HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/08/90Honorable Mayor and Members of
April 25, 1990
Regular Meeting of
the Hermosa Beach City Council May 8, 1990
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PROGRAM OF VOLUNTARY WATER CONSERVATION
TO REDUCE WATER CONSUMPTION BY TEN PERCENT
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 90- , adopting a program of voluntary
water conservation to reduce water consumption by ten (10)
percent.
Background:
At the July 26, 1988 meeting, City Council adopted Resolution No.
88-5168 which adopted a program of voluntary water conservation.
California was then in its second year of severe drought.
Analysis:
California is now in its fourth year of severe drought. The
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is requesting
that all member agencies institute a voluntary 10 percent (phase
I) cut back in water usage during the summer of 1990. The
Metropolitan Water District is also asking for their member
cities to prepare for Phase II and Phase III emergency water
conservation ordinances. The Metropolitan Water District
anticipates that member agencies will have to go to Phase II
during 1991 if the drought continues next winter. That program
is attached to this report.. Therefore ordinances will need to be
prepared to implement Phases II and III of the Emergency Water
Conservation Measures.
California Water Service regularly notifies its customers to
conserve water. In. addition, they provide water conservation
kits upon request. Notice to residents of Hermosa Beach will
also be provided via Channel 3. Two videos are scheduled for
broadcast each Thursday during May: Waterquest, a history of
water in California produced by Water Education Foundation and
Waterwise Gardening, beautiful gardens with less water, produced
by Sunset. Both videos were reviewed by the Public Works
Department and are informative.
Respe tfully submitted:
Ilii!�
Antho' y Aniich Kevin B. NortJicraft
Concur:
Director of Publi Works
City Manager
Attachments: Resolution.
Water Conservation Program
CITY MANAGER COMMENT:
Staff will review the City's.landscaping irrigation volume and timing
schedules, as this use is a very large consumer of water.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA.
BEACH, CALIFORNIA REQUESTING AND ENCOURAGING WATER CONSERVATION
PRACTICES BY ALL WATER USERS IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
WHEREAS, the Southern California area in in the fourth
consecutive year of a drought; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Water District has declared a
water shortage in its service area, which includes the City of
Hermosa Beach, and has urged its member agencies to voluntarily
reduce water consumption 10 percent; and
WHEREAS, all member agencies and cities served by the
Metropolitan Water District have been requested to adopt a
voluntary drought resolution; and
WHEREAS, failure to meet the 10 percent reduction may
result in mandatory reductions at greater levels later in the
summer.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and City
Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California declares that a
water shortage exists and encourages all water users to reduce
water usage by at least 10 percent.
The following activities are hereby
period of voluntary conservation:
discouraged during this
1. Use of a hose to wash walkways, driveways, parking
areas, and other hard surfaces;
2. Cleaning, filling, or refilling non -recirculating
decorative fountains;
3. Serving water to restaurant customers unless
expressly requested;
4. Water lawns and landscape areas between 10 a.m. and
.4 p.m.; and
5. Allowing leaks to continue without repairs.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
City of Hermosa Beach water users are further urged to
consider the installation of water efficient plumbing fixtures
and the use of drought tolerant landscaping when possible.
Passed, approved and adopted this day of
1990.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED TO FORM:
(ILL AZ.ze
City Attorney
pwclerk/reswater
Mayor
MEASURES NORMALLY INCLUDED IN
EMERGENCY WATER CONSERVATION ORDINANCES
PHASE I 10% SHORTAGE
Phase I is normally a voluntary program that calls for the
following measures:
1. No hosing of hard surfaces, except for sanitary
requirements.
2. Restrictions on non -recirculating decorative
fountains and other aesthetic uses.
3. Serving of water in restaurants only on request.
4. All leaks to be promptly repaired.
5. Residential and governmental outdoor irrigation
restricted to non -peak water using hours (e.g.
4 p.m. to 10 a.m.).
PHASE II 10-20% SHORTAGE
Phase II is normally a mandatory program which includes all of
the measures implemented during Phase I, plus -the following:
1. Residential and governmental exterior irrigation
further curtailed. In most cases, irrigation would
be limited to every other day, every third day, or
less, and watering hour further restricted from
phase I (e.g. 4 p.m. to 10 a.m.) to phase II (e.g. 8
p.m. to 6 a.m.).
2. Washing of cars only with hoses with shut-off valve,
or commercial car washes with recycling systems.
3. Pricing structures modified to encourage compliance
with water use restrictions, and to increase water
utility revenues lost because of lower sales.
PHASE III 20% SHORTAGE AND ABOVE
Phase III normally includes the measures in Phases I and II plus
the following:
1. Water use allotments based on previous year use,
with _reductions determined by severity of shortage.
Penalties include flow restrictors at meter,
increasing block rate fines, and cut-off of service
for flagrant violators.
2. No residential outdoorirrigation, except by bucket.
Restrictions on irrigation for water -dependent
industries (nurseries, golf courses, etc.), similar
to Phase II residential restrictions. Often these
industries are required to pay heavy surcharges for
water use.
3. No use of water from fire hydrants, except for
health and safety reasons, and municipal water
service (street cleaning, etc.) would be severely
restricted.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, April 24, 1990, at
the hour of 7:32 P.M.
CLOSED SESSION - held at 7:05 P.M. pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956(a) regarding potential litigation: Sullivan vs Her-
mosa Beach; and pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
regarding Real Property Negotiations on surplus property at South
School and Prospect Heights; adjournment at 7:27 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Bob Blackwood, Director of Personnel
ROLL CALL:
Present: Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton
Absent: None
ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Creighton announced that the meeting would
be adjourned in memory of Barbara Fleming, former
Hermosa Beach City Clerk.
PROCLAMATIONS: Older Americans Month, May, 1990
Mary Rooney read the proclamation and Mayor
Creighton presented the proclamation to Bessie
Nelson, President of the Hermosa Beach Senior
Citizen's Club.
INTRODUCTION OF MARY ROONEY, NEWLY APPOINTED COMMUNITY RESOURCES
DIRECTOR: The City Manager introduced Director Mary Rooney.
SPECIAL MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT
The City Manager announced a Special Meeting for Thursday, May 3,
1990, commencing at 6:00 P.M. for: a study session with the Con-
sultant for sewer financing analysis; a discussion of prosecution
of controlled substance violations; and a discussion of the in-
cidence of gang activity in Hermosa Beach. Noting the conflict
of the date for Councilmember Essertier, and possible conflict
for Councilmember Sheldon, the decision was to reschedule if only
three members could attend and to go ahead if there could be four
members in attendance.
CONSIDERATION OF HOLDING OVER CERTAIN ITEMS
The City Manager recommended holding over Agenda item 9 until the
May 8, 1990 meeting.
Hearing no objections, Mayor Creighton so ordered that Agenda
item 9 be held over to the May 8, 1990 meeting.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Howard Longacre - 1221 Seventh Place
Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street.
Jim Lissner - 2715 El Oeste
1. CONSENT CALENDAR:
Action: To approve the Consent Calendar recommendations
(a) through (p) with the exception of the following
items which were pulled for discussion but are listed in
order for clarity: (f) Midstokke, Sheldon, Mayor
Creighton; (g) Midstokke; (h) Wiemans; (i) Essertier,
Wiemans; and (m) Essertier, Wiemans.
Motion Mayor Creighton, second Midstokke. So ordered.
(a) Recommendation to approve the following minutes::``:;:.
1) Regular meeting of the City Council held on -March
27, 1990;
2) Regular meeting of the City Council held on April
10, 1990.
(b)
Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants
No. 33047, Nos. 33143 through 33151 inclusive; and Nos.
33153 through 33302 inclusive, noting voided warrants -
Nos. 33153 through 33155 inclusive, No. 33182, 33197,
33209, and 33221.
(c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future
Agenda Items.
(d) Recommendation to receive'and file the March, 1990
financial reports:
1) Revenue and expenditure report;
2) City Treasurer's report.
(e)
(f)
Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map
#20210 for a two -unit condominium located at 514 Hermosa
Avenue. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael
Schubach dated April 11, 1990.
Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5354, entitled, ',A
RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #20210
FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 514 HERMO-
SA AVENUE., HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA.
Recommendation to authorize purchase of a 1990 Nissan
pick-up truck for the Building and Safety Department.
Memorandum from Building Director William Grove dated
March 28, 1990. (Continued from 4/10/90 meeting.)
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by
Councilmembers Midstokke and Sheldon, and by Mayor
Creighton for separate discussion later in the meeting.
Action; To reject the bid and place this item in the
next budget.
Motion Mayor Creighton, second Midstokke. So ordered,
noting the objections of Essertier and Wiemans.
(g)
(h)
(i)
Recommendation to receive and file report on charges to
the Street Lighting and Crossing Guard Assessment Dis-
tricts. (Requested at 3/27/90 meeting)) Memorandum
from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated April 2, 1990.
(Continued from 4/10/90 meeting.)
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by
Councilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later
in the meeting.
Action: To change the policy so that Administrative fees
are not charged to the assessment districts, but to the
General Fund.
Motion Midstokke,•second Mayor Creighton.
Ayes: Midstokke, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton
Noes: Essertier, Sheldon
Recommendation to approve request for use of Community
Center front lawn for Christmas tree lot during the
holiday season. Memorandum from Community Resources
Director Mary Rooney dated April 2, 1990. (Continued
from 4/10/90 meeting.)
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by
Councilmember Wiemans for separate discussion later in
the meeting.
Addressing the Council on this item was Jerry Compton of
the Kiwanis Club, who said that his organization would
willingly share the work and the profits with other non-
profit organizations.
Action: To approve the recommendation for a single year
only.
Motion Wiemans, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered.
Recommendation to approve Beach Baseball Over the Line
Pro and Community Tournaments. Memorandum from Communi-
ty Resources Director. Mary Rooney dated April 2, 1990.
(Continued from 4/10/90 meeting.)
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by
Councilmembers Essertier and Wiemans for separate
discussion later in the meeting.
A staff report was given by Director Mary Rooney, who
offered to introduce Russ Johnson of Over the Line.
Copies of a Daily Breeze article were submitted by
Howard Longacre - 1221 Seventh Place.
Action: To move on the item and not hear other speakers.
Motion Midstokke, Second Essertier. So ordered
(j)
(k)
(1)
(m)
(n)
(o)
(P)
Action: To deny the recommendation.
Motion Midstokke, second Wiemans. So ordered, noting
the objection of Sheldon
Recommendation to approve specifications for CIP 89-518,
Playground Equipment and authorize staff to advertise
for bids on this project.- Memorandum from Public Works
Director Anthony Antich dated April 2, 1990.
Recommendation to accept as complete, Highland Avenue
widening, CIP 85-102. Memorandum from Public Works
Director Anthony Antich dated April 12, 1990.
Recommendation to accept as complete, work performed by
Moffatt & Nichol for pier repairs. Memorandum from
Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 16,
1990.
Recommendation to approve report for proposals for con-
sultant services to prepare a records management system.
Memorandum from Acting General Services Director Henry
L. Staten dated April 10, 1990.
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by
Councilmembers Essertier and Wiemans for separate
discussion later in the meeting.
Action: To deny the recommendation and direct staff to
do an in-house inventory and retention schedule, and to
reappropriate the money in the next budget year after a
new General Services Director is hired.
Motion Mayor Creighton, Second Essertier. So ordered,
noting the objection of Sheldon.
Recommendation to approve memorandum proposal (on behalf
of the City of Hermosa Beach) to the Office of Traffic
Safety in order to obtain grant funding for a project to
identify high accident locations and to study neighbor-
hood traffic intrusion. Memorandum from Public Works
Director Anthony Antich dated April 12, 1990.
Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map
#19790 for a four -unit condominium located at 1419-1423
Manhattan Avenue. Memorandum from Planning Director
Michael Schubach dated April 16, 1990.
Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5355, entitled, "A
RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #19790
FOR A FOUR -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1415 MAN-
HATTAN AVENUE, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA."
Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map
#19969 for a two -unit condominium located at 918 Seventh
Street. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael
Schubach dated April 16, 1990.
4
Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5356, entitled, 'IA
RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #19919
FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 918
SEVENTH STREET, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA."
2. CONSENT ORDINANCES.
(a) .ORDINANCE NO. 90-1026 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A PRECISE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW PROCESS FOR ALL PROPOSED COMMER-
CIAL AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENTS, AND FOR ALL PRO-
POSED RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS OF TWO DWELLING UNITS OR
GREATER AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLA-
RATION. For adoption.
Two supplemental items were submitted: 1) letter from
David Greenwood, dated April 23, 1990, and 2) staff let-
ter from William Grove, Director of Building and Safety,
dated April 23, 1990.
Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 90-1026.
Motion Midstokke, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered,
noting the objections of Sheldon and Mayor Creighton.
3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE
DISCUSSION.
Items (f), (g), (h), (i), and (m) were discussed at this
time but are listed in order for clarity.
• 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS.
(a)
(b)
Letter from Project Touch, 1736 Family Crisis Center,
South Bay Free Clinic, South Bay Juvenile Diversion,
dated March 20, 1990, regarding C.D.B.G. funding to non-
profit organizations. (Request by Councilman Sheldon to
agendize.) Continued from 4/10/90 meeting.
Supplemental letter from Carol Adelkoff of 1736 Family_
Crisis Center.
Addressing the. Council on this item were:
Dan Smith of South Bay Juvenile Diversion
Tom Skinner of South Bay Free Clinic
Julie Dorr-Feys of Project Touch
Sheryl Hartzell, 439 24th Street
Wilma 'Burt, 1152 Seventh Street
Action: To receive and file.
Motion Midstokke, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered.
Letter from June Williams,. 2065 Manhattan Avenue, dated
March 22, 1990, with supplemental letter dated April 7,
1990, regarding the homeless. (Request by Councilmember
Midstokke to agendize.) Continued from 4/10/90 meeting.
Action: To receive and file.
Motion Midstokke, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered.
The meeting recessed at 8:58 P.M.
The meeting reconvened at 9:10 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. PROPOSED ZONE CHANGES FOR NORTHERN PORTION OF COMMERCIAL
CORRIDOR GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AS FOLLOWS OR TO SUCH
OTHER ZONES AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE CITY COUNCIL
AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated
April 16, 1990.
A. FROM C-3, R-1 & R-3 TO COMMERCIAL SPECIFIC PLAN
AREA FOR THE AREA ALONG EAST AND WEST SIDE OF
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY FROM PIER AVENUE -,TO 24TH
STREET, WITH ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION.
Councilmember Essertier declared a conflict of interest
on the item since he owns property in the subject area
and left the dais and the room.
A staff report was presented by Ken Robertson, Associate
Planner.
The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak
were:
Ray Dvorsky, 2014 Pacific Coast Hwy.
George Hash, 1843 Rhodes Street
Scott Sargent, 2008 Rhodes Street
Howard Longacre, 1221 Seventh Place
Jerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, #9
Charles Louse, 1825 Rhodes Street
An emergency recess was called to allow the City Manager to con-
fer with the Council at 9:36 P.M.
The meeting was reconvened at 9:40 P.M.
Continuing the speakers at the Public Hearing were:
Steve Sicanoff, 1851 Rhodes Street
Wilma Burt, 1152 Seventh Street
Roxanne Hash, 1843 Rhodes Street
James Cowe, 1835 Rhodes Street
Jack Andren, 521 Gentry Street, who submitted a
petition with 80 signatures.
Patty Egerer, 925 15th Street
Tom Egerer, 1736/1734 Pacific Coast Hwy.
Don Karasevich, 840 15th Street
Betty Thomas, 1954 Pacific Coast Hwy.
Betty Ryan, 588 20th Street
The Public Hearing was closed.
Action: To designate the area from 18th Street to 21st
Street as R-2 with the standard 30 -foot height limit,
and to stay with the. Planning Commission recommendation
for the Commercial Corridor areas between 14th Street
and 18th Street, and north from 21st Street; with the
understanding that the item may have to go back to the
Planning Commission for consideration iSf R-2 if it was
not addressed in their previous discussions. Motion Mid-
stokke, second Wiemans.
Ayes: Midstokke, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton
Noes: Sheldon
Councilmember Essertier returned to the dais.
B. FROM R-3 TO R-2 FOR THE AREA ON EAST OF PACIFIC
COAST HIGHWAY BETWEEN 20TH STREET AND 21ST STREET,
WITH ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION.
A staff report was presented by Associate Planner Ken
Robertson.
The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak
were:
Scott Sargent, 2008 Rhodes Street
George Hash, 1843 Rhodes Street
The Public Hearing was closed.
Proposed Action: To accept the Planning Commission
recommendation of R-2 with a thirty foot (30') height
limit.
Motion Sheldon, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered.
Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 90-1028.
Motion Sheldon, second Mayor Creighton.
AYES: Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor
Creighton
NOES: None
Further Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No.
90-1028, entitled, "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP
FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE AT-
TACHED MAPS AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION."
Motion Mayor Creighton, second Midstokke.
AYES: Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor
Creighton
NOES: None
6. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT RE. 17 FT. PARKING SETBACK AND
CONSIDERATION OF THE ELIMINATION OF SETBACK REQUIREMENT
FROM ALLEYS AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, WITH ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION. Memoran-
dum from
emorandumfrom Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April
16, 1990. Supplemental letters from John Berardo, dated
April 12, 1990, and from Gary Brutsch, dated April 23,
1990.
A staff report was presented by Planning Director
Michael Schubach.
The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak
were:
Dean Nolta, 2467 Myrtle Avenue
Tom Sedgewick, 2444 Manhattan Avenue
Jerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, #9
Howard Longacre, 1221 Seventh Place
The Public Hearing was closed.
Proposed Action: to approve the Planning Commission
recommendation without the additional parking space
requirement and including a change from 27th Street to
26th Street.
Motion Midstokke, second Essertier.
Ayes: Essertier, Midstokke, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton
Noes: Sheldon
Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 90-1029, deleting
from the title the words, "...AND TO REQUIRE AN ADDI-
TIONAL GUEST PARKING SPACE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS
OF FOUR (4) BEDROOMS OR MORE; OR WITH GREATER THAN 3000
SQUARE FEET,.."; inserting the word."approximately"
after Hermosa Avenue in the last paragraph of Section 1,
line 8; deleting Section 4; and renumbering the subse-
quent sections accordingly.
Motion Mayor Creighton, secord-Midstokke.
AYES: Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor
Creighton
NOES: None
Final Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No.
90-1029, entitled, "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE TO ELIMINATE THE 17 -FOOT PARKING REQUIREMENT
ON ALLEYS AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION."
Motion Midstokke, second Mayor Creighton.
AYES: Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor
Creighton
NOES: None
7. APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR ROBERTS
LIQUOR, 74 PIER AVENUE. Memorandum from Planning Direc-
tor Michael Schubach dated April 17, 1990. Supplemental
items included: 1) letter from Merle Fish, dated April
21, 1990, and 2) proposed resolution of intent to con-
sider a zoning ordinance to prohibit the sale of single
containers of alcohol from stores located near the
public beach, as recommended by, staff.
A staff report was presented by Michael Schubach,
Planning Director.
The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak
were:
Jerry Gallen of Roberts Liquor
Francesa Lupo Turk, 50 Tenth Street
June Williams, 2065 Manhattan Avenue
Parker Herriott, 224 24th Street
Jim Lissner, 2715 El Oeste Drive
Wes Bush of the Hermosa Beach Chamber of
Commerce
Howard Longacre, 1221 Seventh Place
Phillip No, President of the Korean American
Grocers Association of California.
S. A. Kim of Roberts Liquor
The Public Hearing was closed.
Proposed Action: To approve the staff recommendation,
with the deletion of Condition 6 of the proposed resolu-
tion amending the conditional use permit of Roberts
Liquor.
Motion Mayor Creighton, second Sheldon. Motion failed.
Ayes: Sheldon, Mayor Creighton
Noes: Essertier, Midstokke, Wiemans
Action: To approve the staff recommendation as present-
ed, thereby:
1) adopting Resolution No. 90-5357, entitled, "A
RESOLUTION AMENDING A CONDITIONAL US PERMIT ON APPEAL TO
INCLUDE A CONDITION TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OF SINGLE CON-
TAINERS OF BEER AT 74 PIER AVENUE "ROBERTS LIQUOR" AND
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 14, BLOCK. 12, TRACT 4340, HER
MOSA BEACH";, and
2) adopting Resolution NO. 90-5758, entitled, "A
RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO CONSIDER A ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OF SINGLE CONTAINERS OF
ALCOHOL FROM STORES LOCATED NEAR THE PUBLIC BEACH."
Motion Essertier, second Midstokke.
Ayes: Essertier, Midstokke, Wiemans
Noes: Sheldon, Mayor Creighton
MUNICIPAL MATTERS
8. REPORT ON COMMUNITY CENTER REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES.
Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney
dated April 2, 1990. Continued from 4/24/90 meeting.
A staff report was presented by. Community Resources
Director Mary Rooney.
Action: To receive and file.
Motion Midstokke, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered.
9. RECOMMENDATION TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO HANDBILLS AND ADVER-
TISING. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve.
Wisniewski dated April 2, 1990. Continued from 4/24/90
meeting.
To continue to the May 8, 1990 meeting. So ordered.
10. REQUEST FOR FUNDING FROM CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION FOR COMMUTER EXPRESS PARTICIPATION.
Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated
April 16, 1990.
To continue to the May 8, 1990 meeting. So ordered.
11. REQUEST FOR REDIRECTION ON PROSPECT SCHOOL HOUSE. Memo-
randum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney
dated April 16, 1990.
A staff report was presented by Community Resources
Director Mary Rooney.
Addressing the Council on this item were:
Steve Crecy, 114 Second Street
Wilma Burt, 1152 Seventh Street
Howard Longacre, 1221 Seventh Place
Jerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, #9
Action: To allocate a maximum of $14,000.00 from Parks
and Recreation Utility Tax to repair the roof and dry
rot, and to refer to the Parks and Recreation Commission
to prioritize any additional repairs or improvements of
the building.
Motion Mayor Creighton, second Midstokke. So ordered.
12. RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AND FACILITATE THE IMPLEMENTA-
TION OF A FARMERS MARKET PER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
REQUEST. Memorandum from Community Resources Director
Mary Rooney dated April 16, 1990.
A staff report was presented by Mary Rooney, Community
Resources Director.
Addressing the Council on this item were:
Howard Longacre, 1221 Seventh Place
Parker Herriott, 224 24th Street
Jim Lissner, 2715 El Oeste Drive
Action: To accept the recommendation.
Motion Mayor Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered,
noting the objections of Wiemans and Midstokke, who
wished the record to reflect that her objection was due
only to the day, since she felt that Monday would be
more successful than Friday.
13. PROPOSED NEW CHAPTER 19 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL
CODE ENTITLED, 'MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFIC"", WITH OR-
DINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION. Memorandum trom Public Works
Director Anthony Antich dated March 6, 1990.
This item was withdrawn prior to the meeting.
14. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER - None
15. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL
(a)
Report from Councilmember Midstokke on the South Bay
Sanitation District and Solid Waste Management Act of
1989 meetings held on April 18, 1990.
Action: To receive and file, since it was information
only.
Motion Midstokke, second.Mayor Creighton. So ordered.
16. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL
Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items:
(a) Request by Councilmember Midstokke for discussion of
-parking requirements for restaurants and hotels.
Action: To continue to the May 8,. 1990 meeting.
'Motion Midstokke, second Creighton. So ordered.
CITIZEN COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
`Parker Herriott, 224 24th Street
Jim Lissner, 2715 El Oeste Drive
Howard Longacre, 1221 Seventh Place
ADJOURNMENT:
The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa
Beach, California, adjourned on Wednesday, April 25, 1990, at the
hour of 12:48 A.M., in the memory of Barbara Fleming, who served
as Deputy City Clerk from 1965 to 1971, then as elected City
Clerk until her retirement in 1978; to a Special Meeting to be
held on Thursday, May 3, 1990, at the hour of 6:00 A.M.
Geaerxa-
Deputy City Clerk
CITY HALL OPERATING HOURS
MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY
OPEN 7:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M.
CLOSED FRIDAYS
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.
It is the policy of the City Council that no discussion of new
items will begin after 11:30 p.m., unless this rule is waived by
the Council. The, agendas are developed with the intent to have
all matters covered within the time allowed.
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 tomorrows challenges today.
Adopted by City Council on October 23, 1986
CITY VISION
NOTE: There is
no smoking allowed in the Council Chambers
Hermosa Beach bas the Council -Manager form of government, with a City Manager ap-
pointed by and responsible to the City Council for carrylng 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
das for meetings of the Hermosa Beach City Council.
Consent Items
A compilation of all routine matters to be acted upon by one vote; approval re-
quires a majority affirmative vote. Any Councilmember can remove an item from this
listing thereby causing that matter to be considered under the category Consent Cal-
endar items Removed For Separate Discussion.
Public Hearings
Public Hearings are held on•certain matters as required by law. The Hearings afford
the public the opportunity to appear and formally express their views regarding the
matter being heard. Additionally, letters may be filed with the City Clerk,, prior
to the Hearing.
Hearings
Hearings are held on other matters of public importance for which there is no legal
requirement to conduct an advertised Public Hearing.
Ordinances
An ordinance is a law that regulates government revenues and/or, public conduct. All
ordinances require two "readings". The first reading introduces the ordinance into
the records. At least one week later' Council• may adopt, reject or hold over the
ordinance to a subsequent meeting. Regular ordinances take effect 30 days after the
second reading. Emergency ordinances are governed by different provisions and waive
the time requirements.
Written Communications
The public, members of advisory boards/commissions or organizations may formally
communicate to or make a request of Council by letter; said letters should be filed
with the City Clerk by the Wednesday preceeding the Regular City Council meeting.
Miscellaneous Items and Reports r. 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
sidered on the agenda may do so at this time.
Parking Authority
The Parking Authority is a financially
gral part of the City government.
Vehicle Parking District No. 1
The City Council also serves as the Vehicle Parking District Commission. It's pur-
pose is to oversee the operation of certain downtown parking lots and otherwise pro-
mote public parking in the central business' district.
an urgency matter not elsewhere
"A man can't go anywhere while he's straddling a fence."
-Unknown
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, May 8, 1990 - Council Chambers, City Hall
Regular Session - 7:30 p.m.
MAYOR CITY CLERK
Roger Creighton Elaine Doerfling
MAYOR PRO TEM CITY TREASURER
Chuck Sheldon Gary L. Brutsch
COUNCILMEMBERS CITY MANAGER
Robert Essertier Kevin B. Northcraft
Kathleen Midstokke CITY ATTORNEY
Albert Wiemans Charles S. Vose
All Council meetings are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND.
Complete agenda materials are available for public inspection in
the Police Department, Public Library and the Office of the City
Clerk.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL:
PROCLAMATIONS: Water Awareness Month, May, 1990
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any items on the
Consent Calendar may do so at this time. Citizens may request to
speak during Public Hearings and items appearing under Municipal
Matters at the time the item is called. Citizen comments on
items not on the agenda but within the Council's jurisdiction
will be provided time at the end of the agenda. Please limit
comments to three minutes.
Citizens with comments regarding City management or departmental
operations are requested to submit those comments to the City
Manager.
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 noseparate
discussion of these items unless good cause is shown by
a member prior to the roll call vote. (Items removed
will be considered under Agenda Item 3.)
(a)
Recommendation to approve minutes of regular meeting of
the City Council held on April 24, 1990.
Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants
Nos. through inclusive.
(c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future
Agenda Items.
(d) Recommendation to receive and file the April, 1990
monthly investment report. Memorandum from City
Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated May 2, 1990.
(e)
(g)
(j)
(k)
Recommendation to approve Project Touch lease agreement
for rental of Room 3 at the Community Center. Memoran-
dum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated
April 26, 1990.
Recommendation to authorize lease of previously approved
fire truck and mobile data terminal system. Memorandum
from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated April
24, 1990.
Recommendation to approve request for appropriation of
additional funds to the Workers' Compensation account.
Memorandum from Risk Manager Robert Blackwood dated May
1, 1990..
Recommendation to change method of financing unemploy-
ment insurance benefits from the contribution rate (tax)
methodto the cost reimbursement method. Memorandum
from Risk Manager Robert Blackwood dated April 30, 1990.
Recommendation to adopt resolution adopting a program of
voluntary water conservation to reduce water consumption
by ten percent. Memorandum from Public Works Director
Anthony Antich dated April 25, 1990.
Recommendation to receive and file report on results of
Sixth Street storm drain cleaning. Memorandum from
Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated Apri1.30,
1990.
Recommendation to accept the donation offered by the
Community Center Foundation of a stained glass window to
be placed on the doors at the entrance to the Civic The-
atre lobby. Memorandum from Community Resources Direc-
tor Mary Rooney datedlApril 30, 1990.
Recommendation to adopt resolution for removal of curb
parking on the southsideof 16th Street west of Pacific
Coast Highway. Memorandum from Public Works Director
Anthony Antich dated April 24, 1990.
(m)
Recommendation to adopt resolution of intent for Cable
TV consumer protection standards. Memorandum from Act-
ing General Services Director Henry L. Staten dated
April 30, 1990.
Recommendation to receive and file third quarter report
for Capital Improvement Program. Memorandum from Public
Works Director Anthony Antich dated May 1, 1990.
Recommendation re. crossing guard request. Memorandum
from Acting General Services Director Henry L. Staten
dated May 1, 1990.
2. CONSENT ORDINANCES.
(a) ORDINANCE NO. 90-1028 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP FROM R-3 TO R-2 FOR THE AREA BETWEEN 20TH AND 21ST
STREETS ON THE EAST SIDE OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. For adoption.
(b) ORDINANCE NO. 90-1029 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE TO ELIMINATE THE 17 FT. PARKING REQUIREMENT ON
ALLEYS AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. For
adoption.
(c) INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES FOR ZONE CHANGE 90-1, with
memorandum from Planning Director. Michael Schubach dated
April 16, 1990.
1) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND THE ZONING
ORDINANCE TO CREATE COMMERCIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
ZONE NO. 8 IN THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATED AREA LOCATED EAST AND WEST OF PACIFIC
COAST HIGHWAY BETWEEN 14TH STREET AND 24TH PLACE,
EXCEPT FOR 18TH STREET TO 20TH STREET ON THE EAST
SIDE OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. For waiver of full
reading and introduction.
2) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE THE
AREA LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PACIFIC COAST
HIGHWAY BETWEEN 18TH STREET AND 20TH STREET FROM
R-3 MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-2 TWO-FAMILY.
RESIDENTIAL. For waiver of full reading and
introduction.
3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE
DISCUSSION.
4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M.
5A. CERTIFICATION OF OIL DRILLING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael
Schubach dated April 3, 1990. (Continued from April 10,
vim
1990 meeting.) Ne memorandu[ii from Planning Director.
Michael Schubach dated May 1, 1990.
5B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR OIL DRILLING, WITH RESOLUTION
!FOR ADOPTION. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael --"
Schubach dated April 3, 1990. (Continued from April 10,,„--
1990 meeting.) New memorandum from Planning Director /-
Michael Schubach dated May 1, 1990.
TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE FOR OIL DRILLING, WITH
ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION. Memorandum from Planning
Director Michael Schubach dated April 3, 1990.
(Continued from April 10, 1990 meeting.) New memorandum
from Planning DirectorMichael chubachd�Y May 1,61_
6. FIRST QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND/OR ZONE
CHANGES FOR GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING INCONSISTENCIES:
B.
AREA 10 (BETWEEN BARNEY COURT AND MEYER COURT, FROM
SOUTH CITY BOUNDARY TO THE REAR OF THE LOTS
FRONTING ON SECOND STREET)., GENERAL PLAN CHANGE
FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL, WITH RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION;
SE CORNER ARTESIA AND PROSPECT TO HARPER AVENUE
GENERAL PLAN CHANGE FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO HIGH
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND ZONE CHANGE FROM R -P TO
SPECIAL PLAN AREA (R-3 DENSITY, R-2 STANDARDS) THE
RESIDENTIAL PORTION, AND ZONE CHANGE FROM R -P TO
C-2 THE COMMERCIAL PORTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY,
WITH RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION AND ORDINANCE FOR
INTRODUCTION.
Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated
April 2, 1990. (Continued from April 10, 1990 meeting.)
MUNICIPAL MATTERS
7. RECOMMENDATION TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAP-
TER 3 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO HANDBILLS AND
ADVERTISING. Memorandum from Public Safety Director
Steve Wisniewski dated April 26, 1990. (Continued from
April 24, 1990 meeting.)
REQUEST FOR FUNDING FROM CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION FOR COMMUTER EXPRESS PARTICIPATION.
Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated
April 16, 1990.. (Continued from April 24, 1990
meeting.)
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS CITY MANAGER
10. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL
11. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL
Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items:
(a)
Request by Councilmember Midstokke for discussion of
parking requirements for restaurants and hotels. (Con-
tinued from April 24, 1990 meeting.)
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.
(b) Request by Councilmember Sheldon for discussion of for-
mal recycling program.
(c)
Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to dis-
cuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a
future agenda; or 3) resolution of matter by Council
action tonight.
Request by Mayor Creighton for review of Civil Service
procedures for determining testing methods.
Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to dis-
cuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a
future agenda; or 3) resolution of matter by Council
action tonight.
CITIZEN COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
Citizens wishing to address the Council on items not on
the agenda but within the Council's jurisdiction may do
so at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: THE COUNCIL HAS SCHEDULED A BUDGET STUDY SESSION FOR
THURSDAY, MAY 24, 1990 AT 6:00 P.M.
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
May 22, 1990
Mayi 2, 1990
City Council Meeting
of May 8, 1990
TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Responsible Agent
Status report on California Integrated
Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939)
Prioritizing scheduled and
unscheduled studies
Appropriation of funds for trustee
for Greenbelt Certificates of
Participation
Resolution to adopt subregional
funds (transportation)
Street Lighting District Assessment
reso. approving report & setting
public hearing
Crossing Guards District Assessment
reso. approving report & setting
public hearing
Call for bids - basketball courts
CIP 89-512
Report from Cable operator
regarding public access
Comparison of sanitary sewer
design costs
Criteria for sidewalk installation
along suggested route to school
streets
Ord. for New Chapter 19 of HBMC
re. Motor Vehicles and Traffic
Sewer financing analysis, CIP 89-407
Vehicle Parking District report
County audit of parking tickets
Building Director
Planning Director
Finance Director
Planning Director
Public Works Director
Public Works Director
Public Works Director
General Services Director
Public Works Director
Public Works Director
Public Works Director
Public Works Director
Finance Director
Finance Director
Proposed reorganization of Community
Resources Department personnel
allocation
Award of contract for audit
Appeal of P.C. denial of sign waiver
for church directory
Council requests
Consideration of a ballot measure
for density/height reductions
May 24, 1990 - 6:00 p.m.
Budget and Capital Improvement
Program study session
June 7, 1990
Second budget study session if needed
June 12, 1990
Overlay Valley/Ardmore/Prospect
agreement with County
Public Hearings
Cable TV consumer protection
standards
Crossing Guard Assessment District
Street Lighting Assessment District
June 26, 1990
CIP 88-406 Call for Bids - Sewers
Target Area 4
Power Street drainage and grading
Award construction contract for
basketball courts
Public Hearing/Budget Adoption
July 10, 1990
Public Hearing
2nd General Plan amendment
Circulation element
Personnel Director
Finance Director
Request by Mayor
Public Works Director
General Services Director
Public Works Director
Public Works Director
Public Works
Public Works
Public Works
Director
Director
Director
Planning Director
Planning Director
Biltmore site change of designation Planning Director
Park & Rec. Master Plan amendment
to open space element Planning Director
July 24, 1990
Slurry sealing, call for bids
CIP 89-170
Accept sidewalk repairs as complete
CIP 89-142
Public Works Director
Public Works Director
*****************************************************************
Upcoming Items Not Yet Calendared
Caltrans utility maintenance agrmt.
Vehicle parking on pedestrian streets
Historic Preservation Ordinance
(with Land Use Element)
New marquee proposal
Public Works Director
Public Works Director
Planning Director
Community Resources
*****************************************************************
Initiated by
Party Date
City Mgr. 2/27
City Mgr. 4/10
Air Quality Control
measures
AB939 - resource
recovery status
report
Planning Director
Building Director
•
FINANCE—SFA340
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
DEMAND LIST
PAGE 0001
/03/90
TIME 14:41:26 run v.,Ivv17v -- 1'
PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER' TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK #
# ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC EXP
2
3._
4
_. DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ _-_DATE
•
OF AMERICA 00180 001-400-1203-4201 00669 85.00 10925 ' 33304
a
8
H BANK
MAR EXP/PERSONNEL 04/25/90 PERSONNEL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 05/03/90
to
OF AMERICA 00180 001-400-4101-4317 00049 4160.00 10925 33304_
'
„
12
H BANK
MAR EXP/PERSONNEL 04/25/90 PLANNING /CONFERENCE EXPENSE $0.00 05/03/90
00180 001-400-4102-4317 00040 4160.00 10925 33304
13
1415
1e
H BANK OF AMERICA
$0.00 05/03/90
"
MAR EXP/PERSONNEL 04/25/90 PLANNING COMM /CONFERENCE EXPENSE
?Fitat�t#*it#it#�t**#*tt•�t##tit**3t�t- *it�t�t*atitetit#3tit*#at#;tit##tt•at-x jtattt•;ttr•it#ittr*itit-#*#it*at-tt $125.00 . -
10
12 ,
20
a*t „VENDOR TOTAL
- -
00289 $453.00 10495 33305
21
22
23 .,
24
H FESTIVAL OF ARTS/LAGUNA BEACH 03379 001-400-4601-4308
2'
EVENT TICKETS/COMM RES. 04/26/90 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS $0.00 05/03/90
ata*t VENDOR TOTAL at�ta**ta**rata**Fa**ta**Ea*ta**ta******ta**ta*rata**t#atatat##at#a*tatatatatatatatata****tatata*t $453.00 -_:_---_:__._--_
28
27
228
001-400-2101-4312 01230 8117.00 11404 33303
3
31
3
H PROLAW '90 03378
$0.00 05/03/90
3
— TUITION/M. LAVIN 04/23/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST
******* $117.00
3
3e
*** VENDOR- TOTAL a tat****************************ata*tent********stat**************-tta
00393 $89,932.70 33152
37
3C
4(
H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 001-400-1213-4180
05/03/90
b1
RETIREMENT/MARCH 1990 04/19/90 RETIREMENT /RETIREMENT $0.00
00026 001-400-1213-4180 00394 $16,237.83CR 33152
42
4:
44
H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS.
$0.00 05/03/90
"e
RETIREMENT/MARCH 1990 04/19/90 RETIREMENT /RETIREMENT
SYS. 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00395 $60,655.35CR 33152
40
471
4e
H -PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT
RETIREMENT/MARCH 1990 04/19/90 RETIREMENT /RETIREMENT $0.00 05/03/90
00026 001-400-1213-4180 00396 $7,164.57CR 33152
"
"30
91`
12
H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS.
— — — - — -- -- -- — $O. 00 05/03/90 63
RETIREMENT/MARCH 1990 04/19/90 RETIREMENT /RETIREMENT "
• 72
00397 $71,750.79 33307 Be
H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 001-400-1213-4180 7
551
RETIREMENT ADV/APR 90 05/02/90 RETIREMENT /RETIREMENT $0.00 05/03/90
Ba
00026 105-400-2601-4180 00124 $875.03 33152 80
H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS.
RETIREMENT/MARCH 1990 04/19/9.0 STREET LIGHTING /RETIREMENT $0.00 05/03/90• 87
02
87
00125 $36.10 33152 44
It H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 110-400-3301-4180
05/03/90 °"
68
RETIREMENT/MARCH 1990 04/19/90 VEH PKG DIST /RETIREMENT $0.00
EF
71
i - 72
1 7.1
74
'9
h 21,
■
J
•
1)
J
•
G
7.
FINANCE—SFA340
TIME 14:41:26
PAY VENDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP
.7
I•
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
DEMAND LIST
FOR 05/08/90
PAGE 0002
DATE 05/03/90
VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK #
H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS.
RETIREMENT/MARCH 1990
H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SY
RETIREMENT/MARCH 1990
00026 110-400-3302-4180 00125 *5.245.46
04/19/90 PARKING ENF /RETIREMENT
5. 00026 145-400-3401-4180 00098 $202.07
H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS.
RETIREMENT/MARCH 1990 04/19/90 ESEA
04/19/90 DIAL A RIDE /RETIREMENT
00026 145-400-3402-4180 00098 $73.84
H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS.
RETIREMENT/MARCH 1990
H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS.
RETIREMENT/MARCH 1990
1�
3
8
7
33152 .6
$0.00 05/03/90 s
/RETIREMENT
00026 145-400-3403-4180 00043 $15.96
04/19/90 BUS PASS SUBSDY /RETIREMENT
00026 155-400-2102-4180 00096 $96.48
04/19/90
_: PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS.
RETIREMENT/MARCH 1990
CROSSING GUARD /RETIREMENT
00026 160-400-3102-4180 00123 $1,002.62
04/19/90 SEWER/ST DRAIN /RETIREMENT
H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS.
RETIREMENT/MARCH 1990
PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS.
RETIREMENT/MARCH 1990
00026 705-400-1209-4180 00047 5132.28
10
.__.33152 12
$0.00 05/03/90 "
14
15
18
33152 __
$0.00 05/03/90
33152
$0.00 05/03/90
33152
$0.00 05/03/90
33152 __.
$0.00 05/03/90
04/19/90 LIABILITY INS /RETIREMENT
00026 705-400-1217-4180 00047 $195.71
04/19/90 WORKERS COMP /RETIREMENT
### VENDOR TOTAL *******************************************************************
33152
$0.00 05/03/90
$85,501.29
*** PAY CODE TOTAL ******•****•*******************•************* *********************** $86,196.29
$0.00 05/03/90
R AMERICAN EAGLE
03118 001-400-4601-4201 00565 $329.00
10490 33312
BUS SERV/SENIOR TRIP
04/16/90 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT
*** VENDOR TOTAL********************************************************************
$329.00
R AMERICAN STYLE FOODS
MISC. CHARGES/APRIL 90
00857 001-400-2101-4306
04/30/90 POLICE
00792 5135.75
/PRISONER MAINTENANCE
*** VENDOR TOTAL********************************************************************
$135.75
$0.00 05/03/90
00043 33313
$0.00 05/03/90
R ASPA INSURANCE PLANS 02218 001-400-1212-4188 01729 538.34 075050500464 10923 33314
DISAD. INS/NORHCRAFT/JUN 00464 04/24/90 EMP DENEFITS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 05/03/90
10
2%
Z3
24
25
26
27
26
29
110
31
32
34
3'
313
37
33
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
40
41
50
51
52
53
55
56
57
56
59
6t:
61
62
R3
84
65
66
87
C11
73
71
72
73
74
75
76/
•10
I
FINANCE-SFA340
TIME 14:41:26
PAY VENDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
DEMAND LIST PAGE 0003
FOR 05/08/90 DATE 05/03/90
VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK #
DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT.UNENC ,DATE EXP
*** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $38.34.
AURELI FLAG & BANNER
FLAGS/HERMOSA AVENUE 19496 04/24/90 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $2,289.79 05/03/90
01497 001-400-3103-4309 00985 $2,289.79 19496 .11124 33315
*4*
VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $2, 289. 79
R BEACH CITIES SYMPHONY ASSOC 01717 001-400-4601-4201 00566 $250.00
CONTRACT PMT/FY 89-90 03/08/90 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT
*** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** *250.00
10448 . 33316 '
*0. 00 05/03/90
2
3
7
9
l0
11
'5
19
..1
22
23 •••••
"Or
.40
BERIAN PRINTING SERVICE, INC. 02664 001-400-2201-4305 00351 *37.36 08928 08398 33317
BUS. CARDS/J. CLAWSON 08928 04/20/90 FIRE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES *37.36 05/03/90
R BERIAN PRINTING SERVICE, INC. 02664 001-400-4601-4305 00814 *42.70 08984 10462 33317
BUS. CARDS/M. ROONEY 08984 04/25/90 COMM RESOURCES. /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $42.70 05/03/90
*** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** *80.06
R STATE*BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 02411 001-400-1207-4251 00017 *38.03 12820 11006 33318
24
25
20
27 -46
20
29
3C
31
32
33
3
41•1,
3C
3)
31
3
ALLOC TAPES/JAN-MAR 90 12820 04/17/90 BUS LICENSE /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT *0.00 05/03/90
***
VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** *38.03
R BOARD OF REGISTRATION FOR 03362 001-400-4202-4315 00058 *115.00 C44730 11149 33319
RENEWAL REG/B. GENGLER 44730 04/25/90 •PUB WKS ADMIN /MEMBERSHIP *0. 00 05/03/90
*** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $115.00
R BOB'S BIG BOY NO. 108 03365 001-300-0000-3211 00045 3250.00 95440 11005 33320
REFUND BANNER PERMIT 95440 04/26/90 /BANNER PERMITS *0.00 05/03/90
*** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** *250.00
R THOMAS*BOHLIN 00894 001-400-2101-4312 01231 *77.25 11406 33321
MILES/TRAINING COURSE 04/23/90 - POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST *0.00 05/03/90
41
42
4_ -44
44
40
47
40
49
SC
51 lop
52
53
134
56
of
SE
111
00
01
62
11.1
410,
64
65
60
67 44.•
11
70
71
72
13
74
75
I I)
FINANCE—SFA340
TIME 14:41:26
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
DEMAND LIST
FOR 05/08/90
PAGE 0004
DATE 05/03/90
`'
PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK #
DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION `_. AMOUNT-UNF_NC _-._DATE EXP.___-._ 4
7
*** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $77.25•
a
10
11
R CITY OF#BOISE, IDAHO 03359 001-400-1202-4305 00310 $9.00 00124 33322 12
PUBLICATIONS/FINANCE 04/30/90 FINANCE ADMIN /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 05/03/90
14
15
*** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $9.00 1e
17
16
15
R BROWNING & FERRIS INDUSTRIES 02076 001-300-0000-3859 00040 $2,391.43 00125 33323
_:o
REFUSE LIENS/FEB—APR 90 04/30/90 /REFUSE LIEN FEE $0.00 V 05/03/90 21
22
23
*** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $2,391.43 24
' 75
27
R BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. 00630 001-400-420.1-4201 00354 $534.56 2160 10365 33324 _ 2
PLAN CHECK/3018 HERMOSA 2160 04/13/90 BUILDING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $533.76 05/03/90 2'
'
R BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. 00630 001-400-4201-4201 00355 $478.14 2.160 10369 33324 3
PLAN CHECK/324 IOTH ST 2160 04/13/90 BUILDING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $476.86 05/03/90 '-
34
35
a
R BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. . 00630 001-400-4201-4201 00356 $487.24 2160 10368, 33324 .
_
PLAN CHECK/927 16TH ST 2160 04/13/90 BUILDING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $406.73 05/03/90
,
R BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. 00630 001-400-4201-4201 00357 $1,020.50 2160 10375 33324
PLAN CHECK/631 6TH ST. 2160 04/13/90 BUILDING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $959.11 05/03/90 "'
R BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. 00630 001-400-4201-4201 00358 $131.04 2160 10371 33324 4
__
PLAN CK/638-640 PCH 2160 04/13/90 BUILDING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $208.78 05/03/90 A5
46
47
*** VENDOR TOTAL ********tit********************************************************** $2,651.48 4e
'0
51
R.BUSINESS—, SYSTEMS SUPPLY
001-400-2101-5401 00026 $252. 73 163449 1077433325.____•-,__ 5:.SECRETARIAL
,____. _00034
CHAIR/POLICE 63449 04/23/90 POLICE /EQUIP—LESS THAN $500 $252.73 05/03/90 5'
3<
55
R BUSINESS SYSTEMS SUPPLY 00034 001-400-2201-5401 00021 $252.73 163449 10774 33325 56
SECRETARIAL CHAIR/FIRE D 63449 04/23/90 FIRE /EQUIP—LESS THAN $500 $252.73 05/03/90 7
53
50
*** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $505.46 co
... ......._. ..- _. .. 61
62
81
R CA STATE ASSOC OF LOCAL ELEC 00785 001-400-1121-4315 00058 $40.00 09337 3332, __-64
DUES/E. DOERFLING 04/18/90 CITY CLERK /MEMBERSHIP $0.00 05/03/90 '
66
57
AR
6.,
70
71
72
73
74
75
• 79
"7J
y
AMP
MP
0
Co •
FINANCE—SFA340
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
DEMAND LIST
PAGE 0005
DATE 05/03/
PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK #
DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNTUNENC DATE EXP_ 4
atatat VENDOR TOTAL a tat**************************Haat-*•tt•at•u••tt••tt•as••*•*•***••tt••se•u•3r-t * ********•e•*******•*tit $40.00
10
ti
R CA STATE UNIV DOMINGUEZ HILLS 00412 001-400-1207-4316 00046_______ $251.50 _-__-_•___•_. 11007 33327 12
BUS LICSE /TRAINING $0.00 05/03/.90 i3
FALL TUITION/LAWRENCE 04/26/90 EN
14
13
#afar VENDOR TOTAL ****af*a ****af*af**********afar****af*****af**af**af*afafaf*af*af*af*af*af*********af* $251. 50 16
1i
18
IG
R MATTHEW*CAHN 02626 001-400-2101-4312 _-_01240__ _ __$236.25___.__---.._„ -..___.-. _ _____, 10294„ _, _-33328. _. __ 20
MEALS/HOTEL/GANGS CLASS 04/10/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.0• 05/03/90 2'
22
23
atatat VENDOR TOTAL*af*afaf***af*afaf********af**************afafafafar******af****af****afaf********** $236.25 24
2,
26
27
R CAL POLY KELLOGG UNIT FOUND. 00677 001-400-2101-4312 01235 $223.00 1141033329__-__ 20
TUITION/J. MEDIUS 04/23/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 05/03/i-1__
38
3t
#afar. VENDOR TOTAL ****af*****afar****af**afaf#afaf***afafafaf**afaf***tat****************afar********** $223. 00
33
• 3.
R CAL STATE UNIV/DOMINGUEZ HILLS 03358 001-400-1202-4316 00300 $251.50 00123 33330 36
FALL TUITION/V. MOHLER 04/30/90 FINANCE ADMIN /TRAINING $0.00 05/03/90
31.
3,
atatat VENDOR TOTAL*****afaf*afaf*****afaf*afaf**af********af***af****afaf*af*****af*af*af****af*af**af*afafaf $251.50 4
42
42
R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 00016 001-400-3101-4303 00091 $473.33 00049 33331 44
WATER BILLINGS/APRIL 90 04/30/90 MEDIANS /UTILITIES $0.00 05/03/90 40
4e
.7
R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 00016 001-400-4204-4303 00381 $451.22 00049 33331 40
WATER BILLINGS/APRIL 90 04/30/90 BLDG MAINT /UTILITIES $0.00 05/03/90 'f1
SC
31
R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 00016 001-400-6101-4303 00.304 $2,018.34 00049 33331 e7
WATER BILLINGS/APRIL 90 04/30/90 PARKS /UTILITIES $0.00 05/03/90 ya
07
*** VENDOR TOTAL ****af************** t•#•sf********************************************af* $2,942.89' 56
37
ee
1 511
JEANNE*CARUSO 03293 001-400-2101-4313 00274 $182.00 11405 33332 60
MILES/TRAINING COURSE 04/23/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE, STC $0.00 05/03/90. 111
62
63
afafaf VENDOR TOTAL .**** f*******af*of*afafaf******afaf***afafafaf***afar*****afafafafaf******afaf*********** $182.00 64
67
66
57
1 R CCAC 01548 001-400-1121-4315 00059 $70.00 09336_.,_ 33333__ _.6n
DUES/DOERFLING/RIDDLE 04/18/90 CITY CLERK /MEMBERSHIP $0.00 05/03/90 6D
7C
71
1 72
73
74
75
RV
w
r
•
•
•
v
•
•
•
r
FINANCE—SFA340
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
DEMAND LIST
FOR 05/08/90
PAGE 0006
DATE 05/03/90
[j
PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK #
DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROD # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC•_. DATE EXP, —
t
2
3
+
5
5
7
5
*** VENDOR TOTAL ************irit******* *************************igrit***********•****** $70.00
R MONA JEAN*CEDAR 03159 001-400-4601-4201 00576 $216.00 10482__ 33334 _
0
le
It
12
13
u
15
16
¶7
:6
is
20
22
23
24
SPRING CLASS INSTRUCTOR 04/16/90 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 — 05/03/90
*** VENDOR TOTAL**********************************•***************•******************* $216.00
R CELLULAR DYNAMICS COMPANY 02449 001-400-2101-4304 00552 $115.05 00310 33335
�21
MOBILE PHONE CHGS/MAR 90 03/31/90 POLICE /TELEPHONE $0.00 05/03/90
*** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $115.05
R CENTER FOR ACCELERATED 03364 001-400-2101-4313 00275 $112.34 11411 33336___20
25
IS
27
L4
30
31
32
_
TVITION/R. FOX 04/23/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE, STC $0.00 05/03/90
.
*** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $112.34
CENTER FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE 03027 001-400-2101-4312 01238 $190.00 10300_ 33337_.,_
33
34
'IS
r
30
39
40
TUITION/J. KOEBSELL 04/11/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00_ 05/03/90
*** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $190.00
R_.,.,.. OFFICE EQUIPMENT 00389 001=400_2101-4305 01241 $38.43 0041133338 _
41
42
43
44
46
47
46
-CERTIFIED
MISC. CHARGES/APRIL 90 04/30/90 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 05/03/90d6
*** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $38.43
R CHAMPION CHEVROLET 00014 001-400-2101-4311 00870 $91.250 00412 33339_ ___52
49
57
51
67
54
55
56
MIS. CHARGES/APRIL 90 04/30/90 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00_ 05/03/90
R CHAMPION CHEVROLET 00014 105-400-2601-4311 00170 $13.21 00412 33339
MISC. CHARGES/APRIL 90 04/30/90 STREET LIGHTING /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 05/03/90
*** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $104.46
b7
50
5n
CO
01
2
63
64
66
67
CFI
— — —
R CHANDLER'S PV READY MIX 00009 001-400-3103-4309 00988 $341.50 00413 33340
MISC. CHARGES/APRIL 90 04/30/90 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 05/03/90
70
71
72
73
74
75
70
•
•
J
•
•
•
40.
411.
•
•
•
J
•
•
•
FzwAwoE-SFA340
TIME 14:41:26
CITY OF *EnmoSA BEACH
DEMAND LIST
FOR 05/08/90DATE 05/03/90
PAGE 0007
' - -_� � - _ __�
PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # I
DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AmooNI_u^EwC__oArs EXP
"
"
,
**v VENDOR TOTAL ****** **************************** *341.50 9
� "
'°
R CHAPMAN 03026 001-400-2101-4312 01233 *119.00 11408 33341 12
TUITION/T. BOHLIN 04/23/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE . POST $0.00 05/03/90
"
*** vswooa TOTAL *************************************°****************************** *119.00 16
.,
..
-__---'----------- ��n z���001-400-2101-4201_ �����_�Z`oqa�z7� '��rp�''33342 ____7,3
K-9 ���������osnvz�����f�04/30/90 210005 POLICE /__wrn�_r onv_u�>�h'v�� *o.od—bo/oo/6—a
22
23
*** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** *ron 24
25
�
27
R ELISA*COLMAN 02437 001-210-0000-2110 03655 *oo.00 9ao5��__�p56g____3P��3_____,^
ANIMAL TR ' 2 -
AP
AP nEFUNo 96555 04/26/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE *0.00 05/03/90 ~
"'
*** VENDOR TOTAL ******************** ******************************** *on.ou `
,
=
3C
R COM SvorEmS, INC 00017 001-400-e101-4304 00551 *3.25 0233242 00475 33344 "'
LONG DIST/APRIL 90 33242 04/17/90 POLICE /TELEPHONE *o.00 05/03/90 ^
•^`
*** VENDOR TOTAL ** **************** ************ *3.25. "'
=
43
44
R CRRA SYMPOSIUMS 03370 001-400-4201-4316 00204 $45.00 103e1 33345 ~
REG FEES/C. Looe*AeT04/16/90 BUILDING /TRAINING *uoo 05/03/90 40
47
^"
*** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** **n.00 ^°
,7.
"'
57
R Jzm*0000seLs, 02971 001-400-4601-4201 00569 *260.00 10*87 33346 ",
SPRING CLASS INSTRUCTOR 04/16/90 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *o.00 05/03/90
,.
*** VENDOR TOTAL ****^******************************************************°******** *260.00 "'
se
=
R DATA SAFE 00156 001-400-1206-4201 00708 • $112.50 48558 00047 33347• 61
62
TAPE STORAGE/TO 5-11-90 48558 04/18/90 DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 05/03/90 ,3
134
*** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $112.50 65
60
n
69
R DAYS INN 03361 001-400-2101-43/2 01241 *158.76 11401 33348 .59
HOTEL/TRAINING CLASS 04/11/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE . POST *o.00 05/03/90
,,
,,
74
. 71
7
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
PAGE
0008
TIME 14.41.26 . FOR 05/08/90 DATE 05/03/90
PAY VENDOR NAME C./ND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN #. AMOUNT INV/REF_____ ___ _____ _ . PO. # . _,._ _, _CHK,, ft_,__,,,
2
3
a
7
0
DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP
enter VENDOR TOTAL ***** ****************************'********************** ****at***** $158.76 '
IJ
I1
2
14
,,
le
R DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION 00049 001-300-0000-3204 01905 $271:44 10379 . 33349
SEISMIC FEES/JAN—MAR 90 04/16/90 /BUILDING PERMITS $0.00 05/03/90
*** VENDOR TOTAL***************************'***************************************** $271. 44
17
In
1B
z•:
21
22
23
24
75
` z 77
R DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION 00269 001-400-2101-4201 00565 $832.20 249912490 00068 33350
MAINT CHGS/APR 90 12490 04/13/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 05/03/90
R DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION 00269 001-400-2201-4201 00134 $554.80 249912490 00068 33350
MAINT CHCS/APR 90 12490 04/13/90 FIRE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 05/03/90
*** VENDOR TOTAL ************************************ t'**star*************************** $1,387.00
:-.-
30
31
3
R EASTMAN, INC. 02514 001-400-1208-4305 00751 $322.92 00466 33351
STOCK OFC SUPP/APRIL 90 04/30/90 GEN APPROP /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 05/03/90
3
3
*** VENDOR TOTAL ******** e********************************-**********************'***** $322. 92
37
3'.
4
' R EL CAMINO COLLEGE 01469 001-400-2101-4312 01236 $7.50 11412 33352
TUITION INCREASE/3 OFCRS 04/23/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 05/03/90
41
4'
4
44
*#* VENDOR TOTAL *iter**************************iter************************************* $7. 50
45
46
47
R EMERG MED SERV PERSONNEL FUND 03372 001-400-2201-4316 00221 $50.00 08400 33353
CALIF RECERT FEE/LINES 04/09/90 FIRE /TRAINING $0.00 05/03/90
4i
50
51
5•,
5'
54
55
56
iter* VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $50.00
'
•
R EMERG. MED SERV PERSONNEL FUND 03371 001-400-2201-4316 00222 $50.00 08399 33354
' CAL RECERT FEE/CARROLL 04/09/90 FIRE /TRAINING $0.00 05/03/90
97
5
5n
GO
(.I
I..:
53
64
15
ee
e7
RA
0
70
71
72
/J
74
75
78.
*** VENDOR TOTAL*********et*********et************************************************ $50.00
R TRUDY*FALLON 03306 001-400-4601-4201 00572 $916.00 10484 33355
SPRING CLASS INSTRUCTOR 04/16/90 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 05/03/90
1
40
•
91,
41.
41.
•
•
l�I
11
FINANCE-SFA340
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
DEMAND LIST
0009
TIME
PAY
14:41:26 FOR 05/08/90
VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF
DATE 05/03/90
PO # CHK #
UNENC DATE EXP
2
4
DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
***
VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $916.00•
o
12
R
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. 01962. 001-400-1206-4305 00438 $47.00 7-075-06301
09530
33356
17
MAIL SERV/DATA PROC. 06301 04/10/90 DATA PROCESSING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES
$0.00
05/03/90
14
s
16
***
VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $47.00
17
8
I0
20
R
STEVE*FILLMAN 03169 001-400-4601-4201 00573 $2,028.00
10480
33357
21
SPRING CLASS INSTRUCTOR 04/16/90 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT
$0.00
05/03/90
22
23
24
***
VENDOR TOTAL**********************************************************-********** *2,028.00
25
U
27
2,
R
RON*FOX 01007 001-400-21.01-4313 00276 $223.60
11413
33358
24
MILES/JAIL TRAINING 04/24/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE, STC
$0.00
05/03/90
3 3,1
32
***
VENDOR TOTAL**************************************-****************************** $223.60
3
3
35
R
FRANKSONS, INC. 00010 110-400-3302-4311 00585 $1,408.89 17338/17196
09981
33359
3
CUSHMAN PARTS 17196 04/09/90 PARKING ENF /AUTO MAINTENANCE $1,388.48
05/03/90
3
***
VENDOR TOTAL *************************stat-****-*****************. *********** ******* $1,408.89
d1
42
a
44
R
GBH DISTRIBUTING 02875 001-400-2101-4309 00289 $339.02 4286/4159
10779
33360
40
HEADSETS/REP/DISPATCH /4159 04/26/90 POLICE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
$0.00
05/03/90
46
47
40
***
VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $339.02
49
6C
51
52
R
GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY 00058 001-400-4204-4309 01637 $103.53
00424
33361
53
MISC. CHARGES/APRIL 90 04/30/90 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
$0.00
05/03/90
54
5s
50
***
VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $103.53
0J
50
54
6C
R
GERBER AMBULANCE SERVICE 02897 001-400-2101-4201 00561 $366.87 105374
10789
33362
U1
PRISONER TRANSPORT 05374 04/05/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT
$0.00
05/03/90-
2
03
84
***
VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $366.87
65
81
67
66
R
JACQUES*GOFFEAU 03366 001-210-0000-2110 03660 $50.00 96526.
10573
33363
,0
ANIMAL TRAP REFUND 96526 04/26/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE
$0.00
05/03/90
,o
n
72
73
74
25
l7
486
•
.10
v
d
FINANCE—SFA340
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
DEMAND LIST
PAGE
0010
TIME 14:41:26 FOR 05/08/90 DATE 05/03/90 '\
2
PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF,_.. PO#CHK #
.._,
DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP
e
, 7
6
*** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $50.00
10
i1
12
R T!•IE*GOLDAK COMPANY 03322 105-400-2601-4309 00603 $127.01 31347 10697 . 33364 "
REP METAL LOCATOR 31347 04/25/90 STREET LIGHTING /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $100.00 05/03/90 f4
le
15
*** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $127.01 17
le
10
20
R GOODHEW AMBULANCE SERVICE 01910 001-400-2101-4201 00562 $292.75 10790 33365 21
PRISONER TRANSPORT 04/24/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT50.00 05/03/90 22
23
24
*** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $292.75 25
25
27
' :5
R JOE#CORDON/CHILTON BOOK CO. 03356 001-400-4205-4309 00461 $192.15 408 11127 33366 29
- PUBLICATIONS/MECHANICS 408 04/18/90 EQUIP SERVICE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $192.15 05/03/90 30
31
32
*** VENDOR TOTAL **************. *********************filet***************************** $192.15 3'
34
35
:15
R MELVYN*GREEN AND ASSOC., INC. 03112 001-400-4201-4201 00353 $3,690.00 89205-1298-5 10380 33367 3'
SEISMIC STUDY/FEB 90 298-5 04/05/90 BUILDING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 05/03/90 36
3.
40
. .. *** VENDOR TOTAL*******************************************it************************ $3,690.00 41
42
43
44
R GROSVENOR INN 03132 001-400-2101-4312 01232 $156.96 11407 33368 46
HOTEL/T. BOHLING 04/23/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 05/03/90 43
47
48
*** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $156.96 4a
52
51
9
R DEVIN*GUZMAN 02741 001-400-2101-4312 01243 $236.25 11403 33369 e3
54
MEALS/HOTEL/GANGS CLASS 04/11/90 POLICE - /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 05/03/90
55
*** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $236.25 67
50
l
53
f•C
R HARRIS & ASSOCIATES 02102 160-400-8406-4201 00038 $11,417.65 880720111 11132 33370 61
DEISGN SERV/FEB 90 20111 03/20/90 CIP 86-406 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 05/03/90 57
' 63
54
*** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $11,417.65 `s
55
e7
AR
R HERMOSA ANIMAL HOSPITAL 00322 001-400-2401-4201 00235 $217.00 57726/623/451 00427 33371 6"
MISC. SERVICES/APR. 90 3/451 04/30/90 ANIMAL CONTROL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 05/03/90 70
71
72
73
74
75
70
44,
CO
FINANCE—SFA340
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
DEMAND LIST
PAGE
00
Nat
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
TIME 14:41:26 FOR 05/08/90
PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF
DATE
PO #
UNENC
05/03/90
CHK #
DATE EXP
''
6
DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
7
0
##er VENDOR TOTAL ***************•********************************* ******************* $217.00
10
12
R ANGELA*JANULEWICZ 02758 001-400-2101-4312 01239 $45.12
11417
33372
13
MEALS/MILES/JAIL TRNG 04/30/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST
$0.00
05/03/90
14
17
•
1e
#clef VENDOR TOTAL *elft•#*clef**•************************•*********************************** $45. 12
17
10
19
•
70
R RUSSELL WALTER*JOHNSON 03373 001-300-0000-3411 01376 $500.00 93930
10498
33373
"
REFUND PERMIT FEE 93930 04/30/90 /OTHER FACILITIES
$0.00
05/03/90
72
23
24
clef# VENDOR TOTAL**************************6********************•x•******************•* $500.00
25
2e
27
26
R CONCETTA*JONES 03369 001-210-0000-2110 03656 $50.00 96354
10569
33374
29
ANIMAL TR
3C
31
AP REFUND 96354 04/26/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 05/03/90
32
33
*clef VENDOR TOTAL ******3ter**************alit****it•;t•tt•#3t••u******•tt•-x•-st•***********•*•u************ $50. 00
34
9,
35
37
R DONALD*JONES 02627 001-400-2101-4187 00338 $85.35
10792
33375
30
3n
MOTORS UNIFORM NEEDS 04/26/90 POLICE /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
$0.00
05/03/90
4C
41
R DONALD*JONES 02627 001-400-2101-5401 00025 $98.18
10792
33375
42
43
EMERGENCY CAMERA PURCH. 04/26/90 POLICE /EQUIP—LESS THAN $500
$0.00
05/03/90
44
45
-x•3t•tt• VENDOR TOTAL********************************clef-tt•tt***•*****#**********•*r*********** $183.53
4i
4e
49
R ALAN*KAN 03376 001-400-4601-4201 00570 $677.60
10486
33376
sc
SPRING CLASS INSTRUCTOR 04/16/90 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT
$0.00
05/03/90
s1
52
*clef VENDOR TOTAL *******************elft*********************************************** $677.60.
1:
56
s,
R STAN#KIM 02833 001-400-4601-4201 00577 $708.00
10489
33377
Je
s9
SPRING CLASS INSTRUCTOR 04/16/90 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT
$0.00
05/03/90
eo
.
61
62
*et# VENDOR TOTAL ************flat**********flat**************•p•tt•******•************** t•***** $708.00
e7 el
64
63
R KNOTT'S BERRY FARM 01662 001-400-4601-4201 00567 $380.00
10491
33378
ea
R7
SENIOR TRIP/COMM RES 04/16/90 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT
$0.00
05/03/90
ea
60
70
71
1
-
72
'3
74
•
_
Try
Nat
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
•
r
415.
b
FINANCE—SFA340 . •DEMAND LIST
PAGE 0012
T'\
TIME 14:41:26 FOR 05/08/90
DATE 05/03/90
a
4
PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF
PO # CHK #
5
DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP
5
a
9
*4* VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $380.00
��
2
•
3
R SGT JOHN*KOEBSELL 00629 001-400-2101-4312 01237 $24.00
10299 33379
4
5
MEALS/CIVIL LIAR CLASS 04/11/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST
$0.00 05/03/90
fe
17
4*4 VENDOR TOTAL *********************************************** ******************* $24.00
a
.._
20
zi
R LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 00842 001-400-1203-4316 00178 $64.05
10927 33380
22
PUBLICATIONS/PERSONNEL 04/26/90 PERSONNEL /TRAINING
$0.00 05/03/90
23
24
25
*** VENDOR TOTAL ************•*********************-********************************** $64.05
2e
27
2rs
29,
R• LINDA*LOCKE 02832 001-400-4601-4201 00575 $684.00
10483 33381
30
31
SPRING CLASS INSTRUCTOR 04/16/90 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT
$0.00 05/03/90
32
33
##* VENDOR TOTAL ********************************** *********** ********************* $684.00
1
3e
37
R COUNTY OF*LOS ANGELES 01896 001-400-2201-4316 00220 $400.00
08376 33382
33
RECERT FEE/LINES/CARROLL 04/09/90 FIRE /TRAINING
$0.00 05/03/90
39
40
41
*** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $400.00
;7
44
45
R MAACO 03325 170-400-2103-4311 00002 $215.00
04103 10764 33383
45
47
REPAIR DETECTIVE UNIT 04103 04/24/90 SPEC INVESTGTNS /AUTO MAINTENANCE
$215.00 05/03/90
40
46
*4* VENDOR TOTAL ******************************* ** **** t************************ -*** $215.00
5 1
51
5a.
53
R MAIN ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. 00426 105-400-2601-4309 00605 $159.95
00435 33384
E,
MISC. CHARGES/APRIL 90 04/30/90 STREET LIGHTING /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
$0.00 05/03/90
56
57
59
'
*4* VENDOR TOTAL ******************* *************stat*************stet**tit************** $159. 95
50
50
61
'
R MANHATTAN CAR WASH 01146 001-400-2101-4311 00869 $77.35
00336 33385
53
MISC. CHARGES/MAR 90 03/31/90 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE
$0.00 05/03/90
6A
rl
'
*4* VENDOR TOTAL ********** *******stir-*****-*****-************************************•** $77.35
57
t
69
fJ
'
R MARKON COMPUTER SCIENCE, INC. 02985 001-400-1206-4201 00709 $984.99
7107 00072 33386
70
71
'
MAINT SERV/APR—JUN 90 7107 04/13/90 DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT
$0.00 05/03/90
72
:3
74
75
•
r
415.
b
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
AJ
*Si
.l�
y
.rf
.J'
5
FINANCE—SFA340 DEMAND LIST
TIME 14:41:26 FOR 05/08/90
PAGE
DATE
PO #
UNENC
0013
05/03/90
1\
PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF
DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
CHK #
DATE EXP
e
e
e
9
crater VENDOR TOTAL ***************•stat*******************ac•*ter-u•*#*•u•*#stat******************* $984. 99
'o
,1
,
,2
13
R MASCO ELECTRIC 03355 001-400-6101-4309 00855 $123.75 11309
11136
33387
14
15
REPAIR CLARK SCOREBOARD 11309 04/23/90 PARKS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
$132.11
05/03/90
le
17
18
*** VENDOR TOTAL.**********at*****************************far************************** $123.75
19
21
•
R CAPT JOHN*MEBIUS 00793 001-400-2101-4312 01234 $24.00
11409
33388
22
23
MEALS/CRIM. INVEST. CRSE 04/23/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST
$0.00
05/03/90
24
25
*stat VENDOR TOTAL**•ft•******•ar*****•tt*********•*******************************.*********** $24. 00
26
n
28
29
R MERRIMAC PETROLEUM, INC. 03080 001-141-0000-1401 00081 $3,031.28 3172
11141
33389
30
31
GASOLINE/CITY YARD 3172 04/20/90 /GASOLINE INVENTORY
$0.00
05/03/90
32
33
*** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************414 $3,031.28
32
36
37
R MARGARET*MILLER 03367 001-210-0000-2110 03659 $100.00 93935
10572
33390
3E'
3:
DAMAGE DEPOSTI REFUND 93935 04/26/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE
$0.00
05/03/90
ao
41
stater VENDOR TOTAL *****stet**********rat****#seat**met********•f *************************free** $100. 00
472
44
1
45
R KIM#MITCHELL 00522 001-400-2701-4312 00001 $406.50
10289
33391
46
47
MEALS/HOTEL/DISAS. CLASS 04/03/90 CIVIL DEFENSE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST
$0.00
05/03/90
46
49
*** VENDOR TOTAL ****at***atetetetcretatater***-mer♦ter-m*********************************at********* $406. 50
5c
'
51
52
51
R MOBIL OIL CREDIT CORPORATION 00388 001-400-2201-4310 00115 $56.94 930785D2
00363
33392
54
55
MISC. CHARGES/MAR 90 785D2 03/31/90 FIRE /MOTOR FUELS AND LUDES
$0.00
05/03/90
56
57
stater VENDOR TOTAL****************************at****•*********************************at* $56.94
5e
50
60
61
R WALLACE*MOORE 00516 001-400-2101-4313 00273 $26.00
11402
33393
62
B.l
MILES/JAIL MGMT COURSE 04/12/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE, STC
$0.00
05/03/90
64
65
stater VENDOR TOTAL *et**et**etatat****** r**tot***** ***tot***•* ****•* *************#*****at***** $26. 00
as
67
64
66
R MOTION INDUSTRIES 03354 001-400-4204-4309 01636 $215.64 CA20-202652
11139
33394
70
7,
REPAIR RESTROOM FANS 02652 04/20/90 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
$215.64
05/03/90
72
, 3
1.
...
74
711
'7d
AJ
*Si
.l�
y
.rf
.J'
5
-^
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Fz ^.
TIME 14:41:26
•
DEMAND LIST
FOR o5/oo/9u�
PAGE 0014
DATE 05v03/90
PO # CHK #
AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP
/
^
"
PAY VENDOR NAME
DESCRIPTION .
VND #
DATE INVC
ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF
PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION �
*** VENDOR TOTAL *����� '-�'
��������*��*� ��� �
'' .
.
33395
05{03!90_-_'"
33396
05/03/90
"
=
"
.`
"
`^
.,
i7,
'"
'"
20
=
",
24
`"
27
R MUNICIPAL CODE CORPORATION
CODE SUPPLEMENTS 22950
00556
03/26/90
001-400-1131-4201 00574
CITY ATTORNEY
*2.355.47
/CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT
22950 09335
$0.00
*** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** *2.355.47
R NATIONAL PARK & REC ASSOC.
DUES/M. ROONEY
00880
04/25/90
001-400-4601-4315 00061
COMM RESOURCES
*150.00
/MEMBERSHIP
10497
$0.00
*** VENDOR TOTAL ************
****
*150.00
R- NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES
CITY-WIDE TRAFFIC COUNT 0-070
03226
03/22/90
001-400-3104-4201 00056
TRAFFIC SAFETY
$4,211.00
/CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT
90-070 10088
*4.348.00
33397
05/03<9"
..
^
,1
3'
^
*** VENDOR TOTAL *********************************************°*********************4 *4.211.00
R OKADA NURSERY
PLANTS/GOULD MEDIANS 9117
0318*
04/24/90
001-400-8146-4201 00007
CIP 89-146
*704.55
/CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT
9117 11142
$704.55
33398
05/03/90
*** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** *704.55
°
^"
,,
R PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE
COMPUTER HOOKUP/APR 90
00321
04/01/90
001-400-2101-4304 005e4
POLICE
*162.48
/TELEPHONE
00036
$0.00
33399
05r03/90
45
~
°
.s..
'"
~
,`
5.
'
=
55
""
*** VENDOR TOTAL ��
*��o wa
33400
05/03/90
R PACTEL CELLULAR - LA
MOBILE PHONE CHGS/APR 90
03209
04r30/90
001-400-2101-4304 00553
POLICE
*603.57
/TELEPHONE
00476
$0.00
*** VENDOR TOTAL ************
********
$603. 57
",
�
SO
R PARKER & SON PUBLICATIONS
PUBLICATIONS/RISK MGR 97376
03363
04/09/90
705-400-1217-4316 00011
WORKERS COMP
$106 .57 1297376
/TRAINING
10*18
$0.00
33401
05/03/90
=
=
64."
=
,,
n
*** vswoon TOTAL **
****
*106.57
R OFCR JOSEPH*PELKA
MEALS/TRAINING CLASS
00950
04/03/90
001-400-2101-4312 01244
POLICE
*24.00
/TRAVEL EXPENSE . POST
10288
*n.00
33402
05/03/9"
~
=
,.
n
.`
�
�
=
~
�
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
FINANCE—SFA340 DEMAND LIST
TIME 14:41:26 FOR 05/08/90
PAGE
DATE
PO #
UNENC
0015
05/03/90 a
4
CHK #
DATE EXP 7
e
PAY VENDOR NAME •VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF
DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
9
*** VENDOR TOTAL ? ***-*************************************************************** $24. 00
;e
Iz
13
R PHOTON PRESS 03360 001-400-2701-4305 00012 $61.44 26340
10771
33403
EARTHQUAKE BROCHURES 26340 03/30/90 CIVIL DEFENSE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES
$0.00
05/03/90
*** VENDOR TOTAL********************************-************************************ $61.44
19
20
21
R PITNEY BOWES 00222 001-400-1208-4201 00649 $52.05
08026
33404 22
23
POSTAGE METER MAINT/JUN 04/23/90 GEN APPROP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT
$0.00
05/03/90 24
25
26
*** VENDOR TOTAL************************************************************ ******* $52.05
27
29
R POSTMASTER 00398 110-400-3302-4305 00674 $3,000.00
00205
33405 3C31
CITATION NOTICE POSTAGE 04/30/90 PARKING ENF /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES
$0.00
05/03/90 32
*** VENDOR TOTAL *************stat*********** -*******?Fit******** ************************ $3, 000. 00
a
35
3
3,
R PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00184 001-400-1213-4180 00398 $444.60
10926
33406 3
3
SERV CREDIT/SHELDON 04/25/90 RETIREMENT /RETIREMENT
$0.00
05/03/90 4
41
*** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $444.60
43
44
P RADIO SHACK 01429 001-400-2101-4305 01242 $11.47
00443
33407 4C
47
MISC_ CHARGES/APRIL 90 04/30/90 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES
$0.00
05/03/90 48
49
59.
R RADIO SHACK 01429 105-400-2601-4309 00604 $6.59
00443
33407 1
3
31
MISC. CHARGES/APRIL 90 04/30/90 STREET LIGHTING /MAINTENANCE 'MATERIALS
$0.00
05/03/90 52
54
*** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $18.06.
55
119
5e
'
R READICARE—DANIEL FREEMAN 02390 001-400-1203-4320 00312 $38.00 94-36216
10920
33408 5f'
RETURN TO WORK/TUBBS 36216- 03/22/90 PERSONNEL /PRE—EMPLOYMENT EXAMS_
$0.00
0,5/Q3/9Q 00
-- — -- —
dl
-
- 62
1
*** VENDOR TOTAL****************************t*****************#;F******************** $38. 00
83
. -
- 84
135
69
•
R RICH GRAPHICS 00224 001-400-2101-4305 01240 • $373.63 2504
10767-
33409 ,j7
'
VEHICLE IMPOUND FORMS 2504 03/22/90 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES
$373.63
05/03/9Q `P
69
1
71
- -
772
71
74
73
74
dr
IV
IV
4,
y'J
t0•
4v;
FINANCE—SFA340 DEMAND LIST
TIME 14:41:26 FOR 05/08/90
PAGE 0016
DATE 05/03/90
PO # CHK #
UNENC DATE EXP
3'
4
PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF
DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
8
9
10
#*# VENDOR TOTAL ********************************•********************* **** t-******** 3373. 63
ti
12
u
14
R S & S ARTS AND CRAFTS, INC. 00227 001-400-4601-4308 00290 331.99 609826
10468
33410
15
TROPHY CUPS/SUMMER FROG 09826 04/03/90 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS
333.17
05/03/90
±a
17
**# VENDOR TOTAL*•**********•**********•************•*•**********•************************ 331.99
,7
2•)
1
R S. A. ASSOCIATES 03338 105-400-2601-4201 00038 3273.00 1
11137
33411
,,
ENGRG SERV/MAR 90 1 04/03/90 STREET LIGHTING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT
30.00
05/03/90
24
25
R S. A. ASSOCIATES 03338 155-400-2102-4201 00059 3273.00 1
11137
33411
` 2 77
ENGRG SERV/MAR 90 1 04/03/90 CROSSING GUARD /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT
$0.00__05/03/90___
26
2
*** VENDOR TOTAL •***************•**************************************************** 3546. 00
31
3.
R SUSAN*SAXE—CLIFFORD,PH D 00839 001-400-1203-4320 00313 3320.00 0-0424-3
10928
33412
nanti as of
nnr•r,n nay
PSYCH EVALUATIONS 424-3 04/30/90 PERSONNEL /PRE—EMPLOYMENT EXAMS
30.00
05/03/90___.
*** VENDOR TOTAL ******************* ***************iris****************************** 3320.00
41
47
R SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY 00114 001-400-2101-4306 00793 3128.70
00447
33413
.16
MISC. CHARGES/APRIL 90 04/30/90 POLICE /PRISONER MAINTENANCE
30.00
05/03/90
44
45
4
**# VENDOR TOTAL **********itat***************************•x-********************* •****•n* 3128. 70
d77
46
49
R G. SCOTT#SMITH 03377 001-400-4601-4201 00568 3464.00
10488
33414
51
5+
SPRING CLASS INSTRUCTOR 04/16/90 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT
30.00
05/03/90
s'
53
54
*4* VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 3464.00
55
56
6i
SS
R THE*SOUND COMPANY 01398 001-400-1101-4305 00309 3110.00 6076
11140
33415
,p
COUNCIL SOUND SYS REPAIR 6076 04/20/90 CITY COUNCIL /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES
3110.00
05/03/90
c2
61
Fit
*** VENDOR TOTAL ********************************************* ***********i********* 3110.00
53
64
45
6F•
R SOURISSEAU SUPPORT SERVICES 02075 001-400-2101-4201 00559 3945.00 1535/36/48
10787
33416
67
'
BACKGRND INVESTIGATIONS 36/48 04/24/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT
30.00
05/03/90
FP
70
71
1
72
!3
74
75
.
75
dr
IV
IV
4,
y'J
t0•
4v;
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
•
'
FINANCE—SFA340
TIME
FAY
DEMAND LISTPAGE
14:41:26 FOR 05/08/90
DATE
PO #
UNENC
0017
05/03/90
CHK #
DATE EXP
a
n
°
a
e
VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN #AMOUNT INV/REF
DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
9
R
SOURISSEAU SUPPORT SERVICES 02075 001-400-2101-4201 00564 $1,065.00 1556/57/58-60
10797
33416
BACKGRND INVESTIGATIONS 58-60 04/30/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT
$0.00
05/03/90
,2
'
***
VENDOR TOTAL **********************;5#***at;tit**-***************-****-*-*at************** $2, 010. 00
a
17
16
'
R
SOUTH BAY HOSPITAL 00107 001-400-2101-4201 00560 $199.10
10788
33417
16
,0
PRISONER SERVICES 04/24/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT-,,._
$0,90.;_05/03/90___2a
2,
7
at*4
VENDOR TOTAL***at***************************************at************************ $199. 10
2.a2
24
R
SPARKLETTS DRINKING WATER CORP 00146 001-400-4601-4305 00815 $47.91 339156
00033
33418
2e
27
WATER COOLER RENT/MAR 90 39156 03/31/90 COMM RESOURCES /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES. _ .___ _
$0:_00_-__•_05/03/90
26
_.-,__
22
***
VENDOR TOTAL**********************************************************at********* $47.91
o,
3
R
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 00951 001-400-2701-4312 00002 41150.00
10290
33419
35
TUITION/K. MITCHELL 04/03/90 CIVIL DEFENSE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST
$0.00
05/03/90
3.
... ..
._... ._
..._ _._. ..
37
#4*
VENDOR TOTAL*****************************************agar**** ******************* $150.00
3P
41
R
- SUPERIOR MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 00425 001-400-2201-4309 00865 $27.00
00455
33420
0 a 33
MISC. CHARGES/APRIL 90 04/30/90 FIRE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
$0.00
05/03/90
ad
45
4
***
VENDOR TOTAL**************at*********************************#******************* $27.00
477
-
ne
40
R
THEATRE ARTS CONSERVATORY, INC 03340 001-210-0000-2110 03658 $500.00 58897
10571
33421
6°
5,
DAMAGE DEPOSTI REFUND 88897 04/26/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE
$0.00
05/03/90
52
53
54
,1
*4*
VENDOR TOTAL********•tt••a•********************************************************** $500.00. _
55
11
Id
57
5e
R
TOM*THOMPSON 01009 001-400-2101-4312 01242 $77.25
10296
33422
:19
MEALS/TRAININGCLASS 04/11/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST
$0.00
05/03/90
ac
__—
01
82
atatat VENDOR TOTAL*************at**********************************************at******at $77.25
ea
64
•
R
TOMARK 03336 001-400.-6101-4309 00856 $462.69 17726
10690
33423
66
51
BASEBALL FIELD EQUIPMENT 17726 04/17/90 PARKS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
$0.00
05/03/90
6A
7°
51
7,
54
72
73
74
.t..,
-
75
CITY OF HER OSA DEACH
FINANCE—SFA340 DEMAND LIST
TIME 14:41:26 FOR 05/08/90
.
PAGE
DATE
PO #
AMOUNT UNENC
0018
05/03/90
4
PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF
DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION
CHK #
DATE EXP
5
e
n
0
*** VENDOR TOTAL **************iter************************at***stet**************#******;t $462.69
O
II
z
3
R CITY OF*TORRANCE 00841 001-400-2701-4251 00023 $1,401.78
100992
00786
33424
4
5
AREA "G" DISASTER SHARE 00992 04/24/90 CIVIL DEFENSE /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT
$0.00
05/03/90
5
7
R CITY OF*TORRANCE 00841 145-400-3402-4201 00146 $4,045.50
101008
10815
33424
,n
10
COMM BUS SHARE/4TH GTR 01008 04/06/90 COMMUTER BUS /CONTRACT SERVICES
$0.00
0/03/90
—... .
—70
z,
et*at VENDOR TOTAL**************et*****************************at*********************** $5,447.28
23
24
25
R JOHN#VAN DEN EYKEL 03374 001-400-4601-4201 00574 $292.00
10481
33425
27
SPRING CLASS INSTRUCTOR 04/16/90 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT
$0.00
05/03/90
2.
i
etatat VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************* t- $292. 00
3.
31
3•
3'
R VERNON PAVING COMPANY 00019 001-400-3103-4309 00987• $87.43
00460
33426
3
35
MISC. CHARGES/APRIL 90 04/30/90 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
$0.00
05/03/90
##it VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $87.43
32.`
4
41
R J. S. *WARD & CO. AS AGENT FOR 02466 705-400-1209-4201 00130 $1,732.17
10924
33427
47
43
REIMB LIAR/MARCH 90 04/24/90 LIABILITY INS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT
$0.00
05/03/90
44
45
R J. S. *WARD & CO. AS AGENT FOR 02466 705-400-1209-4324 00132 $21,272.13
10924
33427
e7
REIMB LIAR/MARCH 90 04/24/90 LIABILITY INS /CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS
$0.00
05/03/90
4n
4n
stat* VENDOR TOTAL *******itint**************************et-********************#*stat******3t $23,004.30
50
51
51
R ELAINE*WEINER 03368 001-210-0000-2110 03657 $100.00
93894
10570
33428
55
DAMAGE DEPOSTI REFUND 93894 04/26/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE
$0.00
05/03/90
5,1
57
eget VENDOR TOTAL ***********************stat*sorer*************************************** $100.00
5e
58
00
71
62
R ELAINE M.*WEINER 03375 001-400-4601-4201 00571 $1,324.00
10485
33429
n3
SPRING CLASS INSTRUCTOR 04/16/90 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT
$0.00
05/03/90
54
55
55
atatat VENDOR TOTAL********••tt**-********************************3t**3tat*************at****** $1,324.00
n7
aA
70
R WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS 00131 001-400-3103-4309 00VG6 $207.12
173204
11126
33430
71
STREET SIGN SUPPLIES 73204 04/20/90 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
$2.07-1R
(15193L20
72
73
74
75
75
J
1
1
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
FINANCE ADMINISTRATOR'
DATE V90
11 k
U
r/
-Y
E
TE
FINANCE—SFA340 DEMAND LIST — PAGE •0019-
TIME 14:41:26 FOR 05/08/90 DATE 05/03/90
PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK #
. DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP
R WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS 00131 001-400-3104-4309 00467 $207.11 173204 11126 33430
to
n
STREET SIGN SUPPLIES 73204 04/20/90 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $207.12 05/03/90
12
13
R WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS 00131 001-400-3104-4309 00468 $3.304.38 173203/169848 10658 33430
14
to
STREET SIGN BASES 69848 04/20/90 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $3,319,93_05/03/290
1a
--
17
R WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS 00131 001-400-3104-4309 00469 $1.708.74 173202 10060 33430
110
STREET SIGN BASES 73202 04/20/90 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 05/03/90
70
21
21
— — ......_....__._... — .
*** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $5,427.35
22
z3
24
2_
R DENISE#WHEELER 01627 001-300-0000-3823 00068 $110.00 93927 10493 33431
27
FILMING PERMIT REFUND 93927 04/25/90 /SPECIAL EVENT SECURITY $0.00 05/03/90
2e
29
•1
*** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $110.00
3
7
32
R OFCR JAMES*WHIPKEY 00553 001-400-2101-4312 01245 $236.25 10295 33432
MEALS/HOTEL/GANGS CLASS 04/10/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 05/03/90
1,
37
*** VENDOR TOTAL ********** *l stag************ata *ate -*****************************ate$**** $236. 25
3e
41
.7
R SALLY A. *WHITE 00140 001-400-4102-4201 00253 $229.50 10817. 33433
43
SEC. SEP.V./APRIL 3, 90 04/16/90 PLANNING COMM /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 05/03/90
44
R SALLY A. *WHITE 00140 001-400-4102-4201 00254 $34.00 10819' 33433
as
47
SEC. SERV:/APRIL 17,90 04/24/90 PLANNING COMM /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 05/03/90
4o
49
*** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************4************************* $263.50
'o
91
2
53
,
R CHARLES*WILHITE 02955 001-400-2101-4316 00541 $380.43 10777 33434
54
99
REIMB TUITION/BOOKS 04/09/90 POLICE /TRAINING $0.00 05/03/90
55
7
t t
*** VENDOR TOTAL****************************************************sass************ $380.43
as
90
ai
R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 001-400-1208-4201 00648 $69.35 24434545 00364 33435
e2
93
COPIER METER USE/MAR 90 34545 04/09/90 GEN APPROP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 05/03/90
64
ua
*** VENDOR TOTAL**•**•***************************************************** *** ****** $69. 35
ae
67
an
*** PAY CODE TOTAL **************stat**stat**********************•rt*********************** $102,393.01
FY THAT THE DEMANDSOR LAIMSCOVERSLISTED
ON PAGES ONCLUSIVE OF
WETiE
THTER
FOR 5/'r/ gRE ACCUR,
F NNOAR MAILABLE FOR PAYMENT THEREOF:
*** TOTAL WARRANTS****************************************************************** $188, 589. 30 BY 1%� C4244 -61 -d4< -0'J
;,
3
FINANCE ADMINISTRATOR'
DATE V90
11 k
U
r/
-Y
E
TE
1 II RESOLUTION NO.
2II
3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RELATING TO THE LEASE/PURCHASE
4 OF MOBILE DATA EQUIPMENT AND A FIRE ENGINE
5
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that a need exists for the
6 acquisition of certain equipment described in the personal property lease pre-
sented to Council and that the use of the equipment is essential to the proper,
7 efficient and economic operation of the City, and
8 WHEREAS, the City Council has taken the necessary steps, including any
legal bidding requirements, under applicable law to arrange for the acquisition
9 of such equipment under the personal property lease.
10 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the terms of said personal property.
lease are in the best interests of the City and the City Council designates and
11 confirms the Mayor and the City Manager to execute and deliver the personal pro
perty lease and any related documents necessary to the consummation of the tran
12 sactions contemplated by the personal property lease.
13 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, the City Council authorizes and directs that
all obligations under the terms of the personal property lease are to be
14 fulfilled.
15
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of May, 1990.
16
17
PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the
18 City of Hermosa Beach, California
19
20 ATTEST:
21
, CITY CLERK
22 11
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
23
, CITY ATTORNEY
24
25
26 SUPPLEMENTAL
27 INFORMATION
28
April 24, 1990
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting
of the Hermosa Beach City Council of May 8, 1990
RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE LEASE/PURCHASE OF FIRE ENGINE
AND MOBILE DATA TERMINAL SYSTEM
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that City Council:
1) Authorize a five year lease agreement with Banc One Leasing Corporation for
the lease/purchase of the fire engine and the mobile data terminal system; and
2) Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign all necessary documents
required to acquire the lease.
BACKGROUND:
At the regular City Council meeting of August 8, 1989 Council authorized the
purchase of a fire engine from Paramount Equipment Sales for a cost not to
exceed $173,000.
The engine was ordered and we have been notified that the work should be
completed and the engine ready for delivery before the end of May 1990. The
cost of the engine, including tax will be $171,868.
Funds in the amount of $50,000 were budgeted .for FY 89/90 in anticipation of
paying for the first year of a lease/purchase contract for the engine.
At the regular City Council meeting of April 10, 1990 Council authorized the
purchase of equipment for a mobile data system by lease/purchase. The cost of
the system was estimated not to exceed $48,000. Funds in the amount of $18,000
were budgeted for Fy 89/90 to cover the costs associated with the mobile data
system for the first year.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has contacted various sources regarding the acquisition of a five (5) year
lease/purchase contract for the engine as follows:
Vendor Annual Payment Interest Rate Total of 5 year
payments
1. Pierce Co. $50,000 on delivery and
five payments of $30,582
2. GELCO $39,785
3. Banc One $39,770
4. Security Pacific $39,987
5. M.L. Stern & Co. $40,009
1
8.2%
8.05%
8.01%
8.33%
8.35%
$202,910
$198,925
$198,850
$199,935
$200,045
1f
For the five(5) year lease/purchase of the MDT system the following quotes were
obtained:
Vendor
Annual Payment Interest Rate Total of 5 year
payments
1. GELCO $10,724
2. Banc One $10,721
3. Security Pacific $10,779
4. M.L. Stern & Co. $10,779
8.05%
8.01%
8.33%
8.35%
$53,620
$53,605
$53,895
$53,895
The lowest payment and interest rate quoted for both lease/purchase agreements
was given by Banc One Leasing Corporation of Sepulveda, California.
Concur:
evin B. Northcraft,
City Manager
Noted for fiscal impact:
Viki Copeland
Director of Finance
2
Re y tful ly S bm/tted ,
411111U—
Steve Wisniewski
Director of Public Safety
April 30, 1990
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting
of May 8, 1990
the Hermosa Beach City Council
RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE METHOD OF FINANCING UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE BENEFITS FROM THE CONTRIBUTION RATE (TAX) METHOD TO THE
COST REIMBURSEMENT METHOD
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is recommended that the City Council authorize staff to file
the appropriate forms with the Employment Development Department
(EDD) to change from the Contribution Rate (tax) Method to the
Cost Reimbursement Method for financing Unemployment Insurance
(UI) benefits.
BACKGROUND:
The City currently uses the Contribution Rate (Tax) Method for
financing unemployment insurance benefits. Under this method the
City pays a percentage of the first $7,000 of each employees
wages to the UI insurance fund. Prior to 1986 the City was part
of the Local Public Entity Fund which was similar to a "shared
risk pool" for funding unemployment charges. When this fund op-
tion was eliminated by the EDD, the City elected to utilize the
Contribution Rate (Tax) method for financing this liability. At
the time this decision was made the City had experienced high
benefit amounts paid and also wanted the predictability of the
tax method for budget purposes.
The impetus for looking at different methods of financing UI in-
surance came from the Finance Director at a staff brainstorming
session and staff was directed to analyze the options.
The two methods available to Public Entities are the Contribution
Rate (Tax) method and the Individual Reimbursement Method. An
analysis and comparison of the two methods is indicated below.
ANALYSIS:
Current Method (Contribution Rate (Tax) Method)
Under this method of financing unemployment insurance benefits
charges, the City pays a percentage of the first $7,000 of pay-
roll for each employee's salary. The tax rate isdetermined by
the EDD on an annual basis . Following is a comparison of the.
amounts paid to the EDD for the periods indicated and the amounts
paid out in benefits (as reflected on EDD form DE 2088, Statement
of Reserve Account):
PERIOD RATE CITY CONTRIBUTIONS
FY 86/87 3.40%
FY 87/88 3.40%
FY 88/89 1.60%
$44,101*
$75,857*
$24,679*
BENEFITS PAID BY EDD
AND CHARGED TO CITY
ACCOUNT
$3,798
$3,938
$6,789
(* EDD reports credits received during the period Aug. 1st
through July 31st so figures do not reflect actual fiscal year
budget expenditure)
The actual amount of City contribution is both a function of the
tax rate and employee turnover. Since the liability for con-
tributions exists for the first $7,000 of each employees wages,
as new employees are hired, the UI tax is applied to their wages.
If there were no turnover, the tax would be paid relatively early
in the year for each of the existing employees and then cease.
Proposed Method (Individual Reimbursement Account)
Under this method, the City is charged only for those unemploy-
ment benefits that the EDD actually pays to applicants and which
are chargeable to the City. Based on the EDD form DE 2088 (an-
nual statement of account) figures, the City has consistently
paid more into the fund than has been paid out in benefits. Not
all benefits paid are reflected on the DE 2088 since some are
determined to not be chargeable to the City's reserve balance
(i.e. benefits paid to ex-employees who were discharged or quit
without good cause and became eligible). There is no data avail-
able to determine if there were any such charges.
Advantages/Disadvantages
Contribution Rate (Tax) Method
Advantages:
Disadvantage:
1. Provides a budgetable rate.
2. Limits liability to the contribution rate
or tax paid
1. Rates are for a calendar year; therefore
subjectto change midway through fiscal yr.
2. More expensive method, unless high turnover
(claim volume)
3. Public entities combined with private
employers who generally have higher claims
which impact the rate schedule.
4. Contributions once paid are pooled in the
UI fund (not recoverable).
5. Taxable wages must be "tracked" on a
calendar year basis.
Individual Reimbursement Method
Advantages: 1. No advance payment is required. City billed
at end of each quarter for benefits paid.
2. Cost is low if number of ex-employees who
receive benefits is low.
Disadvantages: 1. Difficult to budget appropriate amount.
Possibility of unpredictable fluctuations
in costs.
2. Cost can be high if number of ex-employees
who receive benefits is high.
3. Does not provide upper limit to liability.
4. Does not permit relief for benefits paid to
employees who quit without good -cause, are
fired for misconduct, or for any other
reason.
Survey Results:
Staff surveyed other cities to determine what method of financing
UI insurance benefits they utilized. The cities surveyed were
Signal Hill, Redondo Beach, Santa Monica, Manhattan Beach,
Lawndale, El Segundo, Lomita, PVE, Beverly Hills, Gardena, Ingle-
wood, Carson, and Montclair.
All of the cities indicated that they utilized the Direct Reim-
bursement Method and found it to be the less expensive method.
Conclusion:
While under the Direct Reimbursement Method there is a possibili-
ty that in any given year the City could pay more than what would
have been paid under the the Tax method, the prior year's history
indicates that over the long term the cost will be significantly
less.
If Council authorizes the proposed change to the reimbursement
method, staff is recommending an appropriation of $7,000 for FY
90-91 in the Unemployment Insurance account. If the City were to
remain under the current method, the appropriation would neces-
sarily be $15,000 (based on UI tax rate of 1% of first $7,000 of
wages times 214 employees).
If the amount of UI charges for the coming fiscal year is the
average paid for the past three Years ($4,842) the City will save
$10,158 by switching methods.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert A. Blackwood
Risk Manager
Noted for fiscal impact:
Viki Copeland
Finance Director
Concur,
/t<
Kevin B. Northcraft
City Manager
April 24, 1990
Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of
the Hermosa Beach City Council May 8, 1990
RESOLUTION FOR THE REMOVAL OF CURB PARKING
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 16TH STREET WEST OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council approve and adopt the
attached Resolution No. 90- , authorizing the removal of curb
parking on the south side of 16th Street west of Pacific Coast
Highway for a distance of approximately 126 feet.
Background:
The Commodore Condominium Owner's Association requested Caltrans
to consider signalization and/or STOP controls at the Pacific
Coast Highway/16th Street intersection in a letter dated March
26, 1990. In addition, they requested that the City consider
removing curb parking on the south side of 16th Street west of
Pacific Coast Highway in order to allow re -striping the one lane
eastbound approach to provide two lanes.
Analysis:
The City has continually asked Caltrans to reconsider the need
for signalization of the Pacific Coast Highway/16th Street
intersection. Caltrans last review was prior to the opening of
the Hermosa Beach Pavilion development and did not reflect the
impact of the development traffic from 16th Street. This
includes the peak exit traffic from the theaters in the complex.
Currently 16th Street west of Pacific Coast Highway is controlled
by a STOP sign. Two westbound lanes and one eastbound lane are
provided. Curb parking is prohibited along the north side of
16th Street, but allowed (except for street sweeping day) on the
south side. Eastbound left turns from 16th Street are prohibited
between 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
A vehicle wishing to turn left onto northbound Pacific Coast
Highway must wait for periods up to three minutes at times to
negotiate the turn. With only one eastbound approach lane and
curb parking on the south side it is virtually impossible for a
right turning vehicle to use the curb lane area to "get around"
the left turning vehicle.
Curb parking removal of the first five spaces, a distance of 126
feet would allow a.re-striping of the eastbound approach to
eliminate this problem.
In the event Caltrans does eventually signalize this
intersection, the two lane approach will increase the efficiency
of operation and allow a quicker return of the green signal to
the main street, Pacific Coast Highway.
Fiscal Impact:
Nominal; City forces would provide signing and curb markings
under normal operations.
Alternatives:
1. Retaining Status Quo: This alternative would save the five
parking spaces. This must be weighed against the delay, fuel
emissions, etc., that would continue due to the single file
operation for eastbound 16th Street.
2. Prohibit Left Turns from Eastbound 16th Street onto Pacific
Coast HIghway for 24 hours: This alternative would force all
vehicles to go southbound at Pacific Coast Highway and would save
the five parking spaces. The potential for accidents by making
the left turn onto Pacific Coast Highway would be eliminated.
Traffic exiting the development desirous of proceeding north
would have to travel west to Ardmore, thence, north. Traffic
would then have to use 21st Street to proceed east to Pacific
Coast Highway and use the existing signal.
Rest u s ;emitted,
Ed Ruzak
City Traff
Co
Concur:
�.Iv i �g 404,444
,110
An Wo y Ant i ch
Director of Public Works
n Kea in, Sergeant Kevin B. North raft
ermosa Beach Police Department City Manager
cc:
Steve Wisniewski, Director of Public Safety
Leroy Staten, Acting Director of General Services
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, CREATING A NO STOPPING ZONE ALONG SIXTEENTH STREET.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The following No Stopping Zone is created:
Sixteenth Street: Starting from a point of intersection of
the northerly prolongation of the south
curb face on Sixteenth Street at Pacific
Coast Highway to a point 126 feet west of
said point.
SECTION 2. That this resolution shall take effect immediately.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 8th day of May, 1990.
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California
, City Clerk
, City Attorney
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
„tvaze
Honorable Mayor
and Members of the
City Council
May 2, 1990
City Council Meeting
of May 8, 1990
MONTHLY STATUS REPORT OF INACTIVE
PUBLIC DEPOSITS FOR HERMOSA BEACH
Attached is a report of all Inactive Public Deposits for the
month of April 1990.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Brut -ch
City Treasurer
NOTED:
Kevin iJorthcraft
City Manager
1d
INVESTMENT REPORT - APRIL 1990
INSTITUTION TOTAL DATE OF INVESTMENT DATE OF MATURITY INTEREST
LAIF
BALANCE 4/01/90 $3,310,000.00
BALANCE 4/30/90 $3,310,000.00 8.506%
LACPIF
Railroad Right -of -Way Account
BALANCE 4/01/90
BALANCE 4/30/90
General Account
BALANCE 4/01/90
BALANCE 4/30/90
$ 325,593.08
325,593.08 7.61%
$ 100,000.00
100,000.00 7.61%
CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT:
Union Federal S&L
Investment $ 500,000.00 2/22/90 2/21/91
City National Bank
Investment $ 500,000.00 3/23/90 3/25/91
City National Bank
Investment $ 500,000.00 4/25/90 4/22/91
8.10%
8.425%
8.50%
City National Bank
Investment
CORPORATE NOTES:
Ford Motor Credit Co.
Investment
500,000.00. 5/22/89 5/17/90 9.45%
500,000.00
5/19/88
5/20/93 9.10%
U.S. TREASURY BOND:
Investment $ 500,937.94 2/22/89 1/31/91 9.20%
Investment $ 499,326.42 1/03/90 12/31/91 7.71%
Investment $1,025,032.92 1/29/90 2/15/91 8.22%
Investment $1,001,542.12 3/06/90 2/29/92 8.50%
Investment $ 500,845.79 3/08/90 2/29/92 8.50%
Investment $ 999,492.83 4/20/90 3/31/92 8.763%
FHLMC:
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.
Investment
INVESTMENT TOTAL
$ 248,733.64
$11,011,504.74
3/26/87
3/1/17 8.0%
SEATTLE 1ST NATL. BANK TRUST
BALANCE 4/01/90
BALANCE 4/30/90
TICOR
BALANCE 2/01/90
BALANCE 2/28/90
TRUSTEE TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
$ 515,502.05
515,502.05 8.3%
$ 10,000.00
10,000.00
$ 525,502.05
$11,537,006.79
Respectfully Submitted,
Ga y Bru ch
City Treasurer
.April 26, 1990
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of
of the City Council May 8, 1990
PROJECT TOUCH LEASE AGREEMENT
(ROOM 3)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by staff that Council approve the attached
agreement between the City of Hermosa -Beach and Project Touch to
lease Room 3 in the Community Center.
BACKGROUND
Project Touch presently leases Room C, Room 11 and 3 in the
Community Center. They have been tenants in the Center since
October, 1979. They have served Hermosa, Redondo and Manhattan
Beach city's high risk youth and their families for 15 years.
Project Touch is a juvenile diversion program whose services
include social and educational enrichment, counseling, meals,
wilderness challenge camping and stepteen/stepfamily groups.
ANALYSIS
The lease space for Room 3 is 529 sq. ft. with a monthly rental
of $391. ($.74 sq. ft.) This rate will be in effect until July
1, 1990 and then will increase to $.77 sq. ft. or $407 per month.
The attached lease conformsto the present square footage rental
policy (approved by City Council on March 19, 1990).with all
other conditions of the former lease remaining the same. Their
residency in the Community Center has been of great value in
addressing a vital social service function for Hermosa Beach.
Concur:
OF /1
.Rooney, Director
Mar
De -•t. of Community Resources
'Cevin B. Northraft
City Manager
Respectfully submited,
Marsha Ernst
Administrative Aide
Noted for Fiscal Impact:
Viki Co. el Director
p nd,
Finance Department
HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY CENTER LEASE AGREEMENT
This Leasing Agreement is made and entered into on this, the
8th day. of May 1
1990 , by and between the City of Hermosa Beach, a Municipal
Corporation (City) and Project Touch (Lessee).
A. RECITALS:
1. The City is the owner of a recreational/civic service
facility generally referred to as the Hermosa Beach Com-
munity Center (referred to herein as the "facility").
2. The facility is subject to certain agreements and deed
restrictions entered into on the 28th day of February
1978, between the City and the Hermosa Beach City School
District and is further subject to certain provisions
imposed by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment as set forth in a document entitled Agreement for
Sale and Purchase of Real Property and dated the 28th
day of February 1978. These documents are on file in
the office of the City Clerk of the City and are public
documents and by reference are incorporated into this
leasing agreement and are referred to herein as the HUD
and SCHOOL DISTRICT AGREEMENTS.
3. The Lessee desires to use a portion of the facility on
the terms and conditions set out herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. TERM. The term of this lease shall be for a period
of one (1) year commencing on the 1st day
of June ,1990 , and ending on the
31st day of May ,1991
2. DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES. The Lessee is leasing from
the City that portion of the facility described as:
Room 3 (529 sq. ft.)
3. RENT. Lessee agrees to pay to the City rent ac-
cording
ccording to the following schedule:
June 1, 1990, thru June 30, 1990, $391/mo. $.74 sq.ft.
July 1, 1990, thru May 31, 1991, $407/mo. $.77.sq.ft.
Payable on the first day of the month. If this lease
commences on a day other than the first day of the
month, then the Lessee shall pay upon the commencement
of the lease the rental on a pro rata basis for the
remainder of that month and commence a full rental pay-
ment on the first day of the following month.
3A. OTHER CONDITIONS. The following additional condi-
tions are agreed to by the Lessee:
1. Lessee shall not mark, drill or deface any walls,
ceilings, floors, wood or iron work without Lessor's
written consent.
2. No signs or awning shall be erected or maintained
upon or attached to the outside of the premises except
such signs showing the business of the Lessee. All such
signs shall be in accordance with the policy established
by the Lessor.
4. USE. The Lessee agrees to use the premises only for the
following purpose or purposes: Counseling services
And for no other purpose without the express written consent
of the City. Lessee also agrees the premises shall not be
used in violation of the Depratment of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) or School District Agreements as those
agreements are interpreted by either the City or the Hermosa
Beach City School District or the Department of Housing and
Urban Development.
5. INSURANCE LIABILITY. Lessee shall obtain and maintain at
all times during the term of this agreement Comprehensive
General and Automobile Liability insurance protecting Lessee
in amounts not less than $1,000,000 for personal injury to
any one person, $1,000,000 for injuries arising out of any
one occurrence, and $1,000,000 for property damage or a com-
bined single limit of $1,000,000. Such insurance shall name
City of Hermosa Beach and their officers, employees, elected
officials and members of Boards or Commissions as additional
insured parties. Coverage shall be in accordance with the
sample certificates and endorsements attached hereto and must
include the coverage and provisions indicated.
Lessee shall file and maintain the required certificate(s) of
insurance with the other party to this agreement at all times
during the term of this agreement. The certificate(s) is to
be filed prior to the commencement of the work or event and
should state clearly:
(1) The additional insured requested;
(2) Thirty day prior notice of change or cancellation
to the City of Hermosa Beach;
(3) Insurance is primary to that of the Additional
Insured;
(4) Coverage included;
(5) Cross -liability clause.
WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE. Lessee shall obtain and
maintain at all times during the term of this agreement Work-
er's Compensation
ork-er's'Compensation and Employers Liability insurance and fur-
nish the City (or. Agency) with a certificate showing proof of
such coverage. Such insurance shall not be cancelled or
materially changed without a thirty (30) day prior written
notice to: City Manager, City of Hermosa Beach.
INSURANCE COMPANIES. Insurance companies must be rated
(B:XIII) or better in Best's Insurance Rating Guide.
6. CONDITION OF THE PREMISES UPON -TERMINATION OF THE LEASE.
Lessee agrees to keep and maintain the premises in good con-
dition and repair and to return to the City the premises upon
termination of this lease in the same condition as when Les-
see took possession of the premises excepting any repairs or
alterations which were approved by the City, reasonable wear
and tear excepted, and does promise to pay the City upon de-
mand the reasonable sums to repair the premises in the event
of a violation of this provision.
7. CONSTRUCTION. Lessee is prohibited from making any al-
terations or performing any construction whatsoever on the
premises without the expressed written approval of the City.
Any such approval shall include provisions to protect the
City from potential liens of labor and material persons.
8. DESTRUCTION, PARTIAL DESTRUCTION OR NECESSITY TO REPAIR
BECAUSE OF CONDITIONS CAUSED BY OTHER THAN LESSEE. The City
has no duty or obligation to reconstruct the premises in the
event of destruction or partial destruction of the premises.
The City at its option may reconstruct or repair the prem-
ises, whereupon this lease shall remain in full force and
effect except that no rent will be owing to the City during
said period of reconstruction or repair if such reconstruc-
tion or repair interferes with the tenancy created herein to
the extent that the premises cannot be used for the purposes
intended. In the event the City at its sole discretion
determines not to reconstruct or repair the premises then
either party at its option may cause this lease to be termi-
nated and neither party shall have any liability each to each
other.
9. HOLD HARMLESS. Lessee shall hold harmless and indemnify
the City, its officers, agents and employees from every claim
or demand which may be made by reason of any injury and/or
death to persons and/or injury to property caused by any di-
rect or indirect act or any omission of the lessee, its of-
ficers, agents and employees arising out of the lessee's use
of said premises. The lessee, at its own cost, expense and
risk shall defend any and all actions; suits or -other pro-
ceedings that may be brought or instituted against the City
on any such claim or demand, and pay or satisfy any judgment
that may be rendered against the Lessor on any such action,
suit, or legal proceedings as a result hereof.
10. RULES, REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES; The Lessee agrees to
comply strictly with all applicable laws and any uniform Com-
munity Center rules and regulations adopted by the City
Council.
11. TAXES AND CHARGES. Lessee agrees to pay when due any
and all taxes, assessments or charges levied by any -
governmental agency on or to the lease -hold premises.
12. DEFAULT. Should Lessee fail to�pay any monies due pur-
suant to this lease within three days after written notice
from the City or to perform any other obligation required
pursuant to the terms of this lease within thirty days after
notice from the City, City may immediately cause this lease
to be terminated and thereafter take any action and pursue
all remedies available under the laws then existent in the
State of California.
13. NOTICE. Any notice required to be made or given pur-
suant to the provisions of this lease may be either personal-
ly served upon the party or deposited in the United States
mail, postage prepaid,
LESSOR: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
CITY HALL
1315 VALLEY DRIVE
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254
LESSEE: Project Touch
710 Pier Avenue
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Attn: Julie Dorr Feys
Any notices so given pursuant to the provisions of this
paragraph will be deemed served twenty-four hours after the
deposit thereof in the United States mail.
14. ATTORNEYS FEES. The parties agree that in the event any
action is instituted concerning any of the provisions of this
lease agreement, the prevailing party may in the discretion
of the court be granted as an additional item of damages its
attorneys fees.
15. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. Lessee may not assign or
sublease all or any portion of the premises without the writ-
ten consent of the City, which consent may be granted or de-
nied at the exclusive and total discretion of the City.
16. SUCCESSORS. Subject to. prior provisions, this lease is
binding upon the heirs, assigns and successors.of interest of.
the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Hermosa
Beach Community Center Lease Agreement at Hermosa Beach on
the day first hereinabove set forth.
ATTEST:
DATE:
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a
Municipal Corporation, Lessor
CITY CLERK
CITY ATTORNEY
LESSEE:
May 1, 1990
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting
the Hermosa Beach City Council of May 8, 1990
REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS TO THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION
ACCOUNT 705-401-1217
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is recommended that the City Council appropriate $28,000 to
the Workers' Compensation Account #705-401-1217-4182 from each
fund according to the established workers' compensation alloca-
tion formula.
BACKGROUND:
The Workers' Compensation account for medical and disability pay-
ments has a current balance of $13,421. There have been several
large claims which have depleted this account. These include a
recent award of $28,000 and ongoing medical expenses for several
police officers who suffered injury in the course of their em-
ployment with the City. It is anticipated that there will be
additional charges in the amount of $48,300 to this account for
the remainder of the fiscal year.
ANALYSIS:
Staff is requesting an additional $28,000 be appropriated to the
Workers' Compensation account from the user funds. The remaining
$6,900 necessary to fund this account through the remainder of
the fiscal year will be transferred from other accounts within
the Insurance Fund.
The recommended action reflects that costs to the insurance fund
are allocated to the various user departments based on a formula.
The requested $28,000 will be_charged to the appropriate funds
based on that formula.
Respectfully submitted,
Noted:
Robert A. Blackwood 'Kevin B. North"craft
Risk Manager
Noted for fiscal impact:
0i4:(74,0MalC(
Viki Copeland
Finance Director
City Manager
April 30, 1990
Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of
the Hermosa Beach City Council May 8', 1990.
STATUS REPORT
STORM DRAIN OUTLET AT 6TH STREET AND TIDELAND
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council receive and file.
Background:
On August 12, 1989, City Council directed that the Public Works
Department clean the 6th Street storm drain twice a month because
of an odor in that area. If twice monthly cleaning did not
eliminate the odor then a weekly cleaning schedule would be
implemented. This action was in response to a letter (dated
August 11, 1989) from Kathy Rowe a resident at #19 -6th Street.
See attached letter.
Analysis:
The analysis is divided. as follows:
1. The Drain -
2. Progress of 2 Monthly Cleanings
3. A Proposed Alternative
4. Summary
1. The Drain
The Sixth Street storm drain was built by Los Angeles County in
1987 of constructed reinforced concrete pipe. Runoff water is
collected at the inlets at 8th Street and Hermosa Avenue to Sixth
Street. There are additional outlets that collect runoff at
Sixth Street. The pipe turns west and travels beneath the Sixth
walkstreet to Beach Drive. Another pipe collects water along
Beach Drive from 10th to 6th Street.
This is illustrated on the attached map.
Since the pipe outlets are at.tideline, they are plugged with
sand:
1.- During the summer because of the wider beach
2. During the winter because of the high tide/lowtide
movement of sand.
The storm drains were originally designed and constructed with a
water jet flushing system. This system doesn't work as designed
and cannot be used to unplug the outlets.
When the outlet is plugged, the work must be scheduled to
coincide with a low tide. A crawler digs a through in front of
the outlet (depending on how much water is stored in the drain)
allowing the water to drain.
Before
Plugged Outlet
Mn.
aconia=wa__
mitaniWageidi..k
.:-; • wo
During
Clearing the Outlet
ArzAEMIN
_ . 7
-..:,
, -
•1164 •ei4:
•; •
• .•••.
•
• •
• -4 t--4 •
\ • ..),••
'Of •
• •
..62!
After
Outlet is Cleared
• •,..:41k.
• .t ••••
•
Odors associated.with the storm drain or inlets comes from the
stagnant water. No chemicals can be used to lessen the odor .
concern because the discharge of chemicals is not allowed into
the Santa Monica Bay.
2. Progress of 2 Monthly Cleanings
The Public Works Department attempted to implement a two (2)
month cleaning schedule in September. Below is a chronology of
events between September 1989 through March 1990.
September 1989: While pumping the 6th Street storm drain on the
beach we found that we could not pump into the sewer system
because the amount of water being pumped was overloading the
sewer line. Staff did not believe it was appropriate to pump the
stagnant water onto the beach.
October to present: During these months, the storm drains are
opened only during rainy weather when the drains are full enough
to open.
3. A Proposed Alternative
The Public Works Department is considering eliminating the
pumping or waiting until the drains become full by installing a
15" plastic pipe inside the storm drain to drain off the nuisance
flow. The pipe should be put in place by mid-June in order to be
tested this summer. All cost can be recovered from Los Angeles
County Public Works.
4. Summary
Since the construction of the Sixth Street storm drains, it is
not possible to keep the outlet open all the time. At high tide,
the drain openings get clogged by sand, causing water to set in
the drains for months at a time. The only time these drains can
be opened and all water removed is when enough storm water has
accumulated to fill the drains, forcing them open.
The Public Works Department staff feels confident that the
plastic pipe alternative will help in further eliminating the
odor concern.
Respectfully Submitted,
Vernon Hi
d
Public W.rks Supervisor
ty/storm
Concur:
Kevin B. Northeraft
City Manager
April 30, 1990
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council Meeting of
May 8, 1990
CIVIC THEATRE ENTRYWAY
It is recommended by the Parks, Recreation and Community
Resources Commission and staff that Council accept the donation
offered by the Community Center Foundation of a stained glass
window to be placed on the doors at the entrance to the Civic
Theatre lobby.
BACKGROUND:
At a joint meeting between the Commission and Foundation in.
February, 1990.some potential short term and long term CIPs for
the Community Center were discussed and agreed upon between the
two groups. The purpose in doing so was to provide the
Foundation with some general guidance ih selecting which projects
to raise funds and donated services for. One of the short term
projects discussed at that time was enhancing the entryway of the
Community Center adjacent to the Civic Theatre.
With this direction, the Foundation secured a donation of
services by three artists in the community (Dean Wolfe, Dave
Holliman, Carol Depray) who will design and install a stained
glass work of art at the upper entrance on the Pier Avenue side
of the building. The Foundation will contribute $300 from their
budget for glass and materials.
ANALYSIS:
The design provided for the window matches with the art deco
style of the building (attached). Colors will be selected to
mesh with the gray and burgundy of the rest of the building.
All work and materials will be submitted to the Public Works
Department for approval prior to project implementation.
The Community Resources Commission approved this project at their
April 25 meeting. Improving the entryway to the Community Center
may serve to enhance the beauty of the building in addition to
giving much needed identity to the Civic Theatre complex.
Concur:
evi
Ci
Anty Antich, itector
Public Works Department
Respectfully submitted,
Mary C ooney, Director
Dep . of Community Resources
ik
April 30, 1990
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting of
the Hermosa Beach City Council May 8, 1990
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CATV BOARD TO ADOPT THE ATTACHED RESOLU-
TION OF INTENTION TO ADOPT CONSUMER PROTECTION STANDARDS, AND,
SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached
Resolution of Intent, stating the rules, regulations, and stan-
dards to be considered for adoption.
Background:
At your regularly scheduled meeting of September 27, 1988, the
City Council approved the recommendation of the CATV Board that a
consumer protection ordinance be developed and drafted, and that
a consultant be hired to assist the Board in drafting said or-
dinance. On January 10, 1989, Council approved the Board's
recommendation to hire Communications Support Corporation to re-
view the CATV Franchise Documents and assist the board in com-
pleting the duties assigned to them.
Subsequently, at your regularly scheduled meeting of July 11,
1989, the City Council accepted the CATV Board's recommendation
to consider implementation of the recommendations [by the consul-
tant] as specified on pages 39 through 44 of the consultant's
report, regarding technical, operational, document review, and
legal enforcement action plan.
The Cable TV Board has reviewed the consumer rules and regula-
tions of several neighboring cities, and is recommending incor-
poration into the franchise, specific rules and regulations as
modified from those of the cities of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles,
and Santa Cruz.
This Resolution of Intent, and attached rules, regulations, poli-
cies and guidelines, are submitted in response to the Council's
direction of September 27, 1988, the consultant's recommendation
to consider amending the franchise to include consumer protection
standards, and the City Council's acceptance of that
recommendation.
On February 13, 1990, this item was brought before the City Coun-
cil, and the Resolution of Intent was adopted, setting for hear-
ing the proposed Consumer Protection Standards, on March 13,
1990. Notice of the Public Hearing, was not published as re-
quired in the Resolution of Intent (per Section 2), and thereby
invalidated the March 13th date for public hearing. It is now
- 1 -
lm
before the Council, to re -set in motion' the required processes,
as outlined in the Resolution of Intent.
Analysis:
The Cable Television industry, over the past 20 years, has
dramatically changed from a group of small, fledgling companies,
to a multi -billion dollar industry. In 1984 cable TV was avail-
able in about 54.5 million TV households in this country, which
represent over 65% of all homes with TV sets. It was predicted
that by 1988, cable will have passed 83% of TV households; about
76 million homes.
In the last few years, new, up and coming companies, and con-
glomerates wishing to diversify have entered the Cable TV market.
These changes in the industry and demands from subscribers, have
dictated the necessity to establish written standards to protect
the consumer and insure service.
In addition to the amendment powers provided by the CATV Or-
dinance, the Franchise Agreement specifically reserves to the
City the "...right under the Franchise granted hereunder to adopt
subscriber rules, regulations and standards for operation of the
CATV system...", (Ordinance No. 78-596, Section 7). Although
such standards and procedures must not "...materially alter the
content of the franchise without the consent of the grantee...",
the City can adopt the substantive or procedural rule or regula-
tion by passing a resolution of intent, publishing notice there-
of, holding a public hearing thereupon, and adopting said rule
and regulation by resolution, (Chapter 7.5-16(B)(3).
As part of their recommendation to adopt consumer protection
standards (attached), Communications Support Corporation, sup-
plied examples of standards from the cities of Los Angeles and
Beverly Hills. They are attached for your review.
The City has been communicating with the CATV operator 'over the
last few months, with considerable cooperation, to work on im-
plementing the specific recommendations made by the consultant
concerning operational standards. Although all of our requests
are being honored, the Board desires to formally establish at-
tached standards.
Alternatives:
1. Seek additional consumer protection standards for review and
consideration.
2. Modify, as necessary, the recommended document.
3. Receive and file this report.
CONCUR:
L. Staten, Acting
Gen ral Services Director
Kevin B. Northcraft,
City Manager
3
Respectfully submitted,
Henry L. Staten, Acting Director
by ladeee LAL-ce-eAr--
Michele D. Tercero,
Staff Liaison, CATV
1
21
3,
4
5
6
7
8I
9
10
11
19
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 1
22
23
24
25
26
2T
28
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF INTENT, OF'THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, TO ADOPT CONSUMER PROTECTION
STANDARDS
WHEREAS, the City Council held a meeting on September
27, 1988 approving the development and drafting of Cable TV
consumer protection standards;
WHEREAS, the City Council further accepted the CATV
Board's recommendation to consider implementation of the
recommendations of the CATV consultant to adopt consumer
protection standards;
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the community to
adopt such consumer protection standards;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council, of the City of Hermosa
Beach, does hereby set for public hearing, the consumer
protection standards for consideration to adopt, on June
12, 1990.
SECTION 2. That prior to the expiration of fifteen
(15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk
shall cause this resolution to be published in the Easy
Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published
and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach.
' SECTION 3. That the office of the City Manager shall
mail a copy of the same to the franchisee at least thirty
(30) days prior to the time fixed for hearing thereon.
1990.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 8th day of May,
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
j.(4e CITY ATTORNEY
Oft/dALL,-
////(MDT)
1
RESOLUTION NO.
I A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING CONSUMER PROTECTION STANDARDS
3
4 WHEREAS, the City Council at their regularly scheduled
5
meeting of September 27, 1988, approved the recommendation of
5 the CATV Board that a consumer protection ordinance be developed
7 and drafted;
8
WHEREAS, the City Council, at their regularly scheduled
0
meeting of July 11, 1989, further accepted the recommendation of
the Cable TV consultant to implement specific consumer
protection standards;
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, it has become common practice for consumer
protection standards to be included as a part of Cable TV
Franchises;
WHEREAS, Section 7.5-16. Subscriber rules and regulations,
subsection (B)(3), provides for a procedure to adopt new rules
and regulations or standards;
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the citizens of the
City of Hermosa Beach to adopt and enforce consumer protection
standards for the operation of a Cable TV system;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE .AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the City Council does hereby adopt the
attached consumer protection standards.
- 1 -
2
4
CONSUMER PROTECTION STANDARDS.
Section 1. Subscriber complaints and Service Personnel.
(1) The grantee shall maintain a local office in the city
which shall be open during normal business hours, but in no case
per week, and shall include telephone
toll-free telephone calls from
the day or night. The grantee shall
to a live personal representative of
5 less than forty (40) hours
6 service for the receipt of
7 subscribers at any time of
8 connect a telephone caller
g the Grantee within two minutes, during regular business and peak
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
viewing hours, Monday through Saturday. In the event the
Grantee establishes to the City's satisfaction that the above
standard relating to peak viewing hours and/or Saturday's is
unnecessary and materially burdensome, the City may, in its sole
discretion, waive that requirement in writing. During abnormal
events which directly affect five percent (5%) or more of the
Grantee's subscriber base in the City, the Grantee shall be
excused from compliance with the foregoing requirement, if the
Grantee provides to telephone callers during such period,
19 pending connection with a live personal representative, a
20 recorded message. Such recorded message shall be mutually
21 agreed upon in writing by the Grantee and the City prior to is
22 use. The grantee shall notify the subscribers of the procedures
23 for requesting service calls or reporting complaints regarding
24 !the operation of the cable system.
23
26
27
23
(2) The grantee shall provide sufficient service personnel as
reasonably necessary to respond to the service calls and
complaints of the subscribers. The Grantee shall maintain a
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
force of technicians capable of responding within twenty-four
(24) hours after receipt of a request for repairs relating to a
service outage and forty-eight (48) hours excluding Sundays for
all other complaint and requests for repair. No charge shall be
made to the subscriber for such service or repair except as
provided in the Franchise Agreement. Requests from subscribers
for repair and maintenance services must be acknowledged by the
Grantee within 24 hours. Verification of the problem, and if
possible, resolution, must occur within forty-eight (48) hours;
and in any event, resolution must occur within one (1) week.
Those matters requiring additional maintenance, repair or
technical adjustments that are documentable as necessitating an
excess of one (1) week to complete, must be finally resolved
within fifteen (15) days of the initial complaint.
(3) The grantee shall maintain the following records
regarding subscriber complaints and substantial system failures:
(
The grantee shall maintain a written record of all
complaints received from individual subscribers (other than
complaints regarding substantial system failure), which shall
show the date and time of the complaint and the name, address
and telephone number of the complainant, the information given
to the complainant as to how the complaint would.. be resolved,
the action taken to resolve the complaint and the date and time
the complaint was resolved. Complaints not resolved within
forty-eight (48) hours of receipt shall be listed in a log of
"Delayed Action on Complaints" which shall give the information
above and add the detailed reasons for non -resolution within the
forty-eight (48) hour period.
Section 2. Customer Service Standards and Procedures
(A) Customer Service Criteria.
(1) Dwelling units passed by cable and dwelling unit
history shall be categorized and filed in computer -compatible
form.
(2) Customer Service Representatives shall be trained to
analyze customer complaints to distinguish between those that
are system -related and those that are subscriber
equipment -related.
(B) Information to Customers. The Grantee shall, at the time
service is initiated provide each new customer written
information covering:
(1) The time allowed to pay outstanding bills.
(2) Grounds for termination of service.
(3) The steps the Grantee must take before terminating
service.
(4) That consumers are entitled to receive an estimate of
the cost for a "nonstandard installation" should a standard
installation not be possible. A consumer may petition the
City's Cable Television Franchise Administrator if they believe
that the estimate given by the company was unfair, unreasonable
fi
;land discriminatory. The determination of the City's Franchise
1
Administrator may be appealed to the City Council.
2
3
4
5
u
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2
22
2
24
25
26
27
28
(5) How the customer can resolve billing disputes.
(6) The fact that customers shall have the right to speak
with a supervisor, and if none is available, a supervisor shall
return the customer's call within one (1) working day.
(7) Provide complete information to the complainant
regarding his ability to take his complaint to the Grantor's
representative if it is not resolved by the Grantee.
(C) Billing Practices
(1) Billing envelopes shall be individually marked to
indicate the date mailed. The metering strip shall include the
date on which the bill was delivered to the U.S. Post Office.
This postmark date shall constitute proof of the date of
issuance.
(2) The Grantee shall provide at least five (5) days
written notice prior to discontinuance of service to any
subscriber of the Cable System. Where the Grantee has..
1
improperly discontinued Cable System service toany such
subscriber, it shall provide free reconnection to the Cable
3
System to such subscriber.
(3) The Grantee shall afford each subscriber of the Cable
System with a three day right of rescission for ordering the
services of the Cable System; Provide that such right of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2311
24
25
26
27
28
!rescission may end upon initiation of physical installation of
the Cable System equipment on such subscriber's premises.
(4) All personnel, agents and representatives of the
Grantee, including subcontractors, shall wear
photo -identification badges, prominentlydisplayed, when acting
;on
behalf of the Grantee in the City.
(5) The Grantee shall provide significant advance notice in
writing to the owner and the resident of any private property
within the City prior to entry onto such property whenever the
Grantee desires that any of its personnel, agents or
representatives should enter such property; provided that the
Grantee shall only be required to provide significant advance
notice when it reasonable under the circumstances at the time
and shall not be required to provide such notice in emergencies.
Violation of this Subsection by the Grantee shall not constitute
a material breach of this Agreement unless such violation is
repeated or willful.
(6) The. Grantee shall provide subscribers of the Cable
System, and potential subscribers, with a complete list of
service offerings, options, prices and credit policies
associated with the Cable System.
(7) Before providing initial service to each consumer, the
Grantee must advise the consumer, in writing of:
/////
/1/11
/////
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) The method by which the consumer will be notified
of any changes in rates, services, and equipment, and company
practices and procedures related to service to consumers;
(b) The address and telephone number of the Grantee's
office to which complaints and inquiries may be reported and the
manner in which complaints will be addressed. Such number and
address shall be prominently displayed on the first page of each
monthly bill and identified as such, and shall be listed in the
telephone directories serving the City of Hermosa Beach.
(8) Whenever possible, the Grantee shall notify each
subscriber of the Cable System in advance of the expected time
;of any service visit to such subscriber's premises. Such
notification shall specify whether the anticipated service visit
will be before or after noon.. The Grantee shall accommodate
each subscriber of the Cable System with respect to such
Subscriber's expressed preference for a morning or afternoon
service visit. Violation of this Subsection by the Grantee
shall not constitute a material breach of this Agreement unless
such violation is repeated or willful.
(D) Disputed Bills:
(1) In the event of a dispute between the customer and the
Grantee regarding the bill, the Grantee shall promptly make such
investigation as is required by the particular case and report
the results to the customer. In the event the dispute is not
resolved to the satisfaction of both parties, the Grantee shall
inform the customer of the complaint procedures of the Grantor.
If the customer wishes to obtain the benefits of paragraphs (1)
and (2) of this subsection, notification of the disputed bill
must be given to the Grantee within five (5) days after due
date.
(2) The customer shall not be required to pay the disputed
portion of the bill until the earlier of the following:
(a) Resolution of the dispute,
(b) Expiration of a fifty-five (55) day period
beginning on the date of issuance, provided that the procedures
established in subsection (D)(1) above have been followed.
(3) Pending resolution of the bill dispute, no termination
notices shall be issued for the disputed portions of the bill,
nor shall any other collection procedures be initiated for said
amount. Any such activity may be interpreted as an attempt to
avoid the provisions of these rules and shall constitute
violation of the regulations.
(E) Referral of Accounts to Collection Agencies.
(1) Uncollected accounts may be referred to private
collection agencies for appropriate action if the bill has not
been paid by the earlier of (a) fifteen (15) days following the
date of involuntary termination or (b) the fifty-sixth (56th)
day following the date of issuance of the original uncollected
amount, provided no notification of billing dispute has been
made, or if procedures for resolution of billing disputes have
not been followed as required above.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
(2) If the account was voluntarily terminated for any
reason, the account may not be referred to a collection agency
until at least fifteen (15) days following rendering of the
final bill. If notification of a billing dispute is made, all
collection procedures shall be delayed as required in paragraph
(D)(3) above. Referral to collection agent shall then occur no
sooner than the fifty-sixth (56th) day following issuance of the
original uncollected amount.
9 (F) Refund.
10
11
12
13
14
15
swill not receive it because of his discontinuation of service.
16
17 (G) No person shall be denied cable television services on the
18 basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual
19 preference, age, disability, income or the area in which they
(1) When a subscriber voluntarily discontinues service,
Grantee shall refund the unused portion of any advance payment
after deducting any charges currently due through the end of the
present billing period. Unused payment portions shall be the
percentage of time for which subscriber has paid for service and
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
live.
(H) Maximum practical availability of the services and
facilities shall be provided to handicapped persons. At a
minimum, the Grantee shall provide, at no additional cost, a
remote control device to those subscribers who are paraplegic or
quadriplegic.
/////
////./
- 9 -
(I) Equipment which is not otherwise readily available shall
be provided to facilitate the reception of all basic services
for the hearing impaired. In addition, the company must have
TDD (or equivalent) equipment at the Grantee's office that will
allow hearing impaired consumers to contact the Grantee.
SECTION 2. This Resolution shall be in full force from and
after its passage and adoption.
ATTEST:
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of
June, 1990.
PRESIDENT of the City Council and Mayor of the
City of Hermosa Beach, California
CITY CLERK
CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Section 5.5. Service Standards. The Franchisee
shall establish consumer service and grievance standards which
shall be subject to the written approval of the City Manager,
which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Such stan-
dards shall become effective no later than September 16, 1987,
and shall, at minimum, provide for the following:
5.5.1. The Franchisee shall provide a local,
toll-free ("800") telephone service for consumer com-
plaints.
5.5.2. The Franchisee shall connect a tele-
phone caller to a live personal representative of the
Franchisee, within two minutes during regular business
and peak viewing hours, Monday through Saturday. In the
event the Franchisee establishes to the City's satisfac-
tion that the above standard relating to peak viewing
hours is unnecessary and materially burdensome, the City
may, in its sole discretion, waive that requirement in
writing. During abnormal events which directly affect
five percent (5%) or more of the Franchisee's subscriber
base in the City, the Franchisee shall be excused from
compliance with the foregoing requirement, if the Fran-
chisee provides to telephone callers during such period,
pending connection with a live personal representative, a
recorded message. Such recorded message shall be mutual-
ly agreed upon in writing by the Franchisee and the City
prior to its use.
5.5.3. The Franchisee shall respond to com-
plaints made by the City or subscribers of the Cable
System promptly and, if possible, shall resolve com-
plaints made by the City or subscribers of the Cable
System not more than twenty-four (24) hours following
receipt of the complaint by the Franchisee. The Franchi-
see shall maintain complete, detailed records relating to
its maintenance and operation of the Cable System which
shall be available for inspection by representatives of
the City at any. time during normal business hours of the
City, and upon the City's request shall respond in
writing twenty-four (24) hours following receipt of such
request by the Franchisee to the City regarding any com-
plaint which takes longer than one week to resolve, and
which delay is_not occasioned by a written request of the
complainant.
5.5.4. The Franchisee shall provide credit to
a subscriber of the Cable System in proportion to such
subscriber's subscription fees for the Cable System
whenever the Franchisee is aware that a significant
outage has taken place at said subscriber's premises.
18
5.5.5. The Franchisee shall provide at least
five (5) days' written notice prior to discontinuance of
service to any subscriber of the Cable System. Where the
Franchisee has improperly discontinued Cable System
service to any such subscriber, it shall provide free
reconnection to the Cable System to such subscriber.
5.5.6. The Franchisee shall afford each
subscriber of the Cable System with a three-day right of
rescission for ordering the services of the Cable System;
provided that such right of rescission may end upon
initiation of physical installation of Cable System
equipment on such subscriber's premises.
5.5.7. All personnel, agents and representa-
tives of the Franchisee, including subcontractors, shall
wear photo -identification badges, prominently displayed,
when acting on behalf of the Franchisee in the City.
5.5.8. The Franchisee shall provide signifi-
cant advance notice in writing to the owner and the
resident of any private property within the City prior to
entry onto such property whenever the Franchisee desires
that any of its personnel, agents or representatives
should enter such property; provided that the Franchisee
shall only be required to provide significant advance
notice when it is reasonable under the circumstances at
the time and shall not be required to provide such notice
in emergencies. Violation of this Subsection by the
Franchisee shall not constitute a material breach of this
Agreement unless such violation is repeated or willful.
5.5.9. The Franchisee shall provide subscrib-
ers of the Cable System, and potential subscribers, with
a complete list of service offerings, options, prices and
credit policies associated with the Cable System.•= It
shall provide a City "hotline" number for Cable System
subscriber complaints, which number shall be prominently
displayed on the first page of each monthly bill and
identified as such, and shall provide monthly schedules
of programming on PEG access channels to all subscribers
of the Cable System.
5.5.-10. Whenever possible, the Franchisee
shall notify each subscriber of the Cable System in
advance of the expectedtimeof any service visit to such
subscriber's premises. Such'notification shall specify
whether the anticipated service visit will be before or
after noon. The Franchisee shall accommodate each
subscriber of the Cable System with respect to such
subscriber's expressed preference for a morning or after-
noon service visit. Violation of this Subsection by the
19
Franchisee shall not constitute a material breach of this
Agreement unless such violation is repeated or willful.
5.5.11. The Franchisee shall comply with the
service standards and complaint procedures set forth in
Sections 7-5.21 and 7-5.24, respectively, of the Cable
Ordinance.
Section 5.6. Reports and Enforcement of Standards.
Until the Franchisee receives approval of its service stan-
dards required by Section 5.5 above, the standards set forth
in Subsections 5.5.1 through 5.5.11, inclusive, shall be
applicable. The Franchisee's service standards shall'first be
approved in writing by the City. In the event no service
standards are approved by the City for the Franchisee, the
standards set forth in Section 5.5 above shall apply. The
Franchisee shall make a detailed written quarterly report to
the City describing its compliance with these service stan-
dards by the thirtieth day of each March, June, September and
December, commencing September 30, 1987. Upon any breach of
the Franchisee's service standards, the City may invoke the
liquidated damages provisions set forth in Section 6.1 below
without prejudice to any other remedy otherwise available to
the City to the extent permitted by law.
Section 5.7. Performance Review. Pursuant to
Section 7-5.32 of the Cable Ordinance, the City will conduct
periodic Performance Evaluation Sessions ("Sessions") with the
Franchisee and the citizens of the City relating to the Fran-
chise. In lieu of the periods specified in the Cable Ordi-
nance, the City may conduct such Sessions commencing in the
fourth, seventh and twelfth years subsequent to the date
hereof. The Franchisee agrees to incur one-half of the
reasonable cost of the City's ascertainment of the current
cable -related needs and interests of the City's residents, up
to a total payment by the Franchisee of Fifteen Thousand
Dollars ($15,000) per Session, and/or one-half of other
reasonable outside costs incurred by the City incidental to
any review of the Franchisee's Franchise, up to an additional
payment by the Franchisee of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000)
per Franchise review; provided that the total assessment to
the Franchisee under this Section 5.7 shall be no greater than
Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) per Session. The Franchisee
further agrees that__such costs are in addition to and not to
be deducted from the Franchise fees due the City. In addi-
tion, the Franchisee shall provide the City with five copies
of (i) the Franchisee's audited consolidated annual financial
statements each year so long as the Franchise remains in
effect within ten (10) days after it becomes available from
the Franchisee's auditors, (ii) the Franchisee's annual
financial statements certified to be true and correct by an
authorized officer of the Franchisee each year so long as the
20
BOARD OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSIONERS
CHARLES'N. WINNER
PRESIDENT
LANCE E. DRUMMOND
VKE.PRESIOENT
LANCE BRISSON
NINA M. FRAZIER
TRACY A. WESTEN
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
CALIFORNIA
TOM BRADLEY "
MAYOR
DEPARTMENT OF
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
120 S. SAN PEDRO STREET
Su1TE 600
Los ANottcs. CA 90d I2
SUSAN HERMAN
GENERAL MANAGER
485.2866
RANaLLSEE ORDINANCE NUMBER
FRANCHISEE ADDRESS TERM OF FR NCTESE
Effective August, 1987
FRANCHISE INFORMATION SHEET
Attached is a summary of the City's requirements as stated in the
franchise agreement relating to the rights and 'privileges of the consumer:
1. Cable company offices must be adequately staffed and able to
respond to consumers not less than 54 hours per week,' with a
minimum of 8. hours per day on weekdays and a 4 hour day on
Saturdays.
2. Telephone lines and main offices must be open and adequately
staffed to respond to consumers in at least 4 ways:
to accept payments (Monday through Saturday);
to exchange or accept returned converters (on Saturday the
company has the option of accepting or exchanging converters
at its office or in the field);
to answer subscriber inquiries; and
-- to schedule and conduct service or technical calls; on
Saturday the company must have the ability to schedule
emergency service or emergency technician calls.
3. Telephone lines, either adequately staffed or with answering
capability, providing at least emergency referral information,
must be operational 24 hours a day, including weekends and
holidays.
4. The company shall provide a pre -designated 4 to 5 hour block of
time for subscriber service appointments to be scheduled either in
the morning hours or the afternoon hours (i.e. 8:00 a.m. to 1:00
p.m. or 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.). Priority for service
appointments on the next day, or next "available time" must be
given to those subscribers who require a different scheduled time.
5. Requests from subscribers for repair and maintenance service must
be acknowledged by the company within 24 hours (excluding weekends
and holidays). Verification of the problem, and if possible,
resolution, must occur within 48 hours; and in any event,
resolution must occur within 1 week. Those matters requiring
additional maintenance, repair or technical adjustments that are
documentable as necessitating an excess of one week to reasonably
complete, must be finally resolved within 30 days of the initial
complaint.
6. Technicians employed by the company must be .capable of performing
Dull„-rolAred emereencv repairs and maintenance 24 hours a day,
7. The cable system must be constructed and operated so as to provide
service to any person requesting such service within the franchise
area boundaries. Consumers are entitled to receive an estimate of
the cost for a "nonstandard installation" should a standard
installation not be possible. A consumer may petition the
Department if they believe that the estimate given by the company
was unfair, unreasonable and discriminatory. The determination of
the Department may be appealed to the Board of. Telecommunications
Commissioners and the City Council.
8. Before providing initial service to each consumer, the company
must advise the consumer, in writing, o'f:
the equipment and services currently available (including
parental lock -out devices) and the fees and/or deposits which
apply;
the method by which the consumer will be notified of any
changes in rates, services, and equipment, and company
.practices and procedures related to service to consumers.;
the address and telephone number of the company office to
which complaints. and inquiries may be reported and the manner
in which complaints will be addressed; and
the company's practices and procedures for protecting against
invasions of subscriber privacy.
9. No person shall be denied cable television services on the basis
of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual preference,
age, disability, income or the area in which they live.
10. Maximum practical availability of the services and facilities
shall be provided to handicapped persons. At a minimum, the
franchisee shall provide, at no additional cost, a remote control
device to those subscribers who are paraplegic or quadriplegic.
11. Equipment which is not otherwise readily available shall be
provided to facilitate the reception of all basic services for the
hearing impaired. In addition, the company must have TDD (or
equivalent) equipment at the company office that will allow
hearing impaired consumers to contact the company.
12. In those areas where the utility lines are now or subsequently may
be underground, the company shall install or relocate its system
facilities underground. The Board of Public Works may approve the
placement of amplifier boxes, pedestal mounted terminal boxes and
other incidental appurtenances above ground, but they must be
located so as not to be unsightly or hazardous to the public.
The Department of Telecommunications is available to respond to
inquiries as well 'as to assist in resolving complaints that the cable
company may not have been able to resolve. Furthermore, for your
information, effective January 1, 1987, federal law restricts the authority
of the City to regulate rates; however, if you feel you have been charged
discriminatory rates, we may be able to assist you. 'You may reach our
office by writing or calling:
Department. of Telecommunications
120 S. San Pedro Street, Suite 600
Los Angeles, Ca. 90012
(213) 485-2751
Honorable Mayor and Members of
the Hermosa Beach City Council
May 1, 1990
Regular Meeting of
May 8, 1990
THIRD QUARTERLY REPORT OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council receive and file this report.
Background:
On June 13, 1989, City Council adopted the FY 89-90 Capital
Improvement Program. This is the third status report of that
program.
Analysis:
The report is organized to show the following for each project:
- Project description
- Project status as of March 31, 1990
- Major funding source
- The original budget as approved by Council
- Approved midyear budget revision
- Expenditures through March 31, 1990
- Anticipated expenditures June 30, 1990
- Budget page numbers
Respectfully submitted,
Concur:
/ /CA ; 1
Lynn A. Terry P.E. v Ant bny Antic!).
Director of Pukilic Works
Deputy City Engineer
Kevin B: North_craft
City Manager
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The Capital Improvement Program (hereafter referred to as CIP) is
a planning tool for short and long-range capital acquisition and
development. It links Hermosa Beach's General Plan and the
fiscal planning process to physical development and the highest
priority maintenance needs of the City's facilities and
infrastructure. It provides the mechanism for estimating capital
requirements, identifying appropriate funding sources, scheduling
all capital projects over a fixed period, coordinating the
activities of various departments to meet completion target
dates, and monitoring and evaluating the progress of capital
projects.
The CIP is a five year plan of capital related revenues and
expenditures that is updated one year at a time. Although the
CIP constitutes a five year plan, funds are appropriated only for
the upcoming year. The CIP (starting with FY 89-90) is designed
to be on-going and continuous. The projects for the next four
years are based on future needs and revenues, not appropriations.
This plan consists of projects that are major expenditures for a
specific plan or design of permanent public improvements such as
a building, street, sanitary sewer rehabilitation, or acquisition
of real property, or major equipment. The purpose of these
projects is to:
Implement the General Plan
Preserve public health and safety
Improve the environment
Increase efficient operation of the City
- Improve the comfort and enjoyment of residents.
The capital projects included in this document span five fiscal
years from 1989-1990 through 1993-94. The City projects total
capital improvement needs for FY 89-90 of $23.3 million, but only
funding for $3.3 million. In addition, $6 million is proposed as
bonded indebtedness to fund the lease purchase of the AT&SF
Railroad right of way.
Over the five year period from FY 89-90 through FY 93-94, total
capital improvement needs are over $31 million which includes
approximately $10,000,000 bonded indebtedness for sanitary sewers
while funding is estimated to be available for only 13.8
million. The City needs to increase its funding sources in order
to complete and pay for all projects.
Projects are presented in this document in seven categories and
are organized into the following groups:
- Street and Safety Improvements
Street Lighting Improvements
- Storm Drain Improvements
- Sanitary Sewer Improvements -
Park Improvements
- Public Buildings and Grounds Improvements
- General Capital Improvements
The page numbers refer to pages in the Capital Improvement
Program where more detail and the funding source can be found.
- Projects funded from the City's major descretionary fund, the
General Fund are so noted.
Summary:
This Five -Year Capital Improvement Program provides a framework
for planning the maintenance and replacement of existing capital
equipment and facilities as well as new acquisitions. It is
intended to address the highest City priorities for improvement
and maintenance of the City's infrastructure while reflecting
citizens' needs and wishes with regard to shaping their
community.
CIP 85-102
Description:
PROJECT STATUS AS OF MARCH 31, 1990
STREET AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
FAU, WIDEN HIGHLAND AVE., FROM LONGFELLOW TO 35TH
STREET
This project proposed to widen Highland
Avenue (curb to curb width) from 30' to 40';
thereby providing an 8' parking lane on each side
of the street.
Status: Project complete. City Council awarded a contract
to Excel Paving at a cost not to exceed $134,593.
Construction was completed on December 19, 1989.
Final County costs are being determined and the
final project costs are to be approved by the City
Council during April, 1990.
Funding: 150 Grant Fund (Multiple Sources)
Budget (12/31/89) $188,051
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $188,051
Expenditure (3/31/89) $120,133
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $157,059
Budget Page: 62
CIP 85-137 FAU, OVERLAY VALLEY AND ARDMORE
Description: Preparation of plans, specifications and
estimates leading to the resurfacing of portions
of Valley and Ardmore, including the Gould
Avenue intersections.
Status:
In progress. The County has begun work. and.
is scheduled to advertise for bids during the
Summer of 1990.
Funding: 150'Grant Fund (Multiple Sources)
Budget (12/31/89) $554,400
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $ 68,366
Expenditure (3/31/89) $ -0-
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90)$ -0-
Budget Page: 64
CIP 89-141 STREET REHABILITATION
Description: This project proposes to rehabilitate
asphalt concrete and portland cement concrete
streets, City-wide.
Status: In progress. On September 26, 1989,
Council authorized staff to seek proposals for
a computerized pavement management system.
On November 13, 1989 the City received six
proposals and the Public Works staff reviewed
those proposals. The company was selected and
approved by the City Council in the 3rd Quarter
and the report should be completed during the 4th
Quarter.
Funding: 001 General Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $125,000
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $ 25,000
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ 85
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $ 20,000
Budget Page: 66
CIP 89-142 SIDEWALK REPAIRS
Description: This project proposes to repair deteriorated
sidewalks, driveways and curbs at
various locations, City-wide.
Status: In progress. The plans and specifications
were completed during December 1989. Award of
the contract was approved by the City Council
in the 3rd Quarter and construction should
completed by the end of the 4th Quarter.
Funding: 001 General Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $ -0-
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $328,064
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ 226
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $328,064
Budget Page: 68
CIP 89-146 STREET MEDIAN UPGRADES
Description: This project proposes new planting and
irrigation for street medians at various
locations, City-wide.
Status: This project is to begin construction
during the 3rd quarter of this year and finish
construction during the 4th Quarter.
Funding: 001 General Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $ 20,000
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $ 20,000
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ 4,221
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $ 10,000
Budget Page: 76
CIP 89-148 TRASH ENCLOSURES DOWNTOWN
Description: This project proposes to improve the
trash enclosures in the downtown area.
Status: In progress. This project was prepared for
City Council review and considered at the
meeting of October 24, 1989. The trash enclosures
are being redesigned with upgraded improvements to
the original proposed gates. One site at Lot "A"
will be constructed first as a prototype and
construction is to begin as soon as the new bus
benches have been installed under CIP 90-149.
Funding: 110 Parking Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $ 10,000
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $ 10,000
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ -0-
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $ 10,000
Budget Page: 80
CIP 90-149 NEW BUS BENCHES
Description: This project proposes to install new bus shelters
and benches at bus stops along bus routes.
Status: In progress. City Council approved the
installation of the new bus benches but deleted
the shelters. City staff has completed 30 benches
and is constructing the last 13 bus benches on PCH
at this time.
Funding: 145 Proposition "A" Funds
Budget (12/31/89)...... $ 55,000
Midyear budget (2/13/90) ...$ 25,000
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ 1,151
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $ 10,000
Budget Page: 82
CIP 89-150 MISCELLANEOUS TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS
Description: Preparation of plans and specifications leading to:
1. New type of traffic signal on Pier Avenue
allowing egress and ingress for Fire
Department emergency vehicles. Project Deleted.
2. Existing pedestrian traffic signal at 18th and
Prospect to be relocated to Valley at 1E h
Street allowing for school children and
pedestrian crossing in front of the school.
Status: In progress. Engineering staff is revising the
plans for the school crossing at this time.
Comments will be requested from the school district
before construction is begun. Construction is
to take place after the downtown trash enclosure at
Lot "A" is completed under CIP 89-148.
Funding: 115 State Gas Tax Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $ 15,000
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $ 15,000
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ -0
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $ -0-
Budget Page: 84
CIP 89-151 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PROGRAM
Description: The following work is proposed:
1. Develop a high accident location and surveillance
program using traffic accident data.
2. Conduct a study and develop a detailed
residential neighborhood traffic control plan
to reduce commuter traffic intrusion.
Status: Project cancelled. No State Grant funds provided
by the State for this project.
Funding: 150 Grant Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $ 45,500
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $ -0-
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ -0-
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $ -0-
Budget Page: 86
CIP 85-160 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS & APPURTENANCES
Description: This on-going project consists of repairing
damaged concrete streets City-wide.
Status: In progress. The repair work will be postponed
until the pavement management system reviews
the streets and sets priorities.
Funding: 115 State Gas Tax Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $ 79,493
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $ -0-
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ -0-
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $ -0-
Budget Page:. 86-b
CIP 89-170 SLURRY SEALING
Description: This project proposes slurry sealing asphalt
surface streets west of Valley Drive to increase
skid resistance and prolong pavement life. This
work also includes minor repair prior to sealing,
crack sealing and. spot repairs.
Status: In progress. The slurry sealing is to be held
up until the proposed pavement management system
reviews the streets and helps set priorities.
Funding: 115 State Gas Tax Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $337,219
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $337,219
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ 136
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $ 136
Budget Page: 90
CIP 87-171 ASPHALT STREET REPAIRS
Description: This on-going project consists of repairing
damaged asphaltic streets City-wide. Streets east.
of Ardmore Ave. were repaired and slurry sealed
during the spring of 1989.
Status: In progress. The next action is to have the
pavement management system review the
streets and set priorities.
Funding: 115 State. Gas Tax Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $ 21,305
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $ 21,305
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ 136
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $ 136
Budget Page: 92
CIP 88-174 REHABILITATION OF PROSPECT AVENUE
Description: Preparation of plans, specifications and
estimates leading to the resurfacing of Prospect
Avenue from Aviation Boulevard to the southerly City
Boundary.
Status: In progress. Los Angeles County Public
Works Department is preparing plans and
specifications for this project at this time.
Funding: 115 State Gas Tax Fund (currently unfunded)
Budget (12/31/89) $ -0-
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $ -0-
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ -0-
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $ -0-
Budget Page: 94
CIP 86-176 TRAFFIC CONTROL PRE-EMPTION
Description: This project will install traffic control
pre-emption devices on all PCH signals at 2nd,
5th, 8th and 21st Streets, Pier Avenue, and Aviation
and Artesia Boulevards.
Status:
Postponed. On June 27, 1989 City Council rejected
all bids due to a conflict with a Caltrans project
on Pacific Coast Highway. This project is to be
re -bid after Caltrans completes its traffic
interconnect project. This project is proposed
to begin construction in the 1st quarter of
FY 91-92.
Funding: 001 General Fund & 115 State Gas Tax Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $ 70,468
Midyear budget .(2/13/90) $ 70,468
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ -0-
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $ -0-
Budget Page: 96
CIP 89-177 DESIGN VALLEY/ARDMORE/PIER
Description: This project proposes to overlay the intersections
at Pier/Valley/Ardmore intersections.
Status: On hold. Design is proposed to begin in the 4th
quarter of this year.
Funding: 001 General Fund (Developer contribution)
Budget (12/31/89) $ 40,000
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $ 40,000
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ -0-
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $ -0-
Budget Page: 98
STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS
CIP 88-201 STREET LIGHT UPGRADES
Description:
Status:
This project proposes the installation, upgrading
and conversion to high pressure sodium lights
throughout the City.
In progress. Hermosa Avenue between 28th Street
and 35th Street and north Strand, between 30th
Street and 35th Street are scheduled next for change
out.
Funding: 105 Street Lighting Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $ 30,000
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $ 30,000
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ -0-
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $ -0-
Budget Page: 100
CIP 85-202 HERMOSA AVENUE/PIER AVENUE LIGHTING
Description: Replace lighting poles on Pier Avenue from Hermosa
Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway.
Status: Project complete. Installation began in April 1989
and was performed by the Street Lighting Division
of the Public Works Department. Work was completed
in August 1989. No further expenditures are
anticipated.
Funding: 105 Street Lighting Fund
Budget (12/31/89) .$ 16,500
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $ 2,000
Expenditure (3/31/90) $. 1,981
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $ 1,981
Budget Page: 102
SEWERS/STORM DRAINS
CIP 86-405 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS, TARGET AREA 3
Description: Completion of sanitary sewer deficiencies in
Target Area 3.
Status: Project complete.
Funding: 160 Sewer Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $174,808
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $154,000
Expenditure (3/31/90) $151,984
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $154,000
Budget Page: 106
CIP 88-406 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS, TARGET AREA 4
Description: Preparation of plans and specifications leading to
construction and completion of deficiencies of
sanitary sewers in Target Area 4.
Status: In progress. City Council awarded the preliminary
design agreement to Harris & Associates on January
10, 1989 in an amount not to exceed $94,050. The
City Council accepted the preliminary design report
on October 24, 1989, and increased the project from
10,000 feet to 15,146 feet. The consultant has
begun final design on the project and should finish
the final design by the end of the 4th Quarter.
Funding: 160 Sewer Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $2,120,592
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $ 80,000
Expenditure (3/31/90) ,..$ 6,583
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $ 80,000
Budget Page: 108
CIP 88-407
Description:
Status:
Funding:
SANITARY SEWER BOND ISSUE
Preliminary engineering leading to a $5 to $10.
million bond issue.
In progress. City Council awarded a contract to
James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. at a
cost not to exceed $15,950 for the preliminary
engineering.
160 Sewer Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $ 25,000
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $ 14,500
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ -0-
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $ 14,500
Budget Page: 110
PARK IMPROVEMENTS
CIP 89-506 VARIOUS PARK IMPROVEMENTS
Description: New tree planting, benches, landscaping, irrigation
purchases, trash can, playground equipment, picnic
tables, etc. for Community Resources Commission
recommended locations.
Status: In progress. To date no other improvements have
been recommended by the Community Resources
Commission. City staff is installing the
recommended improvements at this time.
Funding: 125Park and Recreation Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $ 31,570
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $ 31,570
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ 4,847
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $ 5,000
Budget Page: 112
CIP 88-508 PARK IRRIGATION REHABILITATION
Description: Restoration of various City Park irrigation systems.
Status: Project complete. Existing systems have been
determined and rehabilitation is to be scheduled
after Council adoption of the parks master plan.
Funding: 125 Park and Recreation Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $ 55,000
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $ 55,000
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ 12,916
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90)$ 15,000
Budget Page: 114
CIP 89-512 BASKETBALL COURTS
Description: Install new basketball courts at Clark Field just
north of the existing tennis courts.
Status: In progress. On November 28, 1989, Council approved
a request for design proposals. The proposals have
been received by the City and award of the
design contract took place on February 13, 1990.
Plans and specifications are due from the consultant
in May of this year.
Funding: 150 Grant Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $ 60,000
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $ 58,000
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ -0-
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $ 8,000
Budget Page: 122
CIP 89-514 PURCHASE OF ATSF RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
Description: Purchase the land between Valley Drive and Ardmore
Drive from Herondo Street to Longfellow Avenue,
approximately 15.4 acres.
Status: Project complete. Deed was recorded on December
21, 1989.
Funding: 126 UUT Railroad Right -of -Way Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $ 110,000
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $1,738,549
Expenditure (3/31/90) $1,728,575
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $1,728,575
Budget Page: 126
CIP 89-516
SIXTH STREET AND PROSPECT PARR
Description: The scope of work is amended
of playground equipment.
Status: In progress. Application for
being processed at this time.
to include the purchase
State grant funds is
Funding: 150 Grant Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $ 7,958
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $ 7,958
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ -0-
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $ 7,958
Budget Page: 128-b
CIP 89-517 RECREATION FACILITIES
Description: The scope of work is amended to include purchase and
installation of picnic tables and aggregate trash
cans.
Status: In progress. Application for State grant funds is
being processed at this time.
Funding: 150 Grant Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $ 8,742
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $ 8,742
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ 6,879
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $ 8,742
CIP 89-518 RECREATION FACILITIES
Description: The scope of work is amended to include the purchase
of playground equipment.
Status: In progress. Staff has determined the equipment to
order. Application for State grant funds is being
processed at this time.
Funding: 150 Grant Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $ 12,305
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $ 12,305
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ -0-
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $ 12,305
Budget Page: 128-f
CIP 89-519 HERMOSA PARKS
Description: The scope of the work is amended to include the
purchase of picnic tables.
Status: In progress. Staff has determined the type of
tables to order. Application for State grant funds
is being processed at this time.
Funding: 150 Grant Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $ 2,108
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $ 2,108
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ 2,108
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90)$ 2,108
Budget Page: 128-h
PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS
CIP 89-601 FUEL TANKS
Description: Bring existing gasoline dispensing at the City Yard
into conformance with State law by annual testing
for leaks.
Status: Project Complete.
Funding: 001 General Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $ 4,000
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $ 4,000
Expenditure (3/31/90). $ 1,071
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $ 2,071
Budget Page: 130
CIP 89-604 BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS
Description: This project proposes construction of Capital
Improvements for the following departments:
1. Police Department
- Air conditioning in emergency $11,000
services computer room
2. Community Center
- Room 8 Wall Repair $2,000
- Miscellaneous $2,500
Room 7 Water Heater
Room 8 Carpeting
Refinish portable stairs
Water Fountain, North & South Wings
3. Roof top air conditioner or cooler for
Police jail area. $3,500
Status: In progress. The air conditioning needs for the
computer room in the basement are being reviewed.
Funding: 001 General Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $.16,000
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $ 19,000
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ -0-
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $ 19,000
'CIP 87-606 POLICE DEPARTMENT REMODEL
Description: Demolition and modification of part of existing
police facility, remodel of dispatching center.
Status: Remodel Project Complete. Additional minor maintenance
type work still required.
Funding: 001 General Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $ 8,550
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $ 8,550
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ 86
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $ 8,550
Budget Page: 138-b
CIP 89-609 POSSIBLE CITY HALL EXPANSION
Description: Plans, specifications and estimates for proposed
increased floor area for City Hall offices and new
air conditioning for basement of Police Department
and General Services Department. FY 89-90, modular
furniture, $ 25,000 and new council chairs, $ 5,000.
Status: The Police Department is coordinating the purchase of
new Council chairs. No work to date on modular
furniture.
Funding: 001 General Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $ 30,000
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $ 30,000
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ -0-
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $ 30,000
Budget Page: .142
CIP 88-610 COMMUNITY CENTER AIR CONDITIONING
Description: Installation of air conditioning in the
Community Center.
Status: Project complete. Due to a noise concern, the
final costs have not been paid to the architect.
The mechanical engineer is working on the correcting
the noise concern at this time.
Funding: 001 General Fund
Budget (12/31/89)
Midyear budget (2/13/90)
CIP 89-612
Description: This proposes to install consistent City-wide
signing including City parks and entrance signs.
Status: This work was proposed for the 3rd quarter of this
year and is being handled by Community Resources
Department. The project was dropped by the City
Council.
$ 13,905
$ 7,000
$ 2,485
$ 7,000
Expenditure (3/31/90)
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90)
Budget Page: 142-b
CITY-WIDE SIGNS
Funding: 001 General Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $ 16,700
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $ 16,700
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ -0-
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $ -0-
Budget Page: 146
CIP 89-613
Description:
Status:
Funding:
CIP 88-614
Description:
Status:
Funding:
COMMUNITY CENTER ELECTRICAL UPGRADE
Plans and specifications leading to upgrading
electrical services to Community Center buildings
to meet current code requirements.
On hold. City Council decided on no action at this
time.
001 General Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $ 8,000
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $ 8,000
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ 231
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $ 231
Budget Page: 148
MUNICIPAL PIER REPAIRS
This project was to assess the damage, prepare any
needed design and reconstruct or repair any damage
to the Hermosa Beach Municipal Pier caused by the
January 17, 1988 storm.
Project complete. Construction was completed on
September 25, 1989. The final payments have not
yet been paid to the design engineer. The final
FEMA inspection is on April 2, 1990.
001 General Fund plus Grant Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $136,074
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $136,074
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ 96,644
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) ,-.$136,074
Budget Page: 150
CIP 89-615 COMMUNITY CENTER FIRE ALARMS
Description: As recommended by the Fire Department, this
project proposes to design and install a fire
alarm system in the Community Center complex which
will be connected to the dispatch room in the
Police Department.
Status: In progress. A review of the existing system
requirements was completed and the upgrading of
the system is to be completed in the 4th quarter
of this year.
Funding: 001 General Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $ 49,988
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $ 10,000
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ -0-
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $ 10,000
Budget Page: 152
GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
CIP 89-701 CITY PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS
Description: Upgrade City parking lots to include repairing
pavement and walls, parking bumpers and new
planting.
Status: In progress. Construction is to take place in
the 4th quarter of this year.
Funding: 110 Parking Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $ 5,000
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $ 5,000
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ 192
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $ 5,000
Budget Page: 154
CIP 89-703 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS TRAILER
Description: This project proposes to construct and equip an
emergency trailer with emergency lights,
generators, signs, flares, and small tools for use
by the Fire, Police and Public Works Departments.
Status: Police Department is exploring alternate plans,
such as retrofitting the Fire Department pick
up. Work on this project is to begin during the
4th quarter of this year.
Funding: 001 General Fund
Budget (12/31/89) $ 5,000
Midyear budget (2/13/90) $ 5,000
Expenditure (3/31/90) $ -0-
Anticipated Expenditure (6/30/90) $ 5,000
Budget Page: 156
PROJECT
NO.
* 85-102
85-137
89-141
90-142
89-146
89-148
90-149
89-150
* 89-151
85-160
89-170
87-171
88-174
86-176
87-177
88-201
* 89-202
* 87-405
88-406
89-407
89-506
* 88-508
89-512
* 89-514
89-516
89-517
89-518
89-519
* 89-601
89-604
* 87-606
89-609
* 88-610
89-612
89-613
* 89-614
89-615
REVISED AS OF 3%31/90
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
STREETS & SAFETY
Widen Highland Ave.
Overlay Valley & Ardmore
Street Rehabilitation
Sidewalk Repairs
Street Median Upgrades
Trash Enclosures Downtown
New Bus Shelters
Misc. Traffic Signal Improv.
Traffic Engineering Program
Rdwy Improvmnts &Appurtenances
Slurry Sealing
Asphalt Street Repairs
Overlay Prospect
Traffic Signal Pre-emption
Design Valley/Ardmore/Pier
STREET LIGHTING
Street Lighting Upgrades
Hermosa Ave. Lighting
SANITARY SEWER
Target Area 3
Target Area 4
Sewer Bond Issue
PARKS
Various Park Improv.
Park Irrigation
Basketball Courts
Purchase ATSF RR right-of-way
6th Street & Prospect Park
Recreational Facilities
Recreational Facilities
Hermosa Parks
BUILDINGS & GROUNDS
Fuel Tanks
Various Building Improv.
Police Dept. Remodel
City Hall Expansion
Comm. Center Air Conditioning
City Wide Signs
Comm. Ctr. Elect. Upgrade.
Pier Repairs
Comm. Ctr. Fire Alarm Sys
12/31/89
FY 89-90 I
BUDGET
188,051
554,400
125,000.
328,064
20,000
10,000
55,000
15,000
45,500
79,493
337,219
21,305
0
70,468
40,000
30,000
2,000
154,000
80,000
14,500
31,570
55,000
58,000
1,738,549
7,958
8,742
12,305
2,108
•CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FY89-90
JUL I AUG I -SEP I OCT I NOV . 1 DEC I JAN I FEB:
1 2. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
MAR 1 APR 1 ,MAY 1 JUN I
35 36 3738 39 40 41.42 43 4445 46 47 4i3 49 50 51 52
--1--1--1--1--1--1--1---=1--1--1--1--1-1--1--1--1--I--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--1--I--I--1--I--1 1 I --I 1 1--1--1--1--1--1-
--1--1- 1--I--1-
PROJECT DROPPED
II1
1 1
II 1
PROJECT DELAYED
1 1 1
1I11
I11I1
I i 1 1 1 I
.1 I-
=1-
I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1
IIIIIIIIII1111111II11I111I11I 11111 111II1I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1' 1 1:` 11' 1 '14 '41
F--I•-�■-F--F--F-■F--F--F--1�--1...f-+--I■-�'-mie'--1I--u1--t■■�--}
I 1 -f-+'-F-f-1-4-I-
111111111.1I111
I
1 1, 1. 1 1 1 . 4 1 1: f` *
1 11,111111111.1 .11111111
1'■.{■'-I•---...1...1...1..�..�..�..�..}..}..}..}..}...x..1...4.. f--f-.f.-�.
I
1 1 1 1 1 1! 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1: 1 1 11
-1
I I
1
1 I 11.1
1 I 1 _1
1 1
1 1 1 1:'
....}..}...-1..F..E.,F-.F..F..1..1...1...F-.1...I---F-...-4•-•1--f..}.....-}-1.-. .-.F..F- - f....}..}..}-.} f.
IIIi1111111II11IIIIIII I1 111111 11111111111 I II
11111111.1111I111I111111..11 111111 111I111111
..}..}..}..}....}..}..F--F--F--F-.F..L..F..1...1...1 1{ I 1 . 1 1 1 1
4,000 1-+-1-4-
19,000
8,550
30,000
7,000
16,700
:8,000
136,074
10,000
GENERAL
89-701 City Parking Lot Improvements 5,000
89-703 Emergency Preparedness Trailer 5,000
* PROJECT COMPLETED
PROJECT DROPPED
ON HOLD I
1I
11
11
11
11
11111.
1 1 1
11I111111
I 1 : 1! 1
11 111111'
1 1 1 I•mil 1 I I
I 1 -t -t-
+-1-f-t-f
I i 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1'
IIIIIIIIIIII
I11L11I11111I,
111111'11 1 II
1 1 I 1 I I--I--f'
I1lI1I111
I111II11I11 1
1
I`
1 I 1 I I I I 1
11 1 I 1 1 1
11111111
i 11 I 11
1 1 1 I I I I 1
1I11
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
11I111I11I
111111
1 1 1 I 1
1 I 1 .1
1 I 1 1`
1 I .1 I I
LEGEND:
PROPOSAL
DESIGN
BIDDING
-CONSTRUCTION
•
REVISED AS OF 3/31/90
May 1, 1990
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of
of the City Council May 8,..1990
REQUEST FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR A CROSSING GUARD
AT 16TH AND LOMA
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the request for an additional crossing
guard at 16th Street and Loma Drive, not be approved, but'that an
additional Adult Crossing. Guard, and the necessary funds, be
approved to control the intersections at Valley/Pier and
Valley/Ardmore.
Background:
Per a request from Hermosa Beach City Schools District Associate
Principal Roger Preuss, the General Services Department, the
Public Works Department and the Police Department worked jointly
to investigate the request.
The Public Works Department was asked for input as it relates to
the traffic study aspects and technical requirements. The Police
Department was asked to assess the need and/or effectiveness of a
crossing guard at that location from a Public Safety perspective.
The Crossing Guards come under the jurisdiction of the General
Services department, which has the responsibility for hiring,
supervising, and providing personnel to warranted locations. The
report from the Public works Department and the Police Department
are attached.
Analysis:
The City of Hermosa Beach follows the CALTRANS, guidelines when
considering the technical merits of providing school crossing
supervision. Based on the Warrants for Adult Crossing Guards,
attached, this intersection fails to meet the established
warrants. It is staff's belief that an Adult Crossing Guard is
not warranted at this location, (see attached memo from City
Traffic. Engineer, Ed Ruzak).
It should be noted, that there has been an identified and
warranted need for a second Adult Crossing Guard to control the
intersections of Valley/Pier and Valley/Ardmore. During the
previous school year, there have been two reported
child -bicyclist versus vehicle accidents at this intersection.
This location would have first priority for implementation over
any other crossing guard locations being considered.
What would seem to be a viable alternative, would be
establishment of a School Safety Patrol at this location, (see
attached School Area Pedestrian Safety excerpts, Section 10-07.9
et seq.). Implementation of a School Safety Patrol does have
merit, and would be supported by staff.
Mr. Preuss has been informed of staff's recommendations, and has
indicated his disappointment that a crossing guard will not be
placed at 16th and Loma. He is however, pleased that an Adult
Crossing Guard will be assigned to the Pier/Ardmore intersection.
The high volume of vehicular traffic, and the volume of children
who make use of the Pier/Valley/Ardmore intersections, create a
great potential for accidents and injuries.
Although he feels that a School Safety Patrol is a good idea, in
this instance it does not seem to be a solution to the problems
being experienced at the 16th Street/Loma Drive location.
Alternatives:
1. Authorize funding for the necessary personnel to cover the
request.
2. Refer back to staff for further study/recommendation.
3. Receive and file.
CONCUR:
enrL. Staten, Acting
General Services Director
pp Ivo T coorucol
Devin B. Northcra'ft,
City Manager
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
The staff recommendation appropriately deals with the need for a
guard for traffic safety purposes, but the need also is for security
and supervision of children at a location somewhat out of way. In
addition to the recent problem at the Loma Drive entrance, the
School Superintendent reports that there is a frequent problem at
that location.
The City Attorney indicates it would be within the law to fund the
requested Crossing Guard for these reasons, and the fund would
allow funding for the next year at least without an increase in the
tax rate. My recommendation is we fund for one year' and then
re-evaluate.
Respectfully submitted,
Henry L. Staten, Acting
General Services Director
by
Michele D. Tercero,
Administrative Aide
- 2 -
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM
TO: Tony Antich, Public Works Director -
FROM: Ed Ruzak, City Traffic Engineer e),)
SUBJECT: Crossing Guard Consideration at Loma ive/Hermosa
Valley School Gate/16th Street
DATE: April 18, 1990
A concern for the need to provide a crossing guard at the subject
location has been directed to the City Traffic Engineer for
technical review. The City of Hermosa Beach follows the Caltrans
guidelines when considering the technical merits of providing
school crossing supervision. The warrants for Adult Crossing
Guards and School Safety Patrol are attached.
Reference is made to Section 10-07.2. The subject crossing is
currently marked and signed. It does serve elementary school
children on the "Suggested Route to School" when the gate to the
Hermosa Valley School grounds is opened. Under Section 10-07.2,
special problems relative to vehicular speeds, turn movements or
other engineering or operating items do not exist at this
location. Sight lines are excellent in both directions for
vehicles to see pedestrians and vice versa. Signing and marking
are in concert with the Caltrans School Area Pedestrian Safety
Signing and vehicular traffic volume is low.
Reference is made to Section 10-07.3, Warrants for Adult Crossing
Guards. While it is not known if 40 elementary school
pedestrians for each of two hours use the crossing while going to
and from school, we are certain that vehicular traffic volume on
Loma Drive is less than 350 during each of the two hours which
pedestrians cross.
We did see 15 pedestrians in a 30 minute period using the
crossing during our 1988 development of the suggested route to
school program. -
Reference is made to Section 10-07.9 and 10-07.10 relative to
School Safety Patrols. Section 10-07.10 is clear that "where
there are adequate gaps in vehicular flow at an uncontrolled
crossing and it is desirable to guide the school pedestrian that
the Patrol may be established". These concerns do exist at the
subject crossing. Likewise, it is believed that all of the
warrants (including the 20 children in each of two hours) are met
at the subject location. This assumes the gate to the Hermosa
Valley School is opened during the hours children go to and from
school.
Section 10-07.4 allows the local school board to authorize School
Safety Patrols. It is our belief that an adult crossing guard is
not warranted at this location but consideration by the local
school district to establish a School Safety Patrol in order to
- 1 -
place a "patrol person" at the subject location does have merit
and would be supported by staff.
In closing, it should be further noted that there has been an
identified need and warrant for a second adult crossing guard
controlling the intersections of Valley/Pier and Valley/Ardmore.
This location in our opinion would have first priority for
implementation over any other crossing guard locations being
considered.
ss
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND. HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SCHOOL
AREA
PEDESTRIAN
SAFETY
LEO J. TROMBATORE
Director
Department of Transportation
1987
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN
Governor
ROBERT G. ADAMS
Deputy Director
Maintenance and Operations
Traffic Manual SCHOOL AREA PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 10-11
3-1987
located within 600 feet, School Crossing Traffic Sig-
nals should be considered when either of the follow-
ing conditions are fulfilled:
1. Urban Areas - 500 vehicles and 100 school pede-
strians for each of any two hours (not necessar-
ily consecutive) daily while students are cross-
ing to or from school; or
500 vehicles for each of any two hours daily
while students are crossing to or from school
and a total of 500 school pedestrians during the
entire day.
2. Rural Areas (Use 70 percent of the volumes not-
ed under Urban Areas) - 350 vehicles and 70
school pedestrians for each of any two hours
(not necessarily consecutive) daily while stu-
dents are crossing to or from school; or
350 vehicles for each of any two hours (not
necessarily consecutive) daily while students
are crossing to or from school and minimum
total of 350 school pedestrians during the entire
day.
When critical (85 percentile) approach speed ex-
ceeds 40 mph or the approach visibility is less than
the required stopping sight distance, rural warrants
Crossing Supervision
should be applied.
The design of School Crossing Traffic Signals shall
conform to Chapter 9 of the State Traffic Manual and
include the following considerations:
1. The signals shall be designed for full-time opera-
tion.
2. Pedestrian signal faces of the International Sym-
bol type shall be installed at all marked cross-
walks at signalized intersections along the "Sug-
gested Route to School."
3. Non -Intersection school pedestrian crosswalk
locations may be signalized when justified by
unusual circumstances, such as restricted visi-
bility.
4. If an intersection is signalized under this guide-
line for school pedestrians, the entire intersec-
tion shall be signalized.
5. School Area Traffic Signals shall be traffic ac-
tuated type with push buttons or other detec-
tors for pedestrians.
10-07.1 Types of Crossing Supervision
There are two types of school crossing supervision:
1. Adult control of pedestrians and vehicles with
Adult Crossing Guards or police officers.
2. Student control of only pedestrians with School
Safety Patrol.
Recommended practices for the organization, op-
eration and administration of Adult Crossing Guards
and Student Safety Patrols are given in "SCHOOL
CROSSING GUARD PROGRAMS" and "SCHOOL
SAFETY PATROL PROGRAM" booklets.* Also, see
Sections 10-07.10, 11 herein.
10-07.2 Adult Crossing Guards
Adult Crossing Guards are a supplemental tech-
nique and not a traffic control device. They may be
assigned at designated school crossings to assist ele-
mentary school pedestrians at specified hours when
going to or from school. The following suggested pol-
icy for their assignment applies only to crossings
serving elementary school: pedestrians on the "Sug-
gested Route to School".
An Adult Crossing Guard should be . considered
when:
1. Special problems exist which make it necessary
(') Available from the Automobile Club of Southern California and the California State
Automobile Association (AAA).
10-07
to assist elementary school pedestrians in cross-
ing the street, such as at an unusually complicat-
ed intersection with frequent turning move-
ments and high vehicular speeds; or
2. A change in the school crossing location is immi-
nent but prevailing conditions require school
crossing supervision for a limited time and it is
infeasible to install another form of control for
a temporary period.
10-07.3 Warrants for Adult Crossing Guards
Adult Crossing Guards. normally are assigned
where official supervision of elementary school
pedestrians is desirable while they cross a public
highway on the "Suggested Route to School", and at
least 40 elementary school pedestrians for each of
any two hours daily use the crossing while going to
or from school. Adult crossing guards may be used
under the following conditions:
1. At uncontrolled crossings where there is no al-
ternate controlled crossing within 600 feet; and
a. In urban areas where the vehicular traffic
volume excess 350 during each of any two
hours (not necessarily consecutive) in which
40 or more school pedestrians cross daily
while going to or from school; or
b. In rural areas where the vehicular traffic vol-
ume exceeds 300 during each of any two
10-12
SCHOOL AREA PEDESTRIAN SAFETY Traffic Manual
3-1987
hours (not necessarily consecutive) in which
30 or more school pedestrians cross daily
while going to or from school.
Whenever the critical (85 percentile) ap-
proach speed exceeds 40 mph, the guidelines
for rural areas should be applied.
2. At stop sign -controlled crossings:
Where the vehicular traffic volume on undi-
vided highways of four or more lanes exceeds
500 per hour during any period when the school
pedestrians are going to or from school.
3. At traffic signal -controlled crossings:
a. Where the number of vehicular turning
movements through the school crosswalk ex-
ceeds 300 per hour while school pedestrians
are going to or from school; or
b. Where there are circumstances not normally
present at a signalized intersection, such as
crosswalks more than 80 feet long with no
intermediate refuge, or an abnormally high
proportion of large commercial vehicles.
10-07.4 Legal Authority and Program Funding
for Adult Crossing Guards
Cities and counties may designate local law en-
forcement agencies, the governing board of any
school district or a county superintendent of schools
to recruit and assign adult crossing guards to inter-
sections that meet approved guidelines for adult
supervision.
There are various methods for funding a school
adult crossing guard program. One of these methods
is through the use of fines and forfeitures received
under Section 1463 of the Penal Code. Disposition of
these fines and forfeitures is defined in Sections
42200 and 42201 of the California Vehicle Code. An
example of these dispositions by cities and counties
is as follows:
Disposition by cities (CVC 42200). Fines and
forfeitures received by cities and deposited into a
"Traffic Safety Fund" may be used to pay the
compensation of school crossing guards who are
not regular full-time members of the police de-
partment of the city.
Disposition by county (CVC 42201). Fines and
forfeitures received by a county and deposited in
the road fund of the county may be used to pay
the compensation of school crossing guards, and
necessary equipment and administrative costs.
The board of supervisors may adopt standards for
crossing guards and has final authority over the
total cost of the crossing guard program.
Another avenue of funding school adult crossing
guard programs is through the use of the "Crossing
Guard Maintenance District Act of 1974." This act
defines how a local agency may form districts within
which property and improvements may be assessed
to pay the costs and expenses of providing school
crossing guards. (Chapter 3.5, Sections 55530-70 of
Part 2, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code.)
10-07.5 Choice of Adult Crossing Guards
High standards for selection of adult crossing
guards are essential. They must understand children
and in addition should possess the following qualifi-
cations:
1. Average intelligence
2. Good physical condition, including sight and
hearing
3. Mental alertness
4. Neat appearance
5. Good character
6. Dependable
7. Sense of responsibility for safety of children.
8. Good verbal communication.
Undoubtedly, the most important quality a cross-
ing guard should possess, however, is the ability to
gain the respect of the children so that they respond
to direction.
10-07.6 Uniform of Adult Crossing Guards
Adult crossing guards should be uniformed so that
motorists and pedestrians can recognize them and
respond to their signals. It is recommended that their
uniforms be distinctively different from those worn
by regular police officers.
During periods of twilight or darkness, adult cross-
ing guards should wear either reflectorized material
or reflectorized clothing.
10-07.7 Training Programs for Adult Crossing Guards .
Adequate training should be provided in adult
crossing guard responsibilities and authority. Experi-
ence indicates that this function can usually be per-
formed effectively by a law enforcement agency re-
sponsible for traffic control.
Training programs should be designed to acquaint
newly employed crossing guards with their specific
duties, local traffic regulations, and crossing tech-
niques. Training workshops should also be used as a
method of advising experienced employees of recent
changes in existing traffic laws and program proce-
dures. For example, crossing guards should be famil-
iar with the_California law, which provides that any
person who disregards any traffic signals or direction
given by a nonstudent school crossing guard author -
•
•
1
a
a
Traffic Manual SCHOOL AREA PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 10-13
3-1987
ized by a law enforcement agency, any board of
supervisors of a county or school district shall be guil-
ty of an infraction and subject to the penalties of
Section 42001 of the California Vehicle Code. (CVC
Section 2815)
Primarily, adult crossing guards should be instruct-
ed to provide appropriate safety instruction for chil-
dren crossing, watch traffic flow, wait for an appro-
priate gap between vehicles and lead groups of
school children promptly across a street. Under no
circumstances should a crossing guard permit a child
to cross the road alone. Even when there is no traffic
on the road, a crossing guard should be alert to unex-
pected emergencies and should accompany children
across the street to the curb.
10-07.8 Operating Procedures for Adult
Crossing Guards
Adult crossing guards should not direct traffic in
the usual police regulatory sense. In the control of
traffic, they should pick opportune times to create a
safe gap. At these times, their presence in the road-
way serves as an easily recognized indication that
pedestrians are about to use the crosswalk, and that
all traffic must stop. Adult crossing guards may use a
"STOP" paddle (C28A), similar to the one shown in
Section 10-03.8, except that the paddle shall have
"STOP" on both sides and that it shall be reflector-
ized when used during hours of darkness. When all
traffic has stopped, the adult guard allows the chil-
dren to cross.
10-07.9 School Safety Patrols
School Safety Patrols have a definite role in aiding
school pedestrians at crossings near elementary
schools. This measure is a supplemental technique
rather than a traffic control device as defined in Sec-
tion 440 of the California Vehicle Code.
School Safety Patrols may be used to direct and
control children at crossings near schools where
there is no need to create adequate gaps in traffic.
School Safety Patrols may be used to directand
control children at signalized intersections where
turning movements are not a problem, and to assist
adult crossing guards in the control of children at
crossing locations used by large numbers of children.
School Safety Patrols shall not be responsible for
directing vehicular traffic. They do not function as
police.
10-07.10 Warrants for School Safety Patrols
A School Safety Patrol may be established at loca-
tions where an existing traffic control device, police
officer or adult crossing guard is in operation, or
where there are adequate crossing gaps in vehicular
flow at an uncontrolled crossing, and it is desirable to
use School Safety Patrols to guide the school pede-
strians. School Safety Patrols should be established
only by agreement between the governing board of
the school district and,local traffic law enforcement
agencies.
A School Safety Patrol should be considered when
all of the following conditions are fulfilled:
1. Twenty or more school pedestrians crossing in
each of any two hours (not necessarily consecu-
tive) daily enroute to or from school; and
2. Critical (85 percentile) approach speed does
not exceed 35 mph; and
3. No more than two traveled lanes in each direc-
tion; and
4. At least one "adequate crossing gap" in traffic
per minute during an average 5 -minute period
during the peak school pedestrian hour.
An "adequate crossing gap" is defined as the num-
ber of seconds required for a student to observe the
traffic situation while in a safe location at one side of
a roadway and then to cross the roadway to a point
of safety on the opposite side. The actual walking
time to cross (roadway width in feet divided by 3.5
feet per second) must be added to the perception
and reaction time (usually 3 seconds) and a clear-
ance interval of 2 seconds between rows of pedestri-
ans in the platoon/group.
Ga = (W - 3.5) + 3+ 2(N-1)
Where W is the roadway width in feet; N is the num-
ber of rows of pedestrians in a platoon/
group;
A School Safety Patrol shall not be assigned where
inadequate stopping sight distance prevails.
10-07.11 Legal Authority for School Safety Patrols
School Safety Patrols should be authorized by the
local school board. School authorities should be re-
sponsible for organizing, instructing and supervising
patrols with the assistance of the local police.
The California Education Code [Chapter 8, Article
1, Sections 49300 to 49307 (1977)] and the California
Administrative Code [Title 5, Article 3, Sections 570
to 576 (1978) and 632] authorize the development of
School Safety Patrols and outline rules for imple-
menting these programs within the state.
10-07.12 Choice of School Safety Patrols
School Safety Patrols should be carefully selected.
They should be children from the 5th grade or high-
er. Leadership and reliability should be determining
qualities for patrol membership.
BACKGROUND MATERIAL
ROGER PREUSS
Associate Principal
Pe FROM THE DESK OF
Hermosa /
Beach Grow,*
City Schools
1645 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, Calif. 90254
Telephone (213) 374-9682 / 1 i . , /1141
..1•••YI•%,oar:r-- 1 1 774
— r . r J4r" , A (roui4 dav
iiiiimetegikd divia tortAii iClo,41 4 pih:N-1,4,,
dulitek. /hat nt,A-, ,,4i..1401 -041-e Pteef "141/400
/KA Ichoe-P a4 dive oi &Yea eTake eta At
aufiovtut, Ott iflw14 /Ot linefidnit 6'o k eLeof
aidutb-pi 4 a ;I 1 -4' rah rri rettlAtdo Oere)
Roger Preuss
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
OqlA °'4_ /Iliad fr
AP 4.0(0404`,744L -e
goa
M.4WA23f ellal al Ae a( 0 Y "a 04601•AR--
.Astuoiretor et A .464,49 1‘..11•,- .41;06 ran791-0).
OrtitskitA tut 4,,,,;,,,,,44,14 „,,74,7:23- (42 , 2 1 457.° 5',0
(3,1) and 43:2s"' (5-- 0. yfli& cerkwib/Stkom 4 otat
oat 1 0674 /film/ /6 litiounl bin
fu
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM
May 1, 1990
TO: Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager
FROM: Steve S. Wisniewski, Director of Public Safety
SUBJECT: Crossing Guard
*******************************************************************************
I have inspected the area in the 1600 block of Loma regarding the placement of a
crossing guard there.
After looking at all traffic safety considerations, I am of the opinion that a
crossing guard is not warranted at this location.
=Mb
•
• • •
• •
May 2, 1990
City Council Meeting
May 8, 1990
Mayor and Members
of the City Council
ORDINANCE NO. 90-1028- "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FOR THE AREAS AS
DESCRIBED WITHIN AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND AN ADOPTION OF
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION."
"Submitted for adoption is Ordinance No. 90-1028, relating to the
above subject."
At the meeting of April 24, 1990, this ordinance was
introduced by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Concur:
Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton.
None
None
None
Respectfully submitted,
Deput City Clerk
Kevin B. Northcraft,' City Manager
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. 90- 1028
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
THE ZONING MAP FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE
ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on April 24,
1990, to receive public testimony regarding Zone Change 90-1,
Northern Portion of the Commercial Corridor, which included
consideration of a zone change for the Medium Density Residential
designated property located between 20th and 21st on the east
side of Pacific Coast Highway, and made the following findings:
A. Rezoning the subject property to R-2 will bring the zoning
into consistency with the recently amended General Plan;
B. Rezoning the subject property to R-2 will prevent the
construction of high density multi -family projects allowed
under current R-3 zoning, which this property would otherwise
be subject to when Interim Ordinance 89-1004, which
established a moratorium on the issuance of building permits
in the Multi -Use Corridor, expires;
C. The character of residential development allowed under R-2
zoning would be compatible with surrounding residential
development;
NOW, THEREFORE,the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does
hereby ordain that the zoning map be amended as shown on the
attached map and described as follows:
SECTION 1. Rezone the area located on the east side of Pacific
Coast Highway between 20th Street and 21st Street
from R-3 Multi -Family Residential to R-2 Two -Family
Residential, legally described as follows:
- Lots 4-7 inclusive, Tract No. 8476
1
1
3
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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. Amend Ordinance No. 89-1004 regarding the moratorium
on the issuance of building permits for the
"Multi -Use Corridor" to exclude the above described
properties rezoned by this ordinance.
SECTION 5. 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.
ATTEST:
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this
day of , 1990.
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR
of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
CITY CLERK
CITY ATTORNEY
APP" A FO
a/persnr2
13
50'
.T NO. 8476
M.B. 99-13
N
:T NO. 2548
M.B.25-•28
0!'F
340
R PREY. ASSM"T SEE 160- 12 A 11
PgC/F7c
COAST
May 2, 1990
City Council Meeting
May 8, 1990
Mayor and Members
of the City Council
ORDINANCE NO. 90-1029- "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ELIMINATE THE
17 -FOOT PARKING REQUIREMENT ON ALLEYS AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION.°
"Submitted for adoption is Ordinance No. 90-1029, relating to the
above subject."
At the meeting of April 24, 1990, this ordinance was
introduced by the following vote:.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Concur:
Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton.
None
None
None
Respectfully submitted,
Depu y City Clerk
'Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager
2b
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 90-1029
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACp, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ELIMINATE THE 17 -FOOT PARKING REQUIREMENT
ON ALLEYS AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on April 24,
1990 and to receive public testimony regarding Text Amendment
90-1, and made the following Findings:
A. The 17 -foot garage setback from streets was established
primarily to provide room to park a standard vehicle behind a
garage that would not block the sidewalk;
B. The 17 -foot garage setback was also applied to alleys so
additional off-street parking would be provided in all cases;
C. The 17 -foot setback on alleys requires that parking be
located in a specified manner when other options may be
available which may allow for a floor plan of a better and
more efficient design, and which would still provide adequate
parking;
D. The 17 -foot setback on alleys places an undue burden on small
lots because it requires the use of at least 37 -feet of the
depth to be used for parking purposes, and other options of
providing the parking are -available which would allow a more
practical use of the ground floor;
E. The 17 -foot setback on alleys should be an option available
to developers toward providing parking, but should not be an
absolute requirement for all cases.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California,
hereby ordains the following amendments to the zoning ordinance
text:
SECTION 1. Amend Section 1157(C) to read as follows:
1
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
In residential zones, garages or parking stalls
fronting on a public street shall be set back a
minimum of seventeen (17) feet from the property
line if roll -up garage doorp•are installed, or set
back twenty (20) feet if standard garage doors are
installed.
Garages or parking stalls fronting on an alley shall
provide one of the following setbacks from the
property line: seventeen (17) feet, nine (9) feet,
or three (3) feet, except garages or parking stalls
fronting on an alley of fifteen (15) feet in width
or less need only to comply with the turning radius
requirements of Section 1161.
For purposes of this section the service road
located parallel to Hermosa Avenue approximately
between 27th Street and 35th Street shall be
considered as an alley.
SECTION 2. Amend Section 1158(B) by adding the underlined text
to read as follows:
Parking spaces, not within a building, shall comply
with the parking lot design standards attached
hereto, with the following exceptions:
(1) In residential zones, guest parking spaces
located in tandem behind a required parking
space shall have a minimum length of seventeen
(17) feet.
(2) Guest parking spaces situated parallel to
alleys and located behind garage doors with a
9 -foot setback shall have a minimum length of
twenty-two (22) feet.
SECTION. 3. Amend Section 1159 (B) to read as follows:
In :all residential zones, required parking spaces
including replacement of on -street parking may be
tandem. In the R-1 zone only, tandem parking may be
accessed directly from a public street.
Guest spaces in all residential zones may be located
in garage setbacks of seventeen -feet or nine -feet as
required in Section 1157(C) provided they comply
with the dimensional requirements specified in
Section 1158. However, in no case may one guest
space be located behind another guest space.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full
force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of
its final passage and adoption.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION 5. 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 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and
adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in
the book of original ordinances of said city, and
shall make minutes of the passage and adoption
thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City
Council at which the same is passed and adopted.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this
day of , 1990.
ATTEST:
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR
of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
CITY CLERK
CITY ATTORNEY
(w62
ail
,f,-/ did
onorable Mayor and Membe s of the
Hermosa Beach City Council
SUBJECT:
ZONE CHANGE 90-1
April 16, 1990
Regular Meeting of
May 8, 1990
LOCATION: COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AREAS
ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDE OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY,
BETWEEN PIER AVENUE AND 24TH PLACE
PURPOSE: INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the two attached ordinances be introduced
to accomplish the following:
1. Rezone the Commercial Corridor designated areas between 14th
Street and 24th Place to Commercial Specific Plan Area except
for the blocks from 18th Street to 20th Street.
2. Rezone the blocks from 18th to 20th Street on the east side
of Pacific Coast Highway from R-3 to R-2.
Background
The City Council at their meeting of April 24, 1990, concurred
with the Planning Commission recommendation to exclude the
Commercial Corridor General Plan designated areas from 18th to
20th Street on the east side of P.C.H. from the rezoning to
Commercial Specific Plan Area and, instead, voted to rezone these
two blocks to R-2.
Ordinances to carry out the vote of the Council were not
introduced at that time because the City Attorney indicated that
it was not clear whether or not the Planning Commission
considered this alternative when this issue was discussed at the
Commission's public hearing.
Staff has prepared the appropriate ordinances for introduction.
The ordinance which rezones the Medium Density Residential
designated area between 20th and 21st Street on the east side of
P.C.H. was introduced at the previous meeting.
Analysis
Staff has listened to the tapes of the 3/20/90 Planning
Commission meeting when this item was under consideration.
Although rezoning the blocks from 18th to 20th Street to R-2 was
not specifically discussed by the Planning Commission as an
alternative, the possibility of Medium Density residential as an
alternative was discussed, which obviously implies the zoning of
R-2. Also, several possible residential zoning alternatives were
mentioned in the public testimony, including R-2 zoning.
Therefore, in consultation with the City Attorney staff has
determined that it is not necessary to refer this matter back to
the Planning Commission.
CONCUR:
✓ /
Michael Schubach
Planning Director
Kevin Northcr-ft
e oVertson
Associate Planner
City Manager
Attachments
1. Proposed Ordinances for introduction
p/pcsrncc
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. 90 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
THE ZONING MAP AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO CREATE SPECIFIC PLAN
AREA ZONE NO. 8 IN THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATED AREA LOCATED EAST AND WEST OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
BETWEEN 14TH STREET AND 24TH PLACE, EXCEPT FOR 18TH 'STREET TO
20TH STREET ON THE EAST SIDE. OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, AS
DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAPS AND ADOPTION OF A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on April 24,
1990, to receive public testimony regarding Zone, Change 90-1, the
establishment of specific plan area zones in the Commercial
Corridor area located east and west of Pacific Coast Highway
between Pier Avenue and 24th Place, and made the following
findings:
A. A specific plan area zone will implement the policies
contained in resolution 89-5270 adopted by the City Council,
by establishing standards more restrictive than the C-3 zone
to regulate commercial development to ensure compatibility
with adjacent residential areas along Pacific Coast Highway,
and bring the zoning into consistency with the General Plan;
B. The height limits will lessen the potential view impact of
commercial development;
C. Landscaping requirements will improve the buffering of
commercial development from residential uses, buffering
residents from noise and visual impacts, and will contribute
towards improving the appearance of commercial projects;
D. The review of individual projects for compliance with the
standards contained in the specific plan area, and for the
purpose of considering the view impact of individual projects
by the Planning Commission will serve to further ensure that
1
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
commercial development will not be incompatible with existing
residential neighborhoods;
E. The rezoning to specific plan areas will result in a
development character for the subject areas which is
appropriate for the surroundings;
F. The Commercial Corridor General Plan designated area located
east of Pacific Coast Highway between 18th Street and 20th
Street is not appropriate for commercial development and
shall not be included in this rezoning;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does
hereby ordain that the zoning map be amended as shown on the
attached maps and described as follows, and the zoning ordinance
text be amended as follows:
SECTION 1. Rezone the. Commercial Corridor General Plan
designated area located on the east and west side of
Pacific Coast Highway between Pier Avenue and 24th
Place except for the east side of Pacific Coast
Highway from 18th Street to 20th Street to Specific
Plan Area No. 8, legally described as follows:
Eastside:
14th Street to 15th Street: Lots 1-3, inclusive, Block
1, Hermosa Knob Hill Tract; Lots 28-30, inclusive,
Heffner Fiorini, Allen Tract
15th Street to 16th Street: Lots 1-3, inclusive,'
Heffner, Fiorini, Allen Tract; West 145 feet, Portion
of lot 5, Block 84, 2nd Addition to Hermosa. Beach; Lots
1-3, inclusive, Block 2, W. J. Smith's Tract
16th Street to 17th Street: Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, W.J.
Smith's Tract; Lots 1-4, inclusive, Block A, Tract
#2911; Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Breckenridge Tract
17th Street to 18th Street: Lots 1 and 2, Block 1,
Breckenridge Tract; Lot 24-27, inclusive, Block 2,
Johnson and Newman's Camino Real Tract
North of 21st Street: Lots 1 and 2, portion of lots 3,
4, and 8, lots 9 and 10, portion of lot 11, lots 20 and
21, Tract #2143; Lot 1, Parcel Map 152-48-49
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
Westside:
24th Street to 24th Place: Lots 1-10, inclusive, Block
2, Montmarie Tract
24th Street to 21st Street: Lots 13-19, inclusive,
Hermosa View Tract #1; Lot 1 Tract 38200
16th Street to 21st Street: Portion of lot 13, Portion
lot 14, Block 81, 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach
16th Street to Pier Avenue: Lot 1, Tract # 9203; Portion
of lot 10, Block 80, 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach; Lots
11-18, inclusive, Block 80, Subdivision of Part of the
Sausal Redondo Rancho Tract;
SECTION 2. The following text shall be added to the zoning
ordinance:
Article 9.6, Chapter 8, Specific Plan Area No. 8
Section 9.68-1. Authority.
This Specific Plan Area is an instrument for
implementing the General plan pursuant to Article 8,
Chapter 3, of the State of California Planning and
Zoning Law (California Government Code Section 65450 et.
Seq.)
Section 9.68-2 Location and Description.
The subject area is located on the east and west side of
Pacific Coast Highway and is designated as Commercial
Corridor on the Official General Plan Map.
Section 9.68-3 Purpose.
The purpose of the Specific Plan Area is to set forth
the development requirements, standards and permitted
uses for the subject area, and to carry out the policies
of the Commercial Corridor General Plan area as stated
in the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
Section 9.68-4 Permitted Uses.
A. Commercial permitted uses shall be the same as those
permitted in C-3 General Commercial Zone as contained in
Section 8-4 of the City of Hermosa Beach zoning
ordinance, and nonconforming uses shall be subject to
the provisions of Article 13, Nonconforming Building and
Uses of the zoning ordinance.
B. A property being exclusively used for residential
purposes at the date of the adoption, of this ordinance
shall be permitted to be continued as a residential use,
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
maintaining its conforming status, and may be remodeled
or redeveloped as a residential use as long as the
density (number of dwelling units) is not increased and
does not exceed 33 units per acre.
C. Residentially developed properties or vacant properties
can only be converted to commercial uses if the property
fronts on Pacific Coast Highway or is an assemblage of
properties which front on Pacific Coast Highway.
D. Properties with existing commercial uses or other than
residential uses which do not front on Pacific Coast
Highway may be used commercially, expanded, and/or
remodeled, if the existing access is maintained.
E. Any residential use which shares a lot or parcel with a
commercial use shall be considered a nonconforming use
and subject to Article 13 of the zoning ordinance.
Section 9.68-5 Residential Development Standards
A. In respect to height, yard, setback, open space, and
dimensional requirements, any residential project
whether new or a remodel of an existing structure shall
be subject to the provisions contained in the zoning
ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach, depending on the
applicable zoning district. The applicable residential
zoning district shall be determined based on the nearest
residential zoning district on the same block.
Section 9.68-6 Commercial Development Standards
A. Purpose and Intent. The standards and guidelines are
designed to protect the health, safety, and welfare of
the citizens of Hermosa Beach and to encourage the
development of high quality commercial development along
Pacific Coast Highway in respect to its impact on
residential projects, environmental impacts,
circulation, and appearance.
B. Standards. Two sets of standards apply in this specific
plan area, First Tier and Second Tier. Compliance with
First Tier standards allows the project to proceed with
a building permit. If a project goes beyond any of the
first tier standards the procedure for submittal and
approval of a Precise Development Plan shall be
followed. Developments must be in compliance with
Second Tier standards at all times.
Project sponsors are encouraged to discuss preliminary
plans of proposed projects with the Planning Department
before making any formal applications for building
permits or Precise Development Plans.
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
First Tier Second Tier
Maximum/Minimum Maximum/Minimum
Requirements Requirements
1. Maximum Height:
East of P.C.H. 25 feet 35 feet
West of P.C.H. 30 feet 40 feet
2. Bulk: Max. 1.0 F.A.R.* none
*Gross Floor Area/Lot. Area Ratio (excludes parking
structures)
3. Maximum Size: 10,000 sq. ft. none
4. Min. Landscape
Coverage:
Gross Floor Area
5% of lot area 2% of lot area
(The required landscape buffer between commercial and
residential zones shall not be included in this
calculation)
C. Requirements. The following requirements apply to all
proposed projects:
1. Landscaping Specifications
a) A minimum three (3) foot wide planter strip with
raised 6" curbing, or an area equivalent in size to
a 3 -foot wide planter strip along the front of the
lot, shall be provided along street frontage. A
5 -gallon shrub shall be provided for each 20 sq.
ft.
Landscaping Buffer from residentially zoned
property:
A Minimum five (5) foot wide planter strip
landscaped with a minimum of one 24 -inch or
15 -gallon size specimen tree provided for every 10.
feet of length.
c) Six (6) inch high raised concrete curbing shall be
provided along the perimeter of all landscaped
areas except on the side abutting building walls,
or fences.
All landscaped areas shall include an automatic
irrigation system.
The landscape plan and irrigation system shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Director.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. The development, including the landscaping and the
entire property grounds, shall be maintained in a neat
and clean manner.
3. Setback from Residentially Zoned Property:
A minimum of eight (8) feet plus two (2) feet for each
additional story.
4. All other development standards shall be governed by the
City of Hermosa Beach Zoning Ordinance, including, but
not limited to Article 8, Commercial Zones, and Article
11.5, Off -Street Parking; with the exception of Article
14, Division 3, Precise Development Plans.
Section 9.68-7. Precise Development Plan.
A. Purpose.
The purpose of this section is to set forth the
procedures and guidelines for review of Precise
Development Plans, which are required when a proposed
project exceeds any one of the First Tier standards.
B. Guidelines for Planning Commission review
1. General Guidelines: To allow projects which exceed
any of the first tier standards, the overall
building and project design should be of a superior
quality, be compatible with surrounding properties,
and be designed in scale with the community. The
Planning Commission shall consider the following in
making this determination:
a. The building should be designed with interesting
architectural features and materials to enhance
the overall project. A three-dimensional
quality should be emphasized by the use of
stepping architectural features to avoid massive
flat building faces. Special attention should
be given to the appearance of the building from
the street.
b. Landscaping should be utilized throughout the
site in a manner which enhances the building and
the site, and to mitigate the visual impacts of
any flat and/or massive parts of the building.
c. The project should be compatible with
neighboring projects with respect to height,
scale, bulk, proportion. This is not a
prescription for similar architectural styles,
although in some cases it may be desirable, nor
a prescription to match existing buildings, as
many existing buildings do not stand scrutiny
under these guidelines.
- b -
1
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
d. Architectural renderings and perspectives must
be submitted to show the three dimensional
quality of the proposed building(s).
2. Height. To allow projects to exceed the first tier
height limits the building design should incorporate
features to minimize and break-up the visual impact
and view impacts of the higher structures on
neighboring residential areas and on the
streetscape. The Planning Commission shall consider
the following guidelines in making this
determination:
a. Limit lot coverage of uppermost level: The area
of the portion of the structure which exceeds
the first tier height limit should not cover a
major portion of the lot area, and said
over -height area should be compensated by a
proportional area of the building which is at or
less than the height limit.
b. Flat roofs and flat tall vertical walls should
be avoided: Stepped, variable, or sloping roofs
should be encouraged. The appearance of flat
roofs and massive flat vertical walls should be
avoided through the use of stepping or tiered
architectural features.
c. Greater setbacks for upper levels: Progressing
from the first floor to the uppermost story of
the building setbacks from the rear property
line should increase and exceed minimum
requirements, and the upper stories shall have
tiered setbacks from the lower levels as viewed
from the front.
3. Bulk. To allow projects which exceed the maximum
Floor Area/Lot Area Ratio (F.A.R.) the building
design should incorporate features to minimize the
appearance of bulk, and to compensate for the bulk
of a buildingwith attractive architectural features
which enhance the building and which reduce the
visual impact of large areas of flat vertical walls.
The Planning Commission shall consider the following
guidelines in making this determination:
a. Avoid "box -like" structures: Significant and
attractive architectural features should be used
to break up the bulky appearance of "box -like"
structures.
b. Building step -backs: Step-ins and Step -outs
should be used on the front of the building to
break up the bulky appearance. This could
accompany varying widths of the landscape
planter area in the front of the building.
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
c. Variable heights: The roof -line of the building
should should be designed with variable heights,
and roof patterns or materials, to avoid the
appearance of a flat building.
4. Landscaping. The objective of the landscaping
requirement is to enhance the overall project
including the streetscape, to complement the
building design, to break up the impact of vast
expanses of pavement, to buffer sound and visual
impacts on neighboring residential areas, to provide
shade for parking areas and to deflect direct
sunlight into the interior of buildings. To allow
less than the minimum 5% coverage, a landscaping'
plan must compensate for the loss of coverage by
providing a superior design through the use of
types, quantity, and location of plant materials to
achieve the objectives described above.
B. General Criteria.
In considering the Precise Development Plan for any
development, the following criteria for granting or
conditionally granting said permit shall be
considered:
1. Distance from existing residential uses in
relation to negative effects.
2. Impact on ocean views from residential areas
3. The amount of existing or proposed off-street
parking in relation to actual need.
4. The combination of uses proposed, as they relate
to compatibility.
5. The relationship of the estimated generated
traffic volume and the capacity and safety of
streets serving the area.
6. The proposed exterior signs and decor, and the
compatibility thereof with existing
establishments in the area.
7. Building and driveway orientation in relation to
sensitive uses, e.g., residences and schools.
8. Noise, odor, dust and/or vibration that may be
generated by the proposed use.
9. Impact of the proposed use to the city's
infrastructure, and/or services.
10. Adequacy of mitigation measures to minimize
environmental impacts in quantitative terms.
-fo-
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11. Other considerations that, in the judgment of
the Planning Commission, are necessary to assure
compatibility with the surrounding uses, and the
city ,as a whole.
C. Criteria for denial.
1. The proposed development would substantially
depreciate property values in the vicinity or
interfere with the use or enjoyment of property
in such area, because of excessive dissimilarity
or inappropriateness of design in relation to
the surrounding vicinity, and there are no known
conditions of approval which can be imposed that
could resolve such problems.
2. The proposed development would have significant
environmental adverse impacts which can not be
mitigated, and where the finding of overriding
considerations cannot be made.
D. The decision of the Planning Commission may be
appealed to the City Council by filing a written
appeal within ten (10) days of the Planning
Commission's decision.
E. An approved Plan shall be valid for a one (1) year
period and, should development fail to commence
within such time limitation and no extension is
granted, shall become null and void.
F. No person shall violate or fail to comply with any
approved plan or any condition or provision thereof,
nor shall a building permit be issued for any
building or structure which would violate or fail to
comply with an approved Plan.
G. General Procedures and submittal requirements.
1. Application for Precise Development Plan review
shall be filed and approval given prior to the
issuance of building permits.
2. Applications shall include detailed and fully
dimensioned site plans, building plans, floor
plans, architectural drawings and elevations
including perspective drawings to exhibit the
required three-dimensional features, landscape
plans and/or any other data found to be
reasonably required
3. Applications shall be submitted to the City
Planning Department and shall be in compliance
with the department's specific requirements.
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. Fees for submittals shall be set by policy of
the City Council.
SECTION 3. Amend Ordinance No. 89-1004 regarding the moratorium
on the issuance of building permits for the
"Multi -Use Corridor to exclude the above described
properties rezoned by this ordinance.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full
force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of
its final passage and adoption.
SECTION 5. The City Council shall designate the City Attorney
to prepare a summary of this ordinance to be
published pursuant to Government Code Section
36933(c) (1) in lieu of the full textof said
ordinance. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15)
days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk
shall cause the summary to be published in the Easy
Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation,
published and circulated in the City of Hermosa
Beach.
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and
adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in
the book of original ordinances of said city, and
shall make minutes of the passage and adoption
thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City
Council at which the same is passed and adopted.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this
day of , 1990.
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR
of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY CLERKCKeZ/4/UVeCITY ATTORNEY
p/ccrsncc
>-:
90 •
HEFFNER, FIORINI,'
Al l
m 05A- r: t.106 1+1 TR Ft-cr
rn. B. -1-4
il
qf-
90
90
.JO
2
roo
•
0
e1
AI
12
3
A
30
ms jnr"
Oi 0/3t,44.-.
v5
/156'7
2.9 1/1c.
E
ST
O
3LK4. 2
O
5
15TH
-3073 1 .. sI8 ..
0.67
5�.
3LK. 84 _
/45.67 .SE G.Ar.to/5
.. ..
..111._
k
•
5TH •
l8
4
0.1/ sAc..
50 73
oafer
PL.
I
o./zr4c.
5. E. Coo Z0/.5\
1 3/8 1
...
!o
/9
• 5
0
6
!z
0
7
•
ST
C.-5 o.hd R
42/10
S. P.
A
_��/.M. J• SM ITF} S
TRRcT
rr)•B• 9-L5 \'
Znd PrdcJ f ON 4-0
I+Ei moSA- 13.E AC;FF
m•3. 3-11-1z
e. nc.ri 1" iOrIhll
. A.1 I e.rl Tr4.c•
W)• i3. q-104,
90
PACIFIC COAST
9vt
-7
O �
48.5a,50 I
v PI �i
'' I
,so
e3�o \I
JO
2E
y 5 4
,
yo
BLK. •2 .
O4 1
_ 95_
/00 Bo
' 6
y
y �i 7 4
Y
A • O 7
•
• 2 BLk.
N 76 t M'f 7 .
O 8 /;
3
�4JO9
.. .. ..
a 2'
BLK. f_ •
s 10
// 20
,
I ..i rt
/7 1 •• t.
roo
II 12 ti
6'O
"16TH'. ...
0
Z
0
2
• AO
'V
Bo
B
51'
s 6
7.
1
dO
DR EL KEtUUt1 E 5 TR
• r.15• q. --j2
TIRRcr ND. Z`tIi
Mb. 19-19
VIMJ sjrr�'s TKPt
m.p,.•
q-(05•
hit
ST. ."< ..F.
Aid
90
C sa C—
+6
SS?
4 .' rf T.H
j°1-INcfiYY,.e, io_`,
.n ...
k 4lSS
Pje
I"=SOS
L3 Re: c.ItEN RI' DGE'S__
TR Rcr
rn.B. 9-12-
24.2
"1Z
B0 02
6005
ST.
CoNNONIINIUW1
TRAcr No.
�zSz�
W'. g. 1010-q — 11
a
C-3 b
i3r. 15su
p e..iy
II =IaOL
IPrCT O. a 043 NI. B. -2-5
TRPrCs NO•:: 32--1631 M•►3• Bea-il-�z
2/ �O
14.9.,•• pV9
CONI O'tLlvl
�FIRcat_ •rn Tm.I52-48-45
p /1-734
.moo
40
1S
22 m
1
23
24
ti
6 2662 ..,�_
16 ;
CODE
434p
24TH
1329 2.7
.15'
U1
2529 25
25.29 125
SIT``18
.14
1j
13`
25
•I
2\
/25 i'5
174 `+.F
23
10 r
i7
PL.
• sd
8Ab' QC
1
7Po-
62-
5 Par
'S 29 25
19
0
120
BL
/3
21
K.
22
2
23
0
4 pa,-
/
ar/
3 Par
24*
25
24-TH
STO
S
MoNTM AR IF_•
m.e.
q•15Z
90
90
>-
H
0
U
B k 41,34
�nSG 20
1 " = 50'
9 0
DE
140
MONTMARIE
M. B.9-135
2 PREV. ASSMT. SEE: 160 - 25
b
SV
HERMOSA VIEW TRACT NO. I
M. B. 10 - 39
CONDOMINIUM
TRACT NO. 38200
M. B. 970- 73-74
•
89//22,4', oo.
ASST SSWS
COUNTY OF I OS ANflf l l l
The assessment of units in the tollowing Condominium
Plans, includes all rights and interests n the coninon
areas as set forth in decns of roc,. a.
Common Ai ca
Condominium
Plan Aofercnce
Subdivision
of Airspace
Tract Nd.
211,.
Lots
Units
45310 6-28-76
31815
SKIS. 2 2 3
990
B
h
•t mss%
5/3,22
Po/
t
c 5 a 44e-4
/28/2
�-
86,489 °1
5.'
r. ASSM7. SEE: l&) - 13
6'
18
Pat
83.11
s°a:
o I
61310'
5'R1NIG ESLD
A.J
,
50
co
/6. -/
513° /3 9
/2812
Fly 11676
/7=
/fir' 64
1,,.
��/'t
.1.
4;s 04
2 is
4,700 r e'
`jam 53.66
1T
Par -
06
6406 1
1
1
• SECOND ADDITION TO
HERMOSA BEACH
M.B. 3-11-12
1
/29
64 06
/60.11
?779 1, k•2053°'
0031k <Sl> s
e749.1k.
N
150.0E
00 kA
by \
1
,1
-
14
Pa'
0.6134°. \
624 1
1 co
CONDOMINIUM
5
TRACT, NO.,, 3 18j 5
M. B. 863.- 74 775
PARCEL MAP
PM
us
13
pop-
1.25t
op-
X25r
182.12
G-3
406
StP.Esk
52 •
Q�
1-
52
5.20.65
11-10 SS
4-10
S/93r4/O. 69 ,
74
75, .
?i.1
Ii /,
80.7
"'J07%
`I
90
30
1s•�
7
.30
d5
i.
•
9., • 2 ;.1 /2
11•
/9S h1' ¢B 1 h n` / /4 SSE!'
�r 76
165
o -
Lr'7• s aE•—ply__i' ..7�
O
4.
••a
18
11
•
m 16
. o
/S
/QSOIty
•
LOPo1
15 •
N
o
50
2.3$t Ac.
/s
50
.N
11 ;
":7Y:771
/6
528
• 92,7001+'
42.85
1
• 501
f•v
co.
90
o.
155.°
o
0
Por.
\ /0r°,
345
S.P.A.
!h 4I 5
PQSe"
11
11 c -r# 4Zo3
h').0. 133-3c1
SEcoNIj nrbtTlottj To
HERrnosrt BEAck
M.6. 3-ti=1Z
SUpplytstotJ OF PART
o—F THE ,.SAGA L. f bouDo
R Nt/tt+o
a.
0
U
1
ORDINANCE NO. 90 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE THE AREA LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BETWEEN 18TH STREET AND 20TH STREET FROM
R-3 MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AS
DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAPS AND ADOPTION OF A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on April 24,
1990, to receive public testimony regarding Zone Change 90-1,
Northern Portion .of the Commercial Corridor, which included
consideration of a zone change for the property located between
18th and 20th Street on the east side of Pacific Coast Highway,
and made the following findings:
A. Rezoning the subject property to commercial is not
appropriate for the subject area because of the existing
residential character and surrounding single-family
residential character;
B. Rezoning the subject property to R-2 will prevent the
construction of commercial projects which would potentially
impact adjacent residential neighborhoods;
C. The character of residential development allowed under R-2
zoning would be compatible with surrounding residential
development;
NOW, THEREFORE,the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does
hereby ordain that the zoning map be amended as shown on the
attached maps and described as follows:
SECTION 1. Rezone the area located on the east side of Pacific
Coast Highway between 18th Street and 20th Street
from R-3 Multi -Family Residential to R-2 Two -Family
Residential, legally described as follows:
18th Street - 19th Street: Lots 1-3, inclusive,
Parcel Map 38-45; Lots 26-28, inclusive, Block 1,
2
4
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Johnson and Newman's Camino Real Tract; Lots 1,3,4,5,
Tract No. 6054
19th Street - 20th Street: Lots 62-64, inclusive,
Tract 2548; Lots 1-3, inclusive, Tract 8456
SECTION 2. Amend Ordinance No. 89-1004 regarding the moratorium
on the issuance of building permits for the
"Multi -Use Corridor" to exclude the above described
properties rezoned by this ordinance.
SECTION 3. 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 4. 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 5. 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 , 1990.
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR
of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Oil I/ CITY ATTORNEY
a/persnc
-?3 -
1'37
ORDE:N
1 NO. 8476
13.99-13
T N° 2548
A 25-28
340
h
RJ
RHODES
r/f
a0
5- .0
Ike
0
19TH
25
49
0
48
2712
11.3i 33.33
(-2/1 O
2 3
31 34 33 ??
000
47 46 45
/50
CI 6
/50
B L Ki I
25 24h `2.3 ~222 1 20 19
ST
O
44
25
0
43
25
18T H
25
•
•
ti
40
40
25
`187z-
c/rr
ST.
25
20
0
00
71
in oq.
_9? N N
Oad:
ZI Z
,IE'
K r
1---1 H
-0
3 I?
z
57.J.-
a o 2JII'.
ct I-11Zct � uct'a
7 A
• z
Z E
o s
t-? u
AS
COUNTY OF
May 1, 1990
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of
Hermosa Beach City Council May 8, 1990
SUBJECT: 1. OIL DRILLING AND PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (EIR) CERTIFICATION
2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-1
3. TEXT AMENDMENT 89-4
INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL
PURPOSE: 1. TO RECOMMEND CERTIFYING THE E.I.R.
2. TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE ELEMENT, PARK
MASTER PLAN AND LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL
PLAN TO ALLOW FOR THE OIL DRILLING AT THE CITY
YARD.
3. TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT OIL
DRILLING WITH A C.U.P. AND A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE IN
THE MANUFACTURING ZONE.
Recommendation
Staff and Planning Commission recommend the following:
1. Adoption of the attached resolution, certifying the
E.I.R. as being adequate and accurate.
2. Adoption of the attached General Plan resolution and Text
Amendments ordinance necessary for oil production at the
City Yard only.
Background
At the April 10, 1990 City Council meeting, the public hearing
was closed and additional information concerning the following
was requested:
1. Late night and early morning noise level.
2. Exceeding City's noise level restrictions.
3. More details about possible fumes.
4. City Attorney's opinion on Department of Conservation and
State Lands Commission comments, and on "Goleta"
decision.
5. Limitation on number of wells and .requirements to make
future technological improvements.
6. Withholding the imposition of conditions of approval
until C.U.P. public hearing.
Analysis
Noise
The additional data provided by consultant, UltraSystems,
(attached) identifies the late night and early morning ambient
noise levels (see tables 1 and 2 of attached report), the
estimated noise from the drilling operation (average 50 dBA with
periodic peaks of 65 dBA), and the conclusion that noise will not
exceed the oil ordinance noise level limitations (see below), and
therefore will not be a significant impact. If noise did exceed
the noise limits, the noise ordinance states that the operation
may be restricted to hours between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
However, more restrictions and penalties could also be imposed
through the C.U.P.
Cumulative number
of minutes
in any one-hour
time period
30
15
5
1
0
OIL CODE NOISE LIMITS
Noise Level Standards, dBA
Daytime Nighttime
8:00 am to 7:00 pm
7:00 pm 8:00 am
50
55
60
65
70
45
50
55
60
65
Odors
According to the attached additional analysis by UltraSystems,
odors will be detected periodically. However, with the
imposition of the recommended mitigation measures "odors are not
expected to create a significant adverse impact".
C.U.P. Process
Once the implementation ordinances are adopted and in effect the
C.U.P. process may take place which will require detailed plans.
The more precise plans will give the staff the opportunity to
impose conditions of approval which are more specifically
applicable to the actual project, and will also go beyond the
mitigation measures of the E.I.R. to include social and economic
considerations which are not included in an E.I.R. report. At
this time, the mitigation measures found within the E.I.R. are
adequate for the general project description, i.e. oil drilling
and production at the City yard.
The staff included a draft copy of recommended conditions of
approval to provide an early opportunity for review by the
Planning Commission, City Council, applicant, General Public, and
2
all other interested parties. Those conditions will be modified
based on input and the precise plans for development.
City Attorney's Opinion
See attached memorandum from City Attorney for discussion on
other items requested by the City Council.
CONCUR:
Kevin B. Nort c aft
City Manager
Respectfully subtni
.1
Mic ael Schu•ach
Planning Director
p/srcc5890
T_,O,.,AS W. ETOEvtR
•,VIL_!nri M. BARR
CHARLES S. vOSE
E CC;CKE SANDIF'ER
R O R W SPPINCAER
EDWARD V. LCC
,..r Riet TO F. DIAZ
./A'AES MLJR=_T
„AN•CE R. MI"AI•+IRA
LAW OFF!Cts
OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE
p FROrc35.0NAL cnPO4n-iON
1000 SUNSET BOULEVARD
LOS ANGELES, CA.'LIFORNIA 90012
(213) asp -304,3
MEMORANDUM
TELECOPIER
f2!3) 4 i2-5336
TO; Honorable Mayor and Members of the
City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach((
FROM: Edward W. Lee, Assistant City Attorney""s��
DATE: April 30, 1990
RE: Questions Regarding Implementation Actions for Oil
Drilling
At the City Council meeting of April 10, 1990, the City
Council directed this office to prepare a memorandum which
addresses the following questions:
1. Does the draft Environmental Impact Report (11EIR")
comply with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA"), especially with respect to the
identification of alternate project sites?
2. Is it appropriate to impose additional conditions
subsequent to the certification of the EIR or is the EIR the
appropriate document to impose all conditions for mitigation
of identified impacts caused by oil drilling?
3. Can we impose conditions on oil drilling activities
under the grant of a conditional use permit to prospectively
require the use of new technologies as they become available
to further mitigate impacts determined to have resulted from
oil drilling activities?
4. Has the EIR adequatel
y addressed ment of Con er at ao d to the
in its
concerns raised by the State p
letter of November 25, 1987 related to oil drilling activities?
DISCUSSION
This memorandum addresses the Council's questions in the
order above presented.
1. The question of the legal sufficiency of the EIR
OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOS
Memo to the Honorable Mayor, et al.
April 30, 1990
Page 2.
stems from comments received from the public, a letter datedd
March 6, 1990 from the State Lands Commission ("SLC"), dnd
response for the record to SLC submitted by Hanna and Morton,
a law firm representing Macpherson Oil. Company. Both public
testimony at the hearing on the certification of the EIR and
the letter from the SLC suggest that the draft EIR is defective
in not providing more detail as to the scope of the reasonable range of project alternatives. or
project
in analyzing a re
The State Guidelines which implement CEQA (the
"Guidelines") provide under Section 15165 that:
"Where individual projects are, or a
phased project is, to be undertaken and
where the total undertaking comprises a
project with significant environmental
effect, fLead EIRAgericy forshall he p u 1 re a
imate
single program
project as described in Section 15168.
Where an individual project is a necessary
precedent for action on the larger
project, or commits they Lterad Agency to
octhe
larger project,
t
environmental effect, an EIR must address
itself to the scope of the larger
project."
Section 15168 of the Guidelines defines the encompassing
EIR as a "Program EIR." The Piogram EIR is "an EIR which may
be characterized
be prepared on a series of actions thatcan
as one large project Subsection (c) therein notes that
"subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the
light of the program EIR �obe determinepwhether an additional
environmental document mus
The Guidelines set forth the standards to. judge the
adequacy
of the EIR under Section 15151 by requiring in
pertinent part that:
"An EIR should be prepared with a
sufficient degree of analysis to provide
decision -makers with information which
enables them to make a decision
which
cf
intelligently takes The
environmental consequences... •
courts have looked not for perfection but
OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE
Memo to the Honorable Mayor, et al.
April 30, 1990
Page 3.
for the adequacy, completeness, and a good
faith effort at full disclosure.
The Guidelines further note that "the degree of
specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree
of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is
described in the EIR." Section 15146.
The above cited provisions of the Guidelines are noted to
provide the Council with some guidance in determining whether
to certify the Oil EIR. In the present context i.e.,
consideration of amendments to the City General Plan and its
Zoning Code, the scope of the EIR would appear to be well
within both the intent and the letter of the law. CEQA does
not require infinitesimal detail in the project description
but would require subsequent analysis and review at later
stages of a phased project. The Guidelines requires that a
project description contain certain basic information, such as
a general description of the project's technical, economic and
environmental characteristics, "but should not supply
extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation and review
of the environmental impact." Guidelines Section 15124. As
noted in the record, more precise and extensive project detail
will be required through the later permit processes to which
oil drilling is subject.
with respect to providing reasonable alternatives to the
project, Section 15126(d) of the Guidelines requires an EIR to
"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."Subsection
you have
therein states that the standard to
provided enough alternatives is the "'rule of reason' that
requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives
necessary to permit a reasoned choice."
The most recent appellate court case to address the issue
of project alternatives is the case of Citizens of Goleta
Valley vs. Board. of Supervisors of Santa Barbara Count et
al_, (1989) 214 Cal.App. 3d 174 (the "Goleta II" case). This
case involves the consideration of an EIR for the development
of a resort hotel in an environmentally sensitive area of
Santa Barbara County. In Goleta II, the court turned down a
second attempt by the County and the hotel operator to certify
an EIR for failure to sufficiently inform the public "why
OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE
Memo to the Honorable Mayor, et al.
April 30, 1990
Page 4.
ostensibly alternative feasible sites, other than Santa
Barbara Shores, were rejected."
Goleta II sets forth the standard to determine if the
"rule of reason" as stated in the Guidelines under Section
15126, and as noted above, has been met in the EIR. The court
in Goleta II stated in page 185 that:
. CEQA does not require the Board to
study and discuss every alternative site
imaginable. (See Villa e La una of La una
Beach) Inc. vs. Board of Supervisors
[1982) 134 Gal.App.3d 1022, which
determined that an EIR which considered
five ranges of housing unit numbers
satisfies CEQA.) Nor does CEQA require
the lead agency to have a crystal ball.
(Goleta Valley I,• at page 1178,
quoting Residents Ad HodStadium Com. v.
Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d
274.)" ". . 'The key issue is whether
the selection and discussion of
alternatives fosters informed decision
making and informed public participation.'
{Laurel Hei hts Im rovement
Assn. vs. Regents of University of
California, 47 Ca1.3d at pp. 403-
404, italics omitted, quoting Guidelines,
Section 15126, subd. (d)(5).)"
In the opinion of this office, the Oil EIR before the
Council meets the test stated in Goleta II and in the
Guidelines to "foster informed decision making and informed
public participation." The EIR at some length discusses
various alternatives, both within the City as well
as
EIR,
jurisdiction. (See EIR, Vol. I, pp.
II, Comments No. 76, 290; and EIR, Vol. III, Comment Nos. 8,
29, 39, 46, 102, 155-157, 199,219, 294, 299-303, 309-310 and
Appendix A.)
Public testimony submitted at the EIR hearings suggest
that the document too quickly disposes of the considered
alternative sites. The tests to apply to summarily determine
if the various considered alternatives are feasible, have been
formulated in various court cases and are restated in Goleta
II. At page 189 of Goleta II, the court states that "an
OLIVER, STOEVCR, BARR & VOSE
Memo to the Honorable Mayor, et al.
April 30, 1990
Page 5.
alternative may be summarily labeled as too remote and
speculative because of legislative or policy complications
only when the alternative would require 'an overhaul of basic
legislation' or 'basic changes . in statutes'."
The court further states that "lead agencies need not
study alternatives which do not fulfill the basic objectives
of the proposed project. (City of Angoon vs. Hodel [1986] 9th
Circuit, 803 F.2d 1016, 1021; and see Residents Ad Hoc Stadium
Committee vs. Board of Trustees 89 Ca1.App. 3d at pp. 286-
287.). This includes sites for which significant adverse
environmental defects cannot be eliminated or lessened."
The hard task before the Council is to weigh the evidence
submitted on the record to determine whether or not the
alternative sites are in fact infeasible. The Council's
decision in this regard is given differential weight by a
court of law. The court applies a substantial evidence test
which requires only "enough relevant information and
reasonable inferences from this information that a fair
argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though
other conclusions might also be reached. . Mere
uncorroborated opinion or rumor does not constitute
substantial evidence." Guidelines Section 15384.
2. The council has also asked what is the appropriate
timing to impose reasonable conditions to mitigate those
negative environmental effects caused by the project. As
noted earlier, CEQA and the implementing Guidelines
contemplate that not all of the appropriate mitigation
measures may be anticipated under the initial program EIR.
CEQA specifically provides for subsequent review of a .project
under a subsequent EYR or a supplemental EYR. Guidelines
Section 15162 and 15163.
Additionally, the Conditional Use Permit process
allows the City a later opportunity to impose reasonable
conditions to lessen a use's impact on the surrounding
neighborhood. See, e.g. County of Imperial vs. McDougal
(1977) 19 Ca1.3d 505 and Edmonds vs. County of Los AnlI
(1953) 40 Cal. 2d 642.
3. The corollary question to the imposition of
reasonable conditions on the use, relates to the City's
ability to prospectively require the use of new technologies
as they become available to further mitigate the determined
OLIVER, STOEVER, BARB & VOSE
Memo to the Honorable Mayor, et al.
April 30, 1990
Page 6.
impacts.
The issue is whether or not a subsequent
modification of the conditional'use permit to impose new or
additional conditions is valid. In at least one Court of
Appeal decision, such a modification has been upheld where the
new or additional conditions imposed have been to correct or
cure a situation which would otherwise justify revocation of
the Conditional Use Permit. Garavatti vs. Fairfax Planning
Commission 22 Cal.App. 3d 145. However, the person who has
received a conditional use permit and who has incurred,
material expense in reliance on the issued permit, acquires a
vested right in that permit. O'Hagen vs. Board of Zoning
Adjustment (1971) 19 Cal.App. 3d 151, 158.
While case law appears to support the modification
of a conditional use permit, the holder of the conditional use
permit is entitled to a duly noticed public hearing before the
Planning Commission, HEMC Section 1800. Additionally, any
new conditions to be imposed as well as the original
conditions must be reasonably related to the impacts created
or contributed to by the oil drilling activity. The United
States Supreme Court in Nollan vs. California Coastal
Commission 483 US 825, reviewed the imposition of a beach
access easement by the Coastal Commission and stated:
"We have long recognized that land use
regulation does not effect a taking if it
'substantially advances legitimate state
interest' and does not 'deny an owner
economically viable use of his land,'
Agins vs. Tiburon 447 US 255, 260. . .
The evident constitutional propriety
disappears, however, if the condition
substituted for the prohibition utterly
fails to further the end advanced as the
justification for the prohibition. When
that essential nexus is eliminated, the
situation becomes the same as if
California law forbade shouting fire in a
crowded theater but granted dispensations
to -those willing to contribute $100 to the
state treasury. . . Similarly here, the
lack of nexus between the condition and
the original purpose of the building
restriction converts that purpose to
OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE
Memo to the Honorable Mayor, et a
April 30, 1990
Page 7.
something other than it was."
In relation to the current situation, it is our
opinion that the City can impose a condition to prospectively
require the application of new technology to further mitigate
or reduce the determined impacts of the project. However, the
requirement of such new technology as it is developed can only
be imposed after a duly noticed public hearing before the
Planning Commission, subject to appeal to the City Council.
The new technology must be reasonably related to
"further the end advanced." Given the sizable expenditure of
funds by the oil operator contemplated to undertake these
activities, the nexus requirement as stated in Nollan is even
greater if the operator's vested rights in the conditional use
permit, if granted by the City are substantially affected.
This office would therefore suggest a condition
which meets the Council's concerns to read as follows:
"This conditional use permit may be
subsequently modified to impose new or
additional conditions which require the
application of reasonably economical and
feasible technology to further
substantially reduce impacts caused by oil
drilling activities. Such modification
shall occur only upon a duly noticed
public hearing before the Planning
Commission subject to appeal to the City
Council pursuant to Section 1800 of the
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code."
4. The last question to be addressed by this office
relates to comments to the EIR from the State Department of
Conservation by letter dated November 25, 1987. The letter
from the Department of Conservation is attached to the EIR and
is addressed in Comments Number 36 through Comments Number 42,
at pages 22 through 24 of Volume II, Responses to Comments.
More specifically, the EIR recognizes the
recommendation of the Department of Conservation to use an 8 -
foot wall to secure the drill site from unauthorized entry.
Such a condition can be imposed upon the project as
there would appear to be a reasonable nexus to public safety
OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE
Memo to the Honorable Mayor, et al.
April 30, 1990
Page 8.
and welfare. However, it would appear that the Hermosa Beach
Municipal Code must be amended in order to technically allow
an 8 -foot wall. Section 1215 of the Zoning Code provides that
"a fence, wall or hedge not more than 6 feet in height may be
located anywhere on the lot to the rear of the rearl'ine of the
required front yard. . ." There is also another provision in
the Municipal Code under Section 15-1 which provides that "it
shall be unlawful for any person to construct, erect, build,
grow or maintain any hedge, fence or wall . . . between
adjoining owners of premises in the City unnecessarily
exceeding 6 feet in height." while the City arguably has
flexibility pursuant to Section 15-1 of the Municipal Code to
allow a wall greater than 6 feet in height, this office
believes that the City should clarify this issue by amending
Section 1215 of the Zoning Code to allow for walls greater
than 6 feet in height when required as a reasonable condition
under a granted land use entitlement.
We hope this memorandum provides the City Council some
guidance in the hard decisions before them. We are available
at your convenience to discuss these issues further.
EWL:ilf
UL 3 RASYST MS ENVIRONMENTAL
TIIIN SERVICES A HADSON COMPANY
April 27,1990
Michael Schubach
Planning Director
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
APR 7 0.1990
Re: Hermosa Beach Hydrocarbon Recovery Project
Dear Mr. Schubach:
In response to the City Council's requests from the April 10th
hearing on the subject project, we have prepared the enclosed discus-
sions regarding potential noise and odor impacts resulting from project
operations. The information clarifies that which is provided in the
Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). However, we have also
conducted additional nighttime ambient noise measurements at the
project site, as requested by the Council, to augment the existing
setting data and enhance the analysis of potential noise impacts to
adjacent residential receptor areas. These additional data do not
change the conclusions presented in the Draft EIR.
We trust that this follow-up effort will satisfy the City
Council's requests. Cecil Sterling and I plan to attend the scheduled
May 8th Council hearing. Please call if you have any questions or
comments.
PC/jc
413/pc.ltr
Sincerely,
ULTRASYSTEMS ENGINEERS
AND CONSTRUCTORS
i
i 1,/7
7,Ar,
Peter Cohen
Project Manager
Environmental Services
',;345 Von r,arman Avenue 0Irvine. California o 92714
l a eonone r 714) 863-7000 e Fax (714) 852-8863
/2.—
SUPPLEMENTAL NOISE ANALYSIS
OIL EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION PROJECT
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Prepared For:
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
Prepared By:
ULTRASYSTEMS ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTORS, INC.
Environmental Services
16845 Von-Karman Avenue
Irvine, California 92714
(714) 863-7000
Contact: Mr. Rocky Merrill, Scientist
4568/127 April 1990
APR 01990 •
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Objective 1
1.2 Characteristics of Noise 1
2.0 PROJECT SETTING 3
2.1 Project Description and Location 3
2.2 Existing Noise Levels 3
3.0 OFF-SITE IMPACTS 8
4.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 10
5.0 SUMMARY 11
APPENDIX A: NOISE MEASUREMENT PRINT-OUTS
NOISE ANALYSIS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objective
The objective of this analysis was to establish late-night
and early -morning ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project
site and determine if the development of the proposed project will
result in any noise -related impacts on the existing environment. The
determination of "significant" adverse impact is typically made when
the project contributes to existing noise levels so as to result in the
exceedance of a regulatory noise guideline, and/or there is a substan-
tial incremental increase over existing noise levels due to the
implementation of the project.
1.2 Characteristics of Noise
Noise can be broken down into two categories when assessing
potential project -related impacts: short-term and long-term. Short-
term noise is primarily associated with on-site construction activities
and off-site heavy-duty truck traffic. Long-term noise is generally
associated with off-site mobile sources (i.e., motor vehicle traffic)
and on-site activities which, for this project, consist principally of
maintenance activities and oil exploration and production operations.
Since the project's Environmental -Impact Report addressed most of these
issues, only long-term nighttime noise levels generated by on-site
activities will be discussed.
Noise is characterized as a function of its sound pressure
level (as measured in decibels), frequency (as measured in Hertz or
cycles per second)., and duration (usually measured in seconds or
minutes). The sound pressure level is the perceived "loudness" of a
particular sound while the frequency determines the "pitch." The human
ear does not respond equally to all frequencies of sound. It responds
1
better to moderate (i.e., speech level) frequencies than it does to
very low and high frequencies. Thus, to obtain a value which best
represents sound as perceived by the ear, it is necessary to adjust
("weight") or de-emphasize the low and high frequencies relative to the
moderate frequencies. There are three basic frequency adjusted (or
weighted) sound levels: the A -weighted sound level, the B -weighted
sound level, and the C -weighted sound level. Of these, the A -weighted
sound level expressed in A -weighted decibels (dBA), is the descriptor
that is almost exclusively used in noise measurements relating directly
to the human response to noise.
For purposes of measuring or expressing noise levels over a
period of time (i.e., hours or days), several descriptors can be used.
The most prominent include the Statistical Percentile Noise Level (Lx),
the Energy Equivalent Noise Level (LEQ), and the Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL). All of these descriptors express noise levels
in terms of the A -weighted decibel and are often employed in land use
compatibility assessments.
The Statistical Percentile Noise Level (Lx) indicates the
noise level exceeded during a certain percentage of a measurement
interval or time period. For example, the L50 )
and the L90 (background noise level) indicate the noise level exceeded
during 50 percent and 90 percent of the measurement interval, respec-
tively.
The LEQ is a sound energy level averaged over a specified
time period (usually one hour) and represents, in a single constant
numerical value, the amount of actual time -varying sound energy
received during the time interval. The strength of the LEQ lies in its
ability to assess the total time -varying effects of noise on sensitive
receptors. The United Stated Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
selected the LEQ as one of the best environmental noise descriptors due
to its reliable evaluation of pervasive long-term noise, simplicity,
and good correlationwith known effects of noise on individuals.1
The CNEL is a time -weighted noise level descriptor that
corresponds directly to human sensitivity to noise (particularly during
evening and nighttime hours). It results from the summation of hourly
LEQ's over a 24-hour period with an increased weighting factor applied
to the evening and nighttime periods. The daytime period (7:00 A.M.
to 7:00 P.M.) receives no weighting while evening period (7:00 P.M. to
10:00 P.M.) and the nighttime period (10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.) are
penalized by a 5- and a 10- decibel weighting, respectively. Original-
ly designed to analyze the impact of airport noise, the CNEL is now a
predominant criterion in measuring roadway noise affecting residential
receptors.
2.0 PROJECT SETTING
2.1 Project Description and Location
The proposed project, consisting of an oil exploration and
production facility, will be located in the City of Hermosa Beach on
the northwest corner of the Valley Drive/6th Street intersection. The
area surrounding the site is characterized as urbanized. The proposed
project site, currently serving as the City's Maintenance Yard, is
basically flat and exhibits no significant topographical features.
2.2 Existing Noise Levels
The major existing noise sources in the general vicinity of
the proposed project site are associated with motor vehicle traffic on
Valley Drive and Sixth Street, and commercial and industrial activities
1Environmental Protection Agency, "Information on Levels of
Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare With
an Adequate Margin of Safety," 550/9-74-004,1974.
3
associated with the City Yard and other surrounding non-residential
uses. Secondary sources include occasional aircraft flyovers, and
wind -related noise (e.g. resulting of foliage).
To establish the existing late-night- and early -morning -hour
noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed project site (and thus
supplement the noise analysis presented in the Environmental Impact
Report), noise measurements were conducted from the afternoon of
Wednesday, April 18, 1990 to the late morning of Monday, April 23,
1990. The measurements were conducted with a Digital Acoustics 607P.
(DA607P) solid-state programmable noise monitoring and recording
system, a General Radio 1972-9600'preamplifier, and a 1/2 -inch Electret
microphone. The system was calibrated before and after the entire
measurement program with a General Radio 1567-9701 sound level
calibrator (issuing 114 decibels at the standard frequency of 1000 Hz).
The noise levels recorded by the DA607P are adjusted internally to the
A -weighted scale which relates directly to the audible frequency range
of the human ear.
The DA607P system expresses the measured noise levels in the
form of two widely -used noise level descriptors: the Energy Equivalent
Noise Level (LEQ) and the Percentile Noise Level (L10, L50, L90, etc.),
both of which employ the A -weighted decibel (dBA). As stated in
Section 1.2 of this report, the LEQ is a sound level averaged over a
specified time period (usually one hour) and represents, in a single
numerical value, the amount of actual time -varying sound energy
received during the measurement interval. The Percentile Noise Level
is useful for indicating the noise level exceeded during a certain
percentage of a specified time period. For instance, the L50 (average
noise level) and L90 (background noise level) indicate the noise levels
exceeded during 50 percent and 90 percent of the measurement interval,
respectively.
This extensive measurement program was conducted over a
period of 100 hours and consisted of over 2.5 million individual
4
acoustical samplings. The sound level monitoring system was situated
on the northeast portion of the proposed project site with the
microphone elevated approximately 4 feet above the site's base
elevation.
A statistical summary of the weekday noise levels (Thursday
and Friday) is included in Table 1 and a summary of the weekend noise
levels (Saturday and Sunday) is included in Table 2. The noise levels
shown in both tables are presented in the form of the LEQ, L50 (average
noise level) and L90 (background noise level) descriptors and cor-
respond to all 24 hours for each full day. The day -long noise level
measurements are further summarized, graphically, in Figure Nos. 1
through 4. Copies of the actual noise measurement statistical
printouts are included in Appendix A.
As evidenced in Tables 1 and 2, the "loudest" noise levels
occur during the week as opposed to the weekend. Furthermore, by
examining Figures 1 through 4, it is readily observed that weekdays are
characterized by two distinct statistical peaks (anchored at the hours
7:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M.) whereas weekend days are characterized by one
long, flat plateau which spans the majority of the daylight hours.
In examining the noise data pertaining to the nighttime
hours, which is the principal focus of this analysis, it was determined
that the background noise levels (L90's) for these nighttime hours
ranged from 34 dBA (Friday, 5:00 A.M.) to 51 dBA (Thursday, 7:00 A.M.).
More specifically, the 24-hour average background noise levels (i.e.,
the arithmetic average of all the 24 one-hour L90's for one particular
day) were calculated to be 44.3 dBA for Thursday, 44.0 dBA for Friday,
42.3 dBA for Saturday, and 38.3 dBA for Sunday. The overall background
noise level was calculated to be 42.2 dBA. The weekend noise levels,
as expected, were determined to be lower than those associated with the
weekdays.
r9
TABLE 1
MEASURED WEEKDAY NOISE LEVELS
THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 1990 AND FRIDAY, APRIL 20, 1990
Measurement Measured Noise Levels (dBA)
Internal Thursday, April 19 Friday, April 20
Hour LEO L50 L90 LEO L50 L90
12 A.M. 51.8 40 38 54.7 39 36
1 50.3 39 38 50.3 36 35
2 47.8 39 37 51.7 35 34
3 43.5 37 36 45.0 38 36
4 46.0 39 38 44.4 36 35
5 55.1 41 39 57.4 39 34
6 61.8 52 45 60.3 52 45
7 65.7 61 51 65.0 60 50
8 65.1 60 50 65.6 59 51
9 64.4 57 49 63.9 56 49
10 62.8 55 49 63.5 54 47
11 63.0 56 49 64.3 57 50
12 P.M. 63.9 55 48 66.0 58 49
1 63.2 56 48 64.6 57 50
2 63.9 56 49 64.4 57 50
3 64.9 59 50 66.8 65 53
4 66.1 62 51 65.7 63 53
5 66.4 64 53 66.3 64 53
6 65.9 63 52 65.8 63 52
7 63.6 57 47 63.4 57 47
8 61.6 53 44 61.6 51 43
9 60.1 48 42 59.9 49 42
10 58.7 45 40 59.3 48 42
11 56.0 41 37 58.2 45 41
12 A.M. 54.7 39 36 57.0 44 40
TABLE 2
MEASURED WEEKEND NOISE LEVELS
SATURDAY, APRIL 21, 1990 AND SUNDAY, APRIL 22, 1990.
Measurement Measured Noise Levels (dBA)
Internal Saturday, April 21 Sunday, April 22
Hour LEO L50 L90 LEO L50 L90
12 A.M. 57.0 44 40 56.1 42 39
1 55.8 42 39 53.5 42 39
2 52.4 40 38 50.1 41 38
3 47.9 38 37 48.5 39 36
4 46.5 36 35 48.9 38 37
5 53.7 39 36 50.7 38 36
6 57.0 47 40 56.1 48 42
7 59.0 45 40 56.9 45 39
8 60.8 50 44 59.9 48 42
9 62.7 54 45 60.6 50 43
10 62.3 55 47 61.7 52 45
11 64.2 56 48 61.7 53 45
12 P.M. 62.8 56 49 62.0 54 46
1 62.9 56 48 61.7 53 45
2 62.9 55 47 62.0 54 47
3 62.7 55 48 61.9 53 47
4 63.2 55 47 62.1 54 48
5 63.6 56 48 62.9 55 48
6 63.2 55 49 62.5 55 48
7 62.4 53 45 62.2 53 48
8 59.7 49 43 59.7 48 41
9 59.0 47 41 57.9 45 40
10 59.4 48 42 58.2 44 39
11 57.1 45 40 54.5 40 38
12 A.M. 56.1 42 39 -
NIGHTTIME HOURS
7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4
DAYTIME HOURS NIGHTTIME HOURS
Source:
Title:
ULTRASYSTEMS
TIME -VARYING NOISE LEVELS
THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 1990
NIGHTTIME HOURS
Source:
ULTRASYSTEMS
10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 J 8 9 10 11 12
DAYTIME HOURS NIGHTTIME HOURS
Title:
TIME -VARYING NOISE LEVELS
FRIDAY, APRIL 20, 1990
12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
NIGHTTIME HOURS
Source:
ULTRASYSTEMS
8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5
DAYTIME HOURS
Title:
NIGHTTIME HOURS
TIME -VARYING NOISE LEVELS
SATURDAY, APRIL 21, 1990
12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
NIGHTTIME HOURS
Source:
ULTRASYSTEMS
8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5
DAYTIME HOURS
Title:
NIGHTTIME HOURS
TIME -VARYING NOISE LEVELS
SUNDAY, APRIL 22, 1990
4
3.0 OFF-SITE IMPACTS
The development of the proposed project will result in the
generation of both short- and long-term noise levels which potentially
may affect off-site receptors. Short-term noise, primarily associated
with on-site construction activities and off-site heavy-duty truck
traffic was considered in the Environmental Impact Report and,
therefore, will not be considered again here. Long-term operational
noise is associated with project motor vehicle traffic, and on-site oil
drilling and production activities.
The assessment of long-term project operational noise impacts
was conducted in the Environmental Impact Report, specifically for
afternoon and late evening hours. The assessment of long-term impacts
associated with nighttime and early morning hours will result in the
same conclusion with the assessment presented in the EIR if the
measured noise levels shown earlier in Tables 1 and 2 are determined
to correspond closely to the measured evening noise levels shown in the
EIR.
On page 66 of the EIR, the text identifies evening (10:00
P.M.) average noise levels (L50's) in the vicinity of the proposed
project site as.ranging from 42 dBA to 55 dBA, and Energy Equivalent
Noise Levels (LEQ's) as ranging from 44.8 dBA to 64.2 dBA. The 10:00
P.M. noise levels monitored for this noise analysis were determined to
range from 44 dBA to 48 dBA for the L50 descriptor, and from 55.4 dBA
to 59.3 dBA for the LEQ descriptor. By comparing these noise level
ranges to the above-mentioned EIR ranges, it is clear that there is a
good correspondence between them; therefore, the recently measured
nighttime and early morning noise levels (i.e., those recorded after
10:00 P.M. and before 8:00 A.M.) can be considered applicable to the
noise analysis in the EIR. The findings of the analysis in the EIR
which, as determined above, apply to the nighttime hours, are sum-
marized in the following discussion.
8
The principal on-site source of nighttime noise will be the
drill rig (and ancillary equipment) which is expected to operate
continuously until drilling operations are terminated. Average noise
levels (L50's) projected to the nearest residential uses (multi -family
uses located approximately 200 feet north of the proposed drill rig
location) were based on actual acoustical data gathered at similar
drillsites and were determined to approximate 50 to 55 dBA (at 200
feet).
Because of the distances (in excess of 200 feet) and
intervening structures between the residences and the drilling
equipment, noise levels from the project, during the drilling opera-
tion, are expected to average less than 50 dBA at the property line of
the nearest residence with periodic peak levels reaching 65 dBA.
The relative impact associated with late night noise levels
can be addressed by comparing the projected drill rig noise levels to
the measured existing noise levels and the noise standards in the
City's Oil Production Code. The existing nighttime average noise
levels (L50's) and Equivalent Noise Levels (LEQ's) in the project area
were measured to range from 35 dBA to 61 dBA and 43.5 dBA to 65.7 dBA,
respectively, for Thursday and Friday nights; and from 36 dBA to 48 dBA
and 46.5 dBA to 59.4 dBA, respectively, for Saturday and Sunday nights.
Based on these values, noise levels -generated by oil drilling ac-
tivities are expected to be near the existing nighttime ambient noise
levels.
During periods of time when the background noise in the
vicinity of the project site decreases (e.g. early morning), noise
generated by on-site drilling activities may be perceived by receptors
who are outside their residential dwellings. However, these exterior
noise levels are estimated to be in compliance with the standards
promulgated in the 0il Code.
9
For residents located within the confines of their homes, the
noise would naturally be lessened. With the windows closed an exterior
to interior noise reduction of 20-24 dBA can be expected with normal
California home construction. The interior noise levels from the oil
drilling operation could, therefore, be expected to range between 25
to 30 dBA with the windows closed. The peak noise from the operation
could reach 60 dBA with the windows partially open and 50 dBA in the
closed condition. However, since the average noise level in a normal
residence ranges from between 25 dBA and 40 dBA (from normal appliance
operation and air conditioning systems), the noise from the project is
expected to be only intermittently perceptible and, as such, does not
represent a significant adverse impact.
Using the State's interior noise criteria for residential
units (windows closed) of 45 CNEL2 as an evaluation parameter, the
project would be acceptable; that is, the interior CNEL for a window
closed condition would be lower than 45 CNEL.
The proposed project is expected to comply with the City's
Oil Code for noise and, therefore, not result in a significant noise
impact. A noise monitoring program, as established by the City's Code,
will be in place to ensure compliance.
4.0 MITIGATION MEASURES
To ensure compliance with the City's Oil Code during the late
night and early morning hours the following mitigation measures,
included also in the project's Environmental Impact Report, are
presented herein:
The drilling derrick will be fully wrapped with
acoustical blankets or acoustical panels and when the
drilling operations are being conducted, doors to the
2California Administrative Code, Title 25, Section 1092.
10
interior of the derrick shall be closed except as is
reasonably necessary for ingress and egress.
o The drilling rig and ancillary support equipment shall
be enclosed with acoustical blankets or equivalent.
o Acoustical barriers or insulation shall be installed,
if necessary, to maintain project -generated noise levels
at or below an L50 of 50 dBA at the nearest residential
property.
• If employed on-site, loudspeaker paging systems will not
be used during the nighttime (i.e., after 8:00 P.M. or
before 7:00 A.M.) except for an emergency.
o Pumping units should be well maintained to minimize
nighttime noise generated by worn parts, knocking,
clanging, squeaking, or grinding.
Well workover rigs will only be operated during the week
during daylight hours unless an emergency situation
exists.
A noise monitoring program shall be implemented to
ensure compliance with the City's Oil Code.
5.0 SUMMARY
The results of the noise analysis indicate that development
and implementation of the proposed project will result in no sig-
nificant adverse nighttime noise impacts on off-site receptors, since
nighttime noise levels generated by on-site project sources are
expected to be in compliance with the City's 0i1 Code.
APPENDIX A
NOISE MEASUREMENT
PRINT-OUTS
LEQ= 51.808 4/19/90
INTERVAL MAX= 75.2DB'
OVER THR. OH OM 475
START AT OH OM
L( 0.10)= 7.06
L( 1.00)= 6508
L( 5.00)= 5508
L(10.00)= 4.[:.B
L(33.00)= 4 :DB
L(50.30)= 40DB
L(90.00)= 3:[B
L(99.99)= 3-'0B
LEQ= 50.308 4-19/90
INTERVAL t'1A::= 77.208
OVER THR. OH OM 265
START AT 114 0M
L( 0.10)=
L( 1.00)=
L( 5.00)=
L(10.00)=
L(33.00)=
L(50.00)=
L(90.00)=
L(99.99)=
7:_08
6'306
4906
4508
4008
3908
3008
3608
LEQ= 47.808 4/19/90
INTERVAL MA::= 69.208
OVER THR. OH O1.1 65
• START AT 2H1 01M
L( 0.10)= 6608
L( 1.00)= 6008
L( 5.00)= 52.08
L(10.00)= 4808
L(33.00)= 4:CI�•6L�
L(50.00)= 3908
L(90.00)= 3708
L(99.99)= 3608
LEC'= 42.508 4/19/90
INTERVAL MA::= 70.008
OVER THR. 0H OM 55
START AT 2H OM
L( 0.10)=
L( 1.00)=
L( 5.00)=
L(10.00)=
L( 33.00)=
L(50.00)=
L(90.00t)=
Legg 4C0=
LEQ= -61 ;8DB. 4: 1?i90';:
INTERVAL -.MA);= 83.9RB;`
OVER :.THR. OH 7M.;1Q$;;
START' AT 6H. OM :;
L(' •0".10)= 79DB: •.
L4 1.00)= 72053'..
Ll' 5.00)= 68DB"•
L(.10.00)= 6508'..:.
L(33.00)=
L(50:•00) 5208 :.
L(90.00)= '.4508•:
L(99.99)=•4108
LEQ= 65.708 '4/19(90 .
INTERVAL MAX= 83.608:
OVER THR. 0H 21M...:0$.`.
START AT .17H 0M: . ;;'•;:
L( 0.10)= 8008
L(.1.00)= 7406.•:
L("5.00)= 700B
L(10.00)= 69DB.. •
L(33.00)=.6508-:
L (50.00)=' 6108-:
660E ':\
4U)8
46DB
396
3c:D8
3706
3608
3508
LEQ= 46.008 4/19/90
INTERVAL MA:;= 72.008
OVER THR. OH OM 105
START AT 4H 019
L 0.10)= 68C8 -
L. 1.00)= 551.8
L. 5.00)= 4306
L(10.00)= 4.0B -
L(33.00)= 4808
L(50.00)= 3908
L(90.00)= 3:C.E;
L (. 99. 99 )= 3606
LEQ= 55.108 4/19/90
INTERVAL t9A::= 78.908
.OVER THR. OH IM 345
START AT 5H .0M_
.L( 0.10)= 7408
L( 1.00)= 6:30B
L( 5.00)= 66:D8
L(10.00)= 5408.
L(33.00)= 4�D8
L(50.00)= 4108
L(90.00)= 3908
L(99.99)= 3708
L(90.00)= 5168'•
L(99.99)=.4508
LEQ= 65.108 4,19/90
INTERVAL MAX .83.ODB
OVER THR. OH 17M .56S.•
START AT . 8H .' CM .<.`::.•
LEO= 63:908 4/19/90
INTERVAL MAX= 88.•2DB
OVER THR. 0H 11M 75
START AT 12H OM
L( 0.10)=
L( 1.00)=
L( 5:'00)=
L(10.00)=
L(33.00)=
L(50:00)=
L(90.00)=
L(99.99)=
8108
736E
6906
670E
6006
5508
480E
4408
LEQ= 63.208 4/19/90
INTERVAL MAX= 80.608
• OVER THR. OH 11M 255
START AT 13H OM
•
Lr' 0..i0)=: 8008'.'
L'-" 1.00)=: 7408.
L( 5.00)= 700E ".
L(10.00)= 6808
L(33:00)= 6408
L(50,.00)= 6006.;
L(90,00)= 500B _;"
L(99.99>=' 44DB •,
L( 0.10)= 708
L( 1.00)= 7308.''
L( 5.007= 6908
:L(10.00) 6708
L(33.00)= 6108
.L(50.00)= : 5608
'L(90.007= 48DB•..
L(99..99)= .4408.
▪ LEQ= 63.908 4/19/90
'INTERVAL' MAX= 83.908
OVER THR. OH 11M 465
START AT" 14H OM' •
L(0.10)'= 8008
1.4(..1.00).= .7308
• :L( 5.00)=•690B
1.i,10.00)=_6708'
1L'('33:00)=.-6.1013
k(50_00)=•.5608 ;,•
-,L(99.99)* 44013''.!%
LEQ= 64.408 4/19/90
INTERVAL MA:;= 83.208
OVER THR..0H 13M 335
START AT. 9H. i11
t ( 0.'10) +::.'y0&:.•:
.'[.( 1:00)= 74DB
LC 5.00)= -7ODB.
L(18.0@)= 6808 .
L(33.00)= 6206.
L(50:00)= 5706 .
L(90.00)=-4908:`
L(99.99)= 4408
LEQ= 62.8D8 ': 4'19/90
INTERVAL MA;;= 80.508
OVER'THR. OH' 9M.475
START AT 10H. M.
LEQ= 64.908 4/19/90
INTERVAL MAX= 80.20B
OVER THR. 0H 1.7M 05
START AT.15H OM".•
:4t
021.0)=79D8',:
L.(- 100)=°
.L(' 5.00)= '7008.-.
L(10.00)= 68DBi''-,
L(33.00)= 64DB.
L(50.00)= 5908-2;
y'
L'(90.00)' 50DB." '
L(99.99)=: 46DB .
L,EQ= 66:1013 • 4/19/90
INTERVALMAX= 91.208
OVER, 'THR. :OH 21M 425
`;,START:; AT 16H.,.. 019 " ,
L(;'0:10)= 810E
4: 1.00)= 7408
Lc:
5.00)= 700B
'L(10.00)= 6908
..L(33.00)= 6508
-L(50.00)= 62DB
L(90.00)= 5108
;L(99.99)= 4606
L( 0.10)= 7808'
L( 1.00)= 7:3DB
L( 5..00)= 69DB
L(10.00)=..66708.
L(33.00)= 5908
L(50.00)= 5508
L(90.00)= 4908
L(99.99)= 44DB
LEQ= 63.008 4/19/90
INTERVAL MAX= 82.8DB
OVER THR. OH 10M 165
START AT 11H 0M
L( 0.10)= 7906
L( 1.00)= 7208
L( 5.00)= 690B
L(10.00)= 6708
L(33.00)= 60D8
L(50.00)= 5608
L(90.00)= 4906
L(99.99)= 4308
-31-
•
.LEQ= 66.408 4/19/90
-INTERVAL MAX= 85.808
:OVER THR. OH 26M 535
;START AT 17H 0M
.LC 0:10)= 8106..' :.
L( 1.00)= 7408-•
L( 5.00)=.7108'.
L(10.00)= 6908.'
L(33.00)= 66DB
L(50.00)=;6408"
L(90.00)= 530B
L(99.99)= 4608
LEQ= 65.908 4/19/90
INTERVAL MAX= 78.80B
OVER THR. 0H 25M 435
START AT 18H 0M
L( 0.10)= 7508
L( 1.007= 730B
L( 5.00)= 7008
L(10.00)= 69DB
L(33.00)= 6606
L(50.00)= 630B
L(90.00)= 5208
L(99.99)= 4508
LEQ= 63.608 4/19/90
INTERVAL MA:= 78.20B
OVER THR. OH 13M 585
START AT 19H 0M
L( 0.10)= 7608
L( 1.00)= 70B
L( 5.00)= 69DB
L(10.00)= 6808
L(33.00)= 6206
L(50.00)= 5708
`L(90.00)= 4708
;L(99.99)= 4108
LEQ= 61.608 4/19/90
INTERVAL MAX= 76.208
OVER THR. OH 3M 375
START AT 20H OM
L( 0.10)=
L( 1.00)=
L( 5.00)=
L(10.00)=
L(33.00)=
L(50.00)=
L(90.00)=
L(99.99)=
7408
7108
6808
6608
5908
530B
4408
400B
LEQ= 60.108 4/19/90
INTERVAL MA::= 73.608
OVER THR. 0H 6M 55
START AT 21H QOM
L( 0:10)= 7308
L(-1.00)= 7008
L( 5.00)= 6708
L(10.00)= 6508
L(33.00)= 5408
L(50.00)= 4808
L(90.00)= 4206
L(99.99)= 390B
LEQ= 58.708 4/19/90
INTERVAL MAX= 81.608
OVER THR. OH 411 15 -
.START AT 22H 0M
L('0.10)=
L( 1.00)=
L( 5.00)=
L(10.00)=
L(33.00)=
L(50.00)=
L(90.00)=
[L(99.99)=
7606
7008
6608
6':08•
4908
4508
4008
3708
LEQ= 56.008 4(19/90
INTERVAL MA:= 77.60B
OVER THR. 0H 2M 15
START AT 23H OM
L( 0.10)= 7408
L( 1.00)= 6 908
L( 5.00)= 6206
L(10.00)= 5508
L(33.00)=44DB
L(50.00)= 410B
L(90.00)= 3:0B
L(99.99)= 3508
LEQ= 54.706 4/20/90,
INTERVAL MAX= .75.4DB
OVER THR. 0H • :1M.-2;7 5;:!
START AT 0H " OMS,:.:'"
L( 0.10)=
L( 1.00)=
L< 5.00)=
L(10.00)=
L(33.00)=
L(50.00)=
L(-90.00)=
L(99.99)=
7206'
6606 •
5206
4206
3906.
ti 406.
LEQ= 50.309 4/20/90
INTERVAL MAY.= 75.40E
OVER THR. 0H OM 275
START AT 1H OM
L4 0.10)=
L( 1.00)=
L4 5.00)=
L(10.00)7
L'33.00)=
L(50.00)=
L(913.00)=
L(99.99)=
7208
6'106
4906
4 -DB
3`106
3608
3506
3406
LEQ= 51.709 4/20/90
INTERVAL MAS:= 78.208
OVER THR. 0H OM 375
START AT 211 OM '
L( 0.10)=
L( 1.00)=
L( 5.00)=
L(10.00)=
L(33.00)=
L(50.00)=
L(90.00)=
L%99.99)=
7.-09
65D6
49[''6
3:'09
3506
=[.•B
_:1)B
LEG= 45.006 4/0/90
INTERVAL MA;:= 71.006
OVER THR. O1. 019 85
START AT 3H 061
Li 0.10)=
L( 1.00)=
L( 5.00)=
L(10.00)=
L(33.00)=
L(50.00)=
L'90.00)=
L(99.991=
6706
5206
4 DB
41)[9
3906
3:)06
3D6
508
LEG= 44.406 4/20/90
INTERVAL MAX= 70.508
OVER THR. OH OM 95.
START AT 4H 0M
LC 0.10)=
L( 1.00)=
L( 5.00)=
L(10.00)=
L(:33.00)=
,L(50.00)=
.L(90.00)=
'L(.99.99)=
61:06
5006
4.1)8
;06
3:OB
3606
3506
3406
LEG= 57.40E: 4/20/90
INTERVAL 11A;:= 80.606
OVER THR. 011 2M 25
START AT 5H 0M .
L( 0.10)=
L( 1.00)= 6906
L( 5.00)= 6%:06
L(10.00)= 5706
L(33.00)= 4308
5 00)= 39
L4_A . 06
L(90.00)= :3 -06
L(99.99)= 3 -:DB
LER=.:60.306'.'4.{20/90,'• LEQ= 66.008 4/20/90
.INTEP..VAL MA;<=:=;77-.'706;1• INTERVAL MA::= 91.806
:4'r'FR=:THR :; 014 6M}';I2S?.: " OVER :THR. 0H 13M 85
•START"AT' 12H 0M
•
1.s:.11 007:-465DB-
'4590'.:.00)=.'45081`.,
L'(-99;:99)=4006
LC 0.10)» 850B.
L( 1.00)= 7606
rJ.L( 5.00)= 7006
L(10.00)= 6806
L(33.00)= 6206
L(50.00)= 5808
L(90.00)= 4906
L(99.99)= 440B
LEQ= 65.008 4/20/90 LEQ= 64.608 4/20/90
INTERVAL MAX= 84.009, INTERVAL MAX= 86.208
OVER THR. OH : 17M :29.S . OVER THR. OH 12M 175
START AT.::.7H ' 0M'(;, START AT 13H 0M
C( 0,10)7 00013
LC 1.00)= 7:706 •.-
•L4•5.00)=.•70DB.
L(10:00)=.:6906
.L(33.00)= 6408'
,L(50.00)= 6008
L(90.00)=. 5008
L(99.99)= 44[18
L( 0.10)=
L( 1.00)=
L( 5.00)=
L(10.00)=
L(33.00)=
L(50.00)=
L(90.00)=
L(99.99)=
8308
7408
6908
6708
6106
5708
5006
4606
LEQ= 65.606 4/20/90 LEQ= 64.406 4/20/90
.INTERVAL" MA:;=" 86.708: INTERVAL MAX= 86.6DB
.OVER THR.-�H 16M:395%!. OVER.THR. 0H 12M 465
START AT8H . '0M START AT• ' 14H ; 0M „
LC 0.10)='8508 '
L(. 1.00)= 7409''
L( 5.00)="7006'• L('5.00)= 6908
L(10..00)= 680E . ; L(10.00)= 6709
.L(33.00)= 610E
L(50.00)= 57D8
L(90.00)= 5006
L(99.99)= 4606
L,( 0.10)= 8208
A.( 1:00)= 7306
L433.00)= 6406 .
L(50.00)=5906-
L(90.00.)= 5106
L(99.99)= 4406
LEQ= 63.908 4.20/90
INTERVAL MAX= 8.22.906
OVER THR. OH 11M 555
START AT- 9H .0M •
•
LC 0.10)=8006.
'L('1.00)=:7306'
L( 5:00)= '6906
L(10:00)='6708
L(33.00)=.6106
'L(50.00)= 56DB•.
L(90.00)= 4906
L(99.99)= 4.106,
LEG= 666.806 4/20/90
INTERVAL MAX= 85.506
OVER THR. 0H 29M 375
' START AT`15H 0M .,
LEQ= .63, 5061 4'!20/90 ' LEQ= 65.706 " 4/20/90
INTERVAL MA1= 33.006 :INTERVAL MA.,- 59.506
' 3VER:..THR,:: OH; 911 :• '� ..
'START::,.AT
C•:`1'
L 00)= •81DB;'.
L( 1.00)=.7308:.:,-
L( 5.00)= '6906:
:L(10.00)=,6606'.
.1.08.00)='5806.
!L(50:00>=,6406
;L(90.00)= 4706
L(99.99)= 4306
L(' 0.1057'8808.
L4.1.00)='•74D8
L4'::5.00)=_ 7106.•:
t4(10.00).7 69DB :: ' •
L(33.00) 6609'
L(50„00)= 6506
L(90.00)= 530B
L(99.99)= 470B
LEG= 65.806 4'0/90
INTERVAL MAX= 80.706
OVER THR. 0H 23M 335
START AT 18H 0M
L( 0.10)=
L( 1.09)=
L( 5.00)=
L(113.00)=
L(33.00)=
L(50.00)=
L(90.00)=
L(99.99)=
7906
7309
7008
6906
6606
6306
5"206
450B
LEG= 63.409 4/20/90
INTERVAL MA:,= 80.706
OVER THR. 0H 13M 395
START AT 191-1 0M
L4 0.10)= 7709
L( 1.00)= 7209
L( 5.00)= 66906
L<10.00)= 6708
L(33.00)= 6208
L(50.00)= 5708
L(90.00)= 4708
L(99.99)= 4108
LEQ= 61.106 4/20/90
INTERVAL MA;:= 78.509
OVER THR. 0H 7M 355
START AT 20H 0M
L( 0.10)= 7609
L( 1.00)= 7:09
L( 5.00)= 6806
L(.10.00)= 6508
L'33.00)= 5f;C'B
L(50.00)= 5:06
L(90.00)= 4309
L(99.99)= 31+08
LEG= 59.906 4,20/90
INTERVAL MAX= 77.508
OVER THR. 0H 561 385
START AT 21H 0M
L( 0.10)=
LC 1.00)=
LC 5.00)=
L(10.00)=
L(33.00)=
L(50.130)=
L(90.00)=
L(99.99)=
7508
7006
6706
6•06
5306
4906
4206
3806
LEQ= 59.30B 4/20/90
INTERVAL MAA = 80.;506• ;OVER THR. 0H 4M 475
'•CIVER•'THR1 ".0H 22M:r305':'' START AT 22H 0M
'WART. AT-- 16H':•:OMI;'
L(. 0.10)="79908 '
L4 1.00)= 7406
L( 5..00)= 7006
L(10.00)= 6906
L(33.00)=•6506
L(50.00)= 6306
L•(90.00)= 5306
L(99.99)= 4506
LEQ= 64.308 4/20/90 LEO= 66.306 4/20/90
INTERVAL MA:'.= 87.208. INTERVAL MA=. 79.708
OVER.THR. 0H 11M 155 OVER THR. 0H 27M 305
.START AT 11H OM START AT 17H 0M'
L( 0916= 8208
L( 1.00)= 7408
L( 5.00)= 690B
L(10.00)= 6706
L(33.00)= 6108
L(50.00)= 5706
L(90.00)= 5006
L(99.99)= 45DB
L(• 0.10)=7706
L( 1.00)= 7308
L( 5.00)= 7106
L(10.00)= 7006
L(33.00)= 6606
L(50.00)=6406
L(90.00)= 530B
3 2 - L(99.99)= 4606
L( 0.10)= 7506
L( 1.00)= 70DB
L( 5.00)= 6606
L(10.00)= 6.0B
L(33.00)= 5206
L(50.00)= 481)6
L(90.00)= 4208
L(99.99)= 3906
LEQ= 58.206 4/20/90
INTERVAL -11A::= 77.80B
OVER THR. 01. 3M 415
START AT 23H 011
L( 0.10)= 7e -D6
LC 1.00)= 7006
L( 5.00)= 6506
L(10.00)= 620B
L(33.00)= 480B
L(50.00)= 4508
L(90.00)= 4'06
1.(99.99)= 3708
LEQ= 57.008. 4/21/90
INTERVAL MA::= 73.7D8.
OVER THR. 0H 2M 55S:
START AT OH OM•;
L( 0.10)=
L( 1.00)=
L( 5.00)=
L(10.00)=
L(33.007=
L(50.007=
L(90.007=
L'99.997=
7206. .
6906
6506
6006
4708
4{06
400B
3 706
LEQ= 55.808 4/21/9.0
INTERVAL MA::= 73.206
OVER THR. 011 . 1 M 49S
START AT 1H 0M .'
L( 0.10)=
L( 1.00)=
L( 5.00)=
L(10.00)=
L(33.007=
L(50.00)=
L(90.007=
L(99.99)=
7508
6806
6206
5508
4406
4206
3906
3708
LEQ= 57.006 4/21.'90...
INTERVAL MAX= 77.;608 -
OVER -THR. 0H' 2M .55.
START AT' .6H „OM.,;
Li 0.107= 7406.'
L(_ 1.007= 690E
LC -5.007= 630B
L(10.007= 5906'.
L(33.007= 52.06
L(50.00)=. 4708
L(90.007= 4006
L(99.997= 3706
.LEQ= 59..006 4'21/.90.:
INTERVAL• MAX='.81'.6DB :.
OVER THR. OH...•3M''34S
START_AT, :?FI;'•_•t7M_.:;::::
riHJi'0»: 7bDs;: _
L.(:•5..00,7••=: 6608--
L(10.007=
606 .L(10.007= '61DE
.L(33•.00)» .4906-_
• 'L(50.00)='4506
L(90.007= 4006
L(99.99)=.3708'
LEQ= 52.406 4/21/90
INTERVAL MAX= 77.706
OVER THR. 011 OM 445 -
START AT 2H OM
L( 0.10)=
L( 1.00)=
L( 5.00)=
L(10.007=
L(33.00)=
L(50.00)=
L(90.00)=
L(99.997=
7==D6
�:I B
5406
4-'08
4.1)B
•t' 6
370E
LEQ= 47.906 4-21/90
INTERVAL MA::= 74.508
OVER THR. OM 011 155
START AT 3H 011
L( 0.10)=
L( 1.00)=
L( 5.00)=
L<10.00)=
L(33.00)=
L(50.00)=
L(90.00)=
L(99.997=
7,:06
5306
4:%06
4:06
3906
-.D9
DB
.3"06
LEQ= 46.50E 4/21/90
INTERVAL MA7;= 70.906
OVER THR. 011 0M 14S
START AT 4H OM
L( 0.107= 6.C6
L( 1.00)= 5:D8
L( 5.007= 4':06
L(10.007= 3:'09
L(3:3.00)= .08
L'.50.00)_ 3(.08
L(90.00)= 3s.C.8
L(99.99)= 3- DB
LEO 53. 708 4: 21/90
INTERVAL MAT= 77.808
OVER THR. Olt 119 9S
START AT 5H O19
Li 0.101= 711106
Li 1.007= 61:06
Li 5.00)= 590B
L' 10.00)= 5:)0B
L(33.00)= 4308
L(50.007= 3908
L(90.007= 31:06
L(99.997= 3`•08
'LEQ= .6O:8D6''-4 /90,.:
I NTERVAL,.MAX=• 84'.006
DVER -T.HR`, .;.9H::6M ;'3$5 :•.
START• AT:_ 814 .;`0P1
L'C0.f07= 7506
L(•1.00) 7106
L( 5.00)= 6706.
L(10.00)= 6508
1L(33.00)= 5a0B
L(50.007=-5006
L(90.007= 4408
L(99.997= 3906
LEQ= 62.706 4/21%90:
INTERVAL .MAX 85.40B
OVER THR.' OH 911 555.,
START AT 9H 'OM
L( 0.107= 730B -.
L( 1.00)= 7206:
L( 5.007= 6906
L(10.007=-6706
L(33.007= 5906
.L(50.007= 5406
L(90.00)= 4506
.L(99.997= 4:08
"LEQ= 62.306 4/21/90
INTERVAL:. MAX= :76,.206.•
O .ERoTHR . 0H 10M;425;:•
START:, AT.. 10H..• OM.
1-(. 0.107= .7406.. •;;. 1• y,.
L{'1.00)=;7106"=
L(.5.007= 6806:
L(10.007= 6708.' -
L(33.00)= 6008
L(50.00)= 5506
L(90.00)= 4706
L(99.997= 4306 .
' ,LEQ= 64.20B 4/21/90 • -
';INTERVAL)•MAS:=• 86.7.08:
• .$»/ER, THR..• 014. 11M 445
START AT 1114 OM
LZ 0.10)= 8606
Li 1.007= 7306
' Li 5.00)= 6908
L(10.007= 6706
L(33.007= 6108
L(50.007= 5606
L(90.007 42DB
L(99.997= 4206 '- 33�
LEQ= 62.306 4/21/90
INTERVAL. MAX= 78.608
OVER THR. OH 11M 54S
START AT :12H 0M
LC 0. 10)= 750B -
Li 1.00)= 7108.
LC 5.007= 6906
L(10.00)= 6708•.
L(33.007= 6106
L(50.007= 5606
L(90.007= 4906
L(99.997= 4406
LEQ= 62.906 4/21/90
INTERVAL MAX= 77.708
OVER THR. 0H 11M 505
START AT.13H OM
L( 0.10)= 7508
L( 1.007= 7208
L( 5.007= 6908
L(10.007= 6706
L(33.007= 6106
L(50.007= 5606
L(90.007= 4806
L(99.99)= 4306
LEQ= 62.908 4/21/90
INTERVAL MAX= 79.508
OVER ,THR. • OH 11M 275
START AT, 14H OM••
L(. 0.10)=
L ( 1.00)=
L( 5.00)=
L(10.007=
L(33.007=
L(50.007=
L(90.007=
L(99.99)=
760B..
7206.
6908
6706
6006
5508
4708
4208
LEQ= 63.206 4/21/90
INTERVAL MAX= 86.506
OVER THR. 0H 10M 255
START AT 18H OM
L( 0.107=
L( 1.00)=
L( 5.00)=
L(10.007=
L(33.007=
L(50.00)=
L.90.00)=
L(99.997=
7906
7208
690E
6706
6006
5506
4906
4408
LEQ= 62.408 4/21/90
INTERVAL MA:= 87.306
OVER THR. OH 8M 405
START AT 1914 OM
L( 0.10)= 7906
L( 1.007= 7206
L( 5.007= 6808
L(10.00)= 6608
L(33.00)= 5806
L(50.007= 5308
L(90.007= 4508
L(99.997= 3908
LEQ= 59.706 4/21/90
INTERVAL MAX 77.308
CVER THR. OH 5M 255
START AT 20H 0M
C 0.10)=
L( 1.00)=
,L( 5.00)=
L(10.007=
L(33.00)=
L(50.00)=
L(90.00)=
L(99.99)=
7308
7008
6608
6108
54DB
4908
4308
3608
LEQ= 662.706 4/21/90 L.EQ= 59.008 4/21/90
•INTERVAL MAX= '77.608 INTEF.'VAL MA::= 75.206
OVER THR. OH 10M 575' .OVER THR. 0H 4M 445
START AT 15H ''0M START AT 21H 01
'LC. 0.107= 750B''
L( 1.007= 7106
L( 5.007= 690B•"
:L(10:007= 670B .
'L(33.00)=.6006
L(50.00)='5508'.
L(90.007= 4806
L(99.997= 4306
LEQ= 63..2DB 4/21/90 •
?QyER THR;i't�N" � l`t 59S s
` •ART' AT,'•1614'0M'.,`�;
'LC. 0.10)= .78DB '
L ( 1.00)= 7266
:L( 5.00)= 6908
L(10.00)= 6706
L (33.00)= 61DB
L(50.00)= 5508
L(90.00)= 47DB .
L(99.99)=.43DB
'4t1=.63608: 4/21/90
: INTERVAL . r1AXf.._84.4DB .
,OVER 'THR.11 0H 1219:235
:START- AT: 17H -0M •
'LC 0:10)=
L( 1.00)= 72DB .
.L("5.00)= 6908
L(10.00)= 670B.
L(33.00)= 6108
L (50.00)= 5606
L (90.00)= 48DB
L(99.99)= 4406
LC 0.107= 730E
L( 1.00)= 7008
L( 5.007= 6608
L(10.007= 6408
L(33.007= 5206
Lr..50.007= 4708
L(90.00)= 4:06
L(99 90)= 3906
LEQ= 59.40E 4'21/90
INTERVAL MA,:= 75.808
OVER THR. OH 4M 525
START AT 2214 OM
L( 0.107=
L(, 1.00)=
L( .00)=
L(10.007=
L(33.007=
L(50.00)=
L(90.007=
L(99.99)=
7308
7106
6-'06
6408
5208
4886
4206
3 909
LEO 57.106 4/21/90
INTERVAL 1•1AX:= 73.806
OVER THR. O11 2M 475
START AT 23H OM
Li 0.107= 72D6
Li 1.007= 6906
L( 5.007= 6406
L(10.007= 6'06
L(33.007= 4306
L:50.007= 4506
L(90.007= 4008
L(99.997= 3 -PB
LEQ= 56.10B 4/22/90
INTERVAL MA := 74.608
LIVER THR. OH 2t1 245
START AT OH Orr
Li 0.10)= 7206
L( 1.00)= 68DB
L( 5.00)= 6406
L(10.00)= 5`c":06
L(33.00)= 45DB
L(50.00)= 4,q26
L(90.00)= 3208
L(99.99)= 3808
LEQ= 53.506 4.22/90
INTERVAL MA::= 73.206
OVER THR. OIC 1M 125
START AT 1H OM
L( 0.10)= 7;0B
L( 1.C10)= 6"0B
L( 5.00)= 5906
L(10.00)= 5206
L(33.00)= 4`:06
L(50.00)= 4208
L(90.00)= 31+06
L(99.99)= 3706
LEQ= 50.106 4/22/90
INTERVAL MA;:= 72.8DB
OVER THR. OH OM 325
START AT 21' 0M
L( 0.10)=
L( 1.00)=
L( 5.00)=
L(10.00)=
L(33.00)=
L(50.00)=
Le90.00)=
L(•ao q9)=
6'+D B
640E
5006
4606
4206
4:06
:DB
3706
LEQ= 48.506 4/22/90
INTERVAL MAX. 70.306
OVER THR. OH OM 235
START AT 311 Om
L( 0.10)=
L( 1.00)=
L<: 5.00)=
L(10.00)=
L(33.00)=
L(50.00)=
L(90.00)=
L(99.99)=
60:06
6--D9
4.'06
400E
3906
3506
3,•06
LEQ= 48.908 4/22/90
INTERVAL MAX= 74.906
OVER THR. OH OM 155
START AT 4H OM
L 0.10)= 7:D6
L 1.00)= 5C.DB
L' 5.00)= 4406
L 10.00)= 4' CE:
L' 33.00)= 31'OP
L 50.00) =
L.90.00). 3•'06
L.99.999)= 3f,DE:
LEQ= 50.706 4,-22/90
INTERVAL MA;:= 75.008
OVER THR. OH OM 255
START AT 5H OM
L( 0.10)= 7:.08
L( 1.00)= 5.::1.8
L( 5.00)= 5:JD8
L(10.00)= 5.'06
L(33.00)= 4:08
L(50.O0)= 3806
L•90.00)= 3i:DB
L(99.99)= C•6
LEQ= 56.106 4/22/90•
INTERVAL MA:= 81.5D6.
OVER.THR. OH 1M 275
START AT 6H OM
L.•0:'10)= 7308
L( 1.00)= 6606.
L( 5.00)= 6006
L(10.00)= 570B
L(33.00)= 5-08
L(50.00)= 4;1:1)6
L(90.00)= 4ED6
L(99.99)= 3706
LEQ= 56.906 4/22/90
INTERVAL 11A3:= 79.506
OVER THR. OH 2M 315
START AT 7H 0M
L( 0.10)= 7306
L( 1.00)= 5906
L( 5.00)= 6406
L(10.00)= 5806
L(33.00)= 4806
L(50.007= 4508
L(90.00)= 3908
L(99.99)= 3708
LEG= 59.906 4/22/90
INTERVAL MA,;= 73.006
OVER THR. OH• 3Ml•355
START .AT 8H
L ' 0.10)-7 .7406.
L('1.00)= 71DB•:`.?','.
L4 ' 5.00)= 6706..
LC10.00)= 6406
L(33.00)= 520B
IL(50.00)= 430B•
L(90.00)= 4206.
L(99.99)= 3906
LEQ= 60.606 4!22/90 •
INTERVAL MAY= 79.5D6
OVER THR. OH .,.6M- 135 •;
START AT .
L'( 0.10)= 7608:'
L( 1.00)=..7106.
L( 5.00)= 6706
-L.(10.00)=•6506
L(33.00)=,5406
L(50.00)=,5006,.
• L(90.00)= 4306 ••.
L(99.99)=.3906
LEO= 61.70B 4/22/90
INTERVAL i1A;?= 85.30B.
OVER THR. OH ; 7M" 165.
START AT; 10H• ;OM ;•:".'
L.C. •0:10)= 7806.
L( 1.00)= 7106
L( 5.00)= 6706
L(10.00)= 66DB
L(33.00)= 570E
L(50.00)= 5206
L(90.00)= 4506
L(99.99)= 38808
LEQ= 62.006 4/22/90
INTERVAL MA:;= 77.906
OVER THR. OH 9M 445
START AT 12H 0M
L(.0.10)= 7506
L ( 1.00)= 7106
LC 5.00)= 680B
1.(10.00)= 6606
L(33.00)= 5908
L(50.00)= 5.06
L(90.00)= 450B
L(99.99)= 4008
LEQ= 61.708 4/22/90
INTERVAL MAX= 81 .ODB
OVER THR. OH 8M 465
START AT 13H OM
L( 0.10)=
L( 1.00)=
L( 5.00)=
L(10.00)=
L(33.00)=
L(50.O0)=
L(90.00)=
L(99.99)=
7606
7106
68DB
6606
5806
5306
4506
400E
LEQ= 62.008 4/22/90
INTERVAL MA;:= 77.806
OVER THR. OH 9M 135
START AT 14H 0M
L( 0.10)=
L( 1.00)=
L( 5.00)=
L(10.00)=
L(33.00)=
L(50.00)=
L(90.00)=
L(99.99)=
7506
710E
68DB
6608
590B
5406
4706
4106
LEQ= 61.906 4/22/90
INTERVAL MA;:= 83.806
OVER THR. OH 8M 215
START AT 15H OM
L( 0.10)=
L( 1.00)=
L( 5.00)=
L(10.00)=
L(33.00)=
L(50.00)=
L(90.00)=
L(99.99)=
770B
7108
6808
65DB
5808
5306
4706
430B
LEO= 62.106 4/22/90
INTERVAL MA:>:= 84.406
OVER THR. OH 8M 50S
START .AT 16H .' OM .
'L( 0.10)= 7706°
L( 1.00)= 71DB
'L('.5.00)= 6808
L(10.00)= 66DB
L(33.O0)= 5908
L(50.00)= 540B
L(90.00)= 4806
L(99.99)= 4106
LEQ= 61.706. 4/22/90
INTERVAL MAX= 79.408 .
OVER- THR.. OH 9M • 2S
START AT 11H OM
L( 0.10)=
L( 1.00)=
L( 5.00)=
L(10.00)=
L(33.00)=
L(50.00)=
L(90.O0)=
L(99.99)=
7508
7008
6808
6608
590E
5308
45DB
4106 -3t-(- -
LEQ= 62.908 4/22/90
INTERVAL MAX= 88.008
OVER THR. OH 9M 6S
START AT 17H OM
L( 0.10)= 8208
L( 1.00)= 7108
L(.5.00)= 68DB
L(10.00)= 6608
L(33.00)= 5908
L(50.00)= 5508
L(90.00)= 480B
L(99.99)= 4406
LEQ= 62.506 4/22/90
INTERVAL MA:= 81.30B,
OVER THR. 0H 9M 475
START AT 18H OM
L( 0.10)= 7806
L( 1.00)= 7206
L(" 5.00)= 6806
L(10.00)= 660B
L(33.00)= 5908
L(50.00)= 5.506
L(90.00)= 4806
L(99.99)= 4.306
LEQ= 62.208 4/22/90
INTERVAL MAX= 83.306
OVER THR. OH .88M 535
START AT 19H OM
L( 0.10)=
L( 1.00)=
L( 5.00)=
L(1O.00)=
.L(33.00)=
L(50.00)=
L(90.00)=
L(99.99)=
7806
7106
6306
6506
5806
5306
450E
3806
LEQ= 59.706 4/22/90
INTERVAL MA;.= 79.606
OVER THR. OH 5M 145
START AT 20H 0M
L( 0.10)= 7406
L( 1.00)= 7008
L( 5.00)= 6 -DB
L(10.00)= 6, -DB
L(33.00) 50 -DB
L(50.00)= 4306
L(90.00)= 4106
L(99.99)= 370B
LEQ= 57.9DB 4.22/90
INTERVAL MA,:= 77.308
OVER THR. OH 3M 395
START AT 21H OM
L( 0.10)=
L( 1.00)=
L( 5.00)=
L(10.00)=
L(33.00)=
L(50.00)=
L(90.00)=
L(99.99)=
720E
6908
6508
6206
4908
4506
4008
3708
LEQ= 58.208 4/22/90
INTERVAL MA;:= 75.708
OVER THR. OH 3M 595
START AT 22H OM
L( 0.10)= 7308
L( 1.00)= 7008
L( 5.00)= 6608
L(10.00)= 6)08
,L..33.00)= 4808
L(50.00)= 4,-06
L(90.00)= 3906
L(99.99)= 3708
LEQ= 54.508 4/22/90
INTERVAL MA: := 75. DDB
OVER THR. 011 1M 355
START AT 2311 OM
Li 0.10)= 7n8
L( 1.00)=
L( 5.00)= 6108
L(10.00)= 5206
L(33.00)= 4206
L(50.00)= 40/06
L(90.00)= 3'08
L(99.99)= 3708
SUPPLEMENTAL ODOR CONTROL ANALYSIS
OIL EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION PROJECT
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Prepared For:
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
Prepared By:
ULTRASYSTEMS ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTORS, INC.
Environmental Services
16845 Von Karman Avenue
Irvine, California 92714
(714) 863-7000
4568/127 April 1990
Introduction
This document is intended to clarify information provided in
the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) regarding potential odor
generation from the proposed project and planned odor control measures
to avoid or reduce odors. Additionally, this analysis augments the
original DEIR with enhanced information provided by the project
applicant. The potential for adverse impacts on the existing environ-
ment due to odors emanating from the project operations was addressed
in the DEIR and is again discussed in this analysis.
Potential Odor Sources and Proposed Control Measures
The following analysis is taken from the DEIR and has been
supplemented with additional clarifying information recently provided
by the project applicant.
It is generally difficult to measure odor intensity since
there are so many different types of odors. Odors from the proposed
drilling and production activities could consist of hydrocarbons,
hydrogen sulfide, and odors associated with various types of solutions.
In discussing odors, several points should be recognized:
Many odors can be smelled in diluted concentrations far
beyond the limits of chemical detection.
Human responses to odors are not necessarily linearly
proportional to concentration.
Weak odors are not perceived in the presence of strong ones.
A consistent intensity of a certain odor may result in the
olfactory sense becoming fatigued and insensitive to the odor
after long exposure.
1
Atmospheric conditions play an important role in the
detection and intensity of odors.
In order to assess the impact of the odors on air quality in
the surrounding community, the odor itself must be identified as well
as its concentration in the air below which the odor is indiscernible.
This concentration is known as the olfactory threshold, and represents
the smallest concentration at which the odor may be identified. For
example, vapors emitted by certain cleaning solutions used may be at
threshold concentrations but their detection will depend on wind
direction and receptor locations.
During the drilling phase of the proposed oil operations,
odorless drilling fluids will be used. Drilling muds at a typical
drillsite will consist of fresh water, gel (Wyoming bentonite), Barite
(native barium), lignite (crushed North Dakota coal), caustic potash
(potassium hydrate) and Desco (organic mud thinner), which will be
odorless. These components are non-toxic and are not expected to
create a noticeable odor. These fluids are odorless either alone, or
when mixed with water and each other. The mud cleaning/pumping system
used during drilling is required to be a closed system. It is unlikely
that oil would be brought to the surface with the drilling mud because
the formation oil is normally flushed away from the wellbore by the
mud. Only after the drilling is completed, and the mud removed from
the well, will oil normally enter the wellbore. If some oil is brought
to surface during the drilling, it would enter the closed system, and
be drawn off into a vacuum truck and removed from the drillsite for
disposal at an approved site. Therefore,. if is not anticipated that
any objectionable odors will occur under normal operating conditions.
It is possible, however, that from time to time fumes may be detected
from cleaning solutions used to maintain clean equipment, from
temporary open testing facilities of potential hydrocarbon -bearing
zones, and from service trucks arriving at the Maintenance Yard site.
During the production phase of the proposed project,
hydrocarbon odors from oil will be controlled by means of a vapor
recovery system. At least 90% of the hydrocarbon vapors will be
recovered. The remaining amount of hydrocarbons, less than 9.6 pounds
per day, are not expected to be detectable. For comparison, 9.6 pounds
of hydrocarbon emissions per day is approximately equal to evaporating
one teaspoon of gasoline every minute. The vapors recovered from the
well casings, production tanks and oil stock tanks will be in-
cinerated. In the testing phase of production, the vapors will be
burned along with the produced natural gas in an enclosed ground flare.
During the permanent phase of production, the vapors recovered will be
burned in a small process heater. The combustion products from either
the enclosed ground flare or the process heater will be essentially the
same as the combustion products from the common household furnace or
water heater.
Well pulling operations (well workover) may result in
detectable hydrocarbon odors from evaporation of crude oil on the
tubing and rods when they are pulled out of the well. The project
applicant will wash the tubing with a detergent solution (not solvents)
if the tubing will be out of the ground from longer than eight hours.
When it is known that workover operations will necessitate that the
tubing be out of the ground for more than eight hours, then the tubing
will be washed as it is pulled from the well.
Other potential non -routine sources for hydrocarbon odors
include leaks in valves, fittings, and pumps. Leaks can occur when the
packing in valves wears out, when pump seals fail, or when gaskets
between flanges fail. Additionally, hydrocarbon odors may be detected
periodically off-site if the drillsite is not routinely cleaned and
maintained. Odors may also occur if fluid is spilled during testing,
sampling and measurement activities and is not immediately cleaned up.
Leaks that result in oil leakage on the ground and evaporation into
the air are not permitted by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) per Rules 466 and 466.1. The equipment that has the
3
potential to leak as described above must be visually inspected at
required intervals, from daily to annually, to insure compliance with
these Rules. The applicant will repair small leaks as soon as possible
to prevent detectable odors from migrating off site. The inspection
records must be kept for SCAQMD, and the SCAQMD may inspect the
facility at any time. Failure to comply can result in an Order of
Abatement as described in Rules 801 through 817 of the Rules and
Regulations of the South coast Air Quality Management District.
Conclusions
Because of the odor control measures which will be employed
at this urban drillsite, odors are not expected to create a sig-
nificant adverse impact. However, as stated in the DEIR Executive
Summary and Section 4.16.2, some hydrocarbon odors may be periodically
detected at downwind receptor locations.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures, included also in the
project's Environmental Impact Report, are presented herein:
A vapor recovery system will be installed to recover 90%
of hydrocarbon emissions which could be emitted during
storage and transfer of oil from the production tanks
to the tank trucks.
Operations shall not blow lines to the atmosphere except
under emergency conditions.
During the exploratory phase of the project only, all
"waste" gases will be burned (flared) to reduce odors.
Commercial recovery systems will be employed for the
permanent facility and no produced natural gasses will
be burned.
4
Tanks at the drillsite shall be designed and located so
that no offensive or obnoxious odors or fumes can be
readily detected beyond the Maintenance Yard project
site boundary.
Odorless drilling muds will be used.
The time during which the well tubing and rods remain
out of the well during workover operations will be
minimized (less than 8 -hours) to reduce the potential
for odor impacts. If the tubing is scheduled to be out
of the hole for more than 8 -hours, then the tubing will
be surface washed with a detergent solution to remove
odor bearing residual hydrocarbons.
The South Coast Air quality Management District will
assume partial enforcement responsibility for proper
odor control under their District Rules and Regulations,
Rule 402, Nuisance.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF
AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE ZONING CODE OF THE
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS.
WHEREAS, the City of Hermosa Beach (the "City"), as lead
agency, has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") for
certain amendments to the General Plan and the Zoning Code of the
City (the "Amendments"), which Amendments are to allow- and
implement the exploration and production of natural resources from
an urban drill site within the City and requires the relocation of
the City Maintenance Yard from the potential drill site (altogether
the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the draft EIR for the Project has been prepared and
circulated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA"), the State CEQA guidelines, and the City's rules for
implementation of CEQA (the "City Rules"); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City held duly noticed
public hearings on the draft EIR at which times all interested
persons were given an opportunity to be heard and the Planning
Commission recommended certification of the EIR by Resolution P.C.
90-18 dated March 6, 1990; and-
WHEREAS,
nd
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City held public hearings on
March 15,1990, April 10, 1990 and May 8, 1990, to consider the EIR,
at which times all interested persons were given an opportunity to
be heard; and
WHEREAS, the final EIR relating to the Project and responding
to the concerns raised during the review period and at the public
hearings has been prepared pursuant to CEQA, the State CEQA
guidelines, and the City Rules; and
WHEREAS, the City Council Act the City has reviewed and
considered the information contained in the final EIR for the .
Project; and
WHEREAS, the final EIR incorporates certain mitigation
measures which are to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the
environment and the City wishes to implement a reporting and
monitoring program pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
21081.6; and
WHEREAS, the City has furthermore selected the environmentally
superior alternative [as defined by Cal. Code Reg., Section
15126(d)] for the Project which limits the Project to the existing
City maintenance yard site.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HERMOSA BEACH AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City certifies that:
(a) The final EIR has been prepared and completed in
compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA guidelines and
the City Rules; and
(b) The information contained in the final EIR has been
reviewed and considered by the members of the City
Council of the City.
2. The City hereby finds and determines that the adoption
of said Amendments and implementation of the Project may have a
significant effect on the. environment.
3. The City hereby finds that with respect to the adverse
environmental impacts detailed in the EIR that:
(a) Based on information set forth in the EIR and as
more specifically set forth in the Comparative
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Volume
III, Appendix A of the EIR, pages 3 through 23,
inclusive, the City hereby finds and determines that
changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the adverse environmental
effects identified in the EIR for (i) geology and
seismicity; (ii) hydrology; (iii) subsidence; (iv)
land use; (v) energy conservation; (vi) public
safety; (vii) socio -economics; and (viii) public
services and utilities [except such impact to
utilities as identified hereinbelow]; and
(b) Based on information set forth in the EIR and as
more specifically set forth in the Comparative
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Volume
III Appendix A of the EIR, pages 3 through 23,
inclusive, of the EIR, the short term adverse
environmental effects to noise, air quality, visual,
light /glare , shade / shadow , and
transportation/circulation have been but cannot be
entirely mitigated by the implementation of feasible
mitigation measures or by the selection of the
environmentally superior alternative. In
particular, the visual impact of the 135 -foot
drilling rig cannot be further reduced within the
current state of development of drilling equipment.
As noted in the EIR, the rig will be neutral color
to reduce the visual impact as much as possible; and
(c) Based on information set forth in the EIR and as
more specifically set forth in the Comparative
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Volume
III, Appendix A of the EIR, pages 3 through 23,
inclusive, of the EIR, the long term adverse
environmental effects related to air quality,
mineral resources, visual, noise and utilities (such
impact to utilities being the use of limited
existing utility easements) have been but cannot be
entirely mitigated by the implementation of feasible
mitigation measures or by the selection of the
environmentally superior alternative. In
particular, the noise impact from well workovers
cannot be further mitigated within the state-of-
the-art of these procedures and equipment. As noted
in the EIR, well workovers will be conducted only
during day -time hours during weekdays, except in
emergency situations; and
(d) The City has reviewed the record before it and the
various Project alternatives and hereby determines
that the selection of a "No Project" alternative
does not provide for the managed production of
natural resources and denies the City the needed
revenues which would be generated by such
activities; that the Redondo alternative is
infeasible on economic, technical and legal grounds;
that there are no other drilling sites permitted
within the City pursuant to a vote of the electorate
of the City; and that the scope of the other
drilling alternatives as discussed in the EIR will
not adequately reduce the identified significant
impacts; and
(e) No additional adverse impacts will have a
significant effect or result in a substantial or
potentially substantial adverse change in the
environment as a result of the Project.
4. The City hereby finds and determines that all significant
environmental effects identified in the EIR have been reduced to
an acceptable level in that:
(a) All significant environmental effects that can
feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or
substantially lessened as determined through the
findings set forth in paragraphs 3(a) through 3(e),
inclusive, of this Resolution; and
(b) Based upon the EIR and other evidence in the record,
specific economic, social and other considerations
make infeasible other project alternatives
identified in the EIR; and
(c) Based upon the EIR and other evidence in the record,
all remaining, unavoidable, short term and longterm
significant environmental effects of the Project are
overridden by the benefits of the Project as
described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, attached to this Resolution as
Attachment "A", incorporated herein by reference,
which Statement of Overriding Considerations is
hereby approved and adopted.
5. The City hereby authorizes and directs that a reporting
and monitoring program for mitigation measures identified in the
final EIR shall be implemented by and through the issuance, if any,
of a conditional use permit issued pursuant to Ordinance No. 85-
803 (the "Hermosa Beach Oil Code").
6. Approval and certification of the final EIR shall not be
deemed approval of a conditional use permit required pursuant to
the Hermosa Beach Oil Code for operation of an oil drilling site.
7. At the time for consideration of said conditional use
permit, the City may impose such additional conditions as may be
deemed reasonably necessary based upon precise project plans for
an urban drill site.
8. The City hereby authorizes and directs that, upon
approval and adoption of the amendments to the General Plan and. the
Zoning Code by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, a
Notice of Determination with respect to the EIR pertaining to the
approval of the Project and all other actions in furtherance
thereof be filed.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1990.
By
President of the City Council
and Mayor of the City of Hermosa
Beach, California
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FO
---/31
City Attorney
ATTACHMENT A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The California Environmental Quality Act requires a public
agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its
unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve
the project. The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach has
determined that the unavoidable, short term impacts to noise, air
quality, visual, light/glare, shade/shadow, and transportation/
circulation; and the long term impacts to air quality, mineral
resources, visual and utilities previously described and associated
with the Project are acceptable when balanced against the benefits
of the Project. In making this determination, the City has given
greater weight to its consideration of the unavoidable
environmental risks and has considered the following factors and
public benefits:
1. The Project will serve a critical need, that being the
generation of funds necessary for the purchase of additional open
space land and maintenance of the beach area.
2. The Project is consistent with the adopted plans and
programs of the City of Hermosa Beach.
3. The Project will result in the managed production of
natural resources of the City.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA AMENDING ARTICLES 5 AND 9 OF THE
GENERAL PLAN, AND AMENDING SECTION FIVE OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN, TO PERMIT
OIL DRILLING AND PRODUCTION WHEN ALLOWED BY A VOTE OF THE
PEOPLE.
WHEREAS, the City of Hermosa Beach ("City") has generally
prohibited oil drilling from occurring in accordance with Hermosa
Beach Municipal Code Section 21-10; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of the City by a majority vote approved
exceptions to the general prohibition to oil drilling for two land
areas pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 84-758 and 84-759; and
WHEREAS, the two land areas approved for oil and gas
development i.e., the South School site and the City Yard, are
zoned Open Space and Light Manufacturing (M-1), respectively; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City has recommended
the restriction of oil and gas development to the City Yard site
as the environmentally superior project for oil production
activities; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council of the City to
restrict oil and gas development to only those areas that are or
have been approved for such use by a vote of the electorate of the
City.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Article 5 of the General Plan of the City at page 41 in
the third paragraph. under "Identification of Natural Resources in
Hermosa Beach, No. 1. Water Resources," is hereby amended to read
as follows:
"Except as follows, no oil drilling or other
mining shall take place within the City
boundaries (although there are a few old
pumping stations). Oil and gas.drilling shall
be allowed only if it has been or is approved
by a vote of the people."
2. Article 5 of the General Plan, third paragraph at page
42 under "Relationship Between Resources", is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"Drilling or mining of any natural resources
directly on the beach area or from off -shore
platforms may result in the spoiling of both
beach and ocean. If done off -shore, it would
present an especially high risk for both the
ocean and the beach."
3. Article 5 of the General Plan at page 42 under "What Can
Be Done To Conserve Resources? Policy 2", is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"Drilling or mining of any natural resources
directly on the beach or by off -shore platform
in the ocean is to be prohibited. Oil and gas
drilling may be done by means of slant
drilling from an on -shore drill site, except,
for the beach area, into the tidelands if it
has been or is approved by a vote of the
people."
4. Article 9, Land Use of the General Plan is hereby amended
as follows:
"Industrial Areas: This land use category shall include
and provide for the following manufacturing uses and
similar uses:
* Electronic assembly
* Bakeries, all types wholesale
* Bottling
* Garment Manufacturing
* Laboratories
* Machine shops
*
Oil Production
* Plastic fabrication
* Carpentry
* Rubber fabrication
* Sheet metal shops
* Similar uses
5. The Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan,
Section 5, subsection B. under "Provide Financial Support for Parks
and Recreation" at page 5-3, is hereby amended to add as follows:
"Provide financial support through revenues
generated by the managed production of natural
resources."
6. The City Clerk shall certify passage and adoption of this
resolution and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption
thereof and the records of the proceedings of the City Council at
which the same is adopted.
Passed, approved and adopted this day of
1990.
By
President of the City Council
and Mayor of the City of Hermosa
Beach, California
ATTEST:
.City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FO
AA A
ity Attorne
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA AMENDING SECTIONS 9-1, 9-2 and 9-3 OF
THE HERMOSA BEACH ZONING CODE TO PERMIT OIL DRILLING AND
PRODUCTION WHEN ALLOWED BY A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE.
WHEREAS, the City of Hermosa Beach ("City") has generally
prohibited oil drilling from occurring in accordance with Hermosa
Beach Municipal Code Section 21-10; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of the City by a majority vote approved
exceptions to the general prohibition to oil drilling for two land
areas pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 84-758 and 84-759; and
WHEREAS, the two land areas approved for oil and gas
development i.e., the South School site and the City Yard, are
zoned Open Space and Light Manufacturing (M-1), respectively; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City has recommended
the restriction of oil and gas development to the City Yard site
as the environmentally superior project for oil production
activities; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council of the City to
restrict oil and gas development to only those areas that are or
have been approved for such use by a vote of the electorate of the
City.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
1. Article 9. M-1, Light Manufacturing, Section 9-1
(Purpose) of the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"In the M-1 zone, no building shall be erected,
constructed, reconstructed, structurally altered, nor
shall any building or land be used for any purpose except
as hereinafter provided and allowed by this article.
The M-1 zone is established in orderto provide areas in
the City within which a range of limited and restricted
manufacturing, oil and gas operations and wholesale
business activities may be conducted. The limitations
imposed upon such uses are intended to control the
intensity of use and external effect upon the surrounding
areas, and to limit land uses to those which can be
operated in a reasonably clean, orderly, odorless,
pollution -free and quiet manner."
2. Article 9. M-1, Light Manufacturing, Section 9-2
(Permitted Uses) of the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code is hereby amended
to add the following text:
"Oil and gas development, including storage and any and
all related production facilities shall only be permitted
in those areas in which approval by a vote of the people
has been obtained to waive the general oil drilling
prohibition. Said use shall require a conditional use
permit in accordance with Ordinance No. 85-803 (the "Oil
Code") and in conformance with Sections 10-1 and 10-2 of
the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code. Additional standards may
be imposed in the reasonable discretion of the City in
the grant of the conditional use permit based upon
health, safety and general welfare concerns."
3. Article 9. M-1, Light Manufacturing, Section 9-3
(Standards and limitations) subsection (4) of the Hermosa Beach
Zoning Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"(4) Building height. Any building may have a maximum
of thirty-five (35) feet in height and have a maximum of
two (2) stories. Oil and gas operations may exceed this
height for a temporary period of time and to a height
as t
set forth in an approved conditional use permit
pursuant to the Ordinance No. 85-803."
4. The City Clerk shall certify passage and adoption of this
ordinance, shall enter the same in the Book of Original Ordinances
of the City, shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof
and the records. of the proceedings of the City Council at which the
same is adopted.
Passed, .approved and adopted this day of
1990.
By
President of the City Council
and Mayor of the City of Hermosa
Beach, California
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPRO•ED AS TO FO
City' Attorney
CONVENE JOINT MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL AND HERMOSA BEACH CITY
SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON
AGENDA ITEM 5A., THE OIL'DRILLING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
President Weiss called the School Board to order.
Present: Gonzales, Kelsey, President Weiss
Absent: Mark, Meyer
5A. CERTIFICATION OF OIL DRILLING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RE-
PORT, WITH RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION. Memorandum from
Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 3, 1990.
Supplemental letter from Brent R. Harris, dated April 9,
1990. Revised resolution for City Council adoption.
Deputy City Attorney Lee explained the role of each body
with regard to this item.
A staff report was presented by Director Schubach.
Consultants Peter Cowan and Dennis Allen, of Ultra Sys-
tems Environmental Services, made a presentation and
responded to questions by the City Council and the
School Board.
The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak
were:
Applicant: Don Macpherson
Proponent: Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street
Opponents: J.R. Reviczky - 600 Ardmore
George Sacks - 225 -Valley Drive
Etta Simpson - 651 25th Street
Tom Morley - 516 Loma Drive, submitted
documents to the City.
Harvey Cowan - 523 Third Street
Brent Harris - 1416 Monterey Blvd.
Janice Bock - 446 Monterey Blvd., #3E
Ken Conklin - 501 Fourth Street
Melanie Wells - 315 Fourth Street
Beth Harris - 416 Monterey Blvd.
Mike Wells - 315 Fourth Street,
presented each Council Member with a
Kennedy -head, 50 cent coin.
Response: Don Macpherson, applicant, responded to
public hearing comments. Ivan Tether of Hanna And
Morton Law Firm, representing Mr. Macpherson, res-
ponded to questions. Also responding to Council/
School Board questions were: Peter Cowan and Cecil
Sterling, of Ultra Systems; applicant Macpherson;
Director Schubach; and Deputy City Attorney Lee.
Minutes 4-10-90
- 52 -
The Public Hearing was closed.
The meeting recessed at 10:25 P.M.
RECONVENE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING: The regular City Council
meeting was reconvened at 10:43 P.M.
Action: To consider alternatives suggested by the
Planning Commission and remove all oil and production
facilities off South School and onto City Yard only.
Motion Sheldon, Second Wiemans. So ordered.
Deputy City Attorney Lee and Director Schubach responded
to Council questions.
Proposed Action: Adopt Resolution No. 90- , enti-
tled, "A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN
AND THE ZONING CODE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, AND
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS'''.
Motion Essertier, second Wiemans.. Motion failed.
Ayes: Essertier, Wiemans
Noes: Midstokke, Sheldon, Mayor Creighton.
Action: To renotice and continue to the May 8, 1990
meeting; for an expanded, more comprehensive, noise
study with additional measurements during normal, night
time, sleeping hours; for a written opinion from the
City Attorney regarding the letter from the State Lands
Commission dated March 6,1990, the letter from the
Department of Conservation dated November 25,1987, and
the Goleta decision; for a staff report on a noise
level requirement more stringent than the minimum
required by the City's Noise Ordinance and Oil Code
since the project would be in 24 hour operation; a
reason why important issues now being handled in the
Conditional Use Permit should not be addressed first in
the Environmental Impact Report; for an answer to the
possibility of requiring the applicant to meet future
advancements in technology as they arise; and, a
limitation on the number of wells.
Motion Midstokke, second Sheldon. So ordered.
5B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR OIL DRILLING, WITH RESOLUTION
FOR ADOPTION. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael
Schubach dated April 3, 1990.
Action: To continue to the May 8, 1990 meeting. So
ordered.
5C. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE FOR OIL DRILLING, WITH
ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION. Memorandum from Planning
Director Michael Schubach dated April 3, 1990.
-53
Minutes 4-10-90
Action: To continue to the May 8, 1990 meeting. So
ordered.
Minutes 4-10-90
1
3
4
5
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ktevise-A
ORDINANCE NO. 90 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AMENDING THE GENERAL
PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT INITIATIVES P AND Q
THEREFORE ALLOWING OIL DRILLING AT THE CITY YARD.
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on April 10,
1990, and made the following Findings:
A. The City of Hermosa Beach ("City") has generally prohibited
oil drilling from occurring in accordance with Hermosa Beach.
Municipal Code Section 21-10; and
B. The citizens of the City by majority vote approved exceptions
to the general prohibition to oil drilling for two land areas
pursuant to Ordinance No.'s 84-758 and 84-759; and
C. The two land areas approved for oil and gas development i.e.,
the South School site and the City Yard, are zoned Open Space
and Light Manufacturing (M-1), respectively; and
D. It is the desire of the Planning Commission of the City to
restrict oil and gas development to only those areas that are
or have been approved for such use by a vote of the.
electorate of the City;
E. The most environmentally desirable location for oil drilling
is the current City yard location;
F. Limiting oil drilling to the City Yard site will
substantially reduce various environmental impacts associated
with proposed oil drilling project.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach hereby ordains the
SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION
following:
5
• 7
t
3
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION 1. Article 9.M-1, Light Manufacturing, Section 9-1
(Purpose) of the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"In the M-1 zone, no building shall be erected,
constructed, reconstructed, structurally altered,
nor shall any building or land be used for any
purpose except as hereinafter provided and allowed
by this article.
The M-1 zone is established in order to provide
areas in the city within which a range of limited
and restricted manufacturing, oil and gas operations
and wholesale business activities may be conducted.
The limitations imposed upon such uses are intended
to control the intensity of use and external effect
upon the surrounding areas, and to limit land uses
to those which can be operated in a reasonably
clean, orderly, odorless, pollution -free and quiet
manner."
SECTION 2. Article 9. M-1, Light Manufacturing, Section 9-2
(Permitted Uses) of the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code is
hereby amended to add the following text:
"Oil and gas development, including storage and any
and all related production facilities shall only be
permitted in those areas in which approval by a vote
of the people has been obtained to waive the general
oil drilling prohibition. Said use shall require a
conditional use permit in accordance with Ordinance
No. 85-803 (the "Oil Code") and in conformance with
Sections 10-1 and 10-2 of the Hermosa Beach Zoning
Code. Additional standards may be imposed in the
reasonable discretion of the City in the grant of
the conditional use permit based upon health, safety
and general welfare concerns."
SECTION 3. Article 9. M-1, Light Manufacturing, Section 9-3
(Standards and limitations) subsection (4) of the
Hermosa Beach Zoning Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
"(4) Building height. Any building may have a
maximum of thirty-five (35) feet in height and have
a maximum of two (2) stories. Oil and gas
operations may exceed this height for a temporary
period of time and to a height as set forth in an
approved conditional use permit pursuant to the
Ordinance No. 85-803."
SECTION 4. Article 5 of the General Plan of the City at page 41
in the third paragraph under "Identification of
Natural Resources in Hermosa Beach, No. 1. Water
Resources," is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Except as follows, no oil drilling or other mining
shall take place within the City boundaries
1
2
3
4
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(although there are a few old pumping stations).
Oil and gas drilling shall be allowed only if it has
been or is approved by a vote of the people."
SECTION 5. Article 5 of the General Plan, third paragraph at
page 42 under "Relationshi between Resources", is
hereby amended to read as follows:
"Drilling or mining of any natural resources
directly on the beach area or from off -shore
platforms may result in the spoiling of both beach
and ocean. If done off -shore, it would present an
especially high risk for both the ocean and the
beach."
SECTION 6. Article 5 of the General Plan at page 42 under "What
Can be. Done to Conserve Resources? Policy 2", is
hereby amended to read as follows:
"Drilling or mining of any natural resources
directly on the beach or by off -shore platform in
the ocean is to be prohibited. Oil and gas drilling
may be done by means of slant drilling from an
on -shore drill site, except for the beach area, into.
the tidelands if it has been or is approved by a
vote of the people."
SECTION 7. Article 9 shall be amended to read as follows:
"Industrial Areas: This land use category shall
include and provide for the following manufacturing
uses and similar uses:
* Electronic assembly
* Bakeries, all types wholesale
* Bottling
* Garment manufacturing
* Laboratories
* Machine shops
* Oil Production
* Plastic fabrication
* Carpentry
* Rubber fabrication
* Sheet metal shops
* Similar uses
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION 8.
The comprehensive Parks and Recreation master plan,
Section 5, Subsection B under "Provide Financial
Support for Parks and Recreation" at page 5-3, is
hereby amended to add as follows:
"Provide financial support through revenues
generated by the managed production of natural
resources."
SECTION 9. 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 10. 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 11. 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 , 1990.
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR
of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ef.44.ALL .P Voce
plandoc/pergpoil
CITY CLERK
CITY ATTORNEY
Honorable Mayor and Members of the
Hermosa Beach City Council and
Honorable President and Members of
the Hermosa Beach School District
April 3, 1990
Regular Meeting of
April 10, 1990
SUBJECT: 1. OIL DRILLING AND PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (EIR) CERTIFICATION
2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-1
3. TEXT AMENDMENT 89-4
INITIATED BY
PURPOSE: 1.
•
CITY COUNCIL
TO RECOMMEND CERTIFYING THE E.I.R.
2. TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE ELEMENT, PARK
MASTER PLAN AND LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
TO ALLOW FOR OIL DRILLING AT THE CITY YARD.
3. TO AMEND .TH 29NING OPnTNQ -TO
WITH A C.U.P. AND A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE IN THE
MANUFACTURING ZONE.
Recommendation
Staff and Planning Commission recommend the following:
1. Certification of the E.I.R. as being adequate and
accurate. (see attached)
Note: Joint City Council/School Board public hearing ends
after certification of the EIR.
2. Adoption of the alternative project utilizing the City
yard as the sole location for the drilling and storage
facility for oil production.
3. Adoption of the attached General Plan and Text Amendments
Resolution necessary for oil production at the City Yard
only.
Background
At the March 6, 1990 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended
certification of the EIR, and approval of the General Plan
amendment and text amendment. An alternative resolution for the
certification of the EIR was adopted (refer to attachment).
The City Council held a public hearing on March 15th to ask
questions and to obtain answers from the staff and consultants.
Analysis
CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR
The Planning Commission approved the certification resolution
with the understanding that more time was needed by Macpherson
Oil Co. to examine the staff's original recommendation which
included additional recommended mitigation measures. The
required Conditional Use Permit will provide another opportunity
in the future to discuss, and if necessary, impose these
mitigation measures as conditions of approval.
More analysis is included with the attached staff report to the
Planning Commission.
GENERAL PLAN AND AND ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT
In order to implement initiatives P and Q passed by the voters,
it is necessary to amend the General Plan, and zoning ordinance.
The original proposed ordinance included a discussion of allowing
drilling in the Open Space zone. The Planning Commission,
however, adopted staff's recommendation to allow drilling only at
the City Yard on Industrial designated, manufacturing zoned
property.
Therefore, the proposed ordinance allows oil drilling by a vote
of the people, and with a Conditional Use Permit in the
Manufacturing zone only.
STATE LANDS COMMISSION COMMENTS
In response to the State Lands Commission comments about the EIR
which were submitted 2 hours before the Planning Commission
public hearing, the law firm Hanna and Mortor has responded; this
letter (see attached) supports the City. Attorney's opinion that
the document is legally sufficient.
The letter also provides additional data regarding some of the
concerns mentioned at the public hearing workshop, i.e.
subsidence contingency plans, and soil analysis.
PUBLIC HEARING WORKSHOP REQUEST
At the March 15, 1990 workshop staff was requested to provide
input as to controls necessary to stop oil drilling in the event
that production rate is or becomes substantially less than
anticipated, thereby reducing the value of oil production to the
City.
Staff is currently preparing information regarding this matter,
however, this issue is best considered in conjunction with the
required Conditional Use Permit and lease agreement in the future
when the actual project is approved. A statement ofoverriding
consideration will be necessary at that time, and this issue
would be germane to that consideration.
Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report for
further analysis.
Attachments
1. Proposed resolution and ordinance
2. P.C. Resolutions 90-18 and 90-19
3. Minutes of 3/15/90 public hearing workshop
4. P.C. staff report of 3-6-90 including all exhibits & comments
5. Planning Commission minutes 3-6-90
6. State Lands Commission comments
7. Response to State Lands Commission
8. Public Notice
CONCUR:
Kevin B. Northgtaft
City Manager
rl
Respectfu.ly s •mit%Ad,
4eIMca Schu•ach'
fi
Planning Director
p/workshop
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING
THE VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND
TEXT ENDMENT FOR OIL PRODUCTION AND PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION; AND
ALSO R OCATION OF THE CITY YARD.
WHE'* S, the City Council held public hearings on March 15,
1990 and Ap '1 10, 1990 and made the following/.Findings:
A. The final Environmental Impact Report hes been completed in
compliance. th California Environmentral Quality Act (CEQA);
B. The propose. consolidated project alternative will
effectively red e the short a /or long term unavoidable
adverse impacts o noise, air quality, visual, light/glare,
shade/shadow, and t affic b eliminating one of two voter
approved locations or o 1 storage and drilling; thus
reducing substantially potential adverse impacts as noted
above;
C. The final Environmen al mpact Report is adequate and
accurate;
D. The recommended mitigation meas res are minimal measures, and
shall be the basis, for future a••roval of a precise project
submitted to the ity in conjuncti•n with the request for a
Conditional Use,Permit as require • by the proposed text
amendment;
E. State law r
mitigation
appropriate
measures;
F.
quires a method of impos'ng and monitoring
easures, and a Conditional se Permit is a
vehicle
to implement all recomm-nded mitigation
Approval and certification
of the final Environmental Impact
Repot
shall not be deemed approval of the Conditional Use
a
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26-,'
27
28
G.
Permit subsequently required for the project and at the time
for
str
as d
plans
The us
purchase
consideration of a Conditional Use Permit appy ail\, more
ngent mitigation measures and conditions " ay be imposed
emed reasonably necessary based upon the precise project
of the funds generated by
of open space land and mai
0
1 production for the
tenance of the beach are
overriding considerations for the loss of natural resources,
oil and gas, and for those sho t and long term impacts which
cannot be fu ly mitigated vehicle and equipment noise
during construetion; aes etic appearance of derrick during
drilling;
H. Any clarificatio or correction of the text of the
Environmental Im.c Report determined necessary by the City
Council at the;publihearing shall be made.
NOW, THER ORE, the Ci y of Hermosa Beach, California, does
hereby certi -y the Environuental Impact Report for the General
Plan and ext amendments for oil production and pipeline
construction at the City Ya d; and also the relocation of the
City Yar •. .
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this
ay of , 1990.
PRESIDENT ot e City Counci an' MAYOR
of the City tf Hermosa Beach, California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
IKIN CITY ATTORNEY
CITY CLERK
P/pertexta
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. 90 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AMENDING THE GENERAL
PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT INITIATIVES P AND Q
THEREFORE ALLOWING OIL DRILLING AT THE CITY YARD.
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on April 10,
1990, and made the following Findings:
A. The City of Hermosa Beach ("City") has generally prohibited
oil drilling from occurring in accordance with Hermosa Beach
Municipal Code Section 21-10; and
B. The citizens of the City by majority vote approved exceptions
to the general prohibition to oil drilling for two land areas
pursuant to Ordinance No.'s 84-758 and 84-759; and
The two land areas approved for oil and gas development i.e.,
the South School site and the City Yard, are zoned Open Space
and Light Manufacturing (M-1), respectively; and
D. It is the desire of the Planning Commission of the City to
restrict oil and gas development to only those areas that are
approved for such use by a vote of the electorate of the
City;
E. The most environmentally desirable location for oil drilling
is the current City yard location;
F. Limiting oil drilling to the City Yard site will effectively
mitigate various the environmental impacts associated with
oil drilling.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach hereby ordains the
following:
SECTION 1. Article 9.M-1, Light Manufacturing, Section 9-1
(Purpose) of the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"In the M-1 zone, no building shall be erected,
constructed, reconstructed, structurally altered,
nor shall any building or land be used for any
purpose except as hereinafter provided and allowed
by this article.
The M-1 zone is established in order to provide
areas in the city within which a range of limited
and restricted manufacturing, oil and gas operations
and wholesale business activities may be conducted.
The limitations imposed upon such uses are intended
to control the intensity of use and external effect
upon the surrounding areas, and to limit land uses
to those which can be operated in a reasonably
clean, orderly, odorless, pollution -free and quiet
manner."
SECTION 2. Article 9. M-1, Light Manufacturing, Section 9-2
(Permitted Uses) of the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code is
hereby amended to add the following text:
"Oil and gas development, including storage and any
and all related production facilities shall only be
permitted in those areas in which approval by a vote
of the people has been obtained to waive the general
oil drilling prohibition. Said use shall require a
conditional use permit in accordance with Ordinance
No. 85-803 (the "Oil Code") and in conformance with
Sections 10-1 and 10-2 of the Hermosa Beach Zoning
Code. Additional standards may be imposed in the
reasonable discretion of the City in the grant of
the conditional use permit based upon health, safety
and general welfare concerns."
SECTION 3. Article 9. M-1, Light Manufacturing, Section 9-3
(Standards and limitations) subsection (4) of the
HermosaBeach Zoning Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
"(4) Building height. Any building may have a
maximum of thirty-five (35) feet in height and have
a maximum of two (2) stories. Oil and gas
operations may exceed this height for a temporary
period of time and to a height as set forth in an
approved conditional use permit pursuant to the
Ordinance No. 85-803."
SECTION 4. Article's of the General Plan of the City at page 41
in the third paragraph under "Identification of
Natural Resources in Hermosa Beach, No. 1. Water
Resources," is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Except as follows: No oil drilling or other mining
shall take place within the City boundaries
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(although there are a few old pumping stations).
Oil and gas drilling shall be allowed only pursuant
to a vote of the people."
SECTION 5. Article 5 of the General Plan, third paragraph at
page 42 under "Relationship between Resources", is
hereby amended to read as follows:
"Drilling or mining of any natural resources
directly on the beach area or from off -shore
platforms may result in the spoiling of both beach
and ocean. If done off -shore, it would present an
especially high risk for both the ocean and the
beach."
SECTION 6. Article 5 of the General Plan at page 42 under "What
Can be Done to Conserve Resources? Policy 2", is
hereby amended to read as follows:
"Drilling or mining of any natural resources
directly on the beach or by off -shore platform in
the ocean is to be prohibited. Oil and gas drilling
may be done by means of slant drilling from an
on -shore drill site, except for the beach area, into
the tidelands if it has been or is approved by a
vote of the people."
SECTION 7. Article 9 shall be amended to read as follows:
"Industrial Areas: This land use category shall
include and provide for the following manufacturing
uses and similar uses:
* Electronic assembly
* Bakeries, all types wholesale
* Bottling
* Garment manufacturing
* Laboratories
* Machine shops
* Oil Production
* Plastic fabrication
* Carpentry
* Rubber fabrication
* Sheet metal shops
* Similar uses
SECTION 8. The comprehensive Parks and Recreation master plan,
Section 5, Subsection B under "Provide Financial
Support for Parks and Recreation" at page 5-3, is
hereby amended to add as follows:
"Provide financial support through
generated by the managed production of
resources."
SECTION 9. This ordinance shall become effective and be
force and effect from and after thirty (30)
its final passage and adoption.
revenues
natural
in full
days of
SECTION 10. 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 11. 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 , 1990.
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR
of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
plandoc/pergpoil
CITY CLERK
CITY ATTORNEY
84 cK cR avND.
MATER/AL
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION P.C. 90-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND TEXT
AMENDMENT FOR OIL PRODUCTION AND PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION; AND ALSO
RELOCATION OF THE CITY YARD.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on July
17, 1989, September 19, 1989, November 8, 1989 and March 6, 1990
and made the following Findings:
A. The final Environmental Impact Report has been completed in
compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
B. The proposed consolidated project alternative will
effectively reduce the short and/or long term unavoidable
adverse impacts of noise, air quality, visual, light/glare,
shade/shadow, and traffic by eliminating one of two voter
approved locations for oil storage and drilling; thus
reducing substantially the potential adverse impacts as noted
above;
C The final Environmental Impact Report is adequate and
accurate;
D The recommended mitigation measures are minimal measures, and
shall be the basis for future approval of a precise project
submitted to the City in conjunction with the request for a
Conditional Use Permit as required by the proposed text
amendment;
E. State law requires a method of imposing and monitoring
mitigation measures, and a Conditional Use Permit is a
vehicle to implement all recommended mitigation measures;
F. At the time of Conditional Use Permit approval more stringent
- 10 -
2
3
4
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
mitigation measures may be imposed as deemed necessary based
upon the precise project plans;
G. The final Environmental Impact Report shall be presented to
the Planning Commission and City Council and it shall be
reviewed and considered prior to approving the precise
project;
H. The use of the funds generated by oil production for the
purchase of open space land and maintenance of the beach are
overriding considerations for the loss of natural resources,
oil and gas; and for those short and long term impacts which
cannot be fully mitigated -- vehicle and equipment noise
during construction; aesthetic appearance of derrick during
drilling;
I. Any clarification or correction of the text of the
Environmental Impact Report determined necessary by the
Planning Commission at the public hearing shall be made.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend
certification of Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan
and text amendments for oil production and pipeline construction
at the City Yard; and also the relocation of the City Yard.
VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ketz,Moore,Peirce,Rue
NOES: Chmn.Ingell
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 90-18 is a
true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning
Commipsion of/'theity of Hermosa Beach, California; at their
re -alar meet'4'i.',6fG»arch 6, 1990. _ -7
I 7
Michael Schubach, Secretary
Date
Chairman
-1f -
p/pertexta
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION P.C. 90-19
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE GENERAL
PLAN AND ZONING TO IMPLEMENT INITIATIVES P AND Q THEREFORE
ALLOWING OIL DRILLING AT THE CITY YARD.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
March 6, 1990, and made the following Findings:
A. The City of Hermosa Beach ("City") has generally prohibited
oil drilling from occurring in accordance with Hermosa Beach
Municipal Code Section 21-10; and
B. The citizens of the City by majority vote approved exceptions
to the general prohibition to oil drilling for two land areas
pursuant to Ordinance No.'s 84-758 and 84-759; and
C. The two land areas approved for oil and gas development i.e.,
the South School site and the City Yard, are zoned Open Space
and Light Manufacturing (M-1), respectively; and
D. It is the desire of the Planning Commission of the City to
restrict oil and gas development to only those areas that are
approved for such use by a vote of the electorate of the
City;
. The most environmentally desirable location for oil drilling
is the current City yard location;
F. Limiting oil drilling to the City Yard site will effectively
mitigate various the environmental impacts associated with
oil drilling.
-(2 -
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Planning Commission of the
City of Hermosa Beach hereby recommends adoption of the
following:
1. Article 9.M-1, Light Manufacturing, Section 9-1 (Purpose) of
the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"In the M-1 zone, no building shall be erected., constructed,
reconstructed, structurally altered, nor shall any building
or land be used for any purpose except as hereinafter
provided and allowed by this article.
The M-1 zone is established in order to provide areas in the
city within which a range of limited and restricted
manufacturing, oil and gas operations and wholesale business
activities may be conducted. The limitations imposed upon
such uses are intended to control the intensity of use and
external effect upon the surrounding areas, and to limit land
uses to those which can be operated in a reasonably clean,
orderly, odorless, pollution -free and quiet manner."
2. Article 9. M-1, Light Manufacturing, Section 9-2 (Permitted
Uses) of the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code is hereby amended to
add the following text:
"Oil and gas development, including storage and any and all
related production facilities shall only be permitted in
those areas in which approval by a vote of the people has
been obtained to waive the general oil drilling prohibition.
Said use shall require a conditional use permit in accordance
with Ordinance No. 85-803 (the "Oil Code") and in conformance
with Sections 10-1 and 10-2 of the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code.
Additional standards may be imposed in the reasonable
discretion of the City in the grant of the conditional use
permit based upon health, safety and general welfare
concerns."
3. Article 9. M-1, Light Manufacturing, Section 9-3 (Standards
and limitations) subsection (4) of the Hermosa Beach Zoning
Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"(4) Building height. Any building may have a maximum of
thirty-five (35) feet in height and have a maximum of two (2)
stories. Oil and gas operations may exceed this height for a
temporary period of time and to a height as set forth in an
approved conditional use permit pursuant to the Ordinance No.
85-803."
4. Article 5 of the General Plan of the City at page 41 in the
third paragraph under "Identification of Natural Resources in
Hermosa Beach, No. 1. Water Resources," is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"Except as follows: No oil drilling or other mining shall
take place within the City boundaries (although there are a
-'3-
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
few old pumping stations). Oil and gas drilling shall be
allowed only pursuant to a vote of the people."
5. Article 5 of the General Plan, third paragraph at page 42
under "Relationship between Resources", is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"Drilling or mining of any natural resources directly on the
beach area or from off -shore platforms may result in the
spoiling of both beach and ocean. If done off -shore, it
would present an especially high risk for both the -ocean and
the beach."
6. Article 5 of the General Plan at page 42 under "What Can be
Done'to Conserve Resources? Policy 2", is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"Drilling or mining of any natural resources directly on the
beach or by off -shore platform in the ocean is to be
prohibited. Oil and gas drilling may be done by means of
slant drilling from an on -shore drill site, except for the
beach area, into the tidelands if it has been or is approved
by a vote of the people."
7. Article 9 shall be amended to read as follows:
"Industrial Areas: This land use category shall include and
provide for the following manufacturing uses and similar
uses:
* Electronic assembly
* Bakeries, all types wholesale
• Bottling
* Garment manufacturing
* Laboratories
* Machine shops
* Oil Production
* Plastic fabrication
* Carpentry
* Rubber fabrication
* Sheet metal shops
* Similar uses
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8. The comprehensive Parks and Recreation master plan, Sectiorr
5, Subsection B under "Provide Financial Support for Parks
and Recreation" at page 5-3, is hereby amended to add as
follows:
"Provide financial support through revenues generated by the
managed production of natural resources."
VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ketz,Moore,Peirce,Rue
NOES: Chmn.Ingell
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 90-19 is a
true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning
Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their
arch 6, 1990.
reguthr mee
./
1t(1
Scott Ingel
-! -3
Date
Chairman
plandoc/pergpoil
.S
Mic ael Schu•e-ch, S-cretary
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California, held on Thursday, March 15, 1990, at
the hour of 7:33 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Robert Blackwood, Personnel Director
ROLL CALL:
Present: Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton
Absent: None
1.
SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING WORKSHOP FOR QUESTION AND ANSWER
PERIOD IN REGARD TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR OIL
PRODUCTION
It was rioted that the public hearing would be continued
:to April 10, 1990, for full public testimony, allowing
.this evening's workshop to focus on understanding the
development process of the EIR and clarifying issues.
-A staff report was presented by Director Schubach. He
then, along with the City Manager, Assistant City
Attorney Ed Lee, and Deputy City Engineer Lynn Terry,
responded to Council questions.
Peter Cowan, of- Ultra Systems, discussed the draft EIR
documents in greater detail. He then, along with Cecil
Sterling and Chris Williams, responded to Council
questions. Don McPhearson also addressed the Council
and responded to questions.
Discussion included subsidence and monitoring devices,
mitigation measures, the existing Oil Code, oil recovery
systems, enforcement, fumes and odors, a letter from the
State Lands Commission concerning the EIR, hours of
truck traffic, hours of operation, wells, noise from the
service rig, compliance with the Noise Ordinance,
long-term production and maintenance, examination of
soil samples, sewer hook-up, and limiting the number of
truck trips per day.
The meeting recessed at 9:27 P.M.
The meeting reconvened at 9:37 P.M.
Discussions continued including test wells, natural
seeps in the Santa Monica Bay, slant drilling, drainage,
and the estimated production rate.
Staff was requested to provide input on controls to stop
the oil drilling in the event that the three test wells
indicate the projected production rate is substantially
less than anticipated.
CITIZEN COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS - NONE
Minutes 3-15-90
ADJOURNMENT
The Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa
Beach, California, adjourned on Thursday, March 15, 1990, at the
hour of 10:22 P.M., to a Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday,
March 27, 1990, at the hour of 7:00 P.M.
/ 1
z._f.:
City Clerk
-0-
I
Minutes 3-15-90
March 1, 1990
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 6, 1990
SUBJECT: 1. OIL DRILLING PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(E.I.R.) CERTIFICATION
2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 90-1
3. TEXT AMENDMENT 89-4
INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL
PURPOSE: 1. TO RECOMMEND CERTIFYING THE E.I.R.
2. TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE ELEMENT, PARK
MASTER PLAN AND LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
TO ALLOW FOR OIL DRILLING AT THE CITY YARD, AND
SOUTH SCHOOL SITE.
3. TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT OIL DRILLING
WITH A C.U.P. AND A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE IN THE
MANUFACTURING ZONE, AND OPEN SPACE ZONE.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the
City Council the following:
1. Certification of the E.I.R. as being adequate and accurate
with the staff's recommended list of mitigation measures
included. (see attached)
2. Adoption of the alternative project utilizing the City
yard as the sole location for the drilling and storage
facility for oil production.
3. Adoption of the attached General Plan and Text Amendments
Resolution necessary for oil production at the City Yard
only.
Background
In 1984, two oil drilling exceptions were approved by the voters.
Ordinance No. 84-758 excepted the city maintenance yard from a
drilling prohibition, and allows the city to drill into the
tidelands and other onshore areas within the city. To the extent
that monies can be diverted from the tidelands trust, such monies
will be used for open space and parkland purposes.
Under Ordinance No. 84-759, the school district has the right to
drill from the South School Site to oil and gas deposits onshore.
Once the ballot measure was approved, the city began drafting an
oil code to regulate oil and gas development by new developers.
1 0
After several drafts which were reviewed by the Oil Recovery
Committee, the Planning Commission, and the City Council, a
comprehensive oil code was adopted regulating new oil and gas
development. Any driller must obtain a conditional use permit
from the city and drilling must take place from one or both of
the voter -approved sites.
After the oil code was completed, the City filed an application
with the State Lands Commission to allow for oil and gas
drilling. the Commission required an E.I.R. prior to application
approval.
The City Environmental Review Committee prepared an assessment of
the impacts of drilling for oil.
A Request For Proposal (RFP) was then proposed for the purpose of
obtaining bids for the preparation of the E.I.R.
Ultrasystems was eventually contracted to prepare the E.I.R.
The School District also had Ultrasystems prepare an E.I.R. for
drilling at the South School site.
After preparation and review by the City staff and school staff
of the two E.I.R.'s, both the City and School District determined
that a joint E.I.R. would be appropriate, and consequently had
the two documents merged into one. The joint development was
found environmentally superior to two separate operations.
Once the draft document was complete, it was distributed to State
and County agencies (refer to draft document page 159), and to
City departments for review and comment.
On July 17, 1989 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
consider certification of the E.I.R. The matter was continued to
provide for response to the public comments.
At the September 1989 meeting additional comments were accepted
and the matter was continued.
At the November 8, 1989 meeting this matter was once again
continued. Since the City Council had requested that the
consultants consider other alternatives to the relocation of the
City yard.
On February 5, 1990, the draft Volume III was made available to
the public for 30 days.
At this time, there are three volumes to the Draft E.I.R.
Volume I: The original E.I.R. is provided in this volume
Volume II: Is all the original comments and responses to
comments regarding Volume I.
Volume III includes the following:
1. additional comments/responses
2. Expanded environmental assessment for City Maintenance Yard
and consolidated project alternative.
3. Relocation of existing City maintenance yard.
4. Expanded analysis of pipeline impacts.
5. Proposed project trucking plan.
Analysis
Public Input
Opportunity for public input has been extended beyond the minimum
state requirements. Ultimately, three opportunities totaling
approximately 105 days will be provided prior to the Planning
Commissions recommendation to certify the Environmental Impact
Report. Further, additional public input opportunity will be
provided at the City Council public hearing.
Consolidated Project Alternative
Based on the data found within the E.I.R. Volume III, dated
February 1990. staff believes that the alternative of placing the
entire oil production facility on the City yard will
significantly reduce some of the negative impacts which could
occur. Under this alternative, the South School site will not be
utilized whatsoever.
Redondo Beach Alternative
Another potential location of the drill site is at the current
oil production facility in Redondo Beach. Staff believes that
there are both economic and legal factors which make this site
infeasible. A legal opinion which the staff including the City
Attorney concurs, has been attached as exhibit A.
Impacts/Mitigation Measures for Production Facility
There will be certain temporary unavoidable adverse effects which
will occur during the initial site preparation (construction)
phase of the project, as follows:
Short Term
Noise - Increase in ambient noise levels during site
preparation and exploratory phase may be perceived.
Air Quality Air emissions will result from
construction equipment, truck and personal vehicle
traffic at both sites.
Visual - The 135 -foot derrick will be visible over a
substantial distance and from residences surrounding
the Maintenance Yard site (for several years).
Light/Glare - Light from site (24-hour) security and
from drilling derrick in addition to the aircraft
safety lights atop the derrick will be visible to the
surrounding area.
Shade/Shadow - Shade from derrick will extend from
about 177 feet from the site at the summer solstice
to about 920 feet during the winter. Shadows will be
narrow and affects Confined to about one hour per day
for nearby properties.
Transportation/Circulation - A potential for traffic
disruption to accommodate the hauling of material and
equipment to and from the sites and during pipeline
construction will occur.
Long -Term
Land Use - Existing uses at the Maintenance Yard site
and School Yard site will be relocated to accommodate
the proposed project.
Air Quality - Some hydrocarbon odor may be detected
periodically.
Mineral Resources - The project will result in an
incremental contribution to the depletion of the
underlying reservoir of oil and natural gas.
Visual - The upper portions of the 16 -foot oil
storage tanks will be visible from some locations at
the School Yard site for the duration of the project.
Utilities - The pipeline will consume space in the
underground utility corridor.
In addition to the above, staff believes that also subsidence
could be a potential impact.
Mitigation Measures
In response to the impacts noted within the E.I.R. and also those
which the staff believed could occur, a list of final mitigation
measures were developed.
These measures also refine and quantify the measures found within
the E.I.R. so that the enforceability is improved, and so that
impacts can be reduced to quantifiable levels and therefore can
be considered reduced to a level of insignificance. Further the
mitigation measures have been made more stringent in cases where
the staff believe impacts could be effectively eliminated.
Odors, for example, can be and should be reduced in phase I
(test drilling) as effectively as during phase II, and therefore
the mitigation measure recommended requires commercial recovery
system for phase I.
It should be noted that these mitigation measures can be refined
further in conjunction with the required Conditional Use Permit
which will be presented to the Planning Commission with precise
detailed plans.
Finally, it should be noted that staff has requested more data at
the time of plan check to enable the staff to be certain that
impacts are definitely brought to a level of insignificance.
Pipeline Development
As noted, Volume III, dated February, 1990, appendix C, expand
upon the potential impacts of the proposed pipeline. It also
provides a list of mitigation measures. Staff has examined these
measures and have found then generally adequate. With only some
minor changes, the measures have been included with staff's
recommended mitigation measures, Exhibit B.
Relocation of City Yard
Volume III, dated February 1990, appendix B, is a "Program" EIR
for the possible alternative location for the City Yard. A
program EIR is not as detailed as a standard EIR and is used, as
in this case, when there is uncertainty about some of the
variables involved.
An addendum to the EIR will be necessary in the future, once it
is determined the precise new location for the City Yard, and a
conceptual design has been developed. The addendum will further
refine the impacts and mitigation measures.
The staff has included the mitigation measures found within the
EIR, and has added additional measures in staff's recommended
mitigation measures (Exhibit B).
Within the text, there are three unclear statements that need
clarification or correction: 1) Page 4 indicated all City Yard
functions will be temporarily eliminated from the site during the
exploratory phase, and also indicated "other functions listed"
will be eliminated (It is unclear what is being eliminated and
what is not). 2) Page 10 indicated placement of the City Yard
at the Community Center would require a zone change or variance.
3) Page 10 also notes no loss of open space if the City Yard,is
relocated to the Community Center (It is unclear how some loss of
open space will not occur).
However, in regard to a temporary location of the City Yard, the
staff has added mitigation measures to resolve the temporary
relocation problem (see Exhibit B under Phase I City Yard).
General Plan and Zoning Text Amendments
In order to implement initiatives P and Q passed by the voters,
it is necessary to amend the General Plan, and zoning ordinance.
Although the proposed ordinance (see attached) includes
discussion of allowing drilling in the Open Space zone, this
portion of the ordinance will not be necessary if the staff's
recommendation is adopted to allow drilling only at the City Yard
on Industrial designated, manufacturing zoned property.
In any case, the ordinance allows oil drilling by a vote of the
people, and with a Conditional Use Permit.
Statement of Overriding Considerations
CEQA requires the decision -maker to balance the benefits of a
proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in
determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a
proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental
effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered
"acceptable".
Where the decision of the City allow the occurrence of
significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are
not at least substantially mitigated, the City needs to state in
writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the
final EIR and/or other information in the record.
If the City makes a statement of overriding considerations, the
statement should be included in the record of the project
approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination.
The general funds to the City which will be ultimately available
if the project is successful are earmarked to buy open space.
Staff believes this clearly is an overriding consideration.
Further, restricted funds which also will be available to the
City may be used to maintain the beach.
Findings
The City needs to provide findings which indicate, that for each
negative impact, a change, or alteration has been required which
avoids, or substantially lessons the effect.
The staff recommended alternative, and recommended mitigation
measures clearly avoid or reduce the effects noted within the EIR
except for the elimination of a natural resource -- oil and gas.
Other Information
Additional data regarding subsidence, and alternative drill site
has been provided by macpherson Oil Company (See Exhibits C"-& D).
Subsidence has become a particularly important factor because o
the recent revelations regarding subsidence at Redondo Beach King
Harbor. The staff has attempted to develop conditions that are
more along the lines of being preventive (see Exhibit B under
subsidence). %
p/pcsrtoil
Michael Schubach
Planning Director
EXHIBIT A
HANNA AND MORTON
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
LAWYERS
600 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, I7TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-3229
(213) 628-7131
February 27, 1990
BY TELECOPY AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
Mr. Mike Schubach, Director
Planning Department
City of Hermosa Beach
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885
Re: Oil Exploration and Production
from an Urban Drillsite
Dear Mr. Schubach:
Page 1 of 12
r., 2 `1 ` gri
I am writing on behalf of Macpherson Oil Company. We
have been informed that one or more parties express continued
concern over the treatment of the "Redondo Beach Alternative" in
the several environmental impact report ("EIR") documents
prepared for the urban drilisite project. Under this
alternative, the developer would be limited to use of a drillsite
in Redondo Beach in order to recover oil lying beneath Hermosa
Beach and its tidelands.
The most recent -- and no doubt most stringent --
ruling of the California Courts on CEQA's requirements for
consideration of alternative projects is the Court of Appeal's
opinion after rehearing in the "Goleta Valley II" case.
(Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 89 Daily
Journal Daily Appellate Report 14390 (Nov. 29, 1989), attached as
Exhibit A to this letter.) The developer in that case is seeking
review by the California Supreme Court. Conceivably, the Supreme
Court will provide clearer and less stringent criteria for
consideration of alternatives. For now, however, the November
1989 Goleta opinion sets the highest hurdle for consideration of
alternative projects.
page 2 of 12
Mike Schubach
February 27, 1990
Page 2
We believe that the discussion at pages 36-38 of the
second Responses to Public Hearing Comments document ("2nd
Responses Document") meets the Goleta standard. (Pages 36-38 are
attached as Exhibit B to this letter.)
The November 1989 Goleta opinion holds that the lead
agency must "include some minimal discussion" of why "ostensibly
reasonable alternatives" are "infeasible, remote or
speculative." (Opinion, at 14392.) The opinion articulates two
independentarguments the lead agency can use for not considering
an "ostensibly reasonable" alternative:
(1) If current studies show the alternative is
"economically infeasible to meet the basic objectives
of the project"; or
(2) If the alternative would require an "'overhaul of
basic legislation' or 'basic changes' in statutes and
policies of other agencies." (Opinion, at 14393.)
Both of these arguments apply to relieve the City of any duty to
consider the "Redondo Beach Alternative."
First, as discussed on pages 36-38 of the 2nd Responses
Document and further documented in a letter sent to you
concurrently by Macpherson Oil Company's technical staff, the
"Redondo Beach Alternative" would substantially reduce
Macpherson's ability to recover the Hermosa Beach oil reserves.
The proposed project is relatively small on the scale of oil
development, yet its development costs (drilling, production,
etc.) are substantial. Any significant reduction in potential
recovery destroys the project's economic feasibility. The
"Redondo Beach Alternative" would substantially reduce the
project's potential for recovering Hermosa Beach reserves and
destroy the project's economic feasibility. The "Redondo Beach
Alternative" would be "economically infeasible to meet the basic
objectives of the project." On this ground alone, the City is
not required to consider the "Redondo Beach Alternative."
Second, the City of Hermosa Beach has prohibited oil
drilling and related activities within its borders since 1932.
The sole exceptions to this prohibition, set out in Sec. 21-10 of
the City Code, allow oil drilling and development from the city
maintenance yard (Sec. 21-10(a)) and the South School site (Sec.
21-10(b)). The City Code's restriction on oil drilling and
development prohibits such activity from originating any place
Page 3 of 12
Mike Schubach
February 27, 1990
Page 3
other than the two sites authorized therein. Given this
prohibition, drilling from Redondo Beach into (beneath) the City
would amount to a subsurface trespass.1/
The City Code is Hermosa Beach's statutory framework.
The Code is as much the law of Hermosa Beach as an Act of the
United States Congress is the law of the Nation. The City Code
-- and particularly a provision which has given way to only two
narrow exceptions in fifty-eight years -- is the City's "basic
legislation" within the meaning of the Goleta case. The "Redondo
Beach Alternative" would require an overhaul of the City Code and
is therefore sufficiently remote and speculative that the City
need not consider this alternative. (The same is true of other
sites in or near Hermosa Beach which might prove technically
feasible.)
1/ See, e.g., A.E. Bell Corp. v. Bell View Oil Syndicate (1938)
24 Cal.App.2d 587, 603 (where the court held that plaintiffs
stated a cause of action for trespass against those
allegedly slant drilling into plaintiffs' property and noted:
"[N]o one has a right, by reason of the ownership of a
surface location lying above an oil zone, to extend his
oil wells without the boundaries of his own surface
location, vertically, extended downward so as to
trespass upon the premises of adjoining owners, a cause
for an injunction to stop the trespass, or the
conversion, rather, of oil, gas and other hydrocarbons
by such means is stated, and an injunction should be
granted.");
Pacific Western Oil Co. v. Bern Oil Co. (1939) 13 Ca1.2d 60,
73 (where the court upheld both a judgment of intentional
subsurface trespass and a ruling that plaintiffs were
entitled to oil taken without any deduction for drilling
expenses); 47 Cal.Jr.3d, Oil and Gas, §8 ("If a person
drills a well so as to slant it into another's property,
such action constitutes a trespass...."); and Note, Suing a
Slant Driller for Subsurface Trespass or Drainage, 15
Stanford Law Review 665 (1963).
Page 4 of 12
Mike Schubach
February 27, 1990
Page 4
Further, even if other alternative sites closer than
Redondo Beach to the Hermosa Beach Reserves should prove
technically and economically feasible, it is highly unlikely that
selection of any such alternative would reduce the Project's
environmental impacts. Neither the. South School site nor the
maintenance yard constitute unique ecological settings. The
Project's major (yet not necessarily significant) impacts include
its visual and noise impacts on surrounding residences. These
and other impacts will be substantially mitigated at the two
sites which the EIR documents analyze, assess and consider. The
city maintenance yard site is particularly well suited, because
it is buffered from residences on the north, south and west by
industrial property and on the east by the open space between
Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue. Moving the Project to another
Hermosa Beach location, given the density of the City's
residential development, would not reduce Project impacts and
would most likely increase impacts. Accordingly, not only are
sites alternative to the South School site and city maintenance
yard "remote and speculative," but there simply are no other
alternative sites in Hermosa Beach which present any likelihood
of reducing impacts.
Thank you for considering our comments on these
issues. Please don't hesitate to call me if you have any
questions.
Very truly yours,
IVAN J. TETHER
IJT215:cs
Attachments
cc: Edward Lee, Esq.
Peter Cohen
;-z
EXHIBIT A
14390 Ballo
Trial Judge:
HON. THOMAS P. HANSEN
Attorneys for Appellant:
Law Office of Mary R. Williams
1727 Martin Luther King Jr. Way
Suite 107
Oakland CA 94612
Law Office of Shari L. Karney
15720 Ventura Blvd., Suite 607
Encino, CA 91436
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae:
Dale E. Barnes, Jr.
Cynthia G. Goldstein
McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen
Three Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, CA 94111
Mary C. Dunlap
1599 Dolores Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
Janet M. Koehn
Stenzel, Koehn & Howard
4125 Market Street, Suite 12
Ventura, CA 93003
Attorneys for Respondent:
Gail Y. Norton
Lisa D. Lorea
Ropers, Majeski, Kohn, Bentley,
Wagner & Kane
1155 Marshall Street
Redwood City, CA 94063
Appe
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Environmental Report Must Discuss .
Reasonable Alternative Sites
Cite as 89 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14390
CITIZENS OF GOLETA VALLEY, etc.,
Appellant, .
v.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY
OF SANTA BARBARA, et al.,
Respondents.
WALLOVER, INC., et al.
Real Parties in Interest.
No. 2d Civil No. B037615
Super. Ct. No. 156145
California Court of Appeal
Second Appellate District
Division Six
Filed November 29, 1989
Real parties in interest, Hyatt Corporation and Wallover,
Inc. (Hyatt), desire to build a hotel and conference center on
Haskell's Beach, a site Wallover owns.
In a previous opinion, we held that the environmental im-
pact report (EIR) prepared for this project was inadequate
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub.
Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) because it failed to consider
the feasibility of alternative sites for the project. (Citizens of •
Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d
1167,1180 (hereafter Goleta Valley I).)
Here we hold that the supplemental EIR (SEIR) must
contain at least a brief discussion of why sites which are ap-
parently or ostensibly reasonable sites are rejected.
In Goleta Valley, we remanded the case to the court below
for issuance of a mandatory writ. (At p. 1188.) The Board of
Supervisors submitted an SEIR as the return to the manda-
tory writ. It considered one alternative site, Santa Barbara
Shores. The Board concluded, among other things, that
"[w]hile the Santa Barbara Shores site might be preferable in
Page 5 of 12
ante nicpart Tuesday, December 5,19E
terms of impacts to biology and cultural resources, the
dence indicates that impacts to traffic, air quality, water
sources, geologic hazards and noise from flight patte
associated with the Goleta airport are probably greater
those associated with the project site."
The Beach for commercn ial-visitor use. e its final The Board filed its to rezone SEIR
August 25, 1988. The findings in that SEIR stated that al
Live sites other than Santa Barbara Shores are either....,,,.
ble, speculative or remote. The only support in the SEIR fo.
these findings were brief findings in 1980 and 1985 coastal cons.
mission reports, a 1980 local coastal plan (LCP) analysis and
planning staff recommendations.
Appellant, Citizens of Goleta Valley (Citizens), an associ.,
ation challenging the adequacy of the SEIR, contends that the
Board once again failed to prepare an SE which adequately
considered and discussed alternative sites for the project.
These include Carpinteria Bluffs, More Mesa, Devereaux, and
West Devereaux.
The trial court found there was no alternative site analysis
made in the coastal commission report, and even if there had
been, there was no evidence that the Board considered it. Nev-
ertheless, that court stated that the Board's findings were ade-
quate and that the SEIR was not deficient in failing to consider
alternative sites suggested by Citizens because the Board had
properly considered the LCP. The court, therefore, dis-
charged the writ. Citizens challenges the SEIR in this appeal.
We reverse. The SEER prepared in response to Goleta Val-
ley I is still inadequate. It does not sufficiently discuss facts so
as to adequately inform the public why ostensibly reasonable
alternative sites, other than Santa Barbara Shores, were re-
jected. (Laurel Heights Improvement Ass -v. Regents of Uni-
versity of California (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376.)
In those cases where consideration of alternate sites is
warranted for a proposed project, an EIR must contain: 1. a
discussion concerning a range of reasonable alternative sites,
and 2. a brief discussion of why sites which are apparently or
ostensibly reasonable were rejected as infeasible, remote or
speculative. The EIR need not discuss sites which are obvious-
ly infeasible, remote or speculative.
DISCUSSION
The applicable standard of review is whether the Board
committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion. (Goleta Valley I,
supra, at p. 1176; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Re-
gents of University of California, supra, 47 Ca1.3d at p. 392.)
The Board abuses its discretion if it fails to prepare an EIR
which is adequate according to law. An EIR is inadequate un-
der CEQA if it fails to inform the public about the facts which
underlie its findings and conclusions. (Ibid.) The failure to in-
form is why the EIR here, like the EIR in Laurel Heights, is
inadequate.
In Laurel Heights, the Regents of the University of Cali-
fornia desired to relocate its biomedical research facilities to
an off -campus site. Its treatment of alternatives in that EIR
was "cursory at best." (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v.
Regents of University of California, 47 Ca1.3d at p. 403.) That
EIR identified three alternatives: 1. a no -project alternative,
2. on -campus ones, and 3. a number of off -campus facilities
owned by the university which were designated by dots on a
map.
The Regents did not evaluate or discuss these alternatives
other than to say that the off -campus sites were not of suffi-
cient size for the proposed facility. (Laurel Heights Improve-
ment Assn. v. Regents of University of California, supra, 47
Ca1.3d at p. 403.) Using "various internal planning process-
es," the Regents concluded there were no feasible alternative
sites to Laurel Heights. (Id., at p. 404.)
Our Supreme Court rejected that EIR because it failed to
include an analysis of alternate sites and to give reasons to
support the conclusion that the alternatives were infeasible.
(Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University
of California, 47 Ca1.3d at pp. 404-406.)
Hyatt and the Board opine that no other alternatives need
i
:asun 1pprtzte =part 14391
be discussed in the SEIL ..cause their use of "scoping, by in- Pi -fir application of the rule of reason
ternal review of administrative reports, revealed to them that The leitmotif of CEQA is to provide the public and deci-
all other sites are remote and speculative. sionmakers with thorough information within the EIR about
"Scoping" is defined in the Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., all feasible alternatives and the ramifications of choosing
tit. 14), section 15083, as early consultation with people or or- each one. The Guidelines specifically state that the lead agen-
ganizations believed to be concerned with the environmental
effects of a proposed project, after an initial study determines
that an EIR will be required. The Guidelines permit some Lee-
way for the Board to define the scope of study as to alterna-
tives, and they encourage the use of multiple data bases for
doing this. (Guidelines, § 15083.) The Board need not discuss
the scoping process in an EIR, nor the environmental effects
dismissed as insignificant in the initial study. (Guidelines, §§
15143, 15063.)
Hyatt argues that the administrative documents reviewed
during the scoping process are functionally equivalent to an
EIR, and urge that a perusal of the administrative record jus-
tifies its decision not to discuss any other alternatives in the
SEIR. (Guidelines, if 15063,15365,15082„ 15120-15132; Citizens
Comm. Against Interstate Rt. 675 v. Lewis (S.D. Ohio 1982) 542
F.Supp. 496, 544.) We disagree.
The administrative documents here, 1980 and 1985 coastal
• commission reports, and a 1980 LCP analysis, did not discuss
the specific environmental effects which could result from
this project. These reports, although extremely valuable to
the Board in making its decision, are not "functionally equiva-
lent" to an EIR and are not adequate substitutes for specific
study and analysis of the project. (Cf. Pub. Resources Code, §
21080.5 on functionally equivalent documents to an EIR;
Guidelines, § 15251, subd. (f) ; City of Carmel -By -The -Sea v.
Board of Supervisors (1986) 183 Ca1.App.3d 229, 252-253.)
Mere reference to these reports in the SEIR does not give
the public sufficient notice of why apparently alternative sites
were rejected. The Board must notify the public of its intent to
rely on these reports, and it must tell the public what specific
information in the reports the Board uses to support its deci-
sion. (See Guidelines, § 15253; Emmington v. Solano County
Redevelopment Agency (1.987) 195 Cal.App.3d 491, 502-503.)
The Board must also certify that it has actually reviewed and
considered the documents before it may use them in the EIR.
(Ibid.)
Hyatt relies on Kleppe.v. Sierra Club (1976) 427 U.S. 390,
410-412, and Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. NRDC (1983) 462
U.S. 87, 100, to support its claim that the Board need not dis-
cuss in the EIR alternatives which it rejects.
Kleppe was concerned with whether or not the Depart-
ment of the Interior was required to prepare an environmental
• impact statement (EIS) regarding its studies for eventual de-
velopment of coal resources in the entire Northern Great
Plains region. The court held that no EIS was required be- j
cause there was no proposal for any '"major Federal ac-
tions; "' there was no specific proposed project. (Kleppe v. a
Sierra Club, supra, 427 U.S. at pp. 399-402; and see the Nation- P
al Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.
(hereafter NEPA), and esp. § 4332(2) (C).) The issue of wheth-
er alternatives need be discussed ih an EIS was not before the P
Supreme Court; it had been considered and rejected by the tri- V
al court.
Similarly, Baltimore Gas, supra, is not applicable. It, too,
involved no specific EIS. The agency developed a generic rule to
governing licensure of specific nuclear power plants. The a
summarizedagency highly technical information to support an
its generic rule. The Supreme Court held this was acceptable
under NEPA because the issues were not specific to any par- 4
ticular nuclear plant. (Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. NRDC, P
supra. 462 U.S. at pp. 100-104; and see Guidelines, § 15150 on in- a
corporation by reference in EIR's.) a
That court cautioned that an EIS should not rely on sepa-
rate documents, but should discuss them directly. An EIS, like tha
an EIR, is " '... an essentially self-contained instrument, el[which should bel capable of being understood by the reader de
without the need for undue cross-reference."' (Baltimore Gas Re
& Electric Co. v. NRDC, supra, 462 U.S. at pp. 99-101, fns. 12, G
13.) th
sityof Caltfornia, 47 Ca1.3d at pp. 403-404, quoting Guidelines, §
15126, subd. (d) (5).)
In some cases there may be few, if any, alternatives. In
those situations, an EIR will be acceptable if the lead agency
independently participates, reviews, analyzes and discusses
the limited potential alternatives in good faith. (See Founda-
tion for San Francisco's Architectural Heritage v. City and
County of San Francisco (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 893, 908-910.)
Although Hyatt owns the site on which the proposed pro-
ect is to be built, and does not own all of the potential alterna-
tive sites, the rule of reason still requires that the EIR discuss
range of reasonable alternative sites. "Serving the public
urpose at minimal environmental expense is the goal of
CEQA. Ownership of the land used and the identity of the de -
eloper are factors of lesser significance." (Goleta Valley, I, at
.1179; see also San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society, Inc.
. County of San Bernardino (1984) 155 Ca1.App.3d 738, 751.)
An ElR must inform
Unless some information about ostensibly reasonable al-
rnative sites is provided in the EIR, no one outside the lead
gency can know whether or not a site is feasible or remote
d speculative. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn v. Re.
g
cy is to "[dlescribe 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 com-
parative merits of the alternatives." (Guidelines, ¢ 15126,
subd. (d) ; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of
University of California, 47 Ca1.3d at pp. 400, 404.)
The range of alternatives required to be considered and
discussed in an EIR is governed by the "rule of reason." The
rule of reason requires discussion in the EIR of those alterna-
tives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. (Guidelines, §
15126, subd. (d) (5).)
"'An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of
analysis to provide decisionmakers with information which
enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes ac-
count of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the en-
vironmental effects of a proposed project need not be
exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in
the light of what is reasonably feasible.... The courts have
looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and
a good faith effort at full disclosure." (Goleta Valley I. supra,
at pp. 1176-1177, citing Guidelines, § 15151.) This rule is applied
on a case-by-case basis. (Id., at p. 1179.)
CEQA does not require the Board to study and discuss ev•
ery alternative site imaginable encompassing a geographical
range that knows no boundaries. (See Village Laguna of Lagu-
na Beach, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 134 Ca1.App.3d
1022, 1028-1029, which determined that an EIR which consid-
ered five ranges of housing unit numbers satisfies CEQA.) Nor
does CEQA require the lead agency to have a crystal ball. (Go-
leta Valley I, supra, at p. 1178, quoting Residents Ad Hoc Sta-
dium Com. v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Ca1.App.3d 274, 286-
287.) " '... "The key issue is whether the selection and
discussion of alternatives fosters informed decisionmaking
and informed public participation." . ' "
(Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univer-
of University of California, supra, 47 Ca1.3d at pp. 404-
05.) To allow a lead agency to rely on its internal scoping .
rocess, without an adequate discussion of a range of reason-
ble 13. alternatives in the EIR, would be to sanction the
voidance of public discussion of alternatives.
"Even if [the lead agency isl correct in [its) conclusion ,
t there are no feasible alternatives ..., there *must be a dis- .
osure of the 'analytic route the ... agency traveled from evi-
nce to action."' (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v.
gents of University of California, 47 Ca1.3d at p. 404; cf.
uidelines, ¢ 15126, subd. (d) (5) ; see also Citizens to Preserve
e Ojai v. County of Ventura (1985) 176 Ca1.App.3d 421, 432.) •
Page E
of 12
Page 7 of 12
14392
Builn _pprlkte lirport Tuesday, December 5, 1989
Therefore, in cases like this one, where the lead agency deter- an informational document depends on what is reasonably
mines that ostensibly reasonable alternatives are infeasible, • feasible Board here, like the Regents in Laurel Heights, may
e.)
remote or speculative, it must include some minimal discus'
sion in the EIR to show how it arrived at this conclusion. (Lau- have pertinent in failed about alternative
l hrn p blit about this
sites for the
rel Heights. supra, that . 404-405.)
Hyatt argues that
the Heights ecause hnthdischhsses a of re- distinguhshab�eb� Hyatt contends
alternative that
sites Laurel
range"
ghts is
ire of on-site of Laurel
es one alternative Heights were presumptively reasonable whereas the sites pro-
of alternatives, and analyzes by Citizens are not. We disagree. The sites reflected by
site, Santa Barbara Shores. Hyatt points out that it considered posed
eight alternative sites, not merely one other site. Of the eight dots on the map in Laurel Heights are no more presumptively
"alternatives, six contemplate various degrees of develop- feasible than are the sites proposed by Citizens. An EIR which
these sites will tell us what is feasible
went on Haskell's Beach. One alternative considers Santa adand uawatly do discusses
Barbara Shores, and the last alternative is a "no project" al -A. How could the SEIB have met the threshold of
is
ternative, which is mandated by @
Hyatt interprets Guidelines, section 15126, subdivision sufficiency?Vylittle more had to be done to meet the threshold of
(d),nas giving a Guidelinegovernmental states agency two erchnices in dr agencyafting sufficiency. We agree with Hyatt that the LCP and coastal
an EIR. The arange
that a governmental agency
must: "Describe a raof reasonable alternatives to the pro- commission reports were important and useful in determining
ject, to the location of the project, which could ...." (Empha- the feasibility of alternative sites. `The EIR, however, must
suggests this means that the discussion may show how the findings in these reports relate to current condi-
relateradded.) edh rHyatt to a rangeggparticular report still apply to a
either to a of reasonable alternatives on the one tions. If tion today, then Board should have said so.
proposed site, or to a range of reasonable alternative loca- specific tions. To so construe section 15126, subdivision ted as rural 10 years ago, which is
would be to For example a site designs
(d) , '
'defines. still rural today, might not be a feasible alternative the
ignore the underpinnings of CEQA and the Guh
Hyatt's argument is similar to the one the Regents made Board could have given this as a reason cerning e o current
tctiioo of ea
to Laurel2 Heights when discussing Public blic gshould not ources Code sec- site.
site would not turn thon e a into a hopelessly long
p That section sated that
p agenciesdocument as Hyatt and the County suggest. It
approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives and unwieldy public the reasons for the
or feasible mitigation measures available which would sub- w°ouulldd,sdecision. dose to the p
stantially lessen the significant -environmental effects of such Summary findings are insufficient
projects ...." Hyatt contends that the Board properly rejected alterna-
agencyTh0 Laurel Heights court contrasted the requirements for
approval of a project with the informational purpose of five sites without any discussion because they: 1. are congest .
an EIR. The court explained: "That an agency can approve a ed, 2. might sustain negative biological impacts, 3. do not
project if environmental effects are resolved by mitigation or contain all the desirable attributes sought for the project. fly-
by alternatives does not logically mean that an EIR should not att objects to any further study because it would delay the de -
discuss both. To the contrary, requiring a discussion of both velopment of the project and present additional cost. These
options (alternatives and mitigation measures) is consistent are unproper reasons for failure to discuss such sites in the
with CEQA's purpose of providing responsible officials with SEIR. (Guidelines, 415126, subd. (d) (3) ; San Bernardino Val-
adequate information. Indeed, the use of the word 'or' in sec- ley Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of San Bernardino, 155 Ca-
tion 21002 supports the view that alternatives mitigation mea- 1.App.3d at p. 750.)
sures must be discussed in an EIR because, if an agency is to A lead agency may not refuse to review sites simply be -
assess thoroughly whether environmental effects can be ale- cause those sites do not meet all the proposed sit objectives or be-
viated by either mitigation or alternatives, the EIR must cis' cause they may present economic or environmental
cuss both." (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of difficulties of their own. (Guidelines, 115126, subds. (d) (3) ,
1181• San Bernardi -
University of California, 47 Ca1.3d at p. 401..
The discussion of alternative sites is important here be-
cause the SEIR suggests that the building of the project at
Haskell's Beach or Santa Barbara Shores may present
envi-
ronmental problems relating to traffic, air quality, water re-
sources, and geological hazards. The SEIR also points out that
some roosting sites for Monarch butterflies, and some fragile
and sensitive strand/dune vegetation which supports
glo-
bose dune beetle would be lost if the project were developed at
Haskell's Beach. Another threatened species, the tidewater
goby, might also be endangered by the project.
These problems, however, do not mean the project may
not be developed at Haskell's Beach. But under these circum-
stances, other apparently feasible sites which may be "capa-
ble of eliminating any significant adverse environmental e EIR.
(d) (4) ; Goleta Valley I, supra, at pp. 1179 ;
no Valley Audubon Society, v. County of San Bernardino. 155
CalApp.3d at p. 750; Laurel Heights Improvement emenat Assn.
40v.
Resents of University of California, supra, p•
Even readily apparent economic, environmental, technical or
social trade-offs are insufficient to excuse the study and dis-
cussion of such sites. (Goleta Valley I, at p. 1180; and see Pub.
Resources Code, § 21061.1; Guidelines, 4415364,15370.)
Hyatt asserts that the Board properly rejected some site!
during the scoping process because they would require either
rezoning or some other change in regulatory or policy deci
sions which had been previously made. Hyatt relies on tht
case of Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v. Board of Trustees
supra, 89 CalApp.3d 274, for this proposition.
In that case, various alternatives were discussed and re
effects" of the proposed project must be discussed m jected in the EIR.Among the reasons for rejection of one sit
gcsted by Citizens § r sy, fact, not be feasible sits, bive ut with- as that the proposed funding for that alternative was probe
ousted c may,3d at 288.) The Rosi
out sufficient information in the EIR about these other sites, bly illegal under eta supra, 8(ResidentsalAppAd Hoc Stadium m
the public is not sufficiently informed about the reasons for the v. Board of Trustees. P
Board's n hmrdecision. This, in roje preludes an open and fair de- - doe an ceded stated
of alternativeswhich are ` rremot
ead agency need not devote itsel
bate on the merits of the project. "speculative feasibility" or which could b
The Board must use its best efforts to provide full dhsclo- from reality" or of cant changes in governmenti
sure of alternatives in the EIR. (Concerned Citizens of Costa implemented onlyafter "significant
p. hang This includes site
Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Ca1.3d 929, policylegislation.")cant(Id., atverse environmental 286-287.)effectsicannot site
b
934-935; Christward Ministry v. Superior Court (1986) 184 Ca- for which significant
LApp.3d 180, 186; Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of eliminated or lessened. The Residents court, however, all
-.. appropriate disregard alternatives sin
Ventura, supra. 176 Cal•APp'3d at pp. 429, 431; and see Guide- stated that it 1 not to implementing fsin
lines, 115151, which explains that the sufficiency of an EIR as . ply because they mayrequire
•
r, Lecemoe S, 1989
Darin Appellate Repel-
(Ibid.)
epm(Ibid.)
An alternative maybe summarily labeled as too remote
and speculative because of legislative or policy complications
only when the alternative would require "an overhaul of basic
Legislation" or "basic changes" in statutes and policies of oth-
er agencies (See Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc. v.
Morton (D.C. Mr. 1972) 458 F.2d 827, 837-838.) The proffered al-
ternatives do not appear to require such changes.
The dividing line between alternative sites that are appar-
ently reasonable, and those that are not, may be illusive. Even
though we cannot offer a "bright line" test, the agency is not
hopelessly lost in a fog of subjectivity. The watchword is
"reasonable."
"The discussion of alternatives need not be exhaustive,
and the requirement as to the discussion of alternatives is sub-
ject to a construction of reasonableness.... Absolute perfec-
tion is not required; what is required is the production of n
information sufficient to permit a reasonable choice of alter-
natives so far as environmental aspects are concerned. It is
only required that the officials and agencies make an objec-
tive, good -faith effort to comply." (Foundation for San Fran-
cisco's Architectural Heritage v. City and County of San
Francisco, supra. 106 Cal.App.3d at p. 910.) Therefore, where
the nature of the particular project would permit its location
at many sites over a large region, the lead agency is entitled to
deference in limiting the number of sites to be studied.
As we pointed out in for an inflexlblee rulethat thGoleta Valley I, there is no ay
availability of other sites always
must be considered or that it never need be considered. Situa-
tions differ; what is reasonable in one case may be unreason-
able in another. It is necessary to examine the particular
situation presented to determine whether the availability of
other feasible sites must be considered in the EIR." (At p.
1179.)
Consideration of other apparently reasonable sites is war-
ranted here, but if an EIR is adequate as an informational doc-
ument, it is mint -ply that an appellate court will strike down
the site choice of the lead agency, even if it is environmentally
inferior to another site, under the substantial evidence test de-
veloped for CEQA.
That test requires only "enough relevant information and
reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argu-
ment can be made to support a conclusion, even though other
conclusions might also be reached. ... Mere uncorroborated
opinion or rumor does not constitute substantial evidence."
(Guidelines, § 15384.) This is a low standard. It gives the lead
agency plenary say over its choice if the EIR provides at least
minimal information about a reasonable range of alterna-
tives. Failure to do this renders the EIR inadequate as a mat-
ter of law. (See Pub. Resources Code, 121005.)
Page 8 of 12
14393
30250, subd. (c) ), it would be useless to analyze these proper-
ties. In some cases this argument would be valid.
But here, the proposed site itself and its alternative may
pose significant environmental concerns, supra. It is incum-
bent upon the lead agency to consider other sites which could
eliminate the significant adverse environmental effects. (See
Guidelines, * 15126, subd. (d) (3) ; Pub. Resources Code, §
30250, subd. (c), authorizing commercial -visitor uses in rural
areas when such uses cannot feasibly be located in existing ur-
ban areas.) Discussion of rural sites under these circum-.
stances may be necessary to permit a reasoned choice.
(Guidelines, § 15126, subd. (d) (5).)
At the time the LCP was published, it deemed Dos Pueb-
os, a rural site, to be suitable for commercial visitor -oriented
use (CV designation). A brief comment, based upon current
investigation, might be sufficient to show that such sites are
ow infeasible for this project.
Hyatt argues that one reason Santa Barbara Shores is the
only alternative site discussed is that it is the only site which
would not require a change in the Coastal Land Use Plan by a
land use plan amendment approved by both the Board and the
commission. (See Pub. Resources Code, 130514.) But the need
to make a change in a zoning ordinance or in a land use plan
does not constitute such a major change in the law as to permit
summary rejection of a site. (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com.
v. Board of Trustees, supra, 89 Cal.App.3d at pp. 286-287; Nat-
ural Resources Defense Council. Inc. v. Morton, supra, 458
F.2d at pp. 837-838.) In the instant case the Board rezoned
Haskell's Beach itself in August 1988
The Board's similar summary findings regarding More
Mesa, Devereaux and West Devereaux, which are based upon
the LCP, without any current study or discussion, are insuffi-
• cient to reject such sites.
Response
The conclusional statements issued by the Board in re-
sponse to Citizens' comments were inadequate. The Board
must provide a factual response to such comments. (See
Guidelines, § 15088; Sutter Sensible Planning, Inc. v. Board of
Supervisors (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 813, 820; People v. County of
Kern (1974) 39 CaLApp.3d 830, 841-842; Cleary v. County of
Stanislaus (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 348, 355-357; Laurel Heights
Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, 47
Ca1.3d at pp. 404-405.)
For example, in response to Citizens' comments about the
Wallover property, which is located north of the 101 highway,
the Board stated that it need not consider that site because it is
inland and therefore does not meet the basic objectives of the
project.
We cannot tell from the record how far the Wallover site is
from the beach. Whether or not it should have initially been in-
cluded for discussion in the SEIR we leave to the discretion of
the Board. If, for example, the ocean were readily accessible
from the Wallover site, it would be a likely candidate for inclu-
sion. If the site is inland, and not reasonably near the beach,
tL nn it would not be an ostensibly reasonable site. If this be the
case, then the Board need only state specifically the facts
which support its conclusion.
Timeliness of comments
Lastly, Hyatt opines that Citizens engaged in dilatory tac
because it did not proffer specific alternative sites until
ril 4,1988, the date of the Board's first hearing on the appeal
its approval of the final development plan.
Hyatt misconstrues the role of a lead agency for an EIR
der CEQA. It is the responsibility of the lead agency to
arch for alternative sites and to study them, without
pting from the public. (Laurel Heights Improvement
. v. Regents of University of California, supra, 47 Ca1.3d
p. 405.)
IN SUMMARY
The legal duties imposed by CEQA are to be strictly en -
reed to prevent its subversion and to provide the &nest pos-
ble protection to the environment within the reasonable su
of the law. (Goleta Valley I. pra, at p. 1176; Mira Mon -
Homeowners Assn. v. Counts of Ventura (1985) 165 Ca -
Alternative sites suggested by Citizens
The Board improperly rejected Carpinteria Bluffs on ju-
risdictional grounds. (County of Ingo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Ca-
1.App.3d 795, 810, quoting Environmental Defense Fund. Inc.
v. Coastside County Water Dist. (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 695, 704-
765; and see Boznng v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1975)
13 Ca1.3d 263, 283;' Guidelines, §§ 15125, 15206.) The lead agency
is required to consider sites in the entire region, not just those
within the agency's immediate jurisdictional boundaries.
tics
On the other hand, if current feasibility studies show that Ap
the Bluffs would be economically infeasible to meet the basic to
objectives of the project, the Board could have briefly dis-
cussed this as the basis for rejection of the site as infeasible. on
Even a brief update on a previous feasibility study would have se
sufficed. Here, the Board summarily rejected smaller scale prom
development at Carpinteria Bluffs as economically infeasible, Assn
but listed smaller scale developments as on-site alternatives at
the SEIR.
Other examples of improper summary rejection of sites
those along the Gaviota Coast which have been previously • fo
ted rural. Hyatt argues that because such sites are si
dary alternatives to urban locations under the land use scope
licies of the LCP and CEQA (see Pub. Resources Code, § 1 to
•
•
•
14394
uilo ,Appellaic Repan!
lApp.3d 357, 365-366.)
The Board abused its discretion by failing to provide the
public and decisionraakers with an SEIR which adequately
discusses alternative sites to Haskell's Beach. (Laurel
Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of Cali-
fornia, 47 Ca1.3d at pp. 392, 401; Goleta Valley I, supra, at p.
1176; and see Rural Landowners Assn. v. City Council (1983)
143 CalApp.3d 1013, 1019-1020.)
The Board must independently find, study, consider and
discuss a range of potentially feasible alternative sites to Has-
kell's Beach. That discussion must be contained within the
SEIR. (Goleta Valley I, supra, at p. 1180; Pub. Resources
Code, §§ 21001, subd. (g), 21002.1, subd. (a), 21005, 21061, 21100,
subd. (d) ; Guidelines, § 15126; Laurel Heights Improvement
Assn. v. Regents of University of California, supra, 47 Ca1.3d
at p. 400.)
An EIR is insufficient if it relies on old administrative re-
ports, findings and staff recommendations alone, without any
current investigation and discussion to support those findings.
(City of Carmel -By -the -Sea v. Board of Supervisors, supra,
-183 CalApp.3d at pp. 252-253; Perley v. Board of Supervisors
(1982) 137 CalApp.3d 424, 435-436; see also Environmental De-
fense Fund. Inc. v. Coastside County Water Dist., supra, 27 Ca-
1App.3d 695.) Here, there was no evidence that the Board ever
considered any alternative site analysis in the coastal com-
mission reports. If the Board did so, then it should say so in the
EIR.
Current investigation of alternative sites may reveal that
they are infeasible for this project. A new SEIR which is pre-
pared in accordance with this opinion may result in the same
findings as the previous SEIR. The SEIR, however, will be the
product of an informed decision made with fair notice to the
public. We are mindful that the costs to the real parties in in-
terest may be onerous, but the requirements of CEQA compel
our decision.
We reverse, remand and direct the court below to issue a
peremptory writ to strike the SEIR as inadequate.
Costs to appellants.
GILBERT, J.
We concur:
STONE, P. J.
ABBE, J.
William L Gordon, Judge
Superior Court County of Santa Barbara ment may forfeit a vehicle which is traceable w the proceeds
Environmental Defense Center and Philip A. Seymour, of illegal narcotics transactions or used to facilitate the trans -
for Appellant. ported= of illegal narcotics. See 21 U.S.C. § 881(a). The pro -
Marvin Levine, Acting County Counsel, Stephen Shane cedures the government must follow to effect such forfeitures
Stark, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondents. are generally the same as those used for the forfeiture of prop -
Robert E. Goodwin and Russell R. Ruiz as Amici Curiae erty seized under the customs laws. See 21 U.S.C. § 881(d) . The
on behalf of Respondents. seizing agency must publish notice of the seizure and its intent
Hollister & Brace and Richard C. Monk; Matsinger & Bla- to forfeit the property for at least three successive weeks. See
keboro and Diane M. Matsinger; Baker & McKenzie and 19 U.S.C. § 1607(a). In addition, written notice of the seizure to -
Timothy A. Tosta, Maria C. Pracher, Jonathan S. Kitchen, gether with information on the applicable procedures must be
Judy V . Davidoff, Douglas A. Potts, for Real Parties in sent to those who appear to have an interest in the seized prop -
Interest. erty. Id. The customs forfeiture statute sets forth no time limit
within which the agency must effect the written and publishes
notices.
Any person claiming the property may file a claim anc
post a bond for the property within 20 days from the date of thc
first publication, from which the government's costs are de
ducted if the property is ultimately forfeited. See 19 U.S.C..
1608. The filing of a claim and cost bond requires the govern
ment to initiate ajudicial forfeiture proceeding by filing a civi
complaint in federal court. Id. If the claimant fails to file
timely claim and cost bond, however, the agency will declare
the property forfeited and dispose of it accordingly. See 1'
U.S.C. § 1609.
Despite these procedures, claimants have routinely bee:
deprived of their property for long periods of time withou
having any recourse to the courts: See, e.g.. United States
$8.850.461 U.S. 555, 569-70 (an 18 -month delay in instituting eh
it forfeiture proceedings is not a violation of due process) . T
Page 9 Of -12
Tuesday, December 5, 1989
EMMANUEL BRANTZ, M.D.,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Respondent.
Misc. 89 -0546 -GT
United States District Court
Sourthern District of California
Filed November 8,1989
Petitioner's motion for return of seized property came on
for hearing before the Honorable Gordon Thompson, Jr.r.onwthe
Oon ctober 23, 1989. Patrick Q. Hall, Esq., appeared
thepetitioner. Assistant United States Attorney John Houston I
appeared on behalf of the respondent. Having reviewed the
pleadings, exhibits, declarations, and arguments in favor and -
in opposition to the motion, the court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
This matter involves the Drug Enforcement Administra-
tion's ("DEA") seizure of a 1984 Mercedes Benz from petition-
er Emmanuel Brantz, M.D. On August 17, 1989, agents from
the State of California Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement and
the DEA executed a state search warrant at Dr. Brand's of-
fice and seized the vehicle. The DEA sent Dr. Brants a seizure
notice on September 7,1989, three weeks after the seizure took
place. The government alleges that Dr. Brantz used his medi-
cal practice to illegally traffic in amphetamines. He has been
charged in state court with 14 felony counts involving dispens-
ing controlled substances without a legitimate medical
purpoThe government claims it seized the vehicle because it
was purchased with the proceeds of illegal narcotics sales and
it was used to facilitate the illegal possession of a controlled
substance. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 881(a) (6) 881(a) (4) Dr. Brantz
seeks the return of his vehicle under Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 41(e) on the ground that the government failed to
serve the seizure notice in a sufficiently expeditious manner.
In addition, Dr. Brantz has requested an evidentiary hearing
on the issue of whether the DEA had probable cause to seize
his vehicle.
DISCUSSION
This case involves the procedures which must be followed
when a conveyance is seized for forfeiture in connection with a
drug-related offense. Under the forfeiture law, the govern -
CRIMINAL LAW
AND PROCEDURE
Notice of Seizure Sent 21 Days
After Property Taken Is Untimely
Cite as 89 Daily Journal DA.R.14394
— 3Z-_
Response: 39
EXHBIT B
Page 10 of 12
L -ER 28 199
prepared for Hermosa; (5) stated that he would submit
a typewritten report outlining his comments on this
project; (6) discussed California environmental laws and
the adequacy of descriptions contained in EIRs.
(1) No response necessary. ,
(2-5) See Response to Comment #256.
(6) See Response to Comment #10.
(1, 2) This comment reflects the opinion of Mr. Morley.
(1, 2) Additional responses to Mr. Morley's July 1989
comments on the Draft EIR (contained in the September
1989 Response to Comments document) based on his
handwritten notes in the margins of the referenced
submitted document are provided as Responses to Comments
#237 through #276 of this Response to Public Hearing
Comments document.
(1-4) Responses to Mr. Morley's more detailed written
comments regarding the California Coastal Act are
addressed later in this document beginning with Response
to Comment #277. Issues relative to alternatives
analysis are addressed in the following portion of this
Response #39 as well as in Responses to Comments #299
through #303.
(5, 6) No response necessary.
(1-6) From a technical standpoint, if an alternative
drillsite could be obtained from the existing produc-
tion site where the off -shore Redondo Beach reserves
have been developed, and wells could be legally drilled
from that site to the north and northwest and reach as
far off -shore as the wells from the Redondo Beach
recovery facilities reached, according to the ap-
plicant's calculations based on proprietary data only
37 percent of the productive area of Hermosa Beach
reserves could be developed that could otherwise be
completely developed from the City Maintenance Yard
site. On a similar basis, drilling from a potential
alternative site in the railroad right-of-way at Herondo
Street would allow the operator to develop only 69
percent of the volume that could be developed from the
City Yard. Such an alternative site within Redondo
Beach would, therefore, make infeasible the applicant's
full realization of stated project objectives which are
36
Page 11 of 12
to drill wells within Hermosa Beach and to economically
produce the City's off -shore oil reserves.
In addition, the Hermosa Beach City Code prohibits
drilling or boring of any oil or gas well "within any
portion of the City" except the "present city main-
tenance yard" or the "former South School site." (City
Code Section 21-10.) Within the City of Hermosa Beach
no other drill sites are permissible. No sites outside
Hermosa Beach may be used to develop oil inside Hermosa
Beach. Thus, drilling from any other site --whether
within Hermosa Beach or in an adjacent jurisdiction --
would require changing this local legislation. This
legal hurdle contributes to the infeasibility of sites
alternative to the City Maintenance yard or the South
School site, particularly since both the drilling
prohibition and its two exceptions were established
directly by the electorate.
Furthermore, California law encourages substantial,
efficient recovery of oil and gas resources under oil
and gas leases in a number of circumstances. For
example, Cal. Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 3106
imposes the following requirements on the Division of
Oil and Gas:
"The supervisor shall so supervise the drilling,
operation, maintenance, and abandonment of wells as to
prevent, as far as possible, damage to life, health,
property, and natural resources; damage to underground
oil and gas deposits from infiltrating water and other
causes; loss of oil, gas, or reservoir energy, and
damage to underground and surface waters suitable for
irrigation or domestic purposes by the infiltration of,
or the addition of, detrimental substances, by reason
of the drilling, operation, maintenance, or abandonment
of wells.
"The supervisor shall also supervise the drilling,
operation, maintenance, and abandonment of wells so as
to permit the owners or operators of such wells to
utilize all methods and practices known to the oil
industry for the purpose of increasing the ultimate
recovery of underground hydrocarbons and which, in the
opinion of the supervisor, are suitable for such purpose
in each proposed case. In order to further the elimi-
nation of waste by increasing the recovery of under-
ground hydrocarbons it is hereby declared as a policy
of this state that the grant in an oil and gas lease or
37
idt systencs
1
1
1
1
s►
s
Page 12 of 12
contract to a lessee or operator of the right or power,
in substance, to explore for and remove all hydrocarbons
from any lands in the State of California, in the
absence of an express provision to the contrary
contained in such lease or contract, is deemed to allow
the lessee or contractor or his successors or assigns,
to do what a prudent operator using reasonable diligence
would do, having in mind the best interests of the
lessor, lessee and the state, in producing and removing
hydrocarbons, including but not limited to the injection
of air, gas, water or other fluids into the productive
strata, the application of pressure heat or other means
for the reduction of viscosity of the hydrocarbons, the
supplying of additional motive force or creating of
enlarged or new channels for the underground movement
of hydrocarbons into production wells, when such methods
or processes employed have been approved by the super-
visor; provided, however, nothing contained in this
section imposes a legal duty upon such lessee or
contractor, his successors or assigns, to conduct such
operations.
"In order to best meet oil and gas needs in California,
the supervisor shall administer this division so as to
encourage the wise development of the oil and gas
resources." (Emphasis added.)
The above cited law directs the Division to encourage
the "wise development of the oil and gas resources" and
equates wise development with full development. As
discussed previously in this Response, drilling from
Redondo Beach would reduce ultimate recovery of Hermosa
Beach reserves by at least 31 percent. This reduction
conflicts with the full recovery policy of the Public
Resources Code.
Finally, even the recent "Goleta II" case, which seems
to expand the requirements for considering alternatives,
states "Lead agencies need not study alternatives which
do not fulfill the basic objectives of the proposed
project." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of
Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara (September
22, 1989) 89 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11920.) An alterna-
tive which sacrifices 31 to 63 percent of potential
recovery of oil and gas does not fulfill the basic
project objectives.
(7) No response necessary.
(8) Such a general statement can only be taken as.
opinion and is noted.
38
35
EXHIBIT B
STAFF RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
PHASE I, TEST DRILLING/CITY YARD RELOCATION
Ran'
1. The testing phase for all production shall be a maximum of
nine months.
2. An alternate temporary City yard site shall be provided by
the driller.
3. The alternate temporary site shall be within reasonable
proximity to the current City maintenance yard and its
locations shall be approved by the Director of Public Works.
4. The test drilling phase will result in the elimination or
displacement of several activities or items from the current
City maintenance yard. The driller shall provide replacement
of the following:
- Replacement of employee parking along Sixth Street that
will be eliminated. This includes both the parking lot
at the southwest corner of the maintenance yard, and any
parallel parking south of the wooden structure along
Sixth Street.
- Replacement of the bulk storage for sand, gravel and road
material that will be eliminated.
- Replacement of the storage of the street sweeper, and the
street sweeper dumpsters that will be eliminated.
- Replacement of the storage of paints and electrical
supplies in the cargo containers that will be eliminated.
- Replacement
eliminated.
of the rubble storage area that will be
- Replacement of the gasoline pumps that will be removed.
- Replacement of any other storage area that will be
eliminated.
5. The temporary site shall:
a) have a solid fence,
b) have a landscaped buffer,
c) have security lighting and on-site lighting,
d) electricity, telephone and water services,
e) wash area for street sweeper,
f) be paved.
have an above ground gasoline diesel equivalent to
existing fuel volumes,
h) trash or rubble disposal area, and
i) other storage area(s) eliminated from the current City
maintenance yard.
6. Driller shall move all existing items disrupted because of
test drilling phase to the temporary site.
7. Well testing methods shall be in accordance with appropriate
agency standards.
8. Driller shall relocate and reconnect to all existing
buildings the natural gas, water service and any other
utility services disturbed at the City Yard.
9. Driller shall prepare a drawn (to scale) plan showing the
temporary site and the proposed changes to the existing
maintenance yard. Plan shall show ingress and egress of
driller's trucks including turning radii. If the test
drilling phase proves unsuccessful, driller shall return all
facilities from the temporary site to the existing City yard
and shall re-establish employee parking within six months.
Driller to provide a plan prior to the start of test drilling
showing to where facilities from the temporary site would e
returned.
10. The temporary site shall be subject to the approval of the
Director of Public Works and may be subject to subsequent
environmental review.
11. No test drilling shall occur until the temporary City yard
site has been constructed and deemed by the Director of
Public Works as ready for use.
12. Temporary disruption of the existing City maintenance yard
shall be limited to a maximum of six months.
13. The test drilling phase area used by the driller, as well as
adjacent areas within the existing City yard site, shall
always be maintained in a neat and clean manner.
14. Acoustical construction shall be provided for the animal
kennel and other structures where needed to reduce excessive
noise to acceptable levels consistent with the Hermosa Beach
Municipal Code.
15. Orientation of structures shall be away from all abutting
residential uses.
16. Noise attenuation features such as a concrete or masonry
sound wall of sufficient height to effectively minimize
off-site noise migration shall be constructed along site
boundaries adjacent to residential land uses.
17. Gas pumps shall be equipped with vapor control devices.
18. Equipment used on-site, and all maintenance yard vehicles,
shall be equipped with approved mufflers and be maintained in
proper tune.
19. Paints, solvents, tar -based materials and other
odor -producing substances shall be stored in enclosed
facilities with proper filtered ventilation or located
outdoors on the site such that no odors can be detected in
off-site residential areas.
20. Landscaping (and possibly a privacy wall or fencing ) around
the entire perimeter of the site shall be provided to
minimize views from adjacent residential areas and public
facilities (i.e., City Hall buildings, community center
building).
21. The buildings shall be constructed with architectural
treatment on all sides.
22. Roof mounted equipment shall be screened.
23. Any outdoor lighting shall be directed toward the center of
the site and shielded to reduce glare on adjacent properties.
24. Lot coverage shall be kept to a minimum.
25. The maintenance yard site shall be kept free of trash and
litter and landscaping shall be maintained in a neat
condition.
26. The site ingress/egress points shall be redesigned and/or
modified as determined by the Public Works Department, to
permit unobstructed traffic circulation along existing access
roadways.
27. A privacy wall or fence, with locked gates, of a least six
feet in height shall be erected around the site perimeter to
prevent inadvertent or accidental entrance into the
maintenance yard by children or other citizens after normal
operating hours.
28. Adequate fire suppression equipment, including fire
extinguishers, as approved by the City Fire Department shall
be maintained on the site at all times.
29. Oils, paints, solvents, and other miscellaneous materials and
wastes shall be stored, handled and disposed of in an
appropriate manner to reduce potential fire hazards.
30. Structures shall be designed and constructed to Uniform
Building Code and City Fire Department standards and
specifications.
31. All underground gas storage will be designed and constructed
to current building standards to eliminate potential leakage.
PHASE II, OIL PRODUCTION/CITY YARD
1. All cost associated with the temporary City yard relocation
shall be paid for by the driller.
2. All conditions relative to the City maintenance yard
relocation shall be determined after a site has been
selected.
3. Driller shall pay for all design, construction, inspection
and administration of the City maintenance yard relocation.
4. Driller shall provide the replacement facility at the
Community Center. There shall be no loss of recreational
facilities.
5. Driller to construct a permanent replacement facility prior
to being allowed to proceed with production drilling phase.
6. The permanent replacement facility will provide the following
and shall be subject to the approval of the Director of
Public Works:
a) new buildings for
- Parks Maintenance activities
- Medians Maintenance activities
- Street Maintenance activities
- Traffic Safety Maintenance activities
- Sewers and Storm Drains Maintenance activities
- Street Lighting Maintenance activities
- Building Maintenance activities
- Equipment Maintenance activities
b) have a landscaped buffer and be fenced
c) have security lighting and on-site lighting
d) electricity, telephone and water services
e) wash area for street sweeper
f) have underground gasoline/diesel equivalent to existing
fuel volumes,
g) trash disposal area, and
h) other storage area
7. Driller shall move all facilities to the permanent
replacement facilities prior to proceeding to production
drilling phase.
8. Driller shall perform site feasibility study showing:
a) alternative yard layouts,
b) architectural renderings - interior and exterior,
c) space requirements,
d) on-site equipment, and
e) costs for construction.
9. The study shall be approved by the Director of Public Works.
10. The new site shall consolidate all public works activities,
as well as providing for Cushman storage, animal control
storage and meter maintenance.
11. All costs associated with the permanent City yard relocation
shall be paid for by the driller.
GENERAL
1. The driller shall provide the City with an insurance policy
and/or a bond sufficient to cover any anticipated failures of
public facilities (located within the zone of influence area
plus 1000 feet) resulting from the drilling operation. In no
event shall the amount be less than $10,000,000.
2. The driller shall pay a deposit in advance of building permit
issuance. Said deposit shall pay for all associated City
review costs and shall be determined at a later date.
3. If the project cannot comply with operation standards
established by these conditions of approval, the operation
shall be shut down by the City or any other regulatory agency
with responsibility to monitor those conditions and shall
stay shutdown until the problem is mitigated.
4 A quarterly site audit shall take place to inspect for soil
contamination as a result of accidental spills.
5. The maximum number of days the workover rigs shall be on site
shall be 65 days per year, and shall be operated weekdays
8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.
In the event that a residence with solar panels is affected
by shading, a site specific study paid for by the oil
contractor shall be conducted to determine economic impact.
7. Pursuant to Assembly Bill 3180 the City shall monitor all
conditions of the approval of which the City has
responsibility which includes (but not limited to) noise
monitoring and inspection of the site for proper maintenance.
All costs for monitoring shall be borne by the applicant,
Macpherson Oil, including hiring part time or full time staff
for inspection purposes and for obtaining professional
consultants to review all submitted plans regarding all
aspects of oil drilling.
8. The proposed plans shall be submitted to the division of oil
and gas for their review and recommendation;
Any recommendation by the Division shall be taken into
consideration prior to approval, and may be included as
conditions of approval.
9. If there is cause for abandonment of the operation, the
applicant shall be responsible for all costs.
10. Drill cuttings and other wastes, shall be collected in above
ground containers and disposed of at an approved disposal
site.
11. Applicant shall be responsible for all costs (direct and
indirect) incurred for recruitment of in-house personnel or
consultant services, applicant shall be responsible for full
salary, benefit and support costs (or consultant costs) of
full-time staff.
12. All requirements, standards, conditions stated within the Oil
Production Code, Chapter 21-A, of the City's Municipal Code
shall be met, unless more restrictive requirements are
imposed through mitigation measures; where it cannot be
clearly determined whether the City's Oil Ordinance, Chapter
21-A or mitigation measures are more stringent, the
appropriate City staff shall make a determination; appealable
to the City Council.
LAND USE DEVELOPMENT
1. The maximum size for any storage tank of any type shall be
forty feet in diameter and sixteen feet in height.
2. Prior to construction and prior to obtaining building permits
for oil production, a complete soil analysis shall be
performed.
3. Not more than five tanks shall be installed, and shall be
submerged in a concrete basin which shall contain 1 1/2 times
the volume of the tank fluids.
4. All wells shall be drilled and cemented in accordance with
State Division of Oil and Gas regulations to protect
underground aquifers.
5. All drilling and production equipment shall be constructed
and operated in a manner such that no significant nuisance
shall occur.
6. Except for the drill rig and drawworks, no equipment or
appurtenant structures shall exceed 16 feet in height.
7. The electrical service systems shall be designed with
sufficient capacity to minimize surging impacts.
8. The well cellars shall be concrete lined and shall be
designed to hold contaminated run-off from on-site sources.
9. Solid state control console linked to a control system to
perform energy conservation functions such as start/stop time
programming of motor equipment, data logging of energy
consumption and maintenance and service scheduling shall be
provided.
a. All Electrical machinery shall have a minimum coefficient
of efficiency of 0.75.
10. The applicant shall submit a parking plan demonstrating and
identifying the location of adequate parking facilities for
all workers involved in oil recovery operations, including
exploratory and production phases.
PUBLIC SAFETY
1. The site(s) shall be enclosed by a solid masonry or concrete
wall with solid gates during all operations, protecting both
against public entry, observation and attraction.
2. Security personnel shall be employed at all times during the
drilling stage (24 hours) and emergency phone numbers shall
be posted during production Phase II
3. Signs warning of unauthorized entry and safety hazards shall
be posted on all sides of both site(s).
4. Access to facilities shall be limited to authorized personnel
only.
5. Trees shall be maintained at a distance from all walls to
prohibit children and others from unauthorized entry.
6. All site personnel shall be instructed on required safety
procedures if hydrogen sulfide concentrations are
encountered. Documentation of training and instruction shall
be made available to the City Personnel Director.
7. Both solid and liquid wastes shall be sampled and tested to
determine if it needs to be treated as a hazardous waste.
8. An Oil Spill Prevention Control Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan
and an Oil Drilling Contingency Plan will be prepared for the
project and approved by the State Division of Oil and Gas,
the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and the City
of Hermosa Beach.
9. Drillsite and production facilities shall be constructed in
accordance with the DOG seismic standards, and/or shall be
able to withstand with limited damage an earthquake of 8.0 on
the Richter scale.
10. A soils engineering report and engineering geology report
shall be prepared and reviewed in conjunction with the plans
for all physical improvements. Said report shall address
potential seismic hazards, such as liquefaction, due to soils
or geologic conditions. All recommendations contained in
said reports shall be incorporated in the construction
drawings.
11. An emergency response plan, including a blowout prevention
and control plan, shall be prepared for review and approval
by the Division of Oil and Gas and the Hermosa Beach Fire
Department.
12. When a leak or spill occurs, it shall be contained, the fluid
shall be recovered and the area restored to its original
condition.
FIRE SAFETY
1. Adequate fire detection and fighting equipment and supplies,
approved by the Fire Department, shall be maintained on the
drillsite and tank production facility at all times.
2. A supplementary analysis by a professional consultant, paid
for by the applicant shall be provided detaining any
necessary improvements the Fire Department may need to
prevent, and to halt oil related fires. Expenditures made to
provide training, acquire equipment shall be paid by oil
contractor.
3. Oil sumps, drip pans, etc. shall be cleaned at regular
intervals to reduce fire hazards and prevent minor spills.
4. Oily rags, paper and miscellaneous waste shall be disposed of
in an appropriate manner to reduce fire hazards.
5. Signs warning of flammable fluids and prohibiting smoking
shall be installed where appropriate.
6. The drillsite and production facility shall be protected by
automatic ire detection and suppression systems sensors.
7. Drilling operations shall be conducted in accordance with
appropriate Division of Oil and Gas regulations and shall
utilize all required blowout prevention equipment and safety
devices.
-
8. Fire flows to service the operation shall meet Fire
Department requirements. Any improvements needed shall be at
the expense of the operator.
9. There shall be a public notification and evacuation plan and
warning system installed to warn the community of any
hazardous gas or vapor leeks during Phase I.
10. All equipment necessary to contain an oil fire or blowout
shall be provided and/or maintained on site and all fire
personnel shall be trained on its use.
11.All costs and equipment necessary to handle and/or dispose of
hazardous materials shall be provided.
SUBSIDENCE
1. Analysis shall be reviewed by an independent soils engineer
hired by the City of Hermosa Beach and paid for by the oil
driller.
2. The soils engineer's focus shall deal with the issue of
settlement of land in the area adjacent to the site and well
bottoms and as a result of the driller's operation.
3. The soils engineer shall determine and submit a plan showing
the potential zone of influence for all soil settlement.
Settlement readings shall be measured to 0.01 feet at any
control point.
4. The adjacent area shall be surveyed a minimum of 1,000 feet
from the zone of influence boundary as determined above. To
determine the existing ground surface elevations, an
elevation control survey shall be done before the drilling
begins and shall be used as a base of reference.
5. The driller shall prepare a plan outlining the method to
monitor subsidence as well as any corrective measures for
settlements in excess of 0.01 feet. the plan shall be
approved by the Director of Public works.
6. There shall be an annual elevation survey for the project
area to monitor and evaluate any potential settlement. If
the survey data indicates subsidence, then the driller shall
restore the surface elevation as provided in the subsidence
control plan as approved by the Director of Public Works.
7: All cost associated with subsidence monitoring and control
shall be paid for by the driller.
VEHICLE TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION ON AND OFF SITE
1. All truck deliveries shall be limited to daylight hours (9:00
AM - 3:00 PM), Monday through Friday, except for emergency
situations which have been reported to the City.
`Hl
2. Project related truck traffic shall be limited to the
recommended truck routes..
3. Trucks shall not be operated during peak traffic hours of 7 -
9 AM and 3 - 7 PM.
4. Operation of earthmoving equipment shall be limited to
daytime hours between 8 AM and 6 PM.
5. Equipment deliveries shall be made only during daytime hours
between 9 AM and 3 PM.
6. Project related truck travel shall be restricted to
recommended specific truck routes and access points.
7. Signs shall be installed to direct detour traffic.
8. The number of truck round trips shall be limited to a maximum
of 36 per day, except in an emergency which shall have
authorization from the City (18 vehicles).
9. Maintenance Yard site access shall be designed to enable
trucks to turn into the site without inhibiting traffic
movement on Valley Drive or Sixth Street.
10. Minor curb radii reconstruction shall be done by the operator
as determined by City Public Works depending on the length
and necessary turning radii for project -related trucks.
11. Pavement testing of the truck routes (paid for by operator)
shall be conducted prior to project initiation.
12. Area residents shall be notified of pipeline construction
prior to commencement. Signs shall be installed to direct
detour traffic.
13. All trucks arriving or departing the drill site shall be
covered to prevent spillage of earth and all routes shall be
swept and/or washed by the driller on a daily basis as
required by the City.
14. A pavement evaluation shall be performed on all access
streets and the proposed truck routes prior to the issuance
of a city drilling permit. The evaluation shall include as a
minimum:
a) the number, type, size and weight of trucks for export of
materials or product.
b) the number, type, size and weight of truck deliveries of
building supplies, drilling supplies etc.
c) the number, type, size and weight of equipment
transported to the site.
d) other associated transportation items.
e) other anticipated loading.
f) all streets shall be upgraded to accommodate truck
traffic and loading.
15. A projection of the deterioration of the pavement is to be
performed and the driller shall be required to restore the
pavement to the condition it was prior to drilling on all
streets where the driller's transportation occurs over the
life of the project.
16. All costs associated with a pavement evaluation shall be paid
for by the driller.
SANITARY SEWER
1. Driller shall provide an engineering analysis of the existing
sanitary sewer system downstream from the drill site.
Included within this, analysis shall be an evaluation to
determine what will happen to peak capacity flows in the
sewer line in the future as more water is pumped than oil,
and what downstream impacts are anticipated.
2. Driller shall construct a sanitary sewer line and connect to
the County Sanitary Sewer System.
3. Driller shall obtain prior written approval from the Los
Angeles County Sanitation District prior to the issuance by
the Hermosa Beach Public Works Department of a permit to
connect.
4. All cost associated with sanitary sewer concerns shall be
paid for by the driller.
NOISE/VIBRATION
1. The entire drilling operation shall have state of the art
acoustical treatment for noise to be within the standards set
forth in the City's Oil Ordinance.
a) the following decibel levels shall be met at all times:
TABLE I
Cumulative number
of minutes
In any one-hour
time period
30
15
5
1
0
Noise Level
Daytime
8:00 am to
7:00 pm
50
55
60
65
70
Standards, dBA
Nighttime
7:00 pm to
8:00 am
45
50
55
60
65
2. Heavy/large reciprocating equipment shall be mounted on state
of the art vibration isolators; adequate data shall be
submitted a Plan Check to the satisfaction of the Building
Director.
3. Pumping units shall be maintained to eliminate noise from
worn parts.
4. The drilling rig shall be acoustically wrapped and/or paneled
including the ancillary and support equipment to meet the
requirements of the noise ordinance.
5. Tripping will be restricted to daylight hours unless
additional noise attenuation measures are employed.
6. Loudspeaker paging systems shall be prohibited.
7. Well workover rigs shall be operated during daytime weekday
hours only, except in an emergency.
8. All maintenance equipment and vehicles shall be equipped with
manufacturer approved mufflers.
LANDSCAPING
1. A Landscape Plan for Phase I and II indicating the type,
size and quantity of plant materials shall be submitted to
the Planning Director for review and approval.
2. During Phase I, test facility, landscaping consisting of 24"
box, or larger size trees may be installed without permanent
planting.
3. Trees fro Phase I and II shall be adequate in size to create
a buffer effect to obscure visibility of oil production
activity.
4. A minimum of one tree for each 10' of lot perimeter shall be
provided.
5. Landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean
condition.
6. A complete automatic sprinkler system shall be provided prior
to commencement of Phase II.
AESTHETICS
1. The tanks and production facility shall be painted a neutral
color to blend in with the surroundings; color shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission/
2. Eliminate the use of architectural lighting beyond safety and
security requirements.
3. The site(s) for drilling equipment and the storage facilities
shall be depressed in combination with walls so that the
visual impact is minimized.
4. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded and directed toward
the center of both sites.
5. Lighting shall be limited solely to the amount and
intensities necessary for safety and security purposes at
both sites.
6. Certain activities which might involve unshielded lighting
(i.e., site preparation and restoration) activities shall be
limited to daylight hours and thus not require nighttime
lighting.
7. A decorative masonry or concrete wall/fence of a minimum of
12 feet in height shall be provided; wall materials shall be
reviewed and approved by Planning Director. Site preparation
prior to test drilling shall have 6' high fencing.
8.The height of the site's perimeter wall shall be increased to
at least 16 feet if beam pumping units are installed for
production, such that they are not visible from street level.
9. Tanks shall be submerged 8 to 10 feet or more below grade and
will be adjacent to the 12 -foot high privacy wall.
10. The drill derrick shall be dismantled and stored if it is to
remain idle for more than 90 days.
11. All derricks masts hereafter erected for drilling,
re -drilling or remedial operations or for use in production
operations shall be removed within 30 days after completion
of the work unless otherwise ordered by the Division of Oil
and Gas of the state.
12. The applicant shall diligently pursue drilling operations
until the well is completed or abandoned to the satisfaction
of the Division of Oil and Gas of the state and upon
completion or abandonment shall remove all drilling equipment
from the drill site within 30 days following completion or
abandonment of the well unless otherwise ordered by the
Division of Oil and Gas.
ODORS/VAPOR/AIR POLLUTION
1. A vapor recovery system shall be installed to recover 90% of
hydrocarbon emissions during storage and transfer of crude
oil.
2. The flaming and venting of gas shall not be allowed into the
atmosphere.
3. Gas and vapor detection systems shall be installed at
appropriate locations.
4. All project site activities shall be conductedsuch as to
eliminate escape of gas in accordance with best available
control technology and practices.
5. All requirements of AQMD shall be met at all times.
6. Commercial recovery systems shall be employed for the
exploratory phase and permanent facility to eliminate odors
from waste gases.
7. Tanks shall be designed and located so that no odors or fumes
can be detected.
8. Operators shall not blow lines to the atmosphere, except
under emergency conditions.
9. Construction equipment and vehicles shall be maintained in
proper tune.
10. Odorless drilling muds shall be used.
11. Well tubing and rods will remain out of the well during
workover operations less than 8 -hours. The tubing will be
surface washed with a detergent solution to remove odor
bearing residual hydrocarbons if exposed longer than 8 -hours.
12. Odor control will be further enforced by the SCAQMD under
Rule 402 of their regulations.
GRADING/STORM WATER/SITE RUNOFF
1. Grading shall not be done on days when winds are 8 m.p.h. or
greater.
2. Normal wetting procedures shall be employed during grading.
3. Graded surfaces shall be paved or landscaped.
4. Project site(s) shall be graded so that all contaminated
runoff is collected and treated on-site and disposed of
according to all laws.
5. Site(s) shall be graded in a manner so that all hazardous or
contaminated fluids and runoff are directed toward a well
cellar and disposed of properly.
6. No water from the site shall be allowed to enter the storm
drainage system or any public area.
7. No water from the site shall be allowed to surface flow
across the public beach.
8. Oil drilling operations shall not interfere with any of the
recreation uses on the public beach.
9. All costs associated with storm water and site runoff
concerns shall be paid for by the driller.
PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION
1. The pipeline operators shall adhere to all applicable
federal, state, regional, and local statutes governing
design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the
pipelines and related equipment.
2. A detailed pipeline survey shall be conducted in order to
locate existing pipelines prior to excavation for pipeline
construction.
3. A responsible agent paid for by the applicant shall be
present during excavations.
4. Areas of construction and maintenance activities shall be
delineated by signs, flagmen, pavement markings, barricades,
and lights, as determined by permit requirements of all local
agencies.
5. Where pedestrian activities are affected during construction,
appropriate warning signs shall be installed and pedestrians
will be diverted. Pedestrian access to businesses and
residences will be maintained during construction. Special
facilities, such as handrails, fences, and walkways shall be
provided, if necessary, for the safety of pedestrians.
6. Obstruction of emergency vehicle operations will be partially
mitigated by ensuring that providers of emergency services
are kept informed of the location, nature, and duration of
construction activities so alternate routes can be chosen.
It is essential that fire department access is maintained to
all buildings adjacent to construction activities. For this
reason, a minimum of at least one lane for streets undergoing
construction will be kept open at all times, and fire
hydrants in construction areas will remain accessible.
7. If public transit stops along pipeline routes need to be
temporarilyrelocated during construction, the applicant
shall coordinate with the appropriate local operators to
provide signs directing riders to the temporary stop
locations.
8. When hauling excavated and waste materials from construction
sites, substandard roadways will be avoided and local
jurisdiction regulations governing hauling vehicles will be
adhered to.
Pipeline construction and operation of earth moving equipment
shall be limited to daylight hours between 8:00 AM and 3:00
PM and shall not be permitted during weekend periods.
Additionally, construction -related trucks should not be
operated during peak traffic hours of 7 to 9 AM and 3 to 7
PM. Pipeline construction at major intersections shall be
DRAFT
limited to daylight hours between 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM to
avoid peak traffic periods.
10. Equipment deliveries shall be made only during daytime hours
between 8 AM and 3 PM.
11. In order to reduce visual impacts and possible safety
hazards, storage of pipes and other materials, as well as
construction equipment, shall- not be permitted on any street
during non -construction hours.
12. Area residents shall be notified about the pipeline
construction operation prior to commencement of construction.
13. Detour signs on pipeline construction routes shall be placed
at appropriate locations.
14. Steel plates covering pipeline excavation trenches shall be
placed to permit traffic movement during non -construction
hours.
15. Pipelines shall be designed with ample safety factors,
pressure -tested prior to being placed in operation, and
monitored for corrosion once in operation.
16. Safety shut -down devices that respond to drops in pipeline
pressure shall be incorporated into the project in order to
stop the flow of the pipeline contents in case of a pipeline
rupture.
17. Groundwater level and land subsidence shall be monitored to
insure that pipeline damage does not occur as a result of
geologic and hydrologic phenomena.
18. Pipeline construction along Valley Drive shall be approved by
the Director of Public Works prior to issuance of a permit.
19. Pipeline construction shall not occur in the area known as
the Hermosa Valley Greenbelt.
20. Storage of materials shall not be allowed on the Hermosa
Valley Greenbelt.
21. Trenches shall be covered during non -working hours to
minimize traffic circulation problems.
22. All costs associated with the pipeline construction shall be
paid by the driller.
p/oileir
EXHIBIT C
LLIt.;4112-,W.10_1
OIL COMPANY
2716 OCEAN PARK BOULEVARD. SUITE 3080
SANTA MONICA. CALIFORNIA 90405
TEL 213 452 3880 FAX 213 452 0058
February 23, 1990
Mr. Michael Schubach
Planning Director
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
1 MO
Re: Subsidence Mitigation and Control for the Proposed Oil
Drilling and Production Facility at the City Maintenance Yard
Dear- Mike:
This letter will review subsidence questions and concerns regarding
potential oil production in Hermosa Beach. It will explain the
mitigation measures that will be implemented to ensure that
subsidence in Hermosa Beach is inconsequential. This is a summary
of the information contained in the Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR) and the two subsequent Response to Comments documents
(RtC One and RtC Two) that were prepared for the proposed drilling
and production project.
The surface subsidence in the existing oilfields of Wilmington and
Torrance has been well documented. The subsidence was not expected
nor planned for. Therefore, production from these fields continued
for almost twenty years before action was taken to stop the
subsidence. The subsidence was stopped once water injection was
initiated to repressure the oil formations. In some areas the
subsidence was even reversed by five to ten percent.
Recent suggestions from Redondo Beach are that surface subsidence
has occurred in that city's harbor, and it was caused by oil
production. There are several potential causes of subsidence, one
is oil production, the others are the natural phenomenon of
compaction and erosion. The cause of the Redondo Harbor subsidence
is being investigated. We would like to state here that water
injection to stop potential surface subsidence from oil production
activity was never begun in the Redondo Beach oilfield.
Macpherson Oil Company has not operated an oilfield that has caused
surface subsidence, and does not plan to start in Hermosa Beach.
On pages 49 and 50 of the DEIR, the subsidence Mitigation Measures
for the project are described. The first of these measures states:
"If more than three wells are to be drilled, an elevation survey
should be run across the project to be used as a base reference for
future surveys." This means that if the exploratory wells find
economic, recoverable oil, that an elevation baseline survey will
be completed.
SZ
Mr. Michael Schubach
February 23, 1990
Page 2
The second Mitigation Measure (p. 50, DEIR) states: "The site
survey will be repeated on a yearly basis if further development
proceeds. The resulting data will be reviewed to determine if
mitigation measures are needed; such as, shutting in of high volume
brine wells, and/or the injection of water to provide pressure
maintenance." Additionally, in RtC One, page 24, Comment 42 from
the State DOG states: "...and on year from the initial survey and
every year for the next two years thereafter. If there is no
indication of subsidence, or remedial measures are controlling
subsidence, the. survey should be performed every two years
thereafter." As you can see, Macpherson Oil Company has planned to
comply with existing requirements of the DOG to monitor and arrest
any subsidence before it is significant.
Again, subsidence has been stopped in Wilmington and Torrance
fields with water injection for pressure maintenance. The problems
arose in those fields because the original developers of those
fields did not know subsidence would occur. Macpherson Oil Company
acknowledges that there is potential for subsidence, and plans to
comply with existing State DOG requirements to monitor the surface
for elevations changes, and to implement the required water
injection program to arrest subsidence that may be occurring as a
result of the oil production operations. Response 116 on page 51
in RtC One states: "... The subsidence preventative measures noted
in section 4.3.3 of the DEIR will be implemented before elevation
changes of more than a few tenths of a foot. It should be noted
that precise leveling surveys would reveal subsidence in hundredths
of a foot and control measures could be implemented to prevent
continuation of the process." Macpherson Oil Company will begin a
water injection program for pressure maintenance if subsidence of
one and one-half inches (0.125 feet) is observed in the annual
elevation survey. This water injection program would then be
continued for the life of the project.
The staff of Macpherson Oil Company does not feel that subsidence
will occur in Hermosa Beach because of the thin nature of the oil
producing formations and the natural water drive that should be
present. However, we will implement the subsidence identification
program, and a subsidence control program if subsidence is in fact
occurring.
I hope that any lingering concerns you may have had, concerning
subsidence, have been put to rest with this letter, emphasizing our
commitment to protect the City of Hermosa Beach from potential
subsidence from oil drilling and production. I trust that with
this information you should be able to field any questions raised
by the Planning Commission or the public concerning subsidence.
Mr. Michael Schubach
February 23, 1990
Page 3
If I can answer any questions you may have or provide you with any
additional information, please let me know.
Very truly yours,
Donald R. Macpherson, Jr.
President
DRMj /j r
CC: Peter Cohen
Chris Williamson
Ivan Tether
EXHIBIT D
OIL COMPAN Y
2716 OCEAN PARK BOULEVARD. SUITE 3080
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90405
TEL 213 452 3880 FAX 213 452 0058
February 27, 1990
Mr. Michael Schubach
Planning Director
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
Re: Alternate Drill Site Study
Dear Mike:
.i 1990
There has been some consideration that the Redondo Beach Marina
site or the Herondo site could be used to develop both the onshore
and offshore oilfield under the City of Hermosa Beach. For the
moment let us disregard the questions of the legality of such an
action and the fact that the site is owned by other interests, and
pursue the matter strictly from a technical and economic point of
view.
From a technical point of view with enough money wells can be
drilled horizontally to great lengths, but from the practical point
of view the limit is restricted by the drilling costs in
relationship to production of oil.
If Macpherson Oil Company could successfully drill as far out
horizontally (4500 feet) as the operator did at the Marina site
only 13 of a possible 35 wells could be drilled or only 37% of the
acreage that is potentially productive could be economically
developed. (See attached map.) The remainder would be lost.
In the case of development from the Herondo site more locations
could be developed than from the Marina site but this percentage
would not be above 80% and decrease rapidly to 60-70% if the
development was more successful to the north. (See attached map.)
Another method to determine how much could be developed is to
establish the economic viability of long holes. Financially,
operators usually estimate that the well cost should be no more
than 25% of the income. The remainder covers production costs,
royalty, present worth and profits. The average well will produce
about $4,000,000 in revenue, which means that any well costing more
than about $1,000,000 will be non-commercial. Anticipated well
costs including the drilling, casing, tubing, production equipment
Mr. Michael Schubach
February 27, 1990
Page 2
costs and related costs are about $211 per foot. This means any
well that is over 4700 feet long is probably not commercial. This
is consistent with the 4500 feet mentioned above because that
figure does not include the adjustment for the vertical depth.
In resume, then, using either the Herondo or the Marina site would
result in a loss of 20% to 63% of the oil that could be recovered
from the Maintenance Yard.
Sincerely yours,
Donald R. Macpherson, Jr.
President
DRMj/jr
Enclosure
TO RECOMMEND CERTIFICATION OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
Tin, PROPOSED OIL EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION FACILITY AT THE CITY YARD. 555
6TH STREET. AND AT THE SOUTH SCHOOL SITE. 425 VALLEY DRIVE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 1, 1990. He stated that the purpose of this action is:
(1) to recommend certifying the EIR; (2) to amend the general plan open space element of the
general plan to allow for oil drilling at the City yard and South School site; (3) to amend the
zoning ordinance to permit oil drilling with a conditional use permit and a vote of the people
in the manufacturing zone and the open space zone.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the
following: (1) certification of the EIR as being adequate and accurate with the staffs
recommended list of mitigation measures included; (2) adoption of the alternative project
utilizing the City yard as the sole location for the drilling and storage facility of oil production;
and (3) adoption of the proposed general plan and text amendments resolution necessary for oil
production at the City yard only.
Mr. Schubach noted that staff is no longer recommending that the South School site be utilized
for oil drilling.
In 1984 two oil drilling exceptions were approved by the voters. Ordinance No: 84-758 excepted
the City maintenance yardfrom a drilling prohibition and allows the City to drill into the
tidelands and other onshore areas within the City. To the extent that monies can be diverted
from the tidelands trust, such monies will be used for open space and parkland purposes.
Under Ordinance No. 84-759 the school district has the right to drill from the South School site
to oil and gas deposits onshore.
Once the ballot measure was approved, the City began drafting an oil code to regulate oil and
gas development by new developers.
After several drafts which were reviewed by the Oil Recovery Committee, the Planning
Commission, and the City Council, a comprehensive oil code was adopted regulating the new
oil and gas development. Any driller must obtain a conditional use permit from the City, and
drilling must take place from one or both of the voter -approved sites.
P.C. Minutes3/6/90
After the oil code was completed, the City filed an application with the State Lands
Commission to allow for oil and gas drilling. The Commission required an EIR prior to
application approval.
The City Environmental Review Committee prepared an assessment of the impacts of drilling
for oil. A request for proposal (RFP) was then proposed for the purpose of obtaining bids for the
preparation of the EIR. The school district also had Ultrasystems prepare an EIR for drilling at
the South School site.
After preparation and review by the City staff and school staff of the two EIR's, both the City
and School District determined that a joint EIR would be appropriate and consequently had
the two documents merged into one. The joint development was found environmentally
superior to two separate operations.
Once the draft document was complete, it was distributed to State and County agencies and to
City departments for review and comment.
On July 17, 1989, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider certification of
the EIR. The matter was continued to provide for response to the public comments. At the
September 1989 meeting, additional comments were accepted and the matter was again
continued. At the November 8, 1989, meeting this matter was again continued, since the City
Council had requested that the consultants consider other alternatives to the relocation of the
City yard.
On February 5, 1990, the draft Volume III was made available to the public for 30 days. At this
time there are three volumes to the Draft EIR: Volume 1 -- the original EIR is provided in this
volume; Volume II -- all the original comments and responses to comments regarding Volume
1; and Volume III -- contains additional comments/responses, expanded environmental
assessment for City Maintenance Yard and consolidated project alternative, relocation of
existing City maintenance yard, expanded analysis of pipeline impacts, and proposed project
trucking plan.
Opportunity for public input has been extended beyond the minimum State requirements.
Ultimately, three opportunities totaling approximately 105 days will be provided prior to the
Planning Commissions' recommendation to certify the EIR. Further, additional public input
opportunity will be provided at the City Council public hearing.
Based on the data found with the EIR Volume III, dated February 1990, staff believes that the
alternative of placing the entire oil production facility on the City yard will significantly
reduce some of the negative impacts which could occur. Under this alternative, the South
School site will not be utilized whatsoever.
Another potential location of the drill site is at the current oil production facility in Redondo
Beach. Staff felt that these are both economic and legal factors which make this site
unfeasible. A legal opinion which the staff, including the City Attorney, concurs with, was
attached as Exhibit A.
In regard to the impacts and mitigation measures for the production facility, there will be
certain temporary unavoidable adverse effects which will occur during the initial site
preparation and construction phase of the project. Short term impacts include: (1) Noise. An
increase in ambient noise levels during site preparation and exploratory phase may be
perceived; (2) Air Quality. Air emissions will result from construction equipment, truck, and
personal vehicle traffic; (3) Visual. The 135 -foot derrick will be visible over a substantial
distance and from residences for several years; (4) Light and glare. Light from the site security
and from drilling derrick in addition to the aircraft safety lights atop the derrick will be
visible to the surrounding area; (5) Shade /shadow. Shade from the derrick will extend from
about 177 feet from the site at the summer solstice to about 920 feet during the winter. Shadows
will be narrow and effects confined to about one hour per day for nearby properties; (6)
P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
Transportation/ circulation. A potential for traffic disruption to accommodate the hauling of
material and equipment to and from the site and during pipeline construction will occur.
Long-term impacts include: (1) Air Quality. Some hydrocarbon odor may be detected
periodically; (2) Mineral resources. The project will result in an incremental contribution to
the depletion of the underlying reservoir of oil and natural gas; (3) Visual. The upper portions
of the 16 -foot oil storage tanks will be visible from some locations at the City yard for the
duration of the project; (4) Utilities. The pipeline will consume space in the underground
utility corridor.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff feels that subsidence could be a potential impact; therefore,
material has been included regarding that issue. He said that mitigation measures have been
provided for this.
Mr. Schubach noted that staff has proposed an alternative to the recommendation of certifying
the EIR with mitigation measures included. He stated that an alternative resolution which
would allow the Commission the opportunity to place conditions on the project once the
project has been approved has been provided. At that time, conditions could be imposed on the
CUP. He therefore suggested that the EIR, Volumes I -III, be certified at this time, with the
mitigation measures as shown in the document. Once the general plan and text amendments
are approved, additional stringent conditions can be imposed.
Mr. Schubach continued by explaining that the pipeline development mitigation measures are
very good. Also, it is no longer necessary to relocate the City yard; however, once the precise
location is determined, additional mitigation measures can be included.
Mr. Schubach stated that in order to implement initiatives P and Q passed by the voters, it is
necessary to amend the general plan and zoning ordinance. Although the proposed ordinance
includes discussion of allowing drilling in the open space zone, this portion of the ordinance
will not be necessary if the staffs recommendation is adopted to allow drilling only at the City
yard on industrial designated, manufacturing zoned property. In any case, the ordinance
allows oil drilling by a vote of the people and with a conditional use permit.
CEQA requires the decision -maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its
unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the
benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the
adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable."
Where the decision of the City allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified
in the final EIR but are not at least substantially mitigated, the City needs to state in writing
the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/ or other information in
the record.
If the City makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in
the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination.
The general funds of the City which will be ultimately available if the project is successful are
earmarked to buy open space. Staff believes this clearly is an overriding consideration.
Further, restricted funds which- also will be available to the City may be used to maintain the
beach.
The City needs to provide findings which indicate that for each negative impact, a change or
alteration has been required which avoids or substantially lessens the effect.
The staff -recommended alternative and recommended mitigation measures clearly avoid or
reduce the effects noted within the EIR except for the elimination of a natural resource; oil and
gas. Mr. Schubach stated that one overriding consideration is in regard to the tower which will
be visible for three years. He noted that there is just no way to mitigate this impact.
P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
Additional data regarding subsidence and alternative drill sites has been provided by
Macpherson Oil Company.
Subsidence has become a particularly important factor because of the recent revelations
regarding subsidence at Redondo Beach King Harbor. The staff has attempted to develop
conditions which are more along the lines of being preventative.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce, noted that staff had just today
received a letter from the State Lands Commission, dated March 6, 1990. He continued by
explaining the function of the State Lands Commission.
Mr. Lee explained that the State Lands Commission undertook a review of this EIR and
provided comments during the review period. At the last moment they faxed to the City
additional comments on the EIR. He stated that it would be appropriate to ask the
environmental consultant whether the current three volumes of the EIR adequately address
the issues raised by the State Lands Commission. He continued by more fully explaining the
purpose of the State Lands Commission.
Comm. Peirce noted that only today the City had received a letter asking that the EIR not be
certified. He asked whether the State Lands Commission actually has any jurisdiction over
this matter.
Mr. Lee responded that this particular project does not fall within the direct jurisdiction of
that agency.
Comm. Peirce stated that the individual who wrote the letter was commenting under the
letterhead of the State Lands Commission; however, that agency does not have purview, even
though the individual raised several points.
Mr. Lee, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, explained that the State Lands Commission
has purview over projects which drill into the tidelands, which this project does not propose to
do. This project proposes only onshore drilling; therefore, the State Lands Commission does
not have purview, although they do have a right to submit comments in regard to the EIR which
must receive a response.
Torn Morley addressed the Commission and discussed the issue of the State Lands Commission
and applicable California law.
Peter Cohen, 16865 Von Karmen Avenue, Irvine, representing Ultrasystems Environmental
Services, addressed the Commission. He stated that the staff report was adequate. He stated
that he received the letter from the State Lands Commission only this evening, and he noted
that he feels they have adequately responded to the concerns raised by that Commission in the
current document. He said that the issues raised in the letter are not new and are redundant
and the Commission is not clear in stating its reasons for not accepting the previous responses.
For this reason, he suggested that certification be delayed so that they can further address in
detail the concerns of the State Lands Commission. A response can be prepared and reviewed
by staff and the attorney and presented to the Planning Commission at the next meeting.
Don Macpherson, representing Macpherson Oil Company, addressed the Commission and
stated that the EIR addresses both onshore and tidelands development. He therefore felt that
the State Lands Commissions' concerns should be considered. He said that he would not oppose
continuing this matter to the next meeting so that the concerns can be addressed.
Public Hearing opened at 10:27 P.M. by Chinn. Ingell.
Harry Kahn, 523 3rd Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he had asked that
the issue of turning radius be addressed and studied, and he does not feel that the document
P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
adequately covers that issue; (2) stated that he specifically had asked about the effects of a
dozen or so trucks weighing approximately 65,000 pounds and the dynamic effects of these
trucks on Valley Drive; (3) stated that he did not see this concern addressed in the document; (4)
stated that the original EIR said that trucks would come to this project between 8:00 A.M. and
7:00 P.M., and there would be no truck traffic on the weekends; (5) commented that the current
EIR now asserts that truck traffic will occur on the weekends with one to three trucks daily; (6)
said that weekend truck traffic will be used for removal purposes from the site; (7) asked why
the facts on the trucks has now changed; (8) challenged Ultrasystem's position on what will be
happening at this project; (9) stated that his comment is listed in the document as Number 31;
(10) stated that the only reason for weekend truck traffic would be in case of an emergency.
Comm. Peirce noted that Mr. Kahn's comment had been addressed and is noted as response No.
207 on Page 104 of the document (Volume III) under the heading of "dynamic moving weight."
Mr Kahn noted, however, that the issue of truck traffic has now changed from the assertions
contained in the initial document. He felt that all the facts should be presented.
George Sacks, 225 Valley Drive, addressed the Commission and (1) stated that the letter from
the State Lands Commission should be addressed before a decision is made; (2) discussed the
three criteria on which that Commission bases its decisions; (3) stated that if there is not
proper drainage at the project, the project can be turned down; (4) noted that Redondo Beach is
draining Hermosa's fields, and he questioned whether the proposed project will have proper
drainage; (5) said that the State Lands Commission raised several points which have not been
fully answered; (6) commented that there is no plan for verifying and enforcing compliance
with environmental regulations, complaints, and operations; (7) noted that staff has proposed
many mitigations, however, he felt that a method of follow-up and verification on a day-to-day
basis is necessary; (8) felt that there should be a continuing program for the continual
monitoring of pollutants; (9) felt that overall the EIR is still an adversarial document for the
oil project rather than an unbiased analysis; (10) commented on an article in the L.A. Times,
dated January 14, which addressed the issue that there may be major gaps in the underground
layer of silt and clay from the aquifers, from which most of the South Bay's drinking water is
derived; (11) noted that the aquifers may not be adequate, and he continued by reading from the
actual article; (12) was not convinced that the project is safe and will not have many adverse
impacts.
Tom Morley, 516 Loma Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted that he has done much
study on this issue and has submitted a great deal of information to the City; (2) stated that
additional issues will need to be addressed by the City Council; (3) stated that his comment No.
308 has not been adequately addressed; (4) discussed the CEQA criteria related to his comment
No. 308; (5) read from CEQA Section 15204; (6) stressed that alternative sites must be
adequately and thoroughly addressed; (7) felt that the project should actually be in Redondo
Beach. and he continued by discussing the revenue aspects of the project; (8) discussed Response
No. 39, stating that it is not adequate; (9) discussed the potential revenue from Redondo Beach,
and he felt that more analysis needs to be done on that issue; (10) discussed the issue of
alternatives to the proposed action, and he read from CEQA Section 15126(d); (11) stated that
the report does not address the comparative alternatives to the project; (12) stated that an
objective analysis has not been performed.
Mr. Morley went on: (1) stated that the specifics of the document are not adequate to certify; (2)
again discussed his comment No. 308 and the fact that he does not feel the response is adequate;
(3) noted that there are many different ways to obtain oil, some of which might be more
expensive, and they have not been addressed adequately; (4) continued by reading additional
sections from the CEQA guidelines in regard to mitigation measures; (5) felt that alternative
locations for the tank farm have not been addressed; (6) discussed short-term use of the project
in relation to the long-term outcome; (7) asked whether he can submit his comments in
writing.
-6Z--
P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
•
Mr. Lee, in response to comments by Comm Peirce, recalled that at the last Commission
meeting on this issue, the public hearing was closed off to new public input. The purpose of this
hearing is to obtain only new comments to the responses to comments previously given.
Mr. Morley stated that review of the EIR should focus on the sufficiency of the document, and
he is not giving new testimony.
Comm. Peirce stated that just because someone doesn't like the response given to his comment,
certification cannot be denied on that basis.
Mr. Schubach stated that it is now the decision of the Commission to determine whether or not
the EIR is certifiable. He noted that the review period has already been extended several times;
therefore, new information should not be taken. He stated that additional new data on the
adequacy of the EIR is not appropriate at this time since the time period has elapsed.
Mr. Morley stated that he thought certification of the EIR was being addressed at this time; he
merely wanted to share his information on why the document is not certifiable. He requested
that the State Lands Commission letter (dated March 6, 1990) be included in the record. He also
requested that he be allowed to submit written comments as to why the EIR is not certifiable.
Mr. Lee stated that there is nothing to prevent Mr. Morley from submitting his written
comments to the City Council, should the Commission recommend certification of the EIR.
Public Hearing closed at 10:55 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Peirce felt that the only outstanding issue appears to be the letter received today from
the State Lands Commission; however, he felt that the consultants have adequately answered
all of the questions that have been raised. He therefore did not feel it would be appropriate to
delay certification for another two weeks because of the letter. He noted that the State Lands
Commission had ample time in which to submit a response; however, they waited until the
very last moment.
Comm. Rue questioned whether sufficient information has been given related to the specific
facts and figures requested by CEQA. He said that he was not certain that he feels comfortable
recommending certification at this time. He was not certain that this is a true, complete, and
independent EIR.
Chinn. Ingell agreed with Comm. Rue and noted that the applicant has suggested that the
matter be continued to allow time to respond to the comments raised by the State Lands
Commission.
Comm. Moore asked what additional, specific data is desired. He stated that there are bound to
be potential negative impacts; however, he feels that the document has adequately specified
those impacts. He noted that the study should propose mitigation measures for the impacts,
and he felt that the document proposes adequate mitigation measures. He did not feel that the
Commission could be enlightened much more on this issue, noting that this matter has been
studied for many months. He stated that the City owes a responsibility to the applicant to
render a timely decision. He felt that the study and the Commission have performed their duty.
He anticipated in-depth study on additional issues at the City Council leveL He stated that he is
ready to support recommending approval of this EIR.
Comm. Rue noted that Mr. Macpherson has agreed to a continuation in order to address the
concerns raised by the State Lands Commission, which appear to be quite specific. He stated
that the concerns raised are related to safety, and he felt that additional information is
necessary.
Mr. Schubach noted that the proposed resolution states that this project will be subject to
additional conditions being placed on it if determined necessary.
P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
-b3-
Comm, Peirce maintained that the six items contained in the State Lands Commission letter
are adequately addressed in the document.
Comm. Ketz stated that she could not support delaying this action unless very specific requests
are made. She noted that there are three very comprehensive documents related to the issue,
and she felt that the issues have been adequately addressed. She further noted that during the
conditional use permit process additional conditions and mitigation measures can be placed
on this project if they are deemed necessary.
Mr. Lee clarified for the benefit of the Commission the CEQA requirements for EIR approval.
He advised that projects are not to be studied ad infinitum, but rather that the issues should be
adequately addressed and mitigation measures be recommended. He further noted that the
project will be studied by many other agencies as the project goes through the normal
processes. He suggested that a condition be included requiring that the operator consent to
additional review if there are changed circumstances or conditions which would warrant
further environmental review.
Tom Morley again addressed the Commission and read from Section 15146 of the CEQA
guidelines regarding the degree of specificity for projects.
Comm. Rue noted that other agencies, as well as the City Council, will study this project in
more detail. Therefore, he could support approval at this time.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Moore, to recommend approval of the
alternative Resolution P.C. 90-18, with' the amendment that Item B be modified to state:
"...thus reducing substantially the potential adverse impacts as noted above."
Comm. Peirce noted that the alternate resolution provides for the imposition of additional
conditions and constraints in the future if deemed necessary after further study.
Mr. Schubach clarified that many of the conditions are required by the oil ordinance: however,
additional conditions may also be imposed. He noted that the motion on the floor would
include all conditions included in Volumes I through Ill of the report as well as future proposed
conditions.
Mr. Lee advised that approval of this motion does not preclude the Commission from further
discussion on environmental issues at the time the conditional use permit is addressed.
Chmn. Ingell stated that he would vote against the motion, based on the fact that both
Ultrasystems and the oil company representative had requested that the matter be continued
so that the concerns raised in the letter from the State Lands Commission could be addressed.
AYES: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue
NOES: Churn. Inge11
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Lee, in response to comments from Chmn Ingell, stated that, even though not legally
required, it would be appropriate to include in the text of the resolution the dates of all public
hearings held on this matter.
TEXT AMENDMENT TO GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT OIL AND GAS
DRILLING AND PRODUCTION WHEN ALLOWED BY A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report. He stated that the general plan is being amended to allow for
oil and gas drilling and production when allowed by a vote of the people.
P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
Public Hearing opened at 11:24 P.M. by Chmn Ingell.
Tom Morley, 516 Loma Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that this action will
change allowable uses on a particular piece of land; (2) discussed environmental law, which
states that the matters are not supposed to be separated; (3) read from the California. Primer on
Environmental Law provided by the State of California in regard to chopping up projects; (4)
said that the example given in the law primer specifically addresses this particular project.
Public Hearing closed at 11:28 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-19, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING TO IMPLEMENT INITIATIVES P AND Q
THEREFORE ALLOWING OIL DRILLING AT THE CITY YARD.
Chmn. Ingell explained that he would vote against the motion, based on the fact that the
consultant and applicant both favored a continuance of this matter.
AYES: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue
NOES: Churn. Ingell
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Schubach. in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, explained what will occur next in
regard to this matter.
6
5-
P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
STA"'E OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
LEO T. McCARTHY, Lieutenant Governor
GRAY DAVIS, Controller
JESSE R. HUFF, Director of Finance
March 6, 1990
Mr. Michael Schubach
Planning Director
City of Hermosa Beach
Civic Center
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885
Dear Mr. Schubach:
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
1807 - 13th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
CHARLES WARREN
Executive Officer
Thank you for the opportunity to submit our comments on the
Responses to Public Hearing Comments on the Draft EIR (Responses)
for the City's proposed "Oil Exploration and Production from an
Urban Drillsite". We ask that our comments be provided to the
City's Planning Commission at their meeting tonight, March 6, and
be made a part of the record of their consideration of the
certification of the project's EIR.
We have reviewed the Responses and believe that the Planning
Commission should neither certify nor recommend certification of
the Final EIR as being adequate under the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document is
inadequate to the extent, as we have previously commented, that it
unnecessarily postpones the preparation of information and analyses
critical to the City's consideration of this project. By that same
exclusion, the public and responsible agencies under the CEQA are
unable to comment on such information and recommend additional
mitigation or conditions to the City prior to its consideration of
the project. For your reference, such critical information
includes: 1) soils testing at the site(s) which will determine
facility design. This need is especially important since the
permit for the physical components of the facilities is a
ministerial building permit; 2) the Oil Spill Prevention Control
Countermeasures Plan; 3) the Oil Drilling Contingency Plan; 4) the
determination of the project's hazard footprint and resultant
effects on surrounding sensitive land uses; 5) a security plan; and
6) the extent of fire suppression systems for the site(s).
The Responses also contains an "Expanded Environmental
Assessment For City Maintenance Yard Oil Exploration and Production
Consolidated Project Alternative" (Appendix A) and an additional
analysis of the City Maintenance Yard relocation (Appendix B). We
have reviewed this material and believe there are deficiencies
similar to those we have noted in the. Draft EIR. Further, we
believe that this material would have been more properly circulated
MR. MICHAEL SCHUBACH
March 6, 1990
Page 2
as part of a revised Draft EIR so that public and agency comments
on same and the City's responses thereto would have been included
in a comprehensive Responses document. Under the current
procedure, there is no apparent intent to publicly respond to
comments received and it is not clear to whom the Responses
document was sent. The Appendices may not have been circulated to
as wide an audience as was the original Draft EIR. On either
issue, we believe that the City's procedure is not in conformance
with the requirements of the CEQA.
In summary, the staff of the State Lands Commission recommends
that the Planning Commission should not take any action which would
result in the certification of the Final EIR for this project as
we believe it is inadequate under the requirements of the CEQA.
Should you have any questions or require clarification of our
position, please contact me at (916) 322-7827.
DW±GH E. SANDERS, Chief
Di on of Research
and Planning
cc: Charles Warren, Executive Officer
Robert C. Hight, Chief Counsel
W. M. Thompson, Chief, Extractive Development Division
HANNA AND MORTON
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
LAWYERS
600 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, IT,. FLOOR -
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-3229
(213) 628-7131
April 2, 1990
BY TELECOPY AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
Mr. Mike Schubach, Director
Planning Department
City of Hermosa Beach
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885
Re: Oil Exploration and Production
from an Urban Drillsite
Dear Mr. Schubach:
I am writing on behalf of Macpherson Oil Company. We
want to emphasize our commitment to respond fully as the Project
is developed to the concerns enumerated by the State Lands
Commission (SLC) in its March 6, 1990 letter. We also want to
clarify the substance and timing of the regulatory requirements
which we will meet to respond to the SLC's concerns.
The SLC's March 6, 1990 letter asserts that the EIR
"unnecessarily postpones the preparation and analyses critical to
the City's consideration of this project." The SLC provided the
following specifics:
"For your reference, such critical information
includes: 1) soils testing at the site(s) which will
determine facility design. This need is especially
important since the permit for the physical components
of the facilities is a ministerial building permit; 2)
the Oil Spill Prevention Control Countermeasures Plan;
3) the Oil Drilling Contingency Plan; 4) the
determination of the project's hazard footprint and
resultant effects on surrounding sensitive land uses;
Mike Schubach
April 2, 1990
Page 2
HANNA AND MORTON
5) a security plan; and 6) the extent of fire
suppression systems for the site(s)."
(The SLC asserted that similar deficiencies exist in Appendices A
and B of the third EIR document -- analyses of the City Yard
consolidated project and of the City Yard relocation,
respectively.)
Each phase of the Project (exploratory and full-scale)
will require over thirty permits and/or approvals. The EIR must
be prepared and certified before the very first permit is
considered. This timing is appropriate to informing the public
and the reviewing agencies of the Project's environmental
impacts. In the words of the CEQA Guidelines:
"An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of
analysis to provide decision makers with information
which enables them to make a decision which
intelligently takes account of environmental
consequences. An evaluation of the environmental
effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive,
but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the
light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement
among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the
EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement
among the experts. The courts have looked not for
perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good
faith effort at full disclosure."
(CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15151. See also, San
Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San Francisco
(1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 584, 594, 122 Cal.Rptr. 100 (where the court
upheld the EIR in the face of several challenges of inadequacy
and stated:
"Preparation of EIR need not be interminably delayed
'to include all potential comments or results of works
in progress which might shed some additional light on
the subject of the impact statement. . . . The courts
should look for adequacy and completeness in an impact
statement, not perfection.'"
citing National Helium Corp. v. Morton (10th Cir. 1973) 486 F.2d
995, 1004, cert. denied, 416 U.S. 993, 40 L.Ed.2d 772, 94 S.Ct.
2405.)
The EIR is an informative environmental document. The
EIR is not a consolidated permit application. Virtually every
state, county and city agency reviewing the project will require
more detailed, refined information. It is appropriate to defer
,.
Mike Schubach
April 2, 1990
Page 3
HANNA AND MORTON
provision of such information to the time required by each agency
-- particularly where it is evident that these agencies have
adopted procedures and/or regulations which will further refine
mitigation requirements and minimize environmental impacts
already discussed in the EIR. The alternative would be a
gargantuan environmental document prepared at great expense which
by its very volume would jeopardize CEQA's goals of providing
clear, straightforward information to the public and responsible
agencies.
Further, the City of Hermosa Beach, in precise
anticipation of oil production such as the Project, enacted in
1985 a comprehensive oil code (chapter 21A of the City Code).
This 48 -page ordinance imposes many conditions and, requirements
on any oil production project within the City. The City
precisely tailored these conditions and requirements to
accommodate oil production yet mitigate anticipated impacts. The
ordinance regulates aesthetics, truck traffic, fire prevention
and safety, blowout prevention, road dust and mud, waste storage
and control, industrial safety, noise and well abandonment. The
oil code provides the foundation of the City's environmental
mitigation and your office has proposed many additional
mitigation measures for consideration by the City as potential
conditions for the Conditional Use Permit. Further, under the
Code, the City Council may immediately suspend the Project's
permit whenever the Council perceives any immediate menace of.
hazard from oil production.
The information called for by the SLC's comments will
be appropriately provided as follows:
1. Soils Testing: As noted in the EIR 2nd Responses,
Response 52, pp. 47-48, soils testing will berequired for final
project design. Macpherson Oil will prepare this final project
design after the City grants a Conditional Use Permit, since the
conditions imposed in the C.U.P. will affect project design.
Design required to accommodate soils conditions will be a
condition of Project Approval by the City, and the Department of
Building and Safety will require soils testing before issuing a
building permit. Further, seismic considerations will also
require soils testing.
2. Oil Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures
Plan ("Plan"): This Plan is required under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) regulations require a
plan from owners or operators of onshore facilities that "could
reasonably be expected to discharge oil in harmful quantities.
. ." (40 C.F.R. § 112.3(b).) Note that the EPA requires the
_7
O
Mike Schubach
April 2, 1990
Page 4
HANNA AND MORTON
plan to be prepared "within six months after the date such
facility begins operations. Id. (Emphasis added.) The
EIR Second Responses to Comments Document ("EIR 2nd Responses")
notes that this plan will be prepared concurrently with the final
engineering design -- before the facility begins operations, and
well in advance of the time required by EPA. EIR 2nd Responses,
Response 57, p. 49. Further, the EIR notes that the plan must be
approved by the State Division of Oil & Gas, the South Coast Air
Quality Management District, and the Hermosa Beach Public Works,
Fire and Planning & Zoning Departments prior to issuance of
permits for project operation.
The State Division of Oil & Gas requires that an "oil
spill contingency plan" be filed "within six months after initial
production or acquisition of an installation." 14 Cal. Code
Regs. § 1722(b). The Project's timetable calls for preparation
of the Plan after or concurrent with the final engineering
design. The Plan will be completed before construction begins --
well in advance of the Division's deadline.
Note, too, that the EPA sets out in considerable detail
at 40 C.F.R. § 112.7 the required contents of a Plan. (A copy of
this section appears as Attachment A to this letter.) See also,
EIR 2nd Responses, Response 89, p. 57 (which discusses oil spill
containment from tank rupture).
3. Oil Drilling Contingency Plan ("Drilling Plan"):
According to State Division of Oil & Gas staff, the Drilling Plan
is part of a drilling permit, applied for by submitting a notice
of intent to commence drilling, required by Cal. Public Resources
Code § 3203. The notice, which must include such information as
the State Oil & Gas Supervisor may require, must be submitted
before commencing drilling. Id. Because of the proximity of
residences and dedicated public streets, the Project's wells will
be "critical wells" within the meaning of 14 Cal.Code Regs. §
1720(a), so as to require a "blowout prevention and control plan"
per §§ 1722(c) and 1722.5. This will be part of the Drilling
Plan, to be submitted before each well is drilled. Note that the
blowout prevention requirements are imposed to protect, among
other things, nearby residences. These requirements are
specifically tailored to protect urban areas and other sensitive
land uses in very close proximity to the drillsite (within 100 or
300 feet depending on the type of land use).
The blowout prevention portion of the Drilling Plan
will be prepared in accordance with the Division of Oil and Gas
Manual No. M07, "Oil and Gas Well Blowout Prevention in
California." The Drilling Plan will be reviewed by the State
Division of Oil and Gas, the South Coast Air Quality Management
Division and the Hermosa Beach Public Works, Fire and Planning &
Zoning Departments as a necessary requirement of issuance of
permits for Project operation.
Mike Schubach.
April 2, 1990
Page 5
HANNA AND MORTON
4. Hazard Footprint: Hazard footprints identifying
the zones of impact from certain types of accident scenarios have
been prepared for certain large oil projects such as onshore
processing facilities much different from this project. The
public safety concerns reflected in such analyses are amply
provided for in this instance by (1) the Oil Spill Prevention
Control Countermeasures Plan (2) the 0i1 Drilling Contingency
Plan and (3) the several reviews and permits required by the
Hermosa Beach Fire Department. There is no requirement for a
hazard footprint. (See, EIR 2nd Responses, Response 36(12), pp.
32-33.)
In its comments to the Draft EIR, the State Division of
Oil and Gas (with safety jurisdiction over the Project)
recommended certain public safety measures, including:
a. An 8 -foot wall around the site;
b. No climbable landscaping;
c. Review of site plans by the Division's district
office to ensure "adequate safety and shutdown devices;" and
d. A subsidence control plan.
(A copy of the Division's comments is provided as Attachment B.)
Nowhere does the Division say anything about a "hazard footprint"
or other similar analysis.
The Oil Spill and Oil Drilling Plans are discussed
above, numbers 2 and 3. Note, too, that the Hermosa Beach Fire
Department will require:
a. A permit for above ground stationary tanks and
related piping;
b. A tank operation permit;
c. Approval of the Oil Spill plan;
d. Approval of the Oil Drilling plan;
e. A hazardous substance business plan under the
California Health & Safety Code §§ 25500-25520 -- "to prevent or
mitigate the damage to the health and safety of persons and the
environment from the release or threatened release of hazardous
materials into the workplace and environment." (§'25500); and
f. A "Title III" inventory of extremely hazardous
materials.
The State and City agencies with jurisdiction over project safety
have and will impose a comprehensive set of meaningful
requirements to ensure public safety. No "hazard footprint" has
been or is required for a project of this size and nature.
If the City or other Project decision -makers decide
that a hazard footprint analysis is desirable, this could be
accomplished once final engineering design is completed.
Mike Schubach
April 2, 1990
Page 6
HANNA AND MORTON
(See, EIR 2nd Responses, Response 83, p.55.) No meaningful
analysis could be conducted without a final engineering design,
since determining the degree and areal extent of hazard, if any,
depends on precise information about Project configuration and
design.
5. Security Plan: The Draft EIR discusses project
security under Public Safety -- Accessibility (pp. 116 & 120).
Mitigation measures include fences and solid barriers around and
within the site; landscaping to limit the attractiveness of the
site to potential intruders; and a 24-hour guard on-site during
drilling operations. The Applicant will further articulate the
Project security plan as part of the final project design
required by the City before Project approval.
6. Fire Suppression Systems: The City Oil Code
requires a minimum of two fire extinguishers with a minimum
classification of 20B (per N.F.P.A. Volume No. 10). The Hermosa
Beach Fire Department may impose further fire suppression
requirements as it reviews the Project. (See, EIR 2nd Responses,
Response 94, p.58.)
The EIR documents provide Project decision makers with
information which enables them to take intelligent account of the
Project's environmental consequences. The concerns raised by the
SLC are important and will be responded to appropriately as the
Project is developed further.
Thank you for considering our comments on these
issues. Please don't hesitate to call me if you have any
questions.
IJT227
Attachments
cc: Edward Lee, Esq.
Peter Cohen
Very truly yours,
IVAN J. TETHER
3-
§ 112.4
(5) Maximum storage or handling
capacity of the facility and normal
daily throughput;
(6) Description of the facility, in-
cluding maps, flow diagrams, and topo-
graphical maps;
(7) A complete copy of the SPCC
Plan with any amendments;
(8) The cause(s) of such spill, includ-
ing a failure analysis of system or sub-
system in which the failure occurred;
(9) The corrective actions and/or
countermeasures taken, including an
adequate description- of equipment re-
pairs and/or replacements;
(10) Additional preventive measures
taken or contemplated to minimize the
possibility of recurrence;
(11) Such other information as the
Regional Administrator may reason-
ably require pertinent to the Plan or
spill event.
(b) Section 112.4 shall not apply
until the expiration of the time per-
mitted for the preparation and imple-
mentation of an SPCC Plan pursuant
to § 112.3 (a), (b), (c) and (f).
(c) A complete copy of all informa-
tion provided to the Regional Adminis-
trator pursuant to paragraph (a) of
this section shall be sent at the same
time to the State agency in charge of
water pollution control activities in
and for the State in which the facility
is located. Upon receipt of such infor-
mation such State agency may con-
duct a review and make recommenda-
tions to the Regional Administrator as
to further procedures, methods, equip-
ment and other requirements for
equipment necessary to prevent and to
contain discharges of oil from such fa-
cility.
(d) After review of the SPCC Plan
for a facility subject to paragraph (a)
of this section, together with all other
information submitted by the owner
or operator of such facility, and by the
State agency under paragraph (c) of
this section, the Regional Administra-
tor may require the owner or operator
of such facility to amend the SPCC
Plan if he finds that the Plan does not
meet the requirements of this part or
that the amendment of the Plan is
necessary to prevent and to contain
discharges of oil from such facility.
(e) When the Regional Administra-
tor proposes to require an amendment
22
40 CFR Ch. 1 (7-1-89 Edition)
to the SPCC Plan, he shall notify the
facility operator by certified mail ad-
dressed to, or by personal delivery to,
the facility owner or operator, that he
proposes to require an amendment to
the Plan, and shall specify the terms
of such amendment. If the facility
owner or operator is a corporation, a
copy of such notice shall also be
mailed to the registered agent, if any,
of such corporation in the State where
such facility is located. Within 30 days.
from receipt of such notice, the facili-
ty owner or operator may submit writ-
ten information, views, and arguments
on the amendment. After considering
all relevant material presented, the
Regional Administrator shall notify
the facility owner or operator of any
amendment required or shall rescind
the notice. The amendment required
by the Regional Administrator shall
become part of the Plan 30 days after
such notice, unless the Regional Ad-
ministrator, for good cause, shall
specify another effective date. The
owner or operator of the facility shall
implement the amendment of the
Plan as soon as possible, but not later
than six months after the amendment
becomes part of the Plan, unless the
Regional Administrator specifies an-
other date.
(f) An owner or operator may appeal
a decision made by the Regional Ad-
ministrator requiring an amendment
to an SPCC Plan. The appeal shall be
made to the Administrator of the
United States Environmental Protec-
tion Agency and must be made in writ-
ing within • 30 days of receipt of the
notice from the Regional Administra-
tor requiring the amendment. A com-
plete copy of the appeal must be sent
to the Regional Administrator at the
time the appeal is made. The appeal
shall contain a clear and concise state-
ment of the issues and points of fact
in the case. It may also contain addi-
tional information from the owner or
operator, or from any other person.
The Administrator or his designee
may request additional information
from the owner or operator, or from
any other person. The Administrator
or his designee shall render a decision
within 60 days of receiving the appeal
and shall notify the owner or operator
of his decision.
Environmental Protection Agency
§ 112.7
[38 FR 34165, Dec. 11, 19'73, as amended at (Secs. 311(j), 501(a), Pub. L. 92-500, 86 Stat.
41 FR 12658, Mar. 26, 19'76) 868, 885 (33 U.S.C. 1321(j), 1361(a)))
[39 FR 31602. Aug. 29, 1974)
112.5 Amendment of Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasure Plans by
owners or operators.
(a) Owners or operators of facilities
subject to § 112.3 (a), (b) or (c) shall
amend the SPCC Plan for such facility
in accordance with § 112.7 whenever
there is a change in facility design,
construction, operation or mainte-
nance which materially affects the fa-
cility's potential for the discharge of
oil into or upon the navigable waters
of the United States or adjoining
shore lines. Such amendments shall be
fully implemented as soon as possible,
but not later than six months after
such change occurs.
(b) Notwithstanding compliance
with paragraph (a) of this section,
owners and operators of facilities sub-
ject to § 112.3 (a), (b) or (c) shall com-
plete a review and evaluation of the
SPCC Plan at least once every three
years from the date such facility be-
comes subject to this part. As a result
of this ' review and evaluation, the
owner or operator shall amend the
SPCC Plan within six months of the
review to include more effective pre-
vention and control technology if: (1)
Such technology will significantly
reduce the likelihood of a spill event
from the facility, and (2) if such tech-
nology has been field -proven at the
time of the review.
(c) No amendment to an SPCC Plan
shall be effective to satisfy the re-
quirements of this section unless it
has been certified by a Professional
Engineer in accordance with
§ 112.3(d).
112.6 Civil penalties for violation of oil
pollution prevention regulations.
Owners or operators of facilities sub-
ject to § 112.3 (a), (b) or (c) who vio-
late the requirements of this Part 112
by failing or refusing to comply with
any of the provisions of § 112.3, § 112.4
or § 112.5 shall be liable for a civil pen-
alty of not more than $5,000 for each
day such violation continues. Civil
penalties shall be imposed in accord-
ance with procedures set out in Part
114 of this Subchapter D.
30-142 0-89--2
23
6 112.7 Guidelines for the preparation and
implementation of a Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasure Plan.
The SPCC Plan shall be a carefully
thought-out plan, prepared in accord-
ance with good engineering practices,
and which has the full approval of
management at a level with authority
to commit the necessary resources. If
the plan calls for additional facilities
or procedures, methods, or equipment
not yet fully operational, these items
should be discussed In separate para-
graphs, and the details of installation
and operational start-up should be ex-
plained separately. The complete
SPCC Plan shall follow the sequence
outlined below, and include a discus-
sion of the facility's conformance with
the appropriate guidelines listed:
(a) A facility which has experienced
one or more spill events within twelve
months prior to the effective date of
this part should include a written de-
scription of each such spill, corrective
action taken and plans for preventing
recurrence.
(b) Where experience indicates a
reasonable potential for equipment
failure (such as tank overflow, rup- 1>
ture, or leakage), the plan should in-
clude a prediction of the direction,
rate of flow, and total quantity of oil
which could be discharged from the
facility as a result of each major type
of failure.
(c) Appropriate containment and/or
diversionary structures or equipment
to prevent discharged oil from reach-
ing a navigable water course should be
provided. One of the following preven-
tive systems or its equivalent should
be used as a minimum:
(1) Onshore facilities:
(1) Dikes, berms or retaining walls
sufficiently impervious to contain
spilled oil;
(ii) Curbing;
(iii) Culverting, gutters or other
drainage systems;
(iv) Weirs, booms or other barriers;
(v) Spill diversion ponds;
(vi) Retention ponds;
(vii) Sorbent materials.
(2) Offshore facilities:
ZN2IH3VIIV
§ 112.7
(i) Curbing, drip pans;
(ii) Sumps and collection systems.
(d) When it is determined that the
installation of structures or equipment
listed in § 112.7(c) to prevent dis-
charged oil from reaching the naviga-
ble waters is not practicable from any
onshore or offshore facility, the owner
or operator should clearly demon-
strate such impracticability and pro-
vide the following:
(1) A strong oil spill contingency
plan following the provision of 40 CFR
Part 109.
(2) A written commitment of man-
power, equipment and materials re-
quired to expeditiously control and
remove any harmful quantity of oil
discharged.
(e) In addition to the minimal pre-
vention standards listed under
§ 112.7(c), sections of the Plan should
include a complete discussion of con-
formance with the following applica-
ble guidelines, other effective spill pre-
vention and containment procedures
(or, if more stringent, with State rules,
regulations and guidelines):
(1) Facility drainage (onshore); (ex-
cluding production facilities). (i)
Drainage from diked storage areas
should be restrained by valves or other
positive means to prevent a spill or
other excessive leakage of oil into the
drainage system or inplant effluent
treatment system, except where plan
systems are designed to handle such
leakage. Diked areas may be emptied
by pumps or ejectors; however, these
should be manually activated and the
condition of 'the accumulation should
be examined before starting to be sure
no oil will be discharged into the
water.
(ii) Flapper -type drain valves should
not be used to drain diked areas.
Valves used for the drainage of diked
areas should, as far as practical, be of
manual, open -and -closed design. When
plant drainage drains directly into
water courses and not into wastewater
treatment plants, retained storm
water should be inspected as provided
in paragraphs (e)(2)(iii) (B), (C) and
(D) of this section before drainage.
(iii) Plant drainage systems from un -
diked areas should, if possible, flow
into ponds, lagoons or catchment
basins, designed to retain oil or return
40 CFR Ch. 1 (7-1-89 Edition)
it to the facility. Catchment basins
should not be located in areas subject
to periodic flooding.
(iv) If plant drainage is not engi-
neered as above, the final discharge of
all in -plant ditches should be equipped
with a diversion system that could, in
the event of an uncontrolled spill,
return the oil to the plant.
(v) Where drainage waters are treat-
ed in more than one treatment unit,
natural hydraulic flow should be used.
If pump transfer is needed, two "lift"
pumps should be provided, and at least
one of the pumps should be perma-
nently installed when such treatment
is continuous. In any event, whatever
techniques are used facility drainage
systems should be adequately engi-
neered to prevent oil from reaching
navigable waters in the event of equip-
ment failure or human error at the fa-
cility.
(2) Bulk storage tanks (onshore); (ex-
cluding production facilities). (i) No
tank should be used for the storage of
oil unless its material and construction
are compatible with the material
stored and conditions of storage such
as pressure and temperature, etc.
(11) All bulk storage tank installa-
tions should be constructed so that a
secondary means of containment is
provided for the entire contents of the
largest single tank plus sufficient free-
board to allow for precipitation. Diked
areas should be sufficiently impervi-
ous to contain spilled oil. Dikes, con-
tainment curbs, and pits are common-
ly employed for this purpose, but they
may not always be appropriate. An al-
ternative system could consist of a
complete drainage trench enclosure
arranged so that a spill could termi-
nate and be safely confined In an in -
plant catchment basin or holding
pond.
(iii) Drainage of rainwater from the
diked area into a storm drain or an ef-
fluent discharge that empties into an
open water course, lake, or pond, and
bypassing the in -plant treatment
system may be acceptable if:
(A) The bypass valve is normally
sealed closed.
(B) Inspection of the run-off rain
water ensures compliance with appli-
cable water quality standards and will
24
Environmental Protection Agency
not cause a harmful discharge as de-
fined in 40 CFR Part 110.
(C) The bypass valve is opened, and
resealed following drainage under re-
sponsible supervision.
(D) Adequate records are kept of
such events.
(iv) Buried metallic storage tanks
represent a potential for undetected
spills. A new buried installation should
be protected from corrosion by coat-
ings, cathodic protection or other ef-
fective methods compatible with local
soil conditions. Such buried tanks
should at least be subjected to regular
pressure testing.
(v) Partially buried metallic tanks
for the storage of oil should be avoid-
ed, unless the buried section of the
shell is adequately coated, since par-
tial burial in damp earth can cause
rapid corrosion of metallic surfaces,
especially at the earth/air interface.
(vi) Aboveground tanks should be
subject to periodic integrity testing,
taking into account tank design (float-
ing roof, etc.) and using such tech-
niques as hydrostatic testing, visual in-
spection or a system of non-destruc-
tive shell thickness testing. Compari-
son records should be kept where ap-
propriate, and tank supports and foun-
dations should be included in these in-
spections. In addition, the outside of
the tank should frequently be ob-
served by operating personnel for
signs of deterioration, leaks which
might cause a spill, or accumulation of
oil inside diked areas.
(vii) To control leakage through de-
fective internal heating coils, the fol-
lowing factors should be considered
and applied, as appropriate.
(A) The steam return or exhaust
lines from internal heating coils which
discharge into an open water course
should be monitored for contamina-
tion, or passed through a settling
tank, skimmer, or other separation or
retention system.
(B) The feasibility of installing an
external heating system should also be
considered.
(viii) New and old tank installations
should, as far as practical, be fail-safe
engineered or updated into a fall -safe
engineered installation to avoid spills.
Consideration should be given to pro -
25
§ 112.7
viding one or more of the following de-
vices:
(A) High liquid level alarms with an
audible or visual signal at a constantly
manned operation or surveillance sta-
tion; in smaller plants an audible air
vent may suffice.
(B) Considering size and complexity
of the facility, high liquid level pump
cutoff devices set to stop flow at a pre-
determined tank content level.
(C) Direct audible or code signal
communication between the tank
gauger and the pumping station.
(D) A fast response system for deter-
mining the liquid level of each bulk
storage tank such as digital comput-
ers, telepulse, or direct vision gauges
or their equivalent.
(E) Liquid level sensing devices
should be regularly tested to insure
proper operation.
(ix) Plant effluents which are dis-
charged into navigable waters should
have disposal facilities observed fre-
quently enough to detect possible
system upsets that could cause an oil
spill event.
(x) Visible oil leaks which result in a
loss of oil from tank seams, gaskets,
rivets and bolts sufficiently large to
cause the accumulation of oil in diked
areas should be promptly corrected.
(xi) Mobile or portable oil storage
tanks (onshore) should be positioned
or located so as to prevent spilled oil
from reaching navigable waters. A sec-
ondary means of containment, such as
dikes or catchment basins, should be
furnished for the largest single com-
partment or tank. These facilities
should be located where they will
not be subject to periodic flooding or
washout.
(3) Facility transfer operations,
pumping, and in -plant process (on-
shore); (excluding production facili-
ties). (i) Buried piping installations
should have a protective wrapping and
coating and should be cathodically
protected if soil conditions warrant. If
a section of buried line is exposed for
any reason, it should be carefully ex-
amined for deterioration. If corrosion
damage is found, additional examina-
tion and corrective action should be
taken as indicated by the magnitude
of the damage. An alternative would
§ 112.7
be the more frequent use of exposed
pipe corridors or galleries.
(ii) When a pipeline is not in service,
or in standby service for an extended
time the terminal connection at the
transfer point should be capped or
blank -flanged, and marked as to
origin.
(iii) Pipe supports should be proper-
ly designed to minimize abrasion and
corrosion and allow for expansion and
contraction.
(iv) All aboveground valves and pipe-
lines should be subjected to regular
examinations by operating personnel
at which time the general condition of
items, such as flange joints, expansion
joints, valve glands and bodies, catch
pans, pipeline supports, locking of
valves, and metal surfaces should be
assessed. In addition, periodic pressure
testing may be warranted for piping in
areas where facility drainage is such
that a failure might lead to a spill
event.
(v) Vehicular traffic granted entry
into the facility should be warned ver-
bally or by appropriate signs to be
sure that the vehicle, because of its
size, will not endanger above ground
piping.
(4) Facility tank car and tank truck
loading/unloading rack (onshore). (i)
Tank car and tank truck loading/un-
loading procedures should meet the
minimum requirements and regulation
established by the Department of
Transportation.
{ii) Where rack area drainage does
not flow into a catchment basin or
treatment facility designed to handle
spills, a quick drainage system should
be used for tank truck loading and un-
loading areas. The containment
system should be designed to hold at
least maximum capacity of any single
compartment of a tank car or tank
truck loaded or unloaded in the plant.
(iii) An interlocked warning light or
physical barrier system, or warning
signs, should be provided in loading/
unloading areas to prevent vehicular
departure before complete disconnect
of flexible or fixed transfer lines.
(iv) Prior to filling and departure of
any tank car or tank truck, the lower-
most drain and all outlets of such ve-
hicles should be closely examined for
leakage, and if necessary, tightened,
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-89 Edition)
adjusted, or replaced to prevent liquid
leakage while in transit.
(5) Oil production facilities (on-
shore)—(i) Definition. An onshore pro-
duction facility may include all wells,
flowlines, separation equipment, stor-
age facilities, gathering lines, and aux-
iliary non -transportation -related
equipment and facilities in a single
geographical oil or gas field operated
by a single operator.
(ii) Oil production facility (onshore)
drainage. (A) At tank batteries and
central treating stations where an ac-
cidental discharge of oil would have a
reasonable possibility of reaching navi-
gable waters, the dikes or equivalent
required under § 112.7(c)(1) should
have drains closed and sealed at all
times except when rainwater is being
drained. Prior to drainage, the diked
area should be inspected as provided
in paragraphs (e)(2)(iii) (B), (C), and
(D) of this section. Accumulated oil on
the rainwater should be picked up and
returned to storage or disposed of in
accordance with approved methods.
(B) Field drainage ditches, road
ditches, and oil traps, sumps or skim-
mers, if such exist, should be inspected
at regularly scheduled intervals for ac-
cumulation of oil that may have es-
caped from small leaks. Any such ac-
cumulations should be removed.
(iii) Oil production facility (onshore)
bulk storage tanks. (A) No tank should
be used for the storage of oil unless its
material and construction are compati-
ble with the material stored and the
conditions of storage.
(B) All tank battery and central
treating plant installations should be
provided with a secondary means of
containment for the entire contents of
the largest single tank if feasible, or
alternate systems such as those out-
lined in § 112.7(c)(1). Drainage from
undiked areas should be safely con-
fined in a catchment basin or holding
pond.
(C) All tanks containing oil should
be visually examined by a competent
person for condition and need for
maintenance on a scheduled periodic
basis. Such examination should in-
clude the foundation and supports of
tanks that are above the surface of
the ground.
26
Environmental Protection Agency
(D) New and old tank battery instal-
lations should, as far as practical, be
fail-safe engineered or updated into a
fail-safe engineered installation to pre-
vent spills. Consideration should be
given to one or more of the following:
(1) Adequate tank capacity to assure
that a tank will not overfill should a
pumper/gauger be delayed, in making
his regular rounds.
(2) Overflow equalizing lines be-
tween tanks so that a full tank can
overflow to an adjacent tank.
(3) Adequate vacuum protection to
prevent tank collapse during a pipeline
run.
(4) High level sensors to generate
and transmit an alarm signal to the
computer where facilities are a part of
a computer production control system.
(iv) Facility transfer operations, oil
production facility (onshore). (A) All
above ground valves and pipelines
should be examined periodically on a
scheduled basis for general condition
of items such as flange joints, valve
glands and bodies, drip pans, pipeline
supports, pumping well polish rod
stuffing boxes, bleeder and gauge
valves. -
(B) Salt water (oil field brine) dis-
posal facilities should be exained
often, particularly following a sudden
change in atmospheric temperature to
detect possible system upsets that
could cause an oil discharge.
(C) Production facilities should have
a program of flowline maintenance to
prevent spills from this source. The
program should include periodic ex-
aminations, corrosion protection, flow -
line replacement, and adequate
records, as appropriate, for the indi-
vidual facility.
(6) Oil drilling and workover facili-
ties (onshore). (i) Mobile drilling or
workover equipment should be posi-
tioned or located so as to prevent
spilled oil from reaching navigable
waters.
(ii) Depending on the location,
catchment basins or diversion struc-
tures may be necessary to intercept
and contain spills of fuel, crude oil, or
oily drilling fluids.
(iii) Before drilling below any casing
string or during workover operations,
a blowout prevention (BOP) assembly
and well control system should be in-
27
•
§ 112.7
stalled that is capable of controlling
any well head pressure that is expect-
ed to be encountered while that BOP
assembly is on the well. Casing and
BOP installations should be in accord-
ance with State regulatory agency re-
quirements.
(7) Oil drilling, production, or work -
over facilities (offshore). (i) Definition:
"An oil drilling, production or wor-
kover facility (offshore)" may include
all drilling or workover equipment,
wells, flowlines, gathering lines, plat-
forms, and auxiliary nontransporta-
tion-related equipment and facilities
in a single geographical oil or gas field
operated by a single operator.
(ii) Oil drainage collection equip-
ment should be used to prevent and
control small oil spillage around
pumps, glands, valves, flanges, expan-
sion joints, hoses, drain lines, separa-
tors, treaters, tanks, and allied equip-
ment. Drains on the facility should be
controlled and directed toward a cen-
tral collection sump or equivalent col-
lection system sufficient to prevent
discharges of oil into the navigable
waters of the United States. Where
drains and sumps are not practicable
oil contained in collection equipment
should be removed as often as neces-
sary to prevent overflow.
(iii) For facilities employing a sump
system, sump and drains should be
adequately sized and a spare pump or
equivalent method should be available
to remove liquid from the sump and
assure that oil does not escape. A regu-
lar scheduled preventive maintenance
inspection and testing program should
be employed to assure reliable oper-
ation of the liquid removal system and
pump start-up device. Redundant
automatic sump pumps and control de-
vices may be required on some instal-
lations.
(iv) In areas where separators and
treaters are equipped with dump
valves whose predominant mode of
failure is in the closed position and
pollution risk is high, the facility
should be specially equipped to pre-
vent the escape of oil. This could be
accomplished by extending the flare
line to a diked area if the separator is
near shore, equipping it with a high
liquid level sensor that will automati-
cally shut-in wells producing to the
§ 112.7
separator, parallel redundant dump
valves, or other feasible alternatives to
prevent oil discharges.
(v) Atmospheric storage or surge
tanks should be equipped with high
liquid level sensing devices or other ac-
ceptable alternatives to prevent oil dis-
charges.
(vi) Pressure tanks should be
equipped with high and low pressure
sensing devices to activate an alarm
and/or control the flow or other ac-
ceptable alternatives to prevent oil dis-
charges.
(vii) Tanks should be equipped with
suitable corrosion protection.
(viii) A written procedure for in-
specting and testing pollution preven-
tion equipment and systems should be
prepared and maintained at the facili-
ty. Such procedures should be includ-
ed as part of the SPCC Plan.
(ix) Testing and inspection of the
pollution prevention equipment and
systems at the facility should be con-
ducted by the owner or operator on a
scheduled periodic basis commensu-
rate with the complexity, conditions
and circumstances of the facility or
other appropriate regulations.
(x) Surface and subsurface well
shut-in valves and devices in use at the
facility should be sufficiently de-
scribed to determine method of activa-
tion or control, e.g., pressure differen-
tial, change in fluid or flow conditions,
combination of pressure and flow,
manual or remote control mecha-
nisms. Detailed records for each well,
while not necessarily part of the plan
should be kept by the owner or opera-
tor.
(xi) •Before drilling below any casing
string, and during workover operations
a blowout preventer (BOP) assembly
and well control system should be in-
stalled that is capable of controlling
any well -head pressure that is expect-
ed to be encountered while that BOP
assembly is on the well. Casing and
BOP installations should be in accord-
ance with State regulatory agency re-
quirements.
(x11) Extraordinary well control
measures should be provided should
emergency conditions, including fire,
loss of control and other abnormal
conditions, occur. The degree of con-
trol system redundancy should vary
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-89 Edition)
with hazard exposure and probable
consequences of failure. It is recom-
mended that surface shut-in systems
have redundant or "fail close" valving.
Subsurface safety valves may not be
needed in producing wells that will not
flow but should be installed as re-
quired by applicable State regulations.
(xiii) In order that there will be no
misunderstanding of joint and sepa-
rate duties and obligations to perform
work in a safe and pollution free
manner, written instructions should be
prepared by the owner or operator for
contractors and subcontractors to
follow whenever contract activities in-
clude servicing a well or systems ap-
purtenant to a well or pressure vessel.
Such instructions and procedures
should be maintained at the offshore
production facility. Under certain cir-
cumstances and conditions such con-
tractor activities may require the pres-
ence at the facility of an authorized
representative of the owner or opera-
tor who would intervene when neces-
sary to prevent a spill event.
(xiv) All manifolds (headers) should
be equipped with check valves on indi-
vidual flowlines.
(xv) If the shut-in well pressure is
greater than the working pressure of
the flowline and manifold valves up to
and including the header valves associ-
ated with that individual flowline, the
flowline should be equipped with a
high pressure sensing device and shut-
in valve at the wellhead unless provid-
ed with a pressure relief system to pre-
vent over pressuring.
(xvi) All pipelines appurtenant to
the facility should be protected from
corrosion. Methods used, such as pro-
tective coatings or cathodic protection,
should be discussed.
(xvii) Sub -marine pipelines appurte-
nant to the facility should be ade-
quately protected against environmen-
tal stresses and other activities such as
fishing operations.
(xviii) Sub -marine pipelines appurte-
nant to the facility should be in good
operating condition at all times and in-
spected on a scheduled periodic basis
for failures. Such inspections should
be documented and maintained at the
facility.
(8) Inspections and records. Inspec-
tions required by this part should be
28
Environmental Protection Agency
in accordance with written procedures
developed for the facility by the owner
or operator. These written procedures
and a record of the inspections, signed
by the appropriate supervisor or in-
spector, should be made part of the
SPCC Plan and maintained for a
period of three years.
(9) Security (excluding oil produc-
tion facilities). (1) All plants handling,
processing, and storing oil should be
fully fenced, and entrance gates
should be locked and/or guarded when
the plant is not in production or is un-
attended.
(li) The master flow and drain valves
and any other valves that will permit
direct outward flow of the tank's con-
tent to the surface should be securely
locked in the closed position when in
non-operating or non -standby status.
(iii) The starter control on all oil
pumps should be locked in the "off"
position or located at a site accessible
only to authorized personnel when the
pumps are in a non-operating or non -
standby status.
(iv) The loading/unloading connec-
tions of oil pipelines should be secure-
ly capped or blank -flanged when not
in service or standby service for an ex-
tended time. This security practice
should also apply to pipelines that are
emptied of liquid content either by
draining or by inert gas pressure.
(v) Facility lighting should be com-
mensurate with the type and location
of the facility. Consideration should
be given to: (A) Discovery of spills oc-
curring during hours of darkness, both
by operating personnel, if present, and
by non-operating personnel (the gen-
eral public, local police, etc.) and (B)
prevention of spills occurring through
acts of vandalism.
(10) Personnel, training and spill
prevention procedures. (i) Owners or
operators are responsible for properly
instructing their personnel in the op-
eration and maintenance of equipment
to prevent the discharges of oil and
applicable pollution control laws, rules
and regulations.
(ii) Each applicable facility should
have a designated person who is ac-
countable for oil spill prevention and
who reports to line management.
(iii) Owners or operators should
schedule and conduct spill prevention
Pt. 112, Appendix
briefings for their operating personnel
at intervals frequent enough to assure
adequate understanding of the SPCC
Plan for that facility. Such briefings
should highlight and describe known
spill events or failures, malfunctioning
components, and recently developed
precautionary measures.
APPENDIX—MEMORANDUM OF UNDER-
STANDING BETWEEN THE SECRETARY
OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE AD-
MINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMEN-
TAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SECTION II -DEFINITIONS
The Environmental Protection Agency
and the Department of Transportation
agree that for the purposes of Executive
Order 11548, the term:
(1) "Non -transportation -related onshore
and offshore facilities" means:
(A) Fixed onshore and offshore oil well
drilling facilities including all equipment
and appurtenances related thereto used in
drilling operations for exploratory or devel-
opment wells, but excluding any terminal
facility, unit or process integrally associated
with the handling or transferring of oil in
bulk to or from a vessel.
(B) Mobile onshore and offshore oil well
drilling platforms, barges, trucks, or other
mobile facilities including all equipment and
appurtenances related thereto when such
mobile facilities are fixed in position for the
purpose of drilling operations for explorato-
ry or development wells, but excluding any
terminal facility, unit or process integrally
associated with the handling or transferring
of oil in bulk to or from a vessel.
(C) Fixed onshore and offshore oil pro-
duction structures, platforms, derricks, and
rigs including all equipment and appurte-
nances related thereto, as well as completed
wells and the wellhead separators, oil sepa-
rators, and storage facilities used in the pro-
duction of oil, but excluding any terminal
facility, unit or process integrally associated
with the handling or transferring of oil in
bulk to or from a vessel.
(D) Mobile onshore and offshore oil pro-
duction facilities including all equipment
and appurtenances related thereto as well
as completed wells and wellhead equipment,
piping from wellheads to oil separators, oil
separators, and storage facilities used in the
production of oil when such mobile facilities
are fixed in position for the purpose of oil
production operations, but excluding any
terminal facility, unit or process integrally
associated with the handling or transferring
of oil in bulk to or from a vessel.
29
F. •
n.
0
ATTACHMENT B
TUE 17:02 ID:CITY HERMOSA BEACH TEL N0:213-372-E1c0 410; CI4
Si -Te Of CAu,ORNIA—T11E RESOURCES AGENCY
111 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
plvisiON Of ADMINISTRATION
DIYIS1oN Of MUNE$ ANO GEOLOGY
111 DIVISION Of OIL AND GAS
I
111 Mr. Michael Schubach, Planning Director
Planning Department
City of Hermosa Beach
Civic Center
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Dear Mr. 5chubachs
Subject: NOP of a Draft LIR for Hermosa Beach Urban gill Site
(City Yard), Los Angeles County
' • 1 • t
GEORGE DEtIKnnE1!A`,,
NOV 2 5 1987
1 4 I6 N.r.rn Vitt,
SACkAMENTO. CA 95(11
(916) 445-8733
The Department of Conservation's Division of Oil and Gas has reviewed the
NOP for the proposed project and submits the' following comments for your
Iconsideration.
The Division is mandated by Section 3106 of the Public Resources Code (PRC),
to supervise the drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of wells
for the purpose of preventing: (1) damage to life, health, property, and
natural resources; (2) damage to underground and surface waters suitable
for irrigation or domestic use; (3) loss -of oil, gas, or reservoir energy;
and, (4) damage to oil and gas deposits by infiltrating water and other
causes. Furthermore, the PRO vests in the State Oil and Gas Supervisor
the authority to regulate the manner of drilling, operation, maintenance,
and abandonment of oil and gas wells so as to conserve, protect, and prevent
waste of thee* resources, while at the same time encouraging operators
to apply viable programs for the purpose of increasing the ultimate recovery
of oil and gas. •
111
The scope and content of information that is germane to the Division'3
responsibility are contained .in Section 3000 et seq. of the PRC, and adtrir.iscrQc_vc
regulations under Title 14, Chapter 4 of the California Administrative
Code.
r
r
r
111
38
Written approval from the State Oil and Gas Supervisor is required prior
to drilling, reworking, injecting,into, plugging, or abandoning any well.
The operator's notice of intent to perform any well operation is reviewed
on an engineering and geological basis. For new wells and the altecir:g
of existing wells, the approval of the proposal depends primarily on the
following: protecting all subsurface hydrocarbons and fresh w;:,cers; pc,tvzctisr.
of the environment; using adequate blowout 'prevention equipment; oral ur.11 •21;,_:
accepted drilling and cementing techniques.,
JUL-=S- ' S9 TUE 17:03 I D :CITY HERMOSA BEACH .TEL NO : 21 - J t 2-e 13b »007 ^Ci5
Mr. Michael Schubach
Page 2
The Division must be notified to witness or inspect all operations specified
in the approval of any notice. This includes tests and in:rpecti.ons of
blowout prevention equipment, reservoir and fresh water protection measures,
and wall plugging operations.
In addition, the operator must have a bond on file with the Division hoicre
certain well operations are allowed to begin. The purpose of the bond
is to secure the State against any expenses that the State way incur in
obtaining operator compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and orders
of the State Oil and Gas Supervisor.
Presently, there is one active oil well within, and one active well 4djacent
to the proposed area of the drill site.
Section 3208.1 of the PRC authorizes the Stete Oil and Gas Supervisor to
order the reabandonment of any previously abandoned well when construction
of any structure over or in the proximity of the well could result in a
hazard. The law provides that the coat of reabandonment operations is
to be the responsibility of the owner of the property upon which the structure
will be built.
For public safety, we recommend that the drill.site be well secured from
unauthorized entry by the use of an 8 -foot wall. Also, climbable landscaping
should be prohibited around the perimeter of the oil facility to prevent
children from gaining access to the oil facility.
For the purpose of ensuring that adequate safety and ahutdcwn devices for
production and injection equipment are provided, the applicant should contact
the Division of Oil and Gas district office in Long Beach prior to construction
so that the urban drill site plana can be reviewed.
The DEIR should contain information on the potential for subsidence in
the project area, and contingency plans to control any subsidence which
may occur. These plans should cover subsidence control from first indications
until after the proposed project life.
The following are requirements relating to subsidence monitoring, that
should be mentioned in the DEIR: a precise level survey should he co.r,pictud
by the applicant upon the decision to complete wells for co..anerc.ial production,
and one year from the initial survey and every year for the r.e>:t two years
thereafter. If there is no indication of subsidence, or remediul r.,:a_ucts
sra controlling any existing subsidence, the survey shouldbe
every two years thereafter.
rti
41
42
TI_E 17:04 I D :CITY HERMOSA BEACH TEL t IO : 21 37_-01 SE
Mr. Michael Schubach
Page 3
131707 POP;
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Ken Carlson at the
Division district office in Long Beach. The address is 245 W. Broadway,
Suite 475, Long Beach, CA 90802; phone (213) 590-3311.
Sincerely,
Original iignwd by
Dennis J. O'Bryanc
Environmental Program Cccrdir.ccr
cc: Ken Carlson, Division of Oil and Gas, Long fee.ch
Bob Reid, Division of Oil and Gas, Sacramento
Nati : DJO: mww
111
-711
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
PUBLIC NOTICE
. NOTICE "IS HEREBY' GIVEN' that the City Council of the City of
Hermosa .Beectyshalt hold a pub! is hearing on. April a, y 990, to
consider the•following
1 Certification of the .Draft�Environmenta( Impact• -Report for the.
proposed oil; exploration and production: facility-• at the City Yard,
555 6th Street, and at South School,'425 Valley Driver ^ '
2 •FirstQuarterGeneral Plan.amendments: r••
•
•sem.
a)Text amendmenttoGenerai_Planandzoning ordinance to permit;:-
`,oit and gas: dnllmg a_nd production>;Fwhen :allowed. by.a.vote of_
people. Y„y .
b) To either remain R -2B zoning with';General Plan amended from
Low Density to Medium Density,or. change to R-1 zoning to be
consistent with the General.; Plan and adoption of the Environ-
mental negative Declaration ,for, Area :10, .location generally
between Barney Court and MeyerCourt, from south City Bound-
ary
to the rear of lots fronting on 2nd Street to the north.*
c) General Plan redesignation from General Commercial to Low
Density residential and zone change from R -P to Specific Plan
Area (R-3 density standards and R-2 building standards) for the
residential portion, and zone change from R -P to C-2 for the
commercial ,portion,. or to such -other designations/zones as
deemed appropriate by the City Council for the property bounded
by Prospect Avenue on the west; Artesia Boulevard on the north,
and 24th Street on the south and adoption of anEnvironmental
Negative Declaration.*
*Maps on file in Planning Department in City Hall. •'
SAID HEARING shall be at8:00 P.M. in''the City Half Council
Chambers, 1315. Valley -Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254:
ANY AND ALL PERSONS interested are invited to participate at
that time and place or to write to the City Council in care of the
Planning Department at the above address prior to Thursday, April
1990 at 12:00 noon.
IF YOU CHALLENGE the above matter(e) in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised atthe
public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence
delivered to the Planning Department at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact:the Planning
Department at 318-0242.
ELAINE DOERFLING
City Clerk -
City of Hermosa Beach
ER 3-29-90 HB -491A
kev,secl54/io
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF AMENDMENTS TO THE
GENERAL PLAN AND THE ZONING CODE OF THE
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, AND ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS.
WHEREAS, the City of Hermosa Beach (the "City"), as lead
agency, has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (the
"EIR") for certain amendments to the General Plan and the
Zoning Code of the City (the "Amendments"), which Amendments
are to allow and implement the exploration and production of
natural resources from an urban drill site within the City and
requires the relocation of the City Maintenance Yard from the
potential drill site (altogether the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the draft EIR for the Project has been prepared
and circulated pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA"), the State CEQA guidelines, and the
City's rules for implementation of CEQA (the "City Rules");
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City held duly
noticed public hearings on the draft EIR at which times all
interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard and
the Planning Commission recommended certification of the EIR
by Resolution P.C. 90-18 dated March 6, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City held public
hearings on March 15,1990 and April 10, 1990, to consider the
EIR, at which times all interested persons were given an
opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the final EIR relating to the Project and
responding to the concerns raised during the review period and
at the public hearings has been prepared pursuant to CEQA, the
State CEQA guidelines, and the City Rules; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City has reviewed and
considered the information contained in the final EIR for the
Project; and
WHEREAS, the final EIR incorporates certain mitigation
measures which are to mitigate or avoid significant effects on
the environment and the City wishes to implement a reporting
and monitoring program pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21081.6; and
WHEREAS, the City has furthermore selected the
environmentally superior alternative bracket as defined by
Cal. Code Reg., Section 15126[d] for the Project which limits
52
the Project to the existing City maintenance yard site.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City certifies that:
(a) The final EIR has been prepared and completed
in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA
guidelines and the City Rules; and
(b) The information contained in the final EIR has
been reviewed and considered by the members of
the City Council of the City.
2. The City hereby finds and determines that the
adoption of said Amendments and implementation of the Project
may have a significant effect on the environment.
3. The City hereby finds that with respect to the
adverse environmental impacts detailed in the EIR that:
(a) Based on information set forth in the EIR and
as more specifically set forth in the
Comparative Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
Measures, Volume III of the EIR, pages 3
through 23, inclusive, the City hereby finds
and determines that changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the
Project which avoid or substantially lessen the
adverse environmental effects identified in the
EIR for (i) geology and seismicity; (ii)
hydrology; (iii) subsidence; (iv) land use; (v)
energy conservation; (vi) public safety; (vii)
socioeconomics; and (viii) public services and
utilities [except such impact to utilities as
identified hereinbelow]; and
(b) Based on information set forth in the EIR and
as more specifically set forth in the
Comparative Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
Measures, Volume III of the EIR, pages 3
through 23, inclusive, of the EIR, the short
term adverse environmental effects to noise,
air quality, visual, light/glare, shade/shadow,
and transportation/circulation have been but
cannot be entirely mitigated by the selection.
of the environmentally superior alternative
and
(c) Based on information set forth in the EIR and
as more specifically set forth in the
2.
Comparative Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
Measures, Volume III of the EIR, pages 3
through 23, inclusive, of the EIR, the long
term adverse environmental effects related to
air quality, mineral resources, visual and
utilities (such impact to utilities being the
use of limited existing utility easements) have
been but cannot be entirely mitigated by the
selection of the environmentally superior
alternative; and
(d) The City has reviewed the various Project
alternatives and hereby determines that the
selection of a "No Project" alternative does
not provide for the managed production of
natural resources and denies the City the
needed revenues which would be generated by
such activities; that the Redondo alternative
is infeasible on economic, technical and legal
grounds; that there are no other drilling sites
permitted within the City pursuant to a vote of
the electorate of the City; and that the scope
of the other drilling alternatives as discussed
in the EIR will not adequately reduce the
identified significant impacts; and
(e) No additional adverse impacts will have a
significant effect or result in a substantial
or potentially substantial adverse change in
the environment as a result of the Project.
4. The City hereby finds and determines that all
significant environmental effects identified in the EIR have
been reduced to an acceptable level in that:
(a) All significant environmental effects that can
feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or
substantially lessened as determined through
the findings set forth in paragraphs 3(a)
through 3(6), inclusive, of this Resolution;
and
(b) Based upon the EIR and other evidence in the
record, specific economic, social and other
considerations make infeasible other project
alternatives identified in the EIR; and
(c) Based upon the EIR and other evidence in the
record, all remaining, unavoidable, short term
and long term significant environmental effects
of the Project are overridden by the benefits
of the Project as described in the Statement of
3.
Overriding Considerations, attached to this
Resolution as Attachment "A", incorporated
herein by reference, which Statement of
Overriding Considerations is hereby approved
and adopted.
5. The City hereby authorizes and directs that a
reporting and monitoring program for mitigation measures
identified in the final EIR shall be implemented by and
through the issuance, if any, of a conditional use permit
issued pursuant to Ordinance No. 85-803 (the "Hermosa Beach
Oil Code").
6. Approval and certification of the final EIR shall
not be deemed approval of a conditional use permit required
pursuant to the Hermosa Beach Oil Code for operation of an oil
drilling site.
7. At the time for consideration of said conditional
use permit, the City may impose such additional conditions as
may be deemed reasonably necessary based upon precise project
plans for an urban drill site.
8. The City hereby authorizes and directs that, upon
approval and adoption of the amendments to the General Plan
and the Zoning Code by the City Council of the City of Hermosa
Beach, a Notice of Determination with respect to the EIR
pertaining to the approval of the Project and all other
actions in furtherance thereof be filed.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
1990.
President of the City Council
and Mayor of the City of Hermosa
Beach, California
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPRED AS TO FO
y Attorney
4.
ATTACHMENT A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The California Environmental Quality Act requires a public agency
to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its un-
avoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve
the project. The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach has
determined that the unavoidable, short term impacts to noise, air
quality, visual, light/glare, shade/shadow, and transportation/
circulation; and the long term impacts to air quality, mineral
resources, visual and utilities previously described and associ-
ated with the Project are acceptable when balanced against the
benefits of the Project. In making this determination, the City
has given greater weight to its consideration of the unavoidable
environmental risks and has considered the following factors and
public benefits:
1. The Project will serve a
generation of funds necessary
and improvement of properties
purposes.
critical need, that being the
for the acquisition, maintenance
for open space and parkland
2. The Project is consistent with
grams of the City of Hermosa Beach.
3. The Project will result in the
resources of the City.
the adopted plans and pro -
managed production of natural
The City Council of
Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
•'�. � ; 4 C. Li
An 101990
f'
April 9, 1990
Ladies and Gentlemen:
In a letter dated April 4, 1990 to myself and about 250 other
concerned Hermosa Beach citizens, Mr. Charles Warren, Execu-
tive Director of the State Lands Commission stated the followin
The State Lands Commission staff has taken the position
that there is no drainage of oil, at this time, from
Hermosa Beach to Redondo Beach. Until drainage... can
be proven, the Commission is prohibited from approving
oil drilling in a sanctuary such as the tidelands at
Hermosa Beach.
In addition to drainage the Commission has also not found
that this project is in the best interests of California.
Based on this important new information it is now quite clear
that the City Council debate and the whole EIR process must
shift and be revised to an exclusively onshore project in
terms of both revenues and impacts. Put in simple terms, what
this means is that all the negative impacts of drilling,_ oil
recovery, storage, and oil transport will still be present
(and possibly larger if more wells are drilled), but the revenue
to be received by the City will be miniscule.
With this reality facing us, we must strongly consider sending
back the EIR for revision and further analysis and reject the
inadequate EIR before the City Coucil on April 10th, 1990. The
argument for rejection, however, is far stronger than this.
Now that Goleta II is the law in California, full analysis of
alternate sites, including those outside Hermosa's city limits,
must be fully studied and analyzed. At this point I would like
to ask the Council if each and every one of you feel properly
versed enough to describe why the Redondo Beach sites are not
the environmentally superior option. Councilmembers may be
familiar with letters from the MacPherson lawyers that state
that drilling from Redondo would be too expensive. Leaving
aside the point that the City could well use some independent,
impartial analysis of this contention, under Goleta II, the
MacPherson argument of closing off the Redondo option is not
a necessary or sufficient argument to forestall a complete
alternate site analysis. The terms of Goleta II satisfactory
studies have been brought to the City's attention in more
than one letter in the public file which I have seen. I
urge the Council to fully consider the disclosure required
under this law before passing and certifying the EIR.
SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION
S
Page 2
Now let me turn to the new economic realities of an all on-
shore drilling plan. Because CEQA requires consolidated op-
erations wherever available, the Redondo option would appear
to have a very strong factor in its favor. From the City's
point of view, the negative economic impact of losing the
land lease segment of its royalties is next to miniscule with-
out the tidelands revenue. Please let me put some numbers to
this. Using MacPherson Oil's own economic forecasts and dis-
count factor, which I have argued continually are biased too
optimistically regarding future oil prices and risk factors,
the present value of the land lease segment is only worth
about $300,000 per year for the 35 year production period.
But let me ask: At what price for the citizens of Hermosa Beach?
I believe the average citizen of our community would happily
forego this miniscule revenue if he could avoid all the forms
of pollution and discomfort that have been so well detailed
in the 5 inch thick document on this project.
One final note on the incompleteness of the EIR is that no
analysis of the impacts of an injection program are adequately
described should subsidence occur. This is a very large con-
cern recently since it has been discovered that large sub-
sidence occured in the Redondo harbor, possibly the result of
years of oil production. If subsidence is a strong or even
just a possible likelihood, should there not be a complete
section on the environmental impacts on the community from
an injection well process. Somehow everyone takes it on faith
that the injection process is as simple and inobtrusive as
blowing up a bicycle tire. Nothing could be further from the
truth. The people of neighboring Torrance have repeatedly re-
jected an injection well system promoted by Kelt Oil because
in part it requires the constant noise of diesel driven air
compressors. In my opinion this is a glaring defiency of the
EIR in its current form and it must be studied and mitigated
before the Council can properly and truthfully certify this
oil project.
Sincerely,
Brent R. Harris, C.F.A.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. 90 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AMENDING THE GENERAL
PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT INITIATIVES P AND Q
THEREFORE ALLOWING OIL DRILLING AT THE CITY YARD-.
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on April 10,
1990, and made the following Findings:
A. The City of Hermosa Beach ("City") has generally prohibited
oil drilling from occurring in accordance with Hermosa Beach
Municipal Code Section 21-10; and
B. The citizens of the City by majority vote approved exceptions
to the general prohibition to oil drilling for two land areas
pursuant to Ordinance No.'s 84-758 and 84-759; and
C. The two land areas approved for oil and gas development i.e.,
the South School site and the City Yard, are zoned Open Space
and Light Manufacturing (M-1), respectively; and
D. It is the desire of the Planning Commission of the City to
restrict oil and gas development to only those areas that are
or have been approved for such use by a vote of the
electorate of the City;
E. The most environmentally desirable location for oil drilling
is the current City yard location;
F. Limiting oil drilling to the City Yard site will
substantially reduce various environmental impacts associated
with proposed oil drilling project.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach hereby ordains the
SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION
following:
5
1
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION 1. Article 9.M-1, Light Manufacturing, Section 9-1
(Purpose) of the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"In the M-1 zone, no building shall be erected,
constructed, reconstructed, structurally altered,
nor shall any building or land be used for any
purpose except as hereinafter provided and allowed
by this article.
The M-1 zone is established in order to provide
areas in the city within which a range of limited
and restricted manufacturing, oil and gas operations
and wholesale business activities may be conducted.
The limitations imposed upon such uses are intended
to control the intensity of use and external effect
upon the surrounding areas, and to limit land uses
to those which can be operated in a reasonably
clean, orderly, odorless, pollution -free and quiet.
manner."
SECTION 2. Article 9. M-1, Light Manufacturing, Section 9-2
(Permitted Uses) of the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code is
hereby amended to add the following text:
"Oil and gasdevelopment, including storage and any
and all related production facilities shall only be
permitted in those areas in which approval by a vote
of the people has been obtained to waive the general
oil drilling prohibition. Said use shall require a
conditional use ermit in accordance with Ordinance
No. 85-803 (the "Oil Code") and in conformance with
Sections 10-1 and 10-2 of the Hermosa Beach Zoning.
Code. Additional standards may be imposed in the
reasonable discretion of the City in the grant of
the conditional use permit based upon health, safety
and general welfare concerns."
SECTION 3. Article 9. M-1, Light Manufacturing, Section 9-3
(Standards and limitations) subsection (4) of the
Hermosa Beach Zoning Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
"(4) Building height. Any building may have a
maximum of thirty-five (35) feet in height and have
a maximum of two (2) stories. Oil and gas
operations may exceed this height for a temporary
period of time and to a height as set forth in an
approved conditional use permit pursuant to the
Ordinance No. 85-803."
SECTION 4. Article 5 of the General Plan of the City at page 41
in the third paragraph under "Identification of
Natural Resources in Hermosa Beach, No. 1. Water
Resources," is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Except as follows, no oil drilling or other mining
shall take place within the City boundaries
2
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(although there are a few old pumping stations).
Oil and gas drilling shall be allowed only if it has
been or approved by a vote of the people."
SECTION 5. Article 5 of the General Plan, third paragraph at
page 42 under "Relationshi between Resources", is
hereby amended to read as follows:
"Drilling or mining of any natural resources
directly on the beach area or from off -shore
platforms may result in the spoiling of both beach
and ocean. If done off -shore, it would present an
especially high risk for both the ocean and the
beach."
SECTION 6. Article 5 of the General Plan at page 42 under "What
Can be Done to Conserve Resources? Policy 2", is
hereby amended to read as follows:
"Drilling or mining of any natural resources
directly on the beach or by off -shore platform in
the ocean is to be prohibited. Oil and gas drilling
may be done by means of slant drilling from an
on -shore drill site, except for the beach area, into
the tidelands if it has been or is approved by a
vote of the people."
SECTION 7. Article 9 shall be amended to read as follows:
"Industrial Areas: This land use category shall
include and provide for the following manufacturing
uses and similar uses:
* Electronic assembly
* Bakeries, all types wholesale
* Bottling
* Garment manufacturing
* Laboratories
* Machine shops
* Oil Production
* Plastic fabrication
* Carpentry
* Rubber fabrication
* Sheet metal shops
* Similar uses
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION 8. The comprehensive Parks and Recreation master plan,
Section 5, Subsection B under "Provide Financial
Support for Parks and Recreation" at page 5-3, is
hereby amended to add as follows:
•
"Provide financial support through revenues
generated by the managed production of natural
resources."
SECTION 9. 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 10. 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 11. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and
ATTEST:
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 theCity
Council at which the same is passed and adopted.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this
day of , 1990.
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR
of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
CITY CLERK
CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
plandoc/pergpoi1
April 2, 1990
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of
Hermosa Beach City Council. April 10, 1990.
SUBJECT: FIRST QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND/OR ZONE
CHANGES FOR GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING INCONSISTENCIES
LOCATIONS: 1. BETWEEN BARNEY COURT AND MEYER COURT, FROM
SOUTH CITY BOUNDARY TO THE THE REAR OF THE LOTS
FRONTING ON SECOND STREET,ALSO KNOWN AS AREA
1.0 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-3)
2. SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ARTESIA BOULEVARD AND
PROSPECT AVENUE (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-10,
ZONE CHANGE 89-11)
PURPOSE: TO CONSIDER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND/OR ZONE
CHANGES FOR THE. SUBJECT PROPERTIES TO SING THE
ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN MAPS INTO CONSIST Y
INITIATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
Recommendation
1. Area 10
The Planning Commission and Staff recommend that the Land Use Map
of the General Plan be amended by changing the designation from
Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential by adopting
the attached resolution.
2. Southeast corner of Artesia and Prospect
The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council
adopt the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Changes by
adopting the proposed resolution and .introducing the proposed
ordinance which will redesignate from General Commercial to High
Density Residential and Zone Change from R -P to Specific Plan
Area (R-3 Density, R-2 Standards) the residential portion, and
zone change from R -P to C-2 the Commercial Portion of the subject
property (refer to attached map).
1. AREA 10
Background
On December 13, 1988, the City Council downzoned the subject area
from R-2 to R -2B .consistent with the recommendation of the
Planning Commission. The subject area was advertised and
considered for downzoning to R-1, however, the R -2B designation
was chosen because of the large lots and because with R -2B zoning
the density would exceed the maximum. of 13 units for the Low
Density range by only 3.5 units per acre.
On March 21, 1989, the Planning Commission recommended amending
the General Plan from Low Density to Medium Density for the
subject area for consistency, as part of the first quarter
general plan amendments. This hearing was advertised for the
general plan amendment only.
On May 3, 1989, the City Council considered the recommendation of
the Planning Commission. After public testimony from nearby
residents generally opposed to such a change, a majority of the
Council was unable to agree on the matter, and decided to
postpone action to- -the third quarter general plan amendments of
1989 to include an option for a zone change to R-1.
On September 5, 1989; the Planning Commission again recommended
amending the General .Plan from Low Density to Medium Density, as
part of the third quarter general plan amendments.
On October 10, 1989, as a result of a 2-2 vote, the City Council
decided to continue the matter until a later date (Mayor
Creighton resides within 300' of the area and abstained from
participation.)
iRAnalysis
The current R -2B zoning would permit the addition of only 3
additional units to this area. Staff does not believe this would
be a significant impact if it were to occur. Currently one lot is
nonconforming to density; if the area was changed to R-1, four
additional lots would become nonconforming to density:.
The surrounding residential areas consist of an R -P zoned area
directly to the west (allowing R-3 residential development) and a
R-1 zoned area to the east and north. Because of the small lots
the density for the R-1 area to the east along 1st Place and 1st
Street is currently about 17.5 units/acre. The density along 2nd
Streetto the north is about 15.5 units/acre. Therefore, the
16.5 units/acre permitted by R -2B for the subject area is
consistent with or less than surrounding areas. If zoned R-1,
the 9.2 units/acre density would be significantly less.
For further analysis of the subject area please refer to the
attached 10/2/89 City Council staff report.
2. SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ARTESIA AND PROSPECT
Background
The subject block is one of the remaining inconsistent areas
throughout the City as it is General Plan designated General
Commercial, and zoned R -P Residential -Professional. This
amendment and zone change was initiated by the Planning
Commission in response to a request to open a child care center
in an existing office building located on .Artesia Boulevard, and
because of the inconsistency.
The Planning Commission, at their meeting of March 6, 1989,
recommended changing the residentially developed portion of the
subject block from General Commercial to High Density Residential
on the General Plan, and to change the zoning from R -P to a
Specific Plan Area using R-3 density standards, and R-2 building
standards.
The Planning Commission also recommended to change the zoning on
the commercially developed portion of the block from R -P t'o C-2
Restricted Commercial.
Analysis
RESIDENTIAL PORTION
Staff originally recommended changing this area to Low Density
and R-1 because the surrounding residential neighborhoods are
designated Low Density and R-1 and this neighborhood has a
similar character. Since the R -P zone allows residential
development to R-3 standards this would have been a significant
downzoning from R-3 to R-1.
After public, testimony, the Planning Commission, determined that
downzoning the properties from R,-3 to R-1 would be too
significant of a change, and unfair' to existing property owners,
considering that duplexes had already been constructed on 6 of
the 8 affected properties.
The reason R-3 density standards were chosen was because the size
of these duplex lots are too small 'to permit 2 -units under R-2
zoning. The R-2 building standards were chosen to protect the
existing character of the neighborhood which would perhaps be
threatened by allowing 35 -foot high structures as allowed in the
R-3 zone.
Staff believes that the input of the public hearing has resulted
in a reasonable solution, and, therefore, supports the
recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report for
further analysis of the subject area.
COMMERCIAL PORTION
Staff originally recommended rezoning these lots to C-2 and the
Planning Commission concurred. Since the General Plan currently
identifies this area as General Commercial no change to the
General Plan is necessary.
Under current zoning these lots could potentially be developed as
high density residential. Changing the zoning to C-2 will ensure
that this highway frontage is utilized for commercial purposes in
the future. Also, any new commercial projects would be subject
to the requirement of submittal and review of a Precise
Development Plan.
Please refer to the Planning Commission Staff report for further
analysis of this area.
Procedure for Adoption of the Amendments
Staff suggests that the Council open the public hearing for each;:
area separately and take a "straw" vote on that area. When all
the areas have been heard, the Council could then take a final
vote on the adoption of the proposed resolution for the General
Plan Amendments; and then take a final vote on the adoption of
the proposed ordinance for the zone changes.:
Michael' Schubach
Planning Director
Kevin B. Northcraft
City Manager .
en Robertson
Associate Planner
Attachments
1. Location Maps
2. Proposed Resolutions and Ordinance
3. Background information -Area 10: C.C. Minutes; C.C. Staff
Report 10/2/89; P.C. Minutes; Public Correspondence; Public
Notice Affidavit
4. Background information -SE Artesia/Prospect: P.C. Resolutions;
P.C. Minutes; P.C. Staff Report; Correspondence; Public
Notice Affidavit
p/pcsrgpa8
A EA 1 0
CURRENT ZONING R -2B
CURRENT GP LD
PROPOSED CHANGE:
W4
oa
1` `\-r1
• •
•...• GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AREA. 1O
/ / LD LOW DENSITY
HD 'HIGH DENSITY
OS OPEN ..SPACE' `<'; :.
CC COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
HD
ARTESIA
T
l`
je////// ze 4////fr‘141,"/ tt°
BLVD.
CURRENT ZONING: R -P RESIDENTIAL-PROFESSI.ONA
EzA
COMMERCIAL / OFFICES
TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ZON.E_CHANGE-TO C-2
RESIDENTIAL
TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ZONE CHANGE TO
SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (R-3 DENSITY, R.-2
BUILDING STANDARDS)
Coe -N- iz. Az -t- es' /P rz0 5P e -c -T
4 co
•
MOM
'ENTYFIFTH STREET
TWENTY
FOURTH PLACE
TWENTY FOURTH ! ST
r
.n
w
N
Y
H
U1
74' /0J' pro
ST
FIRST
0
rri0
•
0
0
N
TyyEN
ETN
P
TWENTIETH
L
A
E.
ST
•
----------7
r /
Q
/
►
4 ITCI;
/ I
PACIFIC
GC
N
LL
H I LLCREST.
LD
BORDEN 'AVE.
HILLCREST
A.
D
RHODES
LDI
LD
QLD
1
LD
CC,
I" SPRINGFIELD
W
I-
LD I
AVi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN BY
CHANGING THE DESIGNATION FOR THE AREA AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND
SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE
DECLARATION.
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing for General
Plan Amendment 89-3 as part of the first quarter general plan
amendments, regarding "Area 10" located between Meyer Court and
Barney Court, on April 10, 1990, and made the following Findings:
A. The subject area has inconsistent General Plan and Zoning map
designation, and state law requires consistency between the
General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance;
B. In order to make the subject area consistent requires either
an amendment to the General Plan Map or the Zoning Map;
C. General Plan amending the subject area'as described below
will bring the General Plan into consistency with the current
zoning;
D. Amending the general plan designation is more appropriate for
the subject area than changing the zoning, a.s the current
zoning is consistent with existing and potential land uses
and is compatible with surrounding area;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa
Beach, California, does hereby resolve that the land use map of
the general plan be amended as. shown on the attached map and
described as follows:
General Plan amend from Low Density Residential to Medium Density
Residential the area located between Barney Court and Meyer
Court from the south city boundary, to the rear of the lots
fronting on Second Street, and legally described as follows:
- 1a-
- le
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
- lots 22-25 and 28-31, inclusive, and a portion of lots 26 and
27, Trafton Heights Tract.
PASSED, APPROVED, •and ADOPTED this
day of , 1990.
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR
of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
azstAL Ve.ote
plandoc/persgpa8
CITY CLERK
CITY ATTORNEY
CURRENT ZONING
CURRENT GP
PROPOSED CHANGE:
io
R -2B
LD
_.1 W
• .�Q L�
ST. 4,
ar .
via
�‘11,0
p5
C5
89
1
2
3
10
11
12
'13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
l
RESOLUTION 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED
BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
WHEREAS, the City Council held a: public hearing on General
Plan Amendment 89-10 for the southeast corner of Artesia
Boulevard and Prospect Avenue on April. 10, .100, and made the
following Findings:
A. The subject area is located in a General Plan and Zoning
inconsistency area;
B. The area is currently designated General Commercial while a
portion of the subject area is developed residentially and is
appropriate for a residential General Plan designation
because of the character of surrounding development and the
orientation of the properties towards residential streets;
C. Redesignating the areas as described below recognizes the
existing development character and existing density of
residential development;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does
hereby resolve that the Land Use Map of the General Plan be
amended as shown on the attached map and described as follows:
1. General Plan amend the residentially developed area on the
north side of 24th Street east of Prospect Avenue, and the
residential properties on the east side of Prospect Avenue
between Artesia Boulevard and 24th Street, from General
Commercial to High Density Residential, and legally described
as follows:
lots 1 through 6, inclusive, Parcel Map 2810 W. R. Co.
Redondo Home Tract; lots 23 through 25, inclusive, Walter
Ransom Co.'s Redondo Home Tract
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1990.
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST:
plandoc/persgpl0
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO /FORM :
N,J_ VQ.4 CITY ATTORNEY
—i.3
5;.."
-334C•
_J 1
I t:E '60-6
Ai; Vg4' .74kr-N.:":1# fr
r., _4;1 .-4144.V•42C. igit'Pa* 'A-7 • .7- er: •Ii:•••" t44. -P•' 6.AV •••.`"E•••• •."•'"'
0
0
ARTESIA
• ..
7 —7
/e• 6 /go8
-Iv\ -
—r.
-•-• ';
‘• . •
• :31:1;t.
BLVD.
••
1
le.
•
Cleneral Nan Artuel
Prom qc 4.0 Hrw-
WALTER RANSOM CO.'S
REDONDO HOME TRACT
M B. — 57
PARCEL M.
PM. 42 - 13
'• • -- • - • • - - — •
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. 90 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE•ZONE FOR THE AREAS AS.DESCRIBED
BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP, AND AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE TEXT TO CREATE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA NO, 9, AND ADOPTION
AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public 'hearing on Zone
Change 89 -11 -for the southeast'corner of Artesia Boulevard and
Prospect Avenue on April 10, 1990, to receive oral and written
testimony, and made the following Findings:
A. The subject properties are located in an area of the city
which have inconsistencies between the Zoning Map and the
General Plan Map;
B. Rezoning the subject areas asldescribed below will bring the
zoning into consistency with the General Plan and state law
requires consistency between zoning and the General Plan, and
it will make the zoning consistent with the adjacent
residential areas to the south;
C. Rezoning the commercial area to C-2 recognizes the existing
development character, and would allow the subject properties
which front on a major highway to be developed and used for
commercial purposes which is appropriate for this location;
D. The rezoning to a Specific Plan Area equivalent to R-3
density will recognize the current density for the subject
areas and the standards equivalent to R-2 standards will
protect the area from incompatible projects;
E. The proposed rezonings will not cause a significant impact on
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the environment as it will recognize theexisting development
character of the subject area;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach,. California, does
hereby amend the zoning map as shown on the attached map, and
that the zoning ordinance text be amended, described as follows:
SECTION 1. Rezone the commercially developed lots located on the
south side of Artesia Boulevard (between Prospect
Avenue and east boundary of the City of Hermosa Beach
from R -P Residential Professional to C-2 - Restricted
Commercial and legally described as follows:
lots 3 through 8, inclusive; lots 11 through 14,
inclusive; and lots 25 through 30, inclusive, Walter
Ransom Company's Redondo Home Tract.
SECTION 2. Rezone the residentially developed lots located on
the east side of Prospect Avenue between 24th Street
and Artesia Boulevard, and the lots located on the.
north side of 24th Street east of Prospect Avenue,
from R -P - Residential Professional to Specific Plan
Area No. 9 and legally described as follows:
- lots 1 through 6, inclusive, Parcel Map 2810 W. R.
Co. Redondo Home Tract; lots 23 through 25,
inclusive, Walter Ransom Company's Redondo Home
Tract.
SECTION 3. The following text shall be added to the zoning
ordinance:
Article 9.6, Chapter 9, Specific Plan Area No. 9
Section 9.69-1. Authority.
This Specific Plan Area is an instrument for
implementing the General plan pursuant to Article 8,
Chapter 3, of the State of California Planning and
Zoning Law (California Government Code Section 65450 et.
Seq.)
Section 9.69-2 Location and Description.
The subject area is located on the east side of Prospect
Avenue between 24th Street and Artesia Boulevard and
located on the north side of 24th Street east of
Prospect Avenue.
Section 9.69-3 Purpose.
The purpose of the Specific Plan Area is to set forth
the development requirements, :Standards and permitted
uses for the subject area.
3
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
•ti
Section 9.69-4 Permitted Uses.
A. Any use permitted in the R-1 (Single -Family Residential
Zone;
B. An attached or detached two-family dwelling unit per
lot.
Section 9.69-5 Development Standards
A. Lot Area per dwelling unit.
The minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall be not less
than thirteen hundred twenty (1320) square feet.
B. Development standards shall be as set forth in ARTICLE
5. R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, except as
pertaining to Lot Area per dwelling unit as stated in
Section 9.69-5A.
C. All other standards shall be as set forth in the City of
Hermosa Beach Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full
force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of
its final passage and adoption.
SECTION 5. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after
the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause
this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a
weekly newspaper of general circulation published and
circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the
manner provided by law.
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and
adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in
the book of original ordinances of said city, and
shall make minutes of the passage and adoption
thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City
Council at which the same is passed and adopted.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this
day of , 1990.
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR
of the. City of Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST;
CITY CLERK
APPROVED/AS TO FO/RM:
azt.,,- 1. Vd4� CITY ATTORNEY
p/perszcll
- 3
5,1"
' • • • ...i.t.11::txrfnew• •!•el••••••ft.".:
Z. 4.4
434C.
160 - 6
=-.
A'
Zome 0300443.:
Asap +4
WALTER NO.9
Rik S M CO:S
REDOND.O HOME TRACT
M B. - 57
. . .
PARCEL NA
P M. 4 2 - 1 3
1:r•°..1":;i2re,r41.4.. •••••;i• • `1:1?4,44- • • •.-"`z X 70 ;. ":4eq.;•ie.t• :t• 14;.:ft• ••• • •
-
(A)
84C/(GROUND.
MATER/A[
Ag.r-A 0 -
'EStreet Estates Home Owners Association
ion Faelton - 730 Fourth Street
Sean Guthrie - 710 Fourth Street
Mabilyn Spanburg - 705-706 Fifth Street
Robert Kaufman - 715 Second Street
Gerry Compton - 832-840 Seventh Street
The Public Hearing was closed.
(1) SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE "MULTI -USE CORRIDOR'
Action: Too introduce Ordinance No. 89-101 .
Motion Creighton, second Simpson. So ord-red.
Final Action: o waive full reading of Ordinance No.
89-1013, entitle,, "AN ORDINANCE RECO ENDING AMENDING
THE ZONING MAP BY\CHANGING THE ZONE p6R THE AREAS AS
DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE AT CHED MAP AND RECOM-
MENDING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION." (SOUTH-
WEST QUADRANT OF THE "MULTI -USE C'.iRRIDOR" R-3 to R-2)
Motion Rosenberger, s ond Crei• ton.
AYES: Creighton, Rosenterger, •heldon, Simpson, Mayor
Williams
NOES: None
(2) SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE "MUL••-USE CORRIDOR"
Proposed Action: To ap• ove e Planning Commission
recommendation to main .in the -xisting R-2 zoning.
Motion Rosenberger, s-cond Williams.
AYES: Rosenberger, illiams
NOES: -Creighton, S eldon, Simpson
Action: To intr
recommendation.
Motion Creightpfn
the objection of
uce Ordinance No. :9-1014. (Staff
, second Simpson.
Rosenberger.
dered, noting
Final Actio1i: To waive full reading of Ordinance No.
'89-1014,titled, "AN ORDINANCE RECOMMENDI G AMENDING.
THE ZONI G MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR THE ••EAS AS
DESCRIB,D BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP D RECOM-
MENDING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION.' (SOUTH-
EAST •UADRANT OF THE "MULTI -USE CORRIDOR" R-2 to R -2B)
Mot on Creighton, second Simpson.
AY S: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, M. or
Williams
OES: None
7. THIRD QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND ZONE CHANGES -
CONSISTENCY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND/OR ZONE CHANGES
AS NOTED BELOW OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE OR GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO BRING THE GENERAL
PLAN AND ZONING MAPS INTO CONSISTENCY FOR "AREA 10" AND
1) -
Minutes 10-10-89
THE NOTED AREAS WEST OF VALLEY DRIVE AND AN ENVIRONMEN-
TAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. With Resolution and Ordinan-
ces for introduction. Memorandum from Planning Director
Michael Schubach. dated October 2,'1989.
AREA 10.
LOCATION GENERALLY BETWEEN BARNEY COURT AND MEYER COURT,
FROM SOUTH CITY BOUNDARY TO THE REAR OF LOTS FRONTING ON
2ND STREET TO THE NORTH, TO EITHER REMAIN R -2B ZONING
WITH GENERAL PLAN AMENDED FROM LOW DENSITY TO MEDIUM
DENSITY. OR CHANGE TO R-1 ZONING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH
THE GENERAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGA-
TIVE DECLARATION.
Councilmember Creighton declared an apparent Conflict of Interest
due to owning property within 300 feet of the subject property.
Proposed Action: To continue to the First Quarter
General Plan Amendments in 1990.
Motion Williams, second Rosenberger
Addressing the Council on the motion were:
Mike Meyers - 1104 First St.
Sam Edgerton - 1118 Second St.
Joanne Zambrana — 1118 Second
Gerry Compton - 200 Pier, #9
- against continuation
- against continuation
St. — against continuation
— against continuation
The motion was subsequently withdrawn.
A staff report was presented by Director
Schubach.
The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak••
were:
Gerry Compton - 200 Pier Avenue #9
Sam Edgerton - 1118 First Street - submitted petition
with 80 signatures in favor of the lower density.
John Snyder - 111 Barney Court
Mike Cleland - 3520 The Strand
Dermot Leach - 1122- 2nd Street
Joanne Zambrana - 1118 -,.2nd Street
Wilma Burt - 1152- 7th Street
Dave Hull - 1136- 2nd Street
Ruth Brand - 1231- 1st Street
Steve Harris - 23 Barney Court
Norman McGahem - 1018- 2nd Street
Mike Meyers - 1104- 1st Street
The Public Hearing was closed.
-2j -
Minutes 10-10-89
Action: To continue Area 10 and being back as part of
the next quarterly General Plan Amendments. •
Motion Rosenberger, second Sheldon.
AYES - Rosenberger, Sheldon,. Simpson, Mayor Williams
NOES - None
ABSTAIN - Creighton
\A recess was called at 11:40 P.M.
The meeting reconvened at 11:48 P.M.
AREA A.
1) GENERAL PLAN RE -DESIGNATION FROM OPEN SPACE T. IN-
DUSTRIAL FOR THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF VALLEY ►•IVE
AND 6TH STREET (THE "CITY YARD");
GENERAL PLAN RE -DESIGNATION FROM HIGH DENS TY
RESIDENTIAL TO INDUSTRIAL FOR A PORTION 0 725 CY-
PRESS AVE., LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1, =LOCK V, '
RACT 2002;
A staff eport was presented by Director S hubach.
The Public earing was opened. No one •ming forward to
speak, the P •lic Hearing was closed .
Straw Vote (Are- 1): To approve sta%f recommendation.
Motion Sheldon, -cond Rosenberger. Objections by
Creighton and Simp on.
Straw Vote (Area 2):. To approve staff recommendation.
Motion Rosenberger, se •nd Shelon. 5/0.
AREA B.
GENERAL PLAN RE-DESIG ION FROM OPEN SPACE AND
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENT ► TO INDUSTRIAL FOR THE
PROPERTY AT 552 11TH LA (SITE OF "HERMOSA MINI -
STORAGE") AND FROM NERAL COMMERCIAL TO INDUSTRIAL
FOR THE WEST SIDE • BARD S •EET (INCLUDING 1309
AND 1319 BARD STR ET) 91 TO 2.8 FT. SOUTH OF PIER
AVE.
A staff report wa
The Public Heari
speak, the Publ.
s •resented by Direct • Schubach.
was opened. No one co 'ng forward to
Hearing was closed.
Straw Vote: To approve staff recommendation.
Motion Sheldoh, second Rosenberger. 5/0
AREA C.
1) GENERAL PLAN RE -DESIGNATION FROM GENERAL COMME
TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE EASTERN PO
TION OF 66 9TH ST., 801 HERMOSA AVE. AND 63 8TH S
(LOTS 16, 25 AND 26, BLOCK 9,.HERMOSA:BEACH TRACT;
IAL
-2Z-- Minutes 10-10-89
October 2,. 1989
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of
Hermosa Beach City Council October 10, 1989
SUBJECT: THIRD QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND/OR ZONE
CHANGES FOR GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING INCONSISTENCIES
LOCATIONS: "AREA 10," AND VARIOUS INCONSISTENT AREAS WEST OF
VALLEY DRIVE (SEE ATTACHED MAPS)
PURPOSE: TO GENERAL PLAN AMEND AND/OR ZONE CHANGE THE
SUBJECT PROPERTIES TO BRING THE GENERAL PLAN AND
ZONING MAPS INTO CONSISTENCY
INITIATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
Recommendation
The Planning Commission and Staff recommend that the City Council
amend the Land Use Map of the General Plan and the zoning map for
the subject areas as noted on the attached maps `by adopting the
attached Resolution and Ordinance.
Background
Statelaw allows cities to amend the General Plan four times per
year. The areas of concern include "Area 10," located between
Barney Court and Meyer Court on both sides of First Street, for
which the City Council directed staff to bring up as a 3rd
Quarter General Plan Amendment. or Zone Change, and the remaining
inconsistent areas west of Valley Drive, in the Coastal Zone
(areas A through F) as identified by staff.
The recommendations,- analysis, and location maps for each area
are contained in the attached reports on each area, which is the
same report submitted to the Planning Commission reorganized so
that the analysis and the maps for each area are together.
Recommendations as to whether to amend the General Plan or Zoning
map were made primarily based on consistency with current land
uses of the subject areas, although other concerns included
consistency with surrounding land uses, and prevailing lot sizes.
Alternatives
Since each area was publicly noticed with a statement "...or to
such other zone or general plan designation as deemed appropriate
by the City Council," the City Council may amend the general plan
or zoning maps in whatever way they deem appropriate to bring the
general plan and zoning into consistency.
Procedure for Adoption of the Amendments
Staff suggests that the Council open the public hearing for each
area separately and take a "straw' vote on that area. When all
the areas have been heard, the Council could then take a final
vote on the adoption of the proposed Resolution, or an amended
Resolution, for the General Plan Amendments; and then take.::a
final vote on the adoption of the proposed Ordinance, or an
amended Ordinance, for the Zone Changes.
CONGUR
lKen Roser on
Midh`ael Schubach.
Planning Director
Kevin Northcr4ft
City Manager
Associate Planner
Attachments
1. Recommendations/Analysis for Area 10, and Areas A
2. Proposed Resolution and Ordinance
3. P.C. Resolution No. 89-66
4. P.C. Minutes, 9/5/89
5. Public Notice Affidavit
6. Public Correspondence
p/pcsrgpa8
CITY MANAGER COMMENT:
This item was not resolved during its last discussion on May 3,
1989 due to consecutive motions failing by a vote of 2-2.- Barring
a change in sentiment by a Councilmember, the Council may wish to
postpone this item to the 4th quarter amendments when at least one
new viewpoint will be on the Council in hopes of ending the stalemate.
AREA 10.
Recommendation
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the subject area
be general plan redesignated from Low Density 'Residential to
Medium Density Residential to be made consistent with the R -2B
zoning.
Background
On December 13, 1988, the City Council downzoned the subjectarea
from R-2 to R -2B consistent with the recommendation of Staff and
the Planning Commission. .The subject area was considered for
downzoning to R-1, however, the R -2B designation was chosen
because of the large lots and because with R -2B zoning the
density would not significantly exceed the maximum of 13 for the
Low Density range.
On May 3, 1989, the City Council considered a General Plan
redesignation from Low Density to Medium Density for consistency.
After public testimony generally opposed to such a redesignation
the Council decided to postpone action to the third quarter
general plan amendments to include an option for a zone change to
R-1. The option to rezone the area to R-1 is available to the
Council as this area was advertised for either a general plan
amendment or a zone change.
Analysis
The current R -2B zoning would permit the addition of only 3
additional units to this area. Staff does not believe this would
be asignificant-impact if it were to occur. Currently one lot is
nonconforming to density; if the area was changed to R-•1, four
additional lots would become noncomforming to density.
The surrounding residential areas consist of an R -P zoned area
directly to the west (allowing R-3 residential development) and a
"1R-1 zoned area to the east and north. Because of the small lots
the density for the R-1 area to the east along 1st Place and 1st
Street is currently about 17.5 units/acre. The density along 2nd
Street to the north is. about 15.5 units/acre. Therefore, the
C16.5. units/acre permitted by R -2B for the subject area is
consistent with or less than surrounding areas. If zoned R-1,
Nthe 9.2 units/acre density would be significantly less.
STATISTICAL DATA FOR AREA 10
General Plan Designation: LD
Zoning Designation:- R -2B
Number of Lots:
Total Area:
Lot Sizes:
No. Existing Units/Density:
Potential maximum additional units:
under R -2B:
if R-1:
10
47,290 sq. ft.
2900 - 6700 sq. ft.
16 units / 14.7 du/acre
3
0
err
Potential Units/Density assuming all new construction:
under R -2B: 18 units / 16.6 du/acre
if R-1: 10 units / 9.2 du/acre
Nonconforming under R -2B: 1 lot / 3 units
Nonconforming if R-1: 5 lots / 11 units
4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
• 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION P.C. 89-66
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING.THE LAND USE MAP OF THE
GENERAL PLAN BY AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE
DESIGNATIONS FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE
ATTACHED MAPS AND RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
Third Quarter General Plan amendments, GPA 89-8, on September 5,
1989, and made the following Findings:
A. The subject areas have inconsistent General Plan and Zoning
map designations, and state law requires consistency between
the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance;
B. In order to make the subject areas consistent requires either
an amendment to the General Plan Map or the Zoning Map;
General Plan amending• and
described below will bring
into consistency;
rezoning' the subject areas
as
the zoning and and General Plan
D. The general plan amendments and zone changes are appropriate
for the subject areas as they are consistent with existing
and potential land uses and compatible with surrounding
areas, and are consistent with the objectives and policies of
the General Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission •
of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend
that the land use --map of the general plan and the zoning map be
amended as shown on the attached maps and described as follows:
ri
General Plan amend from Low Density Residential. to Medium
Density Residential for "Area 10 legally described as
follows
-lots 22-25 and 28-31 inclusive and a portion of lots 26 and
27, Trafton Heights Tract
VOTE:AYES: Comms.Ingell,Ketz,Moore,Peirce,Chmn.Rue
NOES: None
: 29 _
1
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
L
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
2. General Plan amend from Open Space to Industrial for Area
"A-1," legally described as follows:
— lots 11-18 inclusive, Block R, Tract 2002; lots 11-18
inclusive, Block U, Tract 2002; the southerly 240 feet of the
vacated portion of Bard Street north of 6th Street; and a
portion of lot A, Tract 2002.
VOTE:AYES: Comms.Ingell,Ketz,Moore,Peirce,Chmn.Rue
NOES: ;None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
3. General Plan amend from High Density to Industrial for Area
"A-2," legally described as follows:
lot 1, Block V, Tract 2002
VOTE:AYES: Comms.Ingell,Ketz,Mooe,Peirce,Chmn.Rue
• NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
4. a) General Plan amend from Open Space and High Density to
Industrial for a portion of Area "B," legally described as
follows:
- the southwest portion of lot 2, Block 74, Second Addition
to Hermosa Beach, measuring 34,500 square feet
b) General Plan amend from High Density Residential to
General Commercial for a a portion of Area "B," legally
described as follows:
- easterly 79.6 feet of lots 10 and 11, Tract No. 780
c) Zone Change from •M-1 to C-2 for a portion of Area
legally described as follows:
- the easterly 79.6 feet of the southerly 43 feet of lot 12,
Tract No. 780, and the easterly 79.6 feet of lots 10 and 11,
Tract No. 780
t*B
VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ingell,Ketz,Moore,Peirce,Chmn.Rue
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
5. General Plan amend from General Commercial to Medium Density
Residential for area "C-1," legally described as follows:
- lots 16, 25 and 26, Block 9, Hermosa Beach Tract
VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ketz,Moore,Peirce
NOES: Comm.Ingell,Chmn.Rue
1
2
3
4
5
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
• 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
6. General Plan amend from General Commercial to High Density
Residential for area "C-2," legally described as follows:
-lots 19-27 inclusive, Block 11, Hermosa Beach Tract
VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ingell,Ketz,Moore,Peirce,Chmn.Rue
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
7. General Plan amend from General Commercial to High Density
Residential and Zone Change from R -P to R-3 for area "C-3,"
legally described as follows:
-the southerly 30 feet of lot 16, and lots 17-25 inclusive,
Block 35, Hermosa Beach Tract
VOTE: AYES: :Comms.Ingell,Ketz.,Moore,Peirce,Chmn.Rue
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
8. a) General Plan amend from Commercial -Recreation to High
Density Residential a portion of area "D," legally
described as follows:
- lots 10-14 inclusive, and lot 30, Block 15, Hermosa Beach
Tract; lot 1, Parcel Map 196-58
b) General Plan amend from General Commercial to High Density
Residential for a portion of. area "D," legally described.
as follows:
- lot 20, Block 16, Hermosa Beack Tract
c) Zone Change from C-2 to R -2B for a portion of area "D,"
legally described as follows:
- lots 17 and 18, Block 16, Hermosa Beach Tract; and lots 29
and. 30, Block 17, Hermosa Beach Tract
VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ingell,Ketz,Moore,Peirce,Chmn.Rue
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
9. a) General Plan Amend from Medium Density Residential to
Neighborhood Commercial a portion of area "E-1," legally
described as follows:
- portions of lots 4-7 .inclusive, Block 109, Shakespeare
Tract; and portions of 1-5 inclusive, Block 67, lst Addition
to Hermosa Beach Tract
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
b) Zone Change from C-1 to R-2 for a portion of area "E-1,"
legally described as follows:
- portions of lots 11 and lot 12, Block 67 1st Additiona to
Hermosa Beack Tract; lots 1 and 2, Block 109, Shakespeare
Tract; and lot 1, Tract 31943
VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ingell,Ketz,Moore,Peirce,Chmn.Rue
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
10. Zone Change from R-3 to R-2 for area "E-2," legally described
as follows:
- portion of lot 1, lots 2,4,5 and 6 Block 112 Shakespeare
Tract; and lot 1, Parcel Map 128-78-79
VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ingell,Ketz,Moore,Peirce
NOES: Chmn.Rue.
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
11. a) Zone Change from C-1 to R-2 for a portion of Area "F,
legally described as follows:
- lots 1 and 3, Block 119.Shakespeare Tract
b) Zone Change from C-1 to R-3 for a portion of Area
legally describedas follows:
- lots 13 and 15, Block 102, Shakespeare Tract
VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ingell,Ketz,Moore,Peirce,Chmn.Rue
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
CERTIFICATION
It
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C..89-is a true
and complete record of the action taken by the Planning
Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their
regular me ting of September 5, 1989.
plandoc/persgpa8
Michael SchuTach, Secretary
4P
THIRD QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND/OR ZONE CHANGES AS
RECOMMENDED OR AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 24, 1989. Staff recommended general plan
amendments and zone changes for the subject areas.
State law allows cities to amend the general plan four times per year. The areas of
concern include Area 10, located between Barney Court and Meyer Court on both sides of
1st Street, for which the City Council directed staff to bring up as a third quarter
general plan amendment or zone change, and the remaining inconsistent areas west of
Valley Drive, Areas A through F.
AREA 10: (Location generally between Barney Court and Meyer Court, from south city
boundary to the rear of lots fronting on 2nd Street to the north): To either remain R -2B
zoning with general plan amended from low density to medium density or change to R-1
zoning to be consistent with the general plan
Staff recommended that the area be general plan redesignated from low density
residential to medium density residential to be made consistent with the R -2B zoning.
On December 13, 1988, the City Council downzoned the subject area from R-2 to R -2B,
consistent with the recommendation of staff and the Planning Commission. The subject
area was considered for downzoning to R-1; however, the R -2B designation was chosen
because of the large lots and because with R -2B zoning the density would not
significantly exceed the maximum of 13 for the low density range.
r- 3 1 —.
P.C. Minutes 9/5/89
On May 3, 1989, the City Council considered a general plan redesignation from low
density to medium density for consistency. After public testimony generally opposed to
such a redesignation, the Council decided to postpone action to the third quarter general
plan amendments to include an option for a zone change to R-1.
The current R -2B zoning would permit the addition of only three additional units to this
area. Staff does not believe this would be a significant impact if it were to occur.
Currently, one lot is nonconforming to density; if changed to R-1, four additional lots
would become nonconforming to density.
The surrounding residential areas consist of an R -P zoned area directly to the west
(allowing R-3 residential development) and an R-1 zoned area to the east and north.
Because of the small lots, the density for the R-1 area to the east along 1st Place and 1st
Street is currently about 17.5 units per acre. The density along 2nd Street to the north is
about 15.5 units per acre. Therefore,.the 16.5 units per acre permitted by R -2B for the
subject area is consistent with or less than surrounding areas. If zoned R-1, the 9.2 units
per acre density would be significantly less.
Area 10 has a general plan designation of low density, with a zoning of R -2B. There are
ten lots with a total area of 47,290 square feet. There are 16 units, with a density of
14.7 dwelling units per acre.
There is a potential maximum of three additional units under R -2B zoning; no additional
units would be allowed under R-1 zoning.
With all new construction, there is a potential of 18 units under R -2B, with a density of
16.6 dwelling units per acre. Under R-1, there is a potential of ten units, with a density
of 9.2 units per acre.
Under R -2B zoning, there is one lot and three units nonconforming; under R-1, five lots
and eleven units would be nonconforming.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that the City Council
was concerned with several matters: (1) that there was an assumption made that the.
area was going to be changed to low density, R-1, no matter what; and (2) there was no
public notice made of the matter.
Chmn. Rue noted that he had been handed a petition signed by a number of people on 1st
Street opposed to the redesignation of Area 10 from low density to medium density
because they believe such a redesignation will further deteriorate the family atmosphere
in that area and will decrease property values.
Public Hearing opened at 9:15 P.M. by Chmn. Rue.
Sam Edgerton, 1118 2nd . Street, stated that the petition was signed by 5.5 registered
voters to fight this proposition. He noted that there is a huge objection to changing the
general plan from low density to medium density. He noted concern that the area will
become too crowded if the designation is changed. He noted that the lots in this area are
larger than in other areas, and the area could be turned into all condos in the future. He
noted concern over density and height. He noted that this area is on the plateau of a hill
and is mostly single-family homes. He said that this area differs from the area across
the highway. He noted concern over the intrusion of condos creeping up the hill.
—32
P.C. Minutes 9/5/89
Mr. Edgerton stressed that the area should remain low density. He said that the zoning
should be in conformance with the general plan, not the other way around.
Mike Meyers, 1104 1st Street, stated that the original notice was misleading and people
thought the area would be rezoned to R-1. He stated that Proposition EE should' be
upheld. He stressed that residents favor lower density. He stated that the area should
be low density to prevent the increase in density in the area. He urged the Commission
to recommend that this area remain low density.
Carey Downs, 1036 2nd Street, favored the area being designated low density in an effort
to reduce density. He stated that the high density proponents are interested only in
profits. He urged the Commission to reduce density.
Ruth Brandt, 1231 1st Street, favored low density. She stated that the area is becoming
too dense with worse parking troubles. She stated that this area is mostly single-family
usage, regardless 'of what the zoning is. She urged the Commission to follow Proposition
EE and recommend low density R-1.
Joanne Zambrana, 1118 2nd Street, favored low density, stating that if :this area slides
through, it will happen over and over again.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, discussed this area, stating that staff's
recommendation is reasonable and it will remove eight or nine units from this area. He
continued by discussing: (1) what can be built on these properties; (2) the difference
between low density and medium density; (3) the size of the lots; (4) thereasons why this
area was rezoned R -2B instead of R-1, because of the large lot sizes; (5) the high density
located down the hill from this area; (5) views which can be created with the medium
density designation; (6) the problems encountered by developers when their property is
redesignated or rezoned; (7) the City Council's original 5-0 decision to make this area R -
2B and their subsequent change in opinion; (8) possible condo development in this area;
and (9) the topography of this area.
Steve Harrison, 23 Barney Court, discussed aproject he built at 1st Street and how much
the neighbors liked the project. He stated that he attempts to design the projects so that
they look like single-family residences. He stated that he has already been downzoned
once, from R-2 to R -2B, which means that a unit would be lost if the project were
destroyed. If the property is downzoned to R-1, there will be a further loss of two-thirds
of his ability to rebuild what is already there. He did not feel he should downzoned
again; therefore, he suggested that the property remain as it currently is, R -2B.
Mike Cleland, 3520 Strand, developer and partner, stated that when he purchased the
property it was R-2. There was then a moratorium placed on the property. He continued
by discussing what could have been built at his property and what was actually built
there. He discussed the lot sizes and what can be built in the area. He supported the R -
2B zoning, noting his financial stake in the property.
Carey Downs, ` 1036 2nd Street; commented on: (1) the difference in the slope of the lots
between Barney and Meyer; (2) the project built by the developers who testified; (3) his
desire to stop further large development; (4) a split lot in the area and what might be
built on it; (5) potential monstrosities being built which can impact him; (6) the buffer
zone between low density and high density; (6) views and view blockage; and (7)
neighbors' feelings on new developments.
--33-
P.C. Minutes 9/5/89
Sam Edgerton, 1118 2nd Street, stated that this matter was fully briefed the last time it
was heard, and he suggested that everyone read those materials to become fully
informed.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, stressed that three units cannot be built in an R -2B _..,
zone. He continued by discussing the potential size of projects.
Public Hearing closed at 9:45 P.M. by Chmn. Rue.
Comm. Peirce gave background information on Proposition EE and stated that it
ultimately left the final decision up to the elected or appointed body. He stated that it
is important to avoid injustices. He said this particular area has large lots. Even if the
area were developed to R -2B standards, the density would be almost exactly the same as
the surrounding area, except to' the west where it would be much higher density. He
therefore did not see this as a density issue, noting that only three additional units could•
be added in this area. He stated that he intends to reaffirm the previous•action of the
Commission to make this area R -2B.
Comm. Moore asked for clarification on the previous action taken by the City Council
and how this issue was returned to the Commission.
Comm. Moore felt that the real issue which will affect this neighborhood will be the
height of future developments. He asked whether there are any statistics on the current
height to which the existing developments were built.
Mr. Schubach stated that the heights are mixed. The newer developments are closer to
the maximum height allowed.
Chmn. Rue stated that he agrees with the comments made by Comm. Peirce, noting that
these lots are larger than average. Therefore, the zoning went from R-2 to R -2B in an
attempt to lessen density. He felt that R -2B is the appropriate zoning for this area. •
Comm•. Ketz, noting the large size of the lots in this area, felt that R -2B is the
appropriate zoning. She noted that if the zoning were R-1, there would be five
nonconforming lots and 11 nonconforming units.
MOTION by Chmn. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to reaffirm that Area 10 remain
zoned R -2B, and that the general plan designation be changed from low density to
medium density.
AYES: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
AREA A -I General Plan redesignation from Open Space to Industrial for the northwest
corner of Valley Drive and 6th Street (the "City Yard")
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 24, 1989. The city yard is zoned M-1, light
manufacturing, with a general plan designation of open space.
The available options to make this area consistent would be to general plan amend from
open space to industrial, or, zone change from M-1 to open space. The recommended
P.C. Minutes 9/5/89
OCTOBER 3, 1989
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1315 VALLEY DR. .
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
GENTLEMEN:
OCT ii t 1989
REFERENCING YOUR PLAN TO CHANGE AREA. 10 - PLEASE LET ME SAY
I AM ADAMANTLY IN FAVOR OF CHANGING TO R-1 ZONING. THERE IS ENOUGH
POPULATION DENSITY IN THE CITY ALREADY!!! WE NEED MORE SINGLE
FAMILY HOMES, NOT MULTI -DWELLINGS. I LIVE AT 1120 1ST ST AND
THERE IS ALREADY NO PARKING ON THE.STREET! I AM OPPOSED TO ANY
MORE CONDOMINIUMS AND APARTMENT DWELLINGS IN THIS CITY!!!
WE NEED MORE STABLE FAMILIES, NOT TENANTS.
SINCERELY,
,k)oekt
SUSAN SWANSON
1120 1ST ST.
HERMOSA BEACH, CA
1) I V
' it, ew
) F (14- ., t
Hc)a. ch t,
di ! clepciu ± j'lvw
0 /1-1.,0.(2.04v3 .1)-cez
1 5 (47 The y a.; y c._
(12
boas
CO3,011Cr L ..11)t.ti) ,
OCT 0 219
C
•
o#12.r'r"c
/r•
' �C f j% ._ .....,.. _ P- �G? IZ G1,1't C 411,11
I -p_ _1P.
f) (A. ii1/4; ; C( S (24 .b472-
(._.�A e'iit Com, .-(' l-1 . _ -.1c›` 1
au))
I) .(61t) p r 1-
I --t-7t eJ. , i o izeu ; (944 .
_..._.- b, e' 71' cc a r . i q. ecIA,, L. G J2-� cLQ,,cticil ._. Ive' St, .{t (.
kQc?
(-3 t 11'1,t1j(1C; (.,P -):s,6 itis -9(, ) --tp �..sQ(.,( �'t v....-
i3 (-- t} (�0 Jai- J' wG .r (\� c u f � (� 12� )-��
•t �',1 p�--
i
-2--Vl/11 C�
1/1 ce j2-Lty„,
,CC,"(
A:TpPTC ?0—
r !
36.
fC e
CI�
DATE: Sept. 27, 1989
TO: Planning Department
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Dr
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 r
FROM: Carol Kirsch
939 1st Street
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
OCT 0 21989
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment for Area 10
Area 10 should be re -zoned to R-1 to be consistant with the general
plan. As a homeowner (condominuim) in this neighborhood, I am very
concerned about this proposed change to the general plan.
There are several reasons to keep the housing density as low as
possible in this area: Traffic on First Str. from Pacific Coast Highway
east to Area 10 is already heavy for a residential street. Because of
the hill on First Street, the cars and numerous trucks that use the
road usually use low, noisy gears to ascend the street. The noise from
this traffic is very disturbing to the neighborhood.
Parking is another issue to consider not allowing an increase in the
density of the area. Parking is very scarce because many of the
streets are narrow. Parking is only 'permitted on one side of the
street, in many cases. This makes parking for guests of residents hard
to find.
As a homeowner in this general area, I strongly oppose this potential
change. It is not good for the neighborhood, and they- •re, not good
for the city.
Thank you,
OCT 0 2 mg
i
ebttanc.; L lec 6r -s
O i:, In v i vh tvle ti/i- Pec. C,�
A UG 31. m8g
het,, e!4. -.J n- or._ _. ✓n -4- t 6-kfze-, _.._1/3
i s . _P o,Q-`f -`Z6
.. ve0-5, , R -2 )jLcL'. et/4.A'I
LD A- p,/ -u a,,4"'�
cQeL,,; 1-0 c -. paved\-. 0 i -D4- sl -i+. k4 P e Vi r g,_ coo (ALS
0k Lt 1 k Cvt2.i 3,e -- Se h st I ) DuvL NUM.__ pkOr 0/4-r).1(11-( iU
'Q- cjl.,,(1.o /g - 2 i t4: -(a
h.... tr) AAA ,o... � Ge eatcx ,
nn n
�•• s E? vt S �. �-i 2 �cX ...__�� 12� 5 is 2w�'tF fw
Zz )iooLt.Lc/1
00 u _ _.... Res 'Jc - i WL .._._n eiVn 60R-11 0 4
INFORMATRJN.
e-akt, Thiez_
,- LA
1 �"'� r
Yt.st,{
f
1 v' 1 i_•
�.
I { Li/�
r �
J _
`e `.. r"`�'K� /N""' %r'yt/. - J am.-. _L;/. . Y LA
(L f „ i /tY
. )
We the undersigned are opposed to the redesignation from
low density to medium density for area 10. We believe
such a change will further deteriorate the family
atmosphere that exists in the southeastern corner`of
Hermosa Beach.. First Street has a great deal of traffic
now and increasing density will multiply the problem. In
addition we believe it will detract from home values in the
neighborhoods around the area and will obstruct views that
exist under the present designation. We ask that the city
council work towards keeping Hermosa Beach a family
orientated and a low density community by not approving
this change in density. Attached is a copy of the notice
of redesignation.
MIME
-&/
ADDRESS
//O 9 / .f%. A/6.- - , 5'6
// 0 4 / S± S.
,O1) 1 "
a_ qv PAGE 1
,c
l / t 3rr-ie,t. i
B\
\-\-Q. '� S
2V".
. -/o
✓,t,� -i C 9c2o�S
-1 -17-
c:21 -H"
-1 1 az
leA • L s st 050
g ' 9/ °z
.WSJ__ -1\j.
•fi _L 1S vt l r C t
1_s
".zF 2z/
-74e-rd
yap-v72/4‘eyi.4-v7n
Nc-rnorn
,wft-0
(4y
"--reArcer-C,,S
Asz,b, -gfi
c_12Z y..„2 z
v9ar
cPz /7 ct-9-3-27D
j/17
-�� (-47,t) -1 c i l
r/ //2-Y
r�
,-v-ki/v3/7
Michael Schubach, Planning Director
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Dr.
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254`
Good day,
1246 First St.
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
August 25, 1989
AN 2 8 1989
This is in reference to the published agenda for the September 5, 1989, meeting
of the Planning Commission. I will be unable to attend, but I want to comment
about item five, zoning for Area 10 (between Barney Court and Meyer Court).
i live up the street from the affected area. Because of unacceptable current
levels of traffic on First Street, the lack of parking in the area, and the
inevitable exacerbation of those conditions if density higher than R-1 is
encouraged or allowed in the area, I am against amending the General Plan to
increase the density (from low to medium) in this area.
Along with a majority of those who voted, I am in favor of resolving conflicts
between the General Plan and the zoning so that the lower density is the
result. In this case, that would involve changing the zoning to be consistent
with the Low Density designation of the General Plan.
I, too, have been affected by the actions taken to lower density --- my two
lots were merged, with possible negative financial ramifications. However, the
quality of life in the neighborhood is worth a great deal --- both in the case
of my merged lots and"in the cases of the property owners in Area 10. A
quality neighborhood has positive financial ramifications --- and anything to
cut the traffic and parking problems on First Street will improve that quality.
Thank you,
David R. Suess
HERMOSA HILLS COMMUNITY WATCH
May 3, 1989
June Williams, Mayor
Jim Rosenberger, Councilmember
Roger Creighton, Councilmember
Chuck Sheldon, Councilmember
Etta Simpson, Councilmember
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Dear Councilmembers:
On behalf of our organization and other neighborhood
residents, we give our most sincere "thank you" for
permitting us to be heard at the last City Council meeting.
regarding the proposed Barney -Meyer Court General Plan
amendment. As elected officials, you have to make decisions
based on a variety of factors and input. We appreciate the
efforts of the councilmembers for preserving our right to be
heard and for supporting us on this issue. We also
appreciate the Mayor's flexible approach in recommending that
the measure should be reviewed again by the Planning
Commission.
As you heard last Tuesday, we are adamantly opposed to
the plan amendment favoring higher density. This measure is
not in keeping with our neighborhood desire to keep down the
density and traffic congestion and to prohibit the
construction of tall condominium/apartment complexes that
stand out as eyesores in an ,otherwise single-family
neighborhood. The quality of life in this area is our utmost
concern and we ask you for your continued support to prevent
our neighborhood from being irreparably harmed by escalating
density.
As indicated at the last meeting, we stated that we
would provide you with further information supporting our
position in opposition to the amendment. Based on our
inquiries following the meeting, we have discovered several
compelling reasons why the plan amendment should not be
permitted.
I. Higher Density Is Not In Keeping With Ballot Measure
EE
In 1980, the voters of Hermosa Beach overwhelmingly
approved a measure on the ballot which provided that any
conflict between the general plan favoring lower density and
zoning shall be reconciled in favor of lower density. In
short, the general plan should control. The general plan in'''',
this area calls for low density. Low density has been
uniformly interpreted to mean "R-1" zoning...
It may be true, as was suggested at the meeting, that it
is in violation of state law to have the applicable zoning
regulations and general plan inconsistent with one another.
Yet it strains credulity that zoning regulations should cause
a change in the general plan, rather than the reverse. A
contrary measure would allow those in charge of zoning to
make the ultimate decisions concerning density. Among other
problems, this would also contravene the intent of
Proposition EE and would certainly beg the question of
whether the city elders intended on carrying out the desires
of the electorate.
II. The Lots In Question Are Not All Large Enough For
"R-2" Zoning
At the hearing, the City Planner represented that each
of the lots between Barney and Meyer Court were approximately
6,000 square feet in size. He may not have realized that two
of these lots were already legally 'subdivided. As you can
see from the enclosed map of the northerly Section of Area
10, the two subdivided lots do not justify the building of an
apartment complex upon them. Therefore, only two of the four
lots in question are actually over 5,250 square feet.
In addition, as you can see from the enclosed
photographs, this is not spacious land. The lots are already
fully developed. A plan amendment would allow developers to
come in.and tear down the existing structures and build
taller condominiums or apartment complexes which would blight
the skyline at the expense of those; neighbors living in
smaller single-family homes.
III. Permitting "R-2" Zoning Would Be Inconsistent With
Prior Actions Of The City Council
Last fall, the city council voted to rezone Area 11 from
R-3 to R-2 despite opposition. The basis behind this move
was to follow Proposition EE for lower density. During this
process Commissioner Rue stated that since the general plan
was the lower designation there was no choice but to rezone
this area to follow the lower density general plan. This
same policy should apply to Area 10, thereby leaving it low
density and rezoning itto R-1.
IV. Misleading Notice Information
The public notice sent out in the fall concerning Area
10 led the public to believe that a rezoning from R-2 to R-1
was to occur. Because the public relied on this information,
the only two people who appeared, opposed R-1 zoning.
However, unbeknownst to the public, the real issue was not to
consider rezoning to R-1, but rezoning to R -2B. Had the
public known this at that time, they would have publicly
opposed the rezoning of that area to anything other than R-1.
V. Prior Actions In Reference To Loss Of Land Use
Prior actions by the city council also support the move
to rezone to lower density, despite arguments of loss of land
use. There were two cases where the city merged lots and the
owners lost future financial opportunities with their lots.
These decisions were upheld by the City Council even after
the landowners appealed. The first case concerned 1549
Golden Avenue, where two lots were merged forming one 5700
square foot lot. This meant the loss of one additional
potential dwelling to that owner. The second case was 1241
10th Street where three lots were merged forming a 7,500
square foot lot. This owner lost the potential of two
additional dwellings. Based on these previous decisions, we
feel that the loss of potential land use should not be a
factor when considering the General Plan amendment of Area 10
We thank you for hearing our positions. In light of the
above mentioned information we request that you vote to
follow the electorate position and keep Area 10 low density
,and ;rezone it R-1.
Michael Mey
DATE: Mar. 14, 1989
TO: Planning Department-
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Dr
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
FROM: Carol Kirsch •
939 1st Street
'Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
SUBJECT: General Plan Redesignation for Area 10
MAR� 6 ���
� \�u��
`�
The proppsed change for Area 10 from Low Density to Medium Density is
not in the best interest of the resid,ents in the neighborhood. Traffic
on First Str. from Pacific Coast Highway east to.Area 10 is already
heavy for a residential street. Because of the hill on First Street,
the cars and numerous trucks that use the road usually use low, noisy
gears to ascend the street. The noise from this traffic is very
disturbing to the neighborhood.
Parking is another issue to consider in allowing an increase
density of the area. Parking is very scarce because many of
streets are narrow. Parking is only permitted on one side of
street, in many cases. This makes parking for guests ofresidents hard
to find.
As a homeowner in this.general area, I strongly oppose this potential
change. It is not good for the neighborhood, and therefore, not good
for the city.
Thank you,
962 First Street #D
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
March 14, 1989
Planning Department
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, Calif. 90254
Re: Redesignation of Area 10
Dear Planning Department,
N .R I 5 1989
When is enough enough? I thought the philosophy of the City
Council was to move toward low density not the other way
around. Yourgeneral plan map shows most of the area
surrounding Area 10 is low density except for a high density
section of First Street between Pacific Coast Hwy. and Meyer
Court. Why on earth or in congested Hermosa Beach would you
consider eliminating a low density area. The eight and nine
hundred block of First Street is already too congested but
since we are a high density area there's is not much we can do
about it. Two years ago two small, quaint houses at 963 First
St. were torn down to make room for a mammoth, towering,
apartment building. Now I feel like this section of First
Street is Wall Street, west, albeit only a fraction of the
height of Wall -Street, east. But to add to the congestion and
severe shortage of parking, and detract from the residential
nature of Area ten seems ludicrous.
I suggest the Planning Department take a drive through Area ten
and perhaps try to park a car during evenings or weekends.
Although developers are required to provide additional parking,
there is never enough, especially when guests come for a visit.
I, my wife, and a majority of the Cariker Hermosa View
Condominium Association which I represent, strongly request
that you maintain the low density status of Area ten.
Sincerely,
Lee H. Grant, President
Cariker's Hermosa View Condominium Association
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of perjury
that I did on the 05 -,Lei day of Met -1 , 199 c , deposit
into the United States Post Office, first class postage prepaid,
a copy of the Public Notice attached as Exhibit "A" to each and
every person attached as Exhibit "B". I warrant that the persons
named on Exhibit "B" are all the persons required by applicable
law to receive the Public Notice attached as Exhibit "A".
I understand and agree that it is my responsibility to
cause these Public Notices to be made in an aaccurate and timely
fashion and agree to hold the City harmless against any liability
whatsoever for any defect of said notice or notices.
In the event an action is instituted in a court of
competent jurisdiction which questions the legality of the Public
Notices, then the City may in its exclusive discretion suspend
all hearings or cause the cessation of any consturction or of any
use which was permitted as a result of a hearing which was held
on accordance with the Public Notice. In the event that the
court declares the notice or noticing procedure to be effective,
then the City may in its exclusive discretion revoke any permits
granted and cause any approvals given pursuant to those Public
Notices to be declared null and void and I agree on behalf of
myself and my heirs, assigns or successors -in -interest to hold
the City harmless in connection therewith.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
is true and correct.
I have executed this declaration on this the- -11-1-1-- day
of (nc„4 • , 199 a at Hermosa Beach, California.
Ye - YcAJC (r ',JCL;
AX162,9-- /0
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) SS
'day of
Orr this the
lac /a -gee /4
appeared
satisfactory
suscribed- to
executed it.
(SEAL)
fu y;, _ 77;7q and proved to me on the basis of
evidence to 'be the person(s)• whose name (s) /S7/
the within instrument and acknowledged that S�
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
/4m'M s 7;t4-%(0
(Capacity)
, 1990 , before me,
, the undersigned Notary Public, personally
OFFICIAL SEAL.
LAURICE M. DUKE
Notary Public - California
PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN
L. A. COUNTY
My Comm. Exp. Mer. 12, 1993
84CHOROOND
414TER/41
Co pr.1 s.-ra Az -re -5 ?Mos EcT
ARTESIA
E)(16TINCI WWI) LiseS
BLVD.
•
Comm
DSINC/LE-- FAvilq
.r;
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION P.C. 90-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE
GENERAL PLAN FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE
ATTACHED MAP AND RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRONMENTAL. NEGATIVE
DECLARATION.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
General Plan Amendment 89-10 for the southeast corner of Artesia
Boulevard and Prospect .Avenue on March 6, 1990, and made the
following Findings:
A. The subject area is located in a General Plan and Zoning
inconsistency area;
B. The area is currently designated General Commercial while a
portion of the subject area is developed residentially and is
appropriate for a residential General Plan designation
because of the character of surrounding development and the
orientation of the properties towards residential streets;
C. Redesignating the areas as described below recognizes the
existing development character and existing density of
residential development;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
of the City of Hermosa Beach, California,, does hereby recommend
that the.Land Use -Map of the General Plan be amended as shown on
the attached map and described as follows:
SECTION 1. General Plan amend the area on the north side of 24th
Street east of Prospect Avenue, and the resideintial
properties on the east side of Prospect Avenue
between Artesia Boulevard and 24th Street from
General Commercial to High Density Residential and
legally described as follows:
lots 1 through 6, inclusive, Parcel Map 42-13;
lots 23 through 25, inclusive, Walter Ransom Company
Redondo Home Tract.
2
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VOTE:
AYES: Comms.Ketz,Moore,Peirce,Rue,Chmn.Ingell
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 90-16 is a
true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning
Commission of he C' of Hermosa Beach, California, at..their
/
regular meets g `. f rch 6, 1990. __— r, .l
Sco Ingell", ChairmanMichael Sd ubach, Secretary
/ Z/:31/
Date
plandoc/persgp10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION P.C. 90-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY
CHANGING THE ZONE FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW, AND SHOWN ON
THE ATTACHED MAP AND RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE
DECLARATION.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Zone Change 89-11 for the southeast corner of Artesia Boulevard
and Prospect Avenue on March 6, 1990, to receive oral and written
testimony, and made the following Findings:
A. The subject properties are located in an area of the city
which is inconsistent between the Zoning Map and the General
Plan Map;
B. Rezoning the subject areas as described below will bring the
zoning into consistency with the General Plan and state law
requires consistency between zoning and the General Plan, and
it will make the zoning consistent with the adjacent
residential areas to the south;
C. The rezoning the commercial area to C-2 recognizes the
existing development character, and would allow the subject
properties which front on a major highway to be developed and
used for commercial purposed which is appropriate for this
location;
D. The rezoning to an Specific Plan Area equivalent to R-3
density will recognize to current density for the subject
areas and the standards equivalent to R-2 standards will
protect the area from incompatible projects;
E. The proposed rezonings will not cause a significant impact on
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the environment as it will recognize the existing development..
character of the subject area;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend that the zoning
map be amended as shown on the attached map, and that the zoning
ordinance text be amended, described as follows:
SECTION 1. Rezone the commercially developed lots located on the
south side of Artesia Boulevard between Prospect
Avenue and east boundary of the City of Hermosa Beach
from R -P Residential Professional to C-2 - Restricted
Commercial and legally described as follows:
lots 3 through 8, inclusive; lots 11 through 14,
inclusive; and lots 25 through 30, inclusive, Walter
Ransom Company's Redondo Home Tract.
SECTION 2. Rezone the residentially developed lots located on
the east side of Prospect Avenue between 24th Street
and Artesia Boulevard, and the lots located on the
north side of 24th Street east of Prospect Avenue,
from R -P - Residential Professional to Specific Plan
Area No. 9 and legally described as follows:
- lots 1 through 6', inclusive, Parcel Map 42-13; lots
23 through 25, inclusive, Walter Ransom Company's
Redondo Home Tract.
SECTION 3. The following text shall be ad=ded to the zoning
ordinance:
Article 9.6, Chapter 9, Specific Plan Area No. 9'
Section 9.69-1. Authority.
This Specific Plan Area is an instrument for
implementing the General plan pursuant to Article 8,
Chapter 3, of the State of California Planning and
Zoning Law•(California Government Code Section 65450 et.
Seq.)
Section 9.69-2 Location and Description.
The subject area is located on the east side of Prospect
Avenue between 24th Street and Artesia Boulevard and
located on the north side of 24th Street east of
Prospect Avenue.
Section 9.69-3 Purpose.
The purpose of the -Specific Plan Area is to set forth
the development requirements, standards and permitted
uses for the subject area.
1
2
4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Section 9.69-4 Permitted Uses.
A. Any use permitted in the R-1 (Single -Family Residential
Zone;
B. An attached or detached two-family dwelling unit per
lot.
Section 9.69-5 Development Standards
A. Lot Area per dwelling unit. .
The minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall be not less
than thirteen hundred twenty (1320) square feet.
B. All other developmentstandards shall be as set forth in
ARTICLE 5. R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, except as
pertaining Lot Area per dwelling unit as stated in
Section 9.69-5(A).
VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ketz,Moore,Peirce,Rue,Chmn.Ingell
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 90-17 is a
true and. complete record •of the action taken by the Planning
Commissin of the Ciy of Hermosa Beach, California at their
regular meet g ofj M, rch 6; . 1990. 1
h/475
Scott✓ IngellChairman
Date
plandoc/perszcll
Michael Schubach, Secretary
4.
GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO LOW-DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL AND ZONE CHANGE FROM R -P TO R-1 FOR THY. RESIDENTIAL PORTION. AND
ZONE CHANGE FROM R -P TO C-2 FOR THE COMMERCIAL PORTION. OR TO SUCH O'1 HER
DESIGNATIONS / ZONES AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMNIISSION FOR
THE PROPERTY BOUNDED ON PROSPECT AVENUE ON THE WEST. ARTESIA BOULEVARD ON
THE NORTH. AND 24111 STREET ON THE SOUTH. AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Mr. Scliubach gave staff report dated February 28, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission recommend adoption of the proposed general plan amendment and zone changes
by adopting the proposed resolutions.
The subject area is one of the remaining inconsistent areas throughout the City. This
amendment and zone change was initiated by the Planning Commission in response to a
request to open a child care center in an existing office building located on Artesia Boulevard.
The residential area consists of eight lots with four fronting on Prospect Avenue and four
fronting on 24th Street. All four of the lots on Prospect Avenue are developed with duplexes,
while two of the four lots on 24th Street are developed with duplexes, and two contain single-
family dwellings. The six duplexes were developed in 1973, and the single-family dwellings
before 1950.
The subject area has a general plan designation of general commercial, and a zoning
designation of R -P, with a C-2 potential. The total area is 26,030 square feet. Lot sizes range
from 2900 to 3750 square feet. Of the eight lots, six have duplexes and two have single-family
homes. There are 14 units, with a density of 23 dwelling units per acre.
The subject properties are bounded to the north by office and commercial uses fronting on
Artesia Boulevard.
The surrounding residential areas to the south and southwest are designated low density and
zoned R-1. A multiple -unit condominium is located to the west across Prospect Avenue with a
designation of high density and is zoned R-3. The residential area to the east is within the city
of Redondo Beach and is zoned R -1A
-S6-
P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
Staff recommended the change to low density and R-1 primarily because the surrounding
residential neighborhoods are designated low density and R-1, and this neighborhood has a
similar character. This is a significant change as it would essentially downzone the properties
from R-3 to R-1. Staff believes that it would be justified because the standards of the R-1 zone in
respect to height, density, and open space will protect the single-family character of the
neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods. Although most of the existing development
consists of duplexes, they are generally of a size and scale consistent with single-family
structures.
The existing density of the area would be more consistent with medium density and R-2
designations. Because lot sizes are less than 3500 square feet even with an R-2 zoning
classification, most of the lots would be limited to one unit, and the existing duplexes would
become nonconforming.
Mr. Schubach recommended two alternatives: (1) redesignate the subject area to medium
density residential and rezone• to R-2. This would allow the two single-family lots of 3750
square feet to be developed as two units each. The duplex lots would become nonconforming
because of the small lot sizes; however, the height and open space standards would not be as
restrictive as. R-1; (2) redesignate the subject area to high density residential and rezone to R-3.
This would keep the duplex lots conforming but would allow rebuilding to a 35 -foot height
which would' have• a significant impact The impact on overall density, however, would likely
not be too severe as to construct any than two units per lot unless the lots were combined.
The commercial portion consists of three parcels fronting on Artesia Boulevard with uneven
depths, currently developed as a flower shop, a vacant office building, and a new office building
under construction.
The general plan designation of the subject area is general commercial, with a zoning
designation of R -P, with a C-2 potential. There are 14 lots and 3 parcels. Total area is 25,277
square feet. The parcels sizes are 7010, 6057, and 12,317 square feet.
Although' the zoning along Artesia Boulevard to the west ac:coss Prospect Avenue is C-3, staff is
recommending C-2 restricted commercial zoning for the subject area because of the proximity
toresidential uses. , Also across Artesia Boulevard in Manhattan Beach is a church and a
nursery school. Certain C-3 general commercial uses would obviously not be appropriate for
this location.
Under current zoning, these lots could potentially be developed as high density residential.
Changing the zoning to. C-3 will ensure that this highway frontage is utilized for commercial
purposes in the future.
It should be noted that nurseries, preschools, and day-care centers are permitted in the C-2
zone with a conditional use permit.
Public Hearing opened at 9:30 P.M. by Chmn. ingell.
Henry Eisler, 2404 Prospect Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed the proposed
R -P to R-1 zoning, which relates to his property, and described what is currently at this
location; (2) stated that the currently existing duplexes serve as a buffer between the street and
the residential; (3) stated that it would be inappropriate to rezone this area to R-1, especially
because of the traffic, a three-story condo across the street, and the wrapping around of the
currently existing commercial buildings on Prospect; (4) stated that the three-story condo will
overshadow other projects; (5) said that the corner parcels should not be rezoned to R-1, but
rather he would favor an R-2 designation since there are duplexes which act as a buffer.
Harvey Tempkin, 2035 Westwood Boulevard, Los Angeles, addressed the Commission and- (1)
stated that he owns the flower shop on the corner of Artesia; (2) asked for clarification on the
P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
height limit which would be allowed and questioned whether properties could be grandfathered
in to retain the 35 -foot height; (3) stated that he is contemplating erecting a professional
building at this site, stating that R -P zoning would require a five-foot setback; whereas a
commercial designation would require eight feet, plus an additional two feet for each story,
which would total 12 feet for his proposed project; (4) asked whether he could be grandfathered
in to retain the five-foot setback as opposed to the additional setback which would be required
in commercial; (5) felt that he should not be penalized if the property is redesignated to
commercial.
Karen and Don Goldberg, 1207 24th Street, Hermosa Beach: (1) have owned their duplex for two
years, and they felt a downzoning would adversely impact their property value; (2)' stated they
would rather see this rezoned to a legal duplex lot; (3) noted that their lot has ample parking,
stating that there are six spaces on-site.
William Woodson, 230 South Catalina, Redondo Beach: (1) stated that he owns a duplex in the
subject area; (2) stated that the duplexes are well-maintained and are an asset to the
neighborhood; (3) took umbrage at staffs assertion that duplexes are not appropriate in that
area; (4) felt that duplexes should act as a buffer, which these .Pare; (5) asked that the
Commission to rezone so that if there is a catastrophe, the duplexes can be rebuilt without
having to request a variance; (6) was informedby Comm. Peirce that. most of the lots are not
large enough to allow the duplexes to be rebuilt under the current zoning; (7) stated that he is
not well-informed enough with the zoning code to request the appropriate zoning, but he noted
that he would like to be able to rebuild in the event of a disaster; (8) ;was informed by Comm.
Peirce that his lot is large enough to rebuild only one unit unless a variance is granted; '(9) felt
that a hardship would be inflicted on the owners if the zoning is changed; (10) asked whether
his property is nonconforming at the present time; (11) was advised by Mr. Schubach that even
if the property were rezoned to R-2, the lot is not large enough to rebuild two units; (12) was
advised by Mr. Schubach that R-3 zoning would allow two units to be built, but there would be
additional density and spot zoning; (13) asked why the property can't just remain R -P, noting
that it is well-maintained
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Chmn. Ingell regarding the feasibility of
designating this area as a specific plan area, stated that staff could address the issue of
redesignating this area as an SPA; however, he would want to further study this suggestion
before making a recommendation to the Commission..
Henry Eisler again addressed the Commission and: (1) asked for clarification on the issue of
legal R-2 lots based on lot sizes versus legal R-3 lots; (2) asked what could be allowed on R-3 lots;
(3) asked about specific lots and what would be allowed; (4) stated that he would favor a
redesignation to R-3 in order that the duplexes could be rebuilt if necessary; (4) again pointed
out that the current duplexes serve as a buffer. ...
Karen Goldberg again addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that she would favor a
redesignation to R-3 so that the duplexes could be rebuilt if necessary; (2) . stated that a
redesignation to R-1 would be detrimental to the buffer effect.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, owner of the property on the corner currently under
construction: (1) felt that the buffer between commercial and residential is necessary; (2) stated
that, except for the three R-1 split lots, this area could be redesignated to R-3; (3) agreed that
duplexes on these properties are reasonable, and he therefore did not favor R-1; (4) discussed
the issue of split lots and what could be built on them; (5) favored an R-3 designation for the
subject area; (6) stated that if the area is rezoned to R-1, there will be problems in the future
with having single-family residences abutting a commercial zone.
Public Hearing closed at 9:53 P.M. by Chmn Ingell.
Comm. Peirce did not favor additional commercial creeping down Prospect.. He felt that there
should be a way for people to rebuild to two units in the case of a catastrophe. He also favored
P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
the lots on 24th Street being able to rebuild to two units, since those properties act as a buffer
between the commercial and the R-1 property to the south. He asked how this could be
accomplished.
Mr. Schubach explained that the R-2 standards could be retained, but the allowable density
could be R-3. He suggested that the Commission, if desired, consider a specific plan area for
this entire area, including the commercial zone.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adopt a specific plan area for the
residential lots, with R-2 standards and R-3 density; . and to rezone the area along Artesia
Boulevard (the area which is cross -hatched on the chart) to C-2 standards; further, to specify
that building will be limited to two units per lot with R-2 standards ; therefore, no combining of
lots shall be allowed. _
AYES: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn Ingell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
Honorable Chairman and Members of the
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-10
ZONE CHANGE 89-11
February 28, 1990
Regular Meeting of
March 6, 1990
LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ARTESIA BOULEVARD AND PROSPECT
AVENUE
PURPOSE: TO CONSIDER GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION FROM GENERAL
COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND ZONE
CHANGE FROM R -P TO R-1 FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION,
AND ZONE CHANGE FROM R -P TO C-2 FOR THE COMMERCIAL
PORTION
INITIATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend adoption
of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Changes by
adopting the attached resolutions.
Background
The subject area is one of 'the remaining inconsistent areas
throughout the City. This amendment and zone change was
initiated by the Planning Commission in response to a request to
open a child care center in an existing office building located
on Artesia Boulevard.
Analysis
RESIDENTIAL PORTION
The subject area consists of eight lots with four fronting on
Prospect Avenue, and four fronting on 24th Street. All four of
the lots on Prospect Avenue are developed with duplexes, while
two of the four lots on 24th Street are developed with duplexes
and two contain single-family dwellings. The six duplexes were
developed in 1973, and the single-family dwellings before 1950.
STATISTICAL DATA RESIDENTIAL LOTS
General Plan Designation: GC
Zoning Designation: R -P (C-2 Potential)
Total Area: 26,030 sq. ft.
Lot Sizes: 2900 - 3750 sq. ft
go
Number of Lots: 8
Lots with duplexes: 6
Lots with single-family homes:
No. Existing Units/Density:
2
14 units / 23 du/acre
The subject properties are bounded to the north by office and
commercial uses fronting on Artesia Boulevard.
The surrounding residential areas to the south and southwest are
designated = Low Density and zoned R-1. A multiple unit
condominium is located to the west across Prospect Avenue with a
designation of High Density and zoned R-3. The residential area
to the, east is within the City of Redondo Beach, and is zoned
R -1A.
Staff is recommending the change to Low Density and R-1 primarily
because the surrounding residential neighborhoods are designated
Low Density and R-1, and this neighborhood has a similar
character. This is a significant change as it would essentially
downzone the properties. from R-3 to R-1. Staff believes that it
would be justified because the standards of the R-1 zone in
respect to height, density, and open space will protect the
single-family character of the neighborhood and surrounding
neighborhoods. Although most of the existing development
consists of duplexes, they are generally of a size and scale
consistent with single-family structures.
The existing density of the area would be more consistent with
Medium Density and R-2 designations. Because lot sizes are less
-than 3500 square feet even with an R-2.zoning classification most
of the lotswould be limited to one (1) unit, and the existing
duplexes would become nonconforming.
Alternatives
1. Redesignate the subject area to Medium Density Residential
and rezone to R-2. This would allow the two single-family
lots of 3,750 square feet to be developed as two -units each.
The duplex lots would become nonconforming because of the
small lot sizes, however, the height and open space standards
would not be as restrictive as R-1.
2. Redesignate the subject area to High Density Residential and
rezone to R-3. This would keep the duplex lots conforming,
but would allow rebuilding to a 35 -foot height which would
have a significant impact. The impact on overall density,
however, would likely not be too severe as to construct any
more than two units per lot the lots would have to be
combined.
COMMERCIAL PORTION
This portion consists of three parcels fronting on Artesia
Boulevard with uneven depths, currently developed as a flower
shop, a vacant office building, and a new office building under
construction.
-Gt-
STATTSTICAL DATA COMMERCIAL PORTION
General Plan Designation: GC
Zoning Designation:
Number of Lots/Parcels:
R -P (C-2 Potential)
14 lots, 3•parcels
Total Area: 25,277 sq. ft.
Parcel Sizes: 7010, 6057, 12317 sq. ft.
Although the zoning along Artesia Boulevard to the west across
Prospect Avenue is C-3, staff is recommending C-2 - Restricted
Commercial zoning for the subject area because of the proximity
of residential uses. Also across Artesia Boulevard in Manhattan
Beach is a church and a nursery school. Certain C-3 - General
Commercial uses would obviously riot be appropriate for this
location.
Under current zoning these lots could potentially be developed as
high density residential. Changing the zoning to C-2 will ensure
that this highway frontage is utilized for commercial purposes in
the future.
It should also be noted that nursuries, pre-schools, and day-care
centers are permitted in the C-2 zone with a Conditional Use
Permit.
CONCUR:
Michael Schuba h
Planning Director
Attachments
1. Maps
2. Proposed Resolutions
3. P.C. Resolution 89-79
4. P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 & 10/17/89
5. Correspondence
'Ken Robertson
Associate Planner
March 5, 1990
Planning Department
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA
Gentlemen:
inn
I have just recently had surgery and am presently undergoing
Chemotherapy; consequently I cannot attend Tuesday's night
meeting regarding the Southeast corner of Artesia Blvd. and
Prospect Avenue.
I own the duplex at 2416-2418 Prospect. I purchased that
property about ten years ago not simply as an investment,
but more importantly, as my retirement home. I am presently in
the process of refurbishing the upper apartment for my
recovery and retirement. Gentlemen, I have a -modest income and
need the financial help of that lower apartment. This
has been; -my plan for ten years and if that zoning is changed
that certainly can cause me a financial hardship.
I realize the pro's and con's to this general plan redesignation,
however, 'I must remind you if there should be an earthquake for
which I have just recently insured the duplex and/or a burn down
I cannot rebuild my duplex if .it is rezoned for R-1.
I strongly recommend that the Planning Commission consider the
owners of those duplexes and possibly the financial burden you
may cause them if you should rezone. Itis becoming more and
more difficult to purchase property in this area. I am a single
woman forced to retire early who took comfort in knowing that I
had a home with a modest income to live out my life. Now I feel
very threatened.
I request that the Planning Commission reconsider its rezoning
on this issue.
Respectfully,
%- is
Margaret M. Bibee
461 Altura Way
Manhattan Bee.dh, CA 90266
63_
i ` 6 l3Rri' A iON
, 0
cal_ To 254
le -2C otAl
„X..d
cti-�vrz• 22o -e4/—
er,z,
e2 Pa. 11)-e.
`fes/;()Z o-7-7 4-Zre
,/DA6 167-'6"
eter7--Y2 064% fre-te
_ _ _ C;i41,e
a1120--Gak.) Givt-O‹
(a,6P GvR .oho
_fa
J
C-
I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of perjury
that I did on the 29th day of March 1990 ,
deposit into the United States post office, first class
postage prepaid, a copy of the public notice attached as
Exhibit "A" to each and every person attached as Exhibit "B".
I warrant that the persons named on Exhibit "B" are :all the
persons required by applicable law to receive the public notice
attached as Exhibit "A".
I understand and agree that it is my responsibility to
cause these public notices to be made in an accurate and timely
fashion and agree to hold the City harmless against any liability
whatsoever for any defect of said notice or notices.
In the event an action is instituted in a court of com-
petent jurisdiction which questions the legality of the public
notices, then the City may in its exclusive descretion suspend
all hearings or cause the cessation of any construction or of '
any use which was permitted as a result of a hearing which was
held in accordance with the public notice. In the event that
the court declares the notice or noticing procedure to be
effective, then the City may in its exclusive discretion revoke
any permits granted and cuase any approvals given pursuant to
those public notices to be declared null and void and I agree
on behalf of myself and my heirs, assigns or successors -in -interest
to hold the City harmless in connection therewith.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct.
I have executed this declaration on this the 29th day of
March , 1990 at Hermosa Beach, California.
NOTARY:
Donna Rowland
(name)
f1110,_
(Signature)
OaLLutoL
(Capacity)
d
OFFICIAL —,IAL
CHERYL A. ;'; ; RG
NOTARY PU2LIC • CALOF'GRNIA
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
R My Commission Expires Sept. 10, 1993
1246 First St.
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
April 4, 1990
Hermosa Beach City Council
Civic Center, 1315 Valley Dr.
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
REc,,vEU
APR 0 51998
Good day,
This is in reference to the published agenda for the_,
April 10, 1990, meeting of the City Council. I want to
comment about the zoning or general plan amendment for
Area 10 (between Barney Court and Meyer Court).
I live up the street from the affected area. Because of
unacceptable current levels of traffic on First Street,
the lack of parking in the area, and the inevitable
exacerbation of those conditions if density higher than
R-1 is encouraged or allowed in the area, I am against
amending the General Plan to increase the density (from
low tomedium) in this area.
Along with a majority of those who voted in the advisory,
I am in favor of resolving conflicts between the General
Plan and the zoning so that the lower density is the
result. In this case, that would involve changing the
zoning to be consistent with the Low Density designation
of the General Plan.
When my two lots were merged, I accepted it as being for
the general good of the community. If an exception to
the voted advisory is made for Area 10, to benefit
specific property owners to the detriment of the
neighborhood and City, the inconsistency is not
justified.
Thank you,
(414-te
David R. Suess
April 9, 1990
John and Bonnie Wulff
1212 Third St.
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Mayor Creigton and
Council Members: Midstokke, Essertier,
Sheldon and Weimans
Dear Mayor and Council,
In reference, to property area 10 (Barney Meyer Court) we support
maintaining low density designation. Rezoning as necessary
to retain this designation. We live close to this areaand
know it is impacted already!
Thank you.
Supportingly,
onnie S. Wulff
and for John.
SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION
6a
April 10, 1990
Planning Dept.
City of Hermosa Beach
Attn: Michael`Schubach
A P R 1. 01990
I requested that the city council vote to retain R-2 W.
zoning of my property located in Area 10. My reason for
this request is based on the possibility of my property
converting to a single family site. The property is now
a two on a lot duplex with access from both Meyer Court
and Barney Court. It fronts on two separate streets.
The lot square footage is in excess of 3500 square feet.
This property represents the bulk of my estate. I
firmly believe the downzoning would erode my value
dramatically. It would also create a single family site
which fronts on two separate streets. I don't believe
that is the intention of the city fathers. Your
consideration to my request in this matter is
appreciated.
Sincerely,
Brigido Farfan
117 Barney Court
118 Meyer Court
SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION
April 26, 1990
Honorable Mayor and Members
City Council Meeting
of the Hermosa Beach City Council of May 8, 1990
RECOMMENDATION TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO HANDBILLS AND ADVERTISING
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that City Council introduce the attached ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
On August 14, 1984, Council adopted an ordinance regulating the distribu-
tion of handbills and advertising matter making it unlawful to distribute
any printed or written advertising matter by placing it upon automobiles,
porches, yards, or other public or private property.
On October 10, 1987, the Council directed the Police Department to begin
more stringent enforcement of the Handbill Ordinance due to the large
amount of litter that was being created.
On October 27, 1987, the City Attorney rendered an opinion regarding the
enforcement of the Handbill Ordinance indicating that there may be consti-
tutional questions about the legality of our ordinance.
ANALYSIS:
Following numerous complaints from Councilmembers and other citizens, the
Police Department began an aggressive enforcement effort aimed at reducing
the amount of litter caused by the distribution of the various handbills.
This effort included stopping all persons who were passing the handbills
and sending warning letters to the establishments doing the advertising.
Cases were filed against establishments that continued to distribute the
handbills after numerous warnings.
In November 1989, attorneys for the establishments were successful in
obtaining opinions that our ordinance was invalid. The City Prosecutor
instructed the Police Department to cease and desist in the enforcement of
the Ordinance as it related to distribution. of handbills on vehicles and in
the neighborhoods.
In order to have some regulation on the distribution, staff conducted
research and met with several attorneys in order to develop an ordinance
that would meet the constitutional requirements and be enforceable.
Some of the differences between this new ordinance and the ordinance it replaces
are:
* Persons are not entirely restricted from distributing handbills but there are
provisions that require the handbills to be secured in place by a rubber band,
designed to hang on a doorknob, or other method to prevent it from falling to
the ground and becoming litter.
* It allows citizens to post their property and makes it illegal for persons to
distribute handbills on posted property.
In addition to the Handbill problem, the issue of all of the various signs
and advertisement being placed on public and utility property surfaced. In
order to properly address and regulate this continuing problem, specific
sections making this activity unlawful and providing for fees for removal
have been developed and included..
The fees established are based on calculations of average salary for city
employees to remove the signs, track down and bill the responsible party, and
subsequent overhead costs such as mailing fees, telephone usage, paper supplies,
materials necessary to remove signs, and vehicle expense. The City of Los
Angeles recently adopted a similar ordinance and established fees of $190.40 for
the first sign; $1.60 for each additional sign; and $48.50 for each sign glued
or pasted.
Concur:
Kevin B. Northcr
City Manager
Viki Copeland,.
Director of Finance
Steve Wisniewski
Director of Public Safety
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. 90 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING CHAPTER 3 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE
WHICH SAID CHAPTER RELATES TO ADVERTISING.
WHEREAS, Section 3-1, relating to distribution of handbills
and advertising matter, was adopted by the City Council as Ordinance
84-771, effective August 14, 1984; and
WHEREAS, Public and utility property continues to be used as a free
form of advertising; and.
WHEREAS, The placement and distribution of handbills, signs and
advertising matter on public and private -property creates litter, visual
pollution; and
WHEREAS, Many citizens object to the placement of handbills, signs and
advertising matter on their property; and
WHEREAS, The City Council desires to reduce these blighted conditions
and address -the citizens concerns;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That Chapter 3, Section 3-1, of the Hermosa Beach
Muncipal Code, titled "Advertising", shall be amended to read as
follows:
SECTION 3-1. HANDBILL DEFINED. " Handbill," for the purposes of
this chapter, includes any printed or written commercial advertising
matter contained in or in the form of, any sample or device, dodger, cir-
cular, leaflet, pamphlet, newspaper, paper, booklet or any other printed
matter or literature.
SECTION 3-1.1 DISTRIBUTION - ON PUBLIC PROPERTY.
(a) It is unlawful for any person, either directly or indirectly, to depo-
sit, place, throw, scatter or cast any handbill in or on any public
thoroughfare, park, ground or other public place within the city. The pro-
visions of this section shall not be deemed to prohibit the handing,
transmitting or distributing of any handbill to any person willing to
accept the handbill.
//
//
//
//.
1
4
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.
23
24
25
26
27
28
(b) No person who distributes any handbill on a public sidewalk or in a
public park shall neglect to remove any handbill which is distributed by
that person or another person also distributing copies of the same
handbill, which handbill is then thrown, cast or deposited on the ground by
another person within one hundred feet from the lo • ion pf the,,particul r
distribution by said person.
SECTION 3-1.2 DISTRIBUTION ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.
(a) No person shall, for comme ial purposes, distribute, deposit, throw,
place or attach any handbill o, in or upon any porch, yard, steps, door or
mail -box located upon any pr mises not in the possession of or under the
control of the person dis ibuting the said handbill, which premise
posted thereon in a conspicuous place, a sign of at least twelve inches in
area bearing the words, "No Advertising," unless the person distributing
the handbills has first received the written permission of the person
occupying or having possession of such premises authorizing him to do so.
(b) It is unlawful for any person, either directly or indirectly, for com-
mercial purposes:, to distribute, deposit or place any handbill in or upon
any private yard, door, steps, porch, or any other private property unless
the handbill is firmly secured in place by a rubber band or is designed to
hang securely on a doorknob in order to prevent the handbill from falling
to the ground and creating litter.
(c) The provisions of this section shall not be deemed to prohibit the
placing of a political handbill, a religious handbill, or a newspaper on
the door or in front of and immediately adjacent to the door of any private
residence. _
SECTION 3-1.3 DISTRIBUTION - ON VEHICLES. It is unlawful for any
person either directly or indirectly, to distribute, deposit or place any
handbill in or upon any automobile or other vehicle unless the handbill is
firmly secured in place to prevent the .handbill from falling to the ground
and creating litter.
SECTION 3-1.4 HOURS OF DISTRIBUTION. It is unlawful for any person
to distribute any handbills between the hours of nine p.m. of any day and
eight a.m. of the following day.
.SECTION• 3-1.5 HANDBILLS, SIGNS - ON PRIVATE BUILDINGS AND WALLS. It
is unlawful for any person to paint, mark, write on, post, or otherwise
affix or attach any handbill or sign to. -or upon any building, wall or part
thereof, or upon any private property without the consent of the owner,
agent or occupant thereof.
SECTION 3-1.6 HANDBILLS, SIGNS - ON PUBLIC PLACES AND OBJECTS. It is
unlawful for any person to paint, mark, write on, post, or otherwise affix
or attach any handbill or sign to or upon any sidewalk, crosswalk, curb,
curbstone, street lamp post, fence, barrier, barricade, hydrant, tree,
shrub, tree stake or guard, electric light or power or'telephone or
telegraph pole or upon any drinking fountain, street sign, traffic sign,
phone booth, or any other public property or private utility property.
//
//
//
//
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION 3-1.7 HANDBILLS, SIGNS - REMOVAL OF, COSTS,
(a) Any handbill or sign found posted or otherwise affixed upon any public
or utility property contrary to the provisions of this section may be
removed by any company, utility, organization, or individual owning or
responsible for maintaining that property, or any employee of the. City.
(b) For the purposes of this subsection, there shall be a presumption
that: (1) the person listing property for sale, lease or rent is the person
responsible for posting a sign advertising the property for sale, lease or
rent; (2) the candidate seeking office is the person responsible for
posting a sign promoting the candidate for public office; (3) the person in
charge of property used for a yard or garage sale is the person responsible
for posting a sign advertising a yard or garage sale; (4) the owner of pro-
perty used for a commercial activity or event is the person responsible for
posting a sign advertising the subject commercial activity or event; (5)
the person whose name, telephone number or address appears as the sponsor
of an activity or -event is the person responsible for posting a sign adver-
tising the subject activity or event; and (6) the person whose name,
telephone number or address appears as the person to contact on any hand-
bill or sign posted is the person responsible for having posted the same.
(c) For purposes of this subsection, the person presumed to be responsible
for posting a handbill or sign on public or utility property may rebut such
presumption by declaring under penalty of perjury or swearing under oath
that the person did not cause, authorize, allow or permit the posting of
the sign on public or utility property.
(d) Nothing in this section shall apply to the painting of house numbers
upon curbs done in accordance with regulations of the City.
(e) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the installation of signs on
public or utility property provided the sign is a part of a program spon-
sored by a City Department and such signs and locations are approved prior
to installation and provided such signs are removed after their purpose is
served.
SECTION 3-1.8 CHARGES FOR REMOVAL OF HANDBILLS AND SIGNS.
(a) The person responsible for any illegal posting contrary to the provisions
of this section shall be liable for the Cost incurred in the removal and billin
thereof, and the Finance Department is authorized to effect the collection
of said cost incurred by the City of Hermosa Beach,
(b) A service charqe of $20.00 shall be levied for removal of the first
handbill or sign regardless of size.
(c) A service charge of $1.50 shall be levied for each additional sign
removed.
(d) An additional service charge of $5.00 shall be levied for each sign
that is attached or affixed using glue or paste.
(e) The fees specified in this section are subject to revision by Council reso
lution pursuant to Article XIII of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code.
SECTION 3-1,9 FEES AND CHARGES CONSTITUE A VALID AND SUBSISTING DEBT.
(a) All fees and charges levied by the City pursuant to this section shall
be due and payable upon presentation of a written invoice.
(b) All fees and charges for such services pursuant to this section shall
constitue a valid and subsisting debt in favor of the City and against the
person responsible for posting or affixing the handbill or sign to public
or utility property. If an amount remains unpaid after reasonable and
practical attempts have been made by the City to obtain payment, a civil
action may be filed with the appropriate court for the,arnount due and
payable, together with any penalties, and related charges and fees accrued
due to non payment, and all fees and charges required to file and pursue
such civil action.
//
//
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24'
25
26
27
28
SECTION 3-1.10 VIOLATION, PENALTY. Any person violating any provi-
sions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.
SECTION 2. That This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full
force and operation thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption.
SECTION 3. That 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 pro-
vided by law.
SECTION 4. That 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 , 1990.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPRO D S TO FORM: -7
4111/07/
C y Attorney
V
//
//
,//
-//
//
r)
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR
of the City:of Hermosa Beach, California
4
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Andrea N. Anderson, Planning Aide ,..(9,44,s
SUBJECT: COMMUTER EXPRESS PARTICIPATION
DATE: May 1, 1990
Please be advised that for the Hermosa Beach jurisdiction, the
corrected figures for ridership are as follows: Daily ridership
is 57 passengers and annual ridership is 14,535 passengers.
SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION
8
Honorable Mayor and Members of the
Hermosa Beach City Council
April 16, 1990
Regular Meeting of
April 24, 1990
SUBJECT: COMMUTER EXPRESS PARTICIPATION
LOCATION: THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
REQUESTED BY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, CITY OF LOS ANGELES
PURPOSE: TO CONSIDER CITY OF LOS ANGELES COMMUTER EXPRESS
PARTICIPATION
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council budget for $8,607.58 for
commuter service now provided by the City of Los Angeles.
Background
On October 3, 1989, the City of Los Angeles, Department of
Transportation requested consideration of their Commuter Express
Participation. On February 21, 1990, the Planning Department
received requested information regarding ridership, user fees,
and a list of stops in Hermosa Beach (refer to attached data).
Analysis
In October of 1987, the City of Los Angeles, with the
participatory funding by the Los Angeles Transportation
Commission, and the Urban Mass Transportation Administration,
began service on nine Commuter Express lines formerly operated by
the Southern California Rapid Transit District.
A portion of this commuter service operates within Hermosa Beach
and the City of Los Angeles is interested in routing, operation,
and funding participation by the Hermosa Beach jurisdiction. The
net operating cost for the Hermosa Beach jurisdiction would be
$8,607.58.
Based on the percentage of total route mileage operating within
Hermosa, this proportional share (Number of miles through Hermosa
vs. total cost per trip) has been calculated and includes only
third year net operating costs, but does not include any vehicle
acquisition costs, marketing and City administration costs, or
previous years' operating costs.
Because current allocated funds are expected to be expended for
existing programs: WAVE Dial -A -Ride Program, Commuter
Transportation Program, and Bus Pass Subsidy Program, surplus
funds would have to be used in order to fund an additional
commuter service program. The fund balance after the projected
costs for fiscal year 90-91 is $291,492.
1
Since reserve funds may be used to fund this commuter service
program, options may include partial funding of the program or
total funding on an annual basis with contract reviews, which
would allow the City consideration for future participation in
the program.
Other jurisdictions within this commuter service area includes
Manhattan Beach and Culver City. Currently, these two cities are
not providing funds for this program, however, this does not mean
that these cities will not provide funding for the program in
the future.
Designated stops in Hermosa Beach include the following: Hermosa
Ave. at 10th St., 16th St., 19th St., 22nd St., and 26th St. in
addition to Manhattan Ave. at 29th St. and Longfellow Ave. For
the Hermosa Beach jurisdiction, daily ridership is 310 passengers
and annual riderhsip is 78,935 passengers ee Attachment).
,-CON•CUR v5
/1115
Michael Schubach
i1
Planning Director
-NOTED :
Kevin 7Nort ra
City Manager
Attachment:
1. Commuter Express Data
plandoc/pcsrcep
C4afteez L//, _"4/eAkra/.,-,
Andrea N. Anderson
Planning Aide
City Manager's Comment:
Daily ridership of Hermosa residents is high and honoring this
request meets Proposition A purposes as well as supporting other
public agencies' effort to reduce single auto commuting. I
recommend we approve funding for next fiscal year --FY 1990-91.
2
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kevin Northcraft, City Manager
FROM: Andrea N. Anderson, Planning Aide
SUBJECT: Follow-up letter regarding Commuter Express
Participation
DATE: November 7, 1989
Please be advised that on October 3, 1989 the attached letter
from the Department of Transportation was forwarded from your
office to ours. Since then, I have spoken to Mr. Jim McLaughlin
from the Department of Transportation. The Planning Department
has agreed to schedule this matter of Commuter Express
Participation on the City Council agenda after we receive
information regarding ridership, user fees, and re-routing
opportunities.
In addition, I have attached a copy of the follow-up letter which
was sent to Mr. Jim McLaughlin on 11/01/89.
•
, S E. 1ED) ROWE
GENERAL MANAGER,
September 14, 1989
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
CALIFORNIA
TOM BRADLEY
MAYOR
Rte. �-� Tro, ;
SEP 28 1988
Mr. Kenneth Northcraft, City Manager
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
COMMUTER EXPRESS PARTICIPATION
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
ROOM 1200. CITY HALL
LOS ANGELES. CA 90012
(213) 485-2265
FAX (213) 237-0960
/
•
CIvil/ „fry (./ P,j
1
•
g
.16
OCT u s 198P
In October 1987, the City of Los Angeles, with participatory funding by
the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) and the Urban
Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA), began service on nine Commuter
Express lines formerly operated by the Southern California Rapid Transit
District. A segment of this service operates within your jurisdiction
and we would like the opportunity to discuss routing, operation, and
funding participation by your jurisdiction.
The purpose of this demonstration project was to compare the viability of
using the competitive contracting process, with private sector operation
by Laidlaw Transit, Inc., with former public sector operation. UMTA
provided 75 percent of the vehicle acquisition costs, while the remaining
costs are to be shared by the City and LACTC for a three-year period.
After almost two years, we are pleased to report that ridership has
increased by over 60 percent, thereby reinforcing our belief that there
is a market for reliable, comfortable Commuter Express service. We have
recently added service on several of the lines and are currently
considering operational modifications to decrease surface street mileage
and stops, thus providing a more express -type service.
In order to further evaluate some of these service modifications we would
request input from your staff. Also, we believe that this service is
worthy of consideration of proportional share Proposition A funding by
your jurisdiction. The attached table provides an estimate of the total
costs for the service by line within your area for the third year of
operation (October 5, 1989 -October 4, 1990). The proportional share of
operating costs was calculated based on the percentage of total route
mileage operating within your jurisdiction. This pro. oR rtiojnal share
funding includes only third year net operating costs, and does not
include any vehicle acquisition costs marketing andC iiry_administration
costs, or previous years' operating costs.,
AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
sr,
Mr. Kenneth Northcraft
September 14, 1989
Please contact Jim McLaughlin, Supervising Transportation Planner II of
our Transit Division at (213) 485-7433 to arrange a meeting to discuss
the above concepts. As stated previously, we ,are solidly committed to
the concept of Commuter Express bus service and encourage your active
participation.
S. E. Rowe
General Manager
JM:hem
4873E/11
Attachment
cc: LACTC
S.E. (ED) ROWE
GENERAL MANAGER
February 16, 1990
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
CALIFORNIA
Andrea N. Anderson
City of Hermosa Beach
Civic Center
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885
COMMUTER EXPRESS PARTICIPATION
TOM BRADLEY
MAYOR
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
ROOM 1200. CITY HALL
LOS ANGELES. CA 90012
(213) 485-2265
FAX (213) 237-0960
FEB 2 1 1990
In reference to your letter dated January 11, 1990, I am enclosing the
additional information requested regarding Commuter Express
Participation. The enclosed materials include ridership information
(Hermosa Beach and general), user fee information and a list of stops in
Hermosa Beach.
We are still interested in scheduling a meeting with your City Council
regarding Commuter Express Participatuion. Upon reviewing the enclosed
materials, please contact Mike Uyeno at (213) 485-7433.
Julie A. Hill
Transportation Planning Associate
JAH:hem
5238E
AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
-6-
COMMUTER EXPRESS SERVICE COSTS BY LINE
LINE
JURISDICTION
NET OPERATING COST
YEAR 3
VEHICLE
ACQUISITION COST
CITY ADM., MARKT.
RTD SUPP., YEAR 3
438
UMTA
$0.00
$461,201.35
$0.00
LACTC
156,501.54
76,866.89
19,189.05
CITY OF L.A.
122,071.21
76,866.89
19,189.05
HERMOSA BEACH
8,607.58
0.00
0.00
MANHATTAN BEACH
12,050.62
0.00
0.00
CULVER CITY
13,772.14
0.00
0.00
TOTAL
$313,003.09
$614,935.13
$38,378.10
Street
Hermosa Avenue
Hermosa Avenue
Hermosa Avenue
Hermosa_Avenue
Hermosa Avenue
Manhattan Avenue
Manhattan Avenue
LINE 438
STOP LIST FOR HERMOSA BEACH •
Cross -street
10th Street
16th Street
19th ,Street
22nd Street
26th Street
29th Street
Longfellow Avenue
LINE 438
BOARDINGS AND ALIGHTINGS BY JURISDICTION
Daily Annual ,•
Jurisdiction Board Alight Board Alight• :% of Total
Hermosa Beach 32 25 8160 6375 22%
Manhattan Beach 36 25" 9180 6375 24%
Culver City 24 40 6120 10,200 16%
City of L.A. 56 75 14,280 19,125 38%
Total
148 165 37,740 42,075 100%
Line 438 Daily Ridership 310
Line 438 Annual Ridership 78,935
Pass
LINE 438
FARE STRUCTURE
Regular Pass $42.00
E & D $10.00
Student (K-12) $18.00
College/Vocational $25.00
Ticket Book of 20 @ $9.00
(2 req'd for $0.90_Base Fare)
Cash
Base Fare $ 1.10
Transfer Surcharge
E & D Base Fare
E & D Transfer Surcharge
—t0.—
$ 0.25 per use
$ 0.55
$ 0.10 per use
MEMORANDUM
TO: FELLOW COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: COUNCILMEMBER MIDSTOKKE
RE: PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RESTAURANTS AND
HOTELS/MOTELS
DATE: APRIL 19, 1990 for CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24
It has recently been brought to our attention that our
current zoning code parking requirements for both
restaurants and hotels/motels may insufficient. Since
parking is one of the major problems in this City, these
requirements should be studied and possible increased.
In the Final Circulation Element prepared by DKS and adopted
by the City Council last month, under the Parking
Requirements, page 60, it notes "The requirements for
restaurants does not provide adequate spaces to accommodate
average demand."
A parking requirement comparison of Hermosa Beach and
neighboring cities was recently done for the 2 new Hotels in
Hermosa and showed an average of 29% less spaces needed in
Hermosa than the other cities.
As a result, I would request that the Council adopt a
Resolution of Intention to have the Planning Commission
study changing the parking requirements in both these areas.
Also, I would suggest that the study include examining
impacts and parking needs of restaurants providing "home
delivery" service. It does not appear that this is,
addressed in the code, and could be addressed through the
Conditional Use Permit process, but not all restaurants
require a permit (i.e., unless they serve alcohol or have
drive-thru service).
A draft resolution is attached for your consideration.
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 INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING -
THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY AMENDING THE ZONING CODE
REGARDING PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RESTAURANTS AND HOTELS/
MOTELS.
WHEREAS, possible deficiencies in parking requirements
for both restaurants and hotels/motels were recently brought
to the attention of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is desirous to having the
Planning Commission study this issue and make
recommendations regarding amending the Zoning Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council requests the Planning
Commission to study the issue of parking requirements for
both restaurants and hotels/motels.
SECTION 2. Included in the study should be examining
the impact and parking requirements of a restaurant adding a
"home delivery" service to its operation.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption
of this resolution and enter it into the book of original
records of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF APRIL, 1990.
PRESIDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY 'CLERK CITY ATTORNEY
1
1
D/tSAssociates
residential areas. This would in turn make street parking spaces available which are currently
taken by residents and guests of older housing units.
If new housing development occurs evenly throughout the City, an average of about 40 new
parking spaces will be made available per parking analysis zone. The new parking will provide
the greatest beneficial impact in areas near the beach where parking deficiencies are currently
most severe. It is impossible to forecast, however, whether or not the additional spaces will
alleviate specific problem blocks without knowledge of exactly where new housing will be built.
5.4 PARKING RECOMMENDATIONS
As discussed in the previous section, redevelopment will alleviate some parking deficiencies as
housing with substandard parking is replaced with new housing with adequate parking for all
residents and guests. Similarly, new retail businesses and offices will provide some surplus
parking to help relieve existing problems. Other potential solutions should be addressed,
however, because future development may not occur as planned and it will likely be a slow
process when it does occur. The following sections describe some recommended actions related
to the City's parking system.
Zoning Code
The new parking standards which were adopted in 1986 provide for sufficient parking for most
land uses based upon measureLLparking demand throughout Southern California. The
'Treuirement for restaurants, however oes not provide adequate spaces to accommodate average
e� mand-(12 to 14 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet of building area).* The City should
consider amending the current requirement of 1 space/100 square feet of gross floor area to
1 space/75 square feet.
Commercial Public Parking Structures
Additional off-street parking may be provided by the private sector in non-residential areas, over
time, as buildings with little or no off-street parking are replaced by buildings with parking in
accordance with the City's current Parking Code. It has not been determined at this point in
time which buildings, if any, will be redeveloped and new parking provided. Therefore, the City
should continue to pursue strategies to increase the supply of public off-street parking by
constructing parking structures and/or surface lots on public -owned property.
Ilt The best candidate locations for parking structures are on one of the three lots (A, B or C) in
the Vehicle Parking District 'No. 1 in downtown or at the community center near the Civic
Center. Additional off-street parking could also be provided in a paved surface lot on part of
111 the former railroad right-of-way adjacent to City Hall, between Eleventh Place and Pier Ave.
1
1
* Parking Generation, An Informational Report, Institute of Transportation Engineers,
Washington, D.C., 1985.
23074.New87194.Ch5
60
HOTEL PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE SOUTH BAY
Number of parking spaces requireu for the hotels at 1340 Strand and
2515 PCH, if built in our neighboring cities.
The 1340 Strand hotel has 174 guest rooms, 4000 feet of restaurant
serving area, 1400 feet of kitchen and 3100 feet of meeting rooms.
The 2515 PCH hotel has 80 guest rooms, 450 feet of meeting room -and 720
feet of sitting room. For the PCH hotel the parking has been calculated
two ways: with and w/o the sitting room counted as "meeting" space.
Strand PCH Hotel
Hotel with w/o
sitting sitting
room room
Gardena -
guests: 1 space/ 174 80 80.
rest: 1 space/100' (gross) 54
meeting: 1 space/35' 89 33 13
Gardena total 317 113 93
Manhattan Beach -
Present code - (not used in averages, see below)
guest rooms: 1 space/ 174 80 80
rest: 40+1/50' over 4000' (gross) 68
meeting: 1 space/100' 31 12 5
employee: 1 space/2 emps peak shift 10 5 5
shuttle: 1 space/bus, min. 2 2 2 2
office: 1 space/300' 2 1. 1
Tot, present code 287 100 93
MB ZORP (now at City Council so used in averages below)
guest rooms: 1.1 space/ 191 88 88
rest: 1/50' sery area, no live ent 80
(rest: 1/35' with live ent.)
meeting/banquet: 1 space/50' 62 23 9
shuttle: 1 space/bus, min 2 2 2 2
office: 1 space/300' 2 1 1
Total, ZORP 337 114 100
Torrance- ' - -
guest rooms: 1.25 space/ 218 100 100
rest: 10 spaces/1000' (gross) 54'
meeting, if sep. from rest, 1/35' 89 33 13
Torrance total, 361 133 113
El Segundo -
guest rooms: 1/1st 100, .75/next C 156
56
rest: 53.3+1/100' over 4000' (gr.)
meeting: 1 space/30' 103
office: 1 space/300' 2
loading: 2 spaces
80 80
39 15
1 1
2 2.
El Segundo total 330 122 98
Redondo Beach-
guest80 rooms: 1 space/
rest: 1 space/50' seating area 7880
29 11
meeting: 1 space/40'
Redondo total 332 109 91
Neighboring city averages 183 86 86
guest rooms: 183
rest: 31 12
meeting: 84
emp, office, shuttle, loading 1 1 1
Average tot spaces 335 118 99
highest 361 133 ' 113
lowest 317 109 91
j Hermosa Beach- 120 70 70
guest rooms: 1/1st 50, .66/next 50,
.5/remaining 74
rest: 1 space/100' (gross) 6254
23 9
meeting: 1 space/50
HB total per code 236 93 79
Hermosa, spaces built:or per prints 238 71 71
NET LOSS of parking in Hermosa:..ith hotels
as built or per_ prints: --
spaces
percent
Jim Lissner, March 9, 1990 376;-4626
97
29%
47 28
40% 28%
MAYOR'S SCRIPT
FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON OIL E.I.R.
APRIL 10, 1990
(RECESS TO SET UP FOR JOINT MEETING)
1. Mayor reconvenes Council meeting, welcomes School Board, and
asks President Weiss to call her Board to order.
2. School Board President calls to order, asks for roll call,
(pledge?) - turns meeting back to Mayor.
3. Mayor asks City Attorney to explain bodies' roles.
4. Mayor asks for staff and consultant report.
5. Questions of staff and consultant
6. Mayor opens public hearing - announces ground rules
a.Applicant will speak, then certification proponents,
then certification opponents, then applicant's response.
b. Ask all speakers -
- to avoid repetition, have spokesperson for groups
- speakers should not repeat comments already stated
- limit to 3 minutes, if for several and need more
time, ask in advance for additional time
c. Show of hands - in favor
opposed
7. Mayor asks for applicant's input
8. Questions of applicant
9. Proponents' input
10. Opponents' input
11. Applicant's response
12. Close public hearing
13. Recess - both bodies
14. Reconvene -
15. Council decides on certification and recommended alternative
16. Refer to agenda (Item 5B).