The following City Council agenda includes text only version of the staff reports associated with the business matters to be brought before for the City Council at its Regular Meeting of this date. Changes to the staff reports may be necessary prior to the actual City Council meeting. The City Council may elect to delete or continue business matters at the beginning of the City Council Meeting. Additionally, staff reports attachments, including but not limited to, pictures, plans, drawings, spreadsheet presentations, financial statements and correspondences are not included. The attachments are available for review with the official agenda package at the Reception area at City Hall as well as the Palos Verdes public libraries.

...end of disclaimer...

 

** CLICK HERE FOR CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTS

This agenda has been prepared to provide for the orderly progression of City business. Detailed staff reports on specific items are posted in the hallway for public viewing. The City Council wants to hear your comments, however, to run the meeting efficiently, please observe the following rules when you participate in the meeting.

Please try to submit your REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL form to the City Clerk prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called at the appropriate time to make your remarks.

For the sake of efficiency, the City Council Agenda is divided into several sections:

Consent Calendar: This section consists of routine items which, unless a request has been received from the public, council or staff to remove a particular item for discussion, are enacted by one motion of the City Council. If you wish to speak to any Consent Calendar items(s) you will be limited to three minutes.

Public Hearings: This section is devoted to noticed hearings. Although the normal time limit is three minutes for each speaker, the Mayor may grant additional time to a representative speaking for an entire group. However, this should not discourage anyone from addressing the City Council individually.

Regular Business: This section contains items of general business and you will be allowed three minutes to speak on any item.

Public Comments: This part of the agenda is reserved for making comments on matters which are NOT on the agenda. If you have submitted a request to speak, you will be called by the City Clerk at the appropriate time and you may speak for up to three minutes. Please limit your comments to matters within the jurisdiction of the City Council. Due to State law, no action can be taken on matters brought up under Audience Comments. If action by the City Council is necessary, the matter may be placed on a future agenda or referred to staff, as determined by Council.

Please make your remarks at the lectern microphone and direct your comments to the City Council and not the staff or the public.

Conduct at the Council Meeting: The City Council has adopted a set of rules for conduct during City Council meeting. The following is an excerpt from those adopted Rules of Procedure:

Section 6.3The Mayor shall order removed from the Council Chambers any person(s) who commit the following acts a regular or special meeting of the City Council:

1. Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the Council or any member thereof, tending to interrupt the due and orderly course of said meeting.

2. A breach of the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance, tending to interrupt the due and orderly course of said meeting.

3. Disobedience of any lawful order of the Mayor which shall include an order to be seated or to refrain from addressing the Council.

4. Any other unlawful interference with the due and orderly course of the meeting.

1. Motion to waive full reading.

Recommendation: Adopt a motion to waive reading in full of all ordinances presented at this meeting with consent of the waiver of reading deemed to be given by all councilmembers after the reading of the title.

2. Minutes of January 10 and February 1, 2000. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.

3. Award of Contract for Services to Prepare an Amendment to the City’s General Plan Housing Element. (Pfost)

Recommendation: Authorize staff to executive a professional services agreement for the Mayor’s signature in an amount not to exceed $16,400 with Castaneda & Associates to prepare an amendment to the City’s General Plan Housing Element.

4. SCAG Request for support of AB 1744 (Longville). (Pfost)

Recommendation: Authorize staff to prepare a letter for the Mayor’s signature in support of AB 1744 (Longville), a six-month extension of the due date for completion of the State’s local housing element revisions.

5. Parkland Dedication Fees for Final Parcel Map No. 25492. (Louie)

Recommendation: Approve and accept the parkland dedication fees for Final Parcel Map No. 25492, located at 3456 Via Campesina (John Bowler).

6. Initiation of Code Amendment No. 48 – Staff Proposed Amendment to Section 17.86.050.A (enforcement) of Title 17. (Mihranian)

Recommendation: Direct staff to initiate a Code Amendment revising Section 17.86.50.A (enforcement) of title 17 of the Municipal Code to prohibit code violators from filing for a View Restoration or a View Preservation application, without first correcting the violation.

7. Approve Change to Scope of Work and Authorization for Solid Waste Consulting Services (Huls Environmental Management, LLC). (Ramezani)

Recommendation: Approve Addendum No. 1 to a professional service agreement with Huls Environmental Management, LLC, which expands the scope of work and approves an additional $3,500 in expenditures.

8. Approve Change to Scope of Work and Authorization for Residential Solid Waste Consulting Services (Hilton, Farnkopf and Hobson, LLC)

Recommendation: Approve Addendum No. 3 to a professional service agreement with Hilton, Farnkopf and Hobson, LLC, which expands the scope of work and approves expenditures in excess of the amount previously authorized by the City Council.

9. Amendment to Existing Professional Service Agreement for Home Improvement Program with MDG Associates. (Huey)

Recommendation: Amend the MDG Associates professional services agreement for administration services of the Home Improvement Program by $10,000 for a total authorization under this agreement of $35,000.

10. Professional Services Agreement for roadway repairs on 25^th Street from La Rotonda to the eastern City Limit. (McBride)

Recommendation: Award a professional Services Agreement with Vandermost Consulting Services, Inc. in the amount of $21,400 for Professional Environmental Services and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute said Agreement.

11. Notice of Completion for Traffic Calming on Basswood Avenue (Hardy and Harper, Inc.). (Doyle)

Recommendation: (1) Accept the work as complete. (2) Authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder; and if no claims are filed 35 days after recordation, and upon the Contractor posting an acceptable warranty bond, notify the surety company to exonerate the Payment and Performance bonds. (3) Authorize the Director of Public Works to release the 10% retention payment to Hardy and Harper, Inc. 35 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion contingent upon no claims being filed and the contractor posting an acceptable warranty bond.

12. Amendment to Parking Violations Penalty Resol No. 99-32. (Lynch)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOL. NO. 2000-__ OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 99-32 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE PENALTIES FOR PARKING VIOLATIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES.

13. Register of Demands. (McLean)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOL. NO. 2000-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.

# # # # # # # # # # # #

PUBLIC HEARING:

14. Resolution of Necessity (Continued from February 1^st meeting). (Allison)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOL. NO. 2000-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF EASEMENTS THROUGH, OVER, OR UNDER PROPERTIES WHICH ARE OWNED BY THE INDIVIDUALS IDENTIFIED ON EXHIBIT 2 IN THE STAFF REPORT. The Resolution further authorizes and directs that eminent domain proceedings be filed to acquire the parcels to construct and maintain the sewer and storm drain system in the Abalone Cove area.

RECESS:

PUBLIC COMMENTS: (approximately 8:40 P.M.)

(This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda.)

REGULAR BUSINESS:

15. Mid-Year Financial Report. (McLean)

Recommendation: (1) Receive and file the mid-year financial report; and, (2) ADOPT RESOL. NO. 2000-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 99-41, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FY 1999-2000, TO INCREASE OR DECREASE CERTAIN REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE GENERAL FUND, STREET MAINTENANCE (GAS TAX) FUND, TRANSIT (PROPOSITION A) FUND AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CIP) FUND.

16. Landslide Moratorium Ordinance to Require Certain Structures to be Connected to Operational Sewers. (Allison)

Recommendation: Review the proposed ordinance and give staff direction about its acceptability and then continue the item to a future meeting so that the other minor amendments to the Moratorium could be reviewed by the City Council concurrently with this amendment. This would avoid successive amendments to the Moratorium that might cause some confusion on the part of the public.

17. Request by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Association of Realtors to initiate Code Amendment No. 47 (Continued from the January 18^th meeting). (Mihranian)

Recommendation: (1) Provide staff with direction pertaining to the initiation of Code Amendment No. 47, revision to Section 17.76.050D.3 (signs) of Title 17 of the Municipal Code. (2) Consider the Association’s request to waive all filing fees associated with the Code Amendment.

Recommendation: Deny the requested fee waiver.

19. Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit No. 30. (Louie)

Recommendation: Grant Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit No. 30, thereby allowing the landowner to proceed with the appropriate applications for a foundation repair and room addition to the property at 114 Spindrift Drive. (Applicants: Mark and Ellen Beal).

20. Award of a Professional Services Agreement to Analyze Various Drainage Alternatives. (McBride)

Recommendation: Award a Professional Services Agreement with Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates in the amount of $20,500 for engineering services associated with the analysis of various drainage alternatives near Marguerite Drive and Palos Verdes Drive West and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement.

21. New NPDES Regulations. (Allison)

Recommendation: Consider the request of the cities of Signal Hill, Downey, Paramount, and Santa Fe Springs to join them in an appeal of the January 26, 2000 action of the Regional Water Quality Control Board – Los Angeles Region.

22. Set Date for Community Leaders’ Breakfast Meetings and Neighborhood Watch Appreciation Luncheon. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Select dates for the year 2000 Community Leaders Breakfast meetings and the Neighborhood Watch Appreciation Luncheon.

23. Support for Proposition 12 (Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000) and Proposition 13 (Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection and Flood Protection Bond Act). (Stern).

Recommendation: Consider supporting a yes vote on Propositions 12 and 13.

ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
(This section designated to oral reports from councilmembers who wish/need to report on Council assignments.)

ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to Monday, February 28 at 6:00 P.M. for interview of Commission and Committee applicants.

CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECKLIST

Based on Government Code Section 54954.5

(All Statutory References are to California Government Code Sections)

CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR

The City Council finds based on advise from legal counsel, that discussion in open session will prejudice the position of the local agency in the litigation.

Initiation of Litigation:

G.C. 54956.9(c)

The City Council is meeting whether to decide whether to file a lawsuit regarding a violation of the City’s view restoration ordinance.

CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR

G.C. 54956.8

Property: Agua Armaga Parcels 7583-022-008 ,7583-022-011; parcel 4 7573-003-017; Filiorum 7581-023-30, Lot 23 of LACA #51, Lot 1 of LACA #51 (Portuguese Bend).

Negotiating

Parties: Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Holdings, York Long Point Associates, City Manager, City Attorney and Director of Planning, Building & Code Enforcement.

Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment

Existing Litigation:

G.C. 54956.9(a)

Name of Case: Paul & Terri McCaul vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes

Case No. or Claim No. YC036222

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

FEBRUARY 15, 2000

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD

6:00 P.M. CLOSED SESSION. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED BROWN ACT CHECKLIST FOR DETAILS.

7:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2000-05

NEXT ORD. NO. 356

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

RECYCLE DRAWING:

---

BEGINNING OF STAFF REPORTS

---

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

1. Motion to waive full reading.

Recommendation: Adopt a motion to waive reading in full of all ordinances presented at this meeting with consent of the waiver of reading deemed to be given by all councilmembers after the reading of the title.

2. Minutes of January 10 and February 1, 2000. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Approve the minutes.

3. Award of Contract for Services to Prepare an Amendment to the City’s General Plan Housing Element. (Pfost)

Recommendation: Authorize staff to executive a professional services agreement for the Mayor’s signature in an amount not to exceed $16,400 with Castaneda & Associates to prepare an amendment to the City’s General Plan Housing Element.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2000

SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR SERVICES TO PREPARE AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT

Staff Coordinator: Gregory Pfost, AICP, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION: Authorize Staff to execute a professional services agreement for the Mayor’s signature in an amount not to exceed $16,440 with Castaneda & Associates to prepare an amendment to the City’s General Plan Housing Element.

BACKGROUND:

According to State Law, a Housing Element must be updated every five years. The last update for the City was due on June 30, 1994. However, because of budget constraints, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) was unable to prepare a new Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) – a critical component in the preparation of a Housing Element. Since SCAG was not able to prepare the RHNA, the Housing Element update requirement has been extended by the State Legislature on an annual basis since 1994. Last year, SCAG received funding and has subsequently prepared the RHNA. As such, current State Law requires that the City, along with all other cities within the SCAG region, update its Housing Element by June 30, 2000.

DISCUSSION:

On December 7, 1999, Staff sent out a Request for Proposal (RFP) to four different firms capable of preparing the Housing Element Amendment. Two firms, Willdan and Castaneda & Associates, responded to the RFP.

While both firms have experience in preparing Housing Elements, and Staff is confident that either firm could complete the work, of the two firms, Staff is recommending Castaneda & Associates for preparation of the City’s Housing Element Amendment. Staff is recommending Castaneda & Associates for two reasons; first, Castaneda & Associates prepared the City’s last Housing Element Amendment in 1990 and therefore may be more experienced with housing issues in the City, and second, their fee of $16,440 is substantially less than Willdan’s fee of $25,933.

Attached is a copy of Castaneda & Associates’ proposal. As shown in the proposal, the consultant would have a Draft Housing Element prepared for a Planning Commission Workshop in May. A Draft of the Housing Element will then be submitted to the State later that month – meeting the State’s deadline for submittal of a Draft document by June 30, 2000. Public Hearings on the Element, which would consider the State’s comments, will be held in July and August. Staff will keep the Council periodically updated on the status of the preparation of the Element Amendment.

CONCLUSION:

For the reasons noted above, Staff recommends that the Council authorize Staff to execute a professional services agreement for the Mayor’s signature in an amount not to exceed $16,440 with Castaneda & Associates.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The current two year City budget has allocated $35,000 towards the preparation of the Housing Element Amendment. The cost of the consultant’s services will be less than ½ of this amount.

Respectfully submitted:
Joel Rojas, AICP, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

4. SCAG Request for support of AB 1744 (Longville). (Pfost)

Recommendation: Authorize staff to prepare a letter for the Mayor’s signature in support of AB 1744 (Longville), a six-month extension of the due date for completion of the State’s local housing element revisions.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2000

SUBJECT: REQUEST BY SCAG TO SUPPORT ASSEMBLY BILL 1744

Staff Coordinator: Gregory Pfost, AICP, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION:Approve the attached letter for the Mayor’s signature, supporting Assembly Bill 1744, which provides for a six-month extension of the due date for completion of local housing element revisions.

BACKGROUND:

According to State Law, a Housing Element must be updated every five years. The last update for the City was due on June 30, 1994. However, because of budget constraints, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) was unable to prepare a new Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) – a critical component in the preparation of a Housing Element. Since SCAG was not able to prepare the RHNA, the Housing Element update requirement has been extended by the State Legislature on an annual basis since 1994. Last year, SCAG received funding to prepare the RHNA. As such, current State Law requires that the City, along with all other cities within the SCAG region, update its Housing Element by June 30, 2000.

Although SCAG has obtained funding, the actual process in preparing the RHNA has been quite lengthy. In fact, the SCAG Regional Council did not adopt the Draft RHNA until November 1999. Additionally, since February 2, 2000 was the final date for cities within the SCAG region to file an appeal of their Draft RHNA, the process is not over yet. As the City Council is aware, SCAG has reduced the RHNA for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes from 311 units to 53 units. Since this was based upon Staff’s input to SCAG, and SCAG approved of the 53 units requested by Staff, an appeal was not submitted on behalf of the City.

DISCUSSION:

Attached is a January 29, 2000 letter from SCAG, addressed to the City Manager. The letter requests that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, through Council approval, support Assembly Bill 1744 (AB1744). AB1744 is an urgency measure that was introduced to the State Legislature on January 11, 2000. AB1744 would provide for a six-month extension of the due date for completion of local housing element revisions; changing the due date from June 30, 2000 to December 31, 2000. The purpose of the extension is to give cities additional time to prepare their housing element amendments in the wake of SCAG’s late submittal of the RHNA to cities (see BACKGROUND section above).

At the February 15^th City Council meeting, Staff will be recommending (see separate Agenda Report) that the City Council authorize Staff to execute a professional services agreement with Castaneda & Associates to prepare an amendment to the City’s General Plan Housing Element. Although Castaneda & Associates has indicated that they can meet the current June 30, 2000 deadline imposed by the State, the proposed six-month extension would be beneficial to Staff and the City as it would allow more time for public review and preparation of the Amendment. For these reasons, Staff recommends that the Council approve the attached letter supporting AB1744.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the approval of the attached letter.

Respectfully submitted:
Joel Rojas, AICP, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

5. Parkland Dedication Fees for Final Parcel Map No. 25492. (Louie)

Recommendation: Approve and accept the parkland dedication fees for Final Parcel Map No. 25492, located at 3456 Via Campesina (John Bowler).

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2000

SUBJECT: PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES FOR FINAL PARCEL MAP

NO. 25492 (APPLICANT: JOHN BOWLER).

Staff Coordinator: Lisa Louie, Associate Planner

RECOMMENDATION Approve via minute order, parkland dedication (Quimby) fees for Final Parcel Map No. 25492, pursuant to the City’s parkland dedication fee formula in the amount of $12,603.31.

On November 23, 1999, the applicant, Mr. John Bowler submitted Final Parcel Map No. 25492 to the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department for approval. As part of the conditions of approval of the final map, the applicant must pay the parkland dedication (Quimby) fees prior to approval of the final map (see attached condition no. 26 of P.C. Resolution No. 99-30). Pursuant to the City’s Development Code, the park dedication fee shall be determined by the City Council.

On September 14 1999, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 99-30, approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 25492, subject to the conditions of approval. The applicant received approval to subdivide an existing 65,351 square foot lot located at 3456 Via Campesina into two lots. Lot no. 1 will have a gross area of 38,738 square feet, and lot no. 2, the newly created flag lot, will be 26,613 square feet. However, only lot no. 2 is subject to the parkland dedication fee since lot no. 1 is developed with an existing single family residence that will remain.

Pursuant to Chapter 16.20.100 of the City’s Municipal Code (attached), as part of the final parcel map process, the applicant shall, in lieu of dedicating land as determined by the Planning Commission, pay a fee based upon the "fair market value" of the entire parcel. The amount shall be determined by the City Council using one of four alternative methods. These methods are: 1) tax assessor valuation; 2) sale price of land if sold within the last five years; 3) the sale of comparable properties; or 4) a land appraisal.

The applicant submitted an appraisal to determine the "fair market value" of the subject property. According to the appraisal, the 26,613 square foot vacant lot has a market value of $550,000.00. Using this appraisal, Staff calculated the per/acre value of the property as $900,236.71/acre. Based upon the market value, the calculation for the Quimby park fee for this project is as follows:

As a result, Staff recommends that the total amount of $12,603.31 be paid in lieu of land dedication since Staff believes that the dedication of .0140 acres of land in this area is not feasible for the applicant or the City, and such a dedication would not serve any realistic recreational purpose.

Based upon the discussion above, Staff recommends that the City Council approve via minute order, the parkland dedication (Quimby) fee of $12,603.31.

In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternative is available to the City Council:

1. Identify any issues or concerns with the proposed appraisal, provide Staff and/or applicant with directions in using an alternate method in determining the "fair market value", and continue the item to a future agenda.

Respectfully submitted:
Joel Rojas, AICP
Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed By:
Les Evans, City Manager

6. Initiation of Code Amendment No. 48 – Staff Proposed Amendment to Section 17.86.050.A (enforcement) of Title 17. (Mihranian)

Recommendation: Direct staff to initiate a Code Amendment revising Section 17.86.50.A (enforcement) of title 17 of the Municipal Code to prohibit code violators from filing for a View Restoration or a View Preservation application, without first correcting the violation.

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2000

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council direct Staff to initiate the public hearing process before the Planning Commission to consider Code Amendment No. 48 revising Section 17.86.050.A (Enforcement) of Title 17 of the City’s Municipal Code to prohibit the filing or processing of a View Restoration, View Preservation or City Tree Review application by a property owner of a lot that is in violation of the City’s Municipal Code.

In order to obtain compliance in code enforcement matters, the current Development Code prohibits the acceptance or processing of development applications involving properties that are in violation with the Municipal Code. Based on a prior determination that View Restoration, View Preservation and City Tree Review applications do not constitute "development applications", the language in Section 17.86.050.A (Enforcement) of Title 17 of the City’s Municipal Code is inapplicable to such applications. Therefore, a violator of the Municipal Code can still apply for a View Restoration, View Preservation or City Tree Review application without having to correct the violation. The City Attorney has advised Staff that the language of this section should be amended to prevent code violators from requesting such applications, since this was the intent of this section when drafted.

In accordance to Section 17.68.030 of the Development Code, Staff is seeking Council approval for initiating the code amendment process to make this change to the Development Code.

Pursuant to Section 17.86.050.A of the Development Code, the City shall not allow improvements or development on a lot or parcel that is in violation with the City’s Municipal Code, unless the violation has been removed or legalized. Based on the strict interpretation of the above provision, as currently worded, violators of the City’s Municipal Code may still file View Restoration, View Preservation or City Tree Review applications with the City without first having to correct the violation on their lot or parcel. Staff believes that in order to maintain consistency with the Enforcement Section of the Municipal Code, as it pertains to development activity and other related improvements, this Section of the Municipal Code should be modified to prohibit violators of the Municipal Code from filing any application with the City, including a View Restoration, View Preservation or a City Tree Review application.

Attached to this report is the current language with the proposed amendments. Staff seeks the Council’s direction in considering initiating a code amendment to make the above modification to Section 17.86.050.A of Title 17 of the City’s Municipal Code. If the Council approves initiation of this specific code amendment, the Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to consider the actual code amendment language and the Planning Commission’s recommendation will then be forwarded to the Council for its review and eventual adoption.

Based on the foregoing analysis and discussion, Staff recommends that the City Council direct Staff to initiate Code Amendment No. 48 modifying 17.86.050.A (Enforcement) of Title 17 of the City Municipal Code to add View Restoration, View Preservation, and City Tree Review applications to the category of applications that cannot be processed if there is a verified code violation on the applicant’s property.

Staff believes that the proposed code amendment will not impact the City’s General fund, other than costs incurred by Staff to prepare the appropriate staff reports for the Planning Commission and the City Council and Staff’s attendance at the required public hearings. The provision creates an incentive to comply with all Municipal Code requirements, without the need for potentially expensive and time consuming Code Enforcement Staff efforts to gain compliance.

The following alternatives are available for the City Council’s consideration in addition to Staff’s recommendation:

Respectfully submitted:
Joel Rojas, AICP
Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

7. Approve Change to Scope of Work and Authorization for Solid Waste Consulting Services (Huls Environmental Management, LLC). (Ramezani)

Recommendation: Approve Addendum No. 1 to a professional service agreement with Huls Environmental Management, LLC, which expands the scope of work and approves an additional $3,500 in expenditures.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2000

SUBJECT: APPROVE CHANGE TO SCOPE OF WORK AND AUTHORIZATION FOR SOLID WASTE CONSULTING SERVICE

STAFF COORDINATOR: LAUREN RAMEZANI, SR. ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST

RECOMMENDATION: Approve Addendum No. 1 to a professional service agreement with Huls Environmental Management, LLC, which expands the scope of work and approves an additional $3,500 in expenditures.

On June 15, 1999, the City Council approved a consultant service agreement with Huls Environmental Management, LLC (Formerly Michael J. Huls, REA) to assist staff in implementing the Source Reduction and Recycling Element and Used Oil Block Grant implementation for FY 99-00 and FY 00-01. At this time additional required services have been identified based on a request from the City Council, and the additional requirements of the California Integrated Waste Management Board (Board).

On August 1, 1999, Huls Environmental Management, LLC (Huls) prepared the 1998 AB 939 Annual Report. The City’s reported 1998 diversion using the simple Board approved base year adjustment methodology (AB 2494) was 44%. Huls also submitted an alternative 1998 diversion utilizing the so-called "LA Fix" and reached a diversion rate of 58%. Utilizing the "LA Fix" is a way of delegating approximately 4 million tons of disposal among different cities based on population. That tonnage when allocated increases the 1990 base year disposal quantities therefore improves the current disposal versus recycling ratio.

The Board previously accepted most base year fix requests. However, in early 1999, the Board made a significant switch in policy and now requires cities to provide considerable documentation to justify higher diversion rates. This request for an increase in authorization provides for these additional services.

At the December 21, 1999 City Council meeting, the Council requested staff to investigate ways in which the City’s commercial recycling program can be improved. With this direction, staff requested an amended scope of work from Huls for the necessary services to make these investigations. As proposed, the characteristics of the commercial waste stream will be investigated, and programs to encourage more recycling and/or ordinances will be recommended and brought to the City Council for consideration. This request for an increase in authorization provides for these additional services.

In addition to these services, Huls will continue to work on its original scope of services which include: used oil administration, evaluating County Landfill Disposal reports, administering the curbside recycling public education campaign and monitoring the hauler quarterly reports.

The City Council may not wish to approve Addendum No. 1 for Huls. However, staff believes that the proposed additional services are important.

The adopted FY 99-00 budget has adequate Solid Waste Funds for this request. If Huls’ request is approved, their FY 99-00 contract will be increased by $3,500 to a not to exceed amount of $18,360. The estimated June 30, 2000 Solid Waste Fund balance is $655,000.

Respectfully Submitted,
Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

8. Approve Change to Scope of Work and Authorization for Residential Solid Waste Consulting Services (Hilton, Farnkopf and Hobson, LLC)

Recommendation: Approve Addendum No. 3 to a professional service agreement with Hilton, Farnkopf and Hobson, LLC, which expands the scope of work and approves expenditures in excess of the amount previously authorized by the City Council.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2000

SUBJECT: APPROVE CHANGE TO SCOPE OF WORK AND AUTHORIZATION FOR RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE CONSULTING SERVICES

STAFF COORDINATOR: LAUREN RAMEZANI, SR. ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST

RECOMMENDATION: Approve Addendum No. 3 to a professional service agreement with Hilton, Farnkopf and Hobson, LLC, which expands the scope of work and approves expenditures in excess of the amount previously authorized by the City Council.

On September 15, 1998, the City Council approved a consultant service agreement with Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC (HF&H) to assist staff in the procurement process for awarding new exclusive residential solid waste agreements. On December 21, 1999 and February 1, 2000, the City Council executed new seven year exclusive residential agreements with Waste Management of Los Angeles and Ivy Rubbish Disposal, respectively.

The award of the residential waste hauling agreements completed HF&H’s contract related activities. However, their agreement did not have sufficient funds for additional activities that occurred in November and December of 1999, prior to the award of the contracts. The consultant incurred unbilled expenses totaling approximately $10,800, which was for the work performed outside the scope of their agreement, including attending additional meetings. HF&H has submitted a request for payment in the amount of $4,967.50. (See attached letter)

A detailed breakdown for the additional work include:

9. Amendment to Existing Professional Service Agreement for Home Improvement Program with MDG Associates. (Huey)

Recommendation: Amend the MDG Associates professional services agreement for administration services of the Home Improvement Program by $10,000 for a total authorization under this agreement of $35,000.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2000

SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO EXISTING PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH MDG ASSOCIATES RELATED TO THE HOME IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

RECOMMENDATION: Amend the MDG Associates professional service agreement for administration services of the Home Improvement Program by $10,000 for a total authorization under this agreement of $35,000.

On June 15, 1999 the City Council approved an agreement with MDG Associates to provide administrative services in FY 1999-2000 for the Home Improvement Program for a not-to-exceed amount of $25,000. The scope of the services included marketing the program, processing applications for assistance, conducting inspections of the project properties, processing and packaging project loan applications, providing project management services for homeowners and contractors, disbursing funds, and maintaining program files in compliance with HUD and CDC standards.

ANALYSIS

The FY 1999-2000 budget allocation for the Home Improvement Program (HIP) was originally $150,000. A continuing appropriation of $80,000 from FY 1998-99 and the recent transfer of $38,400 CDBG funds from the City of Rolling Hills have increased this fiscal year’s allocation for the HIP to $268,400. The additional allocation of funds will assist in satisfying the large number of applicants for home improvement projects.

In order to administer the increase in grants/loans available to the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes, additional services of $10,000 will be required from MDG Associates, increasing their existing professional service agreement from $25,000 to $35,000. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes will use 80% of the $268,400 for grants and deferred loans to low and moderate income homeowners for needed home repairs, and according to CDC guidelines, the remaining 20% or $53,680 can be used for administration of the program. These program administration costs include the requested authorization of $35,000 for consultant services.

Since the inception of the HIP 31 grants and/or loans totaling approximately $300,000 have been or are in the process of being approved. At this time five projects have been completed, six projects are under construction, and 20 applicants are currently in the preconstruction phase.

Approving the amendment to the professional service agreement will authorize the proposed budgeted expenditure of up to $35,000 in FY 1999-2000. Funds are available in the adopted FY 1999-2000 budget for the recommended action. The HOME Improvement Program is fully funded through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. Consultant costs required for program administration and implementation are eligible CDBG expenditures.

Submitted by,
Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

10. Professional Services Agreement for roadway repairs on 25^th Street from La Rotonda to the eastern City Limit. (McBride)

Recommendation: Award a professional Services Agreement with Vandermost Consulting Services, Inc. in the amount of $21,400 for Professional Environmental Services and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute said Agreement.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2000

SUBJECT: PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH ROADWAY REPAIRS ON 25^TH STREET FROM LA ROTONDA TO THE EASTERN CITY LIMIT

Staff Coordinator: David McBride, Senior Engineer

RECOMMENDATION: Award a Professional Services Agreement with Vandermost Consulting Services, Inc. in the amount of $21,400 for Professional Environmental Services and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an Agreement.

BACKGROUND

As outlined in a report to Council on October 19, 1999, two phases of repairs are planned to address settlement and cracks on 25^th Street from La Rotonda to the Easterly City Limit. Phase one improvements have been completed which included construction of a storm drain and installation of horizontal sub drains in the roadway embankment. Phase two improvements are currently being designed and include the reconstruction of deteriorated storm drains, asphalt concrete resurfacing and installation of slope inclinometers to monitor future movement.

During the implementation of both phases of the improvements it became apparent that the construction of drainage improvements and horizontal sub drains will impact small portions of a Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) restoration project undertaken within Shoreline Park as part of the environmental mitigation for the Ocean Trials Development Project. Phase one improvements were completed under an emergency exemption provision of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a portion of CSS habitat was impacted during its construction. Ultimately, both phases of the project will constitute a loss of CSS habitat that will need to be permitted and mitigated. Because of this, a Mitigated Negative (MND) and 4(d) habitat loss permit from State and Federal regulatory agencies will be required. The recommended action will provide the professional services necessary to meet these requirements.

Staff requested a single source proposal from Vandermost Consulting Services, Inc., based on prior work the firm has done with similar projects in the City (e.g., the Abalone Cove Community Improvement Project – Sewer and Storm Drain). Their scope of services include preparation of an initial study, biological investigations, preparation of a mitigated negative declaration, responses to comments and mitigation reporting or monitoring programs, public meetings, notice of determination, and processing of a the 4(d) habitat loss permit with the resource agencies.

Vandermost’s proposal is $21,400 for all of the identified tasks. Their scope of service is attached as Exhibit "A". Vandermost’s proposal is reasonable and competitive.

Vandermost has provided a reasonable cost and service proposal for the required professional environmental services. Moreover, they have considerable experience in the preparation of environmental documentation and in resource agency permitting requirements on City/Agency projects. Based in this, staff is recommending award of a professional service to Vandermost Consulting Services, Inc. in the amount of $21,400.

One alternative is to send out a request for proposals (RFP's) for professional service providers. We do not anticipate this reducing the cost of the professional services and it will take 1-1/2 to 2 months to complete.

The recommended action will authorize the expenditure of $21,400 for professional services. Funding for this project has been budgeted and is provided by the proposition C fund.

Respectfully submitted:
Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

11. Notice of Completion for Traffic Calming on Basswood Avenue (Hardy and Harper, Inc.). (Doyle)

Recommendation: (1) Accept the work as complete. (2) Authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder; and if no claims are filed 35 days after recordation, and upon the Contractor posting an acceptable warranty bond, notify the surety company to exonerate the Payment and Performance bonds. (3) Authorize the Director of Public Works to release the 10% retention payment to Hardy and Harper, Inc. 35 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion contingent upon no claims being filed and the contractor posting an acceptable warranty bond.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2000

SUBJECT: NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR TRAFFIC CALMING ON BASSWOOD AVENUE

Staff Coordinator: Marla Doyle, Deputy Director of Public Works

1. Accept the work as complete.
2. Authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder; and if no claims are filed 35 days after recordation, and upon the Contractor posting an acceptable warranty bond, notify the surety company to exonerate the Payment and Performance bonds.
3. Authorize the Director of Public Works to release the 10% retention payment to Hardy and Harper, Inc. 35 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion by the County Recorder contingent on no claims being filed on the project and the Contractor posting an acceptable warranty bond.

On August 3, 1999, City Council awarded a contract to Hardy and Harper, Inc. for the installation of a series of six speed humps on Basswood Avenue. This work was completed on February 2, 2000.

Final project cost is as follows:

There was one contract change order on the project. In response to neighborhood requests, signing at each hump was eliminated in order to reduce the visual impact of the project.

Hardy and Harper, Inc. has successfully completed all work in accordance with the plans and specifications. Therefore, the work should be accepted as complete and a Notice of Completion filed.

The recommended action will have no fiscal impact. Adequate funds were provided in the adopted FY 1999-00 budget for completion of the project.

Respectfully submitted,
Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

12. Amendment to Parking Violations Penalty Resol No. 99-32. (Lynch)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOL. NO. 2000-__ OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 99-32 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE PENALTIES FOR PARKING VIOLATIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: CITY ATTORNEY CAROL W. LYNCH

DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2000

SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO PARKING VIOLATIONS PENALTY RESOL. NO. 99-32

BACKGROUND

Resolution No. 99-32 establishes the penalties for parking violations within the City. However, after adoption of that resolution, we were apprised of a change in the law pertaining to late payment penalties which attach to the base penalty if the base penalty is not paid.

Under current law, a late payment penalty attaches to the base penalty if the base penalty is not paid within 14 days of the mailing of the Notice of Delinquent Parking Violation, not 10 days as set forth in Resolution No. 99-32. Accordingly, the proposed resolution amends paragraph C entitled "Late Payment Penalty" of Resol. No. 99-32 to reflect the change in the law.

Respectfully submitted,
Carol W. Lynch

13. Register of Demands. (McLean)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOL. NO. 2000-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.

THIS REPORT AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL.

# # # # # # # # # # # #

PUBLIC HEARING:

14. Resolution of Necessity (Continued from February 1^st meeting). (Allison)

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOL. NO. 2000-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF EASEMENTS THROUGH, OVER, OR UNDER PROPERTIES WHICH ARE OWNED BY THE INDIVIDUALS IDENTIFIED ON EXHIBIT 2 IN THE STAFF REPORT. The Resolution further authorizes and directs that eminent domain proceedings be filed to acquire the parcels to construct and maintain the sewer and storm drain system in the Abalone Cove area.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2000

SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR ABALONE COVE SEWER AND STORM DRAIN EASEMENT ACQUISITIONS

RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution 00- a Resolution of Necessity authorizing the acquisition by eminent domain of easements through, over, or under properties which are owned by the individuals identified on Exhibit 2, attached to this Report. The Resolution further authorizes and directs that eminent domain proceedings be filed to acquire the parcels to construct and maintain the sewer and storm drain system in the Abalone Cove area.

A panel of geologic experts recommended several capital improvement projects for the Abalone Cove project area to reduce movement of the Abalone Cove Landslide. Since the list of projects was first established, the Agency has been moving steadily towards the construction of the sewer and storm drain improvements.

The sewer project consists of combination gravity and low-pressure system constructed primarily within the existing streets. Properties with favorable geologic and topographic conditions will be served with gravity connections, while the remaining properties will be served with a low-pressure grinder pump system. The storm drain project consists of an underground storm drain primarily within the residential roadways. The system will pick up neighborhood drainage and convey it to Alta Mira Canyon Channel. The project also includes improvements to the lower portion of Alta Mira Canyon Channel, from lower Narcissa Drive up to Figtree Road.

The construction and maintenance of the sewer and storm drain improvements require rights-of-way from the property owners in the Abalone Cove project area. This is because all of the roadways within the project area are private. Since March of 1997, the Agency has been seeking both temporary and permanent easements over most of the 183 parcels of the project area. The required easements fall into two broad categories as follows:

In-street easements Those easements required over the portion of private property already burdened with a roadway easement and roadway improvements.

Cross-Lot Easements Those easements required over portions of private property not burdened with roadway easements and roadway improvements.

In March 1999, property owners were asked to voluntarily grant easement deeds to the Agency for in-street sewer and storm drain easements. These easements were determined by a qualified real estate appraiser to have no compensatory value because they are already burdened with an existing easement and improvements. Nevertheless, both the Agency Board and the City Council authorized payments of $150 for each easement voluntarily conveyed. Of the 158 in-street sewer and storm drain easements, 151 have been obtained voluntarily. Sixteen additional in-street easements are required for both the sewer and the storm drain project. Owners of these 16 parcels have not executed the easement deeds. Many of these owners have refused to sign, or have not responded to the department’s correspondence, however, staff is in communication with several property owners, and expects that several of the 16 will sign their documents.

The sewer project also requires a number of permanent and temporary construction cross lot easements over 6 six parcels. A qualified real estate appraiser appraised these easements and offer letters were sent to property owners in August 1999. Owners of four of the parcels responded positively and indicated their willingness to convey the easements for the amounts offered by the City. The owners of two remaining parcels refused the City’s offer. As the City Council knows, at the last meeting, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Necessity authorizing acquisition of the easement across those two parcels. Depending upon the negotiations with two of the other property owners, staff may be required to present another Resolution of Necessity to the City Council at a future date.

The Public Works Department has made a determined effort to acquire all of the easements necessary to construct and maintain these two projects. A complete list of all of the outstanding easements is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. At this point, further action by the staff will likely be unproductive. Therefore staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing regarding the attached Resolution of Necessity authorizing the acquisition, by eminent domain, of the remaining in-street easements required to construct and maintain the sewer and storm drain system.

The City Council has before it a proposed Resolution of Necessity to acquire easements over a total of 16 lots of real property.

The Resolution authorizes the acquisition of permanent, subsurface easements to accommodate the main sewer line within the various private street rights-of -way over 16 parcels, more particularly identified on Exhibit 2 hereto. In addition, a portion of the storm drain system also will be located within some of the same private street rights-of-way and will convey drainage from the neighborhood to Alta Mira Canyon.

The funding for the projects are the remaining proceeds from the formation of the Assessment District by the County of Los Angeles after the settlement of the Horan litigation. Because the primary purpose of the Redevelopment Agency is to address the damage caused by the landslides, the Redevelopment Agency took the lead in planning the combination gravity and pressure sewer system as well as in a proposed storm drain system for the project area. A chronology of the projects is attached to this Staff report.

The following discussion demonstrates that the environmental impacts of acquiring the easements described in the proposed Resolutions have been considered for both the sewer and storm drain systems.

The County of Los Angeles prepared an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") in connection with the landslide mitigation work that was to be performed with funds from the Assessment District that was formed by the County. That EIR addressed both the potential sewer and storm drain projects.

After the Agency caused the plans for the sewer project to be prepared, the Agency caused a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to be prepared and circulated for the proposed sewer system in 1995. The Agency certified and approved a Final Supplemental EIR for the Abalone Cove sewer system, dated July 2, 1996 (SCH # 95021037). In conjunction with the City’s environmental review, a Mitigation Monitoring Program dated July 2, 1996, also was developed and approved.

On May 4, 1999, a Draft Supplement to the Final Supplemental EIR for the Abalone Cove Combination Sewer System Project was prepared and certified by the Redevelopment Agency Board, to address the gravity lines that were added subsequently to the sewer project, in response to concerns from property owners in the area.

No substantial revisions have been made to that sewer system since that time. Accordingly, there is no new information or changes regarding the proposed sewer project that would require further environmental review or analysis.

Extensive environmental review also was conducted in connection with the storm drain project. In 1993, the City undertook to prepare a focused EIR in connection with proposed Alta Mira Canyon Drainage Control improvements. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for public review beginning on June 14, 1995. An addendum to the Draft EIR was prepared and made available for review on August 25,

1995. A second Addendum was prepared and circulated on November 17, 1995. The Redevelopment Agency Board certified the Final EIR on February 26, 1996 (SCH #94021003).

An Addendum to the FEIR for the Alta Mira Canyon Drainage Control Project dated October 1999, was certified by Resolution No. RDA 99-18, on October 5, 1999, by the Redevelopment Agency’s Board. No changes have been proposed to the plans for the storm drain project that would require further environmental review.

The projects for which both Final Environmental Impact Reports (SCH Nos. 95021037 and 94021003) were developed are consistent with the need to reduce the amount of water entering the slide area to achieve greater land stability. The construction and maintenance of the sewer and storm drain systems is consistent with the City and the Agency’s goal to stabilize the Abalone Cove Landslide mass and to protect the public health, safety and welfare.

The Draft EIRs, Final EIRs, and all exhibits, addenda and supplements thereto, and the respective resolutions certifying each of these documents are on file in the offices of the City Clerk and the Public Works Department and are incorporated into this report by this reference.

To adopt the proposed Resolutions of Necessity, the City Council must find and determine that:

1. The public interest and necessity require the projects;
2. The projects are planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury;

1. The property is necessary for the proposed projects; and
1. The offers required by Section 7267.2 of the Government Code have been made to the owner or owners of record.

The hearing on the proposed Resolution relates only to issues A, B, C, and D above as they may apply to the property interests sought to be acquired.

1. The public interest and necessity require the projects
2. .The necessity of the proposed sewer and storm drain projects were identified by a panel of geological and geotechnical experts who were charged with the task of devising measures to alleviate or halt movement of the Abalone Cove Landslide mass. The improvements were developed by the Department and have been the subject of extensive environmental review and commentary.

The projects constitute a comprehensive effort to preclude water from different sources from entering the Landslide mass.

The Department determined that the proposed projects are consistent with the City’s goal of preserving property values, forestalling soil subsidence, and protecting the public health and safety and with the goals of the Redevelopment Plan.

B. The Projects are Planned and Located in the Manner That Will be Most Compatible With the Greatest Public Good and the Least Private Injury.

The easements to be acquired are all located within the Abalone Cove neighborhood and are located in or very near to the Landslide mass. The twenty-three easements will be located entirely within private street rights-of-way, which, while located within a gated community, serve as the street system for that community. In addition to providing each owner with ingress and egress to the neighborhood, the streets are used by fire, police, and other health and safety personnel, as well as for delivery services. The use of the subsurface area of these streets for sewer and storm drain purposes will not substantially interfere with each owner’s right to use or otherwise be serviced by these private street rights-of-way.

C. The Property is Necessary for the Project.

Construction of the sewer and storm drain facilities are necessary to eliminate water from currently-existing septic sewers and to reduce storm drain runoff from the Abalone Cove neighborhood from entering the Landslide mass. In order for properties in this area to connect to the sewer system, a sewer mainline must be located adjacent to those properties. Since each property is accessed by a street, locating the majority of the sewer main line within the private street rights-of-way will serve the purposes of the project without impairing the use of those rights-of-way for vehicular and other traffic.

These projects have been recommended by the geological and geotechnical experts to enhance land stability in this area of the City. There are no viable alternative routes for either project. The subject easements, therefore, are required to insure effective effluent and storm drain control.

D. The Offer Required by Government Code Section 7267.2 Has Been Made to the Owner of Record.

The in-street easements were determined by a qualified real estate appraiser to have no compensable value. Nevertheless, the City Council set nominal compensation for each easement and offered the nominal amount in return for signed easement deeds. The owners of the properties who are the subject of this Resolution of Necessity have not accepted the City’s offer and have not conveyed the in-street easements to the City.

The owners set forth on Exhibit 1 hereto have been given notice of this hearing pursuant to the California Eminent Domain Law, and the hearing was continued to allow staff to provide additional mailed notice of the date and time of this meeting to seven of the property owners to ensure that they have received notice in accordance with the requirements of the Eminent Domain Law.

This Report was prepared with the assistance of Legal Counsel.

Adopting the attached Resolution of Necessity will allow the City to proceed to commence legal proceedings to acquire these easements for the in-street portions of the sewer and storm drain systems.

Respectfully submitted,
Dean Allison, Director of Public Works

RECESS:

PUBLIC COMMENTS: (approximately 8:40 P.M.)

(This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda.)

REGULAR BUSINESS:

15. Mid-Year Financial Report. (McLean)

Recommendation: (1) Receive and file the mid-year financial report; and, (2) ADOPT RESOL. NO. 2000-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 99-41, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FY 1999-2000, TO INCREASE OR DECREASE CERTAIN REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE GENERAL FUND, STREET MAINTENANCE (GAS TAX) FUND, TRANSIT (PROPOSITION A) FUND AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CIP) FUND.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR

DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2000

SUBJECT: MIDYEAR FINANCIAL REPORT

RECOMMENDATION

1) Receive and file the midyear financial report; and

2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2000- , AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 99-41, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FY 1999-2000, TO INCREASE OR DECREASE CERTAIN REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE GENERAL FUND, STREET MAINTENANCE (GAS TAX) FUND, TRANSIT (PROPOSITION A) FUND AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CIP) FUND.

The Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes requires that a midyear review of the annual budget be presented to the City Council. Based upon staff’s analysis of the financial activities of the City during the first half of FY 1999-00, it appears revenues and expenditures are generally in line with the budget. Based on our analysis, staff anticipates projected fund balances as of June 30, 2000 will in most instances be equal to or greater than the original FY 1999-00 budget estimates.

Staff has prepared the Summary Schedule of General Fund Revenue presented on the following page. Revenue projections for several other funds of the City have been included later in this report. It is important to understand that these revenue projections are based upon staff's analysis using trend comparisons with previous years, reports provided by state, county and local agencies, as well as direct conversations with these agencies. It should be noted that future economic activity, legislation and policy decisions, as well as any other unforeseen circumstances could affect the City's revenue stream for the remainder of FY 1999-00.

This report also includes discussion and analysis about anticipated expenditure results, the status of major projects, and any other relevant developments related to the FY 1999-00 budget. As a part of the discussion and analysis, staff has recommended several adjustments be made to the budget. If no mention is made of a particular fund, department or program, it means there is nothing significant to report and that expenditures are expected to be slightly less than or equal to the budgeted amounts.

It is difficult to estimate future revenue from sources like sales and use tax, franchise taxes, business licenses and other permits. As an example, several significant franchise tax revenues are received annually from utility companies after the preparation of this report. As a result, staff has reported certain FY 1999-00 projected revenues as the budgeted amount when insufficient information exists to make any other reasonable estimate.

Assuming existing economic conditions and trends continue, General fund revenues should exceed the FY 1999-00 budget of $11,051,750 by nearly $900,000. It is important to note that the excess of the projected revenue over budget includes $560,300 of monies received from the sale of Transit (Proposition A) funds.

In the following paragraphs, you will find discussion and analysis about General fund revenues. If no mention is made of a particular revenue source, it means that there has been nothing significant to report and that anticipated revenues are not expected to materially deviate from the FY 1999-00 budget.

Property Taxes

Based upon projection information provided by the County, property tax revenues are expected to reach $3,100,000 for FY 1999-00. This represents a 5% increase over the current year budget and prior year actual totals. The significant increase is attributable to the continued strength in the local real estate market.

Sales and Use Tax

Sales tax revenue paid to the City from the State of California appears to be on pace to exceed the $790,000 budget by about $20,000. The amounts received from the City of Rolling Hills Estates under the 8.6% revenue sharing agreement have decreased from previous years as a result of the Avenue of the Peninsula mall renovation. However based upon discussions with staff from Rolling Hills Estates, projected sales tax revenues are on pace with their original budget estimates.

Property Transfer Tax

Due to the strong local real estate market, current trends indicate property transfer tax revenues should exceed the $200,000 budget by at least $30,000.

Franchise Taxes

A significant portion of franchise tax revenue is received annually in March. Therefore, it is difficult to project revenue at the time this report is prepared. Based upon the amount of franchise fees received during the first six months of FY 1999-00, it appears as though revenues may slightly exceed the current year budget and approximate the amount collected in FY 1998-99.

Planning Permits

Planning permit revenue is expected to be approximately $20,000 less than budget for FY 1999-00. Staff originally estimated that $20,000 of view restoration fees would be received during the year. Due to recent changes in the processing of view applications, it now appears only a nominal amount will be collected. Though the change has resulted in a decrease in revenue, it has significantly reduced the cost of the City’s view consultants (discussed later in the General fund expenditure section).

Building and Safety Permits

The budget was prepared assuming a 15% decrease in building and safety fees from the previous year. Current trends indicate a slightly faster downturn in local construction activity. Staff projects building and safety revenue may reach $800,000, which is $20,000 less than the FY 1999-00 budget.

Golf Fees

The City’s Municipal Code requires any golf course to pay the City a "golf fee" based upon 10% of gross revenues (i.e. green fees, driving range charges). It was expected that the Ocean Trails golf course would open in early FY 1999-00 and provide $337,500 of golf fee revenue.

However, due to a landslide that occurred in June 1999, the golf course has not begun operations. As a result, the City will not receive any golf fee revenue this fiscal year. Staff requests a budget reduction be made to this revenue line item in FY 1999-00 for the full $337,500 budgeted. At the time the FY 2000-01 budget is submitted to Council, estimated golf fee revenues will be reviewed in light of the current status of the project.

Fines and Forfeitures

The current trend indicates that FY 1999-00 revenues will exceed budget by approximately $40,000. The excess is primarily the result of AB 233, which returns the base fines associated with moving violation directly to cities.

Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fees

Based upon the State Controller's Annual Estimate of Shared Revenues, projected motor vehicle in-lieu fees will reach $1,945,700 during FY 1999-00. The Controller’s report was prepared in the spring of 1999 after the City's budget had been completed. Based upon the current year revenue stream, motor vehicle in-lieu fees should reach the Controller’s estimate and exceed the budget by $100,000.

Other Revenue

Other revenues have historically totaled between $50,000 and $100,000 annually. However, the City has received several large amounts in FY 1999-00 that will result in other revenues approaching $1,000,000 for the year. Over half of this total is a result of the sale of Transit (Proposition A) monies to the City of Torrance for $560,300 of unrestricted General fund monies. The City also received unforeseen payments of $115,000 (insurance proceeds for the reimbursement of attorney costs) and $98,500 (the City’s share of a one-time property tax supplement legislated by the State). Additionally, the current year trust deposit activity, for which the City receives a 10% administration fee, has been far greater than in previous years. It is estimated trust deposit administrative fees could reach $200,000 for the year.

Based on a historical analysis of prior years, total General fund expenditures for the first six months of the fiscal year should not exceed a range between 42% and 45% of budget in order to be on track with budgeted limits. Total General fund expenditures through December 31, 1999 were 41.5% of budget. Projected expenditures for FY 1999-00 are expected to be within the total General fund budget. However, there are a few individual programs that will require budget increases.

City Attorney

The cost for legal services is expected to exceed budget by approximately $60,000 in FY 1999-00. This excess is the result of obtaining necessary legal services associated with the discovery of contaminated soil at the Point Vicente Interpretive Center. Therefore, staff recommends a budget increase in the amount of $60,000.

Public Works

After the adoption of the FY 1999-00 budget, two unanticipated maintenance projects at park sites were identified. Both projects were necessary in the interest of public safety. One project required the resurfacing of the tennis court located at the City Hall park site, while the other project will require the installation of additional lighting around the ramp entrance at Hesse Park. As a result, staff requests a budget increase in the amount of $5,000 to assure budgetary compliance for General fund public works expenditures.

Planning and Code Enforcement

View Restoration

The FY 1999-00 budget includes $323,000 for the cost of view restoration consultants. As a result of City Council’s revisions to the view restoration guidelines, many cases are now being resolved prior to going before the View Restoration Commission. This change has yielded a significant decrease in the amount of time required by the consultants to process cases. Staff anticipates these changes will result in savings of approximately $123,000 this fiscal year. Staff will soon prepare a report for the City Council regarding proposed revisions to the current view ordinance guidelines.

Natural Community Conservation Plan

The City is near completion of Phase II of the NCCP program. The primary objective of Phase II is to finalize the habitat preserve design alternatives and to complete a biological and economic analysis for comparison of the preserve alternatives.

The City has received several comments from resource agencies and NCCP work group participants regarding the design of the City preserve alternatives during the fiscal year. In order to thoroughly review all of the comments, the City’s NCCP consultant has attended several unexpected "resolution meetings". Also, a significant amount of extra GIS mapping was necessary. Furthermore, the City received a large number of formal comments from other environmental organizations raising concerns over the preferred design alternative selected.

Due to of the significance of these concerns, the City has placed the NCCP process temporarily on hold until all open issues can be resolved with the resource agencies. Due to the unforeseen circumstances described above, staff recommends a $41,000 budget increase to complete Phase II of the NCCP program. As with all eligible NCCP costs, fifty percent of these additional costs will be reimbursed with federal grant monies.

Building and Safety

The cost for contracted Building and Safety services is based upon a flat rate of 65% of the total plan check and permit revenue generated during the year. As described previously in the General Fund revenue section, Building and Safety plan check and permit revenue is projected to be about $20,000 less than the budget of $820,000. Therefore, the current year expenditures for Building and Safety services should be approximately $13,000 under budget ($20,000 x 65%).

Recreation and Parks

Staff expects rental and fee revenue to be nearly $62,000 less than budget. This anticipated shortfall is a result of the closure of the PVIC facility during the fiscal year. However, City expenditures for PVIC gift shop inventory items and part-time staffing are also expected to be less than budget by a similar amount.

Projected General Fund Balance, June 30, 2000

The ending unreserved fund balance in the General fund is projected as follows:

Unreserved fund balance July 1, 1999	$ 5,700,713
Projected revenue, FY 1999-00	11,930,000
Projected expenditures, FY 1999-00	(8,551,000)
Reserve for additional loan to RDA – See Note A	(250,000)
Budgeted fund transfers (net), FY 1999-00	(2,337,000)
Requested transfer (PVIC Construction Costs)	(504,000)
Requested transfer (PVIC Soil Costs) – See Note B	(780,000)
Projected unreserved fund balance, June 30, 2000	$ 5,208,713

 

A further explanation of several matters affecting the projected unreserved fund balance as of June 30, 2000 follows:

Note A - Reserve for additional loan to RDA

The $250,000 reserve for RDA loan relates to additional monies loaned to the Portuguese Bend fund of the RDA during FY 1999-00. The loan will finance the construction of the Portuguese Bend Club private sewer project. These monies are not available to finance current General fund operations. Therefore, the loan amount must be subtracted from the projected unreserved fund balance in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

Note B - Requested transfer (PVIC Soil Remediation)

The $780,000 in the schedule of projected fund balance as of June 30, 2000 (presented on the previous page) includes only the costs associated with the initial phase of soil remediation. Staff anticipates that additional soil remediation efforts will be necessary during FY 2000-01, with total costs ranging between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000. The amount of the recovery of soil remediation costs from other agencies is unknown at this time. Further explanations of both the PVIC construction and the PVIC soil remediation projects are presented below in the Capital Improvement Programs Fund section of this report.

The projected General fund unreserved fund balance at June 30, 2000 in the adopted budget was $5,057,255. Though the projected ending fund balance is expected to exceed the budget estimate, the analysis of the unreserved General fund balance should consider the circumstances described in Note B above.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS FUNDS

Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Fund Revenue and Transfers In

Portions of CIP road construction costs are reimbursed after project completion by granting agencies such as MTA, ISTEA and STIP, while other project costs may be reimbursed with transfers from restricted funds of the City (i.e. Proposition C and Bikeways). The amount of FY 1999-00 revenues or transfers from other funds depends upon the percentage of project completion at year-end. Current year revenues and transfers will be less than budget proportionate to the projected decrease in year-end project expenditures. Such grant revenues and transfers will then be re-budgeted to FY 2000-01 to match the period in which actual project expenditures will be incurred.

Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Fund Expenditures

Sixteen projects, with estimated costs of nearly $8,470,000, are budgeted in FY 1999-00. Several projects will not be completed prior to June 30, 2000 and will be re-budgeted to FY 2000-01. Additionally, the scope and estimated costs of several projects have changed since the adoption of the budget. Therefore, staff recommends several project budgets be reallocated to other projects determined to be of a higher priority. A discussion of capital projects follows:

Point Vicente Interpretive Center Expansion ($2,752,500 Budgeted)

The Point Vicente Interpretive Center expansion project has been delayed due to the discovery of contaminated soil at the site. For purposes of this midyear review, staff has assumed that the expansion project will be completed once remediation of the soil is completed.

At the time the contaminated soil was discovered, the City had incurred total project costs of approximately $834,000 associated with the design, construction management and initial construction of the project. Of the total project costs, $435,000 has been expended in FY 1999-00 while $399,000 of costs were incurred in prior years. The City has already received approximately $330,000 of Measure A reimbursement monies from the County this fiscal year. The eligible reimbursed Measure A expenditures include design and engineering services that may be used when the project proceeds. The remaining net cost of approximately $504,000 ($834,000 less the $330,000 Measure A reimbursement) was for the initial construction as well as the final settlement fee paid to the contractor upon termination of the construction contract.

The construction costs have little or no value and will not be eligible for Measure A reimbursement. Therefore it is necessary to finance these costs with General fund monies. Staff anticipates that a portion, if not all, of these costs will be recouped from the federal government or County. In the interim, staff requests a budget adjustment be made for a transfer from the General fund to the CIP fund for $504,000.

Point Vicente Interpretive Center Soil Remediation ($705,000 Budgeted)

For both budgeting and accounting purposes, Staff has elected to set-up a new project to capture the costs associated with PVIC soil remediation. During FY 1999-00, the Council approved several budget adjustments totaling $705,000 for the cost of the first phase of soil remediation. A transfer of $705,000 from the General fund was approved to cover these costs.

This first phase included the removal of contaminated soil from a local landfill and the removal of a small portion of the contaminated soil from the project site. The total cost of Phase I is estimated to be $780,000, which includes an additional $75,000 to retain an engineering firm to evaluate and develop a remediation plan for the site. The City Council recently approved the expenditure, but a budget adjustment was not prepared. Staff recommends a budget adjustment for the $75,000 be made at this time.

These costs are not Measure A eligible, therefore an additional transfer from the General fund will be necessary to pay for these expenditures. As with the construction costs described earlier, staff anticipates that some or all of these costs will be recovered from the federal government or County.

FY 1999-00 and FY 2000-01 Citywide Residential Street Overlay Program ($1,197,000 and $30,000 Budgeted Respectively)

The total cost for the FY 1999-00 overlay project is estimated to be about $85,000 less than the $1,197,000 budget. The budget savings resulted from receiving a more favorable bid than originally estimated. Staff expects to begin the design phase for the FY 2000-01 overlay project and expend the full $30,000 budgeted in FY 1999-00.

Forrestal Quarry Trail and Drainage ($100,000 Budgeted)

The purpose of this project is to consider and provide necessary trail and drainage improvements within the Forrestal Quarry. Consultants are currently conducting a geological study, which will dictate the scope of future construction. Since construction cannot begin until after the geological study is complete, staff does not expect to incur any of the $70,000 budgeted prior to June 30, 2000. Based upon the findings of the geological study, it may be necessary to rebudget the construction costs to FY 2000-01.

Point Vicente Interpretive Center Storm Drain ($207,000 Budgeted)

These drainage improvements will be installed in conjunction with the construction of the PVIC expansion. Due to the discovery of contaminated soil, the actual construction of the facility (and storm drain) has been deferred. Staff anticipates that these monies will be carried over and rebudgeted to FY 2000-01.

CPH Slant Drain ($192,100 Budgeted)

This project involves the construction of a storm drain by Capital Pacific Holdings (CPH) for the Subregion One development, immediately adjacent to the PVIC facility. In accordance with CPH’s development agreement, the City has agreed to pay a portion of the construction cost for the drain. Staff expects to be invoiced for the entire $192,100 later this fiscal year.

Annual Arterial Roadway Overlay Program ($670,000 Budgeted)

The current year budget provided for this new overlay program funded with Proposition C monies, which would be performed in accordance with the City’s Pavement Management Program. The FY 1999-00 budget specifically identified a portion of Palos Verdes Drive South as a candidate for overlay work. However subsequent to adoption of the budget, it was determined a portion of 25^th Street was settling and required immediate repair. At that time, Council approved shifting $476,000 of funds from the annual arterial overlay project to cover the costs of the new 25^th Street project (discussed later). As a result, only $194,000 of Proposition C monies remain available for the work on Palos Verdes Drive South.

Staff estimates the cost of the overlay of Palos Verdes Drive South through the landslide area will be $600,000. Staff requests the funding for this project be provided from the following sources: $194,000 Proposition C (Annual Arterial Overlay), $265,000 STIP Grant (El Nino Storm Damage Repairs), $141,000 Gas Tax fund (FY 1999-00 additional transfer in). Staff recommends a budget increase to provide for both the additional $141,000 of project expenditures in the CIP fund as well as the transfer in from the Gas Tax fund.

El Nino Storm Damage Roadway Repairs ($265,000 Budgeted)

As discussed above, Staff requests that these federal grant monies be re-allocated to the roadwork project along Palos Verdes Drive South through the landslide area.

25^th Street Settlement Roadway Repairs ($518,200 Budgeted)

As described earlier in this report, the unanticipated repairs on 25^th Street were not included in the FY 1999-00 budget. Based upon staff’s recommendation, the City Council approved funding this project with Proposition C funds previously earmarked for the annual arterial overlay project. Phase I of the project is finished, with the plans for the construction phase nearly completed. However, due to the timing of the gnatcatcher breeding season, construction cannot begin until late September 2000. As a result, a significant portion of the construction budget will need to be carried over and rebudgeted to FY 2000-01.

Scenic Turnouts on Palos Verdes Drive South and Palos Verdes Drive West ($240,000 Budgeted)

The design phase is nearly complete and Caltrans has recently provided the City with authorization to proceed with the construction phase of the project. Staff has scheduled the construction to be advertised for bid in March 2000 and the contract awarded by June 1, 2000. It is unlikely any expenditures for construction will be incurred prior to fiscal year end, therefore the entire $240,000 will probably need to be rebudgeted to FY 2000-01.

Peninsula Bikeway Project ($223,000 Budgeted)

This multi jurisdictional signing/striping project was delayed while participant cities reviewed MTA’s proposed scope of work in each jurisdiction. Rancho Palos Verdes’ consultants are designing the peninsula portion of the project and it is anticipated a request for construction bids will be advertised in March 2000, pending MTA’s approval of scope modifications requested by other jurisdictions. It is uncertain which of these scope modifications will be approved by MTA, and in turn what impact these modifications might have on the total funding available for the project. While it is probable a construction contract will be awarded this fiscal year, it is unlikely any expenditures will be incurred prior to June 30, 2000. Therefore, the entire $173,000 budgeted for construction will need to be rebudgeted to FY 2000-01.

Abalone Cove Beach Improvement ($506,496 Budgeted)

This project has been postponed as a result of proposed design revisions and the necessary environmental review. Staff expects to spend the entire $32,500 budgeted for design and engineering services prior to June 30, 2000. The construction portion of the project will not begin until after September 1, 2000. Therefore, the full amount provided for construction will need to be re-budgeted to FY 2000-01.

Various Median Improvements ($195,000 Budgeted)

The budget provides for four separate median improvement projects with a total combined cost of $195,000. Three of these proposed median projects are located along Hawthorne Boulevard. However these projects will not begin until a master plan for landscaping along Hawthorne is adopted. The other median project, located along Palos Verdes Drive East at Crest Road, will be completed by fiscal year end.

Projected Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Fund Balance, June 30, 2000

As discussed earlier, the CIP fund annually receives transfers in from several other funds of the City. The majority of the FY 1999-00 transfers in from other funds (inclusive of the additional transfers requested for PVIC) consist of the General Fund ($2,784,000) and Street Improvement/Transit (Proposition C) fund ($767,200).

It is projected that the CIP fund balance will be as follows:

Fund balance, July 1, 1999	$ 5,233,427
Projected revenue, FY 1999-00	555,000
Projected expenditures, FY 1999-00	(5,005,400)
Projected fund transfers in, FY 1999-00	3,779,700
Projected fund balance, June 30, 2000	$ 4,562,727

The FY 1999-00 budget originally projected the ending CIP fund balance to be $3,403,526. The reason for the projected $1,160,000 fund balance excess at year-end is the result of several facts. First, the beginning fund balance at July 1, 1999 is $763,000 higher than estimated in the budget document. This excess balance resulted from the postponement of several major drainage improvement projects in FY 1998-99. Another component of the $1,160,000 excess relates to FY 1999-00 budgeted projects that will not be completed by June 30, 2000 (i.e. approximately $300,000 in costs associated with the Forrestal Quarry and the PVIC Storm Drain projects will be deferred until next year). Additionally, the FY 1999-00 overlay project is expected to realize $85,000 in budget savings.

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund Revenue

CDBG fund revenue is received from the Community Development Commission (CDC) as reimbursement for eligible expenditures approved by CDC. As discussed in the CDBG Fund expenditure section, a few of the budgeted projects may not be completed by June 30, 2000. Therefore, projected revenue from CDC reimbursements will be less than budget and proportionate to the decrease in actual expenditures.

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund Expenditures

Alta Mira Canyon Storm Drain ($125,000 Budgeted FY 1999-00)

The project includes the extension of an existing underground pipeline, installation of concrete to stabilize the streambed above the pipeline, and the construction of rock-toe berms to provide protection along the banks of Alta Mira Canyon located in the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) project area. There are two funding sources for this project: RDA (Abalone Cove) monies and CDBG grant reimbursement. The project is currently on hold until the total costs of the Abalone Cove Sanitary Sewer and Drainage projects can be determined. Staff will then determine how much money will be left in the Abalone Cove fund to finance the project and reassess the scope of the project. At that time staff will also determine the amount of CDBG funds necessary to complete the project. It is expected the project will be carried over and re-budgeted to FY 2000-01.

Home Improvement Program ($268,400 Budgeted FY 1999-00)

The City has tentatively approved over $175,000 in both grant and loan funds since the program’s inception last year. Of this total, only about $90,000 has been expended to date. Staff expects to expend the majority of the budgeted amount this fiscal year, with any unexpended amounts carried over and re-budgeted to FY 2000-01.

Projected CDBG Fund Balance, June 30, 2000

The CDBG program is maintained under the assumption that all costs incurred will be approved by, and reimbursed by, the Community Development Commission. Therefore, the CDBG fund is operated with annual revenues equal to annual expenditures. This results in beginning and ending fund balances of zero.

Affordable Housing Set-Aside Fund Revenues and Expenditures

Staff estimates that $600,000 of affordable housing in-lieu fees will be received from the Subregion One development in FY 1999-00. Interest revenue on accumulated cash balances is expected to reach $25,000 for the year. The City is currently negotiating a senior housing development agreement that will utilize all of these funds in combination with approximately $1,000,000 of RDA housing set-aside funds. However, the actual disbursement of these monies will not occur until a future period. Therefore no expenditures are budgeted or anticipated in FY 1999-00.

Projected Affordable Housing Set-Aside Fund Balance, June 30, 2000

It is projected that the Affordable Housing fund balance will be as follows:

Fund balance, July 1, 1999	$ 271,285
Projected revenue, FY 1999-00	625,000
Projected fund balance, June 30, 2000	$ 896,285

The FY 1999-00 budget had estimated the Affordable Housing Set-Aside fund balance to be $866,286.

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS

Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) Fund Expenditures

Street Maintenance (#302)

Staff estimates total Street Maintenance costs will be approximately $89,000 less than budget. The overall net savings is the result of two projects with budget variances. First, the cost of the annual slurry seal project was $107,000 less than budget. This was a result of determining that several streets previously earmarked for slurry maintenance required inclusion in the FY 1999-00 street overlay project. Secondly, traffic engineering services related to the extensive traffic calming measures in the vicinity of Peninsula High School cost the City an additional $18,000.

Street Landscape Maintenance (#303)

Staff requests a $15,000 budget increase to the Street Landscape Maintenance program to provide for the following three projects discussed below. An additional $5,000 is needed for repairs to the existing irrigation system which has been damaged by both traffic accidents and vandalism. The City expects to be reimbursed for a portion of these damages. Additionally, the City intends on applying for an additional tree planting grant funded by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The application process will require additional consulting services, which will be partially reimbursable if the grant is approved. Finally, a small amount of money will be needed to prepare the necessary bid documents for the right-of-way weed control contract.

Projected Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) Fund Balance, June 30, 2000

It is projected that the Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) fund balance will be as follows:

Fund balance, July 1, 1999	$ 1,072,397
Projected revenue, FY 1999-00	914,700
Projected expenditures, FY 1999-00	(1,632,925)
Projected fund transfers in, FY 1999-00	429,365
Projected fund transfers out, FY 1999-00	(141,000)
Projected fund balance, June 30, 2000	$ 642,537

 

As previously discussed in the CIP fund analysis, staff recommends an additional transfer of $141,000 (which is included in the above fund balance analysis) from the Gas Tax fund to fund a portion of the Palos Verdes Drive South road project. The FY 1999-00 budget originally projected the ending Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) fund balance to be $618,861.

Street Improvement/Transit Fund Revenues (Proposition C)

Interest earnings should exceed budget by $20,000 during FY 1999-00. Several projects funded with Proposition C monies were not completed prior to June 30, 1999, resulting in a larger cash balance at year end and higher interest earnings during the current year.

Street Improvement/Transit Fund Expenditures and Transfers Out (Proposition C)

Staff expects Proposition C Transit fund expenditures to approximate the budget for FY 1999-00. It is also anticipated that all Proposition C monies budgeted for capital projects in FY 1999-00 will be expended during the year. However, as described previously in the capital project section of this report, staff requests that some Proposition C monies previously earmarked for specific projects be reallocated to other projects determined to have a higher priority.

Projected Street Improvement/Transit Fund Balance, June 30, 2000 (Prop C)

It is projected that the FY 1999-00 Transit (Proposition C) fund balance will be as follows:

Fund balance, July 1, 1999	$ 641,418
Projected revenue, FY 1999-00	452,600
Projected expenditures, FY 1999-00	(2,340)
Projected transfers out FY 1999-00	(943,200)
Projected fund balance, June 30, 2000	$ 148,478

 

The estimated ending fund balance at June 30, 2000 is expected to nearly equal the original budget projection.

Transit Fund Revenues and Expenditures (Proposition A)

Early in FY 1999-00, the Council authorized the sale of $862,000 in Proposition A monies to the City of Torrance in exchange for $560,300 of unrestricted General fund monies. This exchange of funds was not included in the current year budget. Staff requests a budget adjustment be made at this time. Due to the decrease in the cash balances as a result of this transaction, interest earnings in the Proposition A fund will be approximately $40,000 less than budget. Staff expects all other expenditures to equal the amount originally budgeted.

Projected Transit Fund Balance, June 30, 2000 (Proposition A)

It is projected that the FY 1999-00 Transit (Proposition A) fund balance will be as follows:

Fund balance, July 1, 1999	$ 906,825
Projected revenue, FY 1999-00	519,000
Projected expenditures, FY 1999-00	(402,540)
Sale of monies, FY 1999-00	(862,000)
Projected fund balance, June 30, 2000	$ 161,285

 

The FY 1999-00 budget had projected the ending Proposition A fund balance to be approximately $1,048,000.

RECOMMENDED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS

General Fund

Staff recommends General fund budget adjustments as follows:

FY 1999-00 General Fund Revenue Decreases:
Licenses & Permits #001-320.10 Golf Fees	$ 337,500
FY 1999-00 General Fund Expenditures/Transfer Out Increases:
City Attorney #001-103-40 Legal services	$ 60,000
Parks/Trail Maintenance #001-341-30 Maintenance services	$ 5,000
Planning #001-401-35 Prof/technical services	$ 41,000
Operating Transfer Out #001-391.20 Transfer to CIP Fund	$579,000

 

Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) Fund, Transit (Proposition A) Fund and Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Fund

Staff recommends the following budget adjustments to the Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) fund, Transit (Proposition A) fund, and Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) fund:

FY 1999-00 Expenditure Increases:

Street Landscaping #102-303-30 Maintenance services	$ 5,000
Street Landscaping #102-303-35 Prof/technical services	$ 10,000
Transit (Prop. A) #116-316-35 Prof/technical services	$ 862,000
CIP #330-930-35 Prof/technical services	$ 75,000
CIP #330-930-82 Impr other than Bldgs.	$ 141,000

FY 1999-00 Transfer Adjustments:

Street Maintenance #102-391.20 Transfer out	$ 141,000
CIP (PVDS Roadwork) #330-391.10 Transfer in	$141,000
CIP (PVIC Costs) #330-391.10 Transfer in	$ 579,000

 

CONCLUSION

Except as discussed in this report, projected revenues are expected to exceed budget and estimated expenditures should be less than budget in all funds of the City for FY 1999-00.

 

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean, Finance Director

16. Landslide Moratorium ordinance to require certain structures to be connected to operational sewers. (City Manager)

Recommendation: Review the proposed ordinance and give staff direction about its acceptability and then continue the item to a future meeting so that the other minor amendments to the Moratorium could be reviewed by the City Council concurrently with this amendment. (This would avoid successive amendments to the moratorium that might cause some confusion on the part of the public.)

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2000

SUBJECT: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING THE LANDSLIDE MORATORIUM ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE CERTAIN STRUCTURES TO BE CONNECTED TO OPERATIONAL SEWERS

RECOMMENDATION: Review the attached Ordinance and give Staff direction about its acceptability and then continue the item to a future meeting so that the other minor amendments to the Moratorium could be reviewed by the City Council concurrently with this amendment. This would avoid successive amendments to the Moratorium that might cause some confusion on the part of the public.

BACKGROUND

At the last City Council meeting, the City Council gave direction that an ordinance be prepared to require owners of developed properties within the Landslide Moratorium Area to connect to sewer systems after the system is constructed and is in operation. The attached ordinance implements the direction that was given by the City Council.

The sewer project was one of the projects that were recommended by the Panel of Experts to increase land stability and abate the Abalone Cove Landslide. The purpose of the ordinance is to compel owners of developed properties who are not willing to voluntarily connect to the sewers to discontinue use of their existing septic systems. Because septic systems increase the amount of water that is infiltrating into the landslide plane, they contribute to the instability of the landslide and undermine the fundamental public purpose of installation of sewers in this area, which is to enhance land stability by preventing water from lubricating the Landslide.

DISCUSSION

The attached ordinance amends the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance, which is set forth in Chapter 15.20 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. It applies only to properties that are within the area of the City that is subject to the Landslide Moratorium.

The ordinance amends Chapter 15.20 to add a new Section 15.20.110 to that Chapter. If the ordinance is adopted, the new section would require any owner of a parcel that has access to an operational sewer system and is developed with a dwelling unit or any other structure with operational plumbing fixtures to connect the structure(s) to the sewer system within six months of commencement of operation of the sewer.

Currently, sewers are being constructed in the Portuguese Bend Club area by that Homeowner's Association. In addition, it is expected that the Redevelopment Agency will construct sewers later this year within the area that is affected by the Abalone Cove Landslide. This ordinance will apply to owners of developed properties in both of those areas whose properties will have access to the sewer systems.

Since the ordinance adds this requirement to the Municipal Code, failure to connect to the sewer system would be a violation of the Code, which would enable the City to enforce its provisions through code enforcement and nuisance abatement proceedings.

The ordinance also amends Section 15.20.040 of Chapter 15.20, which is the Section of the Moratorium that establishes exceptions to the general prohibition in the Moratorium against issuing building permits. The ordinance adds a new category of exception to that Section, so that the City will be able to issue permits to owners of developed properties to allow them to connect structures with operational plumbing fixtures to an operational sewer system.

In reviewing the Landslide Moratorium, it appears that some other minor changes should be made to its provisions that are not contained in the attached ordinance. For example, one of the other items on the agenda this evening is an application for a Moratorium Exception to remodel an existing residence. Even though that residence will have access to the sewer system in the Portuguese Bend Club area after it is completed and in operation, the Moratorium currently requires the property owner to install a holding tank. That portion of the Code should be amended so that the City Council could grant exceptions to the holding tank requirement in this type of situation. Staff recommends that the City Council review the attached Ordinance and give Staff direction about its acceptability and then continue the item to a future meeting so that the other minor amendments to the Moratorium could be reviewed by the City Council concurrently with this amendment. This would avoid successive amendments to the Moratorium that might cause some confusion on the part of the public.

Respectively submitted:
Carol Lynch, City Attorney

17. Request by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Association of Realtors to initiate Code Amendment No. 47 (Continued from the January 18^th meeting). (Mihranian)

Recommendation: (1) Provide staff with direction pertaining to the initiation of Code Amendment No. 47, revision to Section 17.76.050D.3 (signs) of Title 17 of the Municipal Code. (2) Consider the Association’s request to waive all filing fees associated with the Code Amendment.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2000

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Provide Staff with direction pertaining to the Code Amendment initiation request to amend Section 17.76.050.D.3 (Signs) of Title 17 of the City’s Municipal Code modifying the color requirements for lead-in or directional signs in the public right-of-way; and 2) Consider a waiver of all filing fees associated with the code amendment, as requested by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Association of Realtors.

On November 30, 1999 a member of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Association of Realtors approached Staff to discuss concerns with the current language of the Municipal Code as it pertains to real estate signs in the public right-of-way. At that time, the representative from the Realtor’s Association requested that the City consider amending the Municipal Code provisions that pertain to the placement of real estate signs in the public right-of-way, so that the Rancho Palos Verdes’ provisions could be more consistent with the requirements of adjacent jurisdictions. Staff informed the representative that pursuant to the City’s Development Code, a code amendment initiation application must be filed with the City for review and approval by the City Council (see attached Section 17.68.030). Staff further explained that if the City Council approves the initiation request, then the formal code amendment process, which involves public hearings before Planning Commission and the City Council, could proceed.

On December 1, 1999 an application for Code Amendment No. 47 was submitted by the Realtor’s Association to the Planning Department along with the required $330 filing fee. The applicant also submitted a request to waive the initiation fee and all other filing fees associated with the subject code amendment. The applicant’s original application requested the modification to the existing color requirements and the hours of display for lead-in or directional signs, such as real estates signs, in the public right-of-way.

At the January 18^th Council meeting the request was introduced as a regular business item. During the discussion of the proposal, the Council requested research into whether realtors’ prevailing hours of operation differ significantly from what is specified in the code. Furthermore, the Council expressed concern with the proposed removal of limits on the brown and gold colors for signs in the public right-of-way, and changes to the permitted sign area.

Based on the above concerns expressed by the Council, the proposed code amendment initiation request discussion was continued to allow Staff additional time to meet with the applicant and to gather information requested by the Council. After discussing the Council’s concerns with the applicant, on February 7, 2000, the Realtors Association informed Staff (see attachment) that they have modified their request and no longer wish to amend the hours and size permitted for signs in the public right-of-way. The applicant’s current request is solely to eliminate the current language that requires lead-in or directional signs in the public right-of-way to be in the colors of brown and gold.

Sign Color

The applicant requests that Section 17.76.050.D.3.d of the Development Code be amended so that lead-in or directional signs are not required to maintain the color combination of brown and gold. According to the applicant, the reason for this change is that no other City within the Peninsula or the South Bay requires this color combination anymore and that the color requirement limits certain real estate companies from using their standard signs, which routinely incorporate the company’s own colors and logos. Staff has verified that the other three Peninsula Cities do not limit such signs to brown and gold. Therefore, if the Council is inclined to approve the initiation request, Staff believes that there are two options for amending the Code to address the applicant’s request.

In either situation, the City Attorney has informed Staff that whether the City Council decides to maintain, eliminate or modify the current color requirement of brown and gold, the code requirement shall apply to all lead-in or directional signs located in the public right-of-way, including real estate signs and other commercial and non-commercial signs, such as garage sale signs or special event signs.

Staff seeks the Council’s direction on the proposed code amendment. If the Council approves initiation of this specific code amendment, the Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to consider the actual code amendment language and the Planning Commission’s recommendation will then be forwarded to the Council for its review and eventual adoption.

Fee Waiver

The applicant requests that the City Council waive all filing fees pertaining to the subject code amendment. Although the subject code amendment is not a City initiated application, the applicants believe that the purpose of the proposed code amendment is to update the Municipal Code to accurately reflect the prevailing real estate patterns. The realtors association claim that they are a profit organization that works on a limited budget with realtors conducting business on the hill. As part of the association’s duties, the applicants have been working with adjacent jurisdictions to create a level of conformity between neighboring municipalities as it pertains to real estate signs and the hours of showings. The applicant has indicated that other jurisdictions within the Peninsula have considered their limited funds and their intent to update city codes and have subsequently waived the filing fees. Therefore, the applicant would like the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to consider waiving the required fees as well.

Pursuant to the Development Code Section 17.78.010 (B), the City Council may grant a fee waiver if it is found that:

1. The applicant or the beneficiary of the use or activity proposed by the applicant is a non-profit corporation registered with the State of California; or,

2. The use or activity proposed or the activities of the beneficiaries of the use or activity proposed are charitable, educational or otherwise provide a substantial benefit to the public; or,

3. The applicant had demonstrated a financial hardship as determined by the City Council on a case-by-case basis.

Based on the above finding number 2, the realtors association believes that the waiver of all filing fees associated with the subject code amendment is appropriate in that the proposed amendment will benefit the general public by updating the Municipal Code to reflect the current working patterns of the real estate market to benefit those selling or buying homes, as well as their respective agents. Furthermore, the realtors association claims that their agency self polices the Peninsula for non-complying realtors and that a uniform sign program between the different jurisdictions will simplify the work of the Realtors Association by having one set of rules to abide by, thus indirectly benefiting the community at large from nonconforming realtors.

Discussion at the previous Council meeting indicated that the proposed amendment did not appear to substantially benefit the public. Some Council members felt that a fee waiver should not be granted unless the proposed amendment is adopted by the City Council, after the Planning Commission’s discussion of the proposal. Notwithstanding the Council’s comments from the previous meeting, the applicant is requesting that the Council reconsider the fee waiver request at tonight’s meeting. Therefore, Staff is seeking Council direction on the fee waiver request.

Based on the foregoing analysis and discussion, Staff recommends that the City Council provide Staff with direction whether to initiate Code Amendment No. 47 to Section 17.76.050.D.3 (Signs) of Title 17 of the City Municipal Code as it pertains to the permitted use of lead in and/or directional signs in the public right-of-way and to consider the waiver of all filing fees associated with the proposed code amendments.

Staff believes that the proposed code amendment will not impact the City’s General fund. However, if the City Council grants the applicant’s request to waive the filing fees associated with the proposed code amendments, the City’s processing costs for this project will be borne by the General Fund. Such costs includes a $330 initiation filing fee(already submitted) and the establishment of a trust deposit account to pay for the costs incurred by Staff for processing the code amendment application. These costs typically include all required notices, the preparation of staff reports for the Planning Commission and the City Council and Staff’s attendance at the required public hearings (approximately $1,000).

The following alternatives are available for the City Council’s consideration in addition to Staff’s recommendation:

 

1. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed amendments and direct Staff to further investigate the Council’s concerns; or,

2. Direct Staff that no modifications be made to Title 17 of the Municipal Code; or,

3.. Direct Staff to proceed with the modifications without waiving the required filing fees; or,

Respectfully submitted:
Joel Rojas, aicp
Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

Recommendation: Deny the requested fee waiver.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2000

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PENALTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FEES RELATED TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 207 AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 720 [REQUESTOR: MARK ABRAMS, 44 OCEANAIRE DRIVE]

Staff Coordinator: Kit Fox, aicp, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION: Deny the requested fee waivers.

On July 12, 1999, Mr. Mark Abrams submitted an application for Conditional Use Permit No. 207 to the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department. The purpose of the application is to attempt to legally establish an existing antenna support structure and array at Mr. Abrams’ property in the Del Cerro community as a commercial antenna site. An application fee of $2,400.00 accompanied Mr. Abrams’ initial application. However, because the City had evidence that the existing antenna support structure and array were used for commercial purposes prior to the filing of Mr. Abrams’ application, Staff determined that this was an "after-the-fact" application and, therefore, subject to a penalty fee of $2,400.00. In addition, Staff believes that this application may have environmental effects that must be analyzed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, Staff requested that Mr. Abrams also pay the $1,230.00 application fee associated with the CEQA review of this application under Environmental Assessment No. 720. Mr. Abrams paid the penalty and environmental assessment fees on January 21, 2000, and simultaneously requested waivers of both of these fees (see attached letters).

Pursuant to Section 17.78.010(B) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code (RPVDC), the City Council may grant a request to waive the fees associated with a development application if it finds that:

• The applicant or the beneficiary of the use or activity proposed by the applicant is a nonprofit corporation registered with the State of California; or
• The use or activity proposed or the activities of the beneficiary of the use or activity proposed are charitable, educational or otherwise provide a substantial benefit to the public; or
• The applicant has demonstrated a financial hardship, as determined by the City Council, on a case by case basis.

With respect to the $2,400.00 penalty fee associated with Conditional Use Permit No. 207, Mr. Abrams asserts that his application is not "after-the-fact" and should not be subject to the penalty fee because he is not currently using the antennae and transmitters for commercial purposes. Pursuant to RPVDC Section 17.86.080, "[the] fees and charges made pursuant to Title 16 [Subdivision] and Title 17 [Zoning] of this Code and other policies of the City shall be doubled, when work requiring a permit has been started or carried on prior to obtaining said permit." Staff believes that the previous operation of commercial antennae and transmitters at this site constitutes "work requiring a permit…carried on prior to obtaining said permit" under RPVDC Section 17.86.080. Therefore, Staff believes that the assessment of the penalty fee is applicable to this case and should not be waived.

With respect to the $1,230.00 application fee associated with Environmental Assessment No. 720, Mr. Abrams asserts that his application has no potential to create environmental impacts to the community and should not be subject to an environmental assessment application. Staff has only recently deemed Mr. Abrams’ application complete and is currently evaluating what (if any) environmental impacts the project may have. If Staff determines that the project has no environmental impacts and is exempt from review under CEQA, then the application fee will be refunded. However, if Staff identifies environmental impacts, the application fee will cover the cost of the preparation of the appropriate CEQA documentation (possibly a Negative Declaration) that is associated with the project. Therefore, Staff does not believe that it is appropriate to waive this fee until the appropriate level of environmental review for the project has been determined.

In summary, neither of Mr. Abrams’ requests for fee waivers appears to be based upon the required findings under RPVDC Section 17.78.010(B). Instead, Mr. Abrams asserts that these fees should not be applicable to his project because the applications themselves are not appropriate. Staff believes that these applications are appropriate and that the provisions of the City’s Development Code have been correctly applied to this project. Therefore, Staff recommends denial of both of Mr. Abrams’ fee waiver requests.

Mr. Abrams has been advised of the City Council’s consideration of this request at tonight’s meeting, and has been provided with a copy of the Staff report.

Staff does not believe that Mr. Abrams’ request for waivers of the penalty and environmental assessment fees associated with Conditional Use Permit No. 207 are warranted, based upon the required findings under RPVDC Section 17.78.010(B). Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council deny Mr. Abrams’ request.

The denial of the requested fee waivers will result in the City retaining the $2,400.00 penalty fee and $1,230.00 environmental assessment fee that were paid by Mr. Abrams on January 21, 2000. If the penalty fee for Conditional Use Permit No. 207 is waived, the City’s costs associated with the processing of this application will still be partially offset by the $2,400.00 application fee that was paid last July (and for which Mr. Abrams has not requested a fee waiver). If Staff determines that the project requires the preparation of a Negative Declaration and the environmental assessment fee is waived, the City will bear the costs associated with the preparation of the Negative Declaration to comply with the provisions of CEQA. However, if Staff determines that the project is exempt from CEQA, then the environmental assessment fee will be refunded to Mr. Abrams.

ALTERNATIVES

In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the alternatives available for the City Council’s consideration include:

• Grant the requested waivers for both the penalty and environmental assessment fees.
• Grant the requested waiver for either the penalty fee or the environmental assessment fee.

Recommendation: Grant Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit No. 30, thereby allowing the landowner to proceed with the appropriate applications for a foundation repair and room addition to the property at 114 Spindrift Drive. (Applicants: Mark and Ellen Beal).

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2000

SUBJECT: LANDSLIDE MORATORIUM EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 30, 114 SPINDRIFT DRIVE (APPLICANTS: MARK & ELLEN BEAL).

RECOMMENDATION

1. Approve Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit No. 30, thereby allowing the landowner to proceed with the appropriate applications for a foundation repair and room additions at the property located at 114 Spindrift Drive; and,

2. Provide direction to Staff on whether to pursue amendments to the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance that address the pending installation of the sewer system.

BACKGROUND

On August 20, 1999, the applicants submitted an application for Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit No. 30 to allow the addition of 1,083 square feet to the existing 2,548 square foot residence. The Landslide Moratorium Exception application was deemed incomplete on September 16, 1999 due to insufficient information on the site plans. Upon the submittal of the requested information, the application was deemed complete on January 5, 2000.

Pursuant to the City’s Landslide Moratorium Ordinance, a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit for a project in excess of 600 square feet of additional residential area must be acted upon by the City Council. Given the scope of the proposed project, Landslide Moratorium Exception No. 30 is submitted to the City Council for consideration.

The subject site is a 5,250 square foot interior lot with a non-conforming 2,548 square foot two story single family residence located within a RS-2 zone (Single Family Residential). The residence is located in the Portuguese Bend Club which lies within the landslide moratorium area and coastal setback zone. The structure is non-conforming since the original house was built in 1950 under the County of Los Angeles’ jurisdiction with an existing front yard setback 6’2", whereas a minimum of 20’0" is required by the City’s Development Code.

Pursuant to Chapter 15.20 of the City’s Municipal Code, a moratorium exists on the filing, processing, approval or issuance of permits in the City’s "landslide moratorium area". However, the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance also establishes several categories of exceptions to the moratorium. When a project is submitted that lies within the moratorium area, the project must be reviewed to determine if it qualifies for a moratorium exception under one of the listed exception categories. The proposed addition adheres to the requirements Section 15.20.040(H), which allow additions to existing residential structures, provided specific conditions are met.

The applicant requests approval of additions totaling 1,595 square feet. The residence currently has one and one-half bathrooms and one kitchen with a total of 7 plumbing fixtures. A total of one new bathroom and five additional plumbing fixtures will be added, totaling 12 plumbing fixtures. The fact that additional plumbing fixtures are proposed triggers a condition regarding holding tank installation which is discussed below. Staff believes that the moratorium exception permit may be granted for this aspect of the project since the project will comply with the criteria set forth in Section 15.02.050 of the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance (attached), and the City’s Geotechnical Consultant conditionally approved the geology/soils report for the proposed additions.

Approval of the Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit from the City Council would not constitute planning approval, but rather simply allows the applicant to submit the appropriate planning applications for approval of a specific project request. Based on the current proposal, the applicant would need to submit and obtain approval of a Variance and Coastal Permit to: 1) reduce the front and side yard setbacks and the minimum open space requirement; 2) exceed the 250 square foot limit for additions located partially or entirely within the Coastal Setback Zone; and 3) construct a 5’6" high fence and a 7’0"-9’0" high trellis within the front yard area which will exceed the maximum height limit of forty-two inches (42"). The proposed applications would be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission through a noticed public hearing. In addition, the City’s recently imposed neighborhood compatibility finding for new additions would have to be made. Approval of this Moratorium Exception Permit does not guarantee approval of the subsequent Variance and Coastal Permit applications by the Planning Commission.

RPVDC Section 15.02.050 requires that standard landslide abatement measures be implemented as part of conditions of approval for Landslide Moratorium Exception Permits approved by the City Council. Though all conditions must be imposed on such approvals, the applicant has requested waiver of the condition that requires the replacement of a septic tank with a holding tank. The waiver request is based on the financial hardship of installing a holding tank system when a sewer system will eventually be installed in this area.

Though all conditions must be imposed on such approvals, the City Council has, in the past, waived the requirement to replace a septic tank with a holding tank on an individual basis. In October 1995, while waiving a holding tank requirement for an individual, the City Council discussed the possibility of amending the Municipal Code to eliminate the need for holding tanks since a sewer system was being planned for the Portuguese Bend Club area. Given that the City Council has authorized the construction of a sewer system for the Upper Portuguese Bend Landslide area that is expected to be completed by 2000, and the Portuguese Bend Club’s sewer system is currently under construction and will be completed later this year, Staff believes that the condition which requires the construction of a holding tank may no longer be applicable to many of residences within the landslide moratorium area. Furthermore, Staff believes that the standard conditions of approval, which require applicants to submit covenants agreeing to an irrevocable offer to dedicate a sewer easement on the property and participate in sewer assessment districts, need to be updated.

The Council may want to consider initiating a code amendment that would update the sewer system related conditions and thus enable applicants to avoid the costs of providing a holding tank system while a sewer system is under construction. Staff has drafted a set of alternate conditions (attached and shown in italics) that would address this issue. However, until such an amendment is adopted, the current moratorium ordinance required conditions of approval would remain in place. However, if so directed by the City Council, the alternate conditions may be imposed on this specific project. Staff seeks direction regarding this issue.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the discussion above, Staff recommends that the City Council approve Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit No. 30 to allow the applicant to submit the appropriate applications for the additions, subject to conditions of approval. Further, Staff seeks Council direction regarding possible code amendments to address the installation of the sewer system.

In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternatives are available to the City Council:

1. Approve Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit No. 30 for a smaller addition.

2. Identify the issues or concerns with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the item to a date certain.

3. Deny Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit No. 30.

Respectfully submitted,
Joel Rojas, AICP
Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed By:
Les Evans, City Manager

20. Award of a Professional Services Agreement to Analyze Various Drainage Alternatives. (McBride)

Recommendation: Award a Professional Services Agreement with Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates in the amount of $20,500 for engineering services associated with the analysis of various drainage alternatives near Marguerite Drive and Palos Verdes Drive West and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2000

SUBJECT: AWARD OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO ANALYZE VARIOUS DRAINAGE ALTERNATIVES ASSOCIATED WITH THE AREA NEAR MARGUERITE DRIVE AND PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST

Staff Coordinator: David McBride, Senior Engineer

Award a Professional Services Agreement to Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates in the amount of $20,500 for engineering services associated with the analysis of various drainage alternatives near Marguerite Drive and Palos Verdes Drive West and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement.

In December of 1998, work was completed to replace a deteriorated storm drain system in Palos Verdes Drive West (PVDW) between Marguerite Drive and the City’s northern boundary with the City of Palos Verdes Drive Estates (PVE). The outlet of the new system ends just before entering PVE, and then runs surface flow over the ocean bluff.

Prior and subsequent to completion of this drainage project, land movement appeared along the bluff which impacts both private and public land in PVE and undeveloped private property in Rancho Palos Verdes. Additionally, the owner of an undeveloped parcel in PVE, McCaul, has taken legal action against the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for perceived impacts to his property caused by the drainage improvements. A plan of the drainage system and the initial movement area is attached as Exhibit "A".

The City of PVE has indicated that they are developing a long-term drainage solution for this area and are initially proposing to construct a slant drain. However, they indicate that it will not likely be implemented for several years. PVE has expectations that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will contribute financially to the slant drain because runoff from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes contributes to their facility. Many aspects of PVE’s drainage proposal are unresolved at this time; geologic features may render construction of a slant drain infeasible, the undefined time frame and cost associated with this type of construction, and the potential for further legal action by adjacent property owners. Currently, PVE is monitoring land movement with slope inclinometers but has not enacted interim measures to reduce water infiltration into the moving land mass.

Because of these issues staff is recommending awarding a professional services agreement to Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates (RBF) to recommend other drainage system outlet alternatives within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and develop the associated costs for the identified alternatives.

Ultimately, it may prove more cost effective and beneficial to the surrounding area to pursue a new routing of the drainage into a stable area of Rancho Palos Verdes. Benefits would include reduced water infiltration into the ocean bluff, a reduction in exposure to future legal actions and the potential for less expensive and more efficient drainage system than the one proposed by PVE.

Because of RBF’s expertise, experience and success on previous projects, and following the procedures established for "On Call" service, staff requested a proposal from RBF to pursue and determine the feasibility of various alternative drainage outlets in the area of Marguerite Drive and PVDW. RBF, has worked on similar drainage improvement projects in the City such as; the Alta Mira Canyon drainage improvement project and the Seacove drain project. Because of the cost and significance of the recommended action, staff is bringing the item to the Council’s consideration.

The RBF proposal is for a time and materials contract for a not to exceed amount of $19,800 for identified tasks and staff is including $700 to cover reimbursable costs (i.e., reproduction) and direct costs (i.e., mileage) for a total cost of $20,500. Their scope of service is attached as Exhibit "B". Staff is confident that RBF’s proposal is reasonable considering the scope of the work.

This study will allow the City to make an informed decision to address drainage deficiencies is area before the commitment of a significant amount of resources is made.

One alternative is to do nothing. Staff is not recommending this option because of the potential costs associated future legal action, the benefits to reducing water infiltration into ocean bluff and because the drainage solution proposed by PVE may not be the best alternative. Another alternative is to develop a Request for Proposal (RFP) for these services and allow more firms to submit their qualifications. Staff is not recommending this alternative because it will take approximately two months to award an agreement and staff does not anticipate a significant reduction in the cost.

RBF should be awarded a professional services agreement to analyze various drainage alternatives associated with the drainage area near PVDW and Marguerite Drive.

FISCAL IMPACT

The recommended action will authorize the expenditure of $20,500 for professional services. Funding for this project has been budgeted and is provided by the capital improvement project fund.

Respectfully submitted:
Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

21. New NPDES Regulations. (Allison)

Recommendation: Consider the request of the cities of Signal Hill, Downey, Paramount, and Santa Fe Springs to join them in an appeal of the January 26, 2000 action of the Regional Water Quality Control Board – Los Angeles Region.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2000

SUBJECT: NEW NPDES REGULATIONS

RECOMMENDATION: Consider the request of the Cities of Signal Hill, Downey, Paramount, and Santa Fe Springs to join them in an appeal of the January 26, 2000 action of the Regional Water Quality Control Board – Los Angeles Region.

On January 26, 2000 the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Los Angeles Region adopted new storm water regulations. The new regulations impose mandatory retention/treatment on most new development projects. Under the new regulations, the runoff from outdoor impervious areas of new developments, including rooftops, must be retained or treated before discharging into the local storm drain system.

The new regulations will impact both public and private projects. The regulations are broad in their scope, however, because the final terms of the regulations have yet to be published the true impact of the new regulations is difficult to access. The Board’s staff is currently preparing the final version of the new regulations which will be completed by February 26, 2000. The new regulations will go into effect 180 days thereafter. Enforcement of new regulations will be the responsibility of each City. Each City will need to pass an ordinance, determine plan check and inspection fees, and provide funding for ongoing enforcement efforts.

The Cities of Signal Hill, Downey, Paramount, and Santa Fe Springs have written to the City requesting that we join with them and appeal the decision of the board.

The action of the board will require certain new projects to capture or treat the first ¾ inch of rainfall from each storm event. This will be required of projects that meet the following conditions:

• Single Family hillside developments ( 25% slope or greater)
• Projects in environmentally sensitive zones
• Housing development with 10 or more units
• Restaurants
• Auto repair facilities
• Service Stations
• 100,000 square foot commercial developments
• Parking lots with 25 or more spaces

For the purposes of the new regulations, a project is defined as a new project, or an improvement that increases the impervious area, or structure area by 50% or more.

The new regulations are troubling for the following reasons:

• There is no clear definition of an environmentally sensitive area
• There is no clear definition of a hillside development
• The new regulations will require the capture or treatment of drainage for a single family hillside home but not for a 95,000 square foot commercial project
• Capturing storm runoff is ill advised in many parts of our City due to geologic conditions
• The board did not conduct a fiscal impact study to determine the costs for Cities to comply with the new regulation
• For a one-acre site, capturing the first ¾ inch of rainfall would capture 20,000 gallons of water, the size of a standard swimming pool
• The technology of the on-site treatment is unproven
• If the treatment facilities are not properly maintained they may become a source of pollution, rather than a mitigant

For the City of Rancho Palos Verdes the greatest potential impact from the new regulations will result from how the board defines a residential hillside project, and an environmentally sensitive area. However, by not having any written regulations to scrutinize the impact to the City is difficult to access.

In addition to the regulations imposed by the Board’s actions, the manner in which the Board acted is also troubling. Regulations were imposed at the hearing that were never presented to the Cities for comment.

At this time there are three options available to the City:

1. Implement the Board’s Order

   Await a final version of the regulation and incorporate its regulations into the City’s development code.

2. Negotiate with the Board to soften the requirements

   Attempt to understand the regulations more clearly, and request that certain aspects of the regulations be revised. It is not clear, however, if the board is open to any further discussions.

3. Join with other Cities in an appeal

Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter and join with the Cities of Signal Hill, Downey, Paramount, and Santa Fe Springs in appealing the Board’s actions.

The Board’s action will increase the City’s maintenance, and administrative costs.

Joining in an appeal of the Board’s decision will result in the expenditure of City staff time and will increase City Attorney fees.

Submitted by,
Dean E. Allison, Director of Public Works

Reviewed by,
Les Evans, City Manager

22. Set Date for Community Leaders’ Breakfast Meetings and Neighborhood Watch Appreciation Luncheon. (Purcell)

Recommendation: Select dates for the year 2000 Community Leaders Breakfast meetings and the Neighborhood Watch Appreciation Luncheon.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS

FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK

DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2000

SUBJECT: SET DATE FOR COMMUNITY LEADERS’ BREAKFAST MEETINGS AND NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH APPRECIATION LUNCHEON

RECOMMENDATION: Select dates for the year 2000 Community Leaders Breakfast meetings and the Neighborhood Watch Appreciation Luncheon.

Community Leaders’ Breakfast Meetings

Each year the City hosts two Community Leader Breakfast meetings. These meetings were established to facilitate more opportunities for communication between the residents and the City Council. Traditionally these breakfast meetings have been held in the spring and late fall. Hesse Park will be available for these meetings on the following dates:

March 25, 2000 September 30, 2000

April 1 " October 28 "

April 8 "

Neighborhood Watch Appreciation Luncheon

The City has a very successful Neighborhood Watch program that is run by the City’s Volunteer Coordinator Gail Lorenzen. Altogether there are approximately 60 area coordinators and 460 block captains who constitute the network for this program. In the early 1990s the City began hosting an Appreciation Luncheon for these volunteers. Because of the widespread participation in City’s Neighborhood Watch, the appreciation luncheon outgrew the capacity of local restaurants and for the past several years, we have been holding the luncheon at the Salvation Army facility next door to City Hall.

Ms. Lorenzen has told us that a survey of the block captains indicated that this event is most effective if held every 18 months or two years during either the fall or spring. The last luncheon was held on March 13, 1999. The Salvation Army has advised us that their facility will be available on the following dates:

October 7 and 21, 2000

March 10 and 24, 2001

These dates have been selected with consideration of other commitments already on the City Council’s Master Calendar.

The City Council has historically held two Community Leaders Breakfast meetings and a Neighborhood Watch Appreciation Luncheon per year. With consideration given to other commitments, staff has suggested dates to hold these events.

Respectfully submitted:
Jo Purcell

Reviewed by:
Les Evans, City Manager

23. Support for Proposition 12 (Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000) and Proposition 13 (Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection and Flood Protection Bond Act). (Stern).

Recommendation: Consider supporting a yes vote on Propositions 12 and 13.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

FROM: CITY MANAGER

DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2000

SUBJECT: PROPOSITIONS 12 AND 13

RECOMMENDATION: Consider supporting a yes vote on Propositions 12 and 13.

Councilman Stern has requested that an item be placed on the agenda recommending City Council support of Propositions 12 and 13 on the March 7, 2000 ballot.

 

Attached are the materials provided by the South Bay Cities Council of Governments describing the propositions and additional materials provided by Councilman Stern.

Proposition 12- The Safe Neighborhoods Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act 2000 provides for $100 million for property acquisition in conjunction with Natural Communities Conservation Plans. 35% would be spent on local parks. 13% will be spent on wildlife and land acquistion. The measure was placed on the ballot by the Legislature, after receiving nearly unanimous bipartisan support.

Proposition 13 – The Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection and Flood Protection Bond Act received strong bipartisan support in the Legislature. The proposed $1.97 million general obligation bond would be applied to drinking water supply issues, flood protection and wildlife and recreational uses of rivers and streams.

Respectively submitted:
Les Evans, City Manager

ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
(This section designated to oral reports from councilmembers who wish/need to report on Council assignments.)

ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to Monday, February 28 at 6:00 P.M. for interview of Commission and Committee applicants.

CLOSED SESSION AGENDA CHECK LIST

CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR

G.C. 54956.8

Property: Agua Armaga Parcels 7583-022-008 ,7583-022-011; parcel 4 7573-003-017; Filiorum 7581-023-30, Lot 23 of LACA #51, Lot 1 of LACA #51 (Portuguese Bend).

Negotiating

Parties: Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Holdings, York Long Point Associates, City Manager, City Attorney and Director of Planning, Building & Code Enforcement.

Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment

Existing Litigation:

G.C. 54956.9(a)

Name of Case: Paul & Terri McCaul vs. City of Rancho Palos Verdes