The URL can be used to link to this page

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