Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
2010 OCT 05 - CC PACKETAGENDA
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 350 Main Street
The City Council, with certain statutory exceptions, can only take action upon properly posted and listed
agenda items. Any writings or documents given to a majority of the City Council regarding any matter on
this agenda that the City received after issuing the agenda packet are available for public inspection in
the City Clerk's office during normal business hours. Such Documents may also be posted on the City's
website at www.elsegundo.org and additional copies will be available at the City Council meeting.
Unless otherwise noted in the Agenda, the Public can only comment on City - related business that is
within the jurisdiction of the City Council and /or items listed on the Agenda during the Public
Communications portions of the Meeting. Additionally, the Public can comment on any Public Hearing
item on the Agenda during the Public Hearing portion of such item. The time limit for comments is five (5)
minutes per person.
Before speaking to the City Council, please come to the podium and state: Your name and residence
and the organization you represent, if desired. Please respect the time limits.
Members of the Public may place items on the Agenda by submitting a Written Request to the City Clerk
or City Manager's Office at least six days prior to the City Council Meeting 2:00
Tuesday). The request must include a brief general description of the business to be transacted rlor
discussed at the meeting. Playing of video tapes or use of visual aids may be permitted during meetings if
they are submitted to the City Clerk two (2) working days prior to the meeting and they do not exceed five
(5) minutes in length.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to
participate in this meeting, please contact City Clerk, 524-2305. Notification 48 hours prior to the
meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this
meeting.
REGULAR MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2010 — 5:00 P.M.
Next Resolution # 4685
Next Ordinance # 1448
5:00 P.M. SESSION
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION — (Related to City Business Only — 5 minute limit per
person, 30 minute limit total) Individuals who have received value of $50 or more to communicate
to the City Council on behalf of another, and employees speaking on behalf of their employer, must so
identify themselves prior to addressing the City Council. Failure to do so shall be a misdemeanor and
punishable by a fine of $250.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
CLOSED SESSION:
The City Council may move into a closed session pursuant to applicable law, including
the Brown Act (Government Code Section §54960, et seq.) for the purposes of
conferring with the City's Real Property Negotiator, and /or conferring with the City
Attorney on potential and /or existing litigation; and /or discussing matters covered under
Government Code Section §54957 (Personnel); and /or conferring with the City's Labor
Negotiators; as follows:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION (Gov't Code
§54956.9(a) -1- matter
1. City of El Segundo vs. City of Los Angeles, et. al. LASC Case No. BS094279
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(b): -0-
potential case (no further public statement is required at this time); Initiation of litigation
pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(c): -0- matter.
APPOINTMENT AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE
(Gov't. Code § 54957) -0- matter
CONFERENCE WITH CITY'S LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54957.6): -2-
matters
1. Represented Group: Police Support Services Employees Association (PSSEA),
City Employees Association (CEA), Firefighters Association (FFA), Police
Managers Association (PMA), Police Officers Association (POA), Supervisory
and Professional Employees (S &P)
Negotiators: Jack Wayt, Bob Hyland and Richard Kreisler
2. Unrepresented Group: Management Confidential Group
Negotiator: Jack Wayt
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54956.8): -0-
matters
2 �.�U�
AGENDA
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 350 Main Street
The City Council, with certain statutory exceptions, can only take action upon properly posted and listed
agenda items. Any writings or documents given to a majority of the City Council regarding any matter on
this agenda that the City received after issuing the agenda packet, are available for public inspection in
the City Clerk's office during normal business hours. Such Documents may also be posted on the City's
website at www.elsegundo.org and additional copies will be available at the City Council meeting.
Unless otherwise noted in the Agenda, the Public can only comment on City - related business that is
within the jurisdiction of the City Council and /or items listed on the Agenda during the Public
Communications portions of the Meeting. Additionally, the Public can comment on any Public Hearing
item on the Agenda during the Public Hearing portion of such item. The time limit for comments is five (5)
minutes per person.
Before speaking to the City Council, please come to the podium and state: Your name and residence
and the organization you represent, if desired. Please respect the time limits.
Members of the Public may place items on the Agenda by submitting a Written Request to the City Clerk
or City Manager's Office at least six days prior to the City Council Meeting (by 2:00 p.m. the prior
Tuesday). The request must include a brief general description of the business to be transacted or
discussed at the meeting. Playing of video tapes or use of visual aids may be permitted during meetings if
they are submitted to the City Clerk two (2) working days prior to the meeting and they do not exceed five
(5) minutes in length.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to
participate in this meeting, please contact City Clerk, 524-2305. Notification 48 hours prior to the
meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this
meeting.
REGULAR MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2010 - 7:00 P.M.
Next Resolution # 4685
7:00 P.M. SESSION Next Ordinance # 1448
CALL TO ORDER
INVOCATION — Lee Carlile, United Methodist Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Council Member Suzanne Fuentes
3
PRESENTATIONS
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - (Related to City Business Only - 5 minute limit per
person, 30 minute limit total) Individuals who have received value of $50 or more to communicate
to the City Council on behalf of another, and employees speaking on behalf of their employer, must so
identify themselves prior to addressing the City Council. Failure to do so shall be a misdemeanor and
punishable by a fine of $250. While all comments are welcome, the Brown Act does not allow Council to
take action on any item not on the agenda. The Council will respond to comments after Public
Communications is closed.
A. PROCEDURAL MOTIONS
Consideration of a motion to read all ordinances and resolutions on the
Agenda by title only.
Recommendation - Approval.
B. SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS (PUBLIC HEARING)
Consideration and possible action to conduct a Public Hearing
regarding operating and capital outlay requests of $100,000 from the
existing Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) Supplement Law
Enforcement Services Funds (SLESF) account by the Chief of Police.
The grant requires that expenditures be utilized to supplement "front
line law enforcement." Front line law enforcement includes funding
special enforcement details, and purchasing equipment. (Fiscal Impact:
$100,000 from COPS grant fund)
Recommendation - (1) Open the public hearing to consider funding request
from Chief of Police; (2) Discussion; (3) Adopt Resolution approving the use
of COPS grant funds to purchase equipment related to supplementation of
front line law enforcement'; (4) Alternatively, discuss and take other action
related to this item.
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
2. Consideration and possible action regarding Adoption of a Resolution
providing another designated Retirement Period for Section 20903, Two
Years Additional Service Credit, for local miscellaneous members.
Fiscal Impact: Presented at Council Meeting of September 21, 2010)
Recommendation - (1) Adopt the Resolution; (2) Alternatively, discuss and
take other action related to this item.
3. Consideration and possible action to approve the preliminary
Proposition 218 documents and direct staff to commence the
Proposition 218 protest procedures regarding implementation of
residential trash (solid waste) collection fees. (Fiscal Impact: $20,000 for
ballot mailing; Potential Fiscal Impact: Approximately $560,700 annual
trash collection revenue)
Recommendation — (1) Approve notice to residents regarding proposed
residential trash collection fees and protest ballot language; (2) Determine
and approve a schedule for mailing proposed notices and protest ballots and
public hearing date to tabulate protest ballot results and consider imposing
residential trash collection fees; (3) Alternatively, discuss and take other
action related to this item.
4. Consideration and possible action regarding 1) approval of an
Environmental Assessment for a proposed Statutory Exemption; 2)
adoption of Public Facilities Impact Fees for Police, Fire, Library, and
Parks Facilities; and 3) introduce and waive first reading of an
ordinance to amend El Segundo Municipal Code (ESMC) §15- 27A -6(D)
and §15- 27A -6(E) regulating collection of impact fees. Applicant: City
Initiated (Fiscal Impact: Increased Fee Revenue from Police, Fire, and
Library Public Facilities Impact Fees and Establishment of New Parks
Impact Fees)
Recommendation — (1) Discussion; (2) Adopt a Resolution establishing Public
Facilities Impact Fees; (3) Introduce and waive first reading of an ordinance
amending ESMC §15- 27A -6(D) and §15- 27A -6(E); (4) Alternatively, discuss
and take other action related to this item.
D. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS
E. CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed are to be adopted by one motion without discussion and passed unanimously. If a call for
discussion of an item is made, the item(s) will be considered individually under the next heading of
business.
5. Warrant Numbers 2579099 to 2579302 on Register No. 24 in the total
amount of $852,049.91 and Wire Transfers from 09/10/10 through
09/23/10 in the total amount of $829,968.83.
Recommendation — Approve Warrant Demand Register and authorize staff to
release. Ratify: Payroll and Employee Benefit checks; checks released early
due to contracts or agreement; emergency disbursements and /or
adjustments; and wire transfers.
6. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of September 21, 2010
Recommendation —Approval.
7. Consideration and possible action to adopt Ordinance No. 1447
approving Environmental Assessment EA 884, Zone Text Amendment
ZTA 10 -05, and Specific Plan Text Amendment SPTA 10 -02 to amend the
El Segundo Municipal Code ( "ESMC") to establish regulations for
assembly hall uses; to amend the permitted and conditionally permitted
uses in various zones; and amend the permitted and conditionally
permitted uses within the Downtown Specific Plan. (Fiscal Impact:
None)
Recommendation — (1) Waive second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1447
for Environmental Assessment EA 884, Zone Text Amendment ZTA 10 -05,
and Specific Plan Text Amendment 10 -02; (2) Alternatively, discuss and take
other action related to this item.
8. Consideration and possible action regarding approval of a side letter
between the City of El Segundo and the El Segundo Supervisory and
Professional Employees Association regarding the severance package
for laid off employees. (Fiscal Impact: $16,390)
Recommendation — (1) Approve the Side Letter between the City of El
Segundo and City of El Segundo Supervisory and Professional Employees
Association; (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this
item.
9. Consideration and possible action regarding approval of a side letter
between the City of El Segundo and the El Segundo Police Support
Services Employees Association regarding the severance package for
laid off employee. (Fiscal Impact: $3,753.26)
Recommendation — (1) Approve the Side Letter between the City of El
Segundo and City of El Segundo Police Support Services Employees
Association; (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this
item.
10. Consideration and possible action regarding salary and benefit
concessions for FY 2010/2011 by the City of El Segundo Supervisory
and Professional Employees Association. (Fiscal Impact: Estimated
Savings of $312,885.96 for FY 2010/2011)
Recommendation — (1) Approve the side letter between the City of El
Segundo and City of El Segundo City Supervisory and Professional
Employees Association; (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action
related to this item.
11. Consideration and possible action regarding an amendment to the
previously approved Professional Services Agreements with Kimley-
Horne Associates to provide traffic engineering services related to the
El Segundo Aquatics Site Feasibility Study California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) review. (Fiscal Impact: up to $11,300 Special
Revenue Fund — Aquatics Facility Fund)
Recommendation — (1) Approve a budget appropriation of up to $11,300 to
provide additional traffic engineering services; (2) Authorize the City Manager
to execute an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement for traffic
engineering services and approved as to form by the City Attorney in an
amount not to exceed $11,300; (3) Alternatively, discuss and take other
action related to this item.
CALL ITEMS FROM CONSENT AGENDA
F. NEW BUSINESS
12. Consideration and possible action regarding the approval of
amendment to the Plan of Operations as proposed by the El Segundo
Senior Citizens Housing Corporation Board at its July 2010 meeting.
This item offers further review of staffs findings of the three items in
question at the September 7, 2010 City Council Meeting. (Fiscal Impact:
None)
Recommendation — (1) Approval of the amended Plan of Operations; (2)
Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
G. REPORTS — CITY MANAGER
H. REPORTS — CITY ATTORNEY
I. REPORTS - CITY CLERK
J. REPORTS - CITY TREASURER
K. REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Fuentes -
Council Member Brann -
Council Member Jacobson -
Mayor Pro Tern Fisher -
Mayor Busch -
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - (Related to City Business Only - 5 minute limit per
person, 30 minute limit total) Individuals who have receive value of $50 or more to communicate
to the City Council on behalf of another, and employees speaking on behalf of their employer, must so
identify themselves prior to addressing the City Council. Failure to do so shall be a misdemeanor and
punishable by a fine of $250. While all comments are welcome, the Brown Act does not allow Council to
take action on any item not on the agenda. The Council will respond to comments after Public
Communications is closed.
MEMORIALS -
CLOSED SESSION
The City Council may move into a closed session pursuant to applicable law, including the Brown Act
(Government Code Section §54960, at sea.) for the purposes of conferring with the City's Real Property
Negotiator; and /or conferring with the City Attorney on potential and /or existing litigation; and /or
discussing matters covered under Government Code Section §54957 (Personnel); and /or conferring with
the City's Labor Negotiators.
REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION (if required)
ADJOURNMENT
POSTED:
DATE: cl C cgq ho
TIME: �'Y1
NAME: n ►s
9 � 0 O
,
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: October 5, 2010
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Special Orders of Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to conduct a Public Hearing regarding operating and
capital outlay requests of $100,000 from the existing Citizens Option for Public Safety
(COPS) Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF) account by the Chief of
Police. The grant requires that expenditures be utilized to supplement "front line law
enforcement." Front line law enforcement includes funding special enforcement details,
and purchasing equipment. (Fiscal Impact: $100,000 from COPS grant fund)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Open Public Hearing to consider funding requests from the Chief of Police;
2. Discussion;
3. Adopt Resolution approving the use of COPS grant funds to purchase equipment
related to supplementation of "front line law enforcement."
4. Alternatively discuss and take other action related to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
Draft Resolution
FISCAL IMPACT: Included in Adopted Budget
Amount Budgeted: $100,000
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): 120- 400 - 0000 -3207
ORIGINATED BY:
Brian Evanski, Lieutenant
REVIEWED BY:
Mitch Tavera, Chief of Po
APPROVED BY:
Jack Wayt, City Manager
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
In 1996, the Legislature adopted Government Code §§ 30061 to 30064 to provide a block grant
for law enforcement purposes. This legislation, known as the Citizens Option for Public Safety
(COPS), requires a public hearing to consider the expenditure of funds.
In July 2010, the City was awarded $100,000 in COPS grant funds. All funds received under
this grant must be utilized to supplement law enforcement activities and cannot be used to
supplant existing funding. In the past, the funds have been used to purchase equipment directly
used in "front line law enforcement" including replacement handguns, less -than- lethal shotguns,
tasers, DUI enforcement, and mobile data computers.
It is anticipated that these monies will be utilized during the upcoming fiscal year to purchase
similar equipment and fund specialized enforcement plans. Proposed purchases of equipment or
use of these funds must be approved by Council. Staff recommends the following items for
approval by Council as possible utilizations to be made with the COPS grant funds.
1. Overtime funding for special enforcement details.
2. Purchase computer training/video conferencing equipment.
3. Purchase personnel and training management software.
4. Upgrade the Watch Commander Office.
5. Purchase night vision technology.
6. Purchase police radios for Area Commander Program.
7. Upgrade and enhance armored rescue vehicle.
8. Purchase portable computer technologies such as iPad.
IL
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE CITIZENS OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS)
PROGRAM.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the city of El Segundo as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds as follows:
A. Senate Bill 823 (SB 823) (Poochigian — Local law enforcement funding) was
chaptered into law on April 6, 2002 for supplemental local law enforcement
funding pursuant to the bill;
B. SB 823 provides $100,000,000 statewide for the Citizens for Public Safety
(COPS) Program;
C. The County of Los Angeles has established a Supplemental Law Enforcement
Service Fund (SLESF) in accordance with Section 30061 of the Government
Code to receive SB 823 funds which have been allocated for use in Los Angeles
County;
D. The City of El Segundo participates in the COPS Program and receives its share
of any funds available for the purpose of ensuring public safety; and
E. The City has established its own Supplemental Law Enforcement Service Fund
(SLESF) in accordance with Section 30061 of the Government Code;
F. The City Council has conducted a public hearing to consider funding requests
from the Chief of Police and shall determine the submitted requests as required
by SB 823.
SECTION 2: The City Council directs that the City maintain its own Supplemental Law
Enforcement Service Fund (SLESF) as required pursuant to Government Code §§ 30061 and
30063.
SECTION 3. The City Council requests that the City's share of the funding be allocated to
SLESF for purposes of front -line law enforcement.
SECTION 4: The City Clerk is directed to certify the adoption of this Resolution; record this
Resolution in the book of the City's original resolutions; and make a minute of the adoption of
the Resolution in the City Council's records and the minutes of this meeting.
SECTION 5: This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and will remain
effective unless repealed or superseded.
SECTION 6: The City Clerk is directed to certify the adoption of this Resolution; record this
Resolution in the book of the City's original resolutions; and make a minute of the adoption of
the Resolution in the City Council's records and the minutes of this meeting.
SECTION 7: This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and will remain
effective unless repealed or superseded.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this _ day of 12010.
Eric Busch,
Mayor
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
I, Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk of the City of El Segundo, California, hereby certify that the whole
number of members of the City Council of the City is five; that the foregoing Resolution No.
was duly passed and adopted by said City Council, approved and signed by the
Mayor of said City, and attested to by the City Clerk of said City, all at a regular meeting of said
Council held on the day of , 2010, and the same was so passed
and adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Cindy Mortesen,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
By:
Karl H. Berger
Assistant City Attorney
t'la
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 5, 2010
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Unfinished Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding Adoption of a Resolution providing another designated
Retirement Period for Section 20903, Two Years Additional Service Credit, for local miscellaneous
members. (Fiscal Impact: Presented at Council Meeting of September 21, 2010)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Adopt the Resolution.
2. Alternatively discuss and take other action related to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Resolution Providing Another Designated Retirement Period for Section 20903, Two Years
Additional Service Credit, including Exhibit A
FISCAL IMPACT: Presented at Council Meeting of September 21, 2010
Total Fiscal Impact:
Amount Budgeted:
Additional Appropriation: None
Account Number(s): ( ��
ORIGINATED BY: Martha st ; H OEALrces Man
REVIEWED BY: Bob Hyland, Human Resou�ruesirector r
APPROVED BY: Jack Wayt, City
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
On September 21, 2010, Council approved another designated Retirement Period for Section 20903,
Two Years Additional Service Credit for local miscellaneous members and approved expanding the
list of eligible classes, to include Assistant City Manager. Council further certified Compliance with
Government Code Section 20903 and approved a $1,000 payment to eligible employees entering
into a Date - Certain Retirement Separation Agreement with the City.
This item requests Adoption of the Resolution, which formally designates both the job classifications
eligible for this benefit, as well as the retirement period during which the retirement must occur.
Ca1PERS requires that the designated retirement period be no less than 90 days, nor more than 180
days in length. The Designated Retirement Period will be from October 6, 2010 through January 14,
2011.
2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING ANOTHER DESIGNATED
RETIREMENT PERIOD FOR SECTION 20903, TWO YEARS
ADDITIONAL SERVICE CREDIT
The City Council of the City of El Segundo does resolve as follows:
Section 1: The City Council of the City of El Segundo is a contracting public agency of
the Public Employees' Retirement System.
Section 2: The Public Agency desires to provide another designated period for Section
20903, Two Years Additional Service Credit, based on the contract amendment in said
contract which provides for Section 20903, Two Years Additional Service Credit, for eligible
members.
Section 3: Eligible members will be the City's local miscellaneous members, with the
exception of department directors and City Manager, as depicted on the attached Exhibit A.
Section 4: The Designated Retirement Period shall be from October 6, 2010 through
January 14, 2011.
Section 5: The City Clerk is directed to certify the Passage and Adoption of this
Resolution, enter same in the Book of Original Resolutions, and make a Minute of its
adoption in the City's records and in the Minutes of the meeting when it was adopted.
Section 6: The Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption, and will
remain effective unless repealed or superseded.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of October , 2010.
Eric K. Busch,
Mayor
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
I, Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk of the City of El Segundo, California, do hereby certify that
the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing
Resolution No. was duly passed and adopted by said City Council, approved and
signed by the Mayor, and attested to by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of said
Council held on the 5th day of October, 2010, and the same was so passed and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
WITNESS MY HAND THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF SAID CITY this day of
, 2010.
Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk
of the City of El Segundo,
California
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
IN
Karl H. Berger
Assistant City Attorney
U, 10"
EXHIBIT A
TITLE
Accounting Manager
Accounting Technician
Accounts Specialist II
Administrative Analyst
Administrative Specialist
Administrative Technical Specialist
Application Specialist
Assistant City Engineer
Assistant City Manager
Assistant Planner
Associate Engineer
Building Inspector I
Building Inspector II
Building Safety Manager
Business Services Manager
Community Cable Program Manager
Community Cable Program Specialist
Computer Graphics Designer
Construction Coordinator
Crime Prevention Analyst II
Crime Scene Investigator I
Crime Scene Investigator II
Custodian
Deputy City Clerk
Deputy City Treasurer
Emergency Management Coordinator
Engineering Technician
Equipment Maintenance Supervisor
Equipment Mechanic I
Equipment Mechanic II
Executive Assistant
Facilities Maintenance Supervisor
Facilities Systems Mechanic
Fire Equipment Mechanic
Fire Marshal
Fire Prevention Specialist
Fiscal Services Manager
General Services Manager
GIS Analyst
Human Resources Analyst
Human Resources Manager
Information Systems Manager
Librarian I
Librarian II
Library Assistant
Library Clerk I
td ,
Library Clerk II
License /Permit Specialist I
License /Permit Specialist II
Maintenance Craftsworker
Management Analyst
Meter Reader /Repairer
Network Assistant
Network Technician
Office Specialist I
Office Specialist II
Office Specialist II, Human Resources
Park Maintenance Superintendent
Park Maintenance Supervisor
Park Maintenance Worker I
Park Maintenance Worker II
Plan Check Engineer
Planning Manager
Planning Technician
Police Assistant I
Police Assistant II
Police Records Supervisor
Police Services Officer I
Police Services Officer II
Pool Maintenance Technician
Principal Engineer
Principal Environmental Specialist
Principal Planner
Program Coordinator
Project Specialist
Property Owner Coordinator
Public Works Inspector
Purchasing Agent
Records Technician
Recreation Coordinator
Recreation Superintendent
Recreation Supervisor
Residential Sound Insulation Manager
Revenue Inspector
Senior Accountant
Senior Administrative Analyst
Senior Administrative Specialist
Senior Building Inspector
Senior Librarian
Senior Library Assistant
Senior Management Analyst
Senior Plan Check Engineer
Street Maintenance Leadworker
Street Maintenance Supervisor
Street Maintenance Worker II
Technical Services Analyst
I Is
Tree Maintenance Worker
Wastewater Maintenance Leadworker
Wastewater Maintenance Worker II
Wastewater Supervisor
Water Maintenance Leadworker
Water Maintenance Worker I
Water Maintenance Worker II
Water Supervisor
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: October 5, 2010
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Unfinished Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to approve the preliminary Proposition 218 documents
and direct staff to commence the Proposition 218 protest procedures regarding
implementation of residential trash (solid waste) collection fees. (Fiscal Impact: $20,000
for ballot mailing; Potential Fiscal Impact = Approximately $560,700 annual trash
collection revenue.)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Approve notice to residents regarding proposed residential trash collection fees and
protest ballot language.
2. Determine and approve a schedule for mailing proposed notices and protest ballots
and public hearing date to tabulate protest ballot results and consider imposing
residential trash collection fees.
3. Adopt a resolution amending the procedures for mailing, handling and counting of
Proposition 218 protest ballots to include trash (solid waste) fees.
4. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
Draft Notice to Parcel Owners and Protest Ballot for Proposed Residential Trash
FISCAL IMPACT: Budget Adjustment Required
Amount Budgeted: $
Additional Appropriation: Yes $20,000
Account Number(s):
ORIGINATED ,,-
ED BY: Stephanie Katsouleas, Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Mark Hensley, City
Jack Wayt, City Ma
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
The City of El Segundo currently provides weekly residential trash collection services free of
charge to approximately 4475 residential properties (residential properties with four or less
units). These services are currently funded using General Fund monies at an annual cost of
$560,700 (or about $10.44 per property per month per unit). Residential properties with more
than four units and commercial /industrial properties coordinate and pay for their own refuse
collection but can participate in City- sponsored waste collection events and services (e.g., e-
waste, recycled tires, document shredding, green waste drop off) at no charge.
3
L� � u
On September 7, 2010, Council directed staff to prepare Proposition 218 rate notices and protest
ballot materials regarding recovering fees associated with trash collection for residential
properties. In order for the City to consider passing through residential trash collection fees, a
Prop 218 ballot protest process must be undertaken. This process includes, at a minimum:
• Identifying the monthly amount(s) that would charged to residents for weekly trash
collection services for a period not to exceed five years from the date that rates are first
imposed;
• Adopting a resolution amending the procedures for mailing, handling and counting Prop
218 protest ballots to include solid waste fees;
• Conducting a public hearing to tabulate protest ballot and take public testimony regarding
the potential collection of residential trash fees; and
• Consideration of adopting trash fees if a majority of the property owners do not protest
the proposed trash rates.
Once all the necessary ballot materials are approved and mailing commences, the protest ballot
period must run a minimum of 45 days before the council can hold the public hearing. City
Council will then conduct a public hearing to tabulate the protest ballots received and determine
whether to implement a trash collection fee. Because the City's current contract with
Consolidated Disposal Services will expire on July 31, 2011, the fee structure proposed
incorporates current rates as well as anticipated increases based on the new contract to be
awarded next year. Actual fees passed on to residents after August 1, 2011 will depend on the
contract rate obtained when the new fees go into effect, but will not exceed the maximum
amount approved through the protest ballot measure or the actual cost of providing the service.
Proposed Rate Structure
The proposed fee structure identified below is structured into two phases. The first phase will
recuperate approximately $46,719 monthly in General Fund expenditures for residential trash
collection services through July 31, 2011 (under the existing trash contract).
Current Rate (effective through July 31, 2011)
$560,700 Annual Residential Collection Contracted Amount:
4475 Total Number of Homes Served:
$10.44 Total Monthly per Service Address (flat rate):
The second phase will recuperate General Fund expenditures based on a new trash contract,
which becomes effective August 1, 2011. For the notice to residents, staff recommends that
Council determine and approve a future "not to exceed" fee for residential trash collection
services that fully or partially covers expenditures incurred after August 1, 2011. Actual annual
fees would be based on the rate(s) secured in the upcoming five year contract, but would not
exceed the proposed cap set by City Council for the five year duration of this protest ballot
process. In setting these future rates, staff recommends City Council consider two alternative fee
structures, as follows:
Anticipated Future Rate (effective August 1, 2011)
Alternative 1: Set collection fees equally for all residents served. Some cities charge a
basic flat rate for residential trash collection services regardless of the amount generated,
whether the service is manual or automated. For example:
Hermosa Beach $11.57
Torrance $28.16
Lawndale $15.19 (2010 rate)
Manhattan Beach $13.74 (through May, 2011)
Alternative 2: Establish a tiered rate structure according to amount of waste generated.
To encourage recycling and thereby minimize the amount of residential waste going to
landfills, some cities have implemented a tiered rate structure, effectively charging each
residential account a trash collection fee based on the size and number of carts used. For
example:
Hawthorne $18.86 for a 65 -gal cart
$22.06 for 95 -gal cart
Santa Monica $31.61 for a 68- gallon cart
$40.82 for a 95- gallon
Lawndale (2011) $9.35 for a 35- gallon cart
$13.35 for a 60- gallon cart
$17.35 for a 90- gallon
Manhattan Beach New trash RFP includes a tiered rate structure for
(June 2011) 35 -, 64- and 96- gallon containers, effective
Current Fee: Through $10.44 N/A N/A N/A
July 1, 2011
Proposed "Not to
Exceed" Fee: August 1, $16.00 $12.00 $16.00 $20.00
2011-2016
*Additional trash carts would be at an additional cost. For example, a second 65- gallon cart could be an
additional $4.00.
Proposition 218
In November 1995, the California electorate approved Proposition 218 that requires certain
procedures be followed with regard to "property- related" fee increases imposed by governmental
agencies. Trash collection fees are subject to a Proposition 218 "majority protest" ballot process
that provides that if a majority of the residents in the City protest the proposed rate increase the
City cannot impose the increase.
Just as there initially was some disagreement between lawyers and court decisions regarding
which fees were subject to Proposition 218, there is currently a disagreement with respect to the
protest ballot process. Specifically, there is a disagreement amongst attorneys that represent
public agencies (and potentially between the language approved by the voters and some recent
legislation) as to whether tenants that pay for fees covered by Proposition 218 must be afforded
the opportunity to protest proposed fee increases. A couple of years ago the state legislature
attempted to clarify this issue by passing legislation that on its face requires that tenant
customers be afforded the opportunity to protest such fee increases. The City Attorney's Office
believes the legislation is not consistent with Proposition 218 and believes it is potentially invalid
since the language in Proposition 218 stated that the notice regarding the protest process must be
sent to the "record owner" and the owner was the person that had the right to file the protest. In
this particular case where neither record owners nor tenants are currently paying for the service,
it is not possible for the City to know whether the property owner or tenant will be paying for the
service.
Despite the City Attorney's Office opinion on this matter, staff and the City Attorney agree that
the most conservative approach is to send the protest ballots to property owners and to the extent
the property owner's mailing address (as identified on the County Assessor's tax rolls) is
different from the actual property address that will be receiving the trash service, that a ballot
also be mailed to the parcel address receiving the service. The City is only required to count one
protest per parcel. Accordingly, even if both the owner and tenant file a protest, only one protest
shall be counted for purposes of determining whether there is a "majority protest" as described
below.
Proposition 218 requires that the City provide all properties receiving the service for which the
fee is charged (in this case, trash collection services) with a minimum of 45 days written notice
prior to Council holding a public hearing on a proposed rate increase. The property owners (and
now tenants) have the ability to "protest" the proposed rate increase until the close of the public
hearing. If a majority of the parcels file written protests with the City prior to the close of the
public hearing, Proposition 218 states that the City cannot implement the proposed fee. If a
majority of the parcels do not protest the proposed increase, the Council has the authority to
implement the proposed rate increase.
In accordance with Proposition 218 requirements, several steps have been taken to comply with
the law, including the preparation of a draft Notice to Parcel Owners of a Proposed Rate
Increase, Notice of a Public Hearing (date to be determined), and a Schedule of Proposed Trash
Collection Service Fees. Staff will be prepared to produce the required notices and mail them
out to all property owners by November 8, 2010.
Finally, staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution for purposes of amending
the current rules and regulations regarding the process for distributing, processing and counting
protest ballots for purposes of including solid waste fees. The current rules and regulations only
apply to water and wastewater fees as the City did not collect trash fees when the rules and
regulations were adopted. The rules and regulations are consistent with Proposition 218
legislation relating to Proposition 218 and the process outlined above. For example, it states
who will be sent notices and ballots, which department at the City is responsible for receiving
and storing the ballots, the process for counting the ballots, and a process by which replacement
ballots may be requested.
Potential Fiscal Impact
Staff believes that the proposed rates will result in full or nearly full recovery of costs associated
with providing residential trash collection services, thereby reducing the General Fund liability
by more than $550,000 annually.
IMPORTANT NOTICE TO PARCEL OWNERS REGARDING
PROPOSED FEES FOR RESIDENTIAL TRASH COLLECTION SERVICES.
Dear City of El Segundo Property Owner and /or Residential Trash (Solid Waste) Collection
Customer,
Take notice that on [date] at 7:00 p.m., the City Council will conduct a Public Hearing at the
Council Chambers, 350 Main Street, El Segundo, California to consider proposed fees for
residential trash collection services for single and multi - family residential properties that do not
exceed four units. The multi -year fee(s) proposed will offset costs currently paid by the City's
General Fund for trash collection services to these residential properties.
The proposed new rates are provided on the enclosed "Schedule of Proposed Service Charges."
Review these to determine how your specific parcel will be affected. Customers are encouraged
to review this information. Charges are based on the actual service(s) provided to each parcel. If
you have any questions on the proposed trash fee please call (310) 524 -2357 for assistance. Any
trash fee, if enacted, will take effect no earlier than January 1, 2011.
*The City's current trash hauler contract expires on July 31, 2011. The City will be seeking bids from qualified
haulers and awarding a new contract to commence on August 1, 2011. The rate charged to residents will be based
upon the actual amount charged by the trash hauler but shall not exceed this amount.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION: If you oppose this residential trash collection fee and wish
to protest this action, you must do so in writing before the close of the public hearing on [date].
If you do not oppose the fee, no response is necessary. A majority protest exists if, at the close
of the Public Hearing, there are valid written protests submitted on behalf of a majority of the
properties subject to the fee. A majority protest will result in the fee not being imposed. Only
one protest per parcel shall be counted in determining whether a majority protest exists. If you
would like more information, please contact the City's Public Works Department at (310) 524-
2357.
Included herein is a RESIDENTIAL TRASH COLLECTION FEE ballot. If you wish to
protest implementation of the multi -year residential trash collection fee(s), you should:
(1) Print and sign your name on the lines provided and check the appropriate box as to
whether you own or rent the property;
(2) Re -fold and insert the ballot sheet so the bar code shows through the upper left window
of the return envelope; and
(3) Deliver the signed form to the City Clerk before the close of the public hearing on [date]
by one of the following methods: U.S. mail addressed to City Clerk/Trash Collection,
City of El Segundo, 350 Main Street, El Segundo, CA 90245 or hand deliver to the City
Clerk's office at the same address.
LI 2 5
IMPORTANT NOTICE TO PARCEL OWNERS REGARDING
PROPOSED FEES FOR RESIDENTIAL TRASH COLLECTION SERVICES.
Dear City of E1 Segundo Property Owner and /or Residential Trash (Solid Waste) Collection
Customer,
Take notice that on [date] at 7:00 p.m., the City Council will conduct a Public Hearing at the
Council Chambers, 350 Main Street, El Segundo, California to consider proposed fees for
residential trash collection services for single and multi - family residential properties that do not
exceed four units. The multi -year fee(s) proposed will offset costs currently paid by the City's
General Fund for trash collection services to these residential properties.
The proposed new rates are listed below as "Schedule of Proposed Service Charges." Review
these to determine how your specific parcel will be affected. Customers are encouraged to
review this information. Charges are based on the actual service(s) provided to each parcel. If
you have any questions on the proposed trash fee please call (310) 524 -2357 for assistance. Any
trash fee, if enacted, will take effect no earlier than January 1, 2011.
*The City's current trash hauler contract expires on July 31, 2011. The City will be seeking bids from qualified
haulers and awarding a new contract to commence on August 1, 2011. The rate charged to residents will be based
upon the actual amount charged by the trash hauler but shall not exceed this amount.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION: If you oppose this residential trash collection fee and wish
to protest this action, you must do so in writing before the close of the public hearing on [date].
If you do not oppose the fee, no response is necessary. A majority protest exists if, at the close
of the Public Hearing, there are valid written protests submitted on behalf of a majority of the
properties subject to the fee. A majority protest will result in the fee not being imposed. Only
one protest per parcel shall be counted in determining whether a majority protest exists. If you
would like more information, please contact the City's Public Works Department at (310) 524-
2357.
Included herein is a RESIDENTIAL TRASH COLLECTION FEE ballot. If you wish to
protest implementation of the multi -year residential trash collection fee(s), you should:
(1) Print and sign your name on the lines provided and check the appropriate box as to
whether you own or rent the property;
(2) Re -fold and insert the ballot sheet so the bar code shows through the upper left window
of the return envelope; and
(3) Deliver the signed form to the City Clerk before the close of the public hearing on [date]
by one of the following methods: U.S. mail addressed to City Clerk/Trash Collection,
City of El Segundo, 350 Main Street, El Segundo, CA 90245 or hand deliver to the City
Clerk's office at the same address.
ry�1
�� 4 V
OWNER OF RECORD:
Please make sure that you re -fold and insert this sheet so that the BAR CODE shows through the upper left
window of the return envelope.
Provided here is a RESIDENTIAL TRASH COLLECTION PROTEST BALLOT. If you
wish to protest implementation of the multi -year residential trash collection fee(s), you should:
(1) Print and sign your name on the lines provided and check the appropriate box as to
whether you own or rent the property;
(2) Re -fold and insert the ballot sheet so the bar code shows through the upper left window
of the return envelope; and
(3) Deliver the signed form to the City Clerk before the close of the public hearing on [date]
by one of the following methods: U.S. mail addressed to City Clerk/Trash Collection,
City of El Segundo, 350 Main Street, El Segundo, CA 90245 or hand deliver to the City
Clerk's office at the same address.
Residential Trash Collection Fee Protest Ballot
(must be completed in full to be counted)
qWI ra otest the proposed Residential Trash Collection Fee.
Printed Name (legible)
Check one: 1 ❑ own
❑ rent the property at:
Signature
Address
Return to: City Clerk, Trash Collection, City of E1 Segundo, 350 Main Street, El Segundo, CA
90245 before the close of the Public Hearing to be conducted by the City Council on [date].
ILI
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 5, 2010
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Unfinished Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding: 1) approval of an Environmental Assessment for a
proposed Statutory Exemption; 2) adoption of Public Facilities Impact Fees for Police, Fire,
Library, and Parks Facilities; and 3) introduce and waive first reading of an ordinance to amend
El Segundo Municipal Code (ESMC) §15-27A-6(D) and §15-27A-6(E) regulating collection of
impact fees. Applicant: City Initiated (Fiscal Impact: Increased Fee Revenue from Police, Fire
and Library Public Facilities Impact Fees and Establishment of New Parks Impact Fees)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Discussion;
2. Adopt a Resolution establishing Public Facilities Impact Fees; and/or
3. Introduce and waive first reading of an ordinance amending ESMC §15-27A-6(D)
and §15- 27A -6(E); and
4. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible action related to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Revised Resolution
2. Exhibit A - Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
3. Draft Ordinance
4. City Council Agenda Item 2, dated September 21, 2010 and attachments
FISCAL IMPACT:
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): 702 - 300 - 8107 -3972; 702 - 300 - 8122 -3972; 702- 300 -8132-
3972; and new 702 -300 Revenue Account for Parks Impact
Fee
ORIGINATED BY: Kimberly Christensen, AICP, Planning Manager �'
REVIEWED BY: Greg Carpenter, Director of g and Building Safety..,
APPROVED BY: Jack Wayt, City Manag
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
I. Introduction
As part of the City's Strategic Planning work program for 2009 -2010, the City Council directed
Planning staff to oversee the preparation of the Public Facilities Impact Fee Study and to assist
the City's Police, Fire, Library and Parks Departments in making recommendations to Council
regarding new and updated public facilities impact fees. The City Council held a public hearing
regarding a public facilities impact fee study and the proposed public facilities impact fees for
police, fire, library and parks facilities at the September 21, 2010 meeting. The City Council .
closed the public hearing and deliberated regarding the proposed fee Resolution. Council A4
1
requested that staff return with a revised resolution that phased the staff recommended fees in
over a five -year period and exempted projects with complete plan check applications submitted
prior to January 1, 2011. Attached is the revised resolution for Council's consideration.
II. Discussion
The revised resolution includes five fee tables that incrementally increase the police, library, fire
and parks development impact fees by 20% of the staff recommended fee level each year until
the staff recommended fee level is reached in January 2015. In the case of fire and police impact
fees the non - residential fee increases are based on the net differences between the existing and
recommended fees. Further increases to the fee levels are then indexed annually in the manner
identified in the fee study prepared by Willdan Financial Services.
In addition the revised Resolution identifies that complete plan check applications (plan check
submittals including all required plans and fees) submitted before January 1, 2011 are subject to
the City's existing impact fee policy.
The proposed ordinance would amend the ESMC regulations regarding when impact fees are
collected. Government Code § 66007 allows impact fees to be collected at the time of final
inspection, or when the City issues a final certificate of occupancy. Pursuant to Council's
direction in this matter, staff proposes that the City Council introduce and waiver first reading of
the draft ordinance.
III. Environmental Review
In accordance with the Public Resources Code and the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines, the proposed resolution is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Statutory Exemption 15273 (Rates,
Tolls, Fares and Charges). CEQA does not apply to the establishment of the public facilities
mitigation fees as the fees are for the purpose of: a) purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment, or
materials; and b) obtaining funds for capital projects, necessary to maintain service within
existing service areas. Moreover, the proposed ordinance is exempt from additional CEQA
review since it does not constitute a "project" that requires environmental review.
IV. Recommendation
Planning staff recommends that the City Council adopt the revised Resolution authorizing Public
Facility Mitigation Fees as proposed. The Resolution establishes fees below the maximum
justified fee as identified in the attached Public Facilities Impact Fee Study. The Resolution
phases in the Staff recommended fee levels over a five year period. The recommended fee
schedule is included in the attached Resolution. If adopted, the proposed impact fees would
become effective on January 1, 2011. In addition, staff proposes that the City Council introduce
and waive first reading of the draft ordinance. Second reading and adoption would be scheduled
for October 19, 2010.
PAPlanning & Building Safety \0 Planning - Old\PROJECTS (Planning) \701- 725\EA- 723 \City Council Report and Reso \City Council
10.05.2010\EA -723 Impact Fee Study CC Report. 10.05.2010 modified 9.28.2010.doc
(12-0 2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR
POLICE, FIRE, LIBRARY, AND PARKS FACILITIES IN ACCORDANCE
WITH TITLE 15 CHAPTER 27A OF THE EL SEGUNDO MUNICIPAL
CODE.
The City Council of the City of El Segundo does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares that:
A. New land development generates impacts on public services and public
facilities for which revenues generated through property taxes and other
means are generally insufficient to accommodate;
B. Objective LU7 -1 in the Land Use Element of the General Plan for the City
of El Segundo states that it is the City's objective to provide the highest
and most efficient level of public services and public infrastructure
financially possible;
C. Policy LU7 -1.2 in the Land Use Element of the General Plan for the City of
El Segundo states no new development is allowed unless adequate public
facilities are in place or otherwise provided;
D. It is the City's intent and desire to have developers pay for their fair share
of public costs associated with new development while at the same time
facilitating growth that is in the public interest;
E. The imposition of impact fees is one of the preferred methods of ensuring
that development bears a proportionate share of the cost of capital
facilities necessary to accommodate such development. This must be
done in order to promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare;
F. The City Council may establish development impact fees for police, fire,
library and parks under the provisions of the State of California Mitigation
Fee Act (Government Code §§ 66000- 66025);
G. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to Title 15 Chapter 27A of the El
Segundo Municipal Code (ESMC) for the purposes of calculating
development impact fees;
H. The fees established by this Resolution are derived from, are based upon,
and do not exceed the costs of providing capital facilities necessitated by
the new land developments for which the fees are levied;
I. The report entitled "Public Facilities Impact Fee Study" dated August 30,
2010, prepared by Willdan Financial Services, set forth a reasonable
methodology and analysis for the determination of the impact of new
development on the need for and costs for additional capital facilities
improvements in the City. The Fee Study is attached as Exhibit "A," and
incorporated by reference;
J. City Staff has evaluated the "Public Facilities Impact Fee Study," prepared
by Willdan Financial Services and has recommended a reduced fee
schedule identified in Section 3 of this Resolution;
K. Pursuant to Government Code § 66016, the City made data available
regarding the cost, or estimated cost, of providing services for the
proposed public facility impact fees ten (10) days before the public hearing
held on September 21, 2010;
L. On September 21, 2010 the City Council heard public testimony and
considered evidence in a public hearing held and noticed in accordance
with Government Code §§ 66016 and 66018, closed the public hearing
and continued this matter to the October 5, 2010 City Council meeting;
M. After careful consideration, including a review of the documentary and
testimonial evidence submitted during the public hearing, the City Council
finds that the imposition of impact fees to finance major public facilities is
in the best interests of the general welfare of the City and its residents and
workers, is equitable, and does not impose an unfair burden on new
development;
N. At the recommendation of the City's Departments and the City Manager,
the City Council believes that it is in the public interest to establish the
recommended fees to recover the costs of police, fire, library, and parks
facilities;
O. On October 5, 2010 the City Council approved a statutory exemption and
adopted this draft Resolution; and
P. This Resolution relies on the documentary and testimonial evidence
submitted to the City during the public hearing held on September 21,
2010 and continued to the October 5, 2010 City Council meeting in
addition to such additional information that may be in the administrative
record.
SECTION 2: Calculation of Development Impact Fees.
A. The "Public Facilities Impact Fee Study" ( "Fee Study "), prepared by
Willldan Financial Services calculates fire, library, police and library fees
-2-
L7 J t
that would fund the fair share cost to new development for additional
capital facilities and equipment improvements;
B. The study is based on a 20 -year planning horizon. The City's residential
and worker populations as well as future facilities needs are estimated for
the year 2030;
C. The study determines a fair share of future planned public facilities using
the System Plan method to calculate police, fire and library fees. This
method is used for police, fire and library as each is part of a system that
benefits both existing and new development. Using the System Plan
method ensures that new development does not pay for existing service
deficiencies;
D. The study uses the Existing Inventory method to calculate the parks fee.
This method assumes no existing service deficiencies and sets a fee that
will fund the expansion of park facilities at the same standard that
currently serves existing development;
E. The level of development fees in the Fee Study is based on a reasonable
methodology to determine the impacts and costs of new development.
However, based on an evaluation of the development impact fees charged
in neighboring jurisdictions, City staff recommends a reduced level of fees
be adopted;
F. The City may adopt development impact fees up to the amounts legally
justified in the Fee Study. Staff recommends that the City reduce the fees
proposed in the Fee Study by removing the cost of land from the System
Plan and Existing Inventory method calculations. This will establish the
City's development impact fees at a level more consistent with the fees
charged by neighboring jurisdictions; and
G. Staff recommends that the impact fees for new single - family and two -
family residences be reduced by an additional 50% to keep the
development impact fee in line with the average fees charged to single -
family development in neighboring jurisdictions.
H. Residential development fees are calculated on a per dwelling unit basis.
When existing residential development on a site is demolished and
replaced with new residential development, impact fees are required for
the net new residential units added to the site.
I. Non - residential development fees are calculated on a per square foot
basis. When existing non - residential development on a site is demolished
and replaced with new non - residential development, impact fees are
required for the net new non - residential building area added to the site.
-3- u J ."],
J. For any change in use or uses, if the new use or uses are in a fee
category that has fee amounts greater than the existing use or uses, then
the additional impact fees will be an amount equal to the difference
between the impact fees for the new use or uses and the impact fees for
the former use or uses.
SECTION 3: Schedule of Development Impact Fees. Based upon the methodology
identified in Section 2 and City Council direction at the September 21, 2010 public
hearing to phase in the fees over a five -year period, the development impact fees are
established as follows:
Development Impact Fee Tahh- Pff- MvP Tan,sas•w I In>> n,,,.,..«L_,..- �21 ',dh11
LAND USE
POLICE
LIBRARY
I FIRE
PARKS
TOTAL
Residential
SFR, Two-Family
$197
$247
$86
$332
$862
Multi-Family
Caretaker
$263
$170
$328
$213
$114
$74
$442
$287
$1,147
$744
Non - Residential
$0.31
N/A
$0.31
$0.25
$0.87
Commercial
$0.18
N/A
$0.20
$0.08
$0.46
Office
$0.19
N/A
$0.21
$0.10
$0.50
Industrial
$0.14
N/A
$0.16
$0.05
$0.35
Development impart FPP Tahln nifnntivn T.�a. a. r. a.., 1 '1!11'1 T..__�_L ___ �� ���,�
LAND USE
POLICE
LIBRARY
FIRE
PARKS
TOTAL
Residential
SFR, Two-Family
$394
$493
$172
$665
$1,724
Multi-Family
Caretaker
$526
$341
$656
$426
$229
$148
$884
$573
$2,295
$1,488
Non - Residential
$0.31
N/A
$0.31
$0.25
$0.87
Commercial
$0.25
N/A
$0.26
$0.16
$0.67
Office
$0.27
N/A
$0.29
$0.19
$0.75
Industrial 1$0.17
1
N/A
$0.18 1$0.09
1$0.44
Development Impact Fee TahlP PMoth7a Tan»or.. 1 vMZ 1l,,,.,.«,.L..._ '21 1sn1 Is
LAND USE
POLICE
LIBRARY
FIRE
PARKS
TOTAL
Residential
SFR, Two-Family
Multi-Family
Caretaker
$592
$788
$511
$740
$984
$638
$259
$343
$223
$997
$1,325
$860
$2,588
$3,440
$2,232
Non - Residential
Commercial
$0.31
N/A
$0.31
$0.25
$0.87
Office
$0.36
N/A
$0.36
$0.29
$1.01
Industrial
$0.19
N/A
$0.20
$0.14
$0.53
-4- 13 :�
Development Impact Fee Table effective Ian uary 1. 2ntd _ 11pd-am har A IMA
LAND USE
POLICE
LIBRARY
FIRE
PARKS
TOTAL
Residential
SFR, Two-Family
$789
$986
$345
$1,330
$3,440
Multi-Family
$1,051
$1,312
$458
$1,767
$4,588
Caretaker
$682
$851
$297
$1,146
$2,976
Non - Residential
Commercial
$0.38
N/A
$0.37
$0.33
$1.08
Office
$0.44
N/A
$0.44
$0.38
$1.26
Industrial
$0.22
N/A
$0.22
$0.18
$0.62
Development Impact Fee Table effective January 1. 201
LAND USE
POLICE
- ---- - - - - -- -)
LIBRARY
FIRE
PARKS
TOTAL
Residential
SFR, Two-Family
$986
$1,233
$431
$1,662
$4,312
Multi-Family
$1,314
$1,640
$572
$2,209
$5,735
Caretaker
$852
$1,064
$371
$1,433
$3,720
Non - Residential
Commercial
$0.45
N/A
$0.43
$0.41
$1.29
Office
$0.52
N/A
$0.51
$0.48
$1.51
Industrial
$0.25
N/A
$0.24
$0.23 1$0.72
SECTION 4: Fee Adjustment. Unless otherwise revised, the fees established by this
Resolution will be automatically adjusted on an annual basis concurrently with the
adoption of the capital improvement plan (CIP) each fiscal year beginning on October 1,
2015. The method for annual inflation adjustment is established as set forth in Exhibit
A, "Public Facilities Impact Fee Study."
SECTION 5: Exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act. In accordance
with the Public Resources Code (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000, et seq.; "CEQA ") and
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs. Title 14,
Code §§ 15000, et seq.), the proposed resolution is statutorily exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Statutory
Exemption 15273 (Rates, Tolls, Fares and Charges). CEQA does not apply to the
establishment of the public facilities mitigation fees as the fees are for the purpose of a)
purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment, or materials; and b) obtaining funds for
capital projects, necessary to maintain service within existing service areas. This
Resolution, therefore, is categorically exempt from further CEQA review under Cal.
Code Regs. Title 14, § 15273.
SECTION 6: Effective Date of this Resolution. This resolution will become effective
immediately upon adoption. The development impact fees that are established
pursuant to Section 3 of this Resolution and imposed upon development projects are
effective on January 1, 2011. Building plans that are submitted to the City of El
Segundo for plan check and that are determined to be complete by the City of El
-5- it
Segundo Planning and Building Safety Director, or designee (that is, detailed
architectural plans including dimensioned site plan, floor plans, elevations, and
structural plans, and all plan check application fees have been paid to the City)
submitted before January 1, 2011 are exempt from the regulations contained in this
Resolution and are subject to the City's existing impact fee policy. Completed building
plans expire within one (1) year unless the City issues a valid building permit.
Thereafter, an applicant must submit new building plans and pay all impact fees
pursuant to this Resolution. Any dispute regarding the Director's final determination that
(a) building plans are incomplete; or (b) whether complete plans were submitted before
January 1, 2011 must be appealed pursuant to ESMC § 15 -25 -2. Any dispute regarding
the amount of impact fees due for a project must be appealed pursuant to ESMC § 15-
27A -10.
-6-
SECTION 7: City Clerk. The City Clerk will certify the passage and adoption of this
Resolution; will enter the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and will
make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the record of proceedings of the
City Council of said City, in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and
adopted.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of October 2010.
Eric Busch, Mayor
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
I, Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk of the City of El Segundo, California, do hereby certify that
the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing
Resolution No. was duly passed and adopted by said City Council, approved and
signed by the Mayor, and attested to by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of said
Council held on the 5th day of October 2010, and the same was so passed and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Cindy Mortensen, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
By:
Karl H. Berger, Assistant City Attorney
PAPlanning & Building Safety \0 Planning - Old \PROJECTS (Planning) \701 - 725 \EA - 723 \City Council Report and Reso \City Council
10.05.2010 \EA -723. reso. CC.10.05.10. d oc
-7- 1 J 6
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT FEE STUDY
AUGUST 30, 2010
WILLDAN
G Financial Services
EXHIBIT A
U 3 7
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................ ............................... 4
Background and Study Objectives
4
Demographic Assumptions
4
Facility Standards and Costs of Growth
6
Fee Schedule Summary
6
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................... ...............................
7
Background and Study Objectives
7
Public Facilities Financing in California
7
Public Facilities Financing in El Segundo
8
Public Facility Standards
8
Organization of the report
11
2. DEMOGRAPHIC ASSUMPTIONS ........................... ...............................
12
Use of Growth Forecasts for Impact Fees
12
Service Population
12
Land Use Types
12
Occupant Densities
13
Demographic Assumptions for City of El Segundo
14
3. POLICE FACILITIES ............................................ ...............................
16
Service Population
16
Facility Standards and Planned Facilities
16
Facility Needs and Costs
17
Fee Schedule
19
4. LIBRARY FACILITIES .......................................... ...............................
20
Service Population
20
Facility Inventories and Standards
20
Facility Needs and Costs
21
Fee Schedule
23
5. FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES ............................ ...............................
25
Service Population
25
Facility Inventories, Plans and Standards
26
Facility Needs and Costs
26
Fee Schedule
28
6. PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES .................... ...............................
29
Service Population
29
Facility Standards
30
Fee Schedule
35
7. IMPLEMENTATION ............................................. ...............................
37
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 37
WILLDAN
hnatxAa1 maces
uJ6
Inflation Adjustment
Reporting Requirements
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP
37
38
38
8. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS ......................... ............................... 40
Purpose of Fee
Use of Fee Revenues
Benefit Relationship
Burden Relationship
Proportionality
40
40
40
41
41
APPENDIX A: VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT INVENTORIES ...........................A -1
APPENDIX B: WORKER DEMAND SURVEY FOR PARKS ........................... B -1
Park Survey
B -1
WILLDAN
Finarmial Services I I I I
Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysis of the need for public facilities and capital improvements to
support future development within the City of El Segundo through 2030. It is the City's intent that
the costs representing future development's share of these facilities and improvements be
imposed on that development in the form of a development impact fee, also known as a public
facilities fee. The public facilities and improvements included in this analysis of the City's public
facilities fee program are divided into the fee categories listed below.
• Police
• Library
• Fire Protection
• Parks
The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development
pays the capital costs associated with growth. The primary purpose of this report is to complete a
comprehensive fee study and determine the maximum justified public facilities fee levels to
impose on new development to maintain the City's facilities standard. The City should review and
update this report and the calculated fees once every five years to incorporate the best available
information.
The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act,
contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the
necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the public facilities fees presented in the
fee schedules contained herein.
To estimate facility needs, this study uses residential and household population data provided by
the City of El Segundo, the California Department of Finance (DOF), the U.S. Census, and the
Southern California Council of Governments' (SCAG) 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
Current year population estimates came from the DOF data. Population and residential dwelling
unit projections are based on growth rates derived from the City's building permit history.
Employment projections for 2030 came from the RTP data. Employment square footage was
derived using the RTP data and employment density factors from the Natelson Company
Employment Density Study Summary Report. The development projections used in this analysis
are summarized in Table E.1.
WILLDAN I
ffnwiwW Serv"s q
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table E.1: Demographic Assumptions
2009 2030 Increase
Residents' 16,970 17,690 720
Dwelling Units'
8,130
9,770
Single Family, Two - Family
3,590
3,650 60
Multi - Family
3,770
4,060 290
Caretaker
10
30 20
Total
7,370
7,710 340
Employment2,3,4
Commercial
8,130
9,770
1,640
Office
21,150
25,410
4,260
Industrial
17.920
21.530
3.610
Total
47,200
56,700
9,500
Building Square Feet (OOOs)5
Commercial 4,020 4,840 820
Office 8,920 10,720 1,800
Industrial 16,000 19.220 3.220
Total 28,940 34,780 5,840
Note: All values rounded to nearest ten; totals may not be exact.
California Department of Finance (DOF).
2 Excludes local government employment.
3 Assumes percentage of employees by land use remains constant to total from 2009 to 2030. 2030
estimates based on existing ratio of sector by sector employment and rounded to hundreds to account
for error.
° Estimates by land use type for 2009 based on employment data provided from EDD by North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) category.
5 Based on employment by land use and occupant density shown in Table 2.1.
Sources: California Department of Finance (DOF), Table E -5, 2009; Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) 2008 Regional Transportaion Plan Growth Forecast; California Employment
Development Department (EDD); Employment Density Study Summary Report, prepared by the
Natelson Company, October 2001; Willdan Financial Services.
Permit records in the City of El Segundo show the development of 12 caretaker units during the
past 10 years. The SCAG RTP data did not include a projection for caretaker units, so
development projections in this land use category are based on the historical permit data from the
City. Caretaker units are assumed to continue to develop at the rate of 12 units every 10 years, or
approximately 1.2 units per year.
Employment projections for 2030 are based on the assumption that the proportion of employees
located in each land use category listed remains consistent with the base year.
"' WILL
DAN
„, FlnandeW service
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Facility Standards and Costs of Growth
This fee analysis uses two different facilities standards to determine the costs to accommodate
growth. For the parks and recreation facility category, the City's existing facilities standard is used
to determine the costs to accommodate growth. Under this approach, new development funds the
expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. By definition
the existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing
development. This method is often used when a long -range plan for new facilities is not available.
For the police, library and fire facility categories, the system plan facility standard is used. This
method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that benefits
both existing and new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire station solely
to new development when that station will operate as part of an integrated system of fire stations
that together achieve the desired level of service.
The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies.
This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required to bring existing
development up to the policy -based standard. The City must secure non -fee funding for that
portion of planned facilities required to correct the deficiency to ensure that new development
receives the level of service funded by the impact fee.
Fee Schedule Summary
Table E.2 summarizes the schedule of maximum justified public facilities fees based on the
analysis contained in this report. The City may adopt any fee up to those shown in the table. If the
City adopts a lower fee then it should consider reducing the fee for each land use by the same
percentage. This approach would ensure that each new development project would fund the
same proportionate share of public facilities costs.
Table E.2: Development Impact Fee Summary
Land Use Police Library Fire Parks Total
Residential
(Fee per Dwelling Unit)
Single Family, Two - Family
$ 2,294 $ 2,464 $1,037 $
17,141
$ 22,936
Multi - Family
1,527 1,640 691
11,406
15,264
Caretaker
990 1,064 448
7,399
9,901
Nonresidential
(Fee per 1,000 Building Square Feet)
Commercial
$ 517 N/A $ 521 $
2,119
$ 3,157
Office
607 N/A 612
2,485
3,704
Industrial
287 N/A 289
1,174
1,750
Note: Fees per dwelling unit, per 1,000 square feet for nonresidential.
Sources: Tables 3.6, 4.6, 5.6 and 6.8; Willdan Financial Services.
''WILLDAN i
1. Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommodate new
development in the City of El Segundo. This chapter explains the study approach and
summarizes results under the following sections:
• Background and study objectives;
• Public facilities financing in California;
• Public facilities planning and financing in El Segundo;
• Public facility standards; and,
• Organization of the report.
The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development
pays the capital costs associated with growth. The primary purpose of this report is to complete a
comprehensive fee study and determine the maximum justified public facilities fee levels to
impose on new development to maintain the City's facility standards. The City should review and
update this report, as well as the calculated fees, once every five years to incorporate the best
available information.
The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act,
contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the
necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the public facilities fees presented in the
fee schedules contained herein.
Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 30 years has steadily undercut the
financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Three dominant trends stand out:
• The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in
1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996;
• Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next
generation of residents and businesses; and
• Steep reductions in federal and state assistance.
Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have adopted a policy of "growth pays its own
way ". This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing rate and
taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the
imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees also known as public
facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes require approval of property owners and are
appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property.
Development fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit
all development jurisdiction -wide. Development fees need only a majority vote of the legislative
body for adoption.
� WILLDAN
financial Services 7
Ue1'.),
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
• `• •�
The City of El Segundo has a number of existing infrastructure needs, as well as a potential need
to expand existing infrastructure to meet the demands of community growth. Existing funding
sources have not allowed for master planning at a level sufficient to develop either an exhaustive
list of infrastructure projects or a phasing or scheduling plan for such projects. However,
preliminary suggestions concerning facility needs are identified and described in the "Facility
Needs and Costs" section of each chapter.
There are known infrastructure issues that will best be addressed through master planning
efforts. A suggested use of fee revenues would be to fund master planning to more specifically
identify capital facilities necessary to serve new development. Fee revenues can fund that portion
of master plan costs associated with facilities to serve growth. Upon completion of the master
planning effort and the identification of capital facilities needed to accommodate growth, the City
should update its public facilities fee program to include these new projects and any financing
costs that may be required to construct facilities when needed.
Through the process of preparing master plans, the City may choose to submit planned facilities
for consideration of impact fee revenue apportionment. The City of El Segundo has provided a
preliminary list of planned facilities, which are accordingly documented in this fee update. New
development will pay a fee based on the value of existing and planned facilities through the
development horizon. However, new development cannot be required to pay for future projects
designed to correct deficiencies in existing facilities. The City will have to secure non -fee funding
for that portion of planned facilities required to correct any deficiency in existing facilities.
By their nature, public facilities fee programs are constrained by rates of growth and the timing of
revenue collection. Since public facilities fees represent a pay -as- you -go system, cities may
confront the problem of only being able to partially fund large projects with fee revenues at the
time of project implementation. Therefore, facility needs may require alternative financing options
in order to implement projects in a timelier manner. The cost of financing (e.g. interest payments)
can legitimately be included in the public facilities fee. By using fee revenues to fund a master
planning effort and updating the fee to reflect the identified projects and possible financing costs,
the City will maximize its ability to maintain its facilities standard and fund the capital facilities
necessary to serve new development.
Finally, all fee - funded capital projects should be programmed through the City's Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP). Using a CIP can help the City of El Segundo identify and direct its fee
revenue to public facilities projects that will accommodate future growth. By programming fee
revenues to specific capital projects, the City of El Segundo identifies the use for fee revenues as
expressly required by the Mitigation Fee Act.
Public Facility Standards
The key public policy issue in public facility fee studies is the identification of facility standards for
each category of facilities in a fee program. A facility standard is a public policy that states the
amount of facilities required per unit of new development to accommodate the increased service
V ',r FWD DDAN
a A
01 1
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
demand. Examples of facility standards include park acres per capita and wastewater generation
per equivalent dwelling unit. Standards also may be expressed in monetary terms such as the
total cost of facility investments per capita.
The facility standard assists in documenting statutory findings required for adoption of a public
facilities fee. First, the standard documents a reasonable relationship between the type of new
development and the total need for new facilities. Where applicable, the same facility standard is
applied to both existing and new development to ensure that new development does not fund
deficiencies associated with existing development. Second, the facility standard is often used to
allocate facility costs to each development project, documenting a reasonable relationship
between the amount of the fee and the cost of facilities allocated to each development project.
Types of facility standards and their application in specific situations are discussed below. This
section concludes with a description of how facility standards are used in the current study.
Types of Facility Standards
There are three separate components of facility standards:
• Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate
growth, for example, park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library space
per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of
service such as the vehicles -to- capacity (V /C) ratio used in traffic planning.
• Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected
demand, for example, park improvement requirements and technology infrastructure
for city office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of
an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our
approach incorporates current facility design standards into the fee program to reflect
the increasing construction cost of public facilities.
• Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilities
required to accommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost
standards are useful when demand standards were not explicitly developed for the
facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be
analyzed based on a single measure (cost or value), useful when disparate facilities
are funded by a single fee program. Examples include facility costs per capita, per
vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day.
New Development Facility Needs and Costs
A number of approaches are used to identify facility needs and costs to serve new development.
Often there is a two step process: (1) identify total facility needs, and (2) allocate to new
development its fair share of those needs.
There are three common methods for determining new development's fair share of planned
facilities costs: the existing inventory method, the system plan method, and the planned facilities
method. Often the method selected depends on the degree to which the community has engaged
in comprehensive facility master planning to identify facility needs.
The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method is
summarized below:
VWILLDAN
., Finw)mw vices
a
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Existing Inventory Method
The existing inventory method allocates costs based on the ratio of existing facilities to demand
from existing development as follows:
Current Value of Existing Facilities
_ $ I unit of demand
Existing Development Demand
Under this method new development funds the expansion of facilities at the same standard
currently serving existing development. By definition the existing inventory method results in no
facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a long -
range plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are
identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual capital
improvement plan and budget process, possibly after completion of a new facility master plan.
This method is used only in the parks and recreation facility category of this report.
Planned Facilities Method
The planned facilities method allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facility costs to
demand from new development as follows:
Cost of Planned Facilities
New Development Demand
= $ / unit of demand
This method is appropriate when specific planned facilities can be identified that only benefit new
development. Examples include street improvements to avoid deficient levels of service or a
sewer trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. This method is also appropriate
when planned facilities would not serve existing development, or if planned facilities represent a
level of service that is lower than the current level of service. Under this method new
development funds the expansion of facilities at the standards identified by facility planners. This
method is not used to calculate any fees in this report.
System Plan Method
This method calculates the fee based on: the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned
facilities, divided by demand from existing plus new development:
Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities
Existing + New Development Demand
= $ / unit of demand
This method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that
benefits both existing and new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire
station solely to new development when that station will operate as part of an integrated system
of fire stations that together achieve the desired level of service. Police substations, civic centers,
and regional parks provide examples of similar facilities.
The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies.
Often facility standards based on policies such as those found in General Plans are higher than
existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required
VWILLDAN , t,
FinwxNW services
v
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
to bring existing development up to the policy -based standard. The local agency must secure
non -fee funding for that portion of planned facilities required to correct the deficiency to ensure
that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee. This method is used
to calculate the police library and fire facilities fees in this report.
Organization of the report
This report is organized as follows:
• Chapter 1, Introduction (this chapter): summarizes facilities financing in California,
the history of public facilities impact fees in the City of El Segundo, and the general
approach;
• Chapter 2, Demographic Assumptions: describes the growth forecasts used to
estimate future demand and the unit costs used to estimate total facility costs;
• Chapter 3, Police Facilities: Summarizes existing police facility inventory, discusses
planned police facilities and describes the methodology that underlies the police
facilities fee.
• Chapter 4, Library Facilities: Summarizes existing library facility inventory, discusses
planned library facilities and describes the methodology that underlies the library
facilities fee.
• Chapter 5, Fire Protection Facilities: Summarizes existing fire facility inventory,
discusses planned fire facilities and describes the methodology that underlies the fire
facilities fee.
• Chapter 6, Park and Recreation Facilities: Summarizes existing parks and recreation
facility inventory, discusses planned parks and recreation facilities and describes the
methodology that underlies the parks and recreation facilities fee.
• Chapter 7, Implementation: Provides guidelines for the implementation and ongoing
maintenance of the public facilities fee program.
• Chapter 8, Mitigation Fee Act Findings: summarizes the five statutory findings
required for adoption of the proposed public facilities fees in accordance with the
Mitigation Fee Act (codified in California Government Code Sections 66000 through
66025).
WILLDAN l
Financial Sarokas I i
2. Demographic Assumptions
Estimates of existing development and new development growth projections are used to assist in
determining the appropriate fee structure. The base year used in this study is 2009, and the
planning horizon is 2030.
Use of Growth Forecasts for Impact Fees
Estimates of the existing service population and forecasts of growth are critical assumptions used
throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows:
• Estimates of existing development in 2009 are used to determine the existing facility
standards in the City.
• Estimates of total development at the 2030 planning horizon are used:
— To determine the total amount of public facilities required to accommodate
growth based on the existing facility standards (see Chapter 1), and
— To estimate total fee revenues.
To measure existing service population and future growth, residential and worker population data
are used for all facility categories with the exception of library facilities, which only use population
data. These measures are used because the amount of residents and workers is a reasonable
indicator of the level of demand for public facilities. The City builds public facilities primarily to
serve these populations and, typically, the greater the population the larger the facility required to
provide a given level of service.
Different types of new development use public facilities at different rates in relation to each other,
depending on the services provided. For all fee categories in this study a specific service
population is identified to reflect total demand. The service population weights residential land
use types against nonresidential land uses based on the relative demand for services between
residents and workers.
Land Use Types
To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the
fee, growth projections distinguish between different land use classifications. The land use types
used in this analysis are defined below per the City of El Segundo Municipal Code.
• Single - Family, Two - Family: A single family dwelling unit is a detached dwelling unit
with only one kitchen, designed for occupancy by one family. A two- family dwelling
unit is a building designed to be occupied by two (2) families living independently, the
structure having only two units. For the purpose of assessing impact fees, single -
family and two - family units have been grouped into a single category because the
probable occupant density of these types of units is the same, as confirmed by the
City's Planning Division.
• Multi - Family: A building or portion thereof designed for occupancy by three (3) or
more families living independently in which they may or may not share common
entrances and /or other spaces. Individual dwelling units may be owned as
V WILLDAN
1 r_ Financial Services ) . -�
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
condominiums, or offered for rent. For the purposes of assessing impact fees, senior
housing facilities are also considered multi - family units.
• Caretaker: A dwelling unit in the Smoky Hollow specific plan area used for a
caretaker of the property on which it is located and limited to five hundred (500)
square feet in area.
• Commercial: All commercial, retail, educational, and hotel /motel development.
• Office: All general, professional, and medical office development.
• Industrial: All manufacturing and warehouse development.
Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as an industrial warehouse
with living quarters (a live -work designation) or a planned unit development with both single and
multi - family uses. In these cases the public facilities fee would be calculated separately for each
land use type.
The City should have the discretion to impose the public facilities fee based on the specific
aspects of a proposed development regardless of the zoning designation where the project will be
located. Should the project be located in an area that is not zoned as any of the above stated
land use types, the guideline to use is the probable occupant density of the development, either
residents per dwelling unit or workers per building square foot, to determine which fee will be
charged. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely represents the
probable occupant density of the development.
Occupant Densities
Occupant densities ensure a reasonable relationship between the increase in service population
and amount of the fee. To do this, they must vary by the estimated service population generated
by a particular development project. Developers pay the fee based on the number of additional
housing units or building square footage of nonresidential development, so the fee schedule must
convert service population estimates to these measures of project size. This conversion is done
with average occupant density factors by land use type, shown in Table 2.1.
The residential occupant density factors are derived from the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau's Tables
H -31 through H -33. Table H -31 provides vacant housing units data, while Table H -32 provides
information relating to occupied housing. Table H -33 documents the total 2000 population
residing in occupied housing. The US Census numbers are adjusted by using the California
Department of Finance (DOF) estimates for January 1, 2009, and the most recent State of
California data available at the time the research for this report was completed. The occupant
density factor for caretaker units was provided by the City of El Segundo.
The nonresidential density factors are based on Employment Density Study Summary Report,
prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments, October 2001 by The Natelson
Company. The factors used here were derived from the Los Angeles County data set. The
industrial density factor represents an average for light industrial, heavy industrial, and
warehouse uses likely to occur in the City.
Facility demand is estimated based on service population increases. Developers pay the public
facilities fee based on the number of additional housing units or building square footage of
VWILLDAN
FinaneW Sermes
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
nonresidential development, so the fee schedule must convert service population estimates to
these measures of project size. This conversion is done with average occupant density factors by
land use type, shown in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Occupant Density
Residential
Single Family, Two - Family 2.78 Residents per dwelling unit
Multi - Family 1.85 Residents per dwelling unit
Caretaker 1.20 Residents per dwelling unit
Nonresidential
Commercial 2.02 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Office 2.37 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Industrial 1.12 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Note: Nonresidential occupant density factors derived from Natelson Company data are specific to
Los Angeles County.
Sources: 2000 Census, Tables H31 -H33; California Department of Finance (DOF); The Natelson
Company, Inc., Employment Density Study Summary Report, October 31, 2001, pp. 15 -23; City of El
Segundo; Willdan Financial Services.
Demographic Assumptions for City of El Segundo
Table 2.2 summarizes the demographic assumptions used in this analysis. The base year for this
study is the year 2009. The existing facilities in 2009 will constitute the existing facilities standard
in our study.
The base year residential estimate is calculated using the density factor from Table 2.1, multiplied
by the dwelling units identified in the California Department of Finance (DOF) January 1, 2009
estimates. Population projections are based on historical building permit data provided by the
City. Employment projections for 2030 were derived from the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) data. Employment square footage
was derived using the RTP data and the employment density factors displayed in Table 2.1. The
development projections used in this analysis are summarized in Table 2.2.
V WILLDAN
�. 4 Financial Serwoft 1 14
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 2.2: Demographic Assumptions
2009 2030 Increase
Residents' 16,970 17,690 720
Dwelling Units'
Single Family,
Multi - Family
Caretaker
Total
Employment2,3,4
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Total
Two - Family 3,590
3,650
60
3,770
4,060
290
10
30
20
7,370
7,710
340
8,130
9,770
1,640
21,150
25,410
4,260
17,920
21,530
3,610
47,200
56,700
9,500
Building Square Feet (OOOs)5
Commercial 4,020 4,840 820
Office 8,920 10,720 1,800
Industrial 16,000 19,220 3.220
Total 28,940 34,780 5,840
Note: All values rounded to nearest ten; totals may not be exact.
California Department of Finance (DOF).
2 Excludes local government employment.
3 Assumes percentage of employees by land use remains constant to total from 2009 to 2030. 2030
estimates based on existing ratio of sector by sector employment and rounded to hundreds to account
for error.
4 Estimates by land use type for 2009 based on employment data provided from EDD by North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) category.
5 Based on employment by land use and occupant density shown in Table 2.1.
Sources: California Department of Finance (DOF), Table E -5, 2009; Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) 2008 Regional Transportaion Plan Growth Forecast; California Employment
Development Department (EDD); Employment Density Study Summary Report, prepared by the
Natelson Company, October 2001; Willdan Financial Services.
Permit records in the City of El Segundo show the development of 12 caretaker units during the
past 10 years. Development projections in this land use category are based on the assumption
that caretaker dwelling units will continue to develop at the rate of 12 units every 10 years, or
approximately 1.2 units per year.
Employment projections for 2030 are based on the assumption that the proportion of employees
located in each land use category listed remains constant relative to the base year.
WILLDAN
FlnancW Semm 1 5
�� J
3. Police Facilities
The purpose of the fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of police facilities.
The City will use fee revenues to expand general facilities to accommodate new development.
Police facilities include, but are not limited to: buildings, vehicles, and capital equipment items. A
fee schedule is presented based on the cost of these facilities to ensure that new development
provides adequate funding to meet its needs.
Police facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for both services and
associated facilities is based on the City's service population, including residents and workers.
Table 3.1 shows the estimated service population in 2009 and 2030. In calculating the service
population, workers are weighted less than residents to reflect a lower per capita service demand.
Nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units, so it is
reasonable to assume that average per- worker demand for services is less than average per -
resident demand. The 0.31- weighting factor for workers is based on a ratio of 40 hours at work to
the remaining 128 hours spent outside of work.
Table 3.1: Police Facilities Service Population
Existing (2009)
Weighting factor'
Existing Service Population
New Development (2009 -2030)
Weighting factor'
New Development Service Population
Total 2030 Service Population
Residents Workers Total
16,970
47,200
1.00
0.31
16,970
14,630 31,600
720
9,500
1.00
0.31
720
2,950 3,670
17,690
17,580 35,270
Note: Totals rounded to nearest ten.
' Workers are weighted at 0.31 of residents based on the ratio of 40 working hours per week to 128 non-
working hours.
Sources: Table 2.2; Willdan Financial Services.
Facility standards and Planned Facilities
Police facilities in El Segundo include land, buildings and equipment. Table 3.2 shows that the
City currently owns 2.44 acres of land, which serves as the site of the Civic Center Police Station.
This facility consists of approximately 33,000 square feet of building space. The Police
WILLDAN I
Financial SoMeft 10
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Department owns approximately $6.8 million worth of vehicles, computers and equipment,
bringing the total value of police facilities in El Segundo to approximately $18.3 million. Itemized
calculations of police facility values appear in Appendix A. The inventory of police vehicles is
shown in Appendix Table A.1. An inventory of computer equipment is shown in Appendix Table
A.2, and an inventory of communications and miscellaneous equipment is shown in Appendix
Table A.3.
Table 3.2: Existing Police Facilities
Inventory Unit Cost Units Value
Land (acres) 2
Civic Center Police Station 2.44 $ 1,630,000 acres $ 3,977,000
Buildings (square feet)
Buildings (square feet) 32,868 $ 230 $ 7,560,000
Equipment
Vehicles (See Appendix A.1) $ 1,967,000
Computers (See Appendix A.2) 628,000
Communications and Miscellaneous (See Appendix A.3) 4,211.000
Subtotal - Vehicles, Computers, Communications and Misc. $ 6,806,000
Total Value - Existing Facilities
Note: Total values rounded to nearest thousand.
' Unit costs based on market value.
2 Land value of $1.63 million per acre based on a recent appraisal of parcels within the City.
Sources: Tables A.1, A.2 and A.3; City of El Segundo; Willdan Financial Services.
$ 18,343,000
The cost of land per acre is based on the average of two appraisals of similarly located parcels
within the City on February 2010. These appraisals were chosen because they are representative
of the types of land that the City would purchase in the future.
Facility Needs and Costs
Table 3.3 presents the list of police facility improvements planned for the City of El Segundo, as
identified by the City of El Segundo Police Department. Expected police capital infrastructure
projects include: adding a new gymnasium to the existing station, the construction of a parking
structure for the Police and Fire Departments, and numerous additions to the fleet. Together,
planned police facility costs amount to approximately $10.2 million.
W ' WILLDAN
Financial services l
t� J J
City of EI Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 3.3: Police Department Planned Facilities
Planned Facility
Quantity
Units Unit Cost
Total Cost
Gymnasium addition to existing station
3,000
Sq. Ft. $ 500
$ 1,500,000
Parking Structure for Police, Fire Department
N/A
N/A N/A
7,000,000
Armored Bearcat (Armored van)
1
400,000
400,000
Trailerable Patrol Boat
1
150,000
150,000
Narcotics detection dog /vehicle
1
50,000
50,000
Explosives detection dog /vehicle
1
50,000
50,000
Flat top DUI patrol Dodge Charger
2
40,000
80,000
SWAT Van
1
300,000
300,000
BMW Motorcycle
3
53,333
160,000
Command Post Vehicle
1
500,000
500,000
Total Cost of Planned Police Facilities
$ 10,190,000
Source: City of El Segundo Police Department.
Planned police facilities are likely to serve both existing residents and new development. As a
result, this study uses the system plan approach to calculating new development's fair share of
planned facility costs. This is done by taking the total value of existing and planned facilities in
2030 and dividing it by the total 2030 service population to obtain a facility standard per capita.
This calculation appears in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4: Existing and Planned Police Facilities
Existing Facilities Value
$ 18,343,000
Planned Facilities Costs
10,190,000
Total Facilities Value in 2030
$ 28,533,000
Service Population in 2030
35,270
Cost per Resident
$ 809
Cost per Worker
251
Sources: Tables 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3; City of El Segundo
Police Department; Willdan
Financial Services.
Table 3.5 shows the estimated fee revenue generated by the police facilities fee. This fee is
projected to generate approximately $3 million in revenue by 2030. Projected fee revenue falls
short of the total cost of planned police facilities in the City of El Segundo. The remaining $7.2
million in planned facility costs must be funded by non - impact fee sources.
WILLDAN 8
Financ W services
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 3.5: Estimated Police Facilities Fee Revenue
Cost Per Capita $ 809
Growth in Service Population (2009 -2030) 3,670
Anticipated Fee Revenue $ 2,969,000
Total Cost of Planned Police Facilities $10,190,000
Additional Funding Required $ 7,221,000
Note: Anticipated fee revenue rounded to hundreds.
Sources: Tables 3.3 and 3.4; Willdan Financial Services.
Fee Schedule
Table 3.6 shows the police facilities fee schedule, which is based on the assumption that El
Segundo will be charging new development no more than its fair share of planned facility costs.
The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and
building space densities (persons per dwelling unit (DU) for residential development and workers
per 1,000 square feet of building space for nonresidential development). The total fee includes an
administrative charge to fund costs that include impact fee related administrative costs, such as:
revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification
analyses.
Table 3.6: Police Facilities Fee
A B
Cost Per
Land Use Capita Density
C =AXB
Base Fee'
D
Admin
Charge' '
E =C +D
Total Fee
F =E /1,000
Fee per Sq.
Ft.
Residential
Single Family, Two - Family $ 809
2.78
$ 2,249
$ 45
$ 2,294
Multi - Family 809
1.85
1,497
30
1,527
Caretaker 809
1.20
971
19
990
Nonresidential
Commercial $ 251
2.02
$ 507
$ 10
$ 517
$ 0.52
Office 251
2.37
595
12
607
0.61
Industrial 251
1.12
281
6
287
0.29
Note: Fees rounded to nearest whole dollar.
' Fee per dwelling unit, or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential space.
] Administration fee equal to 2.0 percent of base fee to fund impact fee program administrative costs including
revenue collection, revenue
and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 3.4; Willdan Financial Services.
ws WILLDAN y
^. FlnanciW Servkces j _
4. Library Facilities
This chapter provides the documentation to enable the City impose a public facilities fee to fund
library facilities. The City would use fee revenues to help fund expanded library facilities to serve
new development.
Service Population
Residents are the primary users of libraries in the City of El Segundo. Therefore, demand for
libraries and associated facilities are based on the City's residential population, rather than a
combined resident - worker service population. Estimates of the existing service population and
projected growth are shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Library_ Facilities Service Population
Residents
Existing (2009) 16,970
New Development (2009 -2030) 720
Total (2030)
Note: Values rounded to nearest ten.
Sources: Table 2.2; Willdan Financial Services.
17,690
Facility Inventories and Standards
The City Library is located at Library Park. This land is listed in the parkland inventory in Chapter
6, so the value of that land is not included in this chapter, to avoid double counting. The City of El
Segundo currently owns nearly $7 million worth of building and annex facilities. Library collections
are also an important component of a library system's facilities and are a significant investment.
Collections include books, online databases, audio - visual materials, periodical subscriptions, and
other documents. The City owns approximately $6.9 million dollars worth of collections, as shown
in Table 4.2. Itemized costs for existing library collections and equipment are shown in Appendix
Tables A.4 and AA respectively.
`s WILLDAN 20
l�
' Financial Services
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 4.2: Existing Library Facilities
Inventory Unit Cost Units Total Value
Existina Facilities
Land'
Building + Annex (sq. ft.)
Collections
Furniture \Shelving \Equipment
Total Facilities
3.40 $ -
30,329 230
(See Appendix A.4)
(See Appendix A.5)
acres $ -
sq. ft. 6,976,000
6,892,000
277,000
$ 14,145,000
Note: Total values rounded to nearest thousand.
The library is located at Library Park, which is included in the parkland inventory in Chapter 6. The value
of that land is not included in this inventory to avoid double counting.
Sources: Tables A.4 and A.5; City of El Segundo; Willdan Financial Services.
Facility Needs and Costs
The City of El Segundo plans to expand its library facilities by adding $1.2 million worth of
equipment and building expansions through 2030. The planned facilities are shown in Table 4.3.
"' WILLDAN
,$ Finw cMIO services
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 4.3: Planned Library Facilities
Planned Facility
Units
Unit Cost
Total Cost
Expansion to the children's library (approximately 2,000 sq. ft.)
2,000
$ 300
$ 600,000
Additional internet computers
20
2,000
40,000
Tables for internet computers
2
3,500
7,000
Wiring for additional internet computers and expanded Wi -Fi
1
18,000
18,000
Wi -Fi expansion
1
10,000
10,000
Switch for new internet computers
1
8,000
8,000
Additional Envisionware internet licenses
1
20,000
20,000
Chairs for internet computers
20
400
8,000
Online download computers
4
2,000
8,000
Download computer station table
1
2,500
2,500
Chairs for download computer station table
4
400
1,600
E -book readers for checkout
50
250
12,500
E -books for checkout
600
75
45,000
Study rooms (approximately 700 sq. ft.)
700
300
210,000
Tables for study rooms
5
2,000
10,000
Chairs for study rooms
20
750
15,000
Game room stations, inc. game console, TV, security
3
3,000
9,000
Chairs for game room
6
400
2,400
Video game software for game room
25
50
1,250
Additional Children's Library internet computers
5
2,000
10,000
Children's Library early literacy computers
4
2,000
8,000
Stools for Children's Library computers
9
250
2,250
Self- service checkout machine
1
54,000
54,000
Wiring and maintenance for self - service checkout machine
1
5,000
5,000
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) security system
1
13,000
13,000
RFID library material tags for checkout
1
105,000
105,000
RFID library material tag protectors
1
7,000
7,000
Total
$ 1,232,500
Source: City of El Segundo Public Library.
These improvements are likely to benefit both members of the existing service population and
new development, since both groups will be using the existing and new facilities. Accordingly, this
study uses the system plan approach to calculate new development's fair share of new library
facilities. This is done by dividing the total value of existing and planned facilities in 2030 by the
total 2030 service population to calculate a standard per resident. This calculation appears in
Table 4.4.
V WILLDAN
r fi FinatmW Serwess
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 4.4: Existing and Planned Library Facilities
Existing Facility Value
Planned Facility Costs
Total Facility Value in 2030
Service Population in 2030
Cost per Capita
$ 14,145,000
1,232,500
$ 15,377,500
17,690
$ 869
Sources: Table 6.1; City of El Segundo Public Library; Willdan Financial Services.
Table 4.5 shows the total revenue that the library facilities fee is expected to generate through
the 2030 planning horizon. Multiplying the per capita facility standard by the growth in service
population produces an estimated $626,000 in revenue. It is important to note that this revenue
estimate falls short of the City's $1.2 million in planned facilities. As a result, approximately
$607,000 worth of library facilities will have to be funded by non - impact fee sources, or new
development will have paid too high a fee.
Table 4.5: Estimated Library Facilities Fee Revenue
Cost Per Capita $ 869
Growth in Service Population (2009 -2030) 720
Anticipated Fee Revenue $ 625,700
Total Cost of Planned Library Facilities $ 1,232,500
Additional Funding Required $ 606,800
Note: Total anticipated fee revenue rounded to nearest hundred.
Sources: Tables 4.1, 4.3 and 4.4; Willdan Financial Services.
Fee Schedule
Table 4.6 presents the library facilities fee schedule based on the planned facilities method. The
cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit
densities. The total fee includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include: revenue
collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification
analyses.
VWILLDAN j
�i Financial services 3
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 4.6: Library Facilities Fee
A B C =AxB D E =C +D
Cost Per Admin
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee Charge' Total Fee
Residential
Single Family, Two - Family $ 869 2.78 $ 2,416 $ 48 $ 2,464
Multi - Family 869 1.85 1,608 32 1,640
Caretaker 869 1.20 1,043 21 1,064
Note: Fees rounded to nearest whole dollar.
Administration fee equal to 2.0 percent of base fee to fund impact fee program administrative costs
including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification
analyses.
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 4.4; Willdan Financial Services.
WILLDAN >4
x r ar Finarxtal services
5. Fire Protection Facilities
The purpose of this development impact fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair
share of fire protection facilities. A fee schedule is presented based on the facilities needed to
ensure that new development fund its fair share of the City's facility needs.
Service Population
Fire protection facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and
associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers.
Table 5.1 shows the estimated service population for 2009 and 2030. In calculating the service
population, residents are given a weight of 1.0 and workers are weighted at 0.69 to reflect lower
per capita service usage. Nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than
dwelling units, so it is reasonable to assume that average per- worker usage of services is less
than average per- resident usage.
Table 5.1: Fire Facilities Service Population
Existing (2009)
Weighting factor'
Existing Service Population
New Development (2009 -2030)
Weighting factor'
New Development Service Population
Total 2030 Service Population
16,970
47,200
1.00
0.69
16,970
32,570 49,540
720
9,500
1.00
0.69
720
6,560 7,280
17,690
39,130 56,820
' Workers are weighted at 0.69 of residents based on an survey of worker demand on fire services conducted in the
City of Phoenix. Totals rounded to nearest ten.
Sources: Specific Infrastructure Financing Plan: Equivalent Land Use Derivation and Projection, City of Phoenix
Planning Department, November 6, 1996; Table 2.2; Willdan Financial Services.
The 0.69 per- worker weighting used here is derived from a study carried out in the City of
Phoenix. This study is one of the best sources of this data currently available. Data from that
study was used to calculate a per capita factor that is independent of land use patterns. Relative
demand for fire service between residents and workers does not vary substantially on a per
capita basis across communities, ensuring that this data can be used for all of the communities
which must document a public facilities fee for fire stations.
V „� >� WILLDAN
, Financial services
i
61
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 5.2 shows existing fire facilities in the City of El Segundo. The City owns 2.19 acres of land
and two fire stations totaling almost 32,000 square feet. In addition to land and buildings, the City
of El Segundo owns approximately $6.9 million worth of vehicles and equipment. Appendix
Tables A.6, A.7 and A.8 summarize the inventories of fire suppression, administration,
paramedics and prevention equipment and vehicles, respectively.
Table 5.2: Existing Fire Facilities Standard
Inventory Unit Cost Value
Land (acres)'
Fire Station #1
Fire Station #2 Complex
Subtotal
Buildings (sq. ft.)
Fire Station #1
Hose Tower
Fire Station #2 Complex
Subtotal
Fire Department Vehicles
(See Appendix Table A.6)
Fire Department Computer Equipment
(See Appendix Table A.7)
Fire Department Communications Equipment
(See Appendix Table A. 7)
Fire Department Misc. Equipment
(See Appendix Table A.8)
Total Existing Facilities
1.32 $ 1,630,000 $ 2,151,600
0.87 1,630, 000 1,418,100
2.19 $ 3,569,700
17,800 $
105
13,959
31,864
230 $ 4,094,000
230 24,200
230 3,210,600
$ 7,328,800
Note: Total values rounded to nearest hundred.
Land value of $1.63 million per acre based on an recent appraisal of parcels within the City.
Sources: Tables A.6, A.7 and A.8; City of El Segundo.
$ 5,177,800
$ 237,900
$ 423,100
$ 1.017,400
$17,754,700
Facility Needs and Costs
The City of El Segundo plans to add approximately $3 million worth of fire facilities to its inventory
by 2030. These facility expansions are summarized in Table 5.3, and include additions to Fire
Station #1, along with new equipment and furnishings.
VWILLDAN
Fi
nwidel sane
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 5.3: Fire Department Planned Facilities
Planned Facility Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Cost
Addition to Fire Station #1 for offices and storage
3,100
Sq. Ft. $ 500
$ 1,550,000
Addition to Fire Station #1 apparatus bay
2,800
Sq. Ft. 500
1,400,000
Sedans with radios and emergency warning devices
2
35,000
70,000
Computers
3
2,000
6,000
Office furniture sets
3
4,000
12,000
Total Cost of Planned Fire Facilities
$ 3,038,000
Source: City of El Segundo Fire Department.
These improvements are likely to benefit both members of the existing service population and
new development, since both groups will be placing calls to the expanded station. Accordingly,
this study uses the system plan approach to calculate new development's fair share of new fire
facilities. This is done by dividing the total value of existing and planned facilities in 2030 by the
total 2030 service population to calculate a standard per resident and per worker. This calculation
appears in Table 5.4.
Table 5.4: Existing and Planned Fire Facilities
Existing Facility Value
Planned Facility Costs
Total Facility Value in 2030
Service Population in 2030
Cost per Resident
Cost per Worker
$ 17,754,700
3,038,000
$ 20,792,700
56,820
$ 366
253
Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3; City of El Segundo Fire Department; Willdan
Financial Services.
Table 5.5 shows the total revenue that the fire facilities fee is expected to generate through the
2030 planning horizon. Multiplying the per capita facility standard by the growth in service
population produces an estimated $2.7 million in revenue. It is important to note that this revenue
estimate falls short of the City's $3 million in planned facilities. As a result, approximately
$374,000 worth of fire protection facilities will have to be funded by non - impact fee sources, or
new development will have paid too high a fee.
WILLDAN
IU FinaneW sere ces ,7
l'Uv
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 5.5: Estimated Fire Facilities Fee Revenue
Cost Per Capita $ 366
Growth in Service Population (2009 -2030) 7,280
Anticipated Fee Revenue $ 2,664,500
Total Cost of Planned Fire Facilities $ 3,038,000
Additional Funding Required $ 373,500
Note: Total anticipated fee revenue rounded to nearest hundred
Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.3 and 5.4; Willdan Financial Services.
•. -4
Table 5.6 shows the fire facilities fee schedule based on the existing standard. The cost per
capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and building
space densities (persons per dwelling unit (DU) for residential development and workers per
1,000 square feet of building space for nonresidential development). The total fee includes an
administrative charge to fund impact fee program administrative costs including: revenue
collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification
analyses.
Table 5.6: Fire Facilities Fee
A B
Cost Per
Land Use Capita Density
C =AxB
Base Fee'
D
Admin
Charge', Y
E =C +D
Total Fee
F =E /1,000
Fee per Sq.
Ft.
Residential
Single Family, Two - Family $ 366
2.78
$ 1,017
$ 20
$ 1,037
Multi - Family 366
1.85
677
14
691
Caretaker 366
1.20
439
9
448
Nonresidential
Commercial $ 253
2.02
$ 511
$ 10
$ 521
$ 0.52
Office 253
2.37
600
12
612
0.61
Industrial 253
1.12
283
6
289
0.29
Note: Fees rounded to nearest whole dollar.
' Fee per dwelling unit, or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential space.
2 Administration fee equal to 2.0 percent of base fee to fund impact fee program
administrative costs
including revenue collection,
revenue
and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 5.5; Willdan Financial Services.
WILLDAN
z Financial Services I ) 8,
1 i 1 7
vb
6. Park and Recreation Facilities
The purpose of the fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of park facilities.
The City will use fee revenues to expand park facilities to serve new development. This analysis
documents fees based on the guidelines set forth in the Mitigation Fee Act.
Facility standards for parks are typically expressed as a ratio of park facilities per 1,000 residents.
Recognizing that park facilities within the City are used by workers as well as residents, the City
of El Segundo conducted a survey to determine the level of park facility use by nonresidents, and
found that workers in the City used City parks at approximately 17 percent of the rate of resident
use. The survey was conducted by asking users of the Campus El Segundo Fields and
Recreation Park facilities whether they worked in the City, lived in the City or both on both. The
survey was repeated for weekdays and weekends; levels of park use were weighted accordingly.
Accordingly demand for parks and associated facilities are based on the City's combined
resident - worker service population. A detailed summary of the survey can be found in Appendix
B.
Table 6.1 provides estimates of the resident and worker population with a projection for the year
2030.
Table 6.1: Parks Service Population
Residents Workers Total
Existing (2009) 16,970 47,200
Weighting factor' 1.00 0.17
Existing Service Population 16,970 8,020 24,990
New Development (2009 - 2030) 720 9,500
Weighting factor' 1.00 0.17
New Development Service Population 720 1,620 2,340
Total 2030 Service Population 17,690 9,640 27,330
Note: Service population totals rounded to nearest ten.
Workers are weighted at 0.17 of residents based on a survey of use at Recreation Park and Campus El Segundo
Fields submitted by the City.
Sources: City of El Segundo; Tables 2.1 and B.1; Willdan Financial Services.
�`/WILLDAN
FimmcW somm 1 <�
L' � v
City of EI Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Facility Standards
The City owns and operates various park and recreation facilities throughout the City. The City's
inventory of parks facilities includes a total of 74.76 acres, and is summarized in Table 6.2. An
inventory of existing recreation facilities is shown below in Table 6.3.
Table 6.2: Parkland Inventory
Name Acres
Parkland (acres)
Recreation Park
20.40
Hilltop Park
1.20
Campus El Segundo Athletic Fields
4.96
Candy Cane Park
0.10
Acacia Park
0.50
Library Park
3.40
Camp Eucalyptus
0.30
The Lakes Golf Course
28.00
Holly Kansas Park
0.40
Holly Valley Park
0.20
Dog Park
1.90
Cutlers Park
0.10
Imperial Parkway: Memory Row
7.70
Imperial Parkway: Btw Dog Park and Main
4.80
Sycamore Parkette
0.80
Total
74.76
Source: City of El Segundo.
WILLDAN
Finaei Services :i 0
nci
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 6.3: Recreation Facilities Inventory
Facility
Square Feet
Checkout Building
3,880
Urho Saari Swim Stadium
16,270
Camp Eucalyptus Building
1,815
The Lakes Facility
7,552
Clubhouse
11,623
Concession Stand
584
Scorer's Booth
100
Main Complex
510
Joslyn Center
7,667
Elevator Tower and Shed
510
Office and Shop
510
Campus El Segundo Athletic Fields Facility
1,442
Teen Center
5,480
Raquetball Courts
1,870
Announcer's Booth
110
Hardball Concession Stand
1,000
Softball Concession Stand
640
Total Recreation Facilities
61,563
Source: City of El Segundo.
Table 6.4 shows the existing standard of parkland per person served in the City of El Segundo.
Table 6.4: Parkland Standards
---- - - - - -- Existing (2009) ---- - - - - --
Standard per 1,000
Type of Acreage Acres service population
Acres of Parkland 74.76
Existing Service Population 24,990
Standard (acres per 1,000 service population)
Note: Facility standard rounded to the hundredths.
Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6.2; Willdan Financial Services.
2.99
� WILL©AN
financial services i C
" � t'�
b
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Park Facility Standards
Park facility standards establish a reasonable relationship between new development and the
need for expanded park facilities. Information regarding the City's existing inventory of existing
parks facilities was obtained from City staff.
The most common measure used to calculate new development's demand for parks is the ratio of
park acres per resident. In general, facility standards may be based on the Mitigation Fee Act
(using a city's existing inventory of park facilities), or an adopted policy standard contained in a
master facility plan or general plan.
Mitigation Fee Act
The Mitigation Fee Act does not dictate use of a particular type or level of facility standard for
public facilities fees. To comply with the findings required under the law, facility standards must
not burden new development with any cost associated with facility deficiencies attributable to
existing development.' A simple and clearly defensible approach to calculating a facility standard
is to use the city's existing ratio of park acreage per 1,000 residents. Under this approach, new
development is required to fund new park facilities at the same level as existing residents have
provided those same types of facilities to date.
Unit Costs for Land Acquisition and Improvements
Unit costs represent the land costs and level of improvements that existing development has
provided to date. Using unit costs to determine a facility standard ensures that the cost of facilities
to serve new development is not artificially increased, and that new development is not unfairly
burdened relative to existing development.
The unit costs used to estimate the total investment in parkland facilities are shown in Table 6.5.
All costs are expressed in 2009 dollars. Land acquisition costs and improvement costs are based
on the City's experience with park development and information from a recent market analysis of
land values in El Segundo.
See the benefit and burden findings in Chapter 8, Mitigation Fee Act Findings.
Wl LLDAN
FfnanOW Services
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 6.5: Parkland Unit Costs
Cost
Per Acre Share
Park Improvements
Special Use Facilities'
Urho Saari Swim Stadium
Subtotal
Golf Course Building
Building Sq. Ft.
Cost per Sq. Ft.
Subtotal
Camp Eucalyptus
5,500
$ 189
$ 5,369,000
$ 5,369,000
$ 1,039,500
Building Sq. Ft. 1,270
Cost per Sq. Ft. $ 189
Subtotal $ 240,000
Recreation Facilities
(Checkout Building, Clubhouse, Scorer's Booth, Office,
Racquetball Courts, Announcer's Booth, Hardball and Softball
Concession Stands, Offices and Concession Stands at Campus
El Segundo Athletic Fields, Teen Center, Concession stand, Main
Complex, Joslyn Center, Elevator Tower)
Building Sq. Ft. 35,926
Cost per Sq. Ft. $ 189
Subtotal $ 6,790,000
Park Equipment and Vehicles (Table A.9) $ 887,600
Total Special Use Facilities $ 14,326,100
Improved Park Acres 74.76
Special Use Facilities Cost per Improved Acre
Standard Park Improvements2
Park Improvements Per Acre Subtotal
Land Acquisition
Total
$ 191,600
200,000
$ 391,600 19%
$ 1,630,000 81%
$ 2,021,600 100%
Note: Total facility cost estimates rounded to nearest hundred.
' Recreation facilities only include special use facilities (such as recreation centers and pools) that are not part of standard park
improvements.
2 Improvement costs are estimated at $200,000 per acre for site improvements (curbs, gutters, water, sewer, and electrical access),
plus basic park and school field amenities such as basketball or tennis court, restroom, parking, tot lot, irrigation, turf, open green
space, pedestrian paths, and picnic tables. Excludes special use facilities such as recreation centers and pools.
3 Land value of $1.63 million per acre is based on a recent appraisal of parcels within the City.
Sources: Tables 6.2 and 6.3; City of El Segundo; Willdan Financial Services.
V k'` WILLDAN
Firwy iw Serves
�'� �J
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Total Needs and Costs
The total investment in park facilities needed to serve growth is calculated by multiplying the
facility standards developed in Table 6.5 by growth in residents. The total value of the needs for
park facilities is based on the average unit costs for land acquisition and improvements shown in
Table 6.5. To accommodate the increase in service population through 2030 at the existing
standard, new development would need to fund facilities estimated to cost approximately $14.1
million as shown in Table 6.6.
Table 6.6: Park Facilities to Accommodate New Development
mitigation
Fee Act
Parkland
Facility Standard (acres /1,000 service population) 2.99
Service Population Growth (2009 -2030) 2,340
Facility Needs (acres) 7.00
Average Unit Cost (per acre) $ 1,630,000
Total Cost of Facilities
AND
Improvements
Facility Standard (acres /1,000 service population) 2.99
Service Population Growth (2009 -2030) 2,340
Facility Needs (acres) 7.00
Average Unit Cost (per acre) $ 391,600
Subtotal - Improvements
Total Facilities
Note: Total facility cost estimates rounded to thousands.
$ 11,410,000
$ 2,741,000
$ 14,151,000
Sources: Tables 6.1, 6.4, and 6.5; Willdan Financial Services.
The $14.1 million in facility improvements must be used to enhance, upgrade, or expand new
park facilities. Intensifying development of existing parks is another reasonable method for
accommodating growth that could be used in conjunction with the expansion of improved park
acreage. The use of fee revenues would be identified through planned parkland acquisition and
improvement projects described in the most recently adopted version of annual capital
improvement budget.
The City anticipates that the park fees would be the primary revenue source to fund new
development's investment in park facilities. Expected parks capital infrastructure projects include
the development of new and improved parkland facilities and the construction of a new aquatics
center. Table 6.7 shows the share of costs that could be allocated on a per capita basis for both
V '' WILLQAN
1 1 Financial SeMm
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
land acquisition and improvement.
Table 6.7: Park Facilities Investment Per Capita
Parkland
Parkland Investment (per acre)
Facility Standard (acres per 1,000 service population)
Total Investment Per 1,000 capita
Investment Per Resident
Investment Per Worker
Improvements
Parkland Improvements (per acre)
Facility Standard (acres per 1,000 service population)
Total Investment Per 1,000 capita
Investment Per Resident
Investment Per Worker
$ 1,630,000
2.99
$ 4,874,000
1,000
$ 4,874
829
391,600
2.99
$ 1,171,000
1,000
$ 1,171
199
Note: Total investment estimates rouned to nearest thousand. Investment per capita
rounded to nearest whole dollar.
Sources: Tables 6.5, and 6.6; Willdan Financial Services.
In order to calculate fees by land use type, the investment in park facilities is determined on a per
resident basis for both land acquisition and improvement. These investment factors (shown in
Table 6.7) are based on the unit cost estimates and facility standards.
Table 6.8 shows the park facilities fee based on the existing standard. The fee includes a
component for park improvements based on the City's existing standard. The investment per
capita is converted to a fee per dwelling unit. The total fee includes an administrative charge of
two percent (2 %) to fund costs that include revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting,
mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
" WILLDAN
FinsncW services I 31,7
Lj► ?"
1
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 6.8: Park Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C =AxB D E =C +D F =E /1,000
Cost Per Admin Fee per Sq.
Land Use Capita ensity Base Fee' Charge' 2 Total Fee' Ft.
Residential
Single Family, Two - Family
Commercial
Parkland
$ 4,874
2.78
$
13,550 $
271
$
13,821
Improvements
1,171
2.78
829
3,255
65
1,675
3,320
$
17,141
Total
$
Multi - Family
Improvements
199
2.02
402
Parkland
$ 4,874
1.85
$
9,017 $
180
$
9,197
Improvements
1,171
1.85
Office
2,166
43
2.209
$
11,406
Total
Caretaker
Parkland
$
829
2.37
$
Parkland
$ 4,874
1.20
$
5,849 $
117
$
5,966
Improvements
1,171
1.20
1,405
28
9
1.433
$
7,399
0.48
$
Nonresidential
Commercial
Parkland
$
829
2.02
$
1,675
$
34
$
1,709
$
1.71
Improvements
199
2.02
402
8
410
0.41
$
2,119
$
2.12
Office
Parkland
$
829
2.37
$
1,965
$
39
$
2,004
$
2.00
Improvements
199
2.37
472
9
481
0.48
$
2,485
$
2.49
Industrial
Parkland
$
829
1.12
$
928
$
19
$
947
$
0.95
Improvements
199
1.12
223
4
227
0.23
$
1,174
$
1.17
Note: Fees rounded to nearest whole dollar.
Fee per dwelling unit, or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential space.
2 Administration fee equal to 2.0 percent of base fee to fund impact fee program administrative costs including revenue
collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 6.7; Willdan Financial Services.
WILLDAN
Financial Services 36
ii!! t
tv 0
Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in the California Government Code section
66016. Adoption of an impact fee program requires the City Council to follow certain procedures
including holding a public meeting. Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available at
least 10 days prior to the public meeting. The City's legal counsel should be consulted for any
other procedural requirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an enabling ordinance
and /or a resolution. After adoption there is a mandatory 60 -day waiting period before the fees go
into effect.
Inflation Adjustment
The City has kept its impact fee program up to date by periodically adjusting the fees for inflation.
Such adjustments should be completed regularly to ensure that new development will fully fund
its share of needed facilities. To maintain consistency with other City documents, we recommend
that the fees be adjusted for inflation annually, concurrent with the time frame when City staff
presents the preliminary CIP to the City Council.
There are no inflation indices that are specific to City of El Segundo. We recommend that the
following indices be used for adjusting fees for inflation:
• Buildings, Improvements — Engineering News Record's Building Cost Index (BCI) —
Los Angeles, CA
• Equipment — Consumer Price Index, All Items, 1982 -84 =100 for All Urban
Consumers (CPI -U) — for the West Urban Region, Size B/C
Due to the highly variable nature of land costs, there is no particular index that captures
fluctuations in land values. We recommend that the City adjust land values based on a periodic
appraisal of the type of land comparable to the City's existing inventory.
While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for periodic updates to ensure that fee
revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, the City will also need to conduct
more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when
significant new data on growth forecasts and /or facility plans become available. Note that
decreases in index value will result in decreases to fee amounts.
The steps necessary to update fees for inflation are explained below:
For all of the fee categories except the park facilities fees, the steps are as follows:
1. For each facility type (land, buildings, equipment), identify the percent change in
facility value since the last update, based on changes in each inflation index or for
each type of land.
2. Modify the value of each facility, existing and planned (if applicable) by the percent
change identified in Step 1.
3. Depending on fee methodology for each particular fee category calculate the total
value of existing facilities (existing inventory method), the value of existing facilities
V i'"` WILLDAN
fineneial services 1 j 7
u73
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
plus planned facilities (system plan method), or the value of planned facilities
(planned facilities method) using the updated figures from Step 2.
4. Recalculate the cost per capita for each fee category by dividing the results of Step 3
by either the existing service population if the fee is calculated using the existing
inventory method, by the future service population if the fee is calculated using the
system plan method, or by the growth in service population if the fee is calculated
using the planned facilities method. Both the existing and future service populations
are identified in the first table of every chapter in this report.
5. Calculate the cost per worker (if applicable) for fee categories that are charged to
nonresidential development. The cost per worker is equal to the cost per capita
calculated in Step 4 multiplied by 0.31 for police, by 0.69 for fire and by 0.17 for
parks.
6. Update the fee schedule by multiplying the cost per capita and the cost per worker
calculated in Step 5 by the density factors listed in Table 2.1 to determine the base
fee for each land use.
To update the park facility fees for inflation, the steps are as follows:
1. For each facility type (land, improvements), identify the percent change in facility
value since the last update, based on changes in each inflation index or for each type
of land.
2. Modify the value of land acquisition and improvements shown in Table 6.6 by the
percent change identified in Step 1.
3. Using Table 6.6 as a guide, recalculate the cost per resident and cost per worker
using the adjusted values for land acquisition and improvements calculated in Step 2.
4. Update the fee schedule by multiplying the costs per capita calculated in Step 3 by
the density factors listed in Table 2.1 to determine the base fee for each land use.
The total fee for a given land use is equal to the cost per capita for land (from step
three) multiplied by the occupant density, added to the cost per capita for
improvements (also from step three) multiplied by the occupant density. See Table
6.8 for reference.
Once all of the fees have been inflated, multiply the sum of all the fees, per land use, by two
percent (2 %) to determine the administrative charge. Future updates to the fee program should
review the administrative fee to ensure that it fully covers the cost of administering the fee
program.
Reporting Requirements
The City complies with the annual and five -year reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act
found in Government Code Sections 66001 and 66006. For facilities to be funded by a
combination of public fees and other revenues, identification of the source and amount of these
non -fee revenues is essential. Identification of the timing of receipt of other revenues to fund the
facilities is also important.
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP
The City maintains a ten -year Capital Improvements Program (CIP) to plan for future
infrastructure needs. The CIP identifies costs and phasing for specific capital projects. The use of
the CIP in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the
use of those revenues.
VWILLDAN
,y . "r Financial Swv1ce8 38
V �( i
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
The City may decide to alter the scope of the planned projects or to substitute new projects as
long as those new projects continue to represent an expansion of the City's facilities. If the total
cost of facilities varies from the total cost used as a basis for the fees, the City should consider
revising the fees accordingly.
V WILLDAN
Financial Serves 3 9
i Mitigation Fee Act FindipAg
Public facilities fees are one -time fees typically paid when a building permit is issued and
imposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities
and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of public facilities fees the State Legislature
adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent
amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025,
establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs.
The Act requires local agencies to document five findings when adopting a fee.
The five statutory findings required for adoption of the maximum justified public facilities fees
documented in this report are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the report that
follows. All statutory references are to the Act.
Purpose of Fee
• Identify the purpose of the fee ( §66001(a)(1) of the Act).
Development impact fees are designed to ensure that new development will not burden the
existing service population with the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth per Policy
LU7 -1.2 of the 1992 General Plan. The purpose of the fees proposed by this report is to
implement this policy by providing a funding source from new development for capital
improvements to serve that development. The fees advance a legitimate City interest by enabling
the City to provide services to new development.
Use of Fee Revenues
• Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities
shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital
improvement plan as specified in §65403 or §66002, may be made in applicable general or
specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the
facilities for which the fees are charged ( §66001(a)(2) of the Act).
Fees proposed in this report, if enacted by the City, would be used to fund expanded facilities to
serve new development. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the
City. Fees addressed in this report have been identified by the City to be restricted to funding the
following facility categories: police, library, fire, and parks and recreation.
Benefit Relationship
• Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the type of
development project on which the fees are imposed ( §66001(a)(3) of the Act).
We expect that the City will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities
and buildings, and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, and vehicles used to serve new
development. Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a citywide network of facilities
accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development. Under the
Act, fees are not intended to fund planned facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies. Thus,
V �' ` WILLDAN 40
a Fig somm
U 6
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
a reasonable relationship can be shown between the use of fee revenue and the new
development residential and non - residential use classifications that will pay the fees.
Burden Relationship
• Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and
the types of development on which the fees are imposed ( §66001(a)(4) of the Act).
Facilities need is based on a facility standard that represents the demand generated by new
development for those facilities. Facilities demand is determined as follows:
• The service population is established based upon the number of residents and
workers, which correlates to the demand for police facilities, fire protection facilities,
and parks and recreation facilities; and,
• The service population for library facilities is established solely on the number of
residents, as worker demand on these facilities is nominal.
For each facility category, demand is measured by a single facility standard that can be applied
across land use types to ensure a reasonable relationship to the type of development. For most
facility categories service population standards are calculated based upon the number of
residents associated with residential development and the number of workers associated with
non - residential development. To calculate a single, per capita standard, one worker is weighted
less than one resident based on an analysis of the relative use demand between residential and
non - residential development.
The standards used to identify growth needs are also used to determine if planned facilities will
partially serve the existing service population by correcting existing deficiencies. This approach
ensures that new development will only be responsible for its fair share of planned facilities, and
that the fees will not unfairly burden new development with the cost of facilities associated with
serving the existing service population.
Chapter 2, Demographic Assumptions provides a description of how service population and
growth forecasts are calculated. Facility standards are described in the Facility Standards
sections of each facility category chapter.
Proportionality
• Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees amount and the
cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which
the fee is imposed ( §66001(b) of the Act).
The reasonable relationship between each facilities fee for a specific new development project
and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated new
development growth the project will accommodate. Fees for a specific project are based on the
project's size. Larger new development projects can result in a higher service population resulting
in higher fee revenue than smaller projects in the same land use classification. Thus, the fees
ensure a reasonable relationship between a specific new development project and the cost of the
facilities attributable to that project.
xrl WILLDAN
Egad Servicm 41
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
See Chapter 2, Demographic Assumptions, or the Service Population section in each facility
category chapter for a description of how service populations is determined for different types of
land uses. See the Fee Schedule section of each facility category chapter for a presentation of
the proposed facilities fees.
WI LLDAN
Finen6W Sewces 42
C' 7 L
Appendix A: Vehicle and Equipment
Inventories
All vehicle and equipment inventories in this appendix document replacement cost, as provided
by City of El Segundo in 2009.
Table A.1: Police Vehicle Inventory
Description
Unit
Year
Acquired
Replacement
Cost
Sedan Patrol, Crown Victoria
4
04/05
$ 132,800
Speed Monitoring & Traffic Safety Equip.
1
05/06
45,000
2001 Ford Truck (Animal Control)
1
00/01
64,000
Sport Utility, Chevrolet Suburban (donated)
1
05/06
102,000
Mutual Aid Emergency Resp Veh.
1
06/07
320,000
Sedan, Grand Marquis
1
06/07
29,000
Dodge Caravan
1
06/07
20,000
Jeep Wrangler Sport RH -Drive
1
06/07
24,000
Ford 500 SEL, Blue Metalic
1
06/07
25,000
Ford 500 SEL, Black w /Shale cloth
2
06/07
50,000
Sedan , Impala 9C3 Blue /Ntrl
1
06/07
23,000
Sedan , Impala 9C3 Black /Ebony
1
06/07
23,000
Sedan, Impala 9C3 Silverton /Ebony
1
06/07
23,000
Sport Utility, Dodge Durango
2
06/07
52,000
2009 Ford F -150
1
08/09
32,500
Sedan, Chevy Impala
2
04/05
60,000
2009 Ford Explorer
3
08/09
84,000
2009 Nissan Altima Hybrid
2
08/09
60,000
Sport Utility, Ford Explorer
1
02/03
29,000
Motorcycle, BMW R1200
5
06/07
126,000
2008 Sedan, Crown Victoria
9
08/09
270,000
Utility Parking Enforcement
1
02/03
5,000
Sedan, RSVP
2
02/03
12,000
Sedan Patrol K -9
1
00/01
6,500
Buick Regal LS
2
02/03
45,100
Sedan, Ford Escort
1
88/89
24,000
Sedan, Buick Regal
2
94/95
52,000
Crime Scene Van (Chevrolet)
1
95/96
29,000
Van -12 passenger, Ford
1
96/97
35,000
Swat Van (Grumman)
1
93/94
64,500
Police Vehicles Funding
1
05/06
100,000
Total $ 1,967,400
Note: Figures have been rounded
Sources: City of El Segundo Equipment Replacement Schedule, 09110; City of El Segundo.
V WIL�LDAN
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table A.2: Police Computer Equipment Inventory
Description
Units
Year
Acquired
Unit Cost
Total Replacement
Cost
Multi- Function machine, HP OfficeJet 9130
1
05/06
$ 1,200
$ 1,200
Printer, HP Color LaserJet 380ON
1
06/07
1,800
1,800
Scanners, Dell FI -5220c Color Workgroup
1
07/08
1,500
1,500
Switch, Dell PowerConnect 5324
1
05/06
2,000
2,000
Printer, Epson Stylus Pro4800
1
05/06
2,000
2,000
Printer, HP420ON w /Duplexer
6
04/05
1,800
10,800
Computer, Dell Optiplex 755 Ultra Small
36
07/08
1,800
64,800
Computer, Dell Optiplex 760
8
08/09
1,800
14,400
Dell Optiplex 755 /Evidence Mgmt
1
07/08
1,800
1,800
Computer, Dell Optiplex GX620 19 "flat
7
05/06
1,800
12,600
Dell, Latitude D820 w /1.0GB
1
06/07
2,500
2,500
Dell, Latitude E5500
5
08/09
2,500
12,500
Server rack for above
1
01/02
6,000
6,000
Auto cite computer /software
3
08/09
6,667
20,000
Dell Precision M90
1
06/07
3,400
3,400
Computer, Laptop
1
07/08
4,000
4,000
Switch, Asante 99- 00748 -01
1
03/04
4,200
4,200
Mobile data -2 K -9 /Animal Control
1
00/01
14,000
14,000
Printer, Color, Xerox Phaser 6250DX
1
04/05
4,600
4,600
Tabletop Live -Scan System
1
06/07
11,000
11,000
Video System in PD vehicle
1
04/05
4,900
4,900
Server, Dell Power Edge 1850
1
05/06
6,000
6,000
Switch, PowerConnect 5324 (5ea)
1
06/07
6,500
6,500
Dell Optiplex GX270T, 20" Panel
7
04/05
4,400
30,800
Superloader Quantum
1
03/04
8,200
8,200
Dual Quad Core Xeon E5430 Server
1
08/09
10,000
10,000
Mobile Data Computer M5 (1)
1
05/06
12,000
12,000
Software, Accident Reconstruction
1
06/07
8,500
8,500
Server, Dell Power Edge 2650
2
04/05
10,000
20,000
Server Module, AVL Status Mapping
1
03/04
17,000
17,000
Mobile Data Computer (16)
1
08/09
100,000
100,000
Mobile Data Computer (15)
1
03/04
108,000
108,000
Printer, HP LaserJet405ON
3
99/00
1,600
4,800
Image Master copying system
1
01/02
1,800
1,800
Printer, HP LaserJet 4000 TN
1
98/99
2,000
2,000
Fax machine
2
99/00
2,400
4,800
Switch, Dell 24 -Port
5
02/03
2,500
12,500
LCD 20" monitor (Doc. Imaging)
1
01/02
3,600
3,600
MDC, Sierra wireless (3)
1
01/02
4,400
4,400
Scanners, Tabletop Fujitsu (4)
1
01/02
5,000
5,000
Server, Dell Power Edge 2500
1
01/02
8,000
8,000
Server, Dell Power Edge 2650 (2)
1
02/03
10,000
10,000
Mainframe -IBM AS /400
1
93/94
44,000
44,000
Total
$ 627,900
Note: Figures have been rounded
Sources: City of El Segundo Equipment Replacement Schedule, 09/10; City of El Segundo.
WILLDAN
Financial services A ?
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table A.3: Police Communications and Miscellaneous Equipment Inventory
Description
Units
Year
Acquired
Total Replacement
Unit Cost Cost
Refrigerator - Whirlpool (22cf)
1
03/04
1,100
Refrigerator - Amana
1
99/00
1,600
Range - Maytag
1
99/00
1,800
Freezer - True Food Reach In
1
08/09
3,500
Numb John Mobile Platform
1
07/08
4,000
Benelli LE M4 Shotgun (2)
1
06/07
3,500
Refrigerator - True Food Refrig. /Freezer
1
08/09
4,500
Remington 700 w /Rail & accessories
2
08/09
4,800
Toshiba 20" DVDNHS TV (7)
1
06/07
3,000
Duplex Card Printer /ID Card Maker
1
08/09
4,900
Alcohol Analyzers w /memory & printer
1
05/06
4,000
E/Z Rider K -9 Kennel
1
07/08
5,200
Animal Catch Kit
1
08/09
1,800
Helmet Radio Kit (5)
1
03/04
9,000
Benchtop Downdraft Workstation
1
07/08
5,800
Nikon D300 2 Cameras /accessories
1
08/09
10,000
M -3 Tactical lights /pouches (75)
1
01/02
10,000
Shotguns (Border Patrol model)
1
01/02
8,000
Forensic Evidence Drying Cabinet
1
07/08
7,000
Personal Escape Masks (CBRN) (72)
1
04/05
12,000
Digital Flash CAM -880
1
07/08
7,700
Video Camera /Dispatch Ctr.
1
99/00
20,000
Wheel Loader Weigher
1
07/08
9,600
Gas Masks, Advantage (75)
1
01102
13,000
Reflectoriess Total Station Bluetooth
1
06/07
10,000
Taser Gun X26E w /Audio -Video (6)
1
06/07
12,000
Surveillance wires & system
1
01/02
14,000
Chair, Dispatch (8) Black Galaxy Style 5000
1
07/08
11,400
Bullet Trap
1
96/97
65,000
Prolaser III (traffic - 4)
1
07/08
18,000
Glock 21 guns /magazines (85)
1
01/02
47,000
Communications Generator
1
98199
100,000
Cardiovascular Machines
1
05/06
40,000
Taser Gun X26E w /Audio -Video (20)
1
06/07
34,000
Mobile ALPR System
1
06/07
35,000
SWAT Bulletproof Vests (16)
1
06/07
40,000
Taser Gun X26E w /Audio -Video (40)
1
-07/08
65,800
Video /Digital Evidence Mgmt. System
1
08/09
180,000
Typewriter
3
90/91
3,000
VCR - Encore "Go Video"
1
94/95
1,000
Multisort Satellite Station
1
99/00
1,800
Cutting Torch - Steely
1
94/95
3,500
Sights /mounts -SWAT (8)
1
01/02
3,500
Security Camera -East Lot
1
98/99
4,000
Chartprinter
1
90/91
4,800
Shredder
1
92/93
5,000
Walk- Through Metal Detector
1
94/95
5,000
Elliptical, PRECOR
1
02/03
5,000
Lab Vent - Labconco
1
95/96
6,000
Scott Air Packs (2)
1
96/97
7,000
Projector, Toshiba LCD
1
96/97
8,500
Sony Color Monitors (11)
1
99/00
9,000
Taser guns (22)
1
01/02
9,500
Video Camera System
1
97/98
20,000
Mobile Radios- (1) Motorola XTL5000
1
05/06
5,000
Mobile Radios (1), Motorola XTL 5000 UHF
1
06/07
6,000
Mobile Radios (3), Motorola XTL 5000 UHF
1
06/07
14,000
Mobile Radios (3), Motorola XTS 5000 UHF
1
06/07
14,000
Motorcycle Radio (5), Motorola
1
03/04
17,500
Mobile Radios (5), Motorola XTS 5000 UHF
1
06/07
26,000
Mobile Radios (5), Motorola XTL 5000 UHF
1
06/07
28,000
Mobile Radios (9), Motorola XTL 5000 UHF
1
06/07
35,000
Mobile Radios- (9) Motorola
1
04/05
40,600
Mobile Radios (12), Motorola XTS 5000
1
05/06
44,000
Airlink GSM Modems
1
08109
25,000
Mobile Radios (13), Motorola XTL 5000 UHF
1
06/07
50,000
Mobile Radios (15), Motorola XTS5000 UHF
1
06/07
64,000
Mobile Radios (18), Motorola XTS 5000
1
05/06
64,000
Mobile Radios (19), Motorola XTS 5000 UHF
1
06/07
80,000
Motorola XTS3000 Portables (75)
1
00/01
225,000
Motorola Spectra A3
1
98/99
2,500
Mobile
2
89/90
6,500
Cordless XLT Headsets (10 sets)
1
01/02
4,500
Radio Workstation
1
02/03
35,000
Motorola Wireless Dispatch Sys.
1
99/00
2,500,000
Total Equimpent
$ 4,211,200
Note: Figures have been rounded to nearest hundred
Sources: City of El Segundo Equipment Replacement Schedule, 09/10; City of El Segundo.
WILLDAN
Financial Services A .. j
U i
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table AA: Library Collections
Average Total Collection's
Item Price Collection Value
DVD
VHS
Music CD
Book on Tape
Book on CD
Magazine or Journal Print
Newspaper Print
Microfilm or Microfiche
Maps, Pamphlets, Photos
Reference Books
Fiction Books
Non - Fiction Books
Children's Books
Electronic Database Subscriptions
Total - Library Collections
Note: Total values rounded to nearest hundred.
Source: El Segundo Public Library.
$ 30
7,000
$ 210,000
20
500
10,000
17
2,600
44,200
80
890
71,200
45
916
41,200
5
5,880
29,400
1.00
1,800
1,800
7
80,822
565,800
10
27,500
275,000
200
6,500
1,300,000
30
27,000
810,000
88
23,000
2,024,000
26
56,325
1,464,500
3,000
15
45,000
240,748 $6,892,100
V r FWIL�LDDAN {
A4
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table A.5: Library Equipment and Furnishings
Description
Units
Year
Acquired
Unit Cost
Total
Replacement
Cost
Projector, Epson
1
05/06
$ 2,600
$ 2,600
Projector, LCD Multimedia (Panasonic)
1
07/08
1,600
1,600
Media Return, M700 -R
1
03/04
2,169
2,200
Audio System /Matsui Room
1
03/04
8,000
8,000
Tables
1
06/07
8,000
8,000
Reading Chairs
15
06/07
733
11,000
3M Security System
1
02/03
14,000
14,000
Canon Microfilm Scanner
1
08/09
9,000
9,000
Audio Visual Material Return
1
93/94
1,650
1,700
Audio Visual System
1
91/92
23,595
23,600
Printer, Dell 310OCN Laser Color
1
06/07
1,600
1,600
Printer, HP LserJet 2055DN
1
08/09
1,600
1,600
Bar Code Scanner & Resensitier
1
03/04
1,600
1,600
Printer, Canon Fileprint
1
08/09
2,000
2,000
Computer, Dell Optiplex 755 Ultra Small
40
07/08
1,818
72,700
Laptop, Dell Latitude D630
1
07/08
1,800
1,800
Computer, Dell Optiplex GX620 19 "flat
13
05/06
1,800
23,400
Bar Code Scanners (17)
1
07/08
2,500
2,500
Computer, Dell Optiplex GX280T, 17"
1
04/05
1,600
1,600
Computer, Dell Optiplex GX620 Mini Tower a
1
06/07
2,400
2,400
Computer, Gateway Profile 5MX -C
1
04/05
2,000
2,000
Switch, PowerConnect 5324 (3ea)
1
06/07
3,500
3,500
Millennium System Expansion Software
1
02/03
50,000
50,000
Battery backup RS232 - (2)
1
02/03
1,700
1,700
Cisco Firewall PIX
1
00/01
4,500
4,500
OCLC Interfaces (2)
1
92/93
9,000
9,000
OPAC Web Server
1
00/01
13,500
13,500
Total - Library Equipment
$ 277,100
Note: Total replacement cost figures rounded to nearest hundred
Sources: City of El Segundo Equipment Replacement Schedule, 09/10; City of El Segundo.
vo WILLDAN
v` rfnmmal Servkes A 5
L' 8 .i
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table A.6: Fire Department Vehicles
Year Replacement
Description Unit Acquired Cost
Vehicles
Sedan, Crown Victoria
1
06/07
$ 28,000
Truck, crew cab
1
97/98
50,000
Generator, Tempest Honda 2000 Watt
2
07/08
3,600
Generator JR)
1
00/01
3,500
Hydraulic Rescue (Jaws of Life)
2
00/01
58,000
Aerial Ladder
1
94/95
921,400
Fire Engine (E33)
1
08/09
771,000
Ford Excursion /Command Center
1
02/03
105,000
Fire Engine (E34)
1
92/93
448,000
Truck, USAR
1
05/06
800,000
Fire Engine (E31)
1
99/00
575,000
Fire Engine (E32)
1
92/93
448,000
Truck, Communications
1
89/90
-
Power Blower (E33)
1
00/01
1,800
Generator
1
00/01
2,200
Power Blower (T32)
1
91/92
2,600
Generator, Honda
1
96/97
3,500
Sedan
2
98/99
31,500
Technical Rescue Truck
1
95/96
320,000
Rescue Ambulance (R31)
1
03/04
251,100
Rescue Ambulance
1
96/97
179,500
Truck, Ford Super Cab
2
00/01
59,000
2008 Ford Escape Hybrid
1
08/09
35,000
Sedan, Grand Marquis
1
00/01
26,300
Crew Cab Truck
1
99/00
52,000
Generator
1
99/00
1,800
Total - Equipment and Apparatus
$ 5,177,800
Note: Equipment replacement costs rounded to nearest hundred
Sources: City of El Segundo Equipment Replacement Schedule, 09/10; City of El Segundo.
WILLDAN
Financial Servroes A f:i
U 8 i
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table A.7: Fire Department Computer, Communications Equipment
Year Replacement
Description Unit Acquired Cost
Communications
Portable XTL5000 VHF Radios (2)
1
06/07 $
10,000
Portable XTS5000 UHF Radios (8)
1
06/07
40,000
Portable XTS5000 UHF Radios (12)
1
06/07
45,000
Portable XTL5000 VHF Radios (17)
1
06/07
60,000
Portable XTS5000 UHF Radios (18)
1
03/04
72,000
Portable XTS5000 UHF Radios (16)
1
03/04
118,000
Portable VHF (18)
1
varies
33,600
Motorola portable UHF radio (3)
1
02/03
11,000
Satellite Phone Portable Kits (7)
1
08/09
14,000
Emergency Advisory Radio
1
02/03
17,000
UHF Repeater System
1
98/99
2,500
Subtotal - Communications Equipment
1
98/99
423,100
Computer Equipment
Fax, Panafax OF -8000
1
07/08 $
1,500
Computer, Dell Optiplex GX620 19 "flat
8
05/06
14,400
Laptop, Dell Latitude C810
2
04/05
6,000
Printer, HP LJ 420ODTN
3
02/03
6,300
Computer, Dell File Server
1
02/03
6,000
Computer, Dell Optiplex 755 Ultra Small
8
07/08
14,400
Switch, PowerConnect 5224
1
03/04
2,500
Laptop, Dell Precision M6300
1
07/08
3,100
Mobile Data Computer (1) M5
1
06/07
7,500
Mobile Data Computer (1) M15
1
05/06
11,000
Mobile Data Computer (13)
1
03/04
111,000
Pipeline 130 IDSN /T1
1
98/99
1,300
Scanner
1
93/94
1,600
Laptop, Dell Latitude D510 Celeron M
16
05/06
24,000
Printer, Xerox Phaser 6259/DP color
1
04/05
2,600
Computer, Gateway 5MX -C Delux (EOC)
2
04/05
4,800
Server, Dell PowerEdge 1800 esweb03
1
05/06
4,500
Laptop, Dell Latitude C810 w /docking st
1
04/05
3,000
Computer, Dell Optiplex 755 "EMWIN"
1
07/08
4,000
Printer, HY LJ 220ODN (EOC)
2
01/02
2,800
Panafax 990 Fax Machine (EOC)
2
01/02
5,600
Subtotal - Computer Equipment
$
237,900
Note: Equipment replacement costs rounded to nearest hundred
Sources: City of El Segundo Equipment Replacement Schedule, 09/10; City of El Segundo.
WWI LLDAN
Financial servkes A 7
11QJ
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table A.8: Fire Department Other Misc. Equipment
Year ep acement
Description Unit Acquired Cost
Other Equipment
Automatic Defibrillator S2- Lifepak (2)
1
04/05 $
5,600
Automatic Defibrillator (4)
1
04/05
10,700
Typewriter
2
92/93
2,000
Ports Count System Model #8028
1
08/09
1,200
Ventilation Chain Saw (E33)
1
99/00
1,300
Turbo Water Vac 17 gallon
1
03/04
2,700
Sharp 2000 Zoom Projector
1
03/04
2,100
ESFD Station #1 Console
1
05/06
5,500
ESFD Station #2 Console
1
05/06
5,500
Pro Tread Treadmill (St. 1)
1
08/09
5,400
Asset Management System
1
05/06
3,000
Washer Extractor
1
93/94
10,800
Personal Protective Equipment
2
04/05
7,500
Recliner, Lander (10)
1
08/09
8,000
Helmets w /eye protection (60)
1
04/05
13,600
Ballistic Body Armor (19 sets)
1
07/08
10,000
SCBA Bottles (22)
1
06/07
20,000
Headsets (33)
1
03/04
8,500
Emergency Vehicle Intercom Sys. (10ea)
1
03/04
11,000
Communications Generator (1/4)
1
98/99
50,000
Personal Escape Mask (CBRN) (75)
1
04/05
13,000
Heavy USAR Equipment
1
07/08
40,000
SCBA CBRN Mask
1
04/05
18,000
Hose (300 sections)
1
varies
-
SCBA Bottles (40)
1
04/05
36,000
Protective Clothing (60)
1
varies
-
SCBA Units (26)
1
04/05
145,200
SCBA Voice Amplifiers (55)
1
02/03
13,300
Typewriter
1
90/91
1,000
Ab Bench - Icarian (ST2)
1
02/03
1,000
Submersible Pump JR)
1
94/95
1,300
Pump
1
98/99
1,400
Pump JR)
1
98/99
1,400
Submersible Pump (ST2)
2
98/99
2,800
Rotary saw (2) JR)
1
98/99
1,400
3 -way Suction Siamese (T32)
1
97/98
1,500
Rotary hammer JR)
1
98/99
1,500
Ventilation Chain Saw (T32)
1
92/93
1,800
Culquick Power Saw
1
93/94
2,100
Water Vacuum
1
94/95
2,200
Gas Detector JR)
1
96/97
2,500
Gas Detector JR)
1
96/97
2,500
MSA Alarm (2) JR)
1
96/97
3,000
Leg Extensions (ST2)
1
99/00
3,000
Leg Curls (ST2)
1
99/00
3,000
Automated Defibrillator (E31)
1
00/01
4,000
Automated Defibrillator (E33)
1
00/01
4,000
Automated Defibrillator (E32)
1
00/01
4,000
Step Mill 7000 (ST2)
1
98/99
4,000
Precor EFX 5.23 Crosstrainer (ST2)
1
02/03
4,000
Precor Fitness Crosstrainer (ST1)
1
98/99
4,500
Thermal imaging camera (E31)
1
02/03
25,000
Thermal imaging camera (E33)
1
02/03
25,000
Thermal imaging camera (E32)
1
02/03
25,000
SCBA Bottles (77)
1
varies
57,200
SCBA (26)
1
varies
61,300
Victory trailer
4
08/09
22,100
Defibrillator, E Series ACLS Manual
1
07/08
19,500
Monitor /Defibrillator Life Pak 12 (2)
1
04/05
36,700
Defibrillator, 3 -E Series /2 -M Series Manual
1
06/07
59,000
Monitor /Defibrillator
1
97/98
13,000
Mobile radio ( #3361)
1
00/01
2,100
Mobile radio ( #3360)
1
00/01
2,100
HNU Toxic Detector
1
03/04
3,700
Combo Gas /Oxygen Indicator
1
03/04
3,900
CBRN Detection Equipment
2
04/05
15,000
Five Step Analysis Kit ( #3348)
1
99/00
2,200
Combustible Gas Indicator
1
91/92
5,400
Mobile Mini Storage 10'
2
97/98
6,500
Mobile Mini Storage 20'
1
95/96
4,400
Projector, LCD "2" (EOC)
1
06/07
5,200
Biological /Chemical Detection Kit
1
04/05
5,300
Upholstered Chairs (35)
1
08/09
25,000
SE Inspector Survey Meter
1
03/04
25,000
Chemical & Biological Agent Detection Kit
1
04/05
15,000
Emerg. food (mutual aid /City empl.)
1
07/08
20,000
Emergency food
1
07/08
25,000
Subtotal - Other Equipment
$
1,017,400
Note: Equipment replacement costs rounded to nearest hundred.
Sources. City of El Segundo Equipment Replacement Schedule, 09/10; City of El Seguntlo.
WI LLDAN
,„I Financial Services I A -8
0 v
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table A.9: Parks Equipment and Vehicles
Description
Units
Year
Acquired
Unit Cost
Total
Replacement
Cost
Printer, Zebra P330i & Cards
1
FY05 -06
$ 6,600
$ 6,600
Program registration Printer & Cards
1
FY04 -05
6,600
6,600
System 5 Timer (Saari Pool)
1
FY00 -01
35,000
35,000
Vacuum Sweeper
1
FY02 -03
3,500
3,500
Board, Maxiflex 16'- Stand
1
FY01 -02
7,500
7,500
Pool automatic chlorinator
1
FY98 -99
2,500
2,500
Portable Radio (8), Motorola
8
FY03 -04
438
3,500
Rototiller
1
FY98 -99
1,300
1,300
16" Sod Cutter
1
FY98 -99
3,600
3,600
Tractor, Garden
1
FY98 -99
8,500
8,500
Genie Aerial Lift
1
FY00 -01
8,100
8,100
Delta 5 HP Unisaw
1
FY07 -08
5,000
5,000
Sedan, Crown Victoria
1
FY06 -07
8,000
8,000
Showmobile trailer
1
FY01 -02
130,000
130,000
Lawnair Aerator
1
FY86 -87
1,700
1,700
Cushman
1
FY99 -00
21,000
21,000
GEM, Utility Cart
1
FY02 -03
6,000
6,000
Mower/Trimmer
2
FY02 -03
1,700
3,400
Truck, Chevy
6
FY02 -03
29,133
174,800
John Deer 220B Greens mower
1
FY03 -04
5,000
5,000
Planer, Powermatic
1
FY99 -00
2,000
2,000
Roller Turf
1
FY91 -92
4,000
4,000
Stump Cutter
1
FY99 -00
36,000
36,000
Truck, Ford
2
FY91 -92
17,350
34,700
Truck, GMC TC7500 w /Arbortech 12" Chipper
1
FY08 -09
98,000
98,000
Aerial Tower Truck
1
FY97 -98
130,000
130,000
Utility Vehicle, John Deere HPX Gator
1
FY04 -05
10,200
10,200
Truck
1
FY92 -93
28,000
28,000
Utility Trailer
3
FY02 -03
5,433
16,300
Wood Chipper
1
FY01 -02
33,000
33,000
Generator
1
FY92 -93
2,000
2,000
Line Striper, Jiffy 7500
1
FY03 -04
1,800
1,800
Lawn Comber
1
FY97 -98
1,500
1,500
Mower
1
FY98 -99
4,200
4,200
Computer, Optiplex GX280, 17" panel
1
FY04 -05
1,800
1,800
Computer, Dell Optiplex 755 Ultra Small
14
FY07 -08
1,800
25,200
Computer, Dell; printer; firewall
1
FY07 -08
3,600
3,600
Computer, GX520 Minitowers
2
FY05 -06
2,300
4,600
Printer, HP220ODN
1
FY02 -03
1,200
1,200
Printer, HP LaserJet4000TN
1
FY98 -99
1,800
1,800
Fax, Panafax DX2000
1
FY03 -04
2,600
2,600
HP 220ODTN Printer
1
FY02 -03
1,700
1,700
Computer, Dell Optiplex GX620 19 "flat
1
FY05 -06
1,800
1,800
Total Equipment and Vehicles
$ 887,600
Note: Totals replacement costs rounded to nearest hundred
Sources: City of El Segundo Equipment Replacement Schedule, 08/09; City of El Segundo.
)/VIWILLDAN {
iL Services A-1}
- r4
A••e • i : Worker Demand Survey for
Parks
The worker demand weighting for parks and recreation facilities were developed during various
user intercept surveys carried out by staff at the City of El Segundo in March 2010. The following
appendix describes the methodology used to arrive at the worker demand weighting factors.
Park Survey
The parks intercept survey was administered to all willing park -goers at Campus El Segundo
Fields and Recreation Park on Tuesday, March 16th, Wednesday, March 17th, and Sunday,
March 21st. On the two weekdays, the survey was administered during the interval from 11:45AM
to 1:15PM and then the interval from 6:OOPM to 7:OOPM. On Sunday, the survey was
administered from 9:15AM- 10:15AM, from 12:15PM- 1:15PM and from 6:30PM to 7:30PM. The
parks surveyed are listed in the table below. Park users were asked if they came to the park that
day because of proximity to work, home, both or neither.
The staff at the City of El Segundo initially tabulated the results of the survey. The results of the
weekday surveys (Tuesday, March 16th and Wednesday, March 17th) need to be multiplied by
five to weight the results to represent the five weekdays. Results from the weekend survey
(Sunday, March 21st) need to be multiplied by two in order to represent total visits for both
weekend days.
Willdan Financial Services constructed weights by considering worker and resident responses
alone. Respondents suggesting that they were at the parks for both or neither reasons were not
included in the total. The resulting estimate of total proximity to work responses were then divided
by the current estimate of employees working within the City of El Segundo to derive park visits
per employee. Park visits per resident were estimated by dividing the responses by the current
resident population. The resulting weighting factor for worker park use based on survey results is
estimated at 0.17.
The tabulation of survey results appears in Table B.1 below.
WILLDAN
Ffnarxtim Swvocm R I
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table BA: City Of El Segundo Park Users Survey
Adjustment Factor
Number of patrons at
5
5
park because of:
Weighted Weekday Visits
133
Work Residence Both Neither
Survey Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2010,11:45
am to 1:15 pm
Survey Date: Sunday, March 21, 2010,
9:15 am to 10:15 am
Recreation Park
37 30
13
19
Campus El Segundo Fields
6 1
_
10
Total
43 31
13
29
Survey Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2010,
6:00 pm to 7:00 pm
8
32
Recreation Park
5 15
12
6
Campus El Segundo Fields
3 52
10
28
Total
8 67
22
34
Survey Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2010,11:45 am to 1:15 pm
6
26
Recreation Park
28 12
6
15
Campus El Segundo Fields
7 2
1
23
Total
35 14
7
38
Survey Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2010, 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm
2
34
Recreation Park
12 41
11
37
Campus El Segundo Fields
8 83
3
42
Total
20 124
14
79
Adjustment Factor
5
5
5
5
Weighted Weekday Visits
133
295
70
225
Survey Date: Sunday, March 21, 2010,
9:15 am to 10:15 am
Recreation Park
-
25
7
14
Campus El Segundo Fields
8
7
2
37
Total
8
32
9
51
Survey Date: Sunday, March 21, 2010,
12:15 pm to 1:15 pm
Recreation Park
5
38
12
36
Campus El Segundo Fields
6
26
8
129
Total
11
64
20
165
Survey Date: Sunday, March 21, 2010,
6:30 pm to 7:30 pm
Recreation Park
2
34
6
32
Campus El Segundo Fields
10
6
5
209
Total
12
40
11
241
Adjustment Factor
2
2
2
2
Weighted Weekend Visits
21
91
27
305
Weekend and Weekday Weighted Visits
153
386
97
Allocation of "Both" Response
48
48
202
434
Employees or Residents
47,200 17,000
1,000 Visits per worker or resident
4.27 25.53
't hH �i � Nryt�F e NX
1,000 Visits
Per Capita
Workers
4.27
Residents
25.53
Worker Weighting Factor
0.17
Note: These parks were selected based on their similarity to future parks to be built.
Sources:
ACiity off El Segundo; Willdan Financial Services.
"WWI LSSwwcos t�- �
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING EL SEGUNDO MUNICIPAL CODE §§ 15-
27A-6(D) AND 15- 27A -6(E) AFFECTING WHEN DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEES MUST BE PAID.
The City Council of the City of El Segundo does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: El Segundo Municipal Code ( "ESMC ") § 15- 27A -6(D) is amended to
read as follows:
"D. The director of planning and building safety or the director of public
works will collect impact fees in
accordance with Government Code 4 66007, except that the connection
fees are collected at the time an applicant seeks to connect to the city's
utility system."
SECTION 2: El Segundo Municipal Code ( "ESMC ") § 15- 27A -6(E) is amended to read
as follows:
"E. Unless otheFWO ° revosed,Unless otherwise provided by Council
resolution, the impact fees established by this chapter will be automatically
adjusted on an annual basis at the beginning of each fiscal year based on
the average percentage change over the previous calendar year set forth
in the construction price index for the Los Angeles metropolitan area. The
first impact fee adjustment cannot be made before a minimum of ten (10)
months after the effective date hereof."
SECTION 3: Environmental Review. This ordinance
California Environmental Quality Act (California Public
seq., "CEQA ") and CEQA regulations (14 California Ci
seq.) because it does not involve any commitment tc
result in a potentially significant physical impact on tl
rules and procedures to implement an organizational c
not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the
Ordinance does not constitute a "project" that requ
specifically, 14 CCR § 15378(b)(2, 5)).
is exempt from review under the
Resources Code §§ 21000, et
)de of Regulations §§ 15000, et
> a specific project which could
le environment and establishes
>r administrative activity that will
environment. Accordingly, this
res environmental review (see
SECTION 4: If any part of this Ordinance or its application is deemed invalid by a
court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect
the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the
provisions of this Ordinance are severable.
SECTION 5: Repeal or amendment of any provision of the ESMC will not affect any
penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or preclude prosecution and imposition of
penalties for any violation occurring before this Ordinance's effective date. Any such
repealed part will remain in full force and effect for sustaining action or prosecuting
violations occurring before the effective date of this Ordinance.
SECTION 6: If this the entire Ordinance or its application is deemed invalid by a court
of competent jurisdiction, any repeal of the ESMC or other the city ordinance by this
Ordinance will be rendered void and cause such ESMC provision or other the city
ordinance to remain in full force and effect for all purposes.
SECTION 7: The City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of the
Ordinance, make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting, and
within fifteen days after the passage and adoption of this Ordinance cause it to be
published and posted in accordance with California law.
SECTION 8: This Ordinance will become effective on the 31St day following its
passage and adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of October, 2010.
ATTEST:
Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
MARK D. HENSLEY, City Attorney
A
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
Eric Busch, Mayor
PAPlanning & Building Safety \0 Planning - Old \PROJECTS (Plan ning) \701 - 725 \EA - 723 \City Council Report and Reso \City Council
10.05.2010 \EA- 723.Impact Fee Ordinance Amendment.CC.10.05.10.doc
2
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 21, 2010
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Special Orders of Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to open a public hearing and receive testimony regarding: 1)
approval of an Environmental Assessment for a proposed Statutory Exemption; and 2) adoption
of Public Facilities Impact Fees for Police, Fire, Library, and Parks Facilities. Applicant: City
Initiated (Fiscal Impact: Increased Fee Revenue from Police, Fire and Library Public Facilities
Impact Fees and Establishment of New Parks Impact Fees)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Open the public hearing;
2. Discussion;
3. Adopt a Resolution establishing Public Facilities Impact Fees; and /or
4. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible action related to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Exhibit A - Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
3. Neighboring Jurisdiction Mitigation Fees Comparison Table
4. Development Scenario Comparison Tables
5. Parks Fee Comparison
FISCAL IMPACT:
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): 702- 300 - 8107 -3972; 702 - 300 - 8122 -3972; 702- 300 -8132-
3972; and new 702 -300 Revenue Account for Parks Impact
Fee -
ORIGINATED BY: Kimberly Christensen, AICP, Planning Manager'
REVIEWED BY. Greg Carpenter, Director of Planning and Building Safety
APPROVED BY: Jack Wayt, City Manager
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
I. Introduction
As part of the City's Strategic Planning work program for 2009 -2010, the City Council directed
Planning staff to oversee the preparation of the Public Facilities Impact Fee Study and to assist
the City's Police, Fire, Library and Parks Departments in making recommendations to Council
regarding new and updated public facilities impact fees.
The City retained the services of Willdan Financial Services to prepare the Public Facilities
Impact Fee Study. The purpose of this comprehensive fee study is to determine the actual cost of
public facilities needed to serve new development and the maximum justified fee levels that can
iv
1
be imposed on new development to maintain the City's existing public facilities standard of
service.
City Staff is recommending that the City adopt public facilities impact fees that are lower than
the maximum justified fees identified in the Willdan study.
II. Background
The goal of development impact fees is for applicants proposing new development to pay their
fair share of the costs of providing public services and facilities. In December 2005, the City of
El Segundo adopted ESMC Chapter 15 -27A, "Development Impact Fees" when it updated its
traffic congestion mitigation fees. ESMC Chapter 15 -27A establishes the City's procedures for
imposing development impact fees on applicants seeking to construct development projects in
compliance with State law. The traffic congestion mitigation fee rates were based on the
recommendations in a traffic impact fee study prepared by MuniFinancial (now Willdan
Financial Services).
Currently, the City charges police, fire and library impact fees for development projects that
require discretionary planning entitlements. This policy does not impose fees on all new
development in the City, since many new construction projects are approved administratively
and do not require discretionary approval of the Planning Commission or City Council. As a
result, many new construction projects occurring in the City do not contribute any money toward
expanded public facilities to service new development.
The current impact fees were established in the mid- 1980's and have not been adjusted for
inflation. The amount collected from the City's current policy is inadequate to pay for public
facilities costs associated with new development. The current police, fire, and library fees are
$0.11, $0.14, and $0.03 per square foot respectively. A parks facility fee has never been
established or charged for new development in El Segundo. El Segundo is the only city in the
survey of local jurisdictions conducted by City Staff to not currently assess a parks development
impact fee (Exhibit 5).
The attached Public Facilities Impact Fee Study prepared by Willdan Financial Services (See
Exhibit 2) includes the following information: 1) The study explains the background for public
facilities financing in California in general and El Segundo in particular; 2) The study identifies
the demographic and construction activity assumptions used as a basis in developing the
proposed fees; 3) The study then develops a fee in each public facility category that would fund
the fair share cost to new development for police, fire, library and parks facilities, land and
equipment; 4) The study outlines how the City should implement the new fees, adjust the fees for
inflation, and identifies State of California reporting requirements; and 5) The study concludes
with making five statutorily required findings of the Mitigation Fee Act that are required adopt
the maximum justified public facilities fees contained in the study.
The proposed mitigation fees identified in the study would be used by each Department to fund
expanded facilities to serve new development in the City. Each fee is restricted to funding only
new facilities and equipment within the category the fee was collected for. All impact fees
collected must be deposited into a dedicated account and cannot be commingled with the City's
�; � v 2
other funds. Each affected City Department provided a list of future facilities that could be
purchased or built with the revenue collected from the fee. The lists of potential future facilities
are included in the Willdan study. These facilities are representative of the types of facilities and
equipment that are anticipated to serve additional residents and employees. However, the
specific facilities can be changed during the planning period to accommodate the demands of
new development.
Additionally, impact fees are only collected on net new development. For example, if a single -
family home is demolished and a new single - family home is constructed on that same lot, no
impact fee is charged because there is a net gain of 0 residential units and no increase in
development impacts. Alternatively, if a lot is vacant and it has never been developed, the
impact fees would be charged when a new single - family home is constructed on the vacant lot.
III. Analysis
The Wildan Public Facilities Study is based on a 20 -year planning horizon. The City's
residential and worker populations, as well as future facilities needs are estimated for the year
2030. The study uses City permit history, Federal Census data, California Department of
Finance estimates and Southern California Association of Governments estimates to develop
growth projections for the year 2030. The projected residential growth is for 720 new residents
which will be housed in 60 new single - family homes and 290 new multi - family housing units. A
total of 5,840,000 square feet of new commercial, office, and industrial development is projected
to be added by 2030.
To determine the fair share of future planned public facilities for new residents and business the
study uses the System Plan method to calculate police, fire and library fees. This method is
useful to analyze police, fire and library services as each is part of a system that benefits both
existing and new development. The method calculated the impact fee based on: the value of
existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities, divided by demand from existing plus new
development. The System Plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing
service deficiencies. The System Plan calculations are located on the following pages of the
Willdan study: Police (pages 17 to 20), Library (pages 21 to 24) and Fire (pages 25 to 28).
The study uses the Existing Inventory method for parks. This method assumes that there are no
existing service deficiencies for parks. New development will fund the expansion of facilities at
the same standard that currently serves existing development. The existing inventory method is
calculated based on dividing the current value of existing facilities by the demand from current
development to come up with a dollar cost per unit of demand (per resident or worker). For the
Existing Inventory method fee calculation for Parks see pages 29 through page 36 in the Willdan
Study.
Table E.2 on page six of the Willdan study is a fee schedule summarizing the development
impact fees calculated using the above two methods. City Staff compared the Willdan fee
schedule against the development impact fees that neighboring jurisdictions currently impose on
new development projects. The jurisdictions included in the comparison are: Manhattan Beach,
Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, Torrance, Hawthorne, City of Los Angeles, Long Beach and
Culver City. The data gathered from this comparison survey is summarized in the attached
neighboring jurisdiction mitigation fee comparison table (Exhibit 3). At the completion of the
data gathering process it was clear to Staff that if the City were to impose the development
impact fee schedule in the Willdan study these fees would be highest among the comparison
cities.
The Willdan report states that the City may legally adopt any fee up to the amounts shown on
Table E.2 in the report. Willdan makes a further recommendation that if the City chooses to
adopt lower fees, then the City should consider reducing the fee for each land use by the same
percentage. In reviewing the fee methodology, a fairly high percentage of the justification is
based on the value of land used by existing facilities. If the land is removed from the
methodology, the potential fee levels are significantly lower. This reduction will keep the City's
development impact fees at a level more consistent with the fees charged by neighboring
jurisdictions.
Staff's recommendation for the fee reduction is based upon the assumption that the City is
relatively built -out and improvements to City services for future development will likely occur
through the purchase of new equipment and the addition and enhancement of facilities on land
the City already owns and not through the purchase of additional land. The recommended fees
further reduce the recommended impact fees for new single - family and two - family residences by
an additional 50 %, to keep those fees in line with the average fees charged to single - family
development in the comparison jurisdictions. The table below summarizes the level of fees
recommended by City Staff for Police, Library, Fire, and Parks impact fees. The recommended
fees are substantially lower than the maximum justified fees identified in the Willdan study.
This approach is consistent with existing Planning and Building Safety fee policy that assesses a
lower fee for single - family home construction.
Recommended Development Impact Fee Table
LAND USE
POLICE
LIBRARY
FIRE
PARKS
TOTAL
Residential
(Per Unit)
SFR, Two -Famil
$986
$1,233
$431
$1,662
$4,312
Multi-Family
$1,314
$1,640
$572
$2,209
$5,735
Caretaker
$852
$1,064
$371
$1,433
$3,720
Non - Residential
(Per Square Foot)
Commercial
$0.45
NA
$0.43
$0.41
$1.29
Office
$0.52
NA
$0.51
$0.48
$1.51
Industrial
$0.25
NA
$0.24
1 $0.23
$0.72
In order to provide a clear comparison of the above recommended development impact fees with
the impact fees charged by neighboring jurisdictions, City Staff developed fee comparison tables
for four development scenarios (Exhibit 4). The development scenarios are: 1) a new single
family residence; 2) a new 6 -unit, multi- family structure; 3) a new 10,000 square -foot
commercial building west of Sepulveda; and 4) a new 50,000 square -foot office building east of
Sepulveda. The development scenario comparison tables include the following information: 1)
El Segundo's current impact fees; 2) the "full cost" recovery fee recommended in the Willdan
study; 3) the "facilities only" impact fee recommended by City Staff; and 4) fees charged by
f
neighboring jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions charge impact fees for facilities that other
jurisdictions do not charge. Therefore, the list of impact fees included in the comparison table is
more comprehensive than the impact fees that the City is currently considering. The goal of the
fee comparison table is to show the overall cost of impact fees on new development and
therefore compare the total package of each jurisdiction's fees. This is why the "storm drain"
and "traffic mitigation" fees are included in the comparisons.
Below each development scenario comparison table (Exhibit 4) is a list ranking the total fees
charged by each jurisdiction. The fee ranking list includes the current El Segundo fees, the
recommended "facilities only" fees, the "full cost" recovery fees from the Willdan Public
Facilities Impact Fee Study, and the total fees charged by neighboring jurisdictions. The list
includes an average of all of the neighboring jurisdiction's fees. Staff also developed an
"adjusted average" to take into account that some neighboring jurisdictions have not yet adopted
impact fees or do not charge impact fees for certain categories of development. The "adjusted
average" is calculated by taking all the jurisdictions that do charge fees for the category of
development being evaluated then removing the jurisdictions with the highest and lowest fees
from the average calculation. It is clear from the ranking lists that the recommended "Facilities
Only" fees will result in a mitigation fee schedule with lower fees than most neighboring
jurisdictions that have adopted mitigation fees.
Staff has also developed a Parks Fee comparison (Exhibit 5). Staff complied the parks
information into one exhibit because parks fees is a public facility impact fee that all neighboring
jurisdictions currently charge. The City of El Segundo does not currently have a parks impact
fee. The staff recommended "Facilities Only" fee reduces the fee by approximately 80% to 90%
in comparison to the maximum justified fee in the Willdan study. The calculation of parks fee
involves a very large land component therefore the staff recommended method for reducing the
impact fee has a greater effect on the parks impact fee than to the recommended fire, police and
library impact fees. If the City were to adopt the "full cost" recovery fee identified in the
Willdan study the parks impact fee for single family residences would be more than double that
of the highest fee in any neighboring jurisdiction.
The Willdan study contains tables that estimate the total revenue for each fee anticipated over the
20 -year planning horizon of the study. In the table below, the Willdan fees are identified as the
"Full Cost" fees. Staff compiled the total anticipated revenue for the recommended fees and
identified this as the "Facilities Only" column in the table below. Staff also calculated an
estimate for the maximum revenue that could be collected under the City's current policy of
charging fire, police and library impact fees for projects that require planning entitlements. The
current policy is identified as "existing" in the table below. Please note that the "existing" fees
are the maximum revenue that could be obtained if every development project required a
planning entitlement. In practice, the revenue collected under current policy will be much lower
that the estimated $1.8 million. This is because a significant percentage of future development
would not require discretionary planning entitlements and therefore would not be subject to the
City's current impact fee policy.
U9ci 5
20 -Year Projected Revenue for Police, Fire, Library, and Parks Impact Fees
Existing - Estimate of the maximum amount that couia ue couectea it au new non- resiaentiai ana multi-ramuy
projects involved discretionary planning entitlements and were subject to fees. This estimate will be more than the
actual amount collected. The calculation uses new construction assumptions in Willdan Fee Study Table 2.2: of
820,000 square feet of commercial development, 1,800,000 square feet of office development, and 3,220,000 square
feet of industrial development.
Full Cost - Based on total fees identified in the Willdan Financial Study.
Recommended (Facilities Only) — Removes the cost of land from all proposed fees. Fee reduced an additional 50%
for new single - family and two - family dwellings.
IV. Inter - departmental Review/Plannina and Building Advisory Group Comments
Interdepartmental Review
On August 25, 2010 Planning Staff met with Department Directors from Police, Parks, Fire and
Library. The department heads confirmed that they have completed their review of the Willdan
Study and the analysis and recommendations produced by the Planning Division. The Directors
agreed with the Planning Division's recommended method to adopt development impact fees
lower than those identified in the Willdan study and the fees as proposed.
Planning and Building Advisory Group
On September 14, 2010 Planning Staff presented the Public Facilities Impact Fee Study to the
Planning and Building Advisory Group. This group consists of representatives from major
business interests, architects and developers who work within the City. Staff presented the
methodology of the fee study and the methods used to develop the City staff recommendation.
Discussion followed the Staff presentation.
V. Environmental Review
In accordance with the Public Resources Code and the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines, the proposed resolution is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Statutory Exemption 15273 (Rates,
Tolls, Fares and Charges). CEQA does not apply to the establishment of the public facilities
mitigation fees as the fees are for the purpose of: a) purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment, or
materials; and b) obtaining funds for capital projects, necessary to maintain service within
existing service areas.
6
Existing
Full Cost
Recommended (Facilities
Only)
Police
$898,800
$2,969,000
$2,496,200
Fire
$706,200
$2,664,500
$2,180,600
Library
$192,600
$625,700
$553,200
Parks
$0
$14,151,000
$2,641,300
Total
$1,797,600
$20,410,200
$7,871,300
Existing - Estimate of the maximum amount that couia ue couectea it au new non- resiaentiai ana multi-ramuy
projects involved discretionary planning entitlements and were subject to fees. This estimate will be more than the
actual amount collected. The calculation uses new construction assumptions in Willdan Fee Study Table 2.2: of
820,000 square feet of commercial development, 1,800,000 square feet of office development, and 3,220,000 square
feet of industrial development.
Full Cost - Based on total fees identified in the Willdan Financial Study.
Recommended (Facilities Only) — Removes the cost of land from all proposed fees. Fee reduced an additional 50%
for new single - family and two - family dwellings.
IV. Inter - departmental Review/Plannina and Building Advisory Group Comments
Interdepartmental Review
On August 25, 2010 Planning Staff met with Department Directors from Police, Parks, Fire and
Library. The department heads confirmed that they have completed their review of the Willdan
Study and the analysis and recommendations produced by the Planning Division. The Directors
agreed with the Planning Division's recommended method to adopt development impact fees
lower than those identified in the Willdan study and the fees as proposed.
Planning and Building Advisory Group
On September 14, 2010 Planning Staff presented the Public Facilities Impact Fee Study to the
Planning and Building Advisory Group. This group consists of representatives from major
business interests, architects and developers who work within the City. Staff presented the
methodology of the fee study and the methods used to develop the City staff recommendation.
Discussion followed the Staff presentation.
V. Environmental Review
In accordance with the Public Resources Code and the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines, the proposed resolution is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Statutory Exemption 15273 (Rates,
Tolls, Fares and Charges). CEQA does not apply to the establishment of the public facilities
mitigation fees as the fees are for the purpose of: a) purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment, or
materials; and b) obtaining funds for capital projects, necessary to maintain service within
existing service areas.
6
VI. Recommendation
Planning staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution authorizing Public Facility
Mitigation Fees as proposed. The Resolution establishes fees below the maximum justified fee
as identified in the attached Public Facilities Impact Fee Study. The recommended fee schedule
is included in the attached Resolution. If adopted, the proposed impact fees would become
effective on November 22, 2010.
P:\Planning & Building Safety \0 Planning - Old\PROJECTS (Planning) \701- 725\EA- 723 \City Council Report and Reso\EA- 723 1mpact Fee
Study CC Report.09.21.2010.doc
n
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR
POLICE, FIRE, LIBRARY, AND PARKS FACILITIES IN ACCORDANCE
WITH TITLE 15 CHAPTER 27A OF THE EL SEGUNDO MUNICIPAL
CODE.
The City Council of the City of El Segundo does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares that:
A. New land development generates impacts on public services and public
facilities for which revenues generated through property taxes and other
means are generally insufficient to accommodate;
B. Objective LU7 -1 in the Land Use Element of the General Plan for the City
of El Segundo states that it is the City's objective to provide the highest
and most efficient level of public services and public infrastructure
financially possible;
C. Policy LU7 -1.2 in the Land Use Element of the General Plan for the City of
El Segundo states no new development is allowed unless adequate public
facilities are in place or otherwise provided;
D. It is the City's intent and desire to have developers pay for their fair share
of public costs associated with new development while at the same time
facilitating growth that is in the public interest;
E. The imposition of impact fees is one of the preferred methods of ensuring
that development bears a proportionate share of the cost of capital
facilities necessary to accommodate such development. This must be
done in order to promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare;
F. The City Council may establish development impact fees for police, fire,
library and parks under the provisions of the State of California Mitigation
Fee Act (Government Code §§ 66000- 66025);
G. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to Title 15 Chapter 27A of the El
Segundo Municipal Code (ESMC) for the purposes of calculating
development impact fees;
H. The fees established by this Resolution are derived from, are based upon,
and do not exceed the costs of providing capital facilities necessitated by
the new land developments for which the fees are levied;
I. The report entitled "Public Facilities Impact Fee Study" dated August 30,
2010, prepared by Willdan Financial Services, set forth a reasonable
methodology and analysis for the determination of the impact of new
development on the need for and costs for additional capital facilities
improvements in the City. The Fee Study is attached as Exhibit "A," and
incorporated by reference;
J. City Staff has evaluated the "Public Facilities Impact Fee Study," prepared
by Willdan Financial Services and has recommended a reduced fee
schedule identified in Section 3 of this Resolution;
K. Pursuant to Government Code § 66016, the City made data available
regarding the cost, or estimated cost, of providing services for the
proposed public facility impact fees ten (10) days before the public hearing
held on September 21, 2010;
L. On September 21, 2010 the City Council heard public testimony and
considered evidence in a public hearing held and noticed in accordance
with Government Code §§ 66016 and 66018;
M. After careful consideration, including a review of the documentary and
testimonial evidence submitted during the public hearing, the City Council
finds that the imposition of impact fees to finance major public facilities is
in the best interests of the general welfare of the City and its residents and
workers, is equitable, and does not impose an unfair burden on new
development;
N. At the recommendation of the City's Departments and the City Manager,
the City Council believes that it is in the public interest to establish the
recommended fees to recover the costs of police, fire, library, and parks
facilities; and
O. This Resolution relies on the documentary and testimonial evidence
submitted to the City during the public hearing held on September 21,
2010 in addition to such additional information that may be in the
administrative record.
SECTION 2: Calculation of Development Impact Fees.
A. The "Public Facilities Impact Fee Study" ( "Fee Study "), prepared by
Willldan Financial Services calculates fire, library, police and library fees
that would fund the fair share cost to new development for additional
capital facilities and equipment improvements;
-2-
B. The study is based on a 20 -year planning horizon. The City's residential
and worker populations as well as future facilities needs are estimated for
the year 2030;
C. The study determines a fair share of future planned public facilities using
the System Plan method to calculate police, fire and library fees. This
method is used for police, fire and library as each is part of a system that
benefits both existing and new development. Using the System Plan
method ensures that new development does not pay for existing service
deficiencies;
D. The study uses the Existing Inventory method to calculate the parks fee.
This method assumes no existing service deficiencies and sets a fee that
will fund the expansion of park facilities at the same standard that
currently serves existing development;
E. The level of development fees in the Fee Study is based on a reasonable
methodology to determine the impacts and costs of new development.
However, based on an evaluation of the development impact fees charged
in neighboring jurisdictions, City staff recommends a reduced level of fees
be adopted;
F. The City may adopt development impact fees up to the amounts legally
justified in the Fee Study. Staff recommends that the City reduce the fees
proposed in the Fee Study by removing the cost of land from the System
Plan and Existing Inventory method calculations. This will establish the
City's development impact fees at a level more consistent with the fees
charged by neighboring jurisdictions; and
G. Staff recommends that the impact fees for new single - family and two -
family residences be reduced by an additional 50% to keep the
development impact fee in line with the average fees charged to single -
family development in neighboring jurisdictions.
-3- i U
SECTION 3: Schedule of Development Impact Fees.
identified
Based upon the
methodology
in Section 2, the development impact fees are established as follows:
Development Impact
Fee Table
Office
$0.52
LAND USE
POLICE LIBRARY FIRE
PARKS
TOTAL
Residential
$0.25
N/A
$0.24
SFR, Two -Famil
$986 $1,233 $431
$1,662
$4,312
Muiti- Family
$1,314 $1,640 $572
$2,209
$5,735
Caretaker
$852 $1,064 $371
$1,433
$3,720
Non - Residential
Commercial
$0.45
N/A
$0.43
$0.41
$1.29
Office
$0.52
N/A
$0.51
$0.48
$1.51
Industrial
$0.25
N/A
$0.24
$0.23
$0.72
SECTION 4: Fee Adjustment. Unless otherwise revised, the fees established by this
Resolution will be automatically adjusted on an annual basis concurrently with the
adoption of the capital improvement plan (CIP) each fiscal year in September. The
method for annual inflation adjustment is established as set forth in Exhibit A, "Public
Facilities Impact Fee Study." The first fee adjustment cannot be made before a
minimum of ten (10) months after the effective date of this Resolution.
SECTION 5: Exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act. In accordance
with the Public Resources Code (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000, et seq.; "CEQA ") and
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs. Title 14,
Code §§ 15000, et seq.), the proposed resolution is statutorily exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Statutory
Exemption 15273 (Rates, Tolls, Fares and Charges). CEQA does not apply to the
establishment of the public facilities mitigation fees as the fees are for the purpose of a)
purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment, or materials; and b) obtaining funds for
capital projects, necessary to maintain service within existing service areas. This
Resolution, therefore, is categorically exempt from further CEQA review under Cal.
Code Regs. Title 14, § 15273.
SECTION 6: Effective Date of this Resolution. This resolution will become effective
immediately upon adoption. The development impact fees that are established
pursuant to Section 3 of this Resolution and imposed upon development projects are
effective on the 60th day from the date this resolution is adopted.
-4- U
SECTION 7: City Clerk. The City Clerk will certify the passage and adoption of this
Resolution; will enter the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and will
make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the record of proceedings of the
City Council of said City, in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and
adopted.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of September 2010.
Eric Busch, Mayor
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO 1
I, Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk of the City of El Segundo, California, do hereby certify that
the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing
Resolution No. was duly passed and adopted by said City Council, approved and
signed by the Mayor, and attested to by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of said
Council held on the 21st day of September 2010, and the same was so passed and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Cindy Mortensen, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
32
Karl H. Berger, Assistant City Attorney
PAPlanning & Building Safety\0 Planning - Old \PROJECTS (Planning) \701 - 725 \EA - 723 \City Council Report and Reso \EA -
723. reso. CC.09.21.10. doc
-5- U
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT FEE STUDY
AUGUST 30, 2010
WI LLDAN
Financial Services
EXHIBIT A
U4
C
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................ ............................... 4
Background and Study Objectives 4
Demographic Assumptions 4
Facility Standards and Costs of Growth 6
Fee Schedule Summary 6
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................... ............................... 7
Background and Study Objectives 7
Public Facilities Financing in California 7
Public Facilities Financing in El Segundo g
Public Facility Standards 8
Organization of the report 11
2. DEMOGRAPHIC ASSUMPTIONS ........................... ............................... 12
Use of Growth Forecasts for Impact Fees 12
Service Population 12
Land Use Types 12
Occupant Densities 13
Demographic Assumptions for City of El Segundo 14
3. POLICE FACILITIES ............................................ ............................... 16
Service Population 16
Facility Standards and Planned Facilities 16
Facility Needs and Costs 17
Fee Schedule 19
4. LIBRARY FACILITIES .......................................... ............................... 20
Service Population 20
Facility Inventories and Standards 20
Facility Needs and Costs 21
Fee Schedule 23
5. FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES ............................ ............................... 25
Service Population 25
Facility Inventories, Plans and Standards 26
Facility Needs and Costs 26
Fee Schedule 28
6. PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES .................... ............................... 29
Service Population 29
Facility Standards 30
Fee Schedule 35
7. IMPLEMENTATION ............................................. ............................... 37
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 37
WI LLDAN
Fire
iU �
Inflation Adjustment 37
Reporting Requirements 38
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 38
8. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS ......................... ............................... 40
Purpose of Fee 40
Use of Fee Revenues 40
Benefit Relationship 40
Burden Relationship 41
Proportionality 41
APPENDIX A: VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT INVENTORIES ...........................A -1
APPENDIX B: WORKER DEMAND SURVEY FOR PARKS ........................... B -1
Park Survey
W�Lal I
B -1
lUU
l
Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysis of the need for public facilities and capital improvements to
support future development within the City of El Segundo through 2030. It is the City's intent that
the costs representing future development's share of these facilities and improvements be
imposed on that development in the form of a development impact fee, also known as a public
facilities fee. The public facilities and improvements included in this analysis of the City's public
facilities fee program are divided into the fee categories listed below.
• Police
• Library
• Fire Protection
• Parks
Background and Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development
pays the capital costs associated with growth. The primary purpose of this report is to complete a
comprehensive fee study and determine the maximum justified public facilities fee levels to
impose on new development to maintain the City's facilities standard. The City should review and
update this report and the calculated fees once every five years to incorporate the best available
information.
The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee. Act,
contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the
necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the public facilities fees presented in the
fee schedules contained herein.
Demographic Assumptions
To estimate facility needs, this study uses .residential and household population data provided by
the City of El Segundo, the California Department of Finance (DOF), the U.S. Census, and the
Southern California Council of Governments' (SCAG) 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
Current year population estimates came from the DOF data. Population and residential dwelling
unit projections are based on growth rates derived from the City's building permit history.
Employment projections for 2030 came from the RTP data. Employment square footage was
derived using the RTP data and employment density factors from the Natelson Company
Employment Density Study Summary Report. The development projections used in this analysis
are summarized in Table E.I.
WILLDAN
Pinaricial Services 4
.to
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table EA: Demographic Assumptions
2009 2030 Increase
Residents'
Dwelling Units'
Single Family, Two - Family
Multi - Family
Caretaker
Total
Employment2,3A
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Total
Building Square Feet (000s)5
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Total
16,970
17,690
720
3,590
3,650
60
3,770
4,060
290
10
30
20
7,370
7,710
340
8,130
9,770
1,640
21,150
25,410
4,260
17.920
21.530 _
3.610
47,200
56,700
9,500
4,020
4,840
820
8,920
10,720
1,800
16,000
19.220
3.220
28,940
34,780
5,840
Note: All values rounded to nearest ten; totals may not be exact.
California Department of Finance (DOF).
2 Excludes local government employment.
3 Assumes percentage of employees by land use remains constant to total from 2009 to 2030. 2030
estimates based on existing ratio of sector by sector employment and rounded to hundreds to account
for error.
° Estimates by land use type for 2009 based on employment data provided from EDD by North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) category.
5 Based on employment by land use and occupant density shown in Table 2.1.
Sources: California Department of Finance (DOF), Table E -5, 2009; Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) 2008 Regional Transportaion Plan Growth Forecast; California Employment
Development Department (EDD); Employment Density Study Summary Report, prepared by the
Natelson Company, October 2001; Willdan Financial Services.
Permit records in the City of El Segundo show the development of 12 caretaker units during the
past 10 years. The SCAG RTP data did not include a projection for caretaker units, so
development projections in this land use category are based on the historical permit data from the
City. Caretaker units are assumed to continue to develop at the rate of 12 units every 10 years, or
approximately 1.2 units per year.
Employment projections for 2030 are based on the assumption that the proportion of employees
located in each land use category listed remains consistent with the base year.
Wl LLDAN ,l
Financid Swvkces I c
l o 'S
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Facility Standards and Costs of Growth
This fee analysis uses two different facilities standards to determine the costs to accommodate
growth. For the parks and recreation facility category, the City's existing facilities standard is used
to determine the costs to accommodate growth. Under this approach, new development funds the
expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. By definition
the existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing
development. This method is often used when a long -range plan for new facilities is not available.
For the police, library and fire facility categories, the system plan facility standard is used. This
method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that benefits
both existing and new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire station solely
to new development when that station will operate as part of an integrated system of fire stations
that together achieve the desired level of service.
The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies.
This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required to bring existing
development up to the policy -based standard. The City must secure non -fee funding for that
portion of planned facilities required to correct the deficiency to ensure that new development
receives the level of service funded by the impact fee.
Fee Schedule Summary
Table E.2 summarizes the schedule of maximum justified public facilities fees based on the
analysis contained in this report. The City may adopt any fee up to those shown in the table. If the
City adopts a lower fee then it should consider reducing the fee for each land use by the same
percentage. This approach would ensure that each new development project would fund the
same proportionate share of public facilities costs.
Table E.2: Development Impact Fee Summary
Land Use Police Library Fire Parks Total
Residential
(Fee per Dwelling Unit)
Single Family, Two - Family
$ 2,294 $ 2,464 $1,037 $
17,141
$
22,936
Multi - Family
1,527 1,640 691
11,406
15,264
Caretaker
990 1,064 448
7,399
9,901
Nonresidential
(Fee per 1,000 Building Square Feet)
Commercial
$ 517 N/A $ 521 $
2,119
$
3,157
Office
607 N/A 612
2,485
3,704
Industrial
287 N/A 289
1,174
1,750
Fees per dwelling unit, per 1,000 square feet for non
Sources: Tables 3.6, 4.6, 5.6 and 6.8; Willdan Financial Services
WILLDAN
e s
6
lU�
[ t
1. Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommodate new
development in the City of El Segundo. This chapter explains the study approach and
summarizes results under the following sections:
• Background and study objectives;
• Public facilities financing in California;
• Public facilities planning and financing in El Segundo;
• Public facility standards; and,
• Organization of the report.
Background and Study objectives
The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development
pays the capital costs associated with growth. The primary purpose of this report is to complete a
comprehensive fee study and determine the maximum justified public facilities fee levels to
impose on new development to maintain the City's facility standards. The City should review and
update this report, as well as the calculated fees, once every five years to incorporate the best
available information.
The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act,
contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the
necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the public facilities fees presented in the
fee schedules contained herein.
Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 30 years has steadily undercut the
financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Three dominant trends stand out:
• The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in
1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996;
• Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next
generation of residents and businesses; and
• Steep reductions in federal and state assistance.
Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have adopted a policy of "growth pays its own
way ". This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing rate and
taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the
imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees also known as public
facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes require approval of property owners and are
appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property.
Development fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit
all development jurisdiction -wide. Development fees need only a majority vote of the legislative
body for adoption.
WILLDAN
feral S—i
Y L1
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Public Facilities Financing in El Segundo
The City of El Segundo has a number of existing infrastructure needs, as well as a potential need
to expand existing infrastructure to meet the demands of community growth. Existing funding
sources have not allowed for master planning at a level sufficient to develop either an exhaustive
list of infrastructure projects or a phasing or scheduling plan for such projects. However,
preliminary suggestions concerning facility needs are identified and described in the "Facility
Needs and Costs" section of each chapter.
There are known infrastructure issues that will best be addressed through master planning
efforts. A suggested use of fee revenues would be to fund master planning to more specifically
identify capital facilities necessary to serve new development. Fee revenues can fund that portion
of master plan costs associated with facilities to serve growth. Upon completion of the master
planning effort and the identification of capital facilities needed to accommodate growth, the City
should update its public facilities fee program to include these new projects and any financing
costs that may be required to construct facilities when needed.
Through the process of preparing master plans, the City may choose to submit planned facilities
for consideration of impact fee revenue apportionment. The City of El Segundo has provided a
preliminary list of planned facilities, which are accordingly documented in this fee update. New
development will pay a fee based on the value of existing and planned facilities through the
development horizon. However, new development cannot be required to pay for future projects
designed to correct deficiencies in existing facilities. The City will have to secure non -fee funding
for that portion of planned facilities required to correct any deficiency in existing facilities.
By their nature, public facilities fee programs are constrained by rates of growth and the timing of
revenue collection. Since public facilities fees represent a pay -as- you -go system, cities may
confront the problem of only being able to partially fund large projects with fee revenues at the
time of project implementation. Therefore, facility needs may require alternative financing options
in order to implement projects in a timelier manner. The cost of financing (e.g. interest payments)
can legitimately be included in the public facilities fee. By using fee revenues to fund a master
planning effort and updating the fee to reflect the identified projects and possible financing costs,
the City will maximize its ability to maintain its facilities standard and fund the capital facilities
necessary to serve new development.
Finally, all fee - funded capital projects should be programmed through the City's Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP). Using a CIP can help the City of El Segundo identify and direct its fee
revenue to public facilities projects that will accommodate future growth. By programming fee
revenues to specific capital projects, the City of El Segundo identifies the use for fee revenues as
expressly required by the Mitigation Fee Act.
Public Facility Standards
The key public policy issue in public facility fee studies is the identification of facility standards for
each category of facilities in a fee program. A facility standard is a public policy that states the
amount of facilities required per unit of new development to accommodate the increased service
WI LL D a
.� 1
{
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
demand. Examples of facility standards include park acres per capita and wastewater generation
per equivalent dwelling unit. Standards also may be expressed in monetary terms such as the
total cost of facility investments per capita.
The facility standard assists in documenting statutory findings required for adoption of a public
facilities fee. First, the standard documents a reasonable relationship between the type of new
development and the total need for new facilities. Where applicable, the same facility standard is
applied to both existing and new development to ensure that new development does not fund
deficiencies associated with existing development. Second, the facility standard is often used to
allocate facility costs to each development project, documenting a reasonable relationship
between the amount of the fee and the cost of facilities allocated to each development project.
Types of facility standards and their application in specific situations are discussed below. This
section concludes with a description of how facility standards are used in the current study.
Types of Facility Standards
There are three separate components of facility standards:
• Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate
growth, for example, park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library space
per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of
service such as the vehicles -to- capacity (V /C) ratio used in traffic planning.
• Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected
demand, for example, park improvement requirements and technology infrastructure
for city office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of
an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our
approach incorporates current facility design standards into the fee program to reflect
the increasing construction cost of public facilities.
• Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilities
required to accommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost
standards are useful when demand standards were not explicitly developed for the
facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be
analyzed based on a single measure (cost or value), useful when disparate facilities
are funded by a single fee program. Examples include facility costs per capita, per
vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day.
New Development Facility Needs and Costs
A number of approaches are used to identify facility needs and costs to serve new development.
Often there is a two step process: (1) identify total facility needs, and (2) allocate to new
development its fair share of those needs.
There are three common methods for determining new development's fair share of planned
facilities costs: the existing inventory method, the system plan method, and the planned facilities
method. Often the method selected depends on the degree to which the community has engaged
in comprehensive facility master planning to identify facility needs.
The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method is
summarized below:
WldalS AN 9
l
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Existing Inventory Method
The existing inventory method allocates costs based on the ratio of existing facilities to demand
from existing development as follows:
Current Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Development Demand
_ $ / unit of demand
Under this method new development funds the expansion of facilities at the same standard
currently serving existing development. By definition the existing inventory method results in no
facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a long -
range plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are
identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual capital
improvement plan and budget process, possibly after completion of a new facility master plan.
This method is used only in the parks and recreation facility cate4ory of this report.
Planned Facilities Method
The planned facilities method allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facility costs to
demand from new development as follows:
Cost of Planned Facilities
_ $ /unit of demand
New Development Demand
This method is appropriate when specific planned facilities can be identified that only benefit new
development. Examples include street improvements to avoid deficient levels of service or a
sewer trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. This method is also appropriate
when planned facilities would not serve existing development, or if planned facilities represent a
level of service that is lower than the current level of service. Under this method new
development funds the expansion of facilities at the standards identified by facility planners. This
method is not used to calculate any fees in this report.
System Plan Method
This method calculates the fee based on: the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned
facilities, divided by demand from existing plus new development:
Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities
Existing + New Development Demand
_ $ / unit of demand
This method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that
benefits both existing and new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire
station solely to new development when that station will operate as part of an integrated system
of fire stations that together achieve the desired level of service. Police substations, civic centers,
and regional parks provide examples of similar facilities.
The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies.
Often facility standards based on policies such as those found in General Plans are higher than
existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required
WI ILLDAN
e eO SWV"S 10 i
11J
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
to bring existing development up to the policy -based standard. The local agency must secure
non -fee funding for that portion of planned facilities required to correct the deficiency to ensure
that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee. This method is used
to calculate the police library and fire facilities fees in this report.
Organization of the report
This report is organized as follows:
• Chapter 1, Introduction (this chapter): summarizes facilities financing in California,
the history of public facilities impact fees in the City of El Segundo, and the general
approach;
• Chapter 2, Demographic Assumptions: describes the growth forecasts used to
estimate future demand and the unit costs used to estimate total facility costs;
• Chapter 3, Police Facilities: Summarizes existing police facility inventory, discusses
planned police facilities and describes the methodology that underlies the police
facilities fee.
• Chapter 4, Library Facilities: Summarizes existing library facility inventory, discusses
planned library facilities and describes the methodology that underlies the library
facilities fee.
• Chapter 5, Fire Protection Facilities: Summarizes existing fire facility inventory,
discusses planned fire facilities and describes the methodology that underlies the fire
facilities fee.
• Chapter 6, Park and Recreation Facilities: Summarizes existing parks and recreation
facility inventory, discusses planned parks and recreation facilities and describes the
methodology that underlies the parks and recreation facilities fee.
• Chapter 7, Implementation: Provides guidelines for the implementation and ongoing
maintenance of the public facilities fee program.
• Chapter 8, Mitigation Fee Act Findings: summarizes the five statutory findings
required for adoption of the proposed public facilities fees in accordance with the
Mitigation Fee Act (codified in California Government Code Sections 66000 through
66025).
,„
�i�
2. Demographic Assumptions
Estimates of existing development and new development growth projections are used to assist in
determining the appropriate fee structure. The base year used in this study is 2009, and the
planning horizon is 2030.
Use of Growth Forecasts for Impact Fees
Estimates of the existing service population and forecasts of growth are critical assumptions used
throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows:
• Estimates of existing development in 2009 are used to determine the existing facility
standards in the City.
• Estimates of total development at the 2030 planning horizon are used:
— To determine the total amount of public facilities required to accommodate
growth based on the existing facility standards (see Chapter 1), and
— To estimate total fee revenues.
To measure existing service population and future growth, residential and worker population data
are used for all facility categories with the exception of library facilities, which only use population
data. These measures are used because the amount of residents and workers is a reasonable
indicator of the level of demand for public facilities. The City builds public facilities primarily to
serve these populations and, typically, the greater the population the larger the facility required to
provide a given level of service.
Service Population
Different types of new development use public facilities at different rates in relation to each other,
depending on the services provided. For all fee categories in this study a specific service
population is identified to reflect total demand. The service population weights residential land
use types against nonresidential land uses based on the relative demand for services between
residents and workers.
Land Use Types
To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the
fee, growth projections distinguish between different land use classifications. The land use types
used in this analysis are defined below per the City of El Segundo Municipal Code.
Single - Family, Two - Family: A single family dwelling unit is a detached dwelling unit
with only one kitchen, designed for occupancy by one family. A two- family dwelling
unit is a building designed to be occupied by two (2) families living independently, the
structure having only two units. For the purpose of assessing impact fees, single -
family and two - family units have been grouped into a single category because the
probable occupant density of these types of units is the same, as confirmed by the
City's Planning Division.
Multi- Family: A building or portion thereof designed for occupancy by three (3) or
more families living independently in which they may or may not share common
entrances and /or other spaces. Individual dwelling units may be owned as
M FWILLDAIV
midal sue. 1 12 1 i .)
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
condominiums, or offered for rent. For the purposes of assessing impact fees, senior
housing facilities are also considered multi - family units.
• Caretaker: A dwelling unit in the Smoky Hollow specific plan area used for a
caretaker of the property on which it is located and limited to five hundred (500)
square feet in area.
• Commercial: All commercial, retail, educational, and hotel /motel development.
• Office: All general, professional, and medical office development.
• Industrial: All manufacturing and warehouse development.
Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as an industrial warehouse
with living quarters (a live -work designation) or a planned unit development with both single and
multi - family uses. In these cases the public facilities fee would be calculated separately for each
land use type.
The City should have the discretion to impose the public facilities fee based on the specific
aspects of a proposed development regardless of the zoning designation where the project will be
located. Should the project be located in an area that is not zoned as any of the above stated
land use types, the guideline to use is the probable occupant density of the development, either
residents per dwelling unit or workers per building square foot, to determine which fee will be
charged. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely represents the
probable occupant density of the development.
Occupant Densities
Occupant densities ensure a reasonable relationship between the increase in service population
and amount of the fee. To do this, they must vary by the estimated service population generated
by a particular development project. Developers pay the fee based on the number of additional
housing units or building square footage of nonresidential development, so the fee schedule must
convert service population estimates to these measures of project size. This conversion is done
with average occupant density factors by land use type, shown in Table 2.1.
The residential occupant density factors are derived from the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau's Tables
H -31 through H -33. Table H -31 provides vacant housing units data, while Table H -32 provides
information relating to occupied housing. Table H -33 documents the total 2000 population
residing in occupied housing. The US Census numbers are adjusted by using the California
Department of Finance (DOF) estimates for January 1, 2009, and the most recent State of
California data available at the time the research for this report was completed. The occupant
density factor for caretaker units was provided by the City of El Segundo.
The nonresidential density factors are based on Employment Density Study Summary Report,
prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments, October 2001 by The Natelson
Company. The factors used here were derived from the Los Angeles County data set. The
industrial density factor represents an average for light industrial, heavy industrial, and
warehouse uses likely to occur in the City.
Facility demand is estimated based on service population increases. Developers pay the public
facilities fee based on the number of additional housing units or building square footage of
WILLIDAN
F7nanda] S vkces 13
ii0
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
nonresidential development, so the fee schedule must convert service population estimates to
these measures of project size. This conversion is done with average occupant density factors by
land use type, shown in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Occupant Density
Residential
Single Family, Two - Family 2.78 Residents per dwelling unit
Multi - Family 1.85 Residents per dwelling unit
Caretaker 1.20 Residents per dwelling unit
Nonresidential
Commercial
2.02 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Office
2.37 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Industrial
1.12 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Note: Nonresidential occupant density factors derived from Natelson Company data are specific to
Los Angeles County.
Sources: 2000 Census, Tables H31 -H33; California Department of Finance (DOF); The Natelson
Company, Inc., Employment Density Study Summary Report, October 31, 2001, pp. 15 -23; City of El
Segundo; Willdan Financial Services.
Demographic Assumptions for City of El Segundo
Table 2.2 summarizes the demographic assumptions used in this analysis. The base year for this
study is the year 2009. The existing facilities in 2009 will constitute the existing facilities standard
in our study.
The base year residential estimate is calculated using the density factor from Table 2. 1, multiplied
by the dwelling units identified in the California Department of Finance (DOF) January 1, 2009
estimates. Population projections are based on historical building permit data provided by the
City. Employment projections for 2030 were derived from the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) data. Employment square footage
was derived using the RTP data and the employment density factors displayed in Table 2.1. The
development projections used in this analysis are summarized in Table 2.2.
WILLDAN I
financW Services 14
r�
1 � 1
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 2.2: Demo
is Assumptions
Employment2,3,4
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Total
Building Square Feet (OOOs)5
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Total
8,130
2009
2030
Increase
Residents'
16,970
17,690
720
Dwelling Units'
47,200
56,700
9,500
Single Family, Two - Family
3,590
3,650
60
Muiti- Family
3,770
4,060
290
Caretaker
10
30
20
Total
7,370
7,710
340
Employment2,3,4
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Total
Building Square Feet (OOOs)5
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Total
8,130
9,770
1,640
21,150
25,410
4,260
17.920
21.530
3,610
47,200
56,700
9,500
4,020
4,840
820
8,920
10,720
1,800
16,000
19.220
3,220
28,940
34,780
5,840
Note: All values rounded to nearest ten; totals may not be exact.
1 California Department of Finance (DOF).
2 Excludes local government employment.
'Assumes percentage of employees by land use remains constant to total from 2009 to 2030. 2030
estimates based on existing ratio of sector by sector employment and rounded to hundreds to account
for error.
° Estimates by land use type for 2009 based on employment data provided from EDD by North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) category.
5 Based on employment by land use and occupant density shown in Table 2.1.
Sources: California Department of Finance (DOF), Table E -5, 2009; Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) 2008 Regional Transportaion Plan Growth Forecast; California Employment
Development Department (EDD); Employment Density Study Summary Report, prepared by the
Natelson Company, October 2001; Willdan Financial Services.
Permit records in the City of El Segundo show the development of 12 caretaker units during the
past 10 years. Development projections in this land use category are based on the assumption
that caretaker dwelling units will continue to develop at the rate of 12 units every 10 years, or
approximately 1.2 units per year.
Employment projections for 2030 are based on the assumption that the proportion of employees
located in each land use category listed remains constant relative to the base year.
A. IL V
3. Police Facilities
The purpose of the fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of police facilities.
The City will use fee revenues to expand general facilities to accommodate new development.
Police facilities include, but are not limited to: buildings, vehicles, and capital equipment items. A
fee schedule is presented based on the cost of these facilities to ensure that new development
provides adequate funding to meet its needs.
Service Population
Police facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for both services and
associated facilities is based on the City's service population, including residents and workers.
Table 3.1 shows the estimated service population in 2009 and 2030. In calculating the service
population, workers are weighted less than residents to reflect a lower per capita service demand.
Nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units, so it is
reasonable to assume that average per - worker demand for services is less than average per -
resident demand. The 0.31- weighting factor for workers is based on a ratio of 40 hours at work to
the remaining 128 hours spent outside of work.
Table 3.1: Police Facilities Service Population
Existing (2009)
Weighting factor'
Existing Service Population
New Development (2009 -2030)
Weighting factor'
New Development Service Population
Total 2030 Service Population
Residents Workers Total
16,970 47,200
1.00 0.31
16,970 14,630 31,600
720 9,500
1.00 0.31
720 2,950 3,670
17,690 17,580 35,270
Note: Totals rounded to nearest ten.
Workers are weighted at 0.31 of residents based on the ratio of 40 working hours per week to 128 non-
working hours.
Sources: Table 2.2; Willdan Financial Services.
Facility Standards and Planned Facilities
Police facilities in El Segundo include land, buildings and equipment. Table 3.2 shows that the
City currently owns 2.44 acres of land, which serves as the site of the Civic Center Police Station.
This facility consists of approximately 33,000 square feet of building space. The Police
FV1/1dal f 1 16
r
4
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Department owns approximately $6.8 million worth of vehicles, computers and equipment,
bringing the total value of police facilities in El Segundo to approximately $18.3 million. Itemized
calculations of police facility values appear in Appendix A. The inventory of police vehicles is
shown in Appendix Table A.1. An inventory of computer equipment is shown in Appendix Table
A.2, and an inventory of communications and miscellaneous equipment is shown in Appendix
Table A.3.
Table 3.2: Existing Police Facilities
Inventory Unit Cost Units Value
Land (acres) 2
Civic Center Police Station 2.44 $ 1,630,000 acres $ 3,977,000
Buildings (square feet)
Buildings (square feet) 32,868 $ 230 $ 7,560,000
Equipment
Vehicles (See Appendix A. 1) $ 1,967,000
Computers (See Appendix A.2) 628,000
Communications and Miscellaneous (See Appendix A.3) 4,211,000
Subtotal - Vehicles, Computers, Communications and Misc. $ 6,806,000
Total Value - Existing Facilities
Note: Total values rounded to nearest thousand.
' Unit costs based on market value.
2 Land value of $1.63 million per acre based on a recent appraisal of parcels within the City.
Sources: Tables A.1, A.2 and A.3; City of El Segundo; Willdan Financial Services.
$ 18,343,000
The cost of land per acre is based on the average of two appraisals of similarly located parcels
within the City on February 2010. These appraisals were chosen because they are representative
of the types of land that the City would purchase in the future.
Facility Needs and Casts
Table 3.3 presents the list of police facility improvements planned for the City of El Segundo, as
identified by the City of El Segundo Police Department. Expected police capital infrastructure
projects include: adding a new gymnasium to the existing station, the construction of a parking
structure for the Police and Fire Departments, and numerous additions to the fleet. Together,
planned police facility costs amount to approximately $10.2 million.
WI LtDDANN 17
t i. IJ
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 3.3: Police Department Planned Facilities
Planned Facility
Quantity
Units Unit Cost
Total Cost
Gymnasium addition to existing station
3,000
Sq. Ft. $ 500
$ 1,500,000
Parking Structure for Police, Fire Department
N/A
N/A N/A
7,000,000
Armored Bearcat (Armored van)
1
400,000
400,000
Trailerable Patrol Boat
1
150,000
150,000
Narcotics detection dog /vehicle
1
50,000
50,000
Explosives detection dog /vehicle
1
50,000
50,000
Flat top DUI patrol Dodge Charger
2
40,000
80,000
SWAT Van
1
300,000
300,000
BMW Motorcycle
3
53,333
160,000
Command Post Vehicle
1
500,000
500,000
Total Cost of Planned Police Facilities
$10,190,000
Source: City of El Segundo Police Department.
Planned police facilities are likely to serve both existing residents and new development. As a
result, this study uses the system plan approach to calculating new development's fair share of
planned facility costs. This is done by taking the total value of existing and planned facilities in
2030 and dividing it by the total 2030 service population to obtain a facility standard per capita.
This calculation appears in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4: Existing and Planned Police Facilities
Existing Facilities Value
$18,343,000
Planned Facilities Costs
10,190,000
Total Facilities Value in 2030
$ 28,533,000
Service Population in 2030
35,270
Cost per Resident
$ 809
Cost per Worker
251
Sources: Tables 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3; City of El Segundo Police Department; Willdan
Financial Services.
Table 3.5 shows the estimated fee revenue generated by the police facilities fee. This fee is
projected to generate approximately $3 million in revenue by 2030. Projected fee revenue falls
short of the total cost of planned police facilities in the City of El Segundo. The remaining $7.2
million in planned facility costs must be funded by non - impact fee sources.
WILLQAN I
FimnciW s«.xes 18
��i
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 3.5: Estimated Police Facilities Fee Revenue
Cost Per Capita $ 809
Growth in Service Population (2009 -2030) 3,670
Anticipated Fee Revenue $ 2,969,000
Total Cost of Planned Police Facilities $ 10,190,000
Additional Funding Required $ 7,221,000
Note: Anticipated fee revenue rounded to hundreds.
Sources: Tables 3.3 and 3.4; Willdan Financial Services.
Fee Schedule
Table 3.6 shows the police facilities fee schedule, which is based on the assumption that El
Segundo will be charging new development no more than its fair share of planned facility costs.
The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and
building space densities (persons per dwelling unit (DU) for residential development and workers
per 1,000 square feet of building space for nonresidential development). The total fee includes an
administrative charge to fund costs that include impact fee related administrative costs, such as:
revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification
analyses.
Table 3.6: Police Facilities Fee
A B
Cost Per
Land Use Capita Density
C =AxB
Base Feel
D
Admin
Char e',Z
E =C +D
Total Fee
F =E /1,000
Fee per Sq.
Ft.
Residential
Single Family, Two - Family $ 809 2.78
$ 2,249
$ 45
$ 2,294
Multi - Family 809 1.85
1,497
30
1,527
Caretaker 809 1.20
971
19
990
Nonresidential
Commercial $ 251 2.02
$ 507
$ 10
$ 517
$ 0.52
Office 251 2.37
595
12
607
0.61
Industrial 251 1.12
281
6
287
0.29
Note: Fees rounded to nearest whole dollar.
Fee per dwelling unit, or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential space.
Administration fee equal to 2.0 percent of base fee to fund impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue
and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 3.4; Willdan Financial Services.
WI LLDAN ,l
Financial. Services 1 19
•;C�
14. 4.
4. Library Facilities
This chapter provides the documentation to enable the City impose a public facilities fee to fund
library facilities. The City would use fee revenues to help fund expanded library facilities to serve
new development.
Service Population
Residents are the primary users of libraries in the City of El Segundo. Therefore, demand for
libraries and associated facilities are based on the City's residential population, rather than a
combined resident - worker service population. Estimates of the existing service population and
projected growth are shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Library Facilities Service Population
Residents
Existing (2009) 16,970
New Development (2009 -2030) 720
Total (2030) 17,690
Note: Values rounded to nearest ten.
Sources: Table 2.2; Willdan Financial Services.
Facility Inventories and Standards
The City Library is located at Library Park. This land is listed in the parkland inventory in Chapter
6, so the value of that land is not included in this chapter, to avoid double counting. The City of El
Segundo currently owns nearly $7 million worth of building and annex facilities. Library collections
are also an important component of a library system's facilities and are a significant investment.
Collections include books, online databases, audio - visual materials, periodical subscriptions, and
other documents. The City owns approximately $6.9 million dollars worth of collections, as shown
in Table 4.2. Itemized costs for existing library collections and equipment are shown in Appendix
Tables A.4 and A.5, respectively.
INI LLDAN
Financial SeMe" 20
i � :i
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 4.2: Existing Library Facilities
Inventory Unit Cost Units Total Value
Existing Facilities
Land' 3.40 $ - acres $ -
Building + Annex (sq. ft.) 30,329 230 sq. ft. 6,976,000
Collections (See Appendix A.4) 6,892,000
Furniture \Shelving \Equipment (See Appendix A.5) 277,000
Total Facilities $ 14,145,000
Note: Total values rounded to nearest thousand.
The library is located at Library Park, which is included in the parkland inventory in Chapter 6. The value
of that land is not included in this inventory to avoid double counting.
Sources: Tables A.4 and A.5; City of El Segundo; Willdan Financial Services.
Facility Needs and Costs
The City of El Segundo plans to expand its library facilities by adding $1.2 million worth of
equipment and building expansions through 2030. The planned facilities are shown in Table 4.3.
WILLDAN
il F+ 2
A
i�'j
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 4.3: Planned Library Facilities
Planned Facility
Units.
Unit Cost
Total Cost
Expansion to the children's library (approximately 2,000 sq. ft.)
2,000
$ 300
$ 600,000
Additional internet computers
20
2,000
40,000
Tables for internet computers
2
3,500
7,000
Wiring for additional internet computers and expanded Wi -Fi
1
18,000
18,000
Wi -Fi expansion
1
10,000
10,000
Switch for new internet computers
1
8,000
8,000
Additional Envisionware internet licenses
1
20,000
20,000
Chairs for internet computers
20
400
8,000
Online download computers
4
2,000
8,000
Download computer station table
1
2,500
2,500
Chairs for download computer station table
4
400
1,600
E -book readers for checkout
50
250
12,500
E -books for checkout
600
75
45,000
Study rooms (approximately 700 sq. ft.)
700
300
210,000
Tables for study rooms
5
2,000
10,000
Chairs for study rooms
20
750
15,000
Game room stations, inc. game console, TV, security
3
3,000
9,000
Chairs for game room
6
400
2,400
Video game software for game room
25
50
1,250
Additional Children's Library internet computers
5
2,000
10,000
Children's Library early literacy computers
4
2,000
8,000
Stools for Children's Library computers
9
250
2,250
Self- service checkout machine
1
54,000
54,000
Wiring and maintenance for self - service checkout machine
1
5,000
5,000
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) security system
1
13,000
13,000
RFID library material tags for checkout
1
105,000
105,000
RFID library material tag protectors
1
7,000
7,000
Total
$ 1,232,500
Source: City of El Segundo Public Library.
These improvements are likely to benefit both members of the existing service population and
new development, since both groups will be using the existing and new facilities. Accordingly, this
study uses the system plan approach to calculate new development's fair share of new library
facilities. This is done by dividing the total value of existing and planned facilities in 2030 by the
total 2030 service population to calculate a standard per resident. This calculation appears in
Table 4.4.
wi DAN ] 22
'I !
JL 4 %)
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 4.4: Existing and Planned Library Facilities
Existing Facility Value
Planned Facility Costs
Total Facility Value in 2030
Service Population in 2030
Cost per Capita
$ 14,145,000
1,232,500
$ 15,377,500
17,690
$ 869
Sources: Table 6.1; City of El Segundo Public Library; Willdan Financial Services.
Table 4.5 shows the total revenue that the library facilities fee is expected to generate through
the 2030 planning horizon. Multiplying the per capita facility standard by the growth in service
population produces an estimated $626,000 in revenue. It is important to note that this revenue
estimate falls short of the City's $1.2 million in planned facilities. As a result, approximately
$607,000 worth of library facilities will have to be funded by non - impact fee sources, or new
development will have paid too high a fee.
Table 4.5: Estimated Library Facilities Fee Revenue
Cost Per Capita $ 869
Growth in Service Population (2009 -2030) 720
Anticipated Fee Revenue $ 625,700
Total Cost of Planned Library Facilities $1,232,500
Additional Funding Required $ 606,800
Note: Total anticipated fee revenue rounded to nearest hundred.
Sources: Tables 4.1, 4.3 and 4.4; Willdan Financial Services.
Fee Schedule
Table 4.6 presents the library facilities fee schedule based on the planned facilities method. The
cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit
densities. The total fee includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include: revenue
collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification
analyses.
WILLDAN 1
Finenclel Swvtcft 23
�I•
JL 4 ()
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 4.6: Library Facilities Fee
A B C =AxB D E =C +D
Cost Per Admin
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee Charge' Total Fee
Residential
Single Family, Two - Family $ 869
Multi - Family 869
Caretaker 869
2.78
$ 2,416 $
48
$
2,464
1.85
1,608
32
1,640
1.20
1,043
21
1,064
Note: Fees rounded to nearest whole dollar.
Administration fee equal to 2.0 percent of base fee to fund impact fee program administrative costs
including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification
analyses.
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 4.4; Wilidan Financial Services.
WILLDAN ,J
Firmx1a)sery as 24
1 � rt
5. Fire Protection Facilities
The purpose of this development impact fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair
share of fire protection facilities. A fee schedule is presented based on the facilities needed to
ensure that new development fund its fair share of the City's facility needs.
Service Population
Fire protection facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and
associated facilities are based on the City's service population including residents and workers.
Table 5.1 shows the estimated service population for 2009 and 2030. In calculating the service
population, residents are given a weight of 1.0 and workers are weighted at 0.69 to reflect lower
per capita service usage. Nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less intensively than
dwelling units, so it is reasonable to assume that average per- worker usage of services is less
than average per - resident usage.
Table 5.1: Fire Facilities Service Population
Residents Workers Total
Existing (2009)
Weighting factor'
Existing Service Population
New Development (2009 -2030)
Weighting factor'
New Development Service Population
Total 2030 Service Population
16,970 47,200
1.00 0.69
16,970 32,570 49,540
720 9,500
1.00 0.69
720 6,560 7,280
17,690 39,130 56,820
Workers are weighted at 0.69 of residents based on an survey of worker demand on fire services conducted in the
City of Phoenix. Totals rounded to nearest ten.
Sources: Specific Infrastructure Financing Plan: Equivalent Land Use Derivation and Projection, City of Phoenix
Planning Department, November 6, 1996; Table 2.2; Willdan Financial Services.
The 0.69 per- worker weighting used here is derived from a study carried out in the City of
Phoenix. This study is one of the best sources of this data currently available. Data from that
study was used to calculate a per capita factor that is independent of land use patterns. Relative
demand for fire service between residents and workers does not vary substantially on a per
capita basis across communities, ensuring that this data can be used for all of the communities
which must document a public facilities fee for fire stations.
WILLIDAN ]
�al swic" I 25
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Facility Inventories, Plans and Standards
Table 5.2 shows existing fire facilities in the City of El Segundo. The City owns 2.19 acres of land
and two fire stations totaling almost 32,000 square feet. In addition to land and buildings, the City
of El Segundo owns approximately $6.9 million worth of vehicles and equipment. Appendix
Tables A.6, A.7 and A.8 summarize the inventories of fire suppression, administration,
paramedics and prevention equipment and vehicles, respectively.
Table 5.2: Existing Fire Facilities Standard
Inventory Unit Cost Value
Land (acres)'
Fire Station #1 1.32 $ 1,630,000 $ 2,151,600
Fire Station #2 Complex 0.87 1,630,000 1,418,100
Subtotal 2.19 $ 3,569,700
Buildings (sq. ft.)
Fire Station #1 17,800 $ 230 $ 4,094,000
Hose Tower 105 230 24,200
Fire Station #2 Complex 13,959 230 3,210,600
Subtotal 31,864 $ 7,328,800
Fire Department Vehicles $ 5,177,800
(See Appendix Table A.6)
Fire Department Computer Equipment $ 237,900
(See Appendix Table A.7)
Fire Department Communications Equipment $ 423,100
(See Appendix Table A.7)
Fire Department Misc. Equipment $ 1.017.400
(See Appendix Table A.8)
Total Existing Facilities $17,754,700
Note: Total values rounded to nearest hundred.
' Land value of $1.63 million per acre based on an recent appraisal of parcels within the City
Sources: Tables A.6, A.7 and A.8; City of El Segundo.
Facility Needs and Costs
The City of El Segundo plans to add approximately $3 million worth of fire facilities to its inventory
by 2030. These facility expansions are summarized in Table 5.3, and include additions to Fire
Station #1, along with new equipment and furnishings.
WILLIDAN
FinandelSerVOM 26 `) �•
I'J
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 5.3: Fire Department Planned Facilities
Un
Addition to Fire Station #1 for offices and storage
3,100
Sq. Ft. $ 500
$ 1,550,000
Addition to Fire Station #1 apparatus bay
2,800
Sq. Ft. 500
1,400,000
Sedans with radios and emergency warning devices
2
35,000
70,000
Computers
3
2,000
6,000
Office furniture sets
3
4,000
12,000
Total Cost of Planned Fire Facilities
$ 3,038,000
Source: City of El Segundo Fire Department.
These improvements are likely to benefit both members of the existing service population and
new development, since both groups will be placing calls to the expanded station. Accordingly,
this study uses the system plan approach to calculate new development's fair share of new fire
facilities. This is done by dividing the total value of existing and planned facilities in 2030 by the
total 2030 service population to calculate a standard per resident and per worker. This calculation
appears in Table 5.4.
Table 5A Existing and Planned Fire Facilities
Existing Facility Value $ 17,754,700
Planned Facility Costs 3,038,000
Total Facility Value in 2030 $ 20,792,700
Service Population in 2030 56,820
Cost per Resident $ 366
Cost per Worker 253
Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3; City of El Segundo Fire Department; Willdan
Financial Services.
Table 5.5 shows the total revenue that the fire facilities fee is expected to generate through the
2030 planning horizon. Multiplying the per capita facility standard by the growth in service
population produces an estimated $2.7 million in revenue. It is important to note that this revenue
estimate falls short of the City's $3 million in planned facilities. As a result, approximately
$374,000 worth of fire protection facilities will have to be funded by non - impact fee sources, or
new development will have paid too high a fee.
WILLDAN
Francis services
27 "' r'•
� v U
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 5.5: Estimated Fire Facilities Fee Revenue
Cost Per Capita $ 366
Growth in Service Population (2009 -2030) 7,280
Anticipated Fee Revenue $ 2,664,500
Total Cost of Planned Fire Facilities $ 3,038,000
Additional Funding Required $ 373,500
Note: Total anticipated fee revenue rounded to nearest hundred.
Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.3 and 5.4; Willdan Financial Services.
Fee Schedule
Table 5.6 shows the fire facilities fee schedule based on the existing standard. The cost per
capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and building
space densities (persons per dwelling unit (DU) for residential development and workers per
1,000 square feet of building space for nonresidential development). The total fee includes an
administrative charge to fund impact fee program administrative costs including: revenue
collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification
analyses.
Table 5.6: Fire Facilities Fee
A B
Cost Per
Land Use Capita Density
C =AxB
Base Feel
D
Admin
Charge"
E =C +D
Total Fee
F =E 11,000
Fee per Sq.
Ft.
Residential
Single Family, Two - Family $ 366 2.78
$ 1,017
$ 20
$ 1,037
Multi - Family 366 1.85
677
14
691
Caretaker 366 1.20
439
9
448
Nonresidential
Commercial $ 253 2.02
$ 511
$ 10
$ 521
$ 0.52
Office 253 2.37
600
12
612
0.61
Industrial 253 1.12
283
6
289
0.29
Note: Fees rounded to nearest whole dollar.
' Fee per dwelling unit, or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential space.
2 Administration fee equal to 2.0 percent of base fee to fund impact fee program
administrative costs
including revenue collection, revenue
and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee Justification analyses.
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 5.5; Willdan Financial Services.
WILMAN
Financial Services 28
10 .i
6. Park and Recreation Facilities
The purpose of the fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of park facilities.
The City will use fee revenues to expand park facilities to serve new development. This analysis
documents fees based on the guidelines set forth in the Mitigation Fee Act.
Service Population
Facility standards for parks are typically expressed as a ratio of park facilities per 1,000 residents.
Recognizing that park facilities within the City are used by workers as well as residents, the City
of El Segundo conducted a survey to determine the level of park facility use by nonresidents, and
found that workers in the City used City parks at approximately 17 percent of the rate of resident
use. The survey was conducted by asking users of the Campus El Segundo Fields and
Recreation Park facilities whether they worked in the City, lived in the City or both on both. The
survey was repeated for weekdays and weekends; levels of park use were weighted accordingly.
Accordingly demand for parks and associated facilities are based on the City's combined
resident - worker service population. A detailed summary of the survey can be found in Appendix
B.
Table 6.1 provides estimates of the resident and worker population with a projection for the year
2030.
Table 6.1: Parks Service Population
Residents Workers Total
Existing (2009) 16,970 47,200
Weighting factor' 1.00 0.17
Existing Service Population 16,970 8,020 24,990
New Development (2009 - 2030) 720 9,500
Weighting factor' 1.00 0.17
New Development Service Population 720 1,620 2,340
Total 2030 Service Population
17,690 9,640 27,330
Note: Service population totals rounded to nearest ten.
' Workers are weighted at 0.17 of residents based on a survey of use at Recreation Park and Campus El Segundo
Fields submitted by the City.
Sources: City of El Segundo; Tables 2.1 and B.1; Willdan Financial Services.
WILLDAN
Financial sgvk*s 29
1w1%.
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Facility Standards
The City owns and operates various park and recreation facilities throughout the City. The City's
inventory of parks facilities includes a total of 74.76 acres, and is summarized in Table 6.2. An
inventory of existing recreation facilities is shown below in Table 6.3.
Table 6.2: Parkland Inventory
Name
Acres
Parkland (acres)
Recreation Park
20.40
Hilltop Park
1.20
Campus El Segundo Athletic Fields
4.96
Candy Cane Park
0.10
Acacia Park
0.50
Library Park
3.40
Camp Eucalyptus
0.30
The Lakes Golf Course
28.00
Holly Kansas Park
0.40
Holly Valley Park
0.20
Dog Park
1.90
Cutlers Park
0.10
Imperial Parkway: Memory Row
7.70
Imperial Parkway: Btw Dog Park and Main
4.80
Sycamore Parkette
0.80
Total
74.76
Source: City of El Segundo.
WILLDAN '
Financial vices 30
1J
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 6.3: Recreation Facilities Inventory
Facility
Square Feet
Checkout Building
3,880
Urho Saari Swim Stadium
16,270
Camp Eucalyptus Building
1,815
The Lakes Facility
7,552
Clubhouse
11,623
Concession Stand
584
Scorer's Booth
100
Main Complex
510
Joslyn Center
7,667
Elevator Tower and Shed
510
Office and Shop
510
Campus El Segundo Athletic Fields Facility
1,442
Teen Center
5,480
Raquetball Courts
1,870
Announcer's Booth
110
Hardball Concession Stand
1,000
Softball Concession Stand
640
Total Recreation Facilities
61,563
Source: City of El Segundo.
Table 6.4 shows the existing standard of parkland per person served in the City of El Segundo.
Table 6A Parkland Standards
---- - - - - -- Existing (2009) ---- - - - - --
Standard per 1,000
Type of Acreage Acres service population
Acres of Parkland 74.76
Existing Service Population 24,990
Standard (acres per 1,000 service population) 2.99
Note: Facility standard rounded to the hundredths.
Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6.2; Willdan Financial Services.
WILLDAN
Financial Services 31
µ4
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Park Facility Standards
Park facility standards establish a reasonable relationship between new development and the
need for expanded park facilities. Information regarding the City's existing inventory of existing
parks facilities was obtained from City staff.
The most common measure used to calculate new development's demand for parks is the ratio of
park acres per resident. In general, facility standards may be based on the Mitigation Fee Act
(using a city's existing inventory of park facilities), or an adopted policy standard contained in a
master facility plan or general plan.
Mitigation Fee Act
The Mitigation Fee Act does not dictate use of a particular type or level of facility standard for
public facilities fees. To comply with the findings required under the law, facility standards must
not burden new development with any cost associated with facility deficiencies attributable to
existing development.' A simple and clearly defensible approach to calculating a facility standard
is to use the city's existing ratio of park acreage per 1,000 residents. Under this approach, new
development is required to fund new park facilities at the same level as existing residents have
provided those same types of facilities to date.
Unit Costs for Land Acquisition and Improvements
Unit costs represent the land costs and level of improvements that existing development has
provided to date. Using unit costs to determine a facility standard ensures that the cost of facilities
to serve new development is not artificially increased, and that new development is not unfairly
burdened relative to existing development.
The unit costs used to estimate the total investment in parkland facilities are shown in Table 6.5.
All costs are expressed in 2009 dollars. Land acquisition costs and improvement costs are based
on the City's experience with park development and information from a recent market analysis of
land values in El Segundo.
I See the benefit and burden findings in Chapter 8, Mitigation Fee Act Findings.
WILLIE DDAN
32
1JJ
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 6.5: Parkland Unit Costs
Cost
Per Acre Share
Park Improvements
Special Use Facilities'
Urho Saari Swim Stadium $ 5,369,000
Subtotal $ 5,369,000
Golf Course Building
Building Sq. Ft. 5,500
Cost per Sq. Ft. $ 189
Subtotal $ 1,039,500
Camp Eucalyptus
Building Sq. Ft. 1,270
Cost per Sq. Ft. $ 189
Subtotal $ 240,000
Recreation Facilities
(Checkout Building, Clubhouse, Scorer's Booth, Office,
Racquetball Courts, Announcer's Booth, Hardball and Softball
Concession Stands, Offices and Concession Stands at Campus
El Segundo Athletic Fields, Teen Center, Concession stand, Main
Complex, Joslyn Center, Elevator Tower)
Building Sq. Ft. 35,926
Cost per Sq. Ft. $ 189
Subtotal $ 6,790,000
Park Equipment and Vehicles (Table A.9) $ 887,600
Total Special Use Facilities $ 14,326,100
Improved Park Acres 74.76
Special Use Facilities Cost per Improved Acre $ 191,600
Standard Park Improvements2 200,000
Park Improvements Per Acre Subtotal $ 391,600 19%
Land Acquisition $ 1,630,000 81%
Total $ 2,021,600 100%
Note: Total facility cost estimates rounded to nearest hundred.
' Recreation facilities only include special use facilities (such as recreation centers and pools) that are not part of standard park
improvements.
2 Improvement costs are estimated at $200,000 per acre for site improvements (curbs, gutters, water, sewer, and electrical access),
plus basic park and school Feld amenities such as basketball or tennis court, restroom, parking, tot lot, irrigation, turf, open green
space, pedestrian paths, and picnic tables. Excludes special use facilities such as recreation centers and pools.
3 Land value of $1.63 million per acre Is based on a recent appraisal of parcels within the City.
Sources: Tables 6.2 and 6.3; City of El Segundo; Willdan Financial Services.
WILLDAN
Financial services 33
iJU
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Total Needs and Costs
The total investment in park facilities needed to serve growth is calculated by multiplying the
facility standards developed in Table 6.5 by growth in residents. The total value of the needs for
park facilities is based on the average unit costs for land acquisition and improvements shown in
Table 6.5. To accommodate the increase in service population through 2030 at the existing
standard, new development would need to fund facilities estimated to cost approximately $14.1
million as shown in Table 6.6.
Table 6.6: Park Facilities to Accommodate New Development
Mitigation
Fee Act
Parkland
Facility Standard (acres /1,000 service population) 2.99
Service Population Growth (2009 -2030) 2,340
Facility Needs (acres) 7.00
Average Unit Cost (per acre) $ 1,630,000
Total Cost of Facilities
AND
Improvements
Facility Standard (acres /1,000 service population) 2.99
Service Population Growth (2009 -2030) 2,340
Facility Needs (acres) 7.00
Average Unit Cost (per acre) $ 391,600
Subtotal - Improvements
Total Facilities
Note: Total facility cost estimates rounded to thousands.
Sources: Tables 6.1, 6.4, and 6.5; Willdan Financial Services.
$ 11,410,000
$ 2,741,000
$ 14,151,000
The $14.1 million in facility improvements must be used to enhance, upgrade, or expand new
park facilities. Intensifying development of existing parks is another reasonable method for
accommodating growth that could be used in conjunction with the expansion of improved park
acreage. The use of fee revenues would be identified through planned parkland acquisition and
improvement projects described in the most recently adopted version of annual capital
improvement budget.
The City anticipates that the park fees would be the primary revenue source to fund new
development's investment in park facilities. Expected parks capital infrastructure projects include
the development of new and improved parkland facilities and the construction of a new aquatics
center. Table 6.7 shows the share of costs that could be allocated on a per capita basis for both
W1LLDAN I
Financial SWVW.08 1 34 r•
iJ�
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
land acquisition and improvement.
Table 6.7: Park Facilities Investment Per Capita
Parkland
Parkland Investment (per acre) $ 1,630,000
Facility Standard (acres per 1,000 service population) 2.99
Total Investment Per 1,000 capita $ 4,874,000
1,000
Investment Per Resident $ 4,874
Investment Per Worker 829
Improvements
Parkland Improvements (per acre) 391,600
Facility Standard (acres per 1,000 service population) 2.99
Total Investment Per 1,000 capita $ 1,171,000
1,000
Investment Per Resident
Investment Per Worker
$ 1,171
199
Note: Total investment estimates rouned to nearest thousand. Investment per capita
rounded to nearest whole dollar.
Sources: Tables 6.5, and 6.6; Willdan Financial Services.
Fee Schedule
In order to calculate fees by land use type, the investment in park facilities is determined on a per
resident basis for both land acquisition and improvement. These investment factors (shown in
Table 6.7) are based on the unit cost estimates and facility standards.
Table 6.8 shows the park facilities fee based on the existing standard. The fee includes a
component for park improvements based on the City's existing standard. The investment per
capita is converted to a fee per dwelling unit. The total fee includes an administrative charge of
two percent (2 %) to fund costs that include revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting,
mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
��al S-� .I
35
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table 6.8: Park Facilities Fee Schedule
A El-
8 C =AxB D E= +D F =E /1,000
Cost Per Admin Fee per Sq.
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee' Charge,2 1 Total Fee' Ft.
Residential
$
Single Family, Two - Family
Parkland
$ 4,874
Improvements
1,171
Total
Multi- Family
Parkland
$ 4,874
Improvements
1,171
Total
$
Caretaker
$
Parkland
$ 4,874
Improvements
1,171
Nonresidential
Commercial
Parkland $ 829
Improvements 199
Office
Parkland $ 829
Improvements 199
Industrial
Parkland $ 829
Improvements 199
2.78 1 $ 13,550 $ 271 1 $ 13,821
2.78 3,255 65 3.320
$ 17,141
1.85 $
1.85
1.20 $
1.20
9,017 $ 180 $ 9,197
2,166 43 2.209
$ 11,406
5,849 $
1,405
2.02 I $ 1,675 $
2.02 402
2.37 I $ 1,965 $
2.37 472
1.12 I $ 928 $
1.12 223
117 1 $ 5,966
28 1.433
$ 7,399
34
$
1,709
$
1.71
8
410
0.41
$
2,119
$
2.12
39
$
2,004
$
2.00
9
481
0.48
$
2,485
$
2.49
19
$
947
$
0.95
4
227
0.23
$
1,174
$
1.17
Note: Fees rounded to nearest whole dollar.
1 Fee per dwelling unit, or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential space.
2 Administration fee equal to 2.0 percent of base fee to fund impact fee program administrative costs including revenue
collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 6.7; Willdan Financial Services.
19WILLIDAN'
I
Fnhnciei Servk*s 36
1JJ
7. Implementation
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process
Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in the California Government Code section
66016. Adoption of an impact fee program requires the City Council to follow certain procedures
including holding a public meeting. Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available at
least 10 days prior to the public meeting. The City's legal counsel should be consulted for any
other procedural requirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an enabling ordinance
and /or a resolution. After adoption there is a mandatory 60 -day waiting period before the fees go
into effect.
Inflation Adjustment
The City has kept its impact fee program up to date by periodically adjusting the fees for inflation.
Such adjustments should be completed regularly to ensure that new development will fully fund
its share of needed facilities. To maintain consistency with other City documents, we recommend
that the fees be adjusted for inflation annually, concurrent with the time frame when City staff
presents the preliminary CIP to the City Council.
There are no inflation indices that are specific to City of El Segundo. We recommend that the
following indices be used for adjusting fees for inflation:
• Buildings, Improvements — Engineering News Record's Building Cost Index (BCI) —
Los Angeles, CA
• Equipment — Consumer Price Index, All Items, 1982 -84 =100 for All Urban
Consumers (CPI -U) — for the West Urban Region, Size B/C
Due to the highly variable nature of land costs, there is no particular index that captures
fluctuations in land values. We recommend that the City adjust land values based on a periodic
appraisal of the type of land comparable to the City's existing inventory.
While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for periodic updates to ensure that fee
revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, the City will also need to conduct
more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when
significant new data on growth forecasts and /or facility plans become available. Note that
decreases in index value will result in decreases to fee amounts.
The steps necessary to update fees for inflation are explained below:
For all of the fee categories except the park facilities fees, the steps are as follows:
1. For each facility type (land, buildings, equipment), identify the percent change in
facility value since the last update, based on changes in each inflation index or for
each type of land.
2. Modify the value of each facility, existing and planned (if applicable) by the percent
change identified in Step 1.
3. Depending on fee methodology for each particular fee category calculate the total
value of existing facilities (existing inventory method), the value of existing facilities
W°A"] 37
i
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
plus planned facilities (system plan method), or the value of planned facilities
(planned facilities method) using the updated figures from Step 2.
4. Recalculate the cost per capita for each fee category by dividing the results of Step 3
by either the existing service population if the fee is calculated using the existing
inventory method, by the future service population if the fee is calculated using the
system plan method, or by the growth in service population if the fee is calculated
using the planned facilities method. Both the existing and future service populations
are identified in the first table of every chapter in this report.
5. Calculate the cost per worker (if applicable) for fee categories that are charged to
nonresidential development. The cost per worker is equal to the cost per capita
calculated in Step 4 multiplied by 0.31 for police, by 0.69 for fire and by 0.17 for
parks.
6. Update the fee schedule by multiplying the cost per capita and the cost per worker
calculated in Step 5 by the density factors listed in Table 2.1 to determine the base
fee for each land use.
To update the park facility fees for inflation, the steps are as follows:
1. For each facility type (land, improvements), identify the percent change in facility
value since the last update, based on changes in each inflation index or for each type
of land.
2. Modify the value of land acquisition and improvements shown in Table 6.6 by the
percent change identified in Step 1.
3. Using Table 6.6 as a guide, recalculate the cost per resident and cost per worker
using the adjusted values for land acquisition and improvements calculated in Step 2.
4. Update the fee schedule by multiplying the costs per capita calculated in Step 3 by
the density factors listed in Table 2.1 to determine the base fee for each land use.
The total fee for a given land use is equal to the cost per capita for land (from step
three) multiplied by the occupant density, added to the cost per capita for
improvements (also from step three) multiplied by the occupant density. See Table
6.8 for reference.
Once all of the fees have been inflated, multiply the sum of all the fees, per land use, by two
percent (2 %) to determine the administrative charge. Future updates to the fee program should
review the administrative fee to ensure that it fully covers the cost of administering the fee
program.
Reporting Requirements
The City complies with the annual and five -year reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act
found in Government Code Sections 66001 and 66006. For facilities to be funded by a
combination of public fees and other revenues, identification of the source and amount of these
non -fee revenues is essential. Identification of the timing of receipt of other revenues to fund the
facilities is also important.
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP
The City maintains a ten -year Capital Improvements Program (CIP) to plan for future
infrastructure needs. The CIP identifies costs and phasing for specific capital projects. The use of
the CIP in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the
use of those revenues.
WI LLDAN )
FBwdalsarvkes
38
1.4.E
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
The City may decide to alter the scope of the planned projects or to substitute new projects as
long as those new projects continue to represent an expansion of the City's facilities. If the total
cost of facilities varies from the total cost used as a basis for the fees, the City should consider
revising the fees accordingly.
VI% LLDAAN 39
n
8. Mitigation Fee Act Findings
Public facilities fees are one -time fees typically paid when a building permit is issued and
imposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities
and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of public facilities fees the State Legislature
adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent
amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025,
establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs.
The Act requires local agencies to document five findings when adopting a fee.
The five statutory findings required for adoption of the maximum justified public facilities fees
documented in this report are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the report that
follows. All statutory references are to the Act.
Purpose of Fee
• Identify the purpose of the fee ( §66001(a)(1) of the Act).
Development impact fees are designed to ensure that new development will not burden the
existing service population with the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth per Policy
LU7 -1.2 of the 1992 General Plan. The purpose of the fees proposed by this report is to
implement this policy by providing a funding source from new development for capital
improvements to serve that development. The fees advance a legitimate City interest by enabling
the City to provide services to new development.
Use of Fee Revenues
• Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities
shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital
improvement plan as specified in §65403 or §66002, may be made in applicable general or
specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the
facilities for which the fees are charged ( §66001(a)(2) of the Act).
Fees proposed in this report, if enacted by the City, would be used to fund expanded facilities to
serve new development. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the
City. Fees addressed in this report have been identified by the City to be restricted to funding the
following facility categories: police, library, fire, and parks and recreation.
Benefit Relationship
• Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the type of
development project on which the fees are imposed ( §66001(a)(3) of the Act).
We expect that the City will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities
and buildings, and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, and vehicles used to serve new
development. Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a citywide network of facilities
accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development. Under the
Act, fees are not intended to fund planned facilities needed to correct .existing deficiencies. Thus,
FW�LEL�Al 40 �.!
i
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
a reasonable relationship can be shown between the use of fee revenue and the new
development residential and non - residential use classifications that will pay the fees.
Burden Relationship
• Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and
the types of development on which the fees are imposed ( §66001(a)(4) of the Act).
Facilities need is based on a facility standard that represents the demand generated by new
development for those facilities. Facilities demand is determined as follows:
• The service population is established based upon the number of residents and
workers, which correlates to the demand for police facilities, fire protection facilities,
and parks and recreation facilities; and,
• The service population for library facilities is established solely on the number of
residents, as worker demand on these facilities is nominal.
For each facility category, demand is measured by a single facility standard that can be applied
across land use types to ensure a reasonable relationship to the type of development. For most
facility categories service population standards are calculated based upon the number of
residents associated with residential development and the number of workers associated with
non - residential development. To calculate a single, per capita standard, one worker is weighted
less than one resident based on an analysis of the relative use demand between residential and
non - residential development.
The standards used to identify growth needs are also used to determine if planned facilities will
partially serve the existing service population by correcting existing. deficiencies. This approach
ensures that new development will only be responsible for its fair share of planned facilities, and
that the fees will not unfairly burden new development with the cost of facilities associated with
serving the existing service population.
Chapter 2, Demographic Assumptions provides a description of how service population and
growth forecasts are calculated. Facility standards are described in the Facility Standards
sections of each facility category chapter.
Proportionality
• Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees amount and the
cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which
the fee is imposed ( §66001(b) of the Act).
The reasonable relationship between each facilities fee for a specific new development project
and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated new
development growth the project will accommodate. Fees for a specific project are based on the
project's size. Larger new development projects can result in a higher service population resulting
in higher fee revenue than smaller projects in the same land use classification. Thus, the fees
ensure a reasonable relationship between a specific new development project and the cost of the
facilities attributable to that project.
WILLDAN .]
Financial services 4
1 Lj
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
See Chapter 2, Demographic Assumptions, or the Service Population section in each facility
category chapter for a description of how service populations is determined for different types of
land uses. See the Fee Schedule section of each facility category chapter for a presentation of
the proposed facilities fees.
l Late
42
Appendix A: Vehicle and Equipment
Inventories
All vehicle and equipment inventories in this appendix document replacement cost, as provided
by City of El Segundo in 2009.
Table AA: Police Vehicle Inventory
Description
Unit
Year
Acquired
Replacement
Cost
Sedan Patrol, Crown Victoria
4
04/05
$ 132,800
Speed Monitoring & Traffic Safety Equip.
1
05/06
45,000
2001 Ford Truck (Animal Control)
1
00/01
64,000
Sport Utility, Chevrolet Suburban (donated)
1
05/06
102,000
Mutual Aid Emergency Resp Veh.
1
06/07
320,000
Sedan, Grand Marquis
1
06/07
29,000
Dodge Caravan
1
06/07
20,000
Jeep Wrangler Sport RH -Drive
1
06/07
24,000
Ford 500 SEL, Blue Metalic
1
06/07
25,000
Ford 500 SEL, Black w /Shale cloth
2
06/07
50,000
Sedan , Impala 9C3 Blue /Ntrl
1
06/07
23,000
Sedan , Impala 9C3 Black /Ebony
1
06/07
23,000
Sedan , Impala 9C3 Silverton /Ebony
1
06/07
23,000
Sport Utility, Dodge Durango
2
06/07
52,000
2009 Ford F -150
1
08/09
32,500
Sedan, Chevy Impala
2
04/05
60,000
2009 Ford Explorer
3
08/09
84,000
2009 Nissan Altima Hybrid
2
08/09
60,000
Sport Utility, Ford Explorer
1
02/03
29,000
Motorcycle, BMW R1200
5
06/07
126,000
2008 Sedan, Crown Victoria
9
08/09
270,000
Utility Parking Enforcement
1
02/03
5,000
Sedan, RSVP
2
02/03
12,000
Sedan Patrol K -9
1
00/01
6,500
Buick Regal LS
2
02/03
45,100
Sedan, Ford Escort
1
88/89
24,000
Sedan, Buick Regal
2
94/95
52,000
Crime Scene Van (Chevrolet)
1
95/96
29,000
Van -12 passenger, Ford
1
96/97
35,000
Swat Van (Grumman)
1
93/94
64,500
Police Vehicles Funding
1
05/06
100,000
Total $ 1,967,400
Note: Figures have been rounded.
Sources: City of El Segundo Equipment Replacement Schedule, 09/10; City of El Segundo.
WI LL DAN 'l a
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table A.2: Police Computer Equipment Inventory
Description
Units
Year
Acquired
Unit Cost
Total Replacement
Cost
Multi- Function machine, HP OfficeJet 9130
1
05/06
$ 1,200
$ 1,200
Printer, HP Color LaserJet 380ON
1
06/07
1,800
1,800
Scanners, Dell FI -5220c Color Workgroup
1
07/08
1,500
1,500
Switch, Dell PowerConnect 5324
1
05/06
2,000
2,000
Printer, Epson Stylus Pro4800
1
05/06
2,000
2,000
Printer, HP420ON w /Duplexer
6
04/05
1,800
10,800
Computer, Dell Optiplex 755 Ultra Small
36
07/08
1,800
64,800
Computer, Dell Optiplex 760
8
08/09
1,800
14,400
Dell Optiplex 755 /Evidence Mgmt
1
07/08
1,800
1,800
Computer, Dell Optiplex GX620 19 "flat
7
05/06
1,800
12,600
Dell, Latitude D820 w /1.0GB
1
06/07
2,500
2,500
Dell, Latitude E5500
5
08/09
2,500
12,500
Server rack for above
1
01/02
6,000
6,000
Auto cite computer /software
3
08/09
6,667
20,000
Dell Precision M90
1
06/07
3,400
3,400
Computer, Laptop
1
07/08
4,000
4,000
Switch, Asante 99- 00748 -01
1
03/04
4,200
4,200
Mobile data -2 K -9 /Animal Control
1
00/01
14,000
14,000
Printer, Color, Xerox Phaser 6250DX
1
04/05
4,600
4,600
Tabletop Live -Scan System
1
06/07
11,000
11,000
Video System in PD vehicle
1
04/05
4,900
4,900
Server, Dell Power Edge 1850
1
05/06
6,000
6,000
Switch, PowerConnect 5324 (5ea)
1
06/07
6,500
6,500
Dell Optiplex GX270T, 20" Panel
7
04/05
4,400
30,800
Superloader Quantum
1
03/04
8,200
8,200
Dual Quad Core Xeon E5430 Server
1
08/09
10,000
10,000
Mobile Data Computer M5 (1)
1
05/06
12,000
12,000
Software, Accident Reconstruction
1
06/07
8,500
8,500
Server, Dell Power Edge 2650
2
04/05
10,000
20,000
Server Module, AVL Status Mapping
1
03/04
17,000
17,000
Mobile Data Computer (16)
1
08/09
100,000
100,000
Mobile Data Computer (15)
1
03/04
108,000
108,000
Printer, HP LaserJet 405ON
3
99/00
1,600
4,800
Image Master copying system
1
01102
1,800
1,800
Printer, HP LaserJet 4000 TN
1
98/99
2,000
2,000
Fax machine
2
99/00
2,400
4,800
Switch, Dell 24 -Port
5
02/03
2,500
12,500
LCD 20" monitor (Doc. Imaging)
1
01/02
3,600
3,600
MDC, Sierra wireless (3)
1
01/02
4,400
4,400
Scanners, Tabletop Fujitsu (4)
1
01/02
5,000
5,000
Server, Dell Power Edge 2500
1
01/02
8,000
8,000
Server, Dell Power Edge 2650 (2)
1
02/03
10,000
10,000
Mainframe -IBM AS /400
1
93/94
44,000
44,000
Total
$ 627,900
Note: Figures have been rounded
Sources: City of El Segundo Equipment Replacement Schedule, 09/10; City of El Segundo.
Wpm >" A -2
�( ry
1 t /
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table A.3: Police Communications and Miscellaneous Equipment Inventory
Description
Units
Year
Acquired
Total Replacement
Unit Cost Cost
Refrigerator - Whirlpool (22cf)
1
03/04
1,100
Refrigerator - Amana
1
99/00
1,600
Range - Maytag
1
99/00
1,800
Freezer - True Food Reach In
1
06109
3,500
Numb John Mobile Platform
i
07/08
4,000
Benelli LE M4 Shotgun (2)
1
06/07
3,500
Refrigerator - True Food Refrig. /Freezer
1
08/09
4,500
Remington 700 w /Rail & accessories
2
08/09
4,800
Toshiba 20" DVDNHS TV (7)
1
06/07
3,000
Duplex Card Printer /ID Card Maker
1
08/09
4,900
Alcohol Analyzers w /memory & printer
1
05/06
4,000
E/Z Rider K -9 Kennel
1
07/08
5,200
Animal Catch Kit
1
08/09
1,800
Helmet Radio Kit (5)
1
03/04
9,000
Benchtop Downdraft Workstation
1
07/08
5,800
Nikon D300 2 Cameras /accessories
1
08/09
10,000
M -3 Tactical lights /pouches (75)
1
01/02
10,000
Shotguns (Border Patrol model)
1
01/02
8,000
Forensic Evidence Drying Cabinet
1
07/08
7,000
Personal Escape Masks (CBRN) (72)
1
04/05
12,000
Digital Flash CAM -880
1
07/08
7,700
Video Camera /Dispatch Ctr.
1
99/00
20,000
Wheel Loader Weigher
1
07/08
9,600
Gas Masks, Advantage (75)
1
01/02
13,000
Refiectoriess Total Station Bluetooth
1
06107
10,000
Taser Gun X26E w /Audio -Video (6)
1
06/07
12,000
Surveillance wires & system
1
01/02
14,000
Chair, Dispatch (8) Black Galaxy Style 5000
1
07/08
11,400
Bullet Trap
1
96/97
65,000
Prolaser III (traffic - 4)
1
07/08
18,000
Glock 21 guns/magazines (85)
1
01/02
47,000
Communications Generator
1
98199
100,000
Cardiovascular Machines
1
05/06
40,000
Taser Gun X26E w /Audio -Video (20)
1
06/07
34,000
Mobile ALPR System
1
06/07
35,000
SWAT Bulletproof Vests (16)
1
06/07
40,000
Taser Gun X26E w /Audio -Video (40)
1
07/08
65,800
Video /Digital Evidence Mgmt. System
1
08/09
180,000
Typewriter
3
90/91
3,000
VCR - Encore "Go Video"
1
94/95
1,000
Multisort Satellite Station
1
99/00
1,800
Cutting Torch - Steely
1
94/95
3,500
Sights /mounts -SWAT (8)
1
01/02
3,500
Security Camera -East Lot
1
98/99
4,000
Chartprinter
1
90/91
4,800
Shredder
1
92/93
5,000
Walk- Through Metal Detector
1
94/95
5,000
Elliptical, PRECOR
1
02103
5,000
Lab Vent - Labconco
1
95/96
6,000
Scott Air Packs (2)
1
96/97
7,000
Projector, Toshiba LCD
1
96/97
8,500
Sony Color Monitors (11)
1
99/00
9,000
Tatter guns (22)
1
01102
9,500
Video Camera System
1
97/98
20,000
Mobile Radios- (1) Motorola XTL5000
1
05/06
5,000
Mobile Radios (1), Motorola XTL 5000 UHF
1
06107
6,000
Mobile Radios (3), Motorola XTL 5000 UHF
1
06107
14,000
Mobile Radios (3), Motorola XTS 5000 UHF
1
06/07
14,000
Motorcycle Radio (5), Motorola
1
03/04
17,500
Mobile Radios (5), Motorola XTS 5000 UHF
1
06/07
26,000
Mobile Radios (5), Motorola XTL 5000 UHF
1
06/07
28,000
Mobile Radios (9), Motorola XTL 5000 UHF
1
06/07
35,000
Mobile Radios- (9) Motorola
1
04/05
40,600
Mobile Radios (12), Motorola XTS 5000
1
05/06
44,000
Airlink GSM Modems
1
08/09
25,000
Mobile Radios (13), Motorola XTL 5000 UHF
1
06/07
50,000
Mobile Radios (15), Motorola XTS5000 UHF
1
06/07
64,000
Mobile Radios (18), Motorola XTS 5000
1
05/06
64,000
Mobile Radios (19), Motorola XTS 5000 UHF
1
06/07
80,000
Motorola XTS3000 Portables (75)
1
00/01
225,000
Motorola Spectra A3
1
98199
2,500
Mobile
2
89/90
6,500
Cordless XLT Headsets It sets)
1
01/02
4,500
Radio Workstation
1
02/03
35,000
Motorola Wireless Dispatch Sys.
1
99/00
2,500,000
Total Equlmpent
$ 4,211,200
Note: Figures have been rounded to nearest hundred
Sources: City of El Segundo Equipment Replacement Schedule, 09/10; City of El Segundo.
wlLLDAN I
Financisi.Services A -3
1��G
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table AA Library Collections
Average Total Collection's
Item Price Collection Value
DVD
VHS
Music CD
Book on Tape
Book on CD
Magazine or Journal Print
Newspaper Print
Microfilm or Microfiche
Maps, Pamphlets, Photos
Reference Books
Fiction Books
Non - Fiction Books
Children's Books
Electronic Database Subscriptions
Total - Library Collections
Note: Total values rounded to nearest hundred.
Source: El Segundo Public Library.
30
7,000
$ 210,000
20
500
10,000
17
2,600
44,200
80
890
71,200
45
916
41,200
5
5,880
29,400
1.00
1,800
1,800
7
80,822
565,800
10
27,500
275,000
200
6,500
1,300,000
30
27,000
810,000
88
23,000
2,024,000
26
56,325
1,464,500
3,000
15
45.000
240,748 $ 6,892,100
W/I Lm SAN A 4
�. 4 J
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table A.5: Library Equipment and Furnishings
Description
Units
_
Year
Acquired
Unit Cost
Total
Replacement
Cost
Projector, Epson
1
05/06
$ 2,600
$ 2,600
Projector, LCD Multimedia (Panasonic)
1
07/08
1,600
1,600
Media Return, M700 -R
1
03/04
2,169
2,200
Audio System /Matsui Room
1
03/04
8,000
8,000
Tables
1
06/07
8,000
8,000
Reading Chairs
15
06/07
733
11,000
3M Security System
1
02/03
14,000
14,000
Canon Microfilm Scanner
1
08/09
9,000
9,000
Audio Visual Material Return
1
93/94
1,650
1,700
Audio Visual System
1
91/92
23,595
23,600
Printer, Dell 310OCN Laser Color
1
06/07
1,600
1,600
Printer, HP LserJet 2055DN
1
08/09
1,600
1,600
Bar Code Scanner & Resensitier
1
03/04
1,600
1,600
Printer, Canon Fileprint
1
08/09
2,000
2,000
Computer, Dell Optiplex 755 Ultra Small
40
07/08
1,818
72,700
Laptop, Dell Latitude D630
1
07/08
1,800
1,800
Computer, Dell Optiplex GX620 19 "flat
13
05106
1,800
23,400
Bar Code Scanners (17)
1
07/08
2,500
2,500
Computer, Dell Optiplex GX280T, 17"
1
04/05
1,600
1,600
Computer, Dell Optiplex GX620 Mini Tower a
1
06/07
2,400
2,400
Computer, Gateway Profile 5MX -C
1
04/05
2,000
2,000
Switch, PowerConnect 5324 (3ea)
1
06/07
3,500
3,500
Millennium System Expansion Software
1
02/03
50,000
50,000
Battery backup RS232 - (2)
1
02/03
1,700
1,700
Cisco Firewall PIX
1
00/01
4,500
4,500
OCLC Interfaces (2)
1
92/93
9,000
9,000
OPAC Web Server
1
00/01
13,500
13,500
Total - Library Equipment
$ 277,100
Note: Total replacement cost figures rounded to nearest hundred
Sources: City of El Segundo Equipment Replacement Schedule, 09/10; City of El Segundo.
V1/i LLDAN .l
financw services A-5
y � V
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table AA Fire Department Vehicles
Description Unit Acquired Cost
Vehicles
Sedan, Crown Victoria
Truck, crew cab
Generator, Tempest Honda 2000 Watt
Generator (TR)
Hydraulic Rescue (Jaws of Life)
Aerial Ladder
Fire Engine (E33)
Ford Excursion /Command Center
Fire Engine (E34)
Truck, USAR
Fire Engine (E31)
Fire Engine (E32)
Truck, Communications
Power Blower (E33)
Generator
Power Blower (T32)
Generator, Honda
Sedan
Technical Rescue Truck
Rescue Ambulance (R31)
Rescue Ambulance
Truck, Ford Super Cab
2008 Ford Escape Hybrid
Sedan, Grand Marquis
Crew Cab Truck
Generator
Total - Equipment and Apparatus
+vie. cyuipment replacement costs rounded to nearest hundred.
1
06/07 $
28,000
1
97/98
50,000
2
07/08
3,600
1
00/01
3,500
2
00/01
58,000
1
94/95
921,400
1
08/09
771,000
1
02/03
105,000
1
92/93
448,000
1
05/06
800,000
1
99/00
575,000
1
92/93
448,000
1
89/90
-
1
00/01
1,800
1
00/01
2,200
1
91/92
2,600
1
96/97
3,500
2
98/99
31,500
1
95/96
320,000
1
03/04
251,100
1
96/97
179,500
2
00/01
59,000
1
08/09
35,000
1
00/01
26,300
1
99/00
52,000
1
99/00
1,800
Sources: City of El Segundo Equipment Replacement Schedule, 09/10; City of El Segundo.
$ 5,177,800
WILLDAN
Fin i
eneia. sau"c"e
A -6
1�J�,
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table A.7: Fire Department Computer,
Communications Equipment
Description
Year
Replacement
07/08 $
Unit
Acquired
Cost
05/06
14,400
Laptop, Dell Latitude C810
2
Communications
6,000
Printer, HP LJ 420ODTN
3
Portable XTL5000 VHF Radios (2)
1
06/07
$ 10,000
Portable XTS5000 UHF Radios (8)
1
06/07
40,000
Portable XTS5000 UHF Radios (12)
1
06/07
45,000
Portable XTL5000 VHF Radios (17)
1
06/07
60,000
Portable XTS5000 UHF Radios (18)
1
03/04
72,000
Portable XTS5000 UHF Radios (16)
1
03/04
118,000
Portable VHF (18)
1
varies
33,600
Motorola portable UHF radio (3)
1
02/03
11,000
Satellite Phone Portable Kits (7)
1
08/09
14,000
Emergency Advisory Radio
1
02/03
17,000
UHF Repeater System
1
98/99
2,500
Subtotal - Communications Equipment
2,600
Computer, Gateway 5MX -C Delux (EOC)
423,100
Computer Equipment
Fax, Panafax OF -8000
1
07/08 $
1,500
Computer, Dell Optiplex GX620 19 "flat
8
05/06
14,400
Laptop, Dell Latitude C810
2
04/05
6,000
Printer, HP LJ 420ODTN
3
02/03
6,300
Computer, Dell File Server
1
02/03
6,000
Computer, Dell Optiplex 755 Ultra Small
8
07/08
14,400
Switch, PowerConnect 5224
1
03/04
2,500
Laptop, Dell Precision M6300
1
07/08
3,100
Mobile Data Computer (1) M5
1
06/07
7,500
Mobile Data Computer (1) M15
1
05/06
11,000
Mobile Data Computer (13)
1
03/04
111,000
Pipeline 130 IDSN /T1
1
98/99
1,300
Scanner
1
93/94
1,600
Laptop, Dell Latitude D510 Celeron M
16
05/06
24,000
Printer, Xerox Phaser 6259/DP color
1
04/05
2,600
Computer, Gateway 5MX -C Delux (EOC)
2
04/05
4,800
Server, Dell PowerEdge 1800 esweb03
1
05/06
4,500
Laptop, Dell Latitude C810 w /docking st
1
04/05
3,000
Computer, Dell Optiplex 755 "EMWINa
1
07/08
4,000
Printer, HY LJ 220ODN (EOC)
2
01/02
2,800
Panafax 990 Fax Machine (EOC)
2
01/02
5,600
Subtotal - Computer Equipment
$
237,900
Note: Equipment replacement costs rounded to nearest hundred
Sources: City of El Segundo Equipment Replacement Schedule, 09/10; City of El Segundo.
y'' WILL ©AN 3
Financial saNroea
A -7
1��
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table A.8: Fire Department Other Misc. Equipment
Year ep acement
Description Unit Acquired Cost
Other Equipment
Automatic Defibrillator S2- Lifspak (2)
Automatic Defibrillator (4)
Typewriter
Porte Count System Mode) #8028
Ventilation Chain Saw (E33)
Turbo Water Vac 17 gallon
Sharp 2000 Zoom Projector
ESFD Station #1 Console
ESFD Station #2 Console
Pro Tread Treadmill (St. 1)
Asset Management System
Washer Extractor
Personal Protective Equipment
Recliner, Lander (10)
Helmets Ways protection (60)
Ballistic Body Armor (19 sets)
SCBA Bottles (22)
Headsets (33)
Emergency Vehicle Intercom Sys. (10ea)
Communications Generator (1/4)
Personal Escape Mask (CBRN) (75)
Heavy USAR Equipment
SCBA CBRN Mask
Hose (300 sections)
SCBA Bottles (40)
Protective Clothing (60)
SCBA Units (26)
SCBA Voice Amplifiers (55)
Typewriter
Ab Bench - Icarian (ST2)
Submersible Pump (TR)
Pump
Pump (TR)
Submersible Pump (ST2)
Rotary saw (2) (TR)
3 -way Suction Siamese (T32)
Rotary hammer JR)
Ventilation Chain Saw (T32)
Cutquick Power Saw
Water Vacuum
Gas Detector (TR)
Gas Detector JR)
MSA Alarm (2) JR)
Leg Extensions (ST2)
Leg Curls (ST2)
Automated Defibrillator (E31)
Automated Defibrillator (E33)
Automated Defibrillator (E32)
Step Mill 7000 (ST2)
Precor EFX 5.23 Crosstrainer (ST2)
Precor Fitness Crosstrainer (ST I)
Thermal imaging camera (E31)
Thermal imaging camera (E33)
Thermal imaging camera (E32)
SCBA Bottles (77)
SCBA (26)
Victory trailer
Defibrillator, E Series ACLS Manual
Monitor /Defibrillator Life Pak 12 (2)
Defibrillator, 3 -E Series /2 -M Series Manual
Monitor/Defibrillator
Mobile radio ( #3361)
Mobile radio ( #3360)
HNU Toxic Detector
Combo Gas /Oxygen Indicator
CBRN Detection Equipment
Five Step Analysis Kit ( #3348)
Combustible Gas Indicator
Mobile Mini Storage 10'
Mobile Mini Storage 20'
Projector, LCD "2" (EOC)
Biological/Chemical Detection Kit
Upholstered Chairs (35)
SE Inspector Survey Meter
Chemical 8 Biological Agent Detection Kit
Emerg. food (mutual aid /City empl.)
Emergency food
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
04/05 $
04/05
92/93
08/09
99/00
03104
03/04
05/06
05/06
08/09
05/06
93/94
04/05
08/09
04/05
07/08
06/07
03/04
03/04
96/99
04/05
07/08
04/05
varies
04/05
vanes
04/05 145,200
02/03 13,300
90/91 1,000
02/03 1,000
94/95 1,300
98/99 1,400
98/99 1,400
98199 2,800
98/99 1,400
97/98 1,500
98/99 1,500
92/93 1,800
93/94 2,100
94/95 2,200
96/97 2,500
96/97 2,500
96/97 3,000
99/00 3,000
99/00 3,000
00/01 4,000
00/01 4,000
00/01 4,000
98/99 4,000
02/03 4,000
98/99 4,500
02/03 25,000
02/03 25,000
02/03 25,000
varies 57,200
varies 61,300
08/09 22,100
07/08 19,500
04/05 36,700
06107 59,000
97/98 13,000
00/01 2,100
00/01 2,100
03104 3,700
03/04 3,900
04/05 15,000
99/00 2,200
91/92 5,400
97/98 6,500
95/96 4,400
06/07 5,200
04/05 5,300
08109 25,000
03/04 25,000
04/05 15,000
07/08 20,000
07/08 25,000
Subtotal - Other Equipment $ 1,017,400
Note: Equipment replacement costs rounded to nearest hundred.
5,600
10,700
2,000
1,200
1,300
2,700
2,100
5,500
5,500
5,400
3,000
10,800
7,500
8,000
13,600
10,000
20,000
8,500
11,000
50,000
13,000
40,000
18,000
36,000
Sources: City of El Segundo Equipment Replacement Schedule, 09/10: City of El Segundo.
WILLDAN
Financial Services
JL
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table A.9: Parks Equipment and Vehicles
Description
Units
Year
Acquired
Unit Cost
Total -
Replacement
Cost
Printer, Zebra P330i & Cards
1
FY05 -06
$ 6,600
$ 6,600
Program registration Printer & Cards
1
FY04 -05
6,600
6,600
System 5 Timer (Saari Pool)
1
FY00 -01
35,000
35,000
Vacuum Sweeper
1
FY02 -03
3,500
3,500
Board, Maxiflex 16'- Stand
1
FY01 -02
7,500
7,500
Pool automatic chlorinator
1
FY98 -99
2,500
2,500
Portable Radio (8), Motorola
8
FY03 -04
438
3,500
Rototiller
1
FY98 -99
1,300
1,300
16" Sod Cutter
1
FY98 -99
3,600
3,600
Tractor, Garden
1
FY98 -99
8,500
8,500
Genie Aerial Lift
1
FY00 -01
8,100
8,100
Delta 5 HP Unisaw
1
FY07 -08
5,000
5,000
Sedan, Crown Victoria
1
FY06 -07
8,000
8,000
Showmobile trailer
1
FY01 -02
130,000
130,000
Lawnair Aerator
1
FY86 -87
1,700
1,700
Cushman
1
FY99 -00
21,000
21,000
GEM, Utility Cart
1
FY02 -03
6,000
6,000
Mower /Trimmer
2
FY02 -03
1,700
3,400
Truck, Chevy
6
FY02 -03
29,133
174,800
John Deer 220B Greens mower
1
FY03 -04
5,000
5,000
Planer, Powermatic
1
FY99 -00
2,000
2,000
Roller Turf
1
FY91 -92
4,000
4,000
Stump Cutter
1
FY99 -00
36,000
36,000
Truck, Ford
2
FY91 -92
17,350
34,700
Truck, GMC TC7500 w /Arbortech 12" Chipper
1
FY08 -09
98,000
98,000
Aerial Tower Truck
1
FY97 -98
130,000
130,000
Utility Vehicle, John Deere HPX Gator
1
FY04 -05
10,200
10,200
Truck
1
FY92 -93
28,000
28,000
Utility Trailer
3
FY02 -03
5,433
16,300
Wood Chipper
1
FY01 -02
33,000
33,000
Generator
1
FY92 -93
2,000
2,000
Line Striper, Jiffy 7500
1
FY03 -04
1,800
1,800
Lawn Comber
1
FY97 -98
1,500
1,500
Mower
1
FY98 -99
4,200
4,200
Computer, Optiplex GX280, 17" panel
1
FY04 -05
1,800
1,800
Computer, Dell Optiplex 755 Ultra Small
14
FY07 -08
1,800
25,200
Computer, Dell; printer; firewall
1
FY07 -08
3,600
3,600
Computer, GX520 Minitowers
2
FY05 -06
2,300
4,600
Printer, HP220ODN
1
FY02 -03
1,200
1,200
Printer, HP LaserJet4000TN
1
FY98 -99
1,800
1,800
Fax, Panafax DX2000
1
FY03 -04
2,600
2,600
HP 220ODTN Printer
1
FY02 -03
1,700
1,700
Computer, Dell Optiplex GX620 19 "flat
1
FY05 -06
1,800
1,800
Total Equipment and Vehicles
$
887,600
Note: Totals replacement costs rounded to nearest hundred
Sources: City of El Segundo Equipment Replacement Schedule, 08/09; City of El Segundo.
WILLOAN
Financial: SerOm
A -9
Appendix B: Worker Demand Survey for
Parks
The worker demand weighting for parks and recreation facilities were developed during various
user intercept surveys carried out by staff at the City of El Segundo in March 2010. The following
appendix describes the methodology used to arrive at the worker demand weighting factors.
Park Survey
The parks intercept survey was administered to all willing park -goers at Campus El Segundo
Fields and Recreation Park on Tuesday, March 16th, Wednesday, March 17th, and Sunday,
March 21st. On the two weekdays, the survey was administered during the interval from 11:45AM
to 1:15PM and then the interval from 6:OOPM to 7:OOPM. On Sunday, the survey was
administered from 9:15AM- 10:15AM, from 12:15PM- 1:15PM and from 6:30PM to 7:30PM. The
parks surveyed are listed in the table below. Park users were asked if they came to the park that
day because of proximity to work, home, both or neither.
The staff at the City of El Segundo initially tabulated the results of the survey. The results of the
weekday surveys (Tuesday, March 16th and Wednesday, March 17th) need to be multiplied by
five to weight the results to represent the five weekdays. Results from the weekend surrey
(Sunday, March 21st) need to be multiplied by two in order to represent total visits for both
weekend days.
Willdan Financial Services constructed weights by considering worker and resident responses
alone. Respondents suggesting that they were at the parks for both or neither reasons were not
included in the total. The resulting estimate of total proximity to work responses were then divided
by the current estimate of employees working within the City of El Segundo to derive park visits
per employee. Park visits per resident were estimated by dividing the responses by the current
resident population. The resulting weighting factor for worker park use based on survey results is
estimated at 0.17.
The tabulation of survey results appears in Table B.1 below.
W WILLDAN
Financial Services
B -1
JL
f
City of El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study
Table B.1: City Of El Segundo Park Users Survey
Number of patrons at
park because of:
Work Residence Both Neither
Survey Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2010, 11 :45 am to 1:15 pm
Recreation Park 37 30 13 19
Campus El Segundo Fields 6 1 - 10
Total 43 31 13 29
Survey Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2010, 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm
Recreation Park
5
15
12
6
Campus El Segundo Fields
3
52
10
28
Total
8
67
22
34
Survey Date: Wednesday, March 17,2010,11:45 am to 1:15 pm
Recreation Park
28
12
6
15
Campus El Segundb Fields
7
2
1
23
Total
35
14
7
38
Survey Date: Wednesday, March 17,
2010, 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm
Recreation Park
12
41
11
37
Campus El Segundo Fields
8
83
3
42
Total
20
124
14
79
Adjustment Factor
5
5
5
5
Weighted Weekday Visits
133
295
70
225
Survey Date: Sunday, March 21, 2010, 9:15 am to 10:15 am
Recreation Park
-
25
7
14
Campus El Segundo Fields
8
7
2
37
Total
8
32
9
51
Survey Date: Sunday, March 21, 2010,12:15 pm to 1:15 pm
Recreation Park
5
38
12
36
Campus El Segundo Fields
6
26
8
129
Total
11
64
20
165
Survey Date: Sunday, March 21, 2010, 6:30 pm to 7:30 pm
Recreation Park
2
34
6
32
Campus El Segundo Fields
10
6
5
209
Total
12
40
11
241
Adjustment Factor
2
2
2
2
Weighted Weekend Visits
21
91
27
305
Weekend and Weekday Weighted Visits 153 386
97
Allocation of "Both" Response
48
48
202 434
Employees or Residents
47.200 17.000
11^ ,000 Visits per worker or resident
4.27 25.53
1,000 Visits
Per Capita
Workers
4.27
Residents
25.53
Worker Weighting Factor
0.17
Note: These parks were selected based on their similarity to future parks to be built.
Sources: City of El Segundo; Willdan Financial Services.
WILLDAN '� [�
Fmerdai.Servldes B -2 ,L U
1 J t
de
U
K
0
Tc
S
Q
a o
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
y
4
u o
aw
u g
0'11
ai c
o•w
...
'G
o
'c aw
v o
aw
d o
aw
g g
o
t
F
F
H
N-
?
7 N
-�
N
N
h
w
p
M w
p
w
O
O
tin
'."
FO i
69
h rri
62 w
CN
O
6 rq
z
z u9
69
10
V9
Ni
t9 h
N
Vi y
Vf m
U
X
�
A
n
a
G
w
S
a
�yo�
s
&Y.
5
Q
wo 0 o
d
�
CD
Y E N
G
C
C
d OE
11
vii
0
e
e
e
w
srn
w
eri, a
eri,
W
W
W
W W
W
y
W
C
m
C
'F
•F 0.
u
4
d
'G
'C
d
0
0
b
N
a
0
Q
oo
N04
�o0
0
0
00o
r
¢'
ni
0
sa,Wf.9
COi G
O
w
O O
Pte. 'A
w
o
o o
> >
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
p°
.c°
a°
�°
¢
A
N
••
Vl
y
X
Y N
N
z
K
d
u
FUw
wbsce�vs
wwv
In
w0v,Wv,
In
CO)
[%
r
as
C
O
a
z
z
z
z z
u
y
O
€
Q
a
<
a
x
z
z
z
z z
u
5
d
PC
�
u v
�
W b
a
A U
E
N
W
0
w
w
w
w
w
g
o 0 0
a'o a
E> v> Zt >
V]
fOf
G�9
H
6°9
6°'9
H
d9
6°9
6°°I
6N9
C4 fn N fn C4 V]
V
Ca
a
•r
F1
a
(J
•r
7+ ld
O
F.
•� Q
O
Ei
CC
F O
•(ttl+
p L A
G a
✓
d
y
U
A
rjZ
;F.un
O
O
rAm
5
am
U
.av�
U0
UO4i
rnU
O
1 J t
2
{)
\\
}0
�\
\k
i}
$i
)J
$»
}\
!J
k�
\(
k2
{\
�)
!{
k}7
»�0
��D
!»■
0/}
! {$
k §k
k §)
7!ƒ
k *)
k)�
� n
k)f
■ ;E
k�/
■Js
E0
2|!
� (f
/ \\
}�E
y
b
O
O
U
C�
u
d
a
Q
A
�1
�I
W
v
b
a
c
O
CL
0
Y
O
A
w
0
y
O
U
0
u
b
a
G�
19
I
z
vi
O
i C
a �+
�a
v
O
R.
� y
o a
p8
v ,b,
b b
� U
y U
U G
d
c � w
.9 U
Or
w b
? y T
yw
U bo
U
,i b
n rm-
w
O
b
O bo
� � y
p• c
�a
� O
" c w
s;
�a
i � w
� N y
a � o
C O
C
s �
j A U
N
U O
!
to
i
' � h
a
64
•o
yV
V
t
bL H
^
Q
06°9��
M c
obio
y�U ter.
z¢¢
.0 6�9 O y 69
b bA y b
¢ a+ O b0 �O"+ O O�1
¢ U bD cw ed
b !". 4:
awaax xW23
Go��
of
oa>�U
rn
to
u
z¢
00
5
U U
605
605 609
609
605
609
609
e°s
C tVC
O M
N
'N ON
rA
O
y
O
N
N
N
QD
M
M
M
M
O t""
C)
Cl
�
609
6N9
5NR
4]
0
N
o
°
�
tn
x
°
609
69
6s
N
O
O
°69
in
605
609
605
605
f.S
fie
b
CD
"Cl m
O
10
u u
C
P:
609
605
609
609
609
s
ie
tv
In
G) N
V
[d �
U
�
69
65
69
69
69
69
69
d9 i
�
J
E
O
E
'U
U
U
'd
M
N
t`
cn
N
\p
O
W w to
O
6*1
e{
65
E
65
69
O
b9
O
69
69
Vol" a
d
.j
co
G
O
N
O
�
W V1 W
O
69
•-�
69
N
69
N
69 69
O
65
69
N s
609 G
O
a
�
t 4
W Cl� U 6n
605 609
Cl
�
69
foil
0
a
o
e
�
U
u
a
nAra
Uwa°..�
F z
vi
O
i C
a �+
�a
v
O
R.
� y
o a
p8
v ,b,
b b
� U
y U
U G
d
c � w
.9 U
Or
w b
? y T
yw
U bo
U
,i b
n rm-
w
O
b
O bo
� � y
p• c
�a
� O
" c w
s;
�a
i � w
� N y
a � o
C O
C
s �
j A U
N
U O
!
to
i
' � h
1��1
a
64
•o
yV
V
t
bL H
^
Q
06°9��
M c
obio
y�U ter.
'C O O W U CG O 'CIO
^b� N y "' �"
.0 6�9 O y 69
b bA y b
¢ a+ O b0 �O"+ O O�1
¢ U bD cw ed
b !". 4:
awaax xW23
oa>�U
rn
1��1
N
Ir
i
td
0
W
ti
O
Q'
y
O
C
N
0
0
y�
R
td
U
iG
U_
is
b
y
a
d
E
Q
d
d
A
w.
O
O
U
0
E+
a
a.
C
C
O
C�
F
C
a
U
>W
O
7 F.
i A
i a
L �
4 �
00
N
U
U
s
0
U
O
C
a �
W
� O
� o
b 0.
� o
o b
O N
tC0 U
�O^0
>�
0
N
a C
!f y
ew
bD
C
� M
a�
'O G7 L�'O U64
I y U b Q64
O i Q Oi
�wxU'�a
a
i1
h
t
N� 00Gzr
M
6s Cj �O 7 U Lei
N CG
O CA 'b
00 C', C 0 ^L
��waxH�w
.�UL+
�]
y
�bq O
C's
d
M u
z¢¢
G�
O N
�V
�b0 y
N r
r` u
y >
z¢°°
U
o
�o
>
o
U
o
6°9
6Os
6°s
60�
6s
69
O
00
[-
M
tn
a va
69
69
bs
69
69
6s
6e
y
N
CA
r-
a ¢
°
°
°
0
s
Gs
669
669
66e
C
O
N
V )
t
O
H
`O
x
6s
6s
6�
r,-
4,6
;
N
J
U
e
p
�
O
i
sN•s
609
609
6°5
6s
fA
fA
fiM C
b
i
Cn
k
b
N N
i1�i i�
bs
609
609
6s
69
609
bs
c
603, r .L
a
0
ON
°
O C
cUd
y y
°
°
.�+
d
pC Aa
6°9
6O
S
w
x
00
r a
U
00
Op GC
i-Q
69
69
69
69
(fi
69 1.9
V, F•�
O
7G7
0
0
_
W w Q 69
69
69
69
°
66s
66s
60) a
X
�j
o
o
en
CD
�o
69
W vi w 69
69
bs
609
6�c9
ZA
66n O
.a
cn
CD
ON
� O N
C
0 C
" w°
N
W U 6s
66966N9696�9
6e
�
6�9
609
y
C
c
°
U �
nAF�aE+
z
a
a.
C
C
O
C�
F
C
a
U
>W
O
7 F.
i A
i a
L �
4 �
00
N
U
U
s
0
U
O
C
a �
W
� O
� o
b 0.
� o
o b
O N
tC0 U
�O^0
>�
0
N
a C
!f y
ew
bD
C
� M
a�
'O G7 L�'O U64
I y U b Q64
O i Q Oi
�wxU'�a
a
i1
h
t
N� 00Gzr
M
6s Cj �O 7 U Lei
N CG
O CA 'b
00 C', C 0 ^L
��waxH�w
.�UL+
a
O
h
3
C
'b
'a
.Q
O
W
w
O
O
C
O
'u
O
U
C
O
0
Y
A
0
h
0
U
F
ao vb°9v6°.�o o v° ° r b
W w O 64 69 69 fos 69 69 a
X
N rn y 0 0 'v
_U OvNi OvNi O�N� a c
3 o vi vi o °
O O O N t o
W w bs69�' 611 os los ��'664 —�
C
° y h y h ^
_~ `~OO w
U 6°9 69 69 69 69 69 M 64 — 69 69 69 CD
69
Ckc
n
o.� o w o 0
U w a a j
U
C
c.
C
C
O
U
C
.d
U
n W
� O
� C
..0
F"
s"
1 �
i
I �
I
I 'a
E
0
U
L3�
0
rA
a�
W
N y
� � o
v a
id o
o `b
� o
U
0
w
ya �
�u
O
C
W
H
Q
a
U
W
z
0
0
N �^
� � n
� Q Y
.. w
•^ O h y a+
CD
t ° U ti °° ..
M C 0
6
0o bq �n O 0
L) O
o al c) o eo > o en
b
Hx �aww �w� 40
1�.1
..
o0° t
to ; o
to
^o^ > t
tz u
z¢¢ G
GN
0 t
Cd
> o
o 0
0
0 t
tn
cA h
h
PO t
t- N
N °
° °
° ON
G °
N N
O �
�
64 6
6N9 69 A
A f
q w
- 6
w
fs 6
6°9 6
6,s -
6°9 '
N
N
O r+
1-a ¢ 6
604 6
6°H 6
6°9 6
64 °
°69 4
44 6
64 G
Goi
�o
3 °
° �
°a �
�c
6s 6
6s G
GS
0
H 6
69 6
64 6
69 6
69 6
69 6
69 6
69 6
d
b
0
d)
W FG 6
69 6
69 6
69 H
H) E
EA 6
6h E
EA G
GH
T
R
N
N y
xoa °
°°
E
d E
F, ai 6
6°s 6
6°9 6
6°9 6
6°9 1
10.) 6
60-1 6°s 6
6°9 f
LL
c
S
°
t:
00 C
00 j C
O W
Cv\j 0
�
C) M O
OO O
M ?
� �
U
C
c.
C
C
O
U
C
.d
U
n W
� O
� C
..0
F"
s"
1 �
i
I �
I
I 'a
E
0
U
L3�
0
rA
a�
W
N y
� � o
v a
id o
o `b
� o
U
0
w
ya �
�u
O
C
W
H
Q
a
U
W
z
0
0
N �^
� � n
� Q Y
.. w
•^ O h y a+
CD
t ° U ti °° ..
M C 0
6
0o bq �n O 0
L) O
o al c) o eo > o en
b
Hx �aww �w� 40
1�.1
CD
t ° U ti °° ..
M C 0
6
0o bq �n O 0
L) O
o al c) o eo > o en
b
Hx �aww �w� 40
1�.1
.rL.
F
ti
Q
F,
c
O
b
7
a
W
0
b0
C
b
.a
0
w
ca
R
Q'
y
O
0
0
O
�n
u
d
O
A
0
h
U
O
F
r
o.
c
0
O
0
0
v
d
v
a
U
G
. F
j U
o
I
4 O i
b0
of
.a
U
U
O
a
U
a
0
fiw
� o
b 4
� O
o�
U o
0�0 c
>
o
u EO
�A
e0
tw
O_
Q � �
iJr � a.� O .•� b, w 0^
Z �c
eo.)
FooVn c� rmCO L
W M 70
N o
►Ur C FL,.., y�U
EA
tu
a0Q" rd_PO� �nG-q 0 �00W
� fA
P DD rG x Q�i
L
.L y ca
O\ C7
O O
M
h
o
S
O
o
U U
6°s
6q
60s
609
00
0
0
tn
bA U
N M
1M
O O
ti
aaa
46
450.9,
O O
M
(6
6s
b9��6S
N
O
un
O
y
6s
oq
N
00
N
00
en
6Ms 609
O
O
k
kn
3
o
kn
rr
W
o
6s
o '-'
69 69
0
69
6s
01p0
64
0
69
a
Fi5 e
1
C
O
kn
rl F
tn F
E"^
6N9
609 604
0
609
609
C
R
O
b
c
C
b ft1
.G
N
0 o
�i
69
6s 69
6s
69l
69
69
a
69 U
C
fV
y
O �
N
�
�
v
w
0
C)
�
609
609
� OW
C
0
H
F.
69
69 G9
69
Cl
6s
69
69
o
G
A
h 00 h
N
O 00
O
.
m
NV D
W Cn W
O
N
�'
N
69
69 6s 69
6s
6A
69
65 v
�
y
O
00
d.
K1 by
W rn k.
O
69
609 609
69 6s 69
O
69
69
6s
Leo
b
O
o
c
C
O •�
N
V]
O Q to
O
N
w
W U
06s
eq 6q f3 s
`f3 6°9
�N
69
sss
b
[
n
w
•O
O
'�
•,�" .�4
ate+
Upc.
'p
a a
ri�AHa
F
z
r
o.
c
0
O
0
0
v
d
v
a
U
G
. F
j U
o
I
4 O i
b0
of
.a
U
U
O
a
U
a
0
fiw
� o
b 4
� O
o�
U o
0�0 c
>
o
u EO
�A
e0
tw
O_
Q � �
iJr � a.� O .•� b, w 0^
Z �c
eo.)
FooVn c� rmCO L
W M 70
N o
►Ur C FL,.., y�U
EA
tu
a0Q" rd_PO� �nG-q 0 �00W
� fA
P DD rG x Q�i
b
O
O
U
w
cis
a
J
°
0
u
a
.d
u
L
0
O
.0
r7
w
u
a
O 7 Crw
y Q
'U ONE aA
bfi 5/i � N
e � u �
Vi
U
.O
_a
f.J
N
'O
N
0
A
7 w
L y
d �
a �
a
cr
.� ca
r �
69 'C p
°rir c
eq
N �
w'
9k COD
GI
U y
'1
G
a
c
� c
a
9 O
U
G
a
R
U
� o
ac
�yF
> •cam
a�
o >
U td
Cd
b'3
b �
a .p
U �
C �
h U
p v
O °
N N
.O
G J
^� a
0
w
d �
W � a
O
av a
o
u
� � o
00
r
O y
E
--
ro
� Q
c
Uc 60"
� N
N
o
O x i-1 w 24 N OQ � a
U b ao �? U atop 0
O o 0 o o` w o pa = g-
y Q _J nt o
axWULti U.°- l�oiRlx�V�
N
tw
h�v� b ^ h d
cq
�°v
a�oQ a
U W
b
a
N
tk
Q
W
F-
fA
0
W
R
O
O
N
N
w
W
m
O
F-
U
O
LL
O
N
a
a
U
cc
a
a
<
LL
O
O W
z Q
O
LL
up zm
um
L J
W <
-0
J p
W F-
LL
CO
O F-
} Z
Q
U ¢
Q
3
N N N (+1 m cep (cyVJ (gyp O O aa�D NS cn0
.
0
N
z
z
w
LL
W
w g OZ
W
z U W
7 z d
cr
¢ O
> ¢ Z
F O Q
~ W
w N > 2
U ° 3
< z z z a z o w
ozzQOOzoZm
0 z o 0
z w
> W O F
W ¢UZZ�
o F�waawgz(_(VV
Z�
�' ~az s wz > >>
w lx=xi U j O d a W z Q
Z
N w w w J= Z a Z¢ z O J w
z �- LL LL. JW ¢? ¢
z Q¢~ m Z Z Z FO- m
~wW >FF zi
j
zz a i F¢I g w
u�.a r
J V) Q W J Z U Z
U C7 ¢ W Q U Q �¢
Z
I LL ¢ o F- < J Z}} O W m M M
Q W OU E F W w C, a
wLLHO ruu�daQw W aU¢a
U)MMO
C6 < N F- ¢
wha.7 wF-- wa= '¢¢ww�n
N ryry
N
0
N
rn
N
ad
L_
C
U
0
cnU
2
m
ro
y
E
D
<
`o
`o
z U
z
<
¢
a
3 c
<
H co
O �
m
N
U
D
C
o.
N
m
o
n] C
in c
W O �
J
< W O
Z U d W
0
m
O U
<
U w
LL O
O >-
W z
Z
U) < OU
w
a
z
0
J
Qa
03
w
D
N
Y
U
W
x
U
D
O
d
a
N
m
d
E
0
Fc
S
n
U
C
m
J
T
U
c
m
W
dI
m
c
cc c
O �
rn n
U 0
v U
D O
m r
N Q
N a
c �
� N
� C
N
E u
o ao
U
co
U
I
m
C
O
U
w
¢
w
Y
N
U
C
m
m
m
T
O
O
W
D
N
0
a
<
¢
ui
U
<
z
d �
>. m
U ro c,
y c c
N C U 0 ro
o a
D N > m U
`o
o m e o m
a" m >
E m c o ad a
o
D
lDC L U U C D)
o Z o O E
U �
y a o p m
T y
m
d J U 4 N
N OE
N �O D a d a
¢ d N d tp D
n!
w n 0 3 C N 12
o .0 � d
ry W A °f
C ] C
mm E t
rn E m `3 ¢
Ea E 2 D p
I
�Ernm � I-
U m o x w
¢
0
W
U
It Z 6i
w 11 Z Q
m 2 IL O
.1. 7
b4
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
PAYMENTS BY WIRE TRANSFER
9/10/10 THROUGH 9/23/10
Date
Payee Amount
Description
8/20/2010
La Salle
43,725.00
ABAG Correct Previous Memo
9/16/2010
Health Comp
459.62
Weekly claims
9/16/2010
Employment Development
4,536.21
State Taxes
9/16/2010
Employment Development
59,112.15
State Taxes
9/16/2010
IRS
252,786.77
Federal Taxes
9/17/2010
State of CA EFT
1,768.14
Child support payment
9/17/2010
Nationwide EFT
67,754.71
EFT 457 payment
9/17/2010
UB
4,291.44
PARS payment
9/17/2010
Manufacturers & Traders
32,485.79
457 payment Vantagepoint
9/20/2010
La Salle
43,725.00
ABAG
9/22/2010
Health Comp
3,930.52
Weekly claims
9/22/2010
Lane Donovan Golf Ptr
20,383.56
Payroll Transfer
9/23/2010
Cal Pers
269,019.87
Retirement
9/10- 9/23/10
Workers Comp Activity
25,990.05
SCRMA checks issued
829,968.83
DATE OF RATIFICATION: 10/05/10
TOTAL PAYMENTS BY WIRE:
829,968.83
Certified as to the accuracy of the wire transfers by:
Depu y City T easurer Date
h-z �-141d,
Director Fin c Date /
� / , Ci r Date
on actual expenditures is available in the City Treasurer's Office of the City of El Segundo.
P: \City Treasurer \Wire Transfers\2010 \wire 2010 3rd Qtr \Wire Transfers 9- 23.xis A J
REGULAR MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 — 5:00 P.M.
5:00 P.M. SESSION
CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Busch at 5:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Busch
- Present
Mayor Pro Tern Fisher
- Present
Council Member Brann
- Present
Council Member Fuentes
- Present
Council Member Jacobson
- Present
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION — (Related to City Business Only — 5 minute limit per
person, 30 minute limit total) Individuals who have received value of $50 or more to
communicate to the City Council on behalf of another, and employees speaking on
behalf of their employer, must so identify themselves prior to addressing the City
Council. Failure to do so shall be a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine of $250.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
Mark Hensley, City Attorney, stated that Council would be meeting in closed session
pursuant to the items posted on the agenda.
CLOSED SESSION:
The City Council moved into a closed session pursuant to applicable law, including the
Brown Act (Government Code Section §54960, et seq.) for the purposes of conferring
with the City's Real Property Negotiator; and /or conferring with the City Attorney on
potential and /or existing litigation; and /or discussing matters covered under Government
Code Section §54957 (Personnel); and /or conferring with the City's Labor Negotiators;
as follows:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION (Gov't Code
§54956.9(a) -1- matter
City of El Segundo vs. City of Los Angeles, et. al. LASC Case No. BS094279
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(b): -0-
potential case (no further public statement is required at this time); Initiation of litigation
pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(c): -0- matter.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 2010
PAGE NO. 1
1 b t,
APPOINTMENT AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE (Gov't.
Code § 54957) -0- matter
CONFERENCE WITH CITY'S LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54957.6): -2-
matters
Represented Group: Police Support Services Employees Association (PSSEA),
City Employees Association (CEA), Firefighters Association (FFA), Police
Managers Association (PMA), Police Officers Association (POA), Supervisory
and Professional Employees (S &P)
Negotiators: Jack Wayt, Bob Hyland and Richard Kreisler
2. Unrepresented Group: Management Confidential Group
Negotiator: Jack Wayt
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54956.8): -0-
matters
Council recessed at 6:50 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 2010
PAGE NO. 2
t)
REGULAR MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 - 7:00 P.M.
7:00 P.M. SESSION
CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Busch art 7:00 p.m.
INVOCATION — Pastor Wes Harding, El Segundo Foursquare Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Mayor Pro Tern Bill Fisher
PRESENTATIONS
a. Mayor Busch presented a Proclamation inviting the community to the Richmond
Street Fair September 25, 2010.
b. Mayor Pro Tern Fisher presented a Proclamation inviting the community to
observe Fire Prevention Week October 3 through October 9, 2010.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Busch
- Present
Mayor Pro Tern Fisher
- Present
Council Member Brann
- Present
Council Member Jacobson
- Present
Council Member Fuentes
- Present
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — (Related to City Business Only — 5 minute limit per
person, 30 minute limit total) Individuals who have received value of $50 or more to
communicate to the City Council on behalf of another, and employees speaking on
behalf of their employer, must so identify themselves prior to addressing the City
Council. Failure to do so shall be a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine of $250.
While all comments are welcome, the Brown Act does not allow Council to take action
on any item not on the agenda. The Council will respond to comments after Public
Communications is closed.
Chris Ley, spoke regarding his employment with the City and the proposed cut of his
current position and others in the City.
Jane Friedkin, Resident; spoke regarding taxing and spending.
Liz Garnholz, Resident; spoke regarding the City's obligation to CalPERS in 2010;
employee retirement funds; medical costs; employee disability; employee unions; and
Council approval on projects.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 2010
PAGE NO. 3
AS
A. PROCEDURAL MOTIONS
Consideration of a motion to read all ordinances and resolutions on the Agenda
by title only.
MOTION by Council Member Brann, SECOND by Council Member Jacobson to read all
ordinances and resolutions on the agenda by title only. MOTION PASSED BY
UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
B. SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS (PUBLIC HEARING)
Consideration and possible action to open a public hearing and receive testimony
regarding: 1) an Environmental Assessment for a Categorical Exemption; 2) a
Zone Text Amendment amending the El Segundo Municipal Code ( "ESMC ") to
establish regulations for assembly hall uses and to amend the permitted and
conditionally permitted uses in various zones, and 3) a Specific Plan Text
Amendment to amend the permitted and conditionally permitted uses within the
Downtown Specific Plan. Applicant: City Initiated (Fiscal Impact: N /A)
Mayor Busch stated that this was the time and place to conduct a public hearing to
receive testimony regarding: 1) an Environmental Assessment for a Categorical
Exemption; 2) a Zone Text Amendment amending the El Segundo Municipal Code
( "ESMC ") to establish regulations for assembly hall uses and to amend the permitted
and conditionally permitted uses in various zones, and 3) a Specific Plan Text
Amendment to amend the permitted and conditionally permitted uses within the
Downtown Specific Plan. Applicant: City Initiated (Fiscal Impact: N /A)
City Clerk Mortesen stated that proper notice had been given in a timely manner and
that no communications had been received in the City Clerk's Office.
Greg Carpenter, Planning and Building Safety Director, gave a report.
MOTION by Council Member Jacobson, SECONDED by Mayor Pro Tern Fisher to close
the public hearing. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
Mark Hensley, City Attorney, read by title only:
ORDINANCE NO. 1447
AN ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 13A TO TITLE 15 REGULATING
ASSEMBLY HALLS, AMENDING THE PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY
PERMITTED USES IN VARIOUS ZONES,AND AMENDING THE PERMITTED AND
CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES IN THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN.
Mayor Pro Tern Fisher introduced the Ordinance.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 2010
PAGE NO. 4
A. 6 0
Second reading and adoption scheduled for October 5, 2010.
2. Consideration and possible action to open a public hearing and receive testimony
regarding: 1) approval of an Environmental Assessment for a proposed Statutory
Exemption; and 2) adoption of Public Facilities Impact Fees for Police, Fire,
Library, and Parks Facilities. Applicant: City Initiated (Fiscal Impact: Increased
Fee Revenue from Police, Fire and Library Public Facilities Impact Fees and
Establishment of New Parks Impact Fees)
Mayor Busch stated that this was the time and place to conduct a public hearing to
receive testimony regarding: 1) approval of an Environmental Assessment for a
proposed Statutory Exemption; and 2) adoption of Public Facilities Impact Fees for
Police, Fire, Library, and Parks Facilities. Applicant: City Initiated (Fiscal Impact:
Increased Fee Revenue from Police, Fire and Library Public Facilities Impact Fees and
Establishment of New Parks Impact Fees)
City Clerk Mortesen stated that proper notice had been given in a timely manner and
that one written communication has been received in the City Clerk's Office.
Greg Carpenter, Planning and Building Safety Director, gave a report.
Toni Reina; Continental Development, stated that she is here to answer any questions.
MOTION by Mayor Pro Tern Fisher, SECONDED by Council Member Brann to close
the public hearing. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
MOTION by Mayor Busch, SECONDED by Council Member Brann to request a five
year gradual increase in the fees at 1/5 of the staff proposed increase per year, and a
possible indexing to keep the fees in conformance with other cities in the area. MOTION
PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOICE VOTE. AYES; BUSCH, FISHER, BRANN,
FUENTES NOES: JACOBSON 4/1
Motion amendment by Mayor Busch, to include that completed applications received by
December 31, 2010 would not be subject to the proposed fee increases. Council
Member Brann agreed.
To return with amendments to the fee schedule on October 5, 2010.
3. Consideration and possible action (Continued Public Hearing) regarding the
Fiscal Year 2010 -2011 Budget (including all City Revenues and Expenditures),
Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan and Adoption of Resolutions approving
Appropriation Limit, Preliminary Budget as amended, and Capital Improvement
Plan as amended. (Copies of the Fiscal Year 2010 -2011 Preliminary Budget can
be found in the Library, City Clerk's office, and on the City's website.) (Fiscal
Impact $106,476,600 in total appropriations; $95,666,700 in total estimated
revenues and prior year designations of $10,809,900.) (Fiscal Impact:
$106,476,600)
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 2010
PAGE NO. 5
JL f �+
Mayor Busch stated that this was the time and place to conduct a continued public
hearing regarding the Fiscal Year 2010 -2011 Budget (including all City Revenues and
Expenditures), Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan and Adoption of Resolutions
approving Appropriation Limit, Preliminary Budget as amended, and Capital
Improvement Plan as amended. (Copies of the Fiscal Year 2010 -2011 Preliminary
Budget can be found in the Library, City Clerk's office, and on the City's website.)
(Fiscal Impact $106,476,600 in total appropriations; $95,666,700 in total estimated
revenues and prior year designations of $10,809,900.) (Fiscal Impact: $106,476,600)
City Clerk Mortesen stated that proper notice had been given in a timely manner and
that no communications had been received in the City Clerk's Office.
Deborah Cullen, Finance Director, gave a report.
Mike Robbins Resident; spoke regarding the budget and the deficit, and employee
salaries.
Marc Rener, Resident; spoke regarding the budget and the deficit, and the parking
structure.
MOTION by Mayor Pro Tern Fisher, SECONDED by Council Member Brann to close
the public hearing. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
Mark Hensley, City Attorney, read by title only:
RESOLUTION NO. 4681
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2010 -2011 FINAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO AND ADOPTING THE 2010 -2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
BUDGET.
MOTION by Mayor Busch, SECONDED by Council Member Fuentes to adopt
Resolution No. 4681 adopting the 2010 -2011 Final Operating Budget for the City of El
Segundo and adopting the 2010 -2011 Capital Improvement Budget. MOTION PASSED
BY THE FOLLOWING VOICE VOTE: AYES: BUSCH, FISHER, JACOBSON,
FUENTES; NOES: BRANN. 4/1
MOTION by Council Member Brann, SECONDED by Mayor Busch to approve the
appropriations limit for Fiscal Year 2010 -2011, as presented. MOTION PASSED BY
UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 2010
PAGE NO. 6
.L l.1
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
4. Consideration and possible action regarding 1) Adoption of Ordinance No. 1442
to approve an Amendment to the contract between the Board of Administration of
the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CaIPERS) and the El
Segundo City Council providing Section 20903 (Two Years Additional Service
Credit) for one classification in the City's Local Safety Members; 2) Adoption of a
Resolution providing a designated Retirement Period for Section 20903, Two
Years Additional Service Credit to include amended Exhibit A; and 3)
Certification of Compliance with Government Code Section 20903; (Fiscal
Impact: 1) Estimated increase in the City's PERS safety employer rate of .084%
and an annual cost increase in FY 2012 -2013 of $14,000; 2) Salary savings
based on the employee retiring during the designated retirement period of
$282,726).
Bob Hyland, Human Resources Director, gave a report.
MOTION by Council Member Brann, SECONDED by Mayor Pro Tern Fisher to adopt
Ordinance No. 1442, authorizing an amendment to the contract between the City
Council of the City of El Segundo and the Board of Administration of the California
Public Employees' Retirement System; to adopt Resolution No. 4682 providing a
designated retirement period for Section 20903, two years additional service credit; to
certify compliance with Government Code Section 20903. MOTION PASSED BY
UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
D. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS
E. CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed are to be adopted by one motion without discussion and passed
unanimously. If a call for discussion of an item is made, the item(s) will be considered
individually under the next heading of business.
5. Approved Warrant Numbers 2578901 to 2579098 on Register No. 23 in the total
amount of $1,074,934.08 and Wire Transfers from 08/27/10 through 09/09/10 in
the total amount of $2,736.417.13. Authorized staff to release. Ratified: Payroll
and Employee Benefit checks; checks released early due to contracts or
agreement; emergency disbursements and /or adjustments; and wire transfers.
6. Approved regular City Council Meeting Minutes of September 7, 2010.
7. Approved ongoing service agreements and blanket purchase orders for FY 2010-
2011 in excess of $25,000 and waived the formal bidding process and authorized
the continued purchase of various agreements and services as described below.
(Fiscal Impact: $1,154,200 General Fund, $31,000 Proposition A, $13,000 Asset
Forfieture, $114,000 Water Enterprise Fund and $13,000 Wastewater Fund)
Authorized staff to continue to purchase gasoline and diesel fuel for City vehicles
and equipment through the use of spot market purchasing in an amount not to
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 2010
PAGE NO. 7
L 74
exceed $321,000 (General Fund); Authorized the issuance of a blanket purchase
order to Metron Farnier & Actaris in an amount not to exceed $100,000 in total
for the purchase of single jet water meters for the City's water system (Water
Enterprise Fund); Authorized the issuance of a blanket purchase order to Blue
Diamond Materials, a division of Sully Miller Contracting Company in an amount
not to exceed $50,000 for the purchase of asphalt paving materials for Street
Maintenance Division projects (General Fund); Authorized the City Manager to
extend ongoing service agreements with Baker & Taylor Information Services for
supplying books and other library materials, and issuance of blanket purchase
order not to exceed $61,000 (General Fund); Authorized the City Manager to
extend contract #2235 to Innovative Interfaces, Inc., for library computer network
system maintenance and issuance of blanket purchase order not to exceed
$30,000 (General Fund); (Authorized the City Manager to extend ongoing service
agreements with J. Lee Engineering who provides plan check and inspection
consulting services for the Building and Safety Division not to exceed $150,000
(General Fund); Authorized the City Manager to extend ongoing service
agreements with JAS to provides plan check and inspection consulting services
for the Building and Safety Division not to exceed $25,000 (General Fund);
Authorized the City Manager to extend ongoing service agreements with John L.
Hunter. On January 16, 2001 City Council approved Ordinance 1329
implementing the City's Standard Urban Water Mitigation Plan (SUSWMP) of the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Los Angeles region. John
L. Hunter and Associates, Inc. assists the Planning and Building Safety
Department staff in implementing the ordinance by providing consulting services
for SUSWMP plan check review, field inspection and staff training not to exceed
$25,000 (General Fund); Authorized the City Manager to extend ongoing service
agreements with Gary Bufkin who provides computer programming services to
maintain and make improvements to the multi - departmental permitting system
(Muni - permits). The system currently serves Building and Safety, Planning,
Public Works, Fire Prevention, Police, Code Enforcement and Recreation and
Park not to exceed $25,000 (General Fund); Authorized the City Manager to
extend ongoing service agreements with Scanning Services Corporation.
Scanning Services Corporation scans and inputs data into the City's document
imaging system not to exceed $35,000 (General Fund); Authorized the City
Manager to extend ongoing service agreements with Willdan Engineering
Services who provides professional planning consulting and engineering services
to the City not to exceed $30,000 (General Fund); Authorized the City Manager
to extend ongoing service agreements with U.S. HealthWorks who provides an
extremely cost effective method of delivery of pre - employment and occupational
medical services not to exceed $45,000 (General Fund); Authorized the City
Manager to extend ongoing service agreements with Westchester Medical
Group /Center for Heart and Health to provide annual safety employees fitness for
duty and executive physical examinations not to exceed $70,000 (General Fund);
Authorized the City Manager to execute a one -year contract with the Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Los Angeles for animal sheltering services,
not to exceed $28,200 (General Fund); Authorized the City Manager to execute
a one -year contract with Duncan Solutions (formerly Enforcement Technology
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 2010
PAGE NO. 8
1 v
Inc.) for processing of parking citations /collections, not to exceed $77,000
(General Fund); Authorized the City Manager to execute a one -year contract with
AT &T Connection Services for communications related to mobile data computers
and radio sites, not to exceed $39,400 (General Fund); Authorized the El
Segundo Fire Department to waive the bidding process per El Segundo
Municipal Code §1 -7 -10 to purchase medical and pharmaceutical supplies, and
piggyback on the City of Berkeley's Bound Tree Medical, Inc. ( "Bound Tree ") Bid
#09- 10348 -C, and authorized issuance of a blanket purchase order to Bound
Tree for FY 2010 -2011 for medical and pharmaceutical supplies not to exceed
$26,000 (General Fund); Authorized the issuance of a blanket purchase order for
FY 10 -11 to UCLA Center for Pre - Hospital Care for continuing education,
defibrillation training and AED program oversight not to exceed $32,600 General
Fund); Authorized the City Manager to execute a one -year contract amendment
and /or purchase order with Shannon David, Inc. for professional services with the
City's business recruitment and marketing, program, as approved to form by the
City Attorney, not to exceed $40,000 (General Fund); Authorized the City
Manager to execute a one -year contract amendment and /or purchase order with
Tyler Technologies who provide financial software to manage the City's General
Ledger, Accounts Receivable, Accounts Payable, Payroll, and Human
Resources. This item is for annual licensing, maintenance, and support of these
systems not to exceed $35,000 (General Fund); Authorized the City Manger to
execute a one -year contract with All Cities Management Company to provide
crossing guard services for the El Segundo School District not to exceed $80,000
(General Fund).
8. Authorized the City clerk to file the recording of the Notice of Completion and
authorized the City Manager to accept completion of work for 24 homes related
to the City's Residential Sound Insulation Program's Group 39 (Project No. RSI
10 -01). (Final Contract Amount: $716,741.00) Authorized the City Manager, or
designee, to close out Project No. RSI 10 -01.
9. Authorized the City clerk to file the recording of the Notice of Completion and
authorized the City Manager to accept completion of work for 20 homes related
to the City's Residential Sound Insulation Program's Group 40 (Project No. RSI
10 -02). (Final Contract Amount: $539,165.14) Authorized the City Manager, or
designee, to close out Project No. RSI 10 -01.
10. Adopted Joint Tax Sharing Resolution No. 4683 for the proposed Annexation No.
05 -55 into Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 5. (Fiscal Impact: None)
Authorized the Mayor to execute the Joint Tax Resolution with Los Angeles
County Sanitation District No. 5.
11. Authorized the Mayor to execute Lease No. 4090, in a form approved by the City
Attorney, to lease 953 acre -ft of ground water pumping rights to the City of
Manhattan Beach. (Fiscal Impact: $100,065 revenue to the Water Enterprise
Fund)
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 2010
PAGE NO. 9
12. Awarded standard Public Works Contract No. 4091 to the lowest responsible
bidder, Silvia Construction, Inc., for the rehabilitation of Grand Avenue from
Sepulveda Boulevard to Duley Road. Project No.: PW 10 -03. (Fiscal Impact:
$365,000.00) Authorized the City Manager to execute the contract in a form as
approved by the City Attorney with Silvia Construction, Inc., in the amount of
$345,873.70.
13. Extended the City's agreement with MWW Group through September 30, 2011,
for consultant and advocacy services related to the City's interests and efforts
concerning Los Angeles International Airport. (Fiscal Impact: $78,300)
Authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement.
14. PULLED FOR DISCUSSION BY MAYOR BUSCH
MOTION by Council Member Brann, SECONDED by Mayor Pro Tern Fisher to approve
Consent Agenda Items 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 MOTION PASSED BY
UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
CALL ITEMS FROM CONSENT AGENDA
14. Approve the following salary and benefit concessions by the City's unrepresented
group of Management/Confidential Employees for Fiscal Year 2010/2011. Fiscal
Impact: Savings of $541,487 for Executive Management, Mid -
Management/Confidential Employees. Savings of $48,945 for Public Safety
Management Employees: Eight (8) hours, or more if determined necessary, of
unpaid furlough hours per month; Suspension of the City's five percent (5 %)
matching contribution to the employee's 401(a) deferred compensation account;
Suspension of the employee's ability to cash in up to one year of accumulated
vacation leave; Suspension of the cap on the maximum allowable amount of
accumulated vacation leave; Sell back a portion of Battalion Chief Holiday Pay.
MOTION by Mayor Busch, SECONDED by Council Member Brann to approve the
following salary and benefit concessions by the City's unrepresented group of
Management/Confidential Employees for Fiscal Year 2010/2011. Fiscal Impact:
Savings of $541,487 for Executive Management, Mid- Management/Confidential
Employees. Savings of $48,945 for Public Safety Management Employees: Eight (8)
hours, or more if determined necessary, of unpaid furlough hours per month;
Suspension of the City's five percent (5 %) matching contribution to the employee's
401(a) deferred compensation account; Suspension of the employee's ability to cash in
up to one year of accumulated vacation leave; Suspension of the cap on the maximum
allowable amount of accumulated vacation leave; Sell back a portion of Battalion Chief
Holiday Pay. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
F. NEW BUSINESS
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 2010
PAGE NO. 10
i �� J
15. Consideration and possible action to adopt a resolution authorizing City staff to
participate in the South Bay Regional Bicycle Master Plan in conjunction with the
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition, and
appoint one Council Member and an alternate to participate in a Blue Ribbon
Bicycle Advisory Board. (Fiscal Impact: None)
Stephanie Katsouleas, Public Works Director, gave a report.
MOTION by Council Member Brann, SECONDED by Council Member Fisher to adopt
Resolution No. 4684 to authorize City staff to participate in the South Bay Regional
Bicycle Master Plan in conjunction with the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and
South Bay Bicycle Coalition; appoint Mayor Busch and Council Member Brann as an
Alternate to participate in a Blue Ribbon Bicycle Advisory Board. MOTION PASSED BY
UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
16. Consideration and possible action to convene a subcommittee consisting of two
Council Members and all members of the Environmental Committee to evaluate
and recommend various refuse collection options to be included in a Request for
Proposals for the next trash collection contract scheduled to commence in
August, 2011. (Fiscal Impact: None)
Stephanie Katsouleas, Public Works Director, gave a report.
MOTION by Council Member Fuentes, SECONDED by Council Member Jacobson to
appoint Council Member Jacobson and Mayor Busch and all members of the
Environmental Committee to participate in a subcommittee to evaluate and recommend
various trash collection options for the City's next trash collection contract. MOTION
PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
17. Consideration and possible action regarding 1) Providing another designated
Retirement Period for Section 20903, Two Years Additional Services Credit and
amending list of eligible classes; 2) Certification of Compliance with Government
Code Section 20903; and 3) Approval of a $1,000 payment to eligible employees
entering into a Date - Certain Retirement Separation Agreement with the City.
(Fiscal Impact: 1) Estimated Increase in the City's PERS miscellaneous employer
rate of 0.18% and an annual cost increase in FY 2012 -2013 of $26,078; 2) Salary
savings based on the number of employees retiring during the designated
retirement period would be $477,334).
Bob Hyland, Human Resources Director, gave a report.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 2010
PAGE NO. 11
r a i.
MOTION by Council Member Brann, SECONDED by Council Member Fuentes to
approve another designated Retirement Period and expand the list of eligible classes;
Certify Compliance with Government Code Section 20903; Approve a $1,000 payment
to eligible employees entering into a Date - Certain Retirement Separation Agreement
with the City; Authorize the City Manager to execute the Retirement Separation
Agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney. MOTION PASSED BY
UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
REPORTS — CITY MANAGER
REPORTS — CITY ATTORNEY
REPORTS — CITY CLERK
REPORTS — CITY TREASURER
REPORTS — CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Fuentes — None
Council Member Brann — Spoke regarding the recent Library presentation, layoffs, and
salaries.
Council Member Jacobson — Spoke regarding the switch to the Regional
Communications Center on September 28, 2010 and funding for the Halloween Frolic.
Mayor Pro Tem Fisher — Spoke regarding the POW /MIA closing ceremonies at the Los
Angeles Air Force Base in El Segundo.
Mayor Busch — Spoke regarding the sponsorship for the Halloween Frolic and the
Aerospace Outlook luncheon.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — (Related to City Business Only — 5 minute limit per
person, 30 minute limit total) Individuals who have receive value of $50 or more to
communicate to the City Council on behalf of another, and employees speaking on
behalf of their employer, must so identify themselves prior to addressing the City
Council. Failure to do so shall be a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine of $250.
While all comments are welcome, the Brown Act does not allow Council to take action
on any item not on the agenda. The Council will respond to comments after Public
Communications is closed.
Peggy Tyrell, Resident; spoke regarding the expiration of the union contacts, lay offs,
and trash fees in Del Aire.
Jane Friedkin, Resident; spoke regarding council votes, salaries, and newspaper
articles.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 2010
PAGE NO. 12
1f�r1
Marc Rener, Resident; spoke regarding the Proposition 218 protest hearing regarding
trash fees and the process.
Liz Garnholz, Resident; thanked the Hacienda Hotel for their support. Also spoke
regarding the 218 protest hearing on trash fees.
Mike Robbins, Resident; spoke regarding public employee pensions; the trash contract
RFP, item F -16; recycling; Proposition 218 protest ballot.
MEMORIALS — Marie England an El Segundo resident since 1967 passed away
September 13, 2010.
ADJOURNMENT at 9:50 p.m.
Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 2010
PAGE NO. 13
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
MEETING DATE: October 5, 2010
AGENDA HEADING: Consent
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to adopt Ordinance No. 1447 approving Environmental
Assessment EA 884, Zone Text Amendment ZTA 10 -05, and Specific Plan Text Amendment
SPTA 10 -02 to amend the El Segundo Municipal Code ( "ESMC ") to establish regulations for
assembly hall uses; to amend the permitted and conditionally permitted uses in various zones;
and to amend the permitted and conditionally permitted uses within the Downtown Specific Plan.
(Fiscal Impact: None)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Waive second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1447 for Environmental Assessment
EA 884, Zone Text Amendment ZTA 10 -05, and Specific Plan Text Amendment 10-
02; and/or
2. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible action related to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Ordinance No. 1447
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Kimberly Christensen, Al C] Pl nning Manager _
REVIEWED BY: Greg Carpenter, Director of a ing and Building afety
APPROVED BY: Jack Wayt, City Manager
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
I. Background
On September 21, 2010, the City Council introduced an Ordinance to approve Environmental
Assessment EA 884, Zone Text Amendment ZTA 10 -05, and Specific Plan Text Amendment
10 -02 to amend the El Segundo Municipal Code ( "ESMC ") to establish regulations for assembly
hall uses; to amend the permitted and conditionally permitted uses in various zones; and to
amend the permitted and conditionally permitted uses within the Downtown Specific Plan. The
Ordinance was read into the record and is presented for a second reading and adoption. If
adopted without change, Ordinance No. 1447 will become effective in 30 days.
P:\Planning & Building Safety \0 Planning - Old\PROJECTS (Planning) \876- 900\EA -884 \City Council 10052010\EA -884 Assembly Halls CC
2nd reading Report 10052010.doc
ORDINANCE NO. 1447
AN ORDINANCE ADDING A AMENDING THE PERMITTED AND
REGULATING ASSEMBLY HALLS,
CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED PERMITTED
AMENDING THE PERMITT ED AND
USES IN THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN.
The City Council of the city of El Segundo does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. This ordinance is intended to establish objective, content neutral, land use
regulations for using facilities designed to accommodate large scale public
and private assemblies of people;
B. Such gatherings, whether periodic or ongoing, impact surrounding land
uses with vehicle and pedestrian traffic; noise; and other, similar, effects
caused by large crowds;
C. The City's ability to powers in accordance
s well-established. I This
of the California Constitutio n to regulate land use
ordinance is intended to regulate aesthetics, traffic, parking, public peace,
and other, similar, matters related to public health, safety, and welfare;
D. Any environmental impacts associated with this ordinance are adequately
addressed in the General Plan FEIR. Accordingly, this ordinance is
consistent with the General Plan FEIR and is exempt from further
environmental review requirements under the California Environmental
Quality Act.
E. This ordinance constitutes a component of the El Segundo Development
Code which the Planning Commission determined to be consistent with
the FEIR for the 1992 El Segundo General Plan on December 1, 1992.
Accordingly, no further environmental review is required pursuant to 14
Cal. Code Regs. § 15168(c)(2). The Finding of Consistency is attached
as Exhibit 'A" and incorporated by reference.
SECTION 2: General Plan Findings. his Ordinance a are econsi tent with the E 65454
ESMC amendments proposed by t Segundo
General Plan as follows:
A. It conforms with the Land Use Element Goals, Objectives and Policies.
Specifically, the Ordinance is consistent with Goal LU 1, Objective LU 1 -5,
in that it creates policies, design standards; helps create a sense of place
for the entire City; develops standards that will ensure the compatibility of
Page 1
assembly hall uses with surrounding uses; and encourages the
construction of high - quality, well designed developments through the
adoption of property development standards.
B. It conforms with the Noise Element Goals Objectives and Policies.
Specifically, it is consistent with Goal N1, Objective N1 -2, in that it helps
ensure that City residents are not exposed to excessive noise from
stationary sources.
SECTION 3: Zone Text Amendment Findings. In accordance with ESMC § 15 -26 -4
and based on the findings set forth in Section 2, the proposed Zone Text Amendment is
consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan as follows:
A. It is consistent with the purpose of the ESMC, which is to serve the public
health, safety, and general welfare and to provide the economic and social
advantages resulting from an orderly planned use of land resources.
B. It is necessary to facilitate the development process and ensure the
orderly development of properties with assembly hall uses that are
compatible with surrounding properties and developments.
SECTION 4: Specific Plan Findings. After considering the above facts, the City Council
finds as follows:
A. This Ordinance affects all properties and districts in the Downtown
Specific Plan.
B. This amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan is consistent with the
General Plan land use designation for the properties involved.
SECTION 5: ESMC § 15 -413-5 is amended to read as follows:
"USES SUBJECT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: The following uses
are allowed subject to obtaining a conditional use permit, as provided by Chapter 23 of
this Title:
A. Any use permitted as a conditionally permitted use in the R -1 Zone.
B. Assembly halls.
C. Private schools.
D. Other similar uses approved by the Director of Planning and Building Safety, as
provided by Chapter 22 of this Title."
Page 2
SECTION 6: ESMC § 15 -4C -2 is amended to read as follows:
"PERMITTED USES: The following uses are permitted in the R -3 Zone:
A. Any use permitted in the R -2 Zone.
B. Condominiums and stock cooperatives converted from multiple - family dwellings
subject to the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.
C. Daycare centers.
D. Large family daycare homes pursuant to Section 15 -4A -4 of this Chapter.
E. Lodging houses.
F. Multiple - family dwellings.
G. Other similar uses approved by the Director of Planning and Building Safety, as
provided by Chapter 22 of this Title."
SECTION 7: ESMC § 15 -4C -4 is amended to read as follows:
"USES SUBJECT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: The following uses
are allowed subject to obtaining a conditional use permit, as provided by Chapter 23 of
this Title:
A. Any use permitted as a conditionally permitted use in the R -2 Zone.
B. Assembly halls.
C. Public parking area, developed and maintained as required by this Chapter when
the sideline of the lot or parcel on which it is located forms a common boundary
with a lot or parcel zoned for commercial or industrial purposes.
D. Senior citizen housing in accordance with California Government Code sections
65913, 65914 and 65915.
E. Senior housing facilities, including, but not limited to, rest homes, convalescent
homes, or nursing homes.
F. Other similar uses approved by the Director of Planning and Building Safety, as
provided by Chapter 22 of this Title."
SECTION 8: ESMC § 15 -4D -2 is amended to read as follows:
Page 3
�8
"PERMITTED USES:
A. The following uses are permitted in the PRD Zone subject to the approval of a
PRD plan:
Single -and multiple - family dwelling units designed as detached, semi - detached,
or attached buildings.
B. The following are permitted transitional uses of existing facilities subject to
approval of a transitional use PRD plan and time limitations which may be
imposed by the Planning Commission or City Council:
Assembly halls.
Daycare centers.
Private schools.
Public or private recreation."
SECTION 9: ESMC § 15 -5A -2 is amended to read as follows:
"PERMITTED USES: The following uses are permitted in the C -RS Zone:
A. Billiard -pool rooms and bowling alleys.
B. Financial institutions.
C. General Offices.
D. Government buildings (including offices, police and fire stations, parking and
related buildings).
E. Medical - dental offices.
F. Restaurants, delicatessens, and cafes (excluding dancing and entertainment).
G. Retail uses providing sales (excluding off site alcohol sales) and services.
H. Schools.
I. Other similar uses approved by the Director of Planning and Building Safety, as
provided by chapter 22 of this title."
SECTION 10: ESMC § 15 -5A -5 is amended to read as follows:
Page 4
•' X r,
V �.1
"USES SUBJECT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: The following uses
are allowed subject to obtaining a conditional use permit, as provided by chapter 23 this
title:
A. Assembly halls.
B. On site sale and consumption of alcohol at bars.
C. Outdoor dining, exempting cafes, outdoor dining at restaurants and drive - though
restaurants where outdoor dining comprises twenty percent (20 %) or less of the
total dining area of the restaurant or drive - through restaurant, but not exceeding
two hundred (200) square feet of floor area.
D. Service stations, if a five hundred foot (500') minimum distance from any
residential zoned property is provided. This distance criteria does not apply to
properties east of Sepulveda Boulevard.
E. Video arcades with four (4) or more video or arcade machines.
F. Other similar uses as approved by the Director of Planning and Building Safety,
as provided by chapter 22 of this title."
SECTION 11: ESMC § 15 -5E -2 is amended to read as follows:
"PERMITTED USES: The following uses are permitted in the MU -N Zone:
A. Business service establishments such as electronic computer facilities and
addressing services.
B. General offices of commercial, financial or industrial establishments.
C. Engineering, industrial design, consultation and other offices.
D. Financial institutions.
E. Hotels and motels.
F. Medical - dental offices or facilities.
G. Motion picture /television production facilities (excluding outdoor facilities).
H. Restaurants and cafes.
Retail (excluding off site alcohol sales) and whole sales and service.
Page 5
lb`-t
J. Scientific research and experimental development laboratories.
K. Other similar uses approved by the Director of Planning and Building Safety, as
provided by chapter 22 of this title."
SECTION 12: ESMC § 15 -5E -5 is amended to read as follows:
"USES SUBJECT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: The following uses
are allowed subject to obtaining a conditional use permit, as provided by chapter 23 of
this title:
A. Assembly halls.
B. Catering services and flight kitchens.
C. Drive - through restaurants.
D. Helicopter landing facilities subject to the provisions of section 15 -2 -13 of this
title.
E. Hospitals.
F. Motion picture /television production facilities (outdoor facilities only).
G. On site sale and consumption of alcohol at bars.
H. Outdoor dining, exempting cafes, outdoor dining at restaurants and drive - through
restaurants where outdoor dining comprises twenty percent (20 %) or less of the
total dining area of the restaurant or drive - through restaurant, but not exceeding
two hundred (200) square feet of floor area.
Parking facilities, including park and ride lots.
J. Recreational facilities (public and commercial).
K. Service stations, if a five hundred foot (500') minimum distance from any
residential zoned property is provided. This distance criteria does not apply to
properties east of Sepulveda Boulevard.
L. Video arcades with four (4) or more video or arcade machines.
M. Other similar uses approved by the Director of Planning and Building Safety, as
provided by chapter 22 of this title."
Page 6
SECTION 13: ESMC § 15 -517-2 is amended to read as follows:
"PERMITTED USES: The following uses are permitted in the MU -S Zone:
A. Business service establishments such as electronic computer facilities and
addressing services.
B. Engineering, industrial design, consultation and other offices.
C. Financial institutions.
D. General offices of commercial, financial or industrial establishments.
E. Hotels and motels.
F. Massage establishments that meet the requirements of title 4, chapter 10 of this
code, in addition to all other requirements imposed by law.
G. Medical - dental offices or facilities.
H. Motion picture /television production facilities (excluding outdoor facilities).
I. Restaurants and cafes.
J. Retail (excluding off site alcohol sales) and wholesale and service
K. Scientific research and experimental development laboratories.
L. Other similar uses approved by the Director of Planning and Building Safety, as
provided by chapter 22 of this title."
SECTION 14: ESMC § 15 -5F -5 is amended to read as follows:
"USES SUBJECT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: The following uses
are allowed subject to obtaining a conditional use permit, as provided by chapter 23 of
this title:
A. Assembly halls.
B. Catering services and flight kitchens.
C. Drive - through restaurants.
D. Freight forwarding.
Page 7
gat;
E. Helicopter landing facilities subject to the provisions of section 15 -2 -13 of this
title.
F. Hospitals.
G. Motion picture /television production facilities (outdoor facilities only).
H. On site sale and consumption of alcohol at bars.
Outdoor dining, exempting cafes, outdoor dining at restaurants and drive - through
restaurants where outdoor dining comprises twenty percent (20 %) or less of the
total dining area of the restaurant or drive - through restaurant, but not exceeding
two hundred (200) square feet of floor area.
J. Parking facilities, including park and ride lots.
K. Recreational facilities (public and commercial).
L. Service stations, if a five hundred foot (500') minimum distance from any
residential zoned property is provided. This distance criteria does not apply to
properties east of Sepulveda Boulevard.
M. Video arcades with four (4) or more video or arcade machines.
N. Other similar uses approved by the Director of Planning and Building Safety, as
provided by chapter 22 of this title."
SECTION 15: ESMC § 15 -713-2 is amended to read as follows:
"PERMITTED USES: The following uses are permitted in the GAC Zone:
A. Cafes.
B. General and medical - dental offices.
C. Restaurants, sit down type, excluding facilities with drive - through facilities.
D. Retail sales.
E. Other similar uses approved by the Director of Planning and Building Safety, as
provided by chapter 22 of this title."
SECTION 16: ESMC § 15 -713-5 is amended to read as follows:
Page 8
"USES SUBJECT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: The following uses
are allowed subject to obtaining a conditional use permit, as provided by chapter 23 of
this title:
A. Assembly halls.
B. Outdoor dining, exempting outdoor dining at restaurants and drive -thru
restaurants where outdoor dining comprises twenty percent (20 %) or less of the
total dining area of the restaurant or drive -thru restaurant, but not exceeding two
hundred (200) square feet of floor area.
C. Service station, if a five hundred foot (500') minimum distance from any
residential zoned property is provided. This distance criteria does not apply to
properties east of Sepulveda Boulevard.
D. Other similar uses approved by the Director of Planning and Building Safety, as
provided by Chapter 22 of this title."
SECTION 17: ESMC § 15 -7C -2 is amended to read as follows:
"PERMITTED USES: The following uses would be permitted in the
proposed MMO District:
A. Commissary.
B. Craft shops and rentals.
C. Movie and entertainment facilities.
D. Multimedia archive facilities.
E. Multimedia related office and post production facilities.
F. Picture equipment sales.
G. Special effects studios.
H. Studio /sound stage(s) and other support facilities.
Other similar uses approved by the Director of Planning and Building Safety, as
provided by Chapter 22 of this Title."
SECTION 18: ESMC § 15 -7C -5 is amended to read as follows:
Page 9
"USES SUBJECT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: The following uses
are allowed subject to obtaining a conditional use permit, as provided by Chapter 23 of
this Title.
A. Assembly halls.
B. Other similar uses approved by the Director of Planning and Building Safety, as
provided by Chapter 22 of this title."
SECTION 19: ESMC § 15 -10 -4 is amended to read as follows:
"USES SUBJECT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: The following uses
are allowed subject to obtaining a conditional use permit, as provided by Chapter 23 of
this Title.
A. Assembly halls.
B. Charitable institutions.
C. Private recreation.
D. Publicly owned facilities such as warehouses and storage yards.
E. Other similar uses approved by the Director of Planning and Building Safety, as
provided by Chapter 22 of this Title."
SECTION 20: A new Chapter 13A, consisting of §§ 15 -13A -1 to 15 -13A -4 and entitled
"Assembly Halls," is added to Title 15 of the El Segundo Municipal Code ( "ESMC ") to
read as follows:
"Chapter 13A
ASSEMBLY HALLS
15- 13A -1:
Definitions.
15- 13A -2:
Compliance with Permit Requirements
15- 13A -3:
Parking Requirements
15- 13A-4:
Compatibility with Surrounding Uses
15- 13A -1: Definitions.
Unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context, the following
definitions govern the construction of the words and phrases used in this chapter:
Page 10
89
A. "Assembly Hall" means a building, or portion of a building, used for large scale
public or private gatherings of people. For example, and without limitation,
assembly halls include private educational facilities; religious institutions; clubs;
lodges; theaters; and similar kinds of facilities whether available for public or
private use.
15- 13A -2: Compliance with Permit Requirements.
Any ancillary uses affiliated with an assembly hall must be specifically identified and
permitted by a validly issued conditional use permit pursuant to this chapter or be
separately permitted in- accordance with the requirements for that zone. For example,
and without limitation, a day care center or private school associated with an assembly
hall must be identified as an authorized use in the conditional use permit.
15- 13A -3: Parking Requirements.
A. Off - street parking must be provided in accordance with the requirements set forth
in this Title including, without limitation, landscaping requirements.
B. Where an assembly hall is established in a residential zone, the required front
yard may not be used for parking vehicles.
15- 13A -4: Compatibility with Surrounding Uses.
A. All buildings, structures, and landscaping must be developed and maintained in a
manner compatible with development on surrounding properties.
B. For assembly halls located within or adjacent to a residential zone, the Planning
Commission may condition hours of operation to ensure compatibility with
adjacent residential uses."
SECTION 21: All references in the ESMC purporting to regulate churches, temples, or
other religious institutions, are amended to refer to "assembly halls."
SECTION 22: Downtown Specific Plan Section VI.A.2 is amended to read as follows:
"Permitted Uses -
a. First floor street -front level, with a minimum building depth of 25 feet:
i) Retail sales and services
ii)
Restaurants
iii)
Recreational uses
iv)
Governmental offices
V)
Banks, not to exceed
vi)
General offices
vii)
Medical- dental offices
500 square feet
Page 11
.i v
viii) Outdoor retail uses such as newsstands, coffee carts and flower
stands, up to 200 square feet in area, subject to design review
ix) Other similar pedestrian oriented retail - service uses and offices
approved by the Director of Planning and Building Safety, as
provided by Section V., Administration.
b. Above and behind street -front level, and adjacent to alleys:
i) All uses listed above in a.
ii) Schools
iii) Banks
iv) Other similar uses approved by the Director of Community
Economic and Development Services, as provided by Section V.,
Administration.
C. Above street -front level:
i) All uses listed above in a. and b.
ii) Business tenant/owner- occupied residential units
iii) Other similar uses approved by the Director of Planning and
Building Safety, as provided by Section V., Administration"
SECTION 23: Downtown Specific Plan Section VI.A.5 is amended to read as follows:
"Uses Subject to a Conditional Use Permit — (El Segundo Municipal Code
Chapter 15 -23)
a. First floor street -front level, with a minimum building depth of 25 feet:
i) Bars
ii) Outdoor entertainment and dancing
iii) Outdoor amplified sound, which exceeds more than four single
events in one calendar year
iv) Video arcades with four or more machines
v) Other similar uses approved by the Director of Community,
Economic and Development Services, as provided by Section V.,
Administration
b. Above and behind street -front level, and adjacent to alleys:
i) All uses listed above in a.
ii) Assembly halls."
SECTION 24: Downtown Specific Plan Section VI.A.6 is amended to read as follows:
"Prohibited Uses -
All other uses which are not Permitted Uses, Permitted Accessory Uses, Uses
Subject to an Administrative Use Permit or Uses Subject to a Conditional Use
Permit are prohibited. Prohibited uses include, without limitation:
a. Drive -thru restaurants
Page 12
1:71
b. Service stations
C. Tattoo parlors"
SECTION 25: Downtown Specific Plan Section VI.B.2 is amended to read as follows:
"Permitted Uses -
a. First floor street -front level, above and behind street front level and
adjacent to alleys:
i) Retail sales and services
ii) Restaurants
iii) Recreational uses
iv) Government offices
v) General offices
vi) Medical- dental offices
vii) Schools
viii) Banks
ix) Outdoor retail uses such as newsstands, coffee carts and flower
stands, up to 200 square feet in area, subject to design review.
x) Other similar uses approved by the Director of Planning and
Building Safety, as provided by Section V., Administration.
b. Above street -front level:
i) All uses listed above in a.
ii) Business tenant/owner- occupied residential units
iii) Other similar uses approved by the Director of Planning and
Building Safety, as provided by Section V., Administration."
SECTION 26: Downtown Specific Plan Section VI.B.5 is amended to read as follows:
"Uses Subject to a Conditional Use Permit — (El Segundo Municipal Code
Chapter 15 -23)
a. First floor street -front level, with a minimum building depth of 25 feet:
i) Bars
ii) Outdoor entertainment and dancing
iii) Outdoor amplified sound, which exceeds more than four single
events in one calendar year
iv) Video arcades with four or more machines
v) Other similar uses approved by the Director of Planning and
Building Safety, as provided by Section V., Administration
b. Above and behind street -front level, and adjacent to alleys:
i) All uses listed above in a.
ii) Assembly halls."
SECTION 27: Downtown Specific Plan Section VI.B.6 is amended to read as follows:
Page 13
ij"l
iL
"Prohibited Uses-
All other uses which are not Permitted Uses, Permitted Accessory Uses, Uses
Subject to an Administrative Use Permit or Uses Subject to a Conditional Use
Permit are prohibited. Prohibited uses include, without limitation:
a. Drive -thru restaurants
b. Service stations"
SECTION 28: Downtown Specific Plan Section VI.C.2 is amended to read as follows:
"Permitted Uses -
a. First floor street -front level, above and behind street front level and
adjacent to alleys:
i) Retail sales and services
ii) Restaurants
iii) Recreational uses
iv) Governmental offices
v) General offices
vi) Medical- dental offices
vii) Schools
viii) Banks
ix) Outdoor retail uses such as newsstands, coffee carts and flower
stands, up to 200 square feet in area, subject to design review
x) Other similar uses approved by the Director of Planning and
Building Safety, as provided by Section V., Administration."
b. Above street -front level:
i) All uses listed above in a.
ii) Business tenant/owner- occupied residential units
iii) Other similar uses approved by the Director of Planning and
Building Safety, as provided by Section V., Administration."
SECTION 29: Downtown Specific Plan Section VI.C.5 is amended to read as follows:
"Uses subject to a Conditional Use Permit — (El Segundo Municipal Code
Chapter 15 -23)
a. First floor street -front level, with a minimum building depth of 25 feet:
i) Bars
ii) Outdoor entertainment and dancing
iii) Outdoor amplified sound, which exceeds more than four single
events in one calendar year
iv) Video arcades with four or more machines
v) Other similar uses approved by the Director of Community,
Economic and Development Services, as provided by Section V.,
Administration.
Page 14
b. Above and behind street -front level, and adjacent to alleys:
i) All uses listed above in a.
ii) Assembly halls."
SECTION 30: Downtown Specific Plan Section VI.C.6 is amended to read as follows:
"Prohibited Uses -
All other uses which are not Permitted Uses, Permitted Accessory Uses, Uses
Subject to an Administrative Uses Permit or Uses Subject to a Conditional Use
Permit are prohibited. Prohibited uses include, without limitation:
a. Drive -thru restaurants
b. Service stations"
SECTION 31: Downtown Specific Plan Section VI.D.2 is amended to read as follows:
"Permitted Uses -
a. First floor street -front level, above and behind street front level and
adjacent to alleys:
i) Retail sales and services
ii) Restaurants
iii) Recreational uses
iv) Governmental offices
v) General offices
vi) Medical- dental offices
vii) Schools
viii) Banks
ix) Bed and Breakfast hotels
x) Artists and design studios
xi) Outdoor retail uses such as newsstands, coffee carts and flower
stands, up to 200 square feet in area, subject to design review
xii) Other similar uses approved by the Director of Planning and
Building Safety, as provided by Section V., Administration"
b. Above street -front level:
i) All uses listed above in a.
ii) Business tenant/owner- occupied residential units
iii) Other similar uses approved by the Director of Planning and
Building Safety, as provided by Section V., Administration"
SECTION 32: Downtown Specific Plan Section VI.D.5 is amended to read as follows:
"Uses Subject to a Conditional Use Permit — (EI Segundo Municipal Code
Chapter 15 -23)
Page 15
4 ; _�.
a. First floor street -front level, with a minimum building depth of 25 feet:
i) Bars
ii) Outdoor entertainment and dancing
iii) Outdoor amplified sound, which exceeds more than four single
events in one calendar year
iv) Video arcades with four or more machines
v) Other similar uses approved by the Director of Planning and
Building Safety, as provided by Section V., Administration.
b. Above and behind street -front level, and adjacent to alleys:
i) All uses listed above in a.
ii) Assembly halls."
SECTION 33: Downtown Specific Plan Section VI.D.6 is amended to read as follows:
"Prohibited Uses-
All other uses which are not Permitted Uses, Permitted Accessory Uses, Uses
Subject to an Administrative Uses Permit or Uses Subject to a Conditional Use
Permit are prohibited. Prohibited uses include, without limitation:
a. Drive -thru restaurants
b. Service stations."
SECTION 34: Downtown Specific Plan Section VI.E.2 is amended to read as follows:
"Permitted Uses -
a. First floor street -front level and adjacent to pedestrian access ways,
including internal access ways, with a minimum building depth of 25
feet:
i) Retail sales and services
ii) Restaurants
iii) Recreational uses
iv) Government offices
v) Banks, not to exceed 500 square feet
vi) General offices
vii) Medical- dental offices
viii) Bed and breakfast hotel
ix) outdoor retail uses such as newsstands, coffee carts and
flower stands, up to 200 square feet in area, subject to design
review.
x) Other similar pedestrian oriented retail - service uses and
offices, approved by the Director of Planning and Building
Safety, as provided by Section V., Administration.
b. Above and behind street -front level, and adjacent to alleys:
Page 16
i) All uses listed above in a.
ii) Schools and daycare
iii) Banks
iv) Other similar uses approved by the Director of Planning and
Building Safety, as provided by Section V., Administration.
C. Above street -front level:
i) All uses listed above in a.
ii) Business tenant/owner- occupied residential units
iii) Other similar uses approved by the Director of Planning and
Building Safety, as provided by Section V., Administration."
SECTION 35: Downtown Specific Plan Section VI.E.5 is amended to read as follows:
"Uses Subject to a Conditional Use Permit — (El Segundo Municipal Code
Chapter 15 -23)
a. First floor street -front level, with a minimum building depth of 25 feet:
i) Bars
ii) Outdoor entertainment and dancing
iii) Outdoor amplified sound, which exceeds more than four single
events in one calendar year
iv) Video arcades with four or more machines
v) Other similar uses approved by the Director of Planning and
Building Safety, as provided by Section V., Administration.
b. Above and behind street -front level, and adjacent to alleys:
i) All uses listed above in a.
ii) Assembly halls"
SECTION 36: Downtown Specific Plan Section VI.E.6 is amended to read as follows:
"Prohibited uses -
All other uses which are not Permitted Uses, Permitted Accessory Uses, Uses
Subject to an Administrative Use Permit or Uses Subject to a Conditional Use
Permit are prohibited. Prohibited uses include, without limitation:
a. Drive -thru restaurants
b. Service stations"
SECTION 37: Downtown Specific Plan Section VI.F.2 is amended to read as follows:
"Permitted Uses -
First floor street -front level, with a minimum building depth of 25 feet:
i) Retail sales and services
ii) Restaurants
iii) Recreational uses
Page 17
4 �
iv) Government offices
v) Banks
vi) General offices
vii) Medical- dental offices
viii) Schools
ix) Outdoor retail uses such as newsstands, coffee carts and flower
stands, up to 200 square feet in area, subject to design review.
x) Other similar pedestrian oriented retail - service uses and offices
approved by the Director of Planning and Building Safety, as provided by
Section V., Administration."
SECTION 38: Downtown Specific Plan Section VI.F.5 is amended to read as follows:
"Uses Subject to a Conditional Use Permit — JEI Segundo Municipal Code
Chapter 15 -23)
a. First floor street -front level, with a minimum building depth of 25 feet:
i) Bars
ii) Video arcades with four or more machines
iii) Other similar uses approved by the Director of Planning and
Building Safety, as provided by Section V., Administration.
b. Above and behind street -front level, and adjacent to alleys:
i) All uses listed above in a.
ii) Assembly halls."
SECTION 39: Downtown Specific Plan Section VI.F.6 is amended to read as follows:
"Prohibited Uses -
All other uses which are not Permitted Uses, Permitted Accessory Uses,
Uses Subject to an Administrative Use Permit or Uses Subject to a
Conditional Use Permit are prohibited. Prohibited uses include, without
limitation:
a. Drive -thru restaurants
b. Service stations
C. Tattoo parlors
d. Outdoor entertainment and dancing
e. Outdoor amplified sound, which exceeds more than four single
events in one calendar year."
SECTION 40: Downtown Specific Plan Section VI.G.5 is amended to read as follows:
"Uses Subject to a Conditional Use Permit — (El Segundo Municipal Code
Chapter 15 -23)
a. First floor street -front level, with a minimum building depth of 25 feet:
i) Bars
Page 18
ii) Bed and Breakfast Inns
iii) Video arcades with four or more machines
iv) Other similar uses approved by the Director of Planning and
Building Safety, as provided by Section V., Administration.
b. Above and behind street -front level, and adjacent to alleys:
i) All uses listed above in a.
ii) Assembly halls."
SECTION 41: Downtown Specific Plan Section VI.G.6 is amended to read as follows:
"Prohibited Uses-
All other uses which are not Permitted Uses, Permitted Accessory Uses, Uses
Subject to an Administrative Use permit or Uses Subject to a Conditional Use
Permit are prohibited. Prohibited uses include, without limitation:
a. Drive -thru restaurants
b. Service stations
C. Tattoo parlors
d. Outdoor entertainment and dancing
e. Outdoor amplified sound, which exceeds
one calendar year."
more than four single events in
SECTION 42: CONSTRUCTION. This Ordinance must be broadly construed in
order to achieve the purposes stated in this Ordinance. It is the City Council's intent
that the provisions of this Ordinance be interpreted or implemented by the City and
others in a manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Ordinance.
SECTION 43: ENFORCEABILITY. Repeal of any provision of the El Segundo
Municipal Code does not affect any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or
preclude prosecution and imposition of penalties for any violation occurring before this
Ordinance's effective date. Any such repealed part will remain in full force and effect for
sustaining action or prosecuting violations occurring before the effective date of this
Ordinance.
SECTION 44: VALIDITY OF PREVIOUS CODE SECTIONS. If this entire
Ordinance or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, any
repeal or amendment of the ESMC or other city ordinance by this Ordinance will be
rendered void and cause such previous ESMC provision or other the city ordinance to
remain in full force and effect for all purposes.
SECTION 45: If any part of this Ordinance or its application is deemed invalid by a
court of competent jurisdiction, the city council intends that such invalidity will not affect
the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the
provisions of this Ordinance are severable.
Page 19
SECTION 46: The City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this
Ordinance; cause it to be entered into the City of El Segundo's book of original
ordinances; make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting;
and, within fifteen (15) days after the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, cause it
to be published or posted in accordance with California law.
SECTION 47: This Ordinance will become effective on the thirty -first (31st) day
following its passage and adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2010.
Eric Busch, Mayor
Page 20
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
I, Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk of the City of El Segundo, California, do hereby certify that
the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing
Ordinance No. 1447 was duly introduced by said City Council at a regular meeting held
on the 21st day of September, 2010, and was duly passed and adopted by said City
Council, approved and signed by the Mayor, and attested to by the City Clerk, all at a
regular meeting of said Council held on the day of , 2010, and the same
was so passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
Karl H. Berger, Assistant City Attorney
P: \Planning & Building Safety \Planning - Old \PROJECTS (Plan n ing)\876-900\EA-884\EA-884 Assembly Halls
Ordinance 100510.doc
Page 21
ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT "A"
FINDING OF CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN EIR
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
AMENDMENT TO EL SEGUNDO MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND TITLE 15 OF THE
EL SEGUNDO MUNICIPAL CODE AND ESTABLISH A CHAPTER REGULATING
ASSEMBLY HALL USES
August 2010
The City of El Segundo has initiated an application that proposing to amend Title 15 of the
El Segundo Municipal Code and establish a chapter regulating assembly hall uses. The
proposal constitutes a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Thus, environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA (Public Resources Code §§
21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000, etseq.), and
the City of El Segundo CEQA Guidelines. This document serves as the project
environmental documentation pursuant to CEQA.
Background
In 1992, El Segundo adopted a comprehensive update of its General Plan, which included
the Land Use and Economic Development elements. The 1992 General Plan and its
subsequent amendments set forth policy for land use development in El Segundo and
within its sphere of influence. The circumstances, impacts, and mitigation requirements
identified in the General Plan EIR remain applicable to the proposed amendments and the
amendments do not raise any new issues and do not cause the level of impacts identified
in the General Plan EIR to be exceeded. Specifically, the amendment to the El Segundo
Municipal Code establishing Title 15 Chapter 13A (Assembly Halls) will set a new
definition and developments standards for assembly hall uses.
Relationship of the Zoning Text Amendment to the General Plan
The proposed amendment to the El Segundo Municipal Code ( "ESMC ") implements the
goals, policies and programs outlined in the 1992 General Plan, including the Land Use
and Noise elements. It is consistent with Goal LU 1, Objective LU 1 -5, of the Land Use
element, in that it creates policies design standards; helps create a sense of place for the
entire City; develops standards that will ensure the compatibility of assembly hall uses with
surrounding uses; and encourages the construction of high - quality, well designed
developments through the adoption of property development standards. In addition, it is
consistent with Goal N1, Objective N1 -2 of the Noise Element, in that it helps ensure that
City residents are not exposed to excessive noise from stationary sources. Adoption of
the proposed amendment will not provide for any new development beyond that anticipated
by land use policy set forth in the1992 General Plan Update and the subsequent 2005
update of the Land Use Element.
Environmental Analysis
The proposed zone text amendment is exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA ")
and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000,
et seq., the State CEQA Guidelines) because it consists only of minor revisions and
clarifications to an existing zoning code and specification of procedures related thereto and
will not have the effect of deleting or substantially changing any regulatory standards or
findings required thereof. The proposed Ordinance is an action that does not have the
potential to cause significant effects on the environment. In addition, any environmental
impacts associated with this ordinance are adequately addressed in the General Plan
FEIR. Accordingly, this ordinance is consistent with the General Plan FEIR and is exempt
from further environmental review requirements under the California Environmental Quality
Act. Furthermore, this ordinance constitutes a component of the EI Segundo Municipal
Code which the Planning Commission determined to be consistent with the FEIR for the
City of El Segundo General Plan on December 1, 1992. Accordingly, no further
environmental review is required pursuant to 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15168(c)(2).
Findings
Based on the above analysis, the City of El Segundo hereby makes the following findings:
1. In 1992, the City of El Segundo adopted a comprehensive General Plan update and
certified a Final EIR.
2. The proposed amendment consists of text changes. The ESMC Title 15 Chapter 13A
(Assembly Halls) will be established to regulate assembly hall uses. The new Chapter
13A will set a new definition and new development standards for assembly halls. In
addition, the permitted uses and conditionally permitted uses in various zones and the
Downtown Specific Plan will be amended to accommodate assembly hall uses.
3. Adoption of proposed amendment will not result in any new or increased environmental
effects, and no new mitigation measures are required.
4. Pursuant to Section 15168(c)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, no new environmental
documentation is required for adoption of the amendments to the ESMC.
Finding of Consistency
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 5, 2010
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding approval of a side letter between the City of El Segundo
and the El Segundo Supervisory and Professional Employees Association regarding the severance
package for laid off employees. Fiscal Impact: $16,390.00
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Approve the Side Letter between the City of El Segundo and City of El Segundo Supervisory and
Professional Employees Association.
2. Alternatively discuss and take other action related to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Side Letter between City of El Segundo and City of El Segundo Supervisory and Professional Employees
Association
FISCAL IMPACT: $16,390.00
Total Fiscal Impact:
Amount Budgeted:
Additional Appropriation: None
Account Number(s):
ORIGINATED BY: Martha *stra, Human Resources Man er
REVIEWED BY: Bob Hyland, Human Resources Director
APPROVED BY: Jack Wayt, City Manager,
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
On August 10, 2010, the City of El Segundo notified the Supervisory and Professional Employees
Association (SPEA) that due to the City's lack of funds, Council has found it necessary to layoff employees
within their bargaining unit. The required impact bargaining meeting between the City of El Segundo and
SPEA was held on August 24, 2010. At that time, SPEA requested severance packages for the impacted
employees. Agreement was reached that the severance package would consist of payment equivalent to one
month's compensation and payment of a previously approved Tuition Reimbursement Request for one (1)
employee, contingent upon the employees signing a Separation Agreement.
203
AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO AND EL SEGUNDO SUPERVISORY AND
PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
This Agreement is entered into by and between El Segundo Supervisory and Professional
Employees Association ( "SPEA ") and the City of El Segundo ( "City ") referred to
hereafter collectively, the "Parties ".
Whereas the City of El Segundo found it necessary to layoff employees within
this bargaining unit consistent with Article XV, Section 1, of the Memorandum of
Understanding between the City of El Segundo and El Segundo Supervisory and
Professional Employees Association and,
Whereas the City of El Segundo notified SPEA of such action on August 10, 2010
and stated layoffs would become effective the close of business Thursday, September 30,
2010 and,
and,
Whereas the required impact bargaining meeting was held on August 24, 2010;
Whereas SPEA requested severance packages for impacted employees.
The parties agree as follows:
The City of El Segundo will provide laid off employees with payment equivalent
to one month's compensation contingent upon employees signing a Separation
Agreement (Waiver & Release of Claims).
The City of El Segundo agrees to reimburse the one (1) employee for expenses
related to the previously approved Education Reimbursement Request provided
the appropriate receipts are presented. Payment will be made at the same time as
the aforementioned one month's compensation.
Dated: 917x? ho
Y d s C er, Chief Steward, Supervisory
Professional Em to ees Association
Dated: `/1 y/o
Gre io Daniel, Business Representative
Dated:
�:Uy
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 5, 2010
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding approval of a side letter between the City of El Segundo
and the El Segundo Police Support Services Employees Association regarding the severance
package for laid off employee. Fiscal Impact: $3,753.26
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Approve the Side Letter between the City of El Segundo and City of El Segundo Police Support
Services Employees Association.
2. Alternatively discuss and take other action related to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Side Letter between City of El Segundo and City of El Segundo Police Support Services Employees
Association
FISCAL IMPACT: $3,753.26
Total Fiscal Impact:
Amount Budgeted:
Additional Appropriation: None
Account Number(s):
ORIGINATED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Marthijkstra, Human Resources Manager
Bob Hyland, Human Resources Director
Jack Wayt, City Manager X
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
On August 10, 2010, the City of El Segundo notified the Police Support Services Employees Association
(PSSEA) that due to the City's lack of funds, Council has found it necessary to layoff an employee within
their bargaining unit. The required impact bargaining meeting between the City of El Segundo and PSSEA
was held on August 24, 2010. At that time, PSSEA requested a severance package for the impacted
employee. Agreement was reached that the severance package would consist of payment equivalent to one
month's compensation contingent upon the employee signing a Separation Agreement.
�91
�;05
AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO AND EL SEGUNDO POLICE SUPPORT
SERVICES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
This Agreement is entered into by and between El Segundo Police Support Services
Employees Association ( "PSSEA ") and the City of El Segundo ( "City ") referred to
hereafter collectively, the "Parties ".
Whereas the City of El Segundo found it necessary to layoff an employee within
this bargaining unit consistent with Article 1.14, Section 1, of the Memorandum of
Understanding between the City of El Segundo and El Segundo Police Support Services
Employees Association and,
Whereas the City of El Segundo notified PSSEA of such action on August 10,
2010 and stated layoffs would become effective the close of business Thursday,
September 30, 2010 and,
and,
Whereas the required impact bargaining meeting was held on August 24, 2010;
Whereas PSSEA requested severance packages for the impacted employee.
The parties agree as follows:
• The City of El Segundo will provide the laid off employee with payment
equivalent to one month's compensation contingent upon the employee signing a
Separation Agreement (Waiver & Release of Claims).
Dated: ��� I (0
Susan Yon ine, Police Support Services
Dated: �s /i 0
rio Daniel, Business Representative
Teamster
Dated: rl-1� x1tv of a , City
Yt
El Seawr
Zvi
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 5, 2010
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding salary and benefit concessions for FY 2010/2011 by the
City of El Segundo Supervisory and Professional Employees Association. Fiscal Impact: Estimated
Savings of $312,885.96 for FY 2010/2011.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
L. Approve the Side Letter between the City of El Segundo and City of El Segundo Supervisory
and Professional Employees Association.
2. Alternatively discuss and take other action related to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Side Letter between City of El Segundo and City of El Segundo Supervisory and Professional
Employees Association (SPEA).
FISCAL IMPACT:
Total Fiscal Impact: Estimated Savings of $312,885.96
Amount Budgeted:
Additional Appropriation: None
Account Number(s):
ORIGINATED BY: Martha jkstra, Human Resources Mana er
REVIEWED BY: Bob Hyland, Human Resources Director
APPROVED BY: Jack Wayt, City Manager
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Council direction, representatives of the City of El Segundo began discussions with the employee
groups to determine what concessions can be made to address the City's budget shortfall for FY 2009/2010
and FY 2010/2011. The shortfall for FY 2009/2010 was addressed by SPEA through the implementation of
layoffs within this bargaining unit. The shortfall for FY 2010/2011 will be addressed through the
implementation of furloughs as described in the Side Letter.
10
is U t
AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO AND EL SEGUNDO SUPERVISORY AND
PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
This Agreement is entered into by and between El Segundo Supervisory and Professional
Employees Association ( "SPEA ") and the City of El Segundo ( "City ") referred to
hereafter collectively, the "Parties ".
Whereas the City of El Segundo has engaged in discussions with employee
groups to obtain salary and benefit concessions to address the budget deficit for Fiscal
Year 2009/2010 and Fiscal Year 2010/2011 and,
Whereas the SPEA addressed the budget deficit for FY 2009 /2010 through the
implementation of layoffs within their bargaining unit, and
Whereas the SPEA reached a tentative agreement on September 21, 2010 with the
City of El Segundo on salary and benefit concessions for FY 2010/2011.
The parties agree as follows:
• The Association agrees to a seven percent (7 %) to ten percent (10 %) salary
concession in the form of furlough time effective October 1, 2010 through
September 30, 2011.
• The City agrees to guarantee no layoffs will occur during Fiscal Year 2010/2011
unless at any time during the fiscal year, revenues fall ten percent (10 %) below
the adopted budget.
• The Association and City agree the furlough time /pay deduction will be taken out
equally each pay period throughout the Fiscal Year 2010/2011.
• The Association and City agree employees will be allowed to accrue furlough
hours throughout the year. The Association agrees employees will exhaust these
furlough hours prior to September 30, 2011 or they will be forfeited.
• Employees will schedule furlough days in consultation with their department
managers to ensure impact to service levels are kept to a minimum.
Dated:
s Cary Chief Steward, Supervisory
d Professional Employees Association
Dated: �� g� o Z--j
GpeAR6 Dpi�iel, Business Representative
Dated: � eT11V
Ja ,City
Cit3i6f El Seaui
F.. U
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
MEETING DATE: October 5, 2010
AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding an amendment to the previously approved
Professional Services Agreements with Kimley -Horn Associates to provide traffic engineering
services related to the El Segundo Aquatics Site Feasibility Study California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) review. (Fiscal Impact: up to $11,300 Special Revenue Fund - Aquatics
Facility Fund)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Approve a budget appropriation of up to $11,300.00 to provide additional traffic engineering
services;
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Professional Service Agreement
for traffic engineering services and approved as to form by the City Attorney in an amount
not to exceed $11,300.00; and /or;
3. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible action related to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Revised Kimley -Horn Associates Scope of Work and Authorization to Proceed.
FISCAL IMPACT: $11,300.00
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: $11,300.00
Account Number(s): 702 - 400 -5202 -8476 (Special Revenue Fund - Aquatics Facility
Fund)
ORIGINATED BY: Kimberly Christensen, AICP, Planning Manager��
Greg P
REVIEWED
BY: Carpenter, Director of Planning and Building Safety
APPROVED BY: Jack Wayt, City Man • r
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On October 20, 2009, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a Professional
Service Agreement with Kimley -Horn Associates for traffic engineering services related to the
preparation of the El Segundo Aquatics Site Feasibility Study Environmental Impact Report.
The original Professional Services Agreement with Kimley -Horn Associates was authorized for
an amount to not exceed $55,500.00. The additional increase of $11,300.00 to the agreement
with Kimley -Horn would result in an amended Professional Services Agreement for an amount
not to exceed $66,800.00.
City Staff identified additional tasks that are necessary in order to complete the preparation of
40 1 1
the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project. The additional tasks are identified in the
attached revised scope of work. The need to complete these additional tasks is the result of
modifying the project description of the Urho Saari Swim Stadium site at 219 West Mariposa
Avenue site to deal with parking and traffic issues related to the consideration of that site.
Recommendation
The Planning and Building Safety Department requests that the Council: 1) approve a budget
appropriation of $11,300.00 from the Aquatics Facility Special Revenue Fund for traffic
consulting services; and 2) authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the
Professional Services Agreement with Kimley Horn Associates, in a form approved by the City
Attorney, for an amount not to exceed $11,300.00.
P:\Planning & Building Safety \0 Planning - Old\PROJECTS (Planning) \826- 850\EA 836 \Contract Management\Revision to Traffic Study
Contract\2010.10.05.2010CC Report.Aquatics.Amend Kimley Horn Contract.doc
❑�❑ Kimley -Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Exhibit A to Authorization to Proceed
dated September 15, 2010.
Consultant has proceeded with the traffic and parking analysis for Aquatics Center, as outlined in
the Scope of Services in the agreement dated September, 2009.
The first draft of the aquatics center traffic impact study has been submitted to the City for
review, and the City now wishes to make changes to the analysis scenarios and other project -
related assumptions. A summary of the additions to the Scope and the resulting change in Fee are
outlined below. The Consultant shall perform the following Additional Services:
SCODe
1. Add "Typical" game day scenario. Use the small game day PM peak hour trip generation
calculated in February 2010 to analyze the "Typical" game day scenario for all three
potential sites.
2. Remove detailed analysis and discussion of "League" game scenario. Add a brief
discussion of "League" game conditions and temporary mitigations.
3. Modify the project description and assumptions at the Urho Saari site to include:
• Three parking options: " on -site parking, ' public parking lot at the southwest
corner of Mariposa Avenue and Main Street, and a. public parking structure at the
northeast comer of Grand Avenue and Richmond Street.
• Redistribution of project trips to the three parking options listed above.
• Add analysis of the intersections of Sepulveda Boulevard at Grand Avenue and
Sepulveda Boulevard at El Segundo Boulevard for this site. Re- analyze all study
intersections for this site.
4. Conduct existing parking demand counts at the public parking lot at the southwest corner
of Mariposa Avenue and Main Street, and at the public parking structure at the northeast
corner of Grand Avenue and Richmond Street. Counts will be collected on one typical
weekday afternoon during the hours of ESHS games, most likely from 3 PM to 6 PM, for
a total of 6 hours of data collection.
5. Conduct a site visit to the two public parking areas to observe and gain an understanding
of the current usage, size, access points, and other relevant characteristics.
6. Update the parking analysis for the Big Game scenario at the Urho Saari site to include
three parking options and based on the results of the existing parking demand counts.
7. Add parking analysis for the "Typical' game day scenario at all three potential sites.
8. Update all tables, figures, and text to reflect new and modified traffic and parking
analyses.
Fee
For the Additional Services set forth above, Client shall pay Consultant the following additional
compensation:
1. For all tasks above a lump sum fee of 11,300.
t.,�l
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 5, 2010
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: New Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding the approval of amendments to the Plan of
Operations as proposed by the El Segundo Senior Citizens Housing Corporation Board at
its July 2010 meeting. This item offers further review of staffs findings of the three
items in question at the September 7, 2010, City Council Meeting. (Fiscal Impact: None)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Approval of the amended Plan of Operations.
2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Redlined version of the Plan of Operations as amended by the Housing Corporation
Board.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: $
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s):
ORIGINATED BY: Meredith Petit, Recreation Superintendent
REVIEWED BY: Bob Cummings, Recreatio arks Director
APPROVED BY: Jack Wayt, City Manage
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
Originally posted to the City Council Consent Agenda on September 7, 2010, the above item was
pulled and staff was directed to follow up on three items in question: (1), the change of
Eligibility Requirements pertaining to age, income, and residency; (2), the public viewing
opportunities of the amendments to the Plan of Operations document; and (3), the annual
inspection requirements as stated in the Plan of Operations. Please see further explanation on
each item below.
(1) With respect to the modified Eligibility Requirements and the question of them
having retroactive capabilities, the City Attorney clarified during the September 7, 2010, City
Council Meeting that these requirements are to be enforced moving forward only. They will not
be retroactive.
(2) The Plan of Operations is a document that undergoes periodic review by the Senior
Citizens Housing Corporation and governs various aspects of the facility's operations. Each of
the proposed amendments has been discussed individually at numerous public meetings and
subsequently been appropriately placed on its respective agenda. The Plan of Operations,
12
therefore, is merely documenting action taken by the Senior Citizens Housing Corporation at
various public meetings.
Specifically, the Plan of Operations was included on the agenda beginning in October
2009. The item was on each monthly agenda thereafter and discussed by the Board through July
2010. Throughout the ten -month period, Park Vista residents were able to comment on any of
the proposed changes during Public Communications. The red -lined version of the Plan of
Operations was presented at the July 2010 meeting and the final changes were approved.
Although the entire red -lined version of the document was not publicly posted, it was available
through a public records request, but none were received.
(3) The Plan of Operations requires the Management Company to facilitate and complete
annual inspections of each housing unit to identify potential hazardous living conditions. Per the
amended document, the annual inspections requirement remains as is. However, in response to
the questioned enforcement of this requirement, staff has researched further and had discussions
with management to ensure the requirement is completed as stated.
After review, staff has found that the Annual Inspections of the Park Vista apartment
units for 2010 are currently in progress of being scheduled. As of the September 2010 meeting,
two levels of the building were inspected and the remaining three are scheduled to be completed
by the October 2010 meeting. In 2009, three floors out of five were inspected. In 2008, no
inspections were reported. In 2007, unit inspections were completed throughout all floors in
March 2007.
Staff, the Senior Citizens Housing Corporation, and the Management Company will
ensure that the annual inspection requirement is carried out appropriately moving forward.
Below is the original Background and Discussion presented to the City Council to approve the
amended Plan of Operations:
On May 6, 1986, the City Council approved an Operating Agreement between the City and the
El Segundo Senior Citizens Housing Corporation (the "Corporation "). The Agreement delegated
specified duties and functions to the Corporation with respect to the Park Vista housing facility,
but the City retained ultimate control and authority over the facility.
The Operating Agreement required the Corporation to prepare a Plan of Operations for
the facility to govern various aspects of the facility's operation, including resident eligibility
standards, application procedures, procedures for selecting tenants, etc. The Board of the
Housing Corporation reviews the Plan of Operations periodically for necessary revisions.
Revisions must be approved by the City Council prior to becoming effective.
At its July 2010 meeting, the Housing Corporation Board approved several amendments,
both substantive and non - substantive, to the Plan of Operations and directed staff to forward the
proposed amendments to the City Council for its consideration. The substantive amendments
may be summarized as follows:
1. Eligibility Requirements.
A. Age. The minimum age requirements for residents and co- residents have
been modified to reflect an increase from 55 to 62. This change was already
unanimously approved by the City Council on April 6, 2004. The Plan of Operations is
being physically updated for the first time since then, so that modification is indicated in
the attached redline. The Housing Corporation Board discussed the minimum age
requirements at its July 2010 meeting and was unanimously in favor of keeping the
minimum age set at 62.
r�,,
B. Income/Net Worth. Park Vista strives to afford quality living
accommodations at a reasonable cost. The income /net worth requirements are based on a
formula that combines 5% of an applicant's total net worth with the applicant's annual
income. The maximum allowable combined income and net worth for a one person
household was increased from $30,000 to $45,000. For a two - person household, the
formula was changed. The existing formula only considers the applicant's (the primary
resident's) net worth (5% of it) and his or her annual income and sets the maximum
combined amount at $35,000. The Board approved a modification in the formula that
will take into consideration the net worth and annual income of the proposed co- resident.
Under the formula proposed by the Board, the maximum allowable combined income of
the applicant and the co- resident plus 5% of the combined net worth of the applicant and
co- resident will be $50,000. The proposed revisions also clarify that the net worth and/or
annual income of any live -in, permitted health care resident shall not be counted toward
the maximum income /net worth threshold. The Board arrived at the new income /net
worth levels after reviewing and considering the most recently published statistical data
available regarding average household income levels in the region.
C. Residency. The Board modified the residency section of the Eligibility
Requirements to make clear that Park Vista is not an assisted living or managed care
facility. The Board also added a new requirement to specify that Park Vista is intended
only for use as a primary residence. Primary residence is defined as the place where the
tenant resides for a minimum of 75% of each calendar year, not counting absences due to
hospitalization or other necessary medical treatment.
2. Application Procedure. Non - substantive changes were made to this section to
delete reference to the library as a location where Park Vista Handbooks are made available.
3. Resident Selection Procedure. The Board modified this section to specifically
allow existing residents to make one unit -to -unit move by right during the tenancy. Additional
moves may be permitted by the Board for good cause. If a resident requests a move to another
available unit, the resident is responsible for all costs incurred by the Corporation in preparing
the resident's existing unit for a subsequent tenant.
4. Rental Rates. Non - substantive changes were made to this section to indicate that
Park Vista strives to afford quality accommodations at "an affordable cost," as opposed to "the
lowest possible cost."
5. General Maintenance. Non - substantive changes were made to this section to
remove unnecessary references to full time janitorial duties.
6. Insurance. Non - substantive changes were made to this section to remove an
unnecessary reference to liability insurance policy limits. Language was also added to remind
residents that the property's insurance does not cover any resident's personal property and to
encourage residents to secure a renter's insurance policy.
7. Management. Non- substantive changes were made to this section to delete
unnecessary and inaccurate references to the types of employees employed by the management
company.
Z1
IV.
PLAN OF OPERATIONS
Rev 7/10
4-1J
1. DESCRIPTION
The El Segundo Senior Citizen Housing Project was developed and is wholly
owned by the City of El Segundo. It is operated by the El Segundo Senior Citizen
Housing Corporation and its Board of Directors.
The El Segundo Senior Housing Project "Park Vista ", is located at 615 East
Holly Avenue. There are 96 units available, divided among efficiency apartments of 414
square feet; small one - bedroom apartments of 520 square feet; large one - bedroom
apartments of 610 square feet; handicapped units of 537 square feet and a two bedroom
management unit. All units are furnished with carpets, drapes, refrigerators and ranges.
Each unit has an individual patio or balcony. _The common outdoor areas are pleasantly
landscaped. Features include elevators, laundry facility and meeting and recreation
rooms.
The maximum number of Residents in each apartment is two. _Rents are
substantially lower than rents for comparable units in the area.
Due to the limited number of units available the apartments are assigned as they
become vacant.
Rev.. 7/10
t� n
�,1 r,
2. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
Eligibility requirements for application for residency at Park Vista are based on
age, income and El Segundo residency. These criteria as well as a general description of
the project and application procedures are detailed in the following pages.
Great care has been taken in the development of criteria, application forms, and
the structuring of the application process and selection procedures to ensure an objective
and fair rResident selection process. This procedure is detailed in this section as is the
Resident selection system. The procedure has been developed to ensure a process which
is both fair and equitable, and which offers prospective residents both privacy and
assistance as is practical in the process.
Applications will be accepted at the Park Vista Office only. Upon review of the
application, the prospective rResident's name will be placed on the waiting list. When a
unit becomes available the prospective rResident at the top of the waiting list will be
notified for an in- person interview with the manager and a walk through of the apartment.
A move -in date will be discussed at that time.
There are three main eligibility requirements that must be met in order to reside in
these apartments.
AGE — The applicant must be 5 --5-62 or older. Any co- rResident must be at
least 623 years of age unless:
a. The co- rResident is a lime- ipatd-ear wer- Permitted Health Care
Resident as defined by California Civil Code section 51 3, or
b. The co- rResident will also be on the Rental Agreement and has
previously lived with the applicant. If the co- rResident is on the Rental
Agreement and previously lived with the applicant, he or she can
reside at Park Vista if he or she is 5545 years or older, or was a spouse
of the senior citizen, or provided primary economic or physical
support to the senior citizen.
2. INCOME/NET WORTH — Maximum allowable combined incomes and net
worth are as follows: For a one person household, five percent (5 %) of an
applicant's total net worth plus the applicant's annual income cannot exceed
$3845,000; for a two person household, five percent (5 %) of an -the
applicant's and proposed co- resident's combined total net worth plus the
applicant's and proposed co- resident's combined annual income cannot
exceed $3- -550,000. These amounts are subject to change. The net worth
and/or annual income of a Permitted Health Care Resident as defined in
California Civil Code section 51.3 shall not be counted towards the income
threshold.
Rev. 7110
r � ry
3. RESIDENCY — Applicants must be rResidents of the City of El Segundo at the
time of application. For purposes of this requirement, a "Resident of the City of El
Segundo" is a person who has resided in the City of El Segundo at least one year
prior to submitting an application.
Additionally, Park Vista is not an elder-assisted living or managed care
facility. _A single apartment rResident must be physically and mentally able to
care for himself/herself, or be able to make alternate provisions for any necessary
care at the rResident's expense. In the case of joint tenancy, both rResidents must
be able to care for themselves, or one of the co- rResidents must be able to fully
care for both rResidents as necessary, or the rResidents must be able to make
alternate provisions for necessary care at their own expense.
Park Vista is intended only for use as a pnmM residence. "Primary
residence" is defined as that place where the tenant resides for a minimum of 75%
of each calendar year. Anv tenant failing to meet this requirement is subject to
eviction. Absences from the unit due to hospitalization or other necessar
medical treatment shall not be considered as absences for u oses of this
requirement
Rev. 7/10
1 X 34. -APPLICATION PROCEDURE
I I. Applications can be obtained from Park Vista. _Park Vista is open from
9:OOAM- 5:00 PM Monday through Friday.
I II. Handbooks and criteria are available at the-li , Joslyn Center and Park
Vista.
I III. Completed Applications should be returned to the Park Vista office. A
waiting list for occupancy will be maintained at the Park Vista office.
IV. Evaluation of Application
A. Evaluation of applications will be made according to the eligibility criteria
discussed in Section 2, "Eligibility Requirements ".
B. If the completed application satisfies the eligibility criteria, the Applicant
will be placed on the waiting list in order of date of application.
V. Notification Process
A. The Board notifies eligible applicant that a unit is available.
B. Park Vista manager sets up personal interview and conducts a walk
through.
C. Park Vista manager is responsible for Rental Agreement signing and
taking required deposit to hold unit.
D. Park Vista manager sets up move in date.
i E. Those ineligible for residency shall be notified.
&K-7/1 0
4. 4. RESIDENT SELECTION PROCEDURE
1. Person or persons must meet age, income and residency requirements before
submitting an application.
2. If eligibility criteria are satisfied, an applicant will be placed on the waiting list
according to the date his/her application was submitted.
3. Names will be selected from the waiting list in order by date of application.
4. When a vacancy occurs, those residing in Park Vista will be given the option of
changing units, providing they meet move -in rules and cost requirements. An
existing resident may change units only once by right during his or her tenancy.
Upon application to the Board a resident may be allowed an additional move for
good cause. A determination of good cause shall be in the sole discretion of the
Board. Any resident requesting a move shall be responsible for all costs
necessary to prepare that resident's existing unit for a subsequent tenant
5. If an applicant turns down an offered apartment two {2} times, the applicant's
name will be placed at the bottom of the waiting list.
6. Upon notification, the apartment manager will conduct a walk through and an
interview. A move -in date will be set at that time.
7. When it is an applicant's turn for consideration for residency based upon that
applicant's position on the waiting list, if the applicant does not have a
satisfactory credit history, the application will be denied and will receive no
further consideration.
Rev. 7/10
5. RENTAL RATES
In keeping with the intent of the City Council in the development of the Senior
Housing Project, and to provide a quality living opportunity at
affordable cost, a range of rental fees has been established. These rates were designed to
reflect a realistic approach in the operational needs of the property, ensure a proper
operating budget and maintain an appropriate maintenance reserve.
The rental schedules established for Park Vista reflect the cost necessary to meet
(a) the annual operating budget for the current year of operation, (b) an appropriate
operational reserve, and (c) a sinking fund to be known as "Replacement Reserve" for the
replacement of major components of the property, (appliances, roof, carpet, etc.) over an
assumed 3 to 30 year life.
Rates are subject to aflI- eriodic review and change. _The Park Vista Site
Manager can provide a list of current rental rates.
Rev-.7/10
�.. 4 1
6. GENERAL MAINTENENCE
The policy established by the Board in conjunction with the management
company has been designed to ensure the highest standards of maintenance.
Requests for maintenance are filed in writing by the Residents. A log is kept of all
work requested and completed. Most requests are handled within a three -day period.
Particular attention will be given to preventative maintenance procedures which
are designed to ensure the extension of the useful lives of the fixtures and equipment of
the facility. Routine inspections are conducted annually of all apartments. The
preventative maintenance philosophy is reflected in the Operating Budget which contains
a specific section for maintenance expenses.
An annual physical inspection of units and grounds is conducted by management
and a written report is submitted to the Board with findings and recommendations.
An annual physical inspection is made by the Board.
Rev. 7/10
7. INSURANCE
The Board recognizes the need to appropriately insure the Senior Housing Facility
and therefore, maintains the following policy:
I . Total replacement cost of the building is insured against loss;
2. n-- Public liability insurance is provided, with the El
Segundo Senior Citizen Housing Board and City Council of the City of El
Segundo as named insured.
Loss of rental income due to fire or other damage is included insurance
coverage;
4. Earthquake insurance is cAwFent1.3 -not provided.
5.
.Park Vista's
insurance does not cover the contents within any unit or any resident's
Personal property. Residents are encouraged to obtain a renter's insurance
policy to protect personal belongings
Rev. 7/1
8. MANAGEMENT
The Board recognized the need for appropriate day -to -day management of the
property and Resident support services. To this end a management company .•
' , has been
contracted to provide management services for Park Vista Apartments. Management
services are provided pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Management
Agreement, a copy of which is maintained by the Board.
Rev. 7/10
