows:
1. Door between
council Chambers
and Foyer
2. Construction
Cost
Scheme A
Located in
Northwest
corner of
Foyer
$30,000 (est),
including
$14,000 for
partitions
2
Scheme B
Located in Southwest
corner of Foyer.
Will require relocation
of pay telephone.
$30,500 (slightly
higher, due to
relocation of pay
telephone)
3. Fiscal Impact
The additional cost for JSA to complete the design for either
Scheme A or Scheme B is approximately $4,000. Therefore the cost
to the city for design and construction of the Council
Chambers/Foyer Area renovation would be an additional expenditure
of nearly $35,000. Staff does not recommend this expenditure at
this time, however JSA will proceed with the design of the
Council Chamber's air conditioning system.
4. Alternatives
Other alternatives considered by staff and availible to Council
are:
1. Authorize JSA to proceed with the design services of the
Council Chambers/Foyer Area in accordance with Scheme A
or Scheme B, Exhibit A, and appropriate $4,000 from the
General Fund to CIP 87-602.
Respectfully submitted,
D= •orah M. Murp y
Assistant Engineer
Concur:
Alana Mastrian
Acting City Manager
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Schemes A & B
3
Concur:
An ony Antic
Director of Pub is Works
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PANEL STORAGE
z PANEL PARTITION
I
COFFEE / STORAGE
-SODA MACHINE
FOYER
PHONE
MOVABLE
DISPLAY
NITS
ALTERNATE DISPLAY UNIT LOCATION
SCHEME A
1
WEST ELEVATION
SCHEME A
�a
.11011
PANEL STORAGE
COUNCIL. CHAMBERS
PANEL PARTITION
r,
t+';n
L - _,1_
L_ _ _ --
COFFEE / STORAGE
FOYER
1111111'''
w�r
W�
SODA MACHINE
PHONE
MOVABLE
DISPLAY UNITS
1 1
ALTERNATE DISPLAY UNIT LOCATION
4-- — — — L- - - - J
SCHI E M E B
vaw
WEST .ELEVATION.
SCHEME B
1
•
r.
•
,_
•
•
1
' • =te4
•
•
'N.
+..
r
\
t
January 18, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of
the Hermosa Beach City Council January 26, 1988
AGREEMENT FOR INSPECTION AND ADMINISTRATION FOR
BEACH DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS, CIP 87-302
Recommendaton:
It is recommended that City Council:
1. authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement with BSI
Consultants, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $24,745, and
2. authorize staff to issue change orders as necessary.
Background:
The purpose of CIP 87-302 is to construct a storm drain, sanitary
sewer and street improvements on Beach Drive between 6th Street
and 10th Street. On October 27, 1987, City Council authorized
the Public Works Department to advertise for bids for both
construction and professional inspection services of CIP 87-302,
and issue addenda as necessary. On January 12, 1988, City
Council authorized the Mayor to sign an agreement for the
construction of CIP 87-302 with Colich & Sons in an amount not to
exceed $302,397.
Analysis:
The Request for Proposals was mailed to eight firms in December
1987 and written proposals were received on December 29, 1987 as
follows:
BSI Consultants, Inc.
ASL Consulting .Engineers
Mohle, Grover & Associates
-Harris & Associates
Charles Abbott Associates, Inc.
Design Fee Not to Exceed
$22,495
$30,700
$37,400
$38,581
$47,100
All proposals are on file in the Office of the City Clerk. The
lowest cost proposal was submitted by BSI Consultants, Inc.
After conducting a reference check and interviewing the three
firms whose proposals best appeared to meet the needs of the City
(BSI Consultants, ASL Consulting Engineers and Harris &
Associates), BSI Consultants, Inc. is the lowest cost proposal
that best meets the needs of the City.
Fiscal Impact:
Staff recommends awarding the agreement to BSI Consultants, Inc.
as follows:
This
BSI Consultants, Inc.
Design Fee Not to Exceed $22,495
Plus, 10% Contingency _21222.
Total Contract Amount, Not to Exceed2$ 4,745
agreement would result in the following fiscal impact:
CIP 87-302
Budgeted
to Date
Actual
Expenditures
to Date
Proposed
Contract Amt.
Plans, Specifications
and Estimates $ 5,700 $5,700 N/A
Construction 317,744 -0- $302,397
Inspection 38,000 -0- 24,745
Contingency 36,144 64,546
TOTAL $397,388 $5,700 $391,688
Alternatives:
Other alternatives considered by staff and
Council are:
available to City
1. Award the agreement to other than the -lowest cost proposal.
Respecful submitted,
1
Deborah M. Murphy
Assistant Engineer
Concur:
4/8-4t.;;Pv;eZ22)
Alava Mastrian
Acting City Manager
bch/v
Attachments: Exhibit A -
Exhibit B -
Exhibit' C -
Concur:
Director of P
Anthony Antic
td)
blic Works
Noted for Fiscal Impact:
Viki Copeland
Finance Administrator
Agreement (Proposal is on file in the
Office of the City Clerk)
CIP 87-302 Budget
Project Schedule
Exhibit A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
INSPECTION AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION SERVICES FOR SANITARY
SEWER, STORM DRAIN & STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON BEACH DRIVE,
CIP 87-302
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day
of , 1987 by and between the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a
Municipal Corporation hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and
hereinafter referred to as "ENGINEER"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, CITY desires to retain ENGINEER to perform sani-
tary sewer inspection and contract administration services as set
forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein and
by this reference made a part hereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. CITY agrees to retain ENGINEER toperform inspection
and contract administration services as herein set forth.
2. ENGINEER shall perform all work necessary to complete
in a manner satisfactory to CITY the services set forth in Ex-
hibit "A" entitled Proposal and attached hereto and by reference
incorporated herein and made a part hereof.
3. All information, data, reports and records and maps as
are existing and available from CITY, and necessary for carrying
out the work outlined in Exhibit "A" shall be furnished to EN-
GINEER without charge by CITY and CITY shall cooperate in every
way reasonable in the carrying out of the work without delay.
4. ENGINEER represents that it employs, or will employ, at
is own expense all personnel required in performing the services
a..s.:e:iJ.asx:ltSs.11t 324aa .:6nt+e+did+in.. a�Qi1i "�'':
required under this Agreement.
5. All of the services required hereunder will be per-
formed by ENGINEER or under its direct supervision, and all per-
sonnel engaged in the work shall be fully qualified and shall be
authorized or permitted under state and local law to perform such
services.
6. CITY's Director of Public Works (the "Director" or his
designee) shall direct the ENGINEER to proceed and the work re-
quired shall be completed within the time limit mutually agreed
upon. ENGINEER shall have no claim for compensation for any ser-
vices upon which the Director has not authorized ENGINEER to
proceed.
7. The ENGINEER shall work closely and cooperate fully
with the Director, or his designee, who shall be the liaison
between ENGINEER and the CITY and who shall review and approve
all details of the work as it progresses.
8. The CITY reserves the right to terminate or suspend
the Agreement at any time•u.pon seven (7) days written notice ef-
fected by personal delivery or by a bona fide mail service, which
shall be deemed communicated as of the date of receipt thereof,
under any of the following circumstances:
(a) The project, as described in the attached Exhibit
"A", is to be abandoned or indefinitely postponed.
(b) ENGINEER fails to prosecute the work within the time
• limits specified in the attached Exhibit "A".
(c) Unsatisfactory performance by ENGINEER.
.9. No change in•the scope of the work to be performed by
2
ENGINEER shall be made except in writing between CITY and EN-
GINEER, which shall set forth the changes mutually agreed upon by
the CITY and the ENGINEER.
10. In accordance with State Compensation Laws, the
ENGINEER shall carry Worker's Compensation insurance for all per-
sons employed in the performance of services as set forth herein.
The ENGINEER shall provide the CITY with a certificate verifying
such coverage or endorsement acceptable to the CITY before com-
mencing services under this Agreement. Such policy shall require
thirty (30) days notice to the CITY in writing prior to cancella-
tion, termination, or expiration of any kind.
11. The ENGINEER shall carry Professional Liability in-
surance in an amount of not less than $1,000,000. The ENGINEER
shall provide the City with certificates verifying such coverage
or endorsement acceptable to the City before commencing services
under this Agreement. Such policy shall require thirty (30) days
notice to the City in writing prior to cancellation, termination
or expiration of any kind.
12. If ENGINEER fails to maintain such insurance, the CITY
may obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the
premiums for such insurance from any sums due under this
Agreement.
•13. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as limit-
ing in any way the extent to which ENGINEER may be held respon-
sible to payment of damages to persons or property resulting from
.its operations or any operations of any subcontractors under it.
- 3 -
ENGINEER will be required to indemnify and hold harmless CITY and
its officers and employees from any claims, damages, or expenses,
including attorney's fees and court costs, arising out of CONSUL-
TANT'S negligent performance under this agreement.
14. In the event that legal action is commenced to enforce
or declare the rights created under this Agreement, the prevail-
ing party shall be entitled to an award of costs and reasonable
attorney's fees in the amount to be determined by the court.
15. The CITY agrees to pay ENGINEER for all the work or
any part of the work performed under this Agreement at the rates
and in the manner established in the attached Exhibit "A".
16. This Agreement shall begin upon execution and shall
expire on the date shown on the Notice to Proceed unless extended
in writing by mutual agreement of both CITY and ENGINEER.
17. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and
assigns of the parties, but it shall not be assigned by the EN-
GINEER without the written consent of the CITY.
18. The ENGINEER shall not assign any interest in this
Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same
(whether by assignment or otherwise) without the prior written
approval of the CITY, provided, however, that claims for money
due or to become due the ENGINEER from the CITY under this Agree-
ment may be assigned to a bank, trust company, or other financial
institution or to a Trustee in Bankruptcy, without such approval.
Notice of any such assignment or transfer shall be furnished
promptly to the CITY.
19. No member of .the governing body of the CITY and no
.other officer, employee, or agent of the CITY who exercises •any
- 4 -
Y
functions or responsibilities in connection with the planning and
carrying out of the program, shall have any personal financial
interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement; and the ENGINEER
shall take appropriate steps to assure compliance.
20. The ENGINEER covenants that he presently has no inter-
est and shall not acquire interest, direct or indirect, in the
study area or any parcels therein or any interest which would
conflict in any manner or degree wth the performance of his ser-
vices hereunder. The ENGINEER further covenants that in the per-
formance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest
shall be employed.
21. This agreement supercedes any and all other agreements,
either oral or in writing, between the parties hereto with
respect to the employment of ENGINEER by CITY and contains all
the covenants and agreements between the parties withrespect to
such employment in any manner whatsoever. Each party to this
Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements,
promises or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by
any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which are not
embodied herein, and that no other agreement or amendment hereto
shall be effective unless executed in writing and signed by both
CITY and ENGINEER.
22. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of California, and all ap-
plicable federal statutes and regulations as amended.
23. The invalidity in whole or part
of any provision of
this Agreement shall be• .governed by and construed in accordance
5
410.
with the laws of the State of California, and all applicable
federal statutes and regulations as amended.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Agreement on the date and year first above written.
ATTEST:
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
A Municipal Corporation
• By:
MAYOR, City of Hermosa Beach
By:
ENGINEER
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ENGINEER
I Y ATTORNEY/
Project Budget
CIP 87-302
ESTIMATED COST POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
WORK ITEM
BUDGET
SUBTOTAL TOTAL
1 1
DESIGN $5,700
Preparation of bid package 5700
CONSTRUCTION $317,744
a. Street work 130215
b. Sanitary sewer/storm drain work 187529
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 538,000
c. Project administration & inspection 38000
Subtotal 5361,444
10% Contingency 536,144
TOTAL 5397,588
Exhibit B
STATE GAS
TAX SEWER TOTAL
FUND # 115 FUND # 160
1 1
2336 3364 $5,700
130215 $130,215
187529 5187,529
15573 22427 $38,000
148124 213320 5361,444
14812 21332 $36,144
162936 234652 5397,588
AFFECT ON THE FUND BALANCES
AMOUNT BUDGETED 6/23/87 143236 72160 $215,396
ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE 6/30/88 28397 374543
ADDITIONAL APPROPIATION REQUIRED 19700 162492 $182,192
REVISED FUND BALANCE 8697 212051
TOTAL $397,588
APPROPIATION SUMMARY
6/23/87 143236 72160 $215,396
, 8/25/87 (1) 19700 162492 5182,192
TOTAL 162936 234652 $397,588
(1) City Council Action Taken
Sewer file: A\CIP302.WK1
PR0
.+ D,
PILO o SQIEDULE
PROJECT NAME : CIP 87-302 Beach live Imrrnvcmpnts
ACCOUNT NUMBER : 115-401-8302-4201
LEGEND
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE : v m m ® m
ACTUAL SCHEDULE i mmismcmmommw
X : 100% COMPLETE
•
1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1
TASKS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Final design approval before advertising
for construction .
1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1
Prepare advertisement & set bid opening. 1
date
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ®1
1111111111111 111
Advertising period
(issue addendums as necessary)11
1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1
Accept sealed bids & public bid opening
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1
Review bids
Award contract
1111111111M
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Sign contract
(bonds insurance & workers comp. cert.) 1•11
Preconstruction meeting1 1 1 { 1 I 1 1 1 1 I- --I {
procedure In -
1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 {
Issue "Notice to Proceed"
tm r
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Construction Period
111111P1111111111111111111111111•1 — -
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I
Monitor progress & maintain records
1111111 1111111111111111111111111M -----
I I I• 1 I I I I I I I
Progress payment and
change order procedure sss��� ---M—I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
Acceptance of work as complete
411:18i
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Issusing and recording a
"Notice ofiCompletion" ous
• 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I
Retention Payment
s
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 { -I
X11111
•�- I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Project close out ' . UMW NEN
I III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
•
217
J�►�N '�' '^' t1oc `w..7t u �d 9
tT Y
v Pry tvnt
January 18, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of
the Hermosa Beach City Council January 26, 1988
AWARD OF BID PIER LIGHTING GROUNDING SYSTEM
CIP 85-203
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council:
1. Authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement with Wright Diving
Service, Inc. (Exhibit A) for the repair of the Pier
grounding system in an amount not to exceed $20,665.
2. Authorize staff to issue change orders as necessary.
3. Transfer $9,465 from CIP 85-201 (Light Conversion and New
Installation) to CIP 85-203.
Background:
The purpose of CIP 85-203 is to repair the lighting system on the
Hermosa Beach Municipal Pier. Preliminary investigation has
indicated that the Pier's original electrical grounding System is
missing, and is in need of replacement. Consequently, the Pier
infra -structure (from railing to ocean floor) requires the
installation of an electrical grounding system before the light
fixtures can be upgraded.
On October 13, 1987 City Council authorized staff to advertise
for bids for repair of the Pier lighting grounding system. There
were no bids received on the bid due date, November 6, 1987. On
November 24, 1987 City Council authorized staff to re -advertise
for bids for the Pier grounding repairs, and issue addenda as
necessary.
Analysis:
A Notice Inviting Bids was published, and Plans and
Specifications were sent to five interested contractors. The
remainder of this analysis is divided into the following
sections:
1. Receipt of Bids.
2. Analysis of Bids.
3. Fiscal Impact.
4. Alternatives.
1
1. Receipt of Bids
On Wednesday, December 23, two bids were
opened and read aloud, as follows:
Contractor
received, publicly
Bid
International Maritime Inc.
dba, Parker Diving Service not to exceed $26,829.00
Wright Diving Service, Inc. not to exceed $18,785.75
Engineers Estimate $17,402.00
(Engineer's Estimate provided by Ronald Nisbet Associates, Inc.,
the City's consultant for this project.) All bids are on file in
the Office of the City Clerk.
2. Analysis of Bids
All bidders were required to attend the pre-bid meeting with city
staff and the consultant prior to submitting their bid.
Consequently, both bidders had an equal understanding of the
scope of work.
The State Contractor's License Board has indicated that Wright
Diving Service, Inc. has a valid Class A (general engineering)
contractor's license and that they have taken no disciplinary
action against Wright Diving Service. Staff conducted a
reference check and determined Wright Diving Service, Inc. to be
the lowest bid and most responsible bidder.
3. Fiscal Impact
CIP 85-203
Construction not to exceed
Contingency (10%)
Total Construction
Costs (contract amount)
Inspection Costs
.Total Anticipated Costs
Amount Budgeted (FY87-88)
Additional Funds Required
To complete this project
2
Anticipated costs
$18, 785.75
1,879.00
$20,665.00
$2,000.00
$22,665.00
$13,200.00
$ 9,465.00
Please refer to Exhibit B for existing and proposed budgets for
CIP 85-203 and CIP 85-201. As you can see, the original total
budgeted amount for CIP 85-203 was $24,200; only $13,200 of which
was budgeted for FY87-88. It was anticipated that construction
would begin in FY86-87 and that only $13,200 would be required to
complete the project in FY87-88.
However, due to the complexity of this project (the difficulty
locating a qualified design firm for such a specialized project,
the need for an underwater investigation, etc.) we were unable to
start construction in FY86-87.
Consequently, additional funds are required at this time. Staff
recommends transferring $9,465 from CIP 85-201 to CIP 85-203 as
follows:
FY87-88
Existing Budgeted Amount
Proposed Budgeted Amount
CIP 85-201
$55,000
$45,535
CIP 85-203
$13,200
$22,665
4. Alternatives
Other alternatives availible to council and considered by
are:
staff
1. Award project to other than low bidder.
2. Drop the project, resulting in no lighting on the Pier.
Respectfull submitted, Concur:
Debora M. Murp y
Assistant Engineer
Concur:
A ana Mastria
Acting City Manager
Attachment: Exhibit A - Agreement
Exhibit B - CIP Budgets CIP 85-201, 85-203
Exhibit C - Project Schedule
ny Antic
Director of Pub
is Works
Noted for Fiscal Impact:
Viki Cope and
Finance Administrator
3
Exhibit A
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
PIER GROUNDING REPAIRS
CIP 85-203
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day
of , 1987, by and between the CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, hereinafter referred to as "City", and
"Contractor".
, hereinafter referred to as
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, City and Contractor have executed the bonds at-
tached and incorporated by this reference, and
WHEREAS, City desires to contract with Contractor to perform
the services detailed in said bonds and in the Specifications and
Proposal, and
WHEREAS, Contractor has represented that it is fully
qualified to assume and discharge such responsibility;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do agree as follows:
1. Scope of Work: CONTRACTOR hereby agrees to furnish all
labor, materials and equipment necessary to perform the work
necessary to install the Pier grounding system and achieve the
-- Pier concrete repairs in accordance with the Special Provisions
included hereinafter. Such work shall be performed in a good and
workmanlike manner, under the terms as stated herein and in the
Notice to Contractors, Instructions to Bidders, and Special Pro-
visions and Proposal and in accordance with the latest edition of
the Joint Cooperative Committee, Southern California Chapters of
the American Public Works Association and the Associated General
General Contractors of America, document entitled, "Standard
Specifications for Public Works Construction". In the event of
any conflict between the terms of this agreement and any of the
above -referenced documents, the terms of this agreement shall be
controlling.
2. Compensation. In consideration of the services rendered
hereunder, Contractor shall be paid according to the prices as
submitted on the Proposal. Bi -weekly progress payments will be
made within thirty (30) days after invoicing of Contractor's
services.
3. Hold Harmless; Insurance. It is specifically understood
and agreed by all parties hereto that Contractor is, for the pur-
poses of this Agreement, an independent contractor and not an
employee of the City. Accordingly, Contractor shall not be
deemed the City's employee for any purpose whatsoever. Contrac-
tor shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obliga-
tion or liability whatever for or against City and shall hold
harmless and defend the City of Hermosa Beach from and against
any and all obligations, claims, liens, or causes of actions,
arising out of or related to Contractor's services hereunder.
Contractor shall file and maintain a file with the City at all
— times during the term of this Agreement, a copy or certificate of
general liability insurance for bodily injury and property damage
protecting Contractor in amounts not less than $500,000.00 for
injuries to one person, $1,000,000.00 for injuries to more than
one person and $100,000.00 for property damage. Such insurance
shall not be cancelled without thirty (30) days' prior written
2
notice to City, shall name the City and its officers and em-
ployees as additional insured, and shall include all automobiles
utilized by Contractor's
Agreement.
4. Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned by Con-
tractor, in whole or in part, without the prior consent of City.
5. Termination. This agreement may be cancelled by City at
any time without penalty upon thirty (30) days' written notice.
In the event of termination without fault of Contractor, City
shall pay Contractor for all services rendered prior to date of
termination, and such payment shall be in full satisfaction of
all services rendered hereunder.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the
within Agreement the day and year first above written.
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
personnel
in the performance of this
ATTEST:
City Clerk
— APPROVED AS
By
ORM: i CONTRACTOR
ty Attorney
4/7/87/v
By
3
Exhibit B
t 1 I Y UI- hitHIVIUSA IS1 J f -i
• • CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY86-87 THRU FY88-89
SECOND YEAR OF THREE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NUMBER:
ACCOUNT NUMBER:
PROGRAM AREA:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Pier Lighting Repairs
CIP 85-203
105-401-8203-4201
Street Lighting Improvements
WORK PROPOSED:
Requires electrical grounding of Pier infra -structure
(from railing to ocean floor) before light fixtures can be
upgraded. Grounding system (including unique engineering
design drawings and possible underwater construction)
should be accomplished in FY86-87. Light standards may then
be purchased and installed in Sumner, 1987.
BUDGET SCHEDULE
Cot 1 Cot 2 Cot 3 Cot 4' Cot S cot 6 cot 7
EXPENDED EST'ED EST'ED TOTAL
PROJECT ELEMENTS BUDGET TIIRU THRU FY86-87 PROJECT
FY86-87 2/28/87 6/30/87 BALANCE FY87-88 FY88-89 BUDGLT
I I I I I I
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING 1 10001 0 1.000 0 0 0 1.000
I----�---I I I i I 1 I
01 2,0001 Of 01 01-- 2L90O1
01__ 112991.1(21901_19A991 ....... 91. 154000,
I. 2=0001 01 230001 01 2.0001 01 200(y
PLANS.
SPECS & ESTIMATESI 2.0001
CONSTRUCTION
INSPECTION
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
OTAL
CONTINGENCY '
TOTAL EXPENDITURE
FUNDING SCHEDULE
I. 15=000,
I i I I
1 1 I 1
I I I 1
1.20.,0021 01 10.0001 10.000, 12.0001 01__2(2,9991
Z0^A A...1.: �A_..1.0: n ...1.:S ....-..9
22,000 0 11,000 11.000 13.200 . 0 21,200
FUND
NO.
FUNDING SOURCES
105 Lighting Fund
I I
22,0001
FUNDING DISTRIBUTION
I I
O 11,0001
I I
11.000 13.2001
TOTAL
I I
1 21,200
I I I
I I I
I I I
TOTAL FUNDING
22,000
1.1 l Y yr rit iiiviu.,H bi i-► _n
0 11.000 11.000 13,200 21,200
• • CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY86-87 THRU FY88-89
SECOND YEAR OF THREE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NUMBER:
ACCOUNT NUMBER:
PROGRAM AREA:
Pier Lighting Repairs
CIP 85-203
105-401-8203-4201
Street Lighting Improvements
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
WORK PROPOSED:
Requires electrical grounding of Pier infra -structure
(from railing to ocean floor) before light fixtures can be
upgraded. Grounding system (including unique engineering
design drawings and possible underwater construction)
should be accomplished -in FY86-87. Light standards may, then
be purchased and installed in Sunmer, 1987.
BUDGET SCHEDULE
Col 1 Col 2 Col 3 Col 4 Cot S Col 6 Cot 7
EXPENDED EST'ED EST'ED TOTAL
PROJECT ELEMENTS BUDGET TIIRU THRU FY86-87 PROJECT
FY86-87 2/28/87 6/30/87 BALANCE FY87-88 FY88-89 BUDGET
I I I I I I I
1__ -t-
10001 01 1.0001 0, OI 01__ 1L90C
PLANS. SPECS b ESTIMATES
I-- 2L0001 01 '2.0001 01 01 01 2L000
CONSTRUCTION 15 00 91...149991_1(23901_,P255_5.1 24 465
INSPECTION 2 000 2 00 2 00 4 000
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
FUND
NO.
105 Lighting Fund
AL
TINGENCY
TOTAL EXPENDITURE
FUNDING SCHEDULE
FUNDING SOURCES
TOTAL FUNDING
I I I I
I I I 1
I I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
20=0001 ' 01 1030001 10.0001 21,4651 4-717w
.2.00A A...1.00A...1.0.A...1.20A.....-.A...2,T011
22,000 0 11.000 11,000 22,665 0 33 ,665
*ttt**
I FUNDING DISTRIBUTION **tt*ttttttttl TOTAL
22.000 01 11,0001 11,0001 22,6651 1.3/JAI
I I I I I I
I I I I 'I I
I I I I I I
----« ....... ..--.----- --- w ....�.......
22.000 0 11,000, 11.000 22.665
33.665
r :.:w
Exhibit B
1,1 1 1 yr Dm/Alton
• • CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY86-87 THRU FY88-89
SECOND YEAR OF THREE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NUMBER:
ACCOUNT NUMBER:
PROGRAM AREA:
Light Conversion and New Installation
CIP 85-201
105-401-8201-4201
Street Lighting Improvements
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
WORK PROPOSED:
This project proposes the installation, upgrading and con-
version to high pressure sodium lights throughout the City.
Work is to be performed by City crews.
BUDGET SCHEDULE
Col 1 Col 2 Col 3 Col 4• Col 5 Col 6 Cot 7
EXPENDED EST'ED EST'ED TOTAL
PROJECT ELEMENTS BUDGET THRU THRU FY86-87 PROJECT'
FY86-87 2/28/87 6/30/87 BALANCE FY87-88 FY88-89 BUDGET
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I
I 1 1 1 1 1 1
PLANS. SPECS & ESTIMATES
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1_ 7510001:_ 9,9551_ 71,7491__ 3,3991_ Q.4991 112.5.0001
1 1 1 1 1 1 I
I 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1.
I 1 1 1 1 1 1
CONSTRUCTION
INSPECTION
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
UBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY '
TOTAL EXPENDITURE
FUNDING SCHEDULE
1_7`x.4441___9,,9551_ 71.7.491__1.3091__5.Q.0001 1 i.00Di
J_.50D—... D--J..50D 0 12-5=
82,500 9,955 79,200 3.300 55.000 137.500
FUND
N0.
FUNDING SOURCES
105 Lighting Fund
NDINC DISTRIBUTION
1 1 1 1
82.5001 9.9551 79.2001 3.3001 55.0001
1
TOTAL
1
1137'5001
' TOTAL FUNDING
82.500 9.955 79.200 3.300 55.000
l,i I yr 1../L.:01%.#11 I
• • CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY86-87 THRU FY88-89
SECOND YEAR OF THREE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NUMBER:
ACCOUNT NUMBER:
PROGRAM AREA:
Light Conversion and New Installation
CIP 85-201
105-401-8201-4201
Street Lighting Imorovements
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
WORK PROPOSE&:,
This project proposes the installation, upgrading and con-
version to high pressure sodium lights throughout the City.
Work is to be performed by City crews.
BUDGET SCHEDULE
137.500
Col 1 Col 2 Col 3 Col 4 Col 5 Col 6 Col 7
EXPENDED EST'ED EST'ED TOTAL
PROJECT ELEMENTS BUDGET TIIRU THRU FY86-87 - PROJECT
FY86-87 2/28/87 6/30/87 BALANCE FY87-88 FY88-89 BUDGET
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING 1 1 1 1 1 1
PLANS. SPECS & ESTIMATES
I• 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I_ 7514091__ 912551_ _ ?491___3,3991 4Q.535_I 1121.535-1
1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1
1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 I 1 1 1 1 I i•
CONSTRUCTION
INSPECTION
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
BTOTAL
CONTINGENCY '
TOTAL EXPENDITURE
FUNDING SCHEDULE
MIMEO
I_ Z5..4991__1.4551_J_2.?091__ 3..349, 44.535.1 1215.535.1
0 1.00A -,12-5011.
82.500 9.955 79.200 3.300 45,535 128,035
FUND
N0. FUNDING SOURCES ***********+tit****i 1
FUNDINGDISTRIBUIION *************' TOTAL
1 82.5001 9,9551 79.2001 3.30014515351 112810351
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 I• • 1 1 1
1• 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
105 1lighting Fund
•
TOTAL FUNDING~�-
82.500 9.955 79.200 ,.3.300 45,535
128,035
1
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE LEGEND
PROJECT NAME s Pier Grounding Repairs
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE : MNAMMAMONNUME
U. CIP 85-203 ACTUAL SCHEDULE :
+' ACCOUNT NUMBER
•,.� ammommielwaimm
X : 100% COMPLETE
41
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111111
W TASKSI 1 I I I JAN FEB MAR I APR MAY I JUN JUL I AUG SEP OCT -"
I DEC I
Final design approval before advertising
immuir`-__
for construction 1 1 _--I 1 1 1 1 1147
"I I 1 •1
Prepare advertisement & set bid opening 1�1
date 1 1 1 i I. I 1 1 1 pill]11Tnlnr--- I I
Advertising period ® -1 I
(issue addendums as necessary)
) I I I I.'_ _ 1 I I 1 I Mr --
Accept sealed bids & public bid opening .
1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 Ii11L1111i
Review bidsill
I-, I-�-I 1 J 1 1 1 1 I I
Award contract lin
Sign contract
I lif li f 1 1 1 1 1 I 1111
(bonds,insurance & workers comp. cert.)1 I -I I 1 1 111111
Preconstruction meeting procedure
1 1..s----1 I---••--1 1 1 1
Issue "Notice to Proceed" iir
1 I---- -�- I 1 1 1 1 1
Construction Period ininiI11mlml
I 1---1rmtn'rnmit*11 r -1 1 1 1 1
• Monitor progress & maintain records `
1 1 �t um11m11n1n1Ii-- I 1 1------1 1 1 I
. Progress payment and
change order procedure 1 1 I-- --1 11 --1
1 1 1 1 I
Acceptance of work as complete
1 1 1 1 1---• 1 1 1 1 .1
Issusing and recording a J��
"Notice of Completion" 1 -I I 1 I I _ • i
Retention Payment
1 1 I
Project close out •• 1 I I • 1 ---
-_---`--I-'--'- "1"
-I Ir •
1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 r
•
aa
u4X4A tit\cs
"e• -..,.,c,•. 1 t.e s
reit((: bei�,1 coV Ccssio-A
(?...e",k4
�p c ca vt, 6/10blertkikC 0 IAA .yal
e,t
unR
1 W- 5t -. e" a- I (4AAA. e of cke ft
-ON/40 t.A.ro.o leN t
s
January 19, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of
the Hermosa Beach City Council January 26, 1988
AWARD OF BID FOR LEASING VARIOUS CITY VEHICLES
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council:
1. authorize the purchase of the following city vehicles:
-l0 p1(4�1
1 Ce �%,.w+,e ,A
a. Bear, Inc. BAR (Bureau of Automotive Repair) 80 Engine ^ kil
Anal zer9'``' W`, hu\�� "r" -e rr�+ c-r.&Q v acs
b. Highway Marking - paint and sign truck, and the Na
c. Elgin street sweeper. NU
s 1A" bmy otJC
2. Authorize staff to re -advertise for bids for one utility van
for the Community Resources Department.
3. Approve the following budget transfers and appropriations:
a. Return $21,000 to the Street Lighting Fund fund balance.
b. Appropriate $112,571 from the General Fund fund balance,
for the purchase of the engine analyzer and the paint and
sign truck and the street sweeper.
Background:
On January 12, 1988, Exhibit A was presented to City Council. At
that time, Councilmember Creighton suggested that this agenda
item be pulled, until he had an opportunity to further discuss
this item with the Public Works Director. With a unanimous vote,
council took formal action to postpone this item until the
January 26, 1988 council meeting.
Analysis:
The analysis of this report is divided into the following
sections:
I.. Council concerns
a. Street Sweeper Specifications
b. Lease vs. Purchase
II. State of Existing Equipment
III. Fiscal Impact
IV. Other Factors to Consider
V. Summary
VI. Alternatives
1
itib
t
I. Council Concerns
Specifically, the concerns expressed by Councilmember
Creighton, and discussed with the Public Works Director are
as follows:
1. Are the street sweeper specifications written such that
only one vendor can respond to the Request for Bid?
The Request for Proposal states: "The proposal, if awarded,
will be awarded to the bidder who provides the best
lease/purchase arrangement meeting the City's needs the
City does not endorse or recommend any particular product.
The director of Public Works shall determine whether a
product meeting the specifications and requirements is to be
considered an "equal" model. The decision of the Director of
Public Works is subject to review by City Council".
The City Attorney reviewed the specifications prior to
authorization to bid by City Council (October 6, 1987) and
determined them to be in compliance with all legal
requirements. The fact that three bids were received for the
street sweeper implies that more than one vendor was able to
respond to the Request for Bid. No bid was disqualified due
to non-compliance of specifications and all were evaluated on
the same criteria.
2. Is it more cost effective for the City to purchase rather
than to lease/purchase the proposed equipment?
An engineering economic study compared the alternative of a
lease/purchase vs. an outright purchase for:
Bear BAR 80 engine analyzer,
Elgin street sweeper,and
Highway Marking Systems paint and sign truck.
The purchase vs. the lease alternative was compared by an
equivalent present cost for a five year (i.e., 60 months)
period. The present cost is the equivalent cost of any number
of payments made over a period of time, discounted at some
interest rate. A dollar in hand now is worth more than a
dollar received in the future because, if you had it now, you
could invest it and earn interest. Similarly, a dollar paid
in the future does not cost as much as a dollar paid now.
The City Treasurer says, the interest rate for investing
available City funds is currently 8.0% APR - this was used in
our calculations.
Bear BAR 80
Purchase Cost $16,326.45
Total Lease Cost $25,077.60
Interest Paid $ 8,751.15
Purchasing the Bear BAR 80 engine analyzer would result in a
present cost of $16,326 compared to $21,015 for leasing. In
2
other words, at 8% interest (investment) we would need to set
aside $21,015 and could draw off enough each month to pay for
the lease payment. In the 60th month there would be just
enough available to make the last payment. The investment
interest rate would have to be higher than 21% for leasing to
be more economical than purchasing.
Elgin Street Sweeper
Purchase Cost $ 85,555.71
Total Lease Cost $104,206.80
Interest Paid $ 18,651.09
Leasing the Elgin street sweeper results in a present cost of
$86,222 compared to $85,556 for purchasing. The investment
interest rate would have to be greater than 8.3% for leasing
to be the better economic choice.
Revenue. Economics: The estimated revenue for parking
violations in FY 87-88 is $1.4 million. Approximately 25%
results from ticketing on street sweeping days (approximately
$350,000 annually). Assuming each street sweeper contributes
one-half of the revenue and a 20% downtime, the City's lost
revenue is $35,000 annually.
Paint and Sign Truck
Purchase Cost $33,851.03
Total Lease Cost $50,477.40
Interest Paid $16,626.37
Purchasing the Highway Marking Systems paint and sign truck
results in a present cost of $33,851 compared to $41,766 for
leasing. The investment interest rate would have to be higher
than 18.4% for leasing -to be the better economic choice.
Since the current interest rate for investing the city's
funds is 8.0%, the more economical alternatives are as
follows:
Summary
1. Purchasing the engine analyzer.
(Net savings to the city, over 5 years of approximately
$4,689.)
2. Purchasing the Street Sweeper.
(Net savings to the city, over 5 years of approximately
$666.)
3. Purchasing the paint truck.
(Net savings to the city, over 5 years of approximately
$7,915.)
TOTAL SAVINGS = $13,270
. II. State of Existing Equipment
The equipment recommended for the Public Works Department
will continue to provide the public basic services and
improve efficiency of operations. Stretching out the life of
the equipment will diminish public service, and department
efficiency.
1. Engine Analyzer.
The city has been borrowing an engine analyzer for
approximately the past year. The owner has recently asked
us to return their analyzer. Without an engine analyzer
the City of Hermosa Beach will be unable to properly
maintain the City's vehicle fleet. This could result in
increased liability for the City.
2. Street Sweeper.
The city's existing street sweepers have been
experiencing mechanical, hydraulic and electrical
failures. Most recently, the brakes have completely
failed (on the FMC's scheduled for replacement) twice in
the past two weeks. Continued use of this equipment poses
a potential increased safety hazard to pedestrians,
motorists and operators.
3. Paint and Sign Truck
Use of the existing truck is not efficient, due to the
following:
a. There is no room on the truck to carry the stencils
(for painting the street legends), additional cones, or
paint. If a stencil, cones, or paint are needed, it is
necessary to take the truck back to the city yard, then
deliver the equipment to the site.
b. Only one color,of paint can be used at one time. If
another color is needed, the spray rig must be cleaned,
and the paint re -mixed. This is very time consuming.
c. The existing paint truck does not have the flashing
arrow safety feature, which is included in the proposed
truck, for the safety and protection of the operator.
Since the proposed paint truck has more room to carry
equipment, and can shoot two paint colors simultaneously, it
is estimated that it could cut the operator's hours in half.
This could result in a savings to the city of approximately
1,000 manhours per year.
III. Fiscal Impact (For additional information, please refer
to Exhibit A: Fiscal Impact)
The existing City Council Adopted Budget provided for leasing
of the analyzer, truck and sweeper. Consequently, the request
for bids and the January 12, 1988 Council item were written
as such.
4
Should City Council desire to purchase rather than a
lease/purchase alternative, this could be. accomplished by an
outright purchase. A purchase is allowed per the Request for
'Bids, and the vendors are willing to sel•1.
The engineering economics study indicates that the most cost
effective choices are the purchase of the 'engine analyzer,
the paint truck and the street sweeper. This would result in
the following fiscal impact:
ACCOUNT
PROPOSED CITY COUNCIL BUDGET
BUDGETED
FUNDING SOURCE
001-400-4205-5400
001-401-3103-5400
115-401-3104-5400
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILIBLE
AMOUNT
BUDGETED
PROPOSED
SCHLD FY87.88
PURCHASE DELIVERY EXPENDITURE
(1)
0 Engine Analyzer Feb 88
20064 Street Sweeper Mar 88
3100 Paint and Sign Truck May 88
23164
Total funds required to purchase
Less funds currently budgeted
TOTAL ADDITIONAL APPROPIATION
16327
85556
33852
135735
23164
112571
(1) The amount budgeted will be 0 after the $21000 is returned to the Street Lighting Fund.
This results in $112,571 additional funds required.
Potential Funding Sources are as follows:
GENERAL FUND (12-31-87)
Proposed Amt.
Balance to Appropriate
2810 Unappro Fund Bal $ 22,492.19
DESIGNATIONS:
2532 Asset Replacement 120,000.00
2533 Debt Service 65,005.00
2534 Capital Imp. 109,885.00
2535 Open Space 200,000.00
2536 Affordable Housing* 46,831.00
2539 Contingencies 181,492.00
SUBTOTAL/DSGNTNS $723,213.00
TOTAL UNAPPRO FUND BAL
& DESIGNATIONS $745,705.19
* Cannot be used for this expenditure
5
-0-
-0
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
$112,571.00
$112,571.00
$112,571.00
New
Balance
$ 22,492.19
120,000.00
65,005.00
109,885.00
200,000.00
46,831.00
68,921.00
$610,642.00
$633,134.19
Staff recommends appropriating $112,571 from the General Fund
to purchase the engine analyzer, street sweeper and the paint
and sign truck.
IV. Other Factors to Consider
Page D in the adopted 1987-88 budget message states that a 3%
reserve for contingency was included in the budget as
directed at mid -year review in 1987. Appropriations since
July 1987 have lowered the percentage to 2.25. With this
appropriation the new reserve for contingency will be 0.85%.
The choice of lease vs. purchase is both an economic and
philosophic matter subject to debate. Spending money today
may hinder future purchases, (i.e., possibly the railroad
right-of-way). We have attempted to provide City Council
with the information necessary to make the best decision for
the City.
V Summary
1. The street sweeper specifications are in compliance with
all legal requirements.
2. The most cost effective arrangement for the City is to
purchase the engine analyzer, the paint truck and the
street sweeper.
3. If the City of Hermosa Beach does not purchase an engine
analyzer, it will result in increased liability for the
City.
4. If the City does not purchase a street sweeper, it will
result in increased liability for the City, as well as a
potential loss of revenue of approximately $35,000 per
year.
5. If the city does not purchase a paint truck it could
result in a loss of time to the city of as much as 1,000
manhours per year.
Based on cost alone, this recommendation is to appropriate
the necessary funds and purchase the equipment.
VI. Alternatives
Other alternatives considered by staff and available to
Council are:
1. Award the bid to other than recommended bidder.
6
2. Drop the purchases; thereby, adversely affecting
operations.
3. Lease the equipment.
Respectfully submitted,
gra j )ti
Deborah M. Murphy / U
Assistant Engineer J
Concur:
Concur:
L.
(-
ony Antich
Director of Public Works
Noted:
J'm Lough i �i Alana Mastrian
ty Attorney Acting City Manager
«c/// (See attached City Manager
Noted for Fiscal Impact: memo).
%7./ ";"4 -:2= -Cc. -
Viki Copeland
Finance Administrator
Attachment: Exhibit A - January 12, 1988 Agenda item.
7
EXHIBIT A
• • NOTE: There have been several minor changes since the original submittal
to City Council. See Supplemental Information, pgs. 2,3.
December 28, 1987
Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of
the Hermosa Beach City Council January 12, 1988
AWARD OF BID FOR LEASING VARIOUS CITY VEHICLES
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council:
1. authorize the City Manager to enter into a lease agreement
for the following city vehicles:
a. Bear, Inc. BAR (Bureau of Automotive Repair) 80 Engine
Analyzer
b. Haaker Equipment Company "Elgin" street sweeper
c. Highway Marking Systems - paint and sign truck
2. Authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary.
3. Authorize staff to re -advertise for bids for one utility van
for the Community Resource Department.
4. Approve the following budget transfers:
a. Return $21,000 to the Street Lighting. Fund fund balance.
b. Return $14,664 to the General Fund fund balance.
Background:
The lease/purchase of the above mentioned vehicles/equipment was
included in the FY 87-88 City Council Adopted Budget. On October
6, 1987 City Council authorized staff to seek proposals and issue
addenda as necessary for the lease/purchase of the following City
vehicles and equipment:
a. one "3 -wheel" street sweeper,
b. one combination street paint and sign truck,
c. one engine analyzer for the Public Works Department, and
d. one utility van for the Community Resources Department.
Analysis:
On November 20, bids were received, publicly opened and read
aloud. All bids are on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
The analysis of these bids is divided into the following
sections:
I. Engine Analyzer
II. Street Sweeper
III. Paint & Sign Truck
IV. Utility Van
V. Fiscal Impact
VI. Alternatives
- 1 -
•
lbb
I. Engine Analyzer
A. Receipt of Bids
The following bids were received:
Monthly payment (per bid)
1. Sun Electric Corporation
MCA BAR 80 $563.50
2. Sun Electric Corporation
Interrogator Bar 80 $411.05
3. Bear, Inc.
Bar 80 $392.45
Bar 84 $446.21
Each of these bids is for 60 equal monthly payments as indicated,
excluding taxes. -
B. Evaluation of Bids:
The evaluation of these bids is based upon cost of the equipment
and the reputation of the manufacturer. The Bear BAR 80 engine
analyzer is the lowest cost proposal that meets the needs of the
City.
C. Recommendation
Staff recommends lease/purchasing the Bear, Inc. BAR 80 engine
analyzer, at a total cost of 60 monthly payments of $417.96
(including tax). The extended cost is $25,077.60. There is a
penalty for prepayment of lease. The lease agreement is on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.
II: Street Sweeper
A. Receipt of Bids
The following bids were received:
Monthly payment (per bid)
1. Haaker Equipment Company $1736.78 (incl. tax)
("Elgin " Sweeper)
2.- Kern Equipment Company $1485.58 (17,827.01
("FMC" Sweeper) annual) (incl. tax)
3. Nixon - Egli Equipment Company $1547.22 (excl. tax)
("Mobil" Sweeper)
Each of these bids is for 60 equal monthly payments.
OV
•
B. Evaluation of Bids
It is indicated on the Request for Proposals that "the proposal,
if awarded, will be awarded to the bidder who provides the best
lease/purchase agreement meeting the City's needs." In addition
to cost, there are various considerations involved in the
evaluation of the street sweeper bids, as follows:
1. Does it meet the specifications of the bid package?
2. "Track record" with the City of Hermosa Beach
3. "Track record" with other cities
4. Availability of Parts
(Please Refer to Exhibit A for a complete evaluation of these
bids, based upon the above considerations.)
In summary, only the Elgin sweeper met the needs of the city
defined by the above considerations.
C. Recommendation
Staff recommends lease/purchasing the Haaker Equipment Elgin
Street Sweeper at a total cost of 60 monthly $1,736.78 payments.
(including tax). The extended cost is $104,206.80. There is no
penalty for prepayment of lease. The lease agreement is on file
in the Office of the City Clerk.
III. Paint and Sign Truck
A. Receipt of Bids
The following bids were received:
1. Highway Marking Systems
2. Whittaker
Monthly Payment (per bid)
$789.94
$856.88
Each of these bids is for 60 monthly payments as indicated,
excluding taxes.
B. Evaluation.of Bids
Highway Marking Systems proposed a 1988 Ford truck, with a
"Binks" spray rig. Whittaker proposed a 1987 or 1988 Ford truck
with a "Graco" spray rig. Other than that, both proposals
equally satisfy the specifications. After contacting 5 local
cities who have had experience with both the "Graco" and "Banks"
equipment, staff concludes that the proposals are equivalent.
C. Recommendation
Staff recommends award of bid to Highway Marking Systems - the
lowest cost proposal that meets the needs of the City, at a total
cost of•60 monthly payments of $841.29 (including tax). The
extended cost is $50,477.40. There is no penalty for prepayment
of lease. The lease agreement is on file in the Office of the
City Clerk. •
3
IV. Utility Van
No bids were received for the utility van. Staff requests
authorization to re -advertise for bids.
V. Fiscal Impact
Existing City Council Adopted Budget
ACCOUNT
BUDGETED AMOUNT
FUNDING SOURCE BUDGETED
PURCHASE
001-400-4205-5400 Street Lighting Fund 21000 Engine Analyzer
001-401-3103-5400 General Fund 20064 Street Sweeper
115-401-3104-5400 _General Fund 7000 Paint and Sign Truck
TOTAL 48064
In preparing this agenda item, it was discovered that the funding
source for the engine analyzer is the Street Lighting Fund.
Staff cannot recommend the expenditure of Street Lighting Funds
for the lease of an engine analyzer that will be used for all
City vehicles. Since no funds have been expended it is
recommended that this error be corrected as follows:
Proposed City Council Adopted Budget
ACCOUNT
ESTIMATED(1)
BUDGETED AMOUNT SCHLD FY87-88
FUNDING SOURCE REQUESTED PURCHASE DELIVERY EXPENDITURE
001-400-4205-5400 General Fund
001-401-3103-5400 General Fund
115-401-3104-5400 General Fund
TOTAL
(1j INCLUDES A 20 PERCENT CONTINGENCY
3000 Engine Analyzer Feb 88 3000
6300 Street Sweeper Mar 88 6300
3100 Paint and Sign Truck May 88 3100
12400 12400
It was anticipated during budget preparations that delivery would
occur earlier than shown above. Hence, a General Fund cost
savings is realized for this fiscal year. Staff recommends that
City Council approve the.following budget transfer:
44.
1. Return $21,000 to the Street Lighting Fund fund balance.
2. -Return $14,664 to the General Fund fund balance.
- 4
The three proposed lease/purchase payments are within the
proposed FY 87-88 Budget.
VI. Alternatives
Other alternatives considered by staff and available to Council
are:
1. Award the bid to other than recommended bidder.
2. Drop the purchases; thereby, adversely affecting operations.
Respec.y-submitted,
c aid
Deborah M. Murphy J
Assistant Engineer
Concur:
Gaylp T. Martin
Inte im City Manager
Attachment: Exhibit A
DMM:mv
lcv/m
cc: Jim Lough, City Attorney
Concur:
hony Antic
Director of lic Works
Noted for Fiscal Impact:
Viki Copeland
Finance Administrator
STREET SWEEPER
EVALUATION OF BIDS
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
1. Does it meet the specifications of the bid package?
A. FMC Sweeper
1. Proposes "Rear Dumping" rather than specified "Front
End Unloader Type". (Front end dumping is the safest,
cleanest most effecient method of unloading.)
2. Proposes "2 rear drive wheels powered by Eaton wheel
motors" final drive, rather than specified "two front
drive wheels with heavy duty chain and sprockets
warranted for 12,000 miles or 24 months." (The
hydrostatic motors proposed by FMC cost approximately
$4000 and 1 week of down time to replace. The specified
chain drive lasts approximately 5-7 years and costs
approximately $700 and one day down time to replace.)
3. Proposes "parking brake applied when machine shifted
to nuetral", rather than specified "independently
operated hand lever type".
4. Proposes "one front and two rear" tires rather than
specified two front and two rear tires.
5. Proposes "single control" steering rather than
specified "dual" control.
B. Mobil Sweeper
1. Proposes "fully hydrostatic" final drive, rather than
specified "two front drive wheels with heavy duty chain
and sprockets." (see item #A-2, above.)
2. Proposes "zincilate coated steel" water tank rather
than specified polyethelene anti -rust lined. Proposes
"electrical diphram pump" rather than specified
centrifrugal or gear type pump.
C. Elgin Sweeper
Meets all specifications.
2. Track Record with the City of Hermosa Beach
The City currently owns a 12 year old Elgin sweeper and an 8
year old FMC sweeper. It is the 8 year old FMC sweeper that.
is being- replaced. Annual maintenance costs of.the 8 year old
1
C.
FMC are estimated at $4,500, and of the 12 year old Elgin at
$1,000.
The City's only experience with the Mobil sweeper was in
contacting the Mobil representative for a demonstration of
their product. Although the demonstration was successful, the
City had waited for 3 months (while the demonstration model
was being repaired) before the demonstration was scheduled.
3. Track Record with other Cities
Staff contacted the references indicated below and obtained the
following responses:
a. City of Pasadena: Prefers Elgin to FMC
b. City of Los Angeles: Prefers Elgin to FMC
d. Douglas Aircraft; Long Beach: Prefers Elgin to FMC
e. City of Ontario: Prefers FMC to Elgin
f. City of Glendora: Prefers Elgin to FMC
g. City of Alhambra: Prefers Elgin to FMC
h. City of Long Beach: Prefers Elgin to FMC
i. City of Lynn, Mass: Prefers Mobil to Elgin
j. City of Monte Prospect, Illinois: Prefers Mobil to Elgin
k. City of Waukegan, Illinois: Prefers Mobil to Elgin
1. City of Moxoboddon, Mass: Strongly prefers Elgin to
Mobil
m. City of Kansas City, KS: Strongly prefer Elgin to Mobil
n. State of Connecticut: Prefer Elgin to Mobil
o. City of Rapid City, South Dakota: Strongly prefer Elgin
to Mobil
References a - h have utilized both Elgin and FMC street
sweepers. 8$% of these references contacted prefer the Elgin
sweeper to the FMC.
References i - o have utilized both Elgin and Mobil street
sweepers. 57% of these references contacted prefer the Elgin
sweeper to the FMC.
Although the Mobil sweeper proposal met most of the
specifications, and had several positive references, it
should be noted that the closest city currently using the
3 -wheeled Mobil sweeper is Rapid City, South Dakota. A recent
memo from the Director if Public Works, City of San Gabriel
to that city's Administrator indicated:
"In researching the reliability of the Mobil, this office
spoke to the maintenance shop foreman of Rapid City, South
Dakota, the closest city listed on Nixon-Egli's•bid proposal.
The foreman stated that after 1,000 operating hours on the
Mobil H-10 Sweeper they have had hydraulic problems, a .4
frozen brake, and a.continuous streaking problem which they
have been unable to correct. When asked about what other
sweeper he operated, and how they compared with the H-10 ••
Mobil, he stated he had several Elgin Pelican sweepers which
he "had very good luck with". We also received information
from the City of Culver City that they recently rejected a
bid for the Mobil Sweeper Model H-10 because of three
consecutive mechanical failures during a demonstration. They
subsequetly purchased an Elgin Sweeper."
4. Availibility of Parts
A. FMC sweeper
Because parts must be obtained from a distributor in
Chino, California, currently parts are typically not
availible for 2-3 days after the purchase order is
issued.
B. Mobil sweeper
Most parts may be obtained from a distributor in Santa Fe
Springs, CA. within 1-2 days after the purchase order
isissued. Several references indicated excessive costs
for Mobil parts).
C. Elgin sweeper
U/6 re-If3CITe
Parts are currently availible from the vanufaotu, . in
POMcv.j D amee B r, California the daythe
purchase order is
issued.
In summary, the Elgin Sweeper best meets the needs of the City.
SO
•
3
io(i3fr07
fit( CIPo-6d6
(sr �lo� �--•J�-I P�
bi:Tc-A-z/k
51,860
-v 41 20 - etit - . 185,0171)
.M4Dk.1
2 89,Ee 0
January 21, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting
of the City Council of January 26, 1988
ADDENDUM TO AGENDA ITEM NO. lbb
The recommendation to purchase an engine analyzer, paint truck
and street sweeper is an economically sound financial decision to
a point. Over a period of five years outright purchase will save
the City $13,270 or $2,654 per year.
However, I am concerned as to what impact this may have in the
short term.
The bottom of page 5 of the report lists the various fund balan-
ces from which City Council can appropriate the requested
$112,571. While any of these monies can be used per the City
Council's discretion (except Affordable Housing), I caution the
City Council to carefully weigh whether the cost savings of
$13,270 over five years (or $2,654 per year) is a sufficient rea-
son to remove any monies from any of these available
designations.
Should any situation arise where immediate funds are required,
these various designations would be tapped. As we have an option
to lease this equipment, I suggest it maybe more prudent to do
so at this time.
This is purely a policy decision on the City Council's part.
a/efdt
2 2 T
Alana M. Mastrian
Acting City Manager
AMM/ld
SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION
Law Offices of James P. Lough
JAMES P. LOUGH
January 20, 1988
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
30 NORTH RAYMOND AVENUE
SUITE 708
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91103
(213) 381-6131
(818) 792-4728
(818) 792-4776
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 1988
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney
RE: City Reimbursement for Fire Protection Measures for
Single-family Homes
Recommended Action: To receive and file.
Analysis: At the council meeting of January 12, 1988, the
council approved a plan whereby the city would pay the first
$3,500 of any fee required to upgrade the fire suppression system
for single-family homes. The question then raised at the time by
the City Attorney was whether such a plan would unreasonably
discriminate against nonsingle-family home applicants. After
careful review of relevant case authorities and statutes, it is
the opinion of the City Attorney that such a plan is valid
considering the underlying reasoning put forth by the council.
The selective application of a particular municipal require-
ment does not automatically violate the equal protection guaran-
teed every person under the United States constitution. "The
selectivity must be deliberate and based on an invidious or
unjustifiable standard," (CEB, California Zoning Practice (Decem-
ber, 1987), Section 5.45; People v. Superior Court (Hartway)
(1977) Cal 3d 338, 138 Cal Rptr 66).
Here, the findings and the testimony at the hearing
reflected the reasoning behind the decision to limit the fee
payment to single-family homes only. With single-family homes,
the number of occupants is less and the risk to individuals is
not as great as in multi -family or commercial buildings. While
these standards are different than those set up in the Uniform
Fire Code regarding floor area, number of stories and other
factors, they reflect a municipal policy commitment over and
above the Uniform Fire Code to guarantee fire protection. Ba
on these findings, the di tion made by the City ouncil
this instance is a valid
NOTED:/S
ALANA MASTRIAN, Acting City Manager
Respectfully
ES P. LOUG ty Attorney
ITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
SR0126A
SCC
January 25, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting of
the Hermosa Beach City Council January 26, 1988
Addendum to Item lcc
Fire Hydrant Requirements,
Single Family Residences
The City Council took action on January 12, 1988 directing that
the first $3,500 of the cost for single family residences
required to install/upgrade fire hydrants be paid by the city.
One request has been received.
It will be necessary to formulate an administrative process for
city payment of charges, estimate the number of possible annual
fire hydrant installations to determine the necessary
appropriation and suggest a funding source for appropriation of
the funds from which to make the payment. Staff will return at a
later meeting with a recommendation.
Antony Antich
Acting City : ager
Viki Copeland
Finance Administrator
SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION
1 CC
4
January 15, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of
the Hermosa Beach City Council January 26, 1988
APPROVAL OF GRADING PLAN REVISION TO ACCOMODATE
STREET IMPROVEMENTS AT 532, 534-540 20TH STREET
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council a-ppr-eve a revision to the
conceptual grading plan to accommodate street improvements at
532, 534-540 Twentieth Street. In approving this revision, the
Public Works Director will be delegated the authority to meet
with the engineers for the developer and county to approve cor-
rections assuming that the grading plan meets all the necessary
engineering requirements. The plan is to be referred back to
City Council for final approval.
Background:
On March 24, 1987, the City Council adopted Resolution
No. 87-5026 (Attachment 1) approving the conceptual grading plan
for an eight (8) lot subdivision at 532, 534-540 20th Street with
certain conditions. One of these conditions is that "development
shall be substantially in conformance with the submitted plans";
this includes the conceptual grading plan.
At the City Council meeting of December 15, 1987, the council
acted to approve grading plan revisions. Those amendments
required the developer to obtain legal releases from abutting
property owners and the developer's engineer to address how the
hydrology will be affected by the proposed elevation change.
Analysis:
The developer and his engineer (Westco Engineering) have been
preparing working drawings for this subdivision. On November 4,
1987, the Director of Public Works received a submittal from
Westco Engineering illustrating the proposed storm drain and
street improvements. (This submittal is on file in the Office of
the City Clerk).
The drawings Indicate a street elevation of 1.69 feet higher than
that indicated on the conceptual grading plan. Staff considers
this to be a substantial change, and City Council approval is
being requested by the engineer to deviate from the conceptual
grading plan.
The deviation from the previous plan was made in order to meet
•county requirements regarding the flow of run-off into the county
1
lines. Without the increase, the drain pipes would not have met
the county requirements regarding the slope of the line that
feeds into the county system.
The change necessary to meet the county requirements makes a
change also necessary to the city's grading plan. From the
city's perspective, it is importantto determine whether this
requested change meets the engineering needs required by the City
of Hermosa Beach. This issue was addressed by the council at its
meeting of December 15, 1987 and the recommendation was based in
part on information provided by the developer's engineer. This
recommendation delegates the approval of necessary engineering
changes to the Public Works Director so that he can meet with the
developer's engineer and the county engineer to discuss how the
developer can meet both city and county requirements.
The other issue acted upon by the council in December dealt with
mandating that the developer obtain legal releases from all of
the property owners bordering the project. This aspect of the
approval has caused concern among staff as to what type of
release is required and concern by the City Attorney regarding
the legality of such a condition of approval. There are two
legal problems with this condition. First, the adjoining land-
owners do not have to sign such a release. This leaves the
developer with an approved project that can never be constructed
based on the veto power of adjoining landowners. Secondly, the
purpose of a grading is to make sure that a project is properly
engineered and the releases do not help accomplish this goal.
The remainder of this analysis discusses•the following:
1. Engineering Requirements
2. Effect on Conceptual Grading Plan
3. Final Approval Process
4. Summary and Conclusions
5. Alternatives
1. Engineering Requirements
The proposed storm drain profile requires the street elevation to
be raised 1.69 feet (at the cul-de-sac) above that which was
originally proposed by the developer on the conceptual grading
plan. This engineering constraint is necessary for proper
drainage of storm water.
2. Effect on Conceptual Grading Plan
The revised street. elevation will require that a small "block
wall" be constructed along the easterly boundary of the sub -
vision. T e revised elevation along the easterly property line
must be raised up to .16.25 inches higher (at the cul-de-sac) .than
the properties immediately east of the subdivision. To prevent
drainage from a public street onto private property (those along
.the Power Street easterly boundary), a "block wall" must be •
constructed along the easterly Power Street property line. This
may restrict vehicular access (via curb cuts) on Power Street for
properties east of the subdivision that fronts on Valley Park
Drive.
3. Final Approval Process
If the council approves the grading plan revision to raise street
elevation up to 1.69 feet, the developer will:
1. Submit a final grading plan to the Building Dept for
approval. The final grading plan will be resubmitted to
the City Council for approval.
2. Complete the design drawings for the storm drain and
street improvements.
3. Submit the following to city staff for submittal to the
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works for
approval:
a. Storm drain/street improvements design;
b. Complete hydraulic/hydrology calculation;
c. Final grading plan.
Because the proposed storm drain on Power Street will "dump
into" the county storm drain on 20th Street, the county has
final approval and will review the above plans before issuing
a permit to connect. -.
If the council denies the grading plan revision, the developer
may not be able to design the street to meet county standards
since the engineering may not work given the grading and the
inability to dispose of storm water. The approval as recommended
will allow the developer to work out the engineering problems to
meet both city and county engineering standards.
4. Summary and Conclusions
The preliminary engineering calculations determined by Westco
Engineering indicate that as designed proper drainage on the
proposed Power Street project cannot be attained without raising
the street elevation by up to 1.69 feet. Because the council has
already approved the tentative tract map for this project, staff
recommends City Council tentative approval to revise the grading
plan so that the developer can proceed with the completion of the
subdivision.
3
5. Alternatives
Other alternatives considered by staff and available to the City
Council are:
1. Refer this matter to the Planning Commission.
2. Refer to staff to bring back another grading plan which
meets the engineering needs for the city and county.
Respectfully su
/1.
tted,
P. L•ugh
City Attorney
(,,Concur:
Alana Mastrian
Acting City Manager
Concur:
A s ony Antich
Director of Pub is Works
cc: Michael Schubach, Planning Director
William Grove, Director of Building-& Safety
Attachment: Resolution No. 87-5026
DMM:cc
rgp/m
gladys/pwr0126
4
3
4
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 87- 5026
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE GRADING PLAN FOR AN EIGHT LOT
SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 532,534-540 TWENTIETH STREET SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach,
California, held a meeting on March 24, 1987 and made the
following Findings:
A. The grading plan is adequate;
B. The impact to the sandhill will be minimized.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY APPROVE the
grading plan subject to the following conditions:
1. Development shall be substantially in conformance with the
submitted plans and the following conditions:
2. All Lot 5 retaining walls parallel to Power Street shall be
located a minimum of 45 feet from the front property line;
3. The small terraced areas located in the northwest corner of
Lots 6 and 7 shall be landscaped in a manner so as to
minimize the visual impact of the retaining walls;
a. Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Director for
reiew and approval.
4. The soils report prepared for the project
address the revised grading plan;
shall be amended to
. Three (3) copies of the revised grading plan and landscaping
plan in conformance with all conditions approved shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for approval prior to
obtaining Building Permits.
PASSED, APPROVED and =-'IP this 24th day of March, 1987.
of the Cit
each, Califo
.;:E41a: 4 4tr su. >:n''s1"i%s�rdn"�.�5: . ,...a 'e,tfit+-cy.�.:.�::iLa$.1Zi 1=ittg •
•
‘) 0A'
January 18, 1988
City Council Meeting
January 26, 1988
Mayor and Members
of the City Council
ORDINANCE NO. 88-915 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-2 C -POTENTIAL TO C-3
AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 720 8TH
STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK A, REDONDO
HERMOSA TRACT.
Submitted for waiver of further reading and
No. 88-915 relating to the above subject.
At the regular meeting of January 12, 1988,
introduced by the following vote:
AYES: Rosenberger, Sheldon, Williams, Mayor
NOES: Creighton
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
adoption is Ordinance
this ordinance was
Concur:
Simpson
Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk
atet,-
ALANA MASTRIAN, Acting City Manager
y
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. 88-915
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-2, C -POTENTIAL TO C-3 AND A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 720 8TH STREET, LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK A, REDONDO HERMOSA TRACT.
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on January
12, 1988 to receive oral and written testimony on this matter and
made the following Findings:
A. The City Council wishes to expand commercially zoned property
within the Multi -Use Corridor;
B. The C -Potential designation indicates that this property's
ultimate use is commercial; and
C. The proposed zone change is consistent with the General Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The official Zoning Map shall be amended by rezoning
the property at 720 8th street, legally described as
Lots 5 and 6, Block A, Redondo Hermosa Tract, from
R-2, C -Potential zone to C-3, General Commercial zone.
Section 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.
Section 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.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and
adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in
the book of original ordinances of said city, and
shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof
in the records of the proceedings of the City Council
at which the same is passed and adopted.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of January, 1988.
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the
Hermosa Beach, California.
ATTEST:
APPROVED A
CITY CLERK `._ TY ATTIRNE
T
January 19, 1988
City Council Meeting
January 26, 1988
Mayor and Members
of the City Council
RESOLUTION NO. 88-5099 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING OF A PRECISE PLAN
FOR 720 - 8TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK A,
REDONDO HERMOSA TRACT.
Submitted for approval as to form is Resolution No. 88-5099
relating to the above subject. The change has been made that the
business must eliminate lighting at 10:00 p.m. with the exception
of security lighting, and a clerical change has been made to
require decorative trash can locations.
At the regular meeting of January 12, 1988, this resolution was
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Sheldon, Williams, Mayor Simpson
NOES: Creighton
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Rosenberger
.
KathleenMidstokke,City Clerk
Concur:
A�.ANA MASTRIAN, Acting City Manager
�2 b
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. 88- 5099
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING OF A PRECISE PLAN FOR 720 - 8TH STREET,
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK A, REDONDO HERMOSA
TRACT.
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on January
12, 1988 to receive oral and written testimony regarding this
matter and made the following Findings:
A. This Precise Plan is approved in conjunction with a zone
change from R-2, C -Potential to C-3 at 720 - 8th Street;
B. The Zoning Ordinance requires properties designated
"C -Potential" to submit a Precise Plan for approval;
C. The applicant proposes to develop the site as a parking lot
in conjunction with an adjacent retail business at 729
Pacific Coast Highway;
D. The proposed parking lot will provide additional parking for
the business and therefore, be a benefit to the community by
reducing the demand for the already impacted on -street
parking;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby approve a
Precise Plan for property at 720 - 8th Street, legally
described as Lots 5 and 6, Block A, Redondo Hermosa Tract
subject to the following conditions;
1. A lot merger prohibiting the separation, sale, and/or lease
of individual lots which constitute the overall subject
property as shown on submitted plans shall be recorded prior
to the issuance of Building Permits.
2. The existing residential structure shall be completely
removed within one year of approval of this Conditonal Use
Permit.
3. Parking spaces shall be striped in conformance with the
Zoning Code.
4. The entire parking area shall be paved, and/or resurfaced.
a. Any cracks and/or potholes shall be repaired.
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
5. Lighting, either existing or proposed, for the parking lot
shall comply with all of the following:
a. Conform to building regulations.
b. Directed away from all residential properties to avoid
all glare.
c. The business must eliminate lighting at 10:00 p.m. with
the exception of security lighting.
d. Light must be on a timer.
e. Security lighting shall be provided and maintained after
10:00 p.m.
6. Fencing along the north side of the parking area shall be a
maximum of 5 feet wrought iron to provide visibility into the
entire parking lot and set back 3 or 4 feet from property
line to reduce the impact of it's height.
7. Security gates shall be provided.
a. The security gates shall be closed after 10:00 p.m.
8. Landscaped areas shall be as shown modified plans and shall
be subject to approval by the Planning Director
a. Landscaped areas shall be maintained in a heat and clean
manner.
b. An automatic landscape sprinkler system shall be
provided.
c. 6 inch, raised concrete curbing along the perimeter of
all landscaped areas shall be provided.
d. Minimum size of trees shall be 15 gallon with locations
as specified on plans.
e. A minimum of three to four, 24 inch boxed trees along
the north side.
9. Landscaped areas shall be modified to include wide planted
areas the deeper the project intrudes into the existing
residential neighborhood.
10. The proposed block wall shall be of a split -face, earth tone
block, other than grey, and shall be maintained in undamaged
condition free of graffiti.
11. A grading plan resolving any and/or all water ponding
problems at the subject location shall be submitted to the
Building Department for review and approval prior to
obtaining Building Permits.
12. Circulation of the parking lot shall be as follows:
a. The westerly driveway shall be designated as the
entrance.
b. The easterly driveway shall be designated as the exit.
c. Painted arrows and signs shall be provided to direct
circulation.
13. Two decorative trash can locations shall be provided subject
to approval by the Planning Director.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
14. Development shall substantially conform with approved revised
plans and shall conform to all of the conditions set forth in
this resolution. Any modifications are subject to approval
by the Planning Director.
15. Owner management shall implement effective strategies to
control loitering at the site due to special event ticket
sales.
a. Ticket sales shall be prohibited prior to 11:00 a.m.
daily for special events, or other acceptable methods to
eliminate overnight camping, loitering, or similar
behavior of patrons shall be provided.
b. Regular event, low demand, ticket sales may commence if
no problems arise.
c. Any alternate method shall be subject to approval of the
Planning Director prior to implementation.
d. Signage shall be placed clearly stating "No loitering,
camping, or trespassing on neighborhood property".
16. Owner shall request a Conditional Use Permit for ticket
sales.
a. A Conditional Use Permit application shall be submitted
within 90 days of the adoption of the proposed Text
Amendment.
17. Owner shall obtain a Businesss License for special event
ticket sales.
18. Three (3) copies of the revised site plan conforming to the
conditions set forth herein shall be submitted to the
Planning Director for review and approval prior to issuance
of any Building Permits.
19. This Precise Plan shall become null and void unless
substantial effort to implement said plan has occurred within
one year.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 12thday of January, 1988.
PRESIDENT` of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California.
3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH )
I, KATHLEEN MIDSTOKKE, City Clerk of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 88-5099 was duly and regularly
passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Hermosa Beach at a regular meeting of said Council held
at the regular meeting place thereof on January 12, 1988.
The vote was as follows:
AYES: Sheldon, Williams, Mayor Simpson
NOES: Creighton
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Rosenberger
DATED: January 18, 1988
R dstokke, City Clerk
Kat leen Mi
January 19, 1988
Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting
the City Council of January 26, 1988
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FEE FOR SUBMITTING INITIATIVES
It is recommended that the City Council adopt "RESOLUTION NO.
88- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR THE FILING OF A NOTICE
OF INTENTION TO CIRCULATE INITIATIVE PETITION WITH THE CITY".
Background
New state legislation effective January 1, 1988, changes several
Election Code Sections regarding Municipal Initiatives. Before
advertising a Notice of Intention to Circulate an Initiative
Petition and circulation, proponents are required to submit a
copy of the proposed measure to the clerk. The clerk transmitts
this to the City Attorney, and within 15 days the City Attorney
prepares a title and summary. This shall be a true and impartial
statement of the purpose of the measure and shall neither be an
argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the
proposed measure. The clerk then furnishes a copy of this to the
person proposing the measure. It must be printed on each section
of the petition, and included in the notice of intention which is
published prior to circulation.
Analysis
It is recommended that this fee be established to help recover
some of the cost of staff time associated with the processing of
initiatives. It is estimated that appx. 4 hours of City Attorney
time is spent on preparing a title and summary, reviewing and
submitting it to the clerk. Is is estimated that appx. 15-20
hours of City Clerk time is spent processing the initiative,
checking it as to form and compliance with the Election Code,
review with the City Attorney, monitoring that mandatory time
frames are met, and providing information to proponents. This
fee will help the city recover some of the costs if the
initiative is not successfullly circulated and certified
sufficient.
Att: New E.C. Sections
Concur:
Kathleen
ana Mastr an, Acting City
anager
ames
•
h, ity Attor
Noted for Fiscal Impact:
Viki Copelan
Fin.
mina.
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 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF
INTENTION TO CIRCULATE INITIATIVE PETITION WITH THE CITY.
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill No. 2202 amending Sections of the
Election Code relating to initiatives was approved September
1987 and became effective January 1, 1988; and
WHEREAS, the new law allows the legislative body to establish
a refundable fee for a person filing a notice of intention; and
WHEREAS, the City incurs significant expenses, in excess of
$200.00, in staff time associated with the processing of
initiatives.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The fee of $200.00 shall be set for the filing of
a notice of intention to circulate initiative petition with the
clerk.
Section 2. The fee shall be refunded to the filer if, within
one year of the date of filing the notice of intent, the clerk
certifies the sufficiency of the petition.
Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and
adoption of this Resolution and shall enter the same in the
Book of Original Resolutions of said City.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON the th day of January, 1988
PRESIDENT of the City Council, and
MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST: ,— APPROVED AS TO— ORM:
City Clerk
Al ne
ELECTIONS CODE
:t• mandamus or injunctive action, the board of
::Jest and the person or official who authored
rty in interest
by Stats.19 1. c. 1114. p. 434E, § 9.)
AL ELECTIONS
Section
5020
-:�TI\'E
5025
ln' city (' ur .. !: ll .' of ballot title oil
:iary. (New}
•
tT:'I:aiLt ral:..!t
t :
ELECTIONS CODE
1
:siting joint powers authonty to construct convention
cor.travt between joint powers authonty and devel-
t•private f_attics for concurrent development of
't nor contrast entered into by developer with former
rs of designated property for sale of property and with
.a+ developers for right to develop site; latter private
*as were not shoun tc hate been dependent upon
ntatnrsming its position with respect to convention
projct and moreover. people of city were nor power
act through initiative to change policy of city. Id
Ex post facto hors
iative measure prohibiting issuance of a building per -
e.
- absrs:c of a development allotment was not an
.1 retrospective law that deprived developer of a vested
or substantially impaired such right in absence of 1
,ce that developer bad a vested right that was impaired =..
:e measure went into effect. Simac Design, Inc. v. .
(1979) IS4 Cal.Rptr. 676. 92 C.A.3d 146.
rtoppel
crs of sty were not barred by estoppel from emoting .r
motive ordinance prohibiting city, from owning, ker, ..--
i
,sultairsiog car. operating proposed convention .anility
rain property: to allow frustration of initietivepoweas _
mg estoppel would be to contravene moss policy of
avoring rue of initiative. Teachers &
xp. v. Qty of Santa Cruz (1976) 134 t
'
al torose ar acing charms, a Laxation %nMkn, Tor
ion time use of sewer atcibties. Dare v. Lakeport
+wrttal (1970) 91 4SI.Rptr. 124, 12 C.A.3d 864. -
ditenges or additions by amiliedmeat
Initiative and referendum process*, do not In with respect
tr statutes and ordinance. pre v dine tot tar, Ice ies id
400.. Notice of intent to circulate petition; signatures: publication; form: fee
Sal Before circulating an initiative petition in any city. the proponents of the matter shall file with
cerk a notice of intention ' ' • cb so, which ' ' ' shall be accompanied by the written text of
the
igiative and mai' be accompanied bya written statement not in excess of 500 words, setting
forth the reasons for the proposed petition. The notice shall be signed by at least one. but not more
than three. proponents and shall be in substantially the following forn.:
i�—
r.
§ 4002.5
s
Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition
Notice is hereby given by the persons whose names appear hereon of their intention to circulate
the petition within the City of _ for the purpose of _ A statement of the reasons of the
proposed action as contemplated in the petition is ss follows:
(b) Any person filing a notice of intent with the clerk shall pay a fee to be established by the
legislative body not to exceed two hundred dollar• (S2001 to be refunded to the filer if, within one
year of the date of filing the notice of intent. the clerk certifies the sufficiency of the petition.
(Amended by Stats.1985. c. 480. § 1: Stats.1965. c. 1319. § 1; Stats.19e7, c. 767, § i<.)
Cross References
Fruitcndett.'ttrotter amerdt.tu.t•. 1 . t
Ordinances 3
Notes of Decision:
Ac•.'n. I cwt 2205 v. City tC�,onner) of Ct:y
:.
of S4:. R_f_.. , 1-.+ ce' o_•, rt,3'J5 C s 3t? 358
3. Ordinances
Now* and hcannr provisions of Zoning Act of 1917 do
not app:: to ZGAing ordinances enacted by mina:ten; over- •
ruling Hurst v. City of Burlingame. 207 Cal. 134. 277 P
301. and disapproving language in other decisions asserting
that general law cities cannot adopt zoning ordinances b)
2. In general initiative Associated Home Builder: of Greater Fastba},
No notice of intention needed to be published prior to Inc. v. City of Livermore (1976) 135 Cal.Rptr. 41. 557 P.2d
circulation of initiative charter amendment petitions. San 473, 16 C.3d 562.
§ 4002.5. Request for ballot title and summary; preparation by city counsel: use of ballot title
on petition
(a) Any person who is interested in any proposed measure shall file a copy of the proposed
measure with the clerk with a request that a ballot title and summary be prepared. This request
shall be accompanied by the address of the person proposing the measure. The clerk shall
immediately transmit a copy of the proposed measure to the city attorney. Within 15 days after the
proposed measure is filed, the city attorney shall provide and return to the city clerk a ballot title for
and summary of the proposed measure. The ballot title may differ from any other title of the
proposed measure and shall express in 500 words or less the purpose of the proposed measure. In
providing the ballot title, the city attorney shall give a true and impartial statement of the purpose of
the proposed measure in such language that the ballot title shall neither be an argument, nor "be
likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure.
(b) The clerk shall furnish a copy of the ballot title and summary to the person filing time Ipeopo/ed
measure. The person proposing the measure shall, prior to its circulation, place upon each section of
the petition, above the text of the proposed measure and across the top of each page of the petition
on which signatures are to appear, in roman boldface type not smaller than I2—point, the ba lot title
prepared by the city. attorney. "
:.The beading of the proposed measure shall be in substantially the following form.:
Initiative Measure to Be Submitted Directlyiii the Voters {`
-The city attorney has prepared the following title and summary of the thief purpose -A* points of
the proposed pleasure;
(Here set forth the title and summary prepared by the city attorney. This tide andaummary mast
also be printed across the top of each page of the petition whereon signatures are to appear.)
(Added by Stats.199�87, c. 767, ;fit9.)•_.*� '' *diode
7,�
M deletion by amendment
71..
4002.7 ELECTIONS CODE
§ 4002.7. Writ of mandate to amend ballot title or summary
The proponent may seek a writ of mandate requiring the ballot title or summary prepared by the
city attorney to be amended. The court shall expedite hearing on the writ. A per-mptnry writ of
mandate shall be issued only upon clear and convincing proof that the ballot title or summary is
false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of Section 4002.5.
(Added by Stats.19S7, c. 767, § I • )
§ 4003. Publication; posting
A notice of intention and the title and summary of the proposed measure shall be published or
posted or both as follows:
(a) if there is a newspaper of general circulation. as described in Section 6000 et seq. of the
Government Code, adjudicated as such, the roticc. title, and summary shall be published therein at
least once.
(b) If the petition is to be circulated in a city ii. which there is no adjudicated newspaper of general
circulation. the notice. title. and summary shall be published at least once, in a newspaper circulated
within the city and afated as being of general circuit:tion within the county in which the city is
located and the notice. title. and summary shalt he posted in three (3) public places within the city,
which public places s side those utilized for the purpose of posting ordinances as required in
Section 36933 of the Government Code.
(c' If the petition is to be circulated in a city ii %ilia. there is nu adjudicated newspaper of general
circulation, and there is no newspaper of general circulation adjudicated as such within the county.
circulated within the city, then the ' ' ' notice title, and summary shall be posted in the manner
described in subdivision (b) ' • '.
(Amended by Stats.19S 7, c. 767, § 10.5.)
Cross References
Freeholders' charter amendments. see § 4051.
§ 4004. Proof of publication or posting; filing
Within 10 days after the date of publication or posting. or both. of the notice of intention and
statement. the proponents shall file a copy of the notice and statement as published or posted, or
both, together with an affidavit made by a representative of the newspaper in which the notice was
published or, if the notice was posted, by a voter of the city. certifying to the fact of publication or
posting.
Such affidavit, together with a copy of the notice of intention and statement, shall be filed with the
clerk of the legislative body of the city in his or her office during normal office hours as posted.
(Amended by Stats.1987. c. 993, § 2.)
1997 Legistation
Effect of repeal and amendment of section by two or more
acts et the same session of the legislature, see Government
Code § 9605.
Cross References
Freeholders' charter amendments, see § 4091.
14005. Circulation of petition; :petition Contents
�F'he Woponente may eomaienceto_ .*Cul ite thepetitions n- ,.,
-• r
--meabgan7miteredvoter of- he esamong the - .Totems •tar the spiry dby
'rite •jaty sttorne . Frecli section of the ��er Publication of the title osAarg prepared by
Y petition shall bear s copy of the notice jef intention and the
title and summary prepared by the eity attorney.
. -(Added •by Stats.1987, c. 767. II 18.) - _ _.. _ M
1087 Iwpslatlon Cress Reference' -.•
Forma j 4005 was 'Weald by Stats.1987. c. 767. j 12. Freeholder' Amer im eta, see j 4081.
':Dndved= fanner j 4005. added by Ststa.1976, e. 248, -
j3.
1
Underline indicates changes or additions by amendment
72
tj
Ch. 767 STATUTES OF 1987
ELECTIONS—INITIATIVE PETITIONS—
COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL
Assembly Bill No. 2202
CHAPTER 767 •
An act to amend Sections 3702, 3703, 3705, 4002, 4003, and 4006
to add Sections 3702.5, 3702.7, 3705.5, 4002.5, 4002.7, and 4009.5 to, to
repeal Section 4004 of, and to repeal and add Sections 3704 and 4005
of, the Elections Code, relating to elections.
[Approved by Governor September 18, 1987. Filed with
Secretary of State September 18, 1987.)
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2202, Chacon. County and municipal initiative petitions. -
Existing law requires a proponent of a municipal initiative
petition, before circulating the petition, to publish a notice of
intention to do so including a statement of up to 500 words on the
reasons for the proposed petition which is signed by up to 3
proponents.
This bill would require instead that the notice of intent, along with
the written text of the initiative, be filed with the clerk of the
legislative body, and would revise related provisions pertaining to
publication of the notice of intent. It would require a person filing
a notice of intent to pay a refundable fee of up to $200.
This bill would require a proponent to file with the clerk a copy
of the proposed measure with a request for a ballot title. It would
impose a state -mandated local program by requiring the clerk to
submit a copy of the measure to the city attorney, who would be
required to provide a ballot title and summary for the proposed
measure. It would authorize the proponent to seek an expedited
hearing for a writ of mandate in order to have the ballot title or
summary amended on specified grounds.
This bill would revise existing procedures to permit circulation of
the petition after publication of the title and summary prepared by
the city attorney and within a specified time period.
This bill would authorize the city council, during the circulation of
the petition and before enacting a proposed measure or calling a
special election, or submitting it to the voters at a regular municipal
election, to refer an initiative measure to any city agency for a report,
within 45 days, on the effect of the proposed measure upon the city's
general plan, among other matters. - a
This bill would impose a state -mandated local program by making
parallel revisions- to the statutory procedure for. the enactment of
county initiativc measures. _ •
_ - -.- - , - , the California Constitution requires the state to reimburselocal
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
184
Changes or additions in text are Indicated by underline
:r=te
1987
'IVE PETITIONS-
IUNICIPAL
No. 2202
t 767
13, 3705, 4002, 4003, and 4006 of,
4002.5, 4002.7, and 4009.5 to, to
and add Sections 3704 and 4005
lection.
iber 18, 1987. Filed with
'mber 18, 1987.1
SELS DIGEST
unicipal initiative petitions.
int of a municipal initiative
tition, to publish a notice of
lent of up to 500 words on the
which is signed by up to 3
the notice of intent, along with
)e filed with the clerk of the
dated provisions pertaining to
t would require a person filing
.e fee of up to $200.
at to file with the clerk a copy
uest for a ballot title. It would
ram by requiring the clerk to
e city attorney, who would' be
id summary for the proposed
oponent to seek an expedited
der to have the ballot title or
ands.
edures to permit circulation of
title and summary prepared by
'ted time period.
)uncil, during the circulation of
proposed measure or calling a
le voters at a regular municipal
to any city agency for a report,
Jposed measure upon the city's
dated local program by making
ocedure for, the enactment of
es the state to reimburse local
in costs mandated by the state.
ocedures for making that
an of a State Mandates Claims
tames MUM are Indicated by underline
1987-1988 REGULAR SESSION Ch. 767
Fund to pay the costs of mandates which do not exceed 9500,000
statewide and other procedures for claims whose statewide costs
exceed $500,000.
This 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 made pursuant to those
statutory procedures and, if the statewide cost does not exceed
$500,000, shall be made from the State Mandates Claims Fund.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 3702 of the Elections Code is amended to
read:
3702. (a) Before circulating any initiative petition in a county, or
any petition relating to the annexation of territory by a county, the
consolidation of counties, or the dissolution of a county, its
proponents shall file with the clerk a notice of intention'ko do so. The
notice shall be accompanied by the written text of the initiative and
may be accompanied by a printed statement, not exceeding 500
words in length, stating the reasons for the proposed petition.
(b) The notice prescribed in subdivision (a), and a title and
summary of the proposed measure prepared by the county counsel,
shall be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation
published in that county.
(c) The notice shall be in substantially the following form:
Notice of Intention to Circulate Petition
Notice is hereby given 12E the persons whose names appear hereon
of their intention to circulate the petition within the County of
for the purpose of A statement of the reasons of
the proposed action as contemplated in the petition is as follows:
(d) Any person filing a notice of intent with the county clerk shall
pay a fee to be established by the board of supervisors not to exceed
two hundred dollars ($200) to be refunded to the filer if, within one
year of the date of filing the notice of intent, the county clerk
certifies the sufficiency of the petition.
SEC. 2. Section 3702.5 is added to the Elections .Code; -to read:
3702.5. (a) Any person who is interested in any, 'proposed
measure shall file a copy of the proposed measure with the county
clerk with a request that a ballot title and summary be prepared. This
request shall be accompanied by the address of the'petsttn proposing
the measure. The county clerk shall immediately transmit a copy oaf
the proposed measure to the county.courisel. Within 15 days after the
proposed measure . is filed, the county counselsttittl proM4de :.and
return to the county- clerk- a`• ballot litle and -Numinary-jprthe
proposed measure. The ballot title may differ from any othertttteof
the proposed measure and shall express =in .500: words or tesr le
purpose of the proposed measure: In; proredink the Fitte:*e
county Counsel "-shall give if 'hale and 'Impartial statement of 'the
purpose .of the proposed measure in such language that the ballot
symbol • Indicates tixt deletion
1115
Ch. 767 STATUTES OF 1987
title shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice,
for or against the proposed measure.
(b) The county clerk shall furnish a copy P , ��
person filing the proposed p. of the ballot title to the'
measure shall,gprior to its circulation, measure.
The person proposing
petition, ove o text of the p Posing the
place upon each across the theo
of each page of the proposed measure and top
roman boldfacegetype petition on which signatures are to a
Pn nct smaller than 12 -point, the ballotpappear,
prepared by the county counsel.
following form:
The heading of the proposed measure shall be in substantially
the
Initiative Measure to Be Submitted Directly to the Voters
The county counsel has prepared the following title and sum
of the chief purpose and -
(Here set forth the title and
of the proposed measure: mart' .
counsel. This title and summand summary prepared by2
ofo unch page of the petitiony must also be printed aross the tocountp
SEC. 3. Section 3702.7 is added to twhereon he Electionnatures s Code,
3702.7. The appear.)
proponent may seek a writ of mandate requiring the
ballot title or summary
amended. The court shall expedirepared tey
hearinthe g
county counsel to be
peremptory writ of mandate shall be issued onl • upon
convincingg on the writ.
proof that the ballot title or summary is false, misleading
or inconsistent with the requirements of Section 3702.5.
SEC. 3.5. Section 3703 of the Elections Code is
3703! The count clerkamended to read: �
required33! to gn shall ascertain the number of signatures
within the gnthepetition by obtaining the number of votes cast
gubernatorial countynfor
onpr all candidates for Governor at the last
intention to circulate g the publication of the notice of
SEC. 4, the initiative petition.
Section 3704 of the Elections Code is repealed.
SEC. S. Section 3704 is added to the Elections Code,
3704• The proponents ma
among the hetprs pf the conn y commence to circulates en petitions
of then county afterrcounty for signatures byPetitionr
the ot county
publication of the title and summary preparedevoter
y counsel. Each section of the petition shall bear a copy
the notice of intention by
county counsel, and the title and summary of
SEC. 6. prepared by the ..
Section 3705 of the Elections Codeis3705. Signatures shall be amended to read:
presented Signatures
the connsecured and the petition shall be
of ef t to the title and clerkummer filing within 180 da
for aa writ of mandateor after terminatioyn fa om the date
. ursuant to Section 3702.7ffaa action -��
after recei t of an amended title :or summa and if aw . cheve ". - --
urs later.
:'SEC.. 7:_ Section- . `_ ' or bot whichever
-; -4705.5. . a •3705.5•i5 added to the Elections Code, to•read
(-) . During -the-. circulation of : the .petition
` - taking either action described. in subdivisions (a) an(b • of Section
or Section 3711, the board of supervisors.
(b) of Sectihn
Pervisou may refer the
-186
►F 1987
nor be likely to create prej
sh a copy of the ballot title to.
ure. The person proposing
,n, place upon each section f
)osed measure and across the
hich signatures are to appear
- than 12 -point, the ballot
asure shall be in substantially
fitted Directly to the Voters
the following title and summa
the proposed measure:
`nmary prepared by the coup
ist also be printed across the t
on signatures are to appear.)
to the Elections Code, to read:.,___
a writ of mandate requiring the
by the county counsel to be
lite hearing on the writ. A
be issued only upon clear and
or summary is false, misleading,
ats of Section 3702.5.
ctions Code is amended to read: artain the number of signatures
lining the number of votes cast
rtes for Governor at the last
le publication of the notice of
petition.
tions Code is repealed.
the Elections Code, to read:
fence to circulate the petitions
natures by any registered voter
title and summary prepared by
he petition shall bear a copy of
and summary prepared by the
•
ions Code is amended to read:
:d and the petition shall be
g within 180 days from the date
after termination of any action
ction 3702.7 and, if applicable, - .
summary or both, whichever
i the Elections Code, to read:
►n of the petition or before
!ivisions (a) and (b) of Section
bf supervisors may refer the
ions In text we Indiaded by
1987-1988 REGULAR SESSION Ch. 767
roposed initiative measure to any county agency or agencies for a
port on any or all of the following:
(1) Its fiscal impact.
(0) Its effect on the internal consistency of the county's general
and specific plans including the housing element, the consistency
between planning and zoning, the limitations on county actions
under Section
65008n Chapters
4.2
(commencing Section 65913) and 4.3 (commencing with
Section 65915) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code.
(3) Any other matters the board of supervisors request to be in the
report.
(b) The report shall be presented .to the board of supervisors
within the time prescribed by the board of supervisors but no later
than 45 days after the clerk certifies to the board of supervisors the
sufficiency of the petition.
SEC. 8. Section 4002 of the Elections Code is amended to read:
4002. 0. Before circulating an initiative petition in any city, the
proponents of the matter shall file with the clerk a notice of intention
to do so, which"shall be accompanied by the written text of the
initiative and may be accompanied by a written statement not in
excess of 500 words, setting forth the reasons for the proposed
petition. The notice shall be signed by at least one, but not more than
three, proponents and shall be in substantially the following form:
Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition
Notice is hereby given b the persons whose names appear hereon
of their intention to circulate the petition within the City of
for the purpose of . A statement of the reasons of the
proposed action as contemplated in the petition is as follows:
(b) Any person filing a notice of intent with the clerk shall pay a
fee to be established by the legislative body not to exceed two
hundred dollars ($200) to be refunded to the filer if, within one year
of the date of filing the notice of intent. the clerk certifies the
sufficiency of the petition.
SEC. 9. Section 4002.5 is added to the Elections Code, to read:
4002.5. (a) Any person who is interested in any proposed
measure shall file a copy of the proposed measure with the clerk with
a request that a ballot title and summary be prepared. This request
shall be accompanied by the address of the person proposing the
measure. The clerk shall immediately transmit a copy -of the
proposed measure to the city attorney. Within 15 days after the
proposed measure is filed, the city attorney shall provide and return
to the city --clerk a -ballot title for -and summary of the proposed
measure. The ballot title may differ from =gny 'other title -pf the
proposed measure and shall express in 500 words or less the the- urpt
of the - proposed"measure. In providing the ballot title,'
attorney shall give a trt e'and impartial statement of the purtb of
the proposed measure 1n.such.:ianguage that the ballot title shad
neither 'be' -lin argument, =nor be likely to create prejudice= _for .or
against the proposed measure. .
itneeol s'dkalis text ddstlon
•
•
Ch. 767 STATUTES OF 1987
(b) The clerk shall furnish a copy of the ballot tide and s
to the person filing the proposed measure. The person proposing '_
measure shall, prior to its circulation, place upon each section of the:
petition, above the text of the proposed measure and across the top
of each page of the petition on which signatures are to appear, in
roman boldface type not smaller than 12 -point, the ballot title
prepared by the city attorney.
The heading of the proposed measure shall be in substantially the
following form:
Initiative Measure to Be Submitted Directly to the Voters
The city attorney has prepared the following title and summary of
the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure:
(Here set forth the title and summary prepared by the city
attorney. This title and summary must also be printed across the top
of each page of the petition whereon signatures are to appear.)
SEC. 10. Section 4002.7 is added to the Elections Code, to read:
4002.7. The proponent may seek a writ of mandate requiring the
ballot title or summary prepared by the city attorney to be amended. _
The court shall expedite hearing on the writ. A peremptory writ of
mandate shall be issued only upon clear and convincing proof that
the ballot title or summary is false, misleading, or inconsistent with
the requirements of Section 4002.5.
SEC. 10.5. Section 4003 of the Elections Code is amended to read: c -_
4003. A notice of intention and the title and summary of the
proposed measure shall be published or posted or both as follows:
(a) If there is a newspaper of general circulation, as described in -_
Section 6000 et seq. of the Governrrient Code, adjudicated as such,
the notice, title, and summary shall be published therein at least
once_
(b) If the petition is to be circulated in a city in which there is no
adjudicated newspaper of general circulation, the notice, title, and
summary shall be published at least once, in a newspaper circulated
within the city and adjudicated as being of general circulation within
the county in which the city is located and the notice, title, and
summary shall be posted in three (3) public places within the city,
which public places shall be those utilized for the
ordinances as required in Section 36933 of the Goverrnm ntt pose of C de
(c) If the petition is to be circulated in a city in -which there is ito
adjudicated newspaper of general circulation, and there is no
newspaper of general circulation adjudicated as such within the
county, .circulated within the city, then thevnotice, title. and
.summary shall be posted.in the manner described in subdivision (br
*SEC. 11. Section .4004 of the Elections Cede is.repealed.
7._`SEC. 12 Section 4005 of the .Elections C.ode..is repealed.
;SEC. 1.3. Section 40Q5 is added ...
to the Elections Code, to read
.�. 0O5•..)he proponents inaycommence to circulate the petitions
Among the voters of thecity for signatures by any registered voter -
Df
of the city after, publication of the title and summary- prepared by the
City attorney. Each section of the petition shall bear
-a copy of the
X88
Changs or additions M test are i dleat.d by underUns
:
S OF 1987
zopy of the ballot title and s
I measure. The person propo
ration, place upon each section of
roposed measure and across the
which signatures are to appea
Her than 12 -point, the ballot .
measure shall be in substantialk
.:
bmitted Directly to the Voters
I the following title and summary
the proposed measure:
i summary prepared by the c
must also be printed across the to
!reon signatures are to appear.)
led to the Elections Code, to rea
3ek a writ of mandate requiring the
by the city attorney to be amended ' on the writ. A peremptory writ
rn clear and convincing proof that _.
;e, misleading, or inconsistent with
i.5.
Elections Code is amended to read:
nd the title and summary of the
;hed or posted or both as follows:
;eneral circulation, as described in
nment Code, adjudicated as such,
hall be published therein at least
:lated in a city in which there is no
I circulation, the notice, title, arid%
st once, in a newspaper circulated
being of general circulation within
located and the notice, title. and
(3) public places within the city,
utilized for the purpose of posting
36933 of the Government Coder.
lated in a city in which there is.rio-
ral circulation, and there is rio
adjudicated _as such within the'--
ity, then 'thevnotice. title. And
nner described in subdivision (b
lections Code is repealed. .._.i
lections.Code is•epealed.
to the Elections. Code,. -to realty
lmence to..circulate the petitions
gnatures by any registered voter.
tle and summary prepared by the
petition shall bear a copy of h
iditions In textortilndixelfd by
1987-1988 REGULAR SESSION Ch. 767
»otice of intention and the title and summary prepared by the city
attorney.
SEC. 14. Section 4006 of the Elections Code is amended to read:
4006. Signatures upon petitions and sections of petitions shall be
secured, and the petition, together with all sections of the petition,
shall be filed within 180 days from the date of receipt of the title and
summary, or after termination of any action for a writ of mandate
pursuant to Section 4002.7, and, if applicable, after receipt of an
amended title or summary or both, whichever occurs later. Petitions
and sections thereof shall be filed in the office of the clerk during
normal office hours as posted. If the petitions are not filed within the
time permitted by this section, the petitions shall be void for all
purposes.
SEC. 15. Section 4009.5 is added to the Elections Code, to read:
4009.5. (a) During the circulation. of the petition, or before
taking either action described in subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section
4010, or Section 4011, the legislative body may refer the proposed
initiative measure to any city agency or agencies for a report on any
or all of the following:
(1) Its fiscal impact.
(2) Its effect on the internal consistency of the city's general and
specific plans including the housing element, the consistency
between planning and zoning, the limitations on city actions under
Section 65008 of the Government Code. Chapters 4.2 (commencing
with Section 65913) and 4.3 (commencing with Section 65915) of
Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code.
(3) Any other matters the council requests to be in the report.
(b) The report shall be presented to the legislative body within
the time prescribed by the legislative body but no later than 45 days
after the clerk certifies to the legislative body the sufficiency of the
petition.
SEC. 16. Notwithstanding Section 17610 of the Government
Code, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act
contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local
agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant
to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2
of the Government Code. If the statewide cost of the claim for
reimbursement does not exceed five hundred thousand dollars
($500,000), reimbursement shall be made from the State Mandates
Claims Fund.
Symbol v Indicates text deletion
189
January 18, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of
Hermosa Beach City Council January 26, 1988
Resolution to Amend Resolution No. 86-5004 - Procedures
for Lot Mergers
Staff Recommedation
Staff Recommends that the City Council take the following action:
1. Adopt the attached Resolution to Amend Resolution
86-5004 - Procedures for Lot Mergers.
Background
1. The City Council, at their meeting of December 16, 1986,
adopted Resolution No. 86-5004 - Procedures for lot
mergers.
Analysis
Resolution No. 86-5004 established the procedures for lot
mergers. Section 7a. states that if the owner request a hearing
before the Planning Commission to appeal an intent to merge lots,
the hearing must be publicly noticed. This section also states
that it is the owners responsibility to provide names and address
of property owners within 300 feet and to send notices. Section
10a. also states that a hearing before the City Council must be
publicly noticed.
To date we have processed over 120 lot mergers. We are receiving
requests for hearings from less than 10% of the property owners
subject to merger. However; those people who are requesting the
hearings are rather upset that it is their responsibility to
provide the names of the property owners within 300 feet and to
send notices. Residents feel that since this is a City initated
intent to merge lots, the City should assume responsibility.
California Government Code Sections 66451.11-66451.21 (LOT
MERGERS) outlines the procedures for lot mergers. The California
Government Code requires a hearing for merger appeals, but not a
public bearing.
The Zoning Ordinance Section 29.5 states that a hearing is
nesessary before the Planning Commission, but also states that a
Public Hearing, pursuant to the same noted section, is necessary
if the Planning Commission decision is appealed to the City
Council. Therefore, other than certified notification to the
appealant and to the applicant as to the date and time of the
hearing, no 300 foot radius public noticing is necessary. In
other words, we must providenotice of the hearing to both the
appealant and proprety owner, unless they are one of the same.
1
The Resolution has also been amended to eliminate the
establishment of the trust account with the County Recorder's
Office. As previously mentioned, the Recorder's Office is
recording the lot mergers at no cost to the City.
Adoption of the attached Resolution will be consistant with state
government codes and our zoning code.
Attachments
1. Resolution 88-
2 Resolution 86-5004
3. CA Government Code Section 66451.15
3. Zoning Code Section 29.5-24 and 29.5-28
CONC1JJ$ :
Michael Schiubach
Planning Director
A ana Mastrian
Acting City Manager
2
Res tful ubmitted,
An rew P ea
Associate Planner
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION 88-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA
AMENDING THE PROCEDURES FOR MERGING LOTS UNDER SECTIONS 29.5-19
THROUGH 29.5-28 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is necessary to amend
the procedures for lot merger, and;
WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for the hearing of
lot merger appeals pursuant to state law, and;
WHEREAS, the establishment of a trust account for recordation
is not required because the County is recording the mergers at no
cost to the City;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby
establishes the following procedure to implement the lot merger
ordinance:
1. The Planning Department shall accept applications for lot
mergers.
2. The Planning Department shall map out blocks in each area
according to the schedule and determine which lots are
substandard, and whether 80% of the lots on the blocks have
been split.
3. The following schedule for merger and/or unmerging lots shall
be followed:
a. Properties which owners request to be merged.
b. Properties which owners claim are
which 80% or more of the lots have
loc
bee• unmerged.
cks on
c. Properties which owners claim do not straddle property
lines.
d. Properties which owners claim are not subject to the lot
merger ordinance for other reasons.
Properties in a geographical area, to be determined by
the Planning Director.
4. The Plannin4 Director shall identify
eligible fo merger and determine which
are owned by the same owner.
e.
which parcels are
contiguous parcels
SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION oe
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 88-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA
AMENDING THE PROCEDURES FOR MERGING LOTS UNDER SECTIONS 29.5-19
THROUGH 29.5-28 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is necessary to amend
the procedures for lot merger, and;
WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for the hearing of
lot merger appeals pursuant to state law, and;
WHEREAS, the establishment of a trust account for recordation
is not required because the County is recording the mergers at no
cost to the City;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby
establishes the following procedure to implement the lot merger
ordinance:
1. The Planning Department shall accept applications for lot
mergers.
2. The Planning Department shall map out blocks in each area
according to the schedule and determine which lots are
substandard, and whether 80% of the lots on the blocks have
been split.
3. The following schedule for merger and/or unmerging lots shall
be followed:
a. Properties which owners request to be merged.
b. Properties which owners claim are located on blocks on
which 80% or more of the lots have been merged.
c. Properties which owners claim do not straddle property
lines.
d. Properties which owners claim are not subject to the lot
merger ordinance for other reasons.
e. Properties in a geographical area, to be determined by
the Planning Director.
4. The Plannind Director shall identify which parcels are
eligible for merger and determine which contiguous parcels
are owned by the same owner.
1
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
ATTEST:
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of
January, 1988.
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California.
PROVED AFORM:
7
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
4)
ldr
C wwn,.;s
RESOLUTION NO. 86- 5004
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A PROCEDURE FOR MERGING LOTS UNDER
SECTIONS 29.5-19 THROUGH 29.5-28 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL
CODE.
WHEREAS, the City Council held a hearing on this matter
on December 16, 1986, and made the following Finding:
1. 'It is necessary to establish procedures to implement the new
Lot Merger Ordinance;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council
hereby establishes the following procedure to implement the Lot
Merger Ordinance:
1. The Planning Department shall establish a trust account with
the Los Angeles County Recorder and deposit initial funds.
2. The Planning Department shall accept applications for lot
merger.
3. The Planning Department shall map out blocks in each area,
according to the schedule, and determine which lots are
substandard, and whether 8070 of the lots on the block have
been split.
4. The following schedule for merging and/or unmerging lots
shall be followed:
a. Properties which owners request to be merged.
b. Properties which owners claim are located on blocks on
which 807e or more of the lots have been unmerged.
c. Properties which owners claim do not straddle property
lines.
d. Properties which owners claim are not subject to the lot
merger ordinance for other reasons.
e. Properties all in a geographical area, to be determined
by the Planning Director.
5. The Planning Department shall identify which parcels are
eligible for merger and determine which contiguous parcels
are owned by the same owner.
6. The Planning Department shall mail a Notice of Intent to the
County Recorder; including an additional copy for
certification, a self-addressed stamped envelope, and a
transmittal letter authorizing expenditure from the trust
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
i
account. Two (2) days later, a Notice shall be sent by
certified mail to the property owner.
. a. If the property owner requests a hearing, the Planning
Department shall schedule the case for a Planning
Commission hearing within'60 days of receipt. No more
than 3 merger hearings shall be scheduled per Planning
Commission meeting. It shall be the property owner's
responsibility to provide names and addresses of
property owners within 300 feet and tosend notices.
b. If the property owner does not request a hearing, the
Planning Department shall file a Notice of Lot Merger
with the Los Angeles County Recorder within 30 days
after the deadline to request a hearing and shall
include an additional copy for certification,
self-addressed stamped envelope, and transmittal letter
authorizing expenditure from the trust account. A
Notice shall be sent by certified mail to the property
owner.
8. a. If the Planning Commission determines the properties
shall be merged, the Planning Department shall send a
Notice of Planning Commission Determination to Merge
Lots by certified mail to the property owner within 5
days. A copy shall be filed with the Los Angeles County
Recorder within 30 days, including an additional copy
for certification, self-addressed stamped envelope, and
transmittal letter authorizing expenditure from the
trust account.
b. If the Planning Commission determines the properties
shall not be merged, the Planning Department shall send
a Notice to the property owner by certified mail within
5 days. A Release shall be filed with the Los Angeles
County Recorder within 30 days, including an additional
copy for certification, self-addressed stamped envelope,
and transmittal letter authorizing expenditure from the
trust account.
9. If the Planning Commission's determination is appealed to the
City Clerk within 10 days, the City Clerk shall schedule a
City Council hearing and prepare any required public notices.
10. a. If the City Council determines that the properties shall
be merged, the Planning Department shall mail a Notice
to the property owner by certified mail within 30 days.
b. If the City Council determines that the properties shall
not be merged, the Planning Department shall mail a
Notice to the owner by certified mail and to the County
Recorder within 30 days. The Notice to the Recorder
shall include an additional copy for certification, a
self-addressed stamped envelope, and a transmittal
letter authorizing an expenditure from the trust
account.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of
December , 1986.
1
2
3
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRESIDENT of th` City Council and MAYOR of the City of
Hermosa Beach,' California.
ATTEST:
PROVED AS 0 ORM:
CITY CLERK
CITY ATTORNEY
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
Hearing on deter-
mination of status
Determination of status
66451.15. Upon receiving a request for a
hearing on determination of status from the owner
of the affected property pursuant to Section
66451.14, the local agency shall fix a time,
date, and place for a hearing to be conducted by
the legislative body or an advisory agency, and
shall notify the property owner of that time,
date, and place for the hearing by certified
mail. The hearing shall be conducted not
more than 60 days following the local agency's
receipt of the property owner's request for
the hearing, but may be postponed or continued
with the mutual consent of the local agency and
the property owner.
(Amended by Stats. 1984, Ch. 102. Effective
April 30, 1984. See notes following Sections
66451.10 and 66451.11; Amended by Stats. 1985,
Ch. 796. Urgency; effective September 19, 1985.)
66451.16. At the hearing, the property owner
shall be given the opportunity to present any
evidence that the affected property does not meet
the standards for merger specified in the merger
ordinance.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the local
agency shall make a determination that the
affected parcels are to be merged or are not to
be merged and shall so notify the owner of its
determination. If the merger ordinance so
provides, a determination of nonmerger may be
made whether or not the affected property meets
the standards for merger specified in Section
66451.11. A determination of merger shall be
recorded within 30 days after conclusion of the
hearing, as provided for in Section 66451.12.
(Amended by Stats. 1984, Ch. 102. Effective
April 30, 1984. See notes following Sections
66451.10 and 66451.11.) •
- ...:y �.
•
January 18, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting
the Hermosa Beach City Council of January 26, 1988
ADOPTING RESOLUTION AMENDING PROCEDURES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF
THE LIABILITY SELF-INSURANCE PROGRAM
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached
Resolution whch amends the procedures for the administration of
the Liability Self -Insurance program.
BACKGROUND:
On April 9, 1985, the City Council adopted Resolution 85-4818
which established procedures for the settlement of liability
claims in which the City has liability.
That procedure authorized the City Manager, or his authorized
representative, to settle or compromise claims valued at or below
S1,500 without prior authorization of the City Council.
The S1,500 limit has caused there to be a'delay in the payment of
several cases where the City's liability had been determined.
This delay caused there to be additional costs in the settlement
of the claims. Particularily these additional costs have been
associated with claims which involved damage to vehicles. The
additional costs incurred were as a result of reimbursement to
the claimant for auto rental -charges during the time their vehi-
cle was being repaired.
Additionally, because of the construction of newer vehicles and
computerization of many vehicle components, even the more minor
collisions often cause damage in excess of the S1,500 settlement
_authority.
Settlement authority is also specifically granted to the Risk
Manager in the attached Resolution. This is a new position in
the City which was effective January 1, 1988. The Risk Manager
is the responsible party for the administration of the City's
Self -Insurance programs.
ANALYSIS:
The attached Resolution amends Resolution 85-4818 to allow the
City Manager or the Risk Manager to settle claims valued at an•
amount not to exceed S3,500.
This increase in the settlement authority will allow for a more
expeditious processing of a certain class of claims filed against
the City in which the City's liability has been determined.
Respectfully submi-ted,
Robert A. Blackwood
Risk Manager
Concur:
Alana Mastrian
Acting City Manager
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
Resolution No.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION 86-4818, WHICH ESTABLISHED PRO-
CEDURES FOR A SELF-INSURED LIABILITY PROGRAM.
WHEREAS, the City of Hermosa Beach established procedures
for a self-insured program for liability claims filed against the
ity on April 9, 1985 and the settlement authority has not been
adjusted since that time; and
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of expediting the payment of
hose claims in which the City has liability in order to reduce
he cost associated with delay in payment of those costs.
THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
OLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Resolution 86-4818 shall be amended as follows:
section 3. Authority, shall read: The City Manager, his duly
uthorized representative, or the Risk Manager is hereby au-
horized to settle or compromise any liability of the City
Nether a claim has been filed or not, in all cases where the
:mount necessay to be expended in order to settle or compromise
:uch claim does not exceed $3,500 without the necessity of first
eceiving the approval of the City Council. Said City Manager,
isk Manager, or other duly authorized person in such event is
:uthorized to request the Finance Administrator draw a demand
Directly upon the self-insurance fund for the payment of such
:um. The Finance Administrator is authorized to draw such a de -
'and upon the request of the City Manager, Risk Manager, or duly
uthorized person.
ection 4. Authority of Adjusting Company, shall read: The City
anagen or Risk Manager is authorized to delegate to an adjusting
ompany the authority set forth in the -preceding section'in an
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
mount not to exceed the amount approved by the City Council in
he service agent contract with the adjusting company.
ection 5. Power, shall read: the City Manager or Risk Manger is
uthorized, without first obtaining the approval of the City
ouncil to retain medical doctors, appraisers, accountants, en-
ineers or other professional services in his opinion necessary
o the defense of any action and the City will be bound by any
greement entered into under this section provided that the
mount involved does not exceed $3,500. In the event that the
mount involved does exceed S3,500, prior approval of the City
ouncil must be secured.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and
adoption of this resolution; shall enter the same in the book of
original resolutions of said city; and shall make a minute of the
passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of
the City Council of said city, in the minutes of the meeting at
hich the same is passed and adopted.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of
, 1988.
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
-ai//
PRESIDENT of the City Council
and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa
Beach, California.
CITY CLERK
CITY ATTORNEY •
January 18, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of
the Hermosa Beach City Council January 26, 1988
RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A GREEN (15 MINUTE PARKING) ZONE ON
VALLEY DRIVE FOR HERMOSA VALLEY SCHOOL
Recommendation:
It
1.
A pptzv vcQ
2.
4PpRVv6P
is recommended that City Council:
adopt Resolution No. 88- establishing a green zone (15
minute parking) on Valley Drive for Hermosa Valley School,
and
exempt the school district from payment of a fee for the
loading zone.
Background:
On October 31, 1987 Mrs. Diane Greenwald sent a letter to the
Hermosa Valley School District with a copy to the Hermosa Beach
City Council regarding parking at the school. A separate letter,
also dated October 31, 1987 was sent to the Hermosa Beach City
Councilmembers. At the December 15, 1987. Council meeting,
Council directed staff to contact the Hermosa Beach City School
District. Consequently, the Public Works Department has received
a request from the Superintendent of the Hermosa Beach City
Schools (see attached letter) for the installation of a fifteen
minute zone in front of Hermosa Valley School. (Copies of all
correspondence are attached).
Analysis:
Staff conducted a site investigation on January 18, 1988. It was
determined that there is a need for a green zone which would
enable parents time to drop their children curbside. As
requested in the letter from the Hermosa Beach School District,
this could relieve congestion in the school parking lot and
alleviate the problem of illegally parked cars in the lot.
Installation of this green zone will be in keeping with Council's
desire and goal to establish and maintain a good working
relationship with the Hermosa Beach City School District.
The green zone would be approximately 135 feet in length,
extending from the north driveway to approximately ten feet north
of the existing crosswalk. (See attached diagram)
1
•
Fiscal Impact:
There are no meters in this area; therefore, there will be no
revenue loss.
Alternatives:
Other alternatives considered by staff and available to City
Council are:
1. Do nothing.
Respectfully submitted,
Anthony Antich
Director of Pu
J
lic Works
Concur:
Alana Mastrian
Acting City Manager
cc: Joan Noon, Director of General Services
green/v
Attachments: Resolution No. 88 -
Diagram
Diane Greenwald Letters dated 10/31/87
Staff Letter to Mr. Ryckman dated December 28, 1987
Mr. Ryckman's Letter dated January 5, 1988
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2
23
24
25 /
26 /
27 /
28 /
RESOLUTION NO. 88-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE RESOLUTION NO. N.S. 2435, AS AMENDED
BY ADDING THERETO A LOADING ZONE RESTRICTION ON A CERTAIN
SECTION OF VALLEY DRIVE AS HERIN DESCRIBED SET FORTH.
WHEREAS, Municipal Code, Section 19-76, says "Green curb
marking shall mean no standing or parking for a period of time
longer than fifteen (15) minutes at any time between 7:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m. on any day". (Ord. No. N. S. 238, Subsection
11.1.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. VALLEY DRIVE: On the west curb, beginning
at a point 125 feet south of the north
property line of Hermosa Valley School,
then south 135 feet.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 26th -day of January, 1988
ATTEST:
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the
City of Hermosa Beach, California
, CITY CLERK
CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED AS TO
VALLEY SCHOOL PARKING LOT
OUT
PRIVFVJAY
PASSENGER LOADING 2OPVF 735'
VA L L, Y DR
1N
,ARS ✓SWAY
e•
WANE AIdt_ i_ . I I LF_NWALD
32 Tenth :;t. - Hermosa Beach, Ca. 9''254
Uc tQt) t..r- = 1 , 19u.1
Hermosa Valley School
le 45 Valley Drive
Hermosa beach, Ca. 90254
Superintendent's Office
Pr,nc:ipal's Office
Dear School Officers,
Being the parent of three children going through the Hermosa
Beach School system, may I say how happy I am with most
aspects of our New K thru 8th grade. school.
Nothing in lift is without it's little: problems, and it 1 may
mention :the three 'simple to correct ones I have run up
against since school opened in September, perhaps they could
be corrected to the betterment of all concerned.
1. PARKING
There simply is not enough! The two small lots on the
school grounds do riot supply both Teacher's and parent's
needs during certain times in the school day. This also
applies to after ,school hour functions such as out
Halloween Carnival held last night.
Perhaps more parking could be had by shortening the play
field North of the Main duildinils by a few dozen feet.
Pt..•rhdps in other areas to the rear of the school. It is
a thought, and..j will also .write to the..City Council this
evening, 'asking. them. -to -allow a: lU.man teone_{trt 7east1
Vamlle Drive fro -one end of the school to the other
poring _ school hours -to- ai d 'tfiW- are�fs'pi.ctsin
¢mal.}er - u
..., _. rz hi l dren and these = bei n g- p Relays.
..... __..,. .�,... - .g ..p-rGked._upon rainy-idays.
KINDERGARTEN PLOYGROUND AREA
'there should really be a separate, enclosed play area for
the smaller children. It should alto be right in the
same area as their classrooms. When the new Kindergarten
area was under construction last year, I recall it being
mentioned that there. would be such an area by the
Classroom.
1 •ti .
•
my Kristen off at school in themorning, I do
When 1 di -Up ,lay area
r,ct feel. good watching her wall uti to the big f
1r, the rear- of the school with older V.ids runningcdall
around. Her Kindergarten area is locked up.
Sheeven leave her backpack by ner class for safety.
I really do feel uncomfortable with this situation.
a c:df a play area -Gy the
We have the space_' to create
younger children's classroom, can we please allocate the
money to install i t''
SPECIAL SERVICE ROOMS - CUBBY HOLED IN THE LrBRARY
Thele three rooms are in desperate need of sound
manyproofing. 1 have been in the ;-speech roared orce, 1 even
times. I can always hLr ce outside:. noise,
heard a mc,vie being played two clCeshardn1.turdawstudts ntito
the library itself. 1t: i-, so verythe
concentrate on Speech Lor = why, ifv r henori`'she1i ire from
,peri al- SE -.r' i cep. rooms for) ,
outside is always entering his/her study area.
Well, that is it. These things -have been bugging me fore
awhile now. Please accept then, in the. manner 1 ani 9i vi
which is as helpful ideas sAon how to i mp r e've our almost
l.,vr i c 7:.t schoolHERMO
SA
ft•earsh you,
Diane ee:: Greenwa l d
Parent
(' 13) 37a-5446 or 376-5416
Nicc/Hermosa Beach City Council Members
eV
•
DIANE L. 6REENWMLt.4
32�
'TENTH S"f f<i ET - HERMOSA tsEHLH, CA. - 90254 ��
October 31, 1987
•
Hermosa reach City Council
Members; John Cioffi, Etta Simpson, tony Detellis
Jim Rosenberger and June Williams
131'6 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254
Re: Earking 'ti45 Valla -Blvd .
Y'� Hermosa •Valley Schooil'7
Dear Council Members,
As a Parent of three children, two who are attending the
newly opened Hermosa Valley school, I need to bring up
a
problem you may be able to help dissipate to some degree.
** PARKING **
At certain times during school hours, there is not enough
parking for both teaching staff and parents dropping off or
picking up children. This problem exists even though a lot
of parents walk to school, to pick up,or drop off the younger
children (N; thru 2nd grade) who must be attended to in this
manner.
Those of us with younger children must leave our cars,
sometimes blocking other waiting parents, to -walk into the
classroom,' thus allowing the teacher to release our child to
us. This rule is a good one, so young children are not
running dig around unsupervised. But withoutro er parkin
must cause problems to other waitin n P h g' we
to leave the blocked parking9 Parents, who are ready
area.
On rainy days, the parking problem'is unbelievable!
If it is in your power, could you please have the
section of 1645 Valley Drive, from one end of the school Westtothe other, open up for 10 Minute parking during school hours.
I believe that is when the curb is
limited time in parking. Correct me ifl1 ntam wrong. to allow
•
Doing this won't totally solve
our
sure it will help in a positive mannerking•.problem, but I am
Thank you for taking the time to look into this matter.
Respectfully, , .
Diane L. Greenwald
Parent/Resident/Businesswoman
A
City o f 2%rmosarl3eaclt�
_x.
December 28, 1987
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885
Mr. Don Ryckman
Superintendent of Schools
Hermosa Beach City Schools
P.O. Box 338
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Subject: Possible 10 Minute "Loading" Zone: Hermosa Valley
School
Dear Mr. Ryckman,
I hope all is well with you, and that you are enjoying your
winter recess.
At the December 15, 1987 City Council Meeting, councilmembers
received a copy of the attached letter from Mrs. Diane
Greenwald regarding a possible 10 minute "Loading" Zone to be
painted green in front of the Hermosa Valley School. The
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 19 - 76 states "Green
curb marking shall mean no standing or parking for a period of
time longer than 15 minutes at anytime between 7:00 am and
6:00 pm on any day."
Is this passenger loading zone something the School District
is interested in having the city install? If so, what time
limit would best suit your needs?
With your consent, we will present your request to City
Council, since such a zone must be adopted by City Council
resolution. If you have any additional questions, please feel
free to contact me at 376-6984 X228.
We shall look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely
drQ
Deborah M. Murphy
Assistant Engineer
City Hall (213) 376-6984 • Community Center 379-3312 / 376-6984 • FireDeprrtrrent 376.2479 / 376-6984 • Police Department 376-7981 /376-6984
Hermosa
Beach
City Schools
P.O. Box Number 338
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
January 5, 1988
Ms. Deborah Murphy
Assistant Engineer
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885
Dear Ms. Murphy,
MEMBERS OF THE SUPERINTENDENT
GOVERNING BOARD OF SCHOOLS
Don Ryckman
(213) 376-8961
Lynne Gonzales
Joe Mark
Susan Meyer
Georgia Tattu
Mary Lou Weiss
Thank you for your letter of December 28, 1987 regarding a
possible "Loading" Zone in front of Hermosa Valley School.
Yes, the District is interested in having a passenger loading
zone installed. While it is not a District policy that parents
of younger children must walk into the classroom for the teacher
to release a child, some parents have a need to do this. Conse-
quently the District parking lot becomes blocked by illegally
parked cars. A 15 minute "Loading" Zone would certainly help
relieve the congestion for parents who need only to pick up or
drop off students.
We appreciate the city's concern and assistance in helping to
alleviate this nuisance.
rs tru
Don Ryc an
Superi tendent
DR/mg
RECEIVED.
WO, YgIRICS. DEPT,
January 11, 1988
Mayor and City Council
Planning Commission
City Manager
City Attorney
—, 19—W'
--ii coy city ckroy, 88®.
Of Net.,
\\\\\ ee°b.
I was quite distressed and angry to learn -by happenstance-th
city,seemingly mindless of the expense and the anxiety involved,
is rushing to make zoning and general plan changes to the area
between PCH and Ardmore, from llth to 6th street. This action
seems to have no basis beyond the city responding to some personal
whims -and perhaps a vague concept that everything ought to be R-1.
There is no rational basis for this action and certainly no reason
for the strangely rushed and "quiet" nature.
As noted I only learned of this proposal by accident, when I mentioned
it to others in the community the reaction was one of shock and
surprise, especially when noted that the change is already scheduled
for a March 1 public hearing (according to the planning department)
and that the city has already privately given it a negative declaration:
When I questioned the planning department as to the reason for all
this all the reply I could get was that the city council wants it,
further pressing yielded a statement that the property owners requested
it. As a property owner in the area I -and others I talked to -resent
this misrepresentation. We have not been asked or surveyed in any manor.
We gleaned that someone on 7th street was pushing for the change, that
should not be inflicted on those of us on 6th,8th,9th,10th,and llth.
When I raised questions about what planning reason there could be
for such a change -the zoning and general plan are consistent, one of
the few areas which are -I drew a blank. As I noted to the planning
department the are is already a mix of single and two family uses.
It has been very stable, the rate of new development certainly has
not been out of the ordinary nor greater then that of the city
generally. In fact there has_been more development in the contiguous
area south of 5th street than that in question. The area is adjacent
to the major arterial in the town, PCH, and several lots even have
a commercial potential designation.
I got no indication that any of these facts were being considered -
fundamentally the council wants it and evidently this is the
basis for the rush to public hearing, not any planning study.
I fear this indicative of the dangerously simplistic thinking
that considers perserving the south school play field as paved
parking a good enough park/open space committment or what I feel
is a horrendous apartment house type of structure on the Monterey
side of the school site a quality planned unit development. Unfortunately
recent history makes the above digression all too appropriate.
Why is this area being made the top priority for change? Why are
the numerous areas of truly inconsistent general plan and zoning
not being dealt with now? Why is the area from 5th street south
not part of the change area? There is no difference in character
or circulation or designation.
t
Page 2
The :zoning code clearly provides that if an individual wants a zoning
change considered they have the right to file an application and to
pay the costs involved. Why is the city taking on this personal
request and making all the taxpayers pay the bill? Again, why should
those of us not on 7th street be dragged into this personal request?
Why does the city find it necessary to fall all over itself to
make this request its top planning priority?
How can the city change the zoning before the general plan, especially
when it effectively makes a consistent area inconsistent: I doubt
both the planning and legal foundation (or wisdom) of such a move.
Changing the general plan and zoning simultaneously is also questionable
under state law and is a denial that there really is any long term
planning. Is the general plan now to be only an afterthought?
Clearly there are no evident planning reasons for this change. Not
only is the cart before the horse but you do not even know what is
in the cart and where it is going.
It is time to step back and think about what should be the planning
policy of th city. Remove the hearing from the schedule before
any further expense is created and start working on a realistic
land use plan. Remember, zoning is only one of several implimentation
devices for a general plan. Figure out where you want to go before
you start running. You need to consider what the community should
be, lack of a clear vision will insure disaster. The creation of
this roadmap requires a thorough evaluation of the long term as well
as immediate impact of decisions to be made. Priorities are
essential, it is important to deal with those conflicts that have
the greatest potential impact first. I do not feel any of this
has been done yet, its time this important task be undertaken
rather reckless diversions. "
One last thought. The short term appeal that making everthing R-1
I feel is a delusion. Some I believe want it because they feel it
will protect the town from change. That is grasping. The long term
effect of such blanket zoning could easily be to turn this community
into a very expensive Orange County style suburb *., destroying the
wonderful uniqueness and diversity of this town. Others may want
the general R-1 to keep the town their private territory, to keep
out "outsiders" (effectively this also means families). I frankly
view such narrow motives with disgust.
Sincerely/<
Rod Merl
(L/&5- o2S S )
Hermosa Beach -/
Resident,property owner, former planning director
CC: State Office of Planning and Research
�7 OX3-02 •p/9 '1-W1r
4-"v .9.'72Yr/A9
3 t
/, -en-
f ';'w
-, �1 , 4 V.2-7r7
i
vo-7
-7?r
4r4A/
(74r)
W'r
(w4d-7."
7"a
� ti
--41 �/yy� �r �
'?f,hszQd �lL'/
-r9r '4°F e / �
dig
•
HERMOSA BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
323 PIER AVENUE/P.O. BOX 404
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254
(213) 376-0951
January 19, 1988
Mayor Simpson and Councilmembers
City Hall/Civic Center
Hermosa Beach, Ca., 90254
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
Last month the Chamber Board undertook the task of goal setting.
I am happy to say I feel our initial idea session was a great
successs, bringing positive input from all who attended. I
believe we generated some ideas that will exert a long term
positive effect on the Hermosa Beach business community if, with
your help, we are able to implement them.
Sometimes before looking forward, the most important first thing
to do is look back. In retrospect, the last 5 years in Hermosa
Beach have seen dramatic growth changes and include such "mile-
stones" as these:
* FIESTA DE LAS ARTES - In 1982, the -Fiesta was an event of
limited scope and prestige, with attendance of approximately
20,000. As of 1987, the Fiesta has become a premiere event of
the West Coast, with an attendance of approximately 100,000 and
gross revenues to the Chamber has increased 5 times!! The Fiesta
has been instrumental in developing an active volunteer pool,
and has generated substantial public relations including the
prestigious Playboy Jazz Festival & TV & radio attention.
* CITY/CHAMBER RETREATS - Our first retreat in 1982 was held
for one day at the Holiday Inn in Torrance. Since that time, it
has been expanded to a 2 -day event and, is billed as City/Chamber
Retreat. It has been held in four other locations, including
-Laguna Beach, Ventura, Palm Springs and Newport Beach. Particip-
ation by City staff and elected officials has been very encourag-
ing and has created heightened awareness of the matters we face
today. Hopefully the next one will deal positively with the
definition and implementation of goals on a city wide basis. We
all can get behind some solid goals, with "Vision", there is
nothing we cant do.
ammma
Page#2
Chamber autonomy is now reality, and since the move to a visible
location in 1985, the Chamber is now completely self-supporting.
Business membership has grown to over 300. The real significance
of autonomy is that instead of drawing from city funds, we are
able to contribute and assist both City and business concerns.
Many community programs have been successfully developed.
Hermosa Beach has had annual Christmas lighting ceremonies since
1982, and we, in partnership with the City, have spent $15,000 on
Christmas decorations for the City. Other successful Community
programs include the annual awards program, town meeting series,
and Community Center support and sponsorship.
The "Ambassadors", through quarterly luncheons, grand openings,
mixers, etc. has established positive public relations and real
people -to -people business help.
1987 has seen the etablishment of the Hermosa Beach Historical
Society, which has been responsible for Hermosa Beach's 80th
Birthday celebration, as well as the First ".Old Timers Luncheon".
In conclusion, the future will be bright if we work together to
make it so! Let us sit down together and establish some positive
goals for Hermosa Beach.
erald W. Compton
President
"so 574,%
A ti
ktira
4
0 8 JAN 1988
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco. Ca. 94105
Mayor Etta Simpson
City of Hermosa Beach
Civic Center
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885
Dear Mayor Simpson:
This letter is in response to your letter of November 28,
1987, to Elaine Schimmel of my staff, addressing your concerns
regarding the application of the Santa Fe Southern Pacific
Company to convert its right-of-way within the City of Hermosa
Beach from open space to residential and commercial development.
In your letter and in your telephone conversation with
Elaine Schimmel, you indicated that over the years this
property has been used for many purposes. We can comment
on two of these uses.
0 Railroad ties: While plants where railroad ties are
treated do generate hazardous wastes which, when improperly
managed or disposed, can cause contamination, the ties
in place on a track should not present a problem.
Weed killers: There are many weed killers, some more toxic
and persistent than others. Inquiry should be made as to
the type of weed killer Santa Fe Southern Pacific used.
If a highly toxic substance such as 2,4,5-T was used, then
soil sampling is in order.
Finally, you state that Santa Fe Southern Pacific was
required to submit an Environmental Impact Report relative
to this project. That EIR should be reviewed by a qualified
consultant and should address all your questions -- a history
of the site, including the pesticides used and the types of
sampling required at various sites on the property in accordance
with previous use; the record of similar projects previously
undertaken by Santa Fe Southern Pacific and/or other railroads.
If the EIR does not address these issues, your consultant should
request additional information.
Questions regarding the company's responsibility and
liability for any clean-up that may be required should be
addressed to the California Department of Health Services,
Toxic Substances Control Division, 107 South Broadway, Room
7012, Los Angeles, California 90012.
If you have any questions, please call Elaine Schimmel,
California Enforcement Section, at 974-7963.
Sincerely,
e elikson
Director
Toxics and Waste Management Division
January 19, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of
Hermosa Beach City Council January 26, 1988
SUBJECT: CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE
APPLICANT: ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
Recommendation
1. Open public hearing.
2. Allow comments to responses and to the revised sections
only; comments to other aspects of the Environmental Impact
Report should no longer be allowed.
3. Continue public hearing to a date certain so that the public
and City Council will have adequate opportunity to review
the entire document in its completed form.
Background
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 5, 1988
to review the draft final Environmental Impact Reportm and
recommended approval subject to several additional r'ev'isions to
the air quality, noise, traffic and the overall document.
Analysis
At the time the schedule for preparation of the Environmental
Impact Report and for the public hearing was made, it was
envisioned that the document would be in its completed form when
it was certified by the Planning Commission; it could then be
immediately sent to the City Council for review prior to the
public hearing. However, the document was in need of additional
work at the time the Planning Commission certified it.
At this time, the Air Quality Section and Noise Section which
needed revision have been revised to the satisfaction of staff.
The integration of the revised sections and the removal of the
original sections is still necessary. Also the Traffic Section
needs additional effort.
The document should be in its completed form, available for
public. review, and submitted to the City Council on January 29,
1988.
The comments received at this public hearing should only be
directed towards the responses provided to the original comments.
In other words, the public had an opportunity to review 'and
comment during the 45 day review period, and at the Planning
- 1 -
5
Commission public hearing. Therefore, at this time, only the
responses to the original comments, and the revisions resulting
from those comments should be commented on again if it is
believed that the responses and/or revisions are not adequate,
and/or are erroneous.
Attachments
I. Planning Commission Resolution.
II. Exhibit A: Final draft document submitted to Planning
Commission December 1, 1987.
III. Exhibit B: 1. Statement concerning changes to be made in
Summary Section.
2. Comments by staff and responses by consultant
to Traffic Sections.
3. Revised Noise Section (considered adequate by
staff) to be integrated into final document.
(Above received by Planning commission at January
5, 1988 public hearing.)
IV. Exhibit C: Revised Air Quality Section (considered adequate
by staff) to be integrated into final document
(not received by Planning Commission).
V. Exhibit D: 1. List of persons, organizations and public
agencies commenting on final Environmental
Impact Report.
2. Comments received from public and Atchison,
Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company.
3. Responses to comments by public and Atchison,
Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company.
(Above received by Planning Commission at January
5, 1988 public hearing.)
VI. Exhibit E: Comments by staff on Traffic Section responses
received from consultant (received by Planning
Commission at January 5, 1988 public hearing).
VII. Minutes of January 5, 1988 Planning Commission meeting.
Alana.Mastrian
Acting City Manager
Re§pectfully subm4tt cf,
? S•
Mi ael Schubach
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
RESOLUTION P.C. 88-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUBJECT TO THE CHANGES AS RECOMMENDED
BELOW FOR THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUEST.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
January 5, 1988 and made the following Findings:
The document's adequacy and accuracy is certifiable once the
following changes are made:
1. All comments and responses shall be made a part of the
document;
2. All necessary revisions shall be integrated into the
document, and the draft sections shall be removed;
3. A revised Air Quality section shall be added identifying
the worst case scenario prior to final approval;
4. The Noise section shall be carefully examined for
accuracy of the data presented;
5. Revisions to the Traffic section shall be subject to the
Public Works Director's review and approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend
certification of the Environmental Impact Report subject to
the changes as recommended above for the Atchison, Topeka and
Santa•.Fe Railway Company General Plan Amend and Zone Change
request.
VOTE: AYES:Comms.DeBellis,Peirce,Rue,Chmn.Compton
NOES: Comm.Ingell
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 88-11 is a
d com•`lete record of the action taken b the Plan i
tru
sion' the City of Hermosa Beach, Califo-Fnia =t their
ar o Onuary . 5 , 1988
d Compton, -Chairman
7-?
te— S
a
Michael Schubac
EXHIBIT A
VOLUME 1
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE
•
PART I. REVISED TEXT
•
•
•
•
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
•
OCTOBER 1987
•
•
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paste
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 SUMMARY OF PROJECT 3
• 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 12
3.1 PROJECT LOCATION 12
3.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 12
3.3 SPECIFIC PARCEL LOCATION AND CHARACTERISTICS 24
• 3.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES 25
3.5 INTENDED USES OF THE EIR 25
3.6 LEAD AGENCY 26
4.0 REGIONAL SETTING, CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND RELATED
PROJECTS 27
• 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
MEASURES 35
5.1 LAND USE 35
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 35
1. General Description and Regulatory History 35
• 2. Land Uses Surrounding the Project Area37
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 39
1. Impacts on City General Plan, Policies
and Goals 39
a. Land Use Element 39
b. Open Space Element 40
• c. Scenic Highways Element 42
d. Transportation and Circulation
Element 43
e. Parking Element 43
f. Conservation Element 44
g. Urban Design Element 44
• h. Housing Element 46
2. Impact on Local Coastal Program 46
3. Impact on Zoning 47
4. Impact of Proposed Land Uses on Surround-
ing Land Uses 49
C. MITIGATION MEASURES 51
• D. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION 51
5.2 AESTHETICS 52
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 52
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 52
C. MITIGATION MEASURES 52
• D. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION 54
-i-
7
Page
5.3. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 54 •
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 54
1. Vehicular 54
2. Existing Parking 56
3. Existing Pedestrian Circulation 60
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 62 0
1. Vehicular 62
2. Parking Impacts 75
3. Pedestrian/Jogging Trail 76
4. School Access 76
C. MITIGATION MEASURES 76
1. Widening of Valley Drive and Ardmore •
Avenue 76
2. Conversion of Valley Drive and Ardmore
Avenue Into One -Way Couplet 77
3. Capacity Utilization of Valley Drive and
Ardmore Avenue with Couplet 82
4. Parking 85 0
5. Pedestrian/Jogging Trail 85
6. School Access 86
7. Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures86
5.4. NOISE 87
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 87
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 89
1. Construction Activities 89
2. Vehicular Traffic 91
3. Noise Levels On -Site 92
C. MITIGATION MEASURES 94
D. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION 95
5.5. AIR QUALITY 95
A. ENVIRONMENTAL" SETTING 95
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 101
1. Air Quality Impacts - General 101
2. Construction Impacts 102
3. Vehicular Emissions Impacts 104
4. Miscellaneous Impacts 105
C. MITIGATION MEASURES 108
D. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION 109
5.6. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 109
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 110
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 110
C. MITIGATION MEASURES 111
5.7. EARTH RESOURCES 111
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 111
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 115
C. MITIGATION MEASURES •119
L
•
•
•
D. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Page,
121
5.8. WATER RESOURCES 121
5.8.1. DRAINAGE 121
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 121
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 122
C. MITIGATION MEASURES 125
D. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION126
5.8.2. SEWERS 126
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 126
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 127
C. MITIGATION MEASURES 129
D. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION129
5.9. POPULATION AND HOUSING 130
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 130
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 130
C. MITIGATION MEASURES 131
5.10. RECREATION 131
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 131
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 133
C. MITIGATION MEASURES 133
5.11. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 133
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 133
1. Cable 133
2. Electricity 133
3. Fire Protection Services 134
4. Flood Control 134
5. Gas 134
6. Hospital 136
7. Law Enforcement Services 136
8. Library 136
9. Schools 136
10. Solid Waste 137
11. Telephone 137
12. Transit 137
13. Water 138
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 138
1. Cable 138
2. Electricity 138
3. Fire Protection Services 139
4. Flood Control 139
5. Gas 139
6. Hospital 139
7. Law Enforcement Services 139
8. Library 140
9. Schools 140
•
Page
10. Solid Waste 140 411;
11. Telephone 140
12. Transit 140
13. Water 140
C. MITIGATION MEASURES 141
1. Fire Protection Services 141
2. Law Enforcement Services 142
3. Solid Waste 142
4. Water 142
5. Gas/Electricity/Telephone/Cable 143
D. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION 143
6.0. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 144
6.1. GENERAL 144
6.2. NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT 144
6.3. DEVELOPMENT UNDER EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND
ZONING 144
6.4. DECREASED INTENSITY DEVELOPMENT 147
7.0. LONG TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 152
7.1. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES
OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND
ENHANCEMENT LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 152
7.2. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION
SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED 152
7.3. GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS152
7.4. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE
AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED 153
7.5. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANCE154
8.0. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED DURING PREPARATION
OF EIR
9.0. PREPARERS OF AND CONTRIBUTORS TO REPORT
10.0. REFERENCES
LIST OF EXHIBITS
155
156
157
EXHIBIT 1 - REGIONAL LOCATION 13
EXHIBIT 2 - LOCAL VICINITY 14
EXHIBIT 3 - USGS LOCATION 15
EXHIBIT 4 - PROJECT SITE 16
EXHIBIT 5A - PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS PARCELS 1-7 21
EXHIBIT 5B - PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS PARCELS 8 AND 9 22
EXHIBIT 5C - PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS PARCELS 10-13 23
EXHIBIT 6 - HERMOSA BEACH ZONING MAP 38
EXHIBIT 7 - SALT WATER BARRIER INTRUSION PROJECT 45
-iv-
•
•
•
a
•
•
•
•
t
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Page
EXHIBIT 8 - REGIONAL, LOCAL AND DIRECT ACCESS 57
EXHIBIT 9 - EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 58
EXHIBIT 10 - PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION 67
EXHIBIT 11 - PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 68
EXHIBIT 12 - PROJECT TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES - A.M. PEAK69
EXHIBIT 13 - PROJECT TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES - P.M. PEAK70
EXHIBIT 14 - EXISTING CIRCULATION NEAR THE SOUTH CITY
BOUNDARY 79
EXHIBIT 15 - TRANSITION TO COUPLET -ALTERNATIVE 1 80
EXHIBIT 16 - TRANSITION TO COUPLET -ALTERNATIVE 2 81
EXHIBIT 17 - CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE 90
EXHIBIT 18 - REGIONAL FAULT AND SEISMIC INDEX MAP 114
EXHIBIT 19 - DRAINAGE ELEMENT 123
EXHIBIT 20 - ANALYSIS OF SEWER SYSTEM
EXHIBIT 21 - PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 135
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE A-1 - EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING LAND
USE DESIGNATIONS FOR 13 PARCELS 18
TABLE A-2 - PROPOSED PROJECT GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR 13 PARCELS 19
TABLE B - PROPOSED MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT 20
TABLE C - EXISTING SUMMER DAILY VOLUMES 59
TABLE D - 1997 AVERAGE SUMMER DAILY TRAFFIC 61
TABLE E - ESTIMATED DAILY PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION BY
PARCEL 62
TABLE F - ESTIMATED PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION
BY PARCEL 66
TABLE G - LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION 71
TABLE H - ICU ANALYSIS - A.M. PEAK HOUR 72
TABLE I - ICU ANALYSIS _ P.M. PEAK HOUR 73
TABLE J - P.M. PEAK HOUR ICU'S WITH MITIGATION 84
TABLE K - EXISTING TRAFFIC AND NOISE LEVELS 89
TABLE L - INCREASE IN CNEL NOISE LEVELS OVER EXISTING
LEVELS (DBA) 93
TABLE M - FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND NOISE LEVELS 94
..._TABLE N - AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 98
TABLE 0 - HERMOSA BEACH AREA AIR QUALITY MONITORING
SUMMARY 100
TABLE P - PROJECT -RELATED VEHICULAR EMISSIONS 106
TABLE Q - PROJECT -RELATED MICROSCALE AIR QUALITY
IMPACT ACCESSMENT 106
TABLE R - PROJECT -RELATED MICROSCALE AIR QUALITY
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 107
TABLE S - ACTIVE AND POTENTIALLY ACTIVE FAULTS 112
TABLE T - ACREAGE AREA/STORM DRAIN 124
TABLE U - STORM DRAINS SYSTEM 124
TABLE V - INCREASED RUNOFF PER PARCEL 125
-v-
TABLE W -
TABLE X -
TABLE Y -
UNIT AVERAGE.SEWAGE FLOW COEFFICIENTS 128
PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOW 128
PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES 132
PART II. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES - DRAFT EIR (VOLUME 2)
A. List of Persons, Organizations and Public
Agencies Commenting on the Draft EIR
B. Comments and Recommendations and Transcripts of
Public Hearing on Draft EIR
C. Responses to Significant Environmental Points
Raised
PART III. THE APPENDICES (VOLUME 3)
APPENDIX A.
APPENDIX B.
APPENDIX C.
APPENDIX D.
APPENDIX E.
APPENDIX F.
APPENDIX G.
APPENDIX H.
INITIAL STUDY AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
NOISE ASSESSMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WATER RESOURCES (DRAINAGE & SEWERS)
CONSULTATION WITH PUBLIC AGENCIES
PART IV. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES - FINAL EIR (VOLUME 3)
[TO BE ADDED ON COMPLETION OF PUBLIC REVIEW]
A. List of Persons, Organizations and Public Agencies
Commenting on Final EIR
B. Comments and Recommendations and Transcript of
Public Hearing on Final EIR
C. Responses to Significant Environmental Points
Raised
-vi-
A-1
B-1
C-1
411
•
•
i
•
1.0. INTRODUCTION
41
This Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") addresses
the environmental impacts of a General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change (the "Project") proposed by the Atchison, Topeka and
Santa Fe Railroad ("ATSF"), the Project Applicant, on certain
land within the ATSF Railroad Right -of -Way. The Project Area
to which this EIR relates is designated for Open Space use in
41 the General Plan and Zoning Code of the City of Hermosa Beach
("City"). The proposed Project would allow for the
redesignation of the subject Area for single family, two family
and multiple family residential uses and general commercial
uses. The proposed land use changes are discussed in detail in
Section 3.0, Project Description.
• This Final EIR has been prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the State CEQA
Guidelines, and the City of Hermosa Beach procedures for
implementation of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. This
Final EIR is found in five Volumes which include:
• 1. A revision of the text of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR")
(Part I, Volume 1);
2. Comments and recommendations received by
the City on the Draft EIR (Part II, Volume
• 2);
•
•
•
3. City response to significant environmental
points raised in the review and
consultation process on the Draft EIR (Part
II, Volume 2);
4. Transcript of Public Hearing held on the
Draft EIR (Part II, Volume 2).
5. A list of persons, organizations and public
agencies commenting on the Draft EIR (Part
II, Volume 2);
6. The Appendices (Part III, Volumes 3A & 3B);
7. Comments and recommendations received by
the City on the Final EIR (Part IV, Volume
4) ;
8. City response to significant environmental
points raised in the review and
consultation process on the Final EIR (Part
IV, Volume 4); and
9. Transcript of Public Hearing held on the
Final EIR (Part IV, Volume 4).
This Final EIR is an informational document to be used by the
City and other public bodies for decisions to be made with
respect to the proposed Project. The Final EIR has been
prepared as a Program EIR as defined in CEQA Guidelines, and
anticipates subsequent environmental assessments if the
proposed Project is approved and site specific development is
proposed.
•
•
The process leading to this Final EIR began with the •
preparation of an Initial Study to determine what, if any,
environmental elements may be sensitive or impacted by the
proposed Project. Thereafter, a Notice of Preparation was
distributed to interested persons, organizations, and public
agencies to advise of the intent to study the environmental
effects of the proposed Project, and to identify environmental •
concerns and interests of such persons, organizations and
public agencies.
Based upon the findings of the Initial Study, the Notice of
Preparation and scoping meetings held by the City (Appendix A),
a Draft EIR was prepared. The Draft EIR was circulated to
State and local agencies as well as to interested organizations
and individuals who reviewed and commented on its content.
Comments on the Draft EIR, in the form of letters, other
written communications and public testimony before certified
shorthand reporters, were considered in the preparation of this
document. As a result of comments and recommendations made
during the review and consultation process on the Draft EIR,
revisions to the text and contents of the Draft EIR were found
to be necessary to adequately and more fully describe and
explain the proposed Project, to provide additional information
and to clarify the scope of the environmental assessment being
made at this stage. All comments received by the Agency, both
written and in testimony, are included. All comments are
herein responded to, both in terms of individual responses and
in terms of additional information and revisions to the text of
the Draft EIR. The intent is to assure that decision makers
responsible for this proposed Project be made fully aware of
all impacts, possible mitigation measures and related concerns
at this stage prior to proceeding with any action on the
proposed Project.
All parties who received a Draft EIR and/or who commented on it
will receive this Final EIR. Thereafter, determination will be
made by the City Council to proceed with the proposed Project,
to modify it, or to disapprove the proposed Project. If a
project is approved, a Notice of Determination will be filed.
Because the proposed Project is within the Coastal Zone, no
change in land use designations would be effective until the
change is approved by the California Coastal Commission.
•
•
•
2.0. SUMMARY OF PROJECT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project hereunder is a request for a land use designation
change of eight parcels of land within an approximately 20
acre, 100 foot railroad right-of-way. Said eight parcels are
designated for open space uses under the City's existing
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Project would
permit a land use change from open space to residential and
commercial uses, which would permit the development of 180
residential units, 39,203 square feet of retail sales, 240,777
square feet of general office uses and a 175 room motel.
LAND USE
Environmental Impacts
The proposed change in land use designation from Open Space to
residential and commercial uses under the General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance will have a direct, adverse effect on the
City's adopted policies and goals for the Land Use Element,
Open Space Element, Scenic Highways Element, Transportation and
Circulation Element, Parking Element, Conservation Element,
Urban Design Element, the Housing Element, the Local Coastal
Plan and the Zoning Code.
The proposed Project will replace an open space, landscaped,
recreational area with intense urban uses, some of which are
incompatible with existing adjacent uses.
The proposed Project will have a significant effect on the
local and regional operation and maintenance of the LAFCD water
pressure barrier facilities which protect groundwater supply
wells in the South Coast area.
Mitigation Measures
There are no mitigation measures which will reduce the impacts
• on the City's existing land use regulation plans.
If the Project is approved all City requirements, restrictions
and regulations applicable to any proposed site-specific
development will be imposed.
•
• Level of Significance After Mitigation
The significant effect on City land use regulations, policies
and goals cannot be mitigated. The loss of Open Space cannot
be mitigated. The significant effect on the LAFCD facilities
cannot be mitigated to insignificance.
• 3
AESTHETICS
Environmental Impacts
The loss of a greenbelt corridor running the length of the
City, landscaping and mature vegetation will significantly
alter the visual character of the area. The view of adjacent
land uses will be obstructed by any development on the site.
Mitigation Measures
Any development shall be in conformance with all requirements
and regulations of the City and with development plans approved
by the City.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Unavoidable adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated to a
level of insignificance include the loss of the visual
characteristics of the open space, green belt corridor which
runs the length of the City and the obstruction of views from
adjacent land uses.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Environmental Impacts
The proposed Project at build -out will have a minimal impact on
a.m. peak period LOS, and conditions will generally remain
acceptable.
The p.m. peak period LOS of "E" or "F" at various intersections
at build -out (1997) are as follows: Hermosa/Pier "E";
Valley/Gould "F"; Ardmore/Pier "E"; Ardmore/Gould "E." All
Pacific Coast Highway intersections during the p.m. peak hour
have LOS "F."
The proposed Project and cumulative traffic will require
Valley/Pier and Ardmore/Pier to be signalized.
The proposed Project plus other cumulative traffic and will a
significant effect on the environment.
The proposed Project will have a significant effect on level of
service and turning movements on Valley Drive and Ardmore
Avenue. The placement of access driveways on the west side of
Ardmore and the east side of Valley to serve the Project Area
will decrease the existing level of service on those streets
and will more than double the amount of turning movements.
The proposed Project will displace approximately 190 existing
parking spaces.
4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The proposed Project will displace the existing jogging and
pedestrian paths in the Right -of -Way.
Development in the proposed Project Area will displace
pedestrian paths used by school children and a "safe route to
school" crossing at 16th Street. This displacement will have a
significant effect if alternatives are not provided.
Mitictation Measures
Convert Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue to a one-way couplet
street. Widen Valley between Fifth Street and Herondo Street
to accommodate two-way traffic with two through lanes in each
direction with a left turn lane. Cul-de-sac Ardmore Avenue
south of Sixth Street and extend Fifth Street west to Valley
Drive. Transition Ardmore to meet Valley between Seventh and
Fifth Streets.
As part of the couplet construction, widen Valley Drive and
Ardmore Avenue between intersections to provide a minimum curb -
to -curb width of 30 feet. Any additional right-of-way required
40 to provide this additional road width should be taken from the
subject Right -of -Way to minimize the impact on existing land
uses. Thirty-foot width provides 12 -foot No. 1 lane, 11 -foot
curb lane and a 7 -foot parking lane.
As part of the couplet construction, provide localized
widening at intersections on both Valley and Ardmore to
provide left turn pockets (north -left pockets on Ardmore and
south -left pockets on Valley Drive at the intersections of
Gould, Pier, Eighth and Second. Provide right turn
lane/pockets on Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue at Pier and
Gould. Any additional right-of-way required to provide these
• lanes and/or pockets should be taken from the subject Right -of -
Way to minimize the impact on existing land uses.
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of
Valley/Ardmore at Pier, Gould and Eighth Street and Valley and
Herondo. Warrant studies should be conducted near the time of
• construction to insure that signals are not unnecessarily
constructed.
Provide alternative safe routes to school for school children
walking or riding bicycles to school if existing routes are
displaced or relocated as part of a development .proposal.
•' Modify "Suggested Route to School Plan" if one exists. Notify
the School District or School Safety Advisory Committee of any
changes to school access, pedestrian or vehicular.
Conduct a comprehensive parking study during the Project design
process to determine the impact of removal of approximately 181
• public and 9 municipal parking spaces on Parcel 9. Provide
public and municipal parking to accommodate demand at build -out
not exceeding the existing supply. This parking may be
• 5
integrated into the Parcel 9 development or provided at a
suitable off-site location within the immediate vicinity of
Parcel 9, if available.
NOISE
Environmental Impacts
Construction equipment noise will have a significant short-term
impact on residential areas adjacent to the Project Area.
The proposed Project will not generate sufficient traffic to
significantly impact the off-site noise environment.
Mitigation Measures
All City policies and regulations regarding construction
activities will be implemented.
All construction and development occurring in the Project Area
shall comply with all City regulations with respect to noise,
including noise mitigation measures required by the City for
site-specific development.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
The proposed Project would contribute to vehicular noise in the
vicinity of the Project Area which could cumulatively
significantly impact the noise environment.
Construction noise cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
Implementation of City policies and requirements and site-
specific mitigation measures should reduce on-site
environmental impacts to a level of insignificance.
AIR QUALITY
Environmental Impacts
Removal of existing site vegetation, excavation, preparation of
foundations and footings and building assembly will create
significant temporary emissions of dusts, fumes, equipment
exhaust and other air contaminants during the construction
period.
While the proposed Project individually is not a significant
new source of automotive emissions, it may become one when
considered in conjunction with cumulative growth of the region.
The increased traffic around the Project site may create
localized violations of -ambient air quality standards.
6
•
•
•
•
•i
rl
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures should be incorporated in specific
development plans to control fugitive dust, including AQMD Rule
403, watering of building sites, washing streets, early
revegetation and early paving of parking areas.
Traffic impact mitigation will create a corresponding air
quality impact mitigation and is the primary focus of any
potential reduction in vehicular air pollution emissions. Such
measures include the reduction of the number of vehicles
accessing the Project Area, the improvement of traffic flow to
eliminate the stagnation penalty and trip reduction through
transportation control measures.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of measures to control excavation, grading and
other construction activities will lessen the short-term impact
from dust and related problems, however, these short-term
impacts cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance.
There are no effective measures which would mitigate vehicular
emissions impacts except those mitigating the impact of traffic
in the area.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The proposed Project will not have a significant effect on
biological resources in the area.
EARTH RESOURCES
• Environmental Impacts
The proposed Project will have a significant effect on the
operation and maintenance of the LAFCD Seawater Barrier
Facilities on a local and regional basis.
• The potential exists for subsurface contamination in the
Project Area due to toxic or hazardous substances.
Mitigation Measures
Prior to the approval of any specific development, a mitigation
• plan must be prepared by the Project Applicant or the developer
to assure the continued operation and maintenance of the LAFCD
Facilities..
Prior to issuance of a building permit for any development in
the Project Area, ATSF and/or the developer shall conduct a
comprehensive exploratory program to determine the suitability
of the soil for the development proposed and the presence of
toxic, hazardous or chemical material on the site. It shall be
• 7
the sole responsibility of ATSF and/or the developer to place
the soil in a suitable condition, and to discover, remove,
treat or protect against any toxic, hazardous or chemical
condition in the Project Area.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
ATSF and/or the developer of the Project Area shall be required
to mitigate the impact on the LAFCD Facilities to a level of
insignificance, and to completely mitigate any soil problems or
toxic or hazardous condition of the Project Area.
WATER RESOURCES
Environmental Impacts
Increased flows from the Project Area may have localized
impacts on areas adjacent to a downstream. Areas where
flooding presently occurs may experience increased flooding
during peak storm periods.
The proposed Project would contribute to increased sewer system
flows.
Mitigation Measures
ATSF and/or developers in the Project Area shall be required to
design and implement storm drain systems for approval by the
City to mitigate impacts.
ATSF and/or developers should be required to clean out and
flush sewer lines associated with the Project.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of recommended mitigation measures should
mitigate Project impacts to a level of insignificance.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Environmental Impacts
The proposed Project could add 180 dwelling units to the City's
housing stock. The City's Land Use Element recognized a
potential maximum development or 10,225 housing units for the
City. The proposed Project would bring the existing housing
units to 10,118.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are proposed.
8
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0
RECREATION
Environmental Impacts
The proposed Project would have a significant effect on City
residents by removing a jogging track and parcourse, a major
recreational facility, from the area.
Mitigation Measures
There are no measures available to mitigate the displacement of
the jogging track and parcourse.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
• Environmental Impacts
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works has
determined that the proposed Project would have a significant
effect on the level of service it provides to the City ,
» because of an increase in storm runoff due to the conversion of
open space to residential and commercial uses.
The proposed Project is expected to increase the demand for
police services, requiring the addition of one to two
officers.
• Mitigation Measures
All buildings developed in the Project Area shall comply with
all City regulations for fire protection, including fire
protection plans as required and approved by the Fire
Department. Such plans may include automatic fire sprinkler
• protection, Fire Department access, fire suppression systems,
water systems and smoke alarms.
•
All development plans should be reviewed by the Police
Department to ensure incorporation of appropriate crime
prevention measures in building design.
Modifications to the water system in the vicinity of the
Project must be approved by the California Water Service
Company the appropriate City departments.
All development should comply with energy standards.set forth
• in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code.
All utility lines shall be placed underground at the expense of
ATSFr and/or the developers.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Most development specific impacts can be mitigated to a level
of insignificance if recommended mitigation measures are
•
0 9
•
implemented. Along with other development in the area, the
proposed Project would contribute to an increased demand for
public services, energy and utilities which could be a
cumulatively significant impact. No site-specific mitigation
measures can be identified at this time to mitigate adverse
impacts to a level of insignificance, as no development plans
have been prepared.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
No Project/No Development
This Alternative would allow the Project Area to remain "as -is"
with no additional development occurring on the site. The
General Plan and Zoning Open Space land use designations would
remain the same. The City could continue to preserve and
maintain the Right -of -Way as an Open Space green area. This
Alternative would avoid the Project -related significant effects
resulting from the Project. This Alternative is
environmentally superior to the proposed Project and other
alternatives evaluated.
Development Under Existing General Plan and Zoning
This Alternative would allow the development of the Project
Area for land uses permitted in the City's Open Space Zone. A
conceptual plan is presented which illustrates the manner in
which uses permitted in the Open Space Zone can be organized
and developed. The concept proposes a tennis club, a
swim/health club, a private school, a nursery school and a day
care center. The total development would include approximately
25,400 square feet of building area and 75,000 square feet of
parking. This proposed Alternative complies with the City's
existing zoning and parking ordinances and development
standards for Open Space areas. This Alternative would not
displace the existing recreational facilities in the Right -of -
Way or interfere with the LAFCD Salt Water Intrusion Barrier
Project. Traffic generated by this Alternative would be
minimal with no significant effect on the environment. This
Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed
Project.
Decreased Development Project
This Alternative assumes a decrease in intensity of commercial
development from the maximum development which would be
permitted by the Project. Under this Alternative all Parcels
in the Project Area would have the same land use designations
as the proposed Project. This Alternative proposes a total of
170 residential dwelling units, 78,060 square feet of retail
sales and office uses and a 96 unit motel as compared to the
180 residential units, 279,980 square feet of retail sales and
office and a 175 unit motel proposed by the Project.
10
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Development under this Alternative would create essentially the
same impacts as those that would occur under the proposed
Project. However, this proposal is considered superior to the
Project because of the decrease in the intensity of the
development. The effect on the City's land use regulation
plans would be the same. The less intense development would
not lessen the impact on the City's ability to implement and
carry out its policies and goals with respect to the
preservation and maintenance of limited Open Space. Amendments
to the Zoning Code, Open Space, Land Use and numerous other
Elements of the General Plan would still be necessary. The
Local Coastal Plan would still require amendment and the
approval of the Coastal Commission obtained. Traffic impacts
would be the same, but at a reduced level. The reduced scale
project would still cumulatively impact traffic and circulation
in the area.
• 11
•
•
•
•
•
3.0. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1. PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed Project Area is located in the City of Hermosa
Beach, Los Angeles County, California, and has been designated
as the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Right -of -Way
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. The Project Area
includes eight (8) parcels of land which is a portion of a
thirteen (13) parcel Right -of -Way area owned by ATSF. The
remaining five (5) parcels of the thirteen parcel area are not
a part of the Project Area. The Project Area is generally
bounded by the City's boundaries to the north and south
(Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach, respectively), Ardmore
Avenue to the east, and Valley Drive to the west. The Project
is presented in its regional and local perspectives in
Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively. The United States Geological
Survey (USGS) location of the Project is shown on Exhibit 3.
The location of the Project Area, identified as Parcels 4, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13, and the other five (5) parcels owned by
ATSF is depicted on Exhibit 4.
The regional area of the Project includes portions of the
cities of Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, El
Segundo, Torrance, Lawndale, Hawthorne and unincorporated areas
of the County of Los Angeles adjacent to the City of Hermosa
Beach (Exhibit 1). The local vicinity is defined as the City
of Hermosa Beach (Exhibit 2).
3.2. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed Project is a request by ATSF to amend the City's
Land Use Element of the General Plan for the eight (8) parcel
• Project Area, and to change the zoning classification thereof.
The Project as proposed by the Applicant does not include any
plans for site specific development in the Project Area. Each
Parcel included in the Project Area presently has a General
Plan land use designation of Open Space with underlying Open
Space zoning. It is proposed that the five (5) parcels within
• the Right -of -Way which are not a part of this Project retain
their existing Open Space designation.
For the evaluation of potential impacts of the land uses
proposed for the Project, the maximum development which could
occur on some of the Parcels under the changed General Plan and
• Zoning designations has been determined, and on others the
maximum development likely to be permitted has been determined.
The EIR evaluates the impacts of the proposed Project assuming
a realistic worst case scenario.
For Parcels 4, 6, 7, 10 and 12, which are proposed for low,
• medium and high density residential uses under the General
Plan's Land Use Element, and R-1 single family residential, R-2
two family residential and R-3 multiple family residential
• 12
VENTURA
ca, PASADENA ARCAOIA
V
HOLLYWOOD
SAN GABRIEL
BEVERLY
HILLS
LOS
ANGELES
SANTA MONICA
MARINA
FWy
MARINA
DEL REY
MANHATTAN
BEACH
HERMOSA
BEACH
REDONDO
BEACH
WHITTIER
CULVER
CITY
to
z
DOWNEY
HAWTHORNE
Proje
ARTESIA FWY
Fwy
CARSON
TORRANCE
LAKEWOOD
PALOS
VERDES
PACIFIC
SAN
PEDRO
44,
Swan Sanas* Tdvlee Associates
REGIONAL LOCATION
sz o
rintlairl:
EXHIBIT 1
ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
Environmental Impact Report
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
13
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1
• • • • r •
•
LOCAL VICINITY
ATCHISON. TOPEKA & SANTA FE
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
Environmental Impact Report
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
sanchez talarico
assoc cJ les
EXHIBIT 2
•?r.L�=•ea.eean An ; y
= w.
P •rre ,
C
w �L'�'
-• �!HI - •.er g
•
�M3� ___ •i~
.tw. .
NS Nee.-
4 ,\ >..
t,. •
fit.
W 6f
BEA•:-
• !,A7.0;
i ,�•y�
'ti l I. t11:11
13
•^ e t
8141141 Are
•• . t
• r --
.4 • y
8411• /�
.• \\ `.4...�
�\ • _ _ 1 Iiia
o y, 116"1-a C'"
•4 • ry,.
•
•
•.
Cant
U S G S L O C A■ � � �
:
s�c ez tQIQILCO
EXHIBIT 3
ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FErriall
RAILROAD (LIGHT -OF -WAY
Environmental Impact Report
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
15
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • •
• • 0 • • • • •
.....
1111111
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
LOW-DENSITY
MEDIUM -DENSITY
PARCELS 1. 2. 3. 5, 11 ARE NOT PART OF THE PROJECT.
HIGH DENSITY
MULTI -USE COMMERCIAL
OPEN SPACE
MOT PARE OP PROJECT
PROJECT. SITE
ATCHISON. TOPEKA & SANTA FE
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
Environmental Impact Report
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
1
under the Zoning Ordinance, the maximum number of allowable
units per acre permitted under each document was assumed. The
City's Low Density Residential and R-1 Single Family •
Residential designations allow for 13 dwelling units per acre;
Medium Density Residential and R-2 Two Family Residential
designations permit 14-25 dwelling units per acre; and the
High Density Residential and R-3 Multiple Family Residential
designations permit 33 dwelling units per acre.
For Parcels 8 and 9, under the proposed General Plan and Zoning
designations it was assumed that one-half of Parcel 8 and two-
thirds of Parcel 9 would be developed with general office uses,
and the other one-half of Parcel 8 and one-third of Parcel 9
would be developed for retail sales uses. A floor area to land
area ratio of 40% was assumed for retail sales uses and 165%
for office uses. The General and Highway Commercial Zoning
designation allows for 100% site coverage with 4 -story
buildings. The development of a 175 unit motel on the 1.6
acres of Parcel 13 was assumed under the proposed General Plan
and Zoning designations. These assumptions are necessary
because of the many uses and combinations of uses which could
be developed on these Parcels if the Project is approved. City
staff thus assumed for Parcels 8, 9 and 13 uses and
combinations of uses which the City would likely permit.
The proposed General Plan and Zoning designations would allow
for the total development of 180 residential units; 39,203
square feet of retail sales; 240,777 square feet of general
office uses; and a 175 room motel in the Project Area.
Low density residential uses and R-1 zoning are proposed for
Parcels 4 and 6. Parcels 7 and 12 are designated for high
density residential uses and R-3 zoning. Parcels 8 and 9 would
allow for a mix of general retail and office uses and general
and highway commercial zoning. Parcel 10 is designated for
medium density residential uses and R-2 zoning. A motel is
proposed for Parcel 13 under general and highway commercial
zoning. Existing and proposed General Plan and Zoning land use
designations are shown in Tables A -i and A-2 for the 13
Parcels in the Right -of -Way. Table B summarizes the maximum
development proposed in this EIR for the Project under the
General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.
Since the proposed Project is only a request for changes in
General Plan and Zoning land use designations and not a site
specific development proposal, specific technical
characteristics (i.e., principal engineering proposals and
supporting public service facilities) can not be ascertained at
this time. Public facilities servicing the Project Area,
however, are evaluated in Section 5.11 of this Final EIR.
•
fie
•
•
•
•
1
•
•
•
•
TABLE A-1
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR 13 PARCELS
PARCEL USE
GENERAL
PLAN
1 Public parking lot
for coastal access:
0.6 acres
2 Water injector wells
for sea water intrusion
program: 1.6 acres
3 Par course for
• recreational purposes:
0.7 acres
4 Jogging trail:
2.9 acres
5 Landscaping & jogging
path: 0.1 acres
• 6 Landscaping & jogging
path: 2.0 acres
7 Landscaping & jogging
path: 0.9 acres
8 Landscaping, jogging
path and par course:
• 2.1 acres
9 Landscaping, jogging
path, par course and
public parking:
3.5 acres
10 Landscaping & jogging
• path: 1.6 acres
11 Landscaping & jogging
path: 1.0 acres
12 Landscaping & jogging
path: 1.4 acres
13 Landscaping & jogging
di path: 1.6 acres
Source: City of Hermosa Beach
•
• 18
ZONING
Open Space Open Space
Open Space Open Space
Open Space Open Space
Open Space Open Space
Open Space Open Space
Open Space Open Space
Open Space Open Space
Open Space Open Space
Open Space
Open Space
Open Space
Open Space
Open Space
Open Space
Open Space
Open Space
Open Space
Open Space
TABLE A-2
PROPOSED PROJECT GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR 13 PARCELS
PARCEL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
USE
GENERAL
PLAN
Not a Part
0.6 acres
Not a Part
1.6 acres
Not a Part
0.7 acres
Single Family:
38 DUs (Max.)
2.9 acres
Not a Part
0.1 acres
Single Family:
26 DUs (Max.)
2.0 acres
Multi -Family:
30 DUs (Max.)
0.9 acres
Retail Sales:
18,295 sq. ft.
(Max.) General
Office: 76,467
sq. ft. (Max.)
2.1 acres
Retail Sales:
20,908 sq.ft.
(Max.) General
Office: 165,310
sq. ft. (Max.)
3.5 acres
Duplex: 40 DUs
(Max.) 1.6 acres
11 Not a Part
1.0 acres
12 Multi -Family:
46 DUs (Max.)
1.4 acres
13 Motel: 175
Units
1.6 acres
Source: City of Hermosa Beach
19
Open Space
Open Space
Open Space
Low Density
Residential
Open Space
Low Density
Residential
High Density
Residential
General
Commercial
General
Commercial
Medium Density
Residential
Open Space
High Density
Residential
General
Commercial
ZONING
Open Space
Open Space
Open Space
R-1: One
Family
Residential
Open Space
R-1: One
Family
Residential
R-3: Multi -
Family
Residential
C-3: General
and Highway
Commercial
C-3: General
and Highway
Commercial
R-2: Two
Family
Residential
Open Space
R-3: Multiple
Family
Residential
C-3: General
and Highway
Commercial
•
•
•
TABLE B
PROPOSED MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT
GENERAL PLAN MAXIMUM
PARCEL NO. LAND USE DESIGNATION DEVELOPMENT
4 Low Density Residential
• 6 Low Density Residential
7 High Density Residential
8 General Commercial:
Retail Sales
General Office
• 9 General Commercial:
Retail Sales
General Office
38 DUs
26 DUs
30 DUs
18,295 Sq. Ft.
75,467 So. Ft.
93,762 Sq. Ft.
20,908 Sq. Ft.
165,310 Sq. Ft.
186,218 Sq. Ft.
10 Medium Density Residential 40 DUs
• 12 High Density Residential 46 DUs
13 General Commercial: Motel 175 Units
TOTAL: Low Density Residential 64 DUs
Medium Density Residential 40 DUs
High Density Residential 76 DUs
• 180 DUs
General Commercial:
Motel 175 Units
Retail Sales 39,203 Sq. Ft.
• General Office 240,777 So. Ft.
279,980 Sq. Ft.
Source: City of Hermosa Beach
•
•
• 20
•
PACIFIC COAST -.11314WAY
EX1S TNG PROPOSED
PARCEL 4
Acreage: 2.9 acres
Land Use: Jogging Path
Zoning: Open Space
General Plan: Open Space
Single Family Residential: 38 DUs max.
Zoning: R-1 One Family Residential
General Plan: Low Density Residential
PARCEL 6
Acreage: 2.0 acres Single Family Residential: 26 DUs max.
Land Use: Landscaping & Zoning: R-1 One Family Residential
Jogging Path General Plan: Low Density Residential
Zcning: Open Space
PARCEL 7
Acreage: 0.9 acres Multiple Family Residential: 30 DUs max.
Land Use: Landscaping Zoning: R-3 Multiple Family Residential
Si Jogging Path General Plan: High Density Residential
Zoning: Open Space
General Plan: Open Space
PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS:
PARCELS 1-7
sanchez talartco
C SOCITES
ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY,
Environmental Impact Report
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
, y
EXH181T SA
21
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1
g-V11•0AE gV
14
EXISTING
Ii&(ILI7/7
PARCEL 1
Acreage:
Lane Cse: Landscaping, Jogg-
ing Path & Par
Course
Zoning: Open Space
General Plan: Open Space
PARCEL 9
Acreage: 3.5 acres
Land Use: Landscaoina, Jogg-
ing Path & Par
Course & Public
Parking
Zoning: Open Space
General Plan: Open Space
PROPOSED
Community Commercial: 93,762 sq. ft.
Zoning: C-3 General and Highway
Commercial
General Plan: General Commercial
Community Commercial: 186,218
Zoning: C-3 General and ::ighway
Commercial
General Plan: General Commercial
22
PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS:
PARCELS 8-9
s 1chez talarico
crssoc:es p� y
ab..n:
I,
EXHIBIT 58
•
ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE
RAILROAO RICHT-OF-WAY
Environmental Impact Report
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
22
•
EXISTING PROPOSED
PARCEL 10
Acreage: 1.6 acres
Land Use: Landscaping &
Jogging Path
Zoning: Open Space
General Plan: Open Space
PARCEL 12
Duplex: 40 DUs maximum
Zoning: R-2 Two Family Residential
General Plan: Medium Denisty Residential
lcreage: 1.4 acres
Land Use: Landscaping &
Jogging Path
Zoning. Onen Snace
General Plan: Open Space
PARCEL 13
Acreage: 1.6 acres
T,and Use: Landscaping &
Jogging Path
Zoning: Open Snace
General Plan: Open Space
Multiple Family Residential: 46 DUs maximum
Zoning: R-3 Multiple Family Residential
General Plan: High Density Residential
Motel: 175
Zoning: C-3 General and Highway Commercial
General Plan: General Commercial
PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS:
PARCELS 10-13
=chrez talarico
as;:cc:es
riLmal
EXHIBIT 54
ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
Environmental Impact Report
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
23
•
3.3. SPECIFIC PARCEL LOCATION AND CHARACTERISTICS
The following is a discussion of the location and proposed
changes to individual Parcels of the Project. Exhibits 5A -5C
depict the location of each Parcel and a summary of
characteristics and statistics for each.
Parcel 4 is bounded by Parcel 3 to the northwest, Parcel 5 to the
northeast, Ardmore Avenue to the east and Valley Drive to the
southwest. The proposed Project would permit the conversion of
Parcel 4, a 2.9 acre site, from a General Plan and Zoning
designation of Open Space to Low Density Residential and R-1 One
Family Residential, respectively. Characteristics of the
proposed uses for Parcel 4 are summarized in Table A-2. Maximum
residential development for Parcel 4 is 38 single family units
under the General Plan and Zoning.
Parcel 6 is bounded by Parcel 5 to the north, Parcel 7 to the
southeast, Ardmore Avenue to the east and Valley Drive to the
west. The existing General Plan and Zoning designation is Open
Space (Table A-1). The proposed Project would allow for the
• General Plan and Zoning designation of Low Density Residential
and R-1 One Family Residential for the 2.0 acre site. A maximum
of 26 dwelling units would be permitted on the Parcel.
Parcel 7 is bounded by Parcel 6 on the north, Parcel 8 on the
southeast, Ardmore Avenue to the east and Valley Drive to the
• west. The Parcel includes 0.9 acres. The proposed Project would
delete the existing Open Space designation, and allow the
development of High Density Residential on Parcel 7 (Table A-2).
The proposed General Plan High Density Residential use would have
an underlying zoning designation of R-3 Multiple Family
Residential. A maximum of 30 multi -family dwelling units could
• be constructed on Parcel 7.
Parcel 8 is bounded by Parcel 7 to the northwest, Pier Avenue to
the southwest, Ardmore Avenue to the east and Valley Drive to the
west. The proposed Project would allow development of the 2.1
acre Parcel with a maximum of 93,762 square feet of General
• Commercial uses (Table A-2). Adjacent to Pier Avenue, the
Project proposes 1.05 acres of General Retail uses with a site
coverage of 40% for Parcel 8. This proposal would allow for
18,295 square feet of Retail uses (Table B).
The Project proposes Office uses adjacent to Parcel 7. ,Thus, the
• remaining 1.05 acres of Parcel 8 could be developed at a site
coverage of 165% with 75,467 square feet of general Office space.
Parcel' 9 is bounded by Pier Avenue to the north, Eighth Street to
the south, Ardmore Avenue to the east and Valley Drive to the
west. The proposed Project would amend the General Plan and
• change the Zoning of Parcel 9 from its current Open Space
designation to General Commercial uses. Development of the 3.5
• 24
acre Parcel would permit a maximum of 186,218 square feet of
General Commercial uses.
The assumed development of Parcel 9 would allow 20,908 square
feet of General Retail uses with site coverage of 40%. The
Retail uses would be located on 1.2 acres of the Parcel adjacent
to Pier Avenue. The Project assumes the development of Office
uses for the remaining two-thirds or 2.3 acres of Parcel 9.
Assuming site coverage of 165%, approximately 165,310 square feet
of Office uses would be permitted (Table B).
Parcel 10 is bounded by Eighth Street to the north, Parcel 11 to
the south, Ardmore Avenue to the east and Valley Drive to the
west. The proposed Project would allow for the conversion of the
1.6 acres in Parcel 10 from Open Space uses to a General Plan
designation of Medium Density Residential, and a Zoning
designation of R-2 Two Family Residential (Table A-2). Such
designations would permit the construction of a maximum of 40
duplex residential units (Table B).
Parcel 12 is bounded by Parcel 11 to the north, Second Street to
the south, Cochise Avenue to the east and Valley Drive to the
west. The existing Open Space General Plan and Zoning
designation for Parcel 12 would be changed to High Density
Residential and R-3 Multiple Family Residential by the proposed
Project (Tables A-1 and A-2). Under the proposed land use
designation, a maximum of 46 residential dwelling units can be
developed (Table B).
Parcel 13 is bounded by Second Street to the north, Herondo
Street to the south, existing residential development to the
east, and Valley Drive to the west. The Project proposes the
redesignation of the existing Open Space General Plan and Zoning
use to General Commercial, C-3 General Commercial and Highway
Commercial uses (Tables A-1 and A-2). The assumed development
for Parcel 13 would be Tourist Commercial use with a 175 unit
Motel (Table B).
3.4. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The objective of the Project is to change the land use
designation of Open Space under the General Plan and the Zoning
Code for the noncontiguous, uniquely shaped and topographically
restricted 16 acre Project Area to designations that permit
various levels of residential and commercial development.
3.5. INTENDED USES OF THE EIR
Approval of the proposed Project will require the following
discretionary actions by the City:
1. Adoption of an Amendment to the Land Use Element of the
General Plan.
25
•
2. Adoption of an Amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance.
40
3. Adoption of Amendments to Scenic Highways, Open Space
and Other Elements of the General Plan as a result of
the proposed changes in land use designations.
,4. Adoption of an Amendment to the City's Local Coastal
Plan as a result of the proposed changes in the land
use designations.
40
5. Approval of the following actions, without limitation,
when site specific developments are proposed:
Tentative Tract Maps, Parcel Maps, Site Plan Review,
Use Permits, Modifications, Variances, Resubdivisions,
• Grading Permits, Curb Cuts, Coastal Development Permits
and Sewer Connections.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Approval of the proposed Project would require approvals and
permits from the following public bodies:
1. County of Los Angeles Flood Control District
2. California Regional Water Quality Control Board
3. South Coast Air Quality Management District
4. California State Department of Conservation
5. California Coastal Commission
3.6. LEAD AGENCY
City of Hermosa Beach
Michael Schubach
Planning Director
City of Hermosa Beach
Planning Department
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
(213) 376-6984
• 26
•
•
•
•
•
•
4.0. REGIONAL SETTING, CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND RELATED PROJECTS
Recrional Setting and Cumulative Impacts. The City of Hermosa
Beach is located in the Southern California region. The regional
setting is described as those portions of the Cities of Manhattan
Beach, Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, El Segundo, Torrance,
Lawndale, and Hawthorne, and unincorporated areas of the County
of Los Angeles adjacent to these jurisdictions. (Exhibit 1) The
cumulative impacts of the proposed Project on the environment
analyzed in this Final EIR are based on projections of growth and
development occurring in this regional area.
Physical environmental effects of the proposed Project that would
contribute to cumulative adverse impacts include traffic
congestion and related air pollutant emissions and noise. The
cumulative analysis of these issues, which are found in relevant
portions of Section 5.0, are all based on anticipated regional -
wide growth.
Related Projects. There are numerous local and regional
development projects under construction, approved, or proposed
for development ("Related Projects") which are indicative of the
growth occurring in the region. A brief description of these
Related Projects and their locations are listed below. The
growth factors used in the environmental analysis Section of this
report in assessing the cumulative impacts of the proposed
Project on the surrounding environment took into account these
Related Projects, plus smaller developments which are not
included in the list.
HERMOSA BEACH
The following is a list of development projects and their
• locations within the City of Hermosa Beach for which building
permits were granted between August 1986 and August 1987:
Residential - Apartments
1. 963 First Street 6 Units
• 2. 676 Fifth Street 4 Units
3. 2040 Pacific Coast Highway 5 Units
4. 710-716 Fifth Street 4 Units
5. 726-732 Fifth Street 4 Units
6. 718-724 Fifth Street 4 Units
7. 531 Eleventh Street 4 Units
• 8. 669 Fourth Street 4 Units
9. 18 Meyer Street, A & B 2 Units
10. 933 Sixth Street, 1, 2, & 3 3 Units
11. 933 Sixth Street, 4, 5 & 6 3 Units
•
• 27
Residential - Condominiums
12. 446 Monterey Boulevard
13. 1107 Loma Drive
14. 1020 Monterey Boulevard
15. 600 First Street
16. 625 Seventh Street, A & B
18. 1401 Manhattan Avenue
Residential - Duplexes
19. 615 & 617 Monterey Boulevard
20. 312 Twenty -Fifth Street
21. 2456 Hermosa Avenue
22. 1838 The Strand
23. 130 Thirtieth Street
Residential - Sinale Family
24. 41 Nineteenth Street
Commercial
25. 1617 Pacific Coast Highway
26. 1325 Hermosa Avenue, 7-11
The following is a list of developments
within the City of Hermosa Beach which are
permits or in plan check:
34 Units
4 Units
4 Units
4 Units
2 Units
3 Units
2 Units
2 Units
2 Units
2 Units
2 Units
2 Units
75,000 Sq. Ft.
2,560 Sq. Ft.
and their locations
ready for building
Residential - Apartments
1. 1452 Loma Drive
2. 840 Seventh Street
3. 38 Eighth Street "
Residential - Condominiums
3 Units
5 Units
3 Units
4. 1430 Hermosa Avenue, A, B & C 3 Units
5. 1840 Hermosa Avenue 3 Units
6. 1522 Loma Drive 6 Units
7. 833 Fifth Street 5 Units
8. 702 Fourth Street 2 Units
9. 1430 Hermosa Avenue 3 Units
10. 832, 840 Seventh Street 7 Units
11. 429 Bayview Drive 2 Units
12. 829, 833 Fifth Street 10 Units
13. 1525 Manhattan Avenue 2 Units
14. 645 First Street 2 Units
15. 1522-24, 1530 Loma Drive 6 Units
16. 511 Eleventh Street 2 Units
17. 315, 317 Monterey Boulevard 2 Units
18. 546 Eleventh Street 3 Units
19. 41 Eighth Court 2 Units
28
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
20. 1134 Sunset Drive
21. 1026 Sunset Drive
22. 442, 504 Hermosa Avenue
23. 610 Ninth Street
24. 518 Eleventh Street
25. 1550 Loma Drive
26. 702 Fourth Street
27. 1020 Monterey Boulevard
28. 1430 Hermosa Avenue
29. 508 Bayview Drive
30. 832, 840 Seventh Street
31. 429 Bayview Drive
32. 1401 Manhattan Avenue
33. 829, 833 Fifth Street
34. 1525 Manhattan Avenue
35. 645 First Place
36. 625 Seventh Street
2 Units
2 Units
6 Units
3 Units
6 Units
4 Units
2 Units
4 Units
3 Units
2 Units
7 Units
2 Units
3 Units
10 Units
2 Units
2 Units
4 Units
Residential - Duplexes
37. 859 Loma Drive 2 Units
38. 128 Longfellow Drive 2 Units
Commercial - Hotel
39. 731 Twenty -First Street 50 Rooms
• REDONDO BEACH
The following is a list of development projects and their
locations within the City of Redondo Beach which were completed
during the year 1986:
Residential
1. Carlson 2 Units
2. Clark 9 Units
3. Curtis 8 Units
4. Diamond 1 Unit
• 5. Dufour 2 Units
6. Esplanade 12 Units
7. Farrell 2 Units
8. Ford 2 Units
9. Francisca 2 Units
10. Gates 4 Units
• 11. Goodman 2 Units
12. Harriman 2 Units
13. Huntington/Felton 6 Units
14. S. Irena 2 Units
15. Marshallfield 2 Units
16. Morgan 2 Units
• 17. Nelson 2 Units
18. Perry 2 Units
19. Pullman 3 Units
• 29
20. Reed
21. Rindge
22. Ruhland
23. Speyer/Harkness
24. Spreckles
25. Stanford
26. Vanderbilt
27. Voorhees
Commercial
28. Artesia Boulevard
29. Aviation Boulevard
30. Harbor/Pier Area
31. Hawthorne Boulevard
32. King Harbor Plaza
33. Manhattan Beach Boulevard
34. Pacific Coast Highway
35. Redondo Village
36. Riviera Village
37. South Bay Galleria
38. Torrance Boulevard
39. 190th Street
•
2 Units
2 Units
4 Units •
6 Units
4 Units
4 Units
4 Units
2 Units
•I
448,700 Sq. Ft.
202,400 Sq. Ft.
800,000 Sq. Ft.
130,000 Sq. Ft.
107,500 Sq. Ft.
45,000 Sq. Ft.
45,000 Sq. Ft.
65,000 Sq. Ft.
500,000 Sq. Ft.
975,000 Sq. Ft.
175,000 Sq. Ft.
30,000 Sq. Ft.
MANHATTAN BEACH
The following is a list of major developments and their locations
within the City of Manhattan Beach which were completed or
approved for development as of December 1986:
Residential
1. Manhattan Village
Single Family Dwellings 115 Units
Townhouses - 400 Units
Commercial
2. Manhattan Village Hotel (Occupied)
Hotel 400 Rooms
Golf Course (21 Acres) 9 Holes
3. Manhattan Village Country Club (Occupied)
Office Space 12,000 Sq. Ft.
Restaurant 10,000 Sq. Ft.
Tennis Courts 18
4. Aviation/Rosecrans Office
Building 73,000 Sq. Ft.
5. TRW Complex (Occupied)
Office/Laboratory 550,000 Sq. Ft.
6. TRW - Office 550,000 Sq. Ft.
30
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
7. Data General
Research &
Office
8. Data General
Office
Headquarters
Development
Headquarters
TORRANCE
(Occupied)
629,000
375,000
(Proposed)
245,000
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
The following is a listof major developments within the City of
Torrance which were under construction as of December 1986:
Residential
1. T.R. Shukay
2. Storm
3. Wesco Development
4. Praire Glen
Commercial/Industrial
5. GWF Power Systems Solid Fuel
Co -Generation Plant
6. Winger Light Industrial
7. Albert Levitt Office
8. Surf Management Industrial
• 9. Torrance Business/Industrial
Center
10. Public Storage Office/Industrial
11. Huang Motel
12. Del Amo Office Building
13. Richard Greene Office/Industrial
• 14. Hughes Office
15. Shimizu America Industrial/Office
16. Capellino Investment Industrial
17. Fechner Enterprises Industrial
18. Rolling Hills Plaza Office/Retail/
Theater
• 19. Mar Development Office/Research.
& Development
20. DJM Company Mini Warehouse
21. Westmont, Inc. Research
& Development
22. Herbert Nadel Office/Industrial
• 23. Watt Investment Industrial/Office
24. Capellino & Assoc. Warehouse
25. Dana Mackay Retail/Commercial
26. Vince Piazza Auto Agency
27. Judy Cake Office/Commercial
28. Kowalski -Harding Research
• & Development
29. Dow Chemical Industrial
• 31
12 Units
12 Units
54,014 Sq. Ft.
121,625 Sq. Ft.
Unknown
34,198 Sq. Ft.
13,400 Sq. Ft.
200,000 Sq. Ft.
118,000 Sq. Ft.
142,458 Sq. Ft.
61,588 Sq. Ft.
118,000 Sq. Ft.
36,705 Sq. Ft.
15,000 Sq. Ft.
38,000 Sq. Ft.
19,581 Sq. Ft.
47,000 Sq. Ft.
400,000 Sq. Ft.
212,000 Sq. Ft.
94,360 Sq. Ft.
157,000 Sq.
129,700 Sq.
83,000 Sq.
55,000 Sq.
15,000 Sq.
25,200 Sq.
14,336 Sq.
Ft.
Ft.
Ft.
Ft.
Ft.
Ft.
Ft.
151,000 Sq. Ft.
33,771 Sq. Ft.
•
30. Senior Inns of America
Hotel 92,000 Sq. Ft.
31. Meyer Investment Office 109,600 Sq. Ft.
32. Capellino & Pollock Office/
Industrial 16,465 Sq. Ft.
.The following is a list of developments within the City of
Torrance for which development applications were approved as of
December 1986:
Residential
33. Thomas Safran Residential 78 units
34. Thomas Safran Residential 35 units
35. El Camino Parkview Residential
Partnership 34 units
36. JFE Development Residential 16 units
Commercial/Industrial
37. Clark Leonard Office 10,000 Sq. Ft.
38. Torrance Business Park Office 69,400 Sq. Ft.
39. Del Amo Financial Center
Office 52,585 Sq. Ft.
40. Dresser Industries Industrial 21,234 Sq. Ft.
41. Richard Greene Industrial 103,335 Sq. Ft.
42. FAB Industrial Office/Hotel/
Restaurant 93,512 Sq. Ft.
43. Jerry Conrow Office 126,700 Sq. Ft.
44. Carson Estate Co. Industrial 126,072 Sq. Ft.
45. Jones & Capellino Office/
Warehouse 64,825 Sq. Ft.
46. Zelman Office/Research
& Development 194,456 Sq. Ft.
47. Jones & Capellino Railroad Depot/
Commercial/Restaurant 17,194 Sq. Ft.
48. State Farm Auto Claim Service
Center 36,000 Sq. Ft.
49. Albert Avoian Industrial 69,360 Sq. Ft.
50. Westmont Office 56,000 Sq. Ft.
The following list are proposed developments within the City of
Torrance as of December 1986:'
51. Rocca, Stamegna, Vuicich
Residential 138 Units
52. Carver Office 93,000 Sq. Ft.
53. Carver Office/Hotel 401,484 Sq. Ft.
54. Oxford Properties Office/
Medical 737,611 Sq. Ft.
32
•
,•
The following list of developments within the City of Torrance
are on-going phased projects as of December 1986:
55. Windemere Residential 550 units
56. Park Del Amo Residential/
Office Condo 850,000 Sq. Ft.
57. Torrance Industrial Industrial
Redevelopment Project 292 acres
41 58. Union Carbide Industrial 30 lot
59. American Standard Industrial
60. Honda Corporate Headquarters 1.2 million Sq. Ft.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
LAWNDALE
The following is a list of developments and their locations
within the City of Lawndale which were under construction as of
December 1986:
Residential - Apartments & Duplexes
1. Kingsdale Avenue
2. 160th Street
3. Prairie Avenue
4. Rosecrans
5. 145th Street
6. 159th Street
Residential - Single Family
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
�18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Freeman Avenue
Grevillea Avenue
Hawthorne Boulevard
Inglewood Avenue
Larch Avenue
Sombra Avenue
154th Street
156th Street
159th Street
162nd Street
163rd Street
164th Street
165th Street
166th Street
167th Street
168th Street
169th Street
170th Street
171st Street
173rd Street
• 33
2 Units
2 Units
7 Units
6 Units
4 Units
34 Units
3 Units
3 Units
1 Unit
1 Unit
1 Unit
4 Units
2 Units
2 Units
2 Units
3 Units
3 Units
3 Units
1 Unit
1 Unit
4 Units
1 Unit
2 Units
1 Unit
1 Unit
2 Units
Commercial/Industrial
27. Artesia Boulevard Commercial
28. Manhattan Beach Blvd. Industrial
29. Rosecrans Avenue Commercial
EL SEGUNDO
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
The following list of developments within the City of El Segundo
are projects which were approved as of December 1986:
1. Winger Development Residential
Commercial
2. The Grand Way
Office
Retail Services
Hotel
3. Continental Grand Plaza Office
4. LAX Business Center Office
5. Chevron/Overton/Moore
Assoc. Office
6. Aerospace Office
7. Sepulveda Properties Office
8. Grand Place Office
9. Marriott Courtyard Hotel
10. Walnut Plaza Office
11. Chevron U.S.A. Warehouse/
Light Mfg.
12. Blakesley -Comstock Office
13. Blakesley -Comstock Office/
Research & Development
14. Continental Development Office
15. Hughes Aircraft Co. Office/
Computer
16. Main -Imperial Partnership
Office/Retail
17. Siegal Retail Office
18. Overton -Moore Assoc. Office
19. Xerox Centre Office
HAWTHORNE
98 units
480,000 Sq. Ft.
156,000 Sq. Ft.
216 Rooms
467,000 Sq. Ft.
322,073 Sq. Ft.
400,980 Sq. Ft.
200,000 Sq. Ft.
93,500 Sq. Ft.
467,000 Sq. Ft.
79,500 Sq. Ft.
122,000 Sq. Ft.
981,000 Sq. Ft.
200,000 Sq. Ft.
93,700 Sq. Ft.
1,100,000 Sq. Ft.
77,800 Sq. Ft.
15,790 Sq. Ft.
38,135 Sq. Ft.
381,673 Sq. Ft.
512,000 Sq. Ft.
The following list of developments within
are proposed projects as of December 1986:
1. Watt Office/Hotel
2. Blakesley -Comstock Office
3. Compton Avenue Retail Commercial
Center
34
the City of Hawthorne
20 acres
150,000 Sq. Ft.
100,000 Sq. Ft.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5.0. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
• 5.1. LAND USE
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. General Description and Regulatory History
The City of Hermosa Beach is located approximately 17 miles
southwest of downtown Los Angeles adjacent to the Pacific
Ocean. Bounded by the Cities of Redondo Beach on the south and
east and Manhattan Beach on the north, Hermosa Beach provides a
link in the South Bay communities. Pacific Coast Highway
(State Highway 1) traverses the City north to south. It serves
• as the major vehicle access route to and through the City.
Initial development of the City of Hermosa Beach occurred in
the early 1900's resulting in the construction of narrow
irregular streets and small 25-30 foot lots. Over the past 30
years Hermosa has reflected residential expansions prevalent in
• Southern California. Most development has been with multiple
rather than single family housing. Hermosa Beach is the most
densely populated city in Southern California, with a
population of more than 21,000 people in 1.3 square miles.
The Project Area is a portion of a 20 acre strip of land within
• the ATSF Right -of -Way, which is characterized by changing
elevations as it traverses the City. The Right -of -Way is
currently designated for Open Space uses and its existing
improvements include recreational facilities, parking areas,
Los Angeles County Flood Control District ("LAFCD")
injection/recharge wells, valves, and pipelines and City
roadways.
•
The LAFCD facilities in the Right -of -Way are part of a water
pressure barrier created by LAFCD to halt the contamination by
the intrusion of salt water into coastal and inland groundwater
supply wells in the South Coast area. This barrier begins in
the vicinity of the Los Angeles International Airport and
• continues through El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach
and Redondo Beach. The wells injecting water to form the
barrier under the northern portion of Hermosa Beach are located
in the Right -of -Way.
A portion of the proposed Project Area is located within the
• Coastal Zone and the land use is regulated by the California
Coastal Commission as well as the City. The City has adopted a
Local Coastal Plan which was certified by the Coastal
Commission in response to the requirements of the California
Coastal Act. The City's Local Coastal Program includes the
Local Coastal Plan, the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and
• other implementation measures taken as a result of policy
direction in these Plans for those areas within the Coastal
Zone. The ATSF Right -of -Way is included in the Coastal Zone
• 35
boundary from Longfellow Avenue to the City's southerly
boundary, with the exception of the area between 25th Street
and Hermosa Valley School. The Local Coastal Plan identifies
the Right -of -Way area for recreation and as a potential link
between existing Open Space. The Local Coastal Plan
complements and is consistent with the City's Open Space
Element of the General Plan which identifies the Right -of -Way
as an integral part of meeting open space goals in the City.
The Coastal Zone is generally located between the City
boundaries to the north and south and through the Right -of -Way
west of the beach. The Coastal Zone represents approximately
one-half of the City's 1.3 square acre land area. The eastern
boundary of the Coastal Zone is along Valley Drive, with the
exception of the area between 25th Street and 127th Street,
where the Coastal Zone boundary is closer to the Pacific Ocean.
The land use regulation of the Project Area reflects a uniform
pattern of permitted uses and intensities consistent with its
history for rail transit purposes. In June 1956 the City Code
was amended to authorize zoning of the City. The Right -of -Way
was left "unclassified", connoting that certain uses would be
allowed, except for railroad rights-of-way which were to be
used solely for "accommodating tracks, signals, other operating
devices and movement of rolling stock." (Zoning Code, §
305(4)) In August 1966 the City adopted its first General
Plan, consisting of Land Use, Circulation and Parks Elements.
The General Plan designated the Right -of -Way as "Parkway",
contemplating that it would become a portion of the proposed
South Bay Parkway to be constructed [including landscaping,
tree plantings, a planned median and four lanes of roadway).
The proposed Parkway was deleted from the General Plan in April
of 1972.
An Interim Open Space Element of the General Plan was adopted
in October of 1972. The Interim Open Space Element promulgated
the goal of securing open space in Hermosa Beach, and mandated
preparation and implementation of an Open Space Plan and
Program by June 30, 1973. The General Plan was further amended
in February 1974 to include Open Space and Conservation
Elements. These Elements promulgated the policies and
principles for an Open Space Zone and identified the Right -of -
Way as integral to meeting certain of those goals. The Right -
of -Way, which had been designated for Open Space use in the
original Interim Open Space Element, was specifically
designated as Open Space in a revision of the Open Space
Element adopted in February 1975. The Open Space designation,
however, contemplated continued rail transportation uses.
The'Open Space Element of the General Plan was last revised in
February 1980, again including the Right -of -Way with the City's
inventory of open space. An Open Space Zone had previously
been added in December of 1974 to the City's Zoning Code. In
November of 1980 City rioters approved an advisory initiative,
whereby the City Council was instructed to conform the Zoning
36
•
•
•
•
•;
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Code with the General Plan, and to resolve any conflict between
the two in favor of the land use with the least intensity. In
1981 the City Planning Commission commenced public hearings to
conform the Zoning and General Plan, and in August of 1982 the
Right -of -Way was zoned Open Space. At the same hearing the
Zoning Code was amended to allow transit uses.
2. Land Uses Surrounding the Project Area
The following is a description of the specific land uses
adjacent to and surrounding each Parcel included in the Project
Area. The existing zoning for each Parcel is shown on Exhibit
6.
Parcel 4. Land uses adjacent to Parcel 4 along Ardmore Avenue
and Valley Drive are primarily residential. Immediately
adjacent land uses include the Kiwanis Youth Center across from
Parcel 4 fronting on Valley Drive and single family residences
adjacent to the Youth Center. On Ardmore Avenue there are
single family residences adjacent to Parcel 4.
Parcel 6. Land uses adjacent to Parcel 6 are primarily single
family residences. Single family residences are found along
Valley Drive across from Parcel 6. Along Ardmore Avenue are
single family dwellings.
Parcel 7. West of Parcel 7 along Valley Drive are single
family residences. There are also single family residences
east of Parcel 7 along Ardmore Avenue.
Parcel 8. On Valley Drive between Parcel 7 and Eighteenth
Street are single family residences and one apartment complex.
On Valley Drive between Eighteenth Street and Pier Avenue,
there is one single family residence, Valley Vista School,
Storer Cable television offices, a trailer park, and the Post
Office.
On Ardmore Avenue between Parcel 7 and Sixteenth Street, there
are single family residences and multi -family housing. Between
Sixteenth Street and Pier Avenue, is a neighborhood shopping
center. Access to the first level of parking is from Ardmore.
The shopping center is situated above the parking level with
access to at -grade parking and shops from Pacific Coast Highway
and Pier Avenue.
• Parcel 9. The Hermosa Beach Public Library and City Hall are
located to the west of Valley Drive and north of Eleventh
Place. A portion of Parcel 9, located immediately across from
City Hall, is used as a public unpaved parking lot. Land uses
on Valley Drive include a mini storage facility between
Eleventh Place and Eleventh Street. South of Eleventh Street
• on Valley Drive is the City Services building, lawn bowling
courts, Kelly Courts, Clark Stadium, and multi -family housing.
• 37
4
Ita IINCIaNElm mu i azsr � �'y�
O I itaka
I�a r h.11.1• i
figmaAttin
iancoftimmommettft---,
miAi elxr
"inaczasx
L .0: _.10 ti ,..
, ,-..-41 a 1W
:EI1.i1i
1• Q>•
CTI
a
1i
e Is
rillgr°
t..
likas
magawi
�aWeft
am car
V
E 7® ®a
3
rpt cc, cog
i
11
�3
a
r1.1
111111411111111
Wow
1
H
1/
r.6
1r.p
F6
1.6
10
001btJt
0.076
SO
ri
t
Ale /000
t•1
1.6
t
ESIECICA
02/613
:4p
t•. +v� =o
OLF7)®p�
06
E4
ifreivisf
1.0 nt
1
1.*
w
10
C
F6
1.6
1.
0wI
w
D
1.3
aV 4C
am
t•
/1111
t.6
tiro•
t-3 7
..r
'w
t.]
Eft
.
w w: 6.6
t-0
ty
w
L
w
0.0
Ft
1,1
• • • • • • • • • • •
•
•
•
•
The Community Center. tennis courts, multi -family housing, and
single family residences face Parcel 9 on Ardmore Avenue
between Pier Avenue and Tenth Street. There are multi -family
housing complexes and one single family residence south of 10th
Street along Ardmore Avenue.
Parcel 10. Land uses adjacent to Parcel 10 on Valley Drive
include a service center yard. Multi -family housing and
single family residences face Parcel 10 along Ardmore Avenue.
Parcel 12. Multi -family housing and a school face Parcel 12 on
Valley Drive. Land uses adjacent to Parcel 12 along Ardmore
Avenue include a small park and single family residences.
Parcel 13. Multi -family housing located across from Parcel 13
on Valley Drive continue for the length of the site. Land uses
on Ardmore Avenue include a single family residence and multi-
family housing.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
• 1. Impacts on City General Plan, Policies and Goals
The proposed change in land use designation from Open Space to
other uses under the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance will
have a direct, adverse effect on the City's adopted land use
regulations and policies and goals for land use regulation.
The Hermosa Beach General Plan is designed to present a
realistic guide for the future of the City. The Plan includes
thirteen Elements, each setting forth policies and goals for
the development of the City. The General Plan is the framework
for all City decisions on public and private projects and for
• City expenditures and services. The General Plan consists of
the following elements: Land Use; Transportation and
Circulation; Parking; Scenic Highways; Conservation; Open
Space; Housing; Urban Design; Economic; Noise; Safety; Seismic;
Utilities. The proposed Project will adversely impact 8 of the
13 Elements of the General Plan.
•
•
a. Land Use Element
The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the Project
Area for Open Space uses. The Project would amend the Land Use
Element to change the land use designation of the site to
• various residential and commercial designations. Approval of
the Project would conflict with the Land Use Element. The loss
of open space in the Right -of -Way would further decrease the
already limited open space in Hermosa Beach, and the impact of
the loss would be significant.
•
•
39
b. Open Space Element
The proposed Project would redesignate Parcels 4, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 12, and 13 from Open Space to Low Density, Medium Density,
and High Density Residential, and General Commercial.
Conversion of the site from open space to urban land uses is in
direct conflict with the Open Space Element of the General Plan
and represents the most severe significant effect of the
proposed Project on the City's environment.
The Open Space Element states that the underlying philosophy of
the Open Space and Conservation Element is to "preserve and
enhance the existing green areas, and to increase the total
open space areas within possible financial ability. Open Space
is necessary to create a better living environment through
provision of visual and psychological relief, recreation,
education, and cleansing of air." "In general, open space, in
whatever form and regardless of the current usage, is a
valuable natural resource for the urban community which has
grown from the seaside resort founded in 1907 to provide escape
from the crowded interior communities of the Los Angeles
basin."
The proposed Project will prohibit implementation of the
following adopted policies of the Open Space Element:
Policy 16: To obtain and preserve open spaces within
the City limits of Hermosa Beach sufficient to
provide for anticipated needs of future residents.
Policy 17: To preserve a healthy climate for the
physical and mental health and well-being of future
Hermosa residents.
Live plant areas should be increased as much as
feasible and consistent with the open nature of the
community.
Crowding should be reduced by proper use and spacing
of open space throughout the City.
Policy 18: To provide space for recreation
facilities and land areas for future residents.
Recreational open spaces and buildings should be
• large enough and flexibly designed to be susceptible
to conversion as recreation needs change.
The beach, .being a regional facility, should be
viewed as not providing adequate overall recreation
space for residents because it has limited and
specialized uses, thereby not meeting the breadth of •
recreational needs.
40
•
•
•
•
•
•
An active program of land acquisition and development
should be begun to enlarge, protect, and enhance
existing recreational spaces and facilities.
Policy 19: To obtain, preserve, and enhance green
areas, such as street landscape strips, mini -parks
and parkways as being necessary to the health and
well-being of the community.
Small City parks and parkettes to contribute to the
general greenness and feeling of openness, and
provide opportunities for small rest areas should be
provided where economically feasible.
Landscaped median strips and parkways should be
created to reduce the effectiveness pavement expanse,
soften noise and absorb smog -inducing emissions.
Policy 26: Railroad Right -of -Way. The City shall
retain its landscape agreement, and seek to expand
its agreements on the right-of-way for open space and
transportation use. The use of this area for
movement by the public to and from the beach or
across town shall be considered an open space use.
Such use shall cover no more than 20% of the right-
of-way. Riding and hiking trails shall be developed.
• The Open Space Element further describes the approximately 20
acre Right -of -Way as "Primary Open Space" which "enhances the
present or potential value of surrounding urban development and
comprise public and private areas devoted to recreational,
educational, cultural and aesthetic purposes." It further
states that there are "two divisions of primary open space" one
• of which is a:
b. Designed environment, such as the railroad
right-of-way or city parks, in which the
works of nature are modified to serve the
recreational, visual, social and cultural
• needs of people.
It is clear that the primary purpose of the Open Space Element
is to preserve and maintain the existing, limited open space
areas in the City. The Right -of -Way is virtually the last open
space green area in the City. The proposed Project would have
• a significant effect on the above policies of the Open Space
Element, requiring the amendment of some, as the City could no
longer effectively implement these policies. There is little
undeveloped land within the boundaries of the City. The City
could not preserve a major open space area for future
residents; it would in fact remove a major "live plant area"
• instead of increasing them; it would eliminate existing open
space instead of reducing crowding by proper use and spacing of
open space; it would remove space currently used for
• 41
recreational facilities instead of providing additional space
for such uses; no conversion of the uses in the Project Area to
accommodate changing recreational needs could occur as the land
is being removed from recreational uses; it would more heavily
rely on the beach for providing adequate overall recreation
space; it could not carry out the mandate to enlarge, protect
and enhance existing recreational spaces and facilities; it
could not obtain, preserve and enhance green areas declared to
be necessary to the health and well-being of the community; it
could no longer "contribute to the general greenness and
feeling of openness" in a designated green -belt, open area; the
Project Area would no longer contribute to the goal of reducing
pavement expanse, softening noise and absorption of smog -
inducing emissions; and it could no longer carry out its policy
and goal to expand the use of the Right -of -Way for open space
and transportation, nor use the Project Area for the movement
of the public to and from the beach or across town, nor develop
riding and hiking trails.
c. Scenic Highways Element
The proposed Project is located in the City of Hermosa Beach
scenic corridor and adversely affects the City's ability to
implement its policies with respect to scenic views. Policy 23
states that:
The City shall continue its program of landscaping
the railroad right-of-way throughout its extent with
the City (and encourage its appreciation of
pedestrians as well as motorists through
establishment of a pathway). This right-of-way shall
be preserved as a scenic and open space area.
Policy 25 states that:
The City should require a minimum of a 2 foot front
setback on all property to provide a wider potential
view (as well as air and light) corridor and to allow
for landscaping.
Policy 27 states that:
Wherever possible the City shall strive to obtain
scenic easements to permanently preserve view
points.
The City could not carry out its policies and goals of
preserving and maintaining the Right -of -Way as a scenic and
open space area, continue its landscaping program, provide
wider view corridors and preserve view points, or encourage its
use by pedestrians through establishment of a pathway. The
proposed Project would require the amendment to the Scenic
Highways Element in order to revise and restructure its
policies and goals.
42
•
•
d. Transportation and Circulation Element
The Project is inconsistent with Policy 14 of the City's
Transportation and Circulation Element which states:
The City shall seek to create a pedestrian and
jogging path on the railroad right-of-way throughout
• its length within the City. Such a path will provide
a safe route connecting City parks, schools, City
offices, and the Post Office. It provides for
excellent north -south access across the middle of the
City.
• A pedestrian and jogging path is presently located on the
Project Site. The proposed Project would change the land use
designation from Open Space to Low, Medium, and High Density
Residential, and General Commercial. This change of use would
allow for the development of the Project Area for a variety of
land uses which would eliminate existing uses, including the
pedestrian and jogging path. Elimination of this path is in
• direct conflict with Policy 14 and would have a significant
effect on the City. Maintenance of the pedestrian and jogging
path if development occurs on the Project Site would be
hampered by the number of street and curb crossings necessary
for the development and may create traffic conflicts.
• e. Parking Element
The Parking Element of the General Plan recognizes the existing
parking problems in the City. In addition to providing parking
for its own residents, the City has the responsibility of
providing parking for a tremendous number of beach visitors as
• well. The Parking Element proposes that "parking facilities
along underdeveloped railroad right-of-way" be expanded where
possible. This would permit beach visitors to walk to the
beach and would provide additional parking spaces in an area
not presently being used. The Parking Element states Policy 7
under its management plan to be the "development of additional
• off-street parking on the railroad right-of-way across from
City Hall and efforts should be made to establish a
subterranean parking structure at Pier Avenue Community
Center."
On- and off-street public parking of approximately 190 spaces
• is .provided on and around Parcel 9 (See Traffic and
Circulation, Sections 5.3.A.2 and 5.3.B.2). The proposed
Project would eliminate this parking. The proposed Project
would significantly impact the City's ability to replace
parking and to provide additional parking as there are no
identifiable alternative sites available, and would impact its
• land use regulations with respect to use of designated Open
Space. The City would'not be able to implement its policies to
expand and develop additional parking on the Right -of -Way.
• 43
f. Conservation Element
The proposed Project will significantly impact Policy 15 of the
Conservation Element, whose objective is to "Prevent salt
water intrusion by injecting water underground to create a
barrier."
The LAFCD "Salt Water Intrusion Barrier Project" maintains 5
injection/discharge wells and 3 observation wells along the
ATSF Right -of Way from approximately 16th Street to the City's
northern boundary. (See Exhibit 7 for the location of these
facilities.) All wells are subsurface with an over -covering of
dirt to make them as visually unobtrusive as possible. There
are two pipelines, a discharge line and a supply line,
approximately 8 feet below the surface connecting the well
system. Each injection well also has a control valve, usually
located a minimum of 5 feet away in a westerly direction. The
"water wells" created to form the barrier operate under
pressure and can be as deep as 200-250 feet.
According to LAFCD officials the Barrier Project is an
essential facility needed to provide an adequate, safe, water
supply to users in the South Coast area, and the only
alternatives to the Barrier would be less reliance on the
groundwater supply or to raise the inland water table.
That portion of the Right -of -Way used by LAFCD appears to
severely constrain development of the area by the location of
these facilities and the land requirements necessary to operate
and maintain them. Therefore, the proposed Project and any
development occurring pursuant thereto would severely constrain
and have a significant effect on the City's ability to
implement Policy 15 of the Conservation Element. Development
on the Project Site further would have a significant regional
effect on the operation and maintenance of the Barrier by
LAFCD.
g. Urban Design Element
The Urban Design Element states the following objectives:
Identify and maintain the smaller scale visual
features that give character to Hermosa Beach and its
neighborhoods.
Retain the uniqueness and diversity of Hermosa
Beach's neighborhoods.
In implementing these objectives, Policy 1 of the Urban Design
Element requires the City to "Maintain the present scale of the
City, but modify those elements which by their massiveness are
overwhelming and unacceptable."
44
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • • • •
SHE�LINE 8
ErT 8J hE£ i _ � �'t
T
• • • • • •
LINE A 0 7138
LASHEE� ' SHEET 3
�/I if
SHEET eWt
UM• Ise i 0!A •(*CM 101LJI.
•MANCM vault
(:
71
F.
filinatill
0 On
1 q,,ar
IBE:360i-J tacci
ee2;claceagagifill
i
LEGEND
WELL STATUS NOT VERIFIED
EXISTING RECHARGE WELL •
EXISTING OBSERVATION WELL
PROPOSED WATER SUPPLY PIPELINE
STORM DRAIN PROJECT NO. 440
•oU•ee ass AyM.. Cosily flood 05.0.1 Gismo Awe. .a.
Llagemigggiagal8
PACIFIC OCEAN LOCATION PLAN
SCALE ' 1' • 600'
16
i1111■1
owl mos =
40
A PORTION OF THE WEST COAST
BASIN BARRIER PROJECT
600 0 GOO 1200 1000
rctral
L ZI8IHX3
The proposed Project will change the scale of the Site. It
will introduce low, medium, and high density housing,
commercial shopping areas, and a motel into an area which is
currently landscaped Open Space. Such development in the
Project Area would prevent the City's maintenance of small
scale visual features of the landscaped Open Space and would
lead to the loss of the uniqueness of the area.
h. Housing Element
The Housing Element of the General Plan contains several goals
and objectives relating to the production and preservation of
housing. In the New Housing Development Section of the
Element, there is a Statement of Philosophy that reads:
The City of Hermosa Beach now has an extremely high
population and residential density. It is the City's
intention to evaluate new development proposals in light
of the community's environmental resources and values and
capacity of the public infrastructure.
The first goal of the Housing Element, with respect to new
housing development, is "To address, within the scope of the
environmental constraints, the housing demand of the community
and its projected share of regional housing needs." The first
objective is "To guide the development of the maximum feasible
(and environmentally appropriate) number of housing units over
the next five years in light of housing production needs and
the community's neighborhood conservation goals."
As discussed in Section 5.9 on Population and Housing, there is
an estimated 5% vacancy rate in the City, which was the target
vacancy rate set by the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG). If the 175 units of housing which would be
permitted under the Project are built, the City's Housing
Supply would be at 10,118 units, or only 7 less then the 10,225
estimated by the Land Use Element to be the capacity of the
City.
In light of the above information, and given the importance of
the Right -of -Way as Open Space (See Open Space section), it is
clear that the Project conflicts with the Housing Element goal
of meeting housing demand "within environmental constraints'.
As the City has nearly achieved its estimated housing capacity,
and has achieved the target of a 5% vacancy rate, the Project
conflicts with the Housing Element objective of guiding the
development of the maximum feasible and environmentally
appropriate housing units.
2. Impact on Local Coastal Program
Under the Coastal Act, the City of Hermosa Beach was required
to develop a long range -management plan for the portion of the
coastline within the City.
46
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Local Coastal Plan focuses on four main issues: access,
coastal housing, recreation, and development. The Local
Coastal Plan establishes policies and objectives to implement
the City's goals regarding the provision of adequate coastal
parking and housing, regional and local recreation amenities,
adverse and beneficial development actions available to the
City, and various complimentary tasks.
• Approximately two-thirds of the Project Area is located in the
Coastal Zone. Under the Local Coastal Plan that portion of the
Project Area is designated for Open Space uses. In addition, a
stated policy of the Local Coastal Plan is "that the City
should not allow the elimination of existing on -street parking
• or off-street parking spaces within the coastal zone." The
Plan further states that "free parking will be provided to
beach visitors on the railroad right-of-way."
The Local Coastal Plan was adopted as part of the City's
General Plan. The Local Coastal Plan complements and is
• consistent with the Open Space Element of the General Plan
which identifies the Right -of -Way area as an integral part of
meeting open space goals of the City. The proposed Project
would significantly affect the Local Coastal Plan adversely,
and would require a coastal permit from the Coastal Commission.
The proposed Project would require an amendment to the Local
Coastal Plan as any development in the proposed Project Area
• must be consistent with the Local Coastal Plan. Such amendment
would not be effective until the Coastal Commission approves
the change in the Local Coastal Plan.
3. Impact on Zonina
• The Zoning Code for the City permits the development of a
variety of land uses in" Open Space areas. The purpose and
intent of the Open Space Zone is to prohibit intensive urban
development in primary open space areas which are necessary to
assure permanent open space in and for public parks and
recreation areas, and where such intensive urban development
• would adversely affect public use and natural environmental
benefits. Section 9.5-1 of the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code
states that open space comprises public and private areas
devoted to recreational, leisure, cultural, and aesthetic
purposes, and includes the following uses:
• • 1. Public and private parks, including beach areas.
2. Educational buildings and playgrounds.
3. Recreational centers, public, and private.
• 4. Public utility structures and corridors.
• 47
5. Riding, bicycling, and hiking trails and pedestrian
ways.
6. Public governmental buildings.
7. Historical monuments in areas of historical
significance.
8. Public malls and plazas.
9. Public or privately -owned land when the intensive use
of said land would endanger the public health,
safety, and general welfare, including:
a. Areas where natural topography may be so steep
as to create a hazard and/or the grading or
development of the land would endanger public
health or safety due to unstable geological
conditions, soil stability, erosion, or
flooding.
b. Areas subject to severe seismic hazards
including surface ruptures from faulting or
ground shaking.
c. Areas subject to flooding or inundation from
storm water.
10. Land which is substantially in its natural state; is
of unique natural beauty (natural land forms,
prominent features, landscapes, natural vistas)
available to public access or view; or which is of
particular historic, cultural or scientific value.
11. Ocean or public water areas, said areas being
restricted solely to recreation and navigation
purposes.
12. Transit uses:
a. The accommodation of railroad tracks and
maintenance of same.
b. Signals (and other operative devices).
c. The movement in rolling stock, freight,
passengers.
d. Landscaping and related appurtenances.
The proposed Project will convert existing Open Space land uses
to intensive urbanized land uses. The replacement of Open
Space with commercial 'and residential uses will contribute to
the already high density of development in the City. The City
48
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
of Hermosa Beach is the most densely populated city in Southern
California. The proposed Project would have a significant
impact on the intent and purpose of Open Space Zoning which is
to protect and preserve the remaining Open Space in the City.
4. Impact of Proposed Land Uses on Surrounding Land Uses
Development of the eight Parcels in the Project Area will
• result in the unavoidable loss of Open Space land uses. The
Project Area is currently developed as a Green Belt with
recreational uses. The impact of the proposed Project's land
uses on existing surrounding land uses is discussed below on a
parcel -by -parcel basis.
•
•
•
•
•
Parcel 4. The Project would allow development of 38 single
family residences on Parcel 4. The current uses on Parcel 4
include landscaping and a jogging path.
The proposed single family housing use for Parcel 4 is
consistent with the adjacent predominantly single family
residences on Ardmore Avenue and Valley Drive. The Kiwanis
Youth Center is also located on Valley Drive across from the
Parcel. Parcels 3 and 5, which are not part of the Project,
shall remain Open Space. The proposed residential land use is
considered compatible with adjacent development.
Parcel 6. Parcel 6 could be developed with 26 single family
residences on the 2.0 acre parcel. Parcel 6 is currently used
as an Open Space landscaped area and jogging path. Surrounding
land uses are residential. The adjacent residential
development is single family homes. The proposed single family
homes are compatible with existing surrounding development.
Parcel 7. The proposed Project would permit the development of
30 high density residential units on an 0.9 acre site. Parcel
7 is also landscaped Open Space with the jogging path
continuing. Immediately adjacent land uses on Valley Drive and
Ardmore Avenue are single family residences.
The City of Hermosa Beach permits 26-40 dwelling units per acre
for high density residential development. The density of the
proposed residential development on Parcel 7 would not be
compatible with existing single family residences adjacent on
Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue, or with the single family
residential development proposed for Parcel 6. The. Project's
abrupt change in density would be an adverse impact on adjacent
land uses.
Parcel 8. General commercial uses are proposed for Parcel 8.
Development of the 2.1 acre site under the requested
designation would permit 93,762 square feet of general
commercial uses, which would include 18,295 square feet of
retail sales and 75,467 square feet of general office uses.
The Parcel is located between Ardmore Avenue and Valley Drive
• 49
and Pier Avenue and 17th Street. It is currently a landscaped
area with a jogging path and par course. Existing land uses
adjacent to Parcel 8 on Ardmore Avenue include a neighborhood
shopping center and single family and multiple family
residential units. Adjacent to the site on Valley Drive are
single family homes, apartments, a mobile home park, Storer
Cable offices, an elementary school and a post office. Pier
Avenue serves as a commercial and institutional corridor in the
City of Hermosa Beach.
The proposed development is compatible with the existing
commercial and office uses adjacent to the site. However,
intensive commercial uses are incompatible with schools and low
density residential uses. The development of commercial uses
on Parcel 8 immediately adjacent to Pier Avenue is a logical
extension of existing commercial development on Pier Avenue
between Ardmore Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway, and on Pier
Avenue between Valley Drive and Hermosa Avenue. Development of
intensive urban commercial uses adjacent to existing single
family residences and an elementary school is an adverse
impact.
Parcel 9. General commercial uses are proposed for Parcel 9.
Development of the 3.5 acre Parcel under the requested
designation would permit 20,908 square feet of retail sales,
and 165,310 square feet of general office. A portion of Parcel
9 located across from City Hall is used as an unpaved public
parking lot. Other existing uses including landscaping,
jogging path and par course.
Existing land uses adjacent to Parcel 9 on Ardmore Avenue
include City recreational facilities and multi -family housing.
Land uses adjacent to Parcel 9 on Valley Drive include the City
Hall and Library, Clark Stadium, City recreational uses,
apartments, and commercial uses. Pier Avenue serves as a
commercial and institutional corridor in the City of Hermosa
Beach.
The proposed development is compatible with the existing
commercial and City uses adjacent to the Parcel. Intensive
commercial uses are incompatible with recreational and
residential uses. The development of commercial uses on
Parcels 8 and 9 immediately adjacent to Pier Avenue is a
logical extension of existing commercial development on Pier
Avenue between Ardmore Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway, and on
Pier Avenue between Valley Drive and Hermosa Avenue.
Development of intensive urban commercial uses on the remainder
of Parcel 9 is a significant adverse impact.
Parcel 10. Medium density residential development is proposed
for Parcel 10, which would replace the existing landscaping and
jogging path. The Project would permit 40 dwelling units on
the 1.6 acre site. The proposed development is generally
compatible with existing adjacent residential land uses.
50
•
•
Surrounding land uses include single family residences and
multi -family housing on Ardmore Avenue. A service center yard
is the major use on Valley Drive. The commercial uses proposed
for Parcel 9 and the service yard on Valley Drive are not
compatible with the residential development proposed for Parcel
10.
Parcel 12. The proposed Project would allow for future
development of 46 high density dwelling units on Parcel 12.
The 1.4 acre Parcel is presently used for landscaping and a
jogging path. Existing land uses immediately adjacent to
Parcel 12 on Ardmore Avenue are single family residences and a
park. Multi -family housing and a school are situated on Valley
Drive for the length of Parcel 12. A motel is proposed
• adjacent to Parcel 12 on Parcel 13. Parcel 11, not included in
the Project, would retain its Open Space designation. The
proposed development is generally compatible with existing uses
adjacent to the site.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Parcel 13. A land use redesignation would allow for the
development of the 1.6 acre Parcel for general commercial uses.
A 175 room motel is proposed. Parcel 13 is currently used for
landscaping and a jogging path. The proposed development is
not considered a compatible land use. Existing and proposed
adjacent land uses are residential multi -family apartments and
condominiums. The proposed commercial development adjacent to
existing residential development is an incompatible use and
would have a significant effect on the environment.
C. MITIGATION MEASURES
There are no mitigation measures available to reduce
the impacts the proposed Project will have on the
City's existing land use regulation plans.
• If the Project is approved and site specific
development plans are proposed, the City will
implement all requirements and restrictions of City
General Plan Elements, Zoning Code and other City
ordinances and regulations.
D. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
The proposed Project will have a significant effect on City
land use regulations, policies and goals which cannot be
mitigated. The Project would convert a historic, open space,
green -belt area to intensive urban land uses. The loss of open
space cannot be mitigated. The Project would be adverse to the
policies and goals of Coastal Zone uses and would require an
amendment to the Local Coastal Plan by the City, subject to the
approval of the California Coastal Commission. The Project
would have a significant effect on the local and regional
operation and maintenance of the water pressure barrier created
by LAFCD to protect the groundwater supply wells in the South
• 51
0
Coast area. There are no known measures which would mitigate
this effect to insignificance.
•
Adverse land use compatibility impacts identified for Parcels
7, 8, 9, 10 and 13 cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
5.2. AESTHETICS
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The ATSF Right -of -Way extends from the northern to the southern
boundaries of the City. It is generally situated in a valley
area and is visible from land uses east of Ardmore Avenue and
west of Valley Drive. The site is also visible from adjacent
roadways. It serves as a landscaped, green belt buffer between
the commercial and residential development in the City.
Residences located west of Ardmore Avenue presently have views
of the developed hills lying west of Valley Drive.
The Right -of -Way slopes downward from Ardmore Avenue to Valley
Drive. Vegetation consists almost exclusively of non-native
weeds, ornamental plant species and ground cover. The
vegetation includes trees, shrubs, palms and cactus. Two
jogging paths bisect the area. Parking is permitted on Parcel
9. The only signs that exist are those prohibiting parking on
the site and adjacent streets. There are also signs pertaining
to public safety near Pier Avenue.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The proposed Project and development pursuant thereto would
cause a significant impact due to the loss of regional and
local views. The Project Area is designated for Open Space use
for the entire Right -of -Way in the adjacent communities of El
Segundo, Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach, as well as in the
City.
Locally, the Right -of -Way presently provides a greenbelt
corridor that runs the entire length of a densely developed
_ City. Development of the Project Area would significantly
alter the visual character of the area. The elimination of
landscaping and loss of mature vegetation would change the
visual characteristics and the nature of how the corridor is
perceived. The views of adjacent land uses would be obstructed
by any development on the site. There are potential impacts
related to signs as a result of the commercial development
proposed for the Project Area.
C. MITIGATION MEASURES
If the Project is approved and site specific
development proposed, all requirements and
regulations of the City General Plan Elements, City
52
S
S
•
•
•
a
•
•
•
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Zoning Code and other City Ordinances and regulations
would be implemented.
Any development shall
development plans approved
Height limitations of the
enforced.
be in conformance with
by the City.
City Zoning Code would be
A landscape and irrigation plan for the Project and
for each individual development prepared by a
licensed landscape architect and subject to approval
by the appropriate City Departments should be
required.
All landscaping plans should include maintenance
programs which control the use of fertilizers and
pesticides.
All landscaping plans should place emphasis on the
use of drought -tolerant vegetation and irrigation
systems designed to avoid surface runoff and
overwatering.
The Project and each individual development should be
designed to eliminate light and glare spillage on to
adjacent properties.
Earth berms and graded slopes, as required, should be
contoured and landscaped to the approval of the
appropriate City Departments.
Development plans should provide for canopy type
trees along both sides of the entire length of the
Project in order to retain to some extent the
character of a greenbelt corridor.
Signs and exterior lighting shall be in accordance
with City requirements and regulations and approved
by appropriate City Departments.
No illuminated signs should be roof mounted.
All mechanical equipment, vents, and other service
equipment shall be shielded or screened from view by
architectural features in accordance with City
requirements and regulations, and shall conform to
height limits for permitted uses.
Landscape edge treatment should be provided on Valley
Drive, Ardmore Avenue, Pier Avenue, Gould Avenue,
Eighth Street, Second Street, and Herondo Avenue.
• 53
No illuminated building signs should be permitted to
be oriented toward existing or proposed residential
developments.
Overhead facilities should be removed for the length
of the Right -of -Way along Ardmore, Valley Drive, Pier
Avenue, Gould Avenue, and Herondo Avenue.
D. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION •
The loss of the continuous Open Space corridor through the City
and the three adjacent communities would be an unmitigated
significant regional impact. The potential impact from
development signage and lighting could be mitigated to a level
of insignificance by the suggested Mitigation Measures.
Unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed Project which
cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance include the
loss of the overall visual characteristics of the Open Space,
green belt corridor which runs the length of the City and the
obstruction of views from land uses adjacent to the Project
Area.
5.3. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
The following discussion is based on a "Traffic Impact Study"
dated September 14, 1987 prepared for the City by ASL
Consulting Engineers. The full traffic study is included in
this Final EIR as Appendix B, Part III, Volume 3A.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. Vehicular
Existing Road Network. The Project Area has regional access
from Pacific Coast Highway (Route 1) on the east and from
Artesia Boulevard (Route 91) on the north. Local access is
available from Gould Avenue, Pier Avenue, Eighth Street, Second
Street, and Herondo Street. Direct access to the proposed
Project Area will only be along Ardmore Avenue and Valley
Drive. Exhibit 8 depicts regional, local, and direct access
routes to the Project Area.
Pacific Coast Highway extends from Oxnard in Ventura County to
Dana Point in Orange County, and is designated in the
Circulation Element of the City's General Plan as a major
north/south arterial highway. Throughout the City, Pacific
Coast Highway is a six -lane, divided, major arterial highway.
Pacific Coast Highway is striped for four travel lanes plus
parking on both sides.
Pier Avenue is designated by the Circulation Element of the
City as an arterial highway providing four travel lanes plus
parking on both sides within 100 feet of the Right -of -Way.
•
•
Pier Avenue's intersections with Pacific Coast Highway and
Hermosa Avenue are signal controlled.
Ardmore Avenue and Valley Drive are designated by the
Circulation Element of the City's General Plan as collector
roadways. Both roadways are two-lane collector streets with
partially restricted curb parking, and are open to two-way
traffic with a variable pavement cross section (24'-30'). The
• intersections of Ardmore Avenue and Valley Drive at Pier Avenue
are controlled by four-way stop signs.
Gould Avenue, Eighth Street, and Second Street are also
designated by the Circulation Element as collector streets.
Between Pacific Coast Highway and Ardmore, Gould is a two-lane
• street and open to two-way traffic with no curb parking
allowed. Eighth and Second Streets are also open to two-way
traffic but have four lanes, two in each direction. Curb
parking is allowed on both sides of Eighth and Second Streets.
The intersections of Gould Avenue, Eighth Street and Second
Street with Ardmore Avenue and Valley Drive, are all way stops.
• Most land uses fronting these roads are residential.
Existing Daily Traffic. An estimate of existing average daily
traffic volumes on major streets within the vicinity of the
Project Area is based on 24-hour machine counts taken at 22
locations in the City on Friday, July 10, 1987 and Saturday,
July 11, 1987. The resulting daily volumes are shown in
• Exhibit 9. The two-way daily volumes representing "average
summer week day volumes" and "average summer weekend volumes"
are listed in Table C. Volume values are rounded.
Peak Hour Turninci Movements. Turning volumes were collected
for the peak two-hour a.m. period (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) and
• p.m. period (4:00 to 6:00 p.m.) at the following 19
intersections:
•
•
Hermosa Avenue at Pier Avenue;
Monterey Boulevard at Pier Avenue;
Valley Drive at Herondo, 2nd Street, 8th
Avenue, 24th Street and Gould Avenue;
Ardmore Avenue at 2nd Street, 8th
Avenue, 21st Street and Gould Avenue;
Pacific Coast Highway at Herondo Street, 2nd Street,
8th Street, Pier Avenue, 21st Street and Gould
Avenue.
Street, Pier
Street, Pier
These turning volume counts represent average
• movements during the peak hours.
•
55
summer turning
Traffic Growth Rate.. Estimated traffic volumes in the build-
out year of 1997 assumed a uniform growth rate of three percent
per year. This rate is considered appropriate for densely
developed areas where growth is limited by available space, and
the primary roadway serving the area (here Pacific Coast
Highway) is already operating at or near capacity during
extended a.m. and p.m. peak periods. This rate is based on
the average annual daily traffic history on Pacific Coast
Highway shown below:
South of North of
Year Aviation Pier
1986 46,000 50,000
1985 46,000 50,000
1984 35,000 39,000
1983 39,000 39,000
1982 35,000 35,500
1977 34,000 38,000
1976 33,000 37,000
1975 33,000 37,000
Source: ASL Consulting Engineers
This three percent traffic growth rate is assumed to reflect
increases in traffic due to regional and local population
growth (cumulative growth) and Related Projects.
Table D shows existing (1987) summer average daily traffic
estimates for the build -out year (1997). It also shows
expected daily traffic from the proposed Project and the impact
percentage contributed to 1997 background traffic.
2. Existinct Parking
There are three existing parking areas on Parcel 9 in the
proposed Project Area. The first is a dirt, public parking
area located south of Pier Avenue across from City Hall with
access from Valley Drive. This dirt area is unmarked and also
is utilized as an extension of the jogging trail. If an
appropriate width is subtracted for the jogging trail, there is
room to park two rows of cars at a 90 degree orientation with a
26 foot two-way aisle between. If a stall width is assumed to
be 9 feet, then this lot which is approximately 600 feet in
length could accommodate approximately 130 automobiles (plus or
minus 10 automobiles).
The second parking area is located on Valley Drive south of
11th Street. This lot provides 9 perpendicular on -street
parking spaces designated for use by City vehicles. The third
area is comprised of 50 angled, paved parking stalls on Valley
56
•
i
•
a
1 0 • • +1 • 0 0 1 • •
Source: ASL Consulling Engineers
L LOCAL AND DIRECT ACCESS
REGIONAL,
c,��cx;t<atc�
�`nchez `�`11°O I
is ryyhi.l Yui.
ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
Environmental Impact Report
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
EXHIBITS
COAST
MONTEREY BLVD.
LEGEND
MOAT 35N
SATURDAY u
ASL Consulting Engineers
M%ADINA • SAMTA AMA t PALM SPRINGS
•
•
•
EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
•
r
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
TABLE C
EXISTING SUMMER DAILY VOLUMES
Vehicles per Dav
Street Location Friday Saturday
Longfellow
Btwn Pacific Coast Hiway & Ardmore 800 660
Gould Avenue
East of Pacific Coast Hiway 28,900 29,500
Btwn Pacific Coast Hiway & Ardmore 12,900 12,800
West of Valley 8,400 9,100
21st Street
Btwn Pacific Coast Hiway & Ardmore 2,300 1,750
16th Street
Btwn Pacific Coast Hiway & Ardmore 2,270 2,540
Pier
Btwn Pacific Coast Hiway & Ardmore 19,500 20,800
With Out Valley (East Bound) 10,200 9,900
8th Street
Btwn Pacific Coast Hiway & Ardmore 4,830 4,970
2nd Street
Btwn Pacific Coast Hiway & Ardmore 3,000 2,800
Btwn Ardmore & Valley 3,000 3,150
With Out Valley 4,600 4,500
Herondo
With Out Valley 15,200 14,600
Hermosa
Btwn 8th & 7th 17,500 No Data
Valley
North of Gould 9,100 7,250
Btwn Gould & 21st 6,400 4,850
Btwn Pier & 8th 6,750 5,200
Btwn 8th & 2nd (South Bound) 5,600 3,850
Ardmore
North of Gould 8,500 5,850
Btwn Gould & 21st 7,280 5,450
Btwn Pier & 8th 5,100 3,800
Btwn 8th & 2nd 3,200 2,550
Source: ASL Consulting -Engineers
• 59
Drive north of 8th Street. These stalls also are contiguous
to Valley Drive and are effectively on -street parking stalls.
These 50 spaces are signed for 12 -hour parking with what
appears to be City signage.
3. Existing Pedestrian Circulation
The general direction of pedestrian movement in the City of
Hermosa Beach is to the beach area, along the beach strand, and
to commercial facilities, schools, parks and residences.
Sidewalks are present throughout the City. Sidewalks across
from the Project Area on Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue are
narrow and frequently impeded by telephone poles, trees, and
utility structures. There are no sidewalks within the Project
Area.
Parcel 4 has two onsite jogging trails running north and south
which are frequently used by pedestrians. There are small worn
paths created by pedestrian traffic. Movement is across the
Parcel from west to east and from east to west.
Parcel 6 has two jogging trails running north and south. These
trails are frequented by pedestrians. A driveway entrance off
of Valley Drive is used for pedestrian access to the site and
to Valley Drive. This driveway was formerly used by
maintenance crews for the railroad.
Parcel 7 has two jogging trails running north and south which
are frequented by pedestrians. No additional paths have been
created by pedestrian use.
Parcel 8 has two jogging trails running north and south which
converge into one trail at Fifteenth Street. These trails are
frequented by pedestrians. From Valley Drive near Valley Vista
School, a winding unpaved"trail has been created by pedestrians
coming from Valley Drive, up the slope, then over to Ardmore
Avenue.
Parcel 9 has one jogging trail which splits into two trails at
Tenth Street. Most of this Parcel is used for parking.
Parcel 10 has one jogging trail. There are steps leading
toward the trail at Sixth Street and across from the
International Bilingual School. This trail is not improved.
Parcel 12 has one unimproved jogging trail. There are stairs
leading to the site from Valley Drive.
The unimproved jogging trail on Parcel 12 continues on Parcel
13 ending at Herondo Avenue.
60
•
•
TABLE D
1997 AVERAGE SUMMER DAILY TRAFFIC
J.
STREET/ EXIST. FUTURE PROJECT FUME PROJECT
LOCATION ADT ADT W/0 ADT ADT V/ ADT %
PROJECT PROJECT
LONGFELOW
STUN PCN AND ARDMORE
800 1075 0 1075 0
GOULD AVENUE
E/O PCN 28900 38839 1072 39911 3
BTWN PCH AND ARDMORE 12900 17336 38 17374 0
W/0 VALLEY 8400 11289 748 12037 6
21ST STREET
SUN PCN AND ARDMORE 2300 3091 779 3870 20
16TH STREET
BTW PCM AND ARDMORE 2270 3051 0 3051 0
•
PIER
BTW PCN AND ARDMORE 19500 26206 2144 28350 8
W/0 VALLEY 10200 13708 1755 15463 11
8TN STREET
BUN PCN AND AMORE 4830 6491 741 7232 10
2ND STREET
STUN PCN AND ARDMORE 3000 4032 551 4583 12
BTYN ARDMORE AND VALLEY _ 3000 4032 357 4389 8
W/0 VALLEY 4600 6182 311 6493 5
HEROIDO
W/0 VALLEY 15200 20427 443 20870 2
HERMOSA
STUN 8TH AMD 7TM
17500 23518 1470 24988 6
VALLEY
M/0 GOULD 9100 12229 352 12581 3
BUN GOAD AND 21ST 6400 8601 922 9523 10
BTWM PIER AND 8TN 6750 9071 1366 10457 13
STUN 8TN AND 21D 5600 7526 701 8227 9
ARDMORE
N/0 GOULD 8550 11490 1026 12516 8
STUN GOULD AND 21ST 7280 9784 1102 10806 10
STUN PIER AND 8TN 5100 6854 2301 9155 25
STUN 8TM AND 21D 3200 4300 194 4494 4
61
•
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Vehicular
Trip Generation. Trip generation of the proposed Project was
estimated based on trip rates published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation, Third
Edition. These rates provide estimates of average weekday
vehicle trip ends and hourly volumes for a.m. and p.m. peak •
periods for various land uses. Trip ends are the total number
of all vehicular trips entering and exiting a given land use or
building type over a specified period of time. Rates are based
on characteristics of the land use such as building gross
square footage, parcel acreage, number of employees, etc. It
was assumed that the resulting average week day vehicle trip •
ends from the application of ITE rates is an estimate for
average daily traffic that would be generated by the proposed
Project.
Table E shows the ITE average week day vehicle trip end rates
for each Parcel in the Project Area and the resulting daily
trip ends. Roughly 11,410 trip ends are expected to be
generated by the Project (5,705 entering trips and 5,705
exiting trips daily).
•
TABLE E •
ESTIMATED DAILY PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION BY PARCEL
SQ. FT. 24 HOURS
PARCEL LAND USE DUS. TOTAL BOTH DIRECTIONS
NO. & ZONING ROOMS TRIP RATE VEH TRIPS
4 Residential, Single
Family; R-1 38 DUs 10.0 380
6 Residential, Single
Family; R-1 26 DUs 10.0 260
7 Residential, Multi -
Family; R-3 30 DUs 6.1 190
8 General Retail; C 18,295 SF 117.9/1000 2,150
General Office 75,467 SF 17.7/1000 1,340
9 General Retail; C 20,908 SF 117.9/1000 2,470
General Office 165,310 SF 14.3/1000 2,360
10 Residential, Duplex;
R-2 40 DUs 5.2 210
12 Residential, Multi -
Family; R-3 46 DUs 6.1 280
13 General Commercial
(Motel); C-3 175 Rms 10.14 1,770
(100% Cap.)
TOTAL 11,410
Source: ASL Consulting Engineers
•
•
•
•
•
The Project will generate approximately 680 trip ends during
the a.m. peak hour (505 entering and 175 exiting) and 1,170
trip ends during the p.m. peak hour (460 entering and 710
exiting). These are Project trips during the peak hour of
adjacent street traffic, not the peak hour of the generator
(land use). Table F shows the a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip
generation rates used and the resulting Project trip generation
by Parcel.
Trip Distribution. Exhibit 10 shows the distribution of
Project trips on the local roadway network. It was assumed
that 25 percent of Project trips will be oriented to the west,
40 percent to the north, 20 percent to the east and 15 percent
to the south.
Traffic Assignment. Peak hour and daily Project trips were
assigned to the local roadway network based on the above trip
distribution assumptions. Exhibit 11 shows the Project average
daily traffic (ADT) in the major streets within the vicinity of
• the Project. Exhibits 12 and 13 show the Project turning
movement volumes at key intersections within the vicinity of
the Project during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours respectively.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis. To determine the
relative increase in capacity utilization at intersections due
to traffic from the Project Area, the percent Intersection
• Capacity Utilization (ICU) is calculated for traffic conditions
in the year of build -out without the Project and with the
Project. The difference in the two ICU values provides a rough
estimate of the capacity impact of Project traffic. ICUs are
also calculated for the base year (1987) condition for
comparative purposes. For a detailed explanation of the ICU
• analysis with a description of the various levels of service
(LOS) and the ICU calculation sheets, see Appendix B, Part III,
Volume 3A of this Final EIR. Since roadway capacity is
generally limited by the ability to move vehicles through
intersections, the ICU method is the primary tool used to
evaluate vehicular traffic impacts of a project. An acceptable
• or design range of ICU for urban conditions is generally
considered that associated with level of service "D" (ICU
between 0.81-0.90). Of course ICUs of less than 0.81
corresponding to the "better" levels of service "C", "B" and
"A" are desirable. (See Table G, Level of Service Description,
for range of ICUs for urban conditions.)
Tables H and I show the results of the ICU analysis for the
intersections in the study area that are expected to be
impacted by traffic from the proposed Project. Table H
summarizes ICU analysis results for the a.m. peak hour and
Table I the p.m. peak hour.
Existing Conditions. 'The analysis shows that under existing
conditions (1987), intersections within the vicinity of the
•
•
• 63
Project are generally providing an acceptable theoretical level
of service with the exception of Pacific Coast Highway
intersections during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, and
Valley Drive and Gould Avenue during the p.m. peak hour.
During the a.m. peak hour, the Pacific Coast Highway
intersections of Herondo, Pier and Gould are at or above
capacity. During the p.m. peak hours, all Pacific Coast
Highway intersections operate at LOS "E" or "F". In the a.m.,
most Pacific Coast Highway intersections benefit from the
additional northbound through lane created by peak period
parking restrictions on the east side of the highway. This
parking restriction is not in force during the p.m. which
significantly reducing capacity and results in slightly higher
p.m. volumes and lower levels of service during the p.m.
period.
Existing vs. Future (1997) Conditions Without Project.
Increases in traffic volumes due to regional growth and new
development in the City will have varying effects on
intersections in the vicinity of the Project. During the a.m.
peak hour, the intersections of Hermosa and Pier, Valley and
Herondo and Ardmore and Gould are expected to decrease to LOS
from "B" to "D". However, based on previously cited
criteria, these are "acceptable" levels of service. During the
p.m. peak hour at the intersections of Hermosa and Pier and
Ardmore and Pier, a reduction in LOS from "B" to "D" is also
expected. At the Ardmore and Gould intersection, LOS decreases
from "C" to "E".
The impact of future traffic volumes on Pacific Coast Highway
intersections differ in nature from the previously discussed
locations, primarily because this roadway is currently
operating at capacity (LOS "E"), or under "worse than capacity"
conditions (LOS "F"). Increases in demand push any of the
intersections on Pacific Coast Highway that are currently
operating at LOS "D" or "E" during the a.m. peak to LOS "F".
Currently, all intersections on Pacific Coast Highway, except
Herondo and Eighth, operate at LOS "F" during the p.m. peak
hour. Thus, future growth will not make a difference in their
LOS, but will lengthen the period of this LOS "F" peak
condition.
Future (1997) vs. Future with Project. Table H shows that the
proposed Project is expected to decrease LOS at only three
intersections during the a.m. peak hour: Valley at Second
(from "B" to "C"); Valley at Pier (from "A" to "B"); and
Ardmore at Pier (from "A" to "B"). Thus, despite significant
increases in the ICU values (increases as much as 10 percent),
this demonstrates.that the proposed Project is expected to have
a minimal impact on a.m. peak period LOS and that conditions
will generally remain "acceptable."
The analysis shows a different result for the p.m. peak period,
where the ICU's increase from two to nine percent. This
64
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
increase affects the LOS of intersections in three ways. In
the first group, the LOS of intersections remain the same
despite a significant increase in ICU. For example, Project
traffic at Ardmore and Eighth increases the ICU from 0.48 to
0.57 (9 percent) but the LOS remains unchanged at "A." In the
second group, the LOS changes but stays in the acceptable range
("D" or better). This is the case for Monterey at Pier, Valley
at 24th and Ardmore at 21st. The third classification of
change includes the grouping of intersections with LOS "E" or
"F" with and without Project traffic. Gould at Ardmore has a
LOS "E" with and without the Project. All Pacific Coast
Highway intersections and the intersection of Gould at Valley
have LOS "F" in both cases.
Project traffic on the Pacific Coast Highway intersections
during the p.m. peak hour will theoretically increase the ICU
value from values already over 1.00. Increases in ICU values
already over 1.00 are really not meaningful in relation to
intersection capacity, as they do not have the ability to
accommodate any more traffic. Volume increases pushing the ICU
over 1.00 or increasing it from a value greater than 1.00
identify increased demand for the intersection and would
theoretically increase the duration of the LOS "F" condition
(i.e. increase the duration of the peak period).
Traffic Signal Warrants. Traffic signal warrants used by the
State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) are
used to justify installation of a traffic signal at any given
location. Consideration should be given to signal installation
if any one of the warrants are satisfied. Caltrans' Traffic
Manual states that the decision to install a signal should not
be based on the fulfillment of warrant criteria alone. Delay,
congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right
of way assignment must be shown. Caltrans uses two sets of
warrants. One set is applied to actual traffic conditions,
i.e. existing vehicular and pedestrian traffic volumes and
accident data. The other set is used only for new
intersections or intersections where actual traffic volumes
cannot be counted.
Caltrans warrants were used to identify the proposed Project's
impact on the need to consider traffic signal installation at
the Gould Avenue, Pier Avenue, 8th Street and 2nd Street
intersections of Valley Drive and Gould Avenue, Pier Avenue,
and 8th Street at Ardmore Avenue. Based on 1987 daily summer
volumes, at least one warrant is met at the intersection of
Valley Drive at Pier Avenue and the intersection of Ardmore
Avenue at Pier Avenue. A signal does not appear to be
warranted at the other intersections based on present
conditions. However, intersection operation characteristics
that were not addressed as part of this study such as accident
history and delay may support the need for signalization at
these intersections, as -well as further supporting the need at
the two Pier Avenue intersections. In 1997, increasing traffic
• 65
TABLE F
ESTIMATED PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION BY PARCEL
PARC
ZONING NO.
AND USE
PEAK NOUR PERIODS
SQUARE FOOTAGE,
DUELLING UNITS, ENTERING EXITING
ROOMS TRIP RATE VEN TRIPS TRIP RATE VEN TRIPS
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
OP 1 OPEN SPACE NOT A PART
OP 2 OPEN SPACE NOT A PART
OP 3 OPEN SPACE NOT A PART
R-1 4 RESIDENT, SINGLE FAMILY 38 DU 0.21 0.63 10 25 0.55 0.37 20 15
OP 5 OPEN SPACE NOT A PART
R-1 6 RESIDENT, SINGLE FAMILY 26 DU 0.21 0.63 5 15 0.55 0.37 15 10
R-3 7 RESIDENT, MULTIFAMILY -30 DU 0.10 0.40 5 15 0.40 0.20 10 S
C- 8 GENERAL RETAIL 18,295 SF 0.91 5.77 15 105 0.80 5.81 15 105
GENERAL OFFICE 75,467 SF 1.45 0.19 110 15 0.25 1.14 20 85
C- 9 GENERAL RETAIL 20,908 SF 0.91 5.77 20 120 0.80 5.81 15 120 40
GENERAL OFFICE 165,310 SF 1.45 0.44 240 75 0.25 1.76 40 290
R-2 10 RESIDENT DUPLEX 40 DU 0.07 0.37 5 15 0.37 0.18 15 10
OP 11 OPEN SPACE NOT A PART
R-3 12 RESIDENT, MULTI -FAMILY 46 OU 0.10 0.40 5 20 0.40 0.20 20 10
C-3 13 GENERAL COMMERCIAL (MOTEL) 175 ROOMS/(100% 0.50 0.31 90 55 0.26 0.34 5 60
CAPACITY)
•
•
•
•
TOTAL SOS 460 175 710
•
66
• 0 0 0 • • 0 • 0 • 0
J
PACIFIC
COAST
AVIATION
BLVD.i
10
I
a
i
a
9
10
1-
e
/2
F
N
W
4A re-'..
MONTEREY BLVD. eZ
HERMOS \
Ave.
-----1 V----
ASL Consulting Engineers
PIISACIP411 • SAMWA A I • RUM SPRINGS
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
IIIIMMINIIIIMNININIM
AMUR
io
COAST
.,•1016 it 671 949
I17110. Una. 1047
808 x840
708 528`
ASL Consulting Engineers
P•SAQ#A • SANTA ANA • PAL 41 SPRINGS
PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
al
0
r
• S • • • • •
J
W
0
.J
J
IL
0
0001 r0
J1\ I\I
IJ
• N... -T0 0_..• ` 0
00 — —130 Tor f 130
O 1' I- • 001 r 10
I//
•
0
lI
AVIATION
BIVO.
COAST
10
00 -
0
`13•
0101- 00
0li•'
0 0 0
s
000 °°/ /. VA1S
•
t
1-
t
N
40
0
000
• 0
h ool•�1I1,�•
— 00 •0+ +18
30 40 p- as
li
30 + �- l0
8
10 —
0 0 0
01.01
000 00
.30 1
20 +
1
a
0
00 -+- — 40
1 _-0•
l l r
DR.
cc
d
MONTEREY
♦0
00+ .0- 10
• 1I(f�
l
1
AO
0-I 0 0J •
20 - 10 70 + F ••
t0 r 10 • -, ,-11•
1r 1
0
30 `
0-
0
BLVD.
HERMOSA AVE.
1Ir
00
.
0
8
0
W
0
00-
00
30"I
20
30 —
ASL Consulting Engineers
P0540E/08 • SANTA ANA • 1'OL18 SPRINGS
PROJECT TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES
P.M. PEAK
18x>i9 LS
1
• • • •
• • •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
TABLE G
LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS
Level of
Service
Traffic Quality
Nominal Range
A
Low volumes; high speeds; speed not
restricted by other vehicles; all
signal cycles clear with no vehicles
waiting, through more than one signal
cycle.
0.00-0.60
B
Operating speeds beginning to be
affected by other traffic; between
one and ten percent of the signal
cycles have one or more vehicles
which wait through more than one
signal cycles during peak traffic
periods.
0.61-0.70
C
Operating speeds and maneuverability
closely controlled by other traffic;
between.11 and 30 percent of the sig-
nal cycles have one or more vehicles
which wait through more than one sig-
nal cycle during peak traffic periods
periods; recommended ideal design
standards.
0.71-0.80
D
Tolerable operating speeds; 31 to 70
percent of the signal cycles have one
or more vehicles which wait through
more than one signal cycle during
peak traffic periods; often used as
design standard in urban areas.
0.81-0.90
•
E
Capacity; the maximum traffic volume
an intersection can accommodate; re-
stricted speeds; 71 to 100 percent of
0.91-1.00
' the signal cycles have one or more
vehicles which wait through more than
one signal cycle during peak traffic
periods.
F
Long queues of traffic; unstable
Not
flow; stoppages of long duration;
traffic volume and traffic speed can
drop to zero; traffic volume will be
less than the volume which occurs at
Meaningful
Level of service E.
(a) ICU (Intersection Capacity Utilization) at various Level of
service versus level of service E for urban arterial streets.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Highway Research Board Special
Report 87, National Academy of Sciences, Washington D.C.,
1965.
71
•
TABLE H
ICU ANALYSIS - A.M. PEAK HOUR (7:00-8:00) •
EXISTING
INTERSECTIONS CONDITIONS
V/C LOS
FUTURE FUTURE Y/
CONDITIONS DEVELOPMENT
V/C LOS V/C LOS
HERMOSA AVE/
PIER AVE
MONTEREY BLVD/
PIER AVE
VALLEY DRIVE/
HERNONDO ST
2ND ST
8TH ST
PIER AVE
24TH ST
GOULD AVE
ARDMORE AVE/
2ND ST
8TH ST
PIER AVE
21ST ST
GOULD AVE
PCH (SR -1)/
HERNONDO ST
2ND ST
8TH ST
PIER AVE
21ST ST
GOULD AVE
0.66 B 0.85 D
0.41 A
0.64 B
0.54 A
0.40 A
0.44 A
0.39 A
0.51 A
0.25 A
0.36 A
0.46 A
0.37 A
0.68 8
1.01 F
0.84 D
0.83 D
0.99 E
0.73 C
1.09 F
72
0.52 A
0.81 D
0.70 B
0.50 A
0.56 A
0.47 A
0.65 B
0.30 A
0.45 A
0.59 A
0.45 A
0.87 0
1.31 F
1.08 F
1.07 F
1.27 F
0.91 E
1.42 F
L.
0.89 D
0.54 A
0.82 D
0.72 c
0.55 A
0.61 B
0.50 A
0.68 B
0.30 A
0.46 A
0.66 B
0.55 A
0.89 D
1.32 F
1.10 F
1.09 F
1.30 F
0.95 E
1.45 F
•
•
•
•
•I
•
TABLE I
• ICU ANALYSIS - P.M. PEAK HOUR (5:00-6:00)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
EXISTING FUTURE FUTURE W/
INTERSECTIONS CONDITIONS CONDITIONS DEVELOPMENT
V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS
HERMOSA AVE/
PIER AVE 0.69 8
MONTEREY BLVD/
PIER AVE 0.47 A
VALLEY DRIVE/
HERNONDO ST 0.46 A
2ND ST 0.55 A
8TH ST 0.33 A
PIER AVE 0.62 8
24TH ST 0.56 A'
GOULD AVE 1.05 F
ARDMORE AVE/
2ND ST 0.23 A
8TH ST 0.38 A
PIER AVE 0.65 8
21ST ST 0.58 A
GOULD AVE 0.72 C
PCH (SR -1)/
HERNONDO ST 0.95 E
2N0 ST 1.05 F
8TH ST 0.97 E
PIER AVE 1.02 F
21ST ST 1.03 F
GOULD AVE 1.12 F
0.90 0
0.59 A
0.56 A
0.70 C
0.41 A
0.80 C
0.70 8
1.38 F
0.26 A
0.48 A
0.85 0
0.74 C
0.91 E
1.24 F
1.37 F
1.25 F
1.34 F
1.32 F
1.48 F
73
0.95 E
0.64 8
0.58 A
0.74 C
0.49 A
0.89 D
0.73 C
1.41 F
0.30 A
0.57 A
0.93 E
0.80 D
0.96 E
1.26 F
1.39 F
1.33 F
1.38 F
1.37 F
1.53 F
volumes, due to regional growth and the subject Project, will
add to the need to signalize both Valley Drive at Pier Avenue
and Ardmore Avenue at Pier Avenue.
Warrants for future signals were applied to these intersections
for conditions in 1997 with and without the proposed
development. Based on these warrants, it is likely that, in
addition to signalizing Pier Avenue at both Valley Drive and
Ardmore Avenue, traffic signals will be required at Gould
Avenue, 8th Street and Herondo Street at build -out if the
Valley/Ardmore couplet mitigation measure that is discussed
later is implemented. Warrants based on existing traffic
conditions should be examined near the time of build -out to
substantiate the need for signalization at any given
intersection.
Project Access. Access to the residential parcels of the
proposed Project is expected to be similar to that currently
existing along the easterly and westerly frontages of Ardmore
Avenue and Valley Drive, respectively. Individual driveways
will serve single family homes, duplexes and small apartment
buildings. The result will be numerous driveways along Valley
Drive and Ardmore Avenue serving from one to approximately five
households each.
The narrow 100 -foot width of the Right -of -Way would prohibit
the construction of a common internal drive or roadway.
Both Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue are generally 24 to 25 -
feet wide curb -to -curb with the exception of the reach of
Valley Drive north of Pier Avenue where the width is 30 feet
curb -to -curb. Generally, these two roadways are striped with a
skip stripe centerline located about 10 -feet from the curb
adjoining the Right -of -Way, which results in a 14- to 15 -foot
distance from the other curb to the "centerline" stripe. This
"lane" in most locations accommodates on -street parallel
parking as well as the travel lane. The 14- to 15 -foot width
allows vehicles turning right from the existing driveways and
side streets to enter the street without encroaching in the
opposing travel lane.
The existing levels of service on both Valley Drive and Ardmore
Avenue are substantially affected by the left turning
movements. Placement of new driveways on the west side of
Ardmore Avenue and the east side of Valley Drive will add a
substantial number of turning movements to each roadway. Where
today midblock turning movements are limited to one side of the
street, the proposed Project will generate opposing turning
movements to and from the area between Valley Drive and Ardmore
Avenue.
For example, a motorist turning into a driveway from southbound
Ardmore Avenue slows to begin the turn and may be required to
stop and yield to opposing traffic. Northbound vehicles also
74
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
slow to make right turns into driveways and at "T"
intersections of side streets. This slowing and stopping is a
major capacity constraint on these two collector streets during
peak periods. Placement of driveways on the west side of
Ardmore Avenue and/or the east side of Valley Drive to serve
the proposed Project will not only decrease the existing level
of service on Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue due to the
increased traffic volumes, but more importantly will more than
double the amount of turning movements.
2. Parking Impacts
Development of Parcel 9 will displace three existing parking
areas. All totaled, the Project will displace a parking supply
of approximately 190 spaces. The elimination of this parking
supply will have a significant effect on the overall parking
supply and demand in the vicinity of City Hall and for beach
goers.
In accordance with City Ordinance No. 85-720 regarding off-
street parking, development under the proposed Project would
require the following number of on-site parking spaces.
PARCEL
NO.
PARKING REQUIREMENTS
LAND USE
4 Residential
Single -Family
6 Residential
Single -Family
7 Residential
• High -Rise Apartment
8 General Commercial
Shopping Center
9 General Commercial
10 Residential
Low -Rise Apartment
• 12 Residential
High -Rise Apartment
13 Motel
TOTAL PARKING
Source: City of Hermosa Beach
PARKING
SF/DU/ROOMS REOUIRED
38 DU
26 DU
30 DU
93,762 SF
186,218 SF
40 DU
46 DU
175 Rms
114 Spaces
78 Spaces
75 Spaces
376 Spaces
745 Spaces
100 Spaces
115 Spaces
177 Spaces
1,780 SPACES
The proposed Project will have some negative impact on
surrounding parking demand even if parking for the Project is
provided on-site.per City code, the on-site supply for the
Project is more than adequate, and provisions are made to
replace or maintain the existing stall supply near City Hall.
• Existing on -street parking in the vicinity of the Project may
be more convenient to' use than parking on-site. The narrow
width of the Parcels and the density of development permitted
•
75
(particularly on the office and commercial land use Parcels)
will most likely require underground parking or parking in
above ground structures. These types of facilities are often
not used in favor of nearby on -street parking.
3. Pedestrian/Jogcing Trail
The proposed Project will have a significant effect on the
existing jogging and pedestrian trails in the Right -of -Way.
The existing trail provides a unique pedestrian way in that
there are only four intersections where potential pedestrian -
vehicle conflicts exist. With development, vehicular driveways
will be required for access on both Valley Drive and Ardmore
Avenue. Crossing these driveways would significantly detract
from the "level of service" currently afforded pedestrian
users.
4. School Access
There are numerous school crossings on Valley Drive and Ardmore
Avenue throughout the City. Any modification of the roadway
must include placement of traffic control devices for school
area pedestrian safety as described in Chapter 10 of the
Traffic Manual. It is likely that any specific development
proposal for any of the Parcels in the Project Area will
displace pedestrian paths within the Right -of -Way which are
utilized by school children on the way to school and the
approved "safe route to school" crossing at 16th Street. This
displacement could have a significant effect if alternative
"safe routes" are not provided.
C. MITIGATION MEASURES
1. Widening of Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue
To mitigate the Project related traffic impacts on Valley Drive
and Ardmore Avenue, additional roadway width is required. To
accommodate left turns into Project driveways and existing
driveways opposite the Project, a two-way left turn lane should
be provided on each street that terminates as a conventional
left -turn pocket at intersections. This lane should be 10 feet
wide.
Accommodation of exiting right turns from
will require a curb lane adjacent to the
wider than the existing 10 foot lane. It
the additional width be provided by adding
the extra roadway necessary to allow right
site without encroaching into the opposing
utilized. Seven feet is the recommended
lanes on a urban collector street with a
width of 10 feet.
76
the subject Parcels
development that is
is recommended that
a parking lane, thus
turners to exit the
travel lane could be
minimum for parking
minimum travel lane
•
To mitigate the impacts of vehicular access to the Project
Area, a parking lane and a left turn lane should be added to
• both Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue. The resulting typical
section for each road would be two 7 foot parking lanes, two 10
foot through lanes and a 10 foot two-way (or conventional) left
turn lane adding up to 44 feet curb -to -curb. Additionally, a
sidewalk would be required along the property frontage if
parking were allowed on that side of the road. These
• improvements will require increasing the curb -to -curb width on
each of the two roadways by 19 feet. Such widening will
undoubtedly have a significant impact on any development
proposed. It would not be practical to take the additional
roadway width required from the existing development opposite
the Project Area. Existing building setbacks, driveways and
intersections would preclude such widening. Additional road
width will then presumably come from the Project development
land. The Parcel width is 100 feet along most of the Project
Area. Just widening each road to accommodate driveway access
and minimize LOS impact will require 38 feet of the 100 foot
wide Parcels, decreasing the developable area by 38 percent.
• Addition of a sidewalk would require an additional 10 feet.
Such widening would have a significant impact on any specific
development proposed.
Widening both roads also would create a problem at major
intersections. A significant decrease in the Project width
will place Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue closer together at
'• intersections such as Gould Avenue, Pier Avenue, Eighth Street
and Second Street. Any reduction in the distance between
Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue will make proper signalizing at
any of these intersections difficult and will create even more
confusion than exists at present under 4 -way stop control.
• Consideration was given to providing access along only one of
the streets and therefore -widening just one street. This would
concentrate all Project traffic on one street resulting in
almost a 50 percent increase in average daily traffic on one
road. Levels of service at intersections of that street would
be made significantly worse. Mitigation to improve the levels
• of service would necessitate further roadway widening which, as
discussed above, can not practically occur.
2. Conversion of Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue
Into One -Way Couplet
• The solution to practical mitigation of the negative impacts
associated with Project access (and accommodation of Project
traffic volumes) is to convert Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue
from two two-way streets to two one-way streets (a one-way
couplet). Valley Drive and Ardmore are used as a couplet north
of Hermosa Beach in Manhattan Beach. The couplet will
• accommodate existing and future traffic more efficiently, make
the four through intersections easier to control and solve the
Project access problem with a minimum of street widening.
• 77
!
Under the couplet configuration there will be no opposing
traffic conflicting with left turns into driveways. Vehicles
slowing to make such a movement can be passed in the adjacent
through lane. There would be no need for a two-way left turn
lane, however, left turn pockets would be provided at the
through intersections. The curb lane adjacent to the Project
Area would only need to be 12 or 13 feet wide. Right turners
from the Project could use the adjacent through lane to
complete their turn if necessary without potential conflict to
through traffic and without crossing the centerline.
The couplet roadways should be 30 feet curb -to -curb. This
would accommodate one 7 -foot parking lane along the curb
opposite the Project curb, one 10 -foot travel lane adjacent to
the parking lane and one 13 -foot curb lane. With the couplet,
widening generally would be limited to five feet for each
roadway and localized widening for left turn pockets at the
four through intersections. No widening would be required on
Valley Drive north of Pier where the existing width is 30 feet.
Several alternatives were considered for a transition to the
couplet configuration near the south city boundary. To the
north, the roads could simply join the couplet configuration in
Manhattan Beach. But at the south end of the City, Ardmore
Avenue deadends before it reaches Herondo Street. Exhibit 14
shows the existing circulation between Herondo Street and
Eighth Street. Valley Drive is one-way (southbound) between
Second Street and Herondo Street. There are two basic ways to
transition to a couplet north of Eighth Street. The first
alternative leaves the roadway configuration as it is south of
Eighth Street as shown in Exhibit 15. The second alternative
utilizes part of Open Space Parcel 11 and a portion of Parcel
10. This alternative prolongs the couplet (with its access
benefits) to the south "and provides better circulation and
access to land uses in this area of the City. (See Exhibit 16)
There are many variations of these two basic alternatives
dealing with the direction of travel allowed on Valley Drive
between Eighth and Herondo Streets. For instance, two-way
(southbound) traffic could be maintained between Eighth and
Second Streets, with one-way (southbound) maintained between
Second and Herondo Streets. Another configuration would
provide for two-way travel between the southerly end of the
couplet and Herondo Street. Lastly, one-way travel southbound
only could be provided in this same reach.
Under any of these scenarios, sufficient roadway width should
be provided to allow proper access to the Project Parcels and
the existing land uses.
78
r
%
1
ASL Consulting Engineers
MSAO* • SANTA ANA • VAIAA SPRINGS
EXISTING CIRCULATION NEAR
THE SOUTH CITY BOUNDARY
maw
i4
1
0
0
o
131? ARDMOWE
1
I
II
f
Lao.
is
1
1
1
I
1
ASL Consulting Engineers
TRANSITION TO COUPLET - ALTERNATIVE 1
p910044 • SAMA ANA • PALU SPRING$
ErtISLI
15
III
I 11
II
're"
I
I �O• �I 1 11
-I 1--
`l I
.�
I
30
LEGEND
MUM
PROPOSED
ARO
_
• AI<O OIRECTION
Of LAKES _ 2-4mb
II
I II �i I ti
11 I ~� '-i I ;I I I I
I1 1 6 1 1 1 II 1I
IIii 1, Imo. =-_ 11
--I L _I I--"Ru!I-1?-'-\ Il '> I I
= N•\ 1 \
41 I al 1
of i ,
Y'\ JLp3c, i �
<Y\\~�= -Itri-
---
I�
__1
I
*0 I I
s I I
ASL Consulting Engineers
�w�W • SANTAIJN • PALMSPR✓!$
P MAOENA • ANA . SPRINGS
Oft
POSSIBLE FUTURE
SIGNAL
TRANSITION TO COUPLET - ALTERNATIVE 2
If the City considers changing any part of Valley Drive between
Eighth and Herondo Streets to a two-way operation, it should
be widened to the east to provide two through lanes in each
direction with a two-way left turn lane to serve the exiting
driveways on the west side and the proposed land use designated
for Parcel 13. Two-way travel on Valley Drive at Herondo
Street will likely necessitate the construction of a traffic
signal at that location.
Additionally, two-way travel in this segment of Valley Drive
may have a significant impact on general circulation in the
City. Northbound access to Valley Drive or Ardmore Avenue
would create an alternative northbound corridor through the
City (an alternative to Pacific Coast Highway). It is quite
likely that volumes on Valley/Ardmore would increase, while
volumes (at least northbound) on Pacific Coast Highway may
decrease. This may be viewed as creating a more balanced
street system, or increasing commuter intrusion in the
Valley/Ardmore corridor.
3. Capacity Utilization of Valley Drive and
Ardmore Avenue with Couplet
The conversion of Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue to a one-way
couplet will affect the ICU at the four key cross streets. In
initially analyzing ICUs under the "basic" couplet
configuration, it was assumed that two through lanes and a
left -turn pocket would be provided on each Valley Drive and
Ardmore Avenue approach to the intersections of Gould Avenue,
Pier Avenue, Eighth Street and Second Street. Table J below
shows the resulting a.m. and p.m. ICU values and corresponding
levels of service for these four intersections under four
scenarios: 1997 traffic without the development and with and
without the couplet; and 1997 traffic with the development and
with and without the couplet.
The results show that the level of service in the
Valley/Ardmore corridor in 1997 will generally improve with the
construction of the couplet without development traffic.
Vallev/Ardmore at Pier - The development traffic is expected to
increase the ICU at Ardmore and Pier by about 7 percent
(0.85(D) to 0.93(E)) raising the LOS to an unacceptable "E"
without the couplet. Construction of the couplet would
increase the ICU about 3 percent to 0.96. Providing a west -
right lane by creating a p.m. peak period parking restriction
on the north side of Pier, east of Ardmore, will improve the
ICU and the associated level of service to 0.89 (LOS D).
Valley/Ardmore at Eighth and Second Streets - The ICU's for
Eighth Street will be increased by nine percent due to
development in the future, however, LOS's will remain at "A"
with or without the couplet. The Project traffic will increase
the ICU for Second Street by four percent which will lower the
82
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
LOS from "B" to "C." ICU analysis of Eighth and Second Streets
shows that presently the intersections with Valley and Ardmore
• operate at excellent levels of service and are not expected to
degrade significantly in the future. Therefore, no further
mitigation is necessary for these intersections.
Valley/Ardmore at Gould - Presently the intersection of Valley
Drive and Gould Avenue has ICU's higher than 1.00. In the
• future, even though presence of the couplet will decrease the
ICU considerably, it would still be higher than 1.00. Thus,
several mitigation measures are proposed for this intersection.
In order to raise the LOS of "F" to an "E" and to drop the ICU
below 1.00, north and south bound right turn lanes, east and
west bound through lanes and a west -right turn lane should be
• added by utilizing portions of Parcels 2 and 3 (not in the
Project) and widening the north side of Gould east of the
couplet and the south side west of the couplet. These
widenings will require Right -of -Way acquisition.
Mitigation measures were also considered for intersections not
• associated with the couplet. ICU and LOS for various
mitigation measures are shown in Table J.
Pacific Coast Hiahway - During the p.m. peak hour,
intersections are presently operating at an unacceptable level
of service and have ICU's higher than 1.00, except at Herondo
• and Eighth which operate at LOS "E" (ICU equal to 0.97). In
the future, the Project will cause an increase from two to
eight percent in ICU's resulting in all intersections operating
at LOS "F." Several mitigation measures are proposed in order
to decrease ICU's. For Pacific Coast Highway and Second ICU can
drop 31 percent if a south -through lane is added. Adding a
• north -through lane will cause another drop of five percent.
However, these measures will not bring the ICU below 1.00. In
order to add these lanes; parking during the peak period would
have to be prohibited. The negative impacts of the parking
prohibition may not offset the benefit of the reduced ICU.
Again, ICU reduction in the greater -than -1.00 range will not
improve level of service per se.
- Similar mitigation (i.e. elimination of parking during peak
periods) was considered as shown in Table J. Even with
significant reductions in the ICU value, in most cases, the LOS
remained at "F." It is concluded that little can be done to
mitigate the impact of Project traffic on Pacific Coast
• Highway. Development of the Project will result in a slight
increase in the duration of the p.m. peak period.
Hermosa at Pier-- Under 1987 conditions, this intersection
operates at LOS "B" during the p.m. peak hour. In 1997 without
the Project, the LOS drops to "D" (ICU equal to 0.90).
• Addition of Project traffic in 1997 lowers the LOS to "E" (ICU
•
• 83
INTERSECTION
TABLE J
P.M. PEAK HOUR ICU'S WITH MITIGATION
EXISTING 1997 W/0 DEVELOPMENT 1957 W/DEVELOf4ENT
CONDITIONS W/O W/ W/0 W/
MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION MITIGATION
PCN AT 2ND
PCH AT 8TH
PCH AT PIER
PCN AT GOULD
HERMOSA AT PIER
1.05 (F) 1.37 (F) 1.39 (F) 1.08 (F) a
0.97 (E)
1.02 (f)
1.12 (F)
0.69 (B)
a ADD ST LANE
b ADD ST 3 NT LANES
c ADD ST LANE
d ADD BLEND IN ST LANE
e ADD BLEND IN ST LANE
f ADD ER LANE
1.25 (F)
1.34 (f)
1.48 (F)
0.90 (E)
84
1.03 (F) b
1.33 (f) 0.98 (E) c
1.38 (f) 1.19 (F) d
1.53 (F) 1.25 (F) e
0.95 (E) 0.84 (D) f
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0
•
•
0
�.
•
•
•
•
•
equals 0.95). The ICU can be reduced to 0.84 by adding a
east -right lane. Doing so would require the elimination of
on -street parking at the intersection approach. Building
and property constraints limit the addition of capacity to the
elimination of on -street parking (at least during peak
periods).
4. Parking
Parking shall be provided on-site to accommodate the parking
demand for the proposed land uses per City Code and City
requirements at the time specific development is proposed.
Approximately 181 public parking spaces and 9 municipal parking
spaces will be displaced by the development of Parcel 9.
Elimination of this parking supply is expected to have a
significant negative impact on the overall parking supply and
demand in the vicinity of City Hall.
To mitigate this impact, the Project could include a public
parking area as part of Parcel 9 development or at a suitable
alternate location within the immediate vicinity. The amount of
spaces provided should be a function of the utilization of the
existing lot immediately prior to development. Our field
observations on week days and on a summer Sunday indicate that
these lots are not fully utilized. There are no known
alternative sites within the immediate area.
A comprehensive parking study of this vicinity should be
conducted during the development design process to more
accurately determine the impact of removal of this existing
parking supply at build -out.
• 5. Pedestrian/Jogging Trail
The obvious mitigation for the impact of displacement of the
existing jogging trail is to either provide the facility as
part of the development or construct a like facility within the
vicinity of the Project. Neither of these alternatives are
• possible. The existing trail provides a unique pedestrian way
in that there are only 4 intersections where potential
pedestrian -vehicle conflicts exist. With any proposed
development, vehicular driveways will be required for access to
the Project Parcels which will significantly effect the safety
and level of service of joggers and pedestrians users.
• Additionally, providing a trail width and a separation from
vehicular traffic comparable with the existing condition would
leave little room for development on the narrow Parcels. There
is no acceptable mitigation for the displacement of this
facility.
•
• 85
6. School Access
Consideration should be given to the impact displacement of
pedestrian paths within the Right -of -Way will have on childrens
routes to school at the time specific development proposals are
made. Safe alternative routes must be provided. Additionally,
proposed alternative routes should be discussed with the school
district and/or the school safety advisory committee if one
exists. If a "Safe Route to School Plan" exists, it should be
modified accordingly.
7. Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures
Convert Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue to a one-way
couplet street. Widen Valley between Fifth Street
and Herondo Street to accommodate two-way traffic
with two through lanes in each direction with a left
turn lane. Cul-de-sac Ardmore Avenue south of Sixth
Street and extend Fifth Street west to Valley Drive.
Transition Ardmore to meet Valley between Seventh and
Fifth Streets. This recommended transition is
depicted in Exhibit 16.
As part of the couplet construction, widen Valley
Drive and Ardmore Avenue between intersections to
provide a minimum curb -to -curb width of 30 feet. Any
additional right-of-way required to provide this
additional road width should be taken from the
subject Right -of -Way to minimize the impact on
existing land uses. Thirty-foot width provides 12 -
foot No. 1 lane, 11 -foot curb lane and a 7 -foot
parking lane.
As part of the couplet construction, provide
localized widening at intersections on both Valley
and Ardmore to provide left turn pockets (north -left
pockets on Ardmore and south -left pockets on Valley
Drive at the intersections of Gould, Pier, Eighth and
Second. Provide right turn lane/pockets on Valley
Drive and Ardmore Avenue at Pier and Gould. Any
additional right-of-way required to provide these
lanes and/or pockets should be taken from the subject
Right -of -Way to minimize the impact on existing land
uses.
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of
Valley/Ardmore at Pier, Gould and Eighth Street and
Valley and Herondo. Warrant studies should be
conducted near the time of construction to insure
that signals are not unnecessarily constructed.
Provide alternative safe routes to school for school
children walking or riding bicycles to school if
existing routes are displaced or relocated as part of
86
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
a development proposal. Modify "Suggested Route to
School Plan" if one exists. Notify the School
District or School Safety Advisory Committee of any
changes to school access, pedestrian or vehicular.
Conduct a comprehensive parking study during the
Project design process to determine the impact of
removal of approximately 181 public and 9 municipal
parking spaces on Parcel 9. Provide public and
municipal parking to accommodate demand at build -out
not exceeding the existing supply. This parking may
be integrated into the Parcel 9 development or
provided at a suitable off-site location within the
immediate vicinity of Parcel 9, if available.
• 5.4. NOISE
A noise assessment of the proposed Project was performed by
Fred Greve, P.E. of Mestre Greve Associates, consulting
engineers. The following discussion is extracted from that
• study. The full "Noise Assessment for the Atchison, Topeka and
Santa Fe Railroad Right -of -Way EIR, City of Hermosa Beach" is
included in this Final EIR as Appendix C, Part III, Volume 3B.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Community noise levels are measured in terms of the "A -weighted
• decibel," abbreviated dBA. A -weighting is a frequency
correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with
the frequency response of the human ear.
The "equivalent noise level," or Leq is the average noise level
on an energy basis for any specified time period. The Leq for
• one hour is the energy average noise level during the hour,
specifically, the average noise based on the energy content
(acoustic energy) of the sound. It can be thought of as the
level of a continuous noise which has the same energy content
as the fluctuating noise level.
• The predominant rating scale now in use in California for land
use compatibility assessment is the Community Noise Equivalent
Level (CNEL). The CNEL scale represents a time weighted 24
hour average noise level based on the A -weighted decibel. Time
weighting states that noise occurring during certain sensitive
time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. The
• evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) penalizes noise by 5
dBA, while nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) noises are penalized
by 10 dBA. These time periods and penalties were selected to
reflect people's. increased sensitivity to noise during these
time periods. The day -night or Ldn scale is similar to the
CNEL scale, except that evening noises are not penalized.
The City of Hermosa Beach adopted a Noise Element in 1979. The
Noise Element presents noise goals for various land uses in
•
• 87
terms of the "average" noise level. This noise level is
equivalent to the 50 percentile noise level, commonly referred
to as the L50 level. It represents a noise level which is
exceeded 50 percent of the time (and conversely the noise level
is less than the L50 50 percent of the time). State laws
passed in the past few years now require that cities develop
their Noise Elements in terms of the Ldn or CNEL scales. Both
of these scales represent a time weighted 24 hour average
noise, and correlate much better to how people perceive their
noise environment.
The California Department of Health has established guidelines
for assessing the compatibility of community noise environments
and land uses in terms of CNEL. The guidelines are based on
noise sensitivity of a land use. The guidelines indicate that
single family residential is "normally acceptable" with an
outdoor CNEL of 60 dBA or less and "conditionally acceptable"
up to a CNEL of 70 dBA. Multi -family residential is "normally
acceptable" up to 65 CNEL and "conditionally acceptable" up to
70 CNEL. Office buildings are "normally acceptable" up to 70
CNEL and "conditionally acceptable" up to 77.5 CNEL.
The California Noise Insulation Standards require new multi-
family residential construction to be noise insulated so that
interior noise levels do not exceed 45 CNEL. Most cities have
adopted this standard for both single and multi -family
developments along with a 65 CNEL standard for private outdoor
living areas (e.g., rear yards and patio areas). These
standards: 45 CNEL indoors and 65 CNEL outdoors will be used
to evaluate the potential noise impact of the proposed Project
on surrounding residential uses.
The noise environment in the vicinity of the Project Area is
determined by traffic on adjacent roadways. The Project Area
is not subject to significant aircraft- overflights or other
major noise generators.
An estimate of traffic noise levels in terms of CNEL was
computed for the local streets. The Highway Noise Model
published by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA Highway
._ Traffic Noise Prediction Model," FHWA-RD-77-108, December 1978)
was utilized. The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix,
vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent
noise level." A computer code has been written which computes
equivalent noise levels for each of the time periods used in
the• calculation of CNEL. Weighting these noise levels and
summing them results in the CNEL for the traffic projections
used. CNEL contours are found by iterating over many distances
until the distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours are
found. Estimates of existing traffic volumes, estimated
speeds, and truck volumes were used with the FHWWA Model to
estimate existing CNEL noise levels. Distances to CNEL
contours for the roadways serving the project site are given in
88
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
STREET
TABLE K
EXISTING TRAFFIC AND NOISE LEVELS
AVERAGE
DAILY
TRAFFIC
DISTANCE TO CNEL CONTOUR FROM
CENTERLINE OF ROADWAY (FEET)
60 CNEL 65 CNEL 70 CNEL
Valley Drive
North of 20th
20th to Pier
Pier to Eighth
Eighth to Redondo
Ardmore Avenue
North of 20th
20th to Pier
Pier to Eighth
Eighth to Redondo
Pier Avenue
South of Valley
Valley to PCH
North of PCH
Source: Mestre
Table K.
line of
Table K
barriers
B.
7,400
7,400
6,660
6,600
7,665
7,665
4,960
4,960
16,400
13,700
17,680
Greve Associates
94
94
88
88
96
96
72
72
129
114
135
44
44
41
41
45
45
33
33
60
53
63
20
20
19
19
21
21
16
16
28
25
29
These values represent the distance from the center -
the road to the contour value shown. Values given in
do not take into account the effect of any noise
that may affect ambient noise levels.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Construction Activities
Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient
noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment
including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers, and
portable generators can reach high levels. The greatest
potential for problems exist in residential areas adjacent to
the Project Area. Construction equipment noise is controlled
by the Environmental Protection Agency's Noise Control Program
(Part 204 of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations). Air
compressors are the only equipment under strict regulation. No
new regulations are currently under consideration.
Some equipment noise will impact residential areas adjacent to
the Project Area. Noise levels for equipment which might be
used for the excavation and construction of the proposed
Project are presented in Exhibit 17. Note that noise levels
• 89
EXHIBIT 17
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE
Compact (rollers)
Front loaders
Backhoes
Tractors
Scrapers, graders
Pavers
Trucks
Concrete mixers
Concrete puns
Cranes (movable)
Cranes (derrick)
Pumps
Generators
Compressors
Pneumatic wrenches
Jackhammers and drills
Pile drivers (peak levels)
Vibrators
Saws
60
A -Weighted Sound Level (dM) at 50 feet
Source: "Handbook of Noise Control,"
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
90
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
EV eo 90 100 110
mumameimmeme
Ems
90
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
presented are for a distance of 50 feet, and that such levels
• decrease at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of
distance. Thus, at 100 feet the noise levels will be about 6
dBA less than reported in Exhibit 17. Similarly, at 200 feet
the noise levels would be 12 dBA less than indicated in the
Exhibit. Intervening structures or topography can act as a
noise barrier and reduce noise levels further.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2. Vehicular Traffic
The proposed Project, if developed, would generate traffic,
which may alter noise levels in surrounding areas. To assess
the impact of the Project on land uses adjacent to streets that
will serve the Project, increases in roadway noise along these
streets were determined. These roadways were modeled for
future traffic conditions and compared to existing noise
levels. The "With Project" case represents the increase in
noise levels over existing levels directly attributable to the
Project. The "Cumulative -Plus -Project" case represents the
increase in noise levels over existing levels due to the
Project plus other development planned in the area and
anticipated to be developed by the year 2010. The projected
increases in the CNEL noise levels are presented in Table L.
The study upon which these estimates are based was prepared in
December 1986 on the smaller scale project assessed in the
Draft EIR. That project was expected to generate 7,680 daily
trip ends. The increased intensity of the proposed Project is
expected to generate approximately 11,400 daily trip ends,
which is a 48 percent increase over the project of the Draft
EIR. The previous report also estimated traffic volumes using
a growth rate of 1/2 percent per year for future conditions in
the year 2010 based on peak hour traffic counts. The traffic
volumes estimated in the new study for the proposed Project in
this Final EIR are based on 24-hour counts with an assumed 3
percent cumulative growth rate for future conditions in 1997.
The traffic consultant has stated that the future volumes used
in the new study are probably more accurate. In light of these
differences in the Project description, methodology and
resulting traffic volumes, the CNEL noise levels presented in
Table L would increase comparable to traffic increases.
Changes in noise levels greater than 3 dBA are often considered
significant. Changes of less than 1 dBA are not discernible to
local residents. In the range of 1 to 3 dBA residents who are
very sensitive to noise may perceive a slight change. No
scientific evidence is available to support the use of 3 dBA
as the significance threshold. In laboratory testing situations
humans are able to detect noise level changes of slightly less
than 1 dBA. However, in a community noise situation the noise
exposure is over a long time period, and changes in noise
levels occur over years, rather than the immediate comparison
made in a laboratory situation. Therefore, the level at which
changes in community noise levels become discernible is likely
• 91
•
to be some value greater than 1 dBA, and 3 dBA appears to be
appropriate for most people. The Project individually, may not
generate sufficient traffic to significantly affect the noise
environment alone, but when Project traffic is added to
background and growth traffic, it is anticipated that a
cumulatively significant effect in the area will result.
3. Noise Levels On -Site
Traffic volumes reported in the traffic study of December 1986
were used with the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Model to project
future unmitigated noise levels for the roadways that will
impact the Project Area. The traffic volumes used are
presented in Table M. These volumes represent cumulative -plus -
project traffic conditions (year 2010). The modeling results
also are reported in Table M for the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL
contours. These projections do not take into account barriers
or topography that may reduce noise levels. The noise contour
data indicates that those portions of the Project Area closest
to Ardmore Avenue and Valley Drive would experience noise
levels of approximately 70 CNEL. The noise levels decrease
lightly to about 67 CNEL at the interior portions of the site.
The residential land uses proposed would fall into the
"conditionally acceptable" category according to the
California Land Use Guidelines. As explained in subsection B.2
above, the noise level projections shown in Table M were based
on average daily traffic for a smaller scale project than that
the Project described in this Final EIR. Thus, the impact on
noise levels from future traffic volumes shown in Table M would
increase in proportion to the increase in traffic for the
proposed Project. For example, ADT on Valley Drive North of
20th is shown in Table M as 9,850 and in the current traffic
report as 12,580; on Valley Drive from Pier to 8th as 8,820
(Table M) and 10,460 (curent report); on Ardmore Avene North of
20th as 10,195 (Table "M) and 12,520 (current report); on
Ardmore Avenue from Pier to 8th as 7,165 (Table M) and 9,115
(current report); and on Pier Avenue from Valley to Pacific
Coast Highway as 16,600 (Table M) and 28,350 (current report).
New construction should be undertaken only after a detailed
analysis of the noise reduction requirement is made and needed
noise insulation features are included in the design.
Conventional construction with closed windows and fresh air
supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice to
achieve acceptable indoor noise levels. For exterior noise
levels, sound walls or other forms of noise barriers will be
required to achieve an acceptable exterior noise level of 65
CNEL.
The commercial uses proposed are "normally acceptable" for the
projected noise environment. Mitigation Measures will not be
required for these land uses.
92
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
TABLE L
INCREASE IN CNEL NOISE LEVELS OVER EXISTING LEVELS (DBA)
INCREASE IN NOISE LEVEL
STREET WITH PROJECT CUMULATIVE + PROJECT
Valley Drive
North of 20th 0.8 1.2
20th to Pier 0.7 1.2
Pier to 8th 0.8 1.2
8th to Redondo 0.4 0.8
Ardmore Avenue
North of 20th
20th to Pier
Pier to 8th
8th to Redondo
Pacific Coast Highway
Gould to Pier
Pier to Redondo
Pier Avenue
South of Valley
Valley to PCH
North of PCH
0.8
0.9
1.2
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.2
Source: Mestre Greve Associates
• 93
1.2
1.3
1.6
1.1
0.6
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.7
TABLE M
FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND NOISE LEVELS
STREET
AVERAGE DISTANCE TO CNEL CONTOUR FROM
DAILY CENTERLINE OF ROADWAY (FEET)
TRAFFIC (ADT) 60 CNEL 65 CNEL 70 CNEL
Valley Drive
North of 20th 9,850 114 53 25
20th to Pier 9,660 112 52 24
Pier to 8th 8,820 106 49 23
8th to Redondo 8,085 100 46 21
Ardmore Avenue
North of 20th 10,195 116 54 25
20th to Pier 10,370 118 55 25
Pier to 8th 7,165 92 43 20
8th to Redondo 6,430 86 40 18
Pier Avenue
South of Valley 19,475 144 67 31
Valley to PCH 16,600 130 60 28
North of PCH 20,665 150 70 32
C. MITIGATION MEASURES
Existing City policies requiring that all construction
activities shall be limited to the hours of 8 a.m. to 7
p.m. Monday through Sunday shall be implemented.
All construction and development occurring in the Project
Area shall comply with the requirements of all City
General Plan Elements, Codes, ordinances and other
regulations.
Second story balconies should not overlook major roadways
due to potential noise impacts.
Noise barriers with heights ranging from 6 to 8 feet
should be required. These noise barriers could be a berm,
wall or a combination berm and wall. Wall barriers should
contain no holes or gaps, and should be constructed of
slumpstone or other masonry material. Final noise barrier
heights and design should be determined when final
grading plans are developed that show lot locations,
setbacks, and precise pad elevations.
94
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
All houses should be required to have closeable windows
and mechanical ventilation (or air conditioning) to
replace the loss of natural ventilation.
Prior to the issuance of any building permits, an
acoustical engineering study should be prepared based on
actual pad, property, roadway grades, building locations,
and orientation to assure that noise impacts do not exceed
50 CNEL for interior areas of office buildings, 55 CNEL
for interior areas of retail/commercial establishments.
Prior to occupancy of any residential unit or hotel/motel,
an acoustical engineering study should be prepared to
demonstrate that noise impacts do not exceed 65 CNEL for
outside living areas and active recreation areas and 45
CNEL for interior living areas.
Any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators
should be screened from view and should be sound
attenuated so as to not exceed 55 dBA at the property
line.
As a condition of project approval, residential units
which are located inside the 65 CNEL contour and have any
partial view of the impacted roadways (Pier Avenue,
Valley Drive, Ardmore Avenue) should be mitigated to
experience outdoor noise levels of less than 65 CNEL and
indoor noise levels of less than 45 CNEL. Specific
provisions should be determined prior to obtaining any
grading permit and should be installed in accordance with
alternative design methods and recommendations outlined
in a project specific acoustical engineering study.
D. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
On a cumulative basis, the proposed Project would contribute to
vehicular noise in the vicinity of the Project Area which could
significantly adversely impact the noise environment.
Construction activities would result in short-term significant
effects on the noise environment. Implementation of mitigation
measures and City policies and requirements should reduce the
on-site environmental impacts to a level of insignificance
after completion of development.
5.5. AIR QUALITY
The Air Quality Impact Analysis was prepared by Hans.D. Giroux,
Consultant, Meteorology and Air Quality, in November 1986. The
following discussion is a summary of that analysis. The full
Air Quality Impact Analysis is included in this Final EIR as
Appendix D, Part III, Volume 3B.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
General Climate. The climate of Hermosa Beach is controlled by
the semi-permanent high pressure center near Hawaii and the
• 95
•
moderating effects of the nearby oceanic heat reservoir.
Climatic conditions are characterized by cool summers, mild
winters, frequent morning coastal stratus clouds, infrequent
rainfall from late fall to early spring, and moderate onshore
breezes. Unfortunately, these same conditions combine to
severely restrict the ability of the local airshed to disperse
air pollutants generated by the large population attracted by
the climate. Hermosa Beach is protected from the worst of the
air pollution problems by daily sea breezes that bring clean
air onshore and blow air pollutants inland. However,
recirculation of polluted air and the incomplete ventilation of
the basin cause smog alerts even in coastal communities.
Dispersion Meteorolocty. Two meteorological parameters are
important in assessing the air quality impacts of changing
patterns of emissions in the Hermosa Beach area. These two
elements are the winds which control the rate and trajectory of
horizontal transport and vertical stability structure
(inversions) which controls the vertical depth through which
pollutants are mixed. Winds across Hermosa Beach are markedly
bimodal with a strong onshore component by day which is
strongest in summer and a weak offshore component which is
strongest in winter when nights are long and the land becomes
cooler than the ocean. The net effect of this wind pattern is
that daytime air pollution emissions from near the Project Area
are carried inland toward downtown Los Angeles and then they
diverge into the eastern San Fernando Valley and the western
San Gabriel Valley. Car exhaust emitted in Hermosa Beach in
the morning thus may become smog in Burbank, Glendale or
Pasadena by the afternoon as it moves inland and undergoes
photochemical changes.
The nocturnal winds reverse the process as they recycle the
previous day's pollution and carry diluted pollutants seaward.
In contrast to the strong daytime flow, the weak and sometimes
calm nocturnal winds also allow for localized stagnation of
pollutants near their source such as freeways or other
concentrations of emissions. Without sunlight, such localized
pollution "hot spots" are comprised mainly of primary,
unreacted pollutants such as carbon monoxide instead of
photochemical irritants such as ozone. Thus, whereas the
onshore flow makes the Hermosa Beach area a source of
pollutants for inland receptors, the nocturnal wind change
reverses the roles of the source and receptor areas. While
summer air quality in coastal communities is therefore usually
much better than in inland valleys, the Hermosa Beach area
experiences frequent carbon monoxide alerts on winter mornings
when inland communities have excellent air quality.
There are also two corresponding temperature inversions that
trap pollution within shallow layers near the ground/ The
daytime onshore cool ocean air undercuts a massive dome of warm
sinking air within the Pacific high pressure system. This
process creates marine/subsidence inversions that form a lid at
96
•
about 1000 feet above the surface over the entire Los Angeles
Basin. These inversions allow for good mixing of pollutants
• near their source, but trap the entire Basin's emissions within
the shallow marine layer. As the relatively clean marine air
moves inland, pollution sources continually add contaminants
from below without any dilution from above. Reactive organic
gases and nitrogen oxides combine under abundant sunlight to
form photochemical smog. Smog levels increase steadily from
• the coastline inland until the inversion is broken by strong
surface heating and by the thermal chimneys created along the
heated slopes of the mountains surrounding the Basin.
The second major inversion type forms during long, cloudless
nights as cold air pools near the surface while the air aloft
remains warm. The radiation inversions that form are very
shallow and contribute to the "hot spot" potential near ground
level sources, especially vehicular concentrations.
Measurements of inversion frequency at Santa Monica Airport
show a strong diurnal and seasonal variation of inversion
distributions. Regional trapping inversions occur on about 85
percent of all summer afternoons while ground -level radiation
inversions are found on about 70 percent of all winter nights
and early mornings. These inversions do occur during all
seasons and at all times of the day, but they are not as
strong, persistent or frequent as during their respective
summer afternoon and winter morning dominant periods.
• Ambient Air Quality Standards. In order to gauge the
significance of the air quality impacts of the proposed
Project, Project impacts plus existing background air quality
levels were compared to applicable ambient air quality
standards. These standards are the levels of air quality
considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect
• public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those
people most susceptible tip further respiratory distress such as
asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already
weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in
strenuous work or exercise. These persons are "sensitive
receptors". Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to
• air pollutant concentrations well above the minimum standards.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) were established
in 1971 for six pollution species with states retaining the
option to add other pollutants, require more stringent
compliance, or include different exposure periods. California
• established such standards several years before the federal
action. Due to the unique air quality problems in California
introduced by the restrictive dispersion meteorology, state
clean air standards differ considerably from national clean air
standards. California standards currently in effect are shown
in Table N.
•
• 97
TABLE N
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
PollutantAvrpinq
Time
California Standards
National Standards
Concentration
Method
Primary -
Sacendsry
Method
Oxidant
I hour
0.10 ppm
(200 ug/ms)
Ultraviolet
Photometry
—
—
Osone
1 hour
— •
—
_
12 1 ppm
Same as Primary
Standard
Ethylene
Chsmilumsnascence
Carbon Monoxide
S bout
9.0 ppm
(10 mg/ms)
Non•Oisporsns
Inf►avW
Spectroscopy
10 m nts
If 00 11
Sams a
Standards
Non•Oispsnrve
SPrimary whoaInfrared
pectroscopy
(NOIR)
1 hour
20 ppm
(23 mg/ms)
(NOIR)
40 mg/ma
(36 pond
Nitrogen Dioxide
Annual Avrage
—
Gas Phase
Chamilumi•
nascent,
100 ug/nN
(0.05 ppm)
Same as Primary
Standard
Gas Phase
Chimiluminescence
I hour
0.25 ppm
1470 ug/ms►
—
Sulfur dioxide
Annual Average
—
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
80 ug/ms
(0.03 ppm)
—
Prroseniline
24 hour
•
0.05 ppm
(131 ugimr)
3$5 ug/ms
(0.14 ppm)
—
3 hour
—
—
1300 ug/ms
10.5 ppm)
1 hour
0.S ppm
(1310 ug/ms)
—
—
Suspended
Particulate•
Hotter
(PHte)
Annual Geometric
Neon
30 ug/ms
PMIO
24 how
5Oug/ms
—
—
Suspended
P Mattern
Annual Geometric
Mean
—
-
75 ug/ms
60 ug/ms
High Volum*
Sampling
24 hour
—
260 ug/ms
150 ug/ms
Sulfates
24 hour
25 ug/ms
Turbidimstne
Barium
Sulfate
—
—
—
Lead
30 day
Avsrpe
1.5 ug/ms
Atomic
Absorption
—
—
—
•
Calendar
Ouanr
—
—
1.5 ug/nts
Same as Prl•
maty Standard
Atomic
Absorption
Hydrogen
Sulfiae
1 hour
0.03 ppm
(42 ug/ms)
Cadmium Hydroa*
ide STRactan
—
.
—
—
Vinyl Chloride
(Chloroethsns)
-
24 hour
0.010 ppm
(26 ug/ms)
ladles' Bag
Collection. Gas
Chromatography
—
—
-
Visibility
Reduang
Particles
I observation
In sufficient amount to
reduce the prevailing visibility
to lass than 10 miles when the
'slatmve humidity is less than 70% —
—
—
98
•
•
S
•
•
•
•
•
4 Y,
•
i
Baseline Air Ouality. Existing levels of ambient air quality
and historical trends and projections in the Hermosa Beach area
are documented from measurements at the South Coast Air Quality
Management District's (SCAQMD) Lennox air quality monitoring
station. The last six years of monitoring data from this
station are summarized in Table 0. This data shows recurring
violations of the hourly standard for ozone, carbon monoxide
• (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and several particulates. Summer
sea breezes effectively ventilate the South Bay area, so that
only one first stage smog alert above 0.20 ppm of ozone for an
hourly exposure has been observed within the last six years.
While the frequency of summer ozone levels, above recommended
limits, near the Project Area is among the lowest within the
South Coast Air Basin, violations of CO and NO2 automobile
pollutant standards are among the most severe in the Basin.
Mobile monitoring programs have confirmed that the entire
coastal corridor from Santa Monica to the Palos Verdes
Peninsula has frequent winter episodes of high automotive
exhaust pollution levels. It is therefore quite probable that
the Project Area has baseline CO and NO2 levels above the
standard. Any localized Project impacts would be cumulative to
this existing impact.
Vehicular emission controls have produced noticeable
improvements in air quality for some pollutant species such as
lead and to some extent CO2 and NO2. For other pollutant
41 species, little change in Hermosa Beach air quality beyond
normal year-to-year variations has occurred. The year 1984 and
1985 was characterized by a reversal from improved to worsened
air quality for several pollutant species. Carbon Monoxide, a
direct indicator of automotive emissions in the area,
experienced a significant increase in violations and maximum
• concentrations for 8 -hour exposures. This trend reversal may
reflect growing traffic volumes and declining mean travel
speeds to more pollution inefficient speeds faster than the
rate of emissions improvements for newer cars and from the
mandatory vehicle inspection and maintenance program.
Particulate species, especially lead and sulfates, continue to
show improvements in their annual trendline.
Air Quality Management. The Clean Air Act requires an air
quality management plan (AQMP) be prepared outlining tactics by
which attainment will be achieved in all areas for which
federal air quality standards are violated. The Act requires
f all areas of the country achieve clean air by 1982 with an
extension to 1987 if progress is demonstrated by the interim
deadline. Extrapolation of current trends suggests that
attainment of clean air standards for particulate species and
probably NO2 may be expected within this decade. Carbon
Monoxide levels will perhaps reach attainment late in the
1990s. Ozone levels in Hermosa Beach area are not expected to
reach their attainment target until beyond the year 2000.
• 99
TABLE 0
HERMOSA BEACH AREA AIR OUALITY MONITORING SUMMARX
(Days Standards Were Exceeded and Maximum
Observed Concentrations)
Pollutant/Standard
Ozone
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
1 -Hour > 0.10 ppm 9 22 10 23 16 11
1 -Hour > 0.12 ppm 0 4 2 9 8 4
1 -Hour > 0.20 ppm 0 0 0 0 1 0
1 -Hour > 0.35 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0
Max. 1 -Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.11 0.19 0.16 0.18 0.22 0.17
Carbon Monoxide
1 -Hour > 20. ppm
8 -Hour > 9. ppm
Max. 1 -Hour Conc.
Max. 8 -Hour Conc.
(ppm)
(ppm)
5 4 9 12
73 52 46 45 68 49
31. 27. 26. 31. 24. 29.
21.6 19.1 17.7 18.4 19.7 24.0
Nitrogen Dioxide
1 -Hour 2 0.25 ppm 7 12 4 5 2 0
Max. 1 -Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.38 0.42 0.34 0.32 0.27 0.24
Total Particulates
24 -Hour Z 100 ug/m3 29/56 25/58 14/58 11/53 17/57 12/48
24 -Hour > 260 ug/m3 0/56 1/58 0/58 0/53 0/57 1/48
Max. Daily Conc. (ug/d3) 236. 316. 200. 242. 156. 283.
Particulate Lead
1 -Month > 1.5 ug/m35/12 3/12 3/12 0/12 0/12 0/10
Max. 1 -Mo. Conc. (ug/m3
) 3.44 1.91 1.70 1.29 1.38 0.90
Particulate Sulfate
24 -Hour 2 25. ug/m3 6/56 1/58 2/58 0/53 1/57 0/48
Max. Daily Conc. (ug/m3) 34.0 26.2 37.3 24.8 26.7 24.4
Source: California Air Resources Board, Summaries of Air Quality, 1980-85
Notes: Hourly, 3 -hourly, 24 -hourly and annual standards for sulfur dioxide
have not been exceeded in last six years, and are not tabulated.
is new CO standard in effect since 1982, no previous data.
100
4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
SCAQMD and Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) prepared AQMP for the South Coast Air Basin, as part of
the California State Implementation Plan, in 1978. Within a
few years it became obvious that many of the tactics of the
AQMP were not being implemented by responsible agencies and the
level of technology was not developing fast enough to even come
close to attainment. An AQMP update in 1982 recognizes that
attainment for ozone will not be possible until the year 2000
even if all reasonable available emissions reduction measures
are implemented. The cornerstone of the emissions control
program is a mandatory vehicular inspection and maintenance
program which will reduce the impact of automobile emissions on
air quality. However, the number of sources is so large and
the dispersion meteorology is so poor than even the year 2000
may be optimistic as an attainment goal. Preliminary 1986 air
quality data reflect the lowest regional photochemical smog
(ozone) levels since monitoring began in the Basin in the
1950's. When year to year variations in regional dispersion
potential are subtracted out from annual trends in Basin smog
levels, the very slow, but very gradual improvement trend in
basin smog levels becomes quite obvious.
The proposed Project relates to the AQMP through the growth
assumptions used to generate commuting and other trip emissions
throughout the South Coast Air Basin. These growth
projections, as embodied in the SCAG-82A and SCAG-82B
i forecasts, were based on the general plans and development
proposals in effect in 1981 when the forecasts were prepared.
The proposed Project, however, is not consistent with the
City's General Plan and development proposals in effect when
the AQMP was prepared. Thus, Project -related emissions have
not been properly anticipated in the AQMP.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Air Ouality Impacts - General
On a cumulative basis, the Project is part of an overall
pattern of growth that is outstripping the local transportation
system's ability to support such growth. The assumed levels of
balance between employment and housing opportunities assumed in
the 1982 SCAG "Growth Forecast Policy" for the entire South Bay
Corridor are being far exceeded on the side of employment.
With high congestion levels and forecasted major growth
throughout the area, the cumulative effects of such growth
including the small increment represented by this Project, is
an important air quality consideration.
Residences, motels, and other commercial land uses impact air
quality through the vehicular traffic generated by development.
On a regional scale, commuting and other residential trips,
• motel guest travel and commercial shopping trips will add to
regional trip generation. This will increase vehicle miles
travelled (VMT) within the local airshed. Project traffic,
• 101
•
especially at rush hour, will be added to the local Hermosa
Beach roadway system. If such traffic occurs during periods of
poor atmospheric ventilation, is comprised of a large number of
vehicles "cold -started" and operating at pollution inefficient
speeds, and occurs on already crowded roadways with non -Project
traffic, there is a potential for the formation of micro -scale
air pollution hot spots in the area immediately around the
Project Area.
Secondary Project -related atmospheric impacts derive from a
number of other small, growth -connected emissions sources.
These include temporary emissions of dusts and fumes during
Project construction, increased fossil -fuel combustion in power
plants and heaters, boilers,stoves and other energy consuming
devices. Other project -related atmospheric impacts are from
evaporative emissions at gas stations, from paints, thinners or
solvents, increased air travel, particulates from tire wear,
and resuspended roadway dust. All of these emission points are
either temporary, or they are so small in comparison to
Project -related automotive sources that their impact is
negligible. They do point out, however, that growth engenders
increased air pollution emissions from a wide variety of
sources, and thus further inhibits the near-term attainment of
all clean air standards in the region.
The conversion of Open Space to urbanized uses will create
localized micro -meteorological changes in wind flows, surface
reflexivity, and shade/shadow patterns. Such effects, however,
are confined to the immediate vicinity and are a small part of
the much larger scaled urbanization of Southern California
which has taken place for many decades without significant
adverse impacts. The Basins's climate is moderated by oceanic
heat capacity that is little affected by the small
perturbations introduced by man-made effects. Windfield
modifications, even from extensive high-rise construction
throughout the South Bay area are barely noticeable at ground
level. Thus, the small scale of development proposed for the
Project Area will have a negligible impact on the local micro -
climate.
2. Construction Impacts
Removal of existing site vegetation, excavation for utility
access, preparation of foundations and footings, and building
assembly will create temporary emissions of dusts, fumes,
equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants during the
project construction period. The most significant source of
air pollution from project construction will be the dust
generated during. demolition, excavation and site preparation.
Typical dust lifting rates from construction activities are 1.2
tons of dust per month per acre disturbed. Dust control
through regular watering and other fugitive dust abatement
measures required by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (Rule 403) can reduce dust emission levels by roughly
102
•
•
•
0
s
one-half. When the above factor is applied to the 16 acre
Project Area and individual project construction is assumed for
six months over a three year site buildout, approximately 58
tons of dust will be lifted into the air during the
construction lifetime of the Project. Due to the increased
intensity of development proposed for the Project and the
increased construction lifetime, the projected tons of dust
will increase accordingly.
With prevailing west to east winds, land uses east of• the
Project Area along Ardmore Avenue will be exposed to Project
dust generation. Much of this dust is comprised of large
particles that are easily filtered by human breathing passages
and rapidly settles out on parked cars and other nearby
surfaces. This is considered more of a soiling nuisance,
rather than an unhealthful air quality impact.
Equipment exhaust is released during temporary construction
activities, particularly from mobile sources during site
preparation and from cranes and other onsite equipment during
actual construction. Assuming 300,000 Brake Horsepower Hours
(BHP -HR) of diesel -powered heavy equipment operations for one
acre of residential and commercial land uses, the following
emissions will result during Project construction:
Pollutant Emissions (tons)
Reactive Organic Gases
Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen Oxides
Particulate Soot
Sulfur Dioxide
7.2
18.7
68.7
5.9
5.8
Construction activity emission rates are substantial over the
construction lifetime of "the development (especially the NOx).
However, due to the mobile nature of the equipment itself, they
will be widely dispersed in space and time. Daytime
ventilation during much of the year in Hermosa Beach is usually
adequate to disperse any local pollution accumulations near the
Project Area. Perceptible impacts from construction activity
exhaust will be confined to occasional diesel exhaust odors,
but not in sufficient concentration to expose any nearby
receptors to air pollution levels above acceptable standards.
Because of the limited distance between site sources and nearby
receptors, it is important to minimize localized concentrations
of emissions such as from trucks idling and queuing while
waiting to remove dirt or to drop off building materials, and
from trucks blocking traffic on nearby streets that might cause
high micro scale levels of automotive exhaust. If measures are
implemented to prevent multiple trucks from blocking traffic or
from idling near occupied receptor sites, then unacceptable air
quality impacts from construction activities during Project
buildout should be reduced.
• 103
3. Vehicular Emissions Impacts
The greatest Project -related air quality concern is mobile
source emissions generated at buildout from the Project's
11,480 daily trips that will be driven at completion. With a
trip length of 5.7 miles per trip, the Project may add 65,436
vehicle miles travelled (VMT) to regional traffic. This
represents a worst case estimate with maximum trips for each
land use without any interaction between proposed residential
and commercial uses and full motel occupancy. While some of
the trip generation and associated VMT may be reduced by
diversion to other transportation modes and some of the
residential and commercial trips may be double counted, the
Project nevertheless will bea major contributor to additional
vehicular air pollution emissions within the South Bay
subregion of the South Coast Air Basin.
Project traffic will add approximately 0.9 tons of carbon
monoxide (CO) and 0.1 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and
reactive organic gases (ROG) to the airshed daily. These
estimated pollutants, however, will increase in proportion to
the increased traffic volumes of this Final EIR. Continued
emissions reduction from the retirement of older, polluting
cars will gradually reduce the Project's regional emissions
impact, but the Project will continue to represent a small, but
not negligible portion of regional automotive emissions. Table
P shows that the Project represents a very small fraction of
the subregional and regional's South Coast Air Basin emissions.
Table P, however, only considers the proposed Project and does
not take into account the overall continued intensification of
land use throughout the South Bay and Santa Monica Bay coastal
corridor. Thus, while the proposed Project individually is not
a significant new source of automotive emissions, it may become
one when considered in conjunction with cumulative growth of
the region.
Generally, in terms of regional significance, it is not the
small incremental increase in project -related emissions that is
important, but whether the proposed Project is consistent with
the growth assumptions of the South Coast (AQMP). Because the
AQMP is based on existing general plans and zoning, except
where SCAG has special knowledge of future development, the
proposed Project is not explicitly anticipated in the AQMP
because it is an amendment to the City's General Plan.
Therefore, the small increment of regional emissions
attributable to the proposed Project may constitute an air
quality impact because of this inconsistency.
Mitigating against such a finding is the fact that SCAG
seriously underpredicted the growth of employment opportunities
in the Basin, while overpredicting the growth of housing
availability. A significant part of regional transportation
problems is that there is such an imbalance between employment
and housing, without any place for people to live near their
104
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
work. To the extent that the proposed development meets a
small portion of that housing need in the area, the Project
• represents a very small air quality benefit in terms of overall
relationship between growth and corresponding air quality
emissions. Thus, while the proposed Project was not
specifically anticipated within AQMP, it is consistent with the
overall objectives of regional air quality planning to achieve
a balance between employment and housing to reduce long
commuting trips. By virtue of this consistency, the regional
air quality impact of the proposed Project is not considered
individually significant.
While the Project itself may have only a minimal regional
impact, the increased traffic around the Project site may
create localized violations of ambient air quality standards.
The hourly and 8 hour CO exposure where maximum localized CO
project impacts are expected to occur are small at the
Pier/Valley and Pier/Ardmore intersections. Receptor exposure
was estimated at two locations around the Project Area where
development traffic may be expected to have a major impact on
the level of service on the surrounding roadway system. The
model used was initialized with maximum traffic and minimum
dispersion conditions in order to generate a worst-case impact
assessment. The results of this study are summarized in Tables
Q and R. The hourly and 8 -hour CO exposure where maximum
localized CO Project impacts are likely to occur are small at
Pier/Valley and Pier/Ardmore intersections, but there may be a
substantial violation of the California hourly and 8 -hour CO
standards at Pier and Pacific Coast Highway. These impacts are
mainly from non -Project traffic sources. This is due to the
less than 1 ppm Project increment in each of the intersections
modeled under the worst traffic congestion conditions.
0
f
Tables Q and R also show. that despite continued growth of the
area, there should be a reduction in local automobile pollution
exposure because reduced future vehicular emissions off -set the
effects of more cars as long as traffic speeds do not decline
from increased traffic volumes. If mean rush hour travel
speeds do decline, especially to less than 10 mph, then there
will be a worsening of already unhealthful wintertime CO
exposures. Maintaining adequate traffic capacity is therefore
the single most important air quality consequence of continued
Hermosa•Beach area development.
4. Miscellaneous Impacts
Continued growth contributes to regional emissions from small
sources. These sources are generally small on a single project
basis. Such sources include:
Increased basin power plant emissions to supply the
electricity for residents, guests, employees, and other
development power users.
•
TABLE P
PROJECT -RELATED VEHICULAR EMISSIONS
(EMISSIONS IN TONS/YEAR)
PROJECT YEAR
1987
1990
1995
2000
Emissions Comparisons
Proposed Project
RSA#3
South Coast Air Basin
Project Share of RSA
Project Share of Basin
CARBON
MONOXIDE
240.8
213.2
189.7
174.0
(tons/day):
0.86
474.1
6227.7
0.18%
0.014%
Source: URBEMIS#1 Computer Model
EIRs (1983).
REACTIVE
ORGANICS
29.7
24.6
21.3
19.7
0.11
112.8
1002.4
0.10%
0.011%
NITROGEN
OXIDES
20.0
16.8
14.3
13.8
0.07
114.5
959.0
0.06%
0.008%
and SCAQMD Guidelines for
TABLE Q
PROJECT -RELATED MICROSCALE AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
(HOURLY AND 8 -HOUR CO EXPOSURES IN PPM ABOVE NONLOCAL BACKGROUND)
INTERSECTION: PIER & VALLEY
Speed
(mph)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Hourly Concentration (ppm) 8 -Hour Concentration (ppm)
Ex. W/P E+P+C Ex. W/P E+P+C
1.6
1.8
2.2
2.6
3.2
4.4
8.3
1.7
2.0
2.3
2.8
3.5
4.8
9.0
1.4
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.9
4.0
7.3
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.3
3.1
5.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
2.0
2.4
3.3
6.3
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.0
2.8
5.1
Source: CALINE3 Computer Model, "F" Stability, 2 mph wind
• parallel to roadway.
Note: Above concentrations are above nonlocal background.
This background is approximately at the level of the standard
already, and will stay at that level into the future. Above
values thus represent levels in excess of the 1 -Hour and 8 -Hour
standards.
Key: Ex. = Existing (1985); W/P = Existing plus Project
(1985); E+P+C = Existing plus Project plus Cumulative Growth
(2000)
106
•
TABLE R
• PROJECT -RELATED MICROSCALE AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
(HOURLY AND 8 -HOUR CO EXPOSURES IN PPM ABOVE NONLOCAL
BACKGROUND)
INTERSECTION: PIER & PACIFIC COAST
HIGHWAY
• Speed Hourly Concentration (ppm) 8 -Hour Concentration (ppm)
(mph) Ex. W/P E+P+C Ex. W/P E+P+C
35 4.6 4.7 3.8 3.2 3.3 2.6
30 5.3 5.4 4.3 3.7 3.8 3.0
25 6.3 6.4 5.1 4.4 4.5 3.6
20 7.5 7.7 6.1 5.3 5.4 4.3
15 9.4 9.6 7.5 6.6 6.7 5.3
10 12.8 13.1 10.5 9.0 9.1 7.3
5 24.2 24.6 19.2 16.9 17.2 13.5
•
•
•
•
•
•
Source: CALINE3 Computer Model, "F" Stability, 2 mph wind
parallel to roadway.
Note: Above concentrations are above nonlocal background.
This background is approximately at the level of the standard
already, and will stay at that level into the future. Above
values thus represent levels in excess of the 1 -Hour and 8 -Hour
standards.
Key: Ex. = Existing (1985); W/P = Existing plus Project
(1985); E+P+C = Existing plus Project plus Cumulative Growth
(2000)
Evaporative emissions from gasoline stations; from paints,
thinners, solvents, and cleaning materials used in
construction and maintenance; landscape utility equipment,
asphalt, tar, and other building materials.
Onsite combustion sources such as heaters and
space heating, other mobile combustion sources
aircraft.
Increased dust sources from sand and gravel or
batching operations; vehicular dust generation;
soot or re -suspended roadway dust.
These sources are small, even on a total Project basis.
Emissions from stationary sources such as power plants, coating
compounds, gas stations, etc. are strictly controlled by AQMD
stationary source emissions control regulations. They are a
source of Project -related emissions although their ambient air
quality impact is insignificant.
boilers,
such as
concrete
exhaust
107
C. MITIGATION MEASURES
Since the proposed Project would individually create only a
minor air quality impact, but cumulatively with other major
area growth may exacerbate violations of clean air standards on
both a local and regional scale, it is concluded that effective
impact mitigation must be generated in conjunction with other
anticipated area growth. However, since such impacts derive
primarily from the automobile whose emissions characteristics
are beyond the control of the Project Applicant and local
regulatory agencies, the potential for effective mitigation is
limited.
Traffic impact mitigation will create a corresponding air
quality impact mitigation and is therefore the primary focus of
any potential reduction in air pollution emissions. Such
traffic measures should stress both reduction of the number of
vehicles accessing the Project Area, and the improvement of
traffic flow to eliminate the stagnation penalty that Project
implementation engenders. Trip reduction through
transportation control measures (TCMs) is estimated by the
Project traffic consultant to create a 15 percent reduction in
peak hour trips if such TCMs are integrated into a unified
transportation system management (TSM) program. However,
because of the mixed residential -commercial uses proposed for
the Project Area, such uses do not lend themselves to
implementation of a TSM program. Freeway and arterial
improvements are similarly expected to provide some congestion
relief, but this Project and other area growth, in conjunction
with existing traffic levels, will cause a further unavoidable
deterioration in roadway operating conditions in the Hermosa
Beach area.
Notwithstanding the above, the following Mitigation Measures
should be incorporated in -development planning for the proposed
Project Area:
•
•
Grading activities should comply with AQMD Rule 403
which requires dust control measures.
Fugitive dust emissions during construction should be
minimized by watering the sites for dust control,
isolating excavated soil onsite until it is hauled
away, and periodically washing adjacent streets to
remove accumulated materials.
Parking areas should be paved early during
construction activities.
Major grading should occur when soil moisture is
high.
Adequate dust suppressants (i.e. watering and early
revegetation) should be used.
108
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The use of alternate transportation modes should be
encouraged by promoting public transit use and
providing secure bicycle facilities.
Mass transit facilities should be accommodated and
integrated into the project.
Excavating or imported materials should be in trucks
with traps or similar cover. Haul routes shall be
determined in conjunction with the City Public Works
Department.
There should be no burning of materials at any time.
The contractor should make arrangements to insure
adequate availability of water and should maintain at
least one water truck on the site at all times during
dry weather.
Various transportation control measures (TCMs), if
and when feasible, should be integrated into a
project design. These TCMs include the following:
- Ride sharing
- Vanpool incentives
- Alternate Transportation Methods
- Work Scheduling for Off -Peak Hour Travel
- Transit Utilization
- Program Coordination
- Traffic Signal Coordination
- Physical Roadway Improvements
D. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
On a cumulative basis, the Project would contribute to short-
term and long-term adverse impacts on air quality. There are
no effective measures which would mitigate vehicular emissions
impacts except those mitigating the impact of traffic in the
area. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures
controlling excavation, grading and other construction
activities would mitigate to some degree the short-term impact
from dust and related problems. During construction, however,
these short-term impacts will have a significant effect on the
environment.
5.6. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
A Biological Assessment of the Project Area was completed by
Steven G. Nelson, consulting biologist. The following
discussion is derived from that report. The full report can be
found in this Final EIR as Appendix E, Part III, Volume 3B.
•
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Project Area consists of a long, narrow strip of land along
an abandoned Right -of -Way. It is located within a highly
urbanized area and has been heavily used by man, formerly as a
rail line and presently as an open space and recreation
corridor. Existing wildlife and vegetation are completely
removed from native conditions and represent an "urban"
habitat.
Within its classification as urban habitat, the Project Area
can best be described as "park -like." Vegetation consists
almost exclusively of non-native weeds and ornamental plant
species which in most cases were planted at the site by man.
The dominant vegetation consists of ornamental trees and shrubs
including oleander (Nerium Oleander), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus
sp.), Acacia (Acacia sp.), fan palms (Washington sp.), and
pines (Pinus sp.). The predominate groundcover is ice plant
(Mesembrvanthenum Crystallinum) and bermuda grass (Cvnodon
dactvlon). Localized turf grass and bare ground along the rail
line is also common. Other non-native weedy species such as
telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), ox tongue (Picris
echoides), prickly sow thistle (Sonchus aster), dandelion
(Taraxacum officinalte), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), goose
foot (Chenopodium murale), filaree (Erodium moshatum),
cheeseweed (Malva parriflora), and red brome (Bromus rubens),
are commonly found. No native plant species were observed at
any of the localities examined on the Project site.
Wildlife populations were observed and are expected to be
extremely depauperate in comparison to native Southern
California habitats. Several species were seen using the Site.
These include side -blotched lizard (Ultastansburiana),
California ground squirrel (Spermophilus brecheyi), domestic
pigeon (Columbia livia), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus),
brewer's blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephelus), mockingbird (Minus
Polvglottos), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), and starling
(Sturnus vulgaris). Other species, particularly small mammals
and songbirds, are expected to use the site. The wildlife
present is characteristic of urbanized and artificial park
habitat conditions, that is low in diversity and abundance.
Local residents have reported sitings of several other bird
species•.
No rare, endangered, or threatened plants or wildlife species
were observed, reported, or expected to use the Project Area.
No unusual or uncommon habitats are present.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The Project Area, if the Project is approved, could be
developed with single family, duplex, and multi -family
residential, and general commercial uses. There are no
biological resources present which represent serious
110
•
constraints to the potential development. The Project Area
would require grading and clearing of existing vegetation.
• With the exception of Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 11 which are not
included in the Project and will remain open space, all
existing vegetation would be lost. These losses are not
significantly adverse to biological resources because of the
non-native nature of existing vegetation.
As a consequence of vegetation removal, existing wildlife may
40 be displaced into the surrounding urban neighborhoods. Due to
the lack of suitable habitat in these areas, however, displaced
wildlife are expected to be lost as well. Due to the low
diversity and abundance of wildlife present, these losses also
are not significantly adverse biological resource losses.
• After the completion of construction, a limited amount of re -
vegetation and re -population by wildlife will take place,
particularly in the open space areas which will remain. To
some degree, biological conditions of the open space areas
would allow for reestablishment of lost resources. However,
40 will
will be the case for the open space areas only, and there
will be a net long-term loss of vegetation and wildlife. These
losses will not be significant to biological resources in the
area.
C. MITIGATION MEASURES
Due to the absence of significant adverse impacts, no
mitigation for the loss of biological resources is warranted
and none are recommended.
5.7. EARTH RESOURCES
• A Geotechnical Environmental Assessment of the proposed Project
was prepared by Leighton'and Associates, consulting engineers.
The discussion in this section is taken from that report. The
full geotechnical report is included in this Final EIR as
Appendix F, Part III, Volume 3B.
• A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Project Location and Regional Geology. The Project Area is
located on Pleistocene beach ridge deposits along the western
margin of the Los Angeles coastal plain. The site is at the
western edge of the El Segundo sand hills consisting of old
• dune sands and active, younger dune sand deposits. This
landform extends from Ballona Creek (Playa del Rey) southward
to the foot of the Palos Verdes Hills. It is superimposed upon
older Pleistocene alluvial floodplain and shallow marine
sediments of the Lakewood Formation. All of these units of the
Quarternary Period are underlain by older marine sandstones,
• conglomerates, and siltstones of the San Pedro and Pico
Formations which range in age from the early Pleistocene to
late Pliocene Epoch, respectively.
• 111
Earth Units and Soil Types. The oldest earth unit exposed on
the site is older dune sand of the El Segundo sand hills. The
sands are poorly bedded, moderately well -sorted, locally silty,
and vary from fine-grained to medium -grained. They are medium
dense and are of suitable bearing capacity for most structures.
The deposits within the Project Area are friable and easily
erodible.
Surface level units in the Project Area are limited to thin
mantles of soil, derived from the underlying sands and from
local vegetation debris. The soils are porous, silty to
gravelly sands with some woody material. The gravel in most
soils is angular, uniformly sized pebbly material which was
probably derived from the ballast material of the old railroad
bed nearby.
Geologic Structure and Faults. No known faults have been
positively identified on or immediately adjacent to the Project
Area. Subsurface structure contour maps of the area show
inferred subsurface faults within the area, which are generally
presumed to be inactive. No evidence of surface rupture from
fault movement was observed.
Seismicity. The Project Area is within several tens of miles
of several active or potentially active faults. These faults
and their historic seismic events are illustrated on Exhibit
18.
Active and potentially active faults which can significantly
affect the Project Area are listed in Table S.
TABLE S. ACTIVE AND POTENTIALLY ACTIVE FAULTS
Closest Maximum
Distance Probable
Fault From Site Earthquake
San Andreas 48 miles 8.3
San Jacinto 72 miles 7.2
Whittier -Elsinore 29 miles 6.7
Sierra Madre 25 miles 6.5
Newport -Inglewood 7 miles 6.5
LAFCD Seawater Barrier Facilities. The LAFCD Seawater Barrier
Facilities located within the Right -of -Way consist of 5
injection wells, 4 observation wells, approximately 3,700 feet
of water supply pipeline, and 2,100 feet of water disposal
line. These Facilities are part of a series of freshwater
and/or treated water injection wells (i.e., water is pumped
into the ground) to create a water pressure barrier to stop
saltwater intrusion into coastal and inland groundwater supply
wells in the South Coast area. This barrier begins in the
112
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
vicinity of Los Angeles International Airport and continues
through several communities, including Hermosa Beach, and ends
in Redondo Beach. All wells located in the Right-of-way are
subsurface with an over -covering of dirt to make them as
visually unobtrusive as possible. The two pipelines connecting
the well system are approximately 8 feet below the surface.
Each injection well also has a control valve, located a minimum
of 5 feet away in a westerly direction. The "water walls"
created to form the barrier operate under pressure and can be
as deep as 200-250 feet.
Ground Water and Surface Runoff. The moderately well -sorted
texture of the older dune sands creates high porosity, even
though they are locally well -consolidated at some places in the
Project Area. Thus, ground water flow is enhanced, both
vertically and horizontally, by the textural characteristics of
the sands. The shallowest ground water is approximately 5 feet
above mean sea level. This elevation corresponds to depths
between 0-80 feet below the ground surface onsite, which varies
between 5 and 85 feet elevation above sea level.
Hatches which provide access to Los Angeles Flood Control
District ground water depth monitoring stations are located
along the northwestern margin of the Right -of -Way. These
stations were established as part of the Coastal Salt Water
Barrier Program. The monitors supervise controlled water
injection into aquifers designed to maintain a sufficient water
table. This prevents salt water contamination of natural
fresh water aquifers. According to LAFCD, high ground water
tables have not resulted from this program within the subject
area.
Liquefaction. Surface soils consist of high -porosity sandy
• deposits which are susceptible to liquefaction during strong
earthquakes. The possible local saturation of the dune sands
during heavy rainfall periods could result in local, short-term
liquefaction hazards. This short-term hazard will occur until
surface water infiltration has reached the main water table
elevation.
•
•
•
Subsidence. Broad -scale sinking or land subsidence may be
caused by folding or faulting activities of the earth,
withdrawal of subsurface fluids such as ground water or oil,
isostatic loading force of sediments, or other related
phenomena. Deposits (11,000 years old) close to the Project
Area are represented only by the active dune sands immediately
adjacent to the beach. These sediments are transitional
shallow marine/nonmarine in origin, and up to 75 feet in
cumulative thickness. This indicates minimal regional folding
or faulting near the Project Area.
• 113
EXHIBIT 18
P.
11 FivA1•00 t�
1769 i
�,,o.„,u,,T' 4:o
MS
1•.• I POMONA
LOS..I920
ANGEL
S I
[4� 00[MO /..
'/ I $WAC.
0RAN1GE
M 63
poem* WI
REGIONAL FAULT AND SEISMIC INDEX MAP
MAJOR EARTHQUAKES AND RECENTLY ACTIVE FAULTS
IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION
EXPLANATION'
ACTIVE FAULTS
SOW *19* el kolt 11M Met tools Wean SWAMI
t 1131 131 131 113111 Kn•117
reull summit all owlets femurs Swim a b11M/c
tt111gYoet, or all 1/11111111 NMt ate,
• M•lecul oakum semi/
(Mg”. PIN" Cn1 Pow* a/ SOW 110131
EARTMOUIIQ LOCA110N3
*1133 111611 1pt111n11 we et 1t.11g131n 1*11
wow 17$9-1933 Yegwa• 3* ftllydM
A 113w1M3 131 M 190$ 31st •tnre011
0133 1339 spat osmium a mewl 111
(WAN Worm $ *) 3 gnat. M 31yw
tp1103M to Ammer 310. 31 13e3retr•
t01111mas. 71og a1 tar goo .33141011
119971 031 1,.1131 w 1 44.1,3 1.•161
1719-1933.
r'Ro
frrl•111 ol.* .*..s we 1933, Memel 101•
o prwol 5•111w11< 29 mw10k" v0 van
now p1001f0 a1 uses 110a1. 113 40-11f
11r31 831.19».
'. 11 1rr, 11111•••. Aro 111 311 le fl••13 •1.1•••110 / arp.
« tab 131113313 3 0• *prim Noon •31311 r CMws V* • •M •w1Mor 3 11. 113
* • 1Y/ 13p.31 •1 1 S . 1131. • Mr •33333• r 3rD . • norm 113.1•• 1 3 r.
Cmmeu . ot /aa11 J ho 1. "AWN 0.11 331 1331 MM d ea CM aw * • sif Wow ft/Mow Chime• AMrrrr•1
MN, affewev. Ara/0.41/11.1(411411: mamas 11m saw 11 Ile tkarpe1 - k----kw/0.pm sampan d mow. res 4, 14.11.
tb3wvl Swarm 13111; M 40 Aram* A it, ►11.
114
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Project Area is located at the extreme northwestern end of
the Torrance Oil Field and is removed from the zone of highest
• subsidence potential. Withdrawal of oil or water from the
wells of this field has substantially declined since the peak
production period of 1925 to 1956, at which time subsidence was
reported as nonexistent to negligible. For these reasons,
subsidence along the Right -of -Way is considered negligible.
• Mass Movement. No recent or landslides have been mapped at the
Project site. Local soil, geologic and physiographic
conditions (absence of exposed bedrock and subdued relief)
minimize the landslide hazard. Existing ice plant, shrubbery,
and trees along the natural slopes at the site further reduce
the possibility of surface level failure. Though the old dune
sands lack natural cohesive strength, their consolidated and
moderately cemented nature give them a reasonably high
frictional strength, making them less conducive to slope
failures.
•
Mineral Resources. Petroleum production in the Torrance Oil
• Field comes from one well adjacent to the Right -of -Way. The
production rate from this well, located at the corner of 6th
Street and Cypress Avenue, is assumed to be low due to
depletion of reservoir pressures. All other original wells
adjacent to the Right -of -Way have either been shut down or
abandoned.
•
Older onsite Pleistocene dune sands are of potential value for
general construction purposes (e.g., compacted fill materials
during development of the Project). They do not, however,
appear to have significant commercial value as mineral
resources.
• Toxic and Hazardous Substances. Inquiry of ATSF and review of
City records did not identify the presence of conditions
suggestive of subsurface contamination by toxic or hazardous
substances in the Project Area that could be considered a
threat to the environment or to public health and safety. ATSF
revealed no instance of leakage or spillage of toxic or
• hazardous substances, or the use of any portions of the Right-
of-way for the use or storage of materials and substances that
would now be considered toxic or hazardous, during the period
of railway use prior to abandonment. Because the proposed
Project is a change in land use designations of the General
Plan and Zoning Code and not the approval of a specific
• development project, the City did not undertake audits or
exploratory testing of the Project Area at this time.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Based upon the results of the preliminary geotechnical
• investigation conducted in September 1986, development in -the
Project Area is considered geotechnically feasible provided
that identified constraints are properly mitigated. Factors of
• 115
•
importance include earth units and soil types, geological
structure and faults, seismicity, ground water and surface
runoff, liquefaction, subsidence, mass movement, and mineral
resources.
Other potential earthquake hazards are liquefaction,
landsliding, seismicity induced settlement, and ground lurching
or rupture. These possible outcomes would result from
relatively high-intensity earthquakes, shallow ground water
conditions, and the presence of loose, sandy soils.
Earth Units and Soil Types. Potential hazards related to
collapsible or expansive onsite soils are slight to negligible.
Thin, potentially collapsible sandy soil layers above the old
dune sands are mitigable by appropriate measures during site
preparation grading.
Geological Structure and Faults. No active or potentially
active faults are known to exist at the Project Area site. It
is unlikely that ground surface displacement from rupture would
occur in the area. No special fault investigation or geologic
inspection is necessary.
Seismicity. The principal seismic hazard in the Project Area
is considered to be ground shaking resulting from an earthquake
on a known active fault in the general region. The intensity
and duration of seismic shaking at the site depends upon the
distance from the earthquake epicenter, the magnitude of the
seismic event, and the mechanical properties of bedrock and
superficial earth materials at the Project site. Ground
shaking potential in the Project area is moderate to high. The
intensity of seismic shaking may be amplified for certain types
of structures due to the rigidity of well -to -weakly
consolidated old dune sands at the Site.
Due to the site's close proximity to the Newport Inglewood
fault zone, a maximum probable peak horizontal ground
acceleration of 0.38 g would be associated with a 6.5 Richter
magnitude earthquake on this fault. The Newport -Inglewood
fault is capable of a higher level of seismic shaking at the
site than a maximum probable earthquake on the more distant San
Andreas Fault. No significant effect from ground shaking is
anticipated.
Secondary earthquake hazards such as liquefaction, landsliding,
seismically induced settlement and ground lurching or rupture
are' generally associated with relatively high-intensity
earthquakes, shallow ground water conditions, and the presence
of loose,sandy soils. Although two of these three adverse
parameters (i.e.,-strong seismic shaking and loose sandy soils)
could occur at the subject site simultaneously, the conditions
conducive to liquefaction also require relatively shallow
ground water. Further discussion of the aforementioned
secondary seismic hazards is included in succeeding sections.
116
•
•
•
LAFCD Seawater Barrier Facilities. The Seawater Barrier
Facilities are characterized by LAFCD as essential to the
provision of an adequate, safe, water supply to users in the
South Coast area. The only alternatives to the Barrier
Facilities would be less reliance on the groundwater supply or
to raise the inland water table. Both injection wells and
observation wells require regular maintenance and periodic
servicing. Adequate access and maneuvering room to the wells,
valves and pipelines is imperative to the continued successful
operation of the Barrier, both for normal operation, servicing
and general observation. Large, heavy equipment such as drill
rigs and air compressors are used in servicing the wells.
LAFCD representatives estimate a 10 foot wide access to each
well as the minimum amount of land area currently utilized for
these operations. The valves for the wells also need clear,
unobstructed access for servicing, although smaller equipment
is used.
The proposed change of land uses in the Project Area and the
subsequent development that would be permitted thereunder would
• have a significant effect on the Barrier Facilities. This
impact would be regional as well as local, as the Barrier
Facilities are essential to water users in the entire South
Coast area. Development in the Project Area would be severely
constrained by the location of the Barrier Facilities and the
land requirements necessary to operate and maintain them.
• Ground Water and Surface Runoff. During moderate to heavy
rainfall, locally intense surface runoff has been reported by
the City's Public Works Director. The runoff occurs as local
sheet -flow travels downhill from Ardmore Avenue, across the
Right -of -Way, onto Valley Drive, principally between 21st and
16th Street, the steepest natural slope at the site. Four foot
• wide concrete drains along the western margin of the site are
not sufficient to properly intercept and channel this runoff.
Existing storm drains and catch basins downhill from Valley
Drive (within the natural drainage scale inland of the
westernmost beach ridge) conduct this accumulated runoff from
the immediate area. Surface water infiltration in this area is
not likely to have a significant influence on water levels in
the main aquifers below the dune sand.
Existing poor surface runoff control between 21st and 16th
Streets may necessitate storm drain construction to reduce
flooding hazards in this area. Local flooding may also occur
• at the internally drained area between 8th and 2nd Streets.
Erosion and sedimentation at the Project site are considered
negligible due to adequate vegetation stabilizing existing
natural slopes and to improvements related to the existing
residential development upslope from the Site.
• Liauefaction. Near surface soils in the Project Area are
highly porous. The range in water table depths reduce the
likelihood of liquefaction occurring in the Project Area. If
• 117
less permeable layers of sand cause water to become perched,
short-term liquefaction hazards could result.
In order to adequately evaluate the liquefaction hazard,
further analysis which is typically required for the issuance
of granting or building plans is recommended. The analysis
should be based on site-specific groundwater and soil data.
Subsidence. Broad -scale sinking or land subsidence may be
caused by tectonic activity, withdrawal of subsurface fluids
such as ground water, oil, etc., and by isostatic loading force
of sediments, or by other related phenomena. The near sea
level position of Holocene deposits indicates minimal regional
tectonic subsidence of the Project Area. Ground subsidence of
the Project Area due to extraction of oil and natural gas has
been reported as nonexistent to negligible at peak production
periods. Only one actively producing well of the Torrance oil
field exists near the site. In addition, the Project Area is
located at the extreme northwestern end of the Torrance Oil
Field, distant from the principal high production rate zone,
and thus removed form the highest subsidence potential. For
these reasons, subsidence due to subsurface fluid withdrawal is
considered minimal, and no significant effects are anticipated.
Mass Movement. The possibility of landslides or other related
types of slope failure in the Project Area are very remote due
to the favorable regional and topographic conditions for slope
stability. Abundant stabilizing vegetation makes surface level
failures highly unlikely, therefore, no significant effect on
the environment is anticipated.
Mineral Resources. Production within the Torrance Oil Field is
minimal. All but one well adjacent to the Project Area have
either been shut down or abandoned. Production rates from this
well are assumed to be lora.
Older onsite Pleistocene dune sands do not appear to have
significant commercial value as a mineral resource. They may
be of potential value for general construction purposes. No
significant effect on mineral resources is expected.
Toxic and Hazardous Substances. Although initial inquiry and
review revealed no conditions suggestive of subsurface
contamination of the Project Area due to toxic or hazardous
substances, the potential exists for such contamination due to
ATSF former railway uses which included the hauling of such
substances. Due to the nature of the proposed Project (change
in land use designations of the General Plan and Zoning Code),
it is premature and costly for the City to undertake a full
exploratory program to establish the presence or absence of
contaminating substances in the absence of a site-specific
development proposal. If the proposed Project is approved,
before any development -is permitted in the Project Area the
City will require the development and implementation of an
118
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
exploratory program by ATSF and/or the developer to identify
any contaminating toxic and hazardous substances and to correct
such conditions in accordance with the mitigation measures
included below.
C. MITIGATION MEASURES
Prior to the approval of any development project in
the Project Area, ATSF shall consult with LAFCD and
the City and develop a mitigation plan to assure the
continued operation and maintenance capabilities of
the Barrier Facilities. Such mitigation plan shall
include any modification or relocation of the Barrier
Facilities, or any portion thereof, necessary to
accommodate the proposed development and the
continued successful operation and maintenance of the
Facilities.
All buildings shall conform to the seismic design
requirements and procedures outlined in the Uniform
Building Code adopted by the City.
Development of the Project Area shall be subject to a
grading permit to be approved by the Building and
Planning Director.
Local and CAL -OSHA safety codes shall be adhered to
during all construction activities.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any
development in the Project Area, the City shall
require ATSF and/or the developer to develop and
implement a comprehensive exploratory program of the
soil, geologic and seismic condition of the Project
Area to determine its suitability for the development
proposed to be constructed thereon and the presence
of toxic, hazardous, chemical, trash or waste
material or condition of any kind in the Project
Area. It shall be the sole responsibility of ATSF
and/or the developer to take all actions necessary to
place the Project Area and the soil conditions in all
respects suitable for development of the Project
Area, and to discover, remove, treat, sequester and
protect against toxic, hazardous, chemical, trash or
waste material or other condition in the Project
Area. "Hazardous and toxic" means and includes all
materials, wastes and substances designated under the
Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6903(5); the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601(14); the Clean
Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1317(a) and 1321; the Clean Air
Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412; and the Toxic Substances Control
Act, 15 U.S,.C. 2606, or which may be designated as
such by the Environmental Protection Agency, the
• 119
•
California Water Quality Control Board, the U.S.
Department of Labor, the California Department of
Industrial Relations, the U.S. Department of
Transportation, the California Department of Food and
Agriculture, the Consumer Products Safety Commission,
the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
the California Department of Health Service, the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration and/or any other
governmental agency now or hereafter authorized to
regulate material and substances in the
environment. Without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, the term "Hazardous Substances" shall
include all of the foregoing described materials,
wastes, and substances as well as those materials,
wastes and substances defined as "toxic materials" in
Sections 66680 through 66685 of Title XXII of the
California Administrative Code, Division 4, Chapter
30, as amended from time to time.
The grading plan should include a complete analysis
of liquefaction based on site-specific ground water
and soil data.
Development in terrain sensitive to slides should be
avoided.
No residential or public buildings should be placed
at the base of a natural slope without adequate
remediation measures.
Devices such as retention basins, earth berms, slough
walls, and building setbacks should be developed to
mitigate all grading for slope stability.
Alteration of the natural terrain should be
controlled and where earthwork is required, grading
concepts should provide variety in the steepness of
slopes and configuration of pads, along with the
rounding, and tapering of any manufactured slope to
complement the natural contours of the land.
The grading plan should include a complete plan for
temporary and permanent drainage facilities to
minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and
other water pollutants.
Erosion control measures should be done on any
exposed slope within 30 days after grading or as
approved by the City.
Prior to the final grading plan, recommendations of
the geotechnical report should be incorporated into
the design and engineering of the project.
120
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Upon completion of a grading plan, all proposed
manufactured slopes should be reviewed for adequacy
by the geotechnical consultant to determine the
requirements for terrace drains, surface drains, and
slope landscaping/stabilization. Such measures shall
be in accordance with applicable grading ordinances.
An erosion, siltation, and dust control plan, if
required, should be submitted and be subject to the
approval of the Building Department.
Grading should be conducted in accordance with plans
prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on
recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering
geologist subsequent to the completion of a
comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the
site.
D. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
The Project would expose additional people and structures to
risks from seismic events that will occur in the reasonably
foreseeable future. The impact, however, can be reduced to a
level of insignificance by implementation of the above
described mitigation measures, depending on the magnitude of
the seismic event and the distance from the earthquake
epicenter. Any adverse soil, geologic, seismic and toxic and
hazardous conditions discovered in connection with any proposed
development in the Project Area shall be required to be
completely mitigated by ATSF and/or the developer.
5.8. WATER RESOURCES
ASL Consulting Engineers conducted a study of the City's
drainage and sewage systems for the proposed Project. The
following discussion presents the methodology and findings of
that study. The full study is included in this Final EIR as
Appendix G, Part III, Volume 3B.
• 5.8.1. DRAINAGE
•
•
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Right -of -Way drains to two existing storm drain systems.
The Second Street system collects storm flow from the southern
six acres and the Sixteenth Street system collects storm flow
from the northern 14 acres. The existing storm drain system
and tributary areas are shown on Exhibit 19 and identified in
Table T. The Second Street storm drain system is a regional
drain for portions of the Cities of Torrance, Redondo Beach,
and Hermosa Beach. The system is designed for a flow of
approximately 1,500 cubic feet per second (cfs). The Sixteenth
Street storm drain is a local system and is designed for a ten
(10) year protection level with a design flow of approximately
350 cfs. The existing systems were designed in the late 1950s
early 1960s and are maintained by the County of Los Angeles
Department of Public Works.
The Project Area runs perpendicular to the general east to west
drainage flow patterns. The slump area located north of Valley
Drive between Eighth Street and Second Street presents an
existing physical barrier to flow. The area tributary to the
slump is approximately two acres. Storm flows from the two
acres enters the slump area and discharges through percolation
and evaporation. The remainder of the Project Area drains to
either the Second Street or Sixteenth Street storm drain
systems.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The City has defined specific drainage system needs (Exhibit
19). System improvements are proposed to alleviate flooding
problems the City is experiencing at the intersection of Valley
Drive and Gould Avenue and on Ardmore Avenue between 16th
Street and 21st Street. The major system improvement proposed
by the City is the "Slump Relief Line". This line would
collect flow east of the Project area and transmit the flow to
a third ocean outlet located at Gould Avenue. All other
proposed improvements are upstream collection systems.
Downstream facilities appear adequate for their respective
design flows.
Total flow generated by the Project area (16 acres) is
approximately 41 cubic feet per second (cfs). This flow is
based on a 50 -year protection level, a minimum concentration
time of 10 minutes, and a runoff coefficient corresponding to
open space as shown in Table U.
Total flow generated by the Project Area assuming the proposed
improvements are constructed is approximately 50 cfs. The
difference of nine cfs is due to a change in runoff
coefficients. The proposed improvements result in an increase
of approximately 0.4 percent to the flows currently reaching
both the 2nd Street and 16th Street storm drain systems. The
increase flow is nominal and is within the accuracy limits of
the calculation method. Table V shows the expected increase in
runoff per parcel. Typically, hydrology calculations are
estimated plus or minus ten percent. The increased flows will
have no significant impact on the operation of the existing
storm drain system.
The increased flows may have localized impacts on the areas
adjacent to a downstream of the proposed development. Areas
where flooding presently occurs may experience increased
flooding during peak storm periods.
122
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
{
le (sig: t- .194Z+vomrnII
►='� �f�
'1
K
Ia
u
r
X ►AaCEI
0 ---,LOOMS AAAA'
POO/SOT APIA
AREA TAIaYTAAY TO lad ST. STOAY OOAlS
ASIA TAISYTAAV TO 000A ST. IMAM ORAN
xx' alta of IMMO OOP
-moo --COMM 'TOON IMAM
—5AAIp*O5 AAAA 50l1470A011
bOA010Aat mum
Bower: ASS Consultant; Eno1Mwi
ATCHISON. TOPEKA & SANTA FE
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
Environmental Impact Report
atv of HERMOSA OEACM
DRAINAGE ELEMENT
TABLE T
ACREAGE AREA/STORM DRAIN
Area Area
Tributary Tributary
to 2nd St. to 16th St.
Project Area Storm Drain Storm Drain
Land Use (AC) (AC) (AC)
Open Space 3.7 0.9 2.8
Low Density 5.2 -0- 5.2
Medium Density 1.6 1.6 -0-
High Density 2.2 0.9 1.3
Multi -Use 7.3 2.2 5.1
TOTAL 20.0 5.6 14.4
Acres Acres Acres
Land use classifications correspond to LACFCD Hydrology Manual
Fig. C-5.2.
Source: ASL Consulting Engineers
TABLE U
STORM DRAINS SYSTEM
2nd Street 16th Street
Storm Drain Storm Drain
System System
Total Drainage Area (AC) 220
50 Year Storm Flow (CFS) 1,475
Total Project Area (AC) 6
50 Year Storm Flow
From Project Area:
Without Project (CFS)
50 Year Storm Flow
From Project Area:
With Project (CFS)
Source: ASL Consulting Engineer
9
370
500
14
Total
590
1,975
20
32 41
14 36 50
124
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
TABLE V
INCREASED RUNOFF PER PARCEL
50 YR STORM 50 YR STORM
PARCEL PROPOSED ACRES FLOW W/0 FLOW WITH
NO. LAND USE ACRES PROJECT(CFS)1 PROJECT (CFS)
1 Open Space2 0.6 1.3 1.3
2 Open Space2 1.6 3.6 3.6
3 Open Space2 0.7 1.6 1.6
4 Low Density 2.9 6.5 7.0
5 Open Space4 0.1 0.2 0.2
6 Low Density 2.0 4.5 4.8
7 High Density 0.9 2.0 2.4
8 Multi -use
Commercial 2.1 4.6 5.7
9 Multi -Use
Commercial 3.5 7.8 9.4
10 Medium Density 1.6 -0- (slump) 3.9
11 Open Space2 1.0 2.2 2.2
12 High Density 1.4 3.1 3.7
13 Multi -Use
Commercial 1.6 3.6 4.2
TOTAL 20.00 41.0 50.0
1 Cubic Feet Per Second
2
Parcels 1, 2, 3, 5, 11, are not considered part of the
proposed project.
• Source: ASL Engineers
The most significant adverse impacts are those associated with
the storm drain construction creation of safety hazards,
• traffic interruption, air pollutant emissions and noise
generations. These impacts would be reduced to an insignificant
level by standard measures for street construction. All
construction impacts are short-term and highly localized.
•
•
C. MITIGATION MEASURES
. Any exposed slopes should be planted as soon as
possible to reduce erosion potential.
. All parking and other onsite paved surfaces should be
routinely vacuum swept and cleaned to reduce debris
and pollutants carried into the drainage system.
The velocity of concentrated runoff from each parcel
should be evaluated and controlled as part of project
design to minimize impacts on adjacent areas.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the design
engineer should review and state that surface runoff
discharge from the project will be performed in a
manner to assure that increased peak project flows
will not increase erosion immediately downstream of
the system. This should be reviewed and approved by
the Planning and Building Departments.
The City of Hermosa Beach Master Plan of Drainage
should be updated to reflect the implementation of
the proposed development and onsite improvements.
The property owner should design and implement onsite
storm drain systems for approval by the City of
Hermosa Beach prior to approval.
The storm drain systems should collect storm flows
upstream of Valley Drive and transmit said flows to
either the 2nd Street and 16th Street storm drain
systems.
D. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
The Project, in conjunction with other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future projects, contribute to increased
flows in the storm drain system. Implementation of the
recommended mitigation measures would mitigate impacts to a
level of insignificance.
5.8.2 SEWERS
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
There are approximately 34 miles of sanitary lines in the City
of Hermosa Beach. Approximately 80-90% of these lines were
installed between 1926 and 1982. Most of these sewer lines
consist of non -reinforced concrete pipes varying in size from 6
inches to 21 inches in diameter. The system flow is primarily
through gravity drainage. Three pump stations assist in
discharging sewage.
Sewer effluent is collected in the Los Angeles County
Sanitation District's trunk lines which flow in a generally
northwest direction toward the City of Manhattan Beach. Despite
some minor exceptions to this flow pattern, all effluent from
the City's system is ultimately discharged into the County
sewer system. Exhibit 20 depicts the location of Parcels,
drainage areas, and sewer manholes.
126
{
TARGET AREA 1
Souses: A& ConanWUan Engines
ATCHISOK TOPEKA & SANTA FE
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
Environmental Impact Report
• CITY 0i MERMOSA SEACN
DRAINAGE AREAS
sanchex 1100
CIMOCCIIES
EXHIBIT 20
Parcel 4. Due to the high elevation of the sewer on Ardmore
Avenue, it is impractical to make a connection to this line to
serve this Parcel. The 2.9 acre Parcel must be served by
joining to the sewer lines at manholes 576, 583, 586, 589, and
593 due to the absence of a sewer line along Valley Drive.
These lines travel westerly before being picked up and carried
to manhole 502.
Parcel 6. Parcel 6 is a 2.0 acre parcel of land. For similar
reasons as Parcel 4, the Parcel 6 uses the westerly sewer lines
on 24th, 21st, and 20th Streets for waste disposal. The lines
join the sewer main at Power Street carrying waste to manhole
502.
Parcel 7. The 0.9 acre site is served by the westerly sewer
line on 18th Street at manhole 601 and is carried to manhole
502.
Parcels 8 and 9. Parcel 8 is 2.1 acres and Parcel 9 is 3.5
acres. Both are served by the northerly line on Valley Drive
from 8th Street to 17th Street. This line turns westerly at
17th Street and joins manhole 502.
Parcel 10. Parcel 10 is proposed for a 40 unit residential
development on 1.6 acres. Due to the high elevation of the
sewer line at Ardmore Avenue, it is necessary to construct a
line on Valley to serve the site and join the existing system
at manhole 701.
Parcels 12 and 13. These two sites will be served by an
existing 21 inch sewer owned and maintained by the County
Sanitation District of Los Angeles County.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Evaluation of impacts on the existing sewage collection system
by the additional waste water flows was based on a computer
analysis. Each Parcel is designated by a land use category and
an associated unit average flow coefficient as indicated in
Table W. The computer analysis calculates a design flow for
each input and peaks this flow based on an empirical peaking
equation developed by using field flow measurement data. Peak
flow is defined as the maximum daily amount of flow in the main
line sewer pipe. Sewers are normally designed for peak flows
as opposed to average flows. The City's peak -to -average
relationship for the lower range of flows indicates that the
peak flow is about 4 to 5 times the computed average flow.
Table X shows design flows for each parcel before peaking.
127
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
TABLE W
UNIT AVERAGE SEWAGE FLOW COEFFICIENTS
LAND USE CATEGORY
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Multi -Use Commercial
Multi -Use Commercial (Motel)
Source: ASL Engineers
TABLE X
LAND AVERAGE
FLOW COEFFICIENT
(cfs/acre)
0.004
0.007
0.010
0.013
0.013
PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOW
PARCEL PROPOSED NO. OF COEFFICIENTS FLOW
NO. LAND USE ACRES UNITS (cfs/acres) (cfs)
1 Open Space 0.6
2 Open Space 1.6
3 Open Space 0.7
4 Low Density 2.9
5 Open Space 0.1
6 Low Density 2.0
7 High Density 0.9
8 Multi -Use
Commercial 2.1
9 Multi -Use
Commercial 3.5
10 Medium
Density 1.6
11 Open Space 1.0
12 High
Density 1.4
13 Multi -Use 1.6
Commercial
(Motel)
TOTAL 20.0
32 D.U.1
22 D.U.
30 D.U.
IMP
0.004
0.004
0.010
29,273S.F.2 0.013
48,787 S.F. 0.013
40 D.U. 0.007
46 D.U.
96 Rooms
ION 'IMO
0.012
MM. 41M1
0.008
0.009
0.027
0.046
0.011
0.010 0.014
0.013 0.021
0.148
Note: Parcels 1, 2, 3, 5, and 11 are not part of the proposed
project.
1 Dwelling Units
• 2 Square Feet
Source: ASL Engineers
• 128
•
Design unit flows of commercial developments are expectedly
higher than residential developments. Lines serving
commercially developed areas may require upgrading to handle
significant demand increase. The line from manhole 605 to
manhole 502 along Valley Drive and 17th Street requires an
increase in size to an 18 inch diameter pipe. This is an
upgrade from the 15 inch diameter pipe which was recommended in
an earlier study prepared by ASL. The recommendation of an 18
inch upgrade in the line from manhole 605 to manhole 602 is
marginal. A 15 inch line would be filled to 75% capacity which
is the maximum permissible capacity for a 15 -inch pipe.
Effluent travels westerly through manhole 502 in a 21 inch
sewer line tying into the County sewer trunk on Palm Drive.
The sewer trunk with an available capacity (pipe capacity -
present demand) of 1 million gallons per day (mgd) is capable
of handling the additional 0.148 cfs (0.10 mgd). The trunk
terminates at the joint water pollution control plant in the
City of Carson. This plant currently has a plant capacity of
385 mgd.
The most significant adverse impacts are those associated with
the sewer construction, creation of safety hazards, traffic
interruption, air pollutant emissions, and noise generation.
Direct impacts would be reduced to an insignificant level by
standard measures for street construction. All construction
impacts are highly localized and temporary in distribution and
nature.
C. MITIGATION MEASURES
The Project Applicant should clean out/flush sewer lines
associated with the Project prior to implementation.
Increase pipe sizes as shown below:
Upstream Downstream Existing
Manhole Manhole Pipe Size
605 604 15
604 603 15
603 602 15
602 502 15
508 507 10
506 505 12
505 504 12
D. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Recommended
Pipe Size
18
18
18
18
12
15
15
In conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects, the Project would contribute to
increased sewer system flows. Implementation of the
recommended mitigation measures would mitigate Project impacts
to a level of insignificance.
129
•
•
•
5.9. POPULATION AND HOUSING
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
According to the 1980 Census, the City had a 1980 population of
18,070, with an average household size of 1.98 per household.
There were 9,633 housing units in the City in 1980. There is a
wide diversity of housing unit types distributed throughout the
City. In the 1980 census about 34 percent were owner occupied,
61 percent renter occupied, and about 5 percent vacant.
According to the most recent estimates of the California
Department of Finance, the City has a population of 19,383 as
of January 1, 1987. This population was housed in 9,948
housing units, with a person per household ratio of 2.05, and a
vacancy rate of 5.36.
According to the 1980 Census, the median income level for the
City of Hermosa Beach is $13,706. The City does not have 1987
figures. Using the Consumer Price Index (1.327) it is
• estimated that the median income level per household in the
City of Hermosa Beach for 1986 is $18,188.
With regard to new housing, the Southern California Association
of Government ("SCAG") has projected that 765 additional
housing units would be constructed in Hermosa Beach over the
• five year period of 1984-1989. Only about 300 units are
projected to be built as a result of housing demand stemming
from household growth in the region and City itself. The other
two factors considered by SCAG in the projections are replacing
(with new housing) older units which are lost from the
inventory and additional units to create a 5% vacancy rate.
Projections of these two factors overstate the demand. The
• City has experienced very few housing unit losses and according
to the California Department of Finance has already achieved a
5% vacancy rate.
Due to the high residential density character of Hermosa Beach
and the environmental problems associated with the density,
• there is community consensus that the number of new housing
- units permitted should be minimized. Some 481 net acres have
been allocated for housing purposes, allowing a maximum number
of 10,225 housing units. That maximum number is 277 housing
units greater than exists in the current inventory as projected
by the California Department of Finance.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Implementation of.the proposed Project could add 180 dwelling
units to the housing stock of the City of Hermosa Beach. Since
the adoption of the Housing Element in March 1984,
• approximately 250 dwelling units have been constructed. •The
Housing Element projected a need for 300 dwelling units.
•
• 130
•
There are presently 9,948 total dwelling units in the City of
Hermosa Beach. The City recognized in the Land Use Element a
potential maximum development of 10,225 housing units, or a net
potential addition of 579 dwelling units. According to
available data the proposed Project would bring the existing
housing stock to 10,118.
Using the City's 1980 average household size of 1.98 per
dwelling units, the proposed Project would add 337 people to
the total population of the City of Hermosa Beach. (The
Project could add 425 people if the estimated 1987 average
household size of 2.05 is used.) Added to the City's estimated
1987 population, the City would have a total population of
19,720.
C. MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures are proposed.
5.10. RECREATION
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Beach Area. Hermosa Beach has historically been a primary
beach recreational area for the South Bay area. Swimming,
strolling, sunbathing and fishing are some of the most popular
recreational activities on the beach. The Strand, the City's
boardwalk, has provided an area for other recreational
activities. It is used as a bikeway, walkway, jogging path,
and roller skating path.
The variety of recreational activities on and near the beach
can be separated between coastal dependent uses (those uses
that require the beach or the ocean as an integral part of an
activity) and non -coastal dependent uses (those that do not
require the beach or ocean as a part of an activity).
Recreational needs being met at the beach and the Strand are
focused on younger people. The Strand is becoming congested
from bicyclists and roller skaters.
Non -Beach Areas. The existing inland recreational areas
provide a balanced recreational resource for the community.
Parks and school open space areas serve local and neighborhood
needs. Valley Park and Clark Athletic Field provide baseball,
football, and soccer fields. Tennis courts, volleyball courts,
picnic tables, barbecue pits, lawnbowling courts, and
playground areas are recreational uses available to the Hermosa
Beach community. Open space areas used for recreation are
listed in Table Y.
131
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
SITE
TABLE Y
PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
LOCATION
DESIGNATION AREA
Valley Park
Greenwood Park
Ft. Lots -of -Fun
Bicentennial Park
Clark Stadium
.Field
.Community Building
.Kelley Tennis Courts
.Lawn Bowling Courts
Park
Park
Moondust Park
Seaview Park
Ingleside Park
Park
Alano Club
Kay Etow Park
North School
South School
Valley Vista School
Hermosa View School
Park
Railroad
Right -of -Way
Hermosa Beach
Community Center
. Tennis Courts
Gould/Valley
Aviation/PCH
6th/Prospect
4th/Ardmore
861 Valley Drive
10th/Loma
Ardmore/5th
Meyer/2nd St.
19th/Prospect
Ingleside/33rd
8th/Valley
11th/PCH
Herondo/Monterey
25th Street
Valley/6th
Valley Drive
Prospect
4th/Prospect
N/S City Limits
710 Pier Avenue
• 132
ZONING GEN. PLAN (acres)
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
Unclass.
R2
R3
OS
Unclass.
OS
OS
R3
OS
Unclass.
OS
OS
I.
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
LD
OS
MD
OS
GC
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
6.97
.43
.40
.43
6.25
.07
.35
.08
.29
.08
.29
.32
.06
1.41
2.82
4.43
2.31
7.2
2.28
2.42
.07
19.4
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The Project would amend the General Plan and change the Zoning
to redesignate 8 of the 13 parcels from Open Space to Single
Family, Duplex, and Multi -Family Residential and General
Commercial uses.
The entire length of the Right -of -Way is primarily used for and
has a running track and parcourse. Other activities on the
site include bicycle riding and walking. Many residents walk
their dogs along the Right -of -Way.
The proposed Project would eliminate a major recreational
facility for Hermosa Beach residents. It would result in the
loss of a running track and parcourse. The City of Hermosa
Beach Parks and Recreation Department has determined that this
Project would have a significant adverse impact to their
current level of service to the City.
C. MITIGATION MEASURES
There are no measures available to mitigate the displacement of
the recreational facilities currently in the Project Area. The
narrow width of the Project Area prohibits replacement of the
facilities on site. Additionally, vehicular driveways for
access to development in the Project Area would prohibit
replacement of the jogging track on site for safety reasons.
5.11. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Public services and utilities are provided by numerous public
agencies and private companies. These entities were contacted
for information regarding current service levels and
anticipated constraints on providing service to the proposed
Project. Appendix I of this report contains correspondence
from these agencies. The locations of public services and
utilities within the City of Hermosa Beach are depicted in
Exhibit 21.
1. Cable
Storer Cable Communications provides full cable television
services to the City of Hermosa Beach. Plans for expansion are
based upon homes constructed and projected for construction.
There are no current plans for expansion of facilities in the
Project Area.
2. Electricity
The Project Area is within the service territory of the
Southern California Edison Company. The electric loads of the
133
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Project are within the estimates of projected load growth which
Edison is planning to meet in this area.
3. Fire Protection Services
The Hermosa Beach Fire Department provides fire services to the
City. Fire protection in the City includes fire suppression
and prevention, rescue, weed abatement, and enforcement of all
• appropriate codes and ordinances. The Project Area receives
fire protection service from one station located at 540 Pier
Avenue. This fire station is central to the Project Area and is
approximately 1/2 mile from the southern boundary of the Right -
of Way and 3/4 mile from the northern boundary of the Right -of
Way.
•
•
The Fire Department currently responds with six people in two
engines and one paramedic unit to all structural fire incidents
in the Project Area. The current level of service provided is
adequate. There are no current plans for expansion of
facilities or staff. Fire service within the Project Area is
nominal due to the open space character of the site.
4. Flood Control
Flood control services are provided to the City of Hermosa
Beach by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
(LACDPW). Existing LACDPW Channel and storm drains runnings
through the Project Area are located on Gould Avenue, Pier
Avenue, 8th Street, 3rd Street, and Herondo Avenue.
Unmet drainage needs near the Project Area have been identified
along Porter Lane between Valley Drive and Silver Street, 24th
Place between Power Avenue and Ardmore Avenue, 21st Street
• between Ardmore Avenue and Prospect Avenue, and Valley Drive
between Gould Avenue and the Valley Vista School. Other areas
requiring drainage facilities are located east of the Project
Area along 14th Street and Pier Avenue between Pacific Coast
Highway and Corona Street.
•
•
•
The L.A.C.D.P.W. has no plans for expansion of any facilities
- that serve or affect the Project Area. LACDPW has not budgeted
for expansion or accommodation of needed drainage facilities.
5. Gas
The -Southern California Gas Company provides natural gas energy
to the Project Area. Adequate facilities exist to provide gas
to the Project Area. There are no plans for expansion of
facilities.
• 134
1. VALLEY PARK .10. ARDMOIIE AVENUE 1
2. WCENIENNIAL PAM OIH STREEI PARK
3. GREENWOOD PNM 11. HERMOSA VEW SCHOOL
4 fORT LOIS Of rUN PARK 12. NORTH SCHOOL
11
5. SEAVIEW PARK
13. HERMOSA VALLEY SCHOOL f
E. CL ARK STADIUM IIID N. HIE DEPARTMENTLE / I
I. O+GLESIOE PARK 15. POLICE DEPARTMENT
O MOONOUSI PARK 10. LIBRARY
O 01H STREEI & 1T. STORERCAB.E•
VALLEY DRIVE PARK 10. CITY HALL —_ —_��
.2cqMED
Od
1
0
a`�oo o� �o �- o nl
�000�o..�00�
�o . �a OOflllflllllllflflflfluf7ijflo
� �
C7Ct _0=ICI0C1=30
ATCHISON. TOPEKA & SANTA FE
RALROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
Environmental Mnpacl Report
• CITY Of HERMOSA BEACH
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
• • • • • • • •
•
•
•
•
6. Hospital
South Bay Hospital located two miles from the Project Area at
514 N. Prospect Avenue in Redondo Beach, California serves the
Project Area. Services include general acute medical and
surgical services. This 203 -bed hospital facility is presently
operating at 60 percent occupancy. Emergency travel time from
the Project Area to the hospital ranges from 7 to 10 minutes.
South Bay Hospital is planning an expansion in open heart
surgery services which will include a Cardiac Catherization
laboratory. Completion date is set for Fall 1987.
7. Law Enforcement Services
The Hermosa Beach Police Department provides police services to
the City. Police services include crime investigations,
prosecution, suppression, prevention, and emergency response to
disasters. Police services within the Right -of -Way are limited
to parking violations.
The City has one police station. It is located at the center
of the City on 1315 Valley Drive. Response time ranges from a
half -minute to three minutes depending on the type of call. On
average, one to three officers respond to routine calls. Five
to seven officers and detectives respond to critical emergency
calls.
The existing police station facility is operating under crowded
conditions. Some renovation is planned within the current
facility for a better utilization of existing space. There are
no plans for expansion of facilities.
• 8. Library
The Project Area is served by the Los Angeles County Public
Library in Hermosa Beach. The library is located at 550 Pier
Avenue directly across from the Project Area.
• The library is 6,400 sq.ft. and contains over 32,000 books.
The library is open five days a week. The library loans books,
magazines, audio recordings and provides reference service to
students and the general public. There are no current plans
for expansion.
• 9. Schools
The Project Area is within the Hermosa Beach City School
District. There are three schools that serve the Project Area:
Hermosa Valley School, Hermosa View School and North School.
These schools enroll elementary through intermediate levels.
• Students at the secondary level attend school in the South Bay
Union High School District. The schools in South Bay Union
High School District serving Hermosa Beach secondary level
136
students are Redondo Union High School, Mira Costa High School,
and Pacific Shores High School. Hermosa View and North School
will close by June 1987, leaving Hermosa Valley School the only
public school in the City.
Hermosa Valley School, located at 1645 Valley Drive, has a
capacity of 800 K-8 students. Current enrollment is at 608
students. The pupil generation factor for K-8 levels is .07
per residential unit of any type. Hermosa Valley School is
presently under expansion and remodeling to house all current
K-8 students residing in the City.
10. Solid Waste
Solid waste collection in the area is provided by Browning-
Ferris Industries. Solid waste is transported to two
facilities near the Project site. Sunshine Canyon Landfill, a
Class 2 dumpsite (non-toxic), is located approximately 30 miles
from the site and at present has unlimited capacity. SWT
Transfer Station is approximately 7 miles from the site and has
a capacity of 700 tons per day. This station is operating at
capacity and is identified as a Class 2 facility.
11. Telephone
Telephone service is provided to the Project Area by General
Telephone Company. An existing aerial plant runs along the
Right -of -Way from 21st Street to the southern City boundary.
Aerial cables cross the Right -of -Way at 31st Street, Loma
Avenue, Pier Avenue, and 7th Street. An underground plant is
located within the Right -of -Way from 21st Street to the
northern City boundary.
Facility expansion is a continuous process for General
Telephone Company. There are five major projects to upgrade
and expand telephone plants in the Right -of -Way. During the
past five years the beach area has been upgraded with the
replacement of terminals and cable. New development runs the
length of the Right -of -Way and is located between Ardmore
Avenue and Valley Drive.
12. Transit
There are two providers of transit service in the City of
Hermosa Beach. These are the Hermosa Beach Dial -A -Ride Transit
Van and the HERMAN Coastal Commuter Bus.
The Dial -A -Ride system is a Citywide curb -to -curb service
operating within the City limits and seven satellite points.
The system's average travel capacity is three passenger trips
per hour. In January 1986, the City will be expanding its
Dial -A -Ride system to include the City, Redondo Beach and 11
satellite points. The average capacity of this new system will
be 30 passenger trips per hour.
137
•
•
•I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0
HERMAN Coastal Commuter Bus is a fixed route commuter system
• operating between the Cities of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach,
and the El Segundo employment center. HERMAN operates three 22
passenger vehicles and travels the route four times daily. The
service route through Hermosa Beach includes Herondo Street,
Hermosa Avenue between 26th Street and Herondo Street, and
Manhattan Avenue between 26th Street and the northern City
• boundary. The route is 4-5 blocks from the Project Area.
HERMAN is currently under evaluation for possible expansion to
Redondo Beach and the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Added service in
Hermosa Beach may include a route along Pacific Coast Highway
or Prospect Avenue by July 1987.
•
13. Water
California Water Service Company owns and operates the system
which provides water for domestic use and fire protection to
Hermosa Beach. There is an existing 8 inch pipeline which
• crosses through the Project Area at 21st Street that they
indicate must be preserved. Fifteen percent of the City's
water supply comes from company owned wells and 85% is imported
from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Water
distribution facilities are located on Beach Drive, and 14th
and 15th Courts. These lines tie into lines in Hermosa Avenue
41and Pier Avenue.
•
The water system serving the City presently provides adequate
service. Extension of facilities and back-up work may be
required to meet higher demand. The current water consumption
rate used for this project is 47,000 gal/per.yr./per person.
The proposed Project would require a nominal increase in water
demand. Fire flow requirements of approximately 1500 gallons
per minute (gpm) for residential and 3500 gpm for commercial
could require local water main upgrades. The area in the
vicinity of Gould Avenue and Valley Drive is operating at
maximum capacity under peak flow (fire flow) conditions.
California Water Service Company is planning a future 12 -inch
- to 14 -inch pipeline to augment the service to the Gould
Avenue/Valley Drive area.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
• 1. Cable
•
There areno adverse impacts to cable television services
associated with the proposed Project.
2. Electricity
The Project Area can be serviced by Southern California Edison
with no anticipated problems. The total electrical system
• 138
•
demand is expected to increase annually. Plans for new
generation resources indicate that their ability to serve all
customer loads during peak demand periods will be adequate
throughout the 1980s.
3. Fire Protection Services
According to the Fire Department, no impacts are anticipated to
the Fire Department's current level of service associated with
the Project. Built-in fire protection for all structures will
minimize the number of incidents that naturally occur in
developed areas.
4. Flood Control
The Project would create an increase in storm runoff due to the
conversion of open space to residential and commercial uses.
The impact of this increased runoff on the level of service is
unknown. There are existing unmet drainage needs in the
Project Area which will result in additional runoff. This
would create a need to expand existing facilities. The Los
Angeles County Department of Public Works does not have revenue
budgeted to accommodate facility expansion or the impacts from
the Project. The LACDPW has determined that the Project would
have a significant adverse impact to the level of service it
provides to the City.
5. Gas
Southern California Gas Company expects to provide gas service
to the Project from an existing main without significant impact
on the environment. The ability to provide gas service in the
future is based upon conditions of energy supply and policies
set by the California Public Utilities Commission. Changes in
service will be in accordance with such conditions.
6. Hospital
South Bay Hospital does not anticipate that the Project would
have any impact on the level of service it presently provides.
7. Law Enforcement Services
The proposed Project is expected to increase the demand for
police service. More residents, population density, traffic,
and commercial development would require more personnel and
resources. Additions to staff are determined by community
needs, proposed project size, and type of development.
The Police Department states that the Project would create a
need for a second floor for the existing facility. This would
allow for needed office space. A projected increase of -six
police officers is planned for within the next two years
enabling a return to acceptable manpower strengths. The
139
•
Project would require an increase of one to two additional
officers. No revenue is budgeted for such expansion due to
fiscal constraints.
8. Library
With the implementation of the Project, the library expects an
increase in the demand for library services, service hours, and
• staff. This increase is considered an adverse impact due to
the problem of financing costs of increased service and
operating hours.
9. Schools
• The Hermosa Beach City School District has indicated that
potential impacts to safety conditions near Hermosa Valley
School may result from increased noise and traffic pollution on
Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue. These issues are discussed in
the Traffic and Noise sections of this report.
If the Project generates school age children ages 5-14,
increased enrollment may require Hermosa View or North School
to be reopened after their closing date in June 1987. Ten to
twenty students at the secondary level may be generated by the
proposed Project. South Bay Union High School District views
this as an insignificant impact.
•
•
10. Solid Waste
Browning-Ferris Industries states that no adverse impacts to
solid waste disposal are expected to result from Project
implementation.
• 11. Telephone
General Telephone Company does not expect the Project will
necessitate additions to their staff. Additional aerial and
underground cables will be required to service any new
• buildings. Requirements for new commercial buildings are
determined by square footage of floor space. Residential
needs are determined by the type of plant serving the customer.
Buried lines would equal 2 lines per unit and aerial or
underground lines would equal 1.5 lines per unit.
Outside plant facilities for new buildings are budgeted two to
• three years in advance to satisfy forecasted growth and special
known requirements. General Telephone Company anticipates no
adverse impacts to telephone service in the Project Area.
•
12. Transit
The Project would create increased demand for Dial -A -Ride and
HERMAN commuter bus service. The exact amount of increase is
not known at this time.
• 140
Increased population could increase the City's proportionate
share of Proposition A Local Transit Return funds used for the
Dial -A -Ride program. It is expected that the proposed Project
will cause a slight increase in the proportion of service
provided to Hermosa Beach residents. It may affect Hermosa
Beach's cost in the proposed expansion of the Dial -A -Ride
system effective January 1987.
The proposed Project will create an increase in the proportion
of service provided to Hermosa Beach residents by HERMAN. It
may affect Hermosa Beach's share of cost in the proposed
expansion of the HERMAN Commuter Bus System. The City of
Hermosa Beach does not predict any difficulty in providing
Dial -A -Ride and HERMAN transportation services to the Project
Area.
13. Water
California Water Service Company has approximately 4,000 feet
of new water mains budgeted annually for repairs or
replacements on the existing system. Any expansion of
facilities to meet higher demand would be initially funded by
the developer in accordance with the rules and regulations of
the California Public Utilities Commission.
Water main construction impacts are highly localized and
temporary in distribution and nature. These impacts during
construction can be reduced to an insignificant level by
standard measures for street construction. The California
Water Service Company anticipates no adverse impacts to water
service in the Project Area.
C. MITIGATION MEASURES
If the proposed Project is approved, site-specific mitigation
measures would be identified and imposed by the City for each
development proposal at the time of approval.
1. Fire Protection Services
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following
conditions shall be met by the developer.
. The Fire Department shall review the proposed plans and
may require automatic fire sprinkler protection.
. Any cul-de-sacs, building addresses, and street 'names
shall comply with City standards and shall be approved
by the Fire Department.
. Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire and
Public Works Department.
141
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• As equipped and approved by the Fire Department, all
buildings on the project site shall be equipped with fire
• suppression systems approved by the Fire Department.
• All buildings accesses shall be approved by the Fire
Department.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
▪ All onsite fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department
connection) shall be approved by the Fire and Public
Works Department.
• Water systems will be required to provide for peak fire
flow demand as determined by the Hermosa Fire Department.
• Access roadways will be required to conform to Section
10.207 of the 1982 Uniform Fire Code.
• If fire flow calculations provided by the City Fire
Department indicate usually large fire demands,
additional pipelines should be required.
▪ All residential units should be equipped with smoke
alarms.
• All access to onsite nonresidential buildings should be
approved by the City Fire Department.
2. Law Enforcement Services
• The Hermosa Beach Police Department should review all
project plans prior to the issuance of building permits
to ensure the incorporation of appropriate crime
prevention measures in building and project design.
3. Solid Waste
• The developer should devise a program for the sorting and
pickup or disposal of recyclable materials from other
solid wastes.
• Trash compactors should be installed to
potential waste storage problems.
mitigate
• Detailed design plans should address adequate access to
solid waste storage areas.
4. Water
• Modifications to the water system in the vicinity of the
Project must be approved by the California Water Service
Company and the City Planning and Public Works
• Departments. All costs would be borne by the developer.
• 142
•
Significant unavoidable impacts associated with water
main construction such as traffic interruption, air
pollutant emissions, generation of noise, and creation of
safety hazards should be reduced to an insignificant
level by standard measures for street construction.
5. Gas/Electricity/Telephone/Cable
The project design should comply with energy standards
set forth in Title 24 of the California Administrative
Code.
Appropriate easements should be provided for new
telephone facilities.
Early and thorough exchange of information relative to
energy needs should be provided with overall timetables
of project development.
Utility lines including, but not limited to, electrical
communications, street lighting, and cable television
shall be placed underground. The developer shall be
responsible for complying with requirements of this
subsection and making necessary arrangements with the
utility companies for the installation of such
facilities.
D. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
If specific development occurs, most individual impacts can be
mitigated to a level of insignificance, if the recommended
mitigation measures are implemented. The proposed Project
would contribute to an increased demand for electrical,
medical, fire, police, library, public transit, educational,
sewer, solid waste, telephone, gas, water, and flood control
services which could be a cumulatively significant effect. No
site specific mitigation can be identified at this time to
mitigate adverse impacts to a level of insignificance, as no
development plans have been prepared.
143
•
•
6.1. GENERAL
6.0. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
This section discusses three (3) proposals which are determined
to be reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project:
Alternative No. 1 - "No Project/No Development"; Alternative
No. 2 - "Open Space Development Under Existing Land Use and
• Zoning"; and Alternative No. 3 - "Decreased Intensity
Development."
6.2. NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT
The No Project/No Development Alternative would allow the
• Project Area to remain in an "as -is" condition with no
additional development occurring on the site. The General Plan
and Zoning Open Space land use designations would remain the
same. This Alternative would avoid the Project -related
significant effects discussed and analyzed in the text. The No
Project/No Development Alternative is environmentally superior
to the proposed Project and the other alternatives evaluated
• hereunder and should remain under consideration.
With no development occurring in the Project Area, the City
could continue to preserve and maintain the Right -of -Way as an
Open Space green area. The policies and goals of the City's
land use regulation plans would not require amendment. The
• existing parking and recreation facilities located in the
Right -of -Way would not be displaced.
This Alternative would not displace or interfere with the LAFCD
Salt Water Intrusion Barrier Project facilities located in the
Right -of -Way, and would avoid the local and regional impact of
• the proposed Project on these facilities. No additional
vehicle trips would be generated by the proposed Project and it
would not contribute to cumulative traffic growth. This
alternative would not increase emissions of air pollutants, nor
generate additional noise. There would be no increased demand
for energy or public services.
•
6.3. DEVELOPMENT UNDER EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
The Project Area has a General Plan, Zoning and Local Coastal
Plan designation of Open Space. The Open Space designation
prohibits intensive urban development in such designated areas
• of the City to assure permanent open space in and for public
parks and recreation areas and to protect adverse affects on
public uses and natural environmental areas.
This Alternative presents a conceptual plan for development of
the Project Area for those uses permitted by the City's Open
• Space Zone. Article 9.5 of the Hermosa Beach City Code
establishes the Open Space Zone and sets forth the uses
• 144
permitted. The following development standards are applicable
to Open Space Zones:
- 10% maximum building coverage of land area;
- two stories or 25 feet building height limit;
10% maximum land area for off-street parking use;
setbacks of 20 feet from all lot lines.
This Alternative illustrates the manner in which uses permitted
in the Open Space Zone can be organized and developed on the
land area of the Project. It retains the Open Space
designation and proposes five different land uses. These
proposed uses include a tennis club, a swim/health club, a
private school, a nursery school and a day care center. Based
on a topographic analysis, buildings would be located in those
areas where minimum grading would be required.
Tennis Club Facility. A 1,200 square foot building with 8,700
square feet of parking (29 spaces) is proposed. Parking
includes two spaces for each tennis court in addition to
parking for the building.
Swim -Health Club Facility. This proposal includes a 12,000
square foot building with 48,000 to 52,000 square feet of
parking (160 spaces). Parking provided is based on one parking
space for every 75 square feet of building area.
Private School Facility. The proposed private school would
include a 7,600 square foot building and 11,400 square feet of
parking (38 spaces). Parking is based on the ratio of one
space per 200 square feet of building area.
Nursery School Facility. This facility would include 2,600
square feet of building area and 3,900 square feet of parking
(13 spaces). The parking ratio is one space per 200 square
feet of building area.
Day Care Center Facility. The proposed day care center would
include 2,000 square feet of building area and 3,000 square
feet of parking (10 spaces). The parking ratio is the same as
for the proposed private and nursery school facilities.
The total development would include approximately 25,400 square
feet of building area or 2.97 percent of the total land area
and 75,000 square feet of parking or 8.78 percent of total land
area. This proposed Alternative complies with the City's
existing zoning and parking ordinances which provides that the
maximum building coverage of land area in an Open Space Zone
shall not exceed 10 percent, and that no more than 10 percent
of the land area shall be used for off-street parking.
145
•
•
•
•
I✓
01
•
•
4v
MISERY SCHOOL
v a \\ el
•
•
DAY CARE CENTER
PRIVATE SCHOOL
-44
rem'
vatl•�-Y �
.LOG / BIKE PATH
•
•
76
•
dt
w
t
C 4ie
=�,a� ti
ARDMORE AVE. V-____— r
VALE
D
ce
tar
TENNIS CLUB
SWIM / HEALTH CLUB
‘L-1-tY DR
cik GP
0 tee-- at° CONCEPT PLAN
te'� FOR URFA PERMITTED WITHIN O.S. ZONE
E..LL
•Coin... T.44..••.fM WELL
•
Land Use. Development pursuant to this Alternative would be
for those uses permitted in the City's Open Space Zone Code.
This Alternative would implement the City's policies and goals
with respect to the preservation and maintenance of Open Space
as set out in the City's land use regulation plans. This
Alternative would permit the retention of the existing on-site
recreational uses.
LAFCD Salt Water Intrusion Barrier Project. This Alternative
would allow the LAFCD Salt Water Intrusion Barrier Project to
remain without interference, thus avoiding an adverse impact on
the ground water supply for the South Coast area.
Traffic, Air Pollution and Noise. Traffic estimates from the
uses proposed under this Alternative result in a total of 735
vehicle trips per day with 145 of such trips occurring during
the peak hour. Estimated vehicular trips per day generated by
each use is as follows:
TOTAL PEAK HOUR
VTD VTD
Tennis & Swim -Health Clubs 600 110
Private School (Assume 100 Students) 50 10
Nursery School 60 15
Day Care Center 25 10
TOTALS
735 145
Source: City of Hermosa Beach
Compared with the estimated total 11,400 vehicular trips per
day generated by the proposed Project (680 trip ends during
a.m. peak hour and 1,170 trip ends during the p.m. peak hour),
the impact of this Alternative on traffic and circulation in
the area of the Project would be minimal. Likewise, this
Alternative project's contribution to air pollution and noise
would be minimal.
6.4. DECREASED INTENSITY DEVELOPMENT
This Alternative assumes a decrease in intensity of commercial
development from the maximum development which would be
permitted by the Project. This Alternative examines the same
project analyzed in the Draft EIR, which was provided by the
Project Applicant as a possible reduced intensity project.
This Alternative considers the following intensities:
147
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Parcel No. Land Use Intensity
4
6
7
10
12
8
9
13
Low Density Housing
Low Density Housing
High Density Housing
Medium Density Housing
High Density Housing
Multi -Use Commercial
Multi -Use Commercial
Multi -Use Commercial
(Hotel/Motel)
32 du
22 du
30 du
40 du
46 du
29,273 sq. ft.
48,787 sq. ft.
96 units
Development under this Alternative would create essentially the
same impacts as those that would occur under the proposed
Project. However, development pursuant to this Alternative is
considered superior to the proposed Project because of the
decrease in the intensity of the development. The following
discussion addresses the differences in the impacts of this
Alternative and those of the proposed Project described in
Section 5..0 of this report.
Land Use and Planning. Under this Alternative all Parcels in
the Project Area would have the same land use designations as
the proposed Project. The difference is in the intensity of
development permitted on each Parcel. Following is a
comparison of the levels of development permitted for each
Parcel under the proposed Project and this Alternative:
Parcel No.
4
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
Intensity of Development
Proiect
38 DUs
26 DUs
30 DUs
93,762 Sq. Ft.
186,218 Sq. Ft.
40 DUs
46 DUs
175 Units
The proposed Project could include total
follows:
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
• High Density Residential
General Commercial (Retail Sales & Office)
General Commercial (Motel)
•
• 148
Alternative
32 DUs
22 DUs
30 DUs
29,273 Sq. Ft.
48,787 Sq. Ft.
40 DUs
46 DUs
96 Units
development as
64 DUs
40 DUs
76 DUs
279,980 Sq. Ft.
175 Units
•
This Alternative would include total development as follows:
Low Density Residential 54 DUs
Medium Density Residential 40 DUs
High Density Residential 76 DUs
General Commercial (Retail Sales & Office) 78,060 Sq. Ft.
General Commercial (Motel) 96 Units
With the exception of commercial development, the levels of
development are very similar. Low Density Residential
development under the proposed Project exceeds that proposed
under this Alternative by 10 dwelling units. However, multi-
use commercial development under the proposed Project exceeds
that under the Alternative by 201,920 square feet.
This Alternative would have the same significant effects on the
City's land use regulation plans as are identified for the
Project in Section 5.1 of this report. The less intense
development proposed by this Alternative would not lessen the
impact on the City's ability to implement and carry out its
policies and goals with respect to the preservation and
maintenance of Open Space. Amendments to the Zoning Code, the
Open Space, Land Use and numerous other Elements of the General
Plan would still be necessary. The Local Coastal Plan would
still be required to be amended and the approval of the Coastal
Commission obtained.
LAFCD Salt Water Intrusion Barrier Proiect. The reduced
development intensity under this Alternative would have the
same significant effect on the LAFCD Salt Water Intrusion
Barrier Project as would the proposed Project (See Section
6.0). Any intense development in the Project Area would
severely constrain the operation and maintenance of the Barrier
by LAFCD and prevent City implementation of Policy 15 of the
Conservation Element which is to prevent salt water intrusion
by injecting water underground to create a barrier.
Pedestrian and Jogging Path. Development under this
Alternative, as for the proposed Project, would eliminate the
existing pedestrian and jogging uses in the Project Area, which
would have a significant effect on City policy and recreation
facilities. Maintenance of the pedestrian and jogging trail
if development occurs would be hampered by the number of street
and curb crossings necessary for the development and may create
traffic conflicts and hazards.
Parking. This Alternative, like the proposed Project, would
eliminate existing public parking in the Project Area. This
Alternative, like the proposed Project, would significantly
impact the City's ability to replace parking and to provide
additional parking as there are no identifiable alternative
sites available, and would adversely impact its land use
regulations with respect to parking.
149
•
•
•
•
Traffic and Circulation'. The total traffic expected to be
generated by the proposed Project is 11,410 vehicle trips per
day which is a 48 percent increase over the 7,680 daily trips
projected in the Draft EIR for the development proposed under
this Alternative. In comparing these numbers, however, several
factors must be noted. The average daily traffic volumes for
the proposed Project as presented in this Final EIR were based
on 24 hour machine counts of summer traffic in July 1987. The
average daily traffic volumes presented in the Draft EIR were
based on peak hour counts made during October 1986. Although
the traffic consultant found the peak hour volumes counted in
October to be comparable with peak hour volumes counted in
July, he suspects that the summer average daily traffic volumes
used in the Final EIR to be somewhat greater than the average
annual daily traffic. In addition, summer average daily
traffic for the proposed Project was estimated for the build-
out year of 1997, and assumed a 3 percent annual growth rate
for cumulative growth. Future traffic conditions in the Draft
EIR was done for conditions in the year 2005 with an estimated
growth rate of 1/2 percent per year. It was determined by the
traffic consultant that the future volumes used in the Final
EIR are probably more accurate than those found in the Draft
EIR.
Notwithstanding questions raised by the differences in
methodology used in preparing the two •reports, development
pursuant to this decreased intensity Alternative would result
in the following environmental impacts:
• There will be a minimal impact on a.m. peak period LOS
and conditions will generally remain acceptable.
▪ The development would contribute to cumulative traffic
• which would be a significant effect.
• Access driveways on Ardmore and Valley to serve the
Project Area will decrease the existing level of service
on those streets and on turning movements, but to a
lesser degree than the proposed Project.
• All Pacific Coast Highway intersections during the p.m.
peak hour would operate at LOS "F" with or without the
Project.
Aesthetics. The impacts on the aesthetics of the area under
• this Alternative are identical to those of the proposed
Project. Development pursuant to this Alternative would result
in the same loss of regional and local views of a continuous
Open Space corridor. Landscaping and mature vegetation would
still be eliminated changing the visual character of the area.
• Since development under this Alternative would be somewhat less
intense, the obstruction of views of adjacent land uses would
be less but, not significantly less.
•
• 150
Noise. The noise impacts from this Alternative would be
somewhat less than those identified for the proposed Project.
The construction noise impact would be the same, however,
vehicular traffic noise would decrease because of the reduction
in vehicle trips generated by the scaled-down project.
Vehicular noise from this proposed Alternative would still
contribute cumulatively to noise in the area.
Air Quality. Air Quality impacts resulting from construction
activities are the same as those identified in EIR for the
proposed Project. While dust and emissions from construction
activities would be theoretically less because of the scaled-
down development, such dust and emissions would still create a
significant effect on the surrounding area. Since the major
impact on air quality results from vehicular emissions, it was
determined that the increase in traffic for the proposed
Alternative would not result individually result in a
significant impact on air quality. However, traffic generated
pursuant to this Alternative would contribute to cumulative
effects as would the proposed Project.
Bioloaical Resources. As with the proposed Project,
development pursuant to this Alternative will not result in any
significant effect on biological resources. (See Section 5.6.)
Earth Resources. Development pursuant to this Alternative will
result in the same environmental impacts for earth resources as
are identified in Section 5.7 for the proposed Project.
Population and Housing. Development pursuant to this
Alternative will result in the same impacts on population and
housing as would the proposed Project as the residential
housing to be constructed is essentially the same.
Recreation. Development 'under this Alternative would have the
same effect on recreation as identified in Section 5.10 for the
proposed Project. The jogging trail and par course would still
be lost to the residents of the City. The same problems exist
with respect to relocation sites. There are no known
mitigation measures.
Public Services and Utilities. This Alternative would result
in a decrease in the demand for public services and utilities.
While the residential development proposed for the Project and
this Alternative is of essentially the same scope resulting in
essentially the same demands, the demands for services and
utilities for the lesser scale commercial development proposed
under this. Alternative would be less.
151
•
•
•
1•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
7.0. LONG TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
7.1. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S
ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF
LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Implementation of the Project represents a long-term commitment
of the site to urban uses and a detrimental loss of Open Space
to the City. Conversion of the Project Area from Open Space to
urban land uses is in direct conflict with the City's land use
regulation plans which heavily stress the preservation and
enhancement of existing green areas and an increase in total
Open Space. The City's Open Space Element has declared "Open
Space is necessary to create a better living environment
through provision of visual and psychological relief,
recreation, education and cleansing of air." The Right -of -Way
has been designated as "Primary Open Space" with special value
to the surrounding densely developed City. Approval of the
proposed Project would require extensive amendments of the
City's General Plan, its Local Coastal Plan and its Zoning
Ordinance, and the City would be rendered unable to carry out
its policies and goals with respect to Open Space.
The Project would contribute to impacts on air quality, demand
for support services, increased traffic and noise, increased
demand for public services and utilities, loss of recreational
facilities and loss of views.
While the Project would provide potential benefits to the City,
including tax revenues, housing, employment opportunities
within the community, and utility and roadway improvements, the
detriment from the loss of Open Space and the cumulative
adverse impacts on the environment outweigh those potential
benefits.
7.2. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH
WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE
IMPLEMENTED
Approval of the Project would allow for the construction of a
mixed use development with 180 low, medium and high density
residential units, 279,980 square feet of general commercial
uses, and a 175 room motel. Project development would commit
future generations to similar uses of the site. Residences and
commercial uses will be built, utilities installed, roads
constructed, and other types of improvements similar to those
associated with an urban area will be made. Subsequent
reversion to a less intensive urban or open space use after
development is highly infeasible due to large capital
investment.
Several irreversible commitments of limited resources would
result from implementation of the proposed project. These
resources include, but are not limited to, lumber and other
• 152
forest products, sand and gravel, water, asphalt, petrochemical
construction materials, and steel, copper, lead, and other
metals.
The Project site provides open space to residents of Hermosa
Beach. Implementation of the Project will have a long-term
impact on the scenic quality of the area since the site will no
longer appear as a green belt area. The proposed Project will
involve an irreversible commitment of labor and capital
investment and an increased demand for social and public
services.
7.3. GROWTH -INCLUDING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED
ACTIONS
Given the extent of development which has already occurred, has
been approved, and the limited availability of undeveloped land
in the City, it is unlikely that this Project will have a
significant growth -inducing effect. The Project may
incrementally add to increased pressures for redevelopment in
the City.
7.4. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT
BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSAL IS IMPLEMENTED
Land Use. The proposed Project would have a significant effect
on the City's land use regulation and plans. The Project's
conversion of existing Open Space land to intensive urban uses
would require the City to refocus and amend its various
policies and goals with respect to the preservation of the
limited Open Space left in the City. Approval of the proposed
Project would render the City unable to carry out its adopted
policies and goals. Approval of the proposed Project would
eliminate the last green belt area in the City.
Aesthetics. The proposed Project would have a significant
effect on the scenic view of the area, as landscaping and
other vegetation would be replaced by buildings.
Transportation and Circulation. The proposed Project would
contribute significantly to cumulative increases in traffic and
create access problems for the area.
Earth Resources. The proposed Project would have a significant
local and regional effect on LAFCD Salt Water Barrier
Facilities located in the Project Area.
Air Quality. On a cumulative basis the Project will
contribute significantly to short-term and long-term adverse
impacts on air quality.
Noise. On a cumulative basis the Project will contribute
significantly to short-term and long-term impacts on noise.
153
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Recreation. The proposed Project would have a significant
effect on the recreation facilities of the City.
• 7.5. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
The City prepared an Initial Study to identify effects of the
proposed Project which were determined to be potentially
significant. Those areas in the Initial Study which were
determined not to be significant are stated below:
•
. Human Health • Glo
. Energy eogy and Soils
. Animal Life
• Cultural Resources. Plant Life
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
154
I-
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
8.0. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED DURING
PREPARATION OF THE DRAFT EIR
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Planning Department
Public Works Department
Fire Department
Police Department
Community Services Department
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Los Angeles County Public Library
Los Angeles County Public Works
Los Angeles County Regional
Planning
Los Angeles County Sanitation
City of El Segundo
City of Hawthorne
City of Lawndale
City of Manhattan Beach
City of Redondo Beach
City of Torrance
Southern California Edison
Browning-Ferris Industries
General Telephone Co.
California Water Service Co.
Southern California Gas
Storer -Cable TV Service
Hermosa Beach City School District
South Bay Hospital District
South Bay Union High School District
Turrini and Brink
Santa Fe South Pacific Corp.
• Rapid Transit District
•
•
• 155
Michael Schubach
Amy Jane Frater
Anthony Antich
Deborah M. Murphy
Captain Edward Chesson
Captain Val Strauser
Alana Mastrian
Louise Mazerov
Greg Medeiros
Ronald D. Hoffman
Gary Brooks
Lynn Harris
Mark Subbotin
Paula Burrier
Terry Stambler-Wolfe
Harlan Corwick
David Serren
Bob Anderson
Gerald Perissi
Betty Lang
Walt Delsigne
Jim Sharp
Del Winkler
Marilyn Corey
Kenneth Ono
Dr. Walter Hale
Louis Turrini
Frank Greco
Trisha Neil
Benjamin B. Salvati
Gary S. Spivack
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
9.0. PREPARERS OF AND CONTRIBUTORS TO REPORT
Preparer
Planning Department
City of Hermosa Beach
Contributors
Draft EIR
Biological Assessment
Air Quality Analysis
Noise Assessment
Traffic Analysis
Geotechnical Study
Graphic Design
• 156
Fred Talarico
Dana Privitt
Shunna Williams
Steve Nelson,
Biological Consultant
Hans Giroux,
Meteorological Consultant
Fred Greve,
Mestre Greve Associates
Gary Adams,
ASL Consulting Engineers
Richard Lung,
Leighton and Associates
Karen Mikkelson
•
10.0.
•, Grain and Associates, Inc.
Demonstration in Hermosa
Department of Transportation
Hermosa Beach, City of, 1984
Related Code Provisions.
Beach, CA.
•
REFERENCES
, 1985. A Preferential Parking
Beach, CA. Prepared for U.S.
, Washington, DC.
City of Hermosa Beach Zoning and
Prepared for the City of Hermosa
Los Angeles, County of, 1984. Standard Plans.
the County of Los Angeles Road Department.
Phillips Brandt Reddick, 1984. Certified Final Focused
• Environmental Impact Report Hermosa Beach Hotel Book 1 and 2.
Prepared for the City of Hermosa Beach, CA.
Santina and Thompson, Inc., 1985. The City of Hermosa Beach
Sewer System Analysis Target Area 1. Prepared for the City of
Hermosa Beach, CA.
Prepared for
•
•
Ibid., 1985. The City of Hermosa Beach Sewer System Analysis
Target Area 2. Prepared for the City of Hermosa Beach, CA.
Planning Consultants Research, 1983. Environmental Impact
Report Regarding: Hermosa Beach Shopping Center. Prepared for
the City of Hermosa Beach, CA.
Jim Hinzdel & Associates, Inc., 1983. Draft Environmental
Impact Report, Hermosa Beach School District School Site
Planning Proiect. Prepared for the Hermosa Beach School Board,
City of Hermosa Beach, CA.
• Cotton/Beland/Associates, April 1985. Status Report: Local
Coastal Program; Saltwater Intrusion Barrier Project. Prepared
for the City of Hermosa Beach, CA.
Cotton/Beland/Associates, May 1985. Analysis of Assumptions:
AT/SF Proposed Development Plan. Prepared for the City of
• Hermosa Beach, CA.
Cotton/Beland/Associates, August 1985. Concept Plan for
Development of Santa Fe Railroad Right -of -Way with Uses
Permitted Within Open Space Zone. Prepared for the City of
Hermosa Beach, CA.
•
•
•
Obid., 1985. The City of Hermosa Beach Sewer System Analysis
Appendices. Prepared for the City of Hermosa Beach, CA.
Hermosa Beach, City of. Ordinance No. 86-839. Adopted by the
City of Hermosa Beach, CA.
Ibid., . Ordinance No. 85-820. Adopted by the City of Hermosa
Beach, CA.
157
EXHIBIT B
REVISIONS TO REVISED TEXT OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
1. Summary. Statements regarding areas of controversy and
issues to be resolved are being added to this Section.
2. Traffic and Circulation. Revisions to this Section are
being made incorporating the changes required by the
communication dated December 22, 1987 from ASL
Consulting Engineers, traffic consultants, "FINAL E.I.R.
- AT&SF RIGHT-OF-WAY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE
CHANGE", attached hereto.
3. Noise. Revisions to the Noise assessment Section are
being made in accordance with the updated report of
December 7, 1987, "NOISE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ATCHISON,
TOPEKA, AND SANTA FE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY EIR",
prepared by Mestre Greve Associates, consultants,
attached hereto. This study assesses noise impacts
using traffic volumes from the traffic study of
September 14, 1987 by ASL Consulting Engineers and
replaces the previous noise study of October 24, 1986.
` ASL Consulting Engineers
December 22, 1987
Erma Lake
Kane, Ballmer & Berkman
354 South Spring Street, Suite 420
Los Angeles, CA 90013
SUBJECT: FINAL E.I.R. - AT&SF RIGHT-OF-WAY GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE
Dear Erma:
William 0 Lewis
president
Douglas J Reinhart
vice President
Robert H. Reinen
Vice President
Zareh G. Astourian
vice Pres,dent
Thomas N. O'Laughlin
'ice President
Paul R. Gilmore
Senor Assoc,ate
William E. Bennett
senor Associate
Shahnawaz Ahmad
or assocate
Pamela J. Steinhart
Associate
Frank E. Alderman
.•oonder
Frank M. Swift
Refired
At your request we are responding to a copy of the City of
Hermosa Beach Inter -office Memo to Mr. Micheal Schubach from Mr.
Anthony Antich dated October 10, 1987 regarding the traffic
portion of the subject Environmental Impact Report (EIR). We are
also responding to the letter addressed to Mr. Schubach from
Caltrans dated November 24, 1987 on the same subject.
Unfortunately, your request was made this last Wednesday, leaving
us little time to address the issues. For that reason the
following responses are rather general in nature.
We are confused with the reference to page numbers in the
aforementioned memo. They do not appear to correspond to either
the final draft of the Traffic Impact Study dated September 14,
1987 or Part 1 of the Final EIR you sent us last week. This makes
responding to the comments very difficult.
The following are the comments made in the aforementioned memo
followed by our response.
Re. "Page 54, Turning movement counts for Valley/Gould/Ardmore do
not add."
Response: We can not find the Table/Figure/text to which this
comment refers. Turning movement counts are often rounded to
reflect there significance as typical hourly volumes. Minor
error in actual counting is also tolerated for this reason. If
the comment refers to a large discrepancy, it may be a
typographical error.
Re. "Page 56, Exhibit 9 - Counts for Pacific Coast Highway and
Aviation should be shown. Zero volume for westbound Pier Avenue
is incorrect."
E Corporate Office Q"2540 Red Hill Avenue, Suite C 2045 East Tahquitz-McCallum Way
3280 East Foothill Boulevard. Suite 160 Santa Ana, California 92705-5542 Palm Springs, California 92262-7003
Pasadena, California 91107-3197 (714) 250-5525 (619) 320-4220
(818) 792-3096 • (213) 682-2178
i
4
ASL Consulting Engineers
Erma Lake
Page Two
December 22, 1987
Response: We agree. Turning movement counts were taken for this
intersection on September 15, 1987. We were prepared to include
analysis of this intersection in the final report, but our final
draft was published without our knowledge and before we had a
chance to do this work. Daily volumes for Pacific Coast Highway
were obtained from Caltrans and were included on page 2 of our
letter to you dated September 22, 1987
ICU values for the PCH/Aviation intersection need to be added to
Tables 7 and 8.
The "zero" volume shown for westbound Pier in our Figure 3, was
placed there in error. This 24 hour count was not taken for this
report and the volume here should simply be omitted.
Re. "Page 59, Project ADTs of zero need re-examination and
justification."
Response: All references of "zero" project volumes should be
changed to "negligible" unless the movement is prohibited. Our
assumed placement of project access made several entering and
exiting routes unlikely and thus the volumes were considered
minimal.
Re. "Page 61, If it is assumed that 25% of the project trips are
oriented west, where are they going? The distribution assumption
needs to be rational."
Response: Questions regarding our assumed trip distribution are
puzzling at this point. Our staff met with City Staff and Mr.
Ed Ruzak early on in the study process specifically to go over
our initial assumptions including trip distribution. To change
these assumptions would require that all of the technical
analysis be done over.
Orientation of project trips to the west are presumed oriented to
north -south Hermosa Avenue, local retail landuses and to beach
activities. Redistribution of a portion of these trips over the
entire project area would probably not have a significant effect
on the results of the study.
Re. "Page 62, "Acceptable" level of service is a policy decision
of the community not the author."
ASL Consulting Engineers
Erma Lake
Page Three
December 22, 1987
Response: Perhaps the word "acceptable" is inappropriate.
It was used to to refer to an LOS level associated with the
generally accepted "design" volume to capacity ratios for urban
areas. The reader should understand that the entire concept of
LOS designations is subjective to begin with. We would prefer
not to associate LOS levels with the ICU value at all.
Re. "Page 63, The statement that a signal at Valley/Gould/Pier is
warranted under current intersection geometrics is not true.
This was previously analyzed for the City by Mohle Grover &
Associates and a signal installation will cause more delay when
compared to a stop intersection. In order to improve conditions,
1.) Valley/Ardmore would need to be one way couplets, or 2.) the
intersection of Pier/Valley Ardmore needs reconstruction to a
four leg intersection."
Response: We presume that reference to Valley/Gould/Pier is a
typographical error and that it should read Valley/Ardmore/Pier.
Our report reads "Based on 1987 summer volumes, at least one
warrant is met" at this intersection. We did not state that a
signal is warranted. You may wish to consult either the state
Traffic Manual or the M.U.T.C.D. for the distinction. Either
publication will state that satisfaction of a warrant (or
warrants) does not necessarily justify the installation of a
signal.
We went on to say that "intersection operation characteristics
that were not addressed as part of this study such as accident
history and delay may support the need for signalization ..."
Perhaps we should have used the term "may or may not" instead of
"may." We did however go on to say that "It is recommended that
the City conduct a specific traffic signal warrant study at this
time to determine the need for signalization at Pier and
Valley/Ardmore." Apparently the City has had MGA conduct such a
study.
Re. "Page 66, Zero for eastbound 8th Street between Pacific Coast
Highway and Ardmore doesn't seem reasonable. Recheck."
Response: All "zeros" on this figure should be changed to
"negligible". The driveway locations assumed for trip
distribution made this route for exiting project traffic
unlikely.
a
ASL Consulting Engineers
Erma Lake
Page Four
December 22, 1987
Re. "Page 67-68, The assumed distribution of traffic on page 61
doesn't match the drawings on pages 67 & 68. Page 61 says the
project will generate 680 trips in the AM peak. Exhibit 10 shows
20% of the project trips on Gould (20% of 680 = 136) yet the AM
peak turning movement (page 67) is not even close, even when
added to the PM peak turning movement (page 68)."
Response: Trip distribution shown on Figure 4 is only strictly
correct at the boundaries. That is to say, for example, that 20
percent of all project trips will travel on PCH north of Gould
and about 10 percent of all project trips will travel on Ardmore
north of Gould. The two percentages shown internally, i.e. 20
percent on Gould between Ardmore and PCH and 20 percent on Pier
between Ardmore and PCH should probably be omitted from the
figure. Once access point assumption were made from the project,
traffic was distributed based on these general distribution
percentages. Because of the length of the project and the number
of landuses throughout the length, not all parcels have traffic
tributary to Gould, Pier and Herando. The figure might be better
titled "Assumed General Directional Distribution of Project
Traffic."
Landuses with traffic tributary to Gould are open space (Parcels
1,2 and 3) and low density residential (Parcel 4).
We have briefly reviewed Caltrans comments. They feel that the
minimum mitigation for PCH would be providing a third through
lane in both directions by implementing full time parking
restrictions. We feel that the impacts of implementing full time
restricted parking are extensive (for example impacts on local
parking supply vs. demand, financial impacts to merchants, et
cetera). Such a measure implemented solely for this project does
not seem reasonable. Even with full time parking restrictions,
ICU's will remain over 1.00 at most locations with project
contributions of at most 6 percent of the ICU). The impact may
even be less. As Caltrans points out, our trip generation
assumptions may be conservatively high.
We do not feel this is a reasonable mitigation measure for the
project traffic impact. We agree that the project will have a
negative impact on the Highway traffic. As stated, this impact
will show its self in an extension of the peak travel period,
i.e. a slight increase in overall delay to motorists. Our
calculations do however show that this measure would more than
mitigate project traffic impact from an ICU standpoint.
4
ASL Consulting Engineers
Erma Lake
Page Five
December 22, 1987
Maintenance of parking on PCH with ICU's exceeding 1.00 today
implies a "planned deficiency" in capacity. If elimination of
parking is not acceptable to mitigate existing problems, why then
would it be acceptable to mitigate a one to six percent increase
in travel demand in the year 1997? These considerations should
be considered if this mitigation measure is included in the
document.
The material that you sent us by FAX last Wednesday did not
include the written comments made by Ed Ruzak, dated September
30, 1987. You had sent a FAX of these comments in October but we
found that the EIR had been published shortly thereafter. We
were not given the chance to incorporate into the report
responses to his comments or the information provided in our
letter to you dated September 22, 1987.
We would like, at this time to briefly respond to a few of his
comments that were not addressed above. First, the objection to
the use of ICU analysis for intersections that are presently
unsignalized. It was clearly stated in the report that the ICU
method was used to "determine the relative increase in capacity
utilization at intersections due to project traffic ..."
If the level of service as determined by the HCM method for
unsignalized intersections at an unsignalized intersection is
considered "undesirable", usually, the only acceptable mitigation
measure is to signalize the intersection. Because we did look at
signal warrants, we feel that utilization of the ICU method is
acceptable. ASL can and will determine LOS based on the HCM
method for unsignalized intersections if the City so asks.
Incidentally, if the City is looking for a more "realistic"
measure of LOS as this comment suggests, then the ICU method is
not appropriate for existing signalized intersections either.
Regarding the "quantifying" the impact of project traffic on PCH.
The project impact on PCH j quantified. That is why the ICU
method was used. Unfortunately the roadway is operating with
ICU's greater than 1.00 and thus there is little that can be done
to quantify the impact further, short of running an arterial model
(such as TRANSYT) or a more complex method of intersection
capacity estimation (such as the HCM method). Both of these
techniques were considered beyond the scope of this study.
Again, the ICU method was used to determine the relative increase
in theoretical capacity utilization due to project traffic, not
to model existing or future traffic.
4
ASL Consulting Engineers
Erma Lake
Page Six
December 22, 1987
Re. "Page 35 -End of second paragraph; Clarification needed here
relative to the last five lines. 'The 14-15 foot lane allows
vehicles turning right from existing driveways and side streets
to enter the street without encroaching in the opposing travel
lane' only if there is no parking along the curb."
Response: Agreed. This reference is made to the section
describing the existing condition on these roadways, which might
be considered "substandard".
Re. pedestrian traffic and ICU calculations. Pedestrian impact
was not considered in the ICU calculations.
We disagree that re-examination of Suggested Route to School
program is an inappropriate mitigation measure. The surrounding
land use and traffic conditions will change with this project,
particularly if the couplet is implemented. Such changes may
justifiably prompt changes in the program. The City may wish to
condition the project to maintain existing school pedestrian
crossings of the right-of-way.
Regarding the comment that a parking study at the time a specific
development proposal is formulated is "unacceptable." Mr. Ruzak
states that " If the study found that parking was needed and it
had to be on the RR right-of-way then the project is negatively
impacted, but it is too late to get the room to provide the
parking." I do not understand this comment. The EIR is meant to
determine the impact of the project on the environment, not the
other way around. It is our understanding that if the zone
change is adopted, the developer will have to submit specific
development plans for review by Staff, the Planning Commission
and City Council. Parking requirements often dictate the scale
of a development project at this stage of the approval process.
It is our understanding that we will have the opportunity to
address these comments in further detail before final submittal
for Council approval. If you have any further comments or need
additional information, please call.
Sincerely,
Garold B. Adams, P.E. 37825
T.E. 1442
GBA:gba
cc Anthony Antich
Ed Ruzak
jn 1267.12
NOISE ASSESSMENT FOR THE
ATCHISON, TOPEKA, AND SANTA FE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY EM
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Prepared By
Fred Greve, P.E.
Allen Soofi
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
280 Newport Center Drive
Suite 230
Newport Beach, CA 92660-7528
(714) 760-0891
December 7, 1987
NOISE ASSESSMENT FOR THE
ATCHISON, TOPEKA, AND SANTA FE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY Ern
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Previously a noise study has been prepared for the project which has presented the noise levels
generated by typical traffic volumes on the surrounding roadways (by Mestre Greve Associates,
October 24, 1986). The previous study is included here as an Appendix. The present study
determines the noise levels based on worst case traffic conditions (i.e., a Friday in Summer).
1.0 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
The noise environment in the vicinity of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Right-of-way
is determined by traffic on adjacent roadways. The project is not subject to significant aircraft
overflights or other major noise generators.
1.1 Community Noise Scales
Community noise levels are measured in terms of the "A -weighted decibel," abbreviated dBA.
A -weighting is a frequency correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with the
frequency response of the human ear. Exhibit 1 provides examples of various noises and their
typical A -weighted noise level. The "equivalent noise level," or Leq is the average noise level on an
energy basis for any specified time period. The Leq for one hour is the energy average noise level
during the hour, specifically, the average noise based on the energy content (acoustic energy) of the
sound. It can be thought of as the level of a continuous noise which has the same energy content as
the fluctuating noise level. The equivalent noise level has the units of dBA.
Several rating scales have been developed for measurement of community noise. These account for.
(1) the parameters of noise that have been shown to contribute to the effects of noise on man, (2)
the variety of noises found in the environment, (3) the variations in noise levels that occur as a
person moves through the environment, and (4) the variations associated with the time of day. The
predominant rating scale now in use in California for land use compatibility assessment is the
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL scale represents a time weighted 24 hour
average noise level based on the A -weighted decibel. Time weighted refers to the fact that noise that
MGA 1
SOUND LEVELS AND LOUDNESS OF ILLUSTRATIVE NOISES IN INDOOR AND OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTS
(A -Scale Weighted Soured Levels)
dB(A)
OVER-ALL LEVEL
Sound Pressure
Appro 0.0001
Mlcrobar
COMMUNITY
(Outdoor)
HOME OR VIDUSiRY
LOUDNESS
Jet
t
of
Levi
130
UNCOMFORTABLY
Military Jet Aircraft TakerOff With Afteaburars
Prom Ahad! Carrier 0130 R 030)Oxygen
Tortd, 021)
120 dB(A) 32 Timm a Lad
120
110
LOUD
Marble -Fan Aircraft @ Take Off Power
0 200 R (90)
Rung Machias (110)
Rock.N-RdU Bad (108.114)
110rM(A) 16 Times as Loud
100
VERY
let Flyover 01000 R (103)
Boeing
eLandis 61060R
8(�
Bell I -2A Hdicopter @ 100 R 000)
100dB(A)8Ti®eaLad
90Before
LOUD
Power Mower (96)
Boeing 737. DC -9 ® 6080 R
Landing (971
Motorcycle @23 R. (90)
NewspaperFta
90d8(A)4TimaaLoud
80
Ca Wah 0 20 R (89)
Prop. Airplane Flyover ®1000 R (88)
Diesel Truck, 40 MPH @ SO R (84)
Diad Train, 43 MPH ®100 R (83)
Food Blender (91)
Milling Mme (13)
ObIge Dispoul (10)
10dB(A) 2Tima a Loud
70
MODERATELY
LOUD
High Urban Ambient Sound (80)
Passenger Car, 65 MPH 023 R (77)
Freeway 0 30 R Fran Pavement
Edge.10:00 AM (76 «or- 6)
Living Roan Munk (76)
TV -Audio. VgaI Maser
� )
60
Air Conditioning Unit @ 100 R (60)
Cash Register 010 R (6S -7O)
S T7'P �� 10 R.(6d) Dishwadser (Rinse) 0 10 Pl. (6I))
Conversed= OM)
60dB(A)1/2
aLad
50
QUMTLarge
Transformers 0100 R. (SO)
SOdB(A)1/4aLaud
40
Bird Calls (44)
Lower Linn Urban Ambient Sound (40)
) as Lone
JUST AUDIBLE
(dB(AJ Sale letem pled)
10
THRESHOLD
OF HEARING
SOURCE Reproduced from Me v lle C. Branch and R. Dale Boland, Quidgmligkjajimidgmegfilgarmirgiumm
Published by the City of La Angeles. 1970, p.2.
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Exhibit 1
Examples of Typical Sound Levels
occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. The evening
time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) penalizes noises by 5 dBA, while nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.)
noises are penalized by 10 dBA. These time periods and penalties were selected to reflect people's
increased sensitivity to noise during these time periods. The day -night or Ldn scale is similar to the
CNEL scale except that evening noises are not penalized. Typical noise levels in terms of the CNEL
scale for different types of communities are presented in Exhibit 2.
1.2 Noise Standards
The City of Hermosa Beach adopted a Noise Element in 1979. The Noise Element presents noise
goals for various land uses in terms of the "average" noise level. This noise level is equivalent to
the 50 percentile noise level, commonly referred to as the L50 level. It represents a noise level
which is exceeded 50% of the time (and conversely the noise level is less than the L50 level 50% of
the time). State laws passed in the past few years now require that cities develop their Noise
Elements in terms of the Ldn or CNEL scales. Both of these scales represent a time weighted 24
hour average noise, and correlate much better to how people perceive their noise environment.
The California Department of Health has established guidelines for assessing the compatibility of
community noise environments and land uses in terms of CNEL. The guidelines rank noise and
land use compatibility in terms of normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally
unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable. These guidelines are summarized in Exhibit 3.
In addition, the California Noise Insulation Standards require that new multi -family residential
construction should be noise insulated so that the interior noise levels do not exceed 45 CNEL.
Most cities have adopted this standard for both single and multi -family developments along with a
65 CNEL standard for private outdoor living areas (e.g., rear yards and patio areas). A common
indoor noise standard for commercial land uses is 50 CNEL. These standards will be used to
evaluate the potential noise impact on surrounding residential uses.
1.3 Existing Noise Levels
The traffic noise levels in terms of CNEL were computed for the local streets. The Highway Noise
Model published by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA Highway Traffic Noise
Prediction Model," FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978) was utilized. The FHWA Model uses
traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise
MGA 2
CNEL
Outdoor Location
—90—
= Apartment Next to Freeway
3/4 Mile From Touchdown at Major Airport
—80-
- III—Downtown With Some Construction Activity
= Urban High Density Apartment
—70—
OMMIIMO
Urban Row Housing on Major Avenue
Old Urban Residential Area
—504—Wooded Residential
4—Agricultural Crop Land
—40-0 Rural Residential
—30—
.4 — Wilderness Ambient
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Exhibit 2
Typical Outdoor Noise Levels
d
J
Land Use Category
Community
55
Ldn
60
or
65
Noise
CNEL,
70
Exposure
dB
75 80
Residential - Low Density
Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes
'
moo
..
Numi
/
Residential -Multiple Family/////////
REMEMEMII
NMI
Transient Lodging - Motels, Hotels
ERMESNREZEN
///
EMI■..
``
•
IMMI
Emu Imo
■ •
■ ■
■
■
Schools, Libraries, Churches
Hospitals, Nursing HomesNMI
:'>:::
■
`'`°:`�
■
Auditoriums, Concert Halls,
MIMI
y/
/
///
/
Amphitheatres
.■■____
M
M
—
M
—
SportsArena, Outdoor
Spectator Sports
//////////////////////////
.
■
■.
— —
_
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks
...III
_
IIIII
_
Golf Courses, Riding Stables
IEWEEMENII■
Water Recreation, Cemeteries
■
■
■
■
_ —
Office Buildings, Business////
Commercial and Residential
%�
■
■
■
■
`-
Industrial, Manufacturing Utilities
Agriculture
■
' '
_
%/////////
--..I Interpretation
Normally Acceptable
Specified Land Use is Satisfactory,
Based Upon the Assumption that
Any Buildings Involved are of
Normal Conventional Construction,
Without Any Special Noise Insulation
Requirements.
® Conditionally Acceptable
New Construction or Development
Should be Undertaken Only Alter a
Detailed Analysis of the Noise
Reduction Requirement is Made and
Needed Noise Insulation Features
Included in the Design. Conventional
Construction, but with Closed
Windows and Fresh Air Supply
Systems or Air Conditioning, Will
Normally Suffice.
ME Normally Unacceptable
New Coastzucdon or Development
Should Generally be Discouraged.
If New Construcdon or Development
Does Proceed, a Detailed Analysis of
the Noise Reduction Requirements
Must be Made and Needed Noise
Insulation Features Included in the
Design.
1111 Clearly Unacceptable
New Conon or Development
Should Generally not be Undertaken.
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Exhibit 3 - California Land
Use Compatibility Studies
level." A computer code has been written which computes equivalent noise levels for each of the
time periods used in the calculation of CNEL. Weighting these noise levels and summing them
results in the CNEL for the traffic projections used. CNEL contours are found by iterating over
many distances until the distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours are found.
The existing traffic volumes were obtained from the traffic study for the project (by ASL
Consulting Engineers, September 14, 1987). The traffic volumes are presented in Table 1. A
vehicle speed of 40 mph was assumed for all roadways. These data were used with the FHWA
Model to estimate the existing noise levels in terms of CNEL. The traffic mix and time distribution
are presented in Table 2. The traffic mix data were developed by traffic surveys and are considered
typical for roadways throughout Southern California.
MGA 3
TABLE 1
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Street Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
Longfellow Avenue
PCH to Ardmore 800
Gould Avenue
East of PCH 29,500
PCH to Ardmore 12,900
West of Valley 9,100
21st Street
PCH to Ardmore 2,300
16th Street
PCH to Ardmore 2,540
Pier Avenue
PCH to Ardmore 20,800
West of Valley (eastbound only) 10,200
8th Street
PCH to Ardmore 4,970
2nd Street
PCH to Ardmore 3,000
Ardmore to Valley 3,150
West of Valley 4,600
Herondo Street
West of Valley 15,200
Hermosa Avenue
8th to 7th 17,500
Valley Drive
North of Gould 9,100
Gould to 21st 6,400
Pier to 8th 6,750
8th to 2nd (southbound only) 5,600
Ardmore Avenue
North of Gould 8,550
Gould to 21st 7,280
Pier to 8th 5,100
8th to 2nd 3,200
MGA
4
TABLE 2
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PER TIME OF DAY
IN PERCENT OF ADT
Vehicle Type
Day Evening Night
Automobile 75.51 12.57 9.34
Medium Truck 1.56 0.09 0.19
Heavy Truck 0.64 0.02 0.08
The distances to the CNEL contours for the roadways serving the project site are given in Table 3.
These represent the distance from the centerline of the road to the contour value shown. Note that
the values given in Table 3 do not take into account the effect of any noise barriers that may affect
ambient noise levels.
MGA 5
TABLE 3
EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Distance to Contour From Centerline (Feet)
Street 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL
Longfellow Avenue
PCH to Ardmore 5 10 22
Gould Avenue
East of PCH 53 114 245
PCH to Ardmore 30 66 141
West of Valley 24 52 112
21st Street
PCH to Ardmore 10 21 45
16th Street
PCH to Ardmore 10 22 48
Pier Avenue
PCH to Ardmore 42 90 194
West of Valley 26 56 121
8th Street
PCH to Ardmore 16 35 75
2nd Street
PCH to Ardmore 12 25 53
Ardmore to Valley 12 26 55
West of Valley 15 33 71
Herondo Street
West of Valley 34 73 158
Hermosa Avenue
8th to 7th 37 80 173
Valley Drive
North of Gould 24 52 112
Gould to 21st 19 41 89
Pier to 8th 20 43 92
8th to 2nd 17 38 81
Ardmore Avenue
North of Gould 23 50 107
Gould to 21st 21 45 96
Pier to 8th 16 35 76
8th to 2nd 12 26 56
MGA 6
2.0 POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS
Potential noise impacts may arise from construction activities, traffic noise impacts on surrounding
land uses, and traffic noise impacts on site. Each of these activities is addressed below.
2.1 Construction Activities
Construction noise represents a short term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by
construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable
generators can reach high levels. Construction equipment noise comes under the control of the
Environmental Protection Agency's Noise Control Program (Part 204 of Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations). Presently, air compressors are the only equipment under strict regulation, and no
new regulations are currently under consideration.
Noise levels for equipment which might be used for the excavation and construction of the
proposed project are presented in Exhibit 4. Note that the noise levels presented are for a distance
of 50 feet. The noise levels in Exhibit 4 decrease at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of
the distance. Therefore, at 100 feet the noise levels will be about 6 dBA less than reported in the
exhibit. Similarly, at 200 feet the noise levels would be 12 dBA less than indicated in the exhibit.
Intervening structures or topography can act as a noise barrier, and reduce noise levels further.
According to land use maps provided, residential areas exist adjacent to the project site across the
surrounding arterial roadways. Construction activities should be limited to daytime weekday hours
to minimize the construction noise impacts on adjacent residents.
2.2 Traffic Impacts on Surrounding Land Uses
The proposed development of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Right-of-way site will
generate traffic, and as a result may alter noise levels in surrounding areas. To assess the impact of
the proposed project on land uses adjacent to streets that will serve the project, the increases in
roadway noise along these streets were determined. These roadways were modeled for future
traffic conditions with and without the project. The increases in noise over existing levels were
determined, and the future noise levels with the project were compared to the future noise levels
without the project The projected increases in the CNEL noise levels are presented in Table 4.
MGA 7
60 70 80 90 100 110
Compact (rollers)
Front loaders
Backhoes
Tractors
Scrapers, graders
Pavers
Trucks
Concrete mixers
Concrete pumps
Cranes (movable)
Cranes (derrick)
Pumps
Generators
Compressors
Pneumatic wrenches
Jackhammers and drills
Pile drivers (peak levels)
Vibrators
Saws
.�.
Source: "Handbook of Noise Control," by Cyril Harris, 1979.
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Exhibit 4
Construction Equipment Noise
TABLE 4
INCREASES IN CNEL NOISE LEVELS (DBA)
Roadway
Increase in Noise Level
Future No Proj. Future w/ Proj. Increase Due
vs. Existing vs. Existing to Project
Longfellow Avenue
PCH to Ardmore 1.3 1.3 0.0
Gould Avenue
East of PCH 1.3 1.4 0.1
PCH to Ardmore 1.3 1.3 0.0
West of Valley 1.3 1.6 0.3
21st Street
PCH to Ardmore 1.3 2.3 1.0
16th Street
PCH to Ardmore 1.3 1.3 0.0
Pier Avenue
PCH to Ardmore 1.3 1.6 0.3
West of Valley 1.3 1.8 0.5
8th Street
PCH to Ardmore 1.3 1.8 0.5
2nd Street
PCH to Ardmore 1.3 1.8 0.5
Ardmore to Valley 1.3 1.7 0.4
West of Valley 1.3 1.5 0.2
Herondo Street
West of Valley 1.3 1.4 0.1
Hermosa Avenue
8th to 7th 1.3 1.5 0.2
Valley Drive
North of Gould 1.3 1.4 0.1
Gould to 21st 1.3 1.7 0.4
Pier to 8th 1.3 1.9 0.6
8thto2nd 1.3 1.7 0.4
Ardmore Avenue
North of Gould 1.3 1.7 0.4
Gould to 21st 1.3 1.7 0.4
Pier to 8th 1.3 2.5 1.2
8th to 2nd 1.3 1.5 0.2
In community noise assessment changes in noise levels greater than 3 dBA are often identified as
significant, while changes less than 1 dBA will not be discernible to local residents. In the range of
1 to 3 dBA residents who are very sensitive to noise may perceive a slight change. No scientific
evidence is available to support the use of 3 dBA as the significance threshold. In laboratory testing
MGA 8
situations humans are able to detect noise level changes of slightly less than 1 dBA. However, in a
community noise situation the noise exposure is over a long time period, and changes in noise
levels occur over years, rather than the immediate comparison made in a laboratory situation.
Therefore, the level at which changes in community noise levels become discernible is likely to be
some value greater than 1 dBA, and 3 dBA appears to be appropriate for most people.
The results in Table 4 show that all roadways in the project will experience noise increases less than
3 dBA over existing noise levels. The greatest increase in noise over existing levels is 2.5 dBA. It
can also be seen from the right hand column of Table 4 that the project does not significantly
increase the noise levels over the future no -project levels. Most of the increase of noise in the future
will be due to factors other than the project. The project will increase the future noise levels by 0 to
1.2 dBA. These increases are not considered significant, and the project generated traffic will not
adversely affect the off-site noise environment.
2.3 On -Site Traffic Noise Levels
The future traffic volumes were used with the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Model to project
future unmitigated noise levels for the roadways that will impact the project site. The traffic
volumes were obtained from the traffic study for the project (by ASL Consulting Engineers,
September 14, 1987) and are presented in Table 5. These volumes represent future with project
traffic conditions. A vehicle speed of 40 mph was assumed for all roadways. The traffic mix and
time distribution used are the same as for existing conditions and are given in Table 2.
MGA 9
TABLES
FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Street ADT
Longfellow Avenue
PCH to Ardmore 1,075
Gould Avenue
East of PCH 39,911
PCH to Ardmore 17,374
West of Valley 12,037
21st Street
PCH to Ardmore 3,870
16th Street
PCH to Ardmore 3,051
Pier Avenue
PCH to Ardmore 28,350
West of Valley (eastbound only) 15,463
8th Street
PCH to Ardmore 7,232
2nd Street
PCH to Ardmore 4,583
Ardmore to Valley 4,389
West of Valley 6,493
Herondo Street
West of Valley 20,870
Hermosa Avenue
8th to 7th 24,988
Valley Drive
North of Gould 12,581
Gould to 21st 9,523
Pier to 8th 10,457
8th to 2nd (southbound only) 8,227
Ardmore Avenue
North of Gould 12,516
Gould to 21st 10,886
Pier to 8th 9,155
8th to 2nd 4,494
The modeling results are reported in Table 6 in the form of distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL
contours. These projections do not take into account any barriers or topography that may reduce
noise levels.
MGA 10
TABLE 6
FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Distance to Contour From Centerline (Feet)
Street 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL
Longfellow Avenue
PCH to Ardmore 6 13 27
Gould Avenue
East of PCH 65 139 300
PCH to Ardmore 37 80 172
West of Valley 29 63 135
21st Street
PCH to Ardmore 14 29 63
16th Street
PCH to Ardmore 12 25 54
Pier Avenue
PCH to Ardmore 51 111 239
West of Valley 34 74 159
8th Street
PCH to Ardmore 21 45 96
2nd Street
PCH to Ardmore 15 33 71
Ardmore to Valley 15 32 69
West of Valley 19 41 89
Herondo Street
West of Valley 42 90 195
Hermosa Avenue
8th to 7th 47 102 220
Valley Drive
North of Gould 30 64 139
Gould to 21st 25 54 115
Pier to 8th 26 57 123
8th to 2nd 23 49 105
Ardmore Avenue
North of Gould 30 64 138
Gould to 21st 27 59 126
Pier to 8th 24 52 112
8th to 2nd 15 32 70
The noise contour data indicate that the areas close to Ardmore Avenue and Valley Drive on the
project site will experience noise levels of approximately 72 CNEL. The noise levels decrease
slightly to about 67 CNEL at the interior portions of the site. The residential land uses proposed
would fall into the "conditionally acceptable" to "normally unacceptable" categories according to the
California Land Use Guidelines. For the "normally unacceptable" category, new construction
MGA 1 I
should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement is made and
needed noise insulation features included in the design. Building upgrades such as higher noise
rated windows, stucco walls, and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning must be provided for
these buildings to achieve acceptable indoor noise levels. For exterior noise levels sound walls or
other forms of noise barriers will be required to achieve an acceptable exterior noise level of 65
CNEL.
The commercial uses and open space uses proposed are in the "normally acceptable" to "normally
unacceptable" range for the projected noise environment. Mitigation measures in terms of fresh air
supply systems or air conditioning will be required for. these land uses.
MGA 12
3.0 MITIGATION MEASURES
3.1 Construction Noise
Construction activities when adjacent to developed residential areas should be limited to daytime
hours (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) and to weekdays only.
3.2 On -Site Traffic Noise
Outdoor noise mitigation will be required for all proposed residential areas. The FHWA Model
described previously and the future with project traffic volumes were used to assess the feasibility
of sound barriers in reducing the noise levels. A 5 foot observer height as recommended in the
FHWA Model was utilized. It was assumed that a noise barrier would be constructed at the
residential property line. It has also been assumed that no second story balconies will face the
roadway. In general, second story balconies should not overlook major roadways due to the
potential noise impacts. The results show that noise barriers with heights ranging from 7 to 8 feet
will be required to protect the first floor outdoor living areas. The barriers could be a berm, a wall,
or a combination berm and wall. Walls should not contain holes or gaps, and may be constructed of
slumpstone or other masonry material. Final noise barrier heights should be determined when final
grading plans that show lot locations, house setbacks, and precise pad elevations are developed.
Indoor mitigation measures for residential and commercial areas can not be formulated until more
detailed site specific information is available. Typically, residential buildings with open windows
only provide 12 dBA outdoor to indoor noise reduction. In areas where the noise level exceeds 57
CNEL the interior standard of 45 CNEL will not be achieved without additional measures. All
houses will be required to have closeable windows and mechanical ventilation (or air conditioning)
must be provided to replace the loss of natural ventilation. Mechanical ventilation or a "summer
switch" system as it is commonly referred to, allows the use of the heater fan to circulate the room
air with fresh air. The requirements for additional building noise insulation will need to be
determined prior to the issuance of building permits. The City of Hermosa Beach should require a
detailed acoustical analysis of the project that shows features to insure compliance with the City's
noise standards and the California Noise Insulation Standards prior to the issuance of building
permits.
MGA 1 3
APPENDIX
Noise Assessment for the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
Railroad Right -of -Way EIR, City of Hermosa Beach
Prepared for
SANCHEZ TALARICO ASSOCIATES
359 San Miguel Drive
Suite 200
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Prepared By
Fred Greve, P.E.
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
280 Newport Center Drive
Suite 230
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(714) 760.0891
October 24,1986
Noise Assessment for the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
Railroad Right -of -Way EIR, City of Hermosa Beach
LO EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
The noise environment in the vicinity of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad
Right -of -Way is determined by traffic on adjacent roadways. The project is not subject to
significant aircraft overflights or other major noise generators.
1.1 Community Noise Scales
Community noise levels are measured in terms of the "A -weighted decibel," abbreviated dBA.
A -weighting is a frequency correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with the
frequency response of the human ear. Exhibit 1 provides examples of various noises and their
typical A -weighted noise level.
The "equivalent noise level," or Leq is the average noise level on an energy basis for any
specified time period. The Leq for one hour is the energy average noise level during the hour,
specifically, the average noise based on the energy content (acoustic energy) of the sound. It can be
thought of as the level of a continuous noise which has the same energy content as the fluctuating
noise level. The equivalent noise level has the units of dBA, therefore, a sound measured for one
hour may be expressed as a one hour Leq of 57 dBA.
Several rating scales have been developed for measurement of community noise. These account
for: (1) the parameters of noise that have been shown to contribute to the effects of noise on man,
(2) the variety of noises found in the environment, (3) the variations in noise levels that occur as a
person moves through the environment, and (4) the variations associated with the time of day. The
predominant rating scale now in use in California for land use compatibility assessment is the
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL scale represents a time weighted 24 hour
average noise level based on the A -weighted decibel. Time weighted refers to the fact that noise that
MGA 1
SOUND LEVELS AND LOUDNESS OR ILLUSTRATIVE NOISES IN INDOOR AND OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTS
(A -Scale Weighted Sound &war)
dB(A)
OVER-ALL LEVEL
Sound Pressure
Appr 002
Micrabar
COMMUNITY
mortised
IIOMSORIIWUSTRY
LOUDNESS
Memo hignimi
of 0111brist Sound
Ievvlr
130
UNCOMFORTABLY
Militry let Aircraft TclosOff With After -bum
Prom Aircraft Curler O 30 R. (130)
Oxygen Torch (121)
120 dB(A) 3211ms is Lad
120
110
LOUD
Ttrbo•Fae Aircraft @Tab Off Power
0 200It (90)
Rhelie6 Maedis (110)
Rock -PI -Ron Band (108414)
110 dB(A)16Times es Load
100
VERYBdae
Jet Flyover 61) 1000 A. (103)
Boeing 707. DC4 . 6080 PL
Landing (106)
Bell J -2A Helicopter@ 100R. (100)
100 WA) 8 Times an Land
90Boeing
LOUD
Power Mower (96)
737, DC -9®60808
Bdore Landing (971
Motorcycle 023 FL (90)
N Pinar (90)
�
90 4TimssLad
�A)
80
Cr Wash ®20 R. (89)
Pray. MPlaee Flyover 6P 1000. (4) (88)
DDiesell Thy 40 MPH @ EOR.
Diesel Train, 45 MPH .100 A. (83)
Food Bleeder (88)
MlUing ?decides
Garbage Dimond (8O)
80 dB(A) 2Tiss at lied
70
MODERATELY
LOUD
High Ure.e Ambient Swed (80)
Passenger Cr, 6S MPH Q 23 R. (77)
Runny O SO R. PromP..anedTV-Audl
Edge, MOO AM Q6 yet. 6)
Living Roam Muale (76)
e, VawmCkseer
70 dB(A)
60Air
Condidosise Unit.100 PI. (60)
Cob Register ®10 PL (65-70)
He T +�®10 R. (61)
Didtweshet
60 4111(A) In sLad
Mitre) Conversed= (60)
SO
QUA
Large Transformers ®100 A. (30)
JO dB(A) Wee Lard
40
Bird GW (44)
Lower Unit Urban Ambient Swed (40)
40 dB(A) U8 asLoud
JUST AUDIBLE
(dB(A) Suis hawropted)
10
THRESHOLD
OF HEARING
A
SOURCE: Reproduced from Mehn'Be C. Broach and R. Dole Deland,
Phbiiehed by the CRy of Loa Angels. 1970, p.2.
1
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Exhibit 1
Examples of Typical Sound Levels
occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. The evening
time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) penalizes noises by 5 dBA, while nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.)
noises are penalized by 10 dBA. These time periods and penalties were selected to reflect people's
increased sensitivity to noise during these time periods. The day -night or Lin scale is similar to the
CNEL scale except that evening noises are not penalized. A CNEL noise level may be reported as a
"CNEL of 60 CBA," "60 dBA CNEL," or simply "60 CNEL." Typical noise levels in terms of the
CNEL scale for different types of communities are presented in Exhibit 2.
12 Noise Standards
The City of Hermosa Beach adopted a Noise Element in 1979. The Noise Element presents
noise goals for various land uses in terms of the "average" noise level. This noise level is
equivalent to the 50 percentile noise level, commonly referred to as the L50 level. It represents a
noise level which is exceeded 50% of the time (and conversely the noise level is less than the 1.50
50% of the time). State laws passed in the past few years now require that cities develop their
Noise Elements in terms of the Ldn or CNEL scales. Both of these scales represent a time weighted
24 hour average noise, and correlate much better to how people perceive their noise environment.
The California Department of Health has established guidelines for assessing the compatibility
of community noise environments and land uses in terms of CNEL. The guidelines rank noise and
land use compatibility in terms of normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally
unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable. Their guidelines are summarized in Exhibit 3.
In addition, the California Noise Insulation Standards require that new multi -family residential
construction should be noise insulated so that the interior noise levels do not exceed 45 CNEL.
Most cities have adopted this standard for both single and multi -family developments along with a
65 CNEL standard for private outdoor living areas (e.g., rear yards and patio areas). These
standards, 45 CNEL indoors and 65 CNEL outdoors, will be used to evaluate the potential noise
impact on surrounding residential uses.
MGA 2
CNEL
Outdoor Location
—90—
Apartment Next to Freeway
3/4 Mile From Touchdown at Major Airport
—80—
Downtown With Some Construction Activity
Urban High Density Apartment
4--
-70—
j.41—Ur
70—
♦--Urban Row Housing on Major Avenue
�4Old Urban Residential Area
35. Wooded Residential
Agricultural Crop Land
-4IM
_0 Rural Residential
IMINIMINI
— 4 ---Wilderness Ambient
—30—
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Exhibit 2
Typical Outdoor Noise Levels
Land Use Category
Community
Ldn
55 60
Noise
or CNEL,
65 70
Exposure
dB
75 80
Residential - Low Density
Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes
7
II=I
■..
NM
;
. -
Residential - Multiple Family////////,
nmi
■ •
Ism mil
e
■ ■
_ _
■
■
INN
Transient Lodging - Motels, HotelsIrraMeTs:
.
■////////�
1P11
- -
IIIIIM
Schools. Libraries, Churches
Hospitals, Nursing Homes
■
■
Auditoriums, Concert Halls,
Amphitheatres
i/�
■
/
■
■ I
INN
�
NE —
INN
Sports Arena, Outdoor
Spectator Sports
//////////////////////////r.■
..
■ -
■
ami mum
—
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks
i
.37 t
_..
_
_
Golf Courses, Riding Stables.
Water Recreation, Cemeteries
■
■
■
7 7, . °
■ ■ - —
Office Buildings, Business
Commercial and Residential
..`
■
■
7,`
■
`-
;<
Industrial, Manufacturing Utilitiesra
Agriculture
■
e.``
%////////i
-- I Interpretation I —
::; NomuWy Acceptable
Specified Land Use is Satisfactory,
Based Upon the Assumption that
Any Buildings Involved am of
Normal Conventional mon,
Without Any Special Noise Insnatlon
® Conditionally Acceptable
New Construction or Development
Should be Undertaken Only After a
Detailed Analysis of the Noise
Reduction Requirement Is Made and
Needed Noise Ira ladon Features
Included in the Design. Conventional
Construction, but with Closed
Windows and Fresh Air Supply
Systems or Air Conditioning, Will
Normally Suffice.
® Normally Unacceptable
New Construction or Development
Should Generally be Discouraged.
If New Construction or Development
Does Proceed, a Detailed Analysis of
the Noise Reduction Requirements
Must be Made and Needed Noise
Insulation Features Included la the
Design.
NE Clearly Unacceptable
New Construction or Development
Should Generally not be Undertaken.
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Exhibit 3 - California Land
Use Compatibility Studies
1.3 Existing Noise Levels
An estimate of traffic noise levels in terms of CNEL was computed for the local streets. The
Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA Highway
Traffic Noise Prediction Model," FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978) was utilized. The FHWA
Model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the
"equivalent noise level." A computer code has been written which computes equivalent noise levels
for each of the time periods used in the calculation of CNEL. Weighting these noise levels and
summing them results in the CNEL for the traffic projections used. CNEL contours are found by
iterating over many distances until the distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours are found.
Estimates of existing traffic volumes, estimated speeds, and truck volumes (Table 1) were used
with the FHWA Model to estimate existing noise levels in terms of CNEL.
TABLE 1
EXISTING TRAFFIC LEVELS
Street Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
Valley Drive
North of 20th 7400
20th to Pier 7400
Pier to 8th 6660
8th to Redondo 6660
Ardmore Avenue
North of 20th 7665
20th to Pier 7665
Pier to 8th 4960
8th to Redondo 4960
Pacific Coast Highway
Gould to Pier 47450
Pier to Redondo 49025
Pier Avenue
South of Valley 16400
Valley to Pacific Coast Highway 13700
North of Pacific Coast Highway 17680
MGA 3
The distances to the CNEL contours for the roadways serving the project site are given in
Table 2. These represent the distance from the centerline of the road to the contour value shown.
Note that the values given in Table 2 do not take into account the effect of any noise barriers that
may affect ambient noise levels.
TABLE 2
EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Roadway
Distance to CNEL Contour From
Centerline of Roadway (Feet)
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL
Valley Drive
North of 20th 94 44 20
20th to Pier 94 44 20
Pier to 8th 88 41 19
8th to Redondo 88 41 19
Ardmore Avenue
North of 20th 96 45 21
20th to Pier 96 45 21
Pier to 8th 72 33 16
8th to Redondo 72 33 16
Pacific Coast Highway
Gould to Pier 325 151 70
Pier to Redondo 332 154 71
Pier Avenue
South of Valley 129 60 28
Valley to Pacific Coast 114 53 25
North of Pacific Coast 135 63 29
MGA 4
2.0 POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS
Potential noise impacts may arise from construction activities, traffic impacts on surrounding
land uses, and noise impacts on site. Each of these activities is addressed below.
2.1 Construction Activities
Construction noise represents a short term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by
construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable
generators can reach high levels. Construction equipment noise comes under the control of the
Environmental Protection Agency's Noise Control Program (Part 204 of Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations). Presently, air compressors are the only equipment under strict regulation, and no
new regulations are currently under consideration.
Noise levels for equipment which might be used for the excavation and construction of the
proposed project are presented in Exhibit 4. Note that the noise levels presented are for a distance
of 50 feet. The noise levels in Exhibit 4 decrease at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of
the distance. Therefore, at 100 feet the noise levels will be about 6 dBA less than reported in the
exhibit. Similarly, at 200 feet the noise levels would be 12 dBA less than indicated in the exhibit.
Intervening structures or topography can act as a noise barrier, and reduce noise levels further.
According to land use maps provided, residential areas exist adjacent to the project site across
the surrounding arterial roadways. Construction activities should be limited to daytime weekday
hours to minimize the construction noise impacts on adjacent residents.
2.2 Traffic Impacts on Surrounding Land Uses
The proposed development of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Right -of -Way site
will generate traffic, and as a result may alter noise levels in surrounding areas. To assess the
impact of the proposed project on land uses adjacent to streets that will serve the project, the
increases in roadway noise along these streets were determined. These roadways were modeled for
future traffic conditions and compared to existing noise levels. The "With Project" case represents
MGA 5
w
60 70 80 ,90 100 110
Compact (rollers)
Front loaders
Backhoes
Tractors
Scrapers, graders
Pavers
Trucks
Concrete mixers
Concrete pumps
Cranes (movable)
Cranes (derrick)
Pumps
Generators
Compressors
Pneumatic wrenches
Jackhammers and drills
Pile drivers (peak levels)
Vibrators
Saws
.�.�
Source: "Handbook of Noise Control," by Cyril Harris, 1979.
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Exhibit 4
Construction Equipment Noise
the increase in noise levels over existing levels directly attributable to the project. The "Cumulative
Plus Project" case represent the increase in noise levels over existing levels due to the project plus
other development planned in the area and anticipated to be developed by the year 2010. The
projected increases in the CNEL noise levels are presented in Table 3.
TABLE 3
INCREASE IN CNEL NOISE LEVELS OVER EXISTING LEVELS (DBA)
Increase in Noise Level
Roadway With Project Cumulative + Project
Valley Drive
North of 20th 0.8 1.2
20th to Pier 0.7 1.2
Pier to 8th 0.8 1.2
8th to Redondo 0.4 0.8
Ardmore Avenue
North of 20th 0.8 1.2
20th to Pier 0.9 1.3
Pier to 8th 1.2 1.6
8th to Redondo 0.7 1.1
Pacific Coast Highway
Gould to Pier 0.1 0.6
Pier to Redondo 0.1 0.3
Pier Avenue
South of Valley 0.3 0.7
Valley to Pacific Coast Highway 0.4 0.8
North of Pacific Coast Highway 0.2 0.7
In community noise assessment changes in noise levels greater than 3 dBA are often
identified as significant, while changes less than 1 dBA will not be discernible to local
residents. In the range of 1 to 3 dBA residents who are very sensitive to noise may perceive a
slight change. No scientific evidence is available to support the use of 3 dBA as the
significance threshold. In laboratory testing situations humans are able to detect noise level
changes of slightly less than 1 dBA. However, in a community noise situation the noise
exposure is over a long time period, and changes in noise levels occur over years, rather than
the immediate comparison made in a laboratory situation. Therefore, the level at which changes
MGA 6
in community noise levels become discernible is likely to be some value greater than 1 dBA,
and 3 dBA appears to be appropriate for most people. The greatest increase in noise projected
for the project is 1.6 dBA. This is not considered a significant impact, and the project will
therefore, not generate sufficient traffic to adversely effect the off-site noise environment.
23 Noise Levels On -Site
Traffic volumes reported in the traffic study were used with the FHWA Highway Traffic
Noise Model to project future unmitigated noise levels for the roadways that will impact the
project site. The traffic volumes used are presented in Table 4. These volumes represent
cumulative plus project traffic conditions (year 2010).
TABLE 4
FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND SPEEDS
Roadway ADT
Valley Drive
North of 20th 9,850
20th to Pier 9,660
Pier to 8th 8,820
8th to Redondo 8,085
Ardmore Avenue
North of 20th 10,195
20th to Pier 10,370
Pier to 8th 7,165
8th to Redondo 6,430
Pacific Coast Highway
Gould to Pier 54,685
Pier to Redondo 52,900
Pier Avenue
South of Valley 19,475
Valley to Pacific Coast Highway 16,600
North of Pacific Coast Highway 20,665
The modeling results are reported in Table 5 in the form of distances to the 60, 65, and 70
CNEL contours. These projections do not take into account any barriers or topography that
MGA 7
may reduce noise levels.
TABLE 5
FUTURE NOISE LEVELS
Roadway
Distance to CNEL Contour From
Centerline of Roadway (Feet)
60 CNEL 65 CNEL 70 CNEL
Valley Drive
North of 20th 114 53 25
20th to Pier 112 52 24
Pier to 8th 106 49 23
8th to Redondo 100 46 21
Ardmore Avenue
North of 20th 116 54 25
20th to Pier 118 55 25
Pier to 8th 92 43 20
8th to Redondo 86 40 18
Pacific Coast Highway
Gould to Pier 357 166 77
Pier to Redondo 349 162 75
Pier Avenue
South of Valley 144 67 31
Valley to Pacific Coast Highway 130 60 28
North of Pacific Coast Highway 150 70 32
The noise contour data indicates that the project site areas close to Ardmore Avenue and
Valley Drive will experience noise levels of approximately 70 CNEL. The noise levels decrease
slightly to about 67 CNEL at the interior portions of the site. The residential land uses
proposed would fall into the "conditionally acceptable" category according to the California
Land Use Guidelines. New construction should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of
the noise reduction requirement is made and needed noise insulation features included in the
design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or
air conditioning, will normally suffice to achieve acceptable indoor noise levels. For exterior
noise levels sound walls or other forms of noise barriers will be required to achieve an
acceptable exterior noise level of 65 CNEL.
MGA 8
The conunercial uses and open space uses proposed are "normally acceptable" for the
projected noise environment. Mitigation measures will not be required for these land uses.
MGA 9
3.0 MITIGATION MEASURES
Conduction Noise
Construction activities when adjacent to developed residential should have their hours of
construction limited to daytime hours (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) and to weekdays only.
On -Site Noise Impacts
Outdoor noise mitigation will be required for all proposed residential areas. The FHWA
Model described previously and future traffic volumes were used to assess the feasibility of
sound barriers in reducing the noise levels. A 5 foot observer height as recommended in the
FHWA Model was utilized. It was assumed that a noise barrier would be constructed at the
residential property line. It has been assumed that no second story balconies will face the
roadway. In general, second story balconies should not overlook major roadways due to
potential noise impacts. Noise barrier heights were calculated for sample locations. The noise
barrier heights range from 6 to 8 feet. The barriers could be a berm, wall, or a combination
berm and wall. Walls should not contain holes or gaps, and should be constructed of
slumpstone or other masonry material. Final noise barrier heights should be determined when
final grading plans are developed that show lot locations, house setbacks, and precise pad
elevations.
Residential indoor mitigation measures can not be formulated until more detailed site
specific information is available. However, it should be noted that the entire residential area is
of concern. Typically buildings with open windows only provide 12 dBA outdoor to indoor
noise reduction. In areas where the noise level exceeds 57 CNEL the interior standard of 45
CNEL will not be achieved without additional measures. All houses will be required to have
closeable windows and mechanical ventilation (or air conditioning) must be provided to replace
the lost of natural ventilation. Mechanical ventilation or a "summer switch" system as it is
commonly referred to, allows the use of the heater fan to circulate the room air with fresh air.
The requirements for additional building noise insulation will need to be determined prior to the
issuance of building permits. The City of Hermosa Beach should require a detailed acoustical
analysis of the project that shows features to insure compliance with the City's noise standards
and the California Noise Insulation Standards prior to the issuance of building permits.
EXHIBIT C
REVISED AIR QUALITY
JANUARY 19, 1988
5.5. AIR QUALITY
The Air Quality Impact Analysis was prepared by Hans.D. Giroux,
Consultant, Meteorology and Air Quality, in November 1986. The
following discussion is a summary of that analysis. The full
Air, Quality Impact Analysis is included in this Final EIR as
Appendix D, Part.III, Volume 3B.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
General Climate. The climate of Hermosa Beach is controlled by
the semi-permanent high pressures center near Hawaii and the
•
95
C �
moderating effects of the nearby oceanic heat reservoir.
Climatic conditions are characterized by cool summers, mild
winters, frequent morning coastal stratus clouds, infrequent
rainfall from late fall to early spring, and moderate onshore
breezes. Unfortunately, these same conditions combine to
severely restrict the ability of the local airshed to disperse
air pollutants generated by the large population attracted by
the climate. Hermosa Beach is protected from the worst of the
air pollution problems by daily sea breezes that bring clean
air onshore and blow air pollutants inland. However,
recirculation of polluted air and the incomplete ventilation of
the basin cause smog alerts even in coastal communities.
Dispersion Meteorology. Two meteorological parameters are
important in assessing the air quality impacts of changing
patterns of emissions in the Hermosa Beach area. These two
elements are the winds which control the rate and trajectory of
horizontal transport and vertical stability structure
(inversions) which controls the vertical depth through which
pollutants are mixed. Winds across Hermosa Beach are markedly
bimodal with a strong onshore component by day which is
strongest in summer and a weak offshore component which is
strongest in winter when nights are long and the land becomes
cooler than the ocean. The net effect of this wind pattern is
that daytime air pollution emissions from near the Project Area
are carried inland toward downtown Los Angeles and then they
diverge into the eastern San Fernando Valley and the western
San Gabriel Valley. Car exhaust emitted in Hermosa Beach in
the morning thus may become smog in Burbank, Glendale or
Pasadena by the afternoon as it moves inland and undergoes
photochemical changes.
The nocturnal winds reverse the process as they recycle the
previous day's pollution and carry diluted pollutants seaward.
In contrast to the strong daytime flow, the weak and sometimes
calm nocturnal winds also allow for localized stagnation of
pollutants near their source such as freeways or other
concentrations of emissions. Without sunlight, such localized
pollution "hot spots" are comprised mainly of primary,
unreacted pollutants such as carbon monoxide instead of
photochemical irritants such as ozone. Thus, whereas the
onshore flow makes the Hermosa Beach area a source of
pollutants for inland receptors, the nocturnal wind change
reverses the roles of the source and receptor areas. While
summer air quality in coastal communities is therefore usually
much better than in inland valleys, the Hermosa Beach area
experiences frequent carbon monoxide alerts on winter mornings
when inland communities have excellent air quality.
There are also two corresponding temperature inversions that
trap pollution within shallow layers near the ground/ The
daytime onshore cool ocean air undercuts a massive dome of•warm
sinking air within the Pacific high pressure system. This
process creates marine/subsidence inversions that form a lid at
c
about 1000 feet above the surface over the entire Los Angeles
Basin. These inversions allow for good mixing of pollutants
near their source, but trap the entire Basin's emissions within
the shallow marine layer. As the relatively clean marine air
moves inland, pollution sources continually add contaminants
from below without any dilution from above. Reactive organic
gases and nitrogen oxides combine under abundant sunlight to
form photochemical smog. Smog levels increase steadily from
the coastline inland until the inversion is broken by strong
surface heating and by the thermal chimneys created along the
heated slopes of the mountains surrounding the Basin.
The second major inversion type forms during long, cloudless
nights as cold air pools near the surface while the air aloft
remains warm. The radiation inversions that form are very
shallow and contribute to the "hot spot" potential near ground
level sources, especially vehicular concentrations.
Measurements of inversion frequency at Santa Monica Airport
show a strong diurnal and seasonal variation of inversion
distributions. Regional trapping inversions occur on about 85
percent of all summer afternoons while ground -level radiation
inversions are found on about 70 percent of all winter nights
and early mornings. These inversions do occur during all
seasons and at all times of the day, but they are not as
strong, persistent or frequent as during their respective
summer afternoon and winter morning dominant periods.
Ambient Air Quality Standards. In order to gauge the
significance of the air quality impacts of the proposed
Project, Project impacts plus existing background air quality
levels were compared to applicable ambient air quality
standards. These standards are the levels of air quality
considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect
public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those
people most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as
asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already
weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in
strenuous work or exercise. These persons are "sensitive
receptors". Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to
air pollutant concentrations well above the minimum standards.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) were established
in 1971 for six pollution species with states retaining the
option to add other pollutants, require more stringent
compliance, or include different exposure periods. California
established such standards several years before the federal
action. Due to the unique air quality problems in California
introduced by the restrictive dispersion meteorology, state
clean air standards differ considerably from national clean air
standards. California standards currently in effect are shown
in Table N.
97
( C
TABLE N
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Pollutant
Averaging Time
California Standards
National Standards
Concontratbw
Method
Primary •
SeOMndsry
Method
Oxidant
1 hour
0.10 poen
1200 ug/m1►
UNravielet
Ph
Photometry
—
—
—
Ozone
1 hour
— •
—
0.12 oom
(235 ug/m+)
Same as Primary
Standard
Ethylene
Chtmilumintscence
Carbon Monoxide
II hour10
9.0 ppm
(10 mg/nnq
Nen.Oispersne
Infrared
Spectroscopy
nnr
(6 oo rl
Sema a
Primary
Standards
Nen-Oisaenrve
Infrared
Spsaroscopy
(NOIR)
1 hour
20 ppm
(23 mg/ml)
(NOIR)
40 m0/ma
(36 poral
Nitrogen Oiox.d*
Annual Average
—100
Gas Phui
ug/n&
(0.05 ppm)
Gas Phase
Chem iluminppW
n
1 hour
0.25 pornChemilumi.
(470 ug/m�)
mAmines—
Sams as Primary
Standard
Sulfur Oiaxxt.
Annual Average
—
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
60 ug/ma
(0.03 own!
—
PeraresMniliM
24 hour
0.05 open
(131 ug/m1)
365 uVm'
(0.14 ppm)
—
•
3 hour
—
—
1300 ug/m+
10.5 ppm►
1 hour
OS ppm
(1310 ug/rni
—
—
Suspended
Particulate.
Mater
(PM,e)
annual Geometric
Moen
30 ug/ms
PMIO
—
24 hour
S0ugims
Suspended
P Mint r
Annual Geometric
Mien
-
—
75 ug/ms
60 ug/ms
Nigh Volume
SaMpling
24 hour
—
260 ug/ms
150 ug/ms
Sulfates
. 24 hour
25 ug/ms
Turbidimetns
Barium
Sulfate
—
—
Lead
Lead
30 day
Averege
1.5 ug/.n
Atomic
Alison/Om
—
-
-
'
Calendar
Quorum
*MD
-
1.6 ug/mr
Same Ms PrI.
nary Standard
Atomic
' Absorotren
Hydrogen
Sulfide
1 hour
0.03 own
(42 ug/m+►
Cadmium Hydroa.
ide STRactan
——
Vinyl Chloride
(Chloroahene/
24 how
0.010 Dom
(26 ug/m+)
Tedlar 6a0
Collodium. Gas
Chromatography
MM.
MIMI
MM.
Visibility
Reducing
Particles
1 obsarvation
In sufficient amount to
reduce the prevsrhng visibility
t0 loss than 10 milas when the
relative humidity is Iles then 7016 —
_
—
••
.-
98
98
Baseline Air Quality. Existing levels of ambient air quality
and historical trends and projections in the Hermosa Beach area
are documented from measurements at the South Coast Air Quality
Management District's (SCAQMD) Lennox air quality monitoring
station. The last six years of monitoring data from this
station are summarized in Table O. This data shows recurring
violations of the hourly standard for ozone, carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and several particulates. Summer
sea breezes effectively ventilate the South Bay area, so that
only one first stage smog alert above 0.20 ppm of ozone for an
hourly exposure has been observed within the last six years.
While the frequency of summer ozone levels, above recommended
limits, near the Project Area is among the lowest within the
South Coast Air Basin, violations of CO and NO2 automobile
pollutant standards are among the most severe in the Basin.
Mobile monitoring programs have confirmed that the entire
coastal corridor from Santa Monica to the Palos Verdes
Peninsula has frequent winter episodes of high automotive
exhaust pollution levels. It is therefore quite probable that
the Project Area has baseline CO and NO2 levels above the
standard. Any localized Project impacts would be cumulative to
this existing impact.
Vehicular emission controls have produced noticeable
improvements in air quality for some pollutant species such as
lead and to some extent CO2 and NO2. For other pollutant
species, little change in Hermosa Beach air quality beyond
normal year-to-year variations has occurred. The year 1984 and
1985 was characterized by a reversal from improved to worsened
air quality for several pollutant species. Carbon Monoxide, a
direct indicator of automotive emissions in the area,
experienced a significant increase in violations and maximum
concentrations for 8 -hour exposures. This trend reversal may
reflect growing traffic" volumes and declining mean travel
speeds to more pollution inefficient speeds faster than the
rate of emissions improvements for newer cars and from the
mandatory vehicle inspection and maintenance program.
Particulate .species, especially lead and sulfates, continue to
show improvements in their annual trendline.
Air Quality Management. The Clean Air Act requires an air
"quality management plan (AQMP) be prepared outlining tactics by'
which attainment will be achieved in all areas for which
federal air quality standards are violated. The Act requires
all' areas of the country achieve clean air by 1982 with an
extension to 1987 if progress is demonstrated by the interim
deadline.. Extrapolation of current trends suggests that
attainment of clean air standards for particulate species and
probably NO2 may be expected within this decade. Carbon
Monoxide levels will perhaps reach attainment late in the
1990s. Ozone levels in Hermosa Beach area are not expected to
reach their attainment target until beyond the year 2000.
99
TABLE 0
HERMOSA BEACH AREA AIR OUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY
(Days Standards Were Exceeded and Maximum
Observed Concentrations)
Pollutant/Standard 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
Ozone
1 -Hour > 0.10 ppm 9 22 10 23 16 11
1 -Hour > 0.12 ppm 0 4 2 9 8 4
1 -Hour > 0.20 ppm 0 0 0 0 1 0
1 -Hour > 0.35 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0
Max. 1 -dour Conc. (ppm) 0.11 0.19 0.16 0.18 0.22 0.17
Carbon Monoxide
1 -Hour > 20. ppm - - 5 4 9 12
8 -Hour > 9. ppm 73 52 46 45 68 49
Max. 1 -Hour Conc. (ppm) 31. 27. 26. 31. 24. 29.
Max. 8 -Hour Conc. (ppm) 21.6 19.1 17.7 18.4 19.7 24.0
Nitrogen Dioxide
1 -Hour 2 0.25 ppm 7 12 4 5 2 0
Max. 1 -Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.38 0.42 0.34 0.32 0.27 0.24
Total Particulates
24 -Hour Z 100 ug/m3 29/56 25/58 14/58 11/53 17/57 12/48
24 -Hour > 260 ug/m3 0/56 1/58 0/58 0/53 0/57 1/48
Max. Daily Conc. (ug/m3) 236. 316. 200. 242. 156. 283.
Particulate Lead
1 -Month > 1.5 ug/m 3 s 5/12 3/12 3/12 0/12 0/12 0/10
Max. 1 -Mo. Conc. (ug/m ) 3.44 1.91 1.70 1.29 1.38 0.90
Particulate Sulfate
24 -Hour 2 25. ug/m3 6/56 1/58 2/58 0/53 1/57 0/48
Max. Daily Conc. (ug/m3) 34.0 26.2 37.3 24.8 26.7 24.4
Source: California Air Resources Board, Summaries of Air Quality, 1980-85
Notes: Hourly, 3 -hourly, 24 -hourly and annual standards for sulfur dioxide
have not been exceeded in last six years, and are not tabulated.
= new CO standard in effect since 1982, no previous data.
100
ti
SCAQMD and Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) prepared AQMP for the South Coast Air Basin, as part of
the California State Implementation Plan, in 1978. Within a
few years it became obvious that many of the tactics of the
AQMP were not being implemented by responsible agencies and the
level of technology was not developing fast enough to even come
close to attainment. An AQMP update in 1982 recognizes that
attainment for ozone will not be possible until the year 2000
even if all reasonable available emissions reduction measures
are implemented. The cornerstone of the emissions control
program is a mandatory vehicular inspection and maintenance
program which will reduce the impact of automobile emissions on
air quality. However, the number of sources is so large and
the dispersion meteorology is so poor than even the year 2000
may be optimistic as an attainment goal. Preliminary 1986 air
quality data reflect the lowest regional photochemical smog
(ozone) levels since monitoring began in the Basin in the
1950's. When year to year variations in regional dispersion
potential are subtracted out from annual trends in Basin smog
levels, the very slow, but very gradual improvement trend in
basin smog levels becomes quite obvious.
The proposed Project relates to the AQMP through the growth
assumptions used to generate commuting and other trip emissions
throughout the South Coast Air Basin. These growth
projections, as embodied in the SCAG-82A and SCAG-82B
forecasts, were based on the general plans and development
proposals in effect in 1981 when the forecasts were prepared.
The proposed Project, however, is not consistent with the
City's General Plan and development proposals in effect when
the AQMP was prepared. Thus, Project-related emissions have
not been properly anticipated in the AQMP.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Air Ouality Impacts - General
On a cumulative basis, the Project is part of an overall
pattern of growth that is outstripping the local transportation
system's ability to support such growth. The assumed levels of
balance between employment and housing opportunities assumed in
the 1982 SCAG "Growth Forecast Policy" for the entire South Bay
Corridor are being far exceeded on the side of employment.
With high congestion levels and forecasted major growth
throughout the area, the cumulative effects of such growth
including the small increment represented by this Project, is
an important air quality consideration.
Residences, motels, and other commercial land uses impact air
quality through the vehicular traffic generated by development.
On a regional scale, commuting and other residential trips,
motel guest travel and commercial shopping trips will add to
regional trip generation. This will increase vehicle miles
travelled (VMT) within the local airshed. Project traffic,
101
especially at rush hour, will be added to the local Hermosa
Beach roadway system. If such traffic occurs during periods of
poor atmospheric ventilation, is comprised of a large number of
vehicles "cold -started" and operating at pollution inefficient
speeds, and occurs on already crowded roadways with non -Project
traffic, there is a potential for the formation of micro -scale
air pollution hot spots in the area immediately around the
Project Area.
Secondary Project -related atmospheric impacts derive from a
number of other small, growth -connected emissions sources.
These include temporary emissions of dusts and fumes during
Project construction, increased fossil -fuel combustion in power
plants and heaters, boilers,stoves and other energy consuming
devices. Other project -related atmospheric impacts are from
evaporative emissions at gas stations, from paints, thinners or
solvents, increased air travel, particulates from tire wear,
and resuspended roadway dust. All of these emission points are
either temporary, or they are so small in comparison to
Project -related automotive sources that their impact is
negligible. They do point out, however, that growth engenders
increased air pollution emissions from a wide variety of
sources, and thus further inhibits the near-term attainment of
all clean air standards in the region.
The conversion of Open Space to urbanized uses will create
localized micro -meteorological changes in wind flows, surface
reflexivity, and shade/shadow patterns. Such effects, however,
are confined to the immediate vicinity and are a small part of
the much larger scaled urbanization of Southern California
which has taken place for many decades without significant
adverse impacts. The Basins's climate is moderated by oceanic
heat capacity that is little affected by the small
perturbations introduced by man-made effects. Windfield
modifications, even frbm extensive high-rise construction
throughout the South Bay area are barely noticeable at ground
level. Thus, the small scale of development proposed for the
Project Area will have a negligible impact on the local micro -
climate.
2. Construction Impacts
Removal of existing site vegetation, excavation for utility
access, preparation of foundations and footings, and building
assembly will create temporary emissions of dusts, fumes,
equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants during the
project construction period. The most significant source of
air pollution from project construction will be the dust
generated during demolition, excavation and site preparation.
Typical dust lifting rates from construction activities are 1.2
tons of dust per month per acre disturbed. Dust control
through regular watering and other fugitive dust abatement
measures required by'the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (Rule 403) can reduce dust emission levels by roughly
102
one-half. When the above factor is applied to the 16 acre
Project Area and individual project construction is assumed for
six months over a three year site buildout, approximately 58
tons of dust will be lifted into the air during the
construction lifetime of the Project. Due to the increased
intensity of development proposed for the Project and the
increased construction lifetime, the projected tons of dust
will increase accordingly.
With prevailing west to east winds, land uses east of. the
Project Area along Ardmore Avenue will be exposed to Project
dust generation. Much of this dust is comprised of large
particles that are easily filtered by human breathing passages
and rapidly settles out on parked cars and other nearby
surfaces. This is considered more of a soiling nuisance,
rather than an unhealthful air quality impact.
Equipment exhaust is released during temporary construction
activities, particularly from mobile sources during site
preparation and from cranes and other onsite equipment during
actual construction. Assuming 300,000 Brake Horsepower Hours
(BHP -HR) of diesel -powered heavy equipment operations for one
acre of residential and commercial land uses, the following
emissions will result during Project construction:
Pollutant Emissions (tons)
Reactive Organic Gases
Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen Oxides
Particulate Soot
Sulfur Dioxide
7.2
18.7
68.7
5.9
5.8
Construction activity emission rates are substantial over the
construction lifetime of -the development (especially the NOx).
However, due to the mobile nature of the equipment itself, they
will be widely dispersed in space and time. Daytime
ventilation during much of the year in Hermosa Beach is usually
adequate to disperse any local pollution accumulations near the
Project Area. Perceptible impacts from construction activity
exhaust will be confined to occasional diesel exhaust odors,
but not in sufficient concentration to expose any nearby
receptors to air pollution levels above acceptable standards.
Because of the limited distance between site sources and nearby
receptors, it is important to minimize localized concentrations
of *emissions such as from trucks idling and queuing while
waiting to remove dirt or to drop off building materials, and
from trucks blocking traffic on nearby streets that might cause
high micro scale levels of automotive exhaust. If measures are
implemented to prevent multiple trucks from blocking traffic or
from idling near occupied receptor sites, then unacceptable air
quality impacts from construction activities during Project
buildout should be reduced.
103
is S ✓,y.._a�P-�' �� •..
3. Vehicular Emissions Impacts
The greatest Project -related air quality concern is mobile
source emissions generated at buildout from the Project's
11,480 daily trips that will be driven at completion. With a
trip length of 5.7 miles per trip, the Project may add 65,436
vehicle miles travelled (VMT) to regional traffic. This
represents a worst case estimate with maximum trips for each
land use without any interaction between proposed residential
and commercial uses and full motel occupancy. While some of
the trip generation and associated VMT may be reduced by
diversion to other transportation modes and some of the
residential and commercial trips may be double counted, the
Project nevertheless will be a major contributor to additional
vehicular air pollution emissions within the South Bay
subregion of the South Coast Air Basin.
Project traffic will add approximately 0.9 tons of carbon
monoxide (CO) and 0.1 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and
reactive organic gases (ROG) to the airshed daily. These
estimated pollutants, however, will increase in proportion to
the increased traffic volumes of this Final EIR. Continued
emissions reduction from the retirement of older, polluting
cars will gradually reduce the Project's regional emissions
impact, but the Project will continue to represent a small, but
not negligible portion of regional automotive emissions. Table
P shows that the Project represents a very small fraction of
the subregional and regional's South Coast Air Basin emissions.
Table P, however, only considers the proposed Project and does
not take into account the overall continued intensification of
land use throughout the South Bay and Santa Monica Bay coastal
corridor. Thus, while the proposed Project individually is not
a significant new source of automotive emissions, it may become
one when considered in conjunction with cumulative growth of
the region.
Generally, in terms of regional significance, it is not the
small incremental increase in project -related emissions that is
important, but whether the proposed Project is consistent with
the growth assumptions of the South Coast (AQMP). Because the
AQMP is based on existing general plans and zoning, except
where SCAG has special knowledge of future development, the
proposed Project is not explicitly anticipated in the AQMP
because it is an amendment to - •
' ---
Therefore, the small increment of regional• .emissions
attributable to the proposed Project constitute a significant
adverse air quality impact.*
Mitigating against such a finding is the fact that SCAG
seriously underpredicted the growth of employment opportunities
in the Basin, while overpredicting the growth of housing
availability. A significant part of regional transportation
problems is that there is such an imbalance between employment
and housing, without any place for people to live near their
work.
•*P. III - 22, Air Quality Hand Book, South Coast Air:Qualit
Management District (April, 1987).
104
While the 'roj ect itself may have
n
impact, the increased traffic aroundthea Project it regional
create localized violations of ambient air quality standards.
The hourly and 8 hour CO exposure where maximum localized CO
project impacts are expected to -occur are small at the
Pier/Valley and Pier/Ardmore intersections. Receptor exposure
was estimated at two locations around the Project Area where
development traffic may be expected to have a major impact on
the level of service on the surrounding roadway system. The
model used was initialized with maximum traffic and minimum
dispersion conditions in order to generate a worst-case impact
assessment. The results of this study are summarized in Tables
Q and R. The hourly and 8 -hour CO exposure where maximum
. localized CO Project impacts are likely to occur are small at
Pier/Valley and Pier/Ardmore intersections, but there may be a
substantial violation of the California hourly and 8 -hour CO
standards at Pier and Pacific Coast Highway. These impacts are
mainly from non -Project traffic sources. This is due to the
less than 1 ppm Project increment in each of the intersections
modeled under the worst traffic congestion conditions.
Tables Q and R also show that despite continued growth of the
area, there should be a reduction in local•automobile pollution
exposure because reduced future vehicular emissions off -set the
effects of more cars as long as traffic speeds do not decline
from increased traffic volumes. If mean rush hour travel
speeds do decline, especially to less than 10 mph, then -there
will be a worsening of alreadyunhealthful wintertime CO
exposures. Maintaining adequate traffic capacity is therefore
the single most important air quality consequence of continued
Hermosa- Beach area development. However, since Hermosa Beach
is only one small portion of the Pacific Coast Highway
corridor, it is unrealistic to think that Hermosa Beach can
guarantee that traffic speedswill not slow down locally or
regionally. Furthermore, the Southern California Association
of Governmentshas recently predicted a significant reduction in
traffic speed and a serious air quality problems in the future.
"Air quality will improve until the middle 1990's as engine
technology improves, and newer cars enter the fleet. But
population growth will soon overwhelm the gains in
technology...more delays caused by more traffic congestion, air
pollution in 2010 will continue to exceed federal and state
standards."'*' "It is estimated that in 2010 some pollutants
could be as much as four times greater than allowable levels,
despite our present efforts to control them."*
*Facts about Growth.' Southern California Association
rQuality Section). No Date.
•
•.•
4. Miscellaneous Impacts
•
Continued growth'contributes to regional emissions from small
sources. These sources are generally small on a single project
basis. Such sources include:
t
• Increased basin power plant emissi• ons to supply the
electricity for residents,
-guests, employees, and other,,
development power users.
105
:tt
TABLE P
PROJECT -RELATED VEHICULAR EMISSIONS
(EMISSIONS IN TONS/YEAR)
PROJECT YEAR
1987
1990
1995
2000
Emissions Comparisons
Proposed Project
RSA#3
South Coast Air Basin
Project Share of RSA
Project Share of Basin
Source:
CARBON
MONOXIDE
240.8
213.2
189.7
174.0
(tons/day):
0.86
474.1
6227.7
0.18%
0.014%
URBEMIS#1 Computer Model
EIRs (1983).
REACTIVE
ORGANICS
29.7
24.6
21.3
19.7
0.11
112.8
1002.4
0.10%
0.011%
NITROGEN
OXIDES
20.0
16.8
14.3
13.8
0.07
114.5
959.0
0.06%
0.008%
and SCAQMD Guidelines for
TABLE Q
PROJECT -RELATED MICROSCALE AIR OUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
(HOURLY AND 8 -HOUR CO EXPOSURES IN PPM ABOVE NONLOCAL BACKGROUND)
INTERSECTION: PIER & VALLEY
Speed Hourly Concentration (ppm) 8 -Hour Concentration (ppm)
(mph) Ex. W/P E+P+C Ex. W/P E+P+C
35 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.0
30 1.8 2.0 1.7 1.3 1.4 1.2
25 2.2 2.3 1.9 1.5 1.6 1.4
20 2.6 2.8 2.3 1.8 2.0 1.6
15 3.2 3.5 2.9 2.3 2.4 1.0
10 4.4 4.8 4.0 3.1 3.3 2.8
5 8.3 9.0 7.3 5.8 6.3 5.1
Source: CALINE3 Computer Model, "F" Stability, 2 mph wind
• parallel to roadway.
Note: Above concentrations are above nonlocal background.
This background is approximately at the level of the standard
already, and will stay at that level into the future. Above
values thus represent levels in excess of the 1 -Hour and 8 -Hour
standards.
Key: Ex. = Existing (1985); W/P = Existing plus Project
(1985); E+P+C = Existing plus Project plus Cumulative Growth
(2000)
106
TABLE R
PROJECT -RELATED MICROSCALE AIR OUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
(HOURLY AND 8 -HOUR CO EXPOSURES IN PPM ABOVE NONLOCAL
BACKGROUND)
INTERSECTION: PIER & PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
Speed Hourly Concentration (ppm) 8 -Hour Concentration (ppm)
(mph) Ex. W/P E+P+C Ex. W/P E+P+C
35 4.6 4.7 3.8 3.2 3.3 2.6
30 5.3 5.4 4.3 3.7 3.8 3.0
25 6.3 6.4 5.1 4.4 4.5 3.6
20 7.5 7.7 6.1 5.3 5.4 4.3
15 9.4 9.6 7.5 6.6 6.7 5.3
10 12.8 13.1 10.5 9.0 9.1 7.3
5 24.2 24.6 19.2 16.9 17.2 13.5
Source: CALINE3 Computer Model, "F" Stability, 2 mph wind
parallel to roadway.
Note: Above concentrations are above nonlocal background.
This background is approximately at the level of the standard
already, and will stay at that level into the future. Above
values thus represent levels in excess of the 1 -Hour and 8 -Hour
standards.
Key: Ex. = Existing (1985); W/P = Existing plus Project
(1985); E+P+C = Existing plus Project plus Cumulative Growth
(2000)
Evaporative emissions from gasoline stations; from paints,
thinners, solvents, and cleaning materials used in
construction and maintenance; landscape utility equipment,
asphalt, tar, and other building materials.
Onsite combustion sources such as heaters and boilers,
space heating, other mobile combustion sources such as
aircraft.
•
Increased dust sources from sand and gravel or concrete
batching operations; vehicular dust generation; exhaust
soot or re -suspended roadway dust.
These sources are small, even on a total Project basis.
Emissions from stationary sources such as power plants, coating
compounds, gas stations, etc. are strictly controlled by AQMD
stationary source emissions control regulations. They are a
source of Project -related emissions although their ambient air
quality impact is insignificant.
C
C. MITIGATION MEASURES
Since the proposed Project would individually create only a
minor air quality impact, but cumulatively with other major
area growth may exacerbate violations of clean air standards on
both a local and regional scale, it is concluded that effective
impact mitigation must be generated in conjunction with other
anticipated area growth. However, since such impacts derive
primarily from the automobile whose emissions characteristics
are beyond the control of the Project Applicant and local
regulatory agencies, the potential for effective mitigation is
limited.
Traffic impact mitigation will create a corresponding air
quality impact mitigation and is therefore the primary focus of
any potential reduction in air pollution emissions. Such
traffic measures should stress both reduction of the number of
vehicles accessing the Project Area, and the improvement of
traffic flow to eliminate the stagnation penalty that Project
implementation engenders. Trip reduction through
transportation control measures (TCMs) is estimated by the
Project traffic consultant to create a 15 percent reduction in
peak hour trips if such TCMs are integrated into a unified
transportation system management (TSM) program. However,
because of the mixed residential -commercial uses proposed for
the Project Area, such uses do not lend themselves to
implementation of a TSM program. Freeway and arterial
improvements are similarly expected to provide some congestion
relief, but this Project and other area growth, in conjunction
with existing traffic levels, will cause a further unavoidable
deterioration in roadway operating conditions in the Hermosa
Beach area.
Notwithstanding the above, the following Mitigation Measures
should be incorporated in"development planning for the proposed
Project Area:
• Grading activities should comply with AQMD Rule 403
which requires dust control measures.
• Fugitive dust emissions during construction should be
minimized by watering the sites for dust control,
isolating excavated soil onsite until it is hauled
away, and periodically washing adjacent streets to
remove accumulated materials.
• Parking areas should be paved early during
construction activities.
Major grading should occur when soil moisture is
high.
• Adequate dust suppressants (i.e. watering and early
revegetation) should be used.
108
C
The use of alternate transportation modes should be
encouraged by promoting public transit use and
providing secure bicycle facilities.
• Mass transit facilities should be accommodated and
integrated into the project.
• Excavating or imported materials should be in trucks
with traps or similar cover. Haul routes shall be
determined in conjunction with the City Public Works
Department.
• There should be no burning of materials at any time.
The contractor should make arrangements to insure
adequate availability of water and should maintain at
least one water truck on the site at all times during
dry weather.
Various transportation control measures (TCMs), if
and when feasible, should be integrated into a
project design. These TCMs include the following:
- Ride sharing
- Vanpool incentives
- Alternate Transportation Methods
- Work Scheduling for Off -Peak Hour Travel
- Transit Utilization
- Program Coordination
- Traffic Signal Coordination
- Physical Roadway Improvements
D. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
On a cumulative basis, the Project would contribute to short-
term and long-term adverse impacts on air quality. There are
no effective measures which would mitigate vehicular emissions
impacts except those mitigating the impact of traffic in the
area. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures
controlling excavation, grading and other construction
activities would mitigate to some degree the short-term impact
from dust and related problems. During construction, however,
I- - I• - -ru --•' -
environment.
cant effect on the
EXHIBIT D
VOLUME 4
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE
PART IV. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES - FINAL EIR
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
DECEMBER 1987
PART IV. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON FINAL EIR
A. List of Persons, Organizations and Public
Agencies Commenting on Final EIR
B. Comments and Recommendations Received on
Final EIR
C. Responses to Significant Environmental Points
Raised During Review
This Part IV of the Final Environmental Impact Report contains
the comments and recommendations received on the Final EIR for
the proposed Project, and the City's responses to the significant
environmental points raised in these comments and
recommendations. This Part IV includes all written comments
received by the City on the Final EIR and comments made at the
Public Hearings held.
In order to cross reference comments and responses, each set of
comments have been assigned identifying letters showing the
source of the comment and a number for each comment responded to
(i.e., ATSF-1 through 19, etc.). Each response identifies the
comments to which it responds. On each commenting document, the
number of the response to each comment has been placed in the
left hand margin next to the comment beneath the comment number.
A. LIST OF PERSONS, ORGANIZATIONS AND PUBLIC
AGENCIES COMMENTING ON FINAL EIR
Following each person, organization or public agency listed below
as commenting on the Final EIR is the key to the abbreviation of
each such commentator used in numbering the Comments and
Responses in Sections B and C.
1. Dasker, Dennis, Supervising Water Resource Control
Engineer, California Regional Water Quality Control
Board --Los Angeles Region, (10-30-87) ("LAFCD")
2. Turrini & Brink, Planning Consultants, Atchison, Topeka
& Santa Fe, (11-24-87) ("ATSF")
3. Open Space People's Action Committee, (12-1-87)
("OSPAC")
4. Rose, Anthony L. Ph.D., (12-1-87) ("ROSE")
5. Ryckman, Don, Superintendent, Hermosa Beach City
Schools, (12-1-87) ("RYCKMAN")
6. Ballantine, W.B., Chief, Environmental Planning
Branch, Department of Transportation, State of
California, (11-24-87) ("CALTRANS")
7. Planning Commission Minutes, (12-1-87)
J
B. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
Michael Schubach
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
November 30, 1987
Subject: General Plan Amendment & Zone Change-ATSF Right of Way
SCH# 86091706
Dear Mr. Schubach:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to
selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of
the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that you have
complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft
environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act.
Please call Keith Lee at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions regarding
the environmental review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse in this
matter, please use the eight -digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may
respond promptly.
Sincerely,
David C. Nun
Chief
Office of Permit Assistance
TATE OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD -
LOS ANGELES REGION
107 SOUTH BROADWAY, SUITE 4027
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012-4596
(2131 620-4460
October 30, 1987
3c)
GEORGE
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
DEC 3 1987
Michael Schubach
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
DRAFT EIR. ATSF RR RIGHT OF WAY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE
CHANGE SCH# 86091706
We have reviewed the subject document and have the following
comments.
LAFCD
We are extremely concerned with the impact this project will have
1 on the LAFCD Salt Water Intrusion Barrier Project. The Draft EIR
states that the project will have a significant effect on the
Barrier facilities. The DEIR, however, fails to state what these
effects are. The final EIR must elaborate on the project's
effects on the Salt Water Intrusion Barrier Project and on the
consequences of disruption and/or failure of the Barrier.
Finally, the steps which will be taken to mitigate the effects of
the project on the Barrier must be enumerated.
The Salt Water Intrusion Barrier Project is an extremely critical
system. It protects a large quantity of ground water from
irreparable contamination. We can ill -afford to damage or lose
this important system.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment. If you have any
questions please contact Fred Doehring at (213) 620-5433.
DENNIS DASKER
Supervising Water Resource
Control Engineer
•
cc: Glenn Stober, SCH
ATSF
TV
aid
PLANMNG C • 1920 EAST 17TH STREET. SUITE 200 • SANTA ANA. CALIF. 92701-6699 • (714)8361691
Job #188-010
November 24, 1987
Mr. Michael Schubach
Planning Director
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
RE: COMMENT SUBMITTED BY THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA-.
AND SANTE FE RAILWAY`. COMPANY TO FINAL E.I.R.
FOR ATSF RAILROAD:; R.O.We.G.P.A-. AND REZONE'
Dear Mr. Schubach
On behalf of the applicant; the Atchison, Topeka and Sante
Fe Railway Company,-Turrini & Brink, submits the 'attached
comment to the Final. Environmental. Impact Report ,for the.
ATSF Railroad Right-of-Way_:"General' plan Amendment and Zone-
Change, dated October --1.8198T:
After having thoroughly .:reviewed tie documit:
ent and it -
appendices, it appears to ue ;that,`severa]. of the sections
dor not contain 'all of, the .information- needed to satisfy the,
intent of the California tnvironmental Qualit•y Act (CEM
In• general, then+
1) The,'�ry which should: contain an ";Areas of Contro
ve ayw.and "Issues to be Resolved'" discussion,
-zr
2) The Project Description, within the "Objectives" sec-
tion which eliminated significant information previ-
ously contained within the Draft EIR;
3) The Regional Setting section which lists projects
contributing to Cumulative Impacts but does not appear
to provide a written discussion of the expected cumula-
tive effects;
4) The Environmental Setting section with regard to sev-
eral isolated issues;
5) The Alternatives Section which, based upon recent CEQA
rulings, should contain a thoroughanalysis of reasoned
alternatives; and
6) The Effects Not Found to be Significant section which
should provide explanations of those environmental
issues checked "No" on the. Initial Study as'required by
CEQA.
These areas, as well as any other areas which we believ
should be clarified, are discussed in the comments :whic
are attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Respectfully,
INI b B'
jrj
Frank .A. Greco
Project Manager
FJAG/can
Attachment
COMMENTS ON THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE
November 16, 1987
The following comments on the Final Environmental Impact
Report for the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Right
of Way have been prepared on behalf of the applicant, the
Atchison, Topeka and Sante Fe Railway Company.
Section 1.0 (Introduction) states that this Final EIR is
found in five volumes, which include: 1) A revision of the
Draft EIR text (Part I, Volume 1) ; 2) Comments and recom-
mendations received by the City on the Draft EIR (Part II,
Volume 2); 3) City response to significant environmental
points raised (Part II, Volume 2); 4) Transcript of Public
Hearing (Part II, Volume 2; 5) A list of persons, organiza-
tions and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR (Part
I I , Volume 2) ; 6) Appendices Part III, Volumes 3A and 8) ;
7) Comments and recommendations received by the City on the
Final EIR (Part IV, Volume 4); 8) City response to signifi-
cant points raised in the process on the Final EIR (Part
IV, Volume 4) and 9) Transcript of public hearing held on
the Final EIR (Part IV, Volume 4). It should be noted that
ATSF
our review did not include Part IV documents, as it is our
understanding that they have not yet been completed by the
City of Hermosa Beach and are not available for review. Our
review did, however, include the screencheck and draft
versions of the EIR and their appendices.
SECTION 1.0. INTRODUCTION
For clarification purposes it would be appropriate to
include a brief explanation of the recirculation of the
]. Final EIR (the additional 45 -day review) because of the
important changes made within the document in response to
comments.
SECTION 2.0. SUMMARY OF PROJECT
Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved
Section 15112 of CERA defines the required contents of the
summary contained within an EIR. It is stated in the
2 Guidelines that a summary shall identify areas of contro-
versy known to the lead agency including issues raised by
agencies and the public. It also is stated that the sum-
mary shall contain a section including issues to be re -
2
solved including the choice among alternatives and whether
or how to mitigate the significant effects. It does not
appear that the EIR contains either the areas of contro-
versy or issues to be resolved sections.
Levels of Significance After Mitigation
Within Volume 1 of the Final Environmental Impact Report,
Part 1, Revised Text, omits levels of significance after
3 mitigation for Traffic. The information does not appear to
be contained within the summary or the environmental analy-
sis section of the EIR.
Summary Findings
Specific comment about the summary findings contained in
Section 2.0 are addressed, when deemed necessary or appro-
priate, in the discussion of the other document sections
that follow. That comment, when applicable, is therefore
intended to apply to this summary section as well.
3
SECTION 3.0. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Changes have been made between the project description
entered in the Draft and in the Final EIR. These changes
in maximum development figures altered parcel 4 maximum
development from 32 to 38 units; parcel 6 from 22* to 26
units; parcel 8 from 29,273 sq. ft. to 93,762 sq. ft.;
parcel 9 from 48,787 sq. ft. to 186,218 sq. ft.; and parcel
13 from 96 rooms to 175 rooms. (These changes are also
reflected in Exhibits 5 through 8.) For purposes of clar-
ity, it would be helpful to explain why these changes were
made and how they were derived.
By analyzing the maximum development for the area, the City
is presenting a worst-case analysis of the impacts that
could be associated with the proposed project. The EIR
fails to state, however, that these are worst-case impacts
due to the fact that the EIR has been prepared as a Program
EIR. It should be noted that actual impacts would be
expected to be somewhat lower than those detailed in the
* The Figure for parcel 6 of "32", which appears in the
Screencheck Draft, is a typographical error.
4
EIR. It would be beneficial to explain within the document
that the EIR, in an effort to fully disclose all potential
environmental effects, has evaluated the maximum develop-
ment possible and represents a worst-case analysis.
Section 15124 (b) of CERA indicates that a statement of the
objectives sought by the proposed project are required
within the Project Description of an EIR. The Project
Objectives section of the Final EIR has been altered from
the objectives stated in the Draft EIR. The objective
stated on page 25 of the Final EIR, although apparently
written in response to comments, is unusual in terms of
typical objectives statements within EIRs. The statement
does not accurately state the objectives of either the
Applicant or the City. The Draft EIR contained objectives
that might be more appropriately considered for use in the
Final EIR because they consider the "big picture" objec-
tives of the proposed project, rather than just the immedi-
ate action being requested. If this EIR is truly a program
EIR, the objectives of the project would include the
broader picture of development of the land with residen-
tial, commercial and open space uses. By stating the objec-
tive as printed in the Final EIR, the "project" could be
interpreted as being restricted to only the Zone Change and
5
GPA, which may be construed to mean that subsequent docu-
ments would have to be prepared for all development which
would occur on-site. The objectives from the Draft EIR
should be retained while also adding that a Zone Change and
General Plan Amendment are the first steps toward reaching
the objectives.
SECTION 4.0. REGIONAL SETTING, CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND
RELATED PROJECTS
Cumulative Impacts
Section 15130 of the CERA Guidelines states that cumulative
impacts shall be discussed when they are significant.
Cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 4.0 and,
briefly, in various sections of the environmental docu-
ments. However, these discussions do not to reflect the
5 level of impacts or their likelihood of occurrence as
required by CERA. Although the discussion need not provide
as great a detail as is provided for the effects attributa-
ble to the project alone, the discussion should be guided
by the standards of practicality and reasonableness. Rather
than detailing cumulative impacts in section 4.0, the EIR
seems to combine the discussions of cumulative impacts and
6
project impacts which, in certain cases, makes it difficult
to discern the difference in the level of impact the pro-
ject will have as it relates to cumulative impacts. No
actual evaluation of the environmental effects resulting
from the proposed project in combination with the projects
described on pages 27 through 34 of the Final EIR has been
undertaken.
SECTION 5.0. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
MEASURES
Impacts on City General Plan, Policies and Goals
This element is highly unusual in its approach and conclu-
sions and is not consistent with the intent of CERA. Gen-
eral Plans, Policies and Goals are adopted by governing
agencies as flexible, living guidelines that generally set
forth an outline for a City's growth and land patterns. An
6 environmental document cannot objectively quantify and
review legislated principles as opposed to environmental
elements. This is clearly outside the function of an EIR
and taken to its logical conclusion, if this approach were
taken, anv and all developments requiring a general plan
amendment or rezone would be found to have unmitigatible
7
negative impacts. This is nonsensical and violative of the
provisions of CERA as they relate to the requirements of
the contents of an EIR.
In sum, it is clear that CERA is intended to objectively
measure the potential impacts on the environment, not on
governmental policy. For example, the loss of an irre-
placeable natural resource, such as heritage oaks, is a
legitimate issue for consideration as regards unmitigatable
environmental impacts; the effect of the loss of such oaks
on a public policy is not a legitimate topic for considera-
tion in an EIR.
For the foregoing reasons, this section should be stricken.
However, if it is not, the following comments should be
considered:
1.) The discussion throughout subsections 5.1.B.1 (a.
through h.) pertain to City policies that seem to
classify vacant, privately -owned property in the same
7 category as publicly -owned open -space. If Section
5.1.B.1. (a. through h.) are to remain, it should be
noted that the implementation of these public poli-
cies can be accomplished through out -right purchase
8
or condemnation. We believe strong legal precedent
indicates that the mitigation for any perceived
negative impacts on the City's General Plan, Policies
and Goals as it relates to obtaining private property
for the use of public open space requires just com-
pensation. Therefore, assuming for sake of argument,
the discussion of impacts on the City, General Plan,
Policies and Goals legitimately belongs in this
document, then the mitigation of that impact is the
payment of just compensation for the taking of pri-
vate property for a public use or amendment of the
General Plan Policies and Goals in the manner sought
by the applicant, that is, a General Plan Amendment.
2.) Subsections 5.1.8.d., e. and f. (for example) make
broad simplified assumptions with regard to the
inability to mitigate impacts on policies as they
regard a jogging path, parking and the LAFCO barrier.
Again assuming for argument sake that "policies"
should be mitigated, these sections fail to consider
the feasibility of inclusion of jogging/pedestrian
trails, reciprocal parking agreements via project
9
surface or structure facilities or several develop-
ment -related mitigations directed specifically at the
issue of the injection wells.
The revised text states on page 44 under item f., Conserva-
tion Element, that the portion of the Right -of -Way used by
LAFCO (Los Angeles County Flood Control District) appears
to severely constrain development of the area by the loca-
tion of these Facilities and the land requirements neces-
sary to operate and maintain them. It concludes that the
proposed project and any development occurring pursuant
thereto would severely constrain and have a significant
effect on the City's ability to implement Policy 15 of the
Conservation Element. (Note: The objective of this element
is to prevent salt water intrusion by injecting water
underground to create a barrier.) It further concludes
that development of the project site would have a signifi-
cant regional effect on the operation and maintenance of
the Barrier by LAFCO.
Additionally page 153, (Section 7.4., Significant Environ-
mental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided if the Proposal is
Implemented) states under Earth Resources that the proposed
project would have a significant local and regional effect
on LAFCO Salt Water Barrier Facilities located in the
Project Area. Section 5.7, Earth Resources, discusses the
existing conditions of the barrier (page 112) and the
potential impacts (page 117) which indicate that the devel-
opment would have a significant effect on the barrier
facilities. This is in contradiction to the mitigation
measures stated on page 119 which state that prior to
approval of any development project in the project area,
ATSF shall consult with LAFCO and the City and develop a
mitigation plan to assure the continued operation and
maintenance capabilities of the Barrier Facilities. The
mitigation plan is required to include any modification or
relocation of the Barrier Facilities, or any portion
thereof, necessary to accommodate the proposed development
and the continued successful operation and maintenance of
the Facilities. Implementation of this mitigation measure
should mitigate impacts associated with the project upon
the barrier and, consequently, on Policy 15 of the Conser-
vation Element. Page 121, which addresses level of sig-
nificance after mitigation, makes no mention of the
barrier, indicating that no significant impacts will remain
after mitigation.
11
It also should be noted that the draft EIR (page LU 9)
stated that the project is consistent with Policy 15 and
that the project would have no impacts to the conservation
element. A letter of June 25, 1987 from the County of Los
Angeles Department of Public Works, which is contained
within the appendix, states that the change of zoning for
parcels 4, 6 and 7 could have a significant impact on the
barrier facilities. It appears that additional research is
necessary to determine specific mitigation measures to
mitigate these impacts which can be incorporated into
project design. It does not appear, given the information
available, that any significant unavoidable adverse impacts
upon the barrier will be permitted to occur. (Please refer
to the letter from the Los Angeles County Department of
Public Works on page B-31 of Volume 2, Part II of the Final
EIR). If this is the case, the discussion on page 153
should be revised.
Finally and most significantly, it should be noted that the
injection wells have been located on applicant's private
property via a lease. This lease is terminable upon
thirty (30) days written notice by applicant and under the
terms of the lease, Los Angeles County is required to
relocate its wells at its expense.
12
This makes moot the issue of the wells.
Traffic and Circulation
There are some items that should be noted within the analy-
12 sis of the traffic report prepared by ASL consulting engi-
neers (September 14, 1987).
The report fails to indicate existing daily traffic volumes
for Pacific Coast Highway (Route 1) on Figure 3 or Table 3.
Also, the analysis neglects to include potential impacts at
the PCH/Aviation Boulevard intersection, although the
report indicates 10% of project traffic would travel north
on Aviation Boulevard. It also should be noted that the
relatively high density residential uses proposed may
result in slightly lower vehicle generation than has been
assumed.
Finally, the document should contain a more thorough expla-
nation for the revision between Draft and Final EIR in the
uniform traffic growth rate from 1/2 per cent through 2010
13
to 3 percent through 1997. At a minimum, it should con-
tain a side-by-side discussion of impacts using both rates.
Noise
It should be noted that noise impacts will occur primarily
because of existing plus other development traffic, as
project related traffic is estimated to represent only
13 about 8% of future traffic levels for these road segments.
Therefore, the project, in itself, is responsible for only
a small percentage of the actual future impacts of noise
upon the surrounding areas.
As noted above, use of a 3% traffic growth rate instead of
1/2 per cent also has the effect of skewing upward traf-
fic -related noise. That fact should be noted in the manner
stated above.
Air Quality
14 Section 5.5 addresses Air Quality for the proposed project.
14
Although revised traffic figures are higher in the Final
EIR than those used in the Draft EIR, the revised air
emission estimates, based upon preliminary calculations,
should be lower.
This is due, in part, to the difference in trip length
assumed between the Final EIR analysis and our analysis.
The EIR study assumed an average trip length of 5.7 miles
(no source was given for this estimate). The current
analysis assumes an average trip length of 3.9 miles, based
on Average Daily trips for each land use as indicated in
the project traffic report. ADT for each land use was then
applied to LARTS estimates developed by Caltrans for the
Los Angeles basin (3.5 mile average for commercial land use
and 6.9 mile average for residential land uses).
Estimated project air emissions have been calculated based
on the September, 1987 project traffic study, applying
traffic data from the project traffic report and emissions
factors from the South Coast Air Quality Management Dis-
trict's Handbook for Preparing EIRs. It should be noted
that the SCAQMD emissions factors used in the 1986 report
were revised by SCAQMD in 1987. The current analysis
employs these factors, which are slightly lower, also
15
resulting in slightly lower emissions estimates. Addi-
tional assumptions were made, including square footage of
the proposed motel to estimate energy consumption related
emissions (36,000 square feet was assumed). Also, an
average trip length of 3.9 miles was assumed as described
above.
These revised project air emission estimates would indicate
that the project's contribution toward degradation of the
regional air cell is slightly lower than previously esti-
mated on a cumulative basis.
Recreation
In Section 5.10.C. (Recreation, Mitigation Measures), it is
stated that "there are no measures available to mitigate
15 the displacement of recreational facilities in the project
area" and the next previous paragraph specifically
addresses "a running track and parcourse."
16
To the contrary, a running track or jogging trail and/or
parcourse could be readily included in a given portion of
the project. (This comment also applies to similar state-
ments made in conjunction with the discussion of traffic
impacts on pp. 76 and 85.)
Finally, the discussion fails to mention a very salient
fact: Santa Fe leases the property to Hermosa Beach for
recreational purposes for $1.00 per year and the lease may
be cancelled by Santa Fe by merely giving thirty (30) days
written notice to Hermosa Beach. In short, Sante Fe can
legally terminate the use of its property as open space,
regardless of whether or not its project is approved.
Hence, the potential loss of the property for recreation
purposes as a result of the project is not a valid consid-
eration.
ALTERNATIVES
Section 15126(d) of the CERA guidelines describes the
16 necessary contents of an alternatives section in an EIR.
The following is a description of the CERA requirement:
17
"Alternatives to the proposed action. Describe a range of
reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location
of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic
objectives of the project, and evaluate the comparative
merits of the alternatives."
The document is woefully deficient in the alternatives
presented in the EIR. The alternatives fail to truly
feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project or the
applicant. Although CERA does require a discussion of
alternatives to focus on alternatives capable of eliminat-
ing significant effects even if they would impede, to some
degree, the attainment of the project objectives, it ap-
pears that only one alternative mentioned in the EIR, the
"Decreased Development Project" actually considers the
objectives of the proposed project. This does not repre-
sent a well thought out analysis of reasonable alternatives
to the proposed project under CERA.
The alternatives in the subject EIR should have included
reasonable combinations of residential, commercial and open
space uses which might have integrated the development
objectives with some of the City's policies regarding
retention of pathways and/or open space along the right of
18
way. As noted in the CERA Guidelines, the range of alter-
natives required in an EIR is governed by the "rule of
reason" that requires the EIR to set forth only those
alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The
key issue is whether the selection and discussion of alter-
natives fosters informed decision making and informed
public participation.
In addition, Section 15126(d) of CERA states that it is
necessary to explain why the other alternatives were re-
jected in favor of the proposal being analyzed in the EIR
if they were considered in developing the proposal. The
document fails to indicate why each of three alternatives
(the No Project, Existing Zoning and Decreased Intensity
Development Alternatives) were rejected.
Finally, the "Development Under Existing General Plan and
Zoning" alternative is inappropriate because:
* The alternative does not feasibly attain the basic
objectives of the project or the applicant;
19
* A nursery school, day care center, private school or
swim/health club could not be constructed without vari-
ance(s) to the 0-S Open Space Zone, which requires (for
example) that "(a)11 structures shall be set back from
all lot lines not less than twenty (20) feet." (Sec.
9.5-5.) [The "Decreased Intensity Development" (for
example) does not require a variance from any applicable
zone.];
* A tennis club with courts aligned "head" to "head", as
would be required by the land configuration and as
demonstrated on p. 146, is neither physically nor eco-
nomically feasible.
EFFECTS NOT FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT
Section 15128 of the CERA guidelines (Chapter 3, Section
21100) states that an EIR shall contain a statement briefly
17 indicating the reasons that various possible significant
effects of a project were determined not to be significant
and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR. This
statement can be contained in an attached copy of an ini-
tial study. The EIR documents for the ATSF project do
indicate that six areas, including Human Health, Energy,
20
Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Animal Life and
Plant Life were found not to be significant. However, no
brief statement indicating the reasons that they were
determined to be so are included in either the EIR or in
the initial study. As a result, it cannot be ascertained
why, for instance, cultural resources were not considered
potentially significant as it is not immediately obvious
that subsurface resources do not exist. This could leave
the EIR open to criticism or legal challenge if explana-
tions are not provided.
FINAL EIR/RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Although it is in conformance with CERA to revise a Draft
EIR to make up the Final EIR, it is preferable for an EIR
to note where information from a Draft EIR has been sig-
nificantly changed, omitted or added to the Final EIR.
There is no indication in the Final EIR of where substan-
tial data was altered or eliminated which makes the docu-
ment somewhat difficult to follow. The reason for this
difficulty is that Volume 2, Part II, Comments and
Responses, Draft EIR, pertains directly to the Draft EIR,
but the Draft EIR is not included as a part of the Final
21
1
EIR package. Readers must, therefore, refer back to the
Draft EIR and compare it to the Final EIR to determine
which areas have been changed.
22
4
OSPAC response to "Final" EIR (Summary)
OSPAC I. Introduction (Rosamond)
A. Improvements of the present EIR over the previous one:
1. It is more complete than the previous EIR;
2. It addresses many of the complaints raised;
3. It points out the major environmental impacts
which the project would raise;
4. It points out the chief impact of the project
upon the water table.
B. Continuing inadequacies of the present EIR:
1. The general unavailability of the EIR to the
public in general;
2. Failure to address issues raised by those
objecting to the previous EIR:
a.
b.
Site tests for toxic waste;
Archaeological surveys;
3. Inadequacies apparent on the face of the EIR:
a. Regional Setting
b. Open Space Element
c. Noise
d. Air Pollution
e. Ground Water and Surface Runoff
f. Toxic and Hazardous Substances
g. Seismicity
h. Environmental Impacts (Water Resources)
i. Population
II. Need for toxic tests in EIR (Bernard)
A.
B.
C.
Why we need tests
Why HB may be legally obligated to conduct tests
Why it is not appropriate for Santa Fe to do tests
III. Mechanics of conducting toxic tests (John)
A.
B.
Research needed to ascertain possible test sites
Tests needed
OSPAC
The draft report itself states that there is a possibility
of soil and below ground contamination of the Greenbelt from
toxic substances. The draft report also indicates that such
contamination would have a profound impact on the environment.
Nonetheless, the report drafters failed to do any tests of the
soil, or to investigate whether any other soil surveys have been
done. The draft report only states that Santa Fe may have the
sole responsibility of determining whether toxic waste is present
in the soil. For reasons which we will state later, we believe
that it would be a mistake to leave such tests to Santa Fe. We
also think that such tests are necessary before a final EIR may
be made.
The draft report also fails entirely to address the issue of
an archaeological survey of the area, in spite of OSPAC's earlier
comments on this, and in spite of Appendix K of CEQA guidelines,
9 which authorizes such surveys. As there is substantial evidence
of earlier occupation of the South Bay by American Indians, and
as the Greenbelt is one of the few undeveloped areas left in the
South Bay, we believe this issue should be addressed before a
final EIR is made.
1
2
In addition, there are several other issues in the draft
report which have been handled in a conclusory manner, and which
need further study.
REGIONAL SETTING
Beginning on page 27, this section includes an eight page
list of projects for which permits were issued in Hermosa,
Redondo, Manhattan, Torrance, Lawndale, El Segundo and
Hawthorne. Maps indicating location and only summaries of new
units in each city would be more useful to reviewers. In the
description of items to be analyzed using this data, traffic, air
pollutants and noise are mentioned, but there is no mention of
population growth or of population densities, the most
significant impacts of the proposed project.
OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
This section, beginning with page 40, is totally
inadequate. It does not address population densities
whatsoever. It devotes only two and one half pages to the most
important aspect of the project, and the most significant adverse
impact from the project. There is little improvement of this
section from the original draft of this EIR. A great deal of
information was provided to the planning commission in the form
of comments from OSPAC. None of the information on population
densities was used. The comments also proposed ways to gather
further information needed for a proper assessment of the impacts
resulting from this precipitous loss of open space. These were
not addressed in the present report.
As members of OSPAC, we have examined the most recent
Environmental Impact Draft Report, or EIR, of Santa Fe's proposed
Project. We state our findings here.
This draft report is much more complete and in general a
better draft report than the previous EIR. Unlike the previous
draft report, the present EIR is well organized, is printed well
and reads clearly. It has a good outline of its findings, and
provides a cogent summary of its results.
This draft report also addresses many of the complaints
which we and others had brought against the previous report. In
particular, this draft report accurately details many of the
environmental impacts which Santa Fe's proposed Project would
cause.
Unlike the previous report, this draft report points out a
great number of environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated.
This draft report is also valuable in that it points out that
there are feasible alternatives to the Project, including less
obtrusive development of the Greenbelt which would preserve much
of its character as open space.
This draft report also indicates for the first time that if
the Project were approved, it would mean either interference with
or removal of the injection wells which prevent seawater from
contaminating our water table. This draft report correctly notes
that removal of the injection wells would mean contamination of
our ground water by seawater. This would mean the South Bay
would lose one source of drinking water, at a time when we cannot
afford to lose any fresh water.
Though the present EIR is much better than the last one, it
still is gravely inadequate, in part because of its
unavailability. Only one copy was provided in the Hermosa Beach
Public Library, and this copy could not be checked out. Shortly
after the draft report's availability date, a member of our
committee telephoned the Hermosa Planning Department and was told
that the only complete set would be kept in the Planning Dept.,
and that those who wished to review it could come down to read it
on the premises during office hours. Later, when we called to do
so, we were told by Andy Perrera that all of the volumes were.
at the library1aPfec" ail. •
- _:' In addition, those who made comments on
the previous EIR were not given copies of the present EIR for
further comment. We believe that this inadequate opportunity for
public review was not in compliance with the requirements of
CEQA.
The present EIR is also inadequate because it still fails to
address two important issues which we raised at the last public
meeting: site testing for toxic waste, and archaeological
surveys.
One defect of the outline of this draft report is that it
buries the most important environmental impact, loss of open
space, beneath other general plan elements. This unjustifiably
diminishes the impact of loss of open space upon the reviewers.
To do this is to deprive reviewers and decision makers of the
proper balance and significance of impacts which is needed to
make informed decisions. To correct this imbalance, all of the
impacts which result from the loss of open space should be
addressed within the Open Space element of the report.
NOISE
In page 87, section 5.4, under construction activities, in
our previous comments, we asked that noise isoplasts be generated
for this area. They are not given here, although there is some
information here with which people could determine the noise in
their own neighborhoods. The Environmental Impact Report should
give noise isoplasts of construction noise.
As regards operations, traffic, etc, the same mitigation
measures are used in the present report as were used in the
previous version. At the end of both sections, there is a
conclusion that implementation of the mitigation measures in
city policies and requirements should reduce the on-site
environmental impacts to a level of insignificance after
completion of the development. It appears that by on-site, the
report refers to the impact to people who live at the site after
it is developed. It does not refer to the impact on the
surrounding environment and the people who live there already.
The mitigation measures given here do not reduce these
environmental impacts.
AIR POLLUTION
The analysis beginning on page 103 of the draft report
should be on a worst case basis. It is not. At the bottom of
the page is the assumption that trucks will not line up idling.
Anyone who has been at a major construction site knows that this
4 assumption is incorrect. As a result, there is likely to be
significant construction related air pollution. OSPAC made this
same comment re the previous report.
The projected impacts on page 105 assume that future
pollution control will reduce emissions, and that increased
traffic will not cause reductions invehicle speed and resultant
increased air emissions. These assumptions are contrary to other
estimates, notably those done by the county on future traffic
problems.
The stationary sources listed on page 107 are not
quantified. Without such quantification there is insufficient
information to support the statement in the draft report that
stationary emissions are small. Again, this was pointed out in
our comments to the previous draft report.
Re page 109 (Level of Significance): The long term impacts
of the project would also be significant locally since it would
contribute to the exceeding of state and federal standards for
carbon monoxide at Pier and PCH. Numbers for NOX and other
criteria cannot be checked.
GROUND WATER AND SURFACE RUNOFF
On page 113, there is no mention in this section that
development of the property would cover part of the ground with
5 pavement and structures which would prevent infiltration of rain
water and thus increase surface water runoff. This environmental
impact should be addressed.
On page 117, this section does not address the role of
infiltration water along the site on the prevention of salt water
intrusion into the ground water.
SEISMICITY
Page 116: No mention of fire was included, even though the
All Industry Research Advisory Council -sponsored study clearly
states that Hermosa Beach would be 'overwhelmed with neighborhood -
6 sized incineration. In addition, the Newport -Inglewood fault was
cited as having as much impact upon damage as the San Andreas
fault. This should be addressed in the final report.
TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
This section is very cursory and would not pass an EPA
record of decision to eliminate the site as a potential risk.
8 City records are not likely to yield information about spills
very far in the past since reporting requirements are recent.
Railroads have a long history of spills and use of hazardous
chemicals. ATSF is currently doing work on a recent spill in
another area.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (WATER RESOURCES)
In page 122, this section underestimates the impact on the
storm drain system because it is an engineering design basis, not
an environmental analysis of the worst case situation. This
section states that "the increased flows will have no significant
impact on the operation of the existing storm drain system."
10 This conclusion is based upon calculations which include
unsupported assumptions. For example, the calculations assume a
50 year storm period, but only peak flood for ten minutes. The
report does not state why such a ten minute period was chosen.
Infiltration rates decrease if the soils are saturated, as
they may be in rain of longer duration. In this case, runoff
from all areas where infiltration occurs will increase. Table V
which shows runoff tables, assumes that for parcels 1,2,3,5 and
11 there will be no change in runoff. However, if the project
paves these areas as parking lots, even though they still may be
open space, the runoff in these areas will increase dramatically.
In order to make the assumptions made in the report, there
would have to be a continuation of the present state of the
areas, with no development. Otherwise, the impact assessment
must analyze the worst case buildout on open space. The analysis
of the present report does not do this. As shown below, the
increase in flood water from this project would add pressure to
an already overtaxed storm drain system.
On Table U of page 124, this table should show the design
capacities and excess capacities of the 2nd and 16th Street drain
systems. Using the drainage capacities given on page 121 and the
statement on page 122 that "typically, hydrology calculations are
estimated plus or minus ten percent", we have the following:
2nd Street 16th Street
Design Capacity (CFS) 1,500 350
50 Year Storm (CFS) 1,475 500
50 Year Storm + 10% (CFS) 1,622 550
Excess Capacity (CFS) -122 -200
Project Induced Flow (CFS)* 5 4
(*Note: These are the low -ball estimates of the EIR. Those
figures do not represent worst case, as noted above.)
Hence, the project will contribute additional runoff to an
already burdened storm drain system in a 50 year storm.
On page 125, in Table V, we are shown the increased runoff
numbers for the parcels. There is no indication of how these
figures were derived. Since there is no reference given, nor
calculations based upon rain for the area, there is no way to
verify the method and assumptions used. They do not appear to be
correct.
For example, for parcel 7 it states that the increased
runoff from the project will be from 2.0 existing to 2.4 CFS
after project. This does not seem correct, because when it
rains, most of the water does not run off, but infiltrates the
soil. But if parcel 7 is developed as High density, it will
probably be mostly paved and have virtually no infiltration.
Hence, one would expect the numbers to range more from less than
1 CFS to whatever rate the rain falls on that particular 0.9 acre
area. This table forms the basis for the above tables and impact
conclusions. Hence, the entire impact analysis is suspect until
more information is given.
POPULATION
On page 130, the report should show the data graphically.
The report should also give population densities with various
7 assumptions. The report should also discuss other population
estimates in recent EIRs which are higher and account for the
differences. The report should also give the populations of
neighboring cities.
On page 131, the report should draw conclusions about the
significance of the impact: Growth inducing impact coverage is a
major concern of CEQA and the residents of Hermosa Beach.
For these reasons, we believe the present EIR to be fatally
inadequate. We request that the planning commission direct the
report drafters to better address these issues. Among these
issues, we believe that priority should be directed to the matter
of soil testing for toxic substances. Our reasons for this will
now be stated.
The seventh full paragraph of page 7 of the draft report
states: "The potential exists for subsurface contamination in
8 the Project area due to toxic or hazardous substances." On the
last paragraph of page 7 to page 8 the report also states:
"Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any development
in the project area, ATSF and/or the developer shall conduct a
comprehensive exploratory program to determine the suitability of
the soil for the development proposed for the presence of toxic,
hazardous or chemical material on the site. It shall be the sole
responsibility of ATSF and/or the developer to place the soil in
a suitable condition, and to discover, remove, treat or protect
against any toxic, hazardous or chemical condition in the project
area."
We believe that in so writing, the drafters of this draft
report are not addressing an important responsibility and are
leaving this responsibility in the hands of those who may be
interested in not taking care of this matter.
It is important that tests of the soil be done quickly, and
by an impartial tester. The present report itself admits that
there is the possibility of subsurface toxic contamination. If
this is so, it means that there are poisons slowly seeping
through the soil. This alone would be bad enough, but the report
also indicates that beneath the ground is a water table which we
use in part for our drinking water. If such poisons are present,
it is likely that they would wind up in our water. Further, the
report also shows that all along the Greenbelt are injection
wells which shoot pressurized fresh water into the water table to
prevent ocean water from contaminating the water table. If
poisons are present in the soil, it is possible that the
injection wells could act like a hypodermic to inject such
poisons more swiftly into the watertable, and into our drinking
water.
The report attempts to give reasons for the failure to
conduct soil tests. In the fifth full paragraph of page 115, it
states in part: "Because the proposed project is a change in
land use designations of the general plan and zoning code, and
not the approval of a specific development plan, the city did not
undertake audits or exploratory testing of the project area at
this time." In light of possible danger to the health and safety
to South Bay residents in general and to Hermosa Beach residents
in particular, we believe that this excuse would not hold water.
Testing should be conducted to determine whether this danger
exists.
In addition, CEQA authorizes the planning commission to
conduct such tests. CEQA section 15064 (b) states:
"The determination of whether a project may have a
significant effect on the environment calls for a careful
judgement on the part of the public agency involved, based to the
extent possible on scientific and factual data."
In subsection (e) of the same section, it also states:
"Some examples of consequences which may be deemed to be a
significant effect on the environment are contained in Appendix
G."
• Appendix G of CEQA states in relevant part:
"A project will normally have a significant effect on the
environment if it will:
(e) breach published national, state, or local standards
relating to solid wastes or litter control;
(f) substantially degrade water quality;
(g) contaminate a public water supply;
(h) substantially degrade or deplete ground water
resources;
(i) interfere substantially with ground water recharge;
(u) disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community."
The possible presence of toxins in the soil and eventually
in the water would have all of these major impacts.
CEQA section 15064 (h) states:
"In marginal case where it is not clear whether there is
substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect
on the environment, the lead agency shall be guided by the
following factors:
"(1) If there is serious public controversy over the
environmental effect of a project, the lead agency shall consider
the effect or effects subject to the controversy to be
significant and shall prepare an BIR."
Thus, even if the planning commission considers the evidence
in this matter to be marginal, these guidelines indicate that an
EIB should be prepared if there is controversy over the
environmental effect of this project. We raise the issue, as a
part of public controversy, that excavations of potentially toxic
soil might accelerate the process by which such toxins percolate
into the water table. The failure to conduct soil tests while
such toxins continue to percolate also would have environmental
effect.
Thus, we believe that testing should be done now. We also
believe that Santa Fe should not be the ones to do such tests.
When important matters are to be determined, we usually don't let
people who have something to gain from the matter do the
determining. We don't let school students grade their own
exams. We also don't let those accused of crime conduct the
investigation or judge at the trial. In such cases, we get
neutral parties to make tests and conduct the examinations.
Right now, Santa Fe is the alleged owner of potentially
quite valuable property in the Greenbelt. It is to Santa Fe's
interest to sell that property at the best price that they can.
It is not to Santa Fe's interest to conduct tests that might
reduce the value of that property, or to announce the results of
those tests. Also, if there is toxic contamination of the soil,
it would likely be as a result of negligent or reckless past acts
of Santa Fe. It would not be to Santa Fe's interests to disclose
their liability.
Thus, to give full responsibility for soil testing to Santa
Fe is like giving full responsibility for guarding the henhouse
to foxes. Full testing should be done by an impartial body, the
planning commission. To do anything else would be to bury our
heads in the sand. We cannot afford that: we don't know what's
down there.
Mechanics of Conducting Toxic Tests
Before doing any tests, one needs to pinpoint the location
of any spills of toxic wastes or hazardous substances. This can
be done in several ways.
The first phase to pinpoint locations involves a literature
search. This would begin by a search of the records of Santa Fe,
through newspaper or other articles of accidents or spills, or
accident reports through California Highway Patrol or state and
federal agencies regulating the railroad. In addition, it is
important to conduct a literature search of past operations along
the railroad which would have a bearing. This would include
records of what substances were used on the railroad or
transported upon the railroad, what quantities of substances,
whether solvants were used on the railroad, whether wastes were
disposed of on the railroad easement, and if so how and where
were these wastes disposed. The survey should extend through the
length of time the railroad was in operation there.
The second phase is to determine whether there was any
storage of wastes or toxic substances on or under the railway.
Although the SIR said that there was no storage, it is silent as
to temporary storage: for example, tank cars sitting on the
tracks or sidings for hours, days or weeks. This could be
determined not only by a literature search, but by interviews of
employees of the railroad or other people who lived in the area.
A review of railroad accidents, accidental punctures of tank
cars, railroad cleaning operations on the site involving
solvents, transfer operations from one tank to another is also
important. Any places uncovered where any of the above
activities have occurred would be the best places to conduct
tests.
Once test sites have been located, the third phase is to
conducts tests of the soil. One takes samples there and has them
analyzed in a certified laboratory. There is a protocol for
taking the samples which involves storing and transporting them
to the laboratory, and maintaining a chain of custody of the
samples to ensure that extraneous substances are not introduced
on the way which would contaminate the samples and invalidate the
tests. At the laboratory, the samples are tested for whatever
parameters are suspected. In an area where solvents have been
used, one tests for hydrocarbons, oil, grease and total organic
carbon. One should also test for certain heavy metals to
fingerprint if there is any acids, plating wastes and things of
that sort. One should also look for presence of pesticides.
Since we are presently uncertain as to what is down there, a full
assay of toxins should be conducted.
If we determine that toxins or other wastes are present, the
next phase is to determine the extent of contamination.
Additional tests should be conducted to find how large an area
was contaminated, whether there is a plume of substance, whether
it is migrating, and if it is, where it is going, how big it is
and its potential impact. This would involve sinking wells and
taking further subsurface soil and water samples for testing.
Once we know what we are testing for, we can focus the tests on
particular parameters.
If we find something with potential impact on the ground
water, the next step is to conduct a remedial investigation to
determine alternative ways of cleanup of the waste or toxins.
The important thing right now, though, is to survey the available
literature and witnesses for test location, and to conduct full
scale tests of likely sites.
Planning Commission and City Council
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa•Beach, California 90254
Dear Ms's/Sirs:
December 1, 1987
I have received and read a copy of the document entitled:
"Volume 1, Final Environmental Impact Report, Atchison Topeka and
Santa Fe Railroad Right -of -Way, General Plan Ammendment and Zone
Change, Part I. Revised Text, October 1987". Although this
report is more cogent and accurate than its predecessor, I must
advise you that it remains inadequate and should not be certified
by the Planning Commission. The factors that compell this EIR's
rejection are as follows:
1. It fails to investigate and falsely declares three
crucial, areas to be not significantly impacted by the proposed
project. Persons who are expert in the study and assessment of
environmental impacts on (A) human health, (B) cultural
resources, and (C) animal life foresee significant adverse
effects of minimal development of the greenbelt; many forecast
the consequences of the Santa Fe proposal to be devastating.
2. It ignores the most basic psychosocial elements of
environment (eg: community infrastructure, social dynamics,
family cohesion, personal well-being) and trivializes others (ie:
reducing the sentimental and spiritual impact of cherished
historic parkland to the aesthetics of shrubs and airspace;
describing a well-worn country pathway where Hermosans of all
ages have idled for decades, as a jogging track and par course).
3. It suggests countless hypothetical mitigators which are
unfeasible (eg: creating an alternative idylic crosstown walkway
for the city's schoolchildren); or which merely cause other
adverse impacts (eg: controlling traffic with signals, which will
prolong auto lineups, increase air and noise pollution).
4. It understates the serious long-term widespread deep-
felt community commitment to reducing development and enhancing
open space parklands; it disregards the centrality of the
greenbelt to said community commitment; it ignores the severe
social and political consequences that would result from the
thwarting of public demands in this critical situation.
The3e insufficiencies in the EIR result from failure by city
officials, staff, and consultants to seek and obtain professional
guidance in crucial research disciplines wherein their expertise
is limited: public health, psychosocial science, political
ecology. As I have stated at prior public hearings, I stand
ready to help you find and contract the professional resources
that you need for proper completion of this EIR.
Sincerely yours,
Anthony L. Rose, Ph.D.
P.O. Box 488
Hermosa Beach, California
(213) 379-1470
Hermosa
Beach
City Schools
P.O. Box Number 338
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
MEMBERS OF THE SUPERINTENDENT
GOVERNING BOARD OF SCHOOLS
Don Ryckman
(213) 376-8961
Lynne Gonzales
Joe Mark
Susan Meyer
Georgia Tattu
Mary Lou Weiss
RYCKMAN
1
December 1, 1987
To: Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
From: Don Ryckman, Superintendent
Hermosa Beach City Schools
Re: ENVIRONMENTAL IMP)CT REPORT - SANTA FE
RIGHT OF WAY PROJECT - Comments
I have been asked to review the Final Environmental Impact
Report being considered by the Planning Commission this
evening. With apologies for such a brief, one afternoon
review, my comments would be:
A. I am in basic agreement with the impact on schools
as presented in the Report.
Development of any commercial -retail enterprises
in Parcel #8, directly across from our only school,
will increase noise, traffic, polution and general
interference with the learning process.
Commercial OR residential development of any of the
parcels will tend to increase vehicular traffic,
thus adding to local hazards and safety problems
facing our children.
Specifically, development of Parcel #8, should such
increase traffic, will present safety hazards to
our pupils due to increased ingress/egress of
customers or clientele.
Development of Parcel #8 would displace existing
"safe routes to school", and would force relocation
of such routes to more lengthy and distant areas.
Enforcement of safe route use would become more
difficult, thus increasing the hazard.
I specifically agree with the statement on page 50,
that "... commercial uses are not compatible with
the school...".
Commercial use of Parcel #8 could tend to attract
non-resident adults or youth, increasing parent
apprehension regarding before school/after school
safety of children. This would tend to increase
the number of parents who personnaly pick up their
child, thus increasing density of -traffic beyond
capacity.
Planning Commission, cont. 12/1/87
Creation of one way streets, or one way couplets,
on Valley, would decrease parental access to the
school, as well as that of emergency vehicles.
Developmer..t cf Parcel #8, despite plans for required
parking, would tend to reduce available parking in
the area which, for parents of Valley School, is
already insufficient. This would also undoubtedly
eliminate the potential of limited on -street temporary
parking on Valley, in front of the school, as is
currently under consideration by the Council.
B. It might be pointed out that, while the Report is up to
date with its description of our single school configuration,
we do now have 660 pupils rather than the 608 listed.
Our current entry level would indicate growth to as many
as 730 pupils in future years, but no more. These, as
well as the few that might be generated by the residential
units involved in the project (180 X .07 = 12.6 pupils)
can be accommodated in the existing Valley School.
In summary, the EIR seems to indicate significant negative
impact on the City of this proposed project, to the degree
that it should be denied in favor of future, more viable
considerations.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 7, P.O. BOX 2304, LOS ANGELES 90031
11,M1 )62%119-5335
November 24, 1987
CALTRANS
1
Mr. Michael Schubach
Planning Director
City of Hermosa Beach
Planning Department
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Dear Mr. Schubach:
LA -1; and LA -91
IGR/CEQA
Draft EIR Response
AT & SF Railroad
Right of Way Project
Hermosa Beach, CA
SCH# 86091706
Caltrans has reviewed a document titled "Final EIR" which appears
to be a Draft EIR for the above project.
Briefly described, the project divides the At&SF right-of-way
along Ardmore Valley Drive into 13 parcels. Eight parcels are
proposed for development. For specific details, see attached
Table B: Proposed Maximum Development from the document which is
considered part of this response. (The present uses for this
property are jogging, parking, par course, etc. and have minimal
traffic impacts on the surrounding area. The designation for all
13 parcels under the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance is open
space.)
We are primarily concerned with the effects that this project
will have on State Route 1 (Pacific Coast Highway); and State
Route 91 (Artesia Boulevard).
Caltrans comments are:
o The document does contain a substantial amount of useful
information. However, the significant amount of new trips
generated by additional development of this magnitude, and
the effect of this on Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) is not
adequately recognized. No traffic mitigation is proposed,
although these impacts are acknowledged in the document.
o The Traffic Warrants section and the ICU data should be
discussed with us during the final revision of the
document.
o Caltrans position is that, from the State's viewpoint, a
properly revised Draft EIR would be an acceptable document
provided that it includes adequate traffic mitigation for
PCH. The minimum mitigation which needs to be added to
this document would be:
"Provide a third through lane in both directions on PCH
from Longfellow Avenue to Anita Street/ Herondo Avenue by
implementing a full time parking restriction."
As soon as this mitigation is included in the Revised Draft
EIR, Caltrans needs to receive and review the document. This
mitigation needs to be:
Coordinated and approvde in advance by all parties.
Financed by the developer(s) or the City.
Included in the Final EIR and project plans, as conditions for
approval of this development.
The Final document then becomes the basis of this coordinated
agreement.
Caltrans requests that this letter be included as part of the
final document and the public record. We want to have continuing
involvement with this proposal and also want to receive a copy of
the final document.
We appreciate this opportunity to comment.
This response is being delivered directly to the City of Hermosa
Beach. This has been discussed with the State Clearinghouse who
will receive a copy.
In coordinating traffic mitigation matters, contact Karl Berger
(213) 620-3829 or Traffic Operations. Other questions should be
directed to Bill Adams (213) 620-4364 of the Environmental
Planning Branch
Sincerely,
. B. BALLANTINE, Chief
Environmental Planning Branch
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 1, 1987 PAGE 2
PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED
FOR THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS/ZONE CHANGES PROPOSED BY THE
ATCHISON, TOPEKA, AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY FOR PORTIONS OF THE
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM THE NORTHERN CITY BOUNDARY TO THE
SOUTHERN CITY BOUNDARY
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 24, 1987. He stressed that all interested
citizens may make comments either orally or in writing. He stated that all comments
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 1, 1987 PAGE 3
will be responded to, either by staff or the consultants. For the benefit of the audience,
he explained the purpose of the document. He asked that comments tonight be
specifically in regard to the draft environmental impact report.
The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on June 16 and June 18, 1987, to accept
input concerning the draft Environmental Impact Report prepared by the consultants,
Sanchez Telarico. The report was found to be erroneous and inadequate. The ,major
problems were the use of the wrong project description and winter traffic counts instead
of summer traffic counts. These two problems caused all related sections such as noise
and air quality to be in error.
The document has now been rewritten. Because the document had to be rewritten, an
additional 45 -day public review period and Pubic Hearing was provided.
The rewritten document is superior to the previous draft. The document is adequate and
accurate and will need only moderate modification in some sections. The following
identifies those areas that need modification:
Section 5.4 Noise, Page 87. The noise section should be rewritten to provide noise levels
which correspond to the revised higher traffic volumes.
The section does not address both sides of Ardmore and Valley. Existing development
will be impacted just as much as proposed development. This noise impact to existing
development is not mitigable and therefore must be identified as such in the EIR.
Table M, Page 94, contains a typographical error. The figures are not in the columns.
Air Quality, Page 105, Paragraph 3. This section discussed Tables Q and R and indicates
that these tables show a reduction in air pollution in the future. This suggestion is a
prediction based on speculation which may never come true. The future lowering of
automobile emissions is not guaranteed. Furthermore, S.C.A.G. has predicted that
average traffic speeds will become lower in the future.
To suggest that Hermosa Beach can maintain traffic speeds in the future, and therefore
lower air pollution, is not realistic. It is a regional problem which cannot be mitigated
unless the commuter population's behavior is modified to ride mass transit systems.
This section and corresponding tables are not adequate because they are showing an
"optimum" case scenario instead of a "worst" case scenario as required by CEQA. Tables
and discussion describing what will happen if the average traffic speeds slow down and no
improvement in reducing automobile emissions occurs are necessary for this section to
meet CEQA requirements.
Furthermore, recently the Environmental Protection Agency gave Los Angeles twenty
more years to meet 1987 air quality standards. It was indicated that Los Angeles' air
pollution is already two to three times worse than the maximum allowed by EPA
standards. This factor must also be noted. The standards for air quality set forth by the
EPA must be identified to give this section meaning.
Mr. Schubach concluded by recommending that this matter be continued to the meeting
of January 5, 1987, and to direct staff and the subconsultants to respond to all written
and oral comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 1, 1987 PAGE 4
Mr. Lough noted for the record that the document being discussed is known as "DRAFT
Environmental Impact Report -- Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Right -of -Way,
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change -- Part I, Revised Text Dated October 1987;
Part II, Comments and Responses to Draft EIR (Volume 2) October 1987; Part III, The
Appendices (Volume 3), October 1987.
Public Hearing opened at 7:53 P.M. by Chmn. Compton.
Frank Greco, representing Turrini and Brink spoke on behalf of the applicant. He
introduced Brian Webber, also representing the applicant.
Mr. Greco distributed to the Commissioners copies of a letter dated November 24, 1987,
addressed to Michael Schubach including comments on the environmental impact report.
He requested that those comments be formally entered into the record, as well as all
other comments.
Mr. Greco noted concern over the issue of legal notice in regard to public hearings
addressing the EIR. He stated that neither he, as a representative of the applicant, nor
the applicant has ever received written notice other than an informal letter stating that
a schedule was to follow. He noted that if he did not keep calling, he would not be aware
of what was happening. He stressed that the applicant has not received proper notice as
outlined by CEQA in regard to this matter.
Mr. Greco stated that a 22 -page report dated November 16, 1987, entitled "Comments on
the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad
Right of Way General Plan Amendment and Zone Change" had been previously submitted.
Mr. Greco responded to the comments made by staff. He found those comments
interesting because he had taken an opposing view on the issues of both noise and air
quality.
Mr. Greco stated that, based on the current standards and practices used within the
industry as required by state law, the impacts would be found to be in the adverse
direction; that is, more supportive towards the project, with less noise and air quality
impacts if the proper standards are used. He stated that this issue has been studied, and
they have a differing view as to how that analysis should be made. He stated that the
consultant would need to make note of the fact that there are differing viewpoints on
these two issues.
Mr. Greco stated that a matter of great concern is the inclusion of the issue of policies;
that is, general plan policies and goals being considered as though they were
environmental issues. He noted that this issue has been addressed on Page 7 of the
comments report. He felt that this is a peculiarity among many peculiarities in the
draft. He stated that it is their belief that the use of this element and the use of
reviewing policies is really inappropriate in an environmental document. He stated that
he did not believe CEQA intended that this be reviewed policy by policy, but rather
environmental issues should be reviewed.
Mr. Greco noted that there would of course be concern over such issues as removal of
heritage oak trees; however, as a mitigation measure, policies can be amended.
Mr. Greco continued by discussing the mitigation of policies, stating that one method is
simply to amend the policy. In this case, when one is trying to mitigate the alleged loss
of open space which is privately owned, the mitigation measure is to try to acquire it.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 1, 1987 PAGE 5
Mr. Greco continued by discussing Page 7 of the comments report, stating that it is felt
that the entire approach in dealing with policy issues instead of environmental issues is
inappropriate in this document.
Mr. Greco stated that his second major concern is the issue of alternatives, which is
addressed on Page 17 of the document. He read from the document a description of the
CEQA requirement for alternatives: "Alternatives to the proposed action. Describe a
range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which
could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, and evaluate the comparative
merits of the alternatives."
Mr. Greco stated that this document is woefully deficient in the alternatives as
presented in the EIR. He stated that should be a study which truly attains the basic
objectives of the project or the applicant. Instead, there are a number of unrelated types
of alternatives which have nothing to do with the project.
Mr. Greco stated that the "development under existing general plan and zoning"
alternative is inappropriate because the alternative does not feasibly attain the basic
objectives of the project or the applicant; furthermore, a nursery school, day care
center, private school, or swim/health club could not be constructed without variance(s)
to the O -S Open Space Zone. He stated that this applicant is not seeking a variance, and
it therefore seems inappropriate that there would be an alternative considering
variances.
Mr. Greco stressed that the alternatives section is insufficient and does not properly
meet the goals of CEQA and the intent laid out by the language set forth in state law.
He asked that the issue of alternatives be reviewed and that there be a more thorough
discussion of appropriate projects or potential projects which would meet the objectives
of the applicant and at the same time consider either less intense or more intense uses.
Chmn. Compton discussed Mr. Greco's statements on general plan policies. He asked
whether Mr. Greco felt that general plan policies do not necessarily relate to
environmental issues.
Mr. Greco stated that policies, normally deal with environmental issues. He stated that
mitigation measures can then be undertaken in response to the environmental issue. He
stated that to first begin discussing the policies is inappropriate. He stated that it is not
a normal way of approaching environmental issues as opposed to legislative issues, as
required by CEQA.
Mr. Greco stated that he feels adequate mitigation measures have been proposed for a
number of policies which were just not addressed.
Chmn. Compton had difficulty accepting the idea that a mitigation to a policy is to
change it. He did not feel that that is the norm.
Comm. Peirce queried that if the mitigation is to change the policy, then what is the
purpose of a policy in the general plan.
Mr. Greco felt that a general plan is a flexible, living document; it is a guidance by which
a city intends to reach goals.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 1, 1987
PAGE 6
Chmn. Compton stated that the general plan is not amorphous; it is a document cast in
bronze based on the desires of the community and the actions of the people via political
campaigns and actual votes. He noted, however, that it may be different in other cities.
Mr. Lough asked for clarification on Mr. Greco's statements regarding alternatives. He
asked exactly what the complaint is.
Mr. Greco stated that it is his understanding that a "no project alternative" is a norm
which would be found in most EIR's and is addressed; this to him is not a "no project
alternative" and does not read as such. It is quite frankly some alternative project which
is superimposed in, which does not seem to reach the basic objectives of the project as
outlined by CEQA.
Mr. Greco felt that if this is to be "no project alternative," then it should be written as
such; and other uses should not be addressed.
Mr. Greco stated that in his experience, the purpose of an EIR is to deal with
environmental issues, not legislative issues. He stated that the legislative issues should
be dealt with by the city government as the legislative body. He felt it is ludicrous that
an environmental document deals with legislative issues. He did not feel that CEQA ever
intended to enter the area of legislative matters.
Rosamond Fogg, 610 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, representing the Open Space Political
Action Committee, addressed the Commission. She stated that the most recent EIR has
been examined and has been found to be more complete and better organized than the
previous document; however, it is still inadequate.
Ms. Fogg stated that the draft report itself states that there is a possibility of soil and
below ground contamination of the greenbelt from toxic substances. The draft report
also indicates that such contamination would have a profound impact on the
environment. Nonetheless, the report drafters failed to do any tests of the soil or to
investigate whether any other soil surveys have been done. The report only states that
Santa Fe may have the sole responsibility of determining whether toxic waste is present
in the soil. It would be a mistake to leave such testing to Santa Fe. She felt it is
necessary that such tests be done before the final EIR is completed.
Ms. Fogg stated that the draft report also fails entirely to address the issue of an
archaeological survey of the area, in spite of OSPAC's earlier comments on this and in
spite of Appendix K of CEQA guidelines which authorizes such surveys. As there is
substantial evidence of earlier occupation of the South Bay by American Indians, and
since the greenbelt is one of the few undeveloped areas remaining in the South Bay, it is
believed that this issue should be addressed before a final EIR is made.
Ms. Fogg discussed the issue of regional setting, which begins on Page 27 of the EIR.
This section includes an eight -page list of projects for which permits were issued in
Hermosa, Redondo, Manhattan, Torrance, Lawndale, El Segundo, and Hawthorne. Maps
indicating location and only summaries of new units in each city would be more useful to
reviewers. In the description of items to be analyzed using this data, such issues as
traffic, air pollutants, and noise are mentioned, but there is no mention of population
growth or of population densities, the most significant impacts of the proposed project.
Ms. Fogg discussed noise, stating that on Page 87, Section 5.4, under "Construction
Activities," it had been previously asked by OSPAC that noise isoplasts be generated for
this area. They are not given in the report, although there is some information given
with which people could determine the noise in their own neighborhoods.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 1, 1987 PAGE 7
Ms. Fogg stated that, in regard to operations, traffic, et cetera, the same mitigation
measures are used in the present report as were used in the previous version. At the end
of both sections there is a conclusion that implementation of the mitigation measures in
city policies and requirements should reduce the on-site environmental impacts to a level
of insignificance after completion of the development. It appears that by on-site, the
report refers to the impact on people who live at the site after it is developed. It does
not refer to the impact on the surrounding environment and the people who live there
already. The mitigation measures given here do not reduce these environmental impacts.
Ms. Fogg discussed air pollution, stating that the analysis beginning on Page 103 of the
draft EIR should be on a worst-case basis. It is not. At the bottom of the page is the
assumption that trucks will not line up idling. Anyone who has been at a major
construction site knows that this assumption is incorrect. As a result, there is likely to
be significant construction -related air pollution. OSPAC made this same comment
regarding the previous document.
Ms. Fogg stated that the projected impacts on Page 105 assume that future pollution
control will reduce emissions and that increased traffic will not cause reductions in
vehicle speed and resultant increased air emissions. These assumptions are contrary to
other estimates, notably those done by the county on future traffic problems.
Ms. Fogg stated that the stationary sources listed on Page 107 are not quantified.
Without such quantification, there is insufficient information to support the statement in
the draft report that stationary emissions are small. Again, this was pointed out in the
previous comments to the previous draft report.
Ms. Fogg stated that on Page 109, Level of Insignificance, the long-term impacts of the
project would also be significant locally since it would contribute to the exceeding of
state and federal standards for carbon monoxide at Pier Avenue and Pacific Coast
Highway. Numbers for NOX and other criteria cannot be checked.
Ms. Fogg discussed ground water and surface runoff, stating that on Page 113, there is no
mention in this section that development of the property would cover part of the ground
with pavement and structures which would prevent infiltration of rain water and thus
increase surface water runoff. This environmental impact should be addressed. On Page
117, this section does not address the role of infiltration water along the site or on the
prevention of salt water intrusion into the ground water.
Ms. Fogg discussed toxic and hazardous substances, stating that this section is very
cursory and would not pass an EPA record of decision to eliminate the site as a potential
risk. City records are not likely to yield information about spills very far in the past,
since reporting requirements are recent. Railroads have a long history of spills and use
of hazardous chemicals. ATSF is currently doing work on a recent spill in another area.
Ms. Fogg discussed environmental impacts as related to water resources, stating that on
Page 122, the impact on the storm drain system is underestimated because it is an
engineering design basis, not an environmental analysis of the worst case situation. This
section states that "the increased flows will have no significant impact on the operation
of the existing storm drain system." This conclusion is based upon calculations which
include unsupported assumptions. For example, the calculations assume a 50 -year storm
period, but only peak flood for ten minutes. The report does not state why such a ten-
minute period was chosen.
• PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 1, 1987 PAGE 8
Ms. Fogg stated that infiltration rates decrease if the soils are saturated, as they may in
rain of longer duration. In this case, runoff from all areas where infiltration occurs will
increase. Table V, which shows runoff tables, assumes that for Parcels 1, 2, 3, 5, and 11
there will be no change in runoff. However, if the project paves these areas as parking
lots, even though they still may be zoned open space, the runoff in these areas will
increase dramatically.
Ms. Fogg stated that in order to make the assumptions made in the report, there would
have to be a continuation of the present state of the areas with no development.
Otherwise, the impact assessment must analyze the worst-case buildout on open space.
The analysis of the present report does not do this. The increase in flood water from this
project would add pressure to an already overtaxed storm drain system.
Ms. Fogg discussed population, stating that Page 130 of the report should show data
graphically. The report should also give population densities with various assumptions.
The report should also discuss other population estimates in recent EIR's which are higher
and account for the differences. The report should also give the populations of
neighboring cities.
Ms. Fogg stated that Page 131 of the report should draw conclusions about the
significance of the impact. Growth inducing impact coverage is a major concern of
CEQA and the residents of Hermosa Beach.
Ms. Fogg stated that for the above reasons, OSPAC feels the present EIR to be fatally
inadequate. She requested that the Planning Commission direct the report drafters to
better address these issues.
Bernard Brandt, 1837 9th Street, Manhattan Beach, addressed the Commission. He
stated that he would discuss the need for tests of toxic materials in the greenbelt area.
He stated that the seventh full paragraph on Page 7 of the draft report states: "The
potential exists for subsurface contamination in the project area due to toxic or
hazardous substances." The last paragraph on Page 7 of the report further states: "Prior
to the issuance of a building permit for any development in the project area, ATSF
and/or the developer shall conduct a comprehensive exploratory program to determine
the suitability of the soil for the development proposed for the presence of toxic,
hazardous, or chemical material on the site. It shall be the sole responsibility of ATSF
and/or the developer to place the soil in a suitable condition, and to discover, remove,
treat, or protect against any toxic, hazardous or chemical condition in the project area."
Mr. Brandt stated that OSPAC believes that in so writing, the drafters of the draft EIR
are not addressing an important responsibility and are leaving this responsibility in the
hands of those who may be interested in not taking care of this matter.
Mr. Brandt stated that it is important that tests of the soil be done quickly and by an
impartial tester. The present report itself admits that there is the possibility of
subsurface toxic contamination. If this is so, it means that there are poisons slowly
seeping through the soil. This alone would be bad enough, but the report also indicates
that beneath the ground is a water table which is used in part for drinking water. If such
poisons are present, it is likely that they would end up in the water. Further, the report
also shows that all along the greenbelt are injection wells which shoot pressurized fresh
water into the water table to prevent ocean water from contaminating the water table.
If poisons are present in the soil, it is possible that the injection wells could act like a
hypodermic to inject such poisons more swiftly into the water table and into the drinking
water.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 1, 1987 PAGE 9
Mr. Brandt stated that for over 100 years, the railroad has been transporting hazardous
materials, and there is a great potential for much material to have been passed by.
Comm. Peirce questioned the relevancy of this testimony to the issue at hand. He stated
that he could understand the importance of spills along the railroad, but not in regard to
spills along the project.
Mr. Brandt stated that this is an environmental impact which should be addressed now,
not later, so that an accurate determination can be made in regard to whether or not
something should be done.
Comm. Peirce noted that this EIR relates to the project, not to the site itself.
Mr. Brandt stated that the project involves the land itself.
Comm. Peirce stressed that he did not see the relevance of this testimony. He stressed
that this EIR relates to the project. Whether or not this project exists, the toxic waste,
if any, will still remain.
Mr. Brandt stated that whether or not the project exists, the EIR states that there is a
possibility of toxic waste at the site. Therefore, he felt that at least a cursory
examination of the site should be made to determine what substances are there.
Mr. Brandt continued by stating that CEQA authorizes the Planning Commission to
conduct such a test. CEQA Section 15064(b) states: 'The determination of whether a
project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for a careful judgment on
the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and
factual data." Subsection (e) also states: "Some examples of consequences which may be
deemed to be a significant effect on the environment are contained in Appendix G."
Mr. Brandt continued by reading Appendix G. He said that the presence of toxins in the
soil and eventually in the water would have major impacts.
Comm. Peirce again questioned the relevance of this testimony.
Chmn. Compton asked whether the Planning Commission may require soil testing.
Mr. Lough responded by stating that several points should be considered: the matter may
be referred back to staff for review; the Commissioners may make comments on the
testimony given in order to give staff direction; citizens have a right to voice concern
over such matters; the question of relevance is left to the judgment of the Planning
Commission; the Commission will receive further comments from staff regarding the
relevance of the issue.
Mr. Lough noted that all comments will be responded to either by staff or the
subconsultants.
Mr. Schubach did agree that toxic waste could be a problem if people were to live over
it.
Chmn. Compton felt that there could be a problem if construction begins on a site where
there is toxic waste because the problem could be spread. There could also be a problem
if water is injected into the wells and might cause movement or disruption. Therefore,
he felt these issues should be addressed.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 1, 1987 PAGE 10
Mr. Brandt stated that even the if Planning Commission considers the evidence in this
matter to be marginal, the guidelines indicate that an EIR should be prepared if there is
controversy over the environmental effect of this project. He raised the issue as a part
of public controversy, that excavations of potentially toxic soil might accelerate the
process by which such toxins percolate into the water table. The failure to conduct soil
tests while such toxins continue to percolate also would have environmental effects.
Mr. Brandt believed that such testing should be done now. He also felt that' Santa Fe
should not do the testing. Santa Fe is now the alleged owner of potentially valuable
property in the greenbelt. He stressed that an impartial agency should conduct the
testing at this site.
John Edwards, 501 Herondo Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission. He
discussed Mr. Greco's statements concerning policy. He stated that it is necessary to
address the current regulations; however, he also found it odd that policies are taken into
consideration.
Mr. Edwards stated that environmental impacts must be addressed. He has heard of no
alternatives which would mitigate the loss of open space. He stated that alternatives
should be addressed in the report as well as the impacts of the alternatives.
Mr. Edwards stated that it is appropriate to take policy into consideration when
addressing the issue of cumulative impacts because precedent could be set by changing
the general plan.
Mr. Edwards discussed the relevance of hazardous waste studies at this site. He stated
that there can be big surprises, though, when a study has been done. This is important
for the ground water and because dust could be lofted during construction. If the dust is
contaminated with toxic material, there would be an enormous impact; therefore, he
stressed the importance of doing the studies.
Mr. Edwards discussed the mechanics of conducting toxic tests, stating that the first step
is to conduct a literature test. Secondly, a determination should be made as to whether
there has been any storage of toxic substances along the railway. The third phase is to
conduct tests of the soil.
Don Ryckman, 1645 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, Hermosa Beach City School
Superintendent, addressed the Commission. He stated that this project would have an
adverse impact on the school. He discussed Parcel 8, stating that any development at
this site would increase noise, traffic, pollution, and interference with the learning
process. This would create safety problems for school children. Existing safe routes to
school would be impeded by such development. He felt that commercial uses are not
compatible with the school, noting that open space is better. He stated that
development could attract strangers, thereby affecting the safety of children. He stated
that one-way access would impede egress of concerned parents. He felt that further
study on this matter would be appropriate.
Brian Webber, 2 North Lake Avenue, Pasadena, on behalf of the applicant, addressed the
Commission. He stated that there seems to be some confusion between what the EIR
should do and what requirements the developer must meet in order to secure a building
permit. At the time a developer is ready to obtain a building permit, documentation
must be presented which address such issues as the expansiveness of the soil and whether
or not there are hazardous substances present. At that time, the developer is required to
mitigate the circumstances; if that cannot be done, then the development would not
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 1, 1987 PAGE 11
proceed. This is a step taken at such time as the detailed engineering of the report has
been completed and detailed soil reports have been prepared by independent geologists
licensed by the State of California. He was unaware of any circumstances where a seller
is allowed to conduct his own soil studies and submit his own findings.
Mr. Webber discussed the impact of storm water, stating that the detailed impacts of
storm water collection systems will be looked at in a broader sense, but detailed
mitigation measures and the size of the lines, upgrading, and improvements will be
addressed during the design and building permit application process.
Comm._ Rue discussed the water runoff, and asked whether this issue should be addressed
in the EIR.
Mr. Webber stated that if there is a problem with the capacity of the systems as it exists
today, it should certainly be noted in the EIR, and mitigation measures should be
addressed. The more detailed solution occurs when a project design has taken place.
Mr. Lough discussed the soil testing issue, stating that it is within the purview of the
Planning Commission to require such tests. He stated that it is left to the discretion of
the Commission which tests should be done. He noted that the third party would bear the
cost of such tests.
John Edwards, 501 Herondo, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and responded to
comments made by Mr. Webber. He agreed that it is difficult to assess the detailed
environmental impacts of a project because it is usually going on concurrently with a
design; however, he felt that the purpose of the CEQA guidelines is to try to understand
what the impacts of a project will be. He felt that a worst-case scenario should be
addressed.
Mr. Edwards stated that over a 50 -year period, the current storm drains will be
overtaxed, even without this proposed project. He therefore felt that it is appropriate
that the EIR address this issue.
Mr. Edwards discussed the toxic waste issue, stating that when there are potential toxic
air emissions, estimates can be made if soil tests are not desired. He felt it would be
wise to do the soil testing. He felt that it is necessary to have specific information
before a decision can be made.
Brian Webber agreed that it is possible to create an extremely detailed document;
however, this EIR was not done at that level. He stated that if such detailed reports
were always prepared, the cost would be prohibitive. This EIR was done for the purpose
of securing a general plan amendment and zone change. He stated that this is a typical
manner of proceeding. He stated that the EIR should be looked at to determine its
adequacy and to determine whether or not it can be certified. He stated that based on
CEQA guidelines, this EIR is a candidate for certification.
Comm. Peirce noted concern over impacts created by the loss of parking should this
property be rezoned. He noted concern over parking impacts in the southern portion of
the City and along the jogging trail. He asked the City Attorney whether there was any
additional paperwork available in regard to parking easements in the south end of town
and landscaping on the railroad right-of-way. He asked what legal rights there are and
how the mitigation measures would be addressed.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 1, 1987 PAGE 12
Comm. Rue noted concern over parking. He expressed deep concern over the issue of
soil testing. He was not certain whether it would be proper to include results of such
testing in an EIR; however, he felt that soil testing should be done at some point. He felt
it is important to make the soil adequate for the project. He asked when the studies
could be requested. He asked what the timing is for such testing. He asked what would
happen to the project if it is determined that the sewer system is not sufficient and
becomes too expensive to rebuild? What if the water runoff and the storm drains become
too expense to rebuild and the project has already been zoned? Where would the city
stand if these things happen?
Mr. Lough stated that these questions would be addressed by staff and presented to the
Commission for review.
Comm. Ingell stated that his concerns had been covered by comments of the other
Commissioners.
Chmn. Compton noted that he had prepared written comments which he would give to
staff.
Comm. Peirce requested copies of the prepared statements given by citizens at the
public hearing.
Chmn. Compton referred to Page 95, Paragraph 1, of the EIR and stated that it is not
clear what is actually allowed by the Building Code in regard to ventilation and
windows. He stated that Table 5 on Page 132 is unclear and is not complete. Several
line items do not specify the zoning or general plan designation.
Chmn. Compton stated that the EIR does not specify how much open space land is owned
by the City, noting that this is a very important issue.
Chmn. Compton stated that it should be determined when a soil study should be
undertaken. He felt that a literature search and interviewing residents would be
appropriate. He hoped that it is not already too late to do the study.
Comm. Rue stated that the issue of injection wells is very interesting as covered in the
EIR. He stated that those wells are very unique to the property and should be studied in
depth since they have a profound effect upon the water supply in the area.
Comm. Rue discussed the issue of policies being addressed in the EIR. He stated that, as
a Commissioner, policy is always taken into consideration when decisions are made in the
City. He noted that much consideration goes into creating policies. He hoped that staff
would address this issue in the future.
Chmn. Compton discussed traffic, stating that language used in the traffic analysis
seems to be based on events which might have been. He wanted to see the traffic
volumes clarified. He stated that it would be helpful to have matrices showing the
differences between various sized projects and no project at all.
Frank Greco, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that it
was his understanding that staff was rewriting the EIR; therefore, he questioned why
staff would have any objections to the EIR.
Mr. Schubach explained that staff did not rewrite the EIR; it was rewritten by the
subconsultant at an additional cost. However, staff still found several items
objectionable.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 1, 1987 PAGE 13
MOTION by Comm. Inge11, seconded by Comm. Rue, to continue the Public Hearing to
the Planning Commission meeting of January 5, 1988. No objections; so ordered.
C. RESPONSES TO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL POINTS
RAISED DURING REVIEW
Response to Comments LAFCD-1
1.
Comments received from the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board --Los Angeles Region
state that "the final EIR must elaborate on the
project's effects on the Salt Water Intrusion
Barrier Project and on the consequences of
disruption and/or failure of the Barrier." The
comments further state that "the steps which
will be taken to mitigate the effects of the
project on the Barrier must be enumerated."
The "Project" for purposes of this EIR is a
requested change in land use designations for
portions of the ATSF Right -of -Way. No specific
development proposal is under consideration.
The Final EIR describes the location of the
Barrier Facilities and the land area involved
in the operation and maintenance of the
Facilities. It further states that LAFCD
characterizes the Facilities as essential to an
adequate, safe water supply to local and
regional users, and that the only alternatives
would be "less reliance on the groundwater
supply or to raise the inland water table".
The EIR concludes that the location of the
Facilities in the narrow Right -of -Way would
seriously constrain development in the area.
(EIR, pp. 44 & 117) The Final EIR cannot
identify the specific effects a development
project would have on the Barrier Facilities
and the steps necessary to mitigate those
effects until such a proposal has been
presented to the City. No buildings are
proposed for construction under the "project"
being assessed. In order to determine what
effects a construction project would have on
the Facilities, the location and dimensions of
buildings proposed to be constructed, public
utilities and ingress and egress and other
development features would have to be known.
When and if such construction project is
proposed, prior to its approval the EIR
requires ATSF, in cooperation with the City and
LAFCD, to develop mitigation measures to assure
the continued successful operation and
maintenance of the Facilities.
Response to Comments ATSF-1 through 18
1. Comments noted.
2. Comments noted. The major area of controversy
and issue to be resolved is whether the City
should approve the proposed Project thereby
changing land designated for open space uses to
residential and commercial uses.
3. Levels of Significance After Mitigation. This
specific section is not required in an EIR and
is included as a convenience for the reader.
All discussion and analysis, however, does not
lend itself to this type of summary section.
The Traffic analysis in the Final EIR is one.
The level of significance after mitigation is
included in the discussion of each proposed
mitigation measure.
4. Project Description. The Final EIR clearly
states that since the Project being assessed is
a request to amend the land use designations of
the General Plan and zoning for the area and
does not include plans for site-specific
development, the maximum development which
could occur on some of the Parcels under the
changed designations and on others the maximum
development likely to be permitted was
determined in order to evaluate the potential
impacts. It further states that the EIR
evaluates the impacts assuming a realistic
worst case scenario. (EIR, p. 12) It cannot
be determined at this point that "actual
impacts would be expected to be somewhat lower"
as ATSF has not submitted a site-specific
development proposal to the City for
consideration and approval. The question
before the City is whether designated open
space" uses should be changed to residential
and commercial uses. The earlier Draft EIR
stated that a primary objective of the proposed
project is to "develop a range of land uses
that will be responsive to the City's overall
General Plan and goals and objectives, as well
as to the Local Coastal Plan." The proposed
project cannot accomplish this objective as the
City's overall General Plan goals and
objectives place strong emphasis on the
maintenance of the Right -of -Way as open space.
The decision to be made by the City is whether
the goals and objectives of maintaining the
area as open space are to be changed. There is
no proposal before the City whereby it can be
determined that development of the Right -of -Way
would take advantage of the "existing,
restrictive topography of the irregular-shaped
series of parcels, while simultaneously
maintaining architectural and aesthetic
sensitivity of existing, adjacent uses and
surrounding zones", or that "a physically and
economically feasible development" will be
created. The CEQA "project" proposed at this
time is restricted to a General Plan Amendment
and a Zone Change, and the project and the EIR
anticipates subsequent environmental assessment
of "all development which would occur on-site.
A Program EIR by its nature anticipates
subsequent environmental assessment when site-
specific development is proposed.
5. Cumulative Impacts. The EIR describes the
region of which the City of Hermosa Beach is a
part and lists numerous development projects
that are under construction, approved or
proposed for development in the City and in the
surrounding region. These development projects
are intended to illustrate the growth occurring
in the region. The environmental analysis
Section of the EIR used growth factors in
assessing cumulative impacts which included the
listed projects and other smaller developments
anticipated to occur in the region. (EIR, p.
27)
6. Impacts on City General Plan. Policies and
Goals. CEQA Guidelines states that "Project"
means the whole of an action, which has a
potential for resulting in a physical change in
the environment, directly or ultimately . . .."
The General Plan and Zoning Code of the City
sets the standards, restrictions and controls
for the physical development of the City. The
proposed project (land use changes) seeks to
change these standards, restrictions and
controls which would result in a direct impact
on the physical development permitted in the
area. The greatest "area of controversy" and
impact of the proposed project is on the City's
adopted scheme of land use regulation for the
Right -of -Way which has been consistently
designated for open space uses. Because of the
scarcity of open space and the lack of
replacement sources in a totally built-up City,
it is proper to show in the EIR that the
requested land use changes are in conflict with
and would require the amendment of numerous
other City land use regulations. CEQA is
3
intended to measure the impacts on governmental
policy where a requested change in that policy
will result in a physical change in the
environment.
7. It is not clear what is meant by this comment.
It appears to be an attempt to present
justification for the purchase of the Right -of -
Way by the City which is clearly outside the
scope of the EIR. The City's General Plan and
Zoning regulations classify "all property"
within its boundaries whether privately or
publicly owned.
8. The purpose of these subsections is to show
that the City's regulation policies would have
to be changed if the proposed project is
approved. As an example, the Transportation
and Circulation Element advocates the creation
of "a pedestrian and jogging path on the
railroad right-of-way throughout its length
within the City." It was determined that if
development occurs on the Right -of -Way site,
street and curb crossings and traffic conflicts
would hamper maintenance of the path on the
Right -of -Way site. Thus, a pedestrian and
jogging path could not be maintained on the
Right -of -Way which would conflict with the
City's Transportation and Circulation Element.
9. An EIR identifies potential impacts of a
project and measures which are available to
mitigate such impacts. The EIR shows that the
LAFCD Barrier Facilities within the Right -of
Way include 5 injection wells, 4 observation
wells, approximately 3,700 feet of water
supply pipeline and 2,100 feet of water
disposal line. (EIR, p. 112) The pipelines
are located approximately 8 feet below the
surface and the water wells as deep as 200-250
feet. (EIR, p. 113) LAFCD has estimated that
a 10 foot wide access to each well is the
minimum land area utilized to service and
maintain the Barrier Facilities. It was
determined that because of the location of the
Facilities, the land area required for
servicing and maintenance and the narrow width
of the Right -of -Way, development in the area
would be severely constrained if the Facilities
were to remain. (EIR, p. 117) LAFCD has stated
that the Barrier Facilities are essential to
water users in the entire South Coast area.
It is clear that any construction over or
around the Barrier Facilities would be
seriously constrained. If the proposed land
use designations are approved, the EIR
requires that ATSF in cooperation with LAFCD
and the City develop a mitigation plan to
ensure the continued successful operation and
maintenance of the Barrier Facilities, prior to
approval by the City of any proposed
development. It is also clear that a site-
specific development proposal showing the
locations and specifications of buildings and
other facilities must be in existence before
the exact effects on the Barrier Facilities can
be determined, and if and what measures can be
devised to adequately reduce or eliminate the
effects. The requirement to mitigate impacts
is not a contradiction to identifying impacts.
An EIR is required to identify impacts and
measures to mitigate. The level of
significance after mitigation cannot be
addressed where specific mitigation measures
are unknown.
10. The revised text of the Final EIR totally
replaces the Draft EIR. The conclusion in the
Draft EIR was erroneous. Additional research
is not needed at this point to determine
specific mitigation measures. What is needed
is a site-specific development plan which will
show specifically how the Barrier Facilities
will be affected in order to determine specific
mitigation measures.
11. The provisions of the lease between the County
and ATSF are irrelevant to the impacts of the
proposed project on the existing Barrier
Facilities and are not a proper subject to be
addressed in the EIR.
12. Traffic and Circulation. Existing daily
traffic volumes for Pacific Coast Highway and
potential impacts at the Pacific Coast Highway
and Aviation Boulevard intersection are being
added to the Final EIR. It is unclear what the
statement "that the relatively high density
residential uses proposed may result in
slightly lower vehicle generation than has been
assumed" means. The proposed Final EIR is
intended to correct defects and to replace the
Draft EIR. The City's traffic consultant,
however, offers the following explanation of
the differences in the traffic report used in
the Final EIR and the prior traffic report used
in the Draft EIR: "It was assumed that a 3
percent annual growth in existing traffic
volumes will occur on all streets in the City
over the next 10 years. This is a rather
simplified assumption for several reasons,
however, such an assumption must be made to
keep the analysis reasonable in scope. This
rate is based on average annual daily traffic
history on Pacific Coast Highway. The rate is
assumed to account for increases in traffic due
to regional and local population growth
(cumulative growth) and "related projects" over
the next 10 years. The previous study
addressed a project that was expected to
generate about 7,680 daily trip ends. The
project addressed in the current study is
expected to generate about 11,400 daily trip
ends. This amounts to a 48 percent increase
over the original project. In the previous
report, the analysis was done for future
conditions in the year 2005. Volumes were
estimated using a growth rate of one-half
percent per year. This growth rate was applied
to future volumes which were estimated based on
peak hour volumes. The future volumes used in
the most recent study are probably more
accurate." As stated above, the more recent
traffic study used in the Final EIR is
considered more accurate than the earlier study
and is intended to replace the discussion in
the Draft EIR. Therefore, a side-by-side
discussion of impacts using both studies would
not be beneficial.
13. Noise. Comments noted.
14. Air Quality. Comments noted. The Air Quality
section of the Final EIR is undergoing an
update due to the new traffic study and other
necessary clarification.
15. Recreation. An EIR analyzes changes resulting
from a proposed project on existing uses. The
existing uses in the Right -of -Way include a
running track and jogging trail and parcourse.
It was determined that if the site is
developed, vehicular driveways would be
required for access on Valley Drive and Ardmore
Avenue which significantly affect the safety of
users. In addition, if a trail width and a
separation from vehicular traffic comparable to
what now exists is provided, there would be
little room left for development on the narrow
parcels. ATSF's contractual arrangement with
the City has no relevance to the environmental
changes which would occur as a result of
development under the proposed Project.
16. Alternatives. The proposed Project is a
requested change in land use designations in
the General Plan and Zoning Code from Open
Space to Residential and Commercial uses. The
proposed Project evaluates the impacts of the
maximum development which would be permitted
under the changed uses as no site-specific
development plan is proposed. The EIR includes
a "No Project" alternative which would allow
the area to remain in an as is condition with
no additional development occurring on the
site. The second alternative evaluates
development which would be permitted under the
City's Open Space zone. Contrary to ATSF's
comments, this is an appropriate alternative
as ATSF is requesting that the City change its
General Plan and Zoning designations for the
area from Open Space to Residential and
Commercial and it is reasonable for the City to
compare development under the existing Open
Space designation with that under the proposed
change. The third alternative evaluates a
Decreased Development Project under the changed
land use designations which was the Project
under the Draft EIR. Since ATSF has no site-
specific development plan for the area at this
time, numerous combinations of residential and
commercial development could be evaluated, all
of which would be highly speculative. What
is clear from the discussion of alternatives is
that any development constructed on the site
will be environmentally inferior to the
existing condition. The question before the
City is whether it should change the existing
Open Space uses in the proposed Project. The
alternatives presented are reasonable and
feasible to this determination. If the land
use changes are approved, it is ATSF's
responsibility to prepare and submit a
specific development plan for the site which
would integrate the development objectives
with City policies. The three alternatives
included in the EIR have not been rejected, nor
were they considered in developing the project
7
analyzed in the EIR. The request was for a
General Plan amendment and zone change. No
specific development was proposed for
construction on the site.
17. Effects Not Found to be Significant. The
Initial Study contains the reasons why various
possible significant effects were determined
not to be significant. For example, with
respect to cultural resources, the Initial
Study states that the proposal will not "result
in the alteration of or the destruction of a
prehistoric or historic archeological site";
"result in adverse physical or aesthetic
effects to a prehistoric building, structure,
or object"; have the potential to cause a
physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values"; "restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area".
18. Final EIR/Responses to Comments. Comments
noted.
Response to Comments OSPAC-1 through 9
1.
Regional Setting. Comments noted. According
to the Final EIR the proposed Project could add
180 dwelling units to the housing stock and
approximately 337 people to the total
population of the City of Hermosa Beach.
Because of the high residential density
character of the City, it is believed that
population growth from the proposed Project
will more significantly impact the City than
the region.
2. Open Space Element. Comments noted. The loss
of open space is identified as the most
significant impact of the proposed Project and
is discussed throughout the EIR. These
comments disagree with the format of the Final
EIR. The format of the Final EIR is intended
to show the significant effect of the proposed
land use changes on the overall land use
regulation plans for the City. It shows that
the proposed land use changes would not only
affect the Open Space and Land Use elements of
the General Plan and the Zoning Code, but also
conflicts with the City's planning policies and
goals in other elements of the General Plan and
the Local Coastal Program. The City's land use
8
regulation scheme is directed toward the
maintenance of all existing open space in the
City, with specific emphasis on the retention
of open space uses in the Right -of -Way. The
impact of the loss of open space and open space
uses is further discussed in each environmental
assessment area, such as Aesthetics, Traffic
and Circulation, Noise, Air Quality, Biological
Resources, Recreation, etc. Thus, the loss of
open space is not limited to impacts on the
Open Space Element but permeates the whole of
the City's land use planning regulation scheme.
3. Noise. The Noise Section of the EIR has been
revised and updated.
4. Air Pollution. The Air Quality Section of the
EIR is undergoing revision in accordance with
the new traffic study prepared for the Final
EIR and will be added to the EIR upon
completion. Comments noted and incorporated
into the Final EIR by this reference.
5. Ground Water and Surface Runoff. Comments
noted and incorporated into the Final EIR by
this reference.
6. Seismicity. Comments noted and incorporated
into the Final EIR by this reference.
7. Population. Comments noted.
8. Toxic and Hazardous Substances. The Project
before the City is the change of land use
designations from open space to residential and
commercial. The act of approval or disapproval
of this Project will not in itself result in
any disturbance of the soil of the site. While
the potential for subsurface contamination due
to toxic or hazardous substances exist,
approval of the land use changes will not
activate such toxic and hazardous conditions.
CEQA does not require that the City conduct
every test and perform all research, study and
experimentation recommended to it to determine
true and full environmental impact before it
can approve or disapprove the proposed Project.
It can properly, as here, identify the
potential impact and require subsequent testing
and research prior to any work of construction
and development on the site. While the
writer's assessment may be true with respect to
9
•
the City's responsibility, that responsibility
is not an outcome of the proposed change in
land use. The City may properly require ATSF
and/or the developer of the land to conduct a
comprehensive exploratory program to determine
the suitability of the soil in accordance with
applicable law and to discover, remove treat or
protect against any toxic, hazardous or
chemical condition in the Project area. Such
exploratory program would not be in the sole
discretion of ATSF and/or the developer, but
would be subject to the direction and approval
of the City or its representatives as required
by law. The testing would be performed by
experts approved by the City.
9. Archaeological Survey. The following is
incorporated into the Final EIR by this
reference. The proposed General Plan amendment
and rezoning will not impact any known
archaeological or historical resources.
However, buried archaeological remains, which
generally go undetected during a surface
survey, could be encountered during development
if the Project is approved. If any
archaeological or historical materials are
found during subsequent development, a
qualified archaeologist should be contacted
immediately in order that appropriate
mitigation measures can be taken.
10. Water Resources. Comments noted and
incorporated into the Final EIR by this
reference.
Response to Comments ROSE -1
Comments noted and incorporated into the Final EIR by
this reference.
Response to Comments RYCKMAN-1,
Comments noted and incorporated into the Final EIR by
this reference.
Response to Comments CALTRANS-1
The City's traffic consultant reviewed the comments
submitted by CALTRANS and offers the following response.
CALTRANS feel that the minimum mitigation for Pacific
Coast Highway would be providing a third through land in
both directions by implementing full time parking
restrictions. The traffic consultants feel that the
impacts of implementing full time restricted parking are
extensive (for example impacts on local parking supply
vs. demand, financial impacts to merchants, etc.). Such
a measure implemented solely for this Project does not
seem reasonable. Even with full time parking
restrictions, ICU's will remain over 1.00 at most
locations with Project contributions of at most 6 percent
of the ICU). The impact may even be less. As CALTRANS
points out, our trip generation assumptions may be
conservatively high.
We do not feel this is a reasonable mitigation measure
for the Project traffic impact. We agree that the
Project will have a negative impact on the Highway
traffic. As stated, this impact will show its self in
an extension of the peak travel period, i.e. a slight
increase in overall delay to motorists. Our calculations
do, however, show that this measure would more than
mitigate Project traffic impact from an ICU standpoint.
Maintenance of parking on Pacific Coast Highway with
ICU's exceeding 1.00 today implies a "planned
deficiency" in capacity. If elimination of parking is
not acceptable to mitigate existing problems, why then
would it be acceptable to mitigate a one to six percent
increase in travel demand in the year 1997. These
considerations should be considered if this mitigation
measure is included in the document.
EXHIBIT E
Mr. Anthony Antich
Director of Public Works
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
January 5,1988
Subject: -RESPONSE TO ASL COMMENTS ON AT&SF R/W EIR
Dear Mr. Antich:
Reference is made to a December 22,1987 letter from ASL to Erma Lake_
which outlined ASL's comments to the inter -office memo dated October
10,1987. Since we participated in the comments of October 10, 1987, we
believe a response to the December 22, 1987 letter is necessary.
Page 2-I did participate in the review of the trip distribution assumptions
with the consultant. It is still necessary to clarify the assumptions for th(
.,:.distribution in the text. The response in the December 22, 1987 letter does
state the reason for.the trips in this direction. I think there is a need to
. clearly state this in the final document. •
Page 3- Regarding the Valley/Ardmore/Pier signalization, MGA did conduct a
study for signalization and reported that signalization of these inter-
sections in their present configuration is not desirable for efficient
operation. I stand by my statement -that for ASL to say that the signal is
warranted infers it should be installed. This does not address the need for
physical improvements. It is misleading and should be cleared up in the
text. If ASL feels signalization is a mitigation then state the physical
improvements needed as well as the signals in order to ensure a positive
mitigation.
Page 5- These are comments specific to my September 30,1987 correspondence.
We are aware of the linitations"of the ICU and the enormous data needed to
use the HCM capacity analysis. Our point here is that the ICU does not
address signalized locations. This should be spelled out in the text or use
another accepted method for unsignalized inmtersections..The most accepted
at this time is the HCM method. Another option is to state that the
assumptions for the unsignalized intersections are that they were r.
signalized. Then, the ICU figures at least would be on the same basis.
I believe that a more detailed method is needed to "quantify" the impact
on PCH. Whether it is outside the scope of the study or not in the opinion 01
the Consultant and/or the city, it is needed. It is not reasonable to tell
the public that PCH is a problem without telling them in engineering terms
how bad the problem is and how much better(orworse) it will get with the
.project and its mitigations. Statements such as " increases in two to thrm -,
minutes of delay in the peak hour",'or"50 more stops between Manhattan Beach 0
and Redondo Beach for a through traveller would have more meaning than
simply saying things are bad and will get worse.
10061 TALBERT AVENUE SUITE 200 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CAUFORNV 92708 (714) 9644880
i syFa a�.ti 3 .r4 �gg Sj'l• r - ", .$ `� �y r r' 4 fid'
"tac
`7 ` .�•`'yU .ix„ .�%,y s:� ;:N E Jr�cs i '> fii''3 s • .�.. r 4 y'O•�"'�
Re- Pedestrian traffic & ICU calculations.. The problem with most ICU
calculations is that there is very seldom a reduction in the lane capacity
figure to reflect the pedestrians interference at an intersection. At those
locations that have concentrations of pedestrians, such as school crossings
the capacity figure would be reduced and the resultant ICU figure would be
much higher. This could prompt a need for mitigations where they are
not presently indicated.
We still believe that the suggested route to school program reflects the
most direct walking paths for the children in Hermosa Beach. The walking
routes would not change significantly with a one way couplet, but the
crossing points at 16th street and 21st street might be destroyed with the
development. The consultant is exactly right when he states that the City
may condition the project to maintain the existing school pedestrian r
crossings of the right of way. It is our opinion that the condition
must be mandated. The impact to the project is that the walking patterns for
the optimal use and safety of the children are maintained.This should then
be construed as a positive mitigation by the project developers.
The next to last paragraph in my opinion is simply rhetoric that is not
supported. When developers have submitted specific plans that have been
reviewed by staff, the infighting to preserve every bit of developable land
for building space is paramount. The parking requirements DO dictate the
scale of development of a project. Howvever,the words"variance"and"compact
spaces"and"compromise"seem to crop into the conversatiuon so much that the
parking that is provided is never enough to satisfy the projected demand.
All one has to do is travel along a major street adjacent to a'residentialp
development or a small commercial shopping center. The adjacent street is
lined with cars and the commercial lot is usually filled. The square footage
of the development or the number of units weren't reduced. It was the •:
variances that allowed the problem of insufficient parking to be shifted
to the City street. �
Resp elfulty submitted,
r C
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 5, 1988 PAGE 3
CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ATCHISON,
TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 1,
1987, MEETING)
Mr. Schubach read into the record the following statements:
"The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines do not require a public
hearing for E.I.R.'s according to Section 15202. However, if a public hearing is
provided as the City has opted to do in the case of the Railroad Right -of -Way E.I.R.,
Section 15202 suggests that the same procedures be used as are used for other city
public hearings.
"The City, however, has gone beyond its regular public noticing for adoption of
resolutions in the following manner:
1. Provided a schedule of all public hearing dates and times to Atchison,
Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company.
2. Provided a written reminder to the railway company of the continued
public hearing date of January 5, 1988, already specified at the
December 1, 1987, public hearing.
3. Posted the subject property three times: once for the 45 -day review
period; once for the December 1, 1987, public hearing; once for the
January 5, 1988, continued public hearing.
4. Publicly noticed in the local newspaper three times: once for the 45 -day
draft E.I.R. review period; once for the December 1, 1987, public
hearing; and once for the continued January 5, 1988, public hearing.
"Since the CEQA guidelines recommend the same noticing process as for other
public hearings, the appropriate process is noted in Section 1605(A) of the zoning
ordinance. Note this is not a hearing for the actual zone change, but only for the
E.I.R."
Mr. Schubach continued by giving staff report dated December 30, 1987. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing on June 16 and 18, 1987, to accept input concerning the
draft Environmental Impact Report prepared by the consultants, Sanchez Telarico. The
• report was found to be erroneous and inadequate. The major problems were the use of
PLANNING COMMC..ON MINUTES - JANUARY 5, 1988 l PAGE 4
the wrong project description and winter traffic counts instead of summer counts. These
two problems caused all related sections such as noise and air quality to be in error.
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council
certification of the Environmental Impact Report subject to additional modifications as
noted in the reports received by the Commissioners and any other changes deemed
necessary based on public hearing testimony.
The document has now been rewritten. Because the document had to be rewritten,
another 45 -day public review period and public hearing were provided.
At the December 1, 1987, meeting, the Planning Commission continued this matter to
January 5, 1988, so that all comments could be responded to.
The responses are generally adequate except for areas noted. However, the format
should be modified prior to submittal to the City Council. The document should have the
current text which needed revising removed and the new text integrated into the
document. Also, a revised table of comments identifying all parts of the document
should be provided.
The revised noise section is complete; however, some of the numerical figures seem
low. For instance, the increase in traffic between Ardmore and Pacific Coast Highway
on 8th Street is almost doubled, but the increase in noise is only 1.8 bda. Some
explanation should be given.
The Air Quality Section is still being revised, as more time than was anticipated was
necessary.
Mr. Schubach stated that it is important to expedite this matter and be within the legal
parameters; therefore, staff recommended the Planning Commission to recommend
certification of the EIR, subject to the necessary modifications.
Comm. Rue asked whether other matters could be brought up and discussed in the future
if the Planning Commission recommends certification of the EIR at this time. He noted
that it is possible that other areas of concern could be discovered at a future time.
Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative, noting that the Commission is merely making a
recommendation to the Council at this time. He noted that if anyone has additional
comments, those• comments should be related to the responses given, not to, the draft
EIR, since the 45 -day review period is over. If anyone feels that the responses are
inadequate, they have a right to comment upon that.
Comm. Rue asked whether new issues could be included in the EIR which may arise as a
result of new public hearing information or information based on the comments of the
reports relating to noise, traffic, and air quality.
Mr. Bruce Tepper, consulting attorney to the City, replied in the affirmative. He stated
that the public response period has technically ended; however, in view of the flexibility
provided by CEQA, a public body considering a document of this type has the ability to
incorporate comments which are received late, with some exceptions, into the report.
Mr. Tepper noted that the areas of concern in the document are statistical' data
supporting the conclusions, not changes in conclusions reached by the document. In
terms of the ultimate substance, the document will not change one bit. Some of the
PLANNING COMMON MINUTES - JANUARY 5, 1988
PAGE 5
statistical data may change somewhat, but not much. He noted that staff recommended
certification subject to these additional details because it is staffs' opinion that the data
to be included is not of a material nature, but merely additional back-up information for
the conclusions that are reached in the document itself.
Comm. Ingell asked when the EIR would go before the City Council if the
recommendation to certify is approved tonight.
Mr. Schubach stated that it would go to the Council in one month.
Comm. Peirce asked about the placement of the responses within the document.
Mr. Tepper stated that the comments and responses to comments are a part of the body
of the EIR, not part of the appendices. The comments are of no less import than any of
the initial portion of the document. He continued by explaining the locations of the
comments within the document, stating that they are a separate portion of the EIR.
Chmn. Compton asked whether it is the opinion of Mr. Tepper that the document is
certifiable.
Mr. Tepper replied in the affirmative.
Public Hearing reopened at 7:56 P.M. by Chmn. Compton.
Frank Greco, representing Turini and Brink, 1920 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, addressed
the Commission. He stated that late last week he had received a package of
information, and there has not been adequate time to review the materials. However,
the applicant does not object to this document going forward to the City Council for
certification at this time, subject to several conditions. If there are to be any
substantive changes, the applicant would like to request an opportunity to review and
comment on any changes at such time the comments are forwarded to the City Council.
This would include any changes to the summary of the traffic and circulation, noise
elements, and air quality, as well as any other changes that might be made to the
document.
Mr. Greco felt that in fairness to the applicant and to the public, it is appropriate that
the applicant and citizens have an adequate period of time in which to comment on those
changes.
Mr. Greco stated that the issue of air quality information is somewhat undecided at this
point as to when it might be completed. He urged that there be no delay in the continued
process of the matter.
Rosamond Fogg, 610 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission. She stated
that she feels the document is indeed certifiable. She commented on Page 9, No. 8,
"Toxic and Hazardous Substances," and read a portion of that response: "...The act of
approval or disapproval of this Project will not in itself result in any disturbance of the
soil of the site. While the potential for subsurface contamination due to toxic or
hazardous substances exist, approval of the land use changes will not activate such toxic
and hazardous conditions...."
Ms. Fogg stated that the reason behind not doing the soils testing appears to be
somewhat faulty. She felt that there should be another, more sound reason given for not
doing the testing.
PLANNING COMM1i.ON MINUTES - JANUARY 5, 1988 C
Public Hearing closed at 8:01 P.M. by Chmn. Compton.
Comm. Rue commented that the issue of how noise would affect
neighborhoods was not addressed. He hoped that that issue would be
final noise study.
Comm. Ingell stated that he favored the soils testing, noting that he
problem could exist at the site, and it should be addressed.
Comm. Ingell stated that the document as presented is difficult for the
and understand.
PAGE 6
the surrounding
addressed in the
feels a potential
layperson to read
Chmn. Compton noted that soils testing would be required at such time when an actual
structure is proposed for the site. He noted that he would be very much in favor of doing
everything possible to ascertain whether a problem does actually exist with toxic waste.
He noted, however, that it is a question of when the testing would be required, suggesting
that now might not be the appropriate time. He noted that it is not even certain whether
the applicant will apply for the zone change.
Comm. Ingell felt that soils testing should be done regardless of whether or not any
structure is put on the site because of the water structure. Also, people use that area
for jogging, and they could be kicking up toxic dust.
Comm. DeBellis stated that he has read the documents presented and the previous
minutes of this matter, as well as watched the meetings on television. He asked,
however, if he was eligible to participate in discussion of the issue.
Mr. Lough replied in the affirmative.
Comm. DeBellis stated that this EIR has been studied at length, and there comes a time
with any project when a decision must be reached. He noted that the Commission is
being asked to make a recommendation based solely on whether or not it is felt that the
report is adequate. He noted that legislative acts are not at issue at this time.
Comm. DeBellis read from Page 9, Alternatives: "...What is clear from the discussion of
alternatives is that any development constructed on the site will be environmentally
inferior to the existing condition. The question before the City is whether it should
change the existing Open Space uses in the proposed Project. The alternatives presented
are reasonable and feasible to this determination. If the land use changes are approved,
it is ATSF's responsibility to prepare and submit a specific development plan for the site
which would integrate the development objectives with City policies...."
Comm. DeBellis noted that Page 9 states: "...CEQA does not require that the City
conduct every test and perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended to
it to determine true and full environmental impact before it can approve or disapprove
the proposed Project. It can properly, as here, identify the potential impact and require
subsequent testing and research prior to any work or construction and development on
the site.... •
Comm. DeBellis believed that more than adequate information has been presented in
order to enable the City Council to make a decision on the impacts of approving or
disapproving a requested zone change request and general plan change.
PLANNING COMMII.ON MINUTES - JANUARY 5, 1988 C PAGE 7
Comm. DeBellis was somewhat dismayed that nobody has expressed a concern that the
soils testing should be done immediately since there could be a daily problem with the
dust. He stated that every times it rains, something could be percolating into the well
system. He noted that it is not appropriate to delay the EIR; however, if there is indeed
concern, testing should be done to ascertain whether or not a problem does actually
exist, because the problem will exist whether or not anything is built on the site.
Comm. DeBellis concluded by stating that he feels the EIR to be adequate and
certifiable.
Comm. Peirce stated that he had no comments, noting that he agreed with the comments
made by the other Commissioners. He felt that the EIR is certifiable.
Chmn. Compton discussed the lease of this land, stating that there could be a major
impact on the salt water intrusion project if the railroad decided to exercise its option to
end the lease. He asked for clarification of this issue.
Mr. Tepper stated that there is a license which is not an interest in land which is
terminable. He continued by speculating what the railroad may or may not do in this
regard. He discussed the issue of eminent domain. He stated that the response points
out the fact that the equipment used in the salt water intrusion program is quite
cumbersome and bulky. A particular governmental body does have the power of eminent
domain itself, and there does not appear to be in the adjacent property areas of ent open
open space sufficient to bring in that equipment on a regular basis in order to perform
the work. He stated that this may prove to be more of an impediment to development on
this property than most people realize. The response given, however, is accurate.
Chmn. Compton discussed the issues of toxic waste, literature searches, and interviews
of long-time residents. He agreed that if there is a potential problem with toxic waste,
study should be given to the matter. He suggested that effort be given to trying to
determine whether there have been toxic problems in the past.
Chmn. Compton concluded by stating that he feels the EIR is a certifiable document.
MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Rue, to certify the Environmental
Impact Report for the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Right -of -Way and
recommend that it be referred to the City Council.
AYES: Comms. DeBellis, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton
NOES: Comm. Inge11
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Comm. DeBellis returned to the issue of hazardous waste and suggested that there be a
resolution or recommendation sent to the City Council stating that .the Planning
Commission has expressed concern that there may be a problem existing, and that the
Council should take appropriate steps to make a determination by whatever means are
necessary. He noted also that animal feces may pose a danger at the site.
MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to direct staff to prepare a
resolution or recommendation (whichever is deemed appropriate by staff) to be sent to
the City Council as noted above.
PLANNING COMMC ON MINUTES - JANUARY 5, 1988 1.
PAGE 8
Comm. Peirce agreed that this is a good idea; however, he felt that the issue should not
be restricted to the railroad. He noticed that there are several other areas, specifically
on 6th Street west of Valley, where there are probably just as high a potential for ground
contamination. Therefore, he felt that the resolution should be for a City-wide survey.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff could either prepare a memo to be sent to the City
Council which relays the concerns expressed by the Commission, or staff could draft a
resolution.
Mr. Lough stated that either way is acceptable, so long as the issue remains separate
from the action taken on the railroad right-of-way EIR.
Chmn. Compton favored a resolution. He also felt that it is appropriate to conduct
interviews of long-term residents.
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Peirce to include all areas of the City in the
survey. Agreed to by Comm. DeBellis as maker and Chmn. Compton as second.
Frank Greco addressed the Commission and asked for clarification on the intent of the
motion. He noted concern that there could be a delay in the EIR process and the project.
Chmn. Compton noted that the issue of the railroad EIR is separate from the action
being taken in regard to a City-wide survey on hazardous waste.
John Edwards, 501 Herondo, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and discussed
hazardous waste, stating that there is a difference between what is existing and what
there would be with a project. He felt that the difference with this particular project,
though, is that by digging up earth, hazardous particles could belofted through the air.
Mr. Edwards stated that he would like to see a copy of the final EIR. He felt that the
intent of CEQA is to ensure that the impacts of a project are completely understood
before it is started. He favored a literature search prior to in depth testing.
Comm. DeBellis stated that the purpose of his motion is to investigate to determine
whether there is an existing problem; and that if a change is approved, that any future
development on the project would require additional testing. He stated that it is up to
the City Council to approve or disapprove any final project; and he feels that the EIR
presented is adequate for the City Council to make its determination.
Comm. Rue felt that if anything detrimental turns up in the literature search, the City
Council should at that point decide upon a mechanism by which responsibility is
determined in addressing the matter.
AYES: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
-
Law Offices of James P. Lough
JAMES P. LOUGH 30 NORTH RAYMOND AVENUE
January 5, 1988 SUITE 708
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91103
213MEMORANDUM (818)792--44728
(818) 792-4776
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 1988
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: JAMES P. LOUGH, City Attorney
Linda LeVanway, Paralegal
RE: Improvement to Walkways Across AT&SF Railroad
Right -of -Way at 21st & Valley and 16th & Valley
Introduction
This office has been asked to examine our lease with AT&SF
and to determine whether the City may improve the pedestrian
walkways at Valley Drive and 16th Street and at Valley Drive and
21st Street. Since the purpose of our lease with the Railroad
is for "beautification and cultivation purposes and for a graded
earthern pedestrian -jogging path," this office does not see any
reason why the City cannot make walkway and landscaping improve-
ments at this site. We should, however, notify AT&SF before
doing so.
.41
Background
At the regular meeting of the City Council on August 25,
1987, the City Council received an update on the Crossing Guard
Program. Included in that update was a report by Ed Ruzak &
Associates, Inc. suggesting various improvements to the "Route
to School Plan." There are two major walkways across the AT&SF
Railroad area that need improvement: the crossing at 21st
Street to Valley Drive and the zig-zag crossing at 16th Street
down to the 1700 block of Valley Drive. Specifically, the hand
railing, path and entry way at the street need to be improved so
that children are encouraged to use the facility. Presently,
children are observed to climb down the bank adjacent to the
walkways rather than using the walkways. It was recommended
that low, durable plantings be planted adjacent to the walkways
to discourage pedestrians from climbing down the hill. The
plantings should be durable to withstand abuse and also low
growing to eliminate any possibility of children being hidden
from view.
Analysis of Lease
The purpose of our lease with AT&SF is for open space or
beautification and cultivation along with providing the citizens
with a pedestrian -jogging path. Rider "A" to the lease
L17/atsfinemo -1-
specifically mentions landscaping at item 22. It mentions that
plants maintained on the property shall be kept at a height not
to obscure the visibility of any trains or equipment that may be
operating on the tracks. This provision also provides that a
jogging -pedestrian path should not be any closer than 15 feet
from the railroad tracks. Item 8 of the April 1979 lease states
that the leasee shall at all times keep a space of 6 feet from
the nearest rail or track entirely clear of any materials or
obstructions of any kind. Even though the tracks have been
removed, it is advisable that the path remain 15 feet and plant-
ings 6 feet from where the track was at one time. As long as
the City respects these clearence provisions and keeps the
plantings at a minimun height, AT&SF should not object to this
improvement.
Item 7 of the April 1979 lease agreement states that the
"Licensee (leasee) shall keep and maintain the premises and
improvements in such safe, sanitary and sightly condition as
shall be satisfactory to Licensor...." It is to the railroad's
as well as the City's advantage to keep the pedestrian walkways
and rails in a safe condition. Therefore, AT&SF should not
object to the proposed handrail and pathway improvements.
Conclusion
The railroad should not object to the improvements proposed
for the pedestrian crossings as long as we abide by the limited
restrictions included in our lease. Attached is a letter to
AT&SF prepared by this office in which we describe the proposed
improvements. If the Council agrees to send this letter, staff
should be prepared to offer details to the railroad upon their
request.
NOTED:
Aec.,
Respectfully.fitted
S P. LOUGH, City Attorney
TY OF HERMOSA BEACH
ALANA MASTRIAN, Acting City Manager
Enclosure
L17/atsfinemo -2-
Law Offices of James P. Lough
JAMES P. LOUGH
January 15, 1988
Mr. Benjamin B. Salvaty
General Attorney
Santa Fe Southern Pacific Corporation
Legal Department
One Santa Fe Plaza
5200 East Sheila
Los Angeles, California 90040
30 NORTH RAYMOND AVENUE
SUITE 708
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91103
(213) 381-6131
(818) 792-4728
(818) 792-4776
Re: Proposed Improvements to Pedestrian Walkways at
16th St. and Valley Drive and 21st Street and
Valley Drive, City of Hermosa Beach
Dear Mr. Salvaty:
At the regular meeting of the City Council of Hermosa Beach
held on August 25, 1987, the City Council reviewed proposed
improvements of its pedestrian walkways throughout the city.
Two areas that were identified as potentially hazardous to
school age children walking to and from school were the zig-zag
crossing at 16th Street down to the 1700 block of Valley Drive,
and the crossing at 21st Street to Valley Drive. Specifically,
the handrailing, path and entry way at these streets need to be
improved so that children are encouraged to use the facility.
Children have been observed to climb down the bank adjacent to
these walkways rather than using the walkways. In addition to
improving the walkways themselves, the City would like to plant
low growing durable plants adjacent to the walkways to discour-
age the children from climbing down these embankments. These
plants should be durable enough to withstand abuse and low
growing to eliminate any possibility of children being hidden
from view.
In reviewing our lease with AT&SF, we find no provision
preventing the City from making the proposed improvements. In
fact, the lease provides for maintenance in order to keep the
premises safe, sanitary and in sightly condition (Item 7, April
1979 Lease Agreement), and mentions that landscaping is. allow-
able if it does not obscure the visibility of any trains or
equipment operating on the adjacent tracks from any pedestrian
or motorist using any public or private crossing of the Licen-
sor's tracks (Item 22 of attached Rider). The City should be
allowed to make these improvements as long as the pathway
remains 15 feet and the plantings 6 feet from where the track
was at one time (see Item 22 of Rider and Item 7 of Lease
Agreement).
It is to the benefit of both AT&SF and the City of Hermosa
Beach that the pathways that cross the Railroad Right -of -Way are
kept in a safe and attractive condition. This letter is to
notify you of our intentions and to request your support.
If you have any questions regarding the details of this
proposal, please feel free to contact this office or the Office
of Public Works at Hermosa Beach City Hall.
L17/atsfinemo
JAMES P. LOUGH, C ty Attor ey
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
4
(.;_....:.r.1"ii......1r__I
P.77".rN
Form 1617-B Standard
(doprered by General & bens!
LICENSE
I...*:. CO.
T8IFILICENSE;1Ciaele ss o Me: 27th ._._..da
between _. THE ATCHISCN, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAIL:1;
�._ Delaware
s».._» ................._. ........_
and
\\uv3"i0I
t.
"1311-1414,0 0,/_
�'✓�•R.
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a California munic7" /_u 4141(
(hereinafter, whether one party or more, called "Licensee").
WITNESSETH, That the parties hereto for the considerations hereinafter expressed covenant and agree as
follows:
1. Licensor hereby licensee Licensee to use, subject to the rights and easements hereinafter excepted and re-
served and upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the land (hereinafter called "Premises") situated at
or near Hermosa Beach , County of Los Angeles
State of__ California ,_, outlined in red coloring on the print hereto attached, No..605 _37242
�_. ._».. November 13, 1978
c9Y-e'-4L/7
;.--,19 �......
"Licensor"i,
•
._....._.., marked "Exhibit A" and
made a part hereof, for a term beginning on._......__..._...».....Jucte...i.._ ......... 19.._74.._., and ending when
this license shall be terminated as hereinafter provided.
2. Licensor hereby excepts and reserves the right, to be exercised by Licensor and by any others who have ob-
tained or may obtain permission or authority from Licensor so to do, (a) to operate, maintain, renew and relocate any
and all existing pipe, power, and communication lines and appurtenances and other facilities of like character upon.
over or under the surface of the Premises; and (b) from time to time to construct, operate, maintain, renew and
relocate such additional facilities of the same character as will not unreasonably interfere with the use of the Premises
by Licensee for the purpose specified in paragraph 6 hereof.
S. Licensee shall pay to Licensor as compensation for the use of the Premises the sum of __._.._..._
One and No/100 Dollars ($L -00. )
three'T3f'"
per annum , payable in advance. Said compensation shall be subject to revision at five (5) year
intervals.
4. Licensee covenants and warrants that Licensee either owns, or has obtained from the owner or owners thereof
the right to nae any improvements now on the Premises shown or described on said Exhibit A as"Liceneee'e Existing
Improvements." Such improvements, if any. together with any other improvements hereafter placed upon the
Premises by or for account of Licensee are hereinafter called "Improvements."
5. Licensee shall pay before the same become delinquent all taxes, charges, rates, and assessments which may,
during the term of this license, be levied upon, or assessed against, or be equitably chargeable to or assessed in respect
of the Improvements; and where any such tax, rate, charge, or assessment may be embraced in the general amount
of taxes charged upon the Premises separately or in connection with other property of Licensor and Licensor shall
pay all of said taxes, then Licensee shall promptly repay or refund to Licensor the amount or part of the tax, charge,
rate or assessment equitably or fairly apportionable to the Improvements.
6. Licensee shall use the Premises exclusively as a site for_ be....autification and cultivation
purposes and fora graded earthen pedestrian -jogging path and for no other sari ose
the object of Licensor being to facilitate the convenient operation of the railroad, telegraph and telephone lines of
Licensor, and the transaction of business thereon. In case Licensee shall use the Premises for any other purpose what-
ever than above mentioned, then Licensor may declare this license at an end and prevent Licensee from using or re-
maining upon the Premises, with or without process of law. Licensee shall not have the exclusive possession of the
Premises as against Lieensor.
7. Licensee shall keep and maintain the Premises and Improvements in such safe, sanitary and sightly condition
as shall be satisfactory to Licensor, and, if required by Lioensor, shall paint the Improvements with paints of a color
approved by Licensor; and if Licensee fails or refuses within fifteen (15) days after receipt of an
Licensor
so to do, Licensor may, at its option, perform such work, and in such event Licensee shall withinthirty(0) days
after the rendition of bill therefor reimburse Licenser for the cost so incurred.
8. In using the Premises, and in constructing, maintaining, operating and using the Improvements thereon,
Licensee shall comply with any and all requirements imposed by federal or state statutes, or by ordinances, orders,
or regulations of any governmental body having jurisdiction thereover. In the event the Premises or Improve.
mens shall be used for the loading, unloading, storing, or otherwise handling of any petroleum products, Licensee
shall comply with all regulations and recommendations from time to time promulgated by the Bureau of Explosives
of the Association of American Railroads, or any successor agency. All artificial lighting in pump houses, warehouses,
or other enclosures upon the Premises, where oil or other intlamcnable fluid supplies are handled or stored by Licensee,
except in unbroken original containers shall be electricity, and such electrical installation and any other electrical
installation upon the Premises shall at all times conform to and be maintained in accordance with the provisions of
the then current edition of the National Electrical Code with respect to Class I hazardous locations. Licensee shall
promptly pay and discharge any and all liens arising out of any construction, alteration or repair work done, or suffered
or permitted to be done, by Licensee on the Premises, and Licensor is hereby authorized to post any notices or take
any other action upon or with respect to the Premises that is or may be permitted by law to prevent the attachment
of any such liens to the Premises; provided, however, that failure of Licensor to take any such action shall not relieve
Licensee of any obligation or liability under this or any other paragraph hereof.
9. Licensee shall at all times keep a space of six (6) feet from the nearest rail of any railroad track entirely clear
of structures, material and obstructions of every sort and shall observe an overhead clearance of not less than twenty-
five (25) feet above the top of rail; but, nevertheless, Licensee may erect loading platforms which shall not be more
than three (3) feet and six (6) inches higher than the top of the rails, and which at no point shall be nearer than four
(4) feet to the nearest side of the head of the nearest rail of such track; provided, however, if by statute or order of
competent public authority different clearances shall be required, then Licensee shall strictly comply with such
statute or order.
10. Licensee agrees to indemnify and save harmless Licensor against all loss, damage or expense
may sustain, incur or become liable for, including loss of or damage to property or injuryr which Licensorpersona
and fines or penalties imposed upon or assessed againstg p yrout to of death ofthe s pof the
Premises or Improvements by Licensee, (b) any brach by Licensee of the terms, coventor conditions in this
instrument contained, or (c) the sole or contributing acts or omissions of Licensee or the employes, agents, patrons
or invitees of Licensee in, on or about the Premises or Improvements, except that if Licensor shall participate in
any such contributing acts or omissions, then the loss, damage or expense arising therefrom shall be borne by the
parties hereto equally.
11. Neither Licensee, nor the heirs, legal representatives, successors or assigns of Licensee, nor any subsequent
assignee, shall transfer or lease the Premises or the Improvements. or any part thereof, nor assign or transfer this
license or any interest herein, without the written consent and approval in each instance of Licensor.
12. In case of the eviction of Licensee by. any one owning or claiming title to or any interest in the Premises,
Licensor shall not be liable to Licensee for any damage of any nature whatsoever, or to refund any compensation
paid hereunder, except the proportionate part of any compensation paid in advance.
13. If any compensation hereunder shall be due and unpaid, or if default shall be made in any of the covenants
or agreements of Licensee herein contained, or in case of any assignment or transfer of this license by operation of law,
Licensor may, at its option, terminate this license by serving five (5) days' notice in writing upon Licensee; but any
waiver by Licensor of any default or defaults shall not constitute a waiver of the right to terminate this license for
any subsequent default or defaults.
14. This license may be terminated at any time by either party upon r1 et (n:
served upon the otner.party, stating therein the date that such termination shallea ladays' cen otice in writing to be
the ex
of the time specified in such notice this license and all rights of Licensee hereunder shall abssoand lutteelny cease andtion de -
of any compensation paid in advance.
termine; but upon any such termination Licensee shall be entitled to have refunded by Licensor a proportionate part
15. Any notice to be given by Licensor to Licensee hereunder shall be deemed to be properly served if the same
be delivered to Licensee, or if left with any of the agents, servants or employes of Licensee or if posted on the Premises,
or if deposited in the Post Office, postpaid, addressed to Licensee at.... Civic Center, Hermosa
Beach, California 90254 ""'"•""'
•
16. Upon the termination of this license in any manner herein provided, Licensee shall forthwith surrender to
Licensor the possession of the Premises and shall remove the Improvements and restore the Premises to substantially
the state in which they were prior to the construction of the Improvements, and in case Licensee shall fail within
thirty (30) days after the date of such termination to make such removal or restoration, then Licensor may, at its
election to be exercised within thirty (39) days thereafter, either remove the Improvements and restore the Premises
i•+r the account of Licensee, and in such event Licensee shall within thirty (30) days after the rendition of bill therefor
rei:.:hurse Licensor fcr the cost so incurred, or may take and hold the Improvements as its sole pro,ierty.
RIDER "A"
RIDER to li: nse dated April 27, 1979 between
THE ATCHISON TOPEKA ANC SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
and
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
20. INSURANCE
(a) Licensee shall, at its expense, procure and keep in force
at all times during the term of this lease, a comprehensive form of
insurance covering its liability, including but not limited to, Public
Liability and Property Damage, assumed by Licensee under this Lease
covering personal injury or death of persons, property damage or des-
truction, in the amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit or its
equivalent. Lessor shall be named as one of the insured parties.
(b) A11 insurance shall be placed with insurance companies
licensed to do business in the State of California, and approved by
Licensor. Licensee shall furnish Licensor with a certificate, or certi-
ficates, issued by the insurance carrier(s) evidencing such insurance.
Each policy shall provide that it shall not be cancelled or materially
changed unless at least thirty (30) days' prior written notice of
cancellation or change shall have been mailed by the insurance company
to Licensor at One Santa Fe Plaza, 5200 East Sheila Street, Los Angeles,
California 90040. All policies of insurance shall be subject to
inspection by Licensor at any reasonable time. The providing or fur-
nishing of such insurance or evidence of such insurance shall not in any
manner limit the liability of Licensee under Paragraph 10 hereof or any
other provision of this lease.
(c) In the event Licensee at any time fails to procure such
insurance or to maintain it in 'effect, Licensor shall have the right,
but shall not be obligated, to pay for such insurance and the cost
thereof, together with interest thereon at ten percent (10%) per annum
(computed from date of Licensor's payment to date of Licensee's re-
imbursement), shall be reimbursed by Licensee to Licensor as additional
rent hereunder on the first day of the month next following.
21. Licenssee shall police the use of the pedestrian -jogging
path and shall take what ever legal action that might be available to
them to prevent any unauthorized use or miss -use of said pedestrian -
jogging path. Bicycles, motorized bicycles, and/or motorcycles shall be
'specifically prohibited from using said pedestrian -jogging path.
- 2 -
22. The pedestrian -jogging path may follow on irregular
design, however, said path shall at all times be at least 15 feet from
the nearest rail of any railroad track. To insure safe crossings at all
public sidewalks or crossing points at street intersections, said path
shall veer away from any railroad track. All trees or shrubs planted on
the premises shall be of a type and shall be maintained at a height that
will not obscure the visibility of any trains or equipment operating on
the adjacent tracks, from any pedestrian or motorist using any public or
private crossing of Licensor's tracks.
23. PREVIOUS LEASE
It is mutually agreed between the parties hereto that this
license supersedes and cancels that certain lease dated August 15, 1968
covering site for beautification and cultivation purposes known in the
records of Lessor as Secretary's contract No. 129997 and all supplements
and amendments thereto.
24. TAX REIMBURSEMENT
In the event the State of California decides to assess the
Premises separate and apart from our normal operating right of way or in
the event Licensor is required to pay taxes for the Premises on a
separate basis, Licensee shall reimburse Licensor promptly upon receipt
of statement therefore for all general property taxes which are, during
the term of this lease, levied upon or assessed against the Premises,
and in the event such taxes are levied or assessed against a larger
parcel of which the Premises constitute a part, such reimbursement by
Licensee shall be in the amount of such tax equitable or fairly appor-
tionable to the Premises. -
and oongatzons or ,.aoeuevs uerouuuer eusu cunumus in wen unto tae rremusee are eunenaerea; acv nv wsm a wuu
hereof shall release Licensee from any liability or obligation hereunder, whether of indemnity or otherwtae, resulting
from any acts, omissions or events happening prior to the date of termination or the date, if later, when the Improve-
ments are removed and the Premises restored or Licensor elects to take and hold the Improvements as its sole property
as hereinabove in paragraph 16 provided.
18. In the event that Licensee consists of two or more parties, all the covenants and agreements of Licensee
herein contained shall be the joint and several covenants and agreements of such parties.
19. All the covenants and agreements of Licensee herein contained shall be binding upon the heirs, legal repre-
sentatives, successors and assigns of Licensee, and shall inure to the benefit of the auooearors and assigns of Licensor.
Attached hereto and made a part hereof is Rider identified by the
signature of J. F. King.
IN WITNESS WHIZEOP. This license has been dulyexecuted in duplicate by the parties hereto as of the
day and year first above written. p
THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
(Licensor).
Approved as to description: By
Chief Engineer.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
•
Attorney
•
Its
.. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
By /`).
Its • L %� .4
(Attach print here.)
. G.11. FILE NO. aK-59/C
EXHIBIT "A"
ATTACHED TO CONTRACT BETWEEN
THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY .
AND
•-••-•oftr irn*AMSA RrAf'U
AV .
3LV0.
.\ • A
LoMA :3 a_
1 Ft 7.
.r
5-1
77-7 (-7'%
- DE5C.Q/PT/ON -
•4REA 8E/NG L EASED FOR BEA UT/F/CATION ANO A
j/ALK/NG/-mooGG%ivG .SNo`vN .5W4DE'O.
our Lease' .SAa[L ivo5' Be eco.re r- *Awe" /5'.�7-o.,v
Genfer leve of a►#7y Tr-ec
Honorable Mayor and Members of
the Hermosa Beach City Council
January 19, 1988
Regular Meeting of
January 26, 1988
RESOLUTION TO REVISE TRUCK ROUTE
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council:
1. Adopt the attached Resolution No. 88- adding to the truck
route Valley Drive (southbound only) from Pier Avenue to
Herondo Street.
Background:
On June 24, 1986, City Council approved Resolution No. 86-4954
establishing a City-wide truck route. On November 17, 1986,
Council took the following action:
1. Approved Resolution No. 86-4995, deleting Gould Avenue from
Resolution No. 86-4954.
2. Directed staff to further investigate the truck routes after
considering the letters received from concerned residents.
On December 16, 1986, City Council approved Resolution No.
86-4999 to delete Valley Drive, Ardmore Avenue, Hermosa Avenue,
Manhattan Avenue and Second Street from the truck routes
established in Resolution No. 86-4995.
Analysis:
Residents on 8th Street between PCH and Ardmore expressed
dissatisfaction with trucks using 8th Street for accessing and
return from areas West of Valley Drive. The addition of a
southbound truck route on Valley drive would allow trucks to
bypass 8th Street and to exit the City after a delivery without
crossing on residential streets to return to the Pacific Coast
Highway.
Alternatives:
Other alternatives available to Council include:
1. Retain Resolution No. 86-4999 intact, and re-evaluate "Truck
Routes" in conjunction with the City's Circulation Element.
This alternative would not solve the immediate concerns of
affected residents, as it may be several months before the
Circulation Element is adopted by City Council.
1
4
2. Remove all truck route signs and/or revoke Resolution No.
86-4999. This alternative would prohibit any citations to
trucks using any street (including residential) for through
truck traffic, as we have not provided truckers with a
"legal" alternative. We are unable to enforce any "truck
route" violations, without first formally establishing a
"Truck Route".
3. Return to the existing "pre -Resolution No. 86-4955"
condition. Here, again, we would be unable to enforce any
truck route violations for the reasons described in
Alternative 2, above.
Respectfully Submitted,
Brian Gengler
Assistant Engineer
Concur:
Alana Mastrian
City Manager
BG:cc
Attachments: Exhibit A
Resolution No. 88-
2
Concur:
Ant`'ony Antich
Director of Public Works
Steve Wisniewski
Public Safety Director
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 88-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH TO
ADD VALLEY DRIVE (SOUTHBOUND ONLY) FROM PIER AVENUE TO HERONDO
STREET TO THE TRUCK ROUTE ESTABLISHED IN RESOLUTION NO. 86-4999
WHEREAS, Section 19-109 of the Municipal Code states that
City Council shall establish truck routes by resolution.
WHEREAS, Hermosa Beach City Council Resolution No. 86-4999
established "Truck Routes" for the City of Hermosa Beach.
NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach
does hereby resolve as follows:
SECTION 1.
SECTION 2.
Valley Drive from Pier Avenue to Herondo
Street shall be added as a one-way (south)
truck route to the truck routes established
by Resolution No. 86-4999.
The attached "Attachment I" shall constitute
the "Truck Routes" for the City of Hermosa
Beach. Those streets not designated in Attach-
ment I shall not be considered a part of the
approved truck routes. Vehicles in excess of
three gross tons travellingon these streets,
including Valley Drive., north of Pier Avenue
Ardmore, Manhattan, Hermosa Avenues and Second
Street may be cited by the Hermosa Beach Police
Department, except as noted in Article 5, Section
19-109 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of January, 1988.
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the
City of Hermosa Beach, California
, CITY CLERK
, CITY ATTORNEY
EXISTING CONDITION
per Resolution No. 86-4999
• t
•.$ •
•
$
•• .. •
CITY ' • " ' "OF
I-IERMOSA. BEACH'
-•
CAILIMFORNEA.
• • -"Attachment 1 .
• .::
4.
".•
. .4
*
• ---r• •rir
. •
I .\
41
•
MVO* I*
• -2•
*awe or •••••• **m...m.nimar.a.om•••••••
EXHIBIT.A ••I1
:* .• • o* • • • •$•$.7 v.v. ,..
. .—
' ' —. ,--. --. ---tr
• • 2
-- . ‘:\
......4 44 pi
e
. . p
•8•
SCALE: I INCH•aoo FEET
, • s•
• 1" .
• •
PACIAC 004.7 Nwy
kat
• •
1
• •
... •
• •
•
/ .0.0111 • .•
"••:*
rt /j,
- -* •
• fr'LP
• •
••••
AY
i'/ 1 '
,
// l;
a
"'"4
,
.•••.• 24/7.7.3
1
1
trr 112:1•3-1.n1
• )
..........
; ' •
,
't
---1( - •
. 7 , ..• • • ,
./r.
Ij-
. .
•
— 14•
gilai,itt..._:-..41166“"'k • 11' d ati
-ill 11 1. 1 A.
iL c--
4.
II* tir • I • ••
• :.•
..• • • I I
*441: • 11
••
' ,. op • • ......
p .1 I
Li
;./ 18
.... •- 4 : / ' ;
.,.. e .1 ' • 1
'•
,,
!. li I., . ,.
I. .
41 •-$./
/ ....--"--, •
-I
.„ 1,
• 11••-•.,,te,r......„. ,4, L.....
--;; . ,
•• .••• -, 144. 1
iti : •12I4.- •.4,
Jt.. - • ) r -...
I
, t g
...), ; /
....—
,• .....1 - 1
i i [...j . 1
rl ii. • -
!•./ lor • 1
f‘ ..1**. •
tt
• .
•••
•
• ' :Alitutir oaf
, •
• • .t,1;14L;‘,••
•••
••••• ••••••.*
•
I
•11
• .
• V
as *goo.
r---1
. '1..T.:•••••• littg Ego
01...7%. • • ••• • • • •
••: • • •
•
, •41—. x ••••.: v.:. 4.4
•
• -h
•••••
• L•••••••••••••••'•4-..-"•1
•••=7:: t -z•—•
• '"••••••• •••"•• ""”' • •••••
' left •• • . ...... • --------,- .....--- - - ---3L
. ..
. , . - f... . . :. :„.,, ; - - - - - - - . ...• - - -, - - - . . l C. ------L----7
1.RE441-L41.;;Akitii.t. A....:.11 1L4011L-P--it 7L-1-111--E•ga rE27-----.
Ref at .7 - . _ .r.-.7.-----) 1._J 11 --------..-IL.,
iv :. • • 7 3 ; v 1 •-•-•,--,
:.
t, : 1: • • :. 8 . • , .. , i i .81 I. si t -,8••• ,....aw
- '''1•. --"?-%*-1"=$:". 4"-----e1T-r- .C......._..'1-- 1---! ....1,-1...— ..---:-.4....
111
1•
2
0
0
4
J4
0w
2
u u
2
4
• 0
E
a
a
• i • a
••,r:•• t , ..y:v...,..,••••• • .8.I ••$-' %.• • • •
.41S ••• • Imbe•mao. • •• ••••••• • .••••••• ••• •••••••• • • • ••• •••••••••111. alm••••• •••••••••••••••=•••=01••••••••• ••.••••••••••••• ••••.•
•.•••••••••••••••• •• • .• • •• •••. ••••
l• *fit • • *L. katiti 4•4*.iit.4•24:1:414:4M/4 1.3.4.•‘0.1141.114SULtetaia.i.t. 14 all • :••
OS1
r,
January 20, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting
of the City Council of January 26, 1988
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Recommendation
It is recommended that City Council review the attached list of
prioritized goals, submit any new goals you may want to pursue,
and direct the New City Manager to develop a plan of action for
achieving the high priority goals.
Background
Over the past year City Council has attempted to establish and
prioritize goals for the City. At the August 25, 1987 Council
meeting, the City Council was given the attached list of goals
prioritizedper their priority rating.
The High Priority Goals were those in which at least 3 council -
members ranked the matter #1.
Analysis
Since the attached list of prioritized goals was established the
City has gained two new councilpersons, and a City Manager
will begin shortly. In view of those two developments I have
recommended the entire Council review the prioritized goals and
submit a new list of goals you may wish to pursue. It would be
very helpful if each Council person would submit those goals in
writing within the next two weeks. I will then present the en-
tire list to the new City Manager for further action.
Respectfully submitted,
th2,
Alana .M. Mastrian
Acting City Manager
AMM/ ld
Attachment
NO. GOAL
HIGH PRIORITY
1. Improve Financial Picture
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
CITY COUNCIL GOALS FOR 1987
RESPONSIBLE SECONDARY
AGENT AGENTS
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY
JAC TDB JR ES JW
City Manager Asst. City Manager
Finance Administrator 1 1 1 1 1
2. Enforce Laws Firmly and Fairly Public Safety Dir. City Manager
Gen. Svcs. Dir. Asst. City Manager 1 2 1 1 1
3. Positive City Image
City Council Executive Staff
City Manager
4. Growth Management/Density Reduction Planning Director Building Director 1 2 1 1 1
5. Efficiency of City Operations
City Manager Asst. City Mgr. 1 2 1 2 1
6. Zone All Parcels Planning Director City Attorney 2 3 1 1
7. Bootleg Program - Enforcement/
Abatement Ordinance Building Director
1 1 3 1 3
8. Review "In -Lieu" Parking Fees
Planning Director Gen. Svcs. Director 3 3 1 1 1
9. Reduce Liability Risk
Personnel Adm. Asst. City Manager 2 2 1 1 1
1
10. Enhance Building Inspection
Capability/Quality Building Director City Manager 2 1 2 1 1
11. Commercial (Hospital) Property on PCH,
Maintenance, Highest and Best Use
City Manager Planning Director 1 1 2 1 3
12. Create Economic Development Strategy
City Manager Asst. City Manager
Executive Staff
1 1 2 1 3
MEDIUM PRIORITY
13. Improve Parks and Recreation Programs
Comm. Resources City Manager
2 2 2 1 3
14. CUP's - Alcohol Planning Director. City Attorney 2 2 2 1 1
15. Cooperate with School District
City Manager Asst. City Manager 2 3 2 2
16. Staff address Citizen Written
complaints prior to items being sent
to City Council
City Manager City Clerk
2 3 2 2 1
17. Closer Communication with
Planning Commission Planning Director City Manager
City Attorney
18. Increase Employee Accountability
City Manager Asst. City Manager 2 3 2 2 1
19. Improve Communication between City
Manager and City Council
City Council Asst. City Manager
City Manager
2 2 2 3
2
20. Increase Enforcement of Abandoned
Property
Building Director Public Safety Director 2 2 3 2
21. Investigate Contracting out
City Services Pub. Wks. Director Asst. City Manager 2 3 2 2 3
LOW PRIORITY
22. Remove Parking on Pacific Coast Hwy.
Pub. Wks. Dir. Planning Director 3 1 3 2 3
23. Limit Council Meetings
City Council Asst. City Manager 2 3 2 3 3
24. Investigate "Charter City"
City Manager City Attorney
Asst. City Manager
3 2 3 3 3
NO PRIORITY CONCENSUS
25. Gavel to Gavel TV Coverage -
City Council - Planning Commission
Gen. Svcs. Dir. Pub. Wks. Dir.
Comm. Resources
3 2
26. Legislative Effectiveness
City Manager Asst. City Mgr. 2 3 1 1
27. Improve Parking Supply
Gen. Svcs. Dir. Planning Director 1 .2 3 1 3
28. Encourage Commercial Vacant Land
City Manager Planning Director 1 2 2 1 3
29. Use Workshop Format
City Manager Asst. City Manager 2 3 3 2 1
30. Increase Acquisition of Park Lands City Manager
Asst. City Manager 2 2 1 1 3
31. Investigate locating Building, Plan-
ning & Public Works together City Manager
Pub. Wks. Director
Building Director
Planning Director 2 3 2 1 1
32. Review Settlement Policy - Civil Cases Pers.Administrator Asst. City Manager 2 3 3 2 1
33. Direct Access to City Attorney - Staff
bring to Council Administrative Policy
re. Public Access to City Attorney
City Attorney
City Manager
3 3 2 1 1
34. Ordinance Amendment that requires
"Owner of Record" Building Director Planning Director 3 2 ? 1
35. Performance vs. Prescriptive Standards City Manager.
Personnel Administrator 2 1 2 3 ?
36. "Clean or Lien" Sidewalk Regulations -
Administrative Policy, Abandoned ✓
Vehicles Gen. Svcs. Dir. Pub. Wks. Director 3 1 2 2 1
37. Increase use of Visual Aids at
City Council Meetings Asst. City Manager City Manager 3 2 1 1 3
38. Administrative Procedures Check List Asst. City Manager City Manager 2 3 1 2 1
39. Full Time Downtown Foot Patrol -
Consistent and Effective (Directed
Patrol Activity)
Public Safety Dir. City Manager
1 2 2. 1 ?
40. Effective Property Maintenance Program Pub. Wks. irector Asst. City Manager 2 1 3 2 1
January 20, 1988
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of
Hermosa Beach City Council January 26, 1988
Future Planning Commission/City Council Subcommitee Meeting
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following
actions:
1. Discuss items the City Council would like to discuss at
a future Planning Commission/City Council Subcomittee
Meeting.
2. Schedule 3 tentative dates for the subcommitee meeting
to allow Subcommittee Members to select a mutually
acceptable date.
Background/Discussion
The Planning Commission, at their meeting of January 19, 1988,
listed the following items to be discussed at the Subcommittee
Meeting.
Priority 1
1. Open space for small R-1 lots.
2. Study the 17' setback (off alleys and small alleys)
3. Development of alternative zoning classifications
(e.g. R-2 and -R -2B zones)
4. Downtown area
a. Economic development/computer demographics
b. parking lot/streetscape
c. CBD (Central Business District)/General fund
monies for advanced planning
Priority 2
1. Parking structure
2. Extension of the Vehicle Parking District
3. Alcohol Conditional Use Permits
- saturation
- amortization
9b
Priority 3
1. Circulation analysis for General Plan
2. Design Review Board
CONCUR :r ,
/ /
Michael Schubach
Planning Director
Alana Mastrian
Acting City Manager
Respectfully_ubmitted,
Andrew" Per a
Associate lanner
CITY MANAGER NOTE:
It is recommended that City Council schedule 3 dates to follow
arrival of new City Manager on February 22.
BALLOT MEASURE TWO UNIT LIMIT IN R-2 ZONES
Shall Ordinance No. 88- , an Ordinance of the City of
Hermosa Beach submitted to the voters by the City Council,
be adopted which amends Article 5. R-2 TWO-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL ZONE to read as follows:
Sec. 500. Permitted uses.
In an R-2 zone only the following uses that are
hereinafter specifically provided and allowed are permitted,
subject to the provisions of Article 11.5 governing
off-street parking requirements:
(1) Any use permitted in the R-1 (One -Family) Residential
Zone.
(2) A single two-family dwelling, provided that detached
one -family dwellings will be allowed if one existed on
the lot on the effective date of this ordinance,
provided all yard requirements are conformed to.
(3) Condominium developments consistent with the
provisions of Section 2 above, imposing the same 2
Unit per lot.
•
..-, :�_� .�-..tea-
HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE § 500
The distance between any buildings used for hum
bitation shall be not less than eight (8) feet. • e
dis ce between a main building and an acc = - sory
buil • • _ shall be not less than six (6) feet.
(4) No buil • ' gs may be erected over = • easement
• dedicated f • public or utility uses ex • - pt over those
easements of r ord granted to W = n Gillelen.
(5) No accessory bu ing may b : ocated closer than
three (3) feet to any -'de or ar property line. (Ord.
No. N.S. 507, § 1, 5-27- ")
Sec. 406. Open space.
There shall be ami '.•• um of four • dred (400) square
feet of usable open • ace with a minim •• dimension of ten ,
(10) feet. A porti • of this open space ma • e provided in
balconies or d - with a minimum dimensio of ten (10)
feet. (Ord. •. N.S. 507, § 1, 5-27-75)
Sec. 4 . Sign regulations.
signs in the R-1 zone shall conform to t
quirements and regulations of the Hermosa Beach City
Code. (Ord. No. N.S. 507, § 1, 5-27-75)
ARTICLE 5. R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
ZONE (R-2 ZONE)*
Sec. 500. Permitted uses.
In an R-2 zone only the following uses that are
hereinafter specifically provided and allowed are permitted,
subject to the provisions of Article 11.5 governing off-street
parking requirements:
•Editor's note—Section 1 of Ord. No. 79-617. adopted Sept. 11. 1979,
_effected a total revision of Art. 5. Prior to enactment of said ordinance
former Art. 5 pertained to similar subject .matter and was derived from -- -
Ord. No. N.S. 154; Ord. No. N.S. 234. § 3. 2-6-62; Ord. No. N.S. 284. § 1.
5-18-65; and Ord No. N.S. 287. § 3. 9-7-65. •
Supp. No. 7,80
§ 501 APPENDIX A—ZONING § 501
Mot
(1) Any use permitted in the R-1. (One -Family) Residen-
tial Zone.
(2): A single two-family dwelling,provided that detached 1j •
one -family dwellings will be allowed if one existed on ,I
' .the lot on the effective date of this ordinance, provided
all yard requirements are conformed to. n .
(3) Condominium developments consistent with the provi-
sionsc ...the/c nd�mig�pium Ordinan oft Cityof —
(4) Conditional es as set forth C/in Article 10 of this
ordinance. (Ord. No. 79-617, § 1, 9-11-79; Ord. No.
80-638, 5-13-80)
Cross reference—Condominiums. Ch. 9.5.
Sec. 501. Development standards.
(a) Building height. No building shall exceed two
stories or thirty (30) feet, whichever is lesser. , •
(b) Front yard. Every lot shall have a front yard setback
equal to at least five (5) feet unless a greater than five-foot
setback is indicated on the official zoning map of the city, in
which case, the larger figure shall apply.
(c) Side yards. Every lot shall have a side yard on each
side of the lot equal to ten (10) percent of the width of the
lot, with a minimum width of three (3) feet.
(d) Rear yard. Every lot shall have a rear yard not less
than five (5) feet in depth. The second floor can be three (3)
• feet from the property line. On any alley the rear yard'
requirement is a depth of three (3) feet from the property
line on.the first floor and one (1) foot from the property line
on the second floor.
(e) Additional yard regulations. R-2 zones shall be subject
to additional yard regulations as provided in Article 12 of •
- this ordinance. -..•_. • • - - _ 7-
•
(f) Residential- Planned. Development- (RPD -2): Upon-
application
ponapplication any property owner may cause a change of land
_ use to RPD -2 whereupon the planning commission may,
Supp. No. 7-80
• 477