2019 Jan 15 - CC PACKET AGENDA
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
WEST CONFERENCE ROOM -
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.
MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2019 — 5:00 PM
5:00 P.M. SESSION
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION — (Related to Citv 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.
1
1
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 sec.,.) 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(d)(1): -0- matters
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(d)(2): -2-
matters.
Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9 (d)(4): -1- matters.
DISCUSSION OF PERSONNEL MATTERS (Gov't Code §54957): -0- matters
APPOINTMENT OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE (Gov't. Code § 54957): -0- matter
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT (Gov't Code § 54957) -1- matter
1. Position: City Manager Recruitment
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54956.8): -0-
matters
2
2
CONFERENCE WITH CITY'S LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54957.6): -6-
matters
1. Employee Organizations: Police Management Association; Police Support
Services Employees Association; Supervisory, Professional Employees
Association; City Employee Association; and Executive and
Management/Confidential Employees (unrepresented groups).
Agency Designated Representative: Irma Moisa Rodriquez, City Manager, Greg
Carpenter and Human Resources Director.
3
3
• 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, JANUARY 15, 2019 - 7:00 P.M.
7:00 P.M. SESSION
CALL TO ORDER
INVOCATION — Pastor Bill Crawford, New City Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Council Member Dr. Brann
4
4
PRESENTATIONS
a) Presentation — 2018 Holiday Parade Winners
b) Presentation — Seating and Dining Area, "Parklet", to be installed in Downtown EI
Segundo.
c) Presentation — Police Chief Whalen to introduce Officer Kaitlin Ross.
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — (Related to Citv 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.
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS — (Related to Public Communications)
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)
5
5
1. Consideration and possible action regarding Environmental Assessment
No. EA-1232 and Zone Text Amendment No. ZTA 18-06 to allow massage
establishments as a conditionally permitted use in the Commercial Center
(C-4) zone. The adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 Cal. Code Regs. §
15061(b)(3) because it consists only of minor revisions to existing zoning
regulations and related procedures and can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect on
the environment. (Applicant: Street Retail, Inc.)
(Fiscal Impact: None)
Recommendation — 1) Conduct a public hearing; 2) Take testimony and other
evidence as presented; 3) Introduce an Ordinance amending the Municipal Code
to allow massage establishments as a conditionally permitted use in the
Commercial Center (C-4) zone; 4) Schedule second reading and adoption of the
ordinance for February 5, 2019; 5) Alternatively, discuss and take other possible
action related to this item.
2. Consideration and possible action regarding Environmental Assessment
No. EA-1231, Zone Text Amendment No. ZTA 18-05 to amend Article A of
Chapter 7 of Title 15 of the EI Segundo Municipal Code related to the
Medium Density Residential (MDR) overlay zone. This amendment will
preserve the existing overlay while making important updates to bring it
into compliance with the new Smoky Hollow Specific Plan.
(Fiscal Impact: None)
Recommendation — 1) Conduct a public hearing; 2) Take testimony and other
evidence as presented; 3) Introduce an ordinance approving Environmental
Assessment EA-1231 and amend the EI Segundo Municipal Code related to the
MDR overlay zone (ZTA 18-05); 4) Schedule second reading and adoption of the
ordinance for February 5, 2019; 5) Alternatively, discuss and take other possible
action related to this item.
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
3. Consideration and possible action to direct staff to enter into negotiations
for an exclusive franchise to EDCO Waste & Recycling Services (EDCO) to
provide automated residential and municipal solid waste hauling services.
(Fiscal Impact: Est. $7,620,000.00 over 7 years)
Recommendation — 1) Direct staff to enter into negotiations with EDCO for an
exclusive 7-year franchise agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney,
with annual estimated cost of $1,088,530; 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other
action related to this item.
6
6
4. Rescission of Brown Act Commitment - In Accordance with Government
Code Section 54960.2 (e), consideration and possible action to rescind the
commitment made by the City Council on November 5, 2013, not to hold
further closed session meetings regarding real property negotiations with
regard to ESCenterCal, LLC's ("CenterCal") proposal to enter into a Ground
Lease Agreement to lease the driving range portion of the Lakes Golf
Course from the City for the purpose of developing a Topgolf facility.
(Fiscal Impact: unknown — depends on whether legal proceedings are
commenced.)
Recommendation — 1) Rescind the commitment made by the City Council on
November 5, 2013, to not hold further closed session meetings regarding real
property negotiations with regard to CenterCal's proposal to enter into an
Agreement to lease the driving range portion of the Lakes Golf Course from the
City for the purpose of developing a Topgolf facility; 2) Alternatively, discuss and
take other action related to this item.
5. Consideration and possible action regarding a discussion on the City's
accomplishments made towards addressing the California Public
Employees Retirement System (CaIPERS) rising annual costs and long-
term liabilities.
(Fiscal Impact: $0)
Recommendation — 1) Consideration and possible action regarding a discussion
on the City's accomplishments made towards addressing the California Public
Employees Retirement System (CaIPERS) rising annual costs and long-term
liabilities; 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
D. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS
6. Consideration and possible action to announce the appointment to the
Economic Development Advisory Council and the Technology Committee
(Fiscal Impact: None)
Recommendation — 1) Announce the appointees.
7. Consideration and possible action to receive and file an informational
update from the Information Systems Department and the Technology
Committee regarding the projects completed in 2018.
(Fiscal Impact: None)
Recommendation — 1) Receive and file informational update and status report(s).
E. CONSENT AGENDA
7
7
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.
8. Warrant Numbers 3024065 - 3024189 and 9000657 - 9000694 on Register
No. 6a in the total amount of $371,439.52 and Wire Transfers from 12/10/18 -
12/16/18 in the total amount of $2,235,839.12. Warrant Numbers 3024190 -
3024261 and 9000695 - 9000698 on Register No. 6b in the total amount of
$480,646.14 and Wire Transfers from 12/17/18 - 12/23/18 in the total amount
of $713,244.71. Warrant Numbers 3024262 — 3024295 and 9000699 - 9000699
on Register No. 7a in the total amount of $251,771.54 and Wire Transfers
from 12/24/18 — 12/30/18 in the total amount of $65,387.90. Warrant
Numbers 3024296 — 3024395 on Register No. 7b in the total amount of
$425,867.76 and Wire Transfers from 12/31/18 — 116/19 in the total amount of
$10,894,193.70.
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.
9. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of December 18, 2018.
Recommendation — 1) Approval
10.Consideration and possible action to accept as complete the Storm Drain
Pipe Abandonment on Eucalyptus Drive Project, Project No. PW 18-11.
(Fiscal Impact: $101,000.00)
Recommendation — 1) Accept the work performed by Ramona, Inc. for the Storm
Drain Pipe Abandonment on Eucalyptus Drive Project in the City of EI Segundo;
2) Authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County
Recorder's Office; 3) Alternatively, discuss and take other possible action related
to this item.
11.Consideration and possible action to accept as complete the FY 16/17
Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Replacement Project. Project No. PW 17-19
(Fiscal Impact: $153,456.01)
Recommendation — 1) Accept the work as complete; 2) Authorize the City Clerk
to file a Notice of Completion in the County Recorder's office; 3) Alternatively,
discuss and take other possible actions related to this item.
8
8
12.Consideration and possible action regarding approval of 1) Amendment to
the Part Time employee rate schedule; 2) Approval of the revised
classification job titles; 3) Ratification of interim compliance measure; 4)
Adoption of Resolution approving the amendment to the Part Time rate
schedule for Calendar Year 2019.
(Fiscal Impact: None)
Recommendation — 1) Approve the Part-Time/Hourly Classifications Salary
Schedule; 2) Adopt the Resolution approving the Part-Time/Hourly
Classifications Salary Schedule; 3) Ratify interim compliance measure; 4) Adopt
the Resolution approving the Part-Time/Hourly Classification Salary Schedule; 5)
Authorize the City Manager and/or Finance Director to take budgetary actions
consistent with the adoption of the amended salary schedule; 6) Alternatively,
discuss and take other possible actions related to this item.
13.Consideration and possible action regarding 1) Revocation of resolution
4656 containing outdated language regarding providing delegation of
authority for making industrial disability determination recommendations
to the City Manager or designee pursuant to Government Code § 21173. 2)
Approval and adoption of a revised resolution incorporating updated
language mandated by CalPERS regarding delegation of authority for
industrial disability retirement recommendations, including when the City
Manager will certify a determination and who is delegated to sign employer
originated applications.
(Fiscal Impact: None)
Recommendation — 1) Approve the proposed revocation of resolution 4656; 2)
Approve and adopt a new resolution incorporating updated language mandated
by CalPERS regarding delegation of authority for industrial disability retirement
recommendations; 3) Alternatively, discuss and take other possible actions
related to this item.
F. NEW BUSINESS
G. REPORTS — CITY MANAGER
H. REPORTS — CITY ATTORNEY
I. REPORTS — CITY CLERK
J. REPORTS — CITY TREASURER
K. REPORTS — CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
9
9
Council Member Pimentel —
Council Member Nicol —
Council Member Brann —
Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk —
Mayor Boyles —
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — (Related to Citv 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, et ssc.) 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: /. 1.11
TIME: 2'DS")ao
NAME:
YM"� �F)46ua) 10
10
Presentation
2018 Holiday Parade Winners
11
Presentation
Seating and Dining Area "Parklet" to be installed in Downtown El Segundo.
12
Presentation
Police Chief Whalen to introduce Officer Kaitlin Ross.
13
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 15,2019
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding Environmental Assessment No. EA-1232 and Zone
Text Amendment No. ZTA 18-06 to allow massage establishments as a conditionally permitted
use in the Commercial Center (C-4) zone. The adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3)
because it consists only of minor revisions to existing zoning regulations and related procedures
and can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant
effect on the environment.
(Applicant: Street Retail, Inc.)
Fiscal Impact: None
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Take testimony and other evidence as presented;
3. Introduce an Ordinance amending the Municipal Code to allow massage establishments as
a conditionally permitted use in the Commercial Center(C-4) zone;
4. Schedule second reading and adoption of the Ordinance for February 5, 2019; and/or
5. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible action related to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance
2. Planning Commission staff report, dated December 13, 2018
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal: El Segundo promotes economic growth and vitality for businesses and the
community
Objective: Implement a comprehensive economic development strategy to ensure the
City encourages a vibrant business climate that is accessible, user-friendly
and welcoming to all residents and visitors
PREPARED BY: Paul Samaras, Principal Planner,AICP/
REVIEWED BY: Gregg McClain, Planning Manager
Sam Lee,Planning &Building Safety Directo
CA e
APPROVED BY: Greg Carpenter, City Manager.
1
14
INTRODUCTION
The proposed zone text amendment will allow massage establishments in the C-4 zone subject to
approval of a conditional use permit (CUP). This includes massage establishments operating
independently, or in conjunction with a spa that offers other personal services. The applicant,
Street Retail, Inc., owns the Plaza El Segundo and The Point shopping centers located near the
intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Rosecrans Avenue, in the C-4 zone. The intent of the
proposed amendment is to permit a new use that will complement other permitted uses on the
applicant's properties. The additional use will also increase the applicant's flexibility in selection
of tenants and thereby further ensure the shopping center's viability.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The City finds that this ordinance does not have the potential to cause significant effects on the
environment and, therefore, the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3). The ordinance is exempt from further
review, because it consists only of minor revisions to existing zoning regulations and related
procedures. If adopted, the ordinance would allow one additional use in one zone in the City, and
for that reason, the proposed Ordinance is an action that does not have the potential to cause
significant effects on the environment.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Current City regulations on massage establishments
The El Segundo Municipal Code (ESMC) currently permits massage establishments only in the
Urban Mixed Use South (MU-S) zone subject to a CUP. The CUP process allows the City to
review a proposed use on a case-by-case basis and impose conditions to ensure a use is compatible
with surrounding uses and to reduce potential negative impacts.
In addition to the CUP process, ESMC Title 4 (Business Regulations) sets out specific additional
requirements for massage establishments including: criminal background checks for massage
establishment owners, State certification for all massage technicians employed in a massage
establishment, minimum facility and operational requirements, and enforcement and revocation
procedures. As a result, the CUP process in combination with the Title 4 requirements provide
sufficient controls on massage establishments.
C-4 zone regulations
The C-4 zone was applied to this area of the City approximately 15 years ago and it enabled the
development of the Plaza El Segundo and The Point shopping centers. The zone was intended to
serve as a regional retail sales center and the types of permitted uses were limited. However in
2017,the City Council amended the Municipal Code to substantially expand the range of permitted
uses. As a result, the C-4 zone today permits various commercial uses including retail sales,
personal services, fitness centers, financial institutions, general and medical offices, and public
assembly uses (ESMC Section 15-5G-2). This change of policy was in response to the overall
retail market trends and shopping centers in particular.
2
15
If approved, the proposed zone text amendment will permit massage establishments in the C-4
zone subject to a CUP and the provisions of ESMC Title 4-10, mentioned above. Massage
establishments are similar to other personal service uses permitted in the C-4 zone and compatible
with uses such as fitness facilities, offices, and retail sales. They will add to the mixed-use nature
of the C-4 zone and the existing shopping centers, which is mutually beneficial for all businesses
permitted in the area as patrons of one business are likely to patronize other businesses in the same
center. This interaction among uses improves their viability and the potential tax revenues for the
City while potentially reducing the traffic trips.
Planning Commission review
On December 13,2018,the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and heard testimony
from the applicant's representative and another member of the public. The applicant's
representative stated that a massage business had previously expressed interest in locating at Plaza
El Segundo, but it was not a permitted use in the zone. However, he was confident that a similar
business would locate at the center in the future, if the proposed zone text amendment is approved.
After discussing the issue, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to adopt Resolution No. 2854
recommending City Council approval of a draft ordinance to allow massage establishments as a
conditionally permitted use in the Commercial Center (C-4) zone.
Zone Text Amendment Findings
ESMC Section 15-1-1 (Purpose, Title) states that Title 15 is the primary tool for implementation
of the goals, objectives, and policies of the El Segundo General Plan. Accordingly, the City
Council must find that the proposed Zone Text Amendment is consistent with those goals,
objectives, and policies. The Planning Commission determined there is substantial evidence in
the record to support the findings required for the City Council to approve the proposed
amendment.
Pursuant to ESMC Title 15, Chapter 26 (Amendments), in order to approve the proposed
amendments,the City Council must find that the amendments are necessary to carry out the general
purpose of ESMC Title 15. The purpose of this Title(ESMC §15-1-1)is to serve the public health,
safety, and general welfare and to provide economic and social advantages resulting from an
orderly planned use of land resources. The Planning Commission determined that the City Council
can make the findings to approve of the proposed amendment. The findings are discussed in the
draft ordinance.
3
16
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO.
EA 1232 AND ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. ZTA 18-06 AMENDING
THE EL SEGUNDO MUNICIPAL CODE TO PERMIT MASSAGE
ESTABLISHMENTS AS A CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE IN THE
COMMERCIAL CENTER (C-4) ZONE.
The City Council of the city of EI Segundo does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The Council finds and declares as follows:
A. On October 15, 2018, Street Retail, Inc. filed an application for an
Environmental Assessment and a Zone Text Amendment to permit
massage establishments as a conditionally permitted use in the C-4
(Commercial Center) zone;
B. On December 13, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the application
including information provided to the Planning Commission by city staff;
and, adopted Resolution No. 2854 recommending that the City Council
approve the application;
C. On , 2019, the City Council held a public hearing and
considered the information provided by City staff and public testimony
regarding this Ordinance; and
D. This Ordinance and its findings are made based upon the entire
administrative record including testimony and evidence presented to the
City Council at its , 2019 hearing and the staff report
submitted by the Planning and Building Safety Department.
SECTION 2: Factual Findings and Conclusions. The City Council finds that this
ordinance amends the uses subject to a conditional use permit in the C-4 zone to include
massage establishments.
SECTION 3: General Plan Findings. As required under Government Code Section
65860, the ESMC amendments in the ordinance are consistent with the EI Segundo
General Plan as follows:
A. The ordinance is consistent with Goal LU4 of the General Plan Land Use
Element in that it will permit a new commercial use, such as massage
establishments, which will help provide a stable tax base by promoting a
1
17
mixed-use environment in the C-4 zone and.
B. The ordinance is consistent with Objective LU4-4 of the General Land Use
Element in that it will permit a new use in an existing commercial area and
create a more synergistic mix of uses, which has the potential to maximize
economic benefit and reduce traffic impacts.
C. The ordinance is consistent with Objective ED1-2 of the General Plan
Economic Development Element in that would permit a new use in the C-4
zone, which promotes the diversification of the City's retail and commercial
base.
D. Considering all of its aspects, this ordinance will further the objectives and
policies of the general plan and will not obstruct their attainment.
SECTION 4: Zone Text Amendment Findings. In accordance with ESMC Chapter 15-26
(Amendments), and based on the findings set forth in Section 2, the ordinance is
consistent with and necessary to carry out the purpose of the ESMC as follows:
A. The ordinance 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. The ordinance is necessary to facilitate the development process and
ensure the orderly location of uses in the City.
SECTION 5: Environmental Assessment. Pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"),
and the regulations promulgated thereunder(14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000,
et seq., the "State CEQA Guidelines"), the ordinance is exempt from further review
(CEQA Section 15061), because it consists only of minor revisions to existing zoning
regulations and related procedures and does not have the potential for causing a
significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 6: ESMC § 15-5G-2 (Commercial Center (C-4) zone uses subject to
conditional use permit) is amended as follows:
The following uses are allowed subject to obtaining a conditional use permit,
as provided by chapter 23 of this title:
A. Micro-brewery with a tasting room and/or dining.
B. On site sale and consumption of alcohol at bars and wine tasting rooms.
2
18
C. n+� niiar s!oos-apW3v3d by tho DireOvr,vo provided by ohaptor Z of
thes title. Massage establishments that meet the requirements of title
4, chapter 10 of this Code and anv other requirements imposed by
law.
D. Other similar uses approved by the Director. as provided by chapter
23 of this title.
SECTION 7: 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 8: ENFORCEABILITY. Repeal of any provision of the ESMC 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 9: 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 10: SEVERABILITY. 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 11: The City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this
ordinance; cause it to be entered into the City of EI Segundo's Book of Original
Ordinances; make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting; and,
within 15 days after the passage and adoption of this ordinance, cause a summary thereof
to be published or posted in accordance with California law.
3
19
SECTION 12: This Ordinance will go into effect and be in full force and effect on the
thirty-first (31st) day after its passage and adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 2019.
Drew Boyles, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
I, Tracy Weaver, City Clerk of the City of EI 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. was duly introduced by said City Council at a regular meeting held
on the day of 2019, 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 2019, and the same
was so passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Tracy Weaver, City Clerk
4
20
EL SEGUNDO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December 13,2018
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding recommending City Council approval of
Environmental Assessment No. EA-1232 and Zone Text Amendment No. ZTA 18-06 to allow
massage establishments as a conditionally permitted use in the Commercial Center(C-4) zone.
(Applicant: Street Retail, Inc.).
RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission open the public hearing and take public testimony on the proposed project, close the
public hearing and consider the evidence, and adopt Resolution No. 2854 recommending that the
City Council approve Environmental Assessment No. EA-1232 and Zone Text Amendment No.
ZTA 18-06.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2854
2. Draft Ordinance
3. El Segundo Municipal Code(ESMC) Title 4, Chapter 10 (Massage Establishments)
ORIGINATED BY: Paul Samaras,Principal Planner
REVIEWED BY: Gregg McClain, Planning Manager 6-1
APPROVED BY: Sam Lee, Director of Planning and Building Safety
V
INTRODUCTION
The proposed zone text amendment would allow massage establishments in the C-4 zone subject
to approval of a conditional use permit. The applicant for this zone text amendment is the property
owner of the Plaza El Segundo and The Point shopping centers located near the intersection of
Pacific Coast Highway and Rosecrans Avenue. The intent of the proposed amendment is to permit
a new use that would complement other permitted uses in the C-4 zone. The additional use will
increase the applicant's flexibility in selection of tenants and thereby further ensure the shopping
center's viability.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Background
The C-4 zone covers approximately 86 acres of land,52 of which have been developed as the Plaza
El Segundo and The Point shopping centers. The remaining portion of the C-4 zone consists of
vacant land, some fronting along Rosecrans Avenue (former Air Products site) and some that is
landlocked between the Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific railroads.
1
21
The C-4 zone was initially intended to be a retail sales area in the City. In 2017,the City Council
amended the Municipal Code to expand the range of uses permitted in the zone. As a result, the
C-4 zone currently permits various commercial uses including retail sales, personal services,
fitness centers, financial institutions, general and medical offices, and public assembly uses
(ESMC Section 15-5G-2). This change of policy was in response to the overall retail market trends
and shopping centers in particular.
City regulations reeardine massae establishments
The municipal code addresses massage establishments in Title 15 (Zoning Regulations) and Title
4 (Business Regulations and Licensing). Title 15 determines whether and where massage
establishments are a permitted use in the City and Title 4 determines business tax levels and any
special business permit requirements.
Title 15 lists massage establishments as a conditionally permitted use only in the Urban Mixed
Use South (MU-S) zone, subject to the provisions and permit requirements of ESMC Title 4 and
applicable State regulations.
Title 4,Chapter 10 sets administrative policies and requirements for issuing massage establishment
permits (See Exhibit 2). The Chapter's provisions cover several areas including California
Massage Therapy Council (CAMTC) certifications for massage technicians, background checks,
minimum facility and operational requirements, enforcement and permit revocation provisions.
State repaulations reRardinf!massage establishments
California Business and Professions Code sections 4600 et seq. (Massage Therapy Act) regulates
massage establishments.' The Massage Therapy Act sets the minimum requirements for
certification and established the CAMTC to issue certificates to qualified massage professionals.
The intent of the law was to enable consumers and local governments to more easily identify
certified massage professionals. In addition, the law also permits local government to impose
reasonable conditions on the issuance of massage establishment permits, such as the conditions
included in ESMC Chapter 4-10.
Discussion
If approved, the proposed zone text amendment will permit massage establishments in the C-4
zone subject to approval of a conditional use permit, the provisions of ESMC Chapter 4-10, and
applicable State regulations. This use is similar to other personal service uses permitted in the C-
4 zone and compatible with uses such as fitness facilities, offices, and retail sales uses. It will add
to the mixed-use nature of the C-4 zone and the existing shopping centers, which is mutually
beneficial to all the businesses permitted in the area because patrons of one business are more
likely to patronize other businesses in the same center. This interaction among uses improves their
viability and the potential tax revenues for the City while potentially reducing the traffic trips. At
the same time, the use will be subject to conditions of approval and operational requirements to
limit negative impacts and to ensure it is compatible with the surrounding uses
Full text of the Massage Therapy Act-
http://Ieginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes displayText.xhtml?division=2.&chapter=10.5.&lawCode=BPC
2
22
General Plan and Zoning Consistencv
Consistency with the El Segundo General Plan
ESMC Section 15-1-1 (Purpose, Title) states that Title 15 is the primary tool for implementation
of the goals, objectives, and policies of the El Segundo General Plan. Accordingly, the Planning
Commission must find that the proposed Zone Text Amendment is consistent with those goals,
objectives, and policies. Planning staff believes there is substantial evidence in the record to
support the findings required for the Planning Commission to recommend City Council approval
of the proposed amendment. The findings are discussed further in the proposed resolution.
Consistency with the EI Segundo Municipal Code.
Pursuant to ESMC Title 15, Chapter 26 (Amendments), in order to recommend City Council
approval of the proposed amendment,the Planning Commission must find that the amendment is
necessary to carry out the general purpose of ESMC Title 15. The purpose of this Title (ESMC
§15-1-1) is to serve the public health, safety, and general welfare and to provide economic and
social advantages resulting from an orderly planned use of land resources. Planning staff believes
there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings required for the Planning
Commission to recommend City Council approval of the proposed amendment. The findings are
discussed further in the proposed resolution.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code
Sections 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 California
Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., the"State CEQA Guidelines"), the proposed ordinance is
exempt from further review, because it consists only of minor revisions to existing zoning
regulations and related procedures. If adopted, the ordinance would allow one additional use in
one zone in the City, and for that reason,the proposed Ordinance is an action that does not have
the potential to cause significant effects on the environment.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2854 recommending that
the City Council approve Environmental Assessment (EA) No. EA-1232 and Zone Text
Amendment(ZTA)No. 18-06.
3
23
RESOLUTION NO. 2854
A RESOLUTION OF THE EL SEGUNDO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. EA-1232 AND ZONE TEXT
AMENDMENT NO. ZTA 18-06 AMENDING THE EL SEGUNDO
MUNICIPAL CODE TO PERMIT MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AS A
CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE IN THE COMMERCIAL CENTER (C-
4) ZONE
The Planning Commission of the City of EI Segundo does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The Planning Commission finds and declares that:
A. On October 15, 2018, Street Retail, Inc. filed an application for an
Environmental Assessment and a Zone Text Amendment to permit
massage establishments as a conditionally permitted use in the C-4
(Commercial Center) zone;
B. On December 13, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the application
including information provided to the Planning Commission by city staff;
C. This Resolution and its findings are made based upon the evidence
presented to the Commission at its December 13, 2018, hearing including
the staff report submitted by the Planning and Building Safety Department.
SECTION 2: Factual Findings and Conclusions. The Commission finds that
implementing the proposed ordinance will amend the uses subject to a conditional use
permit in the C-4 zone to include massage establishments.
SECTION 3: General Plan Findings. As required under Government Code § 65860, the
ESMC amendments proposed by the project are consistent with the EI Segundo General
Plan as follows:
A. The ordinance is consistent with Goal LU4 of the General Plan Land Use
Element in that it will permit a new commercial use, such as massage
establishments, which will help provide a stable tax base by promoting a
mixed-use environment in the C-4 zone and.
B. The ordinance is consistent with Objective LU44 of the General Land Use
Element in that it will permit a new use in an existing commercial area and
create a more synergistic mix of uses, which has the potential to maximize
economic benefit and reduce traffic impacts.
C. The ordinance is consistent with Objective ED1-2 of the General Plan
Economic Development Element in that would permit a new use in the C-4
zone, which promotes the diversification of the City's retail and commercial
24
base.
D. Considering all of its aspects, the proposed project will further the objectives
and policies of the general plan and will not obstruct their attainment.
SECTION 4: Zone Text Amendment Findings. In accordance with ESMC Chapter 15-26
(Amendments), and based on the findings set forth in Section 2, the proposed ordinance
is consistent with and necessary to carry out the purpose of the ESMC as follows:
A. The ordinance 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. The ordinance is necessary to facilitate the development process and
ensure the orderly location of uses in the City.
SECTION 5: Environmental Assessment. Pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"),
and the regulations promulgated thereunder(14 California Code of Regulations§§ 15000,
et seq., the "State CEQA Guidelines"), the proposed ordinance is exempt from further
review (CEQA Section 15061), because it consists only of minor revisions to existing
zoning regulations and related procedures and does not have the potential for causing a
significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 7: Recommendation. The Planning Commission recommends the City
Council adopt the Ordinance in a form substantially similar to the draft attached as Exhibit
A.
SECTION 8: Reliance on Record. Each and every one of the findings and determination
in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and
written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The findings and
determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the Planning
Commission in all respects.
SECTION 9: Limitations. The Planning Commission's analysis and evaluation of the
project is based on information available at the time of the decision. It is inevitable that in
evaluating a project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the
project will not exist. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate
assumptions.
SECTION 10: This Resolution will remain effective until superseded by a subsequent
resolution.
2
25
SECTION 11: The Commission secretary is directed to mail a copy of this Resolution to
any person requesting a copy.
3
26
SECTION 12: This Resolution may be appealed within 10 calendar days after its
adoption. All appeals must be in writing and filed with the City Clerk within this time
period. Failure to file a timely written appeal will constitute a waiver of any right of appeal.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 2018.
Ryan Baldino, Chair
City of EI Segundo Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Sam Lee, Secretary
Baldino -
Newman -
Nicol -
Hoeschler -
Wingate -
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
By:
David King, Assistant City Attorney
4
27
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO.
EA 1232 AND ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. ZTA 18-06 AMENDING
THE EL SEGUNDO MUNICIPAL CODE TO PERMIT MASSAGE
ESTABLISHMENTS AS A CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE IN THE
COMMERCIAL CENTER (C-4) ZONE.
The City Council of the city of EI Segundo does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The Council finds and declares as follows:
A. On October 15, 2018, Street Retail, Inc. filed an application for an
Environmental Assessment and a Zone Text Amendment to permit
massage establishments as a conditionally permitted use in the C-4
(Commercial Center) zone;
B. On December 13, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the application
including information provided to the Planning Commission by city staff;
and, adopted Resolution No. 2854 recommending that the City Council
approve the application;
C. On , 2019, the City Council held a public hearing and
considered the information provided by City staff and public testimony
regarding this Ordinance; and
D. This Ordinance and its findings are made based upon the entire
administrative record including testimony and evidence presented to the
City Council at its , 2019 hearing and the staff report
submitted by the Planning and Building Safety Department.
SECTION 2: Factual Findings and Conclusions. The City Council finds that this
ordinance amends the uses subject to a conditional use permit in the C-4 zone to include
massage establishments.
SECTION 3: General Plan Findings. As required under Government Code Section
65860, the ESMC amendments in the ordinance are consistent with the EI Segundo
General Plan as follows:
A. The ordinance is consistent with Goal LU4 of the General Plan Land Use
Element in that it will permit a new commercial use, such as massage
establishments, which will help provide a stable tax base by promoting a
1
28
mixed-use environment in the C-4 zone and.
B. The ordinance is consistent with Objective LU4-4 of the General Land Use
Element in that it will permit a new use in an existing commercial area and
create a more synergistic mix of uses, which has the potential to maximize
economic benefit and reduce traffic impacts.
C. The ordinance is consistent with Objective ED1-2 of the General Plan
Economic Development Element in that would permit a new use in the C-4
zone, which promotes the diversification of the City's retail and commercial
base.
D. Considering all of its aspects, this ordinance will further the objectives and
policies of the general plan and will not obstruct their attainment.
SECTION 4: Zone Text Amendment Findings. In accordance with ESMC Chapter 15-26
(Amendments), and based on the findings set forth in Section 2, the ordinance is
consistent with and necessary to carry out the purpose of the ESMC-as follows:
A. The ordinance 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. The ordinance is necessary to facilitate the development process and
ensure the orderly location of uses in the City.
SECTION 5: Environmental Assessment. Pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"),
and the regulations promulgated thereunder(14 California Code of Regulations§§ 15000,
et seq., the "State CEQA Guidelines"), the ordinance is exempt from further review
(CEQA Section 15061), because it consists only of minor revisions to existing zoning
regulations and related procedures and does not have the potential for causing a
significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 6: ESMC § 15-5G-2 (Commercial Center (C-4) zone uses subject to
conditional use permit) is amended as follows:
The following uses are allowed subject to obtaining a conditional use permit,
as provided by chapter 23 of this title:
A. Micro-brewery with a tasting room and/or dining.
B. On site sale and consumption of alcohol at bars and wine tasting rooms.
2
29
C. rlhar :imilx- ueoa apprevod by tho kNrootcr, ac prcvldti b), oMptor 23 ct
thus title. Massage establishments that meet the requirements of title
4. chapter 10 of this Code and anv other requirements imposed by
law.
D. Other similar uses approved by the Director, as provided by chapter
23 of this title.
SECTION 7: 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 8: ENFORCEABILITY. Repeal of any provision of the ESMC 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 9: 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 10: SEVERABILITY. 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 11: The City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this
ordinance; cause it to be entered into the City of EI Segundo's Book of Original
Ordinances; make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting; and,
within 15 days after the passage and adoption of this ordinance, cause a summary thereof
to be published or posted in accordance with California law.
3
30
SECTION 12: This Ordinance will go into effect and be in full force and effect on the
thirty-first (31st) day after its passage and adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this __day of 12019.
Drew Boyles, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
I, Tracy Weaver, City Clerk of the City of EI 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. was duly introduced by said City Council at a regular meeting held
on the day of 2019, 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 2019, and the same
was so passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Tracy Weaver, City Clerk
4
31
Chapter 10
MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS
4-10-1: PURPOSE:
4-10-2: DEFINITIONS:
4-10-3: ADMINISTRATION:
4-10-4: CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED:
4-10-5: PERMIT REQUIRED:
4-10-6: BUSINESS LICENSE REQUIRED:
4-10-7: MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT OWNER BACKGROUND CHECK REQUIRED:
4-10-8: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS:
4-10-9: DISPLAY OF PERMIT:
4-10-10: MASSAGE TECHNICIAN CERTIFICATES REQUIRED:
4-10-11: PROHIBITED CONDUCT:
4-10-12: FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS:
4-10-13: EXCEPTIONS:
4-10-14: PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT:
4-10-15: REVOCATION:
4-10-16: CIVIL LIABILITY AND PENALTIES:
4-10-17: APPEAL:
4-10-1: PURPOSE:
A. This chapter establishes new permitting standards intended to comply with California law and
establish zoning, business licensing, and health and safety guidelines for massage
establishments.
B. This chapter is not intended to be exclusive and compliance will not excuse noncompliance with
any state or local laws or regulations that are uniformly applied to other professional or personal
services businesses including,without limitation, all zoning applications; business license
regulations; building,fire, electrical, and plumbing codes; and health and safety code laws and
regulations applicable to professional or personal services businesses.
C. This chapter establishes a local regulatory system that allows only state certified massage
therapists and massage practitioners to operate within the city.This chapter is also intended to
allow the city to exercise broad control over land use in regulating massage establishments and
to impose and enforce reasonable and necessary fees and regulations, in keeping with the
requirements of existing law,while being mindful of the need to protect legitimate business
owners and massage professionals. (Ord. 1504, 2-17-2015)
4-10-2: 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.Words and phrases not defined by this
chapter have the meaning set forth elsewhere in this code,the Business And Professions Code, or
Government Code.
32
CALIFORNIA MASSAGE THERAPY COUNCIL(CAMTC):The California massage therapy council
created pursuant to Business And Professions Code section 4600 et seq.
CERTIFIED MASSAGE PRACTITIONER: A person who is currently certified as a massage
practitioner by the CAMTC, and who administers massage for compensation.
CERTIFIED MASSAGE THERAPIST:A person who is currently certified as a massage therapist by
the CAMTC, and who administers massage for compensation.
CITY: The city of EI Segundo.
DIRECTOR: The planning manager or such other person designated by the city manager.
MASSAGE: Any method of pressure on, or friction against, or stroking, kneading, rubbing,tapping,
pounding, vibrating or stimulating the external parts of the human body with the hands or with the aid
of any mechanical or electrical apparatus, or other appliances or devices, with or without such
supplementary aids as rubbing alcohol, liniment, antiseptic, oil, powder, cream, lotion, ointment or
other similar preparations.
MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT: Means and includes any massage establishment, parlor, or any
room, place or institution where massage is given or administered by a massage technician as the
primary service of the business establishment.
MASSAGE TECHNICIAN:Any person, who gives, performs or administers to another person a
massage for any form of consideration.
PERSON: Means and includes person(s), firms,corporations, partnerships, associations or other
forms of business organization or group.
SPECIFIED ANATOMICAL AREAS: Means and includes any of the following human anatomical
areas: genitals, pubic regions, anuses or female breasts below a point immediately above the top of
the areola.
SPECIFIED SEXUAL ACTIVITIES: Means and includes all of the following:
A. Fondling or other erotic touching of specified anatomical areas;
B. Sex acts including, without limitation, intercourse, oral copulation, or sodomy;
C. Masturbation; or
D. Excretory functions as part of or in connection with any specified sexual activity listed in this
definition. (Ord. 1504, 2-17-2015)
4-10-3: ADMINISTRATION:
The director is authorized to administer this chapter and to promulgate administrative policies and
procedures required to implement the regulations set forth in this chapter. (Ord. 1476, 2-5-2013)
33
4-10-4: CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED:
A. Massage Establishment: It is unlawful for any person to own, operate or maintain a massage
establishment unless all massage technicians employed by the massage establishment hold a
current, valid certification from the CAMTC as a massage practitioner or massage therapist.
B. Massage Technician: It is unlawful for any person to engage in, or carry on the business or
activities of a massage technician without a certification from the CAMTC as a massage
practitioner or massage therapist.
C. Off Premises Massage Service: It is unlawful for any person to own, operate, or maintain an off
premises massage service in the city unless all massage technicians employed by the off
premises massage service hold a current, valid certification from the CAMTC as a certified
massage practitioner or certified massage therapist. (Ord. 1476, 2-5-2013)
4-10-5: PERMIT REQUIRED:
Every person conducting, managing, operating, owning or in control of a massage establishment or
any other place that is open to the public or is a private club, where facial massages, fomentations,
massages, electric or magnetic treatments, or alcohol rubs are administered or given, or any public
bathing place,which has in connection therewith a steam room, dry or hot room plunge, swimming
pool, shower, bath, or sleeping accommodations, must obtain a conditional use permit.A conditional
use permit issued pursuant to this section must include, as a condition of approval, a requirement
that the permittee notify the city of any change in ownership. (Ord. 1504, 2-17-2015)
4-10-6: BUSINESS LICENSE REQUIRED:
Before operating any massage establishment or becoming engaged in the occupation of a massage
practitioner or massage technician, the individual proposing to conduct the business must obtain the
required business license to do so and, in addition, unless otherwise specified, is subject to each
and all of the terms, conditions and provisions of this chapter. A business license is not transferable.
(Ord. 1504, 2-17-2015)
4-10-7: MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT OWNER BACKGROUND CHECK
REQUIRED:
A. Any person, association, partnership, or corporation desiring to operate a massage
establishment, that will own five percent(5%) or more of the massage establishment, and that is
not a certified massage practitioner or certified massage therapist, must make an application to
the director for an investigation of the applicant's background and history.A nonrefundable fee,
in an amount set by resolution, must accompany the submission of each application to defray
the cost of investigation, inspection and enforcement of this chapter. An annual nonrefundable
renewal fee will also be charged to defray associated costs of investigation, inspection and
enforcement.
B. Each applicant for a background check must submit the following information:
1. The full true name and any other names used by the applicant.
2. The present address and telephone number of the applicant.
3. Driver's license number and social security number.
4. The proposed address of the massage establishment.
34
5. Each residence and business address of the applicant for the three (3) years immediately
preceding the date of the application, and the inclusive dates for such address.
6. Written proof that the applicant is at least eighteen (18)years of age.
7. Applicant's height, weight, and color of eyes and hair.
8. Two (2) photographs of the applicant at least two inches by two inches (2"x 2")taken within
four(4) months preceding the date of the application.
9. Applicant's business, occupation and employment history for the ten (10) years immediately
preceding the date of application.
10.The business license or permit history of the applicant, including whether such applicant has
ever had any license or permit issued by any agency or board, city, county or state revoked
or suspended, or has had any professional or vocational license or permit revoked or
suspended and the reason(s)for the revocation.
11. All criminal convictions for any of the offenses set forth in this chapter, and a statement of the
dates and places of such convictions.
12. If the applicant is a corporation, the name of the corporation must be set forth exactly as
shown in the articles of incorporation or charter, together with the state and date of
incorporation and names and residence addresses of each of its current officers and
directors, and each stockholder holding more than five percent(5%) of the stock of the
corporation. If the applicant is a partnership, the application must set forth the names and
residence addresses of each of the partners, including the limited partners. If the applicant is
a limited partnership, it must furnish a copy of its certificate of limited partnership filed with
the county clerk. If one or more partners is a corporation,the provisions of this section
pertaining to corporate applicants will apply.The applicant corporation or partnership must
designate one of its officers or general partners to act as its responsible managing officer.
Such person must complete and sign all application forms required of any individual
applicant under this chapter, but only one application fee will be charged.
13.The name and address of the owner and lessor of the real property upon or in which the
massage establishment is to be operated, and a copy of the lease or rental agreement. If the
applicant is not the legal owner of the property, a notarized acknowledgment from the owner
of the property that a massage establishment will be located on his or her property is
required for each massage establishment permit location.
14.The full true names and other names used, the present addresses and telephone numbers,
driver's license numbers, and social security numbers, and state certificates from the
CAMTC or transitional licenses for all massage technicians who will be working as
employees or independent contractors at each massage establishment permit location.The
applicant must provide the director with any changes in the massage technicians that work at
the massage establishment during the permit period within ten (10)working days of each
change.
15.The director may require the applicant to furnish fingerprints when needed for the purpose of
verifying identification.
16.Such other identification and information as may be required by the director in order to verify
the information to be included in the application.
C. The city is allowed a reasonable time, not to exceed sixty(60) days, in which to investigate the
information on the application. During the investigation of the background information, a city
representative including, without limitation, a member of the police department, fire department,
building and safety department, planning department, or any authorized representative thereof,
may inspect, with or without notice during regular business hours, the proposed place of
business to determine whether it conforms to the requirements of this chapter. Upon completion
of the inspection,the city representative must inform the director in writing of the findings of the
inspection.
35
D. Background clearance will be issued,within sixty(60) days of receipt of the application, to any
applicant who has furnished all of the information required by this section in the application for
such license, provided:
1. The applicant has not made a material false statement in the application and that all
massage technicians who will be working as employees or independent contractors at each
massage establishment permit location possesses certification from the CAMTC as a
massage practitioner or massage therapist;
2. The applicant, if an individual, or in the case of an applicant which is a corporation or
partnership, any of its officers, directors, holders of five percent(5%) or more of the
corporation's stock, has not,within five (5)years immediately preceding the date of the filing
of the application been convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction of any of the following
offenses: Penal Code sections 243.4; 261; 266a through 266j; 267; 314 to 316;318; or
647(a, b, d); any offense requiring registration under Penal Code section 290 or Health And
Safety Code section 11590; or any felony offense involving the possession, possession for
sale, sale, transportation, furnishing, or giving away of a controlled substance specified in
Health And Safety Code sections 11054 to 11058, as amended; or any offense in another
state which, if committed in California, would have been punishable as one or more of the
heretofore mentioned offenses; or any offense involving the use of force or violence upon the
person of another; or any offense involving theft, embezzlement or moral turpitude;
3. The applicant is at least eighteen (18) years of age; and
4. The applicant has not had a massage technician, massage establishment, escort service,
nude entertainment, nude photo studio or similar type of license or permit suspended within
one year or revoked within three (3)years immediately preceding the date of the filing of the
application, unless the applicant can show a material change in circumstances or that
mitigating circumstances exist since the revocation or suspension. (Ord. 1476, 2-5-2013;
amd. Ord. 1504, 2-17-2015)
4-10-8: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS:
Before operating a massage establishment in the city, massage establishment owners must comply
with all applicable codes adopted by the city, including, without limitation, the building, electrical, and
plumbing codes. (Ord. 1476, 2-5-2013; amd. Ord. 1504, 2-17-2015)
4-10-9: DISPLAY OF PERMIT:
Any owner of a massage establishment or off premises massage service must display the CAMTC
certificates for all massage technicians prominently in a conspicuous place, capable of being viewed
by customers or city representatives, at every location where massage is performed or conducted,
and carry photo identification card while on the premises of the massage establishment and/or
performing massage services. For off premises massage services, massage workers must also carry
a copy of their CAMTC certificate and photo identification card and display it to customers upon
request. Any advertising for a massage technician must include the name under which he or she is
certified and his or her certificate number. (Ord. 1476,2-5-2013; amd. Ord. 1504, 2-17-2015)
4-10-10: MASSAGE TECHNICIAN CERTIFICATES REQUIRED:
It is unlawful for owners of massage establishments or off site massage services to allow any person
to perform massage that is not a certified massage therapist or certified massage practitioner. (Ord.
1476, 2-5-2013; amd. Ord. 1504, 2-17-2015)
36
4-10-11 : PROHIBITED CONDUCT:
It is unlawful for owners of massage establishments or off premises massage services, or massage
technicians, to conduct or allow any of the following activities:
A. It is unlawful for any massage technician or any other employee working in a massage
establishment or for an off premises massage service, or customers, patrons, or guests of the
establishment or service,to engage in any specified sexual activities upon the premises of the
massage establishment or the off premises massage location.
B. It is unlawful for any massage technician or other employee of a massage establishment to
expose specified anatomical areas in the presence of any patron, customer, or guest.
C. In the course of administering the massage, it is unlawful for any massage technician or other
massage establishment employee to make intentional physical contact with the specified
anatomical areas of any customer, patron or guest. (Ord. 1476, 2-5-2013; amd. Ord. 1504, 2-17-
2015)
4-10-12: FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS:
It is unlawful for any massage establishment to operate unless the massage establishment premises
and operation comply with the following minimum requirements:
A. Signs: A readable sign must be posted at the main entrance identifying the establishment as a
massage establishment, provided, however, that all such signs must otherwise comply with the
sign requirements of this code.
B. Lighting: Minimum lighting must be provided in accordance with the California building code, as
adopted by this code, and, in addition, at least one unobstructed artificial light of not less than
nine hundred (900) lumens must be provided in each enclosed room or booth where massage
services are being performed on a patron.
C. Ventilation: Minimum ventilation must be provided in accordance with the California building
code, as adopted by this code.
D. Disinfection Of Instruments: Instruments used for massage must be disinfected before each use.
Where instruments for massage are employed, adequate quantities of supplies for disinfection
must be available during all hours of operation.
E. Water: Hot and cold running water must be provided at all times.
F. Linen Storage: Closed cabinets must be utilized for the storage of clean towels and linen. After
use,towels and linen must be removed and stored in a separate container until laundered.
G. Sanitary Conditions: All walls, ceilings,floors, steam and vapor rooms, and all other physical
facilities for the massage establishment must be kept in good repair and be maintained in a
clean and sanitary condition.
H. Clean Linen: Clean and sanitary towels and linens must be provided for patrons receiving
massage services. No common use of towels or linens is permitted.
37
1. Compliance With Laws: The premises to be used must at all times comply with all applicable
state and local laws and regulations.
J. Use Of Massage Rooms:Any room in which a massage establishment provides massage
services may not be used for residential sleeping purposes.
K. Register Of Technicians; Business License: A register of all individuals employed as massage
technicians, and copies of their current CAMTC certifications and the massage establishment
owner's business license, must be maintained and available for inspection at all times during
regular business hours.
L. Certified Employee Only Areas: Each person present in any area of the massage establishment
outside the waiting area or other areas open to any member of the public must be a certified
massage practitioner or certified massage therapist or the massage establishment owner.
M. Display Of Permits And Certifications: The permits and certifications required by this chapter
must be displayed in an open and conspicuous public place on the premises. (Ord. 1476,2-5-
2013; amd. Ord. 1504, 2-17-2015)
4-10-13: EXCEPTIONS:
This chapter does not apply to the following classes of individuals, and no CAMTC certification is
required of such persons, while engaged in the performance of the duties of their respective
professions:
A. Acupuncturists who are duly certified to practice their profession in the state of California.
B. Barbers, beauticians, and cosmetologists with respect to scalp,feet, hands, and face massages,
who are duly permitted pursuant to Business And Professions Code section 7301 et seq., in
accordance with the limitations of their permits.
C. Nurses who are registered as such under the laws of the state of California.
D. Physicians, surgeons, chiropractors, osteopaths, or physical therapists who are duly permitted to
practice their respective professions in the state of California, or provide professional services in
lawful compliance with Corporations Code section 13401(a). (Ord. 1476, 2-5-2013; amd. Ord.
1504, 2-17-2015)
4-10-14: PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT:
Any massage establishment operated, conducted or maintained contrary to the provisions of this
chapter is unlawful and a public nuisance.The city attorney is authorized, in addition to or in lieu of
any other legal or criminal proceedings,to commence an action or proceeding for abatement,
removal or enjoinment of such massage establishment in the manner provided by law.The city
attorney may seek a court order to grant such relief to abate or remove such massage
establishments and restrain and enjoin any person from operating, conducting or maintaining such
an establishment contrary to the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 1476, 2-5-2013; amd. Ord. 1504, 2-
17-2015)
4-10-15: REVOCATION:
38
A. Grounds For Revocation: The director or city attorney may revoke approvals issued under this
chapter for one or more of the following grounds:
1. Fraud Or Deceit: That the applicant practiced fraud or deceit in obtaining an approval under
this chapter;
2. Violation Of Chapter: That the massage establishment owner,operator, massage technician,
or its employee, agent, independent contractor or other representative violated a provision or
provisions of this chapter;
3. Criminal Conviction:That the massage establishment owner, operator, massage technician,
or its employee, agent, independent contractor or other representative has been convicted in
a court of competent jurisdiction of any offense described in this chapter;
4. Improperly Maintained Facilities:That the facilities and operations of the massage
establishment are not kept in compliance with this chapter, and that the owner or operator
has failed to promptly remedy any deficiency of which they have been notified. For purposes
of this subsection, "notice" means notice given personally or by leaving notice at the
massage establishment premises, or by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the address
designated by the massage technician or establishment in accordance with this chapter;
5. Employment Of Uncertified Technicians: That the massage establishment has employed,
allowed or permitted an uncertified person to perform massage in the massage
establishment;
6. Error:That the approval was issued in error;
7. Civil Penalties:Assessment of three (3) or more civil penalties as provided by this chapter
during any six (6) month period; or
8. Prohibited Conduct: A massage establishment owner, operator, massage technician, or its
employee, agent, independent contractor or other representative has been found to have
engaged in prohibited conduct in violation of this chapter.
B. Notice Of Revocation: Upon a determination on the grounds to revoke an approval under this
chapter, the director or city attorney must cause a notice of revocation to be mailed by first class,
postage prepaid mail,to the address designated by the massage technician or establishment
pursuant to this chapter.
C. Suspension Or Revocation Of Conditional Use Permit: A conditional use permit issued to a
massage establishment may be suspended or revoked pursuant to title 15, chapter 23 of this
code. (Ord. 1504,2-17-2015)
4-10-16: CIVIL LIABILITY AND PENALTIES:
A. Any person violating any provision of this chapter is liable in a civil action brought by the city
attorney for an amount up to five hundred dollars ($500.00) per violation. Such person is also
liable for reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred by the city attorney in any civil proceeding
filed to enforce this chapter.
B. Enforcing this chapter through civil action may be filed as an alternative to criminal enforcement.
Civil enforcement does not require the violation to be knowing or wilful. A civil action cannot be
filed if the person is being criminally prosecuted.
C. Each violation of this chapter is a separate offense subject to the civil penalty.
D. The city attorney may settle any civil enforcement before or after the filing of a civil action by
imposing a civil penalty in an amount not exceeding the potential civil liability, including attorney
fees, set forth in this section. If such civil penalty is paid in full,the city attorney can agree not to
file civil or criminal actions or, if action has already been filed, may dismiss such action.
Imposition of all civil penalties is public record.
39
E. All civil fines must be deposited into the general fund. (Ord. 1476, 2-5-2013; amd. Ord. 1504, 2-
17-2015)
40
4-10-17: APPEAL:
Any person denied an approval under this chapter or a massage establishment owner or operator
whose approval has been revoked may appeal the denial or revocation in writing pursuant to the
appeal procedures provided by section 1-2A-15 et seq., of this code. Such appeal must be in writing
and must be filed with the city clerk not more than fifteen (15) days following the director's deposit
into the mail of the notice of denial or revocation sent to the applicant or massage establishment
owner or operator to the address listed by the applicant or massage establishment owner or operator
pursuant to this chapter.Any successful appeal will result in approval or reinstatement of an
approval and refund of any fines collected by the city. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any appeal of a
suspension or revocation of a conditional use permit issued to a massage establishment must
comply with title 15, chapter 23 of this code. (Ord. 1504, 2-17-2015)
41
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 15,2019
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding Environmental Assessment No. EA-1231,Zone Text
Amendment No. ZTA 18-05 to amend Article A of Chapter 7 of Title 15 of the El Segundo
Municipal Code related to the Medium Density Residential(MDR)overlay zone.This amendment
will preserve the existing overlay while making important updates to bring it into compliance with
the new Smoky Hollow Specific Plan. (Fiscal Impact: None)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Take testimony and other evidence as presented;
3. Introduce an ordinance approving Environmental Assessment EA-1231 and amend the El
Segundo Municipal Code related to the MDR overlay zone (ZTA 18-05);
4. Schedule second reading and adoption of the ordinance for February 5, 2019;
5. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible action related to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Proposed Ordinance No.
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2855
FISCAL IMPACT: None
STRATEGIC PLAN: N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Gregg McClain, Planning Manager
REVIEWED BY: Sam Lee,Planning & Building Safety Director
qA
APPROVED BY: Greg Carpenter, City Manager JX—
It is a long-standing policy of the City that Smoky Hollow would have only very limited
residential uses. The following excerpts are from the pre-November 1, 2018,text of the ESMC.
Each of these sections were deleted with the adoption of the new Smoky Hollow Specific Plan.
15-7A-1: PURPOSE: B. Moreover, it is the intent in identifying the long term potential
for residential use in the area designated to establish that residential use is explicitly
excluded from the remainder of the Smoky Hollow specific plan area, except for single
caretaker dwelling units provided for elsewhere in the plan.
15-11-2(C)(4) POLICIES: 1. Prohibit all residential uses south of Grand Avenue except
for single unit caretaker residences.
15-11-2(E)(1)(c) Floating Or Overlay Districts: (1) A medium density residential district
is provided north of Grand Avenue, should the rather substantial market potential for
42
residential development ever be sought by property owners. Under no circumstances is it
intended that residential uses remain south of Grand Avenue. The secondary residential
option may be allowed only upon conversion of an entire block or portion of a block
within the specific plan, so long as the adjacent portion outside the specific plan
boundary is already residential in character.
As a result of these long-established policies, and in an effort to simplify and streamline the
zoning, Staff intended to remove the MDR overlay in the process of updating the Smoky Hollow
Specific Plan(SHSP).
In addition, the site development standards for the MDR overlay state the following:
15-7A-4(B) Parcel Lot Area: All lots to be developed as multi-family residential must be
a minimum of two and one-half(2.5) acres in size or one complete block, whichever is
greater. However, existing lots less than two and one-half(2.5) acres in size, which are
totally surrounded by other zones and confined by existing streets shall be allowed to
develop without a variance.
It was noted that only two whole blocks and two portions of other blocks remained in the MDR
overlay. The two large blocks are between Kansas and Illinois Streets, south of Holly Street and
north of Grand Avenue. These blocks, for a variety of reasons, are unlikely to be wholly
activated for residential use, but would be feasible for residential development on the north
halves if that were permitted. The remaining bits of the overlay are on two small properties on
each side of Nevada Street north of Grand Avenue. These properties seem to be excluded from
activating the MDR because they are both under 2.5 acres and less than a whole block. The
second sentence of 15-7A-4(B) seems to offer the possibility to activate these partial-block sites,
but the intent and meaning of this sentence is so unclear as to make a determination;that these
properties could or could not activate subject to considerable doubt. For these reasons also, Staff
sought to have the MDR overlay deleted with the adoption of the SHSP.
At the public hearing for the SHSP,the City Council directed Staff to address the potential loss
of a property right held by owners in the MDR overlay. It is unclear, as stated above if any of the
MDR properties could feasible activate the MDR, but it was clear that the consensus of the City
Council was to not remove the MDR in the process of adopting the SHSP.
Staff addressed the incompatible elements of Article A with the new SHSP in the ordinance that
adopted the specific plan, leaving the MDR mostly intact. This amendment addresses the
remaining portions of the chapter to ensure complete compatibility with the General Plan,
Specific Plan, and ESMC, as well as to remove the ambiguity surrounding the minimum area to
activate. In addition, the development standards of the MDR are very similar to the development
standards of the R-3 zone, so rather than have two new nearly identical zones,this amendment
will set the final zone for activating the MDR as R-3, subject to the regulations and standards for
that zone.
Following is a comparison of differences in development standards between MDR and R-3. All
other standards are identical:
2
43
Minimum Lot Size: 7,000 square feet in R-3
No minimum for un-activated MDR
Having MDR activation result in an R-3 lot will add this restriction but have no significant
impact on development.
Setback, Grand Avenue: 30 feet in MDR, not addressed in R-3
Replacing MDR with R-3 would cause this standard to be deleted, so Staff is recommending that
this standard be retained for the blocks east of Kansas Street. It makes no sense to apply this
requirement for the properties at Nevada Street because of their small size and the adjacent
properties have much smaller setbacks.
Building Area: In R-3, lots under 15,000 square feet can be developed with one
unit per each 1,613 square feet. Larger lots are one per 2,420.
In MDR it is one per 2,420 for all lots
Although the inclusion of a lower area per unit standard for smaller lots appears to allow higher
density, there is no corresponding relief in setbacks, height or lot coverage. The net effect is
roughly the same density for a cluster of small lots as for a large lot.
As stated above, all other development standards for MDR and R-3 are the same.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The draft ordinance does not have the potential to cause significant effects on the environment
and,therefore, is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)pursuant to 14
Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3). The Ordinance amends the El Segundo Municipal Code to
require a discretionary land use permit for specified types of development which, in some cases,
do not currently require a discretionary land use permit. The addition of the discretionary permit
requirement will trigger the application of CEQA and allow the City to analyze the potential
environmental consequences of a proposed development project before making a decision on the
merits of an application. The Ordinance does not portend any development or changes to the
physical environment. Following an evaluation of possible adverse impacts, it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance will have a significant effect on the
environment. Rather, the primary purpose of the proposed Ordinance is to provide a mechanism
that will allow the City to require a CEQA evaluation of future development proposals meeting
specified thresholds.
3
44
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL
SEGUNDO APPROVING ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. ZTA 18-05
AMENDING ARTICLE A (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR)
ZONE) OF CHAPTER 7 (OVERLAY DISTRICTS) TO TITLE 15 (ZONING
REGULATIONS) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
The City Council of the City of EI Segundo does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. Since the original Smoky Hollow Specific Plan was developed, certain properties
at the northern edge of the specific plan area were designated for future
conversion from commercial to residential use. These properties were
designated with the Medium Density Residential (MDR) overlay.
B. The MDR overlay was designed to convert properties from the underlying base
zone (formerly Medium Manufacturing, now Smoky Hollow East) to MDR at some
unspecified future date.
C. The MDR overlay chapter of the ESMC contains development standards that are
very closely aligned to Multi-family residential (R-3) zone development standards.
Therefore, activating the overlay and applying the MDR standards as a zone
creates two nearly identical zones.
D. Several MDR overlay properties were activated prior to the new Smoky Hollow
Specific Plan taking effect on November 1, 2018, and were shown on the City's
official zoning map as "MDR Activated."
E. Previously activated MDR properties were rezoned as part of the Smoky Hollow
update in 2018. Their current zone is now R-3 and the "MDR Activated"
designation no longer exists on the zoning map.
F. For the remaining properties in the MDR overlay, activation after the effective
date of this ordinance will result in the activated properties zoning becoming R-3
and the properties simultaneously being removed from the Smoky Hollow
Specific Plan area.
G. On December 13, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed hearing on
the proposed Ordinance, received and considered a staff report and oral and
written testimony from the public, and adopted Planning Commission Resolution
No. recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance as
set forth herein.
45
H. On , 2019, the City Council held a duly-noticed hearing where it
received and considered a staff report, the Planning Commission's
recommendation, and oral and written testimony from the public.
SECTION 2: General Plan Findings. As required pursuant to Government Code
section 65860, the City Council finds that the proposed amendments to the EI Segundo
Municipal Code are consistent with the General Plan as follows:
A. This ordinance makes very minor changes to zoning or development
standards in the existing MDR overlay.
B. Considering all its aspects, the proposed ordinance will further the objectives
and policies of the General Plan and will not obstruct their attainment.
SECTION 3: Zone Text Amendment Findings. In accordance with ESMC Chapter 15-
26 (Amendments), and based on the findings set forth in Sections 1 and 2, the City
Council finds that the proposed ordinance is consistent with and necessary to carry out
the purpose of the ESMC as follows:
A. The ordinance 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. The ordinance changes the future activated MDR properties from attaining a
zone of"MDR Activated" to "R-3," which is consistent with previously
activated MDR properties, which are all currently zoned R-3.
SECTION 4: Article A of Chapter 7 of Title 15 is amended in its entirety to read as
follows:
ARTICLE A. MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) OVERLAY ZONE
15-7A-1: PURPOSE
A. The purpose of the medium density residential (MDR) zone is to provide for
an area within the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan area that is appropriate for
and capable of sustaining residential uses.
B. Moreover, it is the intent in identifying the long-term potential for residential
use in the area designated to establish that residential use is explicitly
excluded from the remainder of the Smoky Hollow specific plan area, except
for single caretaker dwelling units provided for elsewhere in the plan.
C. The MDR zone shall be considered a "floating zone" in that once a need is
identified, this zone can be activated. This floating zone for the Smoky Hollow
2
46
Specific Plan area attempts to recognize that future residential market forces
are anticipated in certain portions of the specific plan area and sensible land
use planning dictates their exact locations given adjacent land uses and
proximity to arterial streets.
D. In effect, this zone is not a true "floating zone" in that it does not add more
regulations over the existing Smoky Hollow East base zone. Rather, it is a
"holding zone" which can be activated and used in place of the base zone,
15-7A-2: ACTIVATION
The following processes activate the MDR zone:
A. A General Plan Amendment to change the designation for proposed activated
property from Smoky Hollow Specific Plan to Multi-Family Residential;
B. A Specific Plan Amendment to remove the proposed activated property from
the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan; and
C. A Zone Change application to change the zone of the proposed activated
property from Smoky Hollow East with MDR overlay to Multi-family
Residential (R-3) without MDR overlay.
15-7A-3: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The development standards that apply to the underlying base zone shall apply
unless and until the MDR is activated. If the MDR is properly activated, Multi-
family Residential (R-3) zoning standards shall apply to the activated property
along with the following additional standards:
A. The setback along Grand Avenue shall be 30 feet minimum for properties
east of Kansas Street, whether it is for a front or side yard.
B. Vehicular access to MDR activated properties may not be taken directly from
Grand Avenue.
SECTION 5. California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council finds that this
Ordinance does not have the potential to cause significant effects on the environment
and, therefore, the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3).
SECTION 6. Construction. This Ordinance must be broadly construed in order to
achieve the purposes stated herein. 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 herein.
3
47
SECTION 7. Severability. If any part of this Ordinance or its application is deemed
invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intended 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 8. The City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this
Ordinance, cause it to be entered into the City of EI Segundo's book of original
ordinances, make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting,
and, within 15 days after the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, cause a summary
thereof to be published or posted in accordance with California law.
4
48
SECTION 9. This Ordinance will go into effect thirty days after its passage and
adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2019.
Drew Boyles, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM.-
By:
ORM:By:
Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
I, Tracy Weaver, City Clerk of the City of EI 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. was duly introduced by said City Council at a regular meeting
held on the day of 2019, 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 2019, and the
same was so passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Tracy Weaver, City Clerk
5
49
RESOLUTION NO. 2855
A RESOLUTION OF THE EL SEGUNDO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. EA-1231 AND ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING EL SEGUNDO MUNICIPAL CODE ARTICLE A
(MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) ZONE) OF CHAPTER 7
(OVERLAY DISTRICTS) TO TITLE 15 (ZONING REGULATIONS) OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE
(Environmental Assessment 1231 and Zone Text Amendment 18-04)
The Planning Commission of the City of EI Segundo does resolve as follows'.
SECTION 1: The Planning Commission finds and declares that:
A. Since the original Smoky Hollow Specific Plan was developed, certain properties
at the northern edge of the specific plan area were designated for future
conversion from commercial to residential use. These properties were
designated with the Medium Density Residential (MDR) overlay.
B. The MDR overlay was designed to convert properties from the underlying base
zone (formerly Medium Manufacturing, now Smoky Hollow East) to MDR at some
unspecified future date.
C. The MDR overlay chapter of the ESMC contains development standards that are
very closely aligned to Multi-family residential (R-3) zone development standards.
Therefore, activating the overlay and applying the MDR standards as a zone
creates two nearly identical zones.
D. Several MDR overlay properties were activated prior to the new Smoky Hollow
Specific Plan taking effect on November 1, 2018, and were shown on the City's
official zoning map as "MDR Activated."
E. Previously activated MDR properties were rezoned as part of the Smoky Hollow
update in 2018. Their current zone is now R-3 and the "MDR Activated"
designation no longer exists on the zoning map.
F. For the remaining properties in the MDR overlay, activation after the effective
date of this ordinance will result in the activated properties zoning becoming R-3
and the properties simultaneously being removed from the Smoky Hollow
Specific Plan area.
G. On December 13, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed hearing on
the proposed Ordinance, received and considered a staff report and oral and
written testimony from the public, and adopted Planning Commission Resolution
No. 2844 recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance as
set forth herein.
Page 1
50
SECTION 2: General Plan Findings. As required pursuant to Government Code
section 65860, the City Council finds that the proposed amendments to the EI Segundo
Municipal Code are consistent with the General Plan as follows:
A. This ordinance makes very minor changes to zoning or development standards
in the existing MDR overlay.
B. Considering all its aspects, the proposed ordinance will further the objectives and
policies of the General Plan and will not obstruct their attainment.
SECTION 3: Zone Text Amendment Findings. In accordance with ESMC Chapter 15-
26 (Amendments), and based on the findings set forth in Sections 1 and 2, the City
Council finds that the proposed ordinance is consistent with and necessary to carry out
the purpose of the ESMC as follows:
A. The ordinance 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. The ordinance changes the future activated MDR properties from attaining a
zone of"MDR Activated" to R-3, which is consistent with previously activated
MDR properties, which are all currently zoned R-3.
SECTION 4. California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council finds that this
Ordinance does not have the potential to cause significant effects on the environment
and, therefore, the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3).
SECTION 5: Recommendation. For the foregoing reasons and based on the
information and findings included in the Staff Report and the whole of the administrative
record, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the
ordinance in a form substantially similar to the draft attached as Exhibit A, and
incorporated into this resolution by reference.
SECTION 6: Reliance on Record. Each and every one of the findings and
determination in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence,
both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The findings
and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the
Planning Commission in all respects and are fully and completely supported by
substantial evidence in the record as a whole.
SECTION 7: Limitations. The Planning Commission's analysis and evaluation of the
project is based on information available at the time of the decision. It is inevitable that
in evaluating a project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the
project will not exist. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate
assumptions.
Page 2
51
SECTION 8: This Resolution will remain effective until superseded by a subsequent
resolution.
SECTION 9: The Commission secretary is directed to mail a copy of this Resolution to
any person requesting a copy.
SECTION 10: This resolution shall take effect immediately.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of December, 2018.
Ryan Baldino, Chairperson
City of EI Segundo Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Sam Lee, Secretary
Baldino
Newman -
Wingate
Hoeschler -
Keldorf
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
By:
David King, Assistant City Attorney
Page 3
52
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 15,2019
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Unfinished Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to direct staff to enter into negotiations for an exclusive
franchise to EDCO Waste & Recycling Services (EDCO) to provide automated
residential and municipal solid waste hauling services. (Fiscal Impact: est. $7,620,000
over 7 years)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Direct staff to enter into negotiations with EDCO for an exclusive 7-year franchise
agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney, with annual estimated cost of
$1,088,530; or,
2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
CalRecycle Letter March 22, 2017—referral to Jurisdictional Compliance Unit
CalRecycle Letter May 10, 2017—60-day conferring period for JCU
CalRecycle Letter November 15, 2018 —Notice of Compliance Order Hearing
EDCO Differentiators
Solid Waste Program and Collections FAQ
FISCAL IMPACT: Included in Adopted Budget
Amount Budgeted: $920,000
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): 001-400-4206-6206
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal: IA El Segundo provides unparalleled service to internal and external
customers.
Objective: 2 City services are convenient, efficient and user-friendly for all
residents, businesses, and visitors.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: Were Environmental Considerations factored into
this purchase or policy change? YES
ORIGINATED BY: Ken Berkman, Public Works Director
Mark Hensley, City Attorney 02
APPROVED BY: Greg Carpenter, City Manager
3
53
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
At the July 17, 2018 meeting, the City Council directed staff to proceed with a Request for
Proposals (RFP) process to procure the next Residential Solid Waste Collections services
provider, as well as a Proposition 218 process that would require eligible residential dwellings to
pay a maximum of $20 per month for the services. Additionally, Council directed staff to
include both manual and automated services as base bid options, and to exclude 3- and 4-unit
multi-family complexes from the services in accordance with the City's municipal code, which
requires the City to provide refuse service to "single-family and two-family unit residences, not
including condominiums or stock cooperatives". Council also authorized a month-to-month
extension of Republic's contract for up to six months at a rate of$16.55 per month per eligible
dwelling, which will expire on April 30, 2019.
At the Sept 4, 2018 meeting, Council approved the scope of services to be included in the
Residential Solid Waste Collection RFP and authorized staff to seek bids.
At the December 18, 2018 Council meeting, staff presented the proposal interview and
evaluation process that resulted in a recommendation of EDCO to be offered the next 7-year
contract for residential one and two-unit property services as the top-rated provider.
In the first part of the review process a panel consisting of the Public Works Director, Finance
Director, General Services Manager (Public Works), Senior Management Analyst (Public
Works), and the City's Solid Waste Program Manager (Vice President) from SCS Engineers
reviewed each of the proposals and evaluated them based upon a series of 33 questions
specifically related to each of the key criteria of the RFP.
The results of the proposal evaluation process were as follows:
posal Scores and Ranking i
Rater EDCO WM RSI ATHENS
1 45 44 48 38
2 47 45 42 36
3 50 46 41 35
4 48 45 42 36
v 52 50 45 35
Total 242 230 218 180
Rank 1 2 3 4
Given the scoring spread, the panel invited the top three ranked proposers to continue on to the
interview phase: EDCO, Waste Management, and Republic Services.
Interviews were conducted by the same panel members on November 29, 2018 in City Hall, with
the addition of the City Manager, who is also a resident. They consisted of a 15-minute
presentation by the proposing team followed by a series of six questions asked of all proposers.
The last portion of the interview consisted of questions by panel members specific to the
company's proposal itself or follow up questions on the answers received.
54
At the conclusion of the interview process, the ranking of the proposers remained the same,
including Rater 1 revising their ranking to also have EDCO as the top ranked firm.
Costs
The proposers completed a series of pre-populated Cost Proposal Excel spreadsheets that were
provided to them once they indicated to staff they were interested in responding to the RFP. The
results, which included the alternate bids, were as follows:
Company Automated Manual
EDCO $ 1,088,530.08 $ 1 ,281 ,010.08
Waste Management $ 1,222,009.24 $ 1 ,717,669.72
Republic $ 1,098,641 .24 $ 1 ,222,983.32
When comparing automated and manual cost proposals, EDCO's automated bid would save the
City approximately $1.35M over the course of the proposed 7-year contract. When considering
the lowest cost automated provider(#1 ranked EDCO)to lowest cost manual provider(#3 ranked
Republic) over the proposed 7-year contract, the City would save approximately $940,000.
Compliance and the need to provide automated services
El Segundo is the only one of 88 cities in LA County that uses curbside manual collection for its
solid waste. One other city uses manual services, but it is not curbside. The hauler personnel
enter private property to retrieve the waste and bring it to the truck. Automated services are
safer, more effective, efficient, and cleaner, will inherently encourage residents to reduce their
waste stream, and will provide a specific green waste container that can also accept organic
material (food waste). The automated system will also facilitate compliance with the State's
solid waste regulations that are managed by the California Department of Resources, Recycling,
and Recovery (CalRecycle).
The lack of a residential green waste program was identified as a"gap" in the City's Solid Waste
Program by CalRecyle, who placed the City in its Jurisdictional Compliance Unit (JCU, see
attached letters). JCU staff conducted field visits to the City over the past year and noted
residents can dispose of green waste by self-hauling to the Public Works Yard, but there was
"little to no green waste material observed" at the Yard during their reviews. They also found
large amounts of green waste being disposed in the residential trash containers. Providing
automated green waste curbside service will address this "gap" and allow the City to more
accurately report on residential green waste disposal.
Implementing an automated program in 2019 will assist the City in complying with the pending
requirements of S131383, the Short Lived Climate Pollutants (SLCP) Act. The SLCP Strategy
requires California to reduce organic waste disposal 50 percent below 2014 levels by 2020 and
75 percent by 2025. The regulations are robust and require new organic waste collection,
recycling and procurement programs from residents and businesses, local government, and solid
waste facilities. The term organic waste includes food, green material, landscape and pruning
55
waste, organic textiles and carpets, lumber, wood, paper products, printing and writing paper,
manure, biosolids, digestate, and sludges.
SB1383 departs from previous recycling mandates in that it does not simply require diversion of
material from landfills; rather, that diverted material must also reduce methane generation. This
means certain methane-generating activities at landfills that were typically considered landfill
diversion under AB939, including use of green waste as alternative daily cover, will be
considered as disposal for the purposes of S131383. The regulations to implement SB1383 have
been finalized, and the formal review period will begin this month.
The implementation of SB1383 will significantly affect all stakeholders involved in the solid
waste industry. The regulations are extremely prescriptive, and describe the types of service and
containers that are to be provided to residents and businesses, defines what are considered
contaminants in the organics containers, facilities where the organic materials are to be taken for
processing, and the fines that can be imposed on the City and its residents for non-compliance.
The fines could be up to $10,000/day for the City and on a graduated scale for the residents.
The regulations define the minimum standards for organic waste collection services provided to
residents by jurisdictions, describe the efforts the jurisdictions must engage in to reduce
contaminants in the organics containers, require closed containers with lids along with container
color and labeling requirements, and establish recordkeeping requirements.
The RFP was developed with the requirements of SB1383 specifically in mind, in order for the
City to ensure it can maintain compliance with these new, more stringent requirements, including
requiring the bidders to indicate what facilities the material would be taken to for processing, in
further support of compliance with SB1383.
The existing or proposed residential manual collection services do not meet the present
requirements for the City under A13939, nor will they meet the future requirements for S131383.
The manual collection service provides minimal capacity for recyclables, which results in
recyclables being put into the trash containers. Furthermore, the City's manual program
provides for unlimited trash services, which does not incentivize residents to separate their
recyclables and organics from their waste, also resulting in cross-contamination. While the City
as a whole complies with AB939's requirement of diverting over 50% of solid waste away from
landfills, our residential program falls far short of that. In comparison to an automated system,
manual collections will make it much more difficult for the City to provide a good faith,
CalRecycle-compliant effort to meet residential AB939 requirements and provide a green waste
collection program. This will likely require additional City staff or consultant services to provide
outreach, education and monitoring of the City's waste disposal stream and diversion rates, as
well as more coordination with and oversight by CalRecycle staff. The manual collection service
will not meet any of the collection requirements described in SB1383.
There have been several cities throughout California that have been fined due to non-compliance
with CalRecycle's programs, including three in Los Angeles County. Although CalRecycle has
the authority to enforce penalties on non-compliant jurisdictions, CalRecycle's intention is to
partner and build relationships with its jurisdictions and help them meet the current regulation
terms. As a result of the JCU's investigation and CalRecycle hearing held on December 17,
2018, by the end of this month CalRecycle is expected to issue Compliance Order(CO) upon the
City. A Local Implementation Plan (LIP) will need to be prepared and compliance, or at a
56
minimum "good faith efforts", must be demonstrated within a timeframe still to be determined,
or fines could be levied against the City. Specifically, when a jurisdiction fails to implement the
conditions of its CO, CalRecycle conducts a penalty hearing to determine whether to exercise its
authority to fine the jurisdiction up to $10,000 per day. The following are examples of LA
County cities that reached that point and were fined.
City of Gardena
At a public hearing on January 14, 2003, CalRecycle issued Compliance Order No. IWMA
BR03-02 to the City of Gardena. At that public hearing, it was determined that the City achieved
a 2000 diversion rate of 13 percent and had failed to make a good faith effort to implement the
required programs by inadequately handling diversion of waste from its commercial sector.
At a public hearing on September 16, 2003, CalRecycle ruled that the City of Gardena failed to
meet the conditions of its compliance order, and CalRecycle fined the city $70,000. The fine
was equal to approximately $1,460 per day for every day the LIP was late.
City of Cerritos
At a public hearing on February 13, 2007, the Board issued Compliance Order IWMA
BR07-02 to the City of Cerritos. At that public hearing, the Board found that the City achieved a
preliminary 2004 diversion rate of 45 percent, had not sufficiently implemented solid waste
diversion programs identified in its planning documents, and failed to fully implement programs
in their Plan of Correction by the December 31, 2003 due date.
At a public hearing on January 23, 2008, the Board ruled that the City of Cerritos failed to meet
the conditions of the CO. The Board found the City had not made a good-faith effort to
implement its LIP by expanding its residential recycling, commercial collection program, and
enact a construction and demolition ordinance. As a result, the Board fined the City a one-time
penalty of$82,800. Furthermore, the Board voted to impose a contingent fine of$3,600 per day
on the City until programs were fully implemented. The Board delegated to its Executive
Director the authority to review the City's progress in implementing the three programs and
suspend the contingent fine should the City successfully complete them by March 31, 2008.
Finally, to ensure continued full program implementation, the Board imposed a potential penalty
amount of$3,600 per day if the City failed to fully implement or to continue to implement its
LIP tasks through March 31, 2009, resulting in a fine of$82,800.
City of Maywood
On July 18, 2018, CalRecycle considered the imposition of administrative civil penalties on the
City of Maywood for failure to comply with Compliance Order CO 015-001. Testimony was
heard and evidence submitted by both the City and CalRecycle staff.
On August 6, 2018, CalRecycle determined that the City failed to comply with the CO and failed
to show that it had made a good faith effort to implement its solid waste recycling programs. As
part of the determination, a one-time penalty of $55,440 was imposed for failure to meet the
terms of the CO. In addition, the City is required to submit and implement a revised LIP. The
penalty was based upon a fine of$280 per day, beginning from the date that full compliance was
to be achieved (January 1, 2018) through the date of the penalty hearing (July 18, 2018).
57
How does automated collection work?
Automated trash collection services has been around for decades in the US. In general, the
process involves wheeling carts to the curb and placing them in the street the morning of
collection day. The City's bid package requested 95-gallon cart services as the baseline, but
smaller options (64- and 32-gallons) are available at no charge to the owner. Typical manual
cans have a 32-gallon capacity. Unlike the other proposers, EDCO is also offering one (1) free
additional trash cart, three (3) free additional recycle, and three (3) additional organics carts to
customers, thus providing an effective transition from the unlimited solid waste services that are
provided today, while at the same time encouraging recycling. They will also remove
customers' existing cans at no cost as part of the transition.
As part of its proposal for El Segundo, EDCO conducted field visits and used GIS routing
software to determine that collections can be reduced from the current 5-day per week to 4-day
per week services, with no collections needed on Friday. Given that the carts would be required
to be curbside in the street, it is most effective to have the streets swept the day after trash
collections. EDCO included paying for the cost of the installation of any new street sweeping
signage in its bid. As is typical in the industry, EDCO, City staff, and the City's street sweeping
contractor will coordinate the schedules to deliver maximum efficiency and minimize impacts on
residents, including the duration of the no parking hours for street sweeping.
3- and 4-unit properties
There are 85 three-unit and 104 four-unit properties in the City, which will all be part of the
transition and outreach process in March and April to ensure they receive the opportunity to
select the best hauler for their property's needs, including EDCO in this case, as the City Council
did when the 5- and 6-unit properties were removed from the eligible residential property service
list in 2011.
Why EDCO?
EDCO far surpassed the competition in the bid and interview evaluation process. The
Differentiator Spreadsheet that was included in the December 18th report is provided as an
attachment. It highlights what set EDCO apart from the other haulers to make them the top-
ranked bidder, based upon the panel's review of the proposals and the interviews. While the list
of differentiators is extensive, there are several critical ones that need to be highlighted as the
City moves forward.
1. Collections: only EDCO analyzed our City as part of their proposal and offered 4-day per
week collections; Near Zero Renewable Natural Gas trucks; one additional trash cart and
three additional recycling and three additional organics carts, at no charge. This reduces
the number of days trucks are on our streets while also providing the easiest transition
from the unlimited waste disposal for the residents.
2. Comnliance: only EDCO offered to provide full compliance with all current and in-
development CalRecycle regulations with no contract disclaimers or potential requests
for additional compensation, and only EDCO offered an estimated compliant 53%
diversion rate for our residential and City contract collections without caveats, qualifiers
58
or additional costs. EDCO has also proposed a robust education and outreach program.
Outreach and education is another CalRecycle compliance "gap", and requires significant
enhancements from the existing efforts.
3. Billing: only EDCO has experience with combined property owner and City billing,just
like our City will need to do going forward should the Council choose to commence the
$20/month per eligible property service charge that was approved via the recent
Proposition 218 ballot process.
4. Experience: only EDCO has the requisite experience of transitioning cities from both an
existing hauler and manual, unlimited trash collections to automated cart services.
5. Customer Service: only EDCO offered text messaging communications for customers,
and if the resident remains unsatisfied they can call the President of the company.
EDCO provided a detailed draft schedule in their proposal demonstrating a path from agreement
execution through and beyond the anticipated May 1, 2019 service initiation date, centered
around a strong public outreach and education campaign, and staff will be sure to include the 3-
and 4-unit dwellings that will no longer be required to use EDCO once the new services start.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
The recommendation to commence automated solid waste collections in the City is also based
upon its inherent environmental benefits. In addition to the critical need to regain compliance
with CalRecycle's regulations noted in this report, automated services benefit the environment in
several ways.
Automated collections are neater and more efficient. This is one reason EDCO can offer 4-day
as opposed to 5-day collections. As noted in the differentiators, EDCO has near zero NOx
emission Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) vehicles that will be used in the City, which emit much
fewer pollutants than CNG vehicles, and are already compliant with future State NOx and
petroleum reduction goals. In addition, fewer collection days and the closed containers that
automated services provides would reduce the possibilities of vermin and small predators (such
as coyotes) impacting the City in the future.
Given all the factors noted, staff respectfully recommends the City Council direct staff to enter
into negotiations for an exclusive franchise with EDCO Waste & Recycling Services (EDCO) to
provide automated residential and municipal solid waste hauling services. With Council's
authorization, staff will immediately commence negotiations with EDCO, and return in February
seeking approval of the Franchise Agreement.
59
California Environmental Protection Agencv Edmund G. Brown,Jr.,Governor
Cal Recycle 02 DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY
10011 STREET,SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95814•WWW.CALRECYCLE.CA.GOV•(916)322-4027
P.O.Box 4025 MS 9A,SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95812
March 22, 2017
Ron Fajardo, General Services Manager
City of EI Segundo
350 Main Street
EI Segundo, CA 90245
Dear Mr. Fajardo:
We are writing regarding the status of CalRecycle's review of whether City of EI
Segundo is in compliance with meeting AB 939 requirements. Public Resources Code
(PRC) Section 41825 specifies a schedule for this review and requires CalRecycle to
make a finding of whether each jurisdiction was in compliance with PRC Section 41780
during the review period. Additionally, both AB 341 and AB 1826 specifically authorize
CalRecycle to conduct reviews of mandatory commercial recycling programs (PRC
Section 42649.3(h)) and/or mandatory commercial organics recycling programs (PRC
Section 42649.82(g)(2)) at any time.
The 2012-2015 Jurisdiction Review, which is being finalized, is CalRecycle's
independent evaluation of each jurisdiction's progress in implementing its Source
Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and Household Hazardous Waste Element
(HHWE) programs, in meeting the AB 939 diversion requirement, and in implementing
AB 341 and AB 1826. Pursuant to AB 341 and AB 1826 (PRC Section 42649), each
Jurisdiction is required to implement a Mandatory Commercial Recycling and Organics
Recycling program. These laws require that your Jurisdiction conducts education,
outreach, and monitoring activities annually to covered businesses and multifamily
dwellings and provides an update to CalRecycle each reporting year. AB 1826 also
requires that each jurisdiction address other activities, such as infrastructure, etc., and
report that annually to CalRecycle.
As a result of this review, CalRecycle may find that:
1) a jurisdiction is meeting the requirements of AB 939 because:
a. it has adequately implemented its diversion programs and has achieved
the diversion requirement, including MCR; or
b. while it has not achieved the diversion requirement, it has made a good
faith effort to implement diversion programs; or
2) a jurisdiction has failed to adequately implement its SRRE, including MCR,
and/or HHWE and the process should commence to consider whether issuance
of a compliance order would be appropriate. Jurisdictions that fail to satisfy the
ORIGINAL PRINTED ON 100 o POSTCONSUMER CONTENT,PROCESSED CHLORINE FREF PAPFR
60
conditions of a compliance order may be subject to a fine of up to $10,000 per
day.
As a result of the review, management has determined that an independent review of
your jurisdiction's programs is necessary. This review will be handled by the Jurisdiction
Compliance Unit (JCU). As CalRecycle staff has previously discussed with you, the
following programs have not been adequately implemented and have been identified for
further review:
• Mandatory Commercial Recycling (MCR) -Although there has been some steps
taken on the part of the City to implement additional monitoring to ensure
covered businesses/multi-family complexes are receiving information about AB
341 and document those that are recycling, LAMD staff identified remaining gaps
with regards to monitoring what education and outreach is provided to
businesses by haulers, the haulers are not providing information to the City to
confirm number of businesses that are subject to the law and which ones do/ do
not have recycling, and the efforts to follow up with businesses not recycling is
either not taking place or is unknown.
• Residential - LAMD staff have concerns regarding lack of curbside green waste
collection, and whether or not a drop-off green waste program is an effective
alternative. The amount of green waste collected through the drop-off program
has fluctuated throughout the review cycle. In addition, monitoring of the
residential program is needed to ensure residents know about program options
and how to participate. In addition, the City needs to ensure its permitted haulers
are providing education and outreach to multi-family residents as well as
promoting recycling options to multi-family complexes.
• Commercial - LAMD staff identified issues with City's commercial program with
regards to lack of oversight over hauler activities. Haulers do not report
information about their program efforts to the City. Without information about
education and outreach taking place and/or tonnage information from the
haulers, the City does not have adequate information to address potential issues
such as lack of participation, contamination, etc. More information is needed
about recycling that is taking place at public schools, as well as the total number
of businesses in the City, which would assist as well in relation to monitoring of
the commercial program and how to target the City's resources.
• Construction & Demolition (C&D) — LAMD staff could not confirm that City
providing project applicants any information about C&D management either
through promotion of designated haulers that would divert a minimum 50% of
material collected, the required use of facilities by applicants to ensure 50% of
material handled will be diverted, and/or promotion of C&D management
61
requirements through CalGreen that would require a minimum of 50% recovery
from many permitted construction and demolition projects.
■ JCU will conduct an independent assessment and may determine that there are
additional programs that need further evaluation. JCU will then determine
whether to recommend that CalRecycle issue an Order of Compliance, as
provided by PRC Section 41825. All SRRE and/or HHWE program findings will
be presented for Jurisdiction compliance consideration subsequent to JCU's
completed investigation.
Staff from JCU will be contacting you directly regarding their program review process.
Please direct future communications and any questions or concerns regarding this letter
or the JCU review to Ms. Kathleen Marsh, JCU Supervisor, at (916) 341-6475.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Wallin, Section Manager, South Section, CalRecycle
cc: Kathy Marsh, Supervisor, CalRecycle
Primitivo Nunez, Supervisor, CalRecycle
Apollo Fraidany, Environmental Scientist, CalRecycle
62
California Environmental Protection Aoencv Edmund G.Brown,Jr.,Governor
CalRecycle03 DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY
10011 STREET,SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95814•WWW.CALRECYCLE.CA.GOV•(916)322-4027
P.O.BOX 4025,SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95812
May 10,2017 Confirmation Number: 7008 1140 0002 3861 7129
The Honorable Suzanne Fuentes
Mayor
City of El Segundo
350 Main Street
El Segundo, CA 90245
Subject: City of El Segundo's Notice of 60-Day Conferring Period for Potential Compliance
Enforcement
Dear Mayor Fuentes:
On March 21, 2017,the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery(CalRecycle)made a
finding that the City of El Segundo's (City) 2012-2015 formal review of the waste diversion
programs (Public Resources Code(PRC) section 41780) as well as Mandatory Commercial
Recycling(MCR)law(PRC section 42649 et al.) implementation required an independent
review by CalRecycle's Jurisdiction Compliance Unit(JCU). The purpose of JCU's independent
review is to determine whether the City has complied with the requirements of PRC section
41780 and PRC section 42649 et al. Upon conclusion of this review, CalRecycle will begin the
process of considering whether issuance of a compliance order would be appropriate.
Jurisdictions that fail to satisfy the conditions of a compliance order could be subject to a fine of
up to $10,000 per day.
The City was notified of the March 21, 2017 finding by the Local Assistance and Market
Development(LAMD)Branch in a letter sent to your General Services Manager, Ron Fajardo
(Attachment 1). The letter stated why an independent review of the City's Source Reduction and
Recycling Element(SRRE)and MCR implementation was going to commence.
This letter initiates the 60-day conferring period required by PRC Section 41825(c). The 60-day
conferring period allows both the City and JCU an opportunity to discuss all waste diversion
efforts taking place. Through the conferring period a review of all of the City's efforts to
implement waste diversion programs in addition to a review of the materials being disposed will
be conducted. This review will include field evaluations of all diversion programs and the
facilities processing both recyclables and disposed waste. The conferring period may last longer
than 60 days;however, it must be completed prior to beginning the process to consider whether a
compliance order should be issued.
(Over)
ORIGINAL PRINTED ON 100%POSTCONSUMER CONTENT,PROCESSED CHLORINE FREE PAPER
63
Mayor Fuentes May 10,2017
City of E(Segundo Page 2
60-Day Conferring Letter
A member of JCU will be contacting Ron Fajardo to arrange for an initial meeting. If you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at(916) 341-6203.
Sincerely,
Trevor O'ShaugllE ssy
Jurisdiction Compliance Unit
Waste Permitting, Compliance and Mitigation Division
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
Attachment 1: March 22,2107, letter to Ron Fajardo, General Services Manager
cc: Ron Fajardo, General Services Manager
Ken Berkman, Public Works Director
Case File
64
California Environmental Protection Aqency Edmund G.Brown,Jr.,Governor
Calftcydez DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY
10011 STREET,SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95814•WWW.CALRECYCLE.CA.GOV•(916)322-4027
P.O.Box 4025,SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95812
November 15,2018
Certified Mail 7012 2920 0000 5426
The Honorable Drew Boyles
Mayor
City of El Segundo
350 Main Street
El Segundo, CA 90245
Subject: 30-Day Notice of Intent to Issue the City of El Segundo a Compliance Order for Failure to
Adequately Implement its Source Reduction and Recycling Element(SRRE)and Implement
California's Recycling of Commercial Solid Waste,referred to as the Mandatory Commercial
Recycling(MCR)law
Dear Mayor Boyles:
The purpose of this letter is to formally notify the City of El Segundo(City)that the Department of
Resources Recycling and Recovery(Department)will be considering issuing the City a Compliance
Order at a public hearing on December 17,2018.
Department staff conducted a review of the City's implementation of its Source Reduction and Recycling
Element(SRRE)programs and compliance with California Public Resources Code section(PRC)41780.
Department staff also reviewed the City's implementation of,and compliance with, California's
Recycling of Commercial Solid Waste Law,referred to as the Mandatory Commercial Recycling(MCR)
law(PRC sections 42649-42649.7 and Title 14 California Code of Regulations(CCR)sections 18835-
18839).
Based on Department staffs observations and information gathered,deficiencies in SRRE program
implementation have been identified to include,but are not limited to: I
• Commercial Diversion program(including the multi-family diversion efforts);
• Green Waste Diversion program;
■ Special Collection Seasonal Events; and
• Education and outreach related to these and other City programs and efforts.
Furthermore,Department staff found that the City is failing to comply with the requirements of the MCR
law. Based on Department staff s observations and information gathered,deficiencies in program
implementation have been identified to include,but are not limited to:
• The City did not implement a commercial solid waste recycling program that was designed to
divert commercial solid waste from businesses within the City which are subject to PRC section
42649.2 and Title 14 CCR section 18837.
■ The City did not provide documentation supporting the efforts it has taken to notify businesses
and multi-family complexes of noncompliance with the MCR law(PRC section 42649.3 (d) and
Title 14 CCR section 18838(a)(2)).
• The City's Annual Reports for the review period did not fully document the City's progress in
implementing the requirements of the MCR law(PRC section 42649.3 (g)and Title 14 CCR
section 18838 (h)).
ONAIINAL PRINTEDON IOU%IV)STi;ONSOMER OONTEW..PROC M CHLORINE FREE PAPER 65
Department staff considered the good faith effort factors for SRRE(PRC section 41825(e)(l)-(5))and
MCR(PRC section 42649.3 (i)(1)-(7))program implementation. Based on the full analysis completed,
Department staff found that the City has not made a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of
the law.
As part of the Compliance Order,the City would be directed to develop a Local Implementation Plan
(LIP). The LIP will identify a strategy for program enhancements,and local actions necessary to enable
the City to achieve the diversion requirements of PRC section 41780 and meet the requirements of the
MGR law. Failure to meet the requirements of the Compliance Order may result in civil penalties of up to
$10,000.00 per day.
Department staff strongly recommends that you or your City's representative attend the public hearing at
which a Compliance Order will be considered. At the public hearing,the City's representative will have
an opportunity to present the City's program implementation efforts,and/or any other special
circumstances the City would like the Department to consider. The representative should also be prepared
to answer any questions from the Department.The public hearing details are as follows:
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Public Hearing
Date: December 17,2018
Time: 1:30 pm
Location: Joe Serna Jr., Cal/EPA Building
Conference Room 550
10011 Street, 5`h Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
The full Public Hearing packet outlining the Compliance Order will be available on our website at
httns://www.calrecvcle.ca.aov/PublicMeetinL,ten(10)days before the Public Hearing.
Should you have any questions about this letter or the upcoming hearing,please contact Alan Ilusorio at
(916)322-1896 or Alan.11usorio@calrecycle.ca.gov.
Respectfully,
TrevorO'Shaughnessy,Manage
Jurisdiction and Product Enforcement Section
cc: Ken Berkman,Director of Public Works, City of El Segundo
Margaret Kashuba,Environmental Scientist,Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
Alan Ilusorio,Supervisor,Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
Case File
2 66
EDCO DIFFERENTIATORS
RFP Requirement Differentiator
Weekly Solid Waste Collection Conducted field reviews, used GIS system to propose 4-day collections,which
eliminates Friday collections. Sweeping proposed for day after collections; will
pay for all signage changes.
Invest in the latest clean-air technology(2017)Near Zero Renewable Natural Gas
(RNG)trucks,which provide almost zero emissions of Nitrous Oxides (NOx).
These vehicles meet the State's 2023 NOx and 2031 petroleum reduction goals.
RNG is produced from decomposed organic matter.
32- or 64-gallon carts can be substituted at no cost to the property owner.
Additional trash cart for each dwelling at no charge.
Up to three additional recycling carts for each dwelling at no charge.
Up to three additional organics carts for each dwelling at no charge.
Partnership with Food Finders to recover perishable, nonperishable and prepared
foods.
Compliance with CalRecycle Regulations Full compliance,with no disclaimers or potential requests for contract
amendments. Executive Team includes a Sustainability Manager who will work
directly with City staff to ensure all information and reporting is provided.
Diversion—EDCO does not own any landfills, so they are committed to
recycling and reducing the waste stream. Their plan estimates increasing El
Segundo's diversion rate to 53.1%,without caveats, qualifiers, or additional
costs.
Owns and operates the EDCO Recycling& Transfer(ER&T) facility in Signal
Hill, under permit with LA County Department of Environmental Health and
concurred with by CalRecycle. Five-year permit review process completed 2016.
rn
EDCO DIFFERENTIATORS
RFP Requirement Differentiator
Bulky Item Pickup Primary goal to ensure materials do not go to landfills, by distributing reusable
items such as sofas and mattresses to various charities and non-profits.
City Sponsored Events Will provide public education to promote reduce, reuse, recycle, as well as
financial and personnel support.
Bi-Annual Clean Up Weeks and Shredding Events Will provide free mulch to residents.
Billing Only hauler with combined property owner and agency billing experience.
Transition Plan Meet with City staff weekly upon Franchise Agreement approval by Council.
Two new RNG trucks are ready for our anticipated start date.
Already determined draft routing plans with field reviews and GIS software. All
parking restriction signage replaced at zero cost to City, as necessary for new
routing.
At least six public workshops, as well as presentations at service clubs,
community events, as desired.
Hire and train additional drivers,with preference given to City residents and
existing Republic drivers.
Drivers will have driven each route at least five times prior to service.
rn
00
EDCO DIFFERENTIATORS
RFP Requirement Differentiator
Local Applicable El Segundo Experience Rancho Palos Verdes (20 10) -Transition from another hauler for twice-weekly,
manual, unlimited, residential solid waste collections to weekly, automated cart
services. Over 45,000 cans replaced with carts.
La Mirada (2009) - Transition from another hauler for exclusive residential,
commercial, and industrial services. Over 50,000 carts replaced.
Lakewood (2013; 2017)—Transition from manual service with no curbside
recycling or greenwaste collection to fully automated collection. Over 30,000
carts.
City of Escondido (2015)—Transition from manual to automated green waste
collections. Over 50,000 cans replaced with carts.
City of Coronado (1993)—Transition from manual, unlimited, free residential
service to automated, as well as combined billing of the property owners and the
City. This combined billing protocol still exists today.
Proposed EDCO executive team members were directly responsible for the
transitions noted above.
- Steve South,President and CEO
- Efrain Ramirez, Senior Vice President
- Mark Perumean, General Manager
- Marty Simonoff, Director of Public Affairs
Customer Service Direct text messaging communications for residents. If a customer is not
ultimately satisfied, (s)he may speak to the President.
24-hour phone access with President/CEO; GM; and Director of Operations.
rn
co
EDCO DIFFERENTIATORS
RequirementRFP Differentiator
Outreach and Education Dedicated internal team to promote recycling. General Manager, Director of
Communications, Sustainability Manager, and Field Representative will meet
with City staff quarterly to coordinate outreach materials and strategy.
City-specific website at edcodisposal.com, including service day map and
residential "diversion calculator".
Committed to staffing a booth at City events to distribute educational materials.
No additional costs; included in proposal.
Cost Lowest cost by approximately$10,000 per year under 3rd ranked proposer and
$134,000/year under 2nd ranked proposer.
0
f�SEG�NQ�
w
{�.tl�rill�lf ,•;
SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS FACTS AND FIGURES:
WHAT EL SEGUNDO RESIDENTS NEED TO KNOW
January 15, 2019 City Council Meeting
The City understands there are many questions regarding the selection of the next residential trash
hauler and type of service that the City Council will be considering on January 15th, 2019. The
City is providing the following to address the questions and concerns of the community.
If have any questions that are not answered below, please contact Jasmine Allen in the Public
Works Department at 310-524-2365 orjallen@elsegundo.org.
Project History
At the July 17, 2018 meeting, the City Council directed staff to proceed with a Request for
Proposals(RFP)process to procure the next Residential Solid Waste Collections services provider,
as well as a Proposition 218 process that would require eligible residential dwellings to pay a
maximum of$20 per month for the services. Additionally, Council directed staff to include both
manual and automated services as base bid options, and to exclude 3- and 4-unit multi-family
complexes from the services in accordance with the City's municipal code,which requires the City
to provide refuse service to "single-family and two-family unit residences, not including
condominiums or stock cooperatives".
At the Sept 4, 2018 meeting, Council approved the scope of services to be included in the
Residential Solid Waste Collection RFP and authorized staff to seek bids.
At the December 18, 2018 Council meeting, staff presented the proposal interview and evaluation
process that resulted in a recommendation that EDCO be offered the next 7-year contract for
residential one and two-unit property services as the top-rated provider.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: How were the proposals rated?
A: The proposals were evaluated based upon a series of 33 questions specifically related to each
of the key criteria of the RFP.
71
Rater EDCO WMI RSI ATHENS
1 45 44 48 38
2 47 45. 42 36
3 50 46, 41 35
4 48 45 42 36
6 52 50 , 45 35
Total 242 230 218 180
Rank 1 2 3 4
Given the scoring spread, the panel invited the top three ranked proposers to continue on to the
interview phase: EDCO, Waste Management, and Republic Services.
Q: Who conducted the interviews?
A: The interview panel consisted of the City Manager (El Segundo resident), the City's Public
Works Director,Finance Director, General Services Manager(Public Works), Senior Management
Analyst (Public Works), and the Solid Waste Program Manager (Vice President) from SCS
Engineers.
Q: What is the cost comparison of manual vs. automated service over the proposed 7-year
contract?
A: When considering the lowest cost automated provider(#I ranked EDCO)to lowest cost manual
provider (#3 ranked Republic) over the proposed 7-year contract period, the City would save
approximately $940,000 by choosing the automated provider.
Q: How many other cities in LA County use manual service?
A: El Segundo is the only city in LA County that uses curbside manual collection for its solid
waste. Only one other city uses manual services, but they are not curbside collections — hauler
staff actually go onto private property to get the trash.
Q: Why Automated?
A: Automated services are safer, more effective, efficient, and cleaner,will encourage residents to
reduce their waste stream, and will provide a specific green waste container that can accept organic
material (food waste). The automated system will facilitate compliance with the State's solid
waste regulations that are managed by the California Department of Resources, Recycling, and
Recovery (CalRecycle).
Q: Can the City be fined if it does not comply with CalRecycle's regulations?
A: Yes,and fines for non-compliance can be up to $10,000 per day. The lack of a residential green
waste program was identified as a "gap" in the City's Solid Waste Program by CalRecycle.
Implementing an automated program in 2019 will provide a residential green waste program and
assist the City in complying with the pending CalRecycle requirements.
Q: How large will the automated carts be?
A: The City's bid package requested 95-gallon cart services as the baseline, but smaller options
(64- and 32-gallons) are available at no charge to the owner. The carts have wheels and lids so
they are easy to move and provide much greater containment of trash,which subsequently reduces
the potential for animal intrusions.
72
Q: How many carts will each household receive?
A: Three (3), at a minimum. If selected, EDCO is also offering one (1) free additional trash cart,
three (3) free additional recycle carts, and three (3) additional organics carts to customers, thus
providing the easiest transition from the unlimited solid waste services that are provided today,
while at the same time encouraging recycling. They will also remove customers' existing cans, if
requested, at no cost as part of the transition.
Q: What will happen to the 3- and 4-unit properties?
A: There are 85 three-unit and 104 four-unit properties in the City, which will all be part of the
transition and outreach process in March and April to ensure they receive the opportunity to select
the best hauler for their property's needs.
Q: Will we still have the City Yard trash and recycling drop-off?
A: Yes.
Q: Can automated trucks use the City's narrow streets and alleys?
A: Yes. Many cities have narrow streets and alleys that are served by automated collection. As
long as the truck can fit down the street, they can pick up the carts. As the trash and recyclables
are picked up presently on those streets and alleys, there will not be any difference with an
automated system. The automated trucks are similar size to the current ones being used to manually
collect within the City.
Q: How will special event trash and large pick-ups be handled?
A: The following services will continue under the proposed contract:
• Four bulky item pick-ups per year(six items per pickup maximum)
• Bi-Annual Clean-Up Weeks and Shredding Events
• Holiday tree collection
• Abandoned item collection in public right-of-way
Q: How will residents manage Amazon and other large boxes?
A: If the boxes are too large, you can break down the boxes to fit into the recycle cart. If EDCO
is selected, residents can also request up to three (3) free additional recycle carts.
Q: Do we have to go automated? Can we stay manual? If so—how would green waste work?
A: The City could continue manual collections; however, the City will not be able to achieve
compliance with the State's current and pending laws. While the City as a whole complies with
A13939's requirement of diverting over 50% of solid waste away from landfills, our residential
program falls far short of that. Unlimited manual service, which has been proven to be
contaminated (green, trash and some recycle in cans together) by CalRecycle's audit, will not be
compliant. With manual service, residents would need to provide their own containers for trash
and organics/green waste. SB1383 is a new organics disposal law; the regulations to implement
SB1383 are expected to be approved early this year and require compliance in 2022. It is different
than previous laws in that "generators", which include single-family homeowners, can be fined
directly by the State for non-compliance, not just cities.
73
Q: Is there a third truck with green waste pickup?
A: Yes.
Q: How many days per week would EDCO pick up vs.Republic? How many do we currently
have?
A: EDCO proposed 4-day collections Monday— Thursday. We currently are on a 5-day Monday
to Friday cycle for residential collection with Republic.
Q: Where do automated carts get placed — in the street or on the sidewalk? How does this
impact parking? What is going to happen with the street sweeping schedule?
A: Carts would be placed in the street at the curb for collection. The carts could take up curb or
driveway area until the collection occurs and the carts are retrieved,depending on each individual's
preference. Vehicles could be parked on the street and carts placed next to them or in front of the
owner's driveway, or vehicles could be parked in driveways and carts placed at the curb.
Street sweeping is most effective with no parking regulations after trash collection day,but this is
something the City will review and program with the selected hauler and our street sweeping
contractor to maximize efficiency and minimize impacts on residents. EDCO included paying for
new no parking signage in their bid.
Q: How was Republic going to handle green waste with manual?
A: As requested in the RFP, via owner-provided containers.
Q: Will Republic employees be offered employment if the City chooses EDCO?
A: Yes,that was a request in the RFP. EDCO said not only drivers,but"any displaced"employees
from the previous hauler would be offered employment. For drivers, EDCO stated City residents
and existing drivers would have a"hiring preference".
Please watch a short video to see the difference between the Automated vs. Manual collection
methods: httos://voutu.be/TsJiiKuNs4o (https://youtu.be/TsjjiKuNs4o)
More Questions? Please contact Jasmine Allen at Public Works Dept. 310-524-2365 or
1 allen(a'c lseau n do.org.
74
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 15, 2019
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Unfinished Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Rescission of Brown Act Commitment - In Accordance with Government Code Section 54960.2
(e), consideration and possible action to rescind the commitment made by the City Council on
November 5,2013,not to hold further closed session meetings regarding real property negotiations
with regard to ESCenterCal, LLC's ("CenterCal") proposal to enter into a Ground Lease
Agreement to lease the driving range portion of the Lakes Golf Course from the City for the
purpose of developing a Topgolf facility. (Fiscal Impact: unknown — depends on whether legal
proceedings are commenced.)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Rescind the commitment made by the City Council on November 5, 2013, to not hold
further closed session meetings regarding real property negotiations with regard to
CenterCal's proposal to enter into an Agreement to lease the driving range portion of the
Lakes Golf Course from the City for the purpose of developing a Topgolf facility; or
2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. November 5, 2013, Staff Reports (with attachments); and,
2. December 11, 2018 letter to Ms. Geist.
FISCAL IMPACT: Unknown—depends on whether legal proceedings are commenced
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
STRATEGIC PLAN: N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
APPROVED BY: Greg Carpenter, City Manager,7C
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
As the Council is aware, the Ralph M. Brown Act is a state law that ensures that deliberations and
actions of local public agencies are performed at meetings open to the public. (Gov. Code§ 54950.)
There are,however,certain exceptions to the general requirement that all meeting be held in public.
For example,the City Council is authorized to meet in closed session to discuss with a real property
negotiator regarding the price and terms of payment for the lease of City real property. (Gov. Code
§ 54956.8.)
In October 2013,the City Clerk's office received letters from attorney Deborah Geist alleging that
the City Council had violated various provisions of the Brown Act when it considered the future
of The Lakes municipal golf course. The letters were the first step needed to file a lawsuit against
the City for alleged violations of the Brown Act. Upon receiving such a letter, state law allows
4
75
the public agency 30 days within with to consider the matter and, if it chooses, respond with an
unconditional commitment to cease, desist from, and not repeat the past action that is alleged to
violate the Brown Act. Making such a commitment prevents the complaining party from filing a
lawsuit.
On November 5, 2013,the City Council approved an agreement with Ms. Geist not to hold further
closed session meetings regarding real property negotiations with regard to ESCenterCal, LLC's
("CenterCal")proposal to enter into a Ground Lease Agreement to lease the driving range portion
of the Lakes Golf Course from the City for the purpose of developing a Topgolf facility.
The November 5, 2013, staff report and attachments provide the details regarding Ms. Geist's
allegations of Brown Act violations and the City's response to same. As noted in the City's
October 30, 2013, letter to Ms. Geist, it did not appear that the City Council had committed any
Brown Act violations. But in order to avoid unnecessary litigation, particularly since the City
understood the negotiations with CenterCal at the time were completed, the Council approved
staff s recommendation to issue the commitment that it would not hold further closed session
meetings regarding real property negotiations as described above.
On December 11, 2018, as required by state law, the City Manager sent a letter to Ms. Geist
advising her that this item would be included on the City Council's January 15, 2019, agenda. A
copy of the letter to Ms. Geist is attached. Pursuant to state law, this item must be considered as a
non-consent agenda item and, if passed by a majority of the members of the City Council, would
rescind the prior commitment made by Council and the Council could then schedule a closed
session meeting to discuss different lease payments or payment terms with CenterCal. If the
Council does rescind its commitment, it would restore Ms. Geist's rights (as well as any other
interested party's right, including the District Attorney's), if any, to commence a legal action for
alleged Brown Act violations. Given that the Council will likely need to have some closed session
discussions re the potential CenterCal/TopGolf project, this matter is being addressed at this time.
At this point in time it is not clear that the Council has to rescind the prior action to be able to meet
in closed session due to the lengthy passage of time since the prior Council took action and because
all of the members that allegedly committed a Brown Act violation are no longer on the Council.
The City Attorney's Office attempted to contact Ms. Geist to see if she would agree that this
proposed action was not necessary, but she did not respond to the City Attorney's Office. With
this said, it would be most prudent to take action to rescind the prior Council action.
76
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 5,2013
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: New Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to authorize the Mayor to execute a letter in response to a
"cease and desist" letters received on October 1, 2013 and October 17, 2013 from Debra Geist
alleging various violations of the Ralph M. Brown Act relating to City's negotiations to lease out
a portion of"the Lakes" golf course. (Fiscal Impact:None)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Receive and file the letters dated October 1, 2013 and October 15, 2013 alleging
various violations of the Ralph M.Brown Act;
2. Authorize the Mayor to execute the draft response letter;
3. Take such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Letter dated October 15,2013 (received October 17, 2013);
2. Draft response letter.
FISCAL IMPACT:N/A
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Mark D. Hensley, City Attorn �
Karl H. Berger, Assistant Cite
V
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On October 1, 2013 and October 17, 2013, the City Clerk's office received letters alleging that
the City Council violated various provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act when it considered the
future of"the Lakes" municipal golf course (see attached Exhibit A — the letters are identical
except for with respect to the dates set forth on the letters). These are referred to as the "October
2013 Letters."
As the City Council is aware—and is quite public—the City was approached by two private
companies in 2012 regarding a proposal for the Lakes municipal golf course. In general,the
proposal is for Centercal,LLC to make various improvements to the golf course and the driving
range; for Top Golf to operate the golf course; and for the City to receive a significant increase in
rent over a period of potentially fifty years. The details of this deal is set forth in the due
diligence and lease agreement that is being considered by the City Council as a separate agenda
item for November 5, 2013.
Since first being approached by these companies,the City Council undertook a number of
actions to not only negotiate potential deal points to implement a proposal (as set forth in the 17
1 406
77
draft lease agreement),but also to solicit public input and dialogue regarding the desirability of
undertaking such an arrangement. Such activities include, without limitation:
• Public meetings by the City Council and Golf Course Subcommittee in August 2012
regarding the Lakes including a Powerpoint presentation regarding the proposal and
direction from the City Council to seek public input.
• Meetings in September 2012 between City staff and various community organizations
including the El Segundo Chamber of Commerce and Kiwanis Club.
• Multiple meetings before the City's Recreation and Parks Commission in September and
December 2012.
• A presentation to the El Segundo Planning Commission on October 11, 2012.
• Posting the Powerpoint°presentation, draft schematics, and other matters on the City's
website(elseL,uiido.orv-lnewsldisplav Eiews.asI)?-NI owsl D=1149&TarQetl D=1).
• Posting all disclosable public communications regarding the Lakes matter on the City's
website(%v-ww.elscaundo.orp-ldeUts/citvclerk/docLiments.asn).
Moreover,these proposals were widely publicized in the media and on various social networks
(e.g., Facebook). And, as a result,there was significant public participation in the process
including regular public comment during City Council meetings.
The October 2013 Letters do not acknowledge the City Council's effort to solicit public input
regarding the Lakes or the widespread public interest in the subject. Rather,the October 2013
Letters allege that the City Council violated the Brown Act when it discussed the matter in
closed session on several occasions in 2012 and 2013.
As you are aware, the California Legislature enacted the Ralph M. Brown Act(Government
Code' §§ 54950-54963) in 1953. The Legislature adopted the Brown Act to ensure that
deliberations and actions of local public agencies are performed at meetings open to the public
and free from any veil of secrecy. To further this overall goal, the Brown Act requires that the
City's meetings be properly noticed and generally open to the public.
There are certain exceptions to the general requirement that all meetings be held in public. These
are referred to as "closed session"matters. One of these is the ability for the City Council to
meet
"with its negotiator prior to the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real
property by or for the local agency to grant authority to its negotiator
regarding the price and terms of payment for the purchase, sale,
exchange, or lease."3
'Further references to an unspecified code are to the Government Code.
2 § 54950.
s § 54956.8(emphasis added).
2 407
78
The October 2013 Letters makes various complaints regarding the City Council exercising its
ability to discuss price and terms of leasing the Lakes during closed session. In summary,these
allegations are: (1) failure to appoint real property negotiators in open session as required by the
Brown Act; (2) incorrect agenda descriptions as to closed session items; and(3) discussing items
in closed session beyond the scope of what the Brown Act allows.
The October 2013 Letters is the first step needed to file a lawsuit against the City for alleged
violations of the Brown Act.In sum, the law4 requires a persons seeking to enforce the Brown
Act to first send a"cease and desist" letter to a public agency within nine months of the alleged
violations before filing a lawsuit. Upon receiving a"cease and desist" letter,the public agency
has thirty days within which to consider the matter and, if it chooses, respond with"with an
unconditional commitment to cease, desist from, and not repeat the past action that is alleged to
violate"the Brown Act.' Such a response must be approved by the legislative body in open
session and be substantially in a form required by law.'If the legislative body opts to undertake
such a response, it removes the ability of a person to file a lawsuit.8
As noted more completely in the draft letter attached to this staff report, several of the alleged
violations occurred more than nine months ago and are therefore time-barred from litigation.
Moreover, all of the closed session agenda descriptions correctly identified the City's real
property negotiators and described what was being discussed. Most importantly,however,the
City Council has not yet committed to taking any action—the draft lease agreement properly
contemplated during closed session is a separate agenda item for this meeting. And, as set forth
in that draft agreement,there are multiple matters that must be resolved—in open session—
before the City (or any other parry) is obligated to undertake any real property transaction.
However, in order to avoid potentially unnecessary and costly litigation, it is recommended that
the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute the draft letter attached to this staff report
(Exhibit B). As may be read,the draft letter constitutes the City Council's "unconditional
commitment"not to undertake the actions identified by the October 2Q13 Letters. Under the
Brown Act it is specifically recognized that sending this type of response is not an admission of
guilt and it cannot be used against the City in any future legal proceedings. Given that this
matter, as described above,has been a very public process and since the draft agreement is on the
agenda for public consideration by the Council, it seems very prudent to simply agree, without
admitting fault or that such occurred,to not undertake any further alleged action that violates the
Brown Act. This will ensure that the City avoids the need to defend against a lawsuit alleging
that the City Council violated the Brown Act.
4 §54960.2.
5 The City Council may also provide such a response after thirty days,and even during litigation,which would cause
a lawsuit to be dismissed.However,the court could under such circumstances award attorneys fees and costs(§
54960.2(b)).
6 § 54960.2(c).
Id.
S Id.
3 408
79
Exhibit A
October 1, 2013 and October 15, 2013 Letters
409
80
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
City Manager's®ffida)
October 1,2013
OCT 12013
Via Personal Delivery
Hon. Bill Fisher, Mayor RECEIVED
Mr. Carl Jacobson, Mayor Pro Tem
Ms.Suzanne Fuentes
Mr. Dave Atkinson
Ms. Marie Fellhauer
City Council
City of El Segundo
350 Main Street,
EI Segundo,CA 90245
Re: Demand to Cease and Desist from Practices Violating the Ralph M. Brown Act
Mr.Fisher and Members of the EI Segundo City Council:
This notice is to caution you that the EI Segundo City Council (the "ESCC")has violated the Ralph M. Brown
Act (California Government Code Sec. 54050 et.seq.),which mandates open and publicized meetings of
local government at which the public may be present and comment on relevant matters. ESCC is abusing
the "safe harbor" provisions of Government Code Section 54956.8, which allow a limited exception to the
general mandate of open meetings only"to grant authority to its negotiator regarding the price and terms of
payment for... (a real property lease)." The specific violations are as follows:
1. Conducting Closed Sessions On The Proposed Lease of The Lakes Prior to a Public Hearing
On three separate occasions, June 19, 2012, June 25, 2012 and June 17, 2012, the ESCC conducted
closed sessions for the stated purpose of discussions with Greg Carpenter, City Manager, concerning The
Lakes, a municipal golf course owned by the City of EI Segundo. Although the stated purpose of such
meetings, as noted on the relevant Agendas,was"discussion with Real Property Negotiator,ESCC had not
yet conducted a public session as required by Government Code Section 54956.8 as follows:
However, prior to the closed session, the legislative body of the local agency shall hold an open
and public session in which it identifies the real property.__which the negotiations may concern and
the person or persons with whom its negotiator may negotiate.
Additionally,the relevant Agendas fail to identify the persons or entities Mr.Carpenter would negotiate with.
These meetings patently fall outside the"safe harbor"and are illegal.
2. Conducting Closed Sessions with Top Golf on Related Issues
On two separate occasions, February 5, 2013, February 19, 2013, the ESCC conducted closed sessions
with Mr. Carpenter relating to Top Golf and Centercal Properties as "negotiating parties." However, the
proposed lease is with Centercal only. The City of El Segundo will have no contractual privity with Top Golf,
who will sublet from Centercal to operate a golf entertainment business at The Lakes. ESCC was not
negotiating a real property lease with Top Golf but rather consulting with Top Golf regarding lease issues.
The Brown Act mandates that ESCC conduct any such consultations in public meeting because the "safe
harbor" provision pertains only to the proposed lessee on price and terms of payment. Consultations with
other parties on "related issues" or "background issues" are outside the scope of the exception. See,
Shapiro v. City Council of San Diepo,96 Cal.App.4t'904(2002).
3. Conducting Serial Closed Sessions on Matters Outside Payment and Terms of Payment
On eight separate occasions, February 5, 2013, February 19, 2013, May 7, 2013, August 6, 2013, August
20, 2013, September 3, 2013, September 17, 2013, and October 1, 2013, the ESCC conducted closed
sessions with Mr. Carpenter relating to the lease with Centercal Properties as the negotiating party. The
number of closed sessions alone is excessive and proves that the ESCC has trespassed beyond the "safe
harbor"of price and terms of payment. This situation is analogous to Shapiro v. Citv Council of San Dieeo,
410
81
96 Cal. App. 4t' 904 (2002), where the Court of Appeal held that the San Diego Council had violated the
Brown Act in including discussion of a variety of"related issues"in a series of closed session held to consult
with its agent in real property negotiations concerning a large redevelopment project to create a new
baseball park. The Fourth District faulted the San Diego Council's expansive interpretation of the "safe
harbor"as follows:
We believe the City Council's view that no detailed disclosures should be required before closed
sessions may be held to discuss a complex overall real estate based transaction is inconsistent
with the express statutory requirements of section 54946.8
The Fourth District stressed that the "safe harbor" must be narrowly and not expansively construed as
follows:
If we were to accept the City's interpretation of the Brown Act in this respect, we would be turning
the Brown Act on its head, by narrowly construing the open meeting requirements and broadly
construing the statutory exceptions to it. That would be incorrect. We do not denigrate the
important consideration of confidentiality in negotiations. However,we believe that in this case,the
City Council is attempting to use the Brown Act as a shield against public disclosure of its
consideration of important public policy issues,of the type that are inevitably raised whenever such
a large public redevelopment real estate based transaction is contemplated. The important policy
consideration of the Brown Act, however, must be enforced, even where particular transactions do
not fit neatly within its statutory categories.
Id. at 924. Here, as in Shapiro, ESCC Is using closed sessions to shield important development
considerations from public view. The sheer number of closed sessions, in contrast to the single open
session on the proposed lease,proves that ESCC is shirking its duty to conduct open sessions on matters of
public interest that will substantially impact The Lakes future. Indeed,ESCC has disclosed relatively nothing
in open sessions regarding its relationship with Centercal, Centercal's relationship with Top Golf, proposed
physical changes to the golf course, proposed physical changes to the driving range,price increases,public
programs, changes to the liquor license and more. Members of the public are demanding to be heard on
these issues but have been relegated to bystanders in a closed process zealously guarded by ESCC
against its public responsibilities under the Brown Act.
4. Substantively Misleading Agenda Description
On August 21, 2012, the ESCC conducted a single public session on the proposed lease of The Lakes
which generally describes the Agenda as a direction to staff as follows:
Consideration and possible action to direct staff to take steps necessary to seek input from various
City Committees regarding a potential agreement with Centercal Properties,LLC for enhancing the
driving range and dining facilities at The Lakes Golf Course which would be operated by Top Golf.
The agreement would be negotiated by the City Manager and City Attorney and presented for
review and potential approval by the City Council at a future date.
This description is inaccurate because it states that the ESCC was to direct staff regarding future action
when,in fact,the ESCC contemplated and took immediate action to direct Mr.Carpenter to enter into
negotiations with Centercal regarding a lease of The Lakes. While the Brown Act requirements for agenda
item descriptions are quite lenient,this item just fails to describe the action taken by ESCC to immediately
enter Into a proposed lease. It's just wrong. The significance of the misdescription is magnified by the fact
that this was the only open discussion on the proposed lease and therefore,it was imperative that the ESCC
accurately convey notice to the public of what ESCC intended to do. Without such clear notice,those
members of the public who might well have attended the meeting to address a proposed decision
immediately to proceed with lease negotiations were misled into believing that there would be adequate
opportunities to do so later,at meetings of either the"City Committees,"the City Council or both. The ESCC
failed its duties under the Brown Act and should be enjoined from proceeding further absent a material cure.
411
82
The Ci Segundo City Council has thirty days from receipt of this letter to provide me with an unconditional
commitment to cease, desist from,and not repeat the practices noted above,compliant with Government
Code Section 54960.2,subdivision(c).Its failure to do so will entitle me to file an action for declaratory
judgment and injunctive relief and for attorney's fees and costs.
Respectfully,
Debra V.Geist
(310)489 7751
citegeMQverizon.net
412
83
CITY F 1 C E
October 15,2013
Via U.S. Mail
Tracy Sherrill Weaver
City Clerk
City of EI Segundo
350 Main Street,
EI Segundo,CA 90245
Hon. Bill Fisher,Mayor
Mr. Carl Jacobson, Mayor Pro Tem
Ms.Suzanne Fuentes
Mr. Dave Atkinson
Ms. Marie Fellhauer
Re: Demand to Cease and Desist from Practices Violating the Ralph M.Brown Act
Mr. Fisher and Members of the EI Segundo City Council:
This notice is to caution you that the EI Segundo City Council(the"ESCC")has violated the Ralph M.Brown
Act (California Government Code Sec. 54050 et.seq.),which mandates open and publicized meetings of
local government at which the public may be present and comment on relevant matters. ESCC Is abusing
the "safe harbor" provisions of Government Code Section 54956.8, which allow a limited exception to the
general mandate of open meetings only"to grant authority to its negotiator regarding the price and terms of
payment for...(a real property lease)." The specific violations are as follows:
1. Conducting Closed Sessions On The Proposed Lease of The Lakes Prior to a Public Hearing
On three separate occasions,June 19,2012,June 25,2012 and July 17,2012,the ESCC conducted closed
sessions for the stated purpose of discussions with Greg Carpenter,City Manager, concerning The Lakes, a
municipal golf course owned by the City of EI Segundo. Although the stated purpose of such meetings, as
noted on the relevant Agendas, was "discussion with Real Property Negotiator", ESCC had not yet
conducted a public session as required by Government Code Section 54956.8 as follows:
However, prior to the closed session, the legislative body of the local agency shall hold an open
and public session in which it identifies the real property...whlch the negotiations may concern and
the person or persons with whom its negotiator may negotiate.
Additionally,the relevant Agendas fail to identify the persons or entities Mr. Carpenter would negotiate with.
These meetings patently fall outside the"safe harbor"and are illegal.
2. Conducting Closed Sessions with Top Golf on Related Issues
On two separate occasions, February 5, 2013, February 19, 2013, the ESCC conducted closed sessions
with Mr. Carpenter relating to Top Golf and Centercal Properties as "negotiating parties" However, the
proposed lease is with Centercal only. The City of El Segundo will have no contractual privity with Top Golf,
who will sublet from Centercal to operate a golf entertainment business at The Lakes. ESCC was not
negotiating a real property lease with Top Golf but rather consulting with Top Golf regarding lease issues.
The Brown Act mandates that ESCC conduct any such consultations in public meeting because the "safe
harbor" provision pertains only to the proposed lessee on price and terms of payment. Consultations with
other parties on "related issues" or "background issues' are outside the scope of the exception. See,
Shapiroy._City Cauncii of San Diego, 96 Cal.App.4"'904(2002).
3. Conducting Serial Closed Sessions on Matters Outside Payment and Terms of Payment
On eight separate occasions, February 5, 2013, February 19, 2013, May 7, 2013, August 6, 2013, August
20, 2013, September 3, 2013, September 17, 2013, and October 1, 2013, the ESCC conducted closed
413
84
sessions with Mr. Carpenter relating to the lease with Centercal Properties as the negotiating party. The
number of closed sessions alone is excessive and proves that the ESCC has trespassed beyond the "safe
harbor"of price and terms of payment. This situation is analogous to ShUiro v. City Council of San Diepg,
96 Cal. App. 41" 904 (2002), where the Court of Appeal held that the San Diego Council had violated the
Brown Act in including discussion of a variety of'related issues"in a series of closed session held to consult
with its agent in real property negotiations concerning a large redevelopment project to create a new
baseball park. The Fourth District faulted the San Diego Council's expansive interpretation of the "safe
harbor"as follows:
We believe the City Council's view that no detailed disclosures should be required before closed
sessions may be held to discuss a complex overall real estate based transaction is inconsistent
with the express statutory requirements of section 54946.8
The Fourth District stressed that the "safe harbor" must be narrowly and not expensively construed as
follows:
If we were to accept the City's Interpretation of the Brown Act in this respect,we would be turning
the Brown Act on its head, by narrowly construing the open meeting requirements and broadly
construing the statutory exceptions to it. That would be incorrect. We do not denigrate the
important consideration of confidentiality in negotiations. However,we believe that in this case,the
City Council is attempting to use the Brown Act as a shield against public disclosure of its
consideration of important public policy issues, of the type that are inevitably raised whenever such
a large public redevelopment real estate based transaction is contemplated. The Important policy
consideration of the Brown Act, however, must be enforced, even where particular transactions do
not fit neatly within its statutory categories.
Id. at 824. Here, as in Shapira, ESCC is using closed sessions to shield important development
considerations from public view. The sheer number of closed sessions, in contrast to the single open
session on the proposed lease,proves that ESCC is shirking its duty to conduct open sessions on matters of
public interest that will substantially Impact The Lakes future. Indeed, ESCC has disclosed relatively nothing
in open sessions regarding its relationship with Centercal, Centercal's relationship with Top Golf, proposed
physical changes to the golf course, proposed physical changes to the driving range,price increases,public
programs, changes to the liquor license and more. Members of the public are demanding to be heard on
these issues but have been relegated to bystanders in a closed process zealously guarded by ESCC
against its public responsibilities under the Brown Act.
4. Substantively Misleading Agenda Description
On August 21, 2012, the ESCC conducted a single public session on the proposed lease of The Lakes
which generally describes the Agenda as a direction to staff as follows:
Consideration and possible action to direct staff to take steps necessary to seek input from various
City Committees regarding a potential agreement with Centercal Properties, LLC for enhancing the
driving range and dining facilities at The Lakes Golf Course which would be operated by Top Golf.
The agreement would be negotiated by the City Manager and City Attorney and presented for
review and potential approval by the City Council at a future date.
This description is inaccurate because it states that the ESCC was to direct staff regarding future action
when,in fact,the ESCC contemplated and took immediate action to direct Mr.Carpenter to enter into
negotiations with Centercal regarding a lease of The Lakes. While the Brown Act requirements for agenda
item descriptions are quite lenient,this item just fails to describe the action taken by ESCC to immediately
enter into a proposed lease. It's just wrong. The significance of the misdescription is magnified by the fact
that this was the only open discussion on the proposed lease and therefore, it was Imperative that the ESCC
accurately convey notice to the public of what ESCC Intended to do. Without such clear notice,those
members of the public who might well have attended the meeting to address a proposed decision
immediately to proceed with lease negotiations were misled into believing that there would be adequate
opportunities to do so later,at meetings of either the"City Committees,°the City Council or bath. The ESCC
failed its duties under the Brown Act and should be enjoined from proceeding further absent a material cure.
414
85
The EI Segundo City Council has thirty days from receipt of this letter to provide me with an unconditional
commitment to cease,desist ftom,and not repeat the practices noted above,compliant with Government
Code section 54980.2,subdivision(c).Its failure to do so will entitle me to file an action for declaratory
judgment and lr junc6lve relief and for attorney's fees and costs:
Res uily.
.&u L '—
Debra V.Geist
(310)489 7751
citegeiet@ verizon.net
415
86
Exhibit B
Draft Response Letter
416
87
October 30, 2013
Elected Officials:
Bill Fisher,
Mayor Debra V. Geist
Carl Jacobson,
Mayor Pro Tem 121 16th St
Suzanne Fuentes,
Council Member Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Dave Atkinson,
Council Member
Marie Fellhaue
Council Member Re: Letter dated October 15, 2013
Tracy Weaver,
City Clerk
Dear Ms. Geist:
Appointed Officials:
Greg Carpenter, Thank you for your letter dated October 15, 2013 (received by the City on
Cityn
Mark D..Hensley,
October 17, 2013). As you are aware, that letter (the "October 151 Letter")
Crisa,Binder, alleges that the City Council violated the Ralph M. Brown Act and
City Treasurer constitutes a "cease and desist" letter in accordance with Government Code
§ 54960.2.
Department Directors:
Deborah Cullen, Specifically, the October 15th letter accuses the City Council of violating the
Finance
Marsha Dj%ksfra Brown Act on the following dates: June 19, 2012; June 25, 2012; July 17,
Human
Kevin SmithResources 2012; August 21, 2012; February 5, 2013; February 19, 2013; May 7, 2013;
Fire Chto
Debra Brighton, August 6, 2013; August 20, 2013; September 3, 2013;
Library Services September 17, 2013; and October 1, 2013. In sum, the October 15th
Sam Lee, letter
Planning and
Building Safety alleges that the City Councils actions relating to the municipal golf course
Mitch
Police Chief known as "the Lakes" violated the Brown Act as follows: (1) failure to
Stephanie Katsouleas,
Public Works appoint real property negotiators in open session; (2) incorrect agenda
Robert Cummings,
Recreation 6 Parks descriptions as to closed session items; and (3) discussing items in closed
session beyond the scope of statutory authority. In short, the City Council
disagrees with the October 15th letter for several different reasons.
www.elsegundo.org First, as to alleged violations occurring in 2012, these matters are time-
barred pursuant to Government Code § 54960.2(a)(2). That section requires
actions to be undertaken within nine months of the alleged violation.
Second, (as stated in the October 15th letter at p.2) the City Council (at the
latest) did appoint real property negotiators in open session on August 21,
2012 pursuant to Agenda Item No. F9:
"Direct the City Manager and City Attorney to negotiate terms
350 Main Street, El Segundo, California 90245.3813
Phone(310)524-2300 Fax(310) 640-0489 417
88
of a [sic] agreement with Centercal Properties, LLC for a new
TopGolf facility to be located at The Lakes in place of the existing
driving range."
Moreover, the City Manager was identified on every agenda as the property negotiator
for these negotiations. The City Manager has general authority pursuant to EI Segundo
Municipal Code § 1-5A-7 to "exercise general supervision over all public buildings,
public parks and all other public property which is under the control and jurisdiction of
the city council." The City Council believes this would include (at a minimum) initial
negotiations regarding potentially leasing the Lakes. As previously noted, however,
these matters are time barred in any event.
Third, as explained below, it is plain that the City Council's considerations regarding the
Lakes were (and are) quite public. Even a cursory glance at the City's webpage, staff
reports, and other public outreach documents demonstrate that the City Council sought
(and continues to seek) public input regarding what should happen with the municipal
golf course. Allegations, therefore, that the City Council was misleading or has
somehow attempted to avoid transparency as to the Lakes matter cannot be reconciled
with the City's efforts at encouraging public discourse regarding'this important matter.
As you know, the City Council is considering whether to lease a portion of the Lakes
municipal golf course to a private company or companies. As part of this process, the
City is engaged in an extensive public outreach program seeking public participation.
Among other things, the City undertook the following actions:
9 August 21, 2012: the City Council heard a presentation regarding the Lakes
during open session and then directed the City Manager, or designee, to seek
public input regarding a potential agreement with Centercal and Top Golf.
® August 29, 2012: the City Council's Golf Course Subcommittee met in public to
discuss the matter.
September 13, 2012: City staff made a presentation to the EI Segundo Chamber
of Commerce.
September 18, 2012: City staff met at the EI Segundo Public Library with golf
industry stakeholders.
® September 19, 2012: City staff made a presentation to the City's Recreation and
Parks Commission during its regular meeting.
September 25, 2012: City staff made a presentation to the Kiwanis Club.
® October 3, 2012: City staff provided a progress update to the City Council's Golf
Course Subcommittee.
350 Main Street, El Segundo, California .90245-3813
Phone(310)524-2300 Fax(310) 640-0489 418
89
October 4, 2012: City staff made a presentation at the Rotary Club meeting.
October 11, 2012: a presentation regarding the matter was made to the City's
Planning Commission during its regular meeting.
October 11, 2012: City staff made a presentation to the City's Economic
Development Advisory Council.
November 18, 2012: the EI Segundo Chamber of Commerce voted to
endorse/support the Top Golf matter.
December 5, 2012: the City Council's Golf Course Subcommittee reviewed the
matter.
December 19, 2012: the Recreation and Parks Commission reviewed the
findings and analysis.
® Between October and November 2012, City staff met with most business
oriented hotels within the City of El Segundo.
The City posted the Powerpoint° presentation, draft schematics, and other
matters on the City's website
(elseaundo.oi-ci/news/disolavnews.asp?NewsID=1149&Targets D=i).
The City has posted and (continues to post) all disclosable public
communications regarding the Lakes matter on the City's website
(www.e l sea u n do.ora/d a pts/citvcle rk/docu me nts.a s c).
Such proactive actions are in addition to the multiple opportunities taken by interested
citizens to provide public comment to the City Council during its regular meetings. This
matter is also being extensively scrutinized by media coverage (see e.g.,
www.easvreadernews.com/74599/residents-assail-toggolf/;
www.dailvbreeze.com/20121105/local-golfers-balk-at-proposed-c+ ancies-to-the-lakes-
in-el-seaundo-course) and various social media outlets.
Based upon the foregoing, the City Council respectfully disagrees with the allegations
set forth in the October 15th Letter as to purported violations of the Brown Act.
Moreover, as you can see from the Due Diligence and Lease Agreement ("Agreement")
that the Council will consider approving at its November 5, 2013 regular meeting, the
alleged Brown Act violations set forth in the October 15th Letter are without merit. There
are twelve specific conditions precedent that must be accomplished before a leasehold
interest could be created. Accordingly, the City is not committed to entering into the
draft Agreement since there are numerous issues that must be resolved in public
meetings before the Planning Commission and City Council before any leasehold could
be established. Such matters include review and potential approval of a conceptual plan
for the golf course and the driving range improvements; review and potential approval of
350 Main Street, E/Segundo, California 90245-3813
Phone (310)524-2300 Fax(310) 640-0489 419
90
a recommended action under the California Environmental Quality Act; review and
potential approval of the land use entitlements that would be needed to allow for the
uses contemplated by the draft Agreement; and many other items that identified in the
draft Agreement.
However, in an abundance of caution, to avoid unnecessary litigation, and without
admitting any violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act, the El' Segundo City Council
unconditionally commits that it will cease, desist from, and not repeat the actions
challenged in the October 15th Letter and briefly described above.
Note that the EI Segundo City Council may rescind this commitment only by a majority
vote of its membership taken in open session at a regular meeting and noticed on its
posted agenda as "Rescission of Brown Act Commitment." You will be provided with
written notice, sent by any means or media you provide in response to this message, to
whatever address or addresses you specify, of any intention to consider rescinding this
commitment at least 30 days before any such regular meeting. In the event that this
commitment is rescinded, you will have the right to commence legal action pursuant to
Government Code § 54960(a). That notice will be delivered to you by the same means
as this commitment, or may be mailed to an address that you have designated in
writing.
Very truly yours,
Bill Fisher,
Mayor
350 Main Street, El Segundo, California 90245-3813
Phone(310)524-2300 Fax(310) 640-0489 420
91
41 Wity f9lz 4 6CYieA
Office of the City Manager
Via U.S. Mail and E-mail [Citegeist@verizon.net]
Elected OlTicials: December 11,2018
Dr Boyles,
Maya
Carol Pirsduk,
Mayor Pro Teen
Dr.Dan Bnmm
CoanWMember Debra V. Geist
"`"`gin ca Member 121 16th Street
Ncamdll Member Manhattan Beach, California 90266
Trney Maw,
ay aa*
CKWa MmIm
aly r,=anv
Re: Notice of El Segundo City Council Meeting to Potentially Rescind
Appointed Officials: Unconditional Commitment(pursuant to Gov. Code § 54960.2(e))
Gres Carpenfer,
CNy Messes-
Man*D.Hensley,
sty AM°rney Dear Ms. Geist,
Department Directors: Please take notice that the El Segundo City Council will consider a"Rescission of
Ba,b°ra V�, Brown Act Commitment" as a regular agenda item at its regular meeting on January
,mqk iWo, "'°"°a' 15, 2019. Should the City Council decide to rescind its unconditional commitment
Chrs uDawovm, made in 2013,you will have the right to commence legal action in accordance with
Da4d�se� the Ralph M. Brown Act.
Haman Bamaca
aeries Maumy,
MiA M&nnmAs you know, on November 5, 2013,the City Council,in response to your demand
Sammi Smda letters of October 1St and 15th, 2013,agreed to cease and desist from engaging in the
Buig,of-, alleged Brown Act violations pertaining to certain closed session meetings pursuant to
°Pv&�Cw Government Code § 54960.2. Your allegations related to closed sessions in which the
Ken
pubad Warks City Council had engaged regarding real property negotiations relating to the City
'"�""ecreadon&Park, leasing a portion of the Lakes Golf Course to ES CenterCal,LLC, for purposes of
having a Topgolf facility operated on the property.
The City Council is currently holding open session meetings to discuss and potentially
provide direction to staff regarding how it wants to proceed with the Lakes Golf
Course and a possible lease agreement with CenterCal for the Topgolf facility. This
issue was discussed most recently in open session at the City Council's November 6,
2018, Regular Meeting at which the Council directed staff to negotiate with Centercal
and Topgolf and to commence the entitlement process for the future use of the
property.
92
Letter to Ms. Geist
December 11,2018
Page 2 of 2
Please note that the City reaffirms its position stated in prior correspondence to you: this matter
is thoroughly transparent and any allegations regarding Brown Act violations are without merit.
As evidenced at recent open sessions of the City Council meetings,the public continues to have
a vibrant dialogue regarding the City Council's actions as to the Lakes.Please also note that a
copy of this letter is being provided to the Public Integrity Division of the Los Angeles County
District Attorney's office in accordance with Government Code § 54960.2(e).
Please contact me should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
G4r� CG r Carp ter,
City Manager
Cc: Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office Attn: Public Integrity Division
211 West Temple Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90012
93
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 15,2019
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Unfinished Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding a discussion on the City's accomplishments made
towards addressing the California Public Employees Retirement System (Ca1PERS)rising annual
costs and long-term liabilities. (Fiscal Impact: $0)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Consideration and possible action regarding a discussion on the City's
accomplishments made towards addressing the California Public Employees
Retirement System (Ca1PERS)rising annual costs and long-term liabilities.
2. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible action related to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Informational brochure on the City's accomplishments towards addressing the
financial issues related to the Ca1PERS pension costs and liabilities.
B. Bartel &Associates report on the City's unfunded pension liabilities
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal: 5(b) Champion Economic Development and Fiscal Sustainability:
El Segundo approaches its work in a financially disciplined and
responsible way
Objective: 2 The City will maintain a stable, efficient, and transparent financial
environment
ORIGINATED BY: Joseph Lillio, Director of Finance
APPROVED BY: Greg Carpenter, City Manager
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
At the December 21, 2016 Ca1PERS Board (the "Board") meeting, it was approved by the Board
to lower the Ca1PERS discount rate assumption. The discount rate, or long-term rate of return,
was adjusted from 7.5% to 7.0%. This adjustment will be phased in over a three year period.
5
94
The result of this Board action is an increase of public agency employee contribution costs
beginning in Fiscal Year(FY) 2018-19.
The phase-in of the discount rate change approved by the Board for the next three years is as
follows:
Valuation Date FY for Required Contribution Discount Rate
June 30, 2016 2018-19 7.375%
June 30, 2017 2019-20 7.25%
June 30, 2018 2020-21 7.00%
The lowering of the discount rate had an adverse effect on the City's annual pension related costs
to Ca1PERS. The City's pension plans will see an increase in both the normal cost (the cost of
pension benefits accruing in one year for active members) and the accrued liabilities (the future
cost of pension benefits). These increases to the normal cost and accrued liabilities will result in
higher required employer contributions beginning in FY 2018-19. In addition to the lowering of
the discount rate, CalPERS is contemplating additional changes to the pension system to further
mitigate risk. These changes will have added budgetary pressures to the City of El Segundo.
At the request of Dr. Brann, on April 4, 2017, staff brought forth a Council report to consider the
concept of forming an ad-hoc committee in order to effectively address the rising pension costs,
the fiscal challenges, as well as potential solutions the City will need to confront in the coming
years. The composition of this ad-hoc committee was scheduled for the following Council
meeting.
April 18, 2017, City Council approved the formation of an ad-hoc pension committee and
appointed two Council Members to the ad-hoc committee: Mayor Boyles and Council Member
Dr. Brann. This ad-hoc committee was tasked with exploring potential solutions to effectively
address the rising pension costs the City will need to confront in the coming years.
The first ad-hoc meeting was conducted on June 5, 2017 and included the following participants:
■ Mayor pro tem Drew Boyles ■ One Executive/Managerial
• Council Member Dr. Brann representative from each department
• City Manager Greg Carpenter • Two representatives from each of the
• Finance Director Joseph Lillio bargaining units (a primary&
• Finance Manager alternate)
There were five additional ad-hoc meetings in 2017, that were heavily attended, and then the
meetings went to a quarterly rotational schedule beginning in 2018, with the last meeting held on
October 16, 2018. Bartel Associates came to the October meeting and presented a detailed
report on the status of the City's pension plans. Mary Beth from Bartel Associates provided a
presentation (exhibit B) about the City's unfunded pension liabilities, what steps the City has
taken so far to address these liabilities, and potential steps it can take in subsequent years to
2
95
continue addressing the unfunded pension liability of approximately $130 million to the
California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS).
In addition to forming an ad-hoc committee, the City took the position to have a proactive voice
and directly participate in a CalPERS Board meeting in order to have a unique opportunity to
directly impact CalPERS policy. Mayor pro tem Boyles and the Director of Finance, Joseph
Lillio, attended and represented the City of El Segundo's interests at the CalPERS Board
workshop and Board meeting in Sacramento on November 14-15, 2017.
The CalPERS Board workshop included discussion on the various factors impacting the pension
formula (the discount rate, mortality assumptions, market rate assumptions (how much the fund
is projected to earn in the next 10, 20 and 30 years), economic inflation rates, how the assets are
invested (percent in equities versus percent in fixed income), divestment from particular sectors
of the market, social policy, etc. The discussions that came out of this workshop had a direct
influence on CalPERS policy and the rates charged to member agencies. The League of
California Cities (the "League") encouraged member agencies to attend this workshop that only
occurs once every four years. The workshop was well attended by other member agencies and
League representatives.
The City of El Segundo and the League's efforts to have more local influence on CalPERS board
policy is an approach worthy of continuing to explore moving forward.
Through the process of actively engaging in this very important topic, the City Council and staff
have become well versed on CalPERS pensions and the significant challenges that are eminent in
the coming years. This has allowed the City to effectively position itself to successfully manage
the fiscal challenges facing the City in the years to come.
Through City Council's prudent actions, the City has saved a total of $6,153,000. This
savings has been implemented over the past two years through being proactive & strategic at
addressing the rising pension costs. The details of these savings are as follows as well as
outlined in a pension FAQ (exhibit A):
• Additional Payment towards Unfunded Pension Liabilities in FY 2017-18 and 2018-
19 in the total amount of $3,401,141 (direct reduction of principal) resulting in a
savings of$3,745,000 in interest payments to CalPERS over the next 25-30 years
• Complete Fresh Start (Refinance): In December 2017 City Council approved staff
recommendations to refinance the Miscellaneous Plan (refinanced from 30 years to
22 years), PD 2 n Tier Plan (refinanced to 10 years), and PD PEPRA Plan(refinanced
to 10 years). The City saved $1.86 million in interest payments to CalPERS over the
next 30 years by adopting the recommendations.
• Pre-payment of the Annual Unfunded Liability (UAL)
o Prepaid the UAL for FY 2017-18, saving$258,000 (immediate savings)
o Prepaid the UAL for FY 2018-19, saving $290,000(immediate savings)
o The City will continue to evaluate this approach each fiscal year. It is
estimated that the savings in subsequent years will be $300,000+per year.
3
96
• Set-up IRS Section 115 Pension Trust—Pension Stabilization Fund with PARS
o Initial deposit of$1,000,000 made in April 2018
o Additional $1,000,000 deposit made in October 2018
o $2,000,000 principal plus interest at an annual rate of—5%-6%
• Creation of 2nd Misc Tier (2%@55 to 2% @ 60 was effective 1/1/2013) and 2nd PD
Tier(3% @50 to 3% @ 55 was effective Nov. 2012)
• All Miscellaneous (non-sworn) employees are paying their full employee share of
pension costs, 7%, as of January 1, 2018.
• All Public Safety employees (except police management) are paying their full
employee share of pension costs, 9%, as of June 1, 2017 and will begin paying an
additional 3%, for a total of 12%, as of November 24, 2018.
Staff will continue to seek opportunities to reduce the City's short-term and long-term exposure
to the risks associated with managing public employees' pensions. The City will also continue to
be proactive and engaged in finding viable solutions to address the fiscal concerns with the
Ca1PERS pension system. Taking this active approach will give the City the flexibility to
successfully navigate the looming fiscal challenges that lie ahead.
4
97
crrtianuraua
CITY � F El. SEGUNDO
. .- . . .�►•��".-*rtes r
Fiscal Year 2018-2019
B DM�ifo
--" -1 11
•IN
ELS 0
PENSION COSTS
OVERVIEWS & FAQS
40 --R--
-d V
'P-�SA- 1`,JVC,3 WS'C%�-S- 1lh "a sa C,
Z
AWA S r
FAQ: How much have we saved?
Answer: Total cost savings of $6,153,000.
Additional payment towards Unfunded Pension
Liabilities. (FY17-18)
FAQ: How much have we paid and what were the
results?
Answer: In FY17-18 the City made a payment of
$1,901,141 (direct reduction of principal) resulting in
savings of $2,587,000 in interest payments to
CalPERS over the next 25 years.
ALSIGUSDO Page I
Fiscal Year 2018-2019
Prepared by Finance Department 99
F f L S EMU U N Of
OVERVIEWS & FAQS
(CONTINUED )
A 6dn-15'o n u Jp a y m a n rz,s U! n d'e d P e n sio o n
el
.Awl l FAG: How much have we paid and what were the
results?
Answer: In FY18-19 the City made a payment of
$1,500,000 (direct reduction of principal) resulting in
savings of $1,158,000 in interest payments to
CaIPERS over the next 25 years.
FAQ: How was refinancing structured and what were
the results?
Answer: In December 2017 City Council approved
staff recommendations to refinance the
Miscellaneous Plan (refinanced from 50 years to 22
years), PD 2nd Tier Plan (refi to 10 years), and PD
PEPRA Plan (refi to 10 years). The City saved $1.86
million in interest payments to CalPERS over the
Ihr next 50 years.
Page 2
Fiscal Year 2018-2019
Prepared by Finance Department 100
EL 5 N D
OVERVIEWS & FAQS
y ( CONTINUED)
41
FAQ: What were the results of the pre-payment?
Answer:
-Prepaid the UAL for FY 2017-18, saving $258k
(immediate savings).
-Prepaid the UAL for FY 2018-19, saving $290k
..air (immediate savings).
• Set-up IRS Section 115 Pension Trust - Pension
Stabilization Fund with PARS
FAQ: How is the trust structured?
Answer:
-Initial deposit of $1,000,000 made in April 2018.
-Additional $1,000,000 deposit made in October
2018.
•$2,000,000 principal plus interest at an annual rate
of -5%-6%.
JIWW a i�...�����■ u..�Jh
ju ousoo Page 3
Fiscal Year 2018-2019
wwi� Prepared by Finance Department 101
EIL I10UNOU
OVERVIEWS & FAQS
(CONTINUED)
Creation of new Tiers for new members of the
City
' FAQ: Which Tiers were created?
jW,
Answer:
Creation of 2nd Misc Tier (2%@55 to 2% @ 60 was
effective 1/1/2013) and 2nd PD Tier (3% @50 to 3% @
55 was effective Nov. 2012).
- • Employees have picked up their full pension
t-w FAQ: Which groups have made these changes?
Answer:
-All Miscellaneous (non-sworn) employees are
• paying the full employee share of 7% as of January 1,
2018.
-All Public Safety employees (except police
management) are paying the full employee share of
9% as of June 1, 2017.
Page 4
Fiscal Year 2018-2019
Prepared by Finance Department 102
FASO ffu
•neoa M���re[nrv•
OVERVIEWS & FAQS
( CONTINUED )
The City has worked closely with professionals in
the pension field and have complied the following
study and information.
FAQ: How did the pension cost get here?
Answer:
• Investment Losses
•CaIPERS Contribution Policy
-
-Enhanced Benefits
-Demographics
i
Annual Return uu\iari.ct Value nRAc+0ti
-s.aa
4rj•r„
-L�C+1aa
-i6�1" 'A6 9pp- 73 39J ii!6S V�1p 9.3 W aN Gti�C' ]�: '10 IIJ L^y!3 isf 1. L6I'I'=-i78
liar-xerrs s 3s�i'�' x�s s� � 4�'' ..� •!!I ••� •. %%%%% Y1�1` wll.-�1����lll'���``
a6aeY assumes svn-bvtirms.pacmmts.etc-rerecv ed a tnlc tLiatl�au gr u.
JILOSINIGUNDO Page 5
Fiscal Year 2018-2019
Prepared by Finance Department 103
ELSfG_U�i �
r
Ilk—
•i�n�na�r[a nq-
OVERVIEWS & FAQS
(CONTINUED)
Miscellaneous
3 0°o
7 .0 k
i
2 0�o r rrr
r
ti J rr
r
e r
rr rr
50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62_ 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
2.7�Dti.55 .i?60 —PEPRA 2,!.o62
N
4
Safeh
�r
10% -------------------- aazaaaaw
rr.
IS%
20%. -
L54'o
50 51 52 53 5.1 55 56 57 58 59 60
_?10155 _04f-f 50 __.',af.cs
PEPRA =.?i 5% PEPRA 2 5"ait 57 —PEPRA pari 5;
Page 6
Fiscal Year 2018-2019
Prepared by Finance Department 104
ari!-- r ■ix
qu
-ncaasr>tun �a�+•
OVERVIEWS & FAQS
( CONTINUED)
Miscellaneous Demographics
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
-w I vsa 'w Vl 'x v3 vs ve or 'or •ia '11 •�: 'z: 7s -[e' 17
=l;rn* lrl lrr lb 3DaSw .W 1l ?_J :W 1F8 Vi 1]l 973 i7;t W
�, -- i�?2 T. Parson Li: i4I lra Iq I 1 11 113 10 714 7.31 Z� W'" Z'00 1::3 SI W 7r+ 36: M 3Zt Scf
_ Safety Demographics
•Sig
100
s q
Page 7
Fiscal Year 2018-2019
Prepared by Finance Department 105
RSEGUNDO
•I�f:��/��R!!�1>t i1•
OVERVIEWS & FAQS
(CONTINUED)
FAQ: What is our current Miscellaneous groups
Funded Status?
Answer:
• r
a
vits f Allf i ti-%wo,iind %,owrial Li;ibililiry p\lillinnvf
t A
l nlunJnl,S3.
nf uiidaf.4i3
L Ji17
FAQ: What is the Miscellaneous group's historical
funded ratio?
Answer:
HiMoriralFunded Rrlin
!2[w e
100°0
soma
6wo.
4(N
'ti1L.1 i ! - 3 I! S4'S 57 91 pp I 4 Ini nol'.3 09 iJ 71i '3 ! •!
ILS GUNDO Page 8
Fiscal Year 2018-2019
wwn� Prepared by Finance Department 106
■
KS 1,10 W
AIM. _ •IRC las Oaa rig Nail-
OVERVIEWS & FAQS
(CONTINUED )
HistoricnlAALvs.NINA
$1-10
pow— S120
$100
S80
S60
S40
S20
so 19 �+ Se 41 Sa- fl 4i w�1� Sl dS I I' T5 fb it 89 4� e9 1i1
IR1,411I ad ;L 13 61 03 467 77 77 i ii t3 It
6.30'1S C&3019 forded stains esumated
1 " ,a, FAQ: What is the Miscellaneous group's historical
employer contribution rate?
Answer:
Historical Employer Contribution Rates(Percent of Payroll)
304-,
■
■
?04e
i
i
150-°
104°
V !1
1
Fl" .Ft"
D3 D!7.
Obl0U 0. 0.0 6.D D.0 I!16D�-4 W 1i10GS !10.
0.IiIiG0911001111k4 7 1Fl33�`111i%A-I:1tZ16-," 1F1l%6'"/1{JlF1'9Y7 1S•2]ZI0B.1-1I1F!l9 3II:'F6r.F0LJ
Total Rate I09-
ILSISGUNDO Page 9
Fiscal Year 2018-2019
swil� Prepared by Finance Department 107
EL SEGUNHO
[.COWL
OVERVIEWS & FAQS
(CONTINUED)
FAQ: What is the projected contribution rate &
funded status for Miscellaneous group?
l!' Answer:
P { C9uiribetionPr9jection—PerSOrt49IPay
1:21
J
10°6
3 ra a y yQ y ti
251b Pmcatilc Srxh Paccntdc 751h Pcrccntde
Contribution Projection—Percent of Pay
(5011,Percentile)
50"a
40%
i..R•ti 33A%
30% 299%30A% 3L7%323%.'
26.7%27.1% 278%
29.9%
23.2%
u R 20". - r
l
ltr,, 69% 9.3% 9.6% 9.7% 10.0% 10.1% 102% 10.3% 10.4%10A%110104%
8.1,,
Ira
18.79 19!20 20-21 21'22 2123 23,rZi 2125 2i^5 26127 27L'S 24•29 2930
~Total � omul Corns —7,AL Parinml I
urllr
Page 10
Fiscal Year 2018-2019
Prepared by Finance Department 108
•--c,1 r •1�• -
EL SEcu NQo
naris+eaarr+ pan•
OVERVIEWS & FAQS
(CONTINUED)
Amortization Policy-Comparison
(25(h,501h and 751h Percentile)
i■
30°-6
t:
:l
-'ty'a
•� 1 a �
0% - -
.�t7�\ r-.`r y..� r '��...�.����.�.ti�.�.a:'��rr:•.ti^.`•�a°•a`a�,b.'.ax}�.,k�,�'�.a'�,aa-}u
����y�ti'�J���}.�7n���ti�'�a1��:iiAi�'a=�xii1.�=M1.aCi�i\r}•}'�h�'Sp).^?�T4:
m=SM Percentile-%cx'Policy =w50th Pcrccntile-OM Poli y
Funded Status Projection
t�5a,o
15t�9 wi�Y
ate.`
i ti•
++ 100°0
5
- 1540 i
?5th Percentile 5UIh Percentile 25th Percentile
;L► Q� �� Page 11
Fiscal Year 2018-2019
Prepared by Finance Department 109
ELISO OO
•u>:e>tn�stu nsr-
OVERVIEWS & FAQS
( CONTINUED)
FAQ: What is our current Safety group's Funded
Status?
Answer:
`y
I �if►y �. ,� k � ('ite�'all'FKP\•.nc anJ\cuwriwl I ialrilflir.fti�lflh...,
�±-11
Sl�l
51 G)
al
r.rJol-
u M J a
FAQ: What is the Safety group's historical funded
ratio?
. Answer: Historicaffunded Ratio
tI1Mo-
e
I�JY:
I W¢.
W.
2(r..
a¢
!� 6 3018&613019 funded states estimated
Page 12
" Fiscal Year 2018-2019
Prepared by Finance Department 110
FLs0U a
j' v
•liC�1 �
6l�•�tl�llf i•
OVERVIEWS & FAQS
(CONTINUED)
Historical AAL vs.MV
$350
—0
Sinn -
A
S250
5200
• $150
S100
S50
SO1" ax'tis yr J j
.1•AALe '" �1R?j 1=: IST 167 its I. _I l ?'2E:. _i! 2S2 :�i e7! ^39 SI-�
ti.s+... 67 z9 s3 l9s 11= 162 r. 9. 101 11X1_9 77. I4_ 103 tt7 1H M 1611=!9 166 M 30=
I
6 X0'13&Q 3014 fimded status estimated
FAQ: What is the Safety group's historical employer
contribution rate?
Answer:
Historical EmplogerContribulion Rates(Percent of Payroll)
v(rs
Mr-
40%a0%
3(Po
�—s—rFrr ■
10% A,-
0.".-
1"I
i ■
0." j f
49 00 O1•Q' 0#JPt�OSJ 66 47 09 00 o 11! 1`+ 3 !4 121 ,115 10 1- It• 19 k�0
!! �VVVy
•steltnslce�f(ta.�), •PIN -1_-1 s- ,6 45— Rs. rs. y Fa �� qtr. � psi..
Tatl3ta6C !3�4. t.6 ".. i s Sf s ,t to ,
1�
ju 5,1 4Tjt;1)o Page 13
Fiscal Year 2018-2019
wwi� Prepared by Finance Department 111
1Noe
•e�e�cran�+e■+s�+•
OVERVIEWS & FAQS
(CONTINUED)
FAQ: What is the projected contribution rate &
funded status for Safety group?
Answer:
Contribution Rate—Percent of Pay
120°'v
\A.i ,±;Y'.gffl'.
'f3• ',
J
�+ ' -iih Nrcanhlc -,quh Perc-Mile 25th Percentile
Coniribstion Rate—Percent ofPap
1Ji'!b (501L Percealite)
64.IW
26A%116.8%90.7!L 9L1•.i¢J„;Y. •4�i
71A%74A'N%
a°u 625%
sfA.i —
2(N 203%21s%216%23.0%13.114 235%333%33..4%23.x%233%27.2%23.1%
rN,
19.19 19'20 20"21 2L2_ 2223 2-Y:4 24.25 25:26 262 2-,28 2829 25,36
Tuial \ornnlCe.� �C":1 F.?.9•n�nat
' + Page 14
Fiscal Year 2018-2019
Prepared by Finance Department 112
E�s Q0
rP�LAL
OVERVIEWS & FAQS
(CONTINUED)
Amordiation Policy Comparison
(25th,50th and 75th Percentile)
lie
r—......r ���
IN ` e 1W:9 �'` 1k5 -` 1H° •M�
'�• �-
T
So%
y A
�N D
,V
4CRo
0
01v
�~CI'�Rr����r�}"^•l•�:,`-;`kns�CF\�^J•`•�p~'s'�d•r����a?�y�'l�i'..-�',���c•�'s,arkti�'•�y���$
ww°otPc=ltle-NeuPAC -W0tL1--nxuu1e-0IRP0licy'
Funded Status Projection
P
=S���.¢r^�:�.y.-�iv:�.:",��'..��3 ya'����a.�• ,.cu o'sc v`y:`r.+.'.fi..FLy`do
-5th Por=tile 50tL Percentile 25th Percentile
it BOUVOO Page 15
Fiscal Year 2018-2019
Mwi� Prepared by Finance Department 113
r
.-c*er .I
f� 10- 00
r,
OVERVIEWS & FAQS
(CONTINUED)
FAQ: What is our combined group's contribution
projection amounts?
Answer:
- r Con fiributWoProk-cfiva(.4000s)
' 10 A' Y
-
^jJCi�lfjr4
4 fi01 dIP
M741
l9.E3
Y_'C�Fj'0.1F-e riga
1%96'
1695 iL197
15 jTi.7d6 1?.PR,
14Ar
t�
YIQ.Ga}�J
S
t• 3�-11'i 3.6P1 LT6_ 3.974 J�c6 AI�aMI 8.73- 13 S.l&.94
ism
-;"1 .1,1; 71,26 16.' .-.,5 '_:S29
...LEA®xelL•,.rmc-Ssft� �AILSfebBarr. - aFr1f
FAQ: What would it cost to leave CalPERS?
Answer:
CaWERC Termiangwm Estimates on Jane 30.2017 JAmounts In 11 airs1
IOwpAmg Plea Termt"don Bads
Fimeasat Rafe I 7.25%, 1.754% 3.00%
Miscellaneous
?� L S 113 S209 $1S-
Ya2Gi 81 81 IS 1
UAL 32 12S 106
v . Safety
' -�L3L $271 S63 $4S2
Assets 166 166 166
s,,,L 101 371 316
T0ta1
UAL I $136 I S499 $422
Ftwded Rafio II 64.4'34 33.1°0 36.996
Page 16
Fiscal Year 2018-2019
Prepared by Finance Department 114
SM
a!a•
EL SM PO
-ia[oaaauila an-
OVERVIEWS & FAQS
(CONTINUED)
FAQ: Where can I get more resources?
f Answer:
°fes Vis t CalPERS s website for more info on City's pension
costs and actuarial projections.
At https://www.calpers.ca.gov/
RLS I GUN DO Page 16
Fiscal Year 2018-2019
ftii Prepared by Finance Department 115
.r
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
BJ 1:T E L MISCELLANEOUS & SAFETY PLANS
CaIPERS Actuarial Issues — 6/30/17 Valuation
Preliminary Results
Mary Beth Redding, Vice President
Bianca Lin, Assistant Vice President
Matthew Childs, Actuarial Analyst
Bartel Associates, LLC
October 16, 2018
Agenda
Topic Page
How We Got Here 1
Ca1PERS Changes 6
Miscellaneous Plan: 8
Safety Plan:
Combined Miscellaneous and Safety 17
Payments to Ca1PERS 28
Irrevocable Supplemental (§115) Pension trust 30
OPEB Benefits 33
116
October 16,2018 1
11 How WE GOT HERE
■ Investment Losses
■ Ca1PERS Contribution Policy
■ Enhanced Benefits
■ Demographics
October 16,2018 1
How WE GOT HERE—INVESTMENT RETURN
,Annual Return on Market Value ofAssets
30.00^:
22.500,'
15.00".
7.50%
0.000;0 f
-750%
-15.00';n
1
-2z_so%
-30.00% '96 '9i '98 99� 00 Ol '02 03 04 'OS 06 07 0.8 09 10 11 12 13 '14 '15 16 '17 IS
J.
4. 13.312
—Discount Rate 850I-ft-MVA 1S7S137 518 25,8-25 f 9-25 1;25 7 75�7.75j 7.75 775 177 5�7.7512-31 17?75�7.75 750�750�750 750 750 T37 7.257.00
Above assumes contributions,payments,etc.received evenly throughout year.
fm
11TW 7
October October 16,2018 2
HOW WE GOT HERE-OLD CONTRIBUTION POLICY
I !
■ Effective with 2003 valuations
■ Designed to:
• First smooth rates and
■ Second pay off UAL
■ Mitigated contribution volatility
I '
October 16,2018 3
HOW WE GOT HERE-ENHANCED BENEFITS
■ At Ca1PERS, Enhanced Benefits implemented using all (future & prior) service
■ Typically not negotiated with cost sharing
■ City of El Segundo Tier 1 Tier 2 PEPRA
• Miscellaneous 2%@55 FAE1 2%@60 FAE1 2%@62 FAE3
(Not Enhanced)
• Safety Police 3%@50 FAE1 3%@55 FAE1 2.7%@57 FAE31
■ Safety Fire 3%@55 FAE1 N/A 2.7%@57 FAE3
■ Note:
❑ FAE1 is highest one year (typically final) average earnings
❑ FAE3 is highest three years (typically final three) average earnings
118
October 16,2018 4
I
HOW WE GOT HERE-DEMOGRAPHICS
■ Around the State
• Large retiree liability compared to actives
❑ State average: 55% for Miscellaneous, 65% for Safety
• Declining active population and increasing number of retirees
• Higher percentage of retiree liability increases contribution volatility
■ City of El Segundo percentage of liability belonging to inactives is higher than
State average:
• Miscellaneous 62%
• Safety 71%
October 16,2018 5
II CALPERS CHANGES
I
■ Contribution policy changes:
• No asset smoothing
• No rolling amortization
• First impact 15/16 rates; full impact 19/20
■ Assumption changes:
• Future mortality improvement
• First impact 16/17 rates; full impact 20/21
■ CalPERS Board changed their discount rate:
Rate Initial Impact Full Impact
• 6/30/16 valuation 7.375% 18/19 22/23
• 6/30/17 valuation 7.25% 19/20 23/24
• 6/30/18 valuation 7.00% 20/21 24/25
119
October 16,2018 6 is
11 CALPERS CHANGES
■ Risk Mitigation Strategy
• Move to more conservative investments over time to reduce volatility
• Only when investment return is better than expected
• Lower discount rate in concert
• Likely get to 6.0% (from 7.0%) over 20+years
■ February 2018 CalPERS adopted new amortization policy
■ Applies only to newly established amortization bases
➢ Fixed dollar amortization rather than% pay
➢ Amortize gains/losses over 20 rather than 30 years
➢ 5-year ramp up (not down) for investment gains and losses
• Minimizes total interest paid over time and pays off UAL faster
➢ Minimizes future "negative amortization"
• Effective June 30, 2019 valuation for 2021/22 contributions
LIP, October 16,2018 7
SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION-MISCELLANEOUS
1997 2007 2016 2017
Actives
■ Counts 174 186 175 168
■ Average
. Age 44 45 45 45
. City Service 8 9 10 10
r PERSable Wages $ 41,300 $ 58,000 $ 72,200 $ 74,100
■ Total PERSable Wages 7,200,000 13,400,000 13,800,000 13,600,000
Inactive Members
■. Counts
r Transferred 99 120 137 141
. Separated 50 105 145 152
■ Retired
❑ Service 184 273 287
❑ Disability 22 26 28
❑ Beneficiaries 21 29 28
❑ Total 155 227 328 343
■ Average Annual City Provided Benefit
for Service Retirees' N/A $ 13,600 $ 18,000 $ 18,700
■ Active/Retiree Ratio(City) 1.1 0.9 0.5 0.5
■ Active/Retiree Ratio(All Ca1PERS) N/A 1.7 1.3 1.3
' Average City-provided pensions are based on City service&City benefit formula,and are not
representative of benefits for long-service employees.
RI , 120
October 16,2018 8
I
' SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION-MISCELLANEOUS
350
300
250 '
200
150
100
50
9798 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 '06 '07 '08 04 10 11 '12 13 14 '15 16 '17
�aAcave 174 167 180 204 211 215 221 204 199 196 209 211 226 203 176 177 177 171 173 175 1681
1aFccr.:7fig N%=enr5 155 165 168 170 174 183 187 197 214 224 227 237 236 275 291 286 294 302 309 328 3431
October 16,2018 9
PLAN FUNDED STATUS-MISCELLANEOUS ,
1 I
Unfunded Accrued Liabilitv Chances
■ Unfunded Accrued Liability on 6/30/16 $32,600,000
■ Expected Unfunded Accrued Liability on 6/30/17 33,600,000
■ Other Changes
• Asset Loss (Gain) (11.2% return for FY17) (2,800,000)
• Assumption Change
(Mainly discount rate change 7.375% to 7.25%) 2,100,000
• Contribution& Experience Loss (Gain) (600,000)
• Total (1.300,000)
■ Unfunded Accrued Liability on 6/30/17 32,300,000
lz Y 121
October 16,2018 10 NOW
FUNDED RATIO-MISCELLANEOUS
Historical Funded Ratio
140%
120%
100%
800o '
60°fo
40%
2U%
0%
96 '97 '98 99 '00 '01 '0Z '03 '04 '05 '06 '071'081'091'101'111'121'13 '14 '1S '16 '1; '1$ 'I9
14 v 10 12 I3 13 13 11 98 87 94 96 10 10 94 64 66 73 69 73 78 75 70 72 71 71
6/30/18&6/30/19 funded status estimated
Ampthk
Go
i.
October 16,2018 11
CONTRIBUTION RATES-MISCELLANEOUS
Historical Employer Contribution Rates(Percent of Payroll)
30% - - -
25%
20%
15%
10%
G •
5% `
O% FY FY FY FY ]FY FY FY FY FY FY ]Fl FY :FY :FY FY FY :FY FY FY FY FY FY f
99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 109 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
-*-Nonual Cosl 6.4 5.3 5.3 7.0 7.6 7.7 7.9 8.2 8.3 8.1 8.0 8.0 7.9 7.8 7.6 8.7 7.7 8.0 8.1 7.8 8.1 8.91
-*-Total Rate 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 10.2 10.0 10.4 10.510.5 10,3 12A 13.4 17.0'16.1 17.1 19.120.6 23Z26.81
122
October 16,2018 12
i
CONTRIBUTION RATES-MISCELLANEOUS
I
6/30/16 6/30/17
2018/2019 2019/2020
■ Total Normal Cost 14.8% 15.5%
■ Employee Normal Cost 6.7% 6.7%
■ Employer Normal Cost 8.1% 8.9%
■ Amortization Payments 15.1% 17.9%
■ Total Employer Contribution Rate 23.2% 26.8%
■ 2018/19 Employer Contribution Rate 23.2%
• Payroll <Expected 0.7%
• Lump Sum Payment $578,992 (0.3%)
■ Fresh Start 2.1%
• 6/30/17 Discount Rate & Inflation (1St Year) 1.1%
• 6/30/17 (Gains)/Losses (1St Year) (0.0%)
■ 2019/20 Employer Contribution Rate 26.8%
October 16,2018 13
rCONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS-MISCELLANEOUS
I
■ Investment Return:
• June 30, 2018 8.6%2
• Future returns based on stochastic analysis using 1,000 trials3
25t"Percentile 50"Percentile 75t'Percentile
• Current Investment Mix 0.1% 7.0% 14.8%
w • Ultimate Investment Mix 0.8% 6.0% 11.4%
• Assumes investment returns average 6.5% (as compared to 7.0%) over the next 10
years and higher beyond that
• Additional Discount Rate decreases due to Risk Mitigation policy
■ No Other: Gains/Losses,Method/Assumption Changes, Benefit Improvements
■ New hire assumptions: Employee headcount remains the same but more PEPRA
employees over time
z based July 2018 Ca1PERS press release
3 Nal percentile means N percentage of our trials result in returns lower than the indicated rates.
1 123
October 16,2018 14
�i CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS-MISCELLANEOUS ,
50%
Ab•ah"''��"��,b..alb+
Nil* f1
40%
)�• ��y����'tii5 ti• f
.5'
10% _ -ti..1 �yK•y�l•�.rp4x;.4ti°�•q�i°4{r�$';•y'n•
�8W lir"vri,'0' Q• f° dl° pi. 4l.
00/0
�A^:5°``` '�Y-'-^�^�' ^.4T ^. 'tA "'3"' ,, .y .y ,� .� .,",,4°� , °k � ^� '�� �a
25th Perom ile =50th Peroentile 75th Peocmtile
October 16,2018 15
CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS-MISCELLANEOUS
Contribution Projection-$400s
[$7.000
(501$Percentile)
-
$6,000 591
5,"4
SA22
$5.000 •� — 5,1$6
4.737 4,943
4—%0
4.2'6 „7
$4,000 3,974
3,621 3.762
1.203
$3,000
$2,000 -
$ 1,426 1407 1,566 1°624 1.684 1,744 1,804 1.844
t,16
$1,000 1.115 1200
$0 T �—
18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30
Total —Nonnal Cost omUAL Payment
124
October 16,2018 16
SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION-SAFETY
1997 2008 2016 2017
Actives
■ Counts 115 126 97 97
■ Average
Age 40 49 N/A N/A
■ City Service 14 15 N/A N/A
. PERSable Wages $ 68,900 $ 115,500 $ 140,200 $ 132,400
■ Total PERSable Wages 7,900,000 14,500,000 13,600,000 12,800,000
Inactive Members
■ Counts
. Transferred 27 49 39 41
■ Separated 16 15 18 18
■ Retired
❑ Service 70 N/A N/A
❑ Disability 87 N/A N/A
❑ Beneficiaries 15 N/A N/A
❑ Total 117 172 221 225
■ Active/Retiree Ratio (City) 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.4
■ Active/Retiree Ratio (All Ca1PERS) N/A 1.7 1.3 1.3
r �
October 16,2018 17
SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION-SAFETY
250
200
150
100
50
_ E
'97 '98 '99 .00 '02'02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 'l1 '12
ve 115 11 121 122 7 124 1221
114 121 118
1.26 1251 122 15 106 1
�:ReeoeivingP�v'nunts 117 121 128 131 141 146 154 162 162 165 169 172 180 186 194 206 208 208 216 2 1 225
I I 125
October 16,2018 18
PLAN FUNDED STATUS-SAFETY
June 30, 2016 June 30, 2017
Active AAL $ 81,600,000 $ 75,200,000
Retiree AAL 175,100,000 190,800,000
Inactive AAL 4,200,000 4,600,000
Total AAL 260,900,000 270,600,000
Assets 159,100.000 166,400,000
Unfunded Liability 101,800,000 104,200,000
Funded Ratio 61.0% 61.5%
October 16,2018 19
FUNDED RATIO-SAFETY l
Historical Funded Ratio
140'o
1f1d4 0
90%
6U°o
400o — — — — —
20o n
96 97 48 99 b0 O1 '0? '03 '041`051W[01, 'OS '09 '10 '11 1-11-131-141-151'1612 'I7 '1s '19
MVA 106 118 122 117 114 94 81 79 84 89 8997 85 56 59 65 60 64 68 65 61 61 64 64
6/30/18&6/30/19 funded status estimated
October 16,2018 20 26
CONTRIBUTION RATES-SAFETY
I l �
Historical Employer Contribution Rates(Percent of Payroll)
-
80% r
70%
60%
R
50% _
W.
40°/a JK
s•"
30%
■
20% ■ - {
10°/a
0%
98/ 99/ 00/ 01/ 02/ 03/ 04/ 05/ 06/ 07/ 08/ 09/ 10/ 11/ 12/ 13/ 14/ 15/ 16/ 17/ 18/ 19/
99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
(Normal Cost 13.1 11.1 12.5 15.5 173 17.1 17-115.8 16.3 162 15.3 15.615.716.8 16.9 17.7117.517.7 18.819.0203 25-2
�-W Total Rate 13.5 4.5 1.6 6.3 6.617.829.6.31A25.7.25.525.726.826.933235.438A433.16.650.055.0151.979.3
AVMbk
t October 16,2018 21
CONTRIBUTION RATES-SAFETY ,
I �
6/30/16 6/30/17
2018/2019 2019/2020
■ Total Normal Cost 29.4% 30.8%
■ Employee Normal Cost 9.0% 9.2%
■ Employer Normal Cost 20.3% 21.5%
■ Amortization Payments 42.1% 50.4%
■ Total Employer Contribution Rate 62.5% 72.0%
■ 2018/19 Employer Contribution Rate 62.5%
• Payroll <Expected 3.6%
• Payment &Amortization chap es in 2017/18 `0.6%)
• Asset Method Change(5`n Yea Z.3%
• 6/30/14 Assumption Change(41' Year) 1.9%
• 6/30/14 (Gauls)/Losses (4th Year) (2.1%)
■ 6/30/15 (Gains)/Losses (3rd Year) 0.7%
r 6/30/16 Discount Rate Change (2nd Year) 0.6%
• 6/30/16 (Gains)/Losses (2nd Year) 1.0%
• 6/30/17 Discount Rate & Inflation(1St Year) 2.0%
• 6/30/17 (Gains)/Losses (1St Year) .0.1%
■ 2019/20 Employer Contribution Rate 72.0%
f� 127
October 16,2018 22 y
CONTRIBUTION PROJECTION-SAFETY
Contribution Rate—Percent of Pay
140%
12D%
° pp p l
O P
O
100% ���o;, Ra' on ao °❑ a°I° a.9°1° �?9•.
e)p.�
800/0
o°
40%
20% -
0°/O ---—� � — ,—- --i --"- ----- -----
75th Percendle —40th Percentile 25th PercenWe
P4
October 16,2018 23
CONTRIBUTION PROJECTION-SAFETY
I
140%
Contribution Rate—Percent of Pay
r — -
y
120%
100% I�O��.
$0, ry.gel'
91 qr•i,�y.I.
60% to n
z3 I
b�
40% „
ti "0.
20°JO
tiff°y�P+°,o�°tidl•`�p,°`ql^�°pl°`9�°
0%
�$1 a��5 V��^ ���q ��ti ��^� D,N�p5
1 'L ti ti b `L 3 '� A D�
75th Percentile 50th Percentile 25th Percentile
[; I 128
l October 16,2018 24
�I CONTRIBUTION PROJECTION-SAFETY
Projected Contributions-$000s
:$20,000 (5ft Percentile)
1$18,000 -
$16,000 -
:514,000 - -
13
12,737
$12,000
10,726
$10,000 — 9,989
9,289
$8.000
$6,000
$4,000 - . 3;657 3.751 3.847 3943 4,040 4.137 4.234
3,024 3,013 3.241 3,393
$2.000
$0 1 1 1 F
�
18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26!27 27/28 28/29 29/30
=.Total Normal Cost rUAL Payment
CAOctober 16,2018 25
�I COMBINED MISCELLANEOUS AND SAFETY
Contribution Projection(SO00s)
Miscellaneous& Safety
$30,000 – –
$25,000 =�
22,7
21,
19,83 24,7
$20,000 17
16,99
15,69 ,� 16.364 17:
$15.000 •13;G1 14' 14 10
;56..
12'4 12;i 13.467
:11.725
$10,000 9
$5,000 - 5;991-
dw, 3,621 3,762 3,974 4,256 4,500
4,737 4,943 5,185 5,422 5,664
3203
$0
18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22123 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30
1 am*disccllancous+Safety ME61iscellancom --Safety
129
October 16,2018 26
COMBINED MISCELLANEOUS AND SAFETY
Funded Status Summary on June 30, 2017
(Amounts in $Millions)
Miscellaneous Safety Total
■ AAL $ 113 $ 271 $ 383
■ Assets 81 166 247
■ Unfunded AAL 32 104 136
■ Funded Ratio 71.4% 61.5% 64.4%
October 16,2018 27
11 ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO CALPERS
■ Make payments directly to Ca1PERS:
• Likely best long-term investment return
• Must be considered an irrevocable decision
• City has used both options
• Option#1: Request shorter amortization period (Fresh Start):
■ Option 42: Target specific amortization bases:
. 130
October 16,2018 28
I� ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO CALPERS
f {
Estimated Savings
.Miscellaneous I Safety
2017/18 Additional Contributions to CalPERS
Contribution Amount $ 578,992 $1,322,149
Total $ Savings (Interest) 801,000 1,786,000
PV Savings @ 3% 342,000 760,000
Miscellaneous I Safety
2018/19 Additional Contributions to CalPERS
Contribution Amount $306,791 $1,193,209
Total $ Savings (Interest) 260,000 898,000
PV Savings @ 3% 114,000 384,000
I�
October 16,2018 29
VIRREVOCABLE SUPPLEMENTAL(§115)PENSION TRUST
1
■ City has established a Supplemental Trust with PARS
■ Can only be used to:
• Reimburse City for Ca1PERS contributions
• Make payments directly to CalPERS
■ More flexibility than paying CalPERS directly
• City decides if and when and how much money to put into Trust
• City decides if and when and how much to withdraw to pay CalPERS or
reimburse Agency
■ Can be used to stabilize contribution rates
❑ Mitigate expected contribution rates to better manage budget
131
October 16,2018 30 0
I� IRREVOCABLE SUPPLEMENTAL(§115)PENSION TRUST 1
I
Miscellaneous Safety
Trust Contributions • April 2018: $1 Million
• October 2018: $1 Million
■ April 2019: $0.5 Million
• October 2019: $1 Million
• October 2020: $1 Million
• Allocation: 20% Miscellaneous,
40% Police and 40% Fire
Trust Earnings 5% 5%
Trust Target
- Target Contribution Rate 33.5% 93.5%
- 1 st Year 2029/30 2027/28
- Last Year 2035/36 2033/2634
$ Savings over 20 years $781,000 $2,749,000
PV Savings @ 3% 292,000 956,000
r71 -
October 16,2018 31
+� IRREVOCABLE SUPPLEMENTAL(§115)PENSION TRUST
1-al 6/30/19 Fund 511-150001 5w
5UbW l0 P"-Ig1a.f X.t;- 9ACalculate% Miscellaneous Plan Rate Stabilization Fund Balance ---__J
Target Bate 333%
w -aV sl x 2" L41 :"WAY 27fa wig "Pin -in ' u " "in mm win w3'�
IA1 Addl Contnbu0ttn 5150001 200 200 - - - - - - - - -
1B1 Addy COnlnbu0on-%ot pay 0.0%
0.0% 0A% 0.0% 0A% 0.0% 0A% 0.0% 0.0% 0A% 0A% 0.00% 0O0% OAO% 0.00% O.OD% 0.00% O.OD% 0.00% 0.00% O.OD%
(A)+1B1 as%of Pay 15% 1a% 00% 00% 00% 00% 00% 00% 00% a0% 0.0% 00% 0.0% 00% ODD 00% 00% 00% 0.0% 00% 00%
Budget-C PERS Bate 262% 221% 21-0% 29.0% 29.9% 306% 31.1% 3L7% 32.3% 32.0% 33.5% 33.5% 33.5% 335% 33.5% 33.]% 33.5% 325% 303% 300% 253%
Contubute at Target Rate? N N N N N N N N N N y Y Y Y T y T N N N N
Contribution Rate Projection
36
34,7%
34.9%35.2%
34%
32 3% 33.5%33.5% t72.i54
32 31,7%
32 3%
:0
30.6% 31751
30.0%
31p% 30.6%
28.8%
27.B%
280/6 26 7%2/.i, 1
\ 27.8%
26% 26.7%27.1%
24%
22%
211/6
1110 ,yp�•l` ry y'1�� .�'i�� ti�ryy 'Y5\,Lb 14, ry^\,y3 v�'Yq ,4q\� �p\�` ,y%\dry ,y.�•y'y ,yn:\� 41 "I'll 14, 4114 ,53�•y9 ,�q�e13
aasrrareref 51Nh 11.mnfile
132
October 16,2018 32
OPEB BENEFITS
■ Health care benefits paid to retirees
• Benefits capped at about $1,200 to $1,400 per month per retiree
• City pre-funds the OPEB Obligation through CERBT
(Trust managed by Ca1PERS)
■ Participants at 6/30/17:
1 Misc Police Fire Total
1■ Actives Count 159 47 39 245
1■ Retirees Count 222 66 52 340
1 .
October 16,2018 33
OPEB BENEFITS
■ Actuarial liabilities for OPEB
6/30/17
■ Actuarial Accrued Liability
• Actives (future retirees) 17,709
• Retirees 44,006
• Total 61,715
■ Actuarial Value of Assets 20,553
■ Unfunded AAL 41,162
■ Funded Status 33.3%
133
October 16,2018 34
11 OPEB BENEFITS
Funded Status
(Amounts in 000's)
$70,000
$60,000 !—
$50,000
$40,000 —
$30,000 —
$20,000 —
$10,000 — - -
6/30/06 6/30/08 6/30/10 6/30/11 6/30/13 6/30/15 6/30/17
=Retiree pay-go =Retiree AAL less pay-go =Active AAL -f-AVA -*--MVA
l; 1
October 16,2018 35
I� OPEB BENEFITS
10-Year Projection of City Contributions
(Amounts in 000's)
Fiscal Year Projected City Contribution as a
Ending Contribution Percent of Payroll
2019 $ 4,306 17.0%
2020 4,436 17.1%
2021 4,570 17.1%
2022 4,708 17.1%
2023 4,850 17.1%
2024 4,996 17.1%
2025 5,147 17.1%
2026 5,302 17.1%
2027 5,462 17.1%
2028 5,246 15.9%
Contribution rate drops to 6.3% in FY 2042.
134
October 16,2018 36
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 15, 2019
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Committee, Commissions and Boards
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to announce the appointment to the Economic Development
Advisory Council and the Technology Committee. (Fiscal Impact: None)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Announce the appointees; and/or,
2. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible action related to this item_
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: $None
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s):
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal: 1 Enhance Customer Service Engagement
Objective: 1(b) The City engages in regular, intentional information gathering
ORIGINATED BY: Mishia Jennings, Executive Assistan
REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY: Greg Carpenter, City Manager
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
Committee/Commission and Number Appointee(s) Term Expiration
Board of
Openines
Economic Development Advisory Five Richard Lundquist Full term expires January 1,2022
Council
Economic Development Advisory Al Keahi Full term expires January 1,2022
Council
Economic Development Advisory Bob Healey Full term expires January 1,2022
Council
Economic Development Advisory Matthew Thompkins Full term expires January 1,2022
Council
Technology Committee Two Todd Felker Partial term expires June 30,2022
6
135
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 15, 2018
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Reports of Committees,
Commissions, and Boards
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to receive and file an informational update from the Information
Systems Department and the Technology Committee regarding the projects completed in 2018.
(Fiscal Impact: None)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Receive and file informational update and status reports(s);
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
FISCAL IMPACT: $0.00
Amount Budgeted: $0.00
Additional Appropriation: $0.00
Account Number(s): $0.00
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal: 1A El Segundo Provides unparalleled service to internal and
external customers.
Objective: I. City operations are unified and integrated
H. City services are convenient, efficient and user-friendly for all
residents, businesses, and visitors
Goal: 3A Develop as a Choice Employer and Workforce
Objective: IV. The City has a culture of innovation trust and efficiency in which all
aboard rise together
Goal: 4A El Segundo's physical infrastructure supports and appealing, safe
and effective community
Objective: I. The City optimizes its physical resources.
Goal: 4B El Segundo's technology supports effective, efficient, and proactive
operations.
Objective: I. The City has an integrated focus on technology
II. The city has an effective structure to meet the technology needs of
the City and its constituents
ORIGINATED BY: Charles Mallory, Information Systems Director d�
REVIEWED BY: Charles Mallory, Information Systems Director
APPROVED BY: Greg Carpenter, City MaziagcJOL
136
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
The Information Systems Department(ISD), along with the Technology Committee,have worked
diligently over the past year to complete many projects. To date a total of 21 projects have been
completed; 10 of which are from the Technology Master Plan (*). The remaining projects were
considered operational and have reduced the use of paper and increased department(s) efficiency
through process improvement.
Finance:
Business License Online*
Payment Gateway for Credit Card Processing*
Cashiering System(Eden)*
Tyler Eden Software updates
Automated Requisition Processing
Library:
Upgrade Public Internet Workstations*
Implement Password-free Wi-Fi Access
Self-checkout and receipt printing
Public Scanning/Wi-Fi printing Capabilities
Fire:
Dispatch Pre-Alerting System: Westnet*
First Net (Fire Cell Phones - Priority Calling)
Police:
In-Car& Body Worn Cameras: Technical components*
Parks & Recreation:
Recreation Management Software: CivicRec*
Aquatic Center Technical Infrastructure*
Information Systems:
Fiber Installation*
SIP Conversion—Upgrade Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP)
Teleconferencing
Implementation of new virus scanning tools
• Malware Bytes
• Trend Micro
Public Works:
SCADA System Server
Citv Attornev/City Clerk's Office:
Email Archival*
Committee, Commission and Board's City Email*
137
Additionally, the Information Systems Department is currently working on some large scale
projects that will directly improve resident access to information as well as improve staff
efficiency.
The GO website or(Content Management Svstem CMS) redesign project is one example of
the current projects underway. Contract negotiations with Granicus were finalized at the end of
December 2018, which now allows the City to begin working with Granicus. A kick off meeting
between Granicus and the City's implementation team will be scheduled to take place later this
month. The goal is to have the new website up and running within the next 9 months. Below are
a few of the significant benefits of this project.
• Online services - One of the_most important functions of the City website is its ability to
engage and equip citizens with online services that can provide pertinent information and
save them time from coming into the office. Services such as bill payment, employment
submissions, program registrations and facility reservations will be wrapped in one
package and can easily be accessed online from the convenience of home or on any
mobile device.
• One-stop shop solution -A new website or CMS will function as a repository for every
type of content made available to citizens. Working with one CMS to handle all digital
requirements will allow the website administrators to self-manage all content types using
one solution with one contact for support services.
The Citv's technolozv infrastructure has reached its end of life and is in need of replacement;
therefore,the Information Systems Department is beginning the process of refreshing the City's
entire technology infrastructure. This project will include replacing the existing storage area
network(SAN), servers, and the network switching components. Completions of these projects
will directly result in greater processing and storage capacity. This refresh will be the foundation
for improved desktop processing, hosting of new enterprise applications, the centralization and
categorizing of business data which will be ultimately used for analysis and decision support.
Finally,the refresh will provide greater security and system resiliency. These projects are
expected to be completed by the end of 2019.
The Citv's current building nermittine system is another example of a project the Information
Systems Department is currently implementing. This project will improve the quality of life for
the City's residents and business partners, as well as improve the efficiency of the City's staff.
An RFP was release on November 15, 2018 leading to the City receiving confirmation from 9
vendors who plan to submit bids. Vendor proposals are due on January 15, 2019. Once received,
the proposals will be graded based on an extensive criteria set by the Planning and Building
Safety Department and agreed upon by the Technology Committee. This project's target
completion date is April of 2020.
With the strategic direction of the Technology Committee, the City will continue to expand and
update its mobile capabilities, social media platform, and online technology presence to increase
and improve communication with its residents and business partners. The Information Systems
Department will partner with constituencies in the technology conversation, plans, designs and
implementation to ensure long term success.
138
Staff recommends that council file this informational update and status report(s) from the
Information Systems Department and the Technology Committee.
139
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
WARRANTS TOTALS BY FUND
3024065 3024189 DATE OF APPROVAL: AS OF 1MI19 REGISTER 1Y 6a
9000657 9000694
001 GENERAL FUND 204,776.39
104 TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND
106 STATE GAS TAX FUND -
106 ASSOCIATED RECREATION ACTIVITIES FUND -
109 ASSET FORFEITURE FUND
111 COMM.REVEL.BLOCK GRANT
112 PROP"A"TRANSPORTATION
114 PROP"C"TRANSPORTATION -
115 AIR QUALITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM -
116 HOME SOUND INSTALLATION FUND -
117 HYPERION MITIGATION FUND -
118 TDA ARTICLE 3.80 621 BIKEWAY FUND
Its MTA GRANT
121 FEMA
120 C.O.P.S.FUND -
122 L.A.W.A.FUND -
123 PSAF PROPERTY TAX PUBLIC SAFETY -
202 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT#73 -
301 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 3,007.66
302 INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT FUND -
405 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE -
501 WATER UTILITY FUND 7,222.84
502 WASTEWATER FUND 5,762.38
503 GOLF COURSE FUND 16,600.00
601 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT -
602 LIABILITY INSURANCE -
8133 WORKERS COMP.RESERVEIINSURANCE 163,617,61
701 RETIRED EMP.INSURANCE -
702 EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND-DEVELOPER FEES 4,60222
703 EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND-OTHER 26,210.60
70B OUTSIDE SERVICES TRUST =
TOTAL WARRANTS S 371.439.52
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Information on actual expenditures is available in the Director of Finance's office in the
City of EI Segundo.
I certify as to the accuracy of the Demands and the availability of fund for payment thereof,
For Approval:Regular checks held for City council authorization to release.
CODES: VOID CHECKS DUE Tfl ALIGNMENT:
(J/A
R= Computer generated checks for all non-emergencyfurgency payments for materials,supplies and
Services in support of City Operations
VOID CHECKS DUE TO INCORRECT CHECK DATE:
For Ratification:
A= Payroll and Employee Benefit checks VOID CHECKS DUE TO COMPUTER SOFTWARE ERROR:
B-F= Computer generated Early Release disbursements andlor adjustments approved by the City
Manager. Such as:payments for utility services,petty cash and employee travel expense NOTES
reimbursements,various refunds,contract employee services consistent with current contractual
J agreements,instances where prompt payment discounts ran be obtained or late payment penalties
r can be avoided or when a situation arises that the City Manager approves.
H= Oarldwrilten dy RBE dr- mems and/or adjustments approved by the City Manager. s
FINANCE DIRECTOR }� CITY MANAGER A
DATF: [ 7- "1 DATE: /Z—
C) f Lf
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
PAYMENTS BY WIRE TRANSFER
12/10/18 THROUGH 12/16118
Date Payee Description
12110/2018 West Basin 2,160,449.70 H2O payment
12/14/2018 Manufacturers & Traders 29,843.82 457 payment Vantagepoint
12/14/2018 Manufacturers & Traders 300.00 IRA payment Vantagepoint
12/14/2018 Nationwide NRS EFT 32,657.20 EFT 457 payment
12/3/18-12/9/18 Workers Comp Activity 12,588.40 SCRMA checks issued
1213/18-12/9/18 Liability Trust-Claims 0.00 Claim checks issued
1213118-1219/18 Retiree Health insurance 0.00 Health Reimbursment checks issued
2,235,839.12
DATE OF RATIFICATION: 12/14/18
TOTAL PAYMENTS BY WIRE: 2,235,839.12
Certified as to the accuracy of the wire transfers by:
� q J
Deputy City Treasurer II pate/
12 7/7` I
Dire r of F4bnce Date
SC -17-9
City M age Date
Information on actual expenditures is available in the City Treasurer's Office of the City of EI Segundo.
PACity TreasurerlWire Transfers%Wire Transfers 10-01-18 to 9-30-19 12/14/201111/1
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
WARRANTS TOTALS BY FUND
3024190 - 3024261 DATE OF APPROVAL: AS OF 1r1119 REGISTER A!60,
9000695 9000598
001 GENERAL FUND 443,518.76
104 TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND
1D6 STATE GAS TAX FUND
108 ASSOCIATED RECREATION ACTIVITIES FUND
109 ASSET FORFEITURE FUND 1,074,71
111 COMM.REVEL.BLOCK GRANT -
112 PROP"A"TRANSPORTATION 572.00
114 PROP"C"TRANSPORTATION
115 AIR QUALITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM
116 HOME SOUND INSTALLATION FUND
117 HYPERION MITIGATION FUND -
118 TDA ARTICLE 3-SB 82181KEWAY FUND
119 MTA GRANT
121 FEMA
12C C.O.P-S-FUND
122 LA-W.A.FUND
123 PSAF PROPERTY TAX PUBLIC SAFETY
202 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT S73 -
3D1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 7.25560
302 INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT FUND
405 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
501 WATER UTILITY FUND 4,030.79
502 WASTEWATER FUND -
503 GOLF COURSE FUND -
601 EOUiPMENT REPLACEMENT -
602 LIABILITY INSURANCE
603 WORKERS COMP.RESERVEIINSURANCE
701 RETIRED EMP,INSURANCE -
702 EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND-DEVELOPER FEES 5,442.03
703 EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND-OTHER
708 OUTSIDE SERVICES TRUST 18,752.25
TOTAL WARRANTS 5 480,646 14 -r
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Information on actual expenditures is available in the Director of Finance's office in the
City of EI Segundo.
i certify as to the accuracy of the Demands and the avedability of fund for payment thereof.
For Approval:Regular checks held for City council authorization to release.
CODES: VOID CHECKS DUE TO ALIGNMENT:
NIA
R= Computer generated checks for all non-emefgencylurgency payments for materials,supplies and
services in support of City Operations
VOID CHECKS DUE TO INCORRECT CHECK DATE:
For Ratification:
A= Payroll and Employee Benefit checks VOID CHECKS DUE TO COMPUTER SOFTWARE ERROR:
B-F= Computer generated Early Release disbursements and/or adjustments approved by the City
Manager. Such as:payments for utility services,petty rash and employee travel expense NOTES
reimbursements,various refunds,contract employee services consistent with current contractual
agreements,instances where prompt payment discounts can be obtained or late payment penalties
can be avoided or when a situation arises that the City Manager approves
bI= Hund Vntten Eafly Ref se disbursam and/or adjustments approved by the City Manager,
FINANCE DIRECTOR CITY MANAGER
DATE: DATE: / r
1 r
N
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
PAYMENTS BY WIRE TRANSFER
12/17118 THROUGH 12/23/18
Date Pa eeee Description
12/1712018 IRS 348,881.36 Federal 941 Deposit
12/1712018 Employment Development 78,578.17 State PIT Withholding
12/1712018 Employment Development 5,373.56 State SDI payment
12/17/2018 Health Comp 438.60 Weekly claims
12/18/2018 State of CA EFT 1,672.15 EFT Child support payment
12/19/2018 Cal Pers 4,615.73 EFT Retirement Safety-Fire-PEPRA New 25020
12/19/2018 Cal Pers 6,843.59 EFT Retirement Safety-Police-PEPRA New 25021
12/19/2018 Cal Pers 22,591.07 EFT Retirement Misc-PEPRA New 26013
12119/2018 Cal Pers 48,659.11 EFT Retirement Misc-Classic 27
12/19/2018 Cal Pers 67,262.86 EFT Retirement Safety Police Classic- 1st Tier 28
1 2/1 91201 8 Cal Pers 46,331.17 EFT Retirement Safety Fire-Classic 30166
1 211 91201 8 Cal Pers 4,033.90 EFT Retirement Sfty Police Classic-2nd Tier 30169
12/2012018 Lane Donovan Golf Ptr 21,990.69 Payroll Transfer
12/10/18-12/16/18 Workers Comp Activity 55,972.75 SCRMA checks issued
12110118-12/16118 Liability Trust-Claims 0.00 Claim checks issued
12/10/18-12116/18 Retiree Health Insurance 0.00 Health Reimbursment checks issued
713,244.71
DATE OF RATIFICATION: 12/20/18
TOTAL PAYMENTS BY WIRE: 713,244.71
Certified as to the accuracy of the wire transfers by:
LJ ' f � r
r1
Deputy'City Treasurer II Date
Director v' nan Date
City Ma er Date
Information on actual expenditures is available in the City Treasurer's Office of the City of El Segundo.
PACity Treasurer\Wire TransfersMire Transfers 10-01-18 to 9-30-19 12/20/2018 1/1
143
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
WARRANTS TOTALS BY FUND
3024262 3024295 DATE OF APPROVAL: AS OF 1115119 REGISTER d 7a
9000699 - 9000699
001 GENERALFUND 174,23262
104 TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND
106 STATE GAS TAX FUND
108 ASSOCIATED RECREATION ACTIVITIES FUND -
109 ASSET FORFEITURE FUND -
ill COMM REVEL BLOCKGRANT -
112 PROP"A"TRANSPORTATION -
114 PROP"C"TRANSPORTATION
115 AIR QUALITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM
116 HOME SOUND INSTALLATION FUND 373
117 HYPERION MITIGATION FUND 477.83
118 TDA ARTICLE 3-SB 821 BIKEWAY FUND -
119 MTA GRANT -
121 FEMA
120 C.O,PS.FUND
122 LA.W A.FUND
123 PSAF PROPERTY TAX PUBLIC SAFETY
202 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT S73 -
301 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 53,372.42
302 INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT FUND -
405 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE -
501 WATER UTILITY FUND 1,574.04
502 WASTEWATER FUND 2,452,65
503 GOLF COURSE FUND -
601 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT -
602 LIABILITY INSURANCE 14,990 32
603 WORKERS COMP,RESERVIDINSURANCE 4,620.93
701 RETIRED EMP.INSURANCE -
702 EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND-DEVELOPER FEES
703 EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND-OTHER
708 OUTSIDE SERVICES TRUST f
TOTAL WARRANTS S 251,771.54_ J/
STATE OF CALIFORNIA T
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Informalion on actual expenditures is available in the Director of Finance's office in the
City of EI Segundo.
I certify as to the accuracy of the Demands and the availability of fund for payment thereof.
For Approval:Regular checks held for City council authorization to release.
CODES: VOID CHECKS DUE TO ALIGNMENT:
NIA
R= Computer generated checks for all non-emergency/urgency payments for materials,supplies and
services in support of City Operations
VOID CHECKS DUE TO INCORRECT CHECK DATE_
For Ratification:
A= Payroll and Employee Benefit checks VOID CHECKS DUE TO COMPUTER SOFTWARE ERROR:
B-F= Computer generated Early Release disbursements and/or adjustments approved by the City
Manager. Such as:payments for utility services,petty cash and employee travel expense NOTES
reimbursements,various refunds,contract employee services consistent with current contractual
{ 1 agreements,instances where prompt payment discounts can be obtained or late payment penalties
U` r can be avoided or when a situation arises that the City Manager approves.
H= Handwritten Early Release&ibtx�d/or adjustments approved by the City Manager
FINANCE DIRECTOR CITY MANAGER
� OAT>w; r ry,i t� DATE:
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
PAYMENTS BY WIRE TRANSFER
12124118 THROUGH 12/30/18
Date Payee Description
121~ 2812019 Manufacturers &Traders 20,566.98 457 payment Vantagepoint
12/28/2019 Manufacturers &Traders 550.00 IRA payment Vantagepoint
12/28/2019 Nationwide NRS EFT 25,707.06 EFT 457 payment
12117118-12/23118 Workers Comp Activity 18,563.86 SCRMA checks issued
12/17/18-12/23118 Liability Trust-Claims 0.00 Claim checks issued
12/17118-12123/18 Retiree Health Insurance 0,00 Health Reimbursment checks issued
65,387.90
DATE OF RATIFICATION: 1/7119
TOTAL PAYMENTS BY WIRE: 65,387.90
Certified as to the accuracy of the wire transfers by:
7
De p Y Y ut Cit Treasure.11 Rafe
Direc 5r.of Fi a ce Date
.
Cit na r Date
c
Information on actual expenditures is available in the City Treasurer's Office of the City of EI Segundo.
PACity TreasurehWire Transfers\VVire Transfers 10-01-18 to 9-30-19 1/7/2019 1/1
145
CIN OF EL SEGUNDO
WARRANTS TOTALS BV FUND
3024296 - 3024395 DATE OF APPROVAL, AS OF vi 5119 REGISTER 6 7b
001 GENERAL FUND 277,320.87
104 TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND -
106 STATE GAS TAX FUND 10,080 00
106 ASSOCIATED RECREATION ACTIVITIES FUND -
109 ASSET FORFEITURE FUND 937.50
711 COMM.DEVEL.BLOCK GRANT -
112 PROP"A"TRANSPORTATION -
114 PROP"C•TRANSPORTATION
115 AIR QUALITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM
116 HOME SOUND INSTALLATION FUND
117 HYPERION MITIGATION FUND -
116 TDA ARTICLE 3-SS B21 BIKEWAY FUND -
119 MTA GRANT
121 FEMA
120 C,O.P S-FUND -
122 L.A.W A.FUND
123 PSAF PROPERTY TAX PUBLIC SAFETY
202 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT*73
301 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 37,447-07
302 INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT FUND -
405 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE -
501 WATER UTILITY FUND 1,289,63
502 WASTEWATER FUND 48,932 34
503 GOLF COURSE FUND -
601 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT -
602 LIABILITY INSURANCE 2,948,17
603 WORKERS COMP.RESERVEIINSURANCE
701 RETIRED EMP.INSURANCE
702 EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND-DEVELOPER FEES 27.823.42
703 EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND-OTHER 19,088.76
706 OUTSIDE SERVICES TRUST -
TOTAL WARRANTS S 425,867.76
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Information on actual expenditures is available in the Director of Finance's office in the
City of EI Segundo.
I cerlify as to the accuracy of the Demands and the avaitabilily of fund for payment thereof
For Approval:Regular checks held for City council authorization to release.
CODES: VOID CHECKS DUE TO ALIGNMENT.
NIA
R= Computer generated checks for all non-emergency/urgency payments for materials,supplies and
services in support of City Operations
VOID CHECKS DUE TO INCORRECT CHECK DATE:
For Ratification:
A= Payroll and Employee Benefit checks VOID CHECKS DUE TO COMPUTER SOFTWARE ERROR:
B-F= Computer generated Early Release disbursements andfor adjustments approved by the City
Manager. Such as:payments for utility services,petty cash and employee travel expense NOTES
reimbursements,various refunds,contract employee services consistent with current contractual
agreements,instances where prompt payment discounts can be obtained or late payment penallies �l
can be avoided or when a situation arises that(he City Manager approves,
H= Harldwrillen flo y Ftelaasa di 1) Is 9fldlor adjustments approved by the City Manager.
FINANCE DIRECTOR CITY MANAGER
DATE: ! I DATE:
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
PAYMENTS BY WIRE TRANSFER
12131/18 THROUGH 116/19
Date_ P, ayee Description
12131/2018 Unum 129.90 Long Term Care Premium
12/31/2018 Los Angeles World Airport 10,543,300.06 RSI LAWA balance returned
12/31/2018 IRS 238,773.84 Federal 941 Deposit
12/3112018 Employment Development 56,645.80 State PIT Withholding
12/31/2018 Employment Development 3,776.85 State SDI payment
1/3/2019 Lane Donovan Golf Ptr 20,568.39 Payroll Transfer
12/24118-12/30/18 Workers Comp Activity 11,991.99 SCRMA checks issued
12/24/18-12/30/18 Liability Trust-Claims 0.00 Claim checks issued
12/24/18-12/30118 Retiree Health Insurance 19,006.87 Health Reimbursment checks issued
10,894,193.70
DATE OF RATIFICATION: 1/7/19
TOTAL PAYMENTS BY WIRE: 10,894,193.70
Certified as to the
accuracy of the wire transfers by.
Deputy City Treas6rer it Date
11w !— 7-4�1 --_
Direc of Fi nce Date
City n ' Date
Information on actual expenditures is available in the City Treasurer's Office of the City of EI Segundo.
P:1City TreasurerlWire Transfers\Wire Transfers 10-01-18 to 9-30-19 1!7/2019 111
147
MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2018 — 5:00 PM
5:00 P.M. SESSION
CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Boyles at 5:00 PM
ROLL CALL
Mayor Boyles Present
Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk Present
Council Member Brann Present
Council Member Pimentel Present
Council Member Nicol Present
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION — (Related to City Business Only— 5 minute limit per
person, 30 minute limit total) None
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
1. Consideration and possible action to interview candidates of the Economic
Development Advisory Council (EDAC) and the Technology Committee.
(Fiscal Impact: None)
Council interviewed candidates and the following were appointed to the following
committees; EDAC — Richard Lundquist, (full term), Al Keahi, (full term), Bob Healey,
(full term), Matthew Thompkins, (full term) and to the Technology Committee — Todd
Felker, (partial term).
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(d)(1): -0- matters
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL —ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(d)(2): -1-
matters.
Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9 (d)(4): -2- matters.
DISCUSSION OF PERSONNEL MATTERS (Gov't Code §54957): -0- matters
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 18,2018
PAGE NO. 1
148
APPOINTMENT OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE (Gov't. Code § 54957): -0- matter
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT (Gov't Code § 54957) -1- matter
1. Position: City Manager
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54956.8): -0-
matters
CONFERENCE WITH CITY'S LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54957.6).. -6-
matters
54957.6): -6-
matters
1. Employee Organizations: Police Management Association; Police Support
Services Employees Association; Supervisory, Professional Employees
Association; City Employee Association; and Executive and
Management/Confidential Employees (unrepresented groups).
Agency Designated Representative: Irma Moisa Rodriquez, City Manager, Greg
Carpenter and Human Resources Director.
Adjourned at 5:50 PM
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 18, 2018
PAGE NO.2
REGULAR MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2018 - 7:00 P.M.
7:00 P.M. SESSION
CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Boyles at 7:01 PM
INVOCATION — Pastor Lee Carlile, Methodist Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Council Member Nicol
PRESENTATIONS
a) Proclamation read by Council Member Nicol, proclaiming December 25th at
12:00 PM the Annual Christmas Dinner at the Recreation and Parks
Department's Joslyn Center. Proclamation was presented the Recreation and
Parks Department and the Kiwanis Club.
b) Presentation by Chief Whalen, Sgt. Perez and Officer Deer of the EI Segundo
Police Department presenting and demonstrating the developing Unmanned
Aerial Vehicle Program. Lt. Leyman is the managing team leader on this project.
c) Presentation by Joe Lillio, Finance Director, introducing the departments' new
employee, Darryl Felder, Payroll Accountant.
d) Presentation by Meredith Petit, Recreation and Parks Director, introducing the
departments' new employee, Devon (Bargmann) Zamora , Recreation
Coordinator.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Boyles Present
Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk Present
Council Member Brann Present
Council Member Pimentel Present
Council Member Nicol Present
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — (Related to City Business Only— 5 minute limit per
person, 30 minute limit total)
Lance Giroux, resident, commented on the recent RFP regarding the Aquatics Center
Lane usage and the possible Clubs that will use the Center if chosen during the RFP
process. In favor of South Bay United, due to the fact that most members are EI
Segundo residents.
Bonnie Kerker, resident, commented on the recent RFP regarding the Aquatics Center
Lane usage and the possible Clubs that will use the Center if chosen during the RFP
process. In favor of South Bay United, due to the fact that most members are EI
Segundo residents.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 18, 2018
PAGE NO. 3
Max Keldorf, resident and ESMS student, spoke on behalf of South Bay United, his
Water Polo Club with regards to the Lane Usage RFP.
Michelle Keldorf, resident, thanked the Council and City on the process regarding the
Lane Usage RFP.
Kara Baldino, resident, invited the Council and EI Segundo residents to attend the
Young American's Program at the EI Segundo High School on January 13, 2019. She
gave a brief background on what Young American's are all about.
Carl Jacobson, resident, commented on item #C4, in favor of manual trash pick-up, not
automated service.
Ray Growth, General Manager, Republic Services, commented on item #C4, stating he
would like Council to reconsider the top proposals as a courtesy to his Company who
has served the City for 25 years.
Jeanette Gant, Recreation and Parks Pool Manager, invited Council to the Grand
Opening of the Aquatic Center on Saturday, January 5, 2019 from 10:30 - 3:00 PM.
Julie Stolnak, resident, commented on a previous item regarding high density housing.
Ms. Stolnak expressed the desire for EI Segundo to remain a hometown feel and is not
in favor of high density housing.
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS — (Related to Public Communications)
Council commented on the Public comments
A. PROCEDURAL MOTIONS
Consideration of a motion to read all ordinances and resolutions on the Agenda by title
only.
MOTION by Council Member Brann, SECONDED by Mayor Boyles 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)
1. Consideration and possible action (Public Hearing) authorizing a proposed
change to the City's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 2018-2019
Program to cancel, "Installation of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Compliant Curb Ramps (CDBG Project Number 601959-18)", and alternatively,
implement a new 2018-2019 CDBG Project entitled, "City Facilities Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA)-Compliant Parking Lot Restriping and Signage".
2018-2019 CDBG funds in the amount of $53,608 from the cancelled project will
be used to implement the new, proposed project. Pursuant to the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed action is exempt from
CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3), as it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that the activity will have a significant effect
on the environment.
(Fiscal Impact: $53,608.00)
Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk stated this was the time and place for a Public Hearing
regarding authorizing a proposed change to the City's Community Development Block
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 18,2018
PAGE NO 4
Grant (CDBG) 2018-2019 Program to cancel, "Installation of Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) Compliant Curb Ramps (CDBG Project Number 601959-18)", and
alternatively, implement a new 2018-2019 CDBG Project entitled, "City Facilities
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-Compliant Parking Lot Restriping and Signage".
City Clerk Weaver stated that proper notice had been given in a timely manner and that
no written communication has been received in the City Clerk's office.
Greg Carpenter, City Manager, introduced the item.
Tina Gall, CDBG Consultant, reported on the item.
Public Comment: None
MOTION by Council Member Nicol SECONDED by Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk to close
the public hearing. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
Council Discussion
MOTION by Council Member Brann, SECONDED by Council Member Pimentel to
approve the cancellation of 2018-2019 CDBG Project, "Installation of Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) Compliant Curb Ramps (CDBG Project Number 601959-18)";
approve a new 2018-2019 CDBG Project, "City Facilities Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) Compliant Parking Lot Restriping and Signage" and authorize the City Manager
to execute all contracts, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with the Los Angeles
County Community Development Commission (CDC). MOTION PASSED BY
UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
2. Consideration and possible action regarding (Public Hearing) the proposed
project and budget for the 2019-2020 Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program Year. The estimated CDBG budget allocation for Program
Year 2019-2020 is approximately $56,584. Additionally, previously unspent
CDBG funds from prior years in the amount of$43,501 will be added to the 2019-
2020 CDBG allocation for a total of $100,085 to implement a new CDBG project,
entitled, "Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-Compliant Restroom Facilities at
the Josyln Center." Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act, the proposed action is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines §15061(b)(3), as it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment.
(Fiscal Impact: $100,085)
Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk stated this is the time and place for a Public Hearing regarding
the proposed project and budget for the 2019-2020 Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Program Year.
City Clerk Weaver stated that proper notice had been given in a timely manner and that
no written communication has been received in the City Clerk's office.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 18,2018
PAGE NO 5
Greg Carpenter, City Manager, introduced the item.
Tina Gall, CDBG Consultant, reported on the item.
Public Comment: None
MOTION by Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk, SECONDED by Council Member Brann to close
the public hearing. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
Council Discussion
MOTION by Council Member Brann, SECONDED by Council Member Pimentel to
adopt the new 2019-2020 CDBG project and budget and authorize the City Manager to
execute the contracts, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with the Los Angeles
County Community Development Commission (CDC). MOTION PASSED BY
UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
3. Consideration and possible action to (1) receive and file a report from Public
Works on the Downtown Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Study, and (2) provide
staff direction on follow up actions.
(Fiscal Impact: $26,000.00 estimated)
Greg Carpenter, City Manager, introduced the item.
Ken Berkman, Public Works Director, gave a report.
Council Discussion
Council consensus to receive and file the report.
Recessed at 8:31 PM
Reconvened at 8:38 PM
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
4. Consideration and possible action to direct staff to enter into negotiations for an
exclusive franchise to EDCO Waste & Recycling Services (EDCO) to provide
residential and municipal solid waste hauling services.
(Fiscal Impact: Est. $7,620,000.00 over 7 years)
Greg Carpenter, City Manager, introduced the item.
Ken Berkman, Public Works Director, gave a report.
Mayor Boyles recused himself due to a possible conflict of interest.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 18,2018
PAGE NO. 6
Ken Berkman, Public Works Director, Mark Hensley, City Attorney and Michelle
Leonard, CSC Engineers consultant answered Council questions.
Council Discussion
MOTION by Council Member Brann to continue manual waste pick-up and engage in
negotiations with the solid waste company with the lowest bid for manual pick-up. The
motion did not receive a second, therefore, the motion is dead.
MOTION by Council Member Nicol to enter into negotiations for an exclusive franchise
to EDCO Waste & Recycling Services (EDCO) to provide residential and municipal solid
waste hauling services and move to automated pick-up. The motion did not receive a
second, therefore, the motion is dead.
MOTION by Council Member Nicol, SECONDED by Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk to
continue the item to the January 15, 2018 regular City Council meeting. MOTION
PASSED BY VOICE VOTE. 3/1 YES: Nicol Pimentel Pirsztuk NO: Brann
Mayor Boyles returned to the dais
5. Consideration and possible action to review and approve the three-year strategic
plan and the associated work plan (FY 2019 through 2021).
(Fiscal Impact: $0)
Greg Carpenter, City Manager, introduced the item
Joe Lillio, Finance Director, gave a presentation
Council Discussion
MOTION by Mayor Boyles, SECONDED by Council Member Brann approving the three-
year Strategic Plan and associated Work Plan (FY 2019 through 2021). MOTION
PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
D. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS
6. Consideration and possible action to open the recruitment process for the
positions on the Committees, Commissions and Boards ("CCBs") that expires in
the year 2019.
(Fiscal Impact: None)
Greg Carpenter, City Manager, introduced the item.
Tracy Weaver, City Clerk, stated the Environmental Committee makeup had a change
from 2 residents/2 Business persons to 3 residents/3 Business persons.
Council Discussion
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 18, 2018
PAGE NO 7
MOTION by Council Member Nicol, SECONDED by Council Member Brann directing
staff to open the recruitment process for the positions on the CCB's, as listed. MOTION
PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
(Item #7 moved to #5 by Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk due to time)
7. Consideration and possible action regarding development of Arts and Culture
Advisory Committee proposals for a fee to be imposed on commercial
development for purposes of funding art in public places ("Percent for Arts
ordinance") and the formation of a City non-profit organization to support public
art and programming in EI Segundo.
(Fiscal Impact: City Attorney Time and City Staff Time (Library, Planning,
Finance, Public Works, and Economic Development Departments) and retaining
special tax/legal counsel for preparing non-profit documents (approximately
$30,000 for special counsel)
Greg Carpenter, City Manager, introduced the item.
Melissa McCollum, Library Director introduced both the item and Michael Kreski,
Member of the Arts and Culture Advisory Committee who gave a presentation.
Council Discussion
MOTION by Council Member Brann, SECONDED by Council Member Pimentel to
receive and file the presentation and directed staff to develop different possible
proposals for Council's consideration. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE
VOTE. 5/0
(Item #8 moved to the January 15, 2018 Regular City Council Meeting)
8. Consideration and possible action to receive and file an informational update
from the Information Systems Department and the Technology Committee
regarding the projects completed in 2018.
(Fiscal Impact: None)
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.
9. Approve Warrant Numbers 3023870 through 3023975 and 600656 and 6000656
on Register No. 5a in the total amount of $403,666.54 and Wire Transfers from
11/26/18 through 12/2/18 in the total amount of $111,521.78. Warrant Numbers
3023976 through 3024064 on Register No. 5b in the total amount of $447,930.76
and Wire Transfers from 12/3/18 through 12/9/18 in the total amount of
$1,068,054.32. Ratified Payroll and Employee Benefit checks; checks released
early due to contracts or agreement; emergency disbursements and/or
adjustments; and wire transfers.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 18, 2018
PAGE NO. 8
10.Approve Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of December 4, 2018.
11. PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PIMENTEL
12.Adopt Resolution No. 5120 approving plans and specifications for the Holly
Valley Park Playground Project and authorize staff to advertise the project for
construction bids. Project No. PW 18-33.
(Fiscal Impact: To be Determined)
13.Adopt Resolution No. 5121 confirming the use of Pump Station 18 Basin and
Sandhill's Retention Basin as infiltration basins for the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit's Best Management Practices.
(Fiscal Impact: None)
14.Authorize the City Manager to amend the standard Professional Services
Agreement with J.C. Chang & Associates, Inc., amendment no. 5485A, for
Pump Station 17 Equipment Repair, in a total amount not-to-exceed $75,465.00
and amend the contingency to a total amount not-to-exceed $7,500.00. Project
No. PW 18-13.
(Fiscal Impact: $32,965)
15.Adopt Resolution No. 5122 approving plans and specifications for the Campus EI
Segundo Shade Structure Project and authorize staff to advertise the project for
receipt of construction bids. Project No. PW 18-28.
(Fiscal Impact: To Be Determined)
16.PULLED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PIRSZTUK
17.PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BRANN
18.Authorize the City Manager, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to accept
specialized rescue equipment, personal protective equipment and utility truck
from Chevron USA in a sum equal to $249,950 in conformance with
requirements of the Federal Consent Decree and authorize the City Manager, in
a form approved by the City Attorney, to accept a new 2019 fire engine from
Pierce Manufacturing, utility truck and emergency radio equipment from Chevron
USA in conformance with a local grant totaling $900,000.
(Fiscal Impact: $0)
MOTION by Mayor Boyles, SECONDED by Council Member Brann approving Consent
Agenda items 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 18. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS
VOICE VOTE. 5/0
PULLED ITEMS:
11. Consideration and possible action regarding authorization for the Police
Department to purchase a SWAT vehicle from Emergency Vehicles, Inc., using
Asset Forfeiture Funds approved in the 2018/2019 Council budget.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 18,2018
PAGE NO.9
(Fiscal impact: not to exceed $320,000.00)
Council Member Pimentel requested Chief Whalen give a brief overview of the reason
for the new vehicle.
MOTION by Council Member Pimentel, SECONDED by Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk to
waive the bidding procedures and authorize the Police Department to purchase a
SWAT truck directly from Emergency Vehicles, Inc., using Asset Forfeiture Funds
approved in the 2018/2019 Council budget, without a competitive selection process,
declare the current 1993 SWAT vehicle to be surplus property and authorize staff to
remove it from the fleet entirely to either repurpose it or auction it. MOTION PASSED
BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
16. Consideration and possible action to award a standard Public Works Contract to
Delta Electric, agreement no. 5638, for the Downtown Landscape Lighting
Project, Project No. PW 18-24.
(Fiscal Impact: $210,518.83)
Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk and Greg Carpenter, City Manager left the dais due to possible
conflict of interest.
Barbara Voss, Deputy City Manager and Ken Berkman, Public Works Director gave an
overview of the item.
Council discussion
MOTION by Mayor Boyles, SECONDED by Council Member Brann to authorize the City
Manager to execute a standard Public Works Contract, in a form approved by the City
Attorney, with Delta Electric in the amount of $158,351.14, thus reducing the scope of
work to remain within the allocated project budget. Project No. PW 18-24. MOTION
PASSED BY VOICE VOTE. 4/0
Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk and Greg Carpenter returned to the dais.
17. Consideration and possible action to approve a license agreement no 5639 with
Swimming Los Angeles Swim School (Swimming L.A.) in a form approved by the
City Attorney.
(Fiscal Impact: $5,400.00 estimated annual revenue)
Council Discussion
MOTION by Council Member Brann, SECONDED by Council Member Pimentel
approving the license agreement with Swimming Los Angeles Swim School (Swimming
L.A.) in a form approved by the City Attorney. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS
VOICE VOTE. 5/0
F. NEW BUSINESS
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 18, 2018
PAGE NO. 10
19.Consideration and possible action to incorporate an Environmental Consideration
Statement in all Staff Reports not subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA)
(Fiscal Impact: None)
Greg Carpenter, City Manager, introduced the item.
Ken Berkman, Public Works Director, reported on the item.
Council discussion
MOTION by Mayor Boyles, SECONDED by Council Member Brann directing staff to
incorporate an Environmental Consideration Statement in all Staff Reports and directed
staff and the attorney's office to fine tune the proper wording. MOTION PASSED BY
UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
Due to electronic difficulties, Council moved onto Reports and revisited this item
once reports were completed.
20.Consideration and possible action regarding Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18 Fourth
Quarter Financial Review of the General Fund (GF) and Enterprise Funds.
(Fiscal Impact: None)
Greg Carpenter, City Manager, introduced the item
Joe Lillio, Finance Director, gave a presentation.
Council discussion
Council consensus to receive and File FY 2017-18 Fourth Quarter Financial Review,
G. REPORTS — CITY MANAGER —With this meeting the last of the year, Mr.
Carpenter commented that 2018 was a productive year for the City and thanked
City staff for their efforts this year. Wished everyone Happy Holidays. Thanked
Chevron USA for their efforts in funding a new fire engine, along with the
Consent Decree in which the Fire Department will receive a new Utility Truck and
all firefighters will receive new turnouts. Mr. Carpenter stated the donation was
over a million dollars and believes the Fire Department is in good shape,
equipment wise, for the next 10 years. Thanked all City employees working over
the Holidays.
H. REPORTS — CITY ATTORNEY
20a.Consideration and possible action to amend the City of EI Segundo's Social
Media Policy.
(Fiscal Impact: N/A)
Greg Carpenter, City Manager, introduced the item
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 18,2018
PAGE NO 11
Mark Hensley, City Attorney, reported on the item
Council discussion
Mark Hensley, read by title only:
RESOLUTION NO. 5123
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY
MOTION by Mayor Boyles, SECONDED by Council Member Nicol adopting Resolution
No. XXX. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
I. REPORTS — CITY CLERK— Passed
J. REPORTS — CITY TREASURER — Gave a presentation earlier in the evening
K. REPORTS — CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Pimentel — Thanked the Police Department for their efforts in
maintaining and monitoring Candy Cane Lane this year.
Council Member Nicol — Was reminded of a program the Methodist Church organizes,
by Pastor Carlile; Family Promises and highly recommends the program and
encourages the Community to get involved if ever asked to help out. Thanked the POA
(Police Officers Association) and the Kiwanis Club for another successful year with the
Santa Sleigh event.
Council Member Brann — Passed
Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk — Invited all Senior Citizens to the Jocelyn Center on Christmas
Day for lunch.
Mayor Boyles — It's been an incredible 2018, here's to 2019
21.Consideration and possible action regarding the annual request of Mr. S. Claus
for variances from the Municipal Code.
(Fiscal Impact: None)
MOTION by Council Member Brann, SECONDED by Mayor Boyles waiving the use of
air rights and waiver of the Santa Monica Radial 160 R procedure, granting a free
business license for a non-profit organization, waiving of the Noise Ordinance to permit
the sound of bells, waiving of the Trespass Ordinance including dealing with trespassing
animals and waiving of the ordinance on Animal Regulations. MOTION PASSED BY
UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — (Related to City Business Only — 5 minute limit per
person, 30 minute limit total)
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 18,2018
PAGE NO 12
Jack Axelrod, resident, commented on various item of concern.
MEMORIALS — None
ADJOURNMENT at 11:15 PM
Tracy Weaver, City Clerk
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 18,2018
PAGE NO. 13
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 15, 2019
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to accept as complete the Storm Drain Pipe
Abandonment on Eucalyptus Drive Project, Project No. PW 18-11. (Fiscal Impact:
$101,000)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Accept the work performed by Ramona, Inc. for the Storm Drain Pipe Abandonment
on Eucalyptus Drive Project in the City of El Segundo;
2. Authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder's
Office; or,
3. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible action related to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
Notice of Completion
FISCAL IMPACT: Included in the adopted budget
Amount Budgeted: $116,150
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): $80,000 from 301-400-8205-8313 (Eucalyptus Storm Drain
Abandonment)
$36,150 from 001-400-4302-6215 (Storm Drain Repairs
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal: 4 Develop Quality Infrastructure and Technology
Objective: (a) El Segundo's physical infrastructure supports an appealing, safe,
and effective City
ORIGINATED BY: Floriza Rivera, Principal Engi e�
REVIEWED BY: Ken Berkman, Public Works Director
04
APPROVED BY: Greg Carpenter, City Manager
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On June 19, 2018, Council awarded a construction contract to Ramona, Inc. (Ramona) in the
amount of$101,000. Construction began November 1, 2018 and was substantially completed on
November 21, 2018. The storm drain pipe in Eucalyptus Drive from the bleachers near Holly
Avenue to 212 Eucalyptus Drive was permanently abandoned by cutting it into sections and filling
it with cementatious material.
10
149
Staff respectfully recommends Council accept the work performed by Ramona, Inc. for the Storm
Drain Pipe Abandonment Project on Eucalyptus Drive between Holly Avenue and Franklin
Avenue as complete, and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County
Recorder's office. The unspent budgeted amount will return to the Storm Drain Repairs Fund for
future use.
Accounting Summary:
Ramona contract amount $101,000.00
Chance Orders $0.00
Total Construction Cost $101,000.00
Project Budget $116,150.00
Total Construction Cost S 1()1.000J)()
Remaining Unspent Funds $15,150.00
150
Recording Requested by
and When Recorded Mail To:
City Clerk, City Hall
350 Main Street
EI Segundo, CA 90245
NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
Project Name: Storm Drain Pipe Abandonment on Eucalyptus Drive Project
Project No. : PW 18-11 Contract No. 5559
Notice is hereby given pursuant to State of California Civil Code Section 3093 et seq that:
1. The undersigned is an officer of the owner of the interest stated below in the property
hereinafter described.
2. The full name of the owner is: City of EI Segundo
3. The full address of the owner is: City Hall, 350 Main Street, EI Segundo, CA, 90245
4. The nature of the interest of the owner is: Public Facilities
5. A work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was field reviewed by the
City Engineer on November 26, 2018. The work done was: Storm Drain Pipe
Abandonment on Eucalyptus Drive between Holly Avenue and Franklin Avenue.
6. On January 15, 2019, City Council of the City of EI Segundo accepted the work of this
contract as being complete and directed the recording of this Notice of Completion in the
Office of the County Recorder.
7. The name of the Contractor for such work of improvement was: Ramona Inc.,
8. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of EI
Segundo, County of Los Angeles, State of California, and is described as follows:
Eucalyptus Drive between Holly Avenue and Franklin Avenue
9. The street address of said property is: Eucalyptus Drive between Holly Avenue and
Franklin Avenue
Dated:
Ken Berkman
Public Works Director
VERT FI CA TION
I, the undersigned, say: I am the Director of Public Works/City Engineer of the City EI Segundo, the
declarant of the foregoing Notice of Completion; I have read said Notice of Completion and know the
contents thereof; the same is true of my own knowledge.
I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on 2019 at EI Segundo, California
Ken Berkman
Public Works Director
151
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 15,2019
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to accept as complete the FY 16/17 Sidewalk, Curb
and Gutter Replacement Project. Project No. PW 17-19 (Fiscal Impact: $153,456.01)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Accept the work as complete;
2. Authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion in the County Recorder's
office; or,
3. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible actions related to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
Notice of Completion
FISCAL IMPACT: Included in Adopted Budget
Amount Budgeted: $233,500
Additional Appropriation: No
Account Number(s): 301-400-8203-8705 (Sidewalk/Curb and Gutter
Construction)
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal: 4 Develop Quality Infrastructure and Technology
Objective: (a) El Segundo's physical infrastructure supports an appealing, safe,
and effective City
ORIGINATED BY: Cheryl Ebert, Senior Civil Engineer efes
REVIEWED BY: Ken Berkman, Public Works Direct
o
APPROVED BY: Greg Carpenter, City Manager
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On September 5, 2017, City Council awarded a Public Works Contract to Rojas Construction for
the FY16/17 Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Replacement Project in the amount of$201,313.50 and
authorized an additional $20,132.00 for construction related contingencies.
Construction began on November 6, 2017, and was completed by Rojas Construction on October
19, 2018. The project was delayed so that Street Division staff could complete a Citywide
sidewalk survey to ensure that the project's work locations aligned with maintenance staff's
highest prioritized locations. A final inspection of Rojas Construction's work was conducted and
it was determined that the project was completed per the plans and specifications and to the
1 1
152
satisfaction of the Public Works Department. Change orders for the project included deleting the
alternative bid items from the scope of work and re-scoping several locations in the City. The
deleted alternative bid items included removal of the end concrete panels at the downtown Main
Street mid-block crosswalks that proved to be unnecessary once the new crosswalk lights were
successfully installed, and improvement of median curbs on El Segundo Blvd. east of PCH that
will be more efficiently incorporated into the future El Segundo Blvd. Rehabilitation project.
The project costs consisted of-
Base
£Base bid concrete work $ 153,344.50
Alternative bid work S 47.969.00
Council Awarded $ 201,313.50
Change Orders -$ 48,817.49
Total Project Cost $ 152,496.01
Advertising cost $ 960.00
Total Project Cost $ 153,456.01
The $47,857.49 difference between the award amount and the total project cost will be returned
to the General Fund.
Staff respectfully recommends that City Council accept the work performed by Rojas
Construction as complete and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the
County Recorder's Office.
153
Recording Requested by
and When Recorded Mail To:
City Clerk, City Hall
350 Main Street
El Segundo, CA 90245
NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
Project Name: FY 16/17 Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Replacement Project
Project No. : PW 17-19 Contract No. 5393
Notice is hereby given pursuant to State of California Civil Code Section 3093 et seq that:
1. The undersigned is an officer of the owner of the interest stated below in the property
hereinafter described.
2. The full name of the owner is: City of EI Segundo
3. The full address of the owner is: City Hall, 350 Main Street, EI Segundo, CA, 90245
4. The nature of the interest of the owner is: Public Facilities
5. A work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was field reviewed by the
City Engineer on October 19, 2018. The work done was: Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter
Replacements
6. On January 15, 2019, City Council of the City of EI Segundo accepted the work of this
contract as being complete and directed the recording of this Notice of Completion in the
Office of the County Recorder.
7. The name of the Contractor for such work of improvement was: Rojas Construction
8. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of EI
Segundo, County of Los Angeles, State of California, and is described as follows:
Concrete improvements to sidewalks, curb and gutter in the City of EI Segundo.
9. The street address of said property is: EI Segundo, CA 90245
Dated:
Ken Berkman
Public Works Director
VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned, say: I am the Director of Public Works/City Engineer of the City EI Segundo, the
declarant of the foregoing Notice of Completion; I have read said Notice of Completion and know the
contents thereof; the same is true of my own knowledge.
I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on 2019 at EI Segundo, California.
Ken Berkman
Public Works Director
154
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 15,2019
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding approval of 1) Amendment to the Part Time rate
schedule; 2) Approval of the revised classification job titles; 3)Ratification of interim compliance
measure; 4) Adoption of Resolution approving the amendment to the Part Time rate schedule for
Calendar Year 2019.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Approve the Part-Time/Hourly Classifications Salary Schedule;
2. Adopt the Resolution approving the Part-Time/Hourly Classifications Salary Schedule
3. Ratify interim compliance measure
4. Adopt the Resolution approving the Part-Time/Hourly Classification Salary Schedule
5. Authorize the City Manager and/or Finance Director to take budgetary actions consistent with
the adoption of the amended salary schedule; or,
6. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible action related to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. City of El Segundo Part-Time/Hourly Classifications Salary Schedule
B. Resolution adopting the new City of El Segundo Part-Time/Hourly Classifications Salary
Schedule
FISCAL IMPACT:
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): various division personnel cost centers and accounts (xxx-
xxx-4102-xxxx)
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal: 3 Develop as a choice employer and workforce
Objective: 1 El Segundo is a City employer of choice and consistently hiring for
the future, with a workforce that is inspired, world-class and
engaged, demonstrating increasing stability and innovation.
ORIGINATED BY: Joseph Lillio, Finance Director and
David Serrano, Human Resources Directo<!�,D
REVIEWED BY: Greg Carpenter, City Manager OA
APPROVED BY: Greg Carpenter, City Manager
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
In 2016, Governor Brown signed SB 3 into law, increasing the State's minimum wage from$9.00
per hour to $15.00 hour by January 1, 2022 (for large employers with more than 26 employees).
12
155
Pursuant to this law, the minimum wage will increase each year by $1.00 until January 1, 2022,
when large employers must pay minimum wage of$15.00 per hour. Small employers,those with
25 or less employees, have until January 1, 2023 to meet the $15.00 minimum wage order.
The table below shows an example of the escalating minimum wage increases, to be phased in
over time:
Minimum Wage (small Minimum Wage (large employers 1
Date: employers with 25 or less) with 26 or more)
January 1, 2017 $10.00/hour $10.50/hour
January 1, 2018 $10.50/hour $11.00/hour j
j January 1, 2019 $11..00/hour $12.00/hour
January 1, 2020 $12.00/hour $13.00/hour
January 1, 2021 $13.00/hour $14.00/hour
January 1, 2022 $14,00/hour $15.00 hour
January 1, 2023 $15.00/hour
This law includes a provision which allows the Governor to suspend the increases if it is
determined, based upon certain economic factors, that the State is in recession.
The City has reviewed its prior Part-Time/Hourly Classification Salary Schedule, and noted the
schedule had not been updated to reflect the new law.
Please note, the City establishes a salary range with several pay-steps for each range. The City
was able to maintain compliance by not filling vacant positions at the entry step. Essentially, over
the prior years the City filled vacancies at a higher pay step(for example,step B or Step C),thereby
ensuring compliance with the required minimum wage rate increases in prior years..
The attached Part-Time/Hourly Classifications Salary Schedule, effective January 1, 2019
remedies the issues described above. The attached schedule meets or exceeds the State's minimum
wage law requirements, and addresses certain salary compaction issues within the classifications
presented.
Within the prior existing part-time/hourly pay rate schedule, as indicated, new hires were being
placed at starting pay-step range in order to meet then existing State minimum wage law. As of
January 1, 2019, State minimum wage law increased to $12.00 per hour. A review of existing
part-time/hourly employees revealed approximately 115 employees were receiving pay compliant
with 2018 minimum wage of$11.00 per hour. However,those same 115 employees would not be
in compliance with the 2019 minimum wage increase to $12.00 per hour on January 1, 2019.
Therefore, in order to remain compliant, all 115 part-time employees were moved to the next
higher pay step (Step D) within the existing range. Staff seeks City Council ratification of this
interim compliance measure.
With the attached schedule,the City seeks to recruit and retain highly qualified part-time personnel
for various position throughout the City, including local high school students seeking summer and
seasonal positions
156
Moving forward, any additional minimum wage increases will be included in annual budget
development for our part-time/hourly classifications.
157
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
Part-Time/Hourly Classifications Salary Schedule
Effective January 15, 2019
Classification Range Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6
Administrative Intern HR11 $14.50 $15.23 $15.99 $16.79 $17.62 $18.51
Lifeguard HR13 $15.00 $15.75 $16.54 $17.36 $18.23 $19.14
Police Cadet HR11 $14.50 $15.23 $15.99 $16.79 $17.62 $18.51
Recreation Leader I/Recreation Assistant HR1 $12.05 $12.65 $13.29 $13.95 $14.65 $15.38
Recreation Leader II/Recreation Leader HR5 $13.00 $13.65 $14.33 $15.05 $15.80 $16.59
Recreation Leader III/Senior Recreation Leader HR11 $14.50 $15.23 $15.99 $16.79 $17.62 $18.51
Recreation Leader IV/Recreation Specialist HR22 $17.25 $18.11 $19.02 $19.97 $20.97 $22.02
Senior Lifeguard HR25 $18.00 $18.90 $19.85 $20.84 $21.88 $22.97
Senior Video Technician/Media Specialist HR22 $17.25 $18.11 $19.02 $19.97 $20.97 $22.02
Senior Video Technician II/Senior Media Specialist HR42 $22.25 $23.36 $24.53 $25.76 $27.05 $28.40
Video Technician I HR1 $12.05 $12.65 $13.29 $13.95 $14.65 $15.38
Video Technician II/Media Assistant HR5 $13.00 $13.65 $14.33 $15.05 $15.80 $16.59
Lifeguard/Swim Instructor HR19 $16.50 $17.33 $18.19 $19.10 $20.06 $21.06
00
Resolution No.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA APPROVING
A RATE SCHEDULE FOR PART-TIME/HOURLY EMPLOYEES
WHEREAS, Chapter 5, Article A, Section 1-5A7 of the City's Municipal Code provides that the
duties of the City Manager of the City of El Segundo; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 5, Article A, Section 1-5A7(K) of the City's Municipal Code provides the
City Manager shall prepare and submit the proposed salary plan to City Council for Approval;
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of El Segundo
California, as follows:
Section 1: That the "Part-time/Hourly Rate Schedule" dated January 1, 2019 as attached
hereto, and made a part hereof shall be adopted as the salary and benefit schedule for part-
time/hourly employees in the City of El Segundo;
Section 2: That the "Part-time/Hourly Rate Schedule shall become part of the City's
personnel rules and regulations;
Section 3: 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 this adoption of the
Resolution in the City Council's records and minutes of this meeting.
Section 4: This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of ,
2018.
Drew Boyles, Mayor
ATTEST-.
Tracy Weaver, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM;
Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
159
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
I, Tracy Weaver, 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 November,2018,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
January, 2019.
Tracy Weaver,City Clerk
of the City of El Segundo,
California
160
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 15, 2019
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding 1) Revocation of resolution 4656 containing outdated
language regarding providing delegation of authority for making industrial disability determination
recommendations to the City Manager or designee pursuant to Government Code § 21173.
2) Approval and adoption of a revised resolution incorporating updated language mandated by
Ca1PERS regarding delegation of authority for industrial disability retirement recommendations,
including when the City Manager will certify a determination and who is delegated to sign
employer originated applications. (Fiscal Impact: None)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Approve the proposed revocation of resolution 4656.
2. Approve and adopt a new resolution incorporating updated language mandated by Ca1PERS
regarding delegation of authority for industrial disability retirement recommendations.
3. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Current Resolution 4656.
2. Proposed Resolution with new language mandated by Ca1PERS.
3. Example of updated resolution language from Ca1PERS.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal: C. Develop as a partner with CalPERS and implementing mandated current information
and language necessary for delegation of authority for industrial disability retirements.
Objective: Update current language to provide delegation authority for industrial disability
retirements recommendations.
7
ORIGINATED BY: Leslie Campbell, Human Resources Analys
REVIEWED BY: David Serrano,Director of Human Resources
APPROVED BY: Greg Carpenter,City Manager
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
The City adopted Resolution 4656, a resolution delegating authority for making disability
determinations to the City Manager and Human Resources Director, in compliance with
Government Code section 21173, on June 15, 2010. Since that time, and following the financial
crisis, CalPERs has sought to clarify and update its internal controls systems and participating
agency requirements.
13
161
One such requirement is the employer determined industrial disability retirement (IDR) procedures
and controls. In this light, the City recently submitted several IDR applications to CalPERS and
included resolution 4656 as supporting documentation. The applications were rejected and returned
to the City stating that the language of resolution 4656 does not meet CalPERS updated
requirements, and therefore CalPERS would no longer accept City determinations regarding IDR.
CalPERS has provided the City a template resolution, attached and completed with the City's
information that is acceptable to CalPERS. City determined IDR is of paramount importance for
our safety departments—as we ask them to enter into dangerous work on a daily basis. The IDR
process allows the City to make a determination regarding industrial disability retirements for those
safety employees who suffer a serious or catastrophic injury performing their usual and customary
duties on behalf of the City of El Segundo. This process allows the City to respond to those
emergency situations with our safety employees, and helps to protect their families in the event of
catastrophic or fatal injuries.
It is recommended the City 1) revoke Resolution 4656; and 2) adopt the revised resolution attached
hereto, regarding IDR.
In the event the City does not adopt the revised resolution, final IDR determination will revert back
to CalPERs and the State of California, which may cause delays in final determinations on behalf
of seriously injured employees, or for the families of deceased employees.
162
RESOLUTION NO. 4656
A RESOLUTION DELEGATING AUTHORITY FOR MAKING
DISABILITY DETERMINATIONS TO THE CITY MANAGER AND
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT
CODE § 21173.
The City Council of the City of El Segundo does resolve as follows:
Section 1: Pursuant to Government Code § 21173, the City Manager and Human
Resources Director are authorized to exercise the responsibilities and duties conferred and
imposed by Article 6 to Chapter 12 of the Government Code (consisting of§§ 21150-21176),
entitled"Disability Retirement," subject to the conditions set forth below.
Section 2: The Human Resources Director ("Director") will make an initial
determination regarding disability upon being presented with a disability retirement
application. In addition, the Director will make an initial determination regarding cancellation
of a recipient's disability retirement allowance.
Section 3: Except where a matter is referred to the City Council for a decision, the City
Manager, or designee, will make final decisions regarding disability retirement on the City's
behalf. The City Manager, or designee, will also make a final decision regarding canceling a
recipient's disability retirement allowance unless the matter is referred to the City Council for
a decision. Further, the City Manager, or designee, is authorized to procure an administrative
law judge from the Office of Administrative Hearings, if a hearing is requested.
Section 4: The Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption, and will
remain effective unless repealed or superseded.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of lune , 2010.
Eric K. Busch,
Mayor
163
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
I, Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk of the City of EI 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. _4656 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 15th day of June, 2010, and the same was so passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Busch, Fisher, Brann, Fuentes, Jacobson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
NOT PARTICIPATING:
WITNESS MY HAND THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF SAID CITY this 15`'day of June,
2010.
C"37>7�c VL1
Cindy Mortesen,City Clerk
of the City of F.1 Segundo,
California
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
By:
art H. erger
Assistant City Attorney
f'tf�r"e'-
164
Resolution No.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
A RESOLUTION DELEGATING AUTHORITY FOR MAKING DISABILITY
DETERMINATIONS TO THE CITY MANAGER AND HUMAN RESOURCES
DIRECTOR PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE § 21173.
WHEREAS, The City of EI Segundo (herein referred to as Agency) is a contracting
agency of the California Public Employees' Retirement System;
Section 1: WHEREAS, THE Public Employees' Retirement Law requires that a
contracting agency determine where an employee of such agency in employment in
which he/she is classified as a local safety member is disabled for purposes of the
Public Employees' Retirement Law and such disability is "industrial" within the meaning
of such Law:
Section 2: WHEREAS, The City Council of EI Segundo has determined upon legal
advice that it may delegate authority under Government Code section 21173 to make
such determinations to the incumbent of the office/position of City Manager or Director
of Human Resources.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
Section 3: That the City Council of the City of EI Segundo delegate and it does
hereby delegate to the incumbent of the office/position of City Manager or Director of
Human Resources, authority to make application on behalf of the Agency pursuant to
Government code section 21152 (c) for disability retirement of all employees and to
initiate requests for reinstatement of such employees who are retired for disability;
Section 4: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of EI
Segundo delegate and it does hereby delegate to the incumbent of the office/position of
City Manager or Director of Human Resources authority to make determinations of
disability on behalf of the Agency under Government Code section 21156 and whether
such disability is industrial and to certify such determinations and all other necessary
information to the California Public Retirement System.
165
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of Januarv, 2019.
Drew Boyles, Mayor
ATTEST:
Tracy Weaver, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
166
Appendix
SAMPLE RESOLUTION NO. 3 — DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION OF
(Name of governing body)
(Name of agency)
WHEREAS, the (herein referred to as Agency)
(Name of agency)
is a contracting agency of the California Public Employees' Retirement System;
WHEREAS, the Public Employees' Retirement Law requires that a contracting agency
determine whether an employee of such agency in employment in which he/she is
classified as a local safety member is disabled for purposes of the Public Employees'
Retirement Law and such disability is "industrial" within the meaning of such Law:
WHEREAS, has determined upon legal
(name of governing body)
advice that it may delegate authority under Government Code section 21173 to make
such determinations to the incumbent of the office/position of
(title)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
that the delegate and it does hereby delegate
(name of governing body)
to the incumbent of the office/position of , authority to make
(title)
application on behalf of the Agency pursuant to Government Code section 21152 (c) for
disability retirement of all employees and to initiate requests for reinstatement of such
employees who are retired for disability;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that delegate and it
(name of governing body)
does hereby delegate to the incumbent of the office/position of
(title)
authority to make determinations of disability on behalf of the Agency under
Government Code section 21156 and whether such disability is industrial and to certify
such determinations and all other necessary information to the California Public
Employees' Retirement System.
(Signatures and other notations by governing body named including vote count)
167