City of Hermosa Beach --- 11-09-99

INITIATIVE PETITION TO ESTABLISH RESTRICTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR USE OF THE BEACH FOR TEMPORARY EVENTS AND COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING

 

Recommendation :

It is recommended that the City Council:

  1. Receive and file the attached reports that Council ordered pursuant to Elections Code Section 9212 analyzing financial impacts and the legality of the proposed ordinance; and
  2. Select one of the following alternatives:

(a) Introduce the ordinance without alteration (and adopt it within 10 days); or

(b) Direct the City Clerk to prepare and bring back, at the appropriate time, the documents required to submit the ordinance, without alteration, to the voters at the regular municipal election in November of 2001.

 

Background :

At the meeting of October 12, 1999, the City Clerk presented to Council a Certificate of Sufficiency for the subject initiative ordinance, noting that the petition contained valid signatures from more than 10 percent but less than 15 percent of the registered voters and had, therefore, qualified for the November 2001 ballot. The Council was presented with the alternatives mandated by State law to either: (a) introduce the ordinance and adopt it within 10 days; (b) direct that the measure be submitted to the voters at the next municipal election; or (c) order a report pursuant to Elections Code Section 9212, to be presented to the Council within 30 days.

At that meeting, the Council opted to order a report, to be presented at the November 9 meeting, thereby deferring action on the petition until that date. Staff was directed to report on the (1) the legality of the various sections of the ordinance and (2) the financial impact the ordinance would have on the City and/or any organization wishing to hold an event in Hermosa Beach. Those reports are attached.

Pursuant to the California Elections Code, if the ordinance petitioned for is not required to be submitted to the voters at a special election or is not adopted by the City Council, then the ordinance, without alteration, shall be submitted to the voters at the next regular municipal election occurring not less than 88 days after the report is presented.

REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES :

Option 2(a) – Introduce the Ordinance

If the City Council opts for Alternative 2(a) ¾ to introduce the ordinance without alteration at tonight’s meeting ¾ there would be no election. Because State law requires the subsequent adoption of the ordinance to take place within 10 days, it would be necessary to adjourn tonight’s meeting to a date no later than Thursday, November 18, 1999, in order to adopt the ordinance within the State-mandated time limit.

Option 2(b) – Direct the Measure be Placed on the November 2001 Ballot

If the City Council opts for Alternative 2(b) ¾ to direct the City Clerk to bring back, at the appropriate time, the required documents to submit the ordinance without alteration to a vote of the people at the regular municipal election in November of 2001 ¾ all appropriate resolutions and associated documents would be prepared for Council adoption in June or July 2001, prior to the deadline for placing items on that November ballot.

 

 

PROPOSED BALLOT INITIATIVE

COASTAL CONSERVATION ACT

 

Recommendation

Staff recommends that Council Members receive and file this report.

Background

At the October 12, 1999 meeting, Council directed the City Attorney and staff to examine the ballot initiative proposed by Donley Falkenstien that seeks to add regulations and restrict temporary events in the Coastal Zone and to establish coastal conservation requirements for the City.

Analysis

Attachment A outlines some of the potential impacts of items in this proposed ordinance. The grid identifies several issues of concern that in most part relate to one or more of the three core issues listed below:

  1. The ambiguity of the language contained in the ordinance would make its interpretation, implementation, and enforcement extremely difficult and costly for the City. In short, it is complicated, confusing, and duplicitous.
  2. The inclusion of the entire coastal zone with regards to the addition of substantial regulatory controls and associated costs for temporary events that could effect: (a) school, (b) charitable, and (c) civic events.
  3. The fiscal impact of the proposed initiative to the City with regards to:

 

  1. requirements related to storm water run-off, weekly testing programs, and the establishment of a non-profit research center;
  2. the increased administrative costs and contract costs associated with extensive monitoring requirements for special events; and
  3. the potential loss of general fund revenues with shifts of funds to storm water diversion and other programs required in the ordinance.

Fiscal Impact: TBD

Agendas / Minutes Menu    Agenda     Top of Page

 

 

Proposed Initiative Petition

Hermosa Beach Coastal Conservation Act

REFERENCE

ITEM

IMPACT(S) / ISSUES

FISCAL IMPACT(S)

ENTIRE ORDINANCE

COASTAL ZONE

This ordinance would impact more than beach events. Some of the areas impacted include:

  1. Hermosa Valley School
  2. Clark Sports field
  3. Hermosa Valley Park
  4. South Park
  5. Pier Plaza
  6. Pier Avenue

Events that may be affected include:

  1. Beach events
  2. Community Sunset Concerts
  3. Triathlon
  4. Sand and Strand Race
  5. CBVAVolleyball Tournaments
  6. AAU Volleyball Tournaments
  7. AAU Surf Competitions
  8. Chevron Surf Camp
  9. Project Touch Car Show
  10. Saint Patrick’s Day Parade
  11. PTSA School Carnival
  12. Spring Egg Hunt
  13. Hermosa Beach Film Festival
  14. Aloha Days Surf Contest & Festival
  15.  Fiesta De Las Artes
  16. New Year’s Eve Civic Celebrations

Potential fiscal impacts to non-profit organizations, the City, and school who would be subjected to costly monitoring (e.g., the proposed third party monitors), reduced ability to use advertisers to support programs, and extensive permit requirements.

 

REFERENCE

ITEM

IMPACT(S) / ISSUES

FISCAL IMPACT(S)

SECTION 2.F

No permanent commercial advertising

City loses revenue credit for beach maintenance services for County advertising program.

Additional funds from County or City to pay for beach maintenance services:

$30,000 - $50,000

SECTION 2.G

City shall provide funding, proportional to the City’s responsibility for the diversion, within top ten priorities in the City budget each year…until sufficient facilities exist to effectively and substantially reduce polluted storm drain run-off into the ocean.

Ambiguous. What does this mean? Who determines City’s responsibility? What does "top ten priorities in the City budget" mean? How much is a "substantial reduction" in run-off. Who determines what a substantial reduction is?

Potentially a huge budgetary impact on the City. A number cannot be estimated with any accuracy due to the ambiguity of the item.

SECTION 2.G

Year-round sea water quality testing – weekly

City would be required to provide funds, additional administrative oversight, and contract administration.

The provision may result in duplicated services as The Department of Health Services and LA County already conduct water quality testing. Unclear as to type of testing as water quality testing varies widely.

LA County Department of Power and Water weekly water quality testing can be as high as $182,000 annually.

SECTION 2.H

…it is appropriate and necessary to dedicate all revenue except in-kind fees received by the City from all temporary events in the coastal zone into a "Coastal Conservation Fund." Therefore, all such revenues including, but not limited to permit fees, exclusive parking fees, filming fees and other sources of revenue derived directly from temporary events in the coastal zone shall be placed in a Coastal Conservation Fund only.

Does this mean that revenues traditionally granted to charities from events in the Coastal Zone would be diverted to this fund?

TBD

REFERENCE

ITEM

IMPACT(S) / ISSUES

FISCAL IMPACT(S)

SECTION 2.H

Coastal Conservation Fund -- if such a non-profit marine research related facility is approved on the Hermosa Beach Pier it shall be the first priority for revenues from the Coastal Conservation fund.

If a "non-profit marine research center" is approved, funds that were prioritized for the mandatory sea water testing, storm drain run-off, recreational equipment, and beach maintenance would now be re-prioritized for the marine research center?

$64,000 reduction in general fund revenues.

Substantial additional City subsidy would be required with the establishment of a marine research center.

SECTION 17.76.060 (4)

Monitoring of sound, parking lots, traffic conditions in the area of the event shall be performed by an independent third party.

Who would direct the efforts of the third party? The City may be placed in a position of greater liability absent direct control and monitoring by City staff and the Police Department. Who hires the "independent" third party?

Likely that the additional costs incurred for third party monitoring would effectively eliminate all but the largest scale commercial events. Non-profit events would not be able to absorb this additional cost. Estimate for professional monitoring services per event day:

$3,000

SECTION 17.76.060 (5)

No mechanical or electronic advertising device shall be allowed in the LRC-OS zone.

Large events use electronic scoreboards and mechanical court borders to honor major sponsors.

May discourage the large-scale events from coming to Hermosa, as they could not create a venue satisfactory for their purposes.

SECTION 17.76.060 (5)

Complaint logger at each event

Requires administrative oversight by the City Manager. Would require City monitoring of many community events beyond City events (e.g., School events) to ensure that all events have someone in a central location to log complaints and to subsequently turn them into the City Manager.

Cost of employee per day estimated at $200

Administrative oversight TBD

SECTION 17.76.060 (7)

No concurrent events (over 1,000)

May adversely impact community events that are intentionally scheduled together and/or events that are complimentary such as: (a) Education Foundation Luau and Aloha Days, (b) Pancake Breakfast and Car Show, (c) IMG Tourney and Education Foundation Pro-Am Volleyball event and (d) volleyball tourney and community beach concerts.

Lost revenues TBD.

REFERENCE

ITEM

IMPACT(S) / ISSUES

FISCAL IMPACT(S)

SECTION 17.76.060 (9)

No sales of any kinds

Effects the following events that sell official event items on the sandy beach:

  1. Pro Volleyball
  2. Surf Festival
  3. Film Festival
  4. AAU Youth Volleyball
  5. Millenium Celebration
  

SECTION 17.76.060 (11)

All parking lots in the City’s Preferential Parking Program shall be protected from use by temporary events and shall not be used as off site mitigation lots for many events.

The City uses lots such as Lot A for staging events .

 

SECTION 17.76.060 (11)

..shall monitor each lot during events for which 1500 or more people are expected to attend on any day, in order to determine the impact of each event on these lots. Lots found to be occupied ninety percent (90%) or greater by 9:55 a.m. during an event…shall require an attendant with specific instructions to park beachgoers and visitors to public facilities only.

This single item has several impacts with serious operational and fiscal consequences:

  1. There 4 preferential parking lots in the coastal zone making monitoring them expensive.
  2. Who would determine if lots were 90% occupied and how could monitors be "on call" with such short notice?
  3. How would these monitors determine who is parking for an event versus for other public uses? Surely the public would "catch-on" to the restrictions and would soon be saying that they were just there to "go to the beach."
  4. With monitors asking each vehicle why they were parking (and providing info on remote lots), traffic lanes would be "backed-up" at several areas in the City with resultant safety impacts.
  1. Cost of monitoring 4 Lots estimated at $840 per day.
  2. Cost of additional Police for traffic control estimated at $1,800 per day (3 Officers).

REFERENCE

ITEM

IMPACT(S) / ISSUES

FISCAL IMPACT(S)

SECTION 17.76.060 (12b)

…each monitored item shall be documented…including, but not limited to: Logs, reports, photographs, video tape/film, printouts, public parking surveys and other documented proof.

Would require substantial increase in staffing for events and in administrative costs to prepare these extensive reports.

TBD

SECTION 17.76.060 (12c)

Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified third party.

  1. Who determines what a "qualified professional, independent third party" is?
  2. Cost of professional monitoring and reporting would be prohibitive.

TBD

SECTION 17.76.060 (14)

Comprehensive report

Cost of professional monitoring and reporting would be substantial.

TBD

SECTION 17.76.060 (14)

Failure to submit a Final Report within 40 calendar days of the conclusion of the event shall cause denial of all future permits for temporary events to the applicant and his or her authorized designee.

How can an event operator be accountable for the actions of an "independent third party?’

 

 

REFERENCE

ITEM

IMPACT(S) / ISSUES

FISCAL IMPACT(S)

SECTION 17.76.060 (15)

Required Park Use Permit or Coastal Development Permit

May put non-profit, school and community events through an extensive bureaucratic process.

Would impact Community Development workload, potentially requiring additional staff.

Events that may be impacted include:

  1. Beach events
  2. Community Sunset Concerts
  3. Triathlon
  4. Sand and Strand Race
  5. CBVAVolleyball Tournaments
  6. AAU Volleyball Tournaments
  7. AAU Surf Competitions
  8. Chevron Surf Camp
  9. Project Touch Car Show
  10. Saint Patrick’s Day Parade (Booths Only)
  11. PTSA School Carnival
  12. Spring Egg Hunt
  13. Hermosa Beach Film Festival
  14. Aloha Days Surf Contest & Festival
  15. Fiesta De Las Artes
  16. New Year’s Eve Civic Celebrations
  17. Pancake breakfast

TBD

SECTION 17.76.060 (16)

All temporary events not subject to the above Park Use Permit and or Coastal Development Permit requirements shall be exempt from Park Use Permit and or Coastal Development permit requirements…

Not clear. Is the City prevented from requiring park use permits in the Coastal Zone for events of less than 500 people?

TBD

 

REFERENCE

ITEM

IMPACT(S) / ISSUES

FISCAL IMPACT(S)

SECTION 17.76.060 (16b)

The International Surf Festival operated by the Beach Cities Health District, pass through(s) and the Saint Patrick’s Day Parade not including it’s associated street vending, shall be the only temporary events exempt …

Does this mean that the City does not have the right to review permits for these activities?

Saint Patrick’s Day Parade would in practice not be exempted, as street vending is its primary source of income.

  

SECTION 17.76.060 (16c)

Community Development Director shall issue a Notice of Determination for each temporary event that is determined to be exempt from Park Use permit and or Coastal Development Permit requirements…at least sixty (60) days prior to the commencement of the proposed temporary event.

This process may prevent small scale community events and fundraisers from happening due to the protracted process and to the 60 day required lead time.

TBD

SECTION 17.76.060 (18)

The Director of Community Development shall inspect the temporary event during the monitoring and mitigation period for strict permit compliance during the event’s highest attendance period and keep a detailed written record for the permanent file for the case.

Would require extensive additional weekend and administrative work for the Community Development Director.

TBD

SECTION 17.76.060 (19)

Requirement for City Manager to maintain a web site.

Extensive additional administrative work to maintain this level of detailed reporting on a web site and binder. Would likely require additional part time staff allocation.

TBD

SECTION 17.76.080

Application for temporary events requiring a Park Use Permit and or Coastal Development Permit shall be made to the Department of Community Development.

Shifts the application process from the Department of Community Resources to Community Development. May require additional staffing.

TBD

SECTION 17.76.080(D)

Posting notice of proposed event on the site.

Visual blight on the beach and City Parks.

 

 

REFERENCE

ITEM

IMPACT(S) / ISSUES

FISCAL IMPACT(S)

SECTION 17.76.080(A)

…no more than 1000 square feet of advertisements.

May discourage large scale events such as the Olympic Trials. Loss of events may have spillover impacts on local business.

TBD

SECTION 17.76.080 (8-22)

This section contains requirements for the Communitiy Development Director to prepare extensive pre- and post event reports for events with more than 1,500 people and includes requirements for such as:

  1. Mandatory radio spots. –including "all diverse ethnic and cultural Los Angeles radio markets and shall include Spanish language, youth and news stations.
  2. Noticing on a 500’ radius
  3. Recycling facilities.

This reporting would be in addition to the independent third party?

This section contains items with such specific percentages and requirements as to make monitoring extremely costly and/or impractical. The costs attached to such extensive monitoring would most certainly be a great discouragement for charitable and community groups to conduct an event in the Coastal Zone.

TBD

SECTION 17.76.170(A)

Every person, entity, corporation, or local Government Agency who violates permit application requirements is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000 or by imprisonment in the City or County jail for a term not exceeding 6 months…

   

Agendas / Minutes Menu    Agenda     Top of Page

 

 

City Attorney Michael Jenkin's Report

This memorandum is written in response to the City Council's October 12, 1999 request for a report pursuant to Election Code Section 9212 regarding the initiative entitled "The City of Hermosa Beach Coastal Conservation Act."

The stated purpose of this initiative is to place on the ballot a proposed ordinance that would comprehensively regulate use of the beach and the coastal zone in Hermosa Beach for temporary events and commercial advertising. Among other things, the proposed ordinance:

1. Prohibits the construction of permanent structures, except infrastructure, on the beach.

2. Prohibits commercial advertising on the beach, except advertising on lifeguard and maintenance vehicles and advertisements in connection with temporary events.

3. Establishes detailed application and public hearing requirements and standards for review and approval of permit applications for temporary events on the beach and in the coastal zone, including limits on the number and frequency of events.

4. Prohibits admission charges to temporary events and commercial sales of any kind on the beach.

5. Requires extensive mitigation of parking, traffic circulation, noise and other impacts associated with temporary events in the coastal zone, including public notification of and specific numbers of remote parking spaces.

6. Requires extensive independent monitoring of the impacts associated with temporary events on the beach and in the coastal zone, and the City to prepare reports, and maintain and publish in various formats specified data, reports and public meeting transcripts relating to temporary events.

7. Requires the City to promote not fewer than four (4) beach clean-up days per year, fund diversion of stormwater run-off as a top ten budget priority and test ocean water weekly.

8. Requires that revenue from temporary events be used, in priority order, exclusively for one-time compensation for elimination of existing permanent commercial advertising on the beach, ocean water testing, diversion of stormwater run-off, enhancement of beach recreational equipment, beach maintenance, and establishment of a non-profit marine research facility.

9. Requires the City to expedite preparation of a Local Coastal Program for consideration by the Coastal Commission.

A more extensive analysis of the measure has been prepared by the Director of Community Resources and accompanies this report.

The subject matter of the measure is within the police power of the City. Primarily, the proposed ordinance presents questions of policy and administration. However, legal issues will certainly arise in its implementation. For example:

1. The proposed ordinance is lengthy and complex. Care will have to be taken to assure that all of its many requirements are carried out. Failure on the part of the City to do so could give rise to a mandate action to compel compliance.

2. Some of the provisions are difficult to reconcile with others. For example, Section 2(H) on page one of the measure first states that the first priority for the use of temporary event fees is compensation for the elimination of all permanent signage on the beach. Later in the same paragraph, a non-profit marine research facility is stated to be the first priority for use of these funds. These statements are flatly inconsistent.

3. Some of the provisions are vague. For example, a number of obligations appear in Section 2, which is entitled "Findings, Determinations and Declarations; it is not clear whether these obligations are "findings" or duties. The measure further requires that certain obligations be prioritized in the City's budget, but it is not clear what constitutes "priority" in this context. Further, as a matter of law, the measure cannot fundamentally interfere with the fiscal management of the City.

4. The measure contemplates the imposition and use of event fees for various programs. It will be necessary to structure such fees so that they do not constitute a special tax, requiring a 2/3 vote of the electorate.

5. Implementation of the measure would have to be carefully monitored to assure compliance with the Coastal Act and with constitutional protections.

6. Section 9 requires that the City expedite approval of a local coastal program. Generally, an initiative may propose adoption of an ordinance, but may not direct the legislative body to take future actions. This aspect of the measure is likely unenforceable.

7. Provisions which are susceptible to multiple interpretations may only be definitively interpreted by a court. Consequently, the measure is prone to litigation.

Agendas / Minutes Menu    Agenda