Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10/07/98
DEVELOPMENT, INC. October 7, 1998 City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 !ECEOVED OCT 0 8 1998 uutvi ut V. DEPT. SUBJECT: SUNRISE ASSISTED LIVING/ZONE CHANGE 98-2, CUP 98-4, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 98-14. Dear City Council Members: The above referenced applications are scheduled for public hearing by the City of Hermosa Beach City Council on October 13, 1998. The project was reviewed by adjoining property owners at voluntary neighborhood meetings on July 23, August 13 and August 15, 1998 and a formal public hearing by the Planning Commission on August 18, 1998. During this meeting process, there have been several refinements made to the project to reflect suggestions by the neighbors, the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission. After careful review of the adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-47, we have identified select conditions that we have concerns about. These concerns have been expressed to Planning Staff, and we wanted to bring them to your attention for your consideration prior to the October 13, 1998 hearing. The following conditions are referenced from the Planning Commission resolution for approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Precise Development Plan for an eighty (80) unit assisted living senior housing facility at 1837 Pacific Coast Highway. Conditions of Approval: Section 5. 3. We believe that our project should not be restricted from on -street parking on Pacific Coast Highway, other than the current posted time restrictions. Our parking study confirms that our project will provide sufficient parking on site. However, restricting only our property frontage to no parking will not improve traffic circulation or safety on Pacific Coast Highway. An exhibit submitted to the Planning Department reflects that five legal on -street spaces would be provided once the site is developed due to the driveways and the second fire hydrant which is required on Pacific Coast Highway. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Li. 9401 Lee Highway • Suite 300 • Fairfax, Virginia 22031-1803 • (703) 273-7500 • FAX (703) 385-4561 • • 4. Restricting ingress and egress to and from our project to right turns only would place a significantly greater restriction on our project than any other existing properties on Pacific Coast Highway. These other projects generate significantly higher traffic volumes than our project and are allowed to make left hand turns onto Pacific Coast Highway. Attached is a letter from our traffic engineer dated September 28, 1998 which provides a brief analysis and the impact of this condition for your consideration. 6b. We have submitted a site specific parking study to the Planning Department. This study indicates that the forty one (41) spaces provided on site for residents, visitors and staff is sufficient for the demands of our project. We do not want our project to have any restrictions or limits placed on it regarding the number of residents, visitors or staff allowed to park on site. This conclusion is also supported by other Sunrise Assisted Living residences nationwide where the average resident no longer drives. We see no reason to limit the number of resident vehicles allowed to park on site, since the majority of our residents are extremely frail and have ceased driving prier to moving into a Sunrise residence. We appreciate the opportunity to present our specific concerns for your consideration regarding the Conditions of Approval for our assisted living project. We look forward to presenting this information to you at the October 13, 1998 City Council hearing. Sincerely, Marian R. De Meire Assistant Development Officer Enclosures cc. Mr. Sol Blumenfeld • Beet 80r10 • • • We trust that these analyses will be of assistance to you and the City of Hermosa Beach. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully Submitted,, WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC 444 1/ -*4 Steven S. Sasaki, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of California Number C52768 & TR1462 SSS: nc WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. Sunrise Assisted Care Living Ingress/Egress Issues #980160.in/eg -3- 40. 410 • October 13, 1998 Lloyd and Mary Ellen Rae 1830 Springfield Ave. Hermosa Beach My family and I live directly behind or west of the building site. We are concerned with the proposed building of a rain water storage tank. We have been told that it would hold up to 50,000 gallons of water. It would be installed under ground right behind the wall in our back yard. Obvious problems could arise in case of a leak or major earthquake. We are concerned that the storage of 50,000 gallons of water above our house and the amount of noise that 50,000 gallons of water will make when it gets forced through two 5 -inch diameter pipes along with the number of days and nights we will have to listen to the sound of that running water. The two drainage pipes run under the northern part of our backyard within five feet of our bedrooms. Another concern is related to the dust that this project will create. My wife and son regularly receive allergy shots and take medication to control their allergies to dust. Our house sits below this site and the wind will carry the dust into our home. Current dust abatement procedures will not be enough to help with this. We suggest that the contractor put up a temporary 8 -foot plywood fence to block the dust. Thank you We can be reached at 310-318-5682 if you have any questions or comments. •.! F S. , FA' "40 ; , 'F.' • F r; F P IF '• .FF • F F•I't4 ' 4 J'• tF 0 F "t r I : . t FP; t. 4•• • 4 FFIF • • i• • -I I G ; • --I-I.' .5 i" P•i; t • tr:1i ;"J P 55„, FtIF a r "r! s F1° • '. • e 1-1 • .... , ,.. - , - , ,, F • • , .. •• •.. • 4 ti —„?,:;., ''' . .::: .,,-..';..1f,11 • •-"Is ' i ! -'' ": , •.:i' L'ii f.'?/ ,1rr -,. ;:q1,;.; -'5' .:!>, F i '• • ' • / ai !V•• • 141 ;:•• ••• 5, „ t. ' • ..4.1 • 14, F 4 • , • . FF F 's , 1 • te e • 1 • RECRIVED OCT LI 8 1998 UtV. OFPT. Cw.4 IA, it) tFy Qeve(oiadafrfk_ P f' 11;S 2,11 tr& ? cic?. -Pic eta 51' 14,' 0110y 1 -kr oteco, GeacC41 ry,z,_ 6 ) 9 ,„Qt .1e-cd-Qe/ 61-xf plAvt-ig :1,--ao42 o&411 -4 -0 -re_ Ca --0,-t. 6-Q, 04v,.. 6„-t eit rikk_ Li,d (a`14.' .cttAr-414-L=crrt-) 0 -t -e, f ezAitirl 40-4c ZYare.- fter" • "ILL- CliAA, C3 CloiArAlL-) Oije'tJ a•-• 41e1Y-- --tot4")J2/ 4.1.644) • J jLJZ- tol.A41je- 044, (WI,t ktt e_ B ov_e 4— SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION - Chapter 6.08 Dogs Sec. 6.08.020 Dogs at large prohibited -- Dogs in places where foods are sold. It is unlawful for any person to suffer or permit any dog, when harbored or controlled by him, to run at large on any public street, alley, lane, park or other public place or in or upon any unenclosed lot or premises in the city unless such dog be restrained by a substantial chain or leash not exceeding six feet in length and be in the charge, care, custody or control of a competent person; provided, however, that no such dog shall be allowed or permitted on any beach or in any store, market, restaurant, cafe, lunchroom, soda fountain, bakery or kindred establishments wherein vegetables, meats and other foods for human consumption are served, sold or kept for sale. A violation of this section shall be an. infraction. Fine - $25 Sec. 6.04.100 Animal nuisances. A. Defiling property. It is unlawful for the owner or person having custody of any dog or other animal to permit, either willfully or through failure to exercise due care or control: 1. Any such dog or animal to commit any nuisance, and to allow such nuisance to thereafter remain, upon any public or private property not owned or possessed by the owner or person in control of said animal, except that the person who owns, harbor, keeps or has charge or control of a dog (other than a sightless person who has charge or control of a guide dog) shall immediately and securely enclose all feces deposited by such dog in a bag, wrapper or other container and dispose of the same, all in a sanitary manner. 2. Any person (other than a sightless person with a guide dog) who has charge or control of a dog in a location other than of the property of such person or the property of the owner of the dog shall have in his or her possession, carried in full view, a suitable wrapper, bag or container (other than articles of personal clothing) for the purpose of complying with the requirements of this subsection. Failure of such person to carry such wrapper, bag or container when in charge or control of a dog in a location other than on the property if such person or the property of the owner of the dog or animal shall constitute a violation of this subsection. For the purpose of this section a "nuisance" committed by a dog or animal shall mean defecation by said animal. B. Animal Noises. No person shall keep or maintain, or permit the keeping of, upon any premises owned, occupied or controlled by such person, any animal or fowl otherwise permitted to be kept which, by any sound or outcry, shall result in noise levels at the complainant's property line which are audible for more than five minutes in any hour. Fine - A. Nuisance - - $25 B. Noises — $100 2 • . PROPOSAL The proposal for allowing dogs to run free on the beach on a city permit basis was presented to the Council by local resident and Veterinarian, Alice Villalobos. Dr. Villalobos talked of using a posse of citizen deputies to help enforce the new ordinance and to help keep the beach clean. Staff has contacted Dr. Alice Villalobos and received a draft copy of her proposal which is indexed as attached, Item A. - Instructions for walking pets on the shoreline by permit. PROPOSAL SUMMARY: The purpose of the city permit is to legally allow the pet owners to walk their dogs on the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean that fronts the City of Hermosa Beach. The beach sand is to be used only as access to and from the shoreline, not as a free run park. The permit cost for such usage is proposed to be: $50 for Hermosa Beach residents, $75 for nonresidents, $10 per pet for "sand tag." The "sand tag" is attached to the collar or leash of each pet for visual verification that permit fees have been paid. A mandatory educational program is included for all permitees. A fine of $275 is proposed for those owners who do not clean up after their pet. Dr. Alice Villalobos, DVM supports the idea of allowing dogs on the beach. She feels that there are a large number of dog owners who are responsible. These owners and a group of "deputies" will help pick up after the people who are not responsible. They will also help enforce the ordinance by reporting violators. She feels the beach will be cleaner under the new ordinance and permit procedure. Dr. Villalobos received a petition from Valerie Griff, a San Pedro resident, that was in favor of opening the beach in San Pedro to dogs. The petition has over 700 signatures and many are from the South Bay area, including Hermosa Beach. Pat Ramsey, a Redondo Beach resident, who was also responsible for starting the Dog Park in Redondo Beach, believes it is a great idea that is long overdue. She walks her dogs along the Strand in Hermosa Beach regularly and feels that most dog owners are responsible for the pets. She feels that a strong enforcement policy is a good idea to deal with the people who do not obey the law. Amy Disparte, a Hermosa resident; also spoke to staff. She is in favor of the dog ordinance. 3 PROPOSAL OPPOSITION REVIEW Staff spoke with Chief Gary Crum of the Los Angeles County Fire Department Lifeguards in Hermosa Beach and eight Lifeguard Captains at a meeting on 7-22-98. Chief Crum and the Captains were opposed to the idea of bringing dogs on to the beach for the following reasons: • Sanitation -- fecal matter on the beach. • Dogs bothering people; seals, and birds on the beach. • Enforcement concerns — lack of enforcement and dogs taking time away form lifeguards watching the water. Ken Johnson, Chief of Community Services Division for the Los Angeles County Department of Beaches and Harbors, furnished staff with a study that was completed for Venice Beach that proposed looking at a portion of the beach as leash free. (Reference Item B - Study - Leash free dog use of Venice Beach.) The study received input from Heal the Bay, Natural Resources Defense Council, American Oceans Campaign, Lifeguards, and the Department of Beaches and Harbors. There were overall concerns for people cleaning up after their dog, lack of enforcement, nuisances created by the dogs including biting, barking, and attacking other dogs and people. The beach cleaning machines are not designed to pick up all the feces left on the beach. The operators of the machines are also exposed to the fecal material when cleaning the machines and disposing of the collected waste. Captain Steve Seim, Huntington Beach Police Department's Marine Safety Captain, expressed safety concerns over the area of beach that is open to dogs. They have had significant problems with dog bites and fecal matter left on the beach. There have been lawsuits filed against the city involving dog bite issues. Captain Seim ultimately is against the dog beach area and his opinion is not to open our beach to dogs. Senior Animal Control Officer Metz of the Newport Beach Police Department stated they used to have problems with dogs on their beach before they started a strict enforcement policy. They have not had any recent problems. His opinion is that if we are not willing to put the time and effort into enforcement then putting dogs on the beach will be a disaster. The City of Hermosa Beach uses Community Services Officers as Animal Control Officers. The Animal Control duties are usually secondary to parking enforcement duties. There is no one assigned to Animal Control full time. • PROPOSED CHANGES • • Change the City Municipal Code to allow dogs on the beach before 9 a.m. and after 6 p.m. It is recommended this be done on a trial basis, 6 months or one year. • Establish a permit system to allow a dog to be on the beach. Owners would sign a waiver stating they are aware of the laws about their dog. • Establish a reporting procedure for observed violations. • Establish a monitoring system to check for adherence to the new ordinance. • Establish a strong enforcement policy involving Community Services officers. The question of Resident Only permits for dogs on the beach was raised and addressed in a memorandum from our City Attorney's office dated July 29, 1998. The response was, "Although, generally, a city may distinguish between residents and nonresidents when providing access to certain services, California Government Code Section 54091 demands that all cities owning or controlling any public beach must allow use regardless of residency. (Attached Item C, Memorandum Richards, Watson & Gershon). Currently, Animal Control duties are handled by Community Services Officers on a complaint basis or when animal ordinance violations are observed. The cost of a full-time Community Services Animal Control Officer is approximately $39,000 annually. The cost would be offset from the revenue received from the proposed permit costs of $50 for Hermosa Beach residents, $75 for nonresidents, $10 per pet for sand tags or day pass for visitors. There are 1,046 licensed dogs in the City of Hermosa Beach. Only a portion of these dog owners will seek a beach permit. The revenue generated by the proposed dog permits costs would not cover the enforcement cost of the program. A split shift enforcement schedule would be implemented to cover the hours of permitted use on the beach for the dog owners. It is difficult to estimate the number of citations that may be issued. The total number of dog citations submitted to South Bay Court for Fiscal year 1997-98 is as follows: HBMC VIOLATION NO. 6.08.020 Dogs at Large 97 6.08.050 No Dog License 89 6.08.030 Vicious Dog 3 __ 6.08.240 Interfering W/AC 1 6.08.100 No License Tags 1 Barking dog complaints sent to mediation. 16 5 • DOG PARKS S A city -sanctioned Dog Park is where dogs are permitted to run off -leash within a fenced area. Los Angeles has four Dog Parks, with the most recent one opening in Venice. Successful Dog Parks also operate in Redondo Beach on 190th Street and in Long Beach. These Dog Parks are popular in several communities; the fenced parcels are one solution to resolving the problems of owners letting their animals run off -leash in public parks or the beach. Recently, Huntington Beach donated two acres of land for a Dog Park. The Dog Park Committee sold concrete squares with the owner's name and their dog's pawprints and then placed them in the Dog Park. The committee raised $20,000. They rely on local people being responsible for their dogs and keeping the Dog Park looking good. One problem they have, is nonresidents who do not pick up after their dog. SUMMARY: Staff contacted numerous coastal cities in California that allow animals on the beach. Each city has a slightly different ordinance, which allows for limited hours, 24 hours, seasonal, on and off -leash and limited areas. None of the cities surveyed allow dogs on their pier at any time. None of the cities surveyed had a permit system to allow dogs on the beach. The citizens' letters received by staff have been overwhelmingly opposed to allowing dogs on the beach at anytime. The letters are attached for your review. Letters to our two local newspapers, The, Beach Reporter and The Easy Reader, have likewise voiced a negative response for allowing dogs on the beach. Respectfully submitted: C W./,../Y/24442Fdt- VAL STRASER, CHIEF OF POLICE HERMOSA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Attachments: STEPHEN B RRELL CITY MANAGER Item A - Dr. Alice Villalobos Proposal - Permit Program for Walking Pets on the Shoreline. Item B - L.A. County Department of Beaches & Harbors - Study/Proposal for Leash -Free Dog Use of Venice Beach, 1997. Item C - Memorandum - City Attorneys' Office - Richards, Watson & Gershon Resident only Permits for Dogs on the Beach. Supplemental Items: Letters to City Council Members -10 Letters (1 to 10) Newspaper Letters, The Beach Reporter and The Easy Reader. 6 AGENCY Huntington State • Huntington City Newport Beach • Long Beach Del Mar Cardiff SURVEY OF BEACH CITIES' DOG REGULATIONS REGULATIONS Dogs now allowed on beach; parking lots and trails only. Dogs allowed in a 1 -mile area on 6ft. leash. Dogs allowed anywhere on 6 -ft. leash. No dogs allowed under any conditions. Dogs allowed in off-season only. Limited beach area, allow anytime, on leash or under control, pick up after animal. COMMENTS Responsibility for pickup of feces obligation of owners. Lifeguards report several incidents of dog bites, including owners trying to break up dog fights. Lifeguards not happy with the diversion from lifesaving duties. Serious feces problem. Hours 5-9 a.m. and 5-9 p.m. Maintenance reports 50% do not clean up dog feces nor keep on leash. Only 1 animal control officer on beach part-time. Signage, pick up baggage containers mounted on every other lamppost at beach entrances. Containers not always supplies with bags. Signs cost $40,000. No Coastal Permit was acquired. Local owners doing a reason- able job of pickup; others do not. Bites reported. Ban includes bike path. Lifeguards complain of diversions caused by animals. Recent child biting incident causing City to look at policy. Occasional biting problem. Lifeguards report owners do not pick up feces. 1 i • AGENCY Carmel* Del Mar Laguna Beach* Pismo Beach* San Diego* REGULATIONS COMMENTS All public areas, anytime, leashed or off leash under control, pick up after animal, a dog that has menaced bitten, or attacked must be muzzled. All beach areas, seasonal, (Oct 1 - May 31) for unleashed dogs, leashed or under voice command not allowed on beach during the months of June, July, and August. All beach areas, seasonal (June 1 - Sept. 15), limited time (before 8 a.m. and after 5 p.m.) on leash, pick up after animal. No specific problem noted. No specific enforcement except when complaint is made. Concerns: Feces problem, rescue of owners that drown while attempting to rescue drowning dogs. All beach areas, anytime, leash or Concerns: No specific problem. Area enforced by lifeguards voice command, pick up after animal. and police officers mostly on complaint basis. Limited areas for unleashed dogs, limited times for leashed animals on all other beaches (before 9 a.m. and after 6 p.m.) Pick up after animal. State Parks* Limited areas, leashed, pick up after animal. * Indicates there is a copy of their ordinance available from staff. 2 • To: Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council From: Dr. Alice Villalobos ITEM A -, BECEI V ELS 9 1998 :.;4.T° MANAGER'S OFFICE We want to update you on the proposed instructions for permit holders regarding walking dogs at the shoreline. Key Words & Concepts: PERMIT SAND TAGS MESS KITS ULTRA DOG ETIQUETTE PICKUP UNCLAIMED "DUTY" PICK UP TRASH AT THE BEACH The solution to pollution is dilution. WATER BOTTLES WITH A DASH OF VINEGAR TO SPRINKLE THE TINKLE QUALITY OF LIFE (FITNESS AND HEALTH FOR MAN AND BEST FRIEND) ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSCIOUS PET OWNERS CRAVE CLEAN BEACHES TOO! We hope you will take the time from your busy life to read the Instructions for Permit Holders. We would like to propose a trial period that would be rescinded if we are not able to enhance the beach and strand with our good acts. By voting for this permit plan, you can help make our world a better place for people and pets. Respectfully yours, Dr. Alice Villalobos VCA Coast Animal Hospital P.S. Please call me on my cell phone # 261-1015 with your concerns. • Dr. Alice Villalobos VCA Coast Animal Hospital 1560 P.C.H., Hermosa Beach 372-8881 INSTRUCTIONS FOR WALKING PETS ON THE SHORELINE BY PERMIT HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA Permit issued to: address: name of pet (s): age, breed, sex:#1 #2 #3 *$50.00 for the permit for Hermosa Beach residents *$75.00 for non residents. Pay fees at City Hall. *The permit includes a "Mess Kit" to be carried on walks. *$10.00 per pet for the "Sand Tag" to be attached.to each pet's collar or leash to be worn as visually obvious. The Sand Tags and Mess Kits are issued after a mandatory 20 minute class which reviews good dog walking etiquette and behavior. *Proof of current Rabies Vaccine, negative fecal exam or recent worming for dogs will be necessary for permits. This permit allows the bearer to legally walk their own personal pets on the shoreline which fronts the City of Hermosa Beach. The sand is to be used only as access to and from the shoreline, not as a free run park. Each individual pet requires a $10.00 "Sand Tag" to be officially permitted to walk on leash (or off leash to be discussed by the City Council) at the shore line. Permit holders are encouraged to carry their "Mess Kits" wherever and whenever they walk their dogs. Dogs must have a current license and recently be wormed or show proof of a negative fecal sample to prove that the dog is free of internal parasites. The proper I.D., "Sand Tag," will be attached to the collar or leash of each licensed dog. • • Because permit holders are environmentally conscious and want the beach to be clean, it is agreed that each permit holder will abide by the five steps following: 1) Display the designated "Mess Kit" with official Hermosa Beach permit, logo waste bag holder and logo water bottle holder. Water bottles should be filled with water and a few drops of vinegar or bleach added which will sanitize and deodorize urine. Squirting this water solution will wash down and dilute urine, reduce odors, remove stains on the strand walls, sidewalks and clean the sand. Water should be squirted on messy sites after picking up soft eliminations on the strand and side walks of the city. Use paper towels or shoes to rub out the messy sites after squirting water to wash it out. Also place a little sand over a messy site to help reduce flies and absorb moisture. • 2.) Permit holders agree to clean up after their own pets and to dutifully and quietly pick up any unclaimed eliminations that may be encountered. We also encourage permit holders to pick up the litter and trash encountered on the shoreline to make the beach cleaner for everyone. 3) While walking on the sand and shoreline in the dark, a flash light should be carried to see where pets eliminate. 4) Each permit holder is deputized to be on patrol over the beach, sand, strand and city streets. The concept of this deputization and patrol would officially help clean up the beach and the city and improve dog walking etiquette. We propose a non confrontational educational conversation for offenders. We want to inform them about the $275.00 fine which Hermosa Beach has for those who fail to clean up after their animals. Those violators who do not pick up the eliminations of their own pets may be reported to the animal control officers of the city and given a ticket with the $275.00 fine for not picking up after their dog. Permit holders will be responsible for the immediate pickup of unclaimed eliminations upon encounter and when possible to report repeat offenders to Animal Control officers. ' It is important that first encounters with offenders remain courteous and informative. Verbal education of offenders helps. Many offenders do not realize that there is a $275.00 fine for not cleaning up after personal pets in the city of • • Hermosa Beach. Deputized permit holders may simply hand out a copy of the permit for the violator to read. Or drop one in the mail box of the offender. Some people are accustomed to letting their dogs out of their yards to wander and eliminate in the early mornings. These people are also offenders of the environment and need education. If a note or verbal reminder does not help, then the offending individual will need to be reported to the Animal Control officer and pay the $275.00 fine. The officers working for the city of Hermosa Beach have expertise in giving parking tickets and are not opposed to giving tickets to environmental offenders. 5) A mandatory 20 minute class will be held by staff members of VCA Coast Animal Hospital at the Hermosa Beach Pier every Monday or Friday morning at 8:30 a.m. before the "Sand Tag" is issued per dog which activates their permit. The class will review details on environmentally conscious dog walking etiquette and to see if you are able to control your dog on leash (or off leash). If a person cannot control their dog or if a particular dog is a menace (causes fear in other dogs or people) it must wear a muzzle at all times while being walked or the permit will be denied. Furthermore if a permitted dog is involved in a dog fight and causes harm to another dog, the permit will be revoked and the "Sand Tag" will be confiscated. Appropriate dog training classes may be recommended or required to facilitate the good behavior of certain difficult -to -control dogs before their permits are activated. In summary, permit holders agree to act very responsibly to preserve and raise the consciousness for good dog walking etiqette. Permit holders agree to raise the cleanliness of not only the shoreline of Hermosa Beach, but the sand, strand and neighborhood streets thereby giving all Hermosa Beach residents added quality of life. Respectfully yours in happier, healthier pets, Dr. Alice Villalobos VCA Coast Animal Hospital 1560 P.C.H., Hermosa Beach 372-8881 • • TO: Lt. Tom Thompson • FROM: Ken Johnson SUBJECT: Dogs on Beach Issue Here are some copies from my file on the Venice dog issue which may help you. That proposal asks for leash -free dog use of the beach; you're looking at dogs on leashes, as I understand it. Some of the numbers may be outdated—the battle goes back several years. If I can be of assistance, give me a call. Bus: (310) 305-9546 FAX: (310)822-0119 KEN JOHNSON Chief Community Services Division Department of Beaches and Harbor 4701 Admiralty Way COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Marina del Rey, CA 90292 ITEM B • COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF BEACHES AND HARBORS December 9, 1997 TO: Supervisor Zev Yaroslaysky FROM: Stan Wisniewski, 1Yector SUBJECT: VENICE BEACH DOG PROPOSAL STAN WISNIEWSKI DIRECTOR KERRY GOTTLIEB CHIEF DEPUTY Recently, at your Venice Town Hall meeting, representatives of FREEPLAY raised the issue of creating an area at Venice Beach where dogs could be permitted leash -free. The group has been active in the past year seeking a beach area where owners can run their animals. Beaches and Harbors, which maintains Venice Beach, is opposed to allowing dogs on public beaches. It is joined in this position by the County Fire Department Lifeguard Division, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), the Los Angeles Animal Control Department and several environmental groups. (Exhibit 1 includes expressions from some of those groups -- Heal the Bay, Natural Resources Defense Council, and American Oceans Campaign --, as well as an opinion from the City of Los Angeles' Chief Legislative Analyst). The reasons for our opposition center on health and safety issues. While FREEPLAY assures that its members will clean up after their pets, other dog owners have not proven responsible either on the Venice Boardwalk or on the beach, where their animals have run illegally. Unfortunately, our maintenance equipment cannot guarantee 100% collection of dog feces and, certainly, animal urine is not collectable. FREEPLAY cites some beaches outside Los Angeles County which allow dogs with and without leashes. Staff surveyed the Southern California area one year ago and, generally, problems have occurred where dogs are allowed (see findings attached as Exhibit 2). Regardless of these findings, those beaches are not comparable to Venice Beach, either in use patterns or crowd concentration. Moreover, in certain instances, policies have recently been revised to exclude dogs from the beaches where they once were allowed. (See Exhibit 3, a Malibu Surfside News article dated January 2, 1997 which indicates that dogs are no longer allowed on three State pocket beaches in Malibu.) FAX. (3101 821-6345 • 1310) 305-9503 13837 FIJI WAY. MARINA DEL REY. CALIFORNIA 90292 INTERNET: http:"www.cola.ca.us:beacnes Venice Beach Dog Proposal December 9, 1997 Page 2 • FREEPLAY has sought two time periods -- early morning and early evening -- during which owners could run their dogs leash -free. Although it is true that these periods generally see a lesser number of beachgoers in the winter, summer season sees substantial beach use throughout the day. Moreover, even in winter, Venice Beach is by no means empty during these periods. Walkers, joggers, and bikers are but some of our beach -user groups who need protection. My concerns extend to our employees and those of the Lifeguard Division as well. Earlier this year, a leash -free pit bull attacked a horse on patrol duty for the LAPD, and the result was a frenzied horse, an unseated policeman and a dog running amok on a crowded beach. Over the years, there have been incidents of dogs attacking maintenance and Lifeguard staff, as well as the public, and this issue poses liability concerns. Li eguards have additionally expressed concern that enforcing dog r les detracts from their primary mission of protecting the publi by watching the water. Morning usage would additionally interfere with o r ability to properly rake and sanitize this beach. For instance, clean-up of the dog area would need to occur at a different ime than our schedules require, since the dog owners would be using the area at exactly the time that we clean our beaches. Moreover, raking and sanitizing within a contained area is not possible, because a large turning radius is required due to the size and length of the equipment. Thus, hand work, a much more costly and less efficient beach -cleaning method,' would be required. This Department has attended several meetings where FREEPLAY representatives have stated their case. Your Deputy, Maria Chong -Castillo, has been present at these meetings, as have representatives of City Councilwoman Ruth Galanter, the LAPD, Los Angeles City Parks and Recreation, Los Angeles City Animal Control and County Lifeguards. Pursuant to your commitment, I will send staff to FREEPLAY's December 11 meeting to reiterate our position. We have been in contact with Councilwoman Galanter's Office and County Lifeguards, who will also be sending representatives. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to call. SW:KG:KJ:kg Attachments c: Alisa Belinkoff Katz, Chief Deputy Maria Chong -Castillo, Deputy Heal the Balt October 14, 1996 Ms. Daryl Barnett F.R.E.E.P.L.A.Y. P.O. Box 754 Venice, CA 90294 • • 2101 Vcta, hux d ra Suitt ISO Santa Manx, CA 90405 .ort310611.4i1$ kg, 3101St1-4195 e•rni h1b ,artspdu or/ Dost-tt Dram tax transmittal memo 7871 RE: SHORELINE DOG OFF -LEASH EXERCISE BEACHES Dear Ms. Barnett: The purpose of this letter is twofold: Heal the Bay wishes to clarify our position on the above -referenced proposal as presented on September 19, 1996, and to provide you with some specific comments on the proposal content. Initially, you contacted Heal the Bay on August 20, 1996, to solicit our opinion regarding a proposal to have an off -leash dog area on Venice beaches. During the preliminary telephone conversation, I indicated that Heal the Bay would have a major concern about dog feces on the beach. In addition, I also indicated that I would speak with Mark Gold, our Executive Director about the FREEPLAY proposal and review the written document. At that time, I did indicate that our position might be neutral (based on the information you provided in our telephone conversation). Subsequently, I spoke with Mark and received a FAX of your partial proposal. The results of our conversation and a review of the document lead both Mark and me to the conclusion that the proposed area was too large, enforcement would be difficult, and relying only on the feces ordinance would not be enough to address the problem of fecal contamination on the beaches and in the nearshore waters. Since you mentioned in our initial telephone conversation that you would be meeting with Councilwoman Galanter's office, I contacted them to discuss your proposal and solicit some feedback on the City and County's position. .0. Eon%sham. prtstri n stradd Par AVOW pH • • Essentially, they expressed similar concerns. Therefore, prior to your meeting (or on the day of) I left you a voice mail message stating that Heal the Bay did have concerns about your proposal and would not take a neutral position. This also was expressed to Nikki Tenant at Councilwoman Galanter's office. Heal the Bay received your full proposal dated September 19, 1996, on September 30. We have reviewed the proposal and offer the following specific comments: Page 3: If only half of the registered dogs (3000), played on the beach in a restricted area with no feces control other than good faith, eventually a significant health risk to humans and a water quality would develop. Page 5: Has Animal Control agreed to enforce the permit conditions or deputize members of FREEPLAY to enforce the permit conditions? If so, is there a memorandum of understanding? Is there an estimate of the number of individuals that would be required to effectively police and enforce all four play areas simultaneously? Page 6: Is there an estimate of how many FREEPLAY members will be required to sweep the four play areas daily? Page 7: Heal the Bay stated that urine is Iess of a problem than fecal material if urination occasionally occurs in a nearshore area and is not concentrated in a specific location. Fecal material is a problem. It creates a health risk to. humans from pathogens in dog feces, and threatens water quality by increasing bacteria concentrations. In summary, Heal the Bay has major concerns regarding this proposal. We believe that it is not meaningfully enforceable and we have concerns that Animal Control will agree to a memorandum of understanding with FREEPLAY to enforce the proposed permit requirements. Finally, it is Heal the Bay's position that fecal material on the beach and in the nearshore waters poses a threat to human health and water quality. ?natal or Regckd ?aft► r S If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (310) 581-4188', ext. 117. Sincerely, /0441-4;6 Jaque Forrest Staff Scientist Heal the Bay • cc: Councilwoman Galanter POW In Rtcydd Pgcr :.`ouo Reru.ea Parer DC • BY FAX.-- 213/237-0553 October 18, 1996 Councilmember Ruth Galanter City Council of the City of Los.Angeles Sixth District 200 N. Spring Street Room 239 Los Angeles, CA 90012 • Re: FREEPLAY Proposal For Off -Leash Exercise Beaches Dear Councilmember Galanter: ,310 `an L:ten:i Los AngeLes. CA 90043 2I3 934-6900 Fax 213 934-1110 On behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, Santa Monica Baykeeper, American Oceans Campaign, and League for Coastal Protection, we are writing in opposition to the proposal submitted by FREEPLAY for shoreline dog off - leash exercise areas at beaches in Venice and along the Marina Peninsula. Simply stated, we oppose this or any other proposal that would open portions of our limited beach areas -- the single greatest recreational resource for millions of residents of, and visitors to, the Los Angeles region -- to inconsistent uses that threaten water quality and beach sanitation, endanger public health and safety, inhibit public access, or otherwise infringe on the rights of the public to use and enjoy this unique and irreplaceable resource. This letter summarizes our position.' As we understand the proposal, four off -leash exercise beaches would be established to be available before 9:00 a.m. and immediately after Sunset each day from Topsail to the Marina Jetty, Hurricane to Ketch, 24th Avenue to 28th Avenue, and Westminster to Brooks. Use of the areas would be subject to a number of conditions, ranging from iridescent dog tags to full voice control to clean-up requirements. Payment of an annual permit fee would be required, and signs would be posted warning any person, whether or not accompanied by a dog, that they enter the designated areas "at your own liability." We oppose the proposal for a number of reasons. First, opening up any portion of our very limited beaches to an estimated "3,000 dogs in Venice and Marina We endorse the concerns expressed by Heal the Bay in its October 14, 1996 letter to FREEPLAY, a copy of which is attached hereto. We understand that Heal the Bay will also be communicating its opposition to the off -leash proposal directly to your office. 40 West 20th Strut New York. Nao York I0011 212 727-2700 ' Fax212 727-1773 1350 New York Ace.. N.W. Washington. DC 20005 202 783-7800 Fax 202 783-5917 71 Stevenson Street San Francisca, CA 94105 415 777-0220 Fax 415 495-5996 -October 18. 1996 Page Gaianter • • Del Rey -alone" -- and, presumably, more dogs from other areas'- -- presents serious public health and safety risks that current beach restrictions are designed to prevent. Not only would dog feces inevitably result in increased coliform exposure in the water and on the sand -- interfering with recreational uses by hundreds of thousands of people each year -- but the risk of dogs intimidating, harassing, or even attacking children, joggers, strollers, tourists. and swimmers (with attendant liability for the City and County for injury) would be significantly increased. We have spent many years seeking to enforce sewage and stormwater requirements and to promote public access to our beaches, and the introduction of hundreds or thousands of dogs to our beaches runs directly counter to that effort. Second, without in any way questioning the sincerity of the assertion by FREEPLAY that its members will attempt to enforce a series of mitigating conditions designed in theory to address these health and safety issues, we do not believe that those conditions can in practice ensure compliance with public health and safety standards. For example, the geographic and temporal limitations and the requirements of "full voice control" and clean-up are simply unenforceable, as is evident even under existing regulations along the boardwalk adjacent to the selected beaches. Despite the best efforts of many responsible dog owners, significant sanitation and other problems occur, in part as a result of irresponsible owners who, for whatever reason, disregard or cannot comply with regulatory requirements. The implicit assumption that city or county law enforcement could adequately enforce the proposed conditions in and around the proposed areas is simply not credible given the well known budgetary and personnel limitations to which law enforcement agencies are subject. How, and under what legal authority, FREEPLAY proposes to enforce the conditions is never explained. Third, even the daily restriction of off -leash access to before 9:00 a.m. and after Sunset does little to mitigate the adverse effects of the proposal. For parents who work, those are the prime hours for beach use on week days -- the only hours when children are not in school and parents are not at work -- especially during the Fall and Winter months. While perhaps responding to the understandable desire of some dog owners for an off -leash area, a decision allowing dogs to run free during these hours would, for the reasons described above, significantly infringe on the use and right of access by the general public to the affected beaches. And, unlike some beaches in California where the number of visitors does not approach the levels in Venice or Marina Del Rey, the coastal beaches of Los Angeles and Santa Monica are the single most important recreation area for millions of residents of the greater Los Angeles region. For this reason, the beaches must be strictly protected from inconsistent uses of all kinds. 2 Although the proposal refers only to dogs in Venice and Marina Del Rey, it is inevitable that dog - owners in other parts of the Los Angeles region will likely begin bringing their dogs to run free on the beaches as well, whether or not bearing an "iridescent tag" or aware of the geographic, temporal, or other conditions proposed by FREEPLAY. October 18. 1996 Page 3 • • Fourth. given these circumstances, FREEPLAY's application implicates a range of local, state. and federal interests reflected in a number of important environmental statutes and regulations, including, for example: (1) The California Coastal Act (Pub. Res. Code Sections 30000 et seq.) -- Hundreds of thousands of visitors use the beaches of Venice and the Marina Peninsula each year. Activities within the Coastal Zone that could impede the right of public use and access or cause a change in the intensity of use of our beaches would, in the absence of Coastal Commission approval, violate the California Coastal Act and its policy of promoting public access to coastal resources. As a minimum, an application to the Coastal Commission, a public hearing, and a coastal permit seem warranted. (2) The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. Sections 1251 et seq.) -- The federal Clean Water Act prohibits the contamination of coastal waters, which could result from increasing dog feces on our beaches and in the water. In addition, the Act requires measures to control stormwater run-off, the principal source of pollution of Santa Monica Bay. Among those measures required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board under the municipal stormwater control permit — called best management practices -- are measures to ensure the proper disposal of pet feces. Opening up our beaches to thousands of dogs would be a significant step in the wrong direction. (3) The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Res. Code Sections 21000 et seq.) -- CEQA requires the preparation of an environmental impact report ("EIR") prior to any agency action that "may have a significant effect on the environment." Because of the potential adverse impacts described above -- impacts, for example, on water quality, public health and safety, sanitation. coastal access, and beach usage -- we believe that an EIR may be required before approving FREEPLAY's application.' These potential violations supplement the serious liability issues associated with unleashed dogs on public beaches -- issues not meaningfully addressed by FREEPLAY's suggestion that signs could be posted warning Los Angeles County taxpayers and others that they may enter and use their public beaches only "at your own liability." Finally, our opposition is limited to,the proposal for beach off -leash areas. We are open to considering alternative locations with meaningful conditions (e.g., fencing) that would protect both our natural resources and the rights of the public to use and enjoy them. Similar off -leash areas have been established in other parts of the city ' To the extent that the proposal would pose a danger to protected species -- e.g., the Least Tern -- it could violate the state and federal Endangered Species Acts as well. Count imernper Kum Jalanter October 18. 1996 Page 4 • • and in Santa Monica, and we believe that such a proposal could be implemented with far less risk of injury to public health or the environment. Basic fairness dictates that the prohibition against dogs on our beaches must be enforced against everyone, with no exception for residents who claim a right to special treatment because they have the good fortune to live within striking distance of the beaches at Venice and Marina Del Rey. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns. I would be happy to discuss this matter with you or your staff at any time. Very truly yours, s,, • 1R.Re. olds atural Resources Defense Council -/\rfiL\gt s Robert H. Sulnick American Oceans Campaign Terry Tamminen Santa Monica Baykeeper Mel Nutter League for Coastal Protection � y � S Sent first class mail & by fax: 213/237-0549 October 9, 1996 Ms. Ruth Galanter Councilwoman, Sixth District Los Angeles City Council 200 North Spring Street Room 239, City Hall Los Angeles, California 90012 Dear Councilwoman Galanter: RE: FREEPLAY PROPOSAL TO OPEN BEACH AREAS UNLEASHED DOGS Dear Councilman. Galanter: I am writing to express opposition to the proposal for four areas of the beach as off -leash areas for dogs. Although the proposal would entail a $30.00 permit fee bond .and invotvement by FREEPLAY members in trying to ens owners abide by the rules, the scheme is unenforceable. Dog cannot control where their unleashed dogs choose to relieve themselves. Many dogs play near the waters edge where wa wash over dog droppings before the owner has an opportunity esignating a $5000. re that dog owners up. American Oceans Campaign has just participated in an effort to gain Regional Water Board approval of a courrty-wid stormwater permit. Much of the implementation of the pe public education—e.g., how to keep pet wastes away from w with this effort. scan to clean cocaina to me.. a,00.af& --� Q .COY duous it involves terbodies. 725 Arizona A4nue. Sole 102 Santa Monica. California 90401 (310) 578.8162 FAX (310 578.6170 201 Massachusetts Avenue NE. Suite C•3 Washington. O.C. 20002 (202) 5U.3528 FA (202) 544.5625 ••nn c e..-....., C...i-.Goin. amen CO1 CnAA CAS/ mere% c o.a.+i IN ECORS Oarteon y am. Coates Merit ikVec Um, •Z'As'J* - .Keel AW cs (E Sao eRrs.+ WarnerCZSOc4 • aurrer Lit Hsu Miami Haynes Swan Ver .mom Kerns ,bn, ave Chrisicceher chi K o.w+o Aretany Robert Sa OctMiry Sirriq Sievert Srig Tata street V',eDti Angled thiON new H. %Mick g assene Omer SUPPORTERS Ores* tow AI▪ M eir4101 ab1+, J1* Nan betel* • wawa Jaen gpefA Joan Logy mil taw* • Leary Wu tom ir Jen ~N Caen, Mile U0e1100.0.e c..M.,w Peva Sea .ernes Sawn Omen filotegaem Gary SW* saws UM Nap +Wen 74r1Mm ANT Jet %sots Uoid P Susan Grebe Cial binge P, Gran beget See Nat Wm Gino J byes Game taw,d.,O« 12.,.,..x« � w,.. .0% Lem eheolonon LA:1MM 40.01/ Met nen.v4 Jen tagervrae N. Pew:" „ne Seem ll Lau mew Aaiun wen Geom. end Thank you for allowing AOC to register its position on FREEPLAY proposal. Sincerely, Robert H. Sulnick Executive Director AMERICAN OCEANS CAMPAIGN the • • RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON MEMORANDUM ITEM C To: Michael Jenkins FROM: Angela T. Whitehead DATE: July 29, 1998 SUBJECT: Resident -Only Permits RECEIVEI_s' SEP 1 4 1998 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE f or Dogs on the Beach Question Presented Whether the City of Hermosa Beach can issue permits which allow resident -only dog owners to walk their dogs on the beach. Short Answer Although generally a city may distinguish between residents and nonresidents when providing access to certain services, California Government Code Section 54091 demands that all cities owning or controlling any public beach must allow use regardless of residency. Statement of Facts The City of Hermosa Beach currently prohibits all beach users from bringing their dogs onto the beach. The City currently is considering issuing permits which would allow resident beach users to walk their leashed dogs on the beach. The City wishes to know if it can legally exclude nonresident beach users from this permit program. ATW:atw 10649-00001 8280016 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHO9 MEMORANDUM Michael Jenkins July 29, 1998 Page 2 • Discussion I. The General Rule Where not otherwise prohibited by law, an oridnance which treats people differently must endure a constitutionality test. The most common constitutional challenges to such ordinances arise from the Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Equal • Protection Clause. Generally, when providing access to most public services or facilities, a city may differentiate between its residents and nonresidents so long as the residency requirement substantially relates to a legitimate government objective. A. Privileges and Immunities Clause Although the Privileges and Immunities Clause traditionally speaks only to those rights held by state residents, the United States Supreme Court held in United Building and Construction Trades v. Camden, 79 L.Ed.2d 249 (1984) that,the Clause also applies to municipal residents. However, only out-of-state residents would have Privilege and Immunities claims against a municipality. See id. at 257 (disadvantaged citizens of the same state do not have claims under the Privileges and Immunities Clause); People v. Houseman, 163 Cal.App.3d Supp. 43 (1984) (person claiming that the Beverly Hills Municipal Code violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause had no standing because she was not an out-of-state citizen). In United Building, the Court ATW:atw 10649-00001 8280016 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHO• • MEMORANDUM Michael Jenkins July 29, 1998 Page 3 utilized a two-step analysis. First, the Clause applied only to privileges and immunities considered fundamental to interstate harmony. Id. at 258. Second, the city needed to demonstrate that it had a substantial reason for the exclusion of a group and that the distinction closely related to that need. Id. In analyzing the first prong, the Court has indicated that recreational activities do not receive protection under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. See Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Comm'n, 56 L.Ed.2d 354, 368 (1978) (holding that elk hunting, as a sport, does not provide for livelihood and thus does not receive the Clause's protection). The act of walking one's dog seems to most accurately fit into the recreation category, and thus, would not..constitute a protected privilege. under the Clause. Even if the Clause did apply, Hermosa Beach could probably satisfy the second prong of the test. It could argue that an over crowding of dogs on the beach raises public safety and sanitation issues. The City has a legitimate interest in the cleanliness of the beach as well as making sure that animals do not pose a threat to anyone on the beach. Under this rationale the City could probably limit the number of dogs and under what conditions it allows dogs on the beach. The City could justify limiting the permits to residents by arguing that people living in the City contribute financially to the upkeep and safety of ATW:atw 10649-00001 8280016 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHO0 MEMORANDUM Michael Jenkins July 29, 1998 Page 4 • the beach through city taxes. Nonresidents do not possess the same stake in the beach nor do they pay the same taxes. In sum, the Privileges and Immunities Clause would most likely not apply in the present circumstance because visiting the beach or walking your dog on it do not constitute privileges that the Clause protects. Further, even if the clause did apply, the City could likely find a public health and safety justification for treating residents differently from nonresidents. B. Equal Protection Clause The Equal Protection Clause could be invoked because the ordinance creates a classification of people and distinguishes between .them. Two standards govern Equal Protection analysis: rational basis review and strict scrutiny review. ..Rational basis review requires only that a reasonable relationship exist between the classification and some legitimate state objective. See Ostrager v. State Board of Control, 99 Cal.App.3d 1, 7 (1979). Strict scrutiny, however, requires a compelling state interest and a narrowly tailored means by which to achieve that goal. Strict scrutiny only applies to situations where a fundamental right is at stake or where the action affects a "suspect" classification. See id. at 17. In light of the Court's treatment of recreation activities in the Privileges and Immunities, a person's ability to walk her dog on the beach likely falls outside the category of fundamental rights. See ATW:atw 10649-00001 8280016 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHOO MEMORANDUM Michael Jenkins July 29, 1998 Page 5 • Baldwin, 56 L.Ed.2d at 368. Further, strict scrutiny does not apply because a bonafide residencerequirement implicates no suspect class. See Martinez v. Bynum, 75 L.Ed.2d 879, 887 n.7 (1983). Therefore, Hermosa Beach's resident -only dog leash permits need only satisfy rational basis review. See Parks v. Watson, 716 F.2d 646, 654 (9th Cir. 1983) ("Absent"suspect classification or the infringement of a fundamental right. the Equal Protection Clause is offended only if the City's different treatment. . . bears no rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose.") McClain v. City of South Pasadena, 155 Cal.App.2d 423 (1957), the leading resident distinction case in California, articulated the general rule regarding.a city's ability to distinguish between residents and nonresidents. There, the court rejected a young girl's equal protection challenge to a city ordinance that excluded nonresidents from a local swimming pool. The court explained that "all differentiation by municipal regulation as to nonresidents is not constitutionally prohibited and void." Id. at 433. In fact, the court presumed that the regulation was reasonable, for "[p]ractical inequality does not make the regulation unconstitutional." Id. at 434. The court's equal protection analysis focused on the reasonableness of the distinction: "a classification is reasonable if it had a substantial relation to a legitimate objective to be ATW:atw 10649-00001 8280016 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHOO MEMORANDUM Michael Jenkins July 29, 1998 Page 6 • accomplished." Id. at 435. The court deemed the crowded pool, a condition which could jeopardize the health and safety of the city's residents, a reasonable concern for which the city could exercise its police powers. See id. at 437. Additionally, the court stressed that the city taxpayers provided the maintenance of the pool. See id. at 436. By arguing that the City's responsibility to provide safe, clean beaches and the City's the interest in preventing an overcrowding of animals on the beach, Hermosa Beach would likely pass the low constitutional threshold of rational basis review. In 1963, an advisory opinion by the California Attorney General relied on the rationale of McClain to hold that a "[c]ity as the owner of the land has the right to prohibit the use by nonresidents for recreational or other purposes or may charge them for such use, although residents of the city are permitted to use the beaches without any charges." Beaches, 41 Cal. Op. Att'y Gen. 39 (1963). There the City of Laguna Beach proposed an ordinance that limited the nonresidential use of city owned beaches. The City passed the ordinance in response to the major increase in beach use of nonresidents and the problems of congestion and disregard of beach cleanliness and sanitation. See id. at 40. These conditions made it increasingly difficult for residents to use and enjoy the limited public beaches. See id. The Attorney General's opinion pronounced the validity of ATW:atw 10649-00001 8280016 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHO MEMORANDUM Michael Jenkins July 29, 1998 Page 7 the ordinance as long as the City maintained "convenient and adequate free and unobstructed rights of way across its beaches to the navigable waters of the ocean." Id. -at 43. Thus, ordinances which distinguish between residents and nonresidents commonly pass constitutional review. II. California Statutory Exception The California Legislature has provided an exception to the general rule expressed in McClain and in the 1963 Attorney General advisory opinion. Government Code Section 540911/ mandates that any beach must be open to the public, regardless of a person's residency. The Code states: Any city, county or other local agency which owns, operates, or controls any public beach shall allow the use of such public beach by all persons regardless of color, race, religion, ancestry, sex, national origin, or residence. Nonresidents of the city, county, or other local agency shall be permitted to use such public beach upon the same terms and conditions as are 1/ Public Resources Code Section 5162 articulates a similar mandate. That Section states: Any beach or seashore recreation area owned,' leased, operated, controlled, maintained or managed by a city or county which is open to the use of residents of such city or county shall be open to all members of the public upon the same terms, fees, charges, and conditions as are applicable to the residents of such city or county. (emphasis added). ATW:atw 10649-00001 8280016 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHO MEMORANDUM Michael Jenkins July 29, 1998 Page 8 residents of such city, county, or local agency. (emphasis added). The State Legislature added Section 54091 to the Government Code in response to the 1963 Attorney General Opinion in order to stress the importance of public access to recreational facilities located near or on tide and submerged lands adjacent to navigable waters. See Boating Facilities, 58 Cal. Op. Att'y Gen. 652, 657 (1975). This Section adds a layer of review for beach related resident -only ordinances. The Hermosa Beach proposal conflicts with the plain language of the state law. Although not a State beach, the scope of the statute still reaches Hermosa Beach because the Code includes municipally owned beaches. The City could argue that since the main legislative concern behind Section 54091 focused on guaranteeing non-resident access to the beach, the permit program does not violate the spirit of the Code because the program merely curbs the number of dogs on the beach while still keeping beach access open to nonresidents. However, given the language of the Code, this argument would likely fail. Granting dog permits to residents while excluding nonresidents creates an inequitable "term and condition" which the Code prohibits. Consequently, although the Hermosa Beach permit program would probably meet constitutional standards, the additional protection ATW:atw 10649-00001 8280016 'RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHOO MEMORANDUM Michael Jenkins July 29, 1998 Page 9 the State Legislature gave nonresident beach users makes the program statutorily infirm. Conclusion If the sole test for Hermosa Beach's proposed resident -only permit program was constitutionality, the ordinance would probably avoid analysis under the Privileges and Immunities Clause and would likely pass the Equal Protection Clause's rational basis review. • Generally, a city may differentiate between residents and nonresidents when providing access to local facilities and services. However, the California Legislature distinguished beach access from other recreational facilities such as parks and swimming pools. California Government Code Section 54091 demands that all cities owning or controlling any public beach allow use regardless of residency and prohibits unequal conditions on that use. Therefore, the statutory mandate prevents Hermosa Beach from issuing the resident -only dog permits. ATW:atw 10649-00001 8280016 LETTER #1 JUL-14-98 TUE 15:45 AJSTICAL: INTERIOR SYS 3103047 P.02 • RECEIVED JUI, 141998 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE 2044 Prospect Ave. Hermosa Beach. CA 90254 July 14, 1998 Honorable Mayor Sam Edgerton and City Council Members City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mayor and Council Members; This morning on my daily run (with dog on the strand) I ran into Dr. Villalobos and reluctantly signed her petition. I agree with her that dogs are generally out of control in this city. Initially I refused to sign her petition, but I think she has some very good ideas. My concerns are the health of all the beachgoers, particularly my children. They already step in cat feces on a regular basis. There are nasty diseases transmittable to humans through dog and cat feces. If you endorse her petition, please consider doing so on a trial basis. If it doesn't work after three months, then do away with it. I have two ideas that might help. First, require everyone who applies for a beach permit for their dog to produce evidence proper health care. That is, not only the usual rabies, but also proper worming. (More business for the good Dr.) Secondly, give all the so called deputies a piece of the action. Make the fines for off lead and fouling very steep (I think $500 would work) and then give the deputy a percentage of the fine. It will end the dog problems on the strand, in the green belt, and on the beach as well. It will have people out with their videos and their will never be a need for the City to install a camera. I would like a chance to walk on the beach with my dog, but I am more concerned with the health of my children. I was bitten last year by a dog off lead in the green belt and there was nothing I was able to do about it. The young man and his dogs took off and I was left with a nasty scratch. Goo Luck, 41.111iir D -,{rte • • DRS. CAROL AND MICHAEL FLEISCHER # 4 THE STRAND HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 Fax : 310-374-4754 Home Phone : 310-798-2276 Email : DR.CGWF @ AOL.COM LETTER #4 RECEIVED JUL ? 7 1998 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH WE VIGOROUSLY OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL TO ALLOW DOGS ON OUR BEAUTIFUL BEACH. DOGS ON THE BEACH PUT AT RISK: --OUR HEALTH AND OUR CHILDREN'S HEALTH; --OUR MARINE MAMMALS; --OUR BIRDS; --OUR SPORTS - VOLLEYBALL, SURFING, ETC. IN ALL, OUR VERY QUALITY OF LIFE AT THE BEACH. C„, CC: SAM EDGERTON, MAYOR ROBERT BENZ, MAYOR PRO TEMPORE JOHN BOWLER JULIE OAKES J. R REVICSKY STEPHEN BURRELL, CITY MANAGER h6Y- :=7 LETTER #5 • • Return -Path: <Cketz@e-mail.carson.ca.us> From: Christine Ketz <Cketz@e- mail.carson.ca.us> To: "'cityclerk@hermosabch.org"' <cityclerk@hermosabch.org> Subject: Ban dogs on beach Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 08:42:14 -0700 Return -Receipt -To: Christine Ketz <Cketz@e-mail.carson.ca.us> X-UIDL: a8ae75171d6e9549a659076302092634 Please distribute this email to the City Council. Allowing dogs on the beach would be awful! ! ! ! How would the law be enforced which requires the owners pick up after their dogs? Would we have to hire more enforcement people to roam the beach? How does this affect the Clean Water Act? People were quoted in the article stating that they wanted to take their dogs while they surf --if they are on a leash what are they tied to? How could the dogs swim in the surf if they are on a leash? Isn't the City liable for bites from loose dogs that are "playing in the surf?" The people voted a few years ago not to allow loose dogs on the greenbelt --isn't this a similar issue? If you allow this, we will have dogs from all of South Bay at our beach because the other cities do not allow it. Is this really what the Hermosa residents want? I think the current law should be strictly enforced! Chris Ketz Hermosa Beach •• LETTER #6 'RECEIVED ALK 101998 CITY MANAGER'S ER'S OFF1Cr Dear H.B. Councilpersons: 8/3/98 I'd like to register my disgust with the very suggestion that dogs be allowed on the sands of Hermosa's public beaches. I can think of nothing more foul than sitting or stepping in animal feces. And, without doubt, this WILL happen if owners are allowed to "walk" their dogs in the early morning and evening hours — when fewer people are around to police them. Why do you think they want this opportunity? They don't want to clean up after their animals. Their crap will become everyone's problem and the city's clean-up responsibility. It might be "a dog's life," but it's the taxpayers' beach! PLEASE keep it clean and dog -free. ■ ,Jennifer McQuet • 1613 Spreckels Lane ■ Redondo Beach, CA 90278 -)-7-/-10% - / 72-7-afzc-w'7P-?r-v7197-A my/W21,,0� 4/.0X ^ v r /13 rPV;7.0-)-ft, ?-)/7( '1-7( ,yrk/ti-pi "Lbp 4-6\ c -el -(7V-lrT4c A 0)1 111 17f5 L# 2Ia.L,L3'I °iref'i7ix h,z04 tors, ,opvi _ fip/ // vrai9v-p//parrly r--)4-?71v • • GREGORY AND SANDRA ADEN 15$ Bayview Dr. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 August 24, 1998 Honorable Mayor Sam Edgerton and other Honorable City Council Members City Hall, Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 LETTER #8 !RECEIVED AUG 2 6 1998 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Dear Mayor Edgerton and Council Members: Please, NO, NO, NO!!! We implore you! Please do not allow dogs on our beach! There.are..all too many.scoiflaws in.our.city, who do NOTaabide by current animal regulations. Let's not allow them another opportunity to show disrespect for the law. We regularly have to remove dog defecation from around our home {usually covered -with large, disgusting gt een -dies). So far, -we've been gable to identify The offending neighbor culprit. Also, it is not uncommonto observe dog excrement on the Strand. (And, just this past Saturday, we noticed a fresh pile dropped on the sidewalk, near the B of A teller machines and on a recent Thursday saw a pile in the sand in Manhattan Beach. about 1 -block north of the Hermosa boundary.) We often observe residents allowing their dog(s) to run off -leash in our neighborhood. lust how many dog owners in the City have actually purchased the required licenses for their dogs? We bet not many. By the way, how does. the City monitor this requirement? If irresponsible dog owners will not clean up after their animals on the Strand and in our neighborhood, why will they clean up after them on the beach? If they allow the dogs off -leash on our street, what is to assure they will keep them leashed on the beach? We like to take evening walks on the beach and we shouldn't have to worry about stepping in a dog pile in the dark or encountering an off -the -leash canine!. Please! While the idea of freedom for dogs on the beach seems quite neighborly to law- abiding, responsible dog -owners, but even a few irresponsible scofflaws could RUIN OUR BEACH. This would add to the stress of law-abiding residents and negatively impact the laid-back beach life -style -we expect in Hermosa Beach! PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW DOGS ON OUR BEACH AT ANY TIME OR AT ANY $OI.IRl f Thank you for your respectful consideration. Yours very trul • Susan Lewis 512 Beach Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 (310) 318-6266 August 25, 1998 City of Hermosa Beach City Council Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: No Dogs Allowed To Whom It May Concern: LETTER #9 RECEIVED SEP -1 1998 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE The renovation of lower Pier Avenue has brought much attention to Hermosa Beach. Therefore, the increase of people in downtown has been substantial. Though it is good for merchants and the community in some aspects it is also creating problems as well. I have been a resident of Hermosa Beach all my life and I am concerned about several issues however, one issue in particular. Since there are now more people there are more dogs which is becoming a problem. Unfortunately, not every dog owner is a responsible one. There is dog feces all over the strand (not to mention the dogs urinating on the strand wall.) There has been several occasions where I have and have seen other people stop a dog owner who was ready and willing to walk away from its pets mess without any consideration for the people who will now be stepping in it and now tracking it down the strand. Amongst the congestion on the strand you have dogs chasing skateboarders, dog fights, bicyclists, rollerbladers, rollerskaters and skateboards swerving (and therefore causing accidents) to avoid a dog that can't be seen due to the long leash that separates them from their owner, you have skateboarders that have converted their dogs into skateboard tows to zip them down the strand at lightning speed. If you are on you bike, blades or even just walking you are at eye level and you don't see the dog that is a foot off the ground, towing his master, and flying right towards you. During the concerts on the beach on.Sunday evenings people were bringing their dogs and sitting on the beach with them. Therefore, I am seeing more and more dog feces (and who knows how much urine we run our toes through) on the sand. I understand that the city council is considering issuing permits allowing dogs on the beach at certain times of the day. The thought that even more dog feces will now be found in the sand where kids and adults walk barefoot and are sitting and laying sickens me. When children are playing in the sand, the sand inevitably ends up in their mouths. The parasites that are in the feces can be very harmful and to a small child even deadly . How much will it LA DOCS\245704.1 • • cost the city to "police" these people to make sure that they have permits? Or, will the city just make due with the animal control force that they have and hope that everyone has a permit and is a responsible dog owner. I'm sure that if this idea were implemented, more and more people would start to take advantage of it and they would not have permits and slowly but surely we would have dogs running on the beach at all times. How will the fine for having your dog on the beach without a permit be enforced? I find it hard to believe that if caught and questioned about their name and address, that the person would be more than happy to provide the correct information so that they can be found if the fine is not paid and therefore be further penalized. What would stop them from just throwing the ticket away? I know that Venice and Redondo Beach has implemented a system of no dogs allowed on the beach and/or the strand and that has been very successful. I think that dogs should not be allowed on the strand during peak hours. The strand has become too congested and it is very dangerous for everyone including the dog. And never should dogs be allowed on the beach. It would be just one more problem and cost for the citizens. Sincerely, 161-4/tk-4AiT Susan Lewis LA DOCS\245704.1 Member Afllinn 1IIIIP,,, American Optometric Association • WARREN BARR, O.D. PAUL C. BARR, O.D. FER #io GIVE • SEP -1 1998 CIN MANAGER'S OFFIC1 1200 Artesia Blvd., #1 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Telephone: (310) 372-5213 Hermosa Beach City Council 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 RE: DOGS ON THE BEACH POSITION: AGAINST - Dear Council Members: Dogs on the beach are a public- health issue. ,No.matter how diligent the owners are it is impossible to completely clean up after your pet. Anyone who has had occasion to scoop up after an animal using a litter box knows that sooner or.later you have to Change:the liter. Well,.you.can't change the sand _on; the -.beach. I :.don'.t-„want -to see:_a :bunch _of :kids going _.blind from Toxocariasis- after getting ,sandin::their „mouths ".that has been. used ;as `a :litter box •(see attached). . • • From a practical stand point, this would not be an enforceable law. Are police to stop anyone they see on the beach with a dog to check for a permit? Whose to say the pet did not contact a disease since the permit was issued? Will there be any police around when a non -permitted pet romps.in the surf? Sinee ly `/Warren Barr, O.D. P.S. It's not that I don't have faith in owners' cleaning up after their pets, but remember what the Biltmore site used to look like? Member . illll American Optometric Association • • WARREN BARR, O.D. PAUL C. BARR, O.D. 1200 Artesia Blvd., #1 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Telephone: (310) 372-5213 TOXOCARIASIS) Toxocariasis is an infestation caused by a common intestinal roundworm of cats (Toxocara cati) and dogs (Toxocara canis). Human infestation is due to accidental ingestion of soil or food contaminated with ova which are shed in the animal's feces. Young children who are prone to eat dirt and sand or are in close contact with puppies are at particular risk of acquiring the disease. Surveys have shown that the prevalence of infestation in puppies 2-6 months of age is greater than 80%. Clinically, human infestation can take one of two forms: visceral larva migrans (VLM)'and ocular toxocariasis. In the human intestine, the ova develop into larvae which penetrate the intestinal wall and travel to various organs such as the liver, lungs, skin, brain and eyes.'When the larvae die they disintegrate and cause an inflammatory, -reaction. VLM is a severe systemic infestation which usually :occurs at about the age of 2 years causing respiratory' difficulties, convulsions -and even death. Ocular toxocariasis usually occurs in ages 7-8 years and differs markedly from VLM. The victims are in otherwise good health but as the larvae migrate to the eye they cause scarring and blindness. )from Kanski, J., Clinical Ophthalmology, second ed. 1989, Butterworth • r•-• �i SQ• "an (=1 �i'�f sjt� G i TheBeach Reporter eptember 11; _998 • Don't change the dog ordinance • Years ago, Hermosa Beach City Coun=T cils, in their wisdom; determined that the -- only way to keep our beach in a clean and sanitary condition `was to enact an ordi nancerestricting dogs from going on the x;; beach. Now some well-intentioned owners naively contend that dog waste can ,.. be effectively removed and that the Clean7;5';' liness of the beach will 'not be 'coinpro .. mised by allowing their pets on the beach Unfortunately, however,. there' are in: considerate persons who will not bother to y r ' thoroughly clean up after 'their dogs This i.71 is evident on The Strand from tin (o'i:.' .time. Dogs will also urinate on the sand side of The Strand wall, on trash barrels; lifeguard towers and: volley ball posts. ,The" stench would be impossible to,eradicate�` Anyattempt'to effectively -police dinance requiring dog owners to coinjr' pletely clean up after their dogs.wouldin volve an enormous expense to the city an would not be justified bythe benefit wine.- might hic might be -derived bypersons-walking theirY dogs on the '' ar` `• .tom_?':"'.i:: y�'': Our beautiful` beach' istruly_ourcivic--,_- treasure It is for sunbathing, beachjplay picnicking and strolling along the yshore- •.line. The only way to`guarantee:that :the ::beach will remain free of dog, waste'isno to repeal the present ordinance ••. Larry Gray. Hemiosa Beach NEWSLETTERS BEACH REPORTER • EASY READER • F.ayReader ugust 201998 Dog gone beaches:: Dear ER: _ "How much up ;could ,an upcliuc), chuck.if an upchuck could chuck up7 .The question .occurred to me after rear!-; ing pro -oil Chuck and Missy Sheldon's ' concerns regarding the potential free run` of dogs on Hermosa's)each I agreed `wholeheartedly as suddenlyl saw .0* feces` stacked hundreds of ;feet r high in the malevolent form of an oil rig forever. blurring sunset views" from _their L1lovely Strand 'home now stained yellow by the vaporous "stench of canine urine so strong you could almost taste its sting. If flus ;weren't `enough, eardrums were -bombarded with the constant rumblui q of giant trucks lumbering up;and$down ` Beach>'Dnve .as they -removed the 'foul vestige'�sYof aminal •product ' "` dIncite eimosa`Beac The Beach Reporter. August 13,1998' _Editor's note: Two weeks ago, we asked • . our readers about the possibility of allow- , ing dogs on the beach in.Herniosa subject to certain restrictions. Not a good idea The notion of allowing .dogs on beach in Hermosa, under any set of rules, although well-meaning, is fraught with•". naivete. First, anyone who lives near or uses The Strand recognizes the irresponsibility,i1 of some dog owners .who do not cleanup L1 • after their dogs, even when asked to do so:. ; Why would the beach be different? Her- mosa Beach is a people beach, a place wherechildren of all ages enjoy running barefoot in the sand, lying in the sand ging in the sand, building' sand castles '=' enough said. Even if most of the dog own-.._ ers did pickup after their pets liow do:yoi- - pick up.urine� , Sceond," doe owners patrolling i) cr .dog ""owners?-Abounding*,enlorcemcnt ,nghtmares. Do we want -a new order'o doggie Police on'the;beach?:Sounds`°like 4S/4.'ockcting administrative Iiccnsmgand- enforc,emeiit p1Oblems.:i11 'stoic, not to' mention Lity`hability *'' ` ` Third,•without walls around pur cit how is this perk: restricted to`He-euros Beach residents? Or are we inviting 5pe owners of the greater South Bay tc partici; pate? Could anyone wantzto see Her mosa'ss beach becorne the South_Bay'do run of choices f ; •; t• �, Last we;voted down by a 2=1 margin._,. allowcng dogs off leash ori our'greenbe7t' just aw feyears ago The sm ae logo, and then some corntrnues to'apply to restrt< t ing dogs from our public beach `4''' We have great confidence that our Ctty ..:Council, in its wisdom will quickly and quietly put this puppy hack.in the kennel •• Chuck and..Missy SheldOn4 ,4 Hermosa Beach,Y`ry' NEWSLETTERS — BEACH REPORTER • EASY READER - The Beach Reporter • August 13, •1998 • Cant control their animals I am against any running of dogs on our:: • W- Askin r 12/ Ge/ 7o€A cod E/6- ��cice�� 0/(A, At ikkt C14,1,0 a%'1 // aJY)Li ProLA + t6c- De_c`- v,.377 (LFS SUPPLEMENTAL IC INFORMATION / 9P(F. o,p901-e 7��,o4-Q.Pu.2�c-ur c1e� CGC {'1rckvlc,.4 son/. /-e� 6� /rte.-Yif. 614 to (togs r Y J&srf-Pr 51,C 14 . otiur 4w,tte0 S -k' c. (JC JSo., AO 2212E55 51S- 517110 y5-- / 7 " `K z (b s-/-( 021""cs49-- /b-7A a 71 /&/v sfr d //K 63 /670 A h a Av(. lf.C3 ktsi-f (-7 -S7 • y, - ,fJyc// 4e /�� 3z es-rr.s-r-/3 eo 7 la��sor,1_r� Qed.,.. 16O 4 % W4_11.4 11 061 =4 e n S C��i� awe. 'B' Red .8C)\ • �/ e1CP-15A j Cts C 9 oZ;`I 1 o 1--. �. , CA g07-59- qT lua4/ „l g/vcJ (47- / b g°251 (caH \3`A''' }. Not4A14 WCQcAc14 , c4 Qo2.6( /1/444 44271a44. 7 4e &4, ,disci P/-/ 5/La'` , & P 9c s lz vt _ ig St. NAN = 3 c F) ice 6 s/ - / - i . }-f 9O E/ / 8'`si-C y , /(.15T/O± �P-) lvz.sZ-/ v—Ih-.St z5y 14 ,ASLm-- a.-\ . f74-0- - L20 ~ no -P1 S-nn6SL`IeT H - •B. L%A/j-102-5-4 77j' cc 10'3 e.„,''alL. , FTca'7C ,eva.c G7 31 - l �f 77 1731 IC(fel, zV� 3° — (t,+" 54- the --4.1 c'f/, (. CV�M1 3c AeLs CAF eLS-e rye e/16,J NItchat ? c -e; s s t4/t1:21 116-1 (76v ukSkt O»W&t4 y) L(iP a RECER/P OCT 1 3 1998 CITY CLERK CRY OF HERMOSA BEACH 5520 L) 1610- .2c20 '57-0:6,t4144 1 00 W . 14-(R,st.c--G-.3.1-CA. c3 / O 1C1 ' 7toOb - - -fint3'o l c 3o i (o th St, Hermosa 62a -ch 902s 7 (21 /istfkj /41L,,,L4& 6�cl t� c- X026( t°o - i 8 G24 � JfMtG'\letckcfr, 'Tots/ t8 -1 ,cwi,„eidas titt /J14 -- I!" c` -r' �a ?12..r9, l6/- l 4T.4. �d 14'-- r -. ii . CA . ckacct 4-S- 11t\1, -N.B.,. 1°C11' 90a ` l y d q ?NI 6,4,1 turian Aftivrvgaa. Qoz5S - 74h c:_1 6,i e / - eze-te ,Id_ 6,e %� ?2 o ,zed , U eryt faattZ,i 4,ta-41-Z-4/ 7 , s4 5- / C/0 4_ � / C�r3C /I) 2v 4,ele-e.x,44-1? 37; 2b?Q Ali2-om the desk of JUDY LUCF sh Hermosawe,m,..4 oAvenu 0254 440 October. 8, 1998 City of Hermosa Beach City Council & Mayor `, 1315 Valley Drive ECEI l� E _ Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 RE: Permits to walk dogs on the beach. OCT 1 3 1998 Dear Council Members, CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE As I work Tuesday evenings end can't get the night off. I am writing this letter. Present condition: -The Strand wall beach accesses are already doggie cesspools. After stepping in doggie diarrhea covered by a little sand and all the urine marks , I no longer cross though the beach access barefoot even though I live a block away. -After dark, people already run their dogs on the beach. Enforcement: -If dogs can't be policed now, now can they be policed with exceptioned licensing? Sanitation: -You don't compost dog and cat feces because they may have parasites that can be passed to humans. This is especially dangerous for pregnant women. -Dr. Villalobos suggestion to doggie urine "the solution to pollution is dilution"* with "a squirt bottle filled. with water and a dash of vinegar"* is NOT good enough! I run deep sand and play beach volleyball. A squirt from a household bottle is about. an 1/8 teaspoon (48 teaspoons equals 1 cup). Five gallons would be closer to the dilution with which my feet would be happy. --Would Volleyball posts to turn into doggie urinals? Vision: -Dr. Villalobos has a picture of walking her dog along the beach on a serene morning. The snapshot later could be a toddler on a family outing playing in.the sand where Dr. Villalobos dog took a dump and/or peed two hours before. And you know how toddlers stick their fingers in in their mouth! Conclusion: The suggestion to allow permitted dog walking on the beach is unsanitary. It is not healthy to mix beach users (families, volleyball players, surfers, etc.) with the hazards of fecal matter contamination, especially with fecal Matter known to contain parasites that are harmful particularly to pregnant women. PLEASE DON'T ALLOW DOGS ON THE BEACH! Respectfully, Judy Dice (Previous (QiYtes from Easy Reader, Sept 10. 1998.) dog owner) SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION • A'• _Sunday, October 1 1, 1998 • RECEIVED OCT 12 1998 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE CDC: Dog bite cases jump 37% By The Associated Press Dog bites are an epidemic that dwarfs mumps or other childhood diseases in frequency, authorities said Friday in Anaheim. , The number of dog .bites requir- ing medical attention increased • 37 percent during an eight-year period ending in 1994, according to the latest available statistics from the federal Centers for Dis- ease Control in Atlanta. The number of such dog -bite in- juries surpassed reported cases, of mumps, measles and whooping cough combined, the CDC's Dr. Jeffrey Sacks said during the con- ference co-sponsored by the American Humane Association and State Farm Insurance. In 1994, more than 800,000 dog bites nationwide required medi- cal care, according to the CDC. Gini Barrett, director of the American Humane Association's Western regional office, said that city dwellers select pets for per- sonal protection. "I think we have an affinity here in Southern California for large, aggressive breeds of dogs that is unparalleled anywhere else in the nation," Barrett said. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION v ..A28 • SATURDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1998 Cl L rn /�'�• cc N Col a LIJ O m v .■ Health: Attacks injure more people than the total reported cases of whooping cough, measles and mumps, officials say. in Rising Threat of Dog Bites • By RICHARD MAROSI TIMES STAFF WRITER Six-year-old Larissa Casillas is ' terrified of dogs and plagued by bad dreams. And she has good reason to be. Five 'months ago, the Placentia youngster approached a neighbor's Rottweiler to stop it from eating an ice cream wrapper. The animal pounced, clawing and biting the girl so badly that she needed 56 stitches to close the wounds on her head and arms. Animal control and health ex- perts say that Larissa is among a growing number of dog bite vic- tims who are part of a largely unrecognized health problem. The number of dog bite injuries dwarfs the reported cases of mumps, measles and whooping cough combined, said Dr. Jeffrey Sacks of the federal Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta. He has compiled one of the few studies ' that look at the problem nation- wide. :+ "There's a lot of risks in life we K: can't control, and here's one that can be [controlled], very simply and with very little effort or money," Sacks said. In response to the work of Sacks and others, the American Humane Assn. co-sponsored a conference in Anaheim this week to promote awareness about the dangers of dog bites and encourage the public to take steps to prevent such attacks. • While some animal control ex- perts say the problem is rampant, others note that statistics on dog bites often are sketchy. During an eight-year period ending in 1994—the most recent year for which the CDC compiled such information—the number of dog bites requiring medical atten- tion increased 37%. In 1994, more than 800,000 dog bites nationwide required medical care, according to the CDC study. "It's rampant, but because we haven't been talking about it, the KARI RENE HALL / Los Angeles Times David Casillas, with daughter Larissa, center, and wife, Elizabeth. Larissa needed 56 stitches after she was attacked by a Rottweiler. victims feel that they are the only ones. This is actually happening everywhere," said Gini Barrett, director of the American Humane Assn.'s western regional office, and a conference speaker. Animal control experts, includ- ing Barrett, attribute the more severe attacks to the fact that urban dwellers select pets for per- sonal protection. "I think we have an affinity here in Southern California for large, aggressive breeds of dogs that is unparalleled anywhere else in the nation," Barrett said. "Crimes and a fear of crimes is a part of our culture." Some cities, including Los An- geles, do not compile statistics on dog bites because there is no money to do so, county health officials said. Experts say the fig- ures that are available are likely to be low. Many bites go unreported and untreated, she said. Another indicator of the prob- lem: About one-third of all home- owner claims now involve dog bites, prompting some insurance agencies to raise premiums on policyholders with problem dogs, according to the nonprofit, Los Angeles -based Insurance Informa- tion Service. State Farm Insurance also co-sponsored the Anaheim conference. Before the attack on his daugh- ter, David Casillas never consid- ered the threat posed by dogs, he said. But in the months since, he was surprised to notice others dealing with the consequences of a dog bite. "It's weird. We keep hearing and seeing stories of dogs attacking kids on the news," he said. "It seems like this happens all the time." In the wake of the attack, animal control officials ordered the Rott- weiler that attacked Larissa to be neutered and remain leashed whenever off the owner's prop- erty. Casillas said thepenalties were too lenient given the severity of the attack. He does not want the dog to be euthanized, just moved out of the neighborhood, and believes that the best safety measure is to edu- cate people to be responsible pet owners. "Putting the dog to sleep doesn't do anything. The owner will just get a new dog," he said. Times staff writer Martha Willman contributed to this story. October 7, 1998 Honorable Mayor and Members of The Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of October 13, 1998 1998 NEW YEAR'S EVE EVENT Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1. Direct staff to accommodate any effort downtown merchants and/or the Chamber of Commerce may make towards funding and producing a New Year's Eve event on the Pier Plaza; and 2. Focus City staff efforts and sponsorship solicitation on the Hermosa Beach Year 2000 Celebration. Background At the September 22 meeting, Council approved a conceptual plan for a Year 2000 Celebration. Last year, Council also voted to suspend a plan for a 1997 celebration to allow adequate planning time for a potential 1998 event. In addition, Council directed staff to "facilitate this event by working with merchants in the area." Analysis To that end, staff prepared a FAX poll for downtown merchants to determine what if any interest they have in a New Year's Eve event (Attachment A). Due to the ambitious nature of the Year 2000 Celebration, staff wanted to focus all planning and fundraising efforts in that direction. As such, for 1998, an event that is more merchant -driven and funded may be in the best interests of the City. As an alternative to staff recommendation, if Council wishes the City to fund and produce an event for New Year's Eve 1998, staff would recommend a big band and/or swing bands with a rented dance floor on the Pier Plaza at an estimated cost of $25,000. " Fiscal Impact: None Resp t,d4, submitted, Lfg Stephen ' / ' rrell City Manager FAX POLL: HERMOSA BEACH DOWNTOWN MERCHANTS PLEASE RESPOND ASAP The City of Hermosa Beach is requesting feedback from downtown merchants about New Year's Eve, 1998. Please answer the questions below and. FAX your answers to the Community Resources Department at 372-4333. 1. Would you like to see a band or bands perform on the Pier Plaza on New Year's Eve? ❑ Yes ❑ No 2. Would a band on the Plaza disrupt New Year's.Eve plans for your business? ❑ Yes Reason ❑ No 3. Would you be willing to contribute money to pay for entertainment and staging on the Plaza for New Year's Eve? • Yes Amount ❑ No 4. Do you have any other ideas for New Year's Eve and/or a holiday promotion that could be accommodated by the City? Please indicate below, and/or call the Department of Community Resources at 318-0280 (Mary Rooney). FAX TO 372-4333 Attachment A i October 7, 1998 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council a c4Ii- ®os - C .,PA a Gy�t %"" os J s Regular Meeting of October 13, 1998 PIER PLAZA PROJECT - CONTRACT COMPLETION WORK Recommendation: That the City Council receive and file report, direct staff to secure proposals for new benches for final City Council review and install two information kiosks. Background: The long process of getting this project done is about to end. As you know, the City has made a settlement with the bond company for the original contractor, and employed a construction coordinator. The coordinator has secured bids from the several subcontractors to repair or complete the work according to the original specifications. The following is a listing of the major work items: Tree Uplights - Uplights will be reinstalled with new lamps, shields and lens. Pavement Uplights - All uplights will be removed and specified lights will be installed. Stainless Steel Bollards - These will be removed at the turnabout and the concrete replaced. These did not meet the specifications and are no longer needed. Manual Bollards at Hermosa Avenue - These bollards need to be replaced with bollards that meet the specifications. Existing bollards will be removed and others installed. Utility Box Covers - These will be replaced with covers that meet the specifications. Sign Poles - These will be removed and either replaced or repaired and reinstalled. The signing can be changed later. Miscellaneous Items - There are a number of items that are "punch list" items that will be fixed during the process. Proposed changes to be considered by City Council: Kiosks - The original plans called for four kiosks; two information kiosks and two for drinking fountains and telephones. Staff would suggest that only the two information kiosks be built, one on each side of the street. i • • Benches - The metal benches will be replaced with a different bench design. There are 16 benches on the plaza. It is proposed that staff be directed to provide some alternatives for the City Council to consider. Once the list is narrowed down to one or two designs, that samples be reviewed to make sure the selected benches are right for the plaza. Palm Trees - The City has an arborist reviewing the health of each of the trees. At this point, each of the trees, including the one we were concerned about, appears to have new growth. We will continue to watch the growth and, if necessary, replace any of the trees as needed. The repair work will not start until all of the subcontractors are ready to come in and stay on the job until finished. Most of the work involves the concrete subcontractor, Shaw and Sons, and they did a good job and stayed on schedule. Respectfu ly submitted, Stephen R. Burrell City Manager G1 Co :©0 fF- a2 -6(r" October 8 1998 (,�22.. — Com: 0-I C�._ c',•oa-P1-1 City Council Meeting October 13, 1998 Mayor and Members of the City Council SCHEDULING APPLICANT INTERVIEWS FOR UNSCHEDULED VACANCY OF UNEXPIRED TERM ON PLANNING COMMISSION Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council: 1) Schedule a meeting (specify time) prior to its regular meeting of Tuesday, October 27, 1998, to interview applicants for the unscheduled vacancy on the Planning Commission to fill an unexpired term ending June 30, 2000, with appointment to be made later that evening, during the regular Council meeting; and 2) Extend the application filing deadline to 6 p.m. Wednesday, October 21, 1998. Background: At its meeting of September 10, 1998, the City Council directed the City Clerk to advertise the unexpired term with newspaper publication and normal posting procedures and invite applications from interested parties to fill the unscheduled Commission vacancy that had arisen. A notice inviting applications for the unscheduled vacancy was published in the Easy Reader September 17 and 24, with a 6 p.m. October 7 deadline for submitting applications. That notice was also posted at City Hall, along with the special vacancy notices previously posted in the City Clerk's office and the Library as required by State law. There were no current applications on file at the time, and five applications (see attached) were submitted prior to the deadline date: Silvestre "Sal" G. Gonzales Peter R. Hoffman Michael Keegan Robert M. Harvey, Jr. Chris Katz Since the interviews and appointment will not take place until the next meeting date of October 27, the Council may wish to announce an extension of the application filing deadline to no later than 6 p.m. Wednesday, October 21, 1998. That deadline is necessary in order to allow for the preparation of the required staff report and the inclusion of all applications in the October 27 Council agenda packets, which will go out on Thursday, October 22. Noted: Stephen R. I" ell, City Manager Elaine Doerfling, City rk • THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO MUNICIPAL NAME OF COMMISSION PLANNING Name: SILVESTRE "SAL" G. GONZALES .Home Phone: 376-9596 Address: 3201 TENNYSON PLACE, HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 Occupation or Profession: REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER Name.of Employer: UDI DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. Bus. Phone:(323)569-4563 Address of Employer: 9500 RAY() AVENUE, SOUTH GATE, CA 90280 REFERENCES: Local: GEOFF AND STEPHANIE PERRY, 2844 EL OESTE, HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 Professional: BOB AND VIVA STROYKE, 3205 THE STRAND, HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 4900 SOUTHERN AVENUE Other: DOROTHEA MOSBY, DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION, SOUTH GATE, CA 90280 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE (past and present): SOUTH GATE KIWANIS CLUB MENBER OLDTIMERS FOUNDATION FUNDRAISING COMMITTEE HERMOSA BEACH PARKS, RECREATION & COMMUNITY RESOURCES COMMISSION Why do you wish to become a Commission Member? TO UTILIZE MY WORK EXPERIENCE, STAY INVOLVED IN THE COMMUNITY AND HAVE AN ACTIVE ROLE TO MAKE A POSITIVE INFLUENCE. What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission member? TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE CITY COUNCIL IN REGARDS TO THE PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE IN THE CITY. ALSO, TO DISCUSS POLICIES AND PROCEDURES PERTAINING TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. TO BE A LIAISON BETWEEN THE CITIZENS OF HERMOSA BEACH, AND THE CITY COUNCIL. - 1 - • • Do you have any current obligations or responsibilities which could be construed as a conflict of interest? Yes XX No (If yes, please list) Please give a resume of your education, employment, memberships, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Commission member. B. S., BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA -1987 UNIVERSITY OF GUADALAJARA, SPANISH STUDIES -1987 CONSTRUCTION FIELD SUPERVISION -CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION -1990 GENERAL CONTRACTOR LICENSE#627427-UDI DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. 1987 -PRESENT CALIFORNIA REAL ESTATE BROKER LICENSE#C0379242-SG REALTY GROUP NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BUILDERS -MEMBER BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION -MEMBER, I.C.B.O.-MEMBER RECIPIENT OF BEAUTIFICATION AWARD -CITY OF SOUTH GATE USC FOOTBALL TEAM ALUMNI/1985 ROSE BOWL PARTICIPANT KAPPA SIGMA FRATERNITY -UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA This Commission meets on SEE BELOW at p.m. Do you foresee any scheduling problems that might make you miss meetings? Yes No PER APPLICATION, THIRD TUESDAY OF THE MONTH AT 7:00 P. M. THREE YEARS AS A HOMEOWNER, How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? TEN YEARS TOTAL Comments: I AM CONCERNED WITH THE GROWTH OF HERMOSA BEACH. OUR CITY IS COMPRISED OF HIGH DENSITY WITH NEW BUILDINGS AND HOMES BEING BUILT AT A RAPID PACE. I WOULD LIKE TO BE A PART OF THIS PROCESS AS WE ENTER THE TURN OF THE CENTURY. Signed: ShiJA s6. Avorfr Date: {0/0T lV 6/5/91 Name: • • THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH OCT:51E9/7 APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO MUNICIPAL C•ISSI�Y CRY� *16 Home Phone: (3 ro)3 7 :K--5-3-.3 NAME OF COMMISSION RnAoe1^• 1 M ' 1-6.„v. Address: 5'0 74 / S `71. / s , Occupation or Profession: y --;".1,D Name of Employer: W; t t Jd ry Bus. Phone: (Sc c c Address of Employer: /. ;`Too (i-oss Y'nN c& Pkt„rd� ,So 4-2oc/ (1, REFERENCES: Local: M4kr- J t-A4/rims Professional: Other: M h 1.21 c 74-)H r -es. Jca��c I'N �rr+ Plsv�-:�i�J �irccr`a4- - CrF c -c) A.:.<►Rcr. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE (past and present): P c/..' -t a 7(4 e, -iii .e ., , •u � 7' e' .s� 4 -1 `� . AS A Why do you wish to become a Commission Member? /14r ,4"5/-z ,q,4.cc ;/ r, 4 / 7‘ 1 6,-F / What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission member? u s -.en rah C- 3 5- 1 • Do you have any current obligations or responsibilities which could be construed as a conflict of interest? Yes No (If yes, please list) Please give a resume of your education, employment, memberships, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Commission member. G1 y n t -C / y A .S 3,2_5 V-04" �hA/c- / C -/ ! yam G -Q /(-1.5 d 1176. ((///7,i.) GG1- CLv ✓ , -^1 u.z /c— C azt. 5; ..•e.� .. . o.�v odc7.._ -�G. -7Gc Ali. c /.fJ nee. I r.o 7/ r3 `i,.Uc /G>G cA /1r - 7 /12 C:siszs oc.-1 hBc�Jicc�. ..s",‹,-< 4. /c.pi 7,4 - u _. 0a 766 ,4 // ,�Z�creCcn... .3v /:l:•� uc -re; 1�c�nr t• rC4t..S.LJ3 Ar. -1'_ i�.v%�Ay7'2 / n /_.A / / .cl=aJ� /'L/l'5-7/- Sr1J Z Sc4ccf' EAf";t•-•t (L(st.; Ccz3.) �� l -.4W.. .r c:. �G �fC•-�� . •-/e. .1) c (' `"��/c _ l /' r,4 57' %�T. .* -'rte-� ' ..� t c �Sn•c �c ,S C.b s� This Commission meets on at p.m. Do you foresee any scheduling problems that might make you miss meetings? Yes No How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? /p �-e*4et_ s_ Comments: /4„, '"rgZ r C ' ,N'Hf.,(.1 =7;.2 cc -71'e).-.. 3 /t Bpd r.AJi. .r7 Signed: Date: ,• y 2 6/5/91 Name: • • THE CITY OF HERMOSA APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO NAME OF COMMISSION Planning Commissio Peter R. Hoffman .„i- ;.. e: 374-6004 Address: 811 Loma Drive Occupation or Profession: Professor Name of Employer: Loyola Marymount University Bus. Phone: 310-338-7380 Address of Employer: 7900 Loyola Blvd. L.A., CA 90045-8410 REFERENCES: Local: Mr. & Mrs. Larry Poindexter 336 29th; Mr. & Mrs. David LaMonica Professional: Dr. Loretta Morris, Dept. of Sociology, LMU Other: Hon. Richard W. Lyman, Jr., Manhattan Beach COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE (past and present) : Over the past 20 years in the South Bay, I have been active in a number of local youth sports programs, as coach and board member (AYSO, Hurricanes, Little League, etc.). I have also been involved in local school programs/groups (incl. Mira Costa H.S.) and served on the board of the local AFS chapter. For approximately 10 years I was also a weekly contributor to the Beach Reporter and helped the editors develop a weekly question dealing with local issues (for which I provided the illustration). Why do you wish to become a Commission Member? This is a critical time in the development (and re -development) of Hermosa Beach --a process in which the Planning Commission will play a vital role in defining the future character and quality of life in our town. What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission member? A planning commissioner should represent the concerns and interests of the city's residen in e ci y p anning an• permi ing process. even e ig qu- Commission typically does not have to provide much direct guidance to their routine operations, but the Commission must be prepared to provide clariftcaI dar consistent with the city plan and the apparent wishes of the citizens when appropriate. • Do you have any current obligations or responsibilities which could be construed as a conflict of interest? Yes X No (If yes, please list) Please give a resume of your education, employment, memberships, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Commission member. I am the Director of the Urban Studies Program and a professor of geography, with an area of expertise in urban geography, at Loyola Marymount University. My education includes an MA in geography and planning (Arizona 1974) and a PhD in geography (UCLA 1983). I have developed and taught classes in urban and environmental planning at the undergraduate and graduate level. I am also the Director of the Neighborhood Empowerment Program of the Center for the Study of Los Angeles --an independent research unit of LMU--and have been working in a number of planning and development programs in various parts of Los Angeles. I have extensive experience in the areas of urban design, urban planning, and historic preservation. I have consulted to a variety of organizations and groups, both in the U.S. and internationallp, in these areas. My professional work has required that I work closely with a number of planning commissions, planning departments, and related city agencies. 1 believe 1 have a good understanding of the tunction of the Planning Commission and its duties and responsibilities under state law in California. This Commission meets on 3rd Tuesday at 7:00 p.m. Do you foresee any scheduling problems that might make you miss meetings? Yes X No How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? 3 years Comments: previously lived in Manhattan Beach for 20 years and followed local/regional issues involvin Hermosa Beach carefull due to m involvement with the Beach Reporter and professional interest in urban issues Signed: Date: at s 6/5/91 • Michael D. Keegan 1107 Loma Drive, Unit A Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (310) 798-2969 WORK EXPERIENCE & RELATED BACKGROUND: 1992 -Present I opened the first bagel store in Manhattan beach, Manhattan Beach Bagel Co., in 1992, and two years later expanded by opening the Manhattan Bread Co. Both businesses still operate 7 days a week and employ 40 people in both full, and part-time, positions. As the general contractor for both stores, I designed and built both stores which included successfully completing two conditional use permit applications for the city of Manhattan Beach. In 1995 and 1996, I owned another bagel bakery in Torrance, CA, which I then sold. In 1996, I became a managing partner of the Old Town Bakery, Northridge, CA and was involved in expanding this bakery from one location to four outlets, including two at Los Angeles International Airport, which are licensed by Host Marriott Corp. I sold my interest in Old Town in 1997. 1986-1992 In 1986 I began employment Tishman West, a large commercial real estate developer, advancing to the position of vice-president before leaving to start Manhattan Beach Bagel Co. At Tishman; I worked on the completion of one million square feet of new commercial development in Orange County and San Diego. My duties included negotiating ground leases, commercial leases, and many other service and consulting agreements. My responsibilities included overseeing a construction department that performed over four million dollars a year in tenant improvement projects in a 2.5 million square foot development. At Tishman, I gained vast experience in both Type I and Type II construction projects. EDUCATION: Bachelor of Arts in Economics, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 1985 Real Estate classes completed at the University of California, Irvine, CA, 1987-1988 Culinary classes completed at the Culinary Institute of America, Hyde Park, NY, 1996 Bread Baking classes completed at the American Institute of Baking, Manhattan, KS, 1996 Bread Baking classes completed at the National Baking Center, Minneapolis, MN, 1997 LICENSES: Licensed California Real Estate Broker Licensed California General Contractor -B License Name: • 1 THE CITY OP HERMOSA BEACH �� } z4 OCT �199841128 � APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO MUNICIPAL COMMIS N —"ftweilemo N§ NAME OF COMMISSION c\ -11L4.1 ea. vl ; s i ,1 Home Phone: Address: 33/st Occupation or Profession: Name of Employer: Sk Z/$ -3s -v6 Address of Employer: REFERENCES: Local: 7 ,1 -' ' C ( y,, �n lva %r1� P3 e ✓ O C. _c Q LA -,r1 3-36— Y°7 3 9 Bus. Phone: .1)-95-2--17‘010 Professional: i' Ar'own, \O) c -or Other: co 3/El 9r y- /.7(0 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE (past and present): /Y`65 Prf r) 15 9 Y 3 d -s ) "") — i c' Why do you wish to become a Commission Member? �� �•ei. 1S 7v 1c What do you feel are the duties and responsibilities of a Commission member? • • Do you have any current obligations or responsibilities which could be construed as a conflict of interest? Yes ,'No (If yes, please list) Please give a resume of your education, employment, memberships, past activities and other experience that you feel would qualify you as a Commission member. rS W1 S - C r. 1 -`0 _ L 2 PL 2L^ -‘ `e) u . S ✓l / -e. /i7 // CJ 7 • i5 62 A Li This Commission meets on hrc 1L 5,. c4 eadn Mvv4 at 7 ; vZ) p.m. Do you foresee any scheduling problems that might make you miss meetings? Yes (/ No How long have you lived in Hermosa Beach? 13 x, Comments: ham- )-c7 lk Signed: Date: /e) // % S ' zp C7, h ^ Ori �CJCF 6/5/91 EXERCISE EQUIPMENT ',SUPPLIER TC, !HE.WORLDI fqxeiviF rL xmt-eA r dAtin4.A4a5- THEI MBELL MAN® Cs F-ITNP3S EQUIPMENT NAME/ADDRESS 'Hermosa Youth Basketball lath) : Richard Chalker DESCRIPTION WBO1 Wall Bracket, Stationary backstop w/ 4' extension IBEll Sentry Glass Backboard 181OR Height Adjustor SDI c Breakway Rim EB97 Red Easy Bolt Backboard Padding ' Sub total Freight Installation 010-12 week lead time Los Angeles County 8.25% TERMS , REP I i I ! Prepaid MG I . • ---.- QTY RATE 2' EStimatC Valid for 30 Days. Typographical and Mathematical Errors Subject to Corrections. Estimate DATE ESTIMATE # I ! 8/18/98 . 50 457,50 560.00 477.50 125,00 120.00 250 00 750.00 FOB TOTAL 915ARF! 1,120.00T 955.00T1 250.00T 240.00T 3,480.00 250.00 750,00 8.25% 287.10 TOTAL $4,767,10 - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 4025 SPENCER STREET • SUITE 405 • TORRANCE, CA 90503 • (310) 371-0020 • FAX (310) 371-1102 www.dumbellman.com a SUNRISE ASSISTED LIVING of HEIRN/1cDSJ\ BEACH SD SET SEPTEMBER 25, 1998 GENERAL NOTES PROJECT TEAM PROJECT DATA SHEET INDEX LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 18 AND 19 IN BLOCK 81 OF SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH, IN THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK COUNTY PERCITY OF HEOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AS P GESOF0S 11 AND 12 OF M PSANGELES, STATEOF IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. OWNER /APPLICANT SUNRISE ASSISTED LIVING DEVELOPMENT, INC. 11620 WILSHIRE BLVD. LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 CONTACT: MARION DEMEIRE PHONE (310) 543-5068 FAX (310)477-3577 CIVIL ENGINEERS /APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE HUITT-ZOLLARS 15101 RED HILL AVE. TUSTIN,CA 92780-6500 CONTACT: ROBERT SUNDSTROM PHONE (714) 259-7900 FAX (714)259-0210 ARCHITECT THE HILL PARTNERSHIP, INC. 115 TWENTY-SECOND STREET NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (949) 675-6442 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IVY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, INC. 7758 LAGUNA CANYON ROAD LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 (714) 376-3683 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER BOLE & WILSON 555 E. OCEAN BLVD. LONG BEACH, CA 90802 (562) 432-3985 MECHAMCAIJPLUMBING ENGINEERS F.T. ANDREWS, INC.. 631 S. BROOKHURST AVE., SUITE 200 ANAHEIM, CA 92804 ELECTRICAL DGM & ASSOCIATES 125 E. BAKER ST., SUITE 150 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 INTERIOR MARTHA CHILD INTERIORS, INC. 22879 GLENN DR., SUITE 140 STERLING, VA 20164 (703) 708-7250 KITCHEN TRI -CON 115 BEULAH RD., NE, SUITE 200E LACUNA BEACH, CA 92651 (714) 376-3683 BUILDING SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION TYPE: GARAGE -TYPE I RESIDENCE AREA -TYPE V ONE HOUR GARAGE AND RESIDENCE AREA CALCULATED AS DISTINCT BUILDINGS OCCUPANCY TYPE: GARAGE -GROUP S, DIVISION 3 RESIDENCE AREA- R2.1 (NON-AMBULATORY) GROSS BUILDING AREA: GARAGE: GROUND FLOOR 13,000 SF RESIDENCE AREA: FIRST FLOOR 29000 SF SECOND FLOOR 26,000 SF TOTAL 4 12 31 8 22 3 SITE SUMMARY: EXISTING ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: LOT AREA: YARDS: PARKING: PROVIDED: REQUIRED: - _ PARCEL 18-R3 PARCEL 19 SPAA-6 SPA -6 1.765 AC. FRONT 30' REAR 28' SIDE SOUTH 30' SIDE NORTH 29' SURFACE 11 SPACES UNDERGROUND 32 SPACES SEE STUDY COVER SHEET CIVIL GRADING PLAN LANDSCAPE L1 LANDSCAPE PLAN ARCHITECTURAL SD -1 SITE PLAN SD -2 SITE SECTIONS SD -4 GROUND FLOOR PI SD -5 SECOND FLOOR SD -6 ROOF PLAN SD -7 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SD -8 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PLAN AN PLAN S i. 1,�1MfE® SEP 31998 LOM. DEV. DEPT. TOTAL 55,000 SF RESIDENT SUITES BY TYPE AND FLOOR: ROOM TYPE FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR TURRET (625 SF) 2 2 DOUBLE (465 SF) 3 9 DENVER (475 SF) 17 14 LARGE SINGLE (365 SF) 4 4 SINGLE (325 SF) 10 12 SMALL SINGLE (270 SF) 0 3 TOTAL 36 44 RATIO OF COMMON AREAS TO RESIDENT SUITES = 2 TO 3 80 16 TYP. I 1 rsssssrssnas,.�. 1- 4rs�s®® ara ,„wirearara fear Apr ssssi 3 COMPACT 3 STANDARD 3 STANDARD 2 STANDARD 111.29' GARAGE ENTRY 0111'-4" FIRST FL .123'-7" SECOND FL F -- I 111.29' V 2 STANDARD 3 STADARD 3 STANDARD 8'-0" � s 3 STANDARD 3 STANDARD _1_ L _L_I_J J J I f -T -r -r_._ -I 1_t_L_L__ I I I I I y L_1_L_L__ R 48'-0” - 3 COMPACT 102.0' 103.0'/ 105.5T2 STANDARD 20'-0" '° 20'-0" 172'-9% " SITE PLAN KEYNOTES 2 131 4I 5 8 9 10 11 121 131 14 15 16 17 18 19.1 20 21 22 RETAINING WALL BUILDING SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE FIRE ACCESS ROAD - CONCRETE DRIVEWAY - AC PAVING OUTLINE OF BUILDING CONCRETE SIDEWALK PARA - TRANSIT DROP OFF TRASH ENCLOSURE WOOD FENCE CONCRETE SLAB CONCRETE STEP WOOD RAILING CONCRETE CURB EMERGENCY GENERATOR TRANSFORMER MONUMENT SIGN ON POSTS CHAIN -OFF FIRE ACCESS LANE TURF BLOCK OVERFLOW PARKING EXISTING FIRE HYDRENT FIRE HYDRENT BOLLARD SITE PLAN �¢aa SD 1 SUNRISE ASSISTED LIVING OF HERMOSA BEACH AS•U THE ■ I■■ HILL ■ M PARTNERSHIP an INC. N ,e31. 0 5 10 20 ALLOIWABLE BUILDING ENVELOPE - DETERMINED BY DRAWING A STRIAGHT LINE ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE CONNECTING POINItS 30' ABOVE THE NATURAL GRADE ELEVATION AT EACH CORNER. 134'-9" TOP -OF -ROOF DECK 123'-7" FIN FL SECOND FLOOR 11Y 4" FIN FL OOR 102.76 ELEVATION AT CORNER OF PROPERTY LINE No' -U" TOP -OF SLAB GROUND FLOOR Z" PLYWOOD 1�Z/i"-(2)%' GYP. BD. /79PLYWOOD 1 4 42) B" GYP. BD. f 129.87 ELEVATION AT CORNER OF PROPERTY LINE TOP'G SLAB 411 PLYWOOD 1�I d`(2)%" GYP. BD. ALZHEIMER WING ASSISTED LIVING KITCHEN N w V CCO 00 pp 4 Ca.) 0= V2 Y GARAGE SITE SECTION A I 1" =10'-0" dt11341-9" IV TOP OF ROSIEOECK--------------- jk 123'-7" FIN FL SECOND FLOOR 111'-4" FIN FL ' FIRST FLOOR 102 APPROX. ELEVATION AT MIDPOINT OF SITE N (ARACE SINGLE "PLY WD. (2)I e joilk 100'-0" TOP OF SLAB IF GROUND FLOOR DO 2 SITE SECTION B 1" =10'-0" O1341-9" ---TOP OF ROOF DECK------------------ 1231-7" FIN FL SECOND FLOOR 111'-4" FIN FL FLOOR 102.0 ELEVATION AT CORNER OF PROPERTY LINE jk 100'-0" TOP OF SLAB NV GROUND FLOOR 11 PGI WOOD 1/4"-(2)5/x" GYP. BD. 9,/ °PTla OOD 1/:'-(2)/8' GYP. BD. TOP'G SLAP " PLY WD. " STL sM /4" (2)5/x" GYP. BD. SERVICE DRIVE ALLOWABLE BUILDING ENVELOPE - DETERMINED BY DRAWING A STRIAGHT LINE ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE CONNECTING POINTS 301 ABOVE THE NATURAL GRADE ELEVATION AT EACH CORNER. — N TOP'G SLAB 4" PLYWOOD 1%TGI 4"--(21%" GYP. BD SISTED LIVING ASSISTED LIVING ao V n ASSISTED LIVING N' 0 0 ASSISTED LIVING 3 SITE SECTION C 1".10," SITE SECTIONS GARAGE 6-9-98 NATURAL GRADE 123 APPROX. ELEVATION AT MIDPOINT OF SITE a 0 0 Dz kt d.1"`" H ZO CMZ =w w of my, ELEVATION 127'-0" ENTRY DRIVE ENTRY DRIVE 119.6 ELEVATION AT CORNER OF PROPERTY LINE NATURAL GRADE ELEVATII' 111'-4" 0 CC 0 o= Lu J0- rO V-- 1-1-1 zjw ow Uco NATURAL GRADE ELEVATIOt1 111'-4" SD 2 to cn cn z H b J a SUNRISE ASSISTED LIVING OF HERMOSA BEACH morn morn UMW ■��/ HILL PARTNERSHIP INC. 0 4 8 16 O Thr ELECT RM xxx r 32 31 30 29 28 27 r STORAGE xxx STAIR XXX 4 5 6 7 8 L 10 11 26 25 24 23 22 21 MAINT OFF XXX 20 1 ELEV MECH XXX 12 13 14 19 18 1 - 15 16 17 STORAGE xxx STAIR xxx GROUND FLO OR PLAN 6-9-98 • { L_ N N j/ - N. N N SD 3 PLOT DATE: 08 JUN 1998 SUNRISE ASSISTED LIVING OF HERMOSA BEACH AIM THE MN HILL ■•i■ PARTNERSHIP ■an INC. 0 4 16 L. SINGLE TOILET KITCHEN ELEV MACH KITCHEN PATIO xxx O O O O nACTIVITY xxx a O O LIVING XXX LAUND. xxx DENVER DENVER DENVER DENVER DENVER LAUND. JANITOR xxx DENVER DENVER P. DINING CORRIDOR HOUSEKPG TOILET .1=171JTOILE DENVER xxx XXX DENVER WORK R. »SPA SINGLE SINGLE SINGLE L. SINGLE ELECT. BISTRO DINING xxx NURSE STA STORAGE PORCH PARLOR COURTYARD OPEN TO BELOW I i /COVERED WALK GRD FOYER ENTRY COVERED ENTRY ELEV MECH ACTIVITY SITTING PORCH DOUBLE SIN4 SINGLE SINGLE L. SINGLE DENVER HOUSEKPG DOUBLE CORRIDOR ELECT. TEL. �� xx DENVER DENVER DENVER DENVER DENVER TURRET TURRET FIRST FLOOR PLAN L. SINGLE 6-9-98 SD 4 PLOT GATE:. 04 JU SUNRISE ASSISTED LIVING OF HERMOSA BEACH THE HILL PARTNERSHIP INC. 4 8 16 m z SUNRISE ASSISTED LIVING OF HERMOSA BEACH L. SINGLE WATER RM VEST DENVER -. DENVER DENVER DENVER DENVER DENVER DENVER DENVER DENVER DOUBLE CORRIDOR IxxxJ TURRET HOUSEKPG ELECT DOUBLE H. SALON DOUBLE S. SINGLE S. SINGLE SINGLE SINGLE L. SINGLE TOILET SINGLE S. SINGLE S. SINGLE WELLNESS Ixxx OPEN TO BELOW ACTIVITY S. SINGLE STAFF CO. DOUBLE S. SINGLE L. SINGLE LAUND. SINGLE CORRIDOR DOUBLE DOUBLE DENVER ■r DENVER DENVER DENVER TURRET L. SINGLE SECOND FLOOR PLAN 6_sa SD 5 Aff■ THE ■ U HILL ■ff■ PARTNERSHIP ■ M I0 NC. ■ff/ N 4 8 16 I 6:12 SLOPE 6:12 SLOPEi FLAT ROOF FLAT ROOF LOW $M4SARD HIGH MANSARD 312 SLOPE 642 SLOPE ROOF OVER FIRST FLOOR ROOF OVER FIRST FLOOR FLAT ROOF FACE OF BUILDING BELOW FLAT ROOF LOW MANSARD HIGH MANSARD 6:12 SLOPE LOW MANSARD HIGH MANSARD ROOF PLAN 6-9-98 PORCH ROOF SD 6 JUN 1998 SUNRISE ASSISTED LIVING OF HERMOSA BEACH Imo•■ THE O•■ HILL 00 PARTNERSHIP fur INC. 16 PLOT DATE: 04 JUN 199a e4fr✓bli 5y'Y/Nec IP-410tc V/NYL /p/4 (/*KOzO v7 -A4- - _ Wag° I A So 44t. 7"7¢4yf artVeettsiS "t vo i L— ) P NW r •p LUIH 11111111111111111 W000 /G4/L_/N6 WO0D F-r+SG/.q- Amp WooQ ^ Ara -1529 AAO,/ rgoty "'Ceti-- 9rrLa &vtt_ - WOOD 77./41 /Or /`'OUN0 W1/VDOIAS II!'lll iiSIIi i �111�, WOOL> S/p/NN Pv"6 wool? 7-figiu-1 - WOO,c ,r aziA /titYX/S,45 , m4ec -� STREET /EAST ELEVATION AV Acion, _r• S/r/WOLF ?e 'r - %-rQ46/ . ' '/sly ELEVATIONS r l - . HOKrzm-Pti- VINYL S/O/N&, "Fr' Guv z Yhy AA/L rn e ,C,4A,Ew REAR /WEST ELEVATION A-Spei.4G" EN/N6 -- V/ N74- d5/ A/6LO //rite "PPE/S W/NGr1WS GY/ I:7Y/dam L-' t7- - .�'/ E�'i1Sr a/rs& WNFL9/0/No L nikeiS 1 rnIIII.urir4iwi�a�wMN MIell= MI 1 • •S • 4;ejt0 : ���•dibt. * 4T -- 6-9-98 SUNRISE ASSISTED LIVING OF HERMOSA BEACH Txf/c,XEA R+497c - - /f,cc-, t rac jv 1.-. ✓/N YL SL / PhVo W/ACCIO J W/o/v/c 4.S 2461tr 91,4-e Qi'i-i-- SOUTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION SIMILAR • AM THE ■•B■ HILL ■Uf■ PARTNERSHIP O••■ INC. ■■■V SD 7 LI :.�Ina�.. wam..-_ `-�i��l����'�����___ � ISMi ■aaa■aaa■■e., �1�1•i1�le�l�:- !rum" Z s ot���>!a = Mil li Siir ■s Kik ■tflar i■�� IEItu!!i1!r II II ausaanas COURTYARD /SOUTH ELEVATION . COURTYARD /NORTH ELEVATION SIMILAR -.1.4414Eliiitmit._asimmi 'in a I 01011111;1111111111, 11111111 I=111111 I" li I@ iI II COURTYARD /WEST ELEVATION ELEVATIONS 6-998 SD 8 SUNRISE ASSISTED LIVING OF HERMOSA BEACH 4111111111 THE IMO HILL ■ S PARTNERSHIP ■SU■ INC. ■u•/ 0 4 8 16