Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/22/90AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Thursday, February 22, 1990 - Council Chambers, City Hall MAYOR Roger Creighton MAYOR PRO TEM Chuck Sheldon COUNCILMEMBERS Robert Essertier Kathleen Midstokke Albert Wiemans All Council meetings 6:30 p.m. CITY CLERK Elaine Doerfling CITY TREASURER Gary L. Brutsch CITY MANAGER Kevin B. Northcraft CITY ATTORNEY Charles S. Vose are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: 1. 6:30 p.m. COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN. Memo- randum from Acting Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated January 31, 1990. 7:30 p.m. 2. REPORT ON RAMIFICATIONS OF WITHDRAWAL FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM. Memorandum from City Attorney Charles S. Vose dated January 4, 1990. CITIZEN COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Citizens wishing to address the Council on items not on the agenda but within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. ADJOURNMENT 7 January 31, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the City Council of February 22, 1990 COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission that Council adopt the plan that will be presented at this meeting by Purkiss Rose Landscape Architects and Landerman-Moore Planning and Economics as the Master Plan for Parks and Recreation for the City of Hermosa Beach. BACKGROUND On June 13, 1989, City Council awarded a bid to Purkiss Rose for the purpose of developing a Master Plan for Parks and Recreation for the City of Hermosa Beach (attached). The goal of this project was to set forth a 20 year plan for the orderly development of parks, recreation and open space facilities and programs in our City. This plan was to include determining what the recreational needs of the community are; establishing goals and objectives to meet those needs and to develop an economically feasible program of implementation. Another objective of this study was to draft a companion document to the Open Space Element of the General Plan as the Element calls for "basic recreational standards to be adopted as soon as feasible." (1980 General Plan) As indicated in the Master Plan, the study included input and reviews by a Citizen Task Force Committee, the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission and the Planning Commission. The Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission approved of this plan at their Dec. 12, 1989 meeting. A letter indicating their support for the plan and their concerns is attached for your review. The Planning Commission adopted the report as a policy statement at their January 3, 1990 meeting (attached). Also included is a support letter from Task Force Member Sarah Ferris Di Monda. The contract payment approved by Council for this study was set at $33,978. Incremental payments have been made to date that total $26,211.84, leaving a balance of $3,921.50 in the account for future payments. 10% or $3,397.80 of this to be withheld until a final document is received and completed to the satisfaction of City Council and staff. 1 ANALYSIS Council is requested to listen to a presentation given by Meredith Kaplan of Purkiss Rose regarding the Master Plan and to ask questions, indicate concerns and recommend changes/additions to the plan as necessary. It is important to review and consider the Addendum to the report as it contains the changes, corrections and deletions as submitted by the Commissions, City Manager and staff already in force. In order to keep costs down, the inclusion of these changes in the document awaits Council input so that a comprehensive final draft can be printed in one run. Some of the concerns already expressed regarding this study include that it is not specific enough and that it proposes unrealistically expensive projects/programs for our City. The consultants and former Director agreed that the Master Plan should be utilized as a general policy document and that prioritization of specific objectives should rightfully belong with the City's Commissions and Council. That is, once in place, this plan will serve as a general guideline and framework for specific planning efforts. On the charge that the proposal may be unrealistically expensive, it is critical to point out that the plan is a 20 year proposal and not one for the next fiscal year. Furthermore, both the consultants and Community Resources Commission agree that the City should recruit a grants administrator (contractual or employee) as soon as possible in order to search and acquire funds to support some of these projects. Finally, a quick examination of the suggested staffing for the Department may seem intimidating, but if looked at as a general guideline, the areas of responsibility can be met with very modest beginnings (i.e., we may serve functional areas of responsibility with current staff) . In discussing this\ document, Council is requested to keep in mind that is a policy statement for the City and as such will not be set in stone. Through the political process, it will serve as a reference and as a suggested approach to address the Parks and Recreation needs of Hermosa Beach residents and visitors. The ultimate decisions regarding the funding and implementation of such needs will rest with City Council. 2 Attachments: City Council: Award of Bid (6/13/89) Commission Letter (1/31/90) Planning Commission Resolution 90-10 (1-3-90) Planning Commission Minutes (1-3-90) Planning Commission Staff Report (1-3-90) Letter from Sarah Ferris Di Monda (1-8-90) Concur: Kevin B. North City�Ma a MiC{hae `Schubach,"Director Planning Department NO-tED Anthony Antich, Director Public Works D artment 3 Respectfully submitted, Mary C ` ooney, Acting Director Dep . of Community Resources June 1, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City Council Meeting of June 13, 1989 AWARD OF BID FOR PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission the City Council: Authorize the Mayor to sign the attached Agreement with Purkiss Rose, for the development of a Master Plan for Parks and Recreation, in an amount not to exceed $33,978; waive any irregularities with regard to late submissions; appropriate $8,978 for 1989-90 fromProspective Expenditures into the Dept. of Community Resources; authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary within budget limitations. BACKGROUND On December 13, 1988 the City Council approved the concept of developing a Master Plan for Parks & Recreation at an estimated cost of $25,000 and authorized staff to issue a Request for Proposals. On February 2, 1.989 the RFP was sent to 16 firms. Of those 16 firms, 9 responded with a proposal, two of which were submitted within two hours after the scheduled deadline. ANALYSIS Three of the nine submissions were not within budget feasibility and therefore were not considered. They were RJM Design at $69,800; Randolph Hlubik at $62,275; and POD at $54,850. While each of these firms was way over the estimated budget, it was felt they could all do an excellent job for the City. However in reviewing the other firms it was felt one of those other firms could do as good a job for less cost. The firm of Harris & Associates at $38,300 is an excellent landscaping firm that designed Rodaway Park in Hermosa. However the recreation element that is critical to the Master Plan was not addressed to the degree that is needed by the City. Cardoza-DiLallo Harrington at $33,900 appeared overly dependent on City staff. And in addition to their base bid there are additional costs for sub -consultants and direct program expenses. The Heimberger/Hirsch proposal at $14,565 was the lowest proposal submitted. In reviewing the document it was apparent the end product, the Master Plari, would not contain the information that -he City is hoping to gain from this study. Therefore the proposal was not considered. The Commission then interviewed the final three firms: EPT/ERA Purkiss Rose $41,500 $32,360 (incl printing costs of $3000) Recreation Systems, Inc. $22,400 Two of these three firms submitted their proposals within two hours after the deadline. Staff was advised by the then City Attorney, the proposals could be considered and if one of those two were chosen, that Council could waive this irregularity. EPT/ERA This is an excellent firm that would provide the City with an good report. The cost of the services was a factor in not recommending this firm. And upon interviewing the other two finalist firms, it was determined one of the other two could still provide the same kind of excellent work for less cost. PURKISS ROSE This firm is being recommended to the City Council for two main reasons; their methodology and the recreation personnel who will be working on this project. While the cost is $9,360 above the estimated budget, it is felt by the Commission and staff that this firm will provide the City with a ten, year plan that is very comprehensive and will be a useful tool in the development of our parks and recreation programs. RECREATION SYSTEMS, INC. This is the only firm that was within the estimated budget that it was felt could do an adequate job. However, this firm is not being recommended as it is felt they will not produce an end product that will be detailed enough for the City's purposes. BUDGET The recommended budget is: Contract Services Printing Costs 5% Contingency $29,360 3,000 1,618 Total contract amount $33,978 Initially the City Council appropriated $25,000 for this study. This figure was based on estimates received by staff through various professional contacts. Before you this evening is the request for an additional appropriation of $8,978 which will cover the total cost of the project. ,MARY As the City Council has noted by now, the recommendation is not to the lowest proposal. It is the third lowest proposal with the reasons delineated above. Cost is only one factor in evaluating proposals for professional services. The Master Plan for Parks & Recreation will be a valuable tool for the intelligent development of our parks and recreation programs. The firm we are recommending has shown particular sensitivity to the uniqueness of the community. They recognize the need for a plan that identifies resident population needs while taking into consideration impact of the visitor population. They understand the need to develop a consensus for understanding and'direction from all groups and individuals. The Commission and staff feel the firm of Purkiss Rose will provide to the City the balanced, detailed plan that the City needs and will be able to use for the next decade. Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager Respectfully submitted, Alava Mastrian-Handman Director Dept. of Community Resources Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copela d Finance Administrator CITY MANAGER COMMENT: Prior to signing agreement, the work plan is to be clarified with consultant to assure that the master plan will be formatted for inclusion in the City's general plan. 6 Citi o f 2iermosaTeaelL January 31, 1990 Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 Mayor and Members of the City Council: We, the members of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the Parks and Recreation Master Plan that is before you this evening. Much time has been spent by the Consultants, Members of the Task Force, staff and the Commission in the development of this policy document. It is our belief this document will serve the citizens of Hermosa Beach well in their pursuit of recreation/leisure activities and the development of all our recreation resources and facilities. - For several years it has been the Commission's belief that the maintenance of parks and recreation facilities should fall under the supervision of the Department of Community Resources. This study confirms that belief. The Department of Community Resources has certain maintenance standards that are not being met and thus the public is not being well served. This is by no means a chastisement of the Public Works Department who presently performs these tasks. Parks and recreation to them is one of many tasks for which they are responsible. We would like it to be a priority task within the Department of Community Resources. - In discussions with staff and the consultants it is more apparent than ever there are funds the City could be applying for in the area of Parks and Recreation. We are not doing so as we do not have a grant(s) writer on staff. We feel it's extremely important the City fill such a position in the next fiscal year. - The Commission affirms the role of the Community Center Foundation as the fundraising mechanism for the Community Center. The funds generated are to be used for Capital Improvements of the Center and Program Development within the Center. This policy document sets guidelines by which the City Council via staff and Commission can now develop specific parks; initiate Recreation/Leisure/Cultural Programs; and upgrade all recreation facilities that will benefit the citizens of Hermosa Beach. Once this policy is adopted, it will be up to staff and we the Commission to recommend to the Council a prioritized implementation plan that will include funding sources as well. Both Consultants and Commissioners will be present at the February 13th Council meeting to address the Council's questions and/or concerns. Respe tfully l Steve Crddri7; 6 =irperson 7)-). e J. R. Revizky, Commissioner 711-14,E 4 Merle Fish, Commissioner Susan Blaco, Commissioner Dani Peine, Commissioner 1 2 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. 90-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVING THE COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN AS A GENERAL POLICY PLAN. WHEREAS, on January 3, 1990, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and made the following Findings: A. The subject document is a policy statement for parks and recreation; B. The document may be used to direct the development of future specific park and recreational projects; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Planning Commission recommends adoption of the subject document as a policy statement for future parks and recreation. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ketz,Moore,Peirce,Chmn.Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm.Ingell CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 90-10 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 January 3, 1990. ue, Chairman 0 Date p/perspark Michael Schubach, Secretary PUBLIC BEARING WORKSHOP FOR DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN REVIEW Mr. Shubach gave staff report dated December 27, 1989., The City Council at their June 13, 1989 meeting requested that the Community Resources Department prepare a Master Plan regarding the future development of existing and future parks and recreational programs. This was to be an objective study to supply facts and numbers to aide the City in the development of specific programs and facilities. It appears, from the overview of the report, that the consultant relied heavily upon a survey distributed city wide to determine current needs. Unfortunately, none of the statistical data obtained was used and no projections were made for the future. Mr. Schubach briefly addressed some basic issues from the report for emphasis to the Commission, and then turned the floor over to the consultant for more detailed information. The public hearing was opened by Chmn. Rue at 9:16 p.m. Meredith Kaplan, 219 No. Harbor Boulevard, Fullerton,recreation consultant, stated that the report supplied to staff was merely a master plan for the parks and recreation element of the General Plan. This report reflects professional judgement and residential input. Guidelines and projections for the future have been included for the development of an implementation plan. Comm. Moore noted several major problems with the report. The demographic survey had a very low response rate, and almost all responses were received from the 45 year old home owner category. PC 01/03/90 Hermosa Beach has a high concentration of young singles which haven't been adequately represented, and there are almost no safe places for small children to play. There needs to be more input from the 21 to 39 year old residents. Also, the bike path/strand wasn't mentioned at all, and that is a major area of recreation for this city. There are too many conflicts between thepedestrians and bikers and skaters. This area needs attention. In response, Ms. Kaplan explained that not all the conclusions were drawn from the survey. As for the Strand, it is strongly recommended in the report that an intensive study be performed of the beach area and its activities, and solutions could be generated from that study. Norman Landerman Moore, Naples Island, Long Beach, consultant, interjected that he had asked if the Strand and pier were to be included in this study and the response received from the Community Resources Department was negative. The City should scope this area on an separate and individual basis because of the intense usage. He added that the report submitted also listed resources and guidelines for seeking necessary funding to implement new recreational projects. Mary Rooney, acting director of Community Resources, concurred that staff had decided it would be better to conduct a separate'study on the beach area, and not include it as part of this master plan. Chmn. Rue stated that the Strand area is a large part of the recreation. in Hermosa Beach and it needs to be addressed. Also, he was hopeful that the consultant could give the city ideas on how to raise the necessary funds to implement new projects. Mrs. Kaplan replied that the city needs to hire someone to specifically work on funding. There are goals to meet, and you have to develop a way to reach those goals. Mr. Moore, the consultant, explained that funding is based on user fees, outside financing, and financing mechanisms. Tapping into the different types of cash, flow requires a study. There are 5 or 6 basic funding structures that work via an interrelationship with each other, and the city needs to work with a funding council to put a funding plan into effect. Comm. Peirce then referred to Mr. Northcraft's memorandum to the Community Resources Department, and agreed that it is difficult to determine from the plan submitted by the consultants what needs to be added or deleted from the current Parks and Recreation program of Hermosa Beach. He asked how it is determined if there is too much or too little of one type of recreation, such as tennis or racquetball, and who decides when and how to change it. PC 01/03/90 Ms. Kaplan replied that this information is based on the demographics of the area, and if specific types of information is requested, a study is done and the data supplied. Mr. Moore added that, beyond determining the funding and general needs of an area, definite plans for implementation become very site-specific. This plan allows the city to evolve to the point of specifically telling the people what is needed where. Ms. Rooney noted the section on "action items" that was included with the report submitted by the consultants. This section addresses a more specific implementation plan, and supplied the information requested to the satisfaction of the Community Resources Commission. When asked if it was the job of the Community Resources Commission to come up with the types of items deemed necessary to meet the needs of the residents, Ms. Rooney explained that it is the consultant's job to develop a broad plan, or Policy Statement, as a guideline for the Community Resources Commission. From this Policy Statement, the Commission implements more specific and focused items. Staff has suggested a few minor changes to the report, and the Commission concurs with these changes, however, all areas of open space should be included. George Shelnik, 515 24th Place, Hermosa Beach, said that he has read the document and found it to be too general to be adopted into the General Plan. Future developments need to be redefined. The city needs to look ahead to what will be needed in the 1990's, as opposed to what is needed at the present time. The survey performed was very inadequate and very predictable, and the report submitted does not serve as a basis for a General Plan element. The public hearing was closed by Chinn. Rue at 9:47 p.m. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm Peirce, explained that this report was developed for presentation to the Planning Commission, and once approved, it is sent on to the City Council. When the first quarterly adoption period for the General Plan comes up, the report will be included with the open space element. The report will be adopted as a Master Plan for recreational facilities, but it hasn't yet been determined how to adopt it into the General Plan. Chinn. Rue asked if it could be adopted into the General Plan as a more comprehensive policy statement containing more specificity. Mr. Schubach replied that it could be adopted as an appendix to the open space element of the General Plan with the recommendation that more specific data be added. Ms. Rooney suggested adopting the report as a "policy statement". MOTION by Comm. Moore, second by Comm. Ketz to adopt the report prepared and presented by the consultant as a "policy statement", and require PC 01/03/90 that the Department of Parks and Recreation consider the comments of the Commission for analysis to develop a more specific plan. Comm. Ketz stated that a top priority should be to acquire all available school property. AYES: Comms Ketz, Moore, Pierce, Chmn. Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. Ingell December 27, 1989 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission January 3, 1990 SUBJECT: PARK & RECREATION MASTER PLAN INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL PURPOSE: TO PROVIDE A POLICY DOCUMENT REGARDING THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING AND FUTURE PARKS & RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the subject document with the modifications, deletions, and/or additions staff has noted in the analysis, and any that the Planning Commission may have. Staff also recommends an Environmental Negative Declaration with the mitigation measure that prior to any recreational improvements being made an environmental assessment shall be completed for the specific project, and an E.I.R. prepared if deemed necessary. Background The City Council at their June 13, 1989 meeting requested that the Community Resources Department prepare a Master Plan. Analysis Overview It appears that the consultant relied heavily on the use of the survey, and the workshops which were conducted to develop the needs assessment and very little of the statistical data collected regarding the population. Assuming that an adequate statistical sample was obtained for the survey, staff would not be opposed to this approach for determining current needs. However, for future needs, it would seem that not only should the statistical data which was collected have been used, but also more appropriate data and projections of the future should have been utilized to provide professional judgement as to what the needs may be. A population cohort study with in and out migration, and birth and death rate may have been useful. Specifics In the following discussion, a "page by page" format has been used by staff to note suggested changes, deletions, and/or additions. Generally, staff has recommended removing the data, since most of the inaccurate statements were regarding information that is remotely related to recreation, and was not used to make any decisions. Page ES -8 Open space should not be discussed in this document except in the context of an area with potential for recreational purposes. The title "Undeveloped Open Space" is a misnomer since "open space" is viewed by the public as undeveloped areas. These particular areas will be discussed in the Open Space Element of the General Plan and should be removed from this document, or described in a different context. Page ES -10 What parks and open space are being proposed? Since it appears that there are not any being noted in the Executive Summary, the titles on this map should be changed accordingly, or since at the end of the document some additional parkland is being proposed it should be noted in the Executive Summary. Page ES -13 No bike path is noted. The Strand is considered an official bike path, and should be noted as such. Page ES -17 "Facilities Improvements" In an "Executive Summary" the "bottom line" should be noted. Staff recommends the final recommendation for additional park area, facilities, and/or programs which are being recommended to the City Council by the Consultant should be identified in concise terms. Page 2-16 & 17 As noted above, these other areas identified as "Undeveloped" and "Other Open Space" should be removed from this document or identified differently. (See page ES -8 above) Page 3-18, third paragraph It is staff's understanding that the school district is experiencing steady growth, and expects to see more in the future. The district is planning to buy the property adjacent to the south of Hermosa Valley school. This paragraph needs to be altered to reflect that position. Page 3-29, last paragraph First part of paragraph conflicts with statements noted on page 3-18, third paragraph. (See Page 3-18 noted above) Page 3-29, last paragraph The last part of this paragraph, staff believes is inaccurate; rental units will not decline for the reasons that are given. Also this data is not relevant to .park facilities, and was not used as criteria for making a recommendation. Therefore, staff recommends that this data should be removed. Page 3-30, first paragraph This paragraph seems to make no sense. Staff recommends removing the paragraph, or a clear explanation should be provided. Does it mean that under the present environment, more "yuppies" will be attracted to Hermosa Beach? Page 3-30, second paragraph This paragraph states "If true this. " What is "this" referring to? "This" needs more explanation. Page 3-31 The SCAG figures noted on this page are completely inaccurate. The City contacted SCAG a year ago approximately regarding a variety of their projections and they have acknowledged they were incorrect. All their projections should have been adjusted downward. Total population increase by the year 2010 should be about 2,000 persons based on future housing increase and persons per household. Housing unit increase should be approximately 1,000 or less. The Employment increase is unknown, but based on the availability of commercial, and manufacturing land in the City, it will not be anywhere near 4,759. Either the Planning Department should be contacted for accurate information or this table and references to it removed from the document. Page 3-68 The source of information noted on this page is incorrect. Change the "Department of Public Works" to "Department of General Services." Page 3-69, first paragraph The wrong department was noted. Also, the "LCP" is a nine year old document which only represents a part of the City. A newer document, the Draft Circulation Element which has been available since before June could have been used; this document represents the whole City. Also the figure"6000" conflicts with the table on page 3-71, and also conflicts with the LCP. (See "page 3-71" below for more information) This paragraph should be removed since it conflicts with the Draft Circulation Element, does not represent the parking deficit in the City as a whole and was not criteria used for any recommendation in the document Page 3-69, last paragraph This paragraph is garbled, and inaccurate. Zoning requirements are not for off-site parking, and zoning does not create demand; it creates supply. Page 3-70, first paragraph Public Works did not provide information, and staff is not aware of who did. Page 3-70, second paragraph The 1981 Local Coastal Plan does not have a projection of 50 dwelling units per year as a trend. The City staff made that projection approximately a year ago, based on recent history. Also the statement that "existing history and projection indicates almost double the LCP" is also incorrect; it is precisely the contrary. Staff recommends removal of this paragraph, or contact the Planning Department for the correct information. Page 3-70, last paragraph Public Works did not provide this information. Also, the last sentence is incorrect. Staff recommends removing the paragraphs. Page 3-71 Table The Public works Department did not provide this information and the LCP shows significantly different data. If the City only had a 13 space deficit in the residential areas, the City would not have a problem in those areas. Staff recommends removal of the table since it seems that this kind of data is only remotely related to recreational facilities. It may have been better to discuss needed parking based on various types of recreational facilities. It should be noted that page B-13 of the LCP has the correct information. Pages 4-4,4-5 and 4-6 These pages come under the heading "Growth Management". The statements on these pages are essentially from the Open Space Element, and Housing Element of the General Plan. These policies in no way relate to "Growth Management", and it is dangerous to suggest that they do. Open space policies are an attempt to provide more open space, and the Housing Element policies are essentially an attempt to provide more moderate income housing as mandated by the state. The title, and statements regarding growth management on these pages must all be removed, and the policies described correctly or removed. Further, it appears that the housing policies are not from the updated Housing Element. The correct goals and policies need to be provided, even though the old are very similar in their intent. Also, there is no "City of Hermosa Beach Zoning and Subdivision of Land" document as noted on page 4-6, item "A". Page 4-7,first paragraph The current Zoning map does not indicate" a potential of 1,916 new homes", nor does it indicate 96 units annually. the present household size is 1.97 persons, not 2.3 (based on the 1980 census). Correct projections should be provided; the Planning Department should be contacted for their input. Page 5-10, Title The title indicates the section represents "open space" policies. this document is not, and should not represent open space policies. Open space is a mandated element of the General Plan. The title should be changed, deleting "Open Space". In addition to changes noted in the analysis, staff also concurs with the City Manager's comments which areattacbed. con, X/ ?i/ 17�. Michael Schubach Planning Director P/pcsrpark CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM Date: December 18, 1989 To: Community Resources Department From: Kevin Northcraft, City Manager Subject: Comments on draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan DEC 2'T ig89 The draft provides good information on the current and future demographics of our community, our current facilities, and design suggestions for changes in our existing parks. What is difficult to determine from the plan, and what needs to be added, is a clear statement of the consultant's recommendations. In other words, based on the demographics, our current facilities, and the citizen's input, what are the professional's recommendations for our Recreation and Park program and why? An almost stereo typical complaint about consultant's reports is that they have unclear recommendations, outline the work that needs to be done but do not complete it, and provide a lot of "boiler plate" language. The draft appears to fall into the category of qualifying for all three of these common complaints. While the executive summary attempts to outline some recommendations, it would seem feasible, in one to two pages, to outline the significant recommendations that are forthcoming from the master plan so that they could be readily reviewed and evaluated. The plan does not seem to provide any answers, such as: 1) Do we need racquet ball courts? 2) Do we have more than enough tennis courts? 3) What are the advantages and disadvantages of combining parks maintenance with recreation? 4) Do we need to change emphasis in our current recreation programming, and why? These are basic questions that should be answered in the master plan from the consultant's viewpoint. The following lists the page numbers and specific questions regarding information on the cited page: Page# ES -10 8th and Valley - scale reflects much larger size than exists. Table II ES 12-13 Is the list in priority order? If riot, what is priority? 3-70 & 4-7 Annual increase of 50 residential units/year disputed? Why? 2-15 Beach/Strand/Pier not part of master plan? Why not? Plan cannot be a comprehensive plan and omit significant resources. 3-71 Please check commercial areas having 1183 parking spaces; seems low for citywide figure. 5-21 et seq. Statements do not recognize existing practices; many are current procedure. 5-29 Who is existing and who is new? Typographical Errors ES -11 "their use to meed" ES -16 1998/89 3-7 4. 819 (should be comma) 5-6 aesthic 5-9 statues (should be statutes) • A QECE1VED �.J DEC 211989 City Mgr. Otrice December 20, 1989 Kevin Northcraft, City Manager City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 Subject: Comments on draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan Dear Mr. Northcraft: :S i The Community Resources Department has forwarded to us your comments on the draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Thank you for your prompt review and response. During our presentation and review of the draft Plan with the Advisory Commission, at its December 4, 1989 meeting, specific recommendations were discussed and a phasing plan requested. In response, we prepared a list of Action Itemsand a table called "Resource Management and Priorities" which we presented at the Commission's meeting on December 12, 1989. This information was well received and the addition of these pages to the final plan was endorsed by the Commission. At that meeting, the Plan was adopted by the Commission with minor amendments as noted in the minutes of the meeting. I have enclosed a copy of the Action Items and of the table for your review as I think they respond to your concerns also. These pages will become a part of the Executive Summary in the final draft of the Master Plan. After the Planning Commission meeting on January 3, 1990, we intend to make all amendments and typographical corrections to the draft plan and prepare the final plan for City Council adoption on February 13, 1990. Your comments will be addressed in that process. Landscape Architecture 219 North Harbor boulevard Fullerton. California 92632 FAX (714) 871-1188 (714) 871.3638 Mr. Northcraft December 20, 1989 Page 2 I will telephone you on December 27 or 28 to discuss the enclosed pages. We look forward to the adoption of this plan which will provide guidelines for the improvement and development of parks, recreation, and leisure services in the City of Hermosa Beach. Sincerely, Meredith Kaplan ASLA Principal MMK/cg cc: Landerman-Moore Planning and Economics Alana Handman-Mastrian Note to Commission members, staff, and task force members receiving these pages: the following information will appear in the final report as a continuation of page ES -18. Action Items The first step for improving parks, recreation and leisure services in the City of Hermosa Beach is adoption of this Master Plan. The adoption of the policies and recommendations of the plan bears definite implications for action. To implement the recommendations of this Master Plan, the Advisory Commission and the Community Resources Department need to begin immediately to set many processess in motion. To help focus the discussion and decision-making of the Staff and Commission, we have selected several actions as high priority items. We have listed these in a logical order, based on our analysis, but the order will only be a springboard for Staff and Commission debate and determination. The first three actions will need to be initiated immediately and simultaneously in order to get the results required. Among the actions to take are the following: 1. Review, analyze, and adopt policies. 2. Implement Department reorganization recommendations: . Bring park maintenance and operations into the Community Resources Department through discussion with City Manager and Public Works Department. . Staff the Assistant Director position with responsibility for funding and revenue generation. . Staff the Program Services Manager position with responsibility to develop, market, and produce all program services. 3. Develop a funding strategy. This strategy will combine the creation of new revenue centers, user fees, and Public Debt financing. This strategy will include redefining and expanding the role of the Foundation. 4. Initiate, at the Council level, program and facility coordination with neighboring cities. 5. Set acquisition of School District property, especially the South School and Valley Park sites, as a top priority. 6. Undertake a minor capital outlay program for remedial maintenance which removes hazards. 7. Once a funding strategy is in place: ▪ Develop master plans and construction documents for park improvements as priorities are developed. . Meet community program needs, especially for swimming lessons, tot play, after-school recreation, and family festivals. �3 • Resource Management and Priorities Table III, Resource Management and Priorites, is presented as a decision- making tool for the Department and the Advisory Commission. Fixed operations, which include administration, programs, maintenance and operations, are presented first since those dollars need to be committed every year. Part of the funding strategy will be to develop new sources of revenue for these fixed operations since these expenditures will increase relative to the implementation of improvements. The improvement programs are given a priority ranking by the consultants based on the analysis performed during the Master Plan process. They are not listed in order; rather the ranking number is given in the first column. The type of improvement --whether acquistion, renovation, or development --in given in the third column. The funding source column and the annual columns are provided for Department and Commisssion use as a worksheet in budget planning. • TABLE III RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND PRIORITIES FIXED OPERATIONS PROGRAMS , TYPE PROBABLE COST FUNDING SOURCE 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 ADMINISTRATION A 1,600,000 MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS D 506,000 • IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM RANK DESCRIPTION TYPE PROBABLE COST FUNDING SOURCE 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 1 SOUTH SCHOOL A 1,600,000 9 SOUTH SCHOOL D 506,000 2 VALLEY PARK A 680,000 3 VALLEY PARK R 528,000 10 EDITH RODAWAY A 82,000 14 EDITH RODAWAY D/R 71,500 6 CLARK STADIUM R 115,000 7 GREENBELT (PHASE) R 533,500 OVER THREE YEARS 8 FORT LOTS OF FUN R 25,000 PROSPECT SCHOOL R 50,000 COMMUNITY CENTER 12 - INTERIORS R 1,800,000 11 - GREENROOM D 60,000 13 - EXTERIORS R 263,000 - ROOF TOP HARDCOURTS D 440,000 -15 SEA VIEW R 6,000 PARKETTES R 130,000 4 BEACH STRAND/PIER A/E 50,000 . TREE PLANTING . 5 HERMOSA VIEW A 538,000 A - ACQUISITION D - DEVELOPMENT (DESIGN/PHASING/IMPLEMENTATION) R - RENOVATION (REDESIGN/PHASING/IMPLEMENTATION) A/E - DESIGN/ENGINEERING • FUNDING SOURCE GENERAL FUND _FACILITY TAX FUND FUND RAISING CONCESSION CONTRACTS USER FEES NEW DEVELOPMENT WASTE STREAM FEES BOND FINANCING CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION SPECIAL TAX FUND JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY GRANTS • • PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 1989, MEETING Meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Crecy, Commissioners Blaco, Peirce, Reviczky Staff: Rooney, Mastrian—Handman Consultants: Steve Rose, Meredith Kaplan Task Force Members: Sarah Di Monda, Laurie Byren, Larry Brown Foundation Members: George Schmeltzer Excused Absence: Commissioner Fish The following motions were made regarding the Parks: and Recreation Master Plan: Motion: "To change the organizational chart to include the position of Cultural Arts Supervisor/voluntary services; to prioritize the position as #3; and add introductory paragraph describing the organizational chart." Crecy/Blaco All Ayes Motion: "To add position of grants writer(s) with dotted line to director in the organizational chart." Blaco/Reviczky All Ayes • Motion: "To strongly affirm the recommendation to move Parks and Building Maintenance (as it relates to recreation facilities) into the Dept. of Community Resources and out of the Public Works Department." Reviczky/Crecy All Ayes Motion: "To direct consultants to affirm the Community Center Foundation in its present role as fundraising arm for the Community Center with said funds raised to support Capital Improvements and program development in and for the Community Center. Reviczky/Blaco All Ayes Motion: "To adopt the Master Plan as amended and to direct staff to develop a letter of support for the plan from the Commission to include all of the above mentioned motions and to strongly endorse the concept of developing a volunteer corp for the Department of Community Resources and forward to City Council for final adoption." Pierce/Blaco All Ayes ADJOURNMENT: 8:35 p.m. Sarah Ferris DiMonda 610 Ninth Street Unit A Hermosa Beach, California 90254 (213) 374-3554 January 8, 1990 City Council Mayor Roger Creighton 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mayor Creighton:" JAN 1 1 1990 JAN 08 1990 r .,. I have been a member of the Citizen Task Force workshops, developing a needs assessment for the Master Plan for Parks and Recreation, authorized by the former City Council. The workshops focused on the recreational resources of Hermosa Beach. The subject of a tree planting program was raised and is mentioned in the Master Plan. I am writing to each of the City Council members to inform them of a need to establish and fund a tree planting and maintenance program in Hermosa Beach. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Urban Forestry Program, has issued the results of the 1988 California Urban Forestry Survey. The Department of Forestry encourages planting additional trees throughout California for environmental and aesthetic reasons. The Urban Forestry Survey reflects state wide support for tree planting, and is sympathetic to the problems associated with planting trees in an urban environment. The Urban Forestry Program is a potential source of support and information to a city which chooses to establish a long term tree planting and maintenance program in it's parks and along it's streets. There may be sources of funding through the Department of Agriculture, the National Park Service, donations from private individuals and the corporate sector. However, the City should lead the way. I understand that the City will be doing extensive sidewalk repairs. I see this as an opportunity to start putting trees in, since the sidewalk will be broken up anyway. There are many drought tolerant trees which would enhance the immediate improvement Kevin Northcraft feels the repairs will bring to the city's sidewalks. I hope that the Master Plan will be adopted and, more importantly, a way will be found to implement the Plan when it is presented to you in February. The efforts and concerns of your constituents and the time and money spent for the consultant's Master Plan will all be for nothing if the City Council fails to implement the plan. Thank you for your time and efforts on behalf of the residents of Hermosa Beach. ah Ferris Di Monda c.c.*Kevin Northcraft, City Manager Anthony Antich, Public Works Director Community Resources Commission: Steven Crecy, JR Reviczy, Merle Fish, Dana Pierce, Susan Blaco. .•4 •w City of _TermosaTeacly Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 January 9, 1990 Sarah DiMonda 610 Ninth Street, Unit A Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Ms. DiMonda: Your letter of January 8, 1990 has been distributed to the City Council, and will be part of the packet when the Master Plan for Parks and Recreation is considered by the City Council. Thank you for your interest in our City and our "urban forest". Sincerely yours, / i 1 Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager KBN/ld JAN 1 1. 1990 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Kevin Northcraft, City Manager FROM: Andrea N. Anderson, Planning Aide SUBJECT: STATUS OF CDBG PROGRAM DATE: February 21, 1990 Please be advised that the City of Redondo Beach has received the following: 7 applications from eligible participants for the Emergency Repair Program, 4 applications from eligible participants for the Mobility Access Program, and 5 applications from eligible participants for the Mobile Home Repair Program. At this point, Inspections have been made by the building inspector and Historic Review information has already been sent to the County. Redondo Beach staff have indicated that work write-ups have been sent out to contractors and they are presently waiting for costs information before signing contracts. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 2 February 15, 1990 Mr. Kevin Northcraft City Manager City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 RE: Community Development Block Grant Program Dear Kevin: FEB 2019, r It is my understanding that the City Council is going to be conducting an adjourned meeting on February 22, 1990, to specifically discuss the CDBG Program. I and a representative from the County Community Development Commission will be in attendance and available to answer questions the City Council may have. This matter willliave to be followed with a noticed Public Hearing dealing with next years programs. Hopefully, this can occur at the first City Council meeting in March. You will recall, next years programs (beginning in July of 1990) were originally due to the CDC by February 15. The CDC gave us a time extension to March 15. This Public Hearing will still be required even if the City Council decides to terminate their participation in the Block Grant program. The hearing would be for them . to determine to sell next years allocation to another jurisdication. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Bry K. Baron Se or Vice President BKB:ajf cc: Andrea Anderson Hermosa2/2-1590 MARK BRIGGS & ASSOCIATES, INC. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATIO! 2 505 N. Tustin Avenue, Suite 282, Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 550-0390 4 The South Bay Juvenile Diversion Project Project Director Dan Smith Policy Board President, Warren Schwarzmann, Rolling Hills Estates Alan West, El Segundo Etta Simpson Hermosa Beach C. R. (Bob) Holmes, Manhattan Beath Ronald Cawdrey Redondo Beach Doug Hinchliffe, Rancho Palo, Verdu Bob Welboum, Palos Verdu Enatu Gordana Swanson, Rolling Hills Peter Rossick, Lomita Leah Jeffries, 4th District, LA County February 16, 1990 Mayor and City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 feto Dear Mayor Creighton and City Council: Since I will be facilitating a parent education program for Hermosa Valley School, I will not be able to attend the February 22, 1990 meeting concerning the Community Development Block Grant Program. The purpose of this letter is two fold. First, is to let you know what the South Bay Juvenile Diversion Project's role is in the Hermosa Beach community, and secondly, request that you continue the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. The South Bay Juvenile Diversion Project was started in 1975. We receive referrals from law enforcement, schools, parents and children seeking to access our full range of counseling services. The Project serves nine South Bay cities. In 1988, 39 Hermosa Beach families were provided with various Project services. In our fifteen year history no one has ever been refused our services. I believe it is essential that this CDBG funding remain in place for many reasons. The most important reason is tied to the overall condition of the County Mental Health System. As county mental health services, which were designed primarily to serve low and moderate income families, have disappeared, those same families (still needing mental health services) have trickled down to community-based organizations like the South Bay Juvenile Diversion Project. As our funding continues to be strained by more and more families accessing our services, our ability to meet all of their needs is diminishing. 320 Knob Hill, Redondo Beach, CA 90277 (213) 372-7724 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 2 The South Bay Juvenile Diversion Project was delighted when the City of Hernmosa Beach created the opportunity for community-based agencies to obtain a new source of funding through the CDBG program. The Project is concerned that you are considering eliminating this program and funding opportunity. If my contract with the City of Hermosa Beach is terminated, I am wondering how I am going to continue to provide services to the Hermosa Beach families I am currently serving under the CDBG program. I hope you can s%may dilemma. The City of Hermosa Beach has been generous in their support of the South Bay Juvenile Diversion Project in the past, I am confident that your support will continue well into the future. If you have any questions, please call me (372-7724). Sincerely, Dan Smith Executive Director 02-05-90 Attn: Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach Re: Mobile Home Repair Program Although I nor my parents (the legal owners of my mobilehome) qualify for this assistance program, I would like to recommend that some financial assistance be offered to my neighbor Ann (whose last name I don't know) who resides in Trailer no. 50. She has had no indoor heating for the past 2 to 3 years. I don't know of her financial status but I know she "complains" to me about how she's cold but doesn't have the money it would take to install new heating in her trailer. Ann does not know I am writing you regarding this matter. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could look into this for her. It's true the majority of the park tenants appear to be of the "younger working generation" rather than more elderly financially restricted crowd typical of mobile home parks, and thus are not eligible for this program. But if just one person could benefit from this program, I believe it should still be carried through. I do realize that it is past the January 19 application date and that this program is to be possibly abandoned by the Hermosa Beach City Council. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Karen Bruns 531 Pier Ave., #46 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213) 372-6105 cc: Ms. Barbara Hawkins -Hanks, Redondo Beach SUPPLEMENTAiy INFORMATION 2 TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: HARLES S. VOSE, CITY ATTORNEY DATED: JANUARY 4, 1990 SUBJECT: TERMINATION OF PARTICIPATION IN C.D.B.G. PROGRAM At the last meeting, the City Council requested a legal opinion from this office regarding the consequences of withdrawing from participation in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. The City has received correspondence from its consultant, Mark Briggs & Associates, dated January 2, 1990, (copy attached) which identifies the basic options available to the City relating to a potential termination. This letter is directed at the City's use of funds and relationship with the Community Development Commission. In addition, to these issues, the City must address the impact that the termination of (CDBG) participation would have on the City's housing element and the housing obligations to meet regional needs as required by State Statutes. In order to fully address these matters, I will need additional time to review the City's housing element and consider the implications as they relate to mandatory state guidelines. It is important to note that I am not currently aware of any state statutes or provisions in the City's agreement which prohibit the City's termination in a manner suggested by Mark Briggs & Associates. However, should the City Council make a policy decision to withdraw from the program it may be necessary that the City implement other activities to comply with its housing element or amend the housing element to comply with mandatory state housing goals for this region. • 90 TOE 10: =T I i:: C I TY HEFIN109N E!EHI_ H TEL Nil: 217-372-E188 lx' F' i2 Jt'V JAN OE '90 11:38 MARK BRIGGS & ASSOC P.2'3 .11W Mr. Kevin Northcratt City Manager City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa beach, Ca11lornia 90234 AEt Alternative Use of CD/5C; Fundi near Kevin: January 2, 1990 VIA FAX This letter IS to provide you with the various options available to the City if they wish to terminate participation In the Community Development Bleck Grant (C0110) program. 1 also contacted the Community Development Commission (CDC) to obtain their Input. As you ate aware, when the City elected to get back into the program, they signed a Three Year Participation Agreement with this CDC. The Cnt` alai the Agreement cannot be terminated, however, the City bas the following options available. 1. CURRENT YEAR FUNDING (1989-90) The City can terminate their existing Agreements with the non-profit agen1let. They will have to be reimbursed for expenditures they have incurred up through the Notice of Termination. The City mild uld then attempt to sale their remaining unobllgated funds to other Jurisdictions or give away the funds to other Jurisdictions. 2. REMAINING Two YEARS OF PARTICIPATION (1990-92) The City can salts ur give away their annual atlnrat1on. An additional option is to retain and use any portion of the funds and sole or give away the remaining amount. - The CDC las indicated that It the funds are sold or given away To other lurisdletion(a), an agreement between Hermosa Beech and thc jurisdiction(a) will have to ler ndnrtad, In eddltlon, all of the CDBC reports and annual application process will have to be adhered to during the remaining three years. MARK BRIGGS & ASSOCIATES, INC, 505 N. Tustin Avenue, Suite 282, Sante Ms. California 92705 MON. (714) ssom»d ...�.�- _J: PH -O2- 9O TUE .1O:58 I D: C I TY HEPHO'=A EEPCH JAN 3 '90 11:39 MARK BRIGGS & ASSOC Mr. Kevin Northeratt January 2, 1990 Pale Two TEL HO: 217-772-61Sr tt^ES P� t3 I hope this brief explanation anawere any quentlons you may have, II you require additional Information, please give mea call. Sincerely: t?„0A"----/ BryonbJC. Baron Senior Vice President ISKSiaji HormosaZ/1-2-90 P. 3/3 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM DATE: January 3, 1990 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft RE: Comments on Community Development Block Grant Funds for Hermosa Beach ***************************************************************** The reason -that staff previously proposed consideration of par- ticipation in Community Development Block Grant Funds, and the City Council approved such participation, is a simple one. The program may provide over $1 million over the next ten years to serve Hermosa citizens at no cost to them. This ability to pro- vide increased services at no additional cost to our residents is a very common and appropriate theme for Council and staff's efforts. If a substantial need is found and continues to exist, certainly the funds are available to meet that need. The funds are cur- rently being used to supplement support for community service agencies that provide services to Hermosa residents. Also, this year's program provides a housing rehabilitation opportunity for senior citizens similar to that available for seniors in Redondo and Manhattan Beach. If an insufficient need to use the money _wisely occurs, the City then can consider trading its funds to cities with more substan- tial needs in the community development arena, for funds that may be of less need in that community but of greater need in Hermosa, such as street repair funds. This way, in either event, the citizens of Hermosa Beach benefit from participation in the CDBG program. A third way that the City benefits is providing programs that further the principles of the City's housing element, which is a required procedure under current state law. This participation reflects that the City is "doing its part" to meet regional and state law in housing goals, as a member of the Greater Los An- geles areaas well as the State of California. Two common reasons cited for objection to this program are the possibility of "hidden strings" and a philosophical program to the national program. Regarding strings, certainly all grant programs have conditions. The funds must be used for the legal reasons set forth for their use, cannot be used in violation of other laws such as discrimination, and proper records must be kept.* These requirements are no different than the funds the City receives for street repair and improvement, transportation, pier repair, parks improvement, or any other grant funds. This program has been around for many years, and no one with knowledge 11 of it has been able to determine any unknown or unanticipated requirements that might constitute "hidden strings". The second common objection is the philosophical disagreement to the state and national policy that causes funding of the Communi- ty Development Block Grant program. Since these programs require application or request for assistance in order to qualify for benefits, it certainly allows for each citizen to make an indi- vidual choice whether this program is one in which he or she feels participation is appropriate. To make that decision for our citizens on a city-wide basis takes away the option of bene- fits that are available in our neighboring cities, and seems un- fair to those in our community who both feel the program is philosophically appropriate and advantageous to improving their quality of life. Although there may not be a large majority of our citizens that will have direct benefits from this program, those that do will likely find a meaningful improvement in their quality of life. This is an obvious and appropriate goal for our City's efforts. January 18, 1990 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Chuck Sheldon RE: CDBG Grant There are several reasons why I support our participation in this grant program - notwithstanding my personal and political resistance to the general use of federal funds. 1. It satisfies our "Low Income Housing Element" criteria of the General Plan. This is much better than requiring developers to "donate" units! 2. There appears to be a need for our City to help seniors and low income fix up their homes. 3. We use part of the money to assist the many non -profits who help our citizens (children and adults) cope. 4. If extra money available at year end, we can "sell" these funds for cash! Example: .10 yrs. x $75,000 x 60% = $450,000 General Fund money! 5. The community is aware of our "commitment" to try this program. I am hopeful that this council will "at least" give it a try and put our personal biases aside. If my yes vote is critical, I ask that you continue this matter until the 1st meeting in February. Sorry I won't be with you and have a good early meeting! SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 11 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager ��yy FROM: Andrea N. Anderson, Planning Aide SUBJECT: Housing Rehabilitation Program Update DATE: January 18, 1990 Please be advised that a total of 522 marketing letters have been mailed to prospective participants for the Emergency Repair and the Mobility Access programs as of 1/17/90. Initially, 80 letters were mailed and each subsequent mailing was based on the number of responses. In addition, a total of 81 letters have been mailed to prospective participants for the Mobile Home Repair Program. The remaining 18 letters (for Emergency Repair and Mobility Access Programs) will not be mailed, per your instructions. Based on the amount of available funds, the Administering Staff of Redondo Beach has established the following goals: Goals (Number of Participants) Mobile Home Repair Program 14 Emergency Repair Program 9 Mobility Access Program 3 Responses to these programs are as follows: Seniors Disabled Mobile Home Repair Program 5* 1 1 Emergency Repair Program 7 4 3 Mobility Access Program 3 (All are Seniors & Disabled) * The deadline for submitting applications for the Mobile Home Repair Program is 1/19/90, and the administering staff expects to meet the established goal by the deadline. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 11 January 1.0, 1990 The Honorable Roger Creighton Mayor of Hermosa Beach And other Distinguished Members of the City Council Ms. Kathleen Midstokke Mr. Chuck Sheldon Mr. Robert Essertior Mr. Albert Wiemans 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA90254 Benito A. Lubes Marineland Mobilehome Park 531 Pier Ave. Space 25 Hermosa Beach, CA90254 213 318-2211 Dear Roger, Kathy, Chuck, Robert and Albert, RECFIVEO JAN 101990 ,r -•„ I am one of the interested parties who attended your City Council meeting last night hoping to be heard on the matter regarding the funds for the City of Hermosa Beach Community Block Grant Program which subsidizes the Mobile Home Repair. Program for qualified applicants. Judging from the criteria to qualify, I have executed my application for needed repairs to my mobilehome which is now 13 years old. I understand you have postponed discussion of the retention or cancellation of this program funding to January 23, 1990. This now gives me the opportunity to write to you and express my thoughts and to beseech you to retain and allow utilization of these funds for the following and hopefully persuasive reasons: 1. Most of us who have lived in this park over the past several years badly need the repairs the program would provide, for example for roof insulation, as one only need observe the roofs• of the mobilehomes in this park from a high vantage point to see this (which can be done easily from the alley adjacent to the park paralleling the 500 block of Pier Avenue). 2. Since I moved into this park we have been subjected to an annual increase in our rents of 10% more than what the previous rent was. Compounded that now amounts to over triple what our rents were in 1981 and rising. Under the circumstances, the funds that were to be available under this program would be more than welcome for those of us who qualify. 3. Since there are many in this park who are on a fixed income, and cannot afford to have the needed repairs done to their mobilehomes, I believe then the funds can be justifiably allocated to accomplish the purpose they have been appropriated for if you all would make the humanitarian gesture to retain the funding for the program. Please allow me to thank you for your reconsideration of this important issue and the opportunity to discuss it with you all in person come January 23, 1990. Sincerely yours, vc� Benito A. Lubes cc: Mr. Charles Vose, Esq., City Attorney Mr. Kevin Northcraft, City Manager Mr. Mike Schubach, Planning Director Ms. Barbara Hawkings-Hanks, Housing Coordinator, Program Administrator Mr. John Kern, President, Homeowners' Association of Marineland Mobilehome Park Ms. Elsa Fraschetti, Vice -President, as above Ms. Marie Horowitz, Board of Directors, as above SUPPLE'riEN I AL al 11 INFORMATION • Marineland Mobile Home Park Homeowners Association c/o John Kert, President 531 Pier Avenue #32 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Lac - J December 19, 1989 ;P . t1 Mayor and Council Hermosa Beach City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILPERL ONS; We are writing to express our disapproval of your recent vote to have the City attorney prepare paperwork to enable you to break the contract entered into with the City of Redondo Beach regarding Block Grant Funds. This places the Council in a very unfavorable light and we feel that it is difficult to trust a group whose integrity is so shaky that they would break a contract on a whim or drop of a hat. As reported by the Easy Reader, Ms. Midstokke remarked that her reason for this action was. that "there would be strings attached" We invite and request Ms. Midstokke to qualify her statement. In addition we also feel that your decision to escape from the contract is wrongly discriminatory as to the poor, disabled and residents of mobile home parks. These are the groups that these Block Grants are designed to assist. We respectfully request that you reconsider your vote and decide to follow through on your commitments with the peoples' interests at heart which is why you were all elected. Sincerely, MAARINELAND MOBIL HOME PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOC ATION c32 - sident isa Lucke, Secretary Ramona Birch, Board Member —1 arie S. Horowiti, Board Member Elsa Fraschetti, Vice Pres. Shirley 'ay,de"4:' .Treea4 y Sandra Solis, Board Member rer evin Northcraft, City Manager .....-.rF-�a.�..i.✓ • r •<. r. t...N.'.N .. .., .. ,.My 3..'►'�:'+..s.iw+ INFORMATION Pfd- "� e, .......�..+. ,:K.,u... i.e..ul4 �i'.Ald.•� .t +Yioc:t rf 5 v737.1 1/17/5.0 / J j T e; 17 11'C-1 ) E. th-OCIC- 1111171 c / / - 0 1 wLe_ 1 te-d-1C I; V et b (Ite( Board -- Of Directors Neal O. Williams hoard President & Legal Counsel Julie Oorr Project Director Carole Ellwood Earl L Feys Paula Six Nods April S.P. Whetstone Cecil L Wyman Marilyn Wyman. M.F.C.C. Honors/Affiliations 1974 Development Grants Rockwell International Peter W. Philips 1975 Community Prevention Conference, Queen Mary 1976 Routh Award Videotape portraying the need for community-based alternatives to detention 1977 L.A. County Probation Best delinquency prevention program under revenue sharing . 1978 Canter for Law 8 Justice Model Prevention Program 1979 California Probation, Parole A Correctional Association Award Velunteor contributions by professionals Calif. Youth Authority Model school-based program 1980 Loma Productions Equipment donated by SONY Video Systems 1981 Stepfamily Education end Counseling in cooperation with the Stepfamily Assouation of Amenca. Inc. 1982 California Youth at Risk Network Wilderness Challenge programs 1983 Community Systems Network --CSN 1984 South Bay Sunday 1985 Los Angeles County Consortium for Youth 1986 Community Development Grant, Redondo Beech Steplamily Education A Counseling for Headstart and stepteen groups Calif. Youth Authority Community Advisory Committee 1987 Early Touch For Pre -adolescents 1988 Beach Cities Coalition for Drug & Alcohol Free Youth 710 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213) 379-275 January 22, 1990 Mayor Roger Creighton Councilwoman Kathleen Midstokke Councilman Robert Essertier Councilman Albert Wiemans Dear Mayor Creighton and Council members Midstokke, Essertier and Wiemans: It was shocking to me, our staff and Board of Directors to find that the Council's "new majority" had joined with Mayor Creighton in summarily dismissing in thought the worthy purpose and services to deserving Hermosa Beach residents provided by 1989/90 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding. For no consultant fees whatsoever, I would like to say, the experts in assessing the needs of those Hermosa Beach residents 'with low- to moderate incomes whose health and homes are in various degrees of jeopardy, gave detailed evidence to the preceding council of unmet needs.The cost, by the way, to each applicant for proposals to meet certain critical, unmet needs as requested by the City, was at least one- to two thousand dollars for each proposal, spent in good faith and in the spirit of advocacy for those who, in the main, are unable to effectively advocate for themselves. They include: - The physically, emotionally and sexually abused of any age; - Troubled adolescents and their families; - The medically indigent; - Children and youth who are learning disabled, and academic underacheivers from problem homes; - Runaways, and - The elderly living in substandard housing. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Mayor Roger Creighton and Council Members Midstokke,, Essertier and Wiemans January 22, 1990 Page 2 you of It would appear/that the "new majority" and Mayor Creighton are of the conviction that needed services are readily available to these Hermosa citizens out there somewhere, probably at DPSS or someplace. The assumption is wrong, and would have been easily corrected had but any of you, individually or collectively, taken the time to inquire by telephone or even visited in person, the agencies who addressed a number of the unmet needs described in their CDBG program plans. Perhaps your objective is to force the less fortunate among us to just leave, thereby penalizing children for the sins of their parents,in some cases; letting our seniors living on very restricted incomes know, for the umpteenth time, that they should be more prudent, even though they had no way to foresee that they would live so long, and so on..the tired and blind litany of "if they are poor, they have no character, hence we have no responsibility to 'them', whoever they might be. The overriding issue here is, however, the taxpayers of Hermosa Beach will lose their rightful return on their designated investment in community needs, if the council decides that the shallow gesture of refusing CDBG is some kind of righteous thing to do..." People wanting handouts," as one of you was quoted as saying in derision of CDBG funding, is a stereotypical and uninformed view of real people who really do live in Hermosa Beach and who through a set of circum- stances often quite beyond their control, need temporary support.It is also economically short-sighted: first, declining CDBG dollars will have no effect other than to give another community funds that belonged here, and, secondly, strengthening people in distress, is in the long run, enlarging the community's economic return, as their productivity increases...and it does. Why else do the cities around us adopt well -conceived Community Development programs? Because they are fools? Not likely, after so many years of experience to base their year-to-year decisions on. As a homeowner and taxpayer of Hermosa Beach, I request that you make a more honest effort to understand the whole community. As the director of a worthy program serving low -to -moderate income teens and pre -teens struggling to stay in school, I urge that you not let them down in midstream. Very trulyyours, ulie Dorr Director David N. Lund Executive Director t Attachment B (3 of 5) Community Development Commission County of Los Angeles 1436 Goodrich Boulevard •Commerce. California 90022•(2.131 725.7422 August 15, 1988 Alana M. Mastrian City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885 Dear Ms. Mastrian: EXECUTED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT COOPERATION AGREEMENT Commissioners Deane Dana Chairman Peter F. Schabarum Kenneth Hahn Edmund D. Edelman Michael D. Antonovich Enclosed for your files is a fully executed Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Cooperation Agreement between your City and the County of Los Angeles for the funding period from July 1, 1989 through June 30, 1991. If there are any questions regarding the agreement, please con- tact Hal Cooper of my staff at (213) 725-7463. Sincerely, BOBBETTE A. VER, Director Community De elopment Block Grant Division HC:cr/L-6 Enclosure SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 2 4';. Attachment B (4 of 5) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATING CITY COOPERATION AGREEMENT 141 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 1 day41) of l�S-�— 1988, by and between the City of Hermosa Beach , hereinafter ref red to as "City", and the County of Los Angeles, hereinafter referred to as the "County". 018 WITNESSETH THAT: • EEA3, County. .._;i.i City uc.. i!, Lc c::'opel ata• to u(ice tcike, or ciJsi i, ill Lin(le `i.dking, community renewal and lower income housing 'assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing, including, but not limited to, the improvement or development of•housing:for persons of low to moderate incomes and other community or urban renewal activities authorized by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, hereinafter referred to as the "Act"; and WHEREAS, County Counsel has determined that the terms and provisions of this agree- ment are fully authorized under State and local law, and that this agreement provides full legal authority for the County to undertake, or assist in undertaking, essential community development and housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly as- sisted housing. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City and the County agree to cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertak- ing, community renewal and lower income housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing, including, but not limited to, •the improvement or development of housing for persons of low to moderate incomes and other community or urban renewal activities authorized by the Act. 2. The City hereby authorizes the County to perform, or cause to be performed, those acts necessary to implement the community or urban renewal and lower income housing activities specified for the City in the County's annual Statements of Community Develop- ment Objectives which will be funded from. annual Community Development Block Grants from Federal Fiscal Years 1989 and 1990 appropriations and from any program income generated from the expenditure of such funds. County shall have final. responsibility for selecting projects and annually filing Final Statements of Community Development Objectives. 3. The City and the County shall take all actions necessary to assure compliance with the County's certification required by Section 104(b) of Title I of the Act, the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Section 109 of Title I of the Act, Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, and other applicable laws. 4. The City shall inform the County of any income generated by the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds received by the City. Any such program in- come may be retained by the City subject to the requirements of this agreement. Such program income may only be used for eligible activities in accordance with all CDBG requirements as may then apply. 5. The County shall be responsible for monitoring and reporting to HUD on the use of any program income; therefore, the City shall be required to maintain appropriate recordkeeping and reporting for this purpose. 6. In the event of close-out or change in status of the City, any program income that is on hand or received subsequent to the close-out or change in status shall be paid to the County. 7. All program income generated from the disposition or transfer of real property. acquired or improved by the City, using CDBG funds or program income, during the term of this agreement, shall be treated as described in Sections 4 through 6 of this agreement. 8. Any real property which is acquired or improved by the City during the term of this agreement, in whole or in part, using CDBG funds or program income, shall be subject to the following standards: a. The County shall be notified by the City in writing of any modification or change in the use or disposition_of such real property from that planned at the time of acquisition or improvement. Such notification shall be made prior to the modification or change in use or disposition. 1 Attachment 13 (3 of 5) b. If such real property is ever sold or transferred for a use which does not qualify as an eligible use under CDBG regulations, the City shall reimburse to the County an amount equal to the current fair market value of the property less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds. • 9. The City. shall make available for inspection and audit to County's repre- sentatives, upon request, at any time during the duration of this agreement and•during a period of five (5) years thereafter, all of its books and records relating to CDBG program income. 10. This agreement shall be effective for the period of time required for the expen- diture of all CDBG funds allocated to the City from Federal Fiscal -.Years 1989 and 1990 appropriations and from any program income. therefrom. In no event shall this aereement,,,b,e , bC:J' or e Jun -30, i 9`j l , excepi; ZS'61 i'esult of ac tion oy onre United States Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the governing bodies of the parties hereto have authorized this agreement and have caused the agreement to be executed by their respective chief executive officers and attested by the executive officer -clerks thereof as of the day, month and year first above written. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor By Cq rFnRt k APPROVED AS TO FORM: City •Att-rney COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Chairman, Board of Supervisors EST: LARRY J. MONTEILH, Executive Officer - Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By APPROVED AS TO FORM: DE WITT W. CLINTON County Counsel A1OPTEDfas 2 AUG 0 91988 vLAHRY J. MOt71'ERN EXECUTIVE OFFICER i COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM REIMBURSABLE CONTRACT WITH PARTICIPATING CITY CONTRACT NUMBER: 6 THIS CONTRACT is made'and entered into this first day of July 1989, by and between the County of Los Angeles, hereinafter called the "County", and the City of Hermosa Beach, e :ti ig Ag Edney' . WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, the County has entered into a Contract with the United States of America, through its Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), to execute the County's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)VProgram under the Housing and Community Develop- ment Act of 1974, as amended, hereinafter called the "Act"; and WHEREAS, Operating Agency desires to participate in said program. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein set forth and the mutual benefits to be derived therefrom, the parties agree as follows: 1. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION. The Executive Director of the Community Development Commission of the County of Los Angeles (Commission), hereinafter called "County Project Director", or his designee, shall have full authority to act for County in the Administra- tion of this Contract consistent with the provisions contained herein. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES. The Operating Agency is to perform services consistent with the goals and objectives set forth in the Los Angeles Urban County Community Development Block Grant Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds for the Fifteenth Program Year, as adopted by the County Board of Supervisors on May 25, 1989, or any amendment or successor thereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference. 3. PROCEDURES TO IMPLEMENT. Operating Agency is eligible for reimbursement for a project implemented under this Contract only after a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), accompanied by a detailed Project Description and Budget, is developed to the satisfaction of the County Project Director, or his designee, and is executed by both the County Pro- ject Director, or his designee, and the Operating Agency. 4. TIME OF PERFORMANCE. Said services of Operating Agency are to commence not sooner than the date first written above, and shall be completed not later than June 30, 1991. Specific project start and completion dates shall be a part of the MOU procedure described above for initiating the project(s). 5. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT. Upon such performance under this Contract, County shall reimburse Operating Agency an amount not to exceed $122,762, which shall con- stitute full and complete reimbursement hereunder provided for the implementation of this Contract. Said reimbursement will only be paid out of funds received by County from the Federal Government under the Act for the Fiscal Years indicated in the MOU, or from program income, as described in 24 CFR 570.506 and OMB Circular No. A-102, Attachment E, accumulated under said program, for allowable costs actually incurred for the express pur- poses specified. The parties understand and agree that such reimbursement, if any, shall be conditioned upon receipt of said funds by the County from the Federal Government or ac- cumulation of program income from said program, and shall not be a charge on any other funds of the County. Further, such funds, if any, shall be paid only after development and execution of the MOU(s) necessary to implement the project(s) covered by this Contract and receipt and approval by County of a periodic detailed invoice in a form specified and approved by the County Project Director, or his designee. Operating Agency shall bill for expenditures on a monthly basis for all projects for which MOU's have been executed. 6. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. All parties agree to be bound by all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, regulations and directives as they pertain to the per- formance of this Contract. This Contract is subject to and incorporates the terms of the Act; 24 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 570, Chapter V; U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circulars A-87 and A-102; Executive Order 12372; the County Auditor -Controller Con- tract Accounting and Administration Handbook; and allsuccessor laws, regulations or guidelines thereto (the Laws, Regulations and Guidelines). The Operating Agency has, and shall maintain, copies of the Laws, Regulations and Guidelines. Furthermore, the Operat- ing Agency acknowledges that it has read and understands the Laws, Regulations and Guidelines. 1 7. REVENUE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT. Operating Agency shall make available for in- spection and audit to County's representatives, upon request, at any time during the dura- tion of this Contract, and during a period of five (5) years thereafter, all of its books and records relating to the operation by it of each Project or business activity which is funded in whole or in part with federal or state grant monies, including the project(s) funded under this Contract, whether or not such monies are received through County. All such books and records shall be maintained by Operating Agency at a location in Los Angeles County. Failure of Operating Agency to comply with the requirements of this Sec- tion 7 shall constitute a material breach of contract upon which County may cancel, ter- minate or suspend this Contract. ti. PHOGRAM DEVALUATION AND REVIEW. Operating Agency shall allow County authorized personnel to inspect and monitor its facilities and program operations, including the in- terview of Operating Agency staff and program participants, as required by the County. 9. REPORTS AND RECORDS. Operating Agency agrees to prepare and submit all HUD required reports and any financial, program progress, monitoring, evaluation or other reports required by County or its representatives. Operating Agency shall ensure that its employees, agents, City Council members, officers, .and board members furnish such informa- tion which, in the judgment of County representatives, may be relevant to a question of compliance with contractual conditions, with County or HUD directives, or with the effec- tiveness, legality and achievements of the CDBG Program. 10. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Operating Agency shall comply with specific project im- plementation and expenditure standards as adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County. 11. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. The Operating Agency shall all projects funded wholly or in part by CDBG funds shall career advancement opportunities for minorities and women Agency shall make every effort to employ residents of the MOU(s). make every effort to ensure that provide equal employment and . In addition, the Operating project area(s) specified in the 12. DISCRIMINATION. No person shall, on the grounds of race, sex, creed, color, religion, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be refused the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination in any activities, program or employment supported by this Contract. 13. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. The Operating Agency, its agents and employees shall comply with all applicable federal, state and county laws and regulations governing con- flict of interest. 14. FISCAL LIMITATIONS. The United States of America, through HUD, may in the fu- ture place programmatic or fiscal limitations on CDBG funds not presently anticipated. Accordingly, the County reserves the right to revise this Contract in order to take into account actions affecting HUD program funding. In the event of funding reduction, the County may reduce the budget of this Contract, as a whole or may limit the rate of the Operating Agency's use of both its uncommitted and its unspent funds. Where HUD has., directed or requested the County to implement a reduction in funding, in whole or as to a cost category, with respect to funding for this Contract, the County Project Director, or his designee, may act for the County in implementing and effecting such a reduction and in revising the Contract for such purpose. Where the County Project Director, or his designee, has reasonable grounds to question the fiscal accountability, financial sound- ness, or compliance with this Contract of the Operating Agency, County Project Director, or his designee, may act for the County in suspending the operation of this Contract for up to sixty (60) days, upon three (3) days notice to Operating Agency of his intention to so act, pending an audit or other resolution of such questions. In no event, however, shall any revisions made by the County affect expenditures and legally binding commitments made by the Operating Agency before it received notice of such revision, provided that such amounts have been committed in good faith and are otherwise allowable, and that such commitments are consistent with HUD cash withdrawal guidelines. 15. INDEMNIFICATION. The Operating Agency agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless County, its agents, officers and employees from and against any and all liabil- ity expense, including defense costs and legal fees, and claims for damages of any nature whatsoever, including, but not limited to, bodily injury, death, personal injury, or property damage arising from or connected with the Operating Agency's operations, or its services hereunder, including -any workers' compensation suits, liability or expense aris- ing from or connected with services performed on behalf of Operating Agency by any person pursuant to this Contract. . 16. AUDIT EXCEPTIONS BY STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES. Operating Agency agrees that in. the event the program established hereunder is subjected to audit, monitoring or other ex- ceptions by appropriate state and federal agencies, it shall be responsible for complying 2 with such exceptions and paying the County the full amount of County's liability to the funding agency resulting from such audit exceptions.- . 17. INSURANCE. Without limiting Operating Agency's indemnification of County and Commission, the Operating Agency shall provide and ;maintain at its own expense during the term of this Contract a program of insurance satisfactory to the County's Risk Manager covering its operations hereunder. The details of said program of insurance shall be specifically cited within the MOU for each project covered by this Contract. Satisfaction of the terms of. this Section 17 by. the Operating Agency shall be precedent to payment as well as the initiation of services under this Contract. .. 1O TEAMT741T.7r1*! AND TE MINATTON r•nr7S _t by either party upon giving thirty (30) days notice in writingtothe other party. County Project Director, or his designee, is hereby empowered to give said notice subject to ratification by the County Board of Supervisors. County may immediately terminate this Contract upon the termination, suspension, discontinuation or substantial reduction in CDBG funding for the Contract activity or if, for any reason, the timely completion of the work under this Contract is rendered' improbable, infeasible or impossible. In such event, Operating Agency shall be compensated for all services rendered and all necessarily in- curred costs performed in good faith, in accordance with the terms of this Contract, that have not been previously reimbursed, to the date of said termination, to the extent CDBG funds are available. 19. PROGRAM INCOME. Upon termination of this Contract, the County reserves the right to determine the final disposition of any program income, as described in 24 CFR 570 and OMB Circular No. A-102. Said disposition may include the County taking possession of said program income. The Operating Agency shall submit monthly reports to the County specifying program income earned. 20. TIME OF PERFORMANCE MODIFICATIONS. The County Project Director, or his desig- nee, may grant time of performance modifications to this Contract when such modifications are: a. In the best interest of the County and Operating Agency in performing the scope of services under this Contract; b. In increments not to exceed twelve months and in aggregate do not exceed thirty-six (36) calendar months; and c. Approved by the County Project Director, or his designee, prior to expenditures being made. 21. JOINT FUNDING. For projects in which there are sources of funds in addition to CDBG funds, Operating Agency shall provide proof of such funding upon request. The County shall not payfor any services provided by Operating Agency which are funded by other sources. All restrictions and/or requirements provided for in this Contract, relative to accounting, budgeting and reporting, apply to the total project regardless of funding source. 22. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. Both parties hereto in the performance of this Contract will be acting in an'independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, joint venturers or associates_ of one another. The employees or agents of one party shall not be deemed or construed to be the agents or employees of the other party for any purpose what- soever, including workers' compensation liability. Operating Agency shall bear the sole responsibility and liability for furnishing workers' compensation benefits to any person for injuries arising from or connected with services performed on behalf of the Operating Agency pursuant to this Contract. 23. USE OF FUNDS. All funds approved under this Contract shall be used solely for costs approved in the project budget(s) for the MOU(s) under this Contract. Contract funds shall not be used as a cash advancement between contracts, as security to guarantee payments for any nonprogram obligations, or as loans for nonprogram activities. Separate financial records shall be kept for each funding source. 24. ASSIGNMENT. This Contract is not assignable by Operating Agency. Any attempt by Operating Agency to assign any performance of the terms of this Contract shall be null and void and shall constitute a material breach of this Contract. • 25. AMENDMENTS: VARIATIONS. This writing embodies the whole of the agreement of the parties hereto. There are no oral agreements not contained herein. Except as herein provided, addition to or variation of the terms of this Contract shall not be valid unless made in the form of a written amendment of this Contract formally appz'oved and executed by both parties. . 3 26. NOTICES. All notices given under this Contract shall be served in writing. The notices to the Operating'Agency shall be sent to the following address: 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Notices, reports and statements to the County shall be delivered or sent to the County Project Director or his designee, Community Development Commission of the County:of Los Angeles, 1436 Goodrich Boulevard, Commerce, California 90022. notices shall be sent pursuant to this Contract. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles has caused this Contract to be subscribed by its Chairman and the seal of said Board to be hereto af- fixed, and attested by the Executive Officer -Clerk of the Board of Supervisors thereof, and the Operating Agency has subscribed the same through its authorized officer, the day, month and year first above written. By COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES , Chairman, Board of Supervisors ATTEST: LARRY J. MONTEILH Executive Officer - Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By (t CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Operating Agency 1 W By %� -YU APPROVED AS TO FORM: DE WITT W. CLINTON County Counsel By c� °fY`° De aty APPROVED AS TO PROGRAM: DAVID N. LUND, Executive Director Community Development Commission of the County of Los Angeles ' By Director CDBG 4 ATTEST: City Clerk /1' A.ya r - By alk io�dc0s�i ADOPTED BOARD OF S!IFF ^,,.,^ --. CCUNTY rr• 3 3 JUN 27 198g r1^ &LARRY U. •'MUiN.iEFLM