Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnbudgeted Expenditures Approved by the City Council for 199 4 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date August 19, 1991 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL. Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator = 9 19� Prepared by: "Louis F. Sandoval, Director of Public WorksdF ' r ci Y CLERK Subject: FUNDS FOR THE HARBORS AND WATERWAYS COMMITTEE Consistent with Council Policy? y Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: In the recent past the City Council has provided a modest budget for the Harbors and Waterways Committee. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize a budget of $2,500.00 for the use by the committee and approve transfer of that amount from the unencumbered General Fund balance. ANALYSIS: Beginning in FY 1989-90, the City Council has approved annual "budgets" not to exceed $2,500.00 for the Harbors and Waterways Committee. This expenditure was a line item (No. 593) in the operating budget of the General Administration program (No. 410) of the Public Works Department. However, early in 1991, it was decided that the Committee would be better served by placing their funds in the Public Information Office budget in the future. As a result, Public Works did not budget for this expenditure in FY 1991-92; but, due to an oversight, neither did Public Information. FUNDING SOURCE: General Funds of $2,500.00 to be appropriated from the unencumbered General Fund fund balance and transferred into a Public Information expenditure account. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Do not fund the Committee. ATTACHMENTS: F.I.S. MTU:LFS:JS:dw 3008g/27 a r 1 P10 5/85 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA From ROBERT J. FRANZ City Administrator Deputy City Administrator Subject REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATION Date AUGUST 6, 1991 TO PROVIDE FISCAL YEAR 1991/92 BUDGET FOR THE HARBORS & WATERWAYS COMMITTEE, FIS 91-24 As required under the authority of Resolution 4832, a Fiscal Impact Statement has been prepared and submitted relative to the proposed funding for providing a budget for the Harbors and Waterways Committee for Fiscal Year 1991/92. Anticipations are that an appropriation of $2,500 would be sufficient for this purpose. Upon approval of the City Council , the balance of the aud' ed undesignated General Fund would be reduced to 3,853,000 k06ERT J. NZ Deputy City Admi istrator RJF:skd WPADSERT:466 �/ I J REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION?�30 Date July 29 . 1991 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: `w Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Prepared by: Ron Hagan, Director, Community Service Subject: SKATEBOARD AREAS AT EDISON AND MURDY COMMUNITY P �-51coroConsistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exceptfl Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alter ative Actio ttach � GIT S-TA-UMENTS?F.__13-S, There is a need to appropriate Park Acquisition and Development Funds to have the city' s contract landscape architect prepare a topographic site survey, plans and specifications for construc- tion of skateboard areas in Edison and Murdy Community Parks . EECOMEN.)IATION. Approve an expenditure not to exceed $23, 190;'from the unappro- priated Park Acquisition and Development Fund balance for Purki.ss Rose and Associates to prepare a topographic site survey and specifications for construction of unsupervised, low-intensity, "street-style" skateboard areas in Edison and Murdy Community Parks . A.N.AL_YSJ_a On June 17, 1991 , City Council approved conceptual plans for skateboard areas in parks throughout the city. Since that time, staff has met with the skateboard committee and the landscape architect, and it has been determined that the best sites for the skateboard plaza areas are Edison and Murdy Community Parks. These two parks have the best access from surrounding streets and park areas. Both skateboard areas would have minimal impact on the current facilities and activities in these parks and the sites chosen are as far from residential areas as possible. Also, from a design standpoint, the sites selected at Edison and Murdy work the best for this initial phase. The two areas which were being considered earlier, Worthy Community Park and Central Park, presented neighborhood impact problems and possible conflicting use issues. However, they are still potential sites, and may be included in a later phase. Attached is a memo from the City Attorney regarding the risk 1 exposure/liability issue. It is Community Services ' viewpoint NO 5/85 Request for City Council Action Page 2 that these skateboard areas are similar in risk exposure to tot lots , ballfields , and other active recreation areas normally found in community parks. All design features will have no vertical drop over eighteen inches, thus eliminating the potential for falls from great heights . Our research indicates that most skateboard injuries occur from doing tricks on half-pipes, ramps, and large jumps, none of which will be included in the proposed skateboard plazas . All concrete will be extra hard and color coated to resist van- dalism and discoloration. Safety rules and regulations, complete with ages and times, will be posted at each site. A safety bro- chure will be produced for an extensive publicity campaign on the proper use of the skateboard areas . No skateboarding will be allowed before 7 : 00 a.m. , after 10 : 00 p.m. , or in wet weather. While there is recreation staff onsite during operational hours, the actual skateboard plazas will be unsupervised and free to the public, as are tot lots and other play areas in community parks . It should be noted that the proposed skateboard areas are NO.T skateboard parks and DO.._.N-QT, have the half pipes , ramps, or large jumps traditionally found in commercial skateboard parks. The proposed areas are low, concrete structures containing a curb, wall and bench, such as one would find in a commercial , business district in which the city has now made it illegal to skateboard. By constructing these skateboard plazas in Edison and Murdy Com- munity Parks, the city is providing alternative places to skate- board in rather than commercial areas . This should significantly reduce the conflict between shoppers and skate-boarders and make enforcement of the "no skateboarding in business districts" ordinance easier if the police can refer skateboarders to a legal skateboard area. However, if after a time these areas prove in- effective or become a problem, the City Council can declare them off limits to skateboarders and the areas will serve as pedes- trian plazas and picnic facilities within the community parks. FUNDING SOURCE Unappropriated Park Acquisition and Development Fund balance ALTE.K1yAT I V E_ AC I.QN_S Consider other sites for skateboard areas . &.TTACHMENTS Exhibit A - Designs for skateboard areas Exhibit B - Location Maps Exhibit C - Memo from City Attorney Exhibit D - FIS Exhibit E - Letter of support RH:BF:cs F- a - . _ 1 0 NEW HARDSCAPE AREA JULY 22, 1991 SCALE: 1/8" = 1' - 0" EXHIBIT A \ W� SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 13-6-II N EEE. CITY OF - HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA USE OF PROPERTY MAP PROPOSED SITE FOR SKATEBOARD AREA AT EDISON COMMUNITY PAR I 12 2 14 13 13 I8 J+ ATLANTA AVE +L LIN N f— J vf-mxfG„L.qa' etFnv+GfUr ! - _t 1-- DR m JENNY-_ DR •-- —_- z z z DON— x 0 J CF E -to ARCEL CR 0 0 �. x w o x — .i—.._ .....�._ i� UU . 5 FRY k� 3 vrwnc�ET= 2 _ 4elE n -- --AD OR n =1--1--I I y sraw L w OR mR09fWICK - -- '` J0 — A�R�N_,.: me �� �' C F—R R I- . --a TL�e I lug I 0 2i �— c u a 11 O sA� ��__� ` x R,T1 CF- A =-NK o0 MAMILTON AV J r----- - --- - - --- '�II�l1 R 0 TA R Y 0 0 oI_z II 9CG� M U D - ,c % * . 0 co — -- D U M P TTOOR GE y' O a .R EDISON CO Z GEt'EA TMG (� � ANT O Q q °PACIFIC OCEAN O � O .o, o oo v t3 IB 24 19 �_ EXHIBIT B PLANNING SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 23-5-II SCALE IN FEET CITY OF HUNTINGTON, BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA USE OF PROPERTY MAP EDINGER AVE za r N p J m ALDRICM AVE LORGE CR (--TrFIT7TT1Tr1 8_UE5 AILS Rn � MIT ' 11 i/-V�O-L-IG-A-� DR m NI I STARK AVE STONEW000 MURDY CR AMA�J DR. CF—RCANDLI_LIGH-i CR CF'CI z - HOLT AVE. z RHONE LN E STAR,UGH, Cf. J ------------- JITANITA LN. M.'ON'LIGHT CR �.i T m MACDONALD AVE. 3 = ULIET LOW OR. VALEN-INE DR z W w a GIENCOE AV ?} 1 � NANCY DR 1 SUNLIGHT DP I I 2 rc ALMAMBRA IR AL� DR P � i HEIL RHINE CR DANUBE DR EB SEINE DR MAODOX DR z ay s Ly' OHRTS'_ER DR _ _ Z DON C F-E SATURN DR (:^-ARK ,!EW scHoJiJ 0.. m `4 LEcR•. < q p ¢ RNINE f NO— OR ARL CR. O TERRI OR ¢ NGrE 9 OpJE - MOD'—DON CF-R- DR CORSIGAN IZAMAN OR 3 O C F C D. > DAMasK DR O. C. F. C. D C6-1 Z - 'I' �f' TOULOUSE DRELI ; � S q¢e t{+I+tl;,f:: m ELK CR. o „ ii� \Lz zaza1 i i�i W ii WARNER r AVE PROPOSED SITE FOR SKATEBOARD AREA AT MURDY COMMUNITY PARK EXHIBIT B . S CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH .� INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Honorable Peter Green, Mayor, From Gail Hutton and Members of the City Council City Attorney Subject Public Liability for Date July 12, 1991 Skateboard Parks BACKGROUND: The City of Huntington Beach is considering the establishment of skateboard facilities at various parks within the city. After checking with several insurance companies, none has been located as a source of commercial liability insurance for the city' s operation of these facilities . The insurance companies indicated that the potential risk exposure is too great to insure. We spoke with Wes Bannister about the insurance issue, and he felt that this is a risky venture, since (1) there is a high level of accidents, (2) injuries tend to be serious, (3) accidents tend to happen to children, resulting in long term payments . QUESTION: What is the extent of the city' s liability for the operation of skateboard parks? ANSWER: The city is liable for any injury proximately caused by its maintenance of a dangerous condition which created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury incurred. ANALYSIS• Government tort liability in California is governed completely by statute. Under Government Code section 815, public entities may be held liable only if a statute is found declaring them to be liable. One of these is the public entity' s liability for a dangerous condition of its property. (Gov. Code § 835 . ) Section 830, subdivision (a) , defines a "dangerous condition" as " (A) condition of property that creates a substantial risk of injury when such property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used . " Property is not "dangerous" if it is safe when used with due care and risk of harm is created only when a foreseeable user EXHIBIT C w Honorable Peter Green, Mayor and Members of the City Council July 12, 1991 Page 2 fails to exercise due care. (Gray v. America West Airlines . Inc. (1989) 256 Cal .Rptr. 877, 109 Cal .App.3d 76 . ) Therefore, city must see to it that the skateboard facilities in question are safe enough for foreseeable users who exercise due care. If property is deemed to be in a "dangerous condition, " then the city loses its governmental immunity and is held to the same standard of care as a reasonable person. This is not to say, however, that the public entity has the duty to ensure the area against all possible danger since any property can be dangerous if used in a sufficiently abnormal manner . (Fuller v. State of California (1975) 51 Cal .App. 3d 926, 940, 125 Cal .Rptr. 586 . ) CONCLUSION• The skateboard facilities may constitute a dangerous condition for which the city may be held liable for torts under Gov. Code S 835 if measures are not adopted to render them safe from foreseeable users including children of tender age. RECOMMENDATIONS IF THE CITY DECIDES TO ESTABLISH SKATEBOARD FACILITIES: 1. Adopt and implement rules for the safe use of the skateboard facilities such as the certification of competent skateboarders, prohibition of alcohol or drugs in the park, disallowing any skating when it ' s wet or raining, regulating the day and hours for skating, prohibiting children under certain age from using the facilities, requiring that skateboarders wear safety gear, providing warnings and requiring such other measures which can promote safety in the use of the facilities . 2 . Secure the area from unauthorized usage by installing a fence around the facility and the path leading to it in order to deny children of tender age access to the facilities . The park ranger on patrol should be assigned to lock the facilities after skating hours . 3 . Conduct further studies regarding reasonable safety standards for skateboard parks and adopt measures conforming therewith. While these measures may help to reduce liability, they do not insulate the city from liability. �,� ail Hutton / City Attorney c CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA From ROBERT J. FRANZ City Administrator Deputy City Administrator Subject REQUESTED FUNDING FOR SKATEBOARD Date JULY 16, 1991 AREA SITE SURVEY, FIS 91-20 As required under the authority of Resolution #4832, a Fiscal Impact Statement has been prepared and submitted relative to the proposed architectural site survey for the contemplated construction of skateboard areas at the Edison and Murdy Community Parks. Anticipations are that an appropriation of $23,190 would be adequate for this purpose. Upon approval of the City Council , the balance of the unaudited, undesignated Park Acquisition and Development Fund would be reduced to $587,000. ROBERT J. FRANZ Deputy City Administrator ` � 1 By(" •f� ? DAN T. VILLELLA Director of Finance RJF:DTV:skd WPADSERT:418 EXHIBIT D I Wit_ �f lanatTrulu o 1 jurr4 16400 SPRINGDALE STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92649 AREA CODE 714 - 846-3359 June 29, 1991 Councilman Earl Robitaille City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Councilman Robitaille: I am writing to express my support for the proposed skateboard facilities in Huntington Beach. Our church grounds are frequented by skateboarders who tell me that they have no place where they can skate without running into objections. So they frequently skate in dangerous driveways and on school picnic tables where there is a high chance of injury. I know that safety and liability are your concerns as well. If a safe environment can be established expressly for this purpose, the citizens of our community and the skateboarders themselves will be much better off. It is certainly worth a try. Count me in favor of establishing the skateboard facilities that have been talked about at City Hall meetings. Sincerely, �.c Rev. Kerry Beaulieu Pastor KB/nc CITY OF �rTY 0r EXHIBIT E (1�117) REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date: 12/16/91 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator ��. Prepared by: Ronald E. Lowenberg, Chief of Police APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Subject: Orange County Jail Booking Charges , 1921. - CITY CLEK Consistent with Council Policy Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue,Recommendation,Analysis,Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: Statement of Issue: Under certain circumstances, we will book arrestees into Orange County Jail rather than our own jail facility. These might include individuals requiring specialized medical treatment or especially, the result of intermittent female staffing shortages in the jail that force us to transport female arrestees to the County. During the last half of FY90/91, the Orange County Jail gained authorization to bill municipalities for these arrestee booking charges beginning July, 1990. However, the first bill was not received until July, 1991 for the entire FY90/91, which totaled $91,168, unaudited. Since most municipalities were not prepared for these costs, particularly charges that even predate the date of authorization, the County has informally told us that the cities will probably not be held responsible for FY90/91 charges. But because of the billing timing, the anticipated charges for FY91/92 escaped this year's budget process. We have estimated these charges will be $15,000 this fiscal year, much less than last year primarily because of improved jail staffing. Fiscal year-to-date charges have reached $3,388 through October. Recommendation: Transfer $15,000 from the General Fund revenue account R-AA-PD-334-5-17-00 to the Jail's Contractual Services account E-AA-PD-334-3-90-00 to cover this fiscal year's anticipated charges. Hold the $91,168 bill for FY90/91 in abeyance until these charges can be verified and if the City will in fact be held liable for these charges. If additional funds become necessary, it will be presented for Council's consideration on a separate RCA or the normal budgetary process. i t . Analysis: These charges are unbudgeted, yet continue to mount. The County has not notified us of the consequences as we continue to grow further delinquent. But the supposed threat is the possibility of being denied county jail services at some future time. Funding Source: The City recently entered into a contract with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to temporarily house detainees awaiting deportation. Over the past two months, our accrued revenues from this contract have reached $78,075. These are the funds being deposited into account R-AA-PD-334-5-17-00. This source could be used to pay these charges and still leave a substantial revenue surplus. Alternative Actions: 1) Make no payments this fiscal year. Attachments: None. 2 RCA - ROUTING SHEET/CHECKLIST WHITE - REMAINS WITH RCA GREEN - ADMINISTRATION COPY CANARY - CITY ATTORNEY'S COPY PINK - CITY CLERK'S COPY GOLD - DEPARTMENT COPY INITIATING DEPARTMENT POLICE DATE 12/16/91 SUBJECT ORANGE COUNTY JAIL BOOKING CHARGES MEETING DATE 12/16/91 AGENDA DEADLINE 12/4/91 (TO ADMINISTRATION) YES NO PUBLIC NOTICE [ ] [x] PUBLICATION DATE LEGAL DEPARTMENT(with Exhibits) Date In Date Out INITIATING DEPARTMENT REVIEW/CHECKLIST: YES NO N/A [ ] [ ] [KXI Ordinance [ ] Exhibit 1 [ ] [ ] DCXl Resolution [ ] Exhibit 2 [ ] [ ] [y] Signed Contract [ ] Exhibit 3 [ ] [ ] [XA Signed Agreement [ ] Exhibit 4 [ ] [ ] [XA Neg. Dec/EIR [ ] ( ] [X)j Insurance Required Additional [ ] Exhibits Nbr. [ ] [ ] [ Bonds Required [ ] [ ] [y] Financial Impact Statement (Unbudgeted Items over $1,000) kX] [ ] [ ] RCA - City Council [ ] [ ] [XA RCA - Redevelopment A ency INITIATING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL BY: �9 - ONALD E. LOWENB, G, Chief of lice [ ] ADMINISTRATION REVIEW [ ] CITY CLERK FOR AGENDA COMMENTS: i I i I REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date December 16 , 1991 Submitted to: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Prepared by: Ron Hagan, Director, Community Services Subject: PARKING METER REPAIR WORKERS (RECURRENT) APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Z' - /li 19— Consistent with Council Policy? [)(] Yes [ ] New Policy or Excepti n AgQ �s Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative'Acti s i _ L �TA�EM�.NT OF IS,SU�. There is a need for additional recurrent staff to unjam and repair parking meters in order to meet revenue projections. RECOMMENDATION Approve an allocation of $8 ,520 from the Parking Authority Fund for temporary salaries to staff two, 20 hour per week, recurrent parking meter repair worker positions for the purpose of repairing jammed parking meters and maximizing meter revenues . ANALYSIS Parking meters are being jammed with pop tops and other items at the rate of 75 to 100 per day. Currently, staff is able to put back into service only 30 to 40 meters per day. Staff did a count on November 8 and found 332 jammed meters . The existing staff level is two full-time people assigned to meter repair, collection and replacement, one of which is in a training position. A financial comparison for the month of September, 1990 and 1991 is as follows: Revenue Per Meter Sept. 1990 1, 191 meters @ $41 .48 ea. = $49, 402 .68 Sept. 1991 1 ,191 meters @ $31 .15 ea. = $37 , 099. 65 Loss per month $10 .33 ea . or $12 , 303 .03 October showed a decrease from last year of $12,486 .43 and the first two weeks of November shows an even bigger decrease. If PIO 5/85 j`�/ REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Page two December 1,6, 1991 the city hired two recurrents at 20 hours per week at $8 .19 per hour for 26 weeks (January through June) , the total cost would be $8 , 520. The city would recoup this cost from lost revenue very soon. Staff believes that after two to three months of immediate repair of meters, the vandals will get discouraged and the jamming will be reduced significantly, possibly to the extent that the two full-time employees could handle it and the recurrents could be dismissed. Hiring two recurrents and training them in-house costs the city approximately $16 per hour. If the city contracted these services, the rate would be $50 per hour plus travel cost from Los Angeles. An entire meter replacement program with state of the art digitals will be addressed during the upcoming budget process; however, there is a need to act immediately to unjam and repair existing meters to avoid a huge loss in revenue over the next six months. AT,TERNATIMF ACTION. 1 . Do not take remedial action at this time which will result in a loss of approximately $72 , 000 in revenue. 2 . Contract for repairs at a cost of $50 per hour. F-UNDING SO.0 Parking Authority Fund AT ACHMENT Fiscal Impact Statement RH:cs CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA From ROBERT J. FRANZ City Administrator Deputy City Administrator Subject REQUESTED FUNDING TO Date NOVEMBER 22, 1991 PROVIDE FOR RECURRENT PARKING METER REPAIRMEN FIS 91-39 As required under the authority of Resolution 4832, a Fiscal Impact Statement has been prepared and submitted relative to the proposed funding for two temporary recurrent parking meter technician positions for the duration of the Fiscal Year. An appropriation of $8,520 should be adequate for this purpose. Upon approval of the City Council , the balance of the unaudited, undesignated Parking Authority Fund would be reduced to $121 ,000. t ROBERT Z. FRA Deputy City A�inistrator RJF:skd WPADSERT:670 RCA - ROUTING SHEET/CHECKLIST WHITE - REMAINS WITH RCA GREEN - ADMINISTRATION COPY CANARY - CITY ATTORNEY'S COPY PINK - CITY CLERK'S COPY GOLD - DEPARTMENT COPY INITIATING DEPARTMENT Community Services DATE 11/25/91 SUBJECT PARKING METER REPAIR WORKERS (RECURRENT) MEETING DATE December 16, 1991 AGENDA DEADLINE December 4, 1991 (TO ADMINISTRATION) YES NO PUBLIC NOTICE [ ] [ ] PUBLICATION DATE LEGAL DEPARTMENT(with Exhibits) Date In Date Out INITIATING DEPARTMENT REVIEW/CHECKLIST: YES NO N/A [ ] [ ] [ X] Ordinance [ ] Exhibit 1 [ ] [ ] [ X] Resolution [ ] Exhibit 2 [ ] [ ] [ X] signed Contract [ ] Exhibit 3 [ ] [ ] [ X] signed Agreement [ ] Exhibit 4 [ ] [ ] [ X] Neg. Dec/EIR [ ] [ ] [ X] Insurance Required Additional [ ] Exhibits Nbr. [ ] [ ] [ X] Bonds Required [X ] [ ] [ ] Financial Impact Statement (Unbudgeted Items Over $1,000) [X ] [ ] [ ] RCA - City Council [ ] [ ] [ X] RCA - Redevelopment Agenc INITIATING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL BY: [ ] ADMINISTRATION REVIEW [ X] CITY CLERK FOR AGENDA COMMENTS: A IRCA - ROUTING SHEET/CHECKLIST WHITE - REMAINS WITH RCA GREEN - ADMINISTRATION COPY CANARY - CITY ATTORNEY'S COPY ' PINK - CITY CLERK'S COPY .' GOLD - DEPARTMENT COPY INITIATING DEPARTMENT Community Services DATE 11/25/91 ' xa SUBJECT PARKING METER REPAIR WORKERS (RECURRENT) " MEETING DATE December 16, 1991 AGENDA DEADLINE December 4, 1991 (TO ADMINISTRATION) YES NO PUBLIC NOTICE [ ] [ ] PUBLICATION DATE LEGAL DEPARTMENT(with Exhibits) Date In Date Out INITIATING DEPARTMENT REVIEW/CHECKLIST: YES NO N/A ( ] [ ] [ X] ordinance [ ] Exhibit 1 [ ] [ ] [ X] Resolution [ ] Exhibit 2 [ ] [ ] [ X] Signed contract [ ] Exhibit 3 [ ] [ ] [ X] Signed Agreement [ ] Exhibit 4 [ ] [ ] [ X] Neg. Dec/EIR [ ] [ ] [ X] Insurance Required Additional [ ] Exhibits Nbr. [ ] [ ] [ X] Bonds Required [X ] [ ] [ ] Financial Impact statement (Unbudgeted Items over $1,000) [X ] [ ] [ ] RCA - City Council [ ] ( ] [ X] RCA - Redevelopment Agency INITIATING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL BY: [ ] ADMINISTRATION REVIEW [ X] CITY CLERK FOR AGENDA COMMENTS: Y REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date 12/16/91 Submitted to: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS Submitted by: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrator Prepared by: RONALD E. LOWENBERG, Chief of Police APPROVED BY CITY CUUNCYa, Subject: EXPANSION OF WOMEN'S LOCKER ROOM 19 Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ) New Policy or Exception ciT °Lt - I;�[x Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments: Statement of Issue: When the current police building was designed and built, the police department's work force was male-dominated. As philosophies and attitudes have changed, so has the work force. We now have an increased number of female employees working in the police department to include patrol officer assignments. We have in the past modified the women's locker room to accommodate additional female personnel . As of this date, we have no lockers or space for additional lockers in the women's locker room. As we continue to hire female police officers, we must expand and modify the females' locker room. The police department budgeted $12,000 for modification of the women's locker room. This amount was requested on the basis of anticipated growth of sworn female officers and job estimates. Our success in recruiting and hiring female personnel has been greater than we anticipated, and the construction bids were more than estimates we had initially received. This creates i:he need for an additional $14,794. Recommendation: Respectfully request the approval of this project which will require the appropriation of $14,794 from the Fund balance, Capital Improvements Project Fund, in addition to the original budgeted amount of $12,000. Analysis: As more and more women enter the work force, reasonable and appropriate accommodations must occur. Existing locker space for female employees is inadequate. We have remodeled and reconfigured to the limit with the space available. Our current plans are to expand into the Records storage area, resulting in the addition of 45 full lockers and 35 one-half lockers. This will be able to accommodate not only all the sworn female employees but the civilian employees as well , such as parking control , field service officers, etc. Funding Source: Fund balance, Capital Improvements Project Funds. Alternative Actions: Deny the request. The result would be a lack of locker space for female employees. Attachments: None. Plo 5/85 1BCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To ROBERT FRANZ From R. E. LOWENBERG Deputy City Administrator Chief of Police Subject REQUEST FOR F.I.S. Date NOVEMBER 26, 1991 Attached to this memo is a copy of an RCA which is being submitted for the December 16th council meeting. It is requesting the appropriation of $14,794 from the fund balance, Capital Improvements Project Fund, to complete the expansion of the women's locker room. Would you please check the account and determine if this money is available for use, and prepare the required F.I.S. in time for the listed council meeting. REL/grs Encl RCA - ROUTING SHEET/CHECKLIST WHITE - REMAINS WITH RCA GREEN - ADMINISTRATION COPY CANARY - CITY ATTORNEY'S COPY PINK - CITY CLERK'S COPY GOLD - DEPARTMENT COPY INITIATING DEPARTMENT POLICE DATE 11/26/91 SUBJECT EXPANSION OF WOMEN'S LOCKER ROOM MEETING DATE 12/16/91 AGENDA DEADLINE 12/04/91 (TO ADMINISTRATION) YES NO PUBLIC NOTICE [ ] [ ] PUBLICATION DATE LEGAL DEPARTMENT(with Exhibits) Date In Date Out INITIATING DEPARTMENT REVIEW/CHECKLIST: YES NO N/A [ ] [ ] [X] Ordinance [ ] Exhibit 1 [ ] [ ] [X] Resolution [ ] Exhibit 2 [ ] [ ] [X] Signed Contract [ ] Exhibit 3 [ ] [ ] [X] Signed Agreement [ ] Exhibit 4 [X] Neg. Dec/EIR [X] Insurance Required Additional [ ] Exhibits Nbr. [ ] [ ] [X] Bonds Required [ ] [ ] Financial Impact Statement r (Unbudgeted Items Over $1,000) [X] [ ] [ ] RCA - City Council ( ] [ j [ ] RCA - Redevelopment Agenc INITIATING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL BY: r ALD LOWENBERG ef of Police [ ] ADMINISTRATION REVIEW [ ] CITY CLERK FOR AGENDA COMMENTS: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA From ROBERT J. FRANZ City Administrator Deputy City Administrator Subject REQUESTED ADDITIONAL FUNDING Date DECEMBER 4, 1991 TO COMPLETE THE EXPANSION OF FEMALE EMPLOYEES LOCKER ROOM FIS 91-42 As required under the authority of Resolution 4832, a Fiscal Impact Statement has been prepared and submitted relative to the proposed additional funding needed to complete the expansion of the womens locker room facilities in the Police Department. An appropriation of $14,794, when coupled with the previously budgeted $12,000, should be adequate for this purpose. Upon approval of the City Council , the balance of the unaudite , undesignated Capital Improvement Fund would be reduced to $79 , -0 . ROBERT J. Deputy City Admi istrator RJF:skd WPADSERT:686 R REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date nian er,2T1°91 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council �lFF'A 00VED BY CITY CO-UN C^ Submitted by: Michael T. Uberua a, City Administrato� - � Am04) 19.pf Prepared by: Louis F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works A CI CLE K 1 Subject: BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR REPLACEMENT OF STREET TREES Consistent with Council Policy? )K] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: City Council approval is needed for a budget appropriation. RECOMMENDATION: Approve an appropriation of $10,000 to fund the purchase of replacement street trees when the costs of those trees are reimbursed by residents. ANALYSIS• In the past, the City has replaced dead or dying and damage causing street trees without cost to property owners. However, due to budget constraints, this is no longer our policy. Because of reductions made in our operating accounts, we must now charge a fee for this service and will not replace a tree which we have been forced to remove unless the residents pay the City $125 for the new tree and related planting materials. The public has accepted this new service charge and we have collected $3,000 for 24 replacement trees since July 1, 1991. We now estimate that we will receive another $7,000 for 56 additional trees this fiscal year. But an accounting problem has arisen. The Finance Division requires that the $125 service fee be treated as revenue to the General Fund; and in order to make use of the property owner's money to buy replacement trees, the City Council must make a budget appropriation for same. We therefore, request an appropriation of $10,000 from which to purchase and plant replacement trees when so requested by residents. No expenditures will be made unless a like amount has been received from the property owners. FUNDING SOURCE: The unappropriated General Fund balance. ATTACHMENT: F.I.S. LFS:JS:lb LP 3114g/4 PIO 5/85 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA From ROBERT J. FRANZ City Administrator Deputy City Administrator Subject REQUEST FUNDING FOR THE Date NOVEMBER 12, 1991 REPLACEMENT OF DYING TREES FIS 91-37 As required under the authority of Resolution 4832, a Fiscal Impact Statement has been prepared and submitted relative to the proposed replacement of dead or dying trees, as well as those trees causing extensive property damage. An appropriation of $10,000 should be adequate for this purpose. Upon approval of the City Council , the balance of the unau ed, undesignated General Fund would be reduced to $3,478,000. OBERT NZ Deputy City dministrator RJF:skd WPADSERT:656 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTIO ' 1_ Date November 4, 1991 Submitted to: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Prepared by: Ron Hagan, Director, Community Services . Subject: SHOWMOBILE OVERTIME EXPENSE FOR APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY SERVICES ACTIVITIES h _ Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Excepti CIT cLEN { Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE There is a need to use the Showmobile at Community Services events, but Public Works does not have the overtime funds to transport the showmobile to and from event locations. RECOMMENDATIONS Approve $2,600 from the General Fund to be added to the Public Works overtime account so that the Park, Tree and Landscape Division can transport the Showmobile for Community Services special events. ANALYSIS Traditionally, the Park, Tree and Landscape Division of Public Works has transported the Showmobile to event locations for the many Community Services activities and special events offered each year ranging from anti-drug activities to community festivals. Due to budget reductions, Community Services has been informed that it will now have to pay for the associated overtime costs for Public Works. Since this has occurred mid budget year and Community Services has experienced its own cutbacks, it is impossible for Community Services to provide the necessary funding from its existing budget for this fiscal year. The Showmobile is an essential element for these activities because it provides a raised stage with an amplification system that creates the primary focal point to conduct the activities and address the public. Therefore, an allocation of $2,600 is being requested to pay overtime for the Public Works staff to transport the Showmobile. PIO 5/85 •t REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Page two FUNDING SOURCE General Fund ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Do not provide the Showmobile for Community Services activities which will inhibit all activities and possibly cause the elimination of some of these events. ATTACHMENTS Fiscal Impact Statement RH:JBE:am CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGT0N BEACH To MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA From ROBERT J. FRANZ City Administrator Deputy City Administrator Subject REQUESTED FUNDING FOR SHOWMOBILE Date OCTOBER 22, 1991 OVERTIME EXPENSE F.I.S. 91-36 As required under the authority of Resolution 4832, a Fiscal Impact Statement has been prepared and submitted relative to the proposed funding for City Forces to assist in the transportation of the Showmobile to and from Event Locations. An appropriation in the amount of $2,600 would be adequate for this purpose. Upon approval of the City Council , the balanc of the unau t d, undesignated General Fund would be reduced to $3,510,000 ROBERT J. FRAN Deputy City Administrator RJF:pdc WPADSERT:615 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date October 7 1991 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED BY CITY COUNCI. Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator ^� / d — 7 19Q Prepared by: Michael P. Dolder, Fire Chiefa.:�cjz cfTY CL9RK Subject: TELEPHONE BUDGET DEFICIT 1990/91 FISCAL YEAR Consistent with Council Policy? [A Yes ( ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The City of Huntington Beach installed a new telephone system during fiscal year 1990/91. An analysis of the funding for this expenditure identifies an operating and capital under-funding of $192,429. The final billings are due and payment is currently taking place from the 1991/92 fiscal year operating budget. RECOMMENDATION: Provide additional funds to pay balance due on the telephone system installation by appropriating $192,429 from the unencumbered General Fund balance. ANALYSIS: The funding request of $192,429 consists of two budget categories, operating and capital. Specifically, $43,525 is needed to pay unanticipated capital expenditures for the new telephone system, and $148,903 is required for the operating costs of the new telephone system installation. Operating Invoices: The telephone system cutover was originally scheduled for October, 1990; however, because of design and hardware delays, the project was not started until February, 1991. Operating costs were also higher because of the selected Tl operating configuration. Capital Invoices: The contract price for the telephone system was $953,000. The City provided a 5% contingency of$47,650, making the total project amount $1,000,650. Typically, the City provides a 10% contingency fund for unexpected costs; in this instance, only a 5% contingency was provided. The unanticipated. capital costs for the telephone system totalled 9.814% of the contract costs. FUNDING SOURCE: Fund balance from the General Fund in the amount of $192,429. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Do not fund the operating and capital accounts and continue to make payments from the 1991/92 fiscal year budgets. By using the 1991/92 fiscal year budget appropriation, the account will be depleted by January 1, 1992. ATTACHMENTS: Financial Impact Statement. 7 MPD/NDS/cgs �F)V H ;vw�: NJLt "h I N n H A:RCANICKS.CS3 L ' 'll a3A1333), No 5/85 x � CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA From ROBERT J. FRANZ City Administrator Deputy City Administrator Subject REQUESTED FUNDING FOR Date SEPTEMBER 27, 1991 BALANCE DUE ON 1990/91 TELEPHONE SYSTEM CUTOVER FIS 91-33 As required under the authority of Resolution 4832, a Fiscal Impact Statement has been prepared and submitted relative to the funding necessary in satisfying the outstanding balance due for the Telephone System Installation of last year. An appropriation of $192,429 would be adequate for this purpose. Upon approval of the City Council , the balance the unaudite , undesignated General Fund would be reduced to $3,499,000. i" RORERT J. Deputy City AcTministrator RJF:AR:skd WPADSERT:577 J RE Q D c�DTc� COUNC 2 L ACT=ON �.. 19-U Date August 19, 1991 -DPP Y CL RS Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Prepared by: Ronald E. Lowenberg, Chief of Police Subject: PURCHASE OF TAPE DRIVES Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments; STATEMENT OF ISSUE Backing up data on the Public Safety Computer System now requires several hours of employee time weekly. The police department is recommending the purchase of an 8mm tape drive backup for each computer to reduce employee manpower needs and operational costs . RECOMMENDATION Approve the purchase of two (2 ) 5 . 0 gigabyte tape drives with funds from the Narcotic Forfeiture Fund Balance Account in the amount of $18, 310 . ANALYSIS The existing computer backup system takes about four hours nightly of which two hours require monitoring by an employee. The monitoring employee is a Communications dispatcher working in an area that habitually operates below full strength. Backup also requires about 14 hours of time monthly by one of the two computer maintenance specialists . An additional expense is that a complete backup requires about 12 reels of tape. The requested new tape drives will allow daily backups without changing tapes and will not require attendance by dispatch personnel . It will also greatly reduce the time required for monthly backups by 50 percent or more and result in less cost for tapes . By purchasing two tape drives at one time, we will be given a $1, 900 discount on the second drive. FUNDING SOURCE Account Number GSN 30101-Narcotic Forfeiture Fund Balance Account. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Because this is relatively new technology, we know of no other alternatives other than to continue using the existing backup system. ATTACHMENTS None s� RCA - ROUTING; SHEET/CHECKLIST f WHITE - REMAINS WITH RCA GREEN - ADMINISTRATION COPY CANARY - CITY ATTORNEY'S COPY PINK - CITY CLERK'S COPY GOLD - DEPARTMENT COPY INITIATING DEPARTMENT Police DATE 8/l/91 SUBJECT Purchase of Tape Drives MEETING DATE 8/19/91 AGENDA DEADLINE 8/7/91 (TO ADMINISTRATION) YES NO PUBLIC NOTICE [ ] [ X] PUBLICATION DATE LEGAL DEPARTMENT(With Exhibits) Date In Date Out INITIATING DEPARTMENT REVIEW/CHECKLIST: YES NO N/A ( ] [ ] [<j ordinance [ ] Exhibit 1 Resolution [ ] Exhibit 2 [ ] [ ) [ Signed Contract [ ] Exhibit 3 [ ) [ ] Signed Agreement [ ) Exhibit 4 ( ] [ ] [ Neg. Dec/EIR Insurance Required Additional [ ] Exhibits Nbr. [ ] ( ] (),L' Bonds Required [ ] [ ) D, f Financial Impact Statement (Unbudgeted Items Over $1,000) [ ) [ ) RCA - City Council RCA - Redevelopment Agency INITIATING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL BY: . E. L BERG, Chief olice [ ] ADMINISTRATION REVIEW [ ] CITY CLERK FOR AGENDA COMMENTS: ' REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date 8/19/91 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council " Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator- U �� Prepared by: Ron Hagan, Director, Community Services CAMPERSHIP DONATION AP 80VED BY CITY COUNCIL Subject: g S+ " / 19-VO Consistent with Council Policy? ( ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Except o 7"-"M I Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE Community Services has received a donation of $150 to be used to send children to summer camp. RECOMMENDATION Approve an appropriation of $150 from the Community Services' account R-DA-831-00-CS-350 to the expenditure account E-AA-CS- 350-221 in order to fund two camperships. ANALYSIS Each summer, Community Services offers the "Fun in the Sun" handicapped day camp programs. The program is for children ages 8-21 who are physically handicapped. We request that we be able to expend the $150 donated by the Midway City Senior Citizens Club in order to send two children to camp. FUNDING SOURCE Private donation ALTERNATIVE ACTION Do not approve using the donation to fund two children at summer camp. ATTACHMENT None RH: sf PIO 5185 RCA - ROUTING SHEET/CHECKLIST F WHITE - REMAINS WITH RCA GREEN - ADMINISTRATION COPY CANARY - CITY ATTORNEY'S COPY PINK - CITY CLERK'S COPY GOLD - DEPARTMENT COPY INITIATING DEPARTMENT Community Services DATE 7/31/91 SUBJECT Donation to Fun in the Sun Handicapped Day Camp MEETING DATE 8/19/91 AGENDA DEADLINE 8/7/91 (TO ADMINISTRATION) YES NO PUBLIC NOTICE [ ] [(/r PUBLICATION DATE LEGAL DEPARTMENT(With Exhibits) Date In Date Out INITIATING DEPARTMENT REVIEW/CHECKLIST: YES NO N/A [ ] [ ] [!,f Ordinance [ ] Exhibit 1 [ ] [ ] [yam Resolution [ ) Exhibit 2 ( ] [ ] [4X" Signed Contract [ ] Exhibit 3 [ ] [ ] [Ly"" Signed Agreement [ ) Exhibit 4 [ ] [ ) [Lj/ Neg. Dec/EIR [ ] [ ) [L / Insurance Required Additional [ ] Exhibits Nbr. [ ] [ ] [L--]/ Bonds Required [ ] [ ] [Financial Impact statement (Unbudgeted Items over $1,000) [ ] [ ] RCA - city council [ l [ l [►- RCA - Redevelopment Ag y INITIATING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL BY: [ ] ADMINISTRATION REVIEW [ ] CITY CLERK FOR AGENDA COMMENTS: .�i 302 0. q S' 4 ` REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date May 20, 1991 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by:Michael Uberuaga, City AdministraQVC�Z ZT Prepared by: Richard Barnard, Deputy City Administrator Subject: Air Quality Technical Assistance Program P1tOVED BY CITY COUNCIL Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exceptiort Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE At the April 11, 1991, General membership meeting of the Orange County Division, League of California Cities, it was unanimously approved, for Orange County cities to financially participate with Orange County, Orange County Transportation Authority(OCTA) , Transportation Corridor Agency, and the Orange County Sanitation District, in the Air Quality Technical Assistance Program. The purpose of the program is to develop a unified Air Quality Management Plan for Orange County that will be submitted to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the Southern California Air Quality Management District. Huntington Beach share of the total cost for participation in the Air Quality Technical Assistance Program is $993.00. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Administrator to expend $993.00 from the city's Non-Departmental Contingency Account as the City of Huntington Beach portion of the Orange County cities share related to development of a Air Quality Program for the County. ANALYSIS The County of Orange, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) , the Transportation Corridor Agency, the Orange County Sanitation District and the cities of Orange County are responsible for the development of a plan of action for implementation of various strategies found within the Southern California Air Quality Management Plan. In order to insure a coordinated effort the agencies mentioned above have decided to join together to develop a unified approach when developing strategies which address the air quality issue. Each major participant has agreed to contribute $15,000 each for a total V � Plo 5/85 Page 2 Air Quality Technical Assistance Program budget of $75,000. These funds will be used to pay for the consulting services of the Planning Center which will provide technical expertise to the Regional Advisory Planning Committee (RAPC) . RAPC'S role is to provide coordination among the various agencies involved in the planning effort and to be the body that formally approves the final Air Quality document for Orange County prior to its submission to SCAG AND AQMD. Councilwomen Grace Winchell sits as a voting member of RAPC and represents the cities within the Second Supervisory District. FUNDING SOURCE City Council Inter-Governmental Budget ALTERNATIVE Not to financially participate with all other orange county cities in helping fund the Air Quality Technical Assistance Program. ATTACHMENTS Invoice from the Orange County Division, League of California Cities. MTU/RDB Orange County Division League of California Cities F_ Memorandum Date: April 19, 1991 TO: City of Huntington Beach From: Orange County Division Attn: City Manager League of California Cities Subject: One-Ti.me Special Assessment Air Quality Technical Assistance Program INVOICE At the Apri.1 11, 1991 General Meeting, the general me.mbership unanimously approved a one-time special assessment to cities to cover the costs associated with participation in the Air Quality Technical Assistance Program. The portion assessed to the City of Huntington Beach is $993.00. Please remit this sum to the Orange County Division office as soon as possible. Payable To: Orange County Division League of California Cities 600 West Santa Ana Boulevard Suite 410 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Ph: (714) 972-0077 Thank you I CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADMINSTRATIVE OFFICE AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE Cost Breakdown by Percentage of Incorporated Population Incorporated Population: 2,207,990 (1990 Census) $174 base/ .0045 per capita Formula-Based City Contribution Anaheim $ 1,374 Brea 321 Buena Park 597 Costa Mesa 608 Cypress 366 Dana Point 318 Fountain Valley 417 Fullerton 689 Garden Grove 819 Huntington Beach 993 Irvine 673 La Habra 406 La Palma 243 Laguna Beach 278 Laguna Niguel 374 Los Alamitos 226 Mission Viejo 502 Newport Beach 475 Orange 672 Placentia 359 San Clemente 359 San Juan Capistrano 292 Santa Ana 1,500 Seal Beach' 287 Stanton 311 Tustin 403 Villa Park 202 Westminster 526 Yorba Linda 410 $ 15,000 3 y/ 020.y-5 ' REQUEST FOR CITY C UNCIL ACTION Date Aori 1 1, 1991 Submitted to: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Submitted by: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrator 19- Prepared by: RONALD E. LOWENBERG, Chief of Police °ITY CLERK Subject: TRANSFER OF STANDARDS AND TRAINING FOR CDRrIONS (S.T.C.) G�UNDS Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes ( ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE The police department is requesting the transfer of California State S.T.C. grant funds in order to meet state-mandated training for detention officers. RECOMMENDATION Authorize, in consultaion with and approval of the City Administrator, the transfer of the 1990-1991 S.T.C. grant funds ($10,250) from the general fund to the jail training account. ANALYSIS Based upon training plans submitted to and approved by the California State Board of Corrections, each fiscal year the City of Huntington Beach receives into the general fund S.T.C. grant funds. The purpose of these funds is to financially assist the city in providing state-mandated training for detention officers. In the past, to make these funds immediately available, the police department's training unit and the city accounting office agreed to create a jail training account and fund it at the beginning of each fiscal year equal to the approved S.T.C. funding. Recently, however, the City Attorney has ruled that this transfer of funds requires council action in order to be lawful . FUNDING SOURCE From funds received from the State of California pursuant to California Penal Code Section 6040 (Standards and Training for Corrections Program) . ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Transfer approved S.T.C. grant funds for fiscal year 1990-1991 ($10,250) from the general fund to the jail training account. B. Do not approve transfer. ATTACHMENTS A. 1990-1991 S.T.C. approved training plan. ` B. City Ordinance No. 2689. REL:GM:gsd r' } ORDTNANCE NO. 2689 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SUPPORTING AN APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA BOARD OF CORRECTIONS TO RECEIVE FUNDS TO PAR- TICIPATE IN THE STANDARDS AND TRAINING FOR CORRECTIONS PROGRAM (STC) WHEREAS, California' Penal Code Title 7 , Chapter 5 , Articles 2 and 3 (commencing with section 6035 ) , provides that a city may receive state aid in order to train custodial per- sonnel in a local detention facility; and The Huntington Beach Police Department washes to avail itself of such training, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1 . While receiving any state aid, the Huntington Beach Police Department will adhere to the standards for selec- tion and training, established by the California Board of Corrections , as required under California Penal Code sec- tion 6041 . SECTION 2 . This ordinance shall take effect thirty days -after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of June 1984 . ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney ahb N 4/12/84 1, REVIEWED AND APPROVED : INITIATED AND APPROVED : i City Administrato Chief Police i ARTICLE 2. STANDARDS AND TRAINING OF LOCAL CORRECTIONS AND PROBATION OFFICERS Sec. 6035. Training standards. 6036. Powers of board. 6037. Administrative costs. 6036, 6039. Repealed. § 6035. Training standards (a) For the purpose of raising the level of compe- tence of local corrections and probation officer's, the board shall adopt, and may from time to time amend, rules establishing minimum standards for the selec- tion and training for such officers employed by any city, county, or city and county. All such rules shall be adopted and amended pursuant to Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 11371) of Part 1 of Divi- sion 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. (b) Any city, county, or city and county receiving state aid pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 6040) shall adhere to the standards for selection and training established by the board. The hoard may defer the promulgation of selection stan- dards until necessary research for Job relatedness is completed. In such case. and until selection stan- dards are adopted. L city, county or city and county may receive state aid upon certification of willing- ness to adhere to the training standards pursuant to Section 6041. (c) Minimum training standards may include, but are not limited to, basic, entry, continuation, supervi- sor`, management, and specialized assignments. (d) Training standards shall apply to all local corrections and probation officers employed by juris- dictions receiving funds under Article 3(commencing with Section 6040). Exemptions from this require- ment for personnel hired prior to July 1, 1980, shall be determined by the board. For the purpose of such exemptions, the board may develop written or oral equivalency examinations, a certification proc- ess which recognizes standards equivalency through a combination of professional experience and train- ing, or a combination of examination and certifica- tion. (Added by StaL%.1979,c. 1148.g 2. Amended by Stats.1980, c. 1003, § 1.) Former 5 6035 was repealed by Stats.1976, c. 1139. § 300.3. Original § 6035 was repealed b%. Stats.1949• c. 520. 4 1. § 6036. Powers of board For purposes of implementing this article, the board shall have the .following powers: (a) Approve or certify, or both, training and educa- tion courses at institutions approved by the board. (b) Make such inquiries as may be necessary to determine whether every city, county, and city and county receiving state aid pursuant to this chapter is adhering to the standards for selection and training established pursuant to this chapter. (c) Develop and operate a professional certificate program which provides recognition of achievement for local corrections and probation officers whose agencies participate in the program. (d) Adopt such regulations as are necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter. (e) Perform such other activities and studies as would carry out the intent of this article. (Added by Stats.1979,c. 1148,§2. Amended by Stats.1980, c. 1003, § 2.) Former § 6036 was repealed be Stats.1949, c 52(1. C1. Original § 6036 was repealed by Stats.1949, c. 52o. § 1. § 6037. Administrative costs In exercising its functions, the board shall endear- . or to minimize costs of administration, so that a maximum of funds will be expended for the purpose of providing training and other services to eligible corrections and probation departments. (Added by Stats.1979. c. 1148, § 2.) Former § 6037 was repealed be Stats.1976, c. ;i39. § 300.3. Original § 6037 was repealed by Stats.1949, c. 520, § 1. §§ 6038, 6039. Repealed by Stats.1976, c. 1139, § 300.3 ARTICLE 3. CORRECTIONS TRAINING FUND Sec. G040. Creation of fund: appropriation. 6041. Application for aid. 6042. Allocation of funds. 6043. Ineligible persons. 6044. Report to legislature. 6040. Creation of fund; appropriation There is hereby created in the State Treasury a Corrections Training;Fund,which is hereby appropri- ated, without regard to fiscal years, exclusively for the costs of administration, the development of appropriate standards, the development of training, program evaluation, and grants to local government pursuant to this article. i § 6041. Application for aid Any city, county, or city and county which desires to receive state aid pursuant to this article shall make application to the board for such aid. The initial application shall be accompanied by a certified copy of an ordinance adopted by the governing body- providing that, while receiving any state aid pursu- ant to this article, the city, county, or city and county, will adhere to the standards for selection and training established by the board. The application shall contain such information as the board may ' request. (Added by Stats.1979,c. 1148,§3. Amended by Stats.1980, c. 1003, § 4.) Former § 6041 was repealed by Stats.1976• c. 1139, § 300.3. 60,12. Allocation of funds The board shall annually allocate and the State Treasurer shall periodically pay from the Corrections Training Fund, at intervals specified by the board, to each city, county, or city and county which has applied and qualified for aid pursuant to this article an amount determined by the board pursuant to standards set forth in its regulations. In no event shall any allocation be made to any city, county or city and county which is not adhering to the selection and training standards established by the board as applicable to such city, county, or city and county. (Added by Stats.1979, c. 1148.§3. Amended b Stats.19K C. ION. § 5.) Former § 6042 was rc•praled by Suas.1976, c. '.1a9, § 300.3. § 6043. Ineligible persons Peace officer personnel, whose jurisdictions are eligible for training subvention pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing',yith Section 13500) of Title 4 of Part 4 shall not be eligible to receive funds under this article, except that peace officers assigned full time to correctional duties may undergo training in cor- rectional subjects and their jurisdictions may receive funds under this article for such training. (Added by Stats.1979,c. 1148, §3. Amended by Stat.s.1980, C. 1003, § 6.) Former § 6043 was repealed by S=,.1976, c. 1139, § 300.3. 6014. Report to legislature In order for the Legislature to determine the need to continue or modify the standards and training program for local corrections personnel, the board shall on June 30, 1931, and annually thereafter, submit a report to the Legislature regarding the progress and effectiveness of the program. (Added by Stats.1980, c. 1003, § 7.) . Ord. No. 2689 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) s : CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) ' I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of May 19 84 , and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of June 19 84 and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Councilmen: MacAllister, Thomas; Kelly, Finley, Bailey, Mandic NOES : Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Pattinson City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California l Alicia M. Wentworth CITY CLERK of the City at The foregoing instrument is a correct timtiWon Beach and ex•oificlo clerk of the City copy of the original on file in this office_ Council, do hereby certify that a synopsis of t?-4s ordinarice has been published In the Huntington Attest y , y 19� 3each Independent on ALICIA M. WENTWORTH City Clerk and Ex•officio Clerk of the City in a:ccrdance vr;th tree City Charter of said efty. Council.of the City of Huntington Beach, ALICIA M. WENTWOR h .........._............_....._.._............_............................._ California.. , CRY CW* B �2� � Deputy kL. . r' y _. .. .........�_ Deputy City Clark RONALD E. LOWENBERG June 15, 1990 CHIEF OF POLICE 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 Annual Training Plan Approval: Huntington Beach Police Department Pursuant to Title 15, Division 1, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 7, Section 297, California Code of Regulations, your department's Annual Training Plan for Fiscal Year 1990-1991 is approved. The plan approval authorizes expenditures for training effective July 1, 1990. The total allotment based on 18 positions, which includes 5 entry-level staff, is $10,250.00. M � t3 In accordance with the regulations, if the number of eligible positions rIF C%Q or the actual staff trained in the core category are less than N v p %,o projected in your Annual Training Plan, funds allotted to those rr'i G 5 positions are to be returned to the Corrections Training Fund at the end of the fiscal year. L11 rn a) In accordance with your request, funds will be disbursed for deposit in the City's designated account for the Standards and Training for Corrections (STC) Program as follows: Approved 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Total $3,500.00 $4,000.00 $2,750.00 $0.00 $10,250.00 The State Controller has been notified regarding the approval for disbursement of funds. The funds are to be sent to: DAN VILLELLA DIRECTOR OF FINANCE 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 / Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact your assigned Field Representative, Ron C. Jenkins. Sincerely, Thomas E. Connell Deputy Director cc: DAN VILLELLA Revised 5/30/89 STC-012 Standards and Training for Corrections Program Annual Training Plan Application FACE SHEET 1. County: 59 Orange 2. Department: 182 Police Department 3. Person Preparing Report : 4. Financial Officer: PATRICK CLEMENS ROBERT SEDLAK TRAINING OFFICER PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT (714) 5365628 (714) 5365907 2000 MAIN STREET 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH 92648 5. Fiscal Year : 1991 6. Total Number of Eligible Budgeted Positions: 18 7. Estimated Number of Training Hours Scheduled by Quarter: 1st 328 2nd 320 3rd 216 4th 0 8. Total Estimated Number of Training Hours Scheduled: 864 9. Estimated Costs per Quarter: lst $ 3500.00 2nd $ 4000.00 3rd $ 2750.00 4th $ .00 10. Total Estimated Cost of Training Plan $ 10250.00 Signed By: RONALD E. LOWENBERG Title : CHIEF OF POLICE Signed on 41290 12. Disbursement of Training Funds: County of : CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH C/o Name: DAN VILLELLA Title : DIRECTOR OF FINANCE Address: 2000 MAIN STREET City: HUNTINGTON BEACH ZIP: 92648 Phone : (714) 5365228 y i Annual Training Plan Application D200B DEPARTMENT: 182 Police Department YEAR: 1991 ELIGIBLE BUDGETED POSITIONS 18 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- NUMBER OF QUARTER REPLACE- TRAVEL PER TUITION TOTALS TRAINING MENT COSTS DIEM COSTS HOURS COSTS COSTS 328 1ST .00 400.00 1950.00 1150.00 3500.00 320 2ND .00 350.00 2250.00 1400.00 4000.00 216 3RD .00 250.00 1500.00 1000.00 2750.00 0 4TH .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 864 TOTALS .00 1000.00 5700.00 3550.00 10250.00 Annual Training Plan Application Worksheet C DEPARTMENT: 182 Police Department YEAR: 1991 JOB CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY 1 ELIGIBLE BUDGETED POSITIONS IN CATEGORY 1 I NUMBER OF QUARTER REPLACE- TRAVEL PER TUITION TOTALS TRAINING MENT COSTS DIEM COSTS HOURS COSTS COSTS 40 1ST .00 100.00 300.00 100.00 500.00 0 2ND .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 0 3RD .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 0 4TH .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 40 TOTALS .0 100.00 300.00 100..00 500.00 Annual Training Plan Application Worksheet C DEPARTMENT: 182 Police Department YEAR: 1991 JOB CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY 2 ELIGIBLE BUDGETED POSITIONS IN CATEGORY 1 NUMBER OF QUARTER REPLACE— TRAVEL PER TUITION TOTALS TRAINING MENT COSTS DIEM COSTS HOURS COSTS COSTS 40 1ST .00 100.00 150.00 250.00 500.00 0 2ND .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 0 3RD .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 0 4TH .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 40 TOTALS .0 100.00 150.00 250.00 500.00 Annual Training Plan Application Worksheet C DEPARTMENT: 182 Police Department YEAR: 1991 JOB CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY 11 ELIGIBLE BUDGETED POSITIONS IN CATEGORY 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- NUMBER OF QUARTER REPLACE- TRAVEL PER TUITION TOTALS TRAINING MENT COSTS DIEM COSTS HOURS COSTS COSTS 48 1ST .00 100.00 500.00 400.00 1000.00 24 2ND .00 50.00 250.00 200.00 500.00 0 3RD .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 0 4TH .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 72 TOTALS .0 150.00 750.00 600.00 1500.00 Annual Training Plan Application Worksheet C DEPARTMENT: 182 Police Department YEAR: 1991 JOB CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY 12 ELIGIBLE BUDGETED POSITIONS IN CATEGORY 2 NUMBER OF QUARTER REPLACE- TRAVEL PER TUITION TOTALS TRAINING MENT COSTS DIEM COSTS HOURS COSTS COSTS 80 1ST .00 50.00 500.00 200.00 750.00 80 2ND .00 50.00 500.00 200.00 750.00 0 3RD .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 0 4TH .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 160 TOTALS .0 100.00 1000.00 400.00 1500.00 Annual Training Plan Application Worksheet C DEPARTMENT: 182 Police Department YEAR: 1991 JOB CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY 22 ELIGIBLE BUDGETED POSITIONS IN CATEGORY 8 NUMBER OF QUARTER REPLACE- TRAVEL PER TUITION TOTALS TRAINING MENT COSTS DIEM COSTS HOURS COSTS COSTS 0 1ST .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 96 2ND .00 200.00 1000.00 800.00 2000.00 96 3RD .00 200.00 1000.00 800.00 2000.00 0 4TH .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 192 TOTALS .0 400.00 2000.00 1600.00 4000.00 H K.i Annual Training Plan Application Worksheet C DEPARTMENT: 182 Police Department YEAR: 1991 JOB CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY 24 ELIGIBLE BUDGETED POSITIONS IN CATEGORY 3 NUMBER OF QUARTER REPLACE- TRAVEL PER TUITION TOTALS TRAINING MENT COSTS DIEM COSTS HOURS COSTS COSTS 120 1ST .00 50.00 500.00 200.00 750.00 120 2ND .00 50.00 500.00 200.00 750.00 120 3RD .00 50.00 500.00 200.00 750.00 0 4TH .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 360 TOTALS .0 150.00 1500.00 600.00 2250.00 REQUEST FOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION RH 91-10 Date March 18, 1991 Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members Submitted to: Michael T. Uberuaga, Chief Executive Officer 2O --' Submitted by: Barbara A. Kaiser, Deputy City Administrator/Economic Developmen Prepared by: APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR PROPERTY ACQUISITION: Subject: TALBERT—BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA I Consistent with Council Policy? Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, AA s�p�tarTt�s? STATEMENT OF ISSUE: ;ARK Agency staff expects to complete the purchase of one encyclopedia lot (159-141-49) in the Talbert—Beach redevelopment project area by late March, 1991. Further, the acquisition, of two other parcels is expected in the near future (159-141-37 & 52). There is a need to appropriate funds to an acquisition account for the eventual purchase of all three parcels in the amount of $20,000. Also, $5,000 is needed for future charges from Cutler .and Associates, the Agency's acquisition consultants, to bring the total appropriation to $25,000. The properties are part of the site currently in negotiations with Bijan Sassounian. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the ' appropriation of $25,000 for the acquisition of three parcels in the Talbert—Beach redevelopment project area and for additional costs associated with the agency's acquisition consultants, Cutler and Associates. ANALYSIS: For several years, the Redevelopment Agency has been attempting to acquire title to three encyclopedia lots that are landlocked in a group of vacant parcels on Joyful Lane, across from Emerald Cove. The Agency owns other parcels in this same area and has been negotiating with Seaview Development for the residential development of the entire site. Purchasing these three parcels will complete the Agency's acquisition activities at this time. Additionally, approximately $5,000 is needed in anticipation of charges from the Agency's acquisition consultants, Cutler and Associates, who are currently working on the acquisition of one parcel (159-141-52). FUNDING SOURCE: Talbert—Beach Redevelopment Project Area unencumbered fund balance. P10/1/85 RAA RH 91-10 March 18, 1991 Page two ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Do not appropriate funds for acquisition of the parcels. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Site map of subject parcels. 2. Fiscal impact statement. MTU/BAK/GB:sar 0059y CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA From ROBERT J. FRANZ City Administrator Deputy City Administrator Subject REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATION Date MARCH 6, 1991 TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY IN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA FIS 91-06 As requested under the authority of Resolution 4832, a Fiscal Impact Statement has been prepared and submitted relative to the proposed three parcel acquisition in the Talbert/Beach Redevelopment Project Area. Anticipations are that an appropriation of $25,000 would be adequate for this purpose. Upon approval of the City Council , the balance of the City's undesignated Talbert/Beach Project Area Fund would be reduced to $759,000 i RO F Deputy City Ad inistrator RJF:skd j WPADSERT:183 ATTACHMENT #1 TALBERT-BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ENCYCLOPEDIA LOTS 165- I8 m v TALBERT AVE 159-141-49 c o QL K B - I - BL K C - SLY -7�5_ - - 449-s9 - - -�6 - t� - //_ _ 112 7 e 47 - 9 48 ro- /2E8 - 9/7 /B /3 46 /5 /6 /6 /5 /6 /7- -I- - - - - -+ - 23 _ 24E /9 _ _ - I i 4 _ 2 123 24 2 - -I- -- - - - - r- - 26 82 28 29_ _ 13C �29 130 1 _ 36 B 3/ - - 32 71I I 34 i35 _ _ 16 __ '36 137 138 159-141-37 - - - -33 Q -- �- - -+- - 4 - -PROJECT 933-87 4/ 42 37 38 3 I J 40 4/ 42 43 44 66 145 200-253 - -I- - - + - - ;- - - �- - + - - 2 96A LOT / 4 81 43 44 1 46 147 148 '50 _ 151 �52 - - J- - - - - -'- - - r - -I- - -- I - - 88 38 43 498 50 _5/ 52 - �53 3 26 AC v 60 55- - �50 5739 �� 158 -,59- -i 60- _164 - 65 _ -�66 _ 6a'�l 64 �65 t 66 �7/ _ 14- t 3 - - - -� -t - E,'-f - -+ -1 - - - r - / 41 2 67 681 �- 70 17/ t 1 t79 180 7 - �78 __ 3 I -74'75 7 6 1 7 17 185 i B6 187 396 83 14 -- I80- - t8/_ 2:83 NO. //560 B9® ° --+�- 86 - +87 — ° - - - - /oo_ ioi - - 344 96 i / 92 193 �95 _,96- - �06 - 1'107 08 _ /ZI0- _ry .NO/ _ J02 - "3 - t 83 /5 - HAPPY h w DRIVE io6 t t t 12 727A (C) 120 1 I � I I � 1 3_ /4 /Q_ ///_ //2 /� _ _/fg- _ !09 //O /// /2 0//3 /4 27 128 /29 - +/ - - �09 - -�/ -�- - � - 1/ 1 + + - - - t- - - +r - - � - - - t + - - .� I I P. MI 69 -t 9 1120 '115 1 /6 _ 1//7 _ 1//B i//9 1/20 1/5 90 �//6 I//7 _ `/8 /9 /20 34 /35 /36 - - 2 29 C - --- 1- - -�- - t - - 1 4 �C�I� C , r I I 1 1 'S /26 /2/ /22 . 23 /24 25 /cT - -I/2/ /22 /23 24 /25- /26 4/ /42 /43 - -I- - -+ - - - - - - - -I- - - - + - - - - -I - - -1- - - i_ o- _ 29 _ - ° - I - fi I /57T-- - + - �Tt Q _ /56 - - I 1 1- +/4-0- -Ir-/ - -1I - - -I - - i/ 4 _ 144 - 1 162 - JI167n3 _44 _ 12 - I ,67/150 �65 4 - �49 9 :150 I145 �146 i 7 49' t146 so I 1150 r.1.9146 1147 1/48 BLK.B - 16LK_C A9-141-52 TRACT NO. 172 M.M. /2-22 NOTE - ASSESSOR'S BLOCK & TRACT NO. 11560 MIN. 536-/,2,3 PARCEL .UMBERS ' _ -'- SHOWN IN CIRCLES " .4 3/� _3.20. tl-S REQUEST FOR CIT-Y� COUNCIL ACTION 7ti� Date MArch a, 19Q1 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor Green and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator APPROVED BY CITY COUN01. Prepared by: Ronald E. Hagan, Director, Comm nity S vices �4 Michael P. Dolder, Fire Cnief ��� 31'� 19.41. Subject: BEACH TELEPHONE CABLE PROJEC Ty CLEKK. Consistent with Council Policy? P4) Yes I l New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE There is a need to replace disintegrating telephone cable along a portion of the city beach from the pier to Beach Blvd. RECOMMENDATION Approve the allocation of $64,200 from the unencumbered portion of the General Facilities Projects section of the General Fund for trenching and replacement of the beach telephone conduit. ANALYSIS GTE has officially informed the city that the main telephone conduit from Beach Boulevard to the pier is so worn that it will not continue to function through another summer. This section of phone line is installed in the sand and serves the lifeguard headquarters, lifeguard towers, beach concessions and public telephones, including emergency access through 911 . Loss of lifeguard communications between towers on the beach and the towers to beach headquarters would impair the lifesaving operation, thereby creating a safety and liability problem for the city. The cost to the city for trenching and conduit installation is estimated by GTE to be $58,366, plus 10% contingency, which equals $64,200 (see attached letter from GTE) . GTE indicates that trenching and conduit installation are the responsibility of the city; GTE will pull the cable through the conduit and handle all hookups as part of its responsibility. The city's Telecommunications staff has confirmed the immediate need to replace the cable and that the trenching and conduit are the responsibilities of the city. Staff has reviewed the idea of using cellular phones and has determined that they would be inadequate for this purpose. FUNDING SOURCE General Fund unencumbered fund balance of the General Facilities Projects fund. \ V / PIO 4/84 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Page Two ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Do not replace the cable now; include the project as part of the FY91/92 budget and risk cable failure this spring and summer. ATTACHMENTS Diane Singer' s February 19 memo GTE's January 31 letter Location Map Fiscal Impact Statement REH:JBE:cjg 2137E CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To: Jim B. Engle, Superintendent From: Diane Singer Park Development and Recreation Telecommunications Coordinator Subject: BEACH TRENCH February 19, 1991 My purpose is to provide you with the information you may require in developing the RCA on the beach cable project. Here are the details: I. The beach cable project has been broken down into two parts. The project was divided into these parts because they each contain variables that affect the timing of any type of improvement: A. Pier, south of city limits This section affects the lifeguard headquarters, snack shops, lifeguard towers and telephones (911) and, as such, is most crucial and potentially burdensome. The cable along this stretch is buried in the sand, parallel to the bike path and has lost pairs due to environmental conditions. The cable itself is so worn that GTE has formally warned us of its inability to support it through another summer. B. Pier, north to Golden West Avenue In this area the cable runs partially under and then above ground. Although the cable here is in much the same condition as in "A" above, the impact has been somewhat transparent. This area serves only a few lifeguard towers and pay phones (911) and service issues have been minimal. Telecommunications feels that the trenching and cabling of this area should be included in the redevelopment of the parking area. 2. GTE has requested that the city provide a trench and conduit for section "A". (Reason: In the unregulated telecommunications environment, the carrier, GTE, is responsible for cable up to the demarcation point. The demarcation to the workstation is the customer's (city) responsibility. In this case, the beach is the office, and the towers, lifeguard headquarters and snack shops are the workstations. ) GTE will pull the cable through the conduit as part of its responsibility to go to the demarcation because the beach has distributed demarcations. 3. The cost estimate obtained from GTE for section "A" is $58,366 for 600 lineal feet, plus a 10 percent contingency, equalling $64,200. 4. GTE has not examined alternative cabling schemes for section "B" because city has instructed them that we will include it as part of the parking lot development. If you need any additional information, please send me a voice mail message at ext. 5446. DS/am C-7k t GTE California Incorporated 6774 Westminster Boulevard, RC 3680C Westminster, CA 92683-3788 714 373.2628 In Reply Refer To January 31 , 1991 3680C V20 ATTENTION: JIM HIBBARD CITY OF 'HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: OUTSIDE PLANT SERVING BEACH PROPERTIES BIDS Gentlemen: GTE has completed the bid process for trenching and conduit placement. Here is the breakdown of charges. Total Bid was $66,083 GTE Responsibility (materials) $7, 717 City's Cost (Trench, Excavation, Restoral) $58,366 Any question you might have concerning this Bid may be directed to Frank Pedrosa (213) 404-5533. If you agree with the Bid Price, please sign the Letter of Agreement sent to you previously. GTE would like to complete all work by 3/21/91 . When the letter of agreement is signed, please call Darywl Bowden at (714) 373-2605 to pickup the letter . Thank you for your cooperation. LLSLEY Operations Supervisor — Division Outside Plant Engineering CC : D. Shaw H. Fregoso D. Singer GTE Alaska Incorporated GTE California Incorporated GTE Hawaiian Telephone Company Incorporated GTE Northwest Incorporated A part of GTE Corporation AA ZONING INDEX MA F-5-11 10-5 II DMIII LEGEND 19-6-10-SECTION-TOWNSHI 16-5�.11 15-5-II 14- 11 DM 22-DISTRICT MAP 22 DMil8 DMi7 D J15 � j I 24-5- 19-5-II0-5-II 21-5-II 22-5-II 23-5-II 24 i DM 28�\ DM 21 DM �3 = DNC24 DI25 S DM 27 � 30-5-11 29-5-II 2 <,�_tI 27-5-I I 2 -5-11 25- -II ADM 35 DM 34 %DW33 DM32 M 31 D C,\5`11 33-5-11 II 35-5-11 36- -11 DM 36� DM 37 ,! j� 38 39 DM 40 5-6-11 3-6-11 246-11 1-6-11 6-6-10 54�- DM4 � DM3 I � 2 D I D 6 DM 9-f�11 -6-I1 11- -11 2-6-II 7-6-10 ,E 8-6-11 DM 10 DM 12 DM 13 DM 7 'DMB .T,_ .E © 4-6-II --- 13-6-I1 18-6-10 17-6-IC � �F.� 14 DM 20 DM 19 J CITY OF �t i HUNT INGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA r 24-6-1 19-6-10 � DM 29 D - 3do.c` , rod 4' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA From ROBERT J. FRANZ City Administrator Deputy City Administrator Subject REQUEST FOR FUNDING TO Date FEBRUARY 22, 1991 ACCOMMODATE BEACH TELEPHONE CABLE PROJECT, FIS 91-04 As requested under the authority of Resolution 4832, a Fiscal Impact Statement has been prepared and submitted relative to the expressed need for the replacement of disintegrating telephone cable along a portion of the City Beach from the Pier to Beach Boulevard. Anticipations are that an appropriation of $64,200 would be adequate for this purpose. An affirmative response by the City Council would reduce the balance of the City' s undesignated, unreserved General Fund to $1 ,105,000. _­ 110ftitrJ. FRANZ Deputy City Administrator RJF:skd Attachment t f WPADSERT:158 3 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION ' Date February 4, 1991 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: APPROVED BY CITY COUP;t;tL Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator c ,� Prepared by: aa�� " \ a I� j f'Mouis F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works Subject: Ron Hagan, Director of Community Services cX BEACH PARKING LOT - I ITH STREET TO GOLDEN STTy Consistent with Council Policy? X ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Plans, specifications and a cost estimate for the construction of the Beach Parking Lot, below the bluffs, between Eleventh and Golden West Streets must be prepared. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Authorize the Deputy City Administrator for Administrative Services to transfer $415,000 to a new beach parking lot account. These funds, of $415,000, were originally derived from Parking Authority Revenues and subsequently transferred in increments of $205,000 and $210,000 to the City's Park Acquisition and Development Funds and the City's Capital Improvement Fund for two projects. Neither project requires the use of these monies; therefore, it is recommended that the funds be transferred to an account for a new beach parking lot. 2. Authorize the Director of Public Works to solicit proposals from qualified Civil Engineering firms to prepare plans, specifications and a cost estimate. ANALYSIS: On August 6, 1990, Council awarded a construction contract to Clayton Engineering Inc. to widen Pacific Coast Highway between Golden West Street and Beach Boulevard. The widening of this portion of highway is unique in that additional street right-of-way is not available; therefore, the on-street parallel parking must be removed to accommodate the addition of a third traffic lane in each direction. Although this can be easily done, the California Coastal Commission has precluded this action until the loss of this parking is mitigated. Furthermore, the replacement parking must be in the immediate vicinity of the parking spaces removed. It is estimated that a beach parking lot could make up 300 of the 521 stall deficit. This project has been contemplated for some time, pending removal of oil wells and securing sufficient funds. Both of those hurdles have now been surmounted. The feasibility of converting Fifth Street (see attached location map) at Pacific Coast Highway and Terry Buick/Surf Theatre sites to parking is being studied. However, staff has concluded that the bluff parking lot should be constructed as soon as possible. Therefore, the Director of Public Works requests Council authorization to solicit proposals from qualified Civil Engineering firms to prepare plans, specifications and a cost estimate for this parking lot. V / PI O 5/85 RCA — Beach Parking Lot 11th St. to Golden West February 4, 1991 Page 2 Staff is studying other potential new parking replacement. It is essential to replace the spaces as soon as possible in order to be able to open the two new through lanes on PCH. Furthermore, it is staffs understanding that Measure "C" is not applicable to this project because the land for this project, is owned by the State of California (see attached Legal Opinion from the City Attorney). FUNDING SOURCE: Surplus funds of $415,000, previously budgeted for other projects, are available for this project. Specifically, $205, 000 in Parking Authority Revenues were budgeted for the bluff top landscape improvements; however, Project Grants from State and County agencies precluded the necessity of using this monies. Secondly, $210,000 in Parking Authorities Revenues were budgeted for the construction of a new beach parking control building at the Huntington Street and Pacific Coast Highway beach parking lot. This project was cancelled; therefore, it is recommended that these funds be combined and that the Deputy City Administrator in charge of Administrative Services be authorized to transfer the $415,000 into an appropriate account number for the Beach Parking Lot below the ocean bluffs. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Deny recommended actions and forego the construction of a beach parking lot below the ocean bluffs, adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway between Eleventh and Golden West Streets. ATTACHMENTS: 1. F.I.S. 2. Location Map 3. Legal Opinion from City Attorney MTU:LFS:DRN:dw 2757g/6&7 f - Jj CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH I(:�? __�t INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION IIUNIIN;ION UFA(It To MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA From ROBERT J . FRANZ City Administrator Deputy City Administrator Subject REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATION Date JANUARY 9, 1991 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BEACH PARKING LOT BELOW THE BLUFFS FIS 91-01 As requested under the authority of Resolution 4832, a Fiscal Impact Statement has been prepared and submitted relative to the proposed construction of a Beach Parking Lot, below the Bluffs , between llth and Golden West Streets. It has been requested that funds in the amount of $415,000, previously reserved but ultimately not required for several other recent projects , can be utilized for this effort. An affirmative response by the City Council would reduce the balanace of the City' s Park Acquisition and Development Fund by $205,000 to $271 ,792, as well as reducing that of the City' s Capital Improvement Fund by $ 15,000 to $1 ,630,870. ROBERT J. F ANZ Deputy City ,Idministrator RJF:skd Attachments WPADSERT:73 STREETS AND HIGI ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 43668- DEC.12.1 LEGEND: A -------- FREEWAY T`� PRIMARY MAJOR 7!rAD %W D( SECONDAF NOTE: SOLID LINES INDICATE NOT NECESSARILY UI: DASHED UNES IN04r-AT RIGHT OF wAY EXISTS -T � 4-A-77 10 % a 4? 00 5. 01"M. .gill. P.HiRl w 0. CITY OF V- :NTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA 0 0 1120 r440 szsc f(cl J� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Lou Sandoval From Gail Hutton Director of Public Works City Attorney Subject Beach Parking Lot Date January 25, 1991 Construction By your memo of December 23rd, you requested a legal opinion on the subject of the beach parking lot . Apparently an issue has arisen as to whether this project is impacted by Measure C, which requires a vote of the people for certain projects located upon parks or beaches . As we understand the facts, apparently the city is considering construction of a parking lot below the bluffs between llth and Goldenwest Streets . This would be on property owned by the State of California, which is currently under lease to the city. As we understand it, this property is included within the operating agreement dated October 1, 1986, between the city and the state, whereby the city assumes responsibility for the care, maintenance and control of Bolsa Chica State Beach. Measure C requires a vote of the people prior to construction of certain improvements on or in any park or beach now or hereafter owned or operated by the city. If the project would otherwise be within the restrictions imposed by Measure C, the restriction would apply to the subject property since it is "operated" by the city. Measure C states in pertinent part as follows : "No golf course, driving range, road, building over three thousand square feet in floor area nor structure costing more than $100, 000 may be built on or in any park or beach or portion thereof now or hereafter owned or operated by the city" unless authorized by a vote of the electors . There are exceptions to the requirement for a vote of the electors, and they include libraries or piers, and leases or concessions where the contract is to perform a service which was being performed prior to January 1, 1989, and the use would not increase the amount of land currently being used for said service. None of the exceptions seem applicable, if the project is subject to Measure C. Lou Sandoval January 25, 1991 Page 2 It appears that Measure C applies if the proposal encompasses a structure costing more than $100, 000 . We have reviewed the RCA dated January 22, 1991 (Item E-8) , and cannot deduce from these materials the nature of the proposed parking lot improvements . If the plans call for a structure costing more than $100 ,000, a vote of the people is required. On the other hand, if this is just a parking lot on beach property, it does not appear to be within the requirements that trigger a vote. The only items which trigger a vote are construction of a golf course, driving range, road, building over three thousand square feet, or structure costing more than $100, 000 . From the papers supplied to us, there is no proposed structure costing over $100, 000 . So depending on the nature of the project, it may not be subject to Measure C. You should be able to determine the applicability of Measure C to the project using the foregoing guidelines and analysis . Please let us know if we can assist further on this issue. Gail Hutton City Attorney By / Robert Sangster Acting City Attorney cc: Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator Pat Dapkus Don Noble V0 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date January 22, 1991 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Prepared by: Amouis F. Sandoval, Director of Public Works Jim Engle, Acting Director of Community Service Subject: BEACH PARKING LOT - IITH STREET TO GOLD WEST Consistent with Council Policy? k ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Plans, specifications and a cost estimate for the construction of the Beach Parking Lot, below the bluffs, between Eleventh and Golden West Streets must be prepared. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Authorize the Deputy City Administrator for Administrative Services to transfer $415,000 to a new beach parking lot account. These funds, of $415,000, were originally derived from Parking Authority Revenues and subsequently transferred in increments of $205,000 and $215,000 to the City's Park Acquisition and Development Funds and the City's Capital Improvement Fund for two projects. Neither project requires the use of these monies; therefore, it is recommended that the funds be transferred to an account for a new beach parking lot. 2. Authorize the Director of Public Works to solicit proposals from qualified Civil Engineering firms to prepare plans, specifications and a cost estimate. ANALYSIS• On August 6, 1990, Council awarded a construction contract to Clayton Engineering Inc. to widen Pacific Coast Highway between Golden West Street and Beach Boulevard. The widening of this portion of highway is unique in that additional street right-of-way is not available; therefore, the on-street parallel parking must be removed to accommodate the addition of a third traffic lane in each direction. Although this can be easily done, the California Coastal Commission has precluded this action until the loss of this parking is mitigated. Furthermore, the replacement parking must be in the immediate vicinity of the parking spaces removed. It is estimated that a beach parking lot could make up 300 of the 521 stall deficit. This project has been contemplated for some time, pending removal of oil wells and securing sufficient funds. Both of those hurdles have now been surmounted. The feasibility of converting Fifth Street (see attached location map) at Pacific Coast Highway and Terry Buick/Surf Theatre sites to parking is being studied. However, staff has concluded that the bluff parking lot should be constructed as soon as possible. Therefore, the Director of Public Works requests Council authorization to solicit proposals from qualified Civil Engineering firms to prepare plans, specifications and a cost estimate for this parking lot. Staff is studying other potential new parking replacement. It is essential to replace the spaces as soon as possible in order to be able to open the two new through lanes on PCH. PI O 5/85 RCA - Beach Parking Lot 11 th St. to Golden West January 22, 1990 Page 2 FUNDING SOURCE- Surplus funds of $415,000, previously budgeted for other projects, are available for this project. Specifically, $205, 000 in Parking Authority Revenues were budgeted for the bluff top landscape improvements; however, Project Grants from State and County agencies precluded the necessity of using this monies. Secondly, $210,000 in Parking Authorities Revenues were budgeted for the construction of a new beach parking control building at the Huntington Street and Pacific Coast Highway beach parking lot. This project was cancelled; therefore, it is recommended that these funds be combined and that the Deputy City Administrative Services be authorized to transfer the $415,000 into an appropriate account number for the Beach Parking Lot below the ocean bluffs. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Deny recommended actions and forego the construction of a beach parking lot below the ocean bluffs, adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway between Eleventh and Golden West Streets. ATTACHMENTS: 1. F.I.S. 2. Location Map MTU:LFS:DRN:dw 2724g/9&10 UlfM(UULAI IUN t- LAN UI— I r� STREETS AND HIGH \ RESOLUTION NO 4368-DEC.PTED BY CITY 12 COUNCIL9 LEGEND: >. FREEWAY MAJOR \ PRIMARY_ 11C r1DDCN � _. _— SECONDAR) cry; n NOTE: SOLID LINES INDICATE NOT NECESSARILY ULTII $� LINESDASHED I RIGHT OF WAY EXISTS TS \ 1 I � I I � � I t E; r' 1 i� alk mmm �• r f � I 93 �I R o - I CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA / p1, Ir2 7.. YIIC � 1 0 .320 26.0 vw 528c EECE 1 I ti CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA From ROBERT J. FRANZ City Administrator Deputy City Administrator Subject REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATION Date JANUARY 9, 1991 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BEACH PARKING LOT BELOW THE BLUFFS FIS 91-01 As requested under the authority of Resolution 4832, a Fiscal Impact Statement has been prepared and submitted relative to the proposed construction of a Beach Parking Lot, below the Bluffs, between llth and Golden West Streets. It has been requested that funds in the amount of $415,000, previously reserved but ultimately not required for several other recent projects, can be utilized for this effort. An affirmative response by the City Council would reduce the balanace of the City' s' Park Acquisition and Development Fund by $205,000 to $271 ,792, as well as reducing that of the City's Capital Improvement Fund by $ 15,000 to $1 ,630,870. *Deputy h y RJF:skd Attachments WPADSERT:73 HC19 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Lou Sandoval From Gail Hutton Director of Public Works City Attorney Subject Opinion - Beach Parking Date January 30, 1991 Lot Construction ISSUE: By your memo of December 23, you requested a legal opinion on the subject of the beach parking lot. Apparently an issue has arisen as to whether this project is impacted by Measure C, which requires a vote of the people for certain projects located upon parks or beaches. FACTS: As we understand the facts, the city is considering construction of a parking lot below the bluffs between llth and Goldenwest Streets . The project is a conversion of an existing oil access road for parking purposes. This would be on property owned by the State of California, which is currently under lease to the city. The site is landward of the sandy beach. The site is separated from the beach along much of its length by a retaining wall . The site is available because of the city' s efforts to eliminate oil operations . The parking will help mitigate the loss of parking resulting from Caltrans ' state highway project. This property is included within the operating agreement dated October 1, 1986, between the city and the state, whereby the city assumes responsibility for the care, maintenance and control of State beaches . It is not within the Bolsa Chica State Beach. The project consists of an asphalt and concrete parking lot and landscaping, and no buildings costing over $100, 000 will be constructed. ANALYSIS: Measure C requires a vote of the people prior to construction of certain improvements on or in any park or beach now or hereafter owned or operated by the city. If the project would otherwise be within the restrictions imposed by Measure C, the restriction would apply to the subject property since it is "operated" by the city. Measure C states in pertinent part as follows : "No golf course, driving range, road, building over , three thousand square feet in floor area nor structure costing more than $100,000 may be built on or in any park or beach or portion thereof now / or hereafter owned or operated by the city" unless authorized by a vote of the electors. Lou Sandoval January 30, 1991 Page 2 There are exceptions to the requirement for a vote of the electors, and they include libraries or piers, and leases or concessions where the contract is to perform a service which was being performed prior to January 1, 1989, and the use would not increase the amount of land currently being used for said service. None of the exceptions seem applicable, if the project is subject to Measure C. The analysis required by Measure C is made by examining the effect of a project upon the discrete elements of the measure. If all of the elements are answered in the affirmative, the project is subject to Measure C. 1. Is the site a park or beach? Measure C does not define "beach. " The American Heritage Dictionary defines a beach as "the shore of a body of water, especially when sandy or pebbly. " This definition is not particularly helpful, because it does not define the extent of the beach. The caselaw defines beach as synonymous with shore, and basically is the territory lying between the lines of high water and low water, over which the tide ebbs and flows. (See Massachusetts v. New York (1926) 271 U.S. 65, 92, 70 L.Ed. 838, 850, 46 S.Ct. 357. ) A shore is defined as land on the margin of the sea or lake or river; that space of land which is alternately covered and left dry by the rising and falling of the tide; the space between high- and low-water marks . It is synonymous with "beach. " (78 Am.Jur.2d, "Water, " § 375 . ) California cases similarly define shore as the space between high and low water marks. (Dana v. The Jackson Street Wharf Company (1866) 31 Cal. 118, 121. ) The former definitions do not appear to be consistent with the use of the word "beach" in Measure C. Fundamental rules of statutory construction provide that in interpreting a charter one must ascertain the intent so as to effectuate the purpose of the law and must give a reasonable and common sense interpretation consistent with the inherent purpose of the provision, which will result in wise policy rather than mischief or absurdity. (DeYoung v. San Diego (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 11, 17, 194 Cal .Rptr. 277 . ) In enacting Measure C, it does not seem reasonable that the electorate intended to prohibit golf courses, driving ranges, roads, buildings, or structures on beaches only in areas covered at high water; the intent appears to define "beach" more broadly than the foregoing references, and to include the sandy area above the high-water mark. Lou Sandoval January 30, 1991 Page 3 Searching further, we found two additional approaches to defining "beach. " One comes from the Shore Protection Manual published by the United States Army Corps of Engineers . This document is recognized world-wide as an authority on shoreline management. The manual defines "beach" as: The zone of unconsolidated material that extends landward from the low-water line to the place where there is a marked change in material or physiographic form, or to the line of permanent vegetation (usually the effective limit of storm waves) . The seaward limit of the beach--unless otherwise specified--is the mean low-water line. A beach includes FORESHORE and BACKSHORE. See also SHORE. A "backshore" is "that zone of the shore or beach lying between the foreshore and the coastline comprising the BERM or BERMS and acted upon by waves only during severe storms, especially when combined with exceptionally high water. Also BACK BEACH. " "Foreshore" is "that part of the shore, lying between the crest of the seaward berm (or upper limit of wavewash at high tide) and the ordinary low-water mark, that is ordinarily traversed by the uprush and backrush of waves as the tides rise and fall . See BEACH FACE. " A "beach face" is the section of beach normally exposed to the action of the waves uprush. "Shore" is defined as "the narrow strip of land in immediate contact with the sea, including the zone between the high- and low-water lines. A shore of unconsolidated material is usually called a beach. " The Corps ' approach appears to be more consistent with the intent of Measure C in extending the beach landward from the high-water mark to the line of permanent vegetation or a point where there is some marked change from unconsolidated material or a change in physiographic form. The California Coastal Commission has also promulgated regulations establishing criteria for boundary determinations. With regard to beaches, regulations read as follows : E - 1-3. 3 Lou Sandoval January 30, 1991 Page 4 "Beaches. Measure 300 feet landward from the inland extend of the beach. The back beach, or dry beach, if it exists, shall be included. The inland extent of the beach shall be determined as follows: (1) From a distinct linear feature (e.g. , a seawall, road, or bluff, etc. ) ; (2) From the inland edge of the further inland beach berm as determined from historical surveys, aerial photographs, and other records or geological evidence; or (3) Where a beach berm does not exist, from the further point separating the dynamic portion of the beach from the inland area as distinguished by vegetation, debris, or other geological or historical evidence. The Coastal Commission approach is similar to the Corps ' approach in extending the back beach to a linear feature such as a wall, the vegetation line, or other distinct natural separation. At the risk of over-simplifying these engineering concepts, it appears that the back beach is just what a layman (or lawyer) would expect it to be--the sandy or pebbly beach. It is the unconsolidated portion of the back beach, i .e. , that part that is not formed into a compact mass . We are informed by the Public Works Department that the proposed parking lot is not on the dynamic or unconsolidated portion of the city' s back beach. The term "beach parking lot" is a misnomer; the lot serves the beach, but is not located on the beach. The proposed lot will be located below the bluff area, but in an area separated from the dynamic portion of the beach. Based upon this information, we can conclude that the proposed parking lot is not on the beach under any applicable definition of that word. The work "park" is also not defined in Measure C. Taken in its most common definition, a park is a tract of land set aside for public use, as (1) an expanse of enclosed grounds for recreational use within or adjoining a town, (2) a landscaped city square, or (3) a tract of land kept in its natural state. (American Heritage Dictionary. ) The city has itemized its parklands in the General Plan. State planning law requires that a General Plan consist of a statement of development policies. It is required to include various elements and deals with land uses, recreation, and open space, among other things. (Government Code § 65302. ) The city' s �, 13. Lou Sandoval January 30, 1991 Page 5 General Plan contains a recreation element which identifies the land set aside as parks in the city. We can conclude that the land set aside for public use as parks is identified in the General Plan, and that the focus of Measure C is on land which has been set aside as parklands . The proposed site for the bluff parking lot is not identified in the General Plan as a park, nor has it been determined to be subject to any public trust restrictions inconsistent with the parking use, nor is it land situated within the boundaries of the state beach area. Accordingly, the proposed site does not appear to be a park. Since the site is neither a beach nor a park, we can conclude it is not subject to Measure C. For clarification, however, we will proceed through the analysis to document our research and thinking on the other elements involved in an analysis of Measure C. 2. Is the site owned or operated by the city? While this land is not owned by the city, it is operated by the city pursuant to the Operating Agreement with the state. Therefore, if the other elements of Measure C were met, this project would be subject to it. 3 . Is the project a golf course, driving range, road, building over 3,000 square feet in floor area, or structure costing more than $100,000? We are advised that the proposal is for a surface parking lot, not a golf course, driving range, road, or building. The proposed improvements will cost more than $100,000 in paving, landscaping, and associated costs; the question is whether these improvements constitute a "structure. " It is no easy task to determine what Measure C envisions as a structure. In common parlance, a structure is something which is made up of a number of parts that are held or put together in a particular way, especially a building. (American Heritage Dictionary. ) The Uniform Building Code similarly defines "structure" as that which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner. The city' s planning code defines "structure" as a mobile home or anything constructed or erected, an edifice or building of any kind, or piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner which requires location on or in the ground, except swimming pools, patios, walks, tennis courts, and similar paved areas . C,13J- Lou Sandoval January 30, 1991 Page 6 While most structures are buildings, there is also a class called "concrete structures, " which include bridges, culverts, catch basins, retaining walls, abutments, piers, footings and foundations . (Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, Section 303-1 . 1 . ) In discussion with the Development Services Department and the Public Works Department, we have learned that a building permit would not be required for the proposed parking lot, and that the only permit which would be required would apparently be a grading permit. In practice, building permits are not required for paving work, in the absence of special circumstances such as the need for walls exceeding 42" in height. As a general proposition, we understand that "structures" are buildings, and "site work" (parking lots and landscaping) and "offsite improvements" (streets, curbs, gutters, median improvements and street lights) are not viewed as structures . The zoning code does have provisions governing "parking structures, " and defines them as structures used for parking of vehicles where parking spaces, turning ratios, and drive aisles are incorporated within the structure. (Sections 9080. 112 and 9601. 6. ) It seems apparent that a "parking structure" is an enclosed structure and not an open parking lot, and this is indeed the interpretation of the Development Services Department. The proposed parking lot is not a structure which would require a permit under the Uniform Building Code. Given the practice and interpretation of the city' s planning and zoning laws, it seems a fair conclusion that a surface parking lot such as that contemplated by this proposal does not constitute a structure. This conclusion is buttressed by principles of statutory interpretation. Measure C expressly lists golf course, driving range, and road, in addition to building and structure. It is a fair inference that the electors did not view surface construction such as a golf course, driving range, or road as either a building or a structure. In this regard, a parking lot is apparently distinguished from a road. There is a principle of statutory interpretation called expressio unius est exclusio alterius, which means that where a form of conduct, the manner of its performance and operation, and the things to which it refers are designated, there is an inference that all omissions should be understood as exclusions. (Sutherland Statutory Construction, Section 47.23 . ) Parking areas are not included in the list of activities that trigger Measure C. Indeed, the creation of parking areas in recreational areas is consistent with the legislative purpose behind Measure C, which is to maintain recreational lands available for recreational uses by the general public. The parking of vehicles is an essential part of access to and use of beach property. The Lou Sandoval January 30, 1991 Page 7 arguments by the supporters of Measure C express concern for special interests attempting to obtain public lands for private uses. Concerns were expressed over building semi-private clubs and exclusive restaurants, and other uses which would not be available to the general public. The ballot arguments expressly stated that various kinds of improvements could be done without a vote, including restrooms, showers, paths, bike paths, picnic tables, basketball courts, baseball diamonds, soccer fields, ballfields, sports fields, equestrian trails, nature centers, small restaurants, and landscaping. It is entirely consistent with these uses to allow surface parking lots and landscaping. It is apparent from reviewing the legislative history of Measure C that its intent is to restrict commercial development and private use of recreational lands; it should be interpreted in that context and should not be unreasonably interpreted to preclude projects which enhance public use. Accordingly, it is our conclusion that a ground-level parking lot does not constitute a structure for purposes of Measure C. CONCLUSION: The proposed parking lot, to provide parking and access to beach facilities, is not subject to the public vote requirements contained in Measure C, because the site is not a beach or a park and the proposed improvements do not constitute a structure as applied to Measure C. Gail Hutton City Attorney cc: Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator Honorable Peter Green, Mayor, and Members of the City Council Mike Adams, Director of Community Development Pat Dapkus, Management Assistant Don Noble, Public Works _/3 7 HM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Lou Sandoval From Gail Hutton Director of Public Works City Attorney Subject Opinion - Beach Parking Date January 30, 1991 Lot Construction ISSUE: By your memo of December 23 , you requested a legal opinion on the subject of the beach parking lot . Apparently an issue has arisen as to whether this project is impacted by Measure C, which requires a vote of the people for certain projects located upon parks or beaches . FACTS: As we understand the facts, the city is considering construction of a parking lot below the bluffs between llth and Goldenwest Streets . The project is a conversion of an existing oil access road for parking purposes . This would be on property owned by the State of California, which is currently under lease to the city. The site is landward of the sandy beach. The site is separated from the beach along much of its length by a retaining wall . The site is available because of the city' s efforts to eliminate oil operations . The parking will help mitigate the loss of parking resulting from Caltrans ' state highway project . This property is included within the operating agreement dated October 1, 1986, between the city and the state, whereby the city assumes responsibility for the care, maintenance and control of State beaches . It is not within the Bolsa Chica State Beach. The project consists of an asphalt and concrete parking lot and landscaping, and no buildings costing over $100, 000 will be constructed. ANALYSIS: Measure C requires a vote of the people prior to construction of certain improvements on or in any park or beach now or hereafter owned or operated by the city. If the project would otherwise be within the restrictions imposed by Measure C, the restriction would apply to the subject property since it is "operated" by the city. Measure C states in pertinent part as follows : "No golf course, driving range, road, building over three thousand square feet in floor area nor structure costing more than $100, 000 may be built on or in any park or beach or portion thereof now or hereafter owned or operated by the city" unless authorized by a vote of the electors . J Lou Sandoval January 30, 1991 Page 2 There are exceptions to the requirement for a vote of the electors, and they include libraries or piers, and leases or concessions where the contract is to perform a service which was being performed prior to January 1, 1989 , and the use would not increase the amount of land currently being used for said service. None of the exceptions seem applicable, if the project is subject to Measure C. The analysis required by Measure C is made by examining the effect of a project upon the discrete elements of the measure. If all of the elements are answered in the affirmative, the project is subject to Measure C. 1 . Is the site a park or beach? Measure C does not define "beach. " The American Heritage Dictionary defines a beach as "the shore of a body of water, especially when sandy or pebbly. " This definition is not particularly helpful , because it does not define the extent of the beach. The caselaw defines beach as synonymous with shore, and basically is the territory lying between the lines of high water and low water, over which the tide ebbs and flows . (See Massachusetts v. New York (1926) 271 U. S. 65, 92, 70 L.Ed. 838, 850, 46 S .Ct . 357 . ) A shore is defined as land on the margin of the sea or lake or river; that space of land which is alternately covered and left dry by the rising and falling of the tide; the space between high- and low-water marks . It is synonymous with "beach. " (78 Am.Jur. 2d, "Water, " § 375 . ) California cases similarly define shore as the space between high and low water marks . (Dana v. The Jackson Street Wharf Company (1866) 31 Cal . 118, 121 . ) The former definitions do not appear to be consistent with the use of the word "beach" in Measure C. Fundamental rules of statutory construction provide that in interpreting a charter one must ascertain the intent so as to effectuate the purpose of the law and must give a reasonable and common sense interpretation consistent with the inherent purpose of the provision, which will result in wise policy rather than mischief or absurdity. (DeYoung v. San Diego (1983) 147 Cal .App. 3d 11, 17, 194 Cal .Rptr . 277. ) In enacting Measure C, it does not seem reasonable that the electorate intended to prohibit golf courses, driving ranges, roads, buildings, or structures on beaches only in areas covered at high water; the intent appears to define "beach" more broadly than the foregoing references, and to include the sandy area above the high-water mark. T Lou Sandoval January 30, 1991 Page 3 Searching further, we found two additional approaches to defining "beach. " One comes from the Shore Protection Manual published by the United States Army Corps of Engineers . This document is recognized world-wide as an authority on shoreline management . The manual defines "beach" as : The zone of unconsolidated material that extends landward from the low-water line to the place where there is a marked change in material or physiographic form, or to the line of permanent vegetation (usually the effective limit of storm waves) . The seaward limit of the beach--unless otherwise specified--is the mean low-water line. A beach includes FORESHORE and BACKSHORE. See also SHORE. A "backshore" is "that zone of the shore or beach lying between the foreshore and the coastline comprising the BERM or BERMS and acted upon by waves only during severe storms, especially when combined with exceptionally high water . Also BACK BEACH. " "Foreshore" is "that part of the shore, lying between the crest of the seaward berm (or upper limit of wavewash at high tide) and the ordinary low-water mark, that is ordinarily traversed by the uprush and backrush of waves as the tides rise and fall . See BEACH FACE. " A "beach face" is the section of beach normally exposed to the action of the waves uprush. "Shore" is defined as "the narrow strip of land in immediate contact with the sea, including the zone between the high- and low-water lines . A shore of unconsolidated material is usually called a beach. " The Corps ' approach appears to be more consistent with the intent of Measure C in extending the beach landward from the high-water mark to the line of permanent vegetation or a point where there is some marked change from unconsolidated material or a change in physiographic form. The California Coastal Commission has also promulgated regulations establishing criteria for boundary determinations . With regard to beaches, regulations read as follows : Lou Sandoval January 30, 1991 Page 4 "Beaches . Measure 300 feet landward from the inland extend of the beach. The back beach, or dry beach, if it exists, shall be included. The inland extent of the beach shall be determined as follows : (1) From a distinct linear feature (e.g . , a seawall, road, or bluff , etc . ) ; (2) From the inland edge of the further inland beach berm as determined from historical surveys , aerial photographs , and other records or geological evidence; or (3) Where a beach berm does not exist, from the further point separating the dynamic portion of the beach from the inland area as distinguished by vegetation, debris , or other geological or historical evidence. The Coastal Commission approach is similar to the Corps ' approach in extending the back beach to a linear feature such as a wall, the vegetation line, or other distinct natural separation. At the risk of over-simplifying these engineering concepts, it appears that the back beach is just what a layman (or lawyer) would expect it to be--the sandy or pebbly beach. It is the unconsolidated portion of the back beach, i .e. , that part that is not formed into a compact mass . We are informed by the Public Works Department that the proposed parking lot is not on the dynamic or unconsolidated portion of the city' s back beach. The term "beach parking lot" is a misnomer; the lot serves the beach, but is not located on the beach. The proposed lot will be located below the bluff area, but in an area separated from the dynamic portion of the beach. Based upon this information, we can conclude that the proposed parking lot is not on the beach under any applicable definition of that word. The work "park" is also not defined in Measure C. Taken in its most common definition, a park is a tract of land set aside for public use, as (1) an expanse of enclosed grounds for recreational use within or adjoining a town, (2) a landscaped city square, or (3) a tract of land kept in its natural state. (American Heritage Dictionary. ) The city has itemized its parklands in the General Plan. State planning law requires that a General Plan consist of a statement of development policies . It is required to include various elements and deals with land uses, recreation, and open space, among other things . (Government Code § 65302 . ) The city' s �_ 13. E Lou Sandoval January 30, 1991 Page 5 General Plan contains a recreation element which identifies the land set aside as parks in the city. We can conclude that the land set aside for public use as parks is identified in the General Plan, and that the focus of Measure C is on land which has been set aside as parklands . The proposed site for the bluff parking lot is not identified in the General Plan as a park, nor has it been determined to be subject to any public trust restrictions inconsistent with the parking use, nor is it land situated within the boundaries of the state beach area . Accordingly, the proposed site does not appear to be a park. Since the site is neither a beach nor a park, we can conclude it is not subject to Measure C. For clarification, however, we will proceed through the analysis to document our research and thinking on the -other elements involved in an analysis of Measure C. 2 . Is the site owned or operated by the city? While this land is not owned by the city, it is operated by the city pursuant to the Operating Agreement with the state. Therefore, if the other elements of Measure C were met, this project would be subject to it . 3 . Is the project a golf course, driving range, road, building over 3 , 000 square feet in floor area, or structure costing more than $100, 000? We are advised that the proposal is for a surface parking lot, not a golf course, driving range, road, or building . The proposed improvements will cost more than $100, 000 in paving, landscaping, and associated costs; the question is whether these improvements constitute a "structure. " It is no easy task to determine what Measure C envisions as a structure. In common parlance, a structure is something which is made up of a number of parts that are held or put together in a particular way, especially a building . (American Heritage Dictionary. ) The Uniform Building Code similarly defines "structure" as that which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner. The city' s planning code defines "structure" as a mobile home or anything constructed or erected, an edifice or building of any kind, or piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner which requires location on or in the ground, except swimming pools, patios, walks, tennis courts, and similar paved areas . Lou Sandoval January 30, 1991 Page 6 While most structures are buildings , there is also a class called "concrete structures, " which include bridges, culverts, catch basins, retaining walls, abutments, piers, footings and foundations . (Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, Section 303-1 . 1. ) In discussion with the Development Services Department and the Public Works Department , we have learned that a building permit would not be required for the proposed parking lot, and that the only permit which would be required would apparently be a grading permit . In practice, building permits are not required for paving work, in the absence of special circumstances such as the need for walls exceeding 42" in height . As a general proposition, we understand that "structures" are buildings, and "site work" (parking lots and landscaping) and "offsite improvements" (streets, curbs, gutters, median improvements and street lights) are not viewed as structures . The zoning code does have provisions governing "parking structures, " and defines them as structures used for parking of vehicles where parking spaces, turning ratios, and drive aisles are incorporated within the structure. (Sections 9080 . 112 and 9601 . 6 . ) It seems apparent that a "parking structure" is an enclosed structure and not an open parking lot, and this is indeed the interpretation of the Development Services Department . The proposed parking lot is not a structure which would require a permit under the Uniform Building Code. Given the practice and interpretation of the city' s planning and zoning laws, it seems a fair conclusion that a surface parking lot such as that contemplated by this proposal does not constitute a structure. This conclusion is buttressed by principles of statutory interpretation. Measure C expressly lists golf course, driving range, and road, in addition to building and structure. It is a fair inference that the electors did not view surface construction such as a golf course, driving range, or road as either a building or a structure. In this regard, a parking lot is apparently distinguished from a road . There is a principle of statutory interpretation called expressio unius est exclusio alterius, which means that where a form of conduct, the manner of its performance and operation, and the things to which it refers are designated, there is an inference that all omissions should be understood as exclusions . (Sutherland Statutory Construction, Section 47 .23 . ) Parking areas are not included in the list of activities that trigger Measure C. Indeed, the creation of parking areas in recreational areas is consistent with the legislative purpose behind Measure C, which is to maintain recreational lands available for recreational uses by the general public. The parking of vehicles is an essential part of access to and use of beach property. The Lou Sandoval January 30, 1991 Page 7 arguments by the supporters of Measure C express concern for special interests attempting to obtain public lands for private uses . Concerns were expressed over building semi-private clubs and exclusive restaurants , and other uses which would not be available to the general public. The ballot arguments expressly stated that various kinds of improvements could be done without a vote, including restrooms , showers, paths, bike paths, picnic tables , basketball courts , baseball diamonds, soccer fields, ballfields , sports fields , equestrian trails, nature centers, small restaurants, and landscaping . It is entirely consistent with these uses to allow surface parking lots and landscaping . It is apparent from reviewing the legislative history of Measure C that its intent is to restrict commercial development and private use of recreational lands; it should be interpreted in that context and should not be unreasonably interpreted to preclude projects which enhance public use. Accordingly, it is our conclusion that a ground-level parking lot does not constitute a structure for purposes of Measure C. CONCLUSION: The proposed parking lot, to provide parking and access to beach facilities, is not subject to the public vote requirements contained in Measure C, because the site is not a beach or a park and the proposed improvements do not constitute a structure as applied to Measure C. Gail Hutton City Attorney cc : Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator Honorable Peter Green, Mayor, and Members of the City Council Mike Adams , Director of Community Development Pat Dapkus, Management Assistant Don Noble, Public Works �_/3 . 7