sr-052874-7fCITY OF SANTA MONICA
DATE: May 17, 1974
TO: The Honorable Gity Council
FROM: Recreation and Parks Commission
SUBJECT: Possible Merger of Santa Monica Lifeguard Service
with Los Angeles County
l7~
~ ~
~~~
M.4Y2II 1974
rues ~1U~5° r~~
~o:ruewea ra rue
C17T CLeaZK'S 6rf~ ~
"C~3 ~ 1.4NG.
The Recreation and Parks Commission at their regularly
scheduled meeting on May 16, 1974, discussed the possi-
bility of merging the Santa Monica Lifeguard Service
with Los Angeles County.
After discussion, Mr. Schwedes moved "THAT THE RECREATION
AND PARRS COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
THE SANTA MONICA LIFEGUARD SERVICE BE TRANSFERRED TO THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, BUT THAT THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
RETAIN THE BEACH PARKING, BEACH MAINTENANCE AND BEACH
RECREATION OPERATIONS." The motion was seconded by Mr.
de la Puente.
Mr. Schwedes amended his motion to read "THAT THE RECREATION
AND PARKS COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY
SOLICIT THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BEACHES IN
OBTAINING THE RENEWAL OF THE LEASE WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN 1981." The amendment was seconded by Mr. de 1a Puente.
The vote on the amendment was as follows:
Ayes: de la Puente, Dzirkals, Reed, Schwedes
Noes: Moore
The vote on the entire motion was as follows:
Ayes: de la Puente, Dzirkals9 Schwedes
Noes: Moore, Reed
Dr. Moore moved "THAT THIS RECOMMENDATION AS PASSED BE FOR-
WARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL." The motion was seconded by
Mr. de 1a Puente and carried with a unanimous vote.
Respectfy subm ted
DTA:11 Donald T. Arnett, Secretary
Santa Monica, California, May 17, 1974
To: Mayor and Gity Council
From: City Staff
Subject: Recreation and Parks Commission Action - Santa Monica
Lifeguard Service
Introduction•
Due to illness and vacation there were only five Commission members
present. Folloiaing discussion concerning the possible transfer of
the Santa Monica Lifeguard Service to the County Lifeguard Service,
the Commission voted three to two to recommend this transfer. The
Santa Monica City Charter reads in Chapter 10, Section 1004, "the
vote of a majority of the entire membership of such Board of Commission
sha11 be necessary for it to take action." This means that four votes
were necessary for the Commission to take action on this item.
'T`hey then voted to inform you of their majority action on this
issue even thaugh it was not an "official" action of the Commission.
Background:
Attached is a copy of the staff report to the Commission and the
letter from the County Director of Beaches. This letter is in response
to the inquiry of the Recreation and Parks Commission. .The primary
aspect of the proposal, as presented, which would affect the lifeguard
function in Santa Monica is the extended coverage of the beach and the
provision of twenty four hour service for the beach. Of course, the
factor of greatest concern is elimination of approximately $300,000
deficit for this current fiscal year.
Alternative Solutions:
Please refer to the staff report to the Recreation and Parks
Commission for various alternatives to the solution of this problem
and the reasoning behind the staff recommendation recommending the
transfer of just the Lifeguard Service to the County of Los Angeles
Department of Beaches>
Prepared by: Donald T. Arnett
DTA:11
Date: May 15, 1974
To: Recreation and Parks Commission
from: Director of Recreation and Parks
Subject: Santa Monica Lifeguard Service
Introduction:
In response to the
the County Director of
Santa Monica Lifeguard
Service.
Background:
The desire to merge
inquiry of- the Recreation and Parks Commission
Beaches submitted a proposal for merger of the
Service and the Los Angeles County Lifeguard
the Lifeguard Services along the Los Angeles
county coast line has existed for several years. The basis for this
desire has been primarily economy and efficiency in government. The
Recreation and Youth Services Planning Council, the Los Angeles County
Grand .jury Report and Mister Plan of Shoreline Development have all
advocated a regional service for Lifeguards (See attachments).
Until now the costs of government were such that the City of Santa
Monica could operate the Lifeguard Service without a great burden upon
the tax payer of this community, but the inflationary spiral has also
caught the City as it has the average citizen. This year in fiscal
1974-75 the cost of the beach operations will exceed the anticipated
revenue from that source by approximately $300,000.
The fact that Santa Monica State Beach is a regional recreation
facility is borne out by a survey of the 1973 first-aid and rescue
cards. This survey indicates that 82% of the people that were injured
or needed rescue were non-Santa Monica residents. Applying this factor
to the beach user, it would seem -reasonable to assume that a similar
percentage of 'the beach going public is non-resident.
The perforniance of the Santa Monica Lifeguard Service has been
excellent. The variance in standards referred Lo in the various studies
recommending merger are not as great in this service as indicated and
the record of public protection of this Lifeguard Service is equal
to that oP Los Angeles County.
Santa Monica desires to remain an independent home-run City. This
philosophy applies to the great naL-ural asset which we have in the
beach. This position has been borne out by the operation of the Life-
guard Service all these years and the current operating agreement for
the beach with the State of California, and the City's desire to con-
time to operate the beach for the State of California. We would like
to have as much control over the development of this section of our
City as we would with any other section of the City.
The Administration of the Santa Monica State Beach encompasses the
following operations
L Beach Lifeguards
2. Beach Plaintenance
3. Beach Parking Lots
4. Beach Recreation
Alternate Solutions:
The following alternate solutions should be considered when making
the decision concerning the Santa Monica Lifeguard Service.
1. Leaving the situation as is and make no change.
2. Raise the parking lot fees a sufficient amount to cover the
$300,000 deficit.
3. 'lransfer the entire beach operation to the County of Los Angeles.
4. Transfer the Lifeguard Service to the County and retain the
other three operations,
The fiscal situation does not a11ow consideration of alternative
one. $300,000 is approximately 10~ on the tax rate. With 82% of the
}.each users non-residents it is unreasonable to expect Santa Monica
residents to subsidize the beach operation to that extent.
Alternate two would eliminate the subsidy dilema by requiring the
user to pay, but this revenue is so dependent upon weather and other
uncontrollable factors that this alternative is not feasible. Doubling
the rate would be necessary and could reduce the number of users of the
beach parking lots.
Alternate three would reduce the control of Santa Monica over the
beach and mould be contrary to .community desires.
Alternate four would more nearly meet the recommendations of the
various study groups, reduce the burden on the Santa Monica taxpayer
and sti11 retain control over the beach and our other operations
through an extended agreement with the State.
RPrnmm~~n Ala 1-i nn
1. The Santa Monica Lifeguard Service be transferred to the County
of Los Angeles Lifeguard Service.
2. The City retain the following services for its aaministration:
a, beach Parking Lots. (revenue, etc.)
b.3each Maintenance
c. beach Recreation
Prepared by: Donald T. Arnett
t
.. nIF``,;,.,~
,~I~yIJ.~~,
5_<
w~, _
~A l
xXI
ql~l O Pad!
DICK FITZGERALD
DIFECTOR
Mr. Donald T.
Department of
City of Santa
City Hall
Santa Monica,
Dear Don:
COUNTY. ~~ L®~S AN~F_,LES
DEPARTMENT OE BEACHES
2600 STft AND
MANHATTAN EEACH. CALIFO P.N IA 90266
April 25, 1974
Arnett, Director
Recreation and Parks
i~onica
CA
BVSINE55 PHONE:
545-4502 8-5
7]2-1011
EM ER GEN CY PHONE:
972-21fi2 29 HRS,
This is to confirm receipt of your letter dated April 2,
1974, requesting information relative to a possible merger of
the Los Angeles County Lifeguard operation with the Santa
T9onica operaticn.
As I'm sure you can. appreciate, the following comments
only represent our department`s thoughts as yell as our limited
knoirledge of your operation and cannot be presented as a formal
proposal.
As I have repeatedly commented, our department t•rould be
most happy to merge crith the lifeguard opera"lion in Santa
Monica, contingent upon your City Council's recommendation
and, of course, approval from the Los Angeles County Board of
Supervisors.
There are many details and areas which could be easily
worked out once all parties agreed to the merger. Due to the
scope of your questions, I ~-rill categorize each point as briefly
as possible, hopeful that it Drill adequately ans~•rer the aues-
tions your Recreation and Parks Commission has posed.
1. "Number of towers per 1,000 feet of beach that you
vrould plan to put on the beach."
As you are aware, your operation nor covers 15,423
lineal feet of beach. There are twenty lifeguard
stations as well as your divisional headquarters.
We would propose to install a`~ least one standard
lifeguard tower at approximately the 3000 blocrc ~rrhen
the present Pacific Ocean Par:: Pier has been removed.
Mr. Donald T, Arnett
Page 2
April 25, 197
The present spacing of towers on both the south
side and north side of Santa Monica Pier appears
to be adequate to our standards.
As I'm sure you agree, Don, a lifeguard operation
cannot function by placing a tower per 1,000 feet.
In some areas, due to heavy activity, the distance
is considerably closer and in some areas the dis-
tance is somewhat longer, again depending upon the
activity. "
2, "Number of hours these towers would be operated,.
on off-season, and staffing of same."
(Attached is a "rough" working schedule we would
propose for winter operation.)
To our understanding, the Santa Monica lifeguard
coverage runds a standard 9 A.61. to 5 P.I.7. shift
during your winter months and during the summer
period you operate under a basic 12-hour field
coverage starting at 8 A.A4. and securing at 8 P.i•1.
The first point I vrould propose to the Commissioh
would be an increase in both summer and winter
coverage of your beaches. Our operation is a 4-r40
week. All personnel vrork a 4-day, 10-hour shift.
This vrould, of course, give you extended coverage
in all areas.
Secondly, vre vrould prefer to give the Santa Alonica
area coverage from 6 A.M. to 10 P,P4,
Edith respect to the summer program, your basic
field coverage appears to be adequate; ho;rever,
should additional positions be required, these
would be added depending on conditions and activity.
lde vrould incorporate into the operation, an emergency
land vehicle located at your divisional headquarters
wi+.;h tyro men assigned to be used in divisional
"back-up" iti~hich mould be a great improvement over
your. present operation, we feel.
P•'Ir. Donald T. .Arnett
Page 3
April 25, 1974
Personnel assigned to this unit vrould be EP4T-lA
(paramedic) trained to handle all emergencies
within that .division and coordinate that operation.
with other emergency service agencies in your
community. I will explain training and equipment
later in this correspondence.
3• "Type of equipment the County vrould provide for
beach patrol."
See 1t4, below.
4. "Number of vehicles involved."
We understand that you presently have three beach
lifeguard vehicles, tvro of these being Scouts
purchased in 1972 and 1973, and the remaining one
being a Jeep which has been converted to diesel
power which is presently to be surveyed and replaced
by a new vehicle approved in your 1973-74 budget.
j~Iith the transfer of these three vehicles to the
nevr operation, we vrould plan to add a fully-equipped
emergency beach truck to act as a division back-up
- capable of administering cardio-pulmonary resuscita-
Lion from ;water's edge direct to hospital.
5• "The berthing location. of rescue boats, and if they
are berthed at Santa Monica Pier vrould the County
pay rent?°
The berth location presently assigned to your rescue
boat is satisfactory. We understand that your "Rescue-
One" - a 34-foot t?gin-screw vessel - is presently
being renovated and vrould be in operation prior to
summer.
With the transfer of this piece of equipment to the
new operation, we vrould evaluate whether or not
Rescue-One should be replaced by one of our vessels.
vrhich may be in better condition to handle the Santa
t-lonica operation.
Lde understand that during summer periods the vessel
now assigned to the harbor patrol - a 25-foot single-
screvr craft - is nut into operation ar.d backs up the
lifeguard division. 'If this vessel is to remain with
the harbor patrol, I would like to establish a program
vrhere it could continue to function in that capacity
vrith our operation.
Mr. Donald T. Arnett
Page 4
April 25, 1974
We do, however, have a relief. vessel stationed at
King Harbor in Redondo Beach, which is put into
the division needing a second vessel vrhen conditions
dictate.
FTe understand your present budget has asked for
replacement of the Rescue-One vessel due to a
recent marine survey taken which has found it
unseaworthy. If I am correct in the figure, we
understand as amount of $49,000 is being requested
to replace this craft.
We would immediately eouin vrhatever vessel you have
with fire. fighting eouipment. This is basic with
our boats, Don, to handle boat fires. Your present
craft's condition undoubtedly ~~rould not justify the
cost of expensive fire fighting equipment installa-
tion, however, any ne.•r craft assigned would have the
finest available.
I understand that rent for a mooring in Santa ;~onica
runs approximately $10 to $15 per month. Gle would
hope to continue to moor ir, the same location, ti~re
would service our own mooring, and would hope that
the $15 mooring fee could be vraived on our behalf.
This ct~ould conform to our other boat stations vrhere
the are not required to pay a mooring fee.
5. "4lould the Santa ,,"rionica Service be run from the
existing local headquarters or some other headouarters?"
We would most definitely run the entire Santa Monica
operation from the existing local headquarters. The
Administration functions, however, are handled in our
Pdanhattan Office. 'rte foresee no problem *~rith respect
to this proposal.
7. "Flhere would the base of the 24-hour service be located?"
The 24-hour service orould be located at 1642 Promanade,
your present headquarters location. 'rie orould like to
continue utilizing the harbor office area if it creates
no problems for rescue boat personnel.
Mr. Donald T. Arnett
Page 5
April 25, 1974
8. "What would the effect of the transfer or absorption
of the Santa .7onica lifeguards into the County Service
be with regard to seniority and other comparable
benefits?"
We understand that the Santa Monica Lifeguard Associa-
tion has ta;cen a close look with regard to seniority
and other comparable benefits and have unanimously
agreed that the benefits under a consolidation would
be to their advantage.
It is the normal procedure when employees of a city are
11merged" with similar employees of another public
entity, seniority follo~~rs right along. In this case,
retirement would be a dramatic improvement. The Santa
Monica lifeguards would become Los Angeles County
Safety Retirement System members. There may be no
better public retirement system in the United States:
All other facets of the °fringe benefit" package are
equal to or improvement over that. now afforded the
Santa Monica lifeguards.
The County lifeguards are annually given extensive
medical examinations, including skin cancer checks
(most important.) and stress tests.
' Our department furnishes the entire lifeguard uniform,
including a foul weather float coat, lifeguard jackets,
trousers, shirts, belt, tie, C.P.O. cap, sun glasses,
sun hat, "wet suit" for ~~rinter operations, swim fins,
badge and lifeguard swim trunks.
.Although the "4-40 work i~reelc" is not "off9.cia1ly" a
fringe benefit - it is simply an extremely valuable
tool for extended beach coverage; nevertheless our
employees are most enthusiastic in its support:
Our lifeguards, too, have an association - not affiliated
with any union - which negotiates directly with the
Department of Beaches administration in salary and
other employee relations matters.
Of benefit to the employees, ,as well as your city,
in my judgment, vrill oe the training given all County
lifeguards. These programs - not currently offered
your personnel - ;could add great expertise in many
areas.
Mr. Donald T. Arnett
Page 6
April 25> 197}+
a. 120-hour E.M.T. (paramedic) course is required
of all permanent lifeguard personnel. Recurrent
lifeguards are given a 16-hour course at USC Medical
School also.
b. All personnel are required to attend Sheriff Academy
law enforcement orientation course.
c, An 8-hour Sheriff's Department class in emergency
driving technique is required of all County life-
guards.
d. All personnel go through the American Heart Associa-
tion CPR (Cardin Pulmonary Resuscitation) instructors
course.
e. All our permanent lifeguards are County certified
SCUBA divers. Those on our Underwater Recovery Unit
are sent through the County's Underwater Instructor's
Certification Course. Those men on the Undert-rater
Unit require a 5zro hazardous duty bonus.
f. Rescue Boat creUrs are trained at the County's fire-
fighting school in the control of flammable liquids.
g. "idould the lifeguard personnel that are presently irorking
on the Santa Monica beach be used at other divisions of
rescue for the County service?"
It would not necessitate any transfer of your personnel
presently assigned to the Santa Monica beaches unless
they would prefer to be relocated to our idorthern Divi-
sion operation or Southern Division operation, ~~rhich we
would be most happy to consider.
Each year, our personnel are afforded an opportunity to
bid for nevr schedules representing particular days off
and area of work location. Your personnel would be
able to relocate themselves by this bid method upon
the approval of the divisional captain. In no case
would Santa Monica's lifeguards be arbitrarily relocated,
other than new preference of duty station.
i9e ~•rould 'Hope to "pepper" the
~rrith tyro permanent lifeguards
officer needs with one county
been agreed upon by your assn
able approach to establishing
program.
Santa ?".onica operation
and supplement your
lieutenant. This has
~iation as the most desir-
an efficient phase-in
Mr. Donald `T. Arnett
Page 7
P.pril 25, 197
10. "How many rescue boats would the County use to patrol
the Santa Monica beach?"
The rescue boat operation should remain at the present
level. Depending on divisional needs, a second relief
vessel, if ir. service, could be stationed in the Santa
Monica division from their King Harbor location as
explained in our answer to the question 75. There is
no mention regarding your harbor patrol. If you wish
to have us consider that operation, we would be most
happy to discuss it. 41e vrould find ro difficulty
in operating it.
11. "j^Ihat portions of the beach program would the County
take over?"
We would like to propose the entire lifeguard operation
be merged (the beach maintenance program also, if you
desire). We understand that you presently have 13
lifeguards and one°communications officer, plus part-
time (seasonal) employees.
ide could propose that your Harbor and Beach Super-
intendent, John Ho~;ae, be included vrith a rank of
Captain. He taould be in charge of the Santa t•ionica
Lifeguard Division. Your present Captain, Jim Richards,
would merge as a lieutenant, with Lieutenants Zahn,
Johnson and Rigby holding their same rank. Lde would
propose a reclass of t*ao permanent lifeguards to
Lieutenant-Rescue Boat. All other lifeguard personnel
vrill merge at their present rank. iJe understand that
both Howe and Richards agree and that both will improve
on their present salaries.
The Junior Lifeguard Program would, of course, be
involved in the consolidation; however, your present
fee for youngsters of X10 for residents and wl5 for
non-residents would be reduced to the rate no~;r in
effect in the County of r7 ner youngster. This
program can be easily correlated into our present
Junior lifeguard program. `ihis is our second season
including girls - as we were finally able to receive
special funding.
Mr. Donald T. Arnett
Page $
April 25, 1974
12. "Are you interested in operating the lifeguard service
without any money from the beach parking lots?"
Don, I assume Santa- Monica's contract with the State
is similar to the County°s. It "earmarks" concession
and parking revenues to be spent on beach operation.
I'm not an attorney, but surely this question could
be negotiated among our Beach Advisory Committee,
your Commission, City Council and the County Supervi-
sors, and will be acceptable to all concerned. Of
this I'm confident. The 'County Grand Jury Report of
1973 says this "should not be a deterrent in any
possible merger.'!
13. 91FTould you be interested in maintaining the beach with-
out any money from the City of Santa P9onica?"
The citizens of Santa tlonica presently contribute to
the overall county tax rate and, in essence, novr
partially subsidize all county beaches.
The City of Santa Monica would not be financially
responsible, under this consolidation, to fund for
the beach operation. There are certain minor areas,
Don, of coordinating our operation on behalf of the
beach-going public, as we have done in many other
beach communities. Y1e believe these would be agree-
able to Santa i?onica. These are more in the line of
service coordination. As an example, I have noticed
many palm trees along your beach and understand that
a water truck from your recreation department ti~reeT;ly
maintains these trees. GTe ti~rould in this case as in
a few others, solicit cooperation from Santa A?onica
City to continue programs of this magnitude (charged
to parking revenue); however, such programs as overall
maintenance, building repairs, equipment replacement
and repairs, :~rould be, of course, the full respcn-
sibility of the county.
14. "t^lould you explain the position of the County with
regard to why you would be vrillinn to assume the cost
of the operating of the lifeguard service ~,vithout any
remuneration fro*n the City of Santa ilonica and t-rith-
out also receiving the revenue from the beach parking
lots?"
This is partially ansrorered by the previous question
(,f13). Hoirever, the .first part is most pertinent -
and timely. The beaches are the "classic" example
Mr. Doanld T. Arnett
Page 9
April 25, 1974
of a regional recreational "facility.." They are used
by people from throughout the County - and State r
The last in-depth study on this topic, the 1964 Youth
Services Council Report, recommended the County assume
operation of all public beach within the County.. i4e
agree - it is only fair', hat all the people should
pay - not just the Santa Monica taxpayer:
^1hen, the Final Report of the 1973 Los Angeles County
Grand Jury strongly recommended merger and agreed that
11savings vrould be sizeable if the County provided
lifeguard service and maintenance for all beaches
within its boundaries."
15a "'+lould you also please indicate the salary ranges of
various county lifeguard positions of lifeguard
lieutenant, captain and division head or section head,
vrhiehever you would call the individual who would be
responsible for the operation of the Santa D?onica
division?"
The division head as referred to ir. your question ;~15,
would be called, under our operation, the divisional
captain, who would be responsible for the entire
lifeguard operation in the Santa Monica area.
Salary schedules:
Captain, Lifeguards $1443 - 179II per mo.
Lieutenant, Lifeguards 1294 - 1611 per mo.
Lieutenant, Rescue Boat 1294 - 1511 per mo.
Beach Lifeguard. II (Perm.) 976 - 1215 per mo.
Beach Lifeguard I (Recurren t)4.76 - 5.93 per hr.
In conclusion, Don, we would again 131ce to state that these
ans+~rers represent the Los And-,eles County Beach Department's general
philosophy on consolidation of the Santa ir[onica beach operation.
The Board of Supervisors, .the Chief Administrative Officer
of the County, as +•rell a.s the County Counsel, would be part of any
formal proposal. The final say will be by a vote of the Board of
Supervisors.
Mr. Donald
Page 10
April 25,
T. Arnett
1974
I^te understand the entire Santa Monica Lifeguard Association
has gone on record to endorse this move as has our Los Angeles
County Lifeguard Association. We feel that the people of Santa
P4onica as well as the many other beach patrons that are non-residents
of your city will share in the benefits of this merger.
Hoping this answers the questions posed by your letter, and
eager to help Further in any way possible, I remain
Very sincerely yours,
"/~
Dictzger~fd~~
Director
DF:ju
cc: Honorable
Honorable
Arthur G.
James A. Hayes
Clo Hoover
Y?i 11
COUDITY OF LOS ANGELi~S
DEPARTMENT OF BEACN.ES
LIFEGUAF.D 4dOF,KING SCHEDULE
Lines 1 - 16 are submitted as a possible 4-40 work week ~-wnter
assignment sheet. The lower half of the sheet indicates the
winter stations to be filled daily, the hours of assignment and
the individuals that would be assigned. Hours are adjusted to
meet daylight saving time and time of sunset changes. The lower
half of the sheet is another form of the assi~ent sheet at the
top of the page.
On the second page, number of personnel working during each hour
of the day and their locations are sho~m.
r•.~ 2022 { ~ /'74 )
1
2.
3=
4.
5<
6.
7®
8.
9.
10.
11.
12®
13.
14.
15.
16.
MONTH DATEc
COUNTY OF LOS .1NGELES
DEPARTT~~lT OF BEACHES
LIFEGUARll tdORKING SCHEDULE
PERSONNEL SUN P~10N ~ TUES CTED THUR F RI SAT
Howe, Capt. ~ X X X CD CD CD
Richards I,t. CD ~ CD CD HOD X X X
Johnson Lt. HQD X X X H HOD H~D
Rigby Lt. . HQS /y HQD HQD X X X HrS
Saylors X X HQS HQS HOS H S X
Chaves X HQS RB RB RB X X
Zahn I.t. RB RB ~ RB X X X RB RB
Merritt RB !~ 12 X X X 26 RB
Steer X X X 8 8 8 8
Ziglar 8 ~ 8 8 12 X X X
Pestrana 12 X X X 12 12 12
( ) 18 ~ 18 12 X X X 18
Solomon X X 18 18 1.8 18 X
Herne
( ) ~ X
26 7 2b
X 26
X 26 ~
X 26
9
Comm. X
Comm.
26
Moore (5-40) s-~
Comm.
Cvmn.
Cowin.
Co;~~
X
X
Comm
~~
i
iD 8 - 6
1QD Lt. 6 - 4
Q~
j~7C~lrr ~
.~„(„/+~nr'~
~~
lirC ~rl~° ~
~ i
I'iC'f?,l }
a_+__.___~
lit ~lr/'~~'
9
fV lit-~-.1~_
C;^~_<~
i)
P~ir~~:/~:i
~~[~~•
J~~ 9~.Cil
~!?V '~.
-ff`~115C a1
n:/P~
1C: ) "!~"
~~ couNTY of cos arrGELEs
DEPARTI"f~`iT OF BEACHL;S
LIFEGUARD WORKING SCHEDULE
Personnel On Dut;T Each Hour
Shift Total by Hours
6- 4 Lt. 1 6 a.m. - 7 a.m.
~- 5 8th 26th 3 7 a.m. - 8 a.m.
8- 6 CD RB 5 8 a.m. - g a.m.
9 - '7 12th 18th 8 g a.m. - 12 Noon
9 - 5 Comm. 8 9 a.m. - 12 Noon
12 - - 10 HQS 9 12 Noon - 4 p.m.
8 4 p.m. - 5 F.m.
6 5 p.m. - 6 p.m.
+ l for weekends (RB) 4 6 p.m. - 7 p.m.
1 ~ p.m. - 10 p.m.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
GRAND JURY
FINAL REPORT
1973
AD HOC CONL^~IITTEE ON ELIP4INATION OF DUPLICATION
IN CITY-COUPdTY SER~IICES
This committee conducted considerable ir_dependent investigation and
met with Los Angeles City and County officials on tyro occasions„ An
attempt was made to identify areas where savings in taxes and improved
service would be made possible by eliminating duplication of services
furnished by both the County and cities, This investigation and two
joint meetings revealed the followi-r_g factsa Many services now per-
formed by both cities a_nd the County could be provided entirely by the
County at less cost, In many cases, the quality of service would be
.improved if taken over by the County, However, because of local pride,
cities too often *.~rant to maintain their o~•m services, regardless of
the-extra cost and lo~~rer quality, Increased public awareness of the
situation and revised attitudes of city officials will be necessary
before ar~y progress can be made toward eliminating duplication, It
now appears that the public v,~ill not support elimination o= city-
provided services on a money saving basis alone, Information must
also be presented on other advantages< I~Pnen conditions are proper
for these changes, the following areas should be further investigated,
BEACIII;S All parties participating in discussions on this subject
agreea ~~iat savings would. be sizeable if the County provided life~uar
service ~.nd mu_~n-t~,nan.,.. ~or~:~. beaches wit.~in Ls boue~c.<s~es, lh~
fact that the County now subsidizes some City-provided services
indicates the need for a change, Novrever, State ovmed lots are now
leased to the cities which use their revenue to defray the expense of
lifeguard service, It would be impractical for the County to take
over beaches noer served by cities until these leases expire,
THIS CONIl'~IITTEE FiECOMi~NDS TH11T MEETINGS BE I~LD BETVIEEN THE
COUNTY AND CITIES II~IVOLVED VIITH A VII~1 TO IuIODIFYIPIG BEACH
SERVICES ?9HEI3 1'Iir, STATE, P~u2I{ID?G LOT. I.r,ASES EXPIRE IN 1953.
POSITIOid OF THE r OS A'•dGELES CCUIITY DEPARTMENT OF BEACiIES
In responding to the Grand Jury recommendation - it is our belief that
State parking leases should not be a deterrent to any possible merger.
due to the fact that by 1av; (and contract) funds derived from this
source must be used on the beach (improvements, operation, maintenance,
restrooms, equipment, etc.).
Therefore, it really doesn't make any significant difference G•rho oper-
ates the parking lots. For example, if the County were to cperate the
beaches - parking funds from city-operated parking lots would be used
in the above manner - making the net County cost- lower.
THE OPERATION OF PUBLIC BEACHES
IN THE'LOS ANGELES REGION
REPORT AND R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S
Submitted to
THE COUTITY OF LOS ANGELES, PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
AND DEPARTT'LNT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
anal
THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, RECREATION AnVD PARK COT'Il"iISSION
AND DEPARTMENT GF RECR~.4"'ION A1VD PARKS
William Jo McCann, Chairman
Sterling So Winans, Project Consultant
Edwin Jo Staley, Coordinator
RECREATION APID YOUTH SEI,VICES PLAi~iNINC COUiVTCIL
2140 6d, Olympic, Los Angeles, California 9001']
380-0202
March 1964
haVmence I;a bell Edwin Jo Staley, PhoD,
President Iiitecutive Director
RECREATION AND YOUTH SERVIG~S PLANPIIP7G COUPdCIL
BOARD OF DIRECTORS - 1963-64
EXECUTIVE COi•1MITTEE
Lawrence E. Irell, President
Mrs. Roy Slater, Vice-President
Robert J. Flexson, Vice-Fresident
William J. McCann, Treasurer
Arthur F. Gardner, Secretary
James Harvey Brown
Mel Pierson
Milton B. Arthur
Warren D7, Dorn
H. C. Willett, Ph.D.
Mrs. Edgar A. Anspacher
bars. L,E, Montenegro
Floyd W. Forker
J. Paul Elliott, T"ember-at-.Large
Norman 0. Houston, Member-at-
Large
- Attorney, Irell and Manella
- Thirty-first District PTA
- Jewish Centers Association
- League of California Cities
Mayor of Santa Fe Springs
- Los Angeles City Board of
Education
- Los Angeles City Council
- Los Angeles City Recreation
Park Commission
- Los Angeles County Park and
Recreation Commission
- Los. Angeles County Board of
Supervisor s
- Los Angeles City Board of
Education
- United Way, Inc.
- United Way, Inc.
- Boy Scouts of America
- Attorney
and
and
- Fresident, Golden State Mutual
Life Insurance Co.
OTHER BOARD T~iEMBERS
Organization Officials
Robert M. Boek
Richard P. Byrne
Mrs. Robert C. Hill
Mrs. Elaine Hopkins:
Nirs. Loyal K. I{ing
Mrs. Iv'orman Leonard
A4rs. A. Maxson Smith
George C. Sopp
Ezra E. Stern
Harold F. Whittle
- County Board of Education
- Catholic Youth Organization
- Red Shield Youth Center
- Pomona City Council
- Young [domen's Christian Assn.
- Camp Fire Girls
- Girl Scouts of the U.S.A.
- 'r?oodcraft Rangers
- Boys' Clubs
- Young Men`s Christian Assn.
Area Representatives
Charles T. ?-Iorrow, Ph.D.
Marlir. U. Gilbreath
Mrs. Sdalter F. Beachy
Mrs. E., Rew Bixby
T•7rs. Harry M. Templeton
Judge Carlos b1. Teran
Virgil H. Spongberg
Mrs. Lloyd C. Cook
- P~alibu
- North County.
- San Fernando Valley
- Verdugo
_ t•?est Central
- East Central
- Southeast
- Southc~rest
OTHER BOARD T~t~1BER5 (Cont'd}.
PQembers-at-Large
Alex D. Aloia, Ph.D.
H. Eugene Breitenbach
Donn B. Brown
Mrs. V.L. Geissinger
Gerald B. Thomas, Jr.
Ex-Of7'icio P4embers
Mrs. Neil Cox
Mrs. J. R. Gaydowski
Mrs. Leonard Hummel
Mrs. Meyer Price Stern
John Andreson
Philip S. Magruder
- Director, Guidance Center,
Loyola University
- Judge, Juvenile Court
- Manager, Architectural Division,
A.J. Bayer Company
- Board Member, San Fernando
Valley Youth Foundation
- Chief Production Engineer,
Signal Oil & aas Co.
® rust District PTA
Tenth District PTA
- Thirty-third District PTA
- Federation of Community
Coordinating Councils
-- Welfare Planning Council
- Past President
ACHI`i OGThED GEMEDITL' S
The Recreation and Youth Services Planning Council and the Study
Committee is indebted to many. individuals, board members and agency
administrators and staff for their contributions, advice and
suggestions as the problem of this. study report was developed and
pursuedo Over fifty officials in the Los Angeles region, and
numerous rapresentatives of organizations outside Los Angeles
County consulted with the co~mittee or consultant, or Contributed
pertinent resource materialso This cooperation and assistance has
been much appreciated and is gratefully acknowledgedv Included among
these many contributors were;
County of Los Angeles, Department of Parks «nd Recreation:
Norman So Johanson, Director, Harold Lo Teel, Chief Deputy Director;
Milton Tinepoff, Chief Administrative Assista~~?t; KirbT~_ y TemAle,
Captain Life~-uard Division, Zuma County Beach; Richard Abernethy,
Social and Cultural Director of Recreationo
County of Los Angeles: T4erton Golden, County-City Coordinator;
Milton Breivo~cl, Director of Regional Planning; Joseph Kennedy,
Deputy Director of Regional Planninge
City of Los [~ geles, Department of Recreation and Parks:
William Frederic'_.son, Jro, General Manager; Ross Ae Cunsinhham,
Superintendent o 3ccration; AA*..eric Hadley, ,S'pervisor of lsauatics
and Golf; George Hclt<; (former General i;.anager), Executive Officer,
Zoo Development; T~iyron Cox, Chief Lifeguard; John rTaghal~ian,
Recreation Director, Venice Beach; l~lilbur Coldsm}--~-=th, C:aptain of
Lifeguards; Harold ~ans_igan,.Beach Lifeguard; 6Jillard Pruitt,
Captain Life~aards, venice each; i~`Tichael Rael, Supervisorhand and
Business Operations; Robert Hagen, i,if-"T eguar-dispatcher, South Bay
Division; Paul Matthies, Lifeguard Dispatcher, South Bay Division;
Ao Hasler; Lifeguard Dispatcher, South Bay Division; 6Ti11ia;d
O'Sullivan, Captain. Lifeguards, Cabrillo Beach; Leonard 01~tzin,
ii~ard, Cabrillo Bach; Robert 'v7i11iams, Lifeguard, Cabrillo
Beach; Anthony To..~ich, Lifeguard, Cabrillo Beach.,
City of Los 1':ngcles, Municipal Reference Library: Miss Ruth Pa7_mer,
Librarian>
City of Long Beach: Bvron 0°T?eil, Executive Assistant to the City
Manager; Dal<; Hoskin, Director oi' Recreation; Duane Gcorc;e,
Associate Director of Recreation; Robert L'e Yenredy, 1?ssistant
Director T'ublic Service Department; Doy Je ITi11er, Chief Lifeguard,
Marine .Department; Jcu:es Ce Honkla, i=dministrativc Assistant,
Recreation Dapartmento
ACKNOkrI,ED GEMr.PIT S
City of Santa Monica: Ernest Ne P"obley, City Manager;
Fred Bleecker, Captain of Lifeguard ivision, Police Department;
Leonard Brif-nt, Director of Recreation; E~ene Poole, Lieutenant.
Lifeg d Divisions
City of Hermosa Beach: Walter Harris, City Managero
State of California, Division of Beaches and Parks: Eduard bolder,
Chief of the Division; Earl Hanson, Deputy Chief; Ronald i'iil-~ er,
Chief Budget Officer; Donald Sa~~er, Advance Planning 'ection;
Lloyd Lively, Superintendent, District V; rZichael Henry, Chief
Aquatic Supervisor, District Va
State of California, Division of Recreation: Ferdinand Ao Bahr,
Recreation Specialist; Russell Porter, Recreation Specialists
Colleges and Universities:
Los Angeles State College: George Gd, GI_illott, Professor of
Recreation; University of California at Los ~:ngeles: bra Serena
Arnold, Chairman of Recreation Unit; Heenan Patterson, Uraduate
Student, Bureau of Governmental Research; Universit~,3 of Southern
California: Dro Tillman Hall, Director of Recreation Curriculum;
Anthony Ao `t`urner, Graduate Student, Department of Healtri, Physical
Education and P~ecrcatior_o
Others: Larry Helgeson, 1615 Hill Drive, Los Angeles 41; CoP,Lo
Nichols, 30150 T~Iorning View Drive, 1,alibua
We appreciate the efforts of the follovring persons .who submitted
letters or reference materials:
James Lang, General~Manager, San Francisco Department of Recreation
and Parks, Sa_n Francisco; t aerett Ao Pesor_en, . Chief, Reservoir
Management and ~~~iildlife, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento;
Earl Eo Bac_hman, Recreation Administration, Division of Recreation,
So Forest Service, San Francisco; Joseph Prendergast, Executive
Director, dational Recreation Association,:=cam-I'o~k;~l La Gasse,
Executive Director, :~~merican Institute of Par?~ Executives, Clglebay
Part>, Readir_g, blest Virginia; Miss Pauline Des Granges, Assistant
Park and Recreation i~t•:nager; and Lor Bt3o y;~nre, ~,quati c Superintendent,
San Dicgoo
CoCe Stc~~~nrt, Director, Parks, Beaches and Recreation, Ple,~rpcrt;
George Ho Adams, County Director of Parks, S~u~ta Barbara;
Orv~1 C~ Bone:, Pare Superintendent, City of Santa Barbara;
Thomas Lantz, Superintendent of Public Recreation, I°Ictropolitan
dark District, Tacoma, Washington; Lo La Iiuttleston, Director of
State Parks, Conservation Depart: ent, State oi' 1jF~•r `f'ork, Albany;
Samuel Ho bPhite, Director P'iaintenance and Crperation, City of New
o~ rY, Dcnart~cnt of Parks; Louis Eo Reid, Jro, Chief, Division of
Recreation Information, Bureau oi' Outdoorr~ecreation, 6iashine~ton,
DoC>; and Oo I`io Pusrl;ir~, City Iianagcr, City Flall, City of I`iiami
Beach, Florida.
ACKNOLdLE DGEI~1BPaTS
Mrm Sterling Se ?~linans (former California State Director of
Recreation ~aho served as consultant for this study project,
rendered significant assistance in accumulating background infor-
mation, intervieoaing agency personnel, gathering pertinent data,
providing ir_site and guidannce to the study committee, developing
drafts of findings and proposed recommendltions for committee
consideration, and in drafting the final reporto
Dr< Edwin JD Staley, Council Executive Director, coordinated the
necessary committee and board processes, assisted in study design
and development, assured responsibility for final editing of the
reporte
RECOMMETIDATIONS OF BEACri OPr<R1iTI0NS STUDY
Three primary. recommendations, developed from the findings and
conclusions of the study of beach operations, contain complementary
references to both the County and the City of Los Angeles. Over a
period of time, adoption of the s~~~~estions ,~reuld accomplish a gradua
transition from the present provision or regT-1 t~rpe -beach services
by the City and the County to the administration and financinU of
these services bT the Count Recommendations are close y related
to each other. ny one oz t e recommendations is appropriate for
consideration and adoption by itself, but recommendation number one
(I) defines the most equitable solution to the beach operation
problem. Recommendation number two {Il) leads to amore equitable
arrangements for fir_a_ncing beach services than. the status quo. The
establishment of a Los Angeles Regional Beach Commission, composed
of elected officials, is proposed in the third recommendation.
RECOP1NTvIDATIONS
RECOTq`Zz~TDATION I - RESPO?~?SIBILITY FOR REGIOT7AZ Br:ACILES
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT TTY CITY OF LOS ANGELES RE~'UEST THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGEZES TO TAB JOINT ACTION ~,IITH THE CITY LEADInTG TO
THE ADMINISTRATION ATID FINANCING BY THE COT7ITTY OF REGIONAL BF,?Ci~S
NOW ADMIIVISTEIZED AMID FITdA_NCED BY THE CITY OF LOS A]VGELES.
A. TO CARRY OUT THIS PROPOSAL, IT IS RECOTII`~DTDED THAT THE CITY ATSD
THE COUNTY APPOIPIT A JOINT WOP,HING COT'.TiITTEE ON REGIONAL BE1iCH
ADMINISTRATION AND FINAT4CITdG TO EXPLORE FACTORS (see belo~~r)
INTVOI~YED ITV THE TRANSFER OF TIDE BEACH FUTICTION PROM Tim CITY TO
TI3E, COUIITY; NEGOTIATE TFi/ Tt`~MS OF A1V AG~'~EF.~'`1E.NT BET:•TEEN THE
TG10 JURISDICTI021S COVERING TI-~rSE FACTORS; A1VTD TO PREPARE .? TIME
SCHEDULE OF ESSEPiTIAL POLICY AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIOTSS TO
EFFECT Tim TR<'~T.SFER.
B. IT IS FURTHER RECOI`~'TdDED T:L?T TIC COUT:TY ~~tD THE CITY COI~;SID~
THE APPOINTT`ZIIV1 TO THE JOTiPI' IdORKIPdG COT'it1ITTEE OF:
1) THEIR CHIEF ADMIIrCSTR1>TIVE 0~'FIC~2.5.
2) DEPARTI"LETI`T HEADS OR PARKS & RECR~~[iTION OR RI;CREf~'IOTd & PARiIS.
3) ONE T'1<,I'ff3ER FROM T?ACH OF T%1,IR RESPECTItir~ COT~~IISSIOT;SD
_ 2 m
4)' APPROPRIATE REPRESETITATIVES FROM THE LOS ANGELES DIVISION
OF TF~ CALIFORitiIA LEAGUE OF CITIESo
5) OTHER REPRESNETATNES THAT Md~Y BE NEEDEDo
Justification
1a Beach Users
Reliable date on the origin of users at beaches operated by
Los Angeles City on City ok~ed land, State owned land and on
land leased from the United States Army, indicate that 42 percent
of the users come from residences in Los Angeles County outside
the Citya County operated beached are also patronized by
residents of Los Angeles City®
20 Regional Recreation Area
as The source and amount of this patronage from outside the
cities, the uniqueness of beaches as natural recreation
resources not available in :;very community, and the extensive
development of beach areas, suggest that beaches be classified
and. treated as regional recreation areasa
ba The trend toti~aard the role of counties as the suptiliers of
day-use recreation (facilities within 40 miles or a day's
trip from a user s home) and regional recreation areas is
substantiated in the ir_tensive study of the "State of
California Public Outdoor Recreation Plan," and in policies
on recreation adopted by the County Supervisors Association
of California and Z`alif'ornia Lea~ae of Citieso
co Added impetus to this recommendation comes from the County's
policy and the announced action of the County Park and
Recreation Department to plan for, acquire and operate
regional type recreation areas and withdraw from operation
of local recreation serviceso
_3_
Rep~ional Approach
As early as 1940, it was recommended in "The Master Plan of Shore
Development for the County Regional Planning District that
"the various departments of the local municipalities, the County
of Los Angeles, and the State government, should meet and
formulate plans for centralizing control over the beaches
and tidelands." (12:20)
Recommendations for a regional approach to administration and financ-
ing of ocean beaches vrere forcefully presented to the citizens of the
Los Angeles region in 1949 by the Madigan-Hylund Consulting and
Engineering Firm in its comprehensive report, Recreation Development
of the Los AnCele Shoreline (3:142). Establishment by vote of the
people of a recreational beach district, with authority to levy taxes
and issue bonds, was proposed to include a ma,)or portion of the County.
Voluntary Action to Meet Public Demand
3i,vernmental agencies have provided beaches and complementary aquatic
programs, not because this action is required by State law, but by
choice and voluntary action consistent vrith the demand and with full
support from Los Angeles citizens. People have demanded the preserva-
tion of ocean beaches, adherence to the right of everyone for access
to the tidal i•raters for hiking, bathing and s.aimming and the mainten-
ance of beach areas even though the provision of beaches is considered
i-e function of local government (21:1). From that point.
as a p,.rmiss s
of clew provision of beaches and beach programs is not classed as a
mandatory function of city and county government as are police, fire
protection and public health services:
_a~~
REGIONAL SIGPIIFICANCE OF BEACHES AND LOCAL. GOV`ERNP'IF'P1T ROLES
A more precise definition of regional recreation areas has been
developed by local and state officials of the Los Angeles area and
has gained acceptance among similar officials in other parts of
California (l:ll), to wit: that a regional recreation area is an
extent of space, which, by its unique features and unusual or exten-
sive development, affords recreational opportunities attracting
patronage from many sections of the region irrespective of political,
physical or community boundaries. That most ocean beaches are regional
recreation areas eras inferred by the City of Los Angeles in its 1947
"Master P12.n for Recreation." A similar vievrpoint eras expressed by
the County's Board of Supervisors in January, 1959 with its adoption
of the "Regional Recreation Areas Plan for Los Angeles County,
As regional recreation areas, the acquisition, development, operation
and financing of public ocean beaches are predicated on the joint
action of many agencies in addition to the individual jurisdiction
that is fortunate enough to-have a beach within its borders.
References to beaches and other kinds of regional recreation areas and
the role of different levels of government in public recreation have
been made in reports and other documents published by the City and the
County of Los Angeles, the State of California {17:14), and statewide
organizations of city and county officials and universities engaged
in governmental research.
Regional Areas
The California Recreation Com~-nission's Guide For Planning Recreation
Parks in California (1956) included the following definition:
Regional Recreation Park. A large reservation, usually with
unique scenic character, serving one or more cities or an
entire metropolitan region and supplementing recreation
facilities available in urban areas (2:77).
In 1963, reference was made to regional recreation areas in the com-
prehensive report of the Regional Recreation Area Study by the Inter-
County Recreation Planning Com.nittee, composed of representatives from
eleven Southern California counties. A statement is cited from the
report as follows;
An additional facet of the problem is that the regional
recreation resources of the entire Southern California
area are used by recreation seekers y~rithout regard for
jurisdictional boundaries. This situation affects not
only county governmental a~,enc9_es but all governmental
agencies and private interests vrhich are concerned ;with
the planning, operation, and development of recreation
facilities.
Role of Cities and Counties
The need to centralize control over beaches rras recognized in The
Master Plan of Shoreline Deve7.onment for the Los Angeles County
-5-
Role of Cities and Counties (Cont'd)
Regional Planning District, published by ,The Regional Planning Commis-
sion, County of Los Angeles, June 1940. The City Engineer of Los
Angeles at that time recommended:
That the various departments of the local municipalities,
the County of Los Angeles, and the State government., arhich
have ,jurisdiction over, or interests in, the beaches and
tidelands, meet and formulate plans for centralizing control
over the beaches and tidelands of Santa Monica Bay.
Elsewhere in this report, reference has been made to the Madigan-Hyland
Engineer and Economic Report on Beach Development, submitted to the
City of Los Angeles in 1949, which contained a recommendation for
establishment of a special recreation and harbor district as a regional
authority for the financing and operation of beaches of the Santa
Monica Bay (3:142).
On the roles of local government in the provision of public recreation,
the California Public Outdoor Recreation Plan (1,=:75) states:
County government should be the primary supplier of day-use
(Zone 2) recreation facilities within the county when they
are used largely by its residents.
At its Board of Directors I~ieeting o£ January 26, 1963, the League
of California Cities adopted a statement on Park and Recreation
Principles for Cities containing guiding principles for cities to
meet the leisure needs of•their citizens. ^1 he League's policy docu-
ment contained. a statement on recreation responsibilities of counties
which is identical t~rith a statement approved in ivovember of 1960 by
the County Super<risors Association of Ca ifornia in its annual meeting.
Both organizations agree on the folio*aing principle:
County government should be the primary supplier of day-use
regional recreation facilities within the county, when such
facilities are intended for general use throughout the county.
The Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County adopted cn January 20,
1959, a Regional Recreation Are2.s Flan Fer Los Angeles County which
included a definition o. regiona recreation areas b: as follows.:
A Regional Recreation Area is an extent of space, which, by
its unique features and unusual and/or extensive development,
affords recreational opportunities that attract large patron-
age from many sections cf the region irrespective of political,
physical, or community boundaries.
This same statement :~ras agreed upon. as a i~rorking definition by the
Beach Operations Study Comr;ittee for use in this report.
-~-
'Range in Pay for Lifeguard Services
Monthly pay ranges in positions for lifeguard supervisors and
permanent lifeguards and hourly pay levels for temporary or seasonal
guards vary widely among the five major beach operation agencies
in the Los Angeles area. '
The middle point of each pay range for permanent lifeguard positions
deviates among operating agencies as follows: Los Angeles County,
$oll, Long Beach City Sb568; Los Angeles City, ?549; ~d Santa Monica,
X486 -- a spread from 'nigh to low of $b1,500 per-year for .guards whose
beaches may adjoin each other. Santa Monica-City is X68 below the
average of X554 per month for four jurisdictions.
Approximately 350 seasonal or temporary lifeguards might be employed
by the three cities, the County and the State during the months of
June, July, August and September. The pay of two of these young men
could vary as much as X107 for 22 eight-hour days in a work month if
one was employed by the State at Carrillo State Beach, i~rhere the
hourly pay is $2.54, and the other were employed at Zuma County
Beach at the rate of ~3a15 per hour. Based on the average hourly
rate of X2.82 for the coastal shoreline guard service, Zang Beach,
Santa Monica and the State Division of Baaches ar~d Parks are from o¢
to 28¢ belo~rr average. The City of Los Angeles and the County are
1`]¢ and 33¢ above the average.
This ineo_uality in pay leads to expensive competition for personnel
among operating agencies ar_d could produce a morale problem among
neighboring civil service employees.
Beach Eouipment (P°iaintenan_ce)
In the event that any ti•:o or more of the present beach operating
agencies decided to consolidate their beach operation functions,
savings to taxpayers could result at the time when present oquipment
is re-distributed or .corn out and new equipment is required.
G~rrently available equipment could serve much larger beach areas.
Beach Ordinances
No sir_gle operating agency has adopted all these regulations. Beach
administrators are a~•rare of present confusion as a result oz
variations in these regulations from one jurisdiction to another;
and the benefits accruing to the public from more uniformity in
regulationse
Fx~enditures
-The 1cj62-63 tax outgo from beach users as well as from other
citizens in the Los =_ngeles region ref le cted a direct reset expendi-
tures for beach services of $>2,12~,550 (not including beach
administrative overhead)e Of this cost, 5~1,0~4,334 was distributed
among the property owners of the cities of Hermosa Beach, I•ong Beach,
Santa lonica and Los Angclesy X1,042,269 was paid by otimers residing
in cities and in unincorporated comr~a~ritics of the Co-anty and
~k11,05~ came out of State revenues< If t?e cost of beach operation
were distributed equally to each individual of the 605 million
population of the County, it would amount to 32.7 cents per person
for the 1°,6?_-63 fiscal year.
_7_
A county-wide tax levy of Oo77 cents for the County general fund was
required to raise ,41,042,269 for County beach operations and its
beach subventions to the cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Santa
Monica and Avalon in 1962-63o Since beach operations are provided
out of general fur_ds, the cost of beaches does not appear as a
separate tax levy in cities or in the County. In addition to the
county-wide rate of 0.77 cents for operation of beaches, property
owners of four cities pay city taxes for the same purpose in amounts
equal to these ta.-c rate-s: Santa Monica, 0.13 cents; Los Angeles City,
1.12 cents; Hermosa Beach City, 2.25 cents and Long Beach, 6.82 cents.
As a consequence, taxpayers in the four cities pay for 'beach opera-'
bons at a combined city-county rate of Oo90 cents in Santa Monica;
1.89 cents in Los Angeles City; 3®02 cents in Hermosa Beach; and
7.59 cents in Long Beach. Ta.Y rates cited above, in relation to the
general funds of cities or the County, a_re based on the 1963 county-
wide property valuations as assessed by the Los Angeles County
Assessor. However, the City of Long Beach makes its own valuation
for the purpose of deter~ining its tax levy for all functions of
that city.
Comparative Exoer_ditures (Net C~s't)
One indice, "beach operation upi.t" used as a basis for comparing one
beach orith another, has been developed in the study as the product of
beach area, expressed in acres, a_nd the lineal feet of usable shore-
line, divided by an arbitrary factor of 100,000 for ease in analysis.
of resulting figureso From this index, tahich has been tested out in
the study of beach operations{ net operating costs of beaches
(direct cost less^r_et reration un~t as1follows1OnLospAngeles~City,
to maximum per be~.cn op..
X1,455 per unit; Los Angeles County, x3,708; Long Beach, ~~6,519;
State Division of Beaches and Parks, N11,057; Santa Monica, ~+r~+,737=
A county-snide average of ~~2,736 per beach operation unit and a median
of $3,708, t~itn. a considerable spread in the results from low tb high
are reflected by this method of comparisono Relatively similas ratios
obtain with the use of either acres or lineal feet as the comparative
measuring unit.
Contract Ser-vices
Although it is legally appropriate for the City to contract with
the County to ad.^iinister all of the County's beaches, such a plan
is not feasible or proposed because of the dominant regional
characteristics of ocean beaches and emergency of county government
as the supplier of regional recreation areas and services.
~ 1961 study by the Bureau of Governmental Resoarch, University of
California at Los t~ngeles noted that large recreation parks,
reservations, beaches and other special recreation eseas, and parks'rays
were facilities serving an area-wide clientele ar~d that the cost and
benefits of these facilities are thereby inter-community in scope
C5:107; 14:72)° The authors of the publication on the allocation
of functions in metropolitan type services (Beatrice Dinerman,
Ross Clayton, Richard Da Ycrby) recommended the creation of a single
fund for financing these faclhtics~ '~~.cre possible a unitary
administratior_ should be set up for oper_aion, engineering, construc-
t7.On, mal.ntCnc.21CE'., pla.Ylning c^.nd buS].neSS management Of area-L'ride
recreation facilities and program.
8 _
°The County as A~ crt o~F the State
A third level of inter-governmental action between cities and the
County developed from the role of a county as an agent of the Staten
In this respect, citizens look to Los Angeles County for administra-
tion of superior, municipal and justice courts . control and issuance
of birth certificates, marriages licenses and death certificates;
services of a coroner and, more recently, the distribution of State
highway fundso
Neither the County or the cities ale required by State law to
administer ocean beaches; however, both the City and the County of
Los Ar_geles (as well as Long Beach and Santa T•Tonica chic-s) have,
on their own volition, contracted with the State to finance and
admiinister the operation of State oumed beacheso
Both parties seem to be satisfied faith this arrangements The
opposite alternative of this plan, whereby the State v,ould finance
and ad_*cinister services on belches of Los ~';ngeles City and Los
Angeles County, is also a possibilitye In other parts of the State,
the State Division of Beaches and Parks already ad~r-misters beach
services on State Beacheso Hov:ever, in line ~,•ith the tradition of
local government in Los .iingeles to retain control of public recrea-
tion function, a plan for State operation of city and county beaches:
is not considered desir~.bleo
Special Districts
Flood control ar_d County sanitation Districts illustrate a fourth
type of county-city relationships in tahich the County Board of
Supervisors constitutes the governing body of a special district
in which cities have membership or in t:~ich districts have close
relationships tiaith elected city officia~so Related to this plan
was the solution to the ocean beach develcp~aent and administration
problem, strongly recommended in 1949 as an outcome of the compre-
hensive T•ladigan-~iyland (Beach) Fn~ine~?nf ~s?d Economic Report tc
the City of Los :~n~elese Creation o~ a regional recre~.tion and
harbor special district, by vote of the people, cans proposed with
boundaries including t~r;o-thirds of 1cs A~eles Countyo Such a
district would have embodied the pot,~er to levy taxes and, by vote
of the electors, could have issued general obligation bonds "to
acquire; develop, administer and maintain a compreher_sive system
of shoreline beaches, parks, pleasure trait herbors a_nd other
appurtenant facilitieso"
The establishracnt of a special recreation ~^.nd park district, since
it would actually add a~oiher ls~er of governmcn_t i_n the Los Angeles
region, does not sec;i feasible or desirable in the solution of the
beach ^dminist;ration and financir_g problem,
--9-
SUlII`~',RY OFD FSi`ID1NGS
Administration of Beaches as Regional Resources
1. Governmental agencies provide beaches, complementary aquatic
programs and maintenance, not because this action is required
by State Lair, but by choice and voluntary action consistent with
the public demand for beach services a_nd with full support from
citizens of the cities and the bounty of Los Angeles.
c. S~zbstantial agreement has been reached that an oce~ beach should
be classed as a regional recreation area because of its extent of
space, unique features. and unusual or extensive development, .
affording recreational opportunities attracting patronage from
many sections of a region irrespective of_po7.itical, physical or
community boundaries.
3. Although State-wide organizations of City and of County officials
agree, respectively, that "County government should be the primary
supplier of day use regional recreation facilities i~rithin the
County, *J+hen such facilities are intended for use throughout the
County," jurisdicticns are not ex~aected to immediately make abrupt
changes in their administrative patterns or to ignore the home
rule concept.
Structures a:~r l Eeuipment
1. Approximately thirty different items of the permanent equipment
are required by lifeguards in the protection of beach users and by
maintenance personnel for the care of 1,31 acres of public beach.
2. A majority of these modern devices, pln'chased, maintained and used
by any one of the three beach operating cities or the County,
are of sufficient capacity to service considerably more beach
area than presently administered by any one of the jurisdictions.
Beach Regulations
1. References to about forty items relating to individual a_nd group
behavior on beaches are found in regulations adopted for the
protection of beach users ar~d for the control of ocean beach
properties by throe cities, the Couniy and the State Park
Commission.
2. ~TUSisdictions differ in the regulations established, and
administered for thou respective beaches. 'T'his leads to
confusion and misunderstanding by many beach users who usually
are not a,~are of the different operating jurisdictions or any
basis o° differing regulatienso
10
Revenues and~penditures
1s l~oS Angeles City property owners pay taxes to the City at the
rate of 1.12¢ per one hundred dollars of assessed valuation for
the net operation costs of its City beaches, and also pay the
County 0.'T7¢ per one hundred dollars valuation for County
operated beaches, As a consequence, the combined City-County
rate within the City (1.890 has a ratio to the rate paid by the
rest of the County (0.']']~) of 205 to 1 (with exception of Long
Beach, Santa itonica and Hermosa each which also spend city funds
on beach operations)m
CONChUSIODTS
la Because of the close inter-relatedness of lifeguard services and
other'. beach services, it is not considered feasible to transfer
the Los Angeles City beach lifeguard services to the County of
Zos Angeles.
2® -There is substantial evidence and agreement that ocean beaches
may be classified as regional recreation resourceso
3. There is substantial evidence and support fcr county government
to be the primary supplier of regional recreation areaso
4® Among the various beach operating agencies there appears to be
very little if ayny uniformity or coordination with respect to
standards of serv~.ce, beach operating regulations, use of
equipment, operating costs aid financing of beaches, or
development of shoreline resources.
5. A reasonable or equitable formula for the present allocations
from the County of Los Angeles to the cities for operating
public beaches is not preser_tly being used.
6. There is a great variance in the beach "operating unit" costs
among the five major beach operating agencies.
~. The Los Angeles city ta~rpayer pays approximately two and a half
times as much for beach services as the non-beach city taxpayer.
- 11 -
SELECTED REFERENCES REGARDING TIC RELATION OF
GOVERIQI`~PT`P AGENCIES TO REGIONAL RECREATION AREAS
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC OUTDOOR RECREATION PL_4N, Part I
March 25, 1960, Sacramento, California
"County government should be the primary supplier of day-use
(Zone 2) recreation facilities yri.thin the county when they are used
largely by its residentso When day-use of a state, federal or
other agency's recreation area is largely by residents of a given
county, that county should chase planning, financial, or other
responsibilities frith the land managing agency o"
"Recreation and County Government
County government should be the primary supplier of day-use
regional recreation facilities witnsn the county, when such
facilities are intended for general use throughout the countyo"
PECREATION POLICY FOR COITivI'IES, Officially adopted at the
Annual fleeting of~the Cour_ty Supervisors Association of
California in ~iTovember, 19600
"State Feder^7 R~-creation Responsibilities
Glhen the character of State and federally operated recreation
areas cha~lge to day-use largely by residents of a given county,
the State a_nd Federal governments should give consideration to
offering such areas to county governments for operationo
REGIONAZ RECREATION ~~RFA- STUDY, .(Mono, Santa Barbara,
San Bernardino, Kerr, Lnyo, Orange, Ventura, San Diego,
riverside, Los Angeles, Imperial Counties} published by
The Inter-County Recreation Planning Committee, T'iilton
Breivogel, Chairman; released November, 1963°
"An additional facet of the problem is that the regional
recreation resources of the entire Southern California areas use
used by recreation seekers ti~rithout regard for jurisdictional
boundarieso This situation affects not only county governmental
agencies but al7_ govern~-nertal agencies and private interest tahich are
concerned Frith the planning, operation, and development of recreation
facilitiesa
"Thus, an iz,nortar_t administrative aspect of the problem is the
development of workable proced-ares Jrhich will assure a cooperative
and coordinate°d approach by all agencies concerned in solving the
problemm"
°r~onaq T~:npzn-cpu? auk.
~u?~~sado so ~u?urao auo aq~ uerj~. .zau~o suo"C~oTps ?sn~ uz saouap?sas
~osd aAOO sa~onaq ~soII ~o ssasn auk. zo asn+uaosad~u~?u ~ 2-~uq
~.uap?tea s? ~.? `(aa~~ ;~~o~ auk. aso?aq raou) sad~d ~scr-, ,zau~ou2 uI
„°~~unoo aka ~nor.~`3nosuq asn so? papua~.u? asp sa?2zT?out eons
uauM1: '~~.unoo a~2 u?u~?.+~ sat~tT?o~~ Z~uo?~~asoas Tnuo?has asn-gyp
so sa?Tadns lsa~?sd~au~. aq PTnogs ~uaAU.za~o~ ~'~.unop„
se '~~uso~?Tn~ ,Io uo?~.n?ooss~
~?uzo3?Tn~ To an~~aZ a~~ agog l~q
~o?Tod u? s.z~adda uo?~easoas
u? sa?~.unoo pug sa?~.?o Io aTos
sMOTTo,~
ssos ~nsadng l~rTno~ akq pun sa?~.?~
~anoscidn uaaq annq go?un, squaumoop
o?Tgnd sod sa?~?T?q?suodsas .z?ar{~.
auq uo ~.uaIIa~.~~?s auo `puooaS
,~°sa?s~punoq ~~?rm~oo so
Tea?s~kd 'T~o?~?Tod ~o an?~oadsass? uoz~as au~.,~o suo?goas lu~ua
~:es,~ a~euos ; ~d rto~s~.~ ~ q~Ti1 sa?a.?u-n~soddo T~uo ?~.nasaas spso,?~~
quarudoTanap an?suaaxa so~pTsa Z~nsnun pug sasns~a~ anb?un s~.? l~q
'uozkM aopds ~o ~.ua ~~a uH s? nase uc?~~asoas Teruo?has d„
- f~quno~ saTa~uy soZ ~o sa?sapunoq au?. rc?g~?M
sauo~aq usaoo o?Tgnd auq $o ~.soA aq?sosap F_Ta?2nbape c~ ss~add~
„~~uno~ saTa~u~ soZ usld snas=r uo?~Lasoag Teruo?fag„ ~ua~,moop a~~.
u? pau?~~uoo „'~a.z~ uo?q~asoas Tauo?Sas„ ~o uo?*?u?dap ~ `ass?d
°sac{oeaq u~aoo ozTgnd
To uo?~tsado ar~~ ~o ~pn~.s s,aa~.~-~op aq~. o~ ars?~.eTas sou?pu?~
~.uso?d?u9?s sTuaaas 'anoq~ pad.?o 'saouasaTas ,?o rna?ryas ~
SZZT~d00
(pZ °d} „°~ff no?uo~ ~~ueg 3o spueTap?~. pue sa~o~aq a~~. sano Tosquoo
~u ~z?T~:~~.uoo so? s1r Td a~ ~TnIISOI pu'e taa~ `P~TaP?q Pus sa~{ouaq
auk `u? s~sasa~u? so `nano uo?~.o?pstsnC a~~~ uo?u,~ '~uactusano~
a~n~S aT~~- pug `saTa~u~ soZ ~o ~~.-ano~ auk 'sa?q?T~d?o?unA T~ooT aLT~- do
s~.ua~~.u dap sno?s2a aqq q~uq , `~o?sqs?Q aozaa~ aPq u? sa~{onag aP~. ~o
uo?sosg uo gsodag, s?u uz papuas~ooas sau saTa~u~ sot ~o saau?duff
~~?p aur, °~??soP~n~ alp?sq so .sod s o~ s~T?rats ~ssarnod ~uosgs
1Ssa1L ~q?:~ ~q?sou~.ma T~2as ~ aq PTnous s?us °papaau s? ~q?so~[gnV
auzTasouS paz?T~s~uao a ~~uq uo?~~az?T~as ~rnos~ ~ s? asaus„
°O~oT aunt 'saau?~u~ ~azu~ 'xo1 °r ~e?TT?M
`~?uso~?~~ `saTa~uu scxl ~o ~~uro~ 'rio?ss?trop ~u?atraTd
T~uoz~ag aul, ' SSIdSSIZ ~ISLiIrdZd Z~i~OIS'3~i ~~TI10~ S'~T3~JI~T~T -
SO'I ,~'iIiT, ~I03 SI~IZL,~idQI3A~'3Q 311IZ?~iOHS ,CIO I~LfPId ct'3~T,S~1Ld ~3~Ti .
-zT-
~~ P
~~
~ O~
t~
r. ~
V
.!A
K
'.17
May 28, 1974
T0: Mayor Clo Hoover and Members of the Santa Monica City Council
N
At the Board of Directors meeting this morning a resolution was
unanimously passed urging the City Council to turn the Santa Monica
Lifeguard Services over to Los Angeles County inaccordance with
proposals which have been discussed and agreed to by county and city
representatives.
The Board of Directors feels that the uniformity of services, as
well as the financial benefits to the City, warrant this action at
this time.
Cordially,
C_ _
(,` `~
Sam Porter, CCE
Executive Vice President
SP:np
Serving the Santa lNonica Bay Rrea 200 Santa Konica Boulevard, Santa Konica, California 90401 = (213) 393-9825