Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02/24/87
"Those who make the worst use of their time are the first to complain of its shortness." -Jean de La Bruyere AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, February 24, 1987 - Council Chambers, City Hall MAYOR John Cioffi MAYOR PRO TEM Etta Simpson COUNCILMEMBERS Tony DeBellis Jim Rosenberger June Williams Closed Session - 6:00 p.m. Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. CITY CLERK Kathleen Midstokke CITY TREASURER Norma Goldbach CITY MANAGER Gregory T. Meyer CITY ATTORNEY James P. Lough All Council meetings are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. Complete agenda materials are available for public inspection in the Police Department, Public Library and the Office of the City Clerk. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PROCLAMATI Los Angeles Marathon Day, March 1, 1987 PRESENTATIONS. Del Winkler, former General Manager of Stormer Cable T.V. ommand College Graduation - Lt. Anthony Altfeld CITIZEN COMMENTS.A/6 a.oS610 $ 5kYV AAMkz.- c6rA Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any items on the Consent Calendar or Consent Ordinances and Resolutions may do so at this time. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following routine matters will be acted upon by one vote to approve with the majority con- sent of the City Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless good cause is shown by a member prior to the roll call vote. (Items removed will be considered after Municipal Matters.) (a) Approval of Minutes: Regular meeting of the City Coun- cil held on January 27, 1987 with resubmitted H.M.S. Hotel item. (b) (c) (f) (k) (1) Recommended Action: To approve minutes. Approval of Minutes: Regular meeting of the City Coun- cil held on February 10, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve minutes. Demands and Warrants: February 24, 1987. Recommended Action: To approve Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive. Tentative Future Agenda Items. Recommended Action: To receive and file. City Manager Activity Report: Memorandum from City Man- ager Gregory T. Meyer dated February 13, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Building and Safety Department Monthly Activity Report: January, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Community Resources Department Monthly Activity Report: January, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Finance Department Monthly Activity Report: January, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Fire Department Monthly Activity Report: January, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. General Services Department Monthly Activity Report: January, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Personnel Department Monthly Activity Report: January, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Planning Department Monthly Activity Report: January, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. - 2 Police Department Monthly Activity Report: January, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (n) Public Works Department Monthly Activity Report: January, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. City Treasurer's Report: January, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Monthly Revenue Report: January, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Monthly Expenditure Report: January, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (r) Recommendation for a City Council policy that Council Committees shall submit written reports and/or recommen- ded actions. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated February 13, 1987. Recommended Action: Approve recommended policy. (s) Status report on SCRTD, LACTC and Public Transportation in the South Bay Area. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated February 18, 1987. Recommended Action: To receive and file report. Acceptance of work as complete - restroom refurbishing at Hermosa Pier and Clark Stadium CIP 85-501 and CIP 85- 503. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony An- tich dated February 13, 1987. Recommended Action: Accept the work, release the faith- ful performance bond, and refer to the Community Resour- ces Commission the question of hours of operation for these facilities. (u) (v) Authorization to enter into an agreement for asphalt street repair (CIP 85-163). Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated February 13, 1987 Recommended Action: Award bid and authorize Mayor to sign agreement with Vernon Paving. Status report on CAL -ID Project and request to authorize City Manager to sign contract. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated February 9, 1987. - 3 Recommended Action: Authorize City Manager to sign con- tract upon City Attorney approval as to.form of the contract. (w) Recommendation to approve agreement with JMB Income Properties, Ltd. - JMB-II, authorizing the security per- sonnel, employed by them, to enforce parking regulations at Plaza Hermosa. Memorandum from General Services Di- rector Joan Noon dated February 10, 1987. Recommended Action: Approve the agreement with JMB In- come Properties, Ltd. - JMB - 11, and authorize City Manager to sign. (x) Report re. petition submitted alleging violations of Casey's Isuzu Conditional Use Permit. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated February 17, 1987. Recommended Action: To review abeyance any action provided a application has been submitted Planning Commission as of this report an complete for cons meeting Los Angeles County Transportation Commission's bill that would allow use of Dial -A -Ride for school trips. Memo- randum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated February 17, 1987. Recommended Action: To support the LACTC's proposed legislation. In Lieu Sewer Payment For Condominium Project located :t 829, 829-1/2 and 833 Fifth Street. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated February 17, 1987 Recommended Action: Accept in lieu payment of $10,000 to satisfy the sanitary sewer concern of Tentative Tract Map and direct staff to prepare policy resolution for in lieu sewer payments. 2. (a) SID (b) GID ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ORDINANCE NO. 87-868 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SEC- TION 2-2.4, AGENDA, OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE MODIFYING THE DEADLINE TIME FOR SUBMISSION OF AGENDA ITEMS TO THE CITY MANAGER. For waiver of further reading and adoption. ORDINANCE NO. 87-872 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HER- MOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 21-3 (DISORDERLY CONDUCT) AS A RESULT OF OVERLY VAGUE AND BROAD LANGUAGE THAT RENDERS IT UNENFORCEABLE. For waiver of further reading and adoption. 4 (c) ORDINANCE NO. 87-873 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY• OF HER- MOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO PROHIBIT THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENTS THAT DO NOT MEET THE STANDARDS OF BOTH THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARTICULAR PROPERTY TO BE �^'Q 0cc_ DEVELOPEDiOR.OR IMPROVED. For waiver of further reading (d) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF A REPORT FOR THE FORMATION OF THE HERMOSA BEACH STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1987-1988. For adoption. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated February 17, 1987. (e) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF A REPORT FOR THE FORMATION OF THE HERMOSA BEACH CROSSING GUARDS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1987-1988. For adoption. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated February 17, 1987. (f) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING U. S. SECRETARY OF INTERIOR HODEL'S FIVE YEAR OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING PLAN FOR THE SANTA MONICA BAY AND VICINITY AND URGING CONGRESSMAN LEVINE AND SENATORS CRANSTON AND WILSON TO OPPOSE THE HOD PLAN. For adoption. s1tD REDD C aw• 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. (a) Letter dated February 2, 1987 from Roger Creighton, 1070 Third Street, H. B., re. sale of City lands. Recommended Action: Authorize letter of reply as pre- pared by City Attorney for signature by Mayor. (b) Letter dated February 6, 1987 from Roger Creighton, 1070 Third Street, H.B. re. Council meals for closed sessions. Recommended Action: Authorize letter of reply as pre- pared by City Attorney for signature by Mayor. (c) Letter from Drs. Warren and Paul Barr, 1500 Pacific Coast Highway, with attached petition signed by 46 of patients. Recommended Action: To refer to staff. (d) Letter from Parker Herriott, 224 24th St., dated February 18, 1987 requesting an extension for project at 224 - 24th Street. 5 PUBLIC Recommended Action: To refer to staff for report back to Council. HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M.LN_ , 5. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF APPEAL OF STAFF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE'S GRANTING OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SIX -UNIT APART- MENT PROJECT AT 933 SIXTH STREET. Memorandum from Plan- ning Director Michael Schubach dated February 17, 1987. Recommended Action: To deny the appeal of the Negative CC_ Declaration. ***************************************************************** Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any of the remaining items on the agenda may request to do so at the time the item is called. ***************************************************************** MUNICIPAL MATTERS 6. REPORT ON ADVISABILITY OF RE-CREATING BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS. Memorandum from Building and Safety Direc- tor William Grove dated January 16, 1987. (Continued from 1/27/87 and 2/10/87 meeting.) Recommended Action: For policy determination by City Council. HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION - TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY. Memoran- dum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated January 19, 1987. (Continued from 1/27/87 and 2/10/87 meeting.) Recommended Action: Accept the engineering report, di- rect staff to send letter to developer asking that cash be deposited with City, and adopt resolution creating "no stopping zone" on 16th Street. RELOCATING THE BARRICADE AND WIDENING 14TH STREET EAST OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND TO ESTABLISH ADDITIONAL PARKING AND TURNING AREA. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated January 7, 1987. (Con- tinued from 1/27/87 and 2/10/87 meeting.) Recommended Action: To approve the proposed relocation of existing barricade and approve widening of 14th Street to establish additional parking in this area. 9. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER Status report re. Assembly Bill 2926. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated January 8, 1987 with resolution. (Continued from 1/13/87, 1/27/87 and 2/10/ 87 meetings.) 6 (b) 1`^� V'VCZZ ID Co,Vs Improvin: the City's Image. Memorandum from City Man- ager Gregory T. Meyer dated February 13, 1987. 10. MISCELLANEcUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Minutes of rand Safety Committee with final recommen- dations to C.uncil. (Continued from 1/13/87, 1/27/87 and 2/10/87 m_etings.) 3r' (b) Oral status report from Business Relations Subcommittee 2i0'k6 (Councilmember R.senberger). (Continued from 1/13/87, ec,IVAJc 1/27/87 and 2/10/87 meetings.) (c) Request for staff and Planning Commission study of pos- sible revisions to development standards for neighbor- hood church parking, definition of "Assembly", etc. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated February 3, 1987. (Continued from 2/10/87 meeting.) (d) Request by Mayor Cioffi and Councilmember DeBellis for consideration of allowing the use of Municipal Buildings as shelter for the homeless. Memorandum from City Man- 2,k) n4S.:Z "(.'n ager Gregory T. Meyer dated February 17, 1987. (e) 11. Consideration of "Do Not Block Intersection" signs along Pacific Coast Highway. Requested by Mayor Cioffi." ca) -(A„ Consideration of policy specifying certain allowable -e expenditures for Councilmembers. Requested by Council - member Williams. jM o i -o,,. . Discussion re.mal ng change 1 ap +�cdure of City Coun- cil meetings. Requested by Counc" member Williams. 5 3 ) LA!' "(16-n0N PoLN a ODATA OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL 12. MEETING OF THE HERMOSA BEACH PARKING AUTHORITY. (Con- tinued from 1/13/87, 1/27/87 and 2/10/87 meetings.) (a) CONSENT CALENDAR -(9k (b) 1) Minutes of the December 17, 1986 meeting. 2) Status report re. Hermosa Pavilion Public Parking Structure. Memorandum from General Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated January 8, 1987. Report from Economic Research Associates re. the economic feasibility of building a parking structure in to accept report and proceed with EIR and design considerations. Memorandum from Parking Administrator Joan Noon dated December 26, 1986 and letter from J. R. Reviczky, Chairman of Community Resources Advisory Commission dated February 4, 1987 and letter from George Schmeltzer, President of the Hermosa Beach Community Center Foundation dated February 17, 1987.. 7 cio tt4:44.42i fAik ,\ »JciLUL oljtra-ur )/31 3hol 0,<LS) hj log 6 SCJ 67---9-N----NA A - GO, J3 Z C - -t4JPL a PIA) dLw---Q2f-3c--412-64 gym/+ (S-_ uu Lee._, 0622_4 13. MEETING OF THE HERMOSA BEACH VEHICLE PARKING DISTRICT COMMISSION. (Continued from 1/13/87, 1/27/87 and 2/10/ 87 meetings.) (a) CONSENT CALENDAR ,4"0 1) Approval of minutes of the October 14, 1986 meeting. (b) Proposal from Ridgemont Parking Systems, Texas, to oper- ate parking lots A, B and C and to construct at their expense and operate a 450 unit parking structure on Lot C. Memorandum from Parking Administrator Joan Noon dat- ed December 26, 1986. (c) Other matters. APPEARANCE OF INTERESTED CITIZENS Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any matter within the jurisdiction of the Council not elsewhere considered on the agenda may do so at this time. Citizens with complaints regard- ing City management or departmental operations are requested to submit those complaints in writing to the City Manager. ADJOURNMENT - 8 7—TT-1 e11ttaQ c'(cc1 r - 0J c.l It PAS ruvic& , pe P Z tz cscv4wce, Vv1 a. 6-43 ,w S C MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California held on Tuesday, February 10, 1987 at the hour of 7:39 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Bob Blackwood ROLL CALL Present: DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi Absent: None PRESENTATIONS: Child Passenger Safety Association, by Stephanie Tombrello Executive Director. South Bay Board of Realtors and Darrell Greenwald, displayed one of four new City entrance signs they donated to City CITIZEN COMMENTS Larry Hoskinson - 938 -14th Street - asked for reconsideration on Item 2.b.(rezoning certain areas). Also made comments concerning public notice, individual property owners notice. Bill Carroll - 2110 Loma Drive - asked for clarity on Ord. 87-871 (2c) - may affect development plans he has for an "accessory building". Jack Belasco - 708 -8th Street, Manhattan Beach - stated several persons wished to speak on item 2.f. (Approving grading plan, etc. 532, 534-540 Twentieth Street). 1. CONSENT CALENDAR Action: To approve Consent Calendar items (A) through (0), with the exception of the following items which were pulled for further discussion but are listed in order for clarity: (a) Simpson (c) DeBellis Motion Rosenberger, second DeBellis. So ordered. (a) Approval of Minutes: Regular Meeting of the City Council held on January 27, 1987. Action: Councilmember Simpson stated she felt that statements which she requested be made part of the record on Item 11.b.- Sale of city -owned lands to HMS partnership re. hotel proposal- were not included in the Minutes. City Clerk will review tapes and resubmit. (b) Demands and Warrants: February 10, 1987. Action: To approve Demands and Warrants Nos. 22332 through 22452 inclusive, noting voided Warrants 22340, 22341, and 22384. - 1 - Minutes 2-10-87 1.b r s (c) Tentative Future Agenda Items. Action: To receive and file, and call a Special Meeting on March 2, 1987 at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of Mid - Year Budget Review and Audit Report. Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered. (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) City Manager Activity Report: Memorandum from City Man- ager Gregory T. Meyer dated February 4, 1987. Supplemen- tal memo re: City Selection Committee process not moving regarding Coastal Commission candidate. Action: To receive and file. Request for Closed Session. Memorandum from City Man- ager Gregory T. Meyer dated February 4, 1987. Action: To calendar a Closed Session for February 24, 1987 at 6:00 p.m. Monthly Investment Report -,January, 1987. Memorandum from City Treasurer Norma Goldbach dated February 3, 1987. Action: To receive and file. Cancellation of Warrant. Memorandum from City Treasurer Norma Goldbach dated February 4, 1987. Action:. To approve cancellation of Warrant No. 022245. Request by National Lea:ue of Cities for su.port for reauthorization of. federal surface transportation pro- grams. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated February 4, 1987. Action: Endorse H.R. 2. and request that the City Clerk convey that position to Senators Cranston and Wilson and Congressman Levine. Child Abuse Monthly Report. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated February 1, 1987. Action: To receive and file. (j) Transmitting newly established South Bay Corridor Study Committee By -Laws. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated February 4, 1987. (k) Action: To receive and file. League of California Cities' Financial Condition and Proposed Dues Increase. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated February 4, 1987. 2 Minutes 2-10-87 (1) Action: To endorse dues increase and instruct delegate to vote accordingly at the Division meeting. Public Works Audit Report re. Maintenance Management. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated February 2, 1987. Action: Receive the report and authorize proceeding with the proposed 1987 objectives. (m) RTD Planning and South Bay Cities Report. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated February 3, 1987. Action: To continue to monitor and report to City Coun- cil; also Council should request that fares be increased only as necessary to cover revenue shortfalls. (n) Claim for Damages: Catherine F. Hamilton, 1515 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach, filed January 26, 1987. (o) Action: To deny request to submit late claim. Alcoholic Beverage Control Board public hearing. re. Cal- ifornia Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 65, Alcohol Marketin Practices/Promotions That May Foster Overcon- sumption o Alcobo lc Beverage*. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated February 3, 1987. Action: To direct the City Clerk to send a formal let- ter to the ABC conveying a legislative policy. 2. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS (a) ORDINANCE NO. 87-868 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SEC- TION 2-2.4, AGENDA, OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE MODIFYING THE DEADLINE TIME FOR SUBMISSION OF AGENDA ITEMS TO THE CITY MANAGER. For waiver of further reading and adoption. Action: To waive further reading of Ordinance No. 87- 868 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 2-2.4, AGENDA, OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE MODIFYING THE DEADLINE TIME FOR SUBMIS- SION OF AGENDA ITEMS TO THE CITY MANAGER.", amending Page 1, line 16, changing 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 Noon. Motion DeBellis, second Simpson . AYES -DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi NOES -None Final Action: To reintroduce Ordinance No. 87-868. Motion DeBellis, second Simpson. So ordered. - 3 - Minutes 2-in-Q- •r (b) ORDINANCE NO. 87-869 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR AREAS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON ATTACHED EXHIBITS A AND B. For waiver of further reading and adoption. Action -To waive further reading of Ordinance No. 87-869 entitiled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR AREAS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON ATTACHED EXHIBITS A AND B." Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. AYES -DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor NOES -None Cioffi Final Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 87-869. Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered. (c) ORDINANCE NO. 87-871 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING AP- PENDIX A, ARTICLE 2 (DEFINITIONS) AND ARTICLE 4, (R-1 ONE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE) OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PURPOSE OF STRENGTHENING ILLEGAL UNIT ENFORCEMENT CAPABILITIES. For waiver of further reading and adoption. Action: To waive further reading of Ordinance No. 87-871 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING APPENDIX A, ARTICLE 2 (DEFINITIONS) AND ARTICLE 4, (R-1 ONE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE) OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PURPOSE OF STRENGTHENING ILLEGAL UNIT ENFORCEMENT CAPABILITIES. Motion Rosenberger, second DeBellis. AYES - DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor NOES - None Cioffi Proposed. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 87-871. Motion Rosenberger, second Simpson. Substitute Motion: Refer this Ordinance back to staff, to be reintroduced on March 24, with correction of er- rors, refine the definition of family, provide a mechanism whereby the number of persons occupying a premises might be limited, and look at definition of the word "installation" under Section 4. Proposed changes to be sent out to Council as an informational item. Motion DeBellis, second Williams. Vote on Making Substitute Motion the Main Motion AYES - DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor NOES - None Cioffi 14 Minutes 2-10-87 Vote on Substitute Motion (Main Motion) Motion DeBellis, second Cioffi. AYES - DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor NOES - None Cioffi (d) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PROPOSED EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING CHURCH AT 2420 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, A PARKING PLAN FOR OFF-SITE PARKING, AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. For adoption. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 87-5013 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PROPOSED EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING CHURCH AT 2420 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, A PARKING PLAN FOR OFF-SITE PARKING, AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION." Motion Rosenberger, second Williams, So ordered, noting the objection of Councilmember DeBellis. (e) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING ON APPEAL A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO EXPAND INTO THE REQUIRED REAR SETBACK AT 2420 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, HOPE CHAPEL. For adoption. Action; To adopt Resolution No. 87-5014 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING ON APPEAL A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO EXPAND INTO THE REQUIRED REAR SETBACK AT 2420 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, HOPE CHAPEL. Motion Rosenberger, second Simpson. So ordered. (f) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE GRADING PLAN, BUILDING LAYOUT PLAN, AND LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR AN EIGHT LOT SUB- DIVISION LOCATED AT 532, 534-540 TWENTIETH STREET SUB- JECT TO CONDITIONS. For adoption. Memorandum from Plan- ning Director Michael Schubach dated February 3, 1987. Speaking to Council regarding this item were: Jack Belasco 708- 8th Street, Man. Bch. - in opposition Vicki Garcia - 1835 Valley Park Avenue - in opposition Gordon Evans - 1769 Valley Park Avenue - in opposition Warren Lombardi - 1849 Valley Park Avenue -in opposition Clifford Fritch - 1823 Valley Park Avenue -in opposition Betty Evans - 1769 Valley Park Avenue - in opposition Proposed Action: To adopt Resolution No. 87-5015 enti- tled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE GRADING PLAN, BUILDING LAYOUT PLAN, AND LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR AN EIGHT LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 532, 534-540 TWENTIETH STREET SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS." Motion Mayor Cioffi - dies for lack of second Minutes 2-10-87 Proposed Action: Request developer to present another grading plan that shows the wall not higher than 4 feet, or what was indicated to us the wall would be when we approved the subdivision. Motion Williams, second Simpson. Addressing questions of the Council at this time Mark Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh Development 2200 Pacific Coast Hwy. Hermosa Beach, subject project developer. Substitute Motion: To approve the building layout and landscape plans as submitted in the staff report, with the revised landscape plan to be submitted as in the resolution. Motion Rosenberger, second Simpson. Amendment to Motion: To adopt Resolution No. 87-5015 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE BUILDING LAYOUT PLAN, AND LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR AN EIGHT LOT SUB- DIVISION LOCATED AT 532, 534-540 TWENTIETH STREET SUB- JECT TO CONDITIONS.", amended to remove reference to grading plan and adding a subsection "B" to No. 2 that states "Placement of additional specimen trees on lots where possible." Vote to Make Amended Substitute Motion Main Motion AYES - DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Mayor Cioffi NOES - Williams Action: To approve the building layout and landscape plans as submitted in the staff report, with the revised landscape plan to be submitted as in the resolution. To adopt Resolution No. 87-5015 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFOR- NIA, APPROVING THE BUILDING LAYOUT PLAN, AND LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR AN EIGHT LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 532, 534- 540 TWENTIETH STREET SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.", amended to remove reference to grading plan, and adding subsection "B" to No. 2 that states "Placement of additional speci- men trees on lots where possible." Motion Rosenberger, second Simpson. AYES - DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Mayor Cioffi NOES - Williams Further Action: Developer to bring in revised grading plan consistent with tentative map or modified in some other fashion indicating other options. Motion Rosenberger, second DeBellis. So ordered. (g) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 21-3 AS A RESULT OF OVERLY VAGUE AND BROAD LANGUAGE THAT REN- DERS IT UNENFORCEABLE. For waiver of full reading and introduction. Memorandum from City Attorney James P. Lough dated February 4, 1987. _ Minutes 2-10-87 Action: To waiver full reading of Ordinance No. 87-872 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 21-3 (DISORDERLY CONDUCT) AS A RESULT OF OVERLY VAGUE AND BROAD LANGUAGE THAT RENDERS IT UNENFORCEABLE." Motion DeBellis, second Mayor Cioffi AYES - DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor NOES - None Cioffi Final Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 87-872. Motion DeBellis, second Cioffi. So ordered. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. Consent Calendar items (a) Simpson and (c) DeBellis dis- cussed at this time but are listed in order for clarity 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. (a) Letter from Messrs. D.W. Gardiner, 3031 Strand, and Jack Taylor, 3116 Strand, re. underground util- ities for north end of Hermosa (35th St. to 24th St.) adjacent to the Strand. Action: To refer to staff for report back to Council. Motion Mayor Cioffi, second DeBellis. So ordered. (b) Letter dated January 26, 1987 from Mr. & Mrs. Les Aik- man, 3628 Ocean Blvd., Corona Del Mar, supporting the undergrounding of utilities at north end of strand. (c) Action: To refer to staff for report back to City Council. Motion Mayor Cioffi, second DeBellis. So ordered. Petition with 31 signatures re. Casey's Isuzu 15 reserved parking spaces, requesting enforcement to keep employee cars off residential streets. Action: To refer to staff for investigation and or/ response. Motion DeBellis, second Cioffi. So ordered. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO PROHIBIT THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENTS THAT DO NOT MEET THE STANDARDS OF BOTH THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING CLAS- SIFICATION FOR A PARTICULAR PROPERTY TO BE DEVELOPED OR IMPROVED. Memoranda from City Attorney James P. Lough dated February 4, 1987 and Planning Director Michael Schubach dated February 3, 1987. Minutes 2-10-87 The staff report was presented by City Attorney James P. Lough. The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak in favor of the adoption of this ordinance were: David Szmudanowski - 931- Sixth Street -representing several neighbors in the area. Ron Schendel - 43 -7th Street Speaking in opposition to the adoption of the moratorium ordinance were: Dana Shaw - 913 -5th Street Jerry Compton - 832 -7th Street Steven Label - 2600 Colorado Ave. Santa Monica - attor- ney rep. clients who are trying to build in the city. Parker Herriott - 224 -24th Street - submitted a letter Karen Gale - 26 Montecello Drive, Rolling Hills Est. Bill Harmon - 1641 Golden Avenue Valerie Clark - 406 Ocean View Dr.Gale - 26 Montecello Drive, RHE - owner of 933 -6th The Public Hearing was closed by Mayor Cioffi. Action: To temporarily adjourn the City Council Meet- ing to a Closed Session pursuant to Govt. Code Section 54956.9(b) (significant exposure to litigation) Motion DeBellis, second Mayor Cioffi. So ordered. The Regular Meeting of the City Council adjourned tem- porarily at the hour of 8:52 P.M. to a Closed Session. The Regular Meeting of the City Council reconvened at the hour of 9:18 P.M, with no announcements of any ac- tions taken in Closed Session. Action; To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 87-873 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO PROHIBIT THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENTS THAT DO NOT MEET THE STANDARDS OF BOTH THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARTICULAR PROPERTY TO BE DEVELOPED OR IM- PROVED.", with the following changes: Page 2, line 10 - add C-1 Page 2, line 27 - add "This Ordinance does not preclude the right to request the normal variance procedure." Page 3, line 4 - change to read "the minimum density criteria ..." Page 3, line 18 - add "This Ordinance shall not apply to any project which has submitted completed conceptual plans to the City of Hermosa Beach on or before February 10, 1987." Minutes 2-10-87 Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger AYES - DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi NOES - None Final Action; To introduce Ordinance No. 87-873. Motion DeBellis, second Rosenberger. So ordered. Further Action: Staff to post a list of all the projects which are exempt under this Ordinance Motion DeBellis, second Cioffi. So ordered. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 6. REPORT ON SURVEY RE: CHANGING SEVEN (7) SILVER POSTED METERS TO YELLOW POSTED METERS IN THE 2600 BLOCK OF HER- MOSA AVENUE. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated January 6, 1987. (Continued from 1/13/ 87 and 1/27/87 meetings.) Action: To remove the two-hour time limitation on the 7 silver posted meters in the 2600 block of Hermosa Ave. Motion Rosenberger, second Williams. So ordered, noting the objection of Mayor Cioffi. SUSPENSION OF AGENDA Action: To suspend the agenda and move to Item 12 a. Motion DeBellis, second Mayor Cioffi. So ordered. 12. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL (a) (b) City Council Reorganization - February, 1987. Memoran- dum from City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke dated February 2, 1987. Supplemental memorandum from City Clerk dated February 10, 1987, indicating revised assignments based on discussion with Mayor Cioffi. Action: To approve the recommendations of Mayor Cioffi for the new Committee Assignments. Motion DeBellis, second Simpson. So ordered. City tour of Chevron, Inc. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated February 5, 1987. Action: To adjourn this meeting to a Special Meeting on Saturday, February 21, 1987, at 9:00 A.M. for the pur- pose of touring the Chevron facility. Motion DeBellis, second Cioffi. So ordered. APPEARANCE OF INTERESTED CITIZENS None. Minutes 2-10-87 ADJORNMENT The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned on Tuesday, February 10, 1987 at the hour of 11:55 P.M. to a Special Meeting to be held on Saturday, February 21, 1987 at the hour of 9:00 A.M. ity Clerk - 10 - Minutes 2-10-87 February 18, 1987 City Council Meeting February 24, 1987 Mayor and Members of the City Council RESUBMITTAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 1-27-87 RECOMMENDED ACTION: To approve the minutes as resubmitted. Attached is a redraft of the Minutes on the item of sale of City owned land to H.M.S. (Item lib). Councilmember Simpson's statements regarding the appraisal issues have been added. I do wish to call to your attention that attached City Code Section 2-2.12. Remarks of councilman and synopsis of debate. I make this reference, not so much for the purpose of being meticulous, but if there is a council vote on making some- thing a part of the record, the City Clerk is much less apt to overlook it when preparing the minutes, as happened in the case before us. Ka leen Mitteeidst/)ti okke, City Clerk Noted: Gregory T. Meyer, City Manager RESIDENTIAL ZONE) OF THE HERMOSA BECH MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PURPOSE OF STRENGTHENING ILLEGAL UNIT ENFORCEMENT CAPABILITIES" with a change to page 2, line 14 to read: "house -keeping unit in a domestic bond of social or economic or psychological committment to each other.." Motion DeBellis, second Simpson AYES - DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Ciffi NOES - None Final Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 87-871. Motion DeBellis, second Mayor Cioffi AYES - DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Mayor Cioffi NOES - Williams MUNICIPAL MATTERS 8. REPORT ON SURVEY RE: CHANGING SEVEN (7) SILVER POSTED METERS TO YELLOW POSTED METERS IN THE 2600 BLOCK OF HER- MOSA AVENUE. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated January 6, 1987. (Continued from 1/13/ 87 meeting.) Continued to meeting of February 10, 1987. 9. REPORT ON ADVISABILITY OF RE-CREATING BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS. Memorandum from Building and Safety Direc- tor William Grove dated January 16, 1987. Continued to meeting of February 10, 1987. 10. HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION - TRAFFIC ,IMPACT STUDY. Memoran- dum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated January 19, 1987. Continued to meeting of February 10, 1987. 11. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER (a) (b) Status report re. Assembly Bill 2926. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated January 8, 1987 with resolution. Supplemental information - Copy of letter from Thomas R. Martin to Barbara Ryan dated January 15, 1987. (Continued from 1/13/87 meeting.) Continued to meeting of February 10, 1987. Proceeding with sale of city -owned lands to HMS Hermosa Partnership re. hotel proposal. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated January 8, 1987. (Con- tinued from 1/13/87 meeting.) Action: To authorize the City Manager to sign escrow papers and other legal documents to effect the sale of two city owned parcels (located at the southwest corner of Manhattan Avenue & 14th Streets, Hermosa Beach) to Minutes 1-27-87 HMS Hermosa Partnership with the following terms and conditions: 1. Sale price to be $450,000 consistent with the agreed upon appraisal conducted by the Losson Ap- praisal Company dated December 18, 1986; 2. Sale to be on the following terms as outlined in Article III, Section 5, Terms of Purchase: 30% cash down with the balance in the form of a note secured by a first trust deed on the subject prop- erties, bearing interest at 12% per annum, payments of interest only payable quarterly; the accured principal and interest shall be due and payable in three years, or upon the funding of the construc- tion loan, whichever shall occur first; And further, that all such monies to be deposited in the Parking fund, reserved for future parking facilities. 3. Escrow to be handled by Warranty Escrow in Hermosa Beach (this is agreeable with the buyer); Proration of Costs & Income and Closing Costs to be pursuant to Sections 9 and 10 of the Ground Lease With Op- tion to Buy; 4. Escrow to close within 60 days, pursuant to Section 7 of the Ground Lease With Option to Buy; 5. Title to Premises and Title Insurance to be pur- suant to Sections 6 and 8 of the Ground Lease With Option to Buy; 6. Deed restriction to read as follows: "Use of this property is restricted to the con- struction, maintenance and operation thereon of a hotel, including related restaurant, bar and com- mercial facilities; said property shall revert to City of Hermosa Beach should the property be devel- oped in any other manner." 7. Concurrent with the close of escrow, City Manager is authorized to release the $30,000 Lessee Deposit now maintained at the Bank of America, Torrance Main Branch; failure to fully exercise this pur- chase option shall result in forfeiture by Lessee to Lessor of the full deposit and any accrued interest thereon. 8. Staff to explore retaining the public parking as long as possible. - 12 - Minutes 1-27-87 Motion DeBellis,'second Mayor Cioffi AYES - DeBellis, Simpson, Mayor Cioffi NOES - Rosenberger, Williams Councilmember Simpson requested that the following be made part of the record: (Referring to the appraisal) Limitations on this hotel: The appraiser on page 12 spoke to the issue of valuation analysis, and height limits. Page 16 he addressed the issue of density. He called it a very dense plan. Page 17 he states specifi- cally that it will probably need to be scaled down. (c) 1985-86 Outside Audit Report. Memorandum from City Man- ager Gregory T. Meyer dated January 20, 1987. Continued to meeting of February 10, 1987. 12. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) (b) Oral status report from Strand Bicycle Safety Committee (Councilmember Williams). (Continued from 1/13/87 meeting.) Continued to meeting of February 10, 1987. Oral status report from Business Relations Subcommittee (Councilmember Rosenberger). (Continued from 1/13/87 meeting.) Continued to meeting of February 10, 1987. (c) Discussion re. Beach Cities Symphony fundin (Mayor Bellis . Continued from 1/13/:7 meeting. Action: To fund the Beach Cities Symphony in the amount of $500 to be paid from Prospective Expenditures, staff to return with a contract for services. Motion DeBellis, second Mayor Cioffi. So ordered noting a NO vote by Williams. (d) Consideration of Allowing the use of Municipal Buildings for Shelters for the Homeless (Mayor DeBellis/Cioffi) Continued to meeting of February 10, 1987. 13. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL 14. MEETING OF THE HERMOSA BEACH PARKING AUTHORITY. (Con- tinued from 1/13/87 meeting.) Continued to meeting of February 10, 1987. 15. MEETING OF THE HERMOSA BEACH VEHICLE PARKING DISTRICT COMMISSION. (Continued from 1/13/87 meeting.) Continued to meeting of Februaryu 10, 1987. - 13 - Minutes 1-27-87 APPEARANCE OF INTERESTED CITIZENS None. ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned on Wednesday, January 28, 1987 at the hour of 12:07 A.M. to a Regular Meeting to be held on Tues- day, February 10, 1987 at the hour of 7:30 P.M. ,f^'6^'J g,., Deputy City Clerk VERBATIM 1-27-87 SIMPSON: Mayor Cioffi, you've raised an interesting matter here. I've noticed references in the appraisal. Three references that I think we should make part of the record, and it has to do with limitations on this hotel. The appraiser on page 12 spoke to the issue of valuation analysis, and height limits. Page 16 he addresed the issue of density. He called it a very dense plan. Page 17 he states specifically that it will probably need to be scaled down. And I think that the proponent of this project surely has read this, and I just wanted to make it perfectly clear that this is part of the appraisal. 1 C C § 2-2.12 ADMINISTRATION § 2-2.14 (e) Point of personal privilege. The right of a councilman to address the council on a question of personal privilege shall be limited to cases in which his integrity, character or motives are questioned or where the welfare of the council is concern- ed. A councilman raising a point of personal privilege may in- terrupt another councilman who has the floor only if the presiding officer recognizes the privilege. (f) Privilege of closing debate. The councilman moving the adoption of an ordinance, resolution or motion shall have the privilege of closing debate. (g) Limitation of debate. No councilman shall be allowed to speak more than once upon any particular subject until every other councilman desiring to do so shall have spoken. (Ord. No. N. S. 411, § 2, 11-16-71) Sec. 2-2.12. Remarks of councilman and synopsis of debate. A councilman may request through the presiding officer the privilege of having an abstract of his statement on any sub- ject under consideration by the council entered in the min- utes. If the council consents thereto, such statement shall be entered in the minutes. (Ord. No. N. S. 411, § 2, 11-16-71) Sec. 2-2.13. Protest against council action. Any councilman shall have the right to have the reasons for his dissent from, or his protest against, any action of the council entered in the minutes. Such dissent or protest to be entered in the minutes shall be made in the following manner: "I would like the minutes to show that I am opposed to this action for the following reasons ... ". (Ord. No. N. S. 411, § 2, 11-16-71) Sec. 2-2.14. Rules of order. Except as provided in this Code, or applicable provisions of state law, the procedures of the city council, and all boards and commissions appointed by the city council, shall be governed by the latest edition of Robert's Rules of Order. (Ord. No. N. S. 411, § 2, 11-16-71; Ord. No. 85-797, § 1, 5-28-85) Supp. No. 6-85 12.1 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council February 13, 1987 City Council Meeting, of February 24, 1987 ACTIVITY REPORT 1. During this last two weeks there were a number of meetings to deal with: AFSF EIR, Oil EIR, the Homeless Program in Lawndale, litigation, data processing and school impact development fees. In addition, I attended the annual statewide League of Cities, City Manager Divisional meeting. 2. The public restroom refurbishment projects are being completed (Clark facility and on the Pier). So, I will be inviting each of you to join me and the Public Works Director for a "mini tour". 3. Additional time was spent on fiscal matters including preparation for the Mid -Year Budget Review and establishing the Budget calendar etc. for the 1987 - '88 Budget and Capital Improvement Program. 4. Our newest software system, HP Desk, is now up and operable. We'll be demonstrating it to you in the near future. UPCOMING DATES February 21, 9 a.m. Special Meeting of the City Council March 10, 10 a.m. Ground Breaking for Jarvis Memorial project March 14, 8 p.m. Amazing Pink Things event at the Community Center Gre Cit :ory eyer Manager cc Executive Staff 1 le 4 Honora1le3payor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council February 18, 1987 City Council Meeting of February 24, 1987 STATUS REPORT ON SCRTD, LACTC AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN THE SOUTH BAY AREA RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Receive and File this report; 2. Instruct the Planning Department to monitor the "let's change" SCRTD movement, reporting back to the City Council as appropriate; 3. Request the Council Delegates to 1) the Los Angeles County Division of the League of Cities and 2) the South Bay Cities Association to also monitor neighboring agencies discussions on this matter. BACKGROUND There are several proposals, now in the public arena, to signifi- cantly alter the SCRTD's scope and duties. Additionally there are other proposals to alter the nature of the County Transporta- tion Commission. Also, attached is a recap of what actions the Board of Supervi- sors have taken in that regard. ANALYSIS In addition to the staff recommendation, other options available to the City Council are: 1. Adopt a specific legislative policy now vis-a-vis SCRTD and/or LACTC; 2. Refer the matter to a Council Committee. oryIr ( T. leyer Mtkci_p4._ Manager Attachment cc SCRTD Representative Gordona Swanson LACTC Representative Jacki Bacharach Assistant City Manager Mastrian Planning Director Schubach Public Works Director Antich IS Cos Anai'1ei 67imerl Wednesday, February 18, 1987 LA. Transit Ieasure Runs Into a Riladblock By BILL BOYARSKY, Times City -County Bureau Chief SACRAMENTO—Small cities, : big transit- agencies and organized labor teamed up with a skeptical state Senate committee chairman on Tuesday to block action on legislation to reorganize Los An- geles County's public transit sys- '• tem. ' It was a setback for the measure by Sen. Alan Robbins (D -Van Nuys) to shake up through legisla- tion the Southern California Rapid Transit District and the Los Angel- es County Transportation Commis- sion, the two agencies with the major responsibility for public transit in the county. The RTD operates most of the buses and is building and will operate the Metro Rail subway, now under construction in down- town Los Angeles. The commission sets transit policy, supervises countywide spending and is build- ing a light-rail line from Long Beach to downtown Los Angeles, which the RTD will operate. After listening to all the criticism at a hearing on the Robbins bill, Sen. Wadie Deddeh (D -Chula Vis- ta), chairman of the Senate Trans- portation Committee, said there would not be a vote on the measure for at least two weeks; adding, "and I don't think two weeks are enough to satisfy the questions that have been raised." Chairman Richard Katz (D -Se- pulveda) of the Assembly Trans- portation Committee, who is pre- paring his own bill, said, "I'm not surprised. It shows there is a lot of work that must be done." In Los Angeles, Mayor Tom Bradley's deputy mayor, Tom Houston, expressed pleasure. Brad- ley opposes the Robbins bill. "The whole question of reorga- nization is up in the air," Houston said in a telephone interview. . Houston strongly attacked de- mands for reorganization, saying "the whole thing is being pushed by press stories of RTD difficulties. ... Every time there is an article Please see TRANSIT, Page 3 TRANSIT: Vote Is Postponed Continued from Page 1 about the RTD, I think someone throws in another reorganization plan, and I think what we need is a longer -range approach." Robbins': bill, proposed after months of controversy and news p_- coverage that raised questions :about the RTD's ability to manage ;its bus system and build and oper- ate a rail _system, would wipe out both :the RTD and the county, Transportation Commission. ..In their place would be a metro- :•politan transportation authority, _ governed :by a seven -member ,„board., Two board :members would be Los Angeles County. supervi- sors. One. ;would' be either the :imayorof Los Angeles or an elected city official. designated by the may - f- or. -Rounding out the board would be . two .members of smaller city counciis,=a legislator and a guber- natorial appointee. Deddeh` questioned the wisdom of placing a legislator on the board. Because the Legislature would cre- ate the new agency, Deddeh said, it would be "intimidating" for a member of the Legislature to then sit on the board and be able to complain to colleagues in Sacra- mento when there were disagree- ments. Deddeh also -suggested that in- stead of the massive reorganization proposed by Robbins, the RTD and the county Transportation Com- mission be allowed to remain in- tact, with a separate agency being created for the complex job of rail construction for the Metro Rail subway, the Long Beach light-rail line and subsequent projects. Such a plan has been put forth by the county - Transportation Com- mission and backed by Bradley. Houston said the mayor told him he had not spoken to Deddeh about the plan. • Legislative sources said, howev- er, that the Transportation Com- mission had lobbied the committee, and the commission was represent- ed at the meeting by one of its members, Christine Reed of Santa Monica. The RTD, represented at the hearing by board Vice President Carmen Estrada, a Bradley ap- pointee, also opposed the Robbins bill. Reed, a Santa Monica city,courir cil member, criticized: the Robbins' reorganization proposal on an addi- tional ground: She said wiping out the Transportation Commission might threaten appropriations._ now dispensed by, . the commis- sion—to the 13 small municipal bus lines in the county. Santa 'Monica operates such a line. T" , The same fear was_expressed by officials of Torrance and Gardena.` Concern for the small citiessdr'ew' a sympathetic response from laver-; makers representing ; suburban; communities. More trouble for ` the `R.obbh • plan came from organized labor.:as Earl Clark, head of the bus.drivers' union, visited .legislative offices,to argue for provisions' that `would protect union contracts'ina:reorga- nization. That point is not - specifically addressed in the Robbins proposal. transft `re; ency No agreement reached on future . role of area's in uniclpal operators By Robert Knowles COPLEY NEWS SERVICE Los Angeles County supervisors Tues- day backed the idea of a single trans- portation agency to oversee bus and railway services throughout the county, but could not agree on a role for exist- ing smaller systems such as those oper- ated in Torrance, Santa Monica and Culver City. With only three supervisors present, the board was able to reach a consensus only on support for replacing the South- ern California Rapid Transit District and county Transportation Commission with a single agency governed by elected officials from the county and various cities. The board was anxious to find some common ground before an appearance later today by Supervisors Deane Dana and Mike Antonovich before a special transit hearing scheduled in Los Angeles by Assemblyman Richard Katz, D -Se- pulveda. One of the proposals debated by the supervisors involved the future of the county's 12 municipal bus lines, which .handled more than 55 million boardings in fiscal 1986-87 — including 17.2 mil- , lion hoardings by Santa Monica's "Big Blue Bus" line, 4.4 million by• Gardena, and more than 3 million each by Tor-' rance and Culver City. Those figures pale in comparison with the RTD's 488.4 million boardings in . 1986-87, but supervisors also noted that services provided by the smaller lines were generally considered superior to those of the larger agency. • However, Dana and Antonovich were unable to convince colleague Ed Edel- man to support a transit plan calling for continued autonomy for the indepen- dents. "If you are changing one part of -the equation, why prohibit yourself from changing all of it?" asked Edelman. "Let's look at how well the municipal operators are doing as well." "They're the only ones that are work- ing," Antonovich argued. Edelman, whose 3rd District includes a system run by Montebello, later said he was not urging a change in the status of local operators, but merely wanted the Legislature to examine every facet of the county's transit services because the final decisions would be made in Sacramento. After the supervisors' meeting, Katz, who attended the session, but did "not speak, said he doubted there would be any major alteration in the municipal bus programs. "We'll probably take a look at it, but we don't want to undo something that is already working. "I know some cities are frightened they • will be swallowed up in all this," added Katz, who later met privately - with Dana and then Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley. "I'm very sensitive to that fear...." Katz, who .chairs , the.:.Assembly's Transportation Committee, _stressed_ that local systems may end up -operating', even more lines if the RTD is ultimately=: replaced by another regional agency,: because some municipal companies, also^ duplicate RTD routes. ? "What we need is more interphase" between the municipal systems and whatever new agency emerges out ,of, all', this." JAMES C. HANKLA CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 713 HALL OF ADMINISTRATION / LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90012 974.1101 January 30, 1987 To: From: Subject: Each City Manager & Transit Operator in Los Angeles ounty, j James C. Hanka J Chief Administr tive Officer REPORT ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MEMBERS OF THE BOARD PETER F. SCHABARUM KENNETH HAHN EDMUND D. EDELMAN DEANE DANA MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH Attached for your review is our Report on Public Transportation which we prepared in response to the Board of Supervisors' motions of November 25, 1986 to review proposals to combine the Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD) and the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC), to review joint rail and bus operations in other local entities, and to recommend changes relative to public transportation planning, development and operations in Los Angeles County. This report will be considered at the February 3, 1987 meeting of the Board of Supervisors (Item S-2, 11:30 a.m.). Our report does not recommend a merger of LACTC and SCRTD. We have, instead, identified a series of alternatives to improve the administration of public transportation in Los Angeles County, all of which will require statutory changes that must be enacted by the State Legislature. These options range from changes that can be made while leaving in place the current agencies, to restructuring rail construction responsibility leaving in place the current agencies, and to a complete restructuring of the current agencies responsible for public transportation. These alternatives are briefly described as follows: 1. Amend laws to allow SCRTD to contract for services without constraints. 2. Amend laws to allow the operation of the proposed light rail and metro rail systems by the most cost-effective operators. 3. Consolidate responsibility for rail construction under LACTC. 4. Establish a specialized construction management entity responsible for all rail system construction which reports to LACTC. Each City Manager & Transit Operator in Los Angeles County January 30, 1987 Page 2 5. Create a new transportation authority responsible for all public transportation activity in the County with separate branches for operations, construction, and planning/fiscal programming. While any of these options will improve the current state of affairs, it is my belief that the time has come for a true restructuring of public transportation responsibility in Los Angeles County. Thus, I am recommending the Board support alternative No. 5 above. A new transportation authority headed by equal numbers of elected city officials and members of the Board of Supervisors plus a chairperson appointed by the Governor is the best way to con- solidate all public transportation responsibility in the County and to restore public confidence. It would end the current con- fusion over who is in charge of transit--LACTC or SCRTD--and eli- minate any perceived or real overlap and duplication among the agencies. A change this significant will be most difficult to implement. Besides working out the details of how a new agency will be structured, there will be the need to reach a political consensus on a joint approach among the County, the 84 cities in the County, the current transit operators, the State Legislature, and the Governor. On the other hand, I do not believe that there has been a better time in the last several years to begin the process of bringing about change. JCH:csj:g4 Attachment REPORT ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION County of Los Angeles Chief Administrative Office January 1987 James C. Hankla Chief Administrative Officer Task Force Members John Shirey, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Jay Winfield Penny Van Bogaert Cliff Caballero Romalis Taylor Greg Cherep Pat Koulos U TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Board Order 1 Study Purpose and Scope 1 Conclusions 2 Alternatives to Improve the Administration of Public Transportation in Los Angeles County 3 Conceptual Diagram of Proposed Transportation Agency 5A II. DETAILED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVES Introduction 6 Transit Organization Structures Los Angeles County 7 Other Jurisdictions 12 Conclusions 13 Alternatives to Improve the Administration of Public Transportation in Los Angeles County 22 Appendix I - Transit Funding Appendix II - Organizational Matrix REPORT ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION County of Los Angeles Chief Administrative Office January 1987 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Board Order On November 25, 1986 the Board of Supervisors instructed the CAO to review proposals to combine the Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD) and the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC), to review joint rail and bus operations in other local entities, and to recommend changes relative to public transportation planning, construction, and operations in Los Angeles County. Report due back in 60 days Study Purpose and Scope In response, a Transit Task Force formed by this office gathered and analyzed information obtained through interviews and source documents regarding the responsibilities, operations, and historical background of the SCRTD, LACTC, and other Los Angeles County transit related agencies and on the public transportation structure of 10 other local jurisdictions having both bus and rail systems. The Task Force identified many perceived concerns regarding public transportation in Los Angeles County which appear to center on the following three areas: 1. Accountability of transit agencies to the public to insure the provision of optimum public transportation service at least possible cost. 2. Split responsibility between SCRTD and LACTC for the construction of rail systems. 3. Operational problems of the SCRTD. Based on the Board's initial directions and the short time frame involved, the Task Force focused its efforts on the first and second areas of concern and did not examine SCRTD operations and policies in detail. However, on this point, our review of SCRTD's organization identified several areas of concern such as the General Manager's broad span of control, the organizational placement of the Metro Rail function, lines of communication, and so forth. Therefore, an organizational study by a qualified private sector consultant could assist SCRTD management in improving its organization and internal controls and, thereby, lead to correction of operational deficiencies. This office could assist the SCRTD in administering such a study with costs to be paid by SCRTD. However, it should be noted the Board of Supervisors on December 16, 1986 requested the Grand Jury to look into "the organization, management, expenditures and other related management problems" at SCRTD. Another study may be redundant. Following is a summary of our conclusions and of suggested alternatives, all of which require changes in State statutes, to improve the administration of public transportation in Los Angeles County. Conclusions 1. No Clear Lines of Authority The absence of a specific hierarchy or reporting relationship between SCRTD and the LACTC, the similar composition of each agency's governing board, and the responsibility of SCRTD for Metro Rail project planning and construction and LACTC for light rail project planning and construction create the impression that they are parallel, independent entities. These give the appearance of lack of accountability to the public and to other officials. 2. Many Public Transportation Structures No consensus emerges from an analysis of the other transit agencies surveyed as to the most effective organizational structure and the composition of the governing body(ies). Each area's structure is unique based on its geographic, economic, jurisdictional, historical, and statutory characteristics. Nevertheless, elements of these other models can be adapted to the situation in Los Angeles County to enhance accountability and cost effective transit service. 3. Desirability of a Corporate Model A "corporate" model for public transportation in which separate branches for operations, construction, and planning/fiscal programming (including liaison with municipal operators) reporting directly to a single Countywide board responsible for providing overall direction appears to offer the greatest potential for improved accountability in Los Angeles County. 2 4 4. Duplication of Rail Responsibility With one notable exception, there is no apparent major duplication of effort between SCRTD, which is primarly an operations agency, and LACTC, which is primarily a policy -setting agency. The notable exception, however, is the fact that each agency is responsible for project planning and construction of a rail system. 5. No Advantage by Combining SCRTD and LACTC With•the exception of the rail function, combining SCRTD and LACTC would offer little financial or functional advantage. It would create a conflict situation in the allocation of transit funding and would not by itself significantly increase account- ability. 6. Rail Responsibility Should be Consolidated Combining SCRTD's Metro Rail project planning and construction activities and LACTC's light rail project planning and construction activities into a new specialized construction -oriented agency would allow SCRTD and LACTC to concentrate management resources on operations and Countywide system/financial planning, respectively. 7. Statutes Restrict Competition State law restricts the ability of SCRTD to utilize lower cost private operators on its routes, hampers the formation of transit zones to replace SCRTD service, precludes SCRTD from contracting for bus maintenance, and designates SCRTD as the operator of both the light and heavy rail systems being constructed. These statutory provisions restrict competition in providing optimum service at least possible cost. Alternatives to Improve the Administration of Public Transportation in Los Angeles County The following alternatives are suggested as means to increase accountability in public transportation management and competition in public transportation operations. All require statutory change and are presented in approximate 3 .4 ► order of magnitude or impact of change on current operations and organization. Operational Changes to Increase Competition for Transit Operations With No Functional or Organizational Realignment 1. Amend laws to allow SCRTD to use private transit operators without constraints where cost effective by eliminating provisions protecting SCRTD employees from such competition. 2. Amend laws to allow operation of the Metro Rail and light rail systems by the most cost-effective operators by deleting provisions requiring SCRTD operation of these rail systems. Functional and Organizational Changes to Consolidate Rail System Construction 3. Transfer responsibility for Metro Rail project planning and construction from SCRTD to LACTC, thereby allowing SCRTD to concentrate management resources solely on bus operations. 4. Establish a specialized construction -oriented entity to administer rail development and construction by amending statutes to transfer responsibility for Metro Rail project planning and construction from SCRTD and for light rail project planning and construction from LACTC to such an entity. This new entity should report directly to the LACTC as the primary policy -setting transit body in the County. It would be solely responsible for rail system construction management. Restructuring Los Angeles County Public Transportation Organization to Create a Hierarchical Structure and Defined Accountability 5. Create a "Los Angeles County Transportation Authority" based on a corporate model with: An overall governing body acting like a corporate board of directors responsible for major financial and programmatic decisions. It would be appropriate that the Los Angeles County Transportation Authority governing board be headed by a Chairperson appointed by the Governor with other members divided equally among County and municipal elected officials. A separately elected board is neither desirable nor warranted for this Countywide policy body. -- At least three specialized subsidiary branches for operations, construction, and - 4 - i planning/fiscal programming. Each branch would have a separate advisory committee appointed by the Los Angeles County Transportation Authority Board. These subsidiary branches would be accountable to the County Transportation Authority for their performance. (See attached conceptual example for how a corporate model could be structured in Los Angeles County). 5 CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE FOR ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY LOS ANGELES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY — Governor's Appt. as Chairperson — Board of Supervisors — Elected City Officials OPERATIONS Advisory Committee Appt. by LACTA GENERAL MANAGER Contract Operators As Needed 1 CONSTRUCTION Advisory Committee Appt. by LACTA GENERAL MANAGER — rail construction (light & heavy) — bus -related construction — some highways PLANNING/PROGRAMMING Advisory Committee Appt. by LACTA GENERAL MANAGER — allocates funds — sets performance standards — monitors operations 12 Independent Municipal Operators a REPORT ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION County of Los Angeles Chief Administrative Office January 1987 II. DETAILED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVES INTRODUCTION On November 25, 1986 the Board of Supervisors instructed the Chief Administrative Office to review proposals to combine the Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD) and the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC), to review joint rail and bus operations in other local entities, and to recommend changes relative to mass transit planning, construction, and operations in Los Angeles County. The report was due back to the Board in 60 days. In response, a Transit Task Force was formed which gathered and analyzed information obtained through interviews and source documents regarding the responsibilities, operations, and historical background of the SCRTD, LACTC, and other Los Angeles County transit related agencies and on the mass transit structure of 10 other local jurisdictions having both bus and rail systems. In the limited time available for this study the Task Force interviewed persons familiar with the background, structure and operations of Los Angeles County transit entities; reviewed many documents such as short and long range plans, budgets and organization descriptions, legislation, audits, and numerous recent media articles; and contacted 10 other jurisdictions having both bus and rail systems. From these efforts the Task Force identified many perceived concerns regarding mass transit in Los Angeles County, which appear to center on the following three areas: 1. Accountability of transit agencies to the public to insure the provision of optimum mass transit service at least possible cost. 2. Split responsibility between SCRTD and LACTC for the construction of rail systems. 3. Operational problems of the SCRTD. Based on the Board's initial directions and the short time frame involved, the Task Force focused its efforts on the first and second areas of concern and did not examine SCRTD operations and policies in detail. However, we do believe that an organizational study by a qualified private sector consultant could assist SCRTD management in improving its organization and internal controls and correcting opera- tional deficiencies. The County Chief Administrative Office could assist SCRTD in administering such a study with costs to be paid by SCRTD. However, it should be noted that the Board of Supervisors on December 16, 1986 requested that the Grand Jury look into "the organization, management, expenditures, and other related management problems" at SCRTD. Another study may be redundant. The following are descriptions of various public transporta- tion structures, detailed findings and conclusions and discussions of suggested alternatives to improve the administration of public transportation in Los Angeles County. TRANSIT ORGANIZATION STRUCTURES 1. Los Angeles The history of public transportation in Los Angeles County covers many extremes -- from an era of private enterprise as exemplified by the Pacific Electric System to an era of taxpayer -subsidized highway, bus and rail operations, from what was once the largest trolley system in the world to what are now the busiest freeway segments and the largest bus operation in the country. In response to these complexities and tremen- dous service demands, various operations and planning agencies have been created by state law. In 1964 the Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD) was created by the Legislature as a "successor corporation" to the existing Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA). This was done by SB 41 (Rees) Chap. 62, 1 St. Ex. Se. of 1964. The MTA had been established by the Legislature in 1957 and empowered to purchase the dwindling number of local private transit lines, including rail/trolley and bus, which had lost ridership due to increased automobile usage. The MTA Board, largely because its members were appointed by the Governor, found it difficult to raise money for transportation needs because of resistance by local government entities and the business community. The underfinanced agency was further hamstrung by limited statutory authority to deliver transportation services. Under SB 41 the SCRTD board is composed of representatives of specified local government agencies and was given additional powers for providing a range of transportation services. These provisions were intended to more closely involve the local community in decision-making and provide a base of support for local transportation financing measures. The Legislature then moved in 1976 to establish a more comprehensive countywide transportation planning authority by creating the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC). [AB 1246 (Ingalls) Chapt. 133 of 1976]. The same law also created similar commissions in Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties. LACTC was given significant transportation planning authority covering the County, including the SCRTD service area. Under AB 1246 the LACTC also directs, by commission formula, most federal and state funds used for transit operations and specified capital improvements. This legislation, however, neither decreased the authority of SCRTD nor established a clear line of authority between the two agencies for all of their activities. This 1976 legislation also identified the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) as a regional "multicounty designated transportation planning agency" for purposes of coordinating on a regional basis all transportation planning activity. The intent of AB 1246 was to ensure a coordinated transportation planning effort in the four -county region as well as within each county using a multi -modal mix to deliver services. A further priority consideration of this legislation was the appropriate spread of available state and federal transit dollars among the numerous transit providers within each county. Appendix I details sources of transit funding, purposes, how they are distributed, limitations on use, who must approve their utilization, and general discussion of the operating units receiving the funds. In Los Angeles County the delivery of public transportation services involves the following entities: Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD) Envisioned as a multi -faceted public transportation delivery agency, the District was empowered to acquire/construct and operate rail lines, bus lines and other rapid transit systems. The eleven member board, appointed to four-year terms, is composed as follows: five appointed by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, each of whom shall be a resident of a different supervisorial district (and may or may not be members of the Board of Supervisors); two appointed by the Mayor of Los Angeles, subject to confirmation by the City Council, who shall be city residents (and may or may not be members of the City Council); and 8 four appointed by the City Selection Committee, each of whom shall be an elected city official from different cities but not Los Angeles City. The City Selection Committee shall adopt rules grouping the cities within the SCRTD service area (but not Los Angeles City) into four corridors based on existing or proposed transit lines. There shall be one city representative from each corridor. Under its authority, the SCRTD is constructing the first 4.4 miles of the projected 18.6 mile Metro Rail line. The LACTC provides Proposition A funds to the District's Metro Rail effort as well as passes through state and federal (non -Metro Rail) dollars. As a practical matter, any decision by the LACTC to move funding elsewhere would effectively limit SCRTD's ability to complete Metro Rail. In addition to the Metro Rail construction, the District is designated under state statute as the operator of all fixed guideway systems in the County which will include Metro Rail and the light rail systems. The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) The LACTC is designated to coordinate all mass transporta- tion efforts and service delivery (including rail and bus) in the County. The Commission's governing board is composed of twelve members as follows: the five members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors; the Mayor of the City of Los Angeles; two members appointed by the Mayor of Los Angeles subject to City Council approval, as specified; two members appointed by the Los -Angeles County City Selection Committee, (can be any Mayor or City Councilperson within the County, except for the Cities of Long Beach and Los Angeles); one member appointed by the City Council of the City of Long Beach, which member shall be a member of the City Council; and one nonvoting member appointed by the Governor. Alternate members may be appointed for the eleven voting members, with certain restrictions such as: alternates for the Board of Supervisors cannot be the mayor or a councilperson from the City of Los Angeles or Long Beach and no alternate member shall serve on both the SCRTD Board of Directors and the LACTC.. - 9 - Within the County all of the larger transit providers, including the SCRTD and the twelve municipal bus opera- tors, receive federal and/or state formula funds appor- tioned by the LACTC. Appendix I details federal, state, and local transit funding sources, most of which are either directly disbursed by LACTC or require LACTC approval. This is an appropriate function for LACTC as the County's primary policy setting public transportation entity. Local transit providers also must meet and maintain specified operational criteria. Under state law the Commission requires a triannual fiscal and criteria compliance audit on providers receiving funds through LACTC. Deficiencies detected under various performance measurements can trigger sanctions by the LACTC including a withholding of funds. Also, all transit providers, whether they receive formula funds or not, must provide specified information to the LACTC for inclusion in the County's short range transit plan and the 3 to 5 year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). The Commission is also empowered to establish "Transit Zones" where local communities elect to provide local transportation services if the SCRTD or a municipal operator cannot provide responsive and adequate service. In 1980 the voters approved County Proposition A to provide a local 1/2sales tax to, in part, help construct and operate a designated 150 -mile rail system. Parts of this system include Metro Rail and the Long Beach light rail systems. Other Proposition A funds are allocated by the Commission to bus operators and municipalities, under formula, to provide localized public transportation services. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Under AB 1246, SCAG is the multicounty designated transportation planning agency and compiles and coordinates the TIP's of its member counties into a Regional TIP (RTIP). SCAG includes the Counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura -and the approximate 163 cities within these six counties. The Executive Committee of SCAG consists of 20 elected officials from member cities and counties. Los Angeles County has two delegates on the Executive Committee while the remaining counties have one each. There is one city delegate from each of the six counties. In addition, Los Angeles City has three delegates and Long Beach City has one delegate to the Executive Committee. There are three at -large delegates. Each delegate has an alternate. • The RTIP becomes an element of the State TIP (STIP). It is also a federally required planning document necessary to trigger receipt by SCAG of Federal Aid Urban and other federal transportation funds. As the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) required by federal law, SCAG allocates these federal funds to the commissions by formula. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Caltrans, which is under the Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing, is responsible for the construction and maintenance of the state highway and freeway system. This responsibility includes drafting and coordinating the elements of the STIP. The STIP reflects all transportation capital and service priorities within the State. Locally, LACTC and SCAG work with Caltrans in developing priorities for road, rail and other transportation elements for inclusion in the plan. California Transportation Commission (CTC) The CTC is required to submit to the Legislature and Governor by July 1 of each year the STIP, which is a five-year planning document. A draft STIP is prepared by Caltrans by March 1 of each year. It is submitted to County Transportation Commissions and other agencies by Caltrans for comments. The County and regional TIPs reflect comments on and adjustments to the draft which are due back to Caltrans and the CTC by May 1 of each year (Government Code 14527). The CTC, with the assistance of Caltrans, then adopts the final STIP for submission to the Legislature and the Governor. The CTC is composed of eleven members who do not hold elective office, nine of whom are appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. One member is a Senator appointed by the Senate Rules Committee and one Assemblyperson appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly, both of whom are without vote. County of Los Angeles The. County, as well as the cities within the County, receive Proposition A funds from LACTC under a formula specified in law. These funds are used by the County for transit operations in unincorporated areas such as a community bus line in the Santa Clarita Valley and specialized services for the elderly and disadvantaged. The County also receives through LACTC some federal monies earmarked for specified road projects and bikeways. Under the local TIP the County's primary responsibility is for specified urban and secondary roads. This responsibility, however, is funded directly from the County's portion of motor vehicle taxes which are earmarked for streets and highways. The County, as a local entity involved in transportation elements, provides information on these programs to LACTC and SCAG for use in developing their local and regional TIPs, respectively. Municipal Operators Twelve municipal operators and the SCRTD provide bus service in the County and receive federal and/or state funds. They are Arcadia, Claremont, Commerce, Culver City, Gardena, La Mirada, Long Beach, Montebello, Norwalk, Redondo Beach, Santa Monica, and Torrance. They are governed by independent boards. The LACTC receives and apportions funds to these operators as well as distributes Proposition A funds to them. The LACTC is empowered to resolve disputes among these operators, avoid duplication of service and set operational standards which must be maintained by each provider. 2. Other Jurisdictions Appendix II summarizes information obtained from other jurisdictions having both bus and rail systems, either operational or under development. The first page of the appendix displays all ten jurisdictions and Los Angeles County in terms of overall responsibility for policy, planning, construction and operation of rail and bus. The following eleven pages of Appendix II provide more detailed information on composition of boards of directors, distribution of responsibilities and funding allocation methods of the various agencies. There were as many patterns of transit administration identified as there were jurisdictions studied. Some large eastern cities (e.g., New York and Boston) are ultimately controlled by the state government while midwestern and western cities tend to rely on locally constituted boards. The boards of directors, with one exception, are appointed rather than directly elected. Boards vary as to whether the appointees are locally elected officials or interested citizens, or a combination. In five of the ten other jurisdictions, the boards have members appointed by the governor. In three of those (San Diego, Minneapolis and New York) the governor appoints the chairperson. - 12 - 4. ,t Some of the smaller jurisdictions have more responsibili- ties vested in single agencies (San Diego, Sacramento) while many larger ones are highly fragmented (Chicago, San Francisco). But there are significant exceptions; Washington, D.C., has one agency for all functions covering the district and several contiguous counties in Maryland and Virginia. Rail and bus operations are variously split between entirely separate agencies or departments of the same agency. Likewise, planning and construction of rail and bus are handled either separately or under the same management. There were no discernibile correlations between these arrangements and other factors. In all instances, except Sacramento, Boston and Washington, D.C., the agency handling the allocation of operating subsidies was separate from the ultimate operator(s). This is also the case in Los Angeles County. In the jurisdictions where this is not the case, there is only one operator, and thus no conflict of interest in subsidy. allocations. CONCLUSIONS Our conclusions and supporting information regarding public transportation organizational structure and the allocation of duties and responsibilities are presented in detail below: 1. No Clear Lines of Authority The absence of a specific hierarchy or reporting relationship between SCRTD and the LACTC, the similar composition of each agency's governing board, and the responsibility of SCRTD for Metro Rail project planning and construction and LACTC for light rail project planning and construction create the impression that they are parallel, independent entities. These give the appearance of lack of accountability to the public and to other officials. As specified in Public Utilities Code 130252, the LACTC shall receive for approval all plans for the design, construction and implementation of public mass transit systems in the County. The Commission also has the authority to contract for the construction of rail services. The SCRTD has similar authority to construct rail within its service area, under which Metro Rail is being built (PUC 30631). Further, under PUC 130251 the LACTC was instructed by the Legislature to support the SCRTD's application to the federal government for Metro Rail funding, thereby limiting LACTC's discretion over. Metro Rail planning and funding. - 13 - Further restricting the authority of LACTC is PUC 130254 which specifies that the SCRTD is to be the designated guideway operator in the County. This preempts LACTC's authority to choose the most cost effective operator(s) for rail systems. The above similarities regarding planning and construction blur the lines of authority between SCRTD and LACTC. Compounding this problem is the fact that the majority of the governing boards of the SCRTD and LACTC are composed of the same public officials: the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor of Los Angeles City. This has, in effect, placed each entity on an almost equal footing in such areas as commanding the attention of governing board members and in legislative advocacy for state and federal funds. In summary, although there is the intent in state law that the LACTC be the overall public transportation entity for planning and for providing accountability, this has not been fully achieved in Los Angeles County because of the duplicate responsibilities of LACTC and SCRTD and the historically strong role SCRTD has played in securing funding for a fixed guideway system. 2. Many Public Transportation Structures No consensus emerges from an analysis of the other transit agencies surveyed as to the most effective organizational structure and the composition of the governing body(ies). Each area's structure is unique based on its geographic, economic, jurisdictional, historical, and statutory characteristics. Nevertheless, elements of these other models can be adapted to the situation in Los Angeles County to enhance accountability and cost effective transit service. Of the four California agencies having or developing both bus and rail systems (Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and Sacramento), all are governed by members from involved counties and representative cities within the jurisdictions. There are a number of elected representatives, or their delegates, serving on the governing bodies. In no instance is the governing body separately elected. In jurisdictions outside of California, members of the governing bodies represent cross-sections of state and local government. In most instances, the Governor of the state either appoints the chairman or other members. Of all the agencies surveyed, the City of Portland, Oregon, has the only agency with a directly elected administrator and governing board. - 14 - None of the jurisdictions surveyed indicate that the county boards of supervisors (or equivalent names) have sole or majority control over respective governing bodies. In California, no county board of supervisors comprises a majority vote on the governing body. In order to maintain a cross representation for all local levels of government, both cities and counties should be represented. As described in Section II above, there are many variations in organization of transit management. However, Los Angeles is the only jurisdiction with a split between two agencies for rail planning and construction responsibilities. Combining this function may offer an opportunity for better coordination of rail transit, without diminishing the coordination of bus with rail transit. Several transit agencies have wholly-owned subsidiaries as operators; others are independent like SCRTD. Many of the independent operators consist of amalgamations of former private, non -subsidized operators. Today all operators require subsidies. The more recently developed systems tend to utilize subsidiaries which can achieve greater accountability. As described in greater detail below, elements of other transit structures which could improve public transportation administration in Los Angeles County include the consolidation of rail system project planning and construction and the establishment of a countywide transportation authority responsible for policy making and allocation of grant and subsidy funds with subsidiary specialized branches accountable to the transportation authority. 3. Desirability of a Corporate Model A "corporate" model for public transportation in which separate branches for operations, construction, and planning/fiscal programming (including liaison with municipal operators) reporting directly to a single Countywide board responsible for providing overall direction appears to offer the greatest potential for improved accountability in Los Angeles County. Although all operational subsidy funding for transit in the County is now channeled through LACTC, that agency has only indirect control over the activities of the County's largest operator, SCRTD, because it has a separately constituted board of directors. In the corporate model a Los Angeles County Transportation Authority board would provide overall financial and programmatic direction with bus and rail operations directly accountable to the Transportation Authority - 15 - board. In the course of data gathering for this report, Professor Gordon J. Fielding of UC Irvine was interviewed. He is the Statewide Director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University, and has a nationwide perspective on the organization and history of transportation agencies. He believes that the strength of the corporate model lies in the ability of the various entities to focus their activities on clearly separate aspects of public transportation. In the conceptual model related to Los Angeles County, the planning and programming branch would secure all legislation and funding, develop policy, and perform strategic financial planning. Financial planning should include performance criteria on which subsidy allocations are partially based. This entity should control all regional indirect funding. The operations branch would be responsible for all systems and route planning, labor relations, development of capital asset planning, security and other direct operational support services. Its activities would not include construction or legislative activities. The third branch, construction, would provide detailed project planning and construction contract management. The long-range planning function for the six -county area would continue to be performed by SCAG, which would obtain short-range planning input for Los Angeles County from the planning and programming entity as approved by the Los Angeles County Transportation Authority. In summary, the above model would facilitate strong financial management and accountability and reduce fragmentation of efforts. 4. Duplication of Rail Responsibility With one notable exception, there is no apparent major duplication_of effort between SCRTD, which is primarily an operations agency, and LACTC, which is primarily a policy -setting agency. The notaole exception, however, is the fact that each agency is responsible for project planning and construction of a rail system. LACTC Organization The LACTC organizational structure consists of three administrative staff divisions and one operational division, as follows: - 16 - - - The Finance and Administration Division is responsible for personnel, accounting, financial/ debt/asset management and administrative support services of the Commission. The Division of Government and Public Affairs is responsible for the Commission's legislative, intergovernmental relations, community relations, and media and public information programs. The Programming and Fiscal Analysis (P&FA) Division is responsible for administering highway, bus transit and bikeway funds; preparing recommendations for transit and highway projects funding priorities; coordinating projects between cities, between transit operators and between local and state/federal agencies; and resolving disputes between operators or cities. The Transit Development Division is responsible for developing rail corridors beyond the Long Beach -Los Angeles project and guides systemwide aspects of all rail projects. In addition the division is responsible for the design, systems, construction, external affairs, program controls, and contract administration functions associated with the Long Beach -Los Angeles light rail project. The Commission's total 1986-87 appropriation is $367,470,111 with a total budgeted staff of 94 positions. This amount includes administrative costs, capital construction costs, Proposition A discretionary fund disbursements, and Proposition A Local Return fund disbursements. SCRTD Organization The SCRTD organizational structure consists of 10 departments and the office of the District Secretary. The various departments and office responsibilities are as follows: MD OM The Office of the District Secretary provides administrative support to the Board of Directors. - - The Legal Department provides legal support to the various operations of the agency. The Transit Police Department is responsible for augmenting local law enforcement efforts to provide security and protection for transit patrons and bus operators. - 17 - ,x The Customer Relations Department is assigned the basic responsibility of providing patrons, the general public and elected officials easy access to district services. The Controller -Treasurer -Auditor Department is responsible for managing the District's fiscal affairs and facilitating data processing services. The Operations Department is responsible for providing general transportation, administrative support, equipment maintenance, facilities maintenance and operations, scheduling of bus lines and work assignment for bus operators. The Planning and Communications Department is responsible for planning, marketing and communications, and policy analysis to assure unified support of the bus operations and rail development efforts of the district. The Government and Community Affairs Department is responsible for ensuring that a positive working relationship exists between the District and the federal, state, and local governments, public agencies, and the private sector. The Equal Opportunity Department is responsible for ensuring that the District's goal and objectives are met relative to equal employment opportunities, minority business development, Title VI planning, Section 504 implementation, and the planning and implementation of training and retraining programs. The Transit System Development Department is responsible for the design and construction of the Metro Rail transit system for the Los Angeles Regional Core. The Management Department is responsible for the District's budget and management functions, the contracts, procurement and material functions, the personnel function, the employee relations function; and the risk management function. The SCRTD's total 1987 appropriation is $798,329,000 with.a total budgeted staff of 8,566.5 positions. This amount includes administrative, operations, capital equipment and construction costs. Based on our review and the above information, there appears to be no major functional or operational overlap and/or duplication of effort by both agencies. However, there is some overlap or duplication of effort between LACTC, SCRTD and SCAG in planning and - 18 - programming areas such as projecting future ridership, identifying bus routes, and scheduling. 5. No Advantage by Combining SCRTD and LACTC With the exception of the rail function, combining SCRTD and LACTC would offer little financial or functional advantage. It would create a conflict situation in the allocation of transit funding and would not by itself significantly increase accountability. As described in detail in #4, above, there is no significant overlap of responsibilities between SCRTD and LACTC. Therefore, there are no appreciable operational cost savings to be realized through a merger. Some cost savings in administrative overhead might be realized. Such a merger would also combine the agency handling the allocation of subsidy funds with the region's largest operator which receives a portion of those funds. The management of such an agency would thus be allocating subsidy funds to itself as well as to the 12 other independent municipal operators in the region and the many paratransit operators. The objectivity of the allocation of funds may be questioned by the other operators and by the jurisdictions they serve. Since the LACTC is statutorily responsible for resolving conflicts and disputes within the region, coordinating transit and monitoring performance and productivity of operators, a conflict of interest could result from merging SCRTD and LACTC under the same management. In addition, such a merger could negatively impact privatization efforts since lines to establish transportation zones to be served by private providers are generally taken from existing SCRTD lines. There may be a lack of motivation for a combined LACTC/SCRTD to seek the establishment of new zones as it would involve loss of subsidy funds within the combined organization. Of course, unless statutes were amended as detailed in #7 below the new combined LACTC/SCRTD-would face the same restrictions on contracting for services that now hamper the SCRTD. In conclusion, the disadvantages of such a merger outweigh the sole advantage of an opportunity to combine light and heavy rail planning and construction. That change can be accomplished by other means which do not threaten the objectivity of current allocation and control mechanisms. 6. Rail Responsibility Should be Consolidated Combining SCRTD's Metro Rail project planning and construction activities and LACTC's light rail project planning and construction activities into a new specialized construction-oriented agency would allow SCRTD and LACTC to concentrate management resources on operations and countywide system/financial planning, respectively. LACTC and SCRTD are heavily involved in financing, planning, and constructing the light and heavy rail systems, respectively. Because LACTC is doing the operational planning and construction of light rail, they have added a detail project planning responsibility to their agency's original role as a fiscal planner setting priorities for highway and transit needs and allocating funds to approved programs and projects. This may divert the Commission's attention from other critical public transportation issues as the project progresses and expands. SCRTD top management currently has a dual role to develop Metro Rail and operate a major bus service. Similar to LACTC, the demands of planning and constructing Metro Rail may have diverted management's attention from critical issues relative to their original mission of bus operation. Any functional realignment could probably best be implemented at the present time even though the Metro and light rail projects are in the initial construction stage. It will require a major effort to separate the two rail projects from their existing organizations but we believe the effort could improve the transit delivery system in Los Angeles County. This change will allow both LACTC and SCRTD to continue in their current form. Itwould, however, allow LACTC and SCRTD to concentrate on their primary responsibilities of financial planning and bus operations, respectively, and place responsibility for rail development and construction under a specialized construction management entity. SCRTD and LACTC would still interface closely in defining operational requirements for the new entity. 7. Statutes Restrict Competition State law restricts the ability of SCRTD to utilize lower cost private operators on its routes, precludes SCRTD from contracting for bus maintenance, and mandates that SCRTD will operate both the light and heavy rail systems being constructed. These statutory provisions restrict competition in providing optimum service at least possible cost. - 20 - s Various provisions of law detailed below restrict competition among transit service providers which .adversely impacts the provision of optimum service levels at the least possible cost. Federal law, 49 USC 1609, Section C (more commonly referred to as the "Section 13 (c) requirement"), conditions federal assistance by requiring transit agencies to protect their employees from experiencing a worsened employment condition as a result of receiving federal money. This regulation has been interpreted to mean that establishment of transportation zones or contracting for transportation services will negatively impact existing SCRTD employees and therefore should be prohibited. State law provides that when the SCRTD acquires any transit system, the acquired employees must be appointed to positions comparable to those in the District and with the same benefits (Public Utilities Code 30753). Conversely, District employees displaced or adversely affected by any system acquisition or disposal must be provided for; the extent of this provision is the subject of collective bargaining (Public Utilities Code 30754). Also, because state law designates the SCRTD as the transit guideway operator in Los Angeles County, the LACTC is precluded"from putting this service out to bid and ensuring that the most cost effective operator is utilized. In addition to these statutory restraints, the District's contracts with the United Transportation Union (representing drivers) and the Amalgamated Transit Union (representing mechanics) prohibit contracting out or the hiring of part-time employees unless the District experiences a specified, significant reduction in federal subsidies. In essence the District would have to undergo a major revenue shortfall from the federal side before contracting out or part-time personnel are allowed to be used. These union contracts run until 1988. The above restrictions hamper SCRTD compliance with a more recent body of federal and state law clearly intending to promote contracting and privatization activity in the delivery of public mass transportation services. Federal UMTA regulations require that a specified class of transit provider receiving federal assistance (including the SCRTD) is to implement the privatization of at least 7.5% of line operations by 1995. - 21 - State law encourages competition by authorizing LACTC to establish "Transportation Zones" under specified conditions where the SCRTD or municipal operators cannot otherwise provide adequate and responsive local transportation services in a cost effective manner (Public Utilities Code 130261). Also, applicants for State Transit Assistance (STA) funds, similar to those provided for Metro Rail, must certify that they are not restricted from contracting with common carriers or hiring part-time help (California Administrative Code 6754). [While SCRTD so certifies, the practical effect of union contract provisions on hiring negate implementing these outside contracting practices]. In summary, there is a body of existing law with the clear intent to encourage privatization and contracting for services by public transportation providers. Other provisions of law appear to conflict with this intent while restrictive union contract agreements contribute to these impediments to privatization. By amending restrictive statutes and modifying contract agreements, transportation service providers might be able to deliver more cost effective services to the public. ALTERNATIVES TO IMPROVE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY Based on the findings and conclusions detailed above, the following alternatives are suggested as a means to increase accountability in public transportation management and competition in operations. Each requires changes in state statutes to implement and some are impacted by federal and state regulations and/or SCRTD labor agreements. The alternatives are presented in approximate order of magnitude or impact on current operations and organization. Operational Changes to Increase Competition for Transit Operations With No Functional or Organization Realignment 1. Amend laws to allow SCRTD to use private transit operators without constraints where cost effective by eliminating provisions protecting SCRTD employees from such competition. 2. Amend laws to allow operation of the Metro Rail and light rail systems by the most cost-effective operators by deleting provisions requiring SCRTD operation of these rail systems. Discussion As detailed in conclusion #7, above, provisions of the State Public Utilities Code and federal law impede both SCRTD's ability to contract with other providers for bus service and area residents' ability to form - 22 - } transportation zones to provide more cost effective and responsive service to meet local needs. The Public Utilities Code also designates SCRTD as the operator of fixed guideway (rail) systems in Los Angeles County. At least two of the 10 jurisdictions surveyed (San Diego, Dallas) having both bus and rail systems contract with private bus operators for a significant portion of their services and at least one jurisdiction (Minneapolis) uses contractors to operate its rail system. Public transportation users in Los Angeles should also have the benefit of private sector competition for transit services to insure such services are provided at the least possible cost. Functional and Organizational Changes to Consolidate Rail System Construction 3. Transfer responsibility for Metro Rail project planning and construction from SCRTD to LACTC, thereby allowing SCRTD to concentrate management resources solely on bus operations. 4. Establish a specialized construction -oriented entity to administer rail development and construction by amending statutes to transfer responsibility for Metro Rail project planning and construction from LACTC to such an entity. This new entity should report directly to the LACTC as the primary policy -setting transit body in the County. It would be solely responsible for rail system construction management. Discussion All of the jurisdictions surveyed have a single agency responsible for rail development and construction; Los Angeles is unique with its split responsibility. Consolidating the complex rail planning and construction processes either under LACTC or a specialized construction -oriented entity offers the obvious advantages of: Relieving SCRTD management of this significant and time-consuming responsibility so that management resources can be concentrated solely on bus operations. Simplifying the rail development process and ensuring maximum coordination of rail development and construction. Because Metro Rail and light rail projects are, or are near to being, in the initial construction stage, any change in organizational structure at this time could be potentially disruptive and could convey an impression of - 23 - organizational instability to state and federal admin- istrators and legislators. This could be particularly critical to securing funding for MOS -2, the second leg of Metro Rail. An additional drawback with alternative No. 4, above, is that the new agency would have to secure certification from UMTA, a process that could take 6-12 months. Establishing a special construction agency might also be confusing to the public since there would then be three agencies in charge of some aspect of transit, instead of the two currently. Nevertheless, both rail construction projects will take several years to complete, and any functional realign- ment will become only more difficult in the future. Restructuring Los Angeles County Public Transportation Organization to Create a Hierarchical Structure and Defined Accountability 5. Create a "Los Angeles County Transportation Authority" based on a "corporate" model with: An overall governing body acting like a corporate board of directors responsible for major financial and programmatic decisions. It would be appropriate that the Los Angeles County Transportation Authority governing board be headed by a chairperson appointed by the Governor with other members divided equally among County and municipal elected officials. A separately elected board is neither desirable nor warranted for this countywide policy body. At least three specialized subsidiary branches for operations, construction, and planning/fiscal programming. Each branch would have a separate advisory committee appointed by the Los Angeles County Transportation Authority Board. These subsidiary branches would be accountable to the County Transportation Authority for their performance. (See page 5A for a conceptual example for how -a corporate model could be structured in Los Angeles County). Discussion San Diego and New York most closely fit the "corporate" model structure. San Diego has a 15 -member governing body of city and county elected officials which controls funding and establishes policy for two wholly-owned subsidiary agencies, each with separate governing boards responsible for bus and rail, respectively. New York has a 13 -member governing body - 24 - of gubernatorial and local appointees, with the chairman appointed by the governor. The agency controls funding and establishes policy for six wholly- owned subsidiary operational agencies. Dallas and San Francisco also have some elements of the "corporate" model structure which optimizes accountability, coordination and direction, and cost effectiveness in the administration of public transportation. A model similar to these would seem to work well in Los Angeles. See discussion on page 15 for the "corporate" model of how this new Authority in Los Angeles County could be organized. The current governing boards of LACTC and SCRTD are com- posed of a balance of County and city officials. Because of this precedent and the need to have political consensus in order to move forward to establish this Authority, it is proposed that the new governing board have an equal number of County and city officials. Unlike the current boards, this new Authority governing board would have a Chairperson appointed by the Governor with full voting powers. This state representation is logical since the State of California writes the statutes controlling the agency and will continue to provide important funding. This arrangement is not without precedent because in five of the ten transit agencies sur- veyed, the governing body includes member(s) appointed by the state governor, and in three jurisdictions the governor appoints the chairman. In order to address current accountability concerns, it is essential that only elected officials, with the exception of the Governor's appointment, serve on the LACTA board. No alternates would be permitted. The authority of the LACTA board would be kept broad and its action would be required on the most important business and policy items such as approval of the annual budget, the TIP, or selection of a rail operator. Routine business and administrative matters could be delegated to the advisory boards or staff. This delegation is necessary in order to assure that busy elected officials can serve on the board while maintaining their other official duties. While there are several suitable compositions for the LACTA board, one arrangement might be a seven -member board composed of three Supervisors (selected- by the Board of Supervisors), the Mayor of the City of Los Angeles, and two elected city officials chosen by the City Selection Committee, one of whom must be from a city with a municipal operator. The seventh member would be the Governor's appointment. - 25 - There are those who believe public transportation in the County would be better run by a directly elected board. This report does not support *that view. The proposed make-up of the Authority board would provide for par- ticipation of elected leadership of all elements of local government in Los Angeles County. These elected officials can also be held accountable for providing quality, cost-effective transportation services. The proposed composition provides a Countywide perspective and enables transportation issues to be addressed in relation to other issues of public concern such as land use. Establishing a new directly elected board with cross -jurisdictional authority would only lead to increased parochialism and local -agency conflict. APPENDIX I REVENUE SOURCES -- LACTC AND LOCAL OPERATORS Fund Type and Source FEDERAL FUNDS FED. 8¢ Fuel Tex: How Distributed - Interstate Completion To states on basis of (I.C.) coat of interstate yet to be completed. Within California, distributed on discretionary basis by California Trane- portation'Commiasion (CTC). LACTC AND LOCAL OPERATORS HEYEM,t SUURI.ES Limitations on Use Can be used only for construction of uncom- pleted portions of the approved interstate system. Who Must Approve CTC approves projects. In L.A. County, can be used only on projects approved by Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC). Only Caltrans develops and nominates projects for the interstate system. Total 1987 Funds Allo- Operating Unit cated to L.A. Co. Area Receiving Funds $578 Million Caltrans receives all funds for approved projects. - Fed. Aid Primary (F.A.P.) To states on basis of population and mail route mileage. Within California, distributed on discretionary basis by CTC. Can be used for con- struction in rehabili- tation of the Primary system (consisting of major highways and non - interstate freeways). CTC approves projects. In L.A. County, can only be used on projects approved by LACTC. $41 Million Caltrans receives all funds for approved projects. - Fed. Aid Urban (FAO) To urbanized areas on basis of population. Within L.A. County distributed by LACTC on basis of population and project merit. L.A. County, cities, Caltrans and others compete for a portion of the funds. Can be used for con- struction and main- tenance of the Urban system (arterials and collectors). Can also be used for transit capital projects, and regional ridesharing. LACTC approves projects. Federal Highway Administration (FNMA) and SCAG must approve Transportation Improvement Programa (TIP). Caltrans appro- ves work done to insure it is up to standard. Caltrans, counties and cities can nominate pro- jects to be funded by F.A.U. appropriations. $34 Million Funds are allocated directly to provider. - 85% "Return to Source" Funds allocated to states to insure they receive 85% of their fuel tax. Contribution distributed by CTC on discretionary basis. Can be used for any federal -aid system, and also for hazard elimi- nation, bridge repair, and rail highway crossing projects. CTC approves projects. In L.A. County, can be used only on projects approved by LACTC. $17 Million Coltrane receives all funds for approved projects. - Interstate 4R RT:alc 340.2 To states on basis of lane miles and vehicle miles traveled on the Interstate system. Can be used for resur- facing, restoration, rehabilitation, and reconstruction of existing interstate highways. CTC approves projects. In L.A. County, can be used only on projects approved by LACTC. $57 Million Coltrane receives all funds for approved projects. Fund Type and Source FEDERAL FUNDS UMTA Funds How Distributed - Section 3 Fed. 1f Funds distributed at tax UMTA's discretion. LACTC AND LOCAL OPERATORS REVENUE SOURCES Limitations on Use Must be used for bus or rail transit capital improvements. At this time, all Section 3 funds in L.A. County are for Metro Rail. Who Must Approve UMTA approves projects and final funding. In L.A. County, funds can be used only for pro- jects approved by LACTC. Total 1987 Funds Allo- cated to L.A. Co. Area $107 Million MOS -1 $94.4 Million Metro Rail extension Operating Unit • Receiving Funds Currently, SCRTD directly receives all funds. - Section 8 Funds distributed by UMTA to Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) or SCAG by formula. Funds must be used for regional transit plan- ning, transportation systems and management, and transit planning by bus operators. UMTA approves planning projects requests approved by the MPO. In L.A. County, bus oper- ator planning projects must first be approved by LACTC. $11.7 Million total to SCAG Only $1.3 Million of the above funds are allocated to operators in L.A. County. Counties or transit operators directly receive funds allocated by SCAG. - Section 9 Appor- tioned by Congress from General Funds Funds distributed by UMTA to urbanized areas based on service miles, population, and popu- lation density. L.A. County funds apportioned to transit operators based on formula of service miles and passengers. L.A. County funds for transit capital dis- tributed based on pro- ject merit. Funds must' be spent on rail or bus transit. Limit on the amount of funds which can be spent on transit oper- ations. Capital projects require a 20% local match. UMTA approves operating assistance and capital project funding. In L.A. County, only projects and operating plana approved by the LACTC can receive funding. $52.7 Million operating $47.1 Million capital $.3 Million Antelope Valley Currently, SCRTD directly receives 86% of operating funds, the remainder is allocated to other operators. SCRTD directly receives 90% of Capital funds, the remainder is allocated to other operators. The Loa Angeles County Public Works Department directly receives all Antelope Valley funds. - Section 16(b)(2) RT:elc 34f9.4 Funds distributed by UMTA based on population end need to Caltrans. Caltrans then distri- butes funds based on project merit. Fund must be spent for the purchase of pare - transit vehicles by private non-profit agencies. 20% of the total project cost must be paid by the social service agency. Caltrans approves pro- jects based on project merit and quality of application. In L.A. County, the LACTC coordinates the submittal of appli- cations to Caltrans. $.6 Million applied for by private agencies. Funds are issued directly to private non-profit agencies. Fund Type and Source FEDERAL FUNDS (cont) - Section 6 How Distributed Funds distributed et UMTA's discretion. Limitations on Use Funds must be used for demonstration or research projects. Who Must Approve 10181 1987 Fund. Allo- Operating Unit ceted to L.A. Co. Area Receiving Funds Only UMTA approves pro- $0.07 Million jecta and final funding. Currently, SCRTD directly receives funds for its. Methanol Bua Project. - Section 18 RT:alc 34f9.4.1 UMTA distributee funda to the Governor of each state based on popu- lation. Funds must be spent for bus or rail transit pro- jects in non -urbanized areas with populations less than 50,000. Caltrans approves oper- ating assistance and capital project funding. In L.A. County, only projects and operating plena approved by LACTC can receive funding. $0.56 Million for Santa Clarita Valley The Los Angeles County Public, Works Department directly receives all Santa Clarita Valley funds. Fund Type and Source STATE FUNDS State 9¢ Fuel Tax How Distributed 48.8% subvented to cities end counties by formula. Remaining funds allocated by formula to a number of state uses, primarily state highways. The CTC selects state highway projects for funding. LACTC AND LOCAL OPERATORS REVENUE SOURCES Limitations on Use State highway fuel tax funds can be used for Caltrans' operating budget and for state highway improvement projects. Who Must Approve CTC approves state highway projects. The cities and counties approve street and road projects funded by their allocation of the fuel tax. Total 1987 Funds Allo- cated to L.A. Co. Area $198 million for state highway projects (pri- marily to match federal dollars) Operating Unit Receiving Funds Caltrans receives about half the funds for CTC approved projects. Cities and counties receive the other half of the funds. TDA Funds - 1/4 of 1% of State Sales Tax: - Article 3 TDA funds are returned to the counties based on the amount of tax collected in each. county. 2% of total county TDA funds apportioned for thio program. Funds allocated to cities and county based on popu- lation and project merit. Funds may be spent on bikeways, pedestrian and handicapped facilities. LACTC approves use of funds for capital and operating projects. $3.3 Million The Los Angeles County All State TDA funds go directly to the L.A. County Auditor and are disbursed per LACTC instructions. The Loa Angeles County Public Works Department receives a portion of these funds; the remainder is currently allocated to 60 various cities in Los Angeles County. - Article 4 Remaining county TDA funds available after allocation to Article 3 and 8 programs distri- buted to transit oper- ators based on a service mile and passenger formula. Funds for public transit operators used for capital or operating expenses. At least 15% funds available must be spent for capital pur- poses. LACTC approves use of funds for capital and operating projects. $156.1 Million Various operators are allocated funds. - Article 8 RT:alc 34f9.5 Funds allocated to areas not served by the SCRTD based on population (Antelope Valley, Santa Clarita Valley, and Catalina Island). Used for transit and paratransit programa to fulfill unmet transit needs. If there are no unmet transit needs, the money can be used for streets and roads. LACTC approves use of funds for capital and operating projects. $4.5 Million The Los Angeles County Public Works Department receives a majority of these funds; the remainder goes to the City of Avalon. Fund Type and Source STATE FUNDS STA Funds - State sales tax on gasoline "spill-over" funds How Distributed STA funds are returned to the counties based on the amount of ealea tax collected in each county. LACTC allocates to rail projects and to bus operators based on service miles and paseengers. LACTC AND LOCAL OPERATORS REVENUE SOURCES Limitations on Use Funds allocated to public transit operators are for operating purposes only. Who Must Approve In L.A. County, LACTC approves STA funds for rail and transit operators. Total 1987 Funds Allo- Operating Unit cated to L.A. Co. Area Receiving Funds $0 Million Rail $O Transit Operators Currently, SCRTD receives all funds for the Metro Rail project. State Guideway Funds Prop. 5 9¢ State Fuel Tax RT:alc 34f9.1 CTC allocates at its discretion. Can only be allocated to counties which have been approved, by vote of the people, for the use of state highway funds for guideway transit pro- jects. In L.A. County, LACTC approves guideway funds for rail projects. CTC gives final approval of all projects. $23 Million Metro Rail Currently, SCRTD directly receives all funds. Fund Type and Source LOCAL FUNDS Proposition A (Los Angeles County) 1/20 Sales Tex: How Distributed LACTC APC LOCAL OPERATORS REvEMI! S+11Ntrrf'. Limitations on Use Who Muat Approve - Local Return, 25% of Distributed to cities in Can be used only for Projects must be Prop. A L.A. County on the besie public transit projects. approved by LACTC. of population. Total 1987 Funds Allo- Operating Unit cated to L.A. Co. Area Receiving Funds $80.9 Million All funds go directly to L.A. County and are disbursed per LACTC instruction. A scall por- tion of these funds is utilized by LACTC to cover the coat of administrative activities. A majority of the funds is allocated to cities. A portion of the funds is allocated to the Loa Angeles County Public Works Department. - Discretionary Program, 40% of Prop. A Distributed for treneit projects in L.A. County at the discretion of the LACTC. Under the current program, 95% of the funds are distributed to 14 public transit operators on a formula basis and 5% goes toward funding projects demonstrating cost savings and/or service improvements. Can be used only for Projects must be public transit purposes. approved by LACTC. $129.5 Million 74% of these funds is allocated to SCRTD; the remainder is allocated to other operators. - Rail Development Program, 35% of Prop. A RT:elc 34f9.3 Used by LACTC to develop e 150 -mile rail system for Los Angeles County. Can be used only for the development of L.A. County's rail system. Approved by voters in November 1980, as part of the Proposition A 1/20 sales tax increase. LACTC plans, schedules, and constructs projects (except Metro Rail, which is being con- structed by SCRTD). $113.3 Million A majority (86%) of these funds is allocated to LACTC for the light rail projects and the remainder goes to SCRTD for the Metro Rail Project. 'Fund Type end Source LOCAL FUNDS Fares - Fare box, monthly passes, etc. How Distributed Funds are realized based on ridership. LACTC APD LOCAL OPERATORS REvEM1E SUMP, •, Limitations on Use No limitation on use of funds. They are gen- erally utilized for transit operational expenses. Who Must Approve Rates are set by the operators' Boards of Directors. These fees can be influenced by LACTC policy or public input. Total 1987 Funde Allo- Operating Unit cated to L.A. Co. Area Receiving Funde $221 Million * Operators receive funds directly. Charter, Subscription, Contract, end Special Event Services. Service Rete Funds are realized based on request for services. Public funds cannot be utilized to subsidize charter services per Federal end local, requirements TDA. No limitation on use of funds. They are gen- erally utilized for operational expenses but must cover con- tracted cost. Rates are set by the operators' Boards of Directors. $1 Million * Operators receive funds directly. Auxilery - Rental Fee Funde are realized based on requests for adver- tisement apace. No limitation on use of funds. They ere gen- erally utilized for operational expenses. Long Beach and SCRTD contracts with an advertisement firm who sets fees based on market and approved by Boards of Directors. $3.6 Million * Operators receive funds directly. Non -transportation - Moatly Investment Income, Identification Cards, Sale of Reclaim Oil, etc. Funds are mostly real- ized based on market rates and the amount of reserves budgeted by Operators. In addition, funds are realized from various sales. No limitation on use of funds. They are gen- erally utilized for operational expenses. The Operators' Boards of $16.7 Million * Directors approve invest- ments Operators invest and receive all funds. General Operating Assistance - General Fund, Contribution of Cities and the County. Also could include private sector contributions. Funds are distributed at Limitations are based on N/A contributors' die- the contributors' cretion. requirements. $5.6 Million * Operators receive funds directly. * These funds reflect LACTC subsidized transit systems such as SCRTD, Long Beach, Santa Monica, Culver City, Gardena, Torrance, Montebello, Commerce, Norwalk, Arcadia, Le Mirada, Claremont, Antelope Valley, and Santa Clarity Valley. It does not include data for city transit systems which are fully funded through local operating assistance and/or Proposition A local return funds. RT:alc 34f9.6 I Fund Type end Source LOCAL FUNDS Benefit Assessment - Fee on Property RT:elc 349.7 How Distributed Funds are realized based on fees applied to properties in a specific area. These funds are distri- buted to appropriate entities for cash expenditure.and/or to retire outstanding bonds. LACTC AND LOCAL OPERATORS REVENUE SOURCES Limitations on Use Limited to specific authorized purposes such as the capital develop- ment of the Metro Rail system. Who Must Approve After following state law requirements and receiving L.A. City concurrency, SCRTD Board of Directors approves feea. Total 1987 Funds Allo- Operating Unit ceted to L.A. Co. Area Receiving Funds $130.3 Million Metro Rail SCRTD is anticipating receipt of assessment funds for the Metro Rail project. APPENDIX II SUMMARY -- TRANSIT ORGANIZATION IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS SIIMMARY - TRANSIT ORGANIZATION IN OTHFR JURISDICTIONS Los Angeles TRANSIT FUNDING RAIL BUS PLANNING CONSTRUCTION OPERATION PLANNING OPERATIONS LACTC light-LACTC heavy -RTD light-IACTC heavy -RTD RTD LACTC RTD & others San Diego MTDB MTDB MTDB SD Trolley MTDB SD Transit San Francisco MTC BART BART BART Operators 10 Major operators Sacramento SRTD SRTD SRTD SRTD SPTD SRTD Portland MPO Tri Met Tri Met Tri Met Tri Met Tri Met Chicago RTA CTA Metra No new construction CTA Metra CTA PACF CTA PACF Minneapolis TCRTR TCRTR TCRTR Contractors TCRTR Contractors Washington, D.C. Metro Metro- Planning Dept. Metro- Const. Dept. Metro rail Metro Planning Dept Metrohus New York MTA MTA/agencies MTA MTA subsidiaries MTA/agencies MTA subsidiaries Boston MBTA MBTA- Planning Div. MBTA- Const. Div. MBTA MBTA- Planning div. MBTA Dallas DART DART DART DART DART DTS & trailways K2 :ac January 73, 19R7 MR'S- NAME OF AGENCY DICTION (FNMtING LFT:IS.) Los Angeles K2:mrc10 los Angeles County Transportation Commission (IACTC) (Pub. Utilities Code Sect. 130000 et. seq.) SIMMARY OF TRANSIT ORGANIZATIONS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS GOVERNING BOTH 12 members (11 voting) 5 - members of LA Canty Board of Supervisors 3 - Mayor of LA and•two of his appointees 1 - Representative of Long Beach City Council 2 - Elected Offic- ials represent- ing the Los Angeles County Division, Teague of California Cities 1 - Non-voting member appointed by the Governor Each voting member can appoint an alter- nate to act in his or her absence. OPERATIONAL STRUCTURE 13 bus operators Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD) is regional operat- ing agency - to include operation of rail transit (has independent Board of Directors). RESPONSIBILITIES IACTC distributes funds to 14 Municipal Bus operators, mon- itors efficiency thru triennial audits, mediates disputes. Coordinates para - transit and social service transport- ation in the (County. Programs funds for highway and freeway improvements. Prioritize most highway development and rehabilitation projects. PTANNING & DFVFLOP?IF NT FUNCTIONS TACRY; is in process of developing 150 - mile transit system, includ- ing planning and construc- tion of light rail projects. SCRTD - In pro- cess of develop- ing Metro Rail (heavy rail system) SCRTD and other operators do scheduling, marketing and other operat- ing activities. SOURCE OF FUNDING Proposition A (1/79 sales tax) - 25% local - 407 discre- tionary - 357 rail IMA Sec. 3, 8, V, 18; Trans Develop. Act (TDP); State Trans. Asst.; Fed. Aid, Urban Interstate Com- pletion; Inter- state 4-R; Fed- eral Aid, Pri- mary; Fed. 857 Return to Source; State Gas Tax; State Guideway Finds Fares; advertising AI.TIrATION OF FUNDS To Cities based on Population For transit pro- jects thru TACFC Thru TACTC for Rail Systems IACTC controls expenditures, does not collect or disburse. Operators receive funds directly. 1MTC prioritizes & approves distri- bution with approval from other agencies. JIRIS- NAME OF AGENCY DICTION (ENABLING MIS.) San Diego K2 :mrc Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MrI1�) (Public Utilities Code 120050 et. seq.) SUMMARY OF TRANSIT ORGANIZATIONS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS GOVERNING BODY 15 members Permanent Chairman appt. by Governor 4 - City Camcil members from San Deigo 1 - Supervisor from County of San Diego OPERATIONAL STRUCTURE MFI11 - San Diego Transit - bus - San Diego Trolley light rail Roth wholly owned subsidiaries of MPrR with separate governing boards - 14 other operators 9 - City Council members from Chula Vista, Coronado, F1 Cajon, Imperial Beach, la Mesa, Lemon Cove, National City, Poway and Santee Supervisors and City Council members serve on the Board personally. RFSPONSIRILITIFS MFI1P - Sets policy aniapproves expendi- tures for both subsid- iaries. Provides general planning & coordina- tion of all transit. San Diego Transit Operates bus services. Local jurisdictions make decision for transit operation (50% of route miles operated thru private contract). San Diego Trolley Operates Light Rail. PLANNING & DEVFIII WN'r FUNCTIONS MFi1P develops short-range transit plan for metro- politan San Diego Area -- includes general improve- ments needed for five yearn and outlines specific operation and capital programs. - State Highway MT H also planned, funds designed and constructed light rail. SOURCE OF FUNDING - TIIA fonds generated by sales tax - State Gas tax I FA funds: Section 9, 3, 4, 6, & 16 Federal Highway funds (FAIT) Fares A IDEATION OF HINDS Ry formula based on population. Tb guideway tranait with approval of Calif. Trans Comm. Roth dis- cretionary and formula distribution. SANTOG is recipient - granted to Mn.B Get 15% for transit -rest to highways. JURIS- DICTI(I1 San Francisco K2:mrcl j. DIrrl( t NANF OF M.FNCY (MARLIN: IFGIS.) Metropolitian Transportation Commi ss ion (l4rC) (Govt. Code 66500 et. seq.) (FIcVkii.ffv l FY;z,. SUMMARY OF TRANSIT MU('.ANIZATrf1NS IN (YINFR JURISDICTIONS (1VFf lING pinny IR or 19 member Commission Large Canities - San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Coata 1 each - appointed by Board of Supervisors (usually a mem- ber of the Board of Supervisors). 1 each - appointed by Mayors Confer- ence in the County to represent cities (usually Mayor or member of City Council). Small Counties - 1apa, Sonoma,.Marin, Solano OPERATIONAL ST1tICTI1RF All busses and trains are operated by approx. 10 major transit operators and 20 paratransit operators. 1 each - City Selec- tion Committee nominates 3 people to the Board of Supervisors Who appoints one to represent the Co. (usually a member of the Board of Super- visors or City Council). RFSP(1NSIPI LITI FS Prepare regional - plan. Approve applications for State and federal funds for transportation - find in confonnance with regional plan. Allocate funds to counties and operators. Coordinate service between 10 major operators. Develop regional transportation improvement program. Individual projects - long range planning only. RESPONSISI I.ITI FS PWARNING & DFvF1(1PMFFM FUNCTIONS TIONS Detail plan done by operators in response to general plans by MPC. PART planned & developed the heavy rail system inde- pendently. Santa Clara Canty light rail is being developed by Santa Clara Conry Trans. Agency - MTC only helped get funding. 7•iWCT1C NS 1//1 tla1PS P t� In snnp(F OF 11 M�Illf� TM hinds Ur+PA Section 4 + Section z funds 1/24 sales tax in 7 BART rnntiee 75% to RART 25% to 3 operators: BART AC Transit S. F. Muni nunget, need AI.11Y'J►Tt(e3 OF FlIN11S Can't move funds from ane et -minty to another but allocate to operators based on budget, need for funds, and balanc- ing of fares between operators. ALT *-1f, TU -0 SUMMARY OF TRANSIT DR(:ANIZATIDNS IN (YINFR JURISDICTIONS JURIS- NAME OF AGENCY (7(1UEANING OPERATIONAL. DICTION (ENABLING LIS.) 1Y1DY STRUMURF San' 1 - Aaaociation of Fran- Pay Area Cover - cisco menta. (Cont Trued) 1 - Conservation & Development Comm. - usually a mercer of the Comm. (non- elected official). 1 - CAI.TRANS - one non- voting member appointed by Secre- tary of Business and Transportation. 1 - IRS Department of Transportation appoints one non- voting members. 1 - 11S Department of Housing and Urban Development entitled to one representative. They have not made an appoint- ment. K2:mrc1.1 RFSPC*ISTPI I.1TI FS PTANNING F. DFVFIjWNFNT SOIIRCF OF A1.IIY'ATTON FIINCPI(SNS FUNDIN1: OF F1R'r* JURIS- DICTION NAME OF AGENCY (ENABLING MIS.) Sacramento Sacramento Regional Transit District (SRTD) (Pub. Mil. Code 102000 et. seq.) K2:mrc7 SIIMFIARY OF TRANSIT ORGANIZATIONS IN (YI}HFR JURISDICTIONS 011/FRNING BODY 7 member Board 4 - appointed by Sacramento City Council 3 - appointed by County Board of Supervisors Both City Council and Board of Super- visors may appoint representatives; however, at the present time 2 members of the City Council are serving personally. OPERATIONAL STRUCTURE Operate bus and will operate rail. Construction of all transit facilities. RF:SPONSIRILITIFS Develop and operate all rapid transit. Contract for support services. PiMINI NC: & MIFF! ()WENT FI WTI MIS SRTD - short range planning F. routing, fares & frequency. SA(Tw - (F1pn) Sacto. Area (7aunc i l of (govt s - long range planning. SOITRCF OF ALTPCATION FUNDING OF RUNTS TIN finds (577) Fares (307) Federal funds (Q7) ITM'A Section Q. 3, etc. Advertising other (67) Allocated by population N/A (Only pro- vider - receives directly) N/A JUtIS- DICTI(N Portland 1(2:mrch NAME OF AGENCY OPERATING ACITIHORITY (FNABI.ING I/CIS.) Metropolitan Planning Organiza- tion (}1Po) (Created by State legisla- tion) SUMMARY OF TRANSIT ORRANI7.ATT(Nc IN rnNFR JIIPTSDICTT(NS COVERNINn FinnY Directly elected Administrator and 12 counselors for 12 districts - constituted as a government on its (IPFRATI(VA1. STR11C 11TRF Tri -Het operates rail and bus Tri -Met has 7 person board appointed by Governor and confirmed by State Senate (from 7 districts). One other operator for suburbs In State of Washington. RFSPfNSI RI T.ITI FS Regional trans- portation planniri as well as land use, solid waste, etc. Sets policy and makes sure Tri -Het Fed. Govt. applica- tions are consistent with regional policy. PLANNING b DFVFI OPMF TP TI INCTIrt1S Tri -Met perforans planning and construction of rail with assistance of State fepart- ment of Transportation. S(MRNf OF AI.TLY'ATInN Furkin r: OF RITIrkg Federal - R57 Payroll tax on employed and self- employed people R/ln of 17 State gas tax finds - in lieu of payroll tax on State employees Cigarette tax 1Q Rased on grant appli- cations to !PTA - Section Q funds shared with State of Wash- ington Directly to Tri - Het Directly to Tri - Met Allocated by popu- lation for elderly + handicapped JUt I S- NAE OF AGFNCY DICTION (FNA1q.IN(; AXIS.) Chicago Regional Transporta- tion Authority (RTA) (State legislation 1974) K2:mrc3 SUMMARY OF TRANSIT nRr'.AN17.ATIfNS IN (h'Il1Fp JURISDICTIONS (>nVFIdNING BODY 13 member appointed board . 4 members - appointed by Mayor of Chicago 4 members - aQpointed by suburban mem- bers of Cook Canty Board 1 member - appointed by Dupage Canty Board 2 members - appointed by Boards of: Lake County Cane Canty McHenry Canty Will Canty (2 from the 4 counties) 1 member - CTA chair (automatic) 1 member - appt. by Governor (1PFRATI(NAi. STRI ICI1IRF. Three operators: - Chicago Transit Authority - bus and rail in city + nearby suburbs - Metra (Metro- politan Rail) commuter rail to suburbs - PACE - nos suburban buses RFSPONSIRI I.ITI FS Allocates funding to operators in area. Coordinates service between operators. MANN' tin & win lhPbtTrr Fl INCTIfNS Ione by each individual operator. Chicago's rail system w8a begun in 1ROO's and was essen- tially complete by 1920. There in no new con- struction. S(h11RCF OF F11ND1Nf Sales Tax - 17 - Cock Co. - 1/47 in others Fare Collec- tions - 507 of revenue is required from fares by law ItttA funds Al J OCATIRh OF FUNDS Specified in formula in statute which creates RTA - In City: R57 of sales tax goes to CPA 157 to RTA - In suburbs: divided het - ween CTA and other operators Sane i9 dis- cretionary Rranta from Bales tax and IMA money J Ut I S- NAME OFy DICTION (ENABLING IFUIS.) St. Paul Win City Regional Mime- Transit Board (RTD) apolis (created by State Legislature in 1984) K2:mrc4 SUMMARY OF TRANSIT ORGANIZATIONS IN OTIIFR JURISDICTIONS G(NFI@IING PODY 9 member Board 1 - Chairman - appointed by the Governor R - appointed by Metropolitan Council (MC) •frac geographic districts based on pop- ulation (there are no elected officials ser- ving at this time). MC is basically responsible for long range transit policy planning. Members appointed by the Governor with advice and consent of State Senate from dis- tricts of equal population size within seven - county metropoli- tan Area. OPERATIONAL STRICTURE 74m Basic Mviaions: - Plamirp & Programs planning activities & provider con- tract negot- iations and monitoring. - Administration day-to-day fun- ctions, public info., contract administration. RESPfNSIRI LITIFS Short to,mid-range transit planning, policy makigg and administration. These activities are coordinated with the long- range planning of the Metropolitan Counc i l and Minnesota Dept. of Traneportatlon and implementation activities of providers. P1ANNING & 11FVFI OPMFNF FUNCTIONS Responsible for the short to mid-range planning but does not have authority to own or operate services. The Metropol- itan Transit Comm., the Public Operator, provides major- ity of route services. Three private operators also provide regular route services. Providers do scheduling, marketing and other operating activiaties. of1(IPCF. OF AT.T1r'.ATI('N MINDING OF FUNDS i n% Feds 15X State 40% Property Tax '1S-4111 Fare Revenue Staff pre- pares budget and submits to Board. Must be approved by state leg- islature. JIIRIS- NAME OF AGENCY DICTI(N (FNABLING LEGIS.) Washing- Washington Metro - ton, D.C.. politan Area Transit Authority (Metro) (National Capital Transportation Act of 1972) K2:mrc2 SIRRIARY OF TRANSIT ORGANIZATIONS IN (Y111FR JIIRISDI('I'I(NS (7(1VFRNING BODY 12 -member Board of Directors '4 - District of Columbia - 2 appointed by the Mayor 2 appointed by City ',Council 4 - Virginia - All appointed by the Northern Virginia Trans- portation Comm. 4 - Maryland - All appointed by Washington Sub- urban Transit Comm. (1PFRATI(NAI. STRII(:11IRF Separate departments for bus and rail operations and maintenance. Construction and facilities maintenance in a separate department. 74o Directors (vot- ing) and two alter- nates from each .jur- isdiction serve on the Board. May or may not be an elected official. RF;SPfNSIRI LITI FS Plans, develops, finances and operates transit in a zone in- cluding D.C. and two canities each in Maryland and Virginia. Coordinates operation of all public and private tranait facilities in the zone. Prepares masa transit plan. PIANNIPT: b fFvF1(*twi I' FIINC TIMS Separate Planning Office for all develop- ment, planning and scheduling functions. Mletrorail wee constructed by Metro. SOIIR(y' nF FUNDING - Juris- dictional funds (local) - Federal funds - Fares - Adver- tising - Invest- ment - Parking fees Af.TST ATI(N OF F1INnS foes not allocate to other agencies, JIRIS- ' DICTION New York K2:mrc8 NAW OF AGF7>< f (FNABLING MIS.) Metropolitan Trans- portation Authority (MTA) (New York State Public Authority law -1968) SUMMARY OF TRANSIT ORGANIZATIONS TN MIFF JURISDICTIONS GOVERNING ROPY 13 member board 5 - apointed by Governor 4 - appointed by Mayor of N.Y. 4 - appointed by Ct my F3cec- utives (airman appointed by Governor. All appointments approved by State legislature. f1PFRATIONAT. STltUCT RF. Six agencies Which operate as Wholly awned subsidiaries of MTA. Services in Nassau County and Connecticut are contracted out. RESPONS IRT I JTI FS Umbrella organiza- tion -seta policy and secures finds to carry cut services. PLANNING & DFVFI[1PMM' FUNCTIONS MPA planning department does long term policy and planning. Each agency has operation and strategic planning section. S/ I IR(F OF FUNDING 14.77 State b Regional taxes 11.57 local sub- sidies (General fund) 9.47 Total rev- enues 41.97 Operating g revenues 7.67 Federal 1.17 State 4.67 Other sub- sidies 10.77 Other services AIJO('ATION OF F11NPS Board of directors approve budget. Capital side of budget - state leg- islature. Operations side of budget - board has much more discretion. JIRIS- DICTI(1N IiAFF OF AGFNLY (»1AI1LING LR IS.) SUMMARY OF TRANSIT (11Y'ANIZATICNS IN (1'IAFR JIIRISDICTIMIS GOVERNING RnDY Boston Massachusetts Bay 7 member Board Transit Authority of Directors (Sec. 511, Chapter 161A, Mass. Gen- eral Law) K2:mrc5 Members appointed by Governor. Secretary of Transportation eerve6 as Chairman. OPERATIONAL SIFIICThRF Street care, buses, light rail, train, vans, buses all under one department. RFSPONSIRILITIFS Plans, develops, finances and operates transit. PIANNIMI F. OFVF1111*VF FUNCTI(NS Planning division in office does all planning. Construction is handled by construct - tion depart- ment. a , t Y S(111RCF OF A1.il1C.ATION FUNDING OF HINTS State & Federal Determined by Board of Directors JURIS- DICTION NAD. OF AGENCY (FNAILING IECIS.) Dallas Dallas Area Rapid Transit (ART) (State legis- lation - 1118 Y - Texas Annotated Civil Statutes) K2:mrc9 SUMMARY OF TRANSIT TIFC7ANIZATI(1NS TN TIDIER JURISDICTIONS G(1VERNING IUFW 25 Member Board 14 - appointed by Dallas City Council (interested citizens) 10 - appointed by City Councils of other Cities served by DART (interested citizens) 1 - appointed by County Com- missioners (interested citizen) There are no elected officials serving on DART. (1PERATI(1NAI, STRI ICDIIRE Contracted to Dallas Transit System and private suburban operators (Trailways). RF:SPONSIRI LITI F:S Policy setting Funding and coordination Planning and construction for rail and bus. Will operate rail after completion. MANNING & f1FVF1 PPMFTTr FlINM INS Done by DART for rail and bus. C11IIRCF f1F Fl nimn- 1T Sales tax rail capital Teases, interest, fares Federal grants AfInrATTTTI PF F11NItc None To operators under con- tract To Pallas Transit • February 13, 1987 Regular Meeting of February 24, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR ASPHALT STREET REPAIR - CIP 86-163 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the attached Agreement (Exhibit A) with Vernon Paving for asphalt street repair within the City. Background: At the January 13, 1986, City Council meeting, Council approved the plans and specifications and authorized the call for bids for CIP 86-163. This contract will repair selected portions of asphaltic streets throughout the City and allows for up to 257 more work to be performed if additional areas are located. Analysis: Four sealed bids were received by the City Clerk on February 6, 1987. The bids were publicly opened and read aloud. Vernon Paving was the low bidder at a total cost of $57,419.50. Other bids were as follows: Madison Paving $ 96,460.00 Sully -Miller $101,283.00 Damon Paving $101,654.00 The engineer's estimate was $74,616 Because the low bid was substantially lower than the other bids, staff met with the low bidder (Vernon Paving) to review and determine the accuracy of their bid. Vernon Paving confirmed their bid price and their qualifications. Staff contacted their references, determined Vernon Paving to be that contractor which best meets the needs of the City, and recommends that the contract be awarded to Vernon Paving. Fiscal Impact: CIP 86-163 Staff intends over -lay work Budgeted Amount $109,635 Contract Amount Estimated Plus 25% Balance $71,774 $37,861 to utilize the estimated balance for to be implemented through a contract 1 street addendum. If u the contract amount exceeds 25% of the bid amount, this addendum will be presented to Council at a later time and will include repairs on Valley Drive (from the Kiwanis Club to 18th St); portions of llth Street; the alley west of Pacific Coast Highway (between Gould and 30th Street) and the intersecion of 8th Street and Loma Drive. Respectfu ly submitted, Deborah M. Murphy Assistant Engineer Concur: at444. 2'm Gregory T. Meyer City Manager DMM:mv asr/m Attachments: Concur: Antony Antich Director of Publ'c Works Noted for Fiscal Impact: eitcdiu_e Viki Copeland Finance Administrator Exhibit A -Agreement Exhibit B -Project Schedule 2 . i• Exhibit A CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AGREEMENT FOR ASPHALT STREET REPAIRS FY 86-87 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 1987, by and between the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, hereinafter referred to as "City", and , hereinafter referred to as "Contractor". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, City and Contractor have executed the bonds attached and incorporated by this reference, and WHEREAS, City desires to contract with Contractor to perform the services detailed in said bonds and in the Proposal, and WHEREAS, Contractor has represented that it is fully qualified to assume and discharge such responsibility; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do agree as follows: 1. Scope of Work: CONTRACTOR hereby agrees to furnish all labor, materials and equipment necessary to perform street repair work in accordance with the Special Provisions included hereinafter. Such work shall be performed in a good and workmanlike mariner, under the terms as stated herein, and in accordance with the latest edition of the Joint Cooperative Com- mittee, Southern California Chapters of the American Public Works Association and the Associated General Contractors of America, • i document entitled, "Standard Specifications for Public Works Con- struction". In the event of any conflict between the terms of this agreement and any of the above -referenced documents, the terms of this agreement shall be controlling. The City reserves the right to reject any or all bids. The Contractor's bid shall be valid for a period of ninety (90) days. 2. LEGAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE PUBLIC (a) Laws to be Observed. -- The CONTRACTOR shall keep himself fully informed of all existing and future State and National laws, all municipal ordinances and regulations of the City of Hermosa Beach,: CA and of all such orders and decrees of bodies or tribunals having jurisdiction or authority over the same, which in any manner affect those engaged or employed in the work, or the materials used in the work, or which in any way af- fect the conduct of the work, and shall abide by and comply with all of such laws, ordinances and orders. (b) Hours of Labor. -- The CONTRACTOR shall abide by and comply with provisions of the Labor Code, and in particular of Sections 1810 to 1815 thereof, inclusive, concerning length of the work day and.work week and requirements for overtime compen- sation. There is to be no construction activity within the City of Hermosa Beach between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (c) Prevailing Wages. -- Not less than general prevailing rate of per diem wages shall be paid to employees of 'the CONTRACTOR, as provided in Labor Code Section 1775. . Said rates have been determined by the California Department of In- dustrial Relations, a copy of which determination is on file at the City Hall and is available to any interested party upon request. (d) Labor Discrimination. -- No discrimination shall -be made in the employment of persons upon public works because of the race, religious creed, color, ancestry or national origin, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, or sex of such person, except as provided in Section 1420 of the Labor Code. Every Contractor for Public Works violating this section is subject to all penalties imposed for violation. (e) Permits and Licenses. -- The CONTRACTOR shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the work. (f) Patents. -- The CONTRACTOR shall assume all responsibilities arising from the use of patented materials, equipment, devices, or processes used on or incorporated in' the work. (g) Public Convenience and Safety. The CONTRACTOR shall so conduct his operations as to cause the least possible obstruction and inconvenience to public traffic. • (h) Responsibility for Damage. -- The City of HERMOSA BEACH, the City Council, or the Engineer shall not be *responsible -or accountable in any manner for any loss or damage that may happen to the work or any part thereof, for any material or equipment used in performing the work, for injury or damage to any person or persons (either workers or the public) or for damage to adjoining property from any cause whatsoever. The CONTRACTOR shall defend, indemnify and save harm- less the City of .Hermosa Beach, CA,, -its officers and employees, the City Council, and the City Engineer from any suits, claims or actions brought by any person and persons on account of any in- juries or damages sustained in the performance of the work or in consequence thereof. The City Council may retain money due to the CONTRACTOR as it shall consider necessary until disposition has been made of such suits or claims for damages as aforesaid. (i)—Public-Liability and Property Damage Insurance. -- Neither the City of . ..•.:Hermosa: Beach. •CA'; the. City Engineer. nor any other officer, employee, agent, or appointee of the City of Hermosa peach, CA shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under the contract. Concurrently with the execution of any contract incor- porating these specifications, CONTRACTOR shall procure a policy of liability insurance from a company authorized to do business in the State of California, which policy shall insure the City of Hermosa Beach, CA. against any and all liability for death, in- jury, loss or damage to person or property arising out of or in =4- ••• any manner related td CONTRACTOR'S operations under any contract that may be let pursuant to these specifications. Such policy of insurance shall contain not less than the following limits of liability: Bodily Injury Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) for death or bodily injury or loss sustained by •any one person in any one accident; and One Million Dol- lars ($1,000,000.00) for death, bodily injury or loss sustained by more than one person in any one incident; Property Damage Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00) for loss occasioned by damage or injury to property in any one incident; and Combined Limits A combined single limit policy with aggregate limits in the amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) will be considered equivalent to the required minimum limits. CONTRACTOR shall concurrently with the execution of the contract, deliver said policy of insurance, or a certified photo- static copy thereof, to the City Attorney for approval by him as to form and sufficiency, and the contract shall not be effective, for any purpose, until such insurance policy is so delivered and so approved. When such policy has been so approved, it shall be -5- filed in the office bf the City Clerk of the City. In lieu of filing said insurance policy with the CITY, the same will be -returned to CONTRACTOR, after approval as to sufficiency and as to form as above provided, if the CONTRACTOR shall file with the CITY a Contractor's Insurance Certificate, executed by the in- surance carrier, certifying that the aforesaid insurance is in full force and effect and that all operations of the insured, un- der the contract entered into pursuant to these specifications are covered thereby, and that the policy will not be cancelled without giving the City thirty (30) days' prior written notice. CONTRACTOR shall_pay, at his own expense, all premiums upon said policy and shall maintain the same in full force and effect during the life of the contract. The procuring of such policy of insurance shall not be construed as a limitation of CONTRACTOR'S liability or as a full performance on CONTRACTOR'S part of the indemnification provisions of. -the .-.contract. CONTRACTOR'S liability shall be notwithstanding such policy of insurance, for. the full and total amount of any damage, injury or loss caused by or related to CONTRACTOR'S operations under the contract. (j) Worker's Compensation Insurance. -- The CON- TRACTOR at all times shall keep fully insured at his own expense, all persons employed by. him, in connection with the contract as required by the Worker's Compensation Insurance and Safety Act" of the State of California, and shall hold the CITY free and harmless from all liability that may arise by reason of the in- juries to any employees of the CONTRACTOR who are injured while -6- performing any work or labor necessary to carry out the provi- sions of this contract. The CONTRACTOR shall during the life of the contract, keep on file with the City Clerk evidence that the CONTRACTOR is fully and properly insured as required by said Act, which evidence shall be approved by the City Attorney of the CITY as to form and sufficiency. (k) Traffic Safety. -- The CONTRACTOR'S operations shall not create any hazardous traffic conditions nor shall they unnecessarily inconvenience the public. Unless otherwise authorized, traffic shall be permitted to pass through the work, or a safe temporary detour shall be provided. Access to fire hydrants, bus stops and driveway entrances shall be unobstructed unless otherwise approved by the City. The CONTRACTOR shall comply with applicable State, County and City requirements for street closures. The CONTRACTOR shall provide barriers, cones, delineators, lights, signs, coverplates and flagging as required to advise the public of detours and construction hazards. (3) PROSECUTION, PROGRESS AND PAYMENT (a) Subletting and Assignment. OM MEP The CONTRACTOR shall give his personal attention to the fulfillment of the con- tract and shall keep the, work under his control. Subcontractors will not be recognized as such, and all persons engaged in the work will be considered as employees of the CONTRACTOR, and their work will be subject to the provisions of the contract and specifications. -7- • (b) Progress of the Work and Time for Completion: -- The CONTRACTOR shall begin work within ten (10) days upon written notice to proceed and shall diligently prosecute the same from said date to the expiration of the contract. (c) Suspension of the Contract: -- If at any time in the opinion of the City Council the CONTRACTOR has failed to supply an adequate working force, or equipment of proper quality, or has failed in any other respect to prosecute the work within the' diligence and force specified and intended in and by the terms of the contract, notice thereof in writing will be served upon him, and should he neglect or refuse to provide means for a satisfactory compliance with the contract, as directed by the Director of Public Works, within the time specified in such notice, the City Council in any such case shall have the power to suspend the operation of the contract. (d) Payments: =- The CONTRACTOR shall bill the CITY monthly (or twice monthly) for services performed and materials used. Progress payments shall be reimbursed on an actual cost basis less a ten (10) percent retention. For purposes of calculating payment for services, costs shall be'based on "Attachment II Schedule of Rates" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Payment will be based upon actual tonnage of asphalt tickets submitted with a particular invoice. The final payment shall include remittance of the ten (10) percent retention, and shall be made within thirty (30) days of the Hermosa Beach City Council's acceptance of the work as complete. 4. SPECIAL PROVISIONS (a) Terms of Contract: -- This contract shall take effect upon acceptance by the CONTRACTOR and the CITY and shall expire upon completion of work. Work shall be completed within thirty (30) calendar days from the time the Notice to Proceed is issued to the Contractor. (b) Work Procedures: -- The work to be performed shall be in accordance with the provisions of the work description specified hereinafter. Reference is made to the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction 1985 edition of the Southern California Chapter, APWA and Southern California District, AGC of California, insofar as the same may apply (said specifications are hereinafter referred to as the Standard Specifications). The work shall consist of removal of deteriorated surface material and replacement with asphaltic concrete material to restore pavement surface. The asphalt pavement shall be removed to clean straight lines. All materials removed shall be disposed of at a suitable disposal site. Arrangements for such disposal sites shall be made by the CONTRACTOR and approved by the CITY'S representative, when such areas are within the CITY right-of-way. The edges of bituminous pavement adjoining the excavated trench shall be trimmed to neat straight (vertical) lines to insure that all areas are accessible to rollers used to compact the subgrade. Wet or unstabletsubbase material shall be removed and - replaced with a suitable material. 9 7. The exposed subgrade shall be worked to a uniform depth and all rocks larger than three (3) inches in diameter or other extraneous material shall be removed. Rolling of subgrade shall always be commenced along the edge of the area to be compacted and the roller shall gradually advance toward the center of the area to be compacted. Roller shall be operated along the lines parallel with. the centerline of the roadway. Areas inaccessible to rolling equipment shall be -compacted thoroughly to required lines and grades by means of pneumatic tampers, or by other methods that will produce the same degree of compaction as pneumatic tampers. The sides of the prepared hole should be given a tack coat of emulsion at a rate of 0.05 to 0.15 gallon per square yard. The surface to be tacked shall be swept clean of dust, and foreign matter. The CONTRACTOR shall be careful not to apply an excess of emulsion and shall al- low enough time before backfilling to insure adequate cure time. Placing and compacting of the asphalt concrete shall conform to Section 302-5 of the Standard Specifications. The roadway and adjacent areas shall be left with a neat and finished appearance. (c) Material. -- The material specifications shall be as follows: Asphalt, concrete, 3/4" or 1/2*.inch maximum per Section 203-6, as required; Emulsion, RS -1 as per Section 203-3; Aggregate Base, 1-1/2 inch maximum as per Section 200-2 of the Standard Specifications. Note that use of Aggregate Base to bring excavated area up to final subgrade is optional. * The City's Representative has authority to select 112" or 3/4" maximum size asphalt concrete. • - • -10- (5) BID PROPOSAL FORM INSTRUCTION Bids are required for the entire work. The amount of the bid for comparison purposes will be the total of all items. The bid shall be set forth for each item of work, in clearly legible figures, a unit price and a total for the item in the respective spaces provided for this purpose, per Attachment II. In the case of unit price items, the amount set forth under the "Total" column shall be the extension of the unit price bid on the basis of the estimated quantity for the item. The estimated quantity is based upon an estimated square footage, and an estimated thickness of 4". The actual payment will be based upon actual tons of asphalt used with a not to exceed total project value. (6) GUARANTEES AND BONDS (a) Proposal Guarantee: --Each proposal submitted must be accompanied by cash, or by a certified or cashier's check, or surety bond, payable to the City of Hermosa Beach, in an amount equivalent to at least ten (10) percent of the total base bid price of such proposal, as a guarantee that the bidder, if his proposal be accepted, will enter into and execute the awarded contract; and no proposal will be accepted unless such cash, check or surety bond is enclosed therewith. However, the use of a surety bond in this connection shall be subject to the condition that the surety thereon be approved by the City Attorney. Should any bidder to whom an award is made fail to properly enter into and execute the awarded contract, the cash, check or bond submitted with his proposal shall be forefeited to, and become the property of the City of Hermosa Beach, whereupon the City shall have the right to collect the amount thereof by an appropriate means. Following the award of contract, the proposal guarantees will be returned to the respective bidders by whom they were submitted, except as otherwise hereinabove provided.. (b) Return of Proposal Guarantees: --Within ten (10) days after the notice of award of the contract, the City of Hermosa Beach will return the proposal guarantee, accompanying such of the proposals which are not further considered in making the award. All other proposal guarantees will be held until the contract has been finally executed, after which all proposal guarantees, except those forfeited, will be returned to the respective bidders whose proposals they accompany. (c) Contract Bonds: --The successful Contractor shall furnish two bonds required by the State Contract Act. Each of the said bonds shall be executed in a sum equal to the contract price. One of the bonds shall guarantee the faithful performance of the said contract by the Contractor; and the other of the said bonds shall secure the payment of claims for labor and material. (7) MISCELLANEOUS CITY'S representative will identify and mark out surface areas in need of repair. (See Attachment I -Locations) It is recommended that each bidder survey these locations prior to submitting his bid. Generally, these will be concentrated so that all repairs will be made at one time in each given area. The Contractor shall pave all excavated areas the same day that he removes the existing asphalt. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach caused this Agreement to be subscribed by its Mayor and City Clerk and said Company has executed or caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized officers. DATED: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ---City Clerk - APPROVED AS TO FORM - Mayor CONTRACTOR City Attorney President bidprop DMM:mv 1/5/87 -12- Secretary r ASPHALT STREET REPAIR FY 1986-1987 LOCATION ******** 2nd & Manhattan (NE crnr) 10th & Manhattan (NE crnr) 24th & Manhattan (Intersect.) Myrtle & 25th (North side) 22nd at Hermosa (North side) Tennyson & Longfellow 565 20th St. 18th St. & Valley Park 18th St. & Valley Park 18th St. & Valley Park 24th P1. E of Ardmore 8th St.: bet. Ardmore & PCH 8th St.: bet. Ardmore & PCH 8th St.: bet. Ardmore & PCH 8th St.: bet. Ardmore & PCH 21st St.: at Prospect & west 21st St.: at Prospect & west 21st St.: at Prospect & west NE corner Monterey @ 10th NE corner Monterey @ 10th NE corner Monterey @ 10th Loma @ Pier Loma @ Pier • 16th @ Prospect (west side) 1 Borden St. from 21st to Rhodes Borden St. from 21st to Rhodes APPROX. DIMENSIONS APPROX SF ******************* ******k******* 17' x 24' 19.' x 13.5' 55' x 43' 38'x9'; 14' x 9' 28' x 10' 73' x 6' 41' x 10.5' 5' x 17' 13.5' x 26' 41' X 5.5' 343' x 5' 72' x 13' 115' x 16' 79' x 14' 16' x 8' 69' x 7.5' 40' x 18' 16' x 24' 23' x 26.5' 7' x 7' Attachment I ^ LOCATIONS TYPE OF REPAIR ******** 408 Remove & Replace 256.5 Remove & Replace 2365 Remove & Replace 396 Remove & Replace 280 Remove & Replace 438 Remove & Replace 430.5 Remove & Replace 85 Remove & Replace 351 Remove & Replace 225.5 Remove & Replace 1715 Remove & Replace 936 Remove & Replace 1840 Remove & Replace 1106 Remove & Replace 128 Remove & Replace 517.5 Remove & Replace 720 Remove & Replace 384 Remove & Replace 609.5 Remove & Replace 49 Remove & Replace 4':x 14' 56 Remove & Replace 19' x 11.5' 218.5 Remove & Replace 9.5' x 4' 38 Remove & Replace 50' x 25' 1250 Remove & Replace 6' x 14' 84 Remove & Replace 36' x 24' 864 Remove & Replace 1 I • 0 0 r r r r r r r 0 (. e ASPHALT STREET REPAIR FY 1986-1987 LOCATION ******** APPROX. DIMENSIONS APPROX SF ******************* ************** Borden St. from 21st to Rhodes 69' x.11' Borden St. from 21st to Rhodes 31' x 5' approx. 720 24th P1. approx. 720 24th P1. 8th St. @ Valley 8th St.,@ Valley Valley @ 8th (SE crnr) Valley @ 2nd (east) 655-725 24th St. (center) 655-725 24th St. (center) La Carlita @ 708 Marlita La Carlita @ 30th,(south) • 1817,1825,1829 Prospect r. - 1817,1825,1829 Prospect 1817,1825,1829,Prospect Just south of 1807 Prospect., 340 Massey 340 Massey 340 Massey Longfellow @ Manhattan Longfellow @ Manhattan (NE) Ardmore @ 6th Valley •@, 6th (NE) r1 • GRAND TOTAL ; . 75' x 7.5' 65' x 4' 45' x 20' 16' x 12' 295' x 6' 29.5' x 51.5' 156' x 4' 36.5' x 11.5' 19.5' x 17.5' 47.5' x 17.5' 7.5' x 34' 78.5' x 15' 12.5' x 22' 24' x 8.5' 33.5' x 4' 24.5' x 4.5' 28.5' x 16' 10' x 12' 6.5' x 14' 61.5' x 18' 171' x 4' Exhibit A Attachment I LOCATIONS TYPE OF REPAIR ******** 759 Remove & Replace .'.155 Remove & Replace 562.5 Remove & Replace 260 Remove & Replace 900 Remove & Replace 192 Remove & Replace •1770 Remove & Replace 1519.25 Remove & Replace 624 Remove & Replace 419.75 Remove & Replace 341.25 Remove & Replace 831.25 Remove & Replace r--- ,255 Remove & Replace 1177.5 Remove & Replace 275 Remove & Replace 204 Remove & Replace 134 Remove & Replace 110.25 456 Remove & Replace Remove & Replace 120 Remove & Replace 91 2 1107 Remove & Replace Remove & Replace 684 Remove & Replace 28698:75 , _. • 0 Attachment II Contract for CIP 86-163 Bid Date February 6 1987 Contractor's NameVernonPavin Co. Contractor's Address oo an D Ve 'Contractor's Liscence No Contractor's Signature Contractor's Schedule of Rates ****************************************** mes D. Sprinkel, Vice -President City Engineer's Estimated tonnage: (Based upon estimated square footage of 28698.75, per Attachment I) 86,98.75-Pex [4n. -i-hiLK X1 - q 5'C7-F-OQspha I X 15S't = 4-62885.1=k C 12 h J -j asfh( I-6 14-szees I b. asjha. LE x C 2000 i b. CONTRACTOR'S BID: 7 -_ 74Z -h ns as,haI-& THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO INDICATE THE FOLLOWING UNIT PRICE. TOTAL PRICES WILL BE USED FOR BID COMPARISON ONLY. CONTRACTOR PAYMENT SHALL BE BASED ON THE SUBMITTED UNIT PRICE PER TON OF ASPHALT. THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO INCREASE OR DECREASE THE ESTIMATED QUANTITIES BY UP TO 25% WITHOUT THE CONTRACTOR'S INCREASE IN UNIT PRICE ITEM DESCRIPTION APPROX. UNIT OF UNIT WRITTEN WORDS FOR UNIT PRICES TOTAL NO. QUANTITY MEASURE PRICE (Dollars and cents) DOLLARS I I I I $ e ✓esJ y 5-e 1. Remove and replace 742, Tons 77.,,/5-- per r,RSper attached specs 1 1 1 I TGt/e1C/r7 fi ✓e 1 4i5-7/ 2. SUB TOTAL COST OF CITY BUSINESS LISCENCE GRAND TOTAL .5-7,3/SSo $100.00 ‘71/?...5-6 NOTE: Words shall govern when there is a discrepancy between figures and written words CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE PROJECT NAME : 1-L/ -575,2,EEL-7— A /A2S ACCOUNT NUMBER C! O 66--/65 TASKS •r -I .11 Final design approval before advertisin Wfor construction Prepare advertisement & set bid opening date • Advertising period (issue addendums as necessary) Accept sealed bids & public bid opening Review bids Award contract Sign contract (bonds,insurance & workers comp. cert.) Preconstruction meeting procedure Issue "Notice to Proceed" Construction Period Monitor progress & maintain records Progress payment and change order procedure Acceptance of work as complete Issusing and recording a "Notice of Completion" Retention Payment Project close out LEGEND TENTATIVE SCHEDULE : MMIMMUMMAMUM ACTUAL SCHEDULE X : 100% COMPLETE JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC I-- I 1 IT-- 11111111 t-- WRW MN 1 'kr Einem'111- Time 1- minima -I February 9, 1987 Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the City Council of February 24, 1987 STATUS REPORT ON CAL -ID PROJECT AND REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE CONTRACT WHEN COMPLETED RECCEIDATION: It is reccntnended that City Council authorize the City Manager to sign the canpleted contract when it is approved by the City Attorney and available for signature. BACKGROUND: The contract for participation in the CAL -ID project has been delayed because City Attorneys throughout the County, ours included, have had serious concerns about an indemnification clause in the contract draft. The error is being corrected and the final draft of the contract is expected early next month for review and approval of the City Attorney. ANALYSIS: Funding in the amount of $30,000. was approved by the City Council in the 1986-87 budget for participation in the CAL -ID project. There have been many delays in obtaining equipment, getting the equipment on line and in drafting a contract which is acceptable to all parties. Most of the equipment is now in and on line. We have been able to train a couple of employees in the proper techniques for "tracing" a fingerprint so it can be entered into the system. It appears that the final draft of the contract will be submitted to the City Attorney for review and approval in March. Council authorization for the City Manager to sign the contract, once approved by the City Attorney, will expedite our participation in the program. We will begin purchase of required camera equipment in late February. We have delayed purchase because there have been sane new models of equipment designed which will cost less than previously expected. This equipment is being tested -- .by several agencies to assure that is will perform the necessary functions. CONCUR: fully tted, Steve S.4111111P414141011;' riewski Director of Public Safety Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council February 10, 1987 City Council Meeting of February 24, 1987 RECOrMKENDATION TO APPROVE AN AGREEMENT WITH JMB INCOME PROPERTIES LTD. - JMB - II, AUTHORIZING THE SECURITY PERSONNEL, EMPLOYED BY JMB, TO ENFORCE PARKING REGULATIONS Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council (1) approve the attached agreement with JMB Income Properties Ltd. - JMB - II, authorizing the security personnel, employed by them, to enforce parking regulations at Plaza Hermosa, and (2) authorize the City Manager to sign said agreement. Background: At your regularly scheduled meeting of May 28, 1985, the City Council approved an agreement with P.C.H. - Pier Hermosa Partnership, authorizing their security personnel to enforce parking regulations at Plaza Hermosa. In addition, an enabling ordinance, Ordinance 85-798, was adopted. This action was taken in accordance with a previous agreement that pertained to regulations regarding the operation and maintenance of the parking facility at Plaza Hermosa. Section 9, paragraph (f), of that agreement stated that " The Operator shall provide for enforcement of the Rules and Regulations of the Public Parking Facility and issue citations to violators of posted parking restrictions". On August 1, 1986, P.C.H. Hermosa Partnership sold their interest in Plaza Hermosa to JMB Income Properties. Analysis: This proposed action is simply a housekeeping measure. While the enabling ordinance pertains to any security force that may be employed at Plaza Hermosa, the agreement pertained only to P.C.H. Hermosa Partnership. It is therefore necessary to enter into a specific agreement with the current owner of Hermosa Plaza, to insure that the parking restrictions are being enforced. 1 Alternative: Direct that the staff of the General Services Department enforce the parking regulations at Plaza Hermosa, a public parking facility. Jo a;ef Noon Parking Administrator Concur: re; ory T. Myer Cit Manag:r AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 1987 by and between THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH (hereinafter referred to as "City") and JMB Income Properties Ltd.-JMB-II (hereinafter referred to as "JMB"), with respect to the following facts: RECITALS: The observance of provisions of the California Vehicle Code and City parking ordinances to assure safe ingress and egress of vehicles patronizing Plaza Hermosa within the City is a desirable objective. The authorization of JMB security officers, employed by the same, to enforce the provisions of limited parking regulations on those premises, will assist in more adequate parking utilization of existing facilities and will increase the level of safety afforded to their patrons. AGREEMENT: JMB: (a) Agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Hermosa Beach, its officials, officers, and employees from any and all liability arising out of the parking enforcement activities of its security officers. (b) Agrees that all security officers hired by JMB shall not in any way be considered officers, agents, or employees of the City for any reason, and shall have no further authority beyond that provided for in this Agreement. (c) Further agrees that these security officers are not employees of the City for purposes of Workers Compensation benefits as defined in the laws of the State of California or for retirement or disability benefits under the Public Employee's Retirement System. (d) Agrees to provide insurance as follows: Without limiting the indemnification of the City, JMB shall provide and maintain during the period of the Agreement a policy of Comprehensive General Liability coverage and Comprehensive Automobile Liability Coverage (for non -owned vehicles) of not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit. Such insurance shall be primary in all instances and shall name the City as an additional insured. (e) Shall answer promptly all correspondence and personal inquiries and complaints relative to the issuance of parking citations within the parking areas of Plaza Hermosa by its security officers. (f) Agrees that all revenues from issuance of citations are funds belonging to the City of Hermosa Beach, there being no provision of revenue sharing with JMB in this agreement. (g) Agrees that all rules and procedures prescribed by the City germane to citation issuance and submission of citation records be strictly adhered to by emplooyees of JMB. (h) Agrees that inclusive in this agreement shall be the AGREEMENT FOR AND REGULATIONS REGARDING THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF PARKING FACILITY ("agreement"), and further agrees to be bound by that agreement, and that said agreement is hereby incorporated by reference hereto. The City of Hermosa Beach: (a) Hereby designates JMB security officers as public officers for the purpose of issuing parking citations, on the premises of Plaza Hermosa for Violaitons of the California Vehicle Code (C.V.C. Section 22507.8 - Handicap Zones and Section 22500(f) parking on sidewalks, and the City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Article IV, Chapter 19. (b) Shall provide full and complete training and instructions of which citations are to be issued and which citation issuance records are to be submitted to the City. It is further understood by both parties that this Agreement may be cancelled within thirty (30) days written notice by either party. JMB INCOME PROPERTIES LTD.-JMB-II By: Title: Date: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH By: Title: Date: trtftgr tth Eatr. riais • L • t AGREEMENT FOR AND REGULATIONS REGARDING THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF PARKING FACILITY THIS AGREEMENT made as of March 20 , 198 5 , by and between THE PARKING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a general law and municipal corporation ("Authority") and PCH -PIER HERMOSA PARTNERSHIP ("Operator"), a limited partnership. This Agreement is predicated upon the following facts: The Operator is a party to a certain Development Agreement, dated July 26, 1983, as amended (the "Development Agreement") with the Authority, as assignee of Alexander Haagen Development, which establishes certain rights and obligations of the Authority and Operator in connection with the Public Parking, Facility described below and the Operator and the Authority are parties to a Second Installment Sale Agreement -dated as of December 14, 1983 (the "Second Installment Sale Agreement") which also establishes certain rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the Public Parking Facility described below. The project area ("Project Area") includes a public parking facility ("Public Parking Facility") located between Pier Avenue and 16th Street in the City of Hermosa Beach adjacent to the Plaza Hermosa Shopping Center. The Public Parking Facility . S• ' consists of approximately 191,000 square feet of public parking space, including an underground parking structure, with a capacity of approximately 460 cars, which capacity shall not be reduced without the consent of both parties. For the benefit of the public and the Authority, the Authority and Operator have agreed to provide said property for improvement and use as parking and Operator has agreed to improve, operate and maintain said property in accordance with the Second Installment Sale Agreement. In order to implement said Agreement, the Authority and the Operator desire to enter into this Agreement for the purpose of providing for the operation and maintenance by the Operator of the Public Parking Facility. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreement herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: Section 1. Agreement to Operate. The Operator hereby agrees to improve, operate and maintain the Public Parking Facility situated in the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth ("Agreement"), subject in all respect to the terms and conditions of the Second Installment Sale Agreement. Section 2. Term. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect as of the date first above written and shall HBCH/reg 2 continue as long as the subject parking area is a Public Parking Facility. Section 3. Use. The Public Parking Facility shall be used, managed and operated by the Operator hereunder to provide free parking for the benefit of the Authority and the public. Section 4. Operation and Maintenance. The Operator shall assume and pay the entire cost of operation and maintenance of the Public Parking Facility. Such costs of operation and maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, administration, premiums for all required insurance and repairs. Section 5. Repair. Operator shall perform the normal maintenance and repair of the Public Parking Facility and shall rebuild or restore same in the event of a casualty which Operator is required to insure against. Section 6. Additions and Ifiprovements. With the approval of the Authority, the Operator initially and during the term of this Agreement, may make or permit to be made, any addition or improvements to the Public Parking Facility, including but not limited to those provided for hereinbelow, which are consistent with the City's Parking Authority standards and the Second Installment Sale Agreement and do not impair the utility of the facilities for use as public parking facilities, to attach fixtures, structures or signs thereto, to place any - 3 - HBCH/reg personal property on or in the Public Parking Facility, and to enclose the Public Parking Facility for security, provided the utility and use of the Public Parking Facility as a public parking facility is not unreasonably interfered with. Title to all such personal property or to fixtures which may be removed without damage to the Public Parking Facility shall remain in the Operator. Section 7. Lighting. All public parking areas shall be well illuminated. Section 8. Security. Appropriate security measures shall be provided by the Operator in the Public Parking. Facility, including, if necessary, contracting with the City for additional police services. Section 9. Policies and Rules. The Operator shall, in addition to the rules provided for in this Section 9, establish and maintain such general policies and regulations for the repair, management, maintenance and operation, and usd of the Public Parking Facility consistent with the provisions of this Agreement and the standards established by the Authority for parking district properties as may be necessary. (a) Parking Availability. The Public Parking Facility shall be available for the identified.use as set forth above provided the foregoing is subject to the following restrictions: 4 HBCH/reg (1) The Public Parking Facility shall remain open to the public from 6:00 A.M. of each day, to 2:00 A.M. of the following day throughout the year, closing between the hours of 2:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. daily. (2) There shall be a limit of two hour parking only for upper level parking spaces provided that up to 50 spaces may have a 20 minute limit. (3) There shall be a limit of six hour parking only in the lower level of the parking structure as designated by the Operator. (4) The parking facility shall be open for parking to all members of the general public on a first-come, first-served basis, and there shall be no reservation of:parking spaces or areas -within the parkilig facility, including, without limitation, customers or employees of the Plaza Hermosa Shopping Center. (b) Posting Rules. The Operator will post signage in conspicuous places, including ingress and egress, identifying the Public Parking Facility as public parking, setting forth as 5 HBCH/reg appropriate, the rules herein described and directing vehicular and pedestrian circulation. (c) Vehicular Access. Vehicular access to and within the Public Parking Facility shall maximize internal circulation and serve all uses located in the Project Area and commercial areas and other uses adjacent to the area. (d) Pedestrian Circulation. Pedestrian circulation within the Public Parking Facility shall maximize access between parking areas and all uses within the Project Area, and commercial areas and other uses adjacent to the Project Area. Placement of ramps, stairways, elevators and escalators shall be conveniently located. (e) Operation Subject to Laws and Agreements. The operation of the Public Parking Facility shall be subject to any other laws, regulations or rules of any governmental, authority which may hereafter restrict or impose conditions upon the use and operation of the Public Parking Facility. (f) Enforcement of Parking Restrictions. The Operator shall provide for enforcement of the Rules and Regulations of the Public Parking Facility and issue citations to violators of posted parking restrictions. The Operator and City shall enter into an agreement to provide for enforcement. 6 HBCH/reg • • Section 10. Insurance. • (a) Obligation of Operator. The Operator shall at all times maintain or cause to be maintained with responsible insurers all such insurance on the Public Parking Facility which , is customarily maintained with respect to properties of like character against accident to, loss of or damage to such properties. Notwithstanding the generality of the foregoing, the Operator shall not be required to maintain or cause to be maintained more insurance than is specifically referred to below. The Operator shall during any period of construction and thereafter during the term of this Agreement maintain or cause to be maintained: HBCH/reg (1) worker's compensation insurance, builder's risk -all risk insurance, and such other insurance as may be required by, applicable law or by the general conditions contained in the plans and specifications for the Public Parking Facility; (2) insurance covering 100% of the replacement cost of the Public Parking Facility during the course of construction and following completion in the event of fire, lightning, windstorm, earthquake, vandalism, malicious mischief and such other hazards, casualties - 7 • .• • and contingencies as are normally and usually covered by extended coverage policies in effect in the locality where the Public Parking Facility is situated (including insurance against loss by flood if the Public Parking Facility is now or hereafter located in an area designated as being subject to the danger of flood); (3) public liability insurance in an amount deemed reasonably necessary from time to time by the Authority, but in no event less than $1,000,000.00 for "single occurrence"; (4) property damage insurance in an amount deemed reasonably necessary from time to time by the Authority, but in no event less than $500,000.00 for "single occurrence"; (5) such other policies of insurance, as the Authority, may reasonably require from time to time. (b) General Provisions. All insurance provided under Subsection (a) of this Section 10 shall be for the benefit of Operator, Authority, and City, as named insured, during the term hereof. HBCH/reg 8 All insurance provided under Subsection (a) of this Section 10 shall be periodically reviewed by the parties for the. purpose of mutually increasing the minimum limits of such insurance, from time to time, to amounts which may be reasonably and customary for similar facilities of like size and operation. All insurance herein provided for under this Section 10 shall be effected under policies issued by insurers of recognized. responsibility, licensed or permitted to do business in the State of California. All policies or certificates issued by the respective insurers for insurance shall provide that such policies or certificates shall not be cancelled or materially changed without at least thirty (30) days prior written notice to the Authority and the City Attorney. At least thirty (30) days prior to expiration dates of expiring policies or contracts held by said Operator, copies of renewal or new policies or contracts or certificates shall be deposited with said Authority. Section 11. Liens. The Operator agrees to pay, when due, all sums of money that may become due for, or purporting to be due for, labor, services, materials, supplies or equipment alleged to have been furnished or to be furnished to or for the Operator in, upon or about the Public Parking Facility and which may be secured by mechanics' or materialmen's or other liens against the Public Parking Facility and/or the interest of the Operator of the Authority therein, and will cause each such lien 9 HBCH/reg r to be fully discharged and released at the time the performance of any obligation secured by such lien matures and/or becomes due; provided, however,.that if Operator desires to contest any such lien, it may do so upon providing Authority with a bond or other lawful security such as a guarantee, in form and amount satisfactory to Authority, to guarantee payment of such lien and provided, further, that notwithstanding any such contest, if any such lien shall be reduced to final judgment and such judgment or such process as may issued for the enforcement thereof is not promptly stayed, or if so stayed and said stay thereafter expires, then and in such event the Operator shall forthwith pay and discharge said judgment. Section 12. Law Governing. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, subject to the waivers, exclusions and provisions herein contained. Section 13. Authority Monitoring. The Operator shall furnish to the Authority such information as may reasonably be required in order for the Authority -to monitor operations of the Public Parking Facility and regulate the public parking service provided, consistent with the needs of the public, the community and the region. In particular, the design, construction and modification of the Public Parking Facility (and specifically the topics covered by paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 herein) shall be subject to approval by the Authority prior to implementation by the Operator. HBCH/reg - 10 - • 1 : Section 14. Notices. All notices, statements, demands, requests, consents, approvals, authorizations, offers, agreements, appointments or designations hereunder by either party to the other shall be in writing and shall be sufficiently given and served upon the other party, if sent by United States certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: Authority: Operator: Parking Authority of The City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center Hermosa Beach, Califozrnia 90254 PCH -Pier Hermosa Partnership 3500 Sepulveda Blvd. Manhattan Beach, California 90266 or at such other address as either party shall later designate for such purpose by written notice to the other party. Section 15. Waiver. The waiver by the Authority of any breach by the Operator of any term, covenant or condition hereof shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or' any other term, covenant or condition hereof. Section 16. Execution. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original, but all together shall constitute but one and the same Agreement, and it is also understood and agreed that separate counterparts of this Agreement may be separately executed by the Authority and the Operator, all with the same full force and effect as though the HBCH/reg same counterpart had been executed simultaneously by both the Authority and the Operator. Section 17. Validity. If any one or more of the terms, provisions, promise, covenants, conditions or option provisions of this Agreement shall to any extent be adjudged invalid, unenforceable, void or voidable for any reason whatsoever by a court of competent jurisdiction, each and all of the remaining terms, provisions, promises, covenants, conditions, and option provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby and shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. Section 18. Binding Effect. This Agreement, and the terms, provisions, promises, covenants, conditions and option provisions hereof, shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed and attested by their proper officers thereunto duly authorized, and their official seals to be hereto affixed, as of the day and year first above written. HBCH/reg PARKING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH By: PCH -PTAH BERMOSA P /THE SHIP By: C:rf�ee( /C'fr' _.L - 12 - 4(6 ..q are-e>t) )dhe 1 May 14, 1985 A I. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council May 28, 1985 RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH P.C.H. -.PIER HERMOSA PARTNERSHIP, AUTHORIZING THEIR SECURITY PERSONNEL TO ENFORCE PARKING REGULATIONS AT PLAZA HERMOSA RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached agreement with P.C.H.-Pier Hermosa Partnership, authorizing their security personnel to enforce parking regulations at Plaza Hermosa. ,BACKGROUND: At your regularly scheduled meeting of March 12, 1985, the coun- cil approved a resolution an agreement with P.C.H.-Pier Hermosa Partnership for regulations regarding the operation and main- tenance of the parking facility at Plaza Hermosa. Section 9, paragraph (f), of that agreement states "The Operator shall pro- vide for enforcement of the Rules and Regulations of the Public Parking Facility and issue citations to violators of posted park- ing restrictions. The Operator and City shall enter into an agreement to provide for enforcement." Attached is said agreement. ANALYSIS: Both your staff and Mr. Tom Corley, representing the operator of Plaza Hermosa, agree that initially utilizing their security per- sonnel to enforce parking violations, as is done in the Manhattan Mall, is the most prudent approach. The attached agreement pro- vides for cancellation by either party with thirty (30) days notice. Resolution 85-905 provides that any additional agree- ments may be negotiated between the Operator and The City subject to approval by the parking authority. Jo.- Noon General Services Director Concur: Gregry W. Myer .City/Manager — --cc:- Frank Beeson; C -Is ef-of—Pelee (k) Award of Contract for Sanitary Sewer Design within Target Area I. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated May 13, 1985. Action: To authorize Mayor to sign agreement with ASL Consulting Engineers with the provision of sanitary sewer design within Target Area I at a cost not to exceed $10,900. Said agreement to be contingent upon a signed MOU from Los Angeles County. Recommendation to approve agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach and Pier Hermosa Partnership authorizing their Security Personnel to enforce parking regulations at Plaza Hermosa. Memorandum from Parking Administrator Joan Noon dated May 114, 1985. -Action: To approve the attached agreement with P.C.H. Pier Hermosa Partnership, authorizing their security per- -sonnel to enforce parking regulations at Plaza Hermosa. Contract with RSVP and 1736 Shelter. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated May 15, 1985. Acton: To approve agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach, the Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP), and 1736 Runaway Shelter for Children and Battered Women, the total compensation to RSVP under the agreement not to exceed $4,000. (m) Request to call for bids - landscaping services. Memo- randum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated May 22, 1985. Pulled for further discussion (DeBellis) - to be heard on 6-13-85. (n) City Manager Activity Report. Memorandum from City Man- ager Gregory T. Meyer dated May 23, 1985. Pulled for further discussion (Brutsch) - to be heard on 6-13-85. (o) Tentative Future Agenda Items. Action: To receive and file. 3 - Minutes 5-28-85 -ATagptpauzuIT 40a3;a. axpg TTpgs uoTgnTosaa sTqq. gpgg •V NOIy33S •buTxapd anTg - puaagTp azTTign sgupuag pup saaAoTdma esogg gpgg goaazp uagg Apuz AVM aqg 'buixapd oTTgnd uo gopduzi asaanpp up buinpq ST s3T3Tg9n aaAoTduza pup gupuag Jo buzxapd aqg gpgg 'aaubzsap sig ao aabp -.crew /Kg -Fp aqg Aq appuz sT uoTgpuTuzaagap p JI 'E NOIyOHS •A;Taoggnv buTxapd atm. go Tpnoaddp agg og goacgns 'AgTO aqy pup aogpaadO aqg uaaMgaq pagpT; - obau aq Apuz suo-rgpTnbaa buTxapd 'agg go guauzaoaogua pup AgTanoas og buTuzpgaad sguauzaaabp Tpuozgzppp Aup gpgg • Z NOIyOSS. •guauznoop buzuaanob agg SP pagsTTgPqsa aq A;TTTopg buTNapd pips go aoupuaguzpuz pup uoTgpaado agg 'buzpapbaa suotg - PInbaa pup '103 guauzaaabp Pagopggp agg gpgg •T NOILDHS = SMO'I'IOrI SK aA'Iosa I x8aaaa SSOQ VSONH H dO X113 am dO xsI2IOHSflV 9NIIIHVd ala, ' aaoaauaus 'MON :AgTTT° 3 buTxapd pTps go suoT4PTnba.z gsTTgpgsa og aoupuaguTpuz pup uotgpaado agg buTpapbaa paau .p ST aaagg ' SK32iaHM ipup 'aa4ua3 buzddogs psouzaaH pz.eTd agg og guaopCpp '4aaag3 11491 Pup anuanV aaTd uaaMgaq pagpooT A4TTT0p3 buTNapd oTTgnd agg g1 -TM - sa uoTgoauuoo uz suoTgpbTTgo pup sggb-ra uTpgaao sagsTTgpg goTgM guaUIaaabp guawdoTanap p ogmT paaagua dTgsaaugapd psouzaaH - 'H'O'd pup AgTaoggnli buTNapd agg 'svaISHM x1IZIOKd DNIXiIKd dO aDNVNa.LNIVW QNv NOI l VU:I IO aHs DNIUUVDHH SNOIsVaapaa UOd ' dIHS -2IHNava KSOW?Iaa uaia - 'H'O'd HZIM SMawaauov NV 9NI LdoUV 'HoVaa vsow2iaa do xsIO am do xsIUGHsflv DNII12IVd HE L dO NOIsfl'Iosaa V S O O- S 8 'ON NOIsfl'IOSaa 8Z LZ 9Z SZ bZ £Z ZZ lZ OZ - 61 81 Ll 91 9 E L '-• 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and'adoption of this resolution; shall cause the same to be en- tered among the original resolutions of said Authority; and shall make a miniute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the Parking Authority of the City of Hermo- sa Beach in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 19th day o March, 1985. PRESIDENT of the Parking Authority Attest: Approved as form: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council March 1, 1985 City Council meeting March 12, 1985 A RESOLUTION OF THE PARKING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, ADOPTING AND AGREEMENT WITH P.C.H. - PIER HERMOSA PARTNERSHIP, FOR REGULATIONS REGARDING THE OPERATION AND MAIN- TENANCE OF PARKING FACILITY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Parking Authority (1) adopt the at- tached resolution approving the agreement with P.C.H. - Pier Her- mosa partnership, for regulations regarding the operation and maintenance of parking facility (2) direct the applicant to write a letter to the Parking Authority stipulating agreement to Sec- tion Three of the attached resolution. BACKGROUND: Upon receipt of the original agreement, City Manager Meyer assig- ned me the responsibility of preparing this agenda item after review of the matter with all parties concerned. A meeting was held on February 13th between Tom Corley, representative of Haa- gen Development, Captain Val Strasser and myself. The outcome of that meeting and subsequent meetings with the City Attorney and City Manager have resulted in the document before you. ANALYSIS: The attached agreement encompasses designation of responsibility as well as policy. There are two areas of concern, namely security and parking enforcement, that the Operator has agreed to negotiate under separate agreement. These matters will be re- turned to the Parking Authority as soon as possible. Joan -Noon General Services Director Concur: ti� . a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 85-798 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 19-107 OF CHAPTER 19, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ENFORCEMENT OF PARKING CONTROL PROVISIONS OF SAID CHAPTER. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Section 19-107 of Chapter 19, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code be amended to read as follows: Section 19-107. Enforcement of Article (a) Officers of the Police Department and such of- ficers as are assigned by the Chief of Police are hereby au- thorized to direct all traffic by voice, hand, audible or other signal in conformance with traffic laws, except that in the event of a fire or other emergency or to expedite traffic or to safe- guard pedestrians, officers of the Police Department or members of the Fire Department may direct traffic as conditions may re- quire, notwithstanding the provisions to the contrary contained in this chapter or the Vehicle Code. (b) Non -sworn civilian employees of the city charged with parking enforcement responsibilities are hereby granted the authority of a peace officer in accordance with Section 836.5 of the California Penal Code for the limited purpose of enforcing parking control provisions of this chapter and the California Vehicle Code. They shall have the power to issue citations for violations of the parking control provisions of this chapter and the California Vehicle Code as granted under Section 836.5 of the California Penal Code. (c) Private security officers in the employ of a prop- erty owner who has entered into an agreement with the City and 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 has been designated to be limited purpose officers to be limited purpose officers are granted the authority of a peace officer in accordance with Section 836.5 of the California Penal Code for the limited purpose of enforcing parking control provisions of this ordinance and the California Vehicle Code on designated pri- vately and publicly owned premises limited to handicapped and no parking restrictions. They shall have the power to issue cita- tions for violations of the parking control requirements of this chapter and the California Vehicle Code when such violations oc- cur on the privately owned premises for whose owners they are employed, as granted under Section 836.5 of the California Penal Code. Private security officers shall be deputized as City public service officers without compensation. SECTION 2. That this ordinance will take effect thirty days after its adoption. SECTION 3. That prior to the expiration of fifteen days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this or- dinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Her- mosa Beach. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13thday of June, 1985. PRESID'E`NT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST; APPROVED AS TO FORM: 2 CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council February 17, 1987 City Council Meeting February 24, 1987 REPORT REGARDING PETITION SUBMITTED ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF CASEY'S ISUZU C.U.P. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council review this report and hold in abeyance any action provided a complete parking plan application has been submitted for consideration by the Planning Commission as of this meeting date. BACKGROUND The City Council, at the meeting of February 10, 1987, received a petition signed by thirty residents alleging that Casey's Isuzu is violating the terms of their conditional use permit (Resolution P.C. 87-2). The petition specifically claimed that customer and employee parking was not available on site and that Casey's employees were using residential streets for test driving. ANALYSIS The referenced petition was received by the City Clerk on February 2, 1987 and a copy was forwarded to the Department of Building and Safety the same day. A site investigation was conducted at approximately 4:00 P.M. on February 2, 1987 and the following conditions noted: 1) The 15 parking spaces for customer and employee use were not available on site in violation of condition #1. The proprietor, John Casement, indicated that he had rented parking spaces for his employees at the Dunkin Donuts site adjacent to his establishment. He was advised that such an arrangement would require an amendment to his conditional use permit and approval of a parking plan. 2) Street parking was scarce however it did not appear that vehicles for sale, repair or service were parked on the street. It is unknown if any employee cars were parked on the street. Seven cars were parked at the Dunkin Donuts site in the area Mr. Casement indicated he rented for employee use. 3) No test driving was observed, however the sign announcing the prohibition of using residential streets for this purpose was not installed. Mr. Casement indicated he had verbally informed his employees of the prohibition. On February 5, 1987 a meeting was held with John Casement and his father, Michael Schubach, Planning Director and William - 1 - 1x Grove, Building Director to discuss the terms of the C.U.P. and the parking plan process. Mr. Casement indicated he would apply for a parking plan. On February 16, 1987 a subsequent site investigation was conducted and the following conditions noted: 1) The parking situation was as described for the February 2, 1987 site investigation. Signs had been posted indicating customer parking , however the spaces so indicated were occupied with new vehicles being washed. 2) One vehicle,which had been serviced, was parked on 8th Place adjacent to the establishment. 3) Again no test driving was observed. Two prominent signs had been installed announcing the prohibition of test driving on residential streets as required by condition # 3a. On February 17, 1987 Mr. Casement attempted to submit his application for a parking plan to the Planning Department but was informed that additional information was necessary. While it is apparent that the business does not comply precisely with the terms of the conditional use permit, an effort has been made by Mr. Casement to limit congestion of local streets by providing alternative off site employee parking. A parking plan to allow mixed use of the Dunkin Donut site appears to be a viable proposal in that Dunkin Donuts exceeds the zoning code requirements for parking. Staff recommends that the parking plan proposal be considered prior to initiating action to revoke the conditional use permit which is the only enforcement action available. If commercial parking from this and other businesses in the area continue to impact residential property, a preferential parking program could be considered. ALTERNATIVES 1) Direct the Planning Commission to consider revocation of the conditional use permit. Concur: Alana Mastrian, Acting City Manager William Grove, Director Department of Building & Safety Concur,,y4• Michael Schubach, Planning Director 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION 87-2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR NEW AND USED AUTOMOBILE SALES AT 840 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, KNOWN AS CASEY'S ISUZU. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a hearing on this matter on January 6, 1987, and made the following Findings: 1. The proposed project involves new and used car sales, automobile parts sales, and car repair; 2. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance; 3. The imposition of conditions will mitigate any significant impacts associated with the proposed use; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit for new and used automobile sales subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall mark and have permanently available 15 parking spaces which are legal and accessible for employee and customer use. a. Signs shall be posted indicating that the spaces are for employee and customer parking only. b. No service vehicles or vehicles for sale or repair shall be parked in required parking spaces. c. All parking and storage areas shall be maintained free of unregistered and derelict vehicles or parts. d. A11 employees' vehicles shall be parked on-site. 2. The public right-of-way shall not be used for the parking or storing of vehicles that are intended for sale, repair, or service. 3. -Test driving of vehicles on local residential streets shall be prohibited. a. A sign shall be posted in aconspicuous location stating that "Vehicles Shall Not Be Test -Driven on Residential Streets." 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. Outdoor work activity shall be prohibited. 5. All signs shall be approved by the Department of Building and Safety prior to installation. 6. All exterior lights shall be located in a manner to insure that neighboring residential units shall not be adversely affected. 7. Exterior phone bells, buzzers, public address systems or similar devices which are audible to adjacent neighbors shall be prohibited. 8. Three sets of final plans in conformance with the conditions of approval shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval prior to this Conditional Use Permit becoming effective. 9. Where applicable, conditions of approval shall be met before this Conditional Use Permit becomes effective. 10. There shall be a six month review of compliance with the conditions of approval (July 6, 1987). 11. All employees shall be made aware of the conditions stated in this conditional Use Permit, and an "Acceptance of Conditions" form shall be signed by the applicant and submitted to the Planning Department prior to this Conditional Use Permit becoming effective. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Schulte, Rue, Chmn.Sheldon NOES: Comm.Peirce ABSTAIN: Comm. Compton ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 87-2 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting of January 6, 1987. Chuck Sheldon, Chairman Michael Schubach, Secretary Date 2 PETITION By law the dealership Caseys Isuzu and used cars must have 15 reserved parking spaces for customers and employees. Documented proof clearly shows that by the jamming of Caseys personal cars, they cannot , have not and never intend to meet this requirement. Instead the carlot takes up all the intended parking spaces intended for residential use on several blocks in the neighborhood. The employees also race up and down the block at excessive and unsafe speeds all day long. We as neighbors petition and demand to have the parking space rule strictly enforced and to have all the cars off the residential streets effective immediately. In addition to stop using the sidestreets as a racecourse, or to have their bugt•ness license revoked or not renewed in the future. This has been a recurring problem for years and the community is sick and tired of it. We •-ighbors demand something finally be done about this. 01-26-8'7 1q -1/41v, ecAa4m,) §/i/e/zre %'°f4lIgT44-- kitom- cifh ligeet,‘„,tiv &1/7444-1/1/2/ Fc a {? y ch City J`y01:a► ‘ y of /{ej clerk \'i mdse S'eech f '—. Co\!E' )I ' address 1 '! 0.5r`-46 4)0 P2- MO `D1 1030 Er°. - 41.13 Io To #0 /el J 7d 51%.H.13 , lamel- Job. 4:b° 1010 SPL11-6, /00a kat, N- 0 Ii ° ao„ I R 5?7440e-- 5°W ? 711-16°904-, ?per' 9' 3.- IS e2/ jar, 7 '7..9 ggg, /oaf— q "` .q0./ dif4)---A-J_4LeaA.c./176 . 119 aw r.Av., Hfi. //S /Ari P5`i February 17, 1987 City Council Meeting February 24, 1987 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 87-868 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 2-2.4 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE MODIFYING DEADLINE TIME FOR SUBMISSION OF AGENDA ITEMS TO CITY MANAGER AND AGENDA POSTING REQUIREMENTS. Submitted for waiver of further reading and adoption is Ordinance No. 87-868 relating to the above subject. At the regular meeting of February 10, 1987, this ordinance was reintroduced by the following vote: AYES: DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Concur: Ao Gregory T. Meyer, City Manager K21062.44g4..) a hleen Midstokke, City Clerk 2a r -ti 1 2 .-3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 87- 868 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 2-2.4 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE MODIFYING DEADLINE TIME FOR SUBMISSION OF AGENDA ITEMS TO CITY MANAGER AND AGENDA POSTING REQUIREMENTS. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, in order to comply with a new State requirement (California Govern- ment Code Section 54950 et. seq.), needs to modify Section 2-2.4, Agenda, of Article I, Chapter 2, "Administration". NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Section 2-2.4, paragraph 1, of Article I, Chapter 2, "Administration", of the Municipal Code of the City of Hermosa Beach, is hereby amended as follows: "A11 reports, communications, ordinances, resolutions, con- tract documents or other matters to be submitted to the council at a regular meeting shall be delivered to the city manager not later than 12:00 noon on the Tuesday preceding the meeting." That Section 2-2.4, paragraph 4, of Article I, Chapter 2, "Administration", of the Municipal Code of the City of Hermosa Beach, is hereby amended as follows: "The agenda listing shall be made available to the public on the Friday preceding the Tuesday council meeting and shall be posted in accordance with State law, (California Government Code Section 54954.2 as amended)." SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall within fifteen (15) days 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cause the same to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly news- paper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1987. PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO ORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY - 2 Mayor and Members of the City Council February 17, 1987 City Council Meeting February 24, 1987 ORDINANCE NO. 87-872 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 21-3 (DISORDERLY CONDUCT) AS A RESULT OF OVERLY VAGUE AND BROAD LANGUAGE THAT RENDERS IT UNENFORCEABLE. Submitted for waiver of further reading and adoption is Ordinance No. 87-872 relating to the above subject. At the regular meeting of February 10, 1987, this ordinance was introduced by the following vote: AYES: DeBellis, Rosenberger, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Cioffi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Concur: Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk Gregory T. Meyer, City Manager 2b 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 87- 872 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 21-3 AS A RESULT OF ITS VAGUE AND OVERLY BROAD LANGUAGE WHICH RENDERS IT UNENFORCEABLE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California has enacted Hermosa Beach City Code Section 21-3 which makes it a misdemeanor to engage in disorderly conduct; WHEREAS, the City Council of Hermosa Beach recognizes that the City of Hermosa Beach may have difficulty enforcing Section 21-3 in that it does not give the Police Department standards as clearly defined as possible; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Hermosa Beach City Code Section 21-3, Disorderly Conduct, is hereby repealed. Section 2. That this ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption. /// /// /// 14/ORD15 -1- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 25 2 2 28 Section 3. That prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. Section 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1987. ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: 14/ORD15 -2- PRESIDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA Q s(D Q�l� Honorable Mayor and embers of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City ouncil February 24, 1987 February 17, 1987 Los Angeles County Transportation Commission's Bill that Would Allow Use of Dial -A -Ride for School Trips Recommendation Staff recommends that the City support the proposed Los Angeles County Transportation Commission's (LACTC) legislation to allow chijidren to ride the Dial -A -Ride bus to and from school. ackgrou d -q-Lq On August 5, 1986, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) informed the City that according to Section 545 of the Vehicle Code, the City would be in violation of State law if school children were allowed to board the Dial -A -Ride buses. On September 23, 1986, the Hermosa Beach City Council determined that Section 545 of the Vehicle Code does not apply to the Dial -A -Ride program. On October 21, 1986, the Commissioner from the CHP sent a letter stating that the Department would have to take enforcement action against those dial -a -ride systems which are not operating within. the law. On November 13, 1986, the Hermosa Beach City Council directed the City to exclude school children from utilizing the Dial -A -Ride program. On January 5, 1987, the Hermosa Beach Dial -A -Ride contractor discontinued service to children riding to and from school. The week of February 2, 1987, LACTC submitted a bill to the State legislature that would enable children to ride the bus to and from school. At this time, no legislative Bill Number has been issued. Abstract LACTC submitted a bill to the State legislature. If the legislative bill passes, it will allow children to be transported to and from school on the Dial -A -Ride vehicles. Analysis Officials at LACTC indicate that the dial -a -ride vehicles are considered public transit; therefore, they should be exempt from Section 545 of the Vehicle Code which states that any vehicle that transports children to and from school is classified as a ly "school bus". If the children are not exclusively being transported, dial -a -ride vehicles may continue to transport them. However, the vehicles may not drop-off or pick-up on the school grounds which would imply that an exclusive trip was made. Also, school -related group tours are exclusively prohibited. Rancho Palos Verdes and Orange County are still transporting children to and from school. So far, they have not received any citations because they are not exclusively transporting school children. Until a court interpretation of the law is made, CHP may have trouble enforcing the law which is vague and has many "loopholes". LACTC's bill will help clarify some vague interpretations of Section 545 of the Vehicle Code. It will also require a safety inspection of dial -a -ride buses being used to transport children. It will be approximately July, 1987 before any decisions are made regarding this issue. If the bill passes, it will be approximately next January before there is implementation of the bill. CONCU'• Mich'aeel Schubach Planning Director Gregory T. Meyer City Manager the 2 Respectfully submitted, Lisa Breisacher Acting Planning Aide 1 87891 QY, t1 "� !JYN 20 1987 87020 21:43 RECORD # 40 BF: RN 87 001328 PAGE NO. 1 . LEGISLATIVE. COUNSEL'S DIGEST Bill No. as introduced, Beverly. General Subject: Vehicles: general public paratransit. (1) Existing law regulates the operation, inspection, and certification of schoolbuses and youth buses. This bill would require the Department of the California Highway Patrol to inspect and certify general public paratransit vehicles, as defined, and require drivers complete specified driver training courses. All vehicles would be required to display, and drivers to possess certificates thereby-imposing'a .state -mandated cost by creating a new crime. (2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. 87891 87020 21:43 RECORD # 45 BF: RN 87 001328 PAGE NO. 2 This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State -mandated local program: yes. 87891 RECORD # Pnr if CJPY !JAN 2019�$J 30 BF: RN 87 00132887020 21 :43 PAGE NO. 1 An act to amend Sections 545 and 34500 of, and to add Sections 336, 2807.4, and 12523.5 to, the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles. 87891 87020 21:43 RECORD # 60 BF: RN 87 001328 PAGE NO. 2 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 336 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read: 336. "General public.paratransit vehicle" is any motor vehicle designed for carrying no more than 27 persons including the driver, and which provides local transportation to the general public through one of the following modes: dial -a -ride, shared -ride taxi service, subscription service, or route -deviated bus service. SEC. 2. Section 545 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read: 545. A "schoolbus" is any motor vehicle designed, used, or maintained for the transportation of any school pupil at or below the 12th -grade level to or from a public or. private school or to or from public or private school activities, except'the following: (a) A motor vehicle -of any type carrying only _ members of the household of the owner thereof. (b) A.motortruck transporting pupils who are seated only in the passenger compartment, and a passenger vehicle designed for and when actually carrying not more than 10 persons, including the driver, except any such vehicle or truck transporting two or more handicapped 87891 .87020 21:43 RECORD # 80 BF: RN 87 001328 PAGE NO. 3 pupils confined to wheelchairs. (c) A motor vehicle operated by a common carrier, or byand under the exclusive jurisdiction of a publicly owned or operated transit system, only during the time it is on a scheduled run and is available to the general public or om-a run scheduled in response to a request from a handicapped pupil coyifined to a wheelchair, or from a parent of the handicapped pupil, for transportation to or from nonschool activities; provided, that the motor vehicle is designed for and actually carries not more than 16 persons and the driver, is available to eligible persons of the general public, and the school does not provide the requested transportation service. (d) A school pupil activity bus as defined in Section 546. (e) A motor vehicle operated by a carrier licensed by the Interstate Commerce Commission which is transporting pupils on a school activity entering or returning to the state from another state or country. (f) A youth bus as defined in Section 680. , (g) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, the governing board of a district maintaining a community college may, by resolution, designate any motor vehicle operated by or for the district, a schoolbus 87891 87020 21:43 RECORD # 90 BF: RN 87 001328 PAGE NO. 4 within the meaning of this section, if it is primarily used for the transportation of community college students to or from a public community college or to or from public community college activities. The designation shall not -be effective until written notification thereof has been filed with the Department of the California Highway Patrol. (h) A state-owned motor vehicle being operated by a state employee upon the driveways, paths, parking facilities, or grounds specified in Section 21113 that are under the control of a state hospital under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Developmental Services where the posted speed limit is not more than 20 miles per hour. The motor vehicle may also be operated for a distance of not more_than one-quarter mile upon a public street or highway that runs through the grounds of a state hospital under thejurisdiction of the State Department of Developmental Services, if the posted speed limit on the public street or highway is not more than 25 miles: per hour and if all traffic is regulated by posted stop signs or official traffic control signals at the points of entry and exit by the motor vehicle. (i) A general public paratransit vehicle as defined in Section 336. 87891 87020 21:43 RECORD # 120 BF: RN 87 001328 PAGE NO. 5 SEC. 3. Section 2807.4 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read: 2807.4. (a) Tile Department of the California Highway Patrol shall .inspect and certify every general public-paratransit vehicle at least once each year to ascertain whether its condition complies with all provisions of law. (b) No person shall drive any general public paratransit vehicle unless there is displayed therein a certificate issued by'the Department of the California Highway Patrol stating that on a certain date, which shall be within 13 months of the date of operation, an authorized employee of the Department of the California Highway Patrol inspected the general public paratransit vehicle and found that on the date of inspection the general public paratransit vehicle complied with the applicable provisions of state law. The Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol shall provide, by rule or regulation, for the issuance and display of distinctive inspection certificates. (c) The Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol may determine the fee and method of collection for the annual inspection of general public paratransit vehicles. The fee, established by regulation, shall be 87891 87020 21:43 RECORD # 130 BF: RN 87 001328 PAGE NO. 6 sufficient to cover the cost to the department for general public paratransit vehicle inspections and testing of drivers pursuant to Section 12523.5. All fees received shall be deposited in the Motor Vehicle Account in the State Transportation Fund. SEC. 4. Section 12523.5 isadded to. the ,Vehicle Code, to read: 12523.5. (a) No person shall operate a general public paratransit vehicle unless he or she has in his or her possession a valid driver's license of the appropriate class and a certificate issued by the department to permit the operation of a general public paratransit vehicle. (b) Applicants for a certificate to drive a general public paratransit vehicle shall present evidence that they have successfully completed a driver training course administered by or at the direction of their employer consisting of a minimum .of 40 hours of classroom instruction covering applicable laws and regulations and defensive driving practices, a minimum of eight hours of certified defensive driving, and a minimum of 20 hours of behind -the -wheel training in a vehicle to be used as a generalpublic paratransit vehicle. Applicants seeking to renew a certificate valid for driving a general public paratransit vehicle shall present evidence that they have d,c, HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL February 17, 1987 Regular Meeting of February 24, 1987 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 44937 IN -LIEU SEWER PAYMENT LOCATED AT 829, 829 1/2 AND 833 5TH STREET Recommendation It is recommended that City Council: 1. Accept an in -lieu payment of $10,000 to satisfy the sanitary sewer concern of Tentative Tract Map No. 44937. 2., Direct staff to prepare a policy resolution for in -lieu sewer payments. Background Tentative Tract Map 44937 is located at 829, 829 1/2 and 833 5th Street. The site is 90' x 135', is zoned R-3, has a general plan designation of multi -use and is consistant with the general plan. The project plans to replace three single family houses with a ten unit condominium. The project is proceeding under the Subdivision Map Act and CEQA guidelines. On December 6, 1986, The Planning Commission approved Resolution P.C. 86-55 approving a Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Tract Map 44937, and a Negative Declaration for the 10 -Unit Condominium project. Condition number five (5) of Resolution P.C. 86-55 requires: "5. All Public Works and Fire Department requirements shall be met including a fire hydrant on the southeast corner of Fifth Street and Pacific Coast Highway." The Public Works Department has expressed a concern about the sanitary sewers. (See attached memo, dated November 18, 1986.) The City Council has taken no action to either appro this project. Analysis A tabulation of all existing downstream problems shows 1,28 feet of sewer in need of replacement as determined by the Santina & Thompson report. The estimated cost to repair all downstream problems isy$232,000 or Approximately $180 per foot. ric SILK S 10 @ q `�c �•a 6 D Vvk Ccs — - 1 - WORK ACTIVITY ESTIMATE CALCULATION QUANTITY UNIT COST Remove 8" (Concrete & VCP) Pipe 635 $ 8 Remove 10" concrete pipe 646 9 Replace 8" VCP 550 70 Repalce 10" VCP 696 80 Replace 15" VCP 35 90 Manholes 13 2,500 Laterals 100% Miscellaneous construction work (shoring, etc.) Total Construction Cost: Design Cost @ 10%: Inspection cost @ 107: Subtw-al: Approx. 10% contingency GRAND TOTAL: TOTAL COST $ 5,080 5,814 38,500 55,680 3,150 32,500 10,000 25,000 $175,824 17,582 17,582 $210,988 21,012 $232,000 A potential developer of the property has proposed a $10,000 in -lieu payment to satisy the sanitary sewer concerns. There have been no other proposals to the City. Similar in -lieu sewer payments have been satisfactory on past projects. 1. Project: Location: Requirement: 2. Project: Location: Requirement: 3. Project: Location: Requirement: EXAMPLES 71 Unit Motel Aviation Blvd. at Aubrey Court Agreement for $62,278 in -lieu payment to be applied to CIP 85-401, 402, and 403 (to be bid March 10, 1987) 34 Unit Condominium 444 Monterey Boulevard Developer designs, replaces and pays all cost to replace 590 feet of 10" diameter sanitary sewer adjacent to development -including three (3) new manholes. 8 Lot Subdivision, Tentative Tract Map No. 30986 Near Power Street at 20th Street Developer designs, replaces and pays all cost to relocate 350 feet of 15" diameter sanitary sewer beneath the subdivision. When the repair work has been identified next to the development, the developer is required to make repairs. When problems are downstream of the development, an in -lieu payment has been satisfactory. - 2 The in -lieu cost per unit for the project on Aviation at Aubrey Court is $877.00. For Tentative Tract Map 44937, the in -lieu cost per unit is $1,000.00. This is $123.00 higher per unit than the previous project. City Council may modify the in -lieu payment or if City Council thinks the $10,000 in -lieu payment is adequate the action is to accept the in -lieu payment. This action would satisfy the sewer concern and would allow for the construction of ten condominiums. As a policy, City Council may want to establish a consistant "impact" fee for each new unit added to the City's sewer system. This could be accomplished by a resolution and could be reviewed periodically. Staff could have a resolution ready for Council consideration within four weeks. Alternatives Other alternatives available to City Council and considered by staff are: 1. Increase or decrease the in -lieu payment. 2. Not accept the offer, thereby delaying the project and solicit another proposal. 3. Refer this item to the Planning Commission. CONCUR: Re i ctfully submi.ted Gregory T. Meyer Ant ony Antich City Manager Director of 'u•lic Works Attachments: Proposal from developer dated January 27, 1987 Interoffice memo dated November 18, 1987 Resolution P. C. 86-55 cc: Michael Schubach Planning Department Director 3 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH INTER -OFFICE MEMO TO: Michael Schubach, Planning Director FROM: Anthony Antich, Director of Public Works DATE: November 18, 1986 SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map 44937 Proposed 10 Unit Condominium Subdivision As a follow up to the Environmental Staff Review Meeting on Mon- day, November 17, 1986, I`ve tabulated from our records the down- stream sewer system. The tabulation begins with manhole number 252 (as identified on the City Sewer Atlas) which is adjacent to the project address 829, 829 1/2 and 833 5th Street. Wastewater enters MH 252 and travels westerly to MH 251, thence southerly along the east side of Pacific Coast Highway to MH 249, thence westerly along 3rd Street to a point of discharge into a County manhole (MH 240). As can be seen from the tabulation several segments of pipe are in disrepair. The proposed upstream development will exacerbate the poor condition. There are no current plans for replacement by the City. Attached is an analysis of sewer bids which the City recently Director of Public Works 1 ANALYSIS OF BIDS CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH. , CALIFORNIA (714).719`-1 Specification for: �Ai/ /moi / %%£�)Ei.: �Ae_46 AP4 No. Date Opened q// 9/CG BIDDERS . ` & 6-/ n/&ice". &--,-;riarcxi-rg v 4 r n1461-04 ..rive. L',- CO,csr icvoil • BID ITEMS ESTIMATED QUANITIES RATE AMOUNT . . RATE AMOUNT RATE AMOUNT • RATE AMOUNT J /. ,)noL' c. or ,g g ✓c.P _ CS /o LF _ /d _. Ni /O SI oz ¢ 3Z 4-0 2. v 8" ' T 757 64' ..:1F- .- o c55 4.16.35- /3C, /62:952 6 u o u i 3.s /oaf P *of= 8" / 7/2110 /2, �se4o '7 /so ks � , 4 ,2unov cx= /5"0' vcP' 938" t.� /.Z. / 4 6 /6- 14-07° I / /o3/ 3 6-7 's vc GP c�c 3077 C..." 66"/, ,5" 90 27873o /07 33/379 6.. / lice,. e nIEk. (o���"V�P• /�l�c. Cc.�nlo. ' cc o3 0 �j7 C / / 0 E'er) SI 80/0 7 • iw✓'4c- o c- e) I4 -n � rnE I.- 0-0Vejia.o4 z 6A 7.50 /;5 v . ,5-6-6-6 t / ' z, / 3 6 . i•oc .Z d 8. 44Ernovoci-e- ns /3 5"ot) 1 Gf.1-6 /3 vov 2.350 320 6 5D /oz -c; 9. CohJsriett cricid AI e=14., n4 '5 / / 747Z )Z--6-0 ,S75ZC. ,5-0-0-0 20c Zc / 0 /o. ns CoreUccrioAi W s k),aP,e s T OAIC . acc>/'n /C ,' 5 ZEN / e°2 o2 CZ o 4vt /900 28 ZD _ o p & i / . Con! Ge.ErC CA/C/+sC/'y.tEll r /ZS UC ,23- .,3/0260 /a0 /.Z. 5a0 & 8ZSZJ / 6 . ATJ L�,L / — 400 /o -o0 590 o3`7.0 4-c / coTrs TOTAL C Al Flo. Co' ir'O CovT'Q. . BID BOND OR CHECK ►' LOWEST BIDDER Mtz,ePkit:1 CITY ENGINEER ANALYSIS OF BIDS CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH , CALIFORNIA Specification for: ISG/777-,eS/ `i •' % CST �6127 No • Date Opened LOWEST BIDDER O. T ° .Dry ML/,�`Lz/ CITY ENGINEER BIDDERS 1 ENS!?,/'1=R-S ,T7/�'�11-i ..70,6 T /'i24a L V, .4240. C',e Cc"f5"l. tZe_776J • RATE AMOUNT . BID ITEMS ESTIMATED Q UANITIES RATE AMOUNT RATE AMOUNT RATE AMOUNT /3.:5C1[.-EI'IO5 cI=EX/57• P, lc w/ 8'1 gg/c e. 4rha a� ,:3.1t, / Zug 25Z)/ OHO / �- 1 C;14_ 2 avrz Ex/5T/,cJ� 6.--A ¢¢moo /,6c) Z z) a-con&� zszin (5.Ac �g-770A1 e4,0.J or 4- 93ozrea a-ao 65-6 g„, S+ r/AL6,0-wae%!E, LS . / 7 0 o (63 On $exy... 1Fr, Erb' • „S) 06C /7. ConiSr.ed-ccrfo/1, co c r i.,�e,i- 6'¢S u <¢ yv,3C /5 9 c75 3-5' 0z575— ' / s', Ge, Isre(J cr/o'I con/c. De/ VeW'�y.. 1/ Z/ SA- ,,S6O ,-- 5-6 05 /0 // 2/O /1, C 0,4 s rec.cc rr o Ai c�1c . cc -,e_. c��► 6-944o 5 /3 6 c3Z 3 / 6 3 Z /0 3 Z ( q. . c. a�zy e , Coasr uc7coia coJc . P '&n 1r /crap (5g. 7- /cut',6 6 0750 3 0 /TETL 2/, r}2ot3w-i aAT7 on/ .ak3iL/ 77oZ...3 SVC / 0 000- /3/ Sr) Z. cc,,/ 5T -,,t , c re o n/ r,AnC6- LS ,6Z7� / p 0O U !� S/�O z3. , s.( c3eeecr 3;�.q�v�hl E^r�S �S ��7YO 0�Z v 4S -eV J TOTAL . /3,C5.27 6622-%S 65/31-/s BID BOND OR CHECK LOWEST BIDDER O. T ° .Dry ML/,�`Lz/ CITY ENGINEER •;"INVENTORY OF SEWER SYSTEM DOWNSTREAM OF' 829, 829 1/2 AND 833 5TH STREET `TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 44937) • UP DOWN STREAM STREAM DIAMETER MATERIAL 252 251 250 249 248 247 251: 250 249 248 • 247.- 246'. 245 243.' 242 241 240 (County. Manhole 8" Concrete AGE LENGTH 58 180' 5th Street 17 430' ,' � P.C.H. • 105 P.C.H. '60' -- Under capacity;' --replace with P.C.H. @ 3rd St. with 10" line.. .25'--. Under capacity, replace with 3rd St. (btwn line.with 10" • '. P.C.H. o Ardmore) 58 280';x. Deterioratedand-brokenline* 3rd Street CONDITION IDENTIFICATION 8 Under capacity/Deterioration and broken pipe*. Under capacity, replace with. 15" line. 3rd Street 3rd Street 3rd St. @ Ardmore 3rd Street 3rd Street c . 'i ' :IN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 86-55 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 44937, AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A 10 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 829-833 FIFTH STREET. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on December 2, 1986 and made the following Findings: 1. The proposed development is consistent with applicable specific and general plans; 2. The proposed project will not adversely impact surrounding residents and properties; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of 4` the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Tract Map 44937, and a Negative Declaration for a 10 -unit condominium project at 829-833 Fifth Street subject to the following conditions: 1. The project shall meet all construction standards in Chapter 9.5-1 through 9.5-28 of the Condominium Ordinance. a. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions in compliance with Section 9.5-25 of the Condominium Ordinance shall be submitted and approved prior to the .issuance of building permits. b. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder and the document shall indicate that once it is recorded it shall be sent to the City. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with submitted plans including all architectural features; any modifications shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. 3. Landscape planters shall be as shown. a. An automatic landscape sprinkler system shall be provided. b. The type, quantity, and size of plant materials shall be indicated. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. At the time of the Building Permit Plan Check, elevations confirming the specific height of the development shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Building Director. 5. All Public Works and Fire Department requirements shall be - met including a fire hydrant on the southeast corner of Fifth Street and Pacific Coast Highway. 6. The applicant shall sign an "Acceptance of Conditions" form prior to the issuance of building permits. 7. The applicant shall provide ten per cent (10%) -of the site - ;-. area in open 'space which shall be to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 8. Three copies of plans, including site, elevation, floor and landscape plans which are consistent with the conditions of approval shall be submitted for review and approval to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. This Conditional Use Permit and approval of the Tentative Tract Map shall expire 24 months from the date of approval if the project is not implemented. The applicant may apply in writing for an extension of time to the Planning Commission prior to the date of expiration. _ VOTE: AYES: Comms.Peirce,Rue,Schulte,Compton,Chmn.Sheldon NOES: None 'ABSTAIN: None .a ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 86-55 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of December 2, 1986. 0 Chuck She on, Chairman Date //,47 Micha-el Schubach, Secretary 2200 Pacific Coast Highway Suite 200 Hermosa Beach • California • 90254 213.374.8226 Mr. Tony Antich Director of Public Works City of Hermosa Beach 13115 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Tony: January 27, 1987 JNN 3 0 1987 J'UBL!C WORKS DEPT, This letter is to formally offer the City of Hermosa Beach the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) in connection with our ten (10) unit condominium project at 829-33 5th Street as an in lieu of fee for the repair or replacement of sewers as deemed necessary by the City. I shall await the City's response to this offer. Sincerely, Mark J. Kavanaugh President Kavanaugh Development Co., Inc. MJK/lk Law Offices of James P. Lough JAMES P. LOUGH February 17, 1987 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 24, 1987 TO: MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: JAMES P. LOUGH, CITY ATTORNEY RE: RESPONSE TO ROGER D. CREIGHTON LETTER OF FEBRUARY 2, 1987 (H.M.S. HERMOSA AGREEMENT) 1605 WEST OLYMPIC BL`.'D. SUITE 9018 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90015 (213) 381-6131 RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the mayor to sign the attached letter for delivery to Mr. Creighton. BACKGROUND: The attached letter received from Mr. Creighton was referred to the City Attorney for review. The letter is self-explanatory and sets out the legal position of the City and the recommendation of the staff. Respectful_y submitte JPL:ml Attachments n=om James P. Lough, City Att¢rney c)ivi64 i 5 • • CITY COUNCIL •� John Cioffi, Mayor P 4 Etta Simpson, Mayor Pro Tem Jim Rosenberger June Williams Tony DeBellis Norma Goldbach, City Treasurer Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk City of aiermosa Teach.) Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 February 24, 1987 Mr. Roger D. Creighton 1070 Third Street Hermosa Beach, California 90254 RE: HMS HERMOSA LEASE -OPTION PURCHASE AGREEMENT Dear Mr. Creighton: We are in receipt of your letter dated February 2, 1987 regarding the above-mentioned matter. As to the agreement entered into for the "Old Church" property, the current actions being taken by the City Council are consistent with its legal obligations under the above -referenced agreements. Copies of those agreements are available for public inspection at the Office of the City Clerk during normal business hours. As to the issue of City authority to sell the property, the City has general authority under Government Code Section 37350 to dispose of its property in the manner it wishes. For property to fit under the requirements of Government Code Section 54220 et.seq., it must be "surplus" and of no use to the City. This property does not fit into that catagory. As for as the requirements placed on the purchaser, the City Council placed conditions on the sale when it originally entered into it. The current makeup of the Council cannot change or modify these agreements without agreement of the buyer. The contract does not violate any rule, law or ordinance of the City. Yours very truly, John Cioffi, Mayor City of Hermosa Beach JC/JPL ml City Hall (213) 376-6984 • Community Center 379-3312 / 376.6984 • Fire Department 376.24791376.6984 • Police Department 376-7981 1376-6984 February 2, 1987 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mr. Meyer stated on T.V. the other night the City entered into a option to sell lot D in 1980. That's not the way I remember it. 1. The 1980 option was to lease only, not sell. 2. The 1980 option ran out in February 1983. 3. In February 1982, the lease was re -executed although the Mayor never signed it off, nor were there any dates instituted on amendment r 1. 4. It was not until 1985, that an option to sell ever get developed. 1 am of the suspicion that before a City can sell or lease property the City must comply with Government Code §54222. Government Code §54225 allows a public agency selling surplus land o provide for a payment period when scllinC to other state agencies. Please furnish me with the la;; that allows a City to sell City property on a payment program sale to private indivi- duals or corporations. Please inform me as to how a City sells property on a time payrent sale to private parties without violating] the Constitution prohibitations on es:tend- ing the City's credit for the benefit of an indivi:gal or corporation. A1.,u, how call Lhe City Council sell away these public park- ing spaces, not ask the developer to provide replacement ones (as Mr. Langlois had to promise in his hotel plan), and violate the General Plan, which has a goal to increase parking ? Vey truly yours, /ii/e--C3-Y41- RogerY1 - Roger D. Creichton e 1 WARREN BARR, O.D. PAUL C. BARR, O.D. DOCTORS OF OPTOMETRY (211) 372.5213 III�i Member t IIII�� American Optometric Association BOX 515, HERMOSA BEACH, CA. 90254 1500 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY As you can see from the enclosed signatures, more than just one or two businesses would be effected by the painting of the curb from Pier to 100 feet north of 15th St. on the East side of PCH. I have requested a copy of the Caltrans report from Tony Antich that suggests such a great distance to merge traffic but I have not yet received it so that I may refute this action. I would request the Council's reconsidera- tion to stop the red curb at 15th Street. WE THE UNDERSIGNED WISH THE CITY COUNCIL OF HERMOSA BEACH TO RECONSIDER THE PROPOSAL TO PAINT THE CURB RED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PACIFIC COAST HWY. 100 FEET NORTH OF FIFTEENTH STREET AS THIS WOULD CAUSE US DIFFICULTY IN HAVING ACCESS TO VISION CARE WITH DR. BARR. NAME ADDRESS u %. SC/!cL / Sp 51'& Sfi /1/10-b,4-4vAsir-04. D - cl} i 6ie-10.4v L )7/ Pcitt-) / e „ /1'_!rr' L[l,-' L/ '7 $1 )1 Lk -Ti'. Su ire-- /e. DO tI2C4710/ -2 °' 1„Q L t+'1.1 C,k ' •.1 / {- `is_J LR C` �y L� (_ c ,� // t' 1/( -t4 -L WE THE UNDERSIGNED WISH THE .CITY COUNCIL OF HERMOSA BEACH TO RECONSIDER THE PROPOSAL TO PAINT THE CURB RED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PACIFIC COAST HWY. 100 FEET NORTH OF FIFTEENTH STREET AS THIS WOULD CAUSE US DIFFICULTY IN HAVING ACCESS TO VISION CARE WITH DR. BARR. NAME ADDRESS %z,t. //J.9 rv. E5 ft 1/1 /-` Aktcco1/4 F,/ prq 01�2 s7 37 Za63 t t- )40 t( a /Fir , -1-11F I 90 4z,t/ri(7/0f ` Sr, / j. i,:, r /)L ' :' L /,) �i � o(y oI / I., iP? 5 b,,gAoko Q l WE THE UNDERSIGNED WISH THE CITY COUNCIL OF HERMOSA BEACH TO RECONSIDER THE PROPOSAL TO PAINT THE CURB RED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PACIFIC COAST HWY. 100 FEET NORTH OF FIFTEENTH STREET AS THIS WOULD CAUSE US DIFFICULTY IN HAVING ACCESS TO VISION CARE WITH DR. BARR. NAME ADDRESS • Sig 477e" /42f( %' /; /- I o M ST 4((},t� fC,C gP.S' {0icD Loh-- D . '�-1�2c�vsfi BEft,+ 1 --6,4Lz__ (-17.&,_ 9/'»� (54r gic SI )71, 6F626 �Z2-3 7'€i— g4 9725 2 -CC) 1/00,,- 166,,k /,- //-L /c s2 50-bsy Parker R. Herriott 224 24th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 February 18, 1987 Hermosa Beach City Hall Civic Center Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 VYLOTt 9() rro-PIMA Re: Possible CONDITIONAL BUILDING PERMIT and/or an EXTENSION FOR TIME TO OBTAIN BUILDING PERMIT FOR PROJECT AT 224 24th Street, Hermosa Beach, California Dear John Cioffi, City Councilpersons Ms. June Williams, Ms. Etta Simpson, Mr. Jim Rosenberger, Mr. Tony DeBellis, City Manager Gregory T. Meyer, City Attorney James Lough, Building Director Mr. Bill Grove and Planning Department Head Mr. Michael Schubach: During the City Council meeting of February 10, 1987, when I was asking the Council for an exemption from the proposed ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENTS NOT CONSISTENT WITH BOTH THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING CLASSIFICATION, Councilperson Tony DeBellis asked me, "Do you have a building permit, yet?" I answered, "No." And then Mr. DeBellis asked, "When does your time expire?" I said, "We may have to ask for an extension," and I said, "I think it is February 26." Well, it appears we may have to ask the City Council for what may be called a CONDITIONAL BUILDING PERMIT AND/OR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE PROJECT AT 224 24th STREET, HERNIOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. Therefore, I hereby request the City Council to have the matter of a CONDITIONAL BUILDING PERMIT AND/OR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE PROJECT AT 224 24th STREET, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA be an agenda item so the City Council may hear and decide the matter. Hopefully, the working drawings for 224 24th Street will be submitted to the Building Department on February 20, 1987 and then I will have a transmittal application from Bill Grove to take the drawings to BSI in Santa Ana, California, the engineering firm that will check the plans for the City because our City is backlogged with plans to be checked. I have talked with BSI and they will try to have the plans checked in a week. If any corrections have to be made, I would then have to take the plans back to our architects for corrections and then resubmit the working drawings again to BSI. It is possible that everything will be approved by February 26, but I am not sure, and that is why I am asking for a hearing on this matter before the time actually runs out, so the Council could act before in this instance, instead of later. Two very knowledgeable persons have mentioned to me that the Building Department may issue a building permit in a case like ours, where the working drawings are in the Building Department but are not yet approved. If that is the case, maybe the City Council would allow Bill Grove to issue my brother Paul such a building permit for 224 24th Street; that is, if Mr. Grove needs such permission. 4d Hermosa Beach City Council February 18, 1987 Page 2 It may be that the plans will be approved in time to meet the February 26, 1987 time limit, and as it stands now, my brother Paul has a waiver for his coastal permit; the hearing will be February 24, 1987. If an extension of time is necessary to obtain the building permit, then I request that the City Council grant said extension since my brother Paul and I have acted in good faith to meet all approvals within the six month time limit imposed by the Council. Building Director, Bill Grove and Planning Head, Michael Schubach told my brother Paul, our architects and me that they would not oppose us if we needed an extension. Bill mentioned to me in January of this year at the Building Department counter that the time constraints of six months made it almost impossible to obtain all approvals and that is what I have maintained all along, since we had two projects, where 2300 Ozone Court was holding up 224 24th Street. Respectfully submitted, Parker R. Herriott Parker R. Herriott 224 24th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 February 18, 1987 Hermosa Beach City Hall Civic Center Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Re: In support of possible CONDITIONAL BUILDING PERMIT and/or an EXTENSION FOR TIME TO OBTAIN BUILDING PERMIT FOR PROJECT AT 224 24th Street, Hermosa Beach, California - Submitted to Hermosa Beach City Clerk's Office February 18, 1987 Dear Mayor John Cioffi, City Councilpersons Ms. June Williams, Ms. Etta Simpson, Mr. Jim Rosenberger, Mr. Tony DeBellis, City Manager Gregory T. Meyer, City Attorney James Lough, Building Director Mr. Bill Grove and Planning Department Head Mr. Michael Schubach: DECLARATION OF PARKER R. HERRIOTT I, PARKER R. HERRIOTT, HEREBY DECLARE as follows: (The following declaration is based on my memory and on my notes written within a couple of days of the meeting with Bill Grove, the Director of the Hermosa Beach Building Department, at the counter of the Building Department at City Hall in Hermosa Beach, California. I had gone to the Building Department to get the name of a surveyor who surveyed the property at 244 24th Street recently, for we wanted a third survey done of our property, and I did get the name of the surveyor and said surveyor did survey our properties). When I talked with Bill Grove on Friday, January 16, 1987, he said that there was no building code requirement that made it necessary to have 2 stairways in the duplex from the second floor or first floor. Also, he said I could go to Coastal with the demo and conceptual approval and get the thing started. He was surprised we hadn't done that yet - and it could always be changed later and that Coastal wouldn't care about the demo change - and that we should have our working drawings for the duplex done up. It would be a risk, but it would be the smart thing to do, to get the building permit within the six months for the duplex. Bill also informed me the following that I have in my notes: "Coastal doesn't have anything to say about single family dwellings unless it is within 300 feet of the water or high tide line, whichever." So, we could go with a single family dwelling and then partially demolish. I had also mentioned to Bill that we did not want to demolish the whole building and that is when he said, "It could always be changed later and Coastal would not care about a demo change." Hermosa Beach City Hall February 18, 1987 Page 2 As I remember now, Bill said I could always make an amendment to the coastal permit. My belief was that if we had the working drawings in before the six months were up, that we would be able to get the building permit for 224 24th Street, and that is still what I believe. When I talked with Bill he did not mention anything about the working drawings having to be checked, nor about having the drawings in by a certain date so the plans could be checked. Later I found out that the plans would have to be checked and that the plans would have to be sent out to Santa Ana because of the backlog of plans to be checked at the Building Department. I believe that we have only one plan checker now with the Building Department, and that he also does inspections, etc., for the city. Our Building Department has not replaced two workers who have left in the last year or so - obviously our Building Department is understaffed. While at City Hall today, I learned there is going to be an examination for a Building Inspector position with the City of Hermosa Beach in March, which is next month. I appreciate the information that Mr. Grove gave me for he showed me the way to get the building permit within the six month time limit by not waiting for 2300 Ozone Court to be settled before getting the building permit for 224 24th Street. This way 2300 Ozone Court can be settled after my brother Paul has his building permit for 224 24th Street. We had our Environmental Staff Review hearing for 2300 Ozone Court and 224 24th Street on February 5, 1987, and we have a Planning Commission hearing on March 3, 1987 concerning the number of units to remain at 2300 Ozone Court. -We requested variances because of the remodeling;at 2300 Ozone Court, Hermosa Beach, California. I also remember when Bill referred to•"risk" above. He was speaking of a risk in having the working drawings drawn up, for if we did not get what we were willing to settle for from the Planning Commission regarding the number of units left at 2300 Ozone Court, we would have had the working drawings drawn up for,nothing if we decided not to go ahead with the project at 224 24th Street, the duplex. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct based upon informa- tion and belief. February 18, 1987 Hermosa Beach, California Respectfully submitted, PARKER R. HERRIOTT Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council January 16, 1987 City Council Meeting January 27, 1987 STUDY ON THE ADVISABILITY OF RECREATING THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT 1-0 S RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council not recreate a Board of Zoning Adjustment. BACKGROUND On June 25, 1985, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 85-805 (attached) "abolishing the Board of Zoning Adjustment and trans- ferring its duties to the Planning Commission". Having received a letter from a resident requesting a city council discussion of the "re-establishment of a Board of Zoning Adjustment," at its November 10, 1986 meeting the City Council requested a report regarding the advisability of recreating the Board of Zoning Adjustment. ANALYSIS The duties of the Board of Zoning Adjustments which have been assumed by the Planning Commission are hearing and acting upon variance and Conditional Use Permit requests. In order to deter- mine the advisability of recreating the Board of Zoning Adjust- ment the following information should be examined: 1) Number of variance and conditional use permit requests heard - by the Planning Commission since abolition of Board of Zoning Adjustment: Variance Requests: 7; Conditional Use Permit Requests: 16 (8 were amendments to existing C.U.P.'s). 2) Petitioner's reasons for requesting a consideration of re- establishing the Board of Zoning Adjustment: Staff asked that the resident who requested the discussion (A. John Berardo), describe his concerns (letter attached); pertinent excerpts below: ..the entire South Bay is in a period of rapid growth and development...each city should be planning ahead and not be in a situation of reacting to it...the city coucil and plan- ning commission should spend all the time and efforts direct- ly and only with the shaping, planning, developing, implemen- tin, etc., the General Plan...these two bodies are spending oLa 1 � ��e1 qp/� pe,e0 �ezL /eo415 - 1 - too much time with minor matters...this work could and should be done by a lesser commission, in this case, being the B.Z.A." 3) Policy of other Southern California cities: Of the 10 cities responding to staff's survey, 8 cities do - not have a Board of Zoning Adjustment, 2 do. 4) Staffing and fiscal impact: The two primary staffing and fiscal impacts are (a) city at- torney time ,(b) city staff time, (c) secretarial services. (a) Since the City Attorney has been attending Planning Com- mission meetings, his presence would probably also be required at Board of Zoning Adjustment meetings, neces- sitating additional funding. (b) The previous Board of Zoning Adjustment was staffed by the Department of Building & Safety. Secretarial Ser- vices and office supplies were budgeted at $2200. Having two separate commissions would result in duplica- tion of efforts in terms of agenda and minutes prepara- tion as well as the assembling and distribution of com- missioners packets. (c) The minutes secretary, currently attending one meeting would be attending two and charging an appearance fee as well as hourly fee for transcribing minutes. 5) Planning Commission Recommendation: Planning Commission members unanimously feel that there is no reason for reinstituting the Board of Zoning Adjustment; that the Commission has not had a problem handling C.U.P. and variance requests and ending their meetings by 10:30 or 11:00 p.m. most evenings. (It should further be noted that the Planning Commission is responsible for recommending zoning amendments that may be addressed in variance and conditional use permit requests and therefore has the most direct experience with those regulations). SUMMARY While there are reasons to consider the re-establishment of the Board of Zoning Adjustment, it does appear that this city's Plan- ning Commission (as well as the majority of others surveyed) is not hampered by the addition of C.U.P. and variance hearings. The additional considerations of increased cost and the fact that the body which recommends zoning amendments for which 2 variances and C.U.P. requests are made is the Planning Commis- sion. It appears appropriate then that the Planning Commission continue to handle those hearings. Concur: William Grove Director, Bldg Concur: Concur: . &. Safety Gr4gor Ci y Manager eyer Respectfully submitted, ,tiu.0 . �C�LCLL-��� J ice Silver, Admin. Aide B1 g. & Safety Michael chu•ach Planning Director 3 BACKGrO TERI LS •�,:�t�;�-�; u tea,. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 • ORDINANCE VO. 85- 805 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE X, BY ABOLISHING THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUST- MENT AND TRANSFERRING ITS DUTIES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Board .1 of of Zoning Adjustment should be abolished due to fiscal con- straints; and WHEREAS, Section 65902 of the California Government Code provides that the Planning Commission shall perform the duties of the Board of Zoning Adjustment when no board exists. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Chapter 2, Article X, Section. 2-90 is hereby amended to read: "Section 2-90 Abolition of Board. Pursuant to the Government -Code of the -State of -California the Board of Zoning Adjustment is hereby abolished." SECTION 2. That Chapter 2, Article X, Section 2-91 is hereby amended to read: "Section 2-91 Assumption of Duties. The duties of the Board of Zoning Adjustment shall be assumed by the Planning Commission. Wherever in this code the term "Board of Zoning Adjustment" appears, it shall mean, the Planning Commission. SECTION 3. That Section 2-92 is hereby deleted. SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30)' days after the date of its adoption. SECTION 5. That prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 this OrdL�rc b7e ,4c :u L71Y1�Q�rdfiyr ,y ,�ty`+Vi}P 3ay!� xyr ty+ ^ St finance paper of general circulation, published end circul8`Ced in the City of Hermosa Beach. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of June 1985. )2_,4#0'-_,010e176, PRESIDEi of the City Counci an MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: PPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK ITY ATTORNEY Title 7 �. tent thereto he legislative establishing a ve body shall )r amendment ore making a public hear - lays after the gnated by the ar amendment lg. Notice of action shall be of notice of Section 65500. p. 1025, § 71; )70, § 25, was re - 1880, p. 4350, § 8. 1880, p. 4350, Stats.1947, c. 807, , 74, amended by 025, § 71; .Stats. 2971, §§ 26 to 32. 1880, p. 4350, 134. Pp. 680, 682, 1644, p. 2972, §§ 1405, p. 2943, § •n. plat Div. 1 LOCAL PLANNING § 65551 Article 10 ADMINISTRATION OF SPECIFIC PLANS AND REGULATIONS See. 65550. Rules and regulations. 65551. Agencies in aid of administration ; fee limitations. 65552. Reference of proposal to planning agency for report; report to legislative body. 65553. Open space lands; reference of proposal to planning agency for report; report to legislature. 65554, 65555. Repealed. Article 10 was added by Stats.1965, c. 1880, p. 4344., § 5. Cross References Environmental impact report, exemption for project consistent with specific plan under this article, see Public Resources Code § 21080.7. Law Review Commentaries Land -use control, externalities and mu- Open space zoning and urban reserve. nicipal affairs. (1975) 8 Loyola L.Rev. (1978) 15 San Diego L.Rev. 1211. (Calif.) 432. Counties 0211/... Municipal Corporations C=41. Library References C.J.S. Counties § 49. C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 83, 84. § 65550. Rules and regulations The legislative body may determine and establish administrative rules and procedures for the application and enforcement of specific plans and regulations, and may assign or delegate such administrative functions, powers, and duties to the planning or other agency as may be necessary or desirable. (Added by Stats.1965, c. 1880, p. 4344, § 5.) Historical Note Former § 65550, added by Stats.1953, c. 1405, p. 2944, § 2, and was repealed by 1355, p. 2922, § 2, related to classification Stats.1965, c. 1880, p. 4350, § 8. See, of recommendations. It was derived from now, § 65401. former § 65136, added by Stats.1951, c. 334 P• 680, § 1; Stats.1947, c. 507, P. Derivation: Former § 65700, added by Stats.1953, c. 1355, P. 2925, § 2. 917, § G0, amended by Stats.1963, c. io 65551. Agencies in aid of administration; fee limitations The legislative body may create administrative agencies, boards f review, appeal, and adjustment, and provide for other officials, and 633 § 65551 PLANNING AND ZONING Title 7 for funds for the compensation of such officers, employees, and agen- cies and for the support of their work. If a county or city legislative body, including that of a charter city, in order to provide funds neces- sary for the work of such officers, employees, and agencies, establish- es any fees to be charged pursuant to any of the provisions of this chapter, the fees shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged. The fees shall be imposed pur- suant to Chapter 13 (commencing with Section 54990) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5. (Added by Stats.1965, c. 1880, p. 4344, § 5. Amended by Stats.1981, c. 914, § 4.) 442t#&m Ote, _ co -kJ A4.0 ) AZ �A . aL`-1 �c J ) A. JOHN RE DO, D.D.S. �.y'"- -'", ,,:,4�.. 1711 Via El Prado, Suite 400 >'� ' t / �//r 4' ��\\ Redondo Beach, California 902771 �p 4. ;%.! 1._. Oily o, C''y /-6� `:' \1 kej c'e'4 �LL���' U� ., 1 • y- �,°S° ee°�h _ `I f1 October 28, 198 Mayor and City Council; I am a long time resident and concerned citizen of Hermosa Beach. I would like to have placed on the city councils agenda for discussion the re-establishment of a Board of Zoning Adjustments. _ Sincerely, A. John Berardo • • 4d A. JOHN BERARDO, D.D.S. 1711 Via El Prado, Suite 400 Redondo Beach, California 90277 -2_7/" :174 4%( • •,; /./ • 277 January 19, 1987 HONORABLE MAYOR and EMBERS of Regular Meeting of the HERMOSA BEACH ITY COUNCIL Januray 27, 1987 Recommends on com SA BEACH PAVILLION TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY -t is mended that City Council: 1. Accept the attached engineering report as complete, 2. Direct staff to prepare and send a letter to the developer equesting that cash be deposited with the City, 3.. Adopt Resolution No. 87- creating a "no stopping zone" on Sixteenth Street. grcnd Apse The Hermosa Beach Pavillion is planned for the northwest corner of 16th Street and Pacific Coast Highway. On August 12, 1986, City Council approved Resolution No. 86-4973 concurring with the Planning Commission's recommendation to certify a negative declaration with mitigation measures for the Hermosa Beach Pavillion. A mitigation measure for transportation required the developer to pay for a traffic engineering study to be performed before May 1, 1987. Suggested improvements are to be bud:eted within one (1) year of the com.letion of engineering. The developer did deposit money or the study and the engineering work was performed. Analysis The engineering report was prepared by--gaL. Consultants, Inc., under the direction of the Public Works Department. A copy of the report is attached. The conclusions are: - The trip generation proposed by Frischer and Associates for the subject project is well documen e and reasonable. - Impacts to the parking space requirements reflect a shared parking arrangement between theatre and restaurants. This will not result in overflow parking onto the streets. It will not create problems due to unavailability of parking spaces for either user during the peak Friday/Saturday periods. - Daily and peak period traffic volumes distributed over the street system will most impact PCH/16th, Ardmore/16th and Pier/Valley/Ardmore. CQl moi`L'�' - 7, ckc \<\-c--c& latt-c- - Curb parking removal on 16th Street and restriping to accommodate an additional turn lane are needed for efficiency on this short street. Full improvements to a 42 foot curb to curb section for the project frontage is advisable to achieve this cross section. - Traffic signalization of 16th Street and PCH is not warranted and should not be considered at this time. - Ardmore Avenue cannot handle the traffic volumes on its one lane in each direction cross section during peak periods. As development inside and outside of the City persists the congestion levels will increase. Ardmore Avenue at 16th Street needs at least one more lane to store the potential left turners. - Pier/Valley/Ardmore must be totally reconstructed to produce a conventional intersection that can be signal controlled. Signalization of the existing two, two way intersections will be more of a negative impact than present operation. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The project's mitigation measure for transportation states that "suggested improvements to be budgeted within one (1) year of the completion of the engineering". The engineering has been completed. It is now necessary to budget for future improvements and ask the developer for the deposit. These funds shall be deposited into a deposit account and staff will return to City Council at a later date with a recommendation regarding use of said funds. Traffic Engineering $ 3,000 (work complete) Improvements 40,000 (amount to be deposited) Total: $43,000 This report will be forwarded to the Planning Department for consideration: 1. when the Transportation Element of the General Plan is updated later this year, and; 2. with the AT&SF EIR document. 2 For 16th Street to operate more efficiently, parking removals on the south side from Ardmore to approximately 170 feet east are necessary. I've included the appropriate resolution for council consideration and adoption which will become effective only if the project is built. CONCUR: Gre oryT. Cit Manager ti:‘641.1.1)-- er Viki Copeland Finance Administrator •-ctfully subw Widi LA AMA a Ate" •ny intich Director of Public Works CC: Michael Schubach., Director of Planning Attachments: 1. Transportation comments from the certified negative declaration for the project. 2. Engineering Report prepared by BSI Consultants, Inc. titled "Hermosa Beach Pavillion Traffic Impact Study". 3. Resolution No. 87- creating a "no stopping zone" on Sixteenth Street. 3 E. TRANSPORTATION Major arterial access to the project site would be provided by acific Coast Highway (PCH) located along the eastern boundary of the ite. Also serving the site is 16th Street. PCH is designated as a major arterial highway providing 100 eet of right-of-way. In the immediate site area, this roadway rovides two lanes of travel for both northbound and southbound raffle. Modifications to the striping and lane systems of PCH and ier Avenue have already been made to accommodate the adjoining Plaza ernosa. Pier Avenue is designated by the City of Hermosa Beach as an rterial highway providing 80 feet of right-of-way. This roadway rovides two lanes of travel for eastbound and westbound traffic olumes. Its intersection with PCH is signal controlled. Ardmore Avenue is a Master Planned Collector roadway. Near he site area, this roadway is a two-lane street with restricted curb arking. The intersection of Pier and Ardmore Avenues is controlled y a 4 -way stop. Sixteenth Street is a local roadway situated along the north roject boundary and :has a Master Planned right-of-way width of 40 eet. ]0 COMMENTS MITIGATION MEASURES Applicant has agreed to dedicate to The City of Hermosa Beach a.full deceleration lane along PCH, (of not less than 12 ft. in width) continuing onto 16th Street. The project shall construct the deceleration lane with a turning radius of not less than 25 ft. at the corner of PCH and 16th. The project may utilize a curb cut on pcu for entrance to the project only. The newly created deceleration lane will remove vehicles slowing down to enter the project from ongoing PCH traffic. The entrance only on PCH will preclude left hand turns across PCH by those exiting the project. The applicant also has agreed to support 16th Street becoming restricted for left hand turns on PCH during peak commuter hours. Applicant also agrees to widen 16th Street to a full 46 feet at the expense of the project. This widening will require a dedication of 6 ft. to the City of Hermosa Beach. In addition, the following City intersections will be impacted by this development: (16th Street and Pacific Coast Highway will be reviewed by Caltrans) 1. Valley/Ardmore and Pier Avenue 2. 16th Street and Ardmore The mitigation measures as proposed may be adequate. However, 1n light of the city's ongoing evaluation of the Pier Valley and Ardmore intersection, they should be evaluated. ' 11 COMMENTS Developer shall post a faithful performance bond in the amount of $43,000 guaranteeing future improvements to the impacted intersections. Said bond shall be posted within two months of City Council approval of public financing of the project. Said approval is scheduled before July 31, 1986. a. The breakdown of the $43,00Q shall be as follows: Traffic Engineering $ 3,000 Improvements 40,000 Total $43,000 The amounts may be adjusted, but in no event shall the total exceed $43,000. The City shall be authorized to draw on the bond to pay for cost after said bond is posted. The traffic engineering shall be performed before May 1, 1987. The cost for said engineering shall be paid for by the developer and performed by the City Engineer or his designee. Suggested improvements to be budgeted within one (1) year of completion of the engineering. In addition, staff strongly recommends that the City Council proceed with the improvement of the Pier and Valley Ardmore intersection now budgeted for fiscal year 1987. 12 COMMENTS January 16, 1987 TO: FROM: Ed Ruzak 1'+ ,t,1 lard SUBJECT: HERMOSA BEAC VILION TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CONSULTANTS, INC. Consultants to Governmental Agencies Tony Antich ii etor Public Works I am enclosing a draft copy of the impact analysis for the subject project. The shared parking provided is acceptable and the traffic impacts at the 16th/Ardmore and Pier Valley/Ardmore need to be mitigated inpart by the impact of this new daily trip generation. It is small, however, in comparison to the overall outside traffic growth. I do believe that 16th Street curb parking removals are critical to the mitigations for this project and I strongly recommend against signalization of Pier/Valley/ Ardmore in its present geometric configuration. Your comments are requested. ER:sg Enclosure 4220 Long Beach Boulevard • Long Beach, California 90807 • (213) 428-1263 A Berryman E. Stephenson Industries Company TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION INTRODUCTION This report represents a study of the traffic, circulation, and access conditions associated with the proposed Hermosa Beach Pavilion commercial complex. The complex is to be located on the northwest side of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and 16th Street within Hermosa Beach. PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project incorporates a two story building that will house retail specialty shops, restaurants, and a movie theatre complex. The first level would contain the retail shops for about 50% of the site. The second level extends further back over the site to cover the top level of the parking garage. Parking is planned for 540 spaces. Donald Frischer and Associates provided the following site development land uses and respective sizes for the project: Specialty Retail . Restaurant(s) . Theatres 28,236 Square Feet 17,693 Square Feet Six Screens Site Access Access to the site is shown on Figure 1. Entry/exit would be on 16th St. at a driveway approximately 135 feet west of PCH and at the entrance to the proposed parking structure approximately 210 feet west of PCH. PCH is the major arterial access to the site. It has two through lanes of travel northbound and southbound with a two way left turn lane as the center median area. Sixteenth Street is a local roadway situated along the southern boundary of the project. It is 26 feet wide curb to edge of pavement adjacent to the project. Near Ardmore Avenue, 16th Street has been fully improved to a 36 foot curb to curb section. Ardmore Avenue is a collector street, two way, with restricted curb parking. The west side of Ardmore Avenue is an open space median area that previously housed the AT&SF railroad tracks. This open space area separates Ardmore Avenue from a parallel two way collector street, Valley Blvd. Pier Avenue at Valley Blvd. and at Ardmore Avenue are a pair of multi - legged, multiway STOP controlled intersections located near the project as well as being the main intersections in the Hermosa Beach Civic Center/Downtown Area. Figure 2 shows the 1986 daily two way twenty- four hour traffic volumes for the streets in the vicinity of the project. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT VOLUMES Table 1 shows the estimated development traffic for the project developed by Donald Frischer and Associates. -1- PARKING STRUCTURE B GARAGE CONTROLLED ENTRANCE it lam— TO ARDMORE PED RIDG DRIVEWAY E MOVIE THEATRES PROPOSED RETAIL 16th STREET • PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY PROJECT SITE LAYOUT FIGURE 1 YtNiMMORKENOMMItV oo 00vD � O O3DoQ o cr o�oc r oaaoaoaom .ao NYti ' e0 I _ 7.400 4.960 • 7,665 y_.�y 15•oi N3� 5 REDONDO BEACH IX PROJECT SITE 00 TWO WAY, 24 HOUR DAILY TRAFFIC, 1986 00 • 3h .Mur y 00 7' 4 5'O 3A. 33dSpyd MANHATTAN BEACH 1 1986 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE 2 DEVELOPMENT Size TABLE 1 HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC(1) 24 Hours Total,Both Directions Vehicle Factor Trips Morning Peak Hour Entering Vehicle Factor Trips Exiting Vehicle Factor Trips Afternoon Peak Hour Entering Vehicle Factor Trips Factor Exiting Vehicle Trips Speciality Retail 28,236 sq.ft. 41 1,160 Restaurant 17,693 sq.ft. 164 2,900 Theatre _UiAL 6 Screens 350 2,100 6,160 0.6 15 0.5 15 2.5 70 0.8 15 0.3 5 7.5 135 0.0 0 0.0 0 4.5 270 30 20 475 2.5 70 3.0 55 4.5 270 395 FACTORS: Retail, Restaurant: Vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet Theater: Vehicle trips per screen 1. Based on buildout of project, 1987. The vehicle trips for the retail and the restaurant are consistent with Trip Generation Factors from the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The theatre generation factors were not found in the reference to the June 1986 ITE Journal. Theatre trip generation for sixplex (six screens) theatres are unique generators. The type of picture being shown plus the time of day and day of week have a distinct bearing on the trip generation, number of persons per vehicle, type of person coming to the theatre and ratio of parking spaces to seat. For the proposed project the 350 daily trips per screen that was utilized appeared to be a very broad interpretation of the theatres impact. Project information from the City Planning Department indicated the six theatres would have a total of 1500 seats. From the site plan provided for the project it appears that four theatres require 2976 square feet each while two theatres each require 4464 square feet. We have assumed that the larger theatres would most likely be 350 seat facilities while the four smaller facilities would have 200 seats. On this basis the 2100 vehicle trips per day for six screens projected in Table 1 relates to a trip per seat (assuming 1500 seats) of 1.40. City of Los Angeles trip generation for theatres have developed 1.2 trip ends per seat as their criteria. Thus, the Frischer information is reasonable and is consistent with other trip generation efforts. PARKING CRITERIA The project proposes 540 spaces. Due to the type of uses proposed on site there is every indication that "shared parking" can be utilized. Shared parking is a concept that assumes that different types of land uses will generate the need for parking at different times of the day. For example a commercial office building with no nite use does not need its parking spaces after 6:00 PM. an evening" oriented restaurant does not need parking prior to 5:00 or 6:00 PM. Thus, the restaurant can share the office parking spaces when there isn't any demand in the late evening. During the overlap, perhaps 5:00 to 6:00 PM there will be a dual use of restaurant and office such that the sharing concept may not be totally applicable. In the case of retail specialty shops such as proposed for this project, the peak activities should be early afternoon. Restaurants and theatres would peak during the evening. In addition, the mixed use nature of a center of this type will most likely allow for a user to visit more than one use during a trip i.e. go to the restaurant then walk to the movie theatre or vice -versa. There have been many studies conducted in the Southern California area for multiplex theatre complexes i.e. four or six screen theatres. The worst day scenarios, Friday or Saturday have been observed to determine the number of parking spaces per seat (parking ratio). -5- This ratio as seen for three typical lhealre complexes on Figure and 4. The typical "high end" parking ratio can be considered as 0.30 parking spaces per seat. For the 1,500 seat facility, a total of 450 spaces would be needed to handle the theatre volume if all users parked. This would occur only when several theatres showed "blockbuster" type movie attractions. The location of an SCRTD bus transit stop adjacent to the proposed site should promote some transit trips rather than auto trips. There are also a significant number of users in the 13 to 18 year bracket that will be dropped off at the valet drop, ride a bicycle to the theatre, walk or use transit. It can reasonably be expected that the nature and location of this facility with respect to the beach oriented community users will reflect up to 20% of the trips by modes other than the auto parker. This would further reduce the space needs for the theatres to 360. The ITE Parking Generation Information Report provides a average of 14.1 spaces/1000 gross square feet of floor area for weekday parking at a high quality restaurant and 17.6 spaces/1000 gross square feet for Saturdays. The 17,693 square feet of proposed restaurant space would necessitate by itself 250 spaces weekdays and 311 spaces Friday evening and Saturdays. From previous studies of shopping centers where restaurants/theatres are in combination it can reasonably be assumed that 10 to 15% of the restaurant users would go to the theatre or vice -versa. Thus, the restaurant space demand has been reduced accordingly to 213 and 264 for weekday and saturdays. If the restaurants operate at full capacity and the theatres are also at the peak parking space ratios it could be anticipated that 624 to. 553 spaces would be needed on a Friday or Saturday evening for a one to two hour period. This reflects restaurant use time, movie theatre use time and overlap of both uses peak demand. It is our opinion that this situation will very seldom exist due to the nature of the theatre events. Usually only one or two "blockbuster" threatre shows are present on the marquee that will draw full capacity. Thus the other four theatres are likely to be substantially below capacity. Table 1 shows a breakdown of the planned uses parking needs and the frequency that maximum demand will be needed. We believe the 540 spaces planned for:the site will be more than adequate to handle the proposed uses on a shared, basis since only 5% of the year would result in a slight shortage of spaces. TRAFFIC IMPACTS The key intersections for vehicular traffic impacts to the site will be 16th/PCH, 16th/Ardmore and Ardmore/Valley/Pier. The project traffic volumes will be distributed to and from the site such that the northbound and southbound corridors, PCH and Ardmore Avenue will be required Lo handle the bulk of the volume. Sixteenth Street will be the only street with driveway garage access to the project. Thus, the PCH/16th and Ardmore/16th Street intersections will be most severely impacted. The intersection(s) of Pier/Valley/Ardmore to the southwest of the site already contribute to long peak period backups on all intersection approaches. This is due to the geometric configuration of the intersections and its present multi -way STOP controls. -6- TABLE 1 WEEKEND USE PARKING DEMAND (SPACE) Theatre 200 seats @ 80% 192 330 seats @ 100% 210 402 20% Reduction Due to other Transportation Modes (80) Theatre Subtotal 322 Restaurant @ 100% 15% shared users Restaurant Subtotal 264 (40) 224 Total Theatre & Restaurant 546 NOTE: 3 releases x 2 peak days x 3 = 18/365 or 5% annually that the parking area will sometimes not have enough spaces. PARKING RATIO (PARKING SPACES / SEAT) 0.300 0.200 0.100 0.300 / ,/. r 1:00 ?M 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 TIME 7:00 8:00 9:00 10 00 11 00 - - - =17A • MARINA DEL REY - = EDWARDS • NEWPORT BEACH = AMC 4 • PUENTE HILLS = PARXING RATIO DESIGN CURVE GS PARKING RATIO DESIGN CURVE FRIDAY FIGURE 3 0.300 N N 0.200 4.1C.3 CC a▪ . 0 ., 0.100 cc a. 0.000 fr 4 • i r � 1:00 P11 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 TIME 7:00 0.00 9:00 10 00 11 00 UA • MARINA DEL RET = EDWARDS • NEWPORT REACH AMC 4 • PUENTE HILLS PARKING RATIO DESIGN CURVE PARKING RATIO DESIGN CURVE SATURDAY FIGURE 4 PCH/16th Street This unsignalized intersection has a two way left turn lane for PCH. This allows left turn vehicular storage until a gap in PCH traffic occurs. Project "IN" trips will have a difficult times entering 16th Street via this access during PM peak periods, summer months, and weekends due to the extremely high volume of PCH traffic. Likewise, left turn exiting traffic from the STOP sign on 16th to PCH will also be difficult. Caltrans has studied this location and believes a traffic signal is not warranted. We concur in this belief based on the proximity of such a signal to the existing multi -phased signal at Pier/PCH, the opportunities to access the project site via Ardmore Avenue, and the low volume levels on 16th Street. During peak periods when the southbound gap in PCH will be non existent or very small it is Caltrans intent to prohibit the northbound turns into 16th Street via signing. This will redirect trips to the Ardmore/Pier and Ardmore/16th intersections. 16th/Ardmore Full curb to curb improvements on 16th Street provide a 36 foot section east of Ardmore avenue. A commercial complex on the south side together with a residential/condominum development on the north provide the users curb parking adjacent to these developments. With the proposed project there will be a need for three lanes on 16th Street between PCH and Ardmore. Curb parking prohibitions should be undertaken on the north and west side of 16th Street to effectuate this. The project frontage does not need curb parking and the clear sight lines from its driveways without curb parking and the north side would be an asset. In order to provide a short three lane section on 16th Street curb parking for at least 50 feet would need to be removed on the north side east of Ardmore. Restriping would then allow one wide eastbound lane, a separate left turn lane (which would turn into a two way left turn lane in the widened section of 16th Street in front of the project) and a separate right turn lane. See Figure 5. The proposed project improvements would provide a 42 foot curb to curb section along its frontage to allow the curb parking on the south side together with the striping configuration shown. Ardmore Avenue in this mitigation consideration is not improved. It is only one lane each direction and is a major bypass route for PCH. The STOP controls and present inefficiency of the Pier/Ardmore intersection contributes to backups along Ardmore that extend to and past 16th Street. There is a serious need to widen Ardmore to provide as a minimum a turn lane to store vehicles wishing to access adjacent cross streets. We believe that the present project to develop the existing AAT&SF right of way between Valley and Ardmore would be a potential contributor to any frontage improvements. In addition, the volume levels generated by this project and the fact that major entry/exit to the site will be via 16th Street lead to the potential for developer contribution to Ardmore avenue improvements. -10- VALLEY DR. OPEN 5 icE- OLD Ar SF -- RAILROAD ARDMORE A/O PARK/MGA • IAJDUSTRJAL • COMIYERCJAL STOP •a Ave. r E F 8 11' i i i 10' '3' PARKING ALLOWED • CO.vDOM/A1/uM ,co PA/ZIO G Det/ EAST 5/LIE •PROPOSED PRGIJEG T 42' PACIFIC COAST MINNOW mimm••• 1/1 T1) FIGURE 5 16th STREET MITIGATION IMPROVEMENTS Pier/Valley/Ardmore It is our belief that a majority of the project generated trips will pass through this intersection to reach 16th/Ardmore or 16th/PCH. Presently a private consultant is studying the feasibility of signalizing the two intersections in order to operate them as a single unit. The operational control and signal timing with two, two way streets separated by a wide median will result in long clearance intervals and long overall cycle lengths. Backups and delays to Valley and Ardmore traffic will be such that they would exceed present levels and be a greater detriment, in our opinion, than the present system of STOP controls. With the present proposal to develop the AT&SF railroad right of way in this area as commercial property there is an opportunity to realign Valley into Ardmore or Ardmore into Valley to create one conventional four -legged intersection at Pier Avenue. This intersection could then be signal controlled for maximum efficiency. Figure 6 shows one possible configuration for consideration. Our recommendation with respect to the impact of this project on the Pier/Valley/Ardmore complex is not to signalize it in its present configuration but to provide a reconstruction of Valley or Ardmore to create a single conventional intersection that could be signal controlled. The daily volume levels from this project will contribute to the increased congestion at this intersection, but are not of the magnitude to necessitate overall reconstruction of Valley/Ardmore at Pier by this developer. CONCLUSIONS The foregoing analysis/discussion has prompted the foregoing conclusions: . The trip generation proposed by Frischer and Associates for the subject project is well documented and reasonable. . Impacts to the parking space requirements reflect a shared parking arrangement between theatre and restaurants. This will not result in overflow parking ogto the streets. It will not create problems due to unavailability of parking spaces for either user during the peak Friday/Saturday periods. . Daily and peak period traffic volumes distributed over the street system will most impact PCH/16th, Ardmore/16th and Pier/Valley/Ardmore. Curb parking removal on 16th Street and restriping to accommodate an additional turn lane are needed for efficiency on this short street. Full improvements to a 42 foot curb to curb section for the project frontage is advisable to achieve this cross section. . Traffic signalization of 16th Street and PCH is not warranted and should not be considered at this time. -12- . Ardmore Avenue cannot handle the traffic volumes on its one lane in each direction cross section during peak periods. As development inside and outside of the City persists the congestion levels will increase. Ardmore Avenue at 16th St. needs at least one more lane to store the potential left turners. . Pier/Valley/Ardmore must be totally reconstructed to produce a conventional intersection that can be signal controlled. Signalization of the existing two, two way intersections will be more of a negative impact than present operation. • • I FIGURE'6 PIER/ VALLEY / AR{1MOti}E..}. POSSIBLE RECONSTRUCTION.j;•; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 87- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NNO. N.S. 2435, AS AMENDED BY ADDING THERETO NO STOPPING ZONES ON A CERTAIN SECTION OF SIXTEENTH STREET AS HEREIN SET FORTH. The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. That Resolution No. N.S. 2435 as amended shall be and is hereby further amended by adding the following sub -sections to Section 5, "No Stopping Zones": SECTION 5.103 SIXTEENTH STREET: South side from Ardmore Boulevard to a point approximately 170 feet east of Ardmore Boulevard. SECTION 2. This resolution to be effective only if the project at the northwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Sixteenth Street is built. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of 1987. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS i � 1 Y ATTORNEY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 87- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NNO. N.S. 2435, AS AMENDED BY ADDING THERETO NO STOPPING ZONES ON A CERTAIN SECTION OF SIXTEENTH STREET AS HEREIN SET FORTH. The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. That Resolution No. N.S. 2435 as amended shall be and is hereby further amended by adding the following sub -sections to Section 5, "No Stopping Zones": SECTION 5. SIXTEENTH STREET: South side from Ardmore Boulevard to a point approximately feet east of Ardmore Boulevard. SECTION 2. This resolution to be effective only if the Hermosa Beach Pavillion project located at the corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Sixteenth Street is issued City of Hermosa Beach building permits. SECTION 3. City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this , 1987. day of PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. TTEST: ITY CLERK 1 January 7, 1987 Regular Meeting of January 27, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council y0 RELOCATING THE BARRICADE AND WIDENING 14TH STREET EAST OF •;;2/ ^ PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY TO ESTABLISH ADDITIONAL PARKING AND TURNING AREA e e ommendation: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Approve the proposed relocation of the existing barricade on 14th Street (east of Pacific Coast Highway) an additional 35' east on 14th Street. The existing barricade is presently 74' east of PCH. The proposed location of the barricade is 109' east of PCH. See Attachment I. 2. Approve the widening of 14th Street (east of PCH) on the north side 2.5' x 35' to establish additional parking in this ar a. Background: The business, Folded WinE is located on the northeast corner of 14th Street and Pacific Coast Highway. The memorandum is in response to a conversation and subsequent meeting the director had with the owner of Folded Wings during the week of January 5, 1987. The owner was concerned about the loss of parking because of anticipated painting of red curb adjacent to his business. The action was for the purpose of creating a double left turn from Pacific Coast Highway (northbound) to Pier Avenue (westbound) and was approved by City Council (Resolution No. 86-4996). Notices were sent to all affected owners and business on December 29, 1986 (Attachment II). Responding to the business concern, this item is before Council for consideration. Analysis: The above recommendation is based on a staff .field investigation. There is no parking allowed on either side of 14th Street from PCH to the barricade. In addition to the above concern by the owner of Folded Wings, he tells us that because of the existing barricade, motorists choose to U-turn onto his property. This action has caused damage to his fence and to the auto hoist inside his garage. Currently, there is a new commercial building under construction on the southeast corner of 14th Street and PCH with its parking lot entrance on 14th Street. The new business(s) will cause increased traffic in this area. It is necessary to relocate the barricade, widen 14th Street to improve traffic circulation in this area and to provide for parking on 14th Street. It was suggested in the attached memo (Attachment III) dated November 23, 1976, that "if any businesses did expand within the C zone, the, barrier could be moved at that time". It appears that now is the time to act on these concerns. Fiscal Impact: This project can be funded by CIP 85-160 and is estimated to cost approximately $1,500. The work can be performed in-house by the Public Works Department in less than one work week. Alternatives: Other alternatives available to City Council are: 1. Return to staff for further study. 3. Do nothing. Respectfully submitted, at On Engineering Technician Concur: Attachments I, II and III GW:AA:mv barri/m Concur: An"'. y Antich Director of P bl c Works Noted for Fisca Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator • • 7Mvo FAMILY RESt PE. NCE A 0 COMMERCIAL 1ON1NG __. ONSrRucrNEW . CuR2 AND .510rW/Lk FOLPEDW)W&�1PAR k 1 N FOLDED WING- S I D C vv A L <. r 4--"P SIDEWALK 14 ST 251 _ 0 -cr ti T nr.ow srA1.1. 0 m P DRIVEWAY LOcArIV\IS Arra 2ONIN& rot. I T -b 5+. 0.7 1c11-10" C ATTACHMENT I TWD FAMILY RP_51 D 1`N GF GON\M EQG1Al. Z0N ING 7 ROADSFD aR -,ZJcii ANDN���w GLJRII EXISTING OltMlCAD! 4NZ CuRl3 NSW L Li/! al�/G RA,: KING 0 • ,vgw BUILDING=_ GI ;7 F NA/ALK y • t'a.. • TO• &IN OF H ERMOSA 2-111 IEL(:H INTJEl-OFFICE MEMO Earl Diller, City Manager c SUBJECT. Possible location for cul-de-sac on 14th St. east of PCH. ATTACHMENT II DATE- November 23, 1976 FROM. Edward T. Putz, Dir. of Public Works The attached drawing shows 14th Street east of Pacific Coast Highway to the commercial zone line. It should be noted that the commercial line is 140 feet east of Pacific Coast Highway on the south side and 105 feet east of Pacific Coast Highway on the north side of 14th Street. This could present a problem in locating the barrier if a cul-de-sac were to be approved by the Council. If a cul-de-sac design is to be approved on 14th Street, I would recommend that it be placed at the first constriction in the street width, approximately 74 feet east of Pacific Coast Highway as shown on the drawing in red. This location would keep most of the residential dwellings on the westerly end of 14th Street isolated from business traffic. If any businesses did expand within the C zone, the barrier could be moved at that time. --ca�bYr tin -w a �a :a-e,a i ,-�• 5'.iakrs'•�Ga.�:a+.i::-!r' •••, — - .:i,.— -x -,--- ucs:-[c tso?,.vaot..-..:.saetra:dirt:.�-;+Cb aar c 'ter' '�;�.v�:a._^; iy_ . .' -.-: i •S�t 12-29-86 ATTACHMENT III, pg. 1 (MTV OF heIRMOM 3EIKZh CIVIC CENTER HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA 9 0 2 5 4 CITY HALL: (213) 376-6984 POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS: 3 7 6- 7 9 8 1 On 12-29-86, I, Lynn Stevens, did deposit into the United States Mail the attached letter (attachment "A") giving notice of City Council action regarding the installation of a red "no stopping anytime" zone and Resolution No. 86-4996 (attachment "B") for delivery to the following business and property owners. Attn: Thienchai Kalayasilapin Thai Pepper Restaurant 1200 Pacific Coast Highway Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attn: Prasit Tannirat Watch Center 1200 Pacific Coast Highway Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attn: Linda Adam L.A. Hair Design 1200 Pacific Coast Highway Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attn: Emanuil Berelovich Fancy Sheepskins Auto Acc. 1200 Pacific Coast Highway Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attn: Andrew J. Lesser, M.D. Andrew J. Lesser, M.D. 1200 Pacific Coast Highway Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attn: Krikor Bijakjian Prestige Auto Works/Station 1420 Pacific Coast Highway Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dr. Warren Barr, 0.D. 1500 Pacific Coast Highway Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Surapol Kunkaew 920 Avonoak Terrace Glendale, CA 91206 /05 - a 2c, - 2 Attn: James Shin Chang Hermosa One -Hour Photo 1200 Pacific Coast Highway Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attn: Son Quan Tran Beach Nails 1200 Pacific Coast Highway Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attn: David Young -Ho Lee Croissant & Cafe 1200 Pacific Coast Highway Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attn: John K. Gunter Software Galeria 1200 Pacific Coast Highway Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attn: Arthur Coon Folded Wings LTD. 1402 Pacific Coast Highway Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attn: John M. Cruikshank Coleman's 1514 Pacific Coast Highway Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 California Nuggett, Inc 2400 Driftwood Drive Las Vegas, NEV 89107 ATTACHMENT III, pg 2 eiy or hel3jnoM 3E CIVIC CENTER HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA 9 0 2 5 4 CITY HALL:213) 3 3 7 6- 6 9 8 4 POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS: 3 7 6- 7 9 8 1 December 23, 1986 Dear Property and/or Business Owner: NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION On November 25, 1986, City Council took formal action to paint red curb on the east side of Pacific Coast Highway from 100 feet south of 13th to 100' north of 15th Street. This was done so that two left turn lanes could be installed for northbound traffic wanting to make a left turn onto westbound Pier Avenue. The curb is scheduled to be painted on or about January 31, 1986. I've attached a copy of the signed resolution which creates the red "no stopping anytime" zone. If you have any questions please call me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Anthony Antic Director of P Works Attachment: Resolution No. 86-4996 - 1 - • =irjAleX '.i�w�.r"Le?I 2 3 4 5 6 i 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ATTACHMENT III, pg. 3 RFSOLr1 TO'? G. - 4996 A `F ESCLU i IO1' . OF THE CITY C O JNCTL O T -fl CT -T Y OF HFR ' A PFA CH OF , CALIFORNIA, LIF ]DIi''3 PESOLUTIO1'•; NO. N.S. 'G 5, AS AIIFNEFD FY ADDING "•-;LRt.TC 0 STOPPING PFSTRTCTION ON PPC1FIC COAST HIGHWAY AS HEREIN DESCRIBED . T FORTH. WHEREAS, the City of Hermosa Peach has received e letter (ceted 'ovember 13,.1935) from th= Department of Transportation, WHEREAS, said letter indic2tes a desire to cooperate with the City in the creation of a double left turn from northbound Pacific Coast Highway onto westbound Pier Avenue, WHEREAS, an interim, improvement will be estrblir,hed within one month of receipt of this resolution by Cltran:-., WHEREAS, a 5' (five foot) wi-a?nine. along the westerly curb of Pacific Coast Highway from Pier Avenue to llth Street will be unarta.ken, paid for end completed by Caltrans within c•ne .yr- nr of receipt of this resolurion by Caltrans, WHEREAS, the double left turns will -require creation of a red zone. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HER1CSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Resolution No. N.S. 2.4 5, as emended shall be and is hereby further amended by adding the following j subsection to Section 5, No Stopping Zone: ///// 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 1 1 ATTACHMENT III, pg. 4 'Section 5.20 PACIFIC COAST HTPWAY: c,outhcrn end,of drivewpy 100' (one hundred fer-t) south of 15th Street on the est. side -of Pricific Coast HiR.hway to 100' (one hundred feet) north of 17:th Street." 11, ATTEST: PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this ,25t4- day of ___EdigodagAgaL___ , 1966 - PRESIDENT of lhe City Council and MAYOR of the City of Firmose 9each, California. ITY CLERK APPROVED 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ,CITY PTTORNFY FOLDED WINGS LTD. Blaine Coon, Owner 1402 Pacific Coast Hiway Hermosa Beach, Ca., 90254 374-2603 January 13, 1987 City Council City of Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach, Ca. Dear Mayor and City Council: I am writing in protest to the action you took at your meeting of November 25, 1986. That action being Red Curbing the street in front of my business. The FIRST notice of this action was a letter I received yester- day, January 12, 1987, advising me you were painting the curb on or about January 31, 1987. I was never notified of the hearing scheduled on the above date. I feel that any action as dramatic as removing parking from in front of a business should require proper notice of same. My two concerns are: 1. The damage to the front of my building, the face is cracking now from the use of the curb lane in the morning. I cant imagine what will happen if this lane is used 24 hours a day. The trucks and RTD seem to be the main problem. 2. Customer drop off and pick up. The majority of my customers are dropped off and picked up from PCH. With the removal of this parking the only place is 14th. St. As you know, 14th. St. is barricaded just East of my drive, so there is no exit East. Thank you for any consideration you might be able to give me in this regard. I will be in the audience to answer any further questions you might have. Sincerely, Blaine Coon !f Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council January 7, 1987 1R$�Ll_tac City Council Meeting of January 13, 1987 PERFORMING A SERVICE FOR THE LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS - COLLECTING AB 2926 SCHOOL IMPACT DEVELOPMENT FEES AND RECOVERING CITY COSTS REASONABLY BORNE RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council waive further reading and introduce the attached Ordinance thereby establishing a public policy that the City will recover 1007 of its administrative costs for collecting AB 2926 school impact development fees. BACKGROUND AB 2926, enacted as of January 1, 1987 allows school districts to levy a school impact fee on developers of residential and commercial structures; said fee to not exceed $ 1.50/sq. ft (residential) and $ .25/sq. ft (commercial). ANALYSIS Earlier this week staff was advised by the South Bay Union High School District of their intent to implement such a fee. This action being necessary if that District was to avoid General Fund monies being used to repay the State for a school construction loan. The Hermosa Beach City Schools is also eligible to participate in such a levy. While it is not explicitly clear, it is our general understanding that the total levies cannot exceed the $ 1.50 and $ .25 rates. It is therefore incumbent on the two Districts serving Hermosa Beach to arrive at an accomodation as to the portions that each will receive from such fees. 'To that end a meeting involving the two districts and the City is being held on Friday to discuss the matter. 1 Assuming that the impact 'development fees are in fact levied there is no requirement that the City collect the monies. The legislation does, however, place any City enacted school impact fees within the $ 1.50 cap, prohibits us from enacting any fees for the construction of permanent school facilities and precludes us from imposing on a development a CEQA mitigation measure of payment of such fees. On the one hand, it not being popular to collect fees, having the school districts collect the monies clearly establishes that the financial extraction was done for school purposes. Conversely, the City Council has been advocating that we operate a "one-stop" development process. In that regard it would facilitate the process for all the fees to be paid in one place, City Hall,. Administratively, there is not an undue burden in collecting the school fee. We are already collecting the plan check fee, the Open Space Fee and the building permits etc. Staff has therefore discussed with the two districts establishing a process whereby the City would collect the fee and remit proportionally to the respecticve districts. The City is entitled to recover its costs reasonably borne for the collection process. The attached Ordinance would establish that policy. As is true with our other cost centers, we would then develop a work sheet to arrive at the specific costs; annually the cost is reviewed for possible modification. What we have in mind is establishing a flat fee amount per levy (the time spent is really the same irrespective of the amount of development fee levied). In addition to the staff recommendation, other options available to the City Council are: 1. Not have the City collect Development levies as imposed by school districts; 2. Not recover, or recover less than the full amount of, the collection costs. S `\Ake 1..�d Gre:ory T.IMeyer Cit b Manager attachment cc Hermosa Beach City Schools South Bay Union High School District 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ' ORDINANCE NO. 87 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 2-112 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, BY ADDING THERETO A PROVISION TO RECOVER PERCENTAGES OF COSTS REASONABLY BORNE FOR CERTAIN FINANCIAL SERVICES. WHEREAS, Developer Fees, as determined by the local school •istricts, to finance public school facilities are now permitted .y AB 2926 (Chapter 887, California Statutes of 1986); and WHEREAS, the Hermosa City Schools and the South Bay Union igh School Districts may determine to levy school impact fees on •evelopers; and WHEREAS, the City of Hermosa Beach would be a logical col- ector of school impact fees; and WHEREAS the City of Hermosa Beach is willing to be the col- ector of school impact fees subject to the City recovering its osts of such collection; and WHEREAS, based on the report and recommendation of Manage- ent Services Institute; and pursuant to Article XIIIB of the alifornia Constitution and paramount law, said City Council .dopted certain Ordinances, including Section 2-109 et. seq., of the Municipal Code in order to recover costs reasonably borne by said City for providing certain regulation, products and ser - ices; and WHEREAS, provisions of State Law, Government Code 54990 et. seq., allows for a process concerning the fees and charges for recovery of costs reasonably borne for those categories of fees 11 and charges; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 1. That Article XIII, Chapter 2, Section 2-112, of the Municipal Code, titled "Schedule of Fees and Service Charg- es", shall be amended by adding thereto, under subtitle "Finance and Administrative Services", item 53, to read as follows: Regulation, Product or Service 53. School Impact Development Fee Percentage of Costs to be Recovered Review Schedule 100 "L Annual SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall within fifteen (15) days cause the same to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly news- paper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1987. ATTEST: APPROVED A • PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY Use of Developer Fees to Finance School Facilities. AB 2926 (Stirling), Chapter 887, Statutes of 1986. This bill is the product of an end-of-session conference committee. It makes comprehensive changes in the law governing imposition of school impact fees on developers. To begin with, it authorizes school districts to directly place fees or other requirements on developers to finance the construction of temporary or permanent school facilities. These school district _fees. can be levied on new construction projects and on reconstruction projects which increase the living space of residential buildings. This represents a major change from existing law, which requires the school district to request the city or county to adopt a school impact fee ordinance. The total value of any fees or other requirements levied on a residential development may not exceed a cap of $1.50 per square foot. Fees may also be levied on commercial or industrial development projects which generate a need for new school facilities, up to a cap of $0.25 per square foot. School districts which apply for state funding will have a strong incentive to impose the entire allowable fee because the local match requirement for receipt of state funds is generally defined as \ the maximum possible fee which could be levied under the new law. AB 2926 also limits the role of cities in helping to finance school construction. It places city-imposed fees under the $1.50 cap for residential developments and prohibits cities from levying fees for permanent school construction or from requiring payment of school impact fees as CEQA mitigation measures. However, cities will retain the authority to adopt SB 201 ordinances to finance construction of temporary school facilities. Because of the broad new authority given to school districts, there appears to be little necessity for cities to adopt or retain ordinances imposing school impact fees. These limitations on the authority of. cities to levy school impact fees do not apply during the term of any development agreement•which requires the developer to pay such a fee. AB 2926 also makes clarifying changes to the process whereby school districts apply to the State Board of Education for a waiver from the requirements of the Naylor Act. Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council February 5, 1987. City Council Meeting of February 10, 1987 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION RE SCHOOL IMPACT DEVELOPMENT FEE Since our last transmittal to you several events have happened: 1. The South Bay Union High School District held its public hearing (February 4th) and conceptually proceeded with implementation (see attached materials from Dr. Ed King); 2. The Hermosa Beach City School Districthas drafted similar., such documents (see attached) for Board consideration next week; in all probability they will then be holding a public. hearing in March; 3. The Union High School District and the three Elementary Districts are "negotiating" as to proportions of the total fee to be received by the respective districts; 4. A "clean-up" bill is being introduced in the State Assembly to clarify conflicting provisions of AB 2926 and AB 3314. The proposal submitted to you by staff (January 13th meeting) would set in motion the legal mechanics for the City to be able to collect the fee and requires that all of our costs associated with such work be recovered. At this juncture I suggest that you. do introduce the Ordinance...but hold in abeyance on the question of whether the City would actually be the collector. This pro- tects our interest, in that we collect such fees only with the proviso of recovering our costs, and yet wouldn't set the process in motion until: 1. It's clear among the 4 school districts and 3 cities as to who is doing what; and 2. The clean-up legislation is enacted (one of its provi- ons is to clearly establish collection responsibility). Gre Cit ry eyer Manager GTM/ld Attachments cc Assistant City Manager Mastrian Building Director Grove Planning Director Schubach Hermosa Schools Superintendent Corey Dr. Ed King, South Bay District Dr. Don Wickert, consultant SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION r CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH INTER -OFFICE MEMO TO: Gregory T. Meyer, City Manager DATE: 1/21/87 RE: School impact fee info. FROM: William Grove, Director Dept. of Bldg. & Safety I have provided the South Bay Union High School District with the following information as you requested: Calendar Year 1984 1) New residential dwelling construction - 53 permits were issued resulting in 140 new dwelling units with a total floor area of 280,889 square feet. 2) Residential additions - 26 permits were issued resulting in additional floor area of 23,825 square feet. 3) New commercial construction - 6 permits were issued resulting in total floor area of 79,141 square feet. Calendar Year 1985 1) New residential dwelling construction - 105 permits were issued resulting in 149 new dwelling units with a total floor area of 279,985 square feet. 2) Residential additions - 28 permits were additional floor area of 21,290 square feet. 3) New commercial construction - 9 permits in total floor area of 153,614 square feet. Calendar Year 1986 issued resulting in were issued resulting 1) New residential dwelling construction - 118 permits were issued resulting in 223 new dwelling units with a total floor area of 351,172 square feet. 2) Residential additions - 22 permits were additional floor area of 23,473 square feet. 3) New commercial construction - 5 permits in total floor area of 50488 square feet. issued resulting in were issued resulting // - William Grove, Director Department of Building & Safety NOTICE OF HEARING OF THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA IN THE IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION OF DEVELOPER FEES WHEREAS, California law authorizes school districts to levy a fee on all residential construction and all new industrial and commercial construction; and WHEREAS, the law limits the amount of such fee for school facilities to $1.50 per square foot of covered or enclosed residental construction and $.25 per square foot of new industrial or commercial covered or enclosed construction; and WHEREAS, HERMOSA BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT is in need of rehabilitation of existing facilities and the actual cost of rehabilitation exceeds the total amount of the fees to be levied as evidenced in the Enclosure; THEREFORE, BE IT NOTICED that the HERMOSA BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT intends to hold a PUBLIC HEARING on , 1987 at n.m.in the Board Room of the District, located at 1645 Valley Dr., Hermosa Beach California, regarding the levy of a fee of $1.50 per square foot of residential covered or enclosed construction and $.25 per square foot of industrial and commercial covered or enclosed construction effective sixty (60) days from the date of this Resolution. BEFORE THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT LOS ANGELES COUNTY1 CALIFORNIA IN THE MATTER OF THE IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION OF DEVELOPER FEES RESOLUTION WHEREAS, California lawn authorizes school districts to levy a fee on all residential construction and all new industrial and commercial construction; and WHEREAS, the law limits the amount of such fee for school facilities to $1.50 per square foot of covered on enclosed residential of new industrial or construction; and WI-IEREAS, the District has conducted a noticed public hearing at which evidence as per Enclosure was presented to this Board and on the basis of such evidence this Board has made findings that facilities are in need of certain rehabilitation; and WHEREAS, HERMOSA BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT is in need of rehabilitation of existing facilities and the actual cost of rehabilitation exceeds the total amount of the fees to he levied; construction and $.25 commercial covered or per square enclosed foot BE IT RESOLVED, that the HERMOSA BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT shall levy a fee of $1.50 per square foot of residential covered or enclosed construction and $.25 per square foot of industrial and commercial covered or enclosed construction effective sixty (60) days from the date of this Resolution; and BE IT FURTHER BE RESOLVED that the Superintendent give notice to LOS ANGELES COUNTY and the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH of this Board's action by serving a copy of this Reslution on those agencies and requesting that no building permits be issued on or after , without certification from the District that the fees specified herein have been paid. This Resolution is adopted this day of , 1987, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: President Board of Trustees Hermosa Beach City School District EXHIBIT RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE LEVY OF DEVELOPER FEES RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that: 1. the Hermosa district levy a developer fee on all new residential construction and when appropriate on commercial development, 2. the Hermosa district continue negotiations with the high school district to secure a division of the collected fees on a fair and equitable basis, and 3. the Hermosa district identify in cooperation with the the South Bay district a fee collection process that will require a single stop for clients. BACKGROUND Developer Fee as Authorized by Assembly Bill 2926 Under Assembly Bill 2926, the District is authorized to levy up to $1.50 per square foot for residential developmentand up to $.25 per square foot for commercial property. It would appear that the fee for residential development may be used for new school construction as well as for rehabilitation purposes. On the other hand, section 65995 limits the levy of the fee on commercial property to school needs caused by the particular development. To facilitate this limitation, it is recommended that the District levy the $.25 per square foot fee on commercial/industrial development with the understanding that the fee can be reduced or eliminated if the developer submits evidence that the construction will not impact on the schools of the District. . Because the Hermosa Beach City Elementary School District shares service responsibilities with the South Bay Union High School District, some type of allocation system must be developed to split the fees between agencies. This division is not included in Assembly Bill 2926, and therefore, the districts need to come to some agreement regarding this matter. Fee Sharing At the present time, the South Bay district is moving forward to authorize the collection of the developer fee. Because South Bay is applying for State funds for building rehabilitation purposes, regulations require this district to collect the developer fees and allocate them to the State as the district's contribution toward this effort. Whether to levy or not levy the fee is not really the question since the high school district must do it. The real question is how the Hermosa district will share the collected fees. With this as a background, it is recommended that the Hermosa district continue negotiating with the South Bay district to secure an equitable system for dividing the developer fee between the two agencies. The Impact of the School Fee Upon New Construction The City indicated that a number of fees are already being levied upon new construction but varies from situation to situation, but as an example, a 2,000 square foot single family dwelling unit with two full bathrooms would be charged the following fees: Building Permit $1,100 Plan Check 715 Parks & Rec. Tax 3,500 Electric Permit 150 Plumbing Permit 85 Mechanical Permit 35 Sewer Use Tax 100 L.A. Co. San. Dist. Fee 675 Total $6,360 At a rate of $1.50 per square foot, this particular dwelling unit will generate $3,000 for school housing purposes, for a total of $9,360. Because of the past use of various fees by the City, the new fee for school purposes becomes just another levy designed to support a community need. Collecting the Fees One of the options for the District is to request the City of Hermosa Beach to collect the developer fee on behalf of both the South Bay and Hermosa districts. In fact, the City has moved ahead with approving an ordinance authorizing the collection of this fee. A second option is to have the Hermosa district collect the fee for both districts, and a final option is to have one of the other districts within the South Bay service area collect the fees on behalf of all districts. Although discussions are still under way regarding this matter, it is recommended that the process that is ultimately established require clients to make only one stop. Revenues Available to the District the Developer Fee The City of Hermosa Beach provided the following information regarding development: (In sq. ft.) New Res. Res. Add. Commer. 1984 280,889 23,825 79,141 1985 279,985 21,290 153,614 1986 351,172 23,473 50,488 Total 912,046 68,588 283,243 Average 304,000 23,000 94,000 If development continues on at the current rate, the maximum fee levy will generate the following revenues: One Year: Residential $1.50 x 327,000 (304,000 + 23,000) or $490,500 Commercial $.25 x 94,000 or $23,000 Total for One Year Residential $490,500 Commercial 23,000 Total $513,500 Three Years: Residential 3 x $490,500 or $1,485,000 Commercial 3 x $23,000 or $69,000 4 Total for Three Years Residential $1,485,000 Commercial 69,000 Total $1,554,000 Caution should be exercised with these revenue projections. First, the figures are estimates based on the assumption that housing and commercial growth will continue at the same historical rate but may vary considerably from what actually occurs. Secondly, the commercial fee must be viewed as tentative at best because the wording of the code section requires that a direct impact be established between a particular commercial development and school housing needs. And lastly, the total fees collected need to be divided and shared with the South Bay district on some equitable basis. Projected Needs for Next Three Years A. Housing Needs The Hermosa district has had a history of declining enrollment which has produced excess classroom space. Therefore, the District does not need revenues fees for new classroom space. B. Major Remodeling and Rehabilitation The District has located all students at the Hermosa Valley School. With the sale of land, approximately $4,000,000 has been used to upgrade this site. To complete this effort, the following expenditures need to be made during the next three years: Exterior Rehabilitation Interior Rehabilitation Plumbing Rehabilitation Roofing Erosion Control Ceiling Tiles Furniture Replacement Auditorium Furniture Tables Lunch Benches Fencing $10,000 20,800 31,000 25,000 7,500 12,500 112,500 131,000 7,500 5,600 23,500 TOTAL $386,900 0 C. Other Rehabilitation Needs Past community decisions support the retention of three other school facilities even though they are not currently needed for school purposes. It is not good business to allow these facilities to deteriorate. It is estimated that during the next three years, the District needs to make the following expenditures: South Hermosa View North Exterior Rehab. $ 5,000 Interior Rehab. 9,000 Plumbing 4,000 Roofing 12,500 Heating Clock/Bell Sys. Asphalt Paving 12,000 Erosion Control 11,000 Fencing Turfing Sprinkler Sys. 31,000 Playground Equip. 1,500 Carpeting 16,000 $5,000 9,000 11,000 50,000 38,000 4,000 16,000 52,000 $6,500 10,400 10,000 38,000 25,000 2,500 9,000 18,000 11,000 15,000 1,500 52,000 TOTAL $97,000 $185,000 $198,900 The total for this category is $480,900. D. Equipment Replacement and Refurbishing There will be a need to replace capital equipment items such as computers, a -v items, and photocopy machines during the next three years. It is estimated that approximately $90,000 will be needed. E. Educational and Other Needs The District needs a green house facility to finalize its science program. This is estimated at $250,000. 5 6 Summary of Needs: A. Housing Needs B. Major Remodeling $386,900 C. Other Rehabilitation 480,900 D. Equipment Replacement 90,000 E. Educational/Other Needs 250,000 TOTAL $1,207,800 Conclusion With the District needing approximately $1,200,000 for facility purposes, it would appear that the District's share of the developer fee ($1,500,000 to be shared with the South Bay District) may not be sufficient to cover the anticipate need. Therefore, it is most appropriate for the District to take whatever action is necessary to secure the residential fee on all new development and the commercial/industrial fee when appropriate. • h l MANHAITAN 1\ D :�.. 190 InfliA .SOUT11 BAY UNION IIIGII FC'I1OOL DI.STQICT 6OUTH BAY UNION HIGH 6CIIOOL DIMICT 200 N. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY • REDONDO BEACH, CA 90277 • 213/379-5421 January 28, 1987 Greg Myers, City Manager Civic Center Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Greg: Enclosed for your information are the documents presented to our Board of Trustees regarding Developer Fees. Sincerely, Edqing Deputy Sueprintendent ak / January 22, 1987 TO: All Parents and Interested Citizens FROM: Walter Hale, Superintendent SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Levying of Developers' Fees Assembly Bill 2926 authorizes school districts to levy developers' fees to increase the financial status of school districts. The fees collected must be used only for new construction, rehabilitation or improvement of existing schools. It is the intent of this school district to utilize the potential fees for the rehabilitating and upgrading of all school sites. The district is working in conjunction with Hermosa Beach ► Manhattan Beach, and Redondo Beach City School Districts. The Board of Education has scheduled a'public hearing on the adoption of Resolution Number 16:86-87, in the matter of the imposition and collection of developer fees, for February 4, 1987, at 7:00 p.m. Citizens have the right to comment and ask questions related to the proposal at the public hearing. For a comprehensive understanding of the proposal, it is necessary to read the complete documents, copies of which are on file at each school and the district office. Citizens are invited and encouraged to express opinions at the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1987, 7:00 P.M. SOUTH BAY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 200 N. PACIFIC COASTAHIGHWAY REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NUMBER 16: 86-87 BEFORE THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SOUTH BAY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA IN THE MATTER OF THE ) IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION ). OF DEVELOPER FEES FINDINGS The Board of Trustees of the South Bay Union High School District hereby makes the following findings after conducting a noticed public hearing at a regular meeting of the Board on February 4, 1987: 1. The District has received approval of a project for the reconstruction of facilities by the State Allocations Board and is required to contribute towards the completion of the project an amount equal to the maximum fee the District may levy under the law upon the approval of the project to the date notice of completion is issued. 2. The California Legislature has passed and the Governor has signed legislation which will authorize school districts to levy a fee on all residential construction and all new industrial and commercial construction; •3. The legislation may limit the amount of any fee for school facilities to $1.50 per square foot of approved space and $.25 per square foot of new industrial or commercial covered or enclosed construction; 4. The district does not have sufficient funds in its general fund account to contribute its share of the project to the date notice of completion is issued; 5. The district finds that school facilities have not been reconstructed in time to meet immediate needs. The results are facilities are inadequate and the education of all students has suffered; 6. If the implementation of this resolution is delayed, the district will receive leas revenue than that projected for its • requirements. 7. The District will establish a fee split_with each of the three elementary districts within the high school district boundaries in order not to exceed the maximum authorized by law. 8. The District will authorize the Cities of Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, and Hanhatten Beach to collect said Developer Fees in accordance with existing State laws; Page 14-L BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Superintendent give notice to Los Angeles County and the Cities of Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach of this Board's action by serving a copy of this Resolution on those agencies and requesting that no building permits be issued on or after April 6, 1987, without certification from the District that the fees specified herein have been paid. This Resolution is adopted this 4th day of February 1987 by the following vote: AYES 5 NAYS 0 ABSENT Page 14-m NEED AND JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT The South Bay Union High School District has a critfcial need for reconstruction of school facilities. The major construction of the Mira Costa High School was completed between 1950 and 1954 and the major construction on the science and the manual arts facilities at Redondo Union High School were completed in 1938. Other major facilities were completed between 1955 and 1957. The total square footage to be considered for refurbishing is 297,598. The High School District is currently participating in a Leroy Greene Reconstruction Project and has received State approval for Phase I. The District is required to provide a local match during the construction phase. This match can be funded by local district funding sources or by levying a Developer Fee as provided by AB 2926. The District continues to experience reductions in funding sources due to the reduction in student population and the curtailment of State funding sources. The District has had to defer maintenance projects since the implementation of Proposition 13 in the 1978 school year and has been further impacted due to the accumulated ages of the facilities. Future District Buildings/Grounds/Site Improvement Needs Science Facilities *3.500,000 Physical Education Facilities -Pool 2,850,000 Refurbishing Buildings -Paint 380,000 Refurbishing Buildings -Intercom systems 175,000 Refurbishing Buildings -Electrical 325,000 Refurbishing Buildings-Elect.Fixtures 200,000 Refurbishing Buildings -Plumbing 300,000 Refurbishing Buildings -Boilers 120,000 Refurbishing Buildings -Structure 125,000 Refurbishing P.E.-Fields-Bleachers 350,00", Refurbishing Buildings -Roofs 120 4,0: Refurbishing Buildings -carpet '..O,x f) f, `Refurbishing Buildings-P.E.-Gym h'=' Refurbishing Asphat P.E. Stations ,000 Refurbishing Doors/Windows 10063"10 Refurbishing Wood Fioorr2 225,000 Refurbishing Ceilings 175,000 Re urbi a r. n r Systems 150,000 Rei`'I:: °'+ i iug Parking lots,? 250,,000 *10,145,000 All construction to eom i ted in 5 years. Priority 1 2 3 4 4 4 5 4 4 December 1986 Review law TIMELINE FOR DEVELOPER FEES January 1987 - Meet with 3 cities and 3 school dist. on MOU and Collecting fees - Develop Board package - Board presentation February • 1987 - Finalize MOU and City agree- ments - Bd vote on Resolution - Notify State/County Cities/Elementary March 1987 -SAB present- ation -Finalize D.F. State reports Page 14-j April 1987 -Fees go into effect on 6th SUMMARY OF Residential Redondo Manhattan Hermosa Total Commercial Redondo Manhattan Hermosa Total SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THREE CITIES 1984 1985 1986 858,283 795,68 1,123,365 585,034 265,476 658,728 304,714 309,275 374,645 1,748,031 1,370,379 2,156,738 809,668 750,017 69,295 127,575 79,141 153,614 958,104 1,031,206 Square Footage Summary 1986 Redondo V/I Res Manhattan Conan 88,854 95,841 50,488 235,183 Hermosa i Hp ,,,, CITY OF CIVIC CENTER HERMOSA 3EFKXI �\r/\ BEACH - CALIFORNIA 90254 CITY HALL: (213) 376.6984 POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS: 3 7 6. 7 9 8 1 January 22, 1987 Dr. Edward King 200 N. Pacific Coast Highway Redondo Beach, California 90277 RE: 3 year development history Dear Dr. King: The following information constitutes a development history of Hermosa Beach for the previous three calendar years as we dis- cussed by telephone. I am also including information regarding development fees which are currently charged by the city. Calendar Year 1984 1) New residential dwelling construction issued resulting in 140 new dwelling units with53 a totalts floore area of 280,889 square feet. 2) Residential additions - 26 permits were issued result- ing in additional floor area of 23,825 square feet. 3) New commercial construction - 6 permits were issued resulting in total floor area of 79,141 square feet. Calendar Year 1985 1) New residential dwelling construction - 105 permits were issued resulting in 149 new dwelling units with a total floor area of 279,985 square feet. 2) Residential additions - 28 permits were issued result- ing in additional floor area of 21,290 square feet. resulting New incommercial floorarea construction - 9 permits were issued of 153,614 square feet. Calendar Year 1986 1) New residential dwelling construction - 118 permits were issued resulting in 223 new dwelling units with a total floor areaof 351,172 square feet. 2) Residential additions - 22 permits were issued result- ing in additional floor area of 23,473 square feet. 3) New commercial construction - 5 permits were issued resulting in total floor area of 50,488 square feet. Development Fees The amount of development fees charged to a project is depen- dent on the type of project and the valuation of the project. As an example a 2000 sq. ft. single family dwelling with two full bathrooms would be charged fees as follows: Building Permit $1100 Plan Check 715 Parks & Rec. Tax 3500 Electric Permit 150 Plumbing Permit 85 Mechanical Permit 35 Sewer Use Tax 100 L.A. Co. San. Dist. Fee 675 TOTAL $6360 If the project involves a discretionary action, such as a sub- division, the development fees could be as much as $1000 more. I am including, with this letter, information which may be used to determine development fees for larger projects. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter feel free to contact me at 376-6984 ext. 236. William Grove, Director Department of Building & Safety City of Hermosa Beach January 26, 1987 PHONE: 545-5621 CITY HALL - 1400 HIGHLAND AVENUE - MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIFORNIA - 90266 Dr. Edward King, Deputy Superintendent South Bay Union High School District 200 North Pacific Coast Highway Redondo Beach, California 90277 Re: Building Permit Information Dear Dr. King: Pursuant to your request, the City reviewed its building permit records to calculate new square footage, for both residential and commercial construction over the years 1984 through 1986. Given the time constraints needed to provide the data, the accuracy of the numbers is based on our general permit information and best professional estimate as to the total habitable square footage exclusive of garage and other non floor area uses. Additional time is necessary to provide more precise information. Should you have any additional questions or need further clarification, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. TSW:SAL:md State of California - State Allocation Board State School Building Lease -Purchase Program Estimation of District Match Contribution School District South Bay Union High School District County Los Angeles Part 1 - Residential Calendar Year 1984 1985 1986 TOTAL No. of Permits 550 369 591 Habitable Sa. Footage 585.f'^ 16S,47T- 658,720 1,510 1,509,238 Annual Estimated Average Residential Fee: 51.50 Unified 2,263,857 Total Square Footage 1,509,238 X (a)Other - 3 0 754,619 X 90% - 679,157 (a•)Prorate by agreement or enrollment. Part II - Commercial or -Industrial Calendar Year 1984 1985 1986 TOTAL No. of Permits Covered or Enclosed Sq. Footage 91 669,295 129 143 111,/b 363 887,741 Annual Estimated Average Commercial/Industrial Fee: 50.25 Unified 221,935 Total Square Footage 887,741 X (a)Other 3 : 73,978 X 20% . 14,796 (a)Prorate by agreement or enrollment. r- SUMMARY OF RECENT RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN REDONDO BEACH (By year permit was issued) New Residential Construction Building permit records contain data on the number of units authorized each year and the total valuation of new construction. Summary records of the total residential square footage permitted each year are not now kept. In order to obtain an estimate of the habitable square footage permitted each year, staff performed the following analysis. By experience, staff knew that virtually all new residential construction consists of residential units between 2,000-2,400 square feet in size, each with a typical 400 square foot garage. Knowing that habitable areas are figured for construction valuation at $47.50 per square foot and garage areas at $14.50 per square foot, it becomes possible to figure the ratio of habitable square footage within the annual total valuation. 2,000 sq. ft residence X $47.50 sq. ft. = $95,000 Habitable 400 sq. ft garage X $14.50 sq. ft. - 5,800 Non -habitable $100,800 Total Valuation $ 95,000 100,800 =.94.2% of valuation for habitable square footage. 2,400 sq. ft. residence X $47.50 sq. ft =$114,000 Habitable 400 sq. ft. garage X $14.50 sq. ft. = 5,800 Non -habitable $114,000 $119,800 Total Valuation 119,800 = 95.2% of valuation for habitable square footage. These calculations indicate that between 94-95% of typical construction valuation can be assigned to habitable square footage. Staff then multiplied these percentages by total annual valuation and divided by $47.50 to determine total habitable square footage contributed by new residential construction each. year. As a crosscheck, total square footage was divided by number of permitted un' is to determine average unit size which remained consistent. TABLE 1 New Residential Construction # of Total Habitable Average Year New Units Square Footage Unit Size 1984 402 776,134 S.F. 1931 S.F. 1985 553 719,722 S.F. 2039 S.F. 1986 512 1048,017 S.F. 2047 S.F. 3 Year Average 422 847,958 S.F. 2009 S.F. TABLE 21 Residential Additions # of Residential Total Habitable Average Year Additions Square Footage Addition Size 1984 215 82,149 S.F. 382 S.F. 1985 257 75,900 S.F. 295 S.F. 1986 250 75,347 S.F. 301 S.F. 3 Year Average 241 77,798 S.F. 323 S.F. 1Same method for calculating habitable square footage as was used in Table 1. New Commercial and Industrial Construction Since the valuation of commercial and industrial construction is based on the building type and is, therefore not uniform, staff had to assemble the actual data from building permit records. TABLE 3 New Commercial Construction (including additions) # of New Buildings Building Year or Additions Sq. Footage 1984 8 797,528 (1) 1985 7 508,462 (2) 1986 8 88,854 3 Year Average 8 464,570 (3) -2- • 1Includes South Bay Galleria (508,000 S.F.) 2Includes 353 room Sheraton Hotel (482,000 S.F.) 3Without these two major projects, typical 3 year average would be 135,615 square feet. TABLE 4 New Industrial Construction # of New Buildings Building Year or Additions Square Footage 1984 1 3,140 S.F. • 1985 3 241,555 S.F. (1) 1986 0 0 S.F. 3 Year Average 1.3 81,565 S.F. (2) 1Consists solely of three new industrial buildings on the Aviation High School site. 2New industrial development will be sporadic over the next decade with approximately 600,000 square feet planned for T.R.W. but little else. CURRENT BUILDING PERMIT FEES (Data collected from individual city offices) Hernrsa Beach (Sample single family dwelling, 2,000 Permits based cn valuation determined Building Permit Fee Plan Check Fee Sewer Fee Mechanical Fee Plumbing Fee Electrical Fee Parks and Recreation Fee square feet) by square footage. $1100 715 100 - City 675 - County 35 85 150 $2860 3500 per dwelling $6360 Manhattan Beach (Sample single family dwelling, 3200 square feet, $200,000) Fees based on valuation determined at $59.10 per square far living quarters, $15 per square foot for garage. Plan Check Fee Building permit Fee New unit Fee Miscellaneous Fees Electrical Fee Plumbing Fee Mechanical (HVAC) Fee Demolishing Fee Sewer Fee Water Fee $ 980 980 700 30 75 70 25 38 217 .• 400 $3515 a A • Redondo Beach Fees based an 1 1/2 percent of valuation determined at $47.50 per square foot. (Sanple 2,000 square foot single family dwelling) Plan check Fee ) Building Permit Fee) $1425 SMI (Earthquake) .007$ of valuation 7 Sewer Fee 50 Parrs & Recreaticn Fee 400 $1882 / Room 2054 STATE CAPITOL SACRAMENTO 95814 (9161 4456447 161 1 So. PACIFIC COAST Hwy. REDONDO BEACH 90277 (213) 540-1611 638 SOUTH BEACON STREET ROOM 508 SAN PEDRO 90731 (21 3) 548-0651 Cr, MltfCTYYTTa t?SfE CliiCtE ROBERT G. BEVERLY SENATOR TWENTY-NINTH DISTRICT January 15, 1987 Mr. Barbara Ryan c/o Assemblyman Larry Sterling 7777 Alvarado Road #377 La Mesa, California 92041 Dear Ms. Ryan: COMMI I TEES: APPROPRIATIONS, VICE CHAIRMAN BANKING AND COMMERCE GOVFRNMF.N I AI ORGANIZATION TRANSPOR TA NON JOINT COMMITTEES: FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE LEGISLATIVE AUDIT LEGISLATIVE BUDGET REVISION OF THE PENAL. CODE I have been advised by your Capitol Office that you will be working on the developer fee clean-up legislation that will be introduced during this session. Our office has been contacted by Ms. Sue Haller with the City of Redondo Beach and Mr. Greg Meyer, the City Manager of the City of Hermosa Beach advising us of the concern of local city officials regarding the application of developer fees on low cost senior citizen housing projects. The City of Redondo Beach has approved 100+ units of low cost housing on a surplus school site (McCandless School) and the City of Hermosa Beach, in conjunction with the South Bay Hospital District, is studying the possibility of developing low cost senior housing on surplus Hospital District property. Both government agencies are expressing hope that the clean- up bill will address an exemption for this kind of public agency development even if the project is developed by a non-profit organization. We have enclosed an opinion prepared for a local school district that points out (page 32) that this kind of project would appear to be subject to the fees under existing law. Your assistance in reviewing this matter is appreciated. TRM:nbb Enclosure bcc: Ms. Sue Haller Mr. Greg •Meyer✓ Sincerely, THOMAS R. MARTIN SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION • LEGISLATIVE AdDRESS STATE c-fP1TOL ROOM 2206 SACRAMENTO. CA 95614 PHONE: (91 6) 3239221 ATSS 473.9221 Talifn rnia 7Ersielature *nate "-{ publican iscttl Consultants COMMITTEES ON APPROPRIATIONS AND BUDGET AND FISCAL REVIEW Date: January 6, 1987 To: Members, Senate Republican Caucus From: Glee Johnson, Minority Consultants Subject: CONSULTANTS L.E. (LEE) BENNETT PRINCIPAL CONSULTANT GLEE JOHNSON CURTIS M MILLER STEVEN A OLSEN McGREGOR W. SCOTT JOAN KITCHENS SECRETARY RECEIVED JAN 71987 CAPITOL OFFICE Complaints About School Districts Levying Developer Fees I have recently received several calls regarding developer complaints about school districts levying developer fees in accordance with the provisions of AB 2926 (Stirling), which was part of the omnibus school facilities package signed into law at the end of the 1985-86 session. While it was anticipated that complaints would occur, my concern is about a particular complaint that is surfacing, and in fact, was the subject of an article in yesterday's Los Angeles Times. Specifically, the article alleged/implied that school districts with declining or stable enrollments were levying fees without regard to need (i.e. growth in enrollments), and were using those funds for ongoing costs such as maintenance. I do not know if the particular instances cited in the article -are accurate, but if they are, such school districts are out of compliance with both the spirit and the letter of the law. The legislation specifically limits funding to new construction and reconstruction, and in no event is it acceptable for districts to be levying developer fees if they have no need to house an increasing number of students. Many developers are (understandably) upset about school districts having been given the authority to levy fees, but it is going to be difficult enough to negotiate problems in cleanup r' legislation without examples of alleged abuse of the existing law such as appeared in the Times. For your convenience, I have attached a copy of the Times article as well as an overview of the school facilities legislation which was prepared by the School Boards Association. If you have questions about this issue, please feel free to call me. Ay- • yKti}+ ; " : .:':^'Sx",7'•"r:i�'.i,�ti•+ s�ti.,..:d rkib:F,`¢!.�' 1i 'kht SCHOOLS: Fees for Construction Continued from Page 3 but when budget cuts have come down, maintenance money is the • .first thing that goes_" • • What is clear so far is that the law is proving popular with educa- tes'. Although no tally is yet available on how many school districts in California have taken advantage of the law by imposing fees, "there's a good likelihood" that virtually all school districts ultimately will adopt them, a lob- • byist for the California School _ Boards Assn. said Under the new law, a ,school -. district for the first time can direct- ly impose building fees. In the past, districts had to get permission from either a city council or a county board of supervisors. • • The Legislature's action in granting direct fee -assessing pow- er to school districts was a "dra- matic shift in authority," the school board association noted in a recent ,newsletter. -. . • 4, , "School districts who have been unable to convince their cities and counties to levy development fees " are pleased that the legislation gives them direct authority to levy • • these fees," the newsletter added. Erskine, of the Orange County builders group, said that he and various city officials tried—unsuc- • cessfully—to talk several school boards out of imposing the building • fees. - "And where the school boards have acted, they've usually voted the entire amount," Erskine said. "The $1.50 per square foot on • residential construction was sup- posed to be the ceiling, but you ]cnow how these things work—the ceiling becomes the floor." . _ • . • Law L :Vague ° - '.::. • In communities that have sepa- rate elementary and high school districts, the law is vague about whether the overlapping districts can each impose the maximum fee on residential and commercial de- velopment, The California School Boards Assn.'s recent newsletter said: "It is not clear ... that anything in the legislation restricts 'both school districts from levying the maximum fee." But the associa- tion warned school districts that it would be wiser to seek a split of the fees because "the Legislature in - vied tended that the 51.50 and 8.25 per square foot cap be split between elementary and high school dis- IDevelopers, who promoted an early version of the bill but then weren't happy with the outcome, already have launched a move to get the law modified Bills to lower the amount of fees that school districts can impose or to repeal the fee -imposing power altogether are being prepared by .Sacramento critics of the law, said . Karen Steentofte, senior legislative advocate for the California School Boards Assn. She said the associa- tion -would "fight tooth and nail" to oppose such moves in the current legislative session. - . • "We already think the cap on the fees is too low as it is," she said. Despite the complaints else- where, the fees were adopted in tos Angeles County last month with no opposition. `' • �+! - BM Rivera, a spokesman for the Los Angeles district, said that sys-. tem—the largest in the state— ,.passed the fees on Dec. 15 without protest from builders or any other ove School i istricts itegin Levying Fees in New Homes, r, evelo meat 1 In a move that has angered the building industry, many California • school districts are taking advan- tage of a new state law that allows • them to impose fees on new houses ;.and new commercial development. Districts throughout the state, including the Los Angeles Unified School District, started moving in December to enact the fees, mak- ing them effective at the beginning - of the new year, a spokesman .for the California Building Industry Assn. said in Sacramento. Buyers of new homes will find the fees passed on in the prices they pay. The fees also apply to habitable additions to existing homes. Non -habitable additions, such as garages, are not subject to ;.fie fees. • The new law allows districts to ;Lassess up to $1.50 a square foot on newly built or newly remodeled ,residences and up to 25 cents a square foot on commercial devel- opment. The fee thus could be $4,500 for a 3,000 -square -foot home, and $450 ;,for a 300 -square -foot addition. Money from the fees can be used By BILL BILLITER, Times Staff Writer f s E7 by districts for new schools or for renovating existing ones. Although the law does not limit districts that can impose the fees, some building industry officials claim that the intent of the legislation was to help districts facing major growth. Instead, builders have com- plained, the fees are being imposed by almost all school districts, re- gardless of their need The law "is being abused be- cause fees are being imposed by school districts that have stable or declining enrollment," said John Erskine, executive director of the Orange County chapter of the Cali- fornia Building Industry Assn. • Not so, say school officials, who insist that the law was not intended just for growth areas. "What some of the builders are forgetting is that .many districts like ours have schools that are 25 to 30 years old and are in bad need of repair," said Cheryl •Norton, com- munications coordinator for the Fountain Valley School District. "The state for years has known that we need maintenance money, Please see SCHOOLS, Page 14 California School Boards Association SPECIAL SCHOOL FACILITIES EDITION December 1986 "What is the new school facilities legislation and what does it mean for my district?" Confused would be an understandable response to this question. These questions are getting many answers at hastily convened workshops, in newsletters, and by speakers with marginal involvement in the legislative arena. This special CSBA News is not intended to be a comprehensive review of the new law. Rather, these articles are intended to provide answers to the most commonly asked questions — local match and developer fees. A brief overview of the State process is also included — more comprehensive information will be available from the State Allocation Board. Finally, for districts searching for alternatives to developer fees, you may be interested in the Mello -Roos article. The new law has not changed this funding option available to school boards. After an unrelenting campaign to raise the public and Legislature's comprehension of the $4 billion problem, and the 450,000 enrollment increase projected for 1990 — a "solution" was handed down when the Governor signed the 1986 school facilities legislation — AB 2926, SB 2068, SB 3470, and SB 327. But is it really a solution? For many districts, undoubtedly the answer is yes! Overcrowded districts who never qualified for the State Building Program are now relieved to discover they now qualify for state funding. School districts who have been unable to convince their cities and counties to levy development fees are pleased that the legislation gives them direct authority to levy these fees. Planners struggling with the limited space allowed by the state are encouraged by the 7% increase in square footage. However, these newly obtained benefits have not come without a cost. A $1.50/sf limit on the level of residential development fee, a local funding match required for participation in the state program — these provisions are not so pleasant. But they are a reality of the legislative process of compromise. The Governor required local participation for his support of the package. Developers would only agree to a continuation of school 4.10S IE71•:II �: - r� fees on development if limitations were placed on them. The result — the 1986 School Facilities Legislative package was a carefully balanced set of provisions. What is the local match? How does a board levy developer fees? What other funding options do we have? There are no exact answers. This special CSBA News attmepts to point the direction of the answers. Boards should be very cautios, work closely with their own legal counsel as well as the cities, counties and developers. o The State Process — Building A School In Phases The best source for information on the state process is the State Allocation Board (SAB). Application forms and assistance in preparing them may be obtained from the State Allocation Board in Sacramento at the following address: Executive Officer, State Allocation Board 1025 P Street, Room 112 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone inquiries should be directed as follows: Phone: Los Angeles (213) 620-4344 or Sacramento (916) 445-2704 for counties of Inyo, Kern, Mono, San Luis Obispo, and all areas south of those counties. Phone: Sacramento (916) 323-8365 for all other counties, except those mentioned above. But, before you immerse yourself in the jargon and bureaucracy of the state building program, an intro- duction to the terminology and overview of the process may help. Building a school with state funding is primarily a three phase process. However, a district does not enter the first phase until a lengthy preliminary stage in which the district's eligibility for state funding is calculated. Depend- ing on a district's projected enrollment, existing area, and teacher loading standards a district may or may not be able to enter Phase I of the state process. Overview Of State Process Phase I (average 70 days) • engineering studies • environmental impact report • appraisals Phase 2 (average 160 days) • site acquisition • preliminary design • working diagrams Phase 3 (400+ days) • construction The SAB prepares an Applicant Handbook, available at no charge from the above address. This is an invaluable guide which should be used extensively by district staff. Some other techniques for expediting building with the state program include: • designate one staff member as the district's represen- tative and project manager • as a board, stay informed on all aspects of the project, know where the project is in the process at all times • file a complete application at one time — not in pieces IMPORTANT NOTE If your district already qualifies for State Building Aid under the old law, and if you want to avoid the local match requirement, and you do not want the additional square footage provided under the new law then your district should submit a completed application to the Office of Local Assistance BEFORE December 5, 1986. The new law will give these applications priority over any subsequent applications. • establish rapport with state agencies involved in reviewing your project — Office of Local Assistance (OLA), Office of the State Architect (OSA), and the State Department of Education (SDE) • budget district funds to manage the project • the project manager should attend all monthly meetings of the SAB It is important to remember that the district is the prime mover of a project. The SAB staff is often overworked and, outside of their motivation to do a good job, have no special motivation to solve your problems and see your school built. As a board, you should understand the process and be sure that the proper resources and staff are budgeted so that the district can be "the prime mover." It's your school! Credits President: President -Elect: Vice President: Past President Executive Director. Editors: Production: Joe Duardo Dianne Jacob Mary Anne Houx Kay Albiani Herb Salinger Catherine Davis Karen Steentofte Kathy Schmitt Trish Henley Melinda Porter Interpreting The New Law On Developer Fees by Karen Steentofte, CSBA Legislative Advocate One of the most dramatic changes created by the 1986 facilities legislation is the granting of authority to school governing boards to levy developer fees. This shift from cities and counties levying such fees to the school boards exhibits an understanding on the part of the State Legislature that those responsible for resolving the problem should have the tools to do so. Such a dramatic shift in authority, however, came with restrictions. The Cap On Developer Fees The most major and obvious constraint is the "capping" of the fee at $1.50 per square foot on residential property and $.25 per square foot on commercial. The $1.50 works out to be roughly $2,000 per unit on the average sized single family unit which was 1,350 square feet in 1985. The fee can be levied on single family residences, apartments, mobile homes, etc.; both new construction and remodeling, so long as the remodeling increases the habitable space. The $1.50 and $.25 per square foot caps are increased annually for inflation based on an index specified in Government Code Section 65995(b)(3). Don't forget to include this automatic annual adjustment in any fee your board levies. There remains confusion over what type of square footage can be assessed. Government Code Section 65995 states that the applicable square footage includes any "covered or enclosed space." Some people however have read Government Code Section 53080 to limit assessable space to only habitable areas and thus try to exclude garages, closets and even bathrooms. CSBA staff believes that the Legislature's reference to habitable space was not intended to limit the fee on new construction, but rather to ensure that any fee on a remodeled residence would only apply if the remodeling increased habitable space and thus arguably increased the capacity of the residence to house additional people. It is likely that further darification of this issue will occur in followup legislation in 1987. The facilities legislation left the SB 201 process for levying developer fees for temporary facilities in place. Those fees would still be levied by the city or county. However, the SB 201 fee combined with the fee levied by the school board cannot exceed the capped amount. It is additionally important because any amount collected for temporary facilities under SB 201 is not counted as part of the local match (see page 6). There is a possibility that SB 201 fees will also be shifted to school boards—another issue for next year's legislature. School boards should continue to work with their cities and counties to coordinate the 5B 201 fees, and now also to coordinate the collection of the school board levied fee. Government Code Section 53080 (Chpt. 888, Statutes of 1987) states that "no city or county may issue a building permit for any development absent certification by the school district of compliance by that development project with any fee." This language allows either the school district to collect the fee and certify to the city that it has been paid, or the city at the school district's behest to collect the fee for the school district. Given that the school district will receive the money more quickly collecting the fee directly and undoubtedly the city will want a handling fee for collecting the fee, it probably makes more sense for the school district to collect the fee. However, you do have the option of negotiating another arrangement with ,your city or county if you so desire. You should also work with your city, county and local developers to establish the least bureaucratic means of administering the fee. Such planning will be appreciated by all, and probably buy you some goodwill. If your district does not intend to levy a fee, remember to notify the city/county of this fact so that builders in your district do not have to go through a lot of hoops for no reason. Another piece of legislation, AB 3314 (Leonard), seems to have some people confused as to what point in time the fee is collected. AB 3314 (Chpt. 685, Statutes of 1986) prohibits the collection of fees until the date of final inspection or the date the certificate of occupancy is issued unless certain criteria are met. The criteria are essentially that the facility to be built by the fee (1) has an account establised and funds appropriated and (2) an adopted proposed construction schedule or plan prior to final inspection or issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The fee could also be collected earlier if the money is to be used to reimburse the school district for funds already expended. In October, Assemblymember Leonard stated at an interim hearing that he believed the above criteria would allow school districts to collect the fee at the building permit stage. He therefore did not sed any conflict with AB 3314and AB 2926 which specifically states that the fee be collected no later than at the time the building permit is issued. The Fee Split The Legislature intended that the $1.50 and $.25 per square foot cap be split between elementary and high school districts serving the new development. It is not clear, however, that anything in the legislation restricts both school districts from levying the maximum fee. If you are a high school or elementary district, your board should seek legal counsel's advice and proceed cautiously before levying the maximum fee. Your action might very well preclude the other district from levying any fee at all. Given that legislative intent was to require splitting of the fee, it is almost assured that any trailer legislation will clarify and provide some procedure for splitting the fee. (cont'd on next page) Interpreting (cont'd from page 3) One possible procedure that appears to provide maximum flexibility at the local level would be to require overlapping elementary and high school districts to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding to distribute the fee. If no agreement could be reached, then the statute would specify that the split would be between the two districts. If your district is building under the State School Building Aid Program, the money you can collect under the fee lowers your State apportionment (see page 6). Your local match, however, is reduced by the amount that another school district within your boundaries is already levying for the fee. Given the above, if the other school district is not building under the State program it makes more sense for that district to levy the fee. The other district then has the funds to meet their construction needs and your district is made whole through the State program. Of course such a split would not be justified unless the non -State program district had construction needs to justify expenditure of the maximum fee. At any rate the high school district and the elementary school district should talk with each other about their facilities needs to arrive at a just disposal of the fee. Such districts should enter into a Memorandum of Understand- ing delineating their agreement. Fees vs. Taxes In order to be a fee and not a tax, a fee on new construction must not exceed the reasonable cost of the service provided. If the fee exceeds the cost of the benefit, it is a tax and requires a two-thirds vote. 513 1454, (B. Greene), which was signed into law this year as Chapter 1203, Statutes of 1986, reiterates this point by stating that "development fees or exactions shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service or facility for which the fee or exaction is imposed." In assessing a fee, your board should therefore be careful to include findings and substantiating evidence that the fee does not exceed the reasonable cost of the benefit derived, i.e. the school facilities. Government Code Section 65995(b)(2) (Ch. 887, Statutes of 1986) additionally specifies that the governing board make findings that the fee on commercial or industrial development bear a reasonable relationship and be limited to the needs of the community for school facilities and shall be reasonably related and limited to the need for schools caused by the development. Establishing The Fee The 1986 facilities legislation is essentially silent with regard to the procedure in establishing the fee. This is probably beneficial because it allows to stand existing procedures that cities and counties have employed in establishing fees. As these procedures have been tested by time ... and the courts ... they provide a sound basis for school boards to levy the fee, and may save the boards the cost of legal fights over procedure. Remember: (1) Even if you do not need developer fees to meet the How To Implern By John Drummond, Lal In order to implement a new School Developer Fee Program, the school districts must do the following: A. Prepare A School Developer Fee Plan. A School Developer Fee Plan should set forth information showing a factual relationship between a school district's proposed local school fee, the facilities required by the district, the cost of the facilities, and revenue sources as follows: (1) The anticipated amount of fees based on new residential, commercial, and industrial develop- ment expected to occur in the district. (2) Other funds available for school facilities construc- tion, including general fund moneys which the district may desire to be used for school facilities. (3) The cost of all new school facilities which the school plans to build and the estimated cost of planning, land acquisition, and construction of these facilities. B. CEQA Requirements. In levying a fee, the California Environmental Quality Act must be met. Contact your attorney for procedure and documents necessary to comply. C. Hearings Hold the public hearings and adopt the resolutions required by Government Code § 65962 and 45992, as follows: (1) The school board must hold at least one public meeting, at which oral or written presentations can be made, as a part of a regularly scheduled meeting. Ample public notice of the hearing must be given. (2) Notices ot the time and place ot the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered, and a statement that the data required by this section is available, must also be mailed at least 14 days prior to the meeting to any interested party who files a written request with the local agency for mailed notices of the meeting on new or increased fees or service charges. (3) At least ten days prior to the meeting, the local • agency shall make available to the public data indicating the amount of cost, or estimated cost, required to provide the services for which the fee local match requirement, your board might want to begin levying the fee in order to have funds available to meet other construction needs such as exceeding . the state standards by standards up to 10%. In recognition that the state square footage allowance is a minimum, the facilities legislation allows school districts to exceed state standards by 10% without penalty on the next state funded project. Developer Fees collected prior to the match period (Phase I .• .. ......tt • ♦ye.. ^oYa....+'b^.. as. -i.. _ r ,rv. ...ti. .4. .. h. .+a ... F.w....h,... 4. oil M..yaawr. .......s.—...e.;. ,. .,,n.r. Yl -p r+. ... w..._♦ . it The New Fee aunty Schools Attorney or service charge is levied and the revenue sources anticipated to provide the service, including general fund revenues. (4) The new fee may not exceed the estimated amount required to provide the service for which the fee is levied (unless the voters approve a larger fee). (5) Action must be taken by resolution. (6) Unless the board adopts an urgency ordinance under Government Code § 65962, the action shall become effective no sooner than 60 days following the final action on the adoption of the fee. (7) "No fee, charge, dedication, or other form of the requirement may be levied by any school district governing board upon any commerical or indus- trial development unless and until the governing board has first made the finding that the location and amount of the land is to be dedicated or the amount of fees to be paid, or both, shall bear a reasonable relationship and be limited to the need of the community for elementary or high school facilities and shall be reasonably related and limited to the needs for schools caused by the development." [Government Code § 65995(b)(2)] D. Resolutions and Documents Please contact your attorney for implementing resolutions and documents. When Should The School Board Take Action? One thing is clear, if the the school district wishes to adopt a mitigation program, it should begin preparation of its school developer fee plan immediately. There are various technical legal considerations regarding the exact timing of implementing the new School Developer Fee Program. Your Attorney should be able to advise your district regarding the options according to the particular facts and circumstances relating to the district. Who Is Exempted From The New School Developer Fees? Any development project for which a final map was approved and constructionhad commenced on or before September 1, 1986, is subject only to the fee, charge, dedication, br other form of requirement prescribed in any local ordinance in existance on that date and applicable to the project. approval to completion of project) could be used for this purpose. (2) Existing contracts for fees between developers and cities, counties, and/or school districts were grand- fathered in by the facilities legislation. Therefore, if your district or your city has a contract with a developer that exceeds the capped amount, your district should continue to receive those funds throughout the term of that contract. Facilities Legislation What's Next? In February of 1986, the California School Boards Association's sponsored legislation to address the school facilities crisis which was introduced by Assemblymember Stirling. That measure incorporated changes the educa- tional community desired in order to solve the crisis. Unfortunately, there were others, including developers, realtors, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Governor who had some different ideas about resolving the crisis. The result was that the 1986 School Facilities package is a compromise measure. There are parts which are very good for schools and others which are just okay. Besides being a compromise, the final package was drafted in just a couple of days, some parts in a matter of hours. As a result, not all the pieces fit smoothly together. There are some questions left unanswered. The inconsis- tencies and unanswered questions make the legislation quite complicated. School boards would therefore be wise to proceed cautiously and to obtain the assistance of outside consultants conversant with land use, developer fees, and all aspects of the State School Building Aid Program. CSBA will probably be sponsoring a technical clean- up bill next year in order to answer some of the unanswered questions. We would therefore appreciate knowing what problems or inconsistencies your district has uncovered and what solutions your district would suggest. In this trailer bill, we will essentially be limited to technical changes rather than program changes. For Lxample, the trailer bill cannot attempt to increase the square footage allowance or increase enrollment pro- jection periods. Those issues were decided in 1986 and therefore only technical corrections can be realistically attempted in 1987. Please send all comments regarding necessary tech- nical changes to: Karen Steentofte, Senior Legislative Advocate, California School Boards Association, 916 - 23rd Street, Sacramento, California 95816, by December 15, 1986. Remember, we can't try to fix it if we don't know . about it. Only you who are implementing the new law can truly determine what needs to be corrected. Information needed for trailer bill: • Does your SB 201 fee exceed the capped amount of the school board levied developer fee? • Does your SB 201 fee provide an income stream to finance the purchase of portables? If so, does your SB 201 fee exceed the capped amount of the school board levied developer fee? If yes to either, please write: • Karen Steentofte California School Boards Association 916 - 23rd Street, Sacramento CA 95816 . v• -•:•••••••T . , ..+w.n..r s..r...+..n..,..,,CS.Jr, • P. S7 _ ..'.'%_+.1. . ••..a'i'r:. 5 r_ Local Match — How Much Does The District Pay? Instead of requiring a percentage local match, the 1986 facilities legislation bases the local match on a school district's ability to pay as determined by what could be raised from developer fees within a specified time period. A school district's state funding for school construction and rehabilitation will be lowered by the amount the district would have raised if it had levied the maximum developer fee on all new residential, commercial, and industrial construction for which building permits were issued between Phase I approval and the date upon which the notice of completion of the project is issued. The law allows two deductions from this maximum developer fee calculation; (1) any amount expended for the acquisition of interim classroom facilities and, (2) the amount that a district was precluded from collecting because another district having common territorial jurisdiction also col- lected a fee. Additionally, if a district has two or more simultaneous State projects, no additional match is required. The full match is calculated on the first project and no additional match is required over the life of the first project no matter how many other projects are added. Of course, the match requirement does not terminate until the notice of completion is issued on the last state funded project. The law is not especially clear on what costs of interim :classroom facilities are excluded from the local match -amount. Is it only SB 201? Does debt service on existing temporary facilities count? We expect this confusion will be resolved in the trailer bill. Any suggestions or comments on this issue should be sent in a letter to Karen Steentofte, CSBA, 916 - 23rd Street, Sacramento, CA 95816. While the match is required and is calculated on what could be levied by the developer fee, the law does not require a school district to actually levy the fee. If the school district has another source of funding, i.e., local bonds or Mello -Roos, the district may not have to levy a fee or perhaps could levy less of a fee. In fact, you may be able to elicit support from your developers for a Proposition 46 Bond Election or a Mello -Roos District if such funding sources could eliminate or diminish the need for a developer fee. Both the school district and the developer could be better off if the bond election or the Mello -Roos district raised more revenue than the developer fee. The developer would pay Tess and the school district would get more. For example, if 2,000 new houses with a total of 3 million square feet are built after the district enters Phase but before the new school is finished, the maximum fee allowed would be 54.5 million. However, assuming the district leased 16 portables to house pupils while waiting for the new school to be completed at a cost of $800,00 and could not levy the full 51.50 because the high school district was levying a $1.00 fee (53.0 million) on the same houses, then the local match would be 54.5 million - $800,000 - 53.0 million = 5700,000. Between Phase 1 And Completion Of The Project Maximum Fee Allowed ($1.50/sf X residential) ($0.25/sf X commercial) Amount Spent For Interim Facilities State Building Aid = Amount Collected By Coterminous School District Allowable Project Cost Local Match Required Local Match x, ....rc..F,.... ti, ...t•. wrx +. a.r�.-w:na,w., Mello -Roos Bonds — A Financing Alternative by Lori Raineri, Cranston Securities One of the advantages of Mello -Roos Community Fadlities District bond financing over more traditional assessment district financing is the variety of public facilities and services which qualify. School districts are able to use Mello -Roos bond financing for anything that school dsitricts are authorized to construct, own, or operate. • The Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 allows local governments, including school districts, to establish a Community Facilities District, which encom- passes an area to be served by proposed facilities or services. This Community Facilities District can issue bonds to finance public facilities or services, and repay the bonds by a special tax. The special tax levy must be approved by a vote of 2/3 of the eligible voters. However, if less than 12 registered voters reside within the proposed District, the vote shall be by the landowners, with each vote having one vote per acre. With Mello Roos bond financing, the cost of new school facilities and services is still passed on to the user of those facilities. However, there is a cost savings created by the amortization of the total cost of new school facilities and services over the life of those facilities, which would correspond to the term of the bond financing. Further- more, the bonds bring to the financing a below-market cost of funds, because the bonds are tax-exempt. A school district can borrow money at a lower interest rate, with tax-exempt bonds, than a developer can at his local bank. In the Coronoa-Norco Unified School District in Riverside County, developers were offered a choice between developer fees and participation in the Mello -Roos bond program, according to Bob Crank, Assistant Superin- tendent. For Corona -Norco, Mello -Roos financing served as an option which eased the relationship with developers. History of Mello -Roos Bond Financing Only three school districts in California are active in Mello -Roos bond finacing. The Mountain View School District in San Bernardino County was the first local government to complete a Mello -Roos bond issue, in 1983, to finance site acquisition and construction of a K-8 school facility, and also completed an issue in 1985 for improvements to an existing intermediate school, accord- ing to Superintendent Edward Peitz. The Corona -Norco Unified School District has completed two Mello -Roos bond issues, one in 1984 for K-12 school facilities, and one in 1986 for a high school. In addition, the Saddleback Valley Unified School District in Orange County is doing one Mello -Roos bond issue on its own, and one in conjunction with Orange County, to finance site acquisi- tion, construction and improvements to existing schools at the elementary, intermediate and high school levels, according to Ski Harrison, Assistant Superintendent. Forming A Community Facilities District A Community Facilities District may be established by either 1) A written request signed by two members of the governing legislative body; 2) a petition signed by not Tess than 10% of the registered voters residing within the proposed Community Facilities District; or 3) A petition signed by the owners of not less than 10% of the area. Within 40 days after one of these three actions, the legislative body will adopt a resolution of intention to establish a Community Facilities District. A public hearing must be scheduled not less than 30 nor more than 60 days after the adoption of the resolution of intention. The legislative body will direct its staff to report on the proposed facilities or services at or before the public hearing. If 50% or more of the registered voters residing within the proposed Community Facilities District file written protests, the proposed establishment will be adandoned. The legislative body may, at its discretion, after passing upon all protests, proceed with establishing the Com- munity Facilities District by adopting a resolution of formation. At least 90 days following, but not more than 180 days, the special tax levy will be submitted to the qualified electors of the proposed Community Facilities District. Structuring A Bond Issue It is important for school districts to tread carefully once the Community Facilities District is established and ready to issue bonds. The sturcturing of a bond issue is not a simple task, and involves a Targe cast of characters, including a bond underwriter, a bond counsel, and occasionally a financial advisor. A poorly structured bond issue could cost the newly formed Community Facilities District over a million dollars during a 25 or 30 year bond term. Conversely, a well structured, flexible bond issue can result in a tremendous savings with options to respond to changes in the Community Facilities tax base such as early repayment of the bonds and refundings. Debt service savings and special tax revenue increases to. the Community Fadlities District can allow for the financing of future school facilities and services in response to the future, and perhaps unforeseen, growth. It is important that the special tax levy, which is determined prior to the election, fit a bond structure as well as the community. Furthermore, many school districts have never done a bond issue and need to educate themselves about bond financing to avoid a poorly designed bond issue. (cont'd on next page) .Wel. ic.4. .M Isr..,y. •.•..to.'.. . .r c+mw. .. DAY 1 Forming A Community Facilities District WITHIN 40 DAYS 30-60 DAYS WITHIN 30 DAYS 90-180 DAYS WRITTEN REQUEST - Signed by two members of the Legislative Body PETITION - Signed by 10% of voters PETITION - Signed by landowners of 10% of the area LEGISLATIVE BODY adopts a resolution of intention to establish a Community Facilities District Mello -Roos (cont'd from page 7) LEGISLATIVE BODY conducts public hearings and reviews written protests Summary In sum, Mello -Roos bonds provide an effective, if complex, alternative method of financing public facilities and services. Because of the flexibility to have land- owners, who are often developers, approve Mello -Roos bond financings in sparsely populated areas, many developing communities will be using Mello -Roos bonds to finance new school facilities and services in tandem with new development, thereby avoiding the all -too common problem of school capacity being far behind the growth of the school population. In addition, in already CSBA News is distributed monthly to school board members and superintendents in CSBA mem- ber districts. Address inquiries to Editor, CSBA News, California School Boards Association, 916 23rd Street, Sacramento, CA 95816, (916) 443.4691. PROCEED with establishment. by adopting a resolution of formation ABANDON at discretion of legislative body ABANDON if 50% of voters or landowners protest ELECTION - Voters of landowners vote on levy of special taxes; requires two- thirds for approval overcrowded school districts, it may be very possible to win a Mello -Roos bond election because the vote is limited to those residing within the Community Facilities District, which can be a subsection of the school district, namely that subsection which is experiencing the growth making increased school facilities necessary. Therefore, the electors are those people who are experiencing the overcrowding, and who will benefit from new school facilities. Furthermore, the special tax levy can be structured to identify local political concerns. The Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 offers school districts the opportunity to control their own funding, and to work with their municipal governments to meet the needs of local development. is I1'5 California School Boards Association II VI 91623rd Street, Sacramento, California 95816 CSBA FIRST CLASS MAIL U.S. Postage PAID Sacramento, CA Permit No. 848 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH INTER -OFFICE MEMO TO: Gregory T. Meyer, City Manager DATE: 1/21/87 RE: School impact fee info. FROM: William Grove, Director Dept. of Bldg. & Safety I have provided the South Bay Union High School District with the following information as you requested: Calendar Year 1984 1) New residential dwelling construction - 53 permits were issued resulting in 140 new dwelling units with a total floor area of 280,889 square feet. 2) Residential additions - 26 permits were additional floor area of 23,825 square feet. 3) New commercial construction - 6 permits in total floor area of 79,141 square feet. Calendar Year 1985 issued resulting in were issued resulting 1) New residential dwelling construction - 105 permits were issued resulting in 149 new dwelling units with a total floor area of 279,985 square feet. 2) Residential additions - 28 permits were issued resulting in additional floor area of 21,290 square feet. 3) New commercial construction - 9 permits were issued resulting in total floor area of 153,614 square feet. Calendar Year 1986 1) New residential dwelling construction - 118 permits were issued resulting in 223 new dwelling units with a total floor area of 351,172 square feet. 2) Residential additions - 22 permits were issued resulting in additional floor area of 23,473 square feet. 3) New commercial construction - 5 permits were issued resulting in total floor area of 50488 square feet. Wiliam Grove, Director Department of Building & Safety REDONDO BEACH CITY SCHOOL'DISTRICT -' - 14411 Inglewood Avenue, Redondo Beach California, 90278-3999 (213) 379-5449 • January 5, 1987 Dr. Edward King South Bay Union High School District 200 N. Pacific Coast Highway Redondo Beach CA 90277 Dear Ed: Attached, for your information, is the initial draft of the cleanup legislation for AB 2926. There are sane interesting issues being proposed that were not addressed in the original legislation. There will be several issues to discuss at our meeting on January 8th. Best wishes for a properous new fear. Sincerely, Dr. Beverly Rohrer Deputy Superintendent Administrative Services BR:bk c: Mr. Parras 1 --SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DEVELOPER FEES AND SZNIRE—CDNSTRa'fION IMPLEMENTATION BILL The '-following draft legislative proposal amends Chapter 887 of the Statutes of 1986 (AB 2926, Stirling), which was further amended by Chapter 888 of the Statutes of 1986 (SB 2068, Seymour). (All references to current law refer to AB 2926 unless otherwise specified). I. Credit against local match requirement. Current law permits the local match for state school construction funds to be reduced by the amount of any SB 201 fees levied by cities and counties for interim facilities, but not for fees levied by school districts for such facilities.the local The proposed law (Section 17705.5 (A)) permits match to be reduced by the amount of fees levied by school districts for interim facilities. Current law d©es- not allow for :-reductions - from , the local match requirement when the -school district can find no "reasonable relationship" between the -fee and residential, commercial, or industrial development. The_proposed law (Section 17705.5 (D))1pe mtts;;reductions from the match pwhen the between the distdfeerict and can find -no residential, reasonablee r elationsh commercial, or industrial development. - Current law does not allow for such reductions when development projects are "grandfathered" pursuant to Section 65995(h) of the Government Code and lower fee revenues result or the fee falls under Article XIIIB of the California Constitution (i.e., Gann expenditures limits). allows for such The proposed law (Section 17705.5 (E)) reductions whenent are limitationfaunderd"or the Article fee is is subject to XIIIB of the Constitution. II. Procedures for school district fee collection. Current law does not specify that school districts collect the fees nor specify what procedures must be followed before the fees can be levied. The proposed law (Section 53080(a)) specifies that school districts ark authorized to collect the fee, clarifies that the fees are levied against residential, commercial, or industrial projects, and adds a requirement for school districts to follow the procedures in Government Code Section 65962 for levying fees - against these three categories of development. -21- KEITH V. BREON ROBERTA.GALGAN RICHARD V. GODINO MARGARET E ODOMELL DIANA K. SMITH LOUIS T LOZANO PRISCILLA BROWN DAVID G. MILLER SANDRA WOLNER MARK W. GOODSON GREGORY 1 LAMBS SHARON 14.KEYWORTH EMI R. UYOIARA KERRY QK*IGHAM NARK G. NTRIERI _ DANIEL R.FRITZ BARBARA I BOOTH BRIDGETA.FLANAGAN MICHAEL G.PASCHON BROW J. McCUUS MARY BETH d• GOEDE BREON. GALGANI, GoorNo & O'DONNELL A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW December 22r>p-98 Zkik*E� CES' Of45ft.. OeC29 Dr. Beverly Rohrer Assistant Superintendent Administrative Services Redondo Beach City Elementary School District 1401 Inglewood Avenue Redondo Beach, CA 90278 - - Re: Developer Fees Dear Bev: 221d FLOOR THE SHELL BUILDING 100 BUSH STREET SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94104 (415) 780.4999 977 MADISON AVE_SURE 310 SACRAMENTO. CA 95841 (916) 334-5694 1539 FIFTH AVENUE SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 (415) 459-3000 2441 MAN STREET SURE 135 FRESNO. CA 93721 (209) 445.052 VISALIA.CA (209) 625-2666 2550 VIA TEJON. SURE 3A MOS VERDES. CA 90274 (20) 373-6857 LOS ANGELES.. CA (2D) 642123 COSA MESA. CA (714) 662-6977 REPY TO' SAN RAFAEL I am enclosing the initial draft of the cleanup legis- lation on AB 2926. I got this material at the joint hearing of the Assembly and Senate local government committees on December 3. At that time, it had not been put into bill form but I understand it has been submitted in substantially the same form. You will note that it is something more than cleanup legislation since it has some major substantive changes pro- posed. Very truly yours, BREON, GALGANI, GODINO & O'DONNELL RVG:pd % Encl. --- Y --' Comm!.ntFollowing Section opyoc, bUHUV I y; -t- �Qoptthe fees by either ordinance or resolution at a 4•egiTa'r1j' --scheduled meeting at which oral or written testimony can"beina ''d . Notices of any public hearing must be hailed at least 14.d6ys:i41 advance ta_ any interested party. Background information t�. describing -the rationale for the fee must also be made 'avatTaa?e ._to -the. public-:at_l.east_10, days in advance of—the,- .=hearibg. The 2: -school .district is prohibited from adopting a fee that exceeds ..the cost of providing the service. Upon adoption, the fee goes :,;,,into effect 60 days later. A fee can -be adopted soonerif :four-fifths of the school district's governing body concur, it remains in effect only 30 days unless the school district —grants an extension. Current law is interepreted by The Yolo County Counsel as exemP tine adoption of fees from the California Environmental ;Quality Act (CEQA) under Public Resources Code Section 21080_ makes thi s° exem� p.tan _`f(a)(8)(4)- The propposed law ;:.from C!QA explicit. (Section 53080(a)) III. Definitions of construction, habitable areal and residential deiThpment for ca cu sting square footage. • Current law applies•.the fee to new residential, commercial, and industria construction and other residential construction ion "to the extentof the resul-ting increase in habitable area," applies the developer- "`fee "caps" on residential and commercial/industrial development to "covered or enclosed" space. Many practitioners question (a) whether the square footage calculation for new construction includes garages, since reconstruction .excludes them, (b) why.there are different square - footage calculations for the same category of .development,. and -- (c) whether :-residential development includes.:publicly financed ' housing projects. The proposed law (Secti.on. 53080(a)1 and Section'65995(h):(1- ...,� exclude,, g.ara-gm es. from t.he_:..square.: footage•;.-calculati:ofl .=>for-'' b-o'th construction and reconstruction .and make the square footage calculations for residential development uniform. To do this, Section 53080(a) defines "construction" and -"reconstruction" according to definitions found in Chapter 886 of the Statutes of 1986 (SB 327, L. Greene) to be consistent with the state's program. Section 53080(a) further defines "habitable area" based on a definition San Bernardino County adopted. Section 65995(b)(1) defines "residential development" based on the current definition governing the SB 201 program, h:lrt'exeet` certain publicly financed housing projects from the fee. Comment. These changes do not include definitions of "commercial' and "industrial development". For clarity and consistency,ithese definitions are needed. Iv. Conflict with AB 3314 over time of payment.' -22- Current law, under AB 2926, requires that the developer fees be paid before the building permit is issued. But under AB 3314 (Chapter 685, Leonard, 1986) fees for residential development must be paid after the building permit is issued unless the school district places the revenue into an account for public improvements and has adopted a proposed construction schedule, or the revenue is needed to reimburse the school district. Clarification is needed so a city or county knows when the residential development fee will be paid and whether a certificate of compliance is needed. The proposed law (Section 53080(a)) requires the school district to determine when the residential fee,witl.,1 be,coJr ected , before its adoption. Section 53080(c) fprefilf. t eY 1 g Qe"i3 t.rr/J to issue ar_buirtding-permitithaiiir'a cectf)'ficaie �a.coma- buohf buts. the ci ty:toracouoty `:frorrrl"ssutug 'the, cert .fttaAe ,f -p occupancy"untfl the school district.: certifi:e5 th_at'� the f.ee,: _ s been paid. 1. Oi spute_procedures . Current law does not contain procedures for addressing disputes between project applicants and school districts over the amount of fees, thereby preventing a building permit from being issued because the school district cannot certify that the fees have been paid. The proposed law (Section 53080(e) -(g)) provides such procedures._ Section 53080(f) :allows -cities and counties to'sstg a building permit :without a cer.tificate'of::compliance_:whe a the permit_applicant paid .the maximum fee to the school district, but the school district failed to issue a certificate of compliance within 30 days, or (b) the applicant and school district disagree over the fee amount and the applicant places the disputed amount in a city or county escrow account. Comments. (1) These sections do not address the situation where the city/county and the school district levy fees for interim facilities which exceed the fee "caps." (2) Another alternative for dispute resolution between applicants and districts is to authorize the county superintendent of schools to hold the disputed fees in an escrow account. VI. Overlapping school districts. Current law contains no procedures allocating the "capped". developer fees among overlapping school districts which serve the same development. The proposed law (Section- 53080(h)) requires that a memorandum ofZunderstanding fMOD) among the overlapping school districts be adopted before they can submit applications to the state for funds or levy fees. The MOU must outline how the fees will be shared. If an MOU is not adopted, the allocation will be based on the relative construction costs for K-6, 7-8, '9-12-4 rade levels as determined by the State Allocation Board. -23- 6 VII.-' _Limits on 'capped' developer "fees:' Current law does not prevent a school district from .financing a school solely from developer" fees without state s�assistance.=, . I' =The proposed -law (Section 65995(a)) specifies that the fees may only finance either= the—local-share-of ,tiii-7ita-77-mettga=01 ..:.interim facil ities4 Current law requires the school district to make no findings before levying the "capped" developer fees. The proposed law (Section 65995(b)(3)) requires the school _district to make three findings before levying the fees: (1) that overcrowding exists, or will result from the development (2) that fthe fees do -not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing -.the service, and (3) a reasonable relationship exists between the :fees and the need for schools caused by the development. To assist ..in .making _the _fi_ndi_ngs,_,.Section 65995(b)(4) t>"eq ;trf#ag „school district to prepare either .a'• f re= ea.e 4 i>'t -a construction"_feeA_schedule3 VIII. "Grandfathers' existing planned unit development. Current law exempts development projects from the "capped" developer fees if a final subdivision map was approved and construction began before September 1, 1986. Attorneys for the ,East Highland Ranch development in San Bernardino County believe =this exemption applies to multi -phased development projects (i.e., planned unit developments), but want clarification. h,'. '.-The proposed law (Section 65995(c)) "grandfathers" the East _Highland Ranch development. Section 53080(1) declares that the _grandfather _provisions remain -in effect if a future school bond .act -measure fails. - - L - :IX. Mitigating environmental effects. -Current law limits and specifies the methods of mitigating environmental ei`fects of development on the adequacy of schools. Proposed law (Section 65996) prohibits school districts from obtaining state funds for facilities funded by methods other than those specified (e.g., special taxes, general obligation bonds). X. Urgency clause. The proposed law contains an urgency clause. -24- - 24- • PROPOSED DEVELOPER FEES AND SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION IMPLEMENTATION BILL The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION. 1. Section 17705.5, as added by Chapter 887 of the Statutes of 1986 to the Education Code, is amended to read: 17705.5. (a) The total building cost portion of any state funding for any project approved under this chapter for the new construction or rehabilitation of one or more school facilities shall be reduced by the amount of the local matching share re- -quirement computed under subdivision (b). (b) Each school district to which funds are allocated pursu- ant to this chapter for the new construction or rehabilitation of one or more school facilities shall provide, as its share of the cost of the project, an amount equal to the following: (1) The product of the applicable maximum fee set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 65995 of the Government Code times the number of square feet of new residential, commercial, and industrial construction, as appropriate, for which building permits are issued within the boundaries of the school district from the date on which the board approves the district's application for project funding under this chapter to the date upon which the notice of completion for the project is issued, except that this period shall not exceed the time reasonably necessary for the final apportionment to be issued where the district meets its obligations as an applicant under this chapter. This amount is reduced by the sum of the following: Z -25- (A) Any amounts expended by the district during the de- scribed period of time for the acquisition of interim classroom facilities pursuant to Chapter 4,9 (commencing with Section 65995) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code or Chap- ter •4.9 7 (commencing with Section 65970) of Division 1 of. Title 7 of the Government Code from the proceeds of the fee levied by the d4str4et city or county during that period. This amount is limited to the acquisition of interim classroom facilities "necessary to temporarily house that number of pupils calculated under— state pupil loading standards, by subtracting the average daily attendance of the district based on a three-year enrollment projection from the average daily attendance of the district based on a five-year enrollment project. Enrollment projections for this purpose shall be made in accordance with this chapter. (B) Any -amounts -expended by the district during the de- -scribed period of time for the local matching share of any project funded under this chapter from the proceeds of the fee levied by the district during that period. (C) An amount reflecting the extent to which the district is precluded _from collec.ting those •fees by reason of the levy, and collection of developer fees by another school district having common territorial jurisdiction. - (0) An amount reflecting the extent to which the district is precluded from collecting those fees because the school district governing board can find no reasonable relationship between a fee, charge, dedication, or other form" of requirement and any residential commercial, or industrial development ueon which all, or part of, the maximum fee could be levied pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 65995 of the Government Code. iEZ An amount reflecting the difference between the maximum fees set forth n subdivision (bl of Section 65995 of the Govern- ment Code and the fees which may actually be collected due to the limitations on fees under subdivision (c) of Section 65995 of the Government Code or Article XIII B of the California Constitution. -26- i i(c) For purposes of establishing an estimate of the state ;j project costs pursuant to subdivision (a), the board may estimate the local matching share by using the product of the annual average of the amount that would have resulted from the application of the maximum fee to the square footage of all new construction within the district over the three calendar years preceding the district's project application times the number of years over which the board estimates the fee will be collected by the district pursuant to the project to be funded. (d) Only those project applications for which, prior to Janu- ary 1, 1987, the board had made the apportionment for site acqui- sition and working drawings or the final apportionment for con- - struction of the project shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter in effect prior to that date. (e) The board may provide a loan to any applicant district in an amount equal to all or a part of the district's obligation under subdivision (b), subject to the requirement that the dis- trict pay each month to the board, as reimbursement, an amount equal to the proceeds that would be received by the district from the imposition of the fee described under subdivision (b) until the total amount of the loan has been repaid, together with interest computed pursuant to Section 16065. (f) The board may make the loan specified in subdivision (e) .from any funds available from any source, including, but not limited to, those amounts rade available pursuant to Section 16065. (g) A11 loan and interest amounts paid to the state pursuant to this section shall be available for the use of the board in the funding of projects as otherwise provided under this chapter, including, but not limited to, additional loans. (h) This section shall remain in effect only until such date as any state general obligation bond measure submitted to the voters of this state for their ratification, which measure in- -27- cludes within its purposes the funding of school facilities construction, fails to receive that ratification, and as of that date is repealed. SEC. 2. Section 53080 of the` 6overnment_Code;is amended to read: 53080. (a) The governing board of any school district is authorized to levy and collect a fee, charge, dedication, or other form of requirement against any residential, commercial, or industrial development project, as defined in Section 65928, within the boundaries of the district, according to the proce- dures outlined in Section 65962, for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities,_ subject to any limitations set forth in Chapter 4.9 (commencing with Section 65995) of Division 1 of Title 7. -Adoption of a fee, charge, dedication, .or other form of requirement under Section 65962 by either ordinance or resolution shall be exem t from Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. Adoption of a fee or charge under Section 65962 for residential development shall not be effective until the school district determines whether the fee or charge will be collected pursuant to Section 53077.5(aJ or Section 53077.5(b). This fee, charge, dedication, or other. form of requirement may be applied only to new commercial and industrial construction, and, as to residential development, to new .eens%ruet4eRs and ether any construction to the extent of the resulting increase in habitable area of the residential structure. For the purposes of this section, construction shall include, but not be limited to, reconstruction as defined in Section 17722.7 of the Education Code,_ and 'modernization -or renovation as defined in Section 17721.3 of the Education Code. Also, for the puToses of this . section, h'bitable --area means space in a residential structure for living, sleeping.2."eating, ,or cooking, including bathrooms3 1‘. -28- • ' ~ halls, or similar areas, -bU ZeXEJtt t/ 1/0 closets, ha � s a , &rts tenon:-enctase • ai; os-, =trr4stmri~lacn;� ' ' b Exce t for development protects s ecifiedin subdivision ( ) p' c} of Section 65995, Ne no city or county, whether general law or chartered, may issue a building permit for any residential, co mmercial, trial development absent certification by the — or indus appropriate school district of compliance by that development project with any fee, charge, dedication, or other form of requirement levied by the governing board of that school district pursuant to subdivision (a). ursuant to subdivision (cif the school district finds, 11 , that it cannot meet either—of the exceptions_ in Section 53077.5112and the fee or char a on residential_ development can- not be aid until the date of the final inspection, or the date the certificate of occupancy is issued, whichever occurs last_ the school district must so notify the appropriate citr_or county - that the city oroountY may issue a building permit without a certificate of com 1p lance. In that event, no city_ or county, whether General—law or charterelt__Fly issue a certificate of anc for anv m residential develo ent absent certification by occupy the_ap ropriate school district of com liance by that development ro'ect with any fee or charge levied by the ao.2 ernin4 board_ of that school district pursuant to subdivisiono a� e - d In the case of the sale of a manufactured he e or payment of fees to either the school district mobilehomP, the ep ursuant to the ether entity shall occur at the time of occupancy p sale or lease of the manufactured home or mobilehome pursuant to Section 18080.5 of the Health and Safety Code. ill Any city, count, or_city and county may establish an escrow account or may_ v_e irrevocable letters of credit pur- suant to subdivision (f)• 1 to any deve _ (fl Subdivisions b and c shall not apply lop- - ment roiect for which the—protect applicant has aid the maximum -29- amount of the fee permitted by subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 65995 either to the school district or into an escrow account to be held by the city, county, or city and countyl. and one of the following conditions applies to the project: (I) The school district failed to issue a certificate of compliance to the city or county within 30 days after the project applicant submitted the applicable fees to the district. _ 121 A dispute exists between the project applicant and the school district over the amount of fees that may be levied under subdivisions (b) or (c) of Section 65995, Article XIIIS of the California Constitution, or other provisions of law that may limit the amount of the fees that may be levied upon such projects to an amount below the amount set forth in subdivision fib) of Government Code Section 65995. If the dispute applied only to a portion of the fee, the applicable school district may receive the amount of the fees not in dispute and only_the amount in dispute shall be retained in the escrow account. The cid, county, or city and counIy may accept an irrevocable letter of credit in favor of the school district in lieu of holding funds in escrow. (g) Funds held in escrow pursuant to subdivision Le.) shall be released to a school district upon receipt by the city, county, or city and county of a court order or an agreement between the parties to the dispute indicating the total amount of the fees to be paid to the applicable school district or districts. Any interest accrued shall be dispersed in the same proportions as the principle. (1 Where an elementary school district and a high school district both serve the same residential_t commercial, or indus- trial development project, each school district shall have on file in their respective district offices, and with the city and county,-\ memorandum of understanding regarding how _-the -fee, charge, -dedication, or other form of requirement will be split - -30- between the school districts before submitting an application for !., Y;' funding pursuant to Section 17705.5 of the Education Code and f r before levying the fee, charge, dedication, or other form of re uirement. The memorandum of understandingyoes into effect upon adoption by theroverning boards of each school district. If the governing boards of the school districts cannot agree how ` �.- to allocate the fees and an memorandum of understanding is not 5� st- shall be based on th e i :!. adopted, then the allocation _Q; � h. icer V graEdem1 eve1 s as determined -ra�ctir���ir� f or by the State Allocation Board. the r9 (i Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 65997, provisions of subdivision (c) of Section 65995 shall remain in y. effect after the date on which a State General Obligation Bond r.'"• measure submitted to the voters of this state for the ratifica- p;r tion, which measure includes within its purposes the fundin of �, school facilities construction, fails to receive that ratifica- ...j. .. tion. SEC. 3. Chapter 4.9 (commencing with Section Chapter s add to Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Codeby p 887 888 of the f the Statutes of 1986 and as further amended by Chapter Statutes of 1986 is amended to read: Chapter 4.9. Rayment'of•FeZs, Charges, Dedications, or Other Requirements Against a. Development Project 65995. (a) Except for a dedication or fee, or both, pe u4red authorized under Section 53080, or pursuant to Chapter (commencing with Section 65970), no fee, charge, dedication, or other form of requirement shall be levied by the legislative body of a leeal ageReycity, county, city and county, or school district against a development project, as defined by Section 65928, for the construction or reconstruction of school facilities, as definesplySection 53080. School districts maty levy any fee, charge, dedication, or other form'ofre uirement -31- levied against a development project, as defined by SEction —65928, - - for the construction - or reconstruction ---of: M gthdoxl --facil-ities; either to _provide the local share for state facilities pursuant to Section 17705.5 of the Education Code, or for -the provision of interim facilities pursuant to Chapter 4.79_6 91 (commencing with Section 65970 of Division 1 of Title XII of the f�,� Government Code. In addition, no fee, charge, dedication or JP:, other form of requirement shall be levied against a develo men- projecta as defined by Section 65928, for the construction or ---reconstruction— of school facilities for which the district has not sought state funding pursuant to Part 10 of the Education Code. (b) In -no event shall the amount of_an_y- fee, charges dedica- tion, or other form of requirement, as. described in -subdivision (a), 'i-nciuding the amount of fees. to be paid or -the -val-ue of land to be dedicated, or both, under Chapter 4.7 (commencing with Section 65970), exceed the following: (1) One dollar and fifty cents ($1.50) per square foot of Fevered sr enel:esed spaee habitable area as defined in Section 53080, in the._ case of any -residential development. ' As' used in this chapter residential development means a"prolectcontaining residential dwellings, including:-mobilehomes, of one or more units or a subdivision of land for the purpose of 'constructing one or more residential dwelling -units. .Residential development shall not include publicly financed housing projects which do not generate a need for new school facilities and which replace existing housing units. (2) Twenty-five cents ($0.25) per square foot of covered or enclosed space, in .the case of any commercial or industrial de- velopment. Ne €eeT ehargeT dedieatienT er ether form e€ the requ4remeRt may be l:ev#ed by any sehee; d4str4et geverR$Rg beard open any temmere4a1 er 4R4 ser#a3 devel•eprfleR_t - un1 ess - And unt4l• the geverR#Rg beard has €first made i:he €4Rd4Rg that the 1eeat#en �i'�C. r��t., �. �;•Y.�.:. _ ._. y ice__: -32- be and ame8Rt e€ land te be ded4eated er the ameHRt efees ted be pa}ds er beth: shall bear a reasonable re} ie limited to the Reeds e€ the eemmun4ty fer elementary er high seheel €aell#tles and shall be reasonably related and limited te the need fer seheels eaused by the develepmeRt: (3) The governing body of a school district which operates an elementary or high school may levy fees as set forth in (1) and based on substantial 2) when i t finds, evidence, that: (a) ----- conditions of overcrowding exist in one or more attendance areas within the district which will impair the normal functioning of educational programs because the enrollment pro'ected from resi- dential, commercial. or industrial development will exceed the cap a� of the schools within the district_ (b the proposed fees do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of_pro_viding the additional school facilities necessitated by the development projects from which the fees are collected, andjc) the location and amount_ of land to be dedicated or the amount of fees to be paid, or both, shall bear a reasonable relationship and be limit- ed to the needs of the community_ for elementary_or high school facilities and shall be reasonably related and limited to the need for schools caused by the residential ,_commercial, and in- dustrial development. j To assist the governing board of a schooldistrictin making ths, it shall cause to be_prepared either a five-year facilities lan ursuant to Section 17717.5(c) of the Education Code or a schedule s ecif ing how it will use the land or fees, or both, to solve the conditions of overcrowding, in- _ the classroom facilities to eluding the school sites to be used, `____ __ — be made available,_ and_the times when such facilities will be available. 43} (5) The amount of the limits set forth in paragraphs (1) and 42} .hall be annually increased accordingothe index fadjustment for inflation set forth in the statewide cost -33_ construction, as determined by the State Allocation Board at its January meeting. (c) Subdivision (a) does not apply during the term of any contract entered into between a subdivider or builder and a ' sch3o1 district, city, county, or city and county, whether gener- al law or chartered, on or before the effective date of this chapter that requires the payment of a fee, charge, or dedication for the construction of school facilities as a condition to the approval of residential development. In addition, any development project for which -a final- map was approved and construction had commenced on or before September 1, 1986, is subject to only the fee, charge, dedication, or other form of requirement prescribed -in any local ordinance in existence on that date and applicable -to the project, and any additional fee, charge, dedication, or other form of requirement imposed as a conditions of approval of that development project prior to September 1, 1986. In addition,- any development project for which a planned unit development, as defined by local ordinance,t specifically describing the location and density of all residential land uses and the location of all proposed improvements has been approved prior to September 1, 1986,and for which--substantial-construction -related to " the entire development project has been commenced prior to September 1, 1986, in reliance upon such entitlement, and which planned unit development includes, as a condition of approval, the payment of fees, charges, dedications or other forms of requirements which have a combined cost equal to or greater than $1500 per residential unit or such development.prolect, shall be subject to only _such fee, charge, dedication or other form of requirement prescribed in any local_ ordinance in existence_ on that date applicable to the project, and anv other fee, charge, dedication, or other form of requirement described as a_condition of approval or the s biect of an agreement included as part of the land use • • -34- • entitlement a licable to that roect. Further, subdivision ro ects described in this of Section 53080 shall not apply to_p__ subdivision. the financing of school (d) The Legislature finds and declares that the subject fees is ubtof facilities with developmen reason the Legislature matter of statewide conceeC� For mattertofsmandatory development fees hereby occupies the subs and other development requirements for school facieicties finance to the exclusion of all local measures on the hall be interpreted to limit or (e) Nothing in this section s prohibit the use of Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section recon) of Division 2 of Title 5 to finance the construction or struction of school facilities. 65996. The following provisions shall be the exclusive equacy meth- ods of mitigating environmental effects related to ortthe estab- ad of school facilities when considering the approval lishment of conditions for the approval of a development project, as defined by Section 65928 of the Government Codepursuant pursuant to o Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000 ic Resources Code: (a) Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 53311) of Division of Title 5 of the Government Code. (b) Chapter 4:4.9 (commencing with Section 6597A65995) of Part 1A212111212_1 of Title 7 of the Goverment Code 15450) of Part 10 of (c) Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Sect ion the Education Code. (d) Chapter 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part 10 of the Education Code. P (e) Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 17870) of Part 10 of the Education Code. (f) Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 17785) of Part 10 of the Eduction Code. 11.1 -35- (g) Article 2.5 (commencing with 39327) of Chapter 3 of Part =,j of the Education Code. (h) Article 3 (commencing with Section 47260) of Chapter 7 of Part 24 of the Education Code. No public agency shall, pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code or Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410) of this code, deny approval of a project on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities. The Legislature finds and declares that the provisions enumerated in this section insure that adequate school facilities will be pro- vided throughout the state. Any school district seeking to pro- vide school facilities beyond those which can be_provided by the procedures enumerated in this section, shall be considered local option school facilities and the school district shall not be entitled to funds for that portion of its facilities from either the state funds enumerated or fees, charges, dedication, or other requirements which may be imposed upon a development project pursuant to Division 13 of the Public Resources Code (commencing with Section 21000) or any other provision of law. 65997. This chapter shall remain in effect only until such date as any state general obligation bond measure submitted to the voters of this state for their ratification, which measure includes within its purposes the funding of school facilities construction, fails to receive that ratification, and as of that date is repealed. SEC. 4. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the -immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessitt are: In order to clarify the procedures for school districts to follow in collecting developer fees and to ensure the proper -36- implementation of Chapter 887 of the Statutes of 1986, which takes effect on January 1, 1987, this act must take immediate effect. 1 * * * -37- 1`; The disclaimer read, "...complying with this reporting /; requirement shall be paid out of the annual cost -of - living( adjustment." (Emphasis added) o AB 2613/W. Brown (the bill that required a "C" average for pupil participation in extracurricular and co - curricular activities): In this bill a more interesti„ci approach was used, as follows: "The requirement is not a State mandate; however, local districts ignoring the requirement will not receive any revenue limit COLAs in the future." (Emphasis added) These are but a few examples of disclaimers used in legislation, but they illustrate how creative the Legislature can be -in attempting to avoid the State's responsibility to fund State mandated programs and increased levels of service. They love to call the tune, but balk at paying the piper! --Carol Miller FACILITIES FEES HEARING RAISES CONCERNS School Developers Fees and Capital Facilities Fees were the disputatious topics as the Assembly Local Government Committee, Senate Local Government Committee, and the Senate Select Committee on Planning for California's Growth held a 5 1/2 hour joint interim hearing December 3 to solicit testimony on proposed legislation relating to infrastructure financing. While interested parties had been eagerly awaiting the hearing with the expectation that at least some of the myriad of questions emanating from last session's school facilities fees legislation package would be answered, the fact is that substantially more questions were raised at the proceedings than were answered. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the complexity of the matters involved demands that whatever "clean- up" legislation ultimately results must address clearly and explicitly such issues as eligibility, implementation, collection, mediation and appeal. Currently, word around the Capitol is that somewhere in the neighborhood of twenty-five (25) pieces of legislation -may be introduced aimed at cleaning -up or expanding last session's facilities fees package. The process of hammering out the clean- up legislation was characterized at the December 3 hearing by Assembly Member Bill Leonard (R -San Bernardino) as being a case of "greedy developers vs. greedy schools," a scenario which necessitates the Legislature's intervention. Leonard later expanded on his comment referring to "greedy city and county governments, " as well, and indicated that the Legislature can be , ryice mai nia 261 12/12/86 t expected to become increasingly involved in defining fees, taxes, etc. As predicted in-an-earlier`Fiscal Report article, the development/business community was well represented at the hearing. - Most importantly, they presented an extremely cohesive, unified posture offering to the Committee well-defined language reflecting legislation they would like to see enacted. Unfortunately, many who testified on behalf of education .interests spoke to more parochial interests rather than addressing the overall generic issues. In so doing, they missed an important opportunity to coalesce at a particularly crucial time and to strengthen their position in the face of what promises to be a major effort on the part of the building community to dilute the legislation by virtue of complicated justification, implementation and collection mechanisms. In post -hearing conversation, legislative staff indicated their disappointment that..."the school people raised valid concerns,- but,no one offered any specificsolutionsor language." Staff is still anxious to receive language suggestions and, although some form of the bill will likely be introduced within the week, they indicated language would be welcome until January 1, 1987. Staff also confirmed that school districts considering imposing developer fees should have a resolution in place before January 1,,1987, even if the specifics need to be reworked later in order to conform to the eventual implementing legislation., It is particularly important that care be taken to prepare documentation which _will validate -the--need for and use of imposed fees, clearly establishing what was voiced repeatedly in the. -December 3 hearing by both committee members -and development interests..establishment Of -a' reasonable and discernible nexus between the fee and the project. In other words, a school district should be able to document what they want and why they need it'and be prepared to prove that the fees collected will'not exceed the cost of the program. This is important not only in an attempt to avert potential developer challenges, =but also in order to comply with Proposition 13's mandate. (To illustrate the Legislature's growing concern with this nexus issue, we call your attention to AB 3479 (Chapter 189/1986) which places the burden of proof on the local government ---or district ---imposing the fee in any judicial challenge to the imposition and/or amount of the fee.) Our office will continue to watch closely and keep you informed as proposed 'facilities fees legislation moves through the process. The following article presents a study of existing legislation and outlines the procedures -to take to comply=with the fee implementation process. We invite your comments and "a i ornia 262 12/12/86 questions in our effort to help you work through this most complicated legislation. --Linda Melton A CLOSE LOOK AT THE FACILITIES LEGISLATION The article which follows is a part of a series of items we are publishing on the omnibus school facilities legislation enacted last session. This particular article has been co-authored by attorneys Robert Logan and Rusty Selix and is in keeping with our efforts to provide school districts with a clear "how-to" approach to the fees implementation puzzle. We continue to encourage districts to proceed cautiously and, when appropriate, with benefit of counsel. Robert Logan is a San Jose -based attorney with an extensive statewide practice specializing in land use issues for both public and private clients. He is formerly the City Attorney of San Jose, the author of numerous legal articles, and a frequent presenter at professional educational seminars and conferences. Rusty Selix, a Sacramento attorney, provides lobbying, mediation, and consulting services for public and private sector clients throughout California on land use issues. Previously Legislative Counsel to the League of California Cities and Chair of the State Bar Committee on Environmental Law, he is also the author of several training manuals for public officials on the implementation of new laws and has been a frequent speaker at conferences and sem.nars. --Linda Melton IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION LEGISLATION By now, all school districts are undoubtedly aware of the major legislation enacted this last session which dramatically changes the way school facility construction and reconstruction is financed. The primary bills in this legislative session were AB 2926 (Chapter 887/1986) and SB 327 (Chapter 886/1986). One of the most significant provisions of this legislation is the provision authorizing school districts to directly impose fees on developers without going through a city or county. Another important element is the requirement that, in seeking state assistance for school facility construction or reconstruction, a district must contribute a local match, which is presumed to come from schoo'j, district levied fees. Many school districts which have been dealing with developer fees imposed by cities and counties, and have been experiencing rapid " I fyice a i ornia • 263 12/12/86 • ,growth and overcrowding for years, are probably well on their way toward implementation of this legislation. However, it is likely that there are many more school districts for which this legislation and the imposition of developer fees represents a totally new and unfamiliar procedure. There may be substantial confusion, anxiety,. and trepidation about the legislation, as well as a perceived need to act immediately. This article will outline some of the steps which are appropriate for districts to take in implementing a fee program. We will address herein two frequently asked questions: the difference between a tax and a fee, and whether there is a need to act immediately. FEES VERSUS TAXES ,Fees and taxes are similar in that both require that money be paid to a government agency. _The primary difference between a fee and a tax is that a tax can be used for virtually any purpose ,by a government agency, whereas a fee can be used by a government agency only to provide services and facilities which benefit the people paying the fee or to mitigate adverse impacts caused by the people paying the- fee. The school facility legislation under discussion authorizes only the collection of fees, -or the dedication of land or provision of facilities of comparable value. - Various provisions of state law require that any government agency imposing a fee establish justification that the amount of `the fee does not exceed the cost- of providing the services and facilities, and that the services and facilities to be provided bear a reasonable relationship to the needs created by the development upon which the fees are levied. The needs here would be defined as _the cost, of . building facilities to serve the students who would be generated as a result of the new development. For residential development, these would bethe students projected to live in the proposed project. For commercial and industrial development, it will be necessary to show. -that each specific commercial and industrial development generates a need for further residentiai_development, .and the fees are related to the cost of serving the residents of those developments. In addition, it is appropriate to levy fees for the added costs of continuing existing services to existing students. For example, if a school district doesn't anticipate the need to build a n w school,- but projects that the presence of 'additional students from news`development will require rehabilitation or expansion .of existing facilities, fees which provide that "mitigation" would also be proper. 264 12/12/86 • We stress here that simply calling a charge to a developer a "fee" does not mean it is a fee if the nexus or connection between the need and the fee is not appropriately documented. If it is determined that the money is not going to be used for the purposes outlined above, a court could be expected to rule that the "fee" is really a "tax," which, in the case of an imposition by a school district, would make it illegal. The outline which follows provides the points that need to be included and the process for establishing the documentation to justify the fees. Because the legislation envisioned that the fees would only cover a portion of the cost of providing school facilities, and that a substantial additional portion of the cost would be provided by the state, most school districts should have no problem justifying the maximum amount of the fee. DOES EVERY SCHOOL DISTRICT HAVE TO ACT NOW? There appears to be a perception among many school districts that they trust act immediately and impose fees effective January 1, 1987. -Fortunately, this is not the case. Generally, the obligation to raise local revenues for a state facility match runs from the time an application for state funding is approved to the time that the project is completed. Therefore, a district must have in place a process for collecting fees by the time an application is approved by the state. The following outline identifies the steps which a school district should take to establish a fee program. A district should have rio difficulty completing all the required steps within six months, and the process can probably be completed in a shorter period of approximately 60 to 90 days in cases where prompt action is essential. Therefore, only those districts which have already submitted an application to the state or anticipate submitting an application to the state within the next six months need to be concerned about acting right now. School districts will continue to have the. ability to establish a fee program, and the failure of the district to act now does not -in any way limit the ability of a district to act in future years when the need arises. OUTLINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FEE The foilewing outlines the key points which need to be addressed by a schdbl district in order to implement the fee. This outline is not intended as a complete document providing the full details necessary to carry out each step. 265 12/12/86 • I. PRE -ADOPTION PROCEDURES A. - COORDINATION 1. City/County a. :Open -dialogue with cities and counties in which the school district is located. Note: After January 1, there will be no city or county imposed developer fees except tor interim facilities. b. :Discuss city/county projections on size, type and -location of new developments. c. Discuss changes to existing city/county ordinances. •d. "Discus -s and -agree on how to implement the requirement that school districts issue a certificate before a building permit can be issued by a city or county. . 2. Overlapping School Districts (i.e. Elementary and High School Districts) Open dialogue with overlapping school districts to discuss common problems. b Discuss fee -sharing with overlapping. districts. B. PREPARE DATA TO SUPPORT THE FEE LEVEL FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. 1. Fee must be supported by factual data. a. Government Code Section 65995 requires specific findings to support the fee charged for industrial and commercial development. The district must find that the amount of fees paid bear a reasonable relationship to the needs of the community for school facilities and are reasonably related and are 'limited to the needs for school facilities caused by the development. b. Other provisions of law and court decisions require _ factual, data to .support.- the .fees for sJing�le and - multi -family residential units (Government Code 54992 and Government Code 65962). 266 12/12/86 2. Fees must reasonably relate to the district's additional costs of construction or reconstruction created by the new development creates. 3. For residential development, this nexus can be established by documenting: a. The district's projected enrollment capacity; b. The need for new facilities or•upgraaing existing facilities which would be caused by new development; c. Projected construction costs per student. (Thi State Allocation Board's Office of Local) Assistance may be able to provide this data.) d. Projected students per new residence. The "yield" or "pupil generation" factor for future development should be based, if possible, on recent local experience with similar development. 4. In the case of commercial and industrial development, a district must show that development will create a demand for housing which will yield a higher level of students from either new or existing housing than would otherwise be the case. This finding should be made separately for each commercial/industrial development. We caution here that, even if documented, this basis for a fee could be challenged. • C. PREPARE A PROPOSED RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE FEE. D. CONDUCT REVIEW PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). (Public Resources Code Section 21000 and following.) 1. Alternative 1: Notice of Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15273 and 15302, - Title 14 of California Administrative Code). File "notice of exemption" on date of adoption of resolution. Section 15062. 2. Alternative 2: Negative Declaration (CEQA Guidelines Section 15070). a. Prepare "Initial Study" and. Draft plus negative S. declaration. Section 15071. b. Circulate proposed negative declaration to those parties requesting notice._ Section 15072. 267 12/12/86 c. Allow a reasonable period for review (at least 10 days). Section 15073. d. Complete review period prior to time for adoption of resolution. Section 15074. e. After adoption of resolution setting fees, file "notice of determination." Section 15075. (CAUTION: Because of the recent judicial decisions in Terminal Plaza Corp. v. City and County of San Francisco (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 892 and City of Livermore v. Local Agency Formation Comm. (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 681, the adoption of a negative declaration is a safer approach to environmental review than finding the project exempt. CEQA guidelines sections authorizing exemptions are not precisely on point and adoption of a notice of exemption may create a greater risk of legal chall•enge.) E. SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING, AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD, TO BE HELD ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 1987. 1. CEQA review must be complete by the time of the hearing. 2. The hearing must be properly noticed. a. Notice must be mailed at least 14 days in advance of the hearing to all parties who have requested notice in writing. The notice must include the time, place and a :general_explanation of the hearing, and a statement that the required data is available at a specified place for public viewing. F. COMPILE FACTUAL DATA AUTHORIZING FEE AND MAKE COPIES AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AT LEAST"10 DAY PRIOR TO THE HEARING. G. POST AGENDA FOR PUBLIC MEETING AT LEAST SEVENTY-TWO (72) HOURS BEFORE MEETING. (CAUTION: Newly -adopted legislation, AB 2674, effective January 1, 1987, has amended Section 35145 of the Education Code to require that an agenda be posted by the governing board at least 72 hours before a regular meeting. Failure to comply will prohibit the governing board from taking any actin on an i•.;em not appearing on the posted agenda.) 268 12/12/86 II. ADOPTION PROCEDURES A. HOLD PUBLIC HEARING PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF FEE RESOLUTION. 1. Take public testimony. _ I 2. Determine the amount of the fee. t_S (y,- 3 (CAUTION: As noted above, make sure that the factual data supports at least the fee which is established; do not simply establish the maximum fee without support.) a. Single or multi -family residential maximum fee is $1.50 per square foot of covered or enclosed space. (It appears that the definition of "habitable space" may ultimately be "conditioned floor space"...i.e., heated or air conditioned.) This fee can probably be set once and does not require a resetting for each development project. b. Commercial and industrial projects maximum fee is $.25 per square foot of covered or enclosed space. (CAUTION: Setting the fee for commercial or industrial development requires specific statutory findings [Government Code Section 65995(b)(2}). There is some question as to whether the fee can be set for all industrial and commercial development at the same time, or whether the fee for each development must be separately; setting a fee for each development appears to be a safer approach, although it would require a hearing on each development project. (The Legislature may clarify this issue.) B. EFFECTIVE DATE At d a i rnia 1. Single and multi -family residential a. For residential projects, any fee which is established shall be effective no sooner than sixty (60) days following the final fee adoption action. b. Government Code Section 65962(c) sets forth an urgency procedure which would allow immediate implementation of fees, effective for thirty (30) % days, upon a four-fifths vote of the legislative body lifter it has found specifically that there is an immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare. 269 12/12/86 (CAUTION: A finding of immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare fegnires mere than a simple finding that the district will lose money. A school district would need to document specific consequences of not being able to collect fees from affected projects.) 1) The initial 30 day period may be continued for .two additional 30 day periods, upon notice and public hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 54992. 2) The same support data which would be required to support a regular resolution must be presented to support the two 30 day extensions. 2. Commercial/industrial fees appear to go into effect upon date of adoption. C. DISPOSITION OF REVENUE (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 53077) 1. Create and maintain a separate Capital Facilities Fund. 2. No other funds should be commingled with that Fund. 3. Interest earned on the fees must stay in that Fund. D. CERTIFY THAT FEE IS PAID Issuing a certificate should be coordinated with the city or county building department. --Robert Logan, Esq. --Rusty Selix, Esq. LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION BLASTS EDUCATION ACCOUNTING PRACTICES On December 5, 1986, the Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy, also known as the Little Hoover Commission, urged the Governor and Legislature "to recognize the pending fiscal crisis in California's kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) public school system and to take actions to avert it." The Commission stated that "it is time for the State to wake up to the harsh reality that Proposition 4 (the Gann'appropriations limitation) may severely undermine the quality of education in California unless the Stateincreases its enforcement and control over educational.e,penditures and-holds..the.-Superintendent of Public Instruction and _school district financial managers directly accountable for _spending." The Commission goes to claim , ervic l nia "a i 270 - 12/12/86_ NOTICE TO DEVELOPERS Your proposed development is located within the boundaries of the XYZ School District which has passed a "notice of intent" to collect development fees in the amounts indicated below as provided by Section 65995 of the Government Code: Residential Commercial Industrial $1.50 sq. ft. 0.25 sq. ft. 0.25 sq. ft. The fees must be paid and a "notice of completion" prepared by the school district must be delivered to Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit. Attached is a copy of the certification of compliance form. You are required to complete the form(s) and submit them to the District's liaison along with a complete set of plans in order to determine the fees due. The District's liaison is: Mr. John C. Headmaster XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Telephone:XXXXXXXXXXXX NTD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 APPENDIX H The following sample resolution would authorize a District to impose fees effective on January 1, 1987, when A.B. 2926 becomes. law. BEFORE THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA IN THE MATTER OF THE ) IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION ) FINDINGS AND OF DEVELOPER FEES ) URGENCY RESOLUTION The Board of Trustees of the School District hereby makes the following findd 1after conducting a noticed public hearing at a regular meeting of the Board on , 193_• 1. The School District is overcrowded in that the present enrollment of students in all the district's facilities when combined with the projected en- rollment from proposed development exceeds the capacity of the district's facilities; 2. The California Legislature has passed and the Governor has signed legislation which will authorize school dis- tricts to levy a fee on all residential construction and all new industrial and commercial construction; 3. The legislation may limit the amount of any fee for school facilities to $1.50 per square foot of covered or enclosed residential construction and $.25 per square foot of new industrial or commercial covered or enclosed construction; 4. The district has received approval of a project for the construction of new facilities by the State Allocations OS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 •8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Board and is required to contribute towards the completion of the project an amount equal to the maximum fee the District may levy under the law upon the approval of the project to the date notice of completion is issued. 5. The district does not have sufficient funds in its general fund account to contribute its share of the project. 6. Growth will occur during the next sixty (60) day period which will further overcrowd the district's facilities and other means of mitigating the problem have been considered and are deemed not feasible nor in the best interest of the students or the community. 7. The district remains primarily responsible for school facility financing, but has been able to discharge its responsibility only with the greatest difficulty due to rapid residential, commercial, and industrial development, resulting in increased student enrollment; 8. The district has no immediately available source of funding to accomplish its extensive construction needs; 9. The district finds that due to current development trends, school facilities have not been installed in time to meet immediate needs. The result is that new residents are being inadequately served and the education of all students has suffered; 10. If the implementation of this resolution is delayed, the district will receive less revenue than that . . tjr projected for its requirements. /// /// - 1 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 -12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11. This urgency resolution is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the students of School District; BE IT RESOLVED, that the School District shall levy a fee of $ per square foot of residential covered or enclosed construction and $ per square foot of industrial and commercial covered or enclosed construction. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board hereby finds that new industrial and commercial development will impact the district in that parents who work in the school district but reside outside of the school district's boundaries may send their children to schools operated by the school district which are already overcrowded and that if no fee is levied on the commercial and industrial developments within the district, the district will not have sufficient funds to complete the project(s) approved by the State Allocation Board. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board hereby finds that the effects of overcrowding have posed a current threat to the adequacy of the district's educational programs. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, as a result of the urgent need for school facilities, the Board shall impose developer fees effective immediately. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board's authority to impose fees shall be for thirty (30) days, and that this Board hereby set , 198_, at .m. as the time and date for a public hearing on the issue whether this urgency mea- sure should be extended for a subsequent thirty (30) day period. 3 it a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 .BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Superintendent give notice to County and the City of of this Board's action by serving a copy of this Resolution on those agencies and requesting that no building permits be issued on or after , without certification from the District that the fees specified herein have been paid. This Resolution is adopted this day of 198_,. by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: - : - • President Board of Trustees. School District Ch. 886 • STATUTES OF 1986, (6) Such other recommendations as the contractor may suggest to improve the efficiency of the administrative processes relatedto state funding for school facilities. • (7) Making greater use of automation in the application process. For any improvements to the current process determined to be both feasible and desirable, the contractor shall propose specific implementation methods, time tables, and costs or savings. The contractor shall submit a preliminary report on or before August 1,. 1987, and a final report on or before January 10, 1988. The Department of General Services, Office of Local 'Assistance, shall report to the Office of the Legislative Analyst on or before November 1, 1988, on . the status of implementation of the recommendations made by the study contractor. SEC. 38. Sections 1 to 37, inclusive, of this act shall become operative only if Assembly Bill 2926 is enacted and becomes effective on January 1, 1987. SEC. 39. Reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for costs mandated by the state pursuant to this act shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code and, if the statewide cost of the claim for reimbursement does not five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), shall be made from exceed the State Mandates Claims Fund. SCHOOL FACILITIES—CONSTRUCTION—FUNDING Assembly Bill No. 2926 CHAPTER 887 • An act to amerj�d. Sections Sections 17739.2, 7788, and3051 of, and to add Sections17705.5 andlr9015.5 to, the Educatio Code, to amend Section`�6"5974, and -to add Sections 53080 and 53 and Chapter 4.9 (commencing with Section 65995Kto Division 1 of Title 7 of, the Government Code, and to amend Section 6217 of the Public Re- sources Code, relating to school facilities, and making an appropria- tion therefor. [Approved by Governor September 18, 1986. Filed with Secretary of State September 18, 1986.] LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 2926, Stirling. School facilities. (1) Under existing law, cities and counties are authorized to impose developer fees, as a condition of the issuance of building permits, to pay certain school construction costs. 838 Changes or additions In text are Indicated by underline 1985-1986 RE This bill would impose a prohibiting cities and counties fl certification from the appropri that the development is in co requirement imposed by that gc This bill would also grant the a' boards to impose developer feet prohibit the, imposition of -other statutory fees and requirements and would limit the methods o; relating to the adequacy of s prohibitions would be repealed ii any state general obligation bor purposes in any primary or gem (2) The Leroy F. Greene Sta Law of 1976 provides for the acc facilities by the state and the h school districts. This bill lc .wou requirement for the building cost construction or rehabilitation of sc would be measured as the am application of the maximum dev authorized to impose upon all industrial construction occurring period of time, as specified. This the voters of this state failed to bond measure for school constrn general election. (3) Existing law provides that "money authorized under the Sta.! Bond Act of 1984 for the acquisiti the state and the lease -purchase may be reserved for the rehabilits Of those reserved moneys, the St not more than $25,000,000 for sc construct school facilities for schc the apportionment, based upo inadequacies due to increased en This bill would base the deb conditions established by the boar limited to, those specified criteri< This bill would also provide th authorized for the reconstructs facilities, as specified, the board m< for school districts that are dete apportionment for this purpose. (4) Pursuant to existing law, the authority to, among other things, classrooms to qualifying school di; Existing law provides that the 1 Director of the State Department 'Ymbol ♦ Indicates text deletion 1985-1986 REGULAR SESSION Ch. 887 This bill would impose a state-mandated local program by prohibiting cities and counties from issuing building permits absent certification from the appropriate school district governing board that the development is in compliance with any developer fee requirement imposed by that governing board. This bill would also grant the authority to school district governing' boards to impose developer fees, subject to specified limits, would prohibit the, imposition of other developer fees, excepting certain statutory fees and requirements relating to interim school facilities, and would limit the methods of mitigating environmental effects relating to the adequacy of school facilities. These limits and prohibitions would be repealed if the voters of this state fail to ratify. any state general obligation bond measure for school construction purposes in any primary or general election. (2) . The Leroy F. Greene State School Building Lease-Purchase Law of 1976 provides for the acquisition and construction of school facilities by the state and the lease-purchase of those facilities by school districts. This bill ,would impose -a local matching share requirement for the building cost portion of any project for the new construction or rehabilitation of school Facilities. This matching share would be measured as the amount that would result from the application of the maximum developer fee the district is statutorily authorized to impose upon all new residential, commercial, and industrial construction occurring in the district over a designated period of time, as specified. This requirement would be repealed if the voters of this state failed to ratify any state general obligation bond measure for school construction purposes in any primary or general election. (3) Existing law provides that not more than $200,000,000 of the money authorized under the State School Building Lease-Purchase Bond Act of 1984 for the acquisition and construction of facilities by the state and the lease-purchase of those facilities by school districts may be reserved for the rehabilitation or modernization of facilities. Of those reserved moneys, the State Allocation Board may reserve not more than $25,000,000 for school districts to acquire sites and construct school facilities for school sites that are in severe need of the apportionment, based upon specified criteria relating to 'inadequacies due to increased enrollment. This bill would base the determination of severe need upon conditions established by the board, which would include, but not be limited lo, those specified criteria. This bill would also provide that, of the amount of $360,000,000 authorized for the reconstruction or modernization of school facilities, as specified, the board may reserve up to and including 10% for school districts that are determined to be in severe need of apportionment for this purpose. (4) Pursuant to existing law, the State Allocation Board is granted authority to, among other things, own, maintain, and lease portable classrooms to qualifying school districts. Existing law provides that the board shall make available to the Director of the State Department of General Services, in amounts 'Ymboi y Indicates text deletion 839 Ch. 887 STATUTES OF 1986 which it determines necessary for provision of classrooms, any funds available to the board for this purpose from the State School Building Aid Fund. This bill would provide .that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the board may make available to the Director of General Services up to $15,000,000 annually from any funds available to the board for purchase of portable classrooms. This authorization would constitute an appropriation to the extent it authorizes any existing appropriation to be expended for a new purpose. (5) Under existing law, the State Lands Commission is required with certain exceptions, to deposit tidelands revenues, moneys, and remittances in the State Treasury, and to allocate the moneys to specified obligations • in a specified order. Pursuant to this requirement, the State School Building Lease -Purchase Fund is entitled to an allocation of $150,000,000 in each of the fiscal years 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88, and 1988-89. This bill would extend that 'allocation entitlement to the 1989-90 and 1990-91 fiscal years. • (6) This bill would appropriate $30,000,000 from designated federal oil overcharge funds received by the state to the State Allocation Board without regard to fiscal year for allocation to school districts for school air-conditioning and insulation needs pursuant to the operation of year-round educational programs, as specified. (7) This bill would specify that its provisions would become operative only if SB 327 is enacted and becomes effective on January 1, 1987. • (8) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement, including the creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs of mandates which do not exceed $500,000 statewide and other procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed $500,000. This bill would provide that reimbursement for costs mandated by the bill shall be made pursuant to those statutory procedures and, if the statewide cost does not exceed $500,000, shall be payable from the State Mandates Claims Fund. Appropriation: yes. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature that the state share with local governmental entities the financial burden of school facilities construction, of which the state's share is to be funded from such revenue sources as general obligation bond proceeds and specified tidelands moneys and other revenues as specified in Assembly Bill 2926 of the 1985-86 Regular Session. Subject to the approval by the electorate of state general obligation bond measures, the state intends to stand behind that funding commitment. SEC. 2. Section 17705.5 is added to the Education Code, to read: 840 Changes or additions In text ars Indicated by underline 1985-1986 RE( 17705.5. (a) The total buildin for any project approved under tl or rehabilitation of one or more the amount of the. local match under subdivision (b). (b) Each school district to wh• this chapter for the new construct school facilities shall provide, as an amount equal to the followin; (1) The product of the appl subdivision (b) of Section 65995 number of square feet of new resi construction, as appropriate, for within the boundaries of the scht the board approves the district under this chapter to the date ug for the project is issued, except tl time reasonably necessary for the where the district meets its obli chapter. This amount it reduced (A) Any amounts expended b period of time for the acquisiti pursuant to Chapter 4.9 (com Division 1 of Title 7 of the Gover the fee Levied by the district dt limited to the acquisition of inter temporarily house that number pupil loading standards, by subtra of the district based on a three -ye average daily attendance of tl enrollment project. Enrollment F made in accordance with this ch (B) Any amounts expended b: period of time for the local mat under this chapter from the proce during that period. (C) An amount reflecting th. precluded from collecting those collection of developer fees b: common territorial jurisdiction. (c) For purposes of establishir costs pursuant to subdivision (a), matching share by using the pro amount that would have resul• maximum fee to the square foot the district over the three calen project application times the nun estimates the fee will be collect project to be funded. (d) Only those project applica 1987, the board had made the app symbol y Indicates text deletion a 1985-1986 REGULAR SESSION Ch. 887 17705.5. (a) The total building cost portion of any state funding for any project approved under this chapter for the new construction or rehabilitation of one or more school facilities shall be reduced by the amount of the local matching share requirement computed under subdivision (b) . (b) Each school district to which funds are allocated pursuant to this chapter for the new construction or rehabilitation of one or more school facilities shall provide, as its share of the cost of the project, an amount equal to the following: (1) The product of the applicable maximum fee set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 65995 of the Government Code times the number of square feet of new residential, commercial, and industrial construction, as appropriate, for which building permitsare issued within the boundaries of the school district from the date on which the board approves the district's application for project funding under this chapter to the date upon which the notice of completion for the project is issued, except that this period shall not exceed the time reasonably necessary for the final apportionment to be issued where the district meets its obligations as an applicant under this chapter. This amount is reduced by the sum of the following: (A) Any amounts expended by the district during the described period of time for the acquisition of interim classroom facilities pursuant to Chapter 4.9 (commencing with Section 65970) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code from the proceeds of the fee levied by the district during that period. This amount is limited to the acquisition of interim classroom facilities necessary to temporarily house that number of pupils calculated, under state pupil loading standards, by subtracting the average daily attendance , of the district based on a three-year enrollment projection from the average daily attendance of the district based on a five-year enrollment project. Enrollment projections for this purpose shall be made in accordance with this chapter. (B) Any amounts expended by the district during the described period of time for the local matching share of any project funded under this chapter from the proceeds of the fee levied by the district during that period. (C) An amount reflecting the extent to which the district is precluded from collecting those fees by reason of the levy and collection of developer fees by another school district having common territorial jurisdiction. (c) For purposes of establishing an estimate of the state project costs pursuant to subdivision (a) , the board may estimate the local matching share by using the product of the annual average of the amount that would have resulted from the application of the maximum fee to the square footage of all new construction within the district over the three calendar years preceding the district's project application times the number of years over which the board estimates the fee will be collected by the district pursuant to the project to be funded. (d) Only those project applications for which, prior to January 1, 1987, the board had made the apportionment for site acquisition and symbol v Indicates text deletion 841 • Ch. 887 STATUTES OF 1986 working drawings or the final'apportionment for construction of the project shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter in effect prior to that date. (e) The board may provide a loan to any applicant district in an amount equal to all or a part of the district's obligation under subdivision (b), subject to the requirement that the district pay each month to the board, as reimbursement, an amount equal to the proceeds that would be received by the district from the imposition of the fee described under subdivision (b) until the total amount of the loan has been repaid, together with interest computed pursuant. to Section 16065. (f) The board may make the loan specified in subdivision (e) from any funds available from any source, including, but not limited to, those amounts made available pursuant to Section 16065. (g) All loan and interest amounts paid to the state pursuant to this section shall be available for the use of the board in the funding of projects as otherwise provided under this chapter, including, but not limited to, additional loans. (h) This section shall remain in effect only until such date as any state general obligation bond measure submitted to the voters of this state for their ratification, which measure includes within its purposes the funding of school facilities construction, fails to receive that ratification, and as of that date is repealed. SEC. 3. Section 17739.2 of the Education Code is amended to read: 17739.2. Of the moneys reserved for the rehabilitation or modernization of facilities pursuant to Section 17739.1, the board may reserve not more than twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000) for apportionments to school districts that the board has determined to be in severe need of the apportionment. In addition, of the moneys reserved for the reconstruction or modernization of facilities pursuant to Section 17696.96, the board may reserve up to and including 10 percent for this purpose. In either event, the apportionment shall be for purposes of site acquisition and the construction of school facilities for school sites that meet one or more of the"conditions established by the board, which shall include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) The school site is not less than 30 years of age. (b) The school site has accommodated a significant .increase in enrollment during the last 10 -year period. (c) Enrollment increases have been accommodated by placing relocatable structures on the school site without expanding the school site. (d) The school site has inadequate playground space for its enrollment. (e) The school site has inadequate meal facilities, and those facilities are used for more than three times the number of pupils for which the facilities were originally designed. SEC. 4. Section 17788 of the Education Code is amended to read: 842 Changes or additions In text are Indicated by underline 1985-198611 17788. In addition to any of the board by this chapter, oth the board has the power to do (a) Establish qui fico provisions of this chapter, as it this chapter, for determining county superintendents of scho this chapter. (b) Establish any procedure: administration of this chapter (c) Adopt any rules and regi chapter requiring such procedu deem necessary. (d) Have constructed„ furnis: whatever work is necessary to 1 sites where needed. (e) Own, have maintained, qualifying school districts and c (f) From any moneys in the available for purposes of this cha to the Director of General Sery necessary to provide the assi required by Section 15504 of the - (g) \otwithstanding any oth( make available to the Director 815,000,000 anrn million dollars oard. These funds shall be utihz for the ur oses of this section. SEC. 5. Section 33051 of t e E 33051. (a) The State Board o all requests for waivers except specifically finds any of the follol (1) The educationalneeds a addressed. (2) The waiver affects a progrz school site council and the schoo request. (3) The appropriate councils o bilingual advisory committees, did to review the request and the re summary of any objections to the r committees. (4) Pupil or school personnel p (5) Guarantees of parental invc (6) The request would substant (7) The exclusive representative in Chapter 10.7 (commencing wit Title 1 of the Government Code development of the waiver. (b) The State Board of Educatic for waiver of any provision of Artic sYmboi, Indicates text deletion • 1°Cal-Leg .5ery.•86—ts -r 1985-1986 REGULAR SESSION Ch. 887 17788. In addition to any other powers and duties as are granted. the board by this chapter, other statutes, or the State Constitution, the board has the power to do each of the following: (a) Establish any qualifications not in conflict with other provisions of this chapter, as it deems will best serve the purposes of this chapter, for determining the eligibility of school districts and county superintendent's of schools to lease portable classrooms under this chapter. (b) Establish any procedures and policies in connection with the administration of this chapter as it deems necessary. (c) Adopt any rules and regulations for the administration of this chapter requiring such procedure, forms, and information, as it may deem necessary. (d) Have constructed, furnished, equipped, or otherwise require whatever work is necessary to place, portable classrooms on school sites where needed. (e) Own, have maintained, and lease portable classrooms to qualifying school districts and county superintendents of schools. (f) From any moneys in the State School Building Aid Fund available for purposes of this chapter, the board shall make available to the Director of General Services such amounts as it determines necessary' to provide the assistance, pursuant to this chapter, required by Section 15504 of the Government Code. (g) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the board may make available to the Director of General Services up to fifteen million dollars (S15,000,000) annually from any funds available to the board. These funds shall be utilized to purchase portable classrooms for the purposes of this section. SEC. 5. Section 33051 of the Education Code is amended to read: 33051. (a) The State Board of Education shall approve any and all requests for waivers except in those cases where the board specifically finds any of the following: (1) The educational needs of the pupils are not adequately addressed. (2) The waiver affects a program that requires the existence of a school site council and the school site council did not approve the request. (3) The appropriate councils or advisory committees, including bilingual advisory committees, did not have an adequate opportunity to review the request and the request did not include a written summary of any objections to the request by the councils or advisory committees. (4) Pupil or school personnel protections are jeopardized. (5) Guarantees of parental involvement are jeopardized. (6) The request would substantially increase state costs. (7) The exclusive representative of employees, if any, as provided in Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, was not a participant in the development of the waiver. (b) The State Board of Education shall not approve any request for waiver of any provision of Article 5 (commencing with Section symbols Indicates text deletion 843 10 CaI.Leg serv. '86-19 • • 4, Ch. 887 STATUTES OF 1986 39390) of Chapter 3 of Part 23 unless the school district seeking the waiver demonstrates all of the following: (1) The school district provided the written notice required under subdivision (f) of Section 33050. (2) The school district, after making a good -faith effort to that purpose, was unable to reach agreement with any public agency identified under Section 39394 that seeks to acquire the site under that article on terms and conditions that are consistent with the requirements of the purchase plan adopted by the agency under Section 39397.5 and would enable the district to meet its reasonable financial goals. (3) The detriment to the school district's ability to financially meet the educational needs of the community resulting from the disposition of the school site pursuant to the sale price or lease rate limitations set forth in Section 39396, as compared to the fair market value of the site, outweighs the need for the use of the site for outdoor recreational and open -space purposes as established by a finding made under Section 39397. (4) In the event that the school district enters into a long-term lease during the period of the waiver or any extension thereof, the school district shall be exempt from the requirements of Article 5 (commencing with Section 39390) of Chapter 3 of Part 33, for the duration of the lease term for that site. (c) A waiver shall be approved or renewed by the State Board of Education prior to its implementation for the period of time requested by the governing board of a district, but not to exceed two years, except that a waiver approved pursuant to subdivision (b) may be for up to three years. SEC. 6. Section 39015.5 is added to the Education Code, to read: 39015.5. The amount of any nonuse payments required of any school district under Section 39015 shall be reduced, without regard to fiscal year, by the amount of the proceeds, resulting from the lease of district property that is subject to that section, that are expended by the district for the purposes of subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 17705.5, or for the payment of bond debt service costs that are directly related to the actual construction of school facilities. SEC. 7. The Legislature finds and declares as follows: (a) Many areas of this state are experiencing substantial development and population growth, resulting in serious overcrowding in school facilities. (b) Continued economic development requires the availability of the school facilities needed to educate the state's young citizens. • (c) In growing areas of this state, the lack of availability of the public revenues needed to construct school facilities is a serious problem, undermining both the education of the state's children and the continued economic prosperity of California. (d) For these reasons, a comprehensive school facilities finance program based upon a partnership of state and local governments and the private sector is required to ensure the availability of school facilities to serve the population growth generated by new development. 844 Changes or additions In text are Indicated by underline amount of financing provided to Pursuant to this section shall be rea of the authority, to the amount of f the authority to be derived from or school district, nothing in this secti. shall be deemed to require a pro/ between the amount of the fine - Participating school district pursuar of fees on construction actually der: Participating school district pursuai ♦ Indicates text deletion 1985-1986 RI (e) The Legislature there appropriate fees by school dis authorized by this act is a re expansion and construction of economic development within SEC. 8. Section 53080 is adde 53080. (a) The. governing authorized to levy a fee, cha: requirement against any develol 65928, for new construction with the construction or reconstructic limitations set forth in Chapter 4.° 'of Division 1 of Title 7. (b) No city or county, wheth issue a building permit for any d, the appropriate school district of project with any fee, charge requirement levied by the gove, pursuant to subdivision (a). • (c) In the case of the sale of a m the payment of fees to either the occur at the time of occupancy r manufactured home or mobileho the Health and Safety Code. SEC. 9. Section 53081 is added 53081. A school district that i within the school district may use loans, leases or other installmen limited to, bonds issued by the a installment agreements that seem The authority may issue bonds, in finance projects for one or more have imposed fees on constructior may be payable from and secured For this purpose, participating schc all or any part of those fees to the a and assigned to the authority, an Pledged and assigned by the autl issued by the authority to finance school districts. While it is the in 1985-1986 REGULAR SESSION Ch. 887 (e) The . Legislature therefore finds that the levying of appropriate fees by school district governing boards at the rates authorized by this act is a reasonable method of financing the expansion and construction of school facilities resulting from new economic development within the district. SEC. 8. Section 53080 is added to the Government Code, to read: 53080. (a). The. governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other form of requirement against any development project, as defined .in Section.. 65928, for new construction within the boundaries of the district; for the construction or reconstruction of school facilities, subject to any limitations set forth in Chapter 4.9 (commencing with Section 65995) of Division 1 of Title 7. (b) No city or county, whether general law or chartered, may issue a building perinit for any development absent certification by the appropriate school district of compliance by that development project with any fee, charge, dedication, or other form of requirement levied by the governing board of that school district pursuant to subdivision (a). • (c) In the case of the sale of a manufactured home or mobilehome, the payment of fees to either the school district or other entity shall occur at the time of occupancy pursuant to the sale or lease of the manufactured home or mobilehome pursuant to Section 18080.5 of the Health and Safety Code. SEC. 9. Section 53081 is added to the Government Code, to read: 53081. A school district that imposes any fees on construction within the school district may use those fees to pay any bonds, notes, loans, leases or other installment agreements including, but not limited to, bonds issued by the authority or loans, leases or other installment agreements that secure bonds issued by the authority. The authority may issue bonds, in accordance with Section 17883, to finance projects for one or more participating school districts that have imposed fees on construction within the district, which bonds may be payable from and secured by those fees in whole or in part. For this purpose, participating school districts may pledge and assign all or any part of those fees to the authority, and the fees so pledged and assigned to the authority, and any income thereon, may be pledged and assigned by the authority to the payment of bonds issued by the authority to finance projects for those participating school districts. While it is the intent of the Legislature that the amount of financing provided to a participating school district pursuant to this section shall be reasonably related, in the judgment of the authority, to the amount of fees on construction expected by the authority to be derived from or attributable to that participating school district, nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall be deemed to require a proportionate or other relationship between the amount of the financing actually provided to a participating school district pursuant to this section and the amount of fees on construction actually derived from or attributable to that participating school district pursuant to this section or used by the symbol v Indicates text deletion 845 Ch. 887 STATUTES OF 1986 authority to secure or pay any bonds of the authority issued pursuant to this section. SEC. 10. Section 65974 of the Government Code is amended to read: 65974. (a) For the purpose of establishing an interim method of providing classroom facilities where overcrowded conditions exist, as determined necessary pursuant to Section 65971, and notwithstanding Section 66478, a city, county, or city and county may, by ordinance, require the dedication of land, the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for classroom and related facilities for elementary or high schools as a condition to the approval of a residential development, if all of the following occur: (1) The general plan provides for the location of public schools. (2) The ordinance has been in effect for a period of 30 days prior to the implementation of the dedication or fee requirement. (3) The land or fees, or both, transferred to a school district shall be used only for the purpose of providing interim elementary or high school classroom and related facilities. If fees are paid in lieu of the dedication of land and those fees are utilized to purchase land, no more land shall be purchased than is necessary for the placement thereon of interim facilities. (4) The location and amount of land to be dedicated or the amount of fees to be paid, or both, shall bear a reasonable relationship and be limited to the needs of the community for interim elementary or high school facilities and shall be reasonably related and limited to the need for schools caused by the development. However, the value of the land to be dedicated or the amount of fees to be paid, or both, shall not exceed the amount necessary to pay five annual lease payments for the interim facilities. In lieu of the dedication of land or the payment of fees, or both, the builder of a residential development may, at his or her option' and at his or her expense, provide interim facilities, owned or controlled by the builder, at the place designated by the school district, and at the conclusion of the fifth school year the builder shall, at the builder's expense, remove the interim facilities from that place. (5) A finding is made by the city council or board of supervisors that the facilities to be constructed from the fees or the land to be dedicated, or both, is consistent with the general plan. (b) The ordinance may specify the methods for mitigating the conditions of overcrowding which the school district shall consider when making the finding required by paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 65971. (c) If the payment of fees is required, the payment shall be made at the time the building permit is issued or at a later time as may be specified in the ordinance. (d) Only the payment of fees may be required in subdivisions containing 50 parcels or less. (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, contracts entered into or contracts to be entered into pursuant to a School Facilities Master Plan administered by a Joint Powers Authority created under Cha • ter 5 commencin _ with Section 6500 of 846 Changes or additions In text are indicated by underline 1985-.1986 R. Division 7 of Title 1 of the community plan area adopted whether general law or charte that requires the payment of construction of school facilitie residential development shall subdivision (b) of Section E determnuna developer fees un the cost and maximum bttildiu prescribed by Chapter 22 (come 10 of the Education Code sha •districts involved are re Assistance and activel prelttntnary determination of e that chapter, and shall acti establishment of a communit permanent financing mechanise fees. • Anv fees collected or land d pursuant to this section, and not facilities to built pursuant to tl be subject to disposition in ac Section 65979. Fees collected in excess of the Ib) of Section 65995 for schoe facilities master plan shall neitl school district's application for (commencing with Section 17700 SEC. 11. Chapter 4.9 (comme to Division 1 of Title 7 of the Ga CHAPTER 4.9. PAYMENT OF Fi OTHER REQUIREMENTS AGAR 65995. (a) Except for a dedica Section 53080, or pursuant to Char 65970), no fee, charge, dedication, be levied by the legislative bo development project, as defin. construction or reconstruction of (b) In no event shall the amou or other form of requirement, including the amount of fees to b dedicated, or both, under Chapte 65970), exceed the following: (1) One dollar and fifty cents (, or enclosed space, in the case of a (2) Twenty-five cents ($0.25) enclosed space, in the case of development. No fee, charge, de requirement may be levied by any 'mom ♦ Indicates text deletion uired tc ursue 1985-1986 REGULAR SESSION Ch. 887 Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code for a designated community plan area adopted by a city, county, or city and county,. whether general law or chartered, on or before September 1, 1986, that requires the payment of a fee, charge, or dedication for the construction of school facilities as a condition to the approval of residential development shall not be subject to the provisions of subdivision (b) of Section 65995. Provided, however, that in determining developer fees under that school facilities master plan, the cost and maximum building area standards for school buildings prescribed by Chapter 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part 10 of the Education Code shall apply, and the school district or - districts involved are required to have on file with the Office of Local Assistance, and actively pursue in good faith, an application for preliminary determination of eligibility for project funding under that chapter, and shall actively pursue in good - faith the establishment of a community capital facilities district or other permanent financing mechanisms to reduce or eliminate developer fees: • Any fees collected or land dedicated after September 1, 1986, pursuant to this section, and not used to avoid overcrowding of the facilities to be built pursuant to the school facilities master plan, shall be subject to disposition in accordance with subdivision (b) of Section 65979. Fees collected in excess of the limitations set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 65995 for schools constructed under that school facilities master plan shall neither advantage nor disadvantage a school district's application for project funding under Chapter 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part 10 of the Education Code. SEC. 11. Chapter 4.9 (commencing with Section 65995) is added to Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, to read: CHAPTER 4.9. PAYMENT OF FEES, CHARLES, DEDICATIONS, OR OTHER REQUIREMENTS AGAINST A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 65995. (a) Except for a dedication or fee, or both, required under Section 53080, or pursuant to Chapter 4.7 (commencing with Section 65970), no fee, charge, dedication, or other form of requirement shall be levied by the legislative body of a local agency against a development project, as defined by Section 65928, for the . construction or reconstruction of school facilities. (b) In no event shall the amount of any fee, charge, dedication, or other form of requirement, as described in subdivision (a), including the amount of fees to be paid or the value of land to be dedicated, or both, under Chapter 4.7 (commencing with Section 65970), exceed the following: (1) One dollar and fifty cents ($1.50) per square foot of covered or enclosed space, in the case of any residential development. (2) Twenty-five cents ($0.25) per square foot of covered or enclosed space, in the case of any commercial or industrial development. No fee, charge, dedication, or other form of the requirement may be levied by any school district governing board symbol y Indicates text deletion Ch: 887 STATUTES OF 1986 . upon any commercial or industrial development unless and until the governing board has first made the finding that the location and amount of land to be dedicated or the amount of fees to be paid, or both, shall bear a reasonable -relationship and be limited to the needs of the community for elementary or high school facilities and shall be reasonably related and limited to the need for schools caused by. the development. (3) The amount of the limits set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be annually increased according to the adjustment for inflation set forth in the statewide cost index for class B construction, as determined by the State Allocation Board at its January. meeting. (c) Subdivision (a) does not apply during the tern of any contract entered into between a subdivider or builder and a school district, city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered, on or before the effectivedate of this chapter that requires the. payment of a fee, charge, or dedication for the construction of school facilities as a condition to the approval of residential development. In addition, any development project for which a final map was approved and construction had commenced on or before September 1, 1986, is subjectto only the fee, charge, dedication, or other form of requirement prescribed in any local ordinance in existence on that date and applicable to the project. (d) The Legislature finds and declares that the subject of the financing of school facilities with development fees is a matter of statewide concern. For this reason the Legislature hereby occupies the subject matter of mandatory development fees and other development requirements for school facilities finance to the exclusion of all local measures on the subject. (e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to limit or prohibit the use of Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 53311) of Division 2 of Title 5 to finance the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. 65996. The following provisions shall be.the exclusive methods of mitigating environmental effects related to the adequacy of school facilities when considering the approval or the establishment of conditions for the approval of a development project, as defined by Section 65928 of the Government Code pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code: (a) Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 53311)• of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code. (b) Chapter 4.7 (commencing with Section 65970) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. (c) Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 15450) of Part 10 of the Education Code. (d) Chapter 22 (commencing•with Section 17700) of Part 10 of the Education Code. (e) Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 17870) of Part 10 of the Education Code. (f) Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 17785) of Part 10 of the Education Code. 848 Changes or additions In text are Indicated by underline 1985-1986 (g) Article 2.5 (commend Part 23 of the Education Coc (h) Article 3 (commencin Part 24 of the Education Coc No public agency shall, puri Section . 21000) of the Put (commencing with Section 6 project on the basis of the ad 65997.. This chapter shall r any state general obligation of this state for their ratificati purposes the funding of schoc that ratification, and asof tin SEC. 12. Section 6217 of ti by Chapter 1749 of the Status 6217. With the exception lands and from sources descr 6855, and 8551 to 8558, inclu. proceeds are from property t to the state in connection persons), the commission sh revenues, moneys, and remitts and under Chapter 138 of th( Session, and these sums shall in the following order: (a) To the General Fund tlE fiscal year for the following: (1) Payment of refunds, approved by the State Board for that purpose by the. Legis (2) Payment of expensiitun annual Budget Act approved (3) Payments to cities and Section 6817 for the purpos( revenues so deposited are api (4) Payments to cities anc pursuant to the provisions of (b) To the California Wate twenty-five million dollars ($: (c) To the Central Valley V fiscal year the amount of five (d) To the Resources Ag thousand dollars ($500,000) f 1985-86,1986-87,1987 , and private higher education for matching share for projects u and Program Act of 1966 recommendation of the advis section, by the Secretary of designee. During the 1988-4 consider recommendations fr symbol y Indicates text deletion 1985-1986 REGULAR SESSION Ch. 887 (g) Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 39327) of Chapter 3 of Part 23 of the Education Code. (h) Article 3 (commencing with Section 42260) of Chapter 7 of Part 24 of the Education Code. No public agency shall, pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public ' Resources Code or Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410) of this code, deny approval of a project on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities. 63997. . This chapter shall remain in effect only until such date as any state general obligation bond measure submitted to the voters of this state for their ratification, which measure includes within its. purposes the funding of school facilities construction, fails to receive that ratification, and as of that date is repealed. SEC. 12. Section 6217 of the Public Resources Code, as amended by Chapter 1749 .of the Statutes of 1984, is amended to read: 6217. With the exception of revenues derived from state school lands and from sources described in Sections 6217.6, 6301.5, 6301.6, 6855, and 8551 to 8558, inclusive, and Section 6406 (insofar as the proceeds are from property that has been distributed or escheated to the statein connection with unclaimed estates of deceased persons) , the commission shall deposit in the State Treasury all revenues, moneys, and remittances received by it under this division, and under Chapter 138 of the Statutes of 1964, First Extraordinary Session, and these sums shall be applied to the following obligations in the following order: (a) To the General Fund the revenue!necessary to provide in any fiscal year for the following: (1) Payment of refunds, authorized by the commission and approved by the State Board of Control, out of appropriations made for that purpose by the Legislature. (2) Payment of expenditures of the commission as provided in the annual Budget Act approved by the Legislature. (3) Payments to cities and counties of the amounts specified in Section 6817 for the purposes specified in that section, and the revenues so deposited are appropriated for such purpose. (4) Payments to cities and counties of the amounts agreed to pursuant to the provisions of Section 6875. (b) To the California Water Fund each fiscal year the amount of twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000) . (c) To the Central Valley Water Project Construction Fund each fiscal year the amount of five million dollars ($5,000,000) . (d) To the Resources Agency, the amount of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) for each of the fiscal years 1984-85, 1985-86,1986--87,1987-88, and 1988-89 for distribution for public and private higher education for use as up to two-thirds of the local matching share for projects under the National Sea Grant College tg anand Program Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-688)' approved, upon recommendation of the advisory panel appointed pursuant to this section, by the Secretary of the Resources Agency or his or her designee. During the 1988-89 fiscal year, the Legislature shall consider recommendations from the Secretary 'of the Resources symbol v Indicates text deletion 849 s+� Ch:887 STATUTES OF 1986 Agency and other interested parties on the benefits to the people of the State' of California derived from this program and shall determine whether or not to continue similar appropriations for subsequent fiscal years. There shall be an advisory panel to the Secretary of the Resources Agency consisting of 13 members, which shall do all of the following: (1) Identify state needs _ that might be met through Sea Grant research projects, including, but not limited to, such fields as living marine resources, aquaculture, ocean engineering, marine minerals, public recreation, coastal physical processes and coastal and ocean resources planning and management, and marine data acquisition and dissemination, establish priorities for those needs, and transmit those needs and priorities to the Legislature not later than January 1 of each year and include them in all, announcements of proposals for grants in the following fiscal year. (2) Review all applications for funding under this section and make recommendations based upon the priorities it establishes. (3) Periodically review progress on Sea Grant research projects subsequent to their approval and funding under this section. (4) Make recommendations to the Secretary of the Resources Agency with respect to the implementation of this section. The Secretary of the Resources Agency shall appoint the following members of the advisory panel, who shall serve at the pleasure of the secretary: (A) A representative of the Department of Boating and Waterways. (B) A representative of the Department of Conservation. (C) A representative of the Department of Fish and Game. (D) The Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission or his or her designee. (E)• A representative of the fish industry. (F) A representative of the aquaculture industry. (G) A representative of the ocean engineering industry. (H) A representative of the University of California. (I) A representative of the California State University. (10) (I) A representative of a private California institution of higher education which is participating in the National Sea Grant Program. (K) A representative of the State Lands Commission. The Senate Committee on Rules shall appoint one Member of the Senate to the panel, who shall serve at the pleasure of the Senate Committee on Rules. The Speaker of the Assembly shall appoint one Member of the Assembly to the panel, who shall serve at the pleasure of the Speaker. This member shall not be of the same political party as the member appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules. The Secretary of the Resources Agency shall designate one member of the panel to serve as its chairman. Panel members shall serve without compensation. The Sea Grant research projects selected for state support under this section shall have a clearly defined benefit to the people of the 850 Changes or additions In text are Indicated by underline 1985-1986 R1 State of California. The Legislr the funding provided by this development and utilization working constructively with p Nothing in this section shall be c for funding of any project that the terms of the National Sea Gr (e) To the Capital Outlay Ft the 1984-85 fiscal year the amo hundred sixty-eight thousand fiscal year thereafter, the am unencumbered balance availabt fiscal year of one hundred twen (f) (1) To the State School each of the, fiscal years 1985--86 amount of one hundred fifty m (2) For the fiscal years 1984-8 1989-90, and 1990-91, up to 5 per State School Building Lease-Pui or any other provision of law Sections 17785 to 17795, int (Emergency School Classroom (g) To the Energy and F commencing with the 1985-86 million dollars ($65,000,000). (h) To the Special Account f revenues in excess of the amoun (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g). The commission may, with t Control, authorize the refund of illegally or by mistake, inadvertt the commission and approved b: filed with the Controller and tl warrant against the General Fun appropriation made for that pm All references in any law to Se to this section. SEC. 13. Notwithstanding Government Code, and to the e sure of thirty million dollars ($3( the State Allocation Board from created pursuant to Section 1636( by the state either from fel Petroleum Violations Escrow Ac 155 of the Further Continuing 97-377) or by any other federal funds available pursuant to tour regard to fiscal year to schc air-conditioning equipment anc Section 422501 of the Educatior symbol y indicates text deletion L 1985-1986 REGULAR SESSION Ch. 887, State of California. The Legislature hereby finds, and declares that the funding provided by this section is needed to stimulate the. development and utilization of ocean and coastal resources by working constructively with private sector firms and individuals. Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude the application for funding of any project that would be eligible forfunding under the terms of the National Sea Grant College and Program Act of 1966. (e) To the Capital Outlay Fund for Public Higher Education for the 1984-85 fiscal year the amount of one hundred two million one hundred sixty-eight thousand dollars ($102,168,000), and for .each fiscal year thereafter, the amount necessary to provide for an." unencumbered balance available for appropriation on July 1 of each , fiscal year of one hundred twenty-fivemillion dollars ($125,000,000). (f) (1) To the State School Building Lease -Purchase Fund, for each of the fiscal years 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88, and 1988-89, the amount of one hundred fifty million dollars ($150,000,000). (2) For the fiscal years 1984-85,1985-86,1986-87,1987-88!1988-89, 1989-90, and 1990-91, up to 5 percent of the amounts deposited in the State School Building Lease -Purchase Fund pursuant to this section • or any other provision of law may be spent in accordance with Sections 17785 to 17795, inclusive, of the Education Code (Emergency School Classroom Law of 1979). (g) To the Energy and Resources Fund each fiscal year, commencing with the 1985-86 fiscal year, the amount of sixty-five million dollars ($65,000,000). (h) To the Special Account for Capital Outlay, the balance of all revenues in excess of the amount distributed under subdivisions (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g). The commission may, with the approval of the State Board of Control, authorize the refund of moneys received or collected by it illegally or by mistake, inadvertence, or error. Claims authorized by the commission and approved by the State Board of Control shall be filed with the Controller and the Controller shall draw his or her warrant against the General Fund in payment of the refund from any appropriation made for that purpose. All references in any law to Section 6816 shall be deemed to refer to this, section. SEC. 13. Notwithstanding Sections 13340 and 16361 of the Government Code, and to the extent permitted by federal law, the sum of thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) is hereby appropriated to the State Allocation Board from funds in the Federal Trust Fund, created pursuant to Section 16360 of the Government Code, received by the state either from federal oil overcharge funds in the Petroleum Violations Escrow Account, as defined by either Section 155 of the Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 1983 (P.L. 97-377) or by any other federal law, or from federal oil overcharge funds available pursuant to court judgments, for allocation without regard to fiscal year to school districts for the expenses of air-conditioning equipment and insulation materials pursuant to Section 42250.1 of the Education Code. e symbol v Indicates text deletion Ch. 887' STATUTES OF 1986 SEC. 14. (a) Sections 1 to 21, inclusive, of this act shall become , operative only if Senate Bill 327 is enacted and becomes effective on January 1, 1987. (b) As an additional condition, Sections 2 and 19 of this act shall become operative only if the Greene -Hughes School Building Lease Purchase Bond Law of 1986 was ratified by the voters of this state at the general election of November 4, 1986. SEC. 15. Reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for, costs mandated by the state pursuant to this act shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code and, if the statewide cost of the claim for reimbursement does not exceed five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), shall be made from the State Mandates Claims Fund. SCHOOL FACILITIES—AREA AND MAINTENANCE—FUNDING Senate Bill No. 2068 CHAPTER 888 An act to amend Sections 17732, 17742, 17742.5, 17749, and 39619.2 of the Education Code, to amend Section 53080 of the Government Code, to amend Section 6217 of the Public Resources Code, and to amend Section 14 of AB 2926 of the 1985-86 Regular Session, relating to school facilities financing, and making an appropriation therefor. [Approved by Governor September 18, 1986. Filed with Secretary of State September 18, 1986.) LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 2068, Seymour. School facilities. (1) The Leroy F. Greene State School Building Lease -Purchase Law of 1976 authorizes the State Allocation Board to provide state funding to eligible school districts for the construction of school facilities. This bill would require, in the calculation by the State Allocation Board of an applicant district's allowable building area, that the board provide that building area for covered unenclosed space, as defined, shall be counted as '/3 of the actual area. Under existing lav, the total area of portable classrooms of an applicant school district that exceeds 10% of the district's total area is exempted from the calculation of the adequate school construction of the district. This bill would permit the district to alternatively exempt the total area of portable classrooms in the attendance area of the project that exceeds 10% of the total attendance area. This bill would also extend 852 Changes or additions In text are Indicated by underline 1985-1986 RE the period of time for which th may be exempted, as specified. (2) Existing law authorizes establish a restricted fund to 1 maintenance fund," and provic specified amount in that fund i an apportionment of state mal Deferred Maintenance Fund apportionment of certain deferr to the funding provided under e meets specified criteria, includi match the additional apportion of local funds that have not beer aid. This bill would revise the required to meet. This bill would exempt from t district is liable to the State Al amount of revenues from the s; are applied by the -district to its project, xv-hich obligation %voulc Also proposed for adoptioi authorizing the governing boar charge, dedication, or other de%elopment within the distric construction. This bill would specify that th new commercial or industrial developments on any new const extent of the resulting increase (3) Under existing law, the with certain exceptions, to dept remittances in the State Treas specified obligations in a s requirement, the State Schoo entitled to an allocation of 815 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88, and This bill would extend that a and 1990-91 fiscal years. (4) This bill would specify t operative only if AB 2926 an effective January 1, 1987. ,Appropriation: yes. The people of the State of Cali SECTION 1. Section 17732 c read: 17732. The board shall fix re: change the rents from time to t rents shall not in any year exce (a) One dollar (81). symbol y Indicates text deletion and 26, c. ars as DSe its Ike the c. as ng: ict. for ool the P. be- rtall •an. int EDUCATION CODE § 17739.2 1, 1987] of the 1985-86 Regular Session is enacted and becomes effective January 1, 1987." § 17732.2; Repealed by Stats.1979, c. 1035, p. 3579, k 3.10, urgency, eff.. Sept. 26; 1979 § 17736. Expenditures from county school lease -purchase fund; authorization;, reimbursement (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), funds may * * * be expended from the county school lease -purchase fund by the applicant school district only when specifically authorized by the board for either direct project costs or reimbursements. (b) Upon specific authorization by the board, applicant school districts may be reimbursed from the • county school lease -purchase fund for expenditures, or commitments therefor, made prior to the approval of a project by the board, subject to all of the following conditions: (1) The expenditures or commitments were made in accordance with the terms of the approval of a • project. (2) The expenditures or commitments were made not more than four years prior to the approval of a project. • (3) The expenditures or commitments do not include any cost incurred for construction of a project. (Amended by Stats.1981, c. 1113, p. 4341, § 1; Stats.1986, c. 886, § 10.) § 17737. Repealed by Stats.1979, c. 1035, p. 3579, § 3.11, urgency, eff. Sept. 26, 1979 § 17739. Moneys authorized by State School Building Bond Law of 1982; reconstruction or modernization; limitations; priorities Not more than one hundred fifty million dollars ($150,000,000) of the moneys authorized by Chapter 21.5 -(commencing with Section 17680) shall be reserved for the reconstruction or moderniza- tion of facilities within the meaning of this chapter. (b) For purposes of this section, the State Allocation Board shall establish a separate priority system which shall be based on the following factors and any other factors which the board determines are appropriate: (1) Structural condition and age of the building. (2) Percentage of pupils affected in the district or attendance area. (3) Degree of utilization of eligible buildings. (4) Other building code deficiencies, such as health, safety, or electrical problems. (Added by Stats.1982, c. 410, p. 1752, § 2, urgency, eff. July 7, 1982. Amended by Stats.1983, c. 698, P. — § 1,) 1979 Legislation. Former § 17739 was repealed by Stats.1979, c. 1035, p. 3579, § 3.12. § 17739.1. State School Building Lease -Purchase Bond Law of 1984; reservation of moneys for reconstruction or modernization of facilities Not more than two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) of the moneys authorized by Chapter 21.6 (commencing with Section 17695) shall be reserved for the reconstruction or modernization of facilities within the meaning of this chapter. (Added by Stats.1984, c. 375, p. ` , § 2, urgency, eff. July 10, 1984.) § 17739.2. Moneys reserved for rehabilitation, reconstruction or modernization of facilities; limitation on reserve for apportionments; conditions Of the moneys reserved for the rehabilitation or modernization of facilities pursuant to Section 17739.1, the board may reserve not more than twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000) for apportion- ments to school districts that the board has determined to be in severe need of the apportionment. In addition, of the moneys reserved for the reconstruction or modernization of facilities pursuant to Asterisks * * * indicate deletions by amendment 195 § 17739.2 EDUCATION CODE Section 17696.96, the board may reserve up to and including 10 percent for this purpose. In either event, the apportionment shall be for purposes of site acquisition and the construction of school facilities for school sites that meet one or more of the ' ' ' conditions established by the board, which shall include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) The school site is not less than 30 years of age. (b) The school site has accommodated a significant increase in enrollment during the last 10–year period. (c) Enrollment increases have been accommodated by placing relocatable structures on the school site without expanding the school site. (d) The school site has inadequate playground space for its enrollment. (e) The school site has inadequate meal facilities, and those facilities are used for more than three times the number of pupils for which the facilities were originally designed. (Added by Stats.1984, c. 1749, p. —, § 2, urgency, eff. Sept. 30, 1984. Amended by Stats.1986, c. 887, § 3.) 1984 Legislation. Section 7 of Stats.1984, c. 1749, p. —, provides: "Section 17739.2 of the Education Code, as added by Section 2 of this act, shall become operative only if the State School Building Lease -Purchase Bond Law of 1984 [Propo- sition 26, adopted at Nov. 6, 1984 Election], as proposed by Section 17740.1. 17740.3. 17740.5. 17741.5. Chapter 375 of the Statutes of 1984 (SB 125 of the 1983-84 Regular Session of the Legislature), is adopted by the people of the State of California." • Library References Schools all. C.J.S. Schools and School Districts §§ 256, 257. ARTICLE 3. ALLOWANCES Increase in allowable building area of project. [New] Calculation of estimated average daily attendance; enrollment projections. [New] . Multistory buildings; exclusion of stairs and landings. Use of allowable building area for construction of district administration and maintenance facilities; inclusion in computation. 17741.6. Priority in allocation of funds for school facilities construction. 17742.2. Nonclassroom space. [New] 17742.3. Facilities no longer usable for school purposes. [New] 17742.5. Determination of area of adequate school construction; inclusion of portable classrooms. 17742.7. Formula for calculation of adequate school construction. [New] 17746.7. Determination of allowable building area. [New] 17747.5. Facilities used ,by pupils with exceptional needs; design and location; integration; regula- tions; waiver; exceptions. [New] 17749. Additional building area allocation; percentage of new construction as relocatable build- ings; matching requirement reduction. [New] 17750. Joint -use library facility; contract for operation; lease -purchase; evaluation of application for project; contents of contract; space calculations. 17751. Joint use of facilities; agreements; contents; evaluation of project applications. § 17740. Project approval; area of adequate school construction Except as provided in Section 17741, no project shall be approved, the building area of which, when added to the area of adequate school construction existing in the applicant school district at the time of application, will provide a total area of school building construction per unit of estimated average daily attendance in excess of that computed in accordance with Sections 17743, 17744, 17745, and 17746. As used in Sections 17741.5, 17743, .17744, 17745, and 17746, "maximum area" means maximum area of school building construction and "attendance unit" means unit of estimated average daily attendance. As used in this section and Sections 17745 and 17746, "attendance center" means a school maintained or to be maintained at a given location within a district. Enrollment projections shall be made for * ' the third fiscal year beyond the fiscal year in which the application is made for a project for kindergarten or any of grades 1 through 6, and for the fourth fiscal year beyond the Underline indicates changes or additions by amendment 196 EDUCATION CODE fiscal year in which the application is made f otherwise provided by the board, the :estirm number of family dwellings and mohilehon Safety Code, under construction or newly number of children residing in the district approved by the board. For the purposes of this chapter, pupils "- residing in a high school district that ma considered in determining or estimating tl ' unless one of the following conditions is m, (a) The elementary district is maintaining date prior to January 1, 1975. (b) The elementary district, by a vote withdrew its 7th and 8th grade pupils from (c) The elementary district, by a vote of withdrew its 7th and 8th grade pupils frc continues to qualify for a project, other tha remaining 7th and 8th grade pupils. In no e and 8th grade pupils at a distance less tht existing junior high facility. When these pupils are so considered in d. the elementary district, they shall not be attendance of the high school district for j1 (Amended by Stats.1981, c. 1113, p. 4342, § 1982; Stats. 1983, c. 1053; p. —, § 1; Sta. 1981 Legislation. § 17740.1. Increase in allowable Yauildin, The allowable building area of any proj any applicant school district, where the inc state programs administered by the State to this section in a project for which con exceed 110 percent of the area that wou excluded from the calculation of the area subsequent project applications by the dis (Added by Stats.1986, c. 886, § 12.) § 17740.3. Calculation of estimated ave Notwithstanding any other provision of applicant school district shall be calculated of time permitted by Section 17740, as req of the project is provided by the distric administered by the State Allocation Boa purposes of any subsequent project appli pupil enrollment, the estimate of average for any period of time, as requested by t 17740. (Added by Stats.1986, c. 886, § 13.) § 17740.5. Multistory buildings; exclusi Notwithstanding any other provision of stairs and appropriate landings for each building area of multistory buildings for (Added by Stats. 1983, c. 1053, p. —, § ' Asterisks * * * Indicate deletions by a § 17785 ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS EDUCATION CODE Section 17785. Short title. 17786. Legislative intent. 17787. Definitions. 17788. Powers and duties of board. 17788.5. Lessee empowered to act as agent of board. [New] 17789. Lease of portable classrooms; amount maintenance, repairs, etc.; costs. 17789.5. Lease of portable classrooms to districts or county superintendents serving infant or preschool individuals with exceptional needs. [New] 17790. Insurance. 17791. Rules; priorities; placement of additional portable classrooms. 17792. Eligibility of district evidence; new teaching stations. 17793. Performance specifications; bids. 17794. Cessation of lessee's need for portable classrooms; disposition. 17795. Waiver of penalty provisions. Article 1 was added by Stats.1979, c. 282, p. 973, § 9, urgency, eff. July 24, 1979. § 17785. Short title This chapter may be cited as the Emergency School Classroom Law of 1979. (Added by Stats.1979, c. 282, p. 973, § 9, urgency, eff. July 24, 1979.) § 17786. Legislative intent In adopting this chapter, the Legislature recognizes that the ad valorem tax is no longer available as a source of revenue for the construction of necessary school facilities. The Legislature considers that the greatest need in school construction is for classrooms for the education of public school pupils. It is the intent of the Legislature to satisfy this primary need to the greatest extent possible before providing any additional educational facilities, regardless of how desirable such additional facilities may be. (Added by Stats.1979, c. 282, p. 972, § 9, urgency, eff. July 24, 1979.) Library References Schools X67. C.J.S. Schools and School Districts § 256. Notes of Decisions 1. In general Evidence did not support conclusion that bidding proce- dures employed by office of procurement failed to meet objective of Emergency School Classroom Law [West's Ann. Cal.Educ.Code § 17785], which is acquisition of safe, porta- ble classrooms from responsible manufacturers or dealers at lowest responsible price and in fact evidence tended to show that procedures utilized by office of procurement better met objectives of Law by avoiding more expensive and time-con- suming procedures of State Contract Act [West's Ann.Cal. Pub.Con.Code § 10100 et seq.] and thus enabling office better to meet emergency needfor classroom facilities in timely and less costly fashion, with no apparent reduction in quality of product. . Steelgard, Inc. v. Jannsen (Aurora Modular Industries) (App. 3 Dist.1985) 217 Cal.Rptr. 152, 171 C.A.3d 79. § 17787. Definitions As used in this chapter. (a) "Board" means the State Allocation Board. (b) "State School Building Aid Fund" means that fund established pursuant to Section 16096. (c) "Lessee" means a school district or county superintendent of schools to whom the board has leased a portable classroom pursuant to this chapter. (Added by Stats.1979, c. 282, p. 973, § 9, urgency, eff. July 24, 1979.) § 17788. Powers and duties of board in addition to any other powers and duties as are granted the board by this chapter, other statutes, or the State Constitution, the board has the power to do each of the following: Underline Indicates changes or additions by amendment 206 EDUCATION CODE (a) Establish a� qualifications not ins confli best serve the purposes of this chapter„ for a , superintendents of schools to lease portable (b) Establish Ina procedures and poliicies it deems necessary. (c) Adopt any rules and regulations for tl dure, forms, and information, as it may dee (d) Have constructed, furnished, equipped place, portable classrooms on school sites w` (e) Own, have maintained, and lease porta superintendents of schools. (f) From any moneys in the State School 1 the board shall make available to the Direr necessary to provide the assistance, pursu Government Code. (g) Notwithstanding any other provision General Services up to fifteen million, dollar board. These funds shall be utilized to purcl (Added by Stats.1979, c. 282, p. 973, §' 9, urs §4.) § 17788.5. Lessee empowered to act as ap The board may empower any lessee to act this chapter with regard to portable cltassro( necessarily limited to, contracting for archi ture and equipment. (Added by Stats.1986, c. 886, § 24.) § 17789. Lease of portable classrooms; The board shall lease portable classrooms of schools for not less than one dollar ($1) I year, for each portable classroom, and sha nance, repairs, renewal, and replacement t( working order, and condition. All costs (Added by Stats.1979, c. 282, p. 973,, § 9, t Library References Schools «70. C.J.S. Schools and School Districts § 256.. § 17789.5. Lease of portable classrooms preschool individuals with The board may lease portable classroom which serves infant or preschool inddvidua which operates programs pursuant to Pa classrooms shall be adequately equipped t but not limited to, sinks and restroom far (Added by Stats.1986, c. 576, § 1.) § 17790. Insurance The board shall require lessees to insu leased portable classroom which is, the pt from the use thereof, in such amounts as t Asterisks • * • Indicate deletions by c EDUCATION CODE VISIONS r] ee, repairs, etc.; costs. rty superintendents serving infant or -ew] classrooms. ons. disposition. § 9, urgency, eff. July 24, 1979. room Law of 1979. 24, 1979.) re ad valorem tax is no longer available o1 faerHities. The Legislature considers Dms for the education of public school ary need to the greatest extent possible dless of how desirable such additional 24, 1979.) rms frons responsible manufacturers or dealers at onsible price and in fact evidence tended to show ores utilfized by office of procurement better met ,f Law layavoiding more expensive and time-con- ;cedures, of State Contract Act [West's Ann.Cal. ode § tO100 et seq.] and thus enabling office Leet emergency need for classroom facilities in Iess cosr,3y fashion, with no apparent reduction in product. . Steelgard, Inc. v. Jannsen (Aurora sdustries) (App. 3 Dist.1985) 217 Cal.Rptr. 152, i 79. establ5shed pursuant to Section 16096. dent of schools to whom the board has 24, 19;79.) he board by this chapter, other statutes, ch of the following: changes or additions by amendment EDUCATION CODE (a) Establish aily qualifications not in conflict with other provisions of this chapter, as it deems will best serve the purposes of this chapter, for determining the eligibility of school districts and county superintendents of schools to lease portable classrooms under this chapter. (b) Establish an procedures and policies in connection with the administration of this chapter as it deems necessary. (c) Adopt an rules and regulations for the administration of this chapter requiring such proce- dure, forms, and information, as it may deem necessary. (d) Have constructed, furnished, equipped, or otherwise require whatever work is necessary to place, portable classrooms on school sites where needed. - (e) Own, have maintained, and lease portable classrooms to qualifying school districts and county superintendents of schools. (f) From any moneys in the State School Building Aid Fund available for purposes of this chapter, the board shall available necessary to provide the assistance, pulrsuant to this ptServices required by Section 15504 of the Government Code. (g) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the board may make available to the Director of General Services up to fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) annually from any funds available to the board. These funds shall be utilized to purchase portable classrooms for the purposes of this section. (Added by Stats.1979, c. 282, p. 973, § 9, urgency, eff. July 24, 1979. Amended by Stats.1986, c. 887, § 4.) § 17788.5. Lessee empowered to act as agent of board The board may empower any lessee to act as its agent in the performance of acts authorized under this chapter with regard to portable classrooms to be made available to that lessee, including, but not necessarily limited to, contracting for architectural and construction services and purchasing furni- ture and equipment. (Added by Stats.1986, c. 886, § 24.) § 17789. Lease of portable classrooms; amount; maintenance, repairs, etc.; costs The board shall lease portable classrooms to qualifying school districts and county superintendents of schools for not less than one dollar ($1) per year, nor more than two thousand dollars ($2,000) per year, for each portable classroom, and shall require the lessees to undertake all necessary mainte- nance, repairs, renewal, and replacement to ensure that a project is at all times kept in good repair, working order, and condition. All costs incurred for this purpose shall be borne by the lessee. (Added by Stats.1979, c. 282, p. 973, § 9, urgency, eff. July 24, 1979.) • Library References Schools «70. C.J.S. Schools and School Districts § 256. § 17789.5. Lease of portable classrooms to districts or county superintendents serving infant or preschool individuals with exceptional needs The board may lease portable classrooms to any school district or county superintendent of schools which serves infant or preschool individuals with exceptional needs, as defined in Section 56026, and which operates programs pursuant to Part 30 (commencing with Section 56000). These portable classrooms shall be adequately equipped to meet the educational needs of these students, including, but not limited to, sinks and restroom facilities. (Added by Stats.1986, c. 576, § 1.) § 17790 § 17790. Insurance The board shall require lessees to insure at their own expense for the benefit of the state, any leased portable classroom which is the property of the state, against such risks, including liability from the use thereof, in such amounts as the board may deem necessary to protect the interest of the Asterisks • • • Indicate deletions by amendment 207 EDUCATION CODE § 33051 Effect of amendment of section by two or more acts at the Derivation: Former § 52820, added by Stats.1981, c. 100, same session of the legislature, see Government Code p, —, § 25. § 9605. 1985 Amendment Added citations to Section 39360.5 Library References and subdivision (a) of Section 39363.5 in subd. (ax5)(C); added subd. (f) relating to written notice of public hearingSchools ��• and made nonsubstantive changes. - C.I.S. Schools and School Districts §§ 15, 83, 446. § 33050.3. Waiver of code provisions; district criteria Notwithstanding Section 33050, the State Board of Education is authorized to waive the provisions of subdivision (a) of Section 46202 only during the 1983-84 fiscal year, and only if the State Board of Education fords that the district requesting the waiver demonstrates that it meets the following criteria: (1) The district has experienced an unanticipated growth in number of pupils over the 1982',83 fiscal year. (2) There exists an overcrowding of pupils with no reasonable alternative to house pupils without initiating the use of double sessions. Reasonable alternatives to house pupils shall include, but need not be limited to, the use of facilities in adjacent districts, the use of facilities of a county superintendent of schools, the use of facilities of other public agencies, the lease of portable facilities, or the expanded use of double sessions if the district already has double sessions in other schools prior to the increase in the number of pupils. (Added by Stats. 1983, c. 1302, p. —, § 1.3, urgency, eff. Sept. 30, 1983.) § 33051. Board to approve requests for waivers except upon certain findings; duration of waivers (a) The State Board of Education shall approve any and all requests for waivers except in those cases where the board specifically finds any of the following. (1) The educational needs of the pupils are not adequately addressed. (2) The waiver affects a program that requires the existence of a school site council and the school site council did not approve the request. (3) The appropriate councils or advisory committees, including bilingual advisory committees, did not have an adequate opportunity to review the request and the request did not include a written summary of any objections to the request by the councils or advisory committees. (4) Pupil or school personnel protections are jeopardized. (5) Guarantees of parental involvement are jeopardized. (6) The request would substantially increase state costs. (7) The exclusive representative of employees, if any, as provided in Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, was not a participant in the development of the waiver. (b) The State Board of Education shall not approve any request for waiver of any provision of Article 5 (commencing with Section 39390) of Chapter 3 of Part 23 unless the school district seeking the waiver demonstrates all of the following: (1) The school district provided the written notice required under subdivision (f) of Section 33050. (2) The school district, after making a good -faith effort to that purpose, was unable to reach agreement with any public agency identified under Section 39394 that seeks to acquire the site under that article on terms and conditions that are consistent with the requirements of the purchase plan adopted by the agency under Section 39397.5 and would enable the district to meet its reasonable financial goals. (3) The detriment to the school district's ability to financially meet the educational needs of the community resulting from the disposition of the school site pursuant to the sale price or lease rate limitations set forth in Section 39396, as compared to the fair market value of the site, outweighs the need for the use of the site for outdoor recreational and open -space purposes as established by a finding made under Section 39397. Asterisks * * • Indicate deletions by amendment 5 EDUCATION CODE § 17705.5 § 17702.1. Construction defined;- funding approval of deferred maintenance activities (a) As used in this chapter, construction shall include, but shall not be limited to, reconstruction, - remodeling, and replacement of facilities, and the performance of deferred maintenance activities on facilities pursuant to rules and regulations regarding such activities as may be adopted by the board. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 17721, deferred maintenance activities may be approved for funding on structures constructed less than 30 years prior to the date of approval of the project applied for under this chapter. _(Added by Stats.1980, c. 899; p. 2804, § 1, urgency, eff. Sept. 17, 1980.) § 17705.1. Funding approval of deferred maintenance activities • On or before June 30, 1981, and on or before June 30 of each year thereafter, the board shall approve a plan specifying (a) the amount of funds to be allocated in the forthcoming fiscal year for the purposes of deferred maintenance activities and (b) the manner in which such funds shall be allocated to applicant districts. (Added by Stats.1980, c. 899, p. 2804, § 2, urgency, eff. Sept. 17, 1980.) Notes of Decisions from State School Building Lease -Purchase Bond Law of 1982, §§ 17680 to 17693, to contribute either 10% of project's cost in first year or 1% of project's cost per year for ten years to State School Deferred Maintenance Fund. 67 Ops.Atty.Gen. 424, 10-4-84. 1. In general State Allocation Board lacks authority to require school district with lease -purchase project funded by bond revenues § 17705.5. Local matching share requirement; loans; duration of section (a) The total building cost portion of any state funding for any project approved under this chapter for the new construction or rehabilitation of one or more school facilities shall be reduced by the amount of the local matching share requirement computed under subdivision (b). (b) Each school district to which funds are allocated pursuant to this chapter for the new construction or rehabilitation of one or more school facilities shall provide, as its share of the cost of the project, an amount equal to the following: (1) The product of the applicable maximum fee set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 65995 of the Government Code times the number of square feet of new residential, commercial, and industrial construction, as appropriate, for which building permits are issued within the boundaries of the school district from the date on which the board approves the district's application for project funding under this chapter to the date upon which the notice of completion for the project is issued, except that this period shall not exceed the time reasonably necessary for the final apportionment to be issued where the district meets its obligations as an applicant under this chapter. This amount is reduced by the sum of the following: (A) Any amounts expended by the district during the described period of time for the acquisition of interim classroom facilities pursuant to Chapter 4.9 (commencing with Section 65970) of Division 1,of Title 7 of the Government Code from the proceeds of the fee levied by the district during that period. This amount is limited to the acquisition of interim classroom facilities necessary to temporarily house that number of pupils calculated, under state pupil loading standards, by subtracting the average daily attendance of the district based on a three-year enrollment projection from the average daily attendance of the district based on a five-year enrollment project. Enrollment projections for this purpose shall be made in accordance with this chapter. (B) Any amounts expended by the district during the described period of time for the local matching share of any project funded under this chapter from the proceeds of the fee levied by the district during that period. (C) An amount reflecting the extent to which the district is precluded from collecting those fees by reason of the levy and collection of developer fees by another school district having common territorial jurisdiction. (c) For purposes of establishing an estimate of the state project costs pursuant to subdivision (a), the board may estimate the local matching share by using the product of the annual average of the amount that would have resulted from the application of the maximum fee to the square footage of all new construction within the district over the three calendar years preceding the district's project Asterisks ' * * indicate deletions by amendment 187 § 17705.5 EDUCATION CODE application times the number of years over which the board estimates the fee will be collected by the district pursuant to the project to be funded. (d) Only those project applications for which, prior to January 1, 1987, the board had made the apportionment for site acquisition and working drawings or the final apportionment for construction of the project shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter. in effect prior to that date. (e) The board may provide a loan to any applicant district in an amount equal to all or a part of the district's obligation under subdivision (b), subject to the requirement that the district pay each month to the board, as reimbursement, an amount equal to the proceeds that would. be received by the district from the imposition of the fee described under subdivision (b) until the total amount of the loan has been repaid, together with interest computed pursuant to Section 16065. (f) The board may make the loan specified in subdivision (e) from any funds available from any source, including, but not limited to, those amounts made available pursuant to Section 16065. (g) All loan and interest amounts paid to the state pursuant to this section shall be available for the use of the board in the funding of projects as otherwise provided under this chapter, including, but not limited to, additional loans. (h) This section shall remain in effect only until such date as any state general obligation bond theirmeasure submitted to the voters of this state for purpos s the fund ng of school f cil t es onstruction,fails to ratification, which reei ethat rat f cation,incl andsl of n its date is repealed. that (Added by Stats.1986, c. 887, § 2.) 1986 Legislation. Section 14 of Stats.1986, c. 886, amended by Stats.1986, c. 888, § 8 provides: "(a) Section 1 to 13 inclusive of this act shall become operative only if Senate Bill 327 [Stats.1986, c. 886] is enacted and becomes effective on January 1, 1987. "(b) As an additional condition, Sections 2 and 11 of this act shall become operative only if the Greene -Hughes School Building Lease Purchase Bond Law of 1986 was ratified by the voters of this state at the general election of November 4, 1986." [Section 2 was approved on Nov. 4, 1986.] § 17706. Conditions required to exist prior to entering (ease The board shall not enter into any lease with respect to an application for replacing inadequate school facilities unless it has first investigated and made a finding that one or both of the following conditions exists: (a) It would not be economical or good practice to rehabilitate those facilities. (b) The school facilities are inadequate due to their susceptibility to repeated flooding. The board shall develop and adopt regulations that define inadequacy of school facilities on the basis of susceptibility to repeated flooding. The building area of any facility found to be inadequate pursuant to this subdivision shall be excluded, for the purposes of any application for the replace- ment of any facility, from the calculation under this chapter of the area of adequate school construction existing in the applicant school district. (Amended by Stats.1986, c. 1050, § 1.) § 17708. State School Building Lease -Purchase Fund A fund is hereby created in the State Treasury to be known as the State School Building Lease -Purchase Fund. All money in the State School Building Lease -Purchase Fund including any money deposited in that fund from any source whatsoever, and notwithstanding Section 13340 of the Government Code, is hereby continuously appropriated • • • for expenditure pursuant to • • • this chapter. The State Allocation Board may apportion funds to school districts for the purposes of this chapter from funds transferred to the State School Building Lease -Purchase Fund from any source. (Amended by Stats.1986, c. 886, § 2.) 1986 Legislation. Sections 1 and 38 of Stats.I986, c. 886, provide: "Section 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the Greene -Hughes School Facilities Act of 1986." "Sec. 38. Sections 1 to 37, inclusive, of this act shall become operative only if Assembly Bill 2926 [Stats.1986, c. 887] is enacted and becomes effective on January I, 1987." Underline indicates changes or additions by amendment 188 EDUCATION CODE Cross References Transfer of amount withheld by reduction of cigare subvention to local jurisdiction by amount of execs. and property taxes to school buildings fund, see R< and Taxation Code §§ 100.2, 100.3. Notes of Decisions 1. In general Under the provisions of Rev. & T.C. § 100.1, requires the transfer to the states school building leas § 17708.3. Revolving loan account, advae (a) The board may establish a revolving 1 chase Fund, and may allocate from the fu necessary for the purposes of this section. (b) The board may apportion to any scht' intent to subsequently file a project applicat planning and related administrative costs p amount shall not exceed 3 percent of the building cost standards established under t. (c) If, within a period of 24 months folio', the project for which those advance plannin be qualified for funding under this chapter, the apportionments to which the district is repay the amount of all loans provided under to be reasonable. The Controller shall trans under this subdivision to the revolving loan (d) The repayment of loan amounts receiv described under subdivision (c) shall be acco of apportionment funds that would be avail the district received funding approval unde (Added by Stats.1986, c. 886, § 3.) § 17708.5. State school building lease pur disbursements The board may approve projects and mak on deposit in the State School Building Leas the State School Building Finance Commifte Disbursements may be made under any a Building Lease -Purchase Fund, irrespective sufficient amount in the State School Buildir apportionments previously made. However, by law to be transferred to the General Fu (Added by Stats.1984, c. 1749, p. —, § 1, Library References Schools € 71. C.J.S. Schools and School Districts §§ 256, 257. ARTIC Section 17717.5. Approval- of applications; addition - 17717.6. Renumbered. 17717.6. Installation of equipment and ma [New] Asterisks • • • indicate deletions by ame § 39007 EDUCATION CODE If the recommendation of the Department of Transportation • ' is unfavorable, the • ' ' recommendation shall not be overruled without the express approval of the Department of Education and the State Allocation Board. (Amended by Stats.1982, c. 681, p. 2786, § 6.) § 39015. Acquisition of property not utilized as school site; nonuse payments; exemption; computation Whenever a school district acquires or has acquired a site for school purposes, as determined by the State Allocation Board, and does not use the site within (1) five years of the date of acquisition for the kindergarten, if any, and any of grades 1 to 8, inclusive, maintained by an elementary school district or a unified school district, or, (2) seven years of the date of acquisition for any of grades 7 to 12, inclusive, maintained by a high school district or a unified school district, or if a school district has a site at any grade level that has previously been used but has not been used for school purposes within the preceding five years, the school district shall be subject to nonuse payments, unless the State Allocation Board, from time to time, makes a determination that the school district will utilize the property for the purpose for which it was intended within a reasonable period of time, in a specific amount for each additional year in which the site is retained and not used by the district beyond the foregoing specified periods, except the first additional year shall be deemed to end not earlier than April 30, 1973. • (b) Payment shall not be required under this section as to any site having a value of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) or less. Commencing on January 1, 1988, and annually thereafter, the State Allocation Board shall increase this exemption figure by the amount of the current fiscal year inflation adjustment specified in Section 42238.1, if any. The payments required shall be computed by the Executive Officer of the State Allocation Board and certified to the Controller, and payments shall be equal to one one-hundredth (thoo) of the original purchase price of the site modified by either a factor reflecting the change in assessed value of all lands in the state from the date of purchase of the site to the current date or any other factor that in the determination of the State Allocation Board is applicable to the site under consideration. Whenever the State Allocation Board has determined that a school district in good faith has, within the preceding year, advertised the school site for sale to the highest bidder pursuant to the provisions of Article 4 (commencing with Section 39360) of Chapter 3 of Part 23 and has received no bids that in the judgment of the State Allocation Board reflect the fair market value of the property, the Executive Officer of the State Allocation Board shall not compute any nonuse payments for the site for a period of one year beyond the date of the determination. Nonuse payments shall not be required for any year with respect to a school site that for § 39033. Unimproved real property obt one-half or more of the number of days of that_vear has hpem ,ttilized_(1) _by_tkte_school-district,-or-by refusal to person or entity EDUCATION CODE 1986 Legislation. Operative effect of 1986 amendment, see Histori under § 17705.5. § 39017. Return of payments for site I Whenever a school district has eithi two years of the date the State Controller payment from the district's State School I certify that fact to the State Controller " additional payments and shall return to tl the payments, without interest, which had year and the current fiscal year. If the school district begins to use aforesaid • * * date, the State Allocati, further payments shall be withheld as sI (Amended by Stats.1981, c. 334, p,. 1477, ARTICLE Section 39033. Unimproved real property obtai refusal to person or entity tha 39034. Failure to comply with provision § 39030. Surplus property Notes of Decisions 1. In general Under a contract for the purchase of a scho which the seller has an option to repurchase the p1 a given price if the site is not used by a specified school purposes, the repurchase option is' binding school district. 63 Ops.Atty.Gen. 851, 11-13-80. any other governmental entity pursuant to agreement with the school district, for school or community playground, playing field, or other outdoor recreational purposes, or (2) by the State Allocation Board, pursuant to agreement with the school district, for the storage of emergency portable classrooms. Nonuse payments shall not be required for any year with respect to a school site which was leased at least one-half of the days in that year in a manner that subjected the site to property taxes equal to the taxes which would have been paid if the site had been sold. (Amended by Stats.1978, c. 519, p. 1673, § 1; Stats.1980, c. 736, p. 2198, § 1; Stats.1985, c. 1466, p. —, § 5; Stats.1986, c. 70, § 1, urgency, eff. April 25, 1986; Stats.1986, c. 886, § 25.) 1986 Legislation Administrative Code References Effect of amendment of section by two or more acts at the Rules and regulations, see 2 CaLAdm. Code 1864.1 et seq. same session of the legislature, see Government Code § 9605. § 39015.5. Reduction of nonuse payments The amount of any nonuse payments required of any school district under Section 39015 shall be reduced, without regard to fiscal year, by the amount of the proceeds, resulting from the lease of district property that is subject to that section, that are expended by the district for the purposes of subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 17705.5, or for the payment of bond debt service costs that are directly related to the actual construction of school facilities. (Added by Stats.1986, c. 887, § 6.) Underline Indicates changes or additions by amendment 84 Notwithstanding Article 4 (comrnencin (commencing with Section 54220) of Cha Code, or any other provision of law, an; district pursuant to Section 352701.5, whi deemed to be surplus property of the dist of its acquisition by the districtunless property to the person or entity that owr or, if applicable, offered to that person acceptable to the district made by, anoth (Added by Stats.1985, c. 802, p. —, § § 39034. Failure to comply with provi The failure to comply with any jprovisi real property to a purchaser or encumbr (Added by Stats.1985, c. 802, p. —, § CHAPTER 2L5. NI Section 39050. Short title. Asterisks • • • Indicate deletions by DE cts of rovide cope 'od of .nc. V. .Rptr. shall ict is icing ,trict the and the le a ility enc- sors t (a) the ,tice Ll or The ime a of this ors. be ors. GOVERNMENT CODE § 65974 § 65973. Definitions • As used in this chapter the following terms mean: (a) "Conditions of overcrowding" means that the total enrollment of a school, including enrollment from proposed development, exceeds the capacity of the school as determined by the governing body of the district. (b) "Reasonable methods for mitigating conditions of overcrowding" shall include, but are not limited to, agreements between a subdivider or builder and the affected school district whereby temporary -use buildings will be leased to the school district or temporary -use buildings owned by the school district will be used and agreements between the affected school district and other school districts whereby the affected school district agrees to lease or purchase surplus .or underutilized school facilities from other school districts. (c) "Residential development" homes, of one or more units or residential dwelling units. (Amended by Stats.1985, c. 836, 1985 Legislation. means a project containing residential dwellings, including mobile a subdivision of land for the purpose of constructing one or /*ore p. —, § 2; Stats.1985, c. 1498, p. —, § 2.5.) Amendment of this section by § 2 of Stats.1985, c. 1498, p. —, failed to become operative under the provisions of § 9 of that Act. § 65974. Interim classroom facilities where overcrowding exists; approval of residential devel- • opment; conditions; developer fees under school facilities master plans (a) For the purpose of establishing an interim method of providing classroom facilities where overcrowded conditions exist, as determined necessary pursuant to Section 65971, and notwithstand- ing Section 66478, a city, county, or city and county may, by ordinance, require the dedication of land, the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for classroom and related facilities for elementary or high schools as a condition to the approval of a residential development, if all of the following occur: (1) The general plan provides for the location of public schools. (2) The ordinance has been in effect for a period of 30 days prior to the implementation of the dedication or fee requirement. (3) The land or fees, or both, transferred to a school district shall be used only for the purpose of providing interim elementary or high school classroom and related facilities. If fees are paid in lieu of the dedication of land and those fees are utilized to purchase land, no more land shall be purchased than is necessary for the placement thereon of interim facilities. (4) The location and amount of land to be dedicated or the amount of fees to be paid, or both, shall Mal . bear a reasonable relationship and be limited to the needs of the community for interim elementary not or high school facilities and shall be reasonably related and limited to the need for schools caused by Nes, the development. However, the value of the land to be dedicated or the amount of fees to be paid, or 218 - both, shall not exceed the amount necessary to pay five annual lease payments for the interim facilities. In lieu of the dedication of land or the payment of fees, or both, the builder of a residential development may, at his or her option and at his or her expense, provide interim facilities, owned or controlled by the builder, at the place designated by the school district, and at the conclusion of the fifth school year the builder shall, at the builder's expense, remove the interim facilities from that place. (5) A finding is made by the city council or board of supervisors that the facilities to be constructed from the fees or the land to be dedicated, or both, is consistent with the general plan. (b) The ordinance may specify the methods for mitigating the conditions of overcrowding which the school district shall consider when making the finding required by paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 65971. (c) If the payment of fees is required, the payment shall be made at the time the building permit is issued or at a later time as may be specified in the ordinance. (d) Only the payment of fees may be required in subdivisions containing 50 parcels or less. Asterisks • • • Indicate deletions by amendment 35 212 and ool 05, !nt § i5974 GOVERNMENT CODE (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, contracts entered into or contracts to be entered into pursuant to a School Facilities Master Plan administered by a Joint Powers Authority created under Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6500) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code for a designated community plan area adopted by a city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered, on or before September 1, 1986, that requires the payment of a fee, charge or dedication for the construction of school facilities as a condition to the approval of residential development shall not be subject to the provisions of subdivision (b) of Section 65995. Provided, however, that in determining developer fees under that school facilities master plan, the cost and maximum building area standards for school buildings prescribed by Chapter 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part 10 of the Education Code shall apply, and the school district or districts involved are required to have on file with the Office of Local Assistance, and actively pursue in good, faith, an application for preliminary determination of eligibility for project funding under that chapter, and shall actively pursue in good faith the establishment of a community capital facilities district or other permanent financing mechanisms to reduce or eliminate developer fees. Any fees collected or land dedicated after September 1, 1986, pursuant to this section, and not used to avoid overcrowding of the facilities to be built pursuant to the school facilities master plan, shall be subject to disposition in accordance with subdivision (b) of Section 65979. Fees collected in excess of the limitations set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 65995 for schools constructed under that school facilities master plan shall neither advantage nor disadvantage a school district's application for project funding under Chapter 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part 10 of the Education Code. (Amended by Stats.1985, c. 150; p. , § 1; Stats.1985, c. 1498, p. , § 3; Stats.1986, c. 887, § 10.) Law Review Commentaries Police and fire service special assessments under Proposi- tion 13. (1982) 16 U.S.F.L.Rev. 781. Building permits 4 Notes of Decisions 2. Fees School Facilities Act provision [West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code § 65974] restricting school -impact fees that may be imposed to no more than the amount necessary to pay five annual lease payments for interim facility, is attempt on part of Legislature to ensure that local governments do not indefinitely avoid problem of construction of permanent facilities by agreeing to long -term -use of temporary facilities, but is not limitation on authority of local government to impose school -impact fees to provide permanent facilities. Candid Enterprises, Inc. v. Grossmont Union High School Dist. (1985) 218 Cal.Rptr. 303, 705 P.2d 876, 39 C.3d 878. Even though developer's marketing plan for luxury con- dominium complex was aimed at adult recreational market, its sales agreement did not prohibit leasing of units or residence by children, and therefore, county's denial of exemption from interim facilities fee was reasonable and in accord with purposes of School Facilities Act (§ 65970 et seq.). McLain Western No. 1 v. San Diego County (App. 4 Dist.1983) 194 Cal.Rptr. 594, 146 C.A.3d 772. 4. Building permits School facilities fees could be imposed upon developer as condition to issuance of building permits, although develop- er's final maps were approved and recorded more than four years prior to city's adoption of ordinance authorizing impo- sition of such fees. Fontana Unified School Dist. v. City of Rialto (Marlborough Development Corp.) (App. 4 Dist. 1985) 219 Cal.Rptr. 254, 173 C.A.3d 725. County's issuance of a building permit in attendance areas found to be overcrowded could be conditioned on payment of statutorily authorized interim school facilities fees. La- guna Village, Inc. v. Orange County (App. 4 Dist.1985) 212 Cal.Rptr. 267, 166 C.A.3d 125. § 65975. Interim facility fees; fair market value of dedicated land; use for capital outlay project payments (a) Whenever a school district has received approval, under the State School Building Lease -Pur- chase Law of 1976, (Ch. 22 (commencing with Section 17700), Pt. 10, Ed.C.) of a school project to be constructed in an attendance area where fees have been collected pursuant to Section 65974, all or a portion of the fees so collected for interim facilities may be used by the district to provide its 10 percent of the project as required by item (1) of Section 17761 of the Education Code. Nothing in this section shall increase the amount of fees that would otherwise be collected pursuant to Section 65974. (b) Whenever a school district has received approval, under the State School Building Lease -Pur- chase Law of 1976 (Ch. 22 (commencing with Section 17700), Pt. 10, Ed.C.), of a school project to be constructed in an attendance area where land has been received pursuant to Section 65974, the district may use the fair market value of the land to provide all or a portion of its 10 percent of the school project as required by item (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 17761. In order to use the value of Underline indicates changes or additions by amendment 36 GOVERN land to mee on the land time as pro (Added by § 65976. S As a part of supervise increase the school distr school distr schedule sh the times w meet the sc reasons for (Amended b 1985 Legish § 65978. F Any scho. any fees pas account at t and the ded attendance ; overcrowdir filed more f. The boarc in the case During tl: shall be a v If overcrt requiring tF (Amended b 1984 Amend in the first ser second and tbi § 65979. F (a) One y Building Le; Education C pursuant to I may have w land within any time of to Section 6 (1) That overcrowds (2) That constructio being avail Asterisks ' §-53080 GOVERNMENT CODE (c) In the case of the sale of a manufactured home or mobilehome, the payment of fees to either the school district or other entity shall occur at the time of occupancy pursuant to the sale or lease of the manufactured home or mobilehome pursuant to Section 18080.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (Added by Stats.1986, c. 887, § 8. Amended by Stats.1986, c. 888, § 6.) For another section of the same number, added by Stats.1986, c. 606, § 1, see § 53080, ante. 1986 Legislation. Section 7 of Stats.1986, c. 887, provides: "The Legislature finds and declares as follows: "(a) Many areas of this state are experiencing substantial development and population growth, resulting in serious overcrowding in school facilities. "(b) Continued economic development requires the avail- ability of the school facilities needed to educate the state's young citizens. "(c) In growing areas of this state, the lack of availability of the public revenues needed to construct school facilities is a serious problem, undermining both the education of the state's children and the continued economic prosperity of California. "(d) For these reasons, a.comprehensive school facilities finance program based upon a partnership of state and local governments and the private sector is required to ensure the availability of school ' facilities to serve the population growth generated by new development. • "(e) The Legislature therefore finds that the levying of appropriate fees by school district governing boards at the rates authorized by this act is a reasonable method of financing the expansion and construction of school facilities resulting from new economic development within the dis- trict" § 53081. School districts; use of fees on construction A school district that imposes any fees on construction within the school district may use those fees to pay any bonds, notes, loans, leases or other installment agreements including, but not limited to, bonds issued by the authority or loans, leases or other installment agreements that secure bonds issued by the authority. The authority may issue bonds, in accordance with Section 17883, to finance projects for one or more participating school districts that have imposed fees on construction within the district, which bonds may be payable from and secured by those fees in whole or in part. For this purpose, participating school districts may pledge and assign all or any part of those fees to the authority, and the fees so pledged and assigned to the authority, and any income thereon, may be pledged and assigned by the authority to the payment of bonds issued by the authority to finance projects for those participating school districts. While it is the intent of the Legislature that the amount of financing provided to a participating school district pursuant to this section shall be reasonably related, in the judgment of the authority, to the amount of fees on construction expected by the authority to be derived from or attributable to that participating school district, nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall be deemed to require a proportionate or other relationship between the amount of the financing actually provided to a participating school district pursuant to this section and the amount of fees on construction actually derived from or attributable to that participating school district pursuant to this section or used by the authority to secure or pay any bonds of the authority issued pursuant to this section. (Added by Stats.1986, c. 887, § 9.) Operative Effect Operative effect of Stats.1986, c. 887, see Historical Note following Education Code § 17705.5. § 53085. Applicants for financial assistance; statement that applicant has not been convicted of felony A local agency, as defined in Section 54951, may require an applicant for economic development loans, grants, or similar financial assistance to sign a statement under penalty of perjury that he or she has not been convicted of a felony. (Added by Stats.1986, c. 583, § 1.) ARTICLE 5. REGULATION OF LOCAL AGENCIES BY COUNTIES AND CITIES Section 53097. School districts; compliance with ordinances relating to onsite facilities and improvements; city and county immunity; district noncompliance relating to offsite improvements; dura- tion of section. Underline indicates changes or additions by amendment 14 • GOVERNMENT CODE § 53091. Compliance of local agency Each local agency shall comply with all; county or city in which the territory of 1 school building aid is requested by a local city planning commission in which said a information relating to attendance area en is proposed, safety features of the site utilization, and report thereon to the State than one city or county or partly in a city such ordinances of each county or city vs situated in the particular county or city an any portion of the territory of the Iocal agt or city. Notwithstanding the preceding school district or the state when aging u ordinances of a county or city. Notwvithsta does not require a school district to comply zoning ordinance makes provision for the planning commission has adopted a rnaste Each local agency required to comply wi this section and each school district whose to Section 53092 shall be subject to: the pr requiring the payment of fees but the amc shall not exceed the amount charged' undei services or permits. Building ordinances construction of facilities for the productic water, or electrical energy by a local agen Zoning ordinances of a county or city sha the production, generation, storage, or tray electrical energy, nor to facilities which ar nor to electrical substations in an electric than 100,000 volts. Zoning ordinances of a of facilities for the storage or transznissic such zoning ordinances make provision for (Amended by Stats.1984, c. 976, p. —, § 1 1984 Amendment. Inserted "waste water" in sentence of second paragraph. Exemptions 8 Notes of Decisions 8. Exemptions Whether Cal Expo land which is leased to private for term exceeding 50 years for private development: § 53094. Authority to render zoning or' review by city or county Notwithstanding any other provisions of school district, by vote of two-thirdsof its inapplicable to a proposed use of property the property by such school district is f, warehouses, administrative buildings, au within 10 days, notify the city or county taken such action the city or county may whose zoning ordinance is involved or in involved, seeking a review of such action o whether it was arbitrary and capriciotas. Asterisks * * * indicate deletions by a )E GOVERNMENT CODE § 53080 the county, special district, housing authority, school district, community college district, or county superintendent of schools. • • be , Illy (b) Any local agency may establish auditing procedures for direct service contractors as prescribed aid by Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 38040) of Division 25 of the Health and Safety Code. (Added by Stats.1984, c. 1286, p. —, § 15.) ict, 1984 Legislation. Legislative findineand declaration concerning state bud- geting, accounting andtaudit procedures and requirements, see note under § I2412.I. ay- rrt; § 53079. Local public entity; construction project; security deposit; interest (a) "Local public entity," as used in this section, means any city or county, whether general law or or chartered, district, public authority, public agency, or public corporation but does not include any 'all entity of the state. til JIB (b) If a local public entity requires any person, on or after January 1, 1986, to furnish a security, in is the form of cash or a cashier's check made payable to the local public entity, to guarantee the lay performance of any act or agreement related to a construction project, and if the local public entity it invests that cash or the proceeds of that check, the local public entity shall pay interest on all, or any sis portion, of the amount of the balance of the security deposit which is returned to the person who of furnished the security if the security is held by the local public entity for more than 30 days. The =_nt local public entity shall pay interest on that amount. The minimum interest rate paid shall be the average rate of return earned by the Local public entity on its investments during the four full or calendar quarters last preceding the return of the security deposit, less 1 full percentage point. Interest shall be paid from the date the security is provided to the local public entity until the date at- that all, or any portion, of the balance of the security deposit is returned to the person who furnished nal the security. he (c) The Legislature finds and declares that the payment of interest by local public entities for tns security furnished, as described in subdivision (b), is a matter of statewide interest and concern and tke the Legislature intends by this section to occupy the field of this regulation. (Added by Stats.1985, c. 247, p. —, § 1.) ier to § 53080. Application for building or encroachment certificate; no insurance certificate unless nm required by ordinance )lic (a) No city or county may require an applicant for a building or encroachment permit to file a .3nt certificate of insurance evidencing coverage for bodily injury or property damage Liability as a yes condition to the issuance of either, or both, of those permits, unless the city or county imposes that requirement by ordinance. ng (b) This section does not apply to contracts for public works of improvement entered into by a city of or county. (Added by Stats.1986, c. 606, § 1.) tch o 1 For another section of the same number, added by Stats.1986, c. 887, § 8, amended by ire Stats.1986, c. 888, § 6, see § 53080, post. gut erg § 53080. Levies against development projects by school districts (a) The governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or ed, other form of requirement against any development project, as defined in Section 65928, ' ' * within tat the boundaries of the district, for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities, subject to any limitations set forth in Chapter 4.9 (commencing with Section 65995) of Division 1 of Title 7. This fee, charge, dedication, or other form of requirement may be applied only to new commercial and industrial construction, and, as to residential development, to new construc- tion, and other construction to the extent of the resulting increase in habitable area. (b) No city or county, whether general law or chartered, may issue a building permit for any development absent certification by the appropriate school district of compliance by that development project with any fee, charge, dedication, or other form of requirement levied by the governing board of that school district pursuant to subdivision (a). Asterisks.* * • indicate deletions by amendment ect tnd ant 13 )DE tion- sade r has nt to sag] ilities oPers other Un- P.2d and 'hool tare dace !oho - not Pelop- :nter- 1985) Jude part: chool for ime." hent . GOVERNMENT CODE § 65995 CHAPTER 4.9. PAYMENT OF FEES, CHARGES, DEDICATIONS, OR OTHER REQUIREMENTS AGAINST A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT [NEW] Section 65995. Levies against development projects for construction or reconstruction of school facilities. 65996. Conditions for approval of development projects; adequacy of school facilities; mitigating environmental effects. 65997. Duration of chapter. Chapter 4.9 was added by Stats.1986, c. 887, § 11. Chapter 4.9, added by Stats.1986, c. 887, § 11, operative upon approval of Greene - Hughes School Building Lease -Purchase Bond Law of 1986, became operative upon approval of that Act at the general election held Nov. 4, 1986. Duration of Chapter See § 65995 for termination of chapter provisions. • § 65995. Levies against development projects for construction or reconstruction of school facilities (a) Except for a dedication or fee, or both, required under Section 53080, or pursuant to Chapter 4.7 (commencing with Section 65970), no fee, charge, dedication, or other form of requirement shall be levied by the legislative body of a local agency against a development project, as defined by Section 65928, for the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. (b) In no event shall the amount of any fee, charge, dedication, or other form of requirement, as described in subdivision (a), including the amount of fees to be paid or the value of land to be dedicated, or both, under Chapter 4.7 (commencing with Section 65970), exceed the following (1) One dollar and fifty cents ($1.50) per square foot of covered or enclosed space, in the case of any residential development. (2) Twenty-five cents ($0.25) per square foot of covered or enclosed space, in the case of any commercial or industrial development. No fee, charge, dedication, or other form of the requirement may be levied by any school district governing board upon any commercial or industrial development unless and until the governing board has first made the finding that the location and amount of land to be dedicated or the amount of fees to be paid, or both, shall bear a reasonable relationship and be limited to the needs of the community for elementary or high school facilities and shall be reasonably related and limited to the need for schools caused by the development. (3) The amount of the limits set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be annually increased according to the adjustment for inflation set forth in the statewide cost index for class B construction, as determined by the State Allocation Board at its January meeting. (c) Subdivision (a) does not apply during the term of any contract entered into between a subdivider or builder and a school district, city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered, on or before the effective date of this chapter that requires the payment of a fee, charge, or dedication for the construction of school facilities as a condition to the approval of residential development. In addition, any development project for which a final map was approved and construction had commenced on or before September 1, 1986, is subject to only the fee, charge, dedication, or other form of requirement prescribed in any Local ordinance in existence on that date and applicable to the project. (d) The Legislature finds and declares that the subject of the financing of school facilities with development fees is a matter of statewide concern. For this reason the Legislature hereby occupies the subject matter of mandatory development fees and other development requirements for school facilities finance to the exclusion of all local measures on the subject. (e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to limit or prohibit the use of Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 53311) of Division 2 of Title 5 to finance the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. (Added by Stats.1986, c. 887, § 11.) Asterisks • • • Indicate deletions by amendment 39 § 65996 GOVERNMENT CODE § 65996. Conditions for approval of development projects; adequacy of school facilities; miti- gating environmental effects The following provisions shall be the exclusive methods of mitigating environmental effects related to the adequacy of school facilities when considering the approval or the establishment of conditions for the approval of a development project, as defined by Section 65928 of the Government Code pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code: (a) Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 53311) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code. (b) Chapter 4.7 (commencing with Section 65970) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. (c) Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 15450) of Part 10 of the Education Code. (d) Chapter 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part 10of the Education Code. _ (e) Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 17870) of Part 10 of the Education Code. (f) Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 17785) of Part 10 of the Education Code. (g) Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 39327) of Chapter 3 of Part 23 of the Education Code. • (h) Article 3 (commencing with Section 42260) of Chapter 7 of Part 24 of the Education Code. No public agency shall, pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code or Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410) of this code, deny approval of a project on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities. (Added by Stats.1986, c. 887, § 11.) § 65997. Duration of chapter This chapter shall remain in effect only until such date as any state general obligation bond measure submitted to the voters of this state for their ratification, which measure includes within its purposes the funding of school facilities construction, fails to receive that ratification, and as of that date is repealed. (Added by Stats.1986, c. 887, § 11.) CHAPTER 5. DISTRICT PLANNING LAW [REPEALED] Chapter 5 was repealed by Stats.1984, c. 1009, p. - § 29. §§ 66100 to 66180. Repealed by Stats. 1984, c. 1009, p. -, § 29 §§ 66200 to 66390. Repealed by Stats.1984, c. 1009, p. -, § 29 Chapter DIVISION 2. SUBDIVISIONS GOVERNMENT CODE Law Review Commentaries Building and Bargaining in California. William (1984) 4 Cal. Lawyer No. 12, p. 36. Pines v. City of Santa Monica: Redefining the f California's Subdivision Map Act. (1983) 16 Loyola (Calif) 61. § 66410. Short title Notes of Decisions Certificates of compliance 8 1. Construction and application Local restriction on removal from rental housing through condominium conversion, with its evident, is dent police power source and purpose, was not pre by Subdivision Map Act. Santa Monica Pines, Ltd. Control Bd. of City of Santa Monica (1984) 201 Ca 593, 679 P.2d 27, 35 C.3d 858. A parcel specific map is not required for the la element of a general plan adopted by a city or coun Ops.Atty.Gen. 75, 3-7-84. 3. Local ordinances Ability of city to enact zoning ordinances or standards by way of required building permits is ne eluded by Subdivision Map Act, even when those ordi or standards originate after final subdivision map ai and serve ultimately to deny what that approval p: granted. McMullan v. Santa Monica Rent Contr (Gealer) (App. 2 Dist.1985) 214 Cal.Rptr. 637, 168 960. § 66411. Local control of subdivision de Law Review Commentaries Pines v. City of Santa Monica: Redefining the fo California's Subdivision Map Act. (1983) 16 Loyola (Calif.) 61. Notes of Decisions 7. Subdivisions and subdividers Although developer could reasonably have relies State Department of Transportation had made final do 4.5. Development Rights Section and desired no highway widening as condition to conn 66498.1 of new street to highway, he could not reasonably rely assumption that city council controlled conditions sun ing encroachment on highway when, as a matter of lav power remained in State Department of Transportatioi Canada Flintridge Development Corp. v. Departma Transp. (App. 2 Dist.1985) 212 Cal.Rptr. 334, 166 C 206. CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 66412.2. Inapplicability of division to construction, financing or leasing of certain dwelling units or second units; applicability of division to sale or transfer, but not leasing, of units. 66412.3. Housing needs of region; effect of ordinances; consideration. 66412.8. Parcels created prior to March 4, 1972; conclusive presumption of legality; conditions; certificate of compliance; duration of section. Underline indicates changes or additions by amendment 40 § 66411.1. Improvements for divisions nt Notes of Decisions 1. In general Lots 1, 2 and 3 did not constitute separate and d parcels of land legally subdivided within meaning c state map act (§§ 66410 to 66499.37) by prior United Survey Map, and were not therefore exempt from regu Asterisks • • • Indicate deletions by am § 6217 Repeal Section 6'217 as amended by Stats.1985, c. 1584, p. - own terms on Jan. 1, 1989. § 6217. Disposition of revenues received by commission Text of section operative Jan. 1, 1989. With the exception of revenues derived from state school lands and from sources described in Sections 6217.6, 6301.5, 6301.6, 6855, and 8551 to 8558, inclusive, and Section 6406 (insofar as the proceeds are from property that has been distributed or escheated to the state in connection with unclaimed estates of deceased persons), the commission shall deposit in the State Treasury all revenues, moneys, and remittances received by it under this division, and under Chapter 138 of the Statutes of 1964, First Extraordinary Session, and these sums shall be applied to the following obligations in the following order: (a) To the General Fund the revenue necessary to provide in any fiscal year for the following: (1) Payment of refunds, authorized by the commission and approved by the State Board of Control, out of appropriations made for that purpose by the Legislature. (2) Payment of expenditures of the commission as provided in the annual Budget Act approved by the Legislature. PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE § 3 is repealed by its (3) Payments to cities and counties of the amounts specified in Section 6817 for the purposes specified in that section, and the revenues so deposited are appropriated for such purpose. (4) Payments to cities and counties of the amounts agreed to pursuant to the provisions of Section 6875. (b) To the California Water Fund each fiscal year the amount of twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000). (c) To the Central Valley Water Project Construction Fund each fiscal year the amount of five million dollars ($5,000,000). (d) To the Resources Agency, the amount of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) for each of the fiscal years 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88, and 1988-89 for distribution for public and private higher education for use as up to two-thirds of the local matching share for projects under the National Sea Grant College and Program Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-688) approved, upon the recommendation of the advisory panel appointed pursuant to this section, by the Secretary of the Resources Agency or his or her designee. During the 1988-89 fiscal year, the Legislature shall consider recommendations from the Secretary of the Resources Agency and other interested parties on the benefits to the people of the State of California derived from this program and shall determine whether or not to continue similar appropriations for subsequent fiscal years. There shall be an advisory panel to the Secretary of the Resources Agency consisting of 13 members, which shall do all of the following: (1) Identify state needs that might be met through Sea Grant research projects, including, but not limited to, such fields as living marine resources, aquaculture, ocean engineering, marine minerals, public recreation, coastal physical processes and coastal and ocean resources planning and manage- ment, and marine data acquisition and dissemination, establish priorities for those needs, and transmit those needs and priorities to the Legislature not later than January 1 of each year and include them in all announcements of proposals for grants in the following fiscal year. (2) Review all applications for funding under this section and make recommendations based upon the priorities it establishes. (3) Periodically review progress on Sea Grant research projects subsequent to their approval and funding under this section. (4) Make recommendations to the Secretary of the Resources Agency with respect to the imple- mentation of this section. The Secretary of the Resources Agency shall appoint the following members of the advisory panel, who shall serve at the pleasure of the secretary: (Ai A representative of the Department of Boating and Waterways. @I A representative of the Department of Conservation. Underline Indicates changes or additions by amendment 6 PUBLIC RESOURCES C( n A representative of the nD The executive director o: (E) A representative of the 1 (F) A representative of the n A representative of the (11) A representative of the 1 gl A representative of the C A representative of a priv the National Sea Grant Progra: ILQ A representative of the E. The Senate Committee on Rt serve at the pleasure of the Se: The Speaker of the Assembly serve at the pleasure of the Sp member appointed by the Senat The Secretary of the Resourc chairman. Panel members shal The Sea Grant research proje. defined benefit to the people of that the funding provided by th ocean and coastal resources by Nothing in this section shall be would be eligible for funding um 1966. (e) To the Capital Outlay Fund of one hundred two million one fiscal year thereafter, .the amour appropriation on July 1 of each f (f) (1) To the State School Bu 1986-87, 1987-88, ` * * 1988-8; dollars ($150,000,000). (2) For the fiscal years 1984-8 up to 5 percent of the amounts ch to this section or any other provis inclusive, of the Education Code (g) To the Energy and Resourc the amount of sixty-five million (h) To the Special Account for distributed under subdivisions (a), The commission may, with the moneys received or collected by it by the commission and approved 1 the Controller shall draw his or hd any appropriation made for that All references in any law to Se (Added by Stats.1980, c. 899, p. 2j 143, p. —, § 213; Stats.1983, c.1 p. —, § 2; Stats.1984, c. 268, p. § 3.5, urgency, eff. Sept. 30, 198 For text of sectio Asterisks • * * Indicate deletioj DE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE n A representative of the Department of Fish and Game. The executive director of the California Coastal Commission or his or her designee. LEJ A representative of the fish industry. fF A representative of the aquaculture industry. A representative of the ocean engineering industry. a A representative of the University of California. A representative of the California State University. A representative of a private California institution of higher education which is participating in the National Sea Grant Program. • �K A representative of the State Lands Commission. The Senate Committee on Rules shall appoint one Member of the Senate to the panel, who shall serve at the pleasure of the Senate Committee on Rules. The Speaker of the Assembly shall appoint one Member of the Assembly to the panel, %rho shall serve at the pleasure of the Speaker: This member shall not be of the same political party as the member appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules. The Secretary of the Resources Agency shall designate one member of the panel to serve as its chairman. Panel members shall serve without compensation. The Sea Grant research projects selected for state support under this section shall have a clearly defined benefit to the people of the State of California. The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the funding provided by this section is needed to stimulate the development and utilization of ocean and coastal resources by working constructively with private sector firms and individuals. Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude the application for funding of any project that would be eligible for funding under the terms of the National Sea Grant College and Program Athol 1966. (e) To the Capital Outlay Fund for Public Higher Education for the 1984-85 fiscal year the amount of one hundred two million one hundred sixty-eight thousand dollars ($102,168,000), and for each fiscal year thereafter, .the amount necessary to provide for an unencumbered balance available for appropriation on July 1 of each fiscal year of one hundred twenty-five million dollars ($125,000,000). (f) (1) To the State School Building Lease -Purchase Fund, for each of the fiscal years 1985-86, dollars ($150,000,000). 1986-87, 1987-88, * • * 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91 the amount of one hundred fifty million (2) For the fiscal years 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88, • • • 1988-89, 1989-90 and 19991 up. to 5 percent of the amounts deposited in the State School Building Lease -Purchase Fund pursuant to this section or any other provision of law may be spent in accordance with Sections 17785 to 17795, inclusive, of the Education Code (Emergency School Classroom Law of 1979). (g) To the Energy and Resources Fund each fiscal year, commencing with the 1985-86 fiscal year, the amount of sixty-five million dollars ($65,000,000). (h) To the Special Account for Capital Outlay, the balance of all revenues in excess of the amount distributed under subdivisions (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g). The commission may, with the approval of the State Board of Control, authorize the refund of moneys received or collected by it illegally or by mistake, inadvertence, or error. Claims authorized by the commission and approved by the State Board of Control shall be filed with the Controller and the Controller shall draw his or her warrant against the General Fund in payment of the refund from any appropriation made for that purpose. All references in any law to Section 6816 shall be deemed to refer to this section. (Added by Stats.1980, c. 899, p. 2812, § 7, urgency, eff. Sept. 17, 1980. Amended by Stats.1983, c. 143, p. § 213; Stats.1983, c. 323, p. § 67 urgency, eff. July 21, 1983; Stats.1983, c. 1311, p. § 2; Stats.1984, c. 268, p. § 30, urgency, eff. June 30, 1984; Stats.1984, c. 1749, p. § 3.5, urgency, eff. Sept. 30, 1984; Stats.1986, c. 887, § 12; Stats.1986, c. 888, § 7.) For text of section operative until Jan. 1, 1989, see § 6217, ante. Asterisks • • * Indicate deletions by amendment 7 in he 'lith fall he 'g. I>l, § 6217 § 6217 1983 Legislation. Stats.1983, c. 323 operative on July 21, 1983 and deemed to have become effective on July I, 1983, unless otherwise provided, see note under C.C.P. § 1531. Former § 6217, added by Stats.1968, c. 981, p. 1877, § 4, amended by Stats.1973, c. 1115, p. 2280, § I; Stats.1975, c. 600, p. 1316, § 1; Stats.1978, c. 1255, p. 4078, § I; Stats. 1980, c. 899, p. 2809, § 6; Stats.1981, c. 886,'p. 3394, § I; Stats.1983, c. 143, p. -, § 213; Stats.1983, c. 323, p. -, § 67; Stats.1983, c. 1311, p. -, § 1, was repealed by its own provisions on the operative date of the Budget Act for the 1984-85 fiscal year (June 27, 1984). Section 151 of Stats.1983, c. 323, p. -, provides: "(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 6217 of the Public Resources Code, revenues, moneys, and remit- tances received by the State Lands Commission and deposit- ed in the State Treasury pursuant to Section 6217 of the Public Resources Code shall be subject to the.special alloca- tions specified in this section for the 1983-84 fiscal year. The provisions of this section shall be applicable only to the 1983-84 fiscal year and, except as otherwise expressly pro- vided in this section, the sums deposited in the State Trea- sury pursuant to Section 6217 of the Public Resources Code shall be applied to the obligations specified in that section. "(b) For the 1983-84 fiscal year, the allocations specified in Section 6217 of the Public Resources Code shall be revised as follows: "(1) No amount shall be deposited in the California Water Fund pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 6217 of the Public Resources Code. "(2) No amount shall be deposited in the Central Valley Water Project Construction Fund pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 6217 of the Public Resources Code. "(3) The amount of sixty-nine million six hundred thirty- five thousand dollars (569,635,000) shall be deposited in the Capital Outlay Fund for Public Higher Education pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 6217 of the Public Resources Code. PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE "(4) No amount shall be deposited in the State School Building Lease -Purchase Fund pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 6217 of the Public Resources Code. "(5) The amount of twenty-four million forty-eight thou- sand dollars (524,048,000) shall be deposited in the Energy and Resources Fund pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section 6217 of the Public Resources Code. "(6) No amount shall be deposited in the State Parks and Recreation Fund pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 6217 of the Public Resources Code. "(7) No amount shall be deposited in the Transportation Planning and Development Account in the State Transpor- tation Fund pursuant to subdivision (i) of Section 6217 of the Public Resources Code. "(8) The amount of seventeen million eight hundred six- teen thousand dollars (517,816,000) shall be deposited in the Special Account for Capital Outlay in the General Fund pursuant to subdivision (j) of Section 6217 of the Public Resources Code. "(9) The amount of three hundred fifty thousand dollars (5350,000) shall be transferred to the Resources Agency for distribution to public and private higher education for useras up to two-thirds of the local matching share for projects under the National Sea Grant College Program Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-688). If any amount is appropriated in' the 1983-84 Budget Act for the National Sea Grant Program Act of 1966, that amount shall be the total amount transfer- red pursuant to this section. "(10) The amount of five million dollars (55,000,000) shall be deposited in the Santa Monica Mountains Conserv- ancy Fund. "(c) An amount of up to two hundred fourteen million six hundred nine thousand dollars (5214,609,000) shall be deposited in the unappropriated surplus of the General Fund. This transfer shall be in lieu of any transfer pursuant to Section 6 of Chapter 904 of the Statutes of 1980." 1986 Legislation. Effect of amendment of section by two or more acts at the same session of the legislature, see Government Code § 9605. § 6217.1. Transfer of funds to fisheries restoration account in the fish and game preservation fund; duration of section (a) There is hereby transferred to the Fisheries Restoration Account in the Fish and Game Preservation Fund the amount of five million dollars ($5,000,000) for each of the 1985-86 and 1986-87 fiscal years from revenues, moneys, and remittances deposited by the commission pursuant to Section 6217, which amounts shall be transferred after the allocation is made pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 6217 but before the allocation is made pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 6217. (b) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 1989, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, which is enacted before January 1, 1989, deletes or extends that date.. (Added by Stats.1985, c. 1236, p. -, § 2, urgency, eff. Sept. 30, 1985.) Repeal Section 6217.1 is repealed by its own terms on Jan. 1, 1989. § 6217.4. Transfer of funds to resources agency; advisory panel additional members; duration of section (a) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 6217, the amount of five hundred twenty-five thousand dollars ($525,000) shall be transferred to the Resources Agency for each of the 1986-87, 1987-88, and 1988-89 fiscal years. (b) In addition to the persons designated in paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 6217, the Secretary of the Resources Agency shall appoint the following additional members of the advisory panel, who shall serve at the discretion of the secretary: Underline indicates changes or additions by amendment 8 PUBLIC RESOURCES C (1) A representative of the (2) A representative of the (c) This section shall remair unless a later enacted statute, (Added by Stats.1986, c. 1079, Section 6217.4 § 6217.5. Deposit of funds ft Except for the revenues di remittances from the ' • ' use to the credit of the Teachers' 1 the Education Code. (Amended by Stats.1983, c. 121, 1984; Stats.1984, c. 879, p. - 1984 Legislation. Section 3 of Stats.1984, c. 1070, p. "If AB 3105 [Stats.1984, c. 879] is Section 6217.5 of the Public Resource § 6217.7. Deposit of funds fr< All net revenues, moneys, an deposited in the State Treasury (Added by Stats.1984, c. 879, p. § 6224. Rules and regulation. agreement The commission may adopt ru: or interest, or both, by any pers lease or agreement. The rules waiver by the commission of the shall not exceed 5 percent of ti percent per month from the da payment. Penalties and interes sion. (Added by Stats.1982, c. 1463, p. 1982 Legislation. Former § 6224 was repealed by Stai 5624, § 1. Derivation: Former § 6224, added b} p. 1526, § I, amended by Stats.1972, c. Stats.1975, c. 1081, p. 2642, § 1. § 6226. Seepage of oil, dry gas financial assistance; 1979 Legislation. Asterisks " • " indicate deletio 1'. 1985-1986 REGULAR SESSION Ch. 685 LOCAL AGENCIES—FEES OR CHARGES—CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS OR FACILITIES Assembly Bill No. 3314 CHAPTER 685 An act to add and repeal Section 53077.5 of the Government Code, relating to local agencies. [Approved by Governor September 9, 1986. Filed with Secretary of State September 9, 1986.] LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 3314, Leonard. Local agencies: fees or charges. (1) Existing law authorizes local agencies to impose fees and charges for various purposes. This bill would impose a state -mandated . local program by generally prohibiting any local agency, as defined, that imposes fees or charges for the construction of public improvements or facilities on a residential development from requiring the payment of the fee or charge until the date of the final inspection or the date the certificate of occupancy is issued, whichever occurs later, unless the fees or charges are for a residential development which contains more than one dwelling unit. If the residential development contains more than one dwelling unit, the bill would permit the local agency to elect to require payment of the fees or charges in one of 3 prescribed ways. However, if the local agency determines that fees or charges on any residential development will be collected for public improvements or facilities for which an account has been established and funds appropriated, and for which the local agency has adopted a proposed construction schedule or plan prior to final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy or the fees or charges are to reimburse the local agency for expenditures previously made, the bill would permit the local agency to require the payment of the fees or charges at an earlier time. The bill would require the Legislative Analyst to prepare a report for submission to the Legislature evaluating the implementation of the bill. The provisions of the bill would remain in effect until January 1, 1993. (2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement, including the creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs of mandates which do not exceed $500,000 statewide and other procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed $500,000. symbol v indicates text deletion 503 • Ch. 685 STATUTES OF 1986 This bill would state that it does not mandate a new program or higher level of service on local government. It would also provide that a local agency or school district may pursue any remedies to obtain reimbursement under the above-described statutory procedures. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. Section 53077.5 is added to the Government Code, to read: 53077.5. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b), any local agency which imposes any fees or charges on a residential development for the construction of public improvements or facilities shall not require the payment of those fees or charges, notwithstanding any other provision of law, until the date of the final inspection, or the date the certificate of occupancy is issued, whichever occurs last, provided, that utility service fees may be collected at the time an application for utility service is received. If the residential development contains more than one dwelling, the local agency may determine whether the fees or charges shall be paid on a pro rata basis for each dwelling when it receives its final inspection or certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs last; on a pro rata basis when a certain percentage of the dwellings have received their final inspection or certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs last; or on a lump -sum basis when the last dwelling in the development receives its final inspection or certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the local agency may require the payment of those fees or charges at an earlier time if (1) the local agency determines that the fees or charges will be collected for public improvements or facilities for which an account has been established and funds appropriated and for which the local agency has adopted a proposed construction schedule or plan prior to final inspection or issuance of the certificate of occupancy or (2) the fees or charges are to reimburse the local agency for expenditures previously made. "Appropriated," as used in this subdivision, means authorization by the governing body of the local agency for which the fee is collected to make expenditures and incur obligations for specific purposes. (c) "Local agency," as used in this section, means a county, city, or city and county, whether general law or chartered, or district. "District" means an agency of the state, formed pursuant to general law or special act, for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions within limited boundaries. (d) This section applies only to fees collected by a local agency to fund the construction of public improvements or facilities. It does not apply to fees collected to cover the cost of code enforcement or inspection services, or to other fees collected to pay for the cost of enforcement of local ordinances or state law. (e) "Final inspection" or "certificate of occupancy," as used in this section, have the same meaning as described in Sections 305 and 504 Changes or additions In text are indicated by underline 1985-1986 RI 307 of the Uniform Building Building Officials; 1985 Edition (f) The Legislative Analyst si by January 1, 1992, which ev section. In preparing the report with individuals and associal Legislative Analyst, are know section. Those individuals and limited to, representatives of • engineers, land surveyors, cou districts, and public utilities. (g) This section shall remain and as of that date is repealed, is chaptered before January 1, SEC. 2. No reimbursement Section 6 of Article XIII B of th4 act does not mandate a new p local government. It is recogni school district may pursue any available to it under Chapter 4 Part 7 of Division 2 of Title 2 MARITAL DISSOLUTIO] COMMUNITY PROP RETIRE] Assembll CHAT An act to add Section 4800.8 law. [Approved by Governoj Secretary of Sta LEGISLATIVE AB 3345, McAlister. Famil Existing law provides that i or dissolution of marriage, exce parties, or an oral stipulation o shall divide the community pr of the parties equally, except This bill would require a community property interest • orders are necessary or approp his or her full community pr symbol y Indicates text deletion 1985-1986 REGULAR SESSION Ch. 686 307 of the Uniform Building Code, International Conference of. Building Officials, 1985 Edition. (f) The Legislative Analyst shall submit a report to the Legislature by January 1, 1992, which evaluates the implementation of this section. In preparing the report, the Legislative Analyst shall consult with individuals and associations who, in the opinion of the Legislative Analyst, are knowledgeable about the impact of this section. Those individuals and associations shall include, but not be limited to, representatives of builders, landowners, planners, civil engineers, land surveyors, counties, cities, school districts, special districts, and public utilities. (g) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 1993, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, which is chaptered before January 1, 1993, deletes or' extends that date. SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because this act does not mandate a new program or higher level of service on local government. It is recognized, however, that a local agency or school district may pursue any remedies to obtain reimbursement available to it under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 17550) of Part 7 of Division 2 of Title 2 of the Government Code. MARITAL DISSOLUTION OR LEGAL SEPARATION— COMMUNITY PROPERTY—FULL SHARE IN_ RETIREMENT PLANS Assembly Bill No. 3345 [Approved by Governor September 9, 1986. Filed with Secretary of State September 9, 1986.] LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 3345, McAlister. Family law. Existing law provides that in a proceeding of the legal separation or dissolution of marriage, except upon the written agreement of the parties, or an oral stipulation of the parties in open court, the court shall divide the community property and quasi -community property of the parties equally, except as specified. This bill would require a court, in making a division of the community property interest in a retirement plan, to make whatever orders are necessary or appropriate to assure that each party receives his or her full community property share of any retirement plan symbol y indicates text deletion 505 § 53077 GOVERNMENT CODE funds of the local agency, except for temporary investments, andexpend those fees solely for the purpose for which the fee was collected. Any interest income earned on the fund shall also be deposited in that fund and shall be expended only for the purpose for which the fee was originally collected, except that the requirements of this sentence shall not apply to interest on the fees paid pursuant to Section 66477 until January 1, 1985. For purposes of this section, "local agency" means a county, city, city and county, school district, special district, or any other municipal public corporation or district. (Added by Stats.1983, c. 921, p. —, § 1.) § 53077.5. Construction of public improvements or facilities on residential development; pay- ment of fees or charges on residential development; time; definitions; report; duration of section (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b), any local agency which imposes any fees or charges on a residential development for the construction of public improvements or facilities shall not require the payment of those fees or charges, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 9,61 the date of the final inspection, or the date the certificate of occupancy is issued, whichever occurs last, provided, that utility service fees may be collected at the time an application for utility service is received. If the residential development contains more than one dwelling, the local agency may determine whether the fees or charges shall be paid on a pro rata basis for each dwelling when it receives its final inspection or certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs last; on a pro rata basis when a certain percentage of the dwellings have received their final inspection or certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs last; or on a lump -sum basis when the last dwelling in the development receives its final inspection or certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the local agency may require the payment of those fees or charges at an earlier time if (1) the local agency determines that the fees or charges will be collected for public improvements or facilities for which an account has been established and funds appropriat- ed ppropriated and for which the local agency has adopted a proposed construction schedule or plan prior to final inspection or issuance of the certificate of occupancy or (2) the fees or charges are to reimburse the local agency for expenditures previously made. "Appropriated," as used in this subdivision, means authorization by the governing body of the local agency for which the fee is collected to make expenditures and incur obligations for specific purposes. (c) "Local agency," as used in this section, means a county, city, or city and county, whether general law or chartered, or district. "District" means an agency of the state, formed pursuant to general law or special act, for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions within limited boundaries. (d) This section applies only to fees collected by a local agency to fund the construction of public improvements or facilities. It does not apply to fees collected to cover the cost of code enforcement or inspection services, or to other fees collected to pay for the cost of enforcement of local ordinances or state law. (e) "Final inspection" or "certificate of occupancy," as used in this section, have the same meaning as described in Sections 305 and 307 of the Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, 1985 Edition. (f) The Legislative Analyst shall submit a report to the Legislature by January 1, 1992, which evaluates the implementation of this section. In preparing the report, the Legislative Analyst shall consult with individuals and associations who, in the opinion of the Legislative Analyst, are knowledgeable about the impact of this section. Those individuals and associations shall include, but not be limited to, representatives of builders, landowners, planners, civil engineers, land surveyors, counties, cities, school districts, special districts, and public utilities. (g) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 1993, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, which is chaptered before January 1, 1993, deletes or extends that date. (Added by Stats.1986, c. 685, § 1.) Repeal Section 53077.5 is repealed by its own terms January 1, 1.993. § 53078. Auditing procedures for direct service contractors; establishment authorized (a) For the purposes of this section, "local agency" means any local agency which awards direct service contracts to nonprofit organizations including, but not limited to, any city, county, or city and Underline Indicates changes or additions by amendment 12 GOVERNMENT CODE county, special district, housing aut superintendent of schools. • (b) Any local agency may establish by Chapter 5 (commencing with Se (Added by Stats.1984, c. 1286, p.. —, 1984 Legislation. § 53079. Local public entity; cons (a) "Local public entity," as used it chartered, district, public authority, entity of the state. (b) If a local public entity requires the form of cash or a cashier's the performance of any act or agreemen invests that cash or the proceeds of t portion, of the amount of the balanc furnished the security if the securit} local public entity shall pay interest average rate of return earned by t calendar quarters last preceding th. Interest shall be paid from the date that all, or any portion, of the balanc the security. (c) The Legislature finds and dec security furnished, as described in si the Legislature intends by this secti (Added by Stats.1985, c. 247, p. — § 53080. Application for building required by ordinance (a) No city or county may requir certificate of insurance evidencing condition to the issuance of either, c requirement by ordinance. (b) This section does not apply to or county. (Added by Stats.1986, c. 606, § 1.) For another section of the sc Stats.1986, c. 888, § 6, see § 5� § 53080. Levies against developm (a) The governing board of any other form of requirement against a the boundaries of the district, for th facilities, subject to any limitation: Division 1 of Title 7. This fee, char to new commercial and industrial a tion, and other construction to the (b) No city or county, whether development absent certification by project with any fee, charge, dedica of that school district pursuant to Asterisks * * " indicate deletion: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH INTER -OFFICE MEMO TO: Gregory T. Meyer, City Manager RE: School Impact Fees DATE: 2/11/87 FROM: William Grove, Director Dept. of Bldg. & Safety Thought you might be interested in the attached. The L.A. City con- tract is interesting in that it points out some of the problems as- sociated with collecting the fees for a district. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION December 9, 1986 TO: District Office Managers FROM: D Superintendent of Build 50.37 AB2926 SCHOOL FINANCING FEES Effective January 1, 1987, A.B. 2926 modified the Education code to provide for the collection of fees by School Districts from developers of residential and commercial property when the District has passed a "notice of intent" to collect the fees. The Education Code also provides that no City or County shall issue a building permit until the prescribed fees have been collected. When a School District has notified the Department of Public Works that a "notice of intent" has been passed .and provided a map of the District, Building and Safety may not issue a building permit for anystructure within the District boundaries until a written "certificate of completion" has been received from the School District indicating the fees have been collected or that the structure is exempt. The certificate of completion should be in the format shown on Attachment A. Exceptions: Retaining Walls Fences. Signs Flagpoles Swimming Pools Sheds Garages Carports Unenclosed patios Agricultural buildings (noncommercial) Similar nonhabitable residential accessory structures District Office Managers December 9, 1986 Page 2 FEES 50.37 The maximum fees which may be collected by the School Districts are: Residential Commercial Industrial $1.50 sq. ft. 0.25 sq. ft. 0.25 sq. ft. The combined fees for overlapping districts (High School and Elementary) may not exceed the above amounts. NOTIFICATION OF BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION When a School District elects to pass a "notice of intent" to collect the development fees permitted by the Education Code, the following notification procedure will be implemented: - a. b. The school district will designate a person to act as liaison between the district and County offices involved. The liaison person will make contact with the Superintendent of Building informing him of the Districts actions and the effective date. c. The liaison will immediately transmit a copy of the notice of intent along with the fee amounts and four copies of the school district boundaries to the Superintendent of Building. d. Upon notification from the Superintendent of Building that a School District has passed or intends to pass a "notice of intent", the Office Manager will make contact with the School District liaison to establish procedures for notification of deyelopers and collection of fees. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES Upon notification that a "notice of intent" has been passed, the Office Manager will initiate such procedures as necessary to insure enforcement, including flagging of House Numbering Maps, updating referral sheets, plan transmittal and plan screening forms to include the information, informing all office personnel and sending out notices to all applicants with pending projects which may be effected. District Office Managers December 9, 1986 Page 3 50.37 A building permit may not be issued within the boundaries of the district for any construction (see exceptions above) until receipt of a certificate of completion from the district. The certificate should indicate the number of square feet and use of building receipted. This information should be verified with the plans. Discrepancies must be referred to the school district for resolution prior to the issuance of permits. Disputes concerning the amount of fees, collection procedures, application of the regulations, etc. are to be resolved between the Developer and the School District. If a permit is issued in error without a "certificate of completion", the following steps shall be taken: a. b. Send a letter to the owner/developer informing them of the oversight and of the necessity to pay the fee prior to continuing construction on the project. Indicate that utilities will not be approved for turn on, nor a final inspection made,. until receipt of a certificate of completion by Building and Safety. Send a copy to the school district liaison. Do not approve utilities, or make a final inspection, until a certificate of completion has been received. All progress inspections up to final should be made as called. SB201 FEES Some School Districts are currently collecting "SB201 Fees" (See memo 50.36). These fees may continue 'to be collected by the District until such time as they elect to pass a "notice of intent" to collect the AB2926 fees. Districts may elect to collect both SB201 and AB2926 fees as long as the total amount does not exceed the AB2926 maximum. In this case, two separate certificates of completion or a combination form will be required for issuance of a building permit. Upon receipt of a "notice of intent" from a District currently collecting SB201 fees, a "notice of completion" for SB201 fees will no longer be sufficient for issuance of a building permit. A "notice of completion" for the AB2926 fees will be required. DLW:ldr B-0 . .l XYZ SCHOOL DISTRICT XXXXXXX% XXXXXXX XXXXX ATTACHMENT A RECOMMENDED FORMAT CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH FEE PROVISIONS OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65995 DEVELOPER Signature of Applicant ADDRESS The person signing represents that he/she is authorized to sign on behalf of the owner/ developer and that the information TELEPHONE provided is true and accurate to the best of his/her knowledge. FEE SCHEDULE: THE DEVELOPMENT FEES LEVIED BY THE XYZ SCHOOL DISTRICT UNDER PROVISION OF SECTION 65995 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE ARE: • Residential Development $1.50/sq. ft. Commercial/Industrial Development $0.25/sq. ft. TRACT/PROJECT ADDRESS NUMBER OF BUILDING(S) IN PROJECT BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION NO(S) LOT/ADDRESS USE OF BUILDING :\::F.:\(SQ. FT.)r FEE 2. 3. 4. 5. INFORMATION BELOW LINE TO BE COMPLETED BY SCHOOL D I STR I CT SUBTOTAL (ATTACHED SHTS) J TOTAL FEES DUE RECEIPT NO.. This is to certify that all fees due to the XYZ School District under provision of Government Code Section 65995 as a prerequisite to the issuance of a Building Permit by the Department of Public Works have been received. Based on the above information presented, this. Certification of Completion is hereby executed. Q This is to certify that the above described development has been determined to he exempt from the development fees of Government Code Section 65995 and.Building Permits maybe issued therefor. JOHN C. HEADMASTER SUPERINTENDENT XYZ SCHOOL DISTRICT • • XXX X?CX)UUUCXX • V • ATTACHMENT B NOTICE TO DEVELOPERS Your proposed development is located within the boundaries of the XYZ School District which has passed a "notice of intent" to collect development fees in the amounts indicated below as provided by Section 65995 of the Government Code: Residential Commercial Industrial $1.50 sq. ft. 0.25 sq. ft. 0.25 sq. ft. The fees must be paid and a "notice of completion" prepared by the school district must be delivered to Building and Safety prior to issuance of a building permit. Attached is a copy of the certification of compliance form. -You are required to complete the forms) and submit them to the District's liaison along with a complete set of plans in order to determine the fees due. The District's liaison is: Mr. John C._ Headmaster XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Telephone:XXXXXXXXXXXX NTD • /,4 ORIGINAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND THE LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR COLLECTION OF DEVELOPER FEES THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 2nd day of January, 1987 by and between the City of Los Angeles, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "CITY") acting by and through its Department of Building and Safety (hereinafter "DEPARTMENT") and the Los Angeles Unified School District, (hereinafter "DISTRICT") with reference to the following: WHEREAS Section 53080(a) of the Government Code authorizes the governing board 'of any school district to levy a fee, charge or dedication, or other form of requirement against any development project, as defined in Government Code Section 65928, within the boundaries of the district.. [Reference: AB -2926, Chap. 887, AB -3314, Chap. 685 (Stats 1986); SB -2068, Chap. 888 (Stats. 1986), Public Resources Code, Section 21080 (b)(8)(4) and Government Code 53077]; and WHEREAS Section 53080(b) of the Government Code provides that the CITY may not issue a building permit for any development until the DISTRICT certifies that the development project has paid the appropriate fee, charge, dedication or other form of requirement levied by the DISTRICT's governing board; and WHEREAS the Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles, the governing board of the DISTRICT (hereinafter "BOARD") has adopted and levied developer fees effective January 1, 1987 and authorized the DISTRICT's Chief Business and Financial Officer to enter into an agreement with the CITY regarding the collection of said fees; and WHEREAS the DEPARTMENT currently collects various CITY fees and charges related to the issuance of building permits and agrees, subject to the approval of the Los Angeles City Council, to collect said developer fees as agent for and on behalf of the DISTRICT for the consideration and upon the terms and conditions as hereinafter provided. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and of the covenants, representations and agreements herein contained, the parties hereto covenant, represent and agree as follows: SECTION I. SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CITY A. Collection of Developer Fees. The DEPARTMENT shall: calculate, charge, and collect, as agent for the DISTRICT, the developer fees levied by the BOARD and shall deposit such Account within the Said fees shall be dential development •square foot for new fees in the interest earning -School District Fee Department of Building in the amount of $1.50 and Safety Trust Fund. per square foot of resi— resulting in new habitable area, and $0.25 per commercial or industrial, covered or enclosed space. 2. The CITY will calculate said fees in accordance with the applicable provisions setforth in Assembly Bill 2926, Chap. 887 (Stats. 1986), Senate Bill 2068, Chap. 888 (Stats 1986) and State of California State Allocation Board Guide Book, supplement to the Applicant Handbook Legislation Implemention, dated January 1986, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. These fees will be collected in addition to other related fees collected by the DEPARTMENT on behalf of the CITY. B. Payment of Developer Fees Collected. The CITY shall forward to the DISTRICT, on or before the fifteenth day of each month, all developer fees collected during the previous month, including any interest accrued thereon, less any adjustments as provided herein. In addition, the DEPARTMENT shall submit an itemized list of each such fee collected and adjustment thereto, if any, on a monthly basis. The terms of this paragraph are premised on the CITY's representation that its current accounting procedures do not permit disbursement on a weekly basis. The parties will continue to negotiate the issue of frequency of said disbursements with the goal of providing said disbursements on a weekly basis. C. Refunds or Returns of Developer Fees. • In the event of any refunds or other returns of a developer fee due to a building permit cancellation or downward adjustment of either planned square footage or CITY's calculation 3. thereof, the refund shall be paid by the CITY to the developer from the School District Fee Account within the Department of Building and Safety Trust Fund. D. Adjustments to Developer Fees. The City Treasurer shall reimburse the Los Angeles City general fund the dollar amounts of developer fees paid with dishonored checks, drafts or other negotiable instruments from the School District Fee Account within the Building and Safety Trust Fund and provide the DISTRICT with a monthly summary of the transactions described herein. The DEPARTMENT shall withhold any further action, including approvals, on all building permits wherein payment was tendered with dishonored checks, drafts or other negotiable instruments until payment of the appropriate fee has been made. E. Documentation. The DEPARTMENT shall retain legible copies of all approved and validated building permits and collection and disbursement records prepared pursuant to this Agreement. Said permits and records shall be maintained for a period of three calendar years from the date on the documents and shall be made available to the DISTRICT for review during normal business hours. 4. SECTION II. • PAYMENT FOR CITY'S SERVICES A. Charges - Invoices. The DISTRICT shall reimburse the CITY for the services performed and expenses incurred hereunder in the amount of. Thirty Eight Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars (38,250.00) per month. Payment shall be made -no later than 30 days after receipt of CITY's invoice requesting such payment. SECTION III. DISTRICT OBLIGATIONS - RIGHTS A. Building Permit Applications - Calculations. The DISTRICT will preliminarily accept for disbursement purposes all DEPARTMENT square footage calculations. The DISTRICT, however, reserves the right to review the building permit applications and microfilmed plans, if available, pursuant,to Section I(E), and in the event the DISTRICT believes such calculations to be in error, the DISTRICT shall have recourse to the developer to resolve the disputed fee. The DISTRICT may review any such application wherein the DEPARTMENT has made a determination that a developer fee is not due. B. Certification of Compliance. The DISTRICT agrees that the DEPARTMENT'S acceptance of payment of a developer's fee shall constitute the DISTRICT'S 5. • certification of compliance by that development project with the fee requirements levied by the BOARD. C. Staff for Information Desks. The DISTRICT agrees to staff information desks at City Hall and in the Van Nuys District Office with DISTRICT'S employees at no charge to the CITY. Said employees will assist the DEPARTMENT in conducting its public relations activities which are related to the imposition of the developer fee. DEPARTMENT agrees to provide said DISTRICT employees with adequate space,_furniture, equipment, and parking at no cost to the DISTRICT. The DISTRICT further agrees to provide Workers Compensation Insurance for its employees assigned to provide the services described herein. SECTION IV - REPRESENTATIVES A. CITY'S Representative. The CITY hereby appoints the Superintendent and General Manager of the Department of Building and Safety, or his designate, to represent the CITY on all matters related to this Agreement, provided, however, that any amendments to this Agreement extending the term beyond the termination date shall require the, approval of the Los Angeles City Council. 6. B. DISTRICT's Representative. The DISTRICT hereby appoints Robert Booker, Chief Business and Financial Officer, or his designate, to represent the DISTRICT on all matters related to this Agreement. SECTION V - NOTICES The following addresses shall serve as the places to which payments, notices and other correspondence between the parties shall be sent: CITY's Address: City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety Room 411, City Hall Los Angeles, CA 90012 Attention: Frank Kroeger, Superintendent and General Manager DISTRICT's Address: SION Los Angeles Unified School District 450 North Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90012 Attention: Robert Booker, Chief Business and Financial Officer SECTION VI - TERM OF AGREEMENT -.RATIFICATION The term of this Agreement shall commence on January 2, 1987 and terminate on December 31, 1987. This Agreement shall have no force or effect until ratified by the Los Angeles City Council. 7- SECTION VII -'TERMINATION This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon giving sixty (60) days notice in writing to the other party. In such event, the CITY shall be compensated for the services performed prior to the effective date of termination and the CITY shall remit all funds remaining in the School District Fee Account within the Building and Safety Trust Fund to the DISTRICT. SECTION VIII - DISTRICT REPRESENTATIONS - INDEMNIFICATION 1.111111. The DISTRICT represents that it is authorized to levy a developer fee upon new residential, commercial and industrial development projects within its boundaries in order to obtain funds for the construction of new facilities. The DISTRICT further represents that it is authorized to appoint the City of Los Angeles, acting by and through its Building and Safety Department, to act as the DISTRICT's Agent for the collection of said developer fees, as provided herein. The CITY therefore agrees to perform the services described in this Agreement as agent for the DISTRICT in consideration for the DISTRItT's agreement to reimburse the CITY for said fee collection costs and to indemnify the CITY in accordance with the following: The DISTRICT hereby agrees to indemnify and otherwise hold harmless the CITY and its officers, employees and agents from and 8. against any and all claims, demands and causes of action, liability, judgments, damages, costs and expenses (including attorney's fees) arising out of or in connection with the CITY's or the DISTRICT'S performance pursuant to this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the DISTRICT shall not be responsible for, and CITY shall indemnify and hold the. DISTRICT harmless from any and all claims, demands and causes of action, liability, judgments, damages, costs and expenses (including attorney's fees) arising out of or in connection with the CITY's gross negligence or willful misconduct in performing the services hereunder. The parties agree to cooperate fully in the resolution of the matters described herein. SECTION IX — GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Applicable Law, Interpretation and Enforcement. Each party's performance hereunder shall comply with all applicable laws of the United States of America, the State of California and the CITY. This Agreement shall be enforced and interpreted under the laws of the State of California. B. Integrated Agreement. 41. This -Agreement sets forth all of the rights and duties of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and replaces any and all previous agreements or understandings, whether written or oral, relating thereto. S. .' C. Aiendment. All amendments hereto shall be in writing and signed by the persons authorized to bind the parties thereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their authorized representatives. THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES By .��✓Gl�✓� Title 4;,.z Date / -L��//�(� THE LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT By Title Chief Business and Date Financial Officer A2/4,w ATTEST: ELIAS ARTI'EZ, City Clerk Approved as to'Form: 0.19.44 Approved as to Form: JAMES K. HAHN, City Attorney By Ass tan ity Attorney 10. By Assistant Legal Advisor STRAND SAFETY CCMMIITEE MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 1987 Present: Chairperson June Williams Myreen Aschenbach Gary Brutsch Jim Rosenberger Fred Strible Steve Kramer Steve Wisniewski The February 12 meeting of the Strand Safety Committee was railed to order at 7:02 P.M. by Chairperson June Williams. Chairperson Williams presented the members with a list of 4 final recommen- dations to be discussed (attached); as well as a written communication frau Mr. Scott Eaton of Redondo Beach (attached). There was discussion and agreement by the committee that we should try to get cooperative participation frau Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach on a area/strand wide signage for speed limits on the strand. This would help by making the limits and the enforcement efforts common along the strand. There was discussion of the signage; type, size, etc. It was agreed that the signs must be large enough to attract attention and be easy to read. There should be painted signs ot} the sidewalk along the way in addition to the overhead signs. There could be large painted signs on the walls at both ends of the strand. Gary Brutsch stated that all the signs should be placed above head level for those on bicycles, All agreed. Mr. Brutsch also suggested that publicity be widespread regarding the new regulations. It was agreed that we should publish it in the papers as well as sending brochures to the various cycle shops and clubs in the South Bay area. There was sane discussion regarding the posting and marking of an alternative bike route at the beginning of the designated walk areas, 10th and 14th Streets. There was discussion around the various routes that could be taken and the inherent hazards of each. It was thought that there should be a clearly marked route and that warning signs about possible cars backing out of garages be posted. It was agreed that we should try the 3 suggestions for one summer in order to evaluate the success. Chairperson Williams will take the suggestions to City Council for discussion and approval. There was__no other meeting of the Strand Safety Committee scheduled at this time. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 P.M. ioa Final Recommendation to Council Strand Safety Advisory Comm. SSAC Post and Enforce 10 mile per hr signs Signs should be large enough to be easily seen and should include fine amout"-for citation. If presently there are standard regional speed limit signs - ours should be same. Walk bikes from 10th or llth to 15th in the summer and on heavy use weekends or holidays. This to be accomplished by signage and FLASHING LIGHTS and barricades which would require bicyclists to dismount and walk (A bike rider may circumvent the Strand between 10th and 15th on streets if not wanting to walk.) The majority favor banning skateboards also at the same times bikes are -walked. 4. Although a small majority favor a separate bike path by enlarging the Strand to accorrt date traffic we would like to try a summer with the 'walk bikes" ordinance and enforce- 2/12/67 FRCH: Scott Ecton Po Box 3414 Redondo Beech, C:i\ 90277 (213) 376-5567 TO: Hermosa Beech City Iieyor end Council Members Herrnose Beech, CA RE: Unsafe Hermosa beach Strand Deer Meyour end Courncil members; The Hermosa Beach Strand hes become very dangerous to 011 users for two distirnct reasons: 1. High speed cyclists_ 2. Surface holes and burnt out lights_ The Hermosa Beech Strand is one of the city's most unique assets. it is en exciting perede of feces and ectivities reveling in a year round Summer hoiidey fever. Unforntuermtely, the carnival ambiance cif the C;trend stifle: the normal wariness that most users would inetely Neve one roadway; preoccupied in our relaxation, we ere not alert. We assume that the pedestrian nature of the. Strand makes it safe from threat. Children dart beck and forth across the Strand in ploy, adults turn spontaneously to trace a yell, skate boarders concentrate on their moves, cyclist meander end skaters mix style with sightseeing. Normally this activity occurrs eta controlled speed which allows most to evoid serious occident. Nevertheless, high speed cyclists end surface holes constitute a high and immediate danger. The Strand must be••protected for the safe recreation of a11; all must be protected from those who would make the Strand unsafe. It will be a bitter irony to the injured that our roads are well monitored and protected, but the Strand is devoid of even the semblance of such protection. Council person:., rrlore tl•icn most, are bv,.bre of the potentially devastating financial dernage e personal liability lawsuit and judgement can hbv,ve on b smell city; millions for legal fees and the b\^r:;rd; fees neccessbrily paid by ell citizens directly or indirectly. The jury's deterriiinatiori of negligence too often seeriE; specious; to often it seems to impose en unreasonable duty to protect. Yet,this • negligence determination is easily justified when the cause of injury is clear , when the City had Notice of the danger and failed to correct; when the cost or burden of correction was minimal compared to the damage. The purpose of this letter is to: 1. Make you atf•are of potential injury causing/liability conditions 2. Caution you to be more observant and solicitous of injury potential conditions. 3. To suggest you act immediately. 4.. To protect myself and other Strand users. HIGH SPEED CYCLISTS_ Cast Saturdag afternoon three cyclist in a pack; drove thru the Hermosa Beach Strand cro,,,,.'d at speeds easily in excess of the 25MPH allowed on adjacent Hermosa Avenue. Silently, like an assassin's silenced bullets, they streaked thru gaps in the crowd ; where there were no gaps , the lead rider shouted commands to we the crowd -- ` coming thru-open up`, "stay right" , "don't move" , 'move left-. Arrogantly they demanded total , Immediate, hip speed access to the Strand. They could not have stopped in a close immediate situation, had they even cared to. It was es though we The Crowd had stupidly wandered into the path of their legitimate bicycle race; their imagined race conjured perhaps to achieve the unfullfilled fantasies of their youth's atheletic failures; e macho display of disregard for the horrible damage a 1805" man traveling in excess of 25 Mph could inflict on 6 human, particularly a small one. The arrogance of these potential killers was matched only by the raw stupidity of their reckless assault. An occident c:hacterized by such willful end knowing endenaerrnent of crowd of people will easily be classified os gross negligence, unlike most accidents ceased by on innocent, momentary lopse of concentration; an inedv,vertent spontaneous movement into harm's way. Please note: 1 arra not referring to those exercising or cruising cyclists who helve the time and the equipment ability to stop in a tight situation; to avoid the imminent accident. Nor am i concerned about low usage times eq: weekdays arid early mornings. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS: 1. Warning signs against high speed cycling; speed signs. 2. Lin -uniformed police with megaphones giving warnings ; edditionel police officers ,using their two -wail radios, further down the Strand who step end cite continuing offenders. NOTE 1.: Police sometimes cruise the Strand in patrol cars , but their patrol cars bre so recognizable and out -of -piece on the Strend that their very presence warns offenders to slower down well before they encounter the patrol vehicle and its officer. SURFACE HOLES: The Hermosa Be::;ch Strand is riddled with hales easily capable of catching o bic:yc:list's wheel or skater's wheel and causing a nasty spill. I counted 275 such holes. These holes do not include the sunken, damaged cable TV surface boxes, nor the narrow cement sections-ricy sunken or broken up- initially used to run the cable from the TV box to the contiguous property, nor the long cracks or the different heights between the concrete slabs. Manhattan Beach's repair of similar holes and cracks on its Strand would suggest to 8 jury that Hermosa Beach's burden of discovering and repairing was neither expensive nor onerous. Several overhead Strand lights have been burned out for at least two months. Obviously, this aggravates the above. The appropriate liabilities and Possible Solutions apply. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS: 1. Discover and repair existing holes and cracks immediately. 2. Have City Maintenance establish a specific: inspection schedule for discovery of future needed repairs. CONCLUSION: It is my hope that you the Council Members will immediately cause these dangers to be reduced or eliminated for the safety of Strand users and for the protection of the city Thank you!. 51ncerely;-i Gvfr. q6ott Eot4in :•4- MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE HERMOSA BEACH PARKING AU- THORITY held on Wednesday, December 17, 1986 at the hour of 12:07 a.m. NOTED: All Commissioners Present A. CONSENT CALENDAR 1) Minutes of the August 26, 1986 meeting Action: To approve minutes Motion by Chairman DeBellis, second Cioffi, so ordered. B. A RESOLUTION OF THE PARKING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DECLARING ITS INTENT TO ASSIST IN THE FINANCING OF THE PARKING FACILITY PROJECT OF THE HERMOSA PAVILION ENTERTAINMENT CENTER. Supplemental memo from General Manager Gregory T. Meyer, dated December 15, 1986, requesting that this matter be continued over to the regular Parking Authority Meeting of January 13, 1987 and that the Authority re -affirm its conceptual willingness to entertain such an issue of Certificates of Participation, as long as the issuance occurs no later than April 1, 1987. Action: To approve the staff recommendation. Motion Chairman DeBellis, second Cioffi, so ordered. Adjournment at 12:13 a.m. Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Parking Authority January 8, 1987 Authority Meeting of January 13, 1987 STATUS REPORT RE PROPOSED PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY - HERMOSA PAVILION PROJECT RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that this report be received and filed. ABSTRACT At this point we have no documents to process from Developers Equities and Sanwa Bank re the issuance of Certificates of Participation for a public parking facility. In the meantime the project has been submitted to plan check, and the appropriate fees paid; the "corrections" list has been made and returned to the developer's architect. It can therefore be assumed that the building permit will be pulled in the very near future. As can be noted from the attached press release, groundbreaking of the facilitiy is anticipated later this month. ert- Grory T l yevr g Y Ge eral Manager Hermosa Beach Parking Authority attachment cc. Developers Equities January 5, 1987 LOS ANGELES BUSINESS JOURNAL INDUSTRY REPORT: COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE toris Specialty center: Artist's sketch of Hermosa Beach Pavilion, new $22 million center. Developers plan Hermosa Beach complex Developers and designers have announced plans for a $22 million entertainment and specialty retail center in Hermosa Beach. Called Hermosa Beach Pavilion, the 87,000 -square -foot project will be designed by Design Collaborative Inc. of Encino and developed by Developers Equities -Hermosa. To be located on Pacific Coast Highway at 16th Street, the hillside structure will con- sist of a two-level specialty entertainment complex incorporating a six-plex movie theater, operated by American Multiscreen Min Corp. (AMC), three major restaurants, specialty stores, and below grade parking. Groundbreaking is expected this month, with completion anticipated in the fall. Michael Epsteen and Associates of Santa Monica is the leasing agent. Developers Equities' recent projects in- clude seven specialty centers, including the Brown Derby Plaza on Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles, and the LaReina Plaza in Sherman Oaks, both historic landmarks which have been preserved and restored. ❑ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE HERMOSA BEACH VEHICLE PARK- ING DISTRICT #1 held on Tuesday, October 14, 1986 at the hour of 11:50 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Anthony DeBellis - Present Commissioner John Cioffi - Present Commissioner Jim Rosenberger - Present Commissioner Etta Simpson Present Commissioner June Williams - Present A. Consent Calendar 1) Approval of minutes of August 26, 1986 meeting. 2) Recommendation to contact the Ridgemont Company re. "Parking Privatization" in response to the Downtown Merchants Association request for a feasibility study re. downtown parking structure. Action: To approve the Consent Calendar Motion Chairman DeBellis, second Rosenberger, so ordered. Adjourn: 11:52 p.m. To) t/' Honorable Chairman and Members December 26, 1986 Vehicle Parking District of the Vehicle Parking District Meeting of Jan. 13, 1987 RECOMMENDATION RE. PARKING GARAGE PROPOSAL FROM RIDGEMONT PARKING SYSTEMS Recommendation: © AT' "` g 3c It is recommended that the Vehicle Parking District Commissioners; 1. Refer this matter to the Business Relations Sub -Committee of the City Council for further evaluation and analysis. 2. Direct staff to solicit input from the Chamber of Commerce and the Steering Committee of the Downtown Merchant's Association. 3. Request that the Business Relations Sub -Committee conduct a series of three meetings; a) With staff to receive their presentation, back- ground and concerns b) With representatives of the Chamber and Downtown Merchant's Association to receive their formal comments regarding the proposal, and, c) Finally, with staff (including the City Attorney) to prepare a policy recommendation to the Commission, at their regularly scheduled meeting of February 24th., pertaining to negot- iations with Ridgemont Parking Systems. Background: At your regularly scheduled meeting of October 9, 1986, the Vehicle Parking District Commissioners directed staff to contact the Ridgemont Company re. the possibility of utilizing "parking privatization" in conjunction with the construction of a parking structure in the Vehicle Parking District. This action was taken in response to a request from the Downtown Merchant's Association to authorize a study to determine the feasibility of a parking structure in the downtown area. Subsequently, staff contacted Mr. Dave Teague, of Ridgemont Parking Systems. Mr. tTeague spent five days in our fair city, in late October. He contacted Mayor DeBellis, City Manager Meyer, Bill Fowler, Executive Vice President of the Chamber and fir 1 illiiiiiirr myself. In addition, he had several conversations with other members of the community. Attached for your review is the preliminary proposal. Analysis: Ridgemont Parking System's proposal is an entirely new concept for the City of Hermosa Beach. They propose to manage by contract the three sites owned by the Hermosa Beach Vehicle Parking District for a period of 30 years. In return, RPS will finance, construct, and operate a three level, 450 car parking garage on Lot C. Additionally RPS will upgrade and operate parking lots A and B. The contract will be in the form of a lease agreement. RMS will pay $100 per year base rent and a percentage of the gross revenues above a base figure after the fourth year. In addition, they are requesting a percentage of all citations issued on the three lots. Title to the parking garage and improvements shall be in the name of Lessee. At the expiration of the lease, title shall be surrendered to City, lien free. This lease agreement represents a very long term commitment for both the City of Hermosa Beach and Ridgemont Parking System. It should be carefully evaluated by the Vehicle Parking District Commission, staff and the business community. It is however, a perfect opportunity to marry the resources of private industry with municipal service to the public, every effort should be made to pursue a diligent course in this matter. JoNoon Parking Administrator Concur: Gr gory T. eyer Ci y Manager r r r i L L RIDGEMONT PARKING SYSTEMS Parking Garage. Proposal for Hermosa Beach Vehicle Parking District .. _ .__:I..ts�Y'�ri'a�i:✓,,.+:.s_.r-{'rte: }3.2':.i4.�` . i. err i ' y .* 3'4 _..a: �s..�=..i w:-v..���..,:..; ,-.-..w�-:, ��'!�,t t�tae.�-'rta-.=,_.Y.rl?F-•'si�:'c Hermosa Beach Parking Garage Development and Management Proposal The following proposal is based on information available at this time. A representative of Ridgemont has visited the site and has drawn information from the Greer Study prepared for Hermosa Beach. Even though projections and other costs given in this proposal are only estimates, they are representative of a model mutually beneficial to Ridgemont and Hermosa Beach. Ridgemont Parking Systems (RPS) proposes to manage by contract three sites owned by Hermosa Beach Vehicle Parking District (VPD). In doing so RPS will finance, construct, and operate a three level, 450 - car parking garage on lot C. Additionally RPS will upgrade and operate parking lots A and B. Depending on input from the city and local merchants, lots A and B can be controlled by attendants, or computerized gates that operate by prepaid access cards, or parking meters. If meters are used there will be a percentage of non-compliance expected resulting in an approximate 20% loss in revenues. In the case of meters, the attached Lease Propo- sal recommends that Hermosa Beach provide enforcement and retain $5.50 of each citation collected. All remaining revenues from parking fines resulting from violations in the VPD would be included in the revenue stream for RPS. This particular model addresses breakeven economics related to the management and operation of Vehicle Parking District #1 by Ridgemont Parking Systems. In order for RPS to experience a positive return on its investment it is necessary that Hermosa Beach provide additional income resources. One option is to include all revenue from metered street parking within the boundaries of VPD #1 (area bound by 14th Street, Hermosa Avenue, and llth street) in the lease. contract. Hermosa Beach will share in RPS revenues exceeding $900,000 after the fourth year. The enclosed schedule shows the participation levels for each year. Location of the garage may be suspect due to plans for other deve- lopments but RPS is willing to build on alternate sites as long as it is convenient for beach users and retail customers. If a hotel is in the immediate development plans for Hermosa Beach, parking demand for the proposed parking garage will be less than assumed in this model. In such case, RPS will adjust this proposal to reflect changes in the economics caused by the current development proposal in litigation or a development as proposed by the Greer and Associates study. This proposal assumes a plain and simple garage, and the economics are based on that. A more elaborate garage could be built, but it would probably involve higher. parking rates. This is a preliminary proposal and open to negotiation. - 1 - Hermosa Beach Demographics 1. Hermosa Beach is located on the south coast of Santa Monica Bay in California, 17 miles from Los Angeles and only 4 miles south of the Los Angeles International Airport. 2. The City was incorporated in 1907 and has a current population of 21,000 people. The City covers an area of only 1.3 square miles. 3. The climate is very mild with average winter temperatures of 550 and summer. temperature of 700. Average rainfall is 12.1 inches. 4. There is a Council -City Manager form of government. The council has five members which includes a council elected mayor. 5. City departments include: Police, Fire, Engineering and Public Works, Building and Safety, Licensing, Finance, Animal Control, Parking Enforcement, and Community Resources. - 6. Mass transportation is provided by a free bus system (Rapid Transit District) which operates seven days a week between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. 7. Newspapers are: Hermosa Beach Review (weekly), Beach People's Easy Reader (weekly), South Bay Daily Breeze (daily), and Los Angelos Times (daily). There is also a monthly full-color publication called South Bay Magazine. 8. The 1980 median family income was $28,500 and median age for residents was 30 years of age. 9. There are only 600 students enrolled in the entire public school system. 10. There are 9,660 dwelling units (single and multiple) with the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in 1986 being $946 per month. 11. Utilities are reasonable because of the mild climate. Average monthly gas rate per residence was $54 (winter) and $34 (summer) in 1984. Average monthly electrical rate was $40. 12. Parking: The city has a parking agreement with Kenneth Handman (Olympic Parking, Inc.) to operate Vehicle Parking District #1 (Lots A, B, C). The contract is good through May 14, 1991, but may be terminated upon thirty (30) days notice from the city. VPD #1 maintains a validation program providing discounted stickers for 21 hoursfree parking to participating merchants - 2 - _ �...-:,4:'+,..�- ,.tea<z..�.c.3 "Y'r :. i<•.«:'%.fie":*......:1lsd.s v�Rw'=_icriYz.�iL �,.,- L L L for their customers. Parking rates otherwise are $30 per month, $1.75 per day, $1.00 per 1 hour peak period, $.50 per 1 hour off period. Olympic Parking makes lease payments to the City in the amounts of $1,000 per month and 6% of annual gross revenues, plus 40% of gross revenues exceeding $100,000 (lots A and C only). Lease rate for lot B is $1,915.84 per month. Contacts Joan Noon General Services Director City of Hermosa Beach (213)376-6984 Tony DeBellis Mayor City of Hermosa Beach (213)376-6984 Gregory Meyer City Manager City of Hermosa Beach (213)376-6984 Bill Fowler Executive Vice President Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce (213)376-0951 3 g$ALIMINARY LEASE PROPOSAL Owner (Hermosa Beach Vehicle Parking District) leases to lessee (Ridgemont Parking Systems) property described in Exhibit A for 30 years (currently defined as lots A, B, and C on the Greer study). Lessee shall pay S100.00 per year base rent and a percentage of the gross revenues above a base figure after the 4th year (see participation schedule). The property shall be used for a parking garage and parking facilities and related functions as determined by Owner or Lessee. Construction shall be compatible architecturally with surrounding buildings and all plans and specifications shall be approved by the Owner. Construction shall be completed nine months after lease is finalized, financing suitable to lessee is in place and plans and specifications are approved by Owner (except Force Majeure). If construction is not completed on time, the Lessee will pay Owner a daily penalty. Title to the parking garage and improvements shall be in name of Lessee. At the expiration of the lease, title shall be surrendered to Owner, lien free. Lessee has the right to assign or sublease this agreement under terms acceptable to Owner. Lessee will pay all taxes and charges that result from operation of the garage and will permit no liens to be placed on the facility. Lessee has the right to mortgage the property. The Owner shall not condemn the property. Lessee shall have the right to expand the garage at a later date if market demand warrants the expansion and subject to subsurface testing and analysis. Lessee shall also have the right to build a garage on either remaining parking lot if, the market demand warrants such construction. 1 Owner gives the Lessee the right of first refusal to build additional parking garages. Owner will not build a competing facility within a 2,000 foot radius of this parking facility. Owner will do nothing which is harmful to the operation - 4 �:_-•��_".:c:sr'w:%rr.::k ' w z-E'Y'�'`_�.c�`�J:kac"iC:g or marketing of the garage and the actual lease document will enumerate them. (i.e. block street. etc.) The events of default are (1) failure to pay rent. and/or (2) failure to maintain and repair. There shall be notice and rights to cure. Lessee shall carry casualty. liability. and blanket insurance policies. Lessee shall charge no more than $3.00 per hour for parking and that cap will be increased by 10% or CPI per year. However these are maximum charges only and not necessarily actual charges. Visitors will be directed to use the garage. Parking regulations now in effect will not be changed to the detriment of the garage. The Lessee gives the Owner 500 car house of free parking each year to be used by the Mayor or City Manager. The Owner authorizes the Mayor of Hermosa Beach or the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Hermosa Beach Vehicle Parking District to modify this lease, approve construction. and approve the operating agreement. This proposal is subject to a parking survey, financing suitable to Lessee, lender approval. and final approval of investors. Owner will require developer of Hotel to provide parking for Hotel guests only. City will enforce parking regulations, and the Lessee shall receive.the proceeds form fines levied for parking violations that occur on the property. except for a collection fee (S5.50 per ticket) for each citation. Owner will eliminate parking on the west side of Hermosa Avenue between 13th Street and -'14th Street to facilitate entrance into the garage. 4. ti -5- - • 5- -••..yra..•�.1.....:..a�,_.c����'3a`�...r--,�Y�w�+,�� J, .,d rz= - •:+'^:,gin. Hermosa Beach Parking Garage Projected Cost for Three Levels, 450 Cars Development of Lot C Hard Construction Costs $ 2,700,000 135' X 380' footprint, 153,900 square feet, $17.54/square foot or $6,000.00 per space * include small parking office in structure Soft Costs 750,000 includes appraisal, legal fees, interim interest, title, survey, loan fees, insurance, inspections, overhead, signs, control equipment, landscaping, and con- struction management TOTAL Development Cost $ 3,450,000 6 !Pr r r r r i 1 1 i i t i L L L L Hermosa Beach Parking Garage Projected Income and Expenses Three Level Garage, 450 Cars And Two Surface Lots Income 200 preleased spaces X $40 X 12 months $ 96,000 250 spaces X 220 days per year X 12 hours per day X 15% average daily occupancy X $1.00 per hour 250 spaces X 120 days per year X 12 hours per day X 40% average daily occupancy X $2.00 per hour 99,000 288,000 Total Garage Income $483,000 Lots A & B (102 spaces X 220 days X 12 $ 40,392 hours X 15% occupancy X $1.00 per hour) Lots A & B (102 spaces X 120 days X 12 117,504 hours X 40% occupancy X $2.00 per hour) Total Lots A & B Income 157,896 TOTAL ANNUAL INCOME $640,896 Expenses Debt Service (15 years @ 122%) Utilities Operations Maintenance & Repair Insurance Accounting $502,872 12,000 85,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES $629,872 kL(0),(AIN\�JC 7 -...Y:w ...._-e:.a .-.._'..re✓s 4Y-Z:� xg1 :a'1'r_-J4 ••✓:r __ .. . - _.:+.e -C+ ..�*�c _-e,.-�e,.-.N--r.� c e��y:��i.�ed.�.s�av:w^^:+iscA-;:..c4 .•` ��-�i nc=�,' J r r I r i 1 i t L 1 L Hermosa Beach Parking Garage Participation Schedule Gross Income - Garage Percentage Hermosa Beach Income $ 900,000 and above 3% $ 27,000 1,000,000 and above 4 40,000 1,100,000 and above 5 55,000 1,200,000 and above 6 72,000 1,300,000 and above 7 91,000 1,400,000 and above 8 112,000 1,500,000 and above 9 135,000 1,600,000 and above 10 (max) 160,000 - 8 - ..'GA' a.:3l:Y: '. ly-� yam• .� _y'r1[� _ '�4_C:'-4r„�'L�l�,�ce��.'.�. �-' ZtiA REFERENCES Mr. Fred Pole Vice President North Texas State University Denton, Texas Mr. Dudley Wetsel Vice President University of Texas at Arlington Arlington, Texas Ms. Maryellen Yancey Vice President Murphree Management Company Arlington, Texas Mr. Jeff Williams Vice President MBank Dallas, Texas Mr. David Herbert Attorney at Law Liddell, Sapp, Zivley Dallas, Texas Mr. Jim Mertz The Cambridge Company Dallas, Texas Mr. Scott Harvey Vice President -Texas Commerce Bank - Dallas Dallas, Texas Mr. Micheal Lahaie CPA Brorson & Lahaie Dallas, Texas II • - 9 - r i 1 r 1 1 1 1 L L L L L N1SU ,SU NORTH TEXAS Office of the Vice President For Administrative Affairs SUBJECT: Letter of Recommendation TO: Whom It May Concern DATE: December 17, 1985 STATE UNIVERSITY The purpose of this letter is to recommend Mr. Dave Teague to you without reservation. In February 1985, Mr. Teague, as a principal of Stone -Teague Joint Venture Company, was selected by North Texas State University to build and to operate a campus parking garage. It was important to the University that the parking facility be completed for the start of the Fall 1985 semester. Mr. Teague is commended for his outstanding efforts in building a first class parking facility, and by meeting a construction deadline which many people said could not be achieved. From the beginning to the completion of construction and continuing his current operation of the facility, Mr. Teague has impressed us with his sensitivity to our campus. and community environment. Particularly noteworthy also, Dave Teague personally supervised the last three weeks of construction to assure that the parking facility was completed on time and that maximum standards were met. Notwithstanding that Dave Teague had other business interests which could have taken much of his efforts, he gave the parking garage his full and complete energy and attention throughout construction of the facility. The results he produced were outstanding. In summary, we at.North Texas State University could not have asked for a better businessman to work with. We found him to be totally honest and forthright. Mr. Dave Teague is an outstanding man, and we at North Texas State University recommend him without reservation. Frederick R. Pole Vice President for Administrative Affairs P.O. BOX 13737 DENTON, TEXAS 76203-3737 (817) 565-2103 METRO: 267-0652 r r 1 r f r 1 a L l L L The University of Texas at Arlington September 11, 1986 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Office of the VIce•President for Business Affairs UTA Box No. 19119 Arlington, Texas 76019 In the spring of 1985, The University of Texas at Arlington sought information relative to a privately owned parking garage, built on the North Texas State University campus. In response to that request, Mr. Dave Teague of the Ridgemont Company met with representatives of the University in the summer of 1985 and came forward with a proposal relative to a similar structure on the UTA Campus. The final agreement was signed in February, 1986, with the condition that the structure be completed by the opening of the fall semester, 1986. Ribbon cutting for the opening of the facility was held on Thursday prior to the Tuesday opening following Labor Day. The quality and aesthetics of the garage are comparable to the surrounding buildings. The cooperation of Mr. Teague has been exceptional, and the relationship to date has been outstanding. The University has entered into a management agreement for the garage, and that relationship has also been excellent. To my knowledge, there have been very few things that have been asked for in the garage that have not been included in the construction and the operation of that facility. I would recommend the Ridgemont Parking System and Mr. Dave Teague to any one having an interest in a private garage being constructed on a university campus. JDW: js gtSZATOZE i Celebrating One Hundred and Fifty Years 1836-1986 Sincerely, D. Wetsel Vice President for Business Affairs An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer u z�» :t +c: * ,:.' :x4 .,:`. •: ..rLC c.::A...tor'rr �:4y ,.E . I r r r r r r L L L L L L T typical example is found at North Texas ate University at Denton. University of- ficials were plagued with parking problems resulting from a burgeoning commuter .dent population. No financing was avail - )Ie for upgrade or improvements. Ridgemont Parking Systems agreed to Mild a 600 -space parking facility for a aminal base rate and a prorated percent - e of the gross revenue generated by the facility. The university will receive the title to � he parking facility at the end of the lease ;nod. L L Tflrough this system, the university re- ceived financial benefit without the risk, protected. parking for the students, with security and safety — all within the allotted construction timetable. Services provided through the Ridgemont Parking System Financing Private financing Revenue collection Architecture Site evaluation Integration and coordination with existing architectural themes Construction Guaranteed completion Post tension concrete construction Brick veneer Maintenance Manned parking booths Security Custodial care: grounds, utilities, painting, plumbing, electrical, and parking surfaces Highlights of Benefits • No capital costs • Long-term parking management • Expandability • Customer satisfaction • Low-cost maintenance E�rceent Journ .PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATION FOR CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATOR Vol. 15, No. 6 ovember-December .1985 l• TB trtftgrvitih E-cit2 rials Honorable Chairman and Members of the Vehicle Parking District September 29, 1986 Vehicle Parking District Meeting of October 9, 1986 RECOMMENDATION TO CONTACT THE RIDGEMONT COMPANY RE "PARKING PRIVATIZATION" IN RESPONSE TO THE DOWNTOWN MERCHANT'S ASSOCIATION REQUEST FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY RE DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE Recommendation: It is recommended that the Vehicle Parking District Commissioners direct staff to contact the Ridgemont Company re the possibility of utilizing "parking privatization" in conjunction with the con- struction of a parking structure in the Vehicle Parking District. Background: Attached is a request from the Hermosa Beach Downtown Merchant's Association, Steering Committee, to authorize a study to deter- mine the feasibility of a parking structure in the downtown area. The last study pertaining to this subject was conducted by Greer and Associates in 1981. The results of this study are included in Section 5 of the Hermosa Beach Parking Management Plan. At that time, the analysis indicated strong justification to provide additional downtown parking, that parking structures should con- tain ground level retail space and that the Vehicle Parking Dis- trict be reconstituted as a Parking Authority to consolidate the ownership and operation of public parking facilities throughout the City and to determine the advantages of financing parking facilities through bonding and leaseback arrangements. It has been recently brought to our attention, that there is a new concept in financing the construction of parking structures, "parking privatization". Analysis,; Parking privatization is a relatively new concept in which government entities enter contractual agreements with private companies to provide parking services. Such joint ventures are designed to be mutually beneficial by providing a no -cost alter- native to an organization that has a parking problem and limited capital resources. Basically, to the best of my understanding, the City would lease the land to the private company. The private company provides financing, architecture, construction and operation of a parking 1 15aZ facility at no cost to the City. Once the ground lease has ex- pired (approximately twenty years) and debt service has been re- tired, the parking facility becomes the sole property of the City. Please see attached material, including model lease agree- ment. The company conducts it's own feasibility study (market research), at no cost to the City, to determine the need for the parking facility. Once again, this is a matter of "nothing ventured, nothing gained". Staff feels that this innovative method of financing a parking structure is worth investigating, especially in light of the pending new tax law and it's effect on municipal bonds. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Take no action, receive and file 2. Seek to amend the contract with Economic Research Associates, regarding the Community Center vicinity study, to include consideration of a second structure in the downtown area. Noon Parking Administrator Concur: Gr Ci gor y Manager eyer 2 September 23, 1986 Gregory Meyer, City Manager Tony DeBellis, Mayor - John Cioffi, Councilmember Etta Simpson, Councilmember June Williamb, Councilmember 'Jim Rosenberger, Councilmember City of Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Dear Mr. Meyer, Mayor and Councilmembers, It has come to our attention that a Financial Feasibility study for a Parking structure at the Community Center is underway. Since the biggest parking problem is in the vicinity of the Downtown: Pier and Hermosa Ave. area. We respectfully request that you grant a Feasibility study in the Downtown area at the same time. Every year the amount of visitors increases while the amount of parking on the surface area remains the same. The possibility of the Double Tree Hotel being built is imminent. Favorably it would bring more visitors which we hope would sponsor more commercial activity in this area. As a result the parking needs in the Downtown area require a critical study. Please advise us of your consideration on this subject as we are most eager to hear from you. Sincerely, The Hermosa Beach Downtown Business Association .Steering Committee • Garry Frost Darrell Greenwald. ''Scott Ingell Jeanne Blackburn Gil Warschaw Kevin Cody EatP real July 29. 1986 ¶IiL cRi.d9Emont eomf troy 'Ms. Joan Noon Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive Pamosa Beach. California 90254 Dear Ms. Noon: Thank you for your interest in Ridgemont Parking Systems. We are a leader and innovator in parking privatization and our objective is to develop parking facilities for governments and institutions that have limited capital resources. Ridgemont Parking Systems is a division of The Ridgemont Company which is an independent real estate investment and development firm incorporated in 1976. We feel privatization will be the business trend of the future for publicly funded organizations. Ridgemont removes the financial risk of capital outlay for your organization by providing financing. architecture. engineering. construction. and operations management. Once the ground lease provided by your organization has expired and Ridgemont's debt service has been retired. the parking facility becomes the sole property of your organization. We currently have a parking garage in operation at North Texas State University and another garage under construction at the University of Texas at Arlington. Please telephone me at (214)490-3211 if I can answer your specific questions concerning privatization or Ridgemont Parking Systems. • Sincerely. 4JIR Dan R. Martin Enclosure 13720 1durata J oad, cSw:tE 109 1�aC�as, JExai 75244 • PARKING PRIVATIZATIO RIDGEMONT PARKING SYSTEMS Q: What is parking privatization? A: Parking privatization is a relatively new concept in which government entities enter contractual agreements with private companies to provide parking services. Such joint ventures are designed to be mutually beneficial by providing a no -cost alternative to an organization that has,a parking problem and limited capital resources. Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: What is Ridgemont Parking Systems? Ridgemont Parking Systems is an innovator and leader in parking privatization. It is a division of The Ridgemont Company and its objective is to develop parking facilities and provide related manage- ment for educational, government and health care organizations. Who is The Ridgemont Company? The Ridgemont Company is an independent real estate investment firm incorporated in 1976. It is committed to making investments in sound .real estate and commercial properties resulting in immediate and long term returns. How can Ridgemont Parking Systems benefit my organization? Ridgemont provides financing, architecture, construction, and operation of a parking facility at no cost to your organization. Ridgemont offers a turn -key approach that removes the financial risk of capital outlay for your organization. Once the ground lease has expired and debt service has been retired, the parking facility becomes the sole property of your organization. -• What is the criteria for Ridgemont building a parking garage? Marketing research has proven that an organization must meet three stan- dards for a major investment by Ridgemont to be mutually beneficial. Your organization must have a high density commuter parking problem; they must own real estate conveniently located; and they must be willing to give Ridgemont a long-term ground lease for a minimal fee. Finally, market surveys must justify the need for a parking facility. How can my organization obtain more information about parking privatization? Ridgemont Parking Systems have a number of parking consultants that are available to answer your questions related to privatization. We currently have a parking garage in operation at North Texas State University and another garage under construction at the University of Texas at Arlington. Ridgemont representatives Dave Teague, Dan Martin, or Lisa Manning can be contacted by telephoning (214)490-3211. MODEL LEASE AGREEMENT Owner (City of Pamosa Beach) leases to lessee (Ridgemont Parking Systems) property described on Exhibit A for 20 years. There are 2 options to renew for 5 years each. 'Lessee shall pay $100.00 per year as base rent and a percentage of the gross revenues above a base figure described in Exhibit B. The property shall be used only for a parking garage and related functions and shall be for the sole use of the Owner, its staff and visitors. The construction shall be compatable architecturally with surrounding buildings and all plans and specifications shall be approved by the Owner. Construction shall be completed nine months after lease is finalized (except Force Majeure). If construction is not completed on time, the Lessee will pay Owner a daily penalty. Owner will not build a competing facility within a 2,000 foot radius of this parking facility. Lessee will pay all taxes and charges that result from operation of the garage and will permit no liens to be placed on the facility. Operation, maintenance and repair of the garage shall be the responsibility of the Lessee, however, Lessee may contract with Owner to operate garage. Lessee shall charge no more than $1.50 per hour for parking and that may be increased by 10% or CPI per year. Lessee shall carry casualty, liability, and blanket insurance policies. Title to property shall be in name of Lessee. At the expiration of the lease, title shall be surrendered to Owner. Lessee has the right to assign or sublease this agreement under terms acceptable to Owner. Lessee has the right to mortgage the property. The Owner shall not condemn the property. Page 1 The Owner authorizes the City Manager to modify this lease. approve construction. and approve the operating agreement. The Owner gives the Lessee the right of first refusal to build additional parking garages in the city. The Lessee gives the Owner 3.000 car hours of free parking each year to be used at the discretion of the City Manager. Owner will do nothing which is harmful to the operation of the garage. This proposal is subject to a parking survey. financing suitable to Lessee and lender approval. Lessee shall have the right to expand the garage at a later date if the market demand warrants the expansion and subject to subsurface testing and analysis. Pace 2 InnovatioL_ ridf eeadeeyi Parking Privatiiation Ridgemont Parking Systems is dedicated to providing the best in parking facilities and related management for educational, retail, office, government, and health care organizations. As an innovator and leader in parking pri- vatization, Ridgemont offers a mutually beneficial, no -cost solution to your parking problems. We have over a dozen years experience as a full service company. We provide financing, architecture, con- struction, and.operation of your parking facility at no cost to your organization. This No -Cost Solution begins with Ridge- mont removing the financial risk of capital outlay by providing financing. Our turn -key approach continues with the design, con- struction and long-term management of your parking facility. Ridgemont then coordinates site evaluation and architectural support. Garages are de- signed to blend with the existing architec- tural themes. Expandability is a design factor in all cases. Construction completion for each project is guaranteed. Your involvement in day to day parking headaches is eliminated through Ridge- mont's long-term parking management. Low-cost maintenance can be supplied by Ridgemont, or by your personnel. Security features are of critical importance Ridgemont can provide security personne or, if you prefer, you may use your police o security department. Ridgemont provides well placed lighting, open lines of visibility and controlled access — important points for both the garage users and you. Ridgemont offers innovative controlled ac- cess with the versatility of computerized cards, or cards and cash. Additionally, spaces offered to the customer are at or below market rates. You provide the site, a long-term ground lease, your commuter population and - Ridgemont provides you with a no -cost solution to your parking problems. -41 __ � mow.+-^_r..•-'✓,e,� __ -r-:.� - The Na` c st Sbiatiiiii* oai Pa`r.** iiblem . ' A typical example is found at North Texas State University at Denton. University of- ficials were plagued with parking problems resulting from a burgeoning commuter student population. No financing was avail- able for upgrade or improvements. Ridgemont Parking Systems agreed to build a 600 -space parking facility for a nominal base rate and a prorated percent- age of the gross revenue generated by the facility. The university will receive the title to the parking facility at the end of the lease period. Through this system, the university re- ceived financial benefit without the risk, protected parking for the students, with security and safety — all within the allotted construction timetable. Services provided through the Ridgemont Parking System Financing Private financing 'Revenue collection Architecture • Site evaluation Integration and coordination with existing architectural themes Construction Guaranteed completion Post tension concrete construction Brick veneer aY x.< Maintenance Manned parking booths Security Custodial care: grounds, utilities, painting, plumbing, electrical, and parking surfaces Highlights of Benefits • No capital costs • Long-term parking management • Expandability • Customer satisfaction • Low-cost maintenance - . REFERENCES Mr. Fred Pole Vice President North Texas State University Denton, Texas Mr. Dudley Wetsel Vice President University of Texas at Arlington Arlington, Texas Ms. Maryellen Yancey Vice President Murphree Management Company Arlington, Texas Mr. Jeff Williams Vice President MBank Dallas, Texas Mr. David Herbert Attorney at Law Liddell, Sapp, Zivley Dallas, Texas Mr. Jim Mertz The Cambridge Company Dallas, Texas Mr. Scott Harvey Vice President Texas Commerce Bank Dallas Dallas, Texas Mr. Jeff Sheriff CPA Sheriff, Tudor, Morgan Richardson, Texas ti ;tr.:'nf.'.. _. µ j oIIINIIIIIIIMMIIIIINI Thursday, June 26, 1986 Four-story garage. toopen by Sept. 1 Structure built at no cost to university by Greg.Bischof .garage—at no expense to the university Shorthorn Staff ' " • .— in exchange for a 30 -year company ' Parking stacked up last semester, but lease on the building: At that time, own - by this fall,, it will be four stories high - . ership will revert to the school. • liitefally. ; ;., . ''• : ' ; • : • • • -. Campus police will be charged with . With $20Q,000• worth of steel and managing it. The contract calls for con - $460,000 'worth of concrete, construe-' struction to be finished by Sept. 1. ,tion nears completion,on the campus', "We are hoping to provide students first parking' garage.. • =`'• • .- with more convenient parkingrspace so' The :facility;. nestled between Ham they will not have to walk about five • mond. Hall and the Nursing Building,: blocks to get to their classes anymore," will hold 37b cars and feature a compu;, said Lisa Manning, project manager for ter -operated fee ,tabulator.' r. • Ridgemont, :. Student$'andfaculty will be charged • i'"For a couple of years now we have 65 cents, an hiqur with a $2.50 maximum .• been looking:,at' universities like UTA, daily fee.. Daytime semester; parking pas - which have had parking problems," she • ses'w111'cost:$9.5;,evening passes will be; added.'."And we then make an offer to $49..,,• Q '• '',' !.; .'.�r•`:;• ' • i': help by building these garages..' Last year .UTA hired . Dalfas-based; •. ' Ridgemont recently finished a similar Ridgeuiont Contracting to. to build the`-. garage at. North Texas State University. UTA PARKING GARAGE Cost — $6000007 Estimated completion date — Sept. 1, 1986. Height — Four stories. Load capacity — 370 cars. Parking fees — 65 cents an hour, $2.50 maximum daily charge, $95 for daytime semester pass, $49 for evening semester pass. "We are looking to build garages like this one at other universities in the state, as well as for some municipalities and other universities out of state," she said. Construction superintendent Larry Carico said the work was progressing steadily. "We're now pouring the Last cement elevation and we'll begin putting the bricks in soon," he said. Other construction sites on campus Include the expansion of the university center and new architecture and en- gineering buildings. University officials hope to break ground on the Cooper Street depress- ion project by 1987. The North Texas Daily Page 2 Wednesday, September 11, 1985 Ending parking woes If you have found it easier to park at NT this semester, then you have the hard work of the NT Police Department and a Dallas developer to thank. If you have found it harder to park at NT, then you probably have not tried all alternatives. Over the summer NT's new $3.5 million, privately financed parking garage was finished. In addition to the garage, NT police added three newly paved parking lots and two new gravel lots at a cost of $250,000. The garage was built and paid for by Stone and Teague Joint Venture. NT will receive rent on the land and will also receive a percentage of the profits the garage makes. The developers have a 15 -year lease with two four-year renewable options. When the lease expires, NT will become the owner of the garage. Money for maintaining the garage will come from the fees the garage collects. The new parking lots were paid for from money collected for parking fees and tickets. Money for main- taining th- lots will also come from parking fees and tickets. West Hall gained both a paved and a gravel lot, McConnell Hall gained a paved lot and the lot next to the Science Research Building was paved and turned • into a commuter/staff parking lot. The parking garage added a convenient 680 parking spaces. Costs for parking in the garage may be a bit steep, but is it not worth it? Students may pay 50 cents an hour (up to a maximum of $2.25) or they choose to pay $79 per semester or $21 per month. These prices may seem high, but the convenience of having a parking spot should be worth it. Parking garages in Dallas charge twice as much as NT and you are not guarenteed a spot. Parking stickers for students that want to park in the commuter lots cost $35, which includes a shuttle bus pass if students have to ride over from the Fouts Field parking lot. The stickers do not guarantee students a parking place. Students who park in the garage do not _have to worry about being late for class because they had to find a parking spot or had to wait for the shuttle bus. For those who have complained about the parking problems, then the parking .garage is your answer. Of course there is going to be some people who will complain about the parking. They are going to complain anyway. The parking garage is a big step in solving the parking problems. Commenta Editorials IV ogTH TgYAS' 1'Aity mai 2.-2, 1.7,95 Improved parking The parking garage that will be constructed east of the University Union is another positive step by the adminis- tration to deal with traffic problems on campus. In addition to the space -saving benefits of a three-level parking garage, financial involvement by the university will be minimal: The costs of construction and operation of the building will be handled by a private developer, Stone and Teague Joint Venture, who will build the struc- ture on land that is already owned by the university. NT Police Chief Dan Martin said the arrangement with a private developer is not the usual procedure,' and that such a transaction requires trust. Since most. of the risk lies with the develorkr, NT has much more to gain from the project than it has to lose. The parking garage project was approved by the Board of Regents last Friday, and construction is scheduled to begin March 8. The structure is scheduled to be finished by Sept.. 1. Although some people might have to wait until October for their parking spaces, they will benefit over the long term. . Although 175 metered parking spaces- will no longer be available, the garage will provide everi.more spaces- 748—and those spaces will be available to the same peo- ple who use the existing metered parking. People who use the lot should be patient. It will get better. Other things will be displaced because of the construc- tion project. Before March 8, the Pupil Appraisal Center 4 w F.n 4 will move and Houston Hall will have to be emptied. But such changes are necessary in a growing institution. Even the mud around the General Academic Building could not have been avoided, because of construction work. It is also good that the work is being done during the spring semester, when there are fewer students enrolled than during the fall. By doing .the work now, there will not be as much competition for NT's 5,669 parking spaces. Although the spaces will cost 50 -cents per hour to use, the advantages of secure parking, proximity to the Union and the central campus and what will probably be a rela- tively high turnover rate in parking spaces will make the garage convenient. It will have a fairly simple payment system, with ticket machines on the way in and a booth to pay on the way out of the garage. What is really beneficial is that the university will even- tually take ownership of the structure. The garage is expect- ed to be paid for by Joint Venture in 15 to 23 years, when NT will terminate the lease agreement. . While the university waits to take ownership of the structure, the net profits will be shared by NT and the developer. Martin said, "The more money they make, the higher the percentage we will enjoy." Also, the com- pany will contract with the NT police to operate the facility. Overall, the project is a good deal for the university, and the extra parking spaces that will be available next fall might prevent some headaches. STUART S. BARNETT• RICHARD M. CHASKIN A LAW CORPORATION BY MESSENGER LAW OFFICES BARNETT & CIIASKIN 8383 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 552 BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 9 02 11-2454 January 22, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attention: City Clerk, Kathleen Midstokke Dear Persons: AREA CODE 213 TELEPHONE 655-1140 6'ryof tit ,-. y %7 Our firm is legal counsel to Olympic Parking, the contracted parking operator for city lots A, B, and C with the vehicle parking district. The purpose of this letter is to address the issues of a proposal to be submitted to the City Council by Ridgemont Parking Systems of Texas, and to the "free" parking arrangements initiated by the Council on December 16, 1987. With regard to the Ridgemont proposal, please be advised that the Olympic contract does not terminate. until 1991. Pursuant to the contract, Olympic, in good faith, has expended over $100,000 in upgrading lots A, B and C within the last year. Further, the principals of Olympic Parking sold their stock to Allright Parking due to the necessity of meeting the high criteria required by the contract to maintain and upgrade the subject parking lots. It is our considered opinion that any attempt to terminate the subject contract in favor of another parking operator during the term of the contract will constitute a breach of contract. The consideration of the Ridgemont proposal and any acceptance of such a proposal, exceeds an exercise of the City's proprietary powers and does not constitute a proper governmental purpose. As you no doubt are well aware, the City may not do any act its officers deem necessary to the proper conduct of business undertaken. If it is the intent of the Council to consider modifying the subject contract to take into consideration the possibilities of the parking operator erecting a permanent parking structure on the subject property at the operator's expense, Olympic Parking, through its parent company, Allright Auto Parks, Inc., has the capabilities and wherewithal to accomplish such a modification and construction. Allright Auto Parks stands ready, willing and able SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach to negotiate for a long term modification to the existing contract or to enter into a new contract/lease arrangement which will be beneficial to both parties. As far as Ridgemont is concerned, it is our considered opinion that they are interfering with an advantageous contractual relationship of Olympic Parking, and this letter constitutes notice to the City of Olympic Parking's position. With regard to the "free" parking resolution of the Council, may we respectfully remind the Council that the original Agreement at page 4 requires that any change to parking rates and operations require a two-week written notice. In an effort to cooperate with the City and its Merchant's Association, Olympic has agreed to extend the "free" parking for January, 1987. This was done by Olympic as an accommodation and on an experimental basis only. Although we are not finished with January, Olympic has already determined that such an extension has been exceedingly contrary to its best interests. Its work force has become depressed due to lack of activity and from an economic standpoint, it has been disasterous for the operator. In order to clarify, on December 16 the Council unilaterally voted to vary from the written contract by permitting no enforcement of parking regulations and validations over two hours. This variance, although accepted by Olympic for December, 1986, will not be accepted in the future. The City must adhere to the terms of the contract for December, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990. Normal lot operations will resume February 1, 1987, and Olympic shall expect that the Council will adhere to the contract in all respects thereafter. Ver' truly yours, (/ `STUART S . IBARNETT S S B: mm cc: Joan Noon, Parking Administrator James Lough, City Attorney Gregory T. Meyer, City Manager William E. Lehtonen Jim Goddard RIDGEMONT PARKING SYSTEMS Parking Garage Proposal for Hermosa Beach Vehicle Parking District Hermosa Beach Parking Garage Development and Management Proposal The following proposal is based on information available at this time. A representative of Ridgemont has visited the site and has drawn information from the Greer Study prepared for Hermosa Beach. Even though projections and other costs given in this proposal are only estimates, they are representative of a model mutually beneficial to Ridgemorit and Hermosa Beach. Ridgemont Parking Systems (RPS) proposes to manage by contract three sites owned by Hermosa Beach Vehicle Parking District (VPD). In doing so RPS will finance, construct, and operate a three level, 450 - car parking garage on lot C. Additionally RPS will upgrade and operate parking lots A. and B. This particular model addresses breakeven economics related to the management of parking fees. In order for RPS to experience a positive return on its investment it will also be necessary for parking fines to be included in the revenue stream for RPS. The attached Lease Proposal recommends that Hermosa Beach enforce the parking regulations and retain $2.50 for each citation collected from those citations issued on lots A and B or the garage. Hermosa Beach will share in RPS revenues exceeding $900,000 after the fourth year. The enclosed schedule shows the participation levels for each year. Location of the garage may be suspect due to plans for other deve- lopments but RPS is willing to build on alternate sites as long as it is convenient for beach users and retail customers. If a hotel is in the immediate development plans for Hermosa Beach, parking demand for the proposed parking garage will be less than assumed in this model. In such case, RPS will adjust this proposal to reflect changes in the economics caused by the current development proposal in litigation or the development as proposed by the Greer and Associates study. This proposal assumes a plain and simple garage, and the economics are based on that. A more eleborate garage could be built, but it would probably involve higher parking rates. - 1 - Hermosa Beach Demographics 1. Hermosa Beach is located on the south coast of Santa Monica Bay in California, 17 miles from Los Angeles and only 4 miles south of the Los Angeles International Airport. 2. The City was incorporated in 1907 and has a current population of 21,000 people. The City covers an area of only 1.3 square miles. 3. The climate is very mild with average winter temperatures of 550 and summer.temperature of 700. Average rainfall is 12.1 inches. 4. There is a Council -City Manager form of government. The council has five members which includes a council elected mayor. 5. City departments include: Police, Fire, Engineering and Public Works, Building and Safety, Licensing, Finance, Animal Control, Parking Enforcement, and Community Resources. 6. Mass transportation is provided by a free bus system (Rapid Transit District) which operates seven days a week between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. 7. Newspapers are: Hermosa Beach Review (weekly), Beach People's Easy Reader (weekly), South Bay Daily Breeze (daily), and Los Angelos Times (daily). There is also a monthly full-color publication called South Bay Magazine. 8. The 1980 median family income was $28,500 and median age for residents was 30 years of age. 9. There are only 600 students enrolled in the entire public school system. 10. There are 9,660 dwelling units (single and multiple) with the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in 1986 being $946 per month. 11. Utilities are reasonable because of the mild climate. Average monthly gas rate per residence was $54 (winter) and $34 (summer) in 1984. Average monthly electrical rate was $40. 12. Parking: The city has a parking agreement with Kenneth Handman (Olympic Parking, Inc.) to operate Vehicle Parking District #1 (Lots A, B, C). The contract is good through May 14, 1991, but may be terminated upon thirty (30) days notice from the city. VPD #1 maintains a validation program providing discounted stickers for 21/2 hours free parking to participating merchants - 2 - for their customers. Parking rates otherwise are $30 per month, $1.75 per day, $1.00 per 2 hour peak period, $.50 per 1 hour off period. Olympic Parking makes lease payments to the City in the amounts of $1,000 per month and 6% of annual gross revenues, plus 40% of gross revenues exceeding $100,000 (lots A and C only). Lease rate for lot B is $1,915.84 per month. Contacts Joan Noon General Services Director City of Hermosa Beach (213)376-6984 Tony DeBellis Mayor City of Hermosa Beach (213)376-6984 Gregory Meyer City Manager City of Hermosa Beach (213)376-6984 Bill Fowler Executive Vice President Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce (213)376-0951 ERALIMINARY LEASE PROPOSAL Owner (Hermosa Beach Vehicle Parking District) leases to lessee (Ridgemont Parking Systems) property described in Exhibit A for 30 years (currently defined as lots A. B. and C on the Greer study). Lessee shall pay $100.00 per year base rent and a percentage of the gross revenues above a base figure after the 4th year (see participation schedule). The property shall be used for a parking garage and parking facilities and related functions as determined by Owner or Lessee. Construction shall be compatible architecturally with surrounding buildings and all plans and specifications shall be approved by the Owner. Construction shall be completed nine months after lease is finalized. financing suitable to lessee is in place and plans and specifications are approved by Owner (except Force Majeure). If construction is not completed on time. the Lessee will pay Owner a daily penalty. Title to the parking garage and improvements shall be in name of Lessee. At the expiration of the lease. title shall be surrendered to Owner. lien free. Lessee has the right to assign or sublease this agreement under terms acceptable to Owner. Lessee will pay. all taxes and charges that result from operation of the garage and will permit no liens to be placed on the facility. nnop,,__ Lessee has the right to mortgage the property.�eJ 1 The Owner shall not condemn the property. Lessee shall have the right to expand the garage at a later date if market demand warrants the expansion and subject to subsurface testing and analysis. Lessee shall also have the right to build a garage on either remaining parking lot if. the market demand warrants such construction. P Owner gives the Lessee the right of first refusal to build additional parking garages. Owner will not build a competing facility within a 2►000 foot radius of this parking facility. Owner will do nothing which is harmful to the operation 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 or marketing of the garage and the actual lease document will enumerate them. (i.e. block street, etc.) The events of default .are (1) failure to'Lpay rent, and/or (2) failure to maintain and repair. There shall be notice and rights to cure. kik. 1 Lessee shall carry casualty, liability, and blanket insurance policies. Lessee shall charge no more than $3.00 per hour for parking and that cap will be increased by 10% or CPI per year. However these are maximum charges only and not necessarily actual charges. Visitors will be directed to use the garage. b1 w11. ' Parking regulations now in effect will not be changed to the detriment of the garage. �oA- The Lessee gives the Owner 500 car hours of free parking each year to be used by the Mayor or City Manager. 6a--, The Owner authorizes the Mayor of Hermosa Beach or the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Hermosa Beach Vehicle Parking District to modify this lease, approve construction, and approve the operating agreement. This proposal is subject to a parking survey, financing suitable to Lessee, lender approval, and final approval of investors. Owner will require developer of Hotel to provide parking for Hotel guests only. 6w 7l'. City will enforce parking regulations, and the Lessee shall receive the proceeds from fines levied for parking violations that'occur on the property, except for a /_,A,1= -,t2 i collection fee ($2.50 per ticket) for each citation. 6,-1_ Owner will eliminate parking on the west side of Hermosa Avenue between llth Street and Pier Avenue to facilitate entrance into the garage. - 5 - Hermosa Beach Parking Garage Projected Cost for Three Levels, 450 Cars Development of Lot C Hard Construction Costs $ 2,700,000 135' X 380' footprint, 153,900 square feet, $17.54/square foot or $6,000.00 per space * include. small parking office in structure Soft Costs 750,000 includes appraisal, legal fees, interim interest, 'title, survey,loan fees, insurance, inspections, overhead, signs, control equipment, landscaping, and con- struction management TOTAL Development Cost $ 3,450,000 - 6 - Hermosa Beach Parking Garage Projected Income and Expenses Three. Level Garage, 450 Cars And Two Surface Lots Income 200 preleased spaces X $40 X 12 months 250 spaces. X 220 days per day X 15% average $1.00 per hour 250 spaces X 120 days per day X 40% average $2.00 per hour Total Garage Income $ 96,000 per year X 12 hours 99,000 daily occupancy X per year X 12 hours • 288,000 daily occupancy X Lots A & B (102 spaces X 220 days X 12 hours X 15% occupancy X $1.00 per hour) Lots A & B (102 spaces X 120 days X 12 hours X 40% occupancy X $2.00 per hour) Total Lots A & B Income TOTAL ANNUAL INCOME Expenses Debt Service (15 years Utilities Operations Maintenance & Repair Insurance Accounting @ 12%%) TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES $ 40,392 117,504 $502,872 12,000 85,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 $483,000 157,896 $640,896 Do&s 7Z /NGft�� $629,872 Hermosa Beach Parking Garage Participation Schedule Gross Income - Garage Percentage Hermosa Beach Income Jq r�_ Lie,1.? $ 900,000 and above 3% $ 27,000 t%',`'' 6-‘"' 1,000,000 and above 4 40,000 1,100,000 and above 5 55,000 1,200,000 and above 6 72,000 1,300,000 and above 7 91,000 1,400,000 and above 8 112,000 1,500,000 and above 9 135,000 1,600,000 and above 10 (max) 160,000 REFERENCES Mr. Fred Pole Vice President North Texas State University Denton, Texas Mr. Dudley Wetsel Vice President University of Texas at Arlington Arlington, Texas Ms. Maryellen Yancey Vice President Murphree Management Company Arlington, Texas Mr. Jeff Williams Vice President MBank Dallas, Texas Mr. David Herbert Attorney at Law Liddell, Sapp, Zivley Dallas, Texas Mr. Jim Mertz The Cambridge Company Dallas, Texas Mr. Scott Harvey Vice President Texas Commerce Bank - Dallas Dallas, Texas Mr. Micheal Lahaie CPA Brorson & Lahaie Dallas, Texas N U NORTH TEXAS 11;i Office of the Vice President For Administrative Affairs SUBJECT: Letter of Recommendation TO: Whom It May Concern DATE: December 17, 1985 STATE UNIVERSITY The purpose of this letter is to recommend Mr. Dave Teague to you without reservation. In February 1985, Mr. Teague, as a principal of Stone -Teague Joint Venture Company, was selected by North Texas State University to build and to operate a campus parking garage. It was important to the University that the parking facility be completed for the start of the Fall 1985 semester. Mr. Teague is commended for his outstanding efforts in building a first class parking facility, and by meeting a construction deadline which many people said could not be achieved. From the beginning to the completion of construction and continuing his current operation of the facility, Mr. Teague has impressed us with his sensitivity to our campus. and community environment. Particularly noteworthy also, Dave Teague personally supervised the last three weeks of construction to assure that the parking facility was completed on tirne and that maximum standards were met. Notwithstanding that Dave Teague had other business interests which could have taken much of his efforts, he gave the parking garage his full and complete energy and attention throughout construction of the facility. The results he produced were outstanding. In summary, we at.North Texas State University could not have asked for a better businessman to work with. We found him to be totally honest and forthright. Mr. Dave Teague is an outstanding man, and we at North Texas State University recommend him without reservation. Frederick R. Pole Vice President for Administrative Affairs P.O. BOX 13737 DENTON, TEXAS 76203-3737 (817) 565-2103 METRO: 267-0652 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 uTn The University of Texas at Arlington September 11, 1986 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Office of the Vlce•Presldent for Business Affairs UTA Box No. 19119 Arlington, Texas 76019 In the spring of 1985, The University of Texas at Arlington sought information relative to a privately owned parking garage built on the North Texas State University campus. In response to that request, Mr. Dave Teague of the Ridgemont Company met with representatives of the University in the summer of 1985 and came forward with a proposal relative to a similar structure on the UTA Campus. The final agreement was signed in February, .1986, with the condition that the structure be completed by the opening of the fall semester, 1986. Ribbon cutting for the opening of the facility was held on Thursday prior to the Tuesday opening following Labor Day. The quality and aesthetics of the garage are comparable to the surrounding buildings. The cooperation of Mr. Teague has been exceptional, and the relationship to date has been outstanding. The University has entered into a management agreement for the garage, and that relationship has also been excellent. To my knowledge, there have been very few things that have been asked for in the garage that have not been included in the construction and the operation of that facility. I would recommend the Ridgemont Parking System and Mr. Dave Teague to any one having an interest in a private garage being constructed on a university campus. JDW: js SES'Ut154. Celebrating One Hundred and Fifty Years 1836-1986 Sincerely, Wetsel Vice President for Business Affairs An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer RIDGE VIONT PARKING SYSTEMS Dave Teague Raymond Ames BA, University of Texas BBA, University of Texas at Arlington at Arlington President Vice President Operations, Management Financing, Construction Dixie Myers Secretary -Treasurer Financing, Construction Tom Massey, Jr. PhD, Florida State Market Analyst Lisa Manning BBA, North Texas State University Marketing, Project Manager Dan Martin BA, Oklahoma State University Marketing, Project Manager THE RIDGEMONT COMPANY 13720 Midway Road Suite 109 Dallas, Texas 75244 (214) 490-3211 , .;-.. .,. :: . .1-' -..,, • .i. ,,, ''' .-.: ' - '"' ', " :'4 • "' 1" '' ''!..! * ''''''. '. 'i, : :7'. e , it-- '': ".%:` '),:, • : 4"% 3; PROFESSIONAL PUBLIATION FOR CAMPUS LAW ENFOricEMENfADOONISTRATOAS. rcement Jourfl 1 . • ,..,r,, • -4rsto:.,s • • ,•44:, 4. • ety\ 'OO 1985-86 `MENT AB BOARD OF DIRECTORS President Charles E. Lamb Georgetown University First Vice -President Lee E. Griffin State University of New York at Buffalo Second Vice -President Asa T. Boynton University of Georgia Secretary -Treasurer Claude W. Spencer Miami University Immediate Past President Ronald E. Mason University of Missouri at Columbia Directors John J. Donovan Region 1 College of the Holy Cross Jack F. Dowling Region 2 Bucknell University Donald L. Salyers Region 3 Marshall University Rex J. Rakow Region 4 University of Notre Dame Carl B. Stokes Region 5 University of South Carolina at Columbia Gail L. Gade Region 6 University of Nebraska at Lincoln Arnold Trujillo Region 7 University of Colorado at Colorado Springs R. Richard Courier Region 8 Sonoma State University Mark W. Tinlin Region 9 University of Western Ontario Executive Director/Editor-in-Chief Peter J. Berry, CAE Editor Lori Bateman Publications Committee Chairman Dan Martin North Texas State University This publication is available in microform from University Microfilms International, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106, USA ampus Law Enforcement Journal Vol. 15, No. 6 November -December 1985 CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT JOURNAL is the official publication of the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators. it is published bimonthly and dedicated to the promotion of professional ideals and standards for law enforcement, security and public safety so as to better serve institutions of higher education. FEATURES No -cost parking! 4 Forecasting parking revenue 7 Parking lot safety program 11 Computerized ticket -writing program 13 Campus road blocks: A friendly response 17 Leadership of public safety directors 21 Seat belt use: the time has come 23 Staffing considerations 26 The grass isn't always greener 29 Planning for the loss of facility power 31 Hands-on approach to rape awareness 33 Managing for productivity 35 Can you teach creativity? 39 DEPARTMENTS The President's Desk 3 Letters 6 Position Available ... 11 In Memoriam 20 Training Calendar 22 New Members 22 People in the News 25 Balancing the Books28 ON THE COVER: The design of the three-level park- ing garage at North Texas State University, Denton (on the outskirts of Dallas), had to be acceptable as well as compatible with the rest of the campus archi- tecture. The parking garage has 608 spaces and is located on the eastern perimeter of the campus, in close proximity to the Union and Administration buildings. Operation of the garage is aided by com- puter controls. See page 4 for the university' secret to no -cost parking! This magazine created and produced by Callan Publishing Inc., 612/920-4848. Vice -President, Publications: John DeHaven. Editorial/Production Director Toni Johnson. Editor: Lori Bateman. Layout Designer: Sandra Collins Stone. Production Staff: Wendy West. Sharon Torberg, Linda Weltzin, Joan McGrath, Roberta Lau, Mary McGraw, Gwen Graftt, Karen Wolcenski, Jean Harper. Single copy: $4.00; subscription: $24.00 annually in U.S. currency to nonmembers in U.S., Canada, Mexico. All other countries: $30.00. Manuscripts, correspondence, and all contributed materials are welcome; however, publication is subject to editing and rewrite 4 deemed necessary to conform to editorial policy and style. Opinions expressed by contributing authors and advertisers are independent of IACLEA Journal policies or views. Authors must provide proper credit for information sources and assume responsibility for permission to reprint statements or wording regardless of the originating organ. Copyright 1985. All rights reserved. Business and Publication Office: 638 Prospect Avenue, Hartford, Conne,. ticut 06105 (203) 233-4531. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 tit y 7 NTSU DENTON, TEXAS ARLINGTON,